Bill Simmons started watching the 2013 Red Sox in August, and hey, what do you know, a championship! Time to write about them like he had been paying attention all season (Part 3 of 3)

It's sad it has taken me this long to wade through this.  I have missed about twenty great opportunities to comment on Bill's weekly NFL point spreads picks articles, where he is 25 games under .500 (and God knows how many aggregate games under .500 in the last however many years) and keeps saying things like "As for this Chiefs-Broncos game: I'm grabbing the points only because the line should be "Broncos by 3" and I'm getting an extra 1.5 points." (Actual quote.)  Oh yeah Bill, are ya?  Is it really the case that someone who is now 80-105-6 against the spread this season has the ability to discern 1.5 point errors in the spreads created by Vegas insiders?  Or are you just a fucking idiot?  This guy is a world class horse's ass.  Let's finish out his attempt to pretend to care about baseball at any time other than when the Red Sox are throwing a parade.

I am old enough to remember every Red Sox season since 1975. Baseball is long. Baseball takes forever. It's day in, day out, for six solid months — seven if you're lucky.

Insert joke about Chris W and the NBA playoffs here.

Winning is always fun. But this team? This team was REALLY fun.

Because they won a LOT.  Had they won only a medium amount, this team would have been a REALLY big disappointment.

They weren't the most talented 25 guys we've ever had,

Yeah, I don't have time to do a full breakdown of their roster, but what with them only winning 97 games and having like seven All-Star caliber players on the team (granted, only four made the team, but you can make the case for Lester, Lackey, Ellsbury and Uehara being in the neighborhood), I agree.  This is only one of the fifteen or so most talented Red Sox teams in their 100+ year history.  NO ONE BELIEVED IN US!

but they had a way of lifting each other up and making each other better in ways that — for an individual sport disguised as a team sport, one in which you're on your own just about all the time — make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Terrible writing.

For the first three months, I thought we'd remember them as a likable group that helped the city heal after the marathon bombings. We didn't have that one lights-out starter,

Clay Buchholz, as of his injury on June 8: 9-0, 1.71 ERA.

or that second big bopper in the lineup.

Yeah, all they had was a lineup with very good hitters at nearly every position.  Other than Will Middlebrooks, every guy who received significant ABs ended up with and OPS+ of at least 111.  I'm not going to track down their OPS+ as of June, but suffice it to say, it wasn't exactly David Ortiz and a bunch of all glove no bat guys.  This team could hit.  Anyone who actually watched them, rather than ignored them because they hadn't won a World Series since 2007, would know that.

You can only go so far with the "everyone lifting everyone else up" thing, right?

Throw yourself in front of a train.

A team with A-list starters — maybe Detroit, maybe Tampa —

Or maybe Boston, with Buchholz (ERA+ of 234), Lackey (116) and Lester (109)

would rip through us in October and that would be that.

WE NEVAH HAVE POSTSEASON SUCCESS!  IT'S NAWT FAY-UH

I never thought they had a higher ceiling until August, right around the time Koji Uehara turned into Dennis Eckersley circa 1989. 

Which, as the commenter from like a month ago pointed out, was probably the first time all season Bill watched a game.

You need weird shit to happen during the season to win a World Series; this season certainly qualified. In mid-August, they outplayed a scorching-hot Dodgers team in Dodger Stadium; that's the first time I remember thinking they had a chance. 

Or, again, the first time he remembers tuning in to watch them.  J-BUG SAID THEY WERE THE REAL DEAL AND I HAD TO WATCH WITH MY KEEN GAMBLING-ATTUNED EYE TO MAKE SURE.  6 TO 1 TO WIN THE WORLD SERIES AS OF AUGUST 1?  THAT LINE IS TOO HIGH, VEGAS!  THANKS FOR THE FREE MONEY!

They protected home-field advantage in September, rolled through Tampa in the ALDS, then everything crashed in the ALCS. Their bats died for 16 solid innings. Sanchez and Scherzer 

When he first wrote this, he said "Verlander and Scherzer" (they published a correction later), because, you know, he totally is a big Red Sox fan who watches every game, even when they're not playing well.

weren't just shutting them down; they were eviscerating them.

They weren't just pitching well.  They were pitching REALLY well!  Pulitzer please!

And then the eighth inning happened … and this happened.

AND I GOT A TEXT ABOUT IT AND TURNED THE TV BACK ON TO SEE HIM CIRCLING THE BASES!

[Ortiz grand slam video goes here; apologies to all readers in Michigan]

He came through. Again.

