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.

Wistful, sappy sports journalism makes me sad

[Before I begin, in honor of tomorrow night's sure to be more enjoyable if watched without sound All State Home Run Derby Brought to You by GEICO and State Farm, might as well post a link to the best voicemail I have ever received.]

Sometimes it's Sunday evening and I say to myself "I'd really like to put a post up tonight, the beginning of the week can be hectic and if I don't do one now maybe I won't get a chance until Wednesday or Thursday."  And I also say to myself at that point "Shit, I'm pretty tired and lazy.  I don't want to look all over the internets for something to post about."  How do I resolve that tension?  By turning on ESPN, of course.  This evening's garbage came from an unexpected source.  Buster Olney did a pre-scripted voiceover piece (like a slimmed down version of a 60 Minutes segment) about Bryce Harper and Mike Trout, set to sappy background music and highlights/pictures of each.  It was a goddamn disaster.  Buster, what the fuck were you trying to do here?  Unless it was "invent a narrative that doesn't exist in an attempt to be an cuntier version of Bob Costas" you failed.  Quotes are exact thanks to the magical magic of DVR.

Let the record show 

We're not in court.

that Mike Trout and Bryce Harper were called up to the majors in 2012 on the exact same day: April 28.  

Trout also played in the majors in 2011.

And no matter what they accomplish for the rest of their careers, they will be forever linked, 

???

like Tom and Jerry, (screen shows a picture of Tom and Jerry, no really, they did this, they probably had to pay rights fees for it too), Batman and Robin (still from the set of the old Adam West Batman TV, which also probably cost a shitload in rights fees), Martin and Lewis, Simon and Garfunkel.  


None of those duos are even remotely analogous to a pair of baseball players on different teams in different leagues who have never played against each other at any level and for all we know, may never have met each other.  


They will be tied together- Trout and Harper.  


By idiotic journalists doing dumb puff pieces, yes.  In the same manner as two famous musicians who were in a band together, or pair of cartoon characters who are always beating the shit out of each other?  Not even close.


And as was the case with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, 


Much better comparison although it's kind of too late since you already brought up all those other terrible comparisons.  And even this is still not really that good, since Bird and Magic famously faced off against each other in a college national championship game and were friends/rivals before they even entered the NBA.


there will be a debate over which player you'd rather have.  The 20 year old Trout is arguably the fastest player in baseball, and is a threat to win the batting title, and the MVP, and is regarded as a shutdown centerfielder.  


"Shutdown centerfielder" is not a thing you can be.  You can be a shutdown reliever, or an outstanding centerfielder.  Pick one.


The 19 year old Harper is not as refined a hitter as Trout, but has demonstrated that he might have Ruthian power, 


Peter King thinks it's semi Bonds-like!


and that every day, he plays with the eyes and the intensity of Mike Singletary.  


You're doing a story about baseball players, so naturally, when you need to say that one is passionate about the game, you compare him to someone who doesn't play baseball.


[Long spiel about each player's stats, and how they've helped their teams]  This all before either can legally drink a beer in the United States.  


This was brought up solely to show the "That's a clown question bro" clip, which is a funny clip and all but felt kind of forced here.  Probably because this whole segment felt completely forced at all times.  It was like someone got Ken Burns really drunk and then told him to make a two minute documentary on how Harper and Trout will be forever linked.


Oakland GM Billy Beane 


Wait, who?


knows that both Trout and Harper are once in a generation talents, breaking into the big leagues at the exact same time.  


And this was all he said about Beane.  No direct quote, no anecdote about how Beane passed on Trout in the 2009 draft because he's the geniusest genius around, no explanation as to why his name was mentioned at all.  As far as we know he has exactly zero to do with either Trout or Harper.  Yet Buster cites him here.  Your guess as to why is as good as mine.


You might have to go back more than 60 years of baseball to find another duo as dynamic and as young as Trout and Harper when they first made an impact.  In 1951, the Giants promoted Willie Mays and the Yankees promoted Mickey Mantle, 


Let's slow the fuck down.  Harper and Trout have like 500 combined MLB plate appearances.  I get that they're both really talented, and playing well at a very young age, but Jeebus.  If I were a betting man I'd bet against them eventually hitting a combined 1200 home runs and both making the HOF a la Mickey and Willie.  Let's slow down and take a deep breath.  


and like those superstars, who went on to share the same song, 


A timely reference.  Fuck, I don't even get the reference, but I'm sure it's some stupid 50 year old song. Wait, unless it's We Didn't Start the Fire.  


