8 comments Murray Chass Talks Wins, Yet By Discussing Wins Intelligent Thinking Loses

Murray Chass had a bold prediction that he was right and wrong about on his non-blog. On his non-blog he said that Felix Hernandez would win the Cy Young Award, so he was right about that. He also wrote that Felix Hernandez doesn't deserve to win the Cy Young Award, so he was wrong about that. I don't mind for someone to disagree with an opinion, but at least do it using a differing, yet well-informed opposing opinion. That's all I ask. Murray Chass has consistently refused to do that when it comes to anything dealing with statistics or any other numerical-type device that wasn't created before the early 1930's.

The standard for wins by an American League pitcher was lowered to 16 last year. It is about to be lowered even further – to 13. That’s the number of games Felix Hernandez won this past season, and I expect he will be announced Thursday as the A.L. Cy Young award winner.

I'm already confused. So wins, pretty much the only category that Felix Hernandez trailed every other serious Cy Young candidate in as I have detailed in nearly every Joe Morgan chat, is the category that determines who should win the Cy Young award? Shouldn't some other basic statistics, like ERA, hold as much sway in the opinion of Murray Chass?

Ignoring relievers who have won the Cy Young award, like Mike Marshall, Bruce Sutter, Steve Bedrosian, Mark Davis, Eric Gagne, Sparky Lyle, Rollie Fingers, Willie Hernandez, and Dennis Eckersley...there have been starting pitchers that have won the Cy Young award with 16 wins or fewer. I won't even count those pitchers who were in a strike-shortened season because that isn't fair, but Rick Sutcliffe, Brandon Webb, and Tim Lincecum have all won the Cy Young award with 16 or fewer wins. Zack Greinke deserved the award last year and wins are not the only criteria where a player should be judged in regard to whether that person is worthy of the Cy Young award.

Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson have both won the Cy Young award with 17 wins. What's the difference, other than one win, in a pitcher who has won 16 games and a pitcher that has won 17 games?

The Seattle right-hander had the league’s lowest earned run average, 2.27; the lowest opposing batting average, .212; the most innings pitched, 249 1/3, and missed by two of having the most strikeouts (232)

And if he didn't play for the absolute worst team in MLB, and perhaps the entire the world including some worlds that haven't been discovered yet but currently have organized baseball, then he would have somewhere around 302 wins this year. His wins would be somewhere around that number. It doesn't take a genius or even someone who is borderline mentally competent to figure this out. Name a category for pitchers and Felix Hernandez was the best pitcher, except for...

What he didn’t have was wins. When he won his last start of the season, he finished above .500 at 13-12.

Yeah, that whole thing. I can't imagine if Hernandez had gone 21-2 with a 5.86 ERA and 52 strikeouts if anyone would vote for him as the Cy Young award winner, so why should it be the other way around where he has every category locked the hell down...but wins are still held out there as being the most important? If wins trumps every other category when determining the best pitcher then just name it the Most Wins Award and be done with it.

Just a few years ago a pitcher with a 13-12 record would never have been considered for the Cy Young award.

Just a few decades ago African Americans couldn't use the same water fountain as Murray Chass in certain areas of the country. It's called progress and even if you don't like it, it's happening, much like any future movies involving Tom Cruise.

But last year Zack Greinke won the A,L, award with 16 victories and Tim Lincecum won his second straight National League award with 15 wins.

Even though Lincecum's ERA was lower in 2009 than in 2008, those lack of wins (by three) just make the 2009 award completely unjustified, don't they?

The development, I believe, is directly related to the growing influence of the new-fangled statistics which readers of this site know I have no use for,

(Murray slams the keyboard in disgust which causes his V-8 juice and mustard and ham WHITE BREAD sandwich to go flying across the room on the shag carpeting.)

a fact that sends stats-freak denizens of the blogosphere into a stats-freak frenzy.

I just wet myself out of fury.

Murray holds on to the title for "least evolved baseball writer" and he holds onto that title proudly and tightly doesn't he? It's not the stats-freaks that go into a frenzy, it is mankind and those who represent and enjoy the use of common-sense. It's not a stats-freak frenzy, it is people wanting to point out the painfully obvious to a person who fails to move ahead with the modern times. It's frustrating to hear a person take a painfully outdated and ignorant point of view on anything.

Any smart stats-freak is perfectly willing to hear why Player X should be voted for the Cy Young award over Player Y. You just have to use a way of determining this that makes sense and is justifiable. That's all. If you fail to do this, then yes, people will eagerly try to explain why you are wrong. I know Murray misses the days when he didn't have direct contact with his readers and he wasn't held responsible in the form of immediate feedback for what he has written, but those days aren't coming back.

“Look out, he’s at it again” the cry will go out, as if a carrier of the black plague were loose in the land.

The guy who uses the term "stats-freaks" and calls any statistic not used before 1930 tries to call out others for not listening and over reacting to his point of view. Pot, meet the kettle.

And a flood of e-mail messages will pour in to my inbox calling me vile names (they are only the best educated and articulate of responders) and telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Probably because you are writing a column saying these people don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps that's the reason they say you are wrong, no?

But I do know one thing. I know that Roy Halladay, a fellow who knows something about pitching, agrees with me.

"Here is one person that is as ignorant about me about statistics. Together our opinion proves everyone else is wrong."

Besides his otherwise impressive statistics, the best argument Hernandez has going for him is his lack of run support. Elias Sports Bureau says the Mariners’ 3.06 runs per Hernandez start was the A.L.’s lowest. The Mariners say in Hernandez’s 12 losses, the team scored a total of seven runs while he was in the game.

I accept that those figures represent terrible run support and would make it difficult for any pitcher to win.

So we have come to an agreement then that you are wrong and the only category that Felix Hernandez doesn't rule, wins, doesn't really matter?

But not impossible.

No, it is quite nearly impossible. If a pitcher's team scores 7 runs over 12 games when he was in the game, it is nearly impossible to win more than seven of those games. So Murray's retort to the run support argument is that Felix Hernandez should have given up a total of six runs in his twelve losses, which I am pretty sure would make him as having one of the greatest seasons a pitcher has ever had, yet still would have stuck him with 6 losses. So Felix Hernandez would have to have an all-time great season pitching to win the Cy Young and still would have lost at least six games. Other pitchers up for the award just have to have a great year, but Felix Hernandez has to turn in an all-time classic year.

Even saying it is difficult for a pitcher to win when given that much run support, that also indirectly admits it is easier for a pitcher who receives double that amount of run support to win a game. Factoring this in, wouldn't this explain why Hernandez only had 13 wins? The point of the Cy Young is to have an even playing field to determine which pitcher was the best in each league. Knowing Hernandez has a disadvantage in run support would naturally factor into the discussion then. Murray doesn't seem to want to do this.

Steve Carlton compiled a 27-10 record in 1972 for a Phillies team that otherwise had a 32-87 record. Carlton led the league with a 1.97 e.r.a., 30 complete games, 310 strikeouts and 346 1/3 innings pitched.

Murry Dickson was a 20-game winner for one of the most inept teams in history, the 1951 Pirates, whose 64-90 record belied their level of talent. The only reason they didn’t finish last was Dickson’s 20 wins.

Both Carlton and Dickson had more run support than Hernandez, but both found ways to win in spite of the teams they played for.

So because two pitchers over the last 60 years found a way to win games on a team that wasn't very good, Felix Hernandez should have done the same. His failure to do this is what results in him not winning the Cy Young award, rather than CC Sabathia or David Price's failure to actually be as good of a pitcher in 2010 as Felix Hernandez should result in their failure to win the Cy Young award.

Murray is grasping at straws. He can paint it however he wants to and point out what Felix Hernandez didn't do, but what he did do was be the best pitcher in the American League for 2010. Murray can point out external causes for why Hernandez should be able to do what the two pitchers over the last 60 years were able to do, but what why doesn't he look at the actual pitching performance of Sabathia and other candidates to see why they shouldn't win the Cy Young award? Like for example, no one else in the American League pitched as well as Felix Hernandez. It sounds vague, but check out any comparison between Felix's numbers and another pitcher or check out where Felix ranks in pitching categories for the American League. So yes, maybe Felix should have thrown 12 more complete games or given up 6 runs in 12 games, but the other candidates should have pitched better than Hernandez did.

“It’s tough,” Halladay said. “Felix’s numbers are very, very impressive, but ultimately they look at how guys are able to win games. Sometimes the run support isn’t there, but you find ways to win games. Guys who are winning deserve a strong look no matter what Felix’s numbers are. When teams bring pitchers over, ultimately they want to win games.”

This isn't really a statement about Halladay believing a pitcher with the most wins should win the Cy Young award. It is about what the voters look for. Also, not-coincidentally Halladay had the most wins in the National League this year, so I can see why he thinks wins are important...or at least thinks that this year.

But in this new age of formulas for every action on a baseball field, acronyms have replaced wins. Mythical replacement players have become more important than wins and losses, unless the wins and losses are adjusted by other formulas.

