7 comments Advanced Statistics Loses Again to "Being There" To Watch a Player's Brilliance

Advanced statistics loses again unfortunately. Jerry Green show how advanced statistics can't measure things that aren't quantifiable like "being there" to see how great a player is. In your face statistics! You can't measure things that can't be quantified! Where is your statistical-based God now? Go cry in your mom's basement, losers!

I am always amused at articles that say, "Statistics can't measure the grace Player X played the game with" as if there is a way to measure these intangible things and it's only Sabermetrics or advanced statistics that come up short. Yes, those things that can't be quantified will nearly always remain non-quantified. Jerry Green can't measure the grace Clemente played the game with either, even if he saw Clemente play.

Jerry Green thinks Roberto Clemente is better than Willie Mays and somehow this has something to do with advanced statistics disagreeing with his premise. Also Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is prominently involved in Green's reasoning for why Clemente is better than Mays. Okay, then.

The greatest player in the history of Major League Baseball sat in the ramshackle shed of the visitors' clubhouse in venerable Crosley Field in Cincinnati. He fidgeted and twisted his neck and his shoulders, an athlete in perpetual motion. He was attended by a trainer who massaged his shoulders and an interpreter to translate back and forth between English and Spanish.

I did not know that David Eckstein spoke Spanish. You learn something new every day.

Roberto Clemente might not have been the perfect baseball player. But no other player in the game's 140 seasons has been closer to perfection.

140 seasons of baseball. It's the Twitter-versary for baseball, much to the chagrin of Jerry Green, the man who hates technology. 

Not Ty Cobb. Not Babe Ruth. Not Willie Mays. Not even Mike Trout, the Irreplaceable.

It is a personal opinion, arrived at belatedly, that Clemente was the baseball player nonpareil.

This is a personal opinion and isn't fact? In this article, Jerry Green will disagree with his own previous opinion on who the greatest baseball player of all-time was, so it's good to know Jerry recognizes his opinion is an opinion and not a fact, or else he would run the risk of playing loose with facts. We all know those who don't like advanced statistics would never play loose with facts or be blind to facts/realities in order to further their own agenda. 

It is an opinion that might be shared by only few other ancient souls captivated by sports.

Or Pittsburgh Pirates fans. Or people who really believe Clemente is one of the best baseball players of all-time. 

For sure, today's Internet blogging juveniles with their higher-brow obsession with metrics will launch darts at this premise.

I genuinely have no idea what Internet blogging juveniles have to do with whether Roberto Clemente is the greatest baseball player of all-time or not. I'm not sure Jerry Green knows either. He just knows that every single article he writes about baseball must contain one shot at Sabermetrics or advanced statistics. So apparently Jerry believe that Willie Mays is a Sabermetrics God and Roberto Clemente is the lowly, traditional statistics loser who just can't get a fair break from advanced statistics.

Of course, Clemente is 8th all-time in WAR, which just happens to be one of Green's favorite advanced statistics punching bag stats, but like I said, Jerry would never play loose with facts or be blind to reality. Jerry just doesn't care to do the required research. Why do work when you have an opinion? Clemente is 8th all-time in WAR, but Jerry Green has set up a reality where Internet blogging juveniles will launch darts at the premise Clemente is the greatest player in MLB history.

But they did not see Roberto Clemente play with grace and sharpened skills and with pride in his carriage.

No, "they" did not. That's why these metrics only have Clemente as #1 in baseball history in total zone runs for a right fielder. If they respected him more, perhaps he could be higher than that. But no, these same high-brow metrics only have Clemente as #2 all-time in total zone runs for all outfielders. What a bunch of disrespect from a group of people who never saw Clemente play one game in the majors. Because everyone who uses advanced statistics is young. This is a fact, so don't bother arguing with it.

Clemente's major problem -- yearning for acceptance and stature as a ballplayer -- was quite simple.

He played baseball in Pittsburgh.

What follows will show that playing in Pittsburgh wasn't the issue. It was that Clemente played in a time with other flashy athletes and he wasn't a flashy player. So playing in Pittsburgh wasn't the issue as much as the age in which Clemente played and how the media covered athletes at the time. But yeah, Pittsburgh was the entirety of the issue according to Jerry Green. Now Jerry Green will show this is not the entirety of the issue. 

He played in Pittsburgh in an era during which marvelous athletes were publicized and glorified. Television was in its adolescence, still a new medium. Print journalism dominated, and newspapers reached out to cover celebrated athletes.

Pittsburgh was the problem though. Not the media's fascination with "interesting" or flashy athletes. That wasn't part of the issue. 

Namath, Ali – they were the greatest and we the press (still a 1960s word) believed and said so.

They were extroverts and their images were splashed on the covers of national magazines as they were in the daily print press.

And then there was Roberto Clemente. The greatest of all baseball players.

Jerry Green wants everyone to know this is an opinion. Not a fact. Don't be confused and think Jerry Green's opinions are always facts. But he's right, so this opinion may as well be a fact, no matter what those high-brow, WAR-loving assholes who use advanced statistics tell you. 

He played in the same sports era as the wondrous Willie Mays. They were rivals on the field. But Willie had the luxury of playing in New York and then in San Francisco when the Giants moved to California. 

We all know athletes on the West Coast receive all the acclaim that athletes on the East Coast receive. That's why Paul Goldschmidt is widely thought among casual fans to be such a great hitter. 

Willie got the acclaim. We-the-press kowtowed to Willie.

And Roberto was locked in isolation.

Pittsburgh though. Playing in Pittsburgh was the problem. Not the media's coverage of Clemente. It's never the media's fault. 

"If I could sleep, I could hit .400," was one of Clemente's favorite sayings.

If a frog had wings, then it wouldn't bump it's ass on the ground. I can see why Clemente didn't get coverage like Ali and Namath did. He just seemed to lack the ability to be cocky or brag about himself. 

He talked about lacking the acclaim of other ballplayers. Mays, his contemporary and rival, in particular. He talked about his pains and aches and his prowess.

His envy of other ballplayers with more recognition was obvious. But also showing was dignity and charm and elegance and kindness.

This is true, but Jerry isn't doing a great job of proving it as true. 

"Nobody does anything better than me in baseball," was another of Clemente's noted quotes.

Elegance and charm. Dignity. Again, I can see why Clemente wasn't covered like Namath and Ali were covered. If he only had the faith in his own ability to the point of cockiness, then perhaps he could have caught the press's eye with a quote about how great he was. Unfortunately, Clemente wasn't capable of this type of thing. 

We'll never know how much more greatness Roberto Clemente had within him after the day he collected his 3,000th hit for the Pirates in the final game of the 1972 season. He was 38 and planned to continue playing.

If Clemente had just played for a few more years and not died then he could have been further disrespected by those who like new school metrics by ending his career as among the Top 5 players all-time in WAR. What disrespect these young kids give to Clemente. 

The well-known story defines Roberto Clemente. He died in the crash of a cargo plane carrying relief supplies from Puerto Rico to earthquake victims in Nicaragua.

Those of us who then voted in the elections of the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown quickly broke the five-year rule. We voted Roberto into the Hall of Fame in a special election.

I look for Hall of Fame members to disconnect the brakes on the car Jack Morris is driving in the hopes he drives off a cliff so that the groundswell of support and emotion for his career will allow them to break the five-year rule and vote him into the Hall of Fame immediately. They will do ANYTHING to get him in, even if they have to murder the one they love to do it. 

Mays hit more home runs during a longer career than Clemente. Clemente had a higher career batting average, .317 to Mays' .302.

Clemente hit 240 home runs in an 18 year career. Mays hit 660 home runs in a 22 year career. But yes, it was the "longer career" that caused Mays' home run stats to look so much better than Clemente's home run stats. Great comparison to even make it seem somewhat like Mays' longer career had something to do with his having 440 more home runs than Clemente. 

Each was an amazing five-tool player – the non-metric evaluation of baseball player's lasting worth. Clemente and Mays, along with Al Kaline, in those years of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1960s, could hit, hit for average, run, throw and field – the traditional five tools.

I like how Jerry differentiates between the "1960's" and the "early 1960's."

Three years ago, after watching rookie Mike Trout as he devastated the World Series-bound Tigers in three games in Anaheim, I invoked memories of Willie Mays. Trout is the rare five-tool player in today's baseball. Then I claimed that Mays was the greatest baseball player ever, and that Trout was the most accomplished player to enter the game in 40 years.

Upon further review, I dispute myself.

Roberto Clemente entered the game in 1955. Mike Trout entered the game in 2011. It's possible that Jerry's comment about Trout is correct. 

Clemente, without checking the updated sabermetrics, was the greatest. 

