Fire Joe Morgan. Fire him now. Seriously.

In Joe Morgan's JoeChat™ yesterday, there was the following exchange:

Ryan (Vermont)

How do you feel things will stand at the end of the day in the AL Central?

Joe Morgan

(11:18 AM)

Well, it's not a matter of how they stand at the end of the day today, I think you have to look at the end of the series. The Twins have to win 3 of 4. If they split this series, it will almost be over. It's not going to be easy for the Twins on the road to sweep the Tigers. The Twins, in their ballpark, would have an excellent chance to do so. I just don't see the Twins sweeping the Tigers, so I don't see them winning the division. It's even worse for them if they lose the first game, or lose tomorrow. The Tigers have to win one of the first two games to keep the pressure off themselves. The Twins will face Verlander in the second game. In fact, because they're playing a doubleheader today and in the history of baseball 80% of all doubleheaders have been split.

re-read that last line. "...in the history of baseball, 80% of all doubleheaders have been split."

this is a lie. first of all, from 2002-2008, doubleheaders were split 43.8% of the time. granted, this doesn't cover the same time frame that ol' number-crunching Joe mentioned above. i can't find historical doubleheader data, and don't have the time to comb through 109 year's worth of box scores (ya know, me being a busy working man and all), but here is a little math lesson for you:

for any given team on a long enough time scale, the theoretical probability of sweeping a doubleheader is 25%, winning the first and losing the second is 25%, losing the first and winning the second is 25%, and getting swept is 25%. (unless somehow the team is perenially superior to all other teams in the league, in which case the probability distribution for the yankees would look something like 99%-0.5%-0.5%-0%.) i assure you there is no fallacy in this argument, because we are talking about ALL teams, i.e. the aggregate won-loss percentage is exactly 50% here. so even ignoring the last 7 years (which clearly prove Joe to be a liar), we are talking about a situation that one would expect to see happen 50% of the time (a doubleheader resulting in a split), that Joe claims has actually happened 80% of the time. now again, i don't have historical doubleheader data, so i am going to have to wave my hands a little. since there were 178 doubleheaders in the last 7 years, let's assume there have been 109*178/7 = 2,771 doubleheaders in modern MLB history. (there's actually probably been a lot more, since they were more common back in the day. but keep in mind there used to be only 154 games in the season so this might actually not be too bad an estimate - my gut feeling is that there have been a lot, lot more.) (also, if anything, this underestimate helps Joe, not me, since weirder things - read: 80% of doubleheaders ending in splits - can happen in fewer games.)

so our null hypothesis (i.e. Joe's hypothesis) is thusly: 80% of doubleheaders end in splits. using an n value of 2,771, an x-bar value of .5, and a mu-naught value of .8, i get a z-value of 31.58. (i don't expect you to get this unless you took a statistics class or three. also note that i am taking liberties with conventional symbols, etc.)

31.58. i can't even find an online normal distribution calculator that can give me a precise enough probability of this event actually happening - they all come out to a big, fat, zero.

which is to say this: the probability that over 2,771 doubleheaders, 80% of them would end in a split (when we would expect 50%) is about 0.000000000000000000000001. (give or take a few zeroes.)

there is not a word to describe the reckless, egregious, and sinister claims this man makes week after week on national television and on national internet. he deserves to have his Hall of Fame plaque torn down and melted into computer parts.

MVPedroier

add now to his already impressive list of hardware (RoY, GG, SS), the 2008 AL MVP award. not a bad choice by the writers, as it blends the "traditional" standards (he played on a playoff team, was renowned for his grit and hustle, hit the fuck out of the ball) but his objective value was quite high as well (great defense, middle infielder with offensive value, 20 for 21 in steals (!!!!)), so you probably won't hear alot of whining from either side about this one.

i'm also impressed with the writers for giving Poo-holes his due in the NL, and not letting their voting hands slip on the drool generated by Ryan Howard's RsBI and home runs. now if we can just do something about Edinson Volquez's rookie eligibility.

