Well, the GREATRIOTS did it

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.

Before we go, though, just a reminder: the NFL is a fucking joke.

One more reminder that the NFL is a fucking joke.

And finally, a final reminder that the NFL is a fucking joke.

Moving on.

It's almost baseball season yayyyy yayyy yayyy!

/realizes he will once again watch his favorite team lose 90 games this summer

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.)  

DH Nick Swisher, Cleveland Indians: two years, $30 million remaining

OF Michael Bourn, Cleveland Indians: two years, $27.5 million

...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.

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:
 
SP Edwin Jackson, Chicago Cubs: two years, $22 million

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.

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.

SS Elvis Andrus, Texas Rangers: eight years, $120 million

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.

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.

SP Bronson Arroyo, Arizona Diamondbacks: one year, $14 million

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.

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.

SP Ubaldo Jimenez, Baltimore Orioles: three years, $38.75 million

Oy.

OK, you win this round, Jonah.  That's a terrible contract.  Fucking Ubaldo.  

/Larry B cries Rockies fan tears

1B Joey Votto, Cincinnati Reds: nine years, $213 million

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.

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.

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.

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.

4. OF Shin-Soo Choo, Texas Rangers: six years, $116 million (NR)

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:

7. 1B Ryan Howard, Philadelphia Phillies: two years, $60 million (3)

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?

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. 

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.

2. SP Matt Harrison, Texas Rangers: three years, $41 million (NR)

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.

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.

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.  

Bill fixes the Lakers, tests my patience (part 2)

Remember, everyone.  It is a FACT: that things are really bleak for the FACT: Lakers.

Right now, these Lakers have three, and only three, inherent advantages. 

Haven't seen this trope in a while: the I KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OF THINGS THAT FALL WITHIN THIS ILL-DEFINED AND ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE CATEGORY.  When Bill does this, it's like he's trying to emulate Bleacher Report, only he's not as clever as they are.  Wow, that's sad.

First, they have a terrific owner. Jimmy Buss has proven over the last year that … oh, wait a second, he's been an atrocity! 

NEEDS A VP OF COMMON SENSE!  

I totally forgot! Last week, an L.A. reader named Jake B. even compared him to Tommy Boy, 

An idea so boring and unclever I can't believe Simmons didn't steal it and pass it off as his own!

followed by me being unable to figure out if that was a bigger insult to Jimmy Buss or to Tommy Boy. (The answer: Tommy Boy. At least he eventually turned Callahan Auto Parts around.) 

In that movie!

If anyone needs my hypothetical help, it's Tommy Boy Buss.

Sick burn.  Buss, you are like a beloved character from a sort of popular movie that came out 20 years ago.

OK, so they have two 

AND ONLY TWO

inherent advantages. First, the Lakers have only one contract on their books for the 2014-15 season: Steve Nash for $9.7 million. They might be $50 million under the cap next summer — perfect timing for an all-you-can-eat buffet of free-agent stars headlined by LeBron, 

This sentence should stop here, because it's perfectly obvious to everyone why (a) the Lakers would want LeBron, (b) why LeBron could conceivably want to play for the Lakers, and (c) LeBron + free agency = unpredictability.  But no, it won't, because Bill is a basketball NERD.  As in, guy who knows everything about the NBA, not that it's a big deal or anything.

who's only (a) the best player since Michael Jordan, (b) someone who wants to be a "global icon," and (c) someone with an established track record of treating free agency like he's organizing a bank heist with his buddies.

Insight: shared.  Readers: nodding silently.

Second, the Lakers have a six-decade history of luring available basketball stars (ranging from all-timers like Wilt, Kareem and Shaq to in-demand-at-the-time free agents like Sam Perkins, Steve Nash and Mitch Kupchak) and keeping their stars nearly 100 percent of the time, with two notable exceptions: a celibate A.C. Green and a decidedly uncelibate Dwight Howard. Famous basketball players gravitate to the Lakers because of their storied history, and because Los Angeles remains the easiest American city for any wealthy celebrity to live in.

Wealthy celebrities, like successful TV writer Bill Simmons!  Here's a paragraph full of worthless bullshit to back up his questionable position on this very uninteresting topic.

See, people rarely bother celebrities in Los Angeles. 

I doubt it.

They can eat dinner or hit a nightclub without half the room staring at them like they're aliens. 

I doubt it. 

They can live on the ocean, or they can live in some souped-up mansion in Bel Air or the Hollywood Hills. 

The equivalent of this can be done in many cities, including Miami.

The weather is consistently fantastic. 

Same for Miami.

The women are relentlessly beautiful. 

Same for Miami.

Celebrities in L.A. can be around other celebrities all the time, and if there's one thing celebrities love, it's being around other celebrities. 

Same for Miami.

If they want to dabble in music or movies or any other ego-fueled creative project, or meet just about any heavy hitter business dude on the planet, they have those options here. 

Perhaps these opportunities are more limited in Miami, but I'm sure they still exist.  Also, take away the beach living and add a crappy winter, and New York is in play too.  New York might be better than LA in a lot of these categories.

If they want to fly to Vegas, it's 50 minutes away. 

There are casinos fucking everywhere these days.  I know that Atlantic City or awful bumfuck central Florida aren't as EPIC as VEGAS BABY is for EPIC BACHELOR PARTIES WITH YOUR BROS, but still.

If they want to fly to Cabo, that's just over two hours away. 

What?  Who picks a place to live because it's close to Cabo?

It's the ultimate American city for famous people.

You're a vapid piece of cat shit.

As recently as three years ago, had you told any fan of the other 29 teams, "In 2014, the Lakers will have $50 million in cap space during a loaded summer for free agents," their reaction would have been, "We're all screwed." 

Because the idea of the Lakers having no players under contract is terrifying to other teams, somehow?  And boy, remember how he was just lecturing us as to what we learned about from the way the 2010 free agent market played out?  I don't know what the rest of you learned, but given that LeBron spurned the Knicks and Bulls, both of whom were the focus of most of the attention leading up to The Decision, all I learned is that no team should ever count on signing any given free agent.

But when they're being run by someone who can successfully be compared to Tommy Boy? That's a different story.

No way LeBron theoretically signs there now!

Making matters worse, the Lakers lost their L.A. basketball monopoly. Lately, the lowly Clippers — a team 

that Bill Simmons pretended to follow, then renounced because they didn't win enough for him, then decided to follow again because they landed Chris Paul and started winning again,

that threw away the last three decades despite having the same inherent advantages as the Lakers — finally kinda sorta maybe figured out what they were doing. They've been spending money in the most anti–Donald Sterling ways possible, building around the league's most expensive coach (Doc Rivers), 

Bill: Doc, you quit on the Celtics!

Doc: Bill's a fucking idiot who knows nothing about anything.

You know, I hate the Celtics and don't care for the Clippers, but this Doc character, he seems cool to me.

a $107 million point guard (Chris Paul), a $95 million, high-flying power forward (Blake Griffin) 

The Donald Sterling way to spend money on players is to just not do it.  I don't think there's anything "bizzarro Sterling" about paying a PG and (overpaying) a PF.

and a slew of quality role players. It's almost like the Lakers and Clippers switched bodies. And actually, we can't rule this out.

Haha, we sure can!  

So if we ever needed a "Save the Lakers" plan, it's right now. Here's how Wolf Pope Simmons would hypothetically save the Lakers in 10 hypothetical steps.

TEN AND ONLY TEN

1. Don't be afraid to suck all kinds of suck for one season.

Tips for writing for Jimmy Kimmel's show, by Bill Simmons.

Hey, Jimmy? 

Baby!  Boobie!  Let's get together and make a picture!

You already have everyone's 2013-14 season ticket money! They're helpless. They're stuck at your Thanksgiving table of basketball hell 

Worst metaphor ever.

for six solid months — just keep force-feeding oily turkey 

Oh man, totally makes sense!

and runny cranberry sauce down their throats. 

Don't write while hungry is the lesson, I guess.

Why? Because you don't want to be the West Coast Bucks, and because one of the greatest NBA drafts in 30 years is coming.

Take it from a guy who interviewed like 10 draft prospects in advance of this year's draft, and failed to interview the guy who went 1st overall!

Two facts about the 2014 draft. First, if you were ranking the Can't-Miss NBA Prospects of the 21st Century, Kansas freshman Andrew Wiggins would rank behind LeBron, but would probably land right on that second tier with Durant, Oden and Carmelo. 