Nothing has replaced anything. These acronyms and replacement players have supplemented the other statistics. It's clear Murray is afraid of any new ideas.

That mouthful – or eyeful – of a metric, according to Tyler Kepner of the Times, tries to calculate each player’s overall contribution on defense.

The Times has increasingly used statistically-based columns, often at the expense, I believe, of the kind of baseball coverage it used to emphasize. But Kepner’s use of “Total Zone Total Fielding” was the clincher, demonstrating that the Times has gone over to the dark side.

"The dark side." Star Wars reference! Nerds love Star Wars and nerds love numbers! Nerds use numbers to use advanced fielding metrics based on statistics, which means Murray Chass loves new-fangled statistics!

Kepner, the Times’ national baseball writer, used the statistic in reporting that metric men were critical of the selection of Derek Jeter, the Yankees’ shortstop, as the Gold Glove shortstop. The Total Zone formula, Kepner wrote, rates Jeter 59^th, or last, among major league shortstops.

It's a metric that doesn't care about its conclusion. Tyler Kepner doesn't hate Derek Jeter. Murray Chass has a problem with a metric that doesn't have preferences among baseball players because it messes up his perception of how good a player is. So Murray doesn't want a metric to disprove his own bias of how good of a defensive shortstop Derek Jeter is. Can't he see the problem with this? How is his own opinion and recollection of how good of a fielder Derek Jeter more reliable than a metric that doesn't rely on human biases? I'm not saying use only these metrics, but at least acknowledge them and factor them into the comparison.

But to me, this is the wrong year for Hernandez, I think he’s the best pitcher in the league, and I think he should have won the award last year. But not this year, not with 13 wins, whatever his other statistics, whatever his run support.

So Murray believes Felix is the best pitcher in the American League, which is exactly what the Cy Young is supposed to determine, but he shouldn't win the award? It also just so happens that Felix had 19 wins in 2009, yet most of his other statistics were worse than in 2010...except for the wins category.

O’Connell said he thought wins started to become devalued in 2005 when Bartolo Colon won the award with 21 wins. “People complained that he won because of his wins,” O’Connell said.

Wins are a good category when discussing pitchers. It is also a very overvalued category at the same time. I wish I had time to do this, but I would imagine there are 10 pitchers who won the Cy Young award because of their total of wins, when there was really a pitcher that was a better candidate to have won.

“This could happen with Hernandez this year,” O’Connell said. “Sabathia and Price could split votes. I suspect as long as these stats are out there people are going to use them. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But wins do matter.”

Wins do matter. No one is arguing they don't. Every other statistic that points in the direction of Hernandez being the best pitcher in the American League also matters though. So yes, wins are great, but to deny Hernandez the Cy Young based on solely on his amount of wins is to essentially value wins dramatically over every other stat category. This is stupid.

The Yankees’ CC Sabathia won 21 games; no pitcher won 20 last year. Sabathia’s feat should count for something,

It means he had double the run support of Felix Hernandez.

but in the new age, the standard that stood for excellence for more than 100 years means nothing. It is ignored. It is not a factor. The stats capellers know better and have better standards.

That's because there is this thing called "progress" and we are making it baseball through the evaluation of players. Wins can stick around forever, they are a metric that will always be used to evaluate a pitcher and no one is asking that wins be ignored. They just should not be considered over every single other pitching category. This isn't a stats-freak argument, but an argument built on logic.

The fact wins have been around for 100 years doesn't mean anything. There have been plenty of ideas and social institutions that have been around a lot longer than that which are currently out of date in modern society...like traveling by horse or camel over car or airplane.

But know these facts about Hernandez:

He had to win his last start of the season to finish with a winning record.

Doesn't matter. He was the best pitcher despite his amount of wins.

Seventeen pitchers in the American League won more games than he did, and seven others won as many.

How many other pitchers in the American League could match as a body of work for the 2010 season where Felix Hernandez ranked in nearly all pitching categories? Zero.

There's your answer as to why he won the AL Cy Young.

10 comments Gregg Easterbrook Found His Way Back to a Keyboard

Gregg Easterbrook is back again this week after taking a week off to go watch his son play his last college football game. I imagine Gregg annoyed his fellow spectators with his inaccurate descriptions of what was going on during the game. Gregg hasn't changed over the last two weeks, don't worry about that. He still has decent insights surrounded by unexplainable episodes of idiocy. Gregg is taking all of his anger out on Daniel Snyder this week.

One of the amusements of the nation's capital area, where TMQ lives, is Chainsaw Dan Snyder's 12-year effort to demolish the Washington Redskins. Every year you think it's finally happened -- Snyder has made every possible boneheaded blunder, and the Redskins at last can recover from his misrule.

Because Mike Shanahan had absolutely nothing to do with pulling Donovan McNabb at the end of a game two weeks ago and I am sure Shanahan wasn't consulted when it came time to give McNabb the outrageous extension he received. I mock Daniel Snyder on this site from time to time, but I imagine Mike Shanahan had a hand in one of these decisions.

(It is not an outrageous extension because McNabb isn't a good quarterback but I don't get how he goes from being pulled in the two minute drill to receiving a huge extension. I don't understand Mike Shanahan at all. Never have and probably never will.)

At 5 p.m. ET yesterday, hours before the start of a "Monday Night Football" home game that was crucial to the Skins' season, Snyder granted a five-year contract extension worth $70 million plus incentives (although the actual length and earning potential is tied to a bonus this offseason, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter) to struggling quarterback Donovan McNabb. Pro sports players love to hear of their teammates getting big paydays. But even Redskins players reacted with: Huh? What?

Pro sports players like to hear of their teammates getting big paydays because they means they may get the same payday. Also, I searched for the Redskins players reaction to the contract extension and couldn't find much of anything. Maybe Gregg Easterbrook has inside knowledge and knows how the players reacted, but otherwise there isn't much proof they were dumbfounded.

Snyder did nothing to extend McNabb's contract last spring, after trading for him -- extending the deal then would have made sense.

Not necessarily. Perhaps the Redskins wanted to see how McNabb and Shanahan got along before they extended him. I guess they were impressed with how the season has gone and decided to extend his contract.

Instead, this happened hours before kickoff of a nationally televised game. McNabb plays poorly, gets benched -- then is handed a lucrative extension. Huh? What?

It doesn't take someone who had been paying any type of attention to know McNabb's agent and the Redskins had been talking about this extension for a few weeks now. It had been discussed prior and they reached an agreement before a Monday Night Game.

The situation was so messed up that even though the Redskins' cheerleaders danced throughout the first half in two-piece summer outfits -- despite a cool night and light rain -- 36 gorgeous scantily attired women dancing in the rain could not improve the home team's fortunes.

But I thought the less clothing the cheerleaders wore during the game meant the team they were cheering for did better? This is an agreed upon known TMQ fact.

Chainsaw Dan projects a negative energy field, and maybe it impedes their judgment. Snyder has employed seven head coaches in his 12 years of owning the Redskins. In the previous 12 years of the franchise, the team had two head coaches, and a lot more success on the field.

What neglects to mention (as usual) is that one of the two (actually three) coaches the Redskins had before Dan Snyder bought the franchise also coached the team from 1999-2000 after Snyder took over the team. That would be Norv Turner. He also neglects to mention Snyder bought the team in 1999 and the Redskins actually had three head coaches from 1988-1999 (Joe Gibbs, Richie Petitbon, and Norv Turner). Of course counting is very, very, very hard so I forgive Gregg and don't think he is lazy in his research at all.

Mike Shanahan seemed to know what he was doing as the head coach of the Denver Broncos. Since arriving in Washington and entering Chainsaw Dan's negative energy field, Shanahan's performance has plummeted.

The Redskins are currently 4-5 and Shanahan has been right at .500 or just above/below .500 over 5 of the last 8 years he has coached. So his performance has declined somewhat, though I am not sure it is just because of Dan Snyder's presence.

Not only has the new head coach mishandled McNabb; Shanahan arrived to find a very solid 4-3, conservative-scheme Washington defense that finished 10th in 2009 and fourth the year before that. Shanahan promptly threw out everything that was working and installed a blitz-wacky 3-4.

It's common knowledge, at least to everyone except Gregg Easterbrook, that a head coach likes to bring in his own defensive/offensive scheme when joining a team. Shanahan favors the 3-4 defense so when he got hired it was known the Redskins would switch to a 3-4.

By the early third quarter, the overpaid and lethargic Albert Haynesworth, another Snyder blunder, was simply lying on the field watching Michael Vick run, making no attempt to pursue him.

Right, because if Haynesworth tries really, really hard he will easily be able to run-down Mike Vick or catch Vick once he has started running. Pursuing the ball carrier down the field isn't exactly the specialty of a defensive tackle.

(On second thought, after watching the video maybe Haynesworth was a bit lazy but I am still not sure he catches Vick)

How long till the Redskins are trying to get rid of McNabb? Probably not long. Nobody cares about Snyder throwing his money out the window. But having to watch him destroy a storied NFL franchise -- that's another matter.

