Showing posts with label hot takes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hot takes. Show all posts

Thursday, January 28, 2016

5 comments Writer For Fansided Has the Hottest of Hot Michael Jordan Takes

Bleacher Report has sort of cleaned up it's act and gotten away from the amateur writers who provided the really shitty content on the site and hired real sportswriters for the site. It's sad, but happy. Sad, because I need those shitty writers for this site, but happy because that means there is less bad journalism in the world. Well, that's bad for this site too. Dammit! Fortunately, there are still sites like Fansided with micro-sites run by morons. I shouldn't be mean, but fuck it, many of these micro-sites do seem like they are run by morons.

Hat tip to the emailer who sent this article to me. It is truly one of the hottest of hot takes about what an asshole Michael Jordan is. This micro-site is called Sir Charles in Charge, while the author's name is Mark. Okay. What's nice is Mark has a warning up on the micro-site so that anyone who reads his columns isn't in shock from what he/she/it is reading:

Mark is not your typical NBA fan or writer. While some may look the other way when their favorite team or player has a bad game Mark will usually attack that story and go against the grain. 

Because NOBODY gives hot takes and reactionary points of view about a player's bad game. If I had to make a list of those who have the guts to do this then the list would only include Mark, most of the ESPN staff paid to give a opinion, everyone on talk radio whether it is a host or caller, anyone in the comment section on a sports article, and professional sportswriters. It's some elite company Mark finds himself in. LeBron didn't have a good few games in a row? Mark is going to attack the fuck out of that story and point out that LeBron is a piece of shit. Can't handle it? Mark (or Charles) is in charge, so get the hell out of here.

This is what he finds fun about writing, giving fans the honest truth even if they wish not to hear it.

He gives the very truth AT THAT VERY MINUTE to fans, even if they don't like it. "Like it" being defined as "Aren't partial to hot takes based on a player having one bad game and these hot takes only serve the sole purpose of helping the person giving the hot take to gain attention."

Speaking of attention, here is his article about how Michael Jordan is the most disrespectful and overrated man in NBA history. That doesn't seem like an extreme or non-factual statement at all. Is it possible this conclusion is not based on facts and instead is simply a reflection of the author's biased opinion? The answer, is that it could not be possible. Try to disprove how disrespectful and overrated Michael Jordan is. You can't, because Mark is spitting the truth and you just don't want to hear it. It's not that he's wrong, you just can't handle the truth.

Just because Michael Jordan is viewed as the Greatest of All Time doesn’t mean he deserves the respect of everyone — certainly not mine

Well then. I wish I didn't hear this, but someone had to tell me.  


Michael Jordan may be the greatest in many eyes, “The GOAT,  Money,  ICON” or whatever other name he is called these days, but I never saw him as much more than a product of great marketing. 

This could be because you are stupid and confuse "Michael Jordan the basketball player" with "Michael Jordan the business man." There are a lot of athletes who receive chances to market products and they receive these opportunities because they are good at a sports. The fact an athlete has a lot of endorsements and is well-marketed doesn't mean that athlete is a product of marketing. It's especially hilarious that Michael Jordan is being criticized as a product of great marketing, especially considering those six NBA titles and all of the NBA records he holds speak for themselves with zero marketing required. 

Could he play the game? 

Uh-oh. I hope the answer to this isn't another thing I don't want to hear. 

Yes, he was a bad dude on the court and accomplished many wonderful things

Product of marketing. That's all.  

but the majority of those plays were being done by half of the league back then, he was just the one they decided to immortalize in commercials.

Wow, I seem to only recall one NBA player switching hands on a layup during the 1991 NBA Finals, but I'm sure I missed it. The NBA probably erased my memory and removed all evidence of other players doing this. I also don't remember too many players starting from the foul line and dunking the basketball, but I'm sure Jon Koncak and Cliff Livington were doing this type of thing all the time while Uwe Blab waited his turn to show off his dunking skills. I must have missed Alvin Robertson putting on a dunk clinic from the foul line or winning a dunk contest. I blame the vast conspiracy to prop up Michael Jordan that makes me forget that Jordan was just one of hundreds of players doing the things he did. I didn't realize half the league was scoring 30 points per game either. I wonder if these players noticed when they scored a basket their team didn't get credit for the points? What a conspiracy to market a single individual.

Have you ever seen Clyde “The Glide” Drexler play? 

No, only you have seen Clyde Drexler play because he has been edited out of NBA history forever in order to further the myth of Michael Jordan. 

If you have, then you would know of the great plays he made throughout his career as well, but rarely do you see him in any NBA spots for advertising.

Part of the reason is he wasn't exactly a natural in front of a camera in local ads.

Not to mention, you don't see Drexler in any NBA spots for advertising because he's been retired for almost two decades now. You don't see Michael Jordan in any NBA advertisements anymore either. The only reason Jordan is still relevant in the NBA is because he owns an NBA team. Like he owns the team and so that sort of still gives him some connection to the NBA today. It's hilarious this writer (and I'm being kind in calling him that) is using Clyde Drexler has a comparison to Jordan, because Drexler has been recognized for his talents. He was on the Dream Team and he is in the Pro Basketball Hall of Fame. It's not like he's getting the short end of the stick when comparing his achievements to Michael Jordan's achievements. Drexler has one NBA title. Jordan has six NBA titles. Who cares which player was in the NBA ads? Jordan was a better player than Drexler and probably had a better agent (David Falk) than Clyde Drexler. But if you insist on pushing the point, here is Drexler in the signature NBA ads of the 80's. This is awkward now. 

Jordan shoes were being sold to the public for $100+ and for the kids that couldn’t afford them they were out robbing the kids that could.

Okay, well then. Now that you bring it up, Michael Jordan probably is responsible for kids robbing kids so they could have his shoes. What's weird is I have heard this argument before. I just don't know where. 

At some point make a statement to the public to stop the nonsense, drop the prices of your shoes to make them affordable, the same way that Stephon Marbury and Chris Webber did.

Now I know where I heard this argument. From Stephon Marbury. So basically the author is stealing talking points from Stephon Marbury in an effort to show how overrated Michael Jordan is and how he is a jerk.

But again, the author is stealing talking points from Chris Webber. Webber wanted more reasonably priced shoes, so his Fila shoes sold for $85 to $90, which is more reasonable than how much Jordan's shoes costs, but also not exactly cheap. The only examples of cheap shoes the author could come up with were shoes from Chris Webber and Stephon Marbury. I had to double check to make sure this article wasn't written in 1999.
 
Through all the ball-hogging, push-offs and crying when someone dared to touch him, 

It's like this article was not just written in 1999, but written in 1989. These are many of the same criticisms people had of Jordan back then. By the way, Jordan is 42nd all-time in career assists and he averaged 5.3 assists per game during his career, while Clyde Drexler averaged 5.6 assists per game. Maybe Jordan ball-hogged in a way where he got his teammates involved nearly as much as Clyde Drexler did. 

I still admired his game until the NBA decided it was time to win the gold medal, that’s when my hate for Jordan really became apparent.

This is when the author's hate for Jordan became apparent...to himself? The 1992 Olympics is when the author became fully self-aware.

He was the face of the NBA 

But only because the other players were edited out of commercials and erased from the memory of those watching the games. 

but it wasn’t going to be a “Dream Team” without him and he used that power to his advantage. Before the team ever assembled there was a power struggle going on between the Chicago Bulls and the Detroit Pistons, mainly between Jordan and Isiah Thomas.

The struggle on the court was mainly between Jordan and the entire Pistons team. The Pistons had the "Jordan Rules" where they essentially beat the shit out of him if he got near to the rim with the basketball. 

The Pistons treated the Bulls with as much respect that an alcoholic step-father treats his step-children.

The alcoholic step-father, who became an alcoholic from years spent trying to convince everyone of Clyde Drexler's greatness, treats his children terribly by robbing them and stealing their Air Jordan shoes. If they were Marbury or Webber shoes, it wouldn't come to this, but because Air Jordan shoes are so expensive, sometimes a child just has to get robbed. 

