Bill's trade value column game me herpes, part 4 (of 4)

Only took me two weeks to finish running through this dreck.  Since then, Bill has written another article (Two in one month!  That's pretty good by his standards!) in which he tells you how Dwight Howard is terrible at basketball.  I might get to that later this week, except I don't particularly enjoy defending Howard in order to mock Bill, because Howard is a zilch, so I will probably post about something else.  Your suggestions are welcome in the comments, or via email.  Actually how about just in the comments.

5. James Harden
4. Russell Westbrook

His love for Harden was vindicated this season, because Harden was awesome.  Harden's strong play this year does not excuse the complete ignorance of pretty much everything displayed by Bill here, however.

You already know how I feel about Westbrook, and Harden's breakout season in Houston was mildly jaw-dropping. The Beard (only 23, by the way) averaged a 26-6-5, with 44-37-85 shooting splits, for a team that didn't have a second All-Star. He's also wholly unique: 

He's mostly somewhat unique!  Of course Bill is that guy who treats unique like it's a spectrum rather than something binary.  And of course I'm the jackass who points that all too common mistake out and complains about it.

a southpaw who's either jacking up 3s (6.2 per game) or getting to the line (10.2 per game, first in the NBA). 

It is pretty nuts that Harden (792 FTA) attempted at least 300 more free throws than every single other player in the NBA this year except for Durant, Howard, Kobe, Westbrook, LeBron and Carmelo (in 7th with 512 FTA).  That's a huge gap, and his three point shooting was impressive too.  At the same time, who gives a fuck about handedness in basketball?

Throwing in the low number of true franchise players in 2013, 

This is, perhaps, a reasonable assessment to make.  Then you read the attached footnote in which he explains his definition and see:   

In my opinion, a franchise player is someone who, at the very least, can drag a mediocre supporting cast to the playoffs. Harden did that, so he's a franchise player.

This is "NFL pregame show talking head" level analysis.  HERP DERP WELL BOOMER TO ME A FRANCHISE GUY IS A GUY WHO LEADS YOUR FRANCHISE SO TOM BRADY, THIS GUY RIGHT HERE IS A FRANCHISE GUY TO ME.  Often times there is at least one guy who misses the playoffs and who would be agreed upon by everyone with a brain to be a franchise player.  This year it was Dirk. In 2011 it was Nash (who was 36, sure, but was still good for 15 and 12 every night; I think that counts).  It happened to Kobe during his age 26 season for crying out loud. 

the lack of crunch-time scorers and the overall dearth of 2-guards — really, it's Harden, then Wade, then Klay Thompson, then Kobe if he ever comes back, then we're suddenly looking at the likes of DeMar DeRozan and J.R. Smith — it's hard to believe Harden was ever on the market.

It's not.  Go read my post from last October.  If you're not Bill, you'll be able to separate "Will the team be better with this player on the roster" from "Does it make business sense to keep him around" and you will understand how it happened.

And look, I've hammered Oklahoma City enough for one of my least favorite NBA trades ever — you can read my thoughts here and here and here. But I don't think the following point can be emphasized strongly enough.

Gratuitous and nonsensical reference to New England-based franchise coming in 5... 4... 3...

You can't just assume in basketball that the window will always stay open for you.

And why can't we assume that?  2... 1...

In football, you can build around a franchise quarterback, draft smartly, protect your cap, repeatedly trade down for more assets and do everything else that Bill Belichick did since 2001. 

OW-UH BILLY B HAS NEVAH BEEN OUTSMAHHHTED!  NOT EVEN WHEN HE KEEPS FALLING SHORT IN THE PLAYOFFS WHILE STOCKPILING FUTURE PICKS DURING EVERY DRAFT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVING A REALLY SHITTY SECONDARY THAT COMES BACK TO BITE HIM!

That mind-set doesn't work in basketball. You can find/afford three blue-chippers only if you're lucky. You can't "trade down" and assume you'll replace a blue-chipper with multiple pieces; it never really worked. You also can't assume that you're getting 10 more cracks at the Finals, or that your best players will stay healthy year after year after year. The '86 Rockets thought they had a perennial contender. So did the '88 Mavericks, the '91 Blazers, the '92 Cavaliers, the '93 Suns, the '94 Warriors, the '97 Bullets, the '03 Kings, the '05 Suns … but the truth is, you never know.

Bill's analysis: sometimes, teams think they are set for the future when in fact they are not set for the future.  Again, the nuance argument against this is in my post from October, but needless to say Bill is not being even 10% as smart as he thinks he's being.

The Thunder easily could have kept together three of the top six guys on this list for one more year, then decided on their future this summer. 

And Harden would have been pissed all season if they shopped him beforehand, or even if they didn't, he probably would have walked at the end of the season.  I agree with him that they didn't get enough in return for him, and that they most certainly wish that they could have a do over on Serge Ibaka's extension and instead find a way to keep Harden, but that ship had sailed by October 2012.  Anyways, "Harden to the Rockets" has become Bill's new "I saw Greg Oden walk awkwardly at an awards show, and from that moment on I knew he was doomed," so now I have to root against the Rockets for the next several years.  Such is life as a hater like me.

