0 comments The Ghost of Hot Sports Takes From Bleacher Report's Past

When I write about Bleacher Report I tend to not give the author of the column or slideshow a name unless he is someone who actually is a "name" or rather well-known writer. I call the person writing the slideshow "the author" most of the time. Bleacher Report has improved over the years for sure. There's a reason for that. The site has shed it's past, which seemed to consist a lot of times of high school students who need to gain attention by writing about sports, but have no idea how to write about sports. They hired "real" writers now and there is quality sportswriting on the site. Of course, there is still bad writing. I received an email with a link to a column about Billy Martin and George Steinbrenner from 2010 on Bleacher Report's site. I read it and it was horrible, horrible writing. So I looked at the author's archive that consists mainly of hot sports takes where the author ignorantly spit out all of his biases and ridiculous reasoning into columns that ended up very, very wrong. The author couldn't even be concerned with filling out a bio. No time for that when hot sports takes are ready to be served.

So this is just a sampling of the archive where the author takes out his/her (not entirely sure and won't assume the name is either gender, but I will write "he") admitted bias against teams in poorly-written and eventually incorrect screeds on Bleacher Report. We are all wrong at times, but there is nothing like being wrong and being so cocky and presumptive you won't be wrong.

First, the author (who admits to hating Steinbrenner and Martin in the comments) states Billy Martin and George Steinbrenner should not be in the baseball Hall of Fame. I tend to agree with Martin at least, but feel the hatred and 10th grade-level writing bleed off the page and into your unsuspecting eyes. It's incredibly bad writing filled with amateur hot sports takes better served coming from a Twitter account with an egg for an avatar. The author hasn't written since 2011, but I'm sure he's trolling some sports message boards somewhere.

The late George Steinbrenner and the late Billy Martin did not receive many votes by the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee. This sounds just about right; they didn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame on their first try.

In fact, they shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame period. Neither did anything special to earn that honor, so it's hard to believe either of them will be there.

Steinbrenner did nothing to merit being in the Hall.

I'm confused. So the author DOESN'T think George Steinbrenner should be in the Hall of Fame?  

He caused damage to the sport by escalating salaries, and he basically destroyed the chances of small-market teams winning championships. He created the divide between small-market teams and big-market teams when it comes to generating revenue that has not been resolved.

Steinbrenner did have some help, but it seems completely fair to just blame George Steinbrenner in total for these issues.

This guy had too much baggage; he wasn't beloved by his fellow owners, treated employees like slaves,

I'm not entirely sure how Steinbrenner can be responsible for the escalating salaries of players and then stated that he treated his own players (who he paid a lot of money to be in his employ) like slaves, but I'm sure the author has totally sound reasoning for making this statement. He just never explains the sound reasoning.

Talk about Steinbrenner giving Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden second chances. He wanted to rejuvenate their careers, but he wasn't doing it to be a savior. He wanted to take credit if those guys succeeded, and he wasn't afraid to let people know it was him that played a role in their success.

If you want to look at it that way, then yes. Does Tony Dungy counsel NFL players to soothe his own ego or because he really wants to help counsel these players? If I hated Tony Dungy I could make an argument that it's all about him and how he wants to take credit for the success of these players. Either way, the result is what mattered. Steinbrenner gave these three players chances to rejuvenate their careers.

Besides, owners have no business being in the Hall. they don't play the game, so there's no reason for them to be in. Yes, they run a business. But, the Hall should be about players and managers—nothing more than that.

These hot takes are coming at me so fast, I can barely catch them all. The best part is this hot sports take is just thrown out there and immediately abandoned for the next one. No need to elaborate further, here's something else hot off the presses!

Go ahead and talk about his success. People should remember something: The Yankees went on a great run after Steinbrenner's suspension, and when he came back, he rode on their coattails.

(touches computer screen and burns his finger)

This is the same owner who wanted to trade all those prospects. He wanted guys who can win now and did not want to wait another five or six years. Once he came back from suspension, he started his nonsense. The prospects flourished, and it resulted in the "Core Four" of Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada.

Imagine if Steinbrenner traded them all: where would the Yankees be now?

But Steinbrenner ended up not trading them all, so the hypothetical of what Steinbrenner didn't do isn't a good reason to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. That's a positive for Steinbrenner that he got overruled and decided not to trade these players.

Imagine if Lou Gehrig was born as a chipmunk instead of a human? How good would he have been at playing first base without arms and legs and the insatiable need to cross the street when a car was coming? HOW COULD LOU GEHRIG HAVE BECOME THE MOST OVERRATED FIRST BASEMAN IN MLB HISTORY IF HE WERE BORN A RODENT???

Basically, the Yankees won in spite of him. He contributed spending money by getting the best players, but it's easy to do when he has many resources to work with in the biggest media market in the world.

The Johnny-come-lately Yankees fans will say great things about him, but those folks weren't around during the dark days of Yankees baseball.

Every single one of you. None of you were around during the dark days of Yankees baseball. Only the author was there, screaming curses at children who dared to wear a Don Mattingly jersey to a Yankees game.

If he wasn't winning, he wouldn't be beloved here.

Very astute observation. It's like saying if Derek Jeter had 3 hits instead of over 3,000 hits he wouldn't be headed for the Hall of Fame. The fact Steinbrenner did win is why he was beloved and a case for his Hall of Fame induction can be made. Sure, if you ignore the reasons he should be in the Hall of Fame he wouldn't have a very good case.

As for Martin, he was an overrated manager. He was fired everywhere he had been, and he won championships in spite of his work with the Yankees. Earl Weaver out managed him at every opportunity.

Whew! This was three sentences of three hot sports takes.

There was nothing special about Martin.

If he did not like a player, he would do everything possible to make his player miserable. Ask Reggie Jackson for details.

Okay, I will. (Bengoodfella goes to call Reggie Jackson and then realizes he has no way of getting Jackson's phone number)

He fell in love with role players, which is amusing since they did nothing.

I'm pretty damn amused. I can admit that.

This guy was also a bigot. He never worked well with African-Americans, and he wasn't any better with Jewish players.

By the way, the author states in the comments he doesn't think Ty Cobb should be in the Hall of Fame either. At least he's consistent. 

There was nothing to like about him. Martin was all about himself. He was a sideshow at home and at the ballpark. He was a fixture at nightclubs and bars.

If Martin didn't do any of those things, he may have been in the Hall of Fame a long time ago. Writers may have voted him in even though he doesn't deserve it based on his work.

He was his own enemy. He felt everything had to be his way. He thought the game was about him and not the players. He never respected anyone.

But see, this is really something that Bleacher Report allowed to be printed on their site in 2010. Even if it was true to an extent, it's not exactly the best and most analytical reasoning possible for why Billy Martin shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

ESPN featured The Bronx Is Burning in 2007. This drama revealed everything about Martin, and the writer took notes of every moment of those scenes. The impression was the Yankees manager was not the guy to root for.

AND SINCE WHEN HAS A MOVIE PORTRAYED A REAL LIFE PERSON INACCURATELY?

There's no question the committee showed their vendetta on Steinbrenner and Martin. They wanted to make both of them pay for their actions.

It seems the committee may have evaluated Steinbrenner and Martin on their merits, while the only one with a vendetta just may be you. It's hard to tell, because this is such a nuanced piece of writing.

The committee made their minds up, and there's no reason to think they are going to change their minds on both of them.

Because if a baseball figure isn't inducted into the Hall of Fame on his first try, history shows he never gets inducted into the Hall of Fame...well, at least in the author's world.

(the author steps up on a pedestal)

The Hall is not a place for cheaters, criminals and jerks. This is a sacred place for guys who made the game a better one. It's for guys who made the job a better place.

(the author steps down off his pedestal, smashing his shoe into a child's face on the way down for the crime of drooling and having no concern for the author's words by crying while he's talking on his pedestal )

It's a joke that there is a debate about this. It's funny to see people get worked up by all this.

Yes, it certainly is hilarious to see people get worked up by all of this. The author certainly doesn't seem worked up about it at all.

As good as it looks for both men, it really wasn't that special.

That's what she said.

If you want a slightly more nuanced look at Steinbrenner's Hall of Fame candidacy then follow this link. If you want a take like you just read, may God have mercy on your soul.

Now the author boldly takes on Mark Teixeira for dumping Scott Boras as his agent. 