Jordan’s hate for Detroit was evident on the court, but behind closed doors he was plotting. When the call came to construct the Dream Team he saw his chance to put his power to use. He wasn’t going to play if a certain player was on the team.

Let's see, I hated the Pistons and I hated Michael Jordan. The Dream Team was winning the Gold medal no matter if Isiah Thomas or Marlo Thomas (just to stick with the 80's theme of this article) was the point guard. Yep, I don't really care what Jordan did or didn't do to keep Thomas off the team.

The author also conveniently leaves out that Isiah Thomas started the whole beef back in 1985 by freezing Michael Jordan out in the All-Star Game, but any evidence that may not make Jordan seem like the jerk the author believes him to be should be omitted. So the author complains the NBA made Michael Jordan into a product of marketing while claiming they were ignoring other NBA stars (which is absolutely false) in their marketing for the league, but in this column he only uses information that makes Jordan look bad in his treatment of Isiah Thomas while ignoring any culpability of Thomas in Jordan's behavior towards him.
At the time, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas and John Stockton were the best PG’s in the NBA.

And two of them were on the Dream Team. Only 12 players could make the team. There are five positions on an NBA team and 12 spots on the Dream Team roster. There can't be three players at every position on the roster, so Thomas didn't make the team because Jordan (and a couple others) could play point guard if they absolutely needed him to. 

Even Jordan, with his childish ways, knew that, but because of the disrespect he felt the Pistons gave him over the years and with them walking off the court when they finally beat the “Bad Boys,” Jordan was going to make sure Thomas would never play for the gold.

So Jordan wouldn't play if Thomas was on the team because Thomas froze him out of an exhibition game and then Thomas acted like a fucking baby and wouldn't shake hands after the Bulls finally beat the Pistons in the Eastern Conference Finals? Jordan is the bad guy though? I don't like Michael Jordan, but it seems Thomas had some karma coming back to him for the bitch move of walking his team off the court in the Eastern Conference Finals. Maybe Thomas shouldn't piss off the best player in the NBA.

If Thomas played on the team, Jordan would not and the league was too busy making money off his brand that they could not afford to let that happen, so what did they do? The same thing they always done, they kissed his butt, gave him another pacifier and let him have his way.

So let me get this straight. The NBA was so busy making money off the 1992 Olympics they couldn't afford to have Michael Jordan not participate as part of the squad? It's hard to speculate accurately, but did the NBA have a reason to want Michael Jordan on the 1992 Dream Team instead of Isiah Thomas? I don't know, but I do know there were a lot of really good players left off the team. James Worthy didn't make the team either.

Despite this author's attempts to pin Thomas not being on the Dream Team solely on Michael Jordan, there were plenty of other players who may not have participated had Thomas joined the team. So losing Jordan probably wasn't ideal, but losing Barkley, Pippen, Bird and Jordan? That's enough to keep the third-best point guard in the NBA off the team. Tough choices had to be made anyway, so why choose a player who was on the border of not making the team AND there were plenty of guys on the team who didn't like him?

But in came Chuck Daly to head the Dream Team, one of the greatest coaches in history and also the coach of said Pistons and Thomas. That’s how you know this was all personal between Jordan and Thomas.

Why play for the coach and not with the player?

I don't think it's a question of whether Michael Jordan liked Isiah Thomas or not. He didn't. The fact Jordan didn't like Thomas doesn't mean that Jordan alone had Thomas kept off the Olympic team and that's why he's overrated and a jerk. 

Like I said, I respect what he accomplished on the court, but what he did to Thomas always rubbed me the wrong way. Imagine if LeBron did the same to Kevin Durant or Kobe Bryant — he would get crucified, but since it was Jordan it’s like it gets swept under the rug.

Yes, it gets swept under the rug in that 23 years later it is still talked about. If anything, the idea Jordan kept Thomas off the Dream Team has been discussed too much over the past 23 years. It's part of the lore of Michael Jordan and how competitive he was. If the author thinks Jordan allegedly keeping Thomas off the Dream Team has been swept under the rug then he hasn't been paying attention. 

He took his position of power within the NBA and took away a once in a lifetime chance for one of the games greats.

The numbers situation took away a lifetime chance for one of the games greats. That's what happened. I would love to hear from the author on which player (outside of Laettner, because one college player was making the team) that he would have left off. Who would it have been? The 11th person to make the team after the first 10 players was named was...get ready for it...Clyde Drexler. So should the guy who the author thinks was just as good at basketball as Jordan have been removed from the Dream Team? If not, who should have not made the team? There were only two centers who made the team, so one of those can't be removed. Pippen or Chris Mullin? That leaves the team short in terms of small forwards, and especially since Pippen could also play point guard, he had added value. The bottom line is there wasn't room for Thomas even if players other than Jordan didn't like him. 

I have mixed feelings about Daly as well.

Well, that's good to know. 

Thomas was your player and you agreed to go on without him. Tell Jordan to suck it up and be a man about the situation.

This would have been awkward for Chuck Daly to say considering he didn't pick the players that made the Dream Team. I'm sure Daly could have worked hard to get Thomas on the team, but he probably knew that would make his job a lot harder than it needed to be. Why fight so hard to bring on a guy that many of the players don't like anyway, a guy who is the third-best point guard on the roster? 

What about his Hall Of Fame speech? To some it was funny and entertaining but the reality of it was he took another opportunity and the spotlight of many others to stand on his mighty soapbox and show his true colors.

That's Michael Jordan. It's who he is. 

Wow, talk about a guy with a serious hero complex. He was still taking shots at guys for no reason. Still taking shots at Magic Johnson and George Gervin for freezing him out in the 1985 NBA All Star game, he flew the player he was passed over for in high school simply to rub it in his face.

How can we forget the classic line the “organization didn’t play with the flu in Utah” — oh wow, some balls on this guy.

Yes, wow, some balls on this guy. Jordan almost as much balls as it takes to claim in an article that Jordan was just the product of great marketing. And that link about Johnson and Gervin freezing out Jordan in the 1985 All Star Game is actually an article about Isiah Thomas freezing Jordan out. The author clearly wants to mislead his readers and pretend it wasn't Thomas who was behind Jordan being frozen out. If anyone is trying to sweep the truth under the rug, it's the author trying to sweep the truth of Thomas and his involvement in the Jordan freeze out under the rug.

There is a reason why Charles Barkley and Jordan have remained so close throughout the years while he and Pippen have not. Pippen was the flunky, while Chuck would easily tell Jordan about himself.

A person like Jordan needs that one to put him in his place (Derek Fisher and Bryant) and he respects that about Barkley. When everyone is kissing your backside you need someone to slap you in the face every once in a while.

So because Jordan wants someone to slap him in the fact and stop kissing his ass, he tried hard to get a player who probably at some point actually slapped him in the face and wouldn't kiss his ass left off the 1992 Dream Team? If you don't use logic at all, then this might make sense. Unfortunately, the idea Jordan respects people who don't kiss his ass, but conspired to have an NBA player who didn't kiss his ass left off the Dream Team doesn't square.

Respect is earned and as fast as you get it, it can be taken away. To many, Michael Jordan is untouchable, they can’t see why someone could not like they guy.

This article isn't about liking or not liking Jordan. It says that Michael Jordan is the most overrated NBA player. Please argue the point you are trying make in an effort to prove your claim. Don't move the goalposts or try to make it seem like you didn't call Jordan overrated and that's the same thing as simply not liking Jordan.

You like who you like, simple as that.

I just didn’t — or don’t — respect Michael Jordan.

