2 comments Welp, Jay Cutler is More Like Tim Tebow and That's Not Good Enough for Rick Telander

You may remember a few weeks ago when Rick Telander wrote that he thought Jay Cutler should be more like Tim Tebow. Because, you know, Cutler is "an effective quarterback" and all of that. Well, it turns out that Jay Cutler has shown up to Bears training camp with big muscles and smiling in a picture. In a not-so-shocking twist of events, this isn't good enough for Rick Telander. It never is. That's the secret behind columns written with the premise of something like, "Coach X needs to address the media about Controversy Y." What the sports media really means is they want Coach X to have a press conference under the guise of "clearing things up around the controversy" when it's really just an excuse for the sports media to use their bully pulpit to ask the coach questions and continue to pass their judgment on in the form of a column. The guise is that opinions could change if the coach just speaks to the controversy publicly, much like Chip Kelly "should" speak to the accusations of racism, but those opinions aren't going to change. It's just an excuse to bait the coach into creating a media feeding frenzy.

When Rick Telander wrote "Jay Cutler should be like Tim Tebow" what he really meant was "Cutler needs to work harder and be nicer, but that's still not going to change my perception of him. But hey, he could try and that would allow me to churn a column or two out on the topic." It's the game the New York media played with A-Rod. "A-Rod should speak to his suspension and apologize at a press conference!" Why? So you have an exciting press conference to cover? Otherwise, there is no point.

So here is Rick not fooled by the "new" Cutler that he requested Jay become.

So we have a new Bears head coach 

A head coach that Rick became increasingly depressed about the Bears hiring.

and a new offensive coordinator and a new and wonderful wide receiver (Kevin White, whom no one has seen actually practice).

Oh no! No one has seen Kevin White practice and it seems the whole "Is Odell Beckham a huge bust?" idiocy from last year has been forgotten by Rick Telander. Being injured doesn't necessarily mean anything. That's my point.

So naturally we have a new quarterback.

(Rick Telander) "Jay Cutler needs to change who he is to be more like Tim Tebow."

(Rick Telander) "Jay Cutler has changed himself. I'll mock him for doing this now. Check out all this sarcasm I'm using, it's just like the sarcasm the kids use!"

Hello, Jay Cutler!

Jay had a bad year last year and he's trying to turn himself around. Let's mock him for it. 

So how is the 32-year old quarterback, now in his 10th NFL season, seventh with Bears, with his fifth offensive coordinator in seven years, abruptly new?

I like how Rick uses the word "abruptly" here. Rick wants Jay Cutler to change, Cutler appears to change and Rick is all like, "Whoa! Hey buddy, slow down with these abrupt changes. At least change at a slower rate so we can all keep up." 

Why, he looks rugged and jacked, 

Rugged and jacked like Tim Tebow!

and he hasn’t thrown an interception in practice,

I'm not a Cutler defender necessarily, but the fact he hasn't thrown an interception in practice is anecdotal evidence that Bears fans can somewhat be happy that the offense Adam Gase has installed is going to work for Cutler. I know it's fun to be sarcastic, but rather than have sarcasm about the situation, perhaps be cautiously optimistic. 

and he has been kissing reporters on both cheeks after cheery and informative interviews that he wishes would never end.

What is Cutler, Italian or something? 

OK, the last item isn’t true.

YOU GOT ME, RICK! I TOTALLY JUST FELL FOR THAT!

As usual, because Jay Cutler isn't friendly with the media then the coverage of him will reflect that. As someone who would be horrible at the media game if he were a professional athlete, I don't understand why Cutler is judged on his attitude towards the media while also acknowledging this has an impact on the coverage of Cutler by the Bears media.

But the glowing reviews of his on-field demeanor and “rebirth’’ as a field general who suddenly “gets it’’ are true. At least they have been bandied about like a volleyball over a backyard net.

More sarcasm. Telander wants Cutler to change, he seems to change in the short-term and Rick is all sarcastic about it. I know I'm sarcastic about a lot of stuff on this blog, but Rick specifically wrote a column requesting that Cutler change and Cutler seems to have tried to do that. Maybe it won't last. That's entirely possible. The secret is that Rick doesn't want Cutler to change who he is, Rick just wants to be able to bash Cutler for NOT being able to become a field general who "gets it." Rick wants to write about how Cutler needs to change, not actually have it happen. 

There’s a new photo of Cutler on Pro Football Reference.com that has him smiling like a teenaged girl who has just won free pedicures for life. Happy is the man with knowledge overflowing!

(Rick Telander) "Jay Cutler still doesn't smile nor is he nice to the media."

(Rick Telander) "Here is a picture of Jay Cutler smiling like a teenaged girl. I'm going to make fun of him for smiling like I have requested he do in the past."

Sure, John Fox may have called Cutler “Jake’’ back in January, but that was before he got to know the refreshed and refreshing QB who likely will never create a turnover again.

Keep moving those goalposts, Rick. Nobody said Jay won't create a turnover again. That's not a realistic expectation.

Also, calling Jay Cutler "Jake" is an easy thing to do, and not just because John Fox would rather his team not even have a quarterback so he could run the Wildcat or single-wing offense all game, but because "Jay" and "Cutler" can be run together to form "Jake" by not pausing between the two words. So the fact Fox called Cutler "Jake" doesn't mean a hell of a lot.

I don't just argue semantics, I murder semantics to death with my own nit-picking.

One is reminded of what former teammate/philosopher Brandon Marshall said of Cutler awhile back: “He’s the real deal.’’
And now, apparently, he’s so real, he’s chromed.

It almost sounds like Rick Telander doesn't believe it. Could that be true? 

Me, I don’t believe it.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? You don't believe it? I couldn't tell. 

I think Cutty is Cutty. A six is a six, not a 10. The spots are permanent, just like on your couch.

So when writing an article that says, "Jay Cutler needs to be more like Tim Tebow" you were essentially writing an article advocating for Jay Cutler to do something you had absolutely no doubt he wasn't capable of doing? So what's the point of writing the column then? You know Cutler can't ever be the "effective quarterback" that Tebow is, so outside of giving yourself a good reason to get pageviews by putting "Tebow" in the title of a column while bashing Jay Cutler, why write the column advocating for Cutler to change who he is?

We’ve heard this all before, haven’t we?

Maybe, but you are the one who seems to genuinely believe Tim Tebow is now an effective quarterback. You are the one who now believes Tebow doesn't have the world's worst throwing motion, a claim from Tebow's quarterback mentors that we had heard all before as well. Maybe one day Jay Cutler will be more like Tim Tebow, though that's clearly not really what Rick Telander wants. 

4 comments Rick Telander Thinks Jay Cutler Should Be More Like Tim Tebow Because Tebow is "An Effective Quarterback"

Bears fans wondered last year what was wrong with Jay Cutler. NFL analysts either still believe Cutler can be a great NFL quarterback or think the Bears should give up on him. John Fox is either going to make Cutler into a quarterback who makes great decisions with a conservative, run-based game plan (plus third down draws!) or pull him by Week 5 in favor of Jimmy Clausen. Not that Fox wants to re-live the Clausen Experiment of 2010 of course, but he does what he has to in order to win. He did, after all, get Tim Tebow to win games as a starting quarterback in the NFL. That's impressive. Speaking of Tim Tebow, Rick Telander believes Jay Cutler should be more like Tim Tebow. Rick wants Jay Cutler to learn how to be an effective NFL quarterback. Now unless Rick has traveled to the year 2019 during his lifetime, and at that point Tebow has actually become an effective NFL quarterback, I have no idea why he would state Tebow is an effective quarterback. But hey, we should all be more like Tebow.

Here’s a thought: If Tim Tebow can learn to be an effective NFL quarterback, why can’t our buddy Jay Cutler?

Jay Cutler's career numbers: 61-58 record as a starter, 61.7% completion, 183 TD's, 130 INT's, 27749 yards, 233.2 yards per game, 85.2 rating. 324 rushing attempts, 1425 yards, 4.4 yards per carry, 8 touchdowns.

Tim Tebow's career numbers: 8-6 as a starter, 47.9% completion, 17 TD's, 9 INT's, 2422 yards, 69.2 yards per game, 75.3 rating. 197 rushing attempts, 989 yards, 5.0 yards per carry, 12 touchdowns.

Granted, Tebow's sample size is significantly smaller, but if Telander will make the assertion then I will counter the assertion with the statistics I have. Tebow is not an effective quarterback compared to Jay Cutler, even if you include the rushing yards each has. Tebow has running plays called for him more than Cutler does, but I was surprised that Cutler has 324 rushing attempts in his career. So no, Tim Tebow did not learn to be an effective NFL quarterback and he in fact regressed as his career went along. If anything, Tebow forgot how to be an effective NFL quarterback as his career continued with the Jets and Patriots.

You may say, "Ben, we are going to learn that Tebow is working with Tom House to be an effective quarterback, so it's safe to assume this will be true." I think that's dumb, yet it's the assumption Rick Telander works this column around.

Now, I’m not saying Tebow, last seen playing quality minutes in the league back in 2011, will ever be Tom Brady. But he’s trying to be.

When I was younger, I was trying to be an NBA player. I worked hard at practicing. That doesn't mean Josh Smith needs to be more like me. 

And for our little hypothetical equation, that counts for a lot.

I'm not sure what this hypothetical equation is all about, but I'm pretty sure "natural talent to be a quarterback" is a big factor in NFL success, so if that's not part of the hypothetical equation comparing Tebow and Cutler then it should be. 

Is Cutler, now in his 10th year in the NFL, with 119 starts under his belt, trying to remake himself into a winning, Super Bowl-caliber QB? We don’t know, since Cutler communicates with the same openness of a trap-door spider, deep in his hole.

Cutler has plenty of other problems, but isn't it funny how many sportswriters' issue with Cutler always ends up being, "He's not nice and friendly to us when we want to talk to him"? It always comes back to that at some point and leads me to believe that if Cutler turned into Jerome Bettis (minus all the drug dealing and gang-banging as a youth which will be forgotten and never brought up again), then he wouldn't get quite so much criticism for just being a decent quarterback sometimes. But the media has to be harder on Cutler because he's not nice and sweet to them. It always feels like that's part of the evaluation of Cutler, either knowingly or unknowingly, from the sports media.

But let’s say he is. Now with a new coach and his fifth offensive coordinator in seven years, Cutler has a chance for rebirth. If he wants to be redone. And it’s even possible. It’s not like his career stats are terrible. He has thrown for almost 28,000 yards and 183 touchdowns. Last season, from an angle, looks like it was a dandy.

Nearly 99% of college quarterbacks who want to play in the NFL would accept these statistics happily and go live life on a pile of money, but that's not the standard Cutler should be held to is it? Lower these numbers, lower the skill level and then think, "Shouldn't Cutler be more like THAT GUY?" If the answer is "absolutely not, are you high?" then congratulations, you aren't a crazy person and Rick Telander's column makes no sense to you. 

So Cutler ought to want to improve. He has to improve.

Read this sentence again while remembering that Tebow is supposedly working harder than ever and seems to be regressing in his ability and opportunities to be an NFL quarterback. Tebow peaked a few years ago and Telander is comparing Cutler to Tebow, as if Tebow hasn't regressed through his career. His statistics don't lie. 

At any rate, here’s what’s up with Tebow, probably most remembered for his college exploits at Florida: Heisman Trophy winner, two-time NCAA national champion (2006 and 2008) and lots of Bible messages on his eye patches. Oh, and there was the famed ‘‘Tebowing,’’ the kneeling in closed-eyes, prayerful motionlessness as teammates and fans swirled around him.

The point is, Tebow can’t really throw. Everybody knows this.

Everybody knows this except for Tim Tebow and the people who are paid to say positive things about Tebow because they have spent time and their credibility trying to turn Tebow into a quarterback who can throw the football. These people will state they believe Tebow can throw the football, partly because they have a good reason to say this. 

It’s likely the Bears, led by running back Marion Barber’s inability to do something as simple as not run out of bounds and stop the clock in a game against the Denver Broncos in December 2011, extended Tebow’s quarterbacking career by a season or so.

I'm surprised Rick isn't trying to find a way to pin this on Jay Cutler somehow. I'm sure it can be done.

"You know, if Jay Cutler was a hard-working quarterback who cared about his chosen profession and wanted to answer our questions, then maybe he could have thrown the ball in this situation to run the clock out, instead of having to rely on a backup running back to do his dirty work for him." 

That sad situation in Denver occurred with the Bears leading by three. Barber cluelessly stopped the clock, giving the wild-armed Tebow a rare moment to eke out a come-from-behind overtime win.

And this is the quarterback who Telander says Jay Cutler should emulate and he also called Tebow "an effective quarterback." Now Tebow is "wild-armed." 

So Tebow, out of the game entirely for the last two seasons, has been religiously (oops, wrong word?) training under former major-league pitcher Tom House, learning how to pass a football. House, most famous for catching Hank Aaron’s 715th home-run ball in the Atlanta Braves’ bullpen, runs a complex and difficult program to break down a quarterback’s improper throwing style and build it back up the right way.

