4 comments Terence Moore Hates Celebrations, Rituals and Small Children Because They Always Look so Smug

Terence Moore, the same guy who thinks umpires do an excellently above average job correctly calling close plays, hates baseball rituals. He thinks baseball rituals are not creative enough anymore and they are becoming copycat. The issue is that celebrations are just that, celebrations, not original works of expression intended to be creative and new. Something exciting happens and people will start celebrating this happening. The originality of the celebration isn't really thought of in the moment. Terence sounds like a depressed teenager. Everything is ripped off and nothing means anything anymore.

Here's just one example why a slew of baseball rituals deserve more yawns than applauds. As soon as Oakland Athletics rookie Derek Norris reached home plate last weekend after his walk-off blast against the San Francisco Giants, he (all together now) flipped off his helmet, and then he (uh-huh) jumped on the plate with (you've guessed it) nearly everybody in Alameda County surrounding him.

Derek Norris is a rookie and hit a game-winning home run. Maybe the celebration isn't original, but it is deserved. There is a video of the home run accompanying this article and you clearly see only his teammates surrounding him. Hyperbole and exaggerating is so played-out.

That "thing" has gotten old, and so have a bunch of other things that suddenly have become baseball rituals.

Like "running the bases" and "not using chewing tobacco."

Or shall I say ripped-off baseball rituals.

Everything is ripped off in some fashion or another. What does it matter? Does every celebration have to be original? Besides, if something is a "ritual" then doesn't that mean it is repeated in the same manner every time?

(Looks up the definition of "ritual" and it turns out it is an established procedure for doing something)

That said, even though I am a traditionalist, who still cringes at the thought of baseball without sunshine at Wrigley Field,

I roll my eyes at the thought of Terence Moore cringing at the thought of baseball without sunshine at Wrigley Field.

I'm perturbed by players, fans and teams in general who take somebody else's thing and pretend it is their thing to the point of making the original thing irrelevant.

Yeah, I know! Complaining about things that don't matter, such as this, are so played-out and irrelevant. I'm sure another writer has complained about baseball rituals in the past, so Terence Moore is just taking that original complaining and pretending it his own complaining. How dare he does this? Actually, I'm sure my complaining about Terence Moore complaining about baseball rituals is probably copycatting someone else complaining about another sportswriter complaining about baseball rituals...which leads me to the conclusion the success of Maroon 5 in the mainstream does indeed mean that life has no meaning or value.

The bottom line is, only folks who invented a particular thing in baseball should have the right to do it. Otherwise it should go the way of flannel uniforms.

Most of the people who "invent" these rituals are either retired or dead, so suggesting the ritual should die/retire with this person seems a bit extreme.

Like The Silent Thing.

A guy hits a home run, rounds the bases and returns to the dugout to find his teammates, coaches and manager acting as if they are preparing for a funeral. After a while, everybody celebrates, with all of this supposedly coming as a surprise to the home-run guy.

The Silent Treatment isn't intended to be creative or earth-shatteringly original in any way. It's intended to needle the person hitting the home run by acting as if they don't care. It's funny, and even if you don't like it, teams aren't giving the Silent Treatment that often.

It happened after Nick Punto slammed a shot into the second deck of Rogers Centre in Toronto for the Boston Red Sox.

It's Nick Punto. He hit a home run into the second deck of Rogers Centre. Nick Punto isn't supposed to do this. So they gave him the Silent Treatment. Big deal.

It also happened after Atlanta Braves rookie Andrelton Simmons ripped the first home run of his career, and I'll expound on this one.

When Simmons returned to the Braves dugout, all of his teammates ignored him. They didn't even look in his direction despite his homer pushing the Braves closer to victory. Then, out of nowhere, they all leaped from their seats, formed the widest of smiles and rushed to congratulate the star of the moment.

The horror! So they were quiet at first and then went crazy to congratulate him? Why wasn't the team punished for these actions? Perhaps beheaded or forced to hear Jason Whitlock's full opinion of this fantastic and earth-shattering column he has just written? He puts everyone in a vacant you know!

Simmons told reporters afterward, "I saw the guys sitting down. I've got a good read on them. I knew what they were doing."

See what I'm saying?

No. Not at all. The Silent Treatment isn't supposed to be creative and original. It is a way to tease a player who hit a home run. Of course the player who hit the home run is going to know what his teammates are up to. The idea every single player in the dugout missed the home run or doesn't care to celebrate the home run is ridiculous. So the player who hit the home run and is on his way back to the dugout usually knows what's going on. The celebration doesn't have to be completely original to be fun.

The first time The Silent Thing was done, great. Funny. Clever. But now? Who cares?

So who was the first team to do the Silent Treatment? This is important information, since after all this team is the only team in MLB history who has Terence Moore's permission to do this celebration. Who knows who the first team to do this was...

Terence Moore doesn't tell us what team was the first to do this, which gives me the impression he doesn't know.

In no particular order, let's return to that "throwing back of the home run" thing that should only be a Chicago Cubs thing.

I mean, the Cubs haven't much of anything else to cherish, so why take even that away from them?

You shouldn't.

Well, I won't then. Glad we have this settled.

You should remember that, along the way to the Cubs' infamous collapse of 1969, the Bleacher Bums became particularly vibrant. As a result, they began an oddity by throwing back home run balls that were slammed into their midst by sluggers from the opposing teams. Just like that, a Wrigley Field tradition was born.

So thereby no other teams should ever be able to throw a home run ball back on the field?

It was only a Wrigley Field tradition for years -- and even for decades -- and then it wasn't. It was everywhere,

Then all of a sudden every fan base was throwing baseballs back on the field and absolute madness descended upon the game of baseball until the Cubs were forced to field a terrible team again in an effort to make the act of throwing the plethora of home runs balls hit by the opponent back onto the field their own ritual again.

Unlike the Cubs' tradition with home-run balls, the genesis of The Shaving Cream Pie Thing is more difficult to determine.

But that's not going to stop Terence Moore from complaining the original team who did the Shaving Cream Pie Thing, whichever team that may be, should be the only team who can take part in this ritual.

But it was at least prominent during the early 1990s in Philadelphia, where reliever Mitch Williams loved smashing shaving cream pies into the faces of his fellow Phillies during interviews.

And we all know any baseball tradition started by Mitch Williams must forever stay pure and untainted by the disgusting imitators who will sully the good name associated with Mitch Williams.

The Rally Cap Thing belonged solely to the 1985 New York Mets (if you don't include its cameo appearances with the Texas Rangers during the late 1970s).

So, the Rangers pretty much invented the rally cap and the 1985 Mets had no business ever doing it? That's how I'm reading this. What the hell is the "cameo" of a tradition? The Rangers either started it in the 70's, so the '85 Mets were ripping them off, or the Rangers didn't start the tradition. I would think this distinction is important to Terence Moore since he is such a hardass about baseball rituals.

To promote rallies, Mets players turned their caps inside out or put them on backward, and they continued the practice through 1986 along the way to a World Series championship.

Doesn't this mean the 1986 Mets copied the 1985 Mets by turning their hats backwards? HOW IN THE HELL IS THIS ACCEPTABLE HUMAN BEHAVIOR?

If that wasn't enough, baseball went from The Rally Cap to the Rally Monkey, which actually was an ingenious idea. In 2002, the Angels started playing a video of a jumping monkey on their video screen at home games to inspire players and fans. It helped propel the team to a World Series title.

Nine years after that, the St. Louis Cardinals countered with their Rally Squirrel.

The Cardinals had a Rally Squirrel because an actual squirrel came on the field during a playoff game. The Angels didn't have a monkey randomly enter the field of play during a playoff game, though I would love to see that happen, so I don't see the Cardinals as ripping off the Angels.

Still, given the ties of St. Louis and the Cardinals to Clydesdales and a certain brewery, the Cardinals do play that Budweiser jingle during every home game.

Nobody else can do that with a straight face.

And no one else would want to do that because that is a ritual specific to the city of St. Louis. Other teams have city-specific rituals too.

Braves fans do the Tomahawk Chop because they are a racist, inconsiderate assholes who would only care they are stereotyping American Indians and change their behavior if they weren't so apathetic to the whole "baseball" thing.

The Bleacher Creatures in the Bronx yell the names of each player on the Yankees team because the bandwagon Yankees fans need to know which player is which on the field.

Mets fans have a ritual of throwing batteries at people because they have a severe distaste for recycling.

Marlins fans have a ritual of not showing up for Marlins games, because that's the way it has always been done.

Most teams have a city-specific ritual like the Budweiser jingle.

