Orioles first baseman Aubrey Huff admits that his language and behavior on a shock-jock radio program were not smart on his part, then added that no one’s ever accused him of being intelligent. That’s a plea of stupidity before the court of public opinion: “hey, sorry- I’m stupid!” I appreciate Aubrey’s honesty but “I’m dumb” doesn’t warrant a free pass. Oriole fans are upset and team executives are reportedly angry.

(In case you’re not aware, Huff took part in a live broadcast on satellite radio that included his referring to Baltimore as a “horse —-” city in terms of its nightlife. Huff also told tales of his alcohol abuse and watching pornographic movies.)

Huff’s radio repartee is classic “boys will be boys” stuff, and behind closed doors around a poker table with buddies it’s innocuous. But spoken into a broadcast microphone, no matter the known shock nature of the program, Huff wandered into the realm of irresponsibility. He’s a highly paid professional athlete who represents an organization- and in some ways a city- when he presents himself in public.

Huff says he’s not smart, and he’s entitled to that self-assessment. In the times I’ve spoken to him, I’ve found Aubrey to be fun-loving and care-free, but also reflective, sincere and, believe it or not- smart. At the very least, I have to think Huff is smart enough to know better (and upon reflection, he probably feels that way now, too). To whom much is given (athletic talent and riches), much is expected. You don’t have to be intelligent to be aware, but simple awareness of one’s responsibility can save a person from poor judgment.

I’m old fashioned. I’m reminded of that often when talking to and about modern day athletes. My old school ethos regarding team sports is along the lines of “all for one, one for all.” “win as a team, lose as a team,” rah rah, blah, blah. So you probably understand why I blanche at comments by athletes that come across as selfish.

Following the Ravens 38-7 defeat at Pittsburgh- an emotional and embarrassing loss- linebacker Ray Lewis boastfully pointed out that the Ravens defense held Steelers running back Willie Parker to a mere 42 rushing yards. Ray also made mention that Steelers running back Najeh Davenport had just 34 rushing yards. Finally, ESPN’s Sal Palantonio, in a group of reporters interviewing Lewis, said, “Did I miss something? Didn’t you just lose a game 38-7?” Great question, Sal. Ray’s answer: the turnovers by the Ravens offense gave Pittsburgh a short field and you can’t expect the Ravens defense to stop them in those situations. So much for “win as a team, lose as a team.”

That bugs me…allot. Now, Ray Lewis is right: the Ravens offense makes it tough on the defense (and has for several years). But what good does it do the team to bring that out in a post game commentary? How does a divisive comment from a player serve the team in any positive fashion? And regarding the boast about stopping the Steelers running game: so what? Ray’s analysis of what went well amidst disaster falls under the category of the famed follow-up question: “Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”

Football is a team game, and who are the best teams in the NFL these days? The New England Patriots? Maybe the Indianapolis Colts? And what do those TEAMS have in common? Besides having great quarterbacks, the Pats and Colts both operate under the old school “all for one, one for all” ethos that I admire. In fact, if you listen to the Patriots talk- they are more humble in victory than the Ravens are in defeat. Besides the post-defeat boasting by Ray Lewis, Ravens defensive end Trevor Pryce pointed out that he saw Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger throwing passes “with his eyes closed,” just chucked the ball and apparently got lucky (Big Ben threw 5 TD passes!). Come on, Ravens! You were beaten badly. I know it hurts to lose, but it’s even more painful for this observer to see and hear grown men speak like children in defeat. I find it embarrassing. Then again, I’m old fashioned.

Kevin Millar called me today, and answered some questions I had regarding his participation in the pre-game ceremonies at Fenway Park in Boston prior to Game 7 of the ALCS.

First of all, Millar is taken aback by the negative reaction he’s gotten by what he considers an innocent and fun ceremony. One thing he wants Orioles fans to know: his participation has nothing to do with backing the Red Sox, and everything to do with promoting the game of baseball. He also pointed out that the Red Sox invited him not to celebrate the 2004 World Series, but to remember the Game 7 comeback against the Yankees in the ALCS that year. Millar drew a walk, Dave Roberts pinch-ran and stole second base, and Bill Mueller drove in Roberts. Millar, Roberts and Mueller were all invited to throw out a ceremonial first pitch. So, the argument about current Yankees and former Red Sox Johnny Damon and Doug Mientkiewicz is moot in this case.

Millar is adamant that I point out to O’s fans that he considers himself a proud Oriole, first and foremost. That he did not seek to participate, but was asked by the Red Sox after they spoke with O’s management for permission. He says he conferred with O’s president Andy MacPhail and asked, “Are you sure this is okay?” And there was no hesitation on the O’s part, and subsequently Millar’s, that his participation in the Boston ceremony was alright.

Millar points out that Mike Flanagan, while still a member of the Orioles, threw out a first pitch for the Toronto Blue Jays during the 1991 postseason. Not a big deal, he contends.

Millar told me that he sat in the stands and ate a hotdog and enjoyed the game in Boston. He is, as I’ve often pointed out, a baseball FAN. For that, I give Millar a pass on this. Personally, I would stay away from blurring the lines of competition by participating in another team’s ceremony while I’m a paid member of another organization. That’s just me, and I can see why O’s fans don’t like it. But knowing Millar, and hearing his explanation- I can put this entire scenario into the category of “no big deal

Oriole Kevin Millar threw out the ceremonial first pitch prior to the Red Sox-Indians deciding game in the American League Championship Series in Boston. A member of the Red Sox 2004 World Series winning team, Millar was cheered wildly by the Boston faithful- he’s a folk hero there. I get that he’s revered in Boston, but isn’t it strange to see an Oriole as a centerpiece of another team’s ceremony? Especially a team in the same division?

