A Better Stat For Running Backs

Let's say you are an NFL coach, and you have a running back that gains 100 yards on 25 carries and you could choose how to distribute those yards over those carries. You could have him break an 80 touchdown run, but then he would only have gained 20 yards on those other 24 carries, thereby completely bogging your offense down. The best use of those 100 yards would be to distribute them as evenly as possible, in this case being 4 yards for carry. The reason being...

Aaaand I fucking shit you not, right as I'm typing this up (ask Sampson), FOX runs a graphic breaking down Purple Jesus's 18 rushes for 76 yards by each carry.

-1,-1, 2, 2, 6, 2, 40, 6, 0, 6, 1, 3, 0, 2, 0, 3, 0, 5

It saves me a lot of work, but wow that really steals the thunder of this post. Damn you FOX! How dare you listen in to my conversations with my roommate and instantly create a graphic solely to sabotage my shitty blog post that six people are going to read. Fuck.

Anyway, where was I? Ah, yes, even distribution. An even distribution is optimal because if you are picking up four yards every time, you can pick up a first down at will by running three times (theoretically, obviously picking up 4 yards on 3rd & 4 is not the same as on 1st & 10). You can put your team in good down/distance situations, opening up your offensive options. Simply put, given similar total yards and yards per carry, a guy who consistently picks up yards is more valuable than the one who gets you a few big gains but many short runs.

For the sake of argument, I'll say that 4 yards is the cutoff for a "valuable run" (VR). You run for 3 yards 3 times and you still have 4th & 1, so I think you've gotta round up. Look again at PJ's carries again. Out of 18, only 5 of them were VRs. Using the easy method of calculating yards per carry, he's averaging 4.2 YPC. Slightly better than my arbitrary determination of valuable.

What I propose is that in calculating YPC, have 10 yards be the maximum amount per carry. You can make more specific adjustments based on the distance remaining for a first down, but I really don't feel like laying out the specifics at the moment. You could call the stat something nerdy to piss of sportswriters, like VYPR (Valuable Yards Per Rush). Got a better one? Leave it in the comments?

Now, using my new, awesome and completely original formula (probably not) PJ is only averaging 2.5 yards per carry, well below the 4 yard "valuable" threshold. I don't mean to blaspheme Purple Jesus, I'm just trying to say that the 4.2 YPC somewhat overstates his value in that particular game.

[Update - 7:20pm] I type this whole thing up and Westbrook who had 16 touches for 32 yards before this basically wins the game on a 71 yard screen pass. Seem familiar, Giants fans?

[Update - 7:34pm] Wow, after TJack does a great job of reinforcing negative black QB stereotypes by throwing a bunch of shitty passes then breaking a huge run, a fumbled snap essentially ends the game. That was anti-climactic and the fucking Eagles won. I was a much happier person when I started writing this post.

Note: 20th Century FOX assumes responsibility for all cursing in this post.

Why Do 8-8 Teams Host Playoff Games?

Like Joe, I would have picked the Colts and the Falcons yesterday. Objectively, analytically, theoretically they seemed like the better teams. Manning's Colts had won 9 straight, and Matty Ice's Falcons had taken 5 out of their last 6. They both had better records than the 8-8 division winners, and were Vegas favorites. Now we are left to grapple with annoying football analyst talking points like home field advantage.

In a single game, how much does it really matter? Ironically, in baseball, where you have the tangible advantage of batting in the bottom half of the inning, home field advantage creates a 54/46 advantage, slightly less significant than in football (56/44). Vegas says 3 points, Bill Simmons says "nawt that impawtahnt any mahwah", so who really knows? One would imagine crowd noise certainly can have a greater motivational impact on players in more physical-effort-oriented sports. The adrenaline spike provided by the crowd's cheers isn't going to help Mariano Rivera locate his cutter, but it might help Brandon Jacobs punch it into the endzone. Regardless, can we just give HFA to the better team?

It's bad enough that winning a division automatically grants a team a playoff berth when teams with better records get locked out. That's probably not going to change. But those teams get to host the game too? Why? Both the Cardinals and the Chargers were 3-7 outside their division. Can we please at least give home field advantage to the team with the better record?

