Last post in FireJay history?

Experts say: MAYBE.  Not that I would ever actually follow through on my promise to shut down the blog if the Celtics make the NBA Finals.  That was a lie the second I wrote it, and I'd like to extend a great big fuck you to the rest of the Eastern Conference for allowing that outcome to happen.  WAIT IS THAT A JINX I DON'T KNOW GO HEAT WOOOOOOOOO.  Just saying, could be the last post in the blog's history because you never know when the sun is going to supernova or when an idiot 19 year old manning a radar station in North Dakota mistakes a flock of birds for a bunch of nukes and the whole planet gets blown to smithereens.

Anyways, this is really more of a quick check in than a full post, so I'll start by saying that I'm really enjoying ESPN's cross promotion of Prometheus.  I will never get sick of Stephen A. Smith (who is back on the Four Letter in several roles after several years away because ... ... ... ???????) asking me to check out the Prometheus trailer.  Never.  I hope they are still running that promo well after the movie is out of theaters.

A few more highlights from the now two week old Simmons column I've been picking at:

The Staples staff hustled everyone out, turned the arena over, burned some sage to get rid of Donald Sterling's aura, 


Sterling is one of the few subjects who can actually draw decent jokes out of Bill.  Here's to him continuing his racist, maniacal ways.  ("Him" being Sterling, not Bill.)


then reopened the doors for Game 4 of the Lakers-OKC series. I skipped this one because of an event for my son's preschool, because I couldn't stomach being around Laker fans for a second straight night, and because I couldn't afford to get divorced. 


I HAVE A FAMILY!  YOU CARE ABOUT THEM!


That's why Saturday was encouraging. Westbrook played an absolutely breathtaking game, but when the time came for Oklahoma City to plunge that final dagger into the Lakers' season (and, quite possibly, the entire Kobe era),


Alex, I'll take "Wishful Thinking From a Complete Idiot" for $800.  And "Played Out Jeopardy! References" for A JILLION DOLLARS

The morning started off with an off-putting vibe because of the aformentioned bike race, which spawned a Carmageddon-like panic because it shut down so many of the morning's traffic routes. Kings fans were urged to show up three hours early and to even — gulp — take the subway to be safe. Personally, I would rather drive my car through the bike race and pancake some of the cyclists than take the L.A. subway. Fortunately, my special L.A. Live parking pass enabled my daughter and me to circumvent the traffic, park, grab brunch AND watch the first wave of cyclists fly by toward the finish line.


I've been obliterating this point beyond recognizance lately, but again... this is a guy who has a lot of followers who tell you they love him because he's some kind of representative of the everyday fan.


This ended up being one of my favorite father-daughter moments in a while.


YOU STILL CARE RIGHT?  MY DAUGHTER SAID SOME SHIT THAT ANY GIVEN TEN YEAR OLD COULD HAVE SAID OH MY GOD KIDS ARE JUST MAGICAL!

Everyone thought the Kings would roll over Phoenix like they did the previous three games, so when things started shifting the other way — a sketchy call against the Kings, a Coyotes power play goal, Smith out-playing Quick — the crowd panicked and eventually checked out altogether. You couldn't blame them; they were bitterly disappointed. As the third period limped along with the Kings trailing by two, my daughter vainly tried to get a few "Let's Go Kings" chants going, then turned around and yelled in frustration, "What's the matter with everybody?" At that point, I knew we'd be driving home with her in tears and me repeatedly explaining to her that the Kings had three more chances to make the finals (which is exactly how it played out). Little kid sports fans are the best. 

/Larry B throws coffee table out apartment window

I almost feel like a blasphemer saying this, but has anyone else noticed how frequently Magary has been writing about his WILD ADVENTURES IN FATHERDOM on Deadspin lately?  It's been bothering the fuck out of me, I won't like.  Come on Drew.  Don't fall into the holy shit I used to be a wacky bachelor but now I have kids and they amaze me every day trap.

The Spurs never flinched, chopping the lead to 15 and eliciting the first of many panicked Clippers timeouts. Watching the Spurs and their bench reacting to that moment (totally locked in, totally expecting the Clippers to cave), you could just tell where the game was going. I even tweeted about it.

That's how you know how smart I am!

New Feature: the FJM Hall of Shame

We here at FJM have had quite a few HOF debates over the years - focusing around a few core players like Robert Horry, Craig Biggio (twice!), Tim Raines, LeBron James and other NBA stars, a host of NFL players and Curt Schilling. Articles about Hall of Fame-eligible players are easy pickins', since there's no clear definition for what constitutes Hall of Fameness in any sport, and it's usually not hard to find some way to argue against what any writer is saying.

Anyways, since this blog sees so many names repeated over and over again headlining and tagging on these hallowed pixels, we thought it only makes sense to honor the writers out there who've managed to achieve truly pathetic status. These writers have consistently (consistently) committed some of the most egregious fouls sportswriters can commit:

• lacking basic research skills
• poor syntax or grammar
• misusing or abusing statistics
  
• a naive lack of any critical powers
• oversentimentalizing sports or life
• heavy and wanton use of anecdotal evidence
• disparaging things they don't understand or
• anything else we like to complain about.
  

Since we're already hypocritical enough as it is, we're going to do the same thing that every sportswriters' association does to their respective sport - induct writers based on no set metric other than that we think their writing is not just bad, not just extra bad, but truly worthy of the Hall of Shame.

Certain obvious candidates will be inducted quickly and easily - there's nobody out there arguing that Babe Ruth wasn't a Hall of Famer and I'm pretty sure inductee #1 (who will arrive later today) will be voted in with 100% of the ballot. But you're welcome to start the debate about which writers truly belong in the next class, which be inducted approximately whenever I get to working on the next one.

FMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Will Probably Not be Hired by The Onion Anytime Soon

Rejoice, haters of logic and comedy. The dipshit is back.

Here's some draft advice. The top three offensive teams last season -- New Orleans, Denver and Houston -- did not make the playoffs. The top three defensive teams last season -- Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Philadelphia -- all made the playoffs. Now, what should your draft strategy be?

Well, before drawing too strong a conclusion from that cherry-picked stat, I might look a little further than just the elites of each category and try to see generally whether or not having a good offense or good defense helps. Then I would discover that 7 of the top 12 offensive teams made the playoffs... as did 7 of the top 12 defensive teams. Then I might look back at years gone by, and discover that the top 3 offensive teams all made the playoffs in 2007 and 2006, and that 2 of the top 3 made it in 2005, 2004 and 2003. Then I would remember that Gregg Easterbrook is a stat-cherry-picking asshole. Then I would probably just use a draft strategy based around a combination of need and best player available.

As for [New England; idiotic TMQ nickname for their team omitted], last year on draft day, needing front-seven help, they traded down, passing on the chance to draft touted front-seven players Sedrick Ellis, Derrick Harvey and Keith Rivers, in order to select Jerod Mayo and gain an extra choice, which they exercised on linebacker Shawn Crable. Rivers had a sound rookie season, but Ellis was invisible with 30 tackles, while Harvey, supposedly a sackmaster, rarely was in the same area code as opposing quarterbacks. Mayo was terrific for New England, and Crable looks like a quality addition.

Crable did not play a snap last year. Yes, that's correct. Due to injury, THE DUDE HAS NOT YET PLAYED A SINGLE FUCKING SNAP IN THE NFL. But New England drafted him, so he looks like "a quality addition." Meanwhile, Derrick Harvey and his 3.5 rookie year sacks (certainly not great, but indicative of competence)? Bust. Just cut him now, Jacksonville. Why can't you be more like New England and draft guys who look quality without even stepping on the field?

Going into Saturday's draft, New England has stockpiled three second-round choices -- look for the Patriots to choose wisely while others around them reach. I'd rather have New England's draft position than the positions held by Buffalo, Denver or Detroit, even though each of these teams has two first-round choices. Detroit is under pressure not to blow the first overall pick;

That's like saying it's better to sit in the audience at a game show than be a contestant. You wouldn't want to fuck up in front of everyone, would you? Sure, being able to take any player you want is nice... but I think we can all agree that it's not worth the possible embarrassment that comes from messing up a draft choice. After all, the Lions have never done so before.

Denver has a history of first-round busts (Dan Williams, Marcus Nash);

Marcus Nash was drafted in 1998; Dan Williams was drafted in Nineteen-ninety-fucking-three. Sixteen years ago. Really, Gregg? Since 1998, Denver has taken Al Wilson, Deltha O'Neal, D.J. Williams, Ashley Lelie, Jay Cutler, and Ryan Clady (later praised by Easterbrook in this very column) in the first round. This is Easterbrook at his very worst- making preposterous claims as he goes along in order to fit his pre-crafted thesis. Seriously, fuck this guy. If you go back far enough every team has first round busts. Ever heard of Chris Canty? First round pick of the Patriots in 1997. Out of the league by 2001. Oops. (That said, after reviewing their first round picks for the past 15 years, I have to hand it to the Patriots. Very good at this whole draft thing overall.)

and the Bills haven't made a smart choice about linemen in some 15 years (recent first-round line busts John McCargo, Mike Williams and Erik Flowers).

