6 comments The Kansas City Royals Are Making Sportswriters Go Insane and Write Crazy Things

I'm not sure if you have heard, but the Royals are in the World Series. I know, anyone who follows sports probably could have easily missed this story, but it's a factual one. Anyone can read the plethora of Royals stories out there which try so hard to create narratives and take disconnected events and tie them into a larger story. You can read Jason Whitlock say "Sure, Ned Yost sucks" but that means he's the perfect manager for this team. You can read other sportswriters point out that Yost is the answer to prayers from the anti-Saber crowd. But there are also slightly crazier articles that try to point out exactly which team this 2014 Royals team reminds the author of. Again, we are creating narratives here, so the mere suggestion the Royals were six outs away of not winning the Wild Card game is not acceptable. Only comparisons to previous World Series-winning teams and calling the Royals a team of destiny are accepted.

Tracy Ringolsby provides the most embarrassing headline. It says, I kid you not, "Like '85 Champs, Royals Know How to Win." This is essentially a "fuck it" headline. He can't explain why the team is winning, so fuck it, he'll just say the Royals know how to win games. When in doubt without an explanation, just make something up.

It turns out this squad has a lot in common with the Royals team from 29 years ago, which apparently was an untalented team who just "knew how to win" as well.

Twenty-nine years later, the Kansas City Royals have returned to the World Series. Shows how fickle baseball can be.

Or how bad the Royals have been in the interim. The 2014 postseason was the first postseason in over two decades where either the Yankees, Red Sox and Braves weren't represented. So baseball is fickle, but then not really fickle.

When the Royals hoisted that World Series championship trophy back in 1985, it was the seventh postseason appearance in 10 years. It wasn't that those Royals were dominating. They simply knew how to win.

There's no such thing as "knowing how to win." There is such a thing called "Having a good team and using the players on that team to win games." Saying a team "knows how to win" is probably the least analytical, most brain-dead way possible to explain a team's success.

It showed that postseason. The Royals rallied from 3-1 deficits in both the American League Championship Series, against the Blue Jays, and the World Series, against the Cardinals, becoming the first team to lose the first two games at home and rally to become World Series champions.

Did the Royals just forget how to win for a few games, then remember again, just in time to win the series? After all, if the 1985 Royals knew how to win then why didn't they put this knowledge to work before going down 3-1? Let me guess, they just wanted a challenge?

What is known is after Jorge Orta was called safe at first base, Steve Balboni hit a foul pop up that Cardinals first baseman Jack Clark watched drop to the ground. Balboni took advantage of the gift and eventually singled, moving Orta to second. After Jim Sundberg's sacrifice-bunt attempt was turned into a force of Orta at third,

Small-ball fail! This is a blatant small-ball fail!

The Royals had set the stage for the World Series in the ALCS. After losing the first two games at Toronto, they pulled out a 6-5 victory in Game 3, which became known as the game George Brett refused to lose.

This is as opposed to Games 1 and 2 which George Brett reluctantly conceded he wouldn't mind losing. After all, he knows how to win, so he can just do that anytime he wants.

Brett homered in the first for a 1-0 lead. He doubled and scored on a White sacrifice fly in the fourth for a 2-0 lead. Brett belted a two-run homer in the sixth to tie the game at 5. He hit a leadoff single in the eighth and then scored the game-winning run on a Balboni single.

"Refused to lose" = "Had a great night hitting the baseball"

Also, if George Brett was part of a Royals team that knew how to win, why hasn't he passed this knowledge down to the current Royals team prior to this year? This seems like really, really important information that he would want to pass on as quickly as possible to Royals teams for generations to come.

On a team short with power, Balboni, who was acquired from the Yankees, had one assignment -- swing hard and hit home runs. The 36 home runs Balboni hit in 1985 are still the franchise record.

Since these two Royals teams are so similar, who is the Balboni of the current Royals team? I mean, after all, these two teams are mirror images of each other because they both know how to win. I know how to win too. Score more runs than the opposing team.

"If we are within three games by Sept. 1, we are the division champions," McRae had said in late July.

Why?

"We know how to play in September, they don't," McRae said in reference to other AL West teams.

Much like the current Royals team knows how to play in October and other teams don't. Make moves that strategically look stupid, but count on the opposing team to screw up or just figure out how to win and score runs. Just figure it out. It can't be that hard.

Steve Farr was called up from Triple-A the day after a two-day August strike. He said he realized things were different with Kansas City the first game he was in uniform.

In the ninth inning, Detroit's Johnny Grubb doubled off Saberhagen to right-center.

"Willie [Wilson] has to catch that," Farr remembers muttering in the bullpen.

"Sabes has to finish off that pitch," said Quisenberry.

"The point was made," said Farr. "This wasn't about what any one player did. This was about what we did."

And that's how to win. I have no idea how the 2014 Royals are like the 1985 Royals and I suspect Tracy Ringolsby doesn't either. It sure made for a good headline when he had no other clue what to write about.

Their job was to win, no matter what the obstacle.

The Royals handled their job well.

And that's how to win. Just win. Just like the current Royals team is doing. There's no secret, know your job and go do it. Most other MLB teams don't know it's their job to win.

Terence Moore doesn't think the Royals look like the 1985 Royals at all. He thinks the Royals look like the 1969 Miracle Mets. I think Ringoslby and Moore should have a hyperbole-off to see which person is making the correct comparison. Because obviously the Royals can't just be the 2014 Royals, they have to be directly comparable to a baseball team from the past.

You watch the Royals shock reality these days, and you recall 45 years ago, when America featured everything from the dramatic to the improbable.

Yes, I do. I remember those days when I was negative years old very fondly. Back then, I didn't have to read articles forcing a comparison of one sports team to another.

"You had the Vietnam War and protesters everywhere, and the economy was booming," Ron Swoboda said, sounding like the definitive voice for 1969 over the phone from his home in New Orleans. "There was the aftermath of the death of Martin Luther King Jr. and the ongoing Civil Rights movement. You had Woodstock, and you even had a man walking on the moon."

Swoboda chuckled, and then he added, "You know what? During that time, when it seemed as if anything was possible, probably the longest shot was the Mets winning the World Series, so we did that."

I'm chuckling too because this is exactly how it is now. It's like 1969 all over again, minus all of those specific events happening and the fact the Royals making the World Series wasn't exactly a miracle since they were an ever-improving team who specifically made moves to contend for a title over the next couple of years.

There was no Wild Card Game or League Division Series back then. Otherwise, the Mets would have dominated them, too. Just like these Royals, who are the 21st century version of those Mets.

Did the 1969 Mets just know how to win games? If so, then maybe the 1985 Royals were like the 1969 Mets and the 2014 Royals are just like the 1985 Royals who are just like the 1969 Mets. It's time to get these team comparison's correct for narrative's sake. How can the 2014 Royals be the 1969 Mets AND the 1985 Royals if the 1969 Mets didn't just know how to win? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!

"It was real obvious they were packing the organization with quality young players, so this is not an accident," Swoboda said. 

