4 comments John Tomase Hates the Internet, Hates Opinions, and Thinks It's Okay to Disagree But Just Don't Point Out the Flaws in the Argument You Are Disagreeing With

John Tomase hates the Internet. He says so in a column he posts to the Internet read by readers who use the Internet to read the column. The title of this article is "Hall opinions net worthless." Get it? "Net" like "Internet" and he thinks anyone who gives an opinion on the Internet is worthless. Good for him to think this and many opinions on the Internet are worthless. Not satisfied with his ability to make a bad pun in the title of the column, the article is subtitled "Bloggers must mix critical thinking with stats," which fails to eventually detail what sort of "critical thinking" bloggers must focus on in favor of jokes about food and obesity. Because sportswriters are fat and bloggers love snacking! It's funny! This is comedy. Here's the article Tomase wrote.

What got Tomase so worked up over the meanness of the Internet was the response to this poll of MLB.com writers and how they voted for the baseball Hall of Fame. The one that sticks out is Ken Gurnick. He voted for Jack Morris and no one else. He has a vote and he is entitled to vote for who he wants to vote for. Just in the same way those who want to criticize Gurnick's vote are entitled to criticize him on the merits of his argument. Criticism of a BBWAA's vote is not a personal attack if it is based on the merits of the argument when pointing out the flaws in the argument. Here is what Ken Gurnick wrote:

Morris has flaws -- a 3.90 ERA, for example. But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Player Award votes in five.

I've tread this ground many, many times. Moving on to the key statement...

As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them.

The problem, as having been pointed out multiple places on the (gasp) Internet, is that Jack Morris ended his career in 1994. He did play during the period of PED and greenie use in Major League Baseball. So this is the main flaw in Gurnick's argument that got pointed out by many and caused John Tomase to go into a rage against the Internet as a whole. Voters can vote for who they want to vote for, but don't get upset when the logic used to calculate a vote is criticized or shown to be faulty. After all, the baseball Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the fans, and many of these same fans are the ones who don't like the logic in Gurnick's voting process and speak their mind on the Internet.

It is a little infuriating that a Hall of Fame voter uses the logic he won't vote for any player who played during the period of PED use, then votes for one player who played during the period of PED use. If John Tomase can't understand the frustration in seeing a voter use black-and-white voting standards, then completely ignoring his standards in order to vote for a certain player, I'm not sure he can be helped. Set black-and-white standards, that's fine, but don't ignore these standards when it is convenient. So is Ken Gurnick going to not vote for Derek Jeter or Chipper Jones? I seriously doubt it and we will never see because he claims he is giving up his vote. Of course Murray Chass claimed he was giving up his vote last year and it never happened.

So that's the basis for Tomase's screed against the Internet. Let's read Tomase rail against Internet meanness and lack of critical thinking by trying to bully bloggers and do zero critical thinking.

There’s nothing lazier than painting with an overly broad brush, particularly when it comes to an intellectual expanse as vast as the blogosphere, so I want to parse the following words carefully, succinctly, and thoughtfully:

This is going to be good. You will love it. See, John Tomase doesn't like painting with an overly broad brush, but he's going to do that AND his words aren't careful or thoughtful! Hilarious. I'm surprised he didn't get the 12:35am spot over Seth Meyers to replace Jimmy Fallon on "Late Night." Tomase's sketch about fat bloggers eating Pop Tarts while surfing the Internet would have killed.

I hate the Internet, and everyone on it.

You are sort of on the Internet yourself, so you also hate yourself?

Hall of Fame results are announced today, and regardless of what happens, there will be an uproar.

Only crotchety old MLB writers would shy away from a lively debate over which players do and don't deserve induction into the Hall of Fame. When talking about any other sports who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, it's good to have debate that keeps that sport in the limelight during the offseason, but when talking baseball, debate is a bad thing. How dare someone have a differing opinion and attempt to back up that opinion with a fact-based persuasive argument!

Maybe it will be Jack Morris getting in.

He didn't.

Maybe it will be Frank Thomas getting left out.

He wasn't.

Whatever it is, it will be the latest sign that the Baseball Writers’ Association of America officially has melted down

I think there are certain parts of the voting process that could be revamped. Of course many of the same writers in the BBWAA are still against the designated hitter so I can't imagine any revamp of a voting process that has gone perfectly for many years would be well-received. After all, I read 5-10 teeth-gnashing columns from BBWAA Hall of Fame voters every year talking about how they are thinking about giving up the privilege of voting for the baseball Hall of Fame, so the process must be working properly and everyone is pleased.

and must be replaced by a consortium of the game’s greatest minds,

This is all part of Tomase's imagination. It is completely possible someone somewhere has written a certain voter should lose his voting privileges, but there is no movement to just kick out the majority of the current voters...or at least I haven't read about it.

who, by definition, never have set foot in a pressbox.

Oh yes, it's the whole "You have to be at the games to understand how good Player X is" and turned into "You have to be in the pressbox to have a worthy opinion of Player X." Because the eyes that see Jack Morris pitch from the press box are more informed than than the eyes who saw Jack Morris pitch on television.

Once that happens, you lose all ability to think critically or originally. You do get alarmingly fat, however, which sure came in handy yesterday.

Sportswriters are fat. Again, more comedy.

A handful of writers makes questionable decisions — a statistical certainty in a voting body with more than 500 members — and the baseball blogs spool up their righteous indignation drives to make the jump to VORP speed.

Now part of this I will agree with. It's a statistical certainty (look at someone talking about statistics!) that one member is going to vote in a stupid way. I will disagree at the inference the indignation or explanation for why this voter is dead wrong is a bad thing. This righteous indignation isn't to get everyone to fall in line with one certain train of thought, but to point out the fallacies in the thought process of some baseball Hall of Fame voters. I'm not against a line of thought as long as it is a consistent line of thought and makes sense in terms of who else that voter has chosen to vote for. I am against a voter being inconsistent in his voting responsibilities. These are the lives of real people who played baseball for a living and election to the baseball Hall of Fame is a huge honor, so simply saying "I don't vote for guys who played during the PED era" and then voting for a pitcher who pitched during the PED era deserves indignation. 

Gurnick’s logic: He’s ignoring everyone who made their name in the steroids era.

OK, fine. I happen to disagree, as votes for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Mark McGwire attest. But he has his reasons, and he stated them. He considers the entire era tainted, and that’s a consistent viewpoint.

It's not a consistent viewpoint when the only player he voted for played during the Steroid Era. There's no getting around this. It's simply a fact.

“But, but, but . . . ” the Internet sputtered. “Morris pitched in the steroids era, too! And Gurnick voted for Lee Smith once! Where’s the consistency? BRING ME HIS HEAD!

Ah yes, "the Internet" sputtered this. Paint the entire Internet with a broad brush because it's easier and lazier than taking the time to point out where specific criticisms of Gurnick's voting choice are wrong.

No, it's just that his vote for Jack Morris contradicts his black-and-white viewpoint that he espouses when choosing to not vote for several Hall of Fame-worthy candidates.

And a Hot Pocket!”

Now that you mention it, I could go for a Hot Pocket right now. I mean come on though, jokes about bloggers being fat and eating snacks is just pure hypocrisy coming from a sportswriter. Sportswriters aren't exactly the fittest people around.

I think we all can agree that Morris signifies the 1980s, even if he retired in 1994, whereas Maddux clearly is a product of the ’90s and 2000s.

No, I can't exactly agree with that. If the 1991 World Series is going to be used as part of the basis for voting for Jack Morris then I absolutely can not agree that Morris signifies the 1980's. You can't use a signature achievement from 1991 to vote for Morris and then claim he is a pitcher from the 1980's.

Gurnick got hammered by the crowd that spends its day in search of ammo. A few years ago it was the travesty of Bert Blyleven’s absence from Cooperstown. The well-traveled hurler progressed from just 14.1 percent of the vote in 1999 to nearly 80 percent in 2011.

Blyleven played for five teams during his 22 year MLB career, Tom Seaver played for four teams during his 20 year MLB career and Jack Morris played for four teams during his 18 year MLB career. I fail to see how Blyleven is that much more traveled than Morris or Seaver by playing for one more team during a longer career.

That was my second year with a vote, and it’s still the only one I regret. I selected Blyleven not because I thought he was a Hall of Famer — I didn’t and still don’t — 

I don't want to turn into a blogger furious with righteous indignation or be accused of getting rid of those who have actually sat in a press box...but why in the hell would a person vote for a player that he/she/it doesn't think is a Hall of Famer when voting for the baseball Hall of Fame? I realize I am not the veteran sportswriter working from a press box that John Tomase is, but it seems to me that if I were voting for the baseball Hall of Fame I would limit by vote to players who I believed deserved to be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame. Again, I don't want to make it seem like I am questioning the decision of a person who doesn't eat Hot Pockets and has spent his life in a press box, but it doesn't make sense to vote for Blyleven if Tomase doesn't think he is a Hall of Famer.

but because in that moment, I allowed the avalanche of statistical support to overwhelm what I saw with my own two eyes: Blyleven was a very good pitcher, not an all-time great one.

