FIRE JOE MORGAN: 02.06

FIRE JOE MORGAN

Where Bad Sports Journalism Came To Die

FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over. You can still e-mail dak, Ken Tremendous, Junior, Matthew Murbles, or Coach.

Main / Archives / Merch / Glossary / Goodbye

Friday, February 24, 2006

 

Welcome To Larry's World


Your attention please, ladies and gentlemen: Larry Beil has entered the arena.

Barry Bonds is retiring after this season … or he might play another five years. Barry's body is wracked with pain … or he feels great. So what's true here? With Bonds, the answer is all of the above.


I know what he means. But no, it is impossible that all of this is true. It can't be true that he's retiring after this season and he might play another five years.

It was classic Bonds this past week, with Barry fueling dueling headlines, supplying quotes about his imminent demise and his bright future.

I'm sorry -- fueling headlines? Bonds did that? I get that people hate Barry Bonds. I'm fine with that, even though I root for the guy. I don't care that he did steroids, I don't even really care that he's pretty clearly kind of a dick. That's just me. What I don't get is how people who hate Bonds can accuse him of "headline fueling," when they're the ones writing the stories. You did this, Larry Biel; you wrote the headline on the Yahoo! sports homepage. You're saying he's fueling headlines because, over the course of the week, he was sort of duplicitous? And now you're going to write an article which is promoted on the Yahoo! MLB front page as "an exercise in futility"? I guess that's one way to go about things.

Major League Baseball is trying to distance itself from the steroid era, so Bonds eclipsing 755 is not necessarily a good thing. But tying Aaron would be perfect. MLB would get the excitement of another chase at history and Aaron would still hold a share of the title. Bonds would get his glory. Those who love him can cheer and those who loathe him can boo what they'd view as a tainted record.

Larry, you genius! Here's a phone tree -- you start with Selig, get him and his cronies to be mum about the conspiracy. I'll start calling pitchers in the NL West, make sure they know the arrangement. Junior, Ken and Murbles will deal with Felipe Alou, Bob Costas and Hank Aaron. Since it's such a perfect plan, and as you noted, Bonds would get his glory, I doubt we even need to get in touch with Barry himself to let him know what's up. Seven fifty-five it is.

Well played, Beil! Your move, Mr. Kasparov.

posted by dak  # 4:38 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

 

A Gene Wojciechowski Two-fer!

ESPN.com's Gene Wojciechowski seems to be gunning for the crown of "World's Bitterest Old White Dude," a title held since time immemorial by one Jonathon Edward "Skip" Bayless of Cold Pizza, a show which, I kid you not, is still on the air. (By the way, that non-traditional spelling of "Jonathon" is, according to Wikipedia, sic).

The targets of his last two posts? None other than every 55 year-old sportswriter's favorite fish in a barrel, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds. Now, I'm aware of all of the negative things one can say about these guys. Mostly because they've been repeated ad nauseam by every low-level internet sports columnist with a sufficient level of misplaced indignation. Guys. We get it. You don't like Bonds and Sosa. You think they are selfish, morally questionable, egocentric millionaires who have the audacity to be better than David Eckstein. Can we move on now? Apparently not.

Part 1: Sammy Sosa's Love For the Game

In his Feb. 17th column, GW writes that he, for one, doesn't believe Sosa's agent's claims that Sammy is likely retired. He writes:

Sosa, who is less accessible these days than Dick Cheney, could have signed a non-guaranteed $500,000 deal with the Washington Nationals, but decided to take a pass. Katz said the decision "was not a money issue," which means it had everything to do with the Benjamins. Whenever anyone in sports says it's not about the money ... it's about the money.