You are only making yourself sound ignorant and bitter writing things like this. 

He was a superior hitter to Mays, without the power. He had a stronger arm. They were equal as fielders.

But, can Clemente be a superior hitter "without the power"? Even adjusting for the four year difference in their careers and discounting the last four years of his career, Mays still would have had more home runs by a large margin, more RBI's by a large margin, while only have 74 fewer hits, and a batting average that was 0.15 lower than Clemente's batting average. I'm using traditional statistics, not updated Sabermetrics. Even using Jerry's own favored metrics, I'm not sure his conclusion Clemente was better is correct.  

Roberto did not have the glitz of Mays – nor of Trout, bolstered by his Los Angeles exposure.

We all know the exposure Mike Trout receives from playing on the West Coast for the Angels. 

Clemente had one flaw. He played in Pittsburgh.

Well, that and he wasn't covered by the media like other athletes during his time were covered. But mainly it was the whole Pittsburgh thing though, right? Maybe I'm being too high-brow for Jerry's tastes about all of this. 

2 comments Terence Moore Seems to Have Issues with Problems That Are Complete Non-Issues

Terence Moore likes to take on the real non-issues in baseball. He takes on the issues that seemingly no one else really has strong feelings about and tries to make them into issues, like the six man rotation, celebrations, and those days when the iron men didn't exist existed. As I have well-documented, Terence hates expanded replay as well. That of course is an actual issue and not something random that Terence just seems to dislike. Terence also doesn't like that Tony La Russa and Greg Maddux are going to enter the Hall of Fame without a team logo on their cap. In the realm of issues, this is pretty low on the totem pole. When Terence isn't railing against expanded replay, comparing any and everything to the Big Red Machine, or cursing at the clouds for the existence of rain he doesn't have much else to write about. So the small things are what he targets his ire at and then in his column he tends to contradict himself or accidentally point out why his point of view is wrong.

I'm a Braves fan. I really would have liked Greg Maddux to go into the Hall of Fame with a Braves logo on his hat. I was disappointed when I found out he would not have the Braves logo on his hat. Then I found out Maddux didn't want a logo on his hat and that was that. It's his career and his Hall of Fame bust, let him do what he wants. Who am I, and who is Terence Moore, to tell Greg Maddux what team's logo should go on his Hall of Fame hat? The same goes for Tony La Russa. If he doesn't want a certain team's hat on his bust, so be it. But hey, Terence Moore has a perception of how he wants the Hall of Fame to look and he'll be damned if the 86 other Hall of Fame members with blank logos on their hat will deter him from making a big deal out of La Russa/Maddux not having a logo on their hat.

I'm sorry, but Greg Maddux and Tony La Russa have to choose. 

But see, they really don't. Shortly, Terence will point out 86 members of the baseball Hall of Fame do not have a logo on their hat, yet Terence insists Maddux and La Russa have to choose...even though Terence Moore has given a good example of why they don't have to choose. There is a precedent of certain Hall of Fame inductees not having a team's logo on their cap.

They announced Thursday that they've decided in conjunction with Baseball Hall of Fame officials not to have a logo on the cap of their bronzed plaque in Cooperstown, N.Y. Since they prospered for several teams, they said it wouldn't be fair to pick one over the other for such an honor.

I want Maddux to have a Braves logo, but I think he has the right to choose the logo on his Hall of Fame hat.

I hear them. I disagree, but I hear them.

But you don't hear them. They don't feel they can choose a logo and they don't have to choose a logo. It's their decision.

In recent times, Catfish Hunter had the same dilemma. He was among the reasons the A's formed their dynasty during the early 1970s along the way to three consecutive World Series championships. Hunter also helped push the Yankees back into prominence later that decade. Hunter said he cherished both A's owner Charlie Finley and Yanks owner George Steinbrenner, so he became one of the 86 players without a logo on his Hall of Fame cap.

Terence begins this sentence with, "In recent times..." as if Maddux and La Russa not choosing a logo on their hat happened fifty years ago and wasn't more recent than Catfish Hunter not choosing a logo. You can understand my inability to understand why Terence thinks Maddux/La Russa have to choose a logo when they really don't HAVE to choose a logo.

Yogi Berra was another one, but it had nothing to do with his feud with Steinbrenner that kept the legendary Yankees catcher away from his old team for nearly a decade.

You see how Terence Moore can submarine his own point? He seems to do this consistently when writing a column where he takes a certain viewpoint. He takes that viewpoint and then includes information that ruins his point or shows where the fallacy in his thinking may be. Obviously I would prefer he acknowledge an opposing viewpoint as opposed to being like Gregg Easterbrook and just lying to his readers, but Terence doesn't really do anything to counter the opposing viewpoint. So by not countering the opposing viewpoint or explaining where that view is wrong, he makes it look like he's making a poor argument.

Terence starts this column off stating Maddux/La Russa have to choose a logo for their Hall of Fame plaque, then proceeds to list a few of the 86 other baseball Hall of Fame inductees who don't have a logo on their cap. This shows, guess what, Maddux and La Russa DON'T have to choose a logo and it's no big fucking deal. End of story. Yet, Terence goes on.

"You have to remember that, back during that time, when Berra entered the Hall of Fame, choosing a logo for your cap wasn't that big of a deal," said Dave Kaplan, who runs the Yogi Berra Museum and Learning Center at Montclair State University

Yes, and it is still not that big of a deal. If Yogi Berra, who spent every year but one of his MLB career with the Yankees, doesn't go into the Hall of Fame with a Yankees logo on his cap then it's not a big deal for Tony La Russa and Greg Maddux to enter the Hall of Fame with no team logo on their cap.

"If you look at Yogi's plaque, it's more of a profile, so it doesn't matter as much if his cap has a logo."

Well then make La Russa and Maddux's plaque into more of a profile. Problem fixed.

Actually, it does matter. When you say Yogi, you think pinstripes.

Which is exactly why it doesn't matter if Yogi Berra has a Yankees cap on or not. When you think of him, you think of the Yankees. No cap needed.

Honus Wagner. Rogers Hornsby. Johnny Mize. Nap Lajoie. They are among the others joining Berra and Hunter without a logo for their Hall of Fame cap, and they all have that distinction for various reasons.

I'm sure many are logical.

I would count "This manager/player spent a decade or more with two different teams " as a logical reason for no logo on their Hall of Fame cap. It makes sense, even if I as a Braves fan don't necessarily like it.

The ones that aren't? Well, either Hall of Fame officials, the inductees (if they are still living) or the representatives of anybody in Cooperstown without a logo on his cap should change the situation.

I find it interesting that Mr. "Don't Change Anything about Baseball Because Tradition is the Best" wants the Hall of Fame to change the plaques in order to put logos on the caps of those inductees who don't have logos on their caps. It's terrible to expand replay in any way to adjust to modern technology, but sure, let's change the plaques in the baseball Hall of Fame to represent the modern day thought.

If they really think about it, they'll discover that one team from a Hall of Famer's past was either greatly or slightly superior than the rest of them. Choose that one.

Of course this is a matter of opinion, but nonetheless I still like the idea Terence Moore wants to change the contents of a museum to fit modern thought.

Trying to rectify the past is difficult, but we have a splendid chance to affect the present and the future. Which is why I'm urging Maddux and La Russa to pick a logo for their Hall of Fame plaques between now and the time they take the stage in Cooperstown in July.

It really doesn't matter at all. Terence Moore is excellent at picking out hot-button issues that aren't hot-button at all.

"I feel good [about picking nobody]," said Maddux, talking to reporters in Arlington on Thursday between working at a pitching minicamp for the Rangers. "I spent half my career in Chicago and half my career in Atlanta. I came up a Cub, played there for six years and went back for three more. I was in Atlanta for 11 years. It comes out to about the same amount of time in both cities. Love both places. Obviously, I feel like I had more success as a Brave."

Why shouldn't Greg Maddux be able to choose to have no logo on his Hall of Fame plaque? He certainly earned his Hall of Fame induction and I think that means he earned the opportunity to have some input on which team's logo will be on his cap or if there is a team's logo at all.

You've guessed it: Maddux is more Atlanta grits than Chicago pizza.

Except he doesn't consider himself to be more Atlanta postseason choking than Chicago postseason choking. I think this has to count for something. Plus, there are 86 other members of the Hall of Fame without logos on their cap and miraculously the baseball Hall of Fame has continued standing and the sun will rise to shine another day.

Just like La Russa is more Gateway Arch than Golden Gate Bridge, and we won't even talk about his White Sox years.

Yes, let's not talk about the third team that La Russa managed where he spent eight years of his career. That would just further muddy the waters and help to prove the point that La Russa may not have one definitive team he should be associated with when being inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame.

