tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63000121397410386352024-03-12T18:07:19.098-07:00Fire Jay MariottiA blog dedicated to venting frustration about dumb members of the sports media via angry commentary.
No, we're not the first guys to do this kind of thing. Still, Jay Mariotti and several other prominent members of the national sports media need to lose their jobs. We want to facilitate that process any way we can.
Feel free to direct any pressing questions or comments to any or all of us at firejaymariotti@gmail.com.Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.comBlogger1461125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-41929412266999651742019-04-11T07:00:00.002-07:002019-04-11T07:01:01.823-07:00Food Metaphors RemainA slow day at work and I'm reading about some baseball goofiness--<a href="http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26487604/mlb-inception-wins-baseball-rising-pitcher-swap-matchups">an article by ESPN.com's Sam Miller about position players pitching to pitchers hitting </a>(bizarro world, eh?). It's an amusing article. But the reason I am coming out of blogtirement is because of this paragraph:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #48494a; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 16px;"><b>If real baseball is like a really good salad, then does Hitter Pitching To Pitcher Hitting just resemble a sloppier, lower-quality salad? Or is it a total inversion, a bowl of globby ranch dressing sprinkled with lettuce shreds? Can you eat it?</b></span><br />
<br />
Has anyone ever compared baseball to salad? Is the world so health-conscious now that we choose salads for our metaphors? Can't we just choose baseball-related food metaphors--like WHAT IF YOU PUT THE HOT DOG ON THE KETCHUP WOULDNT THAT BE WEIRD.<br />
<br />
It might be that baseball writers are getting better about obsessing over wins and batting average as the measures of pitchers and hitters, but boy let me tell you this is a food metaphor for the ages.<br />
<br />dan-bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02465285716333091226noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-31381057763192466082017-07-05T19:20:00.000-07:002017-07-05T19:20:50.240-07:00A Little Part of Me is Still an Angry BloggerI know, I'm old, and now I apparently listen to NPR, so that's that. Nobody has posted on this blog in almost two years but I heard something on NPR this morning and it made me want to come here and yell into the void.<br />
<br />
<b>RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>The Major League Baseball season is a grind. It's about six months, 162 games. So now that we're about halfway through, these guys deserve a few days rest, right? They're getting it. Next week, it's the All-Star break, and the brightest stars from the National and American Leagues face off Tuesday night in Miami. This year, the Houston Astros are sending five players to the All-Star Game. That's a lot of players. That's a big deal. It is a historic turnaround.</b><br />
<br />
Is it really historic? I don't know. But this is the least offensive thing. It's going to go downhill from here.<br />
<br />
<b>The Astros have had a terrible record for years. They lost 111 games in 2013 alone. This year, they have turned the tables.</b><br />
<br />
Actually, the Astros haven't had a terrible record since 2014. They were over .500 in 2015 and 2016. So really the tables turned like three years ago. This segment is horribly out of date.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b> They are the top team in baseball with the LA Dodgers on their heels. Now I have to confess, I don't watch a whole lot of baseball, so I called Jessica Mendoza to explain. She is a former Olympic softball player and now a broadcaster for ESPN. And she says the Astros managed to turn those rough years into an advantage. In Major League Baseball, the worst teams get first dibs on bright young players in the draft.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Good thing we have an expert broadcaster here to explain how baseball's draft works like every single other professional team sport in this country.<br />
<br />
<b>JESSICA MENDOZA: So what the Astros were able to do is, because they were bad for so long, they went and got them a Dallas Keuchel, who's their starting pitcher and has been ridiculous - Carlos Correa, who is probably the best young shortstop in a huge fleet of young players that have been stars.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Dallas Keuchel was drafted in the seventh round in 2009, the year after the Astros went...86-75 and finished in the top half of their division. Also, lolz at "their starting pitcher" and "fleet of young players". I get that perfect diction on the radio is hard, but it's her job!<br />
<br />
Well at least she was right about Carlos Correa. But this ain't baseball. Going 1-for-2 when you have plenty of time to prepare is not good enough. All you had to do was look up "George Springer".<br />
<br />
BUT WAIT IT GETS WORSE<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>MARTIN: Switching gears a bit, the All-Star game, as we mentioned, is coming up, and the rosters for that game have been announced. This is, like, the best of the best who play each other. So who were some of the other players - you mentioned a few that you're watching from the Astros - but who are some other players who are having breakout seasons?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Justin Smoak! Jose Ramirez! God bless Zach Cozart! Cody Bellinger!<br />
<br />
Uh oh...<br />
<br />
<b>MENDOZA: Aaron Judge who's on the Yankees.</b><br />
<br />
Oh no.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b> I mean, first of all, he's the biggest player that we've ever seen in the sport. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
No.<br />
Not the tallest (he's a full four inches shorter than Jon Rauch), not the heaviest (Calvin Pickering! Walter Young! Jonathan Broxton! Dmitri Young!). Big? Fine. Biggest player ever? Nope.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>OK? So this guy is 6-foot-7, 280 pounds. </b><br />
<br />
He's not even the biggest guy currently playing on his own team! MTess's cousin is 6-6 3-bills! I would say that's bigger than Judge.<br />
<br />
<b>We have never had someone this size and weigh this much be able to play the game.</b><br />
<br />
Dozens of guys in the past decade have been that size and be able to play the game.<br />
<br />
BUT THE WORST ISN'T OVER<br />
<br />
<b> But what's impressive about him is the fact that he's been able to adjust his swing and change from where he was last year - struggling, not able to make a lot of contact - to now being the most powerful home run hitter we've seen since pretty much Babe Ruth.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
This was the line that set me off. I've heard a lot of dumb things said and seen a lot of dumb things written about sports, and none of them made me mad enough to go back to blogging on this blog that I started blogging on as a 23-year old blogger. I have three kids and am trying to finish my dissertation, keep my job, and move across the country and I am taking my time to blog about this because it's just the worst thing ever.<br />
<br />
Man, it must nice to be a Yankee and be able to play well for half of one &@*&^ season and have broadcasters declare you the second-best power hitter ever. It must be nice to be a broadcaster and roll out of bed, do no research, and say stupid things on national radio.<br />
<br />
They go on to describe how great it is that THIS TIME IT DOESN'T COUNT. But that's just filler talk.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />dan-bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02465285716333091226noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-89553372868260497992015-09-17T20:30:00.000-07:002015-09-18T07:50:45.450-07:00In Which Fire Jay Mariotti Hops into the DeLorean, in More Ways than One<span style="font-family: inherit;">Since reading <a href="http://www.murraychass.com/?p=9371">this little nugget</a> by Murray Chass, I've had to check my calendar several times.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
It's September 17th, 2015.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
2015.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
<i>Moneyball </i>was published exactly 12 years and three months ago. <a href="http://www.firejoemorgan.com/">Fire Joe Morgan</a> has been gone for almost seven years.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
Once again, the year is 2015.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Ready for this headline?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">BATTING AVERAGE JOINS PITCHING WINS IN BASEBALL’S ATTIC</span> </b><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">This is not a "breaking news" item, Murray. This is a thing that has slowly happened as people gradually realized that thinking about stuff is good.</span></span>
<br />
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">A </span><a href="http://http//www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/sports/baseball/mets-yoenis-cespedes-launches-an-unlikely-mvp-candidacy.html?_r=0" style="background-color: white; color: green; line-height: 24px; text-decoration: none;">“Keeping Score” column</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"> in The New York Times last week caught my attention with this start to a sentence: “While batting average may no longer hold much sway…”</span></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It is 2015 and you should not be batting an eyelash at that opening to a sentence. 2015. Eyelash-batting expectation = zero. Your eyelash-batting average is too high.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Written by Benjamin Hoffman, the piece was about Yoenis Cespedes, the New York Mets’ surprising sensation, and his chances of winning the National League most valuable player award.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Curious about that “batting average” phrase, I called Hoffman Tuesday night and asked him about it.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">I don’t know Hoffman, never met him, never had spoken with him. However, simply by taking my call, he showed a lot more class than his superiors in the Times sports department.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Them's fightin' words, Murray. It sounds like you may have an #agenda.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">“I think there’s been a pretty widespread move to emphasize other statistics, with organizations, even with fans,” Hoffman said.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">And with Metrics Monsters. Don’t forget them. </span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Metrics Monsters! Monsters who promote metrics! This is a mutually exclusive group from "organizations" who completely ignore them and fans who have never ever contributed anything to baseball research.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">They concoct new metrics – I don’t like even the sound of that word </span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Murray, are you reading this particular Fire Jay Mariotti article? If so....</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics Metrics <span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Metrics</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">and in their arrogant way expect everyone to accept them as the Ten Commandments of baseball.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Still 2015.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">You know, Thou shalt use WAR to vote for MVP and the Hall of Fame.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">First of all, I think that anyone who blindly ranks players by WAR to vote for something like the MVP is a moron. Second of all, if you do not even consider WAR to vote for MVP, you are an even bigger moron. And third of all, IT'S THE FUCKING YEAR 2015. STOP WITH THIS SHIT.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">What has taken the place of batting average? “People have gone all over the place with it,” Hoffman said, “with some emphasizing on-base, slugging, adjusted figures that account for different parks and eras.”</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">I cannot tell you what magical letters denote those adjusted figures. I don’t want to know what they are. They are meaningless to me.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"Abbreviations confuse me. I don't want to learn things. I don't understand things I don't already know, so those things must be meaningless." Classic Chass.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Baseball has been played for more than 100 years in parks of many different sizes. My parents were great baseball fans. They never gave a second’s thought to the difference between home run distances at Forbes Field and Wrigley Field. No matter where Ralph Kiner hit a home run; it was a home run, and they didn’t care how he compared with Johnny Mize or Hank Sauer.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"Home runs are home runs! My parents, who are somehow older than me, didn't care about park factors. Neither should you!"</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">When Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams played as contemporaries, the Yankees and the Red Sox briefly considered swapping them because Fenway Park and its Green Monster would have benefitted the right-hand hitting DiMaggio while Yankee Stadium with its short right field porch would have been great for Williams.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The players, however, were fan favorites and entrenched where they were, and the teams never made the trade. It didn’t matter. DiMaggio and Williams were two of the greatest players in baseball history, and their playing location didn’t detract from their careers or the fans’ appreciation of them.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For crying out loud, THAT'S what you think of park factors? Listen, DiMaggio and Williams were baseball superhumans. They were going to be awesome at baseball regardless of which major league park they played in. Now, if one of the major league parks had a surface made of quicksand with swarms of locusts so thick that you couldn't see the outfield from the batters box, zombies, wet paint, and speedbumps, then MAYBE Ted Williams would've been more like Wily Mo Pena.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Also: The only baseball park with park factors that affect "fans' appreciation" is Tropicana Field.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Meanwhile, if batting average has lost its sway, you can’t tell from the daily statistics, whether they’re in newspapers, on websites or on lists of league leaders in all MLB press boxes.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Well yeah, it's not like they're just going to stop publishing it overnight. It's not like batting average is meaningless. People understand it. It still means something. This does not mean that it is the best thing to use to evaluate a baseball player.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Batting averages appear in every box score, they are the first category listed in NL and AL leaders, team batting averages are the first column in team statistics and in listings of individual statistics, batting average is listed ahead of on-base and slugging percentages and OPS, which combines on-base and slugging. If and when newspapers run league leaders, batting average leaders are the first listed.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the NBA, "minutes" appears first in every box score.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Why, then, is batting average so prevalent?</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">“I may not believe there is much predictive nature in r.b.i.,” Hoffman said, “but I still look at it.”</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"r.b.i."? But I thought you were talking about.....huh.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The supposed diminished significance of batting average is reminiscent of something I “learned” a couple of years ago when I was told and then read that wins for pitchers no longer mattered and never really did matter.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Metrics Monsters and their allies decided that too many variables and factors entered into pitching’ decisions, and it therefore made no sense to credit a pitcher with a win just because he started a game, lasted at least five innings and his team won the game.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">That's not even the correct criteria for a pitcher win.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Just think. All those years we talked about 20-game winners, and now we had to discard all of that information and those records. It was bad enough when an MLB committee in 1992 defined or redefined what a no-hitter was. I didn’t agree with the committee’s decisions, and I don’t agree with all of this WAR and VORP business, though as a writer friend pointed out the other day we don’t hear much about VORP these days.</span></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"I have no idea what those magical letters mean, nor do I want to, but I'm damn sure I don't agree with them!"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">When the Times created the Keeping Score column, I was a baseball columnist for the paper and I told the sports editor I thought it was a bad idea. It was mostly used to open the paper’s sports pages to statistical nonsense in which most readers had no interest.</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Yeah, readers are far more interested in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/sports/baseball/29chass.html?_r=0">things written by</a> old, out-of-touch people who say stuff like "Heavens to Murgatroyd" and reference current pop-culture icons such as Jimmy Durante, Oliver Hardy, and Stan Laurel. You wrote that column in 2006 for the <i>New York Times</i>. Two of those people died in the 60's. One died in 1980. "Heavens to Murgatroyd". But that stuff isn't "nonsense" to readers. Statistics with weird abbreviations are.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The sports editor didn’t heed my warning and look at the Times sports section now. Soccer has become the sport of the Times. Baseball has become a minor league sport.</span></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Incidentally, the "Baseball" section appears above the "soccer" section <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/pages/sports/index.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=TopBar&module=HPMiniNav&contentCollection=Sports&WT.nav=page">on their website</a>. And we're back on #agenda</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">It has been part of a desperate effort to attract new readers and new advertisers for the paper and its web site. I don’t know if it has succeeded, but it has ruined the sports section for those of us who have been long-time readers.</span></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So, you openly admit that you have no idea whether this new effort was successful. But you are sure that it was desperate, ruined everything, and is generally responsible for world hunger and epidemics. Got it.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The New York Daily News is suffering the same plight. On Wednesday, after the owner had failed in his effort to sell the paper, it dismissed about a third of the sports staff, including the sports editor, Teri Thompson, and the long-time baseball writer, Bill Madden, who is a fellow winner of the J.G. Taylor Spink award from the Baseball Writers Association.</span></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">DAMN YOU VORP!!!! VORP took'r jeerrrrbssss!</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">At the time, the Times’ move reminded me of the Florida Marlins’ slashing their payroll after they won the 1997 World Series. The Times, like the Marlins, was slashing payroll, offering attractive buyouts to induce its highest-paid employees to leave. Just as the Marlins traded away its best players to shed their salaries, the Times willingly let many of its best and most experienced people leave to reduce its payroll.</span></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">All of this because Batting Average is joining Pitching Wins in baseball's attic. I am not sure if you have any clue what the fuck you're talking about anymore, if you ever did.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Contributing to my decision to take the buyout and leave was a series of lies told to me by the then sports editor, Tom Jolly.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">He subsequently was moved to the news side as a night editor. Times people said it was a delayed punishment of his direction a few years earlier of the Times’ aggressive coverage of the Duke University lacrosse scandal, in which three players were accused of sexually assaulting a stripper who had performed at a team party.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The case turned into a fiasco, and the players were subsequently cleared when police determined that the woman had lied.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">My, that seems like Mr. Jolly may have wound up regretting his actions a little bit! I wonder why you are pointing this out?</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Jolly, incidentally, was the sports editor who started the “Keeping Score” column.</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Oh. #agenda.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So new baseball statistics are bad because the guy who wanted to bring them to the <i>New York Times</i> may have made some mistakes while covering the Duke lacrosse scandal. Got it.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">September 17th. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">2015.</span></div>
</div>
Derpsaucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08881690667013390019noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-16872077754347371982015-07-23T19:13:00.000-07:002015-07-23T19:16:17.388-07:00Old Sportswriter Notes One Fact, Makes Insane Generalization<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">I'm sorry, I
know Frank Deford is a crotchety old dude. I know the NPR just hires him for
some color commentary. I know that his segment is called "Sweetness
and Light", so it's not supposed to be serious, but when he says things<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>this stupid</i>, I can't hold back. Here's one of his segments from this spring: <a href="http://www.npr.org/2015/04/15/399595450/as-american-sports-skew-more-armcentric-throwing-injuries-rise">"As American Sports Skew More Arm-Centric, Throwing Injuries Rise"</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">Whatever
happened to rotator cuffs? It seems like just yesterday that every pitcher who
was injured had a problem with his rotator cuff. But baseball player injuries
now invariably require something called "Tommy John surgery," which
has become epidemic.</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">Right, this
is one fact, Tommy John surgery is up. Let's see where we go here.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">The difference
is simple: The rotator cuff involves the shoulder while Tommy John relates to
the elbow, or more precisely, the ulnar collateral ligament. The corrective
surgery, by Dr. Frank Jobe, was first performed 41 years ago on Dodgers pitcher
Tommy John, and for years it remained fairly uncommon. Now, it is downright
commonplace.</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">Ok, so this
is just an extension here. So far so good. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">It is also
indisputable that as more pitchers throw faster — mid-90 mph becoming routine —
the more Tommy John surgeries we encounter. It doesn't require a crack
detective to solve the case: The more pitchers throwing with all their might
for just a few pitches, the more ulnar collateral ligaments that are failing.
Pitchers' arms are becoming like football players' heads. The happy difference
is that you do not need a good arm to keep on living a long normal life the way
you do need an undamaged brain.</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">Wohoo!
Take that, football! You guys all have damaged brains! But even so far
Frank is just ambling along saying nothing interesting. But here we
go:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">But let's
face it: American athletics are armcentric. Not just the pitcher — everybody on
a baseball team has to throw the ball. Football depends more and more on
passing. "What's his arm strength?"<i> </i>the scouts first ask
of quarterbacks. Basketball shots are propelled by strong arms, especially now
with the long 3-point basket in vogue.</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">What? There are so many levels of stupid
here:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">1. First
basemen, offensive tackles, and power forwards basically never throw anything
with one arm. Nothing at all about their games is increasingly
armcentric. In fact, this whole paragraph makes the insane point that
Tommy John surgeries are up, and that must be tied to the increasingly
armcentric wold of sports. It's like Frank Deford hates modernity so
much that he just makes wild generalizations just to show how life is going to
hell in a handbasket.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">2. Were
scouts in previous ages no longer primarily concerned with arm strength?
Do baseball position players throw any more now than they used to?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">3.
What about the statement that "the long 3-point basket in
vogue"?! The NBA adopted the 3 in 1979. That was 36 years ago,
Frank! Where the hell have you been?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">Throwing is
certainly not unnatural, but pitching a baseball overhanded is too abnormal an
action for the human body. In contrast, throwing a softball underhanded is a
pretty smooth motion. A cricket bowler delivers the ball to the batsman in
something of a high loop, without being allowed to break the elbow.</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><br />
Are Tommy John surgeries in cricket bowlers up or something? Who cares?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">It would
seem that pitchers have survived, barely, these past 150 years or so, but now
the added stress — especially for pitchers who started throwing too hard too
young — is just enough to break down too many arms.</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">It would seem that Frank Deford has survived,
barely, these past 150 years or so, but now the added stress - especially for
bitter bloggers who started blogging too hard too young - is just enough to
break down dan-bob's sanity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">Rob Manfred,
is, officially, only the commissioner of professional baseball, but just like
the bumbling NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, Manfred is really the steward of
his game. </span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">Take that, football! Your sport is becoming
inceasingly armcentric and your commissioner is so incompetent that even
150-year old fossils get their digs in!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><br />
Manfred should convene some sort of all-baseball conference to examine this
serious issue. Until then, it appears that baseball simply feels that pitchers
are fungible, that there's always another kid with a temporarily live arm who
can fire it by the hitters.</span><u1:p></u1:p></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">"Fungible"? Put away your
thesaurus, Frank, The whole article sticks in a pretty simple diction,
appropriate for a general audience on the radio, and then Frank drops a totally
unnecessarily fancy word as he moves towards his close. It's the same
thing he did in my last post with "high-falutin'".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">Really,
we've got to do better by our best arms.</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;"><br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 11pt;">National Public Radio really has to do better by
its ordinary listeners.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
dan-bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02465285716333091226noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-50569982581525371882015-07-18T15:17:00.002-07:002015-07-18T15:19:41.465-07:00I'm on a mission now<span style="font-family: inherit;">Posting that last piece about Frank Deford felt good. It felt so good I went to see if he had written any other garbage and boy has he ever. He has so many hot taeks:</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">"Americans Don't Care about Major League Soccer"</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">"Awards for Athletes Should Honor Unsung Heroes"</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Some moral grandstanding about Tom Brady being a cheater</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">"Alex Rodriguez is Back, For Better or Worse"</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">"Outside of the Games, Are Sports Corrupt?"</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">An article that declares the truly groundbreaking idea that America's national pastime is no longer good old baseball but FOOTBALL.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">World Series games start too late!</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">He's the Platonic version of a crotchety-old-man get-off-my-lawn commentator. Honestly if I followed more other sports or had enough bile in me I could just do a weekly feature hating on this guy. Maybe I will, if he keeps setting out to ruin my Wednesday mornings with his terrible radio bits.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Anyways, check out another of his amazing insights: <a href="http://www.npr.org/2015/07/01/418891658/all-star-games-are-worthless-if-the-players-are-not-all-stars">"All Star Games Are Worthless if the Players are not All-Stars".</a> Whooo, boy. Time for Frank Deford to weigh in on this crucial issue of the All Star balloting:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>For those
of you who haven't got your baseball All-Star ballot in, don't panic, you have
until Thursday. It's convenient. You can get a ballot off the Internet, and
here's the good news: You can vote 35 times.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Well, all right, that makes sense. It might have been interesting to note that MLB eliminated paper ballots this year, which seems like it would have been the perfect thing for a crotchety old guy to complain about. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">[English teacher usage geekery alert: Does it make any sense, in this context to get a ballot "off the internet"? The ballot only exists on the internet, it's not like you could download it and send it in. I'm imagining Frank spending twenty minutes trying to print a ballot on his inkjet printer and then mailing it c/o Rob Manfred in New York. But I digress. That was only one preposition.]</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Understand what I'm saying? Each fan can cast 35 votes. Where
that magic figure comes from, I don't know. Why not 3,500 apiece? Or 35,000?</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Well I mean, 35,000 would be silly, Frank. I guess he's right in pointing out that it seems arbitrary, but it's not like this is anything new. Actually, paper balloting would have allowed each fan to vote like a zillion times if they really wanted to<b>.</b></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Anyway, it means that more than half a billion votes will be
cast. Not only that, but, in order to keep the election on the up-and-up,
baseball swears that it tosses out about one out of every five votes. </span></b></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Now this is sort of interesting. I'm intrigued to know that MLB considers 20% of the votes to be fraudulent. Can you tell me something interesting about that, Frank Deford?</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>I can
only guess that vampires and terrorists are denied the franchise.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">ZING! I submit to you, in the 1,481st post, the worst joke in this blog's history.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>So right now –– just to take one example –– Salvador Perez has
11,666,785 votes for catcher. What does that mean? It's like light years or
grains of sand on the beach, just number numbers.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Frank, fan balloting with meaningless final vote totals has been going on for 45 years now. Are you just now understanding it? And secondly, what's with the insult here: somehow, these are "just number numbers". Take that, stats geeks! Either way, Frank, writers like you are idiot idiots.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>But having fans vote is the way leagues like to run All-Star
balloting nowadays, instead of being old-fashioned and letting the choices be
made by people who actually know something, people we dare call experts.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Fan balloting was restored in 1970. That was during the Nixon presidency. Apollo 13 happened that year. You cannot possibly talk about leagues using fan ballots "nowadays". Nor can you also ignore the obvious fact that fans only select the 17 starters and the two Final Vote guys, while the managers and players collectively select 33, and that doesn't count the replacements. Right now the fans pick about a third of the roster.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>You see, when fans vote, it's interactive. It's an interactive
world now. Baseball's rationale is that if you voted your 35 times for Salvador
Perez, interactively, you'll then be on pins and needles to see if he can win.
You're invested in Salvador Perez.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">When Frank was growing up the world was not interactive. It just sat there and you just sat there and nothing happened. You'd wake up the next day and nothing would also happen because the world was not interactive. Thank god the world turned interactive sometime in like 2002 because otherwise we'd still be sitting there in puddles of our own drool.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Plus, wouldn't voters be equally invested in their candidates with the paper ballot? Wouldn't the same basic thing be true of elections in sports, politics, online polls, the 8th grade student council president at Otis P. Snodgrass Junior high in Arkadelphia and also the entire history of human beings? Didn't ancient Greeks and Romans sit out on pins and needles because they were invested in electing the next group of senators or whatever?</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>But actually it's the reverse, because the irony is that if you
want to get fans just plain actively engaged, the fewer decision-makers the
better. Half the fun in the selection of All-Stars — or any award winners — is
being able to castigate the people who made the choices you disagree with as
dimwitted dummies.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">I guess that's true. It's sort of mean spirited, I guess, but given the nature of this blog I will stay safely in my glass house of castigating dimwitted dummies.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="color: #333333;">That's why Simon Cowell on<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; color: #333333; padding: 0in;">American Idol</span></em><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: #333333;"> </span></span></b><span style="color: #333333;"><b>was so good: because he was a loud-mouth, very outer-active
judge you could hate. But when it's just millions of interactive ballots filled
out robotically you've got nobody to vent to and a lot of emotion goes out of
the game before it starts.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #333333;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Are you kidding? Everybody vented about Royals fans for the last two months. Somehow this took the emotion out of the game? That makes no sense. Honestly, the thing that really takes the emotion out of the selection is the fact that there are like eighty players selected which is like more than 10% of the current roster of baseball. Maybe if they cut back on the dead weight we'd have some more tension here. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">But god forbid then we have a tie and no doubt Frank Deford's Church of Old Timey Baseball would hate any repeats of that one year, you know, the All Star Game Which Shall Not Be Named.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #333333;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">It's even worse this year because the good people of Kansas City
have stuffed the ballot box, so instead of an All-Star game, it's going to be
more of a royal pain. </span></b></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Zing! Like the time Prince Charles had a charlie horse!</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>That's the problem when anyone fills out an Internet
ballot, times 35: Fans don't make serious judgments. They just vote for
all-ordinary players on their favorite team.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">What an idiot. Fans have always done this. My own Cincinnati Reds did this famously back in the fifties, essentially ending the fan vote for a dozen years. Internet ballots are no worse than paper ballots. No doubt Frank longs for the glory days of the 1990s when every fan took their vote seriously and the players casually took steroids and Hideki Irabu was a major league pitcher.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Look, All-Star games in every sport are just high-falutin'
exhibitions, but they're good fun. Unfortunately, they're worthless if the
people playing in the All-Star games aren't, well, aren't all-stars.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Maybe a couple of questionable players are elected of the whole 80-man roster, and Frank declares the whole exercise worthless, even as a high-falutin' exhibitions. Ugh.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;">Excuse the following usage/English geekery. If you're not an English teacher nerd like me you may want to stop reading, but honestly, who hyphenates AND adds an apostrophe to "highfalutin"? The word is not an abbreviation for "highfaluting", and it's not hyphenated. You can't just add random punctuation to try and make your words sound less.... highfalutin. You actually have to choose a different word. </span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;">In fact, arbitrary punctuation disasters aside, it's not even the right word! What is so highfalutin about a baseball game? It's not played by Dukes (anymore) or Princes (wait..), the preferred foods are hot dogs and sunflower seeds, and it's really just grown men running around and sliding in the mud. You're not even a good writer, Frank.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #333333;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-stretch: inherit; margin: 0in 0in 14.1pt; max-width: 680px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Well this has been miserable and I hope you're feeling equally miserable that this guy is employed to say things about sports. When I am up to it again I will write up another one of his horrible pieces.</span></span></div>
</div>
dan-bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02465285716333091226noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-29399660736994603012015-07-08T06:54:00.000-07:002015-07-09T07:37:58.439-07:00I haven't posted in six months but this infuriated me so much that I have to take time out of my day to excoriate it<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;">Now that I am all grown up and no
longer the fresh-faced wise-ass I was when I first posted on this blog back
eight years ago, my bitterness has abated somewhat. Now I'm a family guy, two
baby daughters, etc. But every so often something comes along that is so
infuriating that it has basically ruined my morning and forced me to spend the
first half hour of my work day writing a post for the first time in six months.
I know only like six people read this blog but I am convinced that I must
write this in order to expose the banality of evil that is Frank Deford, and
that if even one of you goes home and thinks, "You know, Frank Deford
sucks", then I will have made the world a better place and there will be
some brighter future for humanity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;">Here's the
scene in the dan-bob family van this morning on the way to work. Mrs. dan-bob
is in the backseat dealing with a screaming baby-bob.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b>NPR Host:
Upcoming: a story about statistics and our national pasttime!</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;">dan-bob:
Awesome! [turns up radio over screaming child, tells wife to calm that
kid down already]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b>NPR Host:
Here's our weekly commentary from Frank Deford</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;">dan-bob: Oh
no. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">Frank Deford: Whereas numbers have never been a significant adjunct to
the other performing arts, they've been stitched into the very essence of
sport. Not just the score, but how fast, how far, how good. And, of course, no
sport is so identified with numbers as is our American baseball.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">Here's a little cheat sheet for any of you who want to know if
your commentator is a self-righteous chump like Frank Deford: they use
"sport" in the singular. [Note: you're exempt from this rule if
you're British.]. Besides that, this is some awful
diction: "adjunct"? "stitched"? "our
American baseball"? What the heck other kind of baseball is there?
I hate Frank Deford. Honestly I think I hate him more than I've hated
anyone else on this website. He's like HatGuy on steroids invating my
morning commute and regularly wrecking my Wednesdays.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">In fact, baseball statistics have been around almost as long as
baseball. But stats — which is a fairly new shortcut word, about as old as the
Mets and Astros are — have proliferated recently, not only in other sports,
notably basketball, but to deeper and deeper levels of baseball enlightenment.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;">First, Frank,
in the English language there is actually a word for "shortcut
words". We call them "abbreviations". Second, i<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">s there any reason to note that the abbreviation is as old as the Mets
and Astros? Referencing baseball expansion in the early 1960s makes no
sense to me, unless he's trying to argue that baseball expansion is bad or lazy
or something. But if there were any group of fans out there pining for
pre-expansion sixteen-team all-white baseball, I'd expect Frank Deford to be
their spiritual leader, chanting about the evils of modern baseball and
demanding a return to the pure Church of Baseball.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">Today, traditional statistics like batting or earned run averages —
righteous measures that were accepted as the athletic equivalent of the Ten
Commandments — are made to seem quaint and primitive. Baseball even has its own
specific brand of analytics, which is known as sabermetrics.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">Bible references! Righteous measures! Anyone who would deny
righteous measures like BA and ERA are inherently sinful to the essence of
sport! These are the Ten Commandments of the Frank Deford Church of Old Timey
Baseball!</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">Baseball statistics were further glorified by Michael Lewis in his book <em style="box-sizing: border-box; font-stretch: inherit;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0in;">Moneyball</span></em> and then on film by the heartthrob Brad
Pitt. Imagine on-base percentage being a thing of heartthrob. <em style="box-sizing: border-box; font-stretch: inherit;"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0in;">Moneyball</span></em> posited the fancy that revolutionary
statistical magic had sprung forth from the brain of the Oakland General
Manager Billy Beane, like Athena emerging full-blown from Zeus' head. In fact,
other resourceful innovators had found original uses for stats all through
diamond history.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">Dear God: "posited the fancy"? Someone shoot Frank
Deford with a pellet gun. And the reference to Athena: wait,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>what</i>? I don't see any reason
for the allusion other than trying to overdramatize a nonissue. I'm sure this
is just the pure holy Frank Deford defending his Church of Old Timey Baseball
against the pagan innovations of modern man.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">Plus, at the end of this paragraph, you'd think that Frank is going to
talk about the actual resourceful innovators, but no, this paragraph is just
one of many examples of his disjointed rambling. This essay has no direction,
no organizing principles. It's just the rambling of a bitter old man.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">But now there is an absolute sabermetric explosion. Every team has
employed nerds, who are presumably tucked away in secret offices, with
computers and green eyeshades, emerging only to hand over new numerical strategies.
This has resulted not only in the outward and visible sign of infielders being
shifted all around the diamond like linebackers in football, but even in covert
skulduggery, industrial espionage and power politics.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #f3f3f3; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: inherit;">Oh man. This is the new Cheetos-and-Mountain-Dew-in-the-parents'-basement!
It's the secret-offices-and-green-eyeshades insult! Good lord, this man's
insults are even more dated than his opinions. Someone please put this fossil of a sportswriter in a museum, but not like on display at the museum. Just put him in one of those back storage sheds that never gets opened where he can mildew and canker all he wants without bothering people.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">I also like how Frank blames the sabermetric explosion for defensive
shifts, which any educated baseball fan knows<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Defensive_shift">date to</a> the
1920s, covert skulduggery (which of course was never around before, thank god), industrial
espionage (i.e. when you use someone else's password to log into a website),
and power politics (good thing baseball was apolitical back in the old days!).</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">Last week the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim general manager up and quit
in midseason — something that statistically just doesn't happen — because, it
seems, his manager wouldn't apply enough of the new metrics that his computer
minions were churning out.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">That's hilarious! It "statistically just doesn't happen"
because it is uncommon! I get it! It's a joke! Good thing we have statistics around to identify uncommon things! I wish someone would
glue Frank Deford's mouth shut! </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">But wait! Worse than this front-office insurrection, the federal
government itself may well bring charges against one or more members of the St.
Louis Cardinals staff, nabbed for hacking into the secret files of the Houston
Astros. Hacking! Baseball! Like Russians and Chinese. Oh my.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;">Oh my god!
Like this is somehow worse than all the other terrible things that have
happened in baseball over the years! Some Cardinals folks used the old password
of an Astros guy! THE WORLD IS GOING TO THE DOGS AND THE PURITY OF THE FRANK DEFORD CHURCH OF OLD TIMEY BASEBALL IS FOREVER STAINED. ALL THE RACISM AND STEROIDS AND LABOR
DISPUTES AND THE JUICED BALL DIDN'T DO IT, BUT NOW THE CARDINALS ARE HACKERS, AND THAT'S THE LAST STRAW!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;">"Like the
Russians". It's like we're living in 1960 or something. Frank
Deford is still cheering for the Mazeroski home run and ignoring Mickey
Mantle's alcoholism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">It makes deflating a few footballs look like child's play, and it makes
baseball the darkest statistical art, even more the place for sexy metrics</span></b><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #f3f3f3; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif;">What? Ow. How is this even a concluding sentence? How is this
statistics a "dark art"? What the hell are "sexy
metrics"? THE CHURCH OF OLD TIMEY BASEBALL WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS. FRANK
DEFORD WILL EXORCISE THE DEMONS!</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #f3f3f3; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: inherit;">This wasn't even an essay. It was just rambling about
nothing, with a heavy dose of moral grandstanding. And yet NPR has him on
every Wednesday morning, ostensibly to say something interesting about sports.
