It was a reference to the movie Tombstone (where Kilmer played Holliday). I suspect a picture of the real Doc Holliday would leave most people clueless.
TMQ Thread
- Thread starter weeba
- Start date
Maybe it was a young intern working in production at ESPN who has no idea that Doc Holliday was a real historical figure.
I only bring this up because it's the sort of nitpicky thing he is quick to point out in others' works:
If he thinks that Lutherans existed during the Middle Ages, he needs to brush up on his European history. (This is another great example of "almost everything bad you've heard about the Middle Ages actually happened during the Renaissance.)
You should write a novel about this. You totally could get it made into a hit TV show or blockbuster movie.
So glad you posted that.
Gladwell is a good writer, but every time I happen to know something detailed about what he is talking about, the connections/hypotheses/insights he proposes are misleading or just plain wrong. Levitt's work (more so than the books) is great.
His insistence on trying to "figure out" these things is one of his most irritating traits. You know why Green Bay is so good? They've got the best quarterback on the planet right now. Period. The other star/skill players are a major asset, but Rodgers is the catalyst. And can he shut the fuck up about undrafted free agents?
It's really going to blow his mind when he looks at a crappy team's roster one day and realizes that bad teams have the same number of UDFAs that good teams have.
http://sportskeptic.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/what-nfl-winners-look-like/
Top teams in UDFAs this year: Browns and Rams. GB is middle-of-the-pack.
I don't think he actually watched the patriots game this week. Two blatant errors.
1) He says Carter sacked Rex for a safety, not a fumble
2) He had Gronk behind the record, not tied going into the game.
Writing these down seems nitpicky, but these should be simple fact checks...
1) He says Carter sacked Rex for a safety, not a fumble
2) He had Gronk behind the record, not tied going into the game.
Writing these down seems nitpicky, but these should be simple fact checks...
Maybe Detroit and Oakland have bad December records because they've been horrifically shitty teams as a whole over the past decade? Nah, that can't be it.
EDIT: I'm assuming that TMQ is starting his "decade" in 2001. Since 2001 the Lions are 47-126 (.272), Oakland is 65-108 (.375). Det's December winning % is .260, Oakland's is .313. That's not evidence that they're soft, that's right along the same lines one might expect for shitty teams.
But I thought undrafted free agents were the key to the Packers success, and megabucks players caused problems?
I'M SO CONFUSED
There's no such thing as running up the score. Right? Right.
But here's my question. Just for the sake of a TMQ-style argument, where exactly is the line when it comes to running up the score? At what point is it actually happening, has anyone ever said? Is there a formula? I am honestly curious where someone who believes this practice to be possible thinks it starts - has TMQ ever spelled it out? Or is he too busy showing pictures of cheerleaders who are studying to be diplomats and complaining about Christmas?
But here's my question. Just for the sake of a TMQ-style argument, where exactly is the line when it comes to running up the score? At what point is it actually happening, has anyone ever said? Is there a formula? I am honestly curious where someone who believes this practice to be possible thinks it starts - has TMQ ever spelled it out? Or is he too busy showing pictures of cheerleaders who are studying to be diplomats and complaining about Christmas?
Like porn, he knows it when he sees it.
I would argue (and maybe this should be in BBtL) that the Pats-Colts game from a couple of weeks ago is a pretty good argument that it's never a bad idea to run up the score as much as possible when given the opportunity. There also seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what "going easy" on a team can mean; TMQ and others have in the past said that the Pats going for it on 4th down when up big and late (instead of kicking a FG) represents piling on, but those cases represent a case where the Pats are going easy, because they're giving their opponent a chance to stop them without allowing any further points and usually using their 3rd and 4th stringers to do so.
TMQ's "running up the score" rants started in a quite reasonable fashion: he would note situations in high-school and college football games where teams were passing despite being up 45-0 with 3 minutes to go in the 4th quarter. I agree vehemently with TMQ that at the high-school level there is no place for that, and fortunately most high school football coaches would agree. As for the college level, I am not enamored either, but some of that is just due to the whole system of college football that causes teams to play cupcake games, where one needs to win convincingly in order to please the poll makers. TMQ has noted that as well.
