3 comments Roundup of Crazy Hall of Fame Voting From Baseball Hall of Fame Voters

I guess I shouldn't call it "crazy" since everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just be consistent and don't have a stupid opinion, that's all that I ask. I usually do a few posts about Hall of Fame voting and may end up doing a few more before it's all said and done, but felt the need to try my best to condense the crazy voting into as few posts as possible. I will probably fail in doing so. As always, Jon Heyman will probably deserve his very own post. He seems like a nice guy in real life, but his ballot is always very vexing to me. He's a shill for Scott Boras and tends to use bad reasoning for his Hall of Fame selections.

So I will start first with Dan Shaughnessy's Hall of Fame ballot. Dan is the type of Hall of Fame voter who won't vote for players accused or suspected (by him) of using PED's. If I'm going to be nice, I will say it is refreshing that at least he just states he won't vote for these players because he thinks they used PED's rather than pussy foot around the matter as if there is some new information he's waiting to see revealed. It's interesting who he thinks the steroid taint (giggles) has touched and who it hasn't.

Wednesday my ballot will be mailed with boxes checked next to the names of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell.

Six votes. I think it’s a personal high.

A personal high for me would be if Dan Shaughnessy didn't get the opportunity to troll his readers anymore.

This means I am not voting for (among others on the ballot), Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Lee Smith, Carlos Delgado, and Nomar Garciaparra. Oh, and I also am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell.

I'm going to try and keep my blood pressure down about Bagwell being thrown in with Clemens, Sosa, Bonds and McGwire. Let's just say I think that's extremely uncalled for and overly-presumptive.

Yikes. Imagine going into a seven-game series with a roster of the guys I’m not voting for: Piazza behind the plate. An infield of McGwire, Biggio, Nomar, and Bagwell. An outfield of Bonds, Sosa, and Sheffield. Edgar at DH. Clemens on the mound. Lee Smith in the bullpen. Mussina ready to pitch Game 2. Who wouldn’t take their chances with that team against any team?

It's almost like these are some of the best players in the history of baseball and if there were an honor these players should receive for being the best players in baseball then they could perhaps receive that honor.

So let it rip. Bring on the hate. Bring on the humiliation. Bring on the blogboy outrage. Bring on the analytic arrogance. Bring on the PED Hall Pass. It’s a tradition like no other.

Dan needs to be hated. It allows him to get pageviews by writing columns that troll his readers and further irritate them. Hey, it beats actually taking the time to write a good column.

So don’t expect Pedro to be unanimous. His win total of 219 (accompanied by a mere 100 losses) will put off some voters, but Pedro (three Cy Young awards) should come in well north of 90 percent. Johnson is a 300-game winner (always Hall-worthy, unless you cheated),

How does Dan know that Randy Johnson didn't cheat? Because he was skinny? He was also 6'10". Writers love to talk about hitters who still hit well later in their careers being PED users, how about Johnson having 300+ strikeouts each season from the age of 35-38? That's 1999-2002, right in the middle of the Steroid Era. He has 290 strikeouts at the age of 40, but in 2003 he started to struggle a little bit more and his strikeouts per 9 innings dipped, as did his ERA rise. If Randy Johnson were Mike Piazza then the steroid stigma would be all over him, but he was skinny, so he definitely didn't use steroids. Right? Even though his career decline was at the same time baseball started testing for steroids. Of course, his decline could also be due to his age, but if that's not good enough reasoning for Mike Piazza's decline then why is it good enough to explain Randy Johnson's decline?

Biggio missed by only two votes last year. He has 3,000 hits, four gold gloves, and almost 300 homers. I would put him in the Hall of Very Good (only one 200-hit season),

Raines was a rare combination of power (170 homers) and speed (808 steals). He had six 100-run seasons. Trammell is going to be off the ballot soon, and won’t make the Hall with the BBWAA, but there’s lots of value in a shortstop who hit .300 seven times, won four Gold Gloves, and should have been MVP (he lost to George Bell) in 1987. 

Where's the Hall of Very Good for them? Raines had zero 200-hit seasons and Trammell had one 200-hit seasons.

Raines and Trammell are problematic and I am guilty of inconsistency with their candidacies.

You don't say? This is another problem with the Hall of Fame voting, the inconsistency of the voters. Trammell and Raines get Dan's vote because they've been on the ballot a long time, while Biggio is held to the multiple 200-hit seasons standard that Raines or Trammell can't meet either. 

The Roids Boys are the greatest burden on voters. Some voters don’t care. Some cherry-pick the cheaters. Some turn away from anything that even looks dirty. Withholding votes for guys who cheated and guys who look like they cheated is unfortunate, sometimes unfair, and almost impossible to impose consistently.

It's not really impossible to impose consistently if you choose to impose it consistently. Is there proof that a player used PED's? If so, choose not to vote for them. If there is no proof, but only suspicion because the player looks like he used steroids, then vote for that player to enter the Hall of Fame. It can be imposed consistently.

The thinking becomes, “This was the era. They were all doing it.’’ Or, “Bonds and Clemens were already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.’’

Well, they WERE already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.

Sorry, I am not there. No votes for guys caught using. And worse — no votes for guys who just don’t look right. Bagwell and Piazza are the two players most penalized for this arbitrary crime. By any statistical measurement, Bagwell and Piazza are first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet their vote totals (62 percent for Piazza last year, 54 percent for Bagwell) remain considerably lower than their résumés merit. 

Just like I won't give a person credit for committing a crime and then confessing to it, I won't give Dan credit for being arbitrary in punishing Bagwell and Piazza. At least he can admit he's being arbitrary though. A lot of writers bullshit around Bagwell and Piazza (as you will see), rather than just say "I'm being the moral police and have no real reason for doing so."

Happily, none of the bad stuff ever touched Pedro.

Wait, what? None of that bad stuff ever touched Pedro? If Jeff Bagwell is guilty by association or by how he looked, then please keep in mind Pedro played on teams with Nomar Garciaparra, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, Jeremy Giambi, and Paul Lo Duca. Every player who played in the Steroid Era is touched by steroids in some fashion. It's impossible to say this bad stuff never touched Pedro, because it's not true. He had plenty of teammates who were in the Mitchell Report or were suspended for using steroids. Of course it's just accepted by Dan that Pedro didn't use steroids, while "the bad stuff" is all over Jeff Bagwell because he was a big guy and hit for power. Pedro would have possibly played with Bagwell too if the Red Sox hadn't traded him to the Astros. "The bad stuff" touched nearly every player during the Steroid Era. Don't act like Pedro was immune.

Speaking of Pedro Martinez, Paul Hoynes wants us to know why he didn't vote for Pedro Martinez to enter the Hall of Fame. Don't worry, he thinks Pedro deserves it. It's just Paul couldn't be bothered to actually submit a Hall of Fame ballot this year. He forgot. Hey, shit happens. Sure, it's an honor to be able to vote for the Hall of Fame and many sportswriters would considered it be an achievement to have this honor, but what good is the privilege if you don't abuse it?

I didn't vote for this year's Hall of Fame class that will be enshrined in Cooperstown in July 26. It's the first time I've missed since I became eligible to vote in 1994.

I forgot to pay the mortgage this month and now I'm living on the street (not really). What's your punishment for abusing the privilege of being able to vote for the Hall of Fame? Nothing? Great, carry on.

Somehow, someway the ballot never got from my mailbox to my eager fingers. Between the curb and my desk, the ballot took a powder. By the time I realized it was really lost, there wasn't time to get a new one.

My bad. I didn't mean to indicate the privilege was abused. The privilege was just lost. That's so much better. Maybe I'm old school, but if I had a Hall of Fame ballot mailed to me then I would probably keep it in a safe place to where it wouldn't get lost. Of course I give a shit about the Hall of Fame and would consider it a privilege to vote, so maybe I'm out of line for believing this.

Well before the ballots were released, I was wrestling with the idea of voting for Pedro Martinez. As great a pitcher as he was, I thought he was punk on the mound.

I feel like every year Hall of Fame voters compete amongst themselves to come up with the most arbitrary reason to not vote for a player. Pedro was a "punk." You know who else was a punk at times? Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Nolan Ryan, Juan Marichal and I'm bored of typing now.

In Game 3 of the 2003 ALCS between the Yankees and Red Sox, Martinez threw behind Karim Garcia's head and hit him high in the back in the fourth inning. The players yelled at each other with Garcia eventually gaining revenge on a hard, spikes-up slide at second base.

Which, to be clear, was not a punk move and was simply retribution. I'm sure that's how Hoynes sees it.

In the bottom of the inning, Roger Clemens of the Yankees retaliated by throwing a pitch high in the strike zone to Manny Ramirez. The pitch wasn't as menacing as Martinez's, but Ramirez screamed at Clemens and the teams sprinted onto the field.
The late Don Zimmer, New York's bench coach, came out of the dugout and charged Martinez, standing a good distance from the melee. Martinez yanked Zimmer, 72 at the time, to the ground.

Juan Marichal bashed John Roseboro's head in with a baseball bat and he is in the Hall of Fame. Let's gain some perspective here. Baseball brawls happen.

Since we're having a come to Jesus moment here, I have to say those weren't the only reasons Martinez irritated me. He quite simply dominated the Indians. He was 11-1 with a 1.77 ERA in 16 games against some of the best lineups the Indians have ever fielded.

And that was just the regular season.

A Hall of Fame voter has to be devoid of emotion like this. It's just part of the deal. If a voter can't divorce his emotional feelings from a player from the player's performance through his career then that voter shouldn't have a Hall of Fame vote.

Was Martinez a great pitcher, yes. Would I have voted for him if I had taken proper care of my ballot, yes. Here's why.

He's one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history? 
 
In 2009, 10 years after Martinez eliminated the Indians in that postseason game, he was on his last legs. It was spring training and teams were trying to coax him into pitching one more year. I asked Mark Shapiro, Indians general manager at the time, if he was interested in signing Martinez.
Shapiro said that if he could sign Martinez to a one-year deal, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, Shapiro watched Martinez beat the Indians year after year just like I did. He'd seen Martinez's whole act.
But when he looked at him, he saw talent. I saw a punk.

So Hoynes would have voted for Pedro because he saw Pedro as a punk. I'm just glad he would have voted for him, had he remembered where he put his ballot of course.
Emotion had gotten in my way. It's hard to see clearly like that.

Yes, it is. Now if Paul Hoynes could just prevent forgetfulness from getting in the way of him actually submitting his Hall of Fame ballot.

Jeff Schultz of the AJC gives his yearly breakdown of his Hall of Fame ballot. 