So... what if... they choose players at other positions with these two first round picks?

New England can accomplish more with three second-round choices than most teams can accomplish with two first-round selections.

Completely unsubstantiated. Just thrown out there as fact, because Gregg hopes you're not really paying attention.

In other sports news, at this time of year every Tom, Dick and Harriet has a mock draft, but only Tuesday Morning Quarterback actually mocks the draft, with my annual mock of mock drafts, which follows.

1. Detroit Lions: Edward Liddy, CEO, AIG
By the standards of the 0-16 Lions, AIG is a huge success.

Crickets. (But it's pretty topical! Gotta give him that! Have you heard about this whole AIG thing? It was in all the papers!)

4. Seattle Seahawks: Dr. Manhattan, naked blue superhero
He could play for the Blue Men Group without needing a uniform, thus cutting costs.

Crickets.

6. Cincinnati Bengals: Tim Geithner, secretary, U.S. Treasury
The Bengals' ownership hopes the TARP fund will buy up the franchise as a toxic asset.

Topical again. And crickets, again.

10. San Francisco 49ers: Ralph Ostrove, founder, Paul Stuart clothiers
The Niners have gone from a coach who wears business suits on the sideline to a coach who drops his pants in public; they might benefit from this high-end fashion store that caters to men. Stuart's new business-casual affiliate says it offers a "curated collection."

Snobbery. And crickets. You get the idea- this kind of brain vomit goes on for a full 32 picks. Simply an insult to anyone who has any semblance of a sense of humor.

WWJHE -- When Would Jesus Hold Easter? Last year, Easter fell almost a month before Passover. TMQ complained that Easter should always fall on the Sunday after Passove begins. Jesus, after all, just before his crucifixion had come to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. So why doesn't Easter fall immediately after the first night of Passover? Dating for Passover has always been determined by the ancient Hebrew calendar; in 2009, Passover began on the 15th of Nisan, exactly as it did when Jesus walked the Earth. Easter dating involves a complex formula having to do with the vernal equinox and paschal full moon. During the Middle Ages, the Roman church established that Easter dating formula in part to de-emphasize Christianity's relationship to Judaism. Protestant denominations decided to accept the Roman dating, though nothing about the equinox-and-moon business is mentioned in scripture. Formally linking the observance of Easter to Passover would benefit both Christianity and Judaism, by emphasizing common history. Actually, it would benefit Western Christians. As pointed out by readers, including Sylvia Denisov of St. Louis, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Easter always falls on the Sunday following the first night of Passover.

Changing the Western dating formula for Easter, to sync with Passover as is done in Eastern Christianity, would be both historically accurate and a nice ecumenical step. This spring, Easter in the West did fall on the Sunday after Passover began. Turns out that for the next six years, Easter as observed by Western Christianity will follow the first night of Passover; the schedules aren't out of whack again until 2016, when Easter falls on March 27 and Passover does not begin until April 23. That creates six years in which Western Christians could stage a campaign to restore the Passover-Easter relationship. How's about it?

I'm not against it. Wait, is this a column about football?

Series Finale of "Battlestar Galactica" Complaints:

A quick copy/paste into Microsoft Word reveals that Gregg devoted, I shit you not, 1,832 words to this item. That's nearly 3 single-spaced pages. Among those who care enough about the NFL to read about it online- Who. Gives. A. Flaming. Shit? Making it all the better is that most of the item is dedicated to, whate else, Gregg's complaints about the inaccuracies/plot holes in the show. We need someone monitoring these science fiction shows! I'm so tired of them not accurately representing what it's like to travel long distances in space!

Also, the NFL Gave Several Billion Compensatory No. 1 Draft Choices to AIG: The system by which the NFL awards compensatory draft choices continues to mystify. The league said San Diego was owed a fourth-round compensatory pick for losing Drayton Florence to Jacksonville; the Jags benched Florence, then waived him after one season. The league said the Redskins were owed a seventh-round compensatory pick for losing quarterback Mark Brunell to New Orleans; Brunell did not attempt a pass in 2008.

It's not quite a full and total explanation (as the League keeps some of its formula secret), but here you go, dipshit.

At 11 p.m. the Night Before Games, Bills Coaches Conduct a Passport Check: "I just have to create my own following up here in North America" -- Terrell Owens being introduced in Buffalo. Texas is in North America; so is Mexico for that matter. Though, Owens' statement that the Bills may become "North America's team" is a good reading of the Toronto alignment. My favorite Owens claim about the Cowboys: that Tony Romo and Jason Witten were meeting in secret to draw up plays that did not include him. On an exclusive basis, TMQ has obtained this surveillance tape of one of the secret meetings, held at a vacation resort:

ROMO: (Wearing dress and wig.) What's the password?

WITTEN: (Wearing false beard.) Swordfish. (Enters room.)

ROMO: The new play diagrams are on this microdot.

WITTEN: How do you read a microdot?

ROMO: Shhhhhh -- not so loud. (Turns on radio to a mariachi station.) That's in case Terrell has the room bugged. Check out Blast Max 88 Cross.

WITTEN: (Examines play.) Wow -- Owens covers his body in Krazy Glue, then sticks himself to my defender so I can go deep. Sweet!

ROMO: We can't tell him the play is really to you.

(Tape interrupted as Canadian Mounties burst into room.)

Dude. CRICKETS.

Trojans note: On draft day, TMQ will root for linebacker Clay Matthews III, who despite his fabulous football pedigree -- related to former NFL stars Clay Matthews, Clay Matthews Jr. and Bruce Matthews -- was a walk-on at USC. No major-conference school offered Matthews a scholarship. Now he's likely to be a first-round NFL draft choice.

And as soon as he's drafted in the 1st round, TMQ will immediately begin hating him for the duration of his NFL career. If only he could go undrafted, play in the lower-tiered Arena League for a couple years, retire, work a construction job for a couple years, then make the NFL at age 27, get cut from four teams, and THEN finally catch on with someone, he would have a life-long fan in Gregg.

At Least Someone's Gruntled: "Disgruntled no more" -- that's how "SportsCenter" anchor Linda Cohn introduced the news that Jay Cutler had been traded. Cutler whined so much that "disgruntled Jay Cutler" practically became his name. Since he is no longer disgruntled, does that mean he is now gruntled? Yes! Little known dictionary fact: "gruntled" means "satisfied." From now on, the gentleman in question to TMQ will be "the gruntled Jay Cutler." And TMQ will remain suspicious of the grunted gentleman. Cutler has a fine arm, but what exactly has he accomplished in the NFL to justify all his whining? Cutler is 17-20 as an NFL starter. Kyle Orton is 21-12 -- I'll take the guy who wins the game, please.

Oh my good fucking grief. Are we going to go through this again? That is the worst sports-related argument ever. Period. Ever. I don't even think Colin Cowherd would make that argument.

Orton did play with a better defense in Chicago, but Cutler played with better offensive personnel plus the Denver home-field advantage.

No home-field advantage in Chicago- no sir. Nope.

Though Cutler made the Pro Bowl, he finished 16th in quarterback rating, behind Seneca Wallace and Shaun Hill,

Who I think we can all agree are both better than Cutler.

while throwing 18 interceptions, second-worst in the league.

On 600+ attempts, often trying to lead Denver to victory from behind because of their shitpile of a defense.

Cutler's high school team was 15-0 when he was a senior; since then, in college and the pros, he's 28-55 as a starter.

How dare he not win at Vanderbilt! Everyone wins at Vanderbilt. I believe they're colloquially known as "the Northwestern Wildcats of the SEC."

For seven consecutive seasons, Cutler has not been a winner -- while becoming a guy who cares about his stats and complains nonstop about the treatment he is receiving.

Get rich quick scheme: replace "seven" with "thirteen;" replace "Cutler" with "Alex Rodriguez;" submit to FoxSports.com; accept job as baseball writer; profit.

TMQ thinks the Broncos will be seen as coming out way ahead in this trade. Way behind? The Redskins, who publicly undercut quarterback Jason Campbell by trying to trade him and draft choices for Cutler, only to have the world find out the Broncos would rather have the workmanlike Orton.

"Workmanlike." "Gritty." "Erstadian." They all sound nice.

Like Cutler, Campbell is 17-20 as a starter -- yet Cutler is constantly praised and Campbell constantly criticized.

If you think Jason Campbell is anywhere near as good as Jay Cutler, I encourage you to move to Mongolia and not ever watch sports again.

Yet Campbell was the one who played behind a terrible offensive line last season, while Cutler was protected by one of football's best pair of tackles.

A fair point; but remember when Gregg was shitting on Denver's chances of doing anything useful with its two first round picks this year? Hmmm... I wonder where their left tackle came from? Surely he wasn't a first round pick- Denver only drafts busts, like the still well-remembered Dan Williams, in the first round.

Next Week: TMQ's plan to grade the draft interrupted when honor-code violations are discovered in fifth round.

Yeah... what?

The World Series: It Isn't Broke, But Idiots Want to Fix It

So you might have heard, somewhere in between all the real sports news: the World Series was delayed by rain. First time in a hundred years.

Cue the idiot sportswriters.

