Counterpoint: Bill Simmons is an unprofessional dumbass who doesn't belong on TV

As promised last week, this is a post in which I directly address a Bill supporter's praise of Bill.  Is this article fruit that hangs as low as Bill's own work hangs?  Of course.  Chris Chase writes "For the Win," (I know...) a blog on USA Today's site (I know, I know...), which upon its launch was publicized as follows:

For The Win wants to take a BuzzFeed-style viral media approach to sports media. The new site, which will compete with rivals like Deadspin, will focus on finding “shareable” content that will be appealing even to people who don’t follow sports.

I KNOW.  I KNOW.  It's not like this is a graduate thesis that can only be ripped apart with careful and incisive analysis.  But the point is this: there really are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of assholes out there who think this stuff about Bill.  This guy is at least good enough at expressing such thoughts to get a job with a major media outlet (even if that outlet is America's foremost source of charts, infographs, and other news fit for consumption in the breakfast room of a Best Western).  To Chris Chase, I say this: your opinion about Bill Simmons is most definitely not FTW.  More like FTL lololol GOT HIM.

Bill Simmons is the best thing about ESPN's NBA Draft broadcast
By: Chris Chase

Judging by chatter on Twitter, this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but here goes: Bill Simmons was the best thing about ESPN’s NBA draft coverage on Thursday night. 

Obviously at this point I have no way of tracking what was said about Bill the night of the draft.  There may have been a lot of negative tweeting about him, but I'd be surprised if more than 25% of all fans serious enough about the NBA to watch the draft dislike him.  It's more of a vocal minority thing.  Or so I'd suppose.  I cannot validate this with anything but anecdotes and vague estimates of the number of people I know who like Bill as compared to the number I know who hate him.  What do you want me to do, put work into this blog?  Get fucking real.

The whole team was great, 

Sort of.

but particularly Simmons, 

No.

whose NBA fanboy routine plays best during the league’s annual selection show.

His NBA fanboy routine, which is really a Celtics and himself fanboy routine, never plays well.  He's awful.  Compare him to his closest analogue, Sir Charlies.  (Not that they're exactly the same, but they have the same roles on their respective NBA shows: deep "real talk" color commentary.)  Now it's tough for anyone to stack up next to Barkley, who is a national treasure, but just look at their respective levels of professionalism.  Barkley is occasionally cutting and dark with his commentary, but when he is it's always well-supported with analysis that's not just self-promotion and snarky rhetorical questions.  Meanwhile, he never 1) cheerleads for teams he played for or likes or 2) says ridiculous bullshit like whine "DO I GET TO TALK NOW????" when he's not the center of attention or drag his feuds out into the spotlight which then affects whatever broadcast he's on.  Bill Simmons doesn't belong on TV any more than I do, and my voice is nearly as annoying as his.

Simmons style, which is hit-or-miss on NBA pre-game and post-game coverage, 

Simmons style, which is hit-or-miss on NBA pre-game and post-game coverage for some reason

Fixed that for you.

is perfectly suited for the draft. He gives a fresh perspective. 

Examples?  He's not ignorant about basketball.  He's also not in any way intelligent or interesting.  He doesn't have some kind of smart eye for talent (Jeff Van Gundy), or for X's and O's (Hubie Brown).  He's just a guy who likes the sport and thinks he's always right.  He should join Wilbon and Kornheiser on PTI and make it a triumvirate of insufferable know-it-all dipshits.  Of course, we know what Wilbon thinks about BLOGGERS who write BLOGS.  But you get my point.

He’s passionate. 

Sure.  That doesn't make for especially good TV, though.

He loves the NBA and it comes across on the telecast, which is harder than it sounds. 

I don't need my commentators to love the sports they're talking about.  I just need them to not be bored, by which I mean I need them to not sound like Joe Buck.  Past that "love for the game" threshold, intelligence and insight are about a million times more important than passion.

And, above all, he’s able to convey the importance of picking players for the future while still acknowledging that it’s mostly a crapshoot.

Yeah, that's such a crazy, abstract concept.  Most fans have no idea that that's how the draft works.  Good thing future Bucks GM and Official Vertical Integration Machine of ESPN/ABC/Disney Bill Simmons is here to explain it to us.  Jesus Christ.  That sentence might as well say "I really like Bill Simmons, so let me pat him on the back for knowing what the draft is and how professional sports generally work."

Other than some new bells and whistles, draft coverage hasn’t changed much in 20 years. The first round goes something like this: pick, analysis of the pick, highlight reel, interview (if the player is there), more discussion, commercial, preview of upcoming pick, repeat 32 times. Simmons brings something new. He gives real opinions that don’t feel sanitized for mass consumption.