3. Stephen Curry
I already shot my wad on Curry 

A Tobias Funke moment for Bill.  He must be an AD fan.

in last Friday's column (the extended March Madness analogy), so let's defend what seems like an overreaction of a ranking. 

It probably is, because at all times, Bill has the objective analysis skills of a drunk guy watching his favorite team play its most bitter rival in the most important game of the year. He likes Curry; therefore, the Warriors would turn down a Curry for Westbrook deal if the Thunder offered it.

I love Curry, you love Curry, everyone loves Curry … but third? Really? Third out of anyone???? When he was no. 16 just five weeks ago? The top seven reasons why Curry snared the no. 3 spot, in no particular order:

Reason No. 1: Along with Kevin Durant, he's 2013's co-winner of the Derrick Rose Award for "Guy Whose City Would Riot If He Were Traded." Right now, the Golden Gate Bridge has a better chance of being traded than Steph Curry.

He must have emailed Berman for that "local geography" reference.  That's comedy gold.  THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF BEING TRADED THAN DEREK JETER.  THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF BEING TRADED THAN ROBERT GRIFFIN III.  My god, someone punch me in the face.

Reason No. 2: Here's what it looks like when a 25-year-old guy is making The Leap.

Post All-Star (30 games): 26.0 PPG, 7.4 APG, 48% FG, 89% FT, 46% 3FG, 8.9 3FGA.
2013 Playoffs (8 games): 26.5 PPG, 8.9 APG, 46% FG, 91% FT, 43% 3FG, 9.0 3FGA

And it goes beyond stats — the Warriors are winning with a team that is built around Curry's offense and personality. 

It is not built around his personality, or anyone else's.  We're back to the NFL pregame show analysis.  DURRR SEE THIS IS JUST GOOD HARD PITTSBURGH STEELER FOOTBALL, COACH.  THEY TACKLE THE OTHER TEAM'S RUNNING BACK WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.

You're always looking for teams with identities in May, and here's Golden State's identity: Opponents can't leave Curry or Thompson open for a 3-pointer for 48 solid minutes. 

That is not an identity.  That's just a good offensive gameplan.  The Spurs' identity is not "running most possessions through Duncan in the post and doing a great job on the boards."  That is just their gameplan.  Please stop trying to construct personality-driven narratives for non-living things.

They aren't just stretching the floor, they're bending it into something else. 

That's incredibly shitty writing.

Reason No. 4: Mark Jackson is technically right — Golden State has the best shooting backcourt ever, although it's really the best long-range shooting backcourt ever. Check out the only 13 players (their best seasons only) who made at least 2.5 3s a game while (a) shooting at least 40 percent or higher, and (b) averaging at least 16.5 points per game (sorry, Damon Jones, Raja Bell and Kyle Korver).

This list I'm about to show you proves my point perfectly!  I just had to mess with the parameters to exclude players who are awesome shooters but who would not serve as good examples for my pre-selected point.

Reason No. 5: "Turn on the game, Steph Curry is heating up" is the single most exciting sports-related text you can send or receive right now. 

I AM THE TEXT CZAR!  I AM THE VP OF COMMON TEXTING SENSE!  WHO SAYS NO?????

Reason No. 6: You can't come up with a better NBA match of "performer and crowd" than Curry and Oakland right now. They were meant for each other. It was destiny.

You're fucking stupid.  Every crowd in the league would react to Curry the way Golden State's does if he were leading their team into the second round of the playoffs.  Fuck, Bobcats fans would be going nuts.  Nice to see him acknowledge the idea that fans other than those from Boston can be special and unique though.  It makes him more wrong than usual but also less annoying than usual.

GROUP A: "Completely and Utterly Untouchable"

2. Kevin Durant
Producer A: "So how are we gonna spruce up this Kevin Durant movie? It's so boring right now. I mean, I get it — he's a role model, he's incredibly efficient, there's nobody like him, yada yada yada. I'm bored just talking about it. What's the hook?"

Producer B: "I have a few ideas."

Producer A: "Let's hear 'em."

Producer B: "We keep everything up through when they lose in the 2012 Finals. Right before the next season, his team trades James Harden because they're afraid to pay him."

Producer A: "What do they get for him?"

Producer B: "I was thinking something pretty bad — like, Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb and two future picks."

Producer A: "What????? That's ridiculous! That trade would never happen in real life!"

Producer B: "Just stay with me. So now it's just Durant and Westbrook — now they're playing pissed off because everyone thinks the Harden trade ruined their title chances. Durant's even getting technicals and stuff."

Producer A: "I like it. Yelling at the refs! That's good!"

Producer B: 

I cut this short by about 800 words.  Needless to say: douchechills.

1. LeBron James
Let's break into a mini-LeBronbag …

Always nice when his readers do his work for him.  DEAR BILL HERE'S AN IDEA YOU BROUGHT UP IN A COLUMN A WHILE AGO.  NOW I'M REGURGITATING IT TO YOU--IT'S A PRETTY GOOD IDEA RIGHT?  I'LL HANG UP AND WAIT FOR YOUR ANSWER THANKS

Q: Last year you memorably wrote

Like I said.

that the NBA MVP trophy should vary in size based on the level of performance by that year's MVP. 

Whoever thought of that idea should be punched in the throat.  Fortunately, it was not nearly as memorable as Steven from Los Angeles wants to believe that it was.