So here we are, about 3000 words into this piece: we're finally ready to hear about David Ortiz.  DID YOU KNOW HE PLAYED SMALL FORWARD ON HIS MIDDLE SCHOOL BASKETBALL TEAM?  HIS FAVORITE PLAYER WAS A CERTAIN 6'8" GUY FROM FRENCH LICK INDIANA (MAYBE YOU'VE HEARD OF HIM)?!?!?!?!?!

The playoffs were never the same. 

Horrendous, terrible, horrible, gut-wrenching writing.

The Beards ripped off eight wins in 11 games, more than enough for Boston's third World Series title in my lifetime.  My friend Sully summed it up best via text: "Aidan's (his 12-year-old son's) 

DON'T ACT LIKE YOU DON'T CARE!!!!  MY FRIEND MADE A BABY!  BE IMPRESSED!

reaction was like, 'Cool, another championship.' They have no idea that this doesn't happen." They really don't. I never thought I'd see one … and I've seen three in 10 years. Huh????

Die die die die die die.  The only reason I didn't put that in ALL CAPS was to distinguish it from the mean things I'm saying as Bill's proxy.  Trust me, I meant DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE.

We'll remember 2004 for all the obvious reasons. 

I HAD SEX FOR THE FIRST TIME!  WELL ALMOST!

We'll remember 2007 as proof that 2004 wasn't lightning in a bottle that could never be replicated. 

Fucking Cleveland.  Thanks, Ryan Garko.  Colorado-Cleveland would have been the least watched World Series of the 21st century (and who gives a shit about that, really?) and also would have produced a WS champion that wasn't patently obnoxious about everything.

We'll remember 2013 for Boston Strong and the beards, and over everything else, for David Ortiz. And that's the case for three reasons.

Let's start a list for no reason!  People like lists!  Bill is the Buzzfeed of sportwriters.

1. We thought he was done. 

Steroid joke here.  Honestly, I don't even hate Ortiz, so I don't really want to get into bitter specifics on my own.  But after the way 2009 was his worst season ever (.238/.332/.462 as a 33 year old) and he way he started 2010 (.185/.267/.407 through mid-May) it's kind of hard to believe he became a 4.4 WAR .309/.395/.564 player as a 37 year old in 2013.  I'm not some rosary-clutching loser who thinks steroid users are worse than war criminals.  I'm just saying, do I think David Ortiz uses steroids?  Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no comment.

This has to be mentioned. I wrote Papi's baseball eulogy in June of 2009, when his body was (seemingly) breaking down and he couldn't get around on 89 mph fastballs anymore. Boston fans loved him so much that they never booed him

WE NEVAH BOO OW-UH GUYS UNLESS WE FEEL LIKE DOING IT AT THE TIME

 — every Ortiz failure was greeted with an awkward silence, the ultimate respect for everything he meant. I can't remember another sound quite like it. 

You mean, like silence?  The same sound you can get pretty much anywhere on Earth at any time?

You almost wanted to hear a few boos, 

No you didn't, this is just awful writing.

if only to temper the collective discomfort. But no Boston fan could boo that guy, just like we could have never jeered at Bird or Orr. My final takeaway in that column: "Barring a miraculous return of bat speed, he'll be benched or released soon. It'll hurt, and I'm going to feel bad. I already do."

I HAVE DROPPED HIM FROM MY AL-ONLY 14 TEAM KEEPAH LEAGUE!  LET ME TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE 16TH ROUND OF THE DRAFT LAST SPRING!  IT IS RIVETING!

But wait! His bat speed eventually returned. That same season, Ortiz's name got "released" in connection with a positive result from a 2003 MLB drug test that was supposed to be anonymous, a stigma that trails him to this day. The details of that report were so murky, nobody can fully explain what happened — more than 100 players apparently tested positive for something, only they weren't breaking any baseball rules because there were no rules in place, and they could have triggered a positive test for amphetamines or some now-illegal supplement that wasn't illegal in 2003. Ortiz professed his innocence, although Boston fans would have preferred that he did it a little more belligerently. The moment passed and he hasn't failed a test since. He's never been involved in a Biogenesis-type scandal, outed by a clubhouse attendant, tied to some shady Victor Conte character, anything. He looks exactly like he looked in 2003; if anything, he's a few pounds skinnier.

But he's also 37 years old (he will be 38 on November 18), and he's cranking 98 mph fastballs, and he looked finished four years ago. So I get it. After everything that happened these past two decades, we're always going to be a little suspicious. Of everybody. 