How does Rick know that Jay Cutler hasn't been working on improving his throwing motion or hasn't worked extra hard this offseason to improve his deficiencies from last season? Tebow has talked up his hard work because (a) he was trying to break back into the NFL, (b) wanted to keep his name out there in the mind of GM's, and (c) wanted GM's to know he was working on the biggest criticism of him, which was his throwing motion. Tebow publicized his hard work because that was one way to get back into the NFL. Jay Cutler at the very least has an NFL roster spot (possibly due to his contract), so he doesn't need to go around and tell everyone how hard he is working. Plus, why would the same guy who Rick Telander accuses of "communicating with the same openness of a trap-door spider" go around telling everyone how hard he is working? He's not good at communicating. It is possible to do hard work and not tell everyone about it. 

Tebow was nothing but wrong.

He had a good run for a half season or so. 

He threw the ball all with his arm, way to the side, in a windup that was something from a Walt Disney cartoon. His throws were slow to launch and not very accurate, made evident by his 49.7 percent completion rate in two seasons with the Broncos and one with the New York Jets. He was a tight end/fullback behind center.

Right, so why should Jay Cutler be like him again? The work ethic that Tebow has? Maybe, but there is a difference in not working hard and simply not publicizing how hard you are working. There is always a perception that if Cutler just worked harder he would be a better quarterback. Maybe he does work hard and all of his measurables and talent lead to what he is. 

Now? Well, maybe not perfect. Maybe not even average for the NFL. But at least hopeful. And, yes, he worked his tail off to improve.

By definition, I don't think a third-string quarterback can be considered an average NFL quarterback. Hope has nothing to do with it. Tebow can have hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled first. Also, Tebow has worked really hard to improve, that's great, but it doesn't mean Cutler needs to be more like him or doesn't work hard enough. It's entirely possible that Cutler has worked hard on becoming a great quarterback without requiring people talking about it. Maybe not, though I'm sure Rick Telander believes he knows the truth.

‘‘He’s not one-dimensional anymore,’’ House told USA Today, ‘‘so I think he’s done a great job.’’

Ah yes, this is where the testimonials will begin. I'm not saying Tebow doesn't work hard, but he's hired Tom House (and I assume House is getting paid) to work with him, so naturally there will be quotes from House describing what a FANTASTIC JOB he has done with Tebow and how Tebow is working so hard. This could be true, but remember, House is getting paid (essentially) to say this. Based on quotes from someone Tim Tebow has hired, Rick Telander is making the assumption that (a) Cutler isn't working as hard as Tebow, (b) if Cutler worked this hard he would be a better quarterback, and (c) this now makes Tebow an "effective quarterback." All of these assumptions could be very, very incorrect.

House says it takes about 1,000 perfect repetitions to even start to change a bad habit, and 10,000 to master the skill.

Actually, Malcolm Gladwell says that. It's even in a book that Gladwell wrote called "Outliers."

‘‘He’s got his 10,000 reps,’’ House said. ‘‘Can this guy be an NFL quarterback? Well, our data says yes.’’

The data says "YES" Tebow can be an NFL quarterback. The reality does not reflect the data at this point. And again, Rick Telander is bashing Jay Cutler based on comments made by someone who works for and has skin in the game on whether Tebow ends up being an NFL quarterback. It's like asking Jay Cutler's wife if he works hard enough to be an NFL quarterback. Actually, Kristin Cavilavaillari probably has enough money on her own and wouldn't need to lie in order to give an answer. I would love to know a situation when Tom House or George Whitfield would say, "Oh hell no, this guy isn't ever going to be an NFL quarterback because he hasn't improved any" after that quarterback has worked under their tutelage. It makes no sense, because any negative comment also reflects on them. So consider the source when trying to say Cutler should work to improve like Tebow has so obviously improved.  

Ten thousand perfect throws is a lot. Like a serious lot. Tebow was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles in April, so we’ll see pretty soon if he’s actually reconstructed himself.

Yes, and if Tebow plays well for Chip Kelly then that obviously means Cutler didn't work hard enough and should be more like Tebow.

As for Cutler, a guy blessed with a rifle arm but cursed by a strange social obliviousness, who knows if he would practice anything 10,000 times just to improve, to try to be the best.

EXACTLY. Rick Telander doesn't know if Cutler would practice 10,000 times in order to improve, but because Cutler isn't friendly (and it always goes back to that, never forget that) to the media then Telander assumes Cutler won't practice that much. He then assumes because Tebow does practice a lot, as described by the person paid to say such things, then Cutler should be like Tebow...even though he may already be. In the words of Telander, "who knows?" 

Maybe, at 32, it’s too late for him to reconfigure his football body and mind.

Maybe he's already reconfigured and this is where we are at now. Who knows? Just because Cutler doesn't have a coach (who he pays) saying how reconfigured he is, it doesn't mean he hasn't put forth the effort. 

But it’s fun to think he could.

Yes, it's fun to think Cutler could reconfigure his football body and mind like Tebow has done, as claimed by the person who has a vested interest in stating publicly that Tebow has reconfigured his body and mind. If only Cutler were more like Tebow. He would just have to be a little less successful as an NFL quarterback. It's fun to think if Cutler were a little less prickly than maybe sportswriters wouldn't (knowingly or unknowingly) factor this into their evaluation of him. 

2 comments Rick Telander Finds Something Meaningless to Complain About

One of the last times Rick Telander was heard from on this blog, he was growing more and more discontented with John Fox as the Bears head coach and reminiscing about the days when Bruce Jenner was a manly athlete and not a woman. Rick has a history of complaining about small problems in sports (and apparently others agreed with Rick that the height of the rim was too short in the NBA) and now Rick has noticed that NHL players are sporting playoff beards. Rick says he isn't "splitting hairs" (get it? GET it? GET IT?...it's a play on words about a beard consisting of human hair and it's funny...or not) and that the NHL players need to find a new tradition rather than growing playoff beards. Rick wrote this on June 11, which was smack-dab right in the middle of the Blackhawks march to another Stanley Cup title and all he could do was talk about playoff beards and how bad they suck. One would think there are more meaningful columns to be written during this time. One would be wrong.

Is it possible to have a meaningful discussion about Stanley Cup-winning hockey and beards?

No, because they are beards and pretending these players having playoff beards is important in any way is just laughable, no matter what any NBC executive claims otherwise. It's like having a meaningful discussion about whether Chipotle, Moe's, or Qdoba has better food. Everyone knows it's Chipotle, so there is no point in having the conversation. 

In case you missed it, the players on the Blackhawks and Tampa Bay Lightning, who are tied at two victories apiece in the Stanley Cup Final, have beards. (Unless there’s a hairless renegade hiding in the blade-sharpening room, which I don’t believe there is.)

They have beards! Oh no!

And not just beards. They have gross, tangly, unkempt things often referred to as ‘‘neckbeards,’’ historically featured on anti-social mountain men, deceased presidents and biblical characters. And Captain Ahab had a dandy.

I don't think the purpose of these beards is to look attractive, so the argument, "they should be more attractive" fails as a real, cogent argument as to why these beards should be shaved. The beards don't negatively impact how they perform on the ice and somehow presidents, though deceased (no telling on whether it is the fault of their beard for their present condition or not), managed to achieve something while having beards. 

This is a playoff tradition, so to speak, even though its roots (roots?) can be traced back to something as banal as the New York Islanders growing out their whiskers during playoff runs back in the 1980s.

Yes, the Islanders won four Cups during that period, but have you heard from them lately? Plus, former Islanders defenseman Denis Potvin has been quoted as saying none of the hirsuteness was by design.

Oh, well if it wasn't by design then obviously a terrible mistake has been made. Playoff camaraderie as shown by not shaving isn't something that should just happen, camaraderie has to be built purposefully over a period of time. It's not real unless it's planned and contrived.  

‘‘It was just something that kind of happened,’’ he said.

The end of civilization is nigh'. Unplanned beards are popping up everywhere.

None of this would matter, except that fully bearded hockey players look ugly.

Yep, and as I said, if the argument against playoff beards are "they look ugly," then these beards truly don't matter. The players aren't trying to look attractive, they are growing beards to show camaraderie. "You look ugly" is a dumb retort to hockey players essentially saying through the action of not shaving, "We don't care how we look." 

But it’s the essential ugliness and disguise that come with the beardedness that has NBC Sports chairman Mark Lazarus’ whisker-free face in a grimace.

Oh no, a wealthy television executive is upset. How can he be appeased? Mark Lazarus' opinion on the facial hair of athletes must be addressed and corrected immediately. 

And his opinion matters because NBC Sports has a $2 billion deal to broadcast NHL games.

Actually, Lazarus' opinion still doesn't matter because he doesn't play hockey, isn't married to any of the hockey players and should only care (like the fans do) whether the games are exciting and garnering good ratings. Good ratings do not depend on playoff beards. I can't imagine someone not watching a hockey game because the players' beards are too ugly to look at. It's hockey. Players have broken noses, bloody lips, missing teeth and probably a concussion, being attractive isn't a part of the deal while on the ice. 

Lazarus told sports-media writer Ed Sherman on Tuesday: ‘‘I wish they all would stop growing beards in the postseason. Let’s get their faces out there. Let’s talk about how young and attractive they are, what model citizens they are.’’

You can still talk about how young they are and what model citizens they are. The beard may takeaway attractiveness to some, but I would have to think the big helmet over their head probably hurts the whole "sexy" nature of the sport while it's being played on the ice more than anything else. 

‘‘I think [the beards do] hurt recognition,’’ Lazarus went on. ‘‘They have a great opportunity with more endorsements. Or simply more recognition, with fans saying, ‘That guy looks like the kid next door,’ which many of these guys do.’’

This is a good reason why NFL players have so many problems getting endorsements. What does Russell Wilson even look like? Who knows, because he always has that stupid helmet on his head. Remove the helmet, then maybe an NFL player will have an opportunity to get some endorsements and more recognition. It's the same issue with hockey. Nevermind there is an entire regular season game schedule consisting of 82 games where there are no playoff beards, it's the playoff beards that cause these players to lose endorsements. It seems Mark Lazarus is under the impression there is no regular season in the NHL. 

But I agree with Lazarus — who is, sadly, not related to Sun-Times hockey writer Mark Lazerus — that the beards are dumb and stale.

If anyone knows about things that may be dumb and stale, it's Rick Telander. After all, his writing career is becoming dumb and stale if all he has to discuss in the middle of the Stanley Cup Finals is playoff beards. This is the same Stanley Cup Finals where the hometown team was attempting to win their third Stanley Cup title in less than a decade. Playoff beards, that's what should really be the topic of discussion for a Chicago-based writer though. 

Everybody looks the same with a beard, like genetic splicing run amok.

Perhaps Rick thinks all white people look alike or he has face blindness. I don't watch that much hockey (though I do enjoy it whenever I do) and I can tell the difference in the players. Plus, there are these things on the back of the uniform right above the player's number. It's called "the player's name" which really helps me figure out which players are which. It's the same thing everyone has to use when watching the NFL because it's hard to tell the players apart on the field otherwise. Somehow football fans don't get too confused. Try to pay attention to the names on the back of the uniforms. It may help more than Rick thinks.

My question is this: Why doesn’t a team such as the Hawks have the courage and creativity to do something different with their manliness and be a true difference-making dynasty?

The Blackhawks are not a true difference-making dynasty because they have playoff beards. Obviously.

My question is this: Why should the Blackhawks have to do something different with their manliness and spend time thinking of ways to be courageous and creative when that time could be used figuring out how they will win another Stanley Cup title? Is the Blackhawks' dynasty really going to be dependent on whether they wore playoff beards or not?

‘‘The worst has got to be Teuvo [Teravainen],’’ backup goalie Scott Darling said. ‘‘He’s got the [Justin] Bieber ’stache going. I said, ‘By the time you can actually grow one, it’s going to be illegal.’ ’’

The players enjoy playoff beards. Let them enjoy it and stop being an old man. 

The point is, break away. Do your own thing. Be original.

My advice would be to continue to win hockey games, since that's the entire point of being in the playoffs and all. The Blackhawks are doing their own thing. They are winning Stanley Cup titles, not trying to set a fashion trend. And no, playoff beards aren't holding them back from getting endorsements and or winning "People Magazine's Sexist Man of the Year" award. 

That’s how a team can win titles, too — by thinking outside the, uh, barber’s chair.

Apparently a team can win titles by growing playoff beards, because the Blackhawks have won plenty of Stanley Cup titles when the entire team was growing a playoff beard. And saying they need to "think outside the barber's chair" is an indication the team should not go to the barber's chair, thereby not getting their face shaved. Rick Telander wants hockey players to think inside the barber's chair. Oh, and it's so stupid to equate shaving as a way to win titles. It's just stupid and whether the hockey players shave or not is so irrelevant I don't see how this is an issue for Rick.

