Bill Simmons has not written an article in the past 2 days and I am too lazy to dissect an article right now, so...
1. There was a middle aged UNC fan at the bar I went to for the UNC-Louisville game who after Tyler Hansbrough made a shot screamed, "Viva Viagra!" There should be a two drink limit if you are over 50 at a bar. Sorry, that is what the rules should be. David Padgett could learn a lot from Tyler Hansbrough. He needs to not stand 20 feet from the basket, and he needs to be under the basket trying to get the ball to get fouls on Hansbrough. He also needs to learn to go spastic whenever he is touched like Psycho T does also. It would also help if he was as good at basketball as Psycho T is. Also, in case you have not heard, Dick Vitale again said Tyler tries harder than any other basketball player he has ever seen. Hyperbole is annoying.
2. I still think UNC will win the NCAA Championship and I think they will play Memphis. I wish I had thought of this before I chose Texas to beat Memphis.
3. Peter King's MMQB always bores me in the very beginning. I pretty much only read the Ten Things He Thinks and the quotes he puts up and then dissects those quotes. I used to read it all the way through but his Favre and Patriots slobber really makes it a tough read for me. Even this week he profiles the Falcons GM...who used to work for the Patriots. For some reason, it reeks of self importance to me.
4. Bobby Cox has no clue how to handle a bullpen. He has a knack for bringing the wrong guy in at the wrong time...or as he does now, just keeps the right guy in too long.
5. Does anyone else in the world give a shit where Pacman Jones goes? Why is this being covered so much? Is it because he is so interesting or because the Dallas Cowboys are involved?
6. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7951230
Ken Rosenthal wrote an article where he basically says, "Go ahead and make fun of me bloggers!" So I will, for a second. His choice for a champion would not be my choice, but that is not the problem with the article. The problem is that I was not sure if this article was:
A. Him choosing the World Series Champion.
B. His response to those who like to use PECOTA to predict an outcome. Though honestly, how is that any sillier than just guessing?
C. Him giving some hell to those bloggers who rip him.
Not a very cohesive article. He could have chosen a champion, given his opinion on bloggers critiques of him, or given his opinion on PECOTA in three separate articles. Instead, he just wrote an incoherent article that was basically the equivalent of a person choosing a marriage partner by saying, "I am old and need to get married. Other men/women have their drawbacks but I will marry this person because there are no other viable options." I have no clue why he chose the team he did.
7. I believe I heard Steve Phillips call Manny Ramirez the best hitter in the major leagues. Son of a bitch, are you kidding me?
8. I don't care what anyone says, I love Bill Raftery. As much as I love Bill Raftery, I greatly dislike Billy Packer...except when I agree with him.
9. I can't wait for the inevitable "Bill Simmons talks about the NCAA Tournament article on ESPN." Even if it is awesome and completely great, I am still going to nitpick it, because he has no right to talk about college basketball due to the fact he knows nothing about it.
10. Jose Canseco is coming off as pathetic and money grabbing now. The fact he tried to extort Magglio Ordonez pretty much proves it to me and also should cloud any conclusions his new book claims to know.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
0 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of...
1. When it is late in the game, you have two timeouts left over, your team is lifelessly clinging to a one point lead, there are 45 seconds left and you start two freshman and a sophomore.....you have to call a timeout to calm your team down and set up the offense Jim Boeheim. Seriously, when did these legendary coaches in college basketball lose their minds? Coach K lets his teams play through 10-0 runs to start a half by the other team, Jim Boeheim allows his team to choke down the stretch of a game, and Bob Knight quits mid-season. Sometimes I think the coaches are a little too focused on building good people and a little less focused on winning the basketball game. Sorry coach, you get paid to win, call a timeout. You can build character by taking away the tutors for the player's homework and actually making them do the homework by themselves.
2. Can anyone stop UNC at this point?
3. Is UCLA the luckiest team of all time or do they seriously have some sort of a deal worked out with the refs? That is three calls in the past month that have blantantly gone their way. Granted, one was a judgment call on the refs part, but the other two were blatant fouls either committed or not committed the Bruins got the better side of. If Bill Simmons were a Texas A&M fan he would be writing a 5,000 word essay on how they got screwed at the end of the game on that non called foul call before Josh Shipp got his breakaway dunk in the late seconds.
4. I am constantly annoyed at the presence of Boston sportswriters on ESPN's First Take. There is some good information given but then comes the random "nobody gives a shit but us" update on a Red Sox player. Today's was Tony Massarotti. We got a quick update on Kelvim Escobar and how he will be out for two years if he has arm surgery. The example given was Matt Clement (former Red Sox) who had similar surgery but never made it back to the .50o pitcher he was beforehand. Then he gave an update on whether Brandon Moss (11th ranked prospect in the Red Sox system) will be in the majors at all this year and about how much the club likes him. What annoys me the most is how the sportswriters can't even talk about a subject without talking about a Boston team or referencing something back to a Boston team. Here Massarotti brought up Clement as someone who never recovered from arm surgery simply because he covers the Red Sox and it is easy for him to recall Clement. He fails to mention how Francisco Liriano and John Smoltz had similar surgeries and either should have success/had success after the procedure. Then he talked about a prospect no one in the free world had heard of or cares about, Brandon Moss, but again, he covers the Sox and this is important to him. That ESPN allows useless updating by Boston area columnists drives me crazy.
5. As a rabid Anti-Dallas Cowboys fan, I think the biggest and most influential acquisition they will have all off season is Jessica Simpson. I can't wait for her to become an even bigger distraction. As an update, I will consider the Cowboys relevant again when they win a playoff game again. It has been twelve years and counting...
6. The Anaheim Angels season is not going to end happily. I can see another early postseason series loss coming for them. Of course, making the postseason is an accomplishment I guess.
7. I picked Texas in my bracket to make the Final Four and I am growing less and less confident every day. For some reason I think Stanford is going to beat them.
8. There are actually people I have met who do not know how to fill out a bracket for the NCAA Tournament. How could that be? Even if you don't know anything about basketball, the process seems fairly simple and straighforward to me.
9. Chris Webber retired and had a pretty solid NBA career. I can't remember one single moment of his NBA career though, other than him walking off the court injured most years, but I will never forget him calling timeout in the 1993 National Championship.
10. I love Fire Joe Morgan a whole lot and I am able to appreciate pretty much everything they write. There is not a whole lot posted though when it comes to baseball's off season. With writers as skilled as they are, I would love to see some more articles posted. I try to post as much as possible so I can go back and look at what I wrote and laugh at the inside jokes with myself. I still don't have readers yet, so that is pretty much all I have.
2. Can anyone stop UNC at this point?
3. Is UCLA the luckiest team of all time or do they seriously have some sort of a deal worked out with the refs? That is three calls in the past month that have blantantly gone their way. Granted, one was a judgment call on the refs part, but the other two were blatant fouls either committed or not committed the Bruins got the better side of. If Bill Simmons were a Texas A&M fan he would be writing a 5,000 word essay on how they got screwed at the end of the game on that non called foul call before Josh Shipp got his breakaway dunk in the late seconds.
4. I am constantly annoyed at the presence of Boston sportswriters on ESPN's First Take. There is some good information given but then comes the random "nobody gives a shit but us" update on a Red Sox player. Today's was Tony Massarotti. We got a quick update on Kelvim Escobar and how he will be out for two years if he has arm surgery. The example given was Matt Clement (former Red Sox) who had similar surgery but never made it back to the .50o pitcher he was beforehand. Then he gave an update on whether Brandon Moss (11th ranked prospect in the Red Sox system) will be in the majors at all this year and about how much the club likes him. What annoys me the most is how the sportswriters can't even talk about a subject without talking about a Boston team or referencing something back to a Boston team. Here Massarotti brought up Clement as someone who never recovered from arm surgery simply because he covers the Red Sox and it is easy for him to recall Clement. He fails to mention how Francisco Liriano and John Smoltz had similar surgeries and either should have success/had success after the procedure. Then he talked about a prospect no one in the free world had heard of or cares about, Brandon Moss, but again, he covers the Sox and this is important to him. That ESPN allows useless updating by Boston area columnists drives me crazy.
5. As a rabid Anti-Dallas Cowboys fan, I think the biggest and most influential acquisition they will have all off season is Jessica Simpson. I can't wait for her to become an even bigger distraction. As an update, I will consider the Cowboys relevant again when they win a playoff game again. It has been twelve years and counting...
6. The Anaheim Angels season is not going to end happily. I can see another early postseason series loss coming for them. Of course, making the postseason is an accomplishment I guess.
7. I picked Texas in my bracket to make the Final Four and I am growing less and less confident every day. For some reason I think Stanford is going to beat them.
8. There are actually people I have met who do not know how to fill out a bracket for the NCAA Tournament. How could that be? Even if you don't know anything about basketball, the process seems fairly simple and straighforward to me.
9. Chris Webber retired and had a pretty solid NBA career. I can't remember one single moment of his NBA career though, other than him walking off the court injured most years, but I will never forget him calling timeout in the 1993 National Championship.
10. I love Fire Joe Morgan a whole lot and I am able to appreciate pretty much everything they write. There is not a whole lot posted though when it comes to baseball's off season. With writers as skilled as they are, I would love to see some more articles posted. I try to post as much as possible so I can go back and look at what I wrote and laugh at the inside jokes with myself. I still don't have readers yet, so that is pretty much all I have.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
0 comments It's A Brave New World!
I was going to dissect Bill Simmons latest No. 2 filled article but the website was blocked here in the attic where I blog regularly. Needing an outlet for my Red Sox hatred I searched in vain, and fortunately after a long, tiring search, I found a Jayson Stark article on the front page of ESPN.com. It was right next to the article link where you can find out more about Sean Casey's next injury on the way to Japan. Honestly, at first I thought it was a gentleman named Casey who, like most sportswriters, has his head so far up the Red Sox team's collective ass it finally injured him. I was wrong of course.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview08/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3308572
Unless you're older than Eddie Joost, older than Dom DiMaggio, older than Zsa Zsa Gabor, you've never lived in a world like this.
You've never lived in a world where a baseball season was about to begin and the Boston Red Sox could be described with a word millions of New Englanders were once completely unfamiliar with:
Favorites.
Unless the above mentioned people are under the age of 1, then yes, we have all lived in an age where the Red Sox where favorites. Check this link out hot shot! http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview07/news/story?page=07expertpicks
Do you see a couple Red Sox picks on there? I do. I see them being predicted to win the East, the Wild Card, AND the World Series. For good reason as well, their payroll is second in baseball to the Yankees. I agree payroll is not directly related to results, but it does not hurt. Also, who the fuck are New Englanders? Can we partition off this area so I know exactly who we are talking about? And would this area also include Bristol, Connecticut? I bet it would Jay-son. There is another word New Englanders are very familiar with: Bandwagon.