I'm picking nits, but let's not put Wiggins on their level just yet, not until he has a successful freshman year like they all did (minus the fact that Oden walked like an old man, obviously).

He's T-Mac 2.0 by all accounts. Seriously, check him out. There's a reason the Tankapalooza committee (I'm the chairman) is thinking about changing the name of Tankapalooza 2014 to Riggin' for Wiggins.

So clever!  Also a great idea, what with the worst team in the NBA getting a 25% shot at winning the lottery.

Second, it's the rare NBA draft that's deep AND top-heavy. On Tuesday's B.S. Report, ESPN draft guru and former The O.C. star Chad Ford pointed out that, in 2013, he broke the draft down by tiers — with Tier 1 being "potential franchise players," Tier 2 being "potential All-Stars," Tier 3 being "potential starters," and so on — and there wasn't a single 2013 draft prospect in Tier 1 or Tier 2. In 2014? Right now, we have eight guys in those top two tiers, and that's without factoring in the possibility of one or two more breakout stars. There's also a chance that Kentucky power forward Julius Randle might turn "Wiggins vs. Randle" into a "Durant vs. Oden"–type debate, and that Duke's Jabari Parker might be looming as a Carmelo-like sleeper.

Carmelo was not a sleeper.  He won a national championship after being a McDonald's All-American.  He would have been #1 in, like, any other draft in the 2000s.  But yeah, I don't have too much snark here.  That draft actually does sound pretty awesome.

If there was ever a season for hopeless or semi-hopeless NBA teams to throw away like a half-eaten banana, it's this one. Going 42-40 makes no sense. Why not take your lumps, Jimmy? Your fan base is more sophisticated than anyone realizes. 

SECRETLY UNDERRATEDLY OVERSOPHISTICATED.  Only a basketball NERD would realize this.

They've had four generations of success. They're even savvy enough to realize that it wasn't the worst thing in the world that a wishy-washy, oversensitive, possibly breaking-down-and-maybe-even-past-his-prime Dwight fled for Texas. They get it. 

From earlier in this same article, covered in my last post:

And they need to sell the illusion of hope to their fans,

What an asshole.

They'd be fine with throwing away ONE season. Just not two.

ONE AND ONLY ONE SEASON

2. Clear every dollar off your 2014-15 cap. Get to zero, or close.

OFFER LEBRON A 15 YEAR $600 MILLION CONTRACT WHO SAYS NO????

The goal: replicating what Pat Riley achieved four seasons ago, when he talked Dwyane Wade into playing with expiring contracts just so Miami could become a free-agent player in the summer of 2010 (with South Beach as the carrot).

When I did that "Hey anonymous commenter, shut your fucking mouth" research about the Heat's level of success a few weeks ago, I was surprised to see how good they were in 2009-2010.  I remember it being a story that they were playing with a bunch of expiring contract guys to clear cap space for the summer of LeBron, but wow.  They still won 47 games, even with Michael Beasley and Quentin Richardson combining for 58 minutes per game.  That Spoelstra is kind of good.  (I think I might have said otherwise in the past.  I take it back.)

Whether that was a calculated risk or a nefarious plan hatched during the summer of 2008 — you know, when LeBron, Wade and Bosh played on Team USA and befriended team ball boy Nick Arison (son of Miami owner Micky Arison), 

Yes, if we are to assume that such a plan really did exist, then CLEARLY it was the ball boy who caused it, and not, you know, those dudes getting together and saying "Hey we should play together and win championships while paying no state income tax, that would be fun."

then won Olympic gold in China, followed by two years of whispers that those three players had made a pact to play together, and then it actually happened while David Stern and Adam Silver twiddled their thumbs and repeatedly yelled "Nothing to see here!" at each other — we'll never know the real truth. 

THE DECISION WAS AN INSIDE JOB, WATCH THESE POORLY PRODUCED VIDEOS ON MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL, THEY WILL SHOW YOU THE TRUTH

But look how that gamble played out. Three Finals trips, two titles … and we're still going.

On paper, the 2013-14 Lakers could take the 2009-10 Heat's game plan to another level by jettisoning every contract while also landing a top-five lottery pick. But they have to worsen this year's roster. Which means ...

You're going to have to wait to find out.  Oops, hold on, that means a couple of you who are curious might actually go to Grantland to read the column.  We don't want that.  Let me spoil it for you: he says they should trade Nash to Toronto WHO SAYS NO????

More later. 

Simmons tries to pretend like he never had a silver spoon in his mouth; some asshole dives into the deepest part of the deep end re: steroids

Whew, writing that title was a lot of work.  Not sure how much energy I've got left for the post.  Tonight I found two short articles worth bitching about, so I'll write about both.  You're welcome.  But wait!  Bonus item (thanks to tips in the comments to the last post), before I get to the Simmons article:

is this the greatest sporting event of 2013 (so far)? They just went end to end for 34 OT minutes. This is amazing.
— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) June 6, 2013

In fact, no!  No it is not.  It did involve DA FACKIN' BROONS though, so Bill needed to check in with his Tweeps to see if everyone else was as impressed as he was.  He probably has a yearly Google calendar alert that pops up on June 1 that says something like "Check to see if Bruins are still in playoffs; if yes, follow them, if not, Tweet about disappointing recent lack of success and strain it puts on fanbase."   Now for the article.  Don't worry, it's not recent; Grantland, realizing that there is an insatiable demand for Simmons articles from fuckwits nationwide, but having to cope with the reality that he only writes about one per month, has decided to start posting old articles.  This one comes from the summer of 2005, just as he was completing his transition from "Bad writer who is still sometimes a little entertaining and occasionally makes you feel sorry for Boston fans" to "Bad writer who is also an insufferable piece of shit."

Outside the Boston Garden before Game 7 of the '84 NBA Finals, scalpers were getting upwards of $2,000 per ticket. Since we were fortunate enough to own midcourt seats, I remember my father perking up as we heard the numbers being tossed around on Causeway Street. Four grand for our seats? He could barely afford season tickets as it was. 

Yeah fucking right.  Get the fuck out of here.  You went to some fancy fuck New England prep school before attending Holy Cross.  I'm real sure your dad was combing the couch cushions to find the loose change needed for those GAHHHHHDEN seats.  That obviously fabricated last line speaks to my contention above: this is a transparent case of Simmons saying "This anecdote about the incredible cost of scalped game 7 tickets is interesting and needs to be in the column... but I'd better not make too much of a show out of the fact that my dad had expensive season tickets!  How can I accomplish that?  I guess I could always just lie.  Done and done."

Did he ever really consider it? Of course not. 

We were huge Celtics fans and didn't need the money!  Why would we have?

As basketball fans, we knew Game 7 of an NBA Finals was the ultimate experience.

Yep, he was a shitty writer back then too.

You can't possibly imagine the level of intensity, the overpowering electricity in the building, how it keeps going higher and higher.

Unless you've sat at midcourt for a game 7, that is!  In that case, you'll be able to imagine it perfectly, because like me, your dad had season tickets.

Rarely are these games well played – there's too much pressure, too much energy.

I like the unintentional foreshadowing of game 7 of the 2010 finals here. 6 FOR 24 LOLOLO LOLOLL OLO LOLOLL

I kept thinking about that game while the Spurs outlasted the Pistons on Thursday night. You never beat someone in a Game 7 to win the title. You outlast them. You persevere. You survive.

Other things you do: outscore them, and in doing so, beat them.

We'll remember them as one of the weaker championship teams in recent memory, 

He was obsessed with how the present will look in the future back then, too.  Also: eight years down the road, and I don't think that statement is true.  That Pistons team was the defending champs, and they were tough.  The Spurs quasi bookended that 2005 title with much more easily won titles in 2003 and 2007.  I wouldn't sell that 2005 team short at all.  The 2006 Heat?  That's one of the weaker championship teams in recent memory.  

a team that could be pushed around at times, a team whose quality players disappeared for entire games. They needed a miraculous effort from Big Shot Brob in Game 5 just to avoid an ignominious 3-4-5 sweep in Detroit. They couldn't close out the resilient Pistons in Game 6, which any of the better NBA champions in history would have done. Yet none of that stuff will matter 50 years from now. As Joe Theismann would say, championship teams win championships.