I generally enjoy getting my news from NPR in the morning, but if they employ
Frank Deford, it casts serious doubt on the quality of the rest of their
reporting. Imagine if the equivalent of Frank Deford were informing a large number of Americans about something actually important.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #f3f3f3; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #333333; font-family: inherit;">Even Mrs. dan-bob, who only caught snatches of it in between infant
screams, knew enough to remark. "Why did you listen to that? Frank
Deford sucks so much". </span></div>
dan-bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02465285716333091226noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-38602892210523194922015-06-04T10:31:00.002-07:002015-06-04T10:31:58.079-07:00When Mariotti attacks Simmons, everybody loses, part 2 of 2<div>
<br /></div>
Honestly, for an article written by this blog's third most frequently cited moron (and the inspiration for the blog's name for crisesakes), about this blog's most frequently cited moron, this really isn't much to work with here once you get past Jay's own-shit-smelling hatred of bloggers. Let's see what else we can have some fun with.<br /> <br /><b> The network has only itself to blame, enabling Simmons and turning him loose to the point he was uncontrollable. </b><br /><br />Except that the only thing that finally got him shitcanned was his direct and pointed insults towards the NFL, the biggest revenue producer (and probably the most powerful entity) in American sports. It's not like ESPN is looking back at how they enabled and supported Simmons and saying "My God, we should have seen this coming! This was obviously the way this would end!" He picked what is probably the one and only insult target that would get him canned, and even still, it took multiple incidents for ESPN to decide they'd had enough. <br /><br /><b>There is a difference between covering sports with fierce independence — my philosophy — </b><br /><br />Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Go play in traffic, you twatmunch. It's pretty easy to be "independent" when no one will hire you because your own misconduct makes you toxic as fuck. <br /><br /><b>and being a megalomaniacal jackass like Simmons, </b><br /><br />No argument here. <br /><br /><b>who never took a law class </b><br /><br />Jay Mariotti, Esq., here to opine on defamation jurisprudence. Oh wait, never mind, he's just got his head up his own colon as usual. <br /><br /><b>and, thus, didn’t understand why the company suspended him for referring to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell as “a liar.” </b><br /><br />I'm sure he understood. Also, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan">it takes about 90 seconds on Wikipedia</a> to learn that under 1st Amendment caselaw, since Goodell is inarguably a "public figure," Simmons’s remark would only create liability if it 1) was incorrect, which, with a generic insult/accusation like “He’s a liar” is very hard to prove, and 2) was made with "actual knowledge" of the fact that the statement wasn’t true (or "reckless disregard" for the truth, which is inapplicable here since Bill doesn't, like, work in the NFL executive offices and have access to Roger's personal files or whatever). But Simmons (and anyone in America with a brain) legitimately felt that Goodell really WAS a liar. Bill’s mistake wasn’t failing to stay within the boundaries of defamation law. It was publicly insulting a gigantic cash cow that helps make ESPN into a gigantic cash cow. <br /><br /><b>Goodell may have lied about what he knew in the Ray Rice case, but Simmons did not have incontrovertible proof, </b><br /><br />This is not how libel works. At all. ESPECIALLY with public figures. You don’t need “incontrovertible proof” to accuse your fucking neighbor of being a liar. If that were the legal standard (especially for public figures) that would lead to no one ever bringing scandals to light due to fear of owing large sums of money if a court deemed the proof of the scandal to fall short of “incontrovertible.” <br /><br /><b>which means the league could have sued the network for megamillions — </b><br /><br />No. Also, I think you should just say “millions;” Megamillions is the popular multistate biweekly lottery, and really, that’s just good clean fun. <br /><br /><b>and may have done so if ESPN wasn’t a broadcasting bedfellow. </b><br /><br />Yes, they may have sued, but they’d know they didn’t have a case. They’d do it just to rattle ESPN’s cage, because if there’s anything that would make ESPN panic, it would be the possibility of lost profits resulting from a deteriorating relationship with THE SHIELD. <br /><br /><b>Simmons also was unequipped to be editor-in-chief of Grantland.com — his insensitivity was appalling when he approved a piece that unnecessarily outed a transgender person, who, because of the outing, committed suicide. </b><br /><br />Well, I’ll take Jay’s side here. I still can’t believe he can’t find (or perhaps correctly read) a Wikipedia page about libel.<br /> <br /><b> Anyone else would have been fired after the Goodell and transgender mistakes.</b> <br /><br />Probably not, actually. Definitely not the Dr. V putter story, anyways. And he got suspended for the Goodell remarks. A pretty big deal for a guy with his profile. <br /><br /><b>Simmons kept his job both times only because ESPN president John Skipper doesn’t acknowledge his own errors until he must. </b><br /><br />This is true—Jay knows firsthand. He probably waited about five years too long to ban Jay from appearing on Around the Horn. <br /><br /><b>Friday was that day, hours after Simmons had appeared on the radio show of another ESPN pariah, Dan Patrick, with another over-the-top rip job of Goodell. </b><br /><br />There is no such thing as an over-the-top insulting of Goodell. Goodell and his dumb shiteating fat fucking face are immune to hyperbolic vitriol. <br /><br /><b>Simmons destroyed the commissioner because he didn’t immediately announce a suspension in the Tom Brady deflated-balls scandal, and while it’s fair to wonder why Goodell is waiting, his weekend pause doesn’t warrant a nuclear explosion. </b><br /><br />No, it probably doesn’t, but 90% of everything else he does. <br /><br /><b>Clearly, Simmons is immature. </b><br /><br />Time for one of my favorite old gags—post a hilariously moronic comment multiple times because it’s so enjoyable to read. <br /><br /><b>Clearly, Simmons is immature. <br /><br />Clearly, Simmons is immature. <br /><br />Clearly, Simmons is immature. <br /><br />Clearly, Simmons is immature. <br /><br />Clearly, Simmons is immature. </b><br />An excellent point from Jay, <a href="http://firejaymariotti.blogspot.com/2009/03/famous-pitcher-retires-columnist-makes.html">paragon of maturity</a>. <br /><br /><b>Once a fanboy, always a fanboy. </b><br /><br />Once a man who is convinced that Ozzie Guillen is responsible for all the evils of the world, always a man who... that.<br /> <br /><b> I’ve had my squabbles with corporate management. </b><br /><br />OH HAVE YA<br /><br /><b>But my complaints were legitimate — </b><br /><br />/dying <br /><br /><b>a Chicago radio station demanded I sign a sheet of paper that I wouldn’t criticize the Bulls or White Sox, which would have painted me into an ethical corner had I agreed. </b><br /><br />I’m sure that is about 25% of the story, or possibly less, but I do have to agree that working in sports media probably loses a shitload of its appeal once you get muzzled. <br /><br /><b>When I refused, I was fired the day after Christmas. </b><br /><br />If only you could have been fired while eating dinner with your family ON Christmas, via an in-person visit from your boss, like the end of Christmas Vacation except without the boss changing his mind. <br /><br /><b>My bosses at the Chicago Sun-Times had business ties with certain sports owners in town, and when they asked me to soften my opinions about those owners, I said no. </b><br /><br />Partly because of the whole ethics issue, but mostly because Jay is a petulant baby who hates Jerry Reinsdorf like most people hate Hitler. <br /><br /><b>Had Simmons used another description for Goodell, he’d probably still be working at ESPN. </b><br /><br />No, he would not. <br /><br /><b>By calling him a liar, and then challenging the network to reprimand him after doing so, Simmons no longer was fighting a free-speech war. </b><br /><br />Actually, he was, but it was also a war of “which of these relationships is worth more money to ESPN,” and he lost, badly. <br /><br /><b>He was leaving himself vulnerable to a mountainous lawsuit. </b><br /><br />No, you fucking retard. No. And were that the case, the NFL could just sue Bill directly and bleed him dry, but that’s not happening even though the NFL is endlessly insecure and vindictive, because that’s not how libel law works.<br /> <br /><b> Before he works again, the fanboy needs to take a law class or two. </b><br /><br />/still dying <br /><br /><b>The Internet has enabled recklessness by idiot entrepreneurs — such as the assclown at Gawker Media — who think they can publish lies about anyone because it’s difficult for a public figure to win a libel suit against a web publication. </b><br /><br />Wait—what??????? I thought Goodell had an AIRTIGHT case against Simmons! How is Gawker publishing (true) things about Mariotti any different than Simmons saying (true) things about Goodell, then? <br /><br /><b>So the entrepreneurs hire clueless kid losers for $15 a story and order them to drive traffic, resulting in sleazy techniques and wild inaccuracies. </b><br /><br />Hey, much better than paying Jay whatever he made at the Chicago Sun-Times while using sleazy techniques to publish wild inaccuracies. Speaking of wild inaccuracies, Jay needs to take a law class or two. <br /><br /><b>I told a college journalism class </b><div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
shortly before being removed by campus security so the professor could continue their lecture</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>that you’d be better off cleaning sewage plants than working for something called Deadspin.com, </b><br /><br />True from an income standpoint, I’m sure, but those sewage-cleaning plant jobs are probably union and difficult to get unless you know someone. You can probably work for Deadspin, at least on a freelance basis, based solely on your own skills and merit. <br /><br /><b>where you’re being paid less than a janitor to basically pick up garbage and place it on the Internet. Another website, Bleacher Report, has somewhat higher standards yet also pays peanuts to kids who don’t know what they’re doing. Why? Because entrepreneurs think you don’t have to pay for good sportswriting. </b><br /><br />And sadly, as Bleacher Report’s content continues to get less shitty (I know, I know) and Deadspin continues to occasionally publish cool shit alongside all its terrible unfunny shit, they’re right! This is a systemic problem in the journalism industry, driven by supply and demand in both the media and journalism labor markets, and has very little to do with DURR HURR BILL SIMMONS WASN’T ONE OF THE COOL KIDS IN THE PRESS BOX.<br /> <br /><b> The Bleacher Report entrepreneurs, too, are sports fans, making them fanboys much like … Bill Simmons. </b><br /><br />OH MY GOD! CONSPIRACY! ALL THE PIECES FIT! JET FUEL CAN’T MELT STEEL BUILDING SUPPORT BEAMS!<br /> <br /><b> One of America’s best sportswriters, Bob Kravitz, </b><br /><br />Bob Kravitz is a shitty writer with shitty opinions. We should have posted much, much more about him when this blog was still quasi-active. <br /><br /><b>broke the Deflategate story in his new position at an Indianapolis TV station/website. </b><br /><br />Did he? Did he "break" it? Maybe he did (I’m sure he has sources galore in the Colts organization, which, good for him), and guess how many sports fans give a flying cunt about that? This isn’t the 20th century, Jay, when one newspaper might get a scoop and be the place to read about a story while another has no idea about it until the first newspaper publishes. It doesn’t matter how much you hate the internet—it has reduced the value of breaking a story to essentially nothing. Deal with it, or GTFO of the industry and stop bothering people. <br /><br /><b>After the Ted Wells report was issued, Kravitz wrote of unprofessionalism he encountered in the New England media the last few months: </b><br /><br />Well, come on, what do you expect? It’s the Boston media. <br /><br /><b>“The people who disappointed me most were the folks at The [Boston] Globe’s website, Boston.com. They are renowned pom-pom wearers, so it wasn’t a surrpise. </b><br /><br />Typo is [sic], left in because Jay is such a big fan of professionalism. <br /><br /><b>But I was struck at the enthusiasm they displayed while carrying the Patriots’ water. It shocked me that a great newspaper like the Boston Globe would employ such rank amateurs and cheerleaders. Sad.” </b><br /><br />Because it’s not the 20th century, Bob and Jay, and pretty much all newspapers are shit and are desperate for access. They’ll cut their own dicks off to curry favor with popular local teams. I know it’s hard for you fucking dinosaurs to understand that times have changed, but maybe if everyone else seems out of touch, you’re the out of touch ones.<br /> <br /><b> Where did Simmons grow up? Boston. </b><br /><br />HOLY SHIT ANOTHER LEVEL TO THIS WHOLE THING! NO ONE IS SAFE! THE CLOCK STRIKES AT MIDNIGHT! THE ILLUMINATI ARE ABOUT TO TAKE OVER!<br /> <br /><b> From who did younger Boston.com sportswriters learn? Simmons. </b><br /><br />And I’m sure it was only the young Boston.com writers carrying water for the Pats. I’m sure that Dan Shaugnessy, Jackie MacMullan, etc. were NOWHERE near that practice.<br /> <br /><b> Shame on ESPN for empowering Simmons for so many years. </b><br /><br />Oh wow, that’s got to sting. “Shame on you.” Go easy, Jay! <br /><br /><b>ESPN also killed sportswriting when it gave a major platform to a statistics geek, Nate Silver, failing to realize that sport is best covered via the exploration of human emotion, not the joyless crunching of numbers. </b><br /><br />BWAHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA <br /><br />SHUT IT DOWN <br /><br />I DON’T THINK WE NEED TO GO ANY FURTHER</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh wait, yes we do: <br /><br /><b>In the process, the network chased off Rick Reilly, only the greatest sportswriter of his generation </b><br /><br />Rick Reilly couldn’t sportswrite his way through a wet piece of toilet paper. Fuck him and fuck Jay for cheerleading for him. Die, both of you. <br /><br /><b>and someone who broke news responsibly, </b><br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PSwm73lCS4">HEY YOU’RE GONNA SAY I HAD THIS ON TWITTER FIRST, RIGHT???????</a> <br /><br /><b>covered games and press conferences on site, interviewed subjects, understood libel law and carried the profession with savvy. </b><br /><br />/dead <br /><br /><b>Next, ESPN is trying an African-American site with an editor, Jason Whitlock, who isn’t liked by many African-American writers and is more comfortable in a strip joint than in any mentoring position. The site’s marquee hire so far was a white journalist, Mike Wise. </b><br /><br />Come on Jay, don’t half-ass it. Tell us how you really feel. Heat up that taek, it’s a little lukewarm for you.<br /> <br /><b> I appreciated my eight years at ESPN; the TV show was fun, </b><br /><br />I’ll bet he signed a settlement agreement with ESPN that prevents him from saying the show's name. <br /><br /><b>and when I was on, the ratings were much higher and the banter much livelier. </b><br /><br />Kill yourself. <br /><br /><b>But the culture is not conducive to doing one’s best work. It’s a political loony bin where Skipper, like Goodell, can’t maintain consistency in issuing disciplinary punishments. Seems he finally got one right Friday. </b><br /><br />Again, as in the case with Jay, it was a mere five-to-ten years late.<br /> <br /><b> And, no, I would not hire Bill Simmons at this news organization if he applied. Our standards are too high. </b><br /><br />Aw, you mean the San Francisco Examiner, the country’s 58th most important newspaper, wouldn’t hire Bill? Pity. My guess is he lands at Bleacher Report and continues to grab a whole fucking shitload of eyeballs and pageviews.<br /> <br /><b> Jay Mariotti is sports director and lead sports columnist at the San Francisco Examiner. He can be reached at jmariotti@sfexaminer.com. Read his website at jaymariotti.com. </b><br /><br />Never. Never ever ever. </div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-73071773961823038262015-05-26T18:16:00.001-07:002015-05-26T18:17:14.294-07:00When Mariotti attacks Simmons, everybody loses, part 1<br />
I mean, not us, the sports-following public. We all win in the sense that we get to laugh and one stupid asshole with "credentials" picking on another, more popular, stupid asshole without credentials. But Bill and Jay most definitely both lose.<br />
<br />
<b>The Internet has perpetrated too much disarray in the world, </b><br />
<br />
Could have ended the article right here and actually made a decent point. Also, get off his lawn and pull your pants up.<br />
<br />
<b>giving semi-lives to people with no lives </b><br />
<br />
Hopefully this is (besides being an obvious critique of YouTube celebrities, etc.) a veiled shot at the people who have exposed Jay as a violent, woman-hitting asshole.<br />
<br />
<b>and adding too many reckless, unqualified voices to the daily churn. </b><br />
<br />
First use of "qualified" or a synonym or related term: 23 words in. Pay out the winner of your office pool accordingly.<br />
<br />
<b>The sports media business is no different. </b><br />
<br />
Different from what? The internet? The sports media business takes place almost entirely on the internet. Jay of all people should know this, given that his own personal website was the only "outlet" that would hire him for about a six year period there.<br />
<br />
<b>A new century gave rise to sports websites that had to compete against legitimate journalists </b><br />
<br />
Buckle up! Here we go! This sentence is like getting pummeled in the face by a boxer whose gloves say OLD and MEDIA on them.<br />
<br />
<b>who actually broke news responsibly, </b><br />
<br />
I'm so tired of these unprofessional bloggers always breaking news irresponsibly! Why, established media members like Chris Mortensen and Chad Ford and Ken Rosenthal and on and on and on never participate in the race to the bottom that is the effort to get a scoop. Just because the "instant update" nature of the internet has dragged established media like those guys into its game doesn't mean you can go blaming blogs for it. And better yet, this whole article is actually a complaint about Simmons, who hasn't broken a fart's worth of news in his whole career.<br />
<br />
<b>covered games and press conferences on site, </b><br />
<br />
Hahahahahahahahahhahaahahaaahhahahaha<br />
<br />
<b>interviewed subjects, </b><br />
<br />
Nothing like a HARD-HITTING Mike Wilbon interview/ball washing session to really get yourself inside the mind of a professional athlete.<br />
<br />
<b>understood libel/slander law</b><br />
<br />
Subtext: Jay feels as though he has been the victim of libel and slander. Reality: Jay has deserved each and every bad thing anyone has ever written or said about him, even the ones that weren't true.<br />
<br />
<b>and carried the profession with savvy.</b><br />
<br />
Yes. Savvy. <a href="http://cdn1.bloguin.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2011/10/rsz_photo_2.jpg">So much savvy</a>. <br />
<br />
<b>So, to have any chance, many of these new sites went low-brow and hired fans with no training in anything but how to wear a personally customized jersey to an arena, drink three beers and cheer maniacally for one’s team.</b><br />
<br />
Well now you sound like you're just complaining about Simmons and Bleacher Report (They were made for each other, weren't they?), when I really feel like we were building some momentum towards an anti-blogger rant. Disappointing.<br />
<br />
<b>Bill Simmons, for instance.</b><br />
<br />
At least Bill has never (to our knowledge) stalked or assaulted a woman. Good for him. Wait, is that libel? Probably not, since Jay pleaded no contest to charges of both of those in 2011.<br />
<br />
<b>ESPN.com, then a digital embryo in a growing corporate empire, lured the eyeballs of sports fans by hiring one. Simmons had some talent, </b><br />
<br />
Mariotti admitting that Simmons has talent is kind of like a 6 year old admitting that his 8 year old brother is smarter than him.<br />
<br />
<b>spoke the fan language and understood the fan perspective, so the hire was a good one … as a blogging niche. But then ESPN did the inconceivable, unleashing him as a sportswriting monster who decided 6,000-word pieces without a quote — 6,000 words of literary masturbation — were good reads. </b><br />
<br />
Whoa, I have to admit it--all of a sudden Jay is bringing some FIRE. GO JAY GO.<br />
<br />
<b>They were not good reads, </b><br />
<br />
HOW WILL WE LOOK BACK ON THE MOMENT WHERE WE REALIZED THEY WERE NOT GOOD READS 15 YEARS FROM NOW? Also, Jay, you're a <a href="http://firejaymariotti.blogspot.com/search/label/jay%20mariotti">horrific writer</a> yourself. Your masturbatory articles just happen to be shorter than Bill's.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>but at that point, anything with the ESPN stamp of approval seemed to succeed as the network claimed domination of the industry, </b><br />
<br />
I will mock Simmons for a lot of things, but one claim I will never make is that he "only obtained his success because he was piggybacking on ESPN's success" or something like that. He earned all those fans on his own. Most of them are dipshit morons who know nothing about sports and should never be conversed with, but still: he earned them.<br />
<br />
<b>whether it was a revolving all-night cycle of SportsCenter or the quieting of four sportswriters with a mute button on a debate show (I was on that show).</b><br />
<br />
WERE YOU? REMIND US. What a monument to the professionalism and savviness of REAL SPORTSWRITERS that show is.<br />
<br />
<b>Sports fanboys began to read the fanboy sportswriter. Traffic grew. Advertisers bought in. Simmons wrote two masturbatory books, both best-sellers. Suddenly, it didn’t matter if he never broke news and never quoted anyone but himself and his cousin. </b><br />
<br />
All true. Maybe your ire should be directed towards the people who made Bill popular, then, no? The idiocracy of sports fans creates phenomena like Bill. Additionally, it's more than worth pointing out that the only person to blame for Jay's lack of success is Jay.<br />
<br />
<b>ESPN created the original fanboy sportswriter, spawning a generation of fanboy sportswriters who also don’t know how to break news responsibly, interview subjects and cover sports properly.</b><br />
<br />
I know I've used "hahahahahahaha" already a couple of times in this post, but seriously, how else do you respond to this? Jay Mariotti just wrote that sentence. THE Jay Mariotti. July 2, 2006 Jay Mariotti. He thinks today's new media sportswriters are irresponsible, shouldn't matter because they don't have ACCESS, and cover sports improperly. What else do you say to that?<br />
<br />
<b>Friday, ESPN uncreated Simmons, choosing not to renew his contract.</b><br />
<br />
VINDICATION! Maybe they'll hire Jay to fill his shoes!<br />
<br />
<b>At long last, an embarrassing business might have a chance again.</b><br />
<br />
Oh my God. I can't keep going on this tonight. Someone who simultaneously thinks that Bill only got popular because ESPN got popular first, yet is also to blame for all the shittiness that makes ESPN what it is today, should be placed in a spaceship and immediately shot into the sun. Seriously, fuck both of these people.<br />
<br />Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-87410943288651358022015-05-13T10:20:00.000-07:002015-05-13T10:23:19.528-07:00A new lowAt least I think it is. Guess what's on the front page of ESPN.com right now?<br />
<br />
Something related to the New England Patriots Official NFL Football Depressurization Scandal (my snappy nickname for it), which, while incredibly fucking stupid, is at least real, hard, sports news? Surprisingly, nope.<br />
<br />
Something related to the NBA, which uses ESPN as one of its broadcast partners, and is in the midst of a relatively exciting playoffs? Again, surprisingly, nope.<br />
<br />
Something related to MLB, which uses ESPN as one of its broadcast partners? Nope.<br />
<br />
Something related to the UEFA Champions League, which uses ESPN as one of its broadcast partners (outside the United States, anyways) and has a crucial semifinal match today? Nope?<br />
<br />
Something related to the NHL? Well of course not.<br />
<br />
No, here's the front cover story on America's most popular sports website during this exciting time to be a sports fan:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6z7UKwWXQV8/VVOHR9x8mvI/AAAAAAAAATU/ydBlYaeBLQs/s1600/madden.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="255" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6z7UKwWXQV8/VVOHR9x8mvI/AAAAAAAAATU/ydBlYaeBLQs/s400/madden.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Yeah, the more I consider it, the more I'm sure that this constitutes a new low. Die in a fire, ESPN.Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-72750117415011503402015-05-08T08:38:00.000-07:002015-05-08T08:38:11.423-07:00Not sure if...<img src="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OGAu_DeKckI/hqdefault.jpg" /><br />
<br />
<br />
...<a href="http://deadspin.com/report-bill-simmons-is-leaving-espn-1703082844">this is a good or bad thing</a>. In fact, I'm not even sure this will end up being a thing at all--wouldn't surprise me if they came to an 11th hour compromise, since Bill generates clicks and ESPN could give a flying cunt about anything other than clicks (and TV eyeballs). But for now, I'm going to enjoy it. <br />
<br />
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, you fucking jackass.Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-16456927489469971542015-05-06T16:19:00.001-07:002015-05-06T16:19:26.338-07:00NBA WHO SAYS NO Rankings - Part 5 of 5<br />
Alright folks, apologies for the delay(s)(s)(s). We're here. We made it. Everyone huddle together and let's get this over with.<br />
<br />
<b>2. LeBron James</b><br />
<div>
<br />
<b>Let’s have one last round of applause for LeBron’s incredible eight-year run atop the Trade Value list.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>[gif of the stadium groundskeeper from Rudy applauding after Rudy gets into the game]</b><br />
<br />
That's what applause looks like! Simmons is so corny and stupid he can't even properly emulate Buzzfeed. Gifs added to writing like this are supposed to be reaction gifs, not just gifs that say the same thing the words do. THAT AWKWARD MOMENT WHEN LEBRON FALLS OUT OF THE TOP SPOT IN THE TRADE VALUE RANKINGS!<br />
<br />
<b>What happens next? The 30-year-old budding mogul has already logged more than 42,000 career minutes and played more than 1,050 games (including playoffs). </b><br />
<br />
I get that basketball will eventually wear down the human knees (and ankles, hips, wrists, etc.) but let's not obsess over minute or game counts. LeBron has played 35,000 regular season minutes. Plenty of guards have cleared 45,000 for their careers. <br />
<br />
<b>You know what that really means? </b><br />
<br />
IN TEN YEARS WHEN WE LOOK BACK ON LEBRON PASSING THE 42,000 MINUTE MARKER, HOW WILL WE REMEMBER IT?<br />
<br />
<b>Apex LeBron is gone. Here, look.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Seasons 1 through 4 (316 games)</b><br />
<b>41.3 mpg, 26.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 6.4 apg, 46-33-73%, 8.3 FTA, 3.3 TO, 24.2 PER, .181 WS/48</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Seasons 5 through 11 (526 games)</b><br />
<b>38.4 mpg, 28.0 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 7.1 apg, 52-35-76%, 8.7 FTA, 3.3 TO, 30.1 PER, .283 WS/48</b><br />
<br />
Ah, the always crucial (and very telling) "first four seasons as compared to next seven seasons" splits.<br />
<br />
<b>Playoff Career (158 games)</b><br />
<b>42.5 mpg, 28.0 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 6.4 apg, 48-33-76%, 9.7 FTA, 3.4 TO, 27.7 PER, .242 WS/48</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Season 12 (57 games)</b><br />
<b>36.2 mpg, 26.0 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 7.4 apg, 49-35-72%, 8.0 FTA, 4.2 TO, 26.2 PER, .196 WS/48.</b><br />
<br />
So, cool: he's on a new team, with new teammates, and his PER and win shares are down a bit. He's mostly shooting the same as he did during his "apex years" (SEASONS 5 THROUGH 11 WHO SAYS NO) and scoring and dishing at basically the same rates. He's turning the ball over a little more, and rebounding less. That can probably be written off as a result of moving from a team with Wade and Bosh to a team with Kyrie, suddenly mediocre Kevin Love, and Mozgov (to soak up boards). <br />
<br />
<b>The good news: He’s still 85-90 percent as good as that seven-year apex, </b><br />
<br />
NO, EXACTLY 87.5%<br />
<br />
<b>keeping LeBron’s “best player in the league” ceiling the highest of anyone. I just don’t know where this goes. How long can LeBron stay great or even close to great?</b><br />
<br />
He's 30. Let's use our brain noodles and say "Well, on average, most great players stay great at least until they're 35 or so. Therefore, LeBron can probably stay great until he's 35 or so."<br />
<br />
<b>In NBA history, only 35 guys have played more than 875 games and logged more than 34,000 minutes while averaging 35 minutes per game in their first 13 seasons. (Even though LeBron did it in 12, I added an extra year for everyone else because, you know, LeBron is superhuman.) Only 22 guys played more than 120 playoff games in their first 13 seasons while logging more than 5,000 playoff minutes and averaging 35 minutes per game. And only 12 guys cracked both lists: LeBron, Jordan, Wilt, Duncan, Russell, West, Bird, Pippen, Kobe, Hakeem, Malone and Havlicek.</b><br />
<br />
And this goes to show (fart noise).<br />
<br />
<b>Wait a second … that’s a great list! </b><br />
<br />
Oh my gosh he's becoming self-aware! He also still refuses to be edited!<br />
<br />
<b>We just ripped off 12 of the 25 best players ever. Just so I can sleep tonight, let’s include Dirk, Magic, Shaq, and Kareem as well, giving us 16 guys who passed 40,000 minutes (regular season and playoffs combined) in 13 years or less. That’s an insane day-to-day burden for anyone’s body, no matter how great you are. </b><br />
<br />
And now we're going in circles, chasing our tails (classic Klosterman writing technique, by the way) and we're probably going to end up concluding that LeBron is an all-time great, so he'll probably age like other all-time greats.<br />
<br />
<b>You’re talking about three-plus presidential terms of grinding out 80-100 games in eight to nine months (and carrying a huge burden, no less). </b><br />
<br />
Thank you for expressing that length of time in a way that the political nerds who don't follow sports can grasp.<br />
<br />
<b>After passing that benchmark, Kobe (four more first-team All-NBAs and a Finals MVP), Havlicek (second-team All-NBA and a ’76 Finals win), Duncan (two more Finals), Malone (1999’s MVP and two top-15 years after that), Shaq (first-team All-NBA and one more title in his 14th season), Dirk (third-team All-NBA in 2012, relevant even now) and Kareem (who doesn’t count because he was an alien) thrived for at least a little while. Nobody else did.</b><br />
<br />
OK, so 7 of your arbitrarily chosen 16 players continued to be effective. Cool. I'm not even going to look up the post-40,000 minute stats of the other 9 guys, because I'm sure some of them achieved something significant past that point and Bill is just omitting them to prove his thesis of (fart nose).<br />
<br />
<b>But 50,000 combined minutes? That’s the danger number. Kareem passed 50,000 during the 1983-84 season, won the 1985 Finals MVP and remained relevant through ’88 (back-to-back titles), but again, he wasn’t human. Duncan passed that mark last season, then helped San Antonio win 2014’s title. (Of course, he’s also an alien.) </b><br />
<br />
So, Duncan and Kareem don't count for this exercise because they don't count for this exercise. But LeBron won't be like them because he's not like them, or presumably not like them, even though you only really know if you're like those guys until you get to where they were in terms of minutes. This is the level of analysis usually provided by a drunk guy watching TV alone at a sports bar at 2 PM on a weekday. We are learning nothing, other than "playing pro sports tends to get harder as you get older, although certain players decline more suddenly than other players." Which is pretty much (fart noise).<br />
<br />
<b>No non-center remained a star after 50,000 minutes except for Kobe; he passed that mark during the 2012 playoffs, then thrived offensively the following season right until his Achilles snapped in half. These things don’t end well. I think Kobe knew it too. That last season, he could feel his body breaking down and turned into Quint from Jaws: </b><br />
<br />
He grew a mustache and started hunting sharks. Totally agreed. Flawless analogy.<br />
<br />
<b>He started revving his boat’s engine until smoke began pouring out. </b><br />
<br />
Ah yes, so "turning into Quint from Jaws" means "doing this one thing that that character did for like 30 seconds in a 3 hour movie." Even when he's making pop culture references, i.e. doing the one thing he should be best at doing, he's fucking atrocious.<br />
<br />
<b>He knew. He had to know.</b><br />
<br />
Awesome writing. Since you have so much access these days, Mr. Big Shot, why don't you just go ask Kobe to his face? Better yet, ask him if he knew it after the 6 for 24 game in 2010.<br />
<br />
<b>Here’s the point: History says LeBron has two elite seasons left after this one, maybe three. That’s it. And you wondered why he didn’t want to wait around for Andrew Wiggins.</b><br />
<br />
No one wondered that. Literally no one. A lot of people questioned that trade a couple months into the season, when Wiggins showed himself to be NBA-capable already and Love wasn't playing well, but when the Cavs made that trade, literally no one on earth who knows what a basketball looks like said "WHOA! WHY DID THE CAVS JUST DO THAT? IS LEBRON OUT OF HIS MIND?" <br />
<br />
<b>On the other hand … LeBron is only 30 years old. That’s the same age as Scarlett Johansson, Matt Cain, Mandy Moore, Adam Morrison, Katy Perry, Rick Nash and Purple Rain. </b><br />
<br />
So glad you consulted the Wikipedia page for 1984 before writing this. Really brings it home to the reader.<br />
<br />
<b>When Bird turned 30, he was the reigning back-to-back-to-back MVP. When Jordan turned 30, he was four months away from finishing off his first three-peat. When Magic turned 30, he was getting ready for his third MVP season in four years. Doesn’t it seem insane to think that LeBron is passing his prime at THIRTY? Then again, only Kobe crossed 40,000 minutes before turning 31, but it happened over 13 years (not 12 like LeBron), and he didn’t take nearly the same physical night-to-night pounding. So who the heck knows?</b><br />
<br />
Jesus fucking Christ on a fucking tightrope. What did I tell you Bill was going to do here? What did I JUST say was going to be the outcome of all of this? I hate writing this blog.<br />
<br />
<b>Either LeBron will make history, or history will catch up to him. It’s one or the other. </b><br />
<br />
FASCINATING. Go fuck yourself with a ice pick, Simmons. You suck.<br />
<br />
<b>Just know that he’s no longer our most untradable player. For the first time, you can see a finish line for LeBron James. Unlike …</b><br />
<br />
<b>1. Anthony Davis</b><br />
<br />
So, LeBron is almost certainly going to opt out of his current deal this summer and grab a new one (regardless of the Cavs playoff outcome). But Davis can enter free agency in the summer of 2016. I hate to indulge Bill's stupid rules for this stupid exercise, but since we've made it all the way to #1, I will just this once. If back in January, the Cavs called the Pelicans and offered LeBron, with confirmation that LeBron wanted that trade to happen for whatever reason (i.e., he was just as excited about playing in New Orleans as he presumably is playing in Cleveland now, and would be just as likely to sign long term either this summer or next summer), you don't think the Pelicans would take that trade? I don't know, they're a young-ish team, but they're not THAT young. Other than Davis their best players (Jrue Holiday, Tyreke Evans, Ryan Anderson) are all in their mid 20s. To an extent, they're built to win now. I dunno. Food for thought. I hate myself for spending 90 seconds typing this. As Bill would say, let's just move on.<br />
<div>
<br />
<b>In 2007’s Trade Value column, I wrote that “2007 LeBron and 2007 [Dwight] Howard are more untradeable than anyone in the seven-year history of this ‘Trade Value’ column, </b><br />
<br />
WHO SAID NO?<br />
<br />
<b>even surpassing (gulp) 2001 Shaq and 2003 Duncan.” </b><br />
<br />
This whole goddamn thing is so dumb. He's like a little kid playing with Legos and making a Lego town and then arguing with no one about who in Legotown has the best house. It's simpleminded mental masturbation. The fact that this guy's book sold a jillion copies is a fantastic indication of how goddamn pathetic America is.<br />
<br />
<b>Eight years later, you’d have to belatedly cram 2015 Davis into that sentence while crossing your fingers nice and hard. </b><br />
<br />
OH GOD BE SURE TO CROSS YOUR FINGERS! WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG?<br />
<br />
<b>Why? </b><br />
<br />
No reason at all, fuckface.<br />
<br />
<b>Look what happened to the 2007 guys. LeBron has become a four-time MVP, a two-time champ and one of the best 10 players ever. Dwight has made only one Finals and never won an MVP, and started breaking down four years later. </b><br />
<br />
It's like we just learned: sometimes, players age well and sometimes, they don't. Awesome.<br />
<br />
<b>You never know. </b><br />
<br />
It's one or the other. You never know. What do you want, real analysis? Skilled writing? A writer who isn't a self-obsessed prick? Don't be greedy.<br />