So, it wasn't a miracle? It was a conspicuous effort by the Royals to put a quality team on the field? I don't get it, I thought the Royals' success was a miracle just like the 1969 Mets was a miracle.

"Most of those guys were homegrown, and for the most part, the Mets were homegrown."

Were the 1985 Royals homegrown? I need to know which World Series winning team the 2014 Royals are definitely exactly like. I can't sleep until I know.

"They have that whiff of destiny about them," Swoboda said,

You sure that's not champagne or just sweat? I've smelled destiny before and destiny smells an awful lot like the 2004 Anaheim Angels who didn't know how to win, so they weren't like the Royals, and weren't a miracle team like the 1969 Mets.

In fact, the Royals have won four times in extra innings during this postseason. They've also taken the lead three times after the ninth with home runs despite finishing the regular season last in the Major Leagues in homers.

See, it's not destiny because the Royals know how to win games...just like the 1985 Royals just knew how to win games. I feel like Tracy Ringolsby and Terence Moore need to compare notes and determine which narrative is correct. Are the 2014 Royals a team of destiny or just a team that knows to win? Destiny doesn't know how to win and knowing how to win involves just doing your job, with no involvement from destiny. Let's keep the stories straight at MLB.com.

"Their outfield is spectacular," Swoboda said. "Alex Gordon was a guy who was failing in the infield, and then he goes to the outfield and wins [three] Gold Gloves. Jarrod Dyson is a speedster in center field, and [Lorenzo] Cain is a legitimate center fielder who goes to right field and makes really good plays. 

Well, I mean they are destined to play well in the outfield so talent doesn't really matter does it?

"It was a different time back then, when starters such as Seaver, [Jerry] Koosman and [Gary] Gentry were out to finish games," Swoboda said. "The bullpen was where you went when you had to.

This is as opposed to modern managers who go to the bullpen because they get bored of seeing their starter on the mound dominating? The bullpen is still where a manager goes when he has to, it's just managers feel they have to go to the bullpen earlier than they used to.

Now the bullpen is where you go when you hit the seventh inning, with the setup guy for the setup guy, then the setup guy and then the closer."

But again, the 2014 Royals are the exact same as the 1969 Mets. Why do I get the feeling Terence Moore put out a call to 10-15 retired players from World Series-winning teams and just decided to compare the 2014 Royals to whichever team had a retired player respond to his phone call first?

Swoboda laughed, saying, "You have to pick the Royals, but I tell you what. [The Giants] will be ready for them, because what's been delightful for me to watch during these playoffs is that the intensity and the emotion have been so legitimate and absolutely authentic from all of these teams. But nobody has shown all of that more than the Kansas City Royals. That's why it's going to be hard to take destiny from them."

Plus the Royals know how to win. The Giants may have won two World Series titles recently, but they don't have destiny and they don't know how to win.

Not hard . . . impossible.

Well, if these Royals really are those Mets.

Even if the Royals win the World Series, they aren't the 1969 Mets. Stop comparing the Royals to historic teams out of pure laziness because you don't know how to analyze and explain a team's success. Crazy things happen in the playoffs and the Royals were six outs away from losing the Wild Card game, so maybe they aren't a team of destiny nor do they "know how to win." Maybe they are just on a hot streak. I know, I know, there has to be a running thread of commonality because sportswriters can't accept the randomness of the universe.

Sean Gregory of "Time" has decided that the Kansas City Royals are the future of baseball. Well then. At least he isn't overreacting to their World Series run or anything by mistaking one team's success during a given season as an example of a larger trend. Obviously the Royals can't just be successful this season. It has to mean something larger than just that.

Sure, the Kansas City Royals are an intriguing tale for the typical rags-to-riches reasons. A team that hasn’t made a post-season appearance in 29 years becomes the first team in baseball history to win its first eight games in the playoffs.

Sure, this would ordinarily be enough to gain the public's attention and allow them to enjoy the Royals' run to the World Series. But it's not enough for Sean Gregory. There has to be more. More! What do these eight games mean in the larger context of the direction baseball is moving? Nothing? Unacceptable, these eight games have to mean something.

But the Royals are more than just an enchanting small-market success story. They represent the changing game of baseball.

Of course they do. Sure, they were six outs away from losing the Wild Card game and baseball would forever be unchanged by the Royals and the narrative might go "Home runs are back!" if the Orioles managed to make the World Series. But that didn't happen, so obviously the Royals are changing the game of baseball. It's the only way to explain their success this season, while also blatantly ignoring that if the A's put the Royals away in the Wild Card game then the game of baseball would forever be unchanged. It's a thin line between a revolution and no revolution. It's almost like Sean Gregory is creating stories where there isn't one.

In the post-steroid era, the game is going through a remarkable transition. Power is out. Pitching, speed and defense are in.

Other MLB teams have won the World Series with good defense and great pitching. But yeah, this is the first season a team could win games by pitching really well and turning opponents batted balls into outs. Very astute.

Teams scored 4.07 runs per game during the 2014 regular season, according to stats site Baseball-Reference.com–the lowest total in 33 years. Runs-per-game are down 15% since 2007, and off 21% from their steroid-era high of 5.14 in 2000. Players are striking out 7.7 times per game, an all-time record, breaking the prior high of 7.55 set last season. In fact, in each of the past seven seasons, baseball set a new all-time high for strikeouts per game.

Three of the top 15 teams in the majors in strikeouts made the playoffs. Obviously striking out isn't a good thing and I don't think any hitting coach would advocate striking out. Striking out isn't the death-knell for scoring runs that Sean Gregory seems to believe it is though.

Enter the Royals. The Royals had the fewest home runs in the majors this past season, with 95.

The Royals were last in strikeouts and also last in walks. So they didn't strikeout, but they didn't walk either. They were ready to hit. 8 of the 10 playoff teams were in the Top 18 in home runs this year. The only teams that weren't were the Cardinals and the Royals. So I'm entirely sure not hitting home runs is a trend that is going to be repeated by successful teams.

But no team had more stolen bases,

True, but what's interesting is the teams that round up the Top 10 in stolen bases include the Dodgers, Reds, Astros, Yankees, Phillies, Tigers, Rangers, Indians, and Pirates. The majority of those teams didn't make the playoffs. Again, I won't say stolen bases aren't important, but Sean Gregory is looking for trends that don't exist. He's seeing the Royals didn't hit home runs and stole bases and figures that's what is important in baseball now. It may not be true. The Giants were 29th in the majors in stolen bases and the Cardinals were 28th. Baltimore was 30th. So of the four teams in the ALCS and NLCS, the Royals were a clear outlier in terms of stealing bases.

Sean Gregory is cherry-picking the information he chooses to present in an effort to create a narrative about how baseball has totally changed. He's reverse-engineering the Royals' success into a greater narrative. Rather than seeing the Royals as a team that took a certain strategy to the World Series, he is ignoring how other MLB teams succeeded during the season and points to the Royals' strategy as the new trend in baseball. The Giants didn't steal bases and were middle-of-the-pack in home runs, strikeouts and walks. Maybe the new way to win in the majors is to not steal bases and be middle-of-the-pack in most offensive categories.