In those cases, it's probably best to define running up the score as one of those "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".
He decided to take it to the pro level when the Pats were romping through the 2007 season and TMQ got his panties twisted in a bunch over the Spygate nonsense. It was never an issue with him beforehand. The whole issue is too boring for me; I'd rather look at the cheerleaders.
Obviously, the risk of injury is real; it's an argument that comes up all the time, especially in Week 17. But it's professional football, and injuries are a fact of life for the game and its participants. You can't protect everyone on the roster in every situation. TMQ should know better.
I wanted to see if TMQ was active on twitter (he's not beyond the auto posted column links) so I did a search on him. You know that annoying Halloween/Thanksgiving/Christmas creep thing he does, which he's expanding to basically everyone? One of the examples someone tweeted at him was a screenshot of a VeriSign certificate expiring in March 2012. I don't know about you, but that's only 3 months away and seems like something that you would want to be alerted to ahead of time, vs. something that your alerted to the week day. Picking nits, but annoying.
High school and college, I agree, there is running up the score, no reason to rub the noses of some kids who are playing a game. But I think we're all on the same page here - professional offensive NFL players are not paid not to score. It is not Tom Brady's job not to score points.
Anyway, I know we've been over all of this, I was just wondering if "running up the score" proponents have ever given a formula, "X point lead with Y minutes left in the game" or something. But of course they haven't because you can't define something that doesn't exist. Maybe I should go read Patriots game threads from 2007. But I don't want to do that, because I've seen that movie and I hated the ending.
Anyway, I know we've been over all of this, I was just wondering if "running up the score" proponents have ever given a formula, "X point lead with Y minutes left in the game" or something. But of course they haven't because you can't define something that doesn't exist. Maybe I should go read Patriots game threads from 2007. But I don't want to do that, because I've seen that movie and I hated the ending.
Not to mention, a lot of those calls weren't bubble screens or counters or draws or anything remotely complicated. It was almost always something along the lines of "Heath Evans runs into the middle of the pile".
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
From yesterday's TMQ column:
Am I missing something, or is TMQ pretty ignorant of the law despite extensive reading and family relationships?
edit: added link to column
I'm no more of a lawyer than ol' Gregg is, and I certainly don't have a federal appeals court judge for a brother. But from what I recall, people are always liable for negligence, but other forms of liability are routinely waived. That's why I sign a liability waiver before going hang gliding or sky diving, and why nearly every contract for services contains a liability-waiver clause.
Am I missing something, or is TMQ pretty ignorant of the law despite extensive reading and family relationships?
edit: added link to column
To be fair, most people I've seen discuss this issue suggest that many of the waivers we sign would probably be laughed out of court if presented as a defense - I suspect the issue is slightly more layered and textured than either side would make it sound.
1) I need the Pats to win a playoff game this year, if only so I can see the Patriots "Regular Season Home Win Streak"/"Playoff Game Home Win Streak" stat no longer appear after every home game.
2) I think Easterbrook is the only guy who is extremely frustrated that Terra Nova didn't fully flesh out the world of 2149. Me? I was pissy there weren't more dinosaurs.
2) I think Easterbrook is the only guy who is extremely frustrated that Terra Nova didn't fully flesh out the world of 2149. Me? I was pissy there weren't more dinosaurs.
I signed this sucker for the umpteenth time last weekend:
The signed waiver:
Am I missing something here?
Edit: maybe it is just germane to accident liability vs. the Easterbrook situation. If the case he should be more clear.
The signed waiver:
Googling shows a lawsuit. The claim:
The judgement (Texas Court of Appeals):
Am I missing something here?
Edit: maybe it is just germane to accident liability vs. the Easterbrook situation. If the case he should be more clear.
His TV and movie criticism is just so bizarre. Really, Avatar unfairly depicts corporations? Faster than light travel isn't real? An unrealistic number of hits take place in the sopranos? THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A BEAR IN THE BLACK FOREST IN FANTASTIC FOUR TWO?
I'd honestly be surprised if more than 25 people who read his football column like and agree with anything he writes about genre films and shows.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
I kinda like his commentary on contemporary pop science and technology. He occasionally identifies new and cool discoveries, inventions or areas of thought.
