Another wrong answer

So apparently the president of basketball operations for the Knicks — the man who looks like, and will forever be known as, Donnie Walsh's corpse — is deeply involved in some 48-hour fact-finding mission about whether or not Allen Iver-lost can help his team. If you thought the Knicks couldn't sink any lower, they have. Iver-lost has become a viable option.

Let's put this into perspective. Imagine you had the opportunity to execute a business deal that would make the company a few bucks (think: ticket sales), but you also had overwhelming evidence to suggest the deal would: A) completely monopolize the company (no more cultivating young players); B) show short-lived improvements, followed by a pants-stripping downturn (the inevitable embarrassment of his departure); and C) be detrimental to your employees in both the short and long-term (impact on teammates). Would you need to think twice?

But thinking is reportedly what Walsh's corpse is up to. Only here's the problem with that: What facts aren't already front and center? Has Iver-lost been dealt to three teams since his days with the Sixers and systematically destroyed or tried to destroy them? Yes. Have his stats dipped lower than a Kardashian neck line? Yes. Has he essentially quit on two straight teams (Pistons, Grizz)? Umm, yes.

Some will argue AI is worthy of a starting spot on the Knicks, maybe even worthy of the tag as their top scorer. Fine. No argument from me, considering the team can't score or defend right now and is off to the worst 10-game start in franchise history.

But there simply comes a point when talent at a price is no longer worth it. No team in basketball should realize this like the Knicks, who've endured enough Vinnie Bakers, Steph Marburys and Stevie Franchises to torture a generation of fans twice over. So why Iver-lost? Why now? Why tarnish the franchise's reputation further, and do it only a few months before the chase begins for LeBron?

People will argue the commitment won't hurt the Knicks because it will end before LeBron, Dwayne Wade and co. spend the Summer of 2010 searching for the greenest pastures. That's absurd. The Knicks ruined their reputation already, but a union with perhaps the league's most unrealistic player could actually destroy it further. I mean, isn't this the same man who quit on the Grizzlies after three games? In what bizarro world should he play over Rudy Gay, O.J. Mayo and Mike Conley on a team desperate to rebuild? The Answer: None.

Of one thing I am absolutely certain: Walsh's corpse looks like the wrong man at what is hyped to be a crucial moment in Knick history. He drafted a stiff over Brandon Jennings. He built a team without a young point guard in spite of a 2009 draft littered with them. He has helped bury Eddy Curry a year after early reliance on Zach Randolph allowed the club to rid itself of his contract. And now Iver-lost?

Sorry to say it, Knick fans. Walsh may be the wrong answer, too.

LeBron James is a Liar

Another rip from guest correspondent, the great Dickie Stabone, who listened to LeBron's explanations and found they simply didn't jive:

In news that certainly made NBA jersey makers see dollar signs in their sleep, LeBron James announced this is the final year he will be honoring Michael Jordan by wearing the number 23. Starting next season, he will honor Mike by NOT wearing the number.

Yes. You read that correctly. He is going to honor him by honoring him in the exact opposite way of how he’s been honoring him for his entire career. He claims it’s a matter of respect. Jordan was the greatest and, if he can't be on the NBA logo, his number should be retired. It's a nice line if you believe it.

I don’t.

Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing: this has nothing to do with Jordan. It’s all about one person —LeBron.

Sure, James didn’t go to college, but he’s smart. He knows that No. 23 will always be equated with Mike. No matter what James accomplishes in his career, his name won’t be top of mind when someone says, “That 23. He sure was something else.”

But the number he's switching to — No. 6? Come on, will it really be that hard to push Andrew Bogut to the back of the conversation? Don't think so.

His reasoning behind the switch is a little confusing to me. He starts it off on a logical note: It's the number he wore in the Olympics. Fair enough. But then his second reason is a head scratcher: He wants to honor Dr. J.

But if he hasn't been wearing No. 6 the whole time, hasn't he been honoring the Doc in the same way he's about to honor Mike? And by wearing No. 6, won't he be disrespecting Doc in the same way he'd be disrespecting Mike by keeping 23?

So maybe he's not so smart after all.

Chalk up another one for the baseball writers

The postseason baseball awards are beginning to trickle out and there's already been an egregious error. Not only did the baseball writers get it wrong for the National League Rookie of the Year, they weren't even close.

