Bill knows about as much about football betting as he does about baseball, or anything related to sports really (part 2)

Before we get started on laughing at the rest of Bill's pre-wild card round gambling manifesto, let's review his results from the first two rounds.  Has he FINALLY figured out everything there is to know about betting on playoff games?

Wild card results: 1-1-2 (SF/GB and KC/IND both pushed)
Divisional round results: 2-2 (He got SF and NE right, thought NO and DEN would cover, and in picking the latter violated his own rule #1 below; even when this guy is right, he's too dumb to succeed)

So with the house -110 edge on any spread bet, he's lost money so far.  Still three games left to recoup those losses though!  I'll be sure to post about his championship game picks at the end of this week even if it's not part of a full post.  In the meantime, let's hear more from the guy who says that the NFL went TOTALLY BATSHIT during the last seven postseasons because the same things that used to happen during the 90s and early 00s kept happening.

I don't see things changing, either. We knew the NFL wanted perpetual parity by ushering in the Salary Cap era, but the Bigger, Stronger, Faster era might be having a bigger impact than anything else. 

"The NFL has a lot of parity today because of the salary cap, but you know what's creating even more parity?  The players are bigger and more athletic than they used to be."  This is great analysis except for the fact that players have been getting steadily bigger and more athletic for like 80 years now.

These guys are clearly too huge now; 

Clearly!  Obviously!  These are words that people who know they are grasping at straws use.

YouTube videos of the 1970s games have little correlation to what we're watching now. 

That is not true.

And let's be honest — nobody really cares. The league's PED testing system remains a laughable joke, as does the fact that it won't discuss weight limits or any other out-of-the-box idea that might make the league's players a little more, um, realistic. 

As much as I hate the NFL, you know who probably considers the idea of weight limits a non-starter?  That would be the NFLPA.  As in the organization that is the counterbalance to the NFL on most issues related to evolution of the game.  Too much nuance for Bill to grasp I guess.

Instead, it's cracking down on hard hits, cheap shots and headhunting — a decent start, but nothing that will solve the fundamental problem of NFL players outgrowing a sport that was originally designed for different bodies and different speeds.

I won't disagree that the guy who invented football in 1870whatever couldn't possibly conceive of a 6'4" 290 pound defensive end who runs a 4.5 40.  I just don't think the players have "outgrown" the sport.  Safety equipment isn't what it could be, and frankly, the practice of cracking down on hard hits and cheap shots probably should have started decades earlier than it did.  Watching clips of games from the 80s and 90s, I cringe at many of the JACKED UP quality hits.  They're absolutely brutal, way beyond anything that happens in today's game.

Whether it's a coincidence or something more (and I say the latter), it sure seems like we're seeing more and more injuries to marquee players. 

That is the wishy-washiest sentence you could possibly write on this subject.  You'd have to exert significant effort to do a worse job of expressing a real idea there.  "Completely anecdotally, it seems like there are a lot of injuries to good players, which MAYBE MIGHT COULD be the result of something other than blind luck, although I don't really have any idea of what that something would be."  Nevermind the fact that there is essentially nothing different about the way stars play the game and the way average players play the game.  Nevermind that Bill is probably only writing this because he's a Greatriots fan, and yes, they have been pretty snakebitten this year.  Losing Gronkowski and Wilfork sucks.  Those guys are awesome.  At the same time: SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU ASSHOLE.

The lack of depth has been astonishing. In Week 16, the injury-ravaged Patriots started four guys they found off the street — not even off practice squads, but off the street. 

Guys get signed off the street in December every season.  The Patriots had to sign a bunch of them at once because the Patriots have been unlucky this year.  In conclusion: star players are getting hurt all the time these days, probably because of a comet passing too closely to earth or something.

Now throw this in: The slew of NFL safety-first rule changes made it easier for receivers and tight ends to run over the middle, and also allowed quarterbacks to stand in the pocket without worrying about being decapitated or being bernardkarmellpollarded. In the old days, you'd just assume that a shitty-to-mediocre QB would self-destruct in the playoffs because of the defensive pressure, the intensity or whatever. That's why three of my 15 Manifesto 4.0 rules revolved around quarterbacks: "Never, ever, EVER back a crappy QB on the road," "Check out the backup QBs" and "Before you make a decision, take one last look at the quarterbacks again." But in today's safety-first NFL, how many times did we see the likes of Mike Glennon, Christian Ponder or Jason Campbell looking exceedingly comfortable in an allegedly scary venue like Seattle or San Francisco? 

I don't know.  You're the one making the manifesto, maybe you'd like to answer the question rather than phrasing it rhetorically and assuming that everyone will agree with you?  Campbell probably looked comfortable on occasion because per Football Outsiders, the Browns had an average pass protecting offensive line (the Bucs and Vikings were slightly below average in this category).  Ponder is terrible so it doesn't really matter if he was comfortable or not.  And Glennon, who the hell knows, maybe he's actually good.  More importantly, what the hell kinds of conclusions are we supposed to draw from this paragraph?  Unlike Bill, I'll answer my own question.  There aren't any to be drawn.  He's correct that rule changes have favored more offense, but who gives a shit?  Those changes help the teams with the Peyton Mannings and the Tom Bradys much more than they help the teams with the Jason Campbells and Mike Glennons.  SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF JASON CAMPBELL is not gambling advice.  No surprise that until he CRACKED THE CODE AND FIGURED OUT THE NFL, Simmons thought it was.

Swinging it back to this year's playoffs: In the old days, I would have said, "No way Andy Dalton can win a playoff game on the road, he'll self-combust" and back that mind-set with a sizable illegal wager. In 2014? I mean … name me an AFC team/crowd combo that's breaking Andy Dalton. It doesn't exist. 

