10 comments Woody Paige Has An Interesting Way of Evaluating Pitchers

Woody Paige received a question in his mailbag a few weeks ago concerning the NL Cy Young award and he had an interesting answer to who he thinks should get the award in the American League. I'll give you a hint...I hate his answer.

First, Woody wrote a column where he performs a little revisionist history concerning Kyle Orton. For the entire spring and summer Woody Paige was taking a dump on Orton to pump up Tim Tebow as the best quarterback on the Broncos roster, even going as far as to say that Tebow should be the Broncos starting quarterback in the first game of the season. Here is the article of revisionist history, along with quotes from the original article advocating Tebow as the starter from back in August:

When McDaniels traded for Brady Quinn, apparently to compete with Orton for the starting job, and maneuvered to draft Tim Tebow in the first round and praised him to, well, the high heavens, Orton obviously was offended.

Yes, obviously this was offensive to Orton. It's so obvious to Woody Paige that Orton was offended, he dedicated nearly his entire summer to praising Tim Tebow.

Accusations seeped out of Dove Valley that the quarterback was lacking in leadership qualities, wasn't working out before the minicamps with his receivers and failed to regularly attend offseason training activities.

I wonder where these accusations creeped out from...I have an idea, let's check the very article I just linked from August where Woody says Tim Tebow should start at quarterback in 2010 for the Broncos:

After Orton's mediocre season in 2009, the Broncos brought in Brady Quinn for the specific purpose of challenging Orton for the starting job in Orton's final season in Denver.

Orton responded initially by not working out with his receivers, absorbing the playbook and showing lackluster interest early in the offseason training activities.

So these accusations Woody is talking about came from Woody Paige himself. So in summary, Woody Paige has started the accusations about Orton's worth ethic, reported on these accusations and is now refuting them. It's Woody's very own news cycle.

Orton's close friends and past and present teammates have said he had proven himself as a locker-room and huddle leader with the Bears and the Broncos, had thrown daily on his own with receiver Brandon Stokley, received his offseason bonus for OTA participation and felt insulted by McDaniels.

Woody Paige apparently talked to none of these people before massaging his Tebow-ner back in August and suggesting he start for the Broncos in 2010.

Orton worked harder, to earn his starting job again, earn a contract extension and earn McDaniel's esteem.

Woody writes all of these positive things about Orton AFTER he has proven to be successful this year. Throughout training camp he was too busy writing articles about Tebow like this pile of horseshit.

You can feel Woody get an erection in that column.

Orton outperformed the disappointing Quinn and the raw Tebow in the team's full minicamp in June and in the early days of training camp. He was in control of the offense, threw crisper short passes and attempted and completed more downfield passes, a rarity last season.

Interesting, this is different from what he wrote in August. Woody Paige from his August "should Tebow start" column:

Tebow can throw the short routes as well as Orton, and certainly can throw more accurately on the run.

So did Tebow through the short passes as well as Orton or not as well as Orton in training camp? Woody gives us a conflicted view of the situation.

He obviously had improved command of McDaniels' complicated playbook and system.

Orton was clearly in control of the offense, so why on August 12, when training camp was over did Woody suggest Tebow threw the short routes as well as Orton and Orton had not studied the playbook enough? He reported something completely different in August when he talked about Orton's attitude and ability in training camp than what he is reporting now. Why would that happen?

It's not often I get to read one article by a writer contradicting another article by that same writer. Woody claims Orton was in control of the team in training camp, but he apparently declined to report this and acted as if it was up in the air whether Orton was the answer to the Broncos quarterback situation or not. He was one of those perpetuating the accusations he speaks of in the October article about Orton, so either he reported on these accusations without verifying whether they were correct or not, or he was the one who started the idea Orton wasn't dedicated to the team. If Orton's control of the playbook was so obvious, why didn't Woody report like it was?

Now I will move on to a question Woody was asked in his mailbag where he talks about the NL and AL Cy Young award.

Woody: I just read an article by Joe Sheehan supporting Felix Hernandez for the AL Cy Young Award even though he is 12-12, citing his lack of run support while CC Sabathia has benefited from 176 runs in his 33 starts. Tell me why Ubaldo Jimenez shouldn't get the same consideration, besides the fact he has to pitch at hitter-friendly Coors for half his starts. He should have at last four or five more wins with only a few more runs in half the games he lost or had a no-decision.

— Donna, Glenwood Springs

Even if Jimenez got the same consideration, I would think Halladay would still be the NL Cy Young award winner. Halladay had a much better complete year than Jimenez. I would love to hear an argument to the contrary though.

This question from the reader is pretty stupid on its face anyway. There are tons of pitchers who would have won games if they had a few more runs in half the games they lost or had a no-decision.

WP: I don't buy the argument of Sheehan and others.

Considering it is a perfectly logical argument, it doesn't strike me as odd that Woody wouldn't buy it. Through this entire answer he will provide no real evidence as to why he shouldn't buy Sheehan's argument other than his personal feelings. Woody must be from the old school sportswriting school that personal feelings trumps a valid argument every time.

Felix Hernandez had a good personal year, but you can't win the Cy Young with 12 victories.

Oh no, but you can. What's weird about the Cy Young, and this is contrary to whatever Joe Morgan or any other idiot wants to tell you, but it is not a team award but an individual award. So if a player has a good personal year and goes 3-15 with a 1.26 ERA and 1.01 WHIP there is a good chance he was the best pitcher in his league that year. Therefore that pitcher could possibly win the Cy Young award.

And, in the National League, you can't win the Cy Young with four victories after the All-Star Game.

But you really can. Let's not get too stuck on this whole "wins" thing when determining how good a pitcher is. Baseball is a team sport.

Voters (media swill like me) will factor in that Hernandez didn't give up many runs, but they also will factor in that he pitches in a pitcher-friendly park in Seattle

Voters (media swill like Woody) would also have to look at what Felix Hernandez did on the road compared to how he did at home.

Hernandez's numbers at home v. road:

At home: 118.0 IP, 8 wins, 4 losses, 2.06 ERA, 7 HR, .208/.255/.278, 119 SO, 0.996 WHIP.

On the road: 131.2 IP, 5 wins, 8 losses, 2.46 ERA ER, 10 HR, .216/.289/.342, 113 SO, 1.139 WHIP.

Hernandez was still a great pitcher on the road. The biggest trouble Hernandez seemed to have on the road was walking batters. He had a 4.76 SO/BB at home and a 2.51 SO/BB on the road. That explains why Hernandez's WHIP was higher on the road, but otherwise he didn't give up too many more home runs nor did he give up too many more earned runs on the road.

So Woody can factor in the ballpark all that he wants, but it will show that Hernandez didn't give many runs away from Safeco Field either. Of course why do research on this when you can just put your foot in the dirty and refuse to budge on the idea a player with 12 wins should not win the Cy Young award?

and that his team was awful, and that he was a .500 pitcher.

He was a .500 pitcher because his team was awful. His offense was last in every single important offensive category. To put it in perspective, Hernandez would have a better chance at winning more than 12 games if he had played for any other major league team this year...including the Pirates and the Astros. So it is actually a remarkable thing that he won 12 games this year since he was in the worst possible situation in regard to getting run support from his team that he could have been.

The Mariners had a .298 OBP as a team this year. To put this in perspective, the Mariners had 4 out of 10 players with an OBP over .300 among players with more than 200 at-bats. The Pirates had 7 out of 10 players with an OBP over .300 and the Astros had 7 out of 11 players with an OBP over .300. The Mariners were a horrible hitting team, so the fact he played for an awful team IS DIRECTLY TIED to the fact he was a .500 pitcher. I don't know how many times I can re-phrase that the Mariners were the worst offensive team in the majors in 2010.

Voters (I'm not one in this category) will factor in that Ubaldo pitches in a hitter-friendly park and that he lost a lot of close decisions,

Which describes Hernandez as well. He had 0-2 runs scored for him in 15 of his 34 starts. There were many a close loss in there as well.

Taking out that Felix Hernandez performed well on the road, it doesn't matter if a ballpark is hitter or pitcher friendly when it comes to whether a pitcher gets a win or a loss. Both teams have to hit in that park. So Hernandez didn't benefit from being in a pitcher's park because it also meant his hitters had to hit in a pitcher's park.

Doc Halladay's perfect game trumps Ubaldo's no-hitter.

So incredibly irrelevant it should not even be mentioned in any way.

Halladay had more victories, more complete games, a better WHIP, a better ERA, about third as many walks and the same number of quality starts, and his team is in the postseason.

I think we have established that Halladay was a better pitcher than Jimenez and I am going to ignore the fact Woody threw a dumbass comment about Halladay's team making the postseason. We've already established Woody votes for individual awards based on team achievements, so I expect this kind of idiocy from him.

The problem I have with wins is that it is a statistic which has lost a lot of its value in the modern game of baseball. A starting pitcher used to complete a good portion of the games they started, but now there are many other variables from when a pitcher is in the game, including run support and the effectiveness of his team's relievers which affects if a pitcher gets the win. I don't hate wins, but is a statistic that is overused to determine how good a pitcher truly is.

(Nobody factors in that the American League is tougher to pitch in than the National League.)

When comparing pitchers in the National League for the Cy Young award with other pitchers in the National League, it is pointless to try and compare these pitchers to the American League pitchers. So when comparing Halladay and Jimenez, the fact the American League is tougher to pitch in is irrelevant.

If the Rockies wanted him to win the Cy Young so bad, they should have scored more runs, played harder in his final start and not dropped a ball at second base when he had another victory secured.

This. This is exactly why wins are an overrated statistic to measure a pitcher's worth by. Woody Paige mindlessly writes this sentence and still can't see the relevance of this very sentence he wrote to why Felix Hernandez should win the AL Cy Young award. None of these three things Woody listed could have been controlled by Jimenez. The fact his offense and defense weren't good around him, does that make him a less worthy pitcher for the Cy Young award? It should not. The same thing goes for Felix Hernandez.

This group of sentences makes me want to spit in the face of a mime. "If the Rockies wanted him to win the Cy Young so bad..." Why use a team performance to judge an individual's performance like this? I worry for the future of our sports world that Woody Paige can't tie in a pitcher's individual performance with his team's performance and see that they should not be judged together to determine whether that individual deserves an award.

Jimenez (and by default Felix Hernandez) had no control over how many runs his team scored, how hard his offense played and how many errors his team committed. Zero. Zilch. There's no valid reason his performance should be judged based on the faults of his teammates. What Woody Paige just wrote is the perfect example for why a pitcher who wins 12 games can win the Cy Young award.

He should have won 23-25 games, but he didn't, and that's the reality.

