How a player could remain unnamed, after revealing intimate details about the Sport he plays in is beyond me, but that's exactly what will be happening to the NFL. A player, referred to as "Player X", is set to reveal the scandalous detail about the league to ESPN The Magazine. Via Game On....

ESPN The Magazine is launching a column by an NFL star dubbed "Player X" who'll give readers his anonymous take on on athletes' extra-marital affairs, dalliances with groupies and other taboo topics, says editor-in-chief Gary Belsky.

In his first piece hitting newsstands Friday, the player admits that not only are many "negative" tales about pro athletes true, they're actually worse in some cases. The hedonistic lifestyles of some younger, single jocks are "no different" than the party-hearty worlds depicted in sports movies like Semi-Tough or HBO's Entourage, he says.

Player's X's teammates, coaches, agent and family don't know he's writing the column, Belsky says. It will be his call whether he wants to identify himself after penning 10-12 columns during the 2009 season. If the idea takes off, Belsky wants to recruit a Major League Baseball player to write a similar column.

So why the anonymous approach? The most interesting stories come from inside the locker room, answers Belsky. But many athletes will only talk about them on a confidential basis.

"I don't know if he's the Deep Throat of sports. But we hope he's going to be the ultimate guide to the life of a professional athlete," Belsky says.

Well, I'm for sure going to be reading that issue when it comes this week. It seems odd that a player would break the "locker room code" in this fashion, but it will definitely sell some copies.

"Player X" dishes on hedonistic world of pro athletes and groupies (Game On)

If I asked you to guess the one ref you wouldn't want on a game with a potential Game Seven looming on the horizon in the NBA....who would you say? I'm willing to bet the 70% of you would probably say Joey Crawford. Well guess who's the lead official for Game Six in Boston tonight! Ding Ding Ding!!!

1. Joey Crawford: Crawford comes in pretty high on the homer scale, but after the whole Tim Duncan scandal and the no call on Fisher against Barry earlier in the Playoffs, the guy is just unpredictable. 32-23-3 ATS (Against the Spread).

Good For: Lakers, You would think his "Homer Ranking" would help out the Celtics, but Boston is just 2-2 in the Playoffs with him as a ref. Want to know what the Lakers record is with him calling their Playoff Games? 6-0!

2. Eddie F. Rush: Comes in at number fourteen on the homerism charts with a record of 42-33-1 ATS for home teams.

Good For: The Celtics, Boston is 4-1 this Playoff season with Rush doing their games.

3. Bennett Salvatore: I don't know one person on the planet that would be happy if Salvatore was calling their game. He's one of the worst officials in any Sport, and is so inconsistent it's a joke. BS was also the official that called a charge on Paul Pierce pump fake three where he leaned into Rodney Stuckey during Game Six of the Eastern Conference Finals.

Good For: Coin Flip, The Celtics are 2-2 during Playoff games he reffed this season, and he comes in about the top third of the Homer scale at 42-36-0 ATS. The word your looking for is "unpredictability".
_______________________

Last game the refs called a pretty good game, but the stats pointed to the Lakers winning Game Five and they did. You just know the NBA wants a Game Seven but there doesn't seem to be any signs pointing to a Lakers advantage in the ref assignment. The only overwhelming statistic is the Lakers record with Crawford calling their games. To go 6-0 with one ref during the Playoffs is virtually impossible. Again, this is not a science, but still interesting to look at.

NBA Referees “Homer” Sorted By ATS (Covers)
Referee assignments for Game 6 (Boston.com)

Since these posts always seem to spark up some interest let's try again for Game Four. Drumroll Please!

Joe DeRosa: An extremely favorable ref for home teams and in fact leads all referees with a 51-27-2 ATS (Against the Spread).

Good For: Lakers, Derosa called three Celts Playoffs games this year and they were 2-1 but his homerism record speaks for itself.

Tom Washington: Comes in at number four on the homerism charts with a record of 48-31-1 for home teams.

Good For: The Lakers, Celts are 0-2 in Playoff games he's called for them this postseason.

Steve Javie: He's one of the most despised referees by hometown fans because he never cuts the host team any slack. Comes in 59 of 62 on the same ratings scale as the above two refs were measured on.

