Pitchforked! (Vol. 2): 5.8/10

Pitchfork is a website which primarily focuses on reviewing indie music. Generally speaking, I like the site a lot and admit that its writers are far better at writing than I ever will be. In fact, the site's reviewers introduced me to some of my favorite acts – including MGMT and Springsteen. Occasionally, though, their writing seems as though it's trying a little too hard to prove something. "Pitchforked" highlights these moments.

The practice of taking questionable writing and making fun of it was made popular by the blog Fire Joe Morgan. FJM is defunct, but the tradition continues on at Kissing Suzy Kolber (I also love KSK's usage of all-CAPS to make a joke funnier). I don't think I'm ripping them off; rather, I'm just expanding their idea from sports to music. Still, I'd feel sleazy if I didn't credit them with the idea.

One final note: Pitchfork is known to retroactively edit posts without warning its readers. This means that some of the quotes I feature here may no longer be part of what's posted as the "official" review. Believe me - I didn't make these quotes up.

From the review of the Crystal Stilts’ In Love With Oblivion

“What’s up with that guy’s singing, anyway?”

Hipster observational comedy is not very funny. “So what’s the deal with Moleskines? And do Polaroids really need to be shaken? I mean, am I right?”

“…in 2008, when Crystal Stilts emerged as one of the more interesting acts in the lo-fi Brooklyn jangle-pop pile.”

Jangle-pop piles are the natural result of years of wind and rain slowly wearing down rocks into fashionably alternative shapes. Geologists refer to it “gentrificerosion”.

“However, you didn't really need to know what he was saying (or, for that matter, what key it was supposed to be sung in) to dive deep into the lonely, dark, and difficult-to-inhabit world of Alight of Night.”

You didn’t really need to know what was being sung or how it sounded in order to enjoy it. I don’t even have a joke here; that’s literally what the guy just wrote. I guess it’s kind of like you don’t have to know what a Pitchfork writer is talking about or what language he’s using in order to enjoy mocking him.

“The murkiness continues to recede on the band's sophomore effort”

A receeding murkline occurs in nearly 70% of indie bands by their third album. There is no cure for male pattern murkiness.

“He can be funny, too-- like on "Invisible City", when he sings about crawling into a sarcophagus with a girl before repeating, like a too-clever suspect in the interrogation room, ‘We know what happened at death/ But I don't have to say why.’”

What? How is that funny in any way at all? Again, hipster comedy is pretty stupid. “Hey, have you heard the one about the girl, the sarcophagus, and the thinly veiled existentialist comment?”

From the review of Jeremy Jay’s Dream Diary

“Though overlong by about a third, the Bishop Allen-by-way-of-Modest Mouse bends of "In the Times", and the Belle and Sebastian-like breeze of "Shayla" boast some of Jay's finest lures yet.”

This was the second-to-last sentence in the whole review and I count three references in it. The over/under for references in this review was 3.5, so I feel like there was probably some reference-shaving that led to this sentence being written.

Gone 'Til September

For the past several weeks, I’ve written these posts as a series of short thoughts instead of one coherent column. I admit that it’s a much lazier form of writing, but hopefully you’ve been entertained by it anyway.

1. I wrote a column last week making fun of Pitchfork’s writing style. I hope it wasn’t in bad taste or anything – I even added a disclaimer admitting that I know that Pitchfork’s writers are far better than I’ll ever be.

When I re-read it, I noticed a certain level of hypocrisy in the fact that I praised the hilarious blog Kissing Suzy Kolber even though in the past I’ve written that I’m firmly against the blogosphere’s hatred of Bill Simmons and Peter King. I feel as though some clarification is necessary.

KSK’s funniest writer is Drew Magary, and the way he skewers Simmons and King is so funny that I can’t help but laugh even though I like Simmons and King a lot. Magary’s writing style can best be described as highbrow vulgarity – his witty satire is wrapped in a thick layer of [expletive] jokes. In a way, his style is a lot like South Park’s. You’ll either love it or hate it. When South Park satirizes some aspect of society, they usually take some trivial flaw and create a caricaturized version that we can laugh at. I never got the feeling that anything South Park did was mean-spirited, and most of the time the show is brilliant (in fact, we’re approaching the point where The Simpsons vs. South Park could become a legitimate debate. I’d still go with The Simpsons, but South Park’s quality this decade comes close to how The Simpsons owned the ‘90s.)

Is it hypocritical to like Magary, Simmons and King? I don’t think so. I know that some of Magary’s edgier material can elicit a cringe (much like South Park), but he is in my view the funniest sportswriter working right now. He creates a caricature of Simmons and King and runs with it. I think that there are lesser talents that take gratuitous shots at Simmons and King and I’m not really a fan of that. THAT’S RIGHT, I’M VAGUELY CALLING OUT A STRAW MAN! RESPECT ME!

2 . 2. Rome is Burning is a damn good TV show and 30 for 30 is overrated. There, I said it.

It’s easy but misleading to lump Rome in with the rest of the sports media personalities who come off as bombastic without saying very much. Rome actually takes interesting, original angles on a lot of issues and his show is definitely worth watching on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, I can’t say the same about 30 for 30. Allen Iverson is one of my favorite basketball players ever and the Knicks-Pacers rivalry was a cornerstone of my childhood sports fandom. I assumed this meant that the documentaries about those two would be incredible. I found myself instead staring at the clock and waiting for them to end. They aren’t awful or anything, it’s just that they’re kind of boring. I watched another 30 for 30 about a subject which I thought seemed interesting but didn’t have a big role in my life in case I was biased by already knowing a good amount about Iverson and Pacers-Knicks. The documentary I picked (the one about the USFL) was pretty boring too. The movies are all well made and everything, but they feel kind of like someone reading a term paper out loud.

3. More mainstream sports media talk: the NFL Network’s analyst team is deeper than any other network’s. Deion Sanders is as good as Cris Collinsworth, and Michael Irvin, Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk are all just below those two. Even Warren Sapp and Steve Mariucci are pretty good.

I always liked Fox’s NFL broadcast better than CBS’s. My friends and I were talking about this and it turns out that if you’re an AFC fan, you prefer CBS and if you’re an NFC fan you prefer Fox. I assumed I’d be able to separate my love for the Cowboys from an objective appraisal of broadcast quality, but apparently not.

4. I 4. I watched the Super Bowl in a Steelers bar downtown. The whole trip was obviously more expensive than just staying home and watching, but the atmosphere when they played “Black and Yellow” during the commercial break right after Pittsburgh made it 28-25 was worth the price of admission.

5. 5. Football Outsiders had a great article about how Ben Roethlisberger is not as clutch as we think he is. As always, their logic is impeccable and the article is worth a read if you have the time.

I don’t think Roethlisberger’s stock should fall too far, however. At this stage in their respective careers, I believe that Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers and Roethlisberger are all more or less the same.

I’ve wrote about this before, but I think that there are too many good quarterbacks in the NFL now to say that there is one who is the best. Manning and Brady have the pedigree, but they no longer have the ability to buy time by getting away from a pass rush. Brees and Rodgers, at this point in their careers, are more explosive than Brady and Manning but each of them still makes too many dumb throws (Rodgers had three multi-INT games this year and Brees threw 22 picks). Roethlisberger has the athletic ability to make plays that the other four top quarterbacks simply can’t – the best example of which is the huge play in Baltimore when he escaped the Terrell Suggs sack. Roethlisberger is also more durable than the others in some respects. For example, a few big hits forced Rodgers into an awful game two weeks ago in Chicago (another multi-INT, no TD game for him). On the other hand, Roethlisberger seemed to play better as the slugfest versus Baltimore went on.

These five quarterbacks have different strengths and weaknesses and I’m indifferent between the five of them. It’s possible that Rodgers leaves everyone in the dust over the next few years, but I sincerely doubt it.

6 . 6. Finally, some basketball thoughts.

a. Kevin Garnett’s antics have made the Celtics more unlikable than everyone except the Heat. I used to like KG a lot (both in Minnesota and his first few seasons in Boston) but he’s so over the top with his fake tough guy routine that I can’t help but root against him at this point.

b. John Hollinger made a great case for why LeBron James should be MVP this year and I agree 100%. I don’t like what he did to Cleveland, and I was hoping we could give the award this year to Derrick Rose or Kevin Durant. Unfortunately, LeBron is having another monster season and, assuming the rest of the season plays out the way the first 50+ games did, he should get his third straight MVP.

c. Speaking of Rose and Durant, I couldn’t be happier that those two guys could be the face of the NBA for the next ten years. They are two of the top six players in the league and they carry themselves in a way that other superstars (KG, LeBron, Carmelo) do not.

d. I kind of like Kobe Bryant now. I’ve spent the last ten years rooting passionately against the guy but the unlikely emergence of Miami and Boston as villains has taken the edge off of my dislike of Kobe. Plus, he consistently provides some of the funniest quotes in the league. For example:

Reporter: Kobe, what do you think of the Andrew Bynum rumors?
Kobe: We discuss all kinds of rumors now. We were just talking about UFOs, actually.

It wouldn’t be all that funny if you were expecting him to make a joke OR if he said it with a phony smile in an attempt to endear himself to the media. Instead, he delivered it in a deadpan voice and with a glare that basically said “that’s a dumb [expletive] question.”