Well, the Chargers and the Bengals' own home crowd, evidently.  He threw two picks against San Diego, lost a fumble, was sacked three times and was under heavy pressure all game.  He was terrible.  Good for San Diego for making Bill look like a tard.  I kind of feel bad for Dalton, and for Bengals fans.  Kind of.  Not that much.

Only Andy Dalton can break Andy Dalton. (And don't worry — he might.) Everyone has a puncher's chance in 2014. Everyone. And that's one of many reasons why Playoff Gambling Manifesto 5.0 will never happen.

Other reasons:
1) Too many podcasts with Malcolm Gladwell to tape; not enough time to write
2) Everything we thought we learned about the NFL from 2006-2013 IS ABOUT TO CHANGE AGAIN, SO MUCH CRAZINESS ON THE HORIZON (translation: more failed picks on the horizon)
3) Guy trying to write manifesto is a fucking idiot

The good news? We learned a few lessons and suggestions over these past eight years. You don't have to live by these babies; just keep them in your hip pocket and sprinkle them into your gambling life however you want. Call it a Pseudo-Manifesto.

Peter King would be proud of Bill for backing these assertions with so little ethusiasm.

SUGGESTION NO. 1: Find this year's "NOBODY BELIEVES IN US!!!!" team and give strong consideration to riding them like Secretariat.

We're currently riding a streak of six "NOBODY BELIEVES IN US!" playoff teams: the Giants (2007), Cardinals (2008), Jets (2009), Packers (2010), Giants (2011) and Ravens (2012). 

I like the massive stretch to include a Jets team that was pretty fucking good to begin with even though it didn't win its division, and also failed to make the Super Bowl.  SIX IN A ROW FOLKS.  IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT WE SHOULD ADD THE 2006 BEARS AND MAKE IT SEVEN BECAUSE REX GROSSMAN WASN'T A HALL OF FAMER.

Four won Super Bowls, the fifth came one minute away from the title, and the sixth nearly made the Super Bowl with Mark Sanchez. 

The 2000 Ravens, 2001 Patriots, 2003 Panthers and 2005 Steelers should all fall into this category as well.  I wish I were on a podcast with Bill right now so he could make up a reason they don't.

We've covered this phenomenon a million times in this space; it's a real thing. 

DIE.

When everything's relatively equal, a little extra motivation goes a long way. Athletes love proving people wrong, and the greatest thing about sports is that, in the words of Joaquin Andujar, "youneverknow." Our best "NOBODY BELIEVES IN US!" possibilities for this year's playoffs?

Green Bay Packers: Somehow made the playoffs after playing Matt Flynn, Scott Tolzien and Seneca Wallace at QB for 40 percent of the season … gave up more points (428) than they scored (417) … nearly lost a win-or-go-home game to a Bears team that was so limited, the general reaction of Chicago fans was, "I'm bummed that we lost, but I'm relieved the season is finally over" … severely banged-up on both sides of the ball … it's unclear if people remember how good Rodgers is (if they don't, the fourth-and-8 play should have reminded them) … had major trouble selling out this weekend's playoff game against the Niners, fostering a little "even Packers fans don't totally believe" sentiment … and here's the biggie: They're GETTING POINTS at Lambeau this weekend. Nobody believes in you, Green Bay!!!!!!

And then they lost to their superior opponent, as you'd expect them to do most of the time.

San Diego Chargers: Barely finished 9-7 … only made the playoffs after getting major help from Geno Smith and Geno Smith's dong … oh, and they needed five quarters and Ryan Succop's shanked game winner to beat KC's second string in Week 17 with their season on the line … have a tortured playoff history that includes the traumatic "Freezer Bowl" loss in Cincinnati during the Dan "MFIC" Fouts era … are playing in Cincinnati this weekend … oh, and they're coached by a guy who said "You know what?" approximately 377 times during this allegedly inspiring speech.

This was actually a pretty solid pick.  The Chargers were clearly better in January than their record indicated.  They did go 2-0 against the spread in their two games.  Of course, when twelve teams make the playoffs and you're picking one from each conference (bound to be a bottom four seed, and probably a bottom two seed) to be a "NOBODY BELIEVES IN US" team, you don't really deserve much credit for finding a team that could cover on the road twice in a row.

SUGGESTION NO. 3: Beware of the "Everybody Believed In Us" team.

The bastard sibling of the "Nobody Believed In Us" team.

Well, that seals it.  Broncos-Seahawks in the Super Bowl next month.

A few years ago, I compared this phenomenon to Albert Ganz, the bad guy in my favorite movie ever (48 Hrs). 

How unfuckingsurprising that a B+ buddy cop action comedy would be his favorite movie ever.  BUT WHAT ABOUT MIDNIGHT RUN???????

Nick Nolte shoots him at the end, followed by Ganz looking down at the bullet hole and hissing, "I can't believe it … I got shot." You never want to be riding the consensus favorite that's suddenly and incredulously staring down at that bullet hole — whether it's the 2001 Rams, the 2007 Pats, the 2012 Broncos or whomever. 

Unless it's the 2004 Pats, 2008 Steelers (up against the NOBODY BELIEVES IN US Cardinals) or 2009 Saints.  In that case, ride that favorite all the way to moneytown!

Overconfidence = playoff death. 

Except when it doesn't.  Holy shit, this guy is a fucking clod.  He is writing this paragraph 100% because of the 2007 Patriots.  Guaranteed that if they win that Super Bowl, the only rule in the updated manifesto is BET ON BILLY B, HE ALWAYS GETS THE JOB DONE.  What an asshole.

