(Fort Myers, FLA) -- When I arrived yesterday at the Red Sox' spring training facility here in Florida, a beautiful media relations assistant handed me a sheet of helpful story ideas. She told me it's an open secret that baseball writers traditionally recycle the same spring training stories from year to year, so to save newbies like me from unnecessary exertion, the Major League Baseball media relations department has compiled a versatile list of tried and true story lines, useful in covering all 30 teams. As you'll see from this list, which I'm printing here at great professional risk, it's merely a matter of filling in the blanks and perhaps adding a few quotes.

Like you, I thought baseball writers actually worked during spring training. Turns out they just do Mad Libs.

* Due to visa problems in his home country of _______, outfielder _____ _____ will not be reporting to camp on time, said team spokesman _____ _____. "It's an outstanding traffic issue. An unpaid ticket. It's nothing really, simply paperwork. We expect him to be in camp soon and ready to go."

* Still battling the lingering effects of off-season surgery on his left ______, All-Star _____ baseman _____ _____ plans to go easy this spring, hoping not to reaggravate an injury that kept him shelved for the second half of last season. "It's a long season, ya know. If I'm going to be a help to my team in October, when we all hope to be playing, there's no sense pushing myself now."

* Mentioned in the Mitchell Report as one of the 89 players, current or former, who used performance-enhancing drugs, a contrite ____ ____ admitted to "mistakes in the past," but refused to go into detail about what exactly he did wrong and whether he considered himself a cheater.

* Several of his teammates were named in the Mitchell Report, but _______ shortstop _____ _____ refused to comment on what effect, if any, their public exposure will have on the team's 2008 campaign.

* Looking pasty and somewhat overweight, long-time hunter _____ _____ said he spent the off-season killing bears with a longbow on his ranch in north ______.

* Perennial MVP candidate _____ _____ says the _____ have a great chance to win the World Series this year. "If you don't come into camp thinking you have a chance, why come to camp at all?" he said. When asked if his assessment was "smack talk," ______ said, "Confidence isn't arrogance. If you can back it up, it ain't boasting."

* With his arbitration hearing scheduled for next ______, reigning National League _____ king _____ _____ said he expects to receive a fair salary. "Things are cool between me and _____ management," he said. "It's a business. They have to protect their interests, and I have to protect mine."

* To the surprise of everyone in the _____ camp, outfielder _____ _____ reported early.

* Unsigned beyond this season, veteran reliever _____ _____ says he intends to test the free-agent market, and has no intention of giving a home-town discount to the ______, for whom he's pitched his entire career.

* Incumbent ______ fielder _____ _____ says he's aware of the trade rumors surrounding him, and intends to compete vigorously with rookie phenom ______ _____ for the team's starting position and its leadoff spot in the order.

* Veteran designated hitter ____ _____ says he'd like to finish his career in ______, which signed him to an incentive-laden contract when no one else would. "I love it here. My wife and kids love the community too. It's our home now," he said.

* Manager _____ _____ says the team's April schedule looks rather _____, with three early series against division opponents. "Hey, we don't make the schedules, we just play the games they tell us to play," he said.

* Journeyman pitcher _____ _____, known for his bullpen antics and clubhouse spirit, says the groupies in ______ give the best ______.

Cleveland Indians fans ought to be rejoicing about C.C. Sabathia's decision to postpone contract negotiations until after the season. The reigning American Cy Young Award winner will be a free agent after 2008, and the Indians had reportedly offered him a contract extension in the neighborhood of four years/$68 million. But rather than sign what he believes is a below-market contract (especially in light of Johan Santana's $123.1 million deal with the New York Mets), Sabathia will pitch his walk year without the insurance of a long-term deal. If you're an Indians fan, you have to love this, because Sabathia will be motivated and focused, leading a pitching staff that took the World Series-winning Red Sox to 7 games in the American League Championship Series, as opposed to the Sabathia they could have had, i.e., a paid, content Shaun Alexander clone, who leads his team to the precipice of greatness, wins an MVP award, gets paid, lands on the cover of Madden football, can't stay healthy, and is soon splitting carries with Maurice Morris.

Let the player stay hungry, I say. Last season, that's what the Red Sox did with Curt Schilling and what the Yankees did with Mariano Rivera, and it certainly motivated those two guys, albeit after some ####ing, posturing and threats to walk after the season. Listen, the player can pout all he wants, but it does him no good. If he's in his walk year, he needs to perform in order to get paid well in his next contract.

What good is it to lock up Sabathia with a $100 million deal right now? Sure, it'd be great for him. But I'm telling you, that guy'd weigh 350 by the All-Star break, and frankly, I wouldn't blame him. If you handed me a guaranteed contract worth that kind of scratch, where's my head going to be? On staying fit, healthy and motivated? Or on buying a small private island in the Caribbean? It's quaint to say that players are professionals and they'll go out and do their jobs, regardless of whether they're making the league minimum or A-Rod money. But the fact is, they're humans first. Ask any Bronze Age caveman: "If you knew you could stay back at the fire, eat, drink and fornicate all day, wouldn't that affect your attitude towards hunting?" Of course it would, because in the back of his half-formed cranium, he's thinking, "Man, I don't need this ####"
 
All you need to know about $100 million contracts are the names of the pitchers who've signed them: Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton, Barry Zito and, now, Johan Santana. After signing their deals, Brown, Hampton and Zito won as many World Series as Joba Chamberlain. Sure, Zito only signed his contract last year, but the Giants will be contending for titles when Brian McNamee lands his next job in baseball.

