It's pretty transparent that Colin Cowherd has an anti-baseball bias.  Normally, this isn't a problem.  Many people have grown to dislike baseball.  If not for the rampant cheating, then perhaps for the quasi-elitist way the sport is portrayed by the likes of Costas, Olbermann, Will, and others.  The problem is, when you host a nationally syndicated sports radio show, one should not be so ignorant or indignant about the sport that monopolizes more of the sports landscape than the other sports do.

My case in point is a two fold example of stupidity.  The conversation of the day centered around the NBA trade deadline, and how the better Eastern Conference teams had failed to make additions.  One could argue, that since the bottom half teams have traded their stars out of the conference, that the top tier teams got better by comparison with no additional costs.  Less than 12 hours later, the Cavaliers acquired Ben Wallace, Wally Szerbiak, and Joe Smith.  They got big, quickly.  That's a minor thing, not really worth zinging him.

The major thing is that he declared the NBA deadline to be the most exciting trade deadline.  Okay, so nothing happens in the NFL, with a salary cap, and the fact that a 2-4 team isn't ready to throw in the towel.  Some things can happen in hockey, but they usually involve players without a Stanley Cup who have a predisposition to growing bushy beards.  But "nothing" happens in baseball?  Sorry, but baseball trades typically aren't charity functions that require Mike Morgan comes out of retirement, just so the league can pretend like an actual exchange of warm bodies took place.  Also, there is usually a trade deadline special on the four letter.  If nothing happened, they'd use the hour on tractor pulls.

 Thinking over the past 20 years of champions, Rasheed Wallace to Atlanta and then to Detroit, is the real move of significance.  The Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, and Rockets had their pieces in place at the start of the season.  Toronto, New York, and Atlanta all made significant trades in their World Series runs. 

The trade deadline matters more in baseball because the margin for error is slim.  Four teams with sub .500 records currently occupy playoff spots in the NBA Eastern Conference.  It's a guaranteed two extra games at premium prices.  Then again, fifteen other teams will receive a similar luxury.  In baseball, that figure is seven.  Teams with records above .500 will not be making the baseball playoffs.  Trades are almost a necessity.  It's an arms race of sorts.  Unfortunately, Colin saw an unusual amount of significant activity in the NBA this season, and applied his observations to every season. 

Which does bring us to an interesting topic - why all the mid-season major trades?  Are we seeing the ends of some expensive careers (Shaq and Kidd) that can be replaced with younger picks for the future?  Are the inmates running the asylum.  Thoughts... 

I think I'm going to make a list of people who make this error and add to it.  The only problem is trying to name the problem.  I could go with the Cowherd honorarium, but he gets so much of my attention.  Perhaps this should be called the Salisbury Malfeasance List.  Anyway, I have heard the same thing from no fewer than Salisbury, Golic, Cowherd, can I finish yet?  I'm tired of radio hosts playing the "Congress has better things to do card." 

This was popular in 2005 during the steroid hearings.  And come on, what did those get us?  So we caught four or five people in a trap.  Why go on a witch hunt to persecute four people?  It's not like the problem was so widespread that a federal investigation took place in San Fransisco, or that the Albany DA is uncovering Internet drug rings.  And like MLB will ever do anything about it anyway.  Oh wait, those things all happened.  You and I may not want a mirror held up to our past times, but Congressional hearings, as a concept, seems to get the fire lit under some ####.

Now the NFL is the target for its handling of the Patriots "spygate" investigation.  Arlen Specter (R-PA) wants to speak with Commissioner Goodell ASAP.  Salisbury wants Specter to keep his hands "out of our NFL."  Of course, adding, "with everything going on, doesn't Congress have..."  The short answer is no.

Here's what most people don't understand.  Congress is just a voting body.  The real action takes place in committees and sub-committees that draft policy, and constantly analyze it.  Dozens of hearings take place on Capitol Hill each week.  Only one every ten months or so winds up on ESPN.  ESPN and others have taken the position that Congress lies in wait, and takes this opportunity to pounce.  Sorry, but the judiciary committee is often reviewing businesses with antitrust provisions.  This time, it isn't the post office or the cable company, it was our beloved NFL.