As a fan of a team with a first round bye, I am thrilled by the outcomes of yesterday's games (sorry Joe). Let these teams win at home in their domes, because next weekend those teams are going on the road to the blustery Meadowlands or to chilly (in January) Charlotte, where the Panthers went 8-0 this season. But taking my personal rooting interests (for this season alone) out of the equation, the system is kinda retarded.

Joba Mania

I'm not talking about the Yanks fans' intense adoration for the prized flamethrower. Every Yankee fan has it to a varying degree. I remember watching clips of his relief appearances at AAA on YouTube before he made his MLB debut and everyone still thought his name was pronounced "Joe-Bah". He's the type of talent a team brings up once every 5 or 10 years, and he receives love and loyalty from the fans that it will take the two double-initialed free agents a long time to attain. The kid has a near 100mph fastball and pinpoint control, with a slider that hitters can't identify until their hands are passing their belt buckle. He strikes out about 11 guys per every 9 innings and he probably hates Youkilis more than we do! He's got it all. And the adulation is well deserved.

Rather, I'm talking about the amazing effect the "starter vs. reliever" debate has on people, and the crazy things it makes them say. Exhibit A, Justin Sablich of the NYTimes Bats Blog:

Chamberlain in the bullpen would most likely make each starting pitcher better by shortening his starts. Fans concerned about Sabathia burning out in September or Burnett breaking down over the long haul could rest a little easier.

Over the course of an entire season, how many innings is Joba going to save Sabathia or Burnett from throwing? Joba's not available every day, and every time a starter takes the mound, he's not handing over a close game to the bullpen in the 7th inning. Looking through Burnett's game logs from last year on B-R, I counted 16 out of 31 starts where he pitched 6 or more innings in a game decided by 3 or fewer runs. It's obviously a rough calculation, and I'm being generous to his argument by including both wins (10) and losses (6).

Even if you assume Joba is available for every one of those starts, is Joe Girardi really going to leave a starter on the mound for an extra inning each of those starts because Jose Veras or Damaso Marte is coming in, instead of Joba Chamberlain? I would say the length of a starting pitcher's outing has a lot more to do with the performance of that starting pitcher than the options the manager has in the bullpen.

Anyway, lets just say that in those 16 starts, Joba saves Burnett 1/3 of an inning half of the time and 2/3 of an inning half of the time. That amounts to a grand total of 8 innings. Does anyone think that 8 or even 10-12 innings are going to make the difference between Burnett "breaking down" or not?

As I'm sure you can tell by now, I think Joba should be a starter. I was on the fence when they originally made the shift last year, but after seeing him be more efficient with his pitches and still look downright dominant as a starter, most of the questions I had were answered. I think boils down to the concept of VORP (value over replacement player).

When you take Joba out of the rotation, he gets replaced by (Hughes/Kennedy/Aceves). When you take him out of the bullpen, his innings are replaced by Veras, Marte, Brain Bruney, Edwar Ramirez, Phil Coke and possibly some AAA call ups like Mark Melancon all of whom are competent relievers. Looking at it that way, I think you have to conclude that the Yanks have a lot more to lose by filling that empty rotation spot with a (or a series of) giant question mark(s) than shifting their bullpen back an inning.

The great thing about this debate is that there is no wrong way to use Joba. There might be a "less right" way, but there is certainly no horribly, obviously wrong decision. In all likelihood, you are getting valuable innings from an awesome pitcher. Health, like with all pitchers, is the main issue. Maybe he would have gotten injured even if they left him in the bullpen last year. Or perhaps his body type and pitching style are more suited to the "fewer innings but more outings" demands relief pitching. There's only one way to find out, and in choosing between two uncertainties, I'll take the one with higher potential value.

Mark Schlereth Sizes Up The Giants Potential Opponents

Every so often we are lucky enough to have "Mark Schlereth" write an NFL column for us, jam-packed with meaningless cliches and the word "FOOTBALL".

Today's topic: Who the Giants most want to play out of the 4 NFC teams active this weekend. Take it away "Mark"...

