Outrage! Ted Lilly NOT chosen as Cubs number two starter

Gene "Copy/paste my last name because it's crazy" Wojciechowski loves him the Ted Lilly. So much in fact that he insists he should be the number two starter for the Cubs in their upcoming playoff series, not Carlos Zambrano.

I'm fine with this, they're pretty close. It is sure to be an interesting, level-headed article filled with facts and numbers about why Lilly should be number two.

Just kidding.

Wojo is so indignant and provides no facts - beyond the "Zambrano is crazy!!!!!!1111!!1!!!" - that it makes me angry.

But the numbers speak for him, and right now they're saying the Cubs are taking, at best, a calculated risk by pitching him second in the NLDS rotation. At worst, they're risking another mound meltdown and depriving the more consistent Ted Lilly of his rightful place in the No. 2 spot. ... On performance alone, the rotation should be Dempster, Lilly, Rich Harden and then Zambrano. Instead, it's Dempster, Z, Harden and then Lilly.

But other factors could be at work here, beginning with Zambrano's pride.

And ending with numbers.

Cubs pitchers by VORP:

Dempster (57.5), Z (35.7), Lilly (35.3), Harden (28.4)

It could also be that the Dodgers OPS .50 points higher (.769 to .716) against lefties - the handedness of which Lilly happens to be. Or that Lilly gave up 1.41 HR/9 innings this season and owns the dreaded "fly ball pitcher" tag. Or that Lilly has worse LD/GB/FB percentages - career and this season - than Zambrano.

No, it's that Zambrano is a prideful jerk who beats on innocent Gatorade jugs while screaming at Lilly as he reads "The Tao of Pooh."

Zambrano has been the Cubs' Opening Day starter in each of the last four seasons. He was the Cubs' Game 1 NLDS starter a year ago and made three playoff starts in 2003. A little more than two weeks ago he threw the first Cubs no-hitter since 1972.

But the flip side is this: He's never won any of those four Opening Day starts (5.57 ERA in 21 innings). He's never won any of those four postseason starts.

Loser.

Let's check those postseason starts:

'07 - 6IP/8K/1BB/4H/1ER

'03 - 16.2IP/12K/5BB/25H/10ER

OK, so he did kind of stink in '03. But that '07 start? Come on.

Oh and while we're there, Ted Lilly is a playoff ace:

16IP/14K/7BB/19H/12ER

And the good ones were with the A's (9IP/7K/1BB/2H/0ER) four seasons ago.

Since his Sept. 14 no-hitter he's given up 13 runs and allowed seven walks in 6 1/3 innings. Since the All-Star break his ERA has more than doubled (from 2.84 in the first half to 5.80 in the second half) and his win total has decreased by more than half (10 in the first half, four in the second). It's also the first time in the last six seasons that Zambrano hasn't reached the 200-innings pitched mark.

He threw 188 innings. 200 is a pointless benchmark. Lilly, that workhorse, threw 204. 16 inning difference or like 2-3 starts. Criminal he isn't starting in the two hole.

So, yes, the numbers scream something.

They're relatively close and it's a judgement call?

I tell Lilly that Zambrano's antics sometimes make me want to jump off the Sears Tower. The tantrums drive me crazy.

Do tell, Wojo, where the line between "competitor" (Jeter) and "thrower of tantrums" (Z) is? Because from my point of view, it's nowhere.

Overheard on Mike and Mike

[The non-football one]: "CC Sabathia SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE THE NL MVP."

*Wipes brain matter off laptop monitor*

Scoop being ... dumb?

I nominate Manny Ramirez as the man who spawned the most articles in 2008. Favre is second. The Mets and their "collapse" are third. But all this "Manny for MVP" talk is getting to the point where I think he's going to win the damn thing.

Which would be insane.

No, not him. Anybody but him.

You can already hear it. Welcome to late September. There it goes: "Manny Aristides Ramirez, the 2008 NL MVP." That's a hard one to absorb, ain't it? Maybe too big a blue pill to swallow. Especially if you live outside the 323 area code. "That dude being honored as the MVP? Over our dead bodies." Let the church say, Amen!

Well … ... The case should be closed.

There really should be no talk about anyone else. Guy who's played 48 games for a team in a league with Albert Pujols, Lance Berkman, Carlos Beltran, David Wright, Ryan Howard, Chase Utley and a ton of other dudes who played the whole season in their league is unquestionably the MVP?

Awesome.

But since it's not,

Oh, OK.

let's crunch some numbers of the players mentioned most often as MVP candidates:


• Ryan Howard: .245 BA/46 HR/141 RBI/.334 OBP/.529 SLG/.863 OPS

• Carlos Delgado: .273 BA/37 HR/110 RBI/.355 OBP/.521 SLG/.875 OPS

• Albert Pujols: .348 BA/34 HR/106 RBI/.453 OBP/.631 SLG/1.084 OPS

All seem like fine gentlemen, worthy of the MVP. And Pujols is a monster - no, a demon - and should win it going away.

All three front-running candidates for NL MVP have offensive numbers that extend over the entire season, not just the 48 games Ramirez has played since he slipped on Lasorda blue.

But without even getting caught up in the .399 batting average, the 16 home runs and 49 RBIs he's put up since his Red Sox divorce -- or the .493 on-base percentage, .751 slugging percentage and 1.243 OPS -- his season-long numbers provide a part of the story that most are missing (Fox's Mark Kriegel made a similar argument).

