4 comments Phil Mushnick Is Still Old and Really, Really Cranky

Phil Mushnick hates so many things it's not worth listing them all. He hates showy athletes, hates announcers for using words he hates, and felt after his son's death was the best time to take a shit on Adrian Peterson. His online column (Mushnick probably spends time being self-loathing about the fact he has to publish columns on the Internet) is basically just a list of things that make him so angry because they didn't used to be that way. In two articles today, it's hard to say exactly all of the things that Phil is railing against, but it's instant replay, the way headlines are written, people being mean to Curt Schilling, and Jon Stewart.

Here is his first article of screeds against random things that pop into his mind which piss him off. 

Well, it finally happened. Didn’t make much news or noise, but that figures given baseball’s new replay rules have been widely celebrated for “getting it right.”

I'm shocked the new replay rules don't work perfectly after one year. Usually rule changes in a professional sporting event immediately works effortlessly with no issues.

In the top of the fifth inning in Aug. 20’s White Sox-Angels, Chicago’s Jose Abreu, with runners on first and third, hit a shot down the line that third-base ump Dana DeMuth ruled foul. Play, naturally, immediately stopped.

But the White Sox challenged the call. And there it was: The ball appeared to have nicked the line. Fair ball! Now what?

The umpires decide what bases to award the White Sox. I get the snark about "getting it right" but Mushnick is essentially going to argue that the umpires using hypotheticals to award bases to players is not preferable to the call being absolutely wrong. I would disagree, but I also am not a cranky person who can't handle any sort of change.

The umps held a meeting, a caucus to negotiate a settlement. It ended only after they reached an agreement on a guess of what, among scores of things that could have happened, as to what might have next happened. They determined — guessed — that because the runner on first was going on the pitch, both runners should score, and Abreu should be awarded second, as if it were a ground-rule double, which it was not.

I disagree with the conclusion here. I think the runner on first should be awarded third base just as if it were a ground rule double, but otherwise I have no issue with instant replay working in this exact way. It's almost impossible to know what really would have happened, so there has to be some educated guessing involved, assuming the umpires have the directive from MLB to get the call right by using instant replay. There is no other way, outside of guessing, to determine what would have happened had the call been correct initially.

So, in the name of “getting it right,” a pile of things that never happened — all of them impossible to determine would have happened — were deemed to have not happened while other impossibilities to determine were deemed to have happened.

You mean sort of like how defensive pass interference is called in the NFL and the offensive team is given the ball at the spot of the foul when there is no evidence that if there were no defensive pass interference the offensive player would have caught the ball? Or evidence the offensive player would have caught the ball and run for a touchdown? There is also no evidence the offensive player would have caught the ball, fumbled and then the defensive player would have run it back for a touchdown had the pass interference not occurred? Sort of how the NFL just assumes the offensive player would have caught the ball, and rewards the offensive team accordingly, when defensive pass interference occurs? I'm sure Phil Mushnick has no issue with this rule because it's not new and scary.

The White Sox took a 6-1 lead based on nothing more conclusive than a bunch of maybes as they related to the offense, the defense, and where that ball might’ve wound up then how it might’ve been played — had it been played.

This is what has happened on ground rule doubles for a long, long time now. A runner gets stopped at third base (if he were on first base) based on an assumption of how the ball would have been played. The alternative is that the call is entirely wrong without instant replay and the White Sox will keep the lead they have, but not keep the chance to have the big lead they should have had. So get it wrong or guess in an attempt to get it right? 

Once that foul ball, via replay rule, was determined to have been fair, imaginary baseball — official fantasy league baseball — was invoked.

I wish fantasy sports didn't exist so sportswriters would stop referring to real baseball as "fantasy baseball" when something happens in the sport that they don't like. It's a lazy fallback joke and it's tiring. 

The mind wanders and wonders … Game 7 of the World Series, bottom of the ninth. A ball initially ruled foul is reviewed, reversed. The umps gather to try to figure it out, to try to figure what can’t possibly be determined, then rule on what would’ve or might’ve happened, though it didn’t.

So in criticizing a pile of things that never happened---all of them impossible to determine would have happened---Phil Mushnick uses a situation that has never happened and it is impossible at this point to determine would happen in the World Series?

(Phil Mushnick) "Stop using hypothetical actions by runners on-base to determine what the score in the game would be in a hypothetical situation had the call been made correctly. Now here is a hypothetical situation with hypothetical actions by the umpires that I will use to determine how the World Series would end..."

Is the World Series over? “Gee,” says the crew chief, “I guess so.”

Instant replay has ended an NFL game before when a call was upheld or overturned. It happened in the Packers-Seahawks game a few years ago. This may never happen in the World Series, but I like how Phil criticizes using hypotheticals in order to get a call on the field correct using instant replay by using his own hypothetical situation. 

One of my favorite parts of Super Bowls is the solemn chat with the losing coach just outside the locker room, usually his back to a cinderblock wall.
Inevitably, whether the score was 52-10 or 28-27, he is asked: “What would you have done differently?” Almost always, he answers he would do nothing differently, which, given that his team lost, makes no sense. He would do it all the same, again. And lose the same, again.

Not necessarily. It's possible the issue wasn't the play call, but the execution of the play call. So a coach could easily decide to call the same play again, but have his quarterback choose to throw to a different receiver, run with the football or throw the ball to the receiver in a different spot where the defender can't catch the ball. This is the difference in a results-oriented mindset and a more educated mindset. If I get in a car accident driving to the grocery store using a different route than I usually use to get to the grocery store, it doesn't mean I should never go the different route again because I will get in another accident. 

The Golf Channel becomes comical when it goes into Tiger Woods Scramble Mode. When Woods shot a first-round 64 two Thursdays ago, GC apparently canceled all staff vacations, on-air personnel instructed to hyperventilate.

For a person whose job it is to cover the media, Phil Mushnick has a shitty grasp on how ratings work. Tiger Woods is in contention, which means there is more interest in the golf tournament. The ratings reflect this, so naturally a network will cover the story that the people watching the tournament are interested in. 

CBS was no better. Though Woods last Sunday was in the next-to-the-last pairing — “penultimate pairing,” as per ESPN from the British Open — Woods was listed first among those in second place, two behind leader Jason Gore. But Tom Hoge, tied with Woods, played with Gore.

Again, ratings. It doesn't matter how the players are sorted, but CBS wanted any person flipping channels to see Tiger is high on the leaderboard. Phil Mushnick covers the media. Networks like ratings and Tiger brings in ratings. 

ESPN’s late Sunday crawl read, “Davis Love wins the Wyndham as Tiger falters.” Reader Rich Monahan: “As if one was the reason for the other!”

This is very Easterbrookian on the part of Rich Monahan. It's not at all how that sentence is structured, as if one was the reason for the other. If I write, "I wrote in my notebook as my sister tried to color in the lines of her coloring book," I'm not indicating one event has a correlation to the other or indicating any causation. I'm simply stating what I'm doing while my sister is doing something else.

Another example: "Phil Mushnick bitches about stupid shit in his column as really good writers are unemployed." Wait, maybe I'm implying there should be some causation there...

Carlos Gomez, as a Brewer and now with the Astros, has been a conspicuous showoff, a me-first fool well worth the Yankees’ collective disdain over the past week.

But Gomez, who claims his teammates love such behavior from him — he’s delusional if he believes that — should be asked this:

Phil Mushnick knows Carlos Gomez is delusional for thinking his teammates love his behavior, because Phil Mushnick has been in the Brewers' and Astros' locker room to know whether his teammates like him or not? Not at all. Mushnick is assuming Gomez is delusional based on his own beliefs and assumptions. Basically, Mushnick is determining what Gomez's teammates think---while ignoring it's impossible to determine what they think---when ignoring other possibilities and deeming them to not have happened.

Would you instruct the kids in your life to exploit baseball, a team game, to demonstrate their excessive self-regard, or would you urge them toward modesty? Is public immodesty the professional legacy you choose for yourself?