The fact that he quoted that as legitimate analysis rather than ridiculous bullshit to be laughed at tells you everything you need to know.

Lost in the shuffle were the defending champs, 

More shitty writing.  They were not lost in the shuffle.  They were one of the two teams on the court.  They won three of the seven games in the series.

who defended their title with the requisite amount of honor and integrity. 

Just like the 2008-2009 Celtics, when they outlasted a mediocre Bulls team and advanced to the second round!  What a fantastic title defense!

They carried championship belts like boxers, shouted "on and on and on" before games, always thrived with their backs to the wall. 

They were really good.  But America needs to know: were they as good as the Patriots?

Some kept comparing them to the Patriots, 

No one did that.

and their impeccable record in must-win games and closeouts put them in the general ballpark. But the Pats won 34 of their last 38 games and haven't lost at home since December 2002. The Pistons never dominated over a prolonged stretch like that;

Pick your jaw up off the floor--I know it's shocking, but Bill reached the conclusion that [team that doesn't play football] is not as FACKIN' DAWMINATING as the GREATRIOTS.  Fun fact: that Pistons/Spurs finals feels like a long time ago, but the Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since.  Warms my heart.

Enough of that. Moving on, some jabroni from ESPN named Steve Wulf has written the hand-wringiest steroid piece you will ever see.  For the most part I will present it without commentary, because for the most part it is absurd and embarrassing on its face without the need for explanation.

This is important. You must care. You need to stop enabling the cheaters the way we used to. You have to root, root, root just as hard for the game itself as you do for the players.

Players have been cheating in one way or another for 125 years.  Somehow, some way, the game seems to be doing fine.

Yell, don't yawn. A new generation of players is playing us for suckers, just as Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro and Roger Clemens did. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, A-Rod, shame on me. Whether it be on the blogosphere, or in Twitterville, 

Use of "Twitterville" is a good way to out yourself as old, out of touch, unfunny, and probably not worth listening to when it comes to sports analysis.

or over sports radio, the vox populi seems to want the latest revelations to go away. Funny that some of the same people who criticized Major League Baseball 10 years ago for not doing anything about the steroid epidemic are now blasting the commissioner for trying to prevent a relapse. 

Who is saying that?

The illegal use of PEDs strikes at the belief in the game. If you can't trust a player's numbers, you can't really trust the score.

The next person to quantify the effect steroids has on a player's numbers, and furthermore, what the overall effect is when both pitchers and hitters are juicing, will be the first.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's not worth shitting ourselves over.  And in any case, that's a dumb leap of logic--I have no trouble "trusting the score" even if guys like Braun and Rodriguez are juicing.  Every team probably has guys who are juicing. They're all probably playing a little better than they would if they weren't juicing.  That means that even if one did want to avoid trusting the numbers, they should still be OK with trusting the score.  The baseball universe has yet to collapse in on itself as a result of any of this.

Does anybody have the nerve to ask this: Should the Yankees even count the past two of their 27 championships, the ones they won with Clemens (2000) and Alex Rodriguez (2009)?

I'm sure the 2000 Mets and 2009 Phillies were squeaky clean.  That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Taking steroids or HGH or any other illegal substance is not a victimless crime. Even if the players don't care about the side effects of their elixirs, baseball does have a responsibility to the young athletes who would emulate those regimens.

Cue up Helen Lovejoy.  Holy shitballs.  While "preventing kids from taking steroids" is a perfectly reasonable thing for society to want, trying to connect it to MLB in this way is embarrassing.  The answers to steroid problems among high schoolers are increased awareness of the dangers of steroids, increased parental involvement in the lives of high schoolers, and increased efforts to shut down steroid suppliers on the law enforcement end.  Not among those answers: wagging one's finger at MLB.

The financial investment we put into being fans is nothing compared to the emotional investment. Remember that wonderful moment when Mark McGwire passed Roger Maris, hugged his own son and then met with the Maris family? Feels kind of cheesy now, doesn't it?

It was always cheesy.  Watching McGwire hit the ball all over the place was cool because few guys could do it like he did it.  It was not cool because he hugged his son at home plate.  If you watch sports and glean more than a small sliver of your enjoyment of them from the emotional storybook moments like McGwire meeting Maris's family, you're wasting your time.  Just watch something else.  And anyone who thought McGwire got to 70 without any extra supplements was miles out of the loop.

It's just plain wrong. Yeah, Gaylord Perry threw a spitball, and Ty Cobb sharpened his spikes, and King Kelly used to take a shortcut from first to third. But the use of clearly prohibited banned substances is cheating of a much more profound nature.

And why is that?  Go ahead, I'll hang up and wait for your answer.

The decision encompasses at least five of the Seven Deadly Sins: pride, envy, greed, gluttony, sloth. (Lust and wrath may be in there, too.)

Ah yes, the Bible.  That's why steroids are evil.  Thank you and please step down from the pulpit.

WE AHHHHH SPECIAL!

Big ups to dan-bob for putting up a post last week while I was indisposed.  I'll be back at it this week with a few posts, but tonight all I have is a quick throwaway from part one to Simmons's NBA trade value column (he still hasn't written part 3 yet--I guess it's not like sportswriting is his job or anything), regarding the Boston bombing.  To be clear, the bombing was a horrible tragedy and it makes me very angry.  I do not wish harm or suffering on anyone, except the kind of suffering that happens when a city's teams play shitty and make their fans sad.  So I really feel for Boston, and especially those directly affected by the bombing.  All that said: here's some ridiculous bullshit Bill wrote about it that I cannot let slide.

You can't break Boston. People have been trying for 350 years. 

Who?  Who are these HATERZ who have been trying to break Boston for 350 years?  Sure, people like King George and Hitler and bin Laden have been trying to break the whole United States.  But Boston specifically?  I hate to have to roll this out here, but I'm going to: Boston is not fucking special.  The Tsarnaev brothers were not like WE WILL ATTACK BOSTON BECAUSE OF WHAT BOSTON STANDS FOR, WHICH IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ANY OTHER CITY STANDS FOR.  They were probably more like WE WILL ATTACK BOSTON BECAUSE WE LIVE HERE AND IT'S CONVENIENT.  I am happy that the tragedy was not worse, I am happy the perpetrators are now dead/in custody, and I hope Boston rebuilds itself and feels better (just like what I would hope for any city anywhere in the world that suffered through a terrorist attack).  Fuck it, I will even sing Sweet Caroline at the ballpark (just like I would participate in any mass showing of support for any city that suffered a terrorist attack).  But can we please stop pretending that Boston is dealing with this any differently than any fucking city in the country would?  Please.  WE AHHHHHH DIFFERENT!  WE AHHHHH SPECIAL!  I absolutely support you, Boston, but no.  No you are not.

It's not happening. We will mourn the fallen, raise money for the victims and come back more defiant than ever. 

Yes, like the people of any city in the fucking country would do. 

For anyone who thinks the marathon has been ruined or irrevocably altered — 

Which is no one with a brain, because it's perfectly obvious that next year's marathon will be a huge event with massive participation and lots of moments of remembrance and all that good stuff.

you're wrong. 

HATERZ!

Too many people will do whatever it takes to rebuild that race, improve it, protect it, make it better than it was. 

Like the people of any city in the fucking country would do.

I bet more people run next year's race than ever before. 

Sure, agree.

It's our own little holiday, the most sacred of days. 

IT IS HAWLTAH TAWP DAY!  ONLY IN BEANTOWN DO MEN NOTICE THAT WOMEN START WEARING LESS CLOTHING WHEN THE WEATHER GETS WARM!

So when someone tries to blow that day up in the most evil way possible, you pull yourself back together, try to process the senselessness, slowly feel yourself getting pissed off, and then sing the national anthem at the top of your lungs and send a message to everyone else. 

Consider the message sent: just like every single other city in the goddamn country, Boston is not going to empty out and turn into a ghost town after a tragedy.  People will continue to live there and not much will change about their lives.  Quick, get them all medals and trophies for their amazing display of... whatever it is Bill thinks they're displaying.  