Now remember, John Tomase is upset that bloggers don't use critical thinking when voting for the baseball Hall of Fame. Here he states he ignores the statistical evidence and focuses on what he saw with his own two eyes. Unfortunately, I don't think I would consider "the eye test" to be a shining example of critical thinking.

It’s the same reason I won’t vote for Mike Mussina any time soon but will check Curt Schilling’s name every year until he’s elected.

I'm certainly missing the critical thinking portion of this exercise. It seems Tomase is simply saying, "Mussina didn't look like a Hall of Famer to me, so I won't vote for him" which leads to memory bias. I don't consider basing a vote on memory as critical thinking either.

I also know that in the ’80s, Morris was the last pitcher I wanted to see opposing the Red Sox,

The last pitcher I want facing the Braves is Livan Hernandez. It seems like he always killed the Braves. That doesn't mean he should be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame.

and once we eliminate those visceral feelings from this process, we might as well just fill the Hall via blind allegiance to WAR or JAWS or whatever all-encompassing stat comes next.

No, the visceral feelings should be a part of the process, but there has to be a blind allegiance to not allowing personal feelings or personal memories affect the vote. I don't think WAR or another statistic should be the be-all that decides whether a player is inducted into the Hall of Fame, but a player statistics speak for themselves while personal memories or feelings are completely relative and subject to memory bias.

Raines is a player the entire blogosphere seems to agree is being screwed, with favorable comparisons to Tony Gwynn and even Rickey Henderson. (Incidentally, for a bunch of free thinkers, the online denizens sure seem to take a lot of comfort in agreeing with each other.)

It's terrible disagreement and rudeness when bloggers disagree, but it's a sign of conformity when bloggers agree. Got it. Also, I like the broad paintbrush Tomase is using to describe "the online denizens" who he has stated he hates so much. It makes it seem like Tomase is more concerned with bloggers and other online voices having legitimate arguments that could call his baseball Hall of Fame voting expertise into question. It just seems like part of the hate comes from a place of fear.

Raines was a very good player who failed to sustain his greatness, so I won’t be voting for him, and I don’t feel bad about it.

Then don't vote for him on how you perceive his merits. Just don't state you aren't voting for him because you won't vote for any players who played during the PED era and then vote for a player who played during the PED era. That's where the deserved criticism will start to head your way.

Leave a comment below! There’s no chance I’ll read it!

Thanks for having contempt for your readers! That will get you far!

There are bullies on the Internet, but a lot of the indignation against Hall of Fame voting is simply disagreements on the merits of that writer's vote. It's not character assassination, it's not pitchforks and torches being wielded. If you can't handle disagreement over your Hall of Fame vote perhaps you should choose not to make your vote public or relinquish your vote...and then this vote could even go to someone who has been in a press box before.

3 comments Jay Mariotti Has Changed By Not Changing

After having been in hibernation for the past two years (though he is very clear in interviews to point out he has been doing very many things during this time), it seems Jay Mariotti is slowly making his way back into the world of sportswriting and commenting. He has traded in his services as an ESPN screaming talking head, and from being the guy at AOL who serves to provide pageviews while the other columnists do the good sportswriting, in order to be the "outsider" who just loves to tell it like it is and shoot from the hip. That's his thing now apparently. He is "real" in a world of fakers. He's the guy screaming the truth while everyone else whispers lies. That's how he wants to be seen. He doesn't care for you, me or anyone else. He doesn't want to be famous anymore and it seems he spends most of his time now popping up to tell us he doesn't care if he is famous anymore. Also, he still loves sportswriting, which naturally explains why he isn't really doing it anymore. He writes for Chicago Side Sports, so perhaps that does count as sportswriting. In typical Mariotti fashion he writes for a Chicago site, but lives in Los Angeles. It's better that way. Now the people he bashes have to travel farther to try and kick his ass.

This seems like as good of a time as any to remember the time Mariotti wrote that college basketball conference tournaments are useless and only good for examples of greed. He posted this column and then after the Big East tournament was absolutely fantastic and had many close games and upsets, as fast as he could, Mariotti re-wrote the entire column as if he never originally wrote the conference tournaments were greedy and useless. I have written here for a while now and this is probably the most shocking example of a sportswriter who writes columns only for a reaction, fully not believing what he is writing. He completely changed his opinion of conference tournaments overnight in order not to look like a complete idiot when it turned out conference tournaments were good for more than making money.

The editor-in-chief of this fine sports site is floating column ideas.

He mentions something about Brian Urlacher being “the best Bear since Butkus,” which suggests Jonathan Eig either is overworked, listening to too many delirious Jeff Joniak highlights, or admitting that he vanished from Earth on a lunar reconnaissance mission between 1975 and 1987.

Exactly. We all know the greatest Bear since Dick Butkus is David Terrell.

Seems I must remind him about a running back from that era named Walter Payton, Sweetness for short, who not only is the best Chicago Bear ever but the greatest pound-for-pound specimen in the history of our savage national obsession known as professional football.

Clearly Mariotti's editor, who for whatever reason made a deal with the devil in having Mariotti write for his site, forgot about Payton and just doesn't have a differing opinion from Jay. What reasonable mind would have a differing opinion from Jay Mariotti?

Really?

What else, boss?

“How about a personal essay on why you like sports writing?” Mr. Eig offers. “Why sports? Why still?”

Why sports? Why still? This one, I like.

Well, release the balloons and let's start the party, because Jay Mariotti likes this idea.

Why continue to embrace a craft that literally almost killed me, a profession currently diluted by so many unskilled bloggers and corporate suckups that it has lost much of its soul?

See, Mariotti is not a corporate suckup. He doesn't even have a regular paying job with a corporation. He's such an indie sportswriter right now. He's actually listening to Silversun Pickups while writing this column, that's how indie he is.

One could only wish to be as skillful at sportswriting as Jay Mariotti used to be. It is hard to write columns criticizing athletes and coaches, calling for them to be fired, while blissfully ignoring under the bluster and angry screeds against everyone there isn't a lot of talent in what you write. If you don't walk the line well enough, you may see yourself as who you really are. It seems like it would take quite an ego to walk this line. Of course, I am just an unskilled blogger, so what do I know?

Because I still love sports, and because I still love to write. Sports + writing = sportswriter. And the fond memories still dance like nude women at Burning Man,

Jay Mariotti is hip and cool, he knows what Burning Man is. There are naked women there. How freaking super rad is that guys? Jay knows what's up with today's youth. Want to see him do the Macarena or the Electric Slide? What's up with all these crappy sportswriters today? Or as it is better known in song, "Who Let the Bad Sportswriters Out?"

I am blessed to have seen so much. How much do I love sports writing? I have a way of going through hell on the job and coming back for more.

This is not counting the hell Mariotti put our eyes and ears through as he yelled into the camera during "Around the Horn" and burned our eyes with "Blizzard of Oz" references when coming out of hiding to criticize Ozzie Guillen, only to go back into hiding upon hearing Ozzie wanted to kick his ass.

I had a heart attack during a bowl-game assignment, ending up drugged in a New Orleans hospital

Drugged just like at Burning Man, am I right?

I’ve had my life threatened so often by cowardly cyber assassins, many from the South Side,

Obviously no one needs to get their life threatened, even if that person is a first class troll and is Jay Mariotti, but I can't help but find deep irony in Jay Mariotti calling other people cowardly cyber assassins when he has done quite a hit job on players and managers himself.

Mariotti is a typical bully. He likes to carry out his personal vendettas against others in his columns and then claim himself as the victim when others (like Guillen often did) hit back at him. He can throw a punch, but he doesn't take one too well. You can even see this over the past couple of years. He burns up his goodwill and gets let go by ESPN and AOL once he runs into legal troubles. He doesn't act like he wants another high profile media job, which I don't believe because an ego like Jay Mariotti always wants a high profile media job, and plays the victim by painting himself as an outsider who has no urge to be a part of his mean ol' world of sportswriting anymore. I think Mariotti is still trying to be a bully, but he just lacks the platform to do so on a regular basis. He's lobbing bombs at athletes and teams in Chicago from a safe distance away in Los Angeles. So who is the cowardly cyber assassin again?

Mr. Eig says it sounds like I’m “bragging” about all this. Oh, yeah, the pride is just oozing here. 

I believe Jay Mariotti takes pride in having others threaten his life. Playing the victim is a role he wants. He wants to throw the first punch, but cry foul when someone counter-punches. He can't leave a job, he has to leave a job and then bash as many people while walking out the door. 

This is what Jay Mariotti does. He bashes people as soon as he knows he can stand clear of them. He bashed newspapers as soon as he left the employ of a newspaper, he has somewhat criticized ESPN after they let him go (but not too much because I believe he wants back in), and he consistently bashed Chicago-area athletes and coaches for what he saw as their shortcomings. So yes, I believe he takes pride in someone disliking him. 