Coach Joel Quenneville certainly went all over the place in the Hawks’ victory in Game 4, mixing up his lines as though he had flung a deck of cards in the air.

As we know, we can’t trust either coach to tell us the truth about injuries, strategies or much else. And we won’t know whether Lightning goalie Ben Bishop, who was held out of Game 4, will play in Game 5 until the puck drops.

Rick doesn't have enough material to write an entire column on this issue, so he has to go off-topic briefly in order to hit the word count he wants to hit. Modern sports journalism at it's best. Telander writes an uninspired and irrelevant article bemoaning the existence of playoff beards and still has to pad it with enough rambling to hit the required word count.

But back to the beard thing. Think about it, Hawks. Think about a new tradition.

Yes, think about not having playoff beards because Rick Telander doesn't like them. I also like the idea of starting a new tradition, all while Rick provides no real suggestions for a new tradition. Just do it. It's Rick's decree, so make it be.

Be creative. More creative than Rick Telander, who wrote this uninspired column and can't even be creative enough to suggest another playoff tradition. All he is worried about is ensuring the sexiness of the NHL players shines through. Obviously these playoff beards, not the helmets or the fact hockey isn't the most popular sport in the United States, is the reason these players don't get endorsements.

How about reverse bearding? Start the playoffs with a fully grown beard, then reduce it each series — first to a goatee, then to a mustache before finishing with (ta-da!) soul patches.

Right, but the players would have to grow a beard during the regular season, thereby hurting the chances fans will recognize the players, reducing their sexiness and preventing the players from receiving endorsements. So Rick's only solution to growing playoff beards is for NHL players to grow regular season beards. If you know why regular season beards will not hurt endorsements and recognition for NHL players, like Mark Lazarus and Rick Telander claim occurs when playoff beards are grown, then please tell me. It sounds like Rick is suggesting the players grow a beard for a longer period of time during the regular season (in order to grow a full beard) as an alternative to growing playoff beards. Because apparently endorsements and recognition aren't important during the regular season. The regular season consists of a larger number of games than the playoffs by the way. 

And Coach Q? Well, if he had a full beard, we’d know who Santa Claus really is.

Yes, Rick does know dumb and stale best. This last sentence shows this clearly. 

5 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Hasn't Thought Of: Ball Shrinking Edition

It's that time again. I have a bunch of links that I have bookmarked which don't deserve a full post, but would have a place on this blog. The links tend to pile up in my bookmarks and I just never get around to posting them. Instead of doing a short post, like a normal person would, I tend to throw them all together into one long post. I'm annoying that way. As usual, these are links from a variety of topics, so buckle up for the random change from one topic to another. I'll start with reactions to the Patriots deflating footballs, and yes, I refuse to call it Deflategate, and yes, I'm tired of talking about this subject. It makes for great hysterical sportswriting though.

My personal opinion is that Tom Brady knew what was going on, but it wasn't some vast conspiracy that requires a long suspension and public flogging. Bill Simmons' opinion on the subject can always push me over the edge to requesting the death penalty for Brady and the Patriots, simply because he has that effect on me, but I think I can stay non-emotional as long as I'm not listening to his nasally voice give his opinion. I'm tired of the subject, quite honestly.

1. You won't believe this, but "Mr. Non-Judgmental, Wait for the Facts, I Got Done Wrong by the Criminal Justice System" Jay Mariotti calls for the Patriots to vacate wins.

Lance Armstrong deliberately broke the rules and was stripped of his seven Tour de France victories. A generation of prominent baseball juicers knowingly broke the rules and have been rejected for Hall of Fame induction. You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail." That's hilarious. I love it when Jay makes jokes like this. You cheat on Wall Street, you MAY go to jail, but most likely you will be reprimanded and then allowed to make a ton of money again very soon. 

You cheat in politics, you're run out of office. 

I'm starting to wonder if Jay is joking or not. If you cheat in politics, you get elected. Isn't that the deal?

Precedent demands, then, that the New England Patriots — whose dynasty now has been tarnished by two scandals involving a deliberate and slimy circumvention of NFL rules — should return the Vince Lombardi Trophy won in February. Their fourth Super Bowl title must be vacated at once, glaringly evident as it is that star quarterback Tom Brady was a direct participant in a football-deflation scam and paid a co-conspirator to do his dirty deeds — all to gain an illegal competitive advantage — then lied and tried to cover up his role when league investigators interviewed him. 

I'm not sure Jay knows understands the concept of "precedent" or not. I don't know if precedent counts in this situation since every example Jay just provided all were examples outside of football and the NFL. Precedent would be comparing a punishment for Brady to a punishment the NFL has handed out for a similar situation or an applicable situation. Jay does not provide a similar situation in the NFL, only situations not handled by the NFL. Wasn't it Jay a few months ago who suggested that all journalists take law classes so they know the law? Jay really should be the one attending these classes.

When the league announces penalties for Deflategate in coming days, Commissioner Roger Goodell must protect the sport's integrity and issue a robust punishment that sticks for the ages.

FOR THE AGES!

Perhaps change the NFL logo to an outline of Tom Brady's body with an "I cheated" sign hanging over his neck? That'll learn him.

Super Bowl XLIX — Championship vacated. 

Come on Jay, you had to have spent five minutes coming up with a catchier line than that! It's not nearly hysterical enough.

Or, Super Bowl LIE. 

There we go. You know what, since we want this to stick FOR THE AGES, just change Super Bowl XLIX to Super Bowl LIE from now until Roger Goodell runs the NFL into the ground (circa 2028 at this rate).

And much as it stunned the American public to discover that the once-beloved Armstrong masterminded a massive doping program,

There is a difference in considering Armstrong innocent until shown to be guilty and being stunned. I'm not sure anyone was stunned when Armstrong finally admitted all he had done in order to gain the upper hand. All that was left was for him to just admit he cheated.

He has the supermodel wife, the family, the good looks, the image as The Guy Every Other Guy Wants To Be. The other night, I looked up from my ringside seat at the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight (also a sham, it turns out)

Do you like how Jay slipped having ring side seats to the fight in this column?

If you still believe that deflating a football below the league minimum (12.5 pounds per square inch) is an overblown story, consider that Brady benefited from violating the rules just as Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez and the other cheats did.

Like George Brett did with putting too much pine tar on the bat, like Whitey Ford did by scuffing the baseball, like Gaylord Perry did by throwing a spitball...should I continue to talk about cheats who didn't get kicked out of the Hall of Fame or have their legacy tarnished by minor cheating in other sports?

The difference: Whereas the juicers inflated their bodies for an edge, Brady shrunk the football so it would feel better in his hand.

I'm going to try and ignore the "shrunken balls so they fit better in his hand" joke for now. It's hard (boom!), but I'll try to do it. Maybe I'll write in to a Bill Simmons mailbag and talk about it. He seems to enjoy it when his readers talk about jerking off. 

Referee Walt Anderson checked the balls before the game and determined that all but two were properly inflated. But when Anderson and his crew left their locker room to take the field, Anderson angrily wondered why the same game balls couldn't be located, according to Wells' report. That's because McNally — again, the attendant for the officials' locker room — had removed the balls from that room and taken them to a bathroom, where he "locked the door and remained in the bathroom with the game balls for approximately one minute and forty seconds." The timeline was based in part on a security camera in a Gillette Stadium hallway that captured McNally slipping into the bathroom with his needle and game balls. Could McNally do his handy work in 100 seconds? 

Yes, could McNally do his handy work on balls in 100 seconds? Rick Pitino says that wouldn't be a problem at all.

Absolutely. He was an expert ball-shrinker, after all.

(Bengoodfella sits in stunned silence at how much Jay is setting him up for juvenile jokes, but also throwing him off the trail of the hysterical journalism)

Perhaps, McNally just put the balls in cold water. Though I don't think it works exactly that way, does it George Constanza?

A text exchange at the time between McNally and Jastremski indicated Brady was aware of their hanky-panky. It also was apparent McNally isn't a big fan of Brady, which is odd, given Brady's godlike status within the Patriots' realm. 

Brady knew, so why vacate all of the team's wins? A-Rod didn't have all of his records vacated, neither did any of the other baseball juicers. Lance Armstrong still has the money from his Tour de France wins and sponsorships. Want precedent? There is precedent to not force the Patriots to vacate their wins.

What's bothersome is that Goodell is leaving the matter to Troy Vincent, the league's executive vice president of football operations. "As with other recent matters involving violations of competitive rules, [Vincent] and his team will consider what steps to take in light of this report," Goodell said in a statement.

He does this because Goodell is a weenie who wants to see public reaction before deciding on a punishment. He doesn't care to actually hand down punishment based on the violation committed, he only cares about what the public thinks the punishment should be, except when he shows a blatant disregard for public opinion that doesn't fit his agenda.

The only way to accomplish that is by throwing down the hammer. First Spygate, now Deflategate. First Belichick, now Brady.

Vacate. 

It's a little hysterical to make the Patriots vacate their Super Bowl victory. There is no evidence the Patriots won the Super Bowl while using deflated footballs, so I think the punishment should be kept separate from the Super Bowl victory. Plus, the Patriots deflated footballs. It helped Brady or he wouldn't do it, but I feel there is a more appropriate and less hysterical punishment.

2. Nancy Armour thinks the Patriots deflating footballs puts the integrity of the NFL at risk. That's hilarious isn't it? How can something the NFL started losing a while ago, all of a sudden be at risk of being lost? The NFL's integrity problem started long before Tom Brady hired some dude to deflate footballs.

Four-time Super Bowl champion. Three-time Super Bowl MVP. Two-time NFL MVP. Without question, one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game.

A liar and a cheat, too.

BAM! Call the fire department, Tom Brady just got roasted.

Tom Brady, the NFL's Golden Boy and Madison Avenue's perfect pitchman, has proved to be little better than Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and everyone else who broke the rules in search of an edge.

It seems this comparison to PED use isn't going to go away. These three guys used Performance Enhancing Drugs, while Brady used Performance Enhancing Balls (PEB's). I don't like cheating or a team trying to gain an edge, but if the whole "using PED's is the same thing as deflating footballs and the punishment for the team should be vacating of titles" attitude prevails then any NFL team that has ever had a guy suspended for PED use would have to vacate their Super Bowl title (had they won one). Should MLB teams vacate their World Series titles if it turns out they had a PED user? After all, PED use is the exact same thing as PEB use.

The two New England Patriots employees who let the air out of the footballs did so with Brady's knowledge and, more likely, at his behest.

Or, in the simplest of terms, he cheated.

(Bengoodfella clutches his pearls and falls down backwards into his flowered upholstered chair)

But it's not a matter of liking, it's a matter of trusting.

And if you buy the stories told by McNally, Jastremski and Brady, let me know, I've got a bridge I've been trying to unload.

You have a bridge you are trying to unload? Bridges are generally built by and are the property of federal, state and local governments, paid for by taxpayers. So if you have stolen a bridge and are trying to re-sell it on the free market then you are a thief and probably should be in jail. I'll just say that I wouldn't go around bragging about the bridge you stole. How dare you comment on Tom Brady deflating footballs when you are stealing money from taxpayers! Have you no sense of decency, ma'am?

But that's missing the point. By tampering with the footballs – or having someone do it for him – Brady tampered with the integrity of the game.

This is the NFL, and if everybody isn't playing by the same rules, there's little point in playing at all.

Next we know, every team will be deflating footballs and the NFL will be helpless to stop this from happening. Eventually, the league will be forced to fold as football, Roger Goodell will be forced to become a lobbyist for the cigarette industry, NFL players will have to use their college degree and concussions will be dramatically decreased. No one wants this to happen and it will all be Tom Brady's fault.

Think about it. If Brady, or his minions,

Exclusive video of Brady's minions.

are playing fast and loose with the rules in their game, how is anyone supposed to believe the same thing isn't going on everywhere else? It's a question of credibility, and by sacrificing his, Brady put the entire NFL's at risk.

How are we supposed to believe it's not happening everywhere else? We don't, but Brady got caught, so that seems to be some indication that if other teams are cheating they will either (a) stop deflating footballs or (b) get caught.

But knowing he was willing to break the rules puts him in a different, far less-flattering light, and diminishes all that he's accomplished.

It diminishes "all" that Brady has accomplished. Come on, you know that's not true. Brady probably cheated, but it doesn't diminish everything he has accomplished because there's no proof he had been deflating footballs for longer than the 2015 season.

3. Skip Bayless thinks those who paid to watch the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight didn't get screwed because Pacquiao was hurt. Of course Skip thinks this. Skip hates the public, which is why he subjects them to his ridiculous hot takes on "First Take."

You thought from the start your man Floyd Mayweather dominated Saturday night's fight.

Not my man.

I thought my pick, Manny Pacquiao, ultimately won seven of the 12 rounds.

Heart over head? From the bottom of mine, I do not believe so. I scored the fight round by round on Twitter and had Pacquiao winning seven rounds to Mayweather's five --115-113, PacMan.

