LeBron James is trying to get hurt, media wants to see him get hurt

The story of LeBron James, a.k.a. King James the Great, was already written and published long before he set foot on an NBA court. Years before he was old enough to enter a casino and gamble recklessly with Michael Jordan, LeBron's legacy was already being compared to MJ's. It was foolish and unfair to compare someone who had barely played the game to the greatest who ever played. It's like seeing Johnny Depp act in a high school play, then comparing his acting ability to all of Marlon Brando's work.

LeBron's legacy and legend have always preceded him. He was a great player before he ever played. He was a winner before he won. He was one of the greatest of all time before he had played enough time to do anything. The story of LeBron James's career has always been told before the facts had a chance to catch up.

And now to enhance that legacy and justify their LeBron worship, ESPN and the rest of the sports media want to see LeBron suffer some sort of injury, then play through the pain, and carry his team to victory. They want LeBron to have his Willis Reed moment, they want to see LeBron have the equivalent of Michael Jordan's flu/hangover game against the Jazz. And so since it would bolster LeBron's legacy, each minor malady that afflicts him becomes the focus of attention. Because it's an opportunity for reality to fulfill the prophesy of LeBron's legend.

And LeBron is no passive victim of expectations in all this. We shouldn't blame him for being overrated, but we can blame him for overrating himself. LeBron also wants to enhance his legacy with a memorable injury-game. Which is why he turns every pain into a show. Every bruise causes an awkward limp. Every fall elicits a scream and the cradling of possibly injured limbs. Every cramp requires a grimace between plays. And each corpuscle of blood shed becomes a gusher.

And he wants to get hurt. He dove into the photographers on purpose Thursday night. He launched himself into them. Why? So he could get up gingerly. Or stay on the floor in a fetal position, yelling and screaming in agony.

The reaction of the media was so dramatic after he was cut Thursday night, I'm surprised that the Cavaliers didn't initiate an emergency blood drive in the arena, and give LeBron rapid transfusions during TV timeouts.

LeBron got hurt, which is exactly what he wanted. It's what the media wanted too. They got a raging LeBroner as the man lived up to the legend. As CBS Sport's Ananth Pandian marveled "That LeBron James is one tough guy."

I don't know who was happier about LeBron getting hurt, himself or the sports media who want facts to justify the legend they built around him.

Photo Credit: Ken Blaze, USA Today Sports

Broken bat incident at Fenway should trigger investigation into ballpark safety

When Brett Lawrie's shattered maple bat flew into the second row at Fenway Park Friday night, it nearly took the life of Tonya Carpenter, a 44-year old resident of Paxton, MA, who attended the game with her 8-year old son.

In the aftermath of the near tragedy, questions arose about increasing protective netting to shield fans sitting closest to the field. There were also questions about the types of wood Major League players' bats are made of.

Lawrie's bat was maple. For most of the 20th century hitters preferred ash bats. Then in 2001 a maple bat in the hands of Barry Bonds was smashing baseballs and records. Since then, more and more players have opted for maple.

Maple bats may be better for hitting homeruns, but they're also more likely to shatter. When the insides of ash bats crack, hitters can feel it and see the wood starting to flake, so they can discard the bat before a pitched ball smashes it to pieces. Cracks in maple bats are more difficult to discover. Hitters don't realize that they're swinging a bat that has already cracked inside. Then ball hits bat, and bat explodes.

In short, ash bats crack, maple bats shatter. Broken ash bats get tossed aside whereas maple bats spray shrapnel around the field, and sometimes into the stands.

I'm not going to jump to a conclusion and blame the bat just because of some anecdotal evidence I've read. However, it is up to Major League Baseball to look into this with intense scrutiny, and if they find that a certain type of wood is a problem, take swift and decisive action. MLB investigated bats breaking in 2008, and took some measures to reduce broken bats. However, maple bats are still commonly used by hitters. And shattered bats are not uncommon occurrences.

The onus is on Major League Baseball to investigate this incident and all the questions it has raised, from bats to nets. And if maple bats are proven more likely to shatter, they should be banned. Period. No discussion, no debate, no typical "that's just baseball" reluctance to change. Brett Lawrie has already concluded his maple bat isn't a problem:

"I really don’t feel like it's necessary to change bats or anything like that. It's just one of those things that's part of baseball and unfortunately, everything is so close behind there and there's limited netting."

Major League Baseball needs to be more scientific and thorough than Lawrie was. If the NFL can spend $5 million to investigate the air pressure of footballs, MLB can spend some time and money to figure out if the game is as safe for fans and players as it can be.

Frankly, scrutinizing fan and player safety should always be a priority. It shouldn't take something like this to be an impetus to make the ballpark as safe as it can be to watch or play a game.