Kobe’s big problem used to be phoniness. He used to try so hard to be as universally loved as Jordan. I think he’s ditched that act, for the most part. If the Lakers make it past the Spurs and play the Celtics in the Finals, I’ll (grudgingly) pull for Boston just because I don’t want to give the morons who make the “Kobe > Jordan” argument any more ammunition.

e. For some reason, the Spurs remain completely underrated. Most basketball fans and ESPN analysts will still pick the Lakers over the Spurs to win the West even though San Antonio is running away with the conference right now. I feel like a Spurs-Celtics Finals is easily the most likely outcome at this point in the season.

f. I’ve been a Mavericks fan for nearly three years now (since my favorite player, Jason Kidd, got traded to them). The Nets are moving to Brooklyn soon and are probably going to change their uniforms and team name. I always thought I’d remain a fan of the new franchise, but I don’t really know if I want to anymore. New location, new name, new uniforms = no connection to the team I’ve spent the last 15 years rooting for.

I fully expect that within five years, the appeal of playing in a new arena in Brooklyn with Prokhorov and Jay-Z will draw some superstars to come play for the new team. Someday soon, they will be competitive and have a good fan base. Unfortunately, I won’t have any connection to that team. The Nets of my childhood will be dead and gone, and we won’t even be ironically cool like the Seattle Supersonics since nobody besides me and three of my friends ever cared about the Nets anyway. I can’t blame them for leaving, though I wish that they had tried moving to Newark as soon as that arena was built (the Meadowlands is an awful place to play sports since there’s no readily available public transportation there).

I already have the Dallas connection going with the Cowboys and I could see myself adopting the Mavericks once my actual favorite team ceases to exist.

g. Did you notice that I formatted this article in the manner of a Peter King “10 Things I Think I Think”? I just went meta! (note: after posting this, it looks like the numbers are cut off because the synergy between Blogger and Microsoft Word sucks. A few words look like they are cut off as well, but it's usually just "I" or "the" or something easy to figure out. Sorry for the ugliness. Aesthetics is everything.)

I won’t be writing regularly during the NFL offseason except for the occasional post about hipsterdom. Thanks to everyone for reading, and I’ll see you in September. Unless Roger Goodell ruins everything.

Pitchforked! (Vol. 1): 3.7/10

Pitchfork is a website which primarily focuses on reviewing indie music. Generally speaking, I like the site a lot and admit that its writers are far better at writing than I ever will be. In fact, the site's reviewers introduced me to some of my favorite acts – including MGMT and Springsteen. Occasionally, though, their writing seems as though it's trying a little too hard to prove something. "Pitchforked" highlights these moments.

The practice of taking questionable writing and making fun of it was made popular by the blog Fire Joe Morgan. FJM is defunct, but the tradition continues on at Kissing Suzy Kolber (I also love KSK's usage of all-CAPS to make a joke funnier). I don't think I'm ripping them off; rather, I'm just expanding their idea from sports to music. Still, I'd feel sleazy if I didn't credit them with the idea.

One final note: Pitchfork is known to retroactively edit posts without warning its readers. This means that some of the quotes I feature here may no longer be part of what's posted as the "official" review. Believe me - I didn't make these quotes up.

From the review of Talib Kweli's Gutter Rainbows:

"The beats on Gutter Rainbows are tight-enough neo-soul by committee-- 13 producers handle 14 tracks -- and most of it sounds like faintly modernized versions of Rawkus-circa-2002 boom-bap, with the occasional outlier in the form of a post-"Hello Brooklyn" old-school banger (Khrysis' "I'm on One") or atmospheric synthesizer dirge (Blaq Toven's "How You Love Me")."

Wait for it….wait for it…

"But isolating the beats from the rapper seems futile."

Bam! I feel like the ENTIRE previous sentence was all about isolating these beats. You just compared them to something called Rawkus-circa-2002 boom-bap (not to be confused with Rawkus-circa-2003 boom-bap, which was entirely different).

From the review of Destroyer's Kaput:

"Every era has a sound."

For example, the Victorian Era is known for a hilarious amount of fart sounds due to the 19^th century invention of the whoopee cushion.

"But Bejar's essential complexity ultimately feels human. It seems absurd to look for genuine wisdom in music in 2011, when we're constantly gorging ourselves on the all-you-can-eat buffet of post-modern web culture."

I like how you started a sentence with 'but' – classic hipster proseslinging. But I don't know about "constantly gorging myself on the all-you-can-eat-buffet of post-modern web culture". Are you calling me fat? I tried to eat the internet ONE TIME. Gimme a break!

From the review of The 1900's Return of the Century:

"If the sentiments are tough, the music itself is tender, borrowing from Belle & Sebastian and Brill Building pop to create a sound that is both pastoral and urbane, straightforward yet sophisticated."

Pastoral, but urbane. Straightforward, but sophisticated. Esoteric, yet accessible. Light, but great-tasting. Mud-wrestly, yet classy.

From the review of The Jayhawks' Hollywood Town Hall/ Tomorrow the Green Grass:

"What the Jayhawks never drifted toward was success-- at least not the kind that they and their fans felt the music warranted. Even so, a full 25 years after forming, the Jayhawks don't come across as also-rans, which is itself a minor miracle."

Other minor miracles include: convincing people that Animal Collective is a good band; making Park Slope the new Williamsburg; Zooey Deschanel.

"Those tightly intertwined vocals are reset in a dusty, electrified setting, marking perhaps the Jayhawks' greatest innovation."

Sadly, the Jayhawks would lose to Creighton in the second round of March Irony.

"The five bonus tracks neither distract from nor add to the original, but they do reveal the tracklist as a model of economic editing and sequencing."

Neither distract nor add! Hipsters are not constrained by our math operators. Addition and subtraction are played out. Actually, Pitchfork would never say something is "played out" since the term itself is dated. They would say something like "…the once formidable duo Addition & Subtraction – an early-decade dancehall staple which rose to towering heights on the strength of its bubblegum synthesizers and devil-may-care baselines – ultimately descended into self-parody in mid-2005."

Damn that's actually pretty good. Maybe Pitchfork is hiring?

No, Really, I Swear!

I couldn't really come up with one coherent column idea this week, so here's a bunch of thoughts I had while waiting for the best Sunday of the year:

One night in late August, my high school friends and I were hanging out with a few beers and talking about the upcoming NFL season. I should clarify that by "high school friends", I mean people that I was friends with growing up – I don't want to imply that I enjoy casual drinking with seventeen year olds. Anyway, one of my friends asked each of us to share our Super Bowl prediction.

I picked the Jets to play the Packers. I don't have this in writing, so I guess it doesn't count.

Two picks I DID get into writing? I said the Patriots would miss the playoffs and that the Redskins would make them. Again, I suck at picking NFL games and the fact that my Jets-Packers pick is still alive is basically a fluke. But like…I'm just sayin'.

I never expected to write a weekly football column for Fundamentally Soundd, but they're way too much fun to write. I don't even know what I'm going to writing about once the Super Bowl is done. Nobody writes a weekly basketball column, and I don't really like baseball or college basketball enough to write about them. Daggers all around.

I'll take the Jets by seven and Packers by 21.

__________________________________

Championship Sunday is my favorite day of the season. The matchups and storylines are great every year, and each year almost always gives us at least one classic game. Last year's Minnesota-New Orleans game was fantastic, as were both '08 games (ARZ-PHI and PIT-BAL), '07 NFC (NYG-GB) and '06 AFC (NE-IND). Championship Sunday feels a lot like the few minutes riiiight after school got out on Friday before a three day weekend. In those few minutes, you knew you had the maximum amount of freedom with three full days separating you from class again. Similarly, today we get to indulge in two potentially awesome football games with the knowledge that we still get the Super Bowl to look forward to. There's literally nothing to do but sit back, watch Pokemon cartoons and ask mom to make a snack.

__________________________________________

I've said this before, but the NFL Network is awesome. Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin are great, Marshall Faulk and Steve Mariucci are pretty good, and Rich Eisen is the best studio host on television. I'd even take Eisen over TNT's Ernie Johnson, which is saying a lot. Anyway, Irvin told a great story this morning before bringing up an excellent point.

Essentially, he said that when he first came into the league he was interviewed by the man who at the time held all the Cowboys receiving records, Drew Pearson. The young Irvin felt overwhelmed by the man's stats and thought he'd never catch him (he did). He did, however, set a realistic goal of topping Pearson's Super Bowl ring total. After telling this story this morning, Irvin pointed out that in Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers will never break Brett Favre's records for passing yards or touchdowns. But since Favre only won one ring, Rodgers could actually eclipse Favre in Packers history by bringing home the Lombardi trophy and eventually retiring as a Packer.

Speaking of Favre, I remained a fan of watching him play football until he retired. Hate to pull a John Madden here, but big games undoubtedly felt bigger with Favre in them. Two of the best five football games of my college career (MIN-NO and GB-NYG) featured Favre. I know it's become chic to hate on the guy, but I never really jumped on that bandwagon for the same reason I don't hate Tim Tebow. You can't hate someone just because the media fawns over them, even if it is excessive.

Even though I never hated Favre, I don't have it in me to really defend him either. As much as I liked watching him play, he was obnoxious – but never criminal - in the way he treated women during his time with the Jets and Vikings. Plus, every post-game interview this season he kept praising himself for his toughness and how brilliant his career was. It would be a nice story if, like Emmitt Smith did with Dallas, Favre signed a meaningless contract to retire as a Packer. I don't think it's going to happen though. From what I can tell based on his arrogance during those post-game interviews and press conferences, Favre doesn't think of himself as "Brett Favre, Green Bay Packer." He thinks of himself as "Brett Favre, Inc."