Then again, I was there in Oakland in October 1981 when something called The Wave made its national television debut. It seemed as if that crowd-pleasing thing would be the Athletics' "thing" forever.

Now that I think about it, the Wave isn't really a celebration or a ritual done during a celebration by players. I thought that's what Terence Moore didn't like. Apparently he hates all indications of excitement from players and fans alike. It seemed at first Terence hated player-initiated celebrations, but now it appears he hates it when fans act like they are enjoying a game. Enjoyment is so played-out.

(turns on his favorite Morrissey song)

You know the rest.

Now these rituals are everywhere and baseball has been completely ruined.

I know I have said this before, which means it is all played-out and tired by now, but this has to be the most pointless column I've read in a long time.

4 comments Frank Deford May Have Misunderstood the Purpose of Title IX

Before I get to the Frank Deford article for today, I wanted to very briefly comment on a Drew Sharp article I stumbled upon. In this article he suggests that Isiah Thomas should receive a gold medal as atonement for being left off the 1992 Dream Team. Pretty much everyone knows the story by now. Thomas was left off the team because it was perceived that Michael Jordan (and apparently Scottie Pippen) didn't want him on the team and that team went on to win a gold medal in the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona. I agree that talent-wise Thomas deserved to be on the 1992 Olympic team, but he wasn't on the team, so he doesn't deserve an honorary gold medal. Thomas can take pride in knowing he deserved to be on the team, but as foreshadowing events in his post-NBA life he experienced failure. Thomas was invited to be on the team. Isiah doesn't need a gold medal for "deserving" to be on the team and it is silly to suggest he should get one.

I've detailed before how Frank Deford seems to take on the less controversial issues in sports. Frank Deford wants to know why Title IX doesn't make women better sports fans. Or he wants to discuss the irony of Title IX ruining college football if universities start getting rid of their football programs. Or maybe he wants to talk about how women read more books than men. I do know this column is about women and is sort of about sports. This column is like one of those "Choose your own Adventure" books from the 1980's. The conclusion you take from this column is up to you.

Saturday is the 40th anniversary of Title IX, and although almost nobody anticipated it then, it resulted in women gaining the right to participate in sports in proportion with their numbers attending college.

Title IX didn't state this directly in 1972, but the 1979 Policy Interpretation of Title IX did state specifically as part of a three-prong test that college must be,

Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.

So Title IX didn't specifically give women the right to participate in sports in proportion with the respective undergraduate enrollment at the time it was written, but the purpose of Title IX as stated in the 1972 law was to ensure,

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity

So while I can understand this specific rule about being "substantially proportionate" to the respective undergraduate enrollment wasn't outlined specifically in Title IX, I don't think it is a far leap to this conclusion when knowing the purpose of Title IX was to prevent discrimination for any education program or activity. Title IX was instituted so that women and men would be treated equally with respect to opportunities to compete in an education program or activity. Part of this was giving women equal access to sports teams at the university. At some point, women and men were going to receive equal opportunity to compete in athletics at a university in order to prevent the appearance of discrimination. So the three-prong test outlined the way a university can prevent this appearance of discrimination, which was to state the participation opportunities were proportionate to the school's respective enrollment. There are several degrees of separation, but once the law giving equal access passed, some sense of governing what "equal access" meant would eventually be defined.

In essence, Title IX stated men and women should get equal opportunity to participate in any education program or activity in 1972 and this was specifically interpreted in 1979 as meaning this standard was met if participation opportunities are "substantially proportionate" to the respective undergraduate enrollment. My long form response to Frank Deford's assertion women having the right to participate in athletics in proportion to a school's enrollment was unanticipated, is to say those who were paying attention to Title IX in 1972 could have anticipated there would be a standard needing to met based on either a school's enrollment or the number of sports teams at a school for each gender. It's outlined in Title IX that there can be no discrimination. Women were going to be given access to sports team. Later it was defined in the three-prong test how to meet the standard required to prevent discrimination and it resulted in the "proportionate to enrollment" part of the test. There was going to eventually be some hard standard set out ensuring colleges achieved the intended results of Title IX.

Title IX not only had a huge effect on women's participation in sports, but also it culturally influenced the way both men and women view the idea of women and athletics.

But now, what of the future effects of Title IX?

The future effects? Let's check it out!

(Bengoodfella jumps into his time machine and sets the date for June 2035. Then he realizes his time machine is simply a cardboard box he stole from a homeless man and will not function as a time machine. He gets out of the box and goes back into his mom's attic and continues typing on his computer.)

First of all I see the potential of a great, grand collision between the old law and a recent major medical revelation

I'm going to ruin it for everyone. This major medical revelation is that football players suffer concussions at a high rate. I'm not sure I would describe this is a major medical revelation any more than I would describe it as long overdue results from research that needed to be done on football players and the effects concussions have on their brains.

As the attendance of women in college has increased, so called "minor" men's sports, like wrestling and tennis -- even baseball -- have had to be dropped to keep in compliance with the law.

Herein lies many people's dislike for Title IX.

But now, as the number of women in college approaches 60 percent, while concurrently, evidence mounts that football damages boys' brains, King Football may be the sport in jeopardy -- especially as it's so expensive and has no female analogue.

This may occur at some colleges and universities, but universities and colleges that make money off football and use it as a recruiting tool are not going to do away with football. Now that we know how dangerous concussions can be, I think we've reached the point where colleges and universities can start to take measures to try to make football as safe as possible. I do see some colleges dropping football, but I would doubt enough colleges drop the sport to have a dramatic effect on the number of women's college teams across the nation.

Already in one prominent school district, it's been proposed that football should be eliminated, that schools have no business promoting a "gladiator sport."

One district has proposed this happen. It hasn't happened yet and it may never happen. It's just a proposal from one school district.

How ironic it would be that women's academic predominance would result in America's most popular sport being cut down at its roots.

Actually, America's most popular sport would be cut down at its roots because the sport is inherently dangerous and colleges are afraid of fielding a football field due to the prevalence of concussions in the sport. Women's academic performance wouldn't cause colleges to stop fielding football teams, the prevalence in concussions would lead to this end result. Concussions would be the cause of football programs ending.

But on the other hand, even as women's participation in sport has soared, there's been no corresponding interests in women watching other women play sports.

I say this from a completely sexist point of view...there is no corresponding interest in women watching other women play sports because men's major sports are generally more exciting to watch. This has very little do to with Title IX and has more to do with the fact when women watch sports they may want to be entertained and see sports at its highest level. I believe this higher level to be present mostly in men's sports. So men's sports will generally be more popular than women's sports when it comes to female viewership.

Women do tend to watch more women's sports compared to how many men watch women's sports. Did Frank Deford really believe because Title IX was put in place the interest in women's sports would equal interest in men's sports? I would hope not. That wasn't the intent of Title IX, to make interest in women's sports equal to men's sports. Title IX says women need to be given the same access to sports at an education institution, it doesn't say women's sports need to be given the same level of interest that men's sports receive. So the acceptance of Title IX by educational institutions doesn't mean women's sports will gain as much interest as men's sports have.

The only professional female league of any sustaining viability is the WNBA, which is allowed to serve at the pleasure of its NBA benefactor in basketball off-season.

The WNBA isn't really successful. I guess it is to an extent, but it's viability relies much on being affiliated with the NBA. Still, Frank is right this is the only women's sport that is even somewhat successful.

To be sure, yes, there are many women sports fans, but their numbers and passion are miniscule compared to the mass of male spectators.

Are they really though? I have no statistics supporting my contention, but I feel like when I go to athletic events and talk to people day-to-day in my life, women are very interested in sports. Maybe not to the extent men are interested in sports, but I don't believe the number of female sports fans and their passion are miniscule compared to the mass of male sports fans. I think more men like sports than women, but there isn't as wide of a gap in my opinion between and male and female spectators.

This is another instance where Frank may be confused by the purpose of Title IX. Title IX isn't going to necessarily make women enjoy sports to the same extent that men enjoy sports. Title IX isn't intended to be an end-all, cure-all to equalize the interest women have in sports. It is intended to give women the same access to sports when attending a college or university.

I would suggest Title IX has helped some women become bigger fans of sports, but that wasn't the intent of the law. Nearly every woman I know has a favorite sports team in a certain sport. Maybe that's just me. I would say I could count on one hand how many women I know who don't have a favorite sports team in at least one sport. Title IX has given women some ability to participate more in college athletics and has improved their awareness and enjoyment of sports. Can this awareness and enjoyment simply be chalked up to Title IX? Absolutely not, but I think over the last 40 years the gap between male spectators at an event and women spectators has narrowed drastically. So I think women have become more like a fan.

