He'll Always Be Clueless

I tried really hard to be happy about the whole “Mariotti is leaving the Sun Times” story. After all, who wouldn’t be happy about the fact that Chicago won’t be subjected to this smarmy prick spewing pretty much the same spiteful crap week in, week out? This is a guy who literally writes three columns:

1. The owner of ________ team is cheap and needs to spend more money.
2. The manager of __________ team is stupid and should be fired.
3. Whatever minor event that occurred the day before is the single worst thing that has ever happened and representative of what a horrible city Chicago is.

Given this, coupled with my general spite for the vast majority of mainstream columnists, there should be no reason why I wouldn’t have vast amounts of material to throw at this slapdick (note: I’m trying them all before I settle on one).

Unfortunately, I don’t really have much to say about him, because (as much as I hate to say this), I agree with his reasoning. The newspaper is a dying entity. And its dying because of columnists like Mariotti. People are tired of reading guys who clearly don’t really like sports that much and are more concerned with exercising their writing chops than with actually developing cogent thoughts about the teams they cover. Instead of actually coming up with unique angles and stories that might make fans enjoy the game more (or at least give them funny ways of ripping their shitty teams), most newspaper columnists have resorted to finding slightly unique ways of writing the same column over and over again.

It’s no wonder that about 8,000,000,000 Cubs blogs have sprung up over the last few years. People are desperate for interesting, engaging writers who can actually express what it is truly like to be a fan. To be honest, I haven’t read a single column from any of the Trib, Sun Times or Herald columnists that was half as interesting, engaging or funny as some things I’ve read on Hire Jim Essian or one of the other blogs we link to. It is utterly impossible to relate to the newspaper columnist today, and what’s worse, the columnists aren’t even trying to bridge that gap. In demonstrating the absolute arrogance they’ve come to embody, they aren’t even trying to adapt and more often than not, are simply jumping ship like the rats they are.

A simple piece of advice to guys like Jay Mariotti: just because you’re going to get paid a whole lot of money and your columns will appear on some worthless web site, it doesn’t mean you’ll be “adapting to the new way of doing things.” Being a web columnist involves a lot more than simply being unavailable in print: it means writing with a sense of the fan (especially the young fan). As demonstrated by your entire career, you are far too arrogant to ever relate to a fan. That will never change because you are incapable of change. And that’s why we hate you.

It would have been so much more fun to write about how Mariotti is stuck in a Chinese prison after refusing to pay his 9 year old male prostitute when he gave him the clap. Unfortunately, that didn't happen (at least we can't confirm it). In the end, he is leaving the Sun Times for the right reasons, as the newspaper is dying. But in true newspaper columnist form, he is too arrogant and lazy to even try and understand what caused it. Good riddance.


P.S. Yes, I realize that I wrote "I don't have much to say about Mariotti," then wrote four paragraphs about him. You know why? Shut up, that's why.

UPDATE: News has gotten out that he didn't leave for quite the reasons he said he did. He's an even bigger bitch than I thought, which I didn't know was possible.

Mariotti Discovers Interwebs. Interwebs Vows to Find Better Hiding Spot.

As I'm sure you are all well aware by now, Jay Mariotti quit the Sun-Times yesterday after discovering that sports are covered (better) on the Interwebs. So long old friend. Thanks for 17 years of setting the bar as low as possible (other than when you defended Ms. Erin Andrews, high-five for that one). I hear AOL is hiring...keep your fingers crossed.

NOTE: I'm sure Martin will have a more detailed career obit from Martin later today. Now Featuring Even More Obscenities!

Go Cubs.

If I Keep Saying "Erin Andrews," Then Maybe More People Will Want to Interview Me

Writer's Note: I have had to deal with the stunning incompetence of Com Ed customer service over the last two days as my power was knocked out by Monday's lightning storm/tornado/mini apocalypse, so needless to say, this post is going to be full of sunshine...


In a news cycle that is truly 24 hours a day, this story is like 5,000 years old, but I don't care.