I don't think we have a Ganz team right now; it would have been the Seahawks, but that Week 16 home loss to Arizona may have shaken them out of it. If Seadderall blows someone out in Round 2 and gets a round of "Seattle might be a juggernaut!" momentum going? Be careful, my friends. Be careful. That also leads into our first lesson …

OK, and now you know--Seattle over Denver in the Super Bowl.  Not sure if they'll cover or not.  Maybe we'll find out as Simmons continues to wow us with his powers of mystical bullshit.

LESSON NO. 1: Beware of the "Looked A Little Too Good The Previous Round" team.

One of the few Manifesto staples that still works — remember, people love overreacting to whatever happened the previous week (and during the Twitter/Internet/Talking Head era, overreacting in general). A good recent example: the 2011 Saints dropping 45 on the Lions in Round 1, charging into San Francisco in Round 2 as four-point favorites … then losing to Alex Smith.

In a game that came down to the final possession, with SF scoring the deciding TD with nine seconds left.  I agree: EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING FROM A MILE AWAY!  Betting a four point road favorite is a scary proposition any time, but Jesus, Bill.  Pick a better example than that.  And be sure to conveniently ignore the 2010 Packers (beating Chicago in Chicago by a TD the week after clobbering the Falcons in Atlanta), the 2011 Giants (winning the NFC title game in San Francisco after stomping the Packers in Lambeau) or a dozen other examples from the last ten years I could have used.

LESSON NO. 2: Beware of any and all aging QBs in cold weather.

Or, as it's better known, the Favre/Manning Theory. (And hopefully not this month, the Favre/Manning/Brady theory.)

Maybe we SHOULD call it the Brady theory after last year's AFC title game performance, except maybe not because Brady beat the Ravens in the previous AFC title game in cold weather, and also except maybe not because Brett Favre was pretty good in the 2007 postseason (sure, he had that backbreaking INT that won the NFC title for the Giants, but he had 5 TDs and 2 INTs in two games that postseason), and also maybe not because this is a retarded idea in the first place before you even examine the anecdotes.

LESSON NO. 3: Beware of all dome teams in cold weather.

Thanks to Chase Stuart for this stat: Dome teams are 3-22 in the playoffs when they're outdoors and it's 35 degrees or colder.

So naturally the Saints went into Philly on a cold night (not sure what the low was, but it couldn't have been above 40) and won.  And that stat is interesting and all, but doesn't help us pick against the spread.

Take it from a lifetime New Englander who spent the last 12 years in Southern California and turned into a total cold-weather wuss — at some point, your body decides, "Look, I'm not used to being cold" and acts accordingly. 

TAKE IT FROM ME, ONLY I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE IN MY LATE 30S AND BE COLD.  BEFORE I CAME ALONG NO ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU.  YOU'RE WELCOME.

LESSON NO. 4: Don't make any three-team, 10-point teasers with three Round 2 favorites.

As covered earlier, the last time all four Round 2 teams went "chalk" was January 2005. This isn't even a lesson, it's a rule — no three-team teasers in Round 2. Period. Don't even think about it. The cousin of this rule: "Beware of the two-team teaser or parlay on paper that looks a little too easy." Gambling is never easy. Ever. Ever. Ever.

You would have won a four way 10 point teaser on this year's divisional round favorites easily.  You would have won a three way parlay with the Seahawks, Niners and Patriots fairly easily.  THIS IS A HARD AND FAST RULE FOLKS, IT'S NEVER THIS EASY, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS.

SUGGESTION NO. 4: Be careful with any team that battled a major off-field distraction during the week leading up to the big game.

Also known as the Eugene Robinson Corollary. 

This is a great point.  This one time, a player on a team that was a huge underdog got arrested the night before the Super Bowl (not the week leading up to the game).  His underdog team then got thrashed by the favorite the next day.  MANIFESTO: UPDATED.  The better example would have been the Raiders and Barrett Robbins in 2003, which was 1) an off field distraction that actually took place over the course of several days leading up to the game, not the night before it, and 2) happened before a game in which the favorite lost.  But since you (the person reading this) and I are not dumb, we won't take a single example as ironclad proof that we should always bet a certain way in a certain situation, so why are we talking about this?

All dong-photo scandals, PED scandals, sex scandals, 

Yeah, this one really bit the 2010 Jets (Rex Ryan and wife foot fetish video) in the ass right before their game against the Patriots, didn't it?

locker room fistfights, hooker/strip club scandals and vengeful-former-employee scandals go here. To be fair, the Ravens won last year's Super Bowl even after the Ray Lewis/deer antler spray fiasco became a major story for a couple of days followed by everyone looking the other way and pretending it never happened — that's why I made it a suggestion and not a rule.

You're a cunt.

SUGGESTION NO. 5: Ignore final records and gravitate toward how teams finished in November and December.

Again, this one doesn't always work — 

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA he thinks that some of them always work.

remember "red-hot" Washington losing to Seattle in Round 1 last season? 

What an asshole.

SUGGESTION NO. 6: "Before you pick a team, just make sure Marty Schottenheimer, 

Hasn't coached in years and will never coach again

Herm Edwards, 

Hasn't coached in years and will never coach again

Wade Phillips, 

Hasn't been hired as a head coach in years and will never be hired as a head coach again

Norv Turner, 

Jesus, who knows, I wouldn't put it past some team to give him another shot

Andy Reid, 

The Chiefs were the better team and should have won that game

Anyone Named Mike, Anyone Described As Andy Reid's Pupil and Anyone With the Last Name Mora" Isn't Coaching Them.