In fact, the La Russa-led A's made three consecutive World Series trips through 1990, and they won it all in 1989. He also reinvented Dennis Eckersley as a closer. Now, the former Oakland starter is in Cooperstown, where La Russa is headed -- without the logo of either the White Sox or the A's on the cap of his plaque.

Oh my God, the horror! Now those people who visit the baseball Hall of Fame will have to read La Russa's plaque that describe his accomplishments as a manager and then be very confused as to which MLB team they must associate La Russa with the most. It's not enough the baseball Hall of Fame will list the teams and accomplishments of La Russa on the plaque, he must have a logo and be associated with one certain team or it's the end of baseball as we know it. It's like the advent of the designated hitter all over again.

While La Russa won three pennants and that World Series championship with the A's, he captured three NL pennants and two Fall Classic titles with the Cards. There also was the longevity factor: He spent 10 years in Oakland compared to 16 in St. Louis.

So La Russa goes in as a Cardinal, and Maddux goes in as a Brave.

I still don't see how it matters. Their achievements with each team will be noted on their Hall of Fame plaque regardless.

See how easy that is?

It's almost as easy as an umpire viewing a replay to determine whether the runner's foot tagged first base before the ball got into the first baseman's glove. 

3 comments St. Louis Cardinals Super Die-Hard Fan/Writer Tries to Tell Everyone to Hate the St. Louis Cardinals Less in a Way That Makes Some People Hate the Cardinals More

Mollie Hemingway, I'm guessing she is no relation to Ernest Hemingway, writes for "The Federalist" and is just tired of everyone hating the Cardinals. I personally enjoy it because there's really no reason to hate the Cardinals other than the team's complaints about Yasiel Puig not playing the game of baseball the right way, the fact they constantly are a successful team, and they really don't want to be hated so stop it alright? What's funny to me is I'm not sure anyone wants to hate the Cardinals, but Cardinals fans can't stop getting in their own way when trying to make the hate stop. The more I hear about why the Cardinals should not be hated, the more I see why some people hate them. It's become increasingly clear Cardinals fans and sportswriters consider the Cardinals team to be a beacon of greatness and virtue in a sea of MLB teams who have no virtue and have excessive outward displays of emotion on the baseball diamond.

Hemingway basically says, "I can't see why anyone hates the Cardinals," then proceeds to tell us how the Cardinals are morally superior to every other baseball team and then list the accomplishments of the franchise. Yep, that's pretty much why some people hate you. This entire column tells us how great the Cardinals are. This is why you are disliked by some people, because you have to tell us what a great farm system your team has and how the team supports great values (like drunk driving---Tony LaRussa, PED use---Mark McGwire...I don't personally care about PED use, but when talking about the great values of the Cardinals organization I think this makes the PED use of McGwire relevant). This makes people not like you. Nobody likes it when you combat hatred with a response that you are so perfect it's impossible to hate you.

"We don't only think we have the best fans in baseball, it's also that our organization is so much better than yours. What? What's wrong with talking about how great we are? How can you hate that?"

The header of this column has a photo of the World Series titles that the Cardinals have won. You are leading off the column telling us how many World Series titles your team has won, then complain that people hate your team. When beginning an argument on why the Cardinals should not be hated don't include a picture of the World Series titles you have won, because that's pretty much why some people hate you.

So here is the column by Mollie Hemingway and it's contents is the exact reason some people hate the Cardinals these days. Any successful team and their fan base who can't figure out why they are hated and then defend why they shouldn't be hated with stories of the organization upholding great values is going to be hated. I'm a Duke fan. 90% of the world and 75% of the state of North Carolina hates Duke. I don't get it, but I get it. People are tired of hearing about how perfect Duke is and how Coach K is the class of the world, all while Duke is winning games and being upheld as a super-squeaky clean program. I don't wonder why people hate Duke because I know and I own it. If Cardinals fans could just own the hatred of their team then maybe they wouldn't write columns where they try to educate us all on how great the Cardinals organization is. We know how great the organization is because the sports media reminds us every five minutes.

I think the reason for the dislike of the Cardinals is pretty obvious. They are successful and hold themselves up to be a model organization which is better than other organizations. Fans of other baseball teams resent another team's success over the long-term and when that long-term success is combined with unbridled pretention about an organization upholding values it's a combination for great dislike.

A few weeks ago I met a senior vice president at a DC public relations firm. It being the post-season, we got talking baseball. He’s a huge fan. Season tickets to the Nationals. Weekend season tickets to the Orioles.

So he's a guy who has a favorite American and National League team. Sounds like a douche.

When I told him I’m a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan,

By the way if you have to add a word like "die-hard" to explain your fandom then you are trying too hard to sell yourself as a fan of the team. I'm a Carolina Panthers fan. I don't need to prove myself to you by telling you I'm a "die-hard" fan because I'm not insecure about myself.

“I loathe the Cardinals,” he said. “That’s impossible,” I replied. Nobody hates the Cardinals.

No, people do. Because some Cardinals fans like to say things like...

We’re a well-run organization with strong values.

This what this says to me:

"We consider ourselves to be morally superior to other teams because we tout our 'values.' By the way, we play in a stadium named after a beer mogul."

People may hate you because you constantly tout the organization's strong values as if other organizations don't have strong values.

Our fans are the best in baseball.

If you think your fans are the best in baseball, that's fine, it's an opinion and not a fact. Telling us how fucking great you are as fans is a very easy way to make people hate you. The very idea of saying, "Don't hate us, we are great!" will only make people hate you more because you have absolutely no modesty about you.

Hating the Cardinals is like punching your mother. Even if you were tempted, you just wouldn’t do it.

If my mother was constantly telling me what a great person she is and how she is the best person in the world compared to me, then I would probably end up having to outsource the punching, but she would be punched.

By the way, on Twitter when someone reacted to this column, this exchange happened:

@AndrewFord22 When you say you're a Broncos fan, do you mean Denver Broncos?
— Mollie Z. Hemingway (@MZHemingway) October 16, 2013

No, he meant he is a fan of the Ford Broncos, not the Denver Broncos. Maybe Hemingway was confused because he forgot to leave "die-hard" off when describing his fandom.

But that Sunday at our church in Virginia, I was talking to the kindergarten teacher at our Lutheran school. She’s a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan.

Church, a place where only Cardinals fans go. Did you know the St. Louis Cardinals were Jesus' favorite baseball team? Also, again, if you have to write "die-hard" you are trying too hard. 

As we all chatted about the Pirates series, the kindergarten teacher’s husband (a Nationals fan) interjected that he hated us and the Cardinals.

What? How could anyone hate perfection? Explain yourself and your illogical comment made in the house of the Lord!

I found it jarring. Two people in the same week saying something I’d never heard in more than three decades of being a Cardinals fan.

Hey, quick idea. Maybe if you stop telling non-Cardinals fans how superior the Cardinals organization is then they won't hate you as much. Maybe if you stopped pretending you don't cheer for a consistently successful team and this isn't a reason non-Cardinals fans don't like the Cardinals then some of the hatred will stop.

Then Mollie Hemingway talks about Drew Magary's column on why the Cardinals suck and has a very "Midwest" response to it, whatever that is.

Well then! Now don’t get me wrong. We all find East Coast elitist sneering to be persuasive, lacking in any sort of insecurity, and totally charming.

Speaking of insecurity, at least Magary didn't have to tell us he's a "die-hard" fan of a team. Also, Drew Magary is a lot of things, but East Coast elitist he does not appear to be.

However, while the Cardinals aren’t hurting in the payroll department, we’re not actually a top-10 payroll team. 

The Cardinals are 11th in payroll. So technically, this is correct. YOU GOT BURNT MAGARY!

The Los Angeles Dodgers raised their spending to $236.8 million this year (for perspective, that’s just about $100,000 behind the Yankees, who spend more than anyone else in baseball). St. Louis spends about half of the Dodgers, coming in at $119.3 million.

Well, as Magary said:

They are a church casserole made out of cream of mushroom soup and Minute Rice. They are a horrible family staring at a Norman Rockwell painting of itself. It’s no coincidence that sabermetric punching bag David Eckstein spent a few years playing for the Cardinals, because no team in any sport puffs up its grittiness credentials quite like this one.

I love how Hemingway comes back against a claim the Cardinals paint themselves as gritty underdogs...by painting the Cardinals as gritty underdogs.

Whether spending $117.5 million less than the Dodgers slightly disadvantages us doesn’t matter. We took the first two games in the National League Championship Series despite the disparity.

