This video is four years old, but it’s new to me. Watch Frank Caliendo as he does a spot-on impersonation of Jim Rome.
Page 347 of 2956
ESPN.com reports that Lawrence Taylor was given the lowest sex offender status stemming from his arrest for having sex with a 16-year-0ld girl in 2010. His name will not appear on an online sex offender registry list after he was given Level 1 status in court on Tuesday.
Taylor, who was not present at the hearing, pleaded guilty in January to two counts, sexual misconduct and soliciting a prostitute in the third degree. Last month he was sentenced to six years’ probation in his home state of Florida. As a Level 1 offender he will not have his picture in an online database, but Kelly said that given the notoriety of the case, in effect there was very little difference between Level 1 and Level 2 for Taylor.
There are three levels of sex offenders: Level 1 offenders are characterized as being a low risk to the public, Level 2 are medium risk and Level 3 are high risk. People registered as the latter two have their names made available to the public, and authorities can go so far as to alert “vulnerable populations,” such as those at a school, nursing home or day care agency, that an offender is living in their neighborhood.
Level 1 offenders must register for 20 years, while the other two levels of offenders must register for the rest of their lives.
Aidala said knowing that he is the lowest level will be a “relief” for Taylor, and that it may make a difference when it comes to sponsorship opportunities in the future. He said Taylor will be a headline guest at a Montclair, N.J., charity golf tournament on June 20, to benefit disabled children.
Well good for you, L.T.! I would write something like, “Well maybe he’ll learn from this situation and stay out of trouble,” but he’s Lawrence freaking Taylor. He’s going to get caught doing something stupid but let’s just hope this is the last and only time the man shows up in the headlines for allegedly raping someone.
Follow John on Twitter.
Dwight Howard certainly seems to be the consensus pick, but let’s think about this for a moment. What’s really the best way to judge which player has had the best year on the defensive end of the court?
I’m sure there are all sorts of advanced metrics that the teams/stat companies use that the general public are not privy to. There are only four player-by-player basic stats that are defensive in nature: steals, blocks, defensive rebounds and fouls. The first three are positive, and the last one is obviously negative. Whether a player steals or rebounds the ball, he’s ending the opponent’s possession. Not all blocks will end a possession — just look at Howard, who still insists on swatting balls into the stands instead of trying to direct them to his teammates — but there is the difficult-to-quantify “changing of shots” that goes unaccounted for, so blocks are still vitally important. Fouls give the opponent another possession or worse yet a pair of free throws. (Note: I would like to also use charges drawn, but for some reason Hoopdata hasn’t tracked that number this season.)
When I saw HoopsHype’s list of DPOY finalists, I noticed two names was missing — Andrew Bogut and Andre Iguodala. I thought Bogut deserved the DPOY last year, but he was instead rewarded with an All-NBA Third Team bid. Iguodala is one of the best perimeter defensive players in the game, but unfortunately for us that’s more based on reputation than (basic) statistics.
Let’s take a look at the league leaders in DTOT, which is my abbreviation for Defensive Total, which is simply the sum of steals, blocks and defensive rebounds, minus fouls. I’ve also included each team’s defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 possessions) while the player is on the court along with each player’s Opponent Player Efficiency Rating. These last two stats were found at 82games.com.
| # | Player | DRPG | SPG | BPG | FPG | DTOT | DEF EFF | Opp PER |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dwight Howard | 10.12 | 1.34 | 2.40 | 3.3 | 10.56 | 103.2 | 11.8 |
| 2 | Kevin Love | 10.71 | 0.62 | 0.37 | 2.0 | 9.67 | 112.7 | 16.1 |
| 3 | Andrew Bogut | 8.02 | 0.72 | 2.58 | 3.3 | 7.98 | 102.1 | 13.5 |
| 4 | Kevin Garnett | 7.72 | 1.35 | 0.77 | 2.1 | 7.76 | 98.8 | 14.3 |
| 5 | Tim Duncan | 6.65 | 0.67 | 1.92 | 1.6 | 7.67 | 102.8 | 15.9 |
| 6 | Blake Griffin | 8.79 | 0.77 | 0.54 | 3.0 | 7.05 | 110.8 | 14.5 |
| 7 | Marcus Camby | 7.19 | 0.69 | 1.53 | 2.4 | 7.02 | 108.1 | 14.5 |
| 8 | Josh Smith | 6.87 | 1.29 | 1.58 | 2.9 | 6.88 | 105.9 | 16.9 |
| 9 | Zach Randolph | 7.84 | 0.84 | 0.33 | 2.3 | 6.68 | 106.9 | 14.5 |
| 10 | Kris Humphries | 7.38 | 0.46 | 1.09 | 2.3 | 6.66 | 110.9 | 15.2 |
First, notice that all 10 players on the list are big men. This is due to the way that defensive rebounding drives the DTOT stat. Perimeter defense is tougher to quantify for this reason.