So far, Skip in his career at ESPN against reason, obvious fact, and reality. Now, he is arguing against math and the observation of those who are paid to judge a boxing match. OF COURSE Skip had Pacquiao winning seven rounds. Reality hasn't quite set in for Skip that his fighter lost and no amount of opinion, fact or reality will obscure what Skip wants to believe. Look no further than Skip's takes on LeBron James throughout the years for proof of this.

Yet now, Manny Pacquiao is being as unfairly vilified as any superstar athlete I can remember. Instead of being lauded and applauded for his courage, he's being sued by irate fans convinced he duped them into shelling out a hundred bucks for a letdown of a showdown.

I'm not mad about it, but it's a pretty bitch move for one fighter to be injured and then no one who paid $100 to see that fighter fight is aware of the injury. It's almost like the opposite of using PEB's. It's an injury which affects one party's ability to perform to his/her normal standard. Pacquiao had an injury which affected his ability to competitively fight Mayweather. I don't think he should be sued or anything like that, but it's just a reinforced lesson that paying money to watch boxing can be a shaky move for a variety of reasons.

If Pacquiao had taken an obvious dive in Round 1, no doubt he would deserve this class-action wrath.

Pacquiao even told reporters from his country, the Philippines, that Mayweather knew his shoulder was hurt and kept pulling on his arm!

As usual, Skip seems to miss the point. The point isn't that Pacquiao cheated or did something wrong, but the need to go through with the event and make sure he got the money provided to him for fighting took precedent over a fair, competitive fight. That's the perception and that's why some are angry. It's the idea that the consumer was duped and the fight was this unstoppable force that had to happen no matter what in order for each fighter to get their payday. The payday came before a competitive bout, that's the perception.

So what would you have done if you had been in Pacquiao's shoes about three weeks ago? He had campaigned for this fight for five years -- partly for the potential payday, but more so because he believed he could beat the man who calls himself TBE (The Best Ever) and who had accused Pacquiao of PED use and posted a racist rant about him.

It's impossible to say what I would have done, but if I believed I could beat Mayweather and finally got the opportunity to prove it, then I would be very, very sure I was in peak physical condition so that I could prove it. That's what I think I would do. If I campaigned for the fight and knew I wanted to prove I could beat Mayweather, I would ensure I was in the best condition to do so.

But according to a source in the Pacquiao camp, he injured his shoulder while sparring about two and a half weeks before the fight. A cortisone shot eased some of the inflammation and pain, but it appeared surgery ultimately would be required. So why not just let a surgeon show the media an MRI of the torn rotator cuff and ask for a postponement?

Skip's defense is ego and money, which aren't exactly the best defense for why Pacquiao fought injured. I get it and I wouldn't sue him, but these aren't good reasons to fight injured. It feels like those who paid got screwed just a little bit.

Because Pacquiao feared he would give Mayweather one last excuse -- that Mayweather would simply say no way he could wait an entire year and turn 39 before fighting Pacquiao. Postponing would be risking Mayweather would fight the final fight on his contract this September and retire undefeated.

I understand this. I'm talking perception here, not WHY Pacquiao did what he did. "I wanted to fight him because I was afraid he wouldn't fight me" is a logical reason to fight injured, but the idea of a boxing match taking place simply so it could take place is the problem with this reason in terms of perception.

Did Pacquiao risk perjury and suspension by instructing his representative to not disclose the shoulder injury on the Nevada State Athletic Commission form at Friday's weigh-in? Maybe. But my source says that was nothing but a blunder. 

Just a blunder! That's all. I wonder if Skip would give the same amount of leeway to an athlete that he didn't like if a similar situation were to occur? I shouldn't have to ask the question because I know the answer.

For me, the biggest shock of the night was the way the three American judges judged the Filipino boxer. They treated Pacquiao as if he were an unknown underdog whose best (if not only) chance to win rounds was by knockdown or by drawing blood or by at least turning Mayweather into a punching bag.

I should've known: If Mayweather-Pacquiao was devoid of knockdowns and didn't end in a knockout, Pacquiao had no chance. If his fate in a 12-round fight fell to the judges, home-ring advantage would prevail.

I like how Skip is changing the subject from something that Pacquiao may have done that was a bit shady on to potential shading dealings by the judges. I'll stay on-point. If Pacquiao was 100% healthy could he have knocked Mayweather down or turned him into a punching bag? The answer to this question won't ever be known (until the inevitable rematch), but part of the reason Pacquiao is being sued is because the chances of his knocking Mayweather down or beating him bloody were diminished by his injury.

I predicted a seventh-round Pacquiao knockout in part because a month ago sources in Pacquiao's camp said Pacquiao was convinced he could take out the 38-year-old Mayweather "early" with his quickness and power. So of course I was stunned and disappointed when Pacquiao came out tentatively in Round 1. I did not know about the shoulder.

Skip admits Pacquiao's shoulder had an impact on the outcome of the fight, yet he can't figure out why there are those upset with the non-disclosure of the shoulder injury. Skip Bayless will play deaf, dumb and blind until the very bitter end.

Twice before the fight we had Roy on First Take. Both times he refused to make a pick because he was commentating on the pay-per-view telecast. But both times it became clear he's a Floyd fan and thought Floyd would win pretty easily. So his tone during the fight was "told you so," which surely influenced the perception of millions of casual fans or even nonfans who had been intrigued enough to pay a hundred bucks.

So logically, the outcome of the fight was all Roy Jones, Jr.'s fault. Obviously this makes sense.

I got lost in trying objectively to view the competition from round to round.

Because Skip Bayless is the king of objectivity and had picked a Pacquiao victory (mostly because Stephen A. Smith predicted a Mayweather victory, due to being so far up Mayweather's ass that he can taste what Floyd had for dinner last night), he wants his readers to believe he is being objective. The next day Skip Bayless is objective on anything will be the first day this has ever occurred.

Exactly. What Mayweather did best was act like he was winning easily. He shook his head "no" after Pacquiao flurries. He preened and posed and no doubt out-styled little Manny. He blinded judges and Floyd fans with his reputation.

But he did not win.

Except, you know, he did win.

Now the poor man is being sued as he has surgery. Only in America.

Skip Bayless admitting the bum shoulder affected Pacquiao's ability to win the fight, while also not understanding why those who paid to see the fight are angry, is absolutely vintage Skip Bayless. Reality has no recourse when Skip has reached the conclusion he wants to reach.

But I will. This time I'd pay double to see it. Pacquiao deserves a rematch. And he will win. Again.

I think Skip doesn't like Mayweather or picks against Mayweather partly because he feels threatened by someone else who does things solely for the sake of attention. Skip doesn't want the competition. 

4. I've been holding this article from Terence Moore about the Braves being good for the inevitable losing streak(s), just so I could point out how ridiculous his crowing was. After the Braves started 3-0, Terence was all "LOOK! The hustle and grit worked out. These Braves are good." He was wrong of course.

The first Major League team to 3-0 this season wasn't the Dodgers, with their massive payroll and overwhelming talent. 

It was the Braves. You know, the rebuilding Braves. We're talking about the Braves with so many new players after nine trades and seven free-agent signings before Spring Training that super closer Craig Kimbrel had T-shirts designed for everybody that said, "Hello my name is (fill in the blank)."

Yep, when a team trades all of their best players for prospects then that team is rebuilding. I love how Terence took a 3-0 and start proudly starts jumping to conclusions that, even though there are 159 games to be played, this Braves team is better than I think. I think they won't win 70 games, so he's possibly partly right, but that doesn't mean he's entirely right.

The early success of this makeover is just a fluke.
Or is it?

It is. A month after this article was posted the Braves were 14-14 with 16 of these games at home at suddenly spacious looking Turner Field. So yeah, it was a fluke.

Yes, Kimbrel is gone with his otherworldly numbers during his four years as baseball's best closer, but his replacement is Jason Grilli, a former All-Star closer with the Pirates. The rest of the bullpen includes Jim Johnson, a former All-Star closer with the Orioles.

I'm a "former" a lot of things and it doesn't mean I could do those things again. There's a reason Grilli and Johnson don't have "current" in front of "All-Star" and that's because they can't pitch at that level anymore.

The Braves are faster, too. Among their slew of trades, they acquired the speedy Eric Young Jr., who is their first true leadoff hitter since Michael Bourn left as a free agent after the 2012 season.

Does Terence get paid by Eric Young Jr. to call him a "true leadoff hitter"? If not, he should. Young was slashing .167/.236/.288 a month after this column was posted. If that's a "true" leadoff hitter then I'll take the "fake" leadoff hitter everyday of the week.

Then there are newcomers such as Nick Markakis, Jonny Gomes and A.J. Pierzynski providing leadership in a clubhouse where there hasn't been any since the retirement of Jones after the 2012 season.

Leadership is great, but as the legendary Jeff Francouer would have said, "If leadership counted, then it would be on the scoreboard."

In response, Braves officials keep doing the right thing by acknowledging the public outcry each time they unload a popular player, and then they do what they have to do, which is they keep purging.

Purging, not rebuilding! That's the party line. Sure, the Braves got rid of all their "name" players, but they aren't rebuilding, just restructuring the team from a team that could compete for the NL East to a team that can't compete for the NL East. That's definitely NOT rebuilding.

(By the way, I'm down with the plan. Just call it what it is and don't act otherwise. That's all I want.)

What comes to mind is that old line from Branch Rickey, when he traded a stunned Ralph Kiner and his prolific bat during the early 1950s from the Pirates to the Cubs: "We can finish last without you."

So the Braves are going to finish last, after Terence previously said the Braves wouldn't finish last. A hallmark of a Terence Moore column is where he submarines his own argument. It's always fun to read him ruin his own point.

This isn't to say the Braves were awful before their makeover. They were just destined to remain what they were in recent years: Slightly better than mediocre, stale, another team destined to add to Atlanta's string of playoff losses in the NL Division Series or NL Wild Card Game.

79 wins in 2014, 96 wins in 2013, 94 wins in 2012, 89 wins in 2011, 91 wins in 2010, 86 wins in 2009. I wouldn't call that mediocre and to think the 2015 version of the team is an improvement because the team just won't make the playoffs is a fallacy. Remember, Terence isn't supposed to be arguing the rebuild was the right move, his argument is the 2015 Braves team are better than we think. This is not true. There are two separate issues that Terence is attempting to confuse with each other.

Looks like the future for the Braves is now.

No, it is not. It is in the future...maybe. Acting otherwise is only fooling yourself, Terence.

5. Jon Heyman thinks that Josh Hamilton owes the Angels and Arte Moreno an apology. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I don't approve of Hamilton's comments about the Angels at times, but an apology? I'm torn, but Jon is not.

Hamilton possesses that irresistible exacta of ability and personality that's hard to beat. Maybe too irresistible.

You can't trust an addict and Hamilton admits that is what he is. So the "maybe too irresistible" goes to this.

Hamilton is an extremely affable, talented guy, and it's hard not to root for him. It is also difficult to criticize him, as not too many have lived in those shoes. But if no one else will say anything, at some point you'd like to see Hamilton say something. "I'm sorry," would be a start.

Yeah, maybe. For me the whole "I'm sorry" thing should be reserved for those that Hamilton personally hurt and not meant for a millionaire baseball owner who knew about Hamilton's background when he signed him. I don't know, it feels like "I'm sorry" should be reserved for those who aren't multi-millionaire owners. 

Somehow, the Angels, Rangers, Hamilton's agent Michael Moye and the union made it work. It works to the point where everyone's happy, even if Hamilton's the one smiling brightest.

Which is all great. Yet, the fallout doesn't seem quite fair.

I didn't realize that life was fair.

As Hamilton himself said at his press conference, Moreno knew what he was getting into. And he certainly could have come up with much more delicate phrases following the surprise arbitrator ruling that commissioner Rob Manfred couldn't suspend Hamilton for his self-reported relapse.

At that moment, the very rich guy looked a little too interested in saving a few bucks.

But I can't really blame him. Not too much, anyway.

And I understand why Hamilton isn't saying "I'm sorry," because he feels like Moreno didn't take the time to understand his condition and that he will always have an addiction issue. It would be hard to say, "I'm sorry" to a person who has lost your respect through acting like he cares more about his bottom line than you as a person. That's why I think "I'm sorry" to Moreno isn't required, because Moreno won't apologize to Hamilton for coming off as cold. 

In his Texas press conference, Hamilton never once took responsibility for causing the Angels a lot of heartache. Instead, what he said was Moreno should have known better. 

I found that to be an asshole thing to say and this comment comes off as very "gotcha" when it's probably not meant to. 

Moreno questioned Hamilton's "accountability" after the arbitrator ruling. So perhaps Hamilton wasn't in a charitable mood. But maybe Hamilton's lack of accountability is fair game at this point.

No one likes having their accountability being questioned. This is a situation where both parties should move on. I get why Hamilton didn't apologize and I get why Moreno was irritated. If Moreno can't apologize in some fashion then I understand why Hamilton wouldn't apologize either.

6. Bill Madden, as always, wants Pete Rose on the Hall of Fame ballot. He knows he wouldn't be elected, but still wants him on the ballot.