So wouldn't this season qualify LeBron for a 40-pounder? Especially considering what he has done for his fourth trophy compared to what he did for the first 3. After this season we are firmly in the LeBron James era.
—Steven Feister, Los Angeles

Among all the other awful things about that email, the most awful is probably the idea that Steven thought it was worth anyone's time to point out that yes, finally, in 2012-2013, we are DEFINITELY in the LeBron era.  GOOD NEWS GUYS, AS OF THIS YEAR I FEEL COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT WE'RE IN THE SIDNEY CROSBY ERA.

SG: I thought it was a 40-pounder. 

I DO still like my idea that you also like!  Thanks, Steven!

Q: I propose renaming the Coach of the Year award for Mike D'Antoni. Why can't we call it the "Not Mike D'Antoni" award? 

Why, that's nearly unclever enough to be an idea Bill came up with himself!

What better way to honor someone who somehow made a team with four future Hall of Famers unwatchable all year. Here's how it works: This year's Not Mike D'Antoni Award goes to Erik Spoelstra. He brilliantly built a unique offense around his best player and took his team to near historic levels. In other words, he's not Mike D'Antoni.
—Jason, Virginia

SG: (Standing and applauding.)

Of course you are.  And while I certainly have to respect his eleven rings, I've always loved the fact that Phil Jackson and the four first ballot HOFer-having 2003-2004 Lakers couldn't get past the no superstar-having Pistons in the Finals that year.  That series (Detroit in 5, including wins by 12, 13 and 20) is one of the best pieces of evidence as to why Larry Brown rules all shit.

Q: Neo coming back to life in The Matrix and becoming The One is exactly what happened to LeBron game six in Boston last year. I guess we're in Matrix Reloaded now where LeBron can win as many games as he wants in a row like Neo defeating a million Agent Smiths. I guess next year LeBron will be reunited with the Source or something.
—Marc Feffer, New York

SG: I've never seen The Matrix … but sure! Sounds good.

CASTAWAY OR SHAWSHANK OR GET THE FUCK OUT

Q: LeBron now looks like the only Queen on an NBA chessboard 

Ah, another Tobias moment, this time from a reader.  Nice.  Also, as you're about to see, it's a horrid analogy.

(and I mean that as a true compliment). He now understands it all. Angles, spacing, etc. … He is blessed with such physical skills that he can impose his will, at will, regardless of the other nine paid professionals on the court. When he decides to take over a game it is unlike anything I have ever witnessed. He bends the entire game, all action on the court, towards him, at both ends. I have never seen anything like it.
—Matt Robinson, Edmonton, Alberta

If you watch LeBron play basketball and you're like "You know what he's like?  He's like the queen on a chessboard" then you are a fucking moron.

SG: It's the perfect analogy. Matt Robinson couldn't be more correct … LeBron is the queen on the chessboard. 

Of course.

Gregg: Stooping lower and lower with each passing week

This post is not going to be extensive enough to get the TMQR label.  It's also about an incident that's already a week old.  I am ashamed of myself and I will try to write my usual two shitty copout posts this week as opposed to the single one I wrote last week.  Anyways, I'm sure it's painfully clear to everyone that Gregggggg is in the business of pushing certain stories/lessons.  Undrafted players who have been cut at one point or another are awesome.  Punting is terrible.  Tenths of seconds do not actually exist.  And of course, many players (particularly those MEGABUCKS GLOREE BOYS) are stupid dumb idiots who do stupid stuff like celebrate excessively because they're morons who only care about themselves.  (To his credit, he has occasionally taken the side of the players during certain incidents where they were penalized or fined for TD celebrations.  So he's not completely anti-celebration under all circumstances.  But he also frequently references the stupid white guy "GRRR I HATE HOW THESE PLAYERS LIKE TO DANCE WHEN THEY MAKE A GOOD PLAY, THEIR EGOS ARE TOO BIG" bullshit.  Also, to his discredit, about a hundred different things.)

Now, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if he only pushed his perspective on these items on his readers when events warranted such pushing.  I mean, it would still be pretty bad, but if he were always honest about the facts that led to his referencing his perspective, I could maybe tolerate that.  Sadly, he's so obsessed with pushing his narrative that he can't even surmount that extremely low threshold for my maybe tolerance.  Rather, when he needs to make one of his points, he's more than happy to change facts.  You've probably already seen this, but if you haven't, watch it again, and then join me in celebrating Gregg's complete and total assholery.

Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: Trailing 31-28, the Redskins faced third-and-8 at the St. Louis 36 with 1:27 remaining. RG3 threw a 7-yard completion to Josh Morgan, advancing Washington to the 29 and field goal range. More concerned with attention for himself than victory for his team, Morgan celebrated by throwing the ball at a Rams defender. Unsportsmanlike conduct pushed Washington back to the 44, where a desperation field goal try sailed far off the mark.

