Do we have a "Lazy Headlines That Are Untrue and Tell You Nothing" label?

Yes, all the Cardinals do is win. Except in game one, when they lost. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would have much preferred a generic headline like "It's all tied up!" or even the cringe inducing "It's a whole new ballgame!" It's nice to know that ESPN's editors are allowed to post nonsensical shit just like their columnist peers.

HAHAHAHAHA

I am working on a TMQR (no really I am), but then I saw this on Deadspin and I couldn't not cross-post it here.  It's both sad and super entertaining.  Bill Simmons, self-appointed god of all that is sports, has successfully annoyed the shit out of one of the 5 greatest NBA players ever.  Was Magic a great analyst?  No, but he wasn't horrible either.  He was kind of good.  More importantly, did he add legitimacy to ESPN's programming in a way that can't be easily replaced?  Yyyyyup.  But hey, at least Doug Collins is on board for the coming season.  So ESPN can take solace in the fact that an all time great player is gone, but he's been replaced with a top 1000 all time player whose career coaching record is a mild shade over .500 and who couldn't get the late 80s Bulls past the conference finals.

On the plus side, Simmons had the good sense to kick Wilbon's condescending ass to the curb.  So that's nice.  As I've said before, I loved the way Wilbon talked down to Simmons on NBA Countdown because Simmons deserves that kind of treatment, but it didn't make Wilbon any less detestable overall.  If I were Simmons, I would have had Wilbon fired before last season.  Wilbon is a twat.

BREAKING NEWS

From the ESPN.com front page sidebar.  This is, ostensibly, one of the eleven most important things going on in sports right now.  Are you ready?

Tough guy Chuck Norris sees himself in Tebow

No, seriously, here's the screencap.

As you can see I have not clicked on it (although I did click on the Crabtree story so I could email the link to Jack M and remind him to BEWARE THE CRABTREE CURSE!).  Nor will I ever click on it, because I would sooner snort anthrax.

Fuck everything.

ESPN's wretched baseball coverage

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you've probably noticed that it has devolved into pretty much just me posting about Simmons, Easterbrook, and the occasional generic rant against ESPN.  And since Easterbrook only writes about the NFL (and the pathetic lack of realism in TV's most watched show, Last Resort) and Simmons only writes about the NFL and the NBA, posts about those two leagues end up making up about 80% of what goes on around here. Things weren't always this way.  Back when we launched we were focused mainly on baseball, because that's Chris's, Dan's, PNoles's and my favorite sport.  Nothing has changed in that department--it's still certainly my favorite sport to read about/watch--I've just blogged about it a lot less.  Maybe that will change this summer.  Earlier tonight Chris sent me a screenshot of ESPN.com's main MLB page and broke down how worthless their online coverage is.  (Not that it needs to be said, but their televised MLB coverage is also utterly worthless.)  I'm lazy, so I'm going to steal his idea and in some cases more or less steal his exact words.  He'll deal with it.  But enough context/introduction: just look at this fucking mess.

Let's run through all the content here, keeping in mind that there are only about five thousand other places you can find baseball news and analysis online.  It's really too bad that the articles I'm about to summarize/mock are so terrible, because as I'll indicate in a number of parentheticals, I really genuinely like many of ESPN's baseball writers.  They're not exactly producing top notch content, though.

These are the featured stories, the ones with corresponding slides below the main video box:

1.) A saccharine-sweet article by Jayson Stark (who is not a bad writer, but also not exactly known for producing hard hitting analysis) about how Max Scherzer could be great if absolutely everything possible goes right for him, and then given that Justin Verlander is good, those two together could give the Tigers good pitching, which, yeah, no fucking dogshit.

2.) A substance-free puff piece by Tim Kurkjian (again, a writer who I generally approve of, but who also is not really known for coming up with interesting analysis) about how unfair it is that people are skeptical about RA Dickey's chances for repeating his 2012 season.  The chosen angle: people are so darn mean to knuckleballers!

3.) Another substance-free article/video, this time about Chase Headley.  I've actually got to give them props for actually doing an article about Chase Headley, a guy 75% of baseball fans only know of as "that guy who plays for some west coast them that we should have traded for at the deadline last season."  No further snark here.

4.) A slide about the WBC that seems like it might have some decent and available content. Nope, nevermind, it's just a photo gallery and three ESPN Insider articles (who the hell is going to buy Insider to read about the WBC?).