As I was driving home last night, I heard that douche Mike Nadel on the radio defending what he wrote about Erin Andrews last week, i.e. “my blatant attempt to latch on to someone else's fame and hopefully get myself a job outside of a dying media.” I originally didn't care about this story because (a.) there really is no reason to lust after sideline reporters (at least not when there are movies like this and this and websites like...well...its probably better that I don't link to that one), and (b.) the original article just seemed a little, well, sad. Frumpy old reporter gets trumped for stories by good looking young reporter and writes bitter article. Time to move on.

But now this guy is milking the hell out of this story (this was at least the THIRD time I had heard him on either radio or television in the last week) and, frankly, annoying the crap out of me. I just listened to him make two utterly ridiculous arguments:

1.What she was wearing was “unprofessional...you wouldn't see you professionals in sales go to meetings like that.” Well, Mike, you also wouldn't see professionals in sales go to work in Hawaiian shirts, shorts, black socks and 10 year-old Birkenstocks, but that doesn't stop most of the slobs in the press box from donning that “professional outfit” on a nightly basis.

2.“She was trying way to hard to be friends with the players, calling Aramis Ramirez 'Rammie,” and touching Alfonso Soriano's arm suggestively.” First of all, given the massive picture of Mr. Nadel's bulbous head next to the article, I'm guessing that his abilit yto judge when a woman is being “suggestive” is clouded by the fact that he assumed all the girls in the Victoria's Secret catalogues he stole from his sister were looking at him “suggestively.” He's probably not the best arbiter of womens' interest. More importantly, though-”Real” reporters would never attempt to curry favor from their intended interviewees by attempting to befriend them, would they? I've never heard the pack of braying morons overlaugh at some awful non-joke Lou Piniella made in his post game press conference in a blatant attempt to hang out with the cool kids at the bar after the game. That never happens.

The overall point this guy wants to make is that Erin Andrews violated these important professional standards that might jeopardize her ability to ask serious questions of the players she has befriended. There is a simple answer to this point: she is a sports reporter. There are no such things as “serious questions.” When are sportswriters going to realize that they're a press pass away from being idiots like us? When the “serious questions” you have to ask rarely go beyond why a grown man didn't use the 34 ounce stick in his hand to hit a ball thrown by another man into the right place on a field, you need to realize that nothing you will ever do will be considered “serious.” If you want to comment on the ramifications of a journalist's clothing on their pursuit of significant stories, find a field that doesn't devote the equivalent of 2 full days per week to whether or not Brett Favre will play football this year. Mr. Nadel needs to know his position, and the position of his field, in the grand scheme of things. There was literally no reason to write an article about the Cubs-Brewers game trashing a fellow sports-personality. After all, that's why there are 800,000,000 blogs just like this one...its our job.

All in all, this attempt to cash in on his 15 minutes of fame has shown this Nadel guy to be everything Jay Mariotti claimed he was: “crusty and out of touch.” And this might be the worst of all the things Nadel's stupid column and world radio interview tour has done: it made me actually agree with Jay Mariotti. For that, he'll never be forgiven.

It Took Less than 24 Hours for a Sportswriter to Piss Me Off

So I’m back from Europe, and I’ve learned two things:

1. I eat and dress like crap.
2. When the best thing on TV is a 9 nine year old episode of “Diagnosis Murder,” your continent sucks.

Anyway…since I haven’t really had a chance to read much about the Cubs over the last couple weeks (quick synopsis: Yay Harden! Yay Cubs! Boo Marmol! Yay Cubs!), I might as well use this Post All-Star break hiatus to comment on one of my favorite sportswriters in our fine city.

As many know, I hate Steve Rosenbloom with the white hot energy of 1,000 suns. I find him to be the most irritating sportswriter in a city of irritating sportswriters (and when you share a city with Jay Mariotti, that’s saying something). He is the ultimate proof of the adage written by Bill Simmons before ESPN stole his soul: “Most sportswriters stopped liking sports about 20 years ago.” This would, of course, be fine if he were an entertaining writer or had anything of insight to bring to his column. But he doesn’t, which is why the Tribune has relegated him to “part time poker columnist,” the sports equivalent to a television writer who gives weekly updates on “The Single Guy.”