Thankfully the response of Fenway Park's medical personnel was rapid and pro-active. Thankfully ambulances at Fenway are stationed near canvas alley, which makes it easy to transport patients from the field. Thankfully those ambulances have quick access to the street (as we saw in the climactic shootout scenes of The Town). Thankfully Fenway is close to hospitals which have some of the best doctors in the world (Beth Israel Deaconess is less than a mile away). Thankfully Tonya Carpenter now has a good chance to recover.

Photo Credit: Charles Krupa/AP Photo

Jon Lester was 4-1 in May, but is too old to have helped the Red Sox

The Red Sox were 10-19 in May. Former Sox Ace Jon Lester (yes, he was an Ace) was 4-1. All 6 of his starts in May were quality starts. He had a 1.76 ERA in the month. His loss saw him strike out 10 and allow only 1 earned run in 7 innings.

Red Sox pitchers made 29 starts in May. About half (15) of them were quality starts. Sox pitchers had a 4.21 ERA in the month, 23rd in baseball. They were 24th in opposing OPS and 26th in WHIP.

You might then think that Jon Lester could have been a big help to the Sox the last few weeks. But you're wrong. You must remember that he's 31, which is old. And his being so old trumps anything he might have been able to do on the mound for the Sox.

All of the current Sox starters are 30 or under. When assembling their rotation the Red Sox very correctly preferred to focus on age instead of performance. They chose guys like 26 year old Rick Porcello over 31 year old Jon Lester. Porcello was 2-2 in May with a 5.40 ERA. And Porcello will be making $20+ million next year, because he is 26. And 26 is younger than 31. Lester is practically a senior citizen compared to him. A

So even though Jon Lester had a terrific month of May and Rick Porcello's month was poor, what matters most is that Lester is a few dozen months older than Porcello.

Photo Credit: Associated Press

Patriots now more likely to win another Super Bowl after Goodell provided them with adversity

There's a factory in Foxborough, Mass. that takes the raw material of adversity and somehow turns it into wins. A few months ago the workers there turned an overblown story about under-inflated footballs into a shiny silver trophy. Several years ago they turned an uproar over videotaping signals which were visible to tens of thousands of people, into a nearly perfect season. The year after that, they went 11-5 despite losing their All-Pro quarterback. And a few years before that, a team that lost 31-0 to the Bills went on to win 21 games and 2 Super Bowls in a row.

The team most likely to succeed in adverse situations is the New England Patriots. They've gone through more -gates than a flight attendant. They survived the Aaron Hernandez arrest. They endured the hype around Tim Tebow.

Tom Brady will miss up to the first 4 games of the regular season. Those are against the Steelers, Jaguars, Bills, and Cowboys. Two good teams, another that always plays the Patriots tough, and the Jaguars. Fortunately, only one game is against a divisional opponent, and only one game is against another contending AFC team. Unless Goodell suspends Brady for appealing his suspension (he already suspended him for not submitting his cell phone, so don't dismiss it), Brady should return to play the Colts on an extra-dramatic Sunday Night Football, then the Jets and Dolphins.

Obviously without Tom Brady those first 4 games will be tough. This team might find itself 1-3 or even 0-4 to start the season.

Then again, it's plausible (or shall I say "more probable than not") that the Patriots can manage to go 2-2 in those games. Going 3-1 is within the realm of possibilities. And although it's unlikely, a 4-0 start isn't out of the question.

So the Patriots could start the season 2-2, and then get even better by adding Tom Brady to their active roster. This team started the 2014 season 2-2. We all remember "We're on to Cincinnati." The Pats then won 13 of the next 15 games, and the Super Bowl.

So as far as the impact of this suspension goes, I don't think it's incredibly severe. And considering how the Patriots rally when they perceive the world to be against them, I think they are now more likely to win the Super Bowl then they had been before Goodell threw the book at Brady.

And if the Patriots do win the Super Bowl in a few months... I don't think I'll ever stop laughing.

Photo Credit:
USA Today/Sports Illustrated

When Tom Brady's punishment for DeflateGate was announced, I laughed hysterically

My friend Mike called me at 5:39 p.m. and asked me "What the hell is going on in this world?" It took me a few seconds to realize he was talking about DeflateGate. Then he told me the punishment the NFL announced it would levy on Tom Brady and the Patriots:

A 4 game suspension

A $1 million fine

A 1st round pick in 2016 and a 4th rounder in 2017

Upon hearing this news, I laughed. Hysterically. This is one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

The 4th round pick is the cherry on top. I can imagine Roger Goodell and NFL execs discussing the punishment in a board room somewhere. "Okay, so we have a suspension for a quarter of the season, a million dollar fine, and a first round pick... Still seems a little light... How 'bout we toss a 4th round pick on top? There we go. That works."

