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.

Red Sox to Win Wild Card in 2009

since getting his young pitchers to throw until their arms fall off hasn't worked, Nolan Ryan got someone in his front office to go out and bring back Pudge Rodriguez to ensure the Rangers torch their best chances of getting to the postseason since Bill Clinton was in office. Red Sox fans everywhere are rejoicing. now, trade us Salty.

88 mph, suckas.

greetings, internet goers of the past. i am writing to you from the future (mid-October 2009) to inform you that the Sox have won the AL East. this, contrary to reports from the earlier part of the year that a.j. burnett, c.c. sabathia, m.c. teixeriaieria, and (of course) d.s. jeter would lead the jankees to a 160-2 record.

but nay! Las Mediasrojas took the crown by a game over the yankees, who fell flat on their faces in August after alex rodriguez went down with a curious injury. to put it bluntly, one of his balls exploded. take a guess why.

coming soon (i really, really hope), a commentary on ARod's now infamous interview with Peter Gammons. actually, since i am writing to you from the future, i can say with a high level of certainty that i will never get around to doing this.

also, put all your money into Chrysler. right. now. you'll thank me sometime around August.

Performance Enhancing Drugs.

How do you think he won all those medals?

Because Mike Lupica is my favorite sports writer.

no, the title of this book is not Mike Lupica by Summer Ball. indeed, it is the other way around. but Mike Lupica is convinced that he is Moses and his Daily News columns are stone tablets, so it's no surprise that his name is the most prominent feature on many of his books.

from his latest:

The Yankees survived what would have been their worst loss of the season Monday, survived by a 13-9 score against a Tigers team they led 11-2 after three innings. They survived because Brian Bruney got Miguel Cabrera out with two men on and one out when the Tigers were on their way back, and because Derek Jeter got a two-out, two-RBI hit in the sixth when it was 11-9.

now, the box score from the game in question is right here. but you don't even have to click to get the point i'm about to make, because Lupica put it right into his own article - "...and because Derek Jeter got a two-out, two-RBI hit in the sixth when it was 11-9." the final score of this game was 13-9 which, of course, renders jeter's two-out, two-RBI hit in the sixth completely meaningless. seriously, jeter was just praised by Lupica for a superfluous single. he attributed the yankee win (in part) to that very hit, despite the fact that if cap'n intangibles had his left eye (his hitting eye) impaled by a Placido Polanco maple bat shard whilst ranging far to the right on (and subsequently missing) a ground ball in the 5th inning and he had to be air-lifted to the Mass Eye and Ear Infirmary at MGH to get a new eye grown from George Steinbrenner's stem cells and therefore missed the next three innings but was back in time for the 9th and was re-inserted into the game via an ad hoc change to MLB's offical rulebook informally known as "the jeter rule" but it was too late because his spot in the order didn't come up in the 9th inning anyway, the yankees still would have won.

meanwhile, you get 20,800 (about) results if you google "a rod home run meaningless." because he is an ass who only hits homers when his team is either down by a margin his homerun cannot single-handedly erase or they are already winning. in both situations, of course, his home run is meaningless. but jeter is commended for putting up such production.

peace out, fuckers. i'm moving to Banladesh where shit like this doesn't happen.

Alex Rodriguez Suicide Watch

so today is my last day of work in the insurance industry before i retire (seriously), so why not burn out by doing a trifle bit of blogging?

right, then. if i were a close friend of alex rodriguez, my name would be Madonna. and as Madonna, i would make sure to keep alex away from razor blades, sleeping pills, and nooses, because a man can only take so much abuse before he gives in and kicks the chair. it's not that he's going to scan Lupica's article here (which, like all of Lupica's articles, reads like a fifth grader's book report, except without shitty hand-drawn pictures of the characters), polish a pistol, and swallow a bullet. i hope he's learned to insulate himself from the media since his move to the Bronx. i mean, clearly the man knows how to handle himself with aplomb whilst in the camera's eye (joking), so i can only imagine he's not riding home on the subway reading the Daily News. (actually, can't you just imagine A-rod going home, asking his butler for a grape popsicle and today's issues of the tabloids, laying belly down on a canopy bed fretting over the stories about himself? kind of like a 13-year old girl reading about the Jonas brothers, only a lot more whining and squealing.)


seriously though - i'm sure A-Rod ignores the tabloids. but how do you ignore 55,058 jerks booing you mercilessly while just 25 feet to your left stands a man insulated from any sort of adversity, despite the fact he is OPS+'ing 56 points lower than you, isn't banging hot shemale strippers, and has "Sanderson" for a middle name? sure, A-Rod gets paid the most, says the dumbest things, and has that annoying "best player in the game and maybe in history" collar around his neck, but i'm sure he's asking himself every single day of his life, "is it really fucking worth it?"

i genuinely feel sorry for the man.