5.) Horseshit "future rankings," a totally worthless exercise in trying to rank all franchises based on the votes of smart genius baseball minds like Jim Bowden (yes, I know, lol Jim Bowden).  When you're borrowing ideas from the fuckheads over at FanGraphs and somehow executing their ideas worse than they execute them, you truly are out of ideas.


Next, we have the news in brief items from the right sidebar:

1.) A lie about Mike Trout taking the high road in negotiations--since apparently Trout and his agent are dumb enough to think fans will believe that the agent popped off at the mouth without being directed to by Trout.  Buster Olney provides Insider analysis on this already excruciating "story."

2.) Generic sensationalist news that is certainly scary but also certainly uninteresting if you came to this page hoping to read about baseball

3.) Actual baseball news peppered with absolutely unnecessary video (fantasy related, since many people only care about baseball because they play fantasy baseball, a symptom of the fact that ESPN's baseball coverage blows)

4.) Actual baseball news (fantasy related)

5.) Actual baseball news (fantasy related)
6.) Actual baseball news
7.) Actual baseball news
8.) More or less actual baseball news, sort of (fantasy related)
9.) Non-news, but baseball related
10.) Actual baseball news
11.) Another Buster Olney Insider article that may or may not be actual baseball news, but is definitely not worth paying for

Finally, the featured columns, from the bottom of the page, running from left to right:

1.) Jason Giambi is giving out life lessons Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
2.) Human interest piece on Brian McCann Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
3.) Sportsnation article (puke)
4.) Insider article about the realigned AL West from the biggest asshole in the world of baseball analysis (to his credit, at least when he writes he's usually actually trying to provide insight, which makes him woefully out of place at ESPN)
5.) Article on analytics I might actually consider clicking on but probably won't
6.) Endless talk about the Mike Trout non-issue, which is essentially tabloid shit, but yes, please, let 's keep breaking down all the nothingness
7.) Puff piece on an Iraq veteran who got to try out for the Dodgers, certainly heartwarming but also tabloid
8.) The same Olney Insider article as referenced in #1 on the sidebar stories, about a story that should have died 15 seconds after it hit the wire
9.) ARE THE DODGERS THE NEW EVIL EMPIRE???? AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW

So yeah, what a fucking wasteland.  Especially the news and featured columns.  I'll say it again because part of me feels bad ripping on them here--Stark, Crasnick and Kurkjian are all enjoyable writers who don't take themselves too seriously.  But they shouldn't be anchoring the baseball coverage of the world's largest sports network with this dreck.  Here's hoping they find a way to step their game up as the season goes along.  Nothing would make me happier than to do an apology post in a few months that says "Well, ESPN is still a tabloid tub of elephant shit, but at least they've got their main columnists covering interesting and worthwhile subjects!"

If you think Andrew Luck had a better year than Robert Griffin III, you are a bozo

And ESPN's Ashley Fox is definitely a bozo.

It is award season in the National Football League.
The part of the year where NFL writers and commentators devote 100% of their time to mind-numbing bullshit meaningless analysis of nothing, as opposed to the rest of the year, during which they only devote 90% of their time to mind-numbing bullshit meaningless analysis of nothing.

Can an interim coach take home coach of the year? 

WHAT WILL IT SAY ABOUT US AS A SOCIETY IF ONE DOES?

Which dazzling quarterback will win rookie of the year? 

Probably the white one, because even though the black one has vastly superior numbers and had led his team to essentially identical regular season success with a much more difficult schedule, the white one just looks like a quarterback, doesn't he?  I don't know for sure that race plays a part in this, but Jesus, what else would convince Fox (and plenty of other bozos out there) that the guy with the way shittier numbers is the better QB?

Here is how one voter's ballot is shaping up:

Coach of the year: Indianapolis' Chuck Pagano/Bruce Arians.

#CHUCKSTRONG!!!!! My opinion on Pagano has shifted as the year has gone on. That locker room speech he gave after week 6 or 7 or whenever was undoubtedly the douchechilliest moment of the season for me. You know the one, the highlight shows each played it like 12 times that evening.  The one where he was yelling at his team about dancing with his daughters and their wedding.  Look, I have no problem with Pagano and I am glad his disease is in remission, but holy balls. That speech was 80% idiotic football coach bravado and 20% heartfelt emotion, which, at least for me was a horrible mixture. That speech and the praise it got from waterhead ex-player tv pundits made me root against the Colts (not Pagano himself, obviously--I'm not THAT much of a hater).  