______________________________________

Finally , on-campus recruiting (OCR) is going on right now and all my friends who are juniors are freaking out. OCR is a big deal at Wharton because it's when all the big investment banks and consultancies come to campus to look for interns. Strong performance during an internship with a premier company after your junior year usually results in a full-time job offer for you, which takes all the stress out of senior year.

My friend Steve told me that he wished that NFL teams came to campus during OCR and that we could apply to have coaching internships with them. We wouldn't be doing grunt work like splicing film or getting Gatorade for people. Instead, the internship would be ten weeks of learning how to break down film and come up with a game plan. Maybe we could even learn how to tank for a better draft pick or engage in a bitter power struggle with management.

The classic Whartonite status obsession would obviously carry over to NFL OCR. Undergraduates studying finance are the only people in the world who think $15,000 for ten weeks' work is disappointing if it comes from one of the "less prestigious" banks. To be fair, I'd look down on anyone who only got an offer from the Panthers. That's so weak. At that point I'd probably just go to grad school.

My first choice would be the Cowboys. Since they hired Rob Ryan (Rex's brother) as the defensive coordinator, I figure that would be the ideal place to learn a lot about scheming while working for my favorite team. My nightmare scenario would be if I only got offers from Philadelphia and Washington.

People going into financial services often think about exit opportunities. Most investment banking analyst classes last two years, and many analysts move on to private equity or a hedge fund once the two years are finished. Consulting has a similar structure. NFL opportunities would be all about the coaching tree. You would THINK that you'd want to work for Bill Belichick, but his coaching tree's track record is pretty bad. If I was going to pick based solely on exit opportunities – defined here as which coaching tree you would want to be a part of – I'd pick Sean Payton and hope some of the Parcells magic is transferred to me.

Cute Kittens

Google's Blogger service provides surprisingly powerful analytic tools to see how much traffic your blog gets. To be clear, I write this thing as a hobby and don't particularly care about my page views – I never make it my Facebook status or promote it in any way. I tweet links to all my columns, but this is the equivalent of when I would pretend I was Michael Jordan as a little kid. "Simmons and Whitlock tweet column links too! I'M JUST LIKE THEM!!!!".

I dove into Fundamentally Soundd's traffic stats last week and found something that was absolutely hilarious. Most of the time, I give my columns snarky titles (like last week's "GalleryFurniture.com Seattle Home Game Bowl"). One week, I titled my column "America's Game of the Week". That week's column is the most viewed Fundamentally Soundd article by a factor of ten. Why? Because when you Google "America's Game of the Week", my article is the number four result! Even though I still don't care about traffic and will continue not promoting the site, I couldn't resist giving this column a truly horrific title in the hope that I'll see a hilarious spike in traffic.

To be fair, I already knew of the practice of giving things misleading names in order to get more traffic. In 9^th grade, my friend used to post videos on YouTube with very raunchy titles that would end up just being something like 45 seconds of footage of him playing video games. They all had over 5,000 views because people are gross. "Cute Kittens" is the first and last time I will do something like this.

_____________________________________________

Last week, I wrote a lot about how people attribute things in sports to luck far too frequently. My position is the exact opposite of what my friend Angelo believes, and I asked him if he would be interested in writing a retort to my rant. Here's what he came up with (it's very good):

The idea that the best team always prevails in sporting events is Fundamentally Flawedd. Empirically, the notion that there is no luck involved in sporting contests is simply not true. Football Outsiders (a website known for its application and creation of unique football statistics) have proven that recovering fumbles is luck. Forcing fumbles is a skill, but recovering them is luck. When the ball hits the ground, each team has a 50/50 shot at recovering it. In the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl, there were 3 fumbles…all recovered by the Giants. The probability of such good fortune for the Giants is a mere .125. When something that both heavily impacts the game (turnovers in football are game-changers) and is statistically proven to be random chance favors one team to a relatively high degree of unlikelihood, how can it be said that there was no luck involved?

Another instance of luck in sports is one-run baseball games. Despite pundits creating storylines about teams being "clutch" and "finding a way to win," Bill James and other baseball analysts have pretty much done away with the notion. The only conclusive thing that can be said about one-run games (and to a lesser extent two-run games) is that there is a huge amount of luck involved in the outcomes. If winning one-run games was a skill, we would expect the teams with better overall records to generally have more success in one-run games. But no such correlation exists. For instance, just last year the 89-win Red Sox (.458) and 85-win Blue Jays (.461) had worse Winning Percentages in 1-run games than the 67-win Kansas City Royals (.473).

Let's look at the 1960 World Series between the Yankees and Pirates. The Yankees won games by scores of 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0. The Pirates won games by scores of 6-4, 3-2, 5-2, and 10-9. The conventional argument is that the Pirates were more clutch and that the Yankees couldn't handle close games. Besides being facially untrue (the 1960 Yankees featured many future all of famers and players with multiple championship rings such as Mickey Mantle and Yogi Berra), Bill James and others have shown that there is an element of luck at play in all 4 of the Pirates victories.

Even if one chooses to ignore Bill James and blindly cling to the falsehood that winning one-run games is a skill, let's take a closer look at Game 7 of that World Series. The Yankees lead 7-4 with Pittsburgh batting in the bottom of the eighth. The leadoff batter singled. The next better, Bill Virdon, hit a routine double play ball to shortstop Tony Kubek. As Kubek was about to field the ball, it struck a pebble and smashed into Kubek's throat. Kubek was badly injured, had to leave the game, and Virdon was credited with a single. Instead of two outs and no one on, there were two men on and no outs. A single, sacrifice bunt, fly-ball out, an infield single, and a 3 run home run followed, and the Pirates had a 9-7 lead. While someone can argue that the Yankees should have done a better job at mitigating damages, and that the Pirates deserve credit for taking full advantage of the situation, the simple fact remains that neither team would have been in that situation had it not been for pure, dumb luck. No rational person could argue that "If Tony Kubek were a better shortstop he would have known the exact location of a specific pebble in the infield and would have accounted for that when attempting to field the ball." Nor can one argue that Bill Virdon displayed superior skill to hit the ball with just the right direction and velocity so as to strike the pebble and injure Kubek. Both arguments are absurd.

I could go on and discuss the half-court heave in basketball, the field goal blown astray by a sudden, unexpected gust of wind, or many other things, but I've already exceeded my word limit. Game 7 of the 1960 World Series is the perfect embodiment of the metaphorical "way the ball bounces." As much as we'd like to rationalize sports and believe in the feel-good notion that on every given day the better team won, this is simply not true…and it is because of this that we love sports so much. On any given day the best team in the world can lose to the worst, no matter how statistically unlikely it may be. Let's just not confuse this notion with the idea that they were necessarily the better team on that day.

I thought Angelo made a lot of great points. I'm a big fan of Football Outsiders and I have a ton of respect for the research they do. I think my main point is that we too frequently say that an upset occurred because of luck instead of attributing it to the solid execution of a good game plan.

________________________________________

Adam and I are betting one beer per football game this week. I fully expect to owe him four beers by Sunday night. Home teams in bold, wish me luck:

Pittsburgh (-3) over Baltimore

I was going to pick Baltimore until I read the Football Outsiders preview of the game. It turns out that the Steelers are easily the second best team in the league, and that by some metrics they are actually more consistent than the Patriots.

For most of the decade, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning were so much better than everyone that every conversation about the best QB started and ended with them. Last year, people added Drew Brees to the conversation. I think that our brains are wired to keeping these debates as small as possible (Bird/Magic, Ali/Frazier, Kobe/LeBron, etc.) just to keep the arguments neat and compartmentalized. The problem is that the level of quarterbacking in the NFL has become so good that what used to be a tidy two person debate is now far messier.

This year, we all agree that Brady was by far the best quarterback. But I think that Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers have elevated their respective games to the level of Manning and Brees. Manning and Brees are far better historically, obviously, but the 2010 versions of these four are basically indistinguishable. I once wrote that the glut of awesome QBs is similar to the point guard boom in the NBA. The conversation used to just be Chris Paul vs. Derron Williams but had to be expanded because Rondo, Rose and others are so good that the differences between any of them are negligible.

I think a fun debate would be the following: If you had one game to win, would you pick Manning or Roethlisberger to be your quarterback? What if it was a playoff game? Remember, during his 2006 title run, Manning threw three touchdowns and seven interceptions over four games en route to a Super Bowl win. That pretty much cancels out Roethlisberger's awful play during the Steelers' 2005 championship run.

Green Bay over Atlanta (-2.5)

The Falcons remind me of the 2001 Chicago Bears – won a lot of close games, finished 13-3 with a bye, and got destroyed at home by a much better Eagles team.

New England (-8.5) over New York

The problem for New York is that the Patriots have 52 good football players whereas the Jets have 51 good football players and Mark Sanchez.

Chicago (-10) over Seattle

My coach of the year pick would be Bill Belichick, followed closely by Raheem Morris and Todd Haley. Spags is close, but Haley's team had more success.