You don't have to respect Michael Jordan. Even a stupid person knows not respecting someone doesn't mean that player is the most overrated person in NBA history. Don't be stupid and stop with the hot takes. I'm going to write something that you may not want to hear. Your writing is not good at all. This is an embarrassment on so many levels.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

2 comments The Kansas City Star Shows How to Report on a Story and Then Make Themselves a Part of the Story

Lee Judge of "The Kansas City Star" writes a blog-ish type online section of the paper called "Judging the Royals." It gets updated daily or so. No journalist whose last name is "Judge" should allow an opportunity to go by without inserting his/her last name into the title of his column. So Judge wrote his opinion on the subject of Jonathan Papelbon choking Bryce Harper, which again, is a great metaphor for what the Nationals team has been doing all year to Harper. Of course, Judge's take on Harper was pretty hot and it drew some attention, which I am sure was by pure coincidence. This then gave the editor of the "Star" a chance to publicly comment on the attention this post by Judge received. So now Judge gave an opinion and an editor is commenting on that opinion. This is how you make yourself a part of the story. Give an opinion, then comment on your own opinion and the attention it receives. ESPN would be proud.

"Hey, look at the attention we received for something one of our columnists wrote!"

Then, OF COURSE, Judge had to address his previous comments in his next "Judging the Royals" blog-ish post. I mean, he would be remiss if he didn't address the story he had created. Now Judge is commenting on his comments about a story. I may have missed it, but I'm surprised an editor didn't then comment on Judge's comments about his comments about the story. Really, he tried to explain himself at more length, because any chance to get more attention for the "Star" (which I do understand by the way) can not be passed up. People are paying attention now to what he's said and discussing his opinion. He's become part of the story. That's how it goes.

I'll start first with the original post that asks if Jonathan Papelbon should have choked Bryce Harper. Considering choking seems like an extreme act, I would go with "no," but Judge takes a more nuanced view. Much like a nagging wife, sometimes a person is just asking to get choked a little bit. Bryce Harper is one of these people begging to be choked.

(By the way, I am not a Bryce Harper fan because I don't like the Nationals. I'm sure I've wanted to metaphorically choke him at some point, but never literally)

I don’t know Bryce Harper from Adam,

"I know nothing about this person...but I'm going to go ahead and say that my perception based on watching him play a sport is probably 100% accurate. I mean, I'm advocating for him to get choked by a teammate. How could I be wrong?"

but he certainly seems like a young man who needs an attitude adjustment.

It's a good thing Lee Judge isn't a policeman.

"I don't know this kid standing on the corner, but he looks like he is up to no good. I'm going to go ahead and arrest him, perhaps shoot him if he insists too intently he's done nothing wrong."

I feel bad for the defendant if Judge is ever on a jury. And yes, I have no doubt he would write a blog post about his jury experience and call it "Judge and Jury."

"I don't know this kid who is on trial, but he has hair longer than I'd like to see on a young man. Plus, he just looks like he needs an attitude adjustment. I've heard the evidence against him, which was all unpersuasive, but my intuition has never been wrong. I say convict him." 

Unfortunately he was choked by the wrong guy in the wrong place.

Bryce Harper needed to be choked, but the wrong person choked him. Much like a disobedient woman MUST be choked by her husband and only her husband, this is a very strict rule with no exceptions, Bryce Harper must be choked by another position player. It's only right. If Lee Judge sees a child being hit in the head with a baseball bat, he will immediately stop and make sure the person doing the hitting is the parent. If so, carry on. If not, this isn't right and he is not afraid to be the hero and do something about it. 

In baseball culture, pitchers — especially relievers — do not get to criticize position players for lack of hustle. 

So the choking was fine, but the wrong person choked Harper. I can't see how this doesn't make sense. 

So if you spend a fair amount of time sitting in the shade eating popsicles, you don’t get to criticize position players for failing to run out a fly ball.

In fact, if the world were fair then someone would choke Jonathan Papelbon for choking Bryce Harper. It just has to be a position player or starting pitcher who chokes Papelbon though, because another reliever doesn't get to criticize Papelbon for choking Bryce Harper.

And I hope you realize the irony of a sportswriter, a person who works hard but literally could spend an entire baseball game eating popsicles in the shade, commenting on which baseball players can and can not choke Bryce Harper based on whether that player can eat a popsicle in the shade during a game.

The second problem was location: if you want to choke Bryce Harper — 

I know what Judge is going to say. Do it in private. Beat your loved ones, commit senseless violence in life to anyone you know or work with, but for God's sake keep it private. 

and I suspect if you played with him, you might — 

This suspicion being based on the fact that Lee Judge has already stated he in no way knows Bryce Harper. It's a strong take for someone who doesn't know Bryce Harper at all. 

ask him to come up the tunnel and then choke him. 

You don’t do it in the dugout for everyone in the world to see; you keep that stuff private.

To an extent, yes, but maybe just don't choke a teammate. Now I realize that teammates get in scuffles all the time. That's not really my issue here, despite the fact Judge will later try to frame that as the issue his critics have with his comments. My issue is Judge essentially is excusing Papelbon from choking Harper because he just feels like Harper is the type of person who should be choked. Therein lies my issue. Scuffles happen, I get it. Saying a guy should be choked has nothing to do with privacy though.

So you can blame either guy for what happened, but you should probably blame both. 

I'm not sure Harper should be blamed for seeming like he should be choked. But hey, when could Judge's perception of an athlete ever be wrong? 

Then Judge has some thoughts about a manager using his closer in a tie game on the road. I don't think I agree with these thoughts. There is some logic to his explanation as to why a manager shouldn't use his closer on the road in a tie game that I think Judge is missing.

So using a closer in a tie game at home gives you two shots to win a ball game.

But use your closer in a tie game on the road and no matter what you’re closer does, you’ll still need more pitching to win the game. 

And you will also need more offense to win the game, as well as make sure your pitcher on the mound doesn't give up a run or else the game is over. So a good way to ensure your team gets another chance to score a run and win the game is to make sure the relief pitcher who is pitching in the bottom of the inning doesn't give up a run to lose the game. I don't think hoping an inferior relief pitcher doesn't give up a run is the best way to win a game. The assumption your team will score a run and the closer will get an opportunity to pitch seems like a faulty assumption to me. If the point is to win the game, do all you can to ensure your team gets a chance to do so. This means potentially pitching your closer on the road in a tie game.

Not using the closer in a tie game on the road is like not filling up a plane with gas before going to the next destination. I mean, you still need gas when you to your next destination, so why fill up twice? 

So if you were wondering why Ned Yost didn’t use Wade Davis on Monday night — and apparently some fans were — if Wade had pitched a scoreless bottom of the eleventh, someone would still have had to get three outs in the bottom of the twelfth.

Right, but that someone would have had an opportunity to get three outs in the bottom of twelfth, while using an inferior pitcher means the game may not get to the bottom of the twelfth. 

So if Miguel Almonte is going to give up a walk-off homer, you want him to do it before you waste an inning from your closer.

If ensuring the game is still tied and the Royals still have a chance to win the game is "wasting" an inning from the closer then I am all for "wasting" an inning. How is it a waste of an inning to ensure the Royals still are playing in a tie game at the top of the twelfth? 

So now the editor of the "Star" comments on the attention the post received. Because, commenting on the story is a great way to keep the original post alive, right?

Twitter is the most negative corner of the Internet, in my opinion. Its short bursts of 140 characters tend to be long on outrage, and media sources are constant targets.

This is partly true. Sometimes a person is asking to be a target when they suggest a human being deserves to be choked though. Twitter is long on outrage, but there are ways to make yourself a target on social media and Lee Judge managed to do so. 

The Washington Nationals’ Bryce Harper and Jonathan Papelbon got into a fight in the dugout during a game Sunday. Papelbon has been suspended for four games without pay. The Star’s Lee Judge wrote about it in a blog post asking, “Should Jonathan Papelbon have choked Bryce Harper?”

Writing a post titled "Should Jonathan Papelbon have choked Bryce Harper?" is asking for negative feedback. It's begging for negative attention. 

It starts: “I don’t know Bryce Harper from Adam, but he certainly seems like a young man who needs an attitude adjustment. Unfortunately he was choked by the wrong guy in the wrong place.” An earlier version read, “…he certainly seems like a young man who needs choking.”