Before reading the rest of this I knew, that even combining his numbers from each league, he is nowhere close to Pujols.

Prove me wrong.

• Albert Pujols: .348 BA/34 HR/106 RBI/.453 OBP/.631 SLG/1.084 OPS
• Manny Ramirez: .331 BA/36 HR/117 RBI/.429 OBP/.600 SLG/1.030 OPS

Oh, so across the board worse (or very close) than Pujols? Cool. MVP. Done and done.

When compared to Pujols, it's like trying to tell the difference between Henry Paulsen and Arthur Slugworth.

What? Is that the dude from "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory?"

Then there's that small thing called "impact." Some call it "making the players around you better"; others say "making your team better." Of all the aforementioned MVP candidates listed, none has impacted their team the way Manny has the Dodgers. This is the one factor that sets him apart from all the other pretenders in this year's race.

I call it "bullshit," "bunk," "hooey," "poppycock," "hackitudinal writing" and "fucking wrong."

How about Ryan Ludwick (35) and former pitcher Rick Ankiel (25) bombing? Or Delgado coming into his own and being a threat to help out Reyes, Wright and Beltran?

True, it's only been 48 games of impact, but he's done more for one team in 48 games than any of the others have done (with possible the exception of Pujols) over the season.

So Manny's 48-game impact is more than Pujols 162-game impact? Manny is more than three times as valuable as Pujols? You're full of shit.

More numbers:

6: Number of games the Dodgers have played over .500 since Manny arrived.
.500: Dodgers winning percentage before Manny joined the team.
.519: Dodgers winning percentage today.

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Six games over .500?! What a hero. How did they play .500 without him?

Oops. They did.

Could that .019% difference be that it's a smaller sample than the previous 100+ games?

Nooooo...

2: Number of games the Dodgers were out of first place when Manny got there.
2: Number of games they now lead the NL West.

All Manny's doing. Nothing to do with D-Backs playing like fecal matter.

.274: Andre Ethier's batting average July 31.
.361: Andre Ethier's batting average since Manny joined the lineup (of late, Ethier has been hitting second, Ramirez third).

"A number, after three months of the season."
"A higher number, during 1-1/2 months of the season."

Facts: absent.

16-5: Dodgers' record since Jeff Kent was injured Aug. 29.
25: The number Andruw Jones wears for the Dodgers that Manny has mercifully made you forget.

Har har.

Jeff Kent's an ass.

Ramirez himself told the Los Angeles Times, "It's nice that some people think I deserve [the MVP]. I'd like to win it, but I have to be realistic. Someone who was only here for two months doesn't deserve it. It should go to someone who played the six months of the season."

Gotta love political correctness. But Manny himself is wrong in his episode of humility. He has played all six months; it just hasn't been with the same team or in the same league. He's produced. Plain and simp. He's put up the numbers over the course of the entire season (148 games played and counting) that are on par with if not superior to any player up for the honor.

Funny thing is it's not the MLB MVP, it's the NL or AL MVP, of which Manny does not deserve either.

Then he came. And all of a sudden everything changed. With an extremely heavy emphasis on the word "everything."

And here's one more number to think about:

Let me guess. It's going to be about that unquantifiable "it" - the thing that no one understands, but is integral is writing about good players. Jeter's got it. Big Papi's got it. A-Rod? No fuckin' way. Manny? Didn't, until now - that non-hustling jerkface.

But now, look the fuck out, Manny is awesome.

You can't see it, can you? It's there. It's that invisible, impossible-to-define-or-determine number that represents the intangible. That invisible number that changes the culture of a team inside a clubhouse and spreads itself over an entire city. It's that number that helps makes major league baseball better and so interesting.

If anything, this makes baseball annoying.

The idea that Manny's mojo -not his numbers - made the Dodgers better and makes him the MVP is idiotic. His numbers are very good, but they just are not better than Pujols. Plain and simple.

But he sold jerseys! People come to the games! He's got dreads! He's funny!

If Manny and CC win the MVP and Cy, I will quit following baseball. There would officially be no justice in this world.

That said, they both are probably going to win.

Heyman vs. the VORPies: round two

Jon Heyman makes it no secret that he HATES the VORP stat - going so far as to call those who like it "VORPies."

It's this fear of anything new that makes me hate mainstream sportswriters.

Them being dumb doesn't help much, though.

ONCE AGAIN, VORP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MVP

No thing. Not even one thing.

Here's the top five in NL MVP voting last year with their corresponding VORP:

Rollins - 15
Holliday - 7
Fielder - 11
Wright - 5
Howard - 22

And the AL:

A-Rod - 1
Mags - 3
Vlad - 17
Oritz - 4
Lowell - not top 30

I see little in common.

Zero. There's a number the stat people will understand.

I love this sentence because it distances Heyman - an awesome dude - from "stat people" - soulless scum.

That's the relationship between VORP, the stat that the stat people love, and MVP.

Zero correlation.

Last year A-Rod was number one in VORP and won the MVP. Magglio finished second in MVP and was third in VORP. And on, and on, and on...

Baseball Prospectus, as of a few days ago, had Alex Rodriguez leading the AL in VORP (which stands for Value Over Replacement Player), the stat its enthusiasts think is the best stat in the world to determine player value, and also the best to help determine who's the Most Valuable Player.