First of all, great reference. Both topical and hilarious. Secondly, GW, your point here is a little bit murky. You say it's about the money, but doesn't Sammy's choice to retire prove that, in fact, it's not about the money? Meaning, since he already has millions, is there really a need for him to go out there and play for any amount of money with a body that seems to be breaking down more and more every day? You'll probably say "He should do it for the love of the game," but if I'm Sammy Sosa, the game's probably not all that fun when you're in constant pain and there are funny-named sportswriters out there attacking you for retiring from baseball. Also, as to your last sentence, you must have known when you wrote it that it is patently untrue/dumb. A man named Tony Gwynn comes to mind. Also Curt Schilling. And also, ironically, Barry Bonds.

I know Sosa well enough to know he is a man of immense pride and ego. That pride and ego is why Sosa pouted when Dusty Baker had no choice but to drop him in the Chicago Cubs batting order during the 2004 season. It's why he ditched the Cubs on the final day of the '04 season -- and then lied about it. It's why you probably could steam a clam on Sosa's forehead these days.

"Steam a clam on Sosa's forehead?" Really? You're gonna go with that? Okay, man, good luck. Anyway, yes, Sammy Sosa, does have a huge ego. You would too if you knew that you were one of the five greatest home run hitters of all time. And you'd probably be a little pissed off to be having as un-Sosa-like of a season as he did in 2004 (and 2005, for that matter). And also, it doesn't take a huge ego to not get along with Dusty Baker, a crazy person.

There are rumors the New York Yankees might stick their pinstripes in the Sosa waters. If that happens, alert FEMA for disaster relief. Can you imagine how fast Yankees fans will turn on Sosa after a few O-fers?

Ha ha ha ha ha! A FEMA joke! Classic! Do one about Judge Ito! No, wait...Lewinsky, dude! Do a Lewinsky joke! Oh, man! FEMA! So true...so true...

There are no guarantees in sports, which is why Katz's remarks about Sosa's refusing to subject himself to the "possibility" of another 2005-like season are almost laughable.

You say 37 year-old millionaire Sammy Sosa should accept an almost minimum value non-guaranteed contract coming off a year in which he missed 60 games due to injuries, injuries which could allow a non-guaranteed contract to be voided at any time. I say, what is laughable about walking away from that?

Baseball is a game predicated on failure. If Sosa has doubts -- and Katz said he does -- then the $500,000 Nationals offer was too generous.

Wait, so now the Nationals shouldn't have offered the contract in the first place? Where is this going?

Sosa should have taken the Nationals' deal and, in the process, taken a chance on himself. He could have shown he wasn't about the money, or pride, or ego. He could have played for something as innocent as his self-proclaimed love of the game.

You're right, Wojo. All you players out there, take heed. Next time your deals are up, calculate your Love For The Game (LFTG) and value your contracts accordingly. (Hint: it will be somewhere around $500,000 non-guaranteed)

But as usual, he does the E-Sosa thing. He doesn't understand there is no dishonor in trying and failing. The dishonor comes when you don't try at all.

I just re-read the article. Nowhere did I find a reference to this "E-Sosa thing," or what that could possibly mean. I honestly have no idea. Does he mean E like, an error? Or like, Electronic-Sosa? BTW: e-sosa.com seems to be owned by Sosa Fashion (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. esosa.com seems to be held by a text advertising company. I think we could probably buy it.

------------------

Part 2: Guess who doesn't like Barry Bonds?

So Barry Bonds is going to hang up his cleats and violin after this season, eh? Good for him. Good for us.

Who is "us?" Is it the fans? Because most of the fans I know want Barry Bonds to break as many records as possible. And yes, we all know he's a jerk. And yes, the steroids, blah blah blah. I don't care. He's the best baseball player we will probably ever see. So does "us" mean sportswriters? Because it seems like Bonds is a fucking gift from the gods for you dudes. You finally have a guy you can rip for just about anything at any time. What else would you be writing your column about, Gene? There hasn't been any Scott Podsednik news lately for you guys to jizz your pants over. (Although I did hear while on vacation in Bermuda, he scrappily legged out a 12 yard TD run in a pickup beach-football game. What a gamer!) Also, what happened to the "Dishonor comes when you don't try at all" from your last column? Is that Sosa (or E-Sosa) specific?

