There are some people who should just be tied to the back of the A Train and dragged from Inwood to Far Rockaway: this guy's one of them

Here we go again...

Award won't change Pedroia's attitude

AL Rookie of the Year doesn't feel he has anything to prove

1. Brian Bannister shouldn't feel he's got anything to prove with that 1.2 WHIP and 121 ERA+ on the KC Royals. Josh Fields shouldn't feel like he's got anything to prove with those 23 homers and .480 SLG in only 100 games, aside from learning how to not strike out every 3 at bats. Reggie Willits shouldn't feel like he's got anything to prove with that .293 BA and .391 OBP last year.

Any of those men should have won the AL Rookie of the Year over Pedroia.

2. Yes, Dustin. You do have something to prove. You need to prove you're not just a Fenway Park-aided David Eckstein (.351/.410/.502 at home, .282/.349/.380 on the road).

FORT MYERS, Fla. -- The proverbial chip that an undersized player carries on his shoulder for inspiration clearly doesn't go away one American League Rookie of the Year trophy later, or even after a heroic postseason.

Oh please, everyone's sick of this shit.

"Oh look at him go! He's so little but he's really big! He's so amazing! You think he's too small but he's proven all you haters wrong!!!"

-every Red Sox fan everywhere beating off to the picture of Pedroia in Big Floppy's arms

No, it's still there. All you had to do was be at Dustin Pedroia's locker early Sunday morning to see it manifest.

Does Pedroia have anything to prove after fueling the Red Sox in such emphatic fashion a year ago?

I already gave you the answer. But let me guess what this overrated little sack of shit had to say.

Reporter: Hey Dustin, after winning the Rookie of the Year, MVP, Cy Young, Rolaids Relief and Silver Slugger at 5'1" and 113 pounds, and then single-handedly winning the World Series for the Red Sox by hitting 11 walk-off grand slams in the postseason, do you feel you have anything to prove?
Pedroia: You know what, I don't care what anyone thinks of me. I'm good. I know I'm good. And I'm TOUGH and GRITTY. I give 3000%. I'm always going to be ME. A lot of people have a problem with ME being ME. I for one will always be ME. If you have a problem with ME being ME, then don't watch ME.

How close was I?

"I don't really care what people think -- I don't really have to prove anything to anybody," said Pedroia. "I just have to prove stuff to my teammates. I don't [care] what anybody says about me. I'm going to go out there and be who I am and if you don't like it, watch somebody else. That's all I care about."

You don't have to prove anything to anybody. You just have to prove stuff to your teammates.

Does anyone see an inconsistency here?

Oh and by the way, I was close, wasn't I?

And that Rookie of the Year Award? Sure, it meant something special to Pedroia at the time. But listen to the man speak, and it's clear he's not seeking pats on the back for past accomplishments.

"I don't think about that, man," Pedroia said. "That's just something that sportswriters voted on. I don't think I was the best rookie. I didn't really think about it. The only thing I knew is I got an opportunity to play in the World Series and we won. That's what our goal was all year. The whole Rookie of the Year thing, I'm not really concerned about it. I actually, I might put a little holster on it and hold up my garage door and put it down there."

Oh your humility is touching...

It's highly doubtful Pedroia will actually use his well-earned trophy as a garage door ornament, but you get the idea. This is a player who feeds off his feistiness.

Feed off this:














Still feeling feisty?

























Didn't think so.

Fuck it, time for some 'I told you so' pwnage

Meet Greg Cote. The predictive genius.

MIAMI — Yes, the New England Patriots will lose a football game.

It probably will be sometime around mid-autumn of 2008.

They will not lose before then. They will continue marauding through this NFL season as unstoppable as a rock slide. They will complete the regular season unblemished. They will sweep through both playoff games as expected. Then they will win the Super Bowl, just like they are supposed to.

Let's break this down.

Yes, the New England Patriots will lose a football game.

Correct. No team can win every game.

It probably will be sometime around mid-autumn of 2008.

I'm sure the chances of them losing a regular season game next year are high.

They will not lose before then.

Wrong.

They will continue marauding through this NFL season as unstoppable as a rock slide. They will complete the regular season unblemished. They will sweep through both playoff games as expected.

Correct.

Then they will win the Super Bowl, just like they are supposed to.

WRONG.

Stating an opinion is one thing. Writing an article that presents your opinion in the form of prophecy is where you can get yourself into a little trouble.

By the way, did you really think that you were writing something groundbreaking at the time, Greg?