That's a great question to ask. Carlos Gomez clearly needs a moral compass like Phil Mushnick to help him raise his children in the proper way. That is what is so great about Phil Mushnick. He knows how everyone should behave and act at all times and believes himself to be the final arbiter on what is and is not proper behavior. He has that excessive self-regard and displays some public immodesty by telling others what the proper behavior in a given situation might be. 

Now Phil Mushnick uses history to determine that Curt Schilling should not have been punished for comparing extremist Muslims to Nazis. Of course, because outrage has to take a back seat to actually reading and understand what Schilling put on his Facebook page, Phil Mushnick is outraged at Schilling being punished.

Schilling deleted the Tweet and even apologized for it. So clearly he knew what he posted was going to be offensive to some and chose to delete it off his Facebook page entirely. There is a recent history of people being outraged just to be outraged, but Schilling knew he shouldn't have posted what he posted and deleted it accordingly. He made a mistake, owned up to it and then got punished. We all move on. BUT, Phil Mushnick is angry that ESPN blatantly read what Schilling posted and didn't take history into account. Sure, Phil spends many of his columns only reading the body language and actions of players (see: Carlos Gomez, above) and then judging them harshly on those actions without investigating the history or reason behind those actions, but it's different for him. Phil Mushnick can rush to a snap judgment and condemn a person accordingly, but everyone else should not do this.

ESPN last week suspended its lead baseball analyst, Curt Schilling, not for talking games to death, but for a social-media message equating Nazis with current, extremist Muslims.

The message was comparing extreme Muslims now to Nazis in 1940, prior to the United States entry into World War II. I could be way off, but the indication being that extreme Muslims could become a threat on-par with Nazis and that even non-extreme Muslims will eventually take up the point of view of extreme Muslims. Again, I could be looking into it too much, but the year 1940 seems to indicate to Americans (yes, there was fighting prior to the Americans entering the war) that extremist Muslims could eventually recruit non-extreme Muslims to their cause to the point there is another world war.

“Curt’s tweet was completely unacceptable, and in no way represents our company’s perspective. We made that point very strongly to Curt and have removed him from his current Little League assignment pending further consideration.”

Completely unacceptable? Out of line with ESPN’s perspective?

Curt Schilling apologized for it. We live in an age where everyone is offended by everything. I recognize this. When Schilling apologizes for what he posted, it tells me that he recognizes the fallacy of posting this on his Facebook page. Remember, Schilling never apologized for his science v. God debate with Keith Law that got Law suspended. He isn't going to apologize just because he feels he hurt some feelings, so he must really think he was in the wrong. Maybe he just wanted to avoid a suspension, who knows? 

So, then what — very strongly, no less — is ESPN’s perspective?

To not compare extreme Muslims to pre-Americans-entering-World War II Nazis. That's their perspective. 

and “in no way represents our company’s perspective” was not only historically true, Schilling under-tweeted the truth. Islamists and Nazis were teammates!

Tens of thousands more eastern Muslims fought for Nazi Germany. Their mutual attraction was a shared desire to murder Jews.

So Phil Mushnick's reaction is to basically say, "Muslims have always been on the side of Nazis, so Curt Schilling should have lumped even more non-extremist Muslims in with Hitler and his political party."

Interesting.  

After the war, “rat lines” that provided escape and sanctuary to Nazi war criminals led to safekeeping in Islamic countries, especially Egypt and Syria. And little about radical Islam, as it today festers and explodes, has changed since the rise of the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century.

While this could possibly be true, there are radical sects of every religion that probably have gone unchanged for generations and every religion is responsible in some way for death and destruction. The Crusades weren't exactly a bloodless affair, but it doesn't mean the modern day conservative Christian is a danger to society. My point is Islam may have been historically tied to Nazi Germany, but this doesn't necessarily mean a baseball analyst should be posting brief tidbits that serve as a warning about the growth of radical Islam and comparing it to Nazi Germany in 1940. Maybe someone will read this sentence in 100 years and laugh at the naive American who was eventually wiped out by radical Islam...

So what Schilling tweeted was (a) true, (b) a vast understatement, and (c) intolerable to ESPN, so at odds with the company’s position that ESPN had no choice but to publicly censure and punish him.

It's not that the facts aren't necessarily true, though I have no evidence the facts are true, but it's the insinuation behind those facts that Schilling was seemingly making. There was an insinuation that non-extreme Muslims would eventually join the radical cause. Again, that's how I read it. 

Yet it rhymes with the media’s selective outrages and selectively quiet pandering. And pandering continues as the frightened media’s path-of-least-resistance substitute for hard, unfortunate truths.

Maybe, but I think Phil Mushnick is reading a bit too much into this. If I posted something on this blog that said (these are made up numbers),

"In 1933, African Americans made up 15% of the population of the United States population and violent crime was at it's lowest totals. Today, African Americans make up 45% of the United States population and violent crime is as high as it has been in the history of the United States."

If I wrote that, then I am only writing true things, but it doesn't mean that I'm not insinuating or encouraging my reader to make another assumption within the information I'm reporting. I wasn't offended by what was on Schilling's Facebook page, but combined with his argument with Keith Law, I can see why he was suspended. Naturally, Phil Mushnick is outraged.

Saturday night’s FOX 5 News sports report, anchored by Tina Cervasio of MSG renown, was an exercise in staggering group pandering. As her “amusing” kicker, she reported that Steve Smith, now a Ravens wide receiver, was ejected from that night’s preseason game. She didn’t say why he was tossed, but it was for fighting.

Usually if a football player is ejected from a game, it isn't for passing out flowers to his opponents. Even casual football fans know this. So there was obviously something that got Smith ejected and the reason can be explained, but it's a safe assumption he did something excessively violent or that wouldn't go over well in a normal work place. 

After his first-quarter ejection Saturday, Cervasio said Smith entered a suite to sit with his son, from where they tweeted a smiling “selfie,” along with his son’s happy message: “when ur dad gets ejected.” The kid added this was the first time he watched his father’s team play while seated with his father.

Isn’t that charming, family bonding predicated on Dad being thrown out of the game.

It is exciting and charming for a kid to watch a football game with his dad. Though I'm sure Phil Mushnick is very concerned about the example Steve Smith is setting for his son. Thank God that Mushnick is here to tell others how they should or should not parent. 

This brought approving, if not forced laughter from Cervasio and the pandering news folks also on the set. Anchor Antwan Lewis gave it final, full approval with, “That’s pretty cool.” Yeah, fabulous.

Don't be such a crab. Steve Smith by all appearances seems to be a really good father. Would it have been better if Smith got kicked out of the game and then didn't sit with his family? He's been kicked out of a preseason game (and may have been trying to get kicked out...I wouldn't put it past him), so why not sit with his family? Then his son took a picture of them watching the game together. This isn't a threat to humanity on-par to the Nazi-like rise of Islam.

Reader Wesley Drake, as likely did tens of thousands, thought the tear-filled Wilmer Flores “trade to Milwaukee” drama to be extra special, something that made all feel good for all the right reasons.

But then Drake, as did others, learned that Steiner Collectibles and Flores had joined to exploit the story for every tear-soaked dollar that suckers could spend. Flores autographed photos of him crying, Steiner peddled them.

He's making money off his own pain. That's absolutely something he is entitled to do. It could be tongue-in-cheek or it could be an easy way to make a dollar. What does it matter? Would it be better if Flores was not a part of these photos? Would his lack of participation in not autographing them be any less pathetic if someone else made money off the pain he was feeling at the time? 

“Now,” writes Drake, “I feel like an idiot.”

You bought an autographed picture of a man crying and then emailed Phil Mushnick about it. I would say the second part of that last sentence probably indicates you are self-aware enough to know it's not just a feeling. 

Was there no one with the Mets or perhaps Flores’s agent to discourage such a pathetic sell? Was there no one to tell Flores, perhaps naïve but not starving, that there are other, better ways to make an extra buck?

Again, why should he not make money off his own pain? It may be pathetic, but if there is a market for it, who cares? Plus, it's nice that Flores can autograph them and not take himself so seriously, even when photographed in a vulnerable moment like he was. 