My suggestion for Sean Salisbury is to run for President.  If he feels that the Judiciary committee should be responsible for the economy or Iraq, then perhaps VP Cowherd can restructure Congress to do so.  But it doesn't work that way in the real world.  The chairman sees the possibility of an antitrust violation, and he's acting upon it.  That is what Congress does - all the time.  And when the Armed Services committee has a war funding bill for the entire Senate to vote upon, I'm confident Arlen Specter will be there for it.  Don't worry (baby).

   http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_thr
ee_sections_with_teasers/committees_home.htmp>

.....

I should also note that Colin Cowherd stood up for the destruction of the tapes citing that companies destroy records all the time.  Try using that defense in an IRS audit.  I've worked in enough dungeons to know that most companies are packrats.

So Colin Cowherd has taken aim at ScoutsInc.com and their ranking of the players in the Super Bowl.  Attacking a list is a good sports radio standby.  I can't wait hear this.  Kevin Faulk is ranked 29th.  Colin has a problem with this ranking.  Fair enough.  Bob Ryan has been ####ing the Kevin Faulk drum for years.  Next to Brady, Ryan has long asserted that Faulk is the MVP of this dynasty.  Not the MOP - the MVP.  That 8 reception performance against San Diego is old hat for those who have been paying attention.

Nonetheless, the MVP of the dynasty sits in the 29 spot of the rankings.  According to Colin, this is an abomination.  Why?  He is number two in rushing all-time in the SEC, the best conference in college football.  I'm not kidding.  That's why Colin thinks he should be higher on the list.  Certainly everyone sees what's wrong with this line of thought.

First of all, Herschel Walker should be number 28 or better on the list.  He leads the SEC in all-time rushing.  Oh, he isn't in the Super Bowl?  Seriously, why inject logic now?  There's also the matter of what the SEC was like when Kevin Faulk played.  We are crediting Kevin Faulk for the current landscape of the SEC.  Really?  So anyone who ever played basketball at South Carolina can lay claim to being one of the top 25 players in the NBA because the ACC is so good (SC was an ACC team).  Sorry Kentucky, Kevin Faulk is better than Randy Moss.  And South Carolina is better than you. 

The coup de grace, though, is that the number one player on this list isn't number two on his alma mater's conference's rankings.  In fact, the only time Tom Brady was number two in anything was on Michigan's depth chart.  The Super Bowl is being played in 2008 Colin, not 1998.  Start thinking like a professional - not some conference fanboy sycophant.

.....

Then we get the nugget of knowledge (or nugget of something) that football is the thinking man's game.  "Are baseball managers asking their third base coaches to read?"  "Do baseball players break down hours of film?"  Umm yeah they do.  "Moneyball" chronicled the A's use of film to develop reports on pitchers in an effort to work counts.  Film also helps provide insight into a pitcher's timing for base stealing purposes.  You also need to know where to play hitters in the field. 

I'm not here to get into a baseball vs. football argument, but that's a foolish line of thought.

The blogosphere is composed of two camps: those who share their statistical analyses to prove a point in their blog, and those who like to mention over and over again how the first camp lives in their mom's basement.  What has happened recently is the emergence of a third camp: people from the second camp who want to join the first camp, but unknowingly cite poor statistics.  It's amazing when I hear someone say they have a statistic, and then they quote a player's calories for breakfast.  This isn't what the stat camp is doing.  The stat camp isn't looking at numbers for the sake of numbers.  They do it because they want proper context.

Here's an example: Alvaro Espinoza killed the Orioles.  If I only watched those games, and nothing else,  I would be left with the impression that Espinoza was good at baseball.  The numbers would tell a different story, because they would include performances from games to which I have no access.  Local commentators are guilty of this as well.  How many NL clubs had broadcast teams try to tout David Eckstein as more dangerous than Albert Pujols?  There were a couple who did it just because Eckstein happened to draw a walk that they remembered.  Of course, they never think of the fact that if you remember a walk, then said player likely does little else.