I made this tweak in 2010 and feel good about it — especially when the "Anyone Named Mike" rule miraculously covers the Always Shaky Mike McCarthy and Mike "You Know What?" McCoy (both involved this weekend!) as well as Mike Smith, Mike "The Sideline Karma Gods Put A Curse On Me" Tomlin, Mike Munchak and the recently fired Mike Shanahan. We're also covered if Mike Shula, Mike Martz, Mike Mularkey, Mike Tice or Mike Sherman ever make comebacks. I'm not saying you bet against the Mikes — just be psychotically careful with them. As for Andy Reid … we'll get to him in a second.

At least here he's just trying to be goofy, not analytical.  Oh dear God, he's not actually trying to be analytical, is he?  Oh Lord in heaven.  I hope not.  WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T BET ON MIKE MCCARTHY OR MIKE TOMLIN.  SURE, THEY HAVE TWO RINGS AND THREE SUPER BOWL APPEARANCES BETWEEN THEM IN THE LAST SIX SEASONS, BUT THAT NAME, IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.

LESSON NO. 5: Don't forget that the most important people on a playoff team are the coach and the quarterback.

The kind of deep analysis you usually can only get by tuning into a pregame show so Howie Long or Chris Carter can shout it at you.

Here's a little game for you: Before every playoff game, rate the coaches and quarterbacks from 1 to 10, add up their scores, then make sure you're OK with the math before you keep going. A good example from last year: Joe Webb (1) + Leslie Frazier (3) against Aaron Rodgers (10) + Mike McCarthy (5). A four against a 15??? And you thought about taking the Vikings +7½???? Really? My numbers for Round 1 this weekend …

Kansas City: Alex Smith (3) + Playoff Andy Reid (3) = 6
Indianapolis: Andrew Luck (8) + Chuck Strong (7) = 15

(Hmmmmmmm. And I only have to lay a field goal with Indy at home???)

Lucky him that the published spread at the time he made his pick was Indy -1--that prevented him from going 1-2-1 in the four wild card games.  Wouldn't surprise me if he went back and edited that after the game.

New Orleans: Cold-Weather Drew Brees (5 or 6) + Sean Payton (9) = 14 or 15
Philly: Sold His Soul Nick Foles (8) + Chip Kelly (7) = 15

(An even battle! Now I'm even more confused.)

At least you admit it.

San Diego: Cold-Weather Phil Rivers (7) + Mike McCoy (3) = 10
Cincinnati: Andy Dalton (3) + Marvin Lewis (6 or 7) = 9 or 10

(Basically dead even! Remember — Rivers won in cold weather this year in K.C. and Denver.)

Weren't we just piling on Marvin Lewis?  And rightfully so?  I hate to support Bill's dumb method here, but in this case it would have told you to bet on San Diego for sure.

San Francisco: Colin Kaepernick (5 or 6) and Jim Harbaugh (10) = 15 or 16
Green Bay: Aaron Rodgers (10) and Mike McCarthy (3 or 4) = 13 or 14

(Who else is abjectly terrified of taking the "3 or 4" coach against the "10" coach?)

AND YEA VERILY IT CAME TO PASS (actually it was a push)

LESSON NO. 6: Never bet too much money on your own team, and (obviously) never bet against your own team, ever, under any circumstances.

I bet against my own teams all the time.  I love doing it.  It's not for everyone, but if you're gambling small amounts and really like hedging your emotions (boy do I ever!), it's the way to go.  I think I'll go put down $20 against the Broncos this weekend, in fact.   That sounds like an excellent idea.  Except that when the Patriots beat them, I'll have to publish a note of apology and acknowledge that Bill was 100% right, just like he always is.

Goes without saying. If your team made the playoffs, you already have enough at stake. To be fair, I violated this lesson somewhere between eight and 25 times during the Belichick-Brady era — including Super Bowl XLVI, when I bet most of my winnings from the 2010 Hilton SuperContest on a Vegas ticket for

No one gives a fuck.

SUGGESTION NO. 7: Don't try to be a hero, just try to win money.

I get it. You want to be cute. You want to say things like, "I don't care about Andy Reid's history in big games, or Alex Smith's history in general … that's precisely why nobody will see the Chiefs coming this weekend!" and load up on the Chiefs, then feel like a hero when they covered.

Ask yourself this question: If your life depended on it, you'd really bet on Alex Smith and Andy Reid in a road playoff game?

(You would?)

(You'd do that?)

(Seriously?)

"Don't try to be a hero" sounds like good advice from the guy who has now probably spent ~100 hours of his life writing several different "manifestos" that describe the SECRET WEIRD TRICKS you need to know when betting on the NFL.

LESSON NO. 7: When in doubt, gravitate toward the one pick that (a) would screw over the most gamblers and experts, and (b) would definitely be going against the single worst gambler you know.

This joke is too easy to make (and to be fair, he ends up making it himself a few lines down).

Remember — there's a reason casinos keep adding new buildings, online gambling sites keep fighting to be legal everywhere, and bookies risk incarceration just to take your dumb/predictable/bandwagon wagers. 