Being in the sports media, which included eight years on ESPN TV and 17 at the Sun-Times and a zillion radio shows, has made me a comfortable living for more than a quarter-century. It has paid for my daughters’ college education, allowed me to globetrot on the job like Anthony Bourdain, and given me entree to exceptional people and opportunities.

Plus Burning Man! Don't forget Burning Man! They have naked women there!

But the reason I still like sports writing has nothing to do with money or perks.

"It has nothing to do with the money or perks, but I can review the money and perks I received if you missed the list I just made. Just ask me and I can easily repeat them. Also, let me take this opportunity to say I am really glad I am out of the spotlight. I can write an entire column about how happy I am to be out of the spotlight if you want me to. Just ask."

What would you want me to write about, Obama and Romney? My subjective objectivity would be shot down as biased by rotten political media types with agendas. Music? Yeah, I want to try explaining the Katy Perry phenomenon.

13 year old girls buy records. 13 year old girls are lemmings. Therefore music that 13 year old girls like is going to be popular. There, I started to explain it.

Hollywood? Phonies everywhere.

It's very convenient that Jay moved out to Los Angeles then. Better to be close to his own kind.

Disgustingly, the Internet has spawned more than a few amateurs who write for junk sites emphasizing sleaze and fabrication, such as the dope who put $12,000 in a paper bag for what allegedly were photos of Brett Favre’s penis. Sometimes I cringe as bloggers and snark artists try too hard to get attention in nonsensical ways.

The idea of Jay Mariotti accusing others of seeking attention is too rich for me. I always love it when writers complain about bloggers online who work hard to get attention. It's a good generic villain to use as an example for how the decline of quality sportswriting is not their fault. You read it a lot in these type of columns about how the Internet and idiot bloggers (like me) are ruining everything. I fail to see how those with a smaller forum are the reason for the decline of quality sportswriting, but perhaps that is just me. Deadspin has quite a following, but I wouldn't consider what they do "sportswriting," and they shouldn't hurt the quality of sportswriting any more than "Playboy" hurts the circulation of "Time" magazine.

As Wilbon writes in the anthology:

“Let’s just say that things have changed and rather dramatically. Now anyone who can text or Tweet can be a sportswriter, in a sense, despite never having gotten any closer to ringside, to practice, the star’s locker, or the GM’s office than, say, a cashier at the corner grocery.

I also have enjoyed how some sportswriters, like apparently Michael Wilbon, believe their access to athletes is what sets them apart from bloggers. I can see how this claim would be partly true because access has certain advantages, but in arguing access to athletes is part of what separates Mike Wilbon from me, Mike Wilbon is essentially admitting it's privileges that aren't based on talent as part of what separates him from a really good sports blogger. Give a good sports blogger access, does that make him a good sportswriter?

Just the same, the Internet also remains a forum for premium sports writing—Bill Plaschke in Los Angeles, Rick Reilly at ESPN, Dan Shaughnessy in Boston, S.L. Price at Sports Illustrated, John Branch at The New York Times, and best-selling author Buzz Bissinger among the best. 

I can't fathom how a person could believe Rick Reilly and Dan Shaughnessy are some of the best sportswriters on the Internet. I have to question whether Mariotti is intentionally trolling or has very little grasp on what great sportswriting should be if he thinks Rick Reilly and Dan Shaughnessy is "premium" sportswriting. Believe it or not, I don't hate any certain sportswriter, but from the point of view of a knowledgeable fan (which is where I try to come from) I don't believe Reilly and Shaughnessy are good at all. In fact, I would consider Reilly to be among the worst sportswriters given how many columns over the past two years he has absolutely mailed in or re-written from old columns. He's getting paid a lot to do very little.

Reilly and Shaughnessy are two writers who are employed by companies who mistake notoriety for fame and pageviews for quality writing. Quantity doesn't always equal quality. Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Mumford and Sons sell more albums than most other musicians. I don't think many people would argue they are the best band or artist currently making music though.

For every punk hack trying to increase hit totals by ripping an ESPN sportscaster, there thankfully are places such as The New York Times, USA Today and ESPN.com that have moved into the digital era by doing sports journalism the right way.

Shockingly, I have an issue with this statement as well. If this "punk hack" gets more hits ripping an ESPN sportscaster (which again, just seems like a very generalized statement), then doesn't that mean there are others who don't like this ESPN sportscaster? Just like there is a market for a Rick Reilly column, there is a market for those who don't like a certain writer. If the criticism is written well and without excessive vitriol then what's the issue? It's a point of view.

I’ve been consuming the news since I first picked up a paper in our Pittsburgh home and read stories aloud at age 3, stunning a room full of adults.

Jay Mariotti, child prodigy. There's nothing like bragging to your readers about how smart you were as a three year old. That's not pathetic for a middle-aged man to do at all.

"Let me tell you how fast I could throw a baseball at the age of 5! They wanted me on the 7-8 year old coach pitch team!"

Some people think I went away the last two years because of a court case; in truth, after compressing about 50 years of work into 25, I’ve merrily taken two years off in L.A. to recharge for the next 25.

Come on, Jay. So to recap, his absence from sportswriting over the last two years wasn't caused by the fact he was suspended indefinitely from AOL or he was basically fired from ESPN? Not at all. It just so happens Jay Mariotti's inability to work for the two major media outlets he was employed by coincided with the exact time he was looking to take a break and step back. It was all a crazy coincidence. This is what he wants us to believe. His unemployment from any major sports news organization because he wanted to recharge is just a crazy coincidence that just happened to occur as he was let go from two other major sports news organizations.

Someone asked if I prefer to have my old jobs back. Nope. I want my new job—multimedia in nature, commenting at large, dictated by the most important stories instead of each day’s news. Yes, the scandals must be covered, the jerks exposed, and the bad franchises scrutinized.

Jay is VERY happy doing what he is doing right now. Does he need to write another column telling us just how happy he is? He will do it, because he is just super-duper happy and just can't stop talking about it. It's not us he needs to convince though, is it?

But if I still was writing in Chicago, it would be the same five stories swirling in the same monotonous circle—Tom Ricketts and Theo Epstein perpetuating the 104-year-and-running Cub sickness, the White Sox staying competitive but not quite achieving what they should, whiny Jay Cutler symbolizing the continuing Bears’ trend of raising hopes and inevitably failing, the Bulls still letting you down in the post-Jordan years by not making bold moves to surround Derrick Rose with the necessary talent, the Blackhawks joyfully winning once and straining to get close again.

Prior to this column, Jay Mariotti had written two other columns for Chicago Side Sports. One column was about how whiny Jay Cutler symbolizes the Bears' trend of raising hopes and inevitably failing. The other column was about the White Sox staying competitive but not quite achieving what they should.

So basically, if Jay Mariotti were still writing in Chicago, he would be writing about the same stories he is currently writing about while living in Los Angeles. So a little research shows that Jay Mariotti is still talking about the same issues he used to talk about when he wrote in Chicago, and this is supposed to represent some sort of progression as a sportswriter. This man is nothing if not completely incapable of being self-aware.

At my count, L.A. has a dozen sports superstars—Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, Matt Kemp, Clayton Kershaw, Albert Pujols, Mike Trout, Jared Weaver, David Beckham

I'm guessing Mariotti didn't shock a room full of adults at the age of 3 with his counting abilities because that's 11 sports superstars. I know, I know, these are just details. That's Mariotti for you. The facts are just details. He claims he has grown as a sportswriter and is glad to be away from writing about the same five stories he used to write about, even though he is still writing about those stories, and 11 sports superstars is the same as 12 sports superstars.

and a Stanley Cup-winning hockey team.

The Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup in 2010.

Chicago has…Derrick Rose. (No, Mr. Eig, Brian Urlacher is not a superstar anymore.)

It appears Jay Mariotti wants to be known as a fair weather sportswriter. He goes to the cities where the superstars are at.

What has excited me, since leaving Chicago four years ago, has been the chance to focus on the national picture.

Again, Mariotti's first two columns were about Chicago-based teams and he writes for a Chicago-oriented sports site. Was Mariotti not able to focus on the national picture when he was a regular on "Around the Horn" or writing for AOL? Of course he could talk about these topics, and he did talk about these topics, but for some reason he is acting like he could not. His reality and the world's reality don't seem to fit this claim he can now focus on the national picture, whereas he seems to think he could not do so previously. He could easily focus on the national picture working for AOL or ESPN, which of course he could and did do, but this is irrelevant because he didn't want those jobs back anyway.

As I begin to write this, I’m watching four baseball playoff games in a 12-hour span, also known as Bud Selig’s wet dream. You have Buster Posey proving why he’s MVP. You have Dusty Baker, a postseason flop again, running his team out of a potential big inning and losing another series. You have the Cardinals still carving out late-night miracles without Tony La Russa and Pujols, and the Washington Nationals flopping, in part, because management foolishly shelved Stephen Strasburg. You have Joe Girardi managing hours after his father died, and a night after he showed the wisdom and guts to pinch-hit Raul Ibanez for useless Alex Rodriguez.