That is the reality. The reality is also that wins are not the sole indicator of how good a pitcher has pitched. This very example Woody uses shows this to be true. The reality is there are other ways to evaluate a pitcher without using wins that can show how good a pitcher truly was during the year. Why should Sabathia win the Cy Young because he won nearly 40% more games than Hernandez? Sabathia's ERA was nearly 30% higher, his WHIP was 10% higher, his BAA was 10% higher, and his run support average was nearly 50% higher than Hernandez's. The ONLY statistic that supports his candidacy is one of the most flawed pitching statistics that is used, and that is wins.

I may be preaching to the choir, but I still can't get over Woody Paige blaming Jimenez's lower win total to how bad his team performed and then not being able to understand how Felix Hernandez having fewer wins than other AL Cy Young candidates is irrelevant.

Jimenez honestly went through a stretch when he pitched poorly, on top of everything else. Carlos Gonzalez deserves to be MVP, but the seamheads will say, "Oh, he plays in Colorado."

I hate it when "seamheads" try to point out the bad reasoning in an argument by using the truth. Gonzalez is a great player, but I don't know if a guy who hits .289/.322/.453 with 8 home runs and 41 RBI away from his home field, as compared to .380/.425/.737 with 26 home runs and 76 RBI at home deserves to be the MVP. Gonzalez only had 13 less at-bats on the road this year than at home, so he was significantly better in his home park. Woody claims Felix Hernandez had an advantage in pitching at Safeco Field, but he ignores the affect Coors Field seemed to have on Carlos Gonzalez. So yes, he plays in Colorado and the statistics bear out that it has an effect on his numbers...at least it did this year.

Compare those numbers to Joey Votto's numbers on the road and at home. I don't see how a person could not come to the conclusion Coors Field had some effect on Gonzalez's numbers unless he was just much, much more comfortable hitting at home as opposed to on the road.

Statistics are such a pain in the ass for people when it shows their line of thinking is wrong. I believe what statistics say when I am proven wrong, so I think "old-school" sportswriters are just too lazy to use statistics and therefore don't want to believe in using them so they can't ever acknowledge they are wrong.

7 comments Let's Have a Tip of Your Hat For a Joe Morgan Chat!

Before I get to today's article, a friend of mine put together what may be the most quickly put together and drafted hockey league ever. He set it up two days ago and the draft is this evening at 8:15pm, but its fine because we both wanted to join a hockey league and so we have. We still need some more teams, so if anyone wants to join the league ID is "96573" and the password is (wait for it) "password." Feel free to join. We need more teams to make the league more interesting.

If Joe Morgan has a chat and only Tito from Brooklyn is around to participate in it, does it still count as a chat? We find out this week. Joe answers 16 questions and Tito asked 5 of them. Next year I may have to add a "Tito from Brooklyn" tag for any JoeChats I cover. This week Joe talks for 26 full minutes about the playoffs. As you have noticed, I am going to do things a little different for this week's JoeChat. Because he talks mostly about the playoffs, I wanted to post this one earlier than Tuesday so that the questions and answers will be more relevant. I know this ruins the entire day of Tuesday for everyone, so I am sorry.

I have come to the conclusion Joe Morgan doesn't actually do these chats. He has probably refused to do them in the past and ESPN is paying him back by having an imposter chat under his name as payback for refusing to do weekly chats. ESPN is being cruel and making Joe sound like an idiot in his chats, but Joe doesn't care because he is a Hall of Fame second baseman and has better things to worry about. That explains why Joe doesn't seem very knowledgeable...I am being a JoeOptimist today. By the way, it is fun to throw "Joe" in front of every word when talking about him.

Even if you're not a Ranger fan or a baseball fan, you have to be impressed by the effort of Cliff Lee last night against the Yankees.

Editor's note: If you are not a baseball fan, you probably didn't watch the game Cliff Lee pitched against the Yankees on Monday. You probably are not aware of exactly how good Lee was if you don't like baseball. We at ESPN realize this, but Joe was trying to speak in generalities.

I think ESPN should hire an editor to put "editor's notes" in there after certain statements that Joe makes. I think I am going to do that for this chat...until I forget to do it, which could very well be the next question.

It just doesn't get any better than he pitched the Yankees lineup last night.

Editor's note: We realize this sentence doesn't make sense. Joe has to type fast. Please forgive him. We also realize it does actually get better than how Cliff Lee pitched the Yankees lineup. If Lee had pitched a no-hitter or a perfect game, it would have been better. Joe was using hyperbole.

You also have to have a tip of your hat for Andy Pettitte

Editor's note: We do realize this is a fucked up version of the phrase "tip of the hat to..." and we apologize to anyone who doesn't understand what the hell Joe is talking about. Frankly, we are confused, but we work with Lou Holtz also, so we are used to having to decipher what a person is trying to say.

Theo (Boston)

Considering Cliff Lee has won all three of his postseason starts against the Yankees, is it safe to say he?ll be in pinstripes next year as New York's "can?t miss" free agent?

My biggest question and one this article tackles is how long of a contract should Cliff Lee get this offseason? The article assumes Lee will fall off when his SO/BB ratio starts to decline, which they assume (based on past data) will happen as he gets older. That is possible, but I am not sure if that is a safe assumption or not.

JM: Well, the Yankees tried to obtain Cliff Lee before the trading deadline this year and they were not successful. I do believe that they will be willing to do whatever it takes to get him as a free agent in the offseason.

What it will take to sign Cliff Lee as a free agent: $$$

J Red (Hyde Park)

The Yankees are 4 for 26 with runners in scoring position this series. Is it only a matter of time before they snap out of their funk, or has Ranger pitching simply been that dominant?

JM: I think it's a combination.

Editor's note: We realize it is difficult for it to be a combination of the Yankees busting out of their slump in due time and the Rangers pitching being dominant for why the Yankees have struggled. Joe didn't read the question. In fact, we had a monkey answer this question because Joe had to go pee-pee. What's worse is the monkey can only read French and he never told us that on his employment application. Huge oversight on our part. The monkey has been reassigned as Rick Reilly's editor.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the Yankees can be so poor with runners in scoring position due to a combination of great Ranger pitching (which is very likely) and it only being a matter of time before they snap out of their funk. So they are bad with runners in scoring position because it will be a matter of time before they are out of their funk? I think Joe is too smart for me and talks over my head.

We saw how dominant Cliff Lee was. But the Yankees have not swung the bat this year as well as last year in general.

Yankees 2010 runs scored: 859

Yankees 2009 runs scored: 915

They have scored 0.34 runs less per game in 2010 as compared to 2009. Is this significant? Maybe. But considering the average American League team scored 0.37 less runs per game this year (the average AL team had 781 runs in 2009 and 721 in 2010), I don't know if it is a sign the Yankees swung the bat worse than other teams or struggled more than they should have.

They've had struggles this year where they couldn't score runs.

I can only imagine what Joe thinks about other MLB team's struggles to score runs if he thinks the team that led the majors in runs scored by 41 runs had times when they couldn't score runs. This is probably why he thinks the entire league is not "consistent" enough.

Matthew (Columbia, NJ)

Hey Joe, do you have a problem with Ryan Howard watching the Eagles game just before playing game 2 of the NLCS?

"Matthew, sure Ryan Howard watched the Eagles game, but what was Matt Holliday doing? No one knows exactly where he was at that point. So I am tired of people talking about Ryan Howard and what he was doing the day of Game 2 and ignoring what Matt Holliday was doing. Why doesn't Matt Holliday get shit for not being present for doing something he wanted to do before Game 2 of the NLCS on Sunday?"

That's the fake Joe Morgan answer for the week.

JM: No. A lot of times players need something to get their minds off of the game ahead. They need to relax before the game. A lot of times players will watch the game on TV, but he wanted to go there.

Editor's Note: We realize this is the entire issue discussed in the question, that Ryan Howard actually went to the Eagles game, and Joe answers with saying Howard wanted to go to the game without addressing whether he should have or not. Joe does the best he can with the questions asked in the time he is allotted in the chat. Yes, also we realize Joe is late for nearly every chat.

Players do different things to get ready for the game. I used to listen to jazz all day before the game. Some people might say that was a waste of time.

I personally don't have a problem with Ryan Howard going to the Eagles game, but I can see how some Phillies fans would take it. What I don't see is how Joe Morgan thinks that listening to jazz all day before a game is the same thing as attending a football game that goes until 4:15 when there is a 8:00pm game Howard has to attend. There is a difference in a leisure activity that is a waste of time and a leisure activity that could potentially affect a player's preparation time for a game that very day.

I can't help but wonder if the jazz album Joe used to listen before games to was called "Chance the Rhythm" and if the cover looks like what I thought it would look like. I shouldn't laugh at my own dumb jokes, but I still laugh to myself thinking of Joe with a red suede jacket thrown over his shoulder.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Hi Joe, who do you think has the pitching matchup in their favor for the AL game tonight?

JM: That's are to say.

Editor's Note: We realize this didn't make much sense. Joe has to type fast you see---fine, Joe doesn't really type his answers, there is someone who types for him and that person had a recent injury---ok, really there have been some cutbacks---you what, Joe's an idiot. Is that what you want me to say? There you go. He's an idiot and confused the word "are" and "hard." I don't know how a person does this either.

AJ Burnett has pitched great in the postseason, last year he did.

Hey, Joe is writing like he is writing a Dr. Seuss book!

"AJ Burnett pitched great in the postseason,
last year he did.
AJ Burnett is a great pitcher in the postseason,
that I would not kid.
If Burnett throws a ball in the dirt away,
away from the catcher it goes.
If a ball of Burnett's hits the dirt,
how many runs the Rangers score no one knows."

I've never seen Tommy Hunter pitch a game in person, so I don't know what to expect.

If only there was a small rectangular contraption that showed moving pictures which would allow Joe to have seen Tommy Hunter pitch at some point...that would fix this problem. IF ONLY!

He had a good record.

Which is the best indicator for how good a pitcher truly is. AJ Burnett won 10 games this year, but he also scares the shit out of any Yankees fan who watches him pitch in the postseason.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Do the Yankees need to win the next 3 games so that they don't see Cliff Lee again in the series?

JM: I keep thinking that the Yankees will be able to handle Cliff Lee better each time, but that hasn't been the case. Lee lost 9 games this year and was 4-6 with Texas. He's not unbeatable.

He's not unbeatable but Lee has pitched 24 innings in 3 postseason starts, has given up 2 runs, walked one batter, struck out 34 batter, and has an ERA of 0.75. He's not unbeatable, but he's pretty freaking good at pitching right now. I think that has to factor into the Yankees feelings on facing Cliff Lee in Game 7.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Do you think Ron Washington should have used Neftali in the 9th inning with an 8-run lead? Might this limit Neftali's availability somewhat over the next 2 nights if the Rangers happen to need him both nights?

