0 comments Howard Bryant Says Chip Kelly May Be Racist In the Same Way George Washington Hated People from New England

I was surprised to learn this blog already had a "George Washington" tag. Of course the previous post had nothing to do with George Washington and was about a transgender basketball player. Here at BotB, we tackle the issues no one else will touch long before anyone is willing to address the issue. Today, possible editor-in-chief, but possibly not editor-in-chief so let's just keep wondering for another couple of years about it, of "The Undefeated" Howard Bryant says that Chip Kelly may not be racist. He just has the same cultural issue that George Washington faced during the Revolutionary War with the New Englanders. Bryant is clear in stating he's not wondering whether Kelly is racist or not, because that would be absurd, but the idea Kelly could have a problem with certain races is not absurd. Apparently that's different from being a racist by tying it into a broad cultural issue where Kelly suffers from the same non-racist semi-racist tendencies that the rest of society has.

FACED WITH A challenge far more grave than winning the NFC East, George Washington was named commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in June 1775.

"A challenge far more grave than winning the NFC East..."

Hey, George Washington never had to match wits with Chip Kelly, stop Odell Beckham Jr, shut down the Cowboys' running game or pretend to block so that Robert Griffin gets murdered by a pass rusher. Washington also never had to worry about his best general being lost for a year due to an ACL tear.

Before embarking on campaigns against the British, his first battle came in taking command of troops he hated. Washington reviled Massachusetts soldiers.

And just like how George Washington hated Massachusetts soldiers that he had no option but to work with, Chip Kelly deals with hating the players that he ultimately has a choice on whether to work with or not.

According to Edward G. Lengel's General George Washington: A Military Life, Washington "regarded the common soldiers of that colony as 'an exceeding dirty & nasty people.'"

Sadly, "Boston Strong" at one point wasn't an uplifting message of hope and unity, but a reference to the poor bathing habits of the Massachusetts colony. 

In 1776, author David McCullough likewise writes that Washington found New Englanders "to be men of a decidedly different sort than he had expected, and he was not at all pleased."

You may ask, "What does this have to do with Chip Kelly?" Don't worry, it will never be made entirely clear as to what George Washington not liking Massachusetts soldiers has to do with whether Chip Kelly is a racist or not. It seems Howard Bryant just got done reading a few books about the Revolutionary War and can't wait to share the knowledge he's learned. 

Reliance on a workforce has never required respecting or understanding it.

This is true. Most people who have a supervisor can agree they are relied on by their supervisor, but not respected or understood by this supervisor. While knowing reliance on a workforce never required respecting or understanding it, also know not relying on certain people in the workforce doesn't mean you don't respect or understand them. It just means you don't want them to work for you anymore. 

Steelers corner Brandon Boykin seemed to understand this about his former coach in Philadelphia, Chip Kelly. Boykin's belief that Kelly had difficulty relating to black players was met with the kind of disingenuous, passive-aggressive shock that explains why the topic of race often feels so intractable in this country.

It's not all disingenuous, passive-aggressive shock necessarily. It's more, "Oh okay, so this guy says Chip Kelly is a racist. I'm sure that could be true, but his opinion doesn't necessarily serve as concrete evidence his belief is correct." 

The public and the media machine largely dismissed Boykin's comments as preposterous, a predictable reflex whenever a black athlete suggests the white mainstream fails to understand the black experience.

I don't understand another person's experience in life, so I obviously don't understand "the black experience" which seems to be a collective experience of one group of people (a classification that I find to be oversimplifying things just a bit, but I get why it's done). To say "the white mainstream" fails to understand the black experience seems a little bit like Bryant is stating that just one group doesn't understand the black experience. I would bet that if an Asian group of people claimed to understand the black experience then Howard Bryant would think that's ridiculous. Yet here, he makes it "the white mainstream" as the group that fails to understand the black experience. This is a bit of finger-pointing at one specific group which is pretty lazy on Bryant's part.

Boykin then clarified his remarks, even though the Eagles provided all the necessary clarity in 2014 when they gave Riley Cooper a five-year, $25 million contract seven months after the receiver's use of a racist slur.

Again, I can't explain why the Eagles gave Riley Cooper this contract. Was it racism, was it the fact it wasn't a terrible contract for a 26 year old coming off a career year? I can't answer that and any attempt to answer this question is just speculation. 

Boykin, the thinking went, could not possibly be correct because, as a coach, Kelly leads dozens of highly paid black men, which is nearly as absurd as saying the manager of a nightclub cannot be sexist because the dancers he hires are women.

Any attempt to prove a point has to start with overstating your opposition's position. Bryant emphasizes "could not possibly" in an attempt to make it seem like Boykin's statements were taken as absolutely incorrect and not as potentially factual statements that simply lack any sort of evidentiary basis. Bryant overstates the thinking of those who don't immediately come to the conclusion Kelly is racist in order to prove that no one took Boykin's statement seriously. I'm not sure that was the case. The statement is taking seriously as an accusation, but an accusation that lacks concrete evidence, outside of Boykin's experience with Chip Kelly. Overstate the opposition's view in order to make yours seem more reasonable. That's the way to go.

So it would be unsurprising if Chip Kelly were a racist, or if he were simply uncomfortable with young black men. It would be equally unsurprising if neither of these things were true, 

But remember, we are working under the assumption that out of these two equally unsurprising things one of them is more likely true than the other. They are equal, except the assumption leans towards one conclusion over the other. I'm not sure that's the definition of "equal" or not.

but the anxious instinct to suggest Boykin was speaking irresponsibly ignores the fact that the tension he described between him and his white boss was unremarkable.

What? It was normal tension that results between a boss and an employee? But of course, it can't be normal tension because Boykin was being treated differently by Kelly. The assumption of being treated differently must stand. That's how it has to be if the equally unsurprising conclusions that Kelly is or is not racist leans in the direction Bryant feels it does. He has a conclusion he must reach. 

There aren't any employees in this country -- even among the white males who represent the default position of American leadership -- who haven't had at least one boss who didn't "get" them.

What if I told you that my employer doesn't "get" me because I'm a male? What if I told you that mostly females are hired by my employer and it only furthers my belief this is true? I'm sure Howard Bryant would think it's absolutely ridiculous that an employer would seem to favor one sex or another and dismiss my feelings. Because I'm among the default position of American leadership, so my irresponsible feelings are just the result of disliking being on an equal playing field with others and not a result of an actual true belief I have. The bottom line is people will believe a side of the Chip Kelly "is he racist or not?" story and then make up reasons why they believe it from there. It's how it goes and this includes Howard Bryant as one who does this. 

An "Is Kelly a racist or isn't he?" narrative is just the lazy masquerading as the profound, especially when Boykin never actually called Kelly a racist.

Bryant can decorate it however he wants with a discussion of George Washington, but "Is Kelly a racist or isn't he?" is essentially the conversation he is having in this column. 

The NFL already has a problem with black people, the ones who don't stay in their lane, the ones who talk. The problem is true of football, just as it is with Major League Baseball and dozens of other industries across America, including the media.

I have found major sports have a problem with any person who doesn't stay in their lane and who talks too much. I'm sure since Howard Bryant has worked in dozens of other industries across American (eye roll) he knows this to be true. I can say that other industries have a problem with any person who doesn't stay in his/her lane at work and gives their opinion more than it is wanted. I understand this is a part of Howard Bryant's experience, but rest assured, this is also the experience anyone who doesn't stay in their lane at work has as well. Sometimes in an effort to be treated more fairly, it's necessary to understand that the treatment you are receiving, even though it may not seem that way, is in many ways how others are treated as well. 

Every black person in America knows he must learn to navigate the white world to advance -- but that world needn't know very much or anything about him. It's the price of being a minority. Life isn't fair.

I can't argue with someone else's experience. Though again, I think Howard Bryant is going back to the "Is Kelly a racist or isn't he?" well and covering up for it by claiming systemic racism. Bryant is essentially making the argument Kelly is a racist because on a macro-level there is systemic racism. That's a whole other discussion that probably has very little to do with George Washington's feelings about the Massachusetts colony during the Revolutionary War. 

It is why the four most important teams in the history of baseball -- the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals and, yes, the Dodgers of Jackie Robinson lore -- have never hired a black manager.

To call these four teams the "most important teams in the history of baseball" seems to be confusing "important" with successful. It's how "fame" and "notoriety" seem to get confused at times as well. 

If these dynamics were not at work, neither the NFL nor MLB would have to force teams to interview minorities whenever a job comes open.

Yes, if the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals would just hire a black manager sometime soon then MLB and NFL could do away with any type of initiative intended to help minorities get interviews as a team's head coach/manager.  

What coaches don't have a problem with is Boykin's talent. There are 32 NFL teams and almost zero white starting running backs or cornerbacks.

As I said before, the whole "Well, Kelly HAS to work with these minorities because there aren't any white running backs or cornerbacks" position for why Kelly may be racist doesn't always work well for me. Yes, Kelly could still be a racist and sign or trade for non-white running backs or cornerbacks, but the point still remains that Kelly coaches these players and looks for a certain type of non-white/white running back or cornerback for his team. Kelly is looking for a certain type of running back or cornerback for his system. He's notoriously picky about players who buy into his system.

Washington disliked his workforce, but he needed it to win the war. Same goes for the NFL.

Great tie-in here. Because Washington can not choose his workforce, while Kelly has the ability to a greater extent to choose his workforce. That's what Kelly is doing and whether Kelly is choosing African-American players he can "control" or those who fit his system and personality is up for debate. Just know statements from ex-players that Kelly is sort of racist should be taken with the same grain of salt as evidence from ex-players that Kelly isn't racist. The conclusion you want to draw without further evidence one way or another is your own. Just don't draw your conclusion on this issue and act like the equally as unsurprising other conclusion is simply not just as likely. That's what Howard Bryant seems to be doing here. 

Kelly might have an issue, he might not, but the routine reflex to dismiss the obvious historical reality that people from different racial, cultural and class backgrounds might struggle to understand one another in the workplace is a much bigger problem than Chip Kelly ever could be.