All of these topics Jay could talk about 3 times a week on "Around the Horn" or write about when he was a regular columnist for AOL. There was nothing in his previous jobs that said he must talk about Chicago sports, yet Mariotti seems to indicate differently. Quite frankly, he is coming off as somewhat in denial at times in this column. He's claiming he can focus on the national picture now, yet he writes for a Chicago-based site about Chicago sports, and used to write for a national sports site (AOL) and appeared on the largest sports network in the United States (ESPN). He's claiming his legal issues didn't have anything to do with him disappearing for two years, yet it's all too much of a coincidence to be believed.

Out in L.A., every Nash highlight and Howard interview is devoured. The locals have nowhere near the passion of Chicago fans, not surprising in that Chicago sports are generational in scope and more people seem to grow up in Chicago and never leave than we see in any other American city.

This is the "Backhanded Compliment of the Day" everyone! Jay Mariotti moves away from Chicago to Los Angeles for two years and starts calling the entire city of Chicago "townies."

When the Dodgers and Angels missed the playoffs, despite outrageous payrolls that may swell to a combined $400 million next season, the fans complained for an hour or two, and then headed to the beach. They care, but they don’t live and die with every fastball, spiral, jumper, and slapshot as Chicagoans do.

But don't worry Los Angeles citizens, Jay Mariotti will still ruthlessly bunch you into one stereotype and judge you accordingly. Your time to hate him will come.

I hope Mr. Eig now understands why sports writing is a lifelong passion for me, assuming my life lasts much longer. Why do I like it? Because I’m pretty good at it, when others are not.

If he doesn't say so himself. Of course Mariotti needs to say so himself because I'm not sure there are many others who would agree with this statement.

And because I’m willing to argue, swear to Papa Bear, that Lance Briggs also has had a better career than Brian Urlacher.

We all know from the conference tournament column a few years ago that Jay Mariotti doesn't always believe what he writes, so I doubt he believes this statement either. This seems to be typical Mariotti saying something controversial for attention. It's just like something those bloggers do for attention.

3 comments Watch Out! Progress and New Ideas are Coming!

One of the biggest issues, at least in my opinion, that colors the "Sabermetrics v. Old-School Statistics" argument is the intense dislike those old-school writers have for the people who are using Sabermetrics to evaluate baseball players. The messenger affects the message for some of these old-school writers so much so they don't even bother to understand the message. They can't accept a person with a blog, someone who didn't go to "J-school" or doesn't have access to player can have an educated opinion on statistics or even sports for that matter. It seems Bill Madden is one of these people. Then there are guys who really aren't old-school writers, but are writers in the vein of Jay Mariotti who make a living off their audience absolutely hating what they write. These are writers who are perfectly willing to pick a fight, but don't want anyone else to have a bully pulpit to fight back. Once they get hit back, they start talking about how there is a lack of civility, and of course it is the basement dwelling bloggers' fault, not the fault of a negativity-spewing sportswriter. These bloggers fire off anger anonymously and some sportswriters don't like this. As if a picture beside something you have written makes you any less anonymous to the general public. I can't email many of these sportswriters and expect them to email me back. Often I can't fire off a Tweet in response to a column written by a sportswriter and expect a response from that writer either, so even though there is a picture beside the column these sportswriters are essentially anonymous as well. Ironically, much of what made these sportswriters less anonymous are the very modes of communication many sportswriters dislike (Twitter being the prime example). This new technology gives writers a chance (should they take it) to interact with their readers. There are still sportswriters who hate this type of medium and don't like feedback from the imbeciles who read their columns. Dan Shaughnessy is one of those people.

I'll start off first with Bill Madden who comes out firing at Sabermetricians in his MLB awards column. 

Here are our picks:

I'm confused through this entire column why Madden uses the plural form "we" and "our" in making the picks, but I will just assume he has a squirrel in his pocket helping to make these picks.

AL MVP MIGUEL CABRERA

Which I am fine with. I somewhat disagree, but it is a person's point of view and Cabrera had a really great year. Bill gets a little hostile about it though.

With apologies to the Sabermetric WAR freaks, we believe winning the Triple Crown is a big deal

There we go. "Sabermetric WAR freaks" are those who like Mike Trout for MVP. This is the typical lack of respect for the other point of view that drives me crazy and really tells me Bill Madden is afraid of any type of progress or change. This fear reflects poorly on him, rather than the "freaks" he so blatantly seems to dislike. This is such a minor and immature attempt at an insult, I can't imagine a reason why it was necessary.

Yes, the Triple Crown is a big deal, but it doesn't mean a player automatically gets moved to the head of the class as the MVP. The Triple Crown proves that Miguel Cabrera was an exceptional hitter this year, but there are other phases to the game of baseball and the fact he won the Triple Crown doesn't automatically make him the most valuable player in the American League. It only means he won the Triple Crown.

and that Miguel Cabrera being the first player to do it in 45 years, leading the league in batting (.330), homers (44) and RBI (139) as well as slugging (.606) with the highest OPS (.999) in the majors, was something to celebrate.

Fine, let's throw Cabrera a party (a non-alcoholic beverage party, just to be safe) in honor of him winning the Triple Crown. I fail to understand how the fact it had been 45 years since a player hit for the Triple Crown is important in this discussion to the point it would help make Cabrera more valuable. So if a player hit for the Triple Crown last in 2005 would this mean Cabrera is less valuable in 2012? If not, then how does the fact it had been 45 years since the last player hit for the Triple Crown help his MVP candidacy? Maybe I am being too narrow in my thinking, but for an award for the most "valuable" player, I don't see how the time between Triple Crowns affects Cabrera's value as a baseball player. Yes, it does speak to what an accomplishment the Triple Crown is, but it may not make Cabrera the AL MVP.

We agree Mike Trout also had a season for the ages, but if you’re going to give him points for (WAR) hypotheticals to reward his defense, we would submit Cabrera volunteering to move to third base so the Tigers could sign Prince Fielder was worth a whole lot more wins.

Oh, my head hurts. WAR isn't really a hypothetical, it is a statistic based on other statistics a player has posted. What hurts my head more is that Cabrera is now individually more valuable because the Tigers signed another valuable player which caused Cabrera to move positions. Other than the fact Bill Madden is using another player's statistics to determine Cabrera's individual value and WAR measures a player's individual contribution to a team's win total, not that player's individual value based on other player's individual value, how does this make sense? So if the Angels signed Michael Bourn in the offseason and Mike Trout moves to left field he is now a more valuable player because he moved positions to allow the Angels to sign a specific player?

The fact Bill Madden even asks this question shows an absolute fundamental misunderstanding of the WAR statistic and explains why Madden shouldn't criticize a statistic he simply doesn't understand. The idea Cabrera is more individually valuable because the players around him are great players also is the line of thinking I absolutely abhor when discussing any MVP race. Cabrera moving to third base was a selfless move, but this doesn't make him a more valuable player any more than Martin Prado's versatility would put him in the NL MVP race. Prado played six positions this year and put up a line of .301/.359/.438. Does this give more claim to Prado being the NL MVP because Ryan Braun and Buster Posey can't play six positions? 

Both had MVP-worthy seasons, but Cabrera sealed his by out-hitting Trout .344, 19 HR, 54 RBI to .287/12/28 since Aug. 1.

Well then Cabrera can be August/September AL MVP. Last time I checked, which was just now, the MVP is a year-long award and not given to a player based on cherry-picked dates specified by Bill Madden.

NL MVP BUSTER POSEY

This one isn’t nearly so close. Giants catcher Buster Posey epitomized everything an MVP is supposed to be, stepping up when Melky Cabrera, the team’s first half-MVP, was suspended,

His primary competition comes from defending MVP Ryan Braun, of the Brewers who had a similar season (.319, 112 RBI, league-leading 41 HR and .987 OPS) to last year’s, which was later tainted by that positive testosterone test. Bottom line, however: Braun’s Brewers aren’t in the playoffs this year.

Oh man. So Braun isn't as valuable to the Brewers as Posey is to the Giants because the players around Braun aren't as good? Whether a player's team makes the playoffs should have little to do with the MVP race. Bill Madden admits the Giants had the first half MVP in Melky Cabrera, so doesn't that have something to do with the Giants getting in the playoffs? I'm sure it contributed in some way. I would vote for Posey, but not because his team is in the playoffs. Acknowledging Posey wasn't even the best player on his own team during the first half only goes to hurt Posey's candidacy in my mind. Of course I am a freak, unlike Bill Madden who is a normal human being who willfully ignores new and relevant information that comes available in his field of work. That's a normal thing to do, right?

AL CY YOUNG DAVID PRICE

You couldn’t go wrong here with either Tampa Bay’s David Price, who tied for the league lead in wins (20) and led the majors in ERA (2.56)...Our pick is Price, who would’ve had 3-4 more wins were it not for the Rays’ pathetic offense — they were shut out in three of his starts.