Even before new commissioner Rob Manfred is able to sit down for a face-to-face with Pete Rose, baseball’s banned all-time hit king is back among us, albeit slightly from afar, in a Fox TV Sports studio in Los Angeles.

But the very fact Manfred is even granting Rose an audience — something his two predecessors, Fay Vincent and Bud Selig absolutely would not — tells me the Commish is at least cognizant of this long overlooked fact: Rose is the only player in the history of baseball who has never been eligible for the Hall of Fame — and it wasn’t Bart Giamatti, the commissioner who consigned him to baseball’s permanent ineligible list in August of 1989, who determined that. It was the Hall of Fame board of directors which, a few weeks after Rose was banned, determined that the permanent ineligible list applied to the Hall of Fame as well, and informed the Baseball Writers Association that he could not be placed on its ballot.

You'll never guess why Bill Madden thinks Pete Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Because of steroids of course.

This was a decision that would’ve probably been accepted as right and just, given Rose’s offense of breaking baseball’s cardinal rule on gambling, until the steroid cheats came along and did as much as Rose to impugn the integrity of the game by making a mockery of the record books.

I consistently fail to understand the "These PED users are eligible for the Hall of Fame, so why isn't Pete Rose?" argument. I don't see the parallel, partly because Rose accepted the lifetime ban, which isn't something PED users have done.

And while, as Manfred again pointed out Thursday in a meeting with APSE Sports Editors, “the rules on gambling have been in place literally for decades,” and that “they have been clear and spell out specific penalties; the reason those rules exist is because gambling is corrosive in a number of ways, including raising the specter of not doing everything they can to win,” it is worth noting in retrospect that Giamatti didn’t close the door entirely for Rose to eventually get reinstated.

In the fourth point of Giamatti’s resolution on Rose, he said: “Mr. Rose may, under Major League Rule 15 (c) apply for reinstatement. This ruling prohibits any such application for a period of at least one year.”

Yep. MLB has chosen not to reinstate him, as is their right.

Then, later on in the press conference, when asked if it would help Rose toward reinstatement if he sought rehabilitation for what many believed was a compulsive gambling habit, Giamatti replied: “The burden is entirely on Mr. Rose. It isn’t up to me. It’s up to Mr. Rose, it seems to me, to re-configure his life in ways I would assume he would prefer. But a person who wishes to establish the kind of record that would sustain an application would want to take whatever steps would seem appropriate to that person to be persuasive.”

And of course, because Rose has done these things then Bill Madden thinks Rose deserves another shot to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Well, not exactly.

The problem for Rose was he did none of that. Instead he continued to deny that he had bet on baseball for another 14 years, all the while being seen publicly in gambling casinos and spending much of his life in Las Vegas, until he finally came clean in January of 2004 with the release of his book, “My Prison Behind Bars.”

(Deep sigh)

So why would baseball reinstate Rose when he accepted the lifetime ban and has not done, as outlined by the commissioner at the time, the steps to show rehabilitation? Because of PED users of course. All of a sudden it's not about Rose, but about what others have done that shows Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Rose is scum, but he's scum like others on the Hall of Fame ballot.

Interestingly, the idea there are already cheaters in the Hall of Fame, so this being a reason the PED scum should be allowed in isn't seen as a persuasive argument for inclusion of these PED users into the Hall of Fame. Interesting how Rose should be rewarded for the actions of others who are scum like him, but there is a firm line drawn where PED users don't get the necessary votes for induction despite the actions of others currently in Hall of Fame that were also considered cheating.

it seems to me there ought to be some way to remove him from the stigma of the permanent ineligible list and put him on a “restricted list” that would still prevent him from working in baseball but allow him to make promotional appearances at ballparks, serve as a sort of good-will ambassador for the Reds, or even do (anti-gambling?) public service commercials for baseball.

Rose wants to know how much that would pay.

Then it would be up to the Hall of Fame to decide if he could take his place on a ballot, like the steroid cheats. For the record, even Shoeless Joe Jackson was eligible for years for the Hall of Fame and got two votes in the first election in 1936 and another two in 1946.

Hey Bill, those votes occurred nearly 70-80 years ago. Let's focus on today.

For that, he at least deserves a vote — instead of remaining the only player in the history of the game who never got one.

I'm fine with Rose being reinstated, but he DESERVES absolutely nothing for actions he took that brought the lifetime ban upon him.

7. Bob Klapisch can't figure out if A-Rod is still cheating or not. On April 18, he wrote this article which hinted around the possibility of A-Rod still using PED's. Here are some of his comments:

Good luck to anyone trying to figure why Alex Rodriguez has become the Yankees’ best hitter, despite all the factors that should’ve been working against him. That includes his age, the yearlong drug suspension, two surgically repaired hips and going cold turkey on PEDs. We think.

Let’s address this last point first. I have to assume Rodriguez is playing clean in 2015;

Except, he doesn't dismiss the idea A-Rod is using steroids. Of course. 

So how’s he doing it? Here are a few wild guesses:

• The time off actually restored Rodriguez’s fast-twitch muscles.

This theory runs counter to conventional sports theory, which says an athlete’s reaction-time deteriorates with time, especially after 35.   

• Better, more invisible PEDs.

We’d be remiss to completely ignore this possibility, even if we don’t buy it. Still, Rodriguez managed to beat the system in all the years he immersed himself in Biogenesis’ drugs. He was never caught, not even once.

Whatever happened to assuming A-Rod was not using steroids? Klapisch assumes A-Rod is clean, then lists one of the reasons behind A-Rod's hot hitting as being that A-Rod is back using PED's. Sounds like assuming A-Rod is clean isn't something that's being done.

A cynic would reflexively ask: Who’s to say A-Rod hasn’t found a more sophisticated supplier than Tony Bosch?

To this, we shake our head and say no. So does MLB, which has greater enforcement powers than ever before. Not only is A-Rod subject to increased random testing, as is anyone who violated baseball’s Joint Drug Agreement, but testers are now empowered to come to Rodriguez’s home at any hour.

But after A-Rod kept hitting well, this sort of slight cynicism was fixed and now Bob Klapisch knows that A-Rod is not cheating. Sure, Bob beat around the bush at PED use with the idea A-Rod would definitely get caught, but now he knows for sure A-Rod isn't cheating. He's convinced!

Sure, there are plenty of folks who still don’t trust Rodriguez and think his pursuit of 700-plus HRs is a scam. But it felt like everyone in the ballpark had long since forgiven A-Rod and were willing to ride shotgun into the record books.

Sportswriters like Klapisch realize they are behind the curve in the whole "forgiving A-Rod" category, so they are quickly trying to make up for this.

Again, you might not believe any of it. Rodriguez has apologized a million times since spring training and you might think he’s not humble, just hardened and maybe smarter about a PED supplier this time around. 

But as I’ve said before, I believe A-Rod is clean. 

Yes, but then you listed "Better, more invisible PEDs" as a reason he could be hitting the baseball well. So, you believed, but didn't really believe.

The Yankees’ slugger knows he’s being watched, monitored, shadowed. A drug-tester from MLB was dispatched to Fenway on Sunday night and he was there for only one reason, to hunt down Rodriguez. The tester, a grim-looking man who spoke to no one, practically followed A-Rod to the bathroom for a urine sample. Rodriguez didn’t mind the surveillance; he knows it’s his penance for past sins.

Can you feel the narrative around A-Rod turning around? It's amazing what hitting a baseball does for the perception of A-Rod and how it helps him to be a more believable character that a sportswriter can cheer for. Success cures all.

So the night ended with a lingering question: How can Rodriguez hit a ball that far approaching age 40? Why is his bat-speed better now than in 2013, when it should be the other way around? I’m casting a vote for A-Rod’s better angels – that it’s not PEDs, but his surgically repaired hips now healthy enough to generate torque.

That is until Bob Klapisch decides that A-Rod is really powered by PED's again. I'm sure he'll write another "I don't think A-Rod is doing PED's" column where he again dismisses the idea A-Rod is doing PED's while continuing to bring the subject up.

8. Baseball is dying a terrible dying death. Nick Cafardo says so.

Baseball is trying to attract kids to the game, somehow, some way. But it’s been an uphill battle. If it continues, 20 or 30 years from now there won’t be much of a baseball viewership.

Baseball is dying a terrible, horrible death. Perhaps it's my peer group, but nearly everyone I know likes and watches baseball. Perhaps my peer group doesn't reflect reality. That's entirely possible.

The Red Sox probably are less susceptible to this than teams in other parts of the country where baseball isn’t as popular.

Well, obviously. The Red Sox are the team that's the least susceptible to this problem because they have the most informed and dedicated fans that would never turn their back on the team. Red Sox fans GET baseball, so even if MLB consists only of the Red Sox A-team facing the Red Sox B-team for 162 games there will always be professional baseball due to the unwavering fan support of the community in Boston that can't be found anywhere else in the world in any other sport.

It’s a simple game that has been muddled by the trends of recent years. Kids, particularly in the inner city, aren’t playing baseball with the frequency of the past, and the interest level in watching baseball isn’t there either, as the kids interviewed for the Globe story pointed out.

But the Globe interviewed kids who aren't from Boston, right? After all, the Red Sox are always going to be popular in Boston so good luck finding any kids who aren't Red Sox fans.

The human stories of players and their histories have gone the way of their WARs and WORPs, and I’m not sure kids see that as fun.

The idea that WAR and other advanced metrics chase fans away from the game is a fallacy. A total fallacy. If anything, it chases the generation away that baseball wants to be chased away (i.e. older fans of the game), while bringing in new fans who are passionate about the sport of baseball and enjoy using different metrics to watch the game. Using advanced statistics is another way of enjoying the game, not a reason why the game is dying.

In our day, we loved baseball cards and all we cared about was batting average, home runs, and RBIs. It was simple. It was easy to be a fan.

It's still incredibly simple like that. Nothing has changed.

Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays used to step into the box and swing at the first good pitch he saw. Now, batters are encouraged to look at more than four pitches per at-bat.

As a result, we’re seeing more called third strikes. At-bats take forever, attention is lost, and the outcome isn’t as good as it used to be.

In 2010, there were 28 players with 85-plus RBIs, 85-plus runs, and 20-plus home runs. In 2011, there 20. In 2012, there were 24. In 2013, there were 14. Last season, there were 11.

Reader Matt emailed me this article and included this little tidbit of research that he had done:

I looked it up and in 1963 there were 12 of these players in the Major Leagues. Plus, Hank Aaron drew over 1,100 unintentional walks in his career. Cafardo probably thinks that on every one of them Aaron spit in his hands, glared at the pitcher, and called him a pussy for not challenging him.

Oh, so "back in the day" there weren't so many of these players who hit home runs, drove in runs and scored runs was there? Interesting what research does to disprove conventional, unintelligent thought. Thanks to Matt for this research. It's one year, but it proves that Cafardo is reminiscing about a time that necessarily didn't occur. The past was always much better in retrospect wasn't it? 

Oh, and home runs and RBI's were up during the Steroid Era, which is an era baseball writers like Nick Cafardo see as a black mark on the history of the sport. Yet, fan interest was high. Can't have it any way you want it. Want a clean game, there has to be some sort of sacrifice. 

Why aren’t hitters swinging at those pitches more often? It just prolongs the at-bat, and thus fans lose interest.

Now, the more pitches seen per at-bat is considered a good thing, wears down the pitcher, but so do doubles in the gap.

The personalities have changed, too. Players are making so much money that instead of a game, it has become a business to them.

(Nick Cafardo shakes his fist at a cloud and yells at children for being on his lawn)

David Ortiz is fun, but then he gets criticized if he pimps a home run.

(Nick Cafardo gets in his 1988 Buick, turns on the radio and listens to only the older Rolling Stones albums)

A pitchers’ duel is fun to watch, but how many last a full nine innings? You see good seven-inning battles and then, of course, managers go to their relievers. 

"Not enough runs are scored in baseball these days!"

"Why aren't there more pitcher's duels that last nine innings?"

Can't have it both ways. Want runs? Great, that means there will be fewer nine inning pitching duels.

With all the advancements in understanding the human body and the claim that strength and conditioning coaches do baseball-specific work with their players, why are there so many oblique, hamstring, quadriceps, and shoulder injuries? Is it time to return to the days when players didn’t overtrain and really stuck to baseball-related exercises?

Yes, MLB and their teams should mandate how often players can work out. Just like in the old days when every player was durable for the entire season, except for some pitchers who ended up with "dead arm" that couldn't be sufficiently explained.

Players of yesteryear had to work other jobs and as a result got stronger. Aaron delivered ice. Bob Feller worked on a farm. Over time, their tendons got stronger.

"Baseball players should not work out as much as they do in the offseason or overtrain!"

"Baseball players need to do more work in the offseason by lifting heavy objects or working on a farm in order to get stronger!"

So yes, while the game has to be marketed better to kids, the kids need to see the game we saw as kids. 