Saturday, during the Red Sox-Mets game, one of the most trusted voices of New York sports, Howie Rose, retold the warm-the-cockles, trade-that-wasn’t story. He said that Flores, now a crowd favorite, “is very shy” and that “he was almost embarrassed” by all the attention. Hmmm.

Maybe “almost” covered it. He couldn’t have been that embarrassed.

He could have been that embarrassed and decided rather than continue to be embarrassed, fully knowing the pictures of him crying are not going away, why not embrace the embarrassment and participate? 

Et tu, Jon Stewart? If Stewart thought himself an idealist rather than an easy, cheesy populist, he blew it last week when he lent his presence to a WWE ringside skit.

My feelings about wrestling will always remain untold, because I don't want to tell others what to and not to like, but is Jon Stewart participating in a WWE skit really worth bitching about? I can't figure out how Jon Stewart being a part of a fake wrestling match could somehow be an indication there is no one left to corrupt and the sky of morality in sports is definitely falling. 

Perhaps he didn’t care that the McMahon family has for decades headed a drug-death mill for wrestlers, or that the McMahons’ form of entertaining kids is to have wrestlers point to their genitals while hollering, “Suck it!”

Yep, I'd say he probably didn't give a shit. It's fake and it's entertainment. What's the difference in Stewart participating in a WWE skit and acting in a movie where he plays a morally corrupt character? Either way, he is acting. Go find something else to be outraged about. 

But for 16 years, Stewart sat on a Comedy Central set and lampooned America’s biggest big shots for failure to choose right over wrong.

Participating in a WWE wrestling skit is "failing to choose right over wrong?" Really? Phil Mushnick needs to retire. For someone who doesn't like athletes who grandstand and have excessive self-regard, he does a hell of a lot of moral grandstanding and holds himself in high regard.

8 comments So Apparently Mitch Williams Has a Blog

There are times in everyone's life when he/she/it wonders "How the hell did I miss this?" Today is one of those days for me. Mitch Williams, or "Wild Thing" as he was better known as a baseball player, has a blog where he uses the English language and a not-firm grasp on logic to talk about baseball-related topics. To Williams' credit, at least he acknowledges it is a blog (ahem, Murray Chass). Thanks to Cory (again) for sending me the links to these. I will cover two of Mitch Williams' posts today. I'll start off first with the continuous, never-ending Jack Morris-Hall of Fame discussion because there's no way anyone is tired of talking about it. Then I will delve into Mitch Williams' column about how Jon Daniels doesn't have enough baseball experience to effectively run the Rangers franchise. Daniels isn't a great GM like that "baseball guy" Andrew Friedman.

But first, Mitch talks about Schilling and Morris.

The Hall of Fame voting is coming up on us and there are a few people that I don’t quite understand what Hall induction is supposed to be based on. I hear arguments that Jack Morris should not be voted in, and I have heard arguments that Curt Schilling should be.

It's all very confusing isn't it? Both players have memorable postseason performances, so which memorable postseason performance is better? Isn't that what Jack Morris's candidacy is all about? Game 7 of the 1991 World Series?  

Let’s clear this up. Inclusion in the Hall of Fame is in recognition of an outstanding career. It is not based on Postseason performance.

Great then, it's settled. Neither player gets in the Hall of Fame

(Bengoodfella starts packing his bags and walking out of the room)

If we compare Jack Morris’ numbers to Schilling’s and we remove the Postseason — where Schilling was 11-2 and Morris was 7-4 — and we get down to the career numbers, I think you will see what I’m talking about.

I'm going to spoil the conclusion for all of you. Mitch Williams uses some deducing to tell us that Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame, while Curt Schilling should not. Before I get to this comparison more in-depth, let's go back and look at perhaps the most ironic comment I've read in reference to Jack Morris being inducted into the Hall of Fame.

It is not based on Postseason performance.

I'm not exaggerating when I make this statement. I have not read a pro-Jack Morris column where Game 7 of the 1991 World Series was not mentioned at least once. I know a pro-Jack Morris column without a mention of the 1991 World Series exists and I know this because Mitch Williams rambles his way through one right now. Still, saying the Hall of Fame is not based on postseason performance is ignoring the fact 95% of pro-Jack Morris Hall of Fame columns at some point mention his postseason record or Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Some writers (Jerry Green) seem to base Morris' induction solely on that game. So the idea Mitch Williams is excluding postseason performance when determining Morris should be in the Hall of Fame has blown my mind and I will struggle to go on.

Won/Loss: Morris 254-186, Schilling-216-146

Wins are dumb. Using wins to determine if a pitcher was any good or not is dumb. 

Career duration: Morris 18 seasons (all in the AL), Schilling 20 seasons (14 in the NL where there are only eight hitters in the lineup)
 
ERA: Morris 3.90, Schilling 3.35 (4.00 during six seasons in the AL)

3 things worthy of mention:

1. Mitch Williams' best years all occurred in the National League. If he is bashing the National League then he is bashing his ability as a relief pitcher.

2. A closer criticizing a starting pitcher for "only" facing eight hitters in the lineup is just too rich for me. The guy who faced 3-4 batters if he did his job correctly is the one criticizing Curt Schilling for not facing enough quality batters while playing in the National League.

3. Cory in his email to me makes this point better than I do. I can make these points myself, but he makes them pretty well. Since I'm using his email to me, I want to give his blog a shout-out too. He writes at http://corygb.blogspot.ca/.

''ERA: Morris 3.90, Schilling 3.35 (4.00 during six seasons in the AL)''

The 2nd quotation requires more in the way of critical thought

Yes, Schilling did have a higher career ERA in the American League. Fun fact though: His first tenure in the AL (1988-1990) lasted all of 69 IP for the Orioles, where he amassed a 4.54 ERA (85 ERA+)

In his 2nd tenure (2004-2007), Schilling pitched 675 AL innings, posting a 3.95 ERA (120 ERA+) 

I also believe it is relevant to note when comparing the numbers of Morris and Schilling in the American League that Schilling only pitched in the American League during the beginning and end of his career. Schilling pitched in the American League when he was 21-23 years of age and 37-40 years of age. I would venture a guess that his career statistics in the American League would have been better had he pitched in the American League anywhere near the prime of his career. Back to the point Cory is making,

Both quotations also indicate Mitch Williams (flawed) belief that it's fair to compare the American League of the 70s and 80s to the NL of the 90s, where runs per game were almost identical.

The photo attached has Runs Per Game averages during Morris's American League career (1977-1994) and Schilling's National League Career (1991-2003)

From roughly 1993 to 2003, runs per game in the National League were either on par or exceeding the American League yearly averages of 1980 to 1991 (the meat of Morris's peak) 

So basically, Mitch Williams has no point. National League teams scored 4.56 runs per game from 1991-2003. American League teams scored 4.50 runs per game from 1977-1994. It's important to remember that Schilling pitched right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Knowing 'roided-up batters were putting up historically great numbers during the Steroid Era has to be factored in when comparing the American League from 1977-1993 and the National League from 1993-2003. So over the time Morris pitched in the American League and Schilling pitched in the National League, the National League teams actually scored more runs per game. This is what happens when a knee-jerk reaction is made without doing research.

Innings Pitched: Morris 3,824, Schilling 3,261
Complete games: Morris 175, Schilling 83
Shutouts: Morris 28, Schilling 20

These are good numbers, but I still lean towards neither player entering the Hall of Fame. Comparing Morris to Schilling and believing Morris to be the superior player doesn't mean Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame.

This all speaks to my point. The Hall of Fame is recognition of a career, not Postseason stats! Postseason stats don’t count towards MVP or the Cy Young Award.

And yet, very few pro-Jack Morris voters fail to leave out Morris's postseason record.

If the people who vote on this induction only care about Postseason performance, then Greg Maddux one of the best pitchers in the history of our game, wouldn’t be a Hall of Famer! He was just 11-14 in his Postseason career!

Great point. If we just used assumptions that pitching in the American League was more difficult because a pitcher has to face 9 hitters instead of 8 hitters a pitcher faces in the National League then the result would be what Mitch Williams has written here.