So the conclusion is that people in a workplace won't always get along? Howard Bryant has to go so far back as to use George Washington as an example of this? Anyone who has a job knows this is true. It turns out that everyone who doesn't understand someone else in the workplace because of a different background may or may not be racist. It's funny, because I don't understand people who come from my same background either. It's almost like people are different from each other and every misunderstanding can't be placed into a little box with a convenient label.

3 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: The Un-American Edition

It's time to dust off the links to articles that may not merit a full post, but definitely merit being discussed in this space. There is some Bleacher Report fun, one of the worst instances of PED speculation I have ever read, Manny Ramirez being an embarrassment, and Jay Mariotti calling Jurgen Klinsmann "Un-American." Jay the Patriot. Bob Nightengale even pulls a "Murray Chass" and says, "Hey, I just noticed these minor league players don't get called up until after they wouldn't qualify as a Super-2." As any good complaint about bad sportswriting should do, let's start off with Jay Mariotti.

1. Jay thinks that Jurgen Klinsmann's defeatest attitude (otherwise known as playing "mind games with the media in public while giving his team confidence in private") is very un-American. We all know Jay Mariotti should be the judge of what is and is not American. Jay had an issue with Klinsmann stating the American team couldn't win the World Cup, which I thought was simply him lowering expectations publicly for the U.S. Men's Soccer Team, but what do I know?

He doesn’t think the U.S. squad, the team he coaches, can win the golden trophy this year. I don’t believe the Americans will do much in Brazil, nor do you, nor does anyone else with even a modicum of soccer knowledge — but when the national coach blurts it out twice, before the first ball is kicked, I have to wonder why I should bother watching.

But if you don't think the Americans would win much in Brazil then why would you watch anyway? The assumption is Jay is watching the soccer game to see if the Americans can win and he wouldn't watch if he didn't think they could win. So if Jay doesn't think the Americans could win and he won't watch if they can't win, then why does he need confirmation from Klinsmann the U.S. squad could win the World Cup? Does Jay believe his opinion is wrong? If so, why does he hold an opinion he believes is incorrect?

“I think for us now, talking about winning a World Cup is just not realistic,” he said in Sao Paulo, mere days before the Americans take on their recent nemesis, Ghana, in first-round group play. “First we’ve got to make it through the group. So let’s stay with our feet on the ground and say let’s get that group first done, and then the sky is the limit. But a half a year before and even today before the World Cup starts — to say that we should win the World Cup is just not realistic.

The message was, "Let's not get ahead of ourselves and worry about winning the World Cup. Let's get out of group first." Seems like a reasonable message to me. It manages expectations and keeps the team focused on the current task at hand. Of course, focusing on the task at hand and not speculating about future victories is totally un-American.

The approach is embarrassingly un-American, if that’s what he’s getting at. Hired three years ago to fix a wayward U.S. program, the German national hero is speaking the truth about our ho-hum soccer condition at absolutely the wrong time, as if to take pressure off himself. This is a country that believes in sports miracles, none bigger than a 1980 Olympic hockey team with which he might want to familiarize himself.

It's un-American for Klinsmann to not unrealistically believe in miracles and give the nation false hope for the World Cup. How dare the U.S. coach not realistically manage expectations and choose instead to elevate expectations to where anything less than a miracle is considered a disappointment.

It’s hard to sell the sport to the American masses, as ESPN and Fox and NBC continue to do with great vigor, when our World Cup team keeps losing to Ghana. The least Klinsmann can do is let U.S. fans embrace their hopes and dreams, hollow as they are, before they’re officially punctured starting Monday in Natal.

This argument is absolutely ridiculous. Jay is essentially arguing Klinsmann should give the United States false hope about the team's talent in order to eventually be disappointed when the hope is shattered. Guess what else would happen? All of the talking heads would say, "Klinsmann promised a World Cup victory and he couldn't even get the team out of the group stage. Maybe he should be fired."

The idea a coach should give fans false hope intentionally is such a Jay Mariotti point of view. 

Foolishly left off the 23-man U.S. roster by Klinsmann, Donovan — merely the most recognizable and accomplished of American soccer players — thinks Klinsmann’s stance is all wrong. Not that Donovan is right in predicting the Americans will win the World Cup — he said so at a rally for the American Outlaws fan group — but it sure beats the Klinsmann blues.

Yeah, but Donovan is helping fans embrace hopes and dreams! That's all that matters in World Cup fantasy land isn't it?

“This will come as a surprise to nobody, but I disagree with Jurgen,” said Donovan, who likely will criticize Klinsmann early and often as an ESPN analyst if the U.S. doesn’t fare well. “I believe it and I think all of America believes we can do it. I agree with the American Outlaws — `We believe that we will win.’
 
“In my opinion, Germany’s one of the best teams in the world, and if we can beat Germany, why can’t we (advance from the group)?”

There is no "we" Landon, you aren't on the team. Also, it's a lot easier to talk shit about how the team can win the World Cup when you aren't an active member of the team. Donovan doesn't have to back up his words with actions. He can just sit and be a talking head while pointing out what the U.S. team SHOULD have done.

Oddly, Klinsmann named five German-American players to the team, all raised in Germany as the sons of U.S. servicemen. “Every year we are getting stronger,” he said.

And now Klinsmann is recruiting a bunch of foreigners to come in and play for the U.S. team. This ain't Germany, it's America! Go home and play with your Nazi propaganda you bunch of un-American American citizens!

“We are going to take the game to Ghana and they will take it to us and it will be an exciting game and then we go from there.’’

Can’t wait, coach.

Klinsmann should just be sure to give everyone in the United States false hope so Jay Mariotti can write a column describing how Klinsmann is a piece of shit coach because he promised something he couldn't deliver. See, Jay only wants to write a column ripping Klinsmann to shreds when he fails. It's no fun for Jay to see a coach like Klinsmann lower expectations to a reasonable level and not allow Jay the chance to rip him behind the safety of his computer.

2. I know you wanted to know who the most underrated player on each MLB team is. Don't worry, Bleacher Report has the list for you. It won't surprise you to know there are some interesting players on the list. And of course EVERY MLB team HAS to have an underrated player for the sake of pageviews.

Let's start the slideshow!

What follows is a rundown of the most underrated player on every MLB team. As you'll notice, there are a ton of relievers on the list whose contributions are often overlooked. However, there are also aces who are overshadowed by more prominent teammates.

Baltimore Orioles
  
Most Underrated Player: Nelson Cruz, DH/OF

You mean the 2-time All-Star and 2011 ALCS MVP? That Nelson Cruz?

It's truly remarkable that the Baltimore Orioles were able to sign Nelson Cruz to just a one-year, $8 million deal.

The Orioles were able to sign Cruz to this deal because he was suspended last year for PED use and no MLB team wanted to meet the 4 year $75 million request that Cruz had for his next contract. He had already turned down a 4 year $56 million deal with the Rangers. So he's not underrated because he's underpaid. There's a reason he is underpaid. He asked for too much money coming off a PED suspension.

Cincinnati Reds

Most Underrated Player: Brayan Pena, C

The 32 year old catcher who has a lifetime line of .258/.291/.361 and has never had an OPS+ over 100 is underrated? That's interesting.

Backup catchers generally don't get much attention. That's certainly true of Brayan Pena of the Cincinnati Reds. However, with starter Devin Mesoraco sidelined with a hamstring injury, Pena has been a key contributor for the Reds. 
 
In 20 games, the switch-hitter is batting .328 with a .923 OPS. The 32-year-old's strong start at the plate is not a complete shock considering that he hit .297 for the Detroit Tigers in 71 games a season ago.

As I write this, Pena has a .255 batting average with a .656 OPS. It sounds like the author is stating Pena is underrated based on a small sample size for 2014. He's a good backup catcher. That doesn't make him underrated.

Detroit Tigers

Most Underrated Player: Anibal Sanchez, SP

Oh, so the guy who signed a 5 year $88 million contract is underrated? It seems like given that contract amount the Tigers seem to think he's pretty good.

On just about any other team in baseball, Anibal Sanchez would the undisputed staff ace. On the Detroit Tigers, though, the right-hander is just the No. 3 starter.

The fact there are more traditionally more talented pitchers in front of Sanchez doesn't mean he is underrated.

Houston Astros

Most Underrated Player: Chris Carter, 1B/DH

In 2013, Carter swatted 29 home runs, which tied for No. 11 in the AL. This year, Carter has gone yard four times and also added seven doubles. Of course, he's also struck out 40 times.

Derr, he hits a lot of home runs so he must be underrated. Derr. Home runs are pretty. Carter is hitting .191/.280/.440 on the season. He has hit 13 home runs though, so that's super-impressive and makes him underrated.

Milwaukee Brewers

Most Underrated Player: Carlos Gomez, CF

The guy who was an All-Star last year, came in 9th in the MVP race and won a Gold Glove...that guy is underrated?

The center fielder was tied for the highest WAR (8.9) in MLB a season ago, per Baseball-Reference.com. In 2013, the right-handed hitter collected 24 home runs and also stole 40 bases. This year, Gomez is once again off to a fast start. The 28-year-old has nine doubles, eight home runs and is 4-for-5 on stolen-base attempts.

He's a great baseball player who was recognized in three ways last year as a great baseball player even though he plays in a smaller market. Sounds like he is properly rated.

Minnesota Twins

Most Underrated Player: Chris Colabello, 1B

Chris Colabello isn't just underrated. For years, the right-handed hitter was outright ignored.

Because he's not very good. He's hitting .232/.280/.377 on the season. It seems the author chose any player who got off to a hot start in 2014 as "underrated." Perhaps the slideshow should be called, "A list of players who got off to a hot start and I will call them underrated but don't pay attention to this slideshow in a month."

This year, the 30-year-old has totaled 10 doubles and four home runs. He's also collected 28 RBI, which ranks No. 5 in baseball.