WRITER #1: MIKE FREEMAN, Sportsline.com

In which Mike Freeman Complains about The Lack of Storylines

This is the 2008 version of the White Sox-Astros, Tigers-Cardinals and Marlins-Indians. In other words, gentlemen, start your Xanax.

I actually kind of liked the joke. Really, though - I think Freeman's bitching about big-market teams not being in the World Series. Which seems to me to be kind of stupid.

It's possible this could end up as the lowest-rated and least-watched World Series in modern history. Ratings gold, baby.

Who the fuck CARES if no one watches? If the millions of idiot Red Sox fans and idiot Dodgers fans and idiot Cubs fans and idiot Yankees fans aren't watching... I'm pretty sure that's a good thing.

What real baseball fan cares about the ratings? In fact, what human being cares about the ratings? It's like Mike Freeman wants to turn the World Series into the goddamn Super Bowl. What I hate most about the goddamn sportswriters is that they're so goddamn phony. They talk about all the great underdog stories like they're the goddamn ducks on the pond and they finally make it to the World Series and nobody cares.

This is nothing against the two franchises themselves. There are plenty of good folks in those clubhouses and front offices. There'll also be some stars on display when the series begins this week. The Rays are a good story and the perennially losing Phillies aren't bad either. But that's it. There's absolutely nothing else compelling about this series.

There's the fact that it's the World Series. I'm sorry there aren't any steroids or Hank Steinbrenners or PettiteGH or BizzOzzie Guillen or Steve Garvey sleeping with someone's mom. It's still the WORLD SERIES.

The biggest problem is the lack of a villain. Boston would have filled that role perfectly as the Patriots did in the Super Bowl last year. But what can you hate about either of these teams?

Interesting point, Mike, suggesting that the series lacks definition because neither team takes a binary opposition. How Lacanian; non-definition breeding aimlessness, CAN'T YOU SEE WE'RE AT LADIES?

Later...
You're all phonies because you know I'm right.
You're like the writer who went to Hollywood to write good sports stories and now he writes as a National Writer for Sportsline and you drive around in your sports car and nobody reads your actually good stuff about your secret goldfish.

WRITER #2: JEFF PASSAN, YAHOO! SPORTS

Here is a picture of Jeff Passan:
Critique #1: the all-caps EXCLUSIVE at the bottom which means that Yahoo! sports is the ONLY PLACE YOU CAN GO to get your JEFF PASSAN FIX.

I never worked hard enough to get me a marketing degree from one of them there universities, but it seems like "exclusive" is only a useful marketing tool if you have a brand actually worth marketing. Jeff Passan Brand Sports Journalism is like Yugo Brand Automobiles, exclusively available in the Chicagoland Area Larry B Imported Cars dealership!

Critique #2: This picture of Jeff Passan, though small and somewhat pixelated, could easily be mistaken for one of the pictures on this site.

Now: on to his actual writing: "Baseball's Crown Event is Beyond Repair

Overly hyperbolic title. The World Series once got canceled by a strike. A fucking rainout isn't going to make it beyond repair.

This World Series is beyond salvaging.

False.

It is a disaster borne of people who think cowbells and haircuts make them fans,

You're nobody to lecture on personal appearance.

owners so greedy they accept late-October baseball and late-evening start times,

A charge which you offer no solution for.

and a commissioner who unilaterally changes a rule while he’s carrying the book in his left hand.

A change which everyone in the inhabited (and uninhabited) universe recognizes as a necessary and intelligent change to make.

Game 5 is suspended. Rain washed through Citizens Bank Park from the beginning of the Philadelphia Phillies' potential championship clincher to the sixth inning, when the Tampa Bay Rays tied the score 2-2. The game is supposed to resume Wednesday night. It is on Mother Nature, which is a good thing, because if it were up to the baseball gods, they would smite the series before it could continue any longer.

Baseball gods don't exist. And if there were baseball gods, they would be more likely to listen to me than to you.

...
Re: the decision to start game 4:
The conditions were fine for playing. It’s just that the entire country was in its REM cycle, baseball hardly a competitor for sleep.

So here, Jeff Passan complains that baseball made a decision that was counter to getting higher ratings in order to complete the Series on time. This might have made sense, especially considering that the Phillies' fans might have flown halfway across the country to go to this one game. But no - the people IN the stadium don't count!

Later:
Such is the norm, too, with the 8:30 p.m. start times now typical for World Series games – and the remainder of the postponement, which will begin at 8 p.m. Thank MLB again for that. It got into bed with Fox for a long-term $3 billion deal. Fox requested a later first pitch. MLB obliged. The guys in suits win. The kids with hats and genuine interest in the game, and not the green it generates, lose.

I actually kind of like his point. Screw the networks. But here's the thing, Jeff: you can't bitch about MLB starting a game REALLY late because nobody can watch it, but then also bitch about MLB starting a little later so that people CAN watch it.

You can't have your hair-gel and eat it too, Jeff.

When two teams get together, no matter the size of the market or depth of the history, and play a to-the-max series with the requisite drama that accompanies a great matchup, it is magic. Baseball doesn’t need the Yankees or Red Sox. Minnesota and Atlanta did just fine in 1991.

Please tell this to Mike Freeman.

And that, actually, is the only thing that can turn this debacle around and help MLB avoid it being the Rain Series or the Delay Series or the Atrociously Umpired Series or the Series No One Cared About.

Every single memorable world series has to do with the spectacular plays on the field, and nothing to do with MLB decisions. 1960? Oh, that was because MLB set up the greatest and most dramatic upset ever! 2001? Oh, that must have been MLB setting the Yankees up to lose.

Series get Proper Names because of the baseball. Other than deliberately telling fans to pull Maiers or Bartmans, it's hard for the big brass to add intrigue. That's the players' jobs.

The questions crossing everyone’s mind Monday night were how to keep weather from so adversely affecting the biggest games of the year. Shorten the regular season? No chance the owners would lose the revenue.

No chance fans would want this either. What an idiotic solution, and Jeff Passan's such a two-faced moron for suggesting that only the owners' greed would shoot this down. Every respectable fan (especially the ones who recognized the endless * battle that happened LAST time they changed the length of the season) recognizes that this is not a solution. 162 is fucking sacred, man.

Do it by playing doubleheaders every other Saturday, shaving nearly two weeks from the season? Again, revenue would lag, and the players’ union almost certainly would say no.

Do we really need to reschedule the entire season just because one game - the first time in a hundred years? No... you're just a hand-wringing space-filler.

Schedule a neutral-site World Series? No thanks.

Wow, Jeff! We agree! (This, by the way, is about the stupidest solution to the "problem" I've heard).

Sometimes, nothing can save baseball from itself. Not even global warming.

Sometimes, baseball doesn't need to be saved.

But baseball journalism sure does, and that's why we're here!

Best Title I Could Come Up With: Jemele Hill Flat Out Sucks at Writing About Sports

After more than a year at this blogowebpage, I'm starting to feel like I can assign specific adjectives to some of the writers we most frequently critique. When I think Mariotti, I think "ignorant." When I think Simmons, I think "obnoxious." And when I think Jemele Hill, it gets simpler: I think bad. She's terrible. She's just... fucking awful. I'm not linking the article. It's her most recent as of Sunday night.

More than a week has passed since the Boston Celtics won the NBA championship, and I've been patiently waiting for someone to point out the obvious.

Well, you're the sportswriter with the national audience. Maybe some dude in a bar in North Dakota made whatever point you're looking for, but it's unlikely more than six people heard him. Why don't you go out on a limb and take care of this big announcement yourself?

Fine, let me be the bearer of bad news.

Great. Glad you finally gave in.

The Western Conference is overrated.

That's it? That's your big point? Let's count the ways in which that is dumb and/or wrong.

1) Arguments about which conference/league/division is tougher or better than its counterparts are lame and pointless to begin with except in very special circumstances. (I'm honestly not sure I can make it through another college football season with this bullshit as the backdrop/main talking point. I might just have to take a fall off and hope that people find something else to yammer about by 2009. Yes, SEC, you have a lot of good teams. We get it. Go fuck yourselves.) Of course, assuming you buy into that like I do, much of this post immediately becomes very ironic. I already thought about that and I'm OK with it.

2) Six games between two teams, in the context of conference superiority, means nothing.

3) Not that it matters, see point 1, but it was pretty obvious that the Western Conference was a lot better than the Eastern Conference this year. The West was 66 games over .500 in matchups between the two. That's an enormous advantage. Yes, the Celtics were perhaps the best overall team in the league. (I still maintain that the Spurs or Jazz would beat them in the finals more than half the time, but whatever.) That, however, does not make the East better. Was the WAC better than the Big 12 because Boise State beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl? Was the NL better than the AL because the Cardinals beat the Tigers in the World Series? No, and no. Unless you're Jemele Hill, in which case: yes, and definitely, because you have a tiny brain.

The basketball certainly is entertaining. The Phoenix-San Antonio opening-round series was better than any of this year's NCAA tournament games.

It went a mere five games, and was never in question after the 1st quarter of game three. So... no. There were probably like ten March Madness games that most people would consider "better" than that series, regardless of how cool games one and two were. You sound like JA Adande.