But so what? Androgyny be hanged. Sometimes the sexes simply have different tastes in amusement.

Obviously different people like different things. So why is Frank wasting time rambling about something that he believes seems so obvious? Sometimes different sexes like different things. Men like sports and women like books. That's right. Books. Men don't like to read, women do like to read. Men like sports and women don't like sports. I like being able to classify different groups of people so easily.

Women, for example, read the vast preponderance of novels.

Apparently some further set of data proving this statement is not needed. This must be universally regarded as true.

Novels are about imagination. Sports are literal.

Women have imagination and men are literal. Got it. It's probably women's imagination that helps them become such great cooks, so it is no wonder women love cooking and reading, while men love sports and fixing things around the house.

I feel very 1950's right now.

They keep score in games. Is it really necessary to have it, as Lerner and Loewe wrote in My Fair Lady for the misogynistic Henry Higgins:

Frank Deford then quotes "My Fair Lady" and since I am a man who has no culture and don't read, I don't get this reference at all.

Myself, I think we've already got quota enough of women being like men.

Frank Deford has had enough of women being like men? So in terms of discussing Title IX, is Frank Deford saying he doesn't like how Title IX makes women more like men? Or is he saying Title IX is good, but he doesn't like women who follows sports? Or he is just done writing right now and can't think of anything else to write?

But the question for the next forty years of Title IX will be:

Why can't a woman be more like a fan?

Women are more like a fan. Just because women's sports don't have universal popularity among women doesn't mean women aren't like fans. They like men's sports or only like some women's sports. I think Frank's conclusion is wrong and his interpretation of the purpose of Title IX is wrong as well.

The title of this article is, "After 40 years of Title IX, why can't a woman be more like a fan?" and the answer is that Title IX wasn't intended to make women more like male sports fans. Title IX was intended to give women equal access to participation in sports while attending a university or college. I believe an unintended consequence is that women have become bigger sports fans over the last forty years, but Title IX can't make women become more like a male sports fan because that's not what it is intended to do. It's about access, not about increasing the level of interest in women's sports.

2 comments It's Okay, This Column was Written by a Freelance Contributor

ESPN is an easy target for a lot of people. I include myself in that category of "people," in case you were wondering. I tend to focus more on ESPN's writers rather than ESPN as a whole, but the point remains the same in many ways when I am focusing on a specific writer for writing a column I thought was bad or very much disagreed with. Mark Cuban and Bill Simmons got in a Twitter fight, well it wasn't quite a "fight" since at this point Simmons had not responded to what Mark Cuban had said about him on Twitter. A Mark Cuban/Bill Simmons Twitter fight isn't quite a huge ESPN issue, especially since Simmons is only tangentially related to ESPN through Grantland at this point. I what caused a lot of Mark Cuban's frustration with Bill Simmons' Twitter comment (which I will get to in a minute) is his frustration with ESPN's coverage of LeBron and the discussion he had with Skip Bayless after the Finals were over.

There seems to be an overwhelming attitude at ESPN of "We are ESPN, we are big, so we are going to do whatever the fuck we want to do." When one of their employees is caught in a somewhat-scandal over using Wikipedia, ESPN comes back with a sort of "boys will be boys" type response. If it isn't a "boys will be boys" response, it certainly doesn't seem like a response that shows any type of concern for what was discussed about Lynn Hoppes copying and re-wording Wikipedia entries.

The exact statement by ESPN in that situation consisted basically of saying "it was an example of journalistic laziness and we've addressed it." This wasn't simply AN example of journalistic laziness, it was a pattern of journalistic laziness. There were repeated examples of Wikipedia entries copied and re-worded. Just look at how often Lynn Hoppes re-worded or copies a Wikipedia entry over the last few years. That's a pattern, not a single example, of journalistic laziness. It's not even laziness, that's outright copying. Laziness is doing this once or twice over a year or two, while re-wording or copying Wikipedia entries repeatedly is a pattern that shows Hoppes relied on this information to help write his columns.

No one wants to see Hoppes publicly executed or his body hung by a cross in the hot sun for an entire week to show his contrition, but to downplay this as a sort of incident that could result in a slap on the wrist or that it doesn't concern ESPN that other writers may be doing this is concerning to me. That's a pretty big deal to re-word Wikipedia entries or copy them like Lynn Hoppes did. Yet, ESPN doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency or concern in the statement they released. It's a "we've dealt with this already, so please stop talking about it" type of statement. ESPN wants us to continue watching and reading, but they seem displeased when having to give us a reason to believe that what we are watching or reading is an original thought. I feel like they want the public to trust them because they are ESPN.

It's a pattern that can be seen in other ESPN employees as well. I received an email recently from someone who stumbled across this blog and he linked a passage about Fred Jackson that Gregg Easterbrook wrote in TMQ. It was a passage where Gregg was showing the type of criticism that Fred Jackson had gotten and why he had not started at running back in high school. Gregg said Jackson was "too small" and "too slow." I wanted Gregg to cite exactly where he got this specific criticism of Fred Jackson. Gregg seems to do this all the time, quote certain articles that aren't linked. He did it when he called Julio Jones a diva last year and he did it when discussing why Fred Jackson didn't start at running back in high school. I searched at the time I wrote the TMQ post, but couldn't find anything. I didn't look in the most obvious place perhaps.

I didn't come up with much of the following the research, so all the credit goes to the kind gentleman who emailed me about this. I didn't ask if I could use his name, so I won't. Either way, he seemed to show me Gregg Easterbrook makes use of Wikipedia as well in this instance and I would bet this isn't the first or only time Gregg has used completely uncited criticism from Wikipedia in TMQ. It's one thing to use Wikipedia for facts, but Gregg used Wikipedia to cite an opinion as if it were fact from an actual scouting report of Fred Jackson out of high school, which I completely disagree with doing.

The TMQ post I wrote is here.

Gregg wrote the following:

Runner-up: Fred Jackson, tailback, Buffalo. Jackson never started a game in high school, being "too small" and "too slow."

I wrote the following:

Usually when a writer puts words in quotation marks he is actually quoting something that exists in literature. I'd love to see Gregg provide proof that Jackson didn't start a game in high school because he was "too small" and "too slow." This may be true, and I'm not English teacher, but I'm pretty sure if you put words in quotes they need to be an actual quote that exists and not the figment of the writer imagining what was said. Mostly likely Gregg did here what he usually does, which is deceive his readers into believing these were words used on an actual evaluation of Jackson's skill set in high school. He attempts to deceive his readers by putting "too small" and "too slow" in quotes as if this came from a specific evaluation of Jackson in high school.

It turns out I was wrong, Gregg did have a citation, he just didn't tell us about it. He seemed to have directly copied this evaluation of Jackson directly from Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page, which states:

Jackson attended Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas) and although he was a member of the powerful Lamar Vikings teams of the late 1990s, he never started a game in his two years on the varsity. Back then he was considered too small (5-8, 160 pounds) and too slow. He began his senior year as a third-string running back, and only after a knee injury to starter Justin Faust (headed to Stanford), was he elevated to second-string behind Tommicus Walker (headed to TCU).

The emphasis in red is mine from the Wikipedia entry on Fred Jackson that was emailed to me. So it appears Gregg Easterbrook enjoys the use of Wikipedia as well. The issue I have with this is Gregg isn't discussing a fact. It isn't a fact that Fred Jackson was considered too small or too slow. This is an opinion. Yet, it seems Gregg uses the opinion of Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page writer as empirical proof for why Jackson didn't start in high school. That's a bit shady to me. It's fine to use Wikipedia to research facts, but I'm not sure we can trust a Wikipedia entry to provide opinion-based information like whether a player was "too small" or "too slow" to start in high school. If this were from an official Scout.com or Rivals.com scouting report I think it has much more credibility...but not an evaluation of Fred Jackson on Wikipedia. Yet, that's the information Gregg Easterbrook relied upon. Who knew such a lofty and well-known writer like Gregg Easterbrook did his research in Wikipedia? Now I know why he doesn't cite or provide a link to a lot of the criticism he uses in TMQ. Most likely he's just looking for some sort of comment on the Internet which agrees with his point of view and he doesn't want us to know where he got the information from. I don't know what other conclusion I can come to.