JM: What happened is that remember,

Editor's note: We don't know either what that means. Full disclosure: We actually fired Joe three years ago. He just keeps coming to work and showing up in the broadcast booth. Every time someone reminds him he was fired, he just laughs and walks away.

Feliz hasn't pitched well so far in the postseason. He didn't pitch well against Tampa and he didn't pitch well against the Yankees earlier.

Feliz has given up one run in the postseason in 3.1 innings of work. He hasn't looked great, but his problem has mostly been walks not that hitters were hitting his pitches well. He's given up 2 hits, all in the game against Tampa Bay.

Ron Washington realizes that he's going to need his bullpen if they're going to win two more games. None of his pitchers, other than maybe Lee, are going to go 8-9 innings.

Which would go back to the original question of whether Ron Washington should have had Feliz pitch the 9th inning so that this could possibly limit his availability for the next two games in New York. That was the question and the question requires an answer...that Joe doesn't seem to address sufficiently. Joe never answers if this will limit Feliz's availability or not.

Feliz is a rookie and he's never experienced this kind of post season pressure. It's definitely effected him.

Nowhere in the question, and I mean at no point in the question, was there ever a hint of concern on Tito from Brooklyn's part about how the postseason pressure has affected Feliz. Yet, that is the question Joe answers.

Andrew (Philly)

Hey Joe, any predictions in the Phils-Giants game today? Which pitcher that has been pitching lights out (Hamels or Cain) gets hit up today?

JM: Hamels has to almost have perfect control to be as successful as he was against the Reds. The Giants are not a good hitting team, especially against left handed pitching.

The Giants hit .251 at LH pitchers, which is 19th in MLB. They slug .391 against LH pitchers, which is 19th in MLB. They hit .259 against RH pitchers, which is 14th in MLB. Joe has made a semi-true statement.

Matt Cain can be overpowering at times, but the Phillies have a good offense, especially against right handed pitchers.

The Phillies hit .256 against RH pitchers, which is 16th in MLB. They slug .407 against RH pitchers, which is 15th in MLB.

So Joe believes the Phillies are especially good at hitting RH pitchers, though they rank middle of the pack in terms of statistics, while the Giants are not a good hitting team, according to Joe, especially against LH pitchers, and they rank only 3-4 spots lower against LH pitchers as compared to how the Phillies rank against RH pitchers. Hmm...I find Joe's opinion on this issue interesting.

I would say the edge goes to the Phillies, but both are capable of pitching great games.

Editor's note: We have encouraged Joe to give an opinion in his chats, but he has told us he may or may not do this. It is really too early to tell whether he will or not.

Here is the typical sentence breakdown when Joe is asked to give an opinion between two things:

1. First sentence give an opinion that Team A/Player A is better.
2. Reinforce your opinion in sentence #1 with more information.
3. Retreat immediately from your first two sentences and write a sentence telling everyone not to count out Team B/Player B.
4. Write a sentence saying Team A/Player A is still better.
5. Write one last sentence saying both Team A/Player A and TeamB/Player B are both great.

Mike (Ohio)

Do you think not being able to seal the win in game 1 will come back to haunt Texas?

JM: Yes. I think it has already effected them.

The question was not whether the Game 1 loss affected the Rangers or not. Obviously this would be the case in a 7 game playoff series. The question is whether it would come back to haunt them or not. There is a small difference in how each question would be answered, but it would be nice if Joe could just answer the exact question being asked for once.

Everyone seems to be taking it for granted that Texas is going to win the series.

The series was 2-1 Rangers at this point. I don't know who was just assuming the Rangers would take the series, but it wasn't me. I think it may have been some of Joe's more idiotic colleagues or the voices in his head.

Those were the exact words that Josh Hamilton said after they lost Game 1, he said, Joe, this series is not over yet.

Literally, and even figuratively, the series was not over yet. There were six more games to be played and the Rangers still had a chance to win the series. I am not sure anyone, but the most overreacting analyst would look at how the Rangers played in Game 1 of the ALCS and thought the entire series was over.

Mike (Ohio)

The Rangers have struggled at home so far, with only one win. Is this just a fluke or something of concern?

JM: But I think they can win at home. Their ballpark fits their team, just like Yankee Stadiums fits the Yankees. Texas has a powerful lineup. They have speed. All of those things are better suited for their park.

Editor's note: I won't try to defend this one. I can only do so much.

Aren't teams with power and speed pretty much suited for every ballpark in existence? If a team has power, they can hit the ball out of a small ballpark and if that same team has speed then they could work well in a large ballpark. So if the Rangers have power and speed then they would be well suited for nearly every baseball stadium.

Austin (Lexington)

The reds had a great season this year, until they ran into philly, do you think they can return to that form next year?

Editor's note: Joe's relationship with the Cincinnati Reds in no way affects his ability to be a neutral analyst for ESPN. He only goes slightly overboard in his praise for the Reds, which is perfectly fine in the eyes of our network. We at ESPN have always believed there is nothing wrong with not reporting on a story or a team objectively if it fits our business purposes.

JM: I actually think the Reds will be better next year. They learned how to win and they have some players who will be better next year. Drew Stubbs is a blossoming star. Jay Bruce is also a star in the making. Joey Votto, Brandon Phillips, Scott Rolen are all good players. I think they will be better,

It sounds like Joe has pretty high hopes for one of his employers next year doesn't it...but then...

but it depends on the moves the other teams make, because they'll be trying to get better as well.

Yes, it is the typical Joe Morgan hedge that he loves to do. He goes on and on about how the Reds are going to be a better team, realizes that he is accidentally getting giddy with anticipation of his employer's team being good in 2011 and making a prediction of sorts, and then hedges to where everything he said previously has little value. No one dismisses his own opinion like Joe Morgan does.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Do you think Eric Wedge is a good manager for Seattle?

JM: I can never put managers in certain situations,

Never I tell you! Joe Morgan does not have the capability to do things like this! Quit asking impossible things of him! Joe can't tell us anything about whether a manager would be good in a situation or not! He lacks information that he willfully refuses to obtain!

with the exception of Buck Showalter going to Baltimore, that was a good situation for him.

Well, you know, except for that one time when he could say that a manager was in a good situation.

I don't know Eric as well as I knew Buck, so I can't say for sure. But I think he will probably do a good job, because he helped lead Cleveland through two tough spots, basically rebuilding them twice.

"Let me make it very clear I can't answer this question accurately...but let me go ahead and answer the question."

I wonder how this would work in another line of work for Joe?

(Reporter) "President Morgan (cringes), is it true that North Korea has nuclear capabilities and if so, what can the United States do about this?"

(Joe Morgan, President of the United States) "I can never answer questions like this. It's so hard to say without the proper supporting evidence. I haven't seen the nuclear weapons or whatever they have, so I can't say for sure."

(Reporter) "Word is the North Koreans sunk a South Korean battleship with a missile, is that an overt act of war in your opinion?"

(Joe Morgan) "I didn't see the battleship sink, so I can't say whether the battleship sunk or not, but it is no longer in the same place it was supposed to be in the water and the crew has not responded to calls from the Navy. Also, there was a huge explosion reported where the battleship was located. Other than that, we know nothing."

(Reporter) "So you can't say whether the North Koreans have nuclear capabilities and seem bent on war?"

(Joe Morgan) "I never can tell if things like that are true, except in one situation a few years ago when I knew a country had nuclear weapons...but we took care of that (winks at the audience)."

(Reporter) "I'm not sure what that means...so you have nothing to report then? Why did you call the press conference?"

(Joe Morgan) "I will say I have heard recently the North Koreans have nuclear capabilities and they plan on blowing the hell out of most of Eastern Europe and any country in the Pacific Ocean. I think they probably do have nuclear weapons because they were building them a few months ago."

(Reporter) "But you just said..."

(Joe Morgan) "Gotta go!"

Tito (Brooklyn)

Did Cito Gaston get overlooked this year due to all the praise that people were slinging towards Bobby Cox all year?

JM: Cito Gaston has always been overlooked as a manager. He won back-to-back world championships, how many managers have done that? He just never got the credit. Gaston took that team, that was under .500 when he took over, and took them to two titles.

Here's the key to why Cito Gaston never got credit, and I am sure Joe Morgan doesn't know this, but guess how many winning seasons Cito Gaston has had as a manager since the 1993 season?

The answer is two. That was this year and what part of the 2008 season he managed. Gaston's Blue Jays won 55 and 56 games the two years after winning the World Series (yes, both of those were shortened seasons, but he had a winning percentage of .478 and .389 for those two years)
and he was fired after winning 74 and 72 games the next two seasons. Gaston isn't a terrible manager, but he had his chances with the Blue Jays and the team was pretty bad after the two World Series titles.

But if you look at all of the great managers, how many won 2 World Series titles?

The answer would appear to be 21 managers.

It's amazing to me that he won those titles and was fired by Toronto and didn't get another job until Toronto brought him back all those years later.

Yes and no. Yes, it is interesting no other team gave him a shot, but it isn't too shocking considering his record was 257-321 over the last four years of his career there. But, he could be seen as an underrated manager by some people, but I don't know if he was a great manager.

I think the one thing that we have seen in the series is that the starting pitchers are still the most important part of a pitching staff. I've said this for years that bullpens are great, but starting pitching is what takes you to the winner's circle.

Really? The bullpen plays a big role in the playoffs when it comes to which team wins. As Joe said earlier in this chat, not every pitcher is like Cliff Lee and goes 7, 8, or 9 innings.

Game 2 of the NLCS was partially decided by a shaky Giants bullpen and Game 4 was decided by which team had a better bullpen.

Game 1 of the ALCS was directly decided by the Rangers bullpen struggling, the Yankees bullpen melting down made Game 3's result more clear and made the difference in what could have been a 2-0 game in the bottom of the 9th inning and what turned out to be a 8-0 game at that point, and in Game 4 the home run by Molina put the Rangers ahead but the Yankees bullpen gave up more runs to the Rangers to help them put the game away. Great starting pitching can only take a team so far, unless that starting pitching is posting complete games.

This doesn't include the LDS games decided by a team's bullpen, which pretty much includes the entire Atlanta-San Francisco series.

Buzzmaster: Thanks for chatting Joe!

Editor's note: You will all receive a full refund for the 5 minutes of your life you wasted reading this chat. As a special bonus we will send you a Joe Morgan teddy bear just in time for Valentine's Day 2011 that has a heart-shaped button on its chest which says, "I would say 'I love you,' but it is really too early to tell."

