Man Bites Blog

I thought it would be fun to provide answers to all the (implied unanswerable) questions in Gregg Easterbrook’s TMQ column this week.

The lack of answers leaves several questions hanging out there. Chief among them: Is it possible the Patriots’ tapes showed some evidence of New England cheating in a Super Bowl?

I suppose. Is it possible that that newspaper you just threw out contained some incriminating evidence? Huh?

After Aiello twice declined to say what the Patriots’ materials showed, I heard from him a third time Sunday. He wrote in an e-mail that my assumption the tapes contained indications of Super Bowl cheating is “wrong,” then wrote, “There is no such evidence regarding the Patriots’ Super Bowl victories.” So, is this the denial that I’ve been seeking?

I guess. You and nobody else.

When I pointed that out, Aiello countered that the reason for the destruction was “so that our clubs would know they no longer exist and cannot be used by anyone.” Again, if the sole copies were being held by the league, how could any club use the material?

The idea is to avoid the possibility of impropriety. As long as the leagues has the tapes, the possibility exists that they could be leaked to another team.

If a big American institution such as the NFL is not being honest with the public about a subject as minor, in the scheme of things, as the Super Bowl, how can we expect American government and business to be honest with the public about what really matters?

Not sure if Easterbrook’s ecumenical soup chuch also heard the parable of the dishonest steward last weekend, which ends with Jesus admonishing, “The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones.” That might explain this odd line.

Except its application here is a bit clumsy because we’re not talking about the same people. I could use the same logic to launch a crusade against people saying they enjoyed meals they didn’t really care for. Government officials are accountable to the public. The NFL isn’t. If we don’t like the way the NFL runs its business, we don’t have to watch it.

Kansas City cheerleader Haley is a college student whose fashion personality, according to her team bio, is “classic and trendy.” How can you be classic and trendy simultaneously?

Not sure, but being smokin’ hot probably plays a role.

The Redskins rushed up to the line as if the clock was about to expire, snapping the ball on fourth-and-goal; the team didn’t seem set, the play was discombobulated and the runner crashed into his own blocker, ending the game. Why did Washington hurry the final play? There were 40 seconds on the clock, ample time for a standard huddle.

They were hoping to catch the Giants off-guard. It obviously didn’t work, since the Giants were organized to stop the play, but not a terrible idea.

And why hasn’t there been a big-budget Green Hornet flick?

Interesting point. I always considered the Green Lantern to be one of the cooler superheroes. I guess they had to exhaust Batman and Spiderman first.

What is the story with the 0-3 Rams? Maybe the weak start links to Rams coach Scott Linehan’s preposterously naming nine captains — Marc Bulger, Steven Jackson, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, La’Roi Glover, Pisa Tinoisamoa, Will Witherspoon, Corey Chavous and Jeff Wilkins

More likely it was the injury to Orlando Pace leading to the entire team playing scared and trying to play offense like the Chicago Bears without a corresponding defense and special teams.

Or it could be having nine captains, I suppose. Having a few extra guys making that initial trek to midfield may add to fatigue….

But when it was Philadelphia leading 49-21 with eight minutes remaining, what the hey was McNabb doing still in the game and still heaving passes? Especially as he’s less than a year removed from a torn ACL.

Not sure what the incremental risk of re-injuring a knee is for an extra quarter of football.

The Eagles needed to win this game, and McNabb needed to establish rhythm with his receivers. There is probably also some code of “respect” with NFL coaches that says that the team ahead doesn’t call off the dogs until the losing team surrenders.

When it was Philadelphia 56-21 with five minutes remaining, what the hey was Jon Kitna doing still in the game and still heaving passes? Especially when he’s just a week from a concussion.

A better question — probably wanting Kitna to leave on a good note.

How long until celebrities construct giant roofs over their swimming pools to frustrate space-based photography?

I’m guessing pretty long.

Trailing 21-17, Seattle had first-and-10 on the Trick or Treats’ 22 with 1:06 remaining. The Seahawks must score a touchdown to win, so where, oh where, might the pass go? Maybe up the field!

Or not. 1:06 is a pretty long time to got 22 yards. The Seahawks had all sorts of options at this point, not quite Hail Mary time.