Let me throw some stats at you. How does an 11-4 record with a 2.89 ERA and 116 strikeouts and just 46 walks in 127.2 innings pitched sound?

Pretty good right? Maybe even good enough to be in the Cy Young mix? Well, apparently, it wasn't even good enough to be in the ROY mix, as Braves phenom Tommy Hanson found out.

Hanson finished a distant third behind winner Chris Coghlan of the Florida Marlins and the Phillies' J.A. Happ. I'm not saying those players didn't have good seasons, just that neither performed at Hanson's level.

So why then did Hanson receive 37 total votes to Coghlan's 105 and Happ's 94? Because baseball writers are a bunch of prehistoric creatures roaming the earth and looking for anyway to show that they are still relevant.

For the record, Coghlan, who's 17 first-place votes were four more than all other NL rookies combined received, had a very good on base of .390, a more than respectable OPS of .850, but an un-meaty total of nine home runs in 504 at bats.

But ding, ding, ding! He posted a .321 batting average! And there's the answer. Nevermind that he had a .365 average on balls in play, fifth-highest in the NL or that despite his Jacoby Ellsbury-esque pop, he possesses Jose Molina-like speed with eight steals. And as a converted second baseman playing outfield for the first time this year, he's not exactly the second coming of Willie Mays when it comes to roaming Land Shark Stadium.

Happ on the other hand, wasn't as impressive as Hanson, but had similar stats with his 12-4 record and 2.93 ERA. He also pitched for a contender, something that the writers usually eat up, but even that wasn't enough to prevent the third-best candidate from winning this award. It wasn't enough to offset a bunch of bloop singles.

WHY?

According to reports all over the internet, Larry Johnson will soon be a member of the Bengals.

Marvin Lewis has stated that Johnson will be a fourth running back and possibly play on special teams initially. I don't get it.

I will admit straight away that I personally don't like LJ. But that's not why I hate this move. The Bengals are coming off a great win, are in control of their division and finally starting to change their image as an incompetent franchise with a team full of felons.

Why bring Johnson - who was cut by the Chiefs for using gay slurs and criticizing Kansas City coach Todd Haley on Twitter - into such a good situation?

If the Bengals were a 7-2 team with one obvious weakness like a vulnerable cornerback, I could see taking this kind of risk on a player. But bring in a controversial player, past his prime, who you admittedly expect to be nothing more than insurance? Makes no sense.

The Bengals have played great football this year, and if not for the Denver miracle in Week 1 would be 8-1. Even with that loss, I think this team, surprisingly, is a legitimate contender for the AFC title.

If it ain't broke, don't sign a bigot.

Numbers never lie, only sometimes

The web has been abuzz with intelligent discussion about Bill Belichick's decision to go for it on fourth-and-2 with 2:06 left. The Pats missed it and lost to the Colts, 35-34. In a word, they were daggered.

Many people far better with numbers than us have concluded Belichick gave himself a better chance to win going for it than he would have punting. Here's one of the best arguments.

It has definitely forced Mr. Buckner and I to reconsider. However, I tend to side with Buckner for the following reasons, some of which he has already stated:

• The numbers factored in consider these were both typical offensive series (Pats and Colts). These WOULD NOT have been typical series. The Pats have a great offense. Also, with it being their last chance, the Colts would have four downs to gain 10 yards, not three, thus increasing their probability to advance the ball downfield. Typical probabilities of them gaining 70 yards vs. them gaining 29 must be adjusted accordingly.

• Momentum is not a word statisticians love. It's similar to the idea of being clutch, which many of us agree is a fool's crutch. However, in this case momentum cannot be denied. The Colts had it by tearing down the field on the previous possession. It only increases once they receive the boost gained by working with a short field.

• For an adequate answer to this questions, probabilities must somehow factor in several intricacies. Did the Pats have the option to run on fourth down? (Not really.) Why? Well, were they missing their top short-yardage back (Sammy Morris)? Yes. Was their defense gassed? Probably. Etc., etc.

So, yes, while many smart people have continued the debate today, I'm not sure simple numbers answer whether Belichick made the correct decision or not. It's much like baseball. Numbers can tell us the correct decision to make over the course of a long season or a long series. In baseball, with so many games, so many at-bats, so many pitches, those decisions should be uniform. But in football, with so few games, so few plays and so few decisions like these, more must be taken into account.