So the whole point is that you need stats to tell the story.  I hear over and over again that they don't tell the whole story.  True, but it tells A BETTER story than anecdotal evidence.  I tell you all of this to bring you another example of a "stat" that I heard.  Colin Cowherd was talking about weather, and its impact on the title games.  In and of itself, that's valid.  What isn't valid is how we are constantly told about Green Bay's 13-2 home playoff record.  That's a stat in the most basic form.  It really tells you nothing.  It's like a pitching win in baseball, or a goalie win in hockey - saying someone gets a win provides no insight as to whether the game was 9-8, 11-2, or 1-0.

Green Bay's home playoff record has been tallied since 1961.  Brett Favre wasn't even alive.  How can we credit him (which is essentially what you're doing if you want me to believe that 1961 has any bearing on 2008) for that?  Should we also debit Bart Starr for losing that game to the Falcons?  The all-time home W/L provides no insight into what could happen in this game. 

Well anyway, I'm seeing way too much of this.  It started in the 80s with Vin Scully.  Then it was carried forward by Tim McCarver.  Now we get things like "Ohio State can't beat the SEC in bowl games."  It's more egregious at the college level because the players are guaranteed to turn over every four years.  But we still have to hear about it.  Maybe we cite this kind of stuff because it's lowest common denominator type of stuff.  But remember, if you want to bash the stat pack, take a look at these "SportsCenter Did You Know?" kinds of "stats" first.  There's much more ire to be drawn from them.

Courtesy - AP

In Gene Wilder's world, a contract that reads "I, the undersigned do hereby et cetera et cetera signed Charlie Bucket" is an executable agreement.  Over at the four letter, many commentators and old guard writers closely associated with the four letter, have apparently passed Gene Wilder Esquire's legal course.

The excuse I often read here, or hear from the commentators themselves is that "I am an opinion show."  One would think that "opinion" is a word that defines itself, but for those paid to give it, opinion=gospel according to me.  So yes it is your opinion, but it is no more right than another opinion, or gasp, facts.

The man that can be added to the growing list that already includes Bill Conlin and Stephen A Smith, is Colin Cowherd.  It is no surprise that Colin would draw my ire here at IJWMFTT.  Sure my ire is just opinion, but ESPN ombudsman  seems to be somewhat of an ally.

If you recall, Bill Conlin jokingly, unkowingly, or frankly ambivalently suggested a blogger genocide would be a good thing.  Stephen A Smith suggested that blogs should be regulated or held to a standard like his profession, a profession responsible for a publication like this.  But that's a bad paper.  What about the Times?  See, there's good and there's bad.  You have to accept them both.

Colin Cowherd recently blasted Brian Roberts for invoking God in his apology for steroid usage.  I'm not here to parse the words of the dozens of apologies that we will hear in the coming weeks.  I agree, to say that one is regretful as soon as the needlt breaks the skin may be a stretch.  Where was the regret with all of the activity exhausted to acquire the needle?  More over, to say that this apology only comes forward with the Mitchell Report in the open is a fair statement.  So it is natural to question: are you sorry for the action, or sorry that you have to say you're sorry?

But what is the problem for using "the G word" in an apology?  Don't worry folks - we're headed in the g word direction.  I made a slight mention of Tony Dungy's "transgression" in a post primarliy about Brian Billick.  I noted that people started questioning him after having the gaul to exercise his rights beyond that whole free speech portion of the first amendment.  If someone wants to say that invoking God in sports speeches is not a free pass, then I am fine with that.  This is a world of mortals, and we are left to answer to one another while we are here. 

That said, it is not wrong for someone to opine, but to prosthelize that: "Don't use God as a prop in the face of crisis.  Keep it to yourself" is wrong.  It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.  It's always funny to hear a broadcaster say things like "Don't like what we say, change the station."  But when the religion portion of the equation is involved, censorship is the proper course of action.  Listen up media: you wanted Brian Roberts' statement.  You got Brian Roberts' statement.  Stop trying to remake that statement in your own image. 