It's kinda like waking up one morning and finding your family just moved to Mars. That's how unfamiliar we are with this universe -- a universe where even the Yankees are trying to catch the Red Sox. Where everybody, in fact, is trying to catch the Red Sox -- except, possibly, Hank Steinbrenner.
Have you followed baseball lately Jay-son? What the hell are you talking about? If you have paid attention, which I have, so someone please give me his salary for doing this for him, but the Red Sox have been in the playoffs a lot recently and are a pretty good team. This has become a familiar universe for everyone pretty much. Maybe not you, because you are too busy shitting your pants at the prospect of a Red Sox dynasty, but the rest have noticed. Good shot at Baby Steinbrenner Jay-son also. I think the Yankees are going to be ok this year, they may not be as worried as you think they are. I hate the Yankees by the way.
If Hank truly believes there's no such thing as Red Sox Nation, by the way, he needs to get out more. Not only does Red Sox Nation exist, we're pretty sure it's now larger than Bulgaria. And definitely Mauritania.
Didn't Baby Steinbrenner also say Red Sox Nation was a creation of ESPN? Way to leave that part out. Now Jay-son is proving there is a Red Sox Nation through his column at ESPN.com. Hmm....The next couple paragraphs are going to be exercises in bandwagonism that for some reason passes for being true fans in Jay-son's ManRam filled dreams. This is what makes up Red Sox nation to Jay-son.
In this universe, there's apparently not even any such thing as a Red Sox "away" game anymore.
Because there are a lot of bandwagon fans, this is Red Sox Nation? So Red Sox Nation is a bunch of pathetic bandwagoneers?
They're everywhere. Thousands and thousands of them -- dressed in their favorite Red Sox shirts, the ones that say everything from "NOW I CAN DIE IN PEACE" to "I SURVIVED THE SANTANA TRADE."
So they quote a Bill Simmons book title and talk about surviving a trade that never happened? True fans of the Red Sox can read and can recall current events. Take that Blue Jays fans who are still clinging to the days of George Bell and wear shirts that say, "JIMMY KEY HAS THE KEY TO MY HEART." Bunch of losers, those Blue Jays fans. Red Sox fans are so much more diehard.
"There's always been a fan base," says Mike Timlin, now in his sixth season in Boston. "You know that. But now that we've won a couple of times, it seems like it's exponentially multiplied."
Mike Timlin has a good point. There has always been a fan base. If there were not, then there would be no attendance and Fenway Park would be used mostly for rodeos instead of baseball games. Not sure what it proves, the Royals also have a fan base. And Mike, by "exponentially multiplied," do you mean, "people who know nothing about the team from 5 years ago have leeched on to the team?" There is actually a better term for that. Called being a "bandwagon fan." Having a group of them does not make them a nation of any type. Just a note to ESPN there...
It isn't just the numbers that have changed, though. It's that now, when all these people leave the house, they don't take their torture chambers with them.
You know what I hated? The martryism the stupid Red Sox fans carried around with them and how they talked about how they were cursed. Try being an Atlanta Braves fan and making the World Series 5 times in the 90's and the playoffs for 14 years straight and being labeled "chokers." Meanwhile the Red Sox fans are "tortured." You know what is torture asshole? Watching Bobby Cox bring Charlie Liebrandt in the top of the 9th in the World Series to face Dave Winfield knowing full well what will happen, simply because Liebrandt gave up a HR to Kirby Puckett in a situation the year before in the World Series...and then being right. So fuck all Red Sox fans and their experiences at being "tortured." You just whine more than anyone else and ESPN gives you a forum. Onward I move...
But Sean Casey is really the only high-profile addition.
Not high profile, sorry Jay-son. If you pay attention to the Red Sox all day and night, this may seem high profile, but Casey is not great anymore.
But every team faces questions like this. And when you look at the other AL powerhouses out there -- the Yankees, the Tigers, the Indians, the Angels -- don't their flaws all seem more glaring, at least on paper, than the Red Sox's flaws?
What are some examples of flaws? I would not know if they seem more glaring because you have not spoken about them at all. Though honestly, the Tigers flaws seem to be pitching questions, which is what Stark previously listed as being a problem for the Red Sox as well. They could very well be on equal turf then? Maybe? I don't know why he is trying to convince the world they are favorites, literally everyone knows that already anyway.
Well, at least if this team doesn't win, nobody will blame it on Harry Frazee or any spooky supernatural forces in the universe.At least now, it might be possible to chalk it up to one more example of how "the best team" doesn't always win.
We should chalk this up to, "what the fuck are you talking about?" If they lose, then they are not the best team, so it would be a good example of "the best team winning." Already getting those sour grapes ready for this year Jay-son? Let's be honest with each other. In a 7 game series, the best team usually wins, so I think still having the Red Sox as the best team, if they lose in the playoffs would be a good example of "wishful thinking." Also, don't blame the loss on a stupid myth some Boston sportswriter created, just stay in denial your favorite team is not the best.
That is much better and less crazy.
"The thing about this team is, we don't just want to win one," Youkilis says with a laugh. "We want to try to catch Yogi."
What does Youkilis have against Yogi Berra? I would have to say I have underestimated how powerful the Yankees have been if another franchise just wants to catch one of their players. Not the entire Yankee franchise, just one player.
So in conclusion, the Red Sox have never been favorites to win the World Series until this year, despite many experts predicting the Red Sox would win the World Series in past years, but if they do not make the World Series or lose in the World Series, this does not mean they are not the best team in baseball, because they definitely are and it is proven in Jayson Stark's mind because they are favorites and he doesn't need no stinking playoff series to show that. Also Red Sox Nation is not a creation of ESPN, but instead is a creation of a group of bandwagon fans who come together. Got it?
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview08/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3308572
Unless you're older than Eddie Joost, older than Dom DiMaggio, older than Zsa Zsa Gabor, you've never lived in a world like this.
You've never lived in a world where a baseball season was about to begin and the Boston Red Sox could be described with a word millions of New Englanders were once completely unfamiliar with:
Favorites.
Unless the above mentioned people are under the age of 1, then yes, we have all lived in an age where the Red Sox where favorites. Check this link out hot shot! http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview07/news/story?page=07expertpicks
Do you see a couple Red Sox picks on there? I do. I see them being predicted to win the East, the Wild Card, AND the World Series. For good reason as well, their payroll is second in baseball to the Yankees. I agree payroll is not directly related to results, but it does not hurt. Also, who the fuck are New Englanders? Can we partition off this area so I know exactly who we are talking about? And would this area also include Bristol, Connecticut? I bet it would Jay-son. There is another word New Englanders are very familiar with: Bandwagon.
It's kinda like waking up one morning and finding your family just moved to Mars. That's how unfamiliar we are with this universe -- a universe where even the Yankees are trying to catch the Red Sox. Where everybody, in fact, is trying to catch the Red Sox -- except, possibly, Hank Steinbrenner.
Have you followed baseball lately Jay-son? What the hell are you talking about? If you have paid attention, which I have, so someone please give me his salary for doing this for him, but the Red Sox have been in the playoffs a lot recently and are a pretty good team. This has become a familiar universe for everyone pretty much. Maybe not you, because you are too busy shitting your pants at the prospect of a Red Sox dynasty, but the rest have noticed. Good shot at Baby Steinbrenner Jay-son also. I think the Yankees are going to be ok this year, they may not be as worried as you think they are. I hate the Yankees by the way.
If Hank truly believes there's no such thing as Red Sox Nation, by the way, he needs to get out more. Not only does Red Sox Nation exist, we're pretty sure it's now larger than Bulgaria. And definitely Mauritania.
Didn't Baby Steinbrenner also say Red Sox Nation was a creation of ESPN? Way to leave that part out. Now Jay-son is proving there is a Red Sox Nation through his column at ESPN.com. Hmm....The next couple paragraphs are going to be exercises in bandwagonism that for some reason passes for being true fans in Jay-son's ManRam filled dreams. This is what makes up Red Sox nation to Jay-son.
In this universe, there's apparently not even any such thing as a Red Sox "away" game anymore.
Because there are a lot of bandwagon fans, this is Red Sox Nation? So Red Sox Nation is a bunch of pathetic bandwagoneers?
They're everywhere. Thousands and thousands of them -- dressed in their favorite Red Sox shirts, the ones that say everything from "NOW I CAN DIE IN PEACE" to "I SURVIVED THE SANTANA TRADE."
So they quote a Bill Simmons book title and talk about surviving a trade that never happened? True fans of the Red Sox can read and can recall current events. Take that Blue Jays fans who are still clinging to the days of George Bell and wear shirts that say, "JIMMY KEY HAS THE KEY TO MY HEART." Bunch of losers, those Blue Jays fans. Red Sox fans are so much more diehard.
"There's always been a fan base," says Mike Timlin, now in his sixth season in Boston. "You know that. But now that we've won a couple of times, it seems like it's exponentially multiplied."
Mike Timlin has a good point. There has always been a fan base. If there were not, then there would be no attendance and Fenway Park would be used mostly for rodeos instead of baseball games. Not sure what it proves, the Royals also have a fan base. And Mike, by "exponentially multiplied," do you mean, "people who know nothing about the team from 5 years ago have leeched on to the team?" There is actually a better term for that. Called being a "bandwagon fan." Having a group of them does not make them a nation of any type. Just a note to ESPN there...
It isn't just the numbers that have changed, though. It's that now, when all these people leave the house, they don't take their torture chambers with them.
You know what I hated? The martryism the stupid Red Sox fans carried around with them and how they talked about how they were cursed. Try being an Atlanta Braves fan and making the World Series 5 times in the 90's and the playoffs for 14 years straight and being labeled "chokers." Meanwhile the Red Sox fans are "tortured." You know what is torture asshole? Watching Bobby Cox bring Charlie Liebrandt in the top of the 9th in the World Series to face Dave Winfield knowing full well what will happen, simply because Liebrandt gave up a HR to Kirby Puckett in a situation the year before in the World Series...and then being right. So fuck all Red Sox fans and their experiences at being "tortured." You just whine more than anyone else and ESPN gives you a forum. Onward I move...
But Sean Casey is really the only high-profile addition.
Not high profile, sorry Jay-son. If you pay attention to the Red Sox all day and night, this may seem high profile, but Casey is not great anymore.
But every team faces questions like this. And when you look at the other AL powerhouses out there -- the Yankees, the Tigers, the Indians, the Angels -- don't their flaws all seem more glaring, at least on paper, than the Red Sox's flaws?
What are some examples of flaws? I would not know if they seem more glaring because you have not spoken about them at all. Though honestly, the Tigers flaws seem to be pitching questions, which is what Stark previously listed as being a problem for the Red Sox as well. They could very well be on equal turf then? Maybe? I don't know why he is trying to convince the world they are favorites, literally everyone knows that already anyway.