Again, it is frustrating to read Bill Madden has the mental capacity to grasp wins are dependent on how much run support a pitcher gets and then watch him completely ignore this and use wins as a reason a pitcher should win the Cy Young Award. I'm not arguing the pick, but the way he gets to the pick. If you know wins are dependent on another variable, why use wins as the basis for why a pitcher should or should not win an individual award?

AL ROOKIE MIKE TROUT

Trout unanimously. Did we mention he’s the only player in history to have 30 homers, 45 stolen bases (49) and 125 runs (129) scored?

But these aren't the appropriate cherry-picked statistics that could earn Mike Trout the AL MVP award. If Trout had gotten the Triple Crown, then he could have been AL MVP. As his lack of luck would have it, he only broke a record that doesn't have a fancy name.

NL ROOKIE BRYCE HARPER

Even though Cincinnati Reds handyman Todd Frazier bested him in RBI, OPS and batting average, we’re giving Nationals’ “super teen” Bryce Harper the nod here on style points.

Fuck it, Bill Madden is going to make up new criteria in order to award NL Rookie of the Year to the player he wants to award it to. Harper also leads Frazier 17 to 4 in "GBpY, (Groupies Banged per Year)," though in Frazier's defense 10 of those groupies banged by Harper thought Harper was the lead singer of a New York emo band.

Harper’s superior speed gave him a huge edge in runs scored (98-55) and he was one of the best defensive outfielders in the NL.

Notice how all of a sudden defense means something in terms of handing out individual awards. Mike Trout gets no credit for his great defense, while Bryce Harper does get credit for his great defense. It's almost like Bill Madden has his choices for each award already picked out and has to create a moving standard in order to give each player the award Madden believes he deserves.

NL MANAGER DAVEY JOHNSON

You could justify giving this one to any of the division winners — Davey Johnson of the Nationals, who improved his team from 80 wins in 2011 to an MLB-best 98, the Giants’ Bruce Bochy, who lost his best player, Melky Cabrera to a drug bust in August and still ran away with the NL West or Dusty Baker of the Reds, who won the NL Central by nine games.

Or, you could give the award to a manager who didn't win his division but still may have been the best manager in the National League...if such a person exists.

We’re going with Johnson, however, for instilling a winning culture with the youngest team in the NL and successfully holding off a very good Atlanta Braves team despite losing his catcher, Wilson Ramos, going through four closers and having his best pitcher, Stephen Strasburg, shut down in September.

And of course there is no need to consider the manager of this very good Braves team as a potential candidate for this award. After all, it isn't like the manager of said very good Braves team had to deal with losing his best pitcher halfway through the season (Brandon Beachy) and having his #1 and #2 starters coming into the season (Tommy Hanson and Jair Jurrjens) both struggle and spend time in the minor leagues to the point Jurrjens is going to be DFA'd after this year and Hanson would not have made the postseason roster. That's the problem with comparing a team's battle scars to advocate why a manager should win Manager of the Year, nearly every team has some of these battle scars.

NL EXECUTIVE WALT JOCKETTY

We’re always happy to honor an old-school GM such as Walt Jocketty, who values scouting and instinct over stats.

"Should I trade for the Padres 24 year old ace? My instincts say 'yes.'"

"This Cuban left-handed pitcher who can reportedly throw over 100 miles per hour..is this someone we should make a bid to acquire? Screw the stats, let's make a go for it."

"Oooooo...do I offer a contract extension to a 20-something year old first baseman who recently won the MVP award? I'm not going to pay attention to the statistics at all because my gut says to go for it."

He traded three prospects and disappointing righty Edinson Volquez to the Padres for an ace in Mat Latos, who went 14-4 with a 3.48 ERA, and dealt three other prospects to the Cubs for lefty set-up man Sean Marshall (74Ks in 61 innings), who provided more depth to the best bullpen in the NL. Lastly, Jocketty signed Ludwick, an old favorite from his St. Louis days, for $2 million.

I can see Jocketty as the Executive of the Year, but I get a bit tired of hearing how he is a win for those who value scouting and instinct over statistics. He makes good decisions just like he makes bad decisions. Ludwick was a deal for $2 million and he dealt for an ace pitcher. These are smart decisions, but not the type of decisions that requires "gut instinct" or any special non-Sabermetric-type talent. Jocketty is the same GM who gave Ryan Madson $8.5 million to close for the Reds and then Madson got injured. It seemed like a deal at the time though and you can't blame him for injuries. I wonder what Jocketty's gut said about Madson needing Tommy John surgery?

Now Dan Shaughnessy continues to reveal his hatred for bloggers and anyone not named "Dan Shaughnessy." 

Eric Winston is my idol.

Eric Winston stood up for pro athletes against the tyranny of unfair expectations and gleeful joy that fans and writers feel upon that athlete's failure. Basically he stood up against much of what Dan Shaughnessy writes on a weekly basis. So not shockingly, I don't see how Winston is Dan's idol.

By now, maybe you’ve seen the video clip. Winston stands in front of his locker after the Kansas Chiefs’ 9-6 loss to the Ravens Sunday and tells us what he thinks about the hometown fans who cheered when Chiefs quarterback Matt Cassel was knocked unconscious in the fourth quarter.

Amen, brother Eric.

Winston is from Midland, Texas. He went to the University of Miami. He plays offensive line. He is 28 years old, is 6 feet 7 inches, and weighs 300 pounds.

These are all things I already knew about Eric Winston because I follow the NFL on a regular basis. Okay, I didn't know he was from Midland, Texas, but I know a little something about Midland, Texas and you get my overall point. NFL fans know who Eric Winston is and of course so does Dan Sha---

I never heard of him before Sunday, but I love this guy.

What? Dan Shaughnessy covers sports for a living and he has never heard of Eric Winston? Ever? Not even last year when Winston was the starting right tackle for a playoff team? I don't get how Dan Shaughnessy can cover sports and not have ever heard of Eric Winston. Winston is generally considered one of the best right tackles in the NFL. I simply don't understand how Dan had never heard of Eric Winston, though this does tell me a lot about Dan's wealth of knowledge when it comes to discussing the sports he gets paid to write about. If there was a way for me to lose more respect for his writing, this would do it.

Let’s go over a couple of points here:

What Dan really means is, "Let me lazily extend this one small idea into a full column because I have nothing else I care to write about today. The Red Sox season is over, so I can't keep thrashing them, and the Patriots won on Sunday, so I can't say how much they suck. I don't pay attention to the Bruins unless they are in the playoffs and it is too soon to talk about the Celtics."

Dan then begins rambling about this problem in a desperate attempt to fill space in the column. It reads like a Dr. Seuss book.

It’s not a regional issue. It’s not about Kansas City. It’s not about Boston or New York or Philly being a tough town for ballplayers. It’s not about a heated rivalry between Michigan and Ohio State.

"And what popped out of the egg? It wasn't a terrible turtle or a horrible Who. It wasn't a snotflogger or a fleabagger. Not the Grinch or a Sven the Dolphin without a fin."

It’s an issue about civility in America today.

Of course there is no better person to teach America about civility than Dan Shaughnessy, the same guy who wrote columns like this one. In this column he manages to accuse of Nomar Garciaparra of faking an injury, using steroids, and called him a fraud. Not that Red Sox fans have to like Nomar, but it is kind of hard when articles like this appear under Shaughnessy's byline for him to be claiming America lacks civility and not include himself prominently in this discussion. He gets off on being negative and trolling his audience.

It’s about accountability.

Says the sportswriter who repeatedly compared Adrian Gonzalez to Ted Williams, the same sportswriter who then bashes Gonzalez on his way out of town as a player who doesn't make his team better or carry the Red Sox team.

It is about angry fantasy football players who do not know how to look someone in the eye, or hold a face-to-face conversation.

I'm not entirely sure what Dan is talking about, but millions of people play fantasy football and hold down full-time jobs while looking other human beings in the face. So this lack of accountability isn't about fantasy football owners any more than it is about sportswriters who write columns purely to irritate and annoy their audience. I am sure Dan feels accomplished now that he has managed to incorrectly stereotype millions of normal people who in Dan's own opinion are clearly inferior people to himself. Dan is good at being hateful.

It is about fanboy bloggers who kill everyone and everything under the brave cloak of anonymity.

Again, not every blogger does this. Many bloggers are no less anonymous than Dan Shaughnessy is. I realize Dan is talking generalities, but it is a false generality with some irony involved in this criticism. If I want to talk to Dan Shaughnessy by email, I very much doubt he would respond to me and I know he doesn't respond to any comments left on his columns. So I don't understand how Dan can claim to not be under a cloak of anonymity. For intent and purposes he is still anonymous in that he can write columns and no matter what he writes there are no repercussions. He seems to write what he wants to write. I can approach Dan on the street, so he isn't anonymous in that way, but simply knowing what he looks like doesn't mean he has accountability to his readers.

It’s about instant tweets fired from the safety of your basement. 

Oh, "basement!" That's where all bloggers and fantasy football players live. I get it. There is no difference in what Dan Tweets and everyone else Tweets. Other than the fact Dan's Tweets come from Dan Shaughnessy, a person who has a ton of accountability and never would write anything that lacked civility. Take a look at Dan's Twitter account and see how often he engages with fans. The answer? Not often. So he is essentially still anonymous to his readers.