Has Gregg Easterbrook been reading John Tamny articles lately? I bet Gregg wants to take away the Redskins from Daniel Snyder's ownership.

Even in his best days at Atlanta, Vick either looked right or looked left but never both; his reads were "Check the primary receiver and if the primary is covered, take off running."

Never. Mike Vick never looked both right and left for a receiver in Atlanta. I dare anyone to find game tape that shows him doing this. You can't find it because it doesn't exist.

Gregg Easterbrook loves blanket statements.

Stats of the Week No. 4: Matt Ryan is 18-1 as a starter at home.

Peter King had this exact same statistics in his MMQB. Sounds to me like Gregg Easterbrook is doing a little thieving of Peter's statistic or this is just a coincidence. I don't necessarily believe it is a coincidence both Peter and Gregg brought up this statistic within one day of each other when neither writer had ever mentioned it before.

J.T. of Phoenix writes, "Recently I was at a Phoenix Coyotes game and sat three rows behind Sen. John McCain. Not only did he not have a bodyguard, people were taking pictures with him and shaking his hand. If a sitting senator who ran for president just two years ago doesn't need a security detail, why do city council members, midlevel state officials and other minor political hacks receive taxpayer-funded bodyguards?"

I read these "bodyguard/taxpayer waste" notes in TMQ every week. Gregg's readers usually chime in saying they saw famous person X and "he didn't have a bodyguard around him." Have they ever thought that perhaps they just couldn't see the bodyguard or security around that person? Maybe McCain's security or bodyguard simply looked like a fan that was sitting around him?

Kansas City came into the game with the league's No. 1 rushing offense, Denver with the 31st-ranked rushing defense. So pound the ball four times for a touchdown. When you're down by a big margin in the first half, it's not an emergency -- run your regular offense, get a touchdown and then see what the world looks like in the second half.

Instead Chiefs coaches called a pass; Matt Cassel ran backward all the way to the 19, where he was hit and fumbled; Denver's Jason Hunter took the fumble the length of the field for a touchdown and a 35-0 Denver lead that effectively ended the contest.

Gregg always second guesses and tells NFL coaches what to do, but has he thought that perhaps the Chiefs were going to run the ball in the end zone? The Chiefs fumbled on first down, so they were perhaps assuming the Broncos would be selling out on the run and wanted to get the ball to their tight end or another offensive player. It did not work, there's no doubt about that, but football is a chess game and the Broncos may know the Chiefs want to run the ball and are playing the Chiefs to do so. The Chiefs may have known this is what the Broncos would do and wanted to throw the ball on first down. Simply because the Chiefs can run the ball well doesn't mean they have to run the ball on first down.

Undrafted free agents BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Wes Welker and Danny Woodhead gained 209 of the Flying Elvii's offensive yards. Undrafted free agents at New England and Indianapolis perform better than first-round draft choices at many teams.

First round draft picks for the Patriots and Colts also perform better than many of the undrafted free agents for other teams. The number of high performing high draft picks greatly exceeds the number of high performing undrafted free agents. You would never know this the way Gregg Easterbrook talks.

Then, New England leading 29-18 with four minutes remaining and facing third-and-5, Pittsburgh blitzed seven men, and I don't even need to tell you who won the game.

The Patriots because they were winning 11 points with four minutes left in the game and had the ball? That's why you don't have to tell me who won the game?

This approach worked when he was head coach of the Broncos and Bills, teams that in his tenure had numerous mature veteran leaders -- John Elway, Karl Mecklenberg, Steve Atwater and Shannon Sharpe in Denver; Thurman Thomas, Ruben Brown, Bruce Smith and Henry Jones in Buffalo. Name the "mature veteran leader" on the current Boys roster.

Tony Romo, Jason Witten, Keith Brooking, Jon Kitna, and Terence Newman.

The Cowboys of late are a collection of overpaid, spoiled pretty boys more interested in their own publicity and party invitations than in leaving everything on the field, as NFL leaders do.

And the Cowboys weren't the same team of overpaid, spoiled pretty boys last year when they won a playoff game? Gregg just says this because the Cowboys are losing.

Dallas looked well-coached, Jersey/A looked confused, with Coughlin and defensive coordinator Perry Fewell yelling at each other on the sideline -- a total role reversal from the Giants-at-Cowboys game of October.

Here is what I bet Fewell and Coughlin were yelling about:

(Coughlin) "Dammit you ignorant piece of weasel shit! Make your defense stop someone!"

(Fewell) "I am trying, but it clearly isn't working. You have any ideas?"

(Coughlin) "No, soldier, I don't have any ideas. What the fuck is wrong with the defense dickweed?"

(Fewell) "I would prefer to run the 3-4 defense."

(Coughlin) "Oh, that's just a fad you ass-grabbing donkey! Don't you read TMQ every week? Right now there are a group of coaches about to figure out the 3-4 defense and then it will lie unused for 10 years when it will come back in fashion after every defensive coordinator in the NFL has forgotten how to stop it."

(Fewell) "You really believe defensive coordinators forget how to stop the 3-4 defense after a few years?

(Coughlin) "Listen to me, you good for nothing piss-poor excuse for a human...if Gregg Easterbrook says this is what happens, this is what happens."

(Fewell intentionally calls a bad defensive play to get Tom Coughlin fired)

Trailing 33-20 at the end of the third quarter, Tom Coughlin ordered a punt on fourth-and-1 in Dallas territory. On the next possession, Jersey/A went for it on fourth-and-1 in Dallas territory and the play was stuffed. Consecutive possessions on which a power-rushing team couldn't or wouldn't gain a single yard at home!

So to recap...Gregg criticizes the Giants for not running the ball on a fourth-and-one and then he criticizes the Giants FOR running the ball on fourth-and-one...and it not working. The only solution that will make Gregg happy is to run a play that works. Otherwise, the decision that was made happened to be a poor one. Of course the only way to know it was a poor decision is to know the result and then second guess the call.

Was the final score poor sportsmanship? Normally the gauge of sportsmanship in football is whether a team with a big lead stops passing in the second half. Wisconsin runs the ball so well that to hold down the score, the Badgers should switch to passing. Wisconsin starters left the game early, and Wisconsin tactics in the second half were bland. The missing sportsmanship touch was that, leading 62-13 at the start of the final stanza, Wisconsin kicked extra points on its three fourth-quarter touchdowns. The Badgers should have knelt on the PATs.

So this is the unsportsmanlike conduct? The Badgers added three points to the final score of the game. So instead of having 83 points, the Badgers should have knelt it down so they score 80 points. That three point differential shows so much sportsmanship.

Dolphins note: In two games against Miami for two different teams, Randy Moss caught a total of one pass off Vontae Davis, who is this year's Darrelle Revis.

What the hell does this even mean? Isn't Darrelle Revis this year's Darrelle Revis?

San Francisco looked finished with Les Mouflons leading 17-13 with 2:30 remaining and the Forty-Niners facing third-and-32 in their territory. Troy Smith threw to Frank Gore in the left flat for 14 yards, then on fourth-and-18 threw the same play again in the left flat to Gore for 23 yards, then threw to Michael Crabtree for the touchdown. Converting a third-and-32 was sweet for the Squared Sevens, allowing the conversion on the same play on consecutive snaps was sour for the Rams.

What about the Crabtree Curse! Isn't the entire 49ers team cursed because of Michael Crabtree? I guess Gregg only brings up the Crabtree Curse when the 49ers lose a game for fear that some may see through the bullshit he flings at us on a weekly basis.

But TMQ is struck by the Oakland depth chart. Players other teams didn't want (Cooper Carlisle, Langston Walker) or unloaded cheaply to be rid of (Jason Campbell, Kamerion Wimbley, Quentin Groves). Undrafted players (Tommy Kelly) and small-school players (Jared Veldheer -- quick, in what state is 1,400-student Hillsdale College located?).

The only players on the depth chart who arrived with blue-chip status are Darren McFadden (no relation to Walter), Richard Seymour, Michael Huff, Darrius Heyward-Bey, Rolando McClain and Robert Gallery (who five years after being proclaimed a draft mega-bust at left tackle is performing well at guard). And even then, only aficionados know Huff and McClain. This is a team after TMQ's heart -- castoffs and who-dats.

This is idiocy of the first degree. Langston Walker underperformed in Buffalo and was a 2nd round pick. Jason Campbell and Kamerion Wimbley were both 1st round draft picks and Quentin Groves was a 2nd round pick bust for the Jacksonville Jaguars. In fact, Gregg has brought up Groves quite a few times when talking about how the Jaguars have drafted players on their offensive and defensive lines in the past couple of drafts and still have problems there. So Gregg is criticizing the Jaguars for drafting Groves and also criticizing them for letting him go to the Raiders because he wasn't performing in Jacksonville.

Tommy Kelly is probably the biggest joke as a typical undrafted free agent. He is currently playing under a 7 year $50.5 contract and he hasn't ever outperformed this contract. So he is an undrafted free agent, but he hasn't shown he is worth the money that has been paid out to him.

Favre may be effective for his age. But strictly based on performance, he belongs on the bench.