Typical Mark Teixeira.

He wants everyone to congratulate him for dumping Scott Boras. He approached as a newsworthy moment. He acted like this was a noble thing to do.

Tex's statement at the time. Here is what he said a few years later about his reasoning. I don't know, it seems like he just sort of let Boras go rather than bask in the glory of it all. Maybe I don't hate the Yankees enough to see how evil Tex really was for dropping Boras.

He claimed he dumped Boras because he was tired of people knowing him as Boras' client rather than be a baseball player.

If that is not being self-centered, then what is?

I'm not entirely sure the author understands how an agent actually works. The entire point of having an agent is to make things about the person hiring the agent. Like that's the entire purpose of an agent, to make it about his client.

First of all, no one is interested in his reasoning. No one cares.

If no one is interested and no one cares then why was Tex dumping Boras reported on by the media and now you are so uninterested in his reasoning that you are criticizing his reasoning?

This is about his being protective of his image. Obviously, he cares about what people think of him. That type of stuff belong to high schoolers. Professional players should just do their job and keep quiet.

Yeah, that type stuff belong to high schoolers. Like using an "s" at the end of words to show the word is plural or to indicate you know how to correctly use grammar. So high school.

This sounds like he wants to pass the buck rather than looking at the mirror. He should try that. This is a guy who likes to educate people about the game.

He treats the local media as if they are dumb. He gets defensive when he deals with the tough questions.

This isn't an adult writing these sentences. This is a child who just found out his parents don't have a password anymore on the computer and he is writing these sentences trying to take every chance he can get to bash his least favorite team.

He whines about getting hit by pitch often.

What a rebel. The author is still not using an "s" at the end of his sentences. Fuck you, grammar! You are just a racist Billy Martin lover!

He intentionally injured Angels catcher Bobby Wilson by ramming through him after getting a hit by pitch last year.

He rammed all the way through Bobby Wilson? I don't remember Tex murdering a catcher, but my memory may be a little hazy.

Remarkably, Teixeira sounded indifferent about the whole thing when asked about it. He did not even bother calling him.

This is a totally relevant anecdote as it pertains to why Mark Teixeira is an asshole for firing Scott Boras.

This is not the first time he had those problems. He's been like that with the Texas Rangers. He was sensitive to criticism over there.

The Rangers had no choice to trade the moody player. He became a bad influence to the young players, and he took the life out of that team with his complaining.

This is a fact! Not an opinion! A fact! If it weren't for Michael Young, the entire Texas Rangers franchise would have folded in on itself due to Mark Teixeira's bad influence.

Yes, Teixeira won a championship two years ago, but it's easy to go play for a team that buys a championship every year. Besides it's not like he was doing anything in the postseason two years ago.

Great point. It's easy to win a World Series. In fact, 20 MLB teams won the World Series just last year and Teixeira's season line of .292/.383/.565 with 39 home runs and 122 RBI had nothing to do with the Yankees even being in the playoffs.

He treats the local media as if they are dumb. He gets defensive when he deals with the tough questions.

If he was serious about changing his image, he shouldn't have gone out and made a news conference out of it.

If he is going to be serious about this, he should be stoic to the media from now on. He's better off anyway because he adds no insight to his quotes.

Mark Teixeira needs to deal better with the local media and answer the tough questions. He should not have publicly stated he was leaving Scott Boras. Teixeira should simply not talk to the media at all.

So in summary, Mark Teixeira doesn't give good quotes because he won't answer tough questions, but the author thinks he shouldn't even talk to the media anyway if he is only going to give the media information like the fact Scott Boras isn't his agent anymore. So I really have no idea what the author wants from Tex at this point...other than for him to just die.

It's hard to think he's going to change. No one ever changes. It's one thing from a kid to grow up at some point, but when a man is set in his ways, there's no reason to think he will change.

I honestly have no fucking clue what the author is talking about right now.

Also, fans worry about him hitting a baseball. They want him to get over his April slump that haunted his career. If he does that, no one will care if he is a jerk. It seems Teixeira is too worried about what people think of him. If that's the case, he does not mean well at all.

He has to do this based on his heart. If he is really serious about this, he has to show it.

Oh Jesus Christ, this is like a diarrhea explosion of words on the computer screen. Teixeira needs to do this (do what?) based on his heart and he has to show it. I feel like the author is just playing mad libs right now or trying to talk to the readers in code.

By firing Boras, he put the attention on himself and that's the way he likes it.

Except you stated he didn't like it that way because he won't give the media a juicy quote to digest. This is the type of crap that used to end up on Bleacher Report.

Then the author wrote a trilogy of articles about how the 2011 Tampa Bay Rays are a joke and they won't come close to doing anything during the season because they don't have the hitters to make the playoffs. The Rays went 91-71 and made the playoffs the year the author wrote these three columns. It's not that author was wrong, it's that he was so absolutely sure he was right it's hilarious to read how he wrote with such confidence.

The author first took on the owner of the Rays (naturally) and his cult of followers. You can read the desperation in these articles from the author. He's desperate to write something that another person will read and he will troll as hard as possible for pageviews. He's the Mark Teixeira of Bleacher Report. He just needs to do this based on his heart and show it.

Despite the fire sale, the Rays owner has them believing the Rays can be a wild-card team. When the Rays signed Manny Ramirez and Johnny Damon over the weekend, the cults were in propaganda mode. They mentioned the signings will make the Rays as good as last year.

Which they were not as good by five games. Of course, that's not such a big deal when the Rays won 96 games the year before.

Let's get real here. The Rays will do okay, but expecting them to win 87 games is crazy.

They won 91 games. It's a crazy world.

Signing couple of washed-up players is not going to improve the offense. If Damon and Ramirez were any good, they wouldn't be playing for the Rays. The Rays hope to get something out of those two, but its unrealistic. Now, if they signed Vladimir Guerrero, then it's okay to get excited.

Damon hit .261/.326/.418 with 16 home runs, 73 RBI's and 19 steals.

Guerrero hit .290/.317/.416 with 13 home runs, 63 RBI's and 2 steals.

The starting rotation will do a fine job, but they are going to have to be perfect to win games. That's too much to ask. They are going to be involved in 2-1 or 3-1 games often, and if the offense can't provide run support, they are just not going to win them.

15th in runs scored, 25th in batting average, 13th in OBP, and 13th in slugging percentage. 14th in the majors in OPS. So scoring runs wasn't a huge issue.

People argue Jeremy Hellickson can replace Garza, but that's wishful thinking at best. First of all, Hellickson is going to go through growing pains in his first full season.

He went 13-10 with a 2.95 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, 3.5 WAR in 189 innings.

If the Rays had their way, James Shields would have been traded, but he has no value right now.

Two seasons later James Shields landed the Rays Wil Myers in a trade from the Royals.

Signing Farnsworth was a bad idea. He's proved he can not be reliable over the years. He will blow games, and he will get hit hard. Joe Maddon would be wise to use him as a situational reliever.

He had a 2.18 ERA and 0.99 WHIP with 25 saves as the Rays' closer.

This year is not going to be easy for the Rays. It’s not going to be bad, but there are too many questions to think this team is going be a playoff team.

They were.

Sternberg and his management team can brainwash others all they want, but it does not change the fact this team has questions to answer.

You mean exactly like every other MLB team?

Now the author isn't satisfied with his previous statements about the cult of Sternberg and has some thoughts on the Rays' signings. 

They are relying on castoffs from their offseason moves. They feel those guys can help them contend for a wildcard spot with their core players.

It's an interesting move. It could work out, but it may not work out.

It may or may not work out. Thanks for clearing up all confusion. This is analysis.

They have fine intentions, but there's no guarantee it will work.

There are no guarantees! None! Every other MLB team has guarantees, but not the Rays.

As for Damon, he struggled at the plate last year. Despite having a good on-base percentage, he couldn't be a difference-maker on the base paths. He wasn't hitting either. His defense left a lot to be desired, especially when he throws to the cutoff guy.

Again, the Rays have to hope this works out.

I don't know if the Rays would have signed Johnny Damon and Manny Ramirez prior to the 2011 season in the hopes it would NOT work out. But, as the author has told us, it may or may not work out.

Bush will be in the minors. Kotchman and Delaney will get a shot to make the team. The Rays hope to get something out of Peralta and Farnsworth.