If they come up with a Postseason Hall of Fame, Curt Schilling is a first ballot Hall of Famer!

Why is Mitch Williams using exclamation points excessively? Is he is a 12 year old girl?

But until they do, he was a good pitcher, but his career is not Hall of Fame worthy.

This also happens to be the perfect rebuttal to a person who claims Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

One final point on the Hall of Fame: the fact that Lee Smith has not been voted in is, in my opinion, a joke!

A joke like a "haha" joke or a joke like "why is this guy using exclamation points at the end of every sentence, he must be fucking with us" joke? 

And his career ERA — which for a closer is a stat that can be very easily inflated for the season by one bad outing — was 3.03.

A closer's ERA can also not be inflated because he often comes in the game with no runners on-base and only has to face three batters if he does his job correctly.

The telltale sign for me would be poll the players. Ask all the hitters that faced Lee, Trevor and Mo who they would have rather faced in the ninth. Trust me, Lee Arthur would be last on that list!

Thanks Mitch! I'm glad you used a poll of ex-MLB players that you never actually took to prove your point! It's very persuasive for you to make up the results of a poll and then use them to support your argument! This is analysis and very persuasive!

Most likely you know why Mitch Williams doesn't think Curt Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame? Because he doesn't like him. (Go to the 2:35 mark...and again, this was sent to me by Cory)

At least Williams is unbiased, right?

Now Mitch Williams discusses the shakeups in the Rangers front office and tells people to not tell others how to do their job. Williams goes about this by telling the Rangers front office how to do their job. 

Today we learned that the job of President of Baseball Operations with the Rangers has been taken away from Nolan Ryan and given to the team’s GM, John Daniels.

This is the problem plaguing our game.

Without knowing the next sentence, I would have no clue what "the problem" here is. It's not readily apparent. Is the problem GM's trying to have too much responsibility within an organization? Is the problem baseball "experts" like Mitch Williams who believes he is informed enough on a topic to comment on that topic, but he isn't really informed enough to spell all the names of the concerned parties correctly? John Daniels is not the Rangers GM. Jon Daniels is the Rangers GM. A small mistake, sure, but given Mitch Williams is paid to cover MLB and seems to carry a strong opinion about Jon Daniels...

I have all the respect in the world for these young front office people that come out of Harvard or Yale — or in Daniels’ case, Cornell. I respect them when they know what they are good at: business, finance, or organizational skills — those sorts of things.

The amount of idiocy that Mitch Williams is spewing right now is amazing. So being the General Manager of a MLB franchise doesn't require business, finance or organizational skills? It sounds to me like Mitch Williams isn't quite intelligent or informed enough to be making these criticisms that he is making. Being a General Manager requires business, finance and organizational skills. Anyone who doesn't believe this is true is an uninformed moron.

Also, I like how graduates from Cornell/Harvard/Yale are good at only these three things and should not look for a job that requires other attributes. Mitch Williams graduated from West Linn High School in Oregon, perhaps they are famous for learning their young ones on how to be a baseball analyst? Because otherwise, it sounds like graduates of West Linn High School should know what they are good at...and I'm not sure it is writing.

Where I tend to lose respect for them is when they decide they know how to evaluate baseball talent better than people like Nolan Ryan! When they so that, they do their players a disservice, as well as their fan base and the entire organization.

Yeah I know! It's not like Jon Daniels is the GM of a baseball team that he has helped build into a franchise capable of making back-to-back World Series or anything. What does he know, other than he was able to replenish the Rangers farm system and make them competitive again? Leave the baseball stuff to guys like Nolan Ryan (insert exclamation point here)

I can’t speculate what the problem is down in Arlington between Nolan and Daniels

Mitch Williams can't speculate but he knows the fault is on Jon Daniels. There you go, that makes sense.

I was a Ranger back when going to a game was something a fan did when there was nothing else to do that night in town. Over the last four years, they have done something I never thought would be possible, and that was take away fans from the Dallas Cowboys.

And the reason the Rangers have had such success is because they have won baseball games. Should the credit for putting a team together that won games and made the World Series go to the President/Owner of the Texas Rangers or the General Manager of the Rangers? It seems to me like Jon Daniels put this Rangers team together, so he should get at least 50% of the credit. What do I know though? I'm not a scrappy, competitive, ex-baseball player like Mitch Williams. He clearly knows what he is talking about when he is talking about John (Jon) Daniels. Daniels needs to stick to what he knows best, like business, finance, and having them organizational skills. Leave the running of the Rangers' business, dealing with the Rangers' budget, and organizing the organization to run as effectively and efficiently as possible to those who who are qualified to do such things...which obviously isn't a graduate from a Ivy League school.

Also, the Rangers haven't really taken away fans from the Dallas Cowboys. It's not an either/or situation since each team plays a different sport. Fans can cheer for both teams.

I don’t know Daniels, but the way that Michael Young was treated there was just wrong.

You mean the part where Daniels gave Young an $80 million contract extension? Boy, that was an asshole thing to do.

Young changed positions four times for the good of the team. He became an All-Star at three different positions, then demanded a trade after the signing of Adrian Beltre.

Michael Young demanded a trade nearly every time he was asked to switch positions. I have discussed it before on this blog and the bottom line is the Rangers replaced Young with a better player each time he was asked to move. There have been plenty of MLB players who have moved positions repeatedly and not made a peep, but for some reason the media insists on making Michael Young a martyr.

One thing I can say for sure is that as soon as a GM starts to think he can evaluate talent better than someone like Ryan without anywhere near the baseball background, he is giving himself too much credit.

The Rangers have been to the World Series two of the last three seasons. Jon Daniels doesn't think he can evaluate talent well, he knows he can evaluate talent well. Whether he is a better judge of talent than Nolan Ryan, who's to say, but having played baseball doesn't mean Nolan Ryan is a better judge of talent than Jon Daniels. Nolan Ryan threw a baseball well. Throwing a baseball well doesn't mean Nolan Ryan can judge talent better than Jon Daniels can judge talent.

The problem I see in Texas is that they have power arms in their rotation, and all of them are trying to become sinker ball pitchers. 

It is harder to command a sinker than it is a four-seam fastball.

I forgot about Mitch Williams credentials as a pitching coach. After not being retained as the pitching coach for an Independent League franchise early in the 2000's I know he is turning down pitching coach offers left and right. It's funny how Mitch (in just a minute) will say people who tell others how to do a job they can't do themselves are ignorant. Hopefully Mitch was looking in the mirror when he wrote this.

So if you can’t command it, it becomes a 91-MPH hit-me pitch. Trust me.

I don't trust you. You have shown through the misspelling of Jon Daniels' name and your inability to understand running a baseball team requires organizational and business skill that you have very little clue of what you are talking about. But hey, Mitch Williams throws a baseball well, so he believes that makes him qualified to do anything baseball-related. I'm really good at driving a car so that means I could own a NASCAR team, right?

I think that has to change. I think they need to let these guys who can throw 95 to 98 go out and do it, and use a sinker only in spots where it is needed.

I would remind Mitch Williams that Nolan Ryan is on record as being the guy in the Rangers organization who has had the most influence on the Rangers pitching staff. So these changes Mitch criticizes the Rangers for not making, well, he is basically criticizing his boy Nolan Ryan. Nolan Ryan is on record here, here, here, here, and here as having a great effect on the Texas Rangers pitching staff. It doesn't shock me that Mitch Williams doesn't understand he is essentially criticizing Nolan Ryan when he criticizes how the Rangers pitchers are pitching.

I also enjoy how Mitch is trying to blame Jon Daniels for the pitchers the Rangers have acquired and developed, but doesn't give Daniels credit for any of the success the Rangers have had over the past five years.

I will point to an organization that has a very smart GM: Tampa. Andrew Friedman is very smart. I believe he is smarter than any other GM out there right now, because I believe he surrounds himself with very good baseball people and trusts each of them to do their job,

Mitch Williams should not be writing any of his thoughts down. He contradicts himself, he doesn't really make sense and I get a feeling he doesn't have a firm grasp on the point he is trying to make. Let's compare the backgrounds of Jon Daniels and Andrew Friedman. One guy Mitch Williams likes because he is "very smart" and the other guy Mitch thinks needs to leave running a baseball team to baseball guys.