And if I had been told I could attend only one NBA game this season, I'm positive I would have picked a Western Conference matchup.

But winning and entertaining are two different things.

Very true. And all season long, the West ran the East's collective ass up and down the court, winning 57% of the games they played against each other.

All season long, and especially during the playoffs, we heard nonstop about how much better the Western Conference is than the Eastern Conference.

If this is true, and I don't think the part about hearing it "especially" during the playoffs is, that's probably because every playoff team in the West won at least 50 games while the East sported just three 50 win teams (and one playoff team that as eight games under .500). Seems fair.

But if that's true, why has the East won three of the past five NBA championships?

This is perhaps the stupidest sentence in the whole article. Again, let's use a list to specify why:

1) Small sample size means the finals aren't indicative of much in terms of relative conference strength

2) I must have forgotten something, isn't this article about the 2007-2008 season?

3) Since in Jemele's mind it obviously isn't, I think we might as well point out that the West has won seven of the past ten titles

4) Oh wait- that makes no fucking sense; why does the fact that Detroit beat LA four years ago make the West overrated now?

5) Think about that for a second. Jemele wants you to believe that, contrary to popular belief, the West is not better than the East right now. Why? In part, because Detriot beat LA in the finals in 2004.

6) Wow.

(And when you consider the Pistons-Spurs series in 2005 lasted seven games, the East easily could have been winners of four of the past five.)

Nevermind about that last sentence being the dumbest in the article. Hey, if the Lakers don't blow that huge lead in game four of this finals, it goes seven, and you never know what can happen in a game seven. And if the refs hadn't stolen the 2006 series from the Mavs, they might have won it. So it's really the West that could have won four of the past five.

We're so fond of the style of play in the West, we've given the conference a free pass for how its teams have recently failed to show up in the NBA Finals.

The Lakers sort of showed up this year. (Not so much in 2004, but again, that was five finals ago.) On the other hand, the Spurs have obviously shown up in each of their three recent appearances, and the Mavs definitely showed up in 2006. That was a damn good series. What are we talking about again?

The past few Western Conference teams in the Finals have had one very obvious character flaw:

They've been softer than John Daly's midsection.

Wow, how do you ruin a John Daly joke? That's difficult to do. The Spurs are the opposite of soft. That Mavs team was also not soft. So let's go ahead and take what happened this year, and extend it several years back without regard for reality or facts. Sounds great.

The Mavericks mentally shrunk against the Heat in 2006.

Few could blame them, given the way that series unfolded. (They also lost games 5 and 6 by one and three points respectively, FWIW.)

The Lakers were completely undressed by the Pistons in '04. And this year, reigning MVP Kobe Bryant and his sidekick, Pau Gau-soft, were punked by the Celtics.

This is the big, bad West?

Yeah, it is. The same West that has flat out torched the East in head to head play each of the last several years. (60 games over .500 in 2006-07, 55 games in 2005-06, 62 games in 2004-05)

It's often been argued that if you entered Western Team A into the Eastern Conference, it'd either win the conference outright or at least be among the the East's top teams. But after watching how the Celtics annihilated the Lakers, how can that possibly be true?

Insanity. Absolute insanity. No explanation needed. (Except for the part about people saying Team A would outright win the East, which would obviously be untrue. And I don't remember hearing it this past season from any analyst.)

In fact, a lot of the Western teams have major issues lurking behind those pretty 50-win records.

Just as a lot of Eastern mid-tier teams have major issues "lurking" behind their 35-45 win records.

Houston can't win a playoff series.

Apparently, if you use some kind of advanced math, their inability to succeed in the Western playoffs proves that they wouldn't be one of the better teams in the East. You know, I don't see anyone out East besides Boston, Detroit, or Cleveland winning a whole lot of playoff series either.

Utah can't win on the road.

They won 17 regular season games there this year. Besides Boston, Detroit, and Orlando, no Eastern team won more than 18. In 2006-07, their 20 road wins were more than every Eastern team except Detroit and Cleveland.

Denver doesn't play defense.

Just like Washington and Cleveland don't play offense.

Golden State can't get focused (and doesn't play defense).

The Indiana Pacers, the East's #9 team this year (as the Warriors were in the West): a pillar of focusedness. Thanks, Jamal Tinsley and Jermaine O'Neal!

Phoenix can't get past San Antonio (and doesn't always play defense).

Just as with the Houston situation, apparently the fact that they can't get past a Western team that's won three titles in the last six years means they wouldn't cut it out East.

New Orleans doesn't have enough pieces and is too inexperienced.

Hilarious and inaccurate anecdotal bullshit.

Dallas has yet to regain its confidence after losing to Miami in the Finals.

They have managed, however, to continue to win lots of games.

And San Antonio, the West's savior, is starting to get old.

OK, you got me there. Clearly they suck. And Boston and Detroit are a couple of spring chickens. No key players of 30 on either of those teams.

At least in the East, there's no pretending. When Eastern Conference teams stink, they make it obvious (see: the 76ers', Nets' and Cavaliers' Finals appearances).

This is a direct contradiction to pretty much everything you've written so far.

A team with 37 wins (Atlanta) and a team with 45 wins (Cleveland) pushed the Celtics to seven games -- something the mighty West's Lakers had no shot at doing.

Something they had no shot whatsoever at doing, unless of course they managed to not pull an epic collapse in game four and lose in the final minute. Yeah, they were really miles away from making it go seven.

Both Boston and Detroit had a better winning percentage against Western Conference teams this season than against teams in their own conference. But outside of Boston, very few people thought the Celtics had a chance against the Lakers.

Why?

Because Vegas is close to LA, and because everyone thought Kobe would carry the Lakers because recent history suggests that having the best individual player in a Finals will lead to victory. I don't think conference superiority was at the forefront of most people's minds. Maybe it was tucked somewhere in the back. Maybe.

Understand, this isn't an argument about which conference is deeper. Clearly the West wins that argument. Every Western playoff team won more than 50 games, while just three teams in the East accomplished that. Only four Western teams had a losing record against the East -- the SuperSonics, Clippers, Timberwolves and Grizzlies. Just four Eastern teams managed a winning record against the West.

(Larry B slaps holds head in hands, slowly shaking it back and forth)

That ship sailed the second you started writing this, Jemele. You weren't on it.

But despite those gaudy, imbalanced numbers, the East's recent dominance in the NBA Finals

Probably the loosest usage of "dominance" I've ever seen.

has earned its teams the right to tell everyone to be quiet about how great the West is.

I sure hope the Celtics' and Pistons' shoulders don't get too sore from carrying those other thirteen teams around in the context of that argument.

At the very least, there should be a moratorium on that crazy talk that the NBA playoff format should be changed so that teams with the top 16 records make the playoffs, regardless of conference.

So Jemele can even admit (like five sentences ago) that the West is deeper than the East. But she still calls for a moratorium on this idea, which has been proposed precisely to award the conference with more depth. Let's hear it for consistency.

Golden State last season against the five, count 'em, five Eastern playoff teams that finished with worse records than the Warriors: 8-2. Yeah, it would have been totally unfair to let them into the playoffs in front of the 37 win Hawks or 40 win Sixers.

Horrendous.

Why Bother Knowing Anything When You Can Just Make Stuff Up?

I don't have the energy to fully critique the already-commented-upon Bill Simmons/Chad Ford draft debate piece from ESPN. I can't really spare the time needed to properly address how bonkers it is to declare yourself the winner of an argument about the relative merits of two 19 year old NBA players when one of them hasn't even played a minute in the league. I also just don't think I can squeeze in any analysis about how miserable Bill Simmons is at writing jokes, or being consistent about what qualities he thinks make for a good player. (Chad actually covers that second topic for me pretty well, actually.) No, I won't be doing any of those things. And since the comments section on a Simmons piece usually doesn't really include a ton of discussion about the article at hand, I figure it's not a big deal if I make this post mildly short and sweet. I think I'll just focus on one thing: made up non-facts about teams/players that Bill seems to want us to believe are true.

Re: Derrick Rose

I loved Derrick Rose at first sight. He's a great and selfless teammate; he's a franchise point guard entering a league in which point guards have become inordinately valuable; he's got a great name (never underestimate the value of a great name); he was the best player on an extremely successful college team; and in short, after watching him a few times, I would have bet my life on him making multiple All-Star appearances (barring injury).

One of these things is very unlike the others. I like how's it stuck right there in the middle of all that relevant information. I think I will go ahead and underestimate the power of a great name, thank you very much. (Is "Derrick Rose" even that great, as names go?) Also, keep in mind that Rose was born on October 4th. Never underestimate the power of someone born on October 4th.

Re: What it takes

As the Celtics just proved, you can win a championship with two elite players and 10 role players as long as (a) everyone busts their butts on defense, (b) everyone gets along, and (c) you have at least two guys who can get into the paint and create shots for everyone else.