You know what, that's way more than I'd expect Bill to acknowledge.  That's actually only 75% biased and idiotic.  But yeah, Ortiz is probably on steroids.  Peter King says MAYBE.  THAT'S A LEGIT 75% CHANCE.

But if you examine his 11-year Boston run as a whole, it makes a little more sense: His first Boston season in 2003 (31 homers, 101 RBIs, .288/.369/.592) doesn't look much different than his 11th Boston season in 2013 (30 homers, 103 RBIs, .309/.395/.564).

If you compare his numbers from when he was in his athletic prime to his numbers from when he was at the age that most professional athletes get put out to pasture, they're basically the same!  That PROVES that he's clean!

Bill Simmons is a fucking jackass.

Even if his 2013 World Series numbers look supernatural — 25 plate appearances, 11 hits, eight walks, two homers — really, he just caught fire for five games after slumping the previous series (2-for-25), then they smartly pitched around him in Game 6. Did you know his regular-season OPS in Boston is the exact same number as his playoff career OPS (including his trip with the 2002 Twins)? 

Fascinating!  Who gives a flying violent fuck, in the context of a discussion as to his value to the 2013 team, his likelihood of steroid use, and his relationship to Bill Russell?

It's true — .962 for both. Big Papi has looked the same for 11 years, barring a couple of peaks (2004 through 2006) and valleys (the homestretch in 2008, the first three months of 2009 and 2010). I don't know what else to tell you. 

You could tell us it's suspicious as fuck that a 33 year old cratered, and then was back to being a superstar at 37.  That's one option.  In fact you DID tell us that, you just failed to draw the world's most obvious conclusion from it.

In a vacuum, this goes down as the second-greatest career comeback in Boston sports history behind everything Ted Williams did after Korea. Ortiz was finished, then suddenly he wasn't.

/Larry B has head in hands

2. Five days after the Tsarnaev brothers blew up Boston's most sacred event, and just 24 hours after one brother was killed and the other was caught, everyone decided that it was OK to play baseball at Fenway again. 

MLB and John Henry decided it was OK to play baseball at Fenway again, because 1) the bombers were killed/caught, and 2) there was money to be made.

The game happened on a Saturday afternoon, preceded by an emotional ceremony and many prayers. You always hear that tragedies put sports in perspective, that they prove we shouldn't care this much about the successes and failures of a bunch of wealthy strangers. I'm going the other way — sometimes, sports put everything else in perspective. 

Horrible, terrible, head banging against wall god awful writing.  Klosterman would be proud though.  SECRETLY IT'S ACTUALLY PERSPECTIVE THAT PUTS EVERYTHING ELSE IN SPORTS!  THINK ABOUT IT!

Our favorite teams bring people together, keep family members close, bond people from different generations. 

Other thing that brings people together, keeps family members close, and bonds people from different generations: being close to people, being family with them, and interacting with them.

Some of the happiest moments of my life involve something that happened with one of my teams. Some of the best relationships I ever had were with Boston athletes that I never even met. That's a bad thing?

Yes.  The happiest moment thing, I won't lie, I actually agree with.  Some of my happiest moments do non-sarcastically involve sports.  The relationship thing?  This guy is a huge fucking loser.

Of course, we always worry that these guys don't care about us. 

Only if we're insecure and are desperate to think that OW-UH GUYS play the game the right way BETTAH THAN YO-AH GUYS.  Any of us who are rational just want to see our team win because we like our team, and we don't really care very much about whether the players are deeply invested in the team or just there to make a buck.  Because we're not fucking stupid.

That they're just passing through, throwing on some laundry, cashing some checks and pretending they care. We've all been burned by favorite players. 

IT'S
NAWT
FAY-UHHHHH

You start throwing your guard up after awhile, 

Holy Jesus, melodramatic much?

and eventually you stop caring quite as much … 

When your team goes a few years without winning a title...

even if you don't want to admit it. I am 44 years old now, a million years away from being the kid who lugged his autographed, framed Clemens/20 K's photo to six different apartments before breaking it into pieces in the seventh. 

Terrible writing; were these apartments he lived in, or apartments he visited in an effort to track down Clemens to get him to autograph it again?

It's really hard to rope me in at this point. But when Ortiz grabbed the mic on that Saturday and screamed, "THIS IS OUR FUCKIN' CITY!!!!!," I don't think I've ever been prouder of an athlete. 