Seriously Gregg, you don't want to fuck with Brett Favre. ESPN will fire you for saying something negative about him. If you in any way jeopardize their ability to hire him as a commentator after he retires you will be out on the street.

While other teams get disappointing performances from first-round-drafted megabucks players, the Colts continue to roll out undrafted free agents who do well.

Somewhere Anthony Gonzalez, Donald Brown, and Tony Ugoh are wondering why the Colts don't always roll out first round picks that do well.

TMQ told you last April that James and Linkenbach would be successful in the NFL. What incredible insider information did I posses? None! I simply knew they were undrafted free agents who signed with Indianapolis.

That's crazy! You are a genius for taking an assumption and then seeing that assumption come true for one week in the NFL.

BCS note: Can sportscasters and sportswriters please stop referring to the USA Today and Harris polls as the "human" polls? No other species gets a vote -- the BCS is obviously worried the Klingons would like TCU more than Auburn.

What the hell should they be called then? What name would work well that is short and easy to say? There has to be a way to differentiate between the computer and human polls. Yes, it sounds stupid, but there isn't a much shorter way to talk about the USA Today and Harris polls without saying "USA Today and Harris polls."

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again!: City of Tampa leading Carolina 24-16 with 4:40 remaining, the Bucs faced third-and-15 in their own territory. Play straight defense here and a stop is statistically likely ... It's a mega-blitz! Tampa converts and scores the game-icing touchdown on the possession.

No it wasn't a mega-blitz. It was a blitz, but the Buccaneers ran the ball and completely tricked the Panthers. Jon Beason explains:

"Third-and-11, up a score, we're thinking possibly pass, they run it, and we didn't have guys with vision on the ball," Beason said. "They broke tendency a little bit. You're anticipating pass. Because they'd been moving the ball well throughout the game. In a one-possession game, you definitely want to stay on the field and ice it out. That was a gutsy call by them."

It was just a great call by the Buccaneers. It was simply a matter of the Panthers defenders not expecting the call. The Panthers do not run mega-blitzes very often. I know this for a fact.

Bill Baker of Orlando, Fla., noted on Nov. 11, "The top story on ESPN.com this morning was a mock NFL draft, and a mock men's NCAA basketball bracket was prominent. Todd McShay predicted the NFL draft six months before it will occur, and long before we know who will declare. Joe Lunardi predicted the March Madness brackets when most of the eligible teams had yet to play a game!"

Why would anyone be interested in a mock NCAA Tournament bracket as the season is starting? That's madness! No one would be interested in seeing what an expert predicts the NCAA Tournament brackets will look like. That's why there are never preseason predictions in any major sports like the NFL. No one ever tries to predict what teams will make the playoffs before the season begins because the entire premise of doing so is just so ridiculous.

Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, who've been playing Harry and Hermione since 2001, when they were age 11, have a make-out scene in the new flick. Let's hope Radcliffe stood on a step stool, since Watson now towers over him. Radcliffe, surely hoping to generate buzz for the scene, just said Watson "kisses like an animal." Um -- he's kissed animals?

Well he did do the play Equus. He has come closer than many, many, many people ever will to kissing an animal.

Trailing Baltimore 21-20, Atlanta took possession at its 20 with 1:05 remaining, holding one timeout. The Falcons went down the field as if the Ravens weren't there, scoring a touchdown to win in eight plays and just 45 seconds. Nothing flashy -- a series of well-thrown short passes, capped by a Baltimore six-man blitz when Atlanta was on the Nevermores' 33 with 27 seconds showing, the blitz leaving super-effective Roddy White single-covered by backup corner Josh Wilson. Since the super-effective White already had 11 receptions when that play started, and already had been thrown to 16 times, why was he single-covered by a reserve?

Roddy White admits he interfered with Wilson on this play and that is the reason he caught the pass. So it seems like Wilson had pretty good coverage.

"This year's vicious-hits concussions mainly have involved receivers and defenders on short crossing routes. The physics of spread-passing offenses are creating circumstances that lead to maximum-speed head contact. With spread offenses and short passing proliferating at all levels of football, perhaps it is time for a larger re-examination of the rules."

I hope this reader of Gregg's doesn't want to change the rules on offense to prevent teams from using the spread offense or something like that, and instead, wants to focus on re-examining whether defensive players are really at fault for an increase in vicious hits. I don't think the offensive rules should be changed at all to negatively impact the spread-passing offenses.

Derek Anderson audibled to a max-protect -- eight blockers, only two receivers. Seattle rushed six against eight blockers, almost instant sack, recovered the fumble, and a moment later the lead is 26-10. Aaron Curry of Seattle got the almost-instant sack -- he was double-teamed by Stephen Spach and Tim Hightower of Arizona, and easily shoved both out of the way.

Aaron Curry got a sack? I thought he wasn't fully capable of doing that from the linebacker position? Someone quick, email Peter King and tell him about this. He won't believe this actually happened.

Now it's the next Arizona offensive snap. Seattle defensive end Chris Clemons blows through for an almost-instant sack on first down, and the Cardinals end up punting. Clemons was double-teamed by Hightower and tackle Levi Brown (the fifth overall pick in the 2007 draft), and easily shoved both out of the way.

It wasn't just two seasons ago that Gregg Easterbrook was complimenting the Cardinals offensive line for being so good while having undrafted and unwanted players on the roster. Now that the Cardinals offensive line isn't playing well, Gregg conveniently leaves out these players draft position or whether they were wanted by another team or not...except when it comes to calling out the first round pick that missed a block.

Next week: Watching the Chargers' special teams causes TMQ to have a near-death experience.

When Gregg has this near-death experience maybe he will come back and give up writing about the NFL.

4 comments Tony DeMarco Goes Bargain Shopping...Maybe Does Not Understand the Definition of "Bargain"

Tony DeMarco has a list of players who are bargains this offseason on the free agent market. My definition of "bargain" is a player who signs a contract with a team that is far below his actual worth to that team. I'm not sure if Tony believes that definition is what a bargain is defined as being or not. He seems to believe a bargain is a player who signs for a lot of money but hasn't previously been seen as a good player or an under-the-radar player. He also brings up Manny Ramirez in the discussion, who I am pretty sure won't end up being a bargain for a team. I'm not good at predicting the future, but combine the fact he would probably retire rather than accept a bad offer and his agent is Scott Boras...and I am not sure he will be a bargain.

At 33, Huff was coming off one of his worst seasons, one that ended in failure as a stretch-run pickup by the Detroit Tigers. AT&T Park sure isn't the ideal place for a left-handed pull hitter to go, but Huff signed anyway, and you know the rest.

Then he became a free agent and was overpaid by a team. What, that hasn't happened yet?

I am a big Aubrey Huff fan. More so than many people, but the last time he put up a line like he did in 2010 (.290/.385/.506, 26 HR) was 2004 and he didn't quite meet those 2010 splits either. Huff can play multiple positions, so he has that going for him, but he is probably going to go get overpaid this offseason. That's the problem with bargains or guys who are underrated. Eventually they don't become bargains (see: Abreu, Bobby).

It just goes to show that you don't always have to pay top dollar in the free-agent market for quality production. Talk about return on investment, the Giants got their team leader in homers, RBI, runs, on-base percentage and OPS.

Great signing by the Giants. If Huff puts up those numbers this year, he could possibly be making almost triple his 2010 $3 million salary.

We'll stay away from the well-publicized early lines on the elite free agents — Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, Jayson Werth, Rafael Soriano, Adam Dunn, Paul Konerko, Victor Martinez and Adrian Beltre.

Instead, we'll go around the diamond with a focus on under-the-radar potential bargain producers:

I'm going to nitpick and say Konerko and Dunn may very well end up being bargains. They are two guys who I think will get passed over and provide good value to the club that signs them. Whatever. Let's just focus on the good players that have played for a good team on the East Coast lately (which is essentially what this list made by DeMarco consists of) or have interest from a team on the East Coast. Sounds good to me.

Toronto's John Buck picked the right time to reach career highs in the Triple Crown categories (.281-20-66) at $2 million in 2010.

So John Buck had a career year just in time for free agency and he is now a bargain? A guy who had a career year and his value is at its highest right now...is a bargain? Isn't this the opposite of what a bargain would be? Shouldn't a bargain be a guy whose value is low, but his production is high and not the other way around?

In an era when everyday catchers are scarce, he's a solid 110-120-game-per-year guy.

That's not really an "everyday catcher" that's a guy who plays 3 out of every 4 games. Buck hit his career high in games played this year at 118, so he isn't a solid 120-game-per-year guy quite yet.

Buck is also a solid .243/.301/.421 guy, which are his career splits.

His career high in batting average? That would be in 2010 at .281.
His career high in on-base percentage? That would be in 2010 at .314. Yes, .314.
His career high in slugging percentage? That would be in 2010 at .489.

Buck had a career high in nearly every single statistical category, except for triples and steals, in the 2010 season. This includes strikeouts when he met his career high with 111 and walked 16 times. This to go along with a .314 OBP.