Anyways, a few weeks ago I saw some clips of him interacting with cancer-stricken kids, and that actually did warm my heart a little (probably because it was 0% idiotic bravado and 100% heartfelt emotion). So I'm down with the Colts now. But please, could someone please burn that locker room speech clip? Every time I see/hear it, he comes off as a loud version of the boom goes the dynamite kid.

There will be a lot of competition in this category, including Mike Shanahan,

That's rich. I'm pretty sure everything Shanahan has done when his QB was named something other than Elway or Griffin--particularly the job he did in Washington from 2009 through 2011--has solidified his status as a mediocre at best coach/personnel evaluator. If you have Dan Snyder writing checks for you and you go 15-33 over the course of your first three seasons (after the team went 9-7 and 8-8 in the two seasons preceding your hiring), you should absolutely be fired. I'm not sure why he should win an award for stumbling into one of the best pro-ready QBs to come out of college in the last thirty years. He deserves credit for trading up for the pick that enabled the Redskins to take Griffin. He deserves no "coach of the year" level credit for being the guy who walks the sidelines as Griffin wins games for him.

Mike Smith,

No.

Mike McCarthy,

No. 

Jim Harbaugh

Maybe.

and Pete Carroll,

Might be my pick, but Pagano/Arians works too.

but no one endured what Pagano and Arians did. Few expected much from the Colts, who finished last season with two wins and the No. 1 overall draft pick. Pagano made the brilliant decision to hire Arians, whom Pittsburgh had cast aside, 

TMQ would not that weasel coach Mike Tomlin did this to deflect blame from himself, and actually, TMQ kind of might be right.

as offensive coordinator and then relied on him to coach the Colts while Pagano took a sabbatical to fight leukemia.

That's all true, but shouldn't we consider giving the award to McCarthy for having more or less the exact same team that won the Super Bowl two seasons ago and won 15 games last year, and coaching them to 11-5 this year?

Offensive rookie of the year: Luck.

Luck:

339/627, 4374 yards, 54.1% completions, 6.98 Y/A, 23 TDs, 18 INT, 76.5 QB rating, 11-5 record

Griffin:

258/393, 3200 yards, 65.6% completions, 8.14 Y/A, 20 TDs, 5 INT, 102.4 QB rating, 10-6 record

So the difference between them is that Luck accumulated 1000 more yards than Griffin and 3 more TDs on 200+ more attempts, and Griffin was so much more efficient that it's not even worth having a conversation about which of them is better. And this is isn't even factoring in Griffin's large edge in rushing.  Give Griffin 600+ attempts and his numbers would absolutely put Luck's to shame. The difference between them is somewhat similar to the difference between Matthew Stafford and Aaron Rodgers this year-Stafford has way more attempts and thus more yards, and Rodgers is abundantly better in every other way. But yeah, go ahead, tell me about how great Luck was this year.

There was ample competition here, with Washington quarterback Robert Griffin III and Seattle Seahawks QB Russell Wilson each leading their teams to winning records with a chance to win their respective divisions.

Christ, even Wilson's numbers put Luck's to shame in every category other than total yards and lightness of skin pigment.  Why would anyone pick Luck?  I can't think of any theories other than the depressing one I've already floated.  Anyone got any others?  Plz share.

But look at Luck's numbers running a pro-style offense.

And there's the not-so-subtle dig at Griffin and Wilson--apparently they're not running "pro-style offenses."  I haven't seen a ton of Seattle's games this year but I see plenty of Washington's and it's not like they're in the wishbone.  Griffin probably takes 50-60% of his snaps from the pistol.  Who gives a shit?  The numbers are the numbers.  Griffin isn't just an awesome running QB, he was also one of the best passers in the league this year.  He was a significantly better passer than Luck.  I wasn't aware that "number of snaps taken from under center" was an important input into MVP decisions.

In 15 games, he set the rookie record with 4,183 passing yards. 

On 600+ attempts.

He set the single-game rookie record with 433 passing yards against Miami in Week 9. 

There's a good chance he deserved Week 9 offensive MVP.  I'll grant that.

He set the rookie record for attempts 

Big ups to him for being drafted to a team that really needed a QB, and playing for a coaching staff that likes throwing.

and is within 29 of Sam Bradford's rookie record for completions. 

