Dear Brewed Sports Guys,
Why do you all of guys have such a hardon for Adam Dunn? Dude hits like .200 and he's slow. Plus he strikeouts alot. The Brewers already have a bunch of strikeout guys. Shouldn't we be targeting fast guys who can disrupt pitchers, steel a base or two, and do the little things? What does Tony Gwynn need to do to get a fair chance?
Fanklin in New Holstein
"Fanklin," I think you may have crafted your letter just to make ESK's head explode, but let's deal with Adam Dunn. First of all, Adam Dunn has hit 40 or more home runs in 6 consecutive seasons. Home runs are good. If you combine the number of home runs hit by Tony Gwynn Sr. and Tony Gwynn Jr., you get 135 home runs over a period of 23 years. (Of those 135 home runs, Tony Gwynn, Sr. has, uhm, 135 of them.) Adam Dunn has 135 HRs just on check-swings.
Adam Dunn also reaches base roughly 38% of the time. He is able to do so because if pitchers throw him bad pitches, he doesn't swing at them. If pitchers throw him good pitches, he hits the ball so hard that the force of the impact of the ball on high energy particles could destroy the world in a simulated "new big bang."
No, wait, that's actually the large hadron collider. But Adam Dunn and the large hadron collider get mixed up all the time.
Tony Gwynn Jr., on the other hand, is often confused with a rock tumbler. They both involve "grittiness." They both sometimes produce pretty results that aren't worth a damn thing. The biggest difference between the two is that nerds like rock tumblers, whereas stupid people who don't understand baseball like Tony Gwynn and his .300 OBP.
In all fairness Franky, I'm not sure if Adam Dunn is such a good idea anymore. When he does decline it will probably happen hard and fast, and he's about to leave his prime. Anyone who signs him is risking the dreaded "Travis Hafner" decline. But Adam Dunn, and the large hadron collider, are both risks worth taking.
So to answer your question in terms you can understand, Adam Dunn is good at baseball, and Tony Gwynn is good at having the last name "Gwynn."
Why no Badger hoops coverage? I saw that you have a Marquette guy, and that's cool and stuff, but where's the love for Bo?
Mumia A, Madison
That's a fair criticism Mumia. The short answer is that I haven't seen enough of Bucky to provide cogent analysis. When football is over you can expect both our Badger and Golden Eagle coverage to increase, but really, at this point everyone is still getting a feel for everything.
I will say that the Badgers may have a tougher time putting up the kind of dominant Big 10 season that we've come to expect from Bo's crew. For starters, they seem to be relying more on the 3-point shot this year, which will give them a higher variance, but aside from that it also looks like the Big 10 is better than usual. Michigan and Purdue seem to be vastly improved, and when Michigan State gets healthy look out. If not for Tom Crean's terrible Indiana team and an absolutely loaded Big East, you could make the case that the Big Ten is actually the strongest conference in Basketball. Heck they almost won the challenge this year!
That said, we'll try to stay on top of Marcus Landry and crew. If you have any other comments, feel free Mumia.
(That's just a little of the subliminal, radical political commentary we hide in every Brewed Sports post!)
Dear Mr. Noonan,
What do you think of Bill Simmons and his current spat with ESPN? Do you think his act is played out? Where would he go if they fired him?
Bill S., Los Angeles
Is Bill Simmons played out? Bill Simmons has been played out for like however many years the internet has existed. How many fucking Rocky columns can you write? Look, I like Rocky just fine, but come on, it's not that good.
Bill Simmons has experienced a phenomenon that happens to everyone as they get older. It hits some people more slowly, but it gets everyone eventually. And that phenomenon is as follows. Are you 25 years old or younger? Well let me tell you something. What you like sucks.
Now I'm smarter than the average bear, so I know that what you like doesn't really suck. And that you probably don't know who Yogi Bear is. No, Bear. Not Berra, I know you know who Yogi Berra is, but there's this cartoon bear that...you know what, never mind. Anyway, I'm sure you will produce some timeless music and classic movies, but at some point you lose the ability to detect these things. I mean, Justin fucking TImberlake is basically Michael Jackson now, isn't he? (Not the pedophile part, the world's biggest pop-star part.) He's had staying power, he's super famous, he has a ton of hits. Someone like me cannot process this fact in his brain, but it's true.
