There is that, I guess, but I think most bloggers deep down want what I wanted - an audience.

There are going to be writers who write and don't care if anyone reads them. That's great for them, but I think those people are few and far between. But I think that most bloggers are putting their words online because they want people to see them and react. For some, it doesn't really matter the reaction as long as they're being seen and something is happening as a result of it. It doesn't necessarily need to be a "blog-to-riches" story like a Bill Simmons or Craig Calcaterra - most people who post something online would be happy with a few "attaboys" (as my real-life boss would say) in the form of page hits, post comments, or Twitter/Facebook mentions. To say bloggers are a dime a dozen insults the dime - there is a LOT of internet access out there, and a lot of you use it to post your ideas and thoughts and all of that. There is no skill requirement to write on the internet (otherwise YouTube would have no comments). Standing out in that crowd is going to be damn near impossible, and the quicker you know that, the better off your mindset is going to be. Chances are, your work will never be seen by some person who's going to hire you for it, so with that in mind, write naturally and not like you're auditioning, and if lightning strikes and someone who wants to hire you for your writing does actually see it, you're all the more likely to be able to replicate what you were writing in the first place instead of your unnatural "audition" posts.

Sounds simple, right? Of course, nothing is that simple, and telling people what kind of mindset to have is a hell of a lot easier than actually having it yourself.

A few months back, inspired by many of the great (and not-so-great) baseball writers I follow on Twitter, I started writing more baseball-related content. I have a love for snark, but I also have a love for baseball statistics, and the two of them do not mix well at all. I find that the "snark" posts are best written on the fly, just sitting down and punching something out, while if I get into any kind of analytic analysis, I end up double and triple-checking myself, doing extra research, going down Wikipedia and Baseball-Reference tunnels, and losing focus on the original article which either becomes too long, all over the place, or worse of all unfinished and sitting in my "drafts" area until I end up deleting it when it becomes irrelevant. Still, I had a article idea that was going to have some length to it and some research required, and I was determined to see this one though. I did the initial research, started writing up the article in Word (instead of WordPress where I normally wrote shorter posts), found places to break it up (since it was long, I wanted to break it up into parts so that people didn't tune out), and made a whole plan as to how I was going to tackle it. Even though I had written 90% of it I would hold off until a Monday since it was in five pieces, and I could release one a day.

I posted part one that Monday. Titled "The Yankee Pitcher Curse - Part 1: The Dawn Of Steinbrenner (1975-1981)", it came in at 2610 words, which was still pretty huge and kind of gives you an idea of what this was going to encompass. I was proud of it, so I plugged it on Facebook and Twitter in an effort to get some views and get some feedback. I figured it was an interesting topic and it would get some people talking.

It got five hits. Five. Assuming one was me (I know the stats try to cancel that out but it doesn't always work) and one was my wife (she always tries to support me with a click even if she doesn't find the topic interesting), that's three people who saw the post and thought about reading it. I still wrote up "part two" thinking that maybe I'd release it on Wednesday instead of Tuesday - give people time to see the first part, and to be honest also see if there was really any demand for part two. I gave it another day.

Tuesday saw zero hits.

So did Wednesday.

So did Thursday.

So did Friday.

In fact, part one didn't see another hit until the following Thursday, some ten days later. By that time, the idea was already scrapped and I just didn't really feel like writing anymore. The research still sits in a Word document on my laptop, but the concept is already outdated. Jeff Passan's article that mine was referencing (and trying to disprove) was posted the last day of February. It's now the middle of May.

I'll be trying to write some more in the future now that I've had my pity party and have gotten over it. I'm still going to write my unrequested "Hall of Very Good" post on Jay Buhner in the near future, and I'll write as I'm inspired. But as I do, I need to remember my own advice earlier in this post - to write not as an "audition" but as I feel comfortable and enjoy it. If the stuff is good enough, people will eventually read it, and when they do, they'll tell friends, and maybe then the audience will come.

Then I hit baseball-reference.com to see if it was true.

What follows is what I found, broken into several parts so it’s easier to digest. I started at 1975, when the Yanks signed their first free agent, some "Hunter" fellow. I figured I’d base the majority of my comparison using WAR – Wins Above Replacement – to attempt to level out things such as park factors and differences in statistical eras, although ERA+ (a statistic that gauges a player’s earned run average compared to the league average, eliminating park factors) will also be used.

There was one more thing to consider – injuries. Passan implies that the pressure of playing in New York was what causes them to fail. But is it fair really to label a player a “bust” if it’s something physical instead of mental that causes them to fail? It might be a bust for the team, but it has nothing to do with New York – blown shoulders and elbows happen in Kansas City and Atlanta too – so those in the group who faced injury will be approached on a case-by-case basis, and not automatically be ruled a failure because of it.

So on to the mid 70s!

Pat Dobson
Acquired: Trade with Atlanta
Yankee tenure: 1973-1975
WAR w/Yankees: 5.8 in 631 innings (1 per 108 IP)
Career WAR: 17.6 in 2120.1 innings (1 per 120 IP)

This was Dobson's final year with the Yankees, as he'd get dealt to Cleveland for Oscar Gamble that following offseason. Dobson spent two and a half seasons with the Yankees and had arguably his best season of his career (by WAR standards) in a Yankee uniform in 1974. About as good as he was anywhere else, so that's a push.

This is the Rudy May I remember. I always thought he was like 50.

Rudy May
Acquired: Trade with California, free agent
Yankee tenure: 1974-1976, 1980-1983
WAR w/Yankees: 11.6 in 841.2 innings (1 per 72 IP)
Career WAR: 19.6 in 2622 innings (1 per 133 IP)

This was the middle of the first of two tours of duty with the Yankees for May; purchased from the Angels in 1974, May pitched well for the Yankees for a bit then struggled and was dealt to Baltimore in 1976. May pitched for the Orioles and Montreal before coming back to the Yankees as a free agent after the 1979 season. May would end up winning the ERA title in 1980 with the Yankees as a long reliever and spot starter and remained there until his final game in 1983. May's WAR was 11.6 for his Yankee tenure, greater than that of the rest of his teams combined.