/listens to We Didn't Star the Fire


Nope.  Only Mickey made the cut for that one.


Mike Trout and Bryce Harper will forever share a stage... 


They probably won't.  They have no relationship that predates their arrival in the big leagues.  Until and unless they change teams and end up in the same league, they'll only play each other once every three or four years.  Their teams are based thousands of miles apart.  Like, I'd sort of get this sentiment if Harper was a Dodger or Trout was an Oriole.  But there's really nothing here.  They play the same position, I guess.  They are both power/speed guys.  Whatever.  This was an embarrassing waste of time for Buster.


this week, as All Stars in Kansas City.  


They will forever share a stage as All Stars this week?  What?

BONUS COVERAGE:  Kruk, having witnessed Buster's incredibly stupid little segment, what are your thoughts about these two players?

They both respect the game immensely.  It's not like "I'm here, let the games begin, I'm going to save the sport." ... They don't want to draw all this attention to themselves with... with a gesture on the field, that, that, that kind of disrespects the opponent.  They play the game the right way, and they're great great players.

You are a complete and total buffoon.  Also: LUNCHPAIL ALERT.

Grab bag post featuring an idiot, a complete dipshit, and a guy who won't stick to his guns

None deserve their own post. All deserve some ridicule.

First, you may not have heard, but Penn State had a pederast in their midst. Fortunately they dealt with the terrible situation swiftly and properly by contacting law enforcement. I think that's what happened anyways. Proving that he has his finger squarely on the throbbing pulse of America, Rick Reilly chimes in with an important message:

This is not about Joe Paterno.

No fucking motherfucking shit.

If these boys really were molested, groped and raped by a middle-aged ex-Penn State football coach, then whatever misjudgment Paterno made will be a single lit match compared to the bonfire these boys will walk in for years to come.

Many of them won't be able to trust. Won't be able to love. Won't be able to feel -- nor trust or love themselves.

Yes, everyone think of the children. And they already are. We don't need to be reminded of that in this situation; even the most callous or clueless person understands that the kids are the victims here. Paterno may be in the spotlight but it's for sensible reasons. He's the most powerful and visible person involved and the only one besides Sandusky who's nationally known. The fact that it's about the kids and not about Paterno doesn't mean the media is obligated to focus their attention on the kids or the crimes. That's an angle that's just too grisly and sad for a lot of people. The Paterno angle carries with it the possibility of some kind of justice, or at least so a lot of people will think. In short, it makes sense that a lot of the water cooler talk about this mess focuses on Paterno rather than the crimes/victims.

But of course that doesn't mean it's "about" him. The people who really do think this is about Paterno are mouth-breathing PSU alums or students who live for nothing but college football and could give a damn about anything else, including prevention of child rape. They probably (hopefully) make up less than one percent of the population.

Don't feel sorry for Paterno. He's had his life. Feel sorry for these boys, because they may never get one.

The people who feel sorry for Paterno are an even tinier subset of the tiny set of people who think this is about him. Those in that tiny subset are not worth addressing. They should be herded into a mine and sealed inside with concrete. I believe we have a label for articles like the one Rick wrote here. It should appear first in the list at the bottom of the post. He also threw this in, seemingly in an attempt to confuse me:

No, this isn't about 84-year-old Joe Paterno not taking more steps that might have stopped it. It's about everybody not taking more steps that might have stopped it. Not parents, not teachers, not uncles,

Uncles?

Enough of that uplifting story. Let's talk about Big League Stew. Yahoo's MLB blog is written by a mongoloid who goes by 'Duk and thinks that this is clever, useful analysis.

For the purposes of this post, let's say that I have just traded the ten-dollar bill that I just found on the ground for a fast-food meal at a chain burger joint.

It's nothing fancy, but it will get the job done. I hadn't eaten in days.

Furthermore, let's also suppose that I decide to walk home from the restaurant in an attempt to work off the caloric impact I have just foisted upon my system.

[two paragraphs spent extending this painful and worthless analogy snipped; don't worry, you don't need the full bit to appreciate how mind-numbingly stupid this is]

So I tell you that I'm perfectly willing to take your doggy bag if you don't want it. I might take it all the way home, but I might also throw it away. It doesn't matter, though, because you've already paid the bill. I'm on the hook for nothing.

I've also just perfectly described the strategy that Dayton Moore and the Kansas City Royals are taking in their attempts to resurrect a winner.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Finally, an article that's not truly abhorrent but just kind of bothered me as I read it because of Mark Schlabach's unwillingness to commit to his initial stance. It's a stance that I think is stupid and wrong but certainly defensible, and I'd like to see a capable writer like Schlabach fully support. Unfortunately he backpedals. Backpedals like a bitch.

