More Bad Analysis re: The Big Aristotle
Everyone watch this. (Turn down the audio or plug in the ol' headphones if you're at work.)
OK. That should have gotten all the laughter out of your system. Now we can begin.
As if Scoop Jackson's disaster of an article (covered by PNoles, just two posts below this one) didn't adequately implicate ESPN as an employer of idiots, Bill Simmons felt the need to weigh in on the matter as well. Actually, NBA trades are the one thing not related to Boston that Simmons does a reasonable job of understanding. And this article isn't bad through and through. Still, why the fuck would he say:
If the trade doesn't work, Kerr gets canned. If it does work, he's a genius. There is no middle ground.
Oh yeah? What if Shaq performs very well in the playoffs, but the Suns still lose to the Spurs/Lakers/Mavs in seven in the conference finals? What if Shaq blows out his knee tomorrow and they still somehow win it all because the Warriors knock off two of the Spurs/Lakers/Mavs while the Pistons and Celtics beat each other to pieces in the Eastern Conference finals? What if Shaq turns into an unstoppable presence in the postseason, but Stoudemire, Diaw, and Barbosa forget to show up and Phoenix bows out in the second round? What then, Mr. Simmons? All of those outcomes, by my very subjective estimation, constitute a middle ground.
I know it's more fun to sensationalize things, because heroes in action movies are always like: "This ridiculous plan could either be the stroke of genius that helps us defeat the bad guys... or it could be totally insane and lead to the end of life on Earth as we know it! What if it's BOTH?!?!?!?!" But that doesn't mean events that happen in real life can be viewed through the same lens. Some trades end up being essentially meaningless. Some players don't do a whole lot to either help or hurt their new teams. And some sportswriters should be fired from ESPN and go back to riding Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel's coattails. (Or trying to, anyways.)
27 comments:
Jesus. He's a sports writer. He's paid to make statements about sports, sometimes "opinions". He listed two very possible outcomes, and made the statement that these are the only outcomes. That's his opinion. Maybe you would have liked it if he made a half-hearted, quasi-prediction, taking the easy way out. Maybe you would have prefered if his article said:
"I think this Shaq trade might be good, but it might be bad. There are too many outcomes for me to make a guess as to what I think will happen. I wouldn't want to make a prediction about a sports story or anything. Stay tuned for my next article, which will consist of stats and brief, consise, scientifically proven facts."
No, this was a terrible article. You may have actually criticized the best point Simmons made. He's probably defending the trade only because he likes Kerr. The entire thing is full of misinformation, illogic, and worse than normal pop culture references. Its possible he hasn't watched or followed the Heat in two years, because this was basically a fluff piece for Shaq. This was the worst non-Boston article Simmons has written in a while.
Chris, Larry doesn't come to _your_ place of work and slap Simmons' dick out of _your_ mouth, now does he?
Show a little respect.
Chris, idiotwhoblindlydefendsSimmonsallthetime
andactsliketheresnomiddlegroundbetween
ridiculousopinionsandhyperobjectivitysayswhat?
I got to agree with Chris on this one--
trading for Shaq is something that Suns fans are probably pretty pissed about right now. If Shaq turns out to be what we expect Shaq to turn out to be, Kerr is in big trouble.
If Shaq turns out to be a difference maker, people will be all of a sudden will to cut Kerr a lot of slack.
It's like if Jerry Angelo of the Bears decided to trade Devin Hester or something for Donovan McNabb because Hester was threatening to hold out....
Simmons still sucks though
My problem with Simmons' defending this trade here is that he does so primarily because of the fact that last year he called out NBA teams for not having the "balls" to make a trade. He then reaches for reasons to defend it.
Look, defend the trade or criticize it, I don't care, but don't defend it because you think you'll look like a hypocrite for criticizing it.