Catfish Hunter
Acquired: free agent
Yankee tenure: 1975-1979
WAR w/Yankees: 8.6 in 993 innings (1 per 115 IP)
Career WAR: 32.5 in 3449.1 innings (1 per 106 IP)

Hunter, the first "big name" free agent (whose free agency predated traditional free agency due to an out clause in his contract), pitched his best WAR season in 1975, his first with the Yankees, and came in second in the Cy Young balloting to Jim Palmer. By this time, Hunter's shoulder was on borrowed time, having logged 2456 innings before joining the Yankees and logging 328 innings (and 30 complete games) in his first year in pinstripes. Hunter was solid in 1976, but couldn't match his previous numbers. 1977 saw his innings slashed in half, and he retired after the 1979 season.

Ken Holtzman
Acquired: Trade with Baltimore
Yankee tenure: 1976-1978
WAR w/Yankees: -2.8 in 238.1 innings (-1 per 85 IP)
Career WAR: 27.5 in 2867.1 innings (1 per 104 IP)

A two-time all-star with Oakland, Holtzman started 1976 with Baltimore, only to be traded to the Yankees in the deal that sent Rudy May (and Scott McGregor, Rick Dempsey, and Tippy Martinez) to Baltimore. Despite his prior success, Holtzman pitched poorly in New York, posting a negative WAR during the length of his Yankee tenure. The Yanks eventually traded him for Ron Davis, but Holtzman was a Yankee failure.

This guy AND Willie Randolph? SOLD.

Dock Ellis
Acquired: Trade with Pittsburgh
Yankee tenure: 1976-1977
WAR w/Yankees: 1.2 in 231.1 innings (1 per 192 IP)
Career WAR: 15.2 in 2128 innings (1 per 140 IP)

Acquired from Pittsburgh with two other players for Doc Medich. Spent '76 and a few games in '77 with the Yanks before being dealt to Oakland for Mike Torrez. Ellis pitched better for the Yanks than he did the previous season with Pittsburgh and won 17 games in 1976, but was on the downside of his career and didn't approach his earlier seasons with the Pirates. However, Medich pitched worse once he left New York, and one of the other players the Yankees got in the Ellis deal, a second baseman named Willie Randolph, turned out OK.

Ed Figueroa
Acquired: Trade with California
Yankee tenure: 1976-1980
WAR w/Yankees: 8.8 in 911.2 innings (1 per 103 IP)
Career WAR: 15.0 in 1309.2 innings (1 per 87 IP)

Figueroa was coming off of a breakout season with the Angels after seeing his career nearly derailed after an injury in the minors and a tour of Vietnam with the Marines. The Yanks acquired him and Mickey Rivers in a deal for Bobby Bonds, a move that wasn’t popular at the time with Bonds coming off an All-Star season and only a year removed from being acquired himself by the Yankees for the popular Bobby Murcer. The move turned out fine for the Yankees, as Figueroa won 55 games in his first three Yankee seasons, while Rivers became a fan favorite and posted respectable numbers himself. While never posting a WAR like he did in ’75 for the Angels (5.4), he put together three very good seasons (averaging a 2.9 WAR), including a 3.7 WAR in 1978 and placing 4^th in the AL Cy Young balloting in 1976. Arm issues limited him to 104.2 innings in 1979, and he was never effective again at the major league level, with the Yankees selling him to Texas in July of 1980. Figueroa would go 0-7 in eight starts for Texas, then pitch 8.1 innings in 1981 with Oakland to finish up his career.

This is '76 Doyle. The good Yankee one.

Doyle Alexander
Acquired: Trade with Baltimore, trade with San Francisco
Yankee tenure: 1976, 1982-1983
WAR w/Yankees: -0.4 in 231.2 innings (-1 per 579 IP)
Career WAR: 31.9 in 3367.2 innings (1 per 105 IP)

Two tours of duty with the Yankees, with decidedly different results. Alexander was part of the above-mentioned Baltimore trade that brought Ken Holtzman to the Yankees and sent lots of players you remember as Orioles to the Orioles. Unlike Holtzman, Alexander didn’t pitch horribly for the Yankees after being acquired, going 10-5 in 19 starts with a 3.29 ERA (105 ERA+). Doyle’s WAR for that half a season was 1.1, along the lines of his career average, but he would leave as a free agent after the ’76 season to sign with Texas.

It was Alexander’s return that flopped. After two mediocre seasons with Texas and Atlanta, Alexander posted a strong 1981 season with San Francisco (11-7, 2.89 ERA, 119 ERA+, 3.3 WAR), and was dealt to the Yankees when he held out of Spring Training looking for a better deal with the Giants. The Yankees gave him one, signing him to a four-year deal worth $2.2 million. Alexander responded by going 1-9 in 24 games (16 starts), failing to pitch 100 innings before he was released by the Yankees two months into the ’83 season.

Mike Torrez
Acquired: Trade with Oakland
Yankee tenure: 1977
WAR w/Yankees: 2.1 in 217 innings (1 per 103 IP)
Career WAR: 23.1 in 3043.2 innings (1 per 131 IP)

Picked up from Oakland for Dock Ellis, Torrez pitched solid but unspectacular baseball for the Yankees through most of the 1977 regular season, not up to the level of his previous two seasons with Baltimore and Oakland. Torrez did, however, prove his worth in the playoffs, pitching 5 1/3 scoreless innings in relief in the deciding game 5 of the 1977 ALCS, then pitching two complete game victories in the 1977 World Series, where he might have won MVP had that Jackson guy not hit all the home runs. Torrez would leave via free agency that offseason, sign with Boston, then give up the Bucky Dent home run in the divisional tiebreaker between the Yankees and Red Sox, so Yankee fans are fine with Torrez.

Don Gullett
Acquired: free agent
Yankee tenure: 1977-1978
WAR w/Yankees: 2.5 in 203.2 innings (1 per 81 IP)
Career WAR: 16.7 in 1390 innings (1 per 83 IP)

A free agent pickup from the Cincinnati Reds, Gullett signed a six year, $2 million contract, but would only play a season and a half with the Yankees. He saw DL time with shoulder issues in '77 but still put up a respectable 2.0 WAR with the Yanks that year. He pitched in eight more games in '78, and would never pitch in the majors again due to various injuries.