The critics, such as Gawker sports commentary site Deadspin, called the post things such as “psychopathic.”

I mean writing that is a bit psychopathic. Saying a person needs to be choked sounds a little bit crazy. 

I reached out to Lee, who it should be noted has also been a political cartoonist for The Star for some 30 years. He’s well accustomed to expressing provocative opinions, sometimes in blunt language. His reply, in which he stands by what he wrote:

Judging the Royals is an inside look at big league baseball; it not only deals with how the game is played, it also reveals some of the game’s unwritten rules. In today’s column I said that if Jonathan Papelbon wanted to choke Bryce Harper, he should have done it in private. Ballplayers have scuffles and arguments more often than fans know, but those scuffles and arguments are supposed to take place out of the public eye.

If Judge thinks the sum total of the outrage is over his comment that the scuffle should have taken place in private, then he's missing part of the point. It's the whole "I don't know Bryce Harper but think he needs an attitude adjustment and should be choked" comment that is part of the point as well. 

Whether fans like it or not, baseball players throw at each other, do takeout slides on each other and sometimes fight with each other. When they do those things, there’s a right way to do it and that’s what today’s column was about.

He's still not totally getting the point on why there was some outrage. 

My own opinion is that a blog may be a place for frank ruminations on these sorts of topics, and I find some of the Twitter hand-wringing disingenuously genteel. You hear stuff far less considered than this every day on sports talk radio and — for crying out loud — from well-known voices on Twitter itself.

If sports talk radio is the standard by which Lee Judge's columns are held, then the bar is being lowered for him further than it should be.

"The opinions at our newspaper are consistently on-par with the opinions of the lowest common denominator of sports fans."

That's the defense. R.I.P. sports journalism.

So now Lee Judge must of course re-comment on his own story and how he "accidentally" became a part of the story.

In 2010 I was given space on this website and the freedom to cover baseball in my own way.

I’d been hanging out with pro ballplayers for years and thought the way they looked at the game was fascinating and I wanted to bring that point of view to other baseball fans.

I love baseball, but I find the point of view the players have to be less than fascinating. Unwritten rules, bizarre beliefs that dinosaurs don't exist, and various other bizarre theories about life and politics...I like to watch them play the sport though. It's just I don't necessarily care about their point of view simply because I like to watch them play baseball. 

We’re in a bold, new age of journalism, which is a nice way of saying we sometimes put stuff on the web site and if an editor has time, he might proofread your work after it’s been posted.

"We lowered our editing standards, but that's not our fault at all. It's just what we are forced to do. This is what 'the people' want in this new era of journalism. Don't blame us." 

On Tuesday morning, the freaking out began early and editors almost immediately changed “seems like a young man who needs choking” to “seems like a young man who needs an attitude adjustment.”

"Almost immediately." So it got fixed almost immediately, what's the big deal?

"I cursed out my co-worker, but almost immediately apologized and handed her a Kleenex. Can't we all move on?"

One night back in 2010 while I was writing a column and trying to think of another word for pitcher. I came up with the word moundsman.

That night I decided my writing was bad or sucked. I have never in my life uttered the word moundsman and thought it was BS that I was about to write it. That night I decided to just tell readers what I had to say in my own words, just like if I’d met them in a bar on the way home from a game, and if you go to the right bar, that’s entirely possible.

The defense of "shooting from the hip" or having "real talk" doesn't serve as an excuse for the comments that you are making. This is a general rule me thinks. 

So when I said Bryce Harper needed choking I was probably only 97 percent serious.

It was a joke! Judge was only 97% serious. So he was pretty much entirely serious, except for when you want to criticize him, because then it was a 3% joke. I'm guessing Judge isn't a fan of Sabermetrics and numbers, but even a third-grader knows 97% of anything is pretty damn close to 100% of that thing. 

But here’s why I would say that, even in jest: Bryce Harper has acted like a jerk on a baseball field and I’m not the only one that thinks so.

But it was 97% serious. That doesn't even come close to qualifying for "even in jest" status. 

Here’s a headline from The Washington Post published last summer: “Bryce Harper is still just 21 years old, but he needs to stop acting like he’s 12.”

That headline appeared above a column written by Mike Wise.

Poke around the internet and it’s not hard to find stories about Harper blowing kisses to pitchers, taking an exaggerated amount of time to jog around the bases, getting ejected from games and yelling at opponents, umpires and teammates.

Bryce Harper is an asshole. I can absolutely agree with this. I don't like him and I don't like the Nationals. 

His defenders tend to make three points:

1.) He’s really good at baseball.
2.) He’s changed.
3.) And he’s really good at baseball.

Letting a guy get away with bad behavior just because he’s good is how Bryce Harper became Bryce Harper.

So why does Jonathan Papelbon get away with some of his behavior? What gives him the ability to be the Official Unofficial Unwritten Rules Spokesman for the Washington Nationals? Isn't he getting away with bad behavior by choking Harper? 

And I gotta say that if Bryce Harper managed to provoke a teammate into choking him in front of the whole world, he probably hasn’t change all that much. 

You gotta say it. It has to be said. Ask Stephen A. Smith about it. If you provoke someone constantly, then whatever act of violence that happens to you is most likely deserved in some way. 

After my original blog was posted, it got picked up by Deadspin — the website that will tell you why your team sucks —

Yeah, but they are only being 97% serious. So it's all a joke. 

I began getting emails saying I was promoting violence in the workplace and if Papelbon had attacked Harper anywhere but a baseball field, Papelbon could be charged with assault. Co-workers should not solve their differences with violence.

If every NFL player who got in a scuffle with a teammate was charged with assault, you couldn’t field a team.

I personally recognize the difference in a normal work place and a work place in the athletic arena. Scuffles will happen in the athletic arena. Placing "right" and "wrong" in these situations where the person getting choked feels like a bit much, especially when you don't know for certain what happened and have no idea first hand about the personality of the two players involved. 

If Papelbon putting his hands around Harper’s throat was assault — and I’ve seen a third-grader’s birthday party with more actual violence —

What kind of third-grade birthday parties is Lee Judge attending? I'm assuming by looking at Judge that all of his children are grown by now. Does he still attend third-grade birthday parties? If so, does he attend these parties in anticipation of the violence? If so, I think that would answer a few questions I have about his take on Harper v. Papelbon. 

Pretending that professional sports teams are bound by the same restrictions that apply in an accountant’s office or a grocery store is disingenuous; it’s just isn’t so and the people who do it are looking for an excuse to be outraged.

You are missing the point. The point isn't really the fight. It's that a person got choked and you said he deserved to get choked without even knowing that person. Also, you indicated you had no issue with a fight, but it just should have happened in private. Fights happen. I get that. It's reasonable also to accept that fights happen, but this doesn't mean they are justified fights and it doesn't mean a person deserves to be choked. 

“Retired pitcher C.J. Nitkowski, writing for FoxSports.com, laid out the old-school case against Harper and for Papelbon.

If you want the ballplayer’s point of view — and that’s the main reason you might want to check out this blog — I gave it to you. Teammates sometimes scuffle (I know of several physical confrontations that never got public scrutiny). Bottom line: If you’re going to scuffle, don’t do it in the dugout.

Nitkowski bravely got anonymous players to comment on the Harper versus Papelbon scuffle. For that, these players should be admired. After all, they feel so strongly one way that they aren't even brave enough to put their name to their opinion. It's "old-school" to suggest Bryce Harper should be choked and not put your name to the opinion. So anonymous players saying Papelbon was in the right doesn't really do it for me. 

The same thing applied to the Papelbon-Harper confrontation, so I thought fans who want to know how things work in the big leagues would be interested in that distinction. It wasn’t a long bit and originally it was tucked in at the bottom of a longer post.

But, pageviews! The editors knew they had a hot take that could get them some web traffic. 