Yeah, Bill's great at #realtalk.  Remember all that wacky, subversive, off-the-wall analysis he provided in his most notable analytical moment so far?  Who could forget #strongtaeks like "WHOA!" and "I need medical attention!"

One moment summed up all of that. When the Boston Celtics, Simmons’ favorite team, drafted James Young, the cameras caught him doing this.

What a punchable face.  I mean, he's always got a punchable face, but that's an excellent screen cap.  That's his face at its MOST punchable.  Quite a sight.  Also, I'm glad fist pumping now counts as a "real opinion[]" that "[doesn't] feel sanitized for mass consumption."  WATCH OUT AMERICA.  HERE COMES THE JOHNNY ROTTEN OF BASKETBALL ANALYSIS.

A certain segment of the Internet hated it. They called Simmons a biased homer without any professionalism. 

And they were completely right!

Okay, let’s say that’s true. 

It is.

So what?

It makes for shitty TV.  Every fan serious enough about the NBA to watch the draft has a favorite team.  Everyone will have an opinion about what their favorite team did during the draft.  Who gives a flying cunt about this guy's opinion about his team?  How is it any different than what House-O, who was sitting next to you at the bar, had to say about what just happened?  Just because this guy was born on third base, and then caught lightning in a bottle at the onset of the sports blogosphere, it's supposed to be entertaining to see him being excited for his team while wearing a suit and sitting with actual professional sports analysts?  Go fuck yourself.

Give me an actual opinion from someone with a known bias rather than phony opinions from someone with a hidden bias. 

What hidden biases do most commentators have?  The fuck are you talking about?  This is not politics, where you have to be very careful to understand the backgrounds/motivations of the talking heads on TV.  This is sports.  I promise you, Jalen Rose and Doug Collins are not coloring their analysis with carefully chosen positive or negative buzzwords for guys that were drafted by teams they like/dislike.  It's not hard to remain unbiased as a sports commentator.  Sports are fun.  Maybe Jalen hates the Bulls for the way they traded him to Toronto.  You think that's going to affect what he says about a guy the Bulls drafted?  Again, go fuck yourself.

There are conflicts of interest often in sports broadcasting, not just on ESPN. You think Jon Gruden doesn’t pull punches on Monday Night Football so as not to insult a team he might be criticizing? 

You fucking IDIOT.  Have you ever watched a Gruden MNF broadcast?  GRUDEN ADORES EVERY SINGLE PLAYER AND TEAM IN THE LEAGUE!  He won't shut the fuck up about how great everyone is.  He can make Blaine Gabbert sound like Joe Montana.  And this isn't some secret, hidden talent that Gruden spent years honing.  It comes naturally to him, because he's not a dipshit.  Bill IS a dipshit.  That's the whole problem here.  Jesus Christ.  Of ALL the examples you could have chosen to try to prop up your shitty argument that commentators have biases that cause them to "pull punches" or whatever, none of which would be good examples because basically no national commentator does that, you chose the worst possible one.

Or that recently retired players are easier on former teammates because they’re buddies? 

First of all, that doesn't apply during the draft.  Second of all, when it does apply (like if the ESPN Sunday Countdown crew is discussing the Ravens with Ray Lewis on the set or something), nearly always the other analysts will go out of their way to make the situation as unawkward as possible by not forcing the recently retired guy to give an opinion, or by prefacing whatever he's about to say with "Now I know you have some friends on the team."  And even after all that happens, you know what?  Often, the player will give a pretty reasonable and insightful opinion (as much as you can have insightful opinions on telecasts like NFL pregame shows, which is not at all) on the team/player in question.  It's just not that hard to do.  Bill Simmons is not a shining beacon of objectivity in a sea of bullshit.  TV sports analysis is actually pretty much a sea of bullshit, but Simmons isn't just a part of it.  He makes it worse by not even managing to act like an adult on set.  Fuck him and fuck his fans.

Simmons made his career partially built on his ability to be a fan whose passion was relatable.

That was pretty novel in 1998.  It's not novel anymore, and he's gone from a self-deprecating "aw shucks, Boston sports break my heart all the time" guy to a pompous, self-obsessed twat.  Let's stop giving him credit for the original Boston Sports Guy shit he wrote during the Clinton administration.

Simmons loving Larry Bird hardly measures up to that. 

Actually, I'm glad you brought up that point to undermine your own point, because you know what?  Simmons and his love for Bird absolutely DO measure up to the idea (again, not applicable during the NBA draft) that maybe sometimes Bill Cowher goes easy on the Steelers or whatever.