10 comments That Pain In Your Head Isn't a Concussion, But a Headache From Reading TMQ

A friend of mine quickly set up a hockey league and we need players to join. I have no idea what I am doing since this is my first season doing fantasy hockey. He set it up yesterday and the draft is Friday evening at 8:15pm EST. We both wanted to join a hockey league and so we have. We still need some more teams, so if anyone wants to join the league ID is "96573" and the password is (wait for it) "password." Feel free to join because right now we have four teams.

I don't spend a lot of time complimenting Gregg Easterbrook, but he has been at the forefront of the many columnists who now write about the NFL in regard to talking about player safety. He's not always right about some of the solutions to this problem and I don't agree with all of his ideas on the issue, but he generally speaks well about the cause (the mentality of football ingrained in players that begins with coaches in junior high and high school) and where it needs to start being prevented (when youth begin playing tackle football). So even though I will disagree with him on some of the issues regarding helmet safety, Gregg is on the right track. Naturally, he talks this week about players using their helmet as a weapon. Don't worry, he is wrong about a lot of shit too. I ain't going soft or nothing.

(cues up Air Supply as background music while writing this)

Josh Cribbs of the Browns suffered a concussion on a helmet-to-helmet hit by James Harrison of the Steelers on Sunday. No flag was thrown. Later in the same contest, Mohamed Massaquoi of the Browns left the field with a head injury after a helmet-to-helmet hit by Harrison. No flag.

I have watched these two hits a few times online to look for any type of intent to hurt these players on the part of James Harrison. It is hard to judge intent, but both hits look malicious on the part of Harrison and neither time did he make an attempt to tackle or wrap up the ball carrier. There should have been a flag thrown and there was not...twice. I'm the type of person who accepts football is a violent sport and players are going to get hit hard and it will hurt, but there is no excuse for leading with your head.

I am pretty sure a tackler can't lead with his head even if the offensive player is a runner. I could be wrong about that, but I think it is called spearing.

Sam Bradford's helmet was knocked off by a helmet-to-helmet hit by Kevin Burnett of San Diego. No flag.

Sam Bradford's helmet was knocked off? Bradford should be ejected from the game immediately! He didn't have his helmet tight enough!

Gregg has the bright idea that if a player's helmet comes off then he should be removed from the game immediately because of this...this is a punishment of some sort that Gregg believes in. This is one of Gregg's terrible ideas. You can see here how a player's helmet being knocked off isn't always that player's fault. Obviously in Gregg's mind this isn't the result of Kevin Burnett's hit, but is a result of Bradford not having his helmet fastened properly. Gregg most likely fails to see why/how is suggested rule for helmets that fall off a player is stupid.

It's right here for him to say, "hey, that rule I proposed about ejecting a player for his helmet coming off...that's stupid and I see why."Of course Gregg Eastebrook won't do that. He will talk about a player getting hit so hard his helmet falls off without acknowledging that a player's helmet can come off without the helmet being loose and his stupid rule about ejecting players who have their helmet fall off is stupid.

Especially, strictly enforce the "defenseless player" rule, which is supposed to forbid contact after an incompletion goes past a receiver. A high percentage of helmet-as-a-weapon hits occur in this situation -- and defensive backs inflict brutal blows after the ball goes past a receiver because they know the foul is almost never called.

I'm not saying this is a bad idea, because it sounds like a good one, but Gregg often isn't realistic about what goes on during a football game. Yes, defensive backs do inflict blows after the ball goes past the defender, but there are times when they don't have time to pull up. Action on the football field goes by very quickly and once the players have committed to an action, there may not be time to pull up. So I am all for strictly enforcing the "defenseless player" rule, but Gregg thinks too often players have a chance to think on the field, which isn't true.

That the NFL has not, till this moment, acted to impose strict enforcement of rules against use of the helmet as a weapon points to the dark side of football marketing. Namely: a perception that the league doesn't really mind a few severe injuries, considering blood and pain are part of the product.

This is the same league that wants to expand the season to 18 games and doesn't seem to give a shit about many of the retired veterans and their pensions. The NFL doesn't care. The NFL is making money and they don't know why they should change now. So the blood and pain are part of the product and always have been. It's good to see Gregg is 30 years late on this issue. How many times have we seen pictures of old football players with blood on their face and how many times when a player gets hit hard do networks show the replay? Violence has always been celebrated. Eli Manning got hit in the head in a preseason game this year (and his helmet flew off, so he should have been ejected according to Gregg) and ESPN probably showed this replay 20 times, including him walking off the field with blood coming down his face. Blood and pain are part how they sell the product.

Hollywood eagerly markets to the desire to watch violent harm, but movie violence is fake.

This coming from a guy who every week tells us about a television show or a movie that isn't realistic enough. Is movie violence fake Gregg? Or should it be more real/boring?

When Cribbs was hit in the head by Harrison, Kevin Harlan of CBS, calling the game, said, "Wow what a hard-hitting rivalry the Steelers and Browns have," not mentioning head trauma.

Announcers should not glamorize the hard hits that knock a player out, but I do question what responsibility besides saying something about the hit being wrong or potentially hurting Cribbs that Harlan has. I'm pretty sure Kevin Harlan knows nothing about head trauma, so possibly mentioning the concept that Cribbs could get hurt wouldn't be so bad, but I would leave it at that.

If you listen to what the announcers said after the hit, it is clear that Kevin Harlan was concerned when Massaquoi got hit. The analyst mentioned that the hit was helmet-to-helmet and a flag should have been thrown. Of course the analyst also said the hit on Cribbs was legal because he was a runner, which is something I doubt it correct.

After Joseph Addai took two deliberate blows to his helmet -- first a helmet-to-helmet hit from Kedric Golston, then a forearm-to-helmet hit from London Fletcher -- and collapsed in the Indianapolis-at-Washington game, Cris Collinsworth of NBC said, "That is a perfectly clean hit, blows to the head are allowed on running plays."

Really -- it's "perfectly clean" to slam your forearm into another player's helmet?

I am not sure that is against the rules. It is probably really stupid for the defensive player to do this too often. Helmets don't seem to have as much "give" as a person's arm might. A player who starts smacking helmets with his limbs is asking for broken limbs.

Existing rule 12, 2, 7g bans "using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily," and also states, "violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent."

If it really were "perfectly clean" to deliver deliberate blows to a ballcarrier's head, then no one should play football.

This rule says nothing about a player hitting deliberate blows with his forearm against an opponent's helmet. I just thought I would mention that since Gregg is talking about London Fletcher using his forearm on a ball carrier and then citing this rule as a reason for why this is against the rules, yet this rule doesn't cover what Fletcher did.

Most important, Rodney Harrison said on NBC that players guilty of deliberate helmet-as-a-weapon hits should not just be ejected but suspended. Coming from a former NFL star, Harrison's statement got the NFL's attention.

I do understand union rules and the code of silence among NFL players, but it is still fairly convenient Harrison wants to change these rules after he has retired. It's not hypocrisy, it is just interesting how he feels about this issue now that he has quit playing.

If the league is just blowing smoke, or the sports media return to boosterism, then Congress should step in and regulate the playing standards of professional sports.

Since there are no other pressing issues like mid-term elections, a piss-poor economy or a couple of wars going on involving the United States...this sounds like a great way to spend congressional resources.

By the strangest and most amazing coincidence, this season the early BCS ranking creates a chance Boise State and TCU may be paired in a bowl again, so they cannot defeat teams from the AQ-insider conferences. By the strangest and most amazing coincidence!

I am pretty sure the BCS rankings are partially put together by a computer, so I am not sure how much room for manipulation by those who oversee the BCS. I'm on the "give Boise State and TCU respect" train, I really am. I am under the impression the BCS is computer generated and the idiots who do the polls don't have too much influence over it.

You know it is common knowledge, though not widely spoken, that computers and robots are some of the racist, sexist and major conference loving members of our society but this just goes to prove how true it is. I've always heard that computers inherently hate mid-majors or teams from non-BCS conferences, but this just confirms my suspicions.

The Eagles have two red-hot quarterbacks in Michael Vick and Kevin Kolb. Who should start? Andy Reid faces the Judgment of Paris -- and in that story from ancient mythology, no matter how Paris chose, he was doomed.

Since real life mirrors ancient mythology (I am pretty sure mythology is defined as "an exact realistic story that deals with modern life and details something that actually happened"), Andy Reid is clearly doomed.

I like how Gregg Easterbrook spends 1,000 words most weeks complaining about how unrealistic television shows are, but he looks to mythical stories as an example for why the quarterback controversy in Philadelphia will result with Reid losing no matter who he chooses.

Stat of the Week No. 9: (College bonus.) Arkansas and South Carolina combined for 1,039 yards of offense -- and both lost.

BUT HOW MANY PLAYS DID THEY GET OFF IN THE GAME? THAT'S THE KEY TO WHETHER A TEAM WINS OR NOT! These teams should have run 5-10 more plays than their competition and always gone for it on fourth down and they would have won the game.

Stat of the Week No. 10: The San Diego Chargers are ranked No. 1 in offense and No. 1 in defense -- and their record is 2-4.

This could easily be fixed by Norv Turner going for it on fourth down and not wearing warm weather clothing in cold weather. Or maybe the Chargers have that "California attitude" and wanted to go to the beach sooner than they normally do.

(I combined three of Gregg's stupid ass theories in there. It would take me 10,000 words to include all of his stupid theories.)

But the sweetest play of the game, if not of Week 6, was 5-foot-9 undrafted free agent Danny Woodhead, out of Division II Chadron State, picking up Ray Lewis on a blitz block.

The sweetest play of the week was when a player did his job correctly? So no other blitzes were picked up by running backs this past weekend in the NFL? Or is this sweetest play of the week chosen by Gregg because it involved an undrafted free agent?

Because the Green Bay strategy worked, the touchdown itself was the easiest NFL touchdown ever. What does it tell you about the modern, pass-wacky NFL that on fourth-and-goal from the 1, the defense was so sure a pass was coming that it didn't even attempt to prepare for a quarterback sneak?

It tells me the Dolphins called a terrible defense and Rodgers quick-snapped the ball before the defense could adjust.

Now trailing 28-17 with 2:55 remaining, Detroit faced fourth-and-2 on the Jersey/A 32. In came the field goal unit. Yes, at that point the Lions needed two scores. But you're not going to reverse the psychology of a 23-game road losing streak by launching a fraidy-cat kick on fourth-and-2 with 2:55 remaining. Now you need to reverse the psychology of a 24-game road losing streak.