Kotchman has showed he is no better than Dan Johnson.

Kotchman: .306/.378/.422 with 10 home runs and 48 RBI's in 500 at-bats.

Johnson: .119/.187/.202 with 2 home runs and 4 RBI's in 84 at-bats.

Yep, they were really the same player in 2011.

These moves are the best the Rays can do. For a small-market team, it's hard to expect them to retain all of their stars and get a premier free agent. Still, the Rays should have kept Grant Balfour and Dan Wheeler, but they apparently thought those two did as well as they could.

It's hard for the Rays to keep their stars, but they should have done it anyway. Just create money for payroll out of nowhere. How hard could that be? The author with a thorough lack of understanding for the economic realities facing the Rays.

It's hard to understand the trade of Matt Garza. He is the type of starter that can win 12 games with his stuff. He can be inconsistent, but in big games, he delivers. To lose that type of starter, it's unfathomable, especially when he has several years to go on his contract.

David Price, James Shields and Jeremy Hellickson all won 12 games or more.

The Rays have become relevant to the public and to the AL East with these moves. Players have something to play for. That’s something at least.

A month ago the author didn't really like the moves and he sort of bashed them in the above column.

Now the author waits FIVE WHOLE GAMES of the 2011 season to announce the Rays' season totally over.

So much for the Tampa Bay Rays being a playoff team.

After watching them in this homestand, they are 0-5 for a reason. They feature no hitters that scare the other team. It's not surprising Jeremy Guthrie, Chris Tillman, Zach Britton, Jered Weaver and Dan Haren had their way with them.

It's no surprise those five pitchers had their way with the Rays because they are quality pitchers?

Go ahead and talk about how it's early, but it's not going to change the fact these hitters are not impact players.

"Go ahead and point out the fallacy in my reasoning or the small sample size I am drawing my conclusion from, but I will stand by my fallacy and small sample size until proven wrong. Okay, well I will just stop writing for Bleacher Report when I'm proven wrong."

The Rays hoped Manny Ramirez and Johnny Damon would provide the offense, but that hasn't worked out so far.

Ramirez was a disaster, but Damon turned it around. It's almost like five games is a tiny sample size to definitively base conclusions upon.

For what those two accomplished in the majors, they deserve a chance to get it together. If they don't by the end of May, the Rays should release both of them.

Or threaten to execute their family if they don't start hitting well. That's probably a better idea.

The Rays are relying on Reid Brignac, Sean Rodriguez, Dan Johnson, Matt Joyce and Ben Zobrist to make an impact as everyday players. That's too much to ask. Most of their players are nothing more than utility players at best.

Well, Dan Johnson IS Casey Kotchman. That much is obvious. Also, 2011 Matt Joyce and Ben Zobrist take exception to the idea they are utility players at best. Great foresight though.

Brignac and Rodriguez may be better than they are portrayed, but it doesn't seem like it.

Of course, in his angry brilliance the author picks the two players who AREN'T as good as they are portrayed as being better than they are portrayed.

It's ridiculous to expect starters to win games by themselves. It never happens. Pitching and defense wins championships, but that becomes meaningless if the team can't hit.

So pitching and defense don't win championships then? Because, pitching, defense, and offense wins championships? I'm confused.

The lack of hitting not only will not make the Rays a playoff team, but it will mean 84 losses.

Only off by 13 losses. That's not so bad.

They are on pace to do just that after watching the first five games at the Trop.

Because five games was the perfect sample size to come out and spit hot sports takes about how the Rays are a terrible offensive team.

Now the author comes in hot at Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning on September 8, 2011. He says the Giants are going nowhere, NOWHERE he tells us, with Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning leading the team. I don't want to be a bully, but this author comes in so hard and hot on these teams with his hot takes it is really funny to read just how wrong he was. By the way, the Giants won the Super Bowl six months after this column was written.

They are hoping miracles can happen again this year for Big Blue. With the team dealing with many injuries and many defections in the offseason, they are in a bind already. The experts are not giving them a chance to be a playoff team.

And when, other than every single year, have the experts been wrong?

The Giants’ problems stem from the head coach and the quarterback. What confidence does anyone have in Giants quarterback Eli Manning and Giants head coach Tom Coughlin?

Considering they won a Super Bowl in 2007 together, as a non-Giants fan I had some confidence in them.

What confidence do the Giants have in Manning now? He did not have a good preseason. He was off target throwing the ball to his receivers. He continues to have problems with interceptions.

It doesn’t seem like he is getting better. Maybe it’s time to realize he had a fluke 2007 postseason.

Yes, maybe it is time to realize he had a fluke 2007 postseason. In 2011, Eli Manning ended up having one of the best, if not the best, season of his career. Oh yeah, and the Giants won the Super Bowl. Either way, it's time to go hard at Tom Coughlin. Careful Tom, the author is blazing at you with his hot takes about your coaching style!

Then there’s Coughlin’s leadership as coach.

He has had his team unprepared and undisciplined every game. They find ways to lose rather than to win. When the going gets tough, Coughlin implodes by screaming at his players rather than leading them and teaching them about what happened on a play. He is often confused on the sidelines every game.

That last sentence sounds like it came directly from Gregg Easterbrook. It's amazing to me that the Giants won two Super Bowls with a coach who has his team unprepared and undisciplined every game. Either that, or the author is just making shit up because he wants to write an article bashing the Giants to gain attention. I'll let you decide.

It could come down to this. His players tuned him out. Their play and their demeanor indicate that. This is why the Giants should have not bothered keeping Coughlin this season. They should have found a coach that can offer a new perspective for guys to listen.

Oh boy, I bet this is awkward for the author to go back and read.

The Giants didn’t look at it that way. They feel Coughlin hasn’t lost it. Plus, they didn’t want to fire him after a 10-win season.

It’s a good thing he won the Super Bowl in 2007 or else he would have been looking for work a long time ago. 

Plus Coughlin had a 65-47 record (That's a 58.0% winning percentage, which is very close to the winning Bill Parcells had with the Giants) prior to the 2011 season. It's weird how the Giants choose not to fire a coach and then he wins the Super Bowl. It's almost like this knee-jerk writing is exactly that, overly-emotional hot takes in an effort to gain attention.

That’s why the Giants are hard-pressed to make the playoffs this year.

My man comes in hard with this sentence, then the Giants win the Super Bowl. No wonder he quit writing for Bleacher Report. Even 2011 Bleacher Report found his belligerent hot takes too embarrassing to publish.

Both of them have shown no evidence that they can lead and produce outside of a fluke 2007 postseason, so it’s hard to get excited about this season.

When hot sports takes go bad. I'm not trying to use hindsight or bully this author, but he's so damn certain of himself and speaks with such authority, it's just fun to read just how bad his writing was at the time.

Because the author most likely felt left out, he decided on June 8, 2011 to go hard with hot sports takes about how LeBron James can't handle the spotlight. The author's writing is like a greatest hits of overreactions that look really foolish a few years later. But what makes it so great is just how sure and non-nuanced the author is when writing about these teams and players. He kicks nuance to do the door in favor of feeling like he's preaching nothing but the truth.

With a few seconds left in Game 4 of the NBA Finals, Dwyane Wade threw the ball to Mike Miller, who missed a three-pointer that would have sent the game to overtime.

No one can blame Wade for not throwing it to LeBron James, who was disengaged and disinterested in his eight-point performance.

James’ approach cost the Heat a victory as the Mavericks evened the series at two in an 86-83 victory at Dallas.

I am starting to think the author is really Skip Bayless.

Well, there was no defense for this disgraceful performance. Not only did he do nothing on offense, James wasn’t defending either. His defense resembled Nate Robinson’s defense, which is standing around and doing nothing.

Yeah, LeBron plays defense EXACTLY like Nate Robinson. Except Nate Robinson is a winner while LeBron James is a loser.

That was why he made the decision to take his talents to South Beach. The message was clear. He did not want to be the go-to guy on his team anymore, and he did not want the burden of being the face of the franchise anymore. He wanted to be known as a guy who can just fit in with Wade.

Yes, I am sure LeBron James went to Miami because he thought he wouldn't be noticed there. That's why he was so quiet about choosing the Heat when he decided which team he would join as a free agent. LeBron just wanted to quietly fit in, which is why he scheduled an hour-long special announcing his choice to go to the Heat. That's why LeBron promised "not one, not two, not three..." championships at the huge ceremony introducing he and Bosh as new members of the Heat. He just wanted to fit in.

