Some jackass wrote a puff piece about Simmons for Rolling Stone, and it's horrible (part 1)

Rolling Stone has sucked for several years (decades?) now, but usually they keep their shittiness confined to the worlds of music and politics.  In what can only be an attempt to try to draw in readership from among the legion of 18 to 35 year old males who like sports, they asked one of their writers, Rob Tannenbaum, to do a piece about Bill.  Rob may well be a good writer.  He's got a pretty well-regarded book about the rise of music videos (good), he apparently writes for The Onion or possibly the A.V. Club (good if it's The Onion, meh if it's A.V. Club), Pitchfork (barf), and Spin (meh).  So that's a decent resume.  But holy balls, this is one of the worst puff pieces that ever puffed.  To boot, it seems like Tannenbaum knows exactly fuck-all about sports.  Fuck all of this.

From Bill Simmons' fourth-row seats at the Staples Center in L.A., 

Didn't he once claim he was giving up his tickets because the Clippers were going to get LeBron or something?  Or did he threaten to give them up because the Clippers had bad luck?  Or something?  Am I imagining that?  I doubt it, although I couldn't find a link.  The point is, Bill is mentally 13 years old.

we're close enough to hear basketball players swearing. In the last few minutes of a belligerent game, full of glaring, taunting, and pushing, the hometown Clippers are in the process of erasing Dallas' comfortable lead, scoring 23 of the last 27 points. To Simmons' dismay, the crowd doesn't seem to appreciate that they're watching one of the best games of the year.

The first ten rows of any NBA arena are full of shitheads who don't appreciate what they're watching.  Yes, even TD Garden.  Assuming equal attendance, every arena sounds louder from the upper bowl.  No matter what Superfan Simmons has to say about the matter.

Clippers center Blake Griffin, 

Blake Griffin is not a center.  Anyone who follows the NBA at all knows this, but even if you don't, it can be looked up in about 4 seconds.

who has been the main target of Dallas' animosity, rises above the rim like he's wearing a jet pack and tomahawks a ball into the net. 

That's exactly how a dunk works!

The L.A. fans celebrate his feat with a mild golf clap. 

LAWS ANJULUS DOES NAWT HAVE REAL FANS!  THEY DO NOT APPRECIATE GREATNESS!  I MOVED HERE TO SHOW THEM HOW TO DO THAT!  FACK THE LAKERS!

"He could dunk with his dick and nobody here would stand up to applaud," Simmons mutters. Unfortunately, we don't get to find out.

Unfortunately?

Yup, These Are His Leaders: Bill Simmons' Best Columns

This is a link within the article.  Sadly, Rolling Stone wanted to make sure that they could accommodate anyone who read this profile and came away saying "Boy, this Simmons guy sounds like a smart cookie.  Wonder what he's written?"

Simmons was raised mostly in Boston, where every loss is like a death in the family, 

OW-UH FANS CRY HAHHHDAH THAN YO-AH FANS!  Yes, Boston, where sports fans are very passionate.  As they are in Philly.  And New York.  And Chicago.  Etc., etc., etc., narrative narrative narrative.

and even at 44, he watches sports with the delight of a kid — albeit a kid who's a multimedia mogul.

"Mogul" here meaning "Guy who has many jobs in his field, and is bad at all of them."

During the NBA playoffs, which last nearly two months and end in June, 

[Obligatory Chris W joke goes here]

he'll be a fixture on ESPN and ABC, via NBA Countdown. His 700-page Book of Basketball, despite being fatter than Eddy Curry in the off-season, 

TIMELY!  Do something about Oliver Miller next!

debuted at Number One on The New York Times' nonfiction bestseller list. He goaded ESPN into making documentaries, which yielded 30 for 30, an excellent, Emmy-nominated series he executive-produces. 

Allow me to translate: he had the initial idea that led to 30 for 30, which he now nominally oversees, while mostly just being told to stay the fuck out of the way.

His lively B.S. Report podcast, where he interviews jocks, actors, comedians, college buddies, his dad, and Barack Obama, 

But really it's mostly just the college buddies, and his voice is the male equivalent of Fran Drescher's.

was downloaded 32 million times last year, and to keep him from bolting in 2011, ESPN gave him his own well-staffed website, Grantland. 

Any chance he'll bolt whenever his current contract is up?  I'll give ESPN $20 to not enter into renewal negotiations with him.

TV, books, documentaries, digital — it's the sportswriter version of the EGOT.

Yeah, Bill is totally the sportswriting equivalent to Whoopi Goldberg or Mel Brooks, in the sense that they are humans and he is also a human (but not in any other sense).

"We have similarly thorough backgrounds when it comes to movies, TV, sports and other worthless things," says his friend Jimmy Kimmel, who hired Simmons as a joke writer on Jimmy Kimmel Live! 

And kept him around for only one really shitty season.

"Bill's very funny, he's married pop culture and sports more than anyone else, and he built his own media empire from a little blog."

I like Kimmel, and I hope he intended that to sound as condescending as it comes off in print.

That's not just tickle-tickle buddy talk. 

Huh?

Simmons started to accrue a huge following in 1997, when he began blogging on AOL's Boston website in the role of an irritant and smart aleck, under the name Boston Sports Guy. 

The level of creativity shown in choosing that handle was a real sign of things to come.

Last summer, a Canadian columnist called him "an honest-to-God magnate" and "one of the defining figures" in digital media. 

Link?  Proof that this person wasn't just Simmons operating with a pen name, or someone who really, really, really wanted a job at Grantland?

All magnates have haters; Simmons makes it easy by frequently getting into feuds.

And by being stupid, unfunny and thin skinned.  Those things help too.

On NBA Countdown, Simmons plays a slightly exaggerated version of himself: 

No he doesn't.  He is himself at all times.  The guy obviously does not have the comedic chops or self awareness to develop and play a character.

a comedic troublemaker, "the wild card who doesn't give a shit," he tells me. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Bill thinks of himself as a rebel without a cause.  That's awesome.

"I'm part historian, part know-it-all, and part shit-stirrer. I don't hold back – that's the key."

Said with all the authority of a man who really has nothing to hold back in the first place.

During a recent Countdown, he denounced Brooklyn Nets shooting guard Joe Johnson, whom Simmons has tagged as the most overpaid player in the NBA. 

Super salary cap megagenius Bill Simmons has an extremely hot take to share: a slow 32 year old who averages 15/3/3 and makes more money than LeBron just might have a bad contract.

"Joe Johnson did not deserve to be on the all-star team," he says, so outraged and high-pitched he's nearly yelping. "Even he had to be shocked he made it." 

SHIT: STIRRED.  JOE JOHNSON: TOLD.  AUDIENCE: BORED.

After the show goes off the air, Countdown host Sage Steele turns to him, shaking her head. "You," she tells him, "are a psycho."

"I don't know how you got my cell number, but please stop calling it."

The shit has been successfully stirred: Within minutes, Twitter is in flames. 

The fact that people talked on social media about what he said on a nationally televised show broadcast by an extremely popular network PROVES that he's worth every penny they're paying him!

"Never hated a sports analyst as much as I hate Bill Simmons," I read as I scroll through his mentions, followed by "I want to punch him in the face," "He is such a douche" and "If Bill Simmons ever got in a car accident, I would be happy." 

None of those were me, either!  The last one isn't quite accurate though--I think we can all agree that any car accident-related happiness would be tied to whether his insurance coverage suffers as a result.

There are compliments, too, but, let's face it, those are boring.

Like this article is, and we're not even half done.  More later this week.

Jonah Keri does not show us the funny

Jonah's annual MLB trade value column came out a couple weeks ago (ZOMG SIMMONS IS A GENIUS THIS IS THE BEST LISTICLE OF ALL TIME).  I give his analysis a B-plus, it's fine.  I give his ability to write coherently a C-minus, it is slipshod at best.  And most importantly, I give his sense of humor an F-minus, because it's fucking terrible.  Let's dive right in to his rundown of guys who were in the top 50 last year but fell out this year.

Meanwhile, it's time to retire Keith Law's brilliant "Sliced bread is actually the best thing since Matt Wieters" (41) meme … 

Keith Law is a gaping asshole, and there is nothing brilliant about anything he has ever done, perhaps other than convince people that he's an amazing baseball analyst.  That joke is terrible, Keith is terrible, and I hope he loses every writing gig he has before the year is out.  (Check the comments for PNoles's obligatory defense of Keith, because... well, I have no idea why PNoles defends Keith.  Keith fucking sucks.)

Desmond Jennings (39) improved his power, batting eye, and contact skills in 2013 and offers four more years of team control, so leaving him off this (stacked) list could wind up looking really stupid … 

Classic Simmonism: make arbitrary list.  Question own decisions in crafting said list, as if something is at stake, or worse, as if it wasn't possible to put an extra 15 seconds into re-ordering said list before publishing if desired.  Collect enormous paycheck.