Well, at least if this team doesn't win, nobody will blame it on Harry Frazee or any spooky supernatural forces in the universe.At least now, it might be possible to chalk it up to one more example of how "the best team" doesn't always win.
We should chalk this up to, "what the fuck are you talking about?" If they lose, then they are not the best team, so it would be a good example of "the best team winning." Already getting those sour grapes ready for this year Jay-son? Let's be honest with each other. In a 7 game series, the best team usually wins, so I think still having the Red Sox as the best team, if they lose in the playoffs would be a good example of "wishful thinking." Also, don't blame the loss on a stupid myth some Boston sportswriter created, just stay in denial your favorite team is not the best.
That is much better and less crazy.
"The thing about this team is, we don't just want to win one," Youkilis says with a laugh. "We want to try to catch Yogi."
What does Youkilis have against Yogi Berra? I would have to say I have underestimated how powerful the Yankees have been if another franchise just wants to catch one of their players. Not the entire Yankee franchise, just one player.
So in conclusion, the Red Sox have never been favorites to win the World Series until this year, despite many experts predicting the Red Sox would win the World Series in past years, but if they do not make the World Series or lose in the World Series, this does not mean they are not the best team in baseball, because they definitely are and it is proven in Jayson Stark's mind because they are favorites and he doesn't need no stinking playoff series to show that. Also Red Sox Nation is not a creation of ESPN, but instead is a creation of a group of bandwagon fans who come together. Got it?
Monday, March 24, 2008
0 comments Please indulge me..
I love freedom of speech and I also really love being able to comment on articles that are online, it adds such a great element to be able to give feedback. What I don't like is what happens when idiots give their ideas to fix a team. Why does every person think the NFL is some fantasy league and then go crazy with some stupid idea for a trade?
I say Chris Williams..Hopefully get a 5th round from New England if they sign Seward. Trade one of our 3rd round pickms and taht 5th round to get a high 2nd round pick. Take the best DL available then with the other 3rd round pick either get a RB of a free safety.
Posted by: JV Mar 24, 2008 12:56:19 PM
First, look at the spelling. I know I am not perfect, but at least make the sentences legible. What the fuck is a RB of a free safety? Mostly though, what team in the NFL is going to trade a high second round draft pick for a 3rd and a 5th round pick? I want to vomit when I read idiots like this who just post their harebrained ideas in the comments. I would eat oatmeal for a week if any team in the NFL would take a 3rd and a 5th rounder for a high 2nd round pick. I just want to warn you, these are the same people who are trying to push shitty trades in the fantasy leagues and read Bill Simmons' articles. I don't know why this makes me so angry but don't make any comments if they don't make sense, life is not a video game where you can just pick a player and get him. I think the reason people post stupid trades/ideas like this is because they think everyone else is as dumb as they are, which we are not.
I will have happy posts in a couple days, full of pictures of kittens, I just have to get this all out of my system first.
I say Chris Williams..Hopefully get a 5th round from New England if they sign Seward. Trade one of our 3rd round pickms and taht 5th round to get a high 2nd round pick. Take the best DL available then with the other 3rd round pick either get a RB of a free safety.
Posted by: JV Mar 24, 2008 12:56:19 PM
First, look at the spelling. I know I am not perfect, but at least make the sentences legible. What the fuck is a RB of a free safety? Mostly though, what team in the NFL is going to trade a high second round draft pick for a 3rd and a 5th round pick? I want to vomit when I read idiots like this who just post their harebrained ideas in the comments. I would eat oatmeal for a week if any team in the NFL would take a 3rd and a 5th rounder for a high 2nd round pick. I just want to warn you, these are the same people who are trying to push shitty trades in the fantasy leagues and read Bill Simmons' articles. I don't know why this makes me so angry but don't make any comments if they don't make sense, life is not a video game where you can just pick a player and get him. I think the reason people post stupid trades/ideas like this is because they think everyone else is as dumb as they are, which we are not.
I will have happy posts in a couple days, full of pictures of kittens, I just have to get this all out of my system first.
0 comments Strike a Match, Simmons Has Let Out Another Stinker
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080319
If shit could be converted into an online article, it would be like this one. Please don't read it, I don't want him to get the hits on the page. I will sum it up and then mock it. My summary: I pick UCLA, they remind me of my favorite team, I am not a bandwagon fan, I watch them on television, I know nothing about college basketball and will try to sound smart, I am Bill Simmons. I am still reeling from this weekend, so this is the perfect time to take it out on the resident "I want to be Hollywood but no one really likes me" shit article pusher, Bill Simmons. In case you are wondering, yes it will be that kind of article mocking party, full of bad language and angry mocking.
I have some bad news for UCLA fans: I'm about to kill your season by picking the Bruins to take the 2008 title.
Please don't consider this a bandwagon pick, although it's true UCLA became my "favorite" college team, and I watched the Bruins more than every other '08 team combined.
I don't watch any other teams in college basketball, so therefore I know the only team I watch is going to win. Good thought process Simmons. What happened to Texas and Kevin Durant from last year Simmons? Bill Simmons is like a college basketball team pedophile. He finds a good, young player and then watches everything he does. Once he is done with the team, he looks for more good, young basketball ass to root for. Oh and yeah, Bill, this is a FUCKING BANDWAGON PICK. Why should I not consider it one? WHY? You watch them and you fall in love with a young freshman? So you are in love with them now and want to take them to prom? Maybe being a Red Sox, Celtics, and Patriots fan you have become so accustomed to bandwagon-ism, but this is unacceptable. This boils my blood pressure that as I live and die with a certain overrated college basketball team, a 38 year old man finally chooses a team to root for. The team just happens to have a rich history and is pretty good that year that he chooses them as his favorite. Fuck you, you have until you are 30 years old to choose your favorite teams and I think you decided last year with Texas. Then he compares them to MacGyver and makes excuses for the two wins the refs gave to them. He is literally two years from a Bosom Buddies reference...just wait for it, it will come.
I started watching the Bruins because of Love, a unique player and a joy to watch on the college level, but my favorite player ended up being Russell Westbrook, a sophomore guard who played point for the first six games when Darren Collison was injured. He's one of those "10th Impression Guys" -- someone you like a little more each of the first nine times, and then by the 10th time, you suddenly realize, "All right, why isn't anyone talking about how good this guy is?"
This is going to hurt my lungs when I cyber scream this so give me a second. (Two seconds pass...) EVERYONE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT RUSSELL WESTBROOK AND HOW GOOD HE IS. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PAID ATTENTION TO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. DID YOU KNOW CHINA HAS ELECTRICITY? JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN THERE DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN NOT BE AWARE OF THE SAME THINGS YOU ARE!!
Nobody had him in their top 20 until the Super Bowl! I was going to spend the whole NCAA tournament singing his praises! I felt like one of those college grads who sees his favorite band from college in the top 5 on iTunes.
God I hate you. I genuinely do. I would reference your bandwagon article from a few years ago but I don't wanna. You can't just jump on any old bandwagon and then sing the praises of the players. You should feel like a 38 year old man using the same references to television shows and movies that you were using 10 years ago. That is really what you are. You are not anywhere near a college graduate, don't try to identify with one. Then he sings Kevin Love's praises and for some reason calls him polarizing in reference to his draft value. Whatever, I can't let him distract me.
I remember liking their uniforms and growing up with their legacy of dominance, but the Wooden Era slightly predated me as a basketball fan. I remember watching Marques Johnson and Reggie Miller play at UCLA, and I remember the '95 team winning the title with the O'Bannons, but I can't say I ever put a ton of thought into UCLA basketball until recently -- partly because of HBO's excellent special on the Wooden Era last year, partly because of my admittedly pathetic jump on the Bruins bandwagon this year.
Just because you admit you are a bandwagon jumper does not make it any less wrong Bill. God, I hate you.
But what really reminds me of the Celtics are their home games. Coming back from commercial, the cameras will scan the crowd and you'll invariably see a UCLA legend crammed into the stands with the students. During any given game, it might be Kareem, Walton, Marques Johnson, Jamaal Wilkes, Michael Warren … regardless, seeing those faces never fails to give you a sense that, "Hey, basketball mattered here once, and it matters right now."
This happens at every school Bill. Literally, every school. They are not special at all. You are so unknowledgeable, how do you even have the balls to write this article? This is like me talking about hockey and choosing a favorite team and then making blanket comparisons I know nothing about.
It's one thing to root for a team that's good. It's another thing to root for a team that truly mattered once upon a time.
Just to be clear, you are rooting for a team that is good. Admittedly, you did not watch them when they really mattered. So you are a bandwagon jumper. Are we clear Bill?
But I guess what I'm trying to say is this: If I did pick a college team to adopt, I'd pick UCLA. Since it's too late for me, the least I can do is make the Bruins my pick for the 2008 title.
Thank God he understands this. What a relief for me. You can't choose when you are old Bill, sorry. So now more talking college basketball then Bill?
On the other hand, that's the great thing about this particular college season -- at least seven schools have a genuine chance to win the championship, and each of them has one or two major "ifs."
Wrong! Poor attempt at analysis, and also, how would he know since he has admittedly only watched UCLA? Can someone answer this for me? UNC and Kansas have no major "ifs" though Bill. Unless the question is, "If Kansas/UNC were not on the same side of the bracket how could they not meet up in the National Championship?" Or "If I did not hate Tyler Hansbrough so much would I give him a compliment right now?" I would like to know what Kansas and UNC's "ifs" are Bill?
So, I'm going with UCLA over Tennessee in the title game.
In my face! Not agreeing with me and going with the only other team he has watched this year, Simmons chooses Tennessee over my choices of Kansas and UNC. I have no funny way to end this mocking of Simmons but to tell Simmons. God, I hate you.
If shit could be converted into an online article, it would be like this one. Please don't read it, I don't want him to get the hits on the page. I will sum it up and then mock it. My summary: I pick UCLA, they remind me of my favorite team, I am not a bandwagon fan, I watch them on television, I know nothing about college basketball and will try to sound smart, I am Bill Simmons. I am still reeling from this weekend, so this is the perfect time to take it out on the resident "I want to be Hollywood but no one really likes me" shit article pusher, Bill Simmons. In case you are wondering, yes it will be that kind of article mocking party, full of bad language and angry mocking.
I have some bad news for UCLA fans: I'm about to kill your season by picking the Bruins to take the 2008 title.
Please don't consider this a bandwagon pick, although it's true UCLA became my "favorite" college team, and I watched the Bruins more than every other '08 team combined.