But we’re being encouraged to do everything we can to increase traffic to our website, so I figured I’d put it at the top of the post because it was big topic of conversation in the world of baseball. If increasing traffic was the goal, I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.

Increasing traffic is always the goal. It would be nice if Lee Judge increased traffic by not suggesting violence against an athlete was justified, but hey, take the pageviews where you can get them I guess.

But right now I just want to take the opportunity to say something to all the people I offended and I say it with complete sincerity:

Thanks for the page views.

Edgy! You know, if acting like a jerk means a person should be choked, then maybe Lee Judge would suggest that Lee Judge suggesting Bryce Harper should be choked is a jerk thing to do. Therefore, maybe Lee Judge would believe he should be choked by one of his co-workers.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpyd

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy
But here’s why I would say that, even in jest: Bryce Harper has acted like a jerk on a baseball field and I’m not the only one that thinks so.
Here’s a headline from The Washington Post published last summer: “Bryce Harper is still just 21 years old, but he needs to stop acting like he’s 12.”
That headline appeared above a column written by Mike Wise.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article37077174.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/public-editor/article36973230.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/public-editor/article36973230.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/public-editor/article36973230.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/public-editor/article36973230.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/public-editor/article36973230.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/public-editor/article36973230.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article36919842.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article36919842.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article36919842.html#storylink=cpyUnfortunately he was choked by the wrong guy in the wrong place.
In baseball culture, pitchers — especially relievers — do not get to criticize position players for lack of hustle. Guys like Jonathan Papelbon play every once in a while, guys like Bryce Harper play all the time. So if you spend a fair amount of time sitting in the shade eating popsicles, you don’t get to criticize position players for failing to run out a fly ball.
The second problem was location: if you want to choke Bryce Harper — and I suspect if you played with him, you might — ask him to come up the tunnel and then choke him. You don’t do it in the dugout for everyone in the world to see; you keep that stuff private.
So you can blame either guy for what happened, but you should probably blame both.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article36919842.html#storylink=cpy

Monday, October 26, 2015

0 comments Rob Rossi Has Some Strong Opinions Not Necessarily Supported by Facts or His Own Opinion

The Pittsburgh Pirates lost to the Chicago Cubs in the terrible, no-good one game Wild Card playoff. Rob Rossi thinks this is an important offseason for the Pirates, but he also thinks some of the Pirates best players are probably at-fault for this one game playoff loss. Rob Rossi states Gerrit Cole is not good enough and Andrew McCutchen has too many earrings. His takes are all overreactions and a sad attempt to simply blame someone, ANYONE, for the Pirates failings in the ridiculous one game Wild Card playoff.

I'll start first with Rossi's issues about Gerrit Cole just not being good enough for the Pirates. He's a bum and the city of Pittsburgh deserves much than him.

More winning. Less jawing. And better pitching.

The Pirates need all of that in the biggest games from Gerrit Cole. 

While admitting that Gerrit Cole didn't pitch his best against the Cubs, let's also understand that the Pirates scored zero runs. Gerrit Cole could have thrown a nine inning perfect game and the Pirates still would not have beaten the Cubs without the game going to extra innings. So blame Cole, but also understand the Pirates' batters didn't score any runs for Cole. He can't win a game if his offense doesn't score a run.

Cole was horrendous and the reason the Pirates never were in position to win a National League wild-card game they lost to the Chicago Cubs, 4-0.

He needed to stick around for more than five innings.

He needed to not allow a first-inning run, then a two-run homer in the third and a solo shot in the fifth.

He needed more first-pitch strikes. 

Cole could have stuck around for nine innings, allowed zero home runs, and thrown a first-pitch strike to every single better he faced. It wouldn't have mattered because Jake Arrieta gave up zero runs too. 

No, the Pirates didn't go out there and give it to the Cubs. Cole did, though.

His margin for error was not slim. It was none. 

And of course, because his margin for error was none then it is Cole's fault the Pirates lost the one game Wild Card playoff. The fact Cole didn't pitch well was unfortunate. The issue is that even if Cole pitched extraordinarily, it still wouldn't have even mattered. The Pirates were going to lose the game because they couldn't score runs against Jake Arrieta. The fact Gerrit Cole could have given up zero runs and pitched nine innings, yet still not win the game, reflects on his team as much as giving up four runs in five innings reflects on him. 

As soon as he gave up that first run, the Pirates were done. Cole gave up that first run before he recorded an out. 

Doesn't this say something about the Pirates hitters as well? If Cole gives up one run and the Pirates have lost, is it really his fault the Pirates lost because he gave up a run? 

Another postseason blacked-out crowd would have been better off had Cole never stepped onto the mound. Or if ceremonial first-pitcher Bob Walk had stayed on the mound. 

Walk's career postseason record: 1-4, 4.50 ERA, 1.143 WHIP.
Cole's career postseason record: 1-2, 3.94 ERA, 0.875 WHIP.

Seems like Walk wasn't exactly much better than Cole has been in the postseason.

Aces flip the switch. Aces don't flip out.

Cole isn't an ace. He's the Pirates' best starting pitcher. 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH! Tough burn there. Gerrit Cole is only the best pitcher on a team of elite baseball players. That must suck.

There is a big difference. 

A huge difference. The difference being a pitcher isn't considered an ace until he wins a big game and the media anoints him an "ace." Cole was 19-8 this season with 208 innings over 32 starts with a 1.091 WHIP, 2.66 ERA and ERA+ of 148. I don't know, I think I would consider that to be an ace. 

Had the Pirates an ace, they might have played more baseball each of these last three Octobers.

An ace, St. Louis' Adam Wainwright, took them out two years ago.

An ace, San Francisco's Madison Bumgarner, took them out last year.

An ace, Chicago's Jake Arrieta, just took them out again. 

I'm guessing that Rob Rossi knows baseball is a team game. What's funny is the second article I post here from Rossi is where he tears into the Pirates batting lineup for not scoring enough runs in the postseason. So it's Cole's fault that Wainwright, Bumgarner and Arrieta have shut the Pirates out in the postseason over the last three years? The Pirates keep running into really hot pitchers who are able to shut them out. But again, it's more simple to blame Gerrit Cole AND blame the Pirates batting lineup in separate articles. That way no reader gets confused and may think pushing blame on to one person is ridiculous and sees through Rossi's act. His "act" being that he individually blames Gerrit Cole for the Pirates loss in the one game Wild Card playoff, while also blaming the Pirates batting lineup for not scoring enough runs. He has to separate them out so it's harder to see the idiocy of individually blaming Cole.

The Pirates have scored one run in their past three postseason games. Two of those were wild-card contests. The other was on the road in a decisive Game 5 of the division series. 

And of course, this is probably Gerrit Cole's fault too. How come Gerrit Cole can't pitch every playoff game and throw a shutout in every game? He's not an ace if he can't do this. 

Top-end talent is what plays when a season is on the line, and the Pirates aren't competitive at postseason baseball's most important position. 

Which for the purposes of this column is starting pitching. In his next column, Rossi will claim the most important position in baseball is first base, which is why he advocates for the Pirates to trade for a power-hitting first baseman so they can finally win a playoff series and get to the World Series. What's important for the Pirates to succeed will change depending on the point Rossi wants to prove. 

That would be starting pitching.

The Giants.

The Cardinals.

The Dodgers.

The Cubs.

Those clubs can throw aces. Right now. 

Well, the Giants can't throw aces right now because they aren't in the playoffs. Regardless if the Pirates can throw a string of Hall of Famers at opposing teams or a string of pitchers who haven't pitched above Triple-A, it doesn't matter as long as the Pirates offense can't score runs. 

Cole might become one. Cole probably will become one.

Rob Rossi earlier in this column: 

Aces flip the switch. Aces don't flip out.

Cole isn't an ace.

So what's the suggestion by Rossi to fix this? Gerrit Cole isn't an ace, but will probably become one. So he's not good enough for the Pirates right now? What if he turns into an ace next year, you know, since he's probably going to end up being an ace and all? Will he be good enough for the Pirates at that point?