This just takes the motherfucking cake.

Crozzie's latest. Warning: NSFW.

I just want to put something to rest, once and for all.

i don't like the Chicago White Sox. i don't like their manager, i don't like their general manager, i don't like how they got lucky in 2005 and beat the Red Sox on their way to winning the World Series, i don't like "Ozzie Ball," i don't like "Smart Ball," i don't like the fact that every mainstream sportswriter liked to splooge in their pants talking about Scott Podsednik in 2005 when somehow he made the All-Star Team and placed 12th in MVP voting, all whilst OPS+'ing a whopping 86.

i especially don't like that this piece of shit team as currently constructed is sitting in first place atop the AL Central (crappiest division in baseball, to be sure) and that Crozzie (crazy+Ozzie=Crozzie) Guillen is getting all the credit.

i'd like to find some tidy explanation as to why the White Sox are overachieving, but it's actually kind of hard. first off, they're actually underperforming their Pythagorean W-L by three games. they're 6-7 in one-run games, so it's not like they have any good luck in that department. they do play the vastly underachieving Tigers and Indians 18 times each this season (including 7 and 9 games against them already, respectively), and of course they get to beat up on Kansas City for a good 1/9th of their games too. on the other hand, the Twins have all these luxuries as well but sit 6.5 games behind the South Siders.

so i guess it's pretty obvious that the Sox are winning because of Crozzie and his magical rants. right? i mean, they reeled of seven straight wins after his most recent tirade. so according to the laws of cause and effect, it is clear that because Ozzie Guillen said lots of swears on Sunday, June 1st, his team got their heads out of their asses and started playing baseball. (What nobody mentions is that on Sunday, June 8th, i lathered myself up with dish soap and repeatedly zoomed down a Pirates of the Caribbean slip n' slide, opening myself up to a variety of potential nipple injuries, and the White Sox won their next two games. imagine if i didn't use dish soap!) (also, what nobody mentions is that the White Sox were already in fucking first place before Ozzie jumped off the deep end.)

if you follow the White Sox, or Crozzie, or Baseball, or Sports, or Crazy Lunatics, then there is a 99.99999% chance this isn't the first time you've heard about Ozzie Guillen lashing out at his team. the guy's words are newsworthy everytime he opens his mouth, certainly, but on several occasions he's ripped into his own team, just like on June 1st.

1. May 28th, 2006, after losing to the Blue Jays 2-3 in the 11th inning (and stranding 13 runners in the process): "We're not executing," Guillen told the Chicago Sun-Times. "If we think we're going to play like this, and they think they're going to be a contender and in the pennant race, well, they'd better look at themselves in the mirror. My job is to try and win games and that's what I'm going to do. If they don't like what I say, they can leave and do whatever they want to do. We're better than this. We're way better than this." White Sox record in the next 7 games: 3-4. Reason this rant failed: forgot to call out the hitting coach (by name) and threaten him with his job.
2. May 30th, 2007, after losing to the Twins 6-7:"I'm going to get fired? Good. Is this team going to get better having me out of there? I'd be too happy with it. But as long as I'm here, we've got to play better. As long as I'm here, we have to play better," Guillen said after the fourth straight loss by the White Sox (24-24). "Offense, defense, pitching, manager, coaches, we all stink," Guillen said. White Sox record in the next 7 games: 2-5. Reason this rant failed: Not enough f-bombs.
3. August 31st, 2007, after losing to the Rangers 4-5 in 11 innings: "Well, they're killing me," Guillen said. "They're killing my family. They're killing my coaching staff, killing the White Sox fans. They kill the owner. They kill everyone. I hope they feel the same way we feel." White Sox record in the next 7 games: 3-4. Reason this rant failed: He brought his family into it. (that's a big no-no in the world of inspiring ranting and raving.)
   

so there you have it. Ozzie has reamed his team before, on at least three different occasions, and they responded by going 3-4, 2-5, and 3-4. but this year, things are different. this year, Ozzie has finally honed his ranting skills to motivate his team to win seven straight against the mediocre/mighty Twins and Royals, moving all the way up in the standings from first place to first place. this year...ah fuck it. i still say the White Sox miss the playoffs.