College

Jon Daniels- Cornell University
Andrew Friedman- Tulane University

Major in College

Jon Daniels- Applied Economics and Management
Andrew Friedman- Management with a Concentration in Finance

First Job out of College

Jon Daniels- Business Development for Allied Domecq (They operate wine and restaurant businesses)
Andrew Friedman- Analyst for Bear Stearns

First Baseball Job

Jon Daniels- Internship with the Rockies in 2001 and Assistant, Baseball Operations for Rangers in 2003
Andrew Friedman- Director of Baseball Development for the Rays in 2004

Now if you can tell me how based on their backgrounds Andrew Friedman is a "baseball guy" and Jon Daniels is not, then you are lying. Both guys have very similar educational and baseball backgrounds, but Mitch Williams thinks Jon Daniels can't run a team because he isn't a "baseball guy," but Williams likes Friedman and seems to accept him as a "baseball guy." In related news, Mitch Williams has no idea what he is talking about and isn't consistent with his criticism.

I don’t know about y’all that are reading this, but I don’t for a second think Friedman is making any decisions involving talent without consulting his baseball people.

Don't think for a second that Jon Daniels makes any decisions without consulting his baseball people.

In my opinion, you are only ignorant if you try and tell someone how to do their job if you aren’t qualified to do that job.

You mean sort of like how you just told the Rangers organization how they need to encourage their pitchers to throw the baseball despite having no experience despite having no experience as a pitching coach at the major league level (Williams was a pitching coach for an Independent League team for 2002 and 2003, but his contract wasn't renewed)? Or does Mitch mean like how he is calling Jon Daniels not a "baseball guy" and stating he doesn't have the knowledge necessary to do Nolan Ryan's job, despite the fact Mitch Williams has no experience as a scout or baseball executive?

This whole column is basically Mitch Williams telling Jon Daniels how to do his job and what job to stick to.

I don’t think I’m going to get to many people calling me to do their taxes or represent them in court. Just as I am not going to argue with someone who does a job that I have no clue about.

You mean like being the General Manager of an MLB team? Mitch seemed to argue with the qualifications of Jon Daniels to do Nolan Ryan's job and Mitch doesn't seem to have a clue that being an MLB GM requires business, finance and organizational skills...which are all strengths Mitch admits Jon has due to graduating college from Cornell.

If the Rangers lose Ryan, they will be headed back to where they were before he got there

I don't think the Rangers should lose Nolan Ryan, but it is incredibly premature and uninformed to state the Rangers will be a bad team if Ryan no longer has an affiliation with the Rangers organization.

Much like Mitch seems to dislike Curt Schilling and this drives his belief Schilling should not be in the Hall of Fame, Mitch doesn't like Jon Daniels not being a "baseball guy" (unlike Andrew Friedman...mind. blown.) and so he thinks Daniels can't do his job as Rangers GM without Nolan Ryan around.

I wish Mitch Williams wrote more blog entries because his blog could be a gold mine.

4 comments John Lackey's Career-Threatening Elbow Surgery is a Good Thing?

Sportswriters run out of story ideas at times. There's no doubt about that. Sometimes what results from this is an article that probably isn't well-thought out. Sportswriters also like to take a contrarian point of view on topics in order to make the audience "think" or challenge the traditional point of view. JemeHill is famous for creating a false argument no one is really furthering and then writing a contrarian article based on that. (Example: "Dwight Howard is the best center in NBA history")

Today, Johnette Howard explains why John Lackey's Tommy John surgery is actually a good thing. See, because Lackey is having Tommy John surgery he gets a "do-over" in Boston. I guess Howard's belief is the Red Sox faithful will look at Lackey on the mound during the 2013 season and forget all about how he has struggled during his time in Boston. I just don't see how elbow surgery followed by 9-12 months of rehab can be considered a good thing and it isn't like Red Sox fans will forget Lackey has struggled during his time in Boston. When he comes back to pitch in 2013, he may get a round of applause, but he will still have to pitch effectively.

Someone needed to tell Red Sox pitcher John Lackey how lucky he is even before he got out of that hospital gown he was wearing this week.

(Doctor) "Johnette, I have a bad news. You have two blocked arteries. We have to perform open heart surgery on you as early as next week."

(Johnette Howard gets up and starts cheering) "Fan-fucking-tastic! This is the best news all day. I'm so lucky to get a chance to do my entire life over after I recover."

(Doctor) "I'm not sure you understand. People will still remember you and you will have the exact same life. So it really isn't a do-over---"

(Johnette Howard) "Do you know how lucky I am? I get a do-over. I wrote a terrible article a few weeks ago and now I have a chance to make people forget that and come back a new woman...if I even choose to come back as a woman. Perhaps I will be a dog or a wealthy socialite from the Midwest, it's really too early to make that decision. I have six months to rest and then everyone will forget how badly I have written at times in the past. Also, no one will talk anymore about that time I punched a baby at an awards banquet."

(Doctor) "I read that article. It was bad. Please remember this is a risky procedure and you may never been the same after the surgery. You will have to monitor what you eat and how---"

(Johnette Howard begins cutting on chest with a scalpel in order to begin the procedure right now. She starts singing "If I Could Turn Back Time")

(Doctor) "We weren't scheduling the procedure for another week, so you don't need to do that right now. It's very non-sterile and frankly I am disgusted...mostly by your song choice. People are going to remember you punched a baby and people are going to remember that bad article. You have a new lease on life, but the surgery will not make you a better writer and you will still work for ESPN."

(Johnette Howard) "You're such a kidder! Is there a way you can teach me Spanish while I am in surgery? I'd love to come back knowing Spanish. I wonder if I will even come back as a human or maybe a tree or perhaps a butterfly? Now, do I have control over what I come back as, or is that purely up to the fates?"

(Doctor now giving up) "We'll bring you back as a human. A human with an extremely keen sense of smell that can solve crimes by imagining what happened at the crime scene, even when you aren't in the same vicinity as the crime committed. Then you can write about this and be a successful wealthy woman."

(Johnette Howard) "Really? I'm so thankful I get this life-threatening procedure done. What a break for me. Who can I thank for becoming a bilingual psychic crime solver with a keen sense of smell?"

(Doctor) "Thank the Cheez-Its lining your arteries."

Can you imagine if Bill Buckner had another chance to get his glove around that damn ground ball in 1986, or if the long drive to left by Aaron (Freaking) Boone that sent the Yankees to the 2003 World Series had curled foul instead and Tim Wakefield was able to throw another pitch? What if Carl Crawford had reached that sinking liner on the last play of Boston's 2011 season instead of stumbling around in left field as if he were on roller skates, making yet another epic Red Sox collapse complete?

Mostly, can you imagine if another sports team other than the Red Sox had terrible individual plays happen to them. What would the world look like if the Red Sox weren't the only team with bad luck?

Also, these are individual plays, not entire seasons. So it isn't like Lackey made a play that lost a game. He wasn't very good for an entire season. John Lackey's surgery isn't a good thing because he will come back from the surgery still getting paid a lot and will have to work hard to rehab from the surgery. Maybe it is a good thing for Red Sox fans they don't have to see Lackey pitch in 2012, but I don't see how this is good for Lackey. What would be happy is if Lackey pitched most of the 2011 year with a minor elbow injury which caused his struggles and got it fixed in the offseason. That's not the case. Now he's just the underachieving pitcher who needs major arm surgery.

You think any of them wouldn't welcome the unexpected do-over that Lackey is about to get?

None of them would want Tommy John surgery.

Major surgery rarely seems like a welcome thing for anybody. But Lackey was a pariah and in danger of getting the ax in Boston until he had to go under the knife.

