My eye caught this disclaimer as it zipped past during the credits of last night's "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader"... maybe not grossly incriminating but it has to rub off some of the wiz kids' luster, no? It's a lot like memorizing a "People: Best of 2006" from cover to cover (minus Nintendo Wii snippet, hah!) in hopes of triumphing at the annual New Year's Eve Jeopardy challenge.

Labels: bunkum, holidays, tv

First off, the pretentious chef thing. I may have touched on it briefly in the past, but this issue really got under my skin after reading an email recently from a co-worker. In an announcement about an upcoming culinary event, references to Chef This Guy and Chef That Guy were aplenty. And to top it off, the email was signed by program director Chef Firstname Lastname. The funny thing is, when I first started working here at the Institute, the emailer was in the position of Admissions Director, known simply as Firstname Lastname.

Now I'm going to venture a guess that at least 99.5% of all people past and present know or have known how to cook food. I mean, it's so easy a caveman could do it. Therefore, I reason that doing something professionally that everyone else can do on at least some level is not worthy of a title. In other words... get over yourselves! Identifying the taste of paprika is a far cry from detecting coronary artery narrowing. And another thing... I'll take a Chick (with no pick) over Seared Tuna with Dueling Pepper Coulis everyday!

I think I'll stay in my Inbox for a second as it leads me to my next victim: an old English teacher. Let me tell you something Outlook spellchecker, I know how to spell Monta Ellis' name. He's not Monty. He's not Monte. He's Monta. The red squiggly line under his name reminded me of a paper I wrote in 8th grade about Isiah Thomas. The teacher circled the name in red and wrote "Isaiah" next to it. My '90/'91 Hoops cards must have conflicted with the Bible or something. Bottom line Mrs. Pitzer... mark-up my paper until your Sharpie runs dry, but don't question my NBA authority and expect me to forget about it (17 years later)!!

While we're talking spelling, let's jump into the dictionary. Since coming across The Situationist web site, I've found many of their posts and articles interesting. To keep things straight, I need a dictionary handy and my preference is www.m-w.com. Yo Merriam, Webster, what's up with including defined words in their definitions? In no way have you helped me make sense of "disinhibition." What more do I now know about "heuristics?" Mrs. Pitzer may not know how to attack a 2-3 zone, but she sure knows you can't use a word in its own definition! Turn off Colbert for a few nights and get to defining!!!

Speaking of obnoxious (in this case unintentionally so) on-air personalities, I had the misfortune of tuning into ESPN Radio this morning on my drive to work. Although I rarely listen, I find Mike & Mike to be likeable hosts, but it seems that even they cannot escape the sports-talk agenda. How in the world, with Spring Training right around the corner and so many fans craving their peanuts and crackerjack, can Roger Clemens' situation be such a headliner story deserving detailed analysis?!? It's a simple story that we've seen unfold before. It's older than the On-Star hotline guest delivering the insight. We don't care.

My use of ESPN.com parallels my use of ESPN Radio... you try to stay away for the most part, but sometimes you get confused and think it's the best option available. For instance yesterday, when I saw a line about Dennis Johnson passing away. I thought that the WWL would be a decent place to find a good ol' AP release, which was the case. Additionally, ESPN's trend-following user comments section trailed the standard article. The "conversation" for this particular piece highlighted the silly side of Web 2.0's underbelly. Many readers posted comments to the effect of "Even though I'm a huge Lakers fan, RIP DJ." First of all, I don't know what the whole typing RIP into a message board thing does, but how about the "Even though I'm a Lakers fan" themes? Just plain silly. I guess people talk because they think they have to in the virtual world too.

Labels: bunkum, rants, work

Peter King said (on page 7 of this week's Monday Morning QB):

h. You can always count on Aaron Brooks for a minus-two touchdown-to-interception ratio in a meaningless game. Or a meaningful one, for that matter, though he hasn't played in one of those in years.

Being a quasi Aaron Brooks apologist, I threw this comment into his Mailbag:

Nice try Mr. King. I'm no Aaron Brooks apologist, but check out these touchdown-to-interception ratios: Aikman 1.17; Moon 1.24; Elway 1.32; Kelly 1.35; AARON BROOKS 1.40.