Bill Simmons revisits one of the stupidest things he's ever written, somehow makes it even stupider, part 2

A lot has happened since I posted part one a couple days ago. On Tuesday night the Celtics lost in Denver. That's nothing to be ashamed of, Denver is the one of the best home teams in the NBA, but what's notable about the loss is that the Celtics played very well. Almost well enough to win.  They led at halftime, held the Nuggets under 100 points (which is extremely difficult to do in Denver), and had the ball, down four, with about a minute to go. The real reason they ended up losing, though, was that they had a lot of empty possessions in the second half. They settled for a lot of long jumpers. They went long stretches without attacking the rim and shot 20 fewer free throws than the Nuggets. Hmmm, I wonder who might have been able to help out with those two issues? Bill has already established that they play better without Rondo so the answer is definitely not "Rajon Rondo, the All Star point guard who can get into the paint to shoot or pass on pretty much every possession regardless of what the defense is doing."

Then on Wednesday night the Celtics went into LA and got beaten by the LOL6for24s. Unlike the Denver game, I didn't watch this one, but the Lakers shot eleven more free throws than Boston. Draw your own conclusions. I'm sure most Celtics fans would conclude that THE REFS FACKED US but if this game was anything like the Denver game, it's not the case. Boston probably didn't get to the rack to draw contact. KG looks really soft in the post these days. Other than the fact that he's 45, I wonder why that is? Anyways, Bill was telling us about how the Ewing theory is very real and should be taken very seriously, because the Celtics are definitely better off without their best player.

To their credit, the old farts took a backseat. Pierce even deferred to Rondo at the ends of tight games, something I never expected to see. But things turned goofy early — Rondo became obsessed with keeping a double-figures assist streak alive.

Evidence/support provided for this: zero. This might be an even worse unsubstantiated hit on Rondo's character than "He only makes teammates better ON HIS OWN TERMS" and "he pretends to lead without leading."

And not in a good way. He wasn't making the right decision every time, just the decision most likely to produce an assist.

Holy shit.

And not in a good way. He wasn't making the right decision every time, just the decision most likely to produce an assist.

Other than taking layups when they're available, the decision most likely to produce an assist IS the right decision for a point guard like Rondo who doesn't have a very good jumper, you fucking clod.

Defenses played Rondo for the pass on every drive and fast break, turning the streak into something of an ongoing detriment.

I get that passing up a wide open layup in the interest of another guy's contested layup or jumper is a bad thing, and I admit that I don't watch the Celtics enough to really know whether this is something he's ever done with regularity.  But given that Bill has GODDAMN NEGATIVE ZERO credibility with me, I'm going to guess this claim that Rondo was sabotaging fast breaks to pad his assist totals is just another car-sized pile of elephant shit.

I loathed the streak. It was a bad look for Rondo — you don't want your leader chasing numbers, even something as seemingly benevolent as assists.

Yeah, what good have assists ever done for any team ever?

The streak mercifully ended when Rondo got tossed for fighting Kris Humphries in a loss to the Nets,

Side note, make sure you watch this. If whoever wrote this wrote all the commercials on TV, I'd never use my DVR's fast forward capability.

but questions about Rondo's ultimate destiny as a franchise player lingered.

Debates about a player's "franchise player" status are only slightly less retarded than debates about their "elite" status (see: Flacco, Joe).

You are who you are after seven years in the league. Every night you could put Rondo down for 13 points, 11 assists and five rebounds. And every two weeks or so, he'd slap together four quarters that took your breath away. But Rondo wasn't just going to start averaging 22 points a game; it would have happened by now. For a Celtics team specifically built for him, that's the biggest reason they played a half-season of .500 ball. You're only as good as your best guy.

How dare he only score 13.7 PPG while leading the league in assists!

They couldn't ever beat Miami in a playoff series without Rondo

Don't backpedal too quickly, you'll trip over your own feet.

— the only Celtic who could swing two games in a series by himself.

Right, because he's their best fucking player, which is why they're not better off without him.

But short-term? Maybe our boys would rally without him.

If they got a long homestand against Charlotte, Orlando, etc., then yeah, I bet they would. They just might have been able to pull off that same rally with him in the lineup, too! Meanwhile, now that that homestand is over, they just got beaten by double digits by a mediocre Lakers team (against whom Rondo would have represented an absolute matchup nightmare). But go on.

We knew the schedule worked in their favor: Six of eight home games post-Miami (and Toronto and Charlotte on the road).

Even if it's way too late, at least he's addressing it. Now watch him blow past it like it never happened.

We knew Rondo's departure would inadvertently create a more stable playing rotation — now, Avery Bradley, Courtney Lee and Jason Terry would get enough minutes,

Finally! Minutes for an all defense no offense no real position 7th man, a guy on his fourth team in five years, and 35 year old Jason Terry!

and so would the perpetually frustrating Jeff Green. We knew there was a chance — repeat: a chance — that Garnett and Pierce would rally as a subtle Eff You to Rondo,

No.

their annoying little brother who drove them bonkers even if he would always be family, someone who acted like a bit of a diva behind the scenes, someone who wouldn't exactly win a popularity contest with the people around the organization. An intelligent, demanding, thoughtful guy … yes. But frustrating. That's the word you always hear.

That's the narrative you invent in order to try to prop up your idiotic theory.

The bigger point: With Rondo, Boston had the league's 26th most efficient offense. This seems relevant since the NBA has only 30 teams. How much would they REALLY miss him on a daily basis?

We'll know in a few months, after they've started Bradley at PG for 30ish games (6 points, 4 rebounds, 4 assists in 35 minutes against LA; 17 points (cool!), 3 rebounds, 0 assists and 3 turnovers (oh.) against Denver). I'm sure it'll work out just fine.

How hard was it to replace 13 points and 11 assists every night? Couldn't you replace 80 percent of those stats?

With one player? While he also plays solid defense and sets up the offense?

It was conceivable, right?

No.

Either way, they had reached a fork in the road — if the season went south, they'd certainly have to trade Pierce (Warriors?) and Garnett (Clippers?) over sentencing them to Lotteryville. That was the right thing to do.

Simmons is such a goddamn drama queen. Seriously, it's pathetic.

At the same time, we needed a few more games. They showed some fight against the Heat. We hadn't seen this team fight more than four times all year.

WE AHH THE MOST TAHHCHAHHHED FAN BASE OF ALL!

You know what happened next. They reeled off seven straight Rondo-less victories to the delight (and semi-confusion) of their just-when-I-thought-I-was-out-they-pull-me-back-innnnnnnnnn fans.

Most of whom take their cues from people like Dan Shaugnessy and Bill Simmons, so really, I imagine they get semi-confused by all kinds of things. I bet they struggle with child-proof lids.

Somewhere during that time, we realized two things.

1. We're not ready to say good-bye to no. 5 and no. 34 yet. Can't trade them. Can't trade them. Can't trade them. Celtics for life.

/Larry B hangs head

Seriously, Bill, just listen to yourself. It's embarrassing.

2. Even if it makes no sense whatsoever, our boys are playing better without Rondo.

They are not, at least not more than marginally so. A couple weeks ago, they were playing more shitty opponents than normal and winning close games at home. Now they have stopped doing that. They are much worse off without Rajon Rondo because he is awesome, no matter how much you want to believe that he does things like "only make teammates better on his own terms" and "pretend to lead, but not actually lead." You are a fucking bozo.

Our eyes weren't deceiving us. The Celtics moved the ball dramatically better without Rondo, to the point that Steve Kerr texted me that they suddenly reminded him of Popovich's Spurs.

This is because they had no true point guard on the floor. KG and Pierce can play like point forwards occasionally, but it's not an every possession solution. And as I said, I watched the Denver game on Tuesday--Kerr was going about twenty steps too far with the Spurs comparison. Denver is not exactly known for its stifling defense, and the Celtics offense was... decent. Until the second half, when it switched to awful.

Their playing rotation fell into place — they finally had enough minutes for everyone. Defensively, the Avery Bradley–Courtney Lee combo could be destructive;

I sure as shit hope so, because neither of those guys has anywhere near the offensive ability to justify playing 30+ minutes per game.

throwing in Green and Garnett, suddenly, this Celtics team could get stops. And these guys like playing with each other,

A classic Simmons "I made this up but you can't prove it wrong" staple. Good to see he's still playing his classics.

which wasn't always the case. Everything crested with last Thursday's thrashing of the Lakers, then Sunday's epic triple-overtime toenail-biter-of-a-heart-attack home win over Denver (a.k.a. "The Blizzard Game").

MegaLOLZ @ coming up with a nickname for a regular season game against a non-rival in February.