<br />
<b>It’s 50-50 once a young star reaches anything-is-possible status. </b><br />
<br />
EXACTLY 50-50<br />
<br />
<b>You need injury luck, you need the right situation, and you need the player to want it. For every Shaq, there’s a Dwight. For every Magic, there’s a Penny. For every Kareem, there’s a Walton. For every Duncan, there’s a C-Webb. For every Kobe, there’s a Derrick Rose.</b><br />
<br />
STRONG TAKE!<br />
<br />
I'm probably not going to make it to the end of this, just FYI. I'm actually getting upset while writing a blog post that like 50 people will read and for which I won't be paid a cent. This is not fun.<br />
<br />
<b>So cross your fingers for the Brow. Nice and hard.</b><br />
<br />
I'm not a Pelicans fan. I'm not a Kentucky fan. I like Davis just fine. But if he did end up like Dwight (or Penny or Walton or whoever), it would matter about as much to me as whether my shit tomorrow morning was pleasant or uncomfortable. Life in the NBA will move on. It always does. I hate it when people (especially sportswriters, the worst people on earth) try to make everyone think they should feel bad because an athlete didn't achieve his maximum potential. (See: Rose's injury struggles, Westbrook's team being too shitty to play in the postseason this year, etc.) GO FUCK YOURSELVES. <br />
<br />
<b>He just turned 22 years old and hasn’t even played 6,500 career minutes yet. </b><br />
<br />
WHY, HE COULD BE AN ALIEN AT SOME POINT IF HE KEEPS THIS UP!<br />
<br />
<b>He’s the best screen-and-roller since Young Robinson. Longer arms than McHale. Freakocious athlete like Hakeem. Light on his feet like Young Duncan. Drains 20-footers like Bosh. Protects the paint like KG. I don’t know what else you’d want. Jordan (24 years old at the time), LeBron (24), T-Mac (23) and Davis (right now) are the only under-25 players to post PERs over 30. He’s also one of three under-25 guys (along with ’90 Robinson and ’74 Bob McAdoo) to average 24 and 10 with 2.5 blocks and 1.0 steals. And if he came along 35 years ago, he’d probably be a senior at Kentucky right now.</b><br />
<br />
Haha, now, that last point is actually pretty awesome to think about. Jesus. I mean, the level of play all across NCAAB would increase, especially at its upper ranks, if nearly all players stayed for four years. But still: imagine 2014-15 Anthony Davis playing in the SEC. That would be hilarious.<br />
<br />
<b>And look, I don’t know how this will play out. </b><br />
<br />
YOU NEVER KNOW. IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER. 50-50. BUY THE BOOK OF BASKETBALL TODAY ON AMAZON.<br />
<br />
<b>But I have been attending NBA games since the 1973-74 season, back when my father carried me as a tiny 4-year-old into Boston Garden and hoped that I would fall in love with the sport. I did. </b><br />
<br />
Boy, I guess you're just as qualified to speculate about unpredictable bullshit as the rest of us then! Please continue!<br />
<br />
<b>Over the next 41 years (and counting), I watched maybe 25 up-and-coming stars who just seemed different from everyone else. Young Durant was all arms and legs, and he weighed about 20 pounds, but he had that crazy release and you just knew something unforgettable would happen with him. Young Hakeem and Young Robinson were Greek gods; they moved at a different speed, and with a different level of coordination, than anyone I had ever seen. Young Duncan had those beautiful feet; he just glided effortlessly wherever he wanted to go.</b><br />
<br />
So, your point is that you have watched great players that everyone knows were great and almost everyone agreed were great at the time be great.<br />
<br />
<b>Young MJ was indescribable; I’m not even going to betray the experience by cramming it into one sentence. </b><br />
<br />
I'm pretty tempted to end the experience of reading any more of these sentences by running in front of a moving tow truck.<br />
<br />
<b>Young Kobe and Young Penny looked like MJ and Magic had cloned themselves just for kicks. Young Shaq was unfair around the basket; you couldn’t keep him away from the rim unless you had a two-by-four. Young Barkley was a bowling ball crossed with a runaway train. Young C-Webb looked like a combination of everything you’d ever liked about every power forward you’d ever liked. Young LeBron looked and played like he was 28 already; he’s the surest thing I have ever seen, a true prodigy in every sense.</b><br />
<br />
So, your point is STILL that you have watched great players that everyone knows were great and almost everyone agreed were great at the time be great.<br />
<br />
<b>So that’s the first stage: the old Gladwell Blink test, </b><br />
<br />
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA there are like 200 more words in this article but I'm going to end it right here. I think that's a great stopping point for us on this brutally painful journey. How can you tell if Anthony Davis is good? Well, first read 250 pages of nothingness by some asshole pop scientist whose ideas are about as original as Bill's. That's stage one.<br />
<br />
I hate Bill Simmons. </div>
</div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-27939919727233291742015-04-21T17:25:00.002-07:002015-04-21T17:26:15.883-07:00NBA WHO SAYS NO Rankings - Part 4 of 5<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Before we get started, let me just remind you that ESPN and its incessant NFL draft coverage can go piss up a rope and die of AIDS. And also OMYGOD as I type this, the NFL schedule is being released. I know everyone is on pins and needles like I am: is my team going to play six divisional games, four games against the NFC division we last played in 2011, four games against the AFC division we last played in 2012, and finally two additional games against the two teams in the other two AFC divisions that finished in the same place in the division that we did last year? There's really no way to tell--I should probably tune into ESPN to watch this big reveal. God, fuck the NFL. Moving on.</div>
<br />
<b>GROUP A: “Completely and Utterly Untouchable”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>5. Russell Westbrook</b><br />
<b>4. James Harden</b><br />
<b>3. Stephen Curry</b><br />
<br />
<b>For the first time in the history of my Sports Guy column, </b><br />
<br />
You're going to provide analysis that isn't self-important, isn't full of idiotic pop culture references, and most of all isn't terrible?<br />
<br />
<b>we’re dusting off the old Dr. Jack Breakdown gimmick and turning it into a threesome. </b><br />
<br />
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo<br />
<br />
<b>I’m gonna throw my Eyes Wide Shut mask on, take a half-Viagra, throw down two glasses of wine and really get into this. </b><br />
<br />
Hey, that's kind of a funny "pop" (term used loosely here) culture reference with the Eyes Wide Shut thing. It's also very self-important and I'm sure it will be terrible, but one out of three isn't bad.<br />
<br />
<b>Please, I implore you, for your own safety, don’t try this at home. I’m a professional. </b><br />
<br />
Go fuck an elephant.<br />
<br />
<b>Anyway …</b><br />
<br />
<b>SALARIES: Harden (signed through 2017-18) and Westbrook (signed through 2016-17) are max guys earning $16 million to $17 million per season … a paltry number in two summers when the NBA salary cap starts taking steroids and HGH, </b><br />
<br />
LIKE KOBE AMIRITE????????????????<br />
<br />
<b>but still. Meanwhile, Golden State has Curry locked down for $10.63 million (this season), $11.37 million (2015-16), and $12.1 million (2016-17). He won’t make as much money over those three years as Marcin Gortat. Anytime someone can make $11 million per year and you feel bad for them, you know they’re a bargain. ADVANTAGE: CURRY.</b><br />
<br />
Curry signed that deal just before the start of the 2012-2013 season. He had been injured for much of the lockout-shortened 2011-2012 season, playing in just 26 games and averaging a paltry 14 and 5. Looks like one of those "it makes sense for both sides" contracts, really, since Curry would have been wise to take some guaranteed money, and the Warriors were paying him, at the very worst, to be a three point specialist. Whelp, guess it worked out for the Warriors. As a Nuggets fan I hate them, but I do love parity and fresh blood in the winner's circle so I wouldn't mind seeing them win a title this year. JUST this year. After that, fuck them. Every important player on that team besides Curry and Bogut is a flaming cuntrag. Also, if they pull it off, it'll be just the fifth title since 1991 (exceptions: that goofy 2004 Pistons team, the 2006 Heat team that had Shaq and Wade and every call in the Finals, THE FAWKIN' 2008 UBUNTUS, and the magical LeBron-defeating 2011 Mavericks) won by a team that didn't have Jordan, Olajuwon, Kobe, LeBron or Duncan. And if Jordan hadn't gone to play baseball (IT WAS A SECRET GAMBLING SUSPENSION WHO SAYS NO????) we might be able to take Olajuwon off that list. The more you know.<br />
<br />
<b>BEST GIMMICK: </b><br />
<br />
Oh yeah, this is crucial. So glad we made it here after hitting all the important categories like "Salaries" and "nothing else." BUT WHICH ONE OF THEM WOULD YOU WANT TO WATCH CASTAWAY WITH? <br />
<br />
<b>Sorry, fellas, you’re not topping Harden’s beard. Greatest NBA facial hair of all time in no particular order: </b><br />
<br />
Oh no you don't, buddy. No cutting corners here. I expect these lists to have a set order upon which any basketball worth a damn would definitely agree.<br />
<br />
<b>Wilt’s goatee; Bird’s wispy almost-mustache; [rest of list deleted]</b><br />
<br />
I'm just going to stop you right there. Thanks so much for your time.<br />
<br />
<b>SHEER AWESOMENESS OF THEIR CONVENTIONAL 2014-15 NUMBERS:Spectacular all the way around. Through Sunday’s games …</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Westbrook 27.5 ppg 8.3 apg 7.2 rpg 2.1 spg 43-30-84% 9.4 FTA 3.7 3FGA</b><br />
<b>Harden 26.9 ppg 7.1 apg 5.8 rpg 1.9 spg 44-38-87% 9.8 FTA 6.7 3FGA</b><br />
<b>Curry 23.6 ppg 7.8 apg 4.4 rpg 2.2 spg 48-42-90% 4.3 FTA 8.0 3FGA</b><br />
<br />
And Westbrook finished even hotter than that. I hate him, he's a dick, I've definitely written here before that he is overrated, but damn. Not sure I am going to ever write that again.<br />
<br />
<b>Some highlights: Westbrook working on the third 27-8-7 with a 30-plus PER in NBA history (the other two: 1989 MJ and 2013 LeBron) … </b><br />
<br />
He ended up just missing, with a 29.1 PER.<br />
<br />
<b>Steph knocking on the door of the 50-40-90 Club while jacking up a staggering EIGHT 3s per game (good luck ever seeing that again) … </b><br />
<br />
Just missed, shooting 48.7% from the floor. But Steve Nash pulled off 50-40-90 twice while shooting between 4 and 5 threes per game. I don't think it's some kind of Cy Young's win total unbreakable record.<br />
<br />
<b>Harden trying to become the first lefty </b><br />
<br />
OK, for fuck's sake, I appreciate that this breakdown category isn't dedicated to something as inane as facial hair, but this isn't baseball. Who gives a flying sloppy fuck about basketball player handedness when it comes to statistical achievements?<br />
<br />
<b>to average 27, 7 and 6 </b><br />
<br />
Just missed--only 5.7 boards.<br />
<br />
<b>while also trying to become the third player (after Kobe Bryant and Gilbert Arenas) to attempt 500 3s AND 750 free throws (the 500/750 Club!) … </b><br />
<br />
He got there easily. Man, that guy gets to the line. I thought there was a chance Curry was close to this as well, but not even. He only attempted 337 FTs.<br />
<br />
<b>did I mention that Westbrook is a guard and he’s averaging eight freaking rebounds per 36 minutes? … my God, look at that Westbrook season!!!!!! Are those numbers real? Can we check the math again? ADVANTAGE: WESTBROOK.</b><br />
<br />
I'm going with Curry, given that he did what he did on a team that had plenty of other good players, while Westbrook, minus Durant and Ibaka for chunks of time, was really the only guy on the Thunder capable of scoring or assisting. But there's probably no wrong answer here. WHAT IF WESTBROOK WAS LEFT HANDED THOUGH, CAN YOU EVEN IMAGE?!?!?!?!!<br />
<br />
<b>SHEER AWESOMENESS OF THEIR ADVANCED 2014-15 NUMBERS: Some of this stuff is bat-shit crazy. Through Sunday’s games</b><br />
<b>…</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Westbrook 29.7 PER 38.4 usage 53.9% TS 6.6 RPM 8.4 WS; .234 WS/48</b><br />
<b>Harden 26.6 PER 30.9 usage 60.8% TS 8.51 RPM 13.2 WS .265 WS/48</b><br />
<b>Curry 27.8 PER 28.7 usage 62.9% TS 8.55 RPM 12.4 WS .286 WS/48</b><br />
<br />
<b>Some highlights: Steph’s WS/48 will be top 20 all time … </b><br />
<br />
He ended at .2881, 19th all time.<br />
<br />
<b>we’ve had only 17 30-plus PER seasons and 86 27-plus PER seasons (and Westbrook is knocking on the door), as well as just three guards who have cracked 30 PER (MJ, Wade and T-Mac) … </b><br />
<br />
Westbrook didn't make it, but Anthony Davis (who finishes at #1 in these rankings, deservedly so) did. Make that eighteen 30+ PER seasons. <br />
<br />
<b>only Kevin Johnson (in 1997) ever averaged 20 points and eight assists with a 63 percent true shooting percentage … </b><br />
<br />
OK, you're starting to really reach now. Also, as the three ball becomes more and more popular and players shoot it better and better, TS% league wide among guards should continue to increase.<br />
<br />
<b>West, Magic, Jordan, Oscar and CP3 are the only guards to ever finish a season with 16 win shares … </b><br />
<br />
Ah, the coveted 16 win share cutoff point. Both Harden and Chris Paul made it this year.<br />
<br />
<b>and if we want to get super-fancy, Harden leads the NBA in points per game on drives and has assisted on more made 3s than anyone … </b><br />
<br />
I think I also wrote on this blog several times back in 2012 that contrary to what Simmons said, the Thunder didn't commit some kind of sin against humanity when they traded Harden. I'm not going to take that back, because in-the-moment analysis is in-the-moment analysis and I stand by the idea that the trade was justifiable at the time, but wow. Harden is really, really good, and the Thunder traded him for really, really nothing.<br />
<br />
<b>and Westbrook’s usage rate is threatening to break 2006 Kobe’s all-time NBA record (not necessarily a positive). </b><br />
<br />
He came up juuuuuuuuuust short, 38.7 to 38.4. That Kobe team made the playoffs, though, which proves something, but I'm really not sure what. So I'll just go ahead and remind you that Simmons is a fucktard.<br />
<br />
<b>I give Curry’s season a slight edge for its unselfish efficiency and efficient unselfishness. SLIGHT ADVANTAGE: CURRY.</b><br />
<br />
Really awesome wordplay there, Kerouac. Knocked that one out of the park.<br />
<br />
<b>MOST MANAGEABLE GLARING WEAKNESS: Golden State hides Curry on D as much as possible, but he’s a better and smarter defender than people realize. (Maybe he’s not Chris Paul on that end, but he’s not Damian Lillard either.) </b><br />
<br />
Ooooooooh. Cold blooded. Lillard had basically the same defensive advanced metrics (defensive rating per 100 possessions and defensive win shares) as Westbrook this year, and was only slightly worse than Curry and Harden.<br />
<br />
<b>Westbrook plays with so much confidence/swagger/ferocity that he can’t stop going into 2006 Kobe mode, especially late in games, which is the best and the worst thing about him. </b><br />
<br />
More top-notch writing from this guy who gets paid to use words to express ideas. Klosterman probably thinks that sentence is nectar from the Gods.<br />
<br />
<b>(I mean, are YOU gonna tell Westbrook not to shoot every time? I didn’t think so.) </b><br />
<br />
Aw snap! In your face, readers!<br />
<br />
<b>And Harden’s night-to-night defense used to be somewhere between “reprehensible” and “he’s trolling us,” but he took enough guff that he actually started trying on both ends this season. Great for the Rockets; terrible for everyone who loved reading 1,200-post NBA Reddit threads centered on GIFs of Harden standing in cement as his man darted by him for a layup. He’s the most well rounded of the three. ADVANTAGE: HARDEN.</b><br />
<br />
Indeed, the metrics bear it out. Harden had more defensive win shares than the other two guys.<br />
<br />
<b>BEST NICKNAME: I enjoy “The Beard” and like “The Splash Brothers” a tiny bit more. </b><br />
<br />
Both of those are terrible, especially since one is a reference to a video game that was most popular ten years ago.<br />
<br />
<b>But you know how you’d never call Liam Neeson “Liam” or “Neeson,” or nickname him, like, “Li” or “The Angry Irishman”? He’s just “Liam Neeson,” right? Same for Russell Westbrook. He’s too cool for a nickname. He’s transcended nicknames.</b><br />
<br />
That's simply untrue. I have heard many commentators and dozens of NBA fans call him "Russ" this season. You're making stuff up again, Bill.<br />
<br />
<b>Damn, I’m at capacity for Liam Neeson references in this column already. ADVANTAGE: WESTBROOK.</b><br />
<br />
You've been at capacity for references to anything other than sports since 2002.<br />
<br />
<b>ONE-MAN-WRECKING-CREWNESS: </b><br />
<br />
Pretty dumb category (not that most of the rest of these aren't).<br />
<br />
<b>Um, Westbrook threw up 40-13-11, 39-14-11, 49-15-10, 30-11-17, 36-11-6 and 48-9-11 just in the past five weeks. Curry and Harden can eviscerate opposing defenses — and have — but only Westbrook makes you feel like you’re watching Lia— whoops, </b><br />
<br />
HIGH FIVE!<br />
<br />
<b>like you’re watching a WWE star sprint into a crowded Royal Rumble ring </b><br />
<br />
Yes, basketball is wrestling is basketball is Taken. Couldn't agree more.<br />
<br />
<b>and immediately start clearing it out. He doesn’t need a nickname, but he might need his own entrance music. ADVANTAGE: WESTBROOK.</b><br />
<br />
Topping off the wrestling motif there, with another wrestling reference. Great stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>BEST QUALITY AS A TEAMMATE: Harden is a famously fun off-the-court guy — the kind of star who seems like he’d stay out with a new teammate until 6 a.m. and, um, show him around. </b><br />
<br />
He's not going to be your friend, Bill. Let it go.<br />
<br />
<b>Westbrook would fight for any teammate or coach on and off the court; he even holds grudges on the level of, Even though Grantland has thrown more love my way than toward Kanye and Drake combined, I’m not appearing on the All-Star Break B.S. Report because Simmons is the asshole who keeps bringing up the Harden trade and saying that Scott Brooks isn’t good enough. (By the way — guilty!)</b><br />
<br />
YOU'RE NOT THE CENTER OF THE FUCKING UNIVERSE YOU NAVEL-GAZING DIPSHIT! JESUS CHRIST ON A FUCKING TRICYCLE<br />
<br />
<b>But Curry is turning into this generation’s Tim Duncan — an unselfish superstar who doesn’t want to be an alpha dog, </b><br />
<br />
I like Curry just fine, and I don't think this is a bad thing to say about him, but he most definitely wants to be an alpha dog.<br />
<br />
<b>pulls for everyone else at all times, </b><br />
<br />
That's what 99% of all pro athletes do. <br />
<br />
<b>has an infectious personality </b><br />
<br />
Duncan has an infectious personality?<br />
<br />
<b>and lacks any semblance of an ego. </b><br />
<br />
Yeah, those walk-away-before-the-ball-reaches-the-rim threes really scream "quiet guy who just wants to get the job done." Again, not that that's a bad thing. If I shot 48% from three, I'd do it too. But what in the holy hell is Bill talking about?<br />
<br />
<b>I loved that he loved Klay Thompson’s 37-point Über–Heat Check quarter more than anyone. </b><br />
<br />
Who, among every player in the NBA, wouldn't have loved that if Thompson was their teammate? What is this garbage?<br />
<br />
<b>He’s the best player on a team with phenomenal chemistry. That matters. SLIGHT ADVANTAGE: CURRY.</b><br />
<br />
Excellent paragraph. Full of sound, fury, and nothingness.<br />
<br />
<b>NIGHT-TO-NIGHT YOUTUBE/GIF/MEME/VINE POTENTIAL: </b><br />
<br />
All of them. Who gives a flying fuck? It's 2015. We all can watch all of their highlights every night. It's not like there's limited space on the internet for them.<br />
<br />
<b>DEFENSE/REBOUNDING/STEALS: Good place to save some words. ADVANTAGE: WESTBROOK.</b><br />
<br />
"Good place to admit that I actually don't know that much about basketball."<br />
<br />
<b>DURABILITY: Here, too. ADVANTAGE: HARDEN.</b><br />
<br />
BUT WHAT ABOUT THEIR GIRLFRIENDS? WHOSE IS HOTTEST? WHY AM I READING THIS IF I DON'T GET TO SEE THEIR PICTURES?<br />
<br />
<b>POPULARITY: </b><br />
<br />
Yahtzee!<br />
<br />
<b>Big year for Curry — not only did he fetch the most All-Star votes, but LeBron’s departure from Miami allowed Golden State to become the NBA’s biggest bandwagon team. If your child is under 10 and searching for a hoops team that not-so-coincidentally might have a chance to win multiple titles, or you’re one of those secretly shady NBA fans-for-hire who drifts around from contender to contender because “I just root for players I like,” or you’re a casual fan who just likes watching dunks and 3s and that’s it, or you grew up in the Bay Area and wore a Warriors hat for 10 minutes when you were 8 years old back in the 1990s, then we have the bandwagon contender just for you! </b><br />
<br />
And there's your one place in the whole column where Bill actually says something funny. Drink it up, people.<br />
<br />
<b>And yes, my daughter jumped on the Warriors bandwagon a few months ago. They’re irresistable. They’re bandwagon catnip. ADVANTAGE: CURRY.</b><br />
<br />
Fuck those GSW fans. They're horrible. Even the long-suffering mainstays. Fuck 'em all.<br />
<br />
<b>MEDIA SAVVY: You’d think Curry would win this in a landslide. </b><br />
<br />
You'd think, wouldn't you? Finally, something fans really need to read more about.<br />
<br />
<b>But what about Westbrook’s tough-love strategy? </b><br />
<br />
YES, WHAT OF IT? THIS IS FASCINATING.<br />
<br />
<b>I kind of dig it. Total dick for a week, goes generic for a week, becomes nice and thoughtful the next week. He’s like the arrogant, hard-to-get ladies’ man in a rom-com who keeps playing the frazzled-but-successful woman in his office who’s way too cute not to have a boyfriend (only she’s all about her work and her home life is a mess). </b><br />
<br />
That's how you think of yourself, isn't it?<br />
<br />
<b>Russell thanked us today! What does this mean? Does he like me? I love Russell Westbrook. </b><br />
<br />
Barf<br />
<br />
<b>If he punched me in the face the next time I saw him, I’d probably justify it by saying, “I probably deserved that.” Wait … don’t actually do that, Russell. SLIGHT ADVANTAGE: WESTBROOK.</b><br />
<br />
No one cares.<br />
<br />
<b>MOST ANNOYING QUALITY: </b><br />
<br />
Tie among all three of them, for being discussed extensively in this article. Done and done.<br />
<br />
<b>BEST “WHAT IF?” BACKSTORY: </b><br />
<br />
WHAT WILL WE THINK ABOUT THESE POTENTIAL BACKSTORIES IN TEN YEARS WHEN THEY HAVE BECOME NON-STORIES? <br />
<br />
<b>Curry almost got traded to the Suns during the 2010 draft; nearly got dealt to Milwaukee for Andrew Bogut; and could have ended up in Minnesota had David Kahn not taken Ricky Rubio and Jonny Flynn over him. Westbrook trumps Curry with the whole “What if OKC never traded James Harden?” question lingering over his entire OKC tenure like a pungent fart on an airplane. </b><br />
<br />
I agree with the very mild intrigue of the Curry stuff. The Westbrook stuff: sorry Bill, but the Harden trade isn't about Westbrook. It's about Harden. Let's see if he can get there...<br />
<br />
<b>And James Harden IS the James Harden from the previous sentence. ADVANTAGE: HARDEN.</b><br />
<br />
He made it! Go Bill go!<br />
<br />
<b>SWAGGER WHILE WALKING DOWN A RUNWAY BEFORE AN ESPN GAME DURING THOSE LUDICROUSLY LONG CAMERA SHOTS THAT </b><br />
<br />
Don't care, we're skipping this category, you're not funny.<br />
<br />
<b>UNIQUENESS FACTOR: Brutal category. </b><br />
<br />
Totally brutal. Oh wait, who gives a fucking runny shit?<br />
<br />
<b>Westbrook is basically Jim Brown 50 years later with basketball shorts on. </b><br />
<br />
Basically like literally OMG that's so what he is I can't even<br />
<br />
<b>And I just compared him to Teen Wolf </b><br />
<br />
Check that spot on your bingo cards, people.<br />
<br />
<b>and a poisoned movie character who uses so much of her brain that she becomes a robot, then turns invisible. </b><br />
<br />
I lost whatever reference he was making in copying and pasting this over to Blogger and removing the formatting--I can't guess it, and don't even want to know.<br />
<br />
<b>Somehow, I have him ranked third. </b><br />
<br />
He's a great athlete, who plays like another great athlete from a while ago, and a fictional great athlete from a bad movie. So unique.<br />
<br />
<b>Curry is the greatest shooter I have ever seen in my life; he’s like Maravich reincarnated crossed with Steve Nash crossed with some sports movie character that hasn’t been invented yet. Somehow, I have him ranked second. </b><br />
<br />
He's a basketball player who is good at shooting basketballs into basketball hoops. So unique.<br />
<br />
<b>And Harden is a true original – I’m half-convinced that Dork Elvis, Goldsberry and Hollinger wanted to see if there could be a superior and much more durable American version of Manu Ginobili, so they created Harden in an MIT lab in 2007 during the first-ever Sloan Conference. A left-handed scorer/creator who cares only about getting to the rim, getting fouled or shooting 3s?</b><br />
<br />
He's just like this other guy who is about ten years older and also plays in the NBA. So unique.<br />
<br />
<b>Important note: </b><br />
<br />
No. Moving on.<br />
<br />
<b>“SEEING THEM IN PERSON” FACTOR: Christ. This one isn’t fair, especially with Westbrook in Jim Brown/Bo Jackson/Young LeBron/Lucymode right now. But I saw Curry in Brooklyn earlier this month, and lemme tell you something: </b><br />
<br />
Hey, let us tell you something: most of us don't just travel around watching basketball as part of our jobs. If we can make it to the arena nearest where we live when the Rockets, Thunder or Warriors are in town: great. If not: we'll watch them on TV like everyone else. You out of touch stereotype of an asshole journalist.<br />
<br />
<b>There is nothing — repeat, nothing — more exciting as an NBA fan right now than being in the house when Steph Curry is feeling it. Bird had the same quality, by the way. </b><br />
<br />
IT AWWWWWWL COMES BACK TO THE FACKIN' C'S! I BET YOU THOUGHT IT WOULDN'T! FACK YOU!<br />
<br />
<b>And these Curry shots are SWISHING. That’s the other thing. </b><br />
<br />
Not as SWISHINGLY as LEGEND'S, but they're still SWISHING.<br />
<br />
<b>When it starts happening, the energy in the building actually shifts and becomes something else. </b><br />
<br />
More exemplary use of the English language. This guy knows how to paint a beautiful piece of shit with words.<br />
<br />
<b>It’s tangible. His teammates rise from their bench. </b><br />
<br />
Something unseen anywhere else in pro sports!<br />
<br />
<b>The fans start buzzing like they’re waiting for a band to make a Coachella entrance or something. </b><br />
<br />
MAYBE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD BUT BILL LIVES IN SOCAL NOW<br />
<br />
<b>Everyone stands because you simply have to stand. </b><br />
<br />
No, everyone stands because it's exciting, which happens all the time in every sport.<br />
<br />
<b>And all the limits of the sport we thought we understood get briefly removed. </b><br />
<br />
Barf<br />
<br />
<b>It’s amazing. Utterly, completely amazing. </b><br />
<br />
Barf barf<br />
<br />
<b>If you have the money and the Warriors are passing through your city, go see Steph Curry. </b><br />
<br />
Oh, you can't see them in person whenever you want? Pity. Perhaps you need a more connected family to get your media career off the ground.<br />
<br />
<b>You want to be there if he starts feeling it. Trust me. </b><br />
<br />
"You wouldn't know from watching on TV, peasant."<br />
<br />
<b>ADVANTAGE: CURRY.</b><br />
<br />
I'm not even finishing this fucking segment of this shitstain of an article. Here are the categories you missed, and the correct picks each:<br />
<br />
<b>NIGHT-TO-NIGHT COMPETITIVENESS: </b><br />
<br />
All of them, regardless of the fact that Westbrook looks meaner than the other two.<br />
<br />
<b>GUY YOU’D MOST WANT FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS: </b><br />
<br />
All of them.<br />
<br />
<b>MOST VALUABLE RIGHT NOW:</b><br />
<br />
Curry, I'd guess, but you can't pick wrong.<br />
<br />
<b>MEANING TO THEIR CITY:</b><br />
<br />
NONE OF THEM, BECAUSE NONE OF THEM PLAY IN BEANTOWN AND THEY-AHFO-AH, NONE OF THEM AHHHH PROPAHLY APPRECIATED! <br />
<br />
I'll wrap it up with LeBron and Anthony Davis in the next post. Seriously, fuck Bill Simmons and fuck anyone who reads him for any reason other than to complain about him.Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-61493673300048349542015-04-09T10:43:00.001-07:002015-04-09T10:43:42.457-07:00NBA WHO SAYS NO Rankings - Part 3<br />
Are you finished feeling guilty for what YOU'VE done to DeMarcus "Boogie" Cousins, America? Have you thought about what you did? Good, now we can move on to two players who I genuinely dislike (one of whom does not belong this high on the list) and one who Bill is GENUINELY WORRIED ABOUT, GUYS.<br />
<br />
<b>8. Blake Griffin</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<div>
<b>Things that concern me in no particular order …</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh wait, Bill is GENUINELY WORRIED about lots of things. He's fretting. His palms are sweaty. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Will NBA fans everywhere finally agree that Griffin is a manbaby hothead who is responsible for about 99% of every on-court scrape/half-fight/actual fight he gets into? WILL PEOPLE STOP BUYING KIAS? OH THE HUMANITY<br />
<br />
<b>A. Why didn’t Blake’s elbow injury submarine the Clippers’ season? </b><br />
<br />
Well, he only missed 15 games. His shooting and rebounding are at career worsts, but his assists are at career highs and his PER is pretty much holding steady. He's a good player. He's not an irreplaceable player. His absence probably cost them a win or two. <br />
<br />
<b>This is a team that gives real, actual, tangible minutes to Hedo Turkoglu, Big Baby Davis and Occasionally Fredo Rivers. They just signed The Artist Formerly Known As Nate Robinson and made him a rotation guy. They were upset when they couldn’t get Tayshaun Prince or Kendrick Perkins. They could sign literally any washed-up former star (Rasheed Wallace, Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas, Shawn Kemp, etc.), play him 12 minutes tomorrow night and you wouldn’t be shocked. And they went 9-6 without one of the league’s best 12 players? Where was the 15-game swoon?</b><br />
<br />
I don't like Griffin's game at all, I think he's overrated, but Jesus's hairy balls, dude. It's not that weird. They have one of the three best PGs in the league, a good coach (even if he can be a total shithead) and an elite rebounder/rim protector. What were they supposed to do, go 0-15 without him?<br />
<br />
<b>B. He’s headed for his third straight Antoine Walker Award, given annually to the NBA star who provokes the highest ongoing level of disdain from opponents and referees. </b><br />
<br />
Herrrrrre we go.<br />
<br />
<b>Look, it’s hard to stand out on the 2014-15 Los Angeles Bitchers — </b><br />
<br />
Horrible, unfunny, corny nickname. (I don't think he's got another "Jackass Central" in him.) But it is most definitely accurate.<br />
<br />
<b>an irascible bunch that spends an unfathomable amount of time griping about calls, stink-eyeing officials, taking hard fouls way too personally and reacting to unexpected whistles by sprinting in short bursts with outstretched arms and their faces contorted in disbelief (or as it’s better known, “The Doc”). </b><br />
<br />
Wow--shocked that he would admit to as much. I guess he's still sour about that time Rivers (rightfully) called him a know-nothing dumbass live during the NBA draft, as well as the fact that Rivers is no longer coaching his beloved C's.<br />
<br />
<b>But Blake has managed to do it. Opponents believe they can get in his head. And they usually do.</b><br />
<br />
Go buy a lottery ticket, everyone. I agree with Bill Simmons about something. (Although I disagree that it's cause for concern about his status/value as a player. I mean, he's a good player who has a short fuse. Plenty of those guys have had successful and productive careers.)<br />
<br />
<b>C. A 6-foot-10 power forward who’s built like a Greek god, plays waaaaay above the rim and once averaged 12 boards a game as a rookie can’t grab eight rebounds a night in his fifth NBA season? That’s an astonishing drop-off, no?</b><br />
<br />
<b>Excuse No. 1: His offensive rebounding fell off (3.3 as a rookie, 2.0 in Year 5) because he shoots more jumpers now.</b><br />
<br />
Love Bill's thinking here: he's grabbing 4.5 fewer rebounds per game than at his rebounding apex. First possible reason: he's grabbing 1.3 fewer offensive rebounds per game. Mystery: solved.<br />
<br />
<b>Excuse No. 2: There aren’t enough available rebounds now that Contract Year DeAndre has become possessed by Wilt Chamberlain’s ghost.</b><br />
<br />
This one is actually pretty legitimate--Jordan is grabbing 15 boards a game. That's nuts. When Griffin was a 12 RPG rookie, Jordan averaged 26 MPG but only grabbed 7.5 boards. It's like they've switched roles, and then some.<br />
<br />
<b>Excuse No. 3: Blake has bigger ambitions; he wants to be more of a playmaker now. That brings us to …</b><br />
<br />
Probably fair, given that he's handing out more than five APG. I don't like the guy, I think he's overrated, I think he's too high on this list (I'd take Cousins over him ten times out of ten), but that's pretty impressive for a guy who also scores 22 a game and plays most of his minutes with Chris Paul.<br />
<br />
<b>D. I voted Blake third for MVP last season and believed he was heading for a decade-long run of 24-and-10 seasons. </b><br />
<br />
Bill's obsession with HOW WILL WE LOOK BACK ON THIS IN X YEARS continues, only now he gets to unsubtly drop in the fact that he has an MVP vote. Go fuck yourself, Bill.<br />
<br />
<b>This generation’s best power forward, basically. Well …</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Mailman (Years 4-10): 28-11-3, 53% FG, 10.2 FTA, 2.5 stocks, 25.1 PER</b><br />
<b>Duncan (Years 4-10): 22-12-3, 51% FG, 7.7 FTA, 3.3 stocks, 25.8 PER</b><br />
<b>Barkley (Years 4-10): 25-12-4, 56% FG, 9.3 FTA, 2.4 stocks, 26.3 PER</b><br />
<b>Dirk (Years 4-10): 25-9-3, 47% FG, 7.1 FTA, 2.1 stocks, 25.5 PER</b><br />
<b>Blake (Year 5): 22-8-5, 50% FG, 6.6 FTA, 1.3 stocks, 22.9 PER</b><br />
<br />
Why are FTAs in there? I'm not saying it's a useless statistic, but the way games are reffed has changed so much over time that I really don't see the point of comparing Malone's and Barkley's numbers with Griffin's. Look, the facts that his PER is materially lower than any of those guys, and his rebounding is disappearing (whether in deference to a teammate or not) are enough to convince me. <br />
<br />
<b>And I had to round up from 7.6 to get to eight rebounds. Shouldn’t he be trending up? Last season, after Blake carried the CP3-less Clips for a month and showed off a better all-around game than we ever imagined, Kirk Goldsberry called him “the most prolific interior scorer in the NBA” and backed up that progress with year-by-year shot charts. </b><br />
<br />
Difficult title to bestow on someone who plays with CP3 (who I also hate, but do not think is overrated). With his post game, his insane vision on the pick and roll, and his ability to space the floor (not to mention frequent punches to opponents' dicks), Paul makes life easier for any big man. With the Hornets he made Tyson Chandler and Emeka Okafor look like legitimate inside scorers. He could probably get 2015 Charles Barkley 15 points a game if Barkley suited up and went back out there.<br />
<br />
<b>This season, Blake wanted to show off his improved jump shot and admitted as much in a piece in The Players’ Tribune </b><br />
<br />
Side note: the Players' Tribune is a great idea. It's also a tire fire in terms of execution. Much like Grantland.<br />
<br />
<b>that contributing editor Blake Griffin headlined, “Why Ain’t He Dunkin?” Kudos to him for spending thousands of hours fixing a once-broken jump shot, but man … we have 100 guys who can make 20-footers. As Goldsberry joked last week, nobody ever watched Blake and said, “Someday, maybe he can become the next David West.”</b><br />
<br />
Well, in theory, a professional athlete should have so much time available for practice that they can work on one skill without having others deteriorate. Maybe the reason Griffin's improved jump shooting has come at the expense of his interior efficiency (and possibly his offensive rebounding) is that he's just not as good as everyone thinks he is.<br />
<br />
<b>Like everyone else, I loved watching Year 4 Blake — the reckless super-athlete with a blossoming inside-outside game who searched for GIFtims (GIF victims) </b><br />
<br />
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO<br />
<br />
<b>every time he careered toward the hoop. But Year 5 Blake? Let’s play America’s hottest game show, “When The Eye Test Meets Advanced Metrics!”</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/blake-griffin-shot-chart.jpg"><img src="https://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/blake-griffin-shot-chart.jpg?w=1024" /></a><br />
<div>
KIRK GOLDSBERRY/GRANTLAND<br />
<br />
Hate to show too much love to Grantland, but those shot charts are fucking cool.<br />
<br />
<b>Goldsberry’s translation: “The good news: He’s finally converting all of those elbow shots at above-average rates. That will help him extend his career. The bad news: He’s gone from ‘great’ to ‘good’ in the paint. Not only is his efficiency down close to the basket, but his usage is way down, too; for the first time in his career, the majority of his shots are jumpers. So he deserves credit for improving as a jump shooter, but he may have already peaked as an interior force.”</b><br />
<br />