LSU and Alabama are clearly the best two teams in the country and are head and shoulders above the rest. It's a shame they can't play each other again in the SEC championship game.

You want a plus-one playoff? Let the Tigers and Crimson Tide play three times this season, with the best-of-three winner claiming a national championship.

That's not how a plus one would work. Just nitpickin'.

LSU and Alabama are that much better than everyone else this season.

And we know that for sure, without any doubt; just ask an SEC fan.

If LSU wins out and wins the SEC West, critics will suggest Alabama shouldn't play for a national championship because it didn't win its conference. But when the dust settles on the college football season, the two best teams should play for a national championship, no matter the circumstances.

Strong stance. One that I think is dumb. Even if we could be sure that Alabama is better than Okie State or Stanford, Bama had its chance and blew it. If they were to rematch with LSU in the title game and win, it's kind of like... well, OK, we know both those teams are awesome and we know which was playing better in January. Can we say for sure that Bama was the best? I understand that you can never really say who the best of the best is unless they've all played each other, and a win by (not THE) OSU or Stanford over LSU doesn't forever end the debate. But to me, a rematch with a different outcome than the regular season matchup is wholly unsatisfying. And a rematch with the same result if/when OSU or Stanford was undefeated but got shut out of the title game feels even worse. I dunno, I just really don't want to see Bama play LSU again unless there are no other big conference undefeateds left.

History suggests that the odds of an LSU-Alabama rematch in the BCS title game are slim. After No. 1 Ohio State defeated No. 2 Michigan 42-39 in their 2006 regular-season finale, the Wolverines argued they deserved another chance at facing the Buckeyes in the BCS title game. But No. 3 Florida jumped the Wolverines in the final BCS standings, and the Gators routed Ohio State 41-14 in the BCS Championship Game.

Here's the difference, though: At the end of the 2006 regular season, you could argue that Florida was better than Michigan. But if Alabama wins out this season, you couldn't argue that another one-loss team -- or even undefeated Boise State -- is better than the Crimson Tide.

Sure you could. What if Stanford's only loss is by a field goal to Oregon in overtime? What if OSU's only loss is by a field goal to Oklahoma in overtime? There's definitely a debate to be had there.

Especially not after SEC teams won the past five BCS national championships.

Fucking SEC people. You cockswabbers, chanting your conference's name. GMAFB.

If Oklahoma State wins out, it will deserve a chance to play LSU for a national championship.

Wait, what?

The same goes for Stanford, if the Pokes slip up along the way.

OK. So that whole thing about Alabama clearly being the second best team out there, and them definitely deserving a rematch... tempered. Significantly tempered.

But if those two teams lose somewhere down the line, Alabama would be the most deserving team to play LSU for a national title.

And you just sucked all the controversy out of your article. That makes me angry because the ESPNiverse has trained me to zone out if a journalist isn't being intentionally contrarian or simply a straight-up asshole. Although you've let me down, Schlabach, you're still OK in my book. Just don't get my hopes up like that again.

MVP = MCPP (Most Consummately Professional Player)

Amidst a lot of pretty inoffensive analysis in this Scott Miller MLB season's end column (Mauer and Pujols for MVP, Grienke and Lincecum for Cy, Coughlan and Andrus for Rookie of the Year, etc.) we have this, his No. 10 NL MVP vote. As in, the guy in the NL who Scott thinks is 10th most worthy of being voted Most Valuable Player.

10. Juan Pierre, Dodgers. I know there are several others who could have slotted in here (see next paragraph), but this guy deserves an MVP vote for two reasons: 1. He was lights out during Manny Ramirez's suspension and the Dodgers would not have kept rolling without him. 2. He was the consummate pro in handling things as a fourth outfielder this year, adding to the Dodgers' overall picture instead of subtracting from it.

Oh wow. Holy moley. Scott Miller, you are a fucking stump. First, let me make sure I get this straight. The two measurements of MVPness Scott uses here are: 1) being "lights out" (read: OPSing .781) for a 50 game stretch and 2) being a "consummate[ly] pro[fessional]" 4th outfielder. That's awesome. Hey, let's just go ahead and hand anyone who plays kind of well for a couple of months and isn't an asshole about playing time an MVP. Under that standard, only one guy in the league doesn't get a vote: Gary Matthews Jr. Sounds great.