Heading into the All-Star break, Celtics fans find themselves checking the standings and thinking, "If we can get to the no. 6 seed, 

You won't,

we could beat Indy in Round 1, 

you wouldn't,

and the Knicks in Round 2, 

you might beat them if you face them in the first round, although I'd be surprised,

and then LeBron only needs to tweak a hammy and … "

he won't, and you're not getting out of the first round anyways. GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU'RE A TERRIBLE WRITER AND A WORSE ANALYST.

More later, maybe.

ThMTMQR: Roman numerals are comedy gold

Hope you've got enough room in your grave to roll over, George Carlin.

Get out the old photo albums, Harbaugh clan. It's XII days 'til kickoff of Super Bowl XLVII, scheduled for VI:XXIII Eastern on February III. 

Douchechills.

And Bill Belichick, was he feeling OK? Three times he had the New England offense -- the NFL's top-scoring offense -- punt in Baltimore territory. Belichick punted on fourth-and-9 from the Baltimore 35, fourth-and-2 from the Baltimore 45 and fourth-and-8 from the Baltimore 34. Two of these punts -- of the kind TMQ calls Preposterous Punts -- were followed by the Ravens marching the other way for touchdowns. Clearly the football gods waxed wroth to see Belichick, of all coaches, punt in opposition territory.

Wind was a big element in the game, and Belichick may have been overthinking by trying to force his opponent to punt back into the wind -- instead of just leaving the league's top offense on the field. 

I believe what you're referring to is called "thinking," not "overthinking," when your opponent won the previous week pretty much entirely because of their ability to throw the deep ball and the wind is now gusting to 30 mph. But I agree, every punt that has ever been punted is worse than Jesus being nailed to his cross.

Ray Lewis performed so-so -- he was absolutely crushed by Dan Connolly on a long screen gain by Welker. But Lewis wanted it bad, and his teammates fed off that energy. 

Remember this, it will come up again.

And don't throw baked beans at me for saying this, Boston faithful -- 

That might be worse than the roman numeral joke.

but Belichick won three Super Bowls when he was cheating, and has not won since being caught.

Yeah, he's only been like three minutes away from winning it all twice in the last five years. Guy obviously can't coach. It was all cheating that won those three rings. But at the same time, fuck Belichick and the Patriots, and fuck their fans twice. Go drink antifreeze, you entitled cunts.

Coaches' Employment Office: The Broncos finished second overall on defense and third in the NFL in passing defense. But what have you done for us lately? Denver's secondary broke down on the final play of regulation against Baltimore, and two days later, secondary coach Ron Milus was fired.

Someone had to be scapegoated for the loss. It couldn't be John Fox, who decided to kneel at the end of regulation despite two timeouts; it couldn't be Peyton Manning, who threw a careless interception in overtime; it couldn't be John Elway, who hired Fox and Manning. Football coaches preach, "Win as a team, lose as a team." Then when there's a loss, they point fingers.

I'm still not over this, but I will comment anyways. Fox's mistake was being too conservative. Manning's mistake was being too aggressive while trying to make something happen. Elway hasn't made any mistakes, he cleaned up the Josh McDaniels mess in two years, which is astonishing.  Those first two are shitty mistakes (and I kind of want Fox run out of town on a rail), but they're at least somewhat understandable. Fox did what he did because the wind was getting nasty and the Broncos were headed into it during the 4th. Dumb, but OK. He had a reason. Manning did what he did because he's Peyton Manning and he gets away with ill-advised across-the-body throws all the time. Dumb, but OK. He had a reason. 

 I do not know what role Milus had in calling the defensive scheme at the end of regulation when the 70 yard TD happened, but I know this: Rahim Moore's mistake was far worse than Fox's and Manning's put together. There's no explanation for it. None. It was abominable. Maybe it's not Milus's fault and I'm not saying he deserved to go, but Christ. That play.... OK, I gotta stop. /drinks rubbing alcohol

Kelly's innovation regarding the deuce is to go for two after the first score. Five times in the 2012 collegiate season, when the Ducks scored to make it 6-0, Oregon went for two, succeeding thrice. An early 8-0 lead causes the opponent to think, "Holy cats and little fishes, the game just started and already we are down by more than a touchdown."

WEASEL COACH ALERT! He goes for it on 4th down a lot, guess he gets a pass.

The power-football Falcons of 2006, who led the league in rushing, are a distant memory. This year's Falcons threw the ball well but were only 29th on the ground. San Francisco opened in a nickel to stop the pass. Early, Atlanta passing was effective. But the Atlanta sideline never seemed to say, "Hey, let's run against that skinny nickel defense." 

Passing is a glory boy way to win! Much more honorable to run on every down, without punting. Football was way better in 1890. 

TMQ tracks Hidden Plays, which are plays that never make highlight reels, 

Like when undrafted small college fourth string tight ends sort of almost blocks someone on a kickoff return! It's what the game is all about!

but impact game outcomes. Leading 24-21 midway through the third quarter, the Falcons had second-and-8 on their 29. The play call was messed up -- though Atlanta called nearly all plays from a no-huddle, and San Francisco did a lot of no-huddle, both teams were using slow no-huddle, running down the play clock before snapping. San Francisco and Atlanta combined for just 117 offensive snaps, a low number; there were 153 snaps in the AFC title game. If you're going to use a slow pace, why not just huddle and forget the chicken dancing at the line of scrimmage?

Because not huddling limits the defense's ability to substitute, you fucking clod. For someone who constantly grandstands about how much smarter and holier he is than thou, he sure has a hard time understanding basics of football tactics. HEY HOW COME OFFENSES SOMETIMES HAVE A WIDE RECEIVER RUNNING ALONG THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE BEFORE THE SNAP? SEEMS LIKE A WASTE OF ENERGY TO ME.

Trojan Horse, Indeed: "It's disappointing any time you don't win enough. That's what it comes down to in this business, winning enough." -- USC men's basketball coach Kevin O'Neill, after being fired last week.

There's no doubt O'Neill's statement is true -- big-college sports has become a "business." Forget education, all the boosters and television audiences care about is wins. O'Neill was fired by Pat Haden for the sin of a 7-10 record. Haden took over as USC athletic director promising to clean house and put integrity first after numerous NCAA sanctions, but now seems to be just another guy who cares about nothing except winning. Didn't USC once claim to be a university?

All schools should just let a rotating cast of NCAA compliance officers coach their teams. (All assistants should be either professors or nuns.) It's almost like USC thinks they can hire a guy who graduates players AND can do better than 7-10 in early January! Leave it to Gregg to make me take the side of big money college sports, something I hate, but at least am not a preachy asstwat about.

Hey Everybody, Look at Me: Last week, TMQ zinged J.J. Watt for pointing at himself during games. Reader Doug Williams of Pittsburgh writes, "Watt's immature dancing is a learned behavior. One need look no further than the AFC title game for the prime example of that. Ray Lewis points at himself constantly, he even has a pregame song so he can go through his outlandish gyrations. The result? He is lauded and praised by the sports media. That is the stuff that makes TV, and those are the tactics young players imitate in order to get attention.

Yes, aren't sports so much more fun when the players show no emotion? How dare Ray Lewis get excited about playing the sport that has brought him wealth and fame and which he enjoys as much as anyone on Earth enjoys their job? Also, has his emotion ever helped the Ravens win games by getting his teammates pumped up? I doubt it. Doug Williams from Pittsburgh (OOH IS IT PITTSBURGH PA, OR PITTSBURGH INDIANA, HOME OF PITTSBURGH OF INDIANA COLLEGE, A DIVISION THREE POWERHOUSE?) should be beaten with a pillowcase full of rocks. I guarantee you he loves watching golf.

Clear the Decks! Prepare to Dive! The submarine conspiracy show "Last Resort" has its series finale on Thursday, which ABC is puzzlingly promoting as the "season" finale.
Speaking of puzzling, holy dog balls, did anyone in the entire world besides Gregggggg ever give one squirt of piss about Last Resort?

I will probably finish Simmons's playoff preview before the playoffs are over

How much time do I have left before it's all over and a champion is crowned?  A week?  Ten days?  Chris W: U MAD

16. Ronmetta Artestpeace

I'd like to make fun of this for being dumb and unclever except that I did the same thing with Bill and Klosterman last post. I guess we can both be officially branded as dumb and unclever, that's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make if it got Bill fired.

Sorry, I can't call someone "World Peace" after he concusses James Harden and his beard with a deliberate/intentional/vicious elbow.