First of all, Bill, don't forget (as you yourself pointed out numerous times before and throughout the playoffs!) that you need a magical, uberinformed, never bandwagony, always ready to take the team to another level kind of crowd if you want to win it all. Also, assuming Pierce and Garnett were the elite players, are we now relegating Ray Allen to "role player" status? In reality, the Celtics just proved you can win a championship as long as (a) you have three elite or near-elite players, which is obviously really easy to do in today's NBA, (b) a couple other elite defenders/rebounders, (c) everyone busts their butt on defense, (d) you get to spend the first three rounds of the playoffs limping through a pathetically shitty conference, and (e) when the finals roll around you match up perfectly with your opponent who managed to make it out of a vastly superior conference that contained at least three other teams that would have absolutely fed you your shit in the finals (PHX, SAN, UTH, yes, that's right, UTH).

Re: The Oden vs. Durant Debate (Like I said in the intro, I'm not covering the crux of it, because anyone with a brain can see how asinine Bill is being. This is more of a subpoint.)

I thought he (Durant) had a chance to become a truly dominant offensive player; I thought Oden was too nice of a guy; and I thought Oden was headed for a career of health problems.

That's right, Greg Oden, you hear that? You're too nice to win. Sorry. Good luck playing in the NBA with all that niceness you're carrying. Wait... what's that? There are many great nice players, and many awful mean players? Poppycock.

If Kevin Pritchard called Sam Presti right now and said, "Hey, we'll give you Oden for Durant," Presti would either hang up or ask him, "What else are you throwing in the deal?"

Sure, because Oden is rehabbing from a major surgery. On the other hand, if the Blazers had called the Sonics the day after the draft, and said "Hey, we'll give you Oden for Durant," before Presti could say anything, Pritchard would shout "SIKE" and then hang up.

Do you really think Oden -- the guy who's coming off microfracture surgery and wrist surgery in consecutive years, the guy who has one leg that's an inch and a half shorter than the other, the guy who walks like a 50-year-old man -- has more value in the NBA than the 2008 rookie of the year?

Watch out for that old man walk. It's derailed many a career. Like Dan Bobertson. Who? Exactly.

Re: The plight of Kevin Durant, and Bill's amazing ability to know what entire fan bases are thinking

The fact that the Sonics' fans fell in love with him when they were specifically trying NOT to get attached to him tells me everything I need to know.

Yeah, I read all about how Sonics fans were specifically trying to not get attached to Durant. Articles upon articles, with polling information and quotes. Plenty of them. What a big, accurate story that was. You know what else is 100% verifiably true? No one in New York likes Alex Rodriguez. No one. They were all hoping he'd leave after he opted out of his contract.

Re: Michael Beasley

He doesn't seem to have any leadership qualities whatsoever.

This is based on Bill watching the Wildcats' two games during the NCAA tournament last March, seeing him not carry them to the Final Four, and also noting that he doesn't give everyone on the team a high five after every time out.

Re: Beasley vs. Durant

Beasley has a chance to become a dominant offensive player, someone who could notch a 25-10 every game and get drafted in the first rounds of fantasy drafts for eight to 10 years. Durant has a chance to become one of the greatest offensive players in the history of basketball. Huge difference.

Bill can discern this subtle difference based on the relative need of the Celtics to land marquee players during the draft in which the player is going to be selected. If the Celtics have a good chance at landing a very high pick and taking the player, it's a foregone conclusion that the player will forever change the way we think about basketball. If the Celtics are coming off a championship and aren't anywhere near the lottery, the player will forever be a one dimensional team killer who is on his way out of the league by age 30.

Re: Kevin Love

He'll like Minnesota;

(pause) Where the fuck did that come from?

You know what you're getting with Love: intelligence, rebounding, superior passing, smart team defense, 3-point shooting...

He shot 35% from behind the college arc, which is mediocre and probably won't translate to a good NBA 3, and furthermore he only made less than one 3 per game in college. (He was 29 for 82 for the season.) If an NBA team drafted Love and counted on him to provide them with some production from beyond the arc, that would be incredibly stupid. Of course, that imaginary misinformed team probably could have avoided that mistake by hiring a VP of common sense. I hear Bill is available.

Re: Russell Westbrook

In New York, the pressure would be too much -- between Mike D., the Knicks fans and the media, not to mention Stephon Marbury undermining him, everything about that scenario worries me.

1) Clearly Bill knows Russell and therefore knows that he's a guy who just can't handle pressure, especially from the notoriously mean spirited Mike D'Antoni.
2) Since Russell didn't play basketball for a big time college program that attracts a lot of media scrutiny and criticism, we don't have any way to judge how he would handle a similar situation in the NBA.

Re: Blaming it on the rain

There isn't a more jinxed franchise in sports than the L.A. Clippers. There really isn't.

Yeah, I mean, they've sustained a whole one notable injury (Shaun Livingston, whose magical spaghetti knee prompted this comment) in the last twenty years while consistently making horrific personnel and coaching decisions. If that's not jinxed, I don't know what is.

Re: Darrell Arthur

...and if you remember, Arthur made an absolutely mammoth hoop when KU was down five in the final minute of regulation against Memphis. So if you're going glass-half-full, you could argue that he brought something to the table in a do-or-die moment.

Darrell Arthur: the David Eckstein of the Big 12. (Actually, no sarcasm, he probably won't end up being as good at pro basketball as Eckstein is at pro baseball. Which is saying something.)

Re: Did the Shaq trade hurt or help the Suns' playoff chances?

So you're telling me that Shawn Marion -- an enigmatic head case who was legitimately happy to leave Steve Nash and the top team in the Western Conference so he could play with Ricky Davis and Mark Blount on the worst team in the league -- now would have swung the 2008 playoffs?

I'll just steal Chad's response, verbatim: Yeah, I'm saying that. Marion can play. Shaq can't.

Re: Roy Hibbert

He's the most undervalued guy in a draft in which nearly everyone is properly valued.

Hibbert is going to have a very short and useless NBA career, in my opinion. I say this based on watching him play my Big East school several times, and noting that he wasn't anywhere close to an offensive threat in college. But my disagreement with Bill about his viability in the league isn't the real problem:

Also, I can never turn down a guy named "Roy." Have you ever met a Roy who wasn't absolutely fantastic?

Fuck. Not again. And I'd like to add that I used to have a neighbor named Roy growing up who was a mean old guy who never bought any of the stuff I was selling for school fundraisers. I would count him as decidedly unfantastic.

Re: Really simple trades that only don't happen because all NBA GMs are pussies

By the way, tell me who doesn't make this trade: Outlaw, Channing Frye, the rights to Fernandez, the No. 13 and $3 million for Conley, Brian Cardinal and No. 5. Just curious.

You're a lost cause.

Three Columns Into His ESPN Tenure, Rick Reilly Begins Producing Mindless Drivel

The first article he wrote for his new employer? About his dad's alcoholism. Ok, fine. There are some things that even I won't jump on. His second article? A boring but reasonable plea for golf fans to cheer for Phil Mickelson over Tiger Woods during the U.S. Open. (It bothered me a little because of its Yankees-or-Red-Sox-and-no-one-else dichotomized type of approach to fandom; what if I want to cheer for someone besides those two? Whatever.)

But his third? Let's just say it's the kind of garbage I expect him to be writing at the WWL for years to come. In fact, it's worse than garbage; it's in the same vein as what someone like Nancy Grace does. You know, a news story that's totally and utterly meaningless, but contains a shocking/offensive/tragic element, thereby making it effective for sucking in the self-righteous masses. Oh my goodness! Someone did something bad! Doesn't that make you feel good about yourself? Not only would you never do this, but better still, you have an accurate moral compass that tells you these people are bad! Thanks, Rick/Nancy. Without you I would've never been exposed to stories like the one I'm about to unveil, and would subsequently not feel nearly as good about myself as I do for simply being less of an asshole than most.

Sigh. Fucking people. Anyways-

Brushing back a batter? OK. But this? You have to be kidding.

Get ready to be shocked and appalled, people.

You've heard of Kill the Ump, Lynch the Ump, and Strangle the Ump, right?

I'm going to open myself up to criticism here- I played organized baseball for 14 years, and I have no fucking idea what that is. But go on.

Well, get ready for the latest thing—Bean the Ump.

It happened on May 31 in the Georgia high school Class AAA championship game. Stephens County was losing to Cartersville 9-1 early, partly because nine straight SCHS batters had struck out. The last ring-up so hacked off superstar shortstop Ethan Martin—who had just been drafted 15th overall by the Dodgers—that he threw his helmet in protest.

My goodness- Scandal!

But that figured. Martin and his brother, Cody, who was pitching, reportedly had been complaining about balls and strikes the entire game.

What a fucking setup. Thanks, Rick, for telling me in advance who the villains are. You know, this is exactly what Nancy Grace and other bottom feeders of her ilk do. They're constantly hoping to invoke a reaction out of you along the lines of: "I'll tell you one thing right now- it sounds like those boys weren't raised right! If I had been their parent, you'd better believe they would have learned some respect. This whole country is going to hell in a handbasket. You know what's to blame? Violent video games, that's what."

Honestly. Fucking people.

OK. Sorry.