I’ve been pretty consistent in my voting philosophy when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I won’t vote for players who used performance enhancing drugs, at least not before there’s some admission of guilt and clarity how it may have affected their numbers.

In the case of Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, Schultz wants them to admit to guilt for the use of PED's that they may not have even taken. Just admit that which you may not have done and Jeff Schultz will honor you with his Hall of Fame vote. If you can't make it all the way up to the pedestal to kneel before Schultz, he'll give you a hand so you can make it up there and hold yourself accountable for something you may not have done.

The Hall of Fame voting process has come under significant scrutiny in recent years, and for good reason. For the last few years, I’ve considered giving up my vote and may still do so if clearer guidelines are not given. 

Here's the thing though. What kind of "clearer guidelines" does there need to be? Does the BBWAA need to tell these Hall of Fame voters who to vote for? Isn't the purpose of having 538 voters that each one has their own criteria and opinion on which players should be inducted and which should not? The BBWAA isn't going to come out and say, "You can't vote for players suspected of using PED's." They can say they will have a PED wing and there will STILL be Hall of Fame voters who will grandstand and state they won't contribute a vote to a player entering this wing.

Those are the eight players I voted for: I consider all of them to have Hall of Fame credentials there also is no reason to believe they used performance enhancing drugs. The players: John Smoltz (first ballot), Randy Johnson (first pitcher), Pedro Martinez (first ballot). Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell.

Fair enough. It seems Schultz has a pretty good idea for the criteria he will use to vote players into the Hall of Fame. His criteria and guidelines aren't consistent with the guidelines other voters use, but if the BBWAA takes away part of the voter's decision-making ability to vote for one player over another then they would be dictating how to vote. Even if the BBWAA attempted to clear up how to vote for PED users, which I wouldn't be against, it still won't unmuddy (not a word) the waters. You think if the BBWAA says they will have a PED wing that Mike Piazza will get Murray Chass's vote? Of course not. If the BBWAA says if a player has used PED's then that player can't be in the Hall of Fame, then don't you think this means Jeff Bagwell will be guilty by association? Of course he will. The guidelines are great, but it's still going to be up to each individual voter to choose to vote for a player or not.

Those with two players with HOF credentials I’m in holding pattern on: Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell. I may vote for them in the future but I’m using the full extent of the 10-year window allotted to a player’s eligibility on that chance more becomes of allegations  of PED use.

There probably won't be other information that involves provable allegations of PED use. Why not wait for every Hall of Famer's 10-year window to almost run out before voting for that player? Maybe Randy Johnson did use PED's, maybe he didn't. Let's wait and see if more evidence comes out one way or another. John Smoltz came back from Tommy John surgery throwing at a high velocity. Better make him wait 8-9 years to see if any allegations come out against him.

I don't know what makes sportswriters like Jeff Schultz the expert when it comes to determining which players used steroids and which didn't. I'm sure he had Jason Grimsley pegged as a PED user from the start of course. This whole "I'm waiting for new information" thing is just an excuse to push a decision into the future with the hopes some allegations will come out that makes his job as a voter easier. It's been five years (well, more than that) since Bagwell and Piazza retired. Judge their career on what you know now and don't arbitrarily pick players to suspect. If waiting for more allegations (or in the case of Bagwell, any allegations) before voting, then that's fine, just hold every player in the Steroid Era to that standard.

These are 19 other players on the ballot. Some are worthy of Hall consideration but didn’t make it onto my ballot this year: Rich Aurilla, Aaron Boone, Tony Clarke, Carlos Delgado, Jermaine Dye, Darin Erstad, Cliff Floyd, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles, Tom Gordon, Eddie Guardado, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Mike Mussina, Troy Percival, Jason Schmidt, Lee Smith, Larry Walker.

But you could have voted for two more players. Why didn't you vote for them if they are worthy of Hall consideration? What is with all this waiting to vote for players? This is how players suddenly start to creep up in percentage every year. It's not like the career numbers for these players changed. It's that Hall of Fame voters don't want to elect too many players in one year, which is absurd. If Edgar Martinez is a Hall of Famer, then he's a Hall of Famer. How many other players in his Hall of Fame class there are should be irrelevant.

When the voice of reason is Bob Klapisch, the same guy who criticized A-Rod for trying to get into playing shape, then you know some part of the system is broken. I do disagree with a few of Klapisch's choices, but think he is reasonable in his explanations for the most part.

Here, then, is how I voted, broken down into three categories: the slam dunks, the gray-area candidates (who I said yes to) and the one who almost fell off my ballot (but didn’t).

Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.

Murray Chass hates this ballot and will probably write a retort on his non-blog.

My feelings about Bagwell are similar to those about Bonds, Clemens and Piazza. The former-Astros slugger finished with a .297 career average and 449 home runs. Those numbers have to be viewed through the prism of the PED era, which delivers us to the doorstep of the third category.

Every player's numbers during the Steroid Era have to be viewed through the prism of the Steroid Era. It's not just Bagwell who should be judged by the Steroid Era. Pitchers used PED's too.
 
THE FINAL CUT: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza.

Last year, wrestling with the first-ever steroids era ballot, I decided I would never vote for a proven cheater. That means a permanent “no” on Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro and Alex Rodriguez. The ban applies to Andy Pettitte, too, as much as I like him personally.
 
I still believe that those who used (or use) PEDs gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules, whether it’s increased bat-speed or greater raw power or better velocity readings on the radar gun.

Well, this is awkward because Bonds and Clemens are as close to being proven to have used PED's as they could be without admitting it or being caught red-handed.

So why did I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza? Because, as I stated last year, it’s not my job to investigate or prosecute rule-breakers. Bud Selig took no action against the notorious duo, Bonds and Clemens, which is reason enough for me to stand down, as well. If the federal government couldn’t get a conviction against either one, then the matter is settled.

I don't remember the federal government getting a conviction against Mark McGwire either. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

As for Piazza, I voted for him last year and did so again because there is no proof he used steroids. Don’t ask me to sift through circumstantial evidence like late-career spikes in home run production or back acne. That’s a weak standard to keep someone out of the Hall.

cc: Murray Chass

LEFT IN THE DUST: Schilling, Alan Trammel, Edgar Martinez.

There’s no strong case to be made against Schilling, other than the ballot’s 10-man limit and my insistence that Mussina be included. It was one or the other this year, although I have no doubt Schilling will be elected by 2017 at the latest.

I'd probably vote for Schilling over Mussina personally. Otherwise, it seems that Bob Klapisch has a (fairly easy to understand) standard and that's how he votes. I'm not sure I would put Piazza in the group with Bonds and Clemens and I can't wait for Klapisch to change his mind about Andy Pettitte because Pettitte seemed so damn contrite.

Jerry Green has a reasonable Hall of Fame ballot and wants to remind others (um, Paul Hoynes) that voting for players to enter the Hall of Fame is serious business. Still, there are two things that stand out in this column that don't make sense to me.

It is super serious. I was not being frivolous that day nearly 30 years ago when I left Nelson Fox off my Hall of Fame ballot. I was exercising an opinion — an opinion that I ultimately changed.

It is how we vote — mostly by opinion. We vote, most of the 500-plus of us seasoned baseball writers, by knowledge, by experience, by observation, by conscience, by conversation with others.

Unfortunately, it seems some writers vote based on only their memory and on emotion. Jack Morris had a great game. It made me feel good! He gets my vote!

(looks at Jerry Green)

Our responsibility is to Baseball, the game itself. It is to the players, the best few of those athletes who played the game. But mostly our responsibility is to the fans, those citizens who love sports and who love baseball.

As much as Jerry has vexed me through the years, this is true. The Hall of Fame isn't a shrine or the moral center of the baseball universe. It's a museum for fans of baseball to view the best players who ever played the game.

My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.

I pretty much agree with this list here. It's a pretty good ballot, though I would vote Jeff Bagwell in before Gary Sheffield. Jerry Green voted for suspected and proven PED users it seems. There on his ballot is Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Sheffield, and Barry Bonds.

(checks list again)

It must be a mistake. Let me copy and paste again.

My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.

For some reason the copy and paste function keeps leaving Barry Bonds' name out.

(counts up the players listed)

There are 10 players here and Jerry Green is voting for PED users, so the all-time home run king should be on the list. Maybe when writing "Gary Sheffield" Jerry Green meant "Barry Bonds." I mean, I love Alan Trammell, but Barry Bonds should be on any voters list before Trammell if that voter isn't concerned about PED use. So here's my question...HOW THE HELL DOES JERRY GREEN NOT VOTE FOR BARRY BONDS?

Here is the best part. There is no explanation given. Jerry Green includes PED users on his Hall of Fame ballot, but doesn't include Barry Bonds. It's unfathomable to me. The words "Barry" or "Bonds" don't even appear in this article. Jerry Green has erased Bonds from existence and I can't figure out why Bonds is different from Clemens and McGwire. 

Roger Clemens, with 354 victories and some unproven steroid allegations, has a miniscule shot because a multitude of voting writers consider themselves moralists with perfect lifestyles. Mark McGwire is destined to miss out for the same reason.

I chuckled at this because Hall of Fame voters do love themselves some moralizing.

Smoltz won 213 games, mostly as a starting pitcher, and saved 154 as a reliever for the Braves. Great stats.

Jack Morris had greater stats with 254 victories, mostly for the Tigers. He was a dominant pitcher in his World Series and playoffs starts. He pitched for four World Series winners.

Morris was rejected 15 times by the voters of the BBWAA, some of whom just didn't like him because he was too often abrasive to the media. My opinion. Not frivolous.

So if Jack Morris doesn't make the Hall of Fame then Jerry Green will be damned if John Smoltz is making it. Seems fair.

As happened with Nellie Fox, Jack Morris ultimately must be voted belatedly into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the codgers on the Veterans Committee.

The "codgers" on the Veterans Committee? Jerry Green has been working in the sports industry since 1956. That puts him as being at least 77 years old if he started right out of high school. That's like the Civil War pot calling the War of 1812 kettle "old and rusty."

Bill Madden joins Murray Chass in the great bacne conspiracy surrounding Mike Piazza. This has become a real thing.

On his stats alone —.308, 427 homers, .545 slugging percentage, six 100-RBI seasons, 12-time All-Star, most homers as a catcher (396) — Piazza should have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Rob Parker disagrees. (Don't worry, I'M GETTING THERE!)

But even though he never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report (as both Bonds and Clemens did), Piazza has been unable to shake the innuendo of having been a steroids user.