I'll tell you what fellas, there's nothing I look forward to more than the Wild Card Round of the Playoffs in The National FOOTBALL League. This is when teams put all their chips on the table and all of a sudden its DO or DIE. You get players puttin' their hard hats on and goin' to work, because that's what it means to be a professional FOOTBALL player in the National FOOTBALL League. You get guys stepping up in the big moment, putting their team on their back and leaving it all out there on the FOOTBALL field. You figure out who the guys who know how to win are, and who doesn't have what it takes to get the job done.

In my opinion the New York FOOTBALL Giants are the best FOOTBALL team in the National FOOTBALL League right now. They can run the FOOTBALL down your throat or Eli Manning can pick you apart. Here's how I think the other teams match up with the New York FOOTBALL Giants, with the threat they pose to the Giants, on a scale of one to four FOOTBALLS "(l)".

The Falcons: (l)(l)(l)(l)

Here's a great story. You got Matty Ryan, throwin' the pigskin around out there like he's still playing FOOTBALL at Boston College, you got Michael Turner runnin' the FOOTBALL, and you've got a good, solid defense out on the FOOTBALL field. See what happens when a team gets rid of a QB with a low FOOTBALL IQ, and replaces with someone who can make good decisions with the FOOTBALL? These guys are dangerous.

Cardinals: (l)(l)(l)

The Cardinals have got a great veteran leader that knows how to galvanize the clubhouse in Kurt Warner. They've got two of the best wide recievers in the National FOOTBALL League. I'm tellin' ya, these guys can really catch the FOOTBALL and make some plays downfield. The problem I've got with the Cardinals is that they werre 5-1 against the National FOOTBALL Conference West, but only 3-7 versus the rest of the National FOOTBALL League including a loss to the Giants. But with a proven leader like Kurt Warner, you can never count them out of a FOOTBALL game.

The Eagles: (l)(l)

Here's a FOOTBALL team, that when I look at them, I say "If they could get over their issues at QB and get a guy in there like Brett Favre, they could really be a dangerous FOOTBALL team". Donvan McNabb just doesn't have the awareness or ability to read defenses to play quarterback in the National FOOTBALL League.

The Vikings: (l)

When I look at the Vikings, I see a FOOTBALL team that the New York FOOTBALL Giants nearly beat with DAVID CARR leading the troops in the second half of that FOOTBALL game. Like the Eagles, Vikings clearly have a QB problem because the FOOTBALL is being snapped to a guy like Tavaris Jackson. He's not my idea of a lunch-pail, hard hat sort of a guy, and he obviously lacks the awareness and intelligence to lead a FOOTBALL team in the National FOOTBALL League.

So If I'm the New York FOOTBALL Giants, I'm looking at the Minnesota Vikings and saying "Here's a FOOTBALL team that I can punch in the mouth and really move the FOOTBALL on".

Thanks "Mark", I'm sure we'll hear from you again soon.

Eagles v. Vikings Preview

This late game on Sunday has plenty of storylines: Reid v. Childress, Westbrook v. Peterson, McNabb as a future Viking?, Reid’s last game? Are the Eagles this year's Giants?

The Eagles defense ranked 3rd overall in the regular season whereas the Vikings ranked 2nd. Versus the run, the Vikings were 1st while the Eagles were 4th. Therefore, expect this game to be won in the air. This benefits the Eagles, as the Vikings D ranked 18th against the pass compared to 3rd for the Eagles. McNabb is more experienced and despite having a tendency for throwing at the feet of his receivers, is less prone to turning the ball over than Tarvaris Jackson is. Expect 3 or more turnovers from the Vikings as a result of Jim Johnson stacking the box to stop APIII and complex blitzing schemes. The Eagles should have a fumble return for a TD or Pick 6.

Pick:

Eagles: 24
Vikings: 10

Wow, I picked all 4 road teams to win.

Ravens v. Dolphins Preview

Baltimore’s Joe “Skinny” Flacco and John Harbaugh join Matt Ryan and Mike Smith as the second rookie quarterback/rookie head coach combination in the Playoffs this year.
Tony Sparano, prohibitive favorite for NFL Coach of the Year, and Chad Pennington, the NFL’s Comeback Player of the Year, lead last year’s 1-15 Dolphins team while their respective former teams, the Dallas Cowboys and New York Jets, who bailed on them are sitting home and whining about what went wrong.