So we know about the journalists of ESPN and their propensity to use Wikipedia. There have also been instances of ESPN freelancers doing whatever the hell it was that Sarah Phillips was doing and even making up interviews that were done with an athlete, even though the athlete denies there was ever an interview. In both instances ESPN hid behind the idea these interviews were done by freelancers, as if in some way they weren't responsible for content that was put on ESPN.com or any ESPN.com affiliates. That's the good thing about freelancers. You can blame them when something goes wrong, but also take the credit (by having the freelancer's story on your site) when the story is done very well.

ESPN said, in response to Awful Announcing questioning what had happened in the case of fake interview,:

"The story was written by a freelance contributor. We removed the story as soon as we discovered sourcing questions and are looking into those."

ESPN, much like in the Sarah Phillips case, is very quick to point out this was done by a freelance contributor and doesn't reflect on the journalistic standard ESPN wants to be held to. I'm sure you can excuse the audience's confusion since this article appeared on an ESPN.com site. This incident with a freelance contributor, which ESPN is in no way affiliated with outside of publishing his material on their website, had "sourcing issues" which I commonly refer to as "making shit up." I don't know what type of "sourcing issue" an interview published detailing an interview that never actually took place might be, but it sounds a lot less like a sourcing problem and more like an honesty problem.

It was clear from the Sarah Phillips incident(s) that ESPN doesn't hold their freelance contributors to as high of a standard as their ESPN-employed writers. It seems in their excuse-filled apologies ESPN treats their freelance contributors like the weird uncle-by-marriage of the company's online presence.

"Uncle Dave always drinks too much at weddings. He isn't our uncle by blood though, purely through marriage."

I understand that things go wrong and with all of the articles that get published on ESPN.com and their affiliates sometimes things go really wrong. I don't want ESPN to lay their soul bare in apologizing, but the excuse a person was a freelance contributor and some vague promise to look into "sourcing issues" with the interview doesn't feel right to me. You want your audience to believe the content on your site is informational and original, then don't you owe to your audience to not separate yourself from your contributor and then provide no promise of doing better the next time?

I can talk around this all day, but ESPN can get away with it. The reason they can get away with it is because they have no competition. That day will end though. ESPN will get competition and they will have to compete for their share of the sports market. Let's all keep waiting for that day. It will come.

So back to the Mark Cuban-Bill Simmons one-sided Twitter war. It's not even a war because in typical Simmons fashion, he hasn't responded. This is the same reason Bill doesn't allow comments on his columns. He doesn't want feedback and he ignores any criticism he gets because it discourages his own held point of view that many of the things he says and does are absolutely correct simply because he says and does them. That recent article on "The Onion" hit the nail on the head.

I think much of Mark Cuban's frustration stemmed from his appearance on "First Take" when he eviscerated Skip Bayless and others like him. He's tired of being second-guessed by those who don't have experience running an NBA team. I'm not going to defend the Maverick's moves this offseason, that's not the point, nor will I say the whole "he doesn't have experience on a championship team" statement is persuasive either. We all know Bill Simmons wants to be an NBA GM. He did nothing short of beg-without-begging to be the Bucks and Timberwolves GM over the last 4-5 years. This non-exchange with Cuban is part of the reason in my opinion Bill's being a GM of an NBA team can't happen. It's the major divide between being a journalist with an opinion and believing you can run an NBA team. Bill is great at documenting what happens in the NBA and his original Tweet I thought was funny and accurate.

Put it this way: I wasn't crazy about Elton Brand and Chris Kaman playing together in 2006 when they were still good.

But Bill is the guy who documents and writes the book of basketball. He isn't the type of person who creates and is responsible for the events in the book of basketball. There's a difference in a how a GM/owner wants to run an NBA team and how a GM/owner is able to run an NBA team. Bill is a writer. His ideas are sometimes good, but reality doesn't give a shit about great ideas. That's why I make fun of his "Who says no?" comments. A good idea is great, but the implementation of that great idea is hard to do. There are more than just two people with an opinion involved. Bill does a (generally) good job of documenting (and dissecting) what happens in the NBA. Bill has no idea what he would have done other than not sign Elton Brand or Chris Kaman. If he had an idea, I'm sure we would have heard it by now.

There is a divide between those who know NBA basketball and those who run NBA basketball teams. I think the divide is clear here. Mark Cuban responded to Bill:

@sportsguy33. They next smart personnel comment you mae will be your first

Mark Cuban deleted that Tweet eventually for some reason. Bill is a know-it-all type guy. It rubs people the wrong way. Dan Gilbert, the owner (I originally had Gilbert as the GM of the Cavs. As a commenter noted, that wouldn't probably end well) of the Cavs, actually Retweeted this comment by Mark Cuban at Bill Simmons. I wouldn't rank Dan Gilbert as one of the top 5 owners in the NBA by any means, but I find it interesting we have two of the most Twitter-active NBA owners showing ESPN's top NBA guy (he is ESPN's top NBA guy when it comes to opinions and influence...at least in my opinion) he doesn't have their respect. Maybe it is two owners being bitter or angry, but do we really believe Bill could be an NBA GM and deal with personalities like Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert on a regular basis? I'm not sure he could. Running an NBA team is a different world from pretending you can run an NBA team because you think you have great ideas.

Of course then the one-sided conversation went downhill and Mark Cuban ruined his point when responding to someone defending Simmons...a guy named Mufasa-7000 (maybe he is a big "Lion King" fan?).

@mcuban @sportsguy33 Well to be fair, Simmons also didn't let an entire championship team minus the superstar walk away for nothing.

Followed by Mark Cuban's silly response...

@CmackChase @sportsguy33 possibly because he has never had any involvement with a championship team.

That's just silly. It puts Mark Cuban in a position to never be criticized by anyone who hasn't won a title. My point, and I think I do have one, is that Bill Simmons can't be an NBA GM/VP of Common Sense. He's good at what he does, which is get people to read his columns and NBA opinions. Bill Simmons did have a point. Elton Brand and Chris Kaman isn't a great combination power forward-center for the Mavericks. I think his debate after the NBA Finals win by the Heat still has Mark Cuban in a fit and he is overly-sensitive to criticism from anyone at ESPN at this point.

If Bill Simmons was a freelance contributor he could create an entire interview he had with Mark Cuban where Cuban admits he was wrong and try to pass this off on Grantland as a real interview that occurred. Or Bill could base all of his Chris Kaman or Elton Brand-related criticism on something written in Wikipedia. It seems that's the safer way for him to go.

5 comments Athletes Charge For Their Autograph. Get Over It

Today, Cam Newton is holding an autograph signing session in Charlotte with Bo Jackson and Larry Johnson. Scott Fowler of the Charlotte Observer, which is a paper who seems to cover the Carolina Panthers in-depth only when absolutely necessary (on the game days, if a Panther player is arrested, etc.) seems upset that Cam Newton is charging for his autograph while signing in the state of North Carolina. Apparently there are certain jurisdictions Newton can or can not charge for an autograph. Since they are called the "Carolina" Panthers does this mean Cam Newton can't charge for an autograph in South Carolina? Scott Fowler doesn't make this clear. Either way, this is ridiculous. Much like the somewhat manufactured tattoo controversy from last year, this non-issue started off locally and was picked up by the national media. Let's keep Charlotte and Scott Fowler's bizarre need to pretend Cam Newton shouldn't charge for an autograph locally, people. The South already has an undeserved reputation for being out of touch and backwards, let's not feed this perception by pretending Cam Newton is the equivalent being the star quarterback at a Charlotte-area high school. Newton is an NFL quarterback and his autograph is worth something.

Most every national athlete charges for an autograph.

Backup QB Jets charges $160 for an autograph and $75 for a picture. He charged that amount before he ever took a snap in the NFL. Want Backup QB Jets to speak at an event? Better call William Morris Talent Agency and hope you can afford the fee.

Depending on the item being signed, Aaron Rodgers can charge from $99 to $299.99 for an autographed item.

Want Tom Brady to come speak with your group? Better hope you have $75,000-$100,000.

Saint Drew Brees even charges for an autograph. I'm betting he isn't going to stop charging for autographs now that he was given a $100 million contract either.

It's not unprecedented for a quarterback to charge for his autograph. What's so bizarre is Scott Fowler admits this isn't unprecedented and Cam Newton has signed autographs for free at Training Camp, but Fowler still has an issue with it. It's clearly an accepted practice and a practice Newton seems to only occasionally participate in. It just doesn't feel right to Fowler. This is crazy to me. He and other writers who manufacture controversy like this need to stop acting like Charlotte has a CFL team and Cam Newton is just a local hero who needs to learn to stay in touch with his roots. I realize the Charlotte Observer doesn't cover the Carolina Panthers like they are an actual NFL team (outside of fluff pieces, articles on how practice/game went and "how is Player X's rehab going," the Observer doesn't seem too interested in covering the Panthers), but they are an NFL team, and if you want the city to attract further NFL talent then you have to accept something as little as an athlete charging for an autograph isn't really a big deal.