Justin Upton (38) might have already delivered his best season, 

Almost certainly.  Fuck Justin Upton and fuck anyone who gave him serious MVP consideration in 2011.  No, I am not ready to let that go.

and his brother was the worst outfielder in the NL last season, ruining another excellent meme … 

That's not a meme.  It's a bit.  The Weithers thing was not a meme either, but at least this Upton one isn't horribly unclever.


Brett Lawrie (21) and Dylan Bundy (20) are Exhibits A and B for why we shouldn't overrate prospects until they actually start producing; and yes, I'm a terrible, Canadian-loving homer 

I mean, admitting it is nice and all, but the other option is to stop journalistically tonguing Alex Anthopoulos's balls and realize that the Blue Jays continue to be a mediocre team with mediocre management, no matter how many SUPER ULTRA GENIUS moves they make.  Anthopoulos is the AL's answer to Jack Zduriencik (Remember him?  He's the guy who invented RUN PREVENTION and took the 2010 Mariners to the Super Bowl!).

Also, all fans of all teams in all sports overrate prospects, but baseball fans are undoubtedly the worst about it.  The reasons are obvious (takes much longer for prospects to develop relative to other sports, takes longer for teams to go for bad to good relative to other sports), but that doesn't mean every fan who lights up a message board with a comment to the effect of "[My favorite team] would never trade [name of prospect who is at least two years from MLB and will probably never make it] for [established and available above average player].  [Name is prospect] is a sure thing." shouldn't be shot out of a circus cannon into an alligator pit.

[Shelby Miller] faded in the second half, which isn't that unusual for a pitcher tossing more innings than ever before. Then the Curious Case of the Disappearing Shelby happened, 

Is that a joke?  If so, no points awarded.

with the Cardinals opting to use Bob Forsch, Dane Iorg, 

Hooray for unremarkable players from the 80s!  Hope Jonah paid Pearlman his royalty fees for using that bit.

and a plate of toasted ravioli rather than put Miller in a postseason game.

TOASTED RAVIOLI!  THAT'S GOLD, JONAH!  GOLD!

44. Jonathan Lucroy, C, Milwaukee Brewers (NR): The Brewers owe Lucroy a total of $9 million over the next three years, or $14.25 million over the next four assuming they pick up his option in 2017. Here's a list of the things Lucroy would have to do to fail to earn that contract:

1. Hit .024 with 400 strikeouts and 968 errors

2. Suffer a career-ending stubbed toe tomorrow

3. Say the word "Smaug" 17,227 times in a row until someone stabs him

I'm not saying I've never used hyperbole to sell a joke.  But come on, what Jonah just wrote is terrible.  It's fucking horrible.  Especially the last part.  Jesus H. Christ-that line is Easterbrookian.

Given the flashier names around Lucroy on this list, he might seem out of place at first glance. But if anything, this ranking feels a little low.

More patented Simmons second guessing your own arbitrary ranking cow shit.  Infuriating.  YOU KNOW I THINK I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING HERE, BUT ON SECOND THOUGHT, MAYBE I'M ACTUALLY SMARTER THAN MYSELF AND THUS AM MAKING ERRORS THAT MYSELF IS UNABLE TO CATCH.  Fucking barf.

He delivered offense 5 percent better than the league average, excellent defense, and the health and stamina to play 138 games. After that campaign, [Salvador] Perez's contract looks even more unbelievable. Like, it's actually impossible to believe. The Royals owe Perez $1.5 million in 2014, $1.75 million in 2015, and $2 million in 2016. KC then has a $3.75 million club option for 2017, followed by a $5 million option for 2018 and a $6 million option for 2019, which would normally be Perez's first two years of free agency. That's $20 million for his next six seasons, for a four-win player.

WHAT?  A PRE-ARB PLAYER SIGNED A TEAM FRIENDLY CONTRACT TO GUARANTEE HIMSELF FINANCIAL SECURITY IN EXCHANGE FOR REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY HE COULD HAVE COMMANDED IF HE MAINTAINED HIS HEALTH AND SKILL AND GOT TO FREE AGENCY?  THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.  

I mean, of course that contract is very team friendly.  The Royals are getting a great deal.  But to call it "actually impossible to believe" is actually really fucking dumb.

32. Jurickson Profar, SS, Texas Rangers (18); 31. Xander Bogaerts, SS, Boston Red Sox (NR):

Remember how Brett Lawrie and Dylan Bundy were high on last year's list?  This time around, Jonah promises to stop overrating prospects.

18. Troy Tulowitzki, SS, Colorado Rockies (23): I live in Denver. I'm at Coors Field a lot. Last fall, I spent two hours talking to de facto Rockies general manager Bill Geivett about … everything, really. And I still have no idea what the Rockies are doing, other than making arguably the best party atmosphere in and around any ballpark even better. This winter's Tulowitzki dance continues that theme. Tulo's name came up in trade rumors with the Cardinals, a team with enough talent to revitalize the Rockies' stockpile of good, young players and potentially set Colorado up with its best starting rotation ever. Instead, the Rockies more or less came out and said Tulo isn't going anywhere under any circumstances. 

A) Tulowitzki's extension, signed in 2011 and good through 2021, is fairly team friendly.  Even with his injury problems, which are overstated most of the time because most baseball fans are mouth breathers, he's a pretty safe bet to provide more value than it pays him over the duration.  In 2010 he put up 6.7 rWAR in 122 games.  Last year he put up 5.3 rWAR in 128 games.  I'll pay that guy $20MM a year (as he'll be paid from 2015 through 2019), even if I expect him to miss time, no problem.  He will have to move away from SS eventually, which will hurt his value, but that doesn't change the overall likelihood that the extension works out well for the Rockies.  

2) Just because the Cardinals were sniffing around doesn't mean there was any kind of a decent deal to be had.  If the Cardinals' management has a mentality anything like any of the Best Fans In Baseball who provided internet insight on the possibility of their team scooping up Tulo, it would be the worst trade in history if they offered any of their 10 best prospects, because LOLCOORZ (Tulo career on the road: .276/.348/.471) and INJUREEZ (see above).  I don't think any rational Rockies fan gave even a passing thought to the idea of trading him for future assets. And as far as current assets goes, he's one of the best in the game, and is locked up for the rest of his career to a good contract.  

D) Describing a passing and unsubstantiated rumor that the SS-needy Cardinals had interest in the best SS in baseball, who happens to play for a non-playoff team, as "this winter's Tulowitzki dance" is embarrassingly terrible analysis.

So, OK, they see an open window over the next two or three years, with Tulo and CarGo in their primes. But then why did they just trade Dexter Fowler for a bucket of beans?

Who knows, it was probably a bad trade, but the Rockies have had success recently in converting some "plenty of potential but no real results" young arms into decent SPs in recent years (Jorge de la Rosa, Tyler Chatwood).  Fowler has the same injury problems Tulowitzki does, and is of course not nearly the player Tulowitzki is.  He's also streaky, getting hot for a few weeks and then disappearing for a few weeks, which isn't the end of the world when the end of year results are above average, but hurts a little more when it's your leadoff hitter doing it as opposed to someone lower in the lineup.  

Further, Gonzalez is a natural CF who is ready to take over, and corner OFs (to replace Gonzalez in LF) aren't exactly hard to find.  They're probably going to run a platoon of Corey Dickerson (.819 OPS against righties last year as a rookie) and Drew Stubbs (never quite blossomed fully, but career .796 OPS against lefties) out there, and they used the money they would have owed Fowler to sign Justin Morneau to play 1B (which was a tire fire last year).  THAT move could also blow up, but if you give the situation more than just a cursory look, it's easy to see how all the moves fit together.  Sheesh.

Yes, I know you can tell that I'm a Rockies fan, and that you don't give a fuck about that fact or the Rockies themselves.  Let me have my moment tearing Jonah down.  It's the least you can do for me.

None of those moves or non-moves is that bad in isolation; Tulo is a superstar who, even when he plays only 130 games a year, is still the best shortstop in baseball and one of the 20 best players in the majors, and Fowler is a perfectly fine player who also has gigantic home/road splits. The bigger issue is that management doesn't seem to have much of a tangible plan, other than keeping its biggest star in town so fans will keep lining up to buy $12 microbrews on sunny afternoons and the club can keep raking in gigantic gobs of money that it pretends not to have.

That's the most cynical, retarded viewpoint on how an MLB team should manage its assets I've ever read.  Jonah is apparently one of those IF YOU DON'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS BLOW IT ALL UP AND START OVER PROSPECTS ARE AWESOME guys.  What a dope.

15. Stephen Strasburg, SP, Washington Nationals (8): Strasburg falls a few spots from last year, since there's now at least a little doubt over his ability to take over the world. There's the still-tough-to-fathom innings-limit gambit of 2012, which sparks doubt over whether there was something else at play aside from a shot-in-the-dark guess at his appropriate workload in the thick of a pennant race.