Note: I'm not trying to suggets that every seeing eye single is an act of God.  But I've heard and read a lot of mockery recently, so I wanted to comment on it in one lump sum.

A sampling of religion and sports mixing for the good, bad, or whatever.

...Perhaps I am.  Readers of IJWMFTT know who:

"It's always funny that Brian Billick is called an offensive genius, and his offense is always THE worst in the league."  I have warned the folks at ESPN radio about absolutes like "never" and "the." 

1. I'll stop with this argument if someone can point me to the clip where Billick calls himself an offensive genius.  The only reference to Brian's geniusitude is people like Colin, Kornheiser, and Stephen A mockingly declaring it.  Second, I'm glad that Al Michaels brought this point up on the Sunday broadcast.  Tony Dungy is hailed as a defensive genius for his work with Tampa.  Since coming to the Colts, the defense can be deemed passable (no pun intended).  Actually, last year, it was quite runnable.  Both coaches have the same number of Lombardi trophies to their credit.  Yet Dungy's only "transgression" seems to be that he wants to employ the first amendment beyond the free speech portion of it.

2. Here are the Ravens offensive ratings during the Billick era:

Starting in 1999 - 24, 16, 14, 26, 21, 31, 24, 17

In Rushing - 16, 5, 11, 16,  1, 9, 21, 25

Notice how the rushing rankings went down the last two years of Jamal Lewis' tenure.  Six of eight times, the Ravens were in the top half of the league in rushing.  Don't mistake this as me trying to submit to the readers that this offense has been prolific.  Only twice have the Ravens been in the top half of the league in total offense.  But combine the rush attack with these defensive ratings:

Starting in 1999 - 2, 2, 2, 22, 3, 6, 5

Playing to the team's strength isn't bad coaching.  Also consider that yardage totals can be affected by turnover margin and field position.  Punt return average rankings:

Starting in 1999 - 24, 1, 5, 8, 24, 7, 1

Again, none of this is to say that the offense has been mistakenly identified as mediocre at best.  The point is that you have to manage the resources at your disposal.  Prior to this year, Billick has done well with that.  I say prior to this year, because I feel that Billick has finally acquiesced to the pressure put on him to become the Colts or the "greatest show on turf" Rams.  I went into some detail about this in October.

Finally, let's just take a look at what matters - the scoreboard.  Stats can be beneficial, but in football, don't tell quite the same story as in they do in baseball.  Time of possession, third down conversions, special teams, et al are huge variables.  Once again, nothing Earth shattering here, but also not THE worst.

Points scored per game from 1999 - 14, 14, 18, 23, 8, 20, 25, 12

Points allowed per game from 1999 - 6, 1, 4, 19, 6, 6, 10, 1

One could say, "So what?  Why applaud Billick when the defense was always good?"  Again, he managed the resources, and did so with three different defensive coordinaors.  Billick - from 1999-2006 has gotten a bad rap.  This year?  No comment from me...

The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

The Patriots are great.  I have said it.  I am saying it.  I will say it again.  This isn't about hating though.  It's about perspective.  Colin Cowherd now claims that the Patriots beat their opponents twice.  Thankfully he hasn't gone as far as to say that the Patriots are 26-0.  His claim is that teams that lose to the Patriots continue their losing ways.  Patriots opponents are 4-8 against their next opponent.  This is somehow damning evidence that the Patriots have physically and psychologically destroyed their opposition.  Let's look at the 4-8 (33% win percentage) record in and of itself.