The situation has a much greater impact in football than it does in baseball. Is Brett Favre better than he was 10 years ago? No. But in this situation, is he having a better season? Absolutely. But don't Adrian Peterson, an enormous line and a stout defense help swing the numbers his way?

The Belichick calculator

A group of much smarter guys than us over at Football Outsiders have posted a probability calculator. You can enter your own probabilities and it will determine whether your estimates favor Belichick going for the fourth-and-2 or the other option: punting and gaining 40 yards of field position.

Even though I still find his arrogance astounding, it's closer than you think.

A culture of lost

The fourth-and-2 forever burned into our football brains wasn't called Sunday night in Indianapolis with Bill Belichick's team up six and just over two minutes left. Nor did it date  to Sept. 9, 2007 — opening day vs. the Jets — when the Patriot machine started going for fourth downs because it could and never really stopped.

No, Belichick's unexplainable call was born years ago, born at every step along the way where, bit by bit, he spent collateral earned during three Super Bowl wins and bucked convention. Ya know, because he could.

Consider: His aggression in benching Drew Bledsoe, then running the QB out of town. His resourcefulness that led Troy Brown from catching passes to defending them. And his icy decision-making that shipped Tom Brady's best friend Lawyer Molloy to the unemployment line just before the season opener. And they are but a few.

All those things worked, the effect of another Lombardi trophy outweighing the cause in the end, and oodles more followed in their wake. The results only added to the Belichick mystique, only colored this Hall-of-Fame coach in shades of gray. He knew what came next. The rest of us were just guessing.

In recent years, we've learned more and more that Belichick's culture of arrogance has also emboldened this absolute boor of a man. His team couldn't survive without actual NFL receivers. It couldn't withstand the Peyton Manning and the Colts with an All-AARP defense. And even after a perfect season, it couldn't send five guys deep against Justin Tuck and the boys, not every darn play.

Finally, Belichick's arrogance cost him dearly and served some justice to someone in need of more than his share. The Pats fell 35-34 on Sunday Night Football at the hands of the unbeaten Colts, who outscored their rival 21-10 in the fourth quarter and now sit somewhere between Reggie Bush (this) and Derek Jeter (this, this, this...and more) on the luck-meter.

Considering the outcome and the heightened attention thrown at Manning v. Brady CLXXXIV, or whatever it was, Belichick's heinous call may rank among the worst regular-season decisions in NFL history. It directly cost his team the game — I take no arguments — but I'll leave the specifics to colleague Norwood Buckner. What I cannot wrap my mind around is the utter unchecked arrogance that led Bill Beli-lost to believe going for it was his best option. The Colts still had the two-minute warning and a timeout. The Pats needed TWO first downs there, not one.

Maybe people will finally start to realize no one rules the sports world, particularly not a football coach who may or may not have Asperger's. For every success, failure hides around the corner, waiting to take a figurative dump on your hardware. (Belichick's hardware stinks like yesterday's lunch, by the way.)

For years, Belichick escaped the furor directed at his colleagues and earned credit for "trusting his offense," and "being one step ahead." Has anyone ever stopped to consider the Patriots are/were pretty darn good?

Had one of the Jims — Zorn, Fassel, Mora, Mora Jr., take your pick — pulled this, he'd be crucified, daggered to a slow death in some radio booth or on some glass-housed pregame show set. Of course, Belichick will survive it. He already dismissed any notion the God of Foxboro hath erred. Maybe the next act will be to cut Kevin Faulk for not gaining the extra half-yard.

Wouldn't surprise me. Not from this guy/clown.

Genius tag removed

Johnny K. Woo texted me seconds before it actually happened.

"Dumbest decision in the history of football...or at least up there."

I instantly texted back as the playclock was going down.

"Wait..."

Frankly, I didn't believe it was happening. The Patriots were just trying to draw the Colts to jump offside right? They couldn't seriously be going for it leading 34-28 on 4th-and-2 with 2:08 left. Hold on...

The sports world will be buzzing about Belichick's decision for two main reasons. The first reason is obvious...the decision was ridiculous. The second reason is because the unthinkable decision was made by Bill Belichick. Bill Freaking Belichick. The genius. We're all a bit hesitant to question him. He's earned carte blanche in the minds of most fans and media members to do whatever he wants.