Not a single "VORPy" thinks that. We think it's one of many tools that can be looked at to determine the goodness of a major league baseball player. We aren't like *robot voice* "Leader in VORP must win MVP beep boop beep."

But as you can see, while VORP may tell you something, it shouldn't determine who wins the MVP award. Beyond containing two of the letters in MVP, there appears to be almost no relationship whatsoever here.

Except a near 1:1 ratio for a number of AL VORP leaders compared to their MVP voting standings.

I happened to love A-Rod. He's turned himself into a very good third baseman (he's probably the best defender on the Yankees), he's a three-time MVP (though I don't believe he deserved it the year his Rangers finished last), he's the best all-around player in the game and he's not among the prime list of reasons for the Yankees' demise this year (though, there are plenty of Yankees officials who'd have him on that list).

Yet, A-Rod shouldn't sniff the MVP award this year.

You were fine until that last line. A-Rod is probably the sole reason the Yankees were in it as long as they were.

He's sixth in all of baseball in OPS. He's seventh in baseball in RC/27. He's one of the top five fucking baseball players in baseball. Until further notice, he should be in the top ten - at least - in MVP voting.

But nope, shouldn't sniff it.

If devotees of VORP (I'm already on their bad side after calling them VORPies last year) think their stat is key to determining the MVP, they should think again. It's worth a glance, at best.

Better measures? Clutchness. Being on a winning team. RBI. Times booed/PA. Wins.

But VORP is supposed to be an all-encompassing stat, and it led some numbers people to determine that Hanley Ramirez was a viable NL MVP candidate last year.

Which he was.

And led many to say that David Wright was the NL MVP in a year in which Wright's Mets choked

Which is irrelevant.

If one game decided the MVP, baseball has no hope.

(Wright himself says no way was he MVP).

A player's word is right up there on the list of MVP measures.

VORP, like other stats, doesn't come close to telling you everything.

Here comes the big diatribe against stats. "Durn fangled numbers can't tell me a player's look - that killer instinct. Those clutch hits. Do they got a number that tells me who I'm afraid of most? Din't think so."

It doesn't take into account how a hitter hits in the clutch (oddly enough, some stat people think that's just luck, anyway)

How odd, that some people think looking at an extremely small sample size over an arbitrary time period is luck.

or how many meaningful games he played in (at last count Grady Sizemore was high up on the VORP list, as well)

Sizemore is a fucking monster.

Does Pedroia roping a single in a game vs. the Rays matter more than Sizemore stealing a bag against the White Sox? No. They both happened during the 162 game regular season. Games aren't suddenly easier when you're 25 games out any more than they are harder 1-1/2 games out. Baseball games are competitive. They are being played by highly paid, finely tuned athletes who have been doing this since they were eight.

Shut the hell up. Please.

VORP has some value. But like all other stats, it doesn't replace watching the games or following the season.

Thank God Heyman has figured out we VORPies hate, nay, abhor, baseball. Hate watching it, following it, writing about it, thinking about it. Cold numbers are our only friend. Why have we chosen baseball instead of say, math? Simple - we hate baseball.

A-Rod may have the best VORP. But he shouldn't be on anyone's MVP ballot, much less at the top of the ballot.

People who appeared on the 2007 Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player ballot:

Carlos Marmol, Aaron Rowand, Jose Valverde and Eric Byrnes.

If A-Rod is NOT on the 2008 MVP ballot (a big stretch, I know) I will deliver a hand-written letter - written in Japanese calligraphy - to Heyman apologizing and praising his all-knowing wisdom about all things baseball.

Heyman, I await your counter-bet.

43 games doth not an MVP make

Or something like that.

Look, I love me the Manny Ramirez. I felt he was wrongfully run out of Boston and it's no surprise to me he is hitting .565 with 75 homers and 290 RBI.

But there is no fucking way he is the MVP of the National League. Most people know this from one simple stat:

43 games played.

That is not a full baseball season.

Jon Heyman says fuck you. There is no way Pujols, Wright, Howard, Berkman, Delgado or others are deserving. No way.

And surprise, he is not on this list of "best players of the year," which could be called MVPs.

Manny Ramirez has gone from savant to savior.

The world's most famous hitting savant has saved the storied Dodgers, lifting them from also-ran status to the cusp of the playoffs. By the true definition of the Most Valuable Player

That definition: no one knows because no one will define it.

award, Ramirez is the MVP.

Thanks to his short tenure in Los Angeles, he may not get the NL award. But he should. Manny has taken his new team and carried them to first place in the NL West. As long as they make it to October (and there's no reason now to think they won't), the award should be his.

The NL West is awful. Like, the worst division in baseball, by far. The Dodgers lead and are 79-72. The St. Louis Cardinals - led by the shitty Albert Pujols - are 78-72. And in fourth place. Toronto and the Yankees have a better record than the Dodgers (80-71) and have already wrote the moratoriums on their seasons. Even the Florida "$2.50 Payroll" Marlins are 78-72 and sit in third.

Manny's statistics are ridiculous by any measure. Nobody hits .401 on a new team in a new league in a pitcher-friendly park. Nobody has a 1.227 OPS over 43 games (not in the post-steroid era, anyway) to go with 14 home runs and 44 RBIs.

No one.

Berkman in March/April/May (56 games) - 1.219 OPS

So yeah, I guess that .008 points of OPS (over a longer game span) makes Hey-man right.