If I had just started reading TMQ, I might give him a pass for that patently incorrect assessment of why Morgan threw the ball at Cortland Finnegan as perhaps being the result of Gregg not actually watching the play (and maybe having had it explained to him second hand by someone even dumber than he is).  But at this point, I know his game.  I know he watches highlights from every game before he writes.  And I'm 99% sure that in this case, he saw the play lives, since he lives in the DC area.  No no no no--this is not misinterpretation.  This is intentional deception, because it tickles his balls to tell his readers about a ME FIRST player doing something that cripples his team's chances at winning.  Note that he doesn't identify Finnegan by name.  I promise you he knows that Finnegan was the Ram who had the ball thrown at him.  But Finnegan is known as an agitator by most fans, so naming Finnegan might cause the TMQ readers who didn't see or hear about the play and who take Gregg as gospel to question whether Morgan was celebrating or angrily lashing back at a guy who was (as usual) being a complete and total pain in the dick to line up against.  I'm telling you, Gregg knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote that paragraph.  The dots are all there, we just have to connect them.  WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.  Gregg is such a cuntswabber.  He's just the absolute fucking worst.

Bonus idiocy:

Many sports commentators have noted this knucklehead move by Morgan deprived the Skins of a makeable field goal to force overtime. But consider -- it would have been fourth-and-1 on Les Mouflons' 29. Washington rushed for 176 yards on the game, a 6.1-yard average. 

And each and everyone one of their previous rushing attempts in the game came on 4th and 1!  That piece of data is now even truthier than it was before.  I know I just spent like 500 words telling you that Gregg is smarter than he appears; that he's not accidentally misinterpreting events, he's lying about them outright to advance his agenda.  But let me just walk that back a couple of steps: in this case, I really think he is enough of a doofus to think that a team's expected number of yards gained on 4th and 1 with the game on the line can be accurately estimated by taking their average yards per play gained throughout the course of the game to that point.  Yeah, you know what, sometimes he really is just a total shitbrain.

The Redskins could have gone for the first down and positioned themselves to win outright with a touchdown.

FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD!!!!!!!  EXCEPT WITH BLITZING--DON'T EVER EVER BLITZ, BECAUSE THE OTHER TEAM MIGHT SCORE WHEN YOU DO, AND THEN IT'LL BE ALL YOUR FAULT.  (If I were more awake right now, this is where I'd put an angry paragraph or two about how Stanford closed out their upset win over USC last week by blitzing on every single play of USC's final drive.  BUT WAIT, MATT BARKLEY IS A GOOD QB!  IT'S ESPECIALLY DUMB TO BLITZ GOOD QBS, THEY ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO DO IT!  YOU'RE HANDING THEM FREE TOUCHDOWNS!  And yes, this is a whole post referencing two games that happened 7+ days ago.  Sometimes, you come up with an idea for a post, and then time passes and the subject matter of the post is old news, and then you say fuck it, I'm writing the post anyways.)

Josh Morgan, you are guilty of the single worst play of the season -- so far.

DIE.

Murray Chass Makes Me Angry

I thought my anger about sports journalism was abating. Till I read this: a self-righteous bullshit article from a guy who wants to knock others down. You can see a picture of the man on the right, looking grim and rough and ready to tussle with some stat geeks. Well, shit, Murray Chass, it's on.

A Never-Ending Debate

There is nothing in sports that creates the controversy and the debate provoked by voting for the Hall of Fame.

There is nothing in a sub-standard article that can create controversy and debate like a hyperbolic, universal opening statement.

More than a week after the results of the latest voting were announced, I was still getting e-mail about the results. Everyone is an expert, fans and bloggers alike.

No, this is not true. People who are knowledgeable, thoughtful, and often even logical fans are experts. The thing is - you can't tell if someone is a baseball expert just by their job, or even by their photographic pose up against a baseball fence.

They all know better than the people who actually vote in the election, and they eagerly tell us so.

Murray Chass has made this statement sarcastically. I re-submit this statement, un-sarcastically.

A reader of this site told me in an e-mail that my ballot, which I disclosed before the results were announced, “contains votes for players I do not believe deserve to be in the Hall of Fame and you failed to vote for players who clearly deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.”

Not surprising, since Murray did indeed vote for Jack Morris. Good work, reader who e-mails.

“Clearly deserve” in whose judgment? His, of course. Does that make him right and me wrong? Of course not. Am I right? Yes. Why? Because my opinion counts and his doesn’t. My ballot was one of the 539 counted in the election. He did not have a vote. Therefore, his opinion is worthless as far as the election is concerned.

This made me so angry. Even reading this for a third time, I am still angry. Hey Murray, just because you graduated from Pitt in 1960 and started working the trade for all these years still doesn't mean you can think. It just means you've been reporting for work.

Also, your opinion is worthless. I am angry.

I am still angry about this paragraph.

That’s the real problem self-proclaimed experts have. They want to be the ones voting, but they don’t have that privilege. It’s their own fault. They chose the wrong profession. Accountants, lawyers, doctors, teachers and salesmen don’t get to vote for the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers do.

Except that the constraints for entry into the "baseball writers' profession" is pretty fucking low. You pretty much need a BA in English, which is a lot easier to get than a JD or an MD. Even HatGuy got one. Mine wasn't very hard to get at all. The point of this is, Murray, is that just because you're a baseball writer doesn't make you any fucking smarter than someone who decided not to become a baseball writer because they'd rather do something else with their days. I bet Larry B or Chris W could've become pretty good sportswriters. I could've become a sportswriter.

I am still angry.