Is he afraid of contact? Do hard fouls get to him? Is he getting lazier as he ages? I don't really give a shit, but he's not the #8 trade asset in the league. Especially not when he's getting ~$20 million a year through 2018, and his contract <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/griffbl01.html">includes a 15% raise if he gets traded</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Ideally, you would want to combine Great-In-The-Paint Blake with Above-The-Rim Blake, Crash-The-Boards Blake, Sneaky-Good-Passer Blake and Above-Average Elbow Shooter Blake and create Super-Blake. </b><br />
<br />
America's most popular basketball analyst, and bestselling author of "The Book of Basketball" shares his really interesting thoughts about Blake Griffin.<br />
<br />
<b>(Right now, only Anthony Davis trumps Super-Blake as an all-around “JESUS! HOW DO YOU STOP HIM???” forward.) Will it ever happen? </b><br />
<br />
I mean, it sort of already has happened; he's a really good player who's good for 22 and 8 or so. If he wasn't playing with Jordan it would probably be 24 and 10. Please stop concern trolling about him.<br />
<br />
<b>Should we be concerned that, </b><br />
<br />
Please stop concern trolling.<br />
<br />
<b>during his age-25 season, Griffin’s rebounding, free throw attempts, blocks, steals, in-the-paint numbers and everything else that signifies “I am zipping around like a force of nature!” are drifting the wrong way?</b><br />
<br />
Please stop concern trolling.<br />
<br />
<b>Super-Blake was and is untradable. But Not-As-Reckless-Above-Average-Elbow-Shooter-Who-Can’t-Get-Two-Rebounds-A-Quarter Blake? You tell me.</b><br />
<br />
He's not untradable, other than perhaps from the perspective of the other 29 teams in the league with that 15% escalator. He's still really good. We have learned nothing from Bill's 500 words on Blake Griffin. We're done here.<br />
<br />
<b>7. Chris Paul</b><br />
<br />
Fucking complainy-pants asshole extraordinaire. Unlike Griffin, though, I think he is properly ranked on this list.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>“Teammates lived in perpetual fear of letting him down. Coaches struggled to reach him and ultimately left him alone. </b><br />
<br />
And just like that, Adam Morrison was out of the NBA."<br />
<br />
<b>Referees dreaded calling his games, knowing they couldn’t toss the league’s best player even as he was serenading them with F-bombs. </b><br />
<br />
I wish he were talking about Tim Duncan.<br />
<br />
<b>Fans struggled to connect with a prodigy who had little interest in connecting with them.”</b><br />
<br />
Now he's talking about himself, maybe?<br />
<br />
<b>Did I write that in my NBA book about Chris Paul … or Oscar Robertson? (Checking.) </b><br />
<br />
OK, I'm out of bad "lol he was talking about someone else" jokes.<br />
<br />
<b>Whoops, Oscar. But Chris is really three people: Cliff Paul </b><br />
<br />
Darren Rovell just got half a boner upon reading that Simmons has internalized State Farm's marketing.<br />
<br />
<b>(the bespectacled guy from the State Farm commercials), </b><br />
<br />
Cliff Paul stinks.<br />
<br />
<b>Chris Paul (the media-savvy brand who gives thoughtful interviews, runs the NBPA and always does the right thing) </b><br />
<br />
Again, except when he's taking cheap shots, flopping, or bitching about the correct call.<br />
<br />
<b>and CP3 (the player himself). And you know what CP3 is? An impossible crank, an unforgiving perfectionist, a drill sergeant, a weirdly joyless player who struggles to resonate with teammates and home fans … and someone who plays point guard about as well as that position can be played.</b><br />
<br />
And who has never been past the second round of the playoffs. I hate that kind of criticism in most sports, but in basketball, great players have the ability to carry teams. Paul is exiting his prime. Within a couple of years it'll be pretty much impossible for him to be the best player on a championship contender. But still, fuck, he's pretty good.<br />
<br />
<b>CP3 spent the first half of this season getting into shape (it’s true) while remaining supernaturally efficient; he’d routinely take quarters off and halves off and seemed even grouchier than usual. </b><br />
<br />
For fuck's sake, Bill. You don't know the guy personally. Who the hell knows how he was really feeling?<br />
<br />
<b>When Blake went down, CP3 unleashed holy hell; he has vaulted to that Westbrook/Harden/LeBron/Davis/Curry level for a solid month (and counting) while carrying a limited team. </b><br />
<br />
HE IS A TOP SIX PLAYER, MOST LIKELY EXACTLY SIXTH BEST. NOBODY SAYS ANYTHING BUT YES<br />
<br />
<b>As Doc loves to point out, CP3 actually plays both ends and loves disrupting other point guards; new advanced metrics even back up CP3’s defensive brilliance. </b><br />
<br />
I'm not sure which ones he's referring to, but given his "the sun shines on things because I cast my eyes upon them" attitude, they're probably metrics that have been around for like five years that Bill just discovered. Thus they are brand spanking new.<br />
<br />
<b>(I went to a Grizzlies game a few weeks ago in which he absolutely destroyed Mike Conley, who’s only one of the league’s best 25 players.) </b><br />
<br />
I like Mike Conley, but no he's not.<br />
<br />
<b>And CP3’s pull-up elbow jumper remains the NBA’s best crunch-time weapon. It’s about as sure of a thing as you can get these days.</b><br />
<br />
"These days." What the fuck is he talking about? Is it way harder to get crunch time points now than it was ten or twenty years ago? What?<br />
<br />
<b>And yet … CP3 is also a basketball curmudgeon, someone who dominates the ball in close games to an almost harmful degree. He doesn’t trust anyone else late; he’s like one of those moms who won’t let anyone babysit her kids. </b><br />
<br />
He also plays on a team with little scoring depth and no shooters other than "35 and not aging well" Jamal Crawford and "can't be on the floor continuously during crunch time because he can't guard anyone" JJ Redick.<br />
<br />
<b>His teammates know it, and even worse, his opponents know it. Can you win in the playoffs that way? </b><br />
<br />
Well, he hasn't yet.<br />
<br />
<b>Doesn’t it open the door for what happened in Game 5 of last spring’s OKC series? Can you point to another example of a ball-dominating little guy who also won four straight playoff rounds? </b><br />
<br />
We got it--enough with the fucking non-rhetorical rhetorical questions. Also, how about Isiah Thomas?<br />
<br />
<b>He’s certainly the best pure point guard since Isiah Thomas — another fiery competitor who demanded perfection from everyone around him. But Isiah trusted his teammates way more than CP3 does. </b><br />
<br />
WHO SAYS NO????? Thomas averaged 16 FGA per game for his career. Paul, playing in a higher-scoring era on a very fast team, is averaging 14 this year and for his career.<br />
<br />
<b>If CP3 is more dictatorial, then Isiah was more democratic. </b><br />
<br />
You didn't use either of those words correctly.<br />
<br />
<b>He allowed Dumars and Vinnie to freelance in big spots and never needed the ball late like CP3 often does. </b><br />
<br />
I very much doubt that he "never" needed the ball late.<br />
<br />
<b>You would have loved playing with Isiah. You wouldn’t have loved playing with Oscar. And CP3 is floating somewhere in between those two extremes. It’s crazy that he hasn’t played in a conference finals game yet … but it’s also not that crazy.</b><br />
<br />
Excellent writing. Top notch. When is this guy going to give up on the whole TV/podcast thing and just start cranking out some novels?<br />
<br />
<b>6. Kevin Durant</b></div>
<div>
<br />
<b>I’ll be honest, the broken foot debacle freaks me out.</b><br />
<br />
Crank up the BILL IS WORRIED, GUYS tornado siren.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>A quick recap: KD suffers a Jones fracture in mid-October … everyone spends the next few days writing that it’s a secretly dangerous foot injury and that you CANNOT rush back from it … Durant promises not to rush back, then comes back in six and a half weeks … </b><br />
<br />
Great job providing context to readers as to what would constitute rushing back. Hey look, <a href="http://www.aofas.org/footcaremd/treatments/Pages/Fifth-Metatarsal-Fracture-Surgery.aspx">a Google result</a> that says that for certain types of Jones fractures (of course Bill doesn't tell us which one Durant had, why would he) six to eight weeks is normal recovery time.<br />
<br />
<b>he doesn’t look quite right heading into the All-Star break and plays only 10 minutes in the All-Star Game (uh-oh) … </b><br />
<br />
THAT'S your barometer for "something might be wrong?" Fuck the All-Star Game. Fuck all all star games in all sports.<br />
<br />
<b>right after the All-Star break (February 23), OKC shelves him with a “minor procedure to help him reduce pain and discomfort in his surgically repaired right foot” because of a faulty screw, saying he’ll be reevaluated in a week … and three weeks later, the team announces that he’ll return within “a week or two weeks.” (Sorry, I can’t fight off these 2009 KG flashbacks.) </b><br />
<br />
IT AWWWWL COMES BACK TO THE C'S. IT AWLWAYS DOES!!!!! Too bad those 2009 Celtics couldn't even deal with a Magic team that was Dwight Howard and a bunch of mid-rotation guys, let alone the Cavs or any team that could have come out of the West that year.<br />
<br />
<b>If KD weren’t an incumbent MVP coming off of one of the best offensive seasons in 40 years, I would have panic-dropped him to sixth. </b><br />
<br />
Well, I'm certainly glad you didn't resort to such--<br />
<br />
<b>Oh wait, I just did.</b><br />
<br />
OH SNAP, AMERICA! Truth bombs, falling all over your head! Protect your neck!<br />
<br />
<b>Confession time: </b><br />
<br />
Please no. You self-important twat.<br />
<br />
<b>The thought of a “recovered” KD getting thrown into this late-season playoff push scares the bejesus out of me. </b><br />
<br />
Well, fortunately that's no longer an issue.<br />
<br />
<b>They’re supposed to protect his minutes and his twice-repaired foot when the alternative is “If we miss the playoffs, we’ll take one more giant leap toward becoming one of the most snakebitten almost-dynasties in NBA history”? </b><br />
<br />
They're no snakebitten. They're just dumb. Here's your annual "Bill was right" admission from Larry B: the Harden trade is such a gigantic disaster I don't even know what to compare it to. It's like all the classics--Jeff Bagwell for Larry Andersen, an entire draft for Ricky Williams, Wayne Gretzky for not Wayne Gretzky, etc. But it's worse. Man, Harden is good.<br />
<br />
<b>They’re going to protect his minutes with Serge Ibaka out indefinitely? They’re going to protect his minutes in an up-and-down, testosterone-fueled, run-and-gun Round 1 bloodbath against the Warriors?</b><br />
<br />
They'll be golfing in about a week. Rest easy, Bill. KD will have all summer to recuperate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The storied history of the National Basketball Association </b><br />
<br />
THE NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION OF BASKETBALL TEAMS ON BASKETBALL COURTS<br />
<br />
<b>has taught us a variety of valuable life lessons, ranging from “If you make $100 million, that doesn’t mean you can actually spend $100 million” to “Always use the condoms that YOU brought” to “Don’t ever ask your casino host for a second marker”</b><br />
<br />
Some good mealy-mouthed New England racism in all of those.<br />
<br />
<b>to “Don’t ever marry anyone with the last name Kardashian.” </b><br />
<br />
Are you kidding? Humphries and Odom are doing just fine.<br />
<br />
<b>But this lesson ranks way up there: “If you break anything in your foot, don’t come back until you’re 100 percent healthy, and then wait ANOTHER two to three weeks just to be safe.” Can’t mess around with feet. Can’t. Can’t. Can’t. Not in basketball. </b><br />
<br />
Not in any fucking sport, you moron. Human feet (and knees) are not at all designed for what athletes do to them. We all know this.<br />
<br />
<b>I’m worried.</b><br />
<br />
I don't care.<br />
<br />
More later.</div>
</div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-46038081586641172382015-04-03T12:48:00.002-07:002015-04-08T11:16:22.855-07:00NBA WHO SAYS NO Rankings - Part 2<div>
Deeper down the rabbit hole we go.</div>
<br />
<b>GROUP H: “Stop It, He’s a Young Stud, No Way!”</b><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's got to be a less sexual way to word that.<br />
<br />
<b>30. Bradley Beal<br />29. Jimmy Butler<br />28. Andre Drummond</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Beal is under contract for next season while Butler is not, but boy, there is a very wide gulf between those two guys in terms of ability. Very wide. Granted, Beal is still young after spending just a year in college before being drafted, but he has not improved at all since his good-not-great rookie year. He's still a deadly three point shooter and not much else. The Wizards will have a difficult decision to make with him in two offseasons if he's still just a 15/3/3 guy next season. Meanwhile, Butler has turned into an all star, and does everything better than Beal does besides shoot 3s. I don't think the fact that Beal has another cheap year on his rookie deal really accounts for that.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: We need to find the right teammates for Drummond soon. I’m convinced that SVG traded D.J. Augustin and Kyle Singler for Reggie Jackson as a stealth tanking move. And if he did, congratulations. It worked.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Huh? Jackson is going for 17 and 9 (plus 5 boards) since joining the Pistons. Augustin is somewhere between has-been and never-was. Singler is terrible. I'm getting to this article quite a while after Bill published it--maybe Jackson wasn't meshing with Drummond in his first few games in Detroit. For what it's worth, Drummond is averaging 16 points a game since the trade, compared to 13 before. So as usual it sure as hell sounds like Bill has no fucking idea what he's talking about.<br />
<div>
<br />
<b>GROUP G: “Sorry, Too Many Karmic Implications”</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bill's constant references to karma: more or less obnoxious than Gregggggg's incessant references to the Football Gods?<br />
<br />
<b>27. Tony Parker<br />26. Tim Duncan<br />25. Dwyane Wade<br />24. Dirk Nowitzki</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well hey, lookie there, it just so happens that four veteran superstars with titles who have never changed teams all have EXACTLY the same trade value! Go figure! Actually, I kind of sound dumb making that point since they really DO have the same trade value--their current teams are never going to trade them unless it's at the player's explicit demand. Still though, come on. </div>
<div>
<br />
<b>23. Paul George</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's he doing in this group? I guess Bill was like "He's probably not going to play this season... fuck it, just throw him in with the aging superstar group. WHO SAYS NO?" while talking to a houseplant.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: Parker is starting to look like Parker again. Oh God … oh no …</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Parker has always looked like Parker. He's 32. His points and assists have taken a dip this year, but so have his minutes. I assume in the original rankings he was like "PARKER IS FINISHED--HE'S DONE." And now he's acting like it's some revelation that he's not done. Exact same thing happened with Wade (who is 33) a couple of years ago. Bill has the cognitive capacity of a goldfish. </div>
<div>
<br />
<b>GROUP F: “Hold On, I Have to Finish Guffawing”<br /><br />22. Andrew Wiggins<br />21. Giannis Antetokounmpo<br /><br />UPDATE: I blew it with Wiggins. He’s a top-12 trade asset. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Given who you put in the next group down, sheesh, I have to say you blew it with the Greek Freak (hate that nickname but not going to type out Antetokounmpo more than once) too. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>(Stop looking at me like that.) I don’t know what else to say. (Seriously, stop shaking your head.) We’re moving on. We’re moving forward.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Wiggins, of course, is having a great season. Greek Freak just turned 20 in December, is 6'11" (so he's probably still growing into his frame and learning how to maximize his athleticism) and is good for an efficient 13 and 7. If he were a Celtic, Bill would have put him in the top five. Meanwhile...</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>GROUP E: “Well-Priced Impact Stars”</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At least there's positional, contract, and experience variety here. Lowry, Conley, Horford and Ibaka are all signed at least through 2016 and for roughly $10-$12 million each. That security is nice, and they're all good players, but I would be shocked if more than just a few "win now" teams value each of them over Wiggins (which Bill admits), Greek Freak, Paul George (who's on an expensive deal, but is locked up through 2018) or Jimmy Butler. Meanwhile, Lillard is 1) awesome and 2) locked up on a cheap rookie rookie deal through 2016. Definitely right to have him at the top of this group, but I think he'd go above the guys in the next group too. Leonard is also awesome, but more of a question mark, and he's an RFA this summer meaning he's about to get expensive. I don't think he belongs here at all. But enough of this levelheaded analysis. Let's see what Bill manages to fart out onto his keyboard about these guys.<br />
<br />
<b>20. Mike Conley<br />19. Serge Ibaka<br />18. Kawhi Leonard<br />17. Al Horford<br />16. Kyle Lowry<br />15. Damian Lillard</b><br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: I’m not rattled by having Lowry too high after his January-February offensive swoon. He’s too good. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK. Good for you. Way to show conviction, dumb person who is often wrong (although not here, necessarily).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>I’m mildly rattled by Ibaka’s mysterious knee injury, along with the fact that I wouldn’t let OKC’s medical staff help me with a head cold at this point. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And since that was written, Kevin Durant has started falling apart. Hardly the fault of the OKC training staff, though. Or so I'd think. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Kawhi’s electrifying two-way showdown with LeBron on Thursday made me wonder if I ranked him too low, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As Bill so often says, CONTRACTS MATTER BLAH BLAH BLAH</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>but man, when are those 3s coming back for him? How bad is that mysterious hand injury? This isn’t a normal trend for 3-point shooters: 37.6 percent (2012-14 regular season), 41.6 percent (2012-14 playoffs) … 32.2 percent (2014-15 season). </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Actually, that's really not that weird. The playoff number is great, but even with all the playoff games the Spurs have played while making the Finals two of the last three years, that 41.6% is on fewer than 200 attempts. The 2012-2014 regular season vs. 2014-2015 regular season comparison is more valid, especially since Leonard is also shooting worse on his twos and worse at the line this year. But a dip from 37.6% to 32.2% isn't catastrophic, especially for a stretch 4 type guy who, as Bill knows, might be hurt. Anyways, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth as well as his ass. Suffice to say that Leonard is going to get paid this summer, whether by the Spurs or someone else. But at this year's trade deadline, I'm not sure he'd be an asset on par with a cost controlled Horford or Ibaka.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>San Antonio can’t win four straight playoff rounds and realize their ’69 Celts destiny </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
LIKE I SAID IT AWL COMES BACK TO THE FACKIN' C'S. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>if Kawhi’s 3s don’t come around and defenses start leaving him wide open. It’s true.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thanks for arguing with no one ("It's true, DON'T DENY IT") about something no one fucking cares about ("AHHH THE SPURS AS GOOD AS THE '69 C'S????????"). I'm sure they'll be just fine come playoff time. They only have the best (ageless) PF ever, an elite point guard and the best coach of his generation to back Leonard up. I don't think the difference between Leonard shooting a sub-average but still acceptable percentage on a handful of 3s per game versus him shooting the lights out on a handful of 3s per game is going to make or break them.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>GROUP D: “The Mega Free Agents”</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
THEY ARE EQUALLY VALUABLE! Actually, you know what, after looking at their lines--these two really do probably belong together. They're about the same age, are both UFAs this year (who will probably look for short term deals due to the big salary cap bump that's on the horizon), and they do post pretty similar numbers while kind of sort of playing the same position. Aldridge has the sexier raw stat line, but he also plays for a faster-paced team and doesn't share big man responsibilities with anyone as capable as Z-Bo. Fine. They deserve to be in "Group D" together. Thank you for not calling them "young studs."<br />
<br />
<b>14. LaMarcus Aldridge<br />13. Marc Gasol</b><br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: No regrets. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
NONE! I DID IT ALL BY MYSELF, AMERICA!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Although it’s bizarre that Aldridge (23.3 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 22.3 PER, playing hurt for two-plus months, carrying a possible no. 2 seed) has been left out of the MVP race. It’s almost like the national media ignores Portland or something.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, first of all, fuck you and your own personal biases that cause you to ignore anything in baseball that's not BOS/NYY or relevant to your fucking AL-only keeper league full of zeroes. Second of all, sure, Aldridge is having a nice season, but that PER is only good for 11th in the league. He's not exactly within shouting distance of Davis, Westbrook or Curry, either. But good job kissing babies and winning hearts and minds in RIP CITY. I'm sure you appreciate all the dumbshits from there who will write you emails praising that blurb.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>GROUP C: “No Offense, But I’m Hanging Up”<br /><br />12. John Wall<br />11. Klay Thompson</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here again we have two guys who are almost the same age, with nearly identical contract situations (both locked up for big money through 2019), with similar PERs. But in this case, I think the value comparison falls apart pretty quickly. Whereas Bill overrates Bradley Beal pretty heavily, I think he's probably underrating Wall (or rather, overrating Thompson). Thompson plays on the league's best team, alongside either the best or second best point guard in the league (who creates tons of wide open shots for Thompson every game), with a bunch of other very strong role players/semi-stars who make the team hum like a well-tuned engine. Meanwhile, Wall carries the entire burden on offense for his poorly-coached team of good-not-great overpaid players (Nene, Marcin Gortat) and dinosaurs (Paul Pierce, Andre Miller until the Wizards cut him). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He leads his team in scoring by a good margin while also handing out ten assists per game (second only to CP3 in the league) and grabbing a not-insignificant five boards. He's the only guy on that team that can create his own shot and he plays 36 minutes per game. It's a bit of a weird exercise since it would be chaotic to play Wall alongside Curry, but imagine switching these two guys and I think the Warriors come out way, way, way ahead on the deal. In fact, better exercise--switch Beal and Thompson. I think their numbers probably switch too. Thompson is nothing special. He also looks like he's probably an asshole off the court. There, I said it.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: If I had to do it over again, I’d give Wiggins and Kawhi these two spots and bump Wall and Thompson back a few spots. We’re stuck with those first two parts for eternity. Without further ado, the 10 most untradable players of 2015.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yeah, people are really going to be looking back at these rankings five years from now. You'll rue the day you improperly valued Wiggins in your bullshit rankings until you're in the ground, Simmons. Totally.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>GROUP B: “The Untouchables”</b><br />
<br />
<b>10. Kyrie Irving</b></div>
<div>
<b>Covered in detail in Friday’s 1,900-word “sneak peek” of Part 3. I can’t even pull off a sneak peek correctly.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm impressed you're even able to maintain your job at ESPN without being curb stomped by someone there who has actual knowledge and charisma yet makes 20% of your salary. Don't be too hard on yourself. Also, everyone go read <a href="http://deadspin.com/bill-simmons-is-a-name-dropping-waste-1691345977">this</a> again.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>9. Boogie Cousins</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hard to critique this part since I'm a DeMarcus Cousins fan, for <a href="http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2015/01/30/demarcus-cousins-clay-travis-twitter-arrest">reasons beyond his game</a>. Just kidding! (Not about being a fan, but about this being hard to critique.)</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>In Part 2, I mentioned the smartest non-trades in recent NBA history — </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An easy set of non-events to compile, since we know all of them that have ever occurred, and teams definitely would never leak incorrect information about non-trades in order to further shape the market, affect free agent salaries, placate angry fans, etc.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>including the time Houston dangled Hakeem Olajuwon for a Godfather offer (Steve Smith, Glen Rice AND Rony Seikaly), got turned down, then rejected Miami’s counteroffer (Seikaly, Grant Long and Harold Miner). How on earth was the window ever open to steal one of the NBA’s 12 greatest players ever? Because you are what you’re worth. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Gee Bill, thanks for answering a question no one asked. Let's see. Kareen was traded in his prime. Shaq was traded as he entered his prime. Barkley was traded in his prime. Kevin Garnett was traded at the tail end of his prime. Could the answer to the question be one that every sports fan already knows: "These things fucking happen?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>For the previous five seasons, an increasingly unhappy Hakeem had been stuck playing with so many past-their-primers, never-made-its and never-got-theres that everyone inadvertently forgot that the Dream was unfreakingtradable. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No. Go fuck yourself with scissors. No one "forgot" that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Had the Heat countered with Rice (a top-15 trade asset that summer), Seikaly (averaged 16 and 12 in ’92) and either Miner or multiple no. 1 picks, then the deal would have gotten done </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
WHO SAYS NO</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>and we would’ve had a different champ in 1994 and 1995. Instead, Houston won the ’94 and ’95 titles and Hakeem unleashed one of the NBA’s most iconic three-or-four-year runs of the past 35 years: </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm glad we are evaluating the trade value of DeMarcus Cousins right now.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>the short list includes Jordan from 1989 to 1993 and 1996 to 1998, Bird from 1984 to 1987, Magic from 1987 to 1990, Shaq from 2000 to 2002, LeBron from 2012 to 2014, Hakeem from 1993 to 1995, and Kobe from 2008 to 2010 </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Great. Cool.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>(and probably in that order).</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
THAT ORDER AND ONLY EXACTLY THAT ORDER. NO ONE SAYS NO.<br />
<br />
<b>Maybe 2015 Boogie isn’t 1992 Hakeem, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, thanks for the tangent, then.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>but he is definitely on pace to earn the same level of career-related empathy. In less than five seasons, he’s played for six coaches, two GMs and two super-shaky owners. He lived through consecutive seasons in which the Kings were moving … and then weren’t … and then were … and then weren’t. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Kings had the worst owners in the league (yes, worse than James Dolan). Then those guys sold the team to some other asshole who doesn't know what he's doing. I'd feel worse for their fans if they didn't live in the only part of California that 1) is close to cool shit 2) doesn't have THAT much meth and 3) is not outrageously expensive.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>When I asked him during All-Star Weekend </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I HAVE ACCESS!!!!! EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME MY OPINION MEANS MORE NOW! Bill is really stealing a page from the Peter King playbook there.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>how many starting point guards he’s played with, he couldn’t remember everyone off the top of his head. Maybe he took much-deserved Internet heat for a variety of foolish young-guy mistakes, and maybe he could have been a better teammate at times. (I’m being kind.) </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
More King-isms. SHAME ON YOU, BOOGIE. WHY DO YOU GO BY BOOGIE? THAT'S CHILDISH. I'M GOING TO CALL YOU BOOGIE FROM NOW ON BECAUSE I FIND IT AMUSING.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>But ever since he got himself into terrific shape last year, everyone has HAD to double-team him. I mean …</b><br />
<br />
Boogie, last two seasons (123 games): 33.0 mpg, 23.1 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 48% FG, 25.5 PER<br />
Duncan, ’01-’02 and ’02-’03 (163 games): 39.9 mpg, 24.4 ppg, 12.8 rpg, 51% FG, 27.0 PER<br />
<br />
<b>Maybe he isn’t Apex Duncan, especially in the defense/teammate/leadership/intangibles/getting-thrown-out-of-games-for-wonky-behavior categories, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm glad someone taught you the word "wonky." It should never be used, ever, but if you're going to use it that is not how you do so. <a href="http://firejaymariotti.blogspot.com/2014/10/bills-guide-to-gambling-alternate-title.html">WHICH IS THE WONK TEAM</a>? Remember that horseshit? That was also not a correct usage.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Boogie HAS improved. Did you know his rim protection numbers are slightly better than DeAndre Jordan’s numbers this season? And with the spacing that Boogie creates and the numbers he’s putting up, you could absolutely run a world-class offense around him. Only you can’t … because he’s wasting his pre-prime playing for Jackass Central on a perpetual lottery team in a stacked conference.</b><br />
<br />
Haha. No sarcasm, that last one is a good line. "Jackass Central." That's pretty good. Bill does induce one chuckle from me about every six months or so. HE'S STILL GOT IT!<br />
<br />
<b>So if you were Boogie, what would make you feel good about playing in Sacramento other than the city’s fantastic hoops fans? George Karl? Too soon to say. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yeah, the guy only has like 1,000 wins as an NBA coach, all in mid-sized or small markets. Probably not a good fit in Sacramento.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Ben McLemore? Too soon to say. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't think he belongs on this list. I'd hate to be a guy picked 7th overall in a super thin draft and have someone be like OUR BEST PLAYER IS COUNTING ON YOU. GET IT DONE. That would suck. McLemore left Kansas after just a year, and wasn't even the best fucking player on the team for that one year.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Cap space this summer? Crap, they don’t have it. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Dang, now they don't have a chance to get turned down by Gasol and Aldridge, whose styles of play wouldn't mesh with Cousins's at all, or to overpay Goran Dragic! Nuts!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Their next lottery pick? Crap, it’s headed to Chicago unless Sacramento finishes in the bottom 10. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which they are almost mathematically assured of doing at this point, so, let's not shit our pants just yet.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>This is bleaker than bleak. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No, that is your narrative that you are constructing because Hakeem once almost got traded or something. In fact, watch this: Knicks, Lakers, Nuggets, Pistons, 76ers, Nets, Heat, Thunder (very suddenly on this list), Magic, Timberwolves (even with Wiggins). There's a list of teams with bleaker futures than Sacramento's. Fuck, the Knicks might not be a playoff team again until like 2020. That's hard to do in a league with 16 of 30 teams making the postseason. I'll bet you a shiny nickel the Kings get there before all the teams on that list that aren't in the playoffs already this year (i.e., the teams on that list that are also rebuilding right now).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>My advice to Kings fans: You better keep showering Boogie with love. Because the moment he checks out and says to himself, “I cannot play for these jackasses anymore,” there’s no going back. (And we’re damned close.)</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He's under contract through 2018. They'll be fine.<br />
<br />
<b>Last Boogie note: Check out these names: Wilt, Kareem, Barkley, Pettit, Duncan and Elgin. That’s the complete list of players, along with Boogie, who averaged 23 and 12 with a 25-plus PER in their fourth and fifth NBA seasons combined. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
HOLY SHIT DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS???? It means that when a player is really good, like Cousins is, you can concoct a moderately complex set of criteria and show that only that player a few other all time greats have met all the criteria. Very cool stuff. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Boogie isn’t THAT good. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jesus, whose side are you on, here? I thought we were all in the DEMARCUS (I hate people like Bill who over-embrace nicknames) fan club together. He has a good chance of being every bit as good as Barkley, Kareem and Baylor. The other three, maybe not so much. But still.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>But he’s really, really good. And he’s saddled with Vivek and the Bumbling Vivikettes.</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Forced. Just stick with Jackass Central.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>We’re well past the point of using New Owner Syndrome as a viable excuse. Too much has happened. We wasted five years of Boogie’s career. Next year, we’re probably heading for a sixth. Might be time to get Liam Neeson involved.</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"We" haven't wasted anything. You're not the center of the universe, you cunt. You're not in charge of basketball. You're not in charge of anything other than a vastly overrated "sports" (ok, it's really like 25% sports, but who's counting?) content mill and a shitty TV show that ESPN airs at 4 AM. Just stay in your lane and come up with funny nicknames for dysfunctional franchises. Christ.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
More next week.</div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-31015785367813259252015-03-23T19:25:00.001-07:002015-03-24T07:40:21.911-07:00NBA WHO SAYS NO Rankings - Part 1<br />
First, a fun (not really!) anecdote: on Thursday night I was at a bar that was (of course) showing NCAA tournament games on 59ish of its 60ish TVs. The only exception was one screen over in a corner showing what was on ESPN at the time--a Phillies/Yankees spring training game. No better demonstration of what <a href="http://firejaymariotti.blogspot.com/2015/02/on-espns-programming-decisions.html">ESPN's baseball coverage is all about</a> than their decision to televise a game between two teams that, if things go well, will combine to win 150 games. Anyways, I (partially) focused on this game for about 8 or 9 minutes. That's all the time I needed to see: 1) Ryan Howard make an error trying to field a ground ball that 80% of high school first basemen would make 2) an unearned Yankee run score due to said error, and finally 3) a montage of Derek Jeter moments, likely prompted by the fact that new Yankees SS Didi Gregorious committed the baseball faux pas of coming up to bat while playing Jeter's former position. I really feel bad for Gregoious. If he starts at least 120 games at SS for the Yankees this year and performs at any worse than an All-Star level, someone in the Bronx is going to run onto the field and attack him by mid May. Anyways, fuck ESPN's baseball coverage.<br />
<br />
Now we move to Bill's piece de resistance, his Trade Value column. Not content simply to write like an asshole, this year he also edited/promoted like an asshole as well. I don't need to cover that, 1) because it's hard enough to just critique the flaws with the substance of this piece and 2) because <a href="http://deadspin.com/bill-simmons-is-a-name-dropping-waste-1691345977">Drew Magary did a great job talking about the other stuff last week</a>. It's awesome. Go click that link and read it. If I were to pick the best and most demonstrative line, it would be:<br />
<br />