This was written before week 17--he didn't get that number, because at the rate he completes passes, he would have had to throw 57 times in week 17 to reach it.

Luck's six 300-yard passing games are two better than Peyton Manning's previous rookie record of four, 

Yards yards yards yards yards yards.  Hooraaaaayyyyyyyy MVP!

and his 10 wins are the most ever by a No. 1 overall pick, three better than Bradford's seven. 

That's fine--Griffin won 10, and Wilson won 11.  But did they do it running a PRO STYLE OFFENSE?

Plus, Luck has seven game-winning drives this season, and the Colts are in the playoffs. 

Again.

Detractors will point to Luck's 18 interceptions and 54.3 completion percentage as reasons not to vote for him, 

And they will be right, particularly about the completion percentage.

but he has thrown a lot of interceptions because the Colts have asked him to make a ton of throws.  No team has asked more of its rookie quarterback.

Sure, the Seahawks have Marshawn Lynch and a great defense, and I wouldn't bet on Wilson being better than Luck in five years, but the numbers are the numbers.  Washington asked a ton of Griffin, given his RB situation (no one expected this from Alfred Morris, and he's helped out mightily by Griffin's play) and the horrid injuries the team sustained on defense early in the year, and the numbers are still the numbers, and Ashley Fox is still a bozo.

I have a Simmons post waiting in the wings, I promise

It'll be ready in a hot minute (or 24 hot hours). In the meantime, since I'm low on sleep and creativity, let's continue to beat this long-dead "ESPN is a fucking tabloid" horse into unrecognizable smithereens. I only write 1.5 posts a week and something from this topic area is usually one of them, true, but take a look at their front page news stories as of Tuesday night:

Five of those eleven stories can be best characterized as omgDRAMAwaittilyouhearTHIS. God only knows why they didn't have the Quinn/Tebow dogshit up there; probably because CBS or NBC owns GQ or something. Man, that list just blows my mind. As Jack M put it, that Lin/Humphries story is the Pentagon Papers of sports news, isn't it? Engaging. Captivating. Relevant to each and every American. (And yes, it is what you think: sound bites from Humphries explaining that Lin told him he's a good player and to ignore the thousands of fuckwits that boo him everywhere he goes.)

Meanwhile, in BizzaroBristol CBS, FOX/MSN, and CNNSI were rolling out a lineup that was actually mostly about sports. What a mindfuck.

By my count that's 26 of 33 headlines about actual, like, stuff, that's like, happening and kinda sorta matters. Who reads that shit? Stop teasing me with substantive news and give me the good shit. Has Jeremy Lin tweeted about Favre and A-Rod recently? Has LeBron tweeted anything about what Lin tweeted about Favre and A-Rod? Has Big Papi flipped his bat at spring training yet? TELL ME MORE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PITTSBURGH'S FAVORITE OAF/RAPIST IS GETTING CALLS FROM HIS NEW COORDINATOR IN MID FEBRUARY. IF THEY DON'T BUILD THAT RELATIONSHIP NOW HOW ARE THEY GOING TO WIN ANY PREPREPREPRESEASON GAMES?

My laziness and inability to write a quality post this week is eclipsed only by my disdain for everything that is ESPN. And do I visit ESPN.com several times a day? Of course I do. Because I'm a fucking sheep. Man, I hate everything right now.

As promised, more high-larious excerpts from that ESPN book

At this point I feel like I'm shilling for the book. Which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, it's a pretty interesting read and all. But I promise you, unlike that one time Jeff Pearlman sent me a copy of Love Me, Hate Me for free because I made fun of him for knowing nothing about baseball and then I plugged it here, I have no allegiance towards Those Guys Have All the Fun. Just thought I'd share some more of ESPN's fucknuttery with you.

Oh, before I do, and speaking of being a shill, it's TMQ season again. I'll tackle his first installment of the season this weekend, but his opening line is too good not to larf at right now.

Though commissioner Roger Goodell just led a collective-bargaining negotiation that resulted in NFL players being showered with money and benefits, according to Steelers Pro Bowl linebacker James Harrison, Goodell is "a crook" and "the devil."

Hold on, play that first part back again.