Yes, it's called the house edge, you fucking fucktard.  Vegas doesn't want a bunch of action on one side of a bet, in hopes that the other side will prevail and they'll have a windfall.  Vegas wants risk-free money.  It gets that when both sides of a spread have equal action and pay -110.  Holy fucking dogshit, how have you (apparently) not realized this concept after gambling for years and years and years?  It's embarrassing.  I am embarrassed for you.  I am embarrassed for myself for having to write this paragraph and point out how embarrassing this is for you.  If any of the six of you reading this aren't experienced with sports gambling, let me give you a little tip: there is nothing a sports book hates more than when one side of a bet has way more action than the other side.  Joe Posnanski wrote an awesome article about Vegas taking a horrible beating during March Madness 2012 because (if I remember correctly) there was a ton of action on the low-seeded underdogs in round one, and they all covered against their high-seeded opponents.  Or something like that. The directors of the sports books were practically inconsolable.  Posnanski makes it sound like they all got taken out into the Nevada desert and shot after that weekend.  Unfortunately the article is not loading properly from any source so I can't provide a link, but if you want to try to find it yourself, Google "Posnanski Madness Money and Mayhem" and click around for a while.  It's worth the time if you can find it.  I just spent 5 minutes looking for it and couldn't find a working link though.

But yeah, more importantly, Bill is a mouth breather.

By the way, I finished the 2013 regular season with a 108-140-8 record against the spread. At least for this season, there's a good chance that I'm the worst gambler you know.

Stunning display of self-awareness!  Sadly, it's too late for him to save this blimp crash of an article.

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE! YOU USED A SMALL SAMPLE TO MAKE THAT POINT

There are at least fifty things worth picking on in this Buzz Bissinger shitbomb re: Billy Beane, Michael Lewis, and the book Moneyball. I don't have a lot of time so I think I'll pick on the most absurd one. Bissinger's thesis is essentially that Billy Beane is a decent but overrated GM, Lewis's portrayal of him is unfairly positive, and that the best way to build a baseball team is still by spending a lot of money on good, proven players. He may have a bit of a point with the last part. As for those first two:

Looking largely at the narrow time frame of 2000 through 2002, Lewis attempted to explain the phenomenon of how the A's had done so well (they made the playoffs all three of those years) with such little dough.

Yeah, great, that's true. Lewis does focus on that three year span, which isn't really as large a sample size as you'd like if you're going to evaluate a GM's ability. But before I get to my point about Buzz, let's quickly address this:

The explanation was dazzling, although Lewis barely mentioned the three reasons the A's had been so successful--pitchers Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson. The three won an astounding 149 games during that span. Each of them were 20-game winners in at least one of those seasons.

If you've read the book, you know that this is pretty unfair. First, Lewis mentions those three then-aces plenty. Second, the reason the book focuses a lot MORE on guys like Scott Hatteberg and Chad Bradford is because it's a lot more interesting to hear about how a GM took relative unwanteds like them and turned them into valuable players than to hear about how a GM had three really good pitchers at the same time.

But anyways, back to the point. Yes, Moneyball focuses on a tiny, insignificant, negligible number of seasons. Just three. (Three seasons during which the A's won more than 300 games.) Meanwhile, Buzz has some excellent points to make about Beane's allegedly sterling reputation for finding and developing talent:

Beane had seven first-round draft picks that year, each of them extolled by Lewis for their buried-treasure status. Three of them are still playing in the majors, none with anything close to superstar careers and all of them long gone from the A's. Three others were busts. Poor Jeremy Brown never stopped being fat and slow and finished with a grand total of 10 major league at-bats before retirement.

OHHH! OHHHH! JEREMY BROWN BUSTED EVEN THOUGH BEANE SPENT A FIRST ROUND PICK ON HIM! SHAME ON YOU, BILLY BEANE. SHAME ON YOU FOR FAILING TO DEVELOP EVERY PLAYER WHO ENTERS YOUR ORGANIZATION INTO AN ALL-STAR. OUT OF A WHOLE 7 FIRST ROUND PICKS IN 2002, NONE OF THEM BECAME SURE FIRE HALL OF FAMERS. THIS IS INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT BILLY BEANE IS AN IDIOT AND KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT BASEBALL. I'M BUZZ BISSINGER, AND MY HEAD IS STUCK IN MY TAINT. I LOOK DOWN UPON WRITERS WHO TRY TO MAKE THEIR POINT WITHOUT USING A REASONABLE SAMPLE SIZE. THAT'S JUST BAD JOURNALISM.

Read the rest of the article- it has a lot more garbage that will make you laugh. Or smirk. That's what Buzz would do if someone else wrote this and he read it.

Three ESPN Analysts, Three Blithering Idiots

All you have to do if you want to run a shitty blog just like this one is watch ESPN for about an hour a day. I guarantee you at least one of their esteemed employees will cook up a bubbling cauldron of stupid right before your very eyes within that timeframe. To wit, here's what I've collected from some of the highest paid sports analysts in the business in approximately the last 48 hours:

Joe Morgan, on Sunday Night Baseball, after someone goes from first to third on a single:

A few years back we were just sitting around waiting for a three run homer. Now every aspect of the game is important- speed, power, pitching.

Yes, that's right, fans. In case you haven't noticed, baseball has undergone a dramatic shift in strategy since earlier in the decade. In fact it might have been so gradual that you didn't notice. Remember way back when pitching didn't really matter? Teams didn't use it to try to win games, general managers didn't try to acquire it, and hell, fans didn't even talk about it. And yet, here we are in 2009, and I don't think anyone will disagree with what Joe says here: pitching is finally important. Well played, you chubby little mustachioed fool. Well played. You are truly a scholar of the game. Bonus points to Joe for using the lamest "negative thing you can say about the strategy some power-focused teams like to use if you're a purist who likes stolen bases and bunting a lot" available. Indeed, that proverbial three run homer never does show up when teams refuse to "move runners" or "be aggressive on the basepaths," does it? Unless it does, in which case those teams are awarded with three runs; three more than they would have earned by asking Adam Dunn to steal a bag or Manny Ramirez to lay down a bunt.