Jets go to Baltimore while they were still relevant (L); Chargers go to Lambeau (L); Bills lose heartbreaker to Dallas (L); Bengals lose to Chiefs (L) Browns put up 41 against the fish (W); Cowboys tame the Vikings (W); Dolphins play NYG in messy London (L); Redskins squeak by Jets (W); Colts go to San Diego (L); Bills go to Jacksonville (L); Eagles to Seattle (L); Ravens lose to Colts (L)

That's 3-9.  He got his own stat wrong!  Anyhow, of the nine losses, seven are to teams who will be playoff teams this year.  Of the losers, six have a losing record anyway.  So bad teams are playing good teams after having already played the Patriots.  This totally discredits the other good teams in the equation.  This is lilkely coincidence, not causality.  I could be swayed if no other team has a similar distinction.  Let's research winning percentages of teams who play other winning teams around the league.

Dallas 4-6; Indy 3-6; Packers 4-7 (Bye weeks threw this off);

I haven't even addressed the Jaguars and Giants, but you can see that there are several teams whose opponents go on to lose after having already lost the week prior.  Just for fun - if the Patriots beating someone really causes a team to lose again, then it would stand to reason that the opposite is true.  Teams playing the Dolphins should win the following week at the same rate.  Teams follow up their victory over the Dolphins to the tune of 5-6.

Come on Colin, the Pats are good, but let's keep everybody affixed to planet Earth.

The sun rising has caused the Ravens', Bears', and Saints' pitiful season. 

The subject of quarterback play in the National Football League has been a source of debate amongst football pundits.  If I had to pinpoint the source of debate, I'd say it was the exact moment that Trent Dilfer had his arms fully extended over hois head, with Lombardi Trophy in hand.  Then some nobody named Brady won it.  After that, the once prolific Brad Johnson "managed the game," a la Dilfer, to hoist the trophy.  We found out that Tom Brady was actually really good at football, Big Ben just had to manage the 35 portion of the 65/35 run offense, and Peyton (long since thought of as good at football) finally won the big one.  So the debate has become: Is a prolific quarterback necessary, or can other elements of a team act as a band-aid for mediocre play at quarterback?

It is here that I will incorporate my beef of the day.  People's varying opinions have led to different interpretations of what it means to play the position well, thus a hundred top ten lists likely won't be duplicated.  Colin Cowherd opined that if he were to ask people in attendance at his show (on location today), he would get 40 different answers regarding the #5 quarterback in the NFL.  Well there are only 32 teams.  So eight people would have to name a different backup QB in the NFL, AND those people would truly have to believe that those eight are the fifth best QB in the league.  Unlikely.

But I decided it's time to accept a self imposed challenge.  Brady, Manning, and Romo are the top three.  That's the top tier of the quarterback hierarchy.  Naturally, people will have different rankings within those tiers, so I won't go through the minutae of ranking the top three.  I look at the next tier as: Carson Palmer, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb, and Matt Hasselbeck.  One could put Palmer in the top tier, and I will go ahead and that.  That team is a pitch and catch squad with 48 others who happen to draw a paycheck because the Players Association demands it.

People may scoff at the inclusion of Hasselbeck.  I threw him in there because the guy has never not known the playoffs (as much a function of the NFC West), and he puts up consistent seasons.  That's more than what could be said of Eli, Anderson, Garcia, Kitna, Cutler, and Rivers (The third tier of passable quarterbacks who you'd drop to take any of the 10-12 guys above them).

*Big Ben's 23/9 TD/Int ratio edges out Favre's 22/10.  Favre has also had a reputation as a gunslinger, so the 22/10 is an anomaly to the good side.  Brees sits at 18/15, Hasselbeck at 18/9, and McNabb has 13/6. 

*Completions for first downs versus total completions is an indicator of efficiency and extending drives.  Big Ben is sandwiched between Brady and Romo as the top three in the league in this category. 

*Drew Brees has been sacked 8 times compare to Ben's 35 and McNabb's 30.  Some of that is a function of the O-Line, another part is getting rid of the ball.  Early in the season, Brees may have been better off eating a few more sacks than he did, but he still picks up the duke here for not putting his team in 3rd and long situations.

*Something interesting about the second tier (as I label them).  The top four in attempts/game are Brees, Palmer, Favre, and Hasselbeck.  It is possible that these QBs are second tier because of having to shoulder more of a load than Romo, Manning or Big Ben have to shoulder.