The last big-league club to reach the World Series while finishing last in home runs, but first in swipes, was the 1987 St. Louis Cardinals. Those Cardinals teams of the 1980s played an exciting brand of “small-ball” throughout the decade: the ’82 Cards finished second in steals, and last in home runs, and won it all

But obviously it's a huge, new trend and not just an example of a team making it to the World Series without hitting a lot of home runs, while stealing a lot of bases.

For the Royals, that speed pays off in the field too. According to FanGraphs.com, Kansas City players collectively finished with the highest Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) – an advanced metric that measures defensive value – in the majors.

Oh sure, people embrace advanced statistics like UZR when it goes to help prove the furthering of silly narratives.

Kansas City’s outfield, with three-time Gold Glove winner Alex Gordon in left, Lorenzo Cain in center, and defensive replacement Jarrod Dyson shoring up center field in the late innings (Cain then usually moves to right), have baseball analysts raving. “Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here,” wrote Sam Miller of Baseball Propectus. “We’re not just talking about a good outfield, or a great outfield. We’re talking about what one might decide to argue is the greatest defensive outfield of all time.”

This is part of the new formula for winning a World Series. Just put together one of the best defensive outfields of all time! Then find players who can run fast, don't strike out, and get on-base. Who would have thought this could work?

The Royals have found a winning formula. These days, if you swing for the fences, you’re more likely than ever to strike out.

Is this a factual statement? Is there really a correlation between striking out, swinging for home runs and then not scoring runs (which is what Sean Gregory is talking about...you can't score if you strike out)? Here are the top 10 teams in home runs for 2014 (number of homers in parenthesis) and their ranking in strikeouts, then their ranking in runs scored:

1. Baltimore (211)- 11th, 8th
2. Colorado (186)- 12th, 3rd
3. Toronto (177)- 24th, 5th
4. Houston (163)- 2nd, 21st
5. Chicago Cubs (157)- 1st, 26th
6. Pittsburgh (156)- 18th, 10th
7. LA Angels (155)- 13th, 1st
8. Chicago White Sox (155)- 5th, 13th
9. Detroit (155)- 25th, 2nd,
10. Washington (152)- 9th, 9th

So of the MLB teams in the Top 10 in home runs, four of these teams are in the Top 10 in strikeouts, while seven of these teams are in the Top 10 in runs scored. In fact, of the Top 10 teams in home runs, only two of these teams are ranked below 13th in the majors in run scored. So hitting home runs is a great way to score runs and while teams who strike out a lot may tend to strike out more, it doesn't mean those teams are scoring fewer runs. Basically, the home run isn't dead and there's not definitively a new way to play baseball.

So just put the ball in play – Royals hitters have both the lowest strikeout rate in the majors, and the lowest walk rate – and take your chances with your legs. Steal bases to eke out those diminishing runs.

Right, this is how they win games. It doesn't mean that's the "new" way to win games or this is how every team will win games. It's simply how the Royals do it. Plus, like Tracy Ringolsby says, the Royals just know how to win games. That has to be factored in too.

Since today’s pitchers are better keeping balls in the park, if your opponent does make contact, make sure you have players who turn these balls into outs. (Like third baseman Mike Moustakas diving into the stands).

That's a great idea, but the key is to find players who can turn these balls into outs while also hitting the baseball well and helping the team score runs. This isn't a new thing. MLB teams have always looked for good defensive players who can also hit. It's called "finding good baseball players" and MLB teams try to find them every single year in the draft, free agency or through trade. 

Let the big-market New York Yankees and Los Angeles Angels overpay for aging sluggers who will inevitably depreciate at the back-end of their ludicrous contracts (Alex Rodriguez, Josh Hamilton, Albert Pujols).

Apparently Sean Gregory thinks not overpaying for declining players is the new inefficiency. Again, this isn't new.

Small-ball is cheap, and effective.

This year it is cheap and effective. Next year, the new hot trend in baseball may be something completely different. It's not especially smart to take the success of the Royals and believe it has started a new trend in baseball. If the Royals had lost in the Wild Card game then how effective and cheap would small-ball be then?

This is where the game is heading. The Royals just do it best.

This is where the game is heading, but just ignore how the other playoff teams scored runs and won games this year. It's stupid to think there is one way to win baseball games and the Royals winning with small-ball is the start of a larger trend. It's just a desperate attempt to explain the unexplainable and create a narrative on the back of the Royals' success. By the way, the Red Sox were 8th in the majors in strikeouts last season and 6th in home runs. Why wasn't the game of baseball headed towards teams who strikeout a lot and hit a lot of home runs having the most success after the Red Sox won the World Series last year?

4 comments Tracy Ringolsby Lazily Checks Off the Boxes Required to Argue Jack Morris Should Be in the Hall of Fame

Tracy Ringolsby, who has the absolute best picture above his columns for MLB.com, thinks Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame. First, let me remind you that Ringolsby's picture is of him staring into the distance, probably angrily at a bird that he just can't wait to shoot out of the sky, with a black cowboy hat on. Now THAT is the kind of picture I like to see a baseball writer use above the heading to his column. It says, "I'm manly, my cowboy hat fits perfectly, and no, I don't have to look directly into the camera."

I'm tired of talking about Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame and I am sure you are tired of hearing about Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame. What I find to be interesting about this column advocating for Morris to be in the Hall of Fame is there is a list of criteria every writer who advocates Morris's entry into the Hall of Fame must check off for it to be approved by the Jack Morris Talking Points for the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee that probably sends an email out everyday reminding Hall of Fame voters to vote for Morris. The three major talking points all pro-Jack Morris columns must have, as set out by the Jack Morris Talking Points for the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee, are as follows:

1. He completed a lot of games. Repeat this at least three times for maximum effect.

2. Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. It happened. Include a quote from one of Morris's managers showing how much he wanted the ball in important games.

3. He was the best pitcher of his era because he won a lot of games.

Ringolsby seems to give us the all the exact same information every other pro-Morris writer has given us and he includes each of these talking points in making his case. 

Jack Morris has come closer to being elected to the Hall of Fame than anybody who was ever denied admittance, but in this, his 15th and final year on the Baseball Writers' Association of America ballot, Morris still faces long odds.

He's been a workhorse in staying on the Hall of Fame ballot. He's pitching a complete game when it comes to being on the Hall of Fame ballot. Let him in the Hall of Fame now!

Morris could well be victim of the new reliance on statistical analysis.

Jack Morris is such a martyr. He has to pay for the sins of those who rely on statistical analysis to evaluate a player's statistics which determine whether that player should enter the Hall of Fame or not. Crazy how that works that the stats crowd uses statistics to determine whether a baseball player has good enough statistics to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

In the world of baseball stats, four does not always equal four. Evaluations need to be based on eras, and for his era, Morris was the most dominant pitcher in the game.