Rich Gossage
Acquired: free agent, waivers
Yankee tenure: 1978-1983, 1989
WAR w/Yankees: 18.2 in 533 innings (1 per 29 IP)
Career WAR: 40.0 in 1809.1 innings (1 per 45 IP)

What do you do when your closer wins the Cy Young Award? You demote him and sign a new closer, of course. Sparky Lyle had seen his strikeout rate drop the previous three seasons and was 33 years old, so the Yankees went out and got someone younger who struck out everyone, Rich Gossage, signing “Goose” to a 6-year, $2.8 million deal. Lyle would see his strikeout rate drop again and have his worst season in pinstripes, while Goose would continue being a shutdown dominant closer, making four All-Star games and finishing in the top 3 in AL Cy Young balloting three times in his initial six years with the Yankees before leaving via free agency for San Diego. Goose would come back to the Yankees in 1989 after being claimed on waivers and pitched in 11 games, but wasn’t the dominant closer that he was in his prime.

I swear he played for them. There was a card and everything.

Rawly Eastwick
Acquired: free agent
Yankee tenure: 1978
WAR w/Yankees: 0.2 in 24.2 innings (1 per 123 IP)
Career WAR: 4.1 in 525.1 innings (1 per 128 IP)

It wasn’t that Rawly Eastwick was a bad Yankees signing, it was just a puzzling one. It’s the type of signing that makes sense today: former closer coming off a career-worst season comes to a winning team to be a 7^th inning guy and add bullpen depth. But it was 1978, where Yankee starters would complete 39 games, and their top two relievers, Goose Gossage and Sparky Lyle, averaged around two innings apiece. Still, the Yankees signed Eastwick, who was the top closer in the National League the season before, to a five-year deal worth $1.1 million. He pitched four innings in the Yankees’ fourth game of the season, then three more innings ten days later, in their 12^th game. That was it for April. Eastwick pitched again on May 1^st, then18 days later on the 19^th. Eastwick would go on to pitch in eight games for the Yankees before being traded to Philadelphia in the middle of June; two games in April, three games in May, and three more in June, averaging about a week between appearences. Eastwick was quoted as saying he was sad to be leaving New York at the time of the trade and that he enjoyed playing there, but who wouldn’t if you only had to work once a week?

Andy Messersmith
Acquired: Purchased from Atlanta
Yankee tenure: 1978
WAR w/Yankees: -1.1 in 22.1 innings (-1 per 20 IP)
Career WAR: 35.6 in 2230.1 innings (1 per 62 IP)

Messersmith was almost a Yankee in 1976 as a result of Messersmith and Dave McNally’s challenge of the reserve clause that essentially began what we now call “free agency”, but there was some tomfoolery in regards to the contract offered, accusations flew back and forth, and the “agreed-upon” contract no longer was agreed-upon. Messersmith would sign with Atlanta and pitch well until elbow issues cut down his innings and cost him half of the 1977 season. The Yankees purchased Messersmith from the Braves, rolling the dice that Messersmith would come back from his elbow injury. However, Messersmith got hurt again in Spring Training, and didn’t debut until the end of May. His debut was the highlight of his Yankee career, combining with Rawly Eastwick (no, really) on a one-hitter. Messersmith would pitch in only five more games for the Yankees, and was released at the end of the season. Messersmith would sign on with the Dodgers for one last season, but only pitched 62 innings with LA before calling it a career.

Luis Tiant
Acquired: free agent
Yankee tenure: 1979-1980
WAR w/Yankees: 2.2 in 332 innings (1 per 150 IP)
Career WAR: 60.1 in 3486.1 innings (1 per 58 IP)

Tiant, a four-time 20-game winner, was 38 when he signed a two year deal with the Yankees. His 1978 season was a nice bounceback from his '77 season, but his '79 season - his first with the Yankees - was more like his '77 season, and his 2.0 WAR was his worst season since 1971. 1980 saw him post a losing record and a 4.89 ERA, and he would pitch only 15 more games in his major league career after his Yankees stint.

Tommy John
Acquired: free agent, free agent
Yankee tenure: 1979-1982, 1986-1989
WAR w/Yankees: 18.2 in 1367 innings (1 per 75 IP)
Career WAR: 59.0 in 4710.1 innings (1 per 79 IP)

While Tiant had little left in the tank, Tommy John seemed to save his best for pinstripes. John signed with the Yankees as a free agent after the '78 season and pitched nearly four seasons for the Yankees until he was traded to the Angels for Dennis Rasmussen. During his first stint with the Yankees, John would put together an average WAR better than his previous stops in LA and Chicago, winning 21 and 22 games for the Yankees in '79 and '80 and finishing 2nd and 4th in the AL Cy Young balloting those years. I'll still remember John for his second stint with the Yankees when the team was maintaining an amazing six year stretch of having at least one of the oldest players in baseball as a member of their regular starting rotation. Even then, in his early-to-mid 40s, he managed to put together positive WARs in three of his final four seasons.

Remember Tom Underwood? Me either.

Tom Underwood
Acquired: Trade with Toronto
Yankee tenure: 1980-1981
WAR w/Yankees: 2.3 in 219.2 innings (1 per 95 IP)
Career WAR: 10.8 in 1586 innings (1 per 146 IP)

Underwood was a journeyman pitcher, having spent time with Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Toronto before coming to New York in a deal that sent Chris Chambliss to Toronto (Toronto would later send him to Atlanta, where he'd spend seven seasons). Underwood was coming off the best season of his career in WAR terms, despite a 9-16 record (the '79 Blue Jays finished 53-109), and didn't pitch badly for the Yankees, going 13-9 with a 3.66 ERA and 2.5 WAR. His second season didn't turn out as well, and he was dealt to Oakland to make room for Dave Righetti.