BUT FOR THE LOVE OF SCIENCE, PLEASE STOP SAYING THE WHITE SOX WON SEVEN IN A ROW BECAUSE OZZIE GUILLEN HAS A POTTY MOUTH.

thank you.

Call this an unfair generalization if you must, but old people are no good at everything.

A Smarty Barrett and dubbschism collaboration:

DS: first off, let it be known that i could care less about the NBA. actually, i could care less about basketball in general. when i was a young’un, i was way into NCAA basketball but by the time i graduated high school and matriculated at Awesome University to major in Coolness, the crappy basketball team (the Awesome University Shitbirds) sucked to the tune of an 0-152 record my freshman year, so i kind of lost interest. buuuuuuuuuut in a tip of the cap to the gents at Fire Joe Morgan, the egregiousness of the following jumble of caca-ness from Jason Whitlock is just too much for us not to rip apart FJM-style.

SB: I have always been a huge basketball fan, and while not exactly a die-hard NBA nut, I do watch it closely enough to boast at least some moderate knowledge about the league. But one thing I am not a fan of is Jason Whitlock. Mainly because I seem to dislike everyone that likes him, for one reason or another. But his most recent column is just...well...wow.

In NBA playoffs, less ink means more viewers

DS: when i first read this title, i was thinking “less coverage in newspapers and other traditional print media.” boy, was i wrong. go on, read!

Over the next couple of weeks you'll hear lots of theories about why TV ratings are surging for the NBA playoffs.

SB: Theories? Aren't most of the reasons pretty obvious? And also, factual?

DS: ostensibly, Mr. Whitlock is going to explain these “conventional wisdom” type theories, then blow them out of the water with his own hair-brained theories which have no basis in reality. that’s always the kind of freakishness this type of topic sentence begets.

Of course it helps that large TV markets with storied franchises (Boston and Los Angeles) are still alive and favorites to make the NBA Finals. And, yes, it helps that the league's two most successful franchises over the last five years (San Antonio and Detroit) are competing against the Lakers and the Celtics.

SB: Yes. Yes these are all reasons. And I hate to be nit-picky, but these are facts. Boston is a very big sports market. When a team is competing from this city, the ratings are always very high.

The conference finals are littered with big stars, too. Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Paul Pierce, Tony Parker, Ray Allen, Manu Ginobili, Rasheed Wallace and all the rest could make up an all-star team that the rest of the league couldn't beat.

SB: Really? Ginobili? Big star? Other than that, I agree.

DS: those sound like good theories to me. also, the weather in the Boston market has been rather blah lately, not to mention gas prices are forcing everyone everywhere to stay at home and watch whatever is on television. but those theories are not hair-brained enough.

SB: Wait for it...wait for it...

Obviously, there are a lot of factors contributing to the ratings numbers that TNT, ESPN and ABC keep bragging about in nearly daily press releases.

SB: Yes, we get it. Lots of factors.

DS: uh-huh. he just listed a lot of them.

SB: Stars, big markets, historic teams...not really anything revealing here.

DS: i even helped him out with some other novel ideas that maybe he didn’t think of. what is he getting at?

The NBA has been experiencing a resurgence ever since the Suns traded for Shaquille O'Neal, the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol, the Mavericks got hoodwinked into snagging Jason Kidd and the Cavaliers picked up new spare parts for LeBron.

SB: Agree. This is as exciting as the NBA has been in a while. Also, some things he left out: The Celtics acquired KG and Ray Allen (arguably the biggest move of the last year, and maybe one of the biggest in recent NBA history...why no mention?). Kobe demanded a trade from the Lakers, and then led the aforementioned Lakers to the NBA Finals months later. The Western Conference was just absolutely ridiculously competitive this year. etc. etc. etc...