When I started out in life, I wanted to be a baseball writer, not so that I could vote for the Hall of Fame. I didn’t know anything about voting then, but it is something that came with the territory.

And now it's a territory that you want to clutch to your exclusive little chest, even holding it away from people like me, who started out in life loving baseball but not wanting to write about it all day.

Actually, I don’t believe baseball writers should be voting for the Hall of Fame, though I don’t know of a more qualified group, which is why the Hall maintains its association with the Baseball Writers Association.

How do you think one should gain election, Murray Chass?

Side question: could we have the players of the just-passed era vote? I guess that means we'd have to give Lenny Dykstra and Rob Dibble a vote, though. Maybe we could have the players of the just-passed-era who aren't loudmouthed idiots vote.

Nearly 20 years ago I introduced a motion at a Baseball Writers Association meeting that the organization should withdraw from voting. This was at the time Pete Rose became eligible for the writers’ ballot, and to make sure we didn’t elect him, the Hall’s board of directors changed the rules, deciding that anyone who was permanently ineligible from baseball was not eligible for the Hall of Fame. That meant Joe Jackson and Pete Rose.

It's not that bizarre of a conclusion to draw. The voters had already de facto been enforcing it by never voting for Jackson, even though he seems pretty close to HOF standards for a short career.

I was not going to vote for Rose, but I objected to the board’s action. If Hall officials couldn’t trust the writers to do the right thing, I felt, we should end our association with the Hall and its election. If they manipulated the ballot in that instance, they could do it whenever they felt like it.

Two people voted for Jay Bell. You barely remembered to send your ballot in. The writers moped around for fourteen years and then collectively pity-voted Jim Rice in. Nobody should trust the writers to do the right thing until they clean house a little.

After listening to the discussion among the writers at the meeting, I sensed that the motion had a chance to pass. Dave Nightingale, a writer from Chicago, sensed the same thing, though unlike me, not happily. He quickly introduced a motion to table the vote, made some good arguments in support and saved the day for the BBWAA-Hall of Fame connection.

Sounds like a nice little meeting. I wonder how many jokes got made every day about good ol' Dave Nightingale's pretty awesome last name.

The vote was tabled until a vote of all of the members could be conducted by mail. With that development, I knew my motion had no chance. It lost easily.

So you tried to sneak through a motion in a sparsely-attended meeting, when you knew you didn't represent the opinions of the whole organization, Murray?

Sounds pretty shady.

Lisa Olson feels the same way I did then. A former sports writer with the New York Daily News, Lisa attracted unwanted post-election attention when an item on deadspin.com about the Hall of Fame voting said she always submits a blank ballot, has every year she has voted.

Don't want attention? Don't work in the media.

A blank ballot counts. It means the voter doesn’t think anyone should be elected that year, and it is counted in the tally. Depending on the number of blank ballots that are returned, they can affect the outcome of the election. The 75 percent threshold candidates need for election is affected by the total number of votes.

I grasp this. Even though I haven't worked in the industry for forty years, I grasp this.

For example, this year there were 5 blank ballots among the 539 total ballots. Seventy-five percent of 539 requires 405 votes for election. Seventy-five percent of 534 requires 401. Without the blank ballots, Bert Blyleven would have missed election by one vote, not five.

Thanks for the unnecessary math, Murray. But I thought you were against extra math in baseball?

But back to Lisa Olson. The report of her annual blank ballot made me curious enough to ask her why she does that. She doesn’t, she replied.

Lisa, who writes for fanhouse.com, explained that she doesn’t return any kind of ballot, blank or otherwise.

Well, Jay Mariotti writes for fanhouse.com, which doesn't necessarily mean that Lisa Olson is a terrible person... but it's still a bad association to have your name under his on your website. It's bad enough that my name comes up in the same space as Jarrett's, but that's just the way things work here.

“I don’t participate,” she wrote in an e-mail, “because I believe journalists shouldn’t be voting on people they cover. As someone else noted, it’s akin to having journalists who cover the pentagon vote on who should receive the purple star. Who knows, maybe some day my mind-set will change, but that is how I feel now. I’ve no problem with journos who do participate; we all follow our own conscience. And not participating is much different than sending in a blank ballot. My decision to not participate has zero impact on the outcome.”

That seems vaguely sensible. Also the abbreviation "journos" is weird. 'Journos' sounds too close to 'winos'.

Gee, what a shock. A blog got it wrong. Barry Petchesky, who wrote the item, was good enough to explain his mistake in an e-mail.

Lots of blogs get it wrong. Lots of writers get it wrong. Everyone gets things wrong.

“On Lisa’s site, FanHouse,” he wrote, “they published the ballots of each of their voting members, with a note saying that Lisa ‘abstained from taking part in the voting process as she has in every election since she became eligible.’”

Petchesky said he attempted to ask Olson about her ballot via e-mail but heard nothing before he posted his item.

“A few hours later,” he wrote, “I got an email from FanHouse editor Andrew Johnson pointing out that Lisa’s abstention didn’t count as a ‘no vote’ against any players. I then updated the post to reflect this. Six or so hours later I received an email from Lisa explaining her reasoning for abstaining from the vote, and I updated my post again, publishing her note. I sent her an email apologizing for the confusion.”