Maybe because sportswriters like Bill Madden keep writing columns about how Mike Piazza is under a cloud because of steroids. It's hard to shake the innuendo when those responsible for the innuendo keep bringing it up.

A big reason may be that Piazza’s career went downhill fast and he began being plagued with the kind of injuries often related to steroids in 2003, the year testing began.

Craig Calcaterra covers the retort to this same argument Bill Madden has made on repeated occasions better than I. Piazza was a catcher and any Hall of Fame voter worth a shit knows that catcher is the most physically demanding position on the baseball field. There is a reason that many catchers like Buster Posey end up having a "When he should move positions to first base?" discussion surrounding them. Piazza's career began to decline at the age of 34. No shit. Welcome to the club. Gary Carter started declining at the same time in his career. It happens to catchers who don't have the luxury of being the DH.

A similar case to Piazza is that of Jeff Bagwell, a singles hitter in the minors (six homers in 859 plate appearances) who bulked up when he got to the majors and went on to hit 449 homers with eight 100-RBI seasons and an MVP Award in 1994.

They are similar cases except Mike Piazza wasn't a singles hitter in the minors. So they are both white, right-handed hitters who are linked to steroids, but other than that, Piazza's minor league career does not mirror Bagwell's minor league career. Piazza hit 64 home runs in 1862 at-bats in the minors.

Bagwell also never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report, but nevertheless has been widely suspected of being a steroids user. 

Is Bagwell widely suspected or is this just the case of those with the pulpit to saying "Hey! Bagwell is widely suspected of being a steroids user by people!" being the same ones who are the ones doing the suspecting? Could it be those with the megaphone are the ones yelling the loudest, giving the impression of wide suspicion?

And then there is poor Fred McGriff, a five-time All-Star who never had a hint of steroid association. Had he played in any other era, McGriff, with his overall numbers (.284, 493 homers, 1,550 RBI, .303, 10 HR, 37 RBI, .532 slugging in 50 postseason games) easily would have been elected to the Hall. Instead, with those numbers dwarfed by his cheater contemporaries, Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, McGriff is in danger of falling off the ballot, with just 11.7% support last year.

So McGriff gets the benefit of having no steroid suspicion, but his numbers will also be compared negatively to those who used steroids, even though most Hall of Fame voters think these are tainted numbers. So McGriff would have good enough numbers to make it if he weren't compared to those whose statistics are deemed to be elevated by PED use. Seems fair to hold McGriff to a standard most Hall of Fame voters deem to be artificially achieved while acknowledging McGriff didn't use PED's.

Amid all the controversy over steroids, and the continued presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot, a lot of the Baseball Writers are complaining about being limited to vote for only 10 candidates.

Mostly, however, these are the writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, two guys who are never getting elected.

So who cares what these people think, right?

But as a result, two straight years of three no-brainers coming on the ballot has served to substantially stifle the vote totals of such candidates as Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina in particular, who all can make a legitimate case for the Hall.

Jeff Kent? Eh...not sure.

Like every Hall-of-Fame election, this one does promise to stir raging debates, not to mention plenty of intrigue — none more so than with Piazza, who’s eventually going to get elected, but if it turns out to be this year and makes it an electorate of five, it would be the first time that many go in since the original Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner class in 1936.

Piazza didn't make it, but Bill Madden's bacne article gloating about this with the mention of bacne (of course) deserves it's very own post. I enjoy how Bill Madden writes an article about Mike Piazza's link to steroids while saying there is a lot of talk about Mike Piazza's link to steroids. It's almost like he is helping to create the news he reports on.

Speaking of Mike Piazza, Rob Parker wouldn't vote for Mike Piazza even while not caring about Piazza constantly being linked to steroids. This is just a crazy opinion that really doesn't deserve any real consideration. I will give it consideration anyway.

Here is Parker's ballot. Notice he thinks Lee Smith deserves induction but Mike Piazza does not.

Anyway, so this is what Rob Parker said about Mike Piazza.

PARKER: I just looked at his numbers, I thought they were very good. There's a lot of guys very good. Fred McGriff's not in the Hall of Fame, he's a few home runs away, three home runs away, from 500. He has way more RBIs than Piazza, he's not in the Hall of Fame.

Because if McGriff sticks around another year and takes 200 at-bats to hit three more home runs then all of a sudden he is a Hall of Famer. Incredibly logical line of thought. McGriff has 215 more RBI's than Mike Piazza. That's over 1846 more at-bats by the way. Remember that Rob Parker gets to vote for the Hall of Fame and these aren't things he has considered. He just derps it up and tries to talk about RBI's, while ignoring how many plate appearances it took each player to get to the RBI number they came to by the end of their career. Just stupid. Sandy Koufax didn't even have 30 RBI's in his career. HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER HIM TO BE A HALL OF FAMER?

So there are guys like him.

There are guys like Piazza. He has the 4th most RBI among catchers in MLB history. Two of those other catchers are in the Hall of Fame. He's 1st in HR among catchers, with the four guys below him all Hall of Famers. He's 6th in hits, with four Hall of Famers immediately below him. 1st all-time in slugging percentage and 2nd all-time in OPS. There are guys like him. They are guys who are in the Hall of Fame.

And I know, it's the catching position, and people want to give more credit because it's so hard to catch and play, but some of the defensive issues—not throwing out runners,

This is an incredibly vague statement, but Piazza had a 23% caught stealing percentage in his career. He is 94th all-time in runners caught stealing with 423. Sure, some of this is a product of teams running on him. Piazza was a historically great hitting catcher. That counts for more than being an average defensive catcher in the same way Ozzie Smith being a defensive wiz put him in the Hall of Fame even though he didn't put up Hall of Fame hitting numbers.

no Gold Gloves as a catcher, things like that—that bothered me. I thought he's a great hitter, he was a great hitter, batted over .300, but something told me he belongs in the Hall of Fame—or, Very Good, but not the Hall of Fame.

That something that told Rob Parker that Mike Piazza shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? The voices in his head caused by insanity. I despise Piazza as a player, but anyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is crazy.

Rick Telander says the Hall of Fame cheats are paying the price for their actions. I'm just kidding. He says they are paying the price for Bud Selig's inaction. I'm not a huge Bud Selig fan, but to blame him for players choosing to use PED's seems a little bit like moving the blame to where it shouldn't necessarily completely lie.

Oh, how fun were those days of bulging biceps, Flintstones vitamins and home runs that flew off bats like ball bearings off anvils.

They were the result of a sport run amok on performance-enhancing drugs. And as history informs us, once the conspiracy has been uncovered, somebody’s gonna take the fall. And it’s almost never someone at the top. Find a mid-level, overzealous, loud-mouthed worker. Get a grunt.

And of course, Bud Selig has decided (UNFAIRLY, Rick Telander believes) to have those players who actually took steroids and helped the sport run amok with PED's take the blame. In reality, he should be blaming himself 100%. After all, Selig is the one who was in the locker room everyday interviewing Sammy Sosa and other PED users seeing their bodies changing, noticing the Andro hanging out on the shelf, with their finger on the pulse of the team. Wait, that wasn't Bud Selig who was in the locker room everyday, that was the sports media. They are, of course, in no way to blame for the Steroid Era because it's their job to report the news as it happens with gleeful joy and not question anything they are writing. Look, sportswriters are just along for the ride and it's not their job to question the bulging biceps or Flintstones vitamins. They are certainly no way at fault nor is Sammy Sosa. The blame lies solely not with those in daily contact with the players or the players themselves, but with Bud Selig.

If there were a red ‘‘C’’ — for cheater — that could be hung around Sammy’s neck for all to see, it seems certain the Baseball Writers’ Association of America would do it.

He and his brother-in-arms, McGwire, who was named on only 10 percent of the ballots and also is plummeting toward the vanishing point, are two of the poster boys for the Steroid Era, which has quieted down but never will be clearly completed.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Bud Selig is blameless in all of this. But I always find it funny when the same sportswriters who stood around in awe, wrote pieces about the greatness of these Steroid Era players, and had daily contact with these players are now saying, "HEY! Why didn't someone blow the whistle and stop this shit?"

I think Murray Chass and his bacne theory about Mike Piazza is kind of crazy given Piazza crouched down in a hot uniform all summer, but at least he wanted to write a story about it and his editor would not allow him to do so. Others, like Rick Telander, enjoyed the ride day after day and now wanted someone to step in and do something. Certainly not him though.

Sosa is the guy who just went too far. He rubbed our noses in it, changing from a slender outfielder to a bulging beast before our eyes.

Before your eyes, huh? Interesting how some sportswriters didn't want to point the finger at some of these players during the Steroid Era, but after these players retire, these same sportswriters don't mind accusing players who haven't been proven to use steroids as having used.

Sosa was slain by the law, the government and innuendo while commissioner Bud Selig dozed. Because, yes, Sosa changed shape before Selig’s eyes, too. That Selig did nothing about the obvious muscle madness going on in his leagues for more than a decade is the main reason we have reached the point where statistics mean so little and qualified Hall of Fame players are shunned.

Selig should have been more aware. This was a systematic failure and not just the failure of one person. Blaming Selig for Sammy Sosa using steroids is trying to find a fall guy for the Steroid Era, in the same article where Rick Telander accuses Bud Selig of finding a fall guy for the Steroid Era.

But he built it at the expense of integrity. That he didn’t do anything about rampant steroid use in the majors is a pity, even though the strongman tent show brought Selig’s game back from near irrelevance after the ugly 1994 strike.

If Selig didn’t know men such as Sosa were juicing, then shame on him. 

Right. Shame on Bud Selig. He should have unilaterally started a drug testing policy and forced the union to go along with it. This shouldn't take more than a day or two, right? 

Books, magazine articles, rumors, the drug corruption of the Olympics, bodybuilding freaks everywhere — the evidence was mind-boggling.

The evidence was so mind-boggling that Bud Selig should have stepped in immediately and stopped the madness. Of course, it wasn't so mind-boggling at that point in time that Rick Telander actually broached the subject of just how obvious it was that Sosa was juicing. Phil Rogers was fawning over Sosa after he won the 1998 MVP award and Telander apparently forgot to mention how obvious it was that Sosa was using steroids when he voted for Sosa as the 1998 NL MVP and then said he did it because Sosa was nicer than Mark McGwire. 17 years later it was SO obvious that both players were cheating, it's just that Sosa was being so nice to Rick he forgot to bring it up at the time. He totally thought Sosa was cheating at the time though, I mean how could he not? The evidence was mind-boggling.