Howard certainly has a strong case. He leads the league in DTOT by a fairly wide margin, and the guy in second place (Love) doesn’t do much in the way of blocks or steals. But look who’s sitting at #3 — Andrew Bogut. Of everyone on the list, Bogut has the second lowest defensive efficiency (next to KG) when on the court. He also holds his opponent to the second-lowest PER. Second to Howard, of course.
Wondering about Iguodala? He is #22 in DTOT, the fourth highest non-PF/C on the list after LeBron James (#11), Gerald Wallace (#14, but more of a PF) and Kevin Durant (#16). Iggy’s team defensive efficiency is a respectable 104.1 and his Opponent PER is an eye-popping 9.9, which is better than LeBron (11.4), Wallace (14.3 while in Charlotte) and Durant (12.2). He is also tied with Tim Duncan for the fewest fouls per game in the Top 30. Iggy has truly embraced his inner Scottie Pippen this season.
Interestingly, Landry Fields (#32), Dwyane Wade (#33) and Jason Kidd (#40) are the first three guards on the list, which is clearly dominated by big men due to the aforementioned defensive rebounding issue.
So does Dwight Howard deserve another DPOY? Probably. But there are other players like Bogut and Iguodala that deserve a few votes as well. This will likely be a landslide, but it shouldn’t be.
Remember that Seinfeld episode when Elaine meets a new group of friends that are exactly like Jerry, George and Kramer, although they’re normal and not deranged?
Yeah, well I feel like Elaine in that “bizarro world” episode when I look at the current standings in Major League Baseball.
You feel like a woman, Anthony?
Well not…uh…ah, shut up.
A quick look at the standings reveals that the Orioles and Indians are in first place, the Red Sox, Tigers and defending World Series champion Giants are in last place, and the Pirates and Royals are in second place. What in the name of Rick Vaughn is going on here?
Well, it’s not “bizarro world” as much as it’s the second week in April. The most overused phrase at this point of the year is “It’s early,” and it is. But that’s not to suggest that a team like Boston doesn’t have some serious issues to work through and Cleveland’s current six-game winning streak is a fluke.
The Red Sox’s current run differential is –31, which is the worst in the league. In their first 10 games, they’ve already given up 69 runs, or 21 fewer then they did through 10 games last year when they started 4-6 and missed the playoffs. For a team that many believed would win the World Series, the BoSox are off to a horrendous start.
On the flip side, the Tribe is 8-2 after dropping its first two games and is getting tremendous efforts from Asdrubal Cabrera, Orlando Cabrera, Travis Hafner and a young pitching staff. It remains to be seen whether or not their starters can continue to eat up innings and pitch well throughout the year, but it’s not a stretch to think that this is the start of a career year for Asdrubal Cabrera or that guys like Justin Masterson and Carlos Carrasco are coming into their own. Who’s to say at this point?
Granted, at this point last year the Blue Jays, A’s and Cardinals were all in first place, and none of them made the playoffs. But every year a team that wasn’t expected to contend does just that and shocks the masses. Nobody thought the Padres would compete in 2010 and if it weren’t for a late-season collapse, they would have made the playoffs.
Yes, it’s early – really early, in fact. But confidence is a scary thing and teams like the Indians are bringing truck loads of it to the park right now. Chances are things will go “back to normal” eventually (Elaine did find herself back with Jerry, George and Kramer), but then again maybe we’ll be trapped in bizarro world for a while longer. (I’m sure Tribe fans wouldn’t mind.)