Well that game isn't coming back and "the kids" are stuck with the game today. The same game where enjoyment can come from the use of advanced statistics and not despite the use of these statistics.

9. Rick Telander is afraid American colleges are attempting to exploit African teens by giving them an opportunity to go to school and participate in athletics.

The Anteaters player’s name is Mamadou Ndiaye, and he stands 7-6, weighs 300 pounds and has an 8-3 wingspan. That means if you turned him sideways, his arms would cover an entire doorway.

Ndiaye came to the United States speaking no English and was found to have a tumor on his pituitary gland, a problem solved by surgery. He had guardians in Huntington Beach, California, moved through high school, and now he has played in the Big Dance.

So after Ndiaye was dragged to America, a tumor was found and corrected, he graduated high school and now he's getting a college education? When will this exploitation end?

Basketball, dominated by African-Americans at the highest levels, is starting to skip the American part and go straight to Africa for talent that might lead the way.

It’s not a completely new template — Hakeem Olajuwon (Nigeria) and Dikembe Mutombo (Zaire) have certainly left their marks on the NBA — but with this new trend comes a sense of the dirty but time-honored exploitation of a continent so rich in natural resources but so lacking in fundamental order and control.

"Sure, other Africans have come to the United States to play basketball, gotten an education and succeeded, but this is a 'new' trend and it's called 'exploitation' now. Okay, it's not a 'new' trend, but for the sake of this article can't we just pretend it's new so I can try and get my point across?"

You can blame the NBA and its entrance rules for some of this. But the NCAA, which allows freshmen to play and tacitly encourages fake education, plays a bigger role. Coach Cal says it again and again: I’m just playing by the rules they gave me. And, like a riverboat gambler with loaded dice, he’s right. So the hunt for the edge never ends.

It always comes back to John Calipari in some way doesn't it?

In 2010, five Kentucky players were taken in the first round of the NBA draft, something that had never happened before.  This season, Calipari has nine McDonald’s All-Americans.

And here is the damning number about this startling trend. You ready for the truth about the exploitation? Of these 14 players being discussed that played for Calipari, 0 of them are native Africans that were ripped from their homeland to play for the Evil Calipari.

So what has this got to do with Africans?

Good point. Nothing.

Well, the talent in that incredibly diverse continent is bubbling, even if it is raw, largely uncoached and far afield from the cradle-to-adulthood training that most elite American players undergo. But it’s there, and it’s noticed.

So the problem is that United States colleges are recruiting international athletes to come play at their school and get an education? I guess I fail to see the issue here. Nearly every school has an international student program where, and hold on to your hat for the exploitation to begin, they take international students and bring them to the United States to go to school. Sometimes they play sports. I know, it's horrifying.

Shortly after this, I read an article in Harper’s Magazine entitled ‘‘American Hustle: How Elite Youth Basketball Exploits African Athletes.’’ In it, I read about schools like Our Savior that have dominant teams due to relying on dubious African ‘‘scouts’’ who send them players such as Diallo, a 6-9, 225-pound power forward who is a five-star college recruit.

There is money for the scouts, in round-about ways, and for the rare players who make it to the NBA. But many African teen players are brought over and suffer indignities of alienation and poverty and things like sleeping on the floor in a gym for half a year, the report said.

Wait, so high schools are exploiting these African basketball players, which means colleges are also exploiting them simply by recruiting them and offering them a scholarship and housing? Interesting way to look at it, Rick.

‘‘It’s like an auction,’’ a high school insider told the author, Alexandra Starr. ‘‘Each kid is an item to sell.’’

There, watching, with many others, was John Calipari.

Watching, licking his lips, just waiting to send another African basketball player that has never actually played at his Kentucky basketball program to the NBA. One would think if Rick is going to mention Calipari then he would also mention how Calipari has never had a player originally from Africa play for him while at the University of Kentucky. That would display honestly, which isn't something Rick cares to display.

10. Andrew Harrison used the "n-word" and now Jay Mariotti wants everyone to stop using this word. It's Jay Mariotti, social advocate.

If we truly are interested in eliminating racism in this country, uniting as one, then all usage of the N-word must stop. Now. Forever. 

For those who don't stop using this word, Jay will come over and yank your hair, then deny it while complaining the legal system is against rich, white men.

Why? Maybe because a 20-year-old named Andrew Harrison hears the N-word echo through popular culture and finds himself muttering it, under his breath after a difficult loss, when a reporter asks a Kentucky teammate about Wisconsin star Frank Kaminsky, who happens to be white.

Not because it's offensive word, but eliminate the word because others will repeat it.

“F--- that n-----,” Harrison said, mouth covered yet in front of a microphone, which picked up the racial slur and sent it careening across social media and into the mainstream. 

CAREENING across social media, CAROMING into the Internet and then SLIDING into Jay's ears where he knew he had to stop this bullshit immediately. If anyone can reach across the racial divide, it's Jay Mariotti.

Either we’re all serious about ending this social sickness or we should stop talking about it and let it be. What was Ferguson about? What were the “I Can’t Breathe” T-shirts about? What was “Selma” about, the lessons and the movie?

It wasn't entirely about the "n-word." It is about race relations and perceived racism, which will be present no matter whether a racial slur is spoken or not.

Kaminsky himself should have known better earlier in the NCAA Tournament, when he and his teammates were asked how they would want an opponent to describe them. “Resilient,” said one. “Disciplined,” said another. “Unselfish,” said another. “Tough,” said another.

“White guys,” said Kaminsky, a character. 

Oh my, Frank. By acknowledging that you are white, you are setting race relations back decades. DO NOT acknowledge you are white. No one would know if you didn't constantly bring it up.

We’re not supposed to be seeing color. We’re supposed to be seeing humankind. Why is USA Today counting the number of black and white starters? 

"Let's be colorblind," says Jay Mariotti.

ESPN originally announced it was launching a black sportswriting site, which made me wonder why the network also wasn’t starting an Asian-related sportswriting site and a Latino-related sportswriting site and so forth. Why narrow the audiences? Why separate us instead of using sports media as a way to bond and connect us?

Because ESPN wanted a site that appealed to and for black sportswriting that everyone could read. The same reason ESPN has a site called "ESPNW." It's not an exclusive site, but a site featuring content from a specific sub-group of people who love athletics.

Why does Barkley, a man crusading against racism, use the N-word? 

I simply find it funny that Jay Mariotti, whose writing career is most known for being hateful, wants to start crusading against hate and bring people together. He probably means everyone else should come together so they can all be in the same room while he fires hateful shots and criticisms from a totally separate room. 

2 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: David Steele Uses Quotes from Five Years Ago to Advocate for Tim Tebow Edition

I have a huge backlog of links that don't deserve a full post but should be mentioned on this blog in some form. So I thought I would clear them out and share little tidbits of bad sports journalism (or "nuggets" of bad journalism as Peter King would say). As always, the topic of these links bounce around all over the place. It's a real problem when an article doesn't merit a full post here and I will try to rectify that situation.

1. Let's start first with the ex-NFL quarterback who won't go away. That's Tim Tebow. David Steele lets his readers in on a secret. Those people who have coached and worked with Tim Tebow still think he can be an NFL quarterback. No way! And by the way, David takes testimonials from five years go to prove that Tebow can still play in the NFL. Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous to try and prove Tebow can still be an NFL quarterback in 2015 by using a quote from 2010, prior to the time Tebow confirmed that he indeed is not an NFL quarterback?

Tim Tebow got another look from the NFL Monday, according to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, and he arrived to his tryout with the Eagles off of workouts with Tom House, the longtime major-league pitching coach who has worked on mechanics with Tom Brady and Drew Brees, among others.

Tom House made Drew Brees and Tom Brady into the quarterbacks they are today, so he can do the same for Tim Tebow. Obviously, the indication David Steele is giving here is really true. 

House, who had worked with the ex-Bronco and Jet before, was complimentary of Tebow, who hasn’t played a regular-season game since 2012 and was last on a roster in 2013 Patriots training camp. “He went from being a little inaccurate and didn’t throw a whole lot of spirals, to throwing very accurate and real good at spinning the ball,” House told the Boston Globe last week.

With all due respect to House and his track record, this all sounds familiar.

Coaches that Tebow has worked with or paid to have work with him think he'll be a good NFL quarterback? I don't believe it. It's not like these coaches have a vested financial interest in reinforcing their ability to turn college quarterbacks into good NFL quarterbacks or anything. No coach would say something in order to increase the perception he is good at his job.

House is the latest in a line of personal coaches Tebow has enlisted to work on his quarterback shortcomings, dating back to his days preparing to enter the NFL out of Florida in 2010.

People Tebow has paid to work with him and improve his ability think they did a good job in improving Tebow's ability. I'm not sure this should be news.

Nevertheless, here’s the list of Tebow tutors and their testimonials.

— “If this guy can’t be a starting quarterback in the NFL, then I was in the wrong profession for a lot of years.” — former NFL head coach Sam Wyche, who worked with Tebow before the draft, February 2010.

Considering Sam Wyche stated this prior to Tebow being drafted and failing out of the NFL, my only takeaway from this is that Sam Wyche was in the wrong profession for a lot of years.

Does David Steele realize using testimonials from BEFORE Tebow was drafted and failed in the NFL serves to only undermine the point he wants to prove that Tebow can play in the NFL? See Wyche made this statement in 2010 and then this statement was proven to be incorrect after that. So, that seems to run counter to the idea Tebow can play the quarterback position well in the NFL.

— “I don't know that I’m the only one who has the sense of Tim’s ability to be developed and become a very good player in the league. I believe in the right environment Tim Tebow will figure this out. He doesn't have explosive arm strength, but he has more than adequate arm strength to throw the ball in the NFL and make all the throws.’’ — then-CFL head coach Marc Trestman, who trained Tebow before the Senior Bowl, April 2010

This quote is from 2010, which is prior to the time Tebow washed out of the league. And again, this is a person with a vested interest in making it seem like Tebow can play in the NFL. Trestman wanted to make it seem like he can improve a quarterback's ability through training that quarterback.

— “I would hope wherever he ends up, they give him an opportunity to play, because if they do, they'll be pleasantly surprised. I think the guy can still play.” — quarterback consultant Steve Clarkson, April 2013

He can "still play"? Why use the word "still" there as if Tebow ever did play well in the past?

Also, Tebow got a shot with the Patriots in 2013, but I'm sure Bill Belichick just doesn't have the right eye for the talent that Tebow showed in training camp. Belichick is well-known for having a poor eye for talent at the quarterback position.

— “Do I think he can play the quarterback position in the NFL? Yeah, no question. Like I told Tim when I found out … that he signed, ‘You're locked and loaded, ready to go.’” — former Heisman Trophy winner and NFL quarterback Chris Weinke, June 2013

Except the Patriots didn't keep Tebow around. Notice how none of these quotes are from 2014 or 2015? There is a reason for that.

— “In shorts, out there on the football field, he changed his motion and he’s very smooth. I’ve got it on film, and film doesn’t lie. What he does when he goes out in a game situation and live bullets, I’m not sure what will happen. I just know he’s a great guy, a hard worker, and this off-season his throwing motion became 100 times better.” — quarterback trainer Dennis Gile, who worked with partner Mike Giovando on Tebow, June 2013

And that's it. Another quarterback trainer swearing that Tim Tebow is an NFL quarterback. This quote is from a relatively recent two years ago. I'm not sure the point David Steele wanted to prove, unless his point was, "Hey 2-5 years ago people who have a vested interest in Tim Tebow succeeding stated he could succeed. That has to mean something as long as you ignore their vested interest and the fact years have gone by where their statements have been proven to be incorrect, right?"

2. Joel Sherman thinks the Yankees dodged a huge bullet by not signing Cliff Lee as a free agent in 2010. Because sure, Lee was great during 2011-2014, but he's injured now. Clearly, Cliff Lee could not have helped the Yankees win any games during that stretch of time from 2011-2014.

The current rotation concerns of the Yankees and Rangers could be worse — Cliff Lee could have accepted one of the two highest total bids in December 2010.

Lee turned down the Yankees’ seven-year, $150 million offer and the six year, $138 million bid of the Rangers — the teams viewed as the strong front-runners — to sign a five-year, $120 million pact with the Phillies.

Cliff Lee's performance from 2011-2014. I'll let you decide if this would have been helpful for the Yankees to have as a part of their starting pitching staff.

2011: 32 starts 17-8 with a 2.40 ERA and 1.027 WHIP
2012: 30 starts 6-9 with a 3.16 ERA and 1.114 WHIP
2013: 31 starts 14-8 with a 2.87 ERA and 1.010 WHIP
2014: 13 starts 4-5 with a 3.66 ERA and 1.377 WHIP

Now, after missing the final two months last year, Lee has received two diagnosis the tear in the region needs surgery. That would end his 2015 season and, since this is the final year guaranteed on his contract, Lee has suggested he might retire if he needs the procedure.