So does Johnette really think when Lackey comes back he isn't going to be a pariah and won't be criticized if his performance is bad? If Lackey had played well without elbow surgery he would no longer be a pariah in Boston. Either way, he has to pitch well. Also, Lackey was in danger of getting the ax, meaning getting traded, but now he has little trade value until it is seen how he pitches after the surgery. So Lackey is stuck on a team with fans that hate him and the Red Sox have to wait a year to trade Lackey and what trade value he had has been diminished. I'm not sure how this is good for Lackey.

Now, everything people thought they knew about him last season might need to be recast, or at least challenged after what we learned on Friday.

If anything, this is a good thing for the Boston Red Sox, not John Lackey. The Red Sox now have Lackey's 2015 option triggered for the league minimum. So for Lackey, he gets to miss a year and make everyone cool down from his poor performance in 2011, but he also gets to work for the league minimum in 2015 as a 36 year old. Yay!

Until then, Lackey had been derided as a big-money bust, a chronic complainer, a combative contrarian and worse.

So assuming everyone cools down and forgives Lackey after he misses an entire year, what happens if he comes back and still doesn't pitch well? Maybe I am underestimating the ability of Red Sox fans to forgive and forget how poorly Lackey pitched over the last two years, especially considering he had an elbow problem down the stretch of the 2011 season. I don't claim to be a genius, but it seems to me many of the problems Lackey would have had in 2012 will be delayed until 2013. Maybe all will be forgotten at that point.

Lester eventually confirmed that on nights they didn't pitch, he, Lackey and Beckett sometimes sat in the Red Sox clubhouse drinking "rally beers" and/or occasionally sent a clubhouse boy off to Kenmore Square for Popeye's chicken during the season as games were going on -- even as the Red Sox were folding in September.

Because everyone knows fried chicken is a contributor to a negative performance on the field.

But, Lester added, that doesn't necessarily make them "bad people."

Yeah, well, try telling that to the folks who wanted all three of them run out of town. Try telling that to Curt Schilling, the former Red Sox postseason hero who scolded the pitching trio for their lousy performances down the stretch, and blamed it on their failure to stay in top shape.

We can all trust Curt Schilling's own overly-opinionated hypocriscy on this issue since he admitted he played for the Red Sox while overweight. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of hypocrisy athletes speak out of their mouths at times. If anyone can criticize Lester, Lackey, and Beckett for playing out of shape, that person is not Curt Schilling. Because he did the exact same damn thing while with the Red Sox.

So it is also hilarious to me the balls Curt Schilling has to criticize the Red Sox under Francona for a lack of structure when he took advantage of that lack of structure to gain a few pounds. Of course the Red Sox didn't happen to collapse down the stretch while Schlling was out of shape, so nobody gave a shit and nobody remembers Schilling admitting he was out of shape while Francona was the manager.

(On second though, since the general public has a memory that lasts about two weeks, maybe Lackey could come back in 2013 and no one will remember his 2010 and 2011 performances)

Lackey seemed the most likely player to go in the offseason purge that's already seen Francona resign in disgust and Theo Epstein leave to run the Chicago Cubs.

But now the Red Sox get to keep Lackey and get to add one season missed at the age of 32 while he is making $15+ million, in exchange for a season of Lackey making $500,000 at the age of 36. Lackey probably won't get another chance to be a free agent until he is 37. It's a win/win!

But Cherington's announcement that Lackey needed surgery recasts at least some of all that, doesn't it?

It now looks like Lackey might have actually been gutting out the 2011 season with a bum elbow, unbeknownst to everyone else.

So let me get this straight:

If Lackey eats fried chicken and drinks beer in the clubhouse, pitches poorly and the Red Sox collapse down the stretch...but does so while needing major elbow surgery, then this means he is a warrior and all is forgiven?

If Lackey eats fried chicken and drinks beer in the clubhouse, pitches poorly and the Red Sox collapse down the stretch...but is completely healthy, then this means he is a lazy, fat asshole who needs to earn his contract?

So while I understand the idea a player who pitches poorly through an injury is a warrior, the result is the same with the Red Sox missing the playoffs. Lackey still ate fried chicken and drank beer in the clubhouse, which is independent of any injury he suffered, and pitched terribly on the mound. It just turns out he simply did this with an elbow injury. It's admirable, but the same idiots crucifying him for drinking beer and eating fried chicken would then have to forgive him because he was hurt?

Sometimes the reasoning of the world confuses me. The very thing Lackey was (stupidly) criticized for doing, eating fried chicken and drinking beer, is separate from his pitching poorly anyway. The potential reason Lackey pitched terribly was he had an elbow injury, but those who argue his clubhouse eating habits in-game reflected poorly on his dedication to the game will now assume he was dedicated because he pitched injured. I think I'm confused now.

So was Lackey a good teammate, or a bad one? Is he a lousy pitcher and a whiner who can't handle the crucible the Red Sox play in, or a man whose 2011 performance can be explained away by personal problems that none of us would wish on anybody and a barking elbow he might have pushed to the breaking point because he knew the team was in a pennant race?

We just have to wait over a year and Lackey has to go through major elbow surgery before this is resolved. I still fail to see how this is a positive thing.

That means he won't be back on Opening Day to face the music like Crawford will for his own subpar 2011 season.

Which is a good thing apparently.

But he won't have to wait decades to see if he can make peace with the Red Sox faithful like Buckner did, either.

Shut up about having to "make peace" with the Red Sox faithful as if Lackey perpetrated some terrible crime on the entire city. He had a bad year and hasn't "earned" his contract yet. He's been an underachiever like every franchise ends up having at some point or another. Simply because he had a bad year for the Red Sox doesn't mean he has to "make piece" with the fans or his underachieving affected the fans personally in some fashion.

Lackey didn't just get Tommy John surgery the other day.

He gets a mulligan.

Not really. He still has to pitch well for the Red Sox in 2013, as well as he loses a year of his career, and while gaining another year with the Red Sox at the league minimum. This isn't really a mulligan for Lackey anymore than he is essentially giving people time to cool off and delaying his next start until the 2013. He also gets to rehab for 9-12 months from major elbow surgery. I just can't call having major elbow surgery a "mulligan."

He gets the sort of gift second chance most people would do anything not to blow.

It's not really a second chance. It's a major injury which will involve months of rehab and then eventually Lackey will try to prove he can play up to the standard Red Sox fans expect him to play up to. I think proving he can pitch well would have been easier without elbow surgery and in no way should this be considered a second chance.

10 comments Jay Loves Curt, Bill Loves Stats and Peter Loves Coffee

Things have been pretty dry lately on the Internet. There is no TMQ, Bill Simmons did not write another column last week, and most of the focus is on the NCAA Tournament, which judging from the decrease in traffic to this here blog, no one really gives a shit about discussing. There is still bad journalism out there, I just haven't found it. Today we are focusing on the Axis of Journalism Evil, Peter King, Jay Mariotti and Bill Simmons, and their attempts to take over the world using bad journalism/entertainment (because Bill Simmons is not a journalist, he is an entertainer who just happens to do interviews and write down facts or opinions he presents as facts for a major sports web site...it can confusing to tell the difference, but that's why I am here).

Jay Mariotti thinks that Curt Schilling is an asshole but deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because of how he performed in October. I think Jay Mariotti is an asshole and that Curt Schilling should be placed in the Hall of Fame based on his merits as a pitcher and not on a select statistical sample size in one month of the year that only players who play on good teams can achieve.

This is where I have the chance to be a bigger man than Curt Schilling.

This is where I have a chance to make fun of Jay Mariotti for being an asshole.

Some writers hold grudges when confronted with voting decisions about prickly players, forgetting that our responsibility is to history and not our tattered feelings.

I want everyone who reads this blog, now down to 6 of you, to remember this sentence that Jay has written. Frame it, laminate it, or freeze it in carbonite. It doesn't matter to me. When Ozzie Guillen wins 2,000 games as a manager for his career and has a couple of World Series titles, I want to see the article written by Jay Mariotti saying he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Ozzie may never win that many games but I want to see that day regardless. I have a feeling Jay won't share the same sentiment then and let by gones be by gones.

And no one's ever was larger in October, when Schilling was the most indomitable of all pitching competitors. He went 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA in the postseason, ranking him among the all-time leaders in both categories.

