What Is Frank Deford Talking About?

As I was getting ready for work this morning, I heard Frank Deford's commentary.  It didn't make sense when I heard it, so I listened to it later while I was at work.  Then I read the trasnscript.  The best I could do was to start a new series here, "What is Frank Deford Talking About?".  Hopefully it will be as critically acclaimed as my other series: FireDavidHaugh.com.

Back to today, Frank Deford was talking about games taking too long:  what reasons are there?  Could it be too many TV commercials or bad pitching or bad weather-- no, its batters taking pitches.  It seemed like a shot at sabermetrics, and it was poorly done.  Well, here's the article and here's the audio.  and some more Hold Steady.  And then my thoughts...






Why Working The Count Doesn't Work For Me
By Frank Deford
May 5, 2010

It was 100 years ago when Franklin P. Adams wrote what is, after Casey At The Bat, sports' most famous poem. It appeared in the New York Evening Mail, titled "Baseball's Sad Lexicon," as Adams lamented how three players on the Chicago Cubs kept thwarting his beloved hometown team.

It went, of course, like this:

These are the saddest of possible words:

"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

Trio of bear cubs, fleeter than birds,

Tinker and Evers and Chance.

Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,

Making a Giant hit into a double —

Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:

"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

I have heard this before.  Its a fun poem.  Just for fun, here are some career numbers:
Joe Tinker - .262 BA | 31 HRs | 774 Runs | 783 RBI | .353 Slg | .308 OBP | .661 OPS
Johnny Evers - .270 BA | 12 HRs | 919 Runs | 538 RBI | .334 Slg | .356 OBP | .690 OPS
Frank Chance - .296 BA | 20 HRs | 798 Runs | 596 RBI | .394 Slg | .394 OBP | .788 OPS

While I understand the anguish of your team getting beat repeatedly by the same team, if these guys were nothing but trouble when your team faced them then your team really sucked.  I know home runs were rare back then, but these numbers aren't intimidating- even back then.

The three gentlemen who were upsetting the sports-page poet in 1910 were the double-play combination of Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers and Frank Chance. But today, a century later, in 2010, all baseball faces a much more serious scourge –– the dreadful strategy of what is called "working the count."

Yeah, Baseball is being ruined by... working the count?  huh?  What is Frank Deford Talking about?" (Hold for applause).

That means that the idea is no longer to swing away, but to fight a battle of attrition, make the pitcher throw more pitches, stall, wait him out.

Yeah, I'm tired of all these selfish players trying to hit pitches they can handle.  Why don't they just swing at everything like they were at the batting cage.  The games would be over in about an hour and a half and Frank Deford and I could get to bed at a reasonable hour.  

So the pitcher retaliates by taking more time and the catcher makes serial trips to the mound, and the batters call time out constantly, incessantly monkeying with their batting gloves, delaying, loitering, dragging out every at-bat. Hitters who can take pitches and get walks now seem more valued than hitters who can actually ... hit.

As long as I can remember, there's been trips to the mound and batters fixing their batting gloves.  And hitters work counts to get better pitches to hit, not necessarily to get a walk.  I don't recall a guy signing a huge contract for just being patient at the plate.

Last year's league leader in walks was Adrian Gonzalez-- who also hit 40 hrs.  A guy named Albert Pujols was #3. Most players who walk a lot are good hitters.   5 players in the top 20 walks for 2009 hit fewer than 20 Hrs:
Chone Figgins hit 5 -- but he had 42 sbs and can play multiple positions.
Nick Johnson hit 8 -- but he's not exactly a highly coveted player.
Kosuke Fukudome hit 11 -- Not worth the money but not exactly highly valued anymore
Marco Scutaro hit 12 -- Plays short and hits .282.  Not a highly desired player.
Todd Helton hit 18 -- He also hit .325, so he actually hits the ball.

I'm not quite sure who these players desired for their ability to take pitches are.

Come back, steroids: All is forgiven.

If I ignore the steroids part of it:  Barry Bonds-- all time walks leader.  #2 is a mere 368 walks behind.  He wasn't quite free swinging.