Cliff Lee performed at a high level for three of the five years on his contract during a time when the Yankees certainly could have used another starter during the 2011 and 2012 playoffs, especially since they lost the ALDS 3-2 to the Tigers in 2011.

The Rangers, already with a thin rotation, are likely to lose ace Yu Darvish for the season if he opts for Tommy John surgery. The Yankees’ rotation is shaky in part due to the uncertainty of CC Sabathia. There is, in fact, strong parallels to Lee and Sabathia — both won Cy Youngs for the Indians (Sabathia in 2007, Lee in 2008) and both were extreme lefty workhorses with Sabathia leading the majors in innings from 2005-13 (1,999 ¹/₃ innings) and Lee fifth (1,833 ²/₃), which probably explains why they have broken down.

OR Cliff Lee broke down because he's 36 years old and older pitchers tend to break down more. The fact Lee broke down for 1.5 years of his 5 year contract doesn't mean the Yankees couldn't have used him during the 3.5 years when he was pitching at a high level.

Sabathia tried hard to recruit Lee to the Yankees in the winter of 2010. Maybe the Yankees would have won championships with Sabathia and Lee together or Lee would not have broken down as a Yankee. But in 2015, it sure looks fortunate Sabathia’s recruitment didn’t succeed.

But from 2011-2014, it sure looks like pure stupidity to think the Yankees couldn't have used Lee. Why would Joel Sherman think at all about Lee's past performance though? After all, it's not like the Yankees have ever signed an expensive free agent only to have him get injured.

3. Rick Telander furthers a narrative he wants to further by claiming the guy who worked with Bill James while employed by the Red Sox eschews Sabermetrics.

In 2002, at age 28, Epstein became the Red Sox’ general manager, the youngest in major-league history. He would win two World Series titles in the next five years, ending an 86-year championship drought for the Red Sox.
Here’s the relevance of  this to Theo’s current job as president of the Cubs: Sabermetrics and those algorithms he and his crew punched into computers, which then spat out genius statistical info . . . that stuff is dead as prairie chickens.

Epstein has learned the error of his ways. Sure, his use of Sabermetrics helped to win the Red Sox two World Series titles, but it's all about the humanity for Epstein now.

Well, moneyball is not actually dead — it’s just no more special than a pile of dead chickens.

‘‘Fifteen years ago there weren’t that many teams specializing in the statistical model to succeed,’’ he says. ‘‘You could really get an advantage using it. In the offseason of 2002, into 2003, the Red Sox needed to improve our offense, and we needed to get on base more. So we could sign Davey Ortiz to a one-year deal, Bill Mueller to a two-year deal, and also sign Kevin Millar, whom no one wanted and was going to Japan, based largely on the numbers, on the things you could learn from the statistical analysis.  Now the world is so flat — everyone’s doing that!’’

Oh, that makes sense. Moneyball isn't dead, it's just being so used in such a wide and prevalent manner by every MLB team that it's now become a part of the evaluation process for a team's front office. So by saying Moneyball is dead, what Rick Telander really means is that Moneyball is more alive than it ever has been.

So what does a smart man do to once again move beyond the herd? He goes new age. He looks at the game he loves and sees that a really big part of it has been taken over by the numerical lists he helped make so popular, yet an equally large part of it has seemingly been ignored—the emotional, human part. How’s that for irony, moneyballers?

You certainly told them, Rick. Feel good about yourself and pat yourself on the back---oh, you are already patting yourself on the back. Just carry on then.

‘‘I think the real competitive advantage now is in player development—understanding that your young players are human beings,’’ says Epstein, whose sky-blue shirt and sky-blue cap made this reporter mistake the now-41-year-old at first for a beer salesman. ‘‘Understanding them physically, fundamentally, and mentally — investing in them as people — and helping them progress. And there’s no stat for that.’’

For example, as human beings Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo are really fucking good at baseball. There is a statistic to show this as true.

He finds it embarrassing that he and so many of the front-office people don’t speak Spanish, so a Spanish tutor is coming in two mornings a week to teach it to the brass.

WHERE'S THE STATISTIC SHOWING TO LEARN TO SPEAK SPANISH, MONEYBALLERS? THERE IS NO STATISTIC THAT TEACHES SPANISH. YOUR COMPUTERS ARE USELESS NOW AREN'T THEY? 

‘‘I don’t think everything in baseball — or life — is quantifiable,’’ he says. ‘‘Sure, if you ignore the stats, if you ignore empiricism, if you ignore objective evidence, then you’re a fool.

Rick Telander conveniently ignores this quote when talking about how Theo Epstein has made a change in how he evaluates players. Epstein calls people "fools" for ignoring statistics and other information used by Sabermetricians to evaluate players, but it doesn't fit the narrative so it's useless to Rick.

But if you invest in stats so fully that you’re blind to the fact the game is played by human beings, then you’re just as much of a fool.’’

Amen.

So Theo Epstein evaluates players using a mix of Sabermetrics and scouting by watching the players play? You know, like every other MLB team does. Rick worked hard to paint this as an anti-stats statement by Theo Epstein. The narrative takes precedence over reality.

4. Now Rick Telander gets increasingly depressed about the hiring of John Fox.

On January 10, 2015 when Ryan Pace was hired, Rick was pretty optimistic.

But if you count teams that simply made it to the Super Bowl, the field opens up. Indeed, in the last 16 years, seven other teams have gotten to the Super Bowl and lost. They are the 49ers, Cardinals, Eagles, Panthers, Titans and Falcons. And, almost forgot, the Bears. That makes 18 teams that have played in the Super Bowl since 1999.
 
So is it wrong to ask, Why not us?

The point being: Why not the Bears? Why not soon? Like 2015?

But who cares about the Cardinals? The Bears went 5-11 this season. Can they return to title quality in one year, as chairman George McCaskey said they should? Yes. And, they should.

It can be done.

So what if you’ve got Jay Cutler at quarterback? You win with him, not because of him. Or you dump him and get a young Russell Wilson or a cagey Joe Theismann or Phil Simms or Jeff Hostetler or Brad Johnson.

IT CAN BE DONE! THIS BEARS TEAM CAN TURN IT AROUND IN ONE YEAR! RICK BELIEVES!

Then on January 17, 2015 after the Bears hired John Fox, Rick became a little more pessimistic about the Bears chances of turning it around.

I’ll join the masses and say that the Bears’ hiring of John Fox was a nice thing.
But am I blown away?
 
Not really.

A football team is so much more than its coach, and sometimes folks don’t want to admit this. Mike Ditka has always said that if you don’t have the player talent, you can’t win.

Oh no, now the same players the Bears had a week earlier that could turn it around can't turn it around anymore.

You go, John Fox! But the ferret in that box over there is named Jay Cutler, and he’s yours. Hope you’ve got gloves and a plan.

Oh boy, looks like the Bears may want to get a Russell Wilson (you know, that type of quarterback like Wilson that's just hanging around on a street corner waiting to be signed) or a cagey Joe Theismann type. Rick's depression has begun.

Then two days later on January 19, 2015 Rick hits rock bottom about the John Fox hiring.

John Fox walks and talks like a coach, and, of course, he was one, and he is one again. Your brand new Bears leader, folks, hot off the rails from Denver, where he was the Broncos’ coach as recently as seven days ago — John (no middle name) Fox!
 
Thirteen years of NFL head-coaching success for the man who will turn 60 next month. Hoo-rah.

What happened to signing cagey quarterbacks and winning with the players the Bears have, because IT CAN BE DONE? Where did the happiness go?

Risking such, I just want to say that maybe Fox isn’t perfect. Maybe, that’s all. Nor can I think of anyone better at the moment to take the spot of Marc Trestman, who leaves after a 5-11 season.

It's all over now, baby blue. Cue the Morrissey (not Rick) and start to anticipate the downward spiral from the eternal happiness that Rick felt just nine days earlier.

So let’s get away from groupthink for a moment — that is, Bears fans’ and management’s certitude du jour that a veteran coach who has been to two Super Bowls, winning neither, is a stroke of pure genius. (May I remind you that Lovie Smith, who took the Bears to a Super Bowl and had a final season of 10-6, was run out of town so that the professorial Trestman could go 13-19 in two seasons.)

It is possible, you know — and don’t stone me for simply mentioning it — that Fox is here to chill and run out the skein on a nice, if unspectacular, career. Five more years, and he’s got Medicare, baby!

It says he’s a fairly mellow, bland guy who will bore you to death at news conferences and show that much pizzazz on the field. He’s good at defense, and he’s known as a players’ coach. But he has never made it all the way to the top.

‘‘He drove Elway crazy because he didn’t hold himself, the players or coaches accountable after losses.  He’ll be an improvement in Chicago, but he won’t win a Super Bowl.’’
 
No, this isn’t gospel. Nor am I a prophet. Nor is Shapiro.
 
Just trying to tell it like it might be.

Nine days earlier the future was so bright for the Bears. Then the Bears hired a head coach that Rick Telander admits was probably the best person for the vacant head coaching position and the future suddenly turned cloudy. Weird how that happened when nothing else changed, isn't it?

5. To add to Rick Telander's dismay, he doesn't know what's happened to Bruce Jenner. More importantly, how does Bruce Jenner's gender change impact Rick Telander?

Bruce Jenner and I are the same age — or we will be on Oct. 28, when he turns 66, like yours truly — and I guess that’s as far as the similarities go.
I used to think we had things in common.

Rick Telander does not want breasts. Let's get this out of the way at the very beginning.

I used to idolize Jenner, such as idolization flows from a guy in his mid-20s who follows a white, similar-sized (6-1, 195 pounds — though far more muscular), similar-aged, Midwestern college-educated, long-locked, striving athlete who soon would be an Olympic gold-medal winner in the brutal decathlon and, thus, the ‘‘world’s greatest athlete.’’

I can deal with a lot of things in life. But Jenner, who is, if we believe reports — and our eyes — transitioning to become a woman, throws me for a loop. I’m sorry, it just does. I am who I am. I apologize if I have offended anyone.

Well Rick, Jenner's transition to a woman is mostly about you and how you handle his transition. After all, prior to transitioning Jenner should have at least consulted you on how your memories of him as a decathlete would be impacted by his transition.

If Jenner knows he is a woman long trapped in an incredibly masculine body, then so be it. The extreme plastic surgery, the Adam’s apple apparently shaved, the ponytail, the breasts supported by a sports bra, the nail polish — no man would do that for kicks.

Except for Jay Cutler. He just wants to watch the world burn.

Jenner was featured on the front of a Wheaties box, for God’s sake, the signature placement for the greatest American heroes. But I’ll ask you: Does anybody eat Wheaties anymore? Does anybody notice what’s on the cover of what they eat?

No Rick, nobody eats Wheaties anymore. You know why? Because Bruce Jenner has affected your memories of the past. Much like you, no one else can eat a bowl of cereal without searching inside themselves while eating that cereal wondering, "How can I eat this delicious goodness knowing 40 years ago a man appeared on the front of the box and that man is now a woman? Can women even eat Wheaties? If so, SHOULD women be allowed to eat Wheaties?"

In 1976, Jenner’s gold medal reaffirmed Americans’ belief in our ability to counter communist determinism with democratic freedom. That’s what I felt; that’s what I believed.

Now that Jenner is transitioning to a woman, communism has won. Mr. Putin, build that wall back up. Bruce Jenner is looking for high heels and communism is in style again.

Jenner was somebody I could look up to, a role model so close to me in so many ways, I felt, that he became almost a fantasy. He didn’t just beat a foe, like a heavyweight boxer. He beat the best in the world all at once.

I had the Sports Illustrated cover of him with his jacked arms raised, his fists clenched, his eyes closed in ecstasy, pinned on my wall. The headline read, ‘‘AWRRIGHT!’’

Now when he looks at the headline all Rick reads is "AWASALEONPURSES!"

I’ve seen Chaz Bono.

Rick has one gay friend and one black friend. He counts them. This makes him a non-racist and definitely not a bigot.

But I’m writing this from my perspective, my world. It’s all I know.
 
And I’m dizzy. I’m almost lost.

Bruce Jenner definitely should have thought about Rick Telander's nostalgia and the fate of Wheaties cereal before taking steps to make himself happier.

6. Phil Mushnick warns his readers about "dangerous" basketball. Yep, you guessed it. Much like how Florida Gulf Coast won games by dunking, Phil doesn't like it when amateur athletes dunk. It sends a bad message to the kids.

“Would I have yanked one of my kids for doing that? In a heartbeat.”
Jack Alesi, 62, reckons he has been coaching basketball “since I was 18,” the last 30 years at Brooklyn’s Xaverian High School, the last 20 of those as head varsity boys coach. Friday night, Xaverian plays Christ The King in the Diocesan final.

Alesi is talking about this dunk:

Jarell Martin's amazing dunk captured #LSU @wafb pic.twitter.com/P3C7FDjanJ
— Jacques Doucet (@JacquesDoucet) February 22, 2015

“I’m not one to stifle creativity,” Alesi said Wednesday.

Just don't do any creative or fancy dunks. That's not stifling creativity, it's only standing up for what's right and good about sports. Sports are NOT entertainment.