After the Cavaliers bowed out in the playoffs the last two years, James decided it wasn’t worth it anymore. He thought being a one-man team was a burden.

Every single NBA player ever has thought that being a one-man team is a burden. That's why every NBA Championship team has not been a one-man team. There have always been other important, contributing players on that team. No superstar can win a title as a one-man team.

Not only has he stunk on the court, he also came up lame in his press conference. He failed to take accountability by saying he stunk. He came up with excuses for what went wrong.

The author really reads a lot into quotes given by athletes before and after a game. He's very angry with what Mark Teixeira says to the media and he's outraged at LeBron's excuses for his performance.

He talked about how his shots did not go in, which is odd considering he didn’t bother to take shots in Game 4. He talked about how he has to do a better job of being assertive offensively when he did not make an effort to do so.

I'm feeling like the author is too enraged to pay attention while writing this column. See, LeBron said he has to do a better job being assertive BECAUSE he did not make an effort to do so. So it's not an excuse, but LeBron acknowledging the author's criticism that he didn't play assertive enough. Yet, the author doesn't understand this and seems to not understand cause and effect. LeBron can't go back in time and make himself more assertive, so he has to in the future be more assertive. That's what he was saying. Slow down the hot takes and read.

Instead of mumbling through the press conference or coming up with silly clichés, he should have just said that he stunk and he will be more aggressive on Thursday.

He did say he would be more aggressive. Hence the "do a better job of being assertive offensively" part of his comments.

Great players such as Kobe Bryant, Jason Kidd, Dirk Nowitzki, Michael Jordan and Wade were not ashamed to call themselves out if their performance was unacceptable.

Hmmm...not sure this is a fact-based comment.

Winning a championship should change how a player is perceived, but in the case of James, that’s not happening. Not when he took the easy way out. Not when he is not making an impact in these Finals.

Hot sports take fail. Winning two championships did change how LeBron was perceived.

If he had his way, people would leave him alone and just accept him for what he is.

Maybe it’s time for all of us to stop celebrating him as a great player and look at him as a role player that is along for the ride.

Man, that last sentence was a real burner. Great job of trolling to get attention. It's been over three years and this article has 89 reads. 89 reads in over three years. The author spits out trolling attempts so often to get attention, yet it didn't seem to work.

Bleacher Report isn't perfect today, but this is the sort of crap that got printed a lot a few years ago. The site consisted of a lot of hot sports takes that existed merely for the sake of drawing attention.

2 comments Murray Chass Uses a Sample Size of Three Players in Wondering Where All the Power-Hitting 1B Have Gone

Somewhere towards the end of this article, Murray Chass states he has gotten off his main point. I wasn't even aware this article had a main point really. Murray seems to be taking a shot at doing some research to find out where all of the slugging first basemen have gone, but doesn't really come to a conclusion about the answer. He uses a sample size of three players, Adrian Gonzalez/Mark Teixeira/Albert Pujols, as proof slugging first basemen aren't around anymore. He ties salary into this discussion, so maybe he is proving slugging, productive, highly-paid first basemen aren't around anymore.

So not only is Murray Chass using a sample of three hitters to base his conclusion upon, he is about 30% of the MLB season (and zero historical data that shows these three guys can/will turn it around) as the sample size in claiming there is a decline in slugging first basemen. Murray wrote this article on May 24th, so I will be using data from that date. I'm still not sure if this article is a warning against paying first basemen big money in free agency or is simply just a poor observation based on a limited sample size. Either way, it is good to see Murray trying to do some research (he even uses OBP!), but I'm not sure what he has actually proven here.

In the space of three years, December 2008 to December 2011, Mark Teixeira, Adrian Gonzalez and Albert Pujols signed contracts whose salaries and signing bonuses totaled $574 million.

BREAKING: MLB teams will overpay for players considered to be one of the best players at their position. Just don't tell that to that guy who wrote the Bleacher Report article about how Albert Pujols' contract has caused MLB GM's to change their opinion on expensive, long-term contracts forever.

Now Murray looks at each of these three players' past performance in an effort to let us know he will focus on 45 games during the 2012 season rather than focus on these players' past performance when coming to whatever conclusion he seems to come to. Again, this conclusion isn't really clear, this article just sort of stops for no apparent reason.

For example, in his first 10 years in the major leagues, Pujols batted .331, slugged more than 40 home runs six times and no fewer than 32 the other four times and drove in more than 100 runs each season. An “off year” for him was last year when he batted .299 with 37 homers and 99 r.b.i.

Pujols was hitting .213 with 4 home runs and 20 RBI at the time Murray wrote this. He was on pace for 11 home runs and 70 RBI for the season in 625 at-bats.

Gonzalez did not go to Boston as a free agent...In his last five years in San Diego Gonzalez hit 167 home runs and drove in 536 runs.

In his first year in Boston he maintained that kind of production, slugging 27 homers, knocking in 117 runs and adding a career-high .338 batting average.

Gonzalez was hitting .269 with 3 home runs and 22 RBI at the time Murray wrote this. He was on pace for 11 home runs and 79 RBI in 625 at-bats.

In 2008 the Yankees finished third and out of the playoffs. Determined not to let that happen again, they decided to spend heavily in the 2008-09 free agent market. They signed the best pitcher available, CC Sabathia, and the best hitter available, Mark Teixeira.

The Yankees then won the 2009 World Series due to the help provided by CC Sabathia and Mark Teixeira.

In stops in Texas, Atlanta and Anaheim, Teixeira did not produce a steady stream of monstrous seasons, but he was the best hitter among free-agent hitters

He hit .283/.368/.533 with 153 home runs and 499 RBI during his four and a half seasons in Texas.

He hit .295/.395/.548 with 37 home runs and 134 RBI during his one full season in Atlanta.

He hit .358/.449/.632 with 13 home runs and 43 RBI during his (54 games) nearly half season with the Angels.

Tex was hitting .226 with 5 home runs and 21 RBI at the time Murray wrote this. In 575 at-bats, he is on pace to hit 19 home runs with 78 RBI.

I feel like Murray is dismissing Mark Teixeira's first six seasons in the majors a little bit. These aren't monstrous numbers, but if he continued to put those numbers up for his entire career he could have a claim for Hall of Fame consideration. I wouldn't simply proclaim him the best hitter among free-agent hitters after the 2008 season. That seems to mean he was the best that was available and not actually one of the best hitters in baseball when he became a free agent. Tex was considered a somewhat elite hitter at the time and as I have stated over and over, he is the best second-best hitter in the majors. He's not good enough to carry a team, but he has the ability to be the best second-best hitter on a team in the majors. He has struggled this past year, granted.

Whereupon he had the three most productive seasons of his career, slugging 111 home runs and knocking in 341 runs.

The use of RBI's to show good Tex is does annoy me a bit. Obviously this is a function of having runners on-base, but we could never convince Murray of this, so I'm willing to play by his rules for the time being.

A reader called attention to the intriguing development.

“What’s up with the dramatic decline in the production of 1B sluggers?” he asked. “Pujols, Teixeira, and now Gonzalez who seems to have stopped hitting HRs. Gotta be a coincidence, but still….”

Yes, it is a coincidence. Pujols/Gonzalez started off slowly this year while Teixeira has had bronchial inflammation holding him back and he is usually a slow starter anyway. There are quite a few first basemen who have not started the year off slowly. Simply because the usual suspects aren't the best hitters at the first base position doesn't mean there aren't slugging first basemen.

Bryan LaHair had 10 home runs with 21 RBI and a .310 batting average. He is on pace for 39 home runs and 81 RBI in 500 at-bats (I am adjusting the at-bats to reflect some of these first basemen have different number of at-bats. LaHair only had 129 at-bats...or 49 fewer than Pujols. Clearly, I am doing my best to guess at the number of at-bats each of these hitters will have).

Paul Konerko had 9 home runs with 25 RBI and a .381 average. He is on pace for 34 home runs and 94 RBI in 550 at-bats.

Prince Fielder has 7 home runs with 25 at-bats and a .285 average. He is on pace for 25 home runs and 91 RBI in 600 at-bats.

Joey Votto also has 7 home runs along with 28 RBI and a .295 average. He is on pace for 29 home runs and 115 RBI in 600 at-bats.