Always nice to have a joke spoonfed to you.  "Deadspin?  More like DUMBspin.  I say this because I think Deadspin is DUMB."

You could tell the difference between "people who have never played basketball" and "people who actually play basketball" by the way they reacted to this story — if your argument was, "He didn't see Harden, he didn't realize what happened," then you've never played basketball. 

No one said that.  Now let's burn this straw man!  Burn it good!

There are no accidents on a basketball court, save for two guys colliding because they were looking up at a rebound or something. It's not hockey. You know where you are and what you're doing pretty much all the time. 

Unless you're JaVale McGee.  Wizards JaVale McGee, anyways.

If a normal person accidentally ripped an elbow into someone's head and knocked him out on a basketball court, he would immediately stop running, feel horrified, hope the injured guy got up, then crouch over him to make sure he was OK. This would happen every time — repeat: every time — unless either (a) the guy totally meant to throw that elbow, and (b) the guy was a full-fledged fucking lunatic. In that case, the guy would glance at the victim's fallen body in disdain and keep running the other way, then raise his hands to fight whoever came charging at him. That's exactly what Ronmetta did. Which means he should have been suspended for 15 games, not seven.

Of course you're saying that, you hate the Lakers.

And before you throw the whole "of course you're saying that, you hate the Lakers" line at me, 

Aw snap!   Occam's Razor argument: THWARTED

please understand, I'm delighted that Ronmetta came back early. Here's the thing about Ronmetta: He's only good when he's playing physical, hard-nosed, passionate, occasionally insane basketball. He struggled early this season (and all of last season) because he was playing, for lack of a better word, soft. Kobe kept working on him and working on him, and finally, the old Artest came back during a game in Boston. 

BASKETBAWL MECCA!  OF CAHHHSE AHHTEST WOULD FIND HIS GAME DURING A VISIT TO THE HOUSE THAT PEDROIA BUILT!  Classic Bill, assuming anything and everything happens in THE HUB.  He's like a cuntball elitist New Yorker, only more wrong about the importance of his city.  MWP in the 10 games before that Boston game: 4.0 points, 2.6 rebounds, 2.3 assists.  MWP in The Game: 2 points, 2 rebounds, 1 assist.  MWP in the 10 games after: 6.5 points, 3.3 rebounds, 2.4 assists.  And that scoring average is buoyed by him scoring 9, 8 and 15 points in the last three games of that sequence--if you look at the 7 game sets before and after The Game, which I didn't do because that felt dirty for some reason, his numbers are virtually identical.  Conclusion: the legendary TD Garden crowd willed Artest to become an ever so slightly more mediocre player.

Gradually, he played himself into shape and found the right physical/passionate/crazy balance; by April, he had evolved into a genuine asset. But that's the thing … he only got there by unleashing Artest and turning his back on World Peace, which is what eventually led to the indefensible Harden elbow (and his even more indefensible reaction afterward).

I love how vocal and assertive he is about this: elbowing people in the head is wrong.  And while we're at it, what Jordan Hill (allegedly) did is not OK either!

You know what it reminds me of, actually? Mike Tyson.  [rest of paragraph deleted]

And given how brutally boring and obvious everything he's said in this section so far has been, I'll spare you the paragraph in which he deftly explains how the most famous crazy athlete of the last ten years is SHOCKINGLY SIMILAR to the most famous crazy athlete of the ten years before that.

15. Danny Granger


I normally avoid looking at a player's numbers in wins and losses because those statistics can be deceiving — for instance, Rajon Rondo's scoring numbers always look better when the Celtics lose. 

I normally don't do this perfectly legitimate analytical exercise, because it sometimes produces results that seem counterintuitive to me (but in fact are not counterintuitive at all).

But in Granger's case? 

I'll make an exception, because in this case the data helps me prove the point I already decided want to make.  That's how statistics work.  I learned about it from FanGraphs.

I watched them all season thinking he was Indiana's one-man litmus test — in other words, when he plays well, they look like a legitimate contender, and when he sucks, they don't. 

I had a genius idea because I am The Sports Despot.  Turns out my idea WAS RIGHT!  Bask in my greatness!

So I couldn't resist looking up his scoring numbers.

Wins: 20.5 PPG, 43.6 percent shooting, 43.9 percent for 3s.
Losses: 15.2 PPG, 37.2 percent shooting, 27.0 percent for 3s.

Hmmmmmmm. Could it really be that simple? 

Well, the same numbers say Rondo scores more when the Celtics lose, so my inclination is to say NO WAY!  NOT POSSIBLE!  TOO DECEIVING!

The bigger question: Can you really compete for an NBA title when someone of Granger's caliber is your best guy? Technically, yes … if it were a 2004 Pistons/2000 Blazers/1998 Pacers–type situation, 

2002 Kings if you don't count C-Webb, 2005 Pistons, 2007 Warriors (hell yes I'm counting them, that team ruled)

in which a contender had enough depth, veteran know-how and big/small flexbility that their lack of a true alpha dog didn't totally submarine them. The Pacers have depth and big/small flexibility, but veteran know-how? No way. I can't take the Pacers seriously. 

Take it from a guy who often gets 40% of his gambling picks right!

Sorry. In fact …

You really don't need to use a segue for every one of these.  It's obnoxious.  You're like a child who just learned a big word and tries to use it every 10 minutes.

14. Patrick Ewing

If Ewing wasn't coaching in Orlando, you could have talked me into the Howard-less Magic potentially pulling off a Ewing Theory run and shocking the Pacers. 

I might not have been as perfectly crystal clear as I could have been a few posts ago when I explained how utterly idiotic the Ewing Theory is.  Let me leave no doubt this time around.

Ewing joined the Knicks in 1985.  The team had made the playoffs four times in the previous ten years.

From 1988 to 2000, the Knicks and Ewing made the playoffs every single year.

In 1994, the Knicks made the NBA Finals (where they were defeated by the Rockets in a seven game series that could have gone either way).  Ewing averaged 24 and 11 with 3 blocks during the regular season, and 22 and 12 with 3 blocks in the postseason.  He averaged 19 and 12 with 4 blocks during the Finals.  It was a low-scoring Finals, neither team scored more than 93 points in any of the seven games.  In short, Patrick Ewing was always awesome at basketball, he was definitely awesome at basketball during the 1994 playoffs, and he was definitely awesome at basketball during the 1994 Finals.  The Knicks lost that series for a number of reasons, none of had anything to do with Patrick Ewing.

During the strike-shortened 1999 season, the Knicks squeaked into the playoffs but advanced to the conference finals against the Pacers.  Ewing was 36 that season but still averaged 19 and 9 with 2.5 blocks.  Take him off that team and they almost certainly miss the playoffs (they were the 8 seed).  By the time the playoffs rolled around, he was probably out of gas.  He averaged 13 and 9 and just 1 block.  In game two of that conference finals series against Indiana, Ewing tore his achilles tendon and missed the rest of the playoffs.  The Knicks would lose the game, evening the series at a game apiece, but go on to win the series in six.  They would lose in the Finals to San Antonio in five games.  Record with Ewing during those playoffs: 8-3.  Record without Ewing: 4-5.

The Knicks traded Ewing after the 2000 season.  They would make the playoffs just twice in the next ten years.  They have not won a playoff series since.

There were undoubtedly times during Ewing's career when the Knicks played well when he was out of the lineup.  Such as most of the 1998 season, and probably some other games/stretches of games.  There were also hundreds upon hundreds of times the Knicks played awesome when Ewing was in the lineup, and many many times they won games predominantly because he was in the lineup.

Conclusion to be drawn from all of this (NOTE, DO NOT DRAW THIS CONCLUSION UNLESS YOU ARE A FUCKING ASSHOLE): the Knicks were better off without Ewing, and anytime a team gets rid of a great player, be on the lookout for them to play better than they did when they had the player.  If it happens: THE EWING THEORY IS REAL AND NOW I WILL TELL MY FRIENDS AND CO-WORKERS ABOUT IT!  If it doesn't happen, which is the case 95% of the time: lie in wait, my friend.  Superstars change teams all the time.  You'll have another chance to show how brilliant you are someday soon.

Feels good to get that off my chest.

Wouldn't Ewing's presence reverse the effects of the Ewing Theory? 

Scientists say: ??????