Bonds told USA Today on Sunday that he will retire at season's end, which must be why the birds are chirping a little louder, the sun is shining a little brighter, and the beer on tap tastes a little colder. This is like the Wicked Witch of the West throwing a bucket of water on herself.

Does Barry Bonds really affect your life this much, Gene Wojciechowski? If so, I strongly recommend counseling. Or go play with your kids or something, dude.

No one is holding a Jugs Gun to his head and telling him to play in 2006. If he's so tired of it all, so desperate to be forgotten, so embarrassed to wear a big league uni, then retire now. And don't let the clubhouse door hit you on the way out.

Barry Bonds is extremely close to passing Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. He is not going to retire now. If I were him, I would play simply to stick it in the face of guys like GW and Mike Celizic and J.E. Bayless. Seriously. That alone would be motivation enough for me.

He trivialized the first-ever Classic, saying, "Come on, the World Cup isn't the Olympics. Who cares? Does it mean anything?"

Not in BarryWorld, it doesn't.

Umm, Gene, it doesn't mean anything. It is a marketing ploy. I'm very excited about it, don't get me wrong. It will be better than spring training. But I'm not exactly swelling with national pride about it, especially considering that many of the best players will not be playing. And this BarryWorld sounds interesting. Is it just Barry Bonds World, or are other Barrys represented? Gibb? Switzer? Manilow? Marion Barry? How does Barry Greenstein feel about the WBC?

--------------------

Postscript: My favorite thing about articles like this is the not-even-thinly-veiled bitterness about them. Sammy Sosa should play for $500,000! I get paid less and I'm a sportswriter for ESPN-dot-frigging-com! Barry Bonds should take all of our abuse because he's a millionaire and he probably did steroids! He should simply love that every week we manufacture enough outrage to attack him personally in our columns!

Post-postscript: I have enlisted a venture capital firm for the first round of financing for esosa.com. Right now, we have approx. $15 million US and about 20,000 sq. feet of office space in the greater Palo Alto area. I encourage all of you to invest, as this will surely be the greatest website in the history of the universe, especially once we figure out what it will do.

posted by Murbles  # 11:47 AM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
 

Time to Start Keeping Track

of terrible, basis-less predictions. Here's one from MSNBC.com's Ted Robinson:

Best acquisitions of the offseason: Toronto’s trade for Troy Glaus, and San Francisco’s trade for Steve Finley.

Glaus...whatever. He's good. Defend Finley, please.

Finley cost the Giants nothing, and with a remarkably healthy body for a 40-year-old, he provides the Giants with veteran experience to support the fragile Barry Bonds and Moises Alou.

Steve Finley will be 41 on March 12. Here are his numbers from 2005:

AB -- 440
RC/27 -- 3.34
OPB/SLG/OPS -- .271/.374/.645
OPS+ 73
EQA -- .225
WARP -- 1.1
FRAA -- (-2)

He cost them nothing, and, barring a massive and statistically improbable turnaround at age 41, he will provide them with nothing.

He did achieve an outstanding 165.431 in "veteran experience," though.

Baseball's back!

Labels:


posted by Anonymous  # 12:54 AM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Sunday, February 19, 2006

 

Our Most Irrelevant Post Ever


I just wanted everyone to know that Junior has come up with a term for this phenomenon, and it is: "camelbro."

You're welcome, America.

(Hattip to Deadspin for pic.)

posted by dak  # 9:27 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Thursday, February 09, 2006

 

The Wisdom of Crowds, Part II

An update on a very old post. Another football post. Apologies.

Before the 2005-2006 NFL season, ESPN.com's NFL experts predicted how many wins each team would get. How did they do?

Well, they were off by a total of 94 wins. That's 2.93 wins per NFL team. If that doesn't sound that bad, ask yourself this question: "How good is an 8-8 team, versus an 11-5 team?" That's the average amount of wrong, if you will, that ESPN.com's experts were good for.