On Saturday afternoon at SouthPark Mall in Charlotte, Cam Newton will be glad to sign an autograph for you.

It’s going to cost you, though – $125 if he’s signing a photo, $150 if he’s signing a football and $175 if he’s signing a jersey. If you want an inscription like “To John, Best Wishes” added to the signature, that costs an extra $50.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

So an athlete wants to use his autograph, which is a purchasable commodity on a secondary market like Ebay, to make money for himself? Pure rubbish. What happened to the good old days when an athlete would sign an autograph for free on a football and allow the autograhee (not a word, I know) to sell this autograph for $75 on the secondary market? Things were so much simpler back when the athletes pretended their signature wasn't a commodity that can be sold and would stay willfully blind to the underground autograph market which sells merchandise with the athlete's forged signature on it.

I don’t like this.

Of course not. How dare Cam Newton charge for his autograph and the Charlotte-area have a choice as to whether they show up to pay for Newton's autograph. If this is a world where Cam Newton's autograph can't be free, then this isn't a world I want to live in. A free autograph is a right, not privilege.

But I do understand it. Newton has the right to charge three figures for his autograph in his backyard, just as I have the right to disagree with him doing so.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

Scott Fowler understands why Newton charges for his autograph, he just thinks it is something Newton shouldn't do...which makes me think Fowler really doesn't understand why Newton charges $125 for his autograph.

I'm also interested in this "backyard theory." So there needs to be a certain line where Cam Newton will and will not sign autographs for free. If you meet Newton in Henderson, NC then he should sign the autograph for free, but if you meet him in Virginia then pony up $125 if you want an autograph? Is that how it works? After all, in Virginia it isn't North Carolina anymore and Virginia citizens are not entitled to a free Cam Newton autograph like North Carolina citizens are.

I live about 85 miles away from Charlotte. Does this mean I get a free autograph or should I have to pay? If I saw Cam in Greensboro, would this be his backyard where I should get a free autograph, or would I be considered just down the street from Newton's house where I would have to pay $125? I feel like there needs to be a map with lines drawn (and no gerrymandering allowed!) so I understand what parts of the state of North Carolina (the United States as well?) are Newton's "backyard."

And to be clear, this doesn’t mean Newton will stop signing free autographs. He already signs free ones, by the thousands.

Read Hmore here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

Hmmm...so Scott Fowler doesn't like that Cam Newton charges for autographs, even though he doesn't always charge for autographs. So if Newton doesn't always charge for autographs wouldn't it makes sense for a person to go to training camp and get his autograph rather than wait in line and pay for it? It's almost like people had free will to get an autograph or not today and the issue is being completely overblown.

He also signs for free at other various charitable events, at youth speaking engagements – he did yet another one Wednesday at Ardrey Kell High – and on merchandise donated to charity. All that will continue.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

What a dirty, pathetic money-grubbing asshole. It's a bait-and-switch. First, Newton signs autographs for free at charity events and donates merchandise to charity as well, then he starts charging for autographs. You can't have it both ways Newton! Start charging the charities for your autograph or give the people free autographs! You have no right to control the use of your signature like this!

Just get over it. The guy signs autographs for free all the time. No one was being forced to pay for an autograph today, so Newton isn't stealing money from people and those who got his autograph chose to pay for it.

Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are among the hundreds of athletes who do occasional signings, for instance, and both of their signatures are more expensive.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

So I guess the obvious question that arises in this situation would be, "Why is it wrong for Cam Newton to charge for his autograph?" He is supposed to be above this because he plays in a small market? Why does he have to continually prove he is a good guy to everyone? At what point do sports columnists leave Newton alone and stop making him prove he isn't the selfish, self-absorbed asshole some thought he was prior to the 2011 NFL Draft? Does the idea of Cam Newton charging for autographs move too close for comfort to proving the false narrative that he is really a jerk as true? Is this a narrative sports columnists still want to see as true? Why criticize Newton for charging for an autograph and completely ignoring most other NFL quarterbacks do the exact same thing?

"Oh, I knew he was too good to be true. He charges for autographs. That's what's wrong with him. There's a red flag. He's just in it for himself."

This will be the sixth autograph signing that Newton has done for GT Sports Marketing since he signed with the company in early 2011, Takahashi said. Three shows in Alabama and two in New Jersey came before this one.

But Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

BUT THOSE SHOWS WERE IN NEW JERSEY AND ALABAMA! FOR SOME REASON, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR AN AUTOGRAPH! Screw you Alabama and New Jersey!

But didn't Newton go to Auburn, which is located in Alabama? Yes, he did, but that doesn't count as being in Newton's neighborhood. Pony up some cash, citizens of Alabama, if you want Newton's autograph.

Carlos Fleming, Newton’s marketing agent for IMG, said Newton agreed to sign a memorabilia deal in part to deal with the fake and unauthorized merchandise that is rampant in the sports collectibles industry.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

Plus, other athletes make money off their signature and there is nothing wrong with Newton doing this.

Fleming continued. “There’s a real underground market out there. So this sort of thing is in the fans’ best interest. It’s an opportunity that wouldn’t exist at all for fans if it wasn’t set up in this way. They get real access. I can’t emphasize the authenticity factor enough.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

OK, so that’s the argument for the signing.

But this just doesn’t pass the smell test with me.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

Which is ridiculous. Fans in Charlotte can sell underground Newton merchandise (that doesn't have his real signature on it) just as easily as fans in any other city can. In fact, because Newton plays in Charlotte and could attract a larger crowd than many other cities I would guess there could be a bigger underground market in Charlotte for Newton merchandise than in other cities.

Newton has done almost everything right in Charlotte since he arrived.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

He's done well to contradict the narrative that he is a selfish, me-first type player who wants to be an icon and an entertainer. I'm glad Cam Newton has behaved himself and impressed Scott Fowler. He's just waiting for that misstep though isn't he?

This, though, is a false step.

How dare Cam Newton do something the sports media doesn't unanimously agree with him doing. I hope Newton gets a tattoo of a towel on his head inked across his chest and he displays this new tattoo at the autograph signing. That would pretty much make the Charlotte-area media go insane, because it combines the fact Newton has a tattoo with the image of him with a towel on his head. It's well-known in Charlotte that if a player puts a towel on his head on the sidelines then that means he hates his teammates and has a bad attitude.

White towels on the head=bad attitude.

For some reason, it feels different to me when Newton is charging for autographs in Alabama. That was from a different time in his life. That’s like Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith going back to Dallas to charge for autographs (which they do).

In Charlotte, though? Newton shouldn’t charge for autographs in his current hometown. That’s part of just being part of the community.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

Part of being part of the community is allowing the underground market of fake Cam Newton-signed memorabilia to continue unabated and never charge for your autograph? This "community talk"...Charlotte is a big city. It isn't a small close-knit town where people sit on their front porch and wave to their neighbors.

This is such an overreaction to such a small story. There isn't a big story here because Newton is doing something that most other star athletes will do.

You see Cam in Charlotte? Lucky you. So then he signs the napkin you thrust in front of him – or he doesn’t, which he also has the right to do – and that’s that. No money is exchanged.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

What a jerk, signing a napkin for free. On Saturday-only if you wanted Newton to sign a picture of himself and write a personal note that will cost $175. The world is unjust and Cam Newton is permanently excommunicated out of the Charlotte community.

I don’t know exactly why geography matters to me in this case, but it does.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

Probably because you couldn't find anything else to write about and wanted to make a big deal out of nothing. Probably because you want to nitpick every little thing Cam Newton does because you know it will give you pageviews. Probably because you seem to want to encourage a culture in Charlotte where athletes are micro-analyzed so much they no longer would care to be a part of the community. I'm just spitballing right now as to why geography matters to Scott Fowler because I truly don't know either.

In many ways now, Cam and Charlotte are intertwined. Good neighbors. Newton has recognized that by increasing his charity work and community service and starting the tradition of handing balls to fans in the stands after touchdowns – using his superpowers for good.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

Newton even gave his record-breaking football to some random girl in the crowd. It's clear he isn't hungry to make money off every single thing possible thing he can. For ONE DAY he is charging for an autograph. One day. The fact this has become a big deal says more about those people making this a big deal then it says about Cam Newton.

But still.