So now it's the bottom of the fourth, with Ethan playing short and Cody on the mound. The catcher is Matt Hill. There are no outs. The count is 0-1. Cody winds up and flings a very high, very hard fastball. Hill comes out of his squat, puts his glove up to catch it, then does a very funny thing.

He doesn't.

Instead, the YouTube video will show, he drops to his knees before the ball gets to him. Doesn't even try to catch it. Just flops to his knees, with his head looking down at the plate. Never looks up or back. The ball, meanwhile, conks umpire Jeff Scott square in the face mask. Rocks him back. Then squirts up the third-base line.

Yup, that's a good synopsis of what happened. That catcher is pretty much the worst actor of all time, and obviously the pitcher or whoever told him to do that is a little bit crazy.

But here's the thing about this incident- IT'S NOT RELEVANT. It's a story about a few shitdick kids who don't know how to control their anger. Off-the-field variations of this incident happen all over the country, 24 hours a day. Kids vandalize shit. They steal shit. They break shit. They assault people. They do unspeakable things because they don't see any other way to deal with their problems. But it's not newsworthy. The fact that ESPN considers it to be so is a sign of the times and a reflection of a tiny-brained audience. It's not a correct or appropriate decision.

Look, if I were writing a graduate thesis about unhealthy attitudes taken by some kids towards sports these days, or about odd examples of juvenile delinquency, this is the kind of incident I'd want to learn about. If enough investigation goes into the matter to draw some significant conclusions about the circumstances that caused it, I'd hope you could read about it in some kind of scholarly journal or something. But... I'm not writing that made up graduate thesis. I'm just a sports fan, who came to this sports site hoping to read an article about something relevant happening in the world of sports today.

I'm not picky. I don't care if it's a heartwarmingly sappy human interest piece. I don't care if it's about a sport most people ignore, like bowling or sailing or pole vaulting. Fuck it- I don't even care if it's about the Celtics or Red Sox. Just don't show me something that belongs in a fucking tabloid. Stop trying to titillate me with stories of people behaving badly and show me something that's primarily focused on, you know, SPORTS.

Jiminy fucking Christmas. It's never easy, is it?

Scott Singer, who videotaped the game from behind the plate, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "I don't know what was going through their heads but … it's like, good god!"

Good God indeed! Scott, you've played directly into the media's hand on this one. That's pretty much what they needed you to say, in order to invoke an identical reaction from their readers. I'm very disappointed in you. If you actually had a brain and a pair of balls, you would've told the reporter something like "What really offends me is how poorly the catcher tried to play it off. Jesus, who did he think he was going to fool?" or "Hey, the ump had it coming." Better yet, "I think it's pretty obvious that those kids are assholes. But really, do you need to be writing a story about this? Isn't there some news going on somewhere that needs to be covered?"

After the game, Hill explained that he'd been expecting a curveball, instead got a fastball and just didn't catch it.

Yeah, surrrre. I used to catch a little. Happens all the time. You're expecting a curveball and instead you get a fastball so you say, "Boy, didn't see that coming. I'll just drop to my knees and wait for the next one."

Yeah, actually, that does happen. But not in the way you see in the video. Even when Rick's right, he's wrong.

What's worse is that Hill's coach, Mark Gosnell, believed him! Right, Coach. And remember that time you found the school mascot tied up in a locker with a sock in his mouth? That was definitely terrorists.

Wow. Hey Rick- not to shit too messily on your embarrassingly bad joke, but this is not a PG-rated Disney comedy about how a ragtag band of unathletic misfits beat the well-coached and heavily favored varsity baseball team in a competition to see who would get to represent the school in the state tournament. (The reason I'm making this clarification is because that's the only situation I can imagine in which someone would bind and gag a school mascot, shove him/her into a locker, and then blame the incident on terrorism.)

If indeed this was premeditated—take a look for yourself and decide—then maybe Cody Martin should be drafted too. Say what you want, but that's pretty good aim.

Anyway, now the ump has to get back behind noncatcher Hill, who may very well have just schemed to remove his noggin from his neck. Wouldn't you have loved to have heard the conversation as they awaited the next pitch?

Ump: Uh, any chance you might catch this one, or should I duck now?

Hill: Depends. Is it going to be a strike?

I guess Rick was being honest in his chat last week when he insisted that he and Bill Simmons were getting along just fine. Apparently Bill's writing jokes for him.

Isn't it enough for an umpire to endure all the blind jokes—Hey, ump, what's it like to get your checks in Braille?—without two players actually trying to blind him?

If you want to hear an awkward, douchechilly silence, just go to a baseball game and shout "Hey ump, what's it like to get your checks in Braille?"

Cartersville wound up winning the game 13-1, and when state athletic officials saw the tape, they snapped. "The catcher did not intend to catch the pitch," says Ralph Swearngin, executive director of the Georgia High School Association. "I didn't see the eyes of the catcher tracking the pitch." He put Stephens County on "severe warning" and fined it $1,000.

Now Rick/Nancy is turning the story. Up until this point, they've wanted us to be worried that whatever criminals they've been talking about were going to get away with whatever it was they did. You're supposed to be on the edge of your seat- are you? Oh my goodness! Please don't tell me this awful act went unpunished!

Then some payback came for Hill, who was planning to walk on at Gordon College in Barnesville, Ga., next season. He got the word from Gordon coach Travis McClanahan, who said, Forget it, we don't want you. "I've seen catchers get crossed up before," says McClanahan. "But he appeared to be blocking a curveball in the dirt. I was shocked. I've never seen that happen. I've never heard of a player even suggesting doing that."

And NOW comes the part that really gives the reader the warm fuzzies. You like that, don't you? Good has triumphed over evil. Better than that- like I already mentioned, the reader gets to feel like they're a good person because they saw what the bad person did and that the bad person got punished.

I bet Hill didn't see that one coming. Don't know, though, since neither Hill nor Martin is talking.

As for umpire Scott, he had a headache after the game and went for an MRI. Then he decided to get himself a lawyer. And I'm guessing there are two things that lawyer is checking out: the health of his client and the health of Hill's dad's wallet.

Awesome. A lawsuit. God bless America. I hope the judge throws a baseball at Scott's face when he arrives at court for his first hearing.

Good god, what's becoming of us?

Track star: Well, yeah, I've always hated that official, but I sure didn't mean for my javelin to go right through his spleen like that!

Announcer: But you're a sprinter.

See, because a sprinter would normally not have access to javelins, nor would they be throwing them for any reason. I'm going to re-write a better punchline for this joke. Here goes: Sprinter? I hardly know her!

I hope Scott does ask for damages, and that the players have to pay in a way they'll never forget: by being forced to umpire Little League games. They'll be amazed how vile parental vocabulary can be, how far little brothers can spit and how many pitched balls wind up hitting them in the thorax.

But at least the 8-year-olds won't be doing it on purpose.

That's deep, man. I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Rick Reilly has won like a million awards for his writing. With conclusions like that one, you can see why.

Sometimes I wonder if, in the course of writing this blog, I get too tied up in obviously horrible writing like this. I mean, people like Simmons, Jemele Hill, Gene Wojceichowski, Reilly... everyone knows they suck. They're low-hanging fruit. There's no real challenge in picking them apart. Even the least discerning of our readers should be able to see without much help why most of what they write sucks. I mean, maybe I should spend more time finding articles with a little more depth to their awfulness. There are plenty of writers out there who actually have a decent grasp on their subject matter but still produce work that deserves to be criticized. I've done it before, and it's felt pretty rewarding. For every Bill Simmons, there are three baseball writers who think stolen bases are more important than walks and three football writers who don't understand that an offense depends on more than a quarterback. Yeah, maybe I should make fun of more stuff like that!

At least, that's what I say to myself about once a month. Shortly thereafter, I'll casually surf over to ESPN.com and check out what's linked on the front page. Something like this Reilly article will come up. And I'll realize that my intentions to branch out are, well, nothing more than intentions. As long as Reilly/Wojceichowski/Simmons/Hill keep doing what they've been doing, I'm not going to be able to change a damn thing about how I blog.

Maybe that's the way it should be.

(Did you like the format of my conclusion? Guess who I stole it from!)

Speaking of Bill Simmons

ESPN is now running a simple 5 second promo advertising The Sport Guy's work on their website and ESPN360. After what I'm sure was hours of brainstorming and debate, here's the slogan they decided to use for the spot-

"It's like watching sports with your best friend- if your best friend knew what he was talking about!"

Things Bill thinks, as advertised in his own columns:

-Excessive use of the serve and volley tactic makes tennis today less interesting
-Only in Boston do professional athletes attend local sporting events (besides the ones they're playing in)
-The quality of starting pitching in the AL would be worse in 2008 than 2007 because young starters like Felix Hernandez are on strict pitch counts
-Greg Oden will not be any good in the NBA because he walks oddly
-It's harder to be a fan of a team that wins a lot and then stops winning, than to be a fan of a team that never wins at all
-It's been settled- Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning
-There just aren't any good real life sports villains these days

Nice slogan, ESPN.

Oh, and one last time, I would like to extend sincere thanks to the 2007 New York Giants. I honestly don't know where I would be right now if not for you guys.