Exactly. This sentence is another reason many people are learning to hate the Cardinals. Maybe it's not the Cardinals that some people are hating, but Cardinals fans that people are hating. These are the same fans who counter an argument the team puffs up its grittiness credentials by puffing the team's grittiness credentials, as well as counters arguments on why the team should not be hated by throwing the team's success in our face and announcing not only are Cardinals fans the best in the sport, but the team also lives on a higher moral plane than the rest of MLB teams.

We lost the third due to fielding mistakes and silent bats, not payroll differentials. But let’s not pretend that these are equivalent payrolls.

All baseball games are decided by fielding mistakes and silent bats, not payroll differentials. Teams win games on the field not based on the team's payroll. Being a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan I would assume you know this though.

Still. It’s clear that there’s been an uptick in Cardinals hatred. What’s going on?

Read the introduction to the column you just wrote, it's a big tip-off to what's going on and why.

Let’s first acknowledge some legitimate reasons for frustration with the Cardinals. 

You. That's reason #1.

This is true. And it’s not just that they’ve done this, it’s how. As CATO’s director of multimedia Caleb Brown, a Cardinals fan, put it:

My sense is (and my experience may differ from yours) that the Cardinals have been great at pretty much precisely the right moments. 8-1 in elimination games in recent years?! That leaves a mark on people, especially since the Cardinals have really been beating teams that traditionally aren’t that good: 2006 Mets / 2006 Detroit / 2011 Brewers / 2011 Rangers / 2012 Nationals/ 2013 Pirates.

Ah yes, reminding the world how good the Cardinals have been in elimination games. Reason #2.

Also, in what tradition are the New York Mets, Detroit Tigers, Texas Rangers, and Pittsburgh Pirates not very good? Are we talking over the long-term or the short-term? If we are talking over the long-term these four teams have combined for 26 pennants and 11 World Series titles. Yes, these teams haven't traditionally been as good as the Cardinals, but in the long-term four of these teams have traditionally been very good baseball teams.

Fine, then Caleb Brown is talking about how these teams haven't been good in the short-term. For the Pirates, Nationals, Mets, and Brewers I can handle this, but the Rangers have made two World Series in the last four seasons and the Tigers were in the World Series last year. So I would love to know what "traditionally" means because I think in both the short and long-term it's a misnomer.

These clutch Cardinals

Reason #3.

wins sting all the more for those fans that thought this was their year.

BUT IT WASN'T THEIR YEAR BECAUSE THE TEAM WITH THE BEST ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND FANS WON!!!! DON'T HATE US BECAUSE WE ARE BETTER THAN YOU AND GOD'S CHOSEN BASEBALL TEAM!!

And you know how some teams are always the victims of bad calls? While you could never make up for what happened in the 1985 World Series — literally the worst call in sports history — the Cardinals have been on the receiving end of some good fortune in recent years.

Like everything goes right for the Cardinals when they need it to go right. The Braves collapse in 2011 allowing the Cardinals to win the World Series, Bud Selig adds a second Wild Card allowing the Cardinals to make the 2012 postseason...and there are other examples that I am just not thinking of right now.

They wouldn’t have even made it to the playoffs last year if MLB commissioner Bud Selig hadn’t added a second Wild Card slot. And then in that one-game playoff against the Atlanta Braves, they benefited from the hotly disputed “infield fly” call.

It wasn't an infield fly, but the Braves lost on their own accord...which is something Mollie Hemingway feels free to remind us of, showing the humility when having good fortune that Cardinals fans are said to have but seem to never actually show.

Well, that and the Braves made multiple costly defensive errors, even though they were the best defensive team that year.

Again, the lack of humility. Just admit your team got a call and move on. We know the Braves shot themselves in the foot prior to the infield fly rule that wasn't an infield fly. I think that's the major reason why some people don't like Cardinals fans. It's a lack of humility when responding to criticism of their team.

When Hemingway is stating the Cardinals are the benefit of lucky calls, she just can't leave it at that, but also point out the opposing team probably would have lost the game anyway. When confronted with some dislike for the Cardinals, she responds by saying the Cardinals are the best organization with the best values and the best fans, as if it is fact and not an opinion. She shows no humility in defending the Cardinals from the hatred.

The Cards lost their mystical and magical manager Tony LaRussa in 2011

Oh, for fuck's sake. Reason #4. Calling any manager mystical and magical is grounds for an immediate punch to the stomach from a grizzly bear.

and still made it to the playoffs the next two years.

This is what I am talking about with the lack of humility. She's defending the Cardinals from being hated by giving people more reasons to hate the Cardinals. No one wants to hear about how you replaced your Hall of Fame manager and still made the playoffs the next two seasons. Even if it is true, it's annoying.

With a brand spanking new manager Mike Matheny. They lost Albert Pujols and barely noticed the difference.

Yeah, you aren't very good at making people not hate your favorite team.

But being good — which is really what we’re talking about here — is not sufficient reason to dislike an organization.

No, it really is. Being good and always being reminded how Cardinals fans are better fans than you are and the Cardinals organization has such great values, combined with the winning, is sufficient reason to dislike the organization.

The Yankees 27 World Series titles, 40 American League pennants and 50 playoff appearances make them insufferable. The Cardinals top the National League in World Series wins with 11 World Series titles and 18 National League pennants. Tired of the Yankees? Of course you are. Everyone is. But being tired of the team with 11 World Series titles doesn’t make sense.

Yes, it really does make sense because they have the most World Series titles among National League teams and fans (JUST LIKE YOU!) constantly remind us of the perfection of the Cardinals minor league system, the greatness and dedication of their fans, and the values of the organization as if every other organization in the majors doesn't even have a minor league system, the fans don't care about the team, and the organization holds weekly orgies in the outfield.

The Cardinals, despite Magary’s imagination, are known far more for the hard work of team development than they are for their salary offers.

Grittiness, clutchiness, and having a magical, mystical manager. What's not to love?

Cardinals owners and management would rather spend $200 million on the league’s best scouting and farm system than on one aging and declining player. The fact that Cardinals fans are among the most loyal ticket buyers in baseball helps encourage this strategy.

Yes, Cardinals fans are fantastic. You know who has really great fans (even better than the Cardinals if you consider attendance percentage) and have won a couple of World Series recently, yet for some reason they don't go around calling themselves the best fans in baseball? The San Francisco Giants. It's called humility and Giants fans realize no one wants to hear them talk about how great they are.

The Cardinals and their fans certainly have not been tested too hard in recent years. And because of the, um, unfortunate situation of the Chicago Cubs, the Cardinals don’t even have a great rivalry going,

Oh yes, a passive-aggressive reminder the Cubs stink. Actually, this entire column is passive-aggressive in some ways. That's what I mean when I say Mollie Hemingway needs to own the hate rather than passive-aggressively tell us why no one should hate the Cardinals...then giving us several reasons to do so with the contents of this column. 

You don’t have to love the Cardinals for the enthusiastic, passionate, loyal and civil fans (with surely one of the larger diasporas out there).

Yeah, there are tall white people, there are white people with light hair, white people with dark hair, white people who are short with dark hair, and then two Hispanic Cardinals fans.

You don’t have to appreciate Cardinals uniforms — the best looking in baseball.

Again, no fucking humility. Being a braggart is a great reason why fans like Mollie Hemingway make some people hate the Cardinals.

And, yes, it is frustrating to see a team play as well as the Cardinals do, with such a great team relationship as they have, year after year — if it’s not your team. No one says you have to love them. But you can’t hate them. It just reflects poorly on you.

Because if you can't love the perfection that is the St. Louis Cardinals clearly there is a problem with you. It's not them, their lack of humility, insisting on calling everything related to the Cardinals organization the best, but it's you for not appreciating the perfection that is the Cardinals organization. Cardinals fans like Mollie Hemingway are the parents of that kid in high school who never did anything wrong, was the best at everything, and then showed false modesty at his achievements while reminding you constantly of their achievements.

If the Cards were cheating their way to these victories, if they were buying them, if they were rude on and off the field … then fine.

How about if the Cardinals take over the mantle of "decorum police" and criticize other teams for excessive displays of excitement and "not playing the game the right way"?

But if you hate the Cardinals because, like Drew Magary, you hate Midwesterners and their casseroles and churchgoing, you may want to reconsider.

This column. This column would be my reason. I don't hate the Cardinals, but I find it hilarious Mollie Hemingway isn't self-aware enough to realize couching why the Cardinals should not be hated by telling us how great the organization is only feeds the dislike even more.

Sports teams should not be idealized extensions of ourselves.

Says the person who just wrote a column about how the Cardinals extolling the virtues and great value system the organization stands for. Mollie Hemingway's argument over why people shouldn't hate the Cardinals is essentially that they represent an idealized extension of ourselves and what we want our sports teams to be.

We should not lose ourselves in them.