In fact, here's a better way of looking at it: Let's say I'm the world's worst prognosticator. I have no idea how good any NFL team is before the season starts. What would be the best way for me to pick the over under on each team's number of wins? Well, I'd have no choice but to pick each team to go 8-8. Remember: I'm dumb, I hate football, and for all I know the Colts are as good as the Texans. But I'm just trying to avoid being way off here.

So, how would ESPN.com's experts have done against the world's worst football expert? They would have beat him...by 2 wins. Total.

Picking every team to go 8-8 would have missed the mark by a total of 96 wins, compared to 94 for the collective efforts of Clayton, Pasquarelli, and whoever the hell else got in on this garbage pile. In other words, on average, their experts were .07 wins better at predicting your favorite team's final record than a baby. Or, I guess, a baby who knows nothing about football but a tiny bit about math. Maybe I mean a six-year-old.

They were bad, is the point.

posted by dak  # 6:38 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

 

It Sounded So Much Better Last Week

The greatest thing about the Super Bowl, of course, is that its end signals the beginning of baseball season. College Hoops fans, save it. With that in mind, one footnote on a terrible football game.

I was watching SportsCenter last week, live from Detroit. I think it was Tuesday. Ron Jaworski and Sean Salisbury spent about five minutes looking at the quarterbacks of Super Bowl XL. Patrick then asked them (paraphrasing): "If I showed you the stats from the game on Sunday once it's over, and you didn't know which team won the game, would you be able to tell which team won based just on the quarterback's statistics?"

To me, acceptable answers would have included:

"Maybe."

"Probably. I would say the odds would be in my favor, but of course I couldn't be sure."

"Well, I've looked at box scores for Super Bowls of the past -- and for that matter many football games of the past -- and estimate that about 65-85% of the time, if you guess which team won based on the quarterback's stats alone, you'd be right."

"I don't know, man. There certainly have been some great performances by losing quarterbacks...Jake Delhomme comes to mind off the top of my head."

"I could make a rational statement, but because I am only capable of knee-jerk reactions, I will say 'absolutely.' Anything to avoid thinking, basically."


Instead, here's how they answered (paraphrasing but pretty close to verbatim here):
Jaws: "Yeah. Yes. Absolutely."
Salisbury: "Yes. [Then, laughing with confidence:] You're talking to two quarterbacks here! We know how to look at those numbers!"
Jaws: "And the key will be: turnovers."

You all know where this is going, but here are the stats anyway:

Ben Roethlisberger:
9/21, 123yds, 0TD, 2INT. Passer rating: 22.6 (not a typo)

Matt Hasselbeck:
26/49, 273yds, 1TD, 1INT. Passer rating: 67.8 (still bad, mind you)

Go ahead, include Big Ben's rushing touchdown which he himself doesn't think he scored on. Who do you think Jaws and Salisbury would have picked if they only saw those stats?

Remember -- they both used to be quarterbacks. They know how to read those numbers. And the key will be: turnovers.

Absolutely.

posted by dak  # 1:56 AM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Friday, February 03, 2006

 

Simile of the Week

Comes from Scoop Jackson:

And because of that, the come-from-nowhere factor that helps defensive players become stars in the Super Bowl is gone like "Emily's Reasons Why Not."

Read the full article for context. Or -- better -- don't.

(Edited to change "analogy" to "simile.")

Labels: ,


posted by Anonymous  # 10:31 PM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Archives

04.05   05.05   06.05   07.05   08.05   09.05   10.05   11.05   12.05   01.06   02.06   03.06   04.06   05.06   06.06   07.06   08.06   09.06   10.06   11.06   12.06   01.07   02.07   03.07   04.07   05.07   06.07   07.07   08.07   09.07   10.07   11.07   12.07   01.08   02.08   03.08   04.08   05.08   06.08   07.08   08.08   09.08   10.08   11.08  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?