Seems rational. People do make mistakes, including baseball writers. If they didn't, we wouldn't have used the label "WRONG" ninety-two times on this blog. And that's not even including most of my posts, which don't include the label "WRONG" even though they certainly merit the use of the label "WRONG".

But as usually happens with these things, Petchesky’s correction never caught up to his mistake, and Olson was branded as a blank-ballot voter. Worse, instead of eliminating the original erroneous report altogether, the blog left it on the site in with the updated information following.

It's not like newspapers go out and grab all the copies of their newspapers when they want to redact their mistakes. They publish a little "mistakes" section in some obscure portion, and then move on. People would also be suspicious if the blog erased all evidence of their mistake.

I suppose that’s like having a report that a crazy man killed 27 people on a college campus, then finding out no such thing happened but leaving the report on the blog with a correction appended saying “never mind.”

Which is pretty much what newspapers do.

That’s just one difference between a blog and a newspaper article. A newspaper would have deleted all mention of Olson and her ballot once the correct story was learned.

How? By storming into the houses of the thousands of subscribers who already had copies of their newspapers, upsetting their breakfasts, scaring their children and stealing their printed print news source back so as to eliminate their mistake?

If you look at NYTimes.com - the same organization for which employed Murray Chass as a writer - the "Corrections" link is tiny, gray, and pretty far from the top... even though a there's quite a few of them.

Blogs have had a field day with the Hall of Fame voting, and their focus seems to have been on criticizing voters.

Rightfully so. This blog has been more right than a lot of fucking baseball writers in the past, including you, Murray Chass. Last week, the right rankings went:

1. Larry B
2. Murray Chass

In one of the severest posts, on baseballanalysts.com, Patrick Sullivan, a name unknown to me, ridiculed Dan Shaughnessy, a highly respected columnist for the Boston Globe, for writing that … well, just about anything. I don’t know that Shaughnessy wrote a sentence that Sullivan didn’t ridicule.

Good work, Sullivan. And I don't really care if you're a 'highly respected columnist for the Boston Globe', if you say something stupid, you deserve the ridicule.

One of the statements he faulted Shaughnessy for was his belief that Jack Morris was better than Curt Schilling. Preposterous, Sullivan suggested. True, I say in agreement with Shaughnessy. But then I would probably take Shaughnessy’s view over Sullivan’s on any subject. Shaughnessy has a track record; Sullivan doesn’t, as far as I know.

Note the absence of statistics - or even anecdotal evidence - to support the viewpoint. It seems that if Dan Shauhnessy wanted to claim that shit tasted great, Murray Chass would be the first one to shove his head in the horse's ass.

LOGIC AND TRUTH EXIST.

I have had a similar debate with a reader over Morris and Bert Blyleven. Like Sullivan in his case for Schilling, the reader used statistics to argue his case for Blyleven.

How silly. What else should the reader use to argue his case for Blyleven? A game he once saw back in 1974? An ice-cream cone? Some ice cubes, a nine iron, a buffalo, preferably stuffed for safety's sake?

Most of the Hall arguments today seem to be statistics-centered. I get the idea that the stats zealots would draw up charts based on their new-fangled numbers and decide on the basis of the numbers who should be in the Hall of Fame. No thinking necessary.

Actually, that involves a lot of thinking. Evaluating performance - especially for a player I could never see personally, like Bert Blyleven - is tricky. But this is the first time I've ever seen a writer allege that baseball statisticians are not thinking.

I'm not even a stat zealot. I like playing and watching the game. I just also like thinking. And thinking includes figuring out ways to evaluate baseball games and players that I did not watch in person.

Blyleven’s statistics have endeared him to the stats zealots. One of their big numbers is his strikeouts. He had a lot of them, 3,701. Tommy John, who otherwise had similar career statistics to Blyleven’s, struck out 2,245.

So they do have similar career statistics...

I think strikeouts get far too much attention and emphasis. Strikeouts are sexy.

They're also very effective at keeping runs from scoring. A lot fewer runners get on base on an error after a strikeout than after a batted ball. A strikeout pretty much never moves a runner over. A strikeout is simply more effective than a batted ball at preventing runs from scoring... which is the whole goal of pitching.

Thinking: it's good for you.

John, however, was a sinkerball pitcher and got more outs on batted balls and fared just as well as Blyleven.

Maybe because he might have played on better teams with better defense? I don't know what the aggregate W/L of all their teams was, but John's teams went to the playoffs five times and Blyleven's only went three.

John had a career 288-231 record with a 3.34 earned run average. Blyleven’s record was 287-250 and his e.r.a. 3.31. John retired 57 percent of the batters he faced, Blyleven, with all his strikeouts, 59 percent. Yet in the eyes of the stats zealots, the voters were justified for not electing John but not for rejecting Blyleven.

Well, the strikeouts do suggest that John's defense had to get 1,300 more guys out than Blyleven's defense... but if you ask me, both of those guys can stay the hell out of my Hall of Fame.

The arguments will go on incessantly, and the conclusions will be I’m right, you’re wrong. Or is it you’re right, I’m wrong?

But apparently only you count, since you have your own blog and your own picture and your own ego and your own vote and your own Hall of Fame.

I am still angry.