Maybe Rick's mind was so boggled by Sosa's politeness and the chase for the home run crown that he didn't feel it was right to bring up steroids as an issue. If so, he's as bad as Bud Selig.

But how convenient to reap the benefits, then let over-egoed simpletons take the rap.

Fall guys. We need them. We find them.

BUT YOU ARE USING BUD SELIG AS A FALL GUY FOR THE STEROID ERA RIGHT NOW!

Writing Tuesday in USA Today, baseball columnist Bob Nightengale said we voters — and I am one — should get over the Steroid Era and vote anybody in who deserves it.
We never will know for sure who was clean and who was dirty the last 30 years, Nightengale wrote, ‘‘so wake up and knock off this absurdity.’’

Not me. It’s not absurd to me. I’ll never vote for players I have judged to be cheaters.

Way to uphold a tough standard that you refused to do 17 years ago. It's good to see a real tough guy beat up on the players for cheating nearly two decades later when you didn't have the foresight and guts to say anything at the time. 

Uncle Bud and the players’ union did nothing to stop cheating for years, so I am forced to do what is unfair.

Yep, Uncle Bud, the players' union, and every sportswriter covering the Cubs, Cardinals and every other MLB team during the Steroid Era did nothing. That includes you, Rick. Get off your high horse.

5 comments Rob Parker Should Be Fired, Not Just Suspended

I tried to think of a catchier title than that, but in this case simplicity was the best move. I'm going to post MMQB tomorrow, but wanted to get this post up first. I think ESPN should fire Rob Parker. I don't think ESPN should fire him because I don't like what he said (which I don't) nor because I disagree with him (which I do). I think ESPN should fire Rob Parker because he is taking the issue of race, which requires nuance and an in-depth conversation, and turning into a talking point to draw headlines and get attention. Rob Parker is hijacking the discussion of race and doing an injustice to the topic by turning it into a divisive talking point. ESPN is now in the business of race-baiting. They hire Skip Bayless to race-bait, Stephen A. Smith clearly drops a racial slur on national television (twice), and now Rob Parker is questioning Robert Griffin's "blackness" from Parker's high authority as a black man who doesn't even know Griffin. ESPN is a joke because they are becoming more and more seen as tabloid sports journalism. More and more "First Take" is becoming the "Jerry Springer Show" where two sides with opposing viewpoints take part in a battle that is more about ratings and entertainment than real sports journalism.

Perhaps ESPN is fine with that, but they shouldn't be. Rob Parker should be fired because we as a public deserve a better discourse on television than Rob Parker questioning someone's "blackness" and hearing racial slurs dropped while the person who dropped the racial slurs denies what everyone knows he said. It does a disservice to any discussion of race and it does a disservice to the viewer. ESPN needs to move away from this race-baiting and tabloid sports journalism and firing Rob Parker for his comments would be a good step towards doing this. I know there is a point of view that instead of firing Rob Parker ESPN should learn to talk about race. That's not happening though because ESPN doesn't want to learn to talk about race on "First Take." ESPN wants ratings, which is why they won't fire Rob Parker. Why can't ESPN learn to talk about race, and in the first step towards doing this, fire Rob Parker to show they are dedicated to an honest discussion on race?

We live in a (hopefully) a post-racial America. Not only does Rob Parker not have the authority to question another black person's "blackness," but my question is why he even wants to do this? Why does he see a black quarterback play well and then want to say he isn't "black enough?" Isn't this counter-intuitive to the goal of racial progress in America? Rob Parker sees a successful, black quarterback and immediately dismisses him as part of the "black race" and for what reason? What purpose does this serve other than to draw headlines and start a debate? As much as hear and read that black quarterbacks are treated differently than white quarterbacks, why dismiss a black quarterback for not being "black enough?" It's irritating for me we live in a world where equality is being strived for, while some of those who strive for equality seem absolutely determined to divide as much as possible. A huge company like ESPN (and therefore ABC) can not allow their employees to take a complex issue like race and turn it into a simplistic talking point for debate.

Let's review what Rob Parker said so I can perhaps get my point of view across better. Parker was responding to a comment by Robert Griffin who said,

"I don't have to be defined by that (being African-American)." 

I applaud him for saying this. He's trying to break the chains that people like Rob Parker want to hold him down with and just become a person, not a (insert sub-category of race/ethnic/sex) person. I am white. I do not want to be defined as a white person, so from that point of view I completely understand how Robert Griffin feels the way he does. I don't want to be seen as a white person only. This isn't a "touching pee-pees, we are all fucking friends, peace on Earth" argument I am making. It's just simply a point ESPN is missing more and more. It's not about how these comments make us feel, but how these comments reflect the speaker's own view of race and how a person of a certain race should act, think or believe. I'm offended when Stephen A. Smith drops a racial slur on television. I'm offended when ESPN allows Skip Bayless to race-bait. I'm sure Rob Parker would say I have no right to be offended, but he is wrong. By not giving me the right to be offended he is taking away my right to look past race, and as an effect, creating stereotypes for how people of certain races should behalf. I'm pretty sure someone who thinks this way is a bigot.

Anyway, here are Parker's idiotic statements.

"I've talked to some people in Washington, D.C. Some people in [Griffin's] press conferences. Some people I've known for a long time

Notice how Rob Parker starts it off with using his "sources" who he has known for a long time to back up his statement judging Griffin's "blackness." Parker knows what he is saying is stupid, but he tries to back up his opinion with the opinion of others that Griffin isn't "black." So he tries to immediately paint himself as part of an idiotic group and not just the idiotic lone gunman.

My question, which is just a straight, honest question, is

It's a "straight, honest question" designed to begin a simplistic debate about race where there can be no winners. Rob Parker keeps trying to preface his statement with words to make it seem like he's just "being real" and getting to the honest truth, when he is race-baiting.

"I'm just asking a straight, honest question...are you less intelligent because you are Hispanic? I'm not being a racist, but just being real. You can't hate me for being real."

... is he a 'brother,' or is he a cornball 'brother?'

This isn't a straight, honest question. This is race-baiting and the type of thing that ESPN needs to distance themselves from as quickly as possible. Yes, they suspended Parker, but this is punishing him for saying the wrong thing when they need to fire him and start "First Take" all over since the environment the show creates is part of the problem as well. This type of statement by Parker is not acceptable when stated by any person, no matter the race of that person. It's irritating to me in hearing Rob Parker question the "blackness" of an NFL player. How is making a subjective judgment about a person being "straight" or asking an "honest question?" It's not. Parker is being "straight" from his point of view, but his idea of honesty is better kept to himself from now on.

He's not really ... he's black, but he's not really down with the cause.

Griffin isn't "down with the cause." I'm sorry I thought Rob Parker worked as a journalist for ESPN. I guess I had him all wrong and he really is a member of "the cause." I'm sure questioning a black man's "blackness" is a central tenet of "the cause." Because this cause is apparently all about equality for "real" black people and not asshole cornball brothers like Robert Griffin. Those cornball brothers can burn in hell for daring to break out of the mold of what Rob Parker thinks a black man should act like. That's not closed-minded at all.

He's not one of us.

Race-baiting at its best. Kudos ESPN, you allow bigots to work at your network. You must be really, really proud. Sadly, ESPN probably is very proud.

He's kind of black, but he's not really like the guy you'd want to hang out with.

This is as opposed to Rob Parker who is a real cool chill guy to hang out with as long as you are "really" the race your skin color shows you to be. Otherwise, Rob Parker will be straight with you and make a subjective judgment on how you should act based on his own bigoted impression of your race.

I don't know what this "cause" Rob Parker is involved with, but if there is a cause that looks down on black people who are educated, intelligent, good athletes and good people then that cause isn't worth a shit. In fact, by saying he is affiliated with "the cause," and Griffin isn't because he has these "non-black" attributes, Rob Parker is taking a huge shit all over the cause he claims to represent. Parker is keeping down those same people he claims to want to help.

I just want to find out about him

This comment makes it worse. Rob Parker doesn't even know Robert Griffin, but he claims to know enough to know Griffin isn't black enough. What a terrible person Rob Parker is. The next time he writes an article about a knucklehead athlete who gets in trouble with the law I hope he remembers how he treats a good person like Robert Griffin. He pushes Griffin away because he doesn't meet the standard to be black when he doesn't even know Griffin.

He has a white fiancé, 

I'm not going to do the whole reverse this situation thing because I know any smart person is already doing that on their own. So basically Robert Griffin is not black enough because he dares to marry a white woman and doesn't meet the imaginary criteria of being "black." I'm not going to say Parker is racist, but he is a bigot. He publicly classifies people purely by stereotype. This just doesn't have a place in today's heterogeneous society. I love R&B and not in the "that white guy who says he likes that one Sam Cooke song or listens to John Legend" way, does that make me less white? I hate sweet tea, does that make me less Southern? I hate mayonnaise, does that make me less white? Anyone who tries to define a person simply by race, gender, or ethnicity simply has no place on television.

ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh and another network employee (when discussing Jeremy Lin) for making rude comments about race or ethnicity. Rob Parker gets suspended and I can't see how he keeps his job. What's so irritating is how ESPN doesn't get out in front of this issue and address the actual issue, which is the race-baiting that goes on at the network in a desperate grab for ratings. ESPN could make a bold move and revamp "First Take" entirely, (the horror!) getting rid of the contrived debate format that embraces the controversial for the sake of being controversial, and get control of the debate and discussion at their network. Get in front of the issue and get rid of those causing the issue rather than punishing them for doing exactly what you are encouraging them to do. I'm not stupid. I'm screaming into a void and ESPN won't make any bold moves this ensure comments like this aren't spoke again on their network.

people talking about that he's a Republican ... there's no information at all.

What does it matter if he is a Republican? Does this make him non-white? How dare a minority be a registered Republican! Rob Parker is so open-minded he will only allow non-black people to be Republicans. The idea that Griffin is a Republican and this makes him not black is bigoted, as well as incredibly infuriating.

I'm just trying to dig deeper into why he has an issue

HE DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING ISSUE! YOU HAVE THE ISSUE!

Then Skip Bayless chimed in with,

"What do RG3's braids say to you?"

What is this, CSI: Bigots?

RG3's braids tell me that he likes to wear his hair in braids. What does it matter what this says about him as a black or white person?

"To me, that's very urban,

To me, this conversation is all very stupid and has no place on a sports network.

"It makes you feel like ... I think he would have a clean cut if he were more straight-laced or not ... wearing braids is ... you're a brother. You're a brother. If you've got braids on."