I can't wait till they make this for OS X.

Jason Varitek and Heidi Watney?

in case you're wondering, that's Heidi Watney in the Wally getup, and they're reading the Kama Sutra.

could the rumors be true? since everyone keeps ending up here in an attempt for verification, i guess we'll address at least the possibility. From boston.com:

Sox catcher Jason Varitek (above) is splitting with his wife, Karen. The team captain filed for divorce July 28 in Gwinnett County, Ga., where the couple live in the offseason. They were married in 1997 and have three daughters, ages 8, 6, and 3. Varitek is in the final year of a four-year, $40-million contract he signed after the BoSox won the World Series in 2004.

now, i'm not entirely sure how much NESN is paying Heidi Watney to do her Erin Andrews impression in the bleachers at Fenway, but i bet it's not 1% of what an aging goateed catcher with a swiss cheese bat is making these days.

And honestly, he'll appreciate the kind of straight-forward manner in which you told him your decision.

So in my daily visit to my semi-new favorite Boston-area sports blog Mass Hysteria, I read one of their daily features (written by friend HzMLS) and he essentially predicted a Rays downfall after the injuries to both Evan Longoria and Carl Crawford. I posted a comment on the blog, and because I felt like it was misinterpreted, dubbschism and I discussed via email:

Smarty Barrett: My point wasn't the Pythagorean record, my point was that bloggers, pundits and others are going to predict a slide for the Rays because of the loss of Crawford and Longoria, but the fact is a slide was inevitable anyway. i.e. a slip in their record and a slip in the standings would have occurred regardless (and independent) of any injuries. So when they start to slip, injuries will be cited, but the fact of the matter is that any decline will not be 100% due to the loss of 2 stars.



dubbschism: yes. i agree for the most part, however, we're approaching the point in the season where the pythag is less and less meaningful as far as predicting the actual final standings go, since there's not a lot of time for the records to correct themselves. it's more useful at this point as far as predicting theoretical standings, but there's only about 40 games left. make sense? it's entirely possible that their run differential over the next 40 games would match up with their record thus far, esp with the addition of baldelli, but it's much more unlikely now that two of their better players are gone.

SB: I agree. We should have already started to see a regression towards the mean in all cases for all teams - Pythag record is not always correct, mostly because of luck in one-run games and such. I feel that it does tell us how good a team actually is - example: the 2007 Mariners finished with a 88-74 record, but their pythag was 80-82. That team was not that good.

The point I was trying to make is that, in theory, the Rays run differential could maintain the same pace it has throughout the season and they would still slip in the standings. Citing injuries to explain their decline would not be telling the whole story. The larger point is predicting a slide for the Rays now is easy, but would they have slid without the injuries? I say yes but we'll never know now. And Sox fans are all excited that they have some key players hurt now and if the Sox do come back and win the division, Longoria and Crawford's injuries will be cited. I just don't think simply saying 2 guys got hurt is a sufficient explanation. Picking the Rays to falter now is easy. Picking them to falter two weeks ago, as I did, would not have been "popular."

My mom says I'm a catch.

DS: well when you see Evan Baseball Hero in the hospital, tell him he played a great game. Tell him you liked his article in the newspaper.

his WARP is 6.5. willy aybar's is .8. over the rest of the season, that's about 2 wins. which could be significant.

SB: So you're saying it could cost them a win at least every two weeks? Once every two weeks?

It could be significant. But if the Red Sox win the division by four games, then I will cite run differential and not Longoria's injury.

DS: well let's put it this way: given current run diffs, we'd expect the rays to go 25-20 the rest of the way. (with Longoria.) we'd expect the sox to go 25-18. as it currently stands, that's not enough to make up the 4 games. but, if Longoria disappears, suddenly the rays go 23-22...and bingo, Dino DNA. a 3-game difference.