It's not about reversing a losing psychology, it is about winning the game. Leaving points on the board by not going ahead and getting the field goal and spending more time trying to get a touchdown when they need two scores anyway doesn't make sense. Detroit was onside kicking anyway once they scored, so why waste time getting a touchdown when they have to recover the onside kick anyway to tie the game? If the Lions recover the kick, they have nearly three minutes to go 50 yards, which opens up the playbook for them in going for a touchdown, rather than wasting time trying to get a touchdown and chance leaving little time on the clock to get in field goal range if they do recover the onside kick.

Mike Vrabel catching a touchdown pass after reporting eligible at the goal line is on the cover of the 2005 NFL Record and Fact Book, the league's flagship publication. The past decade or so of the Record and Fact Book should sit near every NFL coach's desk. Yet the Texans were fooled -- that's sour.

Gregg Easterbrook believes coaches forget how to defend the 3-4 defense after it has not been popular for a while, but he believes coaches can remember what the cover of a book that is five years old depicts on its cover?

Thomas Bender of Chicago writes, "I just received an e-mail for the U2 concert in Chicago at Soldier Field -- on July 11, 2011. Tickets on sale now."

When are tickets supposed to go on sale for a concert? When is the appropriate damn date to allow the public to buy them? Is May a good time? It is still spring at that point and the concert doesn't take place until July, which is in the summer! That's "Summer Creep!" How about these tickets going on sale in June? It's not even July yet at that point! That's "July Creep!" I would love to know when the appropriate time to put these tickets on sale would be.

Erik Kneebone of Genoa, Ill., writes, "Henry Kravis just donated $100 million to Columbia to expand its business school. Not only is Columbia Business School's main contribution to society the Wall Street sharks who caused the 2008 financial meltdown -- $100 million is more than twice the annual operating budget of my local community college, McHenry County College in Crystal Lake, Ill. That kind of money at McHenry County Community College could transform lives. At Columbia, it will just channel more insider status to elites."

True, but Henry Kravis went to Columbia and not McHenry County College, so that explains why he gave the money to Columbia.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's donation of $100 million to the Newark, N.J., public school system sounds like the reverse of what Kravis did -- like exactly the kind of progressive philanthropy that deserves applause. My hesitation: Zuckerberg hasn't actually given the money; rather, he said he "plans" to donate $100 million, if Newark raises a matching $100 million.

Because giving $100 million to a failing school system with no strings attached makes a hell of a lot of sense. God forbid, Zuckerberg actually wants to see reform in the public school system and wants to see dedication by the school system to this actual reform. If I was handing over $100 million I would want to see the money be used for the purpose I gave it.

If Zuckerberg does give $100 million to Newark schools, he is a hero. That he's accepted the adulation without actually handing over the money is a red flag.

That he just isn't handing a failing school system money without that system being dedicated to reform is not a red flag in my mind. Putting stipulations on the money tells me he actually wants to see reform.

Esquire just named Minka Kelly, the actress who played super-cheerleader Lyla Garrity on "Friday Night Lights," the "sexiest woman alive." That shy ingénue look she projected in the show's first season? Replaced by bedroom eyes and dominatrix gloves.

And that is why they call it "acting."

Mike Martz, his sinister Mr. Martz personality showing, called an everybody-out pattern, despite the Bears' recent problems with sacks. Chicago botched the line call -- right tackle JaMarcus Webb turned inside to double-team a defender, leaving no one to block Aaron Curry, who sacked Jay Cutler so fast Cutler could barely set up.

Clearly this is a lie. Aaron Curry can't sack the quarterback at all according to Peter King. That's why Curry sucks so bad.

At Washington, Indianapolis used an NFL version of Oregon's blur offense, quick-snapping so fast that it wasn't clear how Colts players were getting the plays -- Peyton Manning calls most plays himself, but barely shouted or signaled anything to his backs, linemen and receivers.

Oh, you mean the same no-huddle offense the Colts have been running for a few years now with Peyton Manning? Boy, they really stole that "blur" offense from Oregon.

Washington countered with the Times Square defense -- the front seven milling around at random, like tourists in Times Square. Manning couldn't predict where the front seven would be because the defenders themselves didn't know; they were instructed to move randomly.

These players didn't have assignments or anything. They were just told to "go tackle somebody." I am sure Jim Haslett created a defense where the defenders don't have assignments or zones to play. Those players who want to blitz or want to guard a certain player, could feel free to do so. That's exactly what happened. Who cares if certain offensive players may not be covered?

Trailing 24-21, Dallas faced fourth-and-5 with 2:40 remaining. Wade Phillips of the Cowboys sent in the punt team. Do I even have to tell you who won?

No he doesn't have to tell me, because Gregg only brings up instances when teams don't go for it on fourth down and then lose the game. He leaves out all the times teams punt and then go on to win the game. So if Gregg is going to talk about a team not punting on fourth down, he will only talk about this when the team lost.

Most sports-agent scandals involve comparatively small amounts of money. The three North Carolina players took a total of about $20,000 in cash, gifts and travel benefits, for example. No one is getting rich, or even making something like income, on this sort of minor graft.

$20,000 is a lot of money in cash, gifts and travel benefits. If no one is getting rich or benefiting financially from this graft than why do the player's and agents do it? One party has to be benefiting in some way.

You're trailing with less than three minutes remaining -- why are you punting? That's what Dallas did, if for no other reason than to shift the blame away from Wade Phillips, who would have been denounced if a fourth-down try failed, and onto his defensive players.

Because we all know that Wad Phillips is doing a great job of staying under the radar to avoid getting fired by Jerry Jones. Jones evaluates his coaches by whether they win football games or not, not by how close the games are. This is pretty much a known fact. Jerry Jones wants to see results, not close games. So either Gregg Easterbrook is making shit up (highly likely) or Wade Phillips is a moron for believing keeping the game close will save his job (likely, he isn't stupid enough to think a close loss saves his job).

The sad part is that if Mike Jenkins had not committed a penalty on third down, then the Vikings would have punted and Phillips decision not to go for it on fourth down would have paid off. So Gregg was really close to being wrong, though I am sure he would argue the Football Gods caused the penalty on the Cowboys for not going for it on fourth down during their previous possession.

After Minnesota took the punt and the Boys used their timeouts, the Vikings faced third-and-6 with 2:22 remaining. Cornerback Mike Jenkins brushed a Vikings receiver, and the pass fell incomplete. Then Jenkins turned to the closest zebra and made the "not me I didn't do anything" gesture -- at which point the zebra threw yellow for pass interference. Jenkins basically pleaded with the official to throw the flag!

This is a lie. FOX's cameras showed the official started pulling his flag before Jenkins had pleaded for a flag not to be thrown. It was getting thrown no matter what Jenkins did.

Forget whether Renaldo Hill of Denver committed pass interference at the Broncos' 2 with 1:26 remaining, setting up the winning touchdown for Jersey/B -- how did a Jets receiver get so deep single-covered? At the snap it was Denver leading 20-17, Jersey/B facing fourth-and-6 on the Broncs' 48. Denver rushed five, leaving six to cover four. Yet Santonio Holmes was alone down the sideline nearly to the end zone. In the replay you can't even locate the Denver safeties, they were so far out of position.

Possibly they were guarding the other receivers who had gone out on pass patterns? There are usually only two safeties on the field, so they can't be everywhere all the time. Yes, one of them should have covered the deep pattern, but we (and Gregg) don't know what kind of defense the Broncos were running. Maybe the one of the safeties had man coverage on Dustin Keller and the other was providing over the top help on Braylon Edwards.

Finally, many readers with good memories, including Gwen Peterson of Lexington, Ky., wrote to remind that I forgot to run my annual item that appears whenever the last undefeated team falls. The last undefeated, Kansas City, fell so early this year that it skipped my mind. (Last season the item did not run until Dec. 29.) Here it is, produced from my AutoText with only the initial specifics changed -- as I will produce this item from my AutoText every season, because no NFL team's going to go 19-0. My heirs will be using this item!

Why do I feel like Gregg uses AutoText for his entire column?

4 comments Joe Morgan Thinks The Phillies Are the Best Team, Even Though They May Not Be, But It Is Likely They Are...Maybe

The baseball year is winding down now. Joe Morgan's lack of predictions are slowly fading into the distance until next year when Joe will refuse to make any predictions about what will happen over the 2011 baseball season, while taking credit for saying one team was the best team in baseball, but not including the fact he ended that statement with "but anything can happen and that doesn't mean they will win the World Series." There is a light at the end of this dark time when baseball ends. That dark light is a few more JoeChats. Let's take another spin or two with the Inconsistency Monster and try not to think about the fact Joe said earlier this year that starting pitchers determine which teams win playoff games and many of the playoff games in the LDS this year were decided by the bullpens of each team.

Buzzmaster (11:01am)

Joe's here!

(Into the chat room walks a naked Joe Morgan. He slaps the only other ESPN employee chatting with the public, Jim McCormick, on the ass and then texts naked pictures of himself to Brandon Phillips)

JM: Congratulations to the Phillies, Giants and Yankees for making it to the LCS. It will be great to watch the Game 5 tonight between Tampa Bay and Texas. The only one that surprises me the most is the Yankees' sweep of Minnesota,

Joe three weeks ago when asked if the Twins past performances in the playoffs could affect this year's playoff:

JM: I don't think the past will have as much of a bearing on it as much as the fact I think that the Yankees are a little better at playoff baseball.

The Twins are a very good team over the course of a season. They don't make a lot of mistakes. But in the playoffs, you won't see the Yankees make a lot of mistakes and they're a veteran team.

Joe over a month ago in a chat on who the Twins would rather face, the Yankees or the Rays:

If I was the Twins, I would root to matchup against Tampa Bay. The Yankees have beaten the Twins just about every time they've faced off in the playoffs in recent years.

Joe last week when asked if the Twins can beat the Yankees:

JM: They haven't been able to beat them at home or anywhere else before in the ALDS, but the Yankees are a unique team in that they have so many guys who can carry them for a few games at a time.

I don't think the Twins have that much firepower to be able to carry them, but they play fundamentally sound baseball.

Needless to say, you could tell Joe was shocked the Yankees sweeped the Twins since he could only muster a compliment like "they play fundamentally sound baseball" when asked about the Twins chances against the Yankees in the ALDS.

but the Yankees get another break because tonight Tampa and Texas will have to use their aces and won't be able to use them in the opening of the ALCS.

So Joe Morgan is predicting another Yankees victory in the ALCS. Mark it down in ston---

But I still expect that whomever wins the Texas-Tampa series to still have a great series against the Yankees.