He was sent down to the minors in late May. I'm sure he's a really, really underrated minor league player though.

New York Yankees

Most Underrated Player: Alfonso Soriano, DH

I don't need to explain this one. He's made $158 million in his career.

The 38-year-old doesn't hit for high average, but he provides a constant source of power. In 2014, the designated hitter has already connected on seven doubles and five home runs. His home run total is tied for second on the club.

He hits home runs and home runs are pretty.

Pittsburgh Pirates

Most Underrated Player: Neil Walker, 2B

Neil Walker provides a lot of pop for a second baseman. 
In 2012 and 2013, the switch-hitter connected on 14 and 16 home runs respectively. This year, the 28-year-old is on pace for his best output yet. Walker has already gone yard six times, which ranks second on the team.

Hit home runs? If so, the author will consider you underrated.

San Francisco Giants

Most Underrated Player: Brandon Hicks, 2B

A career .160/.263/.323 hitter is underrated? But why?

The right-handed batter is only hitting .208, but he owns a .330 OBP and has contributed five home runs including a walk-off.

He's not hitting .172 but he has hit 8 home runs, dammit! That's underrated!

Seattle Mariners

Most Underrated Player: Felix Hernandez, SP

Not at all, friend. Not at all. He plays on the West Coast for a team that isn't very good. He's not underrated because of this though. He has a Cy Young award as well.

Texas Rangers

Most Underrated Player: Martin Perez, SP

In 2014, Perez has already recorded two shutouts and reeled off a 26-inning scoreless stretch. However, the left-hander has now been tagged in back-to-back outings. His most recent poor performance came on May 5 when he served up five runs in five innings while pitching against the Colorado Rockies at Coors Field.

He's underrated because one time he pitched 26 straight scoreless innings. This makes him underrated apparently. Not every team has to have an underrated player, but that's just how Bleacher Report works sometimes.

3. Christine Brennan thinks that Florida State is coddling Jameison Winston, an amateur athlete by the way, a little bit too much. They need to be tougher on him. He doesn't get paid to get in trouble with the law, he gets paid to win football games.

Were Jameis Winston a fourth-string punter rather than a first-string quarterback, he almost certainly would have long since been kicked off the Florida State football team, probably for good.

Boy, she is astute. It's almost like college athletes are held to a different standard from other college students. That couldn't be true though, could it?

If we've learned anything over the past six months in the ugly Winston saga in Tallahassee, it's that nothing — not an allegation of sexual assault, not failing to appear when you're expected to testify, not stealing crab legs from the local Publix — will stand between the so-called leaders of Florida State and their unending love of their winning football program.

I think this lesson was learned in regard to Florida State quite a few years ago. This isn't a recent lesson to be learned about the school's love for their winning football program.

And that goes for you too, Tallahassee police department, letting a sexual assault case sit dormant for nine months, just long enough for Winston to be well on his way to completing that magical Seminole football season.

They should remove him from both the football and baseball teams at least until he answers questions about what happened the night of the alleged sexual assault, as two of his football teammates did at a code of conduct hearing on Tuesday. They should tell him he needs to take time away from both sports to begin to deal with his mushrooming off-the-field problems.

I mean, stealing crab legs is stealing crab legs. It's pretty clear that the Publix allowed Florida State players some sort of free rein to do this sort of thing in the past. Winston wasn't exactly running out the door on the video showing him stealing the crab legs.

And there is the potential of civil action against him and FSU. The kid has barely left his teenage years and already has not one but two attorneys. I don't care how many awards he has won. This is not the way you want to start out life as an adult.

I like the idea that the school should teach Jameis Winston a lesson about how to start life out as an adult when Christine Brennan thinks the school itself is corrupt and covering up for Winston. It would be the corrupt teaching the corruptible.

It's well past time for FSU's leaders to provide an example for Winston by actually playing the role they are supposed to play — that of adults supervising young people — and showing him he is worth more to FSU as a person than just as an athlete. They should stop letting him slide. They should tell him the only course of action is to show up and tell the truth, come what may.

The assumption here is that Winston had not told the truth and was previously lying. Christine Brennan doesn't provide any evidence this assumption is true.

But now he's all lawyered up, so that's not going to happen. He's all but untouchable now.

Fucking lawyers always looking out for their clients using due process and the American judicial system to their client's favor. What a bunch of sharks. 

When Winston stole the crab legs, FSU did the right thing, at least for a little while. He was suspended from the baseball team, where he is a relief pitcher — for all of four days. He was back in plenty of time to finish up the regular season and play in this week's Atlantic Coast Conference tournament. I'm sure that comes as a shock to absolutely no one. It's the FSU way.

I mean, they were crab legs. It's not like he is stealing televisions or committing a large scale crime which would require jail time. Stealing anything isn't right, but they are crab legs. In terms of committing a crime, this is pretty low on the totem pole.

Yes, Florida State needs to be harsher, but if Christine Brennan is in anyway surprised that star football players get different rules to play by then she hasn't paid attention for the last 30 years.

4. Phil Mushnick is tired of the nonsense on baseball broadcasts and is also pissed off that the grocery store moved the wine aisle all the way across the store so he has to walk further to pick up his favorite Chardonnay. Mushnick is tired of baseball players not running when they need to be running. In fact, he's just tired and angry about everything.

It went unmentioned — and likely unknown by Kay, at the time — Arenado wouldn’t have had to slide had he run the entire way on a shot off the wall in left.

In town with the Dodgers last week was Matt Kemp, 2011 MVP runner-up who missed 89 games last season with ankle surgery. While that’s regularly noted by local media, its particulars are never addressed:

Here is Mushnick talking yet again about how Matt Kemp should have been running on this play. It's not enough to mention it in his column, but he thinks announcers should talk about how lazy Matt Kemp is every single time his ankle surgery is mentioned.

On a chopper between first and second, Kemp, on third, jogged toward the plate, presuming there would be no play on him. When the throw was made to the plate, Kemp, who should have easily scored, standing, turned it on too late. His awkward slide wrecked his ankle.

Got that? A star missed 89 games because he didn’t bother to run to the next base! Crazy, but that’s now standard MLB play.

Yes, this is now a "standard" MLB play. Everywhere you look there are stars not running to the next base. In fact, some baseball players like Yasiel Puig are crawling to the next base or not even attempting to run the bases if he doesn't hit a home run. Puig actually heads to the dugout after a single because he wanted a home run and isn't going to waste his time hustling if he can't hit a home run and trot around the bases.

Over the weekend, the Cubs named Manny Ramirez a Triple-A player/coach. Hmm, now what advice could he provide aspiring big leaguers?

Gosh, I don't know. What advice could an absolutely fantastic hitter impart to aspiring big leaguers? I can't think of anything other than to share the knowledge that helped Ramirez become one of the best hitters in baseball history.

How to pose at home plate? How to turn doubles into singles, in playoff games, too? How to assault a 65-year-old traveling secretary for being unable to meet a late request to leave 16 tickets for buddies? Tips on how to be consistently, conspicuously, unconditionally selfish?

Exactly. I'm sure Ramirez is providing tips on all of these things. It must be nice to be as perfect as Phil Mushnick is and be able to spend the majority of your time pointing out everything that others have done wrong and then holding it over that person's head for their entire lifetime. Perfection is such a burden.

Wednesday during Dodgers-Mets, an SNY graphic on L.A. starter Zach Greinke: “No more than two runs allowed in any of last 21 starts, longest streak in MLB history.” Wow!

Fuck your snark, that is impressive.

Know how many complete games Greinke has pitched in the last four seasons? One. He’s a six-to-seven-innings starter. Yet, he has surpassed the greatest of greats, including those who regularly pitched nine innings and occasionally allowed three runs. Bob Gibson threw 28 complete games in 1968 — and again in ’69!

Don't worry, this is still an impressive record. Your impression of history isn't going to be threatened. Clearly, a caveat stating Greinke only pitches six or seven innings should have been included. We can't have anyone thinking today's pitchers are as great as pitchers were in Phil Mushnick's time.

Sense? Tuesday night, with the Dodgers in town, TV couldn’t help but show the first six rows behind the plate — best seats in the Mets’ house — went empty. The Mets and Yankees have that in common. At the same time, the Yankees were playing the last-place Cubs at Wrigley. Not an empty seat in sight.

I'm sure there is no price differential in seats in the first six rows at Yankee Stadium, Citi Field and Wrigley Field. That probably wouldn't explain why the seats were empty. I'm not entirely sure why this makes Phil Mushnick so angry.

Headfirst slides? Why not? Knock yourselves out.

Why are you so angry? Why do you pick out the most inane things and then complain about them in your column? It's like hearing a senile, homeless man rant on the corner about how the trees are looking at him funny.

5. Speaking of Manny Ramirez, Dan Shaughnessy was embarrassed by the Red Sox tribute to him. "It's a farce!," says Shaughnessy.

Let me see if I have this straight: Manny Ramirez hit like Jimmie Foxx for 7½ seasons in Boston, but it turned out he was cheating with PEDs the whole time.

I'm not sure it's known whether he was cheating with PED's (it sounds like Manny was cheating with PED's in a biblical way, luring PED's into bed...I can picture him smoking a cigarette beside the cream and clear) the entire time he was with the Red Sox. Jimmie Foxx had an extra "x" in his name, so that has to count for some sort of cheating, right? It made him seem extra badass.

Ramirez also regularly ignored the kids from the Jimmy Fund

What about the kids? Doesn't Manny care about the kids?

After quitting on the Sox, he went to Los Angeles and hit .396 with 17 homers and 53 RBIs in the final 53 games of the season. Without Ramirez, the Sox went on to lose the seventh game of the 2008 AL Championship Series to the Tampa Bay Rays.

Ramirez was also instrumental in the Red Sox winning two World Series, which is the reason he was honored...so there's that too.