Says the "die-hard" Cardinals fan who is so lost in the greatness of her team she can't fathom why a person would irrationally hate them.

They are mostly just money-making enterprises with the millionaire athletes, taxpayer-funded stadiums and offensive beer prices to prove it.

Which is why it is silly to extol the virtues of a money-making enterprise and suggest one money-making enterprise has a great value system than another.

But the organization and community of St. Louis does aim to promote good sportsmanship, a value the club has spent many decades cultivating.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, it sounds so haughty and full of yourself. It makes people not like the Cardinals.

In a world with O.J. Simpson and Aaron Hernandez,

Well, O.J. wasn't an active athlete when he got arrested. This was almost 20 years ago when Simpson was arrested and acquitted for the murder of his wife as well. It just doesn't seem like as a relevant of a reference anymore.

Also, in a world where magic and mystical managers get arrested for DUI, the Cardinals have to stand up for sportsmanship and good values.

But just because there’s been a breakdown in some places doesn’t mean that ball clubs that at least try to uphold values should be loathed.

Mollie Hemingway says we should not make sports teams idealized extensions of ourselves and then says no one should hate the Cardinals because they are idealized extensions of ourselves. Not only is she clueless as to why someone could really dislike the Cardinals, she also is able to contradict herself when making the argument on why a person should not irrationally dislike the Cardinals.

No matter how much Deadspin or others try to make Cardinal hatred a thing, it’s not going to happen.

People can get jealous and bitter when a team that wins a lot of games is also being held up as a morally superior team. It's sort of annoying.

Stop trying to make Cardinals hatred happen.

I think you did more than anyone else could to help the hatred of the Cardinals to thrive by writing this column. 

9 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Over-Respects Darren Sproles

Peter King handed out his annual Father's Day book suggestion list last week. He only hands out his list of book suggestions on Father's Day and never makes suggestions for Mother's Day books. Clearly, he believes all women to be illiterate. So after calling all women illiterate last week, Peter is going to take a nice, long vacation after this week's MMQB. He reveals who the writers are going to be for MMQB during his four week long hiatus. I don't want to ruin the surprise for you, so we will wait until the end of the column. I realize you are on the edge of your seat. This week Peter King reveals just how highly he thinks of Darren Sproles and rails against the plague against society that occurs when a player signs a one day contract with a team in order to retire as a member of that team.

Much news for what's normally a sleepy Monday in June --

I feel like Peter always starts MMQB off by saying, "Usually it is not busy this time of year, but boy, this year is just so incredibly busy." So I went back to the MMQB Peter wrote last year at this time and it turns out he said the following:

Feels like the calm before the storm a bit, doesn't it?

So he did reference it as being calm last year at this time. This means I was wrong. I still feel like Peter starts his columns off with some variation of, "Man it is busy this time of year, unlike most years at this time." Prior to last year I remember there was the Brett Favre retirement saga the media was focused on, so I don't think June isn't that sleepy for the NFL anymore.

What was interesting as I looked back to a June 2011 MMQB was a few comments Peter made. I thought I'd share a couple of them.

The Steelers have a core of veteran stars; Tiki Barber would fit right in. The Steelers have a good back, Rashard Mendenhall, but no back-of-the-future type who Barber would be robbing playing time from.

So not only did Peter seem to believe Tiki Barber was going to land on an NFL roster, he thought Tiki would go to a team and play a lot. I know Peter didn't let his history of working with Tiki at NBC affect his evaluation of Tiki's ability to come back and play in the NFL. He wouldn't do that. Peter just thought Tiki Barber would come in and immediately contend with a back who ran for 1000 yards the previous season.

I'm also told that wherever he goes, Barber won't be content to be a mopup guy or insurance policy; he wants to play a lot.

Hopefully Tiki Barber will be content to play a lot of football in an arena league or with his local high school team...because he didn't make it back to the NFL.

Then Peter talks about Nnamdi Asomugha, guesses (correctly!) where he will end up and really exaggerates Asomugha's worth on the free agent market. Not only did Peter overstate how much Asomugha would get as a free agent, he actually believed Asomugha was worth this exaggerated amount.

Since the dawn of free agency, only one player, Reggie White, has been a better prize on the free-agent market than Asomugha.

You cannot tell me that he wouldn't be worth $18 million a year to employ. I will not buy it.

Nnamdi Asomugha is not worth $18 million a year to employ. I wonder if Peter believes that now? Asomugha was by no stretch of the imagination bad last year, but $18 million per year good? I don't think he was. Asomugha got 5 years at $60 million with $25 million guaranteed. I still can't see how a cornerback is worth $18 million per year.

but let's start the last Monday column before I take my summer break with some numbers from the amazing career of LaDainian Tomlinson, who will announce his retirement today in San Diego.

Who do we consider the best all-purpose backs of the last 30 years? Well, three players prominent in the conversation are Marcus Allen, Marshall Faulk and Tomlinson.

I know for me, Darren Sproles is not on this conversation. Peter King on the other hand thinks Darren Sproles should be ranked as the fourth best all-purpose back of the last 30 years. This is crazy in my opinion and on par with Peter's comment three years ago that Derek Jeter was the best baseball player in his (Peter's) lifetime. It's like Peter combined his crazy pills and then was given access to a keyboard.

Sproles had a fantastic 2011 season. Prior to last season, Sproles had never had 1000 yards combined in rushing and receiving yards. Peter is using rushing and receiving yards as the basis for his evaluation of a player one of the best all-purpose backs of the last 30 years, but Sproles is pretty weak in that category for his career. Sproles did have two career kickoff returns and three career punt returns over the six years he has been in the NFL. There is no way Sproles is one of the best five all-purpose backs of the last 30 years. I accept and acknowledge his punt and kick return capabilities, but as a running back I tend to weight what he did as a running back heavier than what he did as a returner. Peter even weighs that heavier because he has Tomlinson as his second-best all-purpose running back of the last 30 years and Tomlinson never returned kicks.

Simply put, there are probably 5 current options currently playing in the NFL who are better choices than Sproles to be named one of the five best all-purpose backs of the last 30 years...this doesn't count how many better options have played in the NFL over the last 30 years who are currently playing in the NFL. Please know I am using career numbers to evaluate these players, not just numbers from 2011. I would consider these five players to have better career numbers than Sproles when it comes to being one of the best all-purpose backs of the last 30 years.

Ray Rice
Adrian Peterson
Matt Forte
Chris Johnson
Steven Jackson

I'll take Tomlinson in history over Allen and argue that Tomlinson and Faulk should be 1 and 1a as the most versatile modern backs.

Fine, I can accept this, but Darren Sproles? He was fantastic in 2011, but the best all-purpose running back over the last 30 years is a career award, not an award based on one season.

Top five versatile runners of the last 30 years? (Walter Payton not included, because seven of his 13 seasons came before 1982.) My list:

1. Faulk. Super Bowl win helps -- plus the Super Bowl that New England based its entire game plan on stopping him.

Really, the fact a team based an entire game plan on stopping him is irrelevant, but I agree with the selection of Faulk as #1.

4. Darren Sproles. State of the art today, and perfect in Saints offense.

He's been in the Saints offense for one year! One year. He was great last year, but his fantastic season last year doesn't make him one of the greatest all-purpose backs of the last 30 years. This be crazy.

5. Marcus Allen. Strange to put him behind Sproles, but Allen wasn't as explosive.

It is strange to put him behind Sproles because he shouldn't necessarily be behind Sproles.

Remember: The NFL doesn't have to have proof of bounty money being paid to a defensive player for intentionally injuring an opponent, or for knocking an opponent out of a game, whether intentional or not. The NFL has to show that a bounty was offered. That's it.

But until the NFL shows that proof, there will be significant skepticism that it has enough evidence to throw Jonathan Vilma out of the game for a full season, and to suspend three Saints from the 2009 season for lesser periods.

I'm sure Saints fans think this is all a set up and the league is persecuting Vilma because they just don't like him. The NFL didn't seem to want to release whatever proof they have at Monday's meeting, thereby giving the insane Saints fans more ammo to believe the NFL has a grudge against the Saints. Free Sean Payton!

I'm sure we will hear about this bounty case in the Wednesday edition of the Times-Picayune. New Orleans citizens only have to wait two more days for that paper to be published. Lucky them.

The NFL can't just say, "Trust us on this.'' Too many lives, too many reputations, are on the line here for that.

It's a bit dramatic to say there are too many "lives" on the line in this situation. Yes, Vilma will have to sit out an entire year, but he will be back in the NFL in 2013 and no one is going to die because the Saints bounty program was punished harshly. A little perspective please.

On Friday, I spent an hour on the phone with Brian Banks,...