Sportscaster Says [X] On Air, Later Clarifies That He Didn't Actually Say [X]

I was about to preface this post with a protracted discussion about two massive problems affecting the world of celebrity today. On one hand, almost anything a famous person (even a local baseball broadcaster; I'm counting them as celebrity because they have access to audiences of millions) does can be unfairly and wrongly taken as offensive by nearly any person or group of people. But on the other hand, because celebrities have to half-heartedly apologize for stupid shit all the time, when it comes time for them to either make a legitimate apology or at least own up to something controversial that they said, they're completely unable to do so. Yup, I was going to spend like six paragraphs talking about that subject. But fuck that noise. It was probably bad enough for me to include even that brief summary in the post. Let me just tell you about this thing I heard that I feel is worth mentioning on this blog.

That second problem described above, regarding being unable to either apologize for a legitimately offensive statement or own up to it and defend it as controversial but appropriate, happened two nights ago in Kansas City. Said Royals broadcaster Ryan LeFebvre of visiting Rangers Josh Hamilton and Milton Bradley: (quote is pulled off Sportscenter audio and is 100% accurate)

Here's a guy (Hamilton), with all the troubles he's had, has shown that if you work at it you can get your life back in order. And that would be a pretty good role model for Milton Bradley, who clearly has no control over himself, because it's the same thing year after year. This game is... this country, really, if you follow baseball, has really embraced Josh Hamilton. And I think they've wanted to do the same with Milton Bradley. But Milton Bradley has refused to allow himself to be put in that position.

Now, let me add a brief but obvious disclaimer before I come to my long overdue conclusion: I'm not here to defend Milton Bradley. As far as pro athletes go, he seems like a grade-A shithead. He's done almost nothing in his career to convince me that he's not an awful teammate. I'm not sure what kind of person he is outside of baseball, but if the hotheadedness he shows there translates over to his personal life (and fairly or not, I assume it does to some extent), he's probably not a great guy to hang around with.

There, I'm done. That was mean, wasn't it? Sure. But I'll stand by it. I'd say it to Bradley's face, as long as there was someone in the room to prevent him from beating me mercilessly. And that's what make me different than Ryan LeFebvre, because according to Sportscenter, you know what he said about those comments when later asked about them? Apparently he "wasn't singling out Bradley" and "wasn't ripping him."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Read the original monolouge again, and let me know if I'm taking crazy pills here. Is that not the very definition of singling someone out, and, although not very maliciously, also close to the definition of ripping someone? Now you probably see why I wanted to write that intro. And now we come full circle to the end of the most cumbersome post in this (or maybe any) blog's existence. LeFebvre, in my mind, had two options once what he said became an issue and required further comment:

He could have A) apologized to Bradley and said he didn't mean to come across so harsh or without provocation. He didn't have to do this, of course. His original comments weren't really harsh enough to warrant it. But had he wanted to, he could have apologized, and it wouldn't have been weird or anything.

OR, he could have B) owned up to what he said and reaffirmed it. He could have simply said he was stating his opinion on the matter based on everything he's ever seen out of Bradley, and that while it's not the end of the world, it seems like Bradley is a troubled guy with some anger issues. There, that's not that hard, is it? Although it might have the fallout of causing Bradley to follow LeFebvre to his car one night and cave in LeFebvre's head with a bat, it's still an acceptable way to respond to the situation.

Is it really that hard to do one of those two things? Apparently so, because instead of either of them LeFebvre just decided to punk out and tell a bald-faced lie to a scandalously interested national audience. "Hey, I know I was singling out Milton Bradley and kind of ripping him, but I want you all to know that I wasn't singling him out or ripping him. Just thought I'd clear the air on that." OK, buddy. Whatever you say. Jeebus- give me a fucking break. What is this world coming to?

I know, I know, this post stinks. Sorry. Listen, all I ask is that if you leave a comment telling me this post sucks, and later on someone asks you "Hey, didn't you tell Larry B earlier today that his post stunk?", don't deny it.

Hey, Want To Read Some Jackass's 6,000 Word History Lesson About How Boston Changed Between 1998 and 2008?

Of course you don't. So avoid Bill Simmons's latest column. Here's what you need to know- back then it was full of racists, and now it's full of racists who are really excited about their local sports franchises. Anyways, in keeping with the spirit of this blog's unwritten policy that I must complain about Simmons's misconceptions about the uniqueness of Boston's fan base at least once every four hours, here's the most preposterous section of the article:

That's a phenomenon unique to this particular city -- an unusually high level of fraternizing between the Red Sox, Celtics and Patriots that started a few years ago and eventually reached the point that players show up to support the other teams.

OK... listen, dickass. This is really becoming your "thing," isn't it? Always gotta slip it into your columns. Boy, Jay Mariotti's inability to realize that there is nothing special about July 2, 2006 doesn't have shit on Bill's inability to realize that this is the kind of thing that happens in every multi-sport city all the fucking time. Boston. Fans. Are. Not. Special. (Here's the most in-depth post I've ever made about the subject, but you don't have to look too hard to find dozens of other small examples scattered here and there.) Not even their athlete fans. How do I know this? Besides the fact that I'm not Bill Simmons, I've also seen or heard about Nuggets/Rockies/Avalanche/Broncos players attending each others' games since I can remember. And more recently I've experienced the same trend among Redskins/Capitals/Wizards/Nationals players. Now, Denver and DC are not exactly two cities known for their vibrant sports scene. The former is really just a town for binge drinkers and fitness nuts (what a juxtaposition!) while the latter tends to revolve around politics for some reason. So if players are showing up at each others' games in those cities, I'm very comfortable making the leap and assuming it's happening everywhere.

Now, there are two extra points I have to make to clarify my position.

1) Re: the context of Bill's comment, the list of Boston athletes/former athletes he cited as having been in attendance at Sunday night's Lakers/Celtics game was actually pretty impressive. Sort of. Bill Russell? Cool. (I hope he didn't get called the "n" word by the people in his section too much.) On the other hand, Coco Crisp and Antoine Walker? Whoop-de-balls. But it's certainly more impressive than a potential list of DC athletes/former athletes at a Nationals game on a Wednesday in May. You know why? Because the Boston list came from game two of the NBA Finals. And an absurdly-hyped and long-anticipated finals at that.

2) You know who was on Simmons's list, who I must concede might actually put Boston athletes over the top and convince me that they really are different and more special than other cities' athletes? That's right, the man with the diamond-encrusted 28" pecker himself... Tedy Bruschi. Bruschi! He's the founder and CEO of The United Way, UNICEF, and "Locks of Love!" Speaking of which, look at his hair! You've got an erection, don't you! Don't worry! That's normal! *Larry B trails off while making bad Bruschi jokes*

I Honestly, Legitimately Don't Know How I Feel About This Article

But it's definitely thought-provoking.

Well, I do know one thing I feel- this author is a little bit slow if he didn't know the Stanley Cup Finals were happening these past two weeks or that Justine Henin retired. Obviously those events didn't get much coverage, but they still got some coverage.

Anyways... other than that, I'm not sure what to think about it.

No! Readers! Come Back!

It's true, the Google Analytics don't lie. They're leaving this blog faster than Jerramy Stevens from a court-mandated AA meeting. Not too soon! Anyways, will they come back and start reading again if I do several Bill Simmons posts in a row? My guess is that they will, if only to let me know that I'm just a jealous hater and, come on, Simmons really isn't that bad. Sure, he used to be better, but I like his "every fan" perspective! Etc., etc. Yup. I can see it already. Eight comments, five of which are from anonymous/Anonymous and sound just like that.

Today he was lazy and did a chat, so I will in turn be lazy and pick on a handful of the most embarrassing questions he chose to print along with some criticisms of his own handiwork. As a change of pace I will not be complaining about the subject matter covered. Hey, his Celtics limped through the oh-so-powerful Eastern Conference and into the finals. He's earned the right to talk exclusively about them. As a non-change of pace, however, I will be pointing out a basic fact that Bill for whatever reason has so much difficulty grasping- Boston sports fans are no different than passionate fans from anywhere else. His inability to understand this might be the saddest thing about the guy.

Shane, Seoul Korea: Why is it that everyone....well at least most analysts on ESPN so convinced that the Lakers will roll over the Celtics. Considering most of them picked Detroit to win in 6 whats with the lack of respect?

To Simmons' credit, he answered that he didn't think a lack of respect had anything to do with it and it's just the fact that Kobe is playing so well that pushes analysts towards LA. I still felt like this was worth printing. A Celtics fan... is complaining... about a perceived lack of respect for his team... by ESPfuckingN, of all media outlets. It's a crazy world out there, I guess. If you look long enough, you can find people that are stupid enough to hold almost any opinion.

The irony here being that this is coming from a guy who doesn't feel like John Elway gets enough respect as one of the all time greats. Put him with Montana's supporting cast and he'd have six rings. Hey, I'm just saying is all. But Shane from Seoul is definitely stupider than me by several degrees of magnitude. Yes, Shane. ESPN totally hates the Celtics. You've got it figured out. When the playoffs started, their executives were praying for a Utah/Orlando finals so they could finally start covering teams that really draw in the viewers.

