Jim Caldwell: When Settling Somehow Isn't Really Settling...

     Before Jim Caldwell had even been announced as the Detroit Lions' new head coach, the spin cycle had already begun.

     No sooner had Ken Whisenhunt stood up Martin Mayhew and Tom Lewand, than the local paid shills who cover this team were already singing the praises of Caldwell. And less than 24 hours after Whisenhunt turned them down, Caldwell was hired, a rush job if ever there was. It was fairly obvious from the beginning that Whisenhunt was their man, though depending on who you believe, Bill O'Brien could have been their man before that, if the Lions would have had the testicular fortitude to can the Schwartz the day they were officially eliminated from the playoffs, instead of keeping him around for one last loss for no good reason. And when their man rejected them to follow the money (not to mention the control of the roster, but we'll touch on that later), Mayhew and Lewand went into panic mode. They were so desperate to save face, that they found the most desperate candidate they could and hired him on the spot. And despite the blatantly obvious fact that he wasn't their first or second choice, Lewand insisted at the introductory presser that no, this was also "Plan A" all along, even though he addressed Whisenhunt before even mentioning Caldwell. How stupid does this man think we are? Remember: No other team had any serious interest in Caldwell, and the Ravens were ready to shit-can him if no other team hired him!

     And who could blame them? Baltimore finished 29th in total yards and 25th in scoring in Caldwell's first full season as offensive coordinator, which would indicate that the previous year's Super Bowl run couldn't exactly be attributed to him. And keep in mind, he'd never been an offensive coordinator before that; he'd spent several years as an abysmal college head coach at Wake Forest, and a QB coach up until Tony Dungy essentially picked him as his replacement in Indy. And after one particularly awful Peyton-less season, he was given the boot without getting the chance to right the ship with Andrew Luck the next year. You can debate all you want about whether he should have been given another chance, but the Colts must have seen something in him they didn't like. Such as, say, horrid in-game management skills and calling indefensible timeouts.

     Yet, this is the guy who has been hired to fill what every national pundit has called the best available coaching position in the NFL. And yet, the lead candidate didn't want the best coaching position in the NFL. Which leads one to believe that maybe this isn't the best coaching position in the NFL. There's been word that not only was money a factor in Whisenhunt's decision (to the tune of $1M more a season), but that in Tennessee he'd be afforded far more flexibility to shape the roster the way he saw fit. And allegedly he was uncomfortable with Matthew Stafford being such a large part of the decision-making process. Given his experience as something of a QB "guru," the fact that he wasn't willing to or convinced he could fix Stafford should be a bit concerning to Lions fans, especially Stafford's previous statements indicating that he doesn't think he needs fixing, or QB gurus, or anything of the sort.

     And predictably, the national media loves this hire, mostly because of Dungy and Manning coming out in support of him. Did anyone seriously think that either of these guys would throw Caldwell under the bus even if they did think he was a lackluster coach? Of course not! And honestly, Caldwell's effect on Manning, which has been loudly trumpeted by his apologists, has always been somewhat overblown. If any coach should be given credit for Manning becoming what he is today, it should be Tom Moore, the Colts' OC for over a decade starting Peyton's rookie year. Lions' fans might remember Moore as the reason Scott Mitchell looked like a competent quarterback and the architect behind the Lions' offense that led the league in 1995.

     At the same time, there's an encouraging sign or two. Caldwell supposedly showed up, broke down game film with Stafford, and went over how he was going to help him improve his passing game. You've got to like that, at the very least. No matter what his defenders might suggest, Matt Stafford has declined considerably in his time with this team, and there's an argument to be made that this is directly related to a coaching staff that didn't know what to do with him. Caldwell, at least, is coming in with a game plan, and that's a solid start. 

      Does that in itself make him the right man for the head coaching job? I'm still not convinced that's the case. This whole decision still reeks of massive overreaction all around; hiring a guy who is the polar opposite of Jim Schwartz in every single way, and in as hasty of a manner as they possibly could.

     One thing's for certain: This is almost assuredly the current brain trust's last chance to get it right. This might be the last opportunity to not squander the career of possibly the best wide receiver to ever play the game, not to mention a core that seemingly possesses the talent to be a real playoff contender. Given all of this, not to mention their ridiculous attempts on controlling every word that comes from Allen Park, and the fact that this is, in fact, the Detroit Lions, there's absolutely no reason left to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

     Martin Mayhew and Tom Lewand had better be absolutely positive that Jim Caldwell is the right man to turn this sorry franchise around.

     Their own fate depends on it.

The Baseball Hall Of Fame, And The BBWAA's Irrelevance On Full Display...

     Honestly, I'm surprised they managed to elect a whole three players this year.

     A pity, really, as there were far more deserving inductees than ballot spots to vote them in.