Though commissioner Roger Goodell just led a collective-bargaining negotiation that resulted in NFL players being showered with money and benefits,

Though commissioner Roger Goodell just led a collective-bargaining negotiation that resulted in NFL players being showered with money and benefits,

Though commissioner Roger Goodell just led a collective-bargaining negotiation THAT RESULTED IN NFL PLAYERS BEING SHOWERED WITH MONEY AND BENEFITS,

BWAH HA HA HA YOU'RE KILLING ME. YOU'RE FUCKING KILLING ME. STOP. PLEASE. That's too good. Hoo boy.

/wipes tears from eyes

Watch your back, Peter King. There's a new shill for the league offices making the rounds. And his ability to spin the truth and ignore basic but essential facts puts yours to shame.

Anyways, back to the ESPNery. First, let's talk about Mark Shapiro. Shapiro started at ESPN straight out of college in the early 90s. He was brash and loudmouthed and the book describes how he was nearly fired after only a few weeks on the job. He managed to stick, though, because he had incredible talent for production. He was responsible for the execution of SportsCentury and a lot of good shit on ESPN Classic. So he quickly shot up the ranks because of his talent.

And herein lies the problem, a problem that affects rising superstars in many/most industries: when you're really, really good at something, eventually you get promoted to management and start gaining control over a) stuff that's unrelated to the area where you cut your teeth and b) lots and lots of people. But what if your talents don't really expand beyond that teeth-cutting arena, and what if you have atrocious personnel management skills? Unfortunately those things often end up not mattering. And so we have Mark Shapiro, genius producer, who by his early 30s was doing a lot more than producing. He was making decisions about a lot of very important and ambitious stuff that shaped ESPN's overall direction. He was in charge of programming, which is a whole lot different than being in charge of producing something that someone else came up with and told you to produce. This is when the shit started hitting the fan.

Before reading the book I knew the name and knew some of his ESPN history- I knew he was responsible for a lot of shitty projects and shows back in the early part of the 00s. But boy, I had no idea he was this prolific. Please click that link and glance down the list. It doesn't even credit him for Dream Job, but according to the book, yup, that was him as well. Basically he came in swinging his big dick and set fire to ESPN's legitimacy as a sports network (which I'd say was relatively intact as of 2001, when he rose to head of programming). Nearly every bomb he was in charge of conceptualizing/executing wasn't really about sports. The way Sports Media Watch describes it in that link is pretty accurate- he was trying to MTVize ESPN's stuff. Make it EDGIER and HIPPER and "like [name of popular non-sports related show that already exists on another network], but with some sports thrown in."

He was a ratings whore, brought in to generate attention and viewers. He claims in the book that when he left, ratings had risen for eight straight quarters. Assuming this is true, I have absolutely zero desire to even guess what percentage of that increase is actually due to his work. I'm going to guess it's well south of 100. When he was named head of programming in 2001, ratings had been falling for a couple years. But that's probably largely attributable to the explosion of digital cable around that time, dramatically increasing the number of channels people got in their homes. This is pure speculation from me, but given 1) that Shapiro comes off as exactly like the kind of person who would gladly take credit for something they didn't do, 2) the fact that it's extremely difficult to attribute ratings increases solely to one person, even if they are head of programming; and 3) the number of atrocious shows he launched, it's unlikely he was nearly as successful as he'd like you to believe.

To be fair, he came up with some hits (PTI, Around the Horn, Outside the Lines Daily). But man... LOOK AT THE SPORTS MEDIA WATCH LIST AGAIN. HOLY BALLS. This guy really shat out some miserable ideas. The book portrays him and his ideas in a very positive light, really gives him the kid gloves treatment. That's fine, that's bound to happen when you're given the access the book's authors were given for something like this, but it is a little disappointing. They picked up a few quotes from other employees who were willing to say that Shapiro was a real stumpfucker (see below) but mostly he's portrayed as a megawondergenius who occasionally rubbed people the wrong way but mostly was an essential cog in the company machine. My perception doesn't align with that but you can read the book for yourself and decide just how important he and his ideas were.

Anyways Shapiro eventually left ESPN in 2005 to work for fellow megawondergenius Dan Snyder as the CEO of Six Flags. As you probably know, in 2009 Six Flags filed for bankruptcy. So draw your own conclusions about Shapiro's management skills from that. In any case, did I mention that he had/was a big swinging dick? I believe I did. In the words of ESPN Marketing Exec Lee Ann Daly:

There should have been more of a real search for people to put around Mark before he got put into such a high-level position. Mark was the kind of person who just wanted to bark in everybody's face, to make them go away so he could do what he wanted to do. He was very much like "I know what's best and everybody just needs to shut up and go away." He wanted to tell everybody how it was going to be and that you just needed to accept it. That was, I think, very destructive.