On the face of it, the Mets fleeced the Twins by sending them the poo-poo platter for Santana, who's won two Cy Youngs in the last four years. But the Twins' biggest mistake was not keeping Santana and making him pitch through his walk year. I realize the Twins can't afford to pay him the same kind of money that Cleveland can possibly pay Sabathia, but the situation is somewhat comparable. The Indians, who haven't won a World Series since 1948, probably have no intention of signing Sabathia to a 6-year contract in the neighborhood of $120 million, even after this season. Consequently, they've decided to make their run now in 2008, which is exactly what the Twins should have done. With Santana and Francisco Liriano, I believe the Twins had an outstanding chance to win the World Series this season. Instead, they trade him to the Mets for a bunch of prospects, while the Tigers improved greatly and the Indians remain hungry and on the brink.

 And what do the Mets get in Santana? They get a caveman with a full belly, who's supposed to be motivated by the opportunity to make his legacy in New York, winning championships.

Frankly, I'd rather have the hungry guy, motivated to get paid, rather than the paid guy, motivated to justify the money he's already received.

NFL: If Jim Zorn can teach Jason Campbell to throw left-handed, then his hiring makes sense.

NHL: Sadly, if you ask me what's been going on in hockey lately, I'll say players are purse-snatching, Sidney Crosby's still injured and some guy almost got decapitated by another player's skate. That's about it.

NBA: Word is the Knicks are shopping Zach Randolph and Eddie Curry. They should send them to the Lakers for an autographed copy of "Fletch Lives," and send Gregg Popovich a wheel of Jarlsberg cheese, to enjoy with his whine.

NBA 2: Watched "Little Children" with Kate Winslet yesterday. Steve Nash should have won an Oscar for his role as the child molester.

Golf: "A tradition unlike any other...January commercials for April's Masters."

Books: Read my brief review of Deadspin editor Will Leitch's new book: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/bn-review/spotlight
.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=17617&linkid=1111344

Sportswriting: I think it's official: Bill Simmons has completely crossed over. When he first arrived at ESPN early this decade, he provided a unique perspective -- the fan's perspective. It was something of a public trust. We could relate to him (or, I could anyway) because he rooted for teams that sucked. Now his teams are all successful and (this is the capper) he actually planned to spend the Super Bowl after-party hanging out with Brady and Gisele, whom he knows through mutual friends. Um, what? Who can relate to this? Sorry, Bill, but you've lost the public trust. ESPN needs to start over here. They need to replace Simmons with a writer whose teams mostly suck and who'll never get invited to hang out with celebrities. In short, they need to replace him with me. And then, as soon as Vanderbilt wins a bowl game (which should happen in the next 10-25 years), they should replace me with someone else. Say, a sportswriter from Cleveland or Seattle?

NASCAR: This is only the 50th running of the Daytona 500? Perhaps by the 75th I'll understand the attraction.

MLB: My question is not for Roger Clemens or Brian McNamee, but for Clemens's wife, Debbie. If it's true that McNamee injected her with HGH, it stands to reason that she knows that McNamee injected her husband as well, and that her husband will be lying to Congress. If he does that, he might be facing jail time, which will not only ruin the family's reputation, but make holiday plans a bit dicey for the foreseeable future. Given that, I'd love to know," What advice, Debbie, do you have for your husband in advance of tomorrow's hearing?" Really, if she knows he's lying, and she knows the consequences, then what's that say about her?

Apropos of nothing (?): God makes 'em and he matches 'em.

College hoops: I wrote about this a few weeks ago in my blog, and zero commenters were good enough to leave their thoughts, but does anyone really expect Memphis, a team that shoots under 60 percent from the foul line collectively, to go undefeated this season? That's like expecting a football team to go undefeated when it can't make field goals from more than 45 yards. Eventually, your weaknesses are going to be exposed.

Thoughts while watching the Pro Bowl

* Lifehouse is playing the halftime show? I take it they weren't invited to perform at tonight's Grammy Awards.

* Vince Wolfork is rushing the quarterback with all the urgency of a pothead after five bong hits.

* If my wife loves me, she'll buy me something nice for Valentine's Day. Say, Monster Seats to a Red Sox/Yankees game this season?

* Jets fans are no doubt watching this game with interest, hoping as many players get hurt as possible.

* For all the hitting in this game, Pro Bowl jerseys should be light pink and dark pink.

* Fat men don't look presentable in many outfits, but Hawaiian shirts are probably the least presentable.

* We get Joe Buck and Troy Aikman in the Super Bowl and Kenny Albert and Moose Johnston in the Pro Bowl? Ought to be reversed. After all, Aikman had no Cowboys to drool over in the Super Bowl, but this would be heaven.

* The Raiders' lone rep is punter Shane Lechler, which makes sense.

* Packers' cornerback Al Harris gets a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in the third quarter for playing press coverage. Apparently no one informed Al that he's supposed to play at half speed and pray he doesn't blow out a knee in this meaningless exhibition. This isn't football. In fact, I wonder if a bull was ritually castrated before the game.

* If you're going to lie and say you got a football scholarship to play in college, wouldn't you at least pick a school that's good? Cal? If I told my parents I'd gotten into an Ivy League school, I wouldn't be telling them Brown, ya know.