So the games get longer. The average time now approaches three hours. Our hero is Cowboy Joe West, an umpire who dared publicly call out the Yankees and Red Sox for being the worst offenders –– which they are, year after year.


They've also been really good year after year.  I wonder if scoring more runs thus having more plate appearances means a longer game? 

The Yankees' old manager, Joe Torre, has carried the virus to his new team, the Dodgers. Now L.A. is the slowest team in the National League ... working the count.

They've also been winning since Torre got out there.

And, of course, we spectators are the big losers, down for the count.

Defenders of baseball always get very sensitive when critics snort that the game is too slow. Yes, part of baseball's charm is that by taking its time, it enjoys an intellectual suspense other sports don't. A slow dance is more romantic.

At a certain point, though, the obsession for working the count is twisting the game's cherished rhythm into stultifying sluggishness.

I'm for the game going faster-- but not by telling batters to swing at more pitches.  If you want the game to go faster, have the pitcher work fast and throw strikes.  Pitchers like Mark Buehrle and Greg Maddux did that and, win or lose, usually played in shorter games.  If you want to speed up the game, go after the guys who hold the ball at the beginning of each play, not the ones who are partly dependent on the ability of the pitcher. 

And so, a century on from Tinker to Evers to Chance, we have, this year, "Baseball's Sadder Lexicon":

These are the saddest of possible words:

"Working the count."

Hopelessly boring, slower than curds,

Working the count.

Strategically destroying the grace of the game,

Turning each at-bat into a pain,

Words that are heavy with nothing but shame:

"Working the count."

Okay, walks aren't as exciting as home runs.  But then neither is 3 ground outs on 3 pitches.  The best players take pitches-- that's what they do. 

If you look at the top 40 pitches/at bat from 2009, there's quality hitters like Jayson Werth (36 HR), Kevin Youkilis (27 HR), Adam Dunn (38 HR), Todd Helton (see above), Nick Swisher (29 HR), Jack Cust (25 HR), Luis Castillo (.302 BA), Brad Hawpe (.285 BA/23 HR) in the top 10. 

Others in the top 40 include Joe Mauer, Bobby Abreau, Dan Uggla, David Wright, Chase Utley, Joey Votto, Ryan Howard, Raul Ibanez, Ryan Zimmerman, Johnny Damen, Ben Zobrist, Victor Martinez, Justin Upton, BJ Upton.  Not exactly "walks over hitting" players.

So I don't know what Frank Deford is talking about.

Bulls Year End Wrap Up: Part III

Vinny is finally out as Bulls coach- And Gar Forman and John Paxson had a press conference.  They praised Vinny.  Paxson apologized for the tie-pulling incident.  Forman announced the Bulls didn't necessarily have a list of coaching candidates or a time-line or any plan they wanted to articulate.  In the end, we all learned a little bit more about ourselves.  And life itself.

So with Vinny finally in the rear view mirror, the search for a new coach is on.  Until free agency starts, then there's new madness.  I expect plenty of odd thoughts for that.

For now its Bad Sports Thoughts' favorite David Haugh.  Shockingly, he wrote a good basketball article.  Check it out here. (I will give credit where its due.  When I can).  Still, there was his thoughts on the Bulls and not hiring Doug Collins for a second term as Bulls coach.

Here's some more new Hold Steady and the column.  Enjoy.




Bulls can't pass on Collins this time
By David Haugh
May 3, 2010

Hope for the sake of the Bulls that Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf's trip into Chicago over the weekend to plot the future of the franchise was no sentimental journey.

That's how the Bulls got into this mess two years ago. Reinsdorf followed his heart, which eventually caused his head to throb.

He made the mistake of deciding against hiring Doug Collins as Bulls coach out of fear that one day he would have to fire his close friend. Reinsdorf probably doesn't buy flowers either because they just die.

So your story is on the fact that Reinsdorf didn't do what was best for the Bulls by letting his friendship with Doug Collins get in the way of hiring him.  Except that's not the entire story-- Doug Collins also backed out.  It was a mutual decision-- not just one by Reinsdorf.  That was in the John Jackson column-- see, I told you I'd come back to it.