This should be a low-scoring game thanks in part to Baltimore’s 2nd ranked defense. Miami needs to be opportunistic to win and score on a couple of Wildcat plays or a Ted Ginn Jr. kickoff return. I think Baltimore grinds it out and wins the most boring game of the Playoffs. Hey, at least the Pats aren’t playing.

Pick:

Ravens: 17
Dolphins: 14

Analyzing The Giants Regular Season Stats

The NFL regular season has come and gone, and the Giants have locked up homefield advantage throughout. This week has been rather quiet in Giantsland, and until they find out who thier opponent is, it will remain quiet. So I'm going to take this opportunity to go over some of the G-Men's regular season results. I already mentioned the fact that they tied the record for fewest turnovers in a season, but here are some more interesting tidbits:

• Domenik Hixon was actually their leading reciever, with 596 yards, followed closely by Toomer (580) and Plax (574). There were six guys with more than 30 catches and 384+ yards. That's what you call "spreading it around" folks.
• Eli Manning had far an away his best season, throwing only 10 INTs and boasting a passer rating (86.4) 10 points higher than his next closest season. He was much more similar to the QB he was last year in the playoffs than he was during last year's regular season.
• Much has already been said about Jacobs and Ward both going for over 1,000 yards on the season, but Ward also caught 41 passes for 384 yards, at 9.4 yards a pop. That wouldn't be a great average for a wide receiver, but remember that almost all of those passes are either screens or dump offs and he's getting a ton of yards after the catch.
• Ahmad Bradshaw carried the ball for 355 yards on 67 attempts, the third RB averaging over 5 yards a carry, although this was certainly helped by his 77 yard near TD run against Baltimore (note: I'll have a post about this sort of thing in the next few days). He's excellent for a second year player and should be ready to take on a bigger role the next year when all signs point to the Giants losing at least one of their top two guys to free agency.
• Tuck (12) and Kiwanuka (8) combined for 20 of the team's 42 sacks, down from 53 last year. The team really did miss Osi and Strahan, but still did an admirable job of getting to the QB.
• After a slow start, the Giants came away with 17 interceptions, 3 more than 2007.

Should be a great weekend for Football... 4 games over two days and Joe's got the previews to prove it. Go Vikings.

Colts v. Chargers Preview

At the midpoint of the season one would think that it would be nearly impossible for one of these teams, let alone both, to get into the playoffs. Following off-season knee surgery, Peyton Manning was stinking up the joint early. The Colts broke out of the gate losing their first two games. After reaching 3-4, they won 9 straight to finish at 12-4, breaking their own record by winning 12 or more games 6 years in a row. Despite not putting up his normal numbers, 2008 MVP Manning provided invaluable leadership while key cogs such as RB Joseph Addai and SS Bob Sanders were hurt. Manning enters Saturday night’s game with a 70+% completion percentage in each of his last 4 games and without throwing an interception in December. The Colts finally appear to be healthy.

After referee Ed Hochuli screwed them on a call against the Broncos in Week 2, the Chargers appeared listless. Up and down all season, they lost 3 straight games in November to leave them at 4-8. Thanks in part due to the fire was lit in Phillip River’s ass after finding out that NFL Girly Man #1 Brett Favre beat him out for a Pro Bowl spot and the healing of LaDainian Tomlinson’s toe, the Chargers won 4 straight in December. They currently rival the Colts as the NFL’s hottest team. However, LDT now has a strained hamstring. Despite probably being available for Saturday night’s game, this is not exactly what the Chargers need. Expect Fake LT to be limited and for Darren Sproles to receive plenty of action.

The Colts and the Chargers are very familiar with each other; Saturday night’s affair represents the sixth time that they have met since 2004, with the Bolts winning four of those contests. In last year’s Divisional Round match up at the RCA Dome, the Chargers defeated the Colts before losing to the Patriots, who finished the season at 18-1. Earlier this season at Qualcomm Stadium, the Colts defeated the Chargers 23-20.