"Among" the all-time leaders but not THE all-time leader. I would think if you were making a case for someone to make the Hall of Fame based on their postseason statistics, it would help if that player was the leader in these two categories or you at least ranked where this person was on the list.

Don't get me wrong, I would not protest too much if Schilling made the Hall of Fame, but I don't think his postseason record should be the basis for his entrance. I think we should take postseason numbers at about 10% weight since the amount of games played in October pale in comparison to number of games played during the regular season.

He helped win three championship trophies for two ballclubs, the Red Sox and Arizona Diamondbacks, that didn't know the aroma of bubbly.

Arizona did not know the aroma of bubbly because they had just been formed as a team in 1998, so their drought without a championship wasn't quite as bad as the Red Sox drought. Way to try and mislead the audience into thinking the D-backs struggled for a long while though.

If I remember correctly, and I do, the real pitching hero of that World Series was Randy Johnson who pitched Game 6 and then came back and pitched in relief in Game 7 as well. Curt Schilling is the guy who gave up the game tying homerun to Alfonso Soriano...so though he pitched well, he also blew the lead. I think it was a splitter that didn't split over the left half of the plate that Soriano hit to right field just over the wall.

If I also remember correctly, Schilling had a 6.30 ERA in the 2004 ALCS, and that does include his wonderful Game 6 performance. I am just sayin'.

I realize he pitched well up until that point in the 2001 World Series when he gave up the homerun...I am just sayin'.

I don't care that he won only 216 games, a low figure for Cooperstown. I don't care that he doesn't have a Cy Young Award, no-hitter or ERA title, which would make him the first starting pitcher who began his career after 1950 to make the Hall without any of the three honors.

See, I do care about silly little numbers like that. I do care that when I look at his career numbers, they are great, but I am not sure they are great enough for the Hall of Fame. I want everyone to remember, I am hard to impress when it comes to the Hall of Fame. Though he is my favorite player, I don't think John Smoltz should be lock for the Hall of Fame. I am crazy that way.

"He would dress up all-black like he was Tony Montana," marveled Red Sox slugger David Ortiz, referring to the `Scarface' character. "He'd get in and spread confidence to everyone around.

I can see Curt Schilling pulling little confidence tablets out of a bag and giving them to each Red Sox player. He, of course, skipped Dustin Pedroia because he doesn't need confidence.

"One of the things that people didn't realize about Schilling is that he was really motivated by fear, fear of failure," general manager Theo Epstein told the media. "He really did not want to fail, and he was very cognizant of his fear of failure. He worked himself up through his nerves to go out and dominate to the best of his ability every time he had the ball. That was where the 'clutchness' came from, the realization that he had about how much he hated failure and how much he feared failure."

I thought the "clutchness" came from a made up ability sportswriters and announcers gave to players to explain why they got base hits in certain situations. I was wrong. Not very clutch of me.

He began hearing criticism that he was too self-absorbed and pompous, and he lashed back by ripping media. He has called me names.

I googled "Curt Schilling Jay Mariotti" and came up with nothing on this. I also googled "Curt Schilling hates Jay Mariotti" and still got nothing on this. Maybe Jay just wanted Curt to call him names, pull his hair and then chase him around the playground. It's just some bizarre sick fantasy he has.

Perhaps no athlete has been better suited to a team than he was to the Red Sox. Their fans needed a reason to believe, after 86 years of heartbreak and darkness, and he laughed in the face of despair. In particular, he stared down the hated New York Yankees. "When you use those words -- mystique and aura -- those are dancers in a nightclub," he said dismissively. From that point on, the Yankees lost their mojo and the Red Sox went on to win two World Series titles with him.

Curt Schilling did say those words...but he said them in October 2001. Granted the Yankees did not win a World Series after that time, but the Red Sox also took three more years to win a World Series. It's not like the Red Sox fortunes just went completely positive after he said this. The 2003 ALCS wasn't too grand for them.

I love it when Jay Mariotti plays loosely with facts to prove his point. Actually I hate it. Whether it is saying Texas never made the Final Four under Rick Barnes or trying to put a quote from 2001 in context for the Red Sox World Series run in 2004, he doesn't mind either not researching something or just hoping someone else doesn't research something. Well I did research it.

Sometimes, we loathed him for it. Why did he use baseball as a platform to endorse political candidates?

The same reason Oprah Winfrey, Sean Penn and every other celebrity or person in the spotlight used any camera in their face to use as a platform for their favorite political candidate.

Consider it the beginnings of his 2014 Cooperstown speech. And my teeth are not clenched as I say that.

Jay is trying to be humble or act like he is putting his dislike of Schilling aside and it is not working.

The big loudmouth earned his Hall pass in the month that matters most.

I think Jay meant month(s) that matter most. April-October, not just October. If we made a list of every player who played well in October on championship teams and said they deserved to make the Hall of Fame, then that would be a very long list. If Curt Schilling deserves to make the Hall of Fame, it is because of his numbers in April-October, not just October.

Bill Simmons is trying to reinvent himself as Rick Reilly and it actually is working very well. This entire article reads like something Reilly would write...it is much longer of course.

A few weeks ago, I spent a Saturday at MIT's Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, or as I dubbed it, Dorkapalooza 2009!

This article is all a part of Bill Simmons attempt to reinvent himself out of the old pop culture reference and Boston oriented type articles he wrote in the past to someone who interviews athletes and other journalists (well, Bill is clearly not a journalist) on his podcast. I believe he is trying to become Rick Reilly without the human interest story part. That could be intersting to read.

That's the thing about stat geeks: They have a sense of humor about themselves. And yes, I count myself among them. I played entire Microleague baseball seasons on my 1984 Apple and kept handwritten stats. I've played fantasy baseball since 1982. I frequent the Prospectus sites and devour their books. I try to hide my inner geek, but believe me, it lurks.

Or he is trying to reinvent himself as a stat geek. I think everyone who was obsessed with sports has kept handwritten stats at some point and that doesn't necessarily give them credibility as a stat geek today.

I used to keep box scores for basketball games and use the rosters I had for NBA and college basketball teams to create teams and play those teams against each other on a Nerf basketball goal in the living room. Oh yes, there were substitutions as well. This was last week actually. I am kidding of course.

I used to wake up early (like 4:30am) in the morning to read books about baseball when there was not any talking in my house and I could read in peace. Does this mean I can now say I am a stat geek and try to pigeonhole myself into their little group? No, it does not.

Does it mean I had severe social issues growing up because I couldn't find anyone to play basketball with me and the fact I wanted to read alone at the crack ass of dawn speaks to the severe psychological issues I had as a child? It may. But that doesn't make me qualified to be a psychologist.

What were we talking about again?

Remember, I'm the guy who figured out Hickory High's title-game box score.

Well gosh, Bill now you should get a free subscription to Baseball Prospectus for that. You are important. I tried to box score tally the entire starting lineup of the 1994 Charlotte Hornets team and then compare it to their stats at the end of the year to see how far off I was. That means I am a loser, not a stat geek.

Bill and I are having a pissing contest to see who the biggest loser is.

Take Jason Kidd. Why has he suddenly become a deadly three-point shooter at his advanced age?

It could be because his attempts have increased through the years, so he has been practicing them more, therefore getting better at them. It could also be because teams don't think he can make the shots and are double teaming other players, leaving Kidd wide open. Or it could be for a variety of other reasons.

Because he isn't carrying an offense or taking contested shots with the shot clock winding down like he had to in Jersey, that's why. In Dallas, all he has to do is distribute the ball and shoot … when he's open.

Or this new stat geek could use evidence that is based completely not on statistics and is based completely on hyperbolic evidence that can't be proven or disproven. Whatever works I guess.

Now look at poor Dwyane Wade. He misses 70% of his threes -- the only blemish on his MVP résumé -- because his teammates stink, which means he has to hoist one or two contested, beat-the-clock bombs each game.