The only people who appreciated Reinsdorf's gesture more than Collins may have been the teams ahead of the Bulls in the Eastern Conference. As much as Vinny Del Negro got out of the Bulls in two straight playoff seasons, it's natural to wonder whether an experienced coach such as Collins would have gotten even more. 

Actually, if Collins was hired and fell apart like he's done in past gigs, it might be something for all fans to appreciate.  That being said, Collins probably would have gotten more out of the Bulls since he's a better coach.  Not really much to wonder.

"It's not a great thing for friends to jeopardize a relationship for business,'' Reinsdorf said when passing on Collins in June 2008.

The chairman probably still believes that. But what if sticking to that principle now jeopardizes the relationship between that business and, say, the Eastern Conference finals?

Lets' try to remember what actually happened.  As I remember, after D'antoni went to New York and the Bulls search stalled, Collins emerged from nowhere to be considered for the job.  I think it was actually a favor to Reinsdorf.  The friendship is what created the situation in the first place.

And the important thing would be the development of Derrick Rose.  And an NBA championship.  Eastern Conference finals is too small a goal.


The thought of Reinsdorf changing a course the Bulls have charted since December by inviting Del Negro back is as crazy as the notion of Vinny and Pax singing "Take Me Out To The Ball Game'' at a Cubs game. A businessman as good as Reinsdorf quickly should realize that, according to people who have worked around both recently, there was no creative tension produced between Paxson and Del Negro — just tension.

Yes, Vinny's gone-- but they'll pretty much have anyone do the seventh inning stretch.  So don't count that out. 

The Bulls need to stop overanalyzing this. Due perhaps to legal questions lingering over the March 30 physical altercation, it has already taken longer than necessary to make official the conclusion reached long ago. Whether Del Negro earned another season for the admirable way he embraced his role as NBA martyr, changing head coaches benefits everybody.

Wait, benefits everyone?  Weren't you fighting for Vinny's job a week ago?  Like here.  If you were willing to commit a column to Vinny's great coaching ability, why wouldn't you keep making the argument for him to stay?

Don't say the Bulls have ample time to find a coach before the draft and free agency. That's true if you are limiting your imagination to the relatively uninspiring pool of candidates such as Lawrence Frank, Byron Scott and Eric Musselman, whom the Bulls contacted in December to gauge his interest in Del Negro's job, a source said.

Scott boldly made public his interest while Del Negro still was figuring out how to stop the Cavaliers during the playoffs. Usually when a coach says he would pick up the phone, it never rings.

On second thought, maybe Scott would be the perfect Reinsdorf candidate — an easy guy to fire.

Seriously, the longer the Bulls drag this transition process out, the more they risk losing their most obvious and qualified candidate. That is Collins, naturally.

Yes, the coaching options aren't quite awe-inspiring.  But don't make a move out of panic or just because you feel you need to do it.  That's how the 5 year $72 million Deng contract came about.   And I thought Jerry and Doug were buds-- wouldn't that buy a little bit of time?


Move fast. Tempt Collins with a $5 million salary offer. Let him bring respected NBA scout and ex-assistant Brian James, the former Glenbrook North High School coach who knows Collins as well as anybody and the roster from scouting it all season. Keep Lindsey Hunter, who played for Collins from 1996-98 in Detroit, on the staff to help bridge the gap between the new coach and his players.

Don't the Bulls already have a scouting department?  And what do you care how much he gets paid?  And Lindsey Hunter?  Is the guy who bravely played about 6 minutes this year the next great bridge guy?  I didn't realize all the coaches were leaving-- Pete Myers might have a say with the current roster.


Collins last coached the Bulls in 1989, fired after losing in the Eastern Conference finals. If Reinsdorf insists on injecting any nostalgia into the equation, sell Collins on the idea of getting a chance to take the Bulls where he couldn't 21 years ago — Point C, if you will.

Wait, shouldn't the Bulls try to get to Point B first?  And nothing says good business decision like chasing the white whale that got away over 2 decades ago.  Wait, is the Bulls gig a symbol of Collins' own mortality?  I take it back, this column is probably the deepest, most intricate, most layered column print journalism has ever seen.