Oh...well...so the Yankees will get a break in that Lee won't be available until Game 3, but it is not a big enough break to make a difference in the series or allow Joe Morgan to make a prediction one way or another. I should have guessed this would happen.

"The Yankees are getting a huge break in that the Rangers AAA team will be forced to play the first two games of the series and the major league team won't show up until Game 3...but I still expect the series to go down to the wire and there's really no telling based on this information how this could affect the series. Is that a cookie on the floor?"

Mike (Attleboro, MA)

Can either the Rangers or the Rays beat the Yankees considering they?ll be so well rested?

Mike, once a team makes it into the playoffs anything can happen. As I always say, if a team makes it to the ALCS then they could very well end up in the World Series. The Yankees have a good chance of winning, but I wouldn't count out the Rangers. I expect the Yankees to win, though the Rangers will have something to say about that. I think the Yankees will win. The Rangers are a good team though, don't forget that.

That was my faux Joe Morgan answer to this question.

JM: I don't think the rest is the important thing. Sometimes you lose your timing with a few days off. We saw that with Detroit a few years back when they had all the time off and they lost their timing in the World Series.

Baseball is a lot like ballet or gymnastics in that sense. A team could lose its timing by having so much time off. Then they could end up falling off the balancing beam and be embarrassed when they run into their coach's arms crying.

Jason (North Wales, PA)

The Phillies pitching has to make them the favorites at this point. Do you see anything derailing their run for the title?

JM: Well you can never tell if a team will continue to play as well as the Reds or pitch as well.

Wha-----? Ignoring the abhorrent grammar and the fact this sentence not make of no sense, I think Joe Morgan may be in denial that the Reds were eliminated in the NLDS by the Phillies.

I have said for the last month that the Phillies are the best team in baseball. But that doesn't mean anything.

No, but it does. It doesn't mean anything as far as who will win the NLCS, but when asked his opinion on whether the Phillies are favorites or not, Joe's opinion does mean something in the context of the question. If I keep saying that Rafael Nadal is the best tennis player in the world, that means I think he is better than every other male tennis player. So when asked, "do you think Rafael Nadal will win the Australian Open," and I respond with,

"I have said for a while that Rafael Nadal is the best tennis player in the world," it insinuates that I believe he will win the Australian Open since I acknowledged him as the best tennis player.

If I ask a person if Chipotle is their favorite place to get a burrito and they respond with,

"I always have thought that Chipotle has the best burritos in the world," then I could safely assume Chipotle is that person's favorite place to get a burrito. So saying the Phillies are the best team in baseball makes a person believe that Joe believes they will win the World Series, or at least the NLCS, this year.

I don't think anyone is guaranteed to win a championship.

No one asked Joe this. He gets all defensive and uptight when asked a question sometimes, doesn't he?

This is not a cut and dry situation right now.

JUST LEAVE ME ALONE! DON'T TOUCH ME! I WANT MY MOMMY!

Ted (Poughkeepsie)

Why can?t the Twins beat the Yankees in the playoffs?

JM: I have my own opinions about the Twins and it's not going to sound good, and I don't mean it in a bad way.

I am sure the entire Twins team is going to be incredibly insulted by whatever Joe is about to say.

They don't seem to be able to raise their intensity level in the playoffs. In the regular season, they're able to beat the Yankees, but in the playoffs, they're not able to meet their intensity.

I am sure Joe means that the Twins don't raise their intensity level in a good way. It's not bad. See, with the Twins intensity level staying low they don't run the risk of a heart attack or high blood pressure. The Twins may not get past the first round of the playoffs, because of their intensity, but this isn't a bad thing. Due to the fact they eat salads and don't raise their intensity too much they have a lot less stress than other teams like the Yankees and can enjoy peaceful October evenings at home watching the World Series.

What we have learned today is that timing and intensity level are as important in the playoffs as a team getting rest and that team's talent level. Also, the most important factor of all in the playoffs in Joe's mind is limiting the amount of bad breaks a team gets that could cause them to lose four games in a row. This isn't a reflection of the team's talent level, but is a reflection of bad breaks that team has received.

Also, Joe says the Twins have beaten the Yankees in the regular season...have the Twins been able to beat the Yankees in the regular season? The Twins record against the Yankees in the regular season for the past five years:

2010: 2-4
2009: 0-7
2008: 4-6
2007: 2-5
2006: 3-3

Over the last five years (not counting the playoffs) the Twins are 11-25 against the Yankees. Over a 162 game season that is 50-112. That's Pittsburgh Pirate-level bad against the Yankees over the last 5 years. Is Joe right in saying the Twins have been able to beat the Yankees in the regular season? It doesn't look like it.

Speaking of Halladay, I think his intensity level was higher than anyone's on the field that day. No one could match his intensity that day.

Here goes Joe with another Morgan-esque phrase. He is introducing the idea of "intensity" to explain why a team or player performs well. Halladay's intensity was higher than anyone else's that day, but he was also pitching much better than he usually does. That helped him pitch well too, the fact he is incredibly talented and was having a particularly good day throwing the baseball...you know, along with his intensity level being elevated.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Did the Reds make so many mistakes in the field due to playoff inexperience?

Tito from Brooklyn is back.

JM: A lot of people would look at that and say that playoff inexperience hurt them there, but their two best defensive players, Scott Rolen and Brandon Phillips, made mistakes.

Brandon Phillips has never played in the playoffs. That's what is called "playoff inexperience" no matter how good of a fielder Joe Morgan believes Phillips may be.

I can't say it was a lack of experience,

So it's not a lack of experience...

but guess what, it may have been.

...but it really may have been. Here's what we do know, it may or may not have been playoff inexperience that hurt the Reds fielding. It very well could have been, but it may not have also. It's too early to tell really.

Obviously, it could have been a different series if they could have won Game 2.

Yes, obviously. It would have also been a different series if the Reds won Game 2, 3, and 4. They may have made the NLCS and played the Giants if the Reds had won three games against the Phillies. Joe can't say for sure, but it is possible.

Ray A. (San Francisco, CA)

Do playoff pitching matchups get any better than the Giants and Phillies?

JM: Well, only if you're going to go Koufax against Gibson.

Not really. Both of those guys are nearing 80 years old. There's a good chance if they had a matchup there would be a Tommy John surgery or a broken bone in either Koufax or Gibson's future.

(Joe's wife on their honeymoon) "Does it get any better than this Joe?"

(Joe Morgan) "Well, only if you were in the United States when it was announced World War II was over or had an opportunity to meet Jesus."

Jan (Somers, CT)

How long do you think it'll be before we see another no-hitter in the postseason?

JM: Those things are unpredictable.

As opposed to those things in baseball that are so predictable? Joe finds nearly everything unpredictable. There are four teams left in the playoffs right now and Joe can't manage to pick one team and say they will win the World Series BECAUSE HE JUST DOESN'T KNOW YET!

You're basically talking apples and oranges. Larson in the World Series had not faced those hitters all year. Halladay had pitched against the Reds throughout the season and had a better understanding of who they were and how to pitch to them.

Yes, but the hitters had also seen Halladay so they knew who he was, what he liked to do and how he had pitched them in the past. Familiarity goes both ways with a pitcher and batter. It didn't just favor Halladay.

The World Series in the past was more important because of the unknown factor with pitchers and hitters having not seen each other.

It was more important? I'm not sure this is even close to be the correct wording for what Joe is trying to say here. If he is trying to say that Don Larson's perfect game was more impressive simply because neither the batter or hitters had faced each other before, he's wrong. The Reds hitters had seen Halladay before and knew how he had pitched them in the past. Other than his talent level, Halladay had no other advantages over the Reds hitters. Don Larson had not seen the Dodgers hitters that year and the Dodgers hitters had not seen him. Pretty much both Halladay and Larson were on the same level as the batters they faced concerning personal knowledge about each other. Larson's is more impressive because it was a perfect game and not a no-hitter.

Connor (Philly)

Phils and Giants in the NLCS! Whose gonna win, and in how many games?

JM: I said the Phillies are the best team in the NL and they are. They're the most complete team.

So the Phillies are the answer then.

If Lincecum is able to beat Halladay, not once, but twice, that will turn the series around. Cain will matchup with Oswalt and Sanchez will matchup against Hamels. How Halladay and Lincecum do, if they split, I give the edge to the Phillies. There's no doubt in my mind that the Phillies are the best team.

If Joe were in 6th grade he would get an "F" for this answer because he gave an incomplete response. He was asked who would win, and in how many games? He responded with a rambling answer that gave the matchups for every game and then Joe saying again the Phillies are the best team.

Matt Martin (Hattiesburg, MS)

Much has been made of the blown calls this postseason. Why can?t baseball adapt to the technology available today and make the game a more even playing field? They?re doing it with drug testing, why not instant replay?

JM: I have been a guy that has said we do not need more replay, because I always felt the umpires should be held accountable.

This is terrible reasoning for not having replay expanded. The umpires can still be held accountable for their calls, that won't change, but with expanded replay the umpires are held accountable AND teams will get an opportunity to turn around bad calls. See, the only ones getting hurt by the lack of replay are the teams. The umpires are currently being held accountable, but why does a team have to be penalized for the umpire to be held accountable for a bad call? If an umpire misses a call, it still goes against him with in the grading system set up for umpires, but the bad call doesn't have to hurt one of the teams. The umpires grade doesn't change with instant replay, but the impact on both teams when a bad call occurs does change.

But watching the playoffs this year, if the umpires, this is the best that they can be, then there needs to be more instant replay.

I can't handle the ebb and flow of Joe Morgan's opinion. So now he favors expanded replay, assuming the umpires still suck at their job. Why do the umpires have to suck to get expanded replay? If there aren't bad calls on the field, the replay won't get used. Expanded replay is either a good or a bad idea, it shouldn't be used reactively and expanded once a bad call has made a difference in an important game.

I have come to not see the problem with it. If there are bad calls on the field, use it, if there aren't any, then it doesn't get used. Baseball replay could be used quickly to resolve on-field issues easily. It's not like the NFL where the official has to see if a player had control of the ball and had his body inbounds or the official has to try to figure out when the ball came out of a player's hands. Replay in baseball would seem to be more cut-and-dry and wouldn't take but a minute to resolve an issue.

Tito (Brooklyn)

A lot of people say the Phils have 3 aces, but was Cole Hamels really all that good this year? His W-L record was just 12-11.

Just shameful Tito. We all know Joe loves W-L records. This is ultimate JoeBait. Of course it doesn't matter because Joe completely avoids the question.

JM: He pitched well down the stretch.

Irrelevant to the question asked.

I know he was 4-0 at one point in September.

Slightly less relevant to the question asked, but this still isn't an answer to the question.