DS: when i read the last part of that sentence, i thought “the Cavs did NOT trade LeBron James for spare parts,” which is exactly what it sounds like in this context. did anyone else think that’s what he was trying to say? no? okay. guess i’m just a dummy.

SB: Can he just get to the point already? Cuz I get the feeling it's going to be a crazy one!

But there's one issue driving improved ratings that likely won't be touched by all the NBA talking heads on TNT and ESPN.

DS: what about ABC? he mentioned them before. why not mention them here? i mean, if he's going for some sort of parallel device to the paragraph above (and i’m pretty sure that’s what he's doing), wouldn’t he at least re-cite the same three television networks?

SB: Here it comes...

Tattoos. Or rather the lack of tattoos in the conference finals.

SB: Bam. Boom. Whap. Shlorp. Bomb dropped.

DS: tattoos. tattoos? tattoos. really? i mean, lack of tatoos. lack of tattoos? lack of tattoos. really? you might have a valid point, Mr. Whitlock, because one of the reasons that i forgot to mention above why i don’t really enjoy basketball is how much i hate tattoos. which makes me wonder why i ever got one myself.

also, i just want to mention that if you CTRL+C’d and CTRL+V’d those two “sentences” into Microsoft Word, they would have green squiggly lines under them, because they are fragments.

SB: Tattoos, folks. TATTOOS!!! Let's read on.

Part of the reason more people are watching these playoffs is because the average fan isn't constantly repulsed by the appearance of most of the players on the court. Most of the key players left in the playoffs don't look like recent prison parolees.

SB: Sweet Jebus, I can't even begin to break down all of the things wrong with this statement. He's implying that the average NBA viewer is so repulsed by tattoos on players that he/she recoils in horror and changes the channel? Do you, Mr. Whitlock, think that people - actual everyday NBA watching people - take tattoos into consideration before decided whether or not to tune in? How ridiculous does that sound?

DS: also i’m not really sure what the function of the word “recent” is here, since tattoos are kind of, ya know, permanent. also, it’s estimated that 16% of all Americans have at least one tattoo. 36% of those 25-29 years old have at least one, and 28% of those 30-39 years old have at least one. and since the average NBA fan is between 18 and 34 years of age, i’m gonna go out on a limb and say it: nobody fucking cares.

SB: Also, let's count the stereotypes while we're at it. So far 1. All tattoos are repulsive. 2. People with tattoos look like/are recent prison parolees. That last one makes him sounds 80 years old. This man has many tattoos. Does he look like a "recent prison parolee" to you?

The only accurate way to describe Garnett, Pierce, Duncan, Allen, Manu, Parker and even Kobe is "clean cut."

DS: your clean cut manu ginobili:

Yeah, there are a couple of tattoos in that group — Duncan has something on his back, Kobe still has his post-rape-allegation tat — but the Lakers, Spurs and Celtics have far less ink on average than your typical NBA franchise.

DS: 1. he is contradicting himself,

2. is Kobe’s tattoo real or metaphorical? even so, wouldn’t a rape allegation make one less likely to watch an athlete perform than his personal body artwork?

SB: Let's face it. Using amount of tattoos to judge a person is incredibly shortsighted, stereotypical, and moronic.

Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony have more tats on their hands than the entire Spurs roster.

DS: um, the Denver Nuggets were in the playoffs this year, so that sort of blows up this dingbat's whole argument.

SB: I think he's only talking about the teams still left. Although on that note it makes me wonder...what would this article look like if Denver was still in it? Would there be no article at all? Or would it be a "there are three great teams and one team of murderous thug jerks!" kind of deal?

DS: ok, even if he's only talking about teams left, there's still this:

average TV market ranking of last year’s Conference Final teams: 20.75.
average TV market ranking of this year’s Conference Final teams: 14.25.

face it Whitlock, you're wrong.

I know many of you probably think the number of tattoos doesn't influence viewing habits.