* The NFC now gets penalized for "illegally blitzing the quarterback," the ref says. OK, if you have to emasculate America's most popular sport, can you at least save us the indignity of explaining its wimpification? Just throw the flag and privately tell the offending player what he did wrong, because announcing it to the stadium is cringe-inducing.

* The NFC gets flagged because Al Harris attempted to make a tackle using both hands.

* No, not really.

* The most exciting play of the game so far? When Devin Hester lateraled a kickoff to the NFC's second-fastest runner...Cowboys' TE Jason Witten.

* How can the Vikings have 7 starters in the Pro Bowl and not make the playoffs? Oh, right, their QB is Tavares Jackson and their best wide receiver is Ahmad Rashad.

* Ya know when your division sucks? When Jeff Garcia is the only player to make the Pro Bowl from the NFC South, and he made it because Brett Favre decided to stay home and play touch football.

* I'd love to see the Nielsen ratings for this game in southeastern American cities. 

* Players on the winning side get $40,000, losers get $20,000. I hope the game ends in a tie.

* The Super Bowl-winning Giants have one player in this game, Osi Umenyiora. The Cowboys have every starter except Nate Newton, who was voted to start but decided to stay home and sell pot.

* Last time Alan Faneca will be wearing a Steelers helmet?

* If Marion Barber were coming at me in this game, I'd give him the olay.

* Hey, whaddya know, it's Jeremy Shockey, getting soused in the skybox again. At least he's consistent. He's always either talking or drinking. Or getting stupid-looking tattoos.

* I'm going to miss the Hollywood writers' strike, because it's been a built-in excuse to watch more sports.

* Nobody suffered a career-ending injury in this year's Pro Bowl, so it looks like we'll have endure this useless charade for at least one more year.

* If I were a Vikings fan, I'd have to be over the moon because Adrian Peterson, who missed time this year with a leg injury, earned the MVP award in a useless exhibition.

* Pitchers and catchers in four days...

 

    Hidden behind the Patriots' record-breaking season of scoring and near perfection was Bill Belichick's year-long lack of faith in place kicker Stephen Gostkowski. Considering the Patriots won all 3 of their Super Bowls this decade by a field goal (off the leg of current Colt Adam Vinatieri), it's fittingly ironic that they'd lose a title game because they didn't trust their kicker to convert from any respectable distance.
    Critics might say that Belichick was arrogant or insane to go for it on fourth and 13 from the Giants 31-yard line midway through the third quarter, rather than let Gostkowski attempt a 48-yard field goal. But if the old maxim remains true, that you don't change your playbook once you get to the Super Bowl, then it made sense that Belichick didn't let Gostkowski take a shot: He's had little faith in him all season; and whatever remained went out the window in the playoff game against Jacksonville, when Gostkowski missed a 35-yard kick with 57 seconds left in the first half, which would have put the Patriots up 17-14. After that, he never even attempted another field goal in the post-season.
    Because the Patriots set an NFL record for touchdowns this season, Gostkowksi's field goal attempts were expectedly low. His 21 makes were good for only 25th in the league. Given New England's high-flying offense, that's not a red flag. What is, however, is this stat: Of the 31 NFL kickers who made at least 10 field goals in 2007, Gostkowski had the shortest long of the season, 45 yards. Belichick might have been crazy not to punt on fourth and 13, but not attempting a field goal was in keeping with what he knew about Gostkowski. Namely, that he had no history of success -- at least this season -- from anywhere north of 45 yards.
    During the preseason, the Pats' kicker missed four kicks: from 33, 46, 53 and 56 yards. During the regular season, he missed three: from 41, 32 and 48. He only attempted 5 field goals of between 40-49 yards all season, making 3. In his two seasons in New England, he's only attempted 10 regular-season field goals of more than 40 yards, making 6 (including his career long of 52 yards last year).
    The few number of attempts is a combination of two factors in particular: A high-scoring offense whom you trust to convert on fourth downs (Pats were 15 of 21 during the regular season) and a weak-legged kicker whom you distrust to make even moderately long field goals.
    How big of a weakness was Gostkowski for the Patriots? During blowouts, none. But during a tight game like the Super Bowl, huge. Consider this: 24 of the 31 kickers who made at least 10 field goals this season also kicked at least one field goal of 49 yards or more. So 75 percent of regular NFL place kickers had tried AND converted that length of field goal. The Patriots, on the other hand, never even attempted a kick that long during the regular season.
    So, what happens when you need to kick a 48- or 49- yard field goal in the Super Bowl? If you're Bill Belichick, you feel such a lack of confidence in your kicker that you go for it on fourth and 13. Can you really blame him?
    The Patriots had just gone 16 plays in 8 and a half minutes to start the second half, even extending their drive with a brilliant challenge that nabbed the Giants with 12 men on the field. A field goal would have put them up 10-3. But because Belichick felt certain that Gostkowski would miss -- and perhaps frustrated with the possibility of a long and fruitless drive -- he chose to go for it on fourth and 13.  The wise move would have been punting. The dumb move -- at least to Belichick -- would have been trying to kick a field goal.  The ultimate move was turning the ball over on downs.
    What was the immediate effect of that decision? Nothing really. The Giants punted on their next possession, then a field-position game ensued until New York took the lead 10-7.
    Still, after New England refused to even attempt that long field goal, you knew they wouldn't be winning another title on a last-minute kick.
    Down the road, if they don't find a kicker they can trust, they'll remain vulnerable...at least to losing Super Bowls by 3 points.