He was fabulous in Game 3 against the Reds on Sunday. I say he's an ace and he's back to being an ace.

Unfortunately, this JoeBait attempt failed. We don't get a rant about how Hamels wasn't good because he didn't win many games. Joe just talks in generalities and uses the word "fabulous" in a sentence.

Chris Fiegler (Latham,NY)

Do you think that we will see a repeat of the 2009 World Series for the 2010 World Series?

JM: Everybody seems to think that way, but it's too early.

Joe Morgan earlier in this chat:

I said the Phillies are the best team in the NL and they are. They're the most complete team.

"Everyone" seems to include Joe Morgan.

The Yankees aren't a shoe-in against Texas or Tampa Bay. And the Phillies are not a shoe-in against the Giants.

Joe Morgan earlier in this chat:

There's no doubt in my mind that the Phillies are the best team.

It sounds like Joe is not conflicted.

But the odds do favor that matchup in the World Series.

Well naturally after saying this Phillies-Yankees matchup may not happen, Joe says the matchup may happen. I don't know if the magical, mystical odds (which are essentially the expectations people have) really favor this matchup. The Yankees and Phillies are considered the two best teams and Joe seems to think we will see a rematch of the 2009 World Series, but until these two teams make it, Joe can't give his opinion...though he will freely tell you the Phillies are the best team.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Do you think the 3 out of 5 format is the best way to handle the 1st round of the playoffs?

JM: I would say no, but I'm not making those decisions.

Trust me, I am fully aware that Joe is not the one making decisions like this. I am pretty sure Joe Morgan in any type of executive position in MLB management is one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

I think four out of seven is best. You play 162 games to determine the best teams in the league. The longer the division series goes, the better chance you have of having the better team win.

Is that the point of the playoffs though? To make sure the "better" team wins? Isn't the point of the playoffs to find out which team is the best? Wouldn't whatever team won 3 out of 5 games actually be the best team? How would we determine what the "best" team is? How about a playoff? Does five games work for you? Great, let's do it.

Shorter series allows for upsets. Best four of seven would be a better format.

But how do we know it is an upset if a team won 3 out of 5 games? What if (and I know this is shocking to Joe) the perception of Team A being better than Team B is wrong? Wouldn't a 5 game series prove that? It is entirely possible the entire season can go by and we all think the Phillies are the best team in baseball, but if they lose in the LDS it is entirely possible the best team won the series.

Yes, after a 162 game season five games seem like a small amount of games to determine a playoff series, so that would be the best reason to change it, not so the "best" team could end up winning.

Tito (Brooklyn)

Has Joe Maddon tinkered too much with his lineup in this series? It seems like he has a different lineup each night.

JM: He feels that pitching changes every day and therefore his lineup needs to adjust to that pitching.

Pitching does change everyday. The same pitcher doesn't pitch every single day. Except for Roy Halladay. I am pretty sure he pitched in at least 90 of the Phillies 162 games this year.

I hope tonight's matchup between the Rays and Rangers ends up with a hero rather than a goat. I hope someone steps to the forefront, a pitcher or hitter, to help their team win. I felt very bad for Brooks Conrad. He didn't play a lot this year and all of a sudden he's in there and has a bad game.

Conrad had 156 at-bats this year. That's not a lot of at-bats, but it was his fielding that stunk. I am pretty sure fielding doesn't go into a prolonged slump. He either can catch a fly ball and field a ground ball or he can't. No matter how much he plays, that really doesn't change all that much. I am assuming he practices his fielding everyday.

We've all had bad games, his just happened to be in a crucial situation.

He committed 7 errors over a six game span. That's more than just a bad game. That's a record of being a terrible fielder.

Buzzmaster: Thanks for chatting Joe!

Joe should just predict a Yankees-Phillies World Series. We know he wants to.

10 comments MMQB Review: Rodney Harrison Likes Cracking Down on Violent Hits...After He Has Retired Of Course

After having taken his moral outrage out on the Cowboys two weeks ago for spending a bunch of money at a restaurant (Peter was probably drinking a $5 latte while writing it), Peter was morally outraged last week that a man of God would be carrying a gun in his car. We should have been morally outraged that Peter named the best tight ends in the NFL without even thinking about their other duties besides pass catching. This week Peter takes his moral outrage to the football field, where apparently there is a lot of hard hitting going on. Peter is going to take a closer look at his beloved game that has suddenly turned into a violent sport...just overnight.

"This is crazy!'' Rodney Harrison said as we tried to process the sixth or seventh vicious NFL hit of the day in the NBC viewing room Sunday afternoon.

Then, almost under his breath, Harrison said quietly, "Thank God I retired.''

The king over the last 10 years of cheap and vicious hits, Rodney Harrison, is now shocked at how hard football players are hitting. This is like Matt Millen being able to commentate on the moves an NFL GM makes and then being shocked at how poor some of them are (Wait, that actually sort of happens). Really, isn't Harrison the perpetrator of these hard hits in the past, and now he is feeling astounded at how hard football players hit? Why wasn't he concerned about this as he was putting receivers who dared to cross the middle on the ground?

So many thoughts. One: It's time to start ejecting and suspending players for flagrant hits, which I thought the Meriweather one was, and perhaps also the shot of Harrison on Massaquoi. Two: the league had better train its officials better considering there was no penalty on the Harrison hit on Massaquoi.

I hate to somewhat agree with Gregg Easterbrook, but this is part of the culture of football taught from the time kids can play organized tackle football. That's where it has to start. The players are more athletic now than they used to be and hitting the opponent hard is considered tough and players secretly take pride in making a receiver woozy. I don't know if I want the officials to start making personal judgments on whether a hit was flagrant or not. Ejecting a player for a hit that is borderline flagrant could have a direct impact on a game. I know knocking a receiver out for a quarter or two does as well (if it was a legal hit then what could we do?), but I am still not sure if I want officials making judgment calls like this.

I will hand it to Harrison. In the year-and-a-half I've worked with him, he's become more thoughtful about the game than I remember from his playing days, when his life was a seek-and-destroy mission.

That's because he is retired. When he played in the NFL, he was among the worst headhunters. He isn't going to run and blindside Tony Dungy in the NBC studios or anything. There's nothing to hand him. He quit headhunting because he retired from football. That's not a compliment to his character, but a result of him not playing in the NFL anymore.

"You didn't get my attention when you fined me five grand, 10 grand, 15 grand,'' Harrison said. "You got my attention when I got suspended ... You have to suspend these guys. These guys are making millions of dollars. The NFL [has to say], 'We're going to really protect our players. We're going to suspend these guys, not one game, but possibly two or more games.' ''

Of course Rodney Harrison says this AFTER he has retired from the NFL. It's funny how many great ideas to punish NFL players an ex-NFL player has AFTER he has retired. Harrison would have been livid at the idea he could have gotten suspended two games for a hard hit if he was still playing in the NFL.

They love them some Ben Roethlisberger in Pittsburgh, and he repaid his fans and his team with a game he thought was a "B-minus, C-plus.''

What Roethlisberger actually said was many of the women fans were "B-minus, C-plus" today in regard to attractiveness. Let's just say there were a whole bunch of them he would not take into a bathroom while out at a bar...not that he does that anymore...but if he did do that, there are many of these women fans who he would not take into a bathroom. He's a changed man now though, so this would not occur.

There's been a Tim Tebow sighting. Came in the end zone.

Really? Peter King is going to write "Came in the end zone" when talking about a quarterback who has been written about extensively because he is a virgin? Is he writing the jokes for me now?

Dallas is 1-4. San Diego is 2-4. There's a new standard for despair, and those two teams are setting it.

Let's please remember San Diego is my preseason Super Bowl pick. Not to make the Super Bowl, but to win the Super Bowl.

Officials don't know how to call pass interference still ... and can we end the madness and please, please, please make pass interference a 15-yard penalty and not a spot foul?

Peter is not talking about the Vikings-Cowboys game, but the officials called pass interference on Mike Jenkins with 2:16 left and the Cowboys having no timeouts...and it was third down. Since Favre is the one who benefited, Peter leaves this one alone, but it was a tough call. Jenkins was playing physical defense, but I am not sure the ball was catchable and I don't know if an official should make that call. Regardless, the officials essentially handed the game to the Vikings with that call because the Cowboys couldn't stop the clock.

Kolb's passing line in the two starts while Mike Vick recuperates from his chest injury:

Comp.-Att. Pct. Yards Yds.per-att TD-Int. Rating 44-60 .733 579 9.65 4-1 118.7

Right. We all saw this coming.

I don't know. I thought before the season Kolb would be a decent starter for the Eagles. Vick playing well didn't really change it too much for me. There is a segment of the population called, "not Peter King" who doesn't take 1-2 games and then overreact to what happened in those games.

The natives forgot how ticked off they were at Roethlisberger for his off-field boorishness (and, allegedly, worse behavior) and showered him with cheers from the time he pulled into the Heinz Field parking lot at 10:30 Sunday morning. Then the game: 16 of 27, touchdowns to his three key targets (Mike Wallace, Hines Ward, Heath Miller), one bad pick, and 257 yards, almost double what the Steelers had been averaging through the air.

We fans will forgive anything as long as a player plays well while on the field.

Roethlisberger had to slide the line over during his cadence to account for a Browns blitz. He hung in, knowing he was going to get hit. When I asked him to grade his game, he said, "B-minus, C-plus. I left a lot of throws out there.''

Roethisberger's exact quote was actually, "B-minus, C-plus. There were a lot of straight-up ho's out there."

Now it gets harder for Roethlisberger. Sunday was the dry run for him. Now it'll get nastier,

That's what she said.

Last week, Branch was traded back to New England. To make the trade happen, Branch lowered his 2011 compensation by $3.65 million. That makes his original contract from 2006 now worth six years and $35.35 million. Now, there's no guarantee the Patriots wouldn't have tried to cut Branch's salary. But I ask you this: Where would Branch have had his best chance to be productive: with the team that drafted him, quarterbacked by an all-timer who had great chemistry with him, consistently in one of the best offenses in football ... or with a team with an oft-injured quarterback, adjusting to a new offensive system, and with three head coaches in five years?

"You don't leave Tommy Brady. Only bad shit happens when you do that. Deion Branch would have been one of the best receivers in the history of the NFL if he had stayed with Brady. I'm going to ignore that if the Patriots don't trade Branch they probably don't go after Moss (or possibly Welker) and almost go 19-0 in a season."

Branch was a great receiver with the Patriots but if he stayed would the Patriots have been one of the best offenses in the NFL? There's so many variables to be measured here, but Branch may have been better off staying in New England, but I don't know if the Patriots would have been better off or not.