Reportedly, the Red Sox are interested in Buck, which would be a good move depending on the amount of money they have to pay for him. That's the problem, his value is at its absolute peak right now, which makes him not a bargain. He's the 2nd best available at a talent-starved position in this free agent class.

And it's no coincidence Yorvit Torrealba keeps ending up on winning teams, playing key roles on the 2007 Colorado Rockies and 2010 San Diego Padres. He's a clutch performer, excellent handler of a staff and a strong clubhouse presence. In other words, a perfect half of a time-share situation.

Ugh...fine. If Torrealba gets signed for a time-share situation, then I can handle this. I still can't help but notice he had one of his best years in a long while this past year.

The offense-starved Mariners declined an option on Jose Lopez, and that means somebody is going to buy low and benefit.

That team that benefits? The Mariners if they don't re-sign Lopez this offseason. I know, he's not a bad player but he's also not a starter, so if he will learn to embrace the utility player role and get paid like it then I see no issues in his free agency future.

Yes, Lopez was part of a complete team offensive collapse in 2010. But he doesn't turn turn 27 until Nov. 24

"Yes, Lopez may have been a terrible offensive everyday baseball player this past year, but he is young! That means he is young, which is better than being old and being terrible because at that point no one will give you a contract."

and in 2008-09 averaged .285-21-93-.765 OPS and 41 doubles playing half the time in a pitcher-friendly park.

Just taking a peek at his career splits on the road and at home, doesn't make me believe he will thrive away from Safeco Field. He has 94 more at-bats away from Safeco for his career and has 4 more home runs, 9 less doubles, slugs .413 on the road and has a BABiP at home of .262 and .292 on the road. Yes, he is slightly better on the road, but not so much it would make me change my complete opinion of him.

Put him in a hitter-friendly home park, and let's see what happens.

Put any hitter in a hitter-friendly home park and see what happens. Usually his numbers will increase. Lopez's career road splits are .280/.312/.413.

For 2010 he hit .246/.281/.370 on the road. For a guy who needs to get away from Safeco Field he wasn't extremely successful away from Safeco.

During his "breakout" 2008 year he actually hit better at Safeco than on the road:

2008: Home (.313/.329/.511), Road (.280/.314/.374)

2009 was a completely different story for him:

2009: Home (.229/.254/.387), Road (.313/.348/.535)

So who really knows if Lopez will be benefit from a different park? He very well may benefit, but there is also a history that shows he may not be an everyday player no matter what park he plays in.

I'm not sure if he is a bargain.

There are bigger first-base names available, including Derrek Lee, Carlos Pena and Lance Berkman — all of whom have reached the end of pricey long-term deals

These are three guys who fit the mold of a bargain like Aubrey Huff. Veteran players who still have enough skill to play but aren't seen as young enough to get a long-term contract. These three guys could very well end up being bargains, but Tony DeMarco discounts them because they just got out of pricey deals...which is just what happened to Aubrey Huff. He needs to look at the symmetry of Aubrey Huff's situation last year and the situations these players are currently in. There is some symmetry in them getting out of long-term deals and being older.

It will be interesting to see what contract Manny Ramirez is willing to accept. But there's a real good chance he'll have to sign for a low guarantee and incentives.

Which is something a Scott Boras client often signs for. Scott Boras is well known for making his players earn their contract and not pursuing the most guaranteed money. Please...Manny Ramirez will be on the free agent market until a team is willing to make him a multi-year deal or a big one year contract. There will be a team that does this (probably) and Boras/Ramirez are perfectly content to wait out the market just like they did a few years ago when Ramirez re-signed with the Dodgers. Manny and Boras won't sign a contract with a team until they get what they want. I doubt Manny will be a bargain.

OK, we know the Brewers made a mistake in giving Bill Hall a big deal a few years ago. But that's expired, and Hall is a very productive right-handed threat who can play a couple of positions. Like Izturis, Hall could be a nice National League player, especially in a hitters' park.

What is the fascination with hitters' parks? Most MLB players will be better hitters in a hitters' park, that's why they call them "hitters' parks." So if Bill Hall going to a hitters' park is a requirement for him to be a bargain then that makes him like other free agent hitters on the market right now.

Few players in the game today possess the power and throwing arm of Rick Ankiel.

He's terrible. Don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

He's been in a spiral since his big 2008 season in St. Louis, but maybe that splash hit at AT&T Park in the division series will spark something. There has to be a place for his power against right-handed pitching and the ability to play center field.

Rick Ankiel's batting statistics after the Game 2 winning home run: 0-4 with 2 strikeouts and 2 walks.

If Ankiel didn't hit very well immediately after the "splash hit" why would he hit better and gain more confidence 6 months after he hit that playoff home run? Some team is going to have to sign Ankiel to a pretty low salary for me to consider him a bargain and not just another decent centerfielder who has power if he ever can make contact or stay healthy.

Left-hander Jorge De La Rosa won't come cheaply; he'll sign a deal that could top Ted Lilly's recent three-year, $33 million pact with the Dodgers.

So how in the hell can a pitcher that gets $11 million per year minimum with a career ERA of 5.02 be a bargain? He's never pitched more than 185 innings in a season, he's never had a WHIP under 1.315 and his career low in ERA is 4.22.

De La Rosa will be a good left-handed pitcher for the team that signs him, but if he gets close to $11 million per year there is no way in hell he is a bargain in any sense of that word. Joe Sheehan likes him and I like him too...but don't think he is a bargain at $11 million per year.

But De La Rosa still fits in the under-the-radar category.

This isn't an "under-the-radar" list, this is a list of free agents that are bargains. There's a difference and mixing and matching these words creates confusion. You created the criteria, please stick to it.

He has some of the best left-handed starter stuff in the National League, has figured out how to command it, and few realize that from June 1, 2009 — until he tore a finger ligament at the end of April — he went 19-4.That makes his 8-7-4.22 final numbers in 2010 a bit deceiving.

That's fine. I can buy that. The fact still remains he will be 30 years old when the 2011 season starts and he isn't a pitcher that has shown he can throw a lot of innings in a season and he has health issues. De La Rosa may be a good signing for some team, but not at $11 million per year. I don't care if he is left-handed or not, he isn't a bargain at that amount of money.

So we'll look instead to closer/setup types and outstanding setup relievers. Three excellent places to start are Toronto, Tampa Bay and Minnesota. All had deep, excellent bullpens in 2010 but undoubtedly will lose parts of them.

Again, we get a list of pitchers that are coming off good seasons and going into free agency. These aren't necessarily guys who will command bargain salaries for 2011.

In Toronto, that could mean Scott Downs, Kevin Gregg and Jason Frasor. In Tampa Bay, that could be Grant Balfour, Dan Wheeler and Joaquin Benoit

So this list essentially includes three of the best relievers on the market. I would say there may be a bargain in here somewhere, but is Tony DeMarco looking for the best relievers on the market or the bargains among the relievers? I'm not sure even he knows what kind of list he is putting together.

And you don't figure Minnesota will hang onto Brian Fuentes, Jon Rauch, Jesse Crain, Matt Guerrier and Ron Mahay.

So you heard it here first. Three free agent relievers for the Blue Jays and Rays and four of the Twins free agent relievers are all bargains. That's 10 bargains from three teams! What a deal!

So I don't know if Tony DeMarco was trying to make a list of bargains, which is what the entire article was supposed to be about...or he was making a list of under-the-radar players, which is what he seems to think Jorge De La Rosa represents...or he just made a list of free agent relievers who have skill, which is what he ended up doing for the entire "Relievers" category. No matter what he was trying to convince or show us, I'm not sure he succeeded.

4 comments MMQB Review: Let's Overreact To Everything Edition

Peter King doesn't think there are any super teams in the NFL this year. He says this based on his usual overreacting to what happens during one given week in the NFL. Many of the best NFL teams lost this weekend, so there are no great teams now. Next week, when the best teams blow out who they play, there will be a clear pecking order for which teams are Super Bowl favorites. Either way, Peter is very confused as to which team is currently the best in the NFL. If only there were a playoff system that will ultimately help reveal the answer...maybe one that takes place in January between the top six teams in each division.

Week 10 headlines:

Brett Favre tells us how he badly his ankle hurts but it doesn't stop him from jumping all over the field and chest bumping his teammates when he throws for a touchdown pass? Brett Favre reveals his rib "injury" after the game even though he wasn't on the injury report for the game for this particular injury? Are these the headlines for this week?

1. Mark Sanchez takes his place with the big quarterbacking boys.

Haven't we heard this before? Mark Sanchez has a good game and the football media talks about how he has turned a corner and will be an elite quarterback...and then he has a few mediocre games in a row. Quit overreacting to what happens from week-to-week like you don't have any type of short term memory.

4. Bill Belichick does something better than Vince Lombardi did, and I'm not talking about playing lacrosse.

I wonder if Peter realizes this sounds completely sexual? I am sure he doesn't realize this, because as we know from reading this drivel every week, Peter King may be the least self-aware person currently residing on Earth.