The Panthers pay Newton plenty of money.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

The Charlotte Observer probably pays Scott Fowler plenty of money. Does that mean he should write articles and columns for smaller newspapers or websites in the Charlotte-area for free because he is a part of the community? If a sports talk radio station wants Fowler to do 2 hours every week about the Carolina Panthers would/should he do this for free because HE HAS TO CONTINUOUSLY PROVE HE IS PART OF THE COMMUNITY! Absolutely not. It's ridiculous to even suggest because the Panthers pay Newton "plenty" of money he shouldn't charge for an autograph.

Charging for autographs in Charlotte seems a little cheap.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/12/3377219/cam-newton-selling-autographs.html#storylink=cpy

At least Scott Fowler didn't end the column with a line like, "Newton charging expensively for an autograph seems a little cheap to me."

Regardless, this is a non-story. Other NFL quarterbacks charge for their autograph and one of the quickest ways to alienate a star (I'm not sure we can call Newton a "star" at this point or not) is to nitpick everything he does. Lose the idea Charlotte is a small community where everyone helps each other out. This isn't true. Spare the outrage over Newton charging for autographs for a few hours on one Saturday. It makes you seem naive about Newton being an elite pro athlete in high demand and blind to certain realities about NFL underground merchandising.

3 comments Murray Chass Gets All Sarcastic about Wins

We all know Murray Chass hasn't enjoyed the increased use of advanced statistics and the changes in thinking have helped to cause in baseball. He prefers baseball how it used to be. Uncomplicated and easy for him to understand. It makes Murray sad and other emotions similar to that when he thinks about the days when math and baseball were separate. It also makes him sarcastic. Murray gets all sarcastic today when discussing "wins." He loves wins much in the same way Joe Morgan loves wins. Wins determine if a pitcher pitched well or not, at least in their eyes. It seems Murray doesn't want to expand the criteria beyond the use of wins in order to evaluate a pitcher's performance during the season. I thought for a second that Murray had changed his mind about wins, but was let down in finding out he was merely using sarcasm. Also, since he hasn't done this for two weeks, he evaluates Mike Piazza's Hall of Fame credentials on his non-blog.

First, Murray starts the column off by saying Andy Pettitte changed his story when asked to testify during the Roger Clemens trial. I've written before that I don't believe Pettitte changed his story, but merely says he could have misunderstood Clemens when he originally admitted to using steroids. Maybe he was protecting his friend, I'm not so sure. It seems Pettitte kept a pretty consistent line of answers when discussing Clemens' accused steroid use. The idea he could have misunderstood Clemens in 1999 during their conversation is possible. That's what Pettitte was acknowledging. He seemed sure of what he heard in 1999, but then Clemens says Pettitte misunderstood what Clemens said a few years later, so that seems to have left some doubt in Pettitte's mind. I found some of that doubt to be present in his original testimony to the grand jury.

Then Murray begins discussing the Hall of Fame and PEDs, finally to get around to speaking my native language, sarcasm, when discussing wins. Sarcasm or no sarcasm, Murray Chass is still wrong about wins and he relies on wins too heavily in determining whether a pitcher had a good year or not.

“My overriding feeling on both cases is they both lost,” said Sam Reich, a former federal prosecutor in Pittsburgh. “I don’t agree with CNN that the Clemens acquittal vindicates him. A jury decided it had a reasonable doubt. That’s the way juries decide.”

I don't think the trial matters either way in terms of public opinion. If neither Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens had been brought to trial for lying to a grand jury about using steroids, the court of public opinion would still hold that both players were dirty and did indeed use steroids. It seems the majority of people will believe Bonds/Clemens were guilty of steroid use regardless of the trial's outcome. I think the court of public opinion is irrelevant in terms of whether it affected public opinion one way or another. Both Bonds and Clemens have been convicted in the minds of many in the public, so verdict of the jury I believe to be irrelevant to change many minds one way or another.

“In terms of history, both lost tremendously,” Reich added. “Up until the trial the public had only a lot of speculation to go on. In the trials there was a lot that came out.”

In terms of actual proof, maybe Bonds and Clemens lost tremendously. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my mind hasn't ever changed about Clemens or Bonds. One only has to look at their physical appearance and late career statistics to assume where there is smoke there is fire in regard to steroids. There is some evidence Bonds and Clemens did use PEDs during their career.

“When the 1919 Black Sox players were tried in court,” he said, “they were acquitted, but the verdict of history is unanimous. They were guilty. Most people will conclude both did it just like they have with the Black Sox and O.J. Simpson. I think the majority of people will find them guilty. Both lost by going to trial.”

What were Bonds and Clemens options though? Were they supposed to accept a plea deal and possibly have to do jail time? Wouldn't that have been the option if Bonds or Clemens had not gone to court? That would look like an admission of guilt to many. So I'm not sure either person had an option of avoiding the trial or accepting a plea deal where they would plea guilty...which neither wanted to do.

The next verdict on Clemens and Bonds will come in January when the Hall of Fame announces the results of the voting by the Baseball Writers Association.

I'm making an educated guess that those two aren't getting in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. It's sad because Bonds at least would have been a Hall of Fame player even without his late career resurgence. The steroid allegations seem to have robbed of a spot in the Hall of Fame that he probably deserved even without the accused steroid use.

Piazza has never been formally linked to steroids, and that’s what enrages his passionate fans whenever I write about my suspicions.

People tend to get crazy when sportswriters take unfounded speculation and try to introduce it as some sort of fact as to why a player should be denied an honor such as the baseball Hall of Fame. Human people are crazy in that way.

In my most recent mention of Piazza, I wrote that his book is scheduled for publication next February and suggested that writers withhold their votes for him this time to wait and read what he writes about steroids.

If he writes anything at all about steroids. Of course, if Piazza denies the use of steroids then it doesn't matter anyway. Murray already believes Piazza is guilty of steroid use (which I do too, except I actually require proof before I start holding out Hall of Fame votes due to my own speculation) and what Piazza has to say about it is irrelevant. See, Piazza had bacne during his playing career. That's pretty much the equivalent of pictures showing a needle stuck right in the middle of Piazza's ass to Murray Chass.

There is a difference in players like Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds, as compared to players like Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza. Piazza and Bagwell have been found guilty by some based simply on speculation and zero findings of their PED use.

If he is elected to the Hall in January and he admits in February that he used steroids, it will be too late for writers who oppose electing steroids users to do anything about it.

What if Barry Larkin states he did steroids in a book he will right 10 years from now? It will be too late to take back his Hall of Fame induction too. It's best we don't vote any players into the Hall of Fame over the next two decades until all players have written books and admitted or denied steroid use.

Jeff Bagwell, on the other hand, may avoid the stain of steroids despite rumors about his use. He went up last year from 41.7 percent to 56 percent.

How lucky for Jeff Bagwell. He never got caught using steroids and the voters are starting to pay less and less attention to the rumors, not the facts, about his steroid use. I also think Bagwell used steroids, but there isn't any proof and speculation on my part shouldn't count as proof. If I had a Hall of Fame vote, I would vote for Jeff Bagwell and I don't see how anyone in his/her right mind could not vote for Bagwell if they think he deserves induction based on his career statistics (and consider them compiled without the use of PEDs). Rumors are just that until proof is shown.

The difficulty of forecasting the Hall of Fame fate of Clemens is a feeling among some writers that he had Hall of Fame achievements before he began using P.E.D.’s.

Then base your vote on what these players did during the part of their career where you don't think they did steroids. It's impossible to exactly determine what part of their career this was, but Hall of Fame voters like Murray Chass seem to enjoy using speculation to base their Hall of Fame vote upon, so let's just go all the way with it and speculate about the exact date and time Bonds and Clemens started using steroids. Then Hall of Fame voters can vote for them based on their career up to the point they started using steroids.

One voter, Buster Olney of ESPN.com, offered a novel, if questionable rationalization, for voting for cheaters. He told The New York Tlmes, “The institution of baseball condoned the use of performance-enhancing drugs for almost two decades with inaction. To hold it against a handful of individuals now is, to me, retroactive morality.”

I don't know if I agree with this statement. I do find it funny and interesting how Murray is criticizing Buster Olney's "questionable rationalization" for voting for cheaters when Murray has his own questionable rationalization for not voting for accused and not proven cheaters. Murray believes the mere rumor of PED use should prohibit a player from getting a Hall of Fame vote.

Now Murray moves on to discussing "wins" and how Cliff Lee deserves the Cy Young award.

Cliff Lee appears to be in good position to win his second Cy Young award. He has made it this far into the season without a win and with one of the lowest WHIPs in the National League, 1.12.