Bill Simmons: Still not talking about sports, still sounding like a complete toolbox

Q: I'm 18 and just graduated high school. When my college decisions came in in April, I narrowed down my choices to Dartmouth and Princeton and had no idea what to do. Whether it's teenage indecision or my relative laziness, the only thing I could think of was your pure hatred for Princeton. So I chose Dartmouth. You, Bill Simmons, made the biggest decision I have ever made. Most likely, you will be responsible for whatever shenanigans I go through in life. Just wanted to let you know and say thanks.
-- Sam, New York

A: You're one of two things:

1. A complete liar (most likely).
2. The poster-child for 75th trimester abortions.

SG: I couldn't be prouder. To think, I saved you from a terminal case of insufferable "dooshdom."

Yes, but that was by not recomending that he go to Holy Cross.

Now I want to offer my services as the deciding vote for anyone's college choice. Wouldn't you watch a "Judge Judy"-type show in which high school seniors went on, told a "Judge" (in this case, me) a little bit about themselves, rattled off the colleges that accepted them, and then Judge Simmons made the decision? Then we could have moments like this …

Me: "OK, we're back on 'Judge Simmons.' So Michael, you're debating between Duke and Princeton. You seem like a good guy. I read your bio. You like sports, you have a lot of friends and I enjoyed your essay in which you vowed not to get married until you're 40 because love is overrated. I was particularly impressed that you were the commissioner of three fantasy leagues, and that you were suspended four months ago for trying to organize a wet T-shirt contest with girls from your prep school's sister school. They called it offensive, I call it ingenious. Anyway, I can't let you attend Duke or Princeton. Everyone hates Duke and the list of insufferable jerks from Princeton is longer than all the other Ivies combined.

"Therefore, my decision is this: I'm enrolling you at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla. Maybe it's not Ivy quality, but it's a good school and you'll get to wear shorts to class every day. Also, every day when you're walking around campus you'll think you're a judge on 'America's Top Model.' Just trust me. This case is dismissed. And remember, folks, as always, it doesn't matter where you go to college, just what you did when you were there … and that the weather was warm. Until next time on 'Judge Simmons'!"

Let me paraphrase: "Michael, you seem like a smart guy who probably enjoys college sports. Therefore, I recommend that rather than going Princeton (a top 3 school, which has a shot at making the NCAA basketball tournament every year, and a top 3 lax team) or Duke (top 5 school, one of the best basketball and lax programs in the country), you should go to Rollins College (third tier school, no D-I sports teams) because it's warm. Case closed."

As an anecdotal aside, I've met students from Princeton, Dartmouth, Duke, and Rollins, and by far the douchiest guy was the one who went to Rollins. Ipso facto, all guys at Rollins are intolerable pricks. Good job, Simmons.

Q: Simmons, you amaze me. You are either the embodiment of the American Dream or a sure sign of Armageddon. You write for ESPN, yet you break no stories, have no sources, offer little analysis. Instead you write superfluous pieces of fluff that are only your half-baked opinion, offer no proof and constantly write about the NBA, the Red Sox and Pats to the exclusion of anything else of substance. To top it off, you seem as mature as a horny, pimply 14-year-old. I don't get it.
-- Rick D, Saint Joseph, Mo.

Tip of the cap: Bill Simmons for running this email.

Wag of the finger: Larry B for not using his real name.

Q: I am a die-hard soccer fan living abroad and agree with your theory that international soccer could take off in the States. But not everyone listens to your podcasts, so could you please make the same case in one of your columns so everyone can see it? I think it's important. Thanks and cheers from the UK!
-- T.J., Leeds, England

Can one be a die-hard fan of an entire sport? My guess is that T.J. considers himself a Manchester United fan because he once stopped in Manchester on his way to London. Whatever.

Sure. I'll do it in five short paragraphs and 500 words total. The theory goes like this …

1. Americans enjoy watching the best (fill in any sport). We are elitists. That's why we like the Olympics

Which for the most part have gotten lower and lower ratings over the past 20 years.

that's why we enjoy any finals, that's why we watch Wimbledon

If some combination of Federer, Nadal, or Roddick is in it.

and the Masters

If Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, or some complete long shot has a chance of winning.

that's why we don't care about sports like the WNBA, MLS or arena football

Three leagues which I believe have finals that no one watches.

International soccer plays into this. It's the best of the best.

Actually, European club soccer is the best of the best as it includes all the best players in the world, not just the ones whose entire country is good at soccer.

2. The games zoom along: no commercials, no sideline reporters, no corporate tie-ins, no four-hour games like in baseball, no "takes 20 minutes to play the last two" like in the NBA.

I really enjoy watching high level soccer. That said:

- A lot of soccer games do not feel like they're zooming along. If both teams are ambivalent about taking the offensive, those 45 minute halves can seem like 2 hours each.
- During the Confederation Cup, ESPN had a sideline reporter. Not really the sport's fault, but still.
- "No corporate tie-ins," except for the outer perimeter of the field which has more advertisements than a minor league baseball stadium.
- While it doesn't take 20 minutes to play the last 2 minutes, a team with the lead will do anything to kill clock: meaningless substitutions, taking forever on throw-ins, etc.

you can sit down for a soccer game and say, "I'm going to spend the next two hours watching this and then I'm going to do something else." Like watch more TV.