I don't watch any other teams in college basketball, so therefore I know the only team I watch is going to win. Good thought process Simmons. What happened to Texas and Kevin Durant from last year Simmons? Bill Simmons is like a college basketball team pedophile. He finds a good, young player and then watches everything he does. Once he is done with the team, he looks for more good, young basketball ass to root for. Oh and yeah, Bill, this is a FUCKING BANDWAGON PICK. Why should I not consider it one? WHY? You watch them and you fall in love with a young freshman? So you are in love with them now and want to take them to prom? Maybe being a Red Sox, Celtics, and Patriots fan you have become so accustomed to bandwagon-ism, but this is unacceptable. This boils my blood pressure that as I live and die with a certain overrated college basketball team, a 38 year old man finally chooses a team to root for. The team just happens to have a rich history and is pretty good that year that he chooses them as his favorite. Fuck you, you have until you are 30 years old to choose your favorite teams and I think you decided last year with Texas. Then he compares them to MacGyver and makes excuses for the two wins the refs gave to them. He is literally two years from a Bosom Buddies reference...just wait for it, it will come.
I started watching the Bruins because of Love, a unique player and a joy to watch on the college level, but my favorite player ended up being Russell Westbrook, a sophomore guard who played point for the first six games when Darren Collison was injured. He's one of those "10th Impression Guys" -- someone you like a little more each of the first nine times, and then by the 10th time, you suddenly realize, "All right, why isn't anyone talking about how good this guy is?"
This is going to hurt my lungs when I cyber scream this so give me a second. (Two seconds pass...) EVERYONE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT RUSSELL WESTBROOK AND HOW GOOD HE IS. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PAID ATTENTION TO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. DID YOU KNOW CHINA HAS ELECTRICITY? JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN THERE DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN NOT BE AWARE OF THE SAME THINGS YOU ARE!!
Nobody had him in their top 20 until the Super Bowl! I was going to spend the whole NCAA tournament singing his praises! I felt like one of those college grads who sees his favorite band from college in the top 5 on iTunes.
God I hate you. I genuinely do. I would reference your bandwagon article from a few years ago but I don't wanna. You can't just jump on any old bandwagon and then sing the praises of the players. You should feel like a 38 year old man using the same references to television shows and movies that you were using 10 years ago. That is really what you are. You are not anywhere near a college graduate, don't try to identify with one. Then he sings Kevin Love's praises and for some reason calls him polarizing in reference to his draft value. Whatever, I can't let him distract me.
I remember liking their uniforms and growing up with their legacy of dominance, but the Wooden Era slightly predated me as a basketball fan. I remember watching Marques Johnson and Reggie Miller play at UCLA, and I remember the '95 team winning the title with the O'Bannons, but I can't say I ever put a ton of thought into UCLA basketball until recently -- partly because of HBO's excellent special on the Wooden Era last year, partly because of my admittedly pathetic jump on the Bruins bandwagon this year.
Just because you admit you are a bandwagon jumper does not make it any less wrong Bill. God, I hate you.
But what really reminds me of the Celtics are their home games. Coming back from commercial, the cameras will scan the crowd and you'll invariably see a UCLA legend crammed into the stands with the students. During any given game, it might be Kareem, Walton, Marques Johnson, Jamaal Wilkes, Michael Warren … regardless, seeing those faces never fails to give you a sense that, "Hey, basketball mattered here once, and it matters right now."
This happens at every school Bill. Literally, every school. They are not special at all. You are so unknowledgeable, how do you even have the balls to write this article? This is like me talking about hockey and choosing a favorite team and then making blanket comparisons I know nothing about.
It's one thing to root for a team that's good. It's another thing to root for a team that truly mattered once upon a time.
Just to be clear, you are rooting for a team that is good. Admittedly, you did not watch them when they really mattered. So you are a bandwagon jumper. Are we clear Bill?
But I guess what I'm trying to say is this: If I did pick a college team to adopt, I'd pick UCLA. Since it's too late for me, the least I can do is make the Bruins my pick for the 2008 title.
Thank God he understands this. What a relief for me. You can't choose when you are old Bill, sorry. So now more talking college basketball then Bill?
On the other hand, that's the great thing about this particular college season -- at least seven schools have a genuine chance to win the championship, and each of them has one or two major "ifs."
Wrong! Poor attempt at analysis, and also, how would he know since he has admittedly only watched UCLA? Can someone answer this for me? UNC and Kansas have no major "ifs" though Bill. Unless the question is, "If Kansas/UNC were not on the same side of the bracket how could they not meet up in the National Championship?" Or "If I did not hate Tyler Hansbrough so much would I give him a compliment right now?" I would like to know what Kansas and UNC's "ifs" are Bill?
So, I'm going with UCLA over Tennessee in the title game.
In my face! Not agreeing with me and going with the only other team he has watched this year, Simmons chooses Tennessee over my choices of Kansas and UNC. I have no funny way to end this mocking of Simmons but to tell Simmons. God, I hate you.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
0 comments UPDATE: DUKE REALLY DOES SUCK...LUTE OLSON STILL IS NOT AN ASSHOLE
I would love to comment more but I am still trying to comprehend the pile of shit Duke left on the floor against West Virginia. DeMarcus Nelson disappears and Kyle Singler acts like he got fouled instead of trying to rebound. I also am not sure Coach K cares because he has a commercial to shoot and the USA basketball team to coach. He would barely have time to do it all if Duke made the Sweet Sixteen. The loss was just a time saver for him really.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
0 comments Letter From Mid-Major Men's Basketball Teams:
Dear Kent State,
Way to show up today for the first game of the NCAA Tournament against UNLV. 10 points in the first half! Good job! Now more mid-majors are going to receive more bids based on your stupendous performance in the first half. Thanks for not fucking us. By the way, can you do us a favor and not get a 9 Seed again? Maybe lower expectations so we can surprise people?
Sincerely,
Mid-Major teams everywhere
Way to show up today for the first game of the NCAA Tournament against UNLV. 10 points in the first half! Good job! Now more mid-majors are going to receive more bids based on your stupendous performance in the first half. Thanks for not fucking us. By the way, can you do us a favor and not get a 9 Seed again? Maybe lower expectations so we can surprise people?
Sincerely,
Mid-Major teams everywhere
Monday, March 17, 2008
0 comments Hurry Everyone...the Duke Is Overrated Bandwagon Is Leaving! Oh and Lute Olson sucks...
I am going to mention a controversial topic right now. Not abortion, not the death penalty or even which FJM is truly better...but Duke basketball. I was surfing the Internet today viewing the previews of the NCAA Tournament and noticed a trend. Put down your guns, knives, pepper spray and pillows with bars of soap in them just for a minute. What other team is this universally hated in college basketball for no reason other than all the press they get? (Why UNC is not hated is beyond me. They even have the nerdy, douchy, white guy in Hansbrough...that is a different post though.) Now Duke looks vulnerable and only got a 2 Seed in the NCAA Tournament. If you hate Duke and are in the national media, HURRY UP AND WRITE AN ARTICLE ON HOW BAD THEY SUCK! Get a shot in now! But then predict they will advance far in the tournament.
Foxsports courtesy of Randy Hill: The most vulnerable high seeds...
Good teams with flaws or match-up issues that could send them home early.
Duke: The West's No. 2 seed lacks the inside presence to prevent a beat-down in the lane. If Arizona shows up to play against West Virginia, 6-foot-10 Jordan Hill may have fun against the Blue Devils in Round 2.
Duke has no inside presence, this is not news. So that is actually a good point. This has been happening for years now. Still, no mention of the fact Duke has superior depth and 6-foot-10 Jordan Hill (is he Randy's brother?) has to guard someone on defense, which would potentially be a mismatch. I do see the point though, but a Duke bash nonetheless. So I guess Duke won't advance past Arizona.
Duke vs. UCLA: If the second-seeded Blue Devils and top-seeded Bruins meet in the West finale, pay attention to Mike Krzyzewski's fast pace and spread tactics vs. Ben Howland's grind-'em-down Bruin philosophy.
So they will advance? To the Elite 8? Even without an inside presence? A team seeded in the 2 Spot is either the 5-8th best team in the country, so they would meet expectations. It does not make sense to say they have weaknesses that will take them out of the tournament early and then predict they may meet UCLA in the Elite Eight. I understand you are just giving potential matchups to watch for but I do love how you hedge your bets. I would love to see your bracket.
CNNSI.com courtesy of Stewart Mandel:
Overrated: Duke. As has been the case often in recent years, the Blue Devils peaked somewhere around mid-February, and their lack of frontcourt depth has caught up to them.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/index.html
Mandel wrote a wonderful article and I linked it above. If you hate Duke, read it and laugh at them. Oh how true. So Duke has frontcourt depth problems. Again, nothing new here, so that is why they are overrated. Good Duke bash! Where are they gonna lose Stewie?
If these two meet in the Sweet 16, it will be fascinating to watch the Musketeers' senior backcourt duo of Drew Lavender and Stanley Burrell go up against more heralded counterparts Greg Paulus and Gerald Henderson.
Sweet 16? Not that overrated I guess. Two Points here:
1. Making the Sweet 16 is not bad. Granted, a 2 Seed should get further, but if they won this game, they would be in the Elite 8, which would be the expectation for them based on national rankings.
2. Paulus and Henderson are very heralded and that would be a fascinating matchup to view. I Googled it though Stewie (go to google.com and then type in "Duke Blue Devils 2007-2008 statistics") and found DeMarcus Nelson actually led the Blue Devils in PPG, Steals, and Rebounding. So I guess he would qualify as the best player on the team most nights. One of them would have to guard Nelson, who is also a Senior, I added that since you love senior backcourts. Not a big deal, but when you describe a matchup that could be fun to watch, be sure to include the best player on one of the teams. I am being nitpicky, I realize this, but that is like saying a team matches up well with UNC because they can guard Deon Thompson and Wayne Ellington.
CBS Sportsline courtesy of Dennis Dodd:
Most likely upset: West Virginia or Arizona over Duke in the second round. Because of the unending hype, you never know how good Duke really is. I'm saying the young Devils are not good enough to get through a quality second-round opponent.
Dennis Dodd has balls enough to actually make a Duke bashing prediction. I wonder why he feels this way? No analysis huh? Good reasoning at least in saying they are young. If you can get through the unending hype, you can actually see how good Duke is. I will help you Dennis Douche (can I call you that?). Teams play games and get a "record" which shows how many games that team has lost. Duke has a "record" that includes 5 losses. They have beaten 7 teams that are in the NCAA tournament and lost to 4 of the teams. They are 7-4 against NCAA Tournament teams. Including a victory over UNC and Wisconsin. Given that information, you can evaluate how good Duke is a little better. They were also second in the nation's toughest conference, based on RPI, so that may help also. I don't want to confuse you though.