What?  What the hell else could have been at play?  Someone in the Nationals front office ordering a shutdown so he could profit from betting against the team's postseason chances?  That decision was astonishingly dumb, but I'm 100% certain it was motivated solely by a shot-in-the-dark guess at Strasburg's appropriate workload.

13. Madison Bumgarner, SP, San Francisco Giants (27): Bumgarner should have ranked higher last year, so we're correcting matters this time.

Pretty much every player should have been ranked differently than they were on last year's list.  Please stop trying to sound like you've finally cracked the trade value code and are providing 100% accurate information, as opposed to last year when you were only providing barely-educated guesses.

12. Yadier Molina, C, St. Louis Cardinals (44): Wins Above Replacement underrates Molina, maybe severely.

CHECK OUT HIS CATCHER ERA!  ALSO HE FRAMES PITCHES A LOT!  Fucking gag me.  Not saying there's no value to pitch framing or "handling the staff," but to say Molina is "severely underrated" by any metric is laughable.  He's been a 6ish rWAR player these last two years.  I'm pretty sure he's not really actually a 10 rWAR player or something ridiculous like that.  He's not Barry fucking Bonds.

For now, though, Molina just might be the best player in the NL.

No.  He's not, and he's not in the top 5.  He might not be in the top 10.

5. Buster Posey, C, San Francisco Giants (4); 4. Evan Longoria, 3B, Tampa Bay Rays (5): There are always what-ifs in baseball, especially when it comes to the draft. But given the success the Rays had with their top picks in 2006 (Longoria) and 2007 (Price), we might need to give a team of scientists 100 years to figure out how Tampa Bay chose Tim Beckham over Buster Posey with its top pick in 2008.

No team has ever had mixed success with high draft picks!  It's impossible to believe it happened to the Rays!  Like, literally impossible to believe!

When SI's Tom Verducci wrote about Harper back in 2009, he called the Las Vegas–based teenager "Baseball's LeBron," adding: "Golf has Tiger Woods, basketball has LeBron James, hockey had Wayne Gretzky and military history had Alexander the Great, but baseball, like jazz, is a discipline that does not easily engender prodigies … So good and so young is Bryce Harper, however, that he explodes baseball convention." Those words weren't just hosannas from a seasoned and well-respected writer; they reflected the opinion of every talent evaluator in baseball. When Verducci revisited Harper in May of last year, right after Harper's major league debut, it was impossible to overlook the irony involved. "Harper's debut was the most anticipated debut in baseball history," Verducci wrote, "if only because of the volume, scope, and speed of coverage we give professional sports." Basically, Harper is megahyped because Verducci and I and everyone else who writes about the sport drools over Harper's ability.

IRONIC IRONY!  Good job by Jonah of 1) misusing that, 2) not grasping that there's nothing weird (let alone ironic) about a writer doing a profile of a megaprospect and then three years later noting that lots of people were eager to see said megaprospect reach MLB, and 3) incorrectly crystalizing his own point, awkwardly flailing and ultimately failing to give any insight into the feedback loop of hype he's trying to describe.  Good effort, Jonah.  Better luck next year.  At least you put Mike Trout at #1 on the list.  

Jonah Keri shits out a worthless 2013 retrospective, part 2 of 2

Before we get started, earlier today Deadspin informed me that Scott Miller and Danny Knobler were fired by CBS Sportsline.  Cue up the Nelson Muntz laugh, especially for Knobler (Miller wasn't THAT bad, although he certainly was bad), but mostly, be angry that Heyman remains employed.  Fuck that guy with a blender.

Now for the rest of Keri's groundbreaking opus regarding how baseball teams should be constructed and managed.

3. Having no weaknesses can be just as effective as being loaded with multiple stars.

Which team wins--Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, Rickey Henderson and twenty two high school players?  Or 25 above average MLB players?  THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU.  Buckle your seatbelts and get ready for some fascinating analysis.

The A's have turned this idea into an art form. Josh Donaldson enjoyed a big breakout season in 2013. Otherwise, this was a team that relied on contributions from a wide array of players, all the way down to the bottom of their lineup, the back of their rotation, relief middlemen, and key guys off the bench. 

The Astros and Marlins, meanwhile, actually used no relief middlemen (who the hell came up with that term?) or key guys off the bench.  They just ran out the same 9 guys for 162 straight games.

After two decades of losing seasons, the Pirates finally broke through, rolling all the way to the playoffs. 

Did they do it because of Andrew McCutchen, Starling Marte and a dominant bullpen?  No, of course not.  CLINT BARMES WAS THE KEY.  (Side note: Clint Barmes appeared in 108 games and had 330 PAs.  He OPS+ed 58.  Clearly, the Pirates had no superstars or weaknesses.)

Though Andrew McCutchen will likely take home NL MVP honors soon, the Buccos succeeded largely on the strength of diversified talent. They got solid contributions from their nos. 3 through 5 starters (Gerrit Cole, Jeff Locke, and Charlie Morton), from the bottom of their lineup (Jordy Mercer, once he grabbed the starting shortstop job), 

Fair enough, Barmes eventually lost his job.  But still, even if we allow for the fact that I'm picking nits and the Pirates actually were a very well-balanced team, holy Jesus on a pogo stick, no fucking shit not having any weaknesses can be as good as having some superstars to go with a bunch of terrible players.  I'm a Rockies fan.  I get it.  So does everyone else who knows anything about baseball.

and from several relievers beyond the closer and primary setup man (Justin Wilson and Tony Watson chief among them). With the trade deadline approaching, there were some wildly ambitious calls for a blockbuster move. Instead, Pittsburgh filled out its roster with useful complementary parts: Byrd to plug a hole in the outfield (he was great), and a past-prime but still functional Justin Morneau to help at first base (he hit for zero power but did at least post a .370 on-base percentage in 25 games).

I'm not going to point out the fact that the Pirates lost in the first round, as did the A's (for like the 7th time in their last 8 playoff appearances), because that's a doucheball thing to do.  Nevertheless, recent anecdotal evidence suggests that if the goal is not just to make the playoffs but to succeed once you get there, you might want some superstars like David Ortiz, Jon Lester, Buster Posey, Matt Cain, Albert Pujols, Adam Wainwright, etc.

Lest you think this is only a worthwhile strategy for low-payroll teams, remember the mockery the Red Sox went through when they devoted their offseason energy to acquiring players like Shane Victorino, Mike Napoli, Stephen Drew, Jonny Gomes, Mike Carp, and Uehara, and the results they got from these complementary players.

That's the worst anecdotal support for a bad argument I've ever read.  

1) The Red Sox already had a bunch of stars which is why it made sense to surround them with complimentary guys 

2) Victorino, Napoli and Uehara are hardly "complimentary guys," each would play a significant roles on any team in MLB 

3) What mockery did the Red Sox go through for signing those guys?  I sure didn't read about it 

4) Jonah Keri is a twat

4. Keep an eye on the minors.

No fucking way.  Again, beyond those three quick words, sarcasm escapes me.  I can't even respond to that in greater detail.

As productive as in-season trades can be for some aggressive teams, the ideal scenario is to promote from within and have rookies shine. 

More of Jonah Keri's patented, trademarked, top secret team building tips:

1) Be sure to have both pitchers AND hitters

2) Guys who were good in high school and college tend to be good as pros

3) It's easier for guys to catch the ball when using gloves, make sure all fielders are using them

The Cardinals 

Oh fucking hell.  Not this narrative again.  HERPA DERP CARDINALS BEST RUN TEAM IN BASEBALL DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY (as if such a thing exists) HOME GROWN PLAYERS LOW PAYROLL (they're in the top 10 or close to it every year) NONE OF THIS FANCY FREE AGENT NONSENSE.  But yeah, I'm sure Carlos Beltran and Matt Holliday (technically a trade, but they still had to resign him on the open market while he was shopping around) have nothing to do with their success during the past several seasons.  That's only, you know, two of their three best hitters.  Go back to 2011 and you've got Holliday and Lance Berkman, another free agent.  BUT BUT BUT YADI  Kill yourself, imaginary Cardinals fan talking in all caps in my head. 

rode great hitting with runners in scoring position and big contributions from veteran stars like Yadier Molina, Matt Holliday, Carlos Beltran, and Adam Wainwright in their pennant-winning campaign. But they probably don't make the World Series (or maybe even come close) without huge contributions from their rookies: 

This is true of like, every championship team ever.  Yes, they got huge contributions from established players.  BUT ALSO THERE WERE SOME YOUNG GUYS HOW NOVEL.  Can you name a recent championship or EVEN playoff team that DIDN'T get help from a variety of experienced and young players?  Christ, even the 2009 Yankees, with a payroll of a jillion dollars and an average age of like 35, had 23 year old Phil Hughes, 24 year old Melky Cabrera and 23 year old Joba Chamberlain playing significant roles.