Why do statistics need to be based on eras? I give Ringolsby credit, he didn't follow the Jack Morris Talking Points for the Baseball of Hall of Fame Committee Talking Points all the way and included his own bullshit reasoning to support Morris's candidacy. Shouldn't the evaluation of a pitcher for the baseball Hall of Fame be based on how he compares to other dominant pitchers in the Hall of Fame? It's not the baseball Hall of Fame Based on Era, but a cumulative collection of the best baseball players in history. "History" being the key word there. Jack Morris has to be one of the best pitchers in MLB history to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, not the best pitcher of an era and this would qualify him for the baseball Hall of Fame.

It's silly in my opinion to base evaluations on a pitcher's era. It's especially silly when the opinion that the evaluation of a pitcher should be based on his era is being used solely to advocate Morris being inducted into the Hall of Fame as one of the most dominant pitchers in the game. Morris being the most dominant pitcher of his era is also pretty arguable.

There are 12 starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame who performed during the DH era. None of the 12 spent his entire career in the AL.

I understand Morris's ERA may have been inflated a bit by pitching his entire career in the AL, but he still has a much higher ERA than every other pitcher who pitched during the DH era in the American League and is currently in the Hall of Fame. Here is a list of pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame who pitched during the DH era and how long they spent in the American League. Morris pitched 18 years in the majors, all in the American League, but I don't need to find pitchers who pitched 18 years in the American League to prove my point that Morris's ERA is still higher than a Hall of Fame-worthy pitcher during the DH era should be. A sample size of 4-5 years in the American League seems sufficient for me.

Nolan Ryan- 3.17 ERA (13 years)

Bert Blyleven- 3.23 (19 years...lower ERA than Morris by half a point and he pitched longer than Morris in the AL)

Gaylord Perry- 3.24 (9 years)

Goose Gossage- 3.12 (16 years)

Dennis Eckersley- 3.47 (20 years)

Don Sutton- 3.98 (6 years...not to make excuses, but Sutton pitched in the AL when he was in his last 30's and 40's. You know, the same time in his career Morris was putting up ERA's of 4.04, 6.19, and 5.60)

Phil Neikro- 4.23 (4 years...again, he pitched in the AL from the age of 45-48, so his ERA is a bit misleading in terms of his overall ability)

Fergie Jenkins- 3.54 (8 years)

Jack Morris has a higher ERA in the AL than all of these pitchers. The pitchers that had a higher ERA than Morris pitched solely in the American League at the very tail end of their career. So I can buy that Morris's ERA was elevated slightly by pitching in the American League, but other Hall of Fame pitchers pitched in the American League and had a much lower ERA than Jack Morris did. The bottom line is that Morris wasn't an elite pitcher.

Only two of them even faced a DH in more than half of their big league games: Bert Blyleven pitched 483 of his 692 games in the AL after the addition of the DH. Jim Palmer made all 558 of his appearances with the Baltimore Orioles, but only 354 of them came after the addition of the DH.

It's not about whether a pitcher pitched the majority of his career in the AL or not, but it is about whether that pitcher pitched long enough in the AL to get a large enough sample size of games pitched to come to a conclusion. I would think five years of pitching in the AL is a large enough sample size to look at a pitcher's ERA in the AL and come to a conclusion. Also, Jim Palmer's ERA in the AL was 2.86, a full run lower than Morris's ERA. I feel like I needed to add this. ERA isn't the end-all be-all, but if Ringolsby wants to argue on the matter of ERA then Morris still doesn't look great.

The 10 other starters who faced the DH in their careers are Don Sutton (174 of 774 appearances against lineups with the DH), Tom Seaver (97 of 656 appearances), Nolan Ryan (381 of 807 appearances), Gaylord Perry (277 of 777 appearances), Phil Niekro (124 of 740 appearances), Juan Marichal (11 of 471 appearances), Ferguson Jenkins (255 of 664 appearances), Catfish Hunter (214 of 500 appearances) and Steve Carlton (46 of 741 appearances).

Rollie Fingers (inducted in 1992), Dennis Eckersley, (2004), Bruce Sutter ('06) and Goose Gossage ('08) were enshrined for their work as relievers rather than starters.

Nearly all of these pitchers had a lower ERA in the American League than Jack Morris. Whether Fingers, Eckersley, Sutter, and Gossage were relievers or not is somewhat irrelevant. They pitched to the DH as well, even if it was on a short-term basis. If they gave up two runs in the 8th or 9th inning it still affected their ERA.

Morris' 254 wins tie him with Red Faber for 43rd on the all-time list. There are 13 pitchers ahead of Morris who are not enshrined.

Of them, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Mike Mussina are on the ballot for the first time this year. Randy Johnson, Jamie Moyer and Andy Pettitte aren't eligible yet. Tony Mullane (1881-94), Bobby Mathews (1871-87), Jim McCormick (1878-87) and Gus Weyhing (1887-1901) were products of the 1800s.

Oh now Ringolsby isn't comparing pitchers to pitchers from their generation anymore. Mullane, Mathews, McCormick, and Weyhing were products of the 1800's, but if they compare favorably to other pitchers from the 1800's then using Ringolsby's "Hey, let's compare a pitcher's candidacy for the Hall of Fame only using other pitchers from his era as a measurement so we can get Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame" method these four pitchers should have good cases to be in the Hall of Fame, right?

Roger Clemens was eligible for the first time a year ago, but he was one of the targets of the voters who protested PED usage.

Yeah, but compared to pitchers from his era, the Steroid Era, he was one of the best pitchers who used PED's. So if we are comparing Roger Clemens to his era of cheating PED users, Clemens was one of the best pitchers. Let him in the Hall of Fame using Tracy Ringolsby "Era Theory" that was specifically created to get Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame. 

Morris was the winningest pitcher of his era.

I'm the fastest person in my household. This doesn't make me fast enough to run the 100 meter dash in the Olympics.

From his debut until 1994, Morris' final season, he won 254 games. Dennis Martinez, who also pitched in each of those seasons, is a distant second for that 18-season stretch, with 218 wins, followed by Bob Welch (211), Ryan (202) and Frank Tanana (189).

This is part of the reason advanced metrics were created, to deal with a writer who says Jack Morris is the best pitcher of his era (which for some reason Morris's era only encapsulates when he was active, when the DH era Morris pitched in didn't start when Morris entered the league and stop when Morris left the league) and use wins as the sole example of why. Great, Morris had a lot of wins during an era when there weren't a ton of great pitchers. This doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

Also, Ringolsby can now proudly check off point #3 in his Jack Morris Talking Points. He's mentioned Morris had a lot of wins during his era.

Morris appeared in seven postseason series and won three World Series: in 1984 with Detroit, '91 with Minnesota and '92 with Toronto.

Check off point #2 in his Jack Morris Talking Points. Let's talk about the World Series victories that Jack Morris participated in and then heavily weigh these into whether Morris should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

Morris started Game 1 in six of those seven playoff series, earning the selection from three managers: Sparky Anderson in Detroit, Tom Kelly in Minnesota and Cito Gaston in Toronto.