It's like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters. As much as I want to pick an emotional "Eff You, Dwight!" upset by the Magic in which they start raining 3s for two straight weeks, this whole Ewing/Ewing thing scares me off. It hurts my head.

You and me bother, brother.  You and me both.

13. Amar'e Stoudemire


Let's say Carmelo plays LeBron to a draw. 

An unlikely but possible scenario in 2004.  Completely impossible in any year after 2006.

Let's say Iman Shumpert slows down Wade. 

Wouldn't have been impossible had Shumpert not gotten hurt.  Just not a very good bet.

Let's say Chandler executes his 2011 Finals defensive know-how and throttles Miami around the rim. 

Chandler is awesome, but he gets no help at all from any of NY's other big men.  Amare might be the worst defender in the entire league.  The Heat have a decent post guy in Bosh, and two of the five best guards in the league in terms of ability to finish around the rim.  Come on.

Let's say a delirious MSG crowd wins Game 3, 

By paying a bunch of Celtics fans to drive down for the game?

'Melo wins one game, and they win one game on the road because Novak and J.R. Smith started draining 3s as if it were a pop-a-shot game. 

It's as if Basketball Czar Bill doesn't want to acknowledge that the Heat are one of the best perimeter defensive teams in the league.

That makes it a seven-game series, which means that the Knicks only need ONE monster throwback Amar'e game to pull off one of the great upsets in the history of the franchise.

(Hold on, there's a gigantic "but" coming …)

(Seriously, it's a really, really big one …)

But …

Here's the problem: As any Knicks fan will tell you, 

The Knicks never had any chance at winning this series ever.  The Heat are the most talented team in the league and they don't have letdown/effortless games very often.  The Knicks had no depth, no defense outside of Chandler, and were missing the only player who actually energized them for a short stretch this season.

Amar'e hasn't looked the same since the Knicks traded for Carmelo in February 2011. Actually, he started sliding sooner than that: Mike D'Antoni ran him into the ground during the first 12 weeks of that season. In December 2010, Amar'e averaged 39.5 minutes, 29.8 points and 22.4 field goal attempts on knees that were so shaky,the Knicks couldn't even get insurance on them. He's never really recovered from that month. First his legs started going on him, then his back, and about halfway through this shortened season, he started to look like one of those banged-up mini-vans that a family is just trying to keep on four wheels until their lease expires … only in this case, Stoudemire's lease runs through 2015 (for another $65 million after this season). They rested him for a month; he came back last week and looked decent (last 4 games: 56% FG). Could he swing Round 1 with one vintage Amar'e game? Doe's he hav'e it in hi'm?
That joke with the apostrophes is pretty racist but I'll let it slide in the interest of pointing out Bill's hilarious logic to justify this paragraph.  "Let's start with the premise that all the Knicks need to win this series is one big game from Amare (that doesn't coincide with the one huge game Carmelo will have this series, the one game the MSG crowd wins on its own, and the one game that Steve Novak and JR Smith manage to do anything on offense).  So we start with that clearly not worthless premise.  Now let me explain why this really unlikely Amare thing MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN."  Christ, I hate this asshole.

12. Shaquille O'Neal

Hate to keep belaboring this … but can TNT trade Shaq before the playoffs so we can enjoy Inside the NBA in peace? 

He's not that bad.  They certainly don't need him, but it's not like he's ruining everything.

Can they send him to the NBC Sports Network for Mike Milbury? 

Take it from this brand new hockey fan: you only have to watch hockey on NBC for about a month before you realize what a fucking joke Milbury is.

What about Shaq to ESPN along with two no. 1 picks, $2 million, and the rights to Season 4 of Franklin & Bash for Stephen A. Smith? 

WHO SAYS NO??????

/hits self

Can they just amnesty him? Did TNT get an amnesty clause in the new labor agreement? Why isn't this a bigger deal? IT'S THE PLAYOFFS! I NEED ME SOME CHUCK AND I NEED ME SOME KENNY! WE WERE DOING FINE! WE WERE DOING FINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We were, I agree with that, but you can stop picking on Shaq for being a former Laker.  It's not like the Celtics were any good during his prime years in LA.

11. Blake Griffin

[Five paragraphs summarized: LEAVE BLAKE ALONE!  LEAVE HIM ALONE!]

10. Al Jefferson

On Tuesday night, Utah beat Phoenix on national TV to make the playoffs. Big Al took over in the fourth, making four straight shots to clinch the game. My wife happened to be reading a magazine as I watched this happen — she noticed me smiling and asked why.

Tell me more about your life!  /puts down phone without hanging up, walks away

"Because I love Big Al," I said.

"Who's Big Al?" she said.

Here's what I wanted to say: "He used to play for the Celtics. Even as a rookie, it quickly became clear that he could score on anyone, at any time, in any situation — even if you blindfolded him, spun him around and shot paintballs at him while blaring Linkin Park. We fully expected him to be Our Next Great Guy, only every time he started gaining momentum, he'd sprain a knee or twist an ankle. Nobody had worse luck. When the team went in the tank, he developed some bad habits and eventually became the centerpiece of that KG deal. Great, more losing for Big Al. That cloud kept following him. He blew out his knee in February '09 right when he was playing his best basketball ever. He came back the following year and got Kahnrambised, followed by Utah stealing him in the summer of 2010 for Kosta Koufos and two non-lottery picks … and two years later, we're here. He's finally on a good team. I'm happy for him. I feel like hugging my television right now."

I mean, I have to give him this: I rip him apart for knowing nothing about baseball or football, being a bandwagon Bruins and Patriots fan, and for generally being a snively little shit who cares about 50% as much about sports as most people think, and knows 10% as much.  But Jeebus, this man loves the Celtics.  He truly loves them.  He's still propping up Joe Johnson and Al Jefferson, years and years after they left the team.  He won't shut the fuck up about Tony Allen, who also left the Celtics a long time ago and isn't even that good (even with his defense).  Fuck him in his stupid face, but this man... loves the Celtics.

I didn't say any of that. You know what actually happened? She made me On-Demand The Client List. I wish I were making that up. 

FASCINATING

By the way, this won't be a token four-and-out for the precocious Jazz — that Jefferson-Millsap-Favors frontline is a nightmare for a finesse Spurs team that has trouble protecting the paint, and in case you didn't notice, Devin Harris and Gordon Hayward are playing out of their minds right now. 

It was a token four-and-out for the precocious Jazz, and none of the games were that close.  I would have picked on this had I been writing this two weeks ago, too.  Bulee dat.

There's no way in hell San Antonio is losing to an 8-seed for a second straight year, but it's going six games … at least. 

SUPER BOWL PICK: GREATRIOTS 27, GIANTS 2.

I really like this Jazz team. If something ever happens to me, you have my permission to make Kevin O'Connor the new VP of Common Sense.

Who will be the Czar of Frontrunnerism and the Minister of Bad Gambling Picks?

Mailbag? More like mailBAD, Part 2

In which we hear about how Kobe is a bad person for wanting to win rings and score points.

Q: Hey Sports Czar — what's your fix for NFL kickoffs? You can't run for Sports Czar if you are sitting this one out.
— Jeremy, Omaha

You also shouldn't be able to run for Sports Czar (what a depressing title, not sure I like the choice of words there) if you know a medium amount about one sport, pretend to know a lot about 50% of the teams in another when in fact you have your head up your ass with regard to the entire sport, sort of like a third sport but only for gambling purposes (and you suck at gambling on it), and have no further sports knowledge whatsoever.  That list of qualifications should definitely prevent you from running for Sports Tyrant.

SG: We can't get rid of kickoffs entirely, right? 

Actually, you pretty much could.

/ducks to avoid tomatoes thrown by Bears fans

The problem from a strategic standpoint would be doing away with the opportunity for onside kicks.

For such a violent sport, we can't suddenly start picking which violent parts make more sense than others. 

I'm not saying the league should do away with kickoffs, just that the small amount of variation in outcomes among KORs and the degree to which they generate full speed ahead helmet to helmet hits makes them different than any other play in the game.  Saying "durr all plays are violent, we can't pick and choose" is like saying "in theory a batter can hit any pitch with the right swing, so why have a strike zone."  Insert some nuance into your thinking you fucking clod.

At the same time, this seems like a good chance to tweak the sport so there's more incentive to go for touchdowns instead of field goals. Why? Because fans perk up when they hear the words "fourth down and they're going for it!" and lose interest when they hear the words "and here comes [fill in any kicker] to try a field goal." 