Non-sarcastically, I kind of agree.  I love profanity on TV.  Although I find it annoying that the FCC didn't fine FOX, or whoever televised the game, because the director was a Red Sox fan.  You'd better believe that if the bombing happened in Phoenix and Paul Goldschmidt swore on TV, there would have been fines galore.  America is full of retards.

3. He's been the life of the World Series party three times now — 2004, 2007 and 2013 — and over everything else, that's when the David Ortiz era becomes historically fascinating. 

No. Lots of players have won three rings with the same team in non-consecutive years.

By the time I graduated college, Bird, Russell, Orr and Williams were the big four. All discussions started and ended with them. 

He's 44, born in or around 1969.  Graduated college in or around 1992 (because he went to prep school, the spoiled fuck).  WHAT ABOUT THE GREATRIOTS, BILL?  WHY WASN'T TONY EASON IN THE DISCUSSION?  Oh that's right, the Patriots weren't good yet.  I'm obviously trolling because there is no Patriot from the 1960s through 1990s who compares to Bird, Russell, Orr or Williams.  But I can happily say that although I would sooner throw myself into a volcano than become Bill Simmons, if I am still writing about sports when I'm 44, I'll have no qualms with talking about my favorite Rockies and Nuggets from days gone by.  That's because I'm not a frrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrontrunner (Do we have a label for that?  We should).

In the 2000s, Tom Brady made his run … and if the 2007 Pats had finished 19-0, he would have joined them. 

BUT HE DIDN'T WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP THAT YEAR, HE ONLY WON THREE OTHAHS, AND HE MADE ME SAD WHEN I BAWT TICKETS TO SUPAH BOWL FO-AHTY TWO AND WORE MY RANDY MOSS JERSEY, SO HE'S NAWT IN THE PANTHEON.

Right now, he's still standing outside the front door waiting for the bouncer to let him in. To be continued.

Barf.

But Ortiz? We thought the bouncer shooed him away a while ago. Now he's back. He just cemented his reputation as one of the greatest clutch Boston athletes ever, and one of the greatest clutch baseball players, too. He came through time and time and time and time and time again. So many times that I can't even keep track, actually.

Evidently you haven't been, because as you said yourself, Ortiz's regular season OPS in Boston is the same as his playoff OPS (.962).  It's higher than his career OPS with two outs and runners in scoring position (.945), in "late and close" (as defined by baseball-reference.com) situations (.875), and "high leverage" (also bbr) situations (.936).  Basically, he's always been really good; no better, and perhaps a bit worse, when it was 6-0 in the 4th inning of a game in May than when it was 2-2 in the 8th inning of a playoff game.

Throw in his personality, throw in the iconic "our city" moment, and throw in the stakes — nothing from 1919 through 2003, with people living entire lives and dying without seeing a Red Sox title — and I think the bouncer just let him in. 

Bill Russell and Bobby Orr and Ted Williams > Larry Bird >>>>> Tom Brady >>>>>> David Ortiz.

And you know what else? It's a great place. It's the best place. You get to live forever in there. People tell stories about you to their kids, and their grandkids, and they can always say they saw you play. You might even get your own statue downtown someday. Tomorrow, it happens for the great Bill Russell. Someday, it will happen for David Ortiz. It will.

Worst.  Callback.  Ever.  Fuck this guy.

By Far Bill's Worst Baseball Article Ever, Part 2

Aaaaaand we're back. Eleven days later. What does this half of the article hold? Will we learn about how popular triple A baseball is? Will Hench make an angry posting on a Sox message board? Will Bill talk about how it doesn't matter that Kevin Youkilis is out for the season, because he's not an exciting player in the mold of Jason Bay? (Unlikely, since the injury occurred after this article was written- although it happened since I wrote about the first half of this shitpile, so you never know, maybe ESPN's editors updated it.)

Before I try to bumblefuck my way through it, let me restate a key point that Chris W made in the comments of last week's installment: it's OK to be a frontrunner. It's not some major sin against all that is good and holy in sports- most teams thrive on frontrunners. With a few rare exceptions, when teams suck, fan interest goes down. When they compete for titles, fan interest goes up. Being a part of that group that pays attention to a team when they're going great and stops caring when they stink isn't that big of a deal. I mean... it kind of hurts your credibility as a fan. But whatever. So it's not that my last post and this one should be summarized as "HAHA BILL IS A FAIRWEATHER FAN AND THAT MAKES HIM DUMB," they should actually be summarized as "HAHA BILL IS A FAIRWEATHER FAN AND REFUSES TO ADMIT AS MUCH, INSTEAD CRAFTING AN ELABORATE WEB OF RETARDERY AND BULLSHIT TO JUSTIFY THE FACT THAT HE'S NOT WATCHING RED SOX GAMES THIS YEAR." You feel me? I know you do. Back to the madness.