If you're looking for teams that might outperform expectations next year, scan the high minors of their farm systems for major league–ready talent. 

This is like a tip you would read in a baseball video game instruction booklet.  "To improve your team try to trade with other teams for some of their young stars."  No fucking way, really?  Look for major league ready talent in the high minors as an indicator of future success?  You don't say.  Got any tips as to how I could more effectively drive my car?  Should I insert the key into the ignition before pushing the gas pedal?

5. Don't overreact to a bad season.

This is the only one of his five points that has any level of nuance.  And it's still fucking moronic.

Last Sox reference: 

OH MY GOD CHICKEN AND BEER.  CARL CRAWFORD AND ADRIAN GONZALEZ.  93 LOSSES.  NEVER FORGET NEVER EVER FORGET.  9/11 AND PEARL HARBOR ROLLED INTO ONE.  THE FACT THAT THEY WON A WORLD SERIES THE NEXT YEAR IS LITERALLY THE MOST IMPRESSIVE ACCOMPLISHMENT IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY.

If a talented team can play poorly enough to lose 93 games, then come back the next season and win it all, that bodes well for some of 2013's biggest disappointments. Everyone in the world loved the Nationals heading into this season. But Washington disappointed thanks to subpar seasons by multiple players. 

I don't mind the Nationals, but they disappointed because their 2012 was lucky as hell.  Look at that roster--how did it win 96 games?  They're not as bad as they were in 2013, but they sure as fuck aren't as good as they were in 2012.  That's an 86 win team right there if I've ever seen one.  A rotation that's good at the top but has no depth.  A so-so bullpen, featuring really only one shutdown guy (Clippard).  A lineup that should be good if everyone stays healthy, but which will never come close to staying healthy, because Ramos, Zimmerman, Harper and Werth are hurt all the time.  Let's not get carried away about the potential of the 2014 Nats.  They'll probably miss the playoffs again.

Adam LaRoche's power dipped dramatically, 

He's 33 and was never that good in the first place.

Wilson Ramos missed half the year 

Who could have seen that coming, what with his 238 GP in 4 MLB seasons?

(and Kurt Suzuki stunk in his stead), Bryce Harper missed 44 games, Danny Espinosa was awful, and the bullpen ran into trouble frequently. Think of the Nats' 2013 season as a bad result among a range of outcomes for a young and very talented team. And expect them to be right back in the playoff hunt in 2014, with a great trio of starting pitchers, a balanced lineup, and better luck than they had this year.

Oops, nevermind, let's get carried away and assume those problems with rotational depth, the so-so bullpen, and the injury-prone players will just solve themselves.  I don't know what their team BABIP or BABIP allowed was, but if we want to talk about luck from another angle, they actually outperformed their pythag wins by two last year.

The Jays can't claim the recent success the Nats had in 2012. 

Oh my God, this team again.  TORONTO BLUE JAYS, 2012-2013 OFFSEASON CHAMPS.  Wait, wasn't one of his points from this very article (in my last point) that we shouldn't get carried away with that kind of thing?  I forgot, the Blue Jays are the darling of every hipster baseball writer, so now we get to hear about how they're sure to turn things around in 2014 after somehow failing to win the AL East in 2013, as every Jonah Keri in the world told us they would last year.

In fact, with the Pirates making the playoffs this year, Toronto now owns the second-longest playoff drought in baseball, behind only the 28-years-and-counting Royals. But there were some good reasons for the baseball world to get excited about the Jays this year, even if 2013 ended with a last-place finish in the AL East. 

It didn't just end with that.  It also consisted of that throughout pretty much all of April, May, June, July, August and September.  It was kind of a running theme.  They sucked.  Badly.  Thoroughly.  Deeply.

Granted, the starting pitching sucked, the defense sucked, and Jose Reyes missed a big chunk of the season as everyone figured. But Toronto had a bunch of terrible players suck up tons of playing time this year, which in a twisted way bodes well for 2014. Replace the replacement-level performances of Melky Cabrera, J.P. Arencibia, Emilio Bonifacio, and Maicer Izturis with even average production and that alone could spur a charge back to contention. 

Just get a new catcher, second baseman, left fielder and shortstop (to play during the 120 games when Reyes is hurt)!  Just like that!  That'll fix those starting pitching woes!

As we wrote back in August: 

Oh good, a dash of Will Leitch-esque-ian first person plural.  Thank you so much.

"It's entirely possible that the Jays are a pretty good team hiding inside a terrible season."

I hope they lose 130 games next year.

We'll have to wait a while to see how it all plays out. 

Oh, will we?  Can't we just go down to the mall and buy a time machine to speed things up?

In the meantime, get ready for another hectic Hot Stove season, then for new contenders and new stars to emerge next year. Just 104 days until pitchers and catchers report. Can't wait.

Can't wait for Jonah Keri to hopefully one day go the way of Miller and Knobler.  I can only dream.

Jonah Keri shits out a worthless 2013 retrospective, part 1 of 2

The last time I dumped on Jonah Keri, the post only generated one comment (albeit a very good one), so I'm not sure if he's not a good target for this blog because he's usually not too shitty or if no one is/was reading the blog (or both).  But I'm about to do it again because this article is truly worthless.  It is a spectacular demonstration of unilluminating analysis.  It parrots a bunch of the stupidest "how to build a team" cliches in sports.  It should not exist, and you will feel dumber for having read the parts of it I copy and paste here.  The topic: What did we learn from the 2013 MLB season?

1. Winning the Hot Stove championship guarantees nothing.

This is so dumb as to not warrant a sarcastic response.

Every winter, teams scramble to make trades and splashy free-agent signings. When it's all over, we media know-it-alls tally everything up, then declare with breathtaking confidence who won and who lost. The problem is, we're doing it wrong. Signing the highest-priced free agent is great, but it might not get you far if you neglect other roster weaknesses to get there.

My god.  It's like a Malcolm Gladwell essay ("SOMETIMES PEOPLE DO STUFF AND BECAUSE THEY DO STUFF OTHER STUFF HAPPENS"), but even stupider.

The 2013 Angels were a perfect example of this phenomenon. 

If care about baseball at all and needed Jonah to tell you about this topic, either generally or as it pertains to the 2013 Angels, you obviously lied when you confirmed to me in my imagination at the beginning of the sentence that you care about baseball at all.  Please stop lying.

2. Bargain hunting can and does often pay off.

This one if fun if you imagine Billy Beane nodding to himself and stroking his chin while reading it.

Francisco Liriano. Russell Martin. Bartolo Colon. James Loney. Koji Uehara. Marlon Byrd. 

All of these guys (except Martin) are, in one way or another, flawed players who didn't command much salary in 2013 for good reason.  They vastly outperformed their pay, because that is a thing that happens in any labor market from time to time.  There were also dozens of bargain bin signings/flyers taken on players that seemed to be close to done in MLB in 2013 that didn't work out at all.  But go on, hit us with the ex post facto analysis that shows that obviously all of these guys were due to break out.

The list of low-priced free agents who delivered big returns for their teams in 2013 is a long one. Each of these players was acquired cheaply because he had a perceived defect. 

Actual defect.

The Pirates got Martin cheap because he hit just .211 in 2012 — even though he bopped 21 homers, played his usual strong defense, and was just 29 years old. 

They didn't get him that cheap--he's on a 2 year $15MM deal.  That's probably close to market value for a decent catcher.  He bopped 21 homers in 2012, but he did so in Yankee Stadium.  And his .211 BA came with a .311 OBP, which isn't horrible for a catcher, but isn't exactly good either.

Loney hit a catastrophic .249/.293/.336 in 2012, but he was just 28 years old, played excellent defense, and had put up some decent offensive seasons, albeit without the power you'd hope for from a slugging-heavy position like first base. 

Loney's 2012 was a dumpster fire.  First base defense isn't that important.  His last offensive season before 2013 that could be fairly characterized as "good" for a 1B was 2007.  He might have cracked the "decent" threshold in 2011, but you'd have to stretch the definition to get him there.  By all reasonable estimation he looked like a guy who should have been out of professional baseball by now.  The Rays probably overpaid him when they offered him $2MM for 2013 (unless it was not guaranteed until he made the roster out of spring training or something).

Liriano and Uehara had injury histories, though both had shown flashes of dominance when healthy enough to stay on the field. 

Liriano was utterly horrendous in 2009, 2011 and 2012.  As of last winter, he wasn't as close to being out of baseball as Loney was, but he was in the neighborhood.  Uehara is actually somewhat like Martin--a guy who, on a 2 year $9.5MM deal, wasn't really a scrap heap find.  He was being paid elite setup guy money; instead, he ended up being an elite closer, because elite setup guys and elite closers have exactly the same skillset. 

Byrd and Colon came with PED suspensions on their records (in Colon's case, one that hadn't yet ended), but Byrd was only a couple years removed from being a four-win player, and Colon actually pitched decently in 2012.