This is sports. People are supposed to be biased homers. As long as you wear that opinion proudly, who’s it harming? 

Here's a better question: who's it helping?  Who's enjoying it, other than unoriginal waterheads who think Simmons is fantastic?

Wouldn’t you rather hear that diehard Celtics fan Bill Simmons like the James Young pick rather than the usual bland analysis about how James Young could possibly fit into Brad Stevens’ system? 

Not at all!  Not even a little bit!

That fist pump told you more about the Young pick than any commentary could. 

Holy shit.

It doesn’t mean Simmons is right, but at least we know where he actually stands and can form our own opinion based on that. 

No we can't.  No we fucking can't.  We can't form shit based on that, unless for some reason we're dumb enough to think Bill has a better grasp on NBA prospects than actual analysts like Chad Ford.  Who gives a bloody, runny shit about what Bill Simmons thinks?  Again, I mean, other than his fanboys.

Sometimes that may lead to arguments with Doc Rivers, like on last year’s telecast. Again, isn’t that more interesting than the alternative?

That was better than if Simmons gladhanded Rivers, I suppose, but read the Bleacher Report article I linked above--the way Simmons beat up on Rivers for years, and more or less baited him with a series of tweets prior to the draft, was pathetic.  It was more car-crash-can't-look-away interesting than oh-cool-something-real-and-fun interesting.

There are problems, of course. His rants can quickly devolve into whininess, he interrupts way too much and you always get the sense he doesn’t know as much about the college players as he lets on. 

Haha, no way, don't be silly!  You sound like someone who has maybe actually paid attention to stuff Bill has been saying throughout his career and have thus reached the inevitable conclusion that he shouldn't be paid for his opinions or analysis, much less be paid to talk about them on TV.

The last part isn’t his fault. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Simmons was paying attention to the NBA from October to June. That’s his job. 

Yeah!  Who has time to, like, KNOW stuff about college basketball when they're busy doing a few hours of TV and a couple podcasts a week?  HE'S NOT SUPERMAN, PEOPLE!!! WHAT DO YOU WANT OUT OF HIM???  Well, for one, I'd rather he didn't just make shit up.  But I suppose that's asking a lot from the guy who has successfully completed over 1,000 WHO SAYS NO? trades on the ESPN Trade Machine (TM)(Patent pending).

Even if he locked himself in a room and watched game tape for the 11 days in between the end of the NBA Finals and the start of the NBA draft, he wouldn’t know nearly enough about the draftees. 

Actually, that's not true.  If he did that for 11 days straight, he'd definitely know enough about them to not sound like a diptard on TV.  HOWEVA: there is a prerequisite to that hypothetical coming to pass.  In order for any of this to happen, he'd have to be capable of gleaning knowledge about players by watching tape, something I'm 100% sure he is not able to do.  So this is all ifs and buts and candies and nuts.

But that’s why Jay Bilas is on the set.

Jay Bilas is on the set to know things.  Bill is on the set to pump his fist for the Celtics and pretend to know things.  I wonder which one of them has a higher salary?

Speaking of Bilas, he’s part of a team that helps Simmons thrive. 

I'm so, so, so sorry Jay.  Years and years of hard work, pounding pavement, attending hundreds of NCAA games--all so you could one day serve as Bill's caddy.  Holy dog balls, that's depressing.

You can’t have a bunch of me-first guys on the floor, 

You really shouldn't have ANY me-first guys on the floor.  This is why Shaq doesn't quite fit with Ernie, Kenny and Charles.  Shaq still needs that attention.  The other three don't (nor does Chris Webber for that matter).

so it helps that the always-underrated Rece Davis is there to keep Simmons in check. 

I like Rece Davis.  This blog is often so virulently negative that I felt like throwing that it, with no caveats.  Rece Davis is damn good at his job.  There, I said it.

Bilas is great too; he shows you can combine perspective, a sense of humor and keen knowledge of players. 

Three things Simmons doesn't have!

Jalen Rose is the weak link on the panel. He’s still trying to find his schtick, but he has a good rapport with Simmons and doesn’t immediately make you want to change the channel like half of ESPN’s Sunday NFL Countdown crew.

NFL Sunday Countdown is terrible.  Rose is pretty OK.  Simmons is terrible.

Richard Deistch of Sports Illustrated says the NBA Countdown team is in flux for next year. Here’s hoping Simmons stays around and continues to breathe some life into a format that desperately needs it.

I'd rather watch the WNBA draft than watch another NBA draft with Simmons on the set.  He sucks.  In conclusion, Chris Chase is a dummy.