<b>Bill Walton and Larry Bird changed my too-harsh opinion of Kobe's style…</b><br />
<br />
<b>(Magary) "No way! Two great basketball players told you a great player was great? WHAT A REVELATION."</b><br />
<br />
Really, that just about sums up what Simmons is about at this point. He's a wannabe "hoops nerd" who actually knows little about basketball but hopes that hiring Zach Lowe and having access to NBA greats via his ESPN gig will make his opinions interesting and legitimate. But the opinions are just as idiotic as ever, and now, by flaunting these ESPN-facilitated relationships that would NEVER develop or maintain themselves organically if he were an independent blogger (even a nationally popular one) outside of the ESPNiverse, he's exposed for being a starfucker too. Good on you, Bill. Feel free to <a href="http://deadspin.com/the-sports-guy-vs-espn-how-bill-simmons-lost-bristol-1639533260">quit ESPN and go the fuck away</a> any month now. DIE.<br />
<br />
Anyways, this is actually part 3 of 3 of his trade value column. I'm just going to start here because it's plenty long anyways and I'm blogging at a snail's pace these days. In fact, this whole first post is just going to be the first half of his recap of the previously published rankings from 60 up to 11, and commentary on how things have changed in the time since he made those rankings in January and February. Really makes sense, right? No one enjoys Bill's writing and Bill's thinking and Bill more than Bill, so of course he's going to comment on thoughts he thinks he thought a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
<b>GROUP O: “You’re Just Lowballing Me Because He Expires Soon”</b><br />
<br />
One of the dumbest features of what could (<i>could</i>) be an interesting premise for a column--the fact that conveniently, he ends up ranking guys that all have some relatively unimportant (relatively unimportant in the entire scheme of the player's total trade value, I mean) in common together consecutively in groups. For fuck's sake, he puts Marc Gasol and LaMarcus Aldridge together at 13 and 14 below because they're both unrestricted free agents this offseason. Yeah, they're maybe both top 20 value guys right now, but did you absolutely have to do it that way? To the extent Bill takes this serious (he really, really does) this really takes away whatever legitimacy he was hoping to cultivate.<br />
<br />
<b>60. Brandon Knight</b><br />
<b>59. Greg Monroe</b><br />
<b>58. Paul Millsap</b><br />
<b>57. Draymond Green</b><br />
<b>56. Goran Dragic</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>UPDATE: In February, no. 56 and no. 60 DID get traded … and Dragic fetched a slightly higher price than Knight did. Big win for the 2015 Trade Value column! Don’t get used to it.</b><br />
<br />
Both were dealt in three way deals, but in essence, in exchange for Knight the Bucks got a possibly useful combo guard (Michael Carter-Williams, who should be less of a shooting disaster now that he's not carrying the crappy Sixers around) who has two team option contract years left, a young point guard (Tyler Ennis) who may or may not be anything, and a warm body (Miles Plumlee). Meanwhile, in exchange for Dragic, the Suns got a guy who probably doesn't even qualify as a warm body (Danny Granger or THE CORPSE of Danny Granger lolololol) and first round draft picks in 2017 (top 7 protected) and 2021 (apparently unprotected). <br />
<br />
They're both good players, but Dragic is a better scorer than Knight (for now), so Dragic is definitely the better overall player (for now). But as far as value goes, I feel like Carter-Williams + Ennis >>> a protected first rounder that's 27 months away and an unprotected first rounder that's more than two presidential elections away. Like, that's a pretty clear win for the Bucks, as far as comparing their haul to Phoenix's. Yeah yeah yeah, you've got to stockpile draft choices blah blah blah, but fuck that. A first rounder in 2021? The guy the Suns could potentially take with that pick is probably in like 8th grade right now.<br />
<br />
<b>GROUP N: “I’m Hanging Up and Calling You Back From a Pay Phone”</b><br />
<br />
Why would a GM do this? Because their office phone is tapped? By who? Unfunny, unclever, dumb.<br />
<br />
<b>55. DeMar DeRozan</b><br />
<b>54. Ty Lawson</b><br />
<b>53. Eric Bledsoe</b><br />
<b>52. Kevin Love</b><br />
<br />
Here we have a group of guys who are thankfully not tied together by some unifying thread; Bill just thinks they have relatively equal trade value. But here's another fundamental weakness of this whole thing that ruins its legitimacy from the start. (And again, I get that the whole column is just supposed to be a fun thought exercise. But you Billophiles out there know this to be true: Bill desperately wants to be taken seriously, and the NBA is the sport which he knows the most about.) Love is a stretch four with just one year left on his deal. Bledsoe is a point guard with four years left on his deal. The idea of either getting traded for the other, or either getting traded for draft picks and trying to decide which would fetch more, is so totally dependent on the needs of the other hypothetical teams involved and those teams' willingness to take on long term salary that this list loses all meaning. <br />
<br />
Yes, I know I just a minute ago said it was bullshit that Bill groups together guys who have something in common, and now I'm saying it's bullshit that he groups together guys who have nothing in common. Guess what? This whole dumb column is, in fact, bullshit. If you asked me for a sincere idea for how to make it less bullshitty, after telling you to jump in a wood chipper, I'd suggest that the whole list be just 20 players long. How the hell do we even begin to guess if the Suns would or would not swap Bledsoe for Love? It's pointless. The only fun and meaningful theoreticals of that kind involve superstar level players, not guys like the four listed above.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: Latest odds for Kevin Love’s new home address this fall: Back Bay (-120), Brookline (+200), Beacon Hill (+350), Wellesley (+500), Weston (+500), South End (+700), Charlestown (+2000), Scituate/Hingham/Duxbury (+4000), Revere (+2000000).</b><br />
<br />
KEVIN LOVE!!! NEVAH WAS THEY-AH A TRUE-AH CELTIC. HE'S BEEN PAHHHHT OF OW-UH CITY HIS WHOLE LIFE! IT JUST TOOK HIM UNTIL NAW TO GET HE-AH! <br />
<br />
<b>GROUP M: “I Know, I Know, We’re Being Irrational”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>51. Victor Oladipo</b><br />
<b>50. Alex Len</b><br />
<b>49. Jonas Valanciunas</b><br />
<b>48. Nikola Vucevic</b><br />
<b>47. Jusuf Nurkic</b><br />
<b>46. Nikola Mirotic</b><br />
<b>45. Derrick Favors</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>UPDATE: Oladipo made The Semi-Leap after the All-Star break: 12 games, 20.6 ppg, 4.8 apg, 45-39-83 percent splits, excellent defense and a recent Orlando Sentinel story headlined “Victor Oladipo is learning that success commands opponents’ attention.” </b><br />
<br />
That's not "making the leap." "Making the leap" is a dumbass concept that Bill likes a lot (naturally), when he most commonly applies it to situation like this which would more properly be called "a good month-long stretch by a good player on a bad team." OLADIPO IS ON HIS WAY TO THE HALL OF FAME, READERS. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.<br />
<br />
The following "self-deprecating" sentence is presented without commentary:<br />
<br />
<b>Please add “Oladipo over Bennett and Noel” to my all-time NBA draft win tally, along with “Durant over Oden,” “CP3 over Bogut and Williams,” “Derrick Williams over Kyrie,” “Okafor over Dwight” and “Jabari over Wiggins.” (Fine, I’m batting .500. Whatever.)</b><br />
<br />
What an asshole.<br />
<br />
<b>GROUP L: “Sorry, He’s Worth More to Us Than He’s Worth to You”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>44. The Completely Rejuvenated Pau Gasol</b><br />
<br />
He gets a special nickname because he's white!<br />
<br />
<b>43. Jeff Teague</b><br />
<b>42: Zach Randolph</b><br />
<b>41. Joakim Noah</b><br />
<b>40. Markieff Morris</b><br />
<b>39. Wesley Matthews</b><br />
<b>38. Kyle Korver</b><br />
<br />
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br />
<br />
Korver is a good player signed to a good contract (about $6MM per year for the next two years). Many contenders would be happy to have him; he's obviously the best pure three point shooter in the game right now (he has a shot at finishing the season above 50%) and he's not too much of a liability on defense because of his size. But holy shit--Randolph is also signed for the next two years, at about $10MM per. Teague is signed for the next two years at $8MM per. Noah is signed for next year at $13MM. You're either drunk or mentally challenged if you think Korver has more value than any of those guys, and it's not particularly close.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: Matthews was earmarked for an $80 million to $90 million market max payday before that unfortunate Achilles injury. What a bummer. </b><br />
<br />
Even without that injury, since he was on an expiring deal this year, he's probably the one guy from the above list who maybe actually belonged alongside the likes of Korver.<br />
<br />
<b>If you gave me a do-over, I’d stick Matthews on the Trade Value DL, move Oladipo into this group and give Oladipo’s old spot to Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. Why? Because MKG is destroying people on defense, to the point that he boasted, “I want to be the best defender ever” last week — and nobody laughed. </b><br />
<br />
I'll laugh. He's not even in the top 20 in the NBA right now in defensive rating, which might seem to some like a bullshit fancypants way to judge defense until you see <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015_leaders.html">that the top 5</a> (currently) are Draymond Green, Kawhi Leonard, Tim Duncan, Rudy Gobert and Tony Allen. Or in other words, five guys who all are frequently mentioned as among the best in the league based on the ol' eye test. So yeah, maybe Kidd-Gilchrist is on his way to greatness, but he's a couple plane flights away.<br />
<br />
<b>Kawhi and MKG are in the Finals in any “Which Guy Would You NOT Want Guarding You If You Had To Score A Basket To Save Your Own Life?” contest.</b><br />
<br />
That isn't a contest, and it's a really dumb way of trying to make the point you're trying to make. In any case, Leonard is obviously way better, as are a lot of guys.<br />
<br />
<b>GROUP K: “No Thanks — We Don’t Want Him to Come Back and Haunt Us”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>37. Rudy Gobert</b><br />
<b>36. Jabari Parker</b><br />
<b>35. Joel Embiid</b><br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: I didn’t have the balls to throw Gobert in the low 20s with Giannis and Wiggins. Big mistake. His next 11 games after Part 2 was published: 11.3 ppg, 15.9 rpg, 2.6 bpg, nine wins in 11 games, one Kirk Goldsberry piece titled “Rudy Gobert Is Making Utah an Elite Defensive Team.” Anytime “The French Rejection” and “The Gobert Report” aren’t your best possible nicknames, you know something special is going on. All hail the Stifle Tower!</b><br />
<br />
MICHAEL KIDD-GILCHRIST FOR DEFENSIVE POY!!!! Also, just the fact that you have to account for a guy like Embiid in these rankings makes them not worth writing, or reading. Obviously the guy is untradeable right now. Nothing anyone offered the Sixers would be good enough, and if they shopped him around, every team they offered him to would say that they were asking an insane price.<br />
<br />
<b>GROUP J: “Don’t Tell Anyone, and I’ll Deny It to the Death, But I’m Listening”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>34. Carmelo Anthony</b><br />
<br />
HAHAHAHAHA again. Simmons went into greater detail about how fucked Carmelo and the Knicks are in the full version of part 2 of these rankings, but he (Simmons) still refused to recant his position that you can "absolutely" win a title if Carmelo is your best player. Really, if I had to pick one piece of evidence that he's a fucking moron when it comes to the NBA, I might settle on that one.<br />
<br />
<b>33. Chris Bosh</b><br />
<b>33. Hassan Whiteside</b><br />
<b>32. Dwight Howard</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>UPDATE: Whiteside wasn’t really a top-60 guy (just filling in for Bosh), </b><br />
<br />
Just another reminder that while Bill wants these rankings to be taken seriously, a guy with like 100 games of NBA experience can be plugged in for a ten time all star. Because both guys play on the same team and sort of play the same position, kind of! It makes sense! WHO SAYS NO<br />
<br />
<b>but let’s say I told you, “I will bet you $100 that Whiteside will either make the 2016 All-Star Game OR be out of the league before the 2016 All-Star Game, and you can pick only one of the two sides of that bet,” which side would you pick? I can’t decide, either.</b><br />
<br />
I hate entertaining his little thought experiments, but I'll take the latter. Whiteside kind of seems like an asshole who can't get his shit together.<br />
<br />
<b>GROUP I: “This Is So Ludicrous That I Can’t Even Hang Up On You Yet”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>31. Gregg Popovich</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>UPDATE: I don’t know if you noticed the ’69 Celts potential of the 2015 Spurs lately, but … well … I mean …</b><br />
<br />
IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE C'S! BAWSTON IS THE LITAHRAL AND FIG-YOU-A-TIVE CENTAH OF THE UNIVAHSE! FIFTY YE-AHS FROM NOW, PEOPLE WILL ASK "DID THE POPOVICH SPURS PROPAHLY CARRY THE DYNASTY BANNER ESTABLISHED BY THE AUERBACH C'S? AND THE ANSWER WILL BE FACK YOU, BEANTOWN IS THE GREATEST! I BET POPOVICH WEARS C'S PAJAMAS TO BED! WHO SAYS NO?<br />
<br />
More later.Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-87998450823409383552015-03-10T19:37:00.000-07:002015-03-12T12:40:19.284-07:00What the fuck is this shit? Fuck you<br />
OK, so, as promised, I'm going to get around to Bill's NBA trade value column. I'm going to pretend like I didn't go to Grantland to pull its text earlier today and see that the front page story right now is a two-authored piece titled "Who is the Greatest Fictional Basketball Player of All Time?" I'm just going to tell myself that this is not capital "c" Content that any reader in the world would ever want, and thus that a major sports website would never publish it. I must have just imagined it. Nothing to see here, move along to the trade value column.<br />
<br />
Actually, that's not quite true. I'm going to make one other quick stop (that definitely does not involve rhetorical questions about who would win a 1 on 1 showdown between Bugs Bunny in Space Jam and Jimmy from Hoosiers) on the way. I received a tip about another non-Simmons Grantland NBA article last week, and boy, is it a load of garbage.<br />
<br />
Maybe you have heard--in fact, if you pay attention to the NBA, you definitely have heard--that the 76ers are really bad again this year. For the 2nd year in a row. Wow, it's so zany that it has to be talked about by everyone. Anyways, I suppose it's somewhat notable because even though teams are bad for two consecutive seasons all the time, the way the 76ers are doing it is a bit unorthodox. First, they've now drafted (or traded for on draft day) two players in the last two years who they knew would not play a single minute in the then-upcoming season--Nerlens Noel in 2013 and of course Joel Embiid in 2014. (And of course, the fact that they acquired Noel on draft day in 2013 is part of what put them in position to be bad enough to draft Embiid a year later.) That's a move that screams "we are bad and we want to stay bad." Second, they are shuffling their roster incessantly, stockpiling draft picks and moving various players and assets around without any evident desire for the current team to be anything but a placeholder. <br />
<br />
Now, none of this should sound too crazy to you. In fact, a very prominent "sports" "writer" named Bill Simmons is a big advocate of NBA teams getting shitty in order to get good later, rather than staying mediocre (as Philly was from 2010-2012). But it does raise eyebrows, and make people say unfunny and unclever things like OMG THEY'RE TAKING A DUMP ON THEIR FANS. And that outrage can lead to counteroutrage, from analyticsphiles who love the way the team is aggressively pursuing its goal in unorthdox ways. And that counteroutrage can lead to some asshole Grantland writer trying to write a thinking man's response to the whole situation. And that response can be, and is, absolutely horrible, trite, and full of WRONG all the way through, but I want to highlight probably the worst part of it, which also happens to be the guy's first point in support of his thesis. The thesis is that while no one should be outraged about the situation--it's not "insulting" to the game of basketball or some bullshit like that (true)--it IS stupid.<br />
<br />
<b>The Sixers’ plan is stupid.<br /><br />It’s not disgraceful. It’s not wrong. [...]</b><br />
<br />
<b>But it’s pretty stupid.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />That’s my real problem with what the team is doing. It’s not the plan that’s been unbearable, it’s the cult of Sixers fans and media members who insist on mocking the skeptics while they marvel at Philly’s brilliance. </b><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He's referring to the counteroutrage, and to be sure, both those people as well as the regular outraged people who think tanking is disgraceful can all go eat a dump truck full of dicks.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The NBA system incentivizes losing, they say. Lose to win. Here’s a GM who’s smart enough to exploit the system for as many chances as possible.</b><br />
<br />
<b>I get it. I really do. The only thing wrong with what Philly’s doing are the people who think it’s some profound approach to basketball philosophy. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So the ONLY thing wrong is that some of the supporters of what Philly is doing are obnoxious about their support. Got it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Just because something is counterintuitive doesn’t make it more intuitive.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh, so you were bullshitting a sentence ago. Really, there is another thing wrong with tanking. Tell me all about it!<br />
<br />
<b>Start with the fundamental idea: lose to win.</b><br />
<br />
And again, I'm not going to cover this whole article. But I can't not cover his analysis of this first point.<br />
<br />
<b>Are We Sure Tanking Actually Works?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, yeah, it sure does. And he'll start to establish right now, but fail to properly fully establish it by cutting off his own analysis well short of completion, because if he actually dug into the topic he'd realize how dumb it is to question whether tanking works. In order to preserve his pre-determined conclusion he lies. Allow me to help correct that lie, after he's done saying his bit.<br />
<br />
<b>There have been three triumphant NBA tanking efforts. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And we start with a Simmons staple. THREE AND ONLY THREE. NO ONE DENIES THIS.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The first involved the Spurs. When David Robinson broke his foot at the end of 1996, their season crumbled, and San Antonio decided to keep Robinson on the sideline and bottom out. Spurs fans will deny this happened, and I guess you can’t prove it one way or another. But San Antonio landed the no. 1 pick at the end of Robinson’s prime, drafted Tim Duncan, and won five titles over the next 17 years.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is true. This is all true. Good for them. Fucking Spurs.<br />
<br />
<b>The Celtics also tanked in 1996-97. They went all in to get Duncan and came away with Ron Mercer and Chauncey Billups. They didn’t make the playoffs for another five years.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Did they go all in? Did they? (No.) In 1995-96 they were a bad but not horrible team that won 33 games. Their whole nucleus was under the age of 30. In the 1996 offseason, their only meaningful move was on draft day, when they swapped first round picks with Dallas (which netted them Antoine Walker) and in that same trade sent off Eric Montross (not a significant contributor to the 1995-96 team; 7 PPG, 6 RPG) while receiving Dallas's 1997 first rounder, which would end up being 6th overall (nice!) and was used to select Mercer (damn). That was a good trade that definitely can't be interpreted as a tanking move. That was one of only <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1996_transactions.html">two trades they made that year</a>, and the other was pretty insignificant. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In 1996-97 they brought back almost the same roster. The season end player stat breakdown is very similar to the previous season, with the following changes: </div>
<div>
1) The addition of Walker, who had a great rookie season, going for 18 and 9.</div>
<div>
2) 1995-96 top scorer and rebounder Dino Radja (HEY REMEMBER HIM???? JEFF PEARLMAN PROBABLY DOES!!!!) was sidelined for the rest of the 1996-97 season after a knee injury just 25 games in. The only way this was a tanking move is if the Celtics hired someone to take his knee out telekinetically. Radja would never play in the NBA again, despite being a 20 and 10 guy the previous season (at age 28), which pretty much tells you whether or not this was a "They held him out in order to tank!" move like Robinson's is alleged to be.</div>
<div>
3) 1995-96 sixth man Dana Barros was also limited to only 24 games, presumably due to injury; his Wikipedia page isn't nearly as awesome as Radja's so I'm lacking detail here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's really it. Two important rotation guys got hurt, and a promising rookie stepped in to kind of fill the shoes of one of the departed guys. <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1997_transactions.html">The Celtics literally didn't make a single trade during the season</a>. And that's it? That's "going all in" to get Duncan? Fucking hardly. Add to that the fact that while Mercer was a bit of a dud, they did get Billups, who ended up being a five time All-Star and a <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.html?redir">possible Hall of Famer</a>. The fact that he didn't even get to play a full season for Boston before being traded has nothing to do with the argument that THE CELTICS TRIED TO TANK AND FAIL. First, they barely (if at all) tried to tank, and second, they got a really awesome player anyways. So even though I hate the Celtics and hate researching their pointless mid-90s transaction histories, you can see why I'm writing this post. This author (I'm not even going to identify him by name--fuck him) is writing shit. And I like writing responses to shit.<br />
<br />
<b>Boston’s tanking success didn’t come until 10 years later. With a roster built around Paul Pierce and younger players like Al Jefferson and Rajon Rondo, the team was going nowhere. So when Pierce went down with a vague “stress injury,” Doc Rivers and Danny Ainge held him out for most of the second half of the 2006-07 season. A starting lineup that featured Ryan Gomes and Allan Ray </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Can't believe this dingbat passed up a chance to make a "from Allan Ray to Ray Allen!!!!" joke anywhere in here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>finished out the year at the bottom of the league. That spring, they got screwed in the lottery </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bill, <a href="http://firejaymariotti.blogspot.com/2007/05/bill-simmons-cries-his-readers-river.html">your tears are so delicious</a>! Too bad they won a fucking title anyways.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>and wound up with the fifth pick. Then they got lucky. They turned that fifth pick into Ray Allen, and then Kevin Garnett wanted out of Minnesota, and Ubuntu was born. Boston won a title 10 months later.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yep. I'd say that tank job worked, if unconventionally.<br />
<br />
<b>The other side of that Ray Allen Celtics deal is what the Sixers are chasing. Seattle stripped its roster in 2007, in part to rebuild around Kevin Durant and (maybe, possibly) in part because the owners were gearing up to move the team to Oklahoma City. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'd like to reiterate my intent to kick in the nuts any Seattle fan who is still bitching about this, should I get the chance. They've been warned.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>They traded Allen and Rashard Lewis, and while Washington state was stalling on stadium proposals, attendance suffered — it certainly didn’t hurt that the basketball product became borderline unwatchable (even with Durant). Over the next two years, all the losing birthed a title-contending nucleus that also featured James Harden, Serge Ibaka, and Russell Westbrook. It’s just that they played in Oklahoma City.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK, given OKC's whole one Finals appearance and zero titles with that nucleus so far, I wouldn't call that tank job "triumphant" (and sticking to that insane standard is really the only way he can get 25% of the way to justifying his point, so it's kind of funny to watch him tacitly abandon it here). But it was certainly successful. Now, I expect he'll start listing any of the other many, many teams that have gone from bad to good thanks to emptying their team of good players and gunning for a great lottery pick.<br />
<br />
<b>In other words, the only recent examples of tanking to a title come from two teams that already had franchise players and used one bad season to rebuild on the fly. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh? That's it, is it? I almost forgot--THREE AND ONLY THREE. First of all, as I just mentioned in that excessively lengthy parenthetical in my last paragraph, the Thunder don't have a title, no matter how much HOOP NERDS who NERDGASM all over the place when RUSSELL WESTBROOK dunks GOSH YOU HEATHENS DON'T PROPERLY APPRECIATE RUSSELL ONLY HOOP NERDS LIKE US DO want to award them with a title. Second of all, holy shit, are you serious? THAT'S your standard for figuring out if tanking works or not?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Cavaliers tanked like dogs to get LeBron in 2003, sending away their top three scorers from 2001-02 (Andre Miller, Wesley Person, Lamond Murray) for peanuts during the 2002 offseason. In his first seven year run with them, the team would make five straight playoff appearances, losing once in the conference finals and once in the Finals. That's not "triumphant," I suppose, but fuck, what was their other option? Build around Miller, Person, Murray, and 2002 draftee Carlos Boozer, and try to compete with the Lakers/Spurs that way? Fuck you. Give them a chance to do that sequence over again and they'd tank like they did 100 out of 100 times. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Nuggets also tanked (I'm not going to get into the details, but believe me, they tanked) throughout 2001 and 2002 to land Carmelo in that 2003 draft. They then made the playoffs for ten consecutive seasons (after going to the playoffs twice in the previous twelve seasons) and came thiiiiis close to a Finals appearance against a mediocre Magic team in 2009. Same story--not triumphant, but fuck, they wouldn't change anything about 2001-2002 in hindsight.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, no titles for either of them. Hey, how about this? The Bulls were a playoff team in 1980-81, and a bad but not horrible 34 win team in 1981-82 (which went through three coaches, and then switched again during the 1982 offseason). Then during the 1982-83 season they trade HOFer Artis Gilmore, still in his late prime, for nothing (yes, Dave Corzine is nothing), along with <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1983_transactions.html">several other player-for-pick trades</a>. Then, during the 1983-84 season, ANOTHER new head coach (their sixth in four seasons... sounds a bit tanky to me) decided that Reggie Theus, who had scored 23.5 per game the previous season, should come off the bench. He would be traded for nothing that February. The Bulls still somehow managed 27 wins, but had the 3rd overall pick, and then took Michael Jordan. Now in this case, shit, they actually DID have a good alternative--I'm not going to research it, but I bet a lot of fans were pissed that they traded Gilmore and Theus for peanuts in back to back offseasons. Trying to win a championship with those two guys isn't exactly the worst idea. But given how things worked out, again, I think the Bulls were happy with their choice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not going to go on like this for every single great player who was drafted by a team that obviously tanked to at least some level of significance. (More than the 1996-97 Celtics tanked anyways.) But you get the point. This writer is an asshole who is annoyed by people on the internet and his preferred method for dealing with them is deciding that because they are annoying they must be wrong. Well, trust me: I am both annoying and right all the time. It's not that hard to do. Where were we? Oh yeah, back to the end of this little F-minus explanation as to why tanking is stupid.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>That’s why it always made the most sense for a team like the Knicks to sit Carmelo and lose as much as possible this year. You never know what can happen. For everyone else, there’s a chance you could be the ’97 Spurs, but there’s a much better chance you will be the ’97 Celtics. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Be careful, everyone! If you tank, you might only end up with a top 25-ever point guard!" Now, terrible syntax in that sentence aside, I will grant this point: tanking does not guarantee that you will draft the greatest power forward ever the following June. But it's sure as hell a lot smarter than NOT tanking.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The only recent example of a full-scale, multiyear tanking success story comes from a team that quite possibly used that strategy to kill basketball in its own home city. That’s the dream.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yeah, good logical implication, fuckhead--if your team tanks, they'll probably end up leaving town. Totally.<br />
<br />
<b>I’m not saying losing deliberately is a horrible idea, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You kind of are though!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>but it’s OK to look at the history before we call it brilliant. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Cool, just did. It's not "brilliant" per se, it's just smarter than NOT tanking, and the way it is done may or may not turn out to have been brilliant post hoc. Maybe what the Sixers are doing is a brilliant tank job, or maybe it's just an average tank job. But just because HOOPS NERDS who care about the Sixers or are otherwise complimentary of what the team is doing are shitheads doesn't mean you can just ignore history. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>If the Sixers are going DEFCON: TANK for several seasons in a devious play to maximize the probability of landing a title nucleus … shouldn’t it matter that this only really worked three times in 20 years? </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I like the 20 year cutoff thing. Helps you avoid that whole Jordan issue. Also, if tanking "didn't work" for the Cavs or Nuggets, I'd hate to see what results they would have come up with during the 2000s had they tried something else.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Is this plan really that devious?</b><br />
<br />
It's not devious, it's just a good, solid plan. And the rest of this article is just as bad. Fuck yourself, Grantland staff writer guy. Grantland is the worst.<br />
<br />
Trade value column forthcoming. No, seriously.</div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-9574869176627197482015-02-24T18:59:00.002-08:002015-02-25T11:23:00.328-08:00Grantland has another MLB guy besides Jonah Keri. He's a dumbshit.[Edited to change my comments on this bozo's Nationals 2B situation analysis. He's a bozo. I'm a bozo. We're all bozos.]<br />
<br />
Before I get into this though, you know what I noticed while cruising around Bill Simmons's Grantland Brought To You By Bill Simmons And Edited By Bill Simmons By Which I Mean Not Edited At All? Bill did part 1 of his NBA trade value column back in late January, and hasn't done part 2 yet. (There's a disclaimer at the end of part 1 that says part 2 will happen after the Super Bowl.) This asshole is just as lazy as I am! Holy shit, how do you let yourself get away with that as the EIC of a major content mill? "Yeah, I just kind of set my own deadlines and then I don't stick to them, because I had some podcasts and TV work to do." Sure, I do that all the time around here. I also don't make a dime from this, and have another job to work in order to make dimes. Fuck you, Bill. I'll start working on that trade value column next week. (Seriously! I will!)<br />
<br />
In the meantime, as I've said many many times, I don't really mind Jonah Keri that much. But today I stumbled across an MLB spring training preview piece written by some diptard named Michael Baumann. As you'll see when you start to read it, this isn't really meant to be taken as 100% serious analysis. There's a decent number of "jokes" and a medium amount of whimsical bullshit. But you'll also see that Michael actually does take his baseball knowledge seriously. And that's why I'm writing this post. Michael is also, according to his mini-bio, "author of the upcoming book Philadelphia Phenoms: The Most Amazing Athletes to Play in the City of Brotherly Love, due in November 2014." This will be relevant later, when I get butthurt about what he says about my favorite team. Away we go.<br />
<br />
<b>Yesterday, I listed the pressing spring training question facing each American League team. </b><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And don't think I won't take a shot at that if I get positive feedback on this post, buster.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Today, it’s the National League’s turn. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Can't believe Simmons is paying someone to write about AAAA baseball lololololololol</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I hope his AL-only keeper league has disbanded due to everyone in it realizing what a turd Bill is.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Here’s hoping we get some resolution by Opening Day! </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You sound like you're writing for Bleacher Report when you start an article like that!<br />
<br />
<div>
<b> Arizona Diamondbacks: Is Archie Bradley Archie Bradley again?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Excellent non-question.<br />
<br />
<b>Diamondbacks fans don’t have much to feel optimistic about, but that could change if Bradley, arguably the top pitching prospect in the game a year ago, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sure, but that was coming off of his 20 year old season spent at AA ball. Even if he had been awesome in the minors in 2014, he probably wouldn't be slated for a callup until late this summer at the earliest. As things stand, there's no way he's in Phoenix before 2016. Not sure why this would be a really exciting spring training question.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>bounces back from the injuries that derailed his 2014 campaign. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even during his awesome 2013 season, he still had a BB/9 over 4. He needs a little more work.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Those ailments led to ineffectiveness and mechanical inconsistency, and so the cycle goes, but a healthy, effective Bradley has the potential to be the team’s best homegrown pitcher since Brandon Webb. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Webb was never even any kind of elite prospect--he was an 8th round pick who didn't debut in the majors until he was 24, and had little minor league track record of dominance. Those lucky assholes in Arizona. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>We’ll get a sense of his progress in camp. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I know the Diamondbacks are going to suck this year, but I'm pretty sure you could have come up with something better than this angle. Christ, just note that Paul Goldschmidt had an amazing 2013 and then just a really good 2014 and ask if he can get back to being an MVP candidate.</div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<b> Atlanta Braves: How do Nick Markakis and Melvin (yes, Melvin) Upton look?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
SO HILARIOUS AND INTERESTING THAT THIS TERRIBLE PLAYER WHO WILL BE OUT OF MLB IN A COUPLE OF YEARS DECIDED TO GO BY A DIFFERENT NAME. I'M NOT AT ALL SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT YET. Christ. If Upton played in New York or Boston this would be the biggest story in the game for the next six weeks. Let's all count our blessings that this isn't the case.<br />
<br />
<b>After liquidating Jason Heyward, Evan Gattis, and Justin Upton, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Eh, they got Shelby Miller for Heyward, but I'll grant that "liquidating" is an accurate verb as to what they did with Gattis and Upton.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>the Braves brought in Markakis to play right field on a four-year, $44 million contract, which is weird, because that seems like a lot to give a 31-year-old corner outfielder who doesn’t hit for power and needed offseason neck surgery. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, take a little trip on the Google machine and try "Braves new stadium racism." <a href="http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/11/13/suburban-cobb-county-leader-fears-rail-from-atlanta-to-new-braves-stadium/">Here's a great start</a>! It shouldn't be a surprise that they're doing a mini-rebuild that crafts a team, ahem, a little more in the image of their target fan demographic.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Even if he’s not 100 percent to start the season, though, Markakis can’t possibly be more disappointing than the newly christened Melvin Upton. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