In fact, Tweeting has helped the public know who the real idiots are. A stupid comment can be Retweeted and that person would get barraged with negative comments for being such an insensitive idiot. The Internet makes people tough guys, but the fan reaction to Matt Cassel wasn't because of Twitter. It was a mob mentality which has caused everything from riots in various cities around the world to the death of Jesus. But no, blame technology for the ills of the world.

It is about anonymous bullying with the World Wide Web serving as the new bathroom wall.

Anonymous bullying is so much less worse than non-anonymous bullying. It's fine for Dan to bully "fanboy bloggers" and fantasy football players because his picture is right beside the byline. It's not bullying if you know who is bullying you, even if you have no way of engaging that person in a conversation. Right?

Those of us who write stories and do talk shows are not blameless.

(Faints in shock)

I’ve certainly done my share of tweaking and exposing professional athletes or organizations who don’t give an honest effort to live up to their contracts or fulfill the team-fan accord. In print, on TV and radio, we contribute to a climate of anger in the stands. But at least you know who we are.

If I say something stupid, at least you know how to tell me and I will respond. What does it matter if we know who Dan is? Do we really know him because we see him on television or read his work? Of course not. Being on television doesn't give Dan more accountability.

Notice how Dan still doesn't take responsibility (where's the fucking accountability, Dan????) for contributing to this problem. He says he contributes "to a climate of anger in the stands." He doesn't contribute in what he writes, but in how others react to what he writes. So it isn't Dan's writing that is the problem, it is the idiot blogger and fan boy's reaction to his writing. It's more of a passive responsibility that Dan has. At least Dan knows something about accountability though.

Sunday he was a person with a head injury, lying on the ground of Arrowhead Stadium. And a number of fans cheered. They cheered because they were frustrated, angry, and certain to remain anonymous.

This is what the Internet guarantees.

Dan does realize these fans are in the stadium booing, not on the Internet, doesn't he? I don't see how fans booing and cheering at a player being injured is "what the Internet guarantees" since these people are clearly in the stands of a football game in full view for anyone to see them.

Be as vicious as you want. Let it all out. Cheer the plight of the struggling quarterback while he lies motionless on the field. No one will ever know it’s you.

THEY ARE AT THE GAME! THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ANONYMOUS TO THE PEOPLE AROUND THEM!

How on Earth does Dan think he isn't anonymous when he is on television but fans at a Chiefs fan cheering a quarterback who got hurt are completely anonymous? Why am I taking my time asking questions to absolutely no one in particular?

No. Supporting the team doesn’t give you the right to be a sub-human coward.

So says Dan as he sits behind the comfort of a keyboard while sitting at home. I won't excuse the behavior of the fans, but see the issue here? Dan is accusing fans of ripping athletes anonymously, yet that's exactly what he does in part to athletes. It's fine for Dan to do it, because he "isn't anonymous" despite the fact he sort of is anonymous, or at least difficult to get in touch with from the perspective of his readers.

Dan Shaughnessy can be reached at dshaughnessy@globe.com.

I emailed him at his Globe address after he wrote this column and have yet to hear back.

8 comments TMQ: Gregg Continues His Onslaught Against Logic and Humanity- AFC Edition

Before I get to this week's AFC Preview from Gregg I want to address the beginning of my last post about TMQ. My post (and I am appreciative) got linked somewhere on the Interwebs and the linking resulted in what I wrote in regard to the whole Harrison "devil and crook" comment about Roger Goodell being briefly discussed. This section of my TMQ post wasn't terribly well-received, nor was the rest of the post for that matter, by one commenter on this specific message board. I criticize others so I can take criticism myself. I don't traditionally respond to any criticism on another blog/message board because I don't mind when people don't like what I write or disagree with me. It isn't my place to go desperately try to prove myself right or defend myself whenever someone at another site disagrees. I do want to make one point and then get on to this week's over-critical discussion of TMQ.

The one point I feel the need to respond to is for those who may think I implied timing in what Gregg wrote about Harrison's comments. I never said the players weren't reaping benefits prior to the new CBA, but the statement I was responding to wasn't talking about the previous CBA, but the new CBA. I thought that was clear, but maybe it wasn't. I will try to make my point and show I didn't imply the timing in Gregg's statement where I think he tried to mislead his audience into believing Harrison made those comments after the new CBA was reached. I will dissect what Gregg wrote in an effort to do this:

Though commissioner Roger Goodell just led a collective-bargaining negotiation that resulted in NFL players being showered with money and benefits, according to Steelers Pro Bowl linebacker James Harrison, Goodell is "a crook" and "the devil."

I don't think I implied the timing of this statement as dealing with the current CBA nor do I believe a person would go overboard to believe Harrison's comments were made after the new CBA was reached. It plainly is referring to the new CBA not the old one. Maybe my reading comprehension skills are terrible, but when words like "just led" (in reference to a collective-bargaining negotiation) and "that resulted in NFL players being showered with money and benefits" (clearly referring back to the just led collective-bargaining negotiation) I am not implying Gregg is talking about the new CBA. He is clearly talking about the new CBA in my opinion. Gregg says "Though" this collective-bargaining negotiation led to players being showered with money and benefits (again, referring to the new CBA) Harrison called Goodell "a crook" and "the devil." This statement was made before the new CBA was reached, but Gregg doesn't put this out, but I think clearly indicates it was made after the new CBA was reached. Gregg did not thing to indicate otherwise. The sentence is structured clearly to say in essence:

"Despite the fact Roger Goodell just helped sign a new CBA that led to the players getting more benefits and money, James Harrison still criticizes Goodell for being 'a crook' and 'the devil.'"

So whether the previous CBA showered players with benefits or not is irrelevant, and my point was that Gregg structured the sentence to say Harrison still criticized Goodell despite the result of the new CBA that was favorable to the players. I don't think there was much implication on my part when criticizing Gregg for playing around with facts. The sentence is structured to indicate Harrison made those comments after the CBA was agreed upon. That's what I criticized. Here is another sentence similar to what Gregg wrote which I hope further illustrates my point by taking a fictional situation which takes away the bias of having previous information (the previous information being the old CBA was also fairly good for the players). I was basing my criticism on the structure of the sentence Gregg wrote and what I believe it indicated to the reader.

Though Frank hasn't missed a child support payment in 7 years and just led the court to file a motion which resulted in him to having joint custody of his child, according to his ex-wife Margaret, he is "a deadbeat" and "not fit to have custody of his child."

For this situation, I haven't changed the important parts of the sentence that Gregg used which indicate time, merely changed the situation. Based on the structure of the sentence the implication is that Margaret is talking about Frank now and not that she made those comments 8 years earlier. A person reading this would have no idea when the comments about Frank's ability to be a father were made and so would rightfully assume they were made in the present. Gregg tied in Harrison's comments to the present CBA with the word "though" leading off the sentence, as if saying "despite what just occurred by the agreement of the new CBA," and then reinforces the time being used as the present by saying "just led." Then he uses quotes Harrison made prior to the agreement. It's misleading to the reader because I think it is clear Gregg was talking about the new CBA through the entire sentence. The only part of the sentence that dealt with the past, was Harrison's comments, which Gregg left out the time period for that. This allowed the reader to expect that Harrison had made those comments after the new CBA was reached. Gregg was intentionally vague about that time period.

Perhaps I should have been more clear with what I had written last week. We do appreciate the link for the article being shared with others even if some who read what we write don't like what we wrote. I felt the need to clear this up and I really hope I don't start a huge discussion of semantics.

Gregg Easterbrook has posted an AFC Preview for the upcoming season in his latest TMQ. What is so unique about his AFC/NFC Previews is that there is very little previewing actually undertaken. The entire column is just a retrospective of what happened with each AFC/NFC team last year with no regard for future predictions or comments for what may happen this year. Whatever works for him I guess. Still, to base what you are saying about a team on what happened in the past is a "review," not a preview. Of course accuracy in what he is writing about isn't always a quality TMQ has and maybe all previews for upcoming sports seasons are really just reviews.

Gregg thinks that some NFL teams are not trying to win the Super Bowl, but instead are trying to cut corners to make money. I don’t like this line of thinking on principle, but an NFL team is a business so it wouldn't shock me if this happened. I know we don’t like to think of it that way.

The new collective bargaining agreement adds a hard salary floor, mandating that nearly all cap space be spent each year -- as cash, not as amortization of past bonuses. This is a provision NFL players are going to like quite a bit. Fans of perennial cheapskate teams will like the provision, too.

When I think of the NFL, I just don’t immediately think of cheapskate teams. MLB teams? Yes. NBA teams? Yes. Not NFL teams though. Maybe I think of the Bengals, but mostly I think of front office incompetence in regard to them.

The result is that many NFL teams have oodles of unused cap space, yet made few if any moves in free agency.