I dislike Pete Carroll's antics more than anything else in the NFL. All that ridiculous fist-pumping and whatnot even though he beat the Saints 2^nd string secondary and 12h string running back in an undeserved home game. I remain a huge fan of the city of Seattle due to Microsoft, Frasier and Shawn Kemp.

Last Week: 1-3
Playoff Record: 1-3
Regular Season Record: 113-143

Galleryfurniture.com Seattle Home Game Bowl

Four small columns synthesized into one to make up for not writing anything last week:

_________________________________________

Finishing 113-143 against the spread and last in my picks league sucked. My friend Angelo, with whom I tied for the picks title last year, won the coveted Double Crown. Angelo again tied for the lead in our picks league AND crushed everyone in our fantasy football league. Congrats to him. Angelo and I have an ongoing debate about what I will begrudgingly call "sports game efficiency" (YOU KNOW LIKE THE EFFICIENT MARKET HYPOTHESIS!??!? LOOK HOW EDUCATED I AM!!!!!!!!)

Even though the EMH is stupid, I believe in sports game efficiency. The idea is that no team is lucky – the 2007 Giants, the 2002 Buckeyes and others won by outperforming their opponents and that no other outcome should be surprising after the "more talented" team has revealed its flaws. My belief is that real life is not like a Madden simulation in which the team with higher ratings should always win.

Let's take the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl as an example. Did the Giants get lucky? No. If Asante Samuel was a better corner, he would have caught the game-sealing interception. If Rodney Harrison was a better safety, he would have knocked the ball away from David Tyree. And for the record – Tyree's catch is so frequently mistaken for luck that it deserves its own defense.

The catch was not the result of a random sequence of numbers awarding him possession. A highly-trained athlete jumped, secured the football against a defender and maintained possession as he was thrown to the ground. The entire play was entirely in his control – which is pretty much the exact opposite of luck. Furthermore, the Giants were not the beneficiary of help from the referees since there was no holding on the play nor was Eli Manning held up long enough to warrant whistling the play dead. The play was all skill.

On the other hand, I might be doing what Nassim Taleb calls "affirming the consequent". Angelo's belief, which is more or less articulated in Taleb's book Fooled by Randomness, is that if you were to simulate Super Bowl 42 100,000 times the Patriots would win the vast majority of those games. Each of the 100,000 games would have a score, the median result would be a comfortable Patriots win, and the observed result in February 2008 was a lucky fluke which is several standard deviations away from this median result. It is a very convincing argument, and Taleb is a very smart guy (even though he's the most condescending writer of all time).

I disagree because I think the assumptions of the simulations, to continue the analogy, are wrong. The "model" would have the Patriots with an unstoppable offense, a playmaking defense and a coach who is never wrong. A more accurate model would have an offense which Steve Spagnuolo figured out and a coach who took too long to adapt. With this model, I believe the median result would more or less resemble Giants 17, Patriots 14. Admittedly, the assumptions of this truer model are only revealed after the fact. But that doesn't mean the Giants' win was luck – it just means we didn't have enough information before the game to know the Patriots were flawed. We should be able to recognize these flaws after the game and realize the game played out as it should have. Taleb's beliefs make sense in the context of financial markets and a lot of military history, but I do not believe they can be extrapolated to sports.

A few final points on luck. First, I agree that it is possible in certain instances to be lucky. The best example is a Chargers-Broncos game in which the Chargers would have certainly won if not for Ed Hochuli's error. Instances of human error in which the fundamental rules of the game are altered are the main cases where I would concede that the winning team got lucky. Second, injuries can be a source of luck depending on the circumstances. Kevin Garnett getting hurt in 2009 is not unlucky (he's still great, but now old and fragile), but Kendrick Perkins getting hurt in 2010 was unlucky (young, no major injury history).

As the great Rasheed Wallace once put it: "Ball don't lie."
________________________________________________

Complaining about ESPN is so played out that I can only do it ironically at this point. Plus, the easiest punching bag on the network is Around the Horn. Since I hate to be jumping on the hate-bandwagorn, I will say two nice things about the show before complaining:

1. I understand that the point of the show is to be provocative, which is the primary explanation for why people occasionally say outlandish things. They are under constant pressure to be original and entertaining, which is difficult.
   
2. I have nothing personally against anyone on the show, and I actually like Tim Cowlishaw and J.A. Adande.
   

My complaint is that two people on the show (I can't remember which two, I watched the episode five days ago) were vehemently defending Seattle's right to host a playoff game. It made me angry enough to turn off the TV since it is exactly the type of mind-blowing ignorance that led some people to think that C.C. Sabathia deserved a Cy Young more than Felix Hernandez.

I don't understand people who defend the sanctity of the division system. I think it's great for scheduling purposes, but that's about it. Four divisions (AFC East, AFC West, NFC East, NFC North) are awesome because any intra-division matchup is a great rivalry with tons of history. The other four divisions are more or less made up of teams who weren't cool enough to get bids to the good divisions.

From what I understand of the Champions League, the crappier country leagues send one team to the tournament and the more prestigious leagues send more. Automatic bids in that case makes sense – each country is at least partially represented and the end result is a richer tournament. Divisions aren't sovereign entities with unique histories and cultures. We would be better off if Tampa Bay or New York were allowed to take Seattle's place. Nine wins should be a pre-requisite for a division winner to make the playoffs, and division winners shouldn't be guaranteed a home game.

__________________________________________

My fantasy basketball team is second in overall points scored but fifth in the standings and under-.500. This isn't particularly uncommon. In our fantasy football league, the regular season points leader finished in ninth and missed the playoffs. I feel stupid saying this on the heels of my anti-luck rant, but how unlucky is that? Fantasy games fit my definition of luck since the scoring system is not reflective of actual football. For example, turnovers don't mean nearly as much in fantasy as they do in real football and key statistics like third-down conversions and time of possession don't even exist.

Anyway, I know that head-to-head matchups are fun and everything, but that necessarily means we don't crown the best fantasy football team champion. I think it should be based strictly on scoring. People who disagree with me are correct in saying that it makes the game less fun, but at least an overall points system is more accurate. Our current head-to-head system is essentially an extension of Seattle getting a home playoff game.

___________________________________________

Finally, my picks. Home teams in bold, wish me luck:

Saints (-10.5) over Seahawks

This is not just a pick for the Saints. It's a pick for The Enlightenment, or at least for indoor plumbing. I really hate the fact that the Seahawks are here.

Colts (-2.5) over Jets

I'll be rooting for the Jets, but I just feel like this Jets team can be beat through the air. It's not shameful to lose to Tom Brady, but it is shameful to lose to Tom Brady by 42 when you pride yourself on defense. It's also pretty weak to give up 38 points to Chicago when it's snowing (shouldn't cold, wintery weather be Jets conditions? I guess not.). I really believe the Colts will beat the Jets and Steelers and make the AFC Championship Game. I also finished 30 games under .500 in picks, so keep in mind that I suck.

Ravens (-3) over Chiefs

Haloti for days.

Eagles (-2.5) over Packers

Nobody's picking the Eagles – a team that eviscerated the entire Giants season in a span of 7.5 minutes and has had two weeks to study Green Bay. Andy Reid remains an underrated coach, at least from a Cowboys fan's perspective. I really like the Eagles' chances of winning the NFC since all of the Saints' running backs got hurt. Fingers crossed it doesn't happen.

The Second Annual Gunslinger of the Year

Last year my friend Mike won the first annual Gunslinger of the Year award for his spontaneous decision to drive with his girlfriend to Disney World from Philadelphia for one night. He didn't even tell his girlfriend where they were going until they were out of Delaware.

I missed the NFL Network's Top Ten episode where they chronicled the ten slingiest gunslingers in the history of the league. Brett Favre obviously won, but I've been told that the clip the show aired to describe Slingin' Sammy Baugh was hilarious since it was just Baugh running drills in practice with a cigarette in his mouth and a beer in his non-throwing hand.

I don't miss that era, but I do like the romanticized version I've seen in movies. I finally saw It's a Wonderful Life and I loved it. I wish greasy hair and hats would make a comeback. At the very least, NFL coaches need to stop wearing team apparel and go back to wearing suits and hats on the sideline. I remember Jack Del Rio and Mike Nolan each tried to start doing that but the NFL told them to stop. Roger Goodell ruins everything.

I didn't do too much slinging this year. If slingin' were a crop and I was a fifth-generation slingfarmer, then right now you'd sympathize with me. Luckily, the government subsidizes me to the extent that I actually get paid to overproduce sling. Here is a list of my top three personal slings of the year:

3. I picked the Patriots to miss the playoffs and said the Redskins would make them. I am very, very stupid.

2. I am writing this instead of studying for finals. Finals season is a time when eating is gluttonous and hygiene is optional. It's also a time to read Pitchfork's "Best of" music lists, find the three artists I've heard of and act smugly superior to all friends. I read through p4k's archives one time and found one year in which an album which was given a rating of 10.0 was lower on a Best Albums list than an album they rated a 9.5. I don't believe in math unless it's non-Euclidean or at least ironic but that's ridiculous. The most ironic situation of the year was when I turned out to be "the other guy" with a girl with whom the first time hanging out was seeing Up in the Air. That's not as bad as 9^th grade when a girl broke up with me by throwing me into a volcano though.