I don't know how you measure such a thing, but I've got to think this has a chance -- a chance, nothing more, nothing less -- to be the most interesting last month we've ever seen in the NFL.

There are no super teams.

Thank you Joe Morgan.

The Falcons, Packers, Giants, Saints and Eagles are the best in the NFC, and there are things to like about each one, but are you taking any of them to the bank? Admit it: You wouldn't be surprised to see Oakland or San Diego (combined record: 9-9) play deep into January.

This is such a tiring storyline. The NFC's representative in the last three Super Bowls have been the Giants, the Cardinals and the Saints. Even during the month of December in each of those seasons it would have been surprising to see the Giants and the Cardinals in the Super Bowl. Every year in the NFL is somewhat unpredictable. It's nothing new or exclusive to this particular NFL season.

A quarterback's job, above all, is to win, no matter how the game is won. Sanchez, in the past two weeks, has played two games the Jets should have won -- at Detroit, at Cleveland. Though each was excruciating -- both games were tied at 20 after four quarters -- Sanchez made enough plays when he had to for the Jets to win. His numbers over the two games are individually pedestrian (59-percent accuracy, three touchdowns, two picks), but think how much he played: 138 minutes, 161 snaps, with his offense generating 893 yards.

Sure Mark Sanchez may have average numbers over the last few games, but he has been given a ton of opportunities to be on the field with his offense...which doesn't really explain at all why Mark Sanchez has average numbers or how he has taken his place with the big quarterbacking boys.

Before going out for the last series, beginning at the Cleveland 37 with 24 seconds left in overtime, the assignment was clear: get the Jets into close range for another shot for Nick Folk to win the game. (God knows why. Folk had already missed three makeable field goals, any of which would have given the Jets the win long before this.)

The smart thing to do at this point would be to risk committing a turnover by showing no faith in your field goal kicker in an overtime game that AT WORST would end up tied if the field goal was missed?

Warts and all, Holmes was acquired to make game-winning plays like this, and you get the feeling Sanchez-to-Holmes has a chance to be a New York institution if both stay healthy and on the field.

A New York institution? This based on the 64.2 yards per game Sanchez and Holmes are averaging together. They will be just like Jeter, Rivera, and Posada in New York at that rate. An institution in New York. Together. Forever.

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago Peter King was wondering why Santonio Holmes wasn't getting the ball more?

Some holes you just don't dig out of. Phillips might be the guy you want running your defense, but he's the good cop, and Dallas needed a bad cop.

I'm stunned to say they might have found him in one of the nicest guys I've covered in my years in this job.

It was one game. It was a good win for the Cowboys, but it was also just one game. I don't want to take anything away from Jason Garrett and the Cowboys may rebound to make the playoffs, but he won one game. Let's not say he is the guy to take the Cowboys job quite yet.

The Vikings can't bench Favre. Yet. The Vikings are 3-6, and logic says after the most tumultuous year in their history, they ought to be playing for 2011, because they can't run the table. Probably not. But you didn't go get Brett Favre out of the Mississippi retirement home to raise the white flag when you're three games out of first with seven to play.

Isn't Favre injured? We hear about this every single week after every single football game. Favre's injured. If he is injured and not winning games, which is what Peter said above on how a quarterback is judged (in reference to Mark Sanchez), why should he still be the Vikings quarterback? Is an injured and ineffective quarterback really that much better than Tarvaris Jackson? It's entirely possible Jackson presents the best chance to win games now. Of course if Jackson was named the starter then Favre would absolutely poison the locker room and make an incredible scene...so that's probably really why Childress doesn't bench Favre.

What we learned last night won't be good news for Steeler Nation. Jonathan Scott, subbing for Max Starks at left tackle, and Ramon Foster, playing for right guard Chris Kemoeatu, were porous against the Patriots, and caused Ben Roethlisberger to be sacked five times and hit hard at least four more times. Along with the loss of defensive end Aaron Smith, Pittsburgh might have taken too many hits to be super this year.

Injuries happen. I even have a tag that says something like this. There's a reason a team has backups. Good teams try to get through injuries to key players and don't use them as an excuse. This is the third or fourth time Peter has mentioned Aaron Smith is injured as if other contenders don't have injuries themselves.

Nearly lost in the Broncos' 49-29 rout of the Chiefs: the emergence of Tim Tebow as a passer and runner.

Tebow completed a pass. He attempted and completed that one pass. He's perfect...as usual.

Tebow's not going to replace Kyle Orton anytime soon, and he probably doesn't have a chance to do so, rightfully, until 2012; that's how good Orton has been.

Can Peter please send a memo to Woody Paige about this please? He doesn't seem to grasp this concept very well...or doesn't want to grasp the concept very well.

The Fine Fifteen

1. VACANT. Sorry. I watched every good team in football last Thursday and over the weekend, and there isn't a number one. I guess if there were one, I'd take the team that beat Detroit and Cleveland, both in overtime, over the last eight days.

It's your list. You can put whoever you want in spot #1.

2. New York Jets (7-2). Mark Sanchez one day will draft a line of demarcation on his career, and the line will come before Sunday's game in Cleveland. That was a powerfully strong performance against many odds and one very bad calf.

It may be the line of demarcation. We have heard this before though.

5. Green Bay (6-3). Now we find out if the Pack's for real: Starting Sunday, three of their games within the next month are at Minnesota (in their last meeting, presumably, with Brett Favre),

I want to stab a pillow repeatedly. It doesn't matter if it is the last meeting between the Packers and Brett Favre. Really, no one cares.

Quote of the Week IV

"You share a very intimate relationship with Brett Favre.''
-- NFL Network host Stacey Dales, to Steve Mariucci, beginning an interview Saturday on-air.

Mariucci was Favre's quarterback coach at the Packers, and they are good friends. But perhaps slightly different wording would have been in order here.

Says the guy who wrote earlier in the column,

4. Bill Belichick does something better than Vince Lombardi did, and I'm not talking about playing lacrosse.

Let's throw two different words in there. Let's say a guy used to date a girl named "Andrea" and he now dates a girl named "Erin" and this guy says the following sentence only substituting out the names Bill Belichick and Vince Lombardi for the names Andrea and Erin.

"Erin does something better than Andrea did, and I'm not talking about playing lacrosse."

Slightly different wording being necessary pertains to sentences even when talking about two males.

Quote of the Week V

"No ... No.''
-- Favre, to Mariucci, when Mariucci asked if he would play football in 2011.

I'm not kidding. This Favre retirement talk has to end. Let's wait until the end of the season. I beg the sports media to let this happen.

Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me

I set out to look into how Bill Belichick's teams performed after a loss, which, since 2003, has been fairly remarkable. After the bad loss at Cleveland last week, I thought it merited a look, particularly since a treacherous road game lay ahead last night at Pittsburgh. So I decided to look at two-game losing streaks by the great coaches of our time. I picked out five: Paul Brown, Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Bill Walsh and Belichick. And I compared their greatest eight-year runs as NFL coaches with Belichick's current eight-year run.

Did we really expect Peter to have a statistic or fact for the week that didn't involve the Patriots in some way? Why go against tradition?

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

and when I heard Aiello was Tweeting with the Skyliners, I told him they just had to eat at Skyline. "Food of the gods!'' I said.

Glomming along with the crew, I suggested we stop at the Skyline at Seventh and Vine (which was my home-turf Skyline as a local reporter) and have a nice lunch. I had my standard -- the four-way with cheese, and coney with onion, no mustard -- washed down with a diet cola. A four-way is a bed of spaghetti with a few onions on top, and a crown of shredded cheese. I must have eaten three of those a week as a young reporter. Goodell had a three-way bean -- bed of spaghetti, chili, and onions on top.

This is what I mean about Peter having no self-awareness. It was two months ago he railed on the Cowboys for being pigs and spending a ton of money at a restaurant and gorging on food, while making the rookies pay for it. Most weeks Peter goes into great detail about what kind of wonderful food he has gorged on during the week with the celebrity or important football-related person he hung out with that week. There's a difference in gorging on food at a restaurant and telling everyone which famous person you ate with that week, but it's not a huge difference.

g. Chad Pennington's big comeback lasted two plays.

I can't help but laugh at Pennington having not thrown a pass in over a year during an NFL game and then hurting his arm when he throws one. It is not like he zings the ball in there either.

3. I think I still don't understand why Kansas City coach Todd Haley wagged a finger at Denver coach Josh McDaniels Sunday after Denver's 49-29 rout of the Chiefs. SI colleague Jim Trotter tweeted last night that "Haley was not happy with broncos max protecting, throwing deep & blitzing regularly with a 32-point 4th-Q lead." According to Trotter, last year against the Broncos Jamaal Charles had the chance to break the single-game rushing record but Haley pulled him with 2:43 to play, needing just 38 yards. From my perspective, I see nothing that rises to the level of a team making a big stink about getting their noses rubbed in it.