So black people wearing braids are not clean cut. It's good to know the rules. So does Griffin's braids make him a "real" black person or is this just a part of the facade of being a black man that Griffin is dangerously trying to sell our nation on him being? 

Of course, previous to being suspended Rob Parker refused to back off or clarify his comments. In a statement so full of irony it blows my mind, Parker said his critics are "uneducated" and "silly." So by judging a Griffin solely on how "black" he is, despite not knowing Griffin at all, Parker is just being "straight" and "honest" with the audience by making a value judgment based on ignorance. Those who dare question Parker's value judgment are the ones who are uneducated and silly because they have enough sense to know how full of shit and bigoted Parker's comments truly are. I would leave a question mark after those sentences but those aren't questions, but are statements, because that seems to be how Parker truly feels.

I don't spend my time calling for people I disagree with to be fired nor am I easily offended. I'm more infuriated by the constant race-baiting that ESPN allows its employees to participate in while making a grab for ratings. If ESPN wants to not be a punchline they need to get in front of this issue, fire Rob Parker and turn "First Take" into a show that doesn't resemble a sports version of "The Jerry Springer Show."

ESPN needs to fire Rob Parker in an effort to move away from the destructive path "First Take" has led the company down. I'm not optimistic it will happen because ESPN seems to enjoy the culture it has created since it results in good ratings, which are all that really matters to ESPN. It's best to distance themselves and "First Take" from comments such as this, but it is impossible for ESPN to distance themselves when this type of comment is what "First Take" is all about. The show is about creating a reaction from the audience. It isn't about an honest discussion of race or any other sports issue.

I understand the point of view of those who believe ESPN should just suspend Rob Parker and help start an honest discussion about race, but I don't see how ESPN begins to start this discussion with race-baiters like Skip Bayless on the payroll and Rob Parker judging the "blackness" of certain athletes. It's time to get rid of the clowns. Firing Rob Parker would be the first step to ESPN showing the world they won't accept simplified discussions being boiled down into 10 second soundbites. It's sounds harsh, and it is, but ESPN can't help create a society where athletes have to act like a certain race or are judged "white/black/Asian" enough. Letting Rob Parker off the hook with merely a suspension for this value judgment about Robert Griffin would be sending a bad message to athletes who dare not to stay in the box the sports media so desperately wants to place them. Comments like those Rob Parker made about Robert Griffin are destructive, ill intentioned, and only go to further set the discussion of race back in a post-racial society. ESPN should want to do better.

25 comments Rob Parker, My Hero

As noted by Bottom of the Barrel, the opinions of many sports columnists are subject to justified ridicule and scorn. But every so often, you stumble upon that rare piece of literature which conveys your every emotion, opinion and feeling. Last week, Rob Parker accomplished this usually impossible task in his discussion of the 2010 Hall of Fame voting.

As a Hall of Fame voter, I both love and hate this day, especially lately. My brothers in the Baseball Writers Association of America have taken too many liberties the past few years instead of simply voting for the best players in the game. That should always be the goal of Hall voters, not playing moral police and making personal statements.

I could not have said it better. Guilt is not a reason to vote someone into the HOF. But every year, we see players who reach Cooperstown simply through longevity. Just because you are on the ballot does not make you deserving. Yet countless writers feel bad for such players, and ultimately vote them in. While these "moral police" tactics may seem like the nice thing to do, it in fact sets a lower standard, allowing for the justification of even worse players to gain entrance into the HOF.

Equally frustrating is the personal statement. For most MLB players, it is plainly obvious whether or not they are worthy of Cooperstown. When a player receives 95% of the vote, one question is never asked: who didn't vote for the player? I would love an explanation from those who decided to make a useless personal statement.

This situation often occurs in the NBA MVP voting. Last year, LeBron James ran away with the MVP Michael Jordan style. Despite the emergence of Kevin Durant and the ever present Kobe Bryant, LeBron, without question, was the most dominant player, both on the floor and statistically. Yet both Kobe and Durant received first place votes. I'll excuse the Kobe vote simply because he is arguably on LeBron's level. Durant, however, was statistically inferior to LeBron in every way. Although he won the scoring title, it was only because LeBron played sparingly as Cleveland eased into the playoffs. Yet some MVP voter, for no other reason than to make some ill-conceived statement, decided to vote for Durant. Again, I'd love a public explanation here.

Roberto Alomar was elected Wednesday with 90 percent of the vote and deserved it. In fact, it should have happened last year. The writers had no right making a bona fide first-try Hall of Famer -- a 12-time All-Star and 10-time Gold Glove winner -- wait a year to get in over one stupid moment with an umpire. For sure, the spitting incident was foul, but he paid for his sin and didn't do it again. People have to get over it.

Again, Parker exactly points out another flaw in HOF voting. Alomar is, at worst, a top 5 2B of all-time. While I can never condone Alomar's umpire spit (although I have played in plenty baseball games where such action may have been justified), it had no impact on his greatness as a player. Once again, the moral police decided to take a stand and not vote in Alomar last year. If a player breaks the rules in any game altering/statistic altering way, an argument can be supported and even validated. But Alomar's spit was merely a moral issue that clouded voters' judgment. As Parker said, "people have to get over it."

I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Why did those 10% still not vote for him? They should seriously require this as a public obligation for HOF voters.

I didn't vote for Blyleven. I don't believe you can be a Hall of Famer after nearly 15 years on the ballot. Jim Rice didn't deserve it last year, either. These are now sympathy votes. Writers are now trying to fill spots and punish players from the steroid era. It's all wrong. If you're not a Hall of Famer the first year, you're not one 15 years later. The numbers and standards haven't changed. This trend is disappointing to me. It simply makes no sense. Either you're a Hall of Famer or you're not.

Rob reaffirms his hero status by blatantly pointing out the sympathy votes that Blyleven and Rice received. More importantly, he makes a statement that cannot be said enough: "If you're not a HOF the first year, you're not one 15 years later." In fact, I think this should be a change for the HOF voting. As it stands now, players a voted in 5 years after retirement in order to allow for "perspective" to settle in on a players' career. In theory, a player who is selected after a few years of eligibility is voted in because there is a better perspective of his career. In reality, the sympathy factor sets in.

I am of the mind that a player should receive one opportunity to enter the Hall. But instead of 5 years, a player would have to wait 10 years before reaching the ballot. With more passed time, voters emotional connection to players is less palpable and more unlikely to impact their voting.

I voted for Mark McGwire but not Rafael Palmeiro -- both got less than 20 percent of the vote. Both careers are tainted by steroids. But here's the reason why I voted for McGwire, who got 19.8 percent. There was never any testing going on when he was doing it and playing. There simply were no rules on baseball's books about steroid use -- whether we liked it or not.

I'm a little torn on this issue. On the one hand, I completely agree with Parker in that McGwire did not technically break any rules. It's unfair to punish someone who simply took advantage of rules that were not in place. In a perfect world, I would end my statement there. But I'm afraid that letting McGwire in the Hall will open pandora's box and enable other steroid users to gain popular support and enter the Hall of Fame.

In Palmeiro's case, he was busted after baseball took steps to clean up the game and put tough penalties in place for violators. Hence, there should be a punishment for breaking clear-cut rules. And it's a hard pill to swallow because Palmeiro -- who got just 11 percent of the vote -- had both 3,000-plus hits and 500-plus home runs. Both are normally automatic entry to the Hall by themselves.

While Palmeiro's stats are impressive, they are tainted. On a less significant level, there's no way to determine how much of an impact steroids had on Palmeiro's stats. More importantly, as Parker points out, baseball made every effort to fix the game. If Palmeiro had been a steroid user before the baseball's cleanup effort, I would have supported his HOF ballot. But he broke the one cardinal rule of baseball when baseball actually cared.

Although each writer is able to vote for up to 10 players, I voted for just three. Sorry, everybody is not great. It's a special place, not the Hall of Very Good.

Only if there were more voters like Mr. Parker. I hate to put a restriction on the amount of votes, but anyone voting for 10 guys needs to reconsider his position. Even more than 5 is a stretch.

By the way, my other vote went to Lee Smith, who was the all-time saves leader when he first appeared on the ballot. I voted for him his first year and will continue to vote for him until his name is removed.

In order to not contradict my previous statements, I would not support Smith getting in the Hall simply because he did not make it in his first try. That said, he deserved it the first time.

2 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Trying to Tackle Some TMQ Edition

It is getting ready to be that dead period in sports where the only sporting events that are going on are hockey (if that still counts), college/pro basketball, the Brett Favre retirement watch and 131 NFL mock drafts from "experts" that can't seem to get any pick past #4 correct. This has nothing to do with anything but I felt like I would warn everyone it is coming. I like college basketball so this time of year is not that painful for me, but if my favorite college team tanks again it could be, especially since I am actually dreading the beginning of Major League Baseball for the first time in almost 20 years. Something about your favorite team not having a complete starting rotation, or 2/3 of an outfield just doesn't get you pumped up for spring training.

I am still disappointed Bill Simmons has not whined about the Patriots in print.

1. I tried to tackle some TMQ this week. Reading TMQ every week for me is very surreal, I feel like I should know exactly what he is talking about because I follow sports and I do recognize some of the things he is talking about, yet I can't seem to understand what the hell he is writing about. First, he is talking about sports, then throws in a cheerleader profile, talks about the economy, throws in some mention of an invention in Europe, and finally will make a reference to a 1830's scientist. It makes my head hurt.

The NFC Pro Bowl roster includes 16 players from teams that did not reach the playoffs, and only two Philadelphia Eagles. Yet the Eagles were the NFC's hottest team down the stretch and on Sunday played tremendous defense. The AFC roster has 20 players from teams that did not reach the postseason, and only two San Diego Chargers. Yet the Chargers were the AFC's hottest team down the stretch and on Saturday played tremendous defense.

I can't believe the Pro Bowl rosters included players who were on teams that did not make the playoffs! We should take it out of the hands of the fans and put it in the hands of monkeys who can draw names out of hats as to who makes the Pro Bowl.

Being "the hottest teams down the stretch and "on Saturday playing tremendous defense" are not reasons for individual players to be honored as the best at their position. If there was a Pro Bowl for teams, wait there is and it is called the Super Bowl, then the teams could qualify for that. Actually fuck it, let's vote the entire Eagles and Chargers defense into the Pro Bowl because they played great defense last week. I wonder if TMQ would agree with that decision.