Rick Reuschel
Acquired: Trade with Chicago (NL)
Yankee tenure: 1981-“1983”
WAR w/Yankees: 1.3 in 70.2 innings (1 per 54 IP)
Career WAR: 66.3 in 3548.1 innings (1 per 53 IP)

Rick Reuschel was picked up by the Yankees the day before the 1981 baseball strike, so despite being acquired in June, he didn’t pitch his first game for the Yanks until August. Reuschel pitched well during the regular season for the Yanks, then got hammered in the '81 World Series. Reuschel held out the following season for a contract extension, got one, then promptly tore his rotator cuff, wiping out his 1982 season.  and wouldn't pitch for the Yankees again. Reuschel never seemed to get along with the Yankees and couldn't wait to get out of New York, but his time in pinstripes, albeit short, is along the lines with his career numbers.

Gutman doesn't pull punches, though. The kid, who decides to go back to see Jackie because he has to do a report for Black History Month, wants to know what it was like for Jackie during that time, which indirectly causes him to be sent back in time as an African-American kid. While there, he runs into some harsh treatment from a Dodgers batboy, sees the death threats that Jackie and his family went through, hears the racial slurs thrown at Jackie (many of which are left intact, including use of the "n-word", which I elected to not repeat during my reading), and sees how Jackie's own teammates initially treat him. It was sobering, even for me. I knew Robinson had run into opposition from opposing clubs and even teammates and knew about the death threats, but didn't realize the extent some opposing teams were towards him. Reading about Ben Chapman (then manager of the Phillies) and some of the things he said and did caught me off guard; one expects the manager of a team to have a little more decorum than his players, but Chapman was only 38 at the time and wasn't that far removed as a player himself.

While things like Chapman's actions caught me by surprise, imagine trying to explain it to three boys, the oldest not yet eight. It's hard enough to help them to understand terminology:

Kid: "Why does Jackie call himself a 'Negro'"?

Me: "Well, back in the 40s, that was a term that African-Americans used to describe their race."

Kid: "I thought you said they said 'colored'".

Me: "Usually, it was white people who said 'colored'. Black people may have used 'colored' at one time, but by the 40s and 50s, 'Negro' was a better thing to say than 'colored'."

Kid: "Sometimes the kid in the story says 'African American' and sometimes he says 'black'."

Me: "People say both now. Usually I end up saying 'black' when I mention people who are 'white' in the same sentence or thought.

Kid: "I just say 'people with dark skin' and 'people with tan skin'."

Other kid: "What about people from Japan? What color skin do they have?"

As you can imagine, some nights we didn't get much reading done. But some nights we did, and I had to explain how people wanted to kill Jackie Robinson just because his skin was a different color than their skin; how people threatened to kidnap and murder his family. It was difficult to explain how these people weren't doing it in the context where they wanted to "kill" the other team by beating them by a lot of runs, but that they actually wanted Jackie to no longer breathe, with a funeral and everything. I had to explain references to nooses and "stringing up" people; how there were people during that time that would take a person because of the color of his skin and hang him, not only to kill him, but to send a message and put fear into others.

When the story ended, my eldest told me he was curious whether or not Dixie Walker was in heaven or hell. Walker was a somewhat major character in the book, with his petition to be traded if Robinson was on the Opening Day roster being referenced. Gutman was reluctant to make Walker a true "villain" though, adding a scene where Walker explains to the kid (who appears to be black remember) that while he doesn't have anything against black people, "that's the way it has always been." I explained to my son that the type of prejudice that people had during that time was a result of their environment and both their home and community, and that not only can it be difficult to think differently than the way you were taught, but that it can also be embarrassing for an adult to admit that the way they've acted and their beliefs were wrong. Walker in reality learned to embrace desegregation and blamed his actions during the '47 season to concern for his home and businesses back in Alabama, and was quoted as saying the petition was "the dumbest thing [he] ever did in his life." I told my son that there were people who changed their beliefs during that time, and that for Dixie's sake, I hoped that Dixie's time with Jackie helped him on the right path.

To be honest, it sucks that I had to have this conversation with my kids and expose some of the evil that has existed (and in some places, still exists) in the world. But at the same time, I'm thankful that it was me exposing them to it, and not their being exposed to it somewhere else. I'm happy this came up because it gave me a little insight into how my kids are thinking when it comes to race, and I'm pleased with where they seem to be at right now.

No other team imports big-talent pitchers with such regularity, with such high hopes, with all of the complications that accompany wearing pinstripes. The failure of outsiders has taken on a mythical status in New York and become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: If you’re not a Yankee, it’s awfully difficult to come in mid-career and play to their standards.

It's a belief that's going to live on forever. Going back to the days of Ed Whitson (who was the original poster boy for "not being able to handle the spotlight in pinstripes"), fans and sportswriters alike will point the finger to the Yankees free agent and trade failures, just the same as they fall into the trap of "money buys championships". It's an easy target - few teams in sports are as polarizing as the New York Yankees, and pointing out the failures of such a team is bound to sell newspapers, draw website hits, and build off of the natural schadenfreude flowing through any non-Yankee fan.

But is it real? Passan drops some favorites: A.J. Burnett, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano, Kevin Brown, Kenny Rogers, Hideki Irabu, Kei Igawa - famous flops in one way or another that most Yankee fans would like to forget. In fact, Passan notes that:

...the legacy of Yankee pitching saviors in the Joe Torre-and-Joe Girardi Era is indeed sordid. In those 15 years, the team has brought in 21 major-league pitchers who spent a significant portion of their time as Yankees in the starting rotation. Only three have pitched better in New York than they did in their other stops.

3 for 21? That sounds bad, doesn't it? Of course, what's misleading in that "statistic" is that Passan is looking for players to "improve". How often does a veteran player improve over his career after being picked up as a free agent? Generally, it's believed that once a player hits free agency, his time of improvement is over; the team is picking up the player hoping that the player continues their performance in their new location. If he does better - great. But generally, you're paying for a reproduction of past performance, not a diamond in the rough.

Passan then points out Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, Randy Johnson, David Cone, and Jimmy Key as further evidence of the "Yankee effect". Really?

Roger Clemens? His Yankees ERA, 4.01, was more than a point higher than with Boston, Toronto and Houston, and his ERA+ 47 points lower.

Mike Mussina? Better as an Oriole.

Randy Johnson? Medium Unit at best.

Even David Cone and Jimmy Key, two linchpins from the dynasty teams, were no better with the Yankees than anywhere else. Cone’s ERA swelled and his ERA+ is a smidgen lower with the Yankees. Key’s ERA was about a quarter-point higher, while his ERA+ was a tiny bit better.