Excellent point. Unfortunately, it was buried by "facts" that were wrong.

3. Give credit to ESPN for committing air time in non-Cup years to elite international soccer tournaments like the UEFA Cup.

The UEFA Cup is semi-elite that gets almost no air time on ESPN. Bill is thinking of the UEFA Champions League, which ESPN relegates to ESPN 2 or ESPN Classic in order to avoid scheduling conflicts with women's softball or Rome is Burning.

5. International soccer never took off here for the simple reason that American sports fans had trouble following anything they couldn't attend in person and/or watch on television at their leisure.

Yes, Americans have always loved watching tennis, golf, and Olympic gymnastics finals because those are all events that they've either attended themselves, or watched whenever they wanted.

Now? We're turning into a sofa culture; since it's more expensive to go to games, many of us find it just as rewarding to stay home, save money and watch games on a nice TV.

When did this happen, last night!? I am so out of the loop.

Throw in the Internet, DirecTV, fan blogs and everything else and you really can follow soccer from across the Atlantic.

Again, a lucid point buried at the bottom of an otherwise moronic paragraph.

That's why, over the next decade -- starting with the World Cup in 2010 -- I predict international soccer takes off to a modest degree in America during the '10s. Not to compare everything to "The Godfather," but for America, the NASL was Sonny (exciting, impetuous and ultimately self-destructive), the MLS is Fredo (weak) and international soccer is Michael (the heavy hitter who was lurking all along). That's how this plays out I think.

Call me crazy, but I think soccer played at one of its highest levels will be more successful than soccer played at one of its lowest levels.

Simmons on Brock Lesnar and Dan Henderson's recent unsportsmanlike behavior in the UFC:

I appreciate the honesty of the UFC guys -- unlike boxing, if someone trash-talks you in the weeks leading up the fight, you don't just shrug it off right after the fight like it was "part of the promotion" or some crap. There's a code of honor to it. You talk crap about me, fine. But I WILL make you pay, and after it's over, I'm not going to just shrug it off and forget what you did.

Simmons is right, except in the overwhelming majority of UFC fights that end in mutual respect. Anyone who has watched an event besides UFC 100 knows that post-fight hugs and gushing interviews are pretty par for the course in UFC. In addition, there are plenty of examples of fighters being fined/suspended/banned for unsportsmanlike behavior that endangers opponents safety.

In response to the 2md or 3rd Michael Jackson question from the mail bag:

...I've written before about how death can be a good career move (Kurt Cobain, Chris Farley, Heath Ledger, etc.)

Retarded. Completely and absolutely retarded. Let's go through the list:

Kurt Cobain: Maybe this choice would work if Kurt Cobain/Nirvana weren't already hugely popular at the time of his suicide. It's not as if they had one or two good bordering on great songs. Not only that, but he died before grunge/alt rock peaked.

Chris Farley: Three of the four movies Chris Farley starred in were financially successful. The one that wasn't was Almost Heroes, which was also the only one released posthumously. Would you really argue either of the following:

A. Chris Farley would not have kept getting lead comedy roles if he went on living.
B. Chris Farley wans't that funny, but since he died, people choose to remember him being as such.

Heath Ledger: Would he have won the Oscar for Dark Knight? My guess is no. Between Brokeback Mountain and Dark Knight was he well on his way to an equity Oscar, a la Denzel Washington for Training Day and Russel Crowe for Gladiator? Yes. Would he have commanded a high salary and had his pick of movie roles: undoubtedly.

Q: My buddies and I returned home today with a few dozen steamed crabs from a beach adventure this past weekend that involved three cougars, two Hooters waitresses and a hotel room that could only be rivaled by the room in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" or the more recent hotel room fiasco in "The Hangover."

Me: So you and your friends had sex with 5 different women in the same tiny hotel room?

Dave, Baltimore: Uh, no, but those sluts were totally down to fuck. We just got too schwasted to bother with them. Besides bra, the shit we did to that room...it was fuckin' EPIC.

Me: Wow, how much cash did that set you all back?

DB: Well once we threw out all the empty Natty Light cans it really wasn't that bad at all. But dude, we CRUSHED it Saturday night.

After watching four straight hours of the "Entourage" marathon leading up to the Season 6 premiere

I take it back, those guys obviously sexed the cougars and Hooters girls.

we waited for the HBO content screen in anticipation of the "N for nudity" to appear. When it did, we were all thrilled and spent the next 27 minutes trying to figure out who it would be ahead of time (wagers were made and odds went off as such: Sloane 10-1, Meadow Soprano 4-1, Ari's wife 15-1, random Vince slew 1-5).

If you bet on any horse other than "Vince Slew," then you're probably a mouth breather.

When the episode ended boob-less we then argued about whether the chick Vince had in the Escalade might have actually been naked. As I sit here typing, I am looking at my TV realizing HBO has since changed the content screen to no longer say there is nudity in the episode. This should be either illegal or made good with one of the above three naked in a subsequent episode. What are your thoughts on this shafting HBO put on all of us?
-- Dave, Baltimore

My thoughts: There are few things that I'm more ashamed of than the fact that this letter came from Baltimore. If it turns out to be my friend Dave, then he and I have a date at a vacant sometime soon (THE WIRE REFERENCE).