In the 1983 Super Bowl, when the Redskins played the Raiders, Washington had the highest-scoring team in league history. They'd gone 14-2 in the regular season, losing those two games by one point each. Otherwise, they' d more or less creamed everybody. Here are their game-by-game results: [www.pro-football-reference.com]

The Redskins that year had the league's MVP, quarterback Joe Theismann, and a running back (John Riggins) who'd set the NFL record for rushing touchdowns with 24. Not only that, but they'd played the Raiders in the regular season...and beat them 37-35 -- all of which strikes a familiar chord when considering Tom Brady, Randy Moss and the Week 17 game versus the Giants.

So what happened to those near-perfect Redskins in the 1983 Super Bowl? The underdog Raiders waxed them 38-9, because Washington imploded in almost every facet of the game. Not only did Raiders running back Marcus Allen run wild on the league's #1 ranked rushing defense, but the Skins surrendered touchdowns on a blocked punt and a pick-six...by Raiders linebacker Jack Squirek. Jack Who? Exactly. (Squirek, btw, landed on the cover of Sports Illustrated the next week. He's not been seen since.)

So, how bad were things for the Skins in that game? Well, after their lone touchdown, kicker Mark Moseley's extra point was blocked. In short, the Redskins -- who were just 4 points away from being 18-0 heading into the Super Bowl -- didn't show up to play. Think that could never happen to a Bill Belichick-coached team? Well, that loss to the Raiders was Joe Gibbs' s lone Super Bowl defeat. Otherwise, he was 3-0 in the big game -- which is where Bill Belichick stands right now.

Hmmm.

Anyway, I'm giving the Pats the benefit of the doubt in this one, because Stephen Gostkowski is pretty good at XPs. So, 38-10, Giants

After the game-fixing scandal involving former NBA referee Tim Donaghy, Major League Baseball is right to ask discomfiting questions about its umpires -- including whether they gamble, live beyond their means, smoke pot or belong to organizations like the ####. This isn't character assassination, and it's not screaming "fire!" in the absence of smoke. It's common sense taken to its obvious end.

Umpires are in positions of authority, with the capability of single-handedly affecting the lives of countless people, both in terms of gambling (winning or losing money) and general happiness, i.e., purposely blowing a call that goes against your team. Their objectivity cannot be questionable. While no one doubts that arbiters are occasionally influenced by grudges, personal dislikes and grammar-school pettiness, fans cannot be questioning (even to themselves) whether an umpire has been bought off or otherwise compromised.

Fearful of their own Donaghy-like development, MLB has reportedly released the hounds, sending investigators to question the neighbors, friends, acquaintances, mistresses and cabana boys of its umpires.

"The questions that we found out are being asked are about beating wives, marijuana use and extravagant parties," World Umpires Association president John Hirschbeck said to the Associated Press in a telephone interview Wednesday. "And then finally with this whole thing about the Ku Klux Klan.

"You get someone from security, shows his credentials and starts asking these kind of questions, and right away what's the neighbor going to think other than the umpire is in trouble, he's done something wrong and he's going to lose his job."

If I were an umpire and people were investigating my background, I'd probably #### twice and die. But that's why I'm not an umpire (or even currently employed). If umpires don't want investigators asking uncomfortable questions about their finances, friendships, families and pot-smoking habits, they should find another line of work, because the public needs to know that umpires have not been unduly influenced.

Can these investigations go too far? Can they be abused? Of course. But that's the risk we take with investing power in the hands of investigators -- and it's the same kind of power we invest in umpires. Hey, no one likes Internal Affairs, but they're a necessary evil, because they combat the threat o####reater evil: the undermining of the entire system.

Investigating umpires is not un-American. It's not a witch-hunt, it's not torture, and it doesn't run counter to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. It's common sense taken to a certain end: acknowledging the fallibility of human beings and trying to keep the most fallible -- the umpires who've been compromised by failures in judgment, ethics or associations -- as far away from the diamond as possible.

Who, other than the umpires themselves (and perhaps the ACLU) has a problem with this? If umps don't like it, well, we can always get Enrico Palazzo.

It's interesting when you look back at all the NFL dynasties -- Packers of the 60s, Dolphins of the early 70s, Steelers of the 70s, Niners of the 80s, Cowboys of the early 90s, Broncos of the late 90s -- NONE of them lost their last Super Bowl appearance. And really, that seems to separate the dynasties from the merely great teams.

The Cowboys in the 70s lost every other Super Bowl they appeared in, so they're not a dynasty. The Redskins of the 80s and the early 90s weren't a dynasty either -- their championships were spread out over 10 seasons, and included three different starting quarterbacks. In the last 12 years, the Packers and the Rams lost their follow-up Super Bowls, though the Rams' appearances were separated by a year. If they'd been able to win back-to-back titles or even two in three years, Green Bay and St. Louis would have had legitimate claims to the title of "dynasty."

Basically, these Patriots have the chance to be the first dynasty -- and they already are a dynasty -- to lose a Super Bowl. They probably won't, because of experience, but there's a first time for everything.

Mind you, the Pats can always return to the Super Bowl in the next few years, and start a new chapter. But no dynastic NFL team has ever lost a Super Bowl and then won another title. The Dolphins in the 70s lost their first appearance, but then won two in a row. What's this say about dynasties? It says they're always capped with a W -- to date, anyway.

For the Record...

* The New England Patriots are the only NFL team to lose Super Bowls in two different helmets. No matter what happens Sunday, that'll still be true, because the Giants have the same logo they had in 2001.