On the night the Sox chose to honor the most important team in their 114-year history, they made Manny the featured character. After legitimate Sox gods Pedro Martinez, David Ortiz, and Curt Schilling were asked to step aside — Bloody Sock Schill was making his first public appearance while in the throes of a serious battle with cancer — Manny came out from the Green Monster and had the honor of throwing the ceremonial first pitch.

Manny doesn't care about the kids AND he took the ceremonial first pitch from a person stricken with cancer. I'm surprised he didn't punch a baby in the face on his way out from the Green Monster. I also like how Manny isn't a "legitimate" Sox god. He certainly seemed legitimate when he helped lead the Red Sox to two World Series victories. It's funny how time has scraped Ramirez's legitimacy away.

Manny received the loudest ovation. 

Another example of the fans being assholes. They cheer for a granny-assaulting, PED-using, kid-snubbing, cancer survivor-snubbing, illegitimate Sox god. These people have no morals, but should feel free to continue to read Dan's columns and buy his books in order to make him more money.

Wow. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing. We wish Manny the best as he goes forward in his new life.

No, you don't. No one likes a liar. Well, no one likes a liar who can't play sports well and Dan Shaughnessy doesn't seem like he can play sports well.

But management knows better. Must the Sox brass always appeal to the lowest common denominator? (Seen NESN lately?)

Read Dan Shaughnessy's column lately? I should go easy on Dan, he hasn't been able to manufacture a fake curse in order to sell books in over a decade. Times are tough for him.

Appearing on WEEI’s “Dennis & Callahan” Thursday morning, Sox CEO Larry Lucchino said,...“But the simple fact is that we were honoring the World Series championship of 2004 and the MVP in the World Series was Manny Ramirez . . . A choice had to be made among several candidates that were fitting and appropriate and I believe the decision turned on the World Series MVP. 

It's a logical way to determine who should throw out the first pitch. I know Dan Shaughnessy doesn't like the decision, but choosing between the other Sox players was difficult so the World Series MVP (the non-legitimate Sox god) threw out the first pitch.

“That seemed to be a rational decision. We would never please everyone.’’

Especially those people like Dan Shaughnessy who could never be pleased.

6. Now comes an absolutely terrible slideshow (not done by Bleacher Report) called "10 Most Likely Baseball Steroid Users Never Caught." Yeah, wow. This is the type of stuff that lawsuits are made of.

Albert Pujols: 

Let's be honest here. The odds of Albert Pujols being clean are slim. He's never been caught or linked to PED's, but something just doesn't add up.

Yes, let's be honest. Let's accuse Pujols of using PED's because that's the most honest thing that could be done in this situation. 

Nolan Ryan: 

Ryan retired in 1993 with the Texas Rangers. He played with Jose Canseco in his later years, which makes him even more suspicious.

He played on the same team as Jose Canseco. So did hundreds of other baseball players, so every single one of them has to be under suspicion, right? As I've detailed many times, if this shitty reasoning is used then what does it say about Derek Jeter? 

Mike Sweeney:  

Mike Sweeney had back problems through much of his career, but he was a big-time offensive weapon for Kansas City from 1999-2003.

Sweeney wasn't much of an offensive weapon prior to those seasons. In fact, it came as a big surprise to Royals fans when he became the hitter that led him to 5 All-Star appearances.

Sweeney wasn't much of an offensive weapon prior to those seasons because he was 24 years old and had never gotten more than 300 at-bats in a season, but don't let facts get in the way of creating lies about Mike Sweeney. 

Rickey Henderson: 

Maybe Rickey really was a freak of an athlete. Or maybe he was on steroids. We'll probably never know.

Maybe Napoleon Bonaparte was Emperor of the French. Or maybe he was a Tyrannosaurus Rex pretending to be a human. We'll probably never know. 

Adrian Beltre: 

This is a tough one because Adrian Beltre only has one monster season. But he's been so up-and-down that his career doesn't make much sense.

He's only had one monster season as long as you don't count his production from 2010-2013. I'm looking for the up and down part of his career. He's seemed pretty consistent to me. 

Cliff Lee: 

Cliff Lee was a mediocre pitcher from 2003-2007. In 2008, he won the Cy Young and has been great ever since. It is a bit odd that Lee couldn't figure things out until age 29, especially after pitching so many innings prior to that season.

Sandy Koufax didn't become a Hall of Fame pitcher until he turned 26 years old despite pitching almost 955 innings prior to that. Maybe he was on steroids too!

The author of this is an absolute moron. Like he didn't even do one bit of research and just sort of took a big shit all over his keyboard and this group of sentences is the result. Cliff Lee went 18-5 with a 3.79 ERA and 1.218 WHIP in 2005. He came in 4th in the Cy Young voting. He struggled in 2006 and was injured most of 2007. But no really, I'm sure he used steroids beginning in 2008.

Jacoby Ellsbury: 

Jacoby Ellsbury has much in common with Brady Anderson. They even play the same position.

Oh, well say no more. Obviously Jacoby Ellsbury used steroids because Brady Anderson was a proven steroid us---wait, no he wasn't. He never failed a test for steroids that didn't exist when Brady Anderson played in the majors. But they both played centerfield at one point during their career, so that's some hard-and-fast evidence right there. 

Maybe it was a fluke. Or maybe he cheated like Brady Anderson did when he hit 50 homers in 1996.

I wish you would get sued. 

7. Vernon Davis explains why he is holding out. In a shocking twist of events, it's not about him and his need for more money, but is totally about getting what he deserves. 

In 2010 I signed a five-year, $37 million contract extension with $23 million guaranteed. It was the biggest contract for a tight end in league history.

But Vernon Davis deserved the biggest contract for any football player in league history. He's holding out to right this wrong.

Four years later, and I’m playing at a higher level than I was then, which brings me to why I’m holding out.

Because you signed a contract for you to be compensated for your performance over a five year period and the fact you could improve your performance over this time period is the risk you took when signing the contract? Would Davis have given the money back if you didn't play at a higher level? I doubt it. I hate to bring this up, but Davis hasn't matched his production since signing that contract in terms of receptions and yards. He did have 13 touchdowns this past season, but I would argue he is earning his contract and hasn't exceeded what the 49ers paying for by giving him a $37 million contract extension. At his best, I would say Davis' level of play hasn't declined and has stayed consistent, but I'm not sure that's enough for a contract extension.

It’s all about getting paid what you deserve.

And you are getting paid what you deserve. You are getting paid like one of the top tight ends in the NFL. Congrats!

I want the 49ers to win the Super Bowl, and I want to be on the field this summer working toward that goal, but I have to worry about my future first.

Hey, I understand. I really do. It's just I wouldn't say you are playing at a higher level now than you were when you signed the contract extension.

Most of my teammates and many players in the NFL understand that. A few don’t. Behind closed doors, they’ll say they’re all about the team and would run through a brick wall for the organization. But when you look closer, they’re doing things to contradict themselves.

At least Davis is being honest that it isn't all about the team to him. Personally if I'm the 49ers, even if this is the truth, it makes me nervous to hand out to Davis another contract extension since he's on the wrong side of 30 and is admitting he worries about the team after himself. The truth is great, but it also sucks.

I can’t listen to anyone but my family and my advisors, because those are the people who are going to be there when football inevitably dumps me.

And really, who could live on $37 million? I wish Davis the best of luck in his attempt to get more money, but I think he's getting paid what he deserves right now.

8. Howard Bryant thinks Kevin Durant needs to drive to the basket more. While one can see his point, Durant's competitive advantage is that he is really tall and it's hard to block his shot when he shoots jump shots. He is a skinny guy, so driving to the basket would also cause wear and tear on his body that he could have difficulty withstanding. Also, Durant's inability to drive to the basket isn't why the Thunder didn't win the NBA title this year. I think that's important to know.

Offense was built from the inside, which opened up the outside shot, not the other way around. That was especially true in the playoffs, when referees rewarded an attacking offense with free throws and let aggressive defenses dictate:

The analytics say those days are dead. They say the 3 is the key. On a team with Larry Bird and Danny Ainge, the champion 1983-84 Celtics attempted 229 3-pointers. This season Kevin Durant attempted 491 3s by himself. The game resembles a long-distance shooting contest. Yet when the trophies are raised, the winning formula is older than a pair of classic Chuck Taylors. That is why the lasting image of Durant was of him walking off the court after losing to the Spurs in the Western Conference finals, no closer to a title now than when he entered the NBA seven years ago.

Could it be because the Thunder team is built around Ibaka (who was injured in the playoffs this year), Westbrook (who was injured in the playoffs last year), Durant and a bunch of role players that really aren't that great and can't be counted on to score? Nah, it's because Kevin Durant won't drive to the basket.

The biggest questions, however, surround Durant himself.

The numbers say he isn't the problem. The numbers say he is efficient. The numbers say he isn't just a behind-the-arc gunner: No one shot more free throws than the 805 he attempted this season.

Howard Bryant's theory is Durant needs to go to the basket more often to get fouled, yet Durant shot more foul shots than any other NBA player. So it seems like he's doing a good job of getting to the foul line by being a gunner and he is preventing his relatively skinny body from taking a beating. Durant isn't built like Jordan, he definitely isn't built like LeBron.

But history says it is impossible for a superstar to win 25 feet from the basket; Durant's game runs counter to what playoff basketball rewards. Yes, the Heat take plenty of 3s, but LeBron sharpens his game for the playoffs. He penetrates more, becoming tougher to defend and thus going to the line more.

But again, Durant's advantage is that his shot is almost impossible to block when he's taking a jump shot because he is so tall.

About 23 percent of James' shots were taken from behind the arc in the regular season and in the playoffs leading up to the Finals, but his foul shot attempts increased from 7.6 to 8.7 per game.

During this year's playoffs, 29.6 percent of his shots were from 3, and he went to the line 8.6 times a game.

So the problem is Durant doesn't get to the line as much as LeBron in the playoffs, though those pesky statistics say that Durant went to the free throw line almost exactly as much as LeBron. So Durant needs to be more like LeBron and get to the free throw line even though he's already getting to the free throw line in the playoffs as much as LeBron does.