I was thinking of writing about this later. This sentence highlights the flaw of the column:
"It means that even if I didn't agree with the trade, I'd have to support it, ignoring my memories of Shaq plodding up and down the floor in Miami like a mummy and placing my faith in Phoenix's crack medical staff, a group of people I've never even met."
simmons has made a big deal about the "No Balls Association" thing before... so with the Shaq trade, the Gasol deal, the strong rumors about Kidd (at the time of his writing) I expected more of a "yayy! moves going on" instead, I don't know, what did he bring to the table with this article?? He said Marion was selfish (you don't say?!?!?!!! he was messing with chemistry?!?! i never would have known!!!) and if this move doesn't work Kerr is fucked, so he has balls for trying it (or some dumb shit like that), and some half-assed "salary" shit, that all the real analysts went over in detail and, ya know, actually got the details correct over a week ago (marion's salary has that PO at the end of this year and is an actual commodity, which makes him about 800 times as valuable as Shaq, salary-wise)
that said... when reading this article, i was AMAZED by the pop culture references, it literally enhances the article NOT AT ALL, it's like he's throwing them in because "this is bill simmons!! this is what bill simmons does!!" sometimes, the stuff gets me chuckling - but this shit was absolutely pointless, i was in shock... i swear, if you try enough times on that "Create a Sports Guy article" page that was linked to here a few months ago, this exact article might pop out.
In the end, basically - if we cut out all the bullshit (and this isn't necessarily a rip on simmons here, 99.999% of articles now-a-days have an insufferable amount of needless fluff) this is what this article says: "no one has defended the shaq trade yet (not true) but i'm gonna. i wrote an article saying no one has balls, kerr does. this might be a bad idea but marion was a cancer (to the number 1 team in the west... shit, i want that cancer) addition by subtraction, salaries are more fair than people realize (also not true) shaq has some left in the tank i think, and he's gonna get his mind right and be a role player... someone (sports gal) change kerr's underwear..."
Oh yeah, almost forgot to make my article hip... "Jack Nicholson... dumb comparison... duhhduhuhhuhhdhuhdhhu"
JFF with the comment equivalent of a tomahawk dunk over Simmons.
I still say there's a middle ground. Obviously the second scenario I made up is pretty unlikely. But the first and third are perfectly plausible, especially the first. You're going to tell me either of those results will cause people to either run Kerr out of town or shower him with accolades?
Also, if this everyone-on-the-Mavs-except-Dirk-and-Harris for Kidd deal goes through, let's see Simmons defend that. Are they going to ask opposing teams to play them 3 on 3 for the rest of the season? At least Cuban's got balls though, right? The Lakers legitimately got a steal of a deal from Memphis- they couldn't turn that down. But what Phoenix and Dallas have done/are doing will most likely end badly. If the Nuggets deal for Ron Artest, add them to the list. Teams like the Spurs, Jazz, Hornets, Rockets, and especially the Blazers are laughing all the way to the bank.
The point isn't that I love Simmons (which I do, and I could go into all sorts of details as to why he's pretty good at his job, but I won't), it's that you picked a pretty non-horrible point to pick on in your post. Go ahead and break down the whole article if you want, if you think he said all sorts of dumb stuff about the trade. But you picked out a sentence that didn't really need to get picked out. I'm sorry Bill didn't take the time to go into every single possible outcome of the Shaq trade.
Oh, and hey anonymous, is it hard to type and smell Larry's asshole at the same time? He's a big boy, I think he can take the criticism. Show some respect? What are you, fuckin nuts?
hart...
its not that simmons failed to expound each possibility of the trade -- it's that he said there were no other possibilities but the two he listed.... if we can rip scoop for making sensationalist claims, we can rip simmons for it too, whether he's liked or not -- bottom line is, the man knows his basketball, he could have delivered a kick ass article about the potential here, made one of his vintage 80's comparisons, or talked about the "does shaq look bad if he suddenly starts trying again" angle... and he delivered a wild, definitely NOT the case "its either black or white" claim, A No Balls reference, and something about jack nicholson... smells like mailing it in to me... as someone who likes him, you should be the most pissed.
on another note... i fully appreciate asshole smelling jokes, (and good money is larryb logging on as anonymous and defending himself, so no worries there) well played.
It wasn't a bad article, obviously there are more things that can happen then it'sll be great or it'll be awful.
It seems like all of Simmons' ESPN MAG articles are soft, this one being no exception.
I actually liked Nicholson in The Departed, no he was no Leo or Matt, but I liked his presence.