* I hope to hear a "Yankees suck" cheer at University of Phoenix Stadium, even though I'm rooting for the Giants.

* Jason Kidd should be traded to the Knicks. Then he'll be the first person in American history to realize how good they had it in New Jersey.

* Roger Clemens looks more desperate and pathetic with every passing day. Now he's trying to deflect criticism of his late-career surge by comparing it to the careers of Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. I'm sure they love being lumped together with a guy who calls his ex-trainer on the phone, feigns interest in the kid's ill son, then secretly tape records the conversation, all in the unrealized hopes of getting the guy to recant his story that Clemens took steroids. Roger, the court of public opinion already made its decision: You and Floyd Landis should go bowling together.

* The Red Sox are reportedly going to wait until after the season to exercise Manny Ramirez's 2009 option ($20 million), which makes perfect sense. Last year the Sox irked Curt Schilling by waiting to see what kind of season he'd have, and so did the Yankees with Mariano Rivera, letting them play out their walk years without future job security. Both Schilling and Rivera stomped their feet, said they'd play out their last years and then test the free-agent market. So what happened? They performed like motivated pitchers playing for their next contracts, and ultimately re-upped with their respective teams.

In Ramirez's case, the Red Sox hold $20 million options on him for 2009 AND 2010. Considering Ramirez will be 37 in May of 2009, the $40 million he stands to make with Boston in those two years is much better than any long-term deal he can reasonably expect to sign somewhere else. Consider, if Ramirez replicates his un-Manny-like numbers from last year -- 20 home runs, 80 RBIs, and less than 140 games played for the second straight season -- the Red Sox won't be eager to pay $20 million to a 37-year-old slugger who plays terrible defense.

Most players would use this kind of situation as motivation, but there's no telling how Ramirez will react. Perhaps he'll sulk. Perhaps he'll ask to be traded. Or perhaps he'll realize that playing with incentive -- actually, 20 million incentives -- will bring out the best in him, and help him revert to his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers.

* Word is Hal Steinbrenner (the sane one) and Yankees GM Brian Cashman have convinced Baby 'Brenner (the smoking one) not to overpay with prospects for Johan Santana. While that's probably the wise choice, you just get the sense that Baby 'Brenner is gonna go ballistic in the press (probably on Cashman) if Santana lands in Boston or Flushing.

* Pitchers and catchers report on February 14, so wives of rabid baseball fans should expect sex, chocolate, and due dates around Thanksgiving. Let's make it a fecund year for baseball fanatics, shall we.

Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders recently crunched numbers and said the Giants are one of the worst teams to ever make the Super Bowl, and that if they beat the Patriots, it might be one of the biggest upsets in the game's history. In outlining the case for the Giants' sucking, Schatz cited such statistics as win-loss record during the regular season, turnover differential, average margin of victory, and average margin of victory in playoff games. Taken as a whole, it was a commendable effort, but with all due respect, those numbers mean little when compared with one unquantifiable factor: momentum.

There's no denying that a 10-6 team, with a -10 turnover differential, which only outscored its opponents by 22 points during the season, looks rather weak on paper. But that's taking the entire season into account; and frankly, who cares if the Giants' early-season numbers stack up poorly against the Packers and the Cowboys, whom they just beat on the road? What does it matter if the Giants gave up 76 points to the Cowboys in two regular-season games? That second game was Nov. 11, more than two months ago. What's that have to do with now? For three-quarters of last season, the Colts couldn't stop a blind nun from running off tackle. But then they (and a healthy Bob Sanders) figured it out at the most important time -- during the playoffs. So what difference did it make that they gave up 227 yards to the Broncos on Oct. 29? I know, I know: Past performance is usually a good indicator of future performance. But really, that's more applicable to stocks and sexual partners.

Statistical gurus never discuss momentum, which is understandable, since momentum can't be quantified. Then again, it can't be denied either. The Giants may have lost the Game 16 match-up against the Patriots, but really, momentum-wise, it was as good as a win, because they parlayed that confidence-building contest into three consecutive road playoff victories. The only team in NFL playoff history to win 3 road games and the Super Bowl was the Steelers two years ago. That team also struggled early in the year, and at one point were 7-5. They then won 8 games in a row to close it out.

In the last 8 games, the Giants have only lost twice -- to an emotional Redskins team playing with pride and purpose after the death of Sean Taylor, and to an undefeated Patriots team, playing with pride and purpose in its pursuit of perfection. So, do the Giants have more momentum than the Patriots right now? A stat head would probably say no, since New England has won 18 games in a row. But just look at what's happened since the Patriots and Giants met in the season finale.

New England had an off week (when Randy Moss had a rough go of it); were huge favorites to beat Jacksonville at home (but were tied with them 14-14 at the half); then were huge favorites to beat Philip Rivers's and his one ACL, won by an uninspiring 9 points, and easily could have lost if the four field-goal Chargers could have converted their turnover advantage into even one touchdown. Meanwhile, the Giants crushed Tampa on the road, beat the #1 seed Cowboys on the road, and then beat Brett Favre and the Packers in sub-human conditions in Green Bay -- after their kicker flubbed two go-ahead field goals before icing the game in overtime. The Giants come out of the NFC feeling like they could beat anybody, in any conditions, no matter how grim it looks. The Patriots? They come out of the AFC feeling like Tom Brady's foot had BETTER be OK.

Earlier this season, Patriots' victories seemed preordained. But do they feel that way now?