Byrd was bad in 2011 and utterly horrendous in 2012 (when he also picked up a PED suspension).  He is closer to 40 years old than he is to 30.  There was no reason on earth to believe that he would be able to be a contributing MLB player in 2013, which is probably why he ended up with the Mets to start the season.  Unlike Loney, I don't think he was overpaid ($700,000), but seriously, to say that teams should have seen his resurgence coming because he "was only a couple years removed from being a four win player" is fucking stupid.  Colon, on the other hand, was the best signing on this list--I'm surprised he didn't get more than $3MM after being above average in 2011 and 2012.  But also, he's old as fuck and wasn't in MLB in 2010.  So I suppose those things might have been red flags that kept some teams away from him.  In any case, maybe he just wanted to stay in Oakland and the team told him this was the best they could do in terms of salary.

Colon and Uehara were freaks, pitching abnormally well given their age (Colon 40, Uehara 38). But Martin, Liriano, and Loney in particular fit the profile well: players who'd performed well earlier in their careers who were still in their twenties and thus still had decent potential for bounce-back seasons. 

And yet, somehow, every single year there are dozens of guys who fit that profile who get signed to "fuck it, let's take a flyer on the guy and see if he has anything left" contracts and completely fizzle out and disappear.  It's almost like signing bargain bin guys is crapshoot, and this year the Pirates and Rays got lucky while the Rangers (Joakim Soria) and the Indians (Mark Reynolds) got unlucky.  Almost.

Plenty of old biases remain alive and well. Prince Fielder can fetch $214 million because there will always be someone willing to (over)pay for home runs and RBIs. 

Look, I agree that Prince's contract is bad and will likely be one of the worst in baseball within a few years, but he's not just getting paid for home runs and RBIs.  He had a down year in 2013 but from 2009-2012 his OBP exceeded .400 every season.  If you put me in charge of an MLB team with a league average financial/payroll outlook and told me that, for the upcoming season, I could sign January 2012 Prince to his contract or sign January 2013 James Loney to his contract, I'm going with 2012 Prince unless the team I'm in charge of is horrible/rebuilding.  2012 Loney was almost indescribably bad.  I'd figure out a way to make Prince's contract work.  Loney (the version available to me in this hypothetical) doesn't even look like an MLB player anymore.  Good for the Rays for revitalizing him, and who knows if they signed him based on the assumption that their hitting coach could fix an identifiable problem in his swing, but this is classic ex post facto smartest guy in the room stuff.

Meanwhile, defense remains underrated, 

It also remains extremely difficult to quantifiably analyze, particularly when it comes to WAR.  BBR has Loney at -0.2 dWAR and Fielder at -2.2 dWAR in 2013.  I know Fielder has the range of a traffic cone, but I have a hard time believing that there were 2 wins worth of difference in their defensive performances.

batting average overrated — to name just two misguided stances. 

Was this article written in 2003?  Who the fuck doesn't think batting average is a crappy stat at this point?  

We haven't had time to go through this year's free-agent crop yet. But if you want to find the bargains of 2014, look for under-30 players who play good defense, are coming off ugly seasons by traditional metrics, and have some history of strong performance two or three years ago.

Loney OBPed .293 in 2012.  Byrd OBPed .243 (not a typo).  It's not like either was some Scott Hatteberg diamond in the rough who was obviously a good player as long as you were willing to look past antiquated traditional stats.  They were awful.  Yes, signing scrap heap guys is always a good idea because teams need depth guys and occasionally a scrap heap guy turns back into a contributor.  But to say that guys like Loney, Byrd and Liriano were obvious candidates to have the 2013s they did is completely fucking disingenuous.  Shut up, Jonah Keri.  Go fuck yourself.

Tune in later in the week for the exciting conclusion, in which, among other things, Jonah will explain to us that 2013 taught us to "keep an eye on the minors."  I can't believe I don't need an Insider subscription to read this article!  Has anyone showed it to Ruben Amaro Jr. yet?

MMTMQR: This analysis is as stale as a Teen Wolf reference

That's right, I'm covering last week's TMQ on Sunday night.  Sue me.  Before I do though, first, I wanted to respond to the anonymous tearing down Magic and defending Doug Collins in the comments to my last post.  My point wasn't that Magic is a great analyst (like I said, he's sort of kind of good--agree to disagree there) or that Collins is a bad analyst (I agree that he's good, better than Magic).  My point was that Magic also brought cache and a "wow" factor to NBA Countdown.  Collins can't do that.  Can he be entertaining and insightful?  Sure.  But it seems like a downgrade to me, on balance.  The best move would have been to just replace Wilbon with Collins.  But like the Deadspin post speculated, it sounds like Magic left because Simmons is a cunt.  And who would blame him?

Second of all, I'd like to revisit a few of the audible turds that slithered out of McCarver's mouth during tonight's ALCS broadcast.  In discussing Austin Jackson's strikeout problems, he noted (in a tone of voice that suggested he was dispensing Super Important Insider Knowledge) that one problem a lot of hitters who frequently strike out have is that they tend to chase pitches out of the strike zone.  Thanks Tim.  Later on he identified Miguel Cabrera as one of the greatest players in the history of the game, which, hey, I'm not a Cabrera hater and he certainly looks destined for the HOF at this point, but let's not get ten years ahead of ourselves in anointing him the next Hank Aaron yet.  

Anyways, here's your TMQR, only five days late.  Here's how he opened his column:

Is there any end in sight for the upswing in football offense?

And for the 50th column in a row, Gregggggggg feels compelled to let you know that a lot of teams are racking up a lot of yards and points these days.  FASCINATING.  Very fresh information.  Maybe one of these weeks he'll take time to investigate the rumors that some athletes use steroids.

Denver and Dallas played a contest with 99 points, 1,039 yards of offense and one punt. At 46 points per game, the Broncos are on a pace to score 736 points, which would pulverize the NFL season record of 589 points. At 490 offensive yards per game, they're on pace to gain 7,840 yards, which would best the league record of 7,474.

But wait--what about college football?  Is the same trend happening at that level as well?  I MUST KNOW!

And the Broncos are staring at the taillights of the Oregon Ducks and Baylor Bears! Baylor is averaging 71 points and 790 offensive yards per game; Oregon, 59 points and 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The NFL scoring record came in 2007 (New England), the yardage record in 2011 (New Orleans). The NFL's three best performances ever for first downs were in 2012 (New England), 2011 (New Orleans) and 2011 (New England). How many records will fall in 2013?

Aside from CBS and FOX producers who need to make sure their broadcasts are filled with a constant stream of uninteresting graphics about this topic, who gives a shit?

Also important are Manning's confident, quick release; constant small changes in the game plan; nearly error-free communication of rapid play calls (this factor is more than meets the eye); 

Only a brainiac like Gregggg understands the importance of Manning's play calling and audibling, topics that have been discussed to death by every single football analyst in the world for the past 15 years.

and defensive backs who play scared because they are worried about being torched. As the postseason approaches, defensive backs may start jamming Denver receivers, reducing the Broncs' gaudy numbers.

Wouldn't that theoretically open them up to getting burned deep?  And why would they start doing it later in the season if it were the best way to defend Denver's offense?  Again, questions which only the world's smartest man can answer.  (Hint: the world's smartest man also knows that blitzing never works.)

Eagles at Giants, Philadelphia was called for offensive holding. Jersey/A coach Tom Coughlin's choice was to give Philadelphia fourth-and-4 on the Jersey/A 47 or let the visitors repeat the down as third-and-20 on their 37. When Coughlin chose the latter, Fox announcers Thom Brennaman and Brian Billick practically passed out. "The Eagles were short of the first down, which would have forced Philadelphia to punt," Brennaman said. Philadelphia converted and scored a field goal on the possession. After commercial, the camera did a close-up on the announcers, who at this point had enjoyed five minutes to think about what occurred. "Philadelphia had to punt, why did the Giants not force them to punt?" Brennaman asked his partner. "The only explanation I can offer is that Tom Coughlin was confused about the situation and did not realize the Eagles would have to punt," Billick declared.

Look, Billick is a card carrying waterhead of an analyst.  And generally, Greggggggg is right about the fact that teams should go for it on 4th down much more often than they do.  But I am so fucking tired of his "coaches punt to deflect blame" horseshit.  Listen to the crowd any time a home team passes up a 4th and short near midfield.  They boo the shit out of the coach's decision.  Easterbrook is correct that announcers tend to have super conservative points of view on coaching decisions, but it's not like fans do too.  People understand that coaches are dumb.  Despite what this pretentious cumstain would have you believe, very few fans say "Dur, well, we punted on 4th and 2 from the 50 while down 7 with 4 minutes to go and never got the ball back, that was the defense's fault!"

Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Leading 10-0 at Tennessee, the Chiefs had their backs to the wall as the Titans reached first-and-goal on the 1. Kansas City staged a classic goal-line stand: run no gain, pass no gain, run no gain, run no gain. The Chiefs' offense took the ball 94 yards the other way for a field goal and a 13-0 margin; the visitors went on to victory. Sweet.