Come on, Canton, the Canadians can do it, why can’t you?
Because the Mexicans don’t.

How come no one wants to be nicknamed Half-Track Williams?
Would you want to be nicknamed Half-Track Williams?

Washington hadn’t scored in the second half and had gained only 51 yards in the entire half to that point. Why was a blitz needed?

Had the Giants blitzed at all in building up those impressive statistics.

I suspect the blitz was “needed” in an attempt to put pressure on the QB to either sack him or force him into a bad throw.

And what was that color Houston was wearing?
Dark blue

Want to go hiking where nuclear-bomb triggers were made?
Not particularly, I suppose, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to avoid it.

Trailing 30-20 with 3:07 remaining and two timeouts, Atlanta faces fourth-and-goal on the Carolina 6.So do they try for the touchdown, or take a field goal then onside kick, or take a field goal then boom a standard kickoff?
They took the FG and boomed the kick-off. May be defensible, depending on how the defense was playing. The real sin was the defense letting DeSahun Foster pick up three first downs and ice the game. Hard to win that way.

Tight end is the NFL’s most neglected position: endlessly quarterbacks look for wide receivers who are covered by really fast guys when the tight end can go down the seam covered by a linebacker. Will offensive coordinators notice Dallas’ success with tight ends and remember that they, too, have tight ends on the roster?

Oh, I’m quite sure they’re aware, but have two problems:
a.) Their tight ends aren’t as athletic as Jason Witten and thus less effective as pass catchers.
b.) Their tight ends help protect the quarterback, which makes the blitz less effective, as you are aware.

Got a complaint or a deeply held grievance?
A few…

This discussion going on over here about the morality of the bombing of Hiroshma and Nagasaki, which, let’s face it, is a proxy discussion for current American anti-terror policies, brings another thought to mind.

Of the following moral and physical perils, which has the greatest and least chance of impacting you or your family:

• Internet pornography / online predators, empty online relationships
• Violence and sex on television, negative images of Christians
• Overeating, gluttony, eating disorders, obesity
• Abuse of alcohol
• Terrorist attacks

Well, I guess the first four are more likely than the last. 

Yet, you voluntarily hook our computers to the internet, subscribe to cable TV, and load your fridge with junk food and booze, even while advocating all sorts of actions all sorts of actions to protect us from the terrorist threat.  You’ll even abandon your morals, if you think it will keep us safer.

And bear in mind that the last threat is only to our corporal bodies, whereas the first four are threats to our immortal souls.

I know how to deal with the internet and TV.  I don’t know how to deal with a crazed terorist, so we need to keep them far away.

Probably true, but probably not as much as you might like to think.  And do your kids know how to handle that?  Are you sure?

You’re being a bit unfair.  The reason the terrorist attack is so unlikely is precisely because of the policies in question.  You can’t use a benefit of a policy to argue against it.

I’m not convinced that these policies on balance do make us safer.  And if they are immoral, so what?

It just seems odd to me the extremes we will go to to defend ourselves from remote unlikely threats while ignoring or even cooperating with real and immediate threats.

Did you drink coffee this morning?

Yeah

Well then, you’re guilty of using a performance enhancing drug! All your accomplishments are now suspect!

Cute.

Let me know how many people go to an early grave from caffeine usage.

Well, it’s probably also true that a lot of the pitchers Bonds faced were using PED’s, so it all washes out.

Ah, the two wrongs make a right argument.

I don’t like it that pitchers are using either. But I haven’t been ordered to stand and applaud for any pitchers for whom there is a similar chain of evidence as there is for Bonds. Any pitchers hit their peak after 35? Any pitchers transform from all-around good pitchers to strikeout specialists in late career? Any pitchers the subject of grand jury testimony?

Two names remotely qualify that I can think of — Curt Schilling and Roger Clemens. Schilling peaked late, and Clemens has had unprecedented longevity. I suspect most of the pitchers who were using fall into the category of guys barely hanging on. My impression is that most effective pitchers walk a very fine line, and wouldn’t want to mess it up.