Anyway, Bill has tried to keep up, and I applaud his effort, but it's getting kinda sad. Dude's like 40 and still watching the real world. I didn't even know that The Real World was still on. I guess they have those Real World v. Road Rules type shows too. No 40-year-old man should ever watch MTV for any reason. Bill tries to keep up with the Zeitgeist, but he's really pushing creepy. The first time he drops a twilight reference it's all over.
But while most Simmons' columns are pretty painful these days, he can still be useful. He interviewed David Stern this week and asked him some genuinely hard questions. Bill's forte was always taking the fans' perspective to the national level, and he hit Stern with Donaghy, the Artest Brawl, the massive salary dump by multiple NBA teams to lure LeBron in TWO years, and his longevity. It was a solid interview, and Simmons would do well to schedule more chats like that.
Bill, however, is losing this edge too. Most Simmons' fans suspected that LA would destroy the Sports Guy perspective, and it basically has. Aside from bordering on creppy-old-man-ness, he's also started talking like a poor man's version of entourage. Borrrring.
As for the feud, I suspect he's gone as soon as his contract is up, but that's a mistake by both parties. If ESPN were on the ball, they would give him complete editorial immunity. I know they don't want an ESPN employee ripping their own announcers, and I understand that to some extent, but ESPN needs to realize that people actually like bad announcers because they're fun to pick apart. I'm glad that Joe Theisman is gone, but damn it if I didn't talk about the idiot for a good half-hour every Monday.
This answer is now bordering on Simmons length, so I should probably put a stop to it. One last thing.
Bill. Enough with the Milwaukee fat jokes. They're not that funny, and we're not that fat.
How can you still defend Aaron "Blodgers." Favre is 8-5 and Aaron "Blodgers" is 5-8. Winning is the goal, isn't it? You're just a bunch of Thompson-fellating Favre haters. Now if you'll excuse me I have to call Jack Del Rio.
Bert Farve, Kiln New Jersey
We've dealt with this, but I'm more curious as to what you were going for with "Blodgers." Were you trying for Blow-gers but couldn't find the hyphen key? Are you a big Harry Potter fan comparing Aaron to the injury-minded Quidditch balls?
Have a good chat with Jack. Maybe you can join he and Matt Millen in the woods for some chopping.
Please come up with a better overtime for soccer.
David B, Los Angeles
I'm glad to see that we have so much of a presence on the West coast. Let's see...soccer...well, almost any overtime would be better than penalty kicks. The problem with soccer is that playing simple sudden death could result in some games that are as long as cricket matches. And while Hockey can have a decent shoot-out, there's not really a 1-on-1 equivalent in soccer.
How about this. Each team picks like 5 players, like a shoot-out, and then instead of a shootout, they play HORSE. So the first guy takes a shot from somewhere with the opposing goaltender in goal, and if he makes it, the first player on the other team has to replicate the shot against his opponent's goaltender. You wouldn't necessarily have to go all the way to HORSE. Maybe just PIG. Although they would have to come up with some stupid soccer name for it, like when they changed Sudden Death to The Golden Goal. They could call this "tie" or "dive" or "gentlemanly one-upsmanship". Something lame like that.
OK, one more:
Noonans and that K guy and Benjamin, and that guy on the sidebar who never posts,
I'm in my fantasy football super bowl this weekend, and I have to choose between LeRon McClain, Dominek Hixon, and Bobby Engram. McClain plays the Steelers, and Hixon is hurt. What should I do?
Rod B, Springfield, IL
Look man, if you've gotten this far without asking me, what makes you think I can help you now? Chances are you haven't been relying on this position much anyway. And besides, most fantasy advice is bad anyway, especially on the radio. I heard some personality today recommend Ladanian Tomlinson over Dominic Rhodes. Now Tomlinson has a pretty good matchup with the Chiefs, but Dominic Rhodes is almost certainly starting, and getting most of the carries against the Detroit Lions. Also, Tomlinson isn't good any more. And while you may be worried about Addai stealing carries from Rhodes, you should be just as worried about Sproles in SD.
The Colts are going to beat the Lions and Rhodes is going to grind out the end of the game. Will SD blow out KC? Maybe, but that's a dicier play.
In answer to your actual question, start Hixon if he's healthy, but keep in mind that McClain was actually OK against Pit last time they played. None of these options are good, so don't overthink it and don't second guess.
Until next time, stop stalking me, all of you.