Wait, if they took the ball 94 yards after a goal line stand, that means the line of scrimmage for the field goal was probably the Titans 5!  That's a mincing, fraidy cat field goal!  Reid should have challenged his team by going for it on 4th and goal, or 4th and whatever it was!  By sending in the field goal unit he told them he didn't expect them to win.  I'm surprised no one scribbled game over in their notebook at that point.

Another sweet goal-line stand occurred when Dallas, jumping to a quick 14-7 lead over Denver, reached first-and-goal at the Broncos' 3. The Boys went penalty, incompletion, incompletion, sack, field goal. Holding Dallas to a field goal in this situation helped kick-start the Denver comeback.

In the sense that they started scoring a bunch of touchdowns right after that stand, yes, it did.  In the sense that the Broncos have a really awesome offense that is always going to put up a shitload of points every game, their comeback had not a fucking thing to do with that sequence of plays.  But narratives!  So much fun.

Maybe Zombies Are Writing the Scripts: Erg ... arg. "The Walking Dead" new season kicks off in a few days, hard on the box-office success of the Brad Pitt zombiefest "World War Z."

Yes.  He's still doing this.

One must suspend disbelief to watch a Superman film, a sci-fi movie and almost any kind of action flick. 

One must suspend disbelief to watch pretty much any movie in any genre.  Why don't you take your own advice and work on doing that more often, Gregggg?  BUT MOVIES ARE UNREALISTIC is the only thing I can think of that's even more boring to read about than SOME TEAMS SCORED 60 POINTS LAST WEEKEND, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THEM.

But Superman is presented as a space alien whose biology is different from human, so perhaps different biology allows qualities such as wingless flight. "Star Trek," "Star Wars" and other sci-fi movies are set in imagined societies that have imagined technology. Zombie movies, by contrast, involve Homo sapiens and occur in the present day. In "World War Z," "The Walking Dead" and other recent zombie hits, there's not even a hint of how the zombie transition could be possible.

If carbon dioxide was going to create zombies, this would have happened to Australopithecus. OK, it's a movie.

I hate you. 

One must suspend disbelief to watch a Superman film, a sci-fi movie and almost any kind of action flick. 

One must suspend disbelief to watch a Superman film, a sci-fi movie and almost any kind of action flick. 

One must suspend disbelief to watch a Superman film, a sci-fi movie and almost any kind of action flick. 

Maybe it will sink in eventually.

New England Falls from Ranks of Unbeaten: Cincinnati sacked Tom Brady on third-and-2, sacked him on third-and-8, sacked him on third-and-10 late. The Patriots' no-name receivers were not open on critical downs. On the third-and-10 sack, Cincinnati blitzed six.

STOP ME BEFORE I BLITZ AGAIN IT ALWAYS IS THE WORST THING EVER

Gregg comes up with a can't-miss solution to gerrymandering:

Since any redistricting based on political arm-twisting will be tainted, the solution is computer algorithms that generate districts. A panel of experts representing a mix of ideologies could check the algorithms for neutrality, then let a mathematical formula draw the lines.

JUST PUT A CHIP IN THE BALL!  IT'S SUPER SIMPLE!  USE A COMPUTER TO DO IT OR SOMETHING!

Fortune Favors the Bold! Hosting Georgia, underdog Tennessee kept the offense on the field on fourth down three times in the fourth quarter, resulting in two touchdowns and a late 31-24 lead. The rest of the contest went the favorite's way.

Somehow, the idea that there are football gods that reward certain coaching decisions and punish others is not borne out by the sequence of events that took place during that game.

Untouched Touchdown of the Week: No Dallas player was within 15 yards of Peyton Manning as he jogged into the end zone on a naked bootleg on third-and-goal. How monumental will the point spread be for next Sunday's Jacksonville at Denver contest? With Jax 0-5 and barely putting up a fight, for the remainder of the season, this column will call the team Jaguars A&M. Maybe next Sunday's pairing will be Jaguars A&M at Broncos University.

/crickets

Weather Channel even announces its storm name picks in advance, mimicking National Weather Service policy on tropical storms. TMQ hopes the channel gets to Storm Kronos, then the weathercasters can dress as Klingons. If only Storm Xenia were instead Storm Xena!

Tip your wait staff, folks.

Ron Rivera, Pack Your Bags: Cam Newton was 25-1 as a starter in college, and is 14-22 as a starter in the NFL. But football is a team sport.

Fair enough, but in this same column:

The king's ransom in draft choices paid two years ago for Julio Jones led to talent depletion of the Atlanta roster. The king's ransom in money paid this offseason to Matt Ryan led to free-agency dilution. (It was unrealistic for Atlanta to put so many chips on discount free agent Osi Umenyiora -- in 2012, Osi's Giants were 31st in defense.)

Football is a team sport, unless Gregggggg wants to throw someone under the bus, in which case it's their fault that the Giants were terrible last year.  Seriously, this guy is a fucking moron.  Please, ESPN, I know you check this blog (by which I mean: no one other than my friends and a few of you nice strangers who have found us via Google or a really old Deadspin link checks this blog).  I'm begging you: fire this guy.  He sucks.  He's awful.  He knows next to nothing about football.  He's not funny.  He's not insightful.  He likes pointing out that science fiction is fully of scientific inaccuracies.  He's a sanctimonious, pretentious cunt.  Fire Gregg Easterbrook (dot blogspot dot com)!

Fruit does not hang lower than this, part 4 (out of 4)

I said I was going to recognize the nice reader who sent us a link to this column several posts ago.  Well, now I'm following through.  Bill B., you rule.  Everyone else--please feel free to send us links and stuff!  I check the blog email every three or four months and it's always a nice surprise when we have non-spam messages.

Four of my favorite wrinkles about the Pyramid Model:

1. I came up with it!

2. Me me me me me me!

3. It's a PYRAMID.  How EXCITING is that

4. Puts fancy-pants Don Sutton in his place

1. People would argue endlessly about which players belong on which levels. 

Yes, this is true, they probably would.  This is not a good thing.  The amount of debate we already have about who is in and who is out and who should get in soon and who should never get in is perfectly adequate.

It would be the "Ginger vs. Mary Ann" of sports debates. 

Boo!  What happened to the Friends references?

Is Koufax an "L4" or an "L5"? Does Ryan even make it past "L1"? 

Jesus, are there really people out there pushing this?  Saying "Nolan Ryan was overrated" is fine.  Saying "The all time leader in strikeouts, with 320 wins and almost 80 WAR to his name, does not belong in the HOF" is grounds for being thrown in a Siberian prison.

Does Yaz crack the "L3"s? 

Still amazed he put Yaz where he did.  YAZ GOT A RAW DEAL.

Should Brooks Robinson, Clemens and Morgan be "L4"s? Should The Eck even be an "L1"? Is Ripken an "L5" because he broke Gehrig's record? 

Should we take a guy who's probably somewhere between the 50th and 75th best player of all time, and now say he's one of the fifteen best, because he had the good fortune to never get hurt? 

2. To institute the Pyramid scheme, a special selection committee would re-assign levels to every existing member. Let's say the committee features 50 members, made up of well-known players, 

And after reading that dollop of stupid, I'm sure you'll agree with me that you don't need to see the rest of that paragraph.

(I mean ... wouldn't that be an immense amount of fun?

What could possibly go wrong???????????

4. The Pyramid structure would look cool. 

You're a child.  A small child with an undeveloped brain.

Besides the aesthetic benefits of a five-story pyramid-shaped building that contains every single nugget of baseball history and resembles a pyramid, can you imagine walking around the Hall of Fame, climbing each level ... and finally reaching The Pantheon? Unbelievable. I'm getting chills just thinking about it.

Holy shit.

Yup ... too bad it will never happen.

That's baseball for you. Instead of moving forward, our national pastime keeps moving backward and sideways. 

WHAT WE NEED ARE NOVELTY BUILDINGS, AND AN ELECTION PROCESS THAT'S NEGLIGIBLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT ONE IN TERMS OF DETERMINING WHO GETS INTO THE HALL BUT WHICH ALSO ADDS A SUPER COMPLICATED AND CONTROVERSIAL WRINKLE TO EVERYONE WHO GET ELECTED!  ALSO, WHY ISN'T THERE A TEAM THAT PLAYS ON THE MOON!  IMAGINE HOW MANY HOME RUNS THERE WOULD BE!  WHO SAYS NO?  I AM THE V.P. OF BASEBALL COMMON SENSE!

That's why the game is controlled by unions, TV money and luxury boxes. That's why big-market teams swallow small-market teams. That's why owners bitch about rising costs and then shell out gigantic, $50 million-plus deals to Darren Dreifort and Chan Ho Park. That's why World Series games start at 8:30 every night. 