I honestly can't get outraged over this. Not yet. Maybe I will when the season starts and the Steelers are able to get a BS win because they're going against Jimmy Garoppolo. Maybe I'll be angry if the Pats miss out on the playoffs or a bye because of a loss in those 4 games. We'll see. Then again, if the Pats go 4-0 during this suspension, I'll laugh even harder.

But I can't be upset right now. It's too ludicrous. I can't get upset at something that I don't take seriously. And I don't take this seriously. I don't take the NFL seriously, don't take the Wells Report seriously, don't take Goodell seriously. What's even funnier is that they take themselves seriously. But it's a joke. I tend to laugh at jokes.

The lack of proven connection to Brady, the inconsistencies and questions that the Wells Report didn't address, the fact that the same report disagreed with referee Walt Anderson about which pressure gauge he used, so on and so on. I can't marry the flimsiness of the evidence with the brutality of the punishments.

And ultimately, the Patriots are 4 time Super Champions. Even with this suspension they're still contenders for another title. It's a harsh punishment, but the lasting effect might not be as painful as it seems. It's a silly punishment, but these are silly people, playing God in their silly world.

And the final punchline of this joke: Tom Brady's first game back would be against the Colts in Indy. Think he'll be pumped for that?

Wells Report calls NFL referee Walt Anderson a liar

The Wells Report refutes NFL referee Walt Anderson's recollection of which air pressure gauge he used pre-game to check the Patriots' footballs. And that refutation is based on scientific experiments, which were based on Anderson's recollection of the pre-game air pressures of the Patriots' and Colts' footballs.

So Anderson's memory of which gauge he used is "probably" wrong, based on Anderson's memory of something else. So his memory is unreliable, based on how reliable his memory is.

That's odd, isn't it?

It's true that I'm a Patriots fan. But if you're one of those who think I'm just being a homer, and who think that the Patriots clearly cheated, then you should be able to spare a few brief moments to ponder the argument I'm about to make. If you can't read with an open mind the argument of a humble amateur blogger such as myself, then your convictions must be quite flimsy.

Here are the facts around the Wells Report refuting Walt Anderson's memory.

-Referee Walt Anderson brings 2 pressure gauges to games with him. He used one to check the Patriots' footballs pre-game, and those that were under 12.5 psi, he inflated until they were. He later recalled that the pressure gauge he used had a Wilson logo, and a long, crooked needle. The other gauge he had with him did not have a logo, and had a shorter,straighter needle.

-At halftime, those two gauges were each used to measure the air pressure in the Patriots' footballs. Each ball was measured by both gauges.

-The gauge with the Wilson logo consistently gave higher measurements than the non-logo gauge (0.3-0.45 psi higher). According to the Wilson gauge, 8 of the 11 Patriots' footballs tested had pressures consistent with the Ideal Gas Law (at least 11.32 psi) we've heard so much about, meaning they could have started the game at 12.5, and the decrease in pressure at halftime was due to the laws pf physics, not some dude in a bathroom.

In conclusion, Anderson says he used the Wilson gauge pre-game to measure the footballs, ensuring each was at 12.5 psi or more. At halftime, in 8 of 11 balls, that same gauge showed a loss in pressure consistent with what the Ideal Gas Law would allow for had the balls been at 12.5 psi at kickoff.

In other words, the circumstances around the circumstantial evidence that the Wells Report relies on, don't support the conclusions that the report reaches. Anderson, who is paid by the NFL to do things like test the air pressure of footballs, says he believes he used a pressure gauge with a Wilson logo, and a long, crooked needle. He wasn't certain, but he believes that was the gauge he used.

However, according to Ted Wells, who wasn't in the officials' locker room testing footballs, who wasn't paid by the NFL to do things like test footballs, concludes that Anderson is "more likely than not," wrong about which gauge he used.

Isn't that odd?

It takes Wells 60 pages to explain why he believes Anderson "probably" didn't use the gauge he remembers using. The circular logic behind the explanation is that Exponent did experiments trying to figure out why the Patriots' balls deflated so much more than the Colt's balls did from pre-game to halftime.

However, the amount of deflation from pre-game to halftime is based on Anderson's recollection of what the approximate air pressures were pre-game. Anderson remembers the Colts' footballs being in the neighborhood of 13.0 psi. That's his memory of a dozen footballs. And that's the basis for the Exponent experiments' determination of how much pressure the Colts' footballs lost (even though only 4 balls were tested).

In other words, the Wells Report says Anderson's memory is wrong, and the proof of that is an experiment based on something else he remembered.

Does that make sense?

Facts, truth, and logic are the enemies of the monster the DeflateGate story has become. Don't forget, this story all started with a now proven false leak to ESPN about 10 of 12 Patriots footballs being more than 2 psi lower than the legal limit. By the time that was shown to be false, the genie was out of the bottle, and the story had a life of its own.

Did the Wells Report try to find truth, or did it try to find guilt?