SB: But if you use log5 to break down the Rays remaining games, they're more likely to go 23-22 anyway, and that was factored in before the loss of Longoria and Crawford. So just beware, when John Kruk tells you why the Rays are losing games, don't believe him.

Semi-Irregular Miguel Tejada Home Run Update

today's date: 08/08/08
Miggy's current HR total: 11
Miggy's projected HR total, should he keep up this pace: 16
probability that the ejected fan wins my $20, unscrupulously puts it in a Roth IRA with hopes of the principal maturing into the approximately $6,000* it would cost him for reconstructive surgery so as to look like Eddie Vedder, then spends the $6,000 on reconstructive surgery so as to look like Eddie Vedder: 15%
probability that the ejected fan would get recontructive surgery so as to look like Eddie Vedder, if he had the money to spend regardless of Miggy's 2008 HR stats: 97%.



*i calculated this number using a complex algorithm involving costs of various plastics surgeries people have undergone in an effort to emulate their favorite celebrities. the actual cost would be $6,124. it's accurate.

that's all i have to say about that.

2008 All Star Game Selection Special!!! American League installment. Go!

okay, we get it. most hardcore baseball types think the All Star game is hogwash - an anachronistic, gratuitous exhibition that lost its interest-worthiness years ago. i can see the line of reasoning here: casual fans vote in the wrong players, prima donna stars don't bother to show up for the game, and managers play favorites when selecting reserves. (come on, Joe Torre. jeff nelson? paul quantrill? NO ONE wants to see middle relievers in this game. really. not even Joey from Brooklyn.)

but me? i LOVE the All Star game. i like voting. i like asking in the second week of April, "do you think so-and-so will be an all star this year?" i like watching the home run derby. and while people use to complain that the Game didn't mean anything, they complained even more when Bud changed the rules with the whole World Series home field advantage thingy. as a Sox fan though, you have to like what Papi and Manny did in the '04 Midsummer classic (the home field advantage-nullifying four game sweep of the Cards notwithstanding).

so for the first time ever, i am pouring through the leader boards and picking out my own all stars. here are my rules:
1. forget about current balloting results. i know he's a "star," but Junior Griffey does NOT deserve to be on the all star team this year. also, Varitek shouldn't even be sniffing the Bronx come July 15th. some form of ballot control needs to be enacted to prevent these sorts of travesties. (remember when David Bell almost started at 3rd in 2001 because of all the Mariners-obsessed Japanese going crazy?) the best players at each position will start the game.
2. forget about past performance. this might skew balloting, but i think it also skews the players' peer selection and the managers' reserve selections.
3. same rules for team representation and roster size. some people say it's dumb that each team needs to be represented, and for the most part i agree. although if i were a Pirates or Royals fan, i'm sure i'd feel differently. also, each squad has 32 players, the 32nd being voted in on that whole "last player selected" ballot they have with the five choices (usually ends up being a Red Sox player). i'm just going to select them all myself because i feel like our 4 readers would introduce some sort of bias into any online voting.
4. traditional (read: not always informative) and sabermetric stats will be used to determine the best players. to a degree. yes, mike mussina has 10 wins, but he's not an all star. a healthy batting average could get you in, though. if you're leading your position in OPS, i think you belong in. a good FRAA probably scores you plenty of tail on the road, so it should also help your All Star credentials. (sorry, Hanley.)

so, without further adieu, i give you your 2008 American League (aka the little big league - ya know, only 14 teams?) All Star Team:

SP: Ervin Santana, LAA - a Santana starting the All Star game, but probably not the one you expected. 9-3 record, 3.32 ERA (9th) , 1.07 WHIP (3rd), 99 K's (2nd), and hitters are OPS'ing a measely .616 against him (4th). granted his BABIP is an unsustainably low .257 (teammate Joe Saunders' is .230!!!!) so he might come back to Earth a tad between now and then, but most of his stats, including his peripherals, indicate he has probably been the best starter in the AL this season. i think this is a toss-up between Santana and Cliff Lee, but honestly, I don't think Lee will be around for the Cy Young debate in September. I think Santana will be.