If he wants to join the ranks of James, Jordan and Bryant, he must attack as they did. When it was go time, they went -- to the basket.

Again, Durant isn't build like these guys were built. Not that he can't go to the basket, and it's never a bad idea to drive to the basket, but I'm not sure this is the big need for the Thunder to take the next step and win an NBA title.

Whatever the solution, the current plan isn't working. Durant might be the MVP, but when it comes to championship basketball, the wheel cannot be reinvented. Many have tried. All have failed.

The current plan isn't working because the Thunder don't have very good role players. Outside of Reggie Jackson they have no one who can score and Steven Adams had to play big minutes in the playoffs once Ibaka went down. The wheel can not be reinvented, which is why part of the solution for the Thunder to play championship basketball is to improve the players around Kevin Durant, Ibaka and Westbrook.

9. Bob Nightengale wonders if there is a conspiracy to keep minor league players in the minors until they don't qualify for Super-2 status. Yes, there is. It's pretty much a no-lose proposition. It's not against the CBA, it saves the team money in the long-term and ensures a prospect plays as much minor league baseball until he is ready to play in the majors. At least Nightengale stops short of accusing these teams of lacking integrity.

Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder Gregory Polanco, who debuted just a week ago, is already impacting the National League, getting a hit in every one of his seven games.

In a cruel paradox, the better Polanco performs, the more scrutiny the Pirates may face.

If the Pirates don't return to the postseason this year, particularly if they miss out by only a game or two, the scorn will come in waves.

It's not a cruel paradox. It's a strategic decision the Pirates organization has made in which they are choosing to forgo immediate success for two months in favor of having an additional year of Gregory Polanco. And as I always say, if Polanco ends up being a great player then none of this Super-2 or not crap will matter. He will be signed to a contract extension by the Pirates which buys out his arbitration years.

So naturally, folks want to know, why wasn't he called up sooner? Was his debut intentionally delayed to avoid paying an extra year of arbitration? Was he penalized for not agreeing to the seven-year, $25 million contract offer earlier this year? Did the Pirates risk a potential playoff berth to save millions?

I have defended teams keeping players in the minors until after they can't qualify as Super-2's before. I will continue to do so until it is against the CBA that is negotiated. It's a long-term strategy. I can't get behind keeping a player in the minors because he won't sign a long-term deal prior to being called up. That's shady and is some bullshit.

Players with two years of service time and rank among the top 22% of their class are eligible for four years of salary arbitration, and not three years, which can be worth millions. If the arbitration rights simply began at a full three years (which the owners would love) or two years (which the players would love), it would avoid the appearance of any deceit.

"I thought it was a grave mistake when we went to the Super-2 [in 1990],'' Coonelly said, "and I continue to believe it's a grave mistake, especially in a market like Pittsburgh. I would really be in favor to going back to three years. Or even two years. Or even getting rid of salary arbitration entirely.

The arbitration system can be stupid at times, but I'm not sure about getting rid of it entirely. But see, this is the part Murray Chass leaves out when he rails against teams keeping players in the minors too long. He forgets the part where the players negotiated the current Super-2 rule and not all owners like the rule. Obviously the owners want a bargain that is more advantageous to them, but this Super-2 rule was negotiated and agreed to by the player's union.

If a player is really ready, no matter the financial implications, you want to believe the team will bring him up. If not, you really hope it's for the player's development, and not for the good of the club's bank account.

Here's the problem...when is a player "ready"? A player could tear up the minor leagues and come up to the majors and struggle, then get sent back down for more minor league seasoning. It happens.

"You have to take it on the faith that the clubs are doing the right thing for their team and their organization,'' Chicago Cubs ace Jeff Samardzija says. "You hope that they are truly keeping guys down because they need more time in the minor leagues.

"If they don't, it's just absurd. Why wouldn't you try to put your best team on the field?''

Teams have budgets to manage. That's why they don't put their best team on the field. The arbitration system in baseball can be ridiculously stupid. Jeff Francoeur got paid $3.4 million in arbitration despite the fact he was coming off a season where he was one of the worst regular players in the majors and hit .239/.294/.359. Once that arbitration clock starts things can get silly for a team dealing with a budget.

The Pirates insist they're doing the right thing, and the timing for Polanco's call-up has everything to do with his development - with only 295 plate appearances above Class A before the year - and not money.

"Gregory Polanco, barring something completely unexpected,'' Huntington said, "was not going to make the team out of spring training.''

And that's the thing, a guy like Polanco has only had 295 plate appearances above Class A ball. Is it really such a smart thing to throw him on the major league roster because he tears up the minors for the month of April? Players go on tears and then the pitchers adjust to these players. It made sense to see Polanco adjust to the pitchers who were adjusting to him, then call him up once he proved he could make the necessary adjustments and was ready for the majors. And yes, the Pirates saved money as well. I'm sure the Pirates fans won't mind if it turns out Polanco doesn't sign a long-term deal buying out his arbitration years and the team gets an extra year of Polanco prior to arbitration.

10. Ross Tucker doesn't like to put stock in Johnny Manziel. It's because of all the usual reasons of course.

Tucker does the typical, "I have no problem with Example A or B of Manziel partying, but here is Example C that I have a problem with."

I didn't have any problem with the picture of him hanging with Rob Gronkowski and a bunch of ladies in Las Vegas over Memorial Day weekend. Good for him. 

The inflatable swan and a bottle of champagne thing probably didn't look great to some people, but I thought it was funny. 

His latest off field stunt, however, now has me legitimately concerned. 

Tucker is no longer amused or illegitimately concerned, he's now legitimately concerned. It's not because of Manziel's partying of course. His concern is about Manziel's partying.

There's a video making the rounds all over the Internet from a party for Manziel's friend Drake in Houston in which Manziel holds up a stack of cash to his ear like it is a phone and tells the camera he "can't hear you because there's too much money in my f------ hand!" 

Manziel's signature move is to rub his fingers together like he's got money in them. He's done this for a while now. Ross Tucker obviously would know this. So...why is this concerning then?

Even if you are a hardcore Manziel supporter, you have to admit it's a bad look for a guy that's supposed to be the new face of the franchise for the Browns. Stacks of cash? Dropping an f-bomb on a video? Eyes barely open, presumably because he's so inebriated? 

"All those other times Manziel has clearly been inebriated in public and has made reference to making money are no big deal. This instance disturbs me though...not that I'm looking for a reason to be disturbed by Manziel and want to make it seem like I'm not searching for a new reason to question Manziel's behavior, of course."

Manziel’s behavior is getting progressively worse and eroding the public confidence in both the player and organization. That's a problem. 

Training Camp hasn't even started yet. What confidence in Manziel did the public have previously? Did they watch college football over the past two seasons? I'm not saying I wouldn't be annoyed if I was a Browns fan, but this is what Manziel has done over the past two years. It's not new. Why the sudden, "Hold on a second, this infatuation with celebrity and money while showing confidence in himself is a red flag!"? This is the guy the Browns wanted and drafted. He hasn't changed.

He told everybody that would listen during the pre-draft process, that the "Johnny Football" persona and lifestyle was behind him. I guess not. It looks more and more like that was one heck of an Eddie Haskell routine that Manziel pulled off, possibly pulling the wool over the Browns' eyes. 

You mean Manziel was telling people what they wanted to hear during the pre-draft interview process like I said he was doing? No way. You mean Manziel didn't magically change and not really want to make stacks of money after he was drafted and actually started making stacks of money? If Ross Tucker was fooled by Manziel during the pre-draft interview process then it is only because he wanted to be fooled. Come on, he's still a kid and he's still an exciting quarterback prospect.

Current Lions backup quarterback Dan Orlovsky chimed in as well, asking someone to "Find me a QB with his off the field lifestyle that has had a lot of success." 

Joe Namath.

Also, Dan Orlovsky, at least Manziel knows where the hell the back of the end zone is and doesn't step out of it like an idiot. I mean, Dan Orlovsky is the go-to guy on how a quarterback can juggle his lifestyle and still have success? Does he know the dimensions of the end zone yet?

That's just it. You can't. Even if you say guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are bad examples because they are in their mid-to-late thirties, what about youngsters like Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin III? 

Manziel is not the first quarterback to ever have fun. Plenty of them have and still do. They are just smart and discreet about the way in which they go about it because they understand the public attention that goes along with their job. It comes with the territory and they accept that. 

Okay, now I'm confused. No quarterback has had the lifestyle Manziel leads off the field and had a lot of success, except Ross Tucker says plenty of quarterbacks have fun, but they are discreet about it. So the difference is that Manziel is dumb enough to have fun in front of a camera, but other NFL quarterbacks have had a fun lifestyle and had success as an NFL quarterback? Is that what I'm reading?

I remember calling the starting quarterback of the team I was on one time during my career on a Saturday in the offseason and he told me he was at Home Depot getting supplies to make a beer funnel. He liked to party. He just did it at private residences around people he could trust. If we went out, he never had more than two beers. He would've liked to have had more, but he knew he couldn't. He said the message boards and blogs would be all over him. 

So again, I'm not defending Manziel's actions, but the difference is he has fun in front of a camera and other quarterbacks party in private? Manziel definitely has a discretion problem, but the fact the public doesn't know about the off the field lifestyle of other quarterbacks doesn't mean other NFL quarterbacks haven't led a similar lifestyle to Manziel and still had success in the NFL. It sounds like Ross Tucker is backing this assertion up a little bit.

The truth is, I hope he does have success. I'm a radio talk-show host. That'd be great for me. Johnny's great for me. Plus, Browns fans are extremely loyal and passionate. They deserve a winner.

Too bad it's looking less and less like Manziel's going to be the guy to bring it to them. 

He's not thrown an NFL pass yet. Let's see how much partying he does once Training Camp starts and the time comes to actually be an NFL quarterback. Manziel hasn't changed, I'm not sure why there is an assumption he would. He's a guy who likes partying, money and being around celebrities. Ross Tucker really thought Manziel becoming a millionaire would curb the partying, love of money and being around celebrities? I don't understand how Tucker never had a problem with Manziel's partying until this newest instance of partying. 