WAIT DID HE CHANGE HIS NAME I DIDN'T HEAR!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>It’s hard not to feel bad for Upton at this point, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He is on a $75MM contract, and his problems at the plate are a result of his failure to change his approach once pitchers stopped throwing him fastballs. Stuff your sorries for MELVIN in a sack, Michael.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>but maybe something will finally click this spring and he’ll return to something approaching his former glory.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Doubtful.<br />
<br />
<div>
<b> Chicago Cubs: Who are those guys with the jersey numbers in the 70s?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maybe they play offensive line for the Bears lol!!!!!<br />
<br />
<b>Adding ace Jon Lester and veteran outfielder Dexter Fowler will help the Cubs in the short term, but the buzz building around the franchise is largely based on Chicago amassing, in scientific terms, a butt load of young position players. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>We saw Javier Baez, Arismendy Alcantara, and Jorge Soler for the first time last year, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All three of these guys could become good players, although Baez (admittedly the one with the highest pedigree) struck out in more than 40% of his PAs last year. Obviously that will have to change.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>and here’s a partial list of the nonroster invitees who will get a crack at major league camp: Addison Russell, Kris Bryant, Albert Almora, and Kyle Schwarber.</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
True, this is regarded by pretty much everyone as the best farm system in baseball for good reason. Now watch the Cubs find a way to royally fuck it up.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Also new to the team and sporting a number in the 70s: Joe Maddon, in case all the commotion made you forget that Chicago also added the game’s best manager this offseason. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
/Larry B adds "managers don't do that much" tag to post</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Cubs are either another year or another big trade away from making a run at the playoffs, but right now, this team is where the Nationals were four years ago. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hopefully they are leading the division in July, get greedy and deplete the farm system by trading for some rental player at the trade deadline, lose in the divisional round, and go back to sucking. Doesn't sound like something Theo Epstein would do, but I can dream.<br />
<br />
<div>
<b> Cincinnati Reds: Can this team prove that the complex interpersonal relationships surrounding baseball are more interesting than the game itself?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No, because that premise only holds any water if you're a boring idiot who doesn't actually care about sports.<br />
<br />
<b>I make no secret of how profoundly boring I find exhibition baseball, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Whoa, don't go too far out on that limb! Most baseball fans, especially die hard baseball fans, find ST games RIVETING.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>but the first week of Reds camp has shown that spring training can be interesting if you don’t pay attention to the games. Would I watch a matchmaking show about pitchers picking throwing partners in the style of a turn-of-the-century MTV dating program? Yes. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
WHO SAYS NO</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Was the highlight of the preseason Mat Latos not only burning the bridge he just crossed to leave Cincinnati, but rigging it to explode in a shower of glitter and flower petals? It was, until out of nowhere, in came Marlon Byrd — who wasn’t even on the Reds last year — off the top rope to fire back at Latos. I’m so drunk on human drama I can’t keep my metaphors straight.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
More interested in gossip than actual events that affect the outcome of games/seasons? You're fitting right in at ESPN, buddy. Good job. <br />
<br />
<div>
<b> Colorado Rockies: Y’all want a hug?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fuck you, no they don't. (This is where I get butthurt, as referenced earlier.)<br />
<br />
<b>I’m serious. I spent forever trying to give Rockies fans a reason to be optimistic other than “Maybe Troy Tulowitzki and Carlos Gonzalez won’t get hurt this year?” but I struck out. </b></div>
<div>
Well, they have some actually-relevant-like-not-just-relevant-to-Rockies-fans young players like Nolan Arenado, Corey Dickerson and (maybe, fingers crossed) Tyler Matzek. That's still a fair point--they will probably suck this year. HOWEVA. Here's where I lose my shit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Rockies are going to be bad again, and unlike other similarly bad teams, they don’t have a great chance of bouncing off rock bottom and back into contention thanks to their farm system or front office.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh, really? Interesting--there is a pretty good consensus out there, from Keith Law (who I hate, but who knows prospects and farm systems very well thank you very much) on down, that the Rockies have a top 10 farm system. I see that you are apparently a Philadelphia native, sir, and therefore likely a Phillies fan. How are they doing these days? What's that? Just as shitty as the Rockies? Interesting--they appear to also have, by most accounts, a bottom 10 farm system. Can't wait for that Ryan Howard contract to finally come off the books in two seasons though! Go fuck yourself, needledick.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>But hey, Coors Field is lovely. I haven’t seen such a beautiful building filled with so much garbage since my last trip to the Guggenheim in Bilbao, though.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OH ZING WOW. MODERN ART BURN. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I hope the Phillies never win another game.<br />
<div>
<br />
<b> Los Angeles Dodgers: How weird is it going to be to see Jimmy Rollins and Howie Kendrick in Dodger uniforms?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ooh, this guy has learned well from Simmons. "How [noteworthy/interesting/weird] is [thing that isn't noteworthy/interesting/weird]?" has been a Bill staple for more than a decade now.<br />
<br />
<b>The Dodgers now have a pair of very experienced, very good two-way middle infielders in Rollins and Kendrick, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Good to see him carrying water for former Phillie Rollins, who did have a good 2014, but was terrible in 2012 and 2013 and is on the wrong side of 35. I'm sure the Dodgers won't miss Hanley Ramirez at all.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>both of whom come from extremely stable double-play combinations (Rollins with Chase Utley since 2005, Kendrick with Erick Aybar since 2007). This spring, they’ll have to develop that kind of chemistry with each other. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's your spring training angle for this team? This World Series contender, with the best pitcher in the game and one of the most interesting and talented young position players around? Their new 2B and SS need to develop "chemistry?" Hmm. Arizona preview = boring. Colorado preview = inaccurate. Dodgers preview = boring. Excuse me while I cry myself a river, but I've got a vague idea that perhaps Michael doesn't really give a flying shit about things that happen west of Pittsburgh. We'll see what he does for the Giants and Padres.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Truthfully, though, the adjustment probably won’t be as hard on them as it will be on the fans; it’ll probably be June or July before seeing these guys in Dodger blue stops being jarringly weird.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
GOD IT'S SO WEIRD THAT GUYS SWITCH TEAMS ISN'T IT? SO WEIRD. SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO J-ROLL, WHO EVERYONE AGREES IS AS PHILADELPHIAN AS THE LIBERTY BELL AND CASUAL RACISM.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b> Miami Marlins: How is the Mighty Giancarlo Stanton’s Face?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm sure it's fine.<br />
<br />
<b>The big questions for Miami’s playoff hopes (when will Jose Fernandez come back? Is Dee Gordon actually good? What’s Christian Yelich’s ceiling?) can’t be answered in the spring. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Uh, the last two of those sort of can. Hell, all three of them sort of can. I'm not going to look it up but I'm sure Fernandez is at spring training, going through rehab. He had his surgery last May and was throwing by September. He'll probably be ready for game action in the minors soon after the regular season starts.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>But we haven’t seen TMGS take a swing in game action since Mike Fiers hit him in the face with a baseball in September. It’s overwhelmingly likely that he’s fine, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Because that was a freak accident and baseball players get hit with pitches all the time, and you don't need your face to hit or throw, for fuck's sake it's not like the guy tore his hamstring or broke his back or something.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>because the Marlins wouldn’t have signed him to a $325 million extension if they didn’t think he was, but I won’t be able to relax completely until he hits his first home run. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know what baseball is?</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b> Milwaukee Brewers: What critter will the Brew Crew find at the ballpark this year?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK, admittedly, drivel like this makes my criticism of his blurbs that seem to contain actual analysis feel a little out of place. I don't care, it's my blog and if you don't like it I'm taking my ball and leaving.<br />
<br />
<b>The highlight of last season — yes, including Jonathan Lucroy’s insane breakout performance — was the emergence of Hank, a stray bichon frise mix who wandered into the team’s spring training facility and became the Brewers’ unofficial mascot. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That was a highlight of last season on par with Lucroy's performance for Brewers fans under the age of 10 and over the age of 90. Everyone else, I'm sure, was much more interested in Lucroy than a dog.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Hank was adopted by Brewers executive Marti Wronski, leaving a spot open for another animal to sneak into Maryvale Park and, from there, into our hearts. I’m rooting for a sheep this year.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Awesome joke.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>New York Mets: Is it time for Thor? <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25017#p99874">WE WANT THOR! WE WANT THOR!</a></b><br />
<br />
I left that link in on purpose--I guess Mets fans refer to Noah Syndergaard as "Thor." Mets fans are fucking idiots and I've never met one I liked. This does not change that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>“You know, between Jacob deGrom, Zack Wheeler, and Bartolo Colon, the Mets have a decent rotation. Matt Harvey’s throwing again — I don’t think you guys need to rush Noah Syndergaard to the maj—”<br /><br />[A terrifying, baseball-headed man bursts through the wall, followed by a mob of blue-and-orange-clad villagers.] “WE WANT THOR! WE WANT THOR!” </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You know, that's less unfunny than most of Simmons's little imaginary dialogues. Points for trying.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b> Philadelphia Phillies: Are the broken pitchers still broken?</b></div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Chad Billingsley and Cliff Lee would’ve made a great one-two punch in 2008, yet in 2015, the best-case scenario for the Phillies involves both returning to health. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sure, their current roster is a garbage fire past old-ass Chase Utley, "please trade me now" Cole Hamels and injured-ass Cliff Lee, and they have hands down the WORST front office in MLB, but totally, that's the big question this spring--can Lee and Chad Billingsley pitch up to expectations? If they do, this team might win 75 games!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>This team probably wouldn’t go anywhere even if both pitchers could return to their 2008 form, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It sure as fuck wouldn't.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>but both would make for attractive trade chips come midseason if would-be trade partners were convinced they’d stand up to a playoff run. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yeah, Ruben Amaro Jr. might be able to turn them into a couple bags of magic beans. Phight on!</div>
<div>
<br />
<b> Pittsburgh Pirates: What can the Bucs expect from Jung Ho Kang?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's this? Relevant analysis that's more or less on point?<br />
<br />
<b>Spring training will be our first extended look at Kang, a 27-year-old South Korean infielder who arrived in Pittsburgh this offseason. With only $16 million invested in Kang, and Neil Walker and Jordy Mercer and Josh Harrison already in the fold, the Pirates don’t need Kang to perform, but it’d sure be nice if he did. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My God! It is! Who ghost-wrote this section for him?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Translating performance in the Korean Baseball Organization to MLB is still very much an inexact science, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oof, I don't hate the Pirates, but that translation is "an inexact science" in the sense that "the KBO is significantly worse than the NPB, and even the best players from the NPB often struggle to transition to MLB, sooooo....."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>so even a few dozen spring at-bats should help the Pirates get a better idea of the kind of player they’ve bought. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fair enough.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b> San Diego Padres: Who’s going to play center field?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hmmm. After those Diamondbacks/Rockies/Dodgers blurbs, I was hoping this would say "Haha will the Padres be too distracted by San Diego's beautiful weather to have a good season?" This is still a pretty dumb question, but it's made less dumb by the fact that Petco's CF is gigantic.<br />
<br />
<b>Contrary to popular opinion, going to war with three outfielders who fall just short of being able to play center field isn’t a season-killer. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I... I don't think that's popular opinion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Dodgers, Cardinals, and Nationals have all won division titles without a real center fielder in recent years, though in all cases, that was a temporary solution. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Popular opinion, which no one actually subscribes to due to these very recent and obvious counterexamples..."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Right now, it looks like Wil Myers is going to play center field for San Diego, though if he doesn’t bounce back from a down sophomore season, it might be time to have a serious talk about whether Cameron Maybin, if healthy, can do enough on defense to be the more productive player overall. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maybin has a career 87 OPS+ in 2000 PA, and it's significantly worse than that since 2012. It's time to stop thinking of him as a starter no matter how good his glove is. Myers was rotten last year, but come on, he's got to be better than Maybin or the Padres just spent a bunch of money for no good reason.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>San Francisco Giants: Do you think wearing three World Series rings at once looks tacky?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
THERE we go. There's the "other side of the country" analysis I expected.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
PS--fuck the Giants<br />
<br />
<b>There’s not much to worry about here, since the Giants return almost everyone from the pretty well-rounded, veteran team that won the World Series last year. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh for fuck's sake, come on. This was an 88 win team that wouldn't have even made the playoffs prior to the second wild card being added in 2012. They backed in, and then won it all because playoff baseball is much different than regular season baseball and Madison Bumgarner went apeshit. Outside of Posey and Pence, the offense is a total joke. If they don't get amazingly strong late career performances from Hudson and Peavy again, they're going to be an 84 win team that plays golf in October instead of what they were last year. Some of this is sour grapes, but go on, convince me that there's "not much to worry about" for a team with this many old pitchers and shitty hitters. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Some might worry about the downgrade from Pablo Sandoval to Casey McGehee at third base, but that’ll largely be offset by signee Nori Aoki filling the Mike Morse–size defensive hole in left field. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Except that Aoki was awful on defense last year too, and unlike Morse, he can't hit for shit. McGehee was a nice story last year but I'll be shocked if he can replicate Sandoval's numbers. This team is going to score even fewer runs than they did last year, and I don't see that working out for them unless Bumgarner makes like 50 starts.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, watch them win 88 games and a wild card again, thanks to twenty walk off wins on infield singles at home and twenty 2-1 road wins where the other team strands like a million baserunners and the Giants get both their runs on a walk-error-bloop opposite field double sequence.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>I see no reason why the Giants won’t be good again in 2015, then go on to win the World Series again in 2016.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fuck the Giants.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>St. Louis Cardinals: Will a change of scenery do Jason Heyward good?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, even though his power seems to be eroding as he enters his mid 20s (huh?) he was still worth 6.3 rWAR last year. So I'm not sure he needed a change.<br />
<br />
<b>Heyward isn’t the player we’d hoped he’d be when he came up, but he’s already one of the top outfielders in the National League, and he’s still only 25. A shoulder injury he suffered as a second-year player kicked off a never-ending cycle of swing tinkering that seemed to limit his offensive potential, a theory Heyward himself spoke about after arriving in Cardinals camp. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Big story here: player hasn't been playing well; blames nagging injury.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>If Heyward doesn’t improve one bit, he’ll be a massive addition for St. Louis. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Correct.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>But if he meshes better with the coaching staff in St. Louis than he did in Atlanta and turns into a monster power hitter, we could see a breakout season of biblical proportions.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have a hard time seeing him go from 14 HR to 11 HR to "monster power hitter" in three seasons, but he is really really good. Knowing the Cardinals, he'll hit 40 this year.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b> Washington Nationals: How will Danny Espinosa do against righties?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No. No. A thousand times no. This is not one of the fifty most pressing questions facing the Nationals this spring. Espinosa has less than 500 PA in the last two seasons combined, because he can't fucking hit. I'm sure failing at switch hitting is a big part of that, but who cares? The Nationals traded for Yunel Escobar this offseason, and he's going to start. Whether Bryce Harper RESPECTS THE GAME ENOUGH is a more pressing question than whether Espinosa can hit righties from the right side.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>There aren’t many guys who have 20–home run power, 20-steal speed, and the ability to play above-average middle infield defense. Espinosa is one of them. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And the Nationals don't need or want him to be one of them anymore, because they're trying to win right now. Thus, he is a bench player, and thus, there are no pressing questions about him.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The problem is that though the switch-hitting Espinosa hit .301/.374/.485 while batting right-handed last year, he hit only .183/.241/.291 from the left side, which, given the prevalence of right-handed pitching, he did twice as often. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He still only had 364 PAs, because for a lot of the season the Nationals tried to keep Zimmerman at 3B and Rendon at 2B.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Therefore, in addition to growing a stupendous, Jeff Daniels–in-Gettysburg mustache, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
NEW COLUMN IDEA: WHICH MLB PLAYER'S MUSTACHE IS BEST EXPLAINED BY EACH 2015 BEST PICTURE NOMINEE.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Espinosa is toying with the idea of giving up switch hitting. It’ll be very interesting to see how well that experiment works, and how long he sticks with it.</b></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Michael Baumann sucks.</div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-27450365293165439832015-02-17T15:42:00.000-08:002015-02-17T15:42:04.601-08:00On ESPN's programming decisions<br />
Their decisions related to Sunday Night Baseball, specifically. Deadspin linked to <a href="http://www.baseballessential.com/news/2015/02/16/a-decade-of-espn-sunday-night-baseball-is-it-really-always-red-soxyankees/">this</a> earlier today, which is awesome--awesome enough for me to start reading Baseball Essential more regularly from now on. While whoever wrote that post seemed to be trying not to over-editorialize, the results speak for themselves: ESPN, whenever possible, is going to show Yankees-Red Sox (or either of those teams even when they're not playing the other) no matter how those teams are playing. If it's not one of those two, you've got a really good chance at seeing the Cardinals, Braves, Mets or Dodgers. Just under 50% of SNB games since 2005 have included at least one of those teams.<br />
<br />
Now, obviously I get that other than the Mets, who have sucked since 2009, those teams have all been very successful for most or all of the past decade. No one wants to watch shitty teams play, so being a good team is a good way to make it into the only nationally televised game of the week that is alone in its timeslot. But for fuck's sake, look at this graph from that post:<br />
<br />
<img alt="Total Appearances by Team <img src="images/" width="600" height="440" alt="A Decade of ESPN Sunday Night Baseball: Is It Really Always Red Sox/Yankees? - Sunday">" height="464" src="http://www.baseballessential.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Total-Appearances-by-Team.jpg" width="640" /><br />
<br />
Are you shitting me? The Blue Jays haven't even been that bad for the last decade. Sure, no playoff appearances, but they've fielded some decent teams, finishing at or over .500 for 4 of the past 7 seasons and employing a couple different superstar caliber players in that time. Add to that the fact that they're in the AL East, and thus have to have at least a couple Sunday games against the Yankees or Red Sox every season. And they haven't been on fucking SNB fucking ONCE? Christ on a crutch, that's embarrassing. It's a little less egregious in the case of the Mariners, who have been pretty bad for a while, but their ballpark is awesome and they do have King Felix. (Admittedly, it's hard to schedule a SNB game a couple months out and be sure he would start that night, but come on.) ZERO appearances? Apply similar logic to varying degrees as we go up the graph from right to left along the graph; when you factor in quality of team and size of fanbase, I think the relatively low numbers of White Sox, Rangers, Twins and Brewers games are also infuriating. <br />
<br />
The question about these decisions on ESPN's part is one I've tackled a few times on this here blog, and I'm happy to tackle it again, because I am lazy and like recycling my own ideas like an unpaid version of Rick Reilly. It's a chicken and egg problem--does ESPN only show the teams that seem to have gigantic fanbases all over the country, or are there gigantic fanbases for those first ten or so teams from left to right in part because ESPN (and MLB itself) forces those teams on everyone at every possible turn? I'm sure the answer is "some of both," but what pisses me off is the way the other three main American sports leagues seem to not be nearly as egregious about this as MLB and its main primetime national TV partner are. <br />
<br />
If the Grizzlies and Trailblazers are both having a great season, ESPN is going to nationally televise their next game and people are going to watch. If the Jaguars and Titans are both somehow 10-2 in early December, their divisional game is going to get flexed into Sunday Night Football and people are going to watch (apply same logic for ESPN's Monday Night Football scheduling the following season). The NHL is actually closer to MLB in this regard than the NFL or NBA, as they don't do a particularly great job of promoting teams other than those in eastern Canada/the Great Lakes region/the Northeast, but 1) they don't have an ESPN contract so I know ESPN isn't complicit, and 2) I spend enough time on the hockey internetz to know that fans are most definitely talking quite a bit about the surprising Predators and Lightning this year--certainly more than I'd expect MLB fans to talk about the Astros and Padres if each are in first place come July. <br />
<br />
Based on all this, I guess I have to conclude that there's something about baseball fans that pulls them towards the Yankees/Red Sox/etc. moreso than fans from other sports are pulled towards those sports' equivalent franchises. By way of example, I'm sure the percentage of baseball fans residing Phoenix who are Yankees fans is way higher than the percentage of hockey fans who are (New York) Rangers fans. But it's still goddamn ridiculous to look at SNB, which could definitely be used as a tool by the league (in dictating to ESPN what games they can choose for their broadcasts) to promote some up and coming teams, and see that the first five matchups in 2015 include Yankees-Red Sox twice, Yankees-Mets, Cubs-Cardinals and Cardinals-Reds. That's one team slot out of ten filled by a team that isn't on national TV every goddamn week already via either an ESPN weeknight game or FOX's Saturday games.<br />
<br />
I guess what I'm trying to say, besides go read that linked article for yourself, is fuck ESPN, fuck MLB, and fuck everything else. I hate it all.Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-406984506623295482015-02-11T17:08:00.001-08:002015-02-11T17:08:20.209-08:00Well, the GREATRIOTS did it<br />
<img src="http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png" /><br />
<br />
<br />
Well, after giving myself about ten days to process my feelings, I have come to accept what we all must accept: the Patriots won Super Bowl XLIX. None of us have to accept that Tom Brady is the greatest QB ever (he isn't) or that Belichick is the greatest coach ever (actually, we might have to accept that one). But the game is done, and thus football season is done. No more horrible Simmons gambling advice (not sure how he finished on the season, but rest assured that you would have lost money if you followed him). No more getting mad at thinking about what TMQ is probably writing, even though I don't even read his column anymore. But most of all, no more NFL for like 7 months--except the combine, the draft, OTAs, training camp, the preseason, and all the ridiculous non-stories we'll have to deal with while trying to pay attention to other sports all summer. Feels good just saying it.<br />
<br />
Before we go, though, just a reminder: <a href="http://deadspin.com/no-more-the-nfls-domestic-violence-partner-is-a-sham-1683348576/+jparham">the NFL is a fucking joke</a>.<br />
<br />
One more reminder that <a href="http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/roger-goodell-nfl-found-a-new-low-at-super-bowl-xlix-no-ones-talking-about-it/">the NFL is a fucking joke</a>.<br />
<br />
And finally, a final reminder that <a href="http://www.mrdestructo.com/2015/01/everything-stupid-is-alive-and.html"><span style="font-size: x-large;">the NFL is a fucking joke</span></a><span style="font-size: x-large;">.</span><br />
<br />
Moving on.<br />
<br />
It's almost baseball season yayyyy yayyy yayyy!<br />
<br />
/realizes he will once again watch his favorite team lose 90 games this summer<br />
<br />
Eh, whatever. Since it's baseball season might as well start focusing a little bit more on baseball writing. I hate Jonah Keri (I believe I have established this) even though he's really not that bad of an analyst and an inoffensively mediocre writer. So, I will pick on stuff he writes even when it's not flagrantly horrible. YOU CAN'T STOP ME. Here are some dopey thoughts of his from his "worst contracts in baseball" article from last week. Most of his picks for the top 10 are fine--I only briefly touch on them at the end of the post. It's the honorable mentions that mostly get my panties in a bundle. (Side note: good for him for doing a worst contracts, rather than a "most trade value" article, because fuck Bill Simmons and fuck anyone who appropriates his concepts into their own articles.) <br />
<br />
<b>DH Nick Swisher, Cleveland Indians: two years, $30 million remaining<br /><br />OF Michael Bourn, Cleveland Indians: two years, $27.5 million<br /><br />...I try not to weigh team finances too heavily when analyzing these contracts, I can’t discount that the Swisher and Bourn albatrosses will hurt the small-revenue Indians more than they would nearly any other team.</b><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK, I guess fair enough, those are some non-ideal contracts. But really, didn't both of them get paid more or less their market value at the time the contracts were signed? I mean, why make this list at all if you're just going to list every single player who is into his free agent years and hasn't played well lately? Bourn was awesome in 2012 and OK in 2013. Swisher was good in both 2012 and 2013. They both sucked in 2014 and had they been free agents this winter they'd have gotten "prove it" one year deals. But I'm not sure I see the point here. More significantly:<br /> <br /><b>SP Edwin Jackson, Chicago Cubs: two years, $22 million<br /><br />Among pitchers with at least 140 innings, Jackson’s 6.33 ERA was the worst in baseball last year by nearly a full run. With Jon Lester and Jason Hammel now in the fold, Jackson isn’t even ticketed for the rotation anymore. That means he’s either going to be a mop-up man in 2015 or on the chopping block in spring training.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How about some consistency? Jackson's contract is probably worse than Swisher's/Bourn's, but on the other hand, the Indians don't have a lot of money and are trying to win now. The Cubs have tanker ships full of money, and aren't really looking to compete until next year. They could give a shit about giving Jackson $11 million (not even that much for a shitty innings eater, by the by) to make 30 starts this year. Maybe next year it's a problem, but come on. It's the Cubs. Whatever.</div>
<div>
<br /><b>SS Elvis Andrus, Texas Rangers: eight years, $120 million<br /><br />Aside from the Boras lesson, the main takeaway here is one that we’ll repeat several times throughout this column: When dealing with players who are still under team control for a couple more years, clubs should tread very carefully before offering an extension that won’t kick in until those years have expired. The consequences of failing to exercise that care can be disastrous.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Rangers actually have a pretty good revenue stream, so they very well may have foolishly jumped the gun when they gave Andrus that deal. I mean "jumped the gun" in the sense that they didn't need to try to lock him up to a contract that they were hoping would be a discount over what he could make on the FA market two years later. But the cautionary note up there is utterly useless for most of the teams that tend to sign players to these kinds of deals (Rays, Rockies, Indians, etc.). Of COURSE it's risky to sign a player to a big contracts well before they hit free agency. And then again, the alternative is probably losing that player when they hit free agency, which is risky as well. Thanks for the GMing tip, Jonah.</div>
<div>
<br /><b>SP Bronson Arroyo, Arizona Diamondbacks: one year, $14 million</b><br /><br /><b>Technically, Arroyo’s remaining deal is $9.5 million for 2015 plus a $4.5 million buyout to avoid his $11 million salary in 2016. Either way, the result is the same: Arroyo had Tommy John surgery in early July, making him a long shot to return before August and a virtual lock to deliver nothing of value for a moderate-payroll club that’s also overpaying Cody Ross and Trevor Cahill to not contribute.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Teams insure their contracts against major, predictable injuries, like, you know, pitchers who tear their UCLs. There's no way this is even one of the 100 worst contracts in baseball right now. Christ, I'd argue that Jon Lester's deal is worse than this one.</div>
<div>
<br /><b>SP Ubaldo Jimenez, Baltimore Orioles: three years, $38.75 million<br /><br />Oy.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK, you win this round, Jonah. That's a terrible contract. Fucking Ubaldo. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
/Larry B cries Rockies fan tears</div>
<div>
<br /><b>1B Joey Votto, Cincinnati Reds: nine years, $213 million<br /><br />Votto signed his gigantic contract in April 2012, and in the two years since, I’ve agonized over whether to include him in my annual look at baseball’s best contracts; I left him off both times and got enough hate mail from Votto supporters to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool. And understandably so: From 2010 through 2013, Votto was around a six-win player every year, and an MVP award winner in 2010.</b><br /><br /><b>How quickly things can change. In 2014, he missed 100 games and hit for less power than ever before. It’s human nature to fixate on the recent past, and it’s pretty terrifying to see a 31-year-old player who’s owed $213 million after a season in which he hit .255 with six home runs — terrifying enough to make four years of absolute dominance seem like a distant memory.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, yeah, again--don't bother making this list if you're just going to list a bunch of guys who are no longer in their team-controlled years and had a bad 2014. I actually think this belongs in consideration for the list to a greater degree than those "meh" Swisher, Bourn and Jackson contracts, because it's so enormously gigantic. But Votto isn't just some guy who had a couple good seasons, cashed in, and is now in decline. He was an MVP contender for five straight years, then got hurt for one, and his best skill is getting on base, which tends to age well. Jonah seems to know and understand all this and yet here we are. Annoying.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now we move into the guys who actually made the top 10. I was fine with most of the names (Fielder, Hamilton, Pujols, Upton--go find the article on Grantland if you want, I'm not going to link to it) but we have a couple of problems.</div>
<div>
<br /><b>4. OF Shin-Soo Choo, Texas Rangers: six years, $116 million (NR)</b><br /><br />Oh come on. Choo is like Votto-lite. He was a 4 to 6 win player EVERY season from 2008 through 2013. In fact, 2013 might have been his best year ever. And like Votto, OBP is his best skill. Now he stumbles in 2014 and he's got the 4th worst contract in the majors? GMAFB. It's especially insane when you factor in this:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>7. 1B Ryan Howard, Philadelphia Phillies: two years, $60 million (3)</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Dude. Choo was a mess last year, but he still had an OPS+ of 102 and an OBP of .340. Even if he just rebounds a little bit in the coming years, and never makes it back to his 2013 form (which he still might do), he's a useful, above-average player. You can make the playoffs with him hitting 2nd or 6th in your lineup. Ryan Howard is absolutely worthless. He hasn't even been above average since 2010. His career is over. There is, I don't know, like a 25% chance Choo lives up to the rest of his contract. Maybe it's less than that. But it's definitely greater than a 0% chance, which is the likelihood that Howard is worth more than even half his remaining contract. I get that Choo gets dinged for having six years left instead of two, but he's also three years older than Choo, making it an absolute certainty that he's done. What the hell is Choo doing ahead of him on this list?<br /><br /><b>Here’s another over-30 Ranger coming off an injury-plagued season who’s signed for waaaay too long and waaaay too much. Though Choo missed just 39 games last year, he first hurt his ankle back in April, so it’s possible a season-long mulligan is warranted. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Again: guy has crappy 2014, and it's probably at least in part due to injury, and now he's got the 4th worst contract in the game somehow. BOOOOOOOOOOOOO.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<b>2. SP Matt Harrison, Texas Rangers: three years, $41 million (NR)</b><br /><br /><b>When the Rangers gave Harrison his five-year, $55 million deal in January 2013, they were rewarding a 27-year-old durable ground ball pitcher who’d managed the rare feat of putting up solid numbers in the AL’s worst pitcher’s park, in the process buying out three years of arbitration and two years of free agency. Even though Harrison was never a big strikeout pitcher by the standards of the time, the contract didn’t seem like much of a reach.</b><br /><br /><b>But now here we are, with Harrison having made just six combined starts in the past two seasons and coming off spinal fusion surgery. It’s unclear if he’ll ever pitch again in the majors, let alone take the ball every fifth day and produce quality numbers.</b><br /> <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Buddy, again, insurance--and it's not even that astronomical of a contract. Second worst in MLB, after only A-Rod? WORSE than BJ Upton? I'm not a Rangers fan, but I'm thinking Jonah might have some kind of grudge against that organization for some reason. </div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-43302565151414836612015-01-29T19:31:00.005-08:002015-01-29T19:32:40.193-08:00This blog has always been known for its timely analysis<br />
