Tuesday, June 06, 2006

The Truth Juggler

Response to the truth juggler
Teddy Covers is the epitome of a "truth juggler". In his article posted today (see link), he writes a rebuttal to all of the emails he received from the Raider Nation for this article.

I find it amusing and somewhat pathetic that Teddy's response is filled with half-truths, distorted logic, and more misguided statements. He also withheld key information and used some very creative, selective editing to justify his points of view.
"In that blog entry, I wrote a negative opinion about the Raiders' chances for pointspread success in the upcoming season".
If your opinion in your article was that you don't think the Raiders will be successful in terms of the pointspread, how come you didn't use the word 'pointspread' one time in it? If you were going to support your opinion, don't you think it would be reasonable for the readers to expect you to cite some statistics and/or records about the Raiders vs. the pointspread? Nowhere in your article is there any mention of this type of data.
"I am not a journalist. It is not my job to take an even-handed approach to every blog entry and every article I write. I get paid for my opinion on games, picking pointspread winners."
Yes, I agree. You definitely are not a journalist. I also realize that you are a sports handicapper/blogger. However, if I was one of your customers I would want to make an informed decision about your opinions which should be backed up by research and hard data. If I was a paying customer I wouldn't want you to get tricky about the facts.

Teddy's original statement: "Brooks wasn't a winner at Virginia"

"Yes, Aaron Brooks went 16-7 in two years as a starter at Virginia. In his first year as the starter, the Caveliers didn't make a bowl game and went 3-7 against the spread. It's surely worth noting that Virginia lost three of its four games as an underdog by double-digit margins that year"
His rebuttal acknowledges Brooks 16-7 record at Virginia but than he brings up the record of 3-7 vs. the spread. Once again, there is nothing in his original post about pointspreads, underdogs, etc. I hate to beat a dead horse BUT why is it that in your rebuttal you are now citing all of this pointspread information? Wouldn't this information have been relevant in your original post? Wouldn't this information make your opinions more worthy and understandable to the readers?

Teddy's original statement: "Just about every key player they have has some character issues."

Teddy's rebuttal: "Brooks, Warren Sapp and Randy Moss have well-documented character issues."

So instead of a large blanket tossed over the entire team you have singled out the 3 above players as having "character issues". What are these alleged character issues? If the character issues are well-documented, what are they? I have never heard of any character issues concerning Brooks. The only character issue regarding Sapp was a failed drug test over 10 years ago which certainly has no bearing on his performance in 2006. Moss has been a model citizen and team player since joining the team in 2005. He has earned the utmost respect from his peers and the entire Raider coaching staff. Do you honestly think that Head Coach Shell would designate Moss as one of the team leaders if he had "character issues"?

Quote from Shell: "When I got the job, I'd say 99 percent of the people that worked with him in Minnesota were positive about him. They said, "You're going to like working with Randy Moss. He's a great guy, a great guy in the locker room, and he wants to win." And in my time around him, it hasn't been anything but that. I feel very good about him being a leader on this football team."

"It's my opinion, the opinion of a handicapper, and not that of a journalist or a hater. I made calculated deductions about the Raiders chances this season based upon my observations of their team in comparison to the rest of the league. It's not an attack. It's my judgment, and it's how I make my living."
Your calculated deductions were made by bending the truth to fit your arguments. Calculated deductions should be made by substantiating your viewpoints with statistics, facts, and research. You conveniently justify your rebuttal by putting on your "handicapper" hat and cite pointspread records. Finally, out of curiousity, whatever happened to your line "The Raiders haven't had a winning season since Gruden left town"? Did you selectively edit that out of your original post?

That is one fine trick for a Truth Juggler.

14 Comments:

Anonymous DDRayder said...

Calico Jack,
I have emailed Teddy Covers on this 3 times now to correct him...I included that Bobby Petrino was the one who turned down the Raiders after consulting with his family...I have recieved no return emails other than being mentioned in his rebuttal...
the guy has a Raider hater mentality and is most likely one of the trolls we see on some boards ranting that the Raiders can't do jack...

Silver and Black forever!!!
DDrayder

6:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great comeback, I wanted to e-mail the moron with some of the same comments. Talk about not checking facts. Of the Raider Nation e-mails that he hand-picked to post as examples, I think it was the first one, a Raider fan with good intentions accidentally said Whisenhunt was the only coach offered the job and turned it down because of his son. I think we all know he meant Petrino, as Al clearly said Patrino was the only person he offered it to before Art(plus the whole "it was my son's fault" excuse by Petrino). I love how our friend seemed to take that mistake and run with it as if Whisenhunt was offered the job. As if Al would give total control like he wanted.