In a Stunning Turn of Events, Bill Doesn't Understand How Stuff Works

James Harden will be a restricted free agent next summer.  The Thunder have said that they don't want to give him the max deal he could most certainly obtain on the open market, because that put them in luxury tax territory.  It's possible that this is just posturing on their part and that they fully intend to pay Harden max money when the times comes, or entice him into taking a team-friendly extension before he can hit the RFA market.  It's also possible that they simply do not want to pay the tax under any circumstances and that they'd let him walk after this season.  After Bill lays out the basics of the situation, explains why he thinks Harden is such an important player for OKC, and aggressively shoehorns in a 600 word aside about the relationship between Sam Jone and Bill Russell, he puts on his "I know nothing about this subject but I'm going to use big words and hope no one notices what a fool I am" hat and starts to talk sports business. And that's when I start to want to throw my laptop at my TV.

If Harden leaves eight figures on the table to re-sign with the Thunder, he's a loyal sap. If he does it without securing a no-trade clause — especially on the heels of the Celtics rope-a-doping Rajon Rondo into a discount $55 million extension (well below his market value), then trying to trade him for Chris Paul one year later — his agent should be disbarred.

But even then ... why take anything less? Why should James Harden care if Oklahoma City loses money?

If he likes playing in OKC with Durant and Westbrook? It's funny, the Jones/Russell aside I mentioned was tangentially related to the subject at hand; basically, according to Russell, Jones never wanted to be the leading man, preferring to play a supplementary rule, which is why he never pushed himself as much as Russell did. And Harden is the same way; he came right out and told Sam Presti to draft him because he wanted to play third fiddle, not be expected to become his new team's leading guy. You might think Bill would be able to put his own pieces together and realize that Harden might take sub-max money to stay in OKC rather than take max money to go to a team that expects him to take 20 shots a night, but if you thought that, you would be counting out the always powerful presence of cognitive dissonance.

Here's a better question: Why should Harden even believe them?

Because the team releases audited financials to the league, which in turn makes certain data from those financials public, and it turns out that adding Harden at max money and paying both him and the tax would cause their costs to exceed their revenues?

Didn't we just come off an acrimonious lockout in which the league cried poverty for months and months, and then, as soon as the lockout ended, they had a slew of billionaires lined up to purchase their teams?

Yes. Because sports teams are a great investment in the long run, skyrocketing in value during the past couple of decades and a pretty safe bet to continue to do so in the future. But that value increase isn't realized until one sells the team, and in the meantime, many of them operate at a loss on a year-by-year basis. Some owners are cool with that, in some cases because they can net their team-related losses against profits made in other ventures and cut their tax bills. Others are not, in some cases because they don't have other significant business ventures and in some cases simply because they hate the idea of losing millions of dollars every year, even if they expect to recoup those millions and then some whenever they sell. I don't know which of those describe's OKC's ownership (or if they even actually feel that way; there's a good chance they're just bluffing to try to knock down Harden's price), nor do I care. This is not a difficult concept to understand. But watch out, here comes BIG BRAIN BILL, ready to point out that HEY WAIT A MINUTE SPORTS TEAMS ARE WORTH LOTZ OF DOLLARZ SO WHY SHOULD WE EVER BELIEVE AN OWNER.

Quick aside about OKC's ownership--if I were writing for Grantland, I'd footnote it, but then again if I were writing for Grantland there's also a good chance I'd be a talentless navel-gazing hack, so I'm cool with things as they are. Anyways, hey Seattle: (/Larry B makes "smallest violin" finger motions) GET THE FUCK OVER IT. Yes, sports owners are horrible people. Yes, Howard Schultz and Clay Bennett are among that group of horrible people. No, you are not the only city to ever lose a beloved team. Climb down off your crosses, dry your fucking tears, and enjoy your NFL and MLB teams. At least you're not Quebec City or Hartford (or Sacramento in 2014 or so). Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. Enough with the Sonics pity party. If was fine for the first year or two. Now it's time to shut your cakeholes.

We're in the middle of an NBA renaissance that mirrors what happened from 1984 to 1993: marketable (and likable) stars, genuine rivalries, contenders in big markets, a transcendent superstar leading the way ... really, we're about to run back the most successful 10-year stretch in the history of the league.