Rich (Bayonne, NJ): I hear you Bill, I am surrounded by Laker fans in NJ at both of my jobs! Laker fans are like Kobe, the biggest front runners in the league!!! Hey since you live in LA, do Laker fans arrive only 30 minutes after tip off instead of 45 minutes since it's the Finals!!!

I know he's just a reader and not a professional journalist, but hey Rich! Don't you know anything about punctuation! Like have you heard that if you ask a question you shouldn't end it with an exclamation mark! The real issue here, though, is the hilarious accusation of front runnerism from (presumably) a Celtic fan being leveled at Laker fans. Really? The Lakers? You know, one of the league's three most popular teams for the past several decades? I mean, if longtime Red Sox fans wanted to accuse Rockies fans of being front runners (or at least very fairweather) before last fall's World Series, they could definitely make a case. This, on the other hand, is butt-ass preposterous. They're the most popular franchise in the country's second largest city and have worldwide brand recognition. They're an extremely difficult ticket to grab on most nights and have been, again, for decades. Your team, on the other hand, couldn't even dream of selling out its own arena 14 months ago. You have a national fan base, and plenty of passionate lifelongers, but to point a finger at Laker fans... wow.

Bill Simmons: The Laker fans with good seats arrive in the second quarter or late in the first quarter. It's just a fact. They get a bad rap for their cheering during the game - they do know when to cheer and how to affect a game - but the tardiness is unacceptable.

Fair.

it's also worth mentioning that they booed their hero Kobe on Opening Night. Would the Boston fans have ever booed Bird in a million years?????????

Not fair. Because Bird was white.

Rick (LA): Don't forget all these "true" Boston fans chanted MVP for Kobe in the Garden last year...Boston fans the best in the world!

Bill Simmons: That story is NOT true. half the crowd for that game were Laker fans, those were the ones chanting. They were able to get tickets because the Celts were something like 12-40 at the time.

Nothing front-runnerish about that. And how many times has Bill's dad, the foremost authority on anything and everything related to the Celtics, complained about how hard it was to get rid of unwanted tickets last season? But that's not because Boston fans are to some degree front runnerish. It's because... wait for Bill's reasoning.

Chet (MA): and celtics fans aren't front runners? just look at the attendance last year compared to this year and it'll tell you all you need to know about celtics fans. you know what? you could say the same about all the boston teams if you look at the attendance before parcells for the patriots and the attendance before 1998 for the red sox.

Bill Simmons: Ridiculous. The Celtics fans were always there - it's just that it's freaking expensive to go to an NBA game, it's tough to shell out 75 bucks for a ticket to go watch Sebastian Telfair play point guard. The fans never left.

Oh. Really? Did they not? Also, notice that he didn't have a response to the Patriots and Red Sox accusations, the former of which is most definitely true.

Pat (Boston): Welcome to the spin/full denial zone. Someone presents you with facts about attendence and you just dismiss it with: "The fans never left" with a weak excuse that people cant afford $75 dollars? Gimme a break, I live in Beacon Hill and frequent "the Harp" and "the fours". Not only was there no one in the stadium, there was no one in the sports bars. Lemme guess, people just can't afford $3 dollar beers anymore?

Bill Simmons: In defense of the Celtics fans, the team was openly trying to lose games last year for Oden or Durant. Why would anyone go pay to see that?

Bill Simmons is taking crazy pills and delusional pills. There's nothing more that can be said about the situation. Look, no team is going to pack the house every night all season every season. No team is insulated from the effect its record has on attendance. But his continual insistence that Boston fans are somehow different and special can only be attributed to some kind of drug regimen at this point. (I liked his last chat session from about a month ago, when he assumed that Boston invented the "M-V-P! M-V-P!" chant. He was immediately rebuffed, but you could tell that until that happened, he legitimately just assumed it had originated there. I mean... why would it not? It's Boston, for fahk's sake.)

The numbers are right in front of you, douche. I don't care how fucking bad they were. The 2006-2007 Celtics finished 20th in the league in home attendance, 23rd in percentage of seats sold, 15th in road attendance and 20th in road percentage of seats sold. The 2007-2008 Celtics, on the other hand, were 12th in attendance (limited by the size of their arena), sold 100% of their seats, 1st in road attendance, and 1st in road percentage of seats sold. It's pretty crystal clear. That's a sign of a fan base that doesn't like to show up when their team isn't winning. Not that that's anything to be ashamed of! It's normal. Yankee Stadium isn't always packed to the gills. There are nights when you can get a seat to a Montreal Canadiens game pretty easily. Just don't go thinking your teams are any different. Unless they're a popular NFL team, they're always going to struggle to pull in capacity crowds when the team stinks.

Kyle (NC): You say Kobe's a jerkto his teammates...Didn't Bird call his teammates little girls after they lost a Finals game? All the things you're saying about Kobe, they used to say about MJ...A lot of the greats were sometimes jerks to their teammates.

Bill Simmons: True. And the next game, McHale put Rambis on his ass and we went on to win the series. Bird did it for motivation, Kobe did it because he's socially inept.

Bill Simmons, sports psychologist, is able to easily discern the subtle nuances that separate these two situations without even talking to either player.

Jake (DC): You can't win. You should have known this after however many years of marriage. Also, should/does the commissioner have any say in trades which are clearly made to help out old friends? I mean, doesn't that upset the competitive balance of the game while at the same rip the fans off? Something should be done about this...

Bill Simmons: The thing is, in both cases (KG trade and Gasol trade), it clearly helped the league as a whole. So nobody said anything. The interesting move would have been if the Spurs or Suns filed a lawsuit or tried to get an injunction on the basis that the Gasol trade was not fair and that other teams weren't given a chance to properly bid for him. Would have LOVED to have seen how that played out.

Dear Christ, I hope he's serious in thinking that that could actually happen. A whole new angle on the tininess of Bill's brain- honest belief that sports teams in this day and age would consider trying to go to court against other teams because of allegedly unfair trades. Fantastic. I really think the Bucs, Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots should file suit against the Chargers for not shopping Eli Manning's draft rights appropriately back in 2004.

Let's take a little look at a bit of homerism.

First this-

chapin (Boston, ma): Bill can you set the odds for PerkIsABeast.com's servers crashing after The Beast puts up 20 and 20 in game one? How do you think he will fair throughout this series?

Bill Simmons: Forgot to mention Perk as an enormous X-factor for this series. He was legitimately eye-opening in the Detroit series - nearly averaged a double-double and made some monster defensive plays. He's becoming the player we always wanted him to be.

Which is fine to say, until you respond to the exact same kind of sentiment from a Lakers fan about one of their players like this-

Renaldo (Los Angeles, CA): When are you going to admit you were wrong about Lamar Odom. The guy hit two game tying shots in game 4 of the Utah series, he hit all the clutch free throws in Game 4 of the Spurs series. The guy has been coming through

Bill Simmons: You're right, Lamar has proven himself - every question has been answered. The guy is an absolute sure thing in the Finals.

Like I said in my intro, nothing wrong with Bill being a homer in this context. It's just funny to notice.

Matt Walsh, From under some rock: Ok what if I said that I have a tape of the entire Patriots team clubbing baby seals. Would that keep me in the limelight for another week?

Bill Simmons: You're leading TMQ this week!

Easterbrook isn't due to write another column until August, but we can only hope he manages to squeeze in a little something extra in response to this.

Noam (NY, NY): Can we get a promise that after your inevitable finals and post-finals columns, we get a 2 week moratorium on columns that are about Boston sports teams (including veiled Boston team columns)? Maybe a column about having kids making somebody revert to writing only about their favorite teams?

Bill Simmons: I am doing my best not to over-Boston it... but come on, the Pats were the most written about team of this decade, the Sox won the World Series and the Celts just made the Finals. What do you wanyt from me?

We want you to write about other stuff more often. It's pretty simple. You don't have to ignore Boston. You just have to talk about them less, and other teams more. I promise the stories are out there. Really, they are.

I didn't write ONE Celtics column during the regular season... sure, it was because I didn't want to jinx them, but still.

1. That's incorrect.

2. Sure, there was only one true all-Celtics column, and it came pretty near the end of the regular season. But 80% of every mailbag and 60% of every "general NBA" column was devoted to the Celtics. Just saying.

Let's wrap it up.

Ben(New Jersey): Sports Guy! I've been a fan for years but I've never written in before. I'm a senior in high school and my friends and I love to play a game called KG that. It's when you take something ordinary and go crazy over it. For example, we went out for Chinese last Friday and after one of my friends ordered his beef and broccoli i told him he should KG it when it comes. When the waiter brought out his beef, he got up on his chair and started pounding his chest screaming "THATS HOW YOU ORDER CHINESE" he then ran around high fiving random people while pounding his chest and screaming. We ended up getting kicked out, but I'd say it was worth it. Whats the funniest situation you could see where you could KG something?

You are a zero. You're a disaster. You don't deserve to have access to a computer, let alone the internet. You don't deserve to reproduce. You and your unfunny friends should be immediately deported to the least exciting town in Mongolia. You stink.

Bill Simmons: Love it!

Of course you do.