The Patriots will finish undefeated and be called the greatest team in the 88-year history of American professional football.

WRONG.

If the 17-0 Dolphins of 1972 have the one and only Perfect Season in history, perhaps we will need to call New England's 19-0 the Beyond Perfect Season.

18-1. The Irrelevent Season.

No other team can.

This was written on November 25th, before the Eagles game, which NE won by a whopping score of 31-28, and before the Baltimore game, which NE won 27-24. I bet good old Greg was shitting his pants during both games.


Dallas, the likeliest eventual Super Bowl opponent, tried last month, at home, and lost by three touchdowns, buried in a 48-point Brady avalanche.

Now, you see? That's better. Dallas did NOT make it to the Super Bowl, but it was perfectly reasonable at the time to say they were the "likeliest" Super Bowl opponent.

Brady is having what to this point would rank very high among the greatest individual seasons by any athlete, in any sport, anywhere, at any time. His record pace of 38 touchdown passes against just four interceptions — 17 of those scoring throws to Randy Moss — is unprecedented. Giving Moss to Brady is like giving a raise to Bill Gates.

Bad analogy. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world at about $47 billion. He's head and shoulders above everyone else regardless of a raise. Tom Brady, before this year, never had a QB rating above 92.6, never had more than 28 TDs, never had a better completion percentage of 63.9%. He was a very good QB, but he was clearly never the BEST. He gets Moss, and then suddenly Brady goes from good to God with 50 TDs, 8 INT, and a QB rating of 117.2. "Giving Moss to Brady is like giving steroids to Barry Bonds" would be a better analogy.

The only reason to think New England won't stay unbeaten is that nobody (since `72) ever has. The thing is, history has never seen what we are seeing of a dynasty angling for its fourth championship this decade, led by a near-perfect, precision quarterback in his prime and directed by the most ruthless coach in the sport.

So...the only reason to think it won't happen is because it hasn't happened since it last happened. But what's happening is something that history has never seen happen. So it's going to happen. Good logic.

The Patriots are the perfect team to hate. Coach Hoodie. The Bling Dynasty. The classic overdog. And Brady is Mr. Perfect, with his movie star and supermodel girlfriends and his impossible dimple.

Yes! I agree! They are the perfect team to hate. They're a bunch of douchebags. I will comment fully on the douchebaggianism of the team and head coach in a later post to come soon

Miami will go 1 for 2, then, on NFL history this year.

The franchise will avoid the ignominy of a winless season, but can only watch as another team at long last achieves the perfect distinction Miami once held alone.

Nope, Miami went 2 for 2. You went 0 for everything. (Well, not really, but you might as well have. Remember, I have the freedom to exaggerate for humerous purposes.)

GO GIANTS!!!!!!!!!!!

A Night at Sully's: the story of Bill's life

Nothing like a night of nothing to do and literary feces courtesy of Bill Simmons:

SEPT. 18, 1996. --I was bartending in Boston and wondering what the heck had happened to my life. You know things are bad when you're setting your alarm clock for noon every day, only you still have to hit the snooze button a few times before rolling out of bed. That was me. I wanted to do only one thing in life -- write a sports column...

Some people's dreams should never come true.

On Sept. 18, I had the night off and was sitting at home. Roger Clemens was pitching in Detroit. Like every other Boston fan, I wasn't sure how to feel about him. He'd struggled through a dreadful contract year (4-11, 4.36 ERA on Aug. 1) before ripping off four straight wins and looking like the Clemens of old.

Suddenly, Boston was divided between two camps: "We gotta re-sign Rogah!" and "We gotta get rid of this bum!" I was firmly entrenched in the latter.

So...to summarize how you feel about Roger:

1. I don't know how to feel about him.
2. I feel that we gotta get rid of this bum.

On this night, Clemens had it going. He struck out 12 Tigers in five innings. Like every other Sox fan, I immediately thought of his famous Mariners game. Could this be ... ?

Nahhhhhh.

I called my dad. He was watching and thinking the same thing. After I hung up, my phone started ringing. One buddy called. Two buddies called. Three buddies called. Everyone was thinking the same thing.

Who said great minds are the only minds that think alike?

Oh my God! Roger Clemens MIGHT strike out 20 guys in a meaningless game against the woeful Detroit Tigers!!!

Let me say that I in no way discourage getting excited about sports. I've gone nuts after a huge home run or a big win. I've called my friends...after something big HAPPENED...you know, HAPPENED. Past tense. Like a game-winning home run against the Red Sox or Mets, a big rivalry, or a big win in the playoffs/postseason. I don't call my friends about something that COULD happen, especially not in a game that means nothing.