There are a handful of other candidates, most of them power-hitting first basemen:

Albert Pujols kept hitting while his team came back down to Earth.

Ryan Howard's going to lead the National League in home runs and RBIs, and he has led the Phillies into first for now.

Carlos Delgado has carried the Mets as they try to avoid a second straight collapse.

But no one can match Manny.

Really? No one can match him? Say Howward goes 39-39 with 20 homers and 65 RBI over the last dozen+ games.

Not good enough.

Pujols keeps OPSing over 1.100 and leads the Cards on a miracle playoff run?

No sir.

Ramirez's stats are otherworldly. But his impact is immeasurable.

Ifuckingmeasurable.

Far be it for me to blame/attribute wins to one player, but the Dodgers are 25-19 since Manny's first game on August 1. 25-19. Not like 35-9.

The NL West: where a little more than .500 ball gets you the division!

Before Ramirez came to the Dodgers in the steal of the decade (all L.A. had to give up in the three-team trade was Class-A pitcher Bryan Morris and fading prospect Andy LaRoche)

"Steal of the decade." Wowzers.

Manny is a rent-a-hitter who is going to ask for a hundred cabillion dollars this off-season and will most likely leave LA - mainly because they have a ton of crappy players making way too much money.

Not Kazmir from the Mets to the Rays for Victor Zambrano or Aramis Ramirez from Pittsburgh to the Cubs for Jose Hernandez, Matt Bruback and Bobby Hill? Those were pretty awful.

Best trade of the decade? One that will almost surely end in a first round exit by the .500 Dodgers and have zero impact after the ~50 games Manny plays this season.

they were running second in the worst division in baseball,

Still in that division.

a .500 team and down in the dumps. Now they nearly are a playoff certainty.

Who are still pretty much .500.

Manny surely has been the key to the Dodgers' bottom line. They're filling up Dodger Stadium again. They're selling Manny jerseys in their clubhouse stores for $302, and folks are grabbing them like there's a shortage.

Jersey sales - the smart man's MVP criterion.

Manny has been the key to their season, too. Once manager Joe Torre inserted Ramirez into the batting order and settled on an everyday lineup that also include the emerging Andre Ethier, it was clear who was best in the West.

Playing Andre Ethier over Juan Pierre is something Torre should have done from day one - considering Pierre's OPS+ is 67 and Ethier's is almost double that at 126. But no, Manny being there made Torre smarter.

MVP.

But really, it's all Manny, who authored this Hollywood story.

*Puuuuuke*

Nostalgia no one cares about and is wrong

I am about to challenge you to solve the easiest mystery ever. Ready?

There's an article. It's about old quarterbacks.

Guess who's in it?

Here's a fogeyish thing to do. It's the sporting equivalent of babbling about those days when we all had to walk five miles to school through the snow, uphill, both ways.

Great way to start an article. "I am about the whine and complain about something that I remember as being great, but probably was just OK." I am riveted.

Still, here goes: Bob Griese wore glasses in Miami; Steve Grogan ran around like mad in New England; Richard Todd was getting booed in New York ... [massive fucking list of QBs and stupid anecdotes shortened at request of attorney general for causing dissociative disorder] Kenny Stabler was the Snake in Oakland; Steve Fuller was boring in Kansas City.

Now, as I mentioned, there is nothing that sounds more grumpy-old-man than rambling on and on about how quarterbacks used to be better. But that's not what I'm saying -- I doubt very seriously that quarterbacks used to be better. I just think they used to be more famous, more easily remembered, more beloved, more representative of their cities.

This is pretty pointless/silly/wrong/a bunch of other negative traits.

Joe Montana: who? Phil Simms: bum. Jim Kelly: worthless. John Elway: John Whoway?

And as far as modern QBs go, guess what? They're still creating memories. Brady has a bunch. Peyton too. Even little Eli. Big Ben should be pretty great for some time. Tony Romo is pretty much the prototypical definition of a quarterback. I could go on.

That has changed, I think. There are only a handful of quarterbacks these days who pierce the imagination --

"Imaginations pierced" is right under TDs (but above comp. %) on the list of important QB stats.

and with Tom Brady going down in New England and Peyton Manning looking just a wee ancient in Indianapolis, it's more like a carpool.

If Peyton is "a wee bit ancient," Favre is fucking Methuselah.

Let's not forget that Peyton's knee is bursa'ing all over and his first game this season was against a defense two years removed from the Super Bowl. He'll be fine.

Favre played the like 0-16 Dolphins and was one play away from losing to the guy his new team cut.

You have Eli Manning in New York, of course, though you get the sense that some Giants fans are waiting impatiently for the statute of limitations on the Super Bowl miracle to end so they can start booing again.* You have Donovan McNabb in Philadelphia, though he has not started every game in a season since 2003.

You have Tony Romo in Dallas, though he might want to win a playoff game at some point.

McNabb is like tier 1.5 and Eli is like tier five.

Romo is fucking awesome. He's 27. Years old, not years of NFL service. His two seasons, combined:

55 TD/64.8 % comp./32 INT/team 19-7 with him starting.

But didn't. Win. A playoff. Game. Two years into his career as a starter. Trash.

You have Drew, Matt, Carson, Jay, Rivers, Roethlisberger -- good quarterbacks all, but they're probably not sweeping the nation.

Imagination piercing moments from each:

Drew (Brees?) - passed for 4400+ yards in '06, lifted post-Katrina New Orleans.