Reinsdorf needs to approach Collins quickly without worrying about what may happen under the worst-case scenario. How about considering the possibilities of pairing the best available head coach with Derrick Rose?

Emotion never should enter the equation. It's business — the business of winning — and the Bulls can get closer to their industry's bottom line by hiring the right guy this time.

Who just happened to be the right guy the last time too.

Yes, Rose should be coached by the best coach possible.  That's understood-- but there's no way emotion won't play a role when talking about Collins. But the emotion will be there-- there's more than 2 decades of history.  And, no matter how much it should be all business, it becomes tougher with Collins involved. 

Bulls Year End Wrap Up: Part II

Alright, time to do Part II before I go to bed.  Since odds are David Haugh will have a bad thought by the time I wake up tomorrow, I'm going to do this piece by John Jackson. 

Am I nitpicking because its basically just a sloppy list of possible coaches for the Bulls?  Or just list of basketball coaches period?  Probably-- there's just some odd thoughts in there.  And I always love to do my John Jackson tyrade:

I think he might not actually exist.  He was the secondary beat writer while Brian Hanley was doing most of the reporting.  Jackson's stories then were always the "Young Player Making Stride" or "Coaching Staff Happy with Player's Effort" or basically a bland beat report that was fed by comments from a coach or player or GM.  I figured that Jackson was just a pseudonym for Hanley-- an "Alan Smithee" for stories he didn't want to put his name on.  But then Hanley left for the Notre Dame football beat and his morning radio show on WSCR.   Jackson kept writing, killing that theory. 

Now, I've never seen or heard Jackson interviewed.  I don't remember him breaking any Bulls' stories. His picture may be on the Suntimes site (I think it is) but I can't remember what he looks like.  And his articles sometimes seem like he's not watching the game.  But that's just all part of my crackpot theory that has really no basis or meaning to anything really.  I just enjoy thinking of him as a concept-- like how some people believe Shakespeare was many writers working under his name.  Except this is for Bulls beat reporting.

Anyhow, here's an article and more new Hold Steady.


Del Negro likely on way out
By John Jackson
May 2, 2010

Although it's not yet official, it's clear Bulls management doesn't want Vinny Del Negro as the head coach of the team any longer. It's only a matter of when -- not if -- the change will be made.

The more intriguing question is, who will replace Del Negro? Do the Bulls go with another young, inexperienced coach to bond with a young roster, or do they look for a more veteran coach to bring some experience to the bench?

Actually, its the only question right now.  Unless you want to look past that to free agents, first things first- what is the Bulls coaching move.

Whichever direction management decides to go, the new coach will be under more pressure than most new coaches.

Um, how so?  New coaches are usually brought in to make things better as quickly as possible.  

While Del Negro had his faults, nearly everyone -- with the possible exception of Bulls management, that is -- thinks he did a good job this season in getting the team to the playoffs despite a rash of injuries and other issues.

He did okay.  But the goal really wasn't the playoffs- the goal was developing Derrick Rose.


The new coach also will have to deal with the fact that Del Negro had a good relationship with all of the players, especially All-Star point guard Derrick Rose and center Joakim Noah. That's not insignificant in the NBA.

Yeah, but that's only one small part.  And Derrick Rose will most likely accept whoever comes in-- everything he does seems like he doesn't care about anything besides playing basketball.

The other issue for the Bulls is the list of candidates appears underwhelming at this point. Of the candidates with head-coaching experience available, the biggest names are Mike Dunleavy, Mike Fratello, Avery Johnson, Byron Scott and Jeff Van Gundy. Other names include Lawrence Frank, Kevin McHale and Sam Mitchell.

It is a bit underwhelming.  But there is some quality in there- just not big names.  They can be a point A-B coach.  Not, as Rick Morrisey wisely pointed out, a point A to Point A coach (Good sports thoughts in that article). 

Dunleavy is well-regarded throughout the league, but he will be a tough sell as a recycled candidate. Fratello is another candidate out of the recycling bin and doesn't seem like a good fit because he is more of a defensive-minded coach. Frank, who was fired from the woeful Nets earlier this season, would be a really tough sell, and the emotional Mitchell probably isn't the kind of coach management is looking for

Wait, a defensive-minded coach would be a bad fit?  The Bulls, in fact, are allowed to play defense.  Actually, good defense tends to win a lot of games. 