Here is the coup de grace and honestly, I had to bitch about the lousy Duke comments before I could get to this. What is an article about the NCAA Tournament without a cheap shot at a Hall of Fame coach?
1. Lute looms: Regarding the, uh, "relationship" between former/future coach Lute Olsen and current/soon-to-be former coach Kevin O'Neill at Arizona: These guys aren't exactly on the same page. Wouldn't it be great if O'Neill got the Wildcats to the Final Four, something the 73-year-old Olsen doesn't have the time or chops to do anymore?
Maybe I am missing something and please tell me if I am. (By the way, who are you, that person who reads this blog?) O'Neill was the interim coach, Olson announced he was coming back. Therefore interim coach is not coach anymore. Did I simplify that too much for you Dennis Douche? How is Lute Olson not an effective coach anymore? What has he done to make you think this? Two questions:
1. Why do you hate Lute Olson?
2. Why would it be great if the Arizona Wildcats made the Final Four? Did Lute Olson molest you at a summer camp or did his grandson give you a wedgie at some point? Lute Olson coming back to coach for most humans is exciting because he is a sort of legend at Arizona.
(Dennis Douche waking up in the morning) Damn that 73 year old legend of a coach who has won a National Championship! Damn him all to Hell! How dare he attempt to take time off to get his personal life together! Damn him for trying to prevent a divorce 7 years after his wife of many years died of cancer. I bet his 1st wife would have been cured if he had the time or chops to take care of her appropriately. Damn him all to Hell! If there is nothing else I do in this world before I die, I will make sure Lute Olson gets what is coming to him!
Just for shits and giggles on how dumb this Dennis Douche fellow is, here is a later quote in this "article" Dennis Douche wrote.
That would be back when Jim Harrick (gag reflex inserted) was coaching.
How exactly do you insert a gag reflex? It is a reflex, I am not exactly sure you can insert it anywhere. Are you secretly RoboCop Dennis Douche?
(Dennis Douche at his annual physical that he has the time and chops to go to) "Go ahead and strike my knee doc!"
(Doctor striking knee violently) "Why did your knee not jerk? Why are you not blinking at all? Tyler Hansbrough is that you? Are you human or an android sent from Hell to annoy Internet readers everywhere?"
(Dennis Douche) "Sorry doc, I forgot to insert my gag reflex this morning. Therefore none of my reflexes work."
(Doctor laughs furiously in a hearty way) "Dennis, never forget to do that again. You have to insert your reflexes every morning."
(Dennis Douche) "Sorry doc, I apologize. I am just the type of person who takes cheap shots at Hall of Fame coaches for no reason."
I think Duke will lose in the Sweet 16 because I believe the team is tired from the long season and will run into a team that is just playing a little better. Duke is overhyped and over-loved and probably did not deserve a 2 Seed. I think it is hilarious that columnists predict their demise in the second round but then preview interesting matchups involving them in the later rounds. At least Dennis Douche had the balls to make a prediction and stick with it. Unfortunately he irritated me by not devoting a sentence to why he believed what he did, which would have helped his credibility a bit. We are not really sure how good of a writer Dennis Douche is based on this article and it's anger towards Lute Olson. I am saying Dennis Douche is a not good enough to write for the school newspaper.
Foxsports courtesy of Randy Hill: The most vulnerable high seeds...
Good teams with flaws or match-up issues that could send them home early.
Duke: The West's No. 2 seed lacks the inside presence to prevent a beat-down in the lane. If Arizona shows up to play against West Virginia, 6-foot-10 Jordan Hill may have fun against the Blue Devils in Round 2.
Duke has no inside presence, this is not news. So that is actually a good point. This has been happening for years now. Still, no mention of the fact Duke has superior depth and 6-foot-10 Jordan Hill (is he Randy's brother?) has to guard someone on defense, which would potentially be a mismatch. I do see the point though, but a Duke bash nonetheless. So I guess Duke won't advance past Arizona.
Duke vs. UCLA: If the second-seeded Blue Devils and top-seeded Bruins meet in the West finale, pay attention to Mike Krzyzewski's fast pace and spread tactics vs. Ben Howland's grind-'em-down Bruin philosophy.
So they will advance? To the Elite 8? Even without an inside presence? A team seeded in the 2 Spot is either the 5-8th best team in the country, so they would meet expectations. It does not make sense to say they have weaknesses that will take them out of the tournament early and then predict they may meet UCLA in the Elite Eight. I understand you are just giving potential matchups to watch for but I do love how you hedge your bets. I would love to see your bracket.
CNNSI.com courtesy of Stewart Mandel:
Overrated: Duke. As has been the case often in recent years, the Blue Devils peaked somewhere around mid-February, and their lack of frontcourt depth has caught up to them.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/index.html
Mandel wrote a wonderful article and I linked it above. If you hate Duke, read it and laugh at them. Oh how true. So Duke has frontcourt depth problems. Again, nothing new here, so that is why they are overrated. Good Duke bash! Where are they gonna lose Stewie?
If these two meet in the Sweet 16, it will be fascinating to watch the Musketeers' senior backcourt duo of Drew Lavender and Stanley Burrell go up against more heralded counterparts Greg Paulus and Gerald Henderson.
Sweet 16? Not that overrated I guess. Two Points here:
1. Making the Sweet 16 is not bad. Granted, a 2 Seed should get further, but if they won this game, they would be in the Elite 8, which would be the expectation for them based on national rankings.
2. Paulus and Henderson are very heralded and that would be a fascinating matchup to view. I Googled it though Stewie (go to google.com and then type in "Duke Blue Devils 2007-2008 statistics") and found DeMarcus Nelson actually led the Blue Devils in PPG, Steals, and Rebounding. So I guess he would qualify as the best player on the team most nights. One of them would have to guard Nelson, who is also a Senior, I added that since you love senior backcourts. Not a big deal, but when you describe a matchup that could be fun to watch, be sure to include the best player on one of the teams. I am being nitpicky, I realize this, but that is like saying a team matches up well with UNC because they can guard Deon Thompson and Wayne Ellington.
CBS Sportsline courtesy of Dennis Dodd:
Most likely upset: West Virginia or Arizona over Duke in the second round. Because of the unending hype, you never know how good Duke really is. I'm saying the young Devils are not good enough to get through a quality second-round opponent.
Dennis Dodd has balls enough to actually make a Duke bashing prediction. I wonder why he feels this way? No analysis huh? Good reasoning at least in saying they are young. If you can get through the unending hype, you can actually see how good Duke is. I will help you Dennis Douche (can I call you that?). Teams play games and get a "record" which shows how many games that team has lost. Duke has a "record" that includes 5 losses. They have beaten 7 teams that are in the NCAA tournament and lost to 4 of the teams. They are 7-4 against NCAA Tournament teams. Including a victory over UNC and Wisconsin. Given that information, you can evaluate how good Duke is a little better. They were also second in the nation's toughest conference, based on RPI, so that may help also. I don't want to confuse you though.
Here is the coup de grace and honestly, I had to bitch about the lousy Duke comments before I could get to this. What is an article about the NCAA Tournament without a cheap shot at a Hall of Fame coach?
1. Lute looms: Regarding the, uh, "relationship" between former/future coach Lute Olsen and current/soon-to-be former coach Kevin O'Neill at Arizona: These guys aren't exactly on the same page. Wouldn't it be great if O'Neill got the Wildcats to the Final Four, something the 73-year-old Olsen doesn't have the time or chops to do anymore?
Maybe I am missing something and please tell me if I am. (By the way, who are you, that person who reads this blog?) O'Neill was the interim coach, Olson announced he was coming back. Therefore interim coach is not coach anymore. Did I simplify that too much for you Dennis Douche? How is Lute Olson not an effective coach anymore? What has he done to make you think this? Two questions:
1. Why do you hate Lute Olson?
2. Why would it be great if the Arizona Wildcats made the Final Four? Did Lute Olson molest you at a summer camp or did his grandson give you a wedgie at some point? Lute Olson coming back to coach for most humans is exciting because he is a sort of legend at Arizona.
(Dennis Douche waking up in the morning) Damn that 73 year old legend of a coach who has won a National Championship! Damn him all to Hell! How dare he attempt to take time off to get his personal life together! Damn him for trying to prevent a divorce 7 years after his wife of many years died of cancer. I bet his 1st wife would have been cured if he had the time or chops to take care of her appropriately. Damn him all to Hell! If there is nothing else I do in this world before I die, I will make sure Lute Olson gets what is coming to him!
Just for shits and giggles on how dumb this Dennis Douche fellow is, here is a later quote in this "article" Dennis Douche wrote.
That would be back when Jim Harrick (gag reflex inserted) was coaching.
How exactly do you insert a gag reflex? It is a reflex, I am not exactly sure you can insert it anywhere. Are you secretly RoboCop Dennis Douche?
(Dennis Douche at his annual physical that he has the time and chops to go to) "Go ahead and strike my knee doc!"
(Doctor striking knee violently) "Why did your knee not jerk? Why are you not blinking at all? Tyler Hansbrough is that you? Are you human or an android sent from Hell to annoy Internet readers everywhere?"
(Dennis Douche) "Sorry doc, I forgot to insert my gag reflex this morning. Therefore none of my reflexes work."
(Doctor laughs furiously in a hearty way) "Dennis, never forget to do that again. You have to insert your reflexes every morning."
(Dennis Douche) "Sorry doc, I apologize. I am just the type of person who takes cheap shots at Hall of Fame coaches for no reason."
I think Duke will lose in the Sweet 16 because I believe the team is tired from the long season and will run into a team that is just playing a little better. Duke is overhyped and over-loved and probably did not deserve a 2 Seed. I think it is hilarious that columnists predict their demise in the second round but then preview interesting matchups involving them in the later rounds. At least Dennis Douche had the balls to make a prediction and stick with it. Unfortunately he irritated me by not devoting a sentence to why he believed what he did, which would have helped his credibility a bit. We are not really sure how good of a writer Dennis Douche is based on this article and it's anger towards Lute Olson. I am saying Dennis Douche is a not good enough to write for the school newspaper.
Friday, March 14, 2008
0 comments Quick Commentary
From time to time I will do a quick commentary on something that is going on in the sports world and it is basically my time to editorialize (to who? I have no idea, has anyone ever read this?). That being said:
I believe the New York Yankees should sign Barry Bonds. I have spoken with several Yankee and non-Yankee fans and they actually agree with me. That is new for me. What does Bonds bring to the table negative?
1. Bad attitude- whether you believe it or not, he does have one.
2. Some baggage- drugs, previously mentioned attitude, a need to alientate others, he thinks he is bigger than the team...
3. Declining skill set- he could not play in the OF anymore...not consistently. He also does not hit HR's as often as he used to.