Black Reign
Psycho

6:51 AM  
Blogger The Analyzer said...

Nice job. this guy is just a hater that denies being a hater. people like him are going to lose his "customers" money.

8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CJ, the best point you elude to is that Teddy's clients rely on his "knowledge" and judgement to make investment-type decisions. With his slanted and uninformed views, he waives all credibility. I really only follow the Raiders, so I don't know what other nonsense he has posted regarding other teams (or sports).

10:21 AM  
Anonymous Raider Greg said...

Great Job!!! Calling to his attention the "truth" about the team and the fact that he didn't state his "non fan" look at the team. He is indeed correct on one point.........He is a poor example of a fan.........As a matter of fact, He admits not having a team he likes more..........I would have to say "BULLSHIT"! Anyone involved in sports has a team.................No matter what he does to make money. Can he honestly say he had no team he felt connected with as a child. To end up in sports booking and not to have a passion for sports makes no sense. I rebut his whole statement about not having a favorite team...........Its "BULLSHIT"!

10:29 AM  
Anonymous Jaded said...

Thanks for voicing exactly what the problem is with the media bias towards the Raiders. This is just one article, but part of a larger conspiracy to take cheap shots at the Raiders. It has been going on for years and I think it just relates to hatred.

Al Davis is not a PR guy (personally), never has been. He is an easy target for those hung up on appearances, and put that together with the move to LA, and Berman's obnoxious "Da Raidahhhhs" call, and you've got one heck of a stereotype.

I say screw them all, they have no concept of what it is to be a fan. Sports suck in general these days anyway.

12:56 PM  
Blogger frkyraider said...

i harpooned the fool on all this same stuff, glad someone else corrected him about petrino, getting tired of straightening out people on that one.

lots of haters out there folks, he may be just marketing himself as such with an article like that. with so many RAIDER haters out there, he may aquire a litany of users from that trash he calls an article. ridiculous but true.

4:35 PM  
Blogger Calico Jack said...

Thanks for the feedback.

It's a shame that the Raider Watch Dogs need to be on full alert 24/7/365 to handle the work load provided by bias mediots and haters alike.

If only these Mickey Mouse scribes would take a page out of Art Shell's book and become more accountable, most of this slanted journalism would go away.

Since we know that won't happen, I guess we can count on more bird cage liner material to continue on a regular basis.

Raise the Black Flag,
Calico Jack

7:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Calico,

My hats off to you, all I wanted to do was spew prophanities
At him,but then raider fans all ready have a bad wrap..


DIE HARD IN OREGON

8:12 PM  
Anonymous Sactown Raider said...

Since, no one else seems to have the guts to say it, I thought Covers wrote a pretty good summary of all the reasons to be pessimistic about the coming season.
The thing is, by itself that has nothing to do with betting. The odds makers set the line so that 50% of the bets are "give the points" and 50% are "take the points". So it doesn't matter if a team is good or bad. What matters is if gamblers tend to think that a team is better than it really is or if gamblers tend to think it is worse than it really is.
Covers doesn't have anything original to say. Everything he wrote is in print somewhere else. So there's no reason to think that gamblers think the Raiders are better than they really are.
Besides, it's freakin' June. The casinos won't be publishing lines on the 1st game for months.

1:06 AM  
Anonymous Stick'em said...

Well, if Teddy Bear Hides Under the Covers is not a journalist, and his job is to help folks bet as a handicapper...

Then why the hell didn't he say something useful for betting purposes like, "Last season the Raiders failed to cover the spread in X number of games."

Now I’m not a gambling man, but if I were, I'd get my betting info from someone who at least includes some pertinent gambling stats in his betting “advice”.

Teddy just doesn't even cover it, so he is a mockery of a sham of a hoax of a handicapper to boot!!!

3:25 PM  
Blogger Ayman said...

Raiders suck and Aaron Brooks is a piece of shit pal.

3:28 PM  
Blogger Calico Jack said...

Ayman -
Thank you for sharing such an intelligent, insightful comment! I don't mind KC Chef Boyardee fans visiting my webpage. A couple quick questions for 'the greatest sports guru of all time':

- When was the last time KC won the division?
- When was the last time KC was in the SuperBowl?
- When was the last time KC won a SuperBowl?

Bottom Line: KC didn't make the playoffs last year and hasn't sniffed the SB since 1970.

Best Regards,
Calico Jack

5:29 PM  
Blogger The Analyzer said...

That silences them everytime.

2:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home