I got annoyed. I'm used to defending the Yankees (it's actually fun, since it pisses off so many people), so I hit Baseball-Reference and started doing some research. And if you know me (and you probably do since only friends and relatives read my stuff), you know that me and research (especially on B-R) becomes a giant timesuck. Articles that end up going in this direction end up not being timely because they go so long, and end up in the post graveyard that I have in my drafts folder because I've committed too much time to delete them, but I can't otherwise post them. Sometimes I just post them anyway, like I did with this one. But I'm not doing that with this. 11+ pages typewritten so far, something like 6400 words - I'm not letting it go.

So that's why I haven't been posting as much lately; the opus is in progress. It has grown in spectrum since I originally put it together, and when it does get posted, it'll be a series of posts broken up over a week or something. But I'm not letting it go, and hopefully I'll be able to give you something worth reading.

Of course not, and if you did that in a similar scenario, you'd be a fool.

Let's say you had an argument with your wife late at night. A loud argument that all the neighbors heard. Pissed off, you leave the house, get in your car and drive. You drive for a while, pull off to the side of the road, and sleep it off. You wake up the next morning, drive back home, and find that your home is surrounded by police tape. Your wife has been murdered, strangled to death, and you have no alibi. No one saw you after you drove away, no one saw you parked on the side of the road (or if they did, they're not saying), and there was no forced entry to the house.

You know you didn't do it, but who's going to believe you? All your neighbors assumed you did it, not that anyone actually saw you do it. But they know you. You're the type. You and her fought all the time. One is pretty sure that she mentioned something about leaving you. Another is sure you were having an affair. The media is all over it, portraying you as the cheating bastard who treated his wife like crap. They've all convicted you - the trial is just a formality.

Meanwhile, you know you're toast. You know you didn't do it, but you have no idea who could have, because no one else has the motive. You have no alibi. You sit through the first few days of the trial and listen as people who you thought were friends tear down your character.

One morning, you meet your lawyer before the trial and he lets you in on some information he's just discovered. The police have tainted the murder scene somehow. The body was not transported properly to the morgue, or something like that (sorry - my "Law & Order" skills are rusty right now). Anyway, the lawyer says this new information will throw the case out, and make you a free man.

Tell me - are you going to tell the lawyer that "truth will come out in the end" and tell him not to proceed, or are you going to have him throw down the hammer and get the hell out of jail?

Chances are, you'll tell your lawyer to throw down the hammer - and that's all Ryan Braun did. He (well, his lawyer) looked at a case where he was already convicted and sentenced and looked not for the solution that would make him the most "innocent looking", but the one that would get him the hell out of jail... er, suspension.

Because let's face it - even if he did manage to overturn his suspension by proving that someone tampered with the specimen or that he was naturally full of testosterone or something that would completely and reasonably explain why he would have had a positive test, half the court of public opinion (including sportswriters) would still point to him as being suspect and "probably a steroid user". Hell, Jeff Bagwell has never failed a drug test or needed to overturn anything, yet he still get held off of Hall of Fame ballots by voters who suspect he might have used steroids solely because of the era he played in.

Ryan Braun isn't going to change anyone's mind, so why fault him for taking likely the only path he could have to not get him suspended for 50 games? More than likely, you would too.

AP Photo/Peter Southwick

I grew up on Long Island, brainwashed early by my mom to be a Yankees fan. As even a little kid, I knew baseball - so much to the point that I can remember my uncle showing me off to friends of his and how I could carry on conversations with them about player movement, team strengths and weaknesses, and overall "bar banter". I can remember an adult asking me what I thought of Reggie Jackson getting traded to the Angels. I corrected him, telling him that Reggie wasn't traded but that he left as a free agent.

Jackson signed with the California Angels in January of 1982. I turned seven the month prior.

Through the 80s, I went though the highs and lows of the Steinbrenner-helmed, Billy Martin-firing machine, always seemingly being one player away from a championship, watching as a new team every season managed to one-up the Yanks in the East - Baltimore in '83, Detroit in '84, Toronto in '85, Boston in '86, until everything eventually blew up. While I struggled with that, I had to also deal with the Mets, who were the "in" team to root for, so every idiot (in my 10-year-old-or-so eyes) that barely knew anything about baseball suddenly became a Met fan, and couldn't understand why I wasn't. "They're from New York and so are you - why don't you root for them?"

Sigh. People don't understand rivalries.

It's funny, but if it weren't for the rivalry and the bitterness towards the new "fans", I probably would have been a pretty hardcore Gary Carter fan. Like "The Kid", I caught (and loved it), and would have worn an "8" on my back had our Little League put numbers on our t-shirts. Then again, we didn't even have team names - just colors - so I guess I should have been thankful we actually had teams. But Carter rubbed me wrong for whatever reason back then. Maybe it was the Met thing, but I think - oddly enough - it was due to his demeanor, something that endured him to fans through his career.

See, my catching idol was Thurman Munson. When you're 10 or 11 and you're looking for someone to emulate on the field, you generally look towards the person who plays your position on your favorite team. As a Yankee fan in the mid-80s, that wasn't easy. They said the position was cursed once the Yanks lost Thurman. Indeed - I wasn't exactly eager to pattern my catching style to Rick Cerone, Butch Wynegar, Ron Hassey, or Joel Skinner. I looked to the past, and adopted "The Captain" as my catching idol.

Now picture Thurman, then picture Gary Carter. Can you think of two more seemingly opposite players from appearance, at least from a 10-year-old's eyes? Thurman was badass - burly beard or mustache, never smiling, always down to business. Thurman looked like the guy who wouldn't bother just blocking the plate, but instead would charge down the third base line to bowl you over for thinking about it.

Gary Carter smiled. He was friendly and clean-shaven. He didn't smoke or drink heavily. In contrast to Munson, if Gary Carter had someone charging home, it seemed like he'd step aside, shake hands with the runner, and ask how he could have made the trip easier.

It just seemed wrong. And now that I'm older and have learned to look past the squeaky-clean personality and see him for what he was - a great catcher and as much of a leader as Thurman was - it seems silly how I felt back then. But when you're 10, that's just the type of thing you think.