4. Media coverage- it is New York
Here are the positives though:
1. Pure protection for A Rod- you spend a lot of money on A Rod and you expect him to deliver. If Bonds was hitting in front of him, the pressure is on. Pitchers still pitch carefully to Bonds and that can only help A Rod. Bonds should be a DH, this is a given and putting him in front of A Rod would be fun to watch.
2. Bonds is still a good hitter- Bonds had a .480 OBP last year. Granted, that was with 132 walks so the pitchers could pitch to Pedro Feliz, but Bonds still had 28 HR in those 340 AB's and hit .276. I am gambling the walks would decrease and the HR would increase if A Rod is behind him.
3. New York City- if any city can handle Barry Bonds, it is the media capital of the world, and Jason Giambi survived a steriod scandal there and lived to tell about it. My point is, if you produce they don't care. They also can handle special arrangements for stars (see Roger Clemens) and no one has an ego over it.
4. Advantage New York over Boston- now that Curt Schilling is blogging full time until the All Star Break, New York has a unique chance to be on semi-equal footing against the Red Sox in the pitching category for a couple months. The Yankees need quality starts but having Bonds bat 3rd and DH will look just as good against the Red Sox head to head. I don't think the Yankees need hitting either, but there are no pitchers in the free agent market that can cause matchup problems like adding a hitter of Bonds caliber can.
This is just my opinion and Bonds would never go to New York at this point in his career but I think it makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. Remember, Bonds played in a ballpark that was actually quite large and managed to hit a couple HR's there and produce pretty well. I can only imagine him at Yankee Stadium, taking a shot at that RF fence.
I hate the Yankees, but this seems to make a lot of sense to me.
I believe the New York Yankees should sign Barry Bonds. I have spoken with several Yankee and non-Yankee fans and they actually agree with me. That is new for me. What does Bonds bring to the table negative?
1. Bad attitude- whether you believe it or not, he does have one.
2. Some baggage- drugs, previously mentioned attitude, a need to alientate others, he thinks he is bigger than the team...
3. Declining skill set- he could not play in the OF anymore...not consistently. He also does not hit HR's as often as he used to.
4. Media coverage- it is New York
Here are the positives though:
1. Pure protection for A Rod- you spend a lot of money on A Rod and you expect him to deliver. If Bonds was hitting in front of him, the pressure is on. Pitchers still pitch carefully to Bonds and that can only help A Rod. Bonds should be a DH, this is a given and putting him in front of A Rod would be fun to watch.
2. Bonds is still a good hitter- Bonds had a .480 OBP last year. Granted, that was with 132 walks so the pitchers could pitch to Pedro Feliz, but Bonds still had 28 HR in those 340 AB's and hit .276. I am gambling the walks would decrease and the HR would increase if A Rod is behind him.
3. New York City- if any city can handle Barry Bonds, it is the media capital of the world, and Jason Giambi survived a steriod scandal there and lived to tell about it. My point is, if you produce they don't care. They also can handle special arrangements for stars (see Roger Clemens) and no one has an ego over it.
4. Advantage New York over Boston- now that Curt Schilling is blogging full time until the All Star Break, New York has a unique chance to be on semi-equal footing against the Red Sox in the pitching category for a couple months. The Yankees need quality starts but having Bonds bat 3rd and DH will look just as good against the Red Sox head to head. I don't think the Yankees need hitting either, but there are no pitchers in the free agent market that can cause matchup problems like adding a hitter of Bonds caliber can.
This is just my opinion and Bonds would never go to New York at this point in his career but I think it makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. Remember, Bonds played in a ballpark that was actually quite large and managed to hit a couple HR's there and produce pretty well. I can only imagine him at Yankee Stadium, taking a shot at that RF fence.
I hate the Yankees, but this seems to make a lot of sense to me.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
0 comments So Is He White or Disabled In Some Fashion?
http://www.ajc.com/braves/content/sports/braves/stories/2008/03/12/anderson_0313.html
Dave O' Brien has done a wonderful job profiling Josh Anderson. Who you ask? Exactly. This is the type of article that annoys me, which is a puff piece that does not answer my major question. What stereotype is he busting? O'Brien does not say exactly, but let it be known, there is some major stereotype busting going on. My guess is that he is white. I will let you decide.
You heard he led the minor leagues with 78 stolen bases in 2004 and immediately conjured an image of Josh Anderson. Then you met him. It was not what you had in mind.
No Davy boy, I heard the Braves traded Oscar Villerreal to the Astros (not on my team, don't care to spell it correctly) and conjured an image of Chris Burke or Hunter Pence playing for the Braves. Then I heard the name Josh Anderson and thought of this kid in Junior High that used to whip the other guys in the locker room with their Umbros, and began to wonder what had happened to him since Junior High...most likely jail if I had to guess. Then I wondered why the Braves traded a middle reliever that was effective for them last year, which made me wonder why they did not keep Dotel to be the set up man. It seemed like they traded away a good portion of the bullpen which does not seem smart. At this point, I was at the end of the article and could not remember what I had just read, so I got back to the name Josh Anderson. I have never met him, but when I heard he was a 4th outfielder that had barely played in the majors, that was not what I had in mind, no. On that you are correct.
Oh, yes, he's fast.
He better be, Jeff Francoeur can not cover the entire outfield himself, because Matt Diaz is not going to help.
The former Astros prospect — and former high-school basketball star and slam-dunk champion — has emerged as a leading candidate for the Braves' fourth-outfielder job.
Awesome! So the Braves have that covered in case the Mets come to town and would prefer not to play baseball but give us the choice between a slam dunk contest or a pick up game of basketball. I want to hear more about this slam dunk champ in case this ever happens. By the way, can the Braves sign Julianne Hough in case the Nationals come in town again and we "get served" in another dance contest by Dmitri Young? That was embarrassing for everyone.
"I'm a big Dukes of Hazzard fan, and that was filmed near Atlanta."
Before you think stereotype after that reference, know this: Anderson was recruited by Princeton to play basketball. Ivy League.
That literally makes no sense. The only way that sentence would make sense is if you are racist and think a white boy playing basketball or an African American watching Dukes of Hazzard is odd. Is this like one of those "pick your own conclusions" books I read as a youngster where we get to choose what happens next? If so, I want him to be Phillipino...and I would want him to win a Slam Dunk Contest.
Won a slam-dunk contest at the 2000 Showcase Games for Central Kentucky All-Stars.
A write-up about the event called him "high flying Josh Anderson." Anyone sense a pattern of stereotype-smashing here?
If he makes the team, the Braves might finally have someone who can beat John Smoltz in one-on-one at the pitcher's backyard full court.
Thanks for telling me more about the Slam Dunk victory. No, I do not sense a pattern of stereotype smashing though. I need to know what his race is so we can stereotype him. Hurry it up, I think he may be Haitian and I need to know. I hope he can beat John Smoltz at basketball, Smoltz is 40. Unfortunately Smoltz could not identify him from this article because he would not know what he looks like to invite him over to lose play basketball.
His advantage over prospect Brandon Jones in the fourth-outfielder race is the fact that Anderson plays center. Brandon Jones is a corner outfielder, and the Braves might use Matt Diaz as an everyday left fielder, rather than platoon.
Brandon Jones is also a potential five tool outfielder, so I would rather he play and get experience, while Diaz has hit .300 in his limited playing time. Either option seems preferable honestly to Anderson. I don't think Jones can dunk though, so put in Anderson!
He doesn't hit for power — just 15 homers in 602 minor-league games — but the Braves wouldn't want him to try.
As long as he can do a reverse slam windmill, we don't need no stinking homeruns from the centerfielder. Last chance Davy boy, what is his race and what did you write this article for if you are not going to tell me? It is hard to see what stereotype is being busted if you don't tell me what race the person is. Let me stereotype dammit!!
Anderson has the speed to go get it.
Yeah, buddy.
I give up. It does not really matter but you can't write an article about stereotypes and not include the stereotype being busted. If Davy O' Brien did a biography on Helen Keller she would just seem lazy.
Dave O' Brien has done a wonderful job profiling Josh Anderson. Who you ask? Exactly. This is the type of article that annoys me, which is a puff piece that does not answer my major question. What stereotype is he busting? O'Brien does not say exactly, but let it be known, there is some major stereotype busting going on. My guess is that he is white. I will let you decide.
You heard he led the minor leagues with 78 stolen bases in 2004 and immediately conjured an image of Josh Anderson. Then you met him. It was not what you had in mind.
No Davy boy, I heard the Braves traded Oscar Villerreal to the Astros (not on my team, don't care to spell it correctly) and conjured an image of Chris Burke or Hunter Pence playing for the Braves. Then I heard the name Josh Anderson and thought of this kid in Junior High that used to whip the other guys in the locker room with their Umbros, and began to wonder what had happened to him since Junior High...most likely jail if I had to guess. Then I wondered why the Braves traded a middle reliever that was effective for them last year, which made me wonder why they did not keep Dotel to be the set up man. It seemed like they traded away a good portion of the bullpen which does not seem smart. At this point, I was at the end of the article and could not remember what I had just read, so I got back to the name Josh Anderson. I have never met him, but when I heard he was a 4th outfielder that had barely played in the majors, that was not what I had in mind, no. On that you are correct.
Oh, yes, he's fast.
He better be, Jeff Francoeur can not cover the entire outfield himself, because Matt Diaz is not going to help.
The former Astros prospect — and former high-school basketball star and slam-dunk champion — has emerged as a leading candidate for the Braves' fourth-outfielder job.
Awesome! So the Braves have that covered in case the Mets come to town and would prefer not to play baseball but give us the choice between a slam dunk contest or a pick up game of basketball. I want to hear more about this slam dunk champ in case this ever happens. By the way, can the Braves sign Julianne Hough in case the Nationals come in town again and we "get served" in another dance contest by Dmitri Young? That was embarrassing for everyone.
"I'm a big Dukes of Hazzard fan, and that was filmed near Atlanta."
Before you think stereotype after that reference, know this: Anderson was recruited by Princeton to play basketball. Ivy League.
That literally makes no sense. The only way that sentence would make sense is if you are racist and think a white boy playing basketball or an African American watching Dukes of Hazzard is odd. Is this like one of those "pick your own conclusions" books I read as a youngster where we get to choose what happens next? If so, I want him to be Phillipino...and I would want him to win a Slam Dunk Contest.
Won a slam-dunk contest at the 2000 Showcase Games for Central Kentucky All-Stars.
A write-up about the event called him "high flying Josh Anderson." Anyone sense a pattern of stereotype-smashing here?
If he makes the team, the Braves might finally have someone who can beat John Smoltz in one-on-one at the pitcher's backyard full court.