Here is my NFL overtime proposal. An entire fifth quarter is played: but in the fifth quarter kicking is forbidden, except after scores. No punts, no field-goal attempts, no PAT kicks. Such a system would ensure each team more than one overtime possession, but enforce a standard of very aggressive play because you'd have to go for it on every fourth down and go for two after a touchdown. Fans might find they prefer football without kicking! If the game was still tied at the end of five, the sixth quarter would be sudden-death.

What a brilliant system! The first overtime will not resemble anything related to football, kind of like instead of having shootouts or sudden death OT in soccer you make the players shoot flaming arrows through the holes in the soccer goal and whoever can get the most through without setting the goal on fire wins. Fans may find they prefer soccer without a ball!

Then if that doesn't work, we would just use the same fucking OT system we have now. I always thought the purpose was to eliminate the current bad system, not think of a new way to play football...which by the way, if it is still tied at the end of the game, we would use the same shitty system we have now. Doesn't seem like progress to me.

With Philadelphia leading 16-14 at the midpoint of the fourth quarter but the home crowd on Minnesota's side -- home teams tend to win close games -- the Nesharim had first-and-10 on their 29. Donovan McNabb threw a weakside screen to Brian Westbrook; the always-playing-for-sacks Jared Allen of the Vikings totally bit on the fake;

What an asshole! Jared Allen was not brought to Minnesota to get sacks, he was brought to Minnesota to drop into coverage and cover receivers, that's what he is paid $50 million dollars to do. Great point Gregg, completely ignore the job of the linebackers and the secondary to notice a screen pass and focus on the player whose job it is to rush the QB, but blame him for doing his job.

when the Colts went for it on fourth-and-1, the Bolts forced an incompletion and took possession. That was sweet. But about that fourth-and-1: Peyton Manning play-faked and sprinted almost 15 yards backward, then had to throw the ball away. You only need 1 yard, why are you sprinting backward? That was sour.

Generally it is a good idea to sprint backwards/sideways when there are players from the opposing team chasing you. Do you understand football at all?

Falling behind 28-17 late in the third quarter, Atlanta got the ball back and on first down panicked and threw deep: interception. There was ample clock for the Falcons to work slowly down the field, while Arizona was expecting a deep strike. TMQ Law of Panic holds: Don't Panic Yet, There Will Be Plenty of Time for That Later.

This must be unrelated to the the TMQ Law of Always Go For it On Fourth Down.

Here is a great contradiction a few lines later of the TMQ Law of Panic:

With the game scoreless, host Minnesota faced fourth-and-inches at its own 28. The Vikings punted, and Eagles returner DeSean Jackson ran the ball back to the Vikings' 27 -- where it would have been anyway had Minnesota gone for it and failed. Needless to say, Minnesota went on to lose.

How does this guy get to write for ESPN? I would say going for it in your own territory in a scoreless game is to panic. How many times does a long return result in the ball being right back where it started at the punt? I am going to say very few times and it is not needless to say Minnesota lost, the game was scoreless at this point. Stop writing and go take 32 Asprin.

Now the Crimson Tide trail mid-major Utah 28-17 halfway through the third quarter of the Allstate Sugar Bowl, and face fourth-and-2 on the Utes' 32. That cannot be the field goal team trotting on -- especially when the Alabama kicker missed from the same spot in the first half. Outraged, the football gods pushed the try aside. Now Alabama, still down 28-17, faces fourth-and-3 well into the fourth quarter. That cannot be the punt team trotting on! Who cares if it's your own 24 -- score on this possession or give up!

So in a 28-17 game throwing deep down the field is being in a panic (as stated in the TMQ Law of Panic) but in a 28-17 game not going for it on fourth down is absolutely illogical? You are stupid, stupid, stupid. At least when you are trying to make a point, don't contradict yourself several lines later, stay consistent. This is why no one has respect for many of the columns that are posted online and why I write here. Take a position and stick with it, don't let your position change based on what you want to say next or for what you are trying to prove. Also, please remember what the hell you typed five paragraphs earlier.

As for The Ultimate Leader, in November 2006 the Broncos were 7-4 with the inside track to a wild-card slot. Then Shanahan benched Jake Plummer for Jay Cutler, and the Broncos have gone 17-20 since. Should Shanahan simply have stayed with Plummer?

I am sure there were no other variables involved in that record but for simplicity sake let's just assume there were none. So this was a dumb move?

Whoever takes the helm at Denver will be the beneficiary of the time Shanahan invested in letting Cutler learn by struggling.

So it was a good move? Make up your mind. Actually, please stop writing.

2. Peter King's Tuesday follow up to his MMQB doesn't get enough negative recognition from me.

"Let's see. In the second half, the Colts couldn't get one lousy yard to convert a fourth down, and gained 26 yards on 16 plays when they had a chance to end the game in the third and fourth quarters. But somehow you think the overtime rule cost them the game?! The overtime rule might be broken, but you need a better example to make your argument.''

Exactly. This reader is correct. Readers are correct, writers are wrong...this seems to happen a lot.

This never has been about me thinking the overtime rule cost the Colts the game. It's about fairness. If the Colts won the toss and marched to the winning score on the first possession, I'd be saying the same thing -- the coin toss plays too important a role in these football games.

He would be saying the same thing if the Colts had won, but just not as strongly, and it just so happens after Peyton Manning gets screwed over this becomes Peter's new favorite argument.

3. Speaking of this issue, Peter King and Don Banks debate the overtime rule.

One possession each in overtime sounds completely equitable. But no overtime format I've heard of would ever be completely equitable. There's always going to be an inherent advantage to the team that has the ball first, because it doesn't have the pressure of trying to match a score to keep the game alive.

Then, on the flip side, how is it completely equitable if you do give up a score first in overtime, you get the ball knowing that you have all four downs to keep the chains moving, rather than having to punt on fourth down, like the situation that the first-possession team faced? The second-possession team has 25 percent more downs to work with in trying to match or beat the other team's score because a punt is never going to be part of the equation for a team trailing in overtime.

That's Don Banks and he is completely correct in his evaluation of why OT rules can never be fair, we just need to make up a system and stick with it.

141 regular-season games have gone to overtime and ended with only one team having possession. So, on average, four times per year, a coin flip plays a major role in the outcome of an NFL game.

This is Peter. Four times a year, is that a lot? There are 256 games in a year, not including the playoffs, and therefore there is a 1.5% chance the game is going to end in OT with the second team not getting possession of the football based on this happening four times a year. Since there is a 50% chance your team will win the coin flip, there is a 0.78% chance your favorite team is going to lose in OT without getting the ball. This is not a major problem, sure I have a fear it is going to happen to my favorite team, but that is the rules of football. It will greatly piss me off when it happens. I don't like the rules of OT but there is nothing that is more equitable that has been mentioned at this point. Quit spitting out random fucking numbers without looking at their meaning in the larger picture.

I think a coin should be flipped at the start of overtime, with the winning team having the choice of whether to take the ball first. But then, if neither team has the lead after the second possession of overtime, the game enters sudden death.

Despite the fact the two teams have had multiple possessions and 60 minutes to outscore each other, Peter thinks the teams should have two more possessions, then it goes to the shitty OT rules we have now. I thought we all agreed the sudden death is stupid, why is every new idea involve using sudden death as a backup if the new idea does not work?

Peter's brilliant idea STILL favors the team that wins the coin flip because they would conceivably get one more possession than the other team. That's not fair either and really makes no sense.

If this system is so fair, then why has, on 99 percent of the coin flips to start overtime in the last 35 years, the team that won the coin flip chosen to receive? Because it's a huge advantage to get the ball first.

Under your system, it would still be a great advantage because the team that wins still gets one more possession. These teams play 60 full minutes of football, why do we have to have multiple more possessions in OT?

I personally think there should be a coin flip to decide possession, then one possession for each team and the second team with possession has to go for two if they get a touchdown and can not kick a field goal. If the first team gets a field goal, then the next team can win with a touchdown, and they have to go for it. If the first team gets a touchdown, the second team can still win the game. I think it provides good strategic decisions that can be made and would be fun to watch...also it would be slightly more fair. The team that wins the coin flip may choose to get the ball second to answer the first teams score but then they have more pressure because they can't kick a field goal.

OK, but you want to know something that really drives me crazy? It's when I hear you and others complain that the reigning league MVP didn't even get to touch the ball Saturday night in overtime, as if Peyton Manning somehow deserved a chance to win the game in dramatic fashion. The truth is, he had his chance to win the game and be the hero, and it came late in regulation.

This is Don Banks and he is talking very correct words out of his mouth right now.

Just because he's Peyton Manning doesn't mean we should engineer some sort of phony baloney rule to make sure that the great Manning is able to touch the ball in overtime. But in a game where the hottest quarterback in the last month of the season (San Diego's Philip Rivers) duels the hottest quarterback in the last half of the season (Manning), I think it's folly that the toss of a coin should play such a big role in one of them touching the ball from that point on and the other not.

This is Peter and he is basically saying, "sure I agree we should not engineer a rule to make sure Peyton can touch the ball again, but it was so fun to watch so let's do it anyway."

I still like my idea best.

4. Bill Cowher is smart for not taking the Jets job.

They told Jets general manager Mike Tannenbaum that the former Steelers coach was 95 percent sure he was not going to return to coaching. Cowher's reps then told Tannenbaum that Jets owner Woody Johnson should call him, insinuating if Johnson offered an exorbitant amount of money, Cowher might change his mind. Johnson, who was out of the country, felt a phone conversation with Cowher would just be a money grab by the coach.

I think it is inappropriate to call this a money grab by Bill Cowher. He simply does not have to go back to coaching if he does not want to and wants to make sure the situation is right and that he gets paid for his services. He has this thing called leverage and I think Cowher may be the Jet's best shot, if they are planning on keep God Favre around next year, to actually succeed because Cowher may be one of the few coaches who could control Favre's fragile, sad ego.

Of course Cowher also may not succeed outside of the Steeler's coaching coccoon. There has been no head coach in the last 30 years who has left the Steelers and coached anywhere else so it is hard to know if that is the case. I think if the Jets are really serious about getting a good head coach they should figure out the Favre situation first.

5. Woody Paige seems to think it was time to fire Shanahan.

The most revitalizing possibilities are Bill Parcells and Bill Cowher. Parcells has an out clause if the Dolphins are sold, and they are being sold. Cowher, who has been out of football for two seasons, is ready to come back. Each would demand total power, as Shanahan had.

Nothing more exciting than hearing Woody brainstorm possibilities. I really don't think either would be too interested in this job, they seem more like East Coast guys to me.

The most interesting possibilities are Josh McDaniels (Patriots offensive coordinator), Mike Leach (Texas Tech head coach) and Pete Carroll (USC head coach).