Matt (Leinart?) - ruled the campus at USC, beer bonged a bunch of co-eds.

Carson (Palmer?) - suffered one of the most egregious cheap shots ever, was awesome before - not so much now.

Rivers - whiny bastard, has LTD to mask shortcomings.

Jay (Cutler?) - started an NFL game, this is kind of a cherry pick, this is like his second full year.

Roethlisberger - won the damn Super Bowl.

Mixed bag? Sure. But all those guys are younger than 28 (some much younger) and have a lot of time to craft solid careers. So shut it, please.

Finally, there's Brett Favre. He is the last quarterback standing, the one guy out there who inspires some of the feelings of those old-time quarterbacks. This is in part because he IS an old-time quarterback; the guy was flinging passes in the NFL before the Soviet Union collapsed. But there's something else here too, something about the way Favre still plays the game, something in the way he flings footballs into double coverage, the way he seems indestructible, the way he throws TERRIBLE interceptions but then comes back and throws absurd touchdown passes.

Wow. This is a beautiful, beautiful mess of lovely writing.

What was just described there is "bad quarterbacking" and yet, Favre = God. Still, lovely prose.

Why the hell is Favre diefied for being both an idiot and a "genius" when other sports stars (Ryan Howard, Adam Dunn and their ilk come to mind) are ripped for the same "all or nothing" style? Or a basketball player who takes - and misses - a ton of shots, but scores at a prolific rate? (I am sure people don't/won't appreciate Iverson as much as they should).

This is foolish.

That's the way it used to be. It's stunning to go back 30 and 40 years and look at the statistics of the quarterback heroes. In 1979, Terry Bradshaw threw 25 interceptions, and he didn't even lead the NFL in that category (that would be my hero Brian Sipe with 26). The only guy to throw 25 or more interceptions in the last seven years ... yeah, that would be Brett Favre in 2005 when he threw 29 of them.

You know what else was different 30-40 years ago? Everything. In 2048 when A-Rod III leads the New York Yankees (sponsored by Viagra) to their fourth straight World Series (sponsored by Fox) title by hitting 90 homers and posting a .600 OBP (BA has been abolished for being dumb), no one will flinch because that will seem normal.

Go tell a baseball writer in 1968 that someday a certain large headed man will walk 232 times (!!!!!!!!) in a season and he will shoot you for being a stoned-out hippie talkin' jive.

Oh and 'grats to Favre for throwing nearly 30 picks.

That's what it used to mean to be a quarterback. That changed. Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays. Everyone started demanding more prudent football. Defenses got more sophisticated and specialized. Sackers got bigger and stronger and faster and more dangerous. Quarterbacks were told to "manage" the game rather than "win" the game. Passer rating became the in statistic.* Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

There's a lot here but I wanted to let it wash over you like a cool rain.

Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays.

Could that be because the NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry and coaches get paid a shit load of money to succeed? And you're not really complaining that smarter play-calling is taking place, are you?

Everyone started demanding more prudent football.

The 2007 Patriots. The 2000-01 Rams. The Peyton-era Colts.

Those teams were/are the exact opposite of prudent.

Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

Out of all the ludicrous reasons why football sucks today compared to 1969, this is one of the dumbest. Football players could give two shits about said men in random places playing a game.

Garrard is a "game manager" because his defense is nuts, he has two above average RBs and not throwing to a quad-covered, mediocre receiver is considered (by brain possessing humans) a good idea. And he has to be.

"You know what's beautiful about the being an old quarterback?" Roman Gabriel once asked. Gabriel's a wonderful guy, he was the NFL MVP in 1969 and the comeback player of the year in 1973. He threw 200 touchdown passes, 150 interceptions, completed about 53 percent of his passes and fumbled 105 times in his career. Those were great numbers long ago.

Wonderful guy? Probably. Wonderful QB? Fuck no. 255 turnovers compared to 200 TDs? In no world are those "great numbers." Even "long ago." Those are "shitty numbers" "today."

Gabs played for 16 seasons and only threw more than 25 TDs - never. 25, 24, 23 are his three highest, followed by 19, 17, 16.

Peyton Manning (from the new era of pussy QBs) has thrown 25+ TDs 10 times in his 10 seasons. 49, 33, 31 (twice) are his three highest.

Things were so much better back when.

Connelly and stream of consciousness writing

Did you hear? Some footballer named Tom Brady got hurt. I've never heard of him, but ESPN seems to be shitting themselves. And hey, Tim Rattay and Jeff George are back in the headlines, so it has to be good.

Micheal Connelly - who's "Top Ten" blog is a representation of everything wrong with blogging, filled with random facts, fragmented thoughts and incomplete sentences - is goin' off the rails on a crazy train with Brady knee-Gate (first), and pretty much everything else Boston sports related.

Tom Brady is already a Hall of Famer. But Canton, Ohio and a yellow jacket wasn’t his quest. His mission was to be the greatest quarterback that ever played the game. For seven years the sixth round pick turned out to be a stunning amalgamation of Jack Armstrong, Johnny Unitas and Clark Kent. He won whenever he stood over center and thrived while others melted.

Couldn't we get some more contemporary QBs in there? Montana, Elway, Aikmen maybe?

But then for some reason he deviated.

Lol wut?

Deviated: 50 TDs/one league MVP/one play away from a fourth Super Bowl ring.