Thanks for telling me more about the Slam Dunk victory. No, I do not sense a pattern of stereotype smashing though. I need to know what his race is so we can stereotype him. Hurry it up, I think he may be Haitian and I need to know. I hope he can beat John Smoltz at basketball, Smoltz is 40. Unfortunately Smoltz could not identify him from this article because he would not know what he looks like to invite him over to lose play basketball.
His advantage over prospect Brandon Jones in the fourth-outfielder race is the fact that Anderson plays center. Brandon Jones is a corner outfielder, and the Braves might use Matt Diaz as an everyday left fielder, rather than platoon.
Brandon Jones is also a potential five tool outfielder, so I would rather he play and get experience, while Diaz has hit .300 in his limited playing time. Either option seems preferable honestly to Anderson. I don't think Jones can dunk though, so put in Anderson!
He doesn't hit for power — just 15 homers in 602 minor-league games — but the Braves wouldn't want him to try.
As long as he can do a reverse slam windmill, we don't need no stinking homeruns from the centerfielder. Last chance Davy boy, what is his race and what did you write this article for if you are not going to tell me? It is hard to see what stereotype is being busted if you don't tell me what race the person is. Let me stereotype dammit!!
Anderson has the speed to go get it.
Yeah, buddy.
I give up. It does not really matter but you can't write an article about stereotypes and not include the stereotype being busted. If Davy O' Brien did a biography on Helen Keller she would just seem lazy.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
0 comments A Conversation With Tom Verducci About Pitchers Who May Have Breakthrough Years
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/tom_verducci/03/11/verducci.beckett/index.html
(Copy and paste it, I am not good at posting hyperlinks...yet.)
Tom Verducci has a prediction and it's not a bold one. He thinks five certain pitchers are going to have a big jump in their performance this year and be the next "Beckett," and it will help their team win the World Series. I always enjoy a column focusing on pitchers who could help their team win a World Series if they just have a little better year statistically. It helps me identify unknown players who might give borderline teams a chance to win. Though, I am not sure focusing on Josh Beckett is the best example since he did win a...
Beckett didn't come out of nowhere. He was the World Series MVP with the Marlins in 2003, and he did win 16 games in 2006, albeit with a 5.01 ERA.
Thanks for adding that Tom. I was not sure if I considered 2007 a breakthrough either for Beckett since injuries had stopped him from being quite the pitcher everyone knew he could be. Plus, he did have that World Series MVP thingie. So end of comparison then? I will give you five minutes to choose another pitcher with which to compare these overlooked pitchers who could have a breakthrough year. Go ahead and...
Here are five pitchers who could be the next Beckett: pitchers who could step up with 20 wins, and if they do, their teams just might win the last game played this year.
You've lost me, but go ahead. Also, please stop interrupting me. Who are these mystery pitchers? Rule 5 pickups? Under the radar hurlers who seem to have finally gotten it together? What did you say Tom? Incorrect and stupid guesses? How about two All Stars, two of the best young prospects currently pitching in the majors and one of the best Japanese pitchers to ever come over to America? Correct! Tom, you are really going to go all out with this comparison aren't you? I am not good at bylines but perhaps you should have called this article "3 Pitchers Who Have Not Been In The Majors Long Enough To Show What They Can Do, One Pitcher Who Needed A Change Of Scenery, And An Old Pitcher Who Probably Won't Make 20 Starts Who Could Help Their Team Win The World Series."
1. Felix Hernandez
Hernandez still won 14 games and struck out 165 batters -- only 15 other pitchers in history were so accomplished at such a young age, among them Christy Mathewson, Babe Ruth and Bob Feller. Only three other pitchers did it in the past 30 years and every one of them went on to win a Cy Young Award: Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden and C.C. Sabathia.
First off, I will rename this blog King Felix and his Court Jester Bengoodfella if the Seattle Mariners win the World Series. If they do by any chance win the West, I would think Erik Bedard would have some impact, but that is just me. That is some incredible company to put King Felix in and it sure sounds like he had a swell year. So I guess he had his breakout year last year then, right Tom?
It's only a matter of time before King Felix claims one of his own.
That is literally what I am saying. He can't have a breakout year, he has broken out already. I would prefer it if you choose pitchers who have not had a good year already and would tell me something I am not currently aware of.
2. Daisuke Matsuzaka
Now Tom, let's be fair. He was a pretty good pitcher in Japan, he had never played in America before, and he did not exactly have a bad year over here. He also has a huge contract, so expectations were already high. So I think it is safe to say it is not exactly a stretch to think he may have a better year than 2007. Why are you writing this article again? You are telling me things I already know. What don't I know is why...
Matsuzaka surprised the Red Sox by reporting to camp heavier than last year. He explained that he enjoyed his best seasons in Japan when he carried more weight. Perhaps Matsuzaka also is better prepared for the grind of the longer major league campaign, which took its toll on the right-hander over the final two months of last season.
Ok, forget Matsuzaka is already a pretty good pitcher and you are writing an article about him breaking out. He is fatter and you think that is going to help his endurance for an entire MLB schedule? Tommy, now I just question your sanity. Pray tell, what more my good man...
Like Hernandez, Matsuzaka was underappreciated last year because the expectations were so high. He did win 15 games and strike out more than 200 batters. Only four other pitchers did that in their first year: Gooden, Mark Langston, Herb Score and Grover Cleveland Alexander.
I don't get why you are predicting a breakout year for a pitcher by backing it up with cherry picked stats showing how incredible his first year in the majors was and the fact he is now fat. Maybe he will get better this year, but I think he has already broken out. I have a $102 million reasons to say that. What gives my fair man?
Still, Matsuzaka lacked a certain polish you'd expect from someone with his pro experience.
What an ass I am! I forgot about the polish ratio. (Not to be confused with the Polish ratio, which if I am not wrong, has something to do with Poland and gerbils...not sure on this one though.) Has Matsuzaka been looking to improve on his polish ratio? How does he do this? Is he currently trying good pickup lines at bars, opening doors for ladies or just speaking in a lower more sexually charged tone to get what he wants?
If he fine tunes his approach with that year of experience to learn from, five more wins is not out of the question.
So why does it have to be wins that improves? Because he only won 15 games last year, that is not a breakout year, he needs five more...to 20. Then...breaking out like crazy!!! Banzai!!! Sorry, I did not mean to mock your arbitrary "20 games and playing on a winning team means you have broken out" rule. You hate Bert Blyleven don't you?
3. Chad Billingsley
Five years after being selected in the first round of the draft
Ah, a non obvious choice huh? Not to be picky here Tom, but I would think if Brad Penny, Hiroki Kuroda and Derek Lowe won 20 games each, it would be just as big of a deal for the Dodgers. I guess Billingsley was named the #1 starter this year then? That makes sense because you usually want your top 3 starters to win 20 games and "break out," because that does...
The Dodgers will use him as their No. 4 starter behind Brad Penny, Derek Lowe and Hiroki Kuroda.
Oh...so the other three starters are just as important then. Why did you choose Billingsley then as your BREAKOUT CANDIDATE ON A WINNING TEAM! Honestly, I am just messing with you at this point, I think you are right Billingsley is headed for big th-...
Billingsley, 23, is primed for stardom.
So you just want to be right. Great, you pick the category of breaking out, choose pitchers who have already broken out, and then you choose pitchers who are not quite as important to the team but have a chance in 2 years to win 20 games (you choose the number of wins, don't look at me) as examples. I am not going to win am I? What about the Dodger's hitting? Gotcha!
he'll have the breakout year the offensively challenged Dodgers will need.
I do realize if he pitches well then the offense won't have to score so many runs, but is a team really going to make the World Series and have Billingsley pitch the winning game based on that principle Tom? I would think not, dear sir. I had to look this up, but I think pitching and hitting are two separate things Tommy. They are connected in that a team must need both to be successful but they are not really directly related to success in one gives you success in another. I have just drawn three rings and you see how they are connected in the middle, that is the...
4. Pedro Martinez, Mets.
What the fuck Tom? Now you are just trying to piss me off. Pedro could go to the Hall of Fame. How in the hell is he going to have a breakout year?
People like to think Martinez, at 36, isn't a strikeout pitcher anymore and is more of a finesse guy. Well, over the past two seasons, with his arm in various states of repair and recovery, Martinez still whiffed 169 batters in 160 2/3 innings.
No. No one thinks he is just a finesse pitcher at this point. We think he gets hurt a lot and broke out literally 10 years ago. If the Mets win the World Series, yes, he has a lot to do with it. This is not going out on a limb Tom. Why did you write this article? Here is what you could have done and not wasted my time and energy. "Of the contenders, I think Felix Hernandez, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Chad Billingsley, Pedro Martinez, and Dontrelle Willis could really determine their team's fortunes." Done. End of sentence.
Just don't expect the Mets to use him like a horse; they never have. New York has given him extra rest (at least five days) for 38 of his 60 starts with the team, including 20 of his past 28. That careful approach may limit his overall starts,
There you go again, sabotaging your own cherry picked stats. Are you trying to get me to focus on the stats and not this useless, fucking article. I won't do it...ok, only for a second. Maybe if Pedro got fatter and made less starts he could win 20 games.
but that doesn't mean you should rule out a third career 20-win season for a guy with a .692 lifetime winning percentage.
Who wants to bet Pedro makes 29 starts this year? That is how many games he would have to pitch at his lifetime winning percentage to get to 20 games won. Fuck you Tom, you have me paying attention to stats now, focused away from the fact Pedro broke out 10 years ago. You always do this to me, you know...
5. Dontrelle Willis, Tigers
Everyone knows Willis is an important pitcher and it could be why the Tigers traded half their farm system for him and Miguel Cabrera. His ERA and walks have increased over the last years and he is going to the American League, which you columnists always say will hurt a pitcher. How are you going to avoid that rule of thumb?
A good rule of thumb when a pitcher jumps from the NL to the AL is to add half of a run to his ERA. That would bump Willis' number to a staggering 5.67. But here is one case where a change of scenery might actually have some meaning to it.
Has he changed his mechanics or perhaps found a new "out" pitch?
Willis was the Marlins' meal ticket. He made every one of his starts for five years in Florida, usually carrying the psychological load of a gate attraction and the team's best chance to win in a five-day period. By last season Willis and his stuff looked worn down.
Not he himself looked worn down...but his stuff? He was burdened also. I don't know if you want a pitcher who does not want to be the number one starter or the gate attration to be a breakout candidate Tommy. What can the Tigers do to help him lower his ERA?
he actually pitched better than the league average when the Marlins found him an extra day of rest (4.12).
Good! Go find a 6th starter Tigers management. Hurry along now.
Also, Florida scored three or fewer runs for him 13 times. I'm guessing that won't happen with the Tigers.
Has...nothing...to...do...with...ERA. These candidates are obviously good pitchers or potentially good pitchers, I don't get what you are trying to prove. Are these the first 5 pitchers you could think of on contending teams?