*Ben is behind Brady, Palmer, Brees, and Favre in completion percentage.

Taking all of this into consideration, it is hard to say.  I would lean toward Big Ben as the fifth best QB in the league, but I would be interested to see what would happen in an universe with all things being equal.  Before labelling me as Big Ben smoocher #863 on this blogosphere, check out my favorite teams.

Colin Cowherd, the much lambasted host of ESPN Radio's mid-day program, now gets an IJWMFTT  free pass through Thanksgiving.  I'm in a festive mood.  Colin has put a chink in the armor of old Captain Deuce.  I'm glad someone is finally taking him to task.  Sure it took tax evasion for it to happen.  But Colin went on to compare Jeter and A-Rod's numbers in ALCS whilst the two have been teammates.  Jeter, as said here many times before, is living off his early October performances.  Recent averages have been below the Mendoza line.  Jeter's slugging is inferior to A-Rod in the postseason.  I can get into the minutae of this if commenters wish.  But I am so glad that this has come to light.  Fortunately for Jeter, A-Rod has reupped with the Yanks.  Jeter will always be sainted in New York, as long as A-Rod is in toe.

.....

Speaking of THE contract.  Does anyone think that this is NOT the greatest contract ever signed?  Sure the numbers look good.  $275 million is greater than $252 million, but remember that the original contract is 7 years old.  This is less than a 10% raise over a seven year period.  With the trigger clauses supposedly in effect in the original contract, A-Rod is taking a pay cut in what can still be considered peak years.  All that said, he will be the most handsomely paid 42 year old in MLB history (this side of Clemens I suppose).  The disappointing thing is that someone with some creativity may have been able to get this thing done.

Colin is elated at his free pass.

It's pretty easy to come down hard on the Pittsburgh Pirates.  Alongside the Devil Rays, Orioles, Atlanta Hawks, and Arizona Cardinals, they are more than a decade and counting for losing seasons in major professional sports.  Heck, one could come down on them, as did Colin, for announcing their manager on the same day the Dodgers will announce the arrival of Joe Torre.  To boot, the Steelers play a division foe tonight (as an aside, I can't stand Colin and Salisbury's editorials on the Ravens.  I guess if you aren't an affiliate, it's okay to make grandiose statements.  I guess they've never heard of streaming).  So the Pirates aren't even going to be the biggest story in their own town.

One could also come down hard on the Pirates for their choice in manager.  Perhaps this Russell fellow is a competent guy.  Perhaps he's worth a few victories.  I tend to believe that managers have some impact, but not a double digit win impact.  There are anomalies such as Bob Melvin (a good anomaly) and Sam Perlozzo (a bad anomaly).  For the most part, the manager is interchangeable.  If Joe Torre or Eric Wedge managed the Red Sox during the playoffs, they probably still win the World Series.  Whether they get to the playoffs with a different manager is a worthwhile debate (Which I'd welcome in the comments).

Do most fans believe my assertion to be true?  Probably not.  Hey, I'm all for firing an incompetent ####.  Costing a team games is worse than just happening to manage a bad team.  I'm not sure Jim Tracy was costing the Pirates any games, but the fanbase, at some point, does come to believe it.  So why replace Tracy with someone who was on a losing staff?  If the manager was the problem, shouldn't you go out and make a splash?  Probably, but then again, Lou Piniella was an expensive non-factor in Tampa.  As I said, I see both sides to this story, and could be swayed either way.

Real quick though, on to today's egregious error.  Colin Cowherd declared that "The Pittsburgh Pirates have been lousy for 25 years."  2007-25=1982.    Six winning seasons in that time.  Three division titles.  It's nothing to write home about, but it's an exaggeration to say that they have been lousy for 25 years. 

With 2.4 million being the high water mark, an inferior roster, and an unproven manager, the last thing this team needs to have piling on them is people believing that this team has been awful for more than a generation.