C: Joe Mauer, MIN - this is a tough crop to choose from. posada's been hurt (and wasn't going to repeat last season, anyway), Pudge has been off the juice for years now, and Kevin Cash just doesn't play often enough to garner the necessary attention. [sidenote - that was a joke.] (Amazingly, while doing the research for this, i discovered that Jason Varitek doesn't even qualify for the batting title based on AB's. not that he has a shot at it obviously, and in fact only 5 catchers in the AL qualify. i wonder if this is why a catcher winning the batting title is so rare?) anyway, Mauer is hitting a healthy .323 with a .407 OBP, so it's tough to complain despite his 2 dingers. plus he's got those boyish good looks.

1B: Kevin Youkilis, BOS - this is a toss up between Youk and Ron Jeriambi. But since the latter is a cheater, we'll give it to Youkilis. also in his favor: .913 OPS, 13 bombs, stellar defense, and (somehow) facial hair that is less ugly than the Giambino's. generally speaking, AL first baseman are a wholly underachieving lot this year.

2B: Ian Kinsler, TEX - there's not even competition here. he leads amongst second baseman in OPS and homers, is second in steals and doubles, and also leads the league in first name vowel:consonant ratio.

3B: alex rodriguez, NYY - he's not as overrated as everyone thinks. this is another category without competition.

SS: derek jeter, NYY - i actually wrote "just kidding!" after that originally, but scouring the other shortstops in the AL, i sadly announce that derek jeter deserves all the votes he is getting. bad defense and baserunning aside, there's really no one else having a good enough season to shove him out of the way.(if Jhohnnhyh Phehrhaltha wasn't OBP'ing .294, it'd be his spot.) o, Jed Lowrie, where art thee?

LF: Manny Ramirez, BOS - this is a very close call between Manny and Carlos Quentin of the White Sox, but given how i feel about each of these Sox teams, the answer wasn't so hard. Quentin actually edges out Manny in most every category, with the exception of "joints smoked in the green monster."

CF: Josh Hamilton, TEX - he probably isn't not the reason i'm running away with one of my fantasy teams. he's a triple crown candidate and a really, really good walking example of why to stick to booze and gambling, and to lay off the crack pipe.

RF: J.D. Drew, BOS - i'm not just playing homeboy here. i've loved Drew since, like, forever (ask anyone - i swear i wasn't booing every 4-6-3 GIDP last season...okay, maybe i booed the 2,359,864th one.) his OPS is almost 100 points higher than the second place dude, Jermaine Dye, plus Jesus loves him. (this i know, for the bible told me so.)

DH: Milton Bradley, TEX - honestly, i was just scared not to put him on this list. although he leads the league in OPS, so...

The other 22:
Pitchers: Cliff Lee-CLE, Felix Hernandez-SEA (lone Mariners rep), Joe Saunders-LAA, Jon Lester-BOS, Roy Halladay-TOR (lone Jays rep, although Shawn Marcum makes a compelling case and should be on the team if there are any injuries), Zack Greinke-KC, James Shields-TB, Francisco Rodriguez-LAA, mariano rivera-NYY, Joakim Soria-KC, Joe Nathan-MIN
C: A.J. Pierjerkski-CWS
1B: jason giambi-NYY
2B: Brian Roberts-BAL
3B: Evan Longoria-TB
SS: Jhonny Peralta-CLE, Bobby Crosby-OAK (lone A's rep)
OF: Carlos Quentin-CWS, Jermaine Dye-CWS, Magglio Ordonez-DET (lone Tigers rep), Grady Sizemore-CLE, Nick Markakis-BAL

if anyone gets hurt, i say put Brandow Morrow-SEA on the team. i know he's a middle reliever (well, temporary closer), but his numbers have been nasty.

i'm looking for comments, suggestions, disagreements, and endorsements. bring 'em on.

My cell phone is like the internet's little sister.

dubbschism mobile blogging, watching Rays vs. Cubs (possible World Series preview?) from a restaurant. i've come to the conclusion that Joe Maddon looks like Gene Hackman's character Brill in 'Enemy of the State,' starring Will Smith, lots of guys with spiky hair, and...uh, Gene Hackman.

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.

Hazel Mae's Takeoff Strip

The ejected fan states there is a sperm ghost inside the stall.

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.

Semi-Irregular Miguel Tejada Home Run Update

today's date: the Ides of May
Miggy's current HR total: 5
Miggy's projected HR total, should he keep up this pace: 20 (!!!!!)
probability that the ejected fan wins my $20 and spends it on overpriced Sambvca nips from the Regal Beagle so he can get plastered on the T before he even gets to Fenway: 12%