If the Giants win this game, it won't be an historic upset, and it won't surprise me. The only thing that would surprise me about this game is if the Giants and Eli Manning reverse course from the last two months and get blown out. You can crunch all the numbers you want, to make it sound like the Giants are one of the worst teams to ever play in a Super Bowl. But they have something impossible to quantify: momentum. Whether it's enough to overcome the Patriots, I don't know. But it's certainly enough to keep them close. And if they can do that, they'll at least prove one thing: They're not one of the worst teams to make the Super Bowl, no matter what the numbers say.

How long till an opposing team implements the Hack-a-Shaq strategy against the undefeated, foul-line inept Memphis Tigers? After yesterday's out-of-conference defeat of Gonzaga, John Calipari's team is now 19-0, and this despite shooting 58.6 percent from the charity stripe this season -- which puts them 324th out of 328 Division I teams through games of January 24. Mind you, it's not a case of one or two brick layers; the Tigers have free masons throughout their lineup, which raises questions about whether the #1 team will win tight games later in the season and whether teams should purposely start fouling this fast-paced, high-flying squad, whose biggest strength might be its transition game.

Below are the free-throw shooting percentages of the 10 Memphis players who average at least 10 minutes per game this season.


* Derrick Rose 68.0
* Chris Douglas-Roberts 65.6
* Robert Dozier 73.2
* Antonio Anderson 53.5
* Joey Dorsey 35.7
* Shawn Taggart 56.3
* Willie Kemp 64.3
* Andre Allen 55.0
* Doneal Mack 75.0
* Jeff Robinson 41.7

Those look the average grades of Florida State football players.

If you're an opposing team, why wouldn't you simply send in your end-of-the-bench guys, put Memphis in the bonus as soon as possible, then put your starters in and go from there? I mean, if the ball's ever in the hands of Anderson, Taggart, Robinson or god forbid Dorsey, who'd probably improve his percentage by drop-kicking his free throws, why wouldn't you play as aggressively as possible? Every time Joey "357" Dorsey touches the ball, he should be hit with pillow cases loaded with soap. "Oh, sorry about that, did I foul you?"

Shaquille O'Neal's inability to hit free throws at a respectable rate (52.4 percent over his career) has long caused NBA teams to foul him on purpose. Rather than give up an easy two down low, it's always been wiser to take your chances that the Diesel will miss one (or both) of his free throws. Despite this Hack-a-Shaq strategy, O'Neal has led his teams to four NBA titles, thanks in part to the complementary play of Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade. But if Bryant and Wade couldn't hit free throws either, wouldn't teams have hacked them as well?

Memphis is an exciting team, with Derrick Rose and Chris Douglas-Roberts pushing the ball down the court and pressuring the get-back abilities of opposing defenses. But when your primary ball-handlers don't even shoot 70 percent from the line, and one of your frontcourt players (Dorsey) shoots nearly twice as well from the field as he does from the line, you've got a glaring weakness that can definitely be exploited.

Is fouling on purpose unsportsmanlike? That's debatable. What's not debatable is that Memphis is a terrible free-throw shooting team, more or less from top to bottom, and that the Tigers will be hard-pressed to win close games (particularly in March) if they don't improve.

So far, Memphis has been winning by the second-highest margin of victory in the country (Kansas). The closest game they've played all season was Dec. 4 against USC, when they beat the Trojans by 4. In that game, the Tigers shot 7 of 18 from the field (38.8 percent), which was even crummy by their low standards.

In probably their biggest match-up all season, against then-#5 Georgetown, the Tigers channeled J.J. Redick, hitting 22 of 29 for an uncharacteristic 76 percent. And why'd they shoot that well? Because the vast majority of those free throws were shot by their three best free-throw shooters, at least among regulars: Dozier (6-6), Douglas-Roberts (9-12) and Rose (6-7).
(Dorsey, who had a monster game on the boards with 13 rebounds, sucked even worse than usual from the line, going 1-4.)

The Tigers next game is Wednesday against Houston, the second-best team in Conference USA. Then, down the road they play Tennessee, which is perhaps the best team, pre-tournament, which Memphis still has to face. Perhaps these teams feel capable of beating Calipari and Co. in a straight-up game. Or maybe they'll realize that Hack-a-Tiger might be the best way to slow down the country's last unbeaten team.

Perusing the monthly spending habits of Miami Heat center Shaquille O'Neal, which are outlined in fascinating detail in his recent divorce papers, I was bowled over by one extravagant figure in particular: His $24,300 monthly gasoline bill. How on God's green earth can a man spend that much scratch on go-go juice?

Let's try to put this figure in perspective. I live in Connecticut, where gas runs more than $3 a gallon. For me to spend 24K on gas, I'd have to buy 8,000 gallons of gas. Considering my truck gets about 20 miles to the gallon, I'd then have to drive 160,000 miles a month to expend that amount of fuel. Really, how is that possible? Did Shaq buy one of NASA's old Space Shuttles? Does he fill it up with rocket fuel and spend weekends at the International Space Station? I mean, $24,000 a month on gas? I'd have been less surprised to learn he spends that much on condoms.

