I held off on inducting yesterday's Sports Bash on ESPN Radio because I wasn't sure if I really had heard what I had heard.  Alas, I couldn't find any clips or criticisms of this segment (albeit I didn't look hard).  Seeing as such, if I heard the hosts incorrectly, leave a comment saying as much, and I'll retract this criticism.

The offender in this instance is Ryan Ryzilo.  He started talking about statistical analysis, and had already come in with a negative bias toward it.  He went on to talk about a bad loss suffered by a team, and whether there was any carryover toward the next game.  Here's where I got lost.  It seemed to me that he suggested that the average sabermetrician would lend credence to this carryover concept.

If he really said that, then that is possibly the dumbest critique of statistical analysis that I have ever heard.  A sabermetrician would believe the exact OPPOSITE!  Believers in statistical analysis view baseball games as independent events.  Sure, new stats are being developed to show relationships between games (pitcher abuse points come to mind).  For example,  the ability for the Orioles to play baseball in game 2 of a doubleheader after losing 30-3 is really not hindered by the fact that they lost game one in horrific fashion (In fact kudos to Dave Trembley for leaving Shuey out to the slaughter knowing that game 2 was 0-0 and still winnable).  I'm not suggesting that there is no psychology in sports.  I am suggesting that statistical analysis does not seek to measure psychological damage.  It is for this reason that Mozilo's point is way off the mark.

The average sabermetrician has heard the same criticisms bestowed upon the average wrestling fan, fantasy football player, D&D player, etc - "Mom's basement, geek, never held a bat, etc"  Whether true or not for a particular individual, it would be best for critics to understand that against which they rail.  Because when the geek is right, you'll have to admit that you lost a battle of wits against someone who lives in their mom's basement.  Naturally, the old guard writers and commentators won't be quick to cop to that fact.

So broblog was kind enough to give his thumbs up to my post about John Madden's logic leaps.  Then he uttered the broadcaster's name that, to me, is akin to saying "it" to the Knights of Nee.  That name is Chris Brrman.  I misspelled it because saying his name or typing it would make me spontaneously combust.

My problems with Burman are numerous.  Whenever ESPN decides it's time to do some more self pleasuring, Burnman is there to remind us that he was there 28 years ago.  Loyalty - an honorable trait, but Bergman uses it to get every assignment under the sun.  In fact, I'm surprised that he never censored that "Cheap Seats" joke about his coverage of the National Darts Championship.  The guy has to be visible.  "Love me, laugh with me, watch me please."  This point really became evident when I saw him hosting "Baseball Tonight" from the World Series.  So Karl Ravech is good enough for 180 days, but not for one week in October?

Then there's the nickname thing.  It was funny at first.  It still can be.  But the Devil Rays' long reliever doesn't need one.

But the big one is NFL Primetime.  Berlman totally whined about the fact that ESPN could not show highlights until NBC signed off.  Honestly, I can't pull the exact quote, but it was to the effect of "Tommy and I have been doing this for two decades, and it's been taken away from us."  Sorry the commish didn't check with you prior to closing the billion dollar TV deal.  I was unaware that YOU, not the league, was the focal point of post game coverage. It is also rumored that Bertman thought he was getting Kornheiser's spot on MNF since the network "lost" Sunday coverage.

There was also the disingenuous nature of his outrage toward Rush Limbaugh.  But that's likely a whole different can of words. That's why I can't stand Chris Berman.

Oh crap!

First, I like Cal Ripken.  In fact, I'd argue that he was, believe it or not, an underrated baseball player.  People remember 2,632 because of the fact that he not only broke an unbreakable record, but even tacked on another 3 seasons of games.  His numbers are almost viewed as inconsequential, though in reality, they are of major significance.  Yes there would be someone by now who would be branded as the first offensive shortstop, but it is what it is.  Cal was the first.

All that said, something that Can be a valid criticism of Cal would be his latter years salary.  There are people who deserve golden parachutes, and Cal is one of them.  But again, it is what it is.  The Cal Ripken of 1998 and on was all but getting paid for what he was, as opposed to what he is.

I tell you that for the purpose of informing you that John Madden is officially the Cal Ripken of commentating.  So John has played for all four "teams" in the world of commentary.  But he has been doing this for over twenty years, and he is getting paid based upon what he did in years one through ten.

 John Madden has about one good point per year, and that keeps him afloat.  Last year, it was the whole "There was a time when fumbles were fumbles" thing.  Great point.  I watch as much football (critically) as the people on the fringe of the industry.  I admit it.  My friends and I are consumers of the NFL.  I should know what a fumble is.  Sure I can recite the rule, but as I watch more and more games, I actually find myself on the edge of my seat during the coaches' challenge.  Will the refs coin come up heads or tails on this loose ball?

Aside from his big point of the year, Madden adds no value to a broadcast.  He also seems out of touch.  Well, given the name of this blog, I am too.  But I'm not paid to keep my finger on the pulse of the NFL. 

The best example of this criticism is the Jeremiah Trotter situation.  Trotter had a renaissance in his second stint with the Eagles.  He played up to the contract he received in Washington - one year later in a different uniform.  He got another payday.  The NFL's collective bargaining agreemnt has a way of evening these things out over the long haul.  You were overpaid in one city.  Probably underpaid the next go round.  Now with another noticeable payday on the Eagles' books, the team had to decide what to do with him.

The Eagles have a woeful run defense.  In fact, I find that whole defense overrated.  It's blitz happy.  It's corners benefit from QBs not handling the pressure.  See what happens to those corners when they leave Philly.  Anyhow, I need to get back on track.  Trotter, as the MLB, is held accountable for run defense.  Al Michaels asked Madden if it had become evident to the Eagles that Trotter was not useful against the run, and couldn't get better with him in there.

Al already made the point.  John just had to agree with it.  But I sense that John and Al, despite working together for four years, don't seem to like one another.  They have a "he can't do what I do because..." mentality.  It seems that John disagrees on things just because Al made a good point.  Ultimately John looks foolish.

So did John agree, and perhaps add value?  No, he disagreed.  Okay, but why?  "It used to be run on first and second down and bring someone in on third down.  Now every down is a passing down in the NFL."  Here's Madden's logic: The league is a passing league, and the team (good against the pass), gets rid of someone effective against the pass?  Doesn't sound right to me.  But it does to John.

Oddly enough, sideline reporter (the poxes of the broadcasting world) Andrea Kramer, made the point.  She reported that Trotter would not be the starter (due to needing to improve the run), and that Trotter was not in the mood for a demotion.  Andy Reid supposedly gave Trotter a chance to retire.  When this was rejected, the Eagles granted Trotter his release.