Oh, and by the way, while the Yankees are important part of my life, they are not the essence of my life.

Clemens struck out the side in the sixth, and the symbolism was suffocating. Weeks into his 1986 breakout season, Clemens struck out a record 20 Mariners. With two weeks remaining in his Boston career, he was doing it again. For some reason, fundamentally, as a human being, at that specific point in my life, I needed him to do this for me. He had sucked against Dave Stewart his whole career, he had sucked for most of the past four years, he was putting together the most thinly disguised contract push ever ... and you know what? I didn't give a crap. He owed me this. He owed every Sox fan this.

Oh. My. God. I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, there is NO SYMBOLISM IN SPORTS. Sure, there have been some funny/weird coincidences. But symbolism is a stupid literary tool...not an element of professional sports.

For some reason, fundamentally, as a human being, at that specific point in my life, I needed him to do this for me.

You needed him to do this for you. You needed a guy you've never met who throws a cork wrapped in yarn for a living to do something for you.

By the way, between 1992 and 1996, Clemens had put up these ERA+s:

175 in 246 innings, 104 in 191 innings, 177 in 170 innings (strike year), 116 in 140 innings (strike shortened season), 139 in 242 innings.

Sure he wasn't the same Roger Clemens anymore, but to say he sucked is a bit of an exaggeration.

Oh and let me comment again just to remind everyone. Bill Simmons needed a guy he's never met who throws a cork wrapped in yarn for a living to do something for him.

And let me state for the record that I think it's perfectly reasonable for fans to feel as though professional athletes are indebted to them and that these guys "owe" them record performances.

Oh it ain't over yet...

I remember cracking open a beer and working five Marlboro Lights at once. After Clemens fanned two more in the seventh, I called my dad, and we had a two-minute conversation of only one-word sentences ("Wow!" "Whoa!").

The extensive vocabulary of two brain dead morons.

Tired of pacing my apartment, I walked down to Sully's Pub in Charlestown for the last two innings. There wasn't a more predictable local bar: The same people were there every night, the same bartenders worked the same shifts, and the guy-to-girl ratio never dropped below 5:1.

Welcome to New England.

Anytime I liked a girl, I took her to Sully's. If she didn't like it or made a sarcastic comment like "I thought we were going somewhere fun," she was a goner.

"I thought we were going somewhere fun." New England in a nutshell.

Now I was in my mid-20s, sitting in a Boston bar and legally drinking, living in the only place I had ever wanted to live ... and there was Clemens, my favorite pitcher once again, about to strike out 20 again. Maybe life wasn't so bad after all.

The same bum you thought they should have gotten rid of just hours earlier = your favorite pitcher once again. Welcome to New England fandom.

When Clemens notched No. 20, in the ninth, the roof in Sully's practically came off. I'm not kidding. I hugged complete strangers. I bought a round of shots even though I was broke. A buddy showed up, and we eventually closed the place. I woke up at noon again the next day, maybe even a little later, but for one of the few times that year, I had a smile on my face. Roger Clemens had fanned 20 guys. Again.

One of the few times you smiled that whole year. I can't even make fun of that. That's just so pathetic and depressing.

The rest of the article is discussing how steroids play a factor in Clemens' stats, legacy, Red Sox fans' memory of him, etc. I don't particularly care about what he has to say about that. However, I do want to point out just how pathetic this man's life is as well as all of the people like him. I'm so sick of this team and their fans. A bunch of bandwagon morons whose lives are defined by vicariously living through sports teams.

No brains, no lives, no fun. Welcome to New England.

Some of B.A.'s thoughts on some arbitration

I have to say, it kind of pisses me off that the Indians offer Rafael Betancourt $1.75 million, $750k shy of what Betancourt asked for.

Over his career, he has a 158 ERA+, a 1.057 WHIP (even more important for relievers), a home run allowed only once every 11 innings, and 9.14 K/9 IP.

Last year, he had a 312 ERA+ and a 0.756 WHIP.

Yes.

Three. Hundred. Twelve. Zero. Point. Seven. Five. Six.

I know he's 33, but he has been a fantastic bullpen arm ever since he came up in 2003. He was probably the best reliever in baseball last year. Awesome, AWESOME set-up man. And you won't even meet his $2.5 million wishes.

That's such crap.