I just watched both segments of the first part of the “Good Morning America” interview with George Stephanopoulos and a few of Sterger’s statements deserve comment. If you’re wondering about my original take on the story, be sure to read “In defense of Jenn Sterger…”
“I didn’t want anything to do with it in 2008. I don’t want anything to do with it in 2010.”
If she didn’t want anything to do with it in 2010, why did she mention Favre’s advances to the editor of a sports gossip blog? As I outlined in the link above, when she spoke with Deadspin, she hadn’t yet landed her job on the now defunct “The Daily Line” and was probably uncertain where her media career was headed. If she had truly decided that she didn’t want the story to ever come out, she never would have brought it up to the editor of a sports blog.
“Whenever I would reply it was more so trying to figure out who I was interacting with. There was no actual, ‘Hey Jenn, it’s Brett.”
Is she serious? She’s expecting us to believe that she didn’t recognize Favre’s voice on her voicemails? Either it was Favre or someone doing a fantastic impression. Has anyone asked Frank Caliendo about his involvement? Or how about this guy?
This is the thing that has always struck me as odd about her story. She acts as if Favre’s advances were unwelcome, yet she admits that she sent multiple texts to him. She said his advances were “intimidating,” so why is she responding at all? Just block his number and move on.
Stephanopoulos must have had the same thought because in the key sequence of the interview, he eventually asked her, “Why answer?”
JS: Why answer? When all of this happened, I consulted several people and I said, ‘Hey this is the situation that is going on right now.’ And I said, ‘I really don’t know what to do.’ Every single one of them gave me the exact same answer. They said, ‘Jenn, do you like your job? Well if you like your job and want to keep it, I suggest that you just be quiet. Do your job.'”
GS: Leave it alone.
JS: Yeah, don’t complain.
Did you see what she did there? That’s a classic deflection. Stephanopoulos asked her about her reasoning for answering Favre’s texts in the first place, and she responded with a soliloquy about how she was asking her friends for advice and that they told her to “be quiet.”
Huh?
What does her advice-seeking have to do with her responding to Favre in the first place? ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Stephanopoulos must have some inside info, because he later asked her about a specific text that she sent Favre:
GS: Did you send him a text that said, “If this is you, smile at me.”
JS: No, I don’t really recall all of the texts. I don’t remember what was in them. I’m sorry.
Ah, well, that’s convenient. She remembers all sorts of details about how this whole thing started and how she deftly put together that her “secret” admirer was in fact Brett Favre, but she can’t remember if she sent him a text that asked him to smile at her. Her answer was evasive as well. First she says “no” but then she says she doesn’t recall.
The interview turned to Deadspin and how they got the texts and photos, and she still claims that she didn’t sell them. When Stephanopoulos asked if she had ever given the texts/photos to anyone, she responded, “I shared them with individuals when I was asking for advice, but that’s it.”
When “asking for advice,” is it really necessary to provide proof of Favre’s texts/photos? If that’s the case, she should seriously rethink who she goes to for advice. A friend would believe her story and not require that she send over all of her evidence in order to help.
When George Stephanopoulos asked if she owed anyone an apology, she replied, “I don’t think so. I didn’t really do anything wrong.”
She doesn’t think that actively texting a married man who is obviously interested her is wrong? She would have come off a lot better here if she had apologized to Favre’s wife, Deanna, for sending her husbands any texts at all.
I’ve decided that this is what really happened: Favre started texting Sterger and the two engaged in a flirtatious, if-this-is-you-smile-at-me-type relationship through text. After some time passed, Sterger decided that she didn’t want it to go any further and pulled away. Favre upped the ante with some pics of his junk, and she shared them with some friends for a laugh. That’s it, the texts eventually stopped. Two years later she stupidly mentions the interaction to Deadspin and the blog somehow acquires all the texts and photos (and voicemails!) from one of Sterger’s so-called “friends,” who totally threw Sterger under the bus for $12,000.
End of story. I hope.
See both segments of the first part of the Jenn Sterger interview after the jump.
FOLLOW US!
CATEGORIES
© 2026 The Scores Report – The National Sports Blog
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