Which is why, per a request in an Anonymous comment from almost two weeks ago, I'm covering ESPN's Jackie MacMullan's SCORCHING HOT TAEK regarding The Incident from the AFC Championship Game Wherein the Patriots Were Found to be Using Underinflated Footballs. That is my super clever and catchy name for this "scandal." I hope you enjoy it. I couldn't think of anything shorter, or involving the suffix -gate or a reference to a political "scandal" from the last couple years involving an embassy in Libya.<br />
<br />
By the way, let me also be abundantly clear about one thing: while I despise the Patriots, I don't give a flying rat's cunt about this whole thing. I just can't bring myself to care. The Patriots were obviously the best team in the AFC from Halloween onward. Beyond that, as that awesome story Brad Johnson told about paying guys off to tamper with the game balls before the Raiders-Bucs Super Bowl demonstrates, this shit probably happens all the time. Honestly: who really gives a fuck? Fuck the Patriots, fuck the NFL, and most of all, fuck the 24 hour sports news cycle that's obsessed with the NFL. Now let's go out there and write this dumb post.<br />
<br />
<b>We don't know for certain yet whether Bill Belichick had anything to do with the deflation of 11 of the 12 footballs </b><br />
<br />
This was just another asinine facet to this whole thing--the repeated reporting that it was 11 of 12 footballs. Not all the footballs. Not almost all the footballs. Not all but one. Not "The Patriots were using a large number of underinflated balls." No--let me break out my Easterbrook impersonation and point out that 11 out of 12 is HYPERSPECIFIC and we don't need that much fucking information. Again, this is what happens when an NFL non-story breaks during Pro Bowl weeks. Sure, there are dozens of NBA and NHL games going on, but we need the Bottom Line ticker to let us know exactly what fraction of the balls were tampered with. I swear, the retards who inhabit this country love the NFL so much you could get great ratings on a 30 minute show that was just Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen going back and forth about what their sources have told them about that 12th ball that was actually within the league's rules.<br />
<br />
<b>the New England Patriots used in their trouncing of the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game. In fact, we may never know.</b><br />
<br />
We sure won't. Because this will all be forgotten about about four seconds after the Super Bowl kicks off.<br />
<br />
<b>Regardless of what the league determines, the Patriots' coach already has been declared guilty in the court of public opinion, </b><br />
<br />
By the way, as we go through this piece, you'll discover that Jackie Mac says the league should come down HAHHHHHD on the Pats if they are guilty. This is a hot taek in so many ways-- 1) she all but conceded in her first three sentences that we'll never really know, therefore more or less saying that there shouldn't be any stiff punishment, but even better, 2) anyone who has seen her on PTI knows that just like every other knuckle-dragging sportswriter from New England, she's an unashamed homer who wears her Pats-loving heart on her sleeve. Meaning, of course, that this whole article is really just a trolling of other Pats fans who she knows will be totally offended by her position, thus generating BUZZ and CONTROVERSY and PAGEVIEWS. Somewhere, Mark Shapiro is smiling and nodding.<br />
<br />
<b>his football brilliance superseded only by his football arrogance.</b><br />
<br />
Such a deft juxtaposition. Someone give this woman her own TV show.<br />
<br />
<b>Consider this tweet from Hall of Famer Jerry Rice:</b><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Roboto, 'Segoe UI', Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 24px; white-space: pre-wrap;">11 of 12 balls under-inflated can anyone spell cheating!!! </span><a class="hashtag customisable" data-query-source="hashtag_click" data-scribe="element:hashtag" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Just?src=hash" rel="tag" style="background-color: white; color: #0084b4; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Roboto, 'Segoe UI', Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 24px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;">#Just</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #292f33; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Roboto, 'Segoe UI', Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 24px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Saying</span><br />
<br />
First of all, Jerry, ask your kids about how hashtags work. (Lol! Old people am I right?!) Second of all, wow, blazing taek right there. Thanks for the input. <br />
<br />
<b>Rice has no skin in New England's game. </b><br />
<br />
Incredible analysis here. "This is a very simple story, but it is also a huge story in the world of the NFL. Here's someone from that world who has no connection to the Patriots, AND HE'S WEIGHING IN ON THE STORY WITH HIS VERY BASIC OPINION. Marvel at it, everyone."<br />
<br />
<b>He's not a former Raven or Colt, although he did play his final season in Seattle. </b><br />
<br />
If you see some hipster kid this weekend with a bad mustache, a SuperSonics hat and a Jerry Rice Seahawks jersey, punch him in the face for me please.<br />
<br />
<b>He is a football legend with an impeccable résumé and he won't be the first or last to cast aspersions on the football team in Foxborough, Massachusetts.</b><br />
<br />
Again, here's Jackie: "Note that this person has an opinion. Really makes you think, doesn't it?"<br />
<alsosee></alsosee><br />
<b>On the surface, knowingly tampering with footballs just minutes before (or during?) the AFC Championship Game in which your team is heavily favored seems, in the words of former Patriots safety Rodney Harrison, "laughable.''</b><br />
<br />
Yeah, there's a guy who knew how to cheat the RIGHT way. None of this getting caught for him, at least for most of his career.<br />
<br />
<b>It is also incredibly audacious, stupid and paranoid.</b><br />
<br />
This was a single sentence paragraph in the article as published.<br />
<br />
Bill Plaschke demands his royalty check.<br />
<br />
Also, if the Patriots did this on purpose, it's a lot of things.<br />
<br />
But I'm pretty sure it wasn't fueled by paranoia.<br />
<br />
<b>It's almost as ludicrous as videotaping the defensive signals of opposing teams <em>after</em> the league sent a memo specifically forbidding the practice and warning there would be serious repercussions if the decree was ignored.</b><br />
<br />
This is more catnip thrown by a New Englander at all the Massholes out there reading this on their phones during their lunch break at the tuna cannery. "Hey everyone... remember when the Patriots cheated this other time? That got you good and riled up I'll bet. Mmm hmm."<br />
<br />
<b>Spygate, Deflategate. Connect the dots and it appears to be more of the same, a haughty coach obsessed with winning who will do anything to get an edge -- and will gleefully tweak the league office in the process.</b><br />
<br />
Fuck Belichick, but the guy has balls. I'm almost starting to like him.<br />
<br />
<b>Therein lies Belichick's problem. A man who has made football his life's work, whose reverence for the game and its history is well-documented, </b><br />
<br />
I love the idea that doing anything to win is somehow not in alignment with loving the game and knowing about its history. Why, it's almost like he wants to win so he can be a part of that history some day! Madness!<br />
<br />
<b>has forever forfeited the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his own integrity. </b><br />
<br />
Guarantee you he doesn't give a shit.<br />
<br />
<b>Earlier this month, 85-year-old Don Shula, the winningest coach in NFL history and the only one to oversee an undefeated season, </b><br />
<br />
Barf<br />
<br />
<b>with the Miami Dolphins in 1972, </b><br />
<br />
Oh, is that when it was? I'm only reminded of that every goddamn 10 minutes during all NFL broadcasts in October/November when there are only a couple of undefeated teams left.<br />
<br />
<b>was asked about New England's coach. The congenial Shula replied: "Beli-cheat?"</b><br />
<br />
RAZOR SHARP. WOW. EVEN AT 85, THE GUY HAS A FIRM GRASP ON SHITTY PUNS. THIS IS ALMOST AS CRAZY AS THE TIME JERRY RICE POINTED OUT THAT CHEATING IS THE SAME THING AS CHEATING.<br />
<br />
<b>It spoke volumes about the perception of New England's resident football genius. Shula is a man of character and credibility. </b><br />
<br />
Oh my God. Holy shit. No, he's not. He's not Teddy Roosevelt. He's not Roberto Clemente. He's just a guy who was an awesome football coach a while ago. Of COURSE he's going to shit on Belichick. That's what all retired legends in every field do when asked about the then-current legends in the making in that field.<br />
<br />
<b>His words hold weight, far more than a blustery Ray Lewis embarking on a rant dismissing Tom Brady's career because of the tuck rule. That made no sense and had no merit.</b><br />
<br />
Hahahahha. I didn't hear that. That's pretty great, though. Good for Ray. I like that taek.<br />
<br />
<b>This deflation controversy is a different case altogether. </b><br />
<br />
Right--one is a case of potential circumvention of league rules. The other is a case where the league's referees probably did correctly enforce the league's rules, even though those rules are terrible. Where am I going with this contrast? I don't know, but fuck Tom Brady.<br />
<br />
<b>The Colts became suspicious about the footballs and asked the referees to check them during the game. An investigation was launched, and there is tangible evidence the balls were inflated 2 pounds per square inch below what the league mandates.</b><br />
<br />
2 POUNDS? ARE YOU SURE IT WASN'T 1.7 POUNDS? GET ED WERDER TO CAMP OUT OUTSIDE OF JIM CALDWELL'S HOUSE UNTIL WE GET SOME ANSWERS.<br />
<br />
<b>Obviously there are myriad unanswered questions. Were the balls properly checked by the officials before the game? Who monitored the Patriots' footballs on the sideline? When, if at all, were the balls that appeared underinflated then discarded or re-inflated? Is there any tangible evidence that someone on New England's sideline tampered with the balls?</b><br />
<br />
That last one is a pretty relevant question, which I hate to admit, because the other three are so mind-numbingly stupid and 24 hour news cycle-y that I want to throw myself down a flight of stairs. WHEN WERE THE BALLS UN-INFLATED OR RE-INFLATED OR SOMETHING? WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE COW THAT THE BALLS WERE EVENTUALLY MADE OUT OF?<br />
<br />
<b>Let's dispatch one ridiculous notion: The deflated balls are not why the Patriots are playing in the Super Bowl next weekend. New England completely dismantled Indianapolis in -- as a certain coach likes to say -- every phase of the game.</b><br />
<br />
A little nod and a wink to those Masshole ESPN readers I've been talking about. "Hey, just so you guys know, I love Belichick and the Pats just as much as you do. Stay with me here, I'm just trying to get paid."<br />
<br />
<b>In a perfect football world, the Patriots </b><br />
<br />
would not exist, or would go 0-16 every year.<br />
<br />
<b>would be riding high in the wake of a surge of creativity that has set them apart in recent weeks.</b><br />
<br />
Nope, I like mine better.<br />
<br />
<b>The Brady-to-Edelman-to-Amendola touchdown, the four-offensive-linemen formation and the touchdown pass to tackle Nate Solder were all evidence that New England had rediscovered its innovative, edgy persona.</b><br />
<br />
Hey, cheating is often innovative and edgy too. Let's not rule out the possibility of having it both ways.<br />
<br />
<b>Why can't the coach trust his players' talents and his own intellect and lean on the excellence of the organization </b><br />
<br />
Fuck the organization and fuck Bob Kraft. There is no Patriot Way. It's a fucking team, and it will employ cheaters and murderers just as readily as any other team. It's had a lot of success recently because of Belichick and Brady. If those two guys died in their sleep tonight, they'd lose the Super Bowl by 30 and be irrelevant for the next 15 years. Let's stop patting "the organization" on the back for having generational talents (one of whom they stumbled ass-backwards into employing) holding the two most important jobs on a football team.<br />
<br />
<b>he has so painstakingly built into a sustainable football juggernaut? </b><br />
<br />
Because he likes winning. Article over.<br />
<br />
<b>It's like a prizefighter pummeling his opponent for six straight rounds, then feeling compelled to throw a sucker punch after the bell has sounded. Why? You had the fight won.</b><br />
<br />
No, it's really more like a prizefighter paying someone to poison his opponent's food before the bout even though the opponent was much weaker to begin with. See how my analogy works and yours is terrible?<br />
<br />
<b>I'll say it again: There's no concrete evidence yet that Belichick or the Patriots did anything wrong. </b><br />
<br />
Yeah, we got it. Thanks.<br />
<br />
<b>But even the most ardent New England fan has to concede that when 11 of the 12 balls are discovered to be deflated, that's a mighty interesting coincidence.</b><br />
<br />
You're doing that thing that all bad sportswriters do where you just start wandering off and either restating your old points or not making any new ones. Just finish up already.<br />
<br />
<b>If the NFL finds the Patriots culpable (and that is still a big "if" at this point),</b><br />
<br />
HOLY FUCK, THAT'S THE EIGHTH TIME YOU'VE REMINDED US. WE GET IT.<br />
<br />
<b>it should lay the hammer down. If Belichick turns out to be a repeat offender in the skirting of the league rules, he should be suspended for the Super Bowl.</b><br />
<br />
MOLTEN LAVA HOT. BE CAREFUL EVERYONE.<br />
<br />
<b>It's not about the deflated balls. It's not about how much of an advantage (if any) it provided the Patriots or Tom Brady.</b><br />
<br />
Actually, had that laughably impossible outcome occurred, it would have been about exactly that advantage. What the hell else would it be about? The Patriots having insulted the league's officially licensed ball and pump manufacturers?<br />
<br />
<b>It's about the integrity of the sport </b><br />
<br />
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />
<br />
The integrity of the NFL<br />
<br />
Hahahahah<br />
<br />
That's wonderful<br />
<br />
I'm crying<br />
<br />
<b>and the arrogance of a football coach who, if guilty, will have once again shown that he thinks he is bigger than the game.</b><br />
<br />
Well, he probably does think that, and it's probably true.<br />
<br />
<b>For years the Patriots have fostered an "Us Against the World" mentality, whether real or manufactured (usually it was the latter).</b><br />
<br />
It's always the latter. Drew Magary put it best in his Deadspin weekly column today: "The world doesn’t give a shit. Most of the world is just trying to fucking eat. Some farmer in Burundi isn’t gonna be like, “The Pats won? Well, they showed me!”" I don't adore Magary like some do (enough about your goddamn kids, holy shit, enough), but that's a pretty great line.<br />
<br />
<b>No one was better at inventing slights to motivate his team than Harrison, who is convinced Belichick and the Patriots will utilize the furor surrounding this controversy to their advantage.</b><br />
<br />
No they won't. That is a dumb, cliched narrative. They will instead just ignore it and go out and try to outplay Seattle, same as they would have if the big story this week was that Spygate was a complete invention by the league and never happened.<br />
<br />
<b>"I can tell you, this is the last thing Seattle needs,'' Harrison said recently. "Those guys in that New England locker room are pumped. After all the hard work they've put in, after all they've accomplished, after all they've done, to have people doubt them?</b><br />
<br />
Fuck yourself, Rodney.<br />
<br />
<b>"They're taking that stuff personally. They're fired up. Add the fact Seattle was favored in the Super Bowl, and look out.''</b><br />
<br />
Yeah, and almost immediately after the books opened, the line swung around to favor New England, where it has stayed. THAT'S THE LAST THING THE PATRIOTS NEED. THE SEAHAWKS ARE PISSED OFF. IT'S THEM AGAINST THE WORLD.<br />
<br />
<b>He's right. There's nothing like controversy to band a team together and provide them with the extra resolve to prove their detractors wrong.</b><br />
<br />
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz God I hate football culture and the journalists who enable it.<br />
<br />
<b>But here's the hitch: Even if the Patriots beat the Seahawks 60-0 in Super Bowl XLIX, the win will be declared a tainted one by many. </b><br />
<br />
I know, it's going to be so fun to use this complete non-story as ammunition against dumb Patriots fans for decades to come. "Sure, eventually they won another Super Bowl without being able to illegally tape other teams' practices, but that's only because they found a DIFFERENT way to cheat. Smh." (Last part should only be used if you are giving your snarky anti-Patriots hot taek in an online environment.) Seriously, it's going to be great.<br />
<br />
<b>The noise will continue, and the chants of "Beli-cheat" will endure.</b><br />
<br />
As they should, as long as we all promise to brainstorm a better and more insulting nickname.<br />
<br />
<b>The coach probably won't care, but it's not just his legacy that will be stained. His players also are saddled with the perception that something far more unseemly than their preparation and sacrifice were the reasons for their success.</b><br />
<br />
I'm sure they'll really care while admiring their Super Bowl rings and cashing their bonus checks.<br />
<br />
<b>And that's the most deflating reality of all.</b><br />
<br />
OH WOW. I spent all this time making fun of this article, and then she drops a KILLER closing line on me. God, I look like a fool now. Should have just turned this post into a bunch of deflated/soft/mishandled balls (haha balls) jokes.Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-74002067515396000782015-01-15T16:14:00.000-08:002015-01-15T16:14:26.840-08:00Murray Chass opines about the HOF results; is an ass<div>
<br /></div>
Well first of all, let me cram my fucking foot as far into my mouth as I can get it re: Simmons. He only went 2-2 straight up in picking the divisional games last weekend, but he went 3-1 against the spread. And much more importantly from the perspective of me and this angry blog, 1) he nailed his prediction for the GREATriots, correctly picking them to not cover but advance (in a game they really should have lost), and even better, 2) the one game he missed against the spread, and completely whiffed on straight up, was the Denver-Indy game. As I've probably made clear, I'm a Denver fan. So that was a really fun little cherry on top of a shit sports weekend. MAYBE THEY LOST BECAUSE BILL JINXED THEM IN SAYING THEY'D WIN EASILY. THAT MUST BE IT. WHAT OTHER EXPLANATION IS THERE? DAMN YOU SIMMONS YOU HAVE FOILED PEYTON AGAIN! Anyways, fuck the Patriots and fuck John Fox. I now hate all four teams remaining in the playoffs, but I hate the Patriots most of all, so besides go meteor, go Colts, I guess. The good news is that if they move on, Seattle is going to toast them in the Super Bowl. I hope. MAYBE.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Moving along to things that make me slightly less angry, HOF voters managed to not totally fuck the dog, in electing four very deserving members to Cooperstown last week. I mean, they still blew the dog and/or jerked off the dog by leaving Piazza and Bagwell out, but this was progress. What does Murray Chass think about all this? Caution: HOT TAEKS ahead.<br /><br /><b>As Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa sink slowly in tandem toward steroids oblivion, reprising their relationship in their electrifying home run derby of 1998 but in a different direction, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens run slowly in place, doomed to their personal Groundhog Day in baseball cleats. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Or so Murray hopes. He's already reneged on <a href="http://www.murraychass.com/?p=5663">this promise</a>, and I'm going to guess the reason is so that he can help continue to keep CHEATING CHEATERS who CHEAT and are BAD PEOPLE out of the Hall. We'll know in a decade or so whether he succeeded.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Mike Piazza, meanwhile, is very likely headed, undeserved as it may be, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
DIE</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>to having the last laugh on his nemesis Clemens.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm surprised he admits defeat in his quest to keep Piazza unenshrined. <br /><br /><b>That, in brief, sums up my view of the results of this year’s voting for the Hall of Fame, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I like how his view is entirely focused on five dudes who didn't get elected. He doesn't give a shit about baseball greatness--he's just in it for the witch hunting.<br /><br />[Dumb summary of the vote totals of McGwire and Sosa, who are TOTALLY GETTING WHAT THEY HAD COMING TO THEM MUHAHAHAHAHA ALL IS RIGHT WITH THE WORLD, omitted]<br /><br /><b>Bonds and Clemens aren’t in danger of falling off the face of the earth, but they aren’t in danger either of reaching the doors of the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y. Voters have been remarkably consistent in their treatment of the pair. In their first two years on the ballot, Bonds and Clemens each received votes in the mid-30 percent, and that’s precisely where they wound up this week, 36.8 percent for Bonds, 37.5 percent for Clemens. Each actually went up 2.1 percent, but with seven more chances, at that rate they won’t very likely get where they want to go.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't know--every year the electorate gets a little less curmudgeonly as people like Chass retire or die and are replaced by younger voters who are less likely to be fucking stupid. I'm not aware of (nor could I find) any public opinion polls about how the baseball-following public generally feels about the Steroid Era, but I would wager that attitudes towards the accomplishments of its most accomplished players soften every year. It sucks for Bonds and Clemens that they are victims of the reduced number of years on the ballot rule that was recently adopted, but I am still hopeful they both get elected (assholes though they are).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By the way, Chass's moralizing got even funnier this week when <a href="http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/14/yankees-executives-1945-pro-segregation-letter-is-up-for-auction/comment-page-1/">this news broke</a>, which should remind everyone that not only does the HOF contain horrible shitty people, but it contains other people, like MacPhail, who are also guilty of compromising the integrity of the game. That second fact is important, because of course the stock comeback from dipshits like Chass when you point out that Ty Cobb was a racist and an asshole and he's in the Hall so why shouldn't Bonds be is "But what Bonds did WAS AN AFFRONT TO BASEBALL ITSELF." Even if that argument is granted, segregationists like MacPhail actively worked to block talented players from entering MLB for decades, and thus robbed fans of watching exciting players and better teams. Just food for thought next time you read some asswiping-worthy scree about Bonds or Clemens.</div>
<div>
<br /><b>There would seem to be a hardcore group of voters and no one else who ignore the steroids/HGH elements of their careers and believe Bonds and Clemens belong in the Hall of Fame even if they cheated and used illegal substances.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They've only been on the ballot three years, and those were three very crowded ballots. I'd wager they start trending up next year, when the only sure thing new arrival is Griffey.<br /><br /><b>What puzzles me is the different vote totals for the pair. If a writer opts to ignore the cheating aspects of their careers, why doesn’t he or she vote for both? </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He actually did a piece on this, which I'm not going to link to and didn't read, because after reading a brief excerpt on HardballTalk my head almost exploded. Go check it out if you want to read things that really dumb people think.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Yet this year 206 voted for Clemens, 202 for Bonds. Does that mean four voters have a different reason for believing that Bonds doesn’t belong in the Hall?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
BBWA members are among the biggest cuntswabbers on earth. I don't think a little inconsistency among their voting preferences for steroid era guys is anything to be surprised by.<br /><br /><b>Tim Raines’ vote total also was cause for excitement for some analysts. The outfielder went from 46.1 percent to 55.0, but a year ago he tumbled from 52.2 to 46.1. He has two more chances.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The departure of fringe guys like him from the ballot (even though he might get replaced by Jim Edmonds or Trevor Hoffman, who I think should be out and in, respectively) should also help Bonds and Clemens eventually.<br /><br /><b>I think the primary reason for the excitement for both Schilling and Raines was that they rank high on the lists of the practitioners of the monster metrics, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Monster metrics? That's actually a really cool and non-pejorative sounding name for it. What happened to calling advanced stats "FWARP, GORP, and other made up computer numbers for nerds in their parents' basements"?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>who seemed to be thrilled that the writers were finally starting to get it right where those two players are concerned.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Imagine that--the people who like analyzing baseball using the modern tools that EVERY MLB team are now using (at least to some extent--looking at you, Diamondbacks) to evaluate players would like HOF voters to follow in the steps of those teams. You know, the ones with huge financial stakes in the success or failure of their franchises. The ones who are generally (not always, but generally) the right entities to look to if you want to know how people are figuring out which baseball players are good. Funny that.<br /><br /><b>Interestingly, while watching one of those shows, I saw a film clip from another show, in which Brian Kenny of MLB.com was arguing with Chris Russo, a talk show host, about which players belong in the Hall of Fame.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Chris "Mad Dog" Russo probably has a hard time tying his shoes and remembering his own birthday. You do not want to be on his side in an argument, Murray.<br /><br /><b>Getting nowhere and becoming exasperated with Russo, Kenny, a major proponent of monster metrics, said, “Well, what basic methodology do you use to rate players?”<br /><br />“I watch the games,” Russo said.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Really? Do you watch ALL the games? Would you vote for Raines for the HOF? Why or why not? How many of his games have you seen? He played in over 2500 of them. He had many 4 and 5 hit nights. I'm sure he also had plenty of nights with no hits and an error or 2. How would you know how good he really was unless you watched a statistically significant number of games from throughout every phase of his career, which I'm sure you haven't done? Needless to say, "analysts" like Mad Dog should be punched in the face and then sent to live somewhere in Montana with no phone or internet service. <br /><br /><b>I have always avoided listening to Russo, who screams too much and too loud for my liking, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yes! He's going to reach the conclusion that he and Russo have more in common than he originally thought, without realizing that the reason for that is they are both fucking morons! Yes!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>but in this instance, he won my allegiance. In four words, he made the case for those of us who prefer to judge players on what we see on the field, not on the computer screen.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's glorious! I told you that was about to happen! I hope you believed me!<br /><br /><b>How should we judge Piazza, whose 69.9 percent puts him on the brink of walking into the Hall a year from now? Based on that vote, most writers don’t believe or even suspect that he used steroids. That is probably naïve of them.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One very vocal blogger named Murray Chass is utterly convinced that Piazza used steroids with only the most pathetic and flimsy evidence available to support this position. That is probably fucking unprofessional and horrid of him.<br /><br /><b>Using the New York newspapers as a barometer, the New York Post’s Mike Vaccaro wrote a column about Piazza in which he didn’t mention even the possibility of the catcher’s use of performance-enhancing drugs. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
WE NEED TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY! THAT'S IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM! KIDS NEED TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS ABOUT EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM EQUALLY! ALL NEWS STORIES ABOUT CONVICTED MURDERERS SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE PEOPLE IN THEIR LIVES THEY WERE NICE TO! THAT'S DEFINITELY THE WAY THINGS SHOULD WORK! I'M ON METH RIGHT NOW!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>If he doesn’t believe Piazza used them, why didn’t Vaccaro write that the accusations are baseless?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh my God. If that alone doesn't raise your blood pressure a few points, this blog is not for you. I want to go kick a tree after reading that. It's so insanely idiotic. THE PERSON WHO BLOGGED THAT LAST SENTENCE GETS A HALL OF FAME VOTE. HOLY JESUS CHRIST ON A FERRIS WHEEL. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PROCESS?<br /><br /><b>John Harper of the Daily News did not duck the issue.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Get ready for some courageous truth bombs!<br /><br /><b>“The problem is we can’t know for sure and there was so much whispering about Piazza and PEDs during his career that you can’t help but have at least some reservations about voting for him.</b><br /><br />If you're dumb, yes.<br /><br /><b>“I heard some of it myself over the years from people in baseball, but in the end I don’t think it’s fair to deny a player the highest honor in baseball without more proof than there is on Piazza.</b><br />THERE IS NO PROOF. NONE. THERE IS ONLY RETARDED-ASS SPECULATION BASED ON ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT AMOUNTS TO JUST AN ASS HAIR ABOVE "FUCKING NOTHING." <br /><br /><b>“So after withholding my vote for his first year of eligibility, as a statement of sorts on all the suspicion, I’ve voted for him the last two years. And it seems there are other voters taking a similar tack, feeling more compelled to vote for Piazza with each year that passes.”</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is what progress looks like in the BWAA. I'd like to say mean things about John Harper, but you know what, the BWAA needs more John Harpers. So I'll let it slide.<br /><br /><b>Harper quoted from Piazza’s 2013 autobiography, which in itself was controversial. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No way! I'm sure that had nothing to do with the publisher's desire to sell books!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Michael Bamberger, a fine writer from Philadelphia, was originally going to collaborate on the book with Piazza, but he withdrew from the project when Piazza declined to commit to being forthcoming about steroids.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Michael Bamberger is not solely a sportswriter, and when he does write about sports, he is a fucking golf writer. As far as baseball is concerned, fuck him and fuck any opinions or suspicions he had or has.<br /><br /><b>When Piazza was writing the book with Lonnie Wheeler, I asked their Simon & Schuster editor if Piazza would include steroids in it. He said Piazza would cover the subject. He, of course, did not admit to using PEDs, saying training and diet were responsible for his bigger, more muscular body.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
WHY DIDN'T HE JUST DENY IT IF HE HAS NOTHING TO oh wait, that's what he did. <br /><br /><b>Had he acknowledged a use of PEDs, he would have killed his chances of making the Hall of Fame, which he desperately wanted to do and now is in position to do.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Conclusion: If Murray Chass says a guy used steroids based solely on Murray claiming that guy had back acne at one point, from that point on we can't trust anything the guy says, because the guy is obviously lying about those steroids he obviously took. Makes sense.<br /><br /><b>The New York Times mentioned Piazza and steroids in the same story, and that was by far my favorite. On at least two occasions, maybe three, during Piazza’s years with the New York Mets (1998-2005), </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Glad to hear you're super sure about how this all went down.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>as a baseball writer and columnist for The New York Times, I wanted to write about Piazza and the possibility that he had used steroids.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I wonder what Piazza did to Chass to put Chass on this stupid crusade? My guess: failed to give Chass a juicy quote for a story and brushed him off because he needed to be at some stupid charity event when Chass REALLY was running up against deadline.<br /><br /><b>However, I was told I could not because Piazza hadn’t tested positive for steroids use and hadn’t been named anywhere as a suspected user.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
THE EDITOR WAS IN ON THIS CONSPIRACY TOO. WAKE UP SHEEPLE<br /><br /><b>An article in the Times Wednesday cited Piazza’s 427 career home runs and .308 batting average and said, “Those are standout numbers. But in an era in which the voting is shadowed by baseball’s entanglement with steroids, Piazza has suffered from the perception, among some writers, that he might have been a user, although no evidence has emerged that he was.”</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Subtext: some writers (by which I mean bloggers like Murray Chass) are unprofessional fuckheads who should never be listened to.<br /><br /><b>The article was written by Jay Schreiber, who was the editor who said I couldn’t write about Piazza and steroids.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And then, like his previous post I wrote about last month, the blog post just ends. Was that supposed to be a SPINE TINGLING conclusion or something? MY GOD. JAY SCHREIBER SEEMS NOT TO HAVE CHANGED HIS POSITION ON FLIMSY STEROID ACCUSATIONS AT ALL. CONNECT THE DOTS YOU FOOLS! IT'S ALL RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU! </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Murray Chass is a fundamentally bad person. Do not be like him.</div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-55646588867590255462015-01-11T20:57:00.000-08:002015-01-11T20:57:13.682-08:00Seems like the "wrongest thing that has ever been said about baseball" label could use another entry<div class="MsoNormal">
Guys. Guys. GUYS. Fellow bloggers and baseball
fans. Listen up. All of the Hall of Fame stuff you've read these last few weeks
is great. You've read about backne and BALCO and bWAR, but you don't
realize that there's<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></span><i>one
simple fact</i> out there that shows how bad HOF voting is bad. Good thing
there's Forbes.com writer Chris Smith to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2015/01/06/the-one-simple-fact-that-shows-baseballs-hall-of-fame-voting-is-broken/">point it out for us.</a> I won't
discuss the whole article because you know the boring parts about Bonds and Clemens, but here's the
crux of it:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="background: white;">There are plenty of arguments to be made about what’s wrong with the
Hall of Fame, but there may be no simpler example of just how messed
up the current format is than this one simple fact: Barry Bonds and Roger
Clemens received a different number of votes. This year Clemens received 206
votes, or 37.5% of the total, while Bonds got 202 votes (36.8%).