The ridiculousness of saying Cole is not an ace, so the Pirates need to find an ace so they can win a playoff series and then writing, "Cole will probably become an ace" can not be understated. It's a poorly-thought out and constructed column designed only to get a reaction. In that aspect, Rob Rossi has had great success.

He's 25 and has pitched fewer than three full seasons.

He'll be great. 

Great or just the Pirates best pitcher? Because THERE'S A DIFFERENCE!

He just might not be great enough in time for the Pirates to win while Andrew McCutchen is still great. 

Oh by the way, for the purposes of this column Andrew McCutchen IS great. In the next column Rossi writes, McCutchen will no longer be great and he's a guy who needs to start delivering in the postseason. Again, Rossi takes whatever position he needs to take at that very moment without a single thought of how he contradicts himself over time. 

Or even while McCutchen is still a Pirate.

And that's a big problem. 

McCutchen is a free agent after the 2018 season. I have a feeling Cole will be considered an "ace" at that point, but what good is all of this if the Pirates can't score runs? Gerrit Cole may not have been the pitcher for the Pirates that Arrieta was for the Cubs this year, but putting blame on him for the offense's failures is ridiculous. Even if Cole had pitched a perfect nine innings the Pirates still couldn't have beaten Arrieta and the Cubs. 

Rossi then continues writing his Plaschke-esque one sentence paragraphs (perhaps Plaschke is his idol? They seem to have the same reactionary "let's make a huge issue where there isn't one" type of writing style when the local team fails) where he provides some advice to Neal Huntington about the Pirates "reboot" this offseason. Rossi is apparently bothered by the earrings that Andrew McCutchen wears and thinks he's not clutchy.

So no, it won't be easy. But this is what Huntington should do between now and next Opening Day:

• Re-sign J.A. Happ to replace A.J. Burnett as the No. 3 starter. 

Gerrit Cole isn't good enough for the Pirates, but paying up for a 33 year old starter with a career ERA of 4.13, a guy who has never thrown for more than 172 innings in a season (and did it this year in his contract year...that NEVER happens), and has a career WHIP of 1.367 is just a brilliant idea. How could re-signing a career 4th or 5th starter as the Pirates 3rd starter after he has had a career year EVER be a bad idea? There are so many red flags around J.A. Happ in my mind, but I'm not the expert that Rob Rossi is. Gerrit Cole is just the Pirates best pitcher, while J.A. Happ is a third starter. 

• Trade closer Mark Melancon to Anaheim for Hector Santiago, who can become the fourth starter. 

Who give a fuck if the Angels want to do this trade or not? Just fucking do it without the Angels approval. Get Rob Manfred on the phone to approve the trade now. 

• Remind every American League club that Pedro Alvarez's big bat is back. 

Because when requesting the Pirates find more offense, it's good to trade a player with a "big bat" that is still under team control until after the 2017 season. 

"The Pirates need more offense! Trade one of their best home run hitters!"

If only Alvarez could handle a corner infield position.

If only the National League would adopt the designated-hitter rule. 

Two straight one sentence paragraphs. It's not totally infuriating, but is definitely slightly infuriating to me. Don't write like a seven year old writes. Try writing full paragraphs.

If only Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band would get back on the road. 

A baseball sportswriters who loves Bruce Springsteen? I don't believe it at all. Can this be true? Baseball sportswriters rarely love Bruce Springsteen. 

The Pirates can't keep dancing in the dark when it comes to Alvarez. 

GET IT? IT'S A BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN SONG REFERENCE SLIPPED COVERTLY INTO A TAKE ABOUT WHAT A WORTHLESS FIELDER PEDRO ALVAREZ IS! THIS IS PROFESSIONAL SPORTSWRITING PEOPLE, PLEASE STEP BACK!

He can't field, but the light is back on when it comes to his power. 

If only there were a Journey reference in this column I could say if Alvarez goes to San Francisco and hits poorly "When the lights go down in the city and sun shines on the bay" is the time when Alvarez joined the Giants.  

An excellent home run-to-fly ball ratio (HR/FB) is at or above 20 percent. Alvarez is 22.5 percent for his career, and he was 10 percent better than that this past season. 

Well that's certainly not fluky at all. I'm sure Alvarez will continue to hit 10% better than his career average for the rest of his career. American League teams are stupid though. I'm sure they don't care about silly things like "statistics" or the idea of "regression." 

The return might not be great, but Huntington should be able to move Alvarez to an AL peer whose need is a DH. 

Again, just force an AL team to trade for him. Might as well ask Rob Manfred to force this trade through while you are on the phone with him about forcing through the Hector Santiago trade. 

Move on to the answer for the question people are starting to ask. 

"People" being defined as "Rob Rossi and select sports radio callers who are idiots." Two people ask the question and all of a sudden "people" are starting to ask questions. 

Why isn't Andrew McCutchen an MVP-caliber player in the postseason? 

Isn't this article about how the Pirates don't have good hitters in the lineup and they need to improve the pitching staff and their hitting? Well, there is your answer why McCutchen might not hit well in smaller sample sizes against better teams. McCutchen is hitting .321/.441/.357 for his career in the postseason by the way. 

No home runs.

No RBIs.

No big moments. 

He does have six at-bats in 34 plate appearances. His playoff walk rate is 17.6%, while his career walk rate (with a much larger sample of course) is 12.1%. It seems like he either has a better eye in the postseason or he's not getting a ton to hit when he comes up to the plate. 

Criticism of his underwhelming Octobers is fair, deserved and no different than what is directed at the Penguins' Sidney Crosby and the Steelers' Ben Roethlisberger. 

Sure, criticize him for his lack of power. It makes sense, but he's still getting on-base. He's just not hitting for power. 

Crosby owns a championship ring.

Roethlisberger owns two championship rings.

McCutchen owns earrings. 

It may be best to go back in time and just delete these three sentences/paragraphs (for Rob Rossi, a sentence is a paragraph apparently), because this is an embarrassment. Andrew McCutchen is by all accounts a really nice guy and Rossi has to make a snide comment about him having "earrings" as opposed to championship rings. What a joke. 

The Pirates have jumped overboard with all their “Ps.”

Pride is great.

Passion is wonderful.

Postseason is fun.

Passable is old. 

And it's all Gerrit Cole's fault! Wait, this isn't the column where Cole is getting blamed? 
(Rossi checks his notes) 

Oh yeah, it's all Andrew McCutchen's fault because he hasn't produced big moments, big hits and has earrings. Well, it's not really his fault, but for the sake of argument and the need for attention let's pretend that it is.

That last “P” word is the best adjective to describe the first basemen and cleanup hitters who have played with McCutchen. 

And this obviously has nothing to do with the Pirates scoring 1 run in their last three postseason games nor does it have anything to do with why Andrew McCutchen hasn't produced big moments. It seems that Rossi's reasoning for the Pirates struggles revolves entirely around the lineup, yet he feels the need to blame individuals because that's what gets the attention. 

As evidence, the prosecution points to the Pirates' lineup for this year's National League wild-card game.

Role player Sean Rodriguez started at first base. Free swinger Starling Marte batted fourth. 

And McCutchen only went 2-4 in the Wild Card game. If he had only hit five home runs, then the Pirates could have won the game and Gerrit Cole wouldn't be such a terrible pitcher. Cole would have gotten a win and become an ace. Andrew McCutchen is holding back Gerrit Cole's development as an ace for the Pirates. 

But, members of the jury, let's not stop at the latest wild-card lineup. 

I don't know why Rossi is doing a "fake attorney" bit, but I'm not playing along. 

In 2014, the Pirates placed Gabby Sanchez at first and Russell Martin in the cleanup spot.

In 2013, Justin Morneau filled both roles. 

Again, perhaps focus more on this and less on Cole and McCutchen's "struggles" in the postseason. It seems the reason for the Pirates not winning a playoff series can be found when looking at McCutchen's supporting cast. 