What impressed me so much about Banks is how bright and engaging he is despite spending 10 formative years of his life away from formal education, and how he's not bitter. How can someone who spent five years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, and then five more as a registered sex offender with a GPS ankle bracelet that he couldn't take off, not be bitter?

I'm bitter just hearing this story. I get bitter and angry if someone claims I said something I do not believe I said. If I were wrongly convicted of a crime, any crime, I would probably be very, very bitter.

My biggest question in this case was what his attorney was doing suggesting Banks could go to jail for decades when there wasn't a single bit of physical DNA evidence suggesting he committed the crime? I am not an attorney, but it just seems like this is the type of case (rape/sexual assault) where physical DNA evidence would be important to gain a conviction.

"I like to tell the story of a little kid who has a dirty room,'' Banks told me. "His mother tells him to clean the room. He says no, and he throws a tantrum. When he stops screaming, the room's still dirty, and he's still got to clean it. When I got to prison, of course I was mad. I didn't understand why the police didn't do a better job investigating the case, and why someone who clearly was not guilty could be put away like that.

Well, he was put away like that because he accepted a plea deal.

I asked Banks: "Isn't prison tough on sex offenders? How'd you survive?''

"I am a very honest person,'' he said. "Ask those who know me. But I lied about why I was in there. That's the way I survived. Three things that there's zero tolerance for in prison -- child molesters, rapists, thieves.

"Prison Talk with Peter King." Coming to NBC Sports Network on Thursdays at 10pm.

So I just told everybody I was in prison for a home invasion. I took the rap for a guy because I wouldn't snitch on him, and through the grace of God, I never got found out.''

Now I'm not an expert on prison life, even though I do watch "Arrested Development," but isn't a home invasion a form of thievery? In essence a home invasion is a way to commit thievery. You can see I would never last in prison because I require confirmation of the certain categories each crime that receives zero tolerance would fall under. Brilliant move by Banks by the way. Going from being seen by his fellow inmates as a molester to actually gaining some sympathy for not being a snitch. We all know snitches get stitches, so not snitching is viewed positively in the American prison system.

"There are a lot of role models. There just aren't a lot of good ones."

-- Tim Tebow, speaking to a Father's Day crowd at Qualcomm Stadium Sunday, according to U-T San Diego, on the state of sporting role models today.

There are a lot of quarterbacks. There just aren't a lot of good ones. Whoops, I got that wrong. I meant, there are a lot of punt protectors. There just aren't a lot of good ones.

"Yes, we thought that he would clear. It's rare but it's not the first time something like that has happened. It's disappointing for us that we didn't get him back. He did a tremendous job for us and we hope he gets well soon and that he can finish his career, whether it's with New England or whatever team he ends up with. It was disappointing, but that does happen, every blue moon ... I could explain it, but I don't want to explain it because it's really irrelevant at this point ... It's really pointless for me at this point to try explain it to people ... It's rare that somebody takes a guy under these conditions off the waiver wire, but it happened and we wish Jake all the best.''

-- Giants GM Jerry Reese, to Sirius/XM NFL Radio, on losing tight end Jake Ballard by exposing him to waivers because the team didn't expect him to play this year. Ballard is recovering from knee surgery. But the New England Patriots claimed him.

Jerry Reese typically does a great job as a GM, but this move made me shake my head. I heard a lot about how the Giants thought highly of Jake Ballard and saw something in him as a pass catcher after spending most of his career at Ohio State as a blocker...then they go out and expose him to waivers when it seemed they were completely intent on having him on the roster. I didn't get the move and I am not surprised a team picked up Ballard.

Three thoughts:

Peter then lists four thoughts on the topic. NFL Insidering? Peter is good with that. Counting? He's still a bit of a work in progress.

And if New England signs Ballard for the third-year tender price of $640,000, that means it will have paid $1.17 million, total, for 2012 and 2013 to employ a good tight end in the hope he can help next season. Maybe he can't. But the gamble seems worth it for a guy who made so many big catches for the Giants in the last two months of the season last year.

I would agree with this. I'm not sure the lesson to be learned regarding this, other than don't try to sneak players you want to keep across waivers, but I am a little surprised another team didn't put a claim in for Ballard. Sure, he's injured this year. If he comes back healthy then I think he'll be worth the $1.2 million spent to keep him on the roster. Ballard did have 600 yards receiving last year.

I don't understand the unwritten rule anyway. So an NFL team shouldn't sign a player that another NFL team wants to sneak through waivers? Is that the unwritten rule? I had never heard of this rule.

It's hard to fathom, unless you're there, the level of enmity the fine people of Seattle have for the departed Sonics-turned-Thunder.

I don't think you have to be in Seattle to see this level of anger they have towards the Thunder. You could simply be on Twitter and notice how it seems like pretty much anyone who was a Sonics fan doesn't like the Thunder and is cheering for the Heat. So I don't feel like I have to be in Seattle to understand the anger towards the Thunder.

Seattle, in fact, might be rooting harder in this series for the Heat than the denizens of Miami. Amazing to hear the anger the city still feels over losing the basketball team to Oklahoma City.

They lost their NBA franchise to another city. That has to sting. I don't think Peter would find the level of enmity in Newark amazing if the New Jersey Devils moved to Minnesota, Ohio or another city across the United States. Of course the Devils would NEVER leave New Jersey, so the idea of this happening just laughable, but if this did occur I'm sure Peter wouldn't find Seattle's anger so amazing.

"Why baseball doesn't have instant replay for plays at the plate is beyond me. It's a scoring play. It takes two minutes. Just use it."

-- @richeisen, the NFL Network host, presumably after watching a bad call at home late in the 3-3 Yankees-Nationals game Saturday, extending the game from what should have been a nine-inning game to what became a 14-inning game. Say it, Rich.

Baseball doesn't have replay because we certainly wouldn't want the umpires to think their calls are being second-guessed or are subject to some sort of review. The illusion of perfection is what keeps the entire institution of umpiring alive at the major league level.

3. I think these one-day contracts to retire as a member of some organization -- as Tomlinson is doing today in San Diego -- are just silly. Who cares where you retire? Now Chris Chambers wants to retire as a Dolphin. Why? Who cares?

Apparently the player who signs the one-day contract cares. Nobody cares if two kids spend an entire train ride laughing at something on their phones and nobody cares if the coffee you tasted this week had a nutty taste to it, yet we get to hear those tidbits from Peter on a weekly basis. If Chris Chambers wants to end his NFL career as a Dolphin, let him do it. It harms no one. Honestly, this is the only award Chris Chambers will probably get in his career and if the Dolphins are open to it, I mean, who says "no" to this?

4. I think you'll all be relieved to know the Arena Football League has reached a deal with its union to finish this season without interruption. I suppose.

Yes, please mock Arena League Football. Any type of lockout in the AFL isn't as important as a lockout in the NFL, especially since the AFL players actually rely on that income to feed their families as opposed to using the income to buy worthless shit that only serves the purpose to show how wealthy they are.

I don't think Peter is a bad guy, but small little comments like this can come off as elitist...at least to me.

5. I think if your fantasy draft is tomorrow, you'd be smart to pick Isaac Redman ahead of Rashard Mendenhall, who is not ready to play football because of offseason knee surgery and should miss at least the first six games of the season.

I think Peter hates Rashard Mendenhall. First, he stated a year ago that Mendenhall would have carries taken away by Tiki Barber if Barber signed with the Steelers and now he is saying Redman (who didn't do much when given the chance last year) is a better pick than Mendenhall in a fantasy draft, even if Mendenhall is able to play in 10 games next year. Why do you hate Rashard Mendenhall, Peter?

6. I think the Browns should hang onto Colt McCoy. I do like Brandon Weeden, but how sure a thing is he? And if he plays poorly over the next two years, you're happier with Seneca Wallace than Colt McCoy? I'm not.

On the other hand, Peter King loves himself some Colt McCoy. If Weeden plays poorly over the next two years I am not necessarily happy with McCoy, Wallace or Weeden if I am a Browns fan.

7. I think if I'm Andy Reid or Mike McCarthy, I'm calling Cleveland GM Tom Heckert and sending a 2013 sixth-rounder to Cleveland for McCoy.

If I'm the Browns I'm not giving up McCoy for a 6th round pick and leave the Browns QB job to a rookie or Seneca Wallace. What if the Browns don't accept this trade of McCoy for a sixth-rounder? I guess the Browns wouldn't have the option of rejecting this trade.

Take out the tape of his game at Pittsburgh last season, before he got blasted by James Harrison, and tell me he doesn't have the poise, decision-making and presence to have a chance to be a good player.

I'm going to do that Peter!

