Girls in the 12-and-under tennis tournaments ruthlessly beat each other 6-0, 6-0 when they're able to, and the losers don't cry the way these supposedly big tough men do. Don't like losing? Learn to win.

Okay, I looked up thug and here's the meaning:

A cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.

I admit that is a little strong to refer to a coach that way for ordering a "hard" foul.

He's not really an oaf either:

1. a clumsy, stupid person; lout.

2. a simpleton; dunce; blockhead.

He is sort of a lout, I guess, but let me amend my opinion this way: ordering a player to break the rules in order to cause physical pain to an opponent is unprofessional, and could cause a serious injury or worse. I would say the same for a baseball manager that orders a batter hit.

Why aren't baseball managers considered thugs for ordering pitchers to hit batters? But Isiah is a thug for ordering a hard foul?

I know the T-Mac thing was exceptional, but last week the Rockets were behind the Lakers by 27 points with about 8 minutes to play when Jackson pulled his starters (so did Van Gundy). The Rockets went on a 26-1 run and almost won the game. If they'd hit a few free throws they would have won. Again, George Karl can't afford to let that happen. It's the kind of thing that goes on your "permanent record" as a coach. I've seen teams win that were down by 30 going into the fourth quarter. It's real easy to score a lot of points in a short time in the NBA.

Quite. And this is why I don't watch the NBA. All I ever seem to hear from players and commentators is that these are "grown men" out there. Oddly, you just don't hear apologists for other sports ever making that claim. You know why? Because they don't have to.

Phil didn't "keep" Kobe in the game. He brought him back into the game prior to that point you mentioned because the Rockets were trying to make a furious comeback and he wanted to shut it down.

With 45 seconds left to go, and up by 11 (4 possession minimum), and a chance to come out, Kobe stayed in the game. What happened before (a furious comeback) does little to change the fact that at that point, the game was over.

As for your other two examples, the first one hardly qualifies as a garbage time event and the second proves my point.

The first one is meant to show that there is not the huge difference between a contested game (11 points) and the laugher you claim this one to be. In fact, that difference looks small enough that you could forgive a coach for leaving a guy or two in.

The second one is meant to show that there is not a huge difference between when a guy is supposed to come out (1:53? 1:00?) and when the coach's decision contributed to a fight (1:15? I have heard, but did not see, that there were players at the scorers table waiting to come in).

As you said, there's a difference between over and laugher and the difference is fairly obvious.

Apparently not. We'll agree the game was over, but at 19 points, it's hardly a laugher. We see one of those a night.

To call out Karl's behavior is to say that it is way out of synch with what other people do. I am pointing out that, in several cases in the past week, the difference seems small; a few seconds here or points there just can't be so critical that we go from normal to IT's claim of putting players in a bad position, and expecting fights.

The T-Mac game came to my mind immediately as well. I have never understood the running up the score complaints.

The Yankees scored 13 runs in an inning against the D-Rays last year. Would it be dishonorable (or whatever...) for the D-Rays to steal against the Yanks up 12-0 in the ninth? I'm thinking no.

How about Schilling complaining when a guy broke up his no-hitter with a bunt. At the time he was up 2-0 I believe. That guy gets on base, the next guy hits a home run and the game is tied! But Schilling was all angry about how the game "should be played the right way" and all that jazz.

In my mind playing the right way is doing your best to win. If the losing team thinks they have no chance they should just forfeit. If they are still on the court/field and still trying to win then I'm trying to win as well.

This isn't a Division 1 team playing a Division 4 team and being up 80-9 in a matchup they would win 999 out of 1000 times. These are two professional teams, on another day the Knicks (yes, even the Knicks) could be up by that much. Stranger things have happened than a comeback in a basketball game.

What is really sad here is that the Knicks have a huge payroll and an awful team. If I were Thomas instead of being upset at the other team for showing me up I would be mad at my team for playing so poorly on a consistent basis. How is it George Karl's fault that the Kicks suck exactly?

tbrandel "Too much player movement and churning of rosters may tend to diminish fan interest."

I remember reading a study a few years ago saying that rosters churn about the same now (or then) as ever. It just seems like they churn more because there isn't those two or three guys who stay with one team forever. Stars change teams more.

Also, I don't know that roster churn turns fans off. Maybe it does, but the interest in the hot-stove league, which is hotter than ever, tells me it doesn't. An awful lot of fans follow the game for fantasy purposes anyway. The only rosters they care about are their own. Also, an awful lot more fans follow the NFL, where rosters churn away like crazy. Also also, baseball is setting attendance records.

I just find that statement dubious. I do think it's just your own interest waning for your own reasons -- which are of course perfectly valid for you!

kingkhan Seriously, you had to know somebody at Salon.com to get this gig.

Nope. They threw a dart at the phonebook and hit my name.

timbuk, Agreed the minors are a great thing. The question I was asked was: "What is right and wrong with the MLB today?"