Yes, and yet, the luxury tax is still a real thing that costs real money if a team's payroll exceeds a certain threshold. I'm not saying every team should avoid paying it in all circumstances. I'm not saying I think the Thunder should definitely let Harden go. I'm just saying, it's incredibly dumb and simple-minded for some clod like Bill to say DURRRR HARDEN IZ GOOD SO DEY SHOULD PAY WUTEVER IT KOSTS TO KEEP HIM. Look, here's one of Bill's own footnotes from elsewhere in this very article:

3. That number jumps to $38 million the following season. And remember, the luxury-tax penalties become more punitive a year from now. For the 2012-13 season, the NBA's cap is $58.3 and the luxury tax threshold is $70.3 million — numbers that could curve up if the league continues to thrive. The following summer, steeper tax penalties will mean that any tax team pays $1.50 for every dollar over the tax — and also, they'd be more restricted with their free agent exceptions. "repeater" tax penalties that make it hairier for the repeat offenders. Ken Berger and Zach Lowe explained the gory details last summer.

SHAME ON YOU, SAM PRESTI, FOR ACTING LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING WORTH CONSIDERING WITH REGARD TO HARDEN'S NEXT CONTRACT.

So listening to Oklahoma City's brain trust whine about "the bottom line" like they're some mom-and-pop hardware store in East Shartsquatch ... I mean, it just doesn't add up, especially when you factor in their profits from this season and the previous four.

Look, I don't want to sound like I'm some kind of shill for greedy sports owners here. I hate them and I hate the Thunder and I hate their fanbase and I hate all of you who are reading. But the fact that franchises are businesses can't be swept under the rug here. DAW WHATEVER DEY IS MAKIN MUNEY NO MATTER WUT SO ALL DER ARGUMENTS IS AUTO-WRONG isn't going to cut it.

Clay Bennett's group paid $350 million for the Sonics. If you don't think they could sell a franchise that features Harden, Westbrook and Kevin Effing Durant for $500 million in about 2.3 seconds, you're eating bath salts again. Billionaires overpay for sports franchises all the time. It's the ultimate ego purchase. It's like buying a 700-foot yacht. You get to walk around with your chest puffed out, give humblebrag nterviews, sit courtside and swing your genitals like a lasso, basically.

But if you're losing money every year you hold the franchise, and don't have a way to balance out those losses, at some point your only choice will be to sell. And if you really like owning the team, you don't want to sell. Therefore: you might not want to run your team at a loss.

You know why we'll never find out if some billionaire would severely overpay for a lovable contender starring Kevin Durant that's going to win 60 games and make the Conference Finals AT WORST every year for the next decade?

Any team that lets Westbrook take 25 shots a game is always at risk of being upset in a 7 game series. And I hope it happens to OKC this season. And next season. And the one after that.  Forever.  Grrrrrrr

Because there's a better chance of Clay Bennett buying a summer house in Seattle then selling the Thunder right now.

So again, why should he happily plunge payroll deep into the luxury tax zone to pay his team's third best player?

Maybe you didn't notice, but the Thunder became Young America's Team last season. Attend one of their road games this season and glance around at the crowd. You know what you'll see? Dozens and dozens of kids wearing Thunder jerseys. You know why?

Little kids are front-runners!

He only mentioned this 1,000 times during the NHL playoffs last spring. It's just as unclever an observation now as it was then.

It's the same reason so many people in my age group became Cowboys, Steelers and Yankee fans. It's the same reason I took my son to his first Clippers game last spring, and by halftime, he was demanding a GRIFFIN jersey. If you were a little front-runner and your hometown team sucked, who'd grab your fancy? Probably Durant and Westbrook and that dude with the crazy beard, right?

Probably the Lakers or Heat, but yeah, I'll allow that the Thunder are climbing that list. Doesn't put money in the pockets of the Thunder, though.

In 2012, you can follow any NBA team you want, whenever you want, however you want. You can watch them on your laptop, your iPad, your iPhone or your giant TV. Really, it doesn't matter where the Thunder play — they could play every home game in Pyongyang and have the same relevance.

Money from League Pass subscriptions is split evenly among all teams. So is most money derived from sales of apparel.

Throw in revenue sharing, the league's savvy digital presence, the real potential of staggering fees for the league's next television deal (up in 2016), and the Thunder's success with season ticket sales (they're fifth in the league this season) and I'm pretty sure the Thunder's owners won't be panhandling on the streets of Oklahoma City after paying James Harden.

/Larry B hangs head in exasperation

And since we're here, shouldn't we mention how well the NBA is doing right now? How does that NOT play into this Harden dilemma?

It does, you horse's ass, it's just not the end of the discussion. Holy fucking shitballs.

Unlike the NFL, the NBA doesn't have concussions hanging over it like a black cloud. Unlike baseball, the NBA actually appeals to people under 25. Unlike hockey, the NBA is a white-collar sport that can charge white-collar prices.