(Bengoodfella looks for the game tape of McCoy's performance against the Steelers and then realizes he doesn't have game tape of this game and he hates it when Peter King does the whole, "Go ask Person X if you don't believe me" when his readers don't have access to speak to this person.)

g. LeBron in his last 13 games: 32.6 points per game, 10.9 rebounds. Heat 9-4.

h. I mean, it's fine to hate a guy, and to boo him. But to not acknowledge James' greatness is downright foolish.

This coming from a guy who admits he barely watches NBA games. Obviously Peter is someone we should listen to intently on this subject.

l. I'm a fan of fellow Ohio U. Bobcat Thom Brennaman, and I have great fondness for his dad, Marty, one of the best baseball play-by-play men on the radio ever. (I listened to Marty for five years while living in Cincinnati, and he's one of the great ones -- most of you just don't know him.)

I was watching the Mets and Reds Saturday night when Thom uttered these words about red-hot Joey Votto: "Over the last month, he has been virtually impossible to get out.''

The lesson we will learn here? Don't use hyperbole around Peter King...unless you are Peter King of course. Here's what he wrote directly above this Thom Brennaman criticism for item "K" that he thinks:

k. Someone hire exiled San Diego columnist Tim Sullivan, please. You'll be ecstatic you did.

Yeah, there is no hyperbole in that statement. Back to Peter's dissecting Brennaman's Joey Votto comment.

Very hard, maybe. But virtually impossible? In the previous month, between May 15 and June 15, Votto reached base 62 times. He made 60 outs. That's scorching hot for a baseball player. But he was retired half the time, and reached base half the time.

In terms of using hyperbole, Votto was virtually impossible to get out. It's clear Brennaman was using hyperbole. I hate hyperbole, but Brennaman was using it to prove a larger point about how hot Votto had been. Damn, and I thought I nitpicked too much.

Virtually impossible to retire Votto would have meant reaching base, say, 110 times and making 12 outs.

Reaching base 109 times and making 13 outs does not qualify as being "virtually impossible" to get out! The minimal limit to reach this threshold is reaching base 110 times and making 12 outs. Otherwise, don't bring that weak hyperbole into Peter's world.

That's never going to happen, obviously. I just felt Thom could have chosen his words better.

I know. Let's make more fun of the Arena Football League lockout!

s. So happy so many of you wrote and tweeted that you'd be picking up That's Why I'm Here, the Chris Spielman book I wrote about last week. You won't regret it.

What if I buy the book and then realize I don't have enough gas to get to work the next day and can't afford to buy enough gas to make it to work, so I have to take the bus? I would rue the day I purchased this book. You can't say I won't regret buying this book. Poor choice of words, Peter.

t. Coffeenerdness: Come to New York, Peet's. Come on. You know you'll kick tail here.

While Peet's literally kick tail, like actually kick an animal in the butt? If not, you could have used a better choice of words here, Peter!

For the next four Mondays, as I've done the last few summers, you'll have my pinch-hitters.

Are they real pinch-hitters, like in baseball? Otherwise, poor choice of words.

Here comes the big reveal! Will it be Sean Payton again? Nnamdi Asomugha? Maybe he will explain how he is worth $18 million per year.

For the three weeks after that the MMQB guest columnists will be, in order, Indianapolis rookie tight end Coby Fleener,

Fleener massaged Peter's ego by doing a paper on Peter while Fleener was a Stanford, so naturally Peter rewards him by letting him be a guest columnist in MMQB.

Washington general manager and football history nerd Bruce Allen on July 9;

Maybe he will tell us about the art of overpaying for free agents. He is an expert on this topic of course and showed it again this summer with the signings of Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan. He gave these two receivers $57 million and at least $21.5 million guaranteed (That's only Garcon. I don't know how much of Morgan's contract was guaranteed). He's a football nerd and loves to overpay free agents.

and Tampa Bay Buccaneers free agent defensive tackle Eric LeGrand on July 16.

I will look forward to that one.

I hope you're looking forward to reading them as much as I'm anticipating what they write.

Peter, just come back with some great stories about how being around normal Americans has driven you crazy. That's all I ask.

2 comments Trades I Hope Never Happen and Being Off The Mark

I am not going to link the article because it was not that interesting. Jon Heyman listed five different destinations for Matt Holliday and they all either scared me or made me wonder what the hell he was thinking.

1. Angels. They're a solid team with superior talent, and that's especially true in the rotation, which features perhaps three No. 1s and a No. 2. However, in recent years they've tended to value their prospective talent higher than some others, which has limited their trade chances.

No way this will ever happen. As stated by Heyman, the Angels are too much of wimps to actually make a trade that improves their team and allows them to get out of the first round of the playoffs. There are two teams in MLB I would celebrate for hours if my favorite team got to play them in the first round of the playoffs, the Angels and the Dodgers. Neither team can hit and love to hang on to prospects in lieu of getting a good player in a trade.

Bottom line, the Angels love first round playoff exits, followed by countless, "When is Vlad going to get some help" stories. At least they still have Brandon Wood and Ervin Santana though, so they don't need A Rod or Johan Santana.

2. Mets. A trade that would have sent Holliday, center fielder Willy Taveras and perhaps others to New York for Beltran and star outfield prospect Fernando Martinez appeared to have been floated.

Why the hell would the Rockies trade Holliday, a superior hitter who may want $20 million per year, for Beltran, an above average hitter making $18 million? So by trading Holliday, you have neither saved your team money, lost draft picks, and made your team worse. You have to think before you type Jon.

I love how in his trade situation, the Rockies would throw other players in the trade as well, which is non sensical, even with Fernando Martinez in the deal.

3. Red Sox

God no. This brings up the great point that if Ortiz comes back healthy (meaning under 275 pounds) where the hell would Holliday play? We all love J.D. Drew but do you want him running around in CF pulling hamstrings and tearing muscles? I doubt it. Maybe Jon thinks the Rockies would take Drew, who is making $14 million, back in the deal. Probably.

4. Dodgers

I feel the same way about them as I do the Angels. They don't have the balls. Having the balls would involve trading for a player that will actually make your team better. Maybe the Rockies want Andruw Jones, he is making $18 million.

5. Field

The Yankees are reluctant to trade their prospects

He actually meant to say the other MLB teams are reluctant to trade for the Yankee's prospects after seeing them play. You know, both prospects the Yankees have that are worth a shit.

The Braves would have the prospects, if they'd like to repeat their Mark Teixeira coup from a year ago.

Coup? I would not call trading 5 of your top 25 prospects for a player and then going below .500 with that player a coup. Unless Jon has a different definition of "coup," I am currently using the dictionary version. That trade sucked and continues to suck for the Braves. Basically he thinks the Braves should trade half the farm system for another player that will be a free agent next year.

Good luck trading Holliday Rockies!

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8346550/On-the-Mark:-Baseball-needs-its-bad-guy-back

Ironically, Mark Kriegel is off the mark.

To this point, Major League Baseball has seen some nice stories. The rise of Tampa Bay (never mind the recent slump) comes first to mind. Josh Hamilton, sober with 95 RBI at the break, is an inspiration.

I actually don't need stories to make baseball exciting, I just watch the game and that is enough for me.

Has anyone else noticed that sportswriters always talk about the "stories" that are going on in a sport? Sports fans don't need stories to enjoy the sport, only sportswriters do because most of the time they would have nothing to write about otherwise. The point of view they have is that writing about the events in every game is pretty boring, but writing about a controversy, now that is what makes the sport exciting. I don't share that view, so when a sportswriter bitches about no "stories," I don't care.

So admit it. You miss him.
I'm talking about Barry Bonds, of course.

Of course. The one topic any writer can put 1000 words into without even thinking. Barry Bonds is the sportswriter's life preserver in times of need. Mark is reaching for it now. I don't miss Bonds.

For whom else would you stop whatever you were doing to watch at the plate?

I never once stopped to watch one of his at bats, unless the media cut into whatever I was innocently trying to watch to show him. Just like knowing wrestling is fake makes it unwatchable for me, knowing Bonds juiced does not make him exciting for me. It's like bragging you threw for 10,000 yards on a season of Madden on the Rookie level. It takes the joy of his accomplishment away.

And so what if Bonds is going to jail? He's not going to jail this season.

I could care less if he is going to jail and I actually think someone should sign Bonds. Probably the Yankees and I wrote it a few months ago in this here space, but if a team does not want to sign a distraction so you have something to write about, they don't have to.

In reality, fans' affections are fungible. They've long since grown comfortable with the rent-a-player concept. What's more, in this case, Barry Bonds makes baseball sense. Having hit 28 home runs and walked 132 times in a mere 340 at-bats last year, this is one distraction worth the risk.