Well there you go! That general opinion is corroborated by a handful of other people throughout the book, but let's get some of Mark's greatness in Mark's own words.

Re: negotiating a TV rights deal for NBA games

David Stern was by far the best and most intimidating negotiator I'd ever faced. No one stands up to David,

No one?

and to have me standing up to him,

Ohhhhhh. I see.

not just once, but multiple times over the course of the relationship . . . . never went well.

Isn't this quote just dripping with the same self-importance those Berman quotes I posted Monday had? It's great. I AM SPECIAL AND DIFFERENT HEAR ME ROAR. (Coincidentally, Berman and Shapiro hated each other. Wonder why?) Anyways, Stern wasn't the only commissioner Shapiro (probably) aggressively insulted to his face. Remember how ESPN lost the rights to NHL games about 8 or 9 years ago? Yup. Barry Melrose says:

Shapiro and Bettman came to hate each other. And Gary is a lawyer and a tough negotiator, and I think he felt that ESPN was trying to take advantage of the NHL and lowball them with the price.

And that's how OLN/Versus ended up with those games. Good job Shapiro! Fred Gaudelli, a former Coordinating Producer who was with ESPN for about twenty years and left around the same time Shapiro did:

What they did to the National Hockey League was insane. From the time that I got to ESPN to the time that I left, our philosophy was that we wanted to be known as people who you want to be in business with; we wanted to be good partners, and have good relationships with the leagues. We didn't want to thump our chests at them, and we didn't want to thump our chests at the media. As a result, ESPN for a long time had a reputations for being really good guys who do good work.

When Mark came in, he brought an arrogance. His regime or style, however you want to put it

That's hilarious.

was basically the turning point for ESPN going from the good guy to the arrogant guy. I don't care what they tell you, ESPN is not well liked at 280 Park [NFL headquarters], the are not well liked at the NBA, and they are not well liked at Major League Baseball. So you saw it in their relationships with partners, and you saw it on the air with the way they overpromoted the stupidest things, like the Bobby Knight movie.

Or Cold Pizza.

And that's what Mark brought to the company. ESPN had always been a place where you could have productive discourse. That's what made the place--that people were free to disagree, free to argue, and free to make your point, but at the end of the day, whoever was in charge when they made the decision, everybody got on board. That was just the way it was. That was not the way Mark Shapiro operated.

That pretty much explains everything you need to know about Shapiro. He's been gone from ESPN for about six years but his legacy lives on in steaming piles of garbage like "Who's Now" and the fact that Sportscenter runs shit like this instead of just showing highlights and adding a little non-sensational analysis. Thanks Mark. You made blogs like FireJay possible. How did you feel as you were winding down your tenure at ESPN and preparing to help run a large amusement park chain directly into the ground?

When I look back on my final year, it's with a great sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

Color me shocked! We've all met a few Mark Shapiros throughout the course of our lives, haven't we? I know I have. May they all be kicked in the balls by a horse, and soon. Before I wrap up, let's hit a few more highlights.

Stuart Scott:

I can't be that concerned with how I'm perceived. I care about how my mother and father think about me and how my friends and how my loved ones think about me. I care about how my ex-wife thinks about me; she and I are still good friends and we do a good job raising our kids. It matters to me. But it doesn't matter to me what people who are writing a blog on the Internet think. I can't think about that.

If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in. Also: he leaves open the possibility that he cares a lot about the opinions of people who write non-internet blogs.

Jay Lovinger, an editor who has had the privilege of working extensively with the guy who I only make fun of because I'm super jealous and want to be him:

Bill's obviously good for the company, it's just that he's an incredibly pain-in-the-ass guy to work with. You don't really edit him. He turns in his thing, you suggest stuff, he writes "Stet all changes," on the copy, you fight with him over things, he goes to Walsh or Skipper (high level execs) to complain, and you say to yourself, "I don't need this grief." His goal is to get you to the point where it's such a pain in the neck that you just put the stuff through--unless there's something you're going to get sued over.