Good For: The Celtics, The Celtics are 2-1 during Playoff games he reffed this season, and one of those victories came at home against the Hawks (Game Seven)

So who looks good? Obviously the Lakers but as Fanhouse points out, Javie is the lead official so he's got the final word. Should be interesting, but let's hope they stay out of the mix for good. And at least Steve Javie is kind to babies right? That has to count for something.

Here Are Your Referees for Game 4: Which Team Has the Edge? (Fanhouse)
Referee assignments for tonight (Boston.com)
NBA Referees “Homer” Sorted By ATS (Covers)

Here is the ref assignments for Game Three Tonight. The last time I posted the refs ahead of the game was the Joey Crawford non-call on Derek Fisher when he fouled (or didn't foul) Brent Barry in Game Six of the Western Conference Finals. Hey, well lookie here! Via Boston.com....

Official 1: Joey Crawford

In April 2007, NBA commissioner David Stern suspended Crawford for his conduct toward the Spurs' Tim Duncan. Crawford ejected Duncan from San Antonio's loss to the Mavericks after calling a second technical foul on the Spurs star while he was laughing on the bench. Duncan contended that Crawford challenged him to a fight.

The Celtics are 2-1 in '08 postseason games in which Crawford was part of the officiating crew.

Official 2: Bennett Salvatore

Salvatore made a controversial call against Celtics captain Paul Pierce late in the third quarter of Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals, when Pierce pumped faked Rodney Stuckey, leaned in, and hit a long three-pointer. But Salvatore called a charge on Pierce and a potential four-point play turned into a Detroit possession.

The Celtics are 3-2 in '08 postseason games in which Salvatore was part of the officiating crew.

Official 3: Mark Wunderlich

Wonderlich, along with Crawford and Joe Forte, was part of the three-man crew that did not call of foul on Lakers guard Derek Fisher for banging into San Antonio's Brent Barry on the final play of the Spurs’ 93-91 loss in Game of Game 4 in the Western Conference finals. The NBA later admitted that it appears a foul should have been called on Fisher.

Obviously since this comes from Boston.com the article is writing in regards to them, but it never ceases to amaze me how David Stern puts the most controversial refs in some of the most important Playoff games. Not only is Joey Crawford involved but if you need a home team to win a game there's no better ref to choose than Bennett Salvatore. From a Bill Simmons column back in June of 2006.....

"I don't think the NBA fixes games, but they have one trick that they use for situations like this -- when they want a home team to win the game, they invariably assign the worst referees possible to that game for two reasons: Bad referees have a tendency to get swayed by the home crowd, and bad referees never have the stones to make a tough call on the road.

Then I went on to list the worst six referees. Here was No. 2 on the list:

"2. Bennett Salvatore -- Always one of the worst, he took it to another level this season. If you see him on the court at the start of the game, get ready for about six technicals, two near-brawls and both coaches having to be restrained by their assistants at various times."

Dunh! Dunh! Dunh!

Referee assignments for tonight (Boston.com)

The conspiracy theorists are going to love this one. Joey Crawford has been officially assigned to lead the crew calling Game Four in San Antonio tonight. Crawford, you may remember, was the ref who ejected Tim Duncan for laughing last year and earlier in these Playoffs poked Coach Greg Popovich with his finger during a disagreement. Via San Antonio Express-News....

It's the news every Spurs fan has dreaded — the team is fighting for its season tonight in Game 4, and blowing the whistle will be one Joey Crawford.

If the NBA wants to give the conspiracy theorists ammunition, this is certainly the way to do it. The pregame sports-talk chatter is sure to be full of comments such as, "See? The last thing the league wants is the Spurs back in the finals. They want Celtics-Lakers so bad, they can taste it. Otherwise, why would they assign Crawford to this game?"

Well, the silver lining is, if we're gonna get Joey, it's best to get him at home. Statistically, he's a Top 10 homer — eighth on the chart to be exact. And since some of the folks ahead of him don't appear to be working the playoffs (although the top homer, Joe DeRosa, did Game 3 Sunday), this would look like a good break, absent his history with the Spurs.