This next sentence was going to link to the reprint of that mind-blowing nugget in today's Monday Morning QB Tuesday Edition. But I am shocked, shocked!, to see that King (unranked, by the way) ducked my call-out of his call-out. And I'm sure the Aaron Brooks photo choice on page 2 is a not so coy call-out of my call-out of his call-out.

Anyway, Donovan's is 2.11. Try to remember that when ol' #5 gets back on the field (sometime in the middle of 2010?) and Aikman is in the booth questioning his decision-making.

Labels: bunkum, nfl

What's up with ESPN's infatuation with the trade deadline? Thankfully, my exposure to the network's baseball coverage this season has been limited, but the few instances where I had no better choice, all I heard was talk about who's going where before the trade deadline. Last year, this talk started weeks into the season on ESPN Radio as Tim Kurkijan declared which teams were going to take on the big salaries and which teams were looking to dump those salaries. Doesn't this whole Buy/Sell, trade deadline concept cheapen the sport? So why turn it into such a circus? Selling the actual on-field action short by replacing it with rumors and gossip is a disservice to the game.

Looking around the diamond

Looking at Randy Johnson... he's like the anti-babyface. They say he's getting old and losing his stuff a bit, but he looks exactly like he did on his '89 Donruss Rated Rookie - like a 45 year old man.

Looking at Andruw Jones... he looks just like Antoine Walker, who looks like a beefy, battered middleweight boxer. Therefore, Andruw Jones looks like a beefy, battered middleweight boxer. That's like algebra or something.

Looking at Rickie Weeks... I think he's the new Ron Gant. Pop and speed, he's got 30/30 potential. Also, he plays a lousy second-base and will undoubtedly be moved to the outfield within the next few seasons.

Looking at Adam Dunn... call him Hans Solo. He's got 23 homeruns and 43 RBI. What kind of ratio is that?!?** The kind you end up with when you only hit solo shots. I can't find homerun breakdown stats, but when looking at the other NL hitters with over 20 shots, it appears as though Dunn should have at least 50 RBI. Only Alfonso Soriano (49) joins Dunn with less than 50, but he's a leadoff hitter.

** Yes, Adam Dunn is on my fantasy team.

Labels: baseball, bunkum, rants

I'm watching the entire Cubs/Cardinals game... must be fantasy baseball playoff time!

Anyway, here are additional Super Bowl picks. Note the Merrill Hoge column. He's got the Cowboys winning the NFC East. He didn't pick the Eagles to win their division last season either. I guess if you're an ex-fullback that can still speak complete sentences, that's good enough for ESPN. Got a hankerin' for hospital food? Wear an old Merrill Hoge Steelers jersey to a Philly home game sometime. Here's to Sal and Mort's prognostications panning out.

Labels: bunkum

ESPN the Magazine's choice to play in this NFL season's Super Bowl: Vikings over Colts. We're talking Super Bowl XL Bristol, not III 1/2! Okay, even though I hate to see the Eagles get slighted, I guess they're not the worst predictions I've seen. No, the worst is Joe Theisman's selection to represent the NFC - the Redskins. I guess ESPN gave him next season's Monday Night Football gig as Al Michaels sidekick because of his fearlessness. I'm also wondering if "Stink" Mark Schlereth had to submit his choice of Ravens as AFC rep before actually watching a preseason full of B-More QB Kyle Boller's erroneous play. Nevertheless, I'll side with half of the Mag's picks and go on the record as picking an Eagles over Colts Super Bowl.

The Eagles have surprised me a bit with some of their decisions on their 53-man roster. After what Hugh Douglas gave them last season, I would have liked to see his presence return this season, but he was one of the final cuts for the Birds. Can;t say I'll miss other veteran cuts John Ritchie or Sean Landeta. The decision to go with Josh Parry at FB makes sense since he can contribute mightily on Special Teams, whereas Ritchie cannot. The acquisitions of Darnerian McCants and Lamar Gordon might work out well. These guys could actually play fairly significant roles, but the additions must mean the Birds aren't sold on Billy McMullen or Bruce Perry.