I also edited Olbermann, at Sports Illustrated. He was a pain in the ass and a whining little baby, but ultimately he was more professional that Simmons. If you edited Keith, he'd whine and scream as if you had betrayed him in some way, but then he'd read the thing, and if the editing was actually helpful, he'd respond--unlike Bill, who would just say no. Bill's thing is "I know what I'm doing, so that's it." You know: "Don't touch anything." It was more satisfying editing Olbermann.

Anytime you are a bigger baby and more difficult to work with than Keith fucking Olbermann, you've got some serious problems. Berman... Shapiro... Simmons... they have something in common. They all seem to know everything. HEY MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE THE ONES FIGURING OUT THIS WHOLE NATIONAL DEBT MESS, HUH?

/Leno'd

Bill's boy Kimmel steps in to half-heartedly advocate on his behalf:

We started corresponding, and when I got a talk show, I hired him to be one of the writers. He's a character. He likes analyzing the show more than writing for it.

He's also not particularly funny and has all of three or four gags that he recycles in every column. Which is probably why your first season kind of sucked taint and why he no longer works for you.

Simmons was suspended for two weeks in late 2009 for ripping WEEI in Boston because the station was a member of the ESPN family of networks. He appeared on the station's morning show to promote his Book of Basketball, and that afternoon a different set of DJs took some shots at him He responded via Twitter, and was then given a slap on the wrist for being a bad team player. His thoughts:

My attitude was, you guys aren't handling this. You have let this fester and it's become a real issue in Boston with these guys killing me for two weeks. I have a thick skin,

BWAHAHAHA. Hardest you've made me laugh in a good long while. Naturally Simmons's response to the situation described in the link was to accuse Price of being the thin-skinned one. Lulz upon lulz upon lulz.

I'm fading fast so I'm not going to be able to get to the debacles that were the Tirico/Theismann/Kornheiser and Tirico/Jaworski/Kornheiser Monday Night Football experiences. Maybe next time. I'll leave you with some Stephen A. Smith. Like I said in the last post Stephen A. actually comes off as very smart in the book. Predictably though, he thinks pretty highly of Stephen A. Smith. His thoughts when he was told in early 2009 that his contract would not be renewed:

What people need to remember is I was a general columnist for the magazine, I was a columnist for ESPN.com, I was a radio host for ESPN Radio, I was a television host for Quite Frankly on ESPN2, and I was the NBA analyst for ESPN. And then, by one person's wand, it was gone. Because everything was under their umbrella, I was out of five jobs! Not many people are talented enough to have five jobs--but I did.

Yeah, those 45 minutes a month you spent writing your online and magazine columns really took a lot out of you, huh? And then you tack on 30 minutes a day for Quite Frankly, a regular radio program (no idea how much he worked, I'll be generous and say 3 hours a day on weekdays although I doubt it was that much) and a couple hours a week during basketball season for NBA analysis? Who are you, Bradley Cooper's character in that brain drug movie from last winter?

Oh by the way, do you know who hired Stephen A.? Hint: if you read the Sports Media Watch countdown piece carefully, you already know.

I think we have a label for this

From ESPN:






In the words of Chris W, who brought this article to my attention, "Psh. Good luck trying to get people to watch the Super Bowl."

The article itself is reasonably inoffensive; it's basically just a note that Jets fans hate the Steelers a lot right now and Giants fans have hated the Packers since the Packers drubbed the Giants in week 16 and then a list of Steelers/Packers players who have a connection to the Giants or Jets. Although I do appreciate the "New York is the figurative and literal center of the world and if something doesn't involve New York in any way then it's irrelevant" douchiness of the title. Saying the Super Bowl still matters even though [team X] isn't a part of it is like saying that a cold-blooded murder is still sad even though the victim wasn't [name any super kindhearted and generous person].

But yeah, the first label below says it all.

A Bygone Era of Lazy Sportswriting

From the article "U.S-Algeria sets record for [online] viewers" by ESPN.com news services:

The World Cup match from South Africa was a throwback to a time when not all major sporting events happened during television's prime-time. Only an older generation remembers listening to World Series games on transistor radios at work or school.

Yes, I can remember all the way back to when the NCAA tournament games were played at 2pm on work days. It was a simpler time...

And we were trying different things
We were smoking funny things
Making love out by the lake to our favorite song
Sipping whiskey out the bottle, not thinking 'bout tomorrow
Singing Sweet home Alabama all summer long

p.s. Yes, I'm aware of the irony of my complaining about lazy sportswriting with possibly the laziest post in FireJay history. Thank you.