So there are three first basemen whose power seems to have declined and there are other first basemen who are still slugging the ball well. I think this is evidence there are slugging first basemen in the majors.

Investigation of the matter did not produce any smoking guns or ongoing conspiracy against wealthy, lusty-hitting first basemen. In fact, Joey Votto, the Reds’ young slugger, who was the National League most valuable player in 2010, is having another productive season, as is Carlos Lee of Houston.

(It pains me to ignore the fact Carlos Lee is not worth his six year $100 million contract and if Murray really wants to talk about players who underperform their contract Lee would on the list, but I must not get sidetracked.)

Right, so we can only conclude this is all just a coincidence and will be the end of this article. Right? We've proven nothing, except Tex/Gonzalez/Pujols are struggling to start the season. End of story, right? Wrong. There's more.

But to qualify for the Pujols-Gonzalez-Teixeira category, a first baseman apparently has to make a lot more money than Votto’s $38 million for three years

How about $225 million? That's the value of the contract extension Joey Votto signed which puts him right in the territory of Pujols/Gonzalez/Teixeira. Way to do research, Murray. Votto will make the $26.5 million (including $17 million in 2013) over the next two years. I would probably go ahead and throw him in as making a lot of money with the big three sluggers Murray is writing this article about. How did Murray miss this $225 million contract extension of Votto's? Votto belongs in the group of highly paid slugging first basemen, as does Ryan Howard. So Howard is injured, but Votto is playing well and he makes/will be making a large amount of money.

Let’s see what the Angels, the Red Sox and the Yankees are getting seven weeks into the season for the huge expenditures they made for their first basemen (through Wednesday):

		BA	OB %	SLG %	HR	RBI
	Pujols	.213	.258	.331	4	20
	Gonzalez	.269	.333	.406	3	22
	Teixeira	.226	.291	.381	5	21

I show this graph, simply to show that Murray Chass is using OB%. Of course he calls it "OB%" and leaves off the "P" in favor of a "%" sign, but at least it is progress in some form.

Let’s look at another nouveau riche first baseman, Prince Fielder, and see if he belongs with the rest of the group. At $214 million for nine years, he certainly qualifies economically:

		BA	OB %	SLG %	HR	RBI
	Fielder	.285	.346	.461	7	25

Yes, he belongs. No, he isn't struggling as much as these other three guys are struggling at the beginning of this year. He still is below his career averages though. He, like Pujols, has switched leagues.

I'm still not sure if there is a point to this article. If the point is that highly paid first basemen are struggling, this isn't entirely true. Votto just signed a huge extension and he is still playing well and Paul Konerko makes $12 million this year and he is having one of his best seasons of his career. Carlos Pena is having a typically Carlos Pena-like year with a low batting average but a high OBP. If the point of this article is sometimes slugging first basemen start the year off slow, well, I thought that was just common sense knowledge.

The title of this column is "Where Have the 1B Sluggers Gone?" and the answer at this point appears to be "nowhere." Three of the best slugging first basemen started the year off struggling, but this doesn't mean they will struggle the rest of the season, and there are other first basemen who are hitting the ball well. It just so happens the three first basemen Murray is focusing on are expensive players who play in large markets. Maybe this is shading his point of view.

Gonzalez and Teixeira have made no errors, Gonzalez in a league-leading 423 chances, Teixeira in 372 chances. Pujols has committed one error in 406 chances. Then there is Fielder, who made his sixth error Wednesday night in 360 chances.

Those six errors are significant I say and immediately dismiss them!

Before you dismiss Fielder’s errors as insignificant, know that No. 6 cost the Tigers their game with the Indians.

Vexed again by Murray Chass!

I didn't know one of those six errors cost the Tigers a game. That completely changes my opinion in regard to whatever the hell Murray is trying to prove.

The error also broke Fielder’s tie with Yonder Alonso of San Diego for the major league lead in errors committed by a first baseman.

A statistics nut would point out a player's number of errors committed in itself isn't necessarily a sign he is good or bad at fielding his position. After all, I could play shortstop and stand there never moving for a ground ball further than two feet from me and never commit an error all season. Does that mean I am great at fielding my position? It does not.

Alonso does not make as much as Fielder – he signed a five-year, $4.55 million contract with the Reds after they made him the seventh player picked in the 2008 draft. But in some ways, he is outhitting Fielder.

And in regard to the topic of this column, which if you can recall is a discussion of slugging first basemen, Fielder is outhitting Alonso. Let's not change the criteria around to try and prove your point. If you want to talk slugging first basemen, then stick to the "slugging" part of the discussion. Alonso gets on-base and hits for a high average. Historically, and even this season, and in terms of actually slugging the ball Fielder is outhitting Alonso.

(Granted, Alonso plays at Petco Park, which is not a hitter's paradise. He still had only hit 1 home run in 56 road at-bats during the season. He isn't exactly slugging the ball away from Petco Park either.)

Alonso: .300/.384/.413 with 1 home run and 13 RBI.

Fielder: .285/.346/461 with 7 home runs and 25 RBI.

All these numbers prove to me is this column was written on May 24. By the end of the year I believe Alonso will only have a higher batting average than Fielder.

I have strayed from the primary point of the column,

Which I honestly still have no clue what this primary point actually was.

the mysterious disappearance of the offense provided by Pujols, Gonzalez and Teixeira.

It's not really mysterious. Pujols has struggled in his first season in the American League, Gonzalez has started off slowly and Tex (who is a slow starter every year it seems) has had bronchial inflammation. The struggles of these three players really doesn't seem to be a trend and instead is a coincidence. Historical data for these players show all three will turn these numbers around before the end of the season.

But it may be more rewarding to follow the future of a youngster like Alonso as he continues to develop than to follow the million-dollar meltdowns of a trio of rich guys.

That's it. That's the end of the article. It can be summarized in this way:

"Mark Teixeira, Adrian Gonzalez and Albert Pujols are struggling at the beginning of this season. Is this a coincidence? I don't know and I care not to look into it, except to throw their season numbers out at you. I do know they make a lot of money and there are other first basemen who make a lot of money who aren't struggling. But these players make a lot of money and are struggling. I wonder if this is a trend? I won't look into whether this is a trend though. One highly-paid first baseman committed an error that lost his team a game and has six errors on the season. Yonder Alonso has also committed six errors. He's playing about as well as Prince Fielder. Maybe we should pay attention to him."

13 comments The Premise of These Articles Stinks

Today is the 2nd birthday of this blog. If I had realized this earlier I might have done something special...that's probably a lie I tell myself though. 2 years ago this blog was started for no real purpose and today that lack of purpose still stands and is upheld every day in the posts that are made. That was a good celebration, now more reminder before I get to the post for today.

I started a Fantasy Baseball league in Yahoo if anyone wants to join. I have put the max teams at 10 but I would be willing to open it up to 12 teams if we had enough interest. The League ID is "420904" and the password is "eckstein." I did some default league settings with the intention of changing them later. So if anyone who wants to join has recommendations or preferences on how the league is set up, just use the message board for the league to say what you think. Anyone feel free to join and I will open it up to 12 teams if necessary. Also, I have started a NCAA Tournament Bracket Pick 'Em in a Yahoo league if anyone is interested in joining. The ID is "8624" and the password is "eckstein." Feel free to join and of course we won't be able to make the picks until the brackets are announced. We only have 3 people in the league right now and that is pathetic.

I don't even know where to begin with today's post. It's kind of all over the place, but that's just the way my mind works some days. If you knew how much time I spend trying to find a title for my posts, it would embarrassing for me. Once I write something, a title should come pretty easily, except it doesn't always. It takes me 5 minutes sometimes to think of a title for my posts, which really is too much time since everything the article is about is contained in walls of text below. Anyway, so I just went with the simple title for today, because it's true.

I have 3 articles that I thought stunk and 1 act by a group of fans that I just didn't understand, and now I want to talk about it.

Johnette Howard starts it all off with inventing a new curse for the Red Sox.

It’s not a move that’s likely to approach the cosmic significance of the Curse of the Bambino,

This was not cosmic, but instead was a curse invented by Dan Shaughnessy to sell books. Just so we are clear on that.

the Boston Red Sox — whose front office rarely makes big mistakes — will regret letting free-agent first baseman Mark Teixeira fall to the archrival Yankees last winter.