If by "interesting" Woody means "most likely to fail" then yes these are interesting choices. I would be nervous because other New England coaches have not done well outside of New England, though of course McDaniels deserves an interview. Just be cautious is all I am saying. Pete Carroll has failed at the NFL level before, what in the hell would make you think he could do it well this time? Mike Leach? Remember Steve Spurrier's attempt to take his college offense to the NFL? Then add in the fact Leach has never won a National Championship in college nor placed any of his vaunted great college quarterbacks in the NFL as of yet in a starting job, and I don't think he would be a good choice.

The most thought-provoking possibility is John Elway (who needs no introduction).

Brilliant idea. The Broncos need someone with zero head coaching experience. Why not have Terrell Owens come in as offensive coordinator and Bill Romanowski can be the defensive coordinator? The only thought this provokes is, other than being a great player, what the hell has Elway done to deserve a head coaching job?

Brilliance in sportswriting, thy name is Woody.

6. Rob Parker "quit."

Detroit News sports columnist Rob Parker has resigned from the newspaper, the paper's managing editor told Journal-isms on Tuesday. Parker had been demoted to general assignment sports reporter,

I think this seems a bit harsh if he "resigned" because of the whole Marinelli incident. Though I don't think that is the case and he hasn't seemed too insightful when I saw him on First Take, so he may just be a bad columnist.

He penned a much-debated column where he called Hank Aaron a 'coward' for declining to attend when Barry Bonds would break the career Major League home run record."

I did not know he said this. I think he is a moron for saying this. It seems like he tries to be controversial but just comes off as being a real asshole.

Last year, Parker declared on ESPN's "First Take" that he had low expectations for college players Tyler Hansbrough and Kevin Love in the NBA, because they are white.

I have low expectations for him because of these comments.

7. I love it when colleges treat athletes like commodities.

Shannon took it to the extreme. According to Marve, he was prohibited from transferring to 27 schools.

Miami shortened the list a little bit but to prohibit Marve from going to 27 schools is absolutely insane. I don't think colleges should be able to create a list this long. I could see an argument that the student could not go to school in the conference but that is about it. Imagine if you decided to transfer schools and the school you are transferring from creates a list of 20 schools you can't go to. That would seem crazy. I guess it is different for athletes but this seems like it unfairly prohibits an athlete's ability to get an education and play sports. You know, the whole student-athlete thing.

Miami softened its stance slightly and now will allow Marve to transfer on scholarship to any SEC school other than Florida, LSU and Tennessee. Miami alleges those schools were tampering with the player. The ACC and in-state ban stands, though.

How generous. Miami does realize it has a reputation for being a school of thugs and probably should work harder to rehab it's image, right?

An in-state ban on playing football is outrageous. What if he wanted to stay closer to home or be able to see his family on the weekends he was not playing football? I don't agree with this, partly because players already have to sit out a year and especially when coaches can take jobs anywhere they want, whenever they want with no restrictions, but yet they have the ability to restrict student-athletes on where they can go to college.

How are policies like this good for recruiting?

8. Any Pettitte is being high maintenance.

The left-handed starter has rejected the Yankees' one-year, $10 million offer, The New York Times reported, citing a person with knowledge of the negotiations.

Not only is Pettitte not worth this amount of money, he has not even come close to earning the $32 million he "earned" over the past two years. I think he should accept this amount for stealing money the past couple years. Not that that Yankees would notice of course, but the principle stands.

Pettitte went 14-14 with a 4.54 ERA last season, after starting the year at the center of baseball's performance-enhancing drugs scandal.

He earned $16 million last year, went .500 with a 4.54 ERA and now $10 million is not enough for him to get paid? I am not even going to talk about how the team stood by him after he admitted he took PEDs, which I guess I did just talk about.

The really horrifying part about this is Pettitte can do this because there is a complete lack of good pitching available on the free agent market. Randy Wolf and Oliver Perez do not entice me all that much for the amount of money they want.

How can someone make $16 million dollars, be an average pitcher, and then expect the team to not offer them a salary decrease?

9. I hate ESPN's new web site. I don't get why sites insist on putting all these videos and other shit on their home page. It is annoying. I know I sound like I am 80 years old but I don't want video or highlights or anything on the introduction page because it makes the page load incredibly slowly. Google is my home page because ESPN takes half an hour to load with all of the interactive features they provide. Fortunately, I can get better news from other sources but most of the shitty columnists work for ESPN so I have to brave the site to get to the good shit.

10. Ever since Bill Simmons' "any measurement that does not have the Boston Celtics as the best team in the NBA needs to be worked to have that result" comment about John Hollinger's team rankings, the Celtics have gone 2-4 with losses to the Knicks and the Bobcats. Yet we have not heard a peep from Bill about this at all, much like no word on the Patriots not making the playoffs. When we do hear from him, I am sure he will say all of the losses were on the road.A team that is the best team in the league should not lose to teams that are a combined 56-82 no matter where they play.

Maybe John Hollinger's rankings are actually correct. Of course you will never hear Bill admit he was wrong on this, if he does say it, then he clearly got screwed over by the officiating or there was some conspiracy against the Celtics that was in play as well. I wish he posted a column every single day.

5 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: 0-16 Edition

I am so glad I am not a Detroit Lions fan. Though I used to play with the Lions because of Herman Moore and Barry Sanders on Tecmo Super Bowl, I fortunately never was a fan of the team. I remember what it is like to have a favorite team that struggles to win games so I feel bad for them. There is a lot of Lions talk out there for various reasons...mostly because JemeHill writes about them in nearly every single article for Page 2. As much as I complain Bill Simmons writes about the Boston area teams too often, JemeHill is just as bad about writing about Detroit all the time. The difference is that she has nothing to gloat about because the teams are all bad so it is not as annoying...but don't think I am not noticing.

1. JemeHill thinks the Lions have to go 0-16 to have changes happen. Let's see what poor reasoning she uses today.

The Detroit Lions must go 0-16.

Not 1-15.

Take it from me, there is really no difference in how depressed you get watching the team. It almost is worse to have one win because you sit there and wonder how the hell the team won a game and hold out a bizarre amount of hope it could happen again.

Things aren't good in my hometown right now. Unemployment is high, and confidence is low. Just this week, both Detroit newspapers announced that, because of the economic downturn, they will be delivering to homes only three days a week beginning in March -- making each of them a thricely instead of a daily.

Things aren't good in my hometown right now, there is a lot more traffic because it is Christmas, there is a lot of construction I have to go through on my way to work, and I am reading JemeHill's latest column. Let's call it even.

Congress is stalling regarding the Big Three automakers, having forgotten it just wrote a blank check to Wall Street without even asking for so much as a Christmas card in return.

If you don't have much to say, just write a shorter column. A lesson JemeHill should learn.

Nothing has worked in a half-century. You name it, they've failed at it. They've done the run 'n' shoot and the West Coast offense. They've drafted cornerbacks, Heisman Trophy winners, offensive linemen, defensive backs and, of course, wide receivers. They've hired inexperienced coaches and veteran ones. Barry Sanders is the best decision the Lions ever made. As for the worst, take your pick.

I genuinely don't remember the Run 'n' Shoot offense in Detroit but I may not have been paying much attention. They may have run something similar to that with Moore, Brett Perriman, and others but I don't think they called it that. Anyway, Lions suck and always have, what does this have to do with why they should not win a game?

If the Lions beat either New Orleans or Green Bay, Ford may be suckered into thinking he doesn't need to change as much as he thought. Already, some people have suggested that coach Rod Marinelli deserves to keep his job because the Lions have played hard despite losing their first 14 games.

Really, I do not know anyone who is a Lions fan, but if the Lions win a game against Green Bay this week and people suggest there may not need to be a coaching change because the team is playing hard...well I will just say they probably get the ownership they deserve.

Let's do some risky business with numbers and facts:

The 1976 Tampa Bay team that went 0-14 arguably was worse than the 2008 Lions, but the Bucs reached the NFC Championship Game in 1979 and ultimately won the Super Bowl after the 2002 season.

Two problems here: First, the Bucs did not fire their coach after the 0-14 year (granted they were an expansion team) and he led them to the 1979 NFC Championship Game in 1979. This is poor reasoning for why you should fire your present coach. Second, the Bucs stunk very badly for almost 20 years before they won the Super Bowl 23 years after 1979. It was not an overnight success. Maybe JemeHill is looking to turn the Lions around in 23 years but I am assuming ownership and the players would like to move a little faster. Bottom line is don't look to the Bucs as an example of a team that turned it around well in a short period of time.

The Arizona Cardinals -- Detroit's longtime rival for worst NFL franchise -- just won the NFC West and are in the playoffs for the first time in 10 years.

Again, a bad example of a team finding a way to pull it all together for a playoff run. By any stretch the Cardinals are in the second worst division in football and would not make the playoffs in any other division except the AFC West because they are 8-7. To take it down to your level, the only reason they are in the playoffs is because they have gotten to play teams almost as bad as the Lions every week.

So although Lions fans have the right to fear the thought of Ford's making even more decisions, here's another good reason to root for 0-16: Ford can't do worse than winless.

Ford can't really be stupid enough to think there should not be a coaching change if the Lions win one game would he? I hope not.

2. Rob Parker made a funny to Rod Marinelli that he did not find funny.

Parker asked Marinelli, "Do you wish your daughter would have married a better defensive coordinator?"

I really have no problem with this question from a joking standpoint. It does come off as unprofessional because Parker is a journalist who is supposed to ask serious questions. The insinuation in this is that the only reason Barry got the job was because he was married to Marinelli's daughter, which is kind of offensive. Parker apologized for the comment and I think it should be over now.

The real question I have is: what was Parker attempting to accomplish with this question? There is no good answer for it, so it is a wasted question and comes off as a potshot at Marinelli and his family.

Imagine if someone had asked the Browns General Manager at a press conference: "Do you wish your owner had not followed the Rooney Rule and given Romeo Crennel an interview?"

That may not be exactly similar to the Marinelli case but my premise is that either way it is a stupid question to ask.

3. Mike Freeman thinks the Lions have other things to worry about other than the questions Rob Parker asks.

But the joke was typical Rob. He went too far but anyone who knows Rob well knows he's usually very funny and is always cracking jokes. That's him. That's Rob. It's why I've always liked him. He never became one of these pompous ass columnists who looked down on his readership and other journalists in the business.