Those first two statements are true (if not nearly as significant as Bill thinks they are). The third one could not be more false.

Of the four major sports, it's the only one that will unquestionably be sitting in a better place five years from now.

The odds that the concussion thing do anything to put football in a worse place in five years than it is now are incredibly long. Baseball will be fine too. Hockey is the sport that might be in worse shape in 2017 than it is now, and here's why they're in their second nasty lockout in the last seven years: BECAUSE A BUNCH OF ITS FRANCHISES ARE OPERATING AT A LOSS ON A YEAR-BY-YEAR BASIS AND THEY DON'T LIKE DOING THAT, EVEN IF THEY ARE ALSO INCREASING IN VALUE AS THAT HAPPENS.

So even if Oklahoma City loves to break out the small-market violin when it suits them, the facts say differently — if anything, they're one of the three or four most "global" NBA teams right now.

GRRRRRRRR SOME DUDE IN GERMANY BUYING A LEAGUE PASS SUBSCRIPTION AND A DURANT JERSEY DOES NOT HELP THE THUNDER PAY THEIR PLAYERS IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY.

Forbes evaluated the Thunder to be worth just $348 million, a remarkably dumb number. If any billionaire called up Clay Bennett and offered him $348 million for the Thunder, Bennett would laugh and hang up. You aren't even getting his attention unless it's a number that starts with "5." And even then, he's probably hanging up.

We're just going in circles at this point. Let's can most of the rest of Bill the Finance Genius's ignorant fist-pounding analysis and wrap things up.

Really, it's no different than the Thunder's dilemma with Harden: On paper, he isn't actually a "max" player, just like Oklahoma City isn't actually worth $500 million. But saying what something should be worth ignores the concept of value itself: Value is determined by the market for that value, not what we believe that value should be.

Thank you, page two of an "Fundamentals of Microeconomics" textbook.

If Oklahoma City's owners don't want to pay full price for Harden, then they're really saying, We moved an NBA team from a booming city in the Pacific Northwest to a much smaller city that generates much less revenue and compromises our ability to win championships, but the fans here are so grateful that they won't hold it against us that we just tossed away a puncher's chance at a dynasty. If that's true, they're taking advantage of the goodwill of Oklahoma City's fans — really, they should be flipping their asset, cashing out and selling to an egomaniac billionaire who won't worry about losing a few bucks, just about owning one of the NBA's hottest franchises and getting shown on nationally televised games 20 to 25 times per year.

Ladies and gentlemen, your future Minnesota Timberwolves and/or Milwaukee Bucks VP of Common Sense.

1. Important note for this season: I'm giving up my four-year vow to avoid typing the word "Thunder" in an NBA column after the Sonics were hijacked from Seattle with the implicit consent of the NBA's commissioner, David Stern. It's just too much of a pain in the ass to keep the "Zombies" thing going, and more important, Chris Hansen is definitely bringing the Sonics back to Seattle. That's happening. Let's start looking forward instead of backward.

And try to forget about this horrible joke that you crammed down our throats for four years.

Execs Love Stats, Thinking: Players Hate Stats, Thinking

MLB.com's Bryan Hoch examines the curious case of Derek Jeter's 2009 resurgence at baseball - particularly his defensive numbers. I think the following article supports a pair of postulates:

1. The "Derek Jeter is bad at defense" debate will continue to rage as a corresponding countercurrent to all the adulation he currently gets from the press for being clutch and a leader and such.

2. Baseball players, famously undereducated, are nevertheless managed by a group of executives who are increasingly statistically-savvy. It seems like this causes a bit of resentment.

Interestingly, Hoch interviewed some of the Yankees' brass for the article. Then, he went and got Jeter's own opinion. Here's the text:

It was last spring that Derek Jeter offered dismissive smirks to a small gathering in front of his locker at the Yankees' Spring Training complex. He chose his words carefully, but expressed clear skepticism regarding a statistical study that pegged him as the worst defensive shortstop in the big leagues.

Well, there's Bill James' very interesting analysis. This, by the way, is based not just on a bunch of numbers but on an analysis of 40 video replays of Jeter vs. Adam Everett.

There's also reports of a study done at UPenn which concluded, after analyzing every ball put into play from 2002 to 2005, that Jeter was the worst defensive shortstop. By the way, some of the quotes from that NY Post article are worth reprinting:

"I don't know what they're smoking down at Penn," said Yankees fan Mike Birch, 32. "That's preposterous. I completely disagree. Jeter's a clutch player. [dan-bob's note: I did not fabricate this quotation]"

"It's ridiculous," said fan Jay Ricker, 22. "Jeter is all-around awesome. He's better than A-Rod any day. Character has a lot to do with it. He's out there for his teammates, not just himself. He does it for the good of the team. That's the kind of guy you want on the field."