SB: *raises hand*

You're wrong.

DS: hey Whitlock, i just said that you were wrong! you can’t just say it back to me.

Like everything else televised, appearances matter. There's a reason you don't see nude scenes in movies with fat people. Trust me, fat people have sex. It's just no one wants to see it. Not even fat people.

SB: Um, OK. Wow. Is this really all the proof he has? Fat people? This has ZERO correlation to his original point! Also, gross.



DS: this is the slim and slender Jason Whitlock, not picturing himself having sex with anyone.

No one wants to watch Delonte West or Larry Hughes play basketball.

SB: I do. I like to watch basketball, and these guys are pretty good at it.

It's uncomfortable and disconcerting. You don't want your kids to see it. You don't want your kids to think they should decorate their neck, arms, hands, chest and legs in paint.

SB: Still counting those stereotypes? 3. People with tattoos are uncomfortable to look at. Hell, you don't even want your kids to see them! Do you have kids, Mr. Whitlock? Because I just now thought of a fat person (you) having sex. And it was worse than seeing someone with a Chinese symbol on their ankle. Trust me.

You don't want to waste time explaining to your kids that some millionaire athletes have so little genuine self-confidence that they find it necessary to cover themselves in tattoos as a way to mask their insecurities.

SB: 4. Everyone with a tattoo is insecure. I mean seriously, what is wrong with this man?

You just want to watch basketball and feel like you're watching people you can relate to a little bit, people you somewhat respect.

SB: 5. One cannot relate to or respect anyone with a tattoo. Yikes, I'm no psychiatrist but this man has some crazy-ass phobias.

We finally have that again on the NBA's biggest stage, and everyone can see it because the league's substance isn't covered in a barrel of tattoo ink.

SB: This is one of the worst metaphors I have ever read.

David Stern has been arguing that the NBA is the best book. Ever since Ron Artest went into the stands, Stern has been slowly changing the cover of his book. The dress code and the age limit have helped. The midseason trades helped. Garnett's donning of a Celtics jersey really helped.

DS: i’m not sure what this whole “book” thing is that Whitlock is talking about, because per my disclaimer at the get-go, i don’t pay a lot of attention to the NBA. is it actually something Stern talked about? or is it just another very bad metaphor? can someone enlighten me? this search illuminated nothing. but i wonder if the book has "ink" on it's cover?

also, what do the midseason trades have to do with improving the image of the NBA? seriously, Whitlock is so off his rocker at this point that i don’t even feel like this piecemeal refutation of his lunacy is even necessary. it really just speaks for itself.

SB: Do I need to mention that as commissioner David Stern has little or nothing to do with the quality or quantity of trades in the league? No? OK, good.

Kobe's maturity and ascension to Jordan's throne has probably been the most important development. Kobe is everything the league wants LeBron James to be.

SB: An alleged rapist?

Sorry, had to.

But don't underestimate how much having a visually pleasing product to look at has benefitted [sic] the league at conference finals time.

DS: i won’t underestimate it, as long as he doesn't underestimate the powerful therapeutic effects that the new “atypical” neuroleptic drugs can have for people suffering from episodes of psychosis. (caution: side effects may include dysphoria, increased risk of stroke, and irreversible tardive dyskinesia.)

It's a television show. Pleasant smiles, non-threatening people sell products better than menacing, tattooed brutes.

DS: agreed. fair enough. because we are talking about a sales team here, and not world-class athletes whose goal is to win as many games for their team as possible, a goal which of course is predicated entirely on how much subcutaneous ink they don’t have.

SB: (whispered) No we're not.

DS: WE'RE NOT?!?!

If I was [sic] David Stern, I'd commission Nike and/or Under Armor [sic] to create a basketball jersey with long sleeves, all the way down to the wrists.

SB: Hmm...I like it. Except, umm...he kind of has ALREADY BANNED ALMOST THE SAME THING! I forget what page of "the book" this is on.