It's the "Curse of Tex!"

It’s staggering when you think about it: The balance of power in the AL East and all of baseball swung because the Red Sox balked at paying Teixeira an extra $1.5 million a year

Two things:

1. Saying the balance of power swung in all of baseball is a bit of an overstatement. The Yankees won 1 World Series with Teixeira at first base. They may win another World Series, but at this point they haven't had the chance to do this yet. The Yankees are still beatable. I know it is a lot of fun to make it seem like they aren't beatable and do things like try to change the divisions around so the Yankees can't dominate until the end of time, but we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit. There are still good baseball teams in the American League and the National League capable of winning the World Series.

2. An extra $1.5 million per year WOULD NOT have signed Mark Teixeira. If the Red Sox had offered more money, the odds are very good the Yankees would have made a counteroffer that would have exceeded the Red Sox offer. It's not like when the Yankees get outbid for a player's services they just back away and look for another player to sign. The Yankees would have ultimately outbid the Red Sox for Teixeira's services, I have very little doubt about that. They outbid the Braves for AJ Burnett last winter and they would have done the same for Tex's services.

So refusing $1.5 million per year DID NOT cause the Red Sox to lose out on Tex. Bidding against a hungry and playoff-deprived Yankees front office caused them to lose out on Tex. I don't know if the amount of money offered would have made a huge difference in the end because the Yankees would have tried to top it.

For $1.5 million a year, the Red Sox deprived themselves of a switch-hitting, extraordinarily consistent first baseman who not only hung up an MVP-caliber season for the Yankees last season, but fits the Red Sox’s profile of the perfect player even better:

I think Mark Teixeira fits every team's profile of the perfect player, not just the Red Sox. And also, if the Red Sox had raised the offer to beat the Yankees offer, the Yankees would have just beaten that offer. How is this hard to understand? More importantly, when have the Yankees ever been outbid for a player they really wanted? So how did $1.5 million per year make a difference again?

He hits for power, hits for average, plays great defense, comes up big under pressure and earns raves as a good clubhouse guy.

That does sound like a Red Sox guy for sure! No other team in Major League Baseball wants a guy like that on their team at all. This is why the Red Sox are such a great team. Other teams see a guy who hits for power, hits for average, plays great defense, comes up big under pressure and earns raves as a good clubhouse guy and thinks, "What the hell do we need that guy for? We have Mike Jacobs playing first base, that's all we really want."

“I don’t want to think where we’d be without him,” Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez said many times last season.

He was actually talking about his half A-Rod/half horse portrait he keeps over his bed. I guess Mark Teixeira was pretty helpful to the Yankees too.

This year is supposed to bring a fresh start for the Red Sox. It just doesn’t feel like that when you listen to the doubts that keep floating up from Fort Myers.

The doubts caused by moronic writers who are still stuck on the 2009 free agency winter spending spree the Yankees had instead of focusing on the players the Red Sox currently have. Hey, that's you Johnette Howard!

Most writers when they detail the "doubts" floating up from Fort Myers would quote some players or other Red Sox-affiliated people on the doubts they have, but Johnette Howard isn't most writers. She just sort of lets this comment hang out there with no real verification of the "doubts" that are floating.

if Lowell is even still around — are hoping to compensate for their questionable offense with what they rightly think can be the best starting pitching in baseball. They’ve added John Lackey to a mix that already included Josh Beckett and Jon Lester.

Pitching? What good is that if the team can't spend $1.5 million more dollars that would hypothetically and probably not have gotten Mark Teixeira? No one wants pitching. Pitching doesn't win championships.

At some point this season, they can finally make their long-rumored trade for Padres’ first baseman Adrian Gonzalez to get another big bat.

Well, I guess the Red Sox could get the Mark Teixeira (somewhat) clone, but what about the "Tex Curse?" Can Adrian Gonzalez beat the "Tex Curse?" Adrian Gonzalez is cheaper than Teixeira and the Red Sox can use the $1.5 million that wouldn't have gotten Tex signed to re-sign Adrian Gonzalez after they trade for him. What's the fun in that though? Throw in the conversation I had with Anonymous in the comments for the Saturday MLB Previews this week and there is even a question of where the hell the Red Sox would even put Gonzalez on the field. Plus, there is the whole "Tex Curse" thing hanging over the Red Sox now so even if Gonzalez could be traded for, it would never work because of the "Tex Curse."

Adrian Gonzalez' statistics.

Mark Teixeira's statistics.

Tex is a superior player, but not by that much.

But a lot can change between now and the trading deadline. What if the Padres don’t deal their homegrown star?

Then they are morons. They are going to deal Gonzalez. They have to. Jed Hoyer used to be in the Red Sox front office and he knows the prospects so he knows best (assuming he can find somewhere to put Beltre and Youkilis) what he wants from Boston and if the Red Sox decide Beltre isn't working out and they want a good hitting first baseman to move Youkilis to third base, there is room at that point. That's assuming the Red Sox/Beltre marriage isn't working out. The Red Sox can compete without Adrian Gonzalez contrary to popular opinion.

The Padres are going to trade Adrian Gonzalez to some team. This makes too much sense not to happen.

What if the Yankees get too far ahead in the AL East?

Then one player wasn't going to make a difference in the season anyway. Any more panic questions?

What if Teixeira has another season that rubs in all he could be doing it for Sox instead?

Then the world as we know it will end. This is the beginning of the "Tex Curse."

But 2009 proved the Red Sox might have another problem: The 34-year-old Ortiz had a hot-and-cold season that suggested his age or life without steroids is catching up to him.

Actually, Ortiz was cold at the beginning of the season, but he was a pretty good hitter towards the end of the season. There is decent reason not to worry too much about him, but I agree the Red Sox could use another hitter in the middle of the lineup.

Boston’s best hope might be just to get into the postseason somehow, because once there, the Sox's superb pitching makes them better built to dominate in the playoffs than over a long season.

So the real problem isn't the Yankees having Mark Teixeira but ensuring the Red Sox win the Wild Card? Because if the Red Sox make the playoffs they are going to be difficult to beat? So the entire premise of this article is pointless?

In a seven-game series, a rotation of Beckett, Lester, Lackey and A Starter To Be Named is good enough to silence anybody. Even the Yankees.

So this worry has nothing to do with Mark Teixeira and not signing him nor does it have anything to do with the Yankees? As long as the Red Sox make the playoffs, they should have a chance to win the World Series. Again, so what's the point of this article?

Still, not signing Teixeira has to be a huge regret, even if no Red Sox will ever admit it.

Perhaps they don't admit it because its not true. The Red Sox are probably smart enough to know they couldn't have outbid the Yankees for Tex.

But the Sox abruptly left the meeting when Boras told them their offer wasn’t good enough. It was startlingly out-of-character when Henry fired off a tart statement later that same night announcing the Red Sox were out of the running for Teixeria.

Probably because they knew at that point they wouldn't be able to offer enough money to get Tex.

“All signs pointed to him going to the Red Sox,” Yankees general manager Brian Cashman said back then. It wasn’t until five days later, when the Yankees offered Teixeira $160 million over eight years and Boras called Cashman back about an hour later to talk details that Cashman thought, “I felt momentum. I remember calling Hal (Steinbrenner, the Yankees’ managing partner) and saying, ‘We’re the lead dog.’ ”

Because they were offering more money that the Red Sox couldn't match, or wouldn't match, because the Red Sox knew the Yankees wanted him and were willing to pay what it took for him.

Maybe the Red Sox figured they’ve been excellent at making tough calls on stars such as Pedro Martinez, Johnny Damon and Manny Ramirez, and they’d survive this as well.

The Yankees have one 1 World Series with Mark Teixeira. It is incredibly too early to hit the panic button and think all is lost. For the record, Johnny Damon contributed to the Yankees World Series title as well and for some reason Johnette Howard doesn't think the Red Sox rue the day they let him go. Granted, he is not the impact player Teixeira is, but Damon was still a fairly productive player and he helped the Yankees win a World Series last year.

With him, the Red Sox would be the frontrunners.

That is very possible. The Yankees would probably have Adrian Gonzalez or another great hitting first basemen at this point though. Also, with how Tex hit in the playoffs last year the Red Sox still may not have beaten the Angels. So the Yankees could have won the World Series with another good first baseman in this hypothetical world where Tex plays for the Red Sox.