I expect this game to be won in the air by the Colts. San Diego’s passing defense is second-worst in the NFL. Give me 3 TDs by Manning—one each to Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and Anthony Gonzalez—and one to Joseph Addai. Despite big games by Fake LT and Sproles, River’s brilliant stretch comes to end against the Colts, who have let up only six passing touchdowns all season.

Pick:

Colts: 28
Chargers: 24

Falcons v. Cardinals Preview

Very comprehensive article about Matty Ice by Yahoo Sports' Charles Robinson on the young career of the future perennial All-Pro.

Expect the AP Offensive Rookie of the year to have about 3 TDs and 250 yards in his playoff debut versus the Arizona Cardinals (who have given up 36 Passing TDs this year). However, the key to the game will be the Falcons ground attack. When Ryan has fewer than 30 passing attempts, the Falcons are 11-0. Another factor will be stopping the talented receiving duo of Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald, which can be accomplished by John Abraham getting pressure on Warner early and often.

Lucky draw for the Falcons considering that Arizona is last in the league in rushing and Atlanta's weakness is its Run D.

Pick:

Atlanta: 31
Arizona: 24

Frank Deford: Old

Frank actually lives around the block from me on the Upper West Side. I know this because I see him walking a small, fluffy, white dog from time to time. He's surprisingly tall, in a rickety, stilt-ish sort of way and moves slowly and creakily over the sidewalks. That's how I know he's old.

For anyone else who would like evidence, I present this article he wrote for NPR.com.

So, yes, thank the Lord for the Yankees. With their seats selling for as much as $2,500 a game while they ask a struggling New York City for an additional $259 million in tax-free bonds to help finance their new stadium and while they sign free agents for well over $400 million — far more than the other 29 major league teams have spent cumulatively — the Yankees present themselves as the very model of arrogance and let-'em-eat-cakeness. Henceforth, I will be calling the Yankees the Antoinettes. You may wish to, as well.

Yes, friends, you may wish to refer to a modern sports team by the name of an 18th century Queen of France, but the person you are talking to will think you are insane. Here's the funny part: Her full name was Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna von Habsburg-Lothringen (thanks Wikipedia). Marie Antoinette was a Habsburg and since she was a female, her offspring wouldn't have been referred to as "Antoinettes" either. Unless there is an even more obscure family/person he is referring to, I'm pretty sure he just made this up.

If you want to make a hokey analogy comparing a European dynasty to the Yankees, how about the Medicis? The Medicis were probably the richest family in Europe during the 15th century, and used wealth attained by the Medici Bank to commission works of art by the greatest artists of that era including Michaelango, Donatello, Rafael and Leonardo. Actually, I just listed the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but they really did commission Michaelangelo.

I get the point of comparing the Yankees to a European dynasty. The money, the excess, the history... sure. But all the teams and their owners are ridiculously rich too and some are ever richer than the Steinbrenners. The Yankees exploit their advantages of history/tradition and market size and and use them to be consistently competitive on the field. What would happen if the Yankees had a payroll that blended in with the top 5 or 10 teams, something like $110-115 million? They would probably attract fewer fans. I highly doubt that these fans would want to root for a different team, they most likely just wouldn't be baseball fans.

Will said it with more vulgarity and anger than I possibly could, but the Yankees aren't ruining baseball. They generate money for others directly (revenue sharing, road attendance) and indirectly (luxury tax and TV Ratings). They might not be good for your team, but they are good for baseball.

Fack Youk [Year In Review]

Gentlemen, we should be proud of ourselves (semi-dramatic pause) because it's been a great year (week). We increased our readership 1000% (from 1 to 10), although I don't have Google Analytics set up yet, so I might be overstating that. Over that same time period, we were acknowledged by some, ignored by others, and went unnoticed by basically the rest of the world. Fear not, friends, at the rate we're going, this time next year we will have attracted approximately 100 readers, roughly 107 pageviews and possibly one member of the opposite sex.

A special thanks to our reader(s). This blog wouldn't be the same without you. (Actually, it would).