Starting Game 1 of the World Series multiple times isn't a reason to put a pitcher in the Hall of Fame. Whether a pitcher starts Game 1 of the World Series isn't the sole determination of whether that pitcher is the best pitcher on his respective team or even that the pitcher is one of the best pitchers in the game. The Game 1 starter for a team can be based on how much rest the other starting pitchers on the roster have, whether the game is being played at home or on the road (many times a manager will set up a younger pitcher to pitch at home in the World Series), and the quality of the other starting pitchers on the staff. There are other factors too. Basically, Jack Morris isn't necessarily a Hall of Famer simply because he started Game 1 of the World Series. It could be another pitcher on the staff would have had to work on short rest or Morris just happened to be the best pitcher on the staff, which doesn't mean Morris is a Hall of Fame pitcher.

The one time Morris missed a Game 1 start was with Detroit against Minnesota in the 1987 AL Championship Series. But Morris started for the Tigers in Game 161 of the regular season that year -- and tossed a complete game -- earning an extra day of rest before appearing in the postseason.

Exactly. Morris couldn't pitch in Game 1 because he needed rest and this could very well work the other way where Morris did pitch Game 1 because another pitcher on the staff needed rest. Also, how well Morris pitched in those seven career playoff series is much more important than the fact he pitched Game 1 of the series. Morris wasn't great in three of the postseason series he pitched in, was average in one series, and was great in three other series. His postseason record looks a lot like his career record. An ERA just below 4.00, he pitched a lot of innings, and he won more games than he lost. On a macro-level, he was great sometimes and not great other times.

Morris was 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA in seven career World Series starts, working three complete games, including a 1-0, 10-inning Game 7 win for Minnesota against Atlanta in 1991.

Ringolsby checks off point #2 with a black magic marker yet again for emphasis.

Morris' career ERA was 3.90. The highest ERA of a Hall of Fame pitcher is Red Ruffing's 3.80.

ERA isn't everything, but even if you don't care about ERA Morris's candidacy just doesn't hold up. Joe Sheehan a decade later still wrote it best about why Morris isn't a Hall of Famer.

Morris was a five-time All-Star selection,

Irrelevant. All-Star selections are the epitome of popularity contests based on perception of that player's talent.

and he finished in the top 10 in the AL Cy Young Award voting seven times.

How many times did Morris win the Cy Young? Zero.
How many times did Morris finish second in the Cy Young voting? Zero.

Granted, I'm not a huge fan of using postseason awards to judge whether a player should be in the Hall of Fame or not. Still, the Cy Young has traditionally (especially during the era Morris played in) been given to pitchers who won the most games and had the best traditional statistics. Many of these same statistics are being used to trumpet Jack Morris to be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame.

So I find it incredibly interesting the so-called "best pitcher of his era" and a guy who had the most wins of his era wasn't voted as even the second-best pitcher in a given year by the Cy Young award voters. Shouldn't this tell you something? An award which traditionally been given to the pitcher that has the best statistics (the same statistics that are being used to put Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame) was never given to Jack Morris in an individual year. Fine, cumulatively Jack Morris put up some good numbers, but in a given year he was never considered the most second-most dominant pitcher in the American League, yet I am supposed to believe he is one of the most dominant and best pitchers in baseball history? Again, I don't like using the Cy Young award to say Morris shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, but the criteria that determines who wins the Cy Young (wins, complete games, played on a winning team) are the exact same criteria to support Morris's Hall of Fame candidacy...and Morris never even came in second in the Cy Young voting. I think it tells me something.

Morris was the '91 World Series Most Valuable Player and the 1981 The Sporting News Pitcher of the Year.

Okay. This is very impressive. This doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

Morris was the '91 World Series Most Valuable Player and the 1981 The Sporting News Pitcher of the Year.

Now Ringolsby checks off point #1 on his Jack Morris Talking Points. Complete games. Jack Morris is the last dinosaur of the complete game era. I've heard it all before.

which is more than Maddux (109) and Glavine (56) combined. Among the eight starting pitchers on this year's ballot, Clemens is second with 118 complete games, followed by Maddux (109), Curt Schilling (83), Mussina (57), Glavine (56), Kenny Rogers (36) and Hideo Nomo (16).

Well then let's induct Morris into the baseball Complete Game Hall of Fame for Pitchers Who Won an Important Postseason Game. He's a first ballot Hall of Famer there.

At this point, any article on Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame is just a lazy recitation of the three Jack Morris Talking Points.

12 comments Three Columns For Tuesday

I couldn't decide which of these columns to cover for today, so I just decided I was going to cover them all. Today we find that Woody Paige loves Tim Tebow, Jay Mariotti hates Jewish people, and Tracy Ringolsby really hates Alex Rodriguez.

I will start off first with the Tracy Ringolsby column on Alex Rodriguez. Tracy's picture says, "sure I may be named Tracy, but you can tell by my cowboy hat and serious demeanor I will rustle up a can of whoop-ass on you for mocking my name."

He opens that can of whoop-ass on A-Rod. Before I go defending A-Rod (again), I want to call him a cheater, a liar and a person who does tend to get under the skin of others because he just has something about him that makes you want to punch him in the face. That being said, Tracy Ringolsby finds a few new things to blame on A-Rod that aren't his fault.

Maybe it was an inadvertent misstep that led President Obama to fail to mention Alex Rodriguez’s name during the Yankees visit to the White House on Monday — or maybe the teleprompter just skipped a page — but if Rodriguez wants to be respected, the best advice he can be given is to learn to respect others.

Maybe they should send A-Rod back to pre-school and they can teach this to him. I am sure it would make a great reality show series on MLB Network. I have no other ideas at this point because he has played in MLB for a long time and hasn't seemed like he will change now or ever.

This is the guy, remember, who had it leak out during the clinching game of the 2007 World Series that he was going to exercise the option to void what remained of his contract with the Yankees (which led to his new deal). What the heck? His team wasn’t even in the World Series that year.

So it would have been perfectly fine for A-Rod to leak the information he was opting out of his contract if his team was in the World Series that year? It really would have been fine to leak this information while he was still playing? How come I don't believe this?

I never had a problem with that information being leaked at that point. The media went ape-shit over this information being leaked, but what is conveniently forgotten is that the media didn't have to report the information. They chose to make it a story by reporting it. Also, Brett Favre spends entire summers monopolizing the spotlight and taking the focus off of anything else going on in football, but no one accuses him of not respecting the game of football. Hell, Favre even had a commercial come out during the Super Bowl lampooning his annual retirement/non-retirement dance, which reminded us all he had not made a decision on his status for next year. Other stories take away from important games, it just happens sometimes.

What Favre did/does is not as severe as what A-Rod did, even though I didn't have a problem with the news of his opting-out being leaked in 2007, but there have been plenty of stories that have been important and come out during important games in all major sports. Usually, the players don't get as much blame as A-Rod has gotten for what happened in 2007. It's not like the media had to report it.

And that wasn't the first time A-Rod put his own needs ahead of an organization. Tom Hicks, the man who is attempting to sell the Texas Rangers, was able to cover the Rangers’ share of Rodriguez’s 10-year, $242 million deal signed before the 2001 season, despite Hicks’ bankruptcy problems.