I can't help but laugh at the fact Bill writes a column about how statistics should be used more to show trends, then he uses two examples that involve hyperbolic situations that can neither be proven or disproven using statistical methods. Unless someone is actually counting up how many times Dwayne Wade throws a shot up to beat the shot clock or someone has similar data for Jason Kidd in New Jersey, I don't see how we can calculate the accuracy of these statements in any statistical manner.

I hear that some NBA teams factor "clock-saving attempts" into adjusted shooting percentages. But do they share that info? Of course not. And that's what's wrong with this revolution: We have access to only some of the data.

I agree. Though would Bill actually use this data?

Bill's idea of using statistical data is saying that Kevin Garnett is shooting less three point attempts this year because he is on a better team and doesn't have to take those shots anymore. Bill takes statistical data and then mixes it with hyperbolic bullshit. It's like the mutt of statistical analysis.

Ongoing success in basketball hinges on talent, leadership and role play.

Though most of the success is due to how many high fives the players are giving each other and ubuntu.

At least that is what Bill seemed to think last year.

Yes, Carmelo Anthony was a significantly better basketball player than Bruce Bowen between 2005 and 2007; Bowen was a better fit for the Spurs. That team didn't need another scorer. It needed a top-notch defender and agitator who knew his place.

Really, do you need statistics to help you come to this conclusion? If a team has three players who can score points, common sense screams they need effective role players around them and then you find those players and find what role needs to be filled. It sounds easy but it is clearly not.

You need statistics to help a team find the player for this role but you don't need statistics to know the role is needed.

I e-mailed Daryl, wondering why there wasn't a stat called stops, for when a defender prevents his opponent from scoring on an isolation play, or a low-post or perimeter play. Come up with an unforced turnover in the process, and it's a "superstop." Daryl's response: "Why do you think we have Chuck Hayes?"

That is exactly why the Rockets have won some many championships and NBA playoff series lately.

I want "mega-assists" (passes that create a layup or a dunk) and "half-assists" (for each made foul shot). I want "unforced turnovers," like in tennis (Tony Allen would be Wilt Chamberlain in this category), and "nitty-gritties" (some combination of charges taken, deflections, balls saved from going out of bounds and rebounds tipped to teammates). I want "Unselds" (a long outlet pass that leads to an assist for a layup or a dunk) and "Russells" (a blocked shot directed to a teammate).

Oh, I get it. Bill wants statistics that don't really mean anything.

You know who'd fall way short in Russells? Dwight Howard. He slaps everything out of bounds. Congrats, Dwight, you just gave the other team the ball back. Why are you smiling?

I could not agree more. Maybe Bill has a point on his "Russells", though I would call it something else less Celtic-like.

I demand the minutiae I know the team is hiding. Mega-assists. Russells. Stops and superstops.

Bill just made those names up. These stats don't exist. What Bill really wants is for there to be a statistic named after an idea that he has had so it can fill the never ending void that is his ego. He wants to have something named after him involved with pro basketball. That is really what this is all about. He lost the Mount Rushmore idea to ESPN and now wants something to be named after him in the NBA to feed his massive ego.

Here's what we have learned. Even if there were good statistics thought of, Bill would still use them in the wrong fashion and this is all a potential ego trip for him.

Peter King has some more McNuggets for Tuesday.

As always, I am ignoring anything that involved a lockout or a potential lockout because I am going to pretend this will never happen. Denial is a wonderful thing if you just stick to it.

From Russ Jones of Albuquerque, N.M.: "PETER! You're killing me with this coin toss thing and to suggest that each team get an equal shot is flawed logic. During regulation, do both teams get equal possessions? Where's the hue and cry to change quarters of football to innings so that way there's equality?''

We had a very similar argument made on the comment board here, though it was more in favor of getting rid of the coin toss. I think this argument holds water.

Which contest would you say is more inequitable, Ross? One team getting one possession and the other getting none, or one team getting 13 possessions and the other team getting 12?

Peter's argument does not hold water. The NFL is not Communism, everyone should not get equal chances all the time. Often times in a game a team can get more possessions in a game than another team whether it be because of a fumble on punt/kick returns or an onside kick. I realize that is different from a coin toss deciding who gets the ball first but equal possessions over the game is not the problem, it's getting equal possessions in overtime. I am tired of talking about overtime, yet I continue to do it.

From Bruce Grossberg of Forest Hills, N.Y.: "Overtime: Instead of focusing on each team having a possession, why not focus on the unfairness of the coin flip? Why can't there be a 100-yard dash for possession, or the longest throw, or a "punt-off" for possession? Something quick, but something that would be less arbitrary than a coin flip.''

I don't want to be rude, but this is the dumbest fucking idea I have ever heard so far in regard as to how to give possession in overtime. Take a team game and make an individual event decide who gets the ball first? Instead of the arbitrary coin flip, you have an arbitrary contest between two players on an entire team in a contest that has NOTHING to do with team football. Bruce, you are stupid and I hate you for thinking of this idea.

How about a watermelon spitting contest or playing a few hands of poker to see who gets the ball first in overtime? They would make as much sense as a "punt off" or seeing who can throw the ball the furthest.

I actually like that. Eliminate the capricious coin flip in favor of something that would demonstrate one team's superiority over the other.

Of course you like this. It makes no sense. How is a coin flip any more capricious than an individual event? This doesn't demonstrate a team's superiority over another in any fashion. JaMarcus Russell can throw a ball 70 yards on his knees or something like that, does that mean the Raiders are better than Tom Brady's Patriots? No. Just because Calvin Johnson can run faster than Greg Jennings does not make the Lions a better team than the Packers.

Peter, you and Bruce are idiots. I don't like calling people names but this is dumb.

From D. Simon of Glenwood Springs, Co.: "I think the Cardinals would be CRAZY to trade Anquan Boldin to either the Eagles or the Giants. I know they aren't in the same division, but if the Cardinals view themselves as Super Bowl-contenders next season, why would they want to help one of the teams that would be their main competition as they attempt to get back to the Super Bowl? If I were running the Cardinals and HAD to trade him [my first choice would be to keep him], I would only trade him to an AFC team, even if the compensation was slightly less than the Eagles or Giants would give up.''

But if the competition for Boldin, say, is with the Eagles (20th overall in the first round) and Jacksonville (39th overall), would you want to take the lesser pick just to have him out of the NFC?

Yes, I would. I am surprised Peter is advocating not taking a lesser pick to keep Boldin out of the NFC, especially when he spent almost half a page in his MMQB a few weeks ago describing how Bill Belichick was so much smarter for getting a 2nd round pick instead of a 1st round pick for Matt Cassel and Mike Vrabel. I guess the genius in that move is only meant for Bill Belichick.

From Craig Meyers of Aiea, Hawaii: "Not a question, but a comment. You really need to get a reality check when complaining about having to wait 30 minutes for coffee. I've never been in a hotel that doesn't have a coffee maker in your room, and if that's too tough, then just wait. I think you're a great writer, but given the way things are these days, whining about coffee while staying in a $250/night room is sad.''

Craig from Hawaii has just put Peter King in his place. What you gotta say Peter?

It's $179 a night. And you don't think it's, well, a bit lacking that a hotel charging $179 a night doesn't have coffee available in the lobby or the restaurant or anywhere at 6:17 in the morning?

Yes, I do, but I also don't think it is something worth bitching about in a weekly column. Peter's defense is pretty pathetic, especially when he tries to clarify the hotel only cost $179 a night, as if that was cheap. If free coffee in an expensive hotel is something that really rocks Peter's world bad enough that he has to complain about it in a column devoted to football, his life is pretty great.

His headline for this question was this:

I EVEN GET IN TROUBLE WRITING ABOUT COFFEE

I think this is what of the great contradictions of Peter King. He writes sympathetically about how bad he feels for the Oakland police officers who got shot, writes wonderfully nice things about Dr. Z and seems like he actually "gets it" sometimes. Then he writes weekly complaints that make him seem as if he is so incredibly out of touch with the rest of the world. His readers, and I included, don't get how a man who speaks so well about Dr. Z can two paragraphs down get overly worked up over free coffee at a hotel that he is probably not even paying for out of his own pocket.

That's why I write about him though.