Without him, they’re back to being haunted again by another slugger they let get away.

You mean like they were when Babe Ruth was traded away, which led to the direct result (naturally) that the Red Sox didn't win another World Series until 2004? Red Sox fans considered yourself permanently screwed by the "Curse of Tex."

-JemeHill thinks the punch thrown by the Baylor women's basketball player isn't that big of a deal compared to other punches thrown in sports.

All punches are not created equal.

So if the punch doesn't do a whole hell of a lot of damage, it's no big deal? I see that JemeHill looks at the outcome of a situation to determine the punishment. I am not sure how I feel about this.

As much as people would like to equate Baylor's Brittney Griner punching Texas Tech's Jordan Barncastle with LeGarrette Blount decking Byron Hout following last September's Oregon-Boise State football game, the fists belonging to Griner and Blount are both separate and unequal.

Right, one happened in a women's basketball game no one cared about or watched and the other happened in a nationally televised game between two highly ranked teams on the opening game of the NCAA football season. One involved a woman, the other involved a man. Those are really the only differences.

Griner's fist connected with Barncastle's nose after the two jostled in the lane.

There was no "connected" about it. Brittney Griner swung her arm in a huge attempt to hurt the Texas Tech player. There wasn't any doubt what that was an attempt to do.

It was a typical example of rough play between aggressive players -- who also happen to have a chippy history. In fact, the two reportedly had a verbal confrontation after a game last month.

Clearly not preventing the punch was the official's fault then. They should have known about the history and prevented it from happening...obviously, or someone should have done something. Either way, Brittney Griner's punch was not a big deal to JemeHill.

Griner's punch is hardly in the same league as Blount's,

I guess I am missing the difference. In both cases punches were thrown and landed.

and it's certainly not remotely close to the reprehensible actions of Elizabeth Lambert, the New Mexico soccer player who became infamous because of her MMA-esque takedowns during a heated match with Brigham Young late last year.

This is one of JemeHill's favorite things to do when she is arguing a point. She loves to mix her message up with another incident so the reader's focus isn't on the actual incident she is discussing but how that incident compares to another incident. It is an attempt to help prove her point here by lessening the severity of Griner's act compared to another sports-related violent act.

"Elizabeth Lambert was more out of line than Brittney Griner so Griner's punch shouldn't be treated as harshly."

Blount, like Griner, was provoked. But Blount coldcocked Hout after the game ended,

So it is worse to hit an opponent AFTER the game is over than it is to hit an opponent during the game? I would say I understand this, but I really, really don't. I don't exactly see how hitting an opponent during a game is not as serious as hitting an opponent after a game.

and then made matters even worse by exhibiting belligerent behavior toward fans as he was being escorted off the field.

So the belligerence towards the fans made the punch that much worse? If Blount had punched Hout in the face and then calmly walked off the field as he was called racial slurs and whatever else he was called then everything would have been cool? This doesn't make sense to me.

I never believed Blount's irresponsible and irrational behavior should have cost him the entire season,

Well, then you were right. Congratulations, let's get back to the purpose of this article.

And while I believe Lambert's punishment was fair (she was suspended indefinitely), let's not forget that we watched Zinedine Zidane head-butt Marco Materazzi in the 2006 World Cup final.

See what JemeHill does? She starts getting off topic in an attempt to dismiss how serious the punch Griner threw was.

"But nobody did anything to a soccer player 4 years ago in an event that wasn't held by the NCAA! How can you suspend Brittney Griner when the World Cup doesn't suspend it's players for violent acts?"

The World Cup and a women's college basketball game are two completely separate events governed by two completely different governing bodies, who punish players in completely different ways.

The wrong thing for Baylor and the Big 12 to do is to overreact and suspend Griner for the conference and NCAA tournaments if it's done just to prove the point that a woman should be subject to the same punishment as a man for unsportsmanlike conduct.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman or her not being a man. It has to do with the fact a punch was thrown during an NCAA game and LaGarrette Blount was suspended for half the season (actually more) so why is a 2 game suspension sufficient for Brittney Griner?

What's wrong with a woman and man being subject to the same punishment for the same crime when talking about college athletics?

In 2004, five players from the Kansas and Missouri basketball teams were suspended for a postgame fight. It was a melee. A punch was thrown, a player was kicked -- and nobody lost her season.

This is irrelevant. In the 1880's people were hanged in public days after being convicted for a crime, it doesn't mean that punishment should set a precedent for all criminal trials from that day forward. It is fine for a organization like the NCAA to get more or less lenient as the years progress in regards to a punch being thrown during competition. The NFL has progressively gotten more bold with its punishments and the NCAA may want to do this as well. 6 years has gone by since this melee occurred and only 7 months has gone by since Blount threw his punch.

The NCAA or Pac-10 never got to punish Blount because the school did that for them.

Griner's actions are worth a two-game suspension.

So while Blount gets a suspension that lasts over half the season, Griner's punch is worth missing a little over 5% of the season? Screw fairness, this doesn't even make sense.

If you don't think Griner being a woman has anything to do with this, then you're being naive. It isn't fair, but an aggressive woman -- particularly one who is 6-foot-8 -- is going to be judged more harshly than a man.

Actually, if she were suspended for half the season during the next season, then she would still be punished less harshly than a man. That hasn't happened. I completely disagree an aggressive woman will be judged more harshly than a man. More importantly, who cares how she is judged? What's important is the punishment doled out to her to prevent this from occurring as much as possible and showing the NCAA takes punches thrown at opponents seriously.

I don't care what happens to Brittney Griner. They could not punish her and I wouldn't mind, but if we are setting standards for behavior and the NCAA wants to show they are serious about punches thrown, they will give her a stiff suspension. Sure it was a woman throwing the punch, but it was also a woman receiving the punch.

Griner is known for showing the kind of emotion that some consider borderline taunting, and it's irritated a lot of people.

In other words, she behaves the same way as the guys, whose antics are not only tolerated, but often celebrated.

No one has a problem with how she plays the game. Don't create a double standard where there isn't one. This whole issue isn't about how Brittney Griner acts on the court, it is about the fact she threw a punch at an opponent.

True equality isn't giving Griner the LeGarrette Blount treatment, but treating her punch as an unfortunate incident for a great athlete.

So true equality is a not treating a woman athlete the same as a male athlete? Only in JemeHill's world would this make sense.

-Tim Marchman ranks the NBA General Managers. This isn't such a bad column as much as I don't agree with some of the rankings.

In Marchman's defense he does acknowledge there is no real good way to evaluate GM's, but I still shall continue...

Sadly, there isn't any good, objective way to rate general managers. Take the following rankings, then, as largely subjective and based on a few simple criteria having mostly to do with player moves and setting an overall direction for the organization, which are only a part of what a general manager actually does.

After that, not doing stupid things counts most. The reason for this is that while mere uninspired time served won't destroy a team, doing actively malignant things such as making clearly ridiculous trades or signing costly, terrible free agents can ruin a team's chances for many years.

Remember this statement. Doing actively malignant things like ridiculous trades, signing costly and terrible free agents is something that should move a GM down in the rankings. "Should" being the key word here.

3. Brian Cashman, New York Yankees

Sorry Yankee fans who like Brian Cashman, but if criteria like "making ridiculous trades" and signing costly, terrible free agents" is criteria for moving a GM down the list...Brian Cashman needs to be down this list. I wouldn't put him down that far on the list, but not at #3. I am not putting Brian Cashman down because I think he should be high on this list, but just not at #3.

The Randy Johnson trade wasn't shrewd, the Kevin Brown trade wasn't shrewd, the signing of Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, Kei Igawa, etc. were not good moves, and even to a lesser extent signing Jose Contreras didn't work out. The only reason the Yankees are able to recover from these moves is that Cashman has made some good signings and the Yankees have enough money to where they can sign new players and these bad moves don't hurt them permanently. Otherwise, Cashman would have come close to tanking the Yankees in the mid-2000's if the Yankees didn't have resources to recover from some of his (or who else's) free agent decisions.

I am not saying Cashman is a bad GM, I just think he should be down this list because the years of 2001-2008 were a bunch of mediocre signings and trades by Cashman with decent trades thrown in sometimes. It wasn't the era of the 3rd best General Manager in baseball.