3 comments Bill Belichick and Tom Brady Give Howard Bryant a Sad Face

We have already been told by Jarrett Bell that the Patriot Way is over and done. No more. This is all because the Patriots dared to employ Aaron Hernandez, an athlete that every member of the Patriots organization should have seen was a murderer prior to drafting him. Now Howard Bryant is equally disappointed in the Patriots, well actually just Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. He didn't feel neither Belichick or Brady acted appropriately when they found out Aaron Hernandez had been charged with murder. Please remember the Patriots cut Hernandez 30 minutes after he was arrested. The Patriots decided to take on dead cap space and release one of the better tight ends in the NFL in less time than it takes to order a pizza, but that's not enough for Howard Bryant. Bill Belichick was on vacation and didn't rush home to give a statement to the press. Very sad this makes Howard Bryant.

Most days, the sports industrial complex is merely nauseating, with its overheated cliches of leadership and adversity, respect and disrespect; with its inappropriate war analogies routinely transforming both the English language and any sense of perspective into self-indulgent mush.

But not when Howard Bryant has a pedestal to step up on and announce that these cliches of leadership and adversity are now not cliches, but an important part of the foundation of what makes sports and a team so great. These buzz words are cliches sometimes and then not cliches at other times. It depends entirely on the point Bryant wants to prove.

When Aaron Hernandez was charged with murder in June, Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, the public faces of the New England Patriots, initially said nothing.

NOTHING! They said nothing and completely ignored the press's absolute right for an athlete to immediately make a statement and appear before the cameras whenever the press feels this athlete should appear before the cameras and make a statement.

Belichick was on vacation. 

And of course Belichick must immediately stop going on the only vacation he will probably get all year so he can make a statement to the media about how he doesn't want his players to be arrested for murder. That's leadership, people. 

Here was the player he scouted, drafted and rewarded with a $40 million contract being connected to two shootings and three murders, and apparently the coach didn't think it was important enough to return home.

Probably because it wasn't important enough to return home. Robert Kraft, the guy who happens to own the Patriots and therefore is Belichick's boss and the guy who is also responsible for giving Hernandez a paycheck and signing off on a contract extension, made a statement for the team. There was no need for Belchick to come scurrying home from his vacation to appease the media with a statement. If Belichick had come back from vacation in a timely fashion this entire Hernandez ordeal could have been avoided and Odin Lloyd would be alive.

When Brady, general of the red zone, father of three,

No matter how relevant you want to make how many children Tom Brady has, it will continue to be irrelevant.

finally did speak about Hernandez nearly a month later, Bela Lugosi couldn't have made his first public comments sound more inhuman: "I've seen a lot of things over 13 years," the quarterback told Peter King of Sports Illustrated, "and what I have learned is that mental toughness and putting aside personal agendas for what's in the best interest of the team matters most … I have moved on. I'm focusing on the great teammates I have who are committed to helping us win games. The only thing I care about is winning. Nothing is going to ever get in the way of that goal."

What would Howard Bryant have preferred Brady say? I'm not being hypothetical, I want to know what he really would want Brady to say. Howard Bryant never reveals what he would prefer Brady say or how he prefers Brady would act. Does he want Brady to fall down in a mass of tears, cuss out Hernandez for committing murder or start talking about he teaches his three children not to commit murder?

Brady is basically saying "Aaron Hernandez is dead to me and we were told not to comment on his situation. I don't care about him because he isn't on the Patriots team anymore. I only care about the players who are currently on the team."

This is his statement and his teammates aren't going to think he isn't showing leadership because he chooses to not hold a 30 minute press conference on the topic of Aaron Hernandez. The only ones who will judge Brady for not making further comments is the media, and they will judge simply because they want something to talk and write about.

Subsequent Brady comments, after the organization got its story straight, at least allowed that the situation was a "terrible thing," but his first, unscripted words spoke loudest.

And these words said that Tom Brady doesn't care about NFL players who aren't on his team, and because Aaron Hernandez is no longer on the Patriots team, Tom Brady doesn't care about Aaron Hernandez anymore.

In other words, tough break, Odin Whatever-your-name-was, but Tom has game film to watch. He's moved on.

What the hell do you want Tom Brady to do? He didn't kill Odin Whatever-your-name-was. It's not solely up to Tom Brady to show sympathy to Odin Lloyd and Brady's affiliation with Hernandez ends when Hernandez was released as a member of the Patriots. Again, maybe Howard Bryant feels disappointed, but I think he's expecting Tom Brady to be more than he is required to be.

Brady made a teammate's being charged with a murder while also being linked to a drive-by double murder a year earlier sound no different from overcoming Richard Seymour's being traded to the Raiders.

Not to be snide, though this probably will come off snide, but both Hernandez and Seymour are no longer on the Patriots team. It's sort of consistent to treat them the same way if you know the history of how the Patriots operate. They limit outside distractions as much as possible. I am a little confused as to what Howard Bryant wants. He wants Brady and Belichick to be more human, but I'm not sure exactly what that means. Does the fact none of Hernandez's teammates at the University of Florida seemed to come out and show sympathy to the Lloyd family mean they didn't act human? I realize Hernandez last played for the Patriots, but if there is an onus on the Patriots to go above and beyond in indicting Hernandez then there must be some sort of need for every coach or team leader Hernandez has played on a team with to say something. What about Reverend Tebow? Should he have been more vocal considering he not only played with Hernandez (briefly) in New England, but also played with him not-so-briefly at Florida?

On July 24, with Odin Lloyd long buried, Belichick spoke for the first time, and the media, defeated and supplicant, all but tripped over themselves in lauding him for being "forthcoming," "candid" and "heartfelt."

He was relatively candid given how candid Belichick usually is. Everything is relative after all. 

Had it not been so disgusting, it might have been funny. 

I'm not sure "disgusting" is how Belichick's comments should be described given the fact Belichick was commenting on a murder that was committed by Aaron Hernandez. I think "disgusting" is how Hernandez should be described, not how Belichick should be described. 

All the great coach -- this molder of men -- did was finally take a few minutes out of his busy schedule, a month after Lloyd's last breath, to say he felt terrible that a 27-year-old was lowered into the ground too soon, murdered, allegedly, by one of his players. Belichick was praised for acting like a human being.

Belichick doesn't really pride himself on being a "molder of men" and any more than he prides himself on being a molder of a really good gameplan using men he has chosen who thinks can best execute the gameplan. By the time these men hit Belichick's locker room in New England they are already men and much of the molding should have taken place already. 

When the media were done applauding Belichick for doing the least amount possible, it was suggested that the Patriots did not owe the public a response, because it would give the impression that the organization was somehow responsible for Hernandez's alleged crimes.

I don't think the suggestion is that the Patriots didn't owe the public a response, but the suggestion was that the Patriots didn't need to get on their hands and knees while gnashing their teeth at what a grown man has chosen to do to another human being. The Patriots didn't exactly have culpability for Hernandez's actions and they owed the public a statement, much like the one given by Robert Kraft, in response to Hernandez's actions.

Here's the truth: The Patriots do owe the public, because they and every other sports team in America take from the public, profit from the public, sell their name to the public. The Patriots sell their players not just as athletes but as people whose names fans should wear proudly on their backs,

While this is all true, I'm still not sure what kind of apology or statement Howard Bryant was expecting. Robert Kraft had already made a statement and the Patriots made a statement by immediately releasing Hernandez when he was arrested, so I'm not sure a heartfelt plea for the world to forgive the Patriots organization, Brady and Belichick for employing Hernandez would have felt like it had a place in this given situation. It would have seemed odd. 

Teams bathe in the fiction that they value character, can spot it and develop it; yet here, when character actually mattered, the great coach and his legendary quarterback looked as small as a hash mark.

Putting the actions of Hernandez on the Patriots in any way is a major fallacy in logic me thinks. NFL teams do want their players to be virtuous and be good citizens in the community, but when an NFL player screws up and doesn't meet the standards for what his team wants him to be I'm not sure it is a reflection on the team. I think I've written this four times already in this short post, but I would love to know exactly what Howard Bryant wanted Tom Brady and Bill Belichick to say. What would they say to seem more human? I would bet Bryant has no clue what he wanted Brady and Belichick to say, other than not make the statement they ended up making.

Had Hernandez saved a toddler from drowning instead of allegedly putting a bullet into a friend, the Patriots would have claimed him.

Probably. It's not like the Patriots didn't claim Hernandez in this specific situation. They made a statement by immediately releasing Hernandez and Robert Kraft made a statement saying the Patriots were "duped" by Hernandez. If they were asked about Hernandez saving a toddler from drowning I imagine Belichick and Brady would have made a statement about how Hernandez is a great guy and then try to focus on football again. 

But since Brady, who has "moved on," values only victory, then maybe the public should not care about his golf tournaments, charity events and foundations, the image scrubbings that are part of the hero game.

Yes, absolutely. Because Tom Brady didn't give Howard Bryant and the general public the type of response they wanted then anything good for the community that Tom Brady does should be ignored. Look, Brady was being asked questions about Hernandez while at football practice and preparing for the season. Brady cares about moving on in the context of playing football, not in every aspect of his off-the-field life. Don't be willfully ignorant and pretend Brady is talking about moving on in every aspect of his life and throw a temper tantrum about ignoring Brady's charities. 

Here was a coach who talked community while disappearing from it. 

Belichick made a statement and he didn't even really have to do that. The fact Belichick didn't come back from vacation should not be significant. Robert Kraft made a statement as the Patriots owner and that is how it should be. 

And if anyone was surprised that a murder could actually get his attention, maybe Belichick was never a leader in the first place.

I don't think anyone is surprised that a murder got Belichick's attention, so this comment about Belichick possibly not being a leader in the first place doesn't make a lot of sense. Nice concise way to end the column though. Next time something monumental and controversial happens at ESPN I will look to Howard Bryant to provide leadership and provide a statement apologizing or commenting on the topic. If he cared about the ESPN community he would do that.