You are rambling now. His hitting ability was never in question and I don't see how a distraction to a contending team is worth the risk. This column has gone from "I miss Barry Bonds," to I realize he is in trouble with the law, to someone should sign him, and finally, nonsense. Pretty much like every other Barry Bonds column. Also, why write a Bonds column, you know, since he is not an active player and all?

"I can't believe that you wouldn't want him on your team," Torii Hunter said recently. "I know he comes with baggage or whatever, but if I was an owner, I'd like to get Barry."

There is a reason Torii Hunter is not an owner. Actually the Angels could really use Bonds but since they absolutely refuse to make any moves to improve the team, they will not do it.

Now, onto the National League, where the first-place Arizona Diamondbacks are a game under .500 and scoring 3.54 runs a game since June 1. Put Bonds on any team in that lousy division and it's a contender.

The only drawback being he actually has to play left field, which could be a problem considering he has been playing on 85 year old legs for the past five years. He could also pitch. If he did this, then I would pay attention and probably DVR all of his games, Mark Kriegel would have something to write about and the Diamondbacks would score more runs. Everyone would be happy.

Consider that with half a season to go, the Dodgers are three games under .500, but just two games out. What if they were to lose the division by a game or two? Whose fault would it be then? Probably general manager Ned Colletti's. What would he say then? That Bonds wasn't a character guy?

If the Dodgers lose the division by two games, then it will be the player's fault as well. He could also explain to his fans that he was not going to bring the player they threw syringes and beer bottles at for 15 years to the team because he was a cheater. Though fans are not quite as smart as you seem to be Mark, I think they would understand.

I am mocking Kriegel and I am absolutely lost right now, I feel bad for you as the reader. Thanks for hanging in there. I think we have learned that Bonds needs to stay retired or else I will subject us all to critiques of Barry Bonds and the latest news on there being no news. I don't miss Barry Bonds.

0 comments We Deserve Better Than All Star Arguments

The same people who give two shits about All Star voting are the same people who gave two shits about Senior Superlatives in High School. Like, "Oh my God, Dan so deserves 'Most Athletic,' I am going to stuff the ballot box so he gets it," can be "Joe Mauer needs to be in the All Star game, he has had a great year so I am going to vote for him a lot." Needless to say I could care less about both.

I am guessing Dayn Perry got the Senior Superlative "Most Likely To Write a Column That Pisses Me Off," so he has finally achieved his destiny.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8298108/All-Star-voting-still-unpredictable-process-with-fans

The two things I dislike the most about the All Star game voting:
1. The reasoning for voting for one player over another. Sometimes there is none.
2. Old players who are shitty get in.

Unfortunately sometimes these two collide. I will attempt to discern the reasoning Dayn thinks should be used to determine an All Star team.

We'll examine what the voters are getting right, what they're getting wrong, and which races are still too close to call.

I realize this is just one man's opinion but to try and state your opinion as fact and write a column about it irritates me. Also, this column contains no numbers, just fun little opinions for why the vote is wrong based on the most prized reason baseball players play for years and work so hard. So they can "deserve it." What does it mean? Nothing, but that is not stopping Dayn.

C — Joe Mauer, Twins
Until recently, Boston's Jason Varitek was the leader at the catcher position. He didn't deserve it. Mauer does. The voting is still close (Mauer leads by just 145,000 votes), but it really shouldn't be.

I wish there were a way to determine who really deserved it? Eureka! I will create a number called a "statistic" and allow Dayn to include them in his next column so it looks like he did more than 5 minutes of work. It's like he replaced all of his numbers with the word "deserve."

2B — Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox
Brian Roberts and Ian Kinsler are both more deserving that Pedroia, but Sox fans are voting in droves and in this instance, with little regard for the merits. Pedroia leads Kinsler by 184,000 votes, so it's not over yet.

He obviously disagrees with this vote because Roberts and Kinsler "deserve" it. Give me numbers or give you death.

SS — Derek Jeter, Yankees
It's just not a good year for AL shortstops. Michael Young's having a better season than Jeter

Sounds like Michael Young is the choice, so he "deserves" it.

but there's no disputing Jeter's star power. All things considered, Jeter deserves the nod, but that's really a comment upon the AL's weakness at the position.

Under this reasoning Miley Cyrus would win a Grammy this year and High School Musical will win an Emmy for Best TV Show. By "all things considered" you mean "I am going to ignore logical reasoning and just make some shit up," then yes I vote Jeter. So Jeter should be voted in because he is popular. Remember this reasoning.

If you ever want to annoy a Yankees fan, call him Jerek Deter. Don't ask me why, they hate it.

C — Geovany Soto, Cubs
Soto's having a fine year, but Brian McCann and Russell Martin would've been better choices. In fact, McCann pretty clearly deserves it. He's second in the balloting, but he trails Soto by more than half a million votes. Soto's almost certainly going as a starter, but he's not the best option for the NL.

Oh yeah, McCann "deserves it." Why can't we just include some numbers in this article? This is the main problem with articles that criticize All Star votes. They rarely include statistics for why the fans are screwing it all up. So basically by not including stats, the author Dayn is just admitting it is a popularity contest. So if it is a popularity contest, then the fans can never screw up! All hail the fans!

1B — Lance Berkman, Astros
Berkman's having a great season, but Albert Pujols is the bigger star and the better player. It's also a joke that Pujols is a mere third in the voting (Derrek Lee has the second-most votes among NL first basemen).

Remember the bigger star should get votes. I guess that is why it is a joke Pujols is third in the voting. How can anyone take All Star voting this seriously to analyze it? Wait, I am analyzing their analyzing, nevermind.

We can't know that Pujols is the better player if we don't have something to compare it too. They are called statistics, try them, they go down easy. Like your mom. Sorry Dayn, that was out of line.

SS — Hanley Ramirez, Marlins
In terms of who deserves it, consider it a coin-flip between Ramirez and Jose Reyes of the Mets. Ramirez gives you more at the plate, while Reyes is the better defender. The race, however, is a tight one between Ramirez and Houston's Miguel Tejada. Ramirez is far and away the better choice, so here's hoping he clings to his slim lead.

His reasoning on this one is like a question on the LSAT. If Jose and Hanley both deserve it, but Miguel is actually closer to Hanley, so what is their positioning?

How about instead of flipping a fucking coin, you use statistics. I will do it then.

Ramirez: .294 BA, .912 OPS, 18 HR, 20 SB, better dance moves

Reyes: .296 BA, .843 OPS, 9 HR, 28 SB, a killer Clint Eastwood impression.

I say Ramirez, his robot dance floor moves are out of this world.

OF — Alfonso Soriano, Cubs
OF — Kosuke Fukudome, Cubs
OF — Ken Griffey Jr., Reds
The first problem is that the NL has no natural center fielder.

Yeah, screw you NL for not having the most popular players play CF. How weak are you? Can we all agree that, like Jeter and Pujols, Griffey deserves it because he has star power and is a bigger name? I would think so.

The second problem is that Griffey Jr. in no way, shape, or form deserves to be an All-Star. He's a future first-ballot Hall of Famer, but his skills have greatly diminished. This season, he's hitting just .235 AVG/.346 OBP/.388 SLG despite playing his home games in a great hitter's park.

What the fuck kind of code is .235 AVG/.346 OBP/.388 SLG? Did the computer take over the game like Joe Morgan said would happen and cause chaos?

I love how he calls out numbers when he feels very strongly about something but when a player "deserves" to be in the game, there is no need for numbers.

Ryan Braun is closing on Junior (he trails him by fewer than 200,000 votes), and he's much more worthy of a starting spot than Griffey.

How is he more "worthy" than Junior? Give me numbers to back up your argument. Also, Ryan Braun is a natural DH, a passable LF, a horrible 3B and definitely not a CF, so I am still confused about the "no natural CF" comment.

In the main, NL fans are doing a worse job than the AL voters. They've botched the outfield vote quite badly, and they're also off the mark at catcher. It's the outfield vote, however, that's really going to hurt the NL in the early innings.

What helly, fuckity fuck, shitty shit bottom is this group of sentences? Not only can't the NL win a game, it is because the voters are screwing up the team in the OF? I bet it is the damn Yankees and Red Sox fans voting for a starting OF of Matt Diaz, Ryan Freel, and Juan Pierre.

Seriously, does Dayn seem to think that NL fans are voting only exclusively for the NL team and not voting for the AL team at all? And that the AL fans are doing the opposite. If he thinks this, then that is the stupidest thing I have heard all day and I just had someone tell me they were pursuing a Homeland Security degree. So NL fans are stupid, assuming you believe they don't put in a ballot for the American League team at all. Then he gives a feeble prediction the OF of the NL will hurt the team in the early innings based on his babble. Huh?