Also, the glorification of going from first to third might be the stupidest link in a long stupid chain made up of things that are pointlessly celebrated by dumbshits like Joe. You know those scrappy little Angels! When they have a guy on first, and someone singles into the RCF gap, if that guy on first happens to be fast, he often ends up on third. As if this were a risky and innovative baseball strategy that certain teams refuse to employ.

Now we're going to see baseball the way it was meant to be played.

As opposed to 2005 and 2006, during which an iteration of baseball was being played that probably made Abner Doubleday (or whoever the fuck invented it, I don't care what the real story is) roll over in his grave.

Mike Golic, a few hours later on NFL Tonight, talking about some irrelevant topic because it's early July and no one in the league is doing diddley shit for the next two weeks:

What did our coaches say to us back in Little League? I'm going to put the best 11 guys on the field.

Your Little League coach was a real cheater if he tried to employ that strategy. Maybe you're thinking of Pop Warner. Also, the statement itself seems to be substantively wrong. What coach of a young sports team is that cutthroat? I suppose there are teams of 10 year olds out there, run by guys who think they're Bill Cowher and like to tell their kids that only the guys who can make a fucking tackle occasionally are going to fucking get into the goddamn motherfucking game, but they're probably the extreme exception rather than the rule. Mike Golic is a dope. Both Mark Schlereth and him should be permanently assigned to ESPN's national spelling bee coverage team.

Finally, my new favorite ESPN punching bag (aka the Country Fried Emptyscrote), John Kruk, had this to say about an umpire's blown call on a Derek Jeter stolen base attempt (in which Jeter was safe but the ump called him out):

HE SHOULD GO AND APOLOGIZE TO JETER, AND APOLOGIZE TO THE YANKEES, BECAUSE HE BLEW THAT CALL AND OFFERED UP AN EXCUSE THAT WAS BULL.

All caps used to demonstrate his level of frustration with this grave injustice. An umpire making a mistake on a bang-bang slide/tag play? What is the world coming to! Next you'll tell me that the strike zone changes from game to game and even batter to batter. I say if an ump makes a mistake, he should be publicly shamed by being hung in a pillory on top of the home dugout for the rest of the game. That's the only way to keep those fuckers accountable. As things are, they're running amok- blowing a safe/out call at least every twenty or thirty games. What a disaster. Maybe umpires need to take a cue from the teams that are breaking new ground by considering pitching as something important and actually try to get all of their calls right. That's the way baseball was meant to be officiated, right?

Mmmmmmm, Deep Fried Butter

I'm not saying the Patriots gained an unfair advantage by allegedly taping the Rams during their final walkthrough/practice before Super Bowl XXXVI. I'm not saying they didn't gain an unfair advantage. But I am saying that just because Mike Golic is a pig doesn't mean the argument is 100% settled.

The big bowl of jelly himself was on Sportscenter yesterday morning doing that dumb "Good Call/Bad Call" segment. 60% of ESPN.com voters said that they felt an advantage had indeed been obtained by Bill BeliCHEAT (I made that up, do you like it?) and his staff if taping occurred. Golic immediately declared that a "bad call." He explained:

"What I remember about walkthroughs was wondering who was going to bring the donuts and if I could change out of my suit if we were on the road."

Oh, really? That's all that mattered to you? Well then, I think it's safe to assume that that's how everyone else approaches walkthroughs as well. First of all, fat joke. Second of all, another fat joke. Third of all, you were a big, jolly DT. So while the fact that the offense was running their plays probably didn't concern you much, I think the head coach of an opposing team might have a slightly different appreciation for what was happening were he to witness it. This is like living in Montana and saying people in Hong Kong are stupid for worrying about overcrowding. Fourth of all, fat/stupid joke.

Scoop Jackson Has An Announcement: Scoop = Right, World = Wrong

If that sounds unbelievable, that's because it is. It starts out relatively inoffensive, then gets stupid.

Shaq will thrive on solar power

Incredibly, incredibly cute.

Guess what? The Suns just made a fantastic trade

Fantastic? You're going to tell me that this was "fantastic"? The best argument I've heard involves "Marion is a malcontent so the Suns did the best they could by shipping him out for Shaq." But fantastic? Read on....

The world has finally given up on Shaq.

Because his PPG and RPG have dropped rapidly over the last 3 years, perhaps? The fact that he has only played in 99 games the last two seasons and has only played in 32 during this one?

Many feel the gimmick is up, there's no room left for the games, that he's not worth his weight or contract on anyone's roster anymore. "Damaged goods," is how one man described him. "Stupid," "Dumb," "Doesn't make any sense," and "What in the #@$% were they thinking?" are some of what's being said. If you've read ESPN.com or any blogs, listened to any sports talk radio or had time to peep the sports pages, you'd know that the Suns are catching heat for bringing Shaquille O'Neal into their almost perfect basketball universe.

The same kind of heat the Lakers caught when they gave him up and gave up on him almost four years ago.

Right. Because 4 years ago, Shaq was still pretty damned good. He was a 20 points, 10 rebounds kind of guy. Very very productive. And those critics were right, he went on to win an NBA title. Got news for ya scoop, they're still right.

Shaq doesn't fit into their style of play. Even if he's in the best shape of his life, he can't get up and down the floor with the Suns. He'll be worthless on offense, and he's going to destroy their flow. He's lazy. He's not going to work hard. He's injury-prone. He's not worth the money. They still won't win a championship with him there.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Wrong. Wrong.

Correct answers: Yes. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Yes. Impossible to determine.

Since you have 1/2 credit on some of these, you get 4.5/8 right for a 56.25% score. Lets look at where you screwed up!