It's called a rivalry and the Broncos and the Chiefs have one. If Todd Haley was really concerned about his team getting thrown deep on perhaps he could do something about the Broncos being able to do so. Haley was just frustrated with getting his ass kicked by the Broncos. It's fine for the Chiefs to be a little bit angry over this, but it's not a huge deal in my mind either.

a. The Terrell Suggs facemask call with 13:11 left. Atlanta led 13-7 and had a third-and-10 at the Baltimore 33. Matt Ryan completed a seven-yard pass to Jason Snelling to the Raven 26. Suggs was called for a facemask violation. What happened is that Suggs and the offending Falcon grabbed each other's mask; but only Suggs was called. Instead of replaying the down and again trying to convert a third-and-10, Atlanta got a down and continued a touchdown drive.

Along with pass interference calls when both the defender and the offensive player are making legal plays to get the ball, this annoys me as well. A Buccaneers player got called for a facemask yesterday and the Panthers player was stiff-arming him by grabbing his facemask. The penalty was called on the defensive player of course, but the offensive player was grabbing the defensive player's facemask as well. It is much like the perception that offensive players don't lead with their head while running the ball. They do, which is fine but still dangerous.

9. I think, by the way, if you're going to claim Mike Shanahan is a racist over this Donovan McNabb benching issue, you'd better have some proof. Playing the race card here is dangerous, obviously, and pretty cavalier. Play the performance card.

How about playing the Idiot card. Mike Shanahan as I have detailed here a few times is a good coach, not a great coach in my opinion. His personnel moves have become generally very hit-or-miss. He has a history of pissing off his quarterbacks at some point. He did it to Bubby Brister after John Elway retired and he did it to Jake Plummer when he drafted Jay Cutler. Shanahan likes to piss off his quarterbacks and feels he has the right to do so because he won two Super Bowls with one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time.

But the same way I'm not going to make a big deal of black men being 1-2-4 (Mike Vick, Vince Young, David Garrard) in the QB-rating standings entering this weekend because I don't think the success or failure of a quarterback has anything to do with what color he is, I'm not going to think Mike Shanahan benched McNabb for racial reasons unless I have some proof other than something incidental.

When there is a race issue present, it should be called out. I don't see that here. Now if you ask me about Tarvaris Jackson or about some of McNabb's time in Philadelphia...that may be different.

c. Glad I don't have a vote for the Heisman. What if Cam Newton wins and he's found to be Reggie Bush II a month from now?

It would be an absolute disaster to award a meaningless award to a football player who was found out to have gotten paid or may be ineligible! How dare college football try to award the Heisman to the best player in college football and not try to predict the future and what will happen with that player! Combine this with Brian Cushing still winning the Defensive Rookie of the Year award last year after the re-vote and I'm not sure I like the direction meaningless postseason awards are headed.

How is giving the Heisman to Cam Newton and finding out he took money to go to Auburn different from giving the award to Jason White, Eric Crouch and finding out he is a terrible quarterback? Does giving the award to the best player who took money taint the award more than giving the award to a player who ends up never being heard from again?

e. Dice-K for Kosuke Fukudome. That rumor surfaced the other day. And let me say on behalf of Red Sox followers everywhere: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.''

f. How do you say, "Worst trade since Larry Anderson for Bagwell'' in Japanese?

g. Not saying Fukudome is useless, but a man who has played in a hitter's ballyard for three years and never hit .265 or driven in 60 runs (despite having 590 and 603 at-bats in two of his three years), and made $33.5 million in the process ... well, I'd call that 80 percent of J.D. Drew, and not exactly a solution for any team except the Toledo Mud Hens. Maybe.

Fukudome is a left handed pull hitter. Peter is telling me he wouldn't like the right field line in Fenway Park? Also, RBI's are a bad way to determine Fukudome's worth. I think Peter may be overrating Daisuke's worth on the market a bit. It's not like he is cheap and outperforming his contract.

h. Coffeenerdness: Not really high on the Starbucks experience in Manhattan. I've tried eight or 10 of them this season, looking for a comfy spot to write on some Saturdays and all Sunday mornings, and I've come up mostly disappointed. The music is too loud, the panhandlers too prevalent at a couple of the midtown ones,

THESE POOR PEOPLE KEEP MESSING UP PETER'S JOY OF DRINKING $5 COFFEE AND WRITING BEING ABLE TO WRITE ON HIS EXPENSIVE LAPTOP IN A CAFE! ISN'T THERE SOMEWHERE THESE POOR PEOPLE CAN GO WHERE THEY DON'T BOTHER PETER WHILE HE IS COMFY?

m. Hey, Mary Pat Mercuro and your Montclair High field hockey team! Congrats on winning the sectional field hockey championship. Great to see the Mounties keeping up the Jersey field hockey tradition. I miss those games, coach.

I hope Peter knows he can still attend these games. He would be that creepy guy in the stands who just watches high school girls play sports, but he could still show up.

I hear the new Monclair High field hockey team does something better than the field hockey team Peter's daughter played on, and I am not talking about playing field hockey.

0 comments John Tamny Has Had Enough of the NFL's Socialist Values

John Tamny writes for Forbes and he thinks the NFL practices "soft socialism" which may be similar to "compassionate conservatism" as far as being a term that feels like it was somewhat made up. He thinks the NFL tries too hard to make everything fair for losing teams and has better ideas on how to make everything fair for all NFL teams. So he wants to end the way how the NFL divides up the collegiate resources for a more equal and fair way to divide up these resources. It's replacing "soft socialism" with "soft socialism now with a twist of capitalism." Either way, he's wrong.

At present the National Football League (NFL) towers over all U.S. sports leagues in terms of profits, television ratings, team valuations, and just about any other measure of popularity and success.

Immediate changes are necessary then! Rather than make small adjustments that help the league grow, let's do some major overhauls do the drafting and ownership system. I also like how he put "NFL" in parenthesis after "National Football League" in case anyone didn't know these two were the same entity. Possibly in a financial magazine this could happen, but still, the NFL is a pretty well known brand.

In that case, for an outsider to question the league’s business model is surely the height of hubris.

Which means in about five seconds an outsider (John Tamny) will immediately question the league's business model. This is the sort of writing used when a writer wants to act like he is self-aware. Unfortunately, simply because the writer is aware questioning the NFL's business model is the height of hubris doesn't mean when he writes the article doing this exact thing he is off the hook.

Still, in a number of areas the NFL practices a modern version of Karl Marx’s well known communistic principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Every major sport does this. Even in the NBA teams with bad records have a better chance to draft higher through the lottery system. It's how sports work well. To not realize this works well in the NFL is to not understand completely how the NFL competitive system works.

This works to the league’s detriment. Ultimately the weak prey off of the strong in the NFL, and this, at least on the margin, softly tarnishes what remains a brilliant product.

Not true. John Tamny wants to amputate the league's drafting system when it only needs some stitches. Really, there isn't a problem with the NFL's drafting system, but with teams that draft poorly. Look at the Rams this year and tell me the drafting system hasn't worked for them. Look at the Lions and tell me the drafting system hasn't worked for them. Teams with good upper management that realizes talent will thrive in the NFL, just like in the business world. When a person who knows what he/she is doing gets in charge, then positive things will happen.

Yes, there are owners in the NFL and management in the NFL that don't make the best drafting choices, but failure during a season which leads to high draft choices aren't always the result of being "weak prey."

Take the Dallas Cowboys for example. They are projected to get a Top 5 draft pick this year and they won a playoff game last year. They aren't "weak prey" because of poor management, it has just been one of those bad years for them. They aren't a terrible team overall and have a history of being competitive. Take the Carolina Panthers as another example. If they had a competent quarterback they would not be 1-7 right now. Why should they not have the opportunity to draft a competent quarterback in the 2011 draft because they made a bad personnel decision in evaluating their quarterbacks in the offseason?

Consider the NFL Draft, which on its own speaks to the league’s immense popularity. Not only is it a prime time event, but so great is the interest in it among fans that the draft now occurs over three days. The problem with the draft is one of incentives when it comes to the order of teams selecting players.

Here goes the typical "teams are tanking to get high draft picks" argument, which fails on two levels for me.

1. As many people know, getting a high draft choice isn't exactly a thing that teams want. High draft picks are expensive and a #1 overall pick is nearly impossible to trade away. So teams wouldn't probably tank intentionally because of the lack of options they have when given a Top 3 pick. It is nice to have a Top 3 pick, but a team in the Top 3 may have difficulty getting rid of that pick (and getting fair value for it) if they don't like their options. So losing intentionally isn't worth the risk in many situations.

2. What is tanking anyway? Did the Rams tank last year when they started Keith Null at the end of the year? They put a rookie in at quarterback, which didn't give them the best chance to win. Was this tanking or was this putting a young quarterback on the field to see if he has a future with the team in preparation for the upcoming NFL draft? If the Rams were thinking of drafting a quarterback then seeing if Null could play in the NFL was a smart move. In the NFL, there is a fine line at times between tanking and giving younger players a chance to see the field at the end of a bad year.

The NFL seeks parity, and as such, each year the team with the worst record gets to pick first. At first glance this seems like a good idea for obvious reasons related to the league’s stated objective to make each team competitive, but given a second pass it becomes apparent that such a system rewards a team for failing.