His four world championships don't hurt, but the really impressive thing is that since he secured full control over baseball operations after the 2005 season, the Yankees have spent their money wisely, signing studs like CC Sabathia rather than sure bets for decline, and traded smartly, dealing the fruits of a much-improved farm system for players still in their prime, such as Curtis Granderson.

The CC Sabathia signing was a no-brainer for pretty much every team. There wasn't much of a threat of Sabathia being a bust wherever he went. He was going to the team that paid him the most. The Granderson trade was pretty good, I admit that, but again that is a more recent move. This ranking ignores some of Cashman's previous bad decisions.

Also, I realize Cashman hasn't had completely control over the team the entire he has been in New York, but when ranking GM's nobody knows for sure who really is responsible for the moves many of these teams make. So I would rank the GM's based on what happened in their tenure as GM. I am sure other people had a hand in the free agent signing failures the Yankees have had, just like I am sure other people had a hand in the free agent signing successes the Yankees have had. All credit and blame goes to the General Manager for both of these usually.

Remember Cashman also hasn't drafted and brought an impact pitcher in the Yankees rotation up from the farm system since 1995, Chien-Mang Wang no longer counts, and he hasn't developed a great hitter in the farm system in a while either. Regardless if the Yankees tend to improve their team through free agency or not, organizational development and choosing of prospects to draft is part of the GM's duties as well. That is a part of his job as GM that Cashman hasn't done well or at least he has traded these guys away before they could make the Yankees' team. I would lower him a little bit on this list.

5. Jack Zduriencik, Seattle Mariners

Since taking over the reins in Seattle, he has turned the Mariners into a contender, engineering their abrupt transformation from one of baseball's dullest organizations to one of its most progressive, such as by focusing on defensive studs such as Jack Wilson, Franklin Gutierrez and Casey Kotchman.

Zduriencik had most of his success in the Brewers system when he wasn't actually the General Manager and it is a bit early to say his more defensive change to the Mariners team has worked out. Maybe after we see whether his progressive approach worked he can be ranked this high.

8. Jon Daniels, Texas Rangers

The way Daniels has built up his farm system and kept the Rangers fairly competitive in the AL West, I think he should be moved up this list a little bit. Teams are using the Mark Teixeira trade and some of Daniels' other moves as a blueprint for how to rebuild a team.

16. Jim Hendry, Chicago Cubs

It's tempting to overreact to a lousy 2009 and to heavily count bad contracts doled out to players such as Alfonso Soriano and Milton Bradley against Hendry, but the truth is that he built a consistently successful team that had every chance to win a World Series at its peak and just didn't, through no real fault of his. The Cubs are now likely in for a hangover as the core of that team ages, but given the team's history he was right to go for it all.

So even though many of Hendry's recent moves haven't really worked at all, it is fine because the Cubs have a loser's (mentality) history and going for a World Series at all costs was the right thing to do? This Cubs team was "at it's peak" for only a year or two, so it's not like they had a long run of success.

The Cubs have won 67, 88, 89, 79, 66, 85, 97, and 83 games since Hendry took over in July of 2002. It's not terrible by any stretch of the imagination but I can see 1-2 years they really had a chance of winning the World Series. I don't disagree with the ranking, just don't get the explanation completely.

The Cubs haven't been bad, but I didn't understand how Tim Marchman thought the Cubs were on the edge of a World Series for a while during Hendry's reign. Then I saw his bio at the bottom of the article.

Tim Marchman lives in Chicago and can be reached at tlmarchman@gmail.com.

I am going to guess he is a Cubs fan. I am also going to guess he is one of those "This is our year!" type Cubs fans.

19. Ruben Amaro Jr., Philadelphia Phillies

I honestly have no idea how to rate Amaro. One pennant in one year is a nice record, and having landed two of baseball's five best pitchers -- Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee -- in trade within a few months is even better given that these were moves he alone gets credit for. On the other hand the truly strange trade sending Lee to Seattle and the odd, if so far successful, decision to sign 37-year-old designated hitter-masquerading-as-an-outfielder Raul Ibanez to a long-term contract have to count heavily against him.

Wow. Really? The great year Ibanez had last year is being completely ignored while the focus on his defense is what Marchman chooses to focus on. I thought the Ibanez signing was a great deal for what they paid. The Cliff Lee trade not being included, I think Amara Jr. has made some decent moves to help the Phillies compete now and in the future.

27. Brian Sabean, San Francisco Giants

Sabean's skeptics were driven insane for years as no matter how many terrible, decrepit players he signed to absurd contracts, he always had Barry Bonds to make everything right. Once Bonds retired, the Giants immediately fell apart, and the skeptics gloated. Now they're a decent team again because they've developed a pair of aces in Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain. It doesn't matter; the skeptics are still right.

I am not going to argue that Sabean didn't make some bad signings through the years, but I love how the fact the Giants are good again is completely glossed over by Tim Marchman. Isn't Sabean responsible for or at least overseeing the development of players like Pablo Sandoval, Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Buster Posey and others? So he should get a little more credit for the Giants revival despite some of his bad moves in the past, right? I guess not.

29. Ed Wade, Houston Astros

Did you realize that six of eight Astros regulars were 33 or older last year? That five of the six pitchers who got the most starts -- two of whom were Brian Moehler and Mike Hampton -- were 30 or older? And that the team has arguably the worst farm system in baseball? Wade isn't to blame for all of this. But he certainly hasn't done anything about it.

Ed Wade has to be last. I was amazed at how bad he was when I did the Astros team preview. This team was a terrible mix of players in my mind.

Overall, not a bad list of GMs though. I can't say Marchman did a bad job.

-Last thing for the day, and maybe loyal reader "Go" can tell me more, but I was very disheartened to see the Maryland Terrapin fans stormed the court after beating Duke last Wednesday night. Not to sound like Rick Reilly (he just wrote an article on this) but they should not have rushed the court.

Rushing the courts says to me, "We as fans did not expect to win this game and it requires a larger celebration than usual because of this." It tells me the team that won the game and had their fans rush the court consider themselves to be generally inferior to the team they beat and because the did beat that team, it is a cause for a big celebration...and perhaps rioting.

Let me list the reasons why I feel Maryland Terrapin basketball fans should have some pride and should not have stormed the court and then rioted in the streets (but why?) after the big win:

1. Maryland is a pretty accomplished basketball team. They last won a National Title in 2002. Duke last won a National Title in 2001. No matter how accomplished Duke is supposed to be, Maryland is a pretty accomplished team as well.

2. They have a Hall of Fame coach as well. It's not like they were being led by some newcomer who didn't have a clue, Gary Williams is a Hall of Fame coach. He is 7th among coaches in all-times wins.

3. Both Duke and Maryland are 12-3 in the ACC this year and are tied for the conference lead. In fact Maryland has won 23 games this year, while Duke has won 26 games.

4. Maryland was a ranked team playing at home against another ranked team. It's not like the Terrapins aren't a good team. It's Senior Night, they have a great senior class graduating (including Vasquez who is being seriously considered for ACC PoY even before the game) and the crowd was going crazy, why would they not expect to win this game?

5. My last reason why I think Maryland shouldn't have rushed the court is that the way the ACC is set up, each team has "rivals" they play twice every single year...one home game and one away game every year. Duke's "rivals" are considered the University of North Carolina and...not N.C. State which is located maybe 30 miles from Duke University...not Wake Forest, which is only located 100 miles or so from Duke University...but the University of Maryland is the other "rival" that Duke plays every single year. This is because Maryland and Duke have a history of competitive and tough games against each other. Hell, they have even met in the NCAA Tournament Final Four before (2001).

I have all the respect in the world for Maryland and I thought they were going to win the game against Duke on Wednesday night. I just don't get why they still see themselves as underdogs against Duke, because it clearly isn't that way. Mostly, this goes back to how I hate it when fans rush the court. It was a big win for them, but Maryland is a good team.

Good teams don't have fans that rush the court because they expect to win games, so it's not a shock or cause for a great celebration when they do. I don't say these things about Maryland because I don't respect them, but because I DO respect them and obviously think higher of the team than some of the fans do. I know it was Vasquez's last home game and it was an emotional win, but rushing the court is still synonymous with upset victories. It's about having respect for how good your team is and it is fun to celebrate on the court, but is also synonymous with upsets and I don't know if any victory Maryland has over Duke is an upset anymore.