Later, I remember Christmas shopping with my mom and learning that the "toughest" gift she had to get that year was for my cousin, whom she got an autographed 5x7 of Carter (my cousin's favorite player) for. I didn't get why it was hard to get that when you can get autographs in any store, but she told me that Gary didn't just sign autographs - you had to send a check (I think like $25) in order to get his, which I thought was stupid. When I learned why he did it - the money went to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, a disease that took his mom when he was young - I softened my stance on "The Kid". Sure - he was still a Met, but maybe while no one was looking, I could cheer him on too.

We lost Gary Carter to cancer yesterday. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2003, and was an 11-time All Star, 3-time Gold Glove winner, and member of the 1986 World Champion New York Mets. But more importantly, he was a hell of an ambassador for baseball; someone who kids and fellow players could look up to and emulate.

Goodbye, Gary Carter. Sorry about all the things I said in the 80s. You were a hell of a man.

Each season, each team brings several non-roster invitees (NRIs) to camp (587 this season so far, according to Diane at Value Over Replacement Grit); some are young players from their minor league system who aren't on the 40-man roster (and don't need to be), while others are veterans who have been signed to minor league deals with an "invite to camp" - basically a tryout for the major league roster. With most of these veterans, if they don't make the major league squad (and most won't), they'll be designated for assignment, left to decide whether or not to continue with the organization - usually with their AAA affiliate - or to become a free agent and see if any other team will give them a shot.

The problem with these veteran NRIs, at least from the player's perspective, is that they're totally at the mercy of the organization that signed them. Depending on how many people are in camp for that team, they may get minimal playing time before they end up getting let go midway through Spring Training. Face it - if you're a veteran pitcher trying to stick as a 5th starter and a few of the team's minor leaguers are pitching better than expected, the team wants to see them pitch, and the veteran will end up taking a back seat, but won't necessarily get released since the team isn't sure whether or not they're going to stick. If you pick the "wrong team" (or if you didn't really have a choice in the matter) you could end up blowing most of Spring Training stuck on someone's roster, pitching two or three innings before getting released near the end of camp, left to see if any other team is willing to give you a shot. But by that time, teams are already cutting down their rosters, so you're hoping to see if you can catch on to someone else's minor league team with almost nothing to show for it this spring.

So again - let's try something different. Non-affiliate, "independent" Spring Training teams. I put "independent" in quotes because the teams would fall under the MLB umbrella for all legal purposes and things like insurance, etc. I don't know - that's not my area of expertise. But a few teams - maybe two, likely no more than four - that would field unsigned players who wished to play and showcase their talents in Spring Training without having to commit to one organization and rely on them to truly give them the opportunity to try out. Players who played for these "Spring Teams" would still be free agents, free to sign with any team that wished to pick them up, and would be free to leave their "Spring Team" if they chose, however they could not "jump" to another "Spring Team" without permission of the league.

Managers and coaches could come either from current organizations who offer them up to MLB for the role, or veteran managers and coaches not currently with an organization who maybe are looking for a job. Players who wished to be part of the "Spring Teams" could apply to MLB, which would then take the pool of applicants and divide them among the teams. The "Spring Teams" could play at Spring Training facilities that teams recently moved from or other facilities that were available. Come April, the "Spring Teams" disband, only to start anew the following season.

Sure, guys like Johnny Damon or Roy Oswalt wouldn't necessarily need this, but players like Ross Gload, Xavier Nady, or Felipe Lopez might. Guys like Jason Kendall and David Aardsma, who didn't play in 2011 due to injury and are now free agents, would have a place to prove that they're healthy. It's ideal for someone like Dmitri Young or Scott Kazmir; a player who find himself having individual tryouts for specific teams in an effort to get an invite to Spring Training. It's something that would probably never happen, but I think it could be beneficial to pretty much everyone involved.

But this just got me.

Last night, in "The Spanish Teacher", Kurt visits Finn in the locker room carrying some college brochures. I notice right away the Adelphi one, mainly because Adelphi is a Long Island school, a neighbor to Hofstra University, where I went to school. I don't know at that point that they're college brochures or folders or - since it's Kurt - a fashion accessory or some kind of hat. I go back to half-focus, assuming a prop is a prop.

But no - Kurt puts down the brochures next to Finn, recommending he take a look. Finn stops to look and reads off the schools: Fordham, NYU, Adelfee...

Wait - WHAT? Did he say "Adelfee" (or if you prefer, "Adelphee")?

Quick rewind, and yep, that's what he said. Kurt quickly says (re: Adelphee) "that one's in Long Island", so yeah - that's the Adelphi that I know. I wait for Kurt to politely correct Finn as to the correct pronunciation (as Kurt would), but no - Kurt just mentions that it's close to Manhattan and that they have a football team and that all have musical theater programs.  I waited through that whole scene, and nothing.

So I'm left to wonder - why Adelphi? Someone put it in the script, but no one in the cast or production team had apparently ever heard of it, otherwise they would have corrected it. It's a minor sound edit - would have taken a minute. Adelphi has an acting program, but it's not necessarily well known compared to NYU (good luck getting in there, Finn) or Fordham even.

UNLESS...

Adelphi wasn't the first choice. Script writers search for musical theater schools in the NYC area that also have football teams (preferably non-Division I since it's implied that Finn isn't getting recruited for football). Fordham is one - great theater program, Division I-AA football program. NYU has a great theater program, but hasn't had football since 1952. But Kurt only really mentioned Adelphi as having football (possibly a selling point to a Long Island school in contrast to NYU which was actually in Manhattan and therefore closer to Rachel).

My guess was that the writer/research person came up with Hofstra as the "Long Island school" and put it into the script. Hofstra has a very good theater program, and even has a minor in musical theater. The script was written with Hofstra in place, then someone realized Hofstra - which used to have a football team until about two years ago - doesn't have a football team anymore. Instead of re-writing Kurt's whole ramble, they just looked for another Long Island school close to the city that had a theater program AND a football team. Boom - Adelphi.