There's few draft systems, outside of choosing what teams draft where by taking numbers out of a hat, that doesn't reward a team for failing. What John Tamny needs to realize is that "failing" one year doesn't necessarily mean a team has a history of "failing." The NFL is fickle. If Peyton Manning gets injured then the Colts are pretty much fucked. This one injury could decide the entire year for them. So if the Colts go 4-12 then there is a good team that gets a high draft choice, does that make it a more fair system than if the Cardinals go 4-12 because Kurt Warner retired and none of the other quarterbacks on the roster panned out? How about if the Lions go 4-12 this year, do they not deserve a high draft pick even though they seem to have used their picks wisely over the last couple of years? In the NFL, there is more reasons than just "failing" for why a team would have a bad year.

What's a truly valid reason for a team to "deserve" to get a high draft choice anyway?

To fix this, the NFL should copy the NBA’s lottery system, but with one substantial alteration.

So fix the unfairness of the "soft socialist" NFL draft system giving the worst teams the chance to draft higher by creating a system where all the bad teams have an equal shot at drafting higher. Substitute one "socialist" system for another basically.

At present the weakest NBA team has the greatest odds of drawing the number one pick. The NFL should reverse this, stage a lottery among the 10 worst teams, but give the greatest odds to the least weak of the ten teams.

This makes no sense to do though. This entire system is based on the idea that the 10th worst team in the NFL is trying harder or is more deserving of the #1 pick. At this point the team with the best chance of landing the #1 overall pick is Cleveland. Minnesota would be #9 on this list. The team that is left out would be the San Diego Chargers at #11. These would be the "most deserving" of the lottery teams, while the Chargers wouldn't deserve a chance at the lottery.

This idea doesn't sound absolutely terrible, I will grant John Tamny that, but the idea behind it is faulty. He's taking an assumption, that the worst teams in the league are intentionally losing or are "failing" organizations, then punishing them for being this way. While he is doing this, he is making an assumption that the least of the worst teams are really trying and aren't a "failing" organization at all. This new plan is based completely on assumptions.

If so, fans paying enormous sums of money to attend the games will no longer have to question the effort of teams and coaches at season’s end. Knowing that they’ll be rewarded for not being the worst team, players and coaches will more likely give maximum effort.

I'll play Devil's Advocate for a minute. Teams generally don't like really high draft picks. Not always, but with no rookie pay scale it is sometimes a punishment for a team more than a luxury. Say you are the Detroit Lions and you know about the draft system rewarding teams with high draft choices who have good records. You are currently No. 5 in the draft order and don't want another high draft choice, would you put Matthew Stafford on IR instead of play him injured, so you don't get another expensive high draft choice? Wouldn't this be tanking?

What if the Cardinals see they are No. 8 in the draft order and they don't want a Top 3 pick, or at least don't want to possibly get one, would they start playing younger players who guarantee them less of a chance to win? The idea of tanking in Tamny's world would still be taking place in this situation.

Teams have knowledge of the rules and if we assume a team will lose under the current system to get a high draft choice, wouldn't it be safe to assume teams that don't want a high draft choice would start losing under the "Tamny system?" If we are going to start assuming things, this isn't a terrible assumption either. I don't get overall why a team that went 6-10 or 7-9 should get the opportunity for the #1 pick.

Also, as evidenced by the stupendous failure of recent #1 picks – think JaMarcus Russell, Alex Smith, David Carr and Tim Couch – the benefit of selecting first is really more of gamble that often places the team in question in salary cap hell for years on end.

So using Tamny's own assumption that the #1 pick is a punishment of sorts, why would he want to give this punishment to teams with a better record? Isn't this entire idea to reward teams that try to win games? If the #1 pick is a gamble that places a team in salary cap hell (which may not be entirely true) then why "reward" a well-run team with this punishment? I'm just using Tamny's own assumption that teams with bad records tank and aren't well-run. By giving them less of a chance to get a high draft pick, using the very own logic Tamny uses above, they are being rewarded for tanking.

Again, I don't believe all of the bullshit he is writing nor do I believe his assumptions, but I am using his assumptions just to point out the inconsistencies in his argument.

If parity is the league’s goal, the weakest teams should be relieved of the burden of the first pick; one that forces them to pay through the nose for unproven talent.

Then why would the strongest teams have to take on this burden? Is a high draft pick a burden or a reward? I don't think even John Tamny knows for sure.

Regarding ownership, it truly matters. For evidence, all one need do is compare Bill Belichick’s record with the Cleveland Browns under the hapless Art Modell versus his winning ways under Bob Kraft.

Art Modell won a Super Bowl in 2000. I don't know if you could call him hapless.

We can’t do counterfactuals, but if Joe Montana is the best quarterback ever by virtue of his years with the ‘49ers, does anyone think he would have achieved even a fraction of his brilliance if he’d been drafted by Bill Bidwill’s (then) St. Louis Cardinals?

Probably not, but it wasn't the ownership that made Montana what he ended up being, it was playing for Bill Walsh. Walsh was the coach, not the owner. Yes the owner has a say in choosing the coach, I get that, but I know what he is getting at and I don't agree with it.

If ownership’s importance is then agreed on, why doesn’t the NFL as a private business reserve the right to relieve unfortunate owners of their teams?

Because the owner owns the team and is running the team. I understand the NFL could potentially remove owners from their spot since they are a private business, though I think Congress may have something to say about this if the owner complained, but this problem is fixed by the fans. Don't support the team. That's the solution to a bad owner.

The likely response to the above would be that giving the league or the league’s owners this right would drive down the value of all teams. Maybe so in the near-term, but this assumption seems shortsighted.

Short-sighted like creating a new draft system for a problem that has just been created by John Tamny...that problem being teams tank and aren't well-run enough to "deserve" the punishment of a high draft choice?

What's really interesting is that Tamny suggests the owners voting whether to keep a losing franchise from being owned by a bad owner after five years of losing. The Bills have had one winning record since 2000, so is Tamny suggesting the NFL takes away ownership of the team from Pro Football Hall of Fame member and founder of the Bills team Ralph Wilson? It sure sounds that way.

Lastly, revenue sharing in terms of television and licensing contracts needs to be revisited. Oddly, this form of socialism is always the one that establishment NFL commentators rave about. To hear them say it, revenue sharing has made the league what it is today thanks to revenue equality driving team parity. Really? When’s the last time the ‘49ers, Bills and Lions contended for anything, let alone proved consistently worthy opponents to the rest of the league?

The Lions are rapidly improving and the 49ers and the Bills just need a General Manager/coach with a plan and a way to implement that plan. These teams should not be denied revenue sharing because they aren't good teams.

Indeed, does anyone think the Fords (Lions), Bidwills (Cardinals), and Browns (Bengals) would still be owners today if the financial success of their teams over the years had solely been a function of their individual abilities? Not by a long shot.

I would just like to add the Cardinals and Bengals made the playoffs last year. In fact, the Cardinals almost won the Super Bowl two years ago. I'm not sure John Tamny has been paying attention of late. Notice he leaves the Bills off this list, because he knows no one will support the team being taken from Ralph Wilson. Therein lies part of the problem with this idea. The owners who are voting on which owners could keep the team and which have to sell would base it on the owner himself and how they like that person. There would need to be a consistent procedure that would ensure the worst teams get rid of bad owners for this to be an effective policy.

At present, the innovative owners in the league (think Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft to name but two) are forced to prop up the failures.

Jerry Jones currently has a 1-7 team. Isn't this supposed to be a sign of bad ownership in Tamny's opinion?

If it were to abolish revenue sharing, the NFL would in one fell swoop rid itself of its free riders on the way to attracting wealthier, and more ambitious owners.

That doesn't mean this owners would be better at owning a football team (see: Snyder, Daniel). There are free riders in nearly every system in every sport. Unfortunately, this is all a part of owning a team that is a part of a league like the NFL.

Team valuations would soon go skyward thanks to the league erasing a success penalty that funnels hard earned profits to the laggards.

This is pure speculation and a potentially incorrect assumption used to prove Tamny's point.

So while logic says not to mess with success, it seems worthwhile to consider the NFL’s amazing success through the prism of seen versus unseen

I don't like the idea of an unseen problem. It's a problem that may very well not exist. It's like using intangibles to rank one baseball player over another. There's a reason many times an unseen problem isn't seen, and that's because it doesn't exist or isn't such a problem that it should be focused on.

The seen in this case is the success of a league that grows more profitable each year, but the unseen is how much more profitable and popular the NFL would be if it ceased propping up the weak at the expense of the successful.

So it is not really an immediate problem for the NFL, but an opportunity for future growth? The draft doesn't prop up the weak the expense of the successful because many times successful teams don't want high draft choices for financial reasons. As far as revenue sharing goes, I can't generally be in favor of getting rid of owners no matter how terrible they are. Fans can show their displeasure with an owner by not showing up to games, but I don't know if changing the revenue sharing around is a realistic idea nor would it improve the quality of the NFL ownership candidates.