I can already hear Spurs fans moaning if they lose this game. However, with the Lakers on the verge of reaching the Finals for the first time since 2004....I wouldn't be surprised if you saw one or two questionable calls if the game is close. You would think that Stern would nip this in the bud, and have Crawford only call Eastern Conference games, but I remember him being asked following the "finger poking" game and he all but danced around the question. Very interesting.

At least the game isn't in Utah.

Here comes Joey! (San Antonio Express-News)
Study Says Race Skews Referee Calls in the NBA, Professor Goes to Vegas to Prove It (Fanhouse)

Someone posed this question in the previous post announcing the NFL-N/CBS/NBC Simulcast, and I've been trying to wrap my head around this whole thing. Why was FOX left out of the mix?

I can understand NBC being chosen, but CBS and not FOX is a little bit dubious at best. The first thing that pops into my mind is Patriots' Owner Robert Kraft's recent dealings with CBS. They are making a restaurant and studios for the Network right in their backyard. We all realized that was a shady move, but couldn't really understand its benefits at the time. Well now I think we've found one of them.

ProFootball Talk is reporting that FOX is extremely pissed that they were left of deal, and rightfully so. The NFL site is even saying that ESPN was interested, but wouldn't do so because their announcers wouldn't be calling the game. It's good that ESPN said that they wanted to be involved even though they weren't even invited to the party.

So I guess were back to the original point.....Why CBS and not FOX? Makes no sense if you ask me and just like FOX I'd like some answers. Don't make the Baby Fox Robot cry NFL....that's just mean.

In a throwaway piece in yesterday's Bergen Record, Bob Klapisch briefly mentioned the YES Network's announcers and their impact on Yankees' Manager Joe Torre. He said this almost as if it's commonplace....

But there are subtle but unmistakable signs that the long knives in Tampa are being sharpened. YES broadcasters apparently have been given the green light to be more critical of Torre's in-game decisions, a tactic The Boss has used in the past when he was displeased with the manager.

Is this really true? I mean I wouldn't put it past Steinbrenner, but that seems a little wrong doesn't it??? In the article it also says Tino Martinez and Paul O'Neill are complaining now as well. Just leave them alone and they'll be fine....just like they are every year.

Update: I am aware that Tino is not on YES. I was just adding that to illustrate how many people are piling on.

'Mentality' of losing weighs on Bombers with Bosox coming (NorthJersey.com)

(This post was penned by OMDQ; tell him how much it sucks at onemoredyingquail@gmail.com)

As just about everyone knows by now, Jason Giambi opened his mouth on Friday and told USA Today that Major League Baseball and Bud Selig owe fans an apology for allowing steroid use to go unchecked for so long in the game.

Giambi probably didn't think much of the comments as he was making them, but days later he has found himself in some hot water. Because the quote in USA Today included the phrase, "I was wrong for doing that stuff," the word on the street is that Selig wants to have a little chat with the Yankee slugger and the team might once again consider voiding his contract.

Since missing half of the 2004 season and struggling at the start of 2005, Giambi has posted decent numbers. While his OPS is obviously lower than it was in his prime, he is still hitting homeruns, driving in runs and consistently drawing walks. Right now he is mired in a slump and bothered by a foot injury, so maybe the Yankees are considering this a sign of things to come and planning to void the remainder of the deal. Or maybe they just want to at least put on a public appearance of zero tolerance with regards to steroids.

Here's what I'd like to think happened: Selig picked up the paper on Friday, saw Giambi's comments and immediately place a call to Brian Cashman, with the gist of the message being, "Take care of this." After trying for the last few years to deal with the issue of current steroid use in the game while sending perceived lame duck George Mitchell after those from the past, the last thing Selig wants is to see players, especially a former MVP who plays for the most valuable franchise in the game, coming out on their own and admitting to use. With Mitchell, the amount of information that is disseminated can theoretically be controlled. With cases such as Giambi's, they can't.

So Selig tells Cashman to take care of the problem and Cashman responds by circulating rumors that the Yankees are looking into voiding Giambi's contract as an indirect threat to any other player who is considering "coming out". Because who wants to lose out on a good contract and face a potential blackball by the baseball estalishment (Jose Canseco doesn't look so silly anymore, does he?) with nothing except peace of mind in return? It's at least a little bit possible, right?