All of those things are problematic.  Not one of them has anything to do with baseball "moving backward and sideways."  

That's why Don Sutton was elected to the Hall of Fame and Jim Rice wasn't ... 

Not one of them has anything to do with Jim Rice being rightfully denied admission to the Hall of Fame for 14 ballots.

and that's why few people care in the first place.

And every single one of them is born from a desire to get more fans to care about baseball, because those problems are all related to increasing revenue and more fans means more money. Go fuck yourself.

While we're here, since the Hall of Fame announcements happen today, I decided to fill out my own personal Hall of Fame ballot. 

Woo hoo!

In a perfect world, only players wielding considerable credentials (like Ozzie) would get elected at all. 

I have good news for Bill: with the exception of Jim Rice and a handful of other players, everyone in the current hall wields considerable credentials.

But since the committee has shown astounding leniency over the years, we have to "dumb down" our ballot because so many of these players have Level 1 qualifications. 

Here's my great idea for fixing the Hall of Fame!  Also, my idea lets in a shitload of people who shouldn't get in, so it still needs some tweaking.

That's one reason I love the Pyramid idea so much, because the shaky HOF guys get crammed together on the bottom level, where they belong.

That's one reason I love the pyramid idea so much: it's got huge problems.

Anyway ...

Ozzie Smith: Yes
He was an underrated offensive player during the second part of his career ('85 to '93), 

This is actually true.

as well as a clutch playoff guy for some accomplished Cardinals teams (three pennants, one title). 

Career triple slash: .262/.337/.328.  Career playoff triple slash: .236/.325/.292.  But he did hit that one home run against the Dodgers in the NLCS that one time, and that's all a blockhead like Bill remembers, so he is forever clutch.  Not to say he doesn't belong in the HOF or anything.  He does.  I just enjoy watching Bill stumble over himself even as he gets the ultimate question correct.

And he was durable as hell. You could actually make the case that, in retrospect, Ozzie was the most valuable everyday player of the '80s.

You could, but you'd be really wrong, because Rickey Henderson played during the 80s.

Jim Rice & Dale Murphy: Yes and no

This is great.

You can't vote in Puckett last January, then claim that Rice isn't a Hall of Famer because he lacked longevity. 

Sure you can, because the circumstances of their disappearance from the game were much different.  Puckett is a very fringe guy, and maybe he shouldn't be in, but at least (unlike Rice) he was forced out of the game for medical reasons rather than just because he started sucking at it.  But Bill probably doesn't know that.

Come on. Puckett's career was cut short because of glaucoma; Rice's career was cut short because he lost his bat speed in a mysterious "X-Files"-type accident (even Kathleen Turner didn't slip that fast). 

Oh!  Color me shocked!  He does know that!  I won't copy and paste that again, but you should read it again.  It's breathtaking.  "Not fair that Puckett is in and Rice isn't--Puckett developed a crippling disease that ended his career early, and Rice's career ended at age 35 because he got terrible at baseball.  QED."

What's the difference? Rice was definitely a Level 1 guy.

Which, as we learned last post, means he was a fringe HOFer, but not as good as a level 2 guy, who were not as good as level 3 guys, for various reasons like "they weren't as good as level 3 guys."

As for Murphy, his numbers were awesome during that eight-year run from '80 to '87, but I don't remember him ever reaching that vaunted "Holy Crap" level that Rice reached from '77 to '79. His numbers (398 homers, four seasons with an OPS above .900) make him intriguing, but I can't recall the last time I said to myself, "Man, I miss seeing Dale Murphy play baseball."

This is just too good.  Murphy's and Rice's resumes are astoundingly similar.  They're, like, within a single percent of each other. They are separated by a mere 17 PAs, 16 HR (advantage Murphy), and 1.7 WAR (advantage Rice).  Rice had about 300 more hits, but Murphy had about 300 more walks.  Rice wins handily in OPS+ (128 to 121), but Murphy stole 103 more bases and won 5 Gold Gloves at a premium defensive position.  It's a very close race--you can make a case for either being better than the other and not be wrong.  But Bill misses seeing Jim Rice play baseball and doesn't miss seeing Dale Murphy play baseball.  Wonder why?  Could it be related to the fact that, as someone pointed out in the comments to the last post, Murphy played in the boring and irrelevant National League?  I have an even nuttier theory--maybe it has something to do with the fact that Rice played for Bill's favorite team!  Anyways, maybe Bill can make a better case for Rice over Murphy.

I mean, Jim Rice broke his bat once on a checked swing. A checked swing!

Nope, he can't.

(Note: Don't underestimate the post-Murphy era bitterness on my part. With four of Murphy's rookie cards in my possession from the thousands and thousands of baseball cards I purchased in 1978, it was like holding four winning lottery tickets as Murphy's career bloomed in the mid-'80s. Now those cards are used as coasters in the Sports Guy Mansion. Damn it all.)

You're a fucking moron.

Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey and Keith Hernandez: No, no and no
[Mattingly]'s not even remotely close, and that's before we even mention the obvious Ewing Theory ramifications here -- the Yanks promptly rolled off four championships after he retired).

IT'S REAL!  THIS PROVES IT!  RENAME IT THE RONDO/MATTINGLY THEORY!  (Brief update on that: the Celtics are 17-12 since the injury, which is nice but not spectacular, and have lost 7 of their last 10.)

(Of course, every Yankees fan believes that Mattingly was a Level 4 Hall of Famer. You haven't really lived until you argued about the Hit Man's Hall of Fame credentials at a bar with a bunch of Yankees fans. It's like arguing about the existence of dinosaurs with Carl Everett -- relevant facts, statistics and evidence simply don't matter. 

Yes, but did Mattingly ever make you want to buy a ticket?  Do you miss seeing him play baseball?  Did he ever break a bat on a checked swing? 

As for Garvey, his credentials look pretty good, but I was alive during that time, and trust me ... we weren't hanging out on the playground flipping for Steve Garvey cards every day. 

Most likely because Garvey spent his whole career playing for teams 3,000 miles from Boston, but yeah, sure.

Hernandez almost gets my vote because of his defense and his watershed "Seinfeld" cameo ("I'm Keith Hernandez. ... I won the MVP in '79"), but his power numbers just weren't there in the mid-'80s. 

Hernandez was much better than Rice.  Shouldn't be in, but he was very good.

Does a first baseman who only cracked 100 RBI once and never seemed to get his OPS over the .800-to-.850 range 

Putting Bill's lack of knowledge of park factors aside, it's pretty great that Hernandez did get his OPS over .850 five times where as Rice did so six times.  Bringing Bill's lack of knowledge of park factors back into the discussion, it's pretty great that Hernandez and Rice finished with the same career OPS+, and Hernandez played great defense.

qualify as a Hall of Famer? I can't see it. How can you only average 89 RBI from '84 to '87 on those Mets teams when you're batting third?

Why should we penalize him for being told by his manager to bat third when he had the skillset of a great second hitter?  (I typed "#2 hole hitter" first but that looked awkward so I changed the wording lololololol)

Mike Henneman, Davey Concepcion, Jeff Russell, Scott Sanderson, Tim Wallach, Lenny Dykstra, Mike Greenwell, Robby Thompson: No, no, no, no, no, no, no and no
How did these guys even sneak on the ballot? 

You could always just look it up and learn that anyone who plays in at least part of ten seasons makes the ballot.  They had search engines in 2002, Bill.  I know they did.  I was there!  I saw Altavista break a bat with a checked swing once!

I love the fact that Mike Greenwell made the cut. High comedy. Apparently, Carlos Quintana was knocked off at the last minute.

Carlos Quintana only played in parts of five seasons.  Poor fella.

Bert Blyleven and Tommy John: No and no
Blyleven seems to be gaining steam because of the Sutton Factor (22 years, 287 wins, 3.34 ERA and a startling 3702 K's), 

"Blyleven seems to be gaining steam because he has an impressive resume, including a shitload of strikeouts"

his infamous Uncle Charlie, one of the memorable beards of the '80s, and one of Chris Berman's best nicknames (Bert "Be Home" Blyleven). I wouldn't be outraged if he made the cut. On the other hand, I can't remember coming home from school and having my father say to me, "Let's go to Fenway and scalp tickets -- Bert Blyleven's in town!" He's out.

You should be thrown off of a cruise ship.

John's résumé was pretty similar to Blyleven (26 seasons, 288 wins, 3.31 ERA, not nearly as many K's), and he was a Red Sox killer who personified the term "crafty southpaw." Frankly, I was terrified of him. But he wasn't quite a Hall of Famer -- like Blyleven, he was never a clear-cut "This guy's one of the best pitchers alive right now" guy. Plus, he played for the Yankees. He's out.

Both of these guys were way better than Jack Morris.  Blyleven was so much better it almost makes me feel bad for Morris when I explain the gap between their resumes.