And in case you started to second-guess yourself and wonder whether or not it really was "Adel-phee", let this Adelphi-produced video about Adelphi tell you. LET'S CHECK IT OUT [awkward hand wave]:

EDIT: As Rebecca pointed out in the comments, Adelphi has no active football team. The college, which became  exclusively for women in 1912, began to readmit men after the end of World War II. In 1947, the college's increasing male enrollment spurred the creation of several men's sports on campus, including football. The team played one game in the '47 season (a 46-0 loss against the Merchant Marine Academy), then played a seven game schedule in both 1950 and 1951. The team then played a single game in 1952 before the team was discontinued in 1953. It started up again as a club basis in 1965, became a half-varsity sport in 1968 and was discontinued for good in 1971. So I don't know what the hell the Glee people were thinking.

[thanks to Ashley Paterno and College Football Reference for additional info!]

Let's wrap this up, shall we? 

PS - if you've missed the first, second, and third quarters, click the links.

MetLife: Cartoon Summit

MetLife's been using Peanuts characters for a while now, but this time they decided to raid the Hanna-Barbera vault to stir up some memories. A cute concept, and most will remember Voltron and He-Man, but most characters were B and C-list characters from the 60s and 70s. It's like MetLife went to Hanna-Barbara and went shopping in the clearance aisle to get screen filler. Still neat, but not as good as some will (falsely) recall. NOTE: stop the commercial at :25, and look for Waldo. He's there (despite not really being a "cartoon character.")

Kia Optima: Drive the Dream

Now this is how you mix a humor spot with a car commercial. Plenty of images of the car (in action, no less), but good to get a laugh as well. Motley Crue's "Kickstart My Heart" is such a perfect (almost stereotypical) car commercial song, and to see them performing it in the commercial worked. It fit the male "stereotype" without being too insulting. A winner.

Honda: Matthew's Day Off

I'll admit - I cheated and saw this before the Super Bowl, just because the teaser pulled me in. I'm a huge fan of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and when I saw the teaser, I got all excited for... anything. In hindsight, it ruined the commercial a little bit for me, because I would have LOVED it had I not expected it. On its own, it was well done - referenced the movie well, even in the small references ("Grace" calls him while he's driving, his agent throwing around a baseball) and worked overall. Managed to show the car a bit too, which is still important.

Bud Light: Rescue Dog

Bud Light does what I was hoping Coke would have done, but never bothered. They put out one of their typical Bud Light commercials (funny and cute), but make an effort to mention that the dog at the center of the ad is a "rescue dog"; one the owner got from the shelter. Then, at the end, just a quick link and a note to "help rescue dogs". That simple. Doesn't take away from the ad, doesn't depress anyone, but maybe it gets a dog in a shelter rescued. If even just one gets rescued, it's a success.

CareerBuilder.com: Monkeys

Another reoccurring Super Bowl commercial, the CareerBuilder monkeys have been around since the 2005 Super Bowl and are far from "must see" anymore. However, they still manage to do a decent job - conveying CareerBuilder's value to the person with the job that they hate. It'd be easy to just show some guy doing a "horrible job" (say, like cleaning clogged toilets), but doing so insults people who may do that job and enjoy it. Putting the monkeys in the mix shows that the guy may not have a bad job, but his job atmosphere sucks, and no one gets insulted. Well, maybe just PETA.

GoDaddy.com: Heaven

I hate myself for having to watch that commercial again. It's at least not as bad as GoDaddy's other commercial in the first quarter, but it's still so bad it comes off like a Saturday Night Live parody from the 80s. The boys ask "IS THIS HEAVEN?" and Danica Patrick corrects them by grabbing at her midsection and brightness overtaking the camera as a ripping sound can be heard. So you've heard it here first - GoDaddy says heaven is Danica Patrick's glowing viscera.

Samsung: Galaxy Note

I hate this commercial for so many reasons.

• The concept that Apple users camping out for iPhones hate having to do it. They don't. They camp out because they're excited about the product. Samsung would have you believe that acquiring a cell phone currently is like Communist Russia where people stood in line to get their allotment of technology, until Samsung BROKE DOWN THE WALL with their new phone, finally relieving them of their line-waiting agony.
• The concept that people who wait on line on release day for an iPhone desperately want something different. News flash: people who wait on line for iPhones on release day are the least likely of all people in the market for a cell phone to buy a Samsung Galaxy or any other non-iPhone. People who camp out for weeks for Duke/Carolina aren't going to suddenly bolt because there's a NC State game going on across town.
• "I'm missing the game for this" - what game, Blackburn v. Arsenal? Apple lines start in the morning before the store opens. Unless you're a big fan of the English Premier League, I doubt you're "missing the game", hipster.
• "Woah - it's got A PEN?" - I used a stylus with my smartphone 10 years ago when it was called a Palm Pilot and didn't actually have a phone. Apple kind of eliminated the need for the stylus in 2007 when the first iPhone came out using touchscreen technology. Plugging how your phone has a "pen" is like Dell announcing that their new line of desktop PCs will come with floppy disk drives.
• "Samsung. Again." - So the hipsters in line knew about Samsung phones and their apparent greatness in the past (a reference to their earlier Galaxy S II commercial with the same theme and actors), but since they're dumb, they ignored it before.
• "THE NEXT BIG THING IS ALREADY HERE." (coming soon - preorder yours at Best Buy) - WHAT? SERIOUSLY? The whole basis on your commercial is that the lemmings wait for their cool product to be released, when they could already have their hands on your awesome product. But... they can't. They have to WAIT FOR IT TO BE RELEASED. The only thing you're saying there is that sure - you'll have to wait until we release it, but when we do, there won't be long lines. Basically, you're selling your product on how much less popular your product will be than its competitor.

So, to recap - the product fights the mainstream, allows you to still catch your obscure morning sports event, has an outdated "classic" accessory, and won't be popular despite how good it is. Congratulations, Samsung - you have invented the first, true hipster phone.

Cadillac: ATS

Basic car commercial - "our car is great, here it is in action, etc." Cute bit of wordplay, but otherwise uneventful.

Act of Valor: Big Game TV Spot

A good movie spot - lots of action, doesn't give anything away, and hits the important selling point of the movie (that real Navy SEALs will star in it). Also allows for a little confusion as to how "real" the movie is (something that isn't stated clearly really anywhere), so it gets curiosity going.