Great move to exaggerate the opposing side's point of view. This only goes to show, at least to me, that Murray is still too closed-minded to accept the idea wins aren't the end-all-be-all in determining a pitcher's performance. If Murray has to exaggerate the view of the opposing side this also tells me he has no other comeback to those who advocate using wins to judge part of a pitcher's performance and has taken to making jokes and sarcasm as a way of concealing he is out of salient and convincing points. If Murray really had convincing points to make on this issue he would presented them two years ago when Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young Award. This is a blow Murray still hasn't recovered from. Murray's convincing points at that time seemed to ridicule the opposing viewpoint and then state "this is how it has always been done."

I say this as a veteran user of sarcasm. Sarcasm can be a blanket to cover up a flaw in a person's argument.

It has taken me a while, but I have learned these things, especially where wins are concerned.

More sarcasm!

After spending a lifetime watching pitchers win games and thinking they were doing something good, I learned from some of the readers here that wins are a meaningless statistic for pitchers,

Again, Murray is intentionally misstating the opposing view in order to make the alternative to his point of view seem more arbitrary and less flexible in reasoning. In fact, it is Murray whose reasoning is arbitrary and lacks flexibility. Murray's readers are not attempting to state wins are a meaningless statistic for pitchers. They are stating wins are not the totality of what a pitcher's performance during a given year should be based upon. Murray and those who think about wins in the same manner he does, are the ones who would deny a pitcher the Cy Young Award because he doesn't have enough wins. Felix Hernandez was the leader in most major pitching categories during the 2010 season, but because he didn't have enough wins Murray Chass didn't believe he deserved the Cy Young Award. It truly appears Murray believes wins to be the most convincing statistic in determining a pitcher's performance since he would not vote for Hernandez because he was deficient in this one category.

Stating his readers thinks win are meaningless is a way to discrediting the opposing view by making it seem more extreme and irrational than it truly is. Wins are not meaningless, but the statistic "win" for a pitcher is based on the team's overall performance. I don't see how anyone can disagree with this statement. A pitcher can't get a "win" if his team's offensive players don't score a run. It's impossible for a pitcher to get a win if his team scores zero runs while during the game, no matter how long the pitcher pitches. Cliff Lee could pitch 30 innings and still not get a win if the Phillies don't score a run. Because the pitcher's "win" statistic is based upon how his offense scores, it is a team statistic, much like a team's wins and losses are a team statistic. So a pitcher can pitch well and still not win a game because his offense hasn't scored runs. This makes the statistic "win" a partially team-based statistic.

Let's say Bob Thompson writes in the Sports section for the Picadilly Daily and it has a circulation of 30,000 readers. If Tom Gilbert writes in the Sports section for the Picadilly Observer, which only has a circulation of 10,000 readers, this does not mean he is a bad sportswriter as compared to Bob Thompson. Both newspapers have a Local section. The Picadilly Daily's Local section is run by the best writer in the state with a team of two other writers and covers 10 pages a day with local news. The Picadilly Observer is run by one staff member and only dedicates one page to local news. It is possible Tom Gilbert is a better writer than Bob Thompson even if his columns aren't as widely read because the newspaper's circulation isn't only dependent on the quality of the work in the Sports section. That's my conclusion.

"Incorrect!" Murray Chass would say, "If Tom Gilbert was a good sportswriter then he could somehow make his paper have a higher circulation than Bob Thompson. So what if the Local section consists only of one staff member who only puts pictures of vegetables in the Picadilly Observer while the Local section of the Picadilly Daily has a 10 page Local section with the best local newsreporter in the entire state? It doesn't matter. Tom Gilbert hasn't done enough to make his writing as good as Bob Thompson's writing."

This is a poor analogy that shows (sort of) what nonsense it is to judge a pitcher on "wins" without somewhat acknowledging his offense has to score runs for him to get a "win."

that they have no control over the outcome of games so don’t pay attention to the column with the W at the top.

In essence, a pitcher only has so much control over the outcome of games. He can give up 10 runs and win a game or give up 1 run and lose a game. A pitcher only has so much control over the game in terms of his job. What this means is a pitcher doesn't even have total control over whether he gets a "win" or not. Like Cliff Lee did this year, he can pitch 10 innings and give up 0-1 runs and still lose the game or get a no-decision.

Again, Murray misstates the opposition's point of view. No one is saying pitchers have no control over the outcome of games. The argument furthered by people like me is the pitcher doesn't have total control over the outcome of games. Much of the control is in the hands of his offense, as well as the pitcher.

I used to think – silly me – that pitchers could control games by allowing the opposing team to score fewer runs than their team scored.

If Murray Chass could read, which I am assuming at this point he can't since he apparently can't read what he just wrote, he would see he has proven my point for me.

Pitchers control games by "allowing the opposing team to score fewer runs"---this is the portion nearly completely in the pitcher's control---"than their team scored." This last part is the portion not in the pitcher's control, especially in the American League where there is a Designated Hitter. Murray essentially writes a sentence that shows he is wrong about runs. The pitcher can't control how many runs HIS TEAM scores, because a pitcher really can't do that anymore than a hitter can control how many runs his pitcher gives up during a game. So to get a win, part of the criteria is out of the pitcher's control. Murray can continue to think this statement is true, because it is partially true, but it also shows the fallacy of saying getting a "win" is in the pitcher's total control.

But apparently that’s not how the game is played today.

Apparently you are willfully ignorant and refuse to use your brain to understand this issue.

Win 13 games, or 15 or 16, and you can win yourself one of those huge, good-looking trophies. Win the award with few enough wins, and you can etch the scores of all of the games on the trophy.

This isn't funny really. It's obvious at this point Murray Chass is incapable of even attempting to understand the issue. Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young Award in 2010 with a win total that was seen as unacceptable and we will never hear the freaking end of it. The Cy Young Award goes to the best pitcher in the American/National League. The best pitcher in the American/National League doesn't always have the most wins just like the best quarterback in the NFL doesn't always play for a team that makes the Super Bowl.

If the award were voted today, R.A. Dickey probably wouldn’t have a chance against Lee.

Isn't it weird how the best team in the majors when Murray wrote this, the Yankees, have four pitchers in the Top 35 of the majors in wins (as of the day Murray wrote this) and how the Yankees ever so coincidentally were in the Top 10 in the majors in runs, home runs, RBI, OBP, and OPS? Another pure coincidence is the Texas Rangers, who are at the top or close to the top in every major batting category, have two pitchers in the Top 15 in the majors in wins. It's almost like a pitcher's number of wins depends partially on how many runs his team scores.

In the meantime, since the award isn’t being voted today, I’m going to take a few minutes and look through one of the baseball encyclopedias and find names like Roberts and Jenkins and Hunter and Palmer and Gibson and try to figure out how bad they really were.

That's exactly the point your readers are making when they take exception to your overuse of the "win" statistic. They aren't trying to prove you wrong, no way. They are trying to prove all of the great pitchers in baseball history were actually shitty pitchers. You got us now, Murray.

2 comments MMQB Review: Bruce Allen Hearts Dan Snyder; Dan Snyder Asks "Who's Bruce Allen?"

Peter King is on vacation for the next month, so he is having non-writers substitute for him and write the weekly MMQB. I generally don't read these substitute MMQB columns, but I made an exception today because Bruce Allen uses his MMQB forum to kiss Daniel Snyder's ass and I found this pathetic enough to read. I have a lot of respect for Bruce Allen. He still manages to make Tampa Buccaneers fans think about him and causes them to reminisce on his time as Tampa Bay's General Manager. He's continuing his good work in Washington by trading for Donovan McNabb and overpaying for free agents like Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan. Of course there is also the trade for Robert Griffin III, which will end up putting the Redskins further down in the doldrums through the loss of first round draft picks or will lift the franchise to new heights. It's way too early to judge that trade. Allen may or may not be qualified to be a General Manager, but he is qualified to write a MMQB and he wants Daniel Snyder to know he respects him so very much...so please don't fire him. In fact, Allen is not above flattery in order for the Child King Snyder to allow him to keep his job.

All Americans and hundreds of millions of people across the world should be grateful to the men and women of our Armed Services, whose personal sacrifices have secured our freedoms. Their heroic efforts are the reason that we are able to enjoy our "inalienable rights," including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as stated in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, which was approved on July 4, 1776.

It sounds weird to hear the Declaration of Independence was "approved" at any point. It makes it sound like the Declaration of Independence was a bill that passed through Congress. I guess it did sort of pass through Congress in its own colonial way. Still, "approved" sounds like bizarre wording to me.