THE DECLINE OF BASEBALL IN GENERAL: 5 PERCENT

MLB's defenders will point to attendance numbers (dropped in 2008, held tight in 2009 and 2010), its history (by far the most significant of the four major sports), its World Series ratings (still better than the NBA Finals) and a new generation of younger-than-25 stars (Strasburg, Heyward, Price, Longoria, Posey, Santana, etc.) who rank among baseball's biggest talent boons ever. Troublemakers like me will point to the following things:

The attendance numbers didn't keep plummeting only because of discount deals and cheaper tickets.

Ridiculous argument, does not apply more to baseball than it does to any other sport or recreational activity that costs money. Now, let's stop and think for a moment. What... what happened in 2008 (and didn't unhappen, so to speak, in 2009 or 2010) that might have affected ticket sales numbers? What indeed. Hey, Mr. "Troublemaker"- how about instead of seeing a sales phenomenon in the real world and assuming it must be happening because durka durr people no like buying that thing no more, instead we look at the how the economy as a whole might have affected consumer interest in the good? Now, I'm not exactly getting my doctorate in economics here. I probably don't understand the whole situation. But I'm willing to be that economy shits the bed => people lose jobs => people have less disposable income => people stop going to baseball games is a reasonable chain of causation.

Shouldn't baseball worry that the onslaught of new ballparks (20 since the Skydome in 1989) caused an ongoing attendance bump that's soon coming to an end?

Shouldn't you try to justify your assertion that stadium attendance bumps last more than a couple seasons? The Nationals' new stadium (opened in 2008) is gorgeous and has reasonably priced concessions and tickets. Go to a non-Strasburg start there- I did four or five times this summer- and see if that bump is still bumping. (It's not. There will be like 5,000 people in the park.) That's one anecdote, but I'm fairly certain I've got this point locked down. It's not like the Orioles are still riding a bump from opening Camden Yards 18 years ago. It's not like the Mariners are still riding one from opening Safeco 11 years ago. Etc. So no, baseball shouldn't worry about this.

The honeymoon "we have a new park!" stage eventually wore off in Baltimore,

When they started losing. Last playoff appearance: 1997. Last winning season: 1997.

Cleveland,

When they started losing. One playoff appearance since 2001. Two winning seasons since 2001.

Toronto

Last playoff appearance: 1993.

and Houston.

They were actually pretty good for most of the '00s, but whatever.

Who's next? When the dust settles, attendance will hinge on the same thing it always did: winning.

Yes, diptard. Good for you. That's correct. That's why the Rockies, Phillies, Angels, etc. have good attendance numbers the past few years despite the fact that THE GLOSS HAS WORN OFF THEIR ONCE-SHINY STADIUMS. You can pack shitty Wrigley Field or Fenway Park with 34,000 fans a night if the Cubs/Red Sox are winning. On the other hand, people will not go to super fancy nice family-friendly affordable Nationals Park if the Nationals blow.

Especially in the 65-Inch HD Plasma/DirecTV Package/"Screw It, I'd Rather Just Stay Home and Flick Channels" Era

Which is why NESN ratings are way down this year. Oh waiiiiiiiiiiiiit. FRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONTrunners.

There isn't a single baseball star who could have gotten a 4 rating for switching teams, much less a 9 rating like LeBron did.

Ridiculous argument, does not apply more to baseball than it does to any other league besides the NBA and any other player besides LeBron. No other athlete in the country could have pulled that kind of a ratings number. I don't even think that cockhole Brett Favre could do it. Among big US team sports, the NBA glorifies individuals the most. Add that together with the fact that LeBron is considered to be one of the greatest players ever, still in his prime, and yeah. It's a bit of a unique situation.

Right now, Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez are the only mainstream famous baseball players. That's the list. And they're a combined 71 years old. My goofy take on this: The narcissism, chest-pounding and me-first mentality of stars in other sports has, perhaps unfairly, made baseball players seem boring as hell.