Here's the full story of O'Neal's finances, as reported by the Palm Beach Post: "O'Neal makes a huge amount of money, $1.8 million in monthly salary, publicity contracts and returns on investments, his routine expenses total $875,015 - a month. Among them: $156,116 in mortgages on three homes (including his $20 million mansion on Miami Beach's Star Island), plus $31,299 in homeowners insurance; $3,345 in phone bills; $1,610 in lawn and pool maintenance; $12,775 for food; $10,065 in electricity, $1,495 for cable TV; $5,000 in car payments (for three cars - he owns at least twice as many); $24,300 in gas; $6,730 in dry cleaning; $17,220 in clothing; $2,305 for pets and $110,505 for vacations. Child care sets Shaq back $26,500 a month. He and Shaunie have four children, and each has a child from a previous relationship. By the way, he pays $10,000 a month in temporary child support and another 10 grand in alimony. To his credit, the big-man-in-the-middle is doing his share in helping close the giant federal deficit. The 13-page document shows he pays $5.41 million a year in federal income tax and $217,000 in taxes in states where the Heat plays road games. Property taxes cost him $903,132."

Good to see he spends a little more on child care than gas.

Super Bowl Media Day isn't till next Tuesday, but I've gotten a headstart on the top stories that will be printed in the lead-up to the big game. Rather than wait to read those long, drawn-out tales, e.g., about Eli Manning's plan to wear Uggs to confuse the Patriots, I've decided to truncate these stories into small, bulleted talking points, distilling the essence while dumping the lard.

Stories we'll hear about the Patriots
* Robert Kraft's #### son gets busted trying to buy Super Bowl tickets on StubHub.
* If they win a fourth Super Bowl by 3 points, Tom Brady plans to find an English girlfriend who speaks Portuguese.
* Bill Belichick reiterates his position that he'd never call Richard Seymour "dirty." However, he would call him "Seymour, ####," if only to motivate.
* Once he retires, Tedy Bruschi plans to cover "Head Like a Hole" by Nine Inch Nails.
* Rodney Harrison reveals his guilt about singlehandedly causing the rise of Brenda Warner.
* Former Pats coach Rod Rust discusses his decision to root for the Packers in this year's Super Bowl.
* Randy Moss explains the etymological history of "straight cash, homey."


Stories we'll hear about the Giants
* Eli Manning answers at length the question, "How long have you been a white quarterback?"
* Plaxico Burress admits his first name is completely made up.
* Jared Lorenzen says he'd rather be known as the "Shifty Nifty Pushing 350."
* Tom Coughlin's great-great-grandfather is dead, but Tom says he'd be proud of what Tom's accomplished with the Gaints this year.
* Lawrence Tynes sent Brett Favre a cheesecake after the NFC Championship Game.
* Tiki Barber wanted to become the first active professional athlete to admit he's ####, but his wife made him retire.
* Longtime Giants fan Chuck Knoblauch plans to watch the game with Whitey Bulger.

A lot of people whine about the two-week layoff between the NFL championship games and the Super Bowl, which is great for the players, coaches and team officials (who can make ticket arrangements and hotel accommodations for their friends and loved ones), but which annoys the average fan. Unfortunately, this extra week is here to stay, so all we can do is grin and bear it and wait for the first player to get arrested in Arizona.

This two-week layoff is perhaps the most unbearable down time in sports -- but by no means the only one. Here are some other times that try men's souls, in no particular order.

* The Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday following the first weekend of the men's NCAA basketball tournament. Arguably, the first four days of the tournament are the most exciting stretch in sports, with games from noon to midnight, the occasional upset, and just about everyone in the nation discussing their brackets. Even chicks with zero sports knowledge love the first four days of March Madness...but then it's over. And then we have to wait through Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday (and even part of Thursday!) for the Sweet 16 games. Sure, those games are usually better match-ups than the earlier games, but you probably don't have to fake a head cold, lie to your boss and slink off to a sports bar to watch them either, and that's what makes the first round so magical.

* The day after the All-Star Game in baseball. Honestly, I despise the All-Star Break, but these millionaires need their beauty sleep, so I guess we have to live with it. I don't watch the Home Run Derby, which is a hackneyed premise, and I only watch the All-Star Game introductions and maybe the first three innings. The game's on Tuesday, so by Wednesday night I need baseball that actually matters. I mean, I've been watching my team play every night for three-plus months. Sure, there's the occasional travel day or rain cancellation -- but not for three days in a row!

* The Friday and Saturday after the Thursday night kickoff to the NFL season. This is like holding Christmas Eve on a Thursday, teasing your kid by giving him one present, then holding Christmas Day three days later, at which point your frustrated child simply wants to kill you and burn the remaining presents.

* When your team closes out its series and has to wait for another series to finish. This happens in the NBA and the NHL all the time, but the most publicized layoff in recent sports history involved the Colorado Rockies. Following a stretch when they won 21 of 22 games, including back-to-back sweeps of the Phillies and Diamondbacks in last year's National League playoffs, the Rockies had to wait while the Red Sox and Indians finished a hard-fought 7 games series (and then two more days -- 8 in total -- because MLB decided the World Series was starting on a preordained day, no matter when the two championship series ended). Colorado players spent the eight days making snow men at Coors Field, then got swept by the Red Sox in the World Series. Don't tell a Rockies fan that momentum is a myth.

* The period between your fantasy draft and the start of the regular season. Usually you try to schedule your fantasy football and baseball drafts for as close to the start of the regular season as possible, but it doesn't always work that way. Consequently, you draft your team and then pray for several weeks, hoping the guys you drafted don't get hurt in meaningless exhibition games, thereby ruining your chances to look like a genius. This probably applies equally to fantasy basketball, fantasy hockey and fantasy NASCAR, but I've never participated in those leagues.