Perhaps there weren’t players these teams wanted in free agency? Teams shouldn’t just spend money because they have it to spend. That’s a good way to end up in salary cap hell and isn’t a smart way to run a team. Smart use of salary cap space is how great teams like the Patriots and Colts have stayed on top.

Another six teams have at least $10 million unused. And cap space is not cellphone minutes. It doesn't roll over to next season.

Actually it does roll over to the next season in a way. If a team signs a player to a 5 year $30 million deal then that is money spent for the next year on the 2nd year of the player's deal. If the team decides not to sign this player to a contract then the team has the cap space for the upcoming year to spend on another free agent. So it doesn't roll over from year to year, but money not spent on a player is still vacant cap space for the next year.

The $125 million each NFL club will receive this season from the league's many national television contracts will cover player expenses, while ticket sales and local marketing cover overhead, and then some, even for small-market clubs. That leaves mucho grande greenbacks. Yet many NFL teams are not spending anywhere near as much as they could.

I agree some teams should spend more money than they currently do, but I don’t really see this as a huge problem in the future since teams are going to have to get to the salary cap floor by 2013 anyway.

I think it is completely stupid argument to argue teams should max out cap space or spend money for the sake of spending money. I can only assume a team is not spending cap space for this reason, but maybe they are being cheap. Gregg is saying teams should spend more money, but what if there aren't players they want to spend money on or this cap space is reserved for current players on the team? Managing cap space is important for a team and sometimes that includes leaving plenty of cap space for future re-signings of current players on that team.

Because most teams are in the middle of that calculation, going all-out to win with player and coaching salaries will add considerably less than $10 million in profit on packing the stadium. Contrast that with not spending up to the cap, which can add $20 million to $30 million to the bottom line. If your first goal is financial results, losing cheap can look a lot sweeter than winning expensive.

But there is a salary cap floor coming in 2013. This argument that teams should spend more money now completely ignores the reality of this. In two years, teams will have to spend money to get to this salary cap floor.

When this is taken into account, seeming nonsense suddenly makes sense. The Bengals, a low-spending team, are refusing to trade Carson Palmer, who says he retired but actually wants out of the Queen City. What's the point of getting nothing for Palmer?

I don’t know the reason the Bengals didn't trade Carson. This is the Bengals we are talking about. This is the same team a few years ago that put a clause in a few player’s contracts they couldn’t bash the team publicly. I think Gregg may misunderstand this situation. This move to not trade Palmer has nothing to do with the Bengals being cheap, but they are just being difficult with Palmer. They don’t want him dictating what happens with the team. Sure, it may not make sense, but it isn’t like the Bengals (a low spending team apparently) didn’t give Palmer a huge contract and, as far as I have heard, the dispute isn't over money. So really this has nothing to do with the discussion of money or the want of the Bengals to not spend cap space.

The point is to shed Palmer's large salary while creating an excuse for another bad season.

Not at all. The point is they wouldn’t get what they perceive to be a great amount of value for Palmer, so they want him quarterbacking their team. If they wanted to shed his salary, they would have cut him the first chance they had.

When in this situation, teams with winning mindsets shrug and trade the unhappy star for whatever they can get -- think Green Bay with Brett Favre or Philadelphia with Donovan McNabb.

This is what I am talking about with Greg misleading his audience. He gives 25% of the facts in order to trick the audience. Green Bay got good value for Favre and it helped they had a great backup in Aaron Rodgers ready to play at a high level. So they did shrug and trade Favre, but after many months of drama, and they were able to do so because they had a quality backup available. The Bengals don't have this luxury so trading Palmer may not be their best move. Also, the Eagles didn’t trade McNabb “for whatever they can get,” they got great value from the Redskins. The Redskins got ripped off in that trade, plus the Eagles had a backup they felt comfortable starting (Kolb/Vick) games for them.

Cincinnati management does not make winning its first priority.

I’m not sure overall I can argue with this.

Trading Evans makes a winning season less likely, but the odds of a profitable season go up -- and a built-in excuse is created. How long until a Buffalo team official says, "We knew we'd have an off year when we lost Lee Evans," as if he had been swept from the practice field by helicopter-borne commandos, rather than deliberately traded away.

I don’t think a Buffalo team official will ever say that. The team official may say, “We knew we’d have our typical bad year when we saw the players that were on the roster,” but I doubt they will blame the entire year on the loss of Lee Evans.

For Buffalo, this is a recent pattern. Just before the 2009 season began, the Bills waived their starting left tackle, Langston Walker, and the team's highest-paid offensive player. Two games into the 2010 season, the Bills waived their starting quarterback, Trent Edwards, their second-highest-paid offensive player. Both actions increased profits while setting up an excuse for a losing season.

Here we go again, glossing over reality for fiction. The reality is Walker wasn’t worth the money the Bills paid for him and Trent Edwards had lost his starting job and wasn’t that good of a quarterback to begin with. Teams cut underachieving players to save money, but many times this is a result of good cap management not necessarily being cheap. Gregg desperately wants us to believe these two cuts weren’t performance-related, but I think they were.

There is a way most NFL teams could enhance the bottom line while also spending freely on players: reduce front-office costs.

Does Gregg really think firing a few front office personnel is the way to cut more costs than cutting a player who makes a $1 million dollars or upwards? It is one thing to say teams are too bloated in the front office, which is true, and Gregg does a great job of pointing this out on a weekly basis. It is completely another thing to believe teams can save more money by reducing front office staff as compared to cutting NFL players.

Chicago has a chairman of the board, a secretary, a president and CEO, a general manager, seven senior directors and numerous people with the title director or manager. The team masthead lists 38 people in the front office, and that's not including clerical and sales personnel.

But yet, they could probably save more money by cutting a football player rather than 5-10 of these staff members. How does Gregg not get this? Only Gregg Easterbrook would decide a millionaire player shouldn’t get fired while middle to upper class workers are the ones who should be laid off.

One minute Gregg Easterbrook is complaining teams are too cheap and the next minute he is complaining teams aren’t cheap enough and don’t cut front office staff. So he pretty much wants to complain teams are too cheap, while also complaining teams don’t cut enough money from their expenses in order to truly be cheap. I guess if a team is going to cut payroll, Gregg wants them to do it his way and that's his real beef.

The story repeats at other NFL clubs. Revenue will be about the same whether the team wins or loses; profit will be a lot higher if salary-cap money isn't spent; family members would rather the team lose with them in cushy front-office roles than win with streamlined management.

So it isn’t the teams being cheap that is the problem, it is the way teams go about being cheap? Also, this is a moot point in two years so who really cares?

Now, Tuesday Morning Quarterback's AFC preview:

Review. It feels more like a review.

For those three years, the Ravens' offensive coordinator has been the canny, crafty, cagey Cam "Cam" Cameron, and he just hasn't put together good game plans. Last season in the playoffs, Baltimore led Pittsburgh 21-7 and had possession of the ball in the third quarter. The Ravens' next seven offensive snaps were a lost fumble, two sacks, an incompletion, 1 net yard rushing and a punt, swinging the momentum to the Steelers.

And clearly the fumbles, sacks, and incompletion were all Cam Cameron’s fault.

It was as if Pittsburgh knew the Ravens' calls; TMQ blames a predictable game plan.

Fumbles aren’t necessarily caused by a team knowing another team’s game plan. The same thing goes for sacks. The Steelers may have known the blocking assignments for the Ravens, but if the Ravens had blocked effectively and picked up the defenders this may not have mattered as much. I'm not sure this is Cam Cameron's fault.

Let’s not forget the Ravens defense gave up 14 points. It isn’t like the Ravens and their predictable game plan were losing the entire game, they were winning and the Ravens defense gave up points to lose the game.

Wearing America's colors, the Bills reached the Super Bowl four times and the playoffs six other times -- 10 of 16 seasons in that uniform were playoff years.

This season the Bills go to a retro-1970s uniform, which is better than the Rusting Russian Dreadnaught look. But why did the Bills return to a uniform style they wore when making the postseason three times in 17 years? They could have gone back to a gloried Super Bowl look based on red, white and American-flag blue –

Somebody needs to give Gregg a lesson in causation. The Bills uniforms don’t have much of an effect at all on how the team does or whether they made the postseason that year or not. This is just silly.

Making a great show of discussing how bad the previous regime's high draft pick was creates an excuse for Gailey and Nix to present a losing team in 2011 -- "What did you expect, when the guys who came before us blew the team's 2009 first-round pick?"

Again, so the Bills are supposed to keep highly paid, underachieving players on the roster? This leads to success? What world does Gregg live on?

Didn't Ohio used to be a hotbed of football culture?

Like 20 years ago.

“Didn’t Commodore computers used to be popular? What happened?”

"On April 11, 2011, The New York Times ran an ad for the Radio City Music Hall Christmas spectacular. Not only was a Christmas show being advertised before Easter, the show opens before Thanksgiving."

What? They attempt to make money BEFORE Christmas actually begins? That’s just pure madness. You would think the Radio City Music Hall Christmas spectacular would run only on Christmas Day…you know to minimize revenue and all.