And who would Frank be a tough sell to?  If the writers in this town are willing to make injury and lost player excuses for Vinny, sure they can find a way to make excuses for a guy who's team lost Jason Kidd, Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson.  Oh, there were some injuries too.  I'm not saying to hire Frank, but judge his coaching and not the raw record alone.

There has been talk the Dallas Mavericks' Rick Carlisle or the Los Angeles Lakers' Phil Jackson -- remember him? -- might become available. Either would be a no-brainer hire. But right now, the best veteran candidate might be Doug Collins, who appeared to have the job two years ago before chairman Jerry Reinsdorf's hesitation caused him to withdraw.

Good points here.  I'd like to point out the fact that Doug Collins withdrew.   This may be used in someone else's article. 

It's doubtful the Bulls will reach down to the college level -- unless, of course, Duke's Mike Krzyzewski is interested -- but one name to keep an eye on is Kentucky's John Calipari, who coached Rose at Memphis and has previous NBA experience.

Why would you want Coach K?  The college to pros thing really doesn't work.  And Calipari has pro experience so its a decent idea.  And the NCAA can't make the Bulls vacate any titles.

Whatever happens, it seems the Bulls will consider many options before selecting a new coach.

And the article ends with a state the obvious contest.  I'll try that here: Plants have green leaves in the summer.  

Bulls Year End Wrap Up: Part I

The Bulls have finally decided to officially fire Vinny Del Negro (really this time) so I thought I'd take some recent articles on the Bulls and figure out which is the worst.  Our candidates are two of my favorites: David Haugh and Jim O'Donnell as well as the Suntimes' Bulls write-by-numbers beat writer John Jackson.  We'll get their thoughts lost on not having a real coach around to help Derrick Rose's game at the pro level.

I know I've been basketball heavy, but there's been too much basketball stupidity to ignore.  I'd try to make fun of some hockey thoughts but they aren't really that far out there-- or as frequent. 

In a drawing held before I wrote this, Jim O'Donnell won and will be mocked first.

Last week, he took time out from covering horses and sports media to be an extra writer for the historic and memorable Bulls-Cavs five game round one best of seven series.  He makes a case for Vinny as good coach based on what Lebron James and Derrick Rose say.  Granted, they are good sources for supporting an argument-- but there's really nothing else making his case.  So, here's some new Hold Steady and some bad thoughts.




2 huge thumbs up
by Jim O'Donnell
April 28, 2010


 The campaign is over for the 2009-10 Bulls. Now the electoral college results over the future of Vinny Del Negro as head coach will be announced.
Many say it already has been decided -- nay instead of yea -- by the ruling council of two-and-a-half chiefs -- chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, executive vice president-basketball operations John Paxson and general manager Gar Forman.

Yes, VDN is on the way out of town.  You didn't need two sentences to say this.

Rose was asked first. After scoring 31 points in Cleveland's surprisingly difficult 96-94 closeout in Game 5, Rose was targeted with the media question: ''If you were given a vote on the retention of Vinny, would you vote yes or no and why?''

''I would vote yes,'' Rose said without pause. ''We both came in together, and he lets me have my freedom but still coaches me. He let me make my mistakes. I watch film with him almost every day. He taught me a lot about defense and offense and what I was supposed to do.

''But the decision isn't really up to me. It's up to the front office, so I'm just going to let them worry about that and just deal with it.


Alright, the star player likes Vinny.  But has Rose ever said anything negative about anyone?  Have you ever heard a player say, "Yeah, this coach blows.  No one was listening to him.  We ran 5 plays all year, and the only bigger joke than our half-court offense was our inbound plays."?  Although that would be nice.  And if he really wanted Vinny back, Rose could've just said-- "I demand him back."  That would've gone a long way.  He just left it for the front office.

For James -- who just missed a triple-double with 19 points, 10 rebounds and nine assists despite a troublesome elbow -- the question was tweaked.

''After the five games,'' James was asked, ''did you think the Bulls were particularly well-coached, poorly coached or just in between?''