Shaq absolutely does not fit into their style of play. A large, old player does not fit into a run-and-gun fast-break style offense. Absolutely not. This should be obvious. He won't be completely worthless on offense, but not worth very much considering Amare is a better option almost every time, and he probably will disrupt their flow. Shaq is nowhere near the 2nd best player in the NBA, so no, he is not close to worth 2nd best player in basketball money. And you have no idea if they will win a championship with him there or not. That's bullshit.

In Miami (and in L.A. and Orlando before) Shaq was Option 1 or 2, and over the past two seasons that became a problem. In Phoenix, he'll be Option 4, maybe 5. Mike D'Antoni should have no plans to depend on Shaq for any offense -- heavy emphasis on "depend." Not in the conventional way that everyone is thinking. The pressure on him to score 20 and grab 10 is finally over.

Read what the hell you just said! You're basically arguing "Shaq will totally help propel Phoenix to a championship, my reasoning is that 1) he's not that good anymore, and 2) but that's ok, because he won't be expected to be that productive." Cleanup on aisle common sense!

Now he'll be the Big Decoy.

Which will totally work, because other teams have no sense for evaluating if he's still as good as he used to be. You know, I hear the New Orleans Hornets and San Antonio Spurs prepare for games by looking at tapes of the 1999-2000 season.

And because he won't be double-teamed (remember he's still one of the best-passing post players in the game, and the Suns are one of the best outside-shooting teams in the League, hitting 38.7 percent on 3-pointers along with four players capable of dropping 20 to 30 every night), Big stands a chance of being more valuable by doing less in Phoenix.

Big Decoy, 2007-2008 season: 1.4 APG, good for 14th in basketball among centers. He's behind Zydrunas Ilgauskas for fuck's sake. His assist to turnover ratio is .47! Not as comically bad as Eddy Curry, but still awful, even for a center.

The beauty is -- again, if the Suns play this right -- Shaq doesn't need to be a part of their transition game, he just needs to ignite it.

Get ready for this guys, it's pretty funny.

Rebound, turn, outlet! Rebound, turn, outlet! Precision. Execution. Buckets. Only six seconds off the shot clock. Back on D. Repeat. So unfair.

Sounds exactly like what Shawn Marion did for them! Only Marion grabbed rebounds more often and actually was able to run the floor to contribute anyway even if he wasn't the lucky fella to whom the rebound bounced. FANTASTIC trade! I guess if you're arguing that Shaq "wouldn't be completely dismal" to the Suns, you've done a C-minus job. But that the trade was FANTASTIC!?!?! Gimme a break.

It will be so systematic that no one will be able to stop it once it gets perfected.

For crissake all you're saying is that he can grab the farking rebound and pass it. The rebound is the hardest part, and he's not even very good at that anymore. Ben Wallace is way shorter and lighter and having a terrible season and he STILL gets more rebounds per game than Shaq, who is 40th in the NBA.

And for those who think it's predictable and defenses will be able to shut it down, here's one to grow on: Whenever teams played the 49ers, they knew where, when and how Jerry Rice was going to get the ball. Yet for years, the best defenses in the game could not do anything to stop it. Nothing. The Niners won four rings with Rice, proving that predictability when perfected, works.

Football....that doesn't happen to be a completely different sport with different dynamics than basketball....does it? Chalk another one up to the "anecdotal bullshit" category!

On defense, all Shaq needs to do is breathe, partially because Amare Stoudemire is so active. As long as Shaq doesn't move (and get in foul trouble, which my be a bigger problem on offense), no one'll get hurt. Remember Chief from "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"? That's Shaq all day on defense. Just play the paint, don't protect it.

So, what does Amare Stoudemire's man do when Amare goes to help out Shaq? Run into the stands and buy a hot dog? No, he stands right under the fucking basket for easy points if the ball can get to him. An awful defender can bite you in the ass, regardless of how good the help defenders on your team are. And I'm so gonna think of a Cuckoo's Nest-related label.

There's more grief from the world about this. Grief of how "the Suns should have kept Shawn Marion," how he was "their best defensive player and best rebounder" and how "there's no player in the league like him." All true. But Marion wanted to go. He wanted out of everyone's shadow and the organization's underappreciation of him. And before the Suns ended up like the Grizzlies after trading Pau Gasol and getting "the twin of nothing" in return for the Matrix, they decided to get someone who, if you checked his history, guarantees your team will either get to the NBA Finals or win a ring.

Orlando? Finals in three years. L.A.? Finals in four years, three rings in eight. Miami? Finals and ring in his second season.

Sir, a coke-addicted moron could fine serious, serious flaws in that logic. For starters, you just represented something that has historically happened 53.3% of the time as a "guarantee." Hey guys, 53.3% of the time, Shaq gets to the finals EVERY TIME. Second, you just assumed that things like the state of Shaq's career (currently the severe decline phase), Shaq's teammates (ones who play a vastly different style of basketball than he does), and the conference and division in which Shaq is competing (both pretty tough) are irrelvant.

Get ready, this is about to become dismal.

See, the Suns are outthinking all y'all.

You're a professional writer. "Y'all" should not appear in your sports column.

They know that one thing comes almost assured with this trade: They will win a title with Shaquille O'Neal in the lineup. It's just a matter of whether the one ring they get with him is worth the years they won't win while he's still there.