Mike Freeman manages to hover directly over the issue without ever actually getting to what the real problem was. I am sure Rob should be a stand up comedian in his spare time and is completely down to earth but neither of these are good reasons why he asked the question. He was not joking around with his buddies, he was at the press conference for a team that is 0-15. Bad feelings are bound to be hanging around the room just based on that. Bad timing...

My biggest problem is with the anonymous cowards who altered his Wiki page. My problem is with Terry Bradshaw, who took quite the hypocritical stand on Fox. Because Bradshaw has never, ever shot his mouth off before.

Both of these are great points and I agree with them. What is he writing about again? I have already forgotten.

Lions fans: Your team is about to set one of the all-time marks for sports futility. You have bigger fish to fry people.

This is one of my least favorite arguments people use. Simply because there is a more pressing matter at hand does not mean a lesser problem should not be discussed. If this reasoning was used in everyday life then any racist comment towards an African American could be dismissed with reasoning there are bigger fish to fry. This is like saying we should ignore a racist comment made publicly because of the large amount of single family households in the African American community and the large amounts of African American males in prison. This makes absolutely no sense but under the "bigger fish to fry" theory you can dismiss any remark and try to focus on a bigger problem. It's stupid and I hate it.

Again, let's make this clear. Rob went too far but all the venom aimed in his direction is just as wrong as the attempted piece of humor.

There should be no venom directed because this should all be over by now, but for those who are still offended, they can have anger directed at the Lions and Rob Parker at the same time. It is possible.

4. Bill Plaschke wants, needs, and has to have Mark Teixeira now.

Arte Moreno needs to swing away, swing big, swing with the power of more than $160 million, swing with the strength of eight years, swing for those fans who have lived with six years of failed October bunts.

Wait, wait, wait. I thought small ball was good. Remember 2002 David Eckstein, Adam Kennedy, and Erstad? Small ball, National League type hitting is muy bueno, remember this? Guess not.

As the Southland's two most prominent baseball players have been peddled from town to town this winter in boorish (or is that Boras?) fashion

Ba-da-(sound of self inflicted gunshot to my head).

Well, the Angels will be hurting a lot worse without Teixeira.

You mean unlike last year when they lost to the Red Sox, despite having homefield advantage, with Tex?

Teixeira was the prototypical Angel in all but one aspect -- he was actually a clutch hitter in the playoffs, batting .467 against the Red Sox.

There's no such thing as clutch hitting and the Angels still lost with him hitting .467, does that tell you he is the only missing piece to this team? If he is not, then might want to find that other piece while you are inking Tex to a $200 million deal or it will be wasted money. Maybe considering Vlad also hit .467 the Angels should look even harder and wonder why it is their two best players had great series and they STILL lost. I don't know the reason but clearly re-signing Tex will not fix it.

If the Dodgers do not sign Ramirez, they can find another outfielder who will work in their system, someone like Bobby Abreu.

Good move. The Angels need another high priced outfielder who underachieves. Bill Plaschke for Bucks GM!

With Teixeira back, with Maicer Izturis healthy, with Howie Kendrick older, with Gary Matthews Jr. making the right adjustments, the Angels are a legitimate World Series contender again.

You mean the exact same team that lost this year?

What the fuck kind of "right adjustments" is Matthews going to make? Learn to actually hit a baseball consistently, decrease his contract to his actual value, or some other mysterious adjustment he has failed to make over his career as a backup outfielder?

Think about it. Teixeira spends two months in this atmosphere, thrives without controversy, wins for the first real time in his career, is given a fair market offer of more money than generations of Teixeiras can spend . . . and he still chooses to leave?

Um yes. If you gave me the choice of hitting in a lineup surrounded by a 33 year old with a bad back, two outfielders who strike out all the time, a bunch of little runts in the infield who bunt really well and play good defense, and a pitching staff that has no closer or I could hit in a lineup with the MVP of the American League, David Ortiz, and a pitching staff that goes 6 starters deep with a solid bullpen, not to mention a short right field fence...the decision is not that hard.

Throw in the fact the Red Sox are clearly committed to winning 100 World Series in a row...and there is no reason Tex would not sign with them.

Sign Teixeira, and replace it with a homer.

Actually, re-sign Teixeira and they lost with him last year.

5. Woody Paige hates the Broncos this week.

Jay Cutler said, "Next question." He's the one who threw the interception. "We didn't get it done," Brandon Marshall grumbled. He's the one who caught the ball and fumbled.

Marshall grumbled? No way, remember he has matured!

The playoff clinch became a wretched grinch of a game.

Fa-la-la-la . . . aaaahhhh, baaaahhhh!

If Woody Paige were my uncle and I had to endure shit like this every Christmas, I would turn him into Child Protective Services claiming he molested me. Sure it would ruin his life but every joke like this would make me dumber and that serves a greater insult to the community than placing a man with bad jokes in jail on a fake molestation charge.

However, when the Broncos were reduced to kicking a field goal, visions of sugar plums danced in the Bills' minds.

This is supposed to be a serious article and it is hard to take anything Woody says seriously when he makes third grade jokes like this. This is not journalism.

When Mike Shanahan asked Matt Prater to attempt a 54-yard field goal with two minutes to go before halftime, he might as well have asked a chimney sweep.

A Mary Poppins reference? If not, why would Santa need a chimney sweep and why am I dissecting this idiocy?

The Broncos were the real grinches on Sunday. As Dr. Seuss would suggest, they stole Christmas from themselves.

As Dr. Seuss would also suggest, if I were Horton, I would hear a dumbass.

6. Joe Posnanski asks if it is fair to judge old players on new criteria for the Hall of Fame.

So the question here is: Is it fair to use forced fumbles to judge a Hall of Fame case when the statistic is so new? My feeling is absolutely clear on that: OF COURSE it's fair. It's more than fair.

I agree 100%.

People start freaking out when Jim Rice and Jack Morris are not let into the Hall of Fame and I don't think they should make it for various reasons, but mostly because I don't think they were good enough to be considered among the best at their positions.

I like Joe Posnanski and he wrote a great article in SI about the Winter Meetings in baseball this week. Has nothing to do with what I am talking about, but I thought I would mention it.

That's how it works as we make discoveries. We find new ways to look at the game. Some will look better in retrospect. And some players will not look as good. Some players will stand up to our memories and some will surpass our memories and some, like movies we may have liked 20 years ago, will not stand up at all. That's not being unfair. That's perspective.

Exactly. One of the reasons I think many old time baseball guys are afraid of the new statistics is they believe it is some way to be used to diminish past accomplishments and that is not true. It is just discovering a different way to look at statistics and maybe give people a chance to see a player's real worth to a team and compare it to other players of different eras and today.

Still some people are afraid of the stats and want to remember these players as greats in their head and just count on their memory as a reason to vote them in the Hall of Fame. That is absurd but still people like, of course, Joe Morgan want to downplay new statistical methods because it scares them. Insanity.

7. I can't even get that far into TMQ with Easterbrook without getting a headache.

It's Armageddon for the NFL's division-based postseason format. For an 8-8 NFL team to reach the postseason while an 11-5 team does not would be like if, in Major League Baseball, an 81-81 team made the playoffs while a 111-51 team did not.

I am glad TMQ understand the similarity in those situations but I also don't want to disappoint Gregg and tell him this could very well happen in Major League Baseball. Nothing is stopping a 81-81 team from making the playoffs in the National League but a 111-51 team could not in the American League. In fact the Dodgers were not that far above .500 this year, so if there happen to be four powerhouse teams in the AL in two divisions, I imagine this could happen.

It's bad enough that Arizona, which has lost four of its past five games, could finish 8-8 and host a playoff game against a team that finished 11-5.

Of course, this is incredibly shitty but it is also the rules of the NFL playoffs system. Sometimes it works out, other times it does not. This makes even less sense if you think the Cardinals could very well play an 11-5 team (Panthers) they actually have already lost to this year, but because of the division set up the Cardinals get a home game the Panthers actually deserve based on their record. It is the rules though. We have bigger fish to fry though Gregg, our economy is in the shitter right now. Let's direct all of our anger there.

8. Ok, one more TMQ.

Worst Crowd Reaction: With Carolina leading 21-13 late in the second quarter, the Giants gave up a sack and, facing third-and-16 in their own territory, threw a flare to Derrick Ward, who lost yardage. The G-Persons home fans booed lustily. Sure, you just won the Super Bowl, you're 11-3 and on the cusp of home-field advantage throughout the playoffs, but what have you done for us lately! Ward ended the night gaining 210 yards from scrimmage, so giving him the ball was not such a bad idea, even if it didn't work on that down.

See, here is the thing shitbag. The Giants fans are like many other humans in that they can't tell the fucking future, so at that point they did not know Ward was going to run for 210 yards later in the game. The fans just saw a conservative play call that was, for once, sniffed out by the defense. It's not "what have you done for us lately" it is, "we have no fucking idea how this game is going to turn out and we are losing and did not like the play call."

You little fuckhead you can't take immedate reactions to play calls and then criticize them based on future information that you only have acquired from hindsight. That's like insulting our grandparents and great grandparents for fucking up the environment 100 years ago.

I would say go write for a different company but ESPN is perfect for your dumbassery.

9. I think we are looking at a Giants-Steelers Super Bowl at this point. I think the Steelers learn from their mistakes the first time around against the Titans and are able to beat them at home this time. I also think the Giants will end up hosting the Falcons at home and ending up in the Super Bowl again. This is not my official prediction, but just a gut feeling I have gotten from actually watching these four teams play. I may be completely wrong because both teams have pretty obvious weaknesses that I can see but they also have defenses that are not going to give up a lot of points and can create turnovers.

10. Why are Ben Sheets and Randy Johnson not getting more interest on the free agent market?

I just don't see how A.J. Burnett has teams willing to give him $16 million per year but Ben Sheets doesn't get offers from any teams that are even worth half of that. Maybe he has and I have not heard anything about it, which is possible, or maybe Sheets is injured and wants to rehab a little before he starts fielding offers, that is also possible. Either way, it doesn't make sense that some team has not put an offer to Sheets out there in some capacity. I am sure he wants some sort of guaranteed contract instead of a contract that is based on how many starts he makes but if you are going to give Burnett $16 million wouldn't Sheets be worth half of that amount for five years? Maybe everyone thinks he is injured too often, I don't really understand completely.

I also realize Randy Johnson is bordering on 90 years old but he had a good season last year considering his age and I think he would be worth a shot for a team looking for a back of the rotation starter. He may want too much, which is highly possible, but I know for a 5th starter there are a lot worse options out there. I guess maybe a team does not want to give a 40+ year old starter a spot in the rotation a younger guy might use. What do I know though?