So it is A-Rod's fault that Tom Hicks paid him so much money and now is going through bankruptcy problems? Should A-Rod have asked Hicks if he could afford it before he signed the contract or asked to inspect Hicks' books to make sure the long-term financial future of the company looked good? This situation isn't his fault. Blame Hicks, not A-Rod.

It’s the working stiffs with the Rangers, the ones who had their future caught up in a Hicks-created retirement plan, who are left with nothing to show for their efforts.

And somehow, someway, that is A-Rod's fault? So it is A-Rod's fault Tom Hicks paid him so much money, then mismanaged his business to where he was losing money, and now Hicks' employees are suffering...because of Alex Rodriguez and his greed? Should he have attended board meetings with Hicks? Why doesn't massive contract given to Chan Ho Park by the Rangers get some blame also? Because it is Chan Ho Park and not Alex Rodriguez?

Not that it would matter to Rodriguez. He lives in his own little world, and he is oblivious to anyone else.

Why should it matter to Alex Rodriguez that the owner of the Texas Rangers is having money problems? It isn't his job to run the Rangers. When an athlete signs a contract with a team, does that mean he is also liable for any financial problems that team may encounter? Should an athlete pay a financial auditor to make sure a team is financially secure and can afford the contract offered to him before signing on the dotted line?

It should be noted that Oakland pitcher Dallas Braden’s public whining about the Rodriguez snub was almost as ridiculous as Rodriguez’s inability to properly navigate his way around the bases.

I actually thought A-Rod's asshole response to Braden's public whining was kind of funny. You don't run over the mound, but if Braden is going to call A-Rod out publicly, I think to mock Braden's career victories is asshole/funny kind of payback. I realize I am in the minority on that.

Rodriguez's act of arrogance in Oakland wasn’t his first ( and most likely won’t be his last) inability to show respect to the game and its participants.

A-Rod meant to walk across the pitcher's mound. He was being passive-aggressive and just an overall asshole. He was trying to get under the skin of the opposing team, which is sometimes seen as a good thing. Bert Blyleven wrote an entire article three weeks ago about "gamers" and how their teammates love them because they got under the opposing team's skin intentionally. When A-Rod does it, everyone hates him, because pretty much no one likes A-Rod. Still, there is a thin line between a "gamer" who tries to irritate the other team and what A-Rod did by walking over the pitcher's mound.

Among other things, there was that May 30, 2007 game in Toronto when Rodriguez, on second with two outs, is alleged to have yelled "Mine!’’ on a pop-up, prompting Toronto third baseman Howie Clark to step back from underneath the ball, allowing it to drop and permitting a run to score.

I firmly believe that if a player like Eric Byrnes or Daren Erstad had done that, they would have been lauded for doing whatever it takes to win and trying to get under the other team's skin. Doing what A-Rod did is no different than the second baseman or shortstop pretending to prepare to catch a relay throw from the outfield or feign the ability to catch a line drive that is over their head in order to confuse the baserunner.

Sure, A-Rod verbally confused Howie Clark by calling "mine" and it was a dick move, but I really do think if another player had done that it would be looked at in a positive light. A-Rod strikes me as the kind of guy who tries to so hard to be a part of the group, he just fails in many ways. He's the guy who sees his friends picking with each other and then makes a joke about someone's mom, wife or girlfriend that is over the line. It's like he lacks a social skill necessary to tell the exact difference in gamesmanship and just being a jerk.

Rather than going over part of the mound, just enough to make Braden overreact and look like an asshole for calling him out, where A-Rod could also saying it was a mistake and he didn't mean to, A-Rod goes over the entire mound and then pretends to not know the rule. He sucks at being passive-aggressive.

At least ``Tommy,’’ his personal attendant, was exonerated from wrongdoing. Remember Tommy? When Rodriguez was with the Texas Rangers, he wasn’t about to accept anything but total attention from the clubhouse folks so he had his own attendant with him at all times. He initially took ``Tommy’’ to New York with him, but after a year, Tommy’s ballpark presence ended.

A-Rod is not the first or the last player to request a personal attendant in the clubhouse. This column is going from a "today's players doesn't respect the game of baseball" column to a "let me list all the things that piss me off about A-Rod."

It has to eat at Rodriguez now to have to play alongside Derek Jeter. Those who were around him in both Seattle and Texas say the easiest way to set Rodriguez off would be to say something complimentary about Jeter.

Again, this has nothing to do with Alex Rodriguez respecting the game. Tracy Ringolsby is listing things he doesn't like about Alex Rodriguez again. He's a jealous person who has some weird social quirks that make him an easy target when he screws up, but I am not sure if that means he doesn't respect the game.

But Rodriguez is hardly alone in not showing respect for the game.

Yet this entire article was about Alex Rodriguez and doesn't name another single player who doesn't respect the game. It seems that A-Rod is actually alone in not respecting the game.

Don Baylor was hit by more pitches than anybody in the history of the game who did not wear padding, and yet he charged the mound only twice.

So any player who charges the mound doesn't respect the game? Don Baylor also intentionally got hit by the pitches, so there was no need to charge the mound because he WANTED to get hit:

"I could have been hit another 100 times if I hadn’t gotten out of the way. I didn’t go up there to get hit. I went up and crowded the plate to take away the outside strike and make pitchers come in to me. It evolved into part of my game. Hit me, I’ll steal a base on you." - Don Baylor in The News Tribune (Larry LaRue, 05/27/2005)

Yet Ringolsby goes on as if Baylor didn't seem to want to get hit.

Instead, Baylor and other like-minded players would send their message in a more emphatic manner. They would slide hard into the second baseman or shortstop on a play at second base, and let the middle infielder take the message to the pitcher in between innings.

The gritty, hustling way to take care of this issue is to attempt to injure a player who had absolutely nothing to do with you getting hit by a pitch. That's the professional way to show respect for the game. If someone from one team punches you, go punch someone else on the team in the hopes the message gets around. Nothing shows respect for the game of baseball by trying to "cleat" a second baseman because the pitcher hit you with a pitch. Maybe that shows respect in Ringolsby's eyes, but it also doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

Maybe what it all boils down to is, quite simply, Rodriguez is the high-priced poster boy for an age of self-indulgence.

That could very well be it. Thank God we have old-school writers like Tracy Ringolsby who wear cowboy hats and tell us the respectful way to play the game of baseball. It was very selfish of A-Rod to sign a contract with a Major League Baseball team without attending board meetings or investigating the financial statements of the team he was signing with. I know that for sure. Why didn't he check out the Ranger's financial books first? That is his job and all as a baseball player for the Rangers.

If so, he wears the label well.

I can't figure out if this article is really about respect for the game of baseball is eroding or is more about how Tracy Ringolsby wants to bring up a few more things, like the financial state of the Texas Rangers and the evolution of charging the mound after being hit by a pitch, so he can blame Alex Rodriguez for them.

-Jay Mariotti has a "Dez Bryant" story of his own that happened to him. Sadly, no one asked Jay Mariotti if his mom was a prostitute because I would have paid to see his face when he was asked that.

"Are you anti-Semitic?"