3 comments Writers Says What Makes Jeter Great Can't Be Found in the Box Score; Chokes to Death on Own Hyperbole

We all love the Yankees' Core 4. Well not everyone loves them, but the sports media certainly does seem to greatly enjoy discussing the Core 4's (I hate using that term, it annoys me) wonderful virtues and I am very surprised there hasn't been a comic book series featuring Andy Pettitte, Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, and Mariano Rivera as superheroes. Fuck G.I. Joe, these four guys are the real American heroes. Derek Jeter is probably the biggest source of the media's love and whenever the media talks about him we always get to hear about his intangibles and leadership. The hyperbole is often too much for one person to bear. The Jeter gets the hyperbole treatment today from Howard Bryant and then later Wallace Matthews turns a non-story into why Joba Chamberlain is not like Mariano Rivera. Wallace clears up that Joba and Rivera aren't similar just in case anyone was getting the two pitchers confused.

But first, it is hyperbole galore involving another sportswriter who refuses to let Jeter's achievements speak for themselves. There has to be hyperbole when describing The Jeter. If there is no hyperbole or a listing of The Jeter's intangibles then how would we all know how great he is? Sportswriters must continuously tell us about The Jeter's leadership abilities or intangibles or else they think we will all forget.

THE MAGIC OF baseball will always live in the storytelling -- the grandeur of Ruth, the Midwestern identification with Musial, the unbreakable Robinson and the complex defiance and moral ambiguity of Bonds.

Actually, the magic of baseball will also always live in the exciting baseball games that are played. What am I talking about? We all know sportswriters only care about the stories surrounding a game, not the game itself. It's like they insist on turning a sport into a sports soap opera. Also, what the fuck is up with all these writers (Terence Moore does it too) talking about "magic" in reference to baseball? 

It's what gives life to the statistics.

A player's performance on the field relevant to other players' performance on the field is actually what gives life to statistics. The storytelling gives life to made up bullshit used to tell anecdotal stories about a player, while the statistics give the story on how one player compared to other players.

Unfortunately, in the age of Moneyball and fantasy leagues, the numbers have been detached from, and become more important than, the players.

This doesn't make sense. How can the numbers have become detached from the players and yet still used by "Moneyball" (and screw you for using that generic term for anything related to advanced statistics) and fantasy leagues to evaluate players? Isn't the criticism of advanced statistics that the numbers often are TOO attached to a player, to where his leadership and other intangibles aren't taken into account? Not to mention, if Howard Bryant knows how to run a fantasy league without numbers and statistics I would love to hear this idea. The very idea he is criticizing fantasy leagues for only taking numbers into account is ridiculous. Numbers are what defines a fantasy league. Without these numbers you have no way of playing in the fantasy league or determining who is winning the fantasy league.

The Yankees' Derek Jeter has defied the impact of the two most influential elements of his time: the institutional shift toward quantitative analysis and the cynical lust for home runs, fueled by performance-enhancing drugs.

That's the narrative, even though it isn't entirely true. Jeter didn't defy quantitative analysis. He always had a high OBP and he tended to walk a lot. His fielding wasn't always the talk of Sabermetricians, but as a batter Jeter didn't really defy much qualitative analysis. As far as talking about a cynical lust for home runs, Jeter didn't defy this lust, he simply didn't hit a lot of home runs. There are plenty of quality players during the Steroid Era who didn't hit a lot of home runs. It feels like Howard Bryant is trying to give unique characteristics to The Jeter that really weren't exactly unique to The Jeter.

But with Jeter, the visual has always been better than the numerical -- and there's never been a better time to appreciate that than in his absence,

The perfect time to appreciate Jeter visually is when he isn't on the field to be visualized? I'm not sure how that can be a true statement because you can't visualize his greatness when he isn't on the field. Of course, maybe Bryant is giving The Jeter credit for being injured and his not playing at all shows exactly how great he is...which is actually what it seems like Bryant is doing. Now Jeter is getting credit for not doing anything at all. Must be nice.

which only underscores his longevity.

The fact Derek Jeter is injured gives us a better chance to appreciate how great he is. Just visualize it! He gets credit for being on the field and credit for being injured. Not talking about how great The Jeter is only underscores how great he is. When Derek Jeter hits into a double play, it is just a reminder of how clutch he has been. When Jeter wrecks his car and kills a pedestrian, it only reminds us of how good he is at driving a car usually and not killing pedestrians while doing so.

For years, most stats guys never liked him as much as his All-Star rivals at shortstop: Alex Rodriguez, Nomar Garciaparra and Miguel Tejada.

I think Bryant is using "for years" a bit too liberally here. Alex Rodriguez was a better player than Derek Jeter, but a blanket statement like this really means nothing. Saying "for years" may be overstating what a generalized group of people think. The stats crowd never liked Jeter's defense, his fans who calling him "Captain Clutch" and the hyperbolic bullshit written about him. Basically the stats crowd don't like things like this Howard Bryant article that praises Jeter effusively while over-using hyperbole.

Jeter most clearly defined his essence on separate occasions in the 2001 ALDS against the A's.

He "defined his essence." You can't make these things up when talking about The Jeter, you just have to realize these are the types of phrases that sportswriters will use when discussing him. It's always a pleasure to read another sportswriter giving Derek Jeter a tongue bath.

Blame Jeremy Giambi for not sliding or Oakland's bats for not getting that big hit; credit Mike Mussina for keeping the A's scoreless. But while the scorebook registers Jeter's play as simply an out -- albeit one that was 9-to-6-to-2 -- it demoralized the A's.

This play didn't demoralize the A's any more than the fact they couldn't score off Mike Mussina at any other point during this game I guess. It must be a wonderful feeling to be inside the head of professional athletes and always know their inner most thoughts. I will have to ask Bill Simmons or Howard Bryant how this must feel. They KNOW what emotions teams are experiencing in their heads. Howard Bryant isn't speculating just so it will make the point he wants to prove look better, not at all, he knows the A's were demoralized by Jeter's play.

The second defining moment came two nights later, with the A's spent, wondering as the noise cascaded on them just how they were here playing a deciding Game 5 at Yankee Stadium, how they had let the series slip away. Terrence Long hit a foul ball along the third base line that Jeter chased and caught, spilling into the stands. It was, again, just another out, F6, but on the field it was a referendum of championship toughness. The Yankees had it. The A's didn't.

Unfortunately the Yankees didn't have enough championship toughness to actually win a championship. They lost in seven games to the Arizona Diamondbacks. These were two great plays by Jeter though, I can't pretend they weren't.

That intangibles notion is murky, of course, and complicated.

Most likely because intangibles are intangible and there is no one way to measure them, so anytime a writer says a player has "intangibles off the charts" or "he leads the league in intangibles" it is just bullshit. There is no chart because you can't measure intangibles and there is no leaderboard for intangibles because there is no way to accurately track them. Intangibles are essentially a great excuse for a writer to explain an athlete's success. Russell Wilson/Tim Tebow have a ton of intangibles, Cam Newton/Jay Cutler do not. Derek Jeter displays leadership qualities through the example he sets and has all of the intangibles a team wants in the face of a franchise. Adrian Gonzalez is too quiet to be a leader and he didn't have the intangibles to succeed in Boston.

Jeter played in an era when everyone was suspected of PED use. For those choosing to believe the shortstop that he was, is and always has been a clean ballplayer, the monument to his fidelity and greatness lies in his old-school bona fides. Jeter, along with possibly Ken Griffey Jr., is the only player in the modern game whose iconic moments were generated by all five tools

I would argue this isn't true, but then that would lead to a discussion about Jeter's defense and that would be a losing argument. You can't make an error on a ground ball that you can't get to. I will say that. In typical "giving Jeter a tongue bath" fashion Howard Bryant is too caught up in worshiping Jeter to pay attention to the fact he is wrong here. Where are the iconic moments brought on by Jeter's base-running or throwing arm? Those are the other parts of being a five-tool player.

-- not just by standing in the batter's box and hitting another home run in a game that encouraged nothing but.

Yeah, home runs are bad! Derek Jeter was the kind of five-tool player who hit for power, but didn't hit home runs. He gets credit for hitting for power, but also gets credit for not having too much power. Because we all know a player who uses PED's could never hit between 15-20 home runs in a season. PED's always make a player hit 50 home runs or more. No matter what, The Jeter wins. He didn't hit too many of those dreaded home runs and that's a good thing. Albert Pujols is an asshole for standing in the batter's box and hitting a home run, just like he was encouraged to do.

Like Jackie Robinson, Jeter is pure baseball

This is the hyperbole that Howard Bryant is choking to death on. He's "pure baseball" you guys. This is as opposed to Alex Rodriguez, who is 57.56% baseball. He's not pure.

He will be remembered for his baserunning (the clever beating of the shift by swiping third base that he made routine).

He will be remembered for the anecdotal evidence of his greatness. The Jeter will be remembered for the times he stole second base and demoralized the opposing team, allowing Alex Rodriguez to hit a dreaded home run. A-Rod didn't hit that home run, Derek Jeter allowed it to happen. Historians will recall how Jeter would provide leadership that made the Yankees pitchers pitch better during the game. He led them to pitch well. Years later we can remember how Jeter's mere presence at shortstop showed us that anything is possible, which inspired Barack Obama to run for President.

He will be equally celebrated for his fielding and throwing. (Even though he doesn't rank anywhere near the top 1,000 in career defensive WAR, you can't deny the Flip, the nailing of Arizona's Danny Bautista at third in the 2001 World Series or the flying leap into the crowd against the Red Sox in the summer of '04.)

Oh yes, those three plays will definitely overshadow his lack of range on hundreds of other plays.

See, this is what we are up against. Idiots like Howard Bryant favor the anecdotal evidence and small memorable sample sizes over the hundreds of other plays that can be used to measure Jeter's ability to play shortstop defensively.