Larry B is a tool of the system
But... I thought I was rebelling against the system... how... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Also, I don't ghostwrite my own anonymous comments. That's just some dude who facialed Chris Hart.
And yeah, what JFF said about the comment I picked on. Claiming there are only two possible outcomes for the trade, which are extreme opposites of each other, is ridiculous. I don't want him to name each and every single possibility. I want him to not sensationalize things by only listing the two most exciting onces.
Also, I don't ghostwrite my own anonymous comments.
So looks like it was larryb's mom chiming in to defend him - after hart's stinging rebuke, maybe she heard her son crying from the basement?
if so, quite a mouth on her... i like it
I was annoyed that Simmons repeated Shaq's line about never playing with a good point guard. I'm may not be a fancy big city lawyer, but I'm pretty sure Penny Hardaway fell under that category. Granted, he was no Steve Nash, but he was still damn good at the time.
I personally am I still amazed that Simmons said in his new "Mass-bag" he could beat the Ombudsman of ESPN at Scrabble. This is so stupid and really deserves no comment about it. He reminds me of a young child who always brags about the cool people his dad knows and or some other anecdote that could not possibly be proven, or at least would be difficult to prove. This pretty much proved to me his ego is incredibly large. If he actually worked in an office, I can see him leaned against the wall in the breakroom with his arms crossed saying, "I will play Scrabble anytime, I would kick everyone's ass. Not this weekend though, I have a wedding in Vegas I have to go to. Oh yeah, two days of boozing and gambling without the missus. That is F-U-N with a double letter score." (Goes up for a high five and everyone leaves)
All he talks about is gambling metaphors, rules, and how is a pretty good gambler and then goes to the World Series of Poker...........and loses out the first day.
Anyone hear his radio appearance with Dave Debransky (available on espn)...pathetic. Dave actually sucks as a host, but Bill was so lame. He said he is "over the super bowl, the pats didn't deserve to win, it was a bastardization of the season, etc." What a cop-out. Just further proves that Boston fans aren't REALLY Pats fans. I give them credit for the Sawx live and die with the team thing, but the Pats were just a convenient way for them to feel good about themselves. They don't really give a crap about them deep down. If they did, this loss would really really sting. No one will remember the Pats over Rams, Eagles and Panthers. But no one will forget Giants 17, Patriots 14.
Dameshek...no idea where I got debransky.
Ben- Can't blame Simmons for losing early at the WSOP. Happens to pros every year. Can blame him for being a cocky douche, though. Le Ann Schreiber would buttfuck him at Scrabble.
Debranksy sounds like Brasky. William Brasky, I believe.
I'm playing in the WSOP this year, I hope to God I get to sit with Simmons.
if you do, don't trash talk him because if we wins you know he'll mention it in his column and compare himself to the Karate Kid or Sylvester Stallone in "Victory"
Sorry Larry---I pulled a Simmons. I know nothing about poker and had the audacity to pretend like I knew the difficulty of the WSOP in the first round. I just assumed since it was the first round it was easy. My dislike for Simmons has finally caused me to speak nonsense.
Josh---i will always remember the Pats over the Panthers...but not in a positive fashion. I do know what you mean though, if he was a true fan he would not be over it so quickly. He would be like me and still talk about how much he wishes his kicker could kick the ball inbounds.
Josh: fantastic point about Bostonians (Massholes) not really being Patriot fans, just a nice convient winning team.. They are a baseball town that became a basketball town because of the greatness of the Cousy, Russell, Celtics.
I just want to randmly say that I would kick Jemel Hill's ass at Connect Four, since we'd never play, it can't be proven wrong.
ben:
"I know nothing about poker and had the audacity to pretend like I knew the difficulty of the WSOP in the first round. I just assumed since it was the first round it was easy."
It's not hard, it's not easy; it's just sort of random. Imagine a playoff setup in any sport where the very best only had about a ten percent advantage over the worst.
There's just too much luck involved for favorites to consistently win. Good card players are good over the long haul -- weeks and months -- but not necessarily for an arbitrary thing over a single day or a few days.
Actually, Jones, that reminds me of baseball.
Post a Comment