He inexplicably ventured from his set course and instead traveled roads that often have transformed immortals to mortals. With Yankee hat on head, he walked the streets of New York with a model on his arm while teammates and fans wondered where their quarterback roamed. Instead of maintaining a routine of excellence - he fathered a child, carried flowers, skipped offseason workouts and attended concerts instead of practices.

Reason Brady got hurt yesterday was NOT Pollard hitting him. No. It was because he
1) wore a Yankees hat (sin)
2) walked in NY (millions and millions of people do that)
3) dated a model (awesome)
4) had a freakin' baby
5) carried flowers

Are you serious? You work for the second biggest publication in Boston and this is what you come up with.

The fact that the Patriot quarterback has spent more time with the paparazzi this offseason

His fault. Do you know he calls the paps to photograph him and interrupt his personal life?

Just minues into a season that he entered distracted,

He sure looked focused completing 7-for-11 and 76 yards.

we discovered that Tom Brady, like ourselves, is vulnerable. The quarterback who once threw like Zeus now limps like Achillies.

ESPN bottom line: Brady, unlike Achillies, was not dipped in the River Styx ... Mets 5, Phillies 3 ...

* At the same time Brady was going down, Favre was throwing a 56 yard touchdown pass

And Micheal Turner was running for 200+ yards, McNabb passed his third TD of the day and a bunch of other shit happened. So yes, other football was being played during this time. Thanks.

* I say this every year but are there more commercials than ever - ads killed the flow of the game - game was boring

Game was boring. Brady hurt got. Ads killed game. Broken writing is broken.

* How many drops did Bowe have for KC

Well question marks are cool. ESPN doesn't list drops, but he had five catches for 55 yards and a TD. He sucks.

* Paul Byrd is 4-1 as a Sox while being provided 8.5 runs of support in his four wins

Evidence that wins are fucking dumb. Bird could have given up 8.4 runs in his starts and be 4-1. I can't wait for his olde timey wind-up, hittable 85 MPH heaters and lack of strikeouts in the playoffs.

* Brett Favre is on pace for 32 TD and 0 Interceptions

Brady for Favre, straight up?

At domestic abuse, maybe

Because really, Brett Myers is not a better pitcher than a certain portly Brewer hired gun who will make a cazillion dollars next season.

Ted Keith thinks otherwise.

THE NL'S BEST PITCHER OF THE LAST MONTH IS NOT NAMED CC SABATHIA

Maybe this is a trick and it'll be like "His name is Carl Christopher Sabathia" and be a really well-written article about how freakin' nuts Sabathia has been over the past month+.

But since returning to the Phillies in early August, he has been far and away the team's best and most dependable starter and -- brace yourselves, Brewers fans -- arguably the best pitcher in the National League. In fact, Myers is 6-1 since his return with a 1.55 ERA, and as the intensity of the moment has increased, so too has his performance. In 31 innings pitched over his last four starts, Myers has yielded only two runs (for a 0.58 ERA), while winning all four games, striking out 35 and walking just six.

So much for that.

Let's look at the August splits, shall we?

CC Sabathia: 5-0/3 CG/2 SHO/48.1 IP/1.12 ERA/51 K/8 BB
Brett Myers: 4-1/1 CG/1 SHO/43.2 IP/1.65 ERA/42 K/7 BB

Keith says "arguably." If he argues Myers is better, he is wrong. It's not an argument.

Oh wait, one less walk. Mrs. Myers can sleep a little better tonight.

Musical Chairs: Girl Talk and the 2006-07 Golden State Warriors

[This is the first in what I hope to be regular comparison series of sports teams and musical artists.]

I wrote briefly about the Warriors when they toppled the heavily favored Dallas Mavericks in last year's NBA playoffs. To me and many others, they were the most exciting team in the playoffs and one of the most entertaining teams to watch in a long while. They (and, to a lesser degree, the Suns) breathed life into a boring league, reinvigorated a great NBA city and were simply a great sports story.

I've also written about one Gregg Gillis (Girl Talk) at length. His album, Night Ripper, remains one of my most heavily played records - with play counts for a majority of the tracks nearing the 30s in less than a year. With his new offering, Feed The Animals dropping yesterday online and proving itself to be a worthy successor, I thought "what sports team resembles Girl Talk?" and, as you can tell from the opener, I believe it is the Warriors.

The History

It is difficult for many to call what Girl Talk does as music - at least in the traditional sense of the word. Sure, he arranges sounds in a pleasing way, but the way he does it - sewing together bits and pieces of hip-hop, pop and anything other music he sees fit - leads many to say "what's the big deal? I could do that."

Over four full-lengths and six-ish years, Girl Talk has managed to get to the top of the mashup DJ mountain. His albums are intricate, deep and far-reaching. His records feature hundreds of samples that go as soon as they come - half the fun of a Girl Talk records can be playing "guess the sample."

The 2006-07 Warriors offense (and team philosophy overall) can be described as free-wheeling, high-octane, run-and-gun and a myriad of other sports buzz phrases. They were one of the highest scoring teams in the league at nearly 107 points per game. They needed a do-or-die winning streak to sneak into the playoffs on the last day of the season at 42-40. They were matched up against one of the best regular season teams ever - the 67 win Dallas Mavericks, armed with MVP Dirk Nowitzki.