1. I stopped using my laptop and phone while watching important NFL and NBA games. I highly recommend you do the same. You can't get the same emotional investment in a game if you're constantly distracting yourself with other forms of entertainment. Doing other things and looking at the screen only when the shot is in the air corrupts the entire experience of watching sports. Every Cowboys game and every marquee matchup (PIT-BAL, NE-NYJ, etc.) now gets my undivided attention. The recent Celtics-Knicks game was amazing and I'm happy I was able to catch all the little details by not immersing myself in web 7.0.1, which I think consists entirely of group discounts and Jeff Bridges.

Another thing I started doing which has made life a lot more enjoyable is that I stopped reading the comments sections of the web sites I visit. I never read YouTube comments because those are awful, but I used to read the comments at most other sites because I am a man of the people. But the comments threads are usually just people trying to one-up each other with how cool they are. For example, a blog will post a Simpsons clip and the easiest way to gain credibility in the comments thread, seemingly, is to say "Is The Simpsons still cool? I stopped watching 11 years ago." Look pal, The Simpsons is an American institution and a cultural export on par with blue jeans and capitalism. Everyone knows that the show isn't as good as it was in the mid-'90s but you need to show some respect. When I visited the Louvre with my parents, I was struck by the fact that even if I was given the rest of my life to replicate one of the paintings, I couldn't do it. Maybe it's a dumb point, but still. I definitely couldn't replicate the writing of the earlier Simpsons episodes either.

In fact, I wish saying the following things were banned from comment threads:

1. Anything vaguely political or pro/anti-religion when it's not related to the topic of the column.
   
2. Anything vaguely political or pro/anti-religion when it is related to the topic of the column.
   
3. Anything anti-Simpsons, ever (see above).
   

There has been a lot of solid gunslinging recently. Brett Favre shook off another injury to bravely turn the ball over repeatedly. Orlando Magic general manager Otis Smith blew up his roster to build a team that is definitely a contender as long as LeBron James, Derrick Rose and at least four Boston Celtics die before April 2011. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke slinged a second round of quantitative easing, and Jim Mora slinged his support for it with a memorable rant about layoffs and whether we were kidding him. The Harry Potter producers decided it was a good idea to split the seventh movie into two parts even though J.K. Rowling's source material was literally 85% camping (of which 75% was just descriptions of the various types of foliage they encountered). I'm not sure what they were thinking with that one.

Michael Vick's emergence doesn't count as gunslinging, but it is remarkable. He transformed himself into a humble nerd who does nothing but study football and thank others for his success. Historically, I've hated the Eagles more than I've hated any rival of Dallas's due to Philadelphia's decade-long run of dominance. But I like Vick's redemption story so much that he's taking the edge of my hatred. I know what Vick did was truly awful, but I think he paid his debt to society and I'm happy to see him rebuild his life.

Athletes are embroiled in scandal all the time, and each time one of them does something stupid/illegal the sports media spends some time writing loudly about how we don't REALLY know any of them. So, with the admittedly large caveat that I still know nothing about Vick beyond the seemingly contrite version I see in interviews, I want to say that I'm happy he's having some success.

J.A. Adande had a brilliant tweet right before LeBron returned to Cleveland that was something like "Sad but true: If LeBron had a DUI but still played for the Cavs, he'd have 20k+ fans cheering him right now." It's an excellent point, and brings up the following question: Donovan McNabb handled a decade of ingratitude from Philadelphia fans and the entire T.O. situation with class and dignity, yet it takes a convicted felon to get me to hate the Eagles a little less?

I can't deny that it's true, except that (like most sports fans) my "hatred" of the Eagles was never personal. I always respected and liked how guys like McNabb and Andy Reid (and Brian Westbrook, and Jim Johnson…) carried themselves. As a fan of a division rival, however, I wanted them to lose so that my team would succeed. I'm still rooting for the Eagles to lose each week, and I know its indefensible to have hated the franchise more when McNabb quarterbacked it. The best explanation I can give is that Vick's redemption story transcends sports and that the warm reaction most of us have to a person bettering himself is what's causing me to hate the Eagles a little less.

And finally, the award: The top candidates are Brett Favre, LeBron James and my friend Dan. Favre started the year with a masterful performance against Dallas in the divisional round and an awful sling against the Saints to once again win the game for the other team. He then got Vikings owner Zygi Wilf to give him $20 million and was mired in scandal for most of the season. LeBron started the year as one of the most beloved athletes in the country and ended up winning his second straight MVP award. He also passively accepted defeat against Boston, ditched a franchise on national television and responded to the backlash with a captivating Nike ad which was a perfect mix of introspection and defiance.

On the other hand, Dan invited like forty people to fondue in his obsessively clean roommate's room in an apartment which already had a roach problem. I think that the overall slinginess of a) the roommate not being home at the time but reminding Dan not to eat in the room b) Dan deciding to eat in there anyway c) and inviting most of northeast Philadelphia to d) fondue with him merits recognition. In Dan's defense, the roommate has a really nice TV (which is why Dan & Co. were in there to begin with). Dan's performance as a roommate in 2010 also included breaking someone's mattress and getting hustled out of $100 in a table-tennis bet which he ended up paying entirely in Campbell's Soup. In 2010, if there was a poor decision to be made, Dan was there to make it. He is the 2010 Gunslinger of the Year.

And to my three readers: thanks for reading. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

My picks: Pittsburgh (-13.5), Dallas (-6.5), Buffalo (+8.5), New York Jets (+1.5), Baltimore (-3.5), St. Louis (-2.5), Detroit (-3.5), Jacksonville (-6.5), Kansas City (-5.5), Indianapolis (-3.5), Houston (-2.5), San Diego (-7.5), Tampa Bay (-6.5), Green Bay (-2.5), Philadelphia (-13.5), New Orleans (-2.5).
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 97-127
(yikes.)

 

Mailbag 2

Once again, I begged my readership of six people to send me questions because mailbags are fun. Here's what they came up with:

Is petroleum jelly the best kind of jelly

This question lends itself to some easy sophomoric jokes which I have no intention of making. It does prompt a discussion about the best pseudo-foods though. I'd rank them, in order, as Chap-Stick (cherry), Tic-Tacs, Orbitz, Chap-Stick (unflavored), mouthwash, anti-freeze, toothpaste, insulin, permafrost, tempafrost, semi-frost, and Scott Frost.

Dear Mr. Soundd,

Have you noticed a strange narrative to this NFL season portrayed by the media? It seems that each year the actual on-field play matters less and less, and all the focus is placed on the drama surrounding the league. This year, it's been sex scandals, disgruntled players, disappointing teams, concussions and the violence of the game. I don't recall hearing the talking heads on Around the Horn sound off on Arian Foster's dominance, or Brandon freaking Lloyd destroying secondaries. Remember the LT watch a few years back? Or even AP's rookie year, when every game we would gush about what a HOF freak the guy was? Why aren't the efforts of the best players in the NFL being recognized anymore??

It's 2:30 in the morning and I had to take a break from organic chem, so this popped into my head. Take it or leave it.

Look man, it's Dr. Soundd. I didn't go through life as a high school dropout then become famous then get asked to speak at commencement for "cachet" then get an honorary dental degree JUST TO BE MR. SOUNDD. It's Dr. Soundd, D.D.S. if anything. I also love how you added "take it or leave it" to the end, making it the first ever passive-aggressive mailbag question. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, passively-aggresses like I do. I agree with the point that this reader raised, but he's also forgetting that the biggest stories this year mostly take place off the field.

The Brett Favre-Jenn Sterger story is the most obvious case. Many of us are too young to remember when Favre was the league's best player – he won his 3^rd and final MVP when I was eight. To put the scandal in perspective, it would be like Peyton Manning being embroiled in a harassment suit in 2019, except that for some reason he is the starter for the Patriots and nobody likes him anymore. I'm still a Favre fan though. I understand the reasons people cite when explaining why they are so tired of him, but I still like watching him play. Which brings us to the next question:

With Aaron Rogers and Jay Cutler firmly established gun-slingers, and Matthew Stafford's shoulder too busy "arm-sling"-ing, who is the future of gunslinging in the NFL? Is it Colt McCoy (who has the name) or Sam Bradford (who has the talent)? One thing is for sure, it's not Jimmy Clausen...Can we get a young gun-slingers power poll?

I like the use of "arm-sling" – a finely crafted pun. Gunslinging is going to get a lot of Oscar buzz this year because of the movie
True Grit, which I had assumed was about Jason Varitek playing the game the right way until I saw the trailer. I like how the NFL's quarterback situation and the NBA's point guard situation are both excellent right now. Each has a nice mix of legends (Brady/Manning/Nash/Kidd), stars in their respective primes (Rivers/Roethlisberger/Paul/Williams) and promising young'uns (Bradford/Stafford/Rose/Wall).

I'm going to skip the young gun-slingers power poll and instead direct everyone's attention to the most exciting player in the league: Haloti Ngata. Ever since Randy Moss died, Haloti has become my favorite player due to his ability to just eat offensive lineman. The man is completely unblockable. My favorite plays of his aren't the times he sacks the quarterback, but rather when he just bulldozes two linemen and collapses the pocket and forces an inaccurate throw. It's just so tough. Here is a video of Eddie George being tackled by Gilbert Brown's shoulder.

