Followup from yesterday

I spent hours--LITERALLY hours--on that post. OK, fine, I literally spent one hour on it. But there was some great stuff I missed. Let's go to the tape.

Angelo points out how asinine this is:

The last two Bird-McHale-Parish efforts ('91 and '92, two severely underrated teams) fell short because the Legend just couldn't stay healthy.

The Celtics won it all in 1986. In 1987 they lost in the Finals to some team from the BEST coast. In 1988 they lost to a rising Detroit team in the conference finals. In 1989 Bird was hurt all year and they failed to win a single playoff game (as the 8 seed). In 1990 Bird was healthy and playing mostly like his old self... and they still didn't make it out of the first round. In both 1991 and 1992 Bird missed some time, and they eventually won a single series before bowing out. So let's total it up: 1987 to 1992: six seasons, three with a healthy Bird, two with a somewhat healthy Bird, seven playoff series won. In other words, a fading and later irrelevant team with a fading superstar.

To hear Simmons tell the story out of context, those last two Bird teams could have been contenders if only Bird had been 100%! SEVERELY UNDERRATED, which is what Klosterman thinks actually makes them a little bit overrated. Is your brain exploding right now? Well I hope you're sitting down for this part: there might have been a little problem standing in the way of the 1991 and 1992 Celtics even if Bird had been at 100%. Yeah, that guy and his team that went 30-9 in those two playoffs might have had a little something to say about Basketball Jesus and his creaky teammates had they crossed paths. In 1991, the Detroit team that bounced Boston in six games couldn't get a single game off the Bulls. In 1992, the Cleveland team that ousted Boston in seven only took Chicago six.

Chris W figuratively jumps on this pile of garbage:

What about Doc finally (and belatedly, but whatever) figuring out the value of a locked-in playing rotation? Even when they won the 2008 title, Doc was routinely playing 11 guys in one half — he just couldn't grasp the concept of "stick to eight or nine guys, make sure everyone knows their minutes, don't deviate from this"

Bill's right--during the 2008 playoffs Rivers ran a ten man rotation. But just because it worked that one time doesn't mean it was a good tactic, right? And if Bill says eight is the way to go, it's the way to go, right? Oh shit. Well fuck. Seems like Doc might have already heard that one somewhere. That's not to say running ten deep would be the right thing to do this year, given their injury issues. I'm sure no Celtics fan wants to see Marquis Daniels or E'Twaun Moore getting minutes in the playoffs. I just find it funny that the Celtics won a title giving minutes to every guy on the roster, then switched to a tighter rotation and failed to win again the following three seasons (including two pretty disappointing second round losses), and now Bill is thrilled that circumstance has forced Rivers into running a tight rotation this year. CHAMPIONSHIP SECURED. NOW TO PLAN THE PARADE ROUTE.

I hope the Celtics get swept in the first round, then dismantle their team, then TD Garden burns to the ground. And while we're sort of on the subject, fuck the Bruins with a rusty tetherball pole.

Boise State Loses! But They're Still Awesome!!!

As you might have noticed, the media darling of Boise State football lost in OT last night.

All season, blowhards have been whining about how unfair it would be that BSU wouldn't get the chance to play in the title game, even if they finished undefeated. Rick Reilly went on and on about how bad the BCS, arguing that the "computers TKO Boise State". Well, looks like BSU TKO'd itself.

So just today, Gene Wojecehjogiaski came out with an article titled "Despite Boise's Loss, non-AQ's belong". Now, of course one game doesn't constitute enough evidence to make a judgment about a whole system, but last night's game is a piece of evidence that affirms the points of view of the Gordon Gees of the world and damages the opposing points of view of the Gene Wojs of the world: competition in non-BCS conferences is generally not up to the same standard, and, consequently, teams from those conferences should get lower preference for BCS bowl bids.

Gene's whole article isn't worth a thorough examination, as most of it explains the reasons for Nevada's win. The most interesting stuff comes at the end, when Gene asks Nevada coach Chris Ault if WAC teams can play with the AQ conferences, and he said that "Ohio State wouldn't beat Boise State". It's kind of stupid for journalists to ask these coaches these things, beacuse like what the hell else would they say? But I guess that's their job.

Here's where the article gets bad:

Anyway, this is the win that will keep on giving. It was a hard-fought victory for all those Little Sisters of the Poor programs -- the same sometimes-scruffy non-automatic qualifiers Gee so casually mocked with his comments.

Actually, this game is just the opposite. By proving the BSU was more of the caliber of the Nevadas of the world and less the caliber of the Auburns of the world, this win actually devalues the LSoP programs, since their best just proved to be ... not that great.

For years the non-AQs have been forced to jump through BCS hoops. Now TCU could be bumped up to BCS first class if No. 1 Oregon or No. 2 Auburn falters in its final game.

And things are as they should be.

Make no mistake: TCU is now positioned for a long-shot national title try not because of the BCS "system," but in spite of it. Maybe that's what makes it easier to root for the Horned Frogs and Wolf Packs of the world.

Make no mistake: both Auburn and Oregon have proved themselves clearly more impressive than TCU this season. Each of those teams deserves their spot. The BCS system is working just fine. While it might not be perfect, sportswriters' hand-wringing and fulminating about its errors is far disproportionate to its actual evil.

Remember How Ozzie Guillen Is a Crazy Asshole?

Why hasn't this guy been fired yet? Oh yeah- because the most prominent media member calling for that course of action, Jay Mariotti, is a fucking dunderhead. I love the fact that since Guillen publicly complained about his offense and subsequently drew the wrath of Jay and others (not going to link my original post, it's two below this one), the White Sox have won five games in a row while scoring more than eight runs per game. If Tony La Russa or Jim Leyland had said what he said, and then seen their teams go on a streak like this, there'd have been followup stories galore about what brilliant motivators they are. In this case, we'll hear exactly nothing until the next time Guillen does something mildly offensive. Well, fuck that. Leyland is a crusty old know-nothing who has been known to put guys like Neifi Perez and his .295 OBP at the top of his lineup and La Russa is a horrible-haircut-wearing drunk driver (actually a decent manager too, but don't try to stop me, I'm on my soap box here). As I said in my original post about this subject, I'm neither a "Blizzard" nor a White Sox fan. I just get tired of hearing the guy get excoriated for pretty much no other reason besides the fact that he's not nice to the guys writing the stories. According to this admittedly small sample size of games, he seems to know how to motivate a team. At the very least it would be dumb for the Sox to fire him anytime soon. Shut up, Jay. Shut up, everyone who Jay quoted as agreeing with him in his latest article. And shut up, Amy Winehouse. You're horrendous.