The editor asked the question and then stared me down, convinced I was guilty, all because a sports-franchise owner didn't like me and sometimes pressured the newspaper into intimidating me.

I am 100% positive that whatever Jay Mariotti did to make this sports-franchise owner dislike him was absolutely deserved. Also, it is pretty obvious this sports-franchise owner is Jerry Reinsdorf. He is Jewish and has two teams in the city of Chicago where Mariotti used to write for the Sun-Times.

In another meeting in his office, the same editor forearm-shivered me into a wall as I tried to leave the room and escape his wrath.

I love how Jay Mariotti does everything in his power to make himself always seem like the victim. He takes shots at sports figures and then acts shocked when they come at him to take ownership of his remarks.

These incidents happened several years ago at the hopelessly chaotic Chicago Sun-Times, and I relate them now because I, too, have had a Dez Bryant experience.

Oh no, you can't. Jay Mariotti wasn't a 21 year kid who had an interview question asked about his mother. He was a grown man who was being taken to task for remarks that he had made about someone else. Dez Bryant did nothing to deserve the question he received from the Dolphins. I am sure Jay Mariotti did something to deserve the "intimidation" he got.

Then Mariotti goes on to talk about how bad the question to Bryant was...it was a kind of asshole-ish question, but if a team is going to spend millions of dollars on a draft pick they probably want to find out everything they can about the player. It doesn't excuse the question, but we also shouldn't act like this is a normal job interview that was being conducted.

Bryant clarified. "I got mad -- really mad -- but I didn't show it. I got a lot of questions like that: Does she still do drugs? I sat and answered all of them."

To be fair, his mom was fairly well known to have used drugs when Bryant was young. This is part of Bryant's story he has told, so he may have gotten asked about it at some point.

So why wouldn't Goodell, in the same context and interest of league preservation, ban Ireland from work for a significant period and sock the Dolphins with the franchise equivalent of a six-game suspension -- say, a $3 million fine? That's the approximate figure Roethlisberger would lose during his ban, right?

This is apples and oranges. Ireland was out of line, but I am not sure a $3 million dollar fine to the Dolphins is appropriate here, simply because Ben Roethlisberger got a similar fine (in the form of a suspension) for his conduct in Georgia this spring and Las Vegas last summer.

Why? Because more is at stake than just maintaining a discipline equilibrium in how players and management are dealt with. Ireland, you see, is white. Bryant is black.

I wouldn't have even thought about this until now.

But NFL executives are under pressure not to waste big bucks on bad people. So they look under rocks that, in the end, are meaningless to the issue at hand. If Dez Bryant catches the football, scores 12 touchdowns next season and behaves himself off the field, no one will care if his mother is a supermodel or an alien from outer space.

I agree the question was out of hand, but a team is investing large amounts of money into these players. They want to be able to probe the players to make sure the investment is worth the risk they are taking on the player. If Bryant plays well, then no one will care, but if a player's family has a history of violent crime or affiliation with gangs, but a team can't ask about that...then 3 years later that player is involved as the victim or perpetrator in a violent crime, the team will have wished they could have asked more probing questions. It's just a fake scenario and Ireland's question was out of line, but we can't ignore the investment teams are making in these players either. I am not excusing the question, but the team really wants to know what kind of player they are going to be drafting.

No one had my back when I was called "anti-Semitic.''

Because no one likes Jay Mariotti. At some point he has to realize this.

The commissioner better have Bryant's. A lot of people, particularly in the black community, are watching and waiting.

I am not sure this is a black or white issue, but more of an issue about what is appropriate to ask a player prior to the draft and what is not appropriate to ask a player prior to the draft...no matter how much Mariotti may want to not believe this is true, it isn't a racial issue nor does it have anything to do with if Jay Mariotti was asked if he was an anti-Semitic person.

-Woody Paige does not like it when you question Tim Tebow's ability to play in the NFL. Let Woody clear his throat as he answers a question about Tim Tebow and goes off on the questioner a little bit.

Would you mind leading us all in a rendition of "Happy Trails" for Broncos coach Josh McDaniels after his idiotic 25th pick in this year's NFL draft of Tim Tebow? Does he really think Tebow is a franchise quarterback? I'd rather take my chances with Brady Quinn and draft a center or nose tackle with that pick. I'm not a general manager or a head coach, but I do know that if you're going to draft a QB in the first or second round, you had better expect him to be your franchise player. Tebow is not that.

— Robert, Atlanta

Ready for some sarcasm on the part of Woody Paige? I don't hate Tim Tebow, but one of the reasons I wouldn't be terribly sad to see him fail in the NFL is just so self-righteous guys like Woody Paige will have to eat their words when they are absolutely sure Tim Tebow will be a great success in the NFL. It is like they take personal offense to the idea he may not succeed. I love Ndamukong Suh, but I don't get all pissy when someone says he may not be a good NFL player, yet sportswriters get incredibly emotional over Tebow's future success in the NFL. They like him personally and let that affect their writing.

Robert: I bow to your expertise and welcome your opinion from Buckhead,

There's the sarcasm.

How in the name of God Shammgod (former NBA player) can you sit there staring at your computer screen in Atlanta and claim Tim Tebow won't be a franchise quarterback? Based on what? Your barber told you so?

How about this is based on the fact the following are the quarterbacks drafted in the 1st round since 2000. Let's see how many appear to be franchise quarterbacks (By the way, franchise quarterback is a pretty tough standard to meet anyway, so I am just going to say competent quarterbacks):

2000: Chad Pennington (yes)
2001: Mike Vick (yes, though I could debate this)
2002: David Carr (no), Joey Harrington (no), Patrick Ramsey (no)
2003: Carson Palmer (yes), Byron Leftwich (no), Kyle Boller (no), Rex Grossman (no)
2004: Eli Manning (yes), Phillip Rivers (yes), Ben Roethlisberger (yes), J.P. Losman (no)
2005: Alex Smith (no), Aaron Rodgers (yes), Jason Campbell (no)
2006: Vince Young (no...not yet), Matt Leinart (no), Jay Cutler (yes)
2007: JaMarcus Russell (no), Brady Quinn (no)
2008: Matt Ryan (yes), Joe Flacco (yes)

I am not going to do the 2009 draft because it is too early to tell. Based on data since 2000, of the 23 quarterbacks taken, 10 of those can be considered "franchise" quarterbacks. So less than 50% of the quarterbacks taken in the 1st round since 2000 (excluding 2009) are considered franchise quarterbacks and of the 23 quarterbacks taken, just 12 of them are projected to start for an NFL team this year.

So Robert from Atlanta has some pretty good data backing up his claim that Tebow won't be a franchise quarterback. Woody doesn't give a shit though.

I vividly remember writing in 1982, when the NFL strike was going on and I decided to travel around to see college players (Eric Dickerson, Herschel Walker and several others), and I wrote a column saying: "I have seen the future of pro football, and his name is John Elway."

So because John Elway succeeded in the NFL, and Woody Paige thought he would, this means Tim Tebow will succeed also?

Five Super Bowls. Hall of Fame.