The deck was stacked against the Warriors to win - they were too small, too soft, too flawed to beat the Mavs. But something happened - the Mavs bowed to the Warriors style. After all, this Warrior team had beaten them twice in the regular season and had former Mavs coach Don Nelson at the helm. By going with a smaller lineup and trying to out gun the Warriors, the Mavs were doomed from the start. Six games later, the Warriors bested the Mavs and advanced to the West semifinals, only to fall to the Jazz in five games.

The parallels

There is something beautiful about something which is fatally flawed and succeeding. It's the underdog story with a twist: you just know, deep down, that it's going to fail. You are just waiting to see when and how. Girl Talk and the Warriors share this trait.

As wonderful as it was to watch the Warriors play basketball - jacking up deep threes four seconds into the shot clock, swarming a player in an attempt to get a steal and an easy lay-up on the other end and racking up pinball-like scores - you just knew they couldn't win forever that way. Someone was going to stop them - probably themselves.

Girl Talk operates on the same principal. His music is only as relevant as the source material. Sure, that bass line from "Cannonball" is awesome, but what about that Purple Ribbon All-Stars rhyme? The criticism always lobbed at Gillis is that his records are "fun" - not necessarily "good" and won't stand the test of time.

The reason these two are so great is also the reason why they're so bad. The Warriors had no chance at the NBA title because of the style they played. But they also only beat the number one seed because of that same style. Similarly, Gillis has garnered a huge cult (and more and more mainstream) following because of his straight-up fun and clever dance music. Will he sell a million records or get the number one Billboard single? No way in hell. Will he even make enough money to keep doing this, as what he does is maybe-sorta illegal? I don't know. His music is based on unlicensed (illegal) samples and thus, if he ever achieved gigantic success, the original artists lawyer's could come calling.

Both got where they were/are because of a particular style. The thing is, that style has a ceiling.

Going deeper

A basketball phrase that can be attributed to the Warriors is "the only bad shot is the one that doesn't go in." Shoot with 20 seconds left on the shot clock? Sure, as long as you make it. Take 100 shots a game? Why not, as long as 50 go in. Fade away three with someone in your face? If you can make it, do it. They go against every fundamental players are taught in rec basketball.

This is the diabolical genius of the Warriors. Nelson saw what he had - a ton of scorers and quick slashers who all had range at nearly every position and little size/rebounding - and said "Screw it, I'm playing my way." Centers shooting threes, triple teaming opposing guards to get a steal and causing absolute chaos on the court. I just imagine opposing coaches going to bed that night after losing to the Warriors 120-110 screaming in a cold sweat, seeing three after three drop in his dreams.

Listening to a Girl Talk album for the first time can be a similar experience. There's a flurry of familiar sounds flying at you from all angles. "'Jesse's Girl?!' 'Tiny Dancer!' The Cure? Biggy? 'Soulja Boy?!' What is this?!" It can be a dizzying, insane ride. Feed The Animals has over 300 samples crammed into it's less than an hour runtime. Sounds like a record coach Nelson could be proud of.

Giants 'irrefutable' as number one team in football

At least according to my favorite site, Cold Hard Football Facts.com.

The 10-6 Giants whom outscored opponents by 22 points/game, won every playoff game narrowly, have Eli Manning as QB, blah blah blah.

If they are better than 8-8 this season I will personally email someone at CHFF and apologize. I mean it.

The Giants kick off the 2008 NFL season tonight as defending Super Bowl champs and No. 1 in the almighty CHFF Power Rankings. The wisdom behind our ranking is irrefutable: the last time an NFL game was fought with real bullets, the Giants were the only team to emerge from their foxhole in one piece.

Clearly the best team always wins the SB in a three game round of Russian roulette.

But that's not to say the Giants will be the best team in football this year.

But good enough to be IRREFUTABLY ranked as number one this season.

Hell, many "pundits," including the Cold, Hard Football Facts, wonder if they’ll even reach the playoffs this year in the rough-and-tumble NFC East, let alone march through another Manhattan ticker-tape parade.

Broken record say: Good enough to be ranked number one, irrefuckingfutably.

Fans and "pundits" also wonder: is the real Eli Manning the unflappable rock who guided the Giants to four straight postseason wins and produced the greatest championship-winning drive in the history of the game? Or is the real Eli Manning the dough-faced goober who was mired below mediocrity (note the career 73.4 passer rating) right up until January?

Is Eli Manning the dude we saw for four fucking games in the playoffs or the other 57 games of his career?

*****

The rest of this is actually reasons why the G-men are flawed. Nothing too egregious. But really, go read this if you want to see just how terrible the Giants were/are.

And come on CHFF, why rank them number one when they aren't?

Do announcers ever have to check anything? Ever?

During the telecast of the Tampa/NY Yankees, the indelible Rick Sutcliffe (who was repeating someone else, I assume the TB pitching coach) said something to effect:

"He [Edwin Jackson] could have 15 wins with some run support."

Thirty seconds later I found...

Edwin Jackson: 5.37 runs scored per nine.

That is in the top 35 in baseball. Fifteenth in the AL. Come on Tampa, get over 6.5 runs, Eddy needs some wins!

Also, Sutcliffe's wing man said, "Jeter is having a good year, near .300 with the bat."

Jeter's dum-dum line: .295/8/63
Jeter's much worse smarty pants line: .355 OBP/.398 SLG/.753 OPS with 10 steals and four CS. His even 100 OPS+ means he is a completely average baseball playing human this season.