"He has intangible qualities that can't be measured with statistics," said East Village bar owner Kevin Hooshangi, 28.

"He's he ultimate teammate. It doesn't matter what his percentages are when he's making big plays in big games. He's the one with four World Series rings."

... awesome.

Jeter didn't buy into that brand of defensive analysis then, and he still doesn't.

Interesting that after Jeter's boss made him change his workout routine based on statistical evidence, and after that routine has helped him become a better defensive shortstop, he still doesn't believe in it. Stats to Jeter are like dinosaur bones to Carl Everett: they're only there to confuse you.

But Jeter had another reason not to worry about the data that computer programs had spit out concerning his fielding ability: Upon recommendation from the Yankees, Jeter had already started working to improve his range and mobility.

About time!

The Yanks saw some improvement in 2008, and as Jeter's second full season under the new conditioning program passes the midway point, the numbers are again focused on one of their favorite subjects. But this time, the raw data claims that Jeter, 35, is playing his best defensive baseball since he was in his 20s.

Good old raw data.

"You have to make adjustments throughout the years, and if things don't go the way you want them to go or you don't feel the way you want to feel, you make adjustments in order to compensate for it," Jeter said. "I just wanted to be healthy; that's it."

Right: and the adjustments you made were a direct result of your team's statistical analysis of your poor defense. I like how Jeter minimizes the whole thought process behind this by claiming "I just wanted to be healty" - even though he was never injured.

The pivotal conversation with team brass took place after the '07 season, when it had become clear to Yankees general manager Brian Cashman and his staff that his shortstop's defense was an issue that needed to be addressed.

Obviously.

"Whatever weaknesses we may see develop in our players, we talk to our players about it," Cashman said. "We look for ways to attack it. He changed his workout routine to improve his lateral defense, and that took place before last year. He's been better the last two years."

Gosh, what a sensible thing to do. Good work there, Cashman!

According to FanGraphs.com, a sabermetric analysis Web site, Jeter's 2007 Ultimate Zone Rating (or UZR) was -15.3, projecting that Jeter cost the Yankees 15.3 more runs than the average Major League shortstop over the 155 games in which he played. That ranked worst among American Leaguers.

Ouch. No matter what your opinion of UZR is... that's some bad defense there.

"I don't really sit around and look at that," Jeter said. "You can criticize -- everyone gets criticized. I don't pay attention to it. If someone wants to write an article, let them write it. It doesn't really matter to me. My job is to come out here and to improve and try to help this team win. That's all I've been doing. All the other stuff, I don't pay attention to."

That's probably a healthy attitude for a major leaguer to take. God knows anyone would go nuts reading about themselves. But Jeter could be a little less ignorant and admit that the statistical analysis of his defense contributed to his new workout regimen that has improved his defense.

But Jeter -- who claims to not even use the Internet

... awesome. Also, I bet he's full of shit. Everyone uses the internet at some point.

-- isn't about to crunch his own numbers to check up.

Maybe because the last time he took a math class was Algebra II in like 1992?

He still turns a quizzical eye toward an analysis performed at the University of Pennsylvania, which read every ball put in play between 2005 and 2007 and labeled him at the bottom of the pack.

I wonder what grounds Jeter might cite to suggest some sort of invalidity to the studies done at UPenn.

"You can't sit around and figure out a defensive chart on somebody," Jeter said. "I mean, that's impossible to do, so I don't pay attention to it. There's different pitchers, different hitters, different runners and different people playing different positions. You cannot do it."

Well, that's settled.

"Everybody doesn't play the same position, everybody doesn't get hit the same ground ball, everyone doesn't have the same runner. So you can't figure out a mathematical equation on it. If Ichiro hits a ball in the same spot that a slower runner does, how can you compute that in a computer? You can't do it."

Well, you don't have to, Mr. Jeter. That's what's great about taking large sample sizes (like, for example every single groundball from 2005 to 2007). There are a few Ichiros in there, but there are also a few Prince Fielders and some Bengie Molinas. Overall, looking at the thousands of ground balls you fielded during those years, Derek, it doesn't really matter that Ichiro exists.

You don't have to compute it in a computer, either.

[bunch of stories about Jeter working on his defense in the minors are omitted due to the fact that they are boring]

With the next statistical study no doubt already in the works, Jeter will continue to pick his spots to discuss his defense.