Retarded reasoning. Half-ass thinking.

Tebow's assistant coach at the University of Florida in his senior season (and a main reason Tebow returned) was Scot Loeffler, a former NFL quarterbacks coach and one-time Michigan quarterback and Michigan assistant. He played with Tom Brady and was a graduate assistant helping Brady his senior year. Loeffler worked with Chad Henne, the Dolphins' starter. Loeffler has compared Tebow favorably to both guys.

Well I didn't realize an assistant coach at Florida compared Tebow to Tom Brady. That makes all the difference in the world coming from an unbiased source like this. Perhaps we should have asked Tebow's parents for their unbiased opinion as well on their son's future prospects in the NFL.

Tebow did have a low start-up point on his throws in college, but he hired three former NFL coaches, and he has corrected the hitch.

Some claim he will go back to it. I don't believe so.

See, that's Woody Paige's opinion, not a concrete fact. Tim Tebow may end up being a great quarterback in the NFL, I will still make fun of the media's love for him throughout his career, but the opinion of Woody Paige that Tim Tebow won't go back to the hitch in his throwing motion he had in college is pure opinion. I don't Tebow, but to be able to predict anything he can/will do in the NFL is just speculation. I took a look at Tebow a few months ago and I never ruled him out as being a great NFL quarterback. I don't like him as a first round pick at all, but I may be wrong.

How many times have you talked to him, Robert? Let me guess.

That's just being an asshole. Just because a person hasn't talked to Tim Tebow doesn't mean a person can't predict his future in the NFL, just like meeting him doesn't mean a person can predict his future skill level in the NFL. If this was the case, there would never be a quarterback bust.

How many times have you seen him play in person? How many of his coaches and opposing coaches and NFL coaches have your talked to?

Doesn't it sound like Woody is being unbiased and unemotional about his opinion of Tim Tebow? It is like someone has insulted Woody Paige's family, he is taking real offense to the mere suggestion Tebow isn't a franchise quarterback. This is a great example of a sportswriter getting too emotionally involved with a player, which compromises what little objectivity sportswriters are supposed to have.

When he comes into a room, you can tell he's a quarterback. There's a je ne sais quoi. But there's a special quality.

He's charismatic and a nice guy. That can't be denied. Ryan Leaf looked like a quarterback and other quarterbacks have had that aura. It doesn't necessarily lead to success.

When he was in high school, Tebow attended a "Friday Night Lights" weekend at the University of Florida. After a meeting of young players and coaches, the Gators' strength and conditioning coach took Tebow downstairs to the weight room for a cheeseburger.

As the two sat there having lunch, Tebow asked what the Florida record was for most leg lifts. Mickey Marotti, the coach, replied: "Oh, 18, I think, by some lineman." After he finished his fries, Tebow walked over to the weights, did 19 lifts, and left.

That's a great story and it shows just how strong Tim Tebow is. Unfortunately, this goes to show Tebow's dedication and weight-room work ethic, but isn't a great example of he can read NFL defenses or be an NFL quarterback.

Did the fact Peyton Manning couldn't lift a ton of weights make him less likely to succeed in the NFL?

He has a body that punishes defensive linemen. He can run better than Elway did.

That's great. Unfortunately, Tebow's job as a quarterback isn't to punish defensive linemen or fun the ball, but to play quarterback. Sure, there will be running involved, but NFL defensive linemen are a lot bigger than college linemen, so they will be punishing him back. Tebow isn't the most elusive guy in the open field from what I have seen either, so a coach isn't going to want his quarterback to take the punishment and run like Tebow did in college. I just thought I would mention this.

I will tell you who to compare Tebow to: Steve Young.

Fine. But this doesn't mean he will be as good as Steve Young. He reminds me of a less mobile and bigger Steve Young. He doesn't appear to be as mobile nor as much of a natural passer as Young was coming out of BYU. I am not hating on Tebow, just being honest. He may end up being great, but these are the facts for right now.

But the NFL didn't think much of him, and people thought the left-hander would have to play another position in the pros. So Young went off to the USFL (signing with the Los Angeles team owned by Denver cable mogul Bill Daniels) and was great.

They didn't like him because he was left-handed and "too athletic", not because they questioned his actual ability to play quarterback.

When Montana was hurt, and later when he was traded, all Young — who didn't have a strong arm, but could throw hard and could run harder — did was become the most accurate passer in NFL history and win a Super Bowl (with Mike Shanahan as his offensive coordinator).

So naturally this means because Mike Shanahan was an offensive coordinator for the 49ers when Steve Young was the quarterback there, and Woody Paige just compared Tebow to Young...then Tim Tebow will be as good as Steve Young. It's a natural progression in Woody's mind.

Shanahan loves Tebow.

Just not enough to draft him at #4. Just not enough to the point where he wouldn't rather trade for a 30-something quarterback and trade draft picks from a team that needs draft picks. Just not enough to do ANYTHING to try and get Tim Tebow to play for the Redskins.

That must not be enough for you, Robert. You would prefer an inside linebacker. The Broncos just signed a veteran inside linebacker, and they still have Mario Haggan on the team, and they will be fine there.

This is exactly why people don't like Tim Tebow. I can't believe how personally Woody Paige is taking this criticism of Tim Tebow. It's not even about whether Tebow will succeed or not anymore, it is that Robert from Georgia DARED to criticize Tebow's potential.

Football and sports are entertainment. What's more entertaining in the NFL than the drafting of Tim Tebow?

A winning team.

McDaniels will bust himself to make Tebow a better quarterback, and I know Tebow will bust everything he has to prove people wrong who are somewhere off in Atlanta.

I will never question Tebow's work ethic. I just question how his skills translate to the NFL since 50% of 1st round quarterbacks since 2000 (not including 2009) have busted.

Tebow is not that? You don't know. Maybe I don't know. But I do know you and I and everyone else reading this mailbag will pay attention to him, more than Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy or Rolando McClain, and there will be anti-Tebowers and pro-Timmys.

So is it about entertainment or making the Broncos a good team? It seems like this entire rant has been about making the Broncos good, not the entertainment factor, but not Woody is arguing that Tebow will be an entertaining guy. If he wants entertainment, get Tebow to headline at Vegas.

Besides, when I shook hands with Tebow the other day, I was stunned by the large size of his hands. He's not going to fumble.

Unfortunately, how big a player's hands are doesn't have everything to do with whether he fumbles a lot or not. Fumbling is also based on how the quarterback holds the ball, plus even a quarterback with big hands will fumble if a defensive end gets a hand on the ball while the quarterback is winding-up to throw.

All through this answer to the question, Woody did not once mention Tebow would succeed because his skills translate to the NFL. It was all about who Tebow reminded Woody of, how strong Tebow was, how big Tebow's hands were, and how overall large Tebow's body is...but nowhere was quarterback ability mentioned except to directly compare Tebow to other great quarterbacks.

This is one of the reasons people have turned against Tebow a bit. Sportswriters, announcers, and others throw away all modesty and fawn over him and take it as a personal offense to indicate he may fail. He may not fail in the NFL, but drop the pom-poms.