The retirement of Jerry Rice probably won't get much bad pub, but to me it falls in line with the obnoxious behavior of the NFL's top wideouts this preseason. You gotta love a guy hanging on to his last opportunity to play because he loves the game of football so much that he can't stand to leave, which was how I interpreted Rice's situation when he signed with the Broncos and was told he'd have to fight for a roster spot. Well, Rice made the team, only to retire shortly after because he was slated as the teams 4th receiver on the depth chart. That tells me that Rice may very well have been in it more to compile additional numbers rather than enjoy an opportunity to contribute to a division contender. In a league where players make frequent visits to the trainer's table, he was only an injury away from playing a huge role for a team that gave him a chance. Seems to me like Jerry Rice was sticking around for the stats rather than the game.

Labels: bird seed, bunkum, nfl

Paying close attention to the KNBR flap, Travis sent me the following email earlier today:

Good article on the situation...
Click here for article

For the most part, I dug the article. Then I logged onto CBS Sportsline for some numbers and replied:

Best line:

"Folks, could we possibly de-escalate the rhetoric? We'll have nothing left if genuine tragedy strikes."

Worst line:

"He might come back with an insight about how something other than lack of intelligence might account for some of those kids, when grown up, hacking at slop nightly."

Isn't he basically making the same claim Krueger did, minus the "brain-dead" part? There are currently (as of games played before August 11th) 11 free-swingers with 100 or more strikeouts. With the exception of Canadian Bay, all of these slop-hackers are Americans.

1 Adam Dunn CIN LF 122
2 Richie Sexson SEA 1B 122
3 Brad B. Wilkerson WAS CF 114
4 Pat Burrell PHI LF 112
5 Mark Bellhorn BOS 2B 109
6 Preston Wilson WAS CF 107
7 Jason Bay PIT LF 104
8 Brandon Inge DET 103
9 Troy Glaus ARI 3B 101
10 Eric Chavez OAK 3B 100
11 Jim Edmonds STL CF 100

I know it can be argued whether this stat alone is indicative of undisciplined bat-swinging. Just throwing some relevant numbers out there since many people will probably agree with the non-inflammatory parts of the guy's original point. I'm not buying it. I'll buy "baseball players hack at slop nightly."

Labels: baseball, bunkum

I received my latest ESPN the Magazine on Friday... turned out to be both its Fantasy Football Preview and Summer X Games Preview issue. Pop quiz: Which of these previews will deliver better draft results for your Fantasy Football team? Answer: Neither.

After quickly flipping through the Magazine (I usually just skip straight to the last page to see the photoshopped image), I thought it might make more sense from a fantasy perspective for me to dig up last year's Fantasy Football Preview issue. Their '04 Crib Sheet blurb reads:

"... That's where we come in. We asked the geniuses at Scouts, Inc. to ID the latest trends, the biggest sleepers and the big names most likely to take a bigger fall..."

Let's review some of the Scouts, Inc. geniuses' highlights:

• #4 QB Matt Hasselbeck, "a top-five fantasy passer in contract year. Ka-ching!"
  -He finished 12th overall among QBs and scored more than 160 points fewer than top 2 QBs. Ka-ching!
  
  
• #6 QB Steve McNair, "great fantasy production and you can trust him to stay on the field."
  -Oops. McNair finished 31st among QBs because he played in less than half of his team's games due to injury.
  
  
• #15 QB Jake Delhomme, "Repeat after us: Carolina's a running team."
  -The Panther QB finished as the 7th ranked QB and attempted 36 more passes than Peyton Manning.

And those are just the Quarterbacks. Sure there were some predictions that landed in the vacinity of reality. For the most part, I would say the geniuses were around 50-50 in terms of accuracy. For example, their "Good to Go?" column on injured players most likely to come back: Rich Gannon (no), Warrick Dunn (yes), Willis McGahee (yes), Charles Rogers (no) and Dallas Clark (somewhere in between).

The bottom line is, there really is not an exact science to projecting the fantasy football success of NFL players. And to make the claims that some publications and web sites do, well it's Merrill Hoge-like (ESPN NFL analyst who predicted that the Eagles wouldn't make the playoffs last year). Their rankings are no more worthy than mine or yours and its proof that "the plan" is more important than "the players" in the world of fantasy sports.

Labels: bunkum, fantasy football