The prosecution would also like to introduce as evidence a couple of Chicago Cubs from Wednesday night: Kris Bryant, the No. 3 hitter, and behind him, first baseman Anthony Rizzo.


Why, yes, that 1-2 punch in the 3-4 holes did seem to rattle Gerrit Cole after the Cubs' leadoff hitter stole second base and scored in the first inning. 

Yes, Gerrit Cole was so rattled that in 8 plate appearances in the game Rizzo and Bryant managed to go 0-7 with a walk (and yes, I know other Pirates pitchers faced Rizzo and Bryant, but the point is Rossi is introducing these two players as evidence of what "real" #3 and #4 hitters are and they didn't hit as well as McCutchen did in the one game Wild Card playoff). I mean, Cole was scared shitless of these two players. Why can't the Pirates find a #3 hitter and #4 hitter like these two who come up big by not getting a single hit in the one game Wild Card? Instead, the Pirates are stuck with mediocre-ass Andrew McCutchen who struggles at the plate, going 2-4 in the one game Wild Card. 

“Everybody would like to have an anchor in the middle of their lineup in these type of games,” manager Clint Hurdle said Wednesday night. 

But why can't the Pirates just go find guys like this? It should be easy to do. 

They've managed to come this far without answers to two big questions that have been asked at the start, during and at the end of every season since McCutchen arrived.

Who's on first?

Who's batting fourth? 

Notice how this column went quietly from "Why can't McCutchen come up big?" to "Why aren't the players around McCutchen good enough?" Again, Rossi knows blaming McCutchen for not coming up big is a little silly, but he needs to get the attention comments about McCutchen's earrings will provide. 

Huntington has called this offseason “big.” He's underselling it.

It's huge.

Massive. Large. Mammoth. 

It all means about the same thing. They are called "synonyms" and I would think a J-school class probably discussed this at some point. Perhaps Rob Rossi was too busy checking out a classmates' earrings and was distracted during this portion of the lecture.

The Pirates could look to trade with a major league team, but all the best first basemen are going to cost at least a top prospect and probably two.

Probably. 

You are underselling it. It's potentially, perhaps even possibly. 

Huntington could always dangle Marte or Gregory Polanco. 

Oh yes, dangle the free-swinging Starling Marte. He's not good enough for the Pirates, but he's good enough to get a great first baseman back in return through a trade. 

And he should, presuming the Pirates' don't win the rights to Park. Josh Harrison can step into one of the corner outfield spots immediately. 

This is the same Josh Harrison who has slashed .284/.318/.417 with 24 home runs in 1470 at-bats during his career. In the search for a cleanup hitter, it's best to replace a guy who hit 19 home runs last year with a guy who 4 home runs last year. That'll fix everything.

The Pirates have scored two runs in their past four postseason games, all losses.

McCutchen was 1 for 15 with a walk in those games.

He needs protection behind him, not two dreamers in front of him. 

I mean, Josh Harrison could very well be that corner outfielder the Pirates are looking for. Where will he fit in the lineup? Nowhere that Rob Rossi states needs help, because he can't hit cleanup nor can he play first base, but dangle Starling Marte, lose a few home runs in the outfield and then get that great power hitting first baseman the Pirates need so badly. I mean, this great hitting first baseman would have to hit 15 more home runs than Pedro Alvarez hit last year to make up for the loss of Alvarez and Marte (replacing Marte with Harrison in the outfield, 15 home runs are left on the table and then the Pirates trade Alvarez...therefore to replace the power production of Marte and Alvarez the new first baseman would have to hit 15 more home runs than Alvarez did), but I'm sure that won't be an issue. First basemen who hit 40+ homers are easy to find, right? 

Protection is always costly.

Nobody ever regretted paying that cost, though. 

"Nobody" ever regretted paying that cost? You may want to check with the Padres before making this statement. I'm pretty sure they are one of a few teams who have regretted paying for lineup protection. 

Huntington shouldn't hesitate to invest in what remains of McCutchen's prime.

Whatever the cost, it's worth it for the Pirates finally to find that first baseman who can bat fourth. 

And then, once the Pirates find a first baseman who can bat cleanup, this means Gerrit Cole and Andrew McCutchen will no longer be useless bums. Cole will magically turn into an ace and McCutchen will start producing magic moments. It's weird how their teammates improvement will make them individually seen as better baseball players. 

Then let's see what their franchise player can do in a fourth postseason.

He'll probably just hit singles and spend his time on the bench looking online for earrings at fancy jewelry shops in the Pittsburgh area. You know how McCutchen do.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

0 comments An Old, Fiery Pre-Draft Hot Take on Cam Newton

(I didn't mean to post this, but it's been read, so go down to the next post and read MMQB for this week, it's really, really, really good (not at all) and I don't accuse Peter of loving young men this week)

I don't like writing about my favorite team on this here ol' blog, but this old Bleacher Report article must be addressed. This is representative of the type of articles Bleacher Report used to churn out on a more frequent basis. To call it trolling would be underestimating the terribleness of the writing. To call it any form of sports journalism would be laughable. This dude from Bleacher Report begged for pageviews by writing an article titled, "Cam Newton: Why Carolina Panthers' New QB is the Worst Draft Pick Ever." Sadly, this might be the highlight of this article and it is downhill from there. He's spitting fire and getting attention. That's what it is all about for the author. I wouldn't normally post something like this, but the author is so sure of it and continues his bullshit on his Bleacher Report profile. So, from May 9, 2011, here is a hot draft take.

The author is probably even more pissed-off now that Newton got a $100+ million contract. 

Cam Newton is a sure-fire bust.

A sure-fire bust. Close the doors, put the chairs up on the tables, because it's all over before it begins.

I am so certain of this that if he is the Panthers' starting quarterback in 2016, I will buy a Cam Newton jersey and stand in the stadium parking lot in my underwear when the Panthers come to Tampa Bay

I am certain that I would not want to see this. I am also certain that the author will have to do this unless Newton suffers a season-ending injury of some kind during the 2016 season. To be clear, the author would be cheering for a season-ending injury to Cam Newton.

and hold a sign proclaiming that Auburn rules over Florida and Carolina rules over Tampa Bay.

Not that he has this fiery hot take purely for the sake of attention, but if he's wrong then he wants the world to give him more attention. What's really happening is the author is a Buccaneers fan and doesn't like Auburn, plus Cam transferred from his favorite college football team. There is a lot of biased, irrational hatred towards Newton built up in the author.

This guy will be long gone by then. Here are just a few of the reasons why I believe he will make Ryan Leaf only the second-biggest draft bust in history.

What's really sad is the author spits out hot takes in an effort to gain attention and he can't even succeed at that. He has 11 followers on Twitter and even Bleacher Report doesn't seem to want him writing for them anymore.

1. Cam Newton has not had enough experience as a starting quarterback to warrant a No. 1 pick. He only really played one year of meaningful college football. Yes, it was a fantastic year. Yes, his team went undefeated and won it all. But it was still only one year. How do we know that it wasn't a fluke?

While it was a valid point that Newton didn't have a ton of experience starting in college, it doesn't mean he was going to be a bust in the NFL. He started at a junior college before he played for Auburn for one season. Maybe that's not "meaningful" enough to have played at a junior college.

How do we know that Auburn didn't win because of a fantastic supporting cast? We don't.

Yes, "we" don't, except for the fact there were probably 2-3 players other than Newton on that offense that would even have a chance of playing in the NFL. So a few years down the road, it's easy to see he didn't have a fantastic supporting cast. Even at the time, Auburn wasn't spitting out NFL prospects on offense.

2. Cam Newton has never lost a game as a starting quarterback. Wouldn't it be nice to know how he will react when he does lose a game?