Could you be more completely and totally irrational? First of all, as you just discussed, Shaq didn't win a ring with Orlando. Second, you are talking like the Suns are 100% completely and totally guaranteed to win a title either this year or in the next two. If you can say this with confidence, Scoop, head to Vegas right now, bet the farm on it, and start living the good life. And third, if the Suns absoluetly will win at least one ring with him there that they wouldn't have won without him, then it's not a "matter" of whether the other two years are worth it, because the Suns are absolutely dying for a title, and it's a very difficult title to win. If this trade guarantees them ONE title (which it absolutely doesn't), then it's no fucking question that it's worth it. Period.

The Suns have never won an NBA championship -- just like Miami before Shaq arrived. And if they're smart, they can take the one they'll win and milk it for 30 years -- just like Portland. The question is if $20 million per for the next two seasons is worth getting the one year of ring service they're going to get from Shaq.

It's official, you've fallen off the proverbial cliff harder and more dramatically than the little Price is Right mountain climber guy with an idiot contestant playing. If there is a fucking team in the NBA that wouldn't pay a guy $20M for two years with the stipulation that it would guarantee them one championship in the next three (hell, it's probably true of the Knicks), that team shouldn't have a fan in the world, and the GM should probably be drowned. And you continuously hammer home the "fact" that Shaq in some sort of divine way "guarantees" a championship in Phoenix, which is a "stupid" "thing" to "say."

There are so many other variables that play to the Suns' favor in this: a front line of Stoudemire, Shaq and Boris Diaw that no squad in the West can match -- not even the Lakers, when Andrew Bynum comes back with Gasol in the slot. Amare will be able to play his natural position, power forward, which causes matchup drama for any other team.

For the 20 minutes per game you'll get out of Shaq, that's true. Stoudamire is currently running at 23.1 PPG and 9.4 RPG. We'll see if those improve. My guess: not significantly.

Steve Nash is going to get open looks because of Shaq's presence and how coaches automatically forget about other players on the court because they are still afraid of getting killed by Shaq in the playoffs.

Those teams must still have the image of Shaq dominating the Bulls last year fresh in their minds. Oh wait....

Shaq's and Grant Hill's passing ability in the half-court will be more dangerous than Nash's, which will now increase the assist-per-game ratio for the team, which is the most difficult stat in the League to alter and one that correlates most to a team's ability to win.

Are you fucking kidding me? Shaq and Grant Hill better passers than Nash? Even though Nash is overrated, he's at the very least one of the three best passers in basketball. Shaq can go ahead and add his 1.4 assists per game at the expense of Marion's 2.1. Grant Hill averages 3.3 assists. Nash averages 11.7. How many of Nash's are in the half-court, I can't say for sure, but it's still way more than Shaq or Hill get. Mark my words, Scoop, the Suns' APG will not be seeing a significant boost from this trade, and you couldn't overrate O'Neal's ability as a passer any more than you have. You know what else correlates to winning? Not turning the ball over. Shaq does that a lot.

Big might come to town rejuvenated. He probably hears everything that's being said about him, which could send him back into 2005-06 mode. Just being gone from Miami with all of the hot mess surrounding his divorce will give him a new lease on his life. Robert Horry might think twice about running a Suns player into the scorer's table next time.

So....all the Toronto media needs to do to get Frank Thomas to hit like he did for Oakland 2 years ago is start talking shit about him! Totally makes sense!

Variables that no one outside of Steve Kerr's office and Robert Sarver's bank account could possibly comprehend. The fact is, by attaining the services of Shaquille O'Neal and not expecting or needing much from a productivity standpoint in return, the Phoenix Suns may have made the most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years. Only time will tell. It's just a matter of how wrong they -- and he -- really want to prove the world to be.

Most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years!??!??!?!?!

::faints::

A Fat Shit Meets a Hall of Famer; Hilarity Ensues

This Guy Went Home A Winner

Here's the problem here: Fans Who Think They're Part Of The Game.

I'm not going to excoriate the guy for shit-talking; that's just fine. What I do take issue with:

"We were getting eye contact from all the players when I decided I would give the Dodgers an extra edge" by yelling at Griffey.

What the hell? Does this guy honestly value his own shit life so little that he is willing to risk his public image of being a decent guy who doesn't make fun of peoples' cancer-ridden mothers simply in order to give an "edge" to his beloved Dodgers?

"when you come to my stadium, you're fair game."

The thing is, my friend, if it was *your* stadium, you could publish your blog on the front page of the Murdoch/McCourt news syndicates... but since it is not in any respect *owned* by you, you have to publish this news on your MySpace. Not quite the same. Did you have to pay to get into *your* stadium, Sir? Oh. Yeah. You did.

"I totally got into his head. He went 0-3 and finally got a little base hit in the 9th."

"I just went outside and screamed at the sun and it went down! I got into that motherfucker's head! I bet he won't dare show his face in MY NEIGHBORHOOD ever again! What a little bitch!"

"This is DODGER TOWN GRIFF"

By all accounts, sir, Los Angeles Dodgers fans are among the more apathetic in baseball, legendary for arriving in the 2nd and leaving in the 7th. Perhaps you were not aware of that; your personal appearance and your uncouth comments suggest that you are unaware of normal conventions accepted by pretty much all levels of society on how not to be a fuckstick.


I realize this seems inappropriate for this blog: I'm criticizing a douchebag's MySpace post, not a media article... but I had to lend my small voice to excoriate this douchebag. Remember when you were six and you considered it a victory when you poked your big brother hard enough to interrupt him just as he was jumping for the flag at the end of a level in Super Mario Brothers?

That's this guy.

And on a side note: anyone else who tells you that you can't judge people based on appearances is wrong. To go with the Grizzly Adams beard, this fuckdo0d sports the rockstar-backwards-adjustable-velcro-psuedo-denim Dodgers hat to support his fandom and contain his overly large cranium.