Thankfully the Yanks are trying to work out a 4 year deal for Cano. Reportedly worth about $30 million. Lock this guy up. He's the second best 2nd baseman in baseball (behind of course Chase Utley).

It won't be long before my next post, I'm about to start it now. Wait til you read this gem, foo's!

Tim Raines: Hall of Famer?

Reading a series of e-mails between Jayson Stark and Peter Gammons is not exactly my idea of fun on a Sunday night, but I got about 3 more months before all the fun starts again. So I'm forced to grab at straws.

You can read the whole thing here, but here's the long and short of the e-mails traded back and forth between the two. Odd numbered e-mails are from Stark to Gammons and even numbered e-mails are vice versa.

E-mail #1:
I initially was not sure about Tim Raines' HOF candidacy, but the more I reviewed his case, the more I became convinced he belonged.

E-mail #2:
I have a problem with Tim Raines because a bunch of people who call themselves experts never voted him higher than 5th in MVP voting. He never led the league in anything. He doesn't have a big dick like beautiful, rugged, godlike, amazing Jim Rice. He's like Bert Blyleven. He just doesn't give me orgasms.

E-mail #3:
Um, ok. But I don't think MVP voting should be that important. And no he didn't lead the league, but he did finish in the top 5 a lot. That means something.

E-mail #4:
Well, ok. He was a really good player. But he wasn't as good as Koufax over that short period of time. And he certainly has nothing on my hot loverboy hero Jimmy Ricecakes.

E-mail #5:
If Raines weren't fucked by collusion and labor strife, he would have gotten a good deal closer to 3,000 hits. If he were at about 3,000 hits for his career, we wouldn't be having this debate. You know he reached base more times in his career than Tony Gwynn? They had identical OBPs.

E-mail #6:
Ok, you got me. I'm gay for Rice but not for Raines. Raines probably deserves to be in, I'll give you that. He gets my, Peter Gammons' vote, but he still doesn't get my dick's vote.

E-mail #7:
Your dick has a vote?

E-mail #8:
Why do you think Jim Rice keeps getting votes every year? My dick votes like other Red Sox fans vote for Kevin Millar and Trot Nixon to represent the Sox at the ASG.

E-mail #9:
Well I guess that explains your wife's unhappiness and her need for male escorts.

By the way, those last 3 e-mails are not made up. You may think I'm just over-the-top and that I'm kidding. I'm not. That's exactly what Gammons wants you to think...

Seriously though, Raines is a borderline Hall of Famer. Jim Rice is NOT a borderline Hall of Famer. He was a valuable player, but he shouldn't even merit discussion because he simply wasn't good enough. Looking at his numbers, the following two things discount Jim Rice immediately:

1. .320/.375/.546 at home, .277/.330/.459 on road
2. Fenway Park was his home park

Those two facts alone should explain his exclusion from the HOF in my opinion.

Raines. Debatable? Yes. But using Jim Rice to explain your reason for excluding Raines? Ok, Peter. Stop drinking that Mirabelli defecation flavored cool-aid and shut up.

Boston + Overrating = Angry B.A.

That equation is as fundamental as e = mc^2, or F = delta p, or Isiah Thomas + James Dolan = 2 assholes and 1 bad franchise.

I'm sick and tired of everyone who rants and raves about how awesome the Boston Red Sox rotation is and how scary it could be to face next year. Let's break this down:

Point #1: Esteban Louiza had a dominant year once, too.

Josh Beckett has one...ONE dominant year, and suddenly he's the greatest thing on God's green earth. Can we hold off on the coronation err ass-kissing err self-gratification err ejaculation for JUUUUST another season or two please?

I'm not saying the guy sucks. He is a good pitcher, but there are several pitchers in MLB I would take before I take Josh Beckett. He had a flukily low BB/9 IP relative to his career norms this year. He often pitched under little or no duress the whole season which probably helped lower his BB/9 IP total. He had a fairly low HR/FB percentage (8.0% vs. 10.2%). There are too many variables for Beckett to continue having the success of 2007. And if you look at his gamelog, in the few games he pitched this year that were close, he either walked a more typical number of batters and/or gave up home runs. Since I'm too lazy to do more than this, here are numerous examples of his walk rate increasing in close games:

April 21 vs. NYY 6.2 IP 2 BB 7-5 when pulled
May 2 vs. OAK 7.0 IP 2 BB 5-3 when pulled
May 13 vs. BAL 4.0 IP 2 BB 0-2 when pulled
June 3 vs. NYY 6.1 IP 3 BB 5-4 when pulled
July 20 vs. CHW 6.0 IP 2 BB 5-3 when pulled
Aug 24 vs. CHW 5.2 IP 3 BB 3-5 when pulled

Over those starts, that's a 2.91 BB/9 IP. Not terrible, but much more typical for him in his career.