But let's not forget a couple of past decisions Belichick has made. In Super Bowl XLII, the Patriots led 7-3 midway through the third quarter facing a 4th-and-13 on the Giants' 31-yard line. Easy decision. Kick the field goal. Belichick decided to go for it, and Tom Brady's pass was incomplete. Final score: Giants 17, Patriots 14...think the Pats could have potentially used those three points? It has always amazed me how that decision wasn't discussed in greater detail.

In Week 3 this season against Atlanta, the Patriots were leading 13-10. Belichick decided to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own 24 midway through the third quarter. The gamble worked, but the decision was still foolish.

Unlike those last two decisions, which didn't get a ton of attention, tonight's will be discussed ad nauseam. You can make a legitimate case that Belichick's decision cost his team the game.

We knew we wouldn't get much of an explanation from Belichick's presser. Predictably, the phrase he repeated over and over again was some form of "We thought we could win the game on that play. We thought it was a yard we would get."

First, not to be overly picky...but it was not ONE yard. It was a full two. And because of that, a running play wasn't even an option. The distance did come into play, considering the Patriots completed a pass SHORT of the marker.

Second, he didn't address the consequence of NOT making the first down. If they didn't get two yards, they would be giving up the ball on their own 28. The risk was enormous.

I wish the assembled media would have pressed Belichick a bit more on what he thought of his defense. Rather than simply asking that question once and listening to a non-responsive "We thought we could pick up a yard" and then moving on, the assembled reporters needed to follow up with the gruff coach. As uncomfortable as that would be.

That was the crux of this decision. As much confidence as Belichick has in the Pats' offense -- and rightly so -- the bigger issue at play here was that he displayed a truly alarming lack of support for his defense.

Belichick's reputation suffered a hit in this game. Such criticisms in the past have been of possible cheating, his personality and his wardrobe. For the first time since he was the head coach in Cleveland, he now will be under more scrutiny regarding true football decisions.

Rips from around the league

As the Colts-Pats game gets underway, here are some thoughts from today's games:
















Tennessee 41, Buffalo 17: Terrell Owens promised Chris Johnson his jersey if Tennessee beat Buffalo. That jersey isn't worth nearly what it used to be.

New Orleans 28, St. Louis 23: St. Louis almost didn't stink for one day. Almost.

Miami 25, Tampa Bay 23: After breaking a long losing streak last week the Bucs got started on a new one today.

Minnesota 27, Detroit 10: What's the point of ripping the Lions anymore?

Jacksonville 24, New York 22: Jacksonville cut right through the Jets' defense to kick a game-winning field goal. Maybe Bart Scott will finally shut up, although I doubt it.

Cincinnati 18, Pittsburgh 12: I have to rip myself here for picking Green Bay over Cincinnati Week 2 in my suicide pool. Daggerous.

Washington 27, Denver 17: Washington scored on a fake punt that Denver knew was coming. Doesn't get worse than that.

Carolina 28, Atlanta 19: Three games in a row without a pick for Jake Delhomme. Who knows, maybe avoiding turnovers is a formula for winning.

Kansas City 16, Oakland 10: I won't waste your time or mine.

Green Bay 17, Dallas 7: Oh, what a glorious result. Hey Tony, don't worry, everyone knows you're money in the second half of the season.

Arizona 31, Seattle 20: Seattle is sneaky bad. Their lack of talent flies under the radar.

San Diego 31, Philadelphia 23: Hey, any time the Eagles and Cowboys lose on the same day, it's a damn good day.

Not looking good

Brandon Jennings tallied the fifth highest point total for a rookie in NBA history last night, notching a tidy 55 against Golden State. Jennings' double nickel ranks behind only scrubs like Wilt Chamberlain (58 twice), Rick Barry and Earl Monroe.

Jennings' career is just seven games old, so obviously it's too early to induct him into the HOF. But those seven games have made the Knicks' selection of Jordan Hill ahead of Jennings look mighty suspect. The Knicks limped to a 1-9 start with Hill rarely finding his way onto the court, and Jennings is the talk of the league.

Knicks fans are looking to the '10 free agent class for hope, but even if the Knicks lure Lebron or Wade to the Big Apple, fans will inevitably start to wonder how good the Knicks could have been with one of those big free agents and Jennings.

As many daggers as Knicks fans have endured in recent years, this has a chance to be the biggest one yet.