In any event, before we actually develop a readership, I thought I would post a letter from my company, sent out just before Christmas, with my FJM-style comments in blue. Happy New Years.

To All Employees:

The partners would like to thank you for helping [Company Name Withheld Just In Case] achieve one of its best years ever in 2008.

[Great! So this means we are going to get some of our best bonuses ever, right?]

We recognize that this achievement has required a strong commitment throughout the company as well as many long days (and we know some long nights).

[You bet. Well, it's a good thing we are going to be handsomely rewarded with some of our BEST BONUSES EVER!]

Recent economic news has given us a clear signal that we will face much tougher times in the coming year.

[Well that's nice, but we've been in a recession for quite a while and we just had one of our best years EVAR!!!!1!!!!]

I'm sure all of you know or have heard of someone who has been laid off or of companies making other drastic spending cuts.

[Yes, they work for financial companies who had their WORST years ever. Sucks for them.]

Due to this reality, we have decided to cut and in some cases eliminate bonuses for the end of this year.

[Oh. Let me see if I follow here... Due to the reality facing other companies who had their worst years ever, we (a company who had one of their best years ever) are going to cut bonuses. Yes?]

This decision was very difficult because of the contribution you have made to the success of the company.

[Doesn't sound like it was that difficult. Words I would have chosen before "difficult", in no particular order: inexplicable, profitable, greedy, inconsiderate...]

We feel, however, that it is extremely important during these uncertain times to maintain flexibility in the business so we are not forced to make much worse cuts in 2009.

[So, not only was this a great year for the company, we are moving to Jersey and thereby cutting costs, but we still need to cut down on bonuses? How about we wait until we actually have a bad year you cut the bonuses? So if we have a good 2009, do we get the money that you took out of our bonuses back?]

We are doing everything we can to make the company more competitive, more efficient, and more enjoyable to work at.

[Except giving you guys bonuses.]

With your help and commitment we expect to be one of the companies that make it through these difficult times.

[DIFFICULT TIMES FOR WHO? Surely not a company who just had "one of its [fucking] best [fucking] years [fucking] ever in [fucking] 2008"]

Thank you for your understanding.

[I don't understand]

We truly appreciate your efforts.

[Just not enough to give you bonuses]

The Partners

[You probably shouldn't have started the email where you tell everyone that their bonuses are being cut with the sentence "The partners would like to thank you for helping [Our Company] achieve one of its best years ever in 2008."]

Collusion or Delusion? [Follow Up]

In doing some more research on the topic of my previous post, I came across this article by Tim Marchman published in the National Review, back in December of 2003. He (not surprisingly) goes into more depth about the history of collusion in MLB than I did, and adds that joint holdouts were another big reason for the inclusion of the anti-collusion language in the CBA. He also says:

It was for violating this deal in the 1980s that owners agreed in the early 1990s to pay the players $280 million, a payment which drove expansion as owners sought to recoup the money by charging huge fees for the rights to new teams. Sandy Koufax decides he'd like to get paid something like what he's worth, and 40 years later you get to watch the Florida Marlins cavorting around in teal uniforms; what better illustration of the law of unintended consequences?

See what you can learn on these here Internets? The impetus of his post were "the ominous shadows of collusion falling across this weekend's winter meetings in New Orleans [in 2003]". These "shadows" stemmed from the exploitation of a seeming loophole the owners found in the CBA. At the time, the MLBPA was considering filing a grievance alleging that the owners were flooding the markets with free agents, according to Marc Edleman.

In his 2005 paper "Has Collusion Returned To Baseball?" Edleman details how, following the 2002 World Series, many teams began to talk about shedding payroll. Then, on Dec 20th, clubs simultaneously non-tendered 46 arbitration eligible players including Pudge Rodirguez and other top level talent, thereby devaluing the price of all free agents (Edleman gives specific examples if you have time to read the essay). This also redefined that year's "fair-market value" and adversely affected outcomes of the hearings of the players who accepted arbitration.