This “creep” stuff Gregg does on a weekly basis shows his ignorance of how companies need to make the public aware of an event in order for the public to partake of said event more than it proves anything else about "creep" of a holiday or season.

Cleveland: The net of the Browns' spectacular draft-day deals is that Cleveland traded Julio Jones and Justin Houston for Phil Taylor, Greg Little, Owen Marecic, and Atlanta's first- and fourth-round selections in 2012. Since Little is, like Jones, a wide receiver, should Little prove to be the better player, these deals will be seen as steals.

If Little was a better receiver than Jones was an offensive lineman, then the deal would be seen as a steal since the Browns got more players than just Little back. I have to wonder how stupid Gregg believes his audience to be. Did he really just feel the need to explain out of two players, both of whom are receivers, if one of those receivers end up being better than the other that team which got the better player got a steal in the deal? Gregg must think his audience is dumber than I think I thought he thought they were.

The trouble is Cleveland can't come out ahead for at least a year, after the 2012 draft, while the long-suffering Dawg Pound must endure another season now.

Complaining a team cuts high priced players who don’t produce at a high level and not understanding long-term thinking of trading high draft picks for a quantity of picks both prove that Gregg Easterbrook lacks the ability on how to begin to build a winning NFL team. This is how the Patriots are keeping their team competitive. Gregg criticizes the Patriots for this but I am not sure it is a terrible strategy.

In the pair of memorable wins, they showed moxie. Leading the Patriots 10-0 in the first half, facing fourth-and-1 in their own territory, they went for it. So what if on the next snap, the Browns lost a fumble?

Who cares the Browns did exactly what Gregg Easterbrook encourages more teams should do and it didn’t work out? I do. If the Browns had punted and then the punt was returned for a touchdown, Gregg would say this is why the Browns shouldn’t have punted. He bases nearly all of his criticism on the outcome and doesn’t care if it was the right move if the outcome was bad. Since Gregg’s suggestion didn’t work, he gives it the whole “who cares” excuse and then decides the whole “outcome-oriented” criticism he uses for the rest of the regular season shouldn’t be used in this case.

The football gods smile on boldness.

Which is why the Browns had such a great year after beating the Patriots. Right?

This season's Texans cheerleader squad offers not one but two sets of twins, which could be male fantasy overload.

Is Gregg’s entire life a beer commercial?

“Oh man! Twin cheerleaders!” (taps beer bottles with his buddy)

A third reason is that the Colts don't panic and change their coaches and systems whenever they play a couple of bad games.

Just last year, after the Colts lost in the playoffs, Gregg was accusing the Colts offense of being too predictable and stated he thought the Colts should change things up a little. Now one of the positive attributes of the organization is they don’t change their system when they don’t experience success. As usual, Gregg wants it both ways so he can criticize as he sees fit when the outcome for the Colts isn’t positive.

I guarantee this year Gregg will say the Colts are too predictable if they start struggling, but if they don’t struggle he will continue to say they stick with what works and that is good…until it doesn’t work anymore, in which case sticking with what works is bad.

Expect big things from someone on this list: Travis Baltz, David Bedford, Chris Colasanti, Darren Evans, David Gilreath, Mike Hartline, Joe Horn, Jake Kirkpatrick, Joe Lefeged, Mike McNeill, Adrian Moten, Kerry Neal, Ollie Ogbu and Chad Spann. They are the undrafted free agents signed by the Colts. Indianapolis gets more from undrafted free agents than any other team except perhaps New England –

Gregg will go overboard with praise if one of these players turns out to be a quality NFL player and ignore the other 13-odd players failed. If one of the Colts high picks in the 2011 NFL Draft fail, we will get to hear all about that.

a reason the Patriots and Colts are Nos. 1 and 2 for most wins over the past decade.

Well, that and drafting really well over that time period, as well as being lucky enough to have/develop a franchise quarterback on the roster. Those two things have something to do with the Colts and Patriots success as well.

Two of his top four pass-catchers from last season are gone, as Rex Ryan keeps chasing whatever name is trendy on the free-agency market. This season's trendy guy is Plaxico Burress. It's great to see him back. But he's yet another target whose moves Sanchez does not know.

Gosh, if only teams could get together on a daily basis and go over what plays they plan on running in the upcoming week’s game. Perhaps the coaches could be there as well to help the players run the plays effectively. This would be a great way for Burress and Sanchez to get together and learn how to work together. If these informal get-togethers did exist, I think it would be a good idea if water was provided and the media was allowed to attend. It’s only a pipe dream though, so good luck getting to know each other Mark Sanchez and Plaxico Burress. It looks like during games is the only time you will have to do this.

Cut by the Jets, DE Shaun Ellis signed with archrival New England, causing Ryan to say, "There's no way I am going to wish him well." But New England made Ellis the best offer. If Ryan had been fired by the Jets and gone to New England because that's where the best offer was, no one would bat an eyelash. This seems to be yet another example of a pro sports double standard: If a player does what's in his best interest, he is condemned as a mercenary. If a coach does what's in his best interest, he's viewed as just taking care of business.

If Ryan got fired by the Jets and hired by the Patriots, I can guarantee you the Jets players would not want to wish him well. There would not be a double standard and Ryan would be viewed as the enemy by the Jets. I would bet the same rule would apply for Ryan as it does Ellis and there isn't as big of a double standard as Gregg believes.

Miami twice passed on Ryan Mallett, who's now in their division at New England and likely to torment the quarterback-hungry Dolphins and Bills for years to come.

Mallett is “likely” to torment the Dolphins and Bills for years to come. It’s possible, but where is the proof this is "likely?" I realize it is an opinion, but I just don't get how Mallett torturing the Bills and Dolphins for years is likely. Mallett hasn’t ever played a non-exhibition NFL game, so what basis does Gregg have to say it is likely he will torment the Dolphins? None, it’s his speculative opinion based on the fact Mallett fell in the draft and was taken by the Patriots...who by the way, we will learn in a minute are cursed because of Spygate.

Here's the deal: The New England Patriots have not won a playoff game since Spygate broke. Bill Belichick continues to refuse to say, "I cheated and I apologize." Until he does, the football gods will torment this team by allowing the Patriots to play very well during the regular season, then denying them in money time.

Earlier in the column, Gregg accuses books written about climate change of passing off the “truth” about what will happen in the future as fact when it isn’t. Gregg is easily able to notice when authors do this because he makes a habit of doing it himself. This statement isn’t “the deal.” It is a weak attempt to pass off some stupid curse put on the Patriots for Spygate as fact. Gregg may be antagonizing Patriots fans with this, but his use of Spygate to reason why the Patriots don't win the Super Bowl every year is tiresome.

the 2008 second round of the draft continues to be a tumultuous one for the wide receiver profession. Picks were either terrific or terrible.

The 2008 second round produced DeSean Jackson and Eddie Royal, both stars; Jordy Nelson, who was terrific in the Packers' Super Bowl win; and Donnie Avery and Jerome Simpson, both of whom have shown flashes.

So the 2008 second round produced receivers who were either terrific or terrible…except for Donnie Avery and Jerome Simpson, both of whom have neither really been terrific or terrible? So he disproves his very own opinion of how well wide receivers chosen in the second round of the 2008 draft have performed.

When your columnist looks at the team's 2010 stats, he zeros in on the 3-5 road record. The Bolts seemed spoiled by their city's ideal conditions, foundering elsewhere.

This wouldn’t make them the first team to struggle winning games on the road.

Big-college football and men's basketball players shouldn't be paid like NFL or NBA players -- the only way to do that would be to pay stars exclusively, while eliminating scholarships for average players. But providing a stipend is feasible and in sync with existing college customs.

Oh, so you mean working in sync with the existing college custom of college students not receiving a stipend for merely attending a school and participating in extracurricular activities?

Typically, theater stage crew members, college newspaper editors and other students receive modest stipends for their contributions to the overall atmosphere of university life.

From my experience, many times in these cases these stipends are to offset the lack of a scholarship for these students or the stipend is to be paid for services performed. These newspapers editors and theater stage crew members don’t typically receive the stipend for merely participating in a play or working for the paper. Maybe things have changed since I went to college. Also, if I remember correctly these stipends are not very large at all, so wouldn’t fit the supposed purpose put forth to help college athletes. That purpose of the stipend being to pretty much pay for that athlete’s entire cost of living while at school.

Many college athletes hail from disadvantaged backgrounds and lack walking-around money, making taking cash or gifts from boosters tempting.

Why does the school have to be the one paying the athletes? Why not let the athletes earn money on the free market while in school? College students overall lack walking-around money, which doesn’t lead many normal college students to a life of crime in order to buy beer.

If walking-around money were not a problem, temptation might be easier to resist.

I could possibly get behind this, but I don’t know if the university or the NCAA should be the one giving the athlete money.

The Eagles become the Philadelphia Heat, plus the rest of TMQ's NFC preview.

That really won’t be a “preview” of any kind. Talking about what happened last year isn’t previewing anything. At least it is better than haikus.