     But the Old Cranks Society met the bare minimum of expectations this year, electing Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas to the Baseball Hall of Fame. All three new to the ballot for 2014, all three more than deserving of the honor. But, as it is seemingly every year anymore, it's not about who got in, but who didn't. Or rather, why they didn't.

     Initially, I had intended to write about the ongoing debate on whether or not Jack Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, particularly over the middle infield double-play team that contributed every bit as much, if not more, to the Detroit Tigers' last World Series victory than the "winningest pitcher of the 80's," as if such a thing holds any real relevance. I admit, I was looking forward to ripping 97.1 The Ticket's Pat "um, ah, ya know... and stuff" Caputo a new one for lashing out at sabermetrics as the reason Morris isn't a Hall of Famer, conveniently ignoring the traditional stats that back that argument up. (The Detroit News' Kurt Mensching sums up both the traditional and stathead arguments against Morris pretty well here.)

     But then, this happened.

     Now, it's not very often that I agree with Dan Le Batard on anything. But his take on the steroid controversy is far more well-reasoned then most of the fossils that make up the Baseball Writers Association of America. And I must admit, I gained quite a bit of respect for him with this stunt, in which he turned his vote over to Deadspin in exchange for a charitable contribution. And the ballot their readers came up with for him is a far better one than most of the writers who came up with their own, and even Le Batard was impressed with the respect with which the Deadspin voters treated the process, even in making a mockery of it. And for that we should all be thankful, because it only serves to illustrate just how incompetent the body normally unilaterally tasked with making that decision really is.

     Case in point: Ken Gurnick, the Dodgers' paid shill MLB.com beat reporter, who turned in a ballot having voted for Jack Morris... and only Jack Morris. "As for those who played during the era of PED use, I won't vote for any of them." Which makes sense; let's just ignore an entire 20-year period of baseball history in order to put yourself on a moral high horse, while denying entry to players like Maddux, Glavine, and Craig Biggio, who have never even been accused or suspected of steroid use! Worse yet, Gurnick ignores the fact that Maddux and Morris were both in the major leagues at the same time for a nine-year period, and that Morris didn't actually retire until 1994. Throw in the fact that PED's have been an issue since at least the mid-80's, possibly earlier, and Gurnick's already tortured argument falls apart entirely. The worst part is, he admits to having no reason to believe Maddux used, nor any legitimate reason to deny him a vote! Luckily, he's already on record as stating he will abstain from voting in the future, but given his willingness to make the story about himself here, I question his ability to objectively report on baseball from here on out.

     Then there's the fucklogic of one Murray "Don't call my blog a blog!" Chass, who embodies everything I despise about print journalism, and is right up there at the top of the list of reasons the newspaper industry is dying a slow, painful death. Chass thankfully retired from The New York Times in 2008, and has since spent his time writing blogs, denying that he is writing blogs, and screaming at anyone who will listen about how much he hates blogs. In his post about his Hall of Fame ballot, he cites Jeff Bagwell, the aforementioned Biggio, and Mike Piazza among his list of steroid users who won't be getting his vote. Again, never mind that there is no proof that any of them used, they are cheaters in his mind. Naturally, people with actual brains in their heads ripped Chass a new one, and rightfully so.

     How does Chass respond? Why, with a ridiculous rant about how the filthy bloggers don't have anything other than anonymous hearsay to go on, and then... using anonymous hearsay to prove his point. Seriously, all you have is backne, and the word of one reporter who won't back up his accusations? You're going to have to do better than that. And if you get to denounce guys who write for entirely credible news sources simply because their work is web-based, then I get to denounce you as an ancient relic of a bygone era, not to mention a tremendous hypocrite. Truly a shame he went back on his threat to give up his Hall of Fame vote.

     And it just goes to show how out of touch the BBWAA is with baseball. And this has got to be the year that something finally changes. As always, you have the idiots who will deny someone a vote just to ensure that nobody is unanimously elected. If you think Mantle, Ruth, and Mays weren't first ballot hall-of-famers (and as nobody has ever received 100% of the vote, somebody had to have thought this), you should be taken out back and shot, or at the least kicked out of the BBWAA. Or Marty Noble, the half-wit who limited his ballot to three players for the sole reason that "I don't want 28 people entering the Hall at once," proving once and for all that absolutely no justification whatsoever is needed to grant or deny a vote to anyone. If this isn't proof enough that the process by which players are elected needs to be entirely overhauled, then there really is no reasoning with you.

     The worst part of all of this is that players who should by all logical rights be in the Hall based on individual merit are now held to an unfair standard simply because of the era in which they played. And, as Buster Olney rightly pointed out six years ago, the fault lies at the feet of Major League Baseball for not doing more at the time to get to the bottom of the problem, instead making whipping boys of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens while simply ignoring the greater problem. And until MLB addresses the issue head-on and completely instead of leaving it in the hands of the ink-stained wretches' best guesses and stances on morality, we're in for several repeats of the class of 2013.