Anyway, he decided to write his “worries” for the Cubs in the second half. Apparently, he doesn’t feel the need to write anything positive about a team that has the best record in baseball. Fine-we know the score with guys like Rosenbloom. But it would be nice if he had one cogent, decent point to make. Anyway, on to his “reasoning”:

History. Yeah, it's been 100 years, everyone loves round numbers and what a Kodak moment that would be. But recent history has been a killer ever since Dusty Baker presided over the greatest choke in franchise history in 2003. I mean, just look: In 2004, the Red Sox ended what was then the second-longest drought in sports history; in 2005, the White Sox ended what was then the new second-longest drought in sports history; in 2006, the evil Cardinals won the World Series; in 2007, the Red Sox rubbed it in again. So, in 2008, history suggests that the only way to make this more excruciating for the Cubs is to have the Brewers win it.

Okay, aside from the factual error that takes three seconds to look up (the White Sox last won in 1917, the Red Sox in 1918, so when the Red Sox won in 2004, they did not have the second-longest drought), there is one simple question: When are sportswriters going to stop using the Cubs’ history as a predictor of anything?
They’ve beaten the “100 years” to death already-it’s the laziest sports story this side of Brett Favre. Cubs fans get it. But to use it to predict a damn thing, as if the events that occurred before most players on this team were alive, let alone in the league, has some sort of impact, has got to be the dumbest idea ever. I guess it makes sense for a lazy writer.

Speaking of the Brewers, the team that recently acquired the best pitcher available plays only 23 games against teams above .500 the rest of the way, while the Cubs play 34. The Brewers are 37-23 against bad teams, while the Cubs are 11-5 against good teams.

Okay….
Let’s do some math, shall we?
Brewers: 37-23 against “bad teams” (winning percentage .617)
Cubs: 11-5 against “good teams” (winning percentage .688)

So what the hell is his point? Does he think we’re Unfrozen Cave Men lawyers? “Your numbers scare and frighten us. We will just believe you, lazy column guy.”

(Side note: If you add up the Cubs’ and Brewers’ records, then the Cubs are 46-33 (.582) against "bad" and the Brewers are 15-20 (.429 -- losing record) against "good teams.” But hey, let’s just use the numbers that make the Cubs look bad.)

The Cardinals. Of the three teams in the NL Central race, the Cardinals have the toughest schedule, facing opponents whose winning percentage is .507 right now. You're thinking, this should finally do them in, but as legendary Hole-In-The-Wall manager Butch Cassidy said, "Who are those guys?"

The Cardinals suck. They’ve played over their heads all year, just like they did last year, when their team was actually better than it is this year. And where did they end up last year? They faded in August and September. Let’s move on.

Geovany Soto's stamina. If you believed that the kid catcher would put up these kinds of offensive numbers and handle a pitching staff with such maturity, then pass the bong. He has batted up and down the lineup and produced everywhere. Power, clutch, whatever. He has been on the receiving end of a 3.89 team ERA. But does he have the strength and ability to repeat over the next 2 ½ months?

I like it when sportswriters try and seem hip by talking about The Marijuana. But why has “young player gets worn down” become the Critique Du Jour of every damn columnist in the city? Probably because the only player they really pay attention to is Ryan Theriot, who sucked pretty much every month last year except June, but was particularly crappy in September, so (using lazy columnist logic), he “wore down.”
Soto played 128 games between AAA and the Cubs last year. He played 120 the year before. AND HE’S 25. When I was 25, I could drink Miller Lite pitchers constantly from the hours of 4 pm on Friday to 4 pm on Sunday while sleeping a total of about 5.3 hours for the entire weekend. Based on my recently invented “Martin Scale of Things That Are Hard to Do” (patent pending), that is 3.876 times harder than playing 155 baseball games, which is what Soto is on pace to do. So suck on that, Rosenbloom.

Ted Lilly. Last year, he was the stopper, going 9-1 after losses. This year, he has shown signs of that, and then he has shown signs of channeling Glendon Rusch. He has won four of his last five decisions and eight of his last 10, posting an ERA of 3.99 since May 1, but I don't know, there's just something that I don't trust.

Okay, this one’s fair. The Cubs definitely have to worry about the production they get from their FOURTH starter, who has an ERA under 4 over the last two months. Might as well quit now, because they’re clearly in trouble. The Brewers, after all, have gone 37-23 against teams that have the letter “R” in their names, and they play those teams 25 times for the rest of the year. The Cubs are screwed.