NBC Thursday Comedies: Crank

Foreign people are poor. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh NBC, you slay me.

History Channel: Swamp People

Good job building the show, although I still don't know a damn thing about it. Do they just drive along in their boats and shoot alligators in the mouth?

Hyundai: Think Fast

I got the concept after the second viewing, but when I first saw it, it confused me - I thought the guy was choking, and that the stop/go was working as a type of Heimlich Maneuver, but then the tagline of getting your pulse going made me realize that they were going for a kind of "CPR" thing. Meh.

Awake: Which Is Which?

Man, I hope NBC gives this a shot. Kyle Killen deserves one, after how "Lone Star" went down. The commercial does a very good job of explaining the concept of the show, without revealing too much else. It does enough to draw you in without giving too much away. I'm curious to see how much of an audience the show gets, but the commercial should help, at least a little bit.

WINNER: Kia Optima: Drive the Dream & Honda: Matthew's Day Off (tie)

LOSER: GoDaddy.com: Heaven (yes, even with me tearing the Samsung commercial a new one, I still couldn't hold it lower than GoDaddy)

For those just stumbling upon this for the first time, we did the first quarter and second quarter yesterday, with the fourth quarter still to come later today.

Anyway, on to the ads!

Fiat: Seduction

I know that I've said in the past that I'm not crazy about car ads that don't really feature the car, but this one worked for me. The metaphor works here with the tagline - "you'll never forget the first time you see one", while the man is subjected to a full range of emotions after seeing the woman - and the car. Importantly though, you still get to see the car in action, and it makes you want to see more. Well done, especially for a company without an established U.S. market.

Acura: Transactions

Yahoo shows the extended version of this commercial (almost two minutes) which I think is too much; the 60 second commercial worked ideally because it was quicker-paced (like a "Seinfeld" episode), while the 30 second version (which came on later, in the fourth quarter I believe) cut too much. Bonus points if you're a fan of Jerry Seinfeld (I am), and double bonus meta points for the Jay Leno cameo at the end, even if the meta wasn't intentional (I think it was.)

Toyota: Camry

Bah, Toyota. Three seconds of the product they're selling (the newly designed Camry), and at the beginning. By the time the commercial is over, you've forgotten what the car looked like in the first place. Then again, it's a Camry - people will just buy it anyway because it's a Camry. Worse was that the funny part wasn't actually funny. A baby that's a time machine? How is that an improvement?

NFL.com: Evolution

It's not really fair. NFL Films doing a commercial is like Kobe Bryant deciding to play in my kids' Upward Basketball league. The transitions, the music, the use of the yard markers as decades, the footage quality subtly changing as they get more current - it's just done so well. Honestly, I forgot what the message of the commercial was all about (player safety, which is a whole other rant), but when you're watching football to begin with and see something like this that embraces the history of the game, all up to footage from the game you're currently watching, it's hard not to love it.

Century 21: Celebrities

Decent commercial. Showcases the product while still using a sense of humor. Nothing outstanding or laugh-out-loud funny, but doesn't drop the ball either. Side note: is Apolo Ohno the most successful American Winter Olympics athlete in terms of mainstream exposure? I don't count Shaun White because his popularity was pretty much already established in X-Games before the '06 Olympics. I always feel bad for Olympic athletes who get this huge brush with fame for a few weeks and then seemingly disappear because their sports aren't major professional sports. Ohno, to his credit, has parlayed speed skating into being a mainstream celebrity.

Coca-Cola: Arghh

HEY LOOK ITS THOSE BEARS AGAIN. It's cute at Christmas, it's cute when you're trying to save them (which again - third polar bear commercial, not one mention of Coke's polar bear conservation efforts or info for people to find out more about what they can do). It seems like a waste - if you're going to make it a reoccurring commercial during the Super Bowl, give us the dreary sad one at the end that makes us want to save these adorable animated creatures who just sit around on their butts and watch football.

Dannon: John Stamos

Oh, I get it. Jesse Katsopolis, er, John Stamos is Greek, it's Greek yogurt - I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE. People who like complaining about things apparently think the commercial promotes domestic violence, where I only think it promotes violence to people who are dicks about sharing their food, which I'll allow. Seriously though - the "violence" is meant to be "cartoonish" and over-the-top (watch the shoe go flying up), and while I could see a little more controversy if Stamos had head-butted his female companion, it's meant to be silly. PS - Greek yogurt is good, but expensive. It needs to get over itself.

Pepsi MAX: Regis

Commercials that have sequels or reoccurring characters can work if they're beloved or at least popular. We get it - the Coke driver likes the Pepsi. It's the same commercial it was last year and however many other times it's been rehashed. Also seems like a waste of Regis here - what, five seconds?

Smash: Preview

JUST SHOW THE DAMN SHOW ALREADY.

GE: Appliance Park

Done well - tells of the company's history, implies that it's helping to bring jobs to Americans, and puts an overall positive spin on the brand. Doesn't sell much more than the brand, but that's what they're going for here. Then again, I keep thinking about Sean McNally's tweet in the second quarter about the last GE commercial (see second spot in the second quarter wrapup.)

Budweiser: Eternal Optimism

Now, I'm no Bud fan, but this does a good job. Establishes the history of the brand and connects it with good times being had over that span. It really could be done with any product that existed during that timeframe, but Bud does it well here with smooth transitions and uptempo music. Nice meta shoutout to Al Michaels and his 1980 USA hockey call and who was also calling this year's Super Bowl game.

Time Warner Cable: Master

Considering that Time Warner Cable only services a little over half the country, I was surprised to see them running a national Super Bowl ad. Ricky Gervais was funny, and it was interesting to see marijuana pop up in a Super Bowl ad (even if it was just a reference to the Showtime show "Weeds").

Bridgestone: Basketball

I think this one worked a lot better than the football commercial Bridgestone pulled in the first quarter. Again, not sure why the pro players were needed (as they didn't really add anything), but the lack of sound from the "basketball" showcasing the noise-reducing tires Bridgestone was trying to sell worked.

WINNER: NFL.com: Evolution (non-NFL Films category: Acura: Transactions)

LOSER: Toyota: Camry