Oh, you said you wanted a chart that shows something related to the Patriots? Like most weeks, Peter obliges:

Check out his last six playoff games in New England. That's how you can tell how much the Pats and Brady were beginning to lean on him, and what a great career he could have had if not for the forced deal to Seattle:

G Rec. Yards Avg./Catch Avg./Game TD 100-Yd. Games 6 36 596 16.6 99.3 2 4

Again, I am not sure the Patriots trade for Moss (or maybe even Welker) if they have Branch. I think I am going to start trying to predict what chart related to the Patriots that Peter will have in his MMQB.

"It's been a challenge,'' Tebow said, choosing his words carefully and politely. "But I'm OK with it. Kyle's been playing so well. All I can do is prepare every week for whatever my role is, continue to learn this offense, and wait for the time when the coaches think I can help the team.''

That time came against the Jets in Denver's 24-20 loss, when Tebow got under center and ran a version of the option in the first half, sometimes running, sometimes pitching. His five-yard sprint around right end with 11 minutes left in the first half tied the game at 7. Tebow still hasn't thrown a pass, and eventually, McDaniels has to let him do so, if only to show defenses he might throw so they can't load up against the run.

I'm really excited to see Tebow throw the football with that new awesome throwing motion he has. I also am a little confused as to why Tebow is choosing his words carefully and politely. He is aware he is a rookie QB and quite a few rookie QB's drafted later in the first round don't start their first year? I'm not sure why he would have to try and be polite. He should never have had an expectation of starting his first year in the NFL.

A 46-yard interference call. The Jets advanced from the 48 to the two on a wing and a prayer.

Stupid. Yes, it was interference. No, it was not worthy of a 46-yard gift. For years, this had been the dumbest rule in the NFL book. Sunday was exhibit A for making interference at most a 15-yard penalty from the line of scrimmage -- not placed at the spot of the foul.

I can see how this rule needs to be changed and I can also see why this rule should stay in place. For any pass over 15 yards, it makes sense for the defender to interfere and not let the receiver catch the ball. If the defender has no chance at the ball, just interfere and the other team only gets 15 yards.

I think I would be in favor of changing the rule, but what Peter is missing is that if Holmes was not interfered with, the odds of the Jets having the ball at the 2 yard line are very high. So why favor the defense and take away where the offense would have had the ball if the interference had not happened? Why give the offense 15 yards if they would have had 46 yards (most likely) without the interference? Pass interference is only supposed to be called if a player was interfered with when it is a catchable ball, so if a QB throws a 70 yard pass and the receiver is tripped up and falls 5 feet short of the ball, I can see how this would be a 70 yard penalty.

Then Peter talks about Deion Sanders being angry he is considered the 34th best player of all-time in a new NFL Films show.

The following 11 defenders are rated higher. I don't know the order they're in, so I've listed them by my best guess of how they'll fall.

• Linebacker Lawrence Taylor
• Defensive end Reggie White
• Linebacker Dick Butkus
• Defensive end Deacon Jones
• Safety Ronnie Lott
• Defensive tackle Joe Greene
• Linebacker Ray Lewis
• Defensive tackle Bob Lilly
• Linebacker Jack Lambert
• Defensive tackle Merlin Olsen
• Defensive end Bruce Smith

Lest you quickly look over those 11 and say, for instance, "Deion was better than the last couple of guys listed,'' consider this: Olsen made more Pro Bowls, 14, than any other defensive player in NFL history,

Right...Pro Bowls, that's the best way to determine a player that played a completely different position in a completely different generation from Sanders was a better overall defensive player. Pro Bowls.

5. Indianapolis (4-2). Everyone's right: The Colts aren't the same with so many injuries, and with guys like Brody Eldredge (you know Brody -- he was the backup tight end at Oklahoma last year) playing big roles. But they can still rush the passer, still force the Donovan McNabbs of the world into mistakes the way they did Sunday night, and they have a quarterback who's pretty good too.

Here's the thing, and this was pointed out last week in the comments, but the Colts have chosen to build their team this way. They have chosen to pay 5-6 players big money and then try to fill in the other holes on the roster with undrafted free agents and draft picks. That's how they built their team. I don't feel bad for them when they have injuries and I refuse to accept this as an excuse for them. They are still a good team, but they are also a team that relies on "no-name" players to step in because that's how the team is built.

7. Philadelphia (4-2). When's the last time one team had two of the top 12 quarterbacks in football?

What's this have to do with the Eagles?

Or at least two quarterbacks who, this year, have played like top-12-in-the-game quarterbacks?

Here we go. Peter had written off Kevin Kolb for this season and possibly his career, told us that Kolb may get traded, and then Kolb has a good game and Peter says he has played like a Top-12 quarterback this year. Peter loves to overreact to what happens on a weekly basis in the NFL.

How is Top-3 fantasy pick Arian Foster been doing since Game 1 of the season? 80.8 yards rushing per game and three touchdowns and 34.6 yards receiving yards and one touchdown. Not bad numbers, but also not Top-3 fantasy pick numbers.

11. Atlanta (4-2). Falcons bit on too much play-action in Philly and didn't disrupt Kevin Kolb enough. Not a great team right now.

The Falcons were the class of the NFC last week at #4 in Peter's rankings and this week they lose on the road to Peter's #7 team and they aren't great right now in Peter's eyes, so they move to #11.

14. Houston (4-2). Though the Texans were more lucky than good on the awful pass-interference call Sunday, they did score 21 points in the last 13 minutes to win.

That's a nice little excuse. Considering the Texans scored 21 points in the fourth quarter of a game, I am not sure I would chalk up the Texans victory to just one bad call in the fourth quarter. I know the Texans beat the Chiefs, who Peter likes this year, but the Chiefs lost the game mostly because they gave up 21 points in the fourth quarter.

15. Washington (3-3). Credit where credit's due -- five of the Redskins' six games have hung in the balance on the last possession of the game. And that LaRon Landry continued his terrific play Sunday night against Indy with a huge pass breakup that

Landry came out of relative anonymity (as Peter said last week) as a Top 10 pick and the owner of a 5 year $41.5 million contract out of LSU to make this great play.

But more amazing is that Spagnuolo has taken a non-pressure defense and turned it into a feisty group bringing more pressure than any recent Rams D. On Sunday, the defense got to Philip Rivers seven times, two each by the famous Chris Long and unfamous James Hall and Larry Grant.

So to sum it all up (and we can't forget Peter King's MASSIVE crush on Chris Long two years ago...it was a huge crush and I mentioned it nearly every week), 2007 NFL Pro Bowl alternate LaRon Landry was in relative anonymity, while Chris Long and his 11.5 sacks in his 3 years in the NFL are "famous." I don't think this is a reference to Chris Long's father, Howie Long, either. I think Peter is just an idiot.

Tweet of the Week

"Did you notice jenn sterger's name backwards spells 'regrets'?''
--@LATimesfarmer, Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, Saturday at 9:56 a.m.

Evidently, Ms. Regrets, the former Jets sideline host, is having none of this NFL investigation. Roger Goodell told NBC's Alex Flanagan on Saturday that the league has been unable to get Sterger to cooperate in the league's investigation of allegedly inappropriate texts sent by Favre to Sterger.

Clearly, this means Sterger is lying about the allegations she hasn't even really formally made against Brett Favre. Just like every woman who doesn't press charges when a man abuses her is lying, so is Sterger. Favre just needs to pay her off, let the Commissioner turn the blind eye he wants to turn, and then let the media continue to fawn all over him like they normally do.

In a different situation with a different player, I would suspect the media would wonder why the alleged victim of a high-profile athlete refused to cooperate with authorities, with the implication that athlete was either (a) threatening her to not cooperate or (b) paying her off to keep her mouth shut. I am not sure I have seen either allegation here. I don't know, maybe its just me, but if Ray Lewis was in this situation I think people would believe the fix was in. I don't get that feeling here.

k. Brad Childress' honesty. I like how he's had enough of Brett Favre as John Wayne. Asked about Favre's toughness after the Vikings win, Childress said: "We're paying him enough every game. He's going to get hit."

I am sure he got a good talking to by Favre and Zygi Wilf after he said this.

4. I think kudos are in order for Amani Toomer. He'll be running in the ING New York City Marathon on Nov. 7 to raise money for New York Road Runners Youth and Community Services, to promote fitness and running among kids,

He said running a marathon is something he's always wanted to do, for many reasons. The challenge, for one, and to bust a few myths about football players. "People think football players don't translate to other sports,'' he said.

Really? There are people who think football players don't translate to other sports? I'm not sure if I have ever met someone who believes this, especially since the current generation of NFL fans grew up with Antonio Gates, Deion Sanders, Brian Jordan and Bo Jackson being quite popular and well-known for having played another sport other than football.

6. I think the one thing I find odd about the NFL's investigation into the alleged text and phone messages sent by Favre to Sterger is that we're in Day 10 of this probe, and as of Sunday, no one from the league had contacted A.J. Daulerio of Deadspin.com, the site that bought the incriminating evidence and put it on display for all to see.

Or as it would have been called if a newspaper found this information, "obtained the evidence from a reliable, anonymous source and thoroughly reported it to the public." Selena Roberts stalking A-Rod and using anonymous sources to throw allegations of cheating against his Rangers team is reporting, while the purchase of information and evidence to support this information is "buying incriminating evidence and putting it on display for all to see."

I love the days of online reporting v. newspaper reporting.

9. I think Rick Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News touched the right nerve with me the other day when he wrote about the most maddening rule NOT in place in the NFL. Coaches shouldn't be able to call those ridiculous last-millisecond timeouts before kickers kick important field goals.

Those timeouts are annoying. The problem lies in the fact an offense or defense can call a timeout at any point before the play clock hits zero, even after the offense or defense has begun running an offensive or defensive play. So on field goals, teams should be able to call a timeout anytime before the play clock hits zero. I am annoyed by these timeouts too, so I would like for the rule to change, but logically I am not sure the NFL will change it.

k. Anybody No. 1 in college football? Not to parrot Tony Dungy or anything, but how is anyone better than Oregon?

So they are the best team in college football according to Peter?

Except maybe Oklahoma or Boise State.

Or maybe not? What happened to TCU?

"How is there any better quarterback in the NFL than Peyton Manning? Except maybe Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady."

See, the first part of the question is answered by the second part. So essentially Peter poses and answers his own question.

n. Anyone else creeped out by the Philly crowd whistling at Tim Lincecum like he's a cute girl?

Not really. I am pretty sure they are attempting to mock him because he has long hair.

How about how some fans treated Pat Burrell? He was a part of the 2008 World Series championship team.