''I think they were well-coached,'' James said. ''Vinny and his staff had that group ready. They have a group of young talent that can really play the game of basketball, and they played hard. There was not one point where they were laying down.

Very kind words.  To be fair, they did slow James down to 31.8 pts, 9.2 rebounds, and 8.2 assists per game for the series (I think, my math may be off).  Well prepared indeed-- he could have gone for 40-15-12 if they hadn't played so hard.  There's a difference between playing hard and being well coached.  You really expect a team to play hard in the playoffs, you expect the coach to add a little more value.

But it was kind words from a guy who was really had kinds words about the Bulls players and coaches the entire series.  He even went out of his way to say he enjoyed the city of Chicago itself.  Even while he almost averaged a triple double.  Quite kind of him, actually.

At the Bulls game-day shootaround, Deng told Jim Rose of WLS-Channel 7: ''Whatever the organization wants, I want what's good for the organization. But of course I would love to see Vinny come back as my head coach. He's done a marvelous job these last two years with us under the situations he's been handed.''

But Deng added, ''The organization has to move on. We have to figure out what we're going to do. And hopefully they'll get it all resolved.''

Thanks for the exclusive quote from Jim Rose.  It was a real eye opener.  Seriously, the players have known Vinny's days were numbered.  I've figured out that his days our numbered.  My casual basketball fan girlfriend knew it (Visit here fantastic cooking blog here).  What do the players quotes add now?

But if and when Del Negro is discarded -- perhaps to become the NBA's answer to ex-White Sox skipper Tony La Russa, perhaps merely to become a personable ''recyclable'' -- one word apparently won't be appearing on the cover of the 2010-11 Bulls media guide.

And that word is ''continuity.''

Continuity?  Yes, I want a third straight year of a team going 41-41 and being in the bottom part of the Eastern conference playoff teams.  And I don't understand the La Russa reference.  Is La Russa actually "personable"?  Hasn't he threatened reporters with a fungo bat?  Is he saying that Vinny is going on to a long career coaching roided up players- the NBA's personable answer to Canseco, McGuire, and others?  Well done Jim O'Donnell.  You've wasted my time.  And I've wasted all of yours.  

Frank Deford Misses The Point On Ben Roethlisberger

Wednesday morning gave us this commentary by Frank Deford on NPR's Morning Edition. 
You can hear it here. 

Deford's basic point that athletes shouldn't be role models.  Which I agree with-- there's no reason to believe that because someone's good at sports their life is something to replicate.  This should have been the commentary after Tiger Woods' numerous affairs came out.  Those women were all consenting, and, why cheating isn't right, it is nothing unusual for professional athletes.  Wilt Chamberlain still claims the record with 5,000 women.

The point here is that the women in the Roethlisberger case doesn't appear to be consenting.  There's also other women coming forward with similar stories.  Here are the reports on Deadspin.  The commentary can't be on Big Ben as a role model-- the commentary should be as him as a menace to society.  The summarized story, as I understand it, is where his bodyguards escorted a woman to a bathroom in a bar where she was alone with Ben.  She said "No" to his advances, he may or may not have stopped.  There's your story.

So while I was thinking about that, Friday came around and Morning Edition followed up with listener comments on the story.  Some agreed with me.  Others were devastated by the defense of alleged rape and abuse.   Some thought that DeFord was being sarcastic.  Although listening to again-- I don't hear it.  I think "exasperation" in his voice is the usual laughing he does about halfway through his commentaries.  I didn't see it as a smartly crafted ironic piece.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Anyway, here's the follow up story.  And the audio.


And here's my thoughts:


Not All Role Models Need Be Positive
By Frank Deford
April 28, 1010

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger apologized Monday for his behavior last month in a Georgia bar, where he was accused of sexually assaulting a 20-year-old girl.

The apology came after the football star was cleared of all charges in the case, and followed a National Football League suspension taking him out of the first six games next season.

The basics of the story.  Although this wasn't the first rape charge and there have been more reported incidents since.

But at a certain point, don't you just stop caring whether our athletes — who for some reason or other are always called "role models" — don't you just stop caring whether they behave?