* In Major League Baseball, the two-plus weeks of interleague play every June. Good god alive, has the novelty worn off yet? This year, between June 13 and June 29, my team, the Boston Red Sox, play the Cincinnati Reds, the Philadelphia Phillies, the St. Louis Cardinals (hurray, Joe Buck and Tim McCarver on the Saturday Game of the Week!), the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Houston Astros. I know I shouldn't complain, since that's 15 easy wins. But still.

* The day AFTER opening day in baseball. Listen, I know why the teams schedule an off day between opening day and the second game of the year (it's in case opening day is rained out). But that doesn't eradicate the fact that I go from cloud nine to limbo in less than 24 hours.

* The layoff before bowl games. Ohio State was off for more than 50 days before losing to LSU in the BCS Championship Game, but frankly, I don't care that much about this kind of stretch. After all, it's been more than 9000 days since my alma mater, Vanderbilt, even went to a bowl game.

* For Seattle sports fans, Jan. 1-Dec. 31.

In the wake of the Chargers' loss to the Patriots in the AFC Championship Game, the public images of Philip Rivers and LaDainian Tomlinson have gone in opposite directions. The brash, trash-talking Rivers, who now admits to playing the game with one ACL, has been fast-tracked for canonization, while the humble Tomlinson, who played briefly before shutting it down, has been vilified as a soft, selfish teammate who pouted on the bench because he couldn't contribute.

On the San Diego Union-Tribune Web site, here's a typical comment about superhero Philip Rivers, from a Charger fan named Blue& Gold:

"Wow!!!! That's giving it up for the team!! This kid has some heart!!
Do you think either one of the Manning punks would've had the stones to do what he just did for his team mates? No way in hell, not in a million years.
Now, maybe Rivers will get the respect he deserves, not only as one of the best QBs ever at this stage of his career, but as one of the toughest."

Sorry, pal, but playing a game without an ACL doesn't make you tough; it makes you dumb. Discretion, as they say, is the better part of valor, and Rivers showed no discretion -- and contributed mediocre stats from the quarterback position -- while Tomlinson had the good sense to admit, "Ya know what, I can't go. Let Michael Turner and Darren Sproles play."

And so what happened? What production did the Chargers get from these respective positions? Rivers goes 19-37, with no TDs and 2 INTs, leading the Chargers to four measly field goals, even though the team won the turnover battle against the highest-scoring team in NFL history. Meanwhile, Tomlinson's backups rushed for 99 yards on 21 carries, averaging 4.7 yards per carry, which is EXACTLY what Tomlinson averaged during the regular season. So, Rivers grits it out, hobbles around like a wounded wildebeest for four quarters and earns the everlasting praise of talking heads like "Mad Dog" Chris Russo, who spent Monday drooling about how much he respected Rivers's play, and how he could "quarterback my team any day." On the other side, Tomlinson get vilified (and rightly so) for not standing up and rooting on his teammates. At the end of the day, however, who really helped his team more?

A dispassionate observer would have to say Tomlinson.

LT may have come up small in the teammate department, but at least he was wise enough to let other people - namely, his BACKUPS - do their jobs. Rivers, on the other hand, tries to pull some Curt Schilling bloody sock routine. The problem, of course, is that Schilling actually pitched great in Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series. Rivers threw like...oh, I don't know, a guy playing without an anterior cruciate ligament?

Yesterday Rivers revealed that he had arthroscopic surgery last week to clean out loose cartilage, which enabled him to play.

“If I don't do that Monday, I had no chance of playing,” Rivers said.

Um, good?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the chief reasons why football teams have backup quarterbacks is for instances when the starter has misplaced his ACL. I know football is a manly-man sport, and guys are supposed to play with bones sticking through their eyeballs, but this macho charade cost the Chargers a very good chance to beat the New England Patriots and advance to the Super Bowl. Billy Volek, who relieved St. Rivers after he martyred himself in last week's game versus the Colts, went 3 of 4 and led the team to a go-ahead touchdown on the road in that fourth quarter. Would it have been so bad to let him have a shot at the Patriots? After all Volek, who's started 10 games in his career and passed for 2,486 yards in 2004, brought both ACLs to the game on Sunday.

If Volek played in place of Rivers (particularly in the second half, when it was clear Rivers was struggling to move), would the Chargers have won? We'll never know, because Norv Turner agreed to roll out a hurt quarterback with a severe case of megalomania. Who convinced Turner that Philip Rivers, the 18th-highest rated quarterback in the NFL this season, was so irreplaceable that he had to play him, even with one leg?

We're going back a ways, but one of the all-time great Man-Up stories is about Hall of Fame linebacker Jack Youngblood, who played for the Rams with a broken leg in both the 1980 NFC Championship Game AND in the Super Bowl. That's hardcore, yet people don't talk about it that much; not nearly as much as Schilling and his bloody sock. Ya know why? Part of the reason, of course, is that Schilling is a self-aggrandizing loudmouth, while Youngblood isn't. But the biggest reason is that Schilling's team won the title that year, but Youngblood's didn't. This is but one example of how it's commendable to do whatever it takes to win -- just as long as you actually DO win.

You can say Philip Rivers was heroic for playing the AFC title game with no ACL, and you can say LaDainian Tomlinson hurt his team by not cheering from the bench. But really, who hurt his team more? The wanna-be hero who didn't get it done, or the affirmed superstar who let his backups take a shot?