Not that he couldn't power the ball out of the ballpark too -- there was the first-pitch leadoff home run in Game 4 of the 2000 Series when the Mets had won the night before, and the two-out, full-count walk-off home run the following year in Game 4 against Arizona.

BUT HE WASN'T ONE OF THOSE POWER HITTING JERKS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT HITTING HOME RUNS!

Again, Jeter gets credit for not being a home run hitter, but then Howard Bryant offers evidence of Jeter's home run hitting ability as another of his positive attributes. The Jeter does no wrong. He's the exception to the rule unless a sportswriter needs to use anecdotal evidence to show he is a part of the rule.

As if that wasn't enough, there's also the imprint he's had on the Yankees, the first homegrown star to lead the franchise to the World Series since Mickey Mantle. (1977-78 belonged to Reggie, not Munson.)

Somewhere Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte, and Bernie Williams are shaking their heads angrily. I'm pretty sure they were homegrown players too.

He became the signature player for the game's signature team when it returned to power, and in an era of drugs and cynicism and ruined reputations, he never embarrassed the sport, his team or, most important, his family name.

Jeter always banged actresses and models, but ONLY IN THE MOST CLASSY OF WAY!

There is no metric for that. Just a magical story.

There is no metric for measuring how many times this same column discussing Jeter's magical intangibles and leadership abilities has gotten written. Maybe Jeter will stay on the disabled list all year so that way he can further his legacy by being absent from the game of baseball. Jeter doesn't even have to play, the fact he isn't playing and is injured shows us what a great player he is.

Now Wallace Matthews tells Joba Chamberlain that he isn't worthy of wearing the Yankees uniform. He'll never be Mariano Rivera! NEVER!

Sunday morning, some 18 hours after Chamberlain had warned Rivera in full view of reporters and fans about "shushing him," it was Rivera, not Chamberlain, who offered an apology.

Yes, Wallace Matthews is writing an entire column about Joba Chamberlain "shushing" Mariano Rivera. This is news, people!

There's nothing like creating a story where there isn't one.

It was Rivera, not Chamberlain, who assumed the responsibility for defusing the incident.

It was Rivera, not Chamberlain, who expressed true regret that it ever took place.

And it was Rivera, once again, who demonstrated that there is no one quite like him in professional sports.

Rivera is a great closer and a great guy. One baseball player "shushing" another baseball player is not cause for a story. It just isn't. What this is really about is Wallace Matthews wants to perform a tongue bath on Rivera and a hit job on Chamberlain. Two birds with one stone.

In an ugly and embarrassing dugout incident Saturday night, Chamberlain was making it difficult for Rivera to conduct an interview, so Rivera politely asked his teammate to lower his voice.

What Wallace leaves out is Rivera was doing an interview on the topic of how big of a douchebag Joba Chamberlain is. The interview was going to be in a new magazine called "Joba Chamberlain: Asshole," which is a magazine that is going to be about what a huge asshole Joba Chamberlain is. You can sort of see why Joba was asking Rivera to lower his voice.

Chamberlain responded by warning Rivera not once, but twice -- in tones that contained a hint of threat -- "Don't ever shush me again."

I couldn't find the audio of this incident, but I do like how Wallace Matthews (and other reporters on the scene) painted it as Rivera being meek and quiet, while Joba Chamberlain was the big, bad bully. Joba was talking with his family by the way. He's an asshole, but Rivera was conducting an interview and Joba was talking to his family. Overall, there's no right or wrong because this is a non-story that the New York media turned into a story because it involved Mariano Rivera.

That one came from Mariano Rivera, who took it upon himself to apologize to the media and the fans, because "unfortunately it happened in front of you guys, and it shouldn't happen. We apologize and we move on."

Rivera is a good guy and this isn't really a story.

Meanwhile, Joba was as sullen and defiant as a teenager caught cutting school, insisting that a 27-year-old middle reliever publicly warning a 43-year-old man, who also happens to be the best who has ever done what he does for a living,

I can picture Joba Chamberlain sitting in the corner of the locker room wearing a Minor Threat t-shirt with a zipped up hoodie over his head while chain-smoking cigarettes and trying to trip his teammates as they walk by. What a picture Wallace is painting.

was "not a big deal," that two professional baseball players arguing in front of fans was "not an issue in the first place," and rebuking media members who had the nerve to be within earshot when he issued his warning, "This is not a story."

And you know what? He's right. It's a non-story. Two teammates got into a little verbal tussle. It happens frequently during the course of a 162 game season.

I wonder if Derek Jeter had asked Rivera to be quiet if the media would be reporting on it breathlessly? They probably would report it, but would say that Jeter asked Rivera "jokingly" and Rivera shot back "in a teasing manner," and then they would chalk it up to two good friends joking around with each other. This is pure speculation obviously, but I can't imagine the media would frame a discussion between Rivera and Jeter in the same way.

and delivered what to the Yankees should be the most chilling line of all, and a fitting epitaph to his Yankees career: "I wouldn't change it. I wouldn't change anything I do in life."

Joba is a moron, but before putting an epitaph on his career with the Yankees don't forget how badly the Yankees fucked up Joba during his Yankee career. They enforced the "Joba rules" and switched him back and forth from a starter to a reliever early in his career. They did the same thing with Phil Hughes and I would bet if you asked any pitcher whether this is easy to go through they would say "no," especially early in a pitcher's career. Then Joba had to have Tommy John surgery too. So Joba is an ass, but his Yankee career isn't entirely his fault in my opinion. He got jerked around a lot.

But for Joba Chamberlain to say he not only would not change what he said Saturday night, but would neither change anything he has done in his life?

Think maybe you are reaching a bit for a story or trying too hard to let Joba's own words make him look like an asshole? So when Rivera retires and says, "I wouldn't change anything" in regard to his career will Wallace Matthews write a column eviscerating Rivera for not wanting to change Game 7 of the 2001 World Series? Of course not. Wallace wants to be offended and upset by what Joba says, so he gets offended and upset by what Joba says.

That is not the kind of person who is fit to succeed Mariano in any way.

I don't think Joba Chamberlain was ever succeeding Rivera and I also don't think there is a morality clause that is part of the requirements that must be met to be the Yankees closer.

In fact, that is not the kind of person fit to represent the New York Yankees, at least not the Yankees typified by Rivera, Derek Jeter and Andy Pettitte.

Maybe if Chamberlain admits to taking PED's he will be a better person to represent the Yankees. That seemed to work for Andy Pettitte. Pettitte is a great guy worthy of wearing a Yankees jersey, but A-Rod is a huge, mean old cheater, while Joba Chamberlain is an embarrassment to humanity.

I don't like Joba Chamberlain, but I also love how this brief exchange with Rivera has turned into a referendum on Chamberlain as a person.

What Joba Chamberlain showed himself to be is just another of the louts we run into every day in the street, the ones who think their conversations are the only ones that matter, their business the only business that needs attending to, their lives the only lives of any importance.

Again, Wallace is turning this incident into a referendum on Chamberlain as a person. Classy. Here's the best part though...

I was not present at the dugout incident -- I was in the pressbox writing pregame notes -- but I was given a tape-recording of Rivera's interview session.

It was shocking to listen to, in several respects.

Wallace didn't even witness this exchange between Joba and Rivera! He listened to the tape and that was enough for him. He knew all he needed to know to make any further assumptions from there.

For one thing, the quietly emotional manner in which Mariano discussed his meeting earlier in the day with the family of a 10-year boy who was crushed to death by a falling airport sign was truly moving.

But the experience was tainted by straining to hear over the sound of Joba Chamberlain nearby, virtually screaming at the top of his lungs, to people in the stands about mundane matters like meeting at the hotel after the game.

That would be Joba's family who he was meeting. So it is not like he was meeting some friends for a drink.

It was all about Joba and what he wanted to do, and Mariano Rivera, or anyone else, be damned.

Did one of Wallace's media friends tell another of Wallace's media friends this is what Joba is like and now Wallace is reporting it?

Afterward, Joba alternately tried to laugh his way out of it, to hide behind his defiance, and to use his young son, Karter, as a shield. ("My son wasn't here and I was a little bothered by that.")

They were all transparent attempts to blame his boorish behavior on something else. That is a direct reflection on his character.

All of this over Rivera "shushing" Joba. Something that probably happens in a lot of locker rooms.

Is that the kind of person the Yankees should want to trust important moments in important games to?

Right, because there have never been really good relief pitchers who are also assholes.

Among the things he would not change, apparently, were his DWI arrest in 2008, his disparaging remarks to the arresting officer about Yogi Berra, his ill-chosen remarks about the manners of New Yorkers, his decision to jump on a trampoline so intensely that he broke his ankle,

WITH HIS SON! He was jumping on the trampoline with his son, which apparently is a disgraceful thing to do.

and his public declaration this spring, in spite of knowing that the Yankees had determined he is a middle reliever, that he would like to be a starter once again.

How dare he have aspirations to do something the Yankees team hasn't determined he should do! John Smoltz told the Braves he wanted to be a starter again in the early 2000's and he wasn't called an asshole.

But on an almost daily basis, we see the worst of him in the Yankees clubhouse: loud, obnoxious, faintly threatening.

Or, pretty much the way he behaved to Mariano Rivera on Saturday night.

After this season, Joba Chamberlain will be a free agent.

Knowing Mariano Rivera as I do, I can almost predict he will try to convince the Yankees that Joba is a soul worth saving and a talent worth keeping.

Rivera is a great guy. We know this. One dispute between Rivera and a teammate is not a story make.

In the same ballpark where Mariano Rivera's Yankees career nearly ended a year ago on the warning track, Joba Chamberlain's Yankees tenure surely did in the dugout, his mouth writing what will soon be the epitaph to a career that turned out to be no more than a broken promise.

This one incident shouldn't be a referendum on Joba's career, but that's where we are at I guess. I would blame injuries, the Yankees and some bad luck on Joba not living up to his promise. I guess Wallace Matthews chalks Chamberlain's Yankee years up to him talking too loud.