Um, who actually considers athletes role models?  Besides Tim Tebow-- he's just dreamy.  And Smiley.

Don't you just want to say, "Let the thugs play"?

OK, if they violate the statute law, fine, put them in the hoosegow. But really, otherwise, why are we expending so much angst worrying about the character of our well-muscled celebrities?


Let the thugs play indeed.  However, if they're actually a public safety hazard, that may be a problem. 

I mean, it is hopelessly apparent that Roethlisberger is a perfectly dreadful person, prone to reprehensible behavior whenever he is let loose from the sanctioned violence of the gridiron.

This is true...

To what earthly benefit is it to suspend Roethlisberger? Does it teach little, impressionable children a lesson? Is it going to make other football players pause and think about being a role model late at night when they are on the cusp of committing mayhem? I mean, let's give Roethlisberger credit. At least he wasn't packing a firearm like so many of his athletic brethren do when they are out taking the air these evenings.

Well, suspending him is a message to the other players that if you go around committing mayhem, they will be punished.  And instead of worrying about of being a role model, they might worry about being suspended 4-6 games and losing millions of dollars.  And the firearm comment-- is that sarcasm or does Deford really think firearms are per se worse than sexual assault (different weapon I guess?)

And it also teaches kids that your work might fire (or at least punish) your ass if you're a cretin in public and witnesses know who you work for.

No doubt his enforced vacation will hurt the Pittsburgh Steelers, but then, somebody has to lose, so it will help some other team. The NFL will not be affected a whit, except in the sanctimonious sense that it can pat itself on the back for standing foursquare in support of goodness.

What always confounds me is the premise that Commissioner Roger Goodell cited — as do the other so-called czars of sport — that their players "have to be held to a higher standard."

There's always the opposite:  doing nothing and appearing to defend felons and rapists.  If I can remember a few things from some old college business classes, that's probably not good for business or your corporate brand.  And the "higher standard" is in fact just marketing- but can't we agree that we can ask our athletes not to be repeatedly mentioned in stories involving sexual assault?

But why? Why, pray, of all people, are athletes, pretty much alone in our society, expected to be sweeter than the average angel? It is politicians and clergy and those maestros of finance on Wall Street who ought to be held to a higher standard. Why aren't they ever called "role models?" Why can't some tearful little impressionable tyke sob, "Say it ain't so, Goldman Sachs, say it ain't so" — and thus change the pecking order in our cultural mythology?

Um, I really don't expect them to bet sweeter than an average angel.  And I don't understand what Goldman Sachs has to do with it-- unless you want a Congressional panel questioning Big Ben.

And speaking of role models, it's nice to know that Tiger Woods has issued another sincere apology, so bummed out, as he is, that he was surly and graceless and cursed on the course at the 2010 Masters golf tournament, all the little nasties he'd assured us he was going to take care of in prior sincere apologies. Perhaps Roethlisberger can join Tiger in his mystery rehabilitation.

Um, were we speaking of role models?  But yes, Tiger issued an apology for being grumpy and sweary on the golf course (although funny: "Tiger Woods... You Suck!" see below).  But this is what you should have written the "Role Model" commentary on.  Not kind of standing up for a rapist.



So let me close this jeremiad by showing how we can get around this emotional dilemma: We simply acknowledge that not all role models have to be positive. After all, by definition, the term just means modeling a role, exemplifying a position. Dracula, for example — was there ever a better role model for nefarious behavior? No.

So once we understand that and accept that all our athletes are role models, we can stop fretting and get back to the games.

I can agree with that-- just not with your Big Ben example.  I accept that there are thugs and imperfect people in sports.  That football players might be violent.  That basketball players might enjoy pot.  That baseball players might enjoy Wrigleyville too much.  That a lot of athletes like guns.  But don't pick the fight defending Ben Roethlisberger.  We can easily hold him to a higher standard than what you're presenting.

I still don't see any irony in this article.  I see an odd comparison to gun carrying athletes and to the collapse of Wall Street.  I haven't heard the role model talk either.  So I'm really lost as to the purpose of his commentary.  Can anyone help me figure it out?