That marks the third straight year that this has happened. In 2013,
Clemens received 214 votes (37.6%) to 206 votes (36.2%) for Bonds; last year
Clemens again outpaced Bonds, 202 (35.4%) to 198 (34.7%).</span></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="background: white;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;">So guys: Chris Smith has
disovered the</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></span><i><span style="background: white;">one simple fact</span></i><span style="background: white;"> that shows how bad this voting is.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></span><span style="background: white;">The fact here isn't that the best-hitting catcher in
baseball history wasn't elected, or that two writers actually (actually!) voted
for one-time all-star Aaron Boone, two voted for one-time AL saves leader Tom
Gordon, and one for this guy. Heck, I would argue that it's more of a
travesty that 15 actual human beings returned ballots that apparently did not
vote for a guy who won four straight Cy Youngs and has the second-most
strikeouts in baseball history. OR that 49 actual human beings did vote
for a guy with the highest ERA+ of any starting pitcher in history.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white;">Apparently the real
problem is that</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></span><i>three</i><span style="background: white;"> writers,
for some reason, don't believe that Bonds and Clemens have exactly the same
steroid resume. But you know - there's a lot of gray area there. In fact, Mr. Smith even acknowledges that Clemens was found not guilty of perjury and the charges againstn Bonds were dropped. Maybe someone out there has a slightly different view of the evidence in these cases. That seems a lot more plausible than the terrible voting decisions I pointed out last paragraph, all of which are grounds for some<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FsV7hqYU20"> justice</a>.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anyways, thanks for the enlightenment, Mr. Smith. Armed with this<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></span><i>one simple fact,</i><span class="apple-converted-space"><i><span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;"> </span></i></span>I will now go to the BBWAA and they will
recognize the error of their ways, reform the voting system to be a beacon of
justice and fairness and the American Way. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now that that's said, I also happen to think that John
Smoltz should've been like a sixth-ballot Hall of Famer. Has there ever
been another guy whose HOF candidacy was indirectly boosted by an injury that
forced him to switch positions and generate an unusual stat line? But
that's for some other post.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
dan-bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02465285716333091226noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-82559585302691963312015-01-08T16:48:00.003-08:002015-01-08T16:49:09.309-08:00Bill's momentum keeps on rolling, right into the playoffs<br />
First of all, I guess everyone is saying this but I might as well too: rest in peace Stu Scott. I'd be lying if I said I thought he was the greatest, or if I tried to pretend like I never wrote anything mean about him on this blog. But when push comes to shove, he was an entertaining dude who made sports fun. That's all that really matters. <br />
<br />
With that out of the way, let's get back to the important task of hating everything. I'll comment more about the Hall of Fame election next week, and how dumb it is that <a href="http://deadspin.com/dumbest-man-alive-gives-dumbest-possible-explanation-fo-1678295876">Piazza</a> and Bagwell are still not and (and not even good bets to make it next year--watch the voters only put in Griffey and no one else). <br />
<br />
For now, though, let's get back to sports gambling savant Bill Simmons, who has a well-refined manifesto that is perfectly internally consistent, and who is apt at spotting a Vegas line that is a point too high or too low. I lost track of his total numbers, but when we last left him a month ago, I had him at 59-61 plus some pushes. He claimed at the end of last week's wild card round picks that he finished the regular season at 101-93 (after subtracting out the perfect 58-0 score he gave himself for the time he was suspended). Something went awry in there, because at that time there were only four regular season weeks left for the NFL, and he has himself having picked roughly 75 games, or roughly 19 per week. I dunno. I'm not going to check his work, I'm just going to reiterate that he's a fucking dumbshit, and let him back that up as I analyze his wild card picks below. He did the never-entertaining "Things about both teams that could make you regret picking them" format, and I'm commenting just on his logic for the teams that ended up winning, because, come on, isn't it great that when he publishes a set of picks in that format he's spoon feeding us a well-developed line of idiotic thinking that, if he followed it while placing bets, could have him going 0-for on the week?<br />
<br />
He went 1-3 against the spread and 2-2 straight up. THANKS FOR THE FREE MONEY, VEGAS!<br />
<br /><b>PANTHERS (-6.5) over Cardinals</b><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Obviously the only one he got right against the spread.<br /><br /><b>Why You Eventually Regretted Taking the Panthers: You laid nearly a touchdown with a lame division champ that went 64 days between wins. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Against a team starting Ryan Lindley on the road. (Really, I could just copy and paste that sentence for all of his comments about this game, but I'll get creative and actually mention other stuff as well.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You backed a 7-8-1 team with the 25th DVOA over an 11-5 team with the 22nd overall DVOA. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Don't those rankings show that the Cardinals were even more flagrant overachievers than the Panthers? The Panthers probably would have been a 4-12 team in most other divisions, but cripes, the Cardinals were really only a 5-11 or 6-10 team themselves. At least the Panthers didn't really have an identity crisis. I'm sure they're aware their season sucked.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You got too carried away with an end-of-the-season winning streak over four teams that finished a combined 22-42. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't think anyone who took the Panthers was really that enthralled with that winning streak. But they might have been pretty interested in the way the Cardinals fell apart in November and December.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You ignored an old-school Playoff Manifesto Rule: </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
ALERT ALERT TOP SECRET MANIFESTO GENIUS TIP AHEAD</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>“When In Doubt, Check the Coaching Match-ups” (Rivera vs. President-Elect Arians). </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Arians is (supposedly) really good (with the caveat that he doesn't have a huge body of work). Rivera is definitely nothing special, but he's at least average. I'm not sure how any of that accounts for Cam Newton vs. Ryan Lindley.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You didn’t see Barnwell’s nugget about how three of the other four “Worst QBs To Start A Playoff Game Since 1972” won those games. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh, Bill has a little Peter King in him these days! So good to be receiving nuggets from both of them! I don't know any other method of conveyance of factoids I prefer to nuggets.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You spent too much time worrying about Arizona scoring and not enough time wondering what would happen in a 13-10 game if Cam made one dumb mistake.</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What? I'm no TMQ, but that's a little hyperspecific for me for the purpose of betting. "Sure, Newton is a million times better than Ryan fucking Lindley, and the Cardinals are coming apart at the seams, BUT WHAT IF IT'S 13-10 AND NEWTON THROWS A PICK SIX ON 3RD AND 2 FROM THE ARIZONA 27 WITH 4:25 REMAINING?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Worst of all, you backed the wrong Wonk Team — you thought it was Carolina when it was really Arizona all along.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
WONK TEAM! ANOTHER MANIFESTO WEIRD TRICK THAT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MOMS USE TO MAKE THOUSANDS PER WEEK ON THE INTERNET! "Wonk team" is about as cool as "hoops fan nerdgasm." Don't say either unless you're super intoxicated or trying to annoy someone.<br /><br /><b>The Pick: Panthers 23, Cardinals 7</b><br /><br />Not bad. And it's all way, way, way downhill from here.<br /><br /><b>STEELERS (-3.5) over Ravens</b><br /><br /><b>Why You Eventually Regretted Taking the Ravens: You ignored the probability of Baltimore’s putrid secondary getting overpowered by the NFL’s most dangerous passing attack. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yeah, maybe Baltimore's secondary wasn't exactly full of A-listers, but they still ended up middle of the pack in most pass defense categories (17th and yards/attempt allowed, 19th in QB rating allowed). This might have something to do with the fact that they tied for 2nd in sacks. Hmmm, anyone see Saturday night's game? Anyone happen to remember if Roethlisberger got his ass handed to himself like seven or eight times?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You mistakenly thought the weather might cripple Pittsburgh’s offense. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Huh?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that the Lewis era officially died in Baltimore when Ed Reed left. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"I can't possibly pick this 10-6 team that split its two regular season games against their upcoming opponent! They had two really old HOFers on their team as of two seasons ago, and now they have zero old HOFers!"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that Baltimore’s offensive line was all kinds of banged up, and that Pittsburgh rushes the passer pretty well. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Pittsburgh's offensive line was a disaster most of the year, and against the Ravens. Pittsburgh also finished the season 26th in sacks.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot how scary it was to wager against Big Ben in Big Games unless he’s going against Tim Tebow during the final 15 minutes of Fourth and God.</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I get that Roethlisberger has a good playoff career record (10-4 before this game), but he's also only got 21 TDs against 19 picks in those games, and an 83.3 rating. His defense has bailed him out big time in some important games, notably Super Bowl XL against the Seahawks, and the 2008 and 2010 AFC championship games. I think Tebow himself could have probably won all three of those games with the support Roethlisberger got.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that the Ravens went 4-0 against the NFC South (congratulations!) </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
More damning--that, or the fact that the Steelers managed to lose to the Buccaneers at home?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>and or that they beat one above-.500 team all season (in Week 2, no less). </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fair point, but that team was the Steelers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot about Pittsburgh’s many playmakers, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With Bell sitting, that list includes Antonio Brown and.... uh....</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>and you definitely forgot about the great Antonio Brown. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Who had an amazing highlight-reel game on Sunday Night Football in week 17. Easy to forget about that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that Pittsburgh’s destiny might be taking out Manning on the road as heavy underdogs again, just like it did nine years ago. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yeah! Destiny! That's how gambling works!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Most of all, you forgot about karma. Was there a better karmic ending to this 2014 Ravens season then “Destroyed by their most hated rival in Round 1?” Of course not.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
WHO SAYS NO<br /><br /><b>The Pick: Pittsburgh 37, Baltimore 24</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Almost.<br /><br /><b>Bengals (+4) over COLTS</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Given the way he journalistically fellates Luck (just like pretty much everyone else who writes about the NFL), this pick shocked me. Was he going for THE DREADED DOUBLE REVERSE JINX to prevent THE FACKIN' PATS from having to face Luck if the Steelers and Colts had both won? We may never know, but the answer is yes. I hope the Ravens beat the Patriots by 50 this weekend.</div>
<div>
<br /><b>Why You Eventually Regretted Taking the Colts: You forgot that the Colts were 2014’s Good Bad Team; they got destroyed three times in the last nine weeks. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not really. Their game against New England wasn't really an ass kicking. The Dallas game definitely was, and maybe Pittsburgh too, but the week before the Pittsburgh game they beat the Bengals 27-0, so yeah.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that Ahmad Bradshaw’s injury created the NFL’s most pathetic running back crew.</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It was pretty crappy even with Bradshaw. I don't really think Chuck Pagano shit himself when Bradshaw went down, at least not to the same extent Mike Tomlin almost surely did when Bell went down.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that New England and Dallas ran the ball down Indy’s throat … and Jeremy Hill could do it, too. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
IN THEORY A RB COULD HAVE A GOOD GAME AGAINST THEM! DIDN'T SEE THAT ONE COMING DID YOU??!?!! </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot about the 3.3 percent chance that Jim Irsay would wander onto the field like Shooter in Hoosiers. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*crickets* *tumbleweed*</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that Gio Bernard turned into a frightening third-down back. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Who got way worse from his rookie year to his second year, always a sign of a dangerous player!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot about A.J. Green’s Ewing Theory potential as well as the resulting “Nobody Believes In Us” potential. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
BRILLIANT</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that Luck throws it up for grabs too much, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Very true, and also the meanest thing I think I've heard anyone say about Luck in the last five months. Seriously, the guy gets the kid gloves treatment worse than Jeter did this past summer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>and that Cincy’s excellent secondary loves picking off dumb passes. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Other secondaries don't do that! Only Cincy's!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that Indy’s home-field “advantage” just hadn’t been overpowering, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sure, only 19-5 since Luck arrived in 2012.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>and that four favorites never cover in Round 1. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's a really good point. Maybe I'll put my money on the Ravens and Lions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that Cincy’s overall roster was just better than Indy’s roster. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Correct. Also like the 8th most important thing to consider when predicting the winner of a single playoff game.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that Matt Ryan, Peyton Manning and Randall Cunningham also lost THEIR first three playoff games. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OH NO! IF MATTY ICE AND HIS MEDIOCRITY COULDN'T DO IT, THERE'S NO WAY LUCK CAN EITHER!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that Dalton could destroy Cincy’s postseason without necessarily doing it this weekend.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's a really good point, if Cincy had won this game, they'd still be playing this coming weekend. Ppl forget that.<br /><br /><b>The Pick: Cincinnati 23, Indianapolis 20</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Whiffffffffffffffffffffffffffff<br /><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>COWBOYS (-7) over Lions</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
THIS SPREAD IS TWO POINTS TOO LOW! EASY MONEY!<br /><br /><b>Why You Eventually Regretted Taking the Cowboys: Tony Romo. Jason Garrett. Tony Romo AND Jason Garrett. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Huh? I know they don't have the best playoff reputation or anything, but Detroit hasn't won a playoff game in decades.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You ignored how Dallas’s biggest strength (running the ball) conflicted with Detroit’s biggest strength (stopping the run). </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Good defense beats good offense, the team with the most playmakers who make plays always wins, and cold coach = victory. Science.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You laid a touchdown with a crummy defense against a playoff team with multiple big-play weapons. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That finished 19th in total offense and 22nd in points per game, while playing home games in a dome and with a mostly healthy Calvin Johnson.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot about Megatron.</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No one forgot about Megatron.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot it was Golden Tate’s destiny to have a Revenge Game in Seattle in Round 2.</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maybe he can still be cut by the Lions and picked up by the Panthers? It's his destiny!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot that you were backing Jerry Jones in the playoffs, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Haha, that's like the Romo + Garrett point but on super moron steroids.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>that Dallas crowds sucked this season, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Most NFL crowds suck these days. The BEANTOWN FAITHFUL weren't exactly all smiles and support back when the Pats looked like assholes in September and early October.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>that a worn-down DeMarco Murray had carried the ball 392 times already. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He went for 100 yards on 20 carries in week 17. I think it's pretty likely he wears down by, like, 2018. I don't think it was very likely he'd wear down between week 17 and the wild card round.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot how sad Troy Aikman sounds when he’s announcing a big Cowboys loss. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*another tumbleweed* *coyote howls*</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You teased the Panthers and Cowboys and stupidly forgot to hedge with Lions +7. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You're terrible at gambling. Shut up.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You got a little too excited about Round 2: Romo vs. Rodgers in the Ice Bowl 2.0. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
THAT'S TOTALLY WHAT THEY SHOULD CALL IT, IT'LL BE JUST LIKE THE FIRST ONE</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>You forgot about Stafford’s Back Door cover potential. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>And you forgot that (a) Suh’s appeal getting reversed, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That was odd.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>(b) Suh shutting down Dallas’s run game as part of Detroit’s upset victory in Round 1, then (c) Suh signing with the New York Giants in March would be a classic under-25 Cowboys fan trifecta.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
THAT'S why it made sense to pick the Lions. Because Suh might leave Detroit via free agency this spring.<br /><br /><b>The Pick: Cowboys 33, Lions 14</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the Detroit run defense vs. the Cowboys run offense! Strength vs. strength! Oh wait, that's actually how it played out (73 rushing yards for Dallas). Hmm. Shit. This looks kind of dumb when I mock him for explaining why Dallas might not cover, and then they don't even though they win the game. Maybe when underdogs cover but lose, I should comment on his analysis for the team that COVERED, not the team that won. Damn. Well, I'll do it differently for the divisional games. Go Ravens!</div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-52849453808303134142014-12-29T15:46:00.001-08:002014-12-29T15:49:39.645-08:00Dan Shaughnessy will see Murray Chass's stupidity, raise him lots more stupidity<br />
I'll bet you thought this blog was dead. Nope, not yet. It's dying, true, but it's dying reeeeally slowly. I don't think I'll stop posting entirely for another 15 years or so. Anyways, back to the HOF articles, because like I said before, it's the most wonderful time of the year for bad sportswriting. Apparently Dan <a href="http://firejaymariotti.blogspot.com/2014/12/its-happening-people-its-happening.html">saw what Murray</a> did and was like "Fuck that, he's barely even trying. I can top that in half the word count."<br />
<br />
<b>More than a quarter of a century after getting my first ballot,</b><br />
<br />
And around 24 years after I should have stopped getting one,<br />
<br />
<b>the Hall of Fame selection progress just keeps getting more challenging.</b><br />
<br />
Each year I say to myself, "How antagonize people who actually use their brains even <i>more </i>than I antagonized them last year?"<br />
<br />
<b>Wednesday my ballot will be mailed with boxes checked next to the names of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell.</b><br />
<br />
Big ups to him for voting for Raines and Trammell. Big downs to him for everything else in this article or that he's ever done since entering the workforce.<br />
<br />
<b>This means I am not voting for (among others on the ballot), Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Lee Smith, Carlos Delgado, and Nomar Garciaparra. Oh, and I also am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell.</b><br />
<br />
To be fair about one of my earlier jokes, if he were trying to be even more worthless than Chass in half the words, obviously he wouldn't have bothered to write those sentences.<br />
<br />
<b>Six votes. I think it’s a personal high.</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hR5YNqE3K8">OHHHHHH GOOD FOR YOU</a> YOU FUCKING DICKHEAD<br />
<br />
<b>Yikes. Imagine going into a seven-game series with a roster of the guys I’m not voting for: Piazza behind the plate. An infield of McGwire, Biggio, Nomar, and Bagwell. An outfield of Bonds, Sosa, and Sheffield. Edgar at DH. Clemens on the mound. Lee Smith in the bullpen. Mussina ready to pitch Game 2. Who wouldn’t take their chances with that team against any team?</b><br />
<br />
Where are you going? Are you lost? Do you need help? Did you actually attend college and take any courses in writing or critical thinking?<br />
<br />
<b>So let it rip. Bring on the hate. </b><br />
<br />
Yeah, I mean, we can't rule out the idea that this is merely a troll act designed to increase pageviews. (If that is the case, I sincerely hope he put at least Biggio and Mussina on his ballot, if not some of the other deserving guys from his obviously "not steroid users" list above.)<br />
<br />
<b>Bring on the humiliation.</b><br />
<br />
Oh, it's here.<br />
<br />
<b>Bring on the blogboy outrage. </b><br />
<br />
Needs more reference to basements and virginity.<br />
<br />
<b>Bring on the analytic arrogance. </b><br />
<br />
"Bring on the people that use numbers to make arguments about how good people were at a quantifiable activity."<br />
<br />
<b>Bring on the PED Hall Pass. </b><br />
<br />
Hall of SHAME if you ask me.<br />
<br />
<b>It’s a tradition like no other.</b><br />
<br />
Yes, the Masters Tournament certainly is.<br />
<br />
<b>Voting for the Hall is a great privilege. It’s the most important function of the vast lodge</b><br />
<br />
of cuntrags<br />
<br />
<b>known as the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. Some newspapers don’t allow their writers to vote. </b><br />
<br />
I have no idea what those papers' logic for that regulation might be, but no matter how misguided, they're probably doing baseball fans everywhere a favor.<br />
<br />
<b>Thankfully, the Globe still lets us participate. Still, it has become almost impossible to be consistent with this ballot.</b><br />
<br />
Yeah, if you're a fucking idiot, I agree that it might be hard to apply a consistent standard to guys who all played the exact same game under substantially the exact same rules over time.<br />
<br />
<b>Voters in this election are baseball writers who were on the beat for at least 10 consecutive seasons. There are approximately 570 voters. </b><br />
<br />
HOLY SHIT WE KNOW. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR COLUMN. STOP LISTING FACTS FROM THE BBWA WEBSITE AND GET TO EXPRESSING YOUR OPINION ALREADY.<br />
<br />
<b>We are allowed to vote for no more than 10 players. </b><br />
<br />
Or six, as the case may be.<br />
<br />
<b>Players are not eligible until five years after they retire. A candidate must be selected on three-quarters (75 percent) of all votes cast to walk into Cooperstown next July.</b><br />
<br />
Thanks, Wikipedia!<br />
<br />
<b>In my view, Pedro, Johnson, Smoltz and Biggio will be announced as new Hall members on Jan. 6.</b><br />
<br />
Which is exactly why he CAN'T vote for Biggio. <br />
<br />
<b>None will be unanimous. No one has ever been a unanimous selection. You cannot get 570 baseball writers to agree that the earth is round. </b><br />
<br />
Because at least twenty of them legitimately don't understand that fact. IF IT'S ROUND WHY DON'T WE FALL OFF OF IT?????<br />
<br />
<b>Since no one has been elected unanimously, some voters withhold to keep that stupid record intact. </b><br />
<br />
If you're wondering whether he'll explain why he's not voting for Biggio, don't worry, he will, and it's awesome.<br />
<br />
<b>Brother Bob Ryan addressed this thinking nicely in a Nov. 30 Globe column. Look it up.</b><br />
<br />
No thanks!<br />
<br />
<b>So don’t expect Pedro to be unanimous. </b><br />
<br />
WHAT? FACK YOU! FACK THE YANKEES! GO PATS!<br />
<br />
<b>His win total of 219 (accompanied by a mere 100 losses) will put off some voters, but Pedro (three Cy Young awards) should come in well north of 90 percent. Johnson is a 300-game winner (always Hall-worthy, unless you cheated), won five Cy Youngs, and ranks second lifetime in strikeouts (behind Nolan Ryan). Johnson is a lock. Smoltz gets in because he’s the only pitcher with 200 wins (213) and 150 saves (154) and he went 15-4 in the postseason. </b><br />
<br />
Totally fair. Of course Mussina's 270 wins, a 123 ERA+ and 83 WAR (one fewer than Pedro, and more than Ryan or Tom Glavine) gets left out, but he'll cover that with spectacular idiocy below.<br />
<br />
<b>Biggio missed by only two votes last year. He has 3,000 hits, four gold gloves, and almost 300 homers. I would put him in the Hall of Very Good (only one 200-hit season), </b><br />
<br />
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br />
<br />
That's great. Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron? Three 200 hit seasons a piece. I guess those two extra seasons where they exceeded a totally unimportant threshold that Biggio only exceeded once are the difference between being among the best ever and being in the Hall of Very Good. On the other hand, Beantown legend Carl Yastrzemski NEVER had a 200 hit season. Neither did Eddie Mathews or the greatest leadoff hitter of all time, Rickey Henderson. REVOKE THEIR ADMISSION, BWAA. HAVE YOU NO SHAME?<br />
<br />
<b>but that won’t matter. He’s going in. This year.</b><br />
<br />
In spite. Of my assholish. Refusal to vote for him.<br />
<br />
<b>Raines and Trammell are problematic and I am guilty of inconsistency with their candidacies.</b><br />
<br />
That's OK, Dan. Even Mother Teresa wasn't perfect.<br />
<br />
<b>Raines was a rare combination of power (170 homers) and speed (808 steals). He had six 100-run seasons. Trammell is going to be off the ballot soon, and won’t make the Hall with the BBWAA, but there’s lots of value in a shortstop who hit .300 seven times, won four Gold Gloves, and should have been MVP (he lost to George Bell) in 1987.</b><br />
<br />
Bringing up the MVP reminds me of that great post the other FJM did about Colin Cowherd yelling that anyone who won that award even once should be in the hall.<br />
<br />
<b>Schilling also is borderline. He won 216 games compared with 270 for Mussina. But Schill gets this vote because he went 11-2 in the postseason and was one of the great strike machines in baseball history. Who would you want on the mound in a big game — Mussina or Schill?</b><br />
<br />
I know, right? You can't vote for both. It's not allowed. Meanwhile, to answer that question, I dug around and found this one time that they <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA200605100.shtml">opposed each other as starting pitchers</a>. Who would you have wanted on the mound in that game? I have no clue what happened in their other matchups (if other matchups exist), but I think this one game sample answers the question for me.<br />
<br />
<b>The Roids Boys are the greatest burden on voters. </b><br />
<br />
Oh, woe is you! Such a burden! Keep pushing that rock up that hill, Sisyphus!<br />
<br />
<b>Some voters don’t care. Some cherry-pick the cheaters. </b><br />
<br />
You mean like if they wanted to vote for Bonds, because he was one of the best ever, but not for Sosa, because he really wasn't all that great? How dare they!<br />
<br />
<b>Some turn away from anything that even looks dirty.</b><br />
<br />
Like you, by designating Bagwell and Piazza as cheaters!<br />
<br />
<b>Withholding votes for guys who cheated and guys who look like they cheated is unfortunate, sometimes unfair, and almost impossible to impose consistently.</b><br />
<br />
This is correct. He has walked to the door of logic that has awareness and enlightenment on the other side. All he has to do to pass through is realize that since it's so hard to impose this kind of thing consistently, maybe you should just vote for the guys who have HOF numbers and not vote for the guys who don't. Unfortunately, he can't find the knob.<br />
<br />
<b>Objection to the Roids Boys is gradually eroding. As years pass and new voters replace older voters, it is likely there will be increased leniency. Each year there are more voters who don’t care about PEDs. The thinking becomes, “This was the era. They were all doing it.’’ Or, “Bonds and Clemens were already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.’’</b><br />
<br />
The first one of those two justifications is flippant and not a great way to go about making voting decisions (although is also a truism that shouldn't be ignored). The second one of those two justifications is a perfectly good way to go about making voting decisions, and it would be great if mouth breathers like Dan used it.<br />
<br />
<b>Sorry, I am not there. No votes for guys caught using. </b><br />
<br />
Fine, but Bagwell and Piazza--<br />
<br />
<b>And worse — no votes for guys who just don’t look right. Bagwell and Piazza are the two players most penalized for this arbitrary crime. By any statistical measurement, Bagwell and Piazza are first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet their vote totals (62 percent for Piazza last year, 54 percent for Bagwell) remain considerably lower than their résumés merit.</b><br />
<br />
Thanks to shiteaters like you.<br />
<br />
<b>This was a lot more fun when it was just Trammell vs. Biggio, Schilling vs. Mussina, or Jim Kaat vs. Don Drysdale. When it was about baseball.</b><br />
<br />
Yeah! Who in the world ever decided to make it about something other than baseball???? Could it be... the moralizing chodes in the BWAA? Why yes, I think that might be correct!<br />
<br />
At this point in writing this article, I guess he realized that some kids were playing on his lawn, so he decided to wrap it up rather abruptly.<br />
<br />
<b>Happily, none of the bad stuff ever touched Pedro. Long after the votes are counted and the arguments subside, Cooperstown in July is going to be a Boston baseball party.</b><br />
<br />
And there you go. That's the only conclusion you get, dedicated Shaughnessy readers. I'm glad we settled the whole steroid user/suspected steroid user debate though. That was fun.<br />
<br />
Six votes! A personal record! Good for Dan.Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-3031300206411400452014-12-11T15:06:00.002-08:002014-12-11T15:06:35.549-08:00Here's something that doesn't suck<div>
<br /></div>
Normally I just link when I do a "something that doesn't suck" post, but this was ESPN Insider, so I'm posting it in full. What you need to know is this: Buster Olney <a href="http://firejaymariotti.blogspot.com/2013/07/look-you-can-think-what-you-like-about.html">sometimes has dumb ideas</a>. This time, he has a really, really smart idea.<br /><br /><b>Mike Mussina spent each of his 18 seasons in the most treacherous waters pitchers have ever faced, among the whitecaps of what will always be remembered as an era of rampant steroid use -- and in the offense-rich American League East, no less. He was a fly ball pitcher who called two homer-happy ballparks -- Camden Yards and Yankee Stadium -- his home during his career. <br /><br />It’s as if he navigated his way daily through one of those monstrous marble-hard golf courses in Scotland covered with bunkers that have names (such as St. Andrews' Road Hole Bunker), as compared to the Executive Par-3s of 2014. In 2000, Mussina’s last season with the Orioles, 47 hitters mashed 30 or more homers; in 2014, only 11 batters reached 30 homers. <br /><br />Mussina finished his career with a 3.68 ERA and is 19th all time in strikeouts. He also is 24th in WAR among pitchers, and most of the guys ahead of him on the list are in the Hall of Fame. </b><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A park-independent stat would help (ERA+ of 123), but yeah, Mussina is a HOFer for sure. UNLESS HE HAD BACKNE.<br /><br /><b>But his chances for induction will improve slightly this year because I’m abstaining from the voting for the first time, and won’t submit a ballot. The same is true for Curt Schilling, and Tim Raines, and at least two others who I think should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also both HOFers. And I'm sure you all understand why Olney isn't voting, but I'll let him explain it.<br /><br /><b>To repeat: I think Mussina, Schilling and Raines and others are Hall of Famers, but it’s better for their candidacy if I don’t cast a ballot. <br /><br />If that sounds backward, well, that’s how the Hall of Fame voting has evolved, squeezed between rules that badly need to be updated and the progression of the candidates linked to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The process needs to be pruned to allow voters to get back to answering a simple question about each candidate: Was his career worthy of the Hall of Fame? </b><br /><br />How novel. It's almost like, let's just put the best players in the hall (allowing for disagreement re: steroid users; that's not even why I'm posting this, even though Olney agrees with me), instead of making some guys wait because fuck you I'm a self-important sportswriter, or not voting for guys like Rickey Henderson on the first ballot because no one's ever been unanimous, or whatever. Christ. Baseball writers are the worst people on earth (besides NFL-only fanboys).<br /><br /><b>When I started covering Major League Baseball, getting the opportunity to participate in the Hall of Fame voting was something to really look forward to, a nice carrot through the long days of spring training, the travel delays of the summer and extra-inning games. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well now you're just mocking those of us with regular shitty jobs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>After being a member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America for 10 years, receiving a blank Hall of Fame ballot for the first time, with voting instructions and pages of notes on each candidate also in the envelope, carried the same excitement as receiving a thick college admission letter. <br /><br />So it's incredible that declining to cast a ballot is even a consideration. But in light of where we are, it seems like the right thing to do for the candidates involved, until the rules are adjusted. <br /><br />For years, the rule that each writer can vote for no more than 10 candidates was probably irrelevant; it certainly was for me, given that I usually voted for anywhere from four to seven players. It's not clear why the "Rule of 10" was put in place, but I suspect it was originally designed to prevent writers from flooding their ballots with names of players who had no chance of being elected, just so they could report to their buddy that they had voted for them. </b><br /><br />Christ. Baseball writers are the worst people on earth (besides NFL-only fanboys).<br /><br /><b>A decade ago, nobody could have anticipated the quandary that has developed because of this rule, and because of the debate surrounding the steroid-era candidates. <br /><br />Mark McGwire first appeared on the ballot in December 2006, five years after he retired, and he became the first real test case for what the voters would do with players either directly linked with performance-enhancing drugs or suspected of doing them. <br /><br />As written in this space many times, I think all players should be judged within the context of the era in which they played, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'd like to burn that last phrase into Murray Chass's lawn. Sadly, I won't be able to do that, because it's a crime, and because I don't know where he lives.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>and during McGwire's career, the sport was saturated with performance-enhancing drugs, largely because over the period of about 15 years, no one within the institution of baseball -- not the union leaders, not MLB owners, not the commissioner, not the clean players, nor the media that covered the sport -- </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
MURRAY SAW PIAZZA'S BACKNE. HE SAW IT. AND MAYBE HE REPORTED ON IT I'M NOT SURE, BUT PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE IF HE HAD, WE'D NEVER HEAR THE END OF IT FROM HIM.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>aggressively addressed the growing problem. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Good thing Tony La Russa was triumphantly inducted into the HOF last summer! Now there's a guy who is in no way linked to PEDs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Through that inaction, what evolved was a chemical Frankenstein of a game. Like it or not, that's what the sport was in that time: no drug testing, lots of drug use, lots of drug users, lots of money being made by everybody. (And by the way, no team, baseball executive or player has offered to give back the money made in that time.) </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And this is why park- and era-adjusted stats are so useful--we can tell from McGwire's 163 OPS+ that even in an era when everyone and their brother was hitting 25 HRs per season, he was still way way way above and beyond most other players. (I think he's a fringe HOFer, though; just 64 WAR, probably not on an HOF track when he started using.)<br /><br /><b>The idea of retroactive morality is ridiculous, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I would also like to burn that into Chass's lawn.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>especially given that the folks in the sport had a strong idea by the mid-'90s that there was a growing problem and nobody did anything about it. Here's <a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/1626/jose-canseco">Jose Canseco</a> being asked about his steroid use on national television before the 1988 playoffs, right after Olympic sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal. And <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-15/sports/sp-24265_1_steroid-testing">here's a Bob Nightengale story</a> from 1995 in which then-interim commissioner Bud Selig was asked about the problem, and made mention of a "private meeting" the year before. Yet serious testing and penalties really weren't in place until 2006. </b><br /><br /><b>McGwire was a star during that time, with 583 homers, including his record-setting 70 homers in 1998, so I voted for him. That was a minority opinion, for sure: 23.5 percent of the 545 voters cast ballots for him, far short of the 75 percent needed for induction, but more than the 5 percent required to remain on the ballot. The McGwire test case continued, however, because his candidacy carried over to the next ballot, and so did that of Rafael Palmeiro and others, until they became stacked up like planes on a runway, their Hall of Fame situation stuck in a weird sort of purgatory. </b><br /><br /><b>This is how the rule that limits writers to 10 players became a serious problem. Roger Clemens became eligible, and Barry Bonds. Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza also hit the ballot, and while there is no indisputable evidence of steroid use by those two as there is for Palmeiro, who was suspended in 2005 after a positive test, a high number of voters apparently withheld votes for them because of suspicion of PED use. The career numbers for Bagwell and Piazza are overwhelmingly worthy for Hall of Fame election, but Bagwell has never finished higher than 59.6 percent in his four years on the ballot; Piazza, the all-time leader in homers for catchers, got only 57.8 percent of the vote in his first year. </b><br /><br />If McGwire, Palmeiro and Sosa never make it, that's fine with me. Bonds I will be more upset about, although it'll be annoying. But fucking fuck, if Bagwell and Piazza never make it, I'm going to go to Cooperstown just to take a piss on that building. Christ. Baseball writers are the worst people on earth (besides NFL-only fanboys).<br /><br /><b>So the list of serious candidates grew well beyond 10 spots. Last year I counted 17 players I thought were Hall of Fame-worthy, from Greg Maddux to Tom Glavine to Craig Biggio. But because of the Rule of 10, I had to leave off seven players who I believe are of Hall of Fame caliber. That included Mussina, Schilling and Raines. For the first time since McGwire became eligible, I didn't cast a vote for him. <br /><br />The way I picked among the 17 was to rank them in order among the first nine, from the best player on down, regardless of the PED question. I also included Jack Morris, who was in his last year of eligibility; I wanted to give Morris a fair last shot with my ballot, knowing that Mussina, Raines, Schilling and Jeff Kent probably would get enough votes to stay on the ballot for this winter. </b><br /><br />Morris got his fair shot during his mediocre career, and during the previous 14 years. But whatever. This is all mostly reasonable.<br /><br /><b>But really, that didn't seem right, because there's nothing in the voting rules that suggest I should weigh the candidates against each other, or must consider the landscape of the ballot. There is no guidance for picking 10 players from a 17-man field of worthy candidates. There is only this: <br /><br />"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."</b><br /><br />That's actually more complex than I thought it was. That's a lot of criteria. You could elect Jeter based on any one of them! Especially integrity, or something!<br /><br /><b>The practical reality was that I wasn't deciding on whether to vote for Mussina based on career performance. My vote was predicated entirely on his standing among an extraordinary volume of candidates, from Maddux to Glavine to Bonds to Piazza to Frank Thomas. (Let's again dismiss the notion that the "character" was ever used by writers as a serious criterion for election before McGwire's name appeared on the 2007 ballot. We all know the stories about some of the racists, alleged cheats, drunkards and PED users who already are in the Hall of Fame.) </b><br /><br />If that commenter from last week who made the slavery argument wants to come back and discuss that analogy further, I encourage him/her to do so.<br /><br /><b>And while I think Schilling and Mussina are Hall of Fame-worthy, my ballot hurt them. My ballot counted against their percentage. Five hundred seventy-one voters cast ballots last year, and my ballot was among the 450 that didn't have Mussina included, which lowered his percentage. <br /><br />That makes no sense. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE LIKE JACK MORRIS AND HAD THROWN A SHUTOUT IN GAME 7 OF THE WORLD SERIES. -stupid baseball writers</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Christ. Baseball writers are the worst people on earth (besides NFL-only fanboys).<br /><br /><b>The Rule of 10 seemed to factor heavily in the voting last year, dragging down the vote percentages for everyone from Morris to Clemens to Alan Trammell, whose numbers plummeted from 33.6 percent of the vote to just 20.6 percent. Clearly Trammell wasn't being judged based on his career; he lost votes last winter because of the choices made under the Rule of 10. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Poor Trammell. I'm sure White Sox fan Chris W feels the same way.<br /><br /><b>Maddux was a slam-dunk candidate after posting 355 career wins and four Cy Young Awards, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
BUT DID YOU BUY A TICKET TO WATCH HIM PLAY??????????? -stupid baseball writers</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Christ. Baseball writers are the worst people on earth (besides NFL-only fanboys).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>but he was left off 16 ballots entirely. I don't know who all of those 16 were, but a couple of writers mentioned to me privately that in dealing with the confines of the ballot limit, they thought about not voting for Maddux and Glavine, knowing that they'd probably get in anyway. It would be a shame to think that Maddux lost any votes because of the Rule of 10 problem. </b><br /><br />I'm sure he did, as well as the "we can't vote anyone in unanimously because DURRRR" problem.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Christ. Baseball writers are the worst people on earth (besides NFL-only fanboys).<br /><br /><b>During the summer, the Hall of Fame adjusted some of its rules. Voters are now required to register to receive a ballot, writers can lose the right to vote, </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
DAN LE BATARD DISGRACED THE HOLY AND SACRED RITUAL OF THE PREVIOUSLY TOTALLY PERFECT VOTING PROCESS. WE MUST MAKE SURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. ALSO, JIM RICE IS A HALL OF FAMER AND LOU WHITTAKER ISN'T.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
and players could remain on the ballot for a shorter period of time. <br /><br /><b>Surprisingly, however, the Rule of 10 was not altered. The same impossible math remains: I'm counting 15 worthy candidates right now for those 10 spots. Other writers are telling me they see anywhere from 12 to 20 worthy candidates, which means that in their eyes, they'll be leaving players they feel are Hall of Fame-worthy off their ballots. It means that as great as Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez were -- both should be unanimous, in light of their accomplishments -- they might lose votes as writers struggle with the question of how to deal with the ballot guideline that seems completely arbitrary. (Why not a ballot limit of 11? Why not 12? Why not eight? Why not six? Is it 10 only because it's a round number?) </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Since this was written a week ago, they have bumped it to 12. Obviously the problem is now fixed, just like how the NFL fixed the totally idiotic fact that there are still ties by really really really mildly tweaking the regular season OT rules a couple years ago. WE'VE GOT A GOLDEN GOOSE HERE, BOYS. LET'S NOT MAKE A SENSIBLE RULE CHANGE AND RISK KILLING IT WHILE IT'S LAYING THESE GOLDEN EGGS.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Christ. NFL owners are the worst people on earth (besides baseball writers and NFL-only fanboys).<br /><br /><b>Maybe I should've figured it out last year, but this puzzle cannot be solved. There's no way to judge each candidate strictly on his merits given the current ballot limitations, no fair way to vote. </b><br /><br /><b>I can't stand the protest ballots we've seen in the past, when someone signs a blank ballot that counts as a vote against all candidates. That's unfair. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Someone, please <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/sports/heatindex/articles/20121220nobody-deserves-my-hall-vote-year.html">fire this asshole</a> and take away his ballot (and possibly his children, if he has any).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>I've hated to hear the stories of voters who haven't voted for a player because they didn't like them personally. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Baseball writers would never be so petty! Don't be ridiculous!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The voting shouldn't be about the writer; it should be only about the players and whether they're worthy of induction. </b><br /><br />You lost me there. Please revisit that sentence, and figure out where backne fits in.<br /><br /><b>And I can't stand the idea of casting a ballot that works against players that I think should be inducted, such as Mussina, Schilling or others. So as much as it has been an honor in the past to participate in the voting, I'll abstain, and hope that in the future the rules change. </b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
Christ. You know the rest.</div>
Larry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.com2