That's fine, and maybe somewhat true, although hockey isn't a whole lot different. But the point of sports is not to generate ratings for some ill-contrived TV special. 99.9% of all professional athletes would never even begin to consider doing something as stupid as going forward with "The Decision," because only 0.1% of all players in all sports can even generate the kind of free agent interest LeBron did. This is not a strike against baseball. It's a reflection of how insecure and stupid LeBron is (in the PR department anyways). If Joe Mauer hadn't signed that extension with the Twins, and he wanted to do his own TV special during this winter's free agency, it would have generated a lot of interest. And would have been hilarious. Would it have generated "LeBron interest?" No. But that's the NBA for you. Trying to use "The Decision" as evidence that baseball is "declining" is like trying to base your entire argument that scripted television is declining on the fact that American Idol gets great ratings.

Hell, even when George Steinbrenner died, the ensuing coverage reminded us of that gloriously crazy era in the '70s and '80s when players wrote tell-all books and ripped teammates,

That happened in the 00s too- with hilarious consequences.

drunk managers fought drunk pitchers in hotel bars,

Now drunk managers just leave the bar, get behind the wheel, and fall asleep on their way home. Oh wait, that's just legendary hyprocrite/asswad Tony La Russa.

players swapped wives,

Probably still happens.

superstars made quotes like "I'm the straw that stirs the drink,"

Bonds used to drop some pretty good one liners. My favorite is "I'm not afraid to be lonely at the top." Rickey Henderson, perhaps the most quotable superstar of all time, played into the 00s. Granted, those guys aren't around in 2010. Still, this isn't just a 70s thing.

owners derisively called their best player "Mr. May" and hired convicted felons to frame them,

Probably doesn't happen much anymore.

pitchers beaned guys just for sport, guys took 26-second home run trots, teams had bench-clearers five times per year and everything else that made baseball so much fun. Now, it's all about RESPECTING THE GAME, MAN!

Yes and no. The league itself has harshly cracked down on beanballs and fighting, because it's worried that too much of that hurts fan interest and costs everyone money. (Bless hockey for not giving in to that line of thinking too much.) The players are also pretty interested in getting their share of all that money, so they generally avoid getting suspended/being labeled loose cannons and generally toe the league's line. I don't think it's so much about respect as it is about money. Players are also a lot more buddy-buddy with one another than they once were, probably due in part to the rise of cell phones (and the damn social networking face books!) and in part due to how often most guys change teams and meet a new set of teammates. It's all one big happy family. This is why I say: Brandon Phillips rules for defying that culture.

We're feeling the effects of two solid decades of World Series games ending well after the bedtime of any prospective young fan.

True, starting games at 8:30 eastern really hurts the number of kids in the Eastern time zone who can watch them. That's half the country's population. On the other hand, half the country's population isn't subjected to those kinds of late nights. Twenty percent of the US lives in the Pacific zone. Even kids out there with a 9 PM bedtime have seen nearly every out of every world series ever televised. Not saying this is a good policy by the league, but it's funny and east coasty for Bill to talk about "any prospective young fan" up there. Especially considering where he lives. Maybe he's referring just to kids who are Red Sox fans? But those little assholes are everywhere, coast to coast. Frrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

And don't kids have dozens more choices in 2010 than they did in 1975? Back in 1975,

A NICKEL WAS REALLY WORTH SOMETHING!

I went outside, whipped a baseball off the wall, dove for it and pretended I was Freddie Lynn. Do kids do that now? Isn't it more likely that they're watching Nick Jr., playing video games, watching DVDs, messing around with the computer ... how could baseball possibly mean as much to a young kid now?

Ridiculous argument, does not apply more to baseball than it does to any other sport or outdoor activity. The NFL seems to be doing OK these days.

THE TIME OF THE GAMES: 55 PERCENT

Soooo.... more than half of the reason Bill isn't following the Red Sox is because their games are running long. Let's see where this leads.

There are two separate issues here. The first: Nobody wants to spend 3½ hours watching anything on television. Not even porn.

Certainly not NCAA football games, which regularly run that long, or NFL games, which are usually right around 3 hours and occasionally run longer. THE EXTRA 27 MINUTES MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE THOUGH! RED SOX FANS ALWAYS LOSE INTEREST IN THE TOP OF THE 8TH!

The second: It's not that fun to spend 30-45 minutes driving to a game, paying for parking, parking, waiting in line to get in, finding your seat ... and then, spend the next three-plus hours watching people play baseball ... and then, leave, find your car and drive home. That's potentially a five-hour commitment. Ludicrous.

Ludicrous! When did this start happening? Decades ago? Oh. Also, I understand Bill is mostly focusing on the Red Sox here, and (as he's about to explain) their games are longer than average, but most MLB teams are finishing up most of their games under 180 minutes. Just saying.