My son is finally starting to listen to real music. As a lifelong Springsteen fan I really want my son to grow up loving the Boss as much as I do. His birthday is coming up soon, and I would like to get him his first Bruce CD...as a fellow Springsteen junkie what do you suggest I get for him...Devils & Dust or Tunnel of Love? (I was much dismayed to discover that "A Patti Scialfa Christmas" is not in fact an actual album...damn)

It's difficult to rank Springsteen's albums since taste in music varies depending on mood. For example, if you're happy you'd probably pick the more upbeat songs from Born in the U.S.A., if you're depressed you might stick with Nebraska and if you feel like committing suicide you'll probably just listen to the song "Reno" to simulate the experience.

I love the Christmas season, and it's absolutely impossible to watch this video of young Bruce killin' it with "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" in Passaic, NJ in 1978 without feeling the same way. I remember when Bruce played halftime of the Cardinals-Steelers Super Bowl there was a prop bet of like 25:1 of a sax solo at some point during the show. Basically, that's a bet that he'll play "Born to Run", right? I wish I knew how to gamble because that was easy money. Actually, my picks record is 30 games under .500, so maybe it's a good thing I don't know any bookies.

With Robert Horry retired, and James Posey now decrepit, who is the current holder of the dagger?

Great question – I remember excitedly texting my friend when I found this movie in the clearance bin at Blockbuster. He jokingly asked if it was a buddy comedy starring Horry and Posey. A dagger, of course, is a key basket late in games that is technically not a game-winner but makes it very difficult for the other team to come back. The Washington Wizards' announcer Steve Buckhantz is famous for this call of a dagger by Gilbert Arenas. I vote for Derek Fisher as the current holder of the dagger.

Did you see Community yesterday?

I was asked this question by a friend on gchat and decided to throw it in the mailbag. I always make a point of watching 30 Rock and The Office and skipping the rest of NBC's Thursday night offerings. I've been told by many people that Community is worth watching, and I finally decided to try an episode after seeing the promos for the show's stop-motion Christmas special. It was fantastic.

The episode centers around one character experiencing psychological trauma and creating an alternate universe as an escape fantasy. I couldn't help but think of Pan's Labyrinth and Inception by the end of the show. I think the Community Christmas special actually compares favorably to Inception, which can be thought of as The Matrix 5 because The Matrix 4 was clearly Constantine. You never saw Constantine? I saw it twice in theaters and have the DVD.

I was able to admit when 30 Rock eclipsed The Office and it looks like Community might surpass 30 Rock. 30 Rock is frequently hilarious but most episodes don't have a meaningful plot and several characters (Kenneth, Jack's mom, etc.) have become annoying.

Do you think fundamental or technical analysis is more appropriate for analyzing who will win football games?

Well, we've seen a head-and-shoulders pattern coming from much of the NFC West and I think we're ready to see some breakout above recent resistance levels. Actually, my picks suck so much I'm better off just reading the entrails of a chicken.

One final point before moving to the picks. It's become chic to bash the telling of fantasy football stories before telling one. You know, saying something like "I know people hate fantasy football stories, but THIS STORY IS COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT". Whatever. I just wanted to let you guys know that even though I'm going to finish in last place in the picks league, I snuck into the playoffs in fantasy football as the eight seed and I'm ready to start an improbable run to the title.

Home teams in bold. Wish me luck:

Indianapolis Colts over Tennessee Titans (+2.5)

Yup, I got this one wrong even in hindsight.

Cleveland Browns over Buffalo Bills (-1.5)

Another classic frisk-off! I hate to pick against my boy Ryan Friskpatrick (who Rich Eisen tweeted has been nicknamed "The Amish Rifle" by his teammates). My friend made an interesting point about why he hates the Browns. "They don't have a real logo – they have a [expletive] helmet as their [expletive] logo. What the [expletive]." It was a valid point, and I'm from New Jersey.

Green Bay Packers over Detroit Lions (+6.5)

Cincinatti Bengals over Pittsburgh Steelers (-9.5)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers over Washington Redskins (+2.5)

Is Mike Shanahan going to make it to season three? Good coaches don't have to win ten games in their first year after inheriting a mess, but they should absolutely inject some frisk into them. The Buccaneers were awful at the beginning of last season, earned some frisk as the season went on and are a borderline playoff team this year. Shanahan had only one playoff win in ten season in Denver after John Elway retired, and this year's Redskins seem to be getting worse each week.

Atlanta Falcons over Carolina Panthers (+7.5)

Jacksonville Jaguars (-4.5) over Oakland Raiders

Seattle Seahawks over San Francisco 49ers (-4.5)

New Orleans Saints (-8.5) over St. Louis Rams

Very tough to say right now who should be coach of the year. Steve Spagnuolo and Bill Belichick are the frontrunners with Raheem Morris and Mike Smith close behind. The winner will probably be Spagnuolo if the Rams make the playoffs, but it's just as impressive that Morris is keeping the Bucs competitive in the brutal NFC South. I still don't think the Falcons are very good and I think their record is inflated. I think a quality team could expose them (like what the Patriots did to the Jets last week).

New England Patriots over Chicago Bears (+3.5)

Miami Dolphins over New York Jets (-6.5)

Denver Broncos over Arizona Cardinals (+3.5)

San Diego Chargers (-6.5) over Kansas City Chiefs

New York Giants over Minnesota Vikings (+2.5)

Baltimore Ravens over Houston Texans (+3.5)

Dallas Cowboys (+3.5) over Philadelphia Eagles

One of my friends pointed out that if the Cowboys beat the Eagles twice, the Eagles will probably miss the playoffs. Even if Dallas only beats Philly once, the Eagles will still probably have to win the rest of their games to avoid missing the playoffs. So, it's not quite the same as playing in the Super Bowl on your home field, but I'll take it.

Last Week: 7-9
Season: 79-113. Yes, I'm seriously 34 games under .500. But at least I did better than the CBS studio hosts (Dan Marino, Bill Cowher, Boomer Esiason and Shannon Sharpe) who went a combined 3-61 against the spread. Yes, they really did. 3-61!!!! No one was better than 1-15 and Boomer was 0-16!

Eight Crazy Nights

Comic actors are surprisingly polarizing given their choice of profession. I think this is because they pretty much play the same character in every movie, which means that if you don't like that particular character the actor has no chance of making you laugh. For example:

Will Ferrell: Boorish guy with deadpan delivery

Michael Cera: Angst-ridden awkward teenager. I think he plays me in my biopic.

Vince Vaughn: Normal guy who is usually scheming but gets easily flustered. My friend Dan thought that Vince Vaughn gained a lot of weight for one of his upcoming roles, but I had to tell him that Vince Vaughn is not Robert De Niro and Couples Retreat is not Raging Bull.

Adam Sandler: Boorish guy with over-the-top delivery.

And so on. I dislike Cera's work and used to love both Ferrell's and Vaughn's when I was younger. I'm still a huge fan of Adam Sandler's, an actor who has the rare ability to carry funny movies (Big Daddy, Happy Gilmore and 250 other Middle School Sleepover Hall of Famers) as well as serious ones (Spanglish, Reign Over Me). Sandler is also a huge Springsteen fan, which only makes him more likable.

Since comic actors are so polarizing, your taste in the aforementioned ones probably differs from mine. Still, I would hope we can all agree that Sandler's "Hanukkah Song" is both hilarious and incredibly catchy. Quick tangent: growing up, most of my friends were at least ½ Jewish. I led the league in what sabremetricians have dubbed BMAER (Bar Mitzvahs Attended Efficiency Rating). JUST BECAUSE C.C. ATTENDED MORE TOTAL BAR MITZVAHS DOESN'T MEAN HE'S BETTER THAN ME!!!!

Anyway, my friend Jason (who is Jewish) and I came up with a ton of lyrics we wish Adam Sandler had used in his song. We were talking during what many bloggers had dubbed "LeBronukkah" (James's return to Cleveland) and got the following results:

Me: Uday and Qassay suck…and so does Sadamukkah!
Jason: Palace at Auburn Hills observes RonRonukkah
Me: I did the Dream Shake to commemorate Olajuwonukkah
Me: And what about his coach? Rudy Tomjanukkahvich?
Me: who's your fav ex-Rams tight end? Brandon Manumaleunukkah?
Angelo [guest appearance]: I mean business…celebrate Natronukkah
Me: President LBJ had napalmukkah dropped on North Vietnamukkah.
Angelo: The Mavs at the trade deadline celebrating Caronukkah?
Angelo: 19 assists! Happy Rajonukkah!

I'm just giddy for the holidays in general. Everyone's so happy that it's infectious. "If you really really wannukkah…have a happy happy happy happy happy Hanukkah!!!!!"

 

 

 

 

Get Coached

Wade Phillips and Brad Childress had each been subjected to vicious personal attacks from their respective fan bases before getting fired. Both deserved to be fired, but honestly, I'm not a fan of the amount of rage which fans use to yell at coaches and players. Poor performance is not an excuse for ad hominem attacks.

Did you know that Childress has a son who is a Marine serving in Afghanistan? I didn't either, but suddenly Childress becomes a pretty sympathetic character due to the fact that on any given day the Department of Defense could send him the most tragic form letter imaginable.