Millar also taped an intro to game 5 of the series for the Fox telecast in which he encouraged Red Sox Nation to keep the faith and pull for their team , despite being down 3-games-to-1 in the series. I called Millar on his cell phone to hear from him directly his thoughts on how his Red Sox cheerleading may be perceived in Baltimore (he has not yet called me back).

I’m not sure I’m against Millar’s participation. For the record, the Orioles granted permission to the Red Sox to use Millar after Boston management inquired. On one hand, it’s a slap in the face of O’s fans to see one of their own cheering another team. On the other hand, if you know Millar (and I’ve been around him quite a bit) you know that he’s a baseball fan- first and foremost. I can look at his participation as promoting the game (as much as he may be pumping up Red Sox Nation).

Here’s a question: would Johnny Damon or Doug Mientkiewicz (former Red Sox, now Yankees) be allowed by their team to do what Millar did? No way! But Millar’s an Oriole, and it seems that the downtrodden nature of the O’s franchise somehow makes it no big deal. It’s almost like, “hey, he plays in Baltimore- so it’s cool, nobody cares.” Just my impression. I like Kevin Millar, but he’s wandered into dangerous territory by re-uniting with Red Sox Nation while still a highly paid member of the Orioles. And the O’s may have erred in allowing it to happen.

I admit, I enjoy researching statistics to uncover trends in sports. I’m also aware that you could pull out some stats out of context, and suggest that the numbers are revealing in almost any way you want them to be. I ran into just such a case while listening to “Mike and Mike” on ESPN radio’s morning show. The hosts were holding up with glee the statistic regarding the Cleveland Indians ability to drive in runs with 2 outs in the American League Championship Series vs. Boston. A majority of the Indians runs were driven in while there were 2 outs, and with breathless amazement- the radio hosts proclaimed the Indians 2-out magic as the reason why they were winning the series.

No way, I say! Driving in a majority of runs with 2 outs is noteworthy, but let’s not get too worked up over the significance of the statistic. I ask: why are runs driven in with 2 outs any more important to the outcome of a game than runs driven in with 0 or 1 out? Runs are runs, and no runs driven in are worth any more than any others regarding the number of outs when the runs touch home. If the Indians drove in most of their runs with 0 or 1 out, would that be noteworthy? No. So why so when they score with 2 outs?

There’s a notion that exists in baseball that batting with 2 outs is a “pressure” or “clutch” situation. But is it really? Think about it: each team gets 3 outs in an inning. If they’ve used up 2 of them, they still have 33% of their allotment remaining for that inning. Also, there’s no clock in baseball. There is in football. So, for example, if a football team scores 30 points in a quarter- that would be noteworthy because a clock would limit the amount of time a team would have to pile up that many points. In baseball- an inning goes on until the 3rd out is recorded. Scoring runs with 2 outs can be an unlimited venture.

I will concede this much, though: scoring runs with 2 outs in the 9th inning can be more noteworthy in that it’s likely that the team batting is facing a “specialist” (i.e. closer) in a late-inning save situation. But if the starting pitcher is in the game, and there are 2 outs in the 4th inning, and the batting team scores runs- how remarkable is that? I contend, it’s no more remarkable or important than if those runs were scored with 0 or 1 out.

But, if we buy into the notion that hitting with 2 outs is a “pressure” or “clutch” situation, and a team performs well in those clutch situations, then they are likely to be a successful team, right? Uh, no. The 2007 Baltimore Orioles were very good when batting with 2 outs and runners in scoring position. The O’s had a .267 batting average, ranked 5th best in the Major Leagues. The O’s performed better in that “pressure” situation than the Indians, Red Sox, Angels, Cubs, Phillies, D-backs and Rockies. Better than 7 of the 8 playoff teams! Wow! Yeah, wow. Big deal. Get my drift?

The hype over runs with 2 outs is just that. I like stats, but I don’t like stats that are presented to mean something they’re not.

Steve McNair is the Ravens best quarterback.  He is the only quarterback on the roster who gives them a consistent chance to beat good teams.  So, the Ravens need him to be healthy for the upcoming portion of the schedule when they will play good teams. That portion starts Monday night, November 5 in Pittsburgh.  Until that time, Mc9 needs to stay on the sidelines while Kyle Boller beats the hapless Rams and Bills.  Risky?  You can argue that it is, but it’s safer than gambling on further injuring McNair who’s far from full strength as it is. Rest him, let Boller run around and have fun…then everyone can regroup and get serious with McNair at the helm for the stretch.  And if McNair gets hurt from November 5th on, then you have an experienced back-up to turn to.  I’ve been saying this for weeks, and I want to see that plan enacted starting this Sunday vs. St. Louis (not that anyone asked me).

As if you don’t get enough of my thoughts and opinions in 3 hours of radio each day, not to mention 3 TV sports casts on WJZ- we present the ESPN Radio 1300 BLOG!  Yet another outlet for thoughts and opinions- blogging is all the rage (or so I’m told).  Truth is- I enjoy writing.  Author Peter Taylor is quoted as saying that “writing is how you discover what you think.”  I agree.  So, I’ll be writing here on occassion in an effort to discover what I think.  And if you don’t hear me say what I think on Monday-Friday from 10am-1pm, then this is the place where I’ll occassionally updates those thoughts.  Hope you enjoy.  Hope I do, too!