Frank Viola, Jim Kaat, Ron Guidry: No, no and no

Viola and Guidry both fell short of 200 wins, but in terms of ERA+ and WAR, were better than Morris.  Kaat has basically the same resume as Morris.  BUT HOW MANY OPENING DAY STARTS DID HE MAKE????

Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter: Yes and no
If you needed six outs from 1977-1984, Gossage was The Guy. 

Canadians everywhere eagerly anticipate Eric Gagne's eventual inclusion.

Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker: No and no

Both of these guys should be in, especially Whitaker.  Also: Trammell had more WAR in the 80s that "arguably most valuable player of the 80s" Ozzie Smith.

Both of them made me at least say, "Hmmmmmmmm." Trammell anchored some nice Tigers teams in the mid-'80s and was a fantasy draft staple at short -- let the record show that he went ahead of Cal Ripken in my draft just about every year in the '80s and early-'90s (and he was just as good defensively). 

That's possible Level 5 of the Pyramid Inductee Cal Ripken to you, bub!

Dave Parker: No
And it's his own damned fault. If it's any consolation, he makes my All-Cocaine team, which is not to be confused with the '86 Mets.

Ah, the early 00s, a time when "people used coke a lot during the 80s" jokes were still (ostensibly) fresh.

Gary Carter: Yes
I loved Carlton Fisk as much as anyone, but for an entire decade (1977 to 1986), Gary Carter was the best catcher in baseball. It's not even up for discussion. And given that he anchored those Mets staffs in the mid-'80s and started the game-winning rally against Calvin Schiraldi in That Game (ugh), 

Good thing Carter did that one thing that one time in a game against the Most Important Team in Baseball!  Otherwise, he'd probably be out.

Andre Dawson: No
The Hawk! Sixteen quality seasons in a 20-year career, 438 homers, one Rookie of the Year, eight Gold Gloves, one MVP, consistently a .285/30/95 guy, one of the two best right fielders of his era (along with Dave Winfield), a guy who battled knee problems during the majority of his career and still produced every season, and he even had a cup of coffee with the Red Sox.

Good thing Dawson did that one thing that one time in a game against the Most Important Team in Baseball!  Unfortunately, he's still out, even though he was way better than Jim Rice.

But other than his '87 season with the Cubs, I can't remember ever thinking to myself, "Man, it doesn't get any better than Andre Dawson!" 

Barf.

Jack Morris, Luis Tiant: Yes and yes

Morris:

254 W

2500 Ks

ERA+ 105

40 WAR

1 AMAZING INCREDIBLE GAME 7 OF THE WORLD SERIES SHUTOUT VICTORY

Blyleven:

287 W

3700 Ks

ERA+ 118

90 FUCKING WAR, MORE THAN GIBSON, CARLTON, OR PERRY

While Morris's ALL CAPS thingy was a great moment, I'm pretty sure Blyleven's ALL CAPS thingy beats it.  The only one of those two guys who belongs in the hall is the one who's already there.

I try to avoid posting about bloggers

But this dude blogs for Yahoo so he probably makes decent money for his work (well, some money anyways).  That makes him fair game as far as I'm concerned, and besides, oh my goodness gracious what a fucking idiot.

Where does Andrew Luck ank among NFL quarterbacks at this moment? 

Well, in terms of yards passing, he's now second overall in the league.  That's pretty good, although it's also a function of the fact that his team's running backs are Donald Brown and Vick Ballard.  If you want to use ANY other metric of QB performance, you'll see that Luck ranks pretty low.  24th in QB rating.  29th in completion percentage.  Tied for 17th in touchdown passes.  I can't find a stats site that will rank the league's QBs by TD/INT ratio, but his is 1.25, and that's pretty shitty.  Luck has definitely played decently, especially for a rookie, but he's probably not among the top 20 QBs in the league.

Are there 10 quarterbacks in the league better than him? 

Yes.  There are many more than that, in fact.

Five?

Manning, Brady, Ryan, Rodgers, Roethlisberger.  And a bunch of other guys.  Fellow rookie RGIII is outplaying Luck by a pretty significant margin by passing stats alone; add in Griffin's running ability and he's way, way, way better than Luck right now.  Not that RGIII hasn't also received his share of undue hyperbolic praise.  But if someone is going to write an article about how Luck is inserting himself into the MVP discussion (oh yes, he's about to do that, just wait), it seems like "he's not even the best rookie QB in the league" is a good place to start with a counterargument.

What Luck is doing in Indianapolis so far this year is among the most impressive feats a rookie has ever pulled off. 

He's throwing for a lot of yards, in part because he's 3rd in the league in attempts per game with 42.  He's been pretty average.  I know the history of the NFL is littered with crappy rookie QB performances, but it's not like he's setting the world on fire.

Behind his NFL rookie record 433 passing yards, Indianapolis beat Miami 23-20 to improve to 5-3. In a watered-down AFC, the Colts have a great shot at a playoff berth, which is amazing.

The Colts have beaten the Packers, I'll give them that.  On the other hand they've also lost to Jacksonville and been completely humiliated by the fucking Jets.  Their remaining schedule has 5 road games and 3 home games; they play Houston twice and New England.  They'll probably finish 8-8 and if they make the playoffs it'll be predominantly a function of the AFC's shittiness.

This is the same franchise that was in serious danger of going 0-16 last year. 

It's also the same franchise that went 10-6 in 2010 and didn't really lose anyone other than Manning for 2011.  It's not like the roster was a total wasteland when Luck showed up.  They had a horrible 2011, but I doubt they were a true talent 2 win team.  Just like they're not a true talent 10 win team now.

The Colts didn't add much in the free-agent market this offseason, realizing they faced a long-term rebuilding project.

Their offense had/still has plenty of quality pieces.  Their defense put up poor numbers last year, but those were skewed by the fact that the defense spent so much time on the field because the offense was abominable.  It was probably a middle of the pack defense, give or take, as it is this year and was in 2010.  They traded for Vontae Davis during the preseason.  Not really a "we don't expect to be good this year" kind of move.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you're going to have give other Colts besides Luck credit for their "5-3 although we're really not that good" start.

But they added Luck. And now they are halfway to a 10-win season and a wild-card berth.  Sometimes success in the NFL is as easy as having a great quarterback.

Just ask any of the vapid talking heads on FOX or CBS's pre/postgame studio shows!  That must mean it's true!

Luck was dominant against the Dolphins. 

He was pretty good.  He completed 63% of his passes and led his team to a 3 point win, at home, against another mediocre team.  

He completed 30-of-48 passes for 433 yards, with two touchdowns and no interceptions. He broke the Colts' rookie record for passing in a game - set by Jack Trudeau with 359 yards in 1986, of course. Were you expecting someone else?
LOL INDEED I WAS, YOU GOT ME THERE, I AM THE HUCKLEBERRY

The Colts had a more memorable rookie quarterback who set records that Luck is gaining on. ESPN Stats and Info said Luck is the second rookie in NFL history with four 300-yard passing games. The other was Peyton Manning in 1998. Luck has half a season left to add to that total.

And if he keeps throwing 42 times per game, he's got a good shot at getting there.

Two Colts receivers had 100-yard games on Sunday: Donnie Avery and T.Y. Hilton. That's not exactly Swann and Stallworth. 

And those guys often get single coverage because the Colts still have Reggie Wayne, who's still really good.  

The Colts could go from a team that started 0-13, brought back a roster that isn't dramatically better than last season and had the horrible situation of coach Chuck Pagano being diagnosed with leukemia during the season, to one that goes to the playoffs. Luck's impact on the first half of this NFL season can't be overstated. 

It certainly can.  Congratulations for accomplishing the impossible, sir.

He should be considered a legitimate MVP candidate through eight games.

Not even close.

If Luck isn't already considered in the elite tier of NFL quarterbacks, 

He's not.

his inclusion on that list will be an easy decision very soon, 

He looks pretty decent so far.  Maybe in a few seasons, depending on like twenty different factors.  So basically he has as good a shot as any talented-but-mediocre-so-far rookie would have of eventually joining those ranks, which is probably worse than 50/50.

especially as the Colts start to add pieces around him. 

Yeah, maybe an elite #1 wide receiver type guy.  They certainly don't have one of those right now.  (He would benefit from the presence of a running back who's not Donald Brown or Vick Ballard, I'll concede that.)

Indianapolis picked the perfect year to be awful and earn the first overall pick.

There's a chance Luck will end up being better than other QBs picked #1 overall recently, like Newton or Stafford or Bradford.  There's even a chance he's as good as Manning or Elway one day.  And then there's also a chance he's never any better than middle of the pack, because playing QB in the NFL is fucking difficult.  Up until this point I had no strong feelings either way on Luck.  Thanks to this article, which other than the fact that it uses correct spelling/grammar/capitalization sounds like it was written by a poster at coltsfansmessageboard.com, I now hope he fails spectacularly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little kids are front-runners!

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

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

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

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

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

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

/Larry B hangs head in exasperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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