His command of the pulse of pop culture is what you'd expect from a middle-aged suburban white guy, though. Which is to say, he shouldn't even try, he starts every item with two strikes against him.
His command of the pulse of pop culture is what you'd expect from a middle-aged suburban white guy, though. Which is to say, he shouldn't even try, he starts every item with two strikes against him.
But that's 4 criteria. 1.Middle-aged 2. Suburban 3. White 4. Guy
Which two are the strikes? Or are the first 2 strikes and the last two foul balls?
Just curious, because I live in a small city, but am otherwise guilty of all of the above. Therefore, I am apparently unable to discuss cartoons, superhero movies, waitress sitcoms, the death of rock and roll and all things meta.
I guess tonight and forever forward I'll just have to open myself a can of watered-down American pilsner, pop "Blue Velvet" into the VHS, curl up with "Time's Arrow", blast "Marquee Moon" in the background and blankly stare in bemused incomprehension at the world as it passes me by...
I'm with you. The problem with Gregg isn't that he's a suburban middle aged white guy (I'm not even sure he's lives in the burbs), the problem is he sucks. More specifically, his movie criticism sucks because when he tries to show how clever he is (oh there's no sound in space!) he shows a fundamental lack of intelligence (we don't watch sci fi for scientific accuracy, we watch it because it's fun and it would not be fun to watch a scientifically accurate soundless space battles between mutant jedi dinosaurs and martian cyborg pirate-ninjas)
Easterbrook loves to pretend he understands all the rules of logic and argument, etc., but then constantly sets up strawmen and lampoons people and ideologies that don't exist. His rant about the new overtime rule is assinine:
So, how did the new overtime format "fail"? Because it didn't produce the result Easterbrook advocates for. Just say that, Greggg. His solution? Alternating possessions at the 50, with no kicking plays allowed. Because why? So that two teams play a game called Football for 60 minutes, end up tied, and then what almost everyone agrees is one third of the game, special teams, just gets thrown out in this new sport that Greggg has devised because he thinks it's somehow more fair?
You can argue that Denver basically made the playoffs because of their kick-ass kicker, but in Greggg's universe, he wouldn't have been allowed to see the field in overtime on Sunday? That seems totally fair.
I really don't understand how you can argue that a team that just lost because it gave up a touchdown on the first play from scrimmage in overtime somehow got a raw deal.
How is it that the new overtime format "supposedly ensures no team will face defeat without a chance to touch the ball"? No one ever said that. The rule is quite clear. If you get the ball first and score a touchdown, you win. It's meant to ensure there isn't a "cheap" victory, whereby there's something like a 60-yard return, a three-and-out, and then a long field goal for the win. It "ensures" that a field goal can't win it on the first possession. Nothing more.
So, how did the new overtime format "fail"? Because it didn't produce the result Easterbrook advocates for. Just say that, Greggg. His solution? Alternating possessions at the 50, with no kicking plays allowed. Because why? So that two teams play a game called Football for 60 minutes, end up tied, and then what almost everyone agrees is one third of the game, special teams, just gets thrown out in this new sport that Greggg has devised because he thinks it's somehow more fair?
You can argue that Denver basically made the playoffs because of their kick-ass kicker, but in Greggg's universe, he wouldn't have been allowed to see the field in overtime on Sunday? That seems totally fair.
I really don't understand how you can argue that a team that just lost because it gave up a touchdown on the first play from scrimmage in overtime somehow got a raw deal.
Agreed. The rule for playoff OT was enacted to prevent a team from getting the opening kickoff, driving down the field and kicking a FG to win the game. It was never said that their intention was to make sure both teams had a possession.
He's insane. The very next line from him is this:
No one ever said that it guaranteed dual possessions. And I'm sure if someone was inclined, they'd find a post from TMQ last year where TMQ "warned" the NFL of the new rule, someone on SOSH pointed out the same thing,
You know it is a pretty incredible stat and if TMQ didn't spend the last 4 years pounding on the Patriots, him observing its existence would be less infuriating.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
I hardly know where to begin with this column, but this is from the department of "I do not think that word means what you think it means":
Perhaps he just misspelled "punt", repeatedly, and his spellchecker didn't catch it.