Andy Reid is treated poorly as well. Snarky writers and disgruntled Philadelphia fans make fun of Reid incessantly, but consider what he's done since taking over the Eagles: 126-79-1, five division titles, five NFC championship game appearances and 1 Super Bowl appearance. His two losing seasons? His first season in 1999 (when he established the groundwork for his ultimately successful rebuilding plan) and again in 2005 (when an injury to Donovan McNabb and a tantrum by Terrell Owens torpedoed the season). Reid may never win a title, but neither has Jerry Sloan. Nobody calls Sloan a [expletive].

In fact, Reid's record compares favorably to Jeff Fisher's. Fisher has three division titles, two AFC championship game appearances, one Super Bowl appearance, and five losing seasons. They're both excellent coaches. So...to recap, Reid will make a few questionable decisions in a given season, but by January his Eagles are always several games above .500 and one of the NFC's best. I never understood why Reid is polarizing.

I'm almost done being holier than you. I came here not to bury Wade but to praise him.

/end rant

______________________________________________________

The
following video is an actual product I saw being advertised on ESPN one night. I immediately looked it up on YouTube because it seemed to be less an actual product and more an elaborate satire of capitalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCG5iAdT0E

After confirming that the inspirational video series was, in fact, real, I went to the company's website and read some more. It turns out that Get Coached is an inspirational/motivational video series in which Mike Ditka, Sean Payton, Rex Ryan, Mike Singletary and Bobby Bowden take turns yelling at you. The coaches take turns standing in a studio with a black background and harsh lighting – not unlike an interrogation room – while the camera makes dozens of quick cuts. The music which accompanies the speeches is dripping with faux intensity. The entire series takes five DVDs, which is surprising given that it only took Francis Coppola three DVDs to finish the Godfather saga. If Get Coached isn't 66% better than the Godfather, you should feel ripped off.

Honestly, I like all of these coaches and respect their accomplishments, but I feel like this video series was created just to be made fun of. Oh you didn't hear? Get Coached is the new Shake Weight.

Here are the actual titles of the DVDs (each coach hosts one session, I guess):

Mike Ditka: Total Commitment
Bobby Bowden: God, Family and Football
Mike Singletary: A Vision of Faith

That's cool, because I don't believe in the separation of church and football either. In fact, this is beginning to feel more and more like the recruitment and indoctrination ritual for a cult. Continuing:

Sean Payton: Aim High

This was also the name of the video that Tom Emanski let Tim Lincecum guest host. Yuk yuk yuk.

Rex Ryan: Give It All You Got

"Give It All You Got" is my favorite Bon Jovi song of all time. You know that one with all the power chords and anthemic singing? Give it all you got! We'll keep fightin' and make it! Go your own way…but give it all you got!!! I bet you were able to simulate the guitar part for a Bon Jovi song in your head while reading those lyrics.

Fortunately, I was able to find extended previews for each DVD. Let's dive deeper:

I love how Mike Ditka introduces himself as the head coach of the Super Bowl Champion Chicago Bears. Ditka was a great coach for that time, but his intro conveniently excludes his disastrous run in New Orleans. Note how he yells the word "player" at the 19 second mark. This man is intense. To be fair, the hyper-masculine schtick Ditka employs in this video would be a lot more impressive if it weren't for a certain photo from 1999. At the 34 second mark, the editor decided it would be a cool idea to splice the image so that there are three Ditkas yelling at you. One Ditka = not enough Ditka.

I think Mike Singletary has been treated unfairly by the public and deserves a second chance as a head coach on a team with a reasonably competent quarterback. I'm going to make fun of his video anyway. The title, "A Vision of Faith", is actually just a euphemism for dropping your pants at halftime. Most of Singletary's advice is related to dropping your pants in public situations. The first thirty seconds of the video is literally just Singletary reading his resume. "I was captain of the 1985 Chicago Bears. I was inducted into the Hall of Fame. I was the two time Defensive Player of the Year. I was treasurer of the Model UN." Singletary, at the one minute mark: "There is one word, which I believe defines any good leader." Pantsless?

Rex Ryan is my favorite coach in the league but his video was similarly goofy. At the 49 second mark, the video is so intense it ditches color all together and becomes black and white. I think they could have improved things by making it a silent film where it's just footage of Rex mouthing something intense at you and then a black screen displays the text of what he just said: "Let's go have a God damn snack" They also zoom in on Rex's eyes at the last second before the video ends. Get Coached is the kind of thing which is very difficult to make fun of since it pretty much makes fun of itself, much like the 2010 Dallas Cowboys.

Sean Payton's video makes me sad because he worked under Bill Parcells in Dallas and should have become the head coach after Parcells left. Instead of paying Payton a retention fee and making him the heir, Jerry Jones let Payton walk in 2006 in favor of Wade Phillips and Jason Garrett. In fact, since I love Parcells so much, let me compare his coaching tree to that of Bill Belichick:

Parcells's Tree, the Good: Payton (1 SB), Tom Coughlin (1 SB), Tony Sparano, Todd Haley (all turned around terrible franchises).
Parcells's Tree, the Bad: Ray Handley, Chris Palmer, Al Groh.

Belichick's Tree, the Good: Jim Schwarz, Nick Saban. Charlie Weis and Romeo Crennel are good coordinators, but that doesn't count.
Belichick's Tree, the Bad: everyone else. And Saban's only good in college.

 

My picks actually improved a little over the last two weeks. I'm still in last place in my league, but at this point I'm building for the future. I had the Texans getting 7.5 on Thursday night (didn't cover), so this week is already looking pretty bad. Home teams in bold, wish me luck:

New Orleans Saints over Cincinnati Bengals (+6.5)

Chicago Bears over Detroit Lions (+3.5)

Green Bay Packers (-9.5) over San Francisco 49ers

Everyone makes excuses for the Packers when they lose. "But they're so talented!" "But that turnover was a fluke!" "But they outgained the other team by 200 yards!". I used to do this to, but I realized that the Packers' penchant for dumb mistakes at key moments trumps their admittedly high talent level. They deserve to lose every game they've lost.

For example, in last week's loss to Atlanta, if the Packers had EITHER not fumbled at the goal line OR not committed a personal foul on the kickoff which setup the Falcons' game winning drive, Green Bay probably wins that game in overtime. But this is how they lose games. They lost to Chicago despite outgaining them by 100 yards and leading in the fourth quarter, and they lost to the Redskins and Dolphins under similar circumstances. At some point, your team just isn't built to win close games against good teams and it's no longer a fluke.

I think the Packers' season will end in the same way it did for the 2009 Vikings. Last year's Vikings outgained the Saints the NFC Championship Game 475-257. That's 218 yards! Despite four turnovers, the Vikings had the ball with the game tied in the closing seconds and were in New Orleans' territory…when they committed their fifth turnover and lost in overtime. The Packers might not even make the playoffs.

Jacksonville Jaguars over Tennessee Titans (-3.5)

"Well before I get to questions man I'd like to say something…"

Kansas City Chiefs (-8.5) over Denver Broncos

Miami Dolphins (-4.5) over Cleveland Browns

Buffalo Bills over Minnesota Vikings (-6.5)

New York Giants (-7.5) over Washington Redskins

San Diego Chargers (-13.5) over Oakland Raiders

Most NFL fans – myself included – expect the Chargers to win the AFC West and make the playoffs. Still, we should keep in mind that their start sucked so much that in any given week a combination of Chiefs win + Chargers loss would put the Chiefs two games up with less than five games left. Plus, the Chiefs won the first meeting. I'm just sayin'.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (+3.5) over Atlanta Falcons

The Falcons are 9-2? They're still frauds! I never get tired of being wrong.

Seattle Seahawks (-5.5) over Carolina Panthers

St Louis Rams over Arizona Cardinals (+3.5)

Indianapolis Colts (-5.5) over Dallas Cowboys

Sobsobsob

Baltimore Ravens (-3.5) over Pittsburgh Steelers

New England Patriots (-3.5) over New York Jets

I hope Rex wins this, but I don't want to pick Sanchez over Brady.

Season Record: 72-104. Yikes.

 

 

 

Midterms

No time to write a real NFL picks column today since I have a midterm tomorrow and I haven't started studying yet. Dan said last week's column was week anyway. I liked it, but his standards are impossibly high due to his own award-winning blog Fundamentally Roundd, in which he frequently comments on the link between rye bread, sriracha sauce, and reasonably priced produce.

Last week I went 7-6 after picking exclusively based on Frisk. Sadly, this was my first week all year where I was better than .500. Home teams in bold, wish me luck:

Atlanta Falcons (-8.5) over Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Buffalo Bills (+2.5) over Chicago Bears

Ryan Friskpatrick lives!

New England Patriots (-4.5) over Cleveland Browns

Detroit Lions (+4.5) over New York Jets

Minnesota Vikings (-8.5) over Arizona Cardinals

New Orleans Saints (-7.5) over Carolina Panthers

Miami Dolphins (-5.5) over Baltimore Ravens

San Diego Chargers over Houston Texans (+1.5)

Seattle Seahawks (+5.5) over New York Giants

Oakland Raiders (-2.5) over Kansas City Chiefs

The aesthetics for this game are going to be awesome.