     Call Dan Le Batard self-serving and sanctimonious if you will, but in his explanation as to why he agreed to give his vote to Deadspin's readers, he raised some entirely valid points about the antiquated process that is the Hall of Fame vote. The process has become less about honoring the greatest players in the sport, and more of a grand power-trip of writers carrying out their agendas and wielding their vote as a weapon against anyone who's ever slighted them. Besides, to dismiss Le Batard's actions as simply attention whoring ignores the self-righteous saber-rattling on display by the rest of the organization at large on a regular basis. There's a part of me that believes that the reason that he has been so vilified for taking part in this, is that he's exposed just that, and proven that, at the very least, the fans are better at this than the writers. The BBWAA has been forced to confront the debacle the election process has become. The self-congratulatory circle-jerk has come to a screeching halt. Egos have been deflated. And for one brief moment, the public was allowed to be part of the good ol' boys club, and the good ol' boys didn't like it one bit.

     And for that in itself, this was all worth it.

This Is America's Most Uninformed Article About Flint, And You've Probably Never Heard Of It

     ...Here we go again. Another outsider who's probably never even set foot in Michigan, telling us what a post-apocalyptic nightmare we're living in.

     If you live in or around Flint, you've probably already been linked several times to an article posted on the website PolicyMic, which appears to have all the journalistic integrity and substance as Buzzfeed, Upworthy, or other similar 'news' sites that do little more than take whatever photos they can find in the public domain, add a couple lines of vapid commentary between each one, and call it a day. And the actual writing is about as self-centered and unaware as your average Thought Catalog rant. Essentially, upper-class twentysomethings assuming they know how the world works, without ever having had to work for anything. And in fact that would appear to sum up the author of the piece in question, Laura Dimon, whose father just happens to be the CEO of JPMorgan Chase.

     With the very title of her piece, the author makes you aware that she believes she's somehow breaking new ground: "This Is America's Most Violent, Apocalyptic City, And You've Probably Never Heard Of It." Because clearly nobody has ever written about what a hellhole Flint is before. Not like Flint is already known nationally as "Murdertown, USA" or anything. And god knows, it's not like a fairly well known documentary was made about the decline of the city and it's most well-known industry either. Maybe you've never heard of it if you have been living under a rock for the last 25 years, or in New York, apparently. Note, by the way, that the title of the article has since been changed since they were called out on it.

     Now, mind you, I don't currently live in Flint, nor have I ever. But I've spent plenty of time and money there over the last several years, attended college there, and as a born-and-raised Detroiter, I know a thing or two about the media making a national punchline out of your hometown. And naturally, the writer starts out with a couple digs at my "dwindling, deteriorating," financially insolvent city, before getting into tearing a new one into a city that she's never actually set foot in. (Apparently, BuzzMic doesn't have much of a budget for sending it's "reporters" to cover their stories worth a damn.)

     What I love most about this piece is the fact that the primary source quoted in the article has spent a lot of time lately distancing himself from and condemning the article as publicly as possible. Gordon Young, Flint native, actual journalist, and author of Teardown: Memoir of a Vanishing City, posted this in regard to another article about the PolicyFeed piece: "In this particular case, I wish the author would have devoted less space to all the negative statistics and old news about Flint's decline, and more to the inspiring residents of my hometown who are using innovative approaches to improve the city." He goes on to mention a few of said residents he suggested Dimon interview for the piece, which of course she didn't.

     After several paragraphs of the usual statistics about Flint in decline, shots at the Midwest in general ("the hell that has become most of the Rust Belt"), pictures of the desolation of Flint that looked more like shots from the east side of Detroit and Israel (because, go figure, they were shots of Detroit and Israel) and a choice quote or two from Michael Moore (gee, and I thought you were treading new ground here), Dimon devotes a whole 150 words to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, all hope is not yet lost for Flint.

     And it doesn't end there. There's a companion piece, "16 Portraits Of Everyday People Who Refuse To Let Their Hometown Be Defeated," which rehashes the stats from the previous article, then presents 16 photos she says "depict the stories of the everyday people who are fighting for a better Flint." Except, y'know, without actually fucking telling the stories. Dimon then presents 16 completely context-free stock photos, without even identifying the people in them, much less tell any story. This is even more disingenuous than the original article; like you're doing some great service by posting a bunch of photos you copied from AP or a photographer's Flickr stream without giving any of the context or backstory behind them. Hell, how do we know these aren't just more photos of Detroit, Baghdad, or wherever, seeing how PolicyWorthy clearly doesn't fact check anything until they get called out by it?

     This is the problem with journalism in the 21st century. The media assumes we don't have the attention span to comprehend anything more than three sentences long without pictures to break it up, so they feel the need to dumb things down for us, or worse, try to pass off lazy, barely-researched pieces like this assuming we're too stupid to tell the difference. It's not that you're only telling one side of the story while giving a couple sentences (and 16 photos!) of lip service to the other. It's that you can't even tell that side of the story correctly.