DS: hey, don't forget, if this did go down Iverson and Anthony would also have to wear gloves.

I'd make Iverson wear a turtleneck jersey with sleeves. I'd cover the tats.

SB: Once again, he kind of already wears the same thing! On one arm, at least...

Do you think Sports Illustrated would let its swimsuit models cover themselves in tattoos? Models are paid to look good. Athletes are no different from models. Everyone accepts that female basketball players — when possible — are pushed to showcase their feminine beauty.

SB: Wow. Not the same thing. Not even close to the same thing. Models are paid based on their appearance. Basketball players are paid to play basketball. What doesn't he get about this??

DS: this paragraph itself needs to start taking antipsychotic drugs. fo realz. first of all, Sports Illustrated DID let its models cover themselves in tattoos. sorta kinda, anyway.

second of all, tell me the correct answer to this analogy:

athletes: models:: Jason Whitlocks:

A. Anti-religious rabble rousers

B. Apocalyptic zebras

C. Bakers who use splenda instead of sugar

D. Sportswriters who need to be committed to a mental institution

if you chose D (which is wrong), then you also believe that athletes are no different than models. which means you probably don’t have Randy Johnson on your fantasy team. (the correct answer is C, by the way.)

finally, what the dual is the deal with that last sentence? let me repeat it, in case your brain short-circuited the first time you read it.

Everyone accepts that female basketball players — when possible — are pushed to showcase their feminine beauty.

SB: "When possible"? Is this an attempt at a joke? That's kind of mean.

DS: "when possible" as in only when the female basketball player involved isn’t a 6’5” Amazon completely devoid of feminine beauty? or as in when they’re off the court and all dolled up with makeup and a miniskirt? whatever Whitlock is trying to say here, i think his arrow missed the mark and instead he’s hit the bull’s-eye of "over the line chauvinism."

It's unfortunate that too many young athletes are too unenlightened to approach the game like a business. They resist almost all ideas that would put more money in their pockets. They have to be forced to do the little things that would help them make more money.

DS: next article Jason Whitlock is going to write: Why Nobody Will Talk About Why College Athletes Should All Major in Marketing and Should Convert to Jehova’s Witnesses and Not Get Tattoos. also, i like to picture Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson sitting together at the tattoo studio, and Carmelo turns to Iverson and says “Man, if we could only make more money. Then we’d be set.”

Growing NBA ratings is what's best for the players in the long term. Adopting a non-prison-ready appearance would help everyone in the league earn more money.

SB: As opposed to the prison-ready appearance of a player with a tattoo.

But no one will talk about it.

DS: except for you, Jason Whitlock, with your “edgy and thought-provoking style.” an edge as sharp as a tattoo needle, and a style as fad-erific as tramp stamps.

Ozzie Guillen: Faithful Countryman, Unscrupulous Comedian

as you may or may not know, former Sox spot starter Geremi Gonzalez was struck and killed by lightning while in his home country of Venezuela. he was only 33. not to be insensitive or anything, but i didn't know the guy and he never really did anything to endear himself to Red Sox fans in his short tenure in Boston, so the sadness of the situation is sort of overshadowed by the freakishness of the situation. i mean, if causes of death in Venezuela were like events in a baseball game, getting struck by lightning would be like catcher's interference. (a botched carjacking would be like a groundout to SS, and getting whacked in a State-sponsored American sympathizer eradication would be like a backwards K. choking on a pecan shell would be like a 3-6-2 double play.) it's just not how you'd expect someone in Venezuela to die.

now, for some reason (part of a Venezuelan baseball theme? i really have no idea.) foxsports.com asked uber-crank Ozzie Guillen to weigh in on the tragedy. and Ozzie, never missing an opportunity to be as uncouth as a drunk fat chick who insists on being in a wet t-shirt contest, has this to say: "A lot of people are going to be shocked."

what. a. dick.

one thing a lot of people won't be shocked about is when the White Sox finish in fourth place in the AL Central with a team OBP of .211.