Jeter is, by all accounts that don't include the fatally flawed BA, having an AWFUL year. For him. An average one for a faceless player. Go figure.

Can Pedroia and Youkilis split the MVP? Please?

Just kidding. But over here in MA, it seems a forgone conclusion that one of these pasty fellers will win it. I mean come on, they're on the Sawx, they're white (one's even Jewish!) and - most importantly - they hustle. Not like that lazy-ass (see: non-white) Manny Ramirez.

From fan chantin' (always the best barometer for who should win the MVP) to Ozzie Guillen lovin' to media drummin' - it seems as though the pint-sized second sacker will win the award.

Chad Finn - boston.com blogger - loves him the White Squirrel (nickname mine).

He'd be one of the smallest MVPs of modern times

Irrelevant.

- he's listed at 5 feet 9 inches and 180 pounds, which, according to baseballreference.com, makes him allegedly two inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than two-time NL MVP Joe Morgan.

No one cares.

But Pedroia's numbers are staggering for a hitter of any stature. He's leading the American League in batting (.330),

"Staggering?" Really? Great - I suppose. MVP-worthy - maybe. But "staggering?"

And BA is lame.

hits (188), multiple-hit games (55) and runs (108)

Runs are teammate dependent.

and third in doubles (43) and total bases (283). He has knocked in 22 runs in his last 19 games, is batting .600 over his last seven games, and has nine hits in 14 at-bats in the cleanup spot.

All very cool.

According to the Elias Stats Bureau via Buster Olney's blog, Pedroia is the first player in Red Sox history with a five-run, a five-hit, and a five-RBI game in the same season. Considering the hitters who have graced this franchise, that is an incredibly impressive accomplishment.

No, this is an incredibly odd, nuanced and pointless "stat" that means nothing. This is like Jimmy Rollins' 20/20/20/15/10/5/2/1/0.5 season in 2007.

And control your hyperbole rager there, Finn.

And while we'll get into a comparison of these Sox to the dynastic late-'90s Yankees another day, an astute Sons of Sam Horner poster pointed out that Pedroia's season at 24 years old is very similar to Derek Jeter's at the same age, when he hit .324, with 19 homers, 84 RBIs, and an OPS+ of 124

127, but who's counting (editing)?

in 1998.

It's worth noting that Jeter finished third in the MVP race that season, behind Texas's Juan Gonzalez and a certain expatriated Red Sox shortstop. But Jeter's competition, at the pinnacle of the steroids era, compiled far flashier numbers

I'll agree with this, to a point. Juan Gon hit 45 bombs with a .996 OPS. Nomar hit .323 with 35 homers, 12 steals and a .946 OPS.

Then there's Jeter. But Griffey - who finished fourth - hit 56 (!) homers with 20 steals. Manny, Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle (171 OPS+) and A-Rod all hit 40+ homers, had higher OPS+s and should have finished ahead of Jeter. But he's JETAH, so he finished third.

Now there aren't like 20 guys with 40 homers in 2008, but some dudes are putting together awesome seasons. Many of them are not on Finn's following list.

than have Pedroia's fellow candidates, who include:

Josh Hamilton: Wonderful numbers,

Which I would assume are a top priority in this award (even though I know it's not).

wonderful story, but the Rangers are an afterthought; his most meaningful moment of the season probably happened during his siege on Yankee Stadium at the Home Run Derby.

Thoughts. Memories. Scrapbooks. Acid flashbacks. These are the keys to winning an MVP award.

K-Rod: Sure he's having a season for the ages, but there a few stats more fraudulent than saves, and had he decided to take the season off to follow the Jonas Brothers on tour, the Angels still would hold a double-digit lead in the AL West.

All reasons to include him on the MVP list, even though he's maybe in the top five in the Cy running.

Carlos Quentin: The White Sox slugger might be his stiffest competition. He's walloped 36 homers, driven in 100 runs, and compiled a .965 OPS while anchoring surprising Chicago's powerful lineup. If Chicago makes the postseason, it would not be unjust if he claimed the honor.

Get this competency out of here.

Justin Morneau/Joe Mauer: Someone deserves credit for keeping that mediocre Minnesota roster in a pennant race, but Pedroia and Quentin are superior candidates to both Twins cornerstones.

Again, so include them!

Alex Rodriguez: I'm pretty sure I actually heard you snicker there.

Is it because I am a Red Sox fan??!?!?! Well-played and funny, Finnster.

Actually, he's a better candidate than the Twins dudes and certainly K-Rod. Probably better than people realize.

31 homers/.999 OPS/161 OPS+/16 steals with three CS/.315 BA for those who care.

So yeah, yet again one of the best all-around players in baseball, even when he only has 119 games played at this point.

Other things:

Kinsler Quentin Hamilton Pedroia A-Rod

OPS+: 134, 149, 135, 124, 161,

Runs Created: 105, 109, 110, 108, 107,

VORP: 55.1, 50.3, 47.8, 55.6, 63.2,

Pedroia has nearly the exact same stats (and plays the same position) as Kinsler - only with less steals (17 to 26) and homers (17 to 18). Oh yeah, and Kinsler is only batting .319, compared to Pedroia's .330.

So Pedroia = not best player at his position in his own league and behind a number of other players in most meaningful stats.

But the trump: He's on the Red Sox.

Start engraving the trophy now.