Magglio Ordonez hit .363 this past year and OPS'd well over 1.000. Shit like this can happen, where a guy who is a good player to begin with has everything go right for him. He's going to walk more people next year (you generally do not improve your walk rate drastically at his age), he's going to give up some more home runs (96 mph fastballs will tend to find the head of the bat a little bit more like they did in 2006), and he will not get the same run support either. Red Sox scored 5.35 runs per game this past season but 6.42 runs when he was on the mound. So he's going to have to pitch under a little more duress next year. Beckett will likely have an ERA around 3.80 to 4.00 in this upcoming season.

Point #2: Curt Schilling's a fat, lazy, old piece of shit with a mouth that defecates it as well.

Anyone who expects more than an ERA around 4.00 to 4.25 in 160 IP from him is deluding themselves. He's fat, he's injury prone, his stuff is not nearly what it once was, etc. He won't walk people because he never has (though it might go up marginally since he has to be more of a finesse pitcher now, but nothing significant), but he's going to give up more hits because he can't get his fastball by as many people anymore and he always gave up home runs. Ideally, I'd like to see him go 0-18 with a 17.39 ERA to break Roy Halladay's record for worst ERA in over 40 innings by about 7 runs, but God provides Heaven on earth in instances that are few and far between. After I die and hopefully go to Heaven, this will happen.

Point #3: Daisuke is just not that good.

He's not. It's as simple as that. The Yankees kicked his ass numerous times, for example. Yeah, sure he struck out lots of guys this year. But he's very hittable (191 H in 204 IP), will give up long balls (25 of them), and can lose his control at any moment (look at how many times he walked 3-5 guys in a game. "Too many times Turtle...too many times").

Everyone's so scared of this rotation...

A rotation of Wang-Pettitte-Hughes is probably better...
A rotation of Halladay-McGowan-Burnett/Marcum could be better...
A rotation of Lackey-Escobar-Weaver is probably better...

You could do a lot worse than Beckett-Schilling-Matsuzaka, but let's stop salivating on and swinging from their nuts, huh?

The Santana Saga

According to Joel Sherman, the Red Sox remain the favorite to get Johan Santana.

Let me see if I understand this.

The Yankees were willing to offer the following:

Phil Hughes
age: 21
in an injury plagued rookie season, put up a WHIP of 1.280 and a K/9 IP of 7.2
has torn through the minor leagues

Melky Cabrera
age: 23
.750 OPS in his rookie year
129/99 K/BB ratio

While the Red Sox offered:

Jon Lester
age: 23 (ok)
1.57 WHIP in majors (yikes), 9.48 hits AND 4.61 BB per 9 IP (YIKES!) with minor league numbers that are hardly more than underwhelming

Coco Crisp
age: 28
.264/.317/.385 and .268/.330/.382 the past 2 seasons in a very hitter friendly ballpark

The Twins like the latter better than the former?!

Being a physics major, let me be a nerd. Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera are like gamma ray emitters. High energy, require thick concrete walls to absorb and even then they can't be totally stopped. These guys kick ass. Jon Lester and Coco Crisp are like alpha particle emitters. Thick, easily absorbed by the air, lower energy, and if they're ingested (i.e. signed to your roster) you're fucked.

Jon Lester is OK. At his best, he's going to be a #3 or #4 starter. He's a lefty, he can eat up innings, but he's just simply not that good. Crisp flat out sucks. He had 2 decent/solid seasons in Cleveland, but he's been garbage since. He's been a little injury-prone, so playing on artificial turf might not be that kind to him.

Plus, imagine going from Torii Hunter and Johan Santana to Coco Crisp and Jon Lester.

Stop, don't bother Twins fans. Imagining that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Now, imagine going from Torii Hunter and Johan Santana to Melky Cabrera and Phil Hughes.

OK enough Twins fans! Pleasuring yourself is meant to be done behind closed doors...

Well, hey. If the Twins want to trade gold for feces, go ahead. The best possible outcome is trading Santana to the NL, which would certainly be plausible if the Dodgers became willing to part with some of their young talent (Ethier, Kemp, Loney, etc.). Even with the Red Sox acquiring Santana, the Yankees are going to be better off hanging on to the youngsters.