Also, let's look at the names included in the next paragraph Scott references, who didn't make his top ten and are ostensibly less worthy of MVP consideration than Juan "accepts the role his manager gives him and doesn't kill his team in the process" Pierre:

Matt Kemp
Mark Reynolds
Derek Lee
Adrian Gonzalez
Ryan Braun
Jayson Werth
Todd Helton

Each of these players was roughly 10,000 times more valuable in 2009 than Pierre was. Matt Kemp is like a version of Pierre who doesn't throw like a toddler and can hit for power. Mark Reynolds is a "three true outcomes" guy- Pierre is a two true outcomes (infield hit, out) guy. And so and so forth, with a joke crafted to each of these players. They were all better than Pierre this season. Lots better. Way, way, way better. Some of them like Helton and Lee are even known for their consummate professionalism! Look, I'm willing to bet each might have been more valuable than Pierre if you put their worst 50 game stretch up against Juan's Ruthian 50 game Manny replacement phase (He had 17 extra base hits!). Words cannot describe how fucking indefensible this is. Fuck you, Scott Miller. Fuck you and the Bill Plaschke-esque idea you rode in on.

At the End of My Rope

Sorry, Dan-Bob. I don't mean to bury your excellent NCAA-related post. I just have a complaint to register. I know there's a 0% chance it reaches its intended audience, but I'm going to make it anyways.

HEY ESPN- STOP IT WITH THE BRETT FAVRE CRAP. PLEASE. JUST STOP. IT'S FUCKING INTOLERABLE.

That is all. For a real post, read below. (And I promise I'll do something substantial tomorrow afternoon/evening.)

When Bill Simmons Writes Ridiculous Bullshit, You Know I'll Be Here To Complain

Mailbag time. Pot, meet kettle.

Q: Did you go to the Celtics-Clippers game? We were looking for you, but it was hard to find the Sports Guy in the sea of brand-new Kevin Garnett jerseys.
-- Kevin, Redondo Beach, Calif.

SG: Of course, I went! You're right, the entire arena had the "fresh car" smell, only it was the "fresh jersey from the Celtics Pro Shop" smell. There were more Boston fans there for that game than the last three Celtics-Clippers games combined. (My favorite sighting: Famed Hollywood producer Brian Grazer sitting courtside with his two sons, both of whom were wearing KG jerseys.) With that said, on the Bandwagon Jumping Scale, the Celtics jumpers can't come close to matching what happened with the New York Football Giants over the past four weeks. Three points here:

1. I have uttered or e-mailed the phrase, "Wow, I didn't know you were a Giants fan, congratulations!" at least 15 times since Feb. 3.

2. I can't remember seeing a single Giants hat or jersey in L.A. before Feb. 3. In the past four weeks, I've seen at least 20.

3. Back in Manhattan, one of my editors, Mike Philbrick, swears that dozens of New Yorkers have been hospitalized after passing out from the fumes of people walking around the city wearing brand-new Giants hats and replica jerseys.

ZING! How Jimmy Kimmel has managed to rise to near A-list comedic status despite having Bill occasionally write for him is a minor miracle. Take that, New Yorkers... you bought a bunch of clothes! Even moreso, take that, Asian factory laborers who make NFL apparel. Your brain cells are dying in droves every day because of those nasty fumes!

Of course, that isn't the real reason I decided to make a post out of this. While it's admirable that he recognizes the fact that the Celtics are currently a huge bandwagon favorite, it's also downright ludicrous that he dares to print this email given that his other two favorite teams also enormous bandwagon picks. How many people gave a fuck about the Patriots before 2001? How many non-New England natives liked the Red Sox before 2003/2004? I would go so far as to say that the Red Sox and Patriots are probably the two biggest bandwagon picks in all of sports over the course of the past ten years. That's right, I said it. And the Patriots are notable for the fact that they became a bandwagon pick in 2001, then actually acquired a second wave of bandwagoners this past fall. That kind of double bandwagonism is hard to pull off. I don't even think the Yankees managed that in 1999/2000.

Obviously this happens to teams that do well all the time. Due to their recent success, my favorite baseball team currently has a large number of fans that probably couldn't name more than one or two guys on the roster a year ago. So I'm not saying Boston's teams are alone in this regard. I am however saying that Bill sourpussedly complaining about all the Giants bandwagoners when he happens to cheer exclusively for teams that also currently sport gigantic bandwagons, is, as the title of the post states, ridiculous bullshit.

(Let's just move on before I start sounding bitter.)

Let's just move on before you write any more awful jokes.