Newton is TOO MUCH of a winner. This is an interesting reason to say he would be the biggest draft bust in NFL history. Newton wins too many games, what will it be like when he starts losing games? Because I'm sure Newton would have been the first college quarterback to come to the NFL and start experiencing losing at a higher rate than he experienced in college. This isn't a battle only Newton would face, so it's not a reason to claim Newton would be the biggest bust in NFL draft history either.

Is he going to learn from his mistakes? Is he going to repeat them?

Again, these aren't questions that would be exclusive to Cam Newton. Your reasoning sucks.

Will he go all "Vince Young" and threaten to hurt himself?

Yes, yes, will he go all "Vince Young." They are both black quarterbacks who won national titles. Will Cam Newton threaten to commit suicide when he doesn't become the winner in the NFL that he thought he would be? In fairness to the author, this question is still up in the air and will be until the day Cam Newton dies. Will Cam Newton, at some point, kill himself? The author asks the tough questions with no easy answers.

Will he lose all confidence? We don't know. Sure would be nice to know these things before using a No. 1 pick though.

Considering it's impossible to know these things about ANY NFL DRAFT PICK THAT IS EVER SELECTED, it would be nice to know these things. If only Cam Newton's future could have been predicted much in the same way most draft picks can have their future predicted. It would be nice to know how a draft pick will react to losing, but...ummm...that's impossible to know for any draft pick so the author's reasoning still sucks.

3. Cam Newton is no brainiac. From all accounts, he came off as an idiot on Jon Gruden's show on ESPN. He looked as if he had no idea what was going on. He was stumped by Gruden's questions. Some even said he looked bored.

Perhaps Newton was bored to death. Was Newton looking to go all "Vince Young" and threaten to hurt himself while on Jon Gruden's show? THESE ARE THE TOUGH QUESTIONS THE AUTHOR IS WILLING TO ASK THAT NO ONE ELSE WOULD TOUCH!

Did he get by at Auburn on sheer athletic ability? Of course he did. He's a freak athlete.

Actually, Newton isn't really a freak athlete in terms of speed or athletic ability. He doesn't run extremely fast, but he's fast for his size and hard to bring down. He has a great arm as well. Still, a lot of college players get by on athleticism. It doesn't mean that player will be a bust in the NFL.

But this is the NFL. 


THIS IS THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE WITH NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS!

There are many people alleging that the real reason Cam Newton left the University of Florida was not because he was caught with a stolen laptop computer, but because he was caught with papers written by other students.

This is a character issue, not a reason that Newton can't play quarterback at the NFL level.

Now, I don't know if this is true or isn't true. But before I used a No. 1 pick on this guy, I'd sure want to consider the possibility that it could be true.

And how on Earth would this brain dead author know that the Panthers didn't check on whether Newton really plagiarized another student's paper? Because the guy who writes for Bleacher Report has so many connections in the NFL that he is aware of every investigation every NFL team starts on every prospect they are considering drafting? It's ridiculous to think the author will criticize an NFL team for not considering a possibility he has no idea whether they considered or not.

It tells us that he is not smart enough to do his own work and get a passing grade. But you expect him to outsmart guys like Dick LeBeau?

A quarterback isn't expected to outsmart the opposing defensive coordinator. He's expected to run the plays that are called, recognize the coverage, and find the open receiver or audible to another play. Few quarterbacks are expected to outsmart the opposing defensive coordinator any more than recognize what the opposing defense is trying to do.

I like how the author thought Cam Newton is stupid because there is a rumor he was caught with papers written by other students and KNOWS Carolina didn't check up on this. Brilliant writing.

When things are going rough for the team, Cam is going to be the guy the other players are going to look to for leadership. How is that going to work? He has no credibility. His word means nothing.

Gee, this almost seems like a personal opinion of Cam Newton and not an opinion that he will be the biggest NFL bust ever because of his skill set.

5. Cam cannot hit the broad side of a barn with a football. All other issues aside, isn't the number one job of an NFL quarterback to complete passes?

His completion percentage was 3rd in the SEC. It's not like being 1st in the SEC, but Newton completed 66% of his passes to a group of receivers few have heard of or remember.

Did you NFL guys not watch the BCS title game? How many touchdowns did Cam leave on the table by missing receivers who were running free? That game should not have even been close.

His completion percentage was 58.8% in the BCS title game. I don't remember how many receivers he missed, but given the author's ability to be intellectually honest and fair, I'm sure he's telling the complete truth here.

On Newton's pro day at Auburn, there were reports of him missing receivers badly while throwing against air. What will happen when he has NFL defensive linemen with bad intentions bearing down on him?

With no sense of irony, the author is about to cape up for Tim Tebow. When Florida won the National title, Tebow's completion percentage was 60% in that BCS title game.

How can an NFL franchise waste a No. 1 draft pick on a guy with this many question marks? Last year all we heard was how Tim Tebow was not worth risking a first-round pick because of his throwing motion—not just the top pick, but anywhere in the top 32.

And what we have here is a University of Florida football fan who just doesn't like Cam Newton because he (the author) is a Tim Tebow fan. Mystery solved. Trolling reason now obvious.

Name another issue with Tebow. Character? Please. Intelligence? No. Accuracy? Not really.

Accuracy was an issue for Tebow. One issue for Tebow is quarterbacking ability, which is a trait that most NFL quarterbacks need to have that Tebow seems to somewhat lack. Newton may be a terrible person who missed an open receiver in an important game, but his skills translated better to the NFL than Tebow's did.

Yet somehow because he came from a spread system he was deemed unworthy of a top pick. Guess what system Cam came from.

As always when it comes to Tebow fanatics, this is really about Tebow more than it is about Cam Newton (or whatever NFL player, usually a quarterback, that is being discussed). Tebow was deemed unworthy because he had a long motion and NFL teams didn't see how his leadership skills combined with his quarterbacking ability translated to the NFL.

So how is it we go from "Tebow sucks" to "Cam is awesome" in one year?

Cam Newton will be the biggest bust in NFL draft history because Tebow doesn't suck? Of course.

When these two guys played on the same team for two years, Cam was the one riding the bench while Tebow was breaking records and winning championships.

The stupidity of this statement can not be understated. Tebow was a sophomore and Newton was a true freshmen. When Tebow played on the same team as Chris Leak, it was Chris Leak who was the starter while Tebow only played sparingly in certain packages. Does that mean Chris Leak had a better NFL future than Tim Tebow did? Of course not. That's one reason why this statement is incredibly stupid. Tom Brady sat the bench at Michigan for Drew Henson at times. Drew Brees sat behind Billy Dicken at Purdue, so obviously that means Dicken would go on to a storied NFL career while Brees would bust, right?

So how is it that the treatment of Cam by the "draft people" is 180 degrees different than Tebow's? I don't know.

So what does this have to do with Cam Newton being the biggest bust in NFL draft history? I don't know. What I do know is saying Newton will be the biggest bust in NFL draft history based on questions that nearly every other draft prospect has about them probably isn't the best reasoning for coming to this conclusion.

Let's ask Denver Broncos fans if they would like to trade Tebow for Newton straight up.

Yes, after Peyton Manning retires perhaps you should ask this question. I'd be very interested to hear the answer.

They would laugh in your face. Football fans know even if the experts have no clue. We can spot a fraud when we see one.

I agree that football fans can spot a fraud when they see one. I'm looking at you, author of this column. I have spotted you. A fraud. You. Even Bleacher Report doesn't want you anymore. Right now, people are laughing in this author's face. Such is life for trolls.

In five years, when Tebow is leading Denver into the playoffs and Cam Newton is riding someone's bench, remember this article.

Oh, this article is remembered and will never be forgotten. This last sentence is the best. Notice how this article went from "Why Cam Newton is the Biggest Bust in NFL Draft History" to "Why Do People Like Cam Newton More than Tim Tebow?" It's almost like the author came to a conclusion on one player based on his feelings for another player. Football fans like this author would never do that though, because they can spot a fraud when they see one. In 2016, football fans can spot a fraud in the Tampa Bay parking lot wearing a Cam Newton jersey and only his underwear.