In any instance, if we stipulate that Bonds used, we have two scenarios:

1. Almost everyone, including pitchers used
2. Bonds is one of the few players that used.

In the first case, baseball becomes a sport I don’t care as much about in general, and am this less inclined to celebrate Bonds’s achievement. In the second case, that would be a reason to discount his record.

To summarize, either Bonds was successful in a game that I find much less appealing, or he had an unfair advantage.

I still think you’re a racist for celebrating McGwire and Sosa but not Bonds

Tough.

Or let me put it another way — are you saying we were wrong to celebrate McGwire and Sosa or wrong the not celebrate Bonds?

If the former, well then maybe we’re a little bit smarter now. A lot more news about PED’s has come out in the last nine years that we didn’t have in 1998.

Should we pretend we don’t know that in order to remain “consistent?”

And this type of argument is especially annoying coming from places like Baseball Prospectus. They would be the first to castigate others for ignoring evidence in order to hold on to some sentimental position — be it the existence of clutch hitting, the myth of The Closer, the importance of hustle, etc. But for Bonds, only smoking-gun proof will do. To fail to avoid the obvious conclusion is to rush to judgment motivated by racism. No, it’s using the brain God gave me.

I am quite sure that if Ken Griffey and Barry Bonds’s fates were reversed — if Bonds has suffered through numerous injuries that last five years while Griffey closed in on the record, we would be celebrating Griffey right now. The rejection of Bonds is about Bonds, not about race.

—-

Which brings me to what I think PED did for Barry — basically it was a fountain of youth for him. What happened to Griffey is what happens to most players as they get older — their bodies start to break down, and they can’t be as effective.

They say that youth is wasted on the young. Bonds changed that equation. As his career progressed, he became smarter and smarter about hitting and the strike zone. Couple that with a body that was not deteriorating, perhaps even getting stronger, and you’ve got a pretty powerful force. In essence Bonds got the benefit of increased wisdom but still has a 27-year old body to execute his new knowledge.

I never said that Bonds owes all his success to pharmaceuticals. What he has done requires a great deal of dedication to his craft and hard work.

I wish we could have seen what he would have done without the help.

First of an occasional series in which I’ll engage in a “dialogue” with someone taking the opposite position. Since I’m writing this, I will ultimately win the debate.

The title is a bit of a joke, since I will try to have my strawman present arguments that are being advanced in the debate, rather than things nobody believes.

So I notice you didn’t make a big deal about Barry Bonds breaking sports’ best known record.
That’s right.

Is it because of the steroids thing?
Yeah, partly.

But there’s no proof that Barry Bonds ever used steroids! And even if they were, MLB didn’t have a policy in place! This is so unfair!

I’m not looking to throw Bonds in jail; I’m just choosing not to go nuts celebrating this accomplishment. Evidence and my own common sense leads me to believe that Bonds’s late career surge was chemically assisted. Conviction may require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but my own approval does not. Nor is my approval coniditioned on what Major League rules or enforcement policies. I am less impressed with Bonds’s accomplishments than I would be if he were not assisted.

What do you care what Barry Bonds does to his own body?

I don’t. But I care about the players at the margins, those who are, to paraphrase Crash Davis, an extra hit a week away from Yankee Stadium.

If we say that chemically assisted performance is just as valid as non-assisted performance, that will remove a reason for players at every level to resist the temptation to juice themselves to the next level. And those players won’t have access to the resources someone like Bonds does, and could end up hurting himself.

But they’re adults who make their own decisions. Are you going to nanny everybody?

Youth sports are increasingly competitive. It does not seem unreasonable that high school or even little league athletes would reach for an edge, even if it comes from a bottle.

More ominously, coaches eager to make a name for themselves could explicitly or implicitly encourage young athletes to improve themselves this way.

Well, that’s their problem. Why should Bonds suffer because some other people might do stupid or unethical things? It’s not like he’s forcing anybody to take drugs.

Bonds is not bigger than the game. The only reason enyone cares about Barry Bonds is that people care about baseball. If Bonds’s actions damage the sport and cause people to care less about baseball, he should take a hit for that. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

And I challenge the notion that my withholding my adulation from Bonds is making him “suffer.”

But didn’t you celebrate Mark McGwire’s home run exploits? Doesn’t that make you a racist hypocrite?