Edleman says, "Federal antitrust law finds that an agreement to effect price exists even when there is a tacit or inferred agreement", and cites two cases involving American Tobacco and Monsanto (Sidenote: watch The Corporation) as indicators that the arbitrator may rule against the owners. He concludes:

When considering both the documented series of events that occurred during baseball’s 2002–03 off-season and their economic effects, it seems plausible that a baseball grievance arbitrator may find that Major League Baseball clubs once again violated baseball’s “collusion clause”.

This was of course written before the decision was handed down, and he was right to take an somewhat ambiguous stance.

Marchman's take was different, essentially dismissing the charges of collusion (also before any ruling had been handed down). He proposes a hypothetical situation in which two GMs are talking about each others arbitration cases and who they will or will not non-tender that year. He deduces that similar scenarios were probably unfolding at the time in team offices throughout the league, one at a time, but was likely not in violation of the CBA.

The owners did have to pay, but only $12M, and with no admission of guilt.

In light of this, the circumstances I laid out yesterday seem pretty frivolous and almost certainly won't result in any judgment against the owners, considering they non-tendered 46 players on the same fucking day, and didn't have to admit any guilt.

I just really don't like the thinly veiled, tacit encouragement to scale back spending that Selig endorsed when he asked Volcker to address the owners and executives. Like I said in the previous post, maybe the owners would have come to that conclusion anyway. So why allow the appearance of impropriety? Perhaps Bud could have presented Volcker as a resource for the owners to contact individually if they had specific questions.

It just gives a lot of credence to the sentiment that since Selig was an owner, he is now a stooge for the owners. Baseball will be better off if their next commissioner has the betterment of the game in mind, instead of the interests of the owners alone.

THE YANKEES ARE RUINING BASEBALL!!!!

(This story would have fit better about a week ago, but with the holidays and all, I am just getting to it now.)

This is all I have been hearing since the Yankees had their big 3 signings this year: "All that money for one player?", "Highest payroll in the league?" BLAH BLAH BLAH...go fuck yourself.

First, I would like to address to the two biggest groups of haters (Red Sox and Mets fans), then I will address the general haters.

Red Sox Fans: You are a bitter bunch of fucks. Your team has the second highest payroll and just because your fucktard owner wouldn't dish out a few extra million dollars for Tex you can't handle it. Then most of you do the obvious thing and try and say how much Tex is gonna blow this year. Which is quite logical because who would expect him to do well with the security of a long term contract, his proven record of offensive and defensive ability throughout his career, and the small fact that he will have the luxury of batting in front of ALEX-FUCKING-RODRIGUEZ. You will be lucky if Tex doesn't hit 135 HRs this year.

Mets Fans: You are just pathetic. You all get pissed because when you signed K-Rod, and everyone was on your team's dick for about 20 minutes until the Yanks signed CC and AJ. You are a second class team. DEAL WITH IT. Also, don't give me that shit about payroll, because you have the 3rd highest payroll in the league and the highest payroll in the NL. I think deep down you all know that no matter who you sign your team is still going to suck and not do shit when it matters.

General Haters: First of all, the people that say the Yankees are bad for baseball are retarded. I will bring you back to the mid to late 1990s. For those of you who remember, the 1994 World Series was canceled because of a players' strike. All that BS aside, the Yankees emerging from that, spending a shit load of cash and creating this dynasty that carried baseball out of that. I will also knowledge the McGuire/Sosa HRfest helped too, but the Yankees started that shit and carry it on to this day.

Look at teams like the Marlins, Pirates, etc. These teams have cheap owners who are only in this to make money; I won't get into all that but that is why their payroll is a fraction of the Yankees. This is also the reason why teams like this sell-out 4 games per year: Opening Day, and when the Yankees are in town. That is bad for them, how?

Now for the main point that inspired this whole piece. For all of you out there that hate how much the Yankees spend, I don't care. And guess what, neither do any other Yankee fans. We pay money to go see our team play and we expect management to do what it takes to put together the best team available for our fucking entertainment. If your owners/management are just too fucking cheap to do that, then that's your fucking problem.

And another thing, you don't hear us bitching when some Boston fag (Matt Damon/Ben Affleck) makes $25 Million to make some piece of shit movie that you assholes flock to like its the next coming of Christ. FUCK YOU ALL.