Photo Credit:
Getty Images

DeflateGate report probably made us generally aware of what was already suspected

The DeflateGate investigation is over. Ted Wells has concluded that the Patriots probably broke the rules and intentionally deflated footballs. And that Tom Brady was probably generally aware that this was going on. The report has more "probables" than a weekly NFL injury report.

Could you imagine if the most important lines in literature and cinema were phrased so inconclusively? What if the Gospels meekly proclaimed "And on the third day, Jesus probably rose, and we're generally aware that one day he will come again." What if Shakespeare's Hamlet asked "To probably be, or not to be? I'm generally aware that this is the question." How about classic lines in Star Wars and Terminator 2? "Luke, I'm probably your father." "I'm generally aware that I'll be back."

And aren't Ted Wells' conclusions things that we pretty much knew already? What new information has this investigation uncovered?

Didn't the 2 weeks of non-stop media coverage of DeflateGate take place under the presumption that the Patriots were probably guilty? From the initial leak of the story, to the Colts' suspicions earlier in the season, to the surveillance footage of a ballboy going into a bathroom with the footballs, the general consensus was that the Patriots were PROBABLY guilty. So by including qualifying words like "probably" and "generally aware," Ted Wells' investigation has only put into writing what most people had already assumed months ago: The Patriots are probably guilty, the quarterback was probably generally aware of it.

So what did the investigation unearth? Did it prove that employees deliberately deflated footballs? Did it prove that Tom Brady instructed them to do so? The report's conclusion only argues that Brady was "generally aware" that this was probably happening. What does that mean exactly?

I don't know why Patriots haters are thumping their chests about such an inconclusive conclusion. The haters long ago concluded that the Patriots were guilty. Most of them also thought it was a Belichick initiated conspiracy, and this report actually exonerates Belichick (in stronger language than it indicts Brady, weirdly). This report gives the haters a pile of inconclusive paper to use as ammunition in their never-ending and futile war against the Patriots. And I'm glad for that. The haters make winning fun.

I also don't know why Patriots fans can't face the fact that there's more than a little smoke here. Although speaking of smoke, the scientific evidence in the Wells report comes from a company that once claimed second hand smoke didn't cause cancer. I'm not sure how reputable their science is. I also don't know why Patriots fans should care.

As a football fan I've seen players busted for PEDs, I've seen teams violate the salary cap, I've seen players paid under the table, I've seen players tampered with, I've seen teams pipe noise into stadiums, I've seen falsified injury reports, I once saw a trainer trip an opponent, I once saw a head coach obstruct a kick return. I'm not morally justifying cheating, just pointing out that if non-Patriots fans thinks the Patriots are the only rule violators in the League, they need to grow up. And if Patriots fans think their team has any moral superiority to others, they too need to grow up.

NFL Draft: Patriots surprise everyone by being completely unsurprising

The Patriots were on the clock, Malcolm Brown was probably the best player still on the board, and the Pats have a need on the defensive line. Under those circumstances, you'd expect Bill Belichick to do the unexpected and trade out of the first round. Instead, the Patriots made the obvious pick.

I'm satisfied with getting this player at pick #32. Brown won't be as good as Wilfork was in his prime. But for the next 4-6 years, Brown will be better than what Wilfork would have been here.

I could regurgitate all the draft analysis crap about how thick Brown is, how well his hips move, what kind of motor he has. I hate that cliched crap. What I will say is that at 32, this is the type of player you expect to draft. Maybe slightly better than expectations. You won't get an exciting playmaker at 32 unless he has an injury and/or criminal record. The last two times the Patriots picked at 32, they selected Logan Mankins in 2005 and Benjamin Watson in 2004. Matt Elam, David Wilson, Teddy Bridgewater. Those are other recent 32nd picks.

To sum up this pick in a word, it's "fine." This was a fine pick. I am fine with this pick. I think Malcolm Brown will be a fine player who will have a fine career. This pick is the equivalent of moving the ball 4 yards on 2nd and 10. It's good, it helps your cause, but by itself it doesn't mean a lot.

And again, that's what to expect when you're picking last.

I'm glad that the Patriots didn't trade up, because all the experts who have been watching college players' hips for the past 3 months pretty much agreed that this wasn't a talent rich draft. I'm also glad the Pats didn't move down, because those hip-obsessed experts also say that Brown is a good player, so I'm glad the Patriots took advantage of the opportunity to pick him.

Two closing thoughts:

Brown is listed as 13 pounds lighter than Wilfork, and there's no way in hell that's true. Brown is a big guy, but Wilfork has at least 50 pounds on him. So Brown better start gorging on pizza sheets and turkeys from Big Y.

Finally, how awesome is it to have the 32nd pick again? It's just a fantastically awesome number, isn't it?

Photo Credit:
AP Photo