Bill Simmons revisits one of the stupidest things he's ever written, somehow makes it even stupider, part 1
I spent quite a bit of time this weekend on this long, meandering, whining post about Justin Upton, home/road splits and park factors. I probably got 75% of the way through it, re-read it, decided it sucked, and didn't publish it. Maybe I will try to rework it and publish it later this week. Long story short, Upton has spent his whole career in a very good hitter's park and has very extreme home/road splits (.250/.325/.406 lifetime on the road). Of course many hitters have significant home/road splits, but those road numbers are flat out shitty. And the reason I wanted to rant about it on this far-reaching platform is that pretty much no one brought this up while he was on the block or after he was traded to Atlanta.
This doesn't bother me in and of itself--it just bothers me because I'm a Rockies fan (yes, I know you don't give a shit), and any time a Rockies hitter is up for a postseason award, or is on the trading block (as Carlos Gonzalez was rumored to be last season), the immediate response from every baseball writer and casual fan in the fucking country is LOL COORZ FIELD THIS GUY ACTUALLY SUX HE WOULD HIT .100 WITH 2 HRS AT SEE LEVEL. And God that just makes me want to commit arson. Especially when a guy like Upton, who hits like an AAAA player anywhere not called Chase Field, is crowned biggest acquisition of the offseason coming off a year in which he accumulated 2 rWAR and OPSed .670 on the road. You can see how turning that into a 2000 word post might get very tedious, and for considering posting a much longer version of this tripe, I am a true shitdick. I apologize for making you read even this much about it. In summary, my life is very difficult and I deserve a medal for getting out of bed every morning.
Anyways, on to something you might actually want to read about.
The Ewing Theory is completely and totally fucking idiotic. It's at or near the top of the list of most idiotic things ever to come from the brain of one of sports media's biggest idiots. For every example of a time when a team lost a star player and then played great the rest of the season/the next season, there are like four hundred examples of teams losing star players and then not being nearly as good the rest of the season/the next season. It's so basic in its stupidity that I feel like I am patronizing you just by explaining what's wrong with it. Nevertheless, it continues to be referenced by Bill and the mouthbreathers who adore him like it's deserving of serious attention and reflection, because Bill and his mouthbreathers have the critical thinking skills of goldfish. And now that the Celtics have played pretty well for nine games after losing Rajon Rondo, he's revisiting his theory in what I can only guess is an attempt to make my brain explode. Game on. (My posting volume is way down lately, not that you noticed or cared. In an effort to jumpstart my blogging, I'll try going after this article in a bunch of smaller pieces. In theory this is part 1 of many.)
When we learned about Rajon Rondo's season-ending injury during ABC's Heat-Celtics game on January 27, every Celtics fan had the same reaction:
We zipped through the seven stages of grief in about 45 minutes, barely noticing that the Celtics were playing better without Rondo.
Could it be?
Basic Cable Rondo gets bored easily. He pads his assist totals just to see if he can.
But National TV Rondo? Sweet Jesus do I love that guy.
Part 2 soon.