I hope the stats continue to tell us how good players are, instead of being completely irrelevant. Fortunately, I think they will!

But with more pep on the bases -- he has already stolen 18 bases, his highest total since 2006 -- it seems clear that Jeter has found a new gear to work with.

"People always try to overanalyze things," Jeter said. "I mean, sometimes, some years, you may feel better than other years. That's pretty much it. I think people always try to figure out, 'Well, what's the reason?' I just feel good. I just think there's really not much more than that."

Well, Derek, you might attribute it to "just feeling good" - but I think the rest of this article, including the direct evidence of your general manager - suggests that the statistically-informed training program you're on, which works to increase lateral movement, has been the primary cause of your resurgent defense.

But maybe you're just feeling good. Yep.

Famous Pitcher Retires; Columnist Makes Ass of Self

Mariotti recently blogged about Curt Schilling's retirement and HOF worthiness. One loudmouthed fuckhead writing about another- you can imagine how that ended up.

This is where I have the chance to be a bigger man than Curt Schilling.

You are "bigger," in this sense of the word, than very few people. And you don't usually (or ever) take an opportunity to establish yourself as such.

This is where I ignore his jerk quotient -- clubhouse politician, Capitol Hill steroids waffler, attention moth, blogging fool --

Two sentences in, the irony is already pouring in furiously.

and state unequivocally that he belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Some writers hold grudges when confronted with voting decisions about prickly players, forgetting that our responsibility is to history and not our tattered feelings.

Hold on, read that again several times.

Some writers hold grudges Some writers hold grudges Some writers hold grudges Some writers hold grudges Some writers hold grudges

Yes indeedy, Jay. Some writers most definitely do hold grudges. (Of course, Jay's situation with the "Blizzard" has nothing to do with voting, so maybe he would say that his above statement about Schilling is really not that ironic. I just really like the idea of Jay trying to take the high ground when it comes to holding a grudge of any kind.)

Me? I see through the blowhard and look inside the heart.

If only this blog's writers could do the same!

Seems the annoyances that made him such a drama queen also were the traits that made him such a dominant S.O.B. when it most mattered on the mound.

If only being a complete and total idiot similarly made one a great writer.

The leper aspect of Schilling only grew worse in his championship years. He began hearing criticism that he was too self-absorbed and pompous, and he lashed back by ripping media. He has called me names. Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe is the "Curly-Haired Boyfriend." But anyone who disliked Schilling was forced to acknowledge his brilliance.

This is what I like to call "laying it on thick." Although, at the same time, Jay's praise here makes me wonder if maybe he is actually a little aware of the similarities between himself and Schilling.

No pitcher was more dominant at the start of this decade.

This is the part of the post where I actually make some sports arguments- Schilling was pretty much amazing in 2001 and 2002, but during that time he wasn't even the most dominant pitcher on his own team. That honor would go to the man CHart once called "the ugliest man in professional sports" to that man's hideous face.

No pitcher has had better control since 1900, demonstrated by his best-ever strikeout/walk ratio of 4.38 among those with 1,500 innings or more.

Again, he had phenomenal control. But that's not really the right stat to evaluate it- that's speaks to a combination of great control and the ability to strike dudes out. I'm pretty sure BB/9 is a better evaluator of pure control. And while Schilling was pretty great, there are many modern era pitchers, some of them awesome (Christy Matthewson, Greg Maddux), some of them shitty (Bob Tewksbury, Carlos Silva [who once threw 188 innings in a season and issued 9 fucking walks!]) who were better.

"The Red Sox were perfect for him, because he likes the big stage, the history of the game," Epstein said. "He likes to be the center of attention."

Sometimes, we loathed him for it. Why did he use baseball as a platform to endorse political candidates?

Why do you use your job as a national sports columnist to consistently level embarrassingly inept personal attacks at a guy most people outside of Chicago don't really care about? Life is full of mysteries.

And then Jay, showing all the effort of a high school student who's desperately trying to make his English paper get to the teacher's page length assignment, quotes a full two paragraphs straight from Schilling's blog. No commentary, just straight copy and paste. And then the article ends. And so does my post. I've heard some complaints recently that my posts aren't as good as they used to be. If that's the case, which it probably isn't because my posts have always sucked, it's probably due to me trying too hard to be really mean and over-the-top angry about the crap I'm writing about. So I'm going to try to dial it down a couple notches for a little while. Instead of ending this with something like "Jay Mariotti is worse than [thing that is a really bad]," I'll just say "I did not enjoy reading this article very much!" Here's to turning over a new leaf.