By the way, have you ever looked around during a baseball game these days? It's 35,000 people texting or writing/reading e-mails while they wait for something to happen.

Ridiculous argument, does not apply more to baseball than it does to any other spectator sport or outdoor activity. Have you ever looked around a concert? A restaurant? A movie theater? Assholes everywhere are on their cell phones every waking minute. I would know, I'm one of them.

I went back and examined the times of games of my most memorable Red Sox seasons (1975, 1978, 1986, 1999, 2004, 2007) along with 2002 (when we first worried that games were becoming too slow) and 2010 (through 101 games). Check this out; it's incredible.

Check out how it totally explains how Bill has just now, just this season, stopped following the Red Sox.

[data from earlier seasons, when games were shorter, skipped]

2007 Red Sox

2 or less -- 0
2:01-2:30 -- 11
2:31-3:00 -- 48
3:01-4:00 -- 97 (5 extra)
More than 4 -- 6 (2 extra)

(Note: Uh-oh. One-hundred three of 162 games dragging past three hours??? Call it the Tipping Point ... as in, "I'm tipping over because I just fell asleep." I blame the recent frenzy of milking pitch counts, the constant preening between pitches and more frequent pitching changes. Yes, I look forward to those arguments being struck down by an angry blogger within the next 48 hours.)

2010 Red Sox (101 games)

2 or less -- 0
2:01-2:30 -- 1
2:31-3:00 -- 41
3:01-4:00 -- 53 (7 extra)
More than 4 -- 6 (4 extra)

(Shaking my head.)

So as you can see, Red Sox fans like Bill were paying attention in 2007 because games were so much shorter back then. In 2007, 63% of their games lasted for more than three hours. But here in 2010, that figure has skyrocketed to 59%.

What a nightmare. I'm the same guy who once created the 150-Minute Rule for all movies, sporting events, concerts, even sex -- if you edge past 150 minutes for anything, you better have a really good reason.

Again, see: NFL and NCAA football.

Meanwhile, National League games move significantly faster: Every NL team has played at least 50 percent of its 2010 games in less than three hours, led by St. Louis, who cranked out 71 of its 102 games in less than three hours. That tells me the following things:

1. We need to dump the DH. Like, right now.

Agreed. But not because it might make games marginally shorter.

It's stupid, anyway.

OK, we're on the same page. [Insert Chris W rant about how awesome the DH is here. YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE PITCHERS BAT, DO YOU? THEY'RE NOT EVEN GOOD AT IT!]

2. We're only a few other tweaks away from getting these games to a manageable time. What about giving managers six timeouts during a game in which they can cross the baseline, and that's it?

Horrible idea, and most managers don't cross the baseline that many times in a game anyways. I bet there's an average of like 2.5 mid-inning pitching changes per team per game.

What about a 15-second pitch-clock?

If the bases are empty, maybe. Otherwise: horrible idea.

What about giving hitters three seconds to leave the batter's box, or it's another strike? (Unless you've tipped a ball off your foot, caught something in your eye or desperately need to adjust your boys.)

What does this mean? Three seconds to leave after a pitch? Most guys do that- the problem in terms of game length, to the extent that there is one, is that the hitters leave after a pitch and then spend the next 30 seconds outside the box, fucking around with their clothing/equipment and looking for hot women in the stands.

What about two minutes between half-innings for commercials, then the next hitter has to be standing in the batter's box at 2:01?

This kind of already exists, I believe.

Look, we could throw out unrealistic suggestions like "no baserunner can take a lead past a defined line within 7 feet of the base" (to eliminate pickoff throws); "every batter needs to bring a second bat to the on-deck circle" (in case he breaks the first one); "relievers don't get to warm up;" "catchers can visit the mound only once per inning;" "we wire the area around the home plate and electrocute batters any time they step out to adjust their elbow pads or their crotch;"

To the extent that any of these (except the last one, obviously) are serious suggestions, the people who made them should be kicked squarely in the balls.

The most damning fact about these interminably long games? They pushed some die-hard fans toward English Premier League and World Cup games mainly because we knew those games would end in less than two hours.

Second best line in the whole damn article. LET'S BREAK DOWN WHY THIS IS COMICALLY DUMB, SIMMONS STYLE

1) "Some die-hard fans" = Bill and maybe a few of his friends, mostly while the World Cup was on

2) World Cup games and EPL games, if watched live, take place in the morning or early afternoon here in the US

3) The EPL and MLB seasons overlap by like a month; saying you've switched fandom from one to the other is like saying you've stopped being a fan of going to the beach during the summer because you're much more interested in going snowboarding during the winter.

4) Frrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Like you, I have a lot of crap going on. I have a job (no, really, they pay me for this),

His job is to watch and write about sports. With a job like that, who has time to watch sports?!?!?!

I have a wife, I have kids, I have a bunch of things I like to watch at night.

Like the Red Sox, as long as it's 2007, 2008, or 2009 and they're on track to make the playoffs.

Slogging through a 3-hour, 45-minute anything just isn't entertaining. We have too many choices in 2010. That, over anything else, is why those NESN ratings dropped in 2010.

Best line in the whole damn article. Let's review. Entertainment/family/etc. choices in 2009: nearly infinite. Same choices in 2010: apparently even MORE nearly infinite. Let's read that again, because it's so beautiful.

Slogging through a 3-hour, 45-minute anything just isn't entertaining. We have too many choices in 2010. That, over anything else, is why those NESN ratings dropped in 2010.

Soak it up, folks. Soak it up. Everyone in Boston will remember 2010 as the year we had too many time usage choices (as opposed to any of the previous three years, when there were way fewer choices AND it just so happened that the Red Sox were much closer to playoff contention).

The big question? Will Bud Selig do something about it?

Bud Selig is an asshole. To the extent that game length (or at least RED SOX NATION GAME LENGTH) is a problem, I doubt Selig does anything about it.

I do think Selig cares a little; if he didn't, baseball wouldn't have made such a concerted effort to reduce prices for families. Three facts since the economy went south:

You're just now connecting that dot with the "ticket sales are down" dot?

87 percent of MLB clubs now offer tickets for $10 or less; 80 percent of MLB clubs now offer price reductions on merchandise and concessions; and 57 percent of the clubs now offer tickets for $5.50 or less on a regular basis. Team Selig has done a terrific job of keeping fans coming to ballparks. Now it should start worrying about keeping them awake.

I think it should start worrying about moving the Rays over to the NL (assume it's within league rules to do that before the end of the 2010 regular season). What do you think that would do to NESN's ratings?

Estimated time of arrival for Bill's next article about baseball: June 2011, when the Red Sox have just swept the Yankees and sit four games up in the AL East.

Dear Bill Simmons, Shut the fuck up

Sorry I'm doing another Bill Simmons twitter post. I promise that once I steal my parents' Net-Nanny password, I'll do a post that's a little more meaty (NO HOMO! j/k, but not really).

I'm fired up that we beat Spain

Let's trot this out again. From Bill Simmons rules for being a fan:

"7. Be very careful when using the word "We" with your favorite team. Use it judiciously. Just remember, you don't wear a uniform, you don't play any minutes, and you're not on the team."

Perhaps it's justifiable to use "we" because it's the United States team, and it's his country blah blah. However, the fact that he didn't at all mention the amazing 6-goal swing that propelled the US into the semi-final denies him any right to claim US Soccer as his team. To put this in Bill's perspective, the 6-goal swing was the Dave Roberts steal of 2nd base, and the defeat of Spain was the Sawx beating The Yankees in that same ALCS. You're a front running, fair weather asshole, Bill.

but what the hell is the Confederation Cup? Is this better or worse than winning an ESPY?

Short Answer: Better.
Long Answer: Better, you fucking retard.

Seriously though, Bill is either too fucking stupid/lazy to go on Wikipedia/Soccernet and find out the following things:

1. Brazil and France (both top of the line soccer countries) have won 4 of the 5 Confederations Cups.
2. Regardless of what country/continent your team is from, it's very difficult to qualify for the Confederations Cup (unless your country is hosting the next World Cup).
3. Someone with even the most cursory knowledge of soccer would know that Spain, Brazil, and Italy all sent their teams filled to the brim with world class players. If it didn't mean shit, those players would be on a beach fucking multiple women who make Gisele Bundchen look homely and trivial by comparison.
4. The Confederations Cup has a definitive winner. Whereas the ESPY's are based on arbitrary opinion. Hence why they're stupid.

Or, more likely, Bill just had to take a shot at the ESPY's because it'd been a week since he'd last done so. Sure it belittles Team USA's accomplishment that he's so fired up about, but he had to rage against the machine a little bit. Lord knows that the ESPY's being shitty is such a well kept secret and all. Thanks for blowing the lid off that one, Cronkite.