Last week as part of our family's July 4th celebration, my wife Kiersten and I went to a party with former and current Raiders to celebrate the great Al Davis' birthday, who fittingly was born on Independence Day.

Yes, fittingly he was born on Independence Day...wait, why is this coincidence fitting again? I'm not sure I see the Al Davis-Independence Day connection, unless Bruce Allen is suggesting Al Davis was an alien who crash-landed on Earth in the 1940's and was captured by the United States government for research purposes, which ultimately led to a battle between the United States and alien forces for planet Earth that was ended by Randy Quaid sacrificing himself to blow up the mothership and save the day. In that case, I do see the Al Davis-Independence Day connection.

In my opinion, Al Davis was the ultimate competitor who cared deeply about the game of football and the people that surrounded the Raiders.

And the Raiders and football are indelibly tied to the Fourth of July, of course.

Every waking hour, Al was trying to find a winning edge for the franchise he created,

"Speed! Find the fastest, most athletic players possible. Football skills don't matter."

During the Al Davis celebration it dawned on me how much I have learned from the NFL owners for whom I have worked.

Two ways to continually get/keep a job in the NFL:

1. Have a parent who was famous in some capacity in the NFL (George Allen is Bruce Allen's dad).

2. Kiss everyone in the NFL's ass as much as possible (see: what follows about Daniel Snyder). It's funny because Jon Gruden worked with Bruce Allen in Tampa Bay and Gruden annoys me with his constant positivity about any and every NFL player, executive, coach and hot dog vendor. I have a feeling a Bruce Allen and Jon Gruden-led Buccaneers team was the most positive and ass-kissing GM/head coach duo in the NFL.

Today, I'm constantly impressed by the active, non-stop, brilliantly quick and witty mind of Dan Snyder

Do you know who else has an active, non-stop, brilliantly quick and witty mind...or at least his subjects claim this to other people purely out of fear?

This guy.

{I'm on Season 1 Episode 8 of that series now, so if he gets impaled by a spike (please), ripped apart by wolves (pretty please) or disemboweled by a dragon (not even sure how that would work) please don't spoil it for me. I want his death to be an active, non-stop, brilliantly long surprise to me.}

I don't work for Daniel Snyder, and I am sure he is brilliantly quick and witty with his jokes at parties or when critiquing the maid's glass-cleaning capabilities, but I'm not sure this translates to being the owner of an NFL team. This is some major ass-kissing by Bruce Allen. Bruce Allen believes approximately quite a few Redskins players or coaches should be in the Hall of Fame (Doug Williams, Bobby Beathard, Joe Jacoby, Joe Theismann). We get it, you like the team you work for. You got the job, no need to ass-kiss any further.

Bruce Allen also does some ass-kissing of the Glazer family as well. Presumably in an effort to ensure his old bosses may want to hire him to run Manchester United some day. It's quite embarrassing to read.

There is no better example of America being the land of opportunity than Dan's story -- a boy growing up rooting for his favorite team each Sunday alongside his hard-working father, then becoming owner of that team and striving for a championship for the fans and community.

Is Daniel Snyder striving for a championship? That's my question. Or does he strive for quick fixes, making splashes that put his team in the headlines, and impatient personnel moves in lieu of taking the time and effort to build a quality football team? The Redskins are well-known for trying to make a splash and throw as much cash as possible at players (Haynesworth) and coaches (Steve Spurrier/Joe Gibbs/Mike Shanahan) in an effort to put a good team on the field now rather than building a good team through the draft and smart free agency decisions.

Even the trade for Robert Griffin III was a quick-fix move by the Redskins. Sure, they got their quarterback of the future, but they traded three first round draft picks and a second round pick to get him. So by getting quarterback of the future, they mortgaged part of the future. This is what the Daniel Snyder-owned Redskins do.

Halas' list of contributions to the game is endless. Beside being the leader in the formation of the NFL, his coaching accomplishments will never be surpassed. Ironically, Coach Halas taught me my first "cuss" word.

This not by means of the definition "ironic." Perhaps Coach Halas should have taught Bruce Allen what the word "ironic" really means.

After a slight pause, Halas looked at my father for approval (not that he needed it). He continued: "You can only use this word on a really bad person, someone you really hate or who did something very very bad." He then made me acknowledge that I understood, to which I responded: "Yes, Coach!" After what seemed like the longest minute ever, he turned around and said one word with an intensity that I had never seen: "PACKER." And then he added: "Don't tell your mom I told you!"

"Packer" as a curse word, I get it! Maybe Bruce Allen should spend less time thinking "Packer" is a curse word and more time trying to build the Redskins the way the Packers have built their current team.

The current Redskins players, coaches, fans and staff owe a big debt of gratitude to the people who have made the Redskins one of the flagship franchises in sports.

The Redskins are a flagship franchise in sports. I write that with some hesitation because I'm afraid they are becoming a joke to some sports fans. That's just my opinion. I don't know if this takes them out of "flagship" status, but the team is a punchline to me in some ways and it affects how I think about them being a flagship NFL team. Maybe I'm just oversensitive and overreacting to the annoying and delusional Redskins fans I know.

Contrarian Viewpoint Of The Week

Take the names off the back of the jerseys.

That way the Redskins fans will have a more difficult time determining which Redskins wide receivers are the ones that Bruce Allen gave $40 million to in free agency and which wide receivers are undrafted free agents. This will come in handy when the production for both players is equal during the season.

I don't see the point in taking the names off the back of the jerseys. I know it is supposed to elevate the team over the individual, but the NFL makes money off jersey sales and it helps to have the player's name on the back of those jerseys to sell these jerseys.

1. I don't like $36 million of our salary cap room going to our competitors.

Well, then follow secret agreements the owners make among each other. Perhaps if Daniel Snyder were a little more quick-witted and brilliant he would have seen that going along with the unspoken agreement among NFL owners could benefit the Redskins.

3. I don't like "anonymous sources."

Sometimes there is a need for a source to be anonymous. What Bruce Allen really doesn't like is how anonymous sources are used to report information about the Redskins in newspapers and online.

4. I don't like injuries.

Does anybody like injuries? Does this even merit noting?

2. I think we should make these rule changes:

a. When an NFL team signs a free agent and that player hasn't made a Pro Bowl after two years that free agent's salary does not count against the salary cap.

b. When an NFL team trades a draft pick, that draft pick is replaced with another draft pick of equal or lesser value.

c. Teams from Washington, D.C. get 10 points for a touchdown and 5 points for a field goal.

Get rid of the convoluted overtime rules -- return to sudden death.

The new overtime rules are too hard to understand. Screw fairness or the best way to determine the winner of a game in overtime, let's go with the easiest rule possible. Expeditiousness over quality does seem to be the Redskins motto.

Same as scoring plays, all turnovers should be automatically reviewed.

Major penalties should be eligible for coaching challenges.

I'm not one of those people who is concerned about the pace of the game, but if the officials review every turnover and major penalty how long are the games going to last? Three and a half or four hours? Every major penalty and turnover can't be reviewed. I think the NFL's replay system works fine now. Why change it? I want to watch football, not replays on every major play during a game.

Punters, kickers and long snappers shouldn't count against the 46-man game day roster (each team must dress three quarterbacks).

This is a stupid rule change. Why would teams have to dress three quarterbacks if they only want to dress two quarterbacks? The NFL shouldn't dictate how many players at each position a team has to activate. Why shouldn't kickers or punters count against the 46-man game day roster? They are players on the roster, so they should count.

5. I think we need to do a lot more for high school football coaches!

Is there a way you can be more vague about what the hell this means!?

6. I think Monday Night Football's kickoff should be no later than 8:00 p.m. ET.

"I want to go to bed early! You kids keep waking me up!"

7. I think the new college football playoff format will create more issues than the old system.

"Change is bad! I miss the days when nothing changed and everything stayed the same!"

9. I think NFL Films is the league's Non-Player MVP every year (name that award the Ed Sabol Award).

So Bruce Allen wants to create an award and then give it to the same person every single year? This man is the General Manager of an NFL team (for the second time) and he believes creating an award and then giving it to the same damn person every year is a grand ol' idea.

10. I think it's easier to make enemies in the NFL than it is to make friends.

And we all know the entire purpose of the NFL is to make friends. Of course it is a lot easier to make enemies in the NFL when the fans of the NFL team you work for has this litany of problems with that team's owner.

Peter needs to think harder about his choices next time when handing the MMQB reins over during the summer.