That's a reasonable thing to think.  Now watch him completely fuck the dog trying to find a way to make it work by messing with kickoff rules.

So, what if we tweaked the rules …

• No more kickoffs to start the first and third quarters. Instead, each team gets the ball on the 25-yard line and we go from there.

WE CAN'T JUST CHOOSE WHICH KICKOFFS ARE MORE OR LESS IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS!  THEY'RE ALL VIOLENT!  What about onside sneak attack kicks?  They rarely happen, but can be pretty fun.  Super Bowl XLIV?

• After any successful field goal, you kick off from your own 25-yard line.


• After any touchdown, you kick off from your own 40-yard line.

Dumb, every one of those is either going to be in the 10th row of the stands or an onside attempt, meaning the return team would simply line up in onside recover formation every time and DURRRRRR SPORTS CZAR AT WORK EVERYONE, GET OUT OF HIS WAY.

The end result (hopefully): fewer field goals, more touchbacks, more "fourth down and they're going for it!" situations, and (most important) more decisions that will get screwed up by mentally overwhelmed coaches and eventually turn into comedic fodder!

The ironing.  So tasty.  Also, I like that he thinks that losing maybe 10 or 15 yards of field position at the start of the next possession is going to get teams to start going for it on 4th like gangbusters.  It's the 2nd quarter of a 10-7 game, or some other similarly low leverage situation.  You're a head coach.  Congratulations, you're already more qualified for your job than Josh McDaniels ever was.  Your team is facing 4th and 6 from the other team's 25.  Or maybe it's 4th and 9 from the 18.  Or maybe it's 4th and 4 from the 32.  Are you going to spend more than a second thinking about going for it there due to Bill's rule?  I mean, if it existed and I were a coach, I'd probably start going for every 4th and 2 or less inside my 15 during the first three quarters of the game.  And that's about it.  How in the world would it change your strategy in a close game in the 4th quarter?  Even on 4th and inches from the 5, any sane coach is still kicking the FG if it's a tie game, or they're down by 1 or 2.  Probably if they're down by 3 as well.

I'll concede that it might inspire more coaches to go for the knockout blow; i.e., if you're facing 4th and inches from the 5 and you're up 2 with a minute to play, might make more sense to go for the TD to end the game than to get a 5 point lead and give the other team the ball around their own 35.  But still, come on man.  You're dumb.

Let's apply the revamped rules to a game situation. 

Let's!

It's Sunday night and San Diego is playing Philly. 

OOOH A CLASSIC BOLTS/NESHARIM MATCHUP!

The Eagles are trailing by four points with seven minutes to play. They're on San Diego's 22-yard line. It's fourth-and-four. If they make the field goal, they're still trailing by one, and they have to kick off from their own 25 (conceivably, giving San Diego excellent field position to finish off the game). But if they get the first down? Better chance of scoring the go-ahead touchdown coupled with an overwhelming chance of a touchback kickoff (and San Diego starting their next drive from their own 20).

Yeah, sort of makes things interesting when a team is down between four and eight points in that situation.  Doesn't change a damn thing with any other margin.

So what would Andy Reid do? (Thinking.) Well, he'd waste a timeout to think about it —

That's fine, but I liked my McDaniels joke better.

and if he could waste a timeout by challenging the previous play, then spend a second timeout to think about fourth down, even better. 

You had it, then you lost it.

Then he'd probably decide on kicking a field goal because that would be the dumbest move. Then we could poke fun at him the next day for the entire sequence. See what I mean? We need more decisions in football; there's just no downside. 

The downsides are that you're effectively getting rid of onside kicks after a team scores a TD, and also fixing what isn't broken in a moronically complex way that will ultimately have little effect on anything.

We win anytime Andy Reid, Norv Turner, Mike Smith or whoever has to make a decision with multiple variables in the spur of the moment.

Onion headline for this:  Mouthbreathing idiot enjoys idiocy of other idiots in other professions

Q: Any chance we can get Bobby V. to make some pro-Castro comments sometime soon?


— @sethrobbins77 (via twitter)

God, Red Sox fans are such cunts that they almost make me want Valentine to be successful.

SG: Good one. 

TOPICAL REFERENCE!  NIIIIIICE BRO

You got me thinking about Boston's equivalent sore spot to pro-Castro comments in Miami — what's the one thing Bobby V could say that would potentially get him driven out of town?

I think we all know some things Bobby could say that would make Boston real upset.  I'm not going to say what they are, I'm just saying we all know what they are.  Joel Ward.

It could go one of two routes. Either he'd have to make the following 10 points in the SAME interview …


[list of 10 things that would make Valentine totally awesome if he said them]

OR …

He'd have to answer a question about Boston's busing riots in 1974 by saying something like, "I know that stuff happened almost 40 years ago, but I don't care — I'll always believe Boston is a racist city and you'll never be able to tell me differently." Every city has one sore spot. For Miami, it's Castro. For Boston, it's the racism thing.

That's a great parallel.  Lots of people in Miami hate Castro so you can really piss them off if you compliment him, and lots of people in Boston are racist so you can really piss them off if you point that out.

Q: Billy, how come you didn't do a post Super Bowl mailbag when you're supposed to do a post Super Bowl mailbag? My husband cannot fucking throw the ball and do a mailbag at the same time!


— Gisele, Boston

Hope that person was a Giants fan trolling him, although it's totally possible that it's some jackoff Patriots fan continuing to try to blame Welker for Brady's bad throws.

SG: Gisele just reminded me of something: If there was ever a week for Tom Brady to give an interview and say, "You know, I'm 35 years old, I'm at the tail end of my prime, I don't know how many years I have left here … man, I wish we'd stop rolling over these no. 1 picks to next year's draft and just bring in a couple of blue-chippers once and for all," isn't this the week? 

Like Belichick gives a shit about Brady's legacy.  He might not even know Brady's name.  MUMBLEROBBLE HEY QUARTERBACK!  YOU!  NUMBER 12!

Speaking of aging superstars facing the tail end of their primes …

6 FOR 24 LOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Q: What are the odds that Kobe isn't really hurt, just sitting out the last few games because he doesn't want to lose the scoring title?


— Crooney, Miami

SG: Are you crazy? Don't you realize that every time Kobe misses a game, he thinks to himself, I just lost 29 more career points? I wouldn't be surprised if his office at home has a wall covered with some sort of Beautiful Mind–type scribbling that calculates in great detail every single scoring checkpoint he needs to hit from now until 2018 to catch Kareem. Kobe cares about two things and two things only: winning a sixth ring (to tie MJ) and breaking that scoring record (which would make him immortal, and he knows it). Don't let anyone tell you differently.

Surprisingly non-bitter answer.  He tried to make "he cares a ton about winning another championship and obtaining the all time scoring title" sound like a backhanded compliment, but unfortunately for him, it's just a regular old compliment.

Q: I already saw it as I commuted into the office at 8:00 am … I could sense it as I popped up out of the State Street stop … the abnormal warmth, the pep in the step of the women who passed by, the smiles … today is the day! it's "Halter Top Day!!! Expected high of 87 on Marathon Monday … a bevy of beautiful women roaming the city in sun dresses or booty shorts and yes halter tops! Will there be sunbathing in Columbus park and the Common? Oh yes, because in this year of 2012 remember April 16th as Halter Top Day in Boston!


— Brandon, Boston

Only super old dudes are allowed to say shit like that.  Unless you're over 85, step in front of the first moving cement mixer you see.

SG: The greatest Boston day (Patriots' Day) merged with the second-greatest Boston day (Halter Top Day)???? And the Red Sox lost??? How could the Red Sox lose on Halter Top Patriots' Day???? We're headed for 72-90, I'm convinced.

It's a patented triple non-reverse double jinx!  I'd laugh harder, but I get the impression he really feels like these things work.  He's like the 9 year old kid who thinks his favorite team wins or loses because he did or didn't wear his lucky hat.

That's enough for tonight, my blood pressure is plenty high already.  Will try to finish this off later in the week.  What's that, you say?  There's more?  Of course there is!  There's yet another love letter to Steve Nash, a disaster of an answer related to The Hunger Games, and--you're never going to believe this--a breakdown of whether or not Bill and the Sports Gal are planning on having another kid!  Try to contain your exuberance.