Indianapolis Colts over Philadelphia Eagles (-2.5)

Pittsburgh Steelers over Cincinatti Bengals (+4.5)

Green Bay Packers (-7.5) over Dallas Cowboys

Dallas is still getting too much love from Vegas. A 1-6 team with no secondary and no way to protect its quarterback (who is Jon Kitna, by the way) will not do well against Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews. Roy E. Williams said this week that he thinks Dallas can run the table, finish 10-6 and sneak into the playoffs. I'm just excited to have Cowher or Gruden next year. I looked at the numbers for the two coaches, and I can honestly say that I'm indifferent between the two:

Jon Gruden: 47 years old, 100-85 (career .540 win pctg), 1 Super Bowl title

Bill Cowher: 53 years old, 149-90-1 (career .623 win pctg), 1 Super Bowl title

Cowher's more accomplished, but slightly older and I think Gruden would be hungrier.

The Decisions

The rise of atdhe.net and justin.tv has changed the way we watch sports. Each site is presumably illegal, but each offers live streams of sporting events which would otherwise be either unwatchable or prohibitively expensive to order (NFL Sunday Ticket is not cheap). Watching NFL games through these websites is a fantastic way to avoid the classic Jersey trap of "Jets-Bengals at 1, Giants-Cardinals at 4" as my only viewing options. The video quality is slightly worse than standard definition, but I'm still happy to watch.

The same cannot be said of the websites' transmission of NBA games. The video feeds were glitchier and more prone to collapse. More importantly, mediocre video quality becomes a far bigger problem when watching an NBA game.

An NFL broadcast is structured in such a way that makes it robust to problems with a stream's video quality. When the ball is thrown or a running back takes the ball, the camera follows the action so the viewer's eyes are "guided" to where they are supposed to be. Individual players are easy to keep track of as well. Peyton Manning's number 18 is displayed largely and Manning can always be found a few steps behind the line of scrimmage.

The same cannot be said for basketball, which makes it difficult to enjoy a pirated stream with mediocre resolution. Once the offense crosses half court, the camera is essentially static. This means the viewer must follow the ball on his own – an effortless task in HD, but pretty annoying with grainy video. Moreover, the fluidity of basketball means that it is significantly more difficult to keep track of where the players are. Imagine the following scenario:

A camera follows Rajon Rondo, and it pans from left to right as he brings the ball up the court. The camera settles as the Celtics get into an offensive set. Rondo throws the ball to Ray Allen on the near side wing. Rondo cuts through the paint after his pass, but your eyes stay on Allen since he has the ball. With grainy video and Rondo now somewhere else on the court, can you quickly find Rondo?

Probably not. Plus, I picked a team (Boston) with multiple stars whose faces fans would recognize instantly. Replace Rondo and the Big 3 with the Milwaukee Bucks and an already difficult task becomes exponentially tougher.

Fortunately, the
NBA allows fans to purchase the ability to stream live games to their laptops for the entire regular season. The video quality is excellent, and the only restrictions are that games featuring the local market's team and games which are nationally televised are blacked out. The league offers two options: a Premium League Pass package in which every game from every team is available (for $190) or a Choice League Pass package where every game for seven teams is available ($120).

I don't have time to watch every game of every team, so I didn't think it was worth the extra $70 to watch every game. $120 is not cheap, but I love the NBA (despite Stu Jackson's best efforts) and decided to splurge. This meant I had a decision to make:

If you just spent $120 for the ability to watch every game for the rest of the year for seven teams, which seven would you choose?

I chose based on the following:

Diversification: I didn't want to pick too many teams in the same division. Since I can only pick seven teams, I didn't want to waste too many games where two of my seven would be playing each other.

Exposure: There are a handful of teams which are frequently on national TV. Since all of these games will be blacked out on League Pass, I wanted to avoid the teams with high exposure unless I could come up with a compelling reason.

Storyline: There are several teams where we pretty much know how the season is going to end. For example, it's hard to see Utah getting past the second round of the playoffs. I like Deron Williams and will watch him whenever he's on national TV, but it doesn't seem worth it to waste one of my seven spots on the Jazz because the team itself isn't going anywhere.

Potential: This criterion was initially titled "Young Talent" but that sounds really creepy. I think that watching young, hungry players for an entire regular season is more interesting than watching a polished veteran team which is saving itself for the playoffs.

Here's what I came up with:

Boring teams which never had a chance to be chosen: Charlotte, Toronto, Cleveland, Indiana, Detroit, Memphis, Philadelphia, Minnesota.

The Sixers have Evan Turner and the Timberwolves have Kevin Love, but neither plays more than 27 minutes per game and their respective teams are otherwise awful.

Not getting past the second round: Atlanta, Houston, Utah, Denver

I think it's best if we're just friends: Phoenix, New Orleans

It was very difficult for me to say goodbye to Steve Nash and Alvin Gentry. I loved the 2009-10 Suns; by returning to the Seven Seconds or Less offense, Nash & Gentry nearly got the Suns to the Finals. During the offseason, last year's roster was blown up and Steve Kerr resigned due to the owner's cheapness. The Suns have started 1-3 and Nash's recent comments suggest that he might want to leave Phoenix. I'm ok with him jumping to a contender for the same reason it was fine when Gary Payton and Karl Malone (and Ray Borque, and LaDainian Tomlinson…) did it. If you're a first-ballot Hall of Famer with two years left and no hope of a title on your current team, it's ok to chase a ring with someone else. If the Suns start off 11-23 and Nash gets dealt, what's the point of watching the Suns?

I had the same rationale with the Hornets. Chris Paul is one of my favorite players, but if he gets traded or hurt, then I'm stuck watching Peja Stojakavic and pretending its 2002.

Coasting until April and always on TV: Boston, Los Angeles Lakers, San Antonio, Orlando.

Rajon Rondo is electric enough that I nearly went with Boston, but in the end I didn't think it was worth it. I love watching Kobe play – and rooting against him – but he's saving his legs for the playoffs. The Spurs and Magic are always on TV. I like watching Dwight Howard, but we already know what's going to happen in Orlando this year (unless they land Nash or Chris Paul): 58 wins, beat every bad team by 20 but lose in the 2^nd round to Boston or Miami.

Almost did it but changed my mind: Portland, Los Angeles Clippers, Milwaukee, Sacramento, New York

Portland has the most depth (and, um, length) of any team in the league. Reggie Miller said that the Blazers are more likely to challenge the Lakers than the Thunder, and I think he's right. The Clippers have great young talent (Blake Griffin and Eric Bledsoe) but I realize that picking too many crappy teams with fun players would not be good decision making. The Bucks have a player who personally responded to my message on Facebook but are probably going to regress from last season. The Knicks have great uniforms and some solid young talent (Landry Fields, Toney Douglas, Danilo Gallinari) but I wasn't comfortable spending a spot on them.

One quick note: The Portland crowd disappointed me so hard yesterday. During a tense, nationally televised game last night against another elite team (the Thunder) the crowd was effectively dead. I was surprised since the conventional wisdom is that Portland has a top-5 NBA crowd. Maybe they do, but they sucked yesterday.

The Chosen: New Jersey, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Chicago, Washington, Golden State, Miami.

The Nets were my favorite team for roughly fifteen years until they finalized plans to move to Brooklyn, removed "New Jersey" from their uniforms and traded away my favorite player of all time. You might think that I should still be a Nets fan after the move due to Brooklyn's proximity to New Jersey, but I feel like the organization disrespected its current home to the extent that I am no longer a fan. People in Seattle don't root for the Thunder, you know?

I picked the Mavericks as my new favorite team once they landed Jason Kidd in 2008. I root for old guys with no rings in any sport, so I am happy to pay to watch Kidd and Nowitzki on a daily basis despite the Mavs' high exposure level. I also picked Oklahoma City as one of my League Pass teams since they have Durant and Russell Westbrook and the best home crowd in basketball.

The Thunder are a chic pick to win the West this year, but I see two major holes. First, their help defense is awful. The Blazers and Clippers both scored at will against Oklahoma City. TNT stat guys put up a graphic yesterday which said that the Thunder allow the most field goal attempts near the rim of any team in the NBA. Second, Russell Westbrook is actually more clutch than Kevin Durant right now. I love everything about Kevin Durant, especially the way he carries himself. But during last night's Portland game, it was Westbrook's combination of key jumpshots and fearless drives which saved the Thunder in the 4^th Quarter. Durant missed his last five shots from the field. If I remember correctly, the same thing happened during last year's playoff series against Los Angeles: late in games, Durant couldn't hit a shot and Westbrook would have to bail his team out. I'm not calling Durant soft or anything, and he's obviously the most important player on that team. I'm just writing what I saw.

The Bulls have great uniforms and a potential MVP in Derrick Rose. The Warriors have the most fun offense in the league, or as some might say…one of the MOST BEST OFFENSE…IN THE LEAGUE.

John Wall is amazing and I hate how he's going to be a superstar since he won't be on the Nets. Wall's quickly becoming one of my favorite players and I'm excited to watch his development this year. I realize that if he gets hurt, then I'm screwed because I'll be watching JaVale McGee and Andray Blatche for 82 games, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. Colin Cowherd blasted John Wall because…he's 19 and has fun before games.

I don't make fun of ESPN's NFL analysts (Schlereth, Hoge) anymore because it finally hit me how difficult their jobs are. It's hard to say something interesting, on live TV, when your audience is already pretty well-educated about the sport. I was being unfair to them. But Cowherd is an opinion guy, and his anti-Wall tirade was pathetic and mean-spirited.

Finally, the Heat. The Heat play on national TV a lot this season, and it's possible one of their stars gets hurt. Their home crowd sucks and they act like they've won five titles. But…come on. This is Miami's season, and I can't look away.