“If a kid finds it easier to dunk the ball than lay it in, fine by me. Bob Cousy dribbled between his legs to the benefit of his teams. There’s a difference between creative and plain stupid. TV can’t seem to distinguish between the two. It doesn’t even try.

“I wouldn’t try to embarrass that LSU kid, but if ever there was a teaching moment, that was it. Take him out, explain it, put him back in.”

"I'm old and have some weird thing about how you shouldn't use your athleticism to put on a show for those who pay to watch you play basketball. Don't make me uncomfortable by dunking the basketball in a creative manner. This isn't my issue, this is YOUR issue. It was stupid to try that dunk, even though you pulled it off. I'm old, if I haven't made that clear enough. I don't want to stifle your creativity, but just don't do anything creative that the fans might enjoy. Here, have some Wheaties."

Alesi was still flabbergasted and frustrated by the glorious hysteria the deep-thinking ESPN basketball experts, studio anchors and production shot-callers made over LSU forward Jarell Martin’s breakaway slam dunk that was preceded by a between-his-legs, greater degree-of-difficulty move — versus no one — in a tie game Saturday against Florida.

I like how Phil Mushnick goes through life trying to find things to be offended by. It's a bitter, sad life when your only purpose is to complain about how offended you are by the present and continuously long for the past.

“Would these TV guys coach kids to do such a thing, especially in a tie game, instruct them to turn an easy two points into a difficult two points? Do they really believe that that kid made a great play, did the right thing? Really? Honestly?

Did he do "the right thing?" An unpaid amateur athlete chose to dunk in a creative manner during a tie game and it's being couched in terms of "right" and "wrong." Unbelievable.

“I watch what TV has done to this game, and I shake my head. I do. It’s enough to make you cry.”

Cry? Like you would cry over an athlete dunking the basketball in a tie game? That's something you would actually cry about? The only thing shameful or dangerous in regard to this story is how Phil Mushnick and Alesi manage to turn an amateur athlete dunking a basketball into a story about "right and wrong."

7. Want to know why Max Scherezer isn't back with the Tigers? It's because he knew his market value and that hurt Mike Ilitch's feelings.

The pitcher had wiggled out of a bases-loaded jam with two strikeouts and a line drive to center in a critical playoff game. He spun around and bounced off the mound. He pumped his fist toward the heavens. And then he walloped his teammates with a series of monstrous high-5s, shrieking in triumph.

Those were human emotions. Joy in triumph. Max's overwhelming display of his joy was understandable at the moment.

But emotions are common to all people. And some people do not display them as openly as Scherzer did that October afternoon in 2013 when he rescued the Tigers, in relief, from the brink of playoff elimination by the Athletics.

Mike Ilitch is private and he is proud. Winning means just about everything to him. It has since he and Marian, his wife, blended some flour in a pot of water and created a pizza mixture that would turn into heavy millions.

Long story short here, the Tigers made a contract offer to Max Scherzer that he rejected and this made Ilitch upset and sealed that Scherzer would not be back with the Tigers after the 2014 season. Apparently Ilitch is so proud that he doesn't understand how business negotiations work.

One year ago this month, Ilitch approved an offer of $144 million to cement Scherzer to the Tigers for six years.

The offer was rejected. Scherzer, the projected Tiger for life, turned down the money and the security. He and his slick agent, Scott Boras, gambled that there would be more money offered and more security in a year.

Two things:

1. I love how Green calls Boras "slick" because he got the most money possible for his client in free agency. That's pretty much the job Boras was hired to do and he did it well. That's not "slick," that's competent.

2. There was more money and more security offered in a year. So Ilitch doesn't have to offer Scherzer another contract after the $144 million was rejected, but Scherzer gambled and it paid off.

But you don't reject Mike Ilitch. You don't snub him. You don't scoff at Ilitch's generosity.

Haha..."generosity" that ended up being less than Scherzer could make on the open market. I'm not sure I would call that being "generous" more than it would be offering Scherzer a contract which was fair, but not what he ended up being worth on the open market. Scherzer thought he was worth more and it turns out he was right. There's no reason to take it personally.

You don't stamp on Ilitch's ego. Even the best pitcher in the American League, advised by the shrewdest player agent in the business, could never get away with insulting Ilitch.

Except, Scherzer did get away with a bigger contract that had more security.

"I think we've made it clear that we have not been pursuing the situation," Dombrowski told The News' Chris McCosky after Scherzer agreed to sign with the Nationals in January. "We've said it numerous times . . .

"We made a real run at Max last spring and it didn't work."

Ilitch never cared to match the Washington offer. The guess here is if the Tigers had made a matching offer a couple of months ago, Scherzer would have grabbed it. Even if the Tigers came somewhat close the Nationals' jackpot, Scherzer, I reckon, would have grabbed less money in defiance of Boras.

Maybe he would have. I don't know. A pitcher who turns down $144 million certainly sounds like a pitcher who is looking to maximize his value on the free agent market.

My theory is, "Goodby." You don't dare to rankle Mike Ilitch. Farewell!

So hurt feelings caused by a rejected business contract is the reason Scherzer isn't with the Tigers anymore. Scherzer landed with a team that is competing for a World Series title and he got more money and a longer contract than the Tigers offered...Ilitch sure showed him didn't he? 

8. Steve Dilbeck has not been pleased with the Dodgers for hiring Andrew Friedman and his Stats Geek army. So he is taking great pride in the Dodgers' best pitching prospect being sent down to minor league camp. After all, who didn't expect an 18 year old to make the Dodgers' Opening Day roster?

The first cut is the deepest, particularly if you’re one of the four sent out. And especially if you’re been hyped as much as left-hander Julio Urias.

An 18 year old pitcher who has never pitched above A+ ball is expected to be one of the first cuts out of camp. Nothing else would make sense. It's entirely possible for Urias to be a great pitcher one day, but he's 18 years old and Steve Dilbeck shouldn't take such idiotic glee in Urias being sent down.

But Urias, the 18-year-old wunderkind, was one of the first four players reassigned to the minor-league camp Saturday by the Dodgers.

Most of the winter Dilbeck thought Urias should have been traded for a proven baseball player. That's what this is all about. It's about Dilbeck disagreeing with the direction of the Dodgers franchise and doing whatever he can to make it seem like Andrew Friedman is constantly screwing up.

Despite his electric stuff, Urias looked like a teenager who could use some more seasoning in his two spring outings.

This is most likely because he IS a teenager who could use some more seasoning before he's ready to play in the majors. Dilbeck can't believe this is true though. If Urias isn't ready to dominate in the majors RIGHT NOW then he'll never be ready. The Dodgers should just trade him now while his value is still high.

Dilbeck needs to stop being passive-aggressive in his constant assault against Andrew Friedman. This assault against Friedman is based on Dilbeck's dislike of advanced statistics. That's it. So it's come to where Dilbeck is being sarcastic and snarky about an 18 year old pitcher being sent down to minor league camp, as if this means anything long-term for the Dodgers or the 18 year old pitcher. I hate it when sportswriters have agendas.

9. Dilbeck also didn't want the Dodgers to trade Matt Kemp. Despite being a critic of Kemp's in the past, once Dilbeck saw a chance to criticize Andrew Friedman he immediately became Kemp's biggest fan. Now Dilbeck is writing stories about Kemp in order to point out that he wasn't a bad teammate. It's just sometimes his teammates didn't like him. This wouldn't affect the clubhouse chemistry. Steve Dilbeck is going to run Andrew Friedman out of town, no matter what it takes. He blames Friedman for using too many statistics to evaluate players and now he thinks Friedman factored in the human element of having good clubhouse chemistry too much by trading Matt Kemp.

Matt Kemp is mystified, and perhaps some of you are mystified that he would be mystified. He’s not bewildered at his trade by the Dodgers to the Padres, but by the implication that his departure has helped rid the L.A. of some evil clubhouse cancer.

I can't recall anyone in the Dodgers organization saying that Kemp was a cancer, so this implication is being brought up and furthered by sportswriters like Steve Dilbeck. He suggested that Kemp was a cancer and has set about to disprove this as true.

I’d say this was the most overblown Dodgers story of the off-season, but really it has only been propagated by a couple of national baseball writers -- and it takes no imagination to figure out whose ear they have -- and not the local beat writers who actually know the team.

Yeah! The Dodgers players liked Matt Kemp and no one should write differently!

Kemp had a way of strutting and enjoying the spotlight that may have rubbed some teammates the wrong way. But his days of “see how cool I can look playing center field” were well past him.

Oh, well I guess there is that too.

At midseason, when he unhappily had been moved from center to left and was playing something slightly less than every day, he would have been served sharing his thoughts only with management.

“I want to play every day, if it's with the Dodgers, if it's with somebody else,” Kemp said then.

Being unhappy with his role on the team and not wanting to change positions to help the team, these are two things that absolutely would NOT affect how Kemp's teammates liked him. Plus, this is all Andrew Friedman's fault somehow.

Looking back, Kemp told Hernandez, “I kept hearing maybe he's going to platoon. For me, it wasn't something I was able to wrap my mind around. I felt like if I wouldn't have said anything, just let it all play out the way it played out, they would have said I didn't care about playing on the field. But when I said I had to be in there playing every day, they said I was a bad teammate. I don't feel like that makes me a bad teammate. I know my abilities and I know when I'm healthy and I'm on the field, I could have helped my team win.”

So Kemp was just saying that he thought he should play everyday and didn't want to platoon. If he had just kept his mouth shut and not worried about platooning then "they" would have written that he doesn't care about the team because he was willing to put his ego aside for the betterment of the team. Great point. 

That might sound a bit more selfish than many would like, but it’s nothing outlandish, either.

No, but it is the sort of thing that can rankle teammates just a little bit. Kemp was basically saying, "I want to play everyday and I'm better than a guy who platoons in the outfield." I can see how that wouldn't cause Kemp's teammates to clap him on the back and congratulate him on taking one for the team. 

Kemp is only 30 and hopefully has a long career still ahead of him. He actually looks pretty good in a Padres uniform, though looking good was never his problem. And neither was being some grand clubhouse cancer.

I think the only ones saying that Kemp was a clubhouse cancer are those like Steve Dilbeck who want to explain a reason why Kemp was traded away that doesn't deal with his performance on the field. The truth is in the middle, that while Kemp wasn't a great teammate (despite Dilbeck's protests that Kemp wasn't THAT bad, which is enough to piss off a few teammates), nobody should think Kemp was traded because he was a bad teammate. The funny part is that Dilbeck speaks out against Friedman using too many computers and numbers to evaluate players while ignoring the human aspect, but also claims that Friedman only paid attention to the human aspect and ignored the numbers and statistics by trading Matt Kemp. Friedman is too numbers-oriented unless that perception doesn't fit the agenda Steve Dilbeck has. In that case, Dilbeck feels free to flip this perception around to fit whatever agenda he has on a given day.

10. Here is something that isn't bad sportswriting from Bruce Jenkins. He dares to take a measured approach to the use of analytics.

Charles Barkley seems to think there’s some sort of war going on. He fights it alone, well on his way to becoming chairman of the “I don’t get analytics” committee.

He ridiculed analytics as “crap,” apparently not realizing he was also denouncing rebound totals and points per game. As far as his dismissing stat wizards as “people who never played the game,” there’s some truth to that. But if Barkley wants to believe that such NBA icons as Gregg Popovich and Pat Riley don’t conduct extensive studies of advanced metrics, he’s wildly misguided.

The statistical revolution hasn’t taken over the major sports, it merely enhances player evaluation at every level. Every smart executive crafts a harmonious relationship between long-trusted scouts (as in “trust your eyes”) and the volumes of advanced metrics that prove invaluable in analyzing matchups, tendencies and percentages.

This is impossible. It's either one or the other. Just ask Rick Telander. A team either hates or loves advanced statistics. There can be no in between. Ever. Never. No NBA coach or GM would ever admit to use advanced statistics.

Warriors GM Bob Myers, to FM 95.7: “When we make decisions, analytics are never more than 50 percent of the process.”

Dallas coach Rick Carlisle: “There’s a lot of information available, but 'selectively’ is the word. There are tools there that are extremely useful. You just have to make sure you don’t overdo it.”

Houston coach Kevin McHale: “It’s just another tool in the toolbox, and very useful. But the toughest thing in this business is how much does a guy love to play? How much does he love to compete? How tough is he? How is he going to play when someone kicks his ass? What’s he going to do the next day?”

Oh. So Bruce Jenkins is writing that NBA teams use advanced statistics as part of the evaluation process and admit to it? What happened to "either/or" and sportswriters claiming that statistics are ruining the sport? This is happening, lack of evidence be damned.

This is a war that doesn’t exist. Only a fool dares to belittle either side.

Exactly. Maybe when the anti-advanced stats crowd stops belittling the use of these statistics "idiots" like Daryl Morey will feel free to not belittle those who sound ignorant when dismissing new ideas, simply because they are threatened by these ideas.