That's exactly the kind of smart thinking that started Beckett on his way last year.
Beckett was on his way before last year. It was not a breakout year for him. He was the #1 starter on the best team in the major leagues. He finally met his full potential. I am in a good mood today, I will give you Billingsley as a breakout pitcher. The rest of the pitchers Hernandez, Martinez, Willis and Matsuzaka are household names that most people know are going to be/currently are/where good pitchers. I literally have no idea why you wrote this article. The pitchers may make a big jump this year because they are excellent at the sport already...except Pedro, the only jump he will make is when he jumps the shark (BAM! Pop culture reference. High fives all around the room). Next time we speak Tom, please just tell me something I don't know. Please?
(Copy and paste it, I am not good at posting hyperlinks...yet.)
Tom Verducci has a prediction and it's not a bold one. He thinks five certain pitchers are going to have a big jump in their performance this year and be the next "Beckett," and it will help their team win the World Series. I always enjoy a column focusing on pitchers who could help their team win a World Series if they just have a little better year statistically. It helps me identify unknown players who might give borderline teams a chance to win. Though, I am not sure focusing on Josh Beckett is the best example since he did win a...
Beckett didn't come out of nowhere. He was the World Series MVP with the Marlins in 2003, and he did win 16 games in 2006, albeit with a 5.01 ERA.
Thanks for adding that Tom. I was not sure if I considered 2007 a breakthrough either for Beckett since injuries had stopped him from being quite the pitcher everyone knew he could be. Plus, he did have that World Series MVP thingie. So end of comparison then? I will give you five minutes to choose another pitcher with which to compare these overlooked pitchers who could have a breakthrough year. Go ahead and...
Here are five pitchers who could be the next Beckett: pitchers who could step up with 20 wins, and if they do, their teams just might win the last game played this year.
You've lost me, but go ahead. Also, please stop interrupting me. Who are these mystery pitchers? Rule 5 pickups? Under the radar hurlers who seem to have finally gotten it together? What did you say Tom? Incorrect and stupid guesses? How about two All Stars, two of the best young prospects currently pitching in the majors and one of the best Japanese pitchers to ever come over to America? Correct! Tom, you are really going to go all out with this comparison aren't you? I am not good at bylines but perhaps you should have called this article "3 Pitchers Who Have Not Been In The Majors Long Enough To Show What They Can Do, One Pitcher Who Needed A Change Of Scenery, And An Old Pitcher Who Probably Won't Make 20 Starts Who Could Help Their Team Win The World Series."
1. Felix Hernandez
Hernandez still won 14 games and struck out 165 batters -- only 15 other pitchers in history were so accomplished at such a young age, among them Christy Mathewson, Babe Ruth and Bob Feller. Only three other pitchers did it in the past 30 years and every one of them went on to win a Cy Young Award: Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden and C.C. Sabathia.
First off, I will rename this blog King Felix and his Court Jester Bengoodfella if the Seattle Mariners win the World Series. If they do by any chance win the West, I would think Erik Bedard would have some impact, but that is just me. That is some incredible company to put King Felix in and it sure sounds like he had a swell year. So I guess he had his breakout year last year then, right Tom?
It's only a matter of time before King Felix claims one of his own.
That is literally what I am saying. He can't have a breakout year, he has broken out already. I would prefer it if you choose pitchers who have not had a good year already and would tell me something I am not currently aware of.
2. Daisuke Matsuzaka
Now Tom, let's be fair. He was a pretty good pitcher in Japan, he had never played in America before, and he did not exactly have a bad year over here. He also has a huge contract, so expectations were already high. So I think it is safe to say it is not exactly a stretch to think he may have a better year than 2007. Why are you writing this article again? You are telling me things I already know. What don't I know is why...
Matsuzaka surprised the Red Sox by reporting to camp heavier than last year. He explained that he enjoyed his best seasons in Japan when he carried more weight. Perhaps Matsuzaka also is better prepared for the grind of the longer major league campaign, which took its toll on the right-hander over the final two months of last season.
Ok, forget Matsuzaka is already a pretty good pitcher and you are writing an article about him breaking out. He is fatter and you think that is going to help his endurance for an entire MLB schedule? Tommy, now I just question your sanity. Pray tell, what more my good man...
Like Hernandez, Matsuzaka was underappreciated last year because the expectations were so high. He did win 15 games and strike out more than 200 batters. Only four other pitchers did that in their first year: Gooden, Mark Langston, Herb Score and Grover Cleveland Alexander.
I don't get why you are predicting a breakout year for a pitcher by backing it up with cherry picked stats showing how incredible his first year in the majors was and the fact he is now fat. Maybe he will get better this year, but I think he has already broken out. I have a $102 million reasons to say that. What gives my fair man?
Still, Matsuzaka lacked a certain polish you'd expect from someone with his pro experience.
What an ass I am! I forgot about the polish ratio. (Not to be confused with the Polish ratio, which if I am not wrong, has something to do with Poland and gerbils...not sure on this one though.) Has Matsuzaka been looking to improve on his polish ratio? How does he do this? Is he currently trying good pickup lines at bars, opening doors for ladies or just speaking in a lower more sexually charged tone to get what he wants?
If he fine tunes his approach with that year of experience to learn from, five more wins is not out of the question.
So why does it have to be wins that improves? Because he only won 15 games last year, that is not a breakout year, he needs five more...to 20. Then...breaking out like crazy!!! Banzai!!! Sorry, I did not mean to mock your arbitrary "20 games and playing on a winning team means you have broken out" rule. You hate Bert Blyleven don't you?
3. Chad Billingsley
Five years after being selected in the first round of the draft
Ah, a non obvious choice huh? Not to be picky here Tom, but I would think if Brad Penny, Hiroki Kuroda and Derek Lowe won 20 games each, it would be just as big of a deal for the Dodgers. I guess Billingsley was named the #1 starter this year then? That makes sense because you usually want your top 3 starters to win 20 games and "break out," because that does...
The Dodgers will use him as their No. 4 starter behind Brad Penny, Derek Lowe and Hiroki Kuroda.
Oh...so the other three starters are just as important then. Why did you choose Billingsley then as your BREAKOUT CANDIDATE ON A WINNING TEAM! Honestly, I am just messing with you at this point, I think you are right Billingsley is headed for big th-...
Billingsley, 23, is primed for stardom.
So you just want to be right. Great, you pick the category of breaking out, choose pitchers who have already broken out, and then you choose pitchers who are not quite as important to the team but have a chance in 2 years to win 20 games (you choose the number of wins, don't look at me) as examples. I am not going to win am I? What about the Dodger's hitting? Gotcha!
he'll have the breakout year the offensively challenged Dodgers will need.
I do realize if he pitches well then the offense won't have to score so many runs, but is a team really going to make the World Series and have Billingsley pitch the winning game based on that principle Tom? I would think not, dear sir. I had to look this up, but I think pitching and hitting are two separate things Tommy. They are connected in that a team must need both to be successful but they are not really directly related to success in one gives you success in another. I have just drawn three rings and you see how they are connected in the middle, that is the...
4. Pedro Martinez, Mets.
What the fuck Tom? Now you are just trying to piss me off. Pedro could go to the Hall of Fame. How in the hell is he going to have a breakout year?
People like to think Martinez, at 36, isn't a strikeout pitcher anymore and is more of a finesse guy. Well, over the past two seasons, with his arm in various states of repair and recovery, Martinez still whiffed 169 batters in 160 2/3 innings.
No. No one thinks he is just a finesse pitcher at this point. We think he gets hurt a lot and broke out literally 10 years ago. If the Mets win the World Series, yes, he has a lot to do with it. This is not going out on a limb Tom. Why did you write this article? Here is what you could have done and not wasted my time and energy. "Of the contenders, I think Felix Hernandez, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Chad Billingsley, Pedro Martinez, and Dontrelle Willis could really determine their team's fortunes." Done. End of sentence.
Just don't expect the Mets to use him like a horse; they never have. New York has given him extra rest (at least five days) for 38 of his 60 starts with the team, including 20 of his past 28. That careful approach may limit his overall starts,
There you go again, sabotaging your own cherry picked stats. Are you trying to get me to focus on the stats and not this useless, fucking article. I won't do it...ok, only for a second. Maybe if Pedro got fatter and made less starts he could win 20 games.
but that doesn't mean you should rule out a third career 20-win season for a guy with a .692 lifetime winning percentage.
Who wants to bet Pedro makes 29 starts this year? That is how many games he would have to pitch at his lifetime winning percentage to get to 20 games won. Fuck you Tom, you have me paying attention to stats now, focused away from the fact Pedro broke out 10 years ago. You always do this to me, you know...
5. Dontrelle Willis, Tigers
Everyone knows Willis is an important pitcher and it could be why the Tigers traded half their farm system for him and Miguel Cabrera. His ERA and walks have increased over the last years and he is going to the American League, which you columnists always say will hurt a pitcher. How are you going to avoid that rule of thumb?
A good rule of thumb when a pitcher jumps from the NL to the AL is to add half of a run to his ERA. That would bump Willis' number to a staggering 5.67. But here is one case where a change of scenery might actually have some meaning to it.
Has he changed his mechanics or perhaps found a new "out" pitch?
Willis was the Marlins' meal ticket. He made every one of his starts for five years in Florida, usually carrying the psychological load of a gate attraction and the team's best chance to win in a five-day period. By last season Willis and his stuff looked worn down.
Not he himself looked worn down...but his stuff? He was burdened also. I don't know if you want a pitcher who does not want to be the number one starter or the gate attration to be a breakout candidate Tommy. What can the Tigers do to help him lower his ERA?
he actually pitched better than the league average when the Marlins found him an extra day of rest (4.12).
Good! Go find a 6th starter Tigers management. Hurry along now.
Also, Florida scored three or fewer runs for him 13 times. I'm guessing that won't happen with the Tigers.
Has...nothing...to...do...with...ERA. These candidates are obviously good pitchers or potentially good pitchers, I don't get what you are trying to prove. Are these the first 5 pitchers you could think of on contending teams?
That's exactly the kind of smart thinking that started Beckett on his way last year.
Beckett was on his way before last year. It was not a breakout year for him. He was the #1 starter on the best team in the major leagues. He finally met his full potential. I am in a good mood today, I will give you Billingsley as a breakout pitcher. The rest of the pitchers Hernandez, Martinez, Willis and Matsuzaka are household names that most people know are going to be/currently are/where good pitchers. I literally have no idea why you wrote this article. The pitchers may make a big jump this year because they are excellent at the sport already...except Pedro, the only jump he will make is when he jumps the shark (BAM! Pop culture reference. High fives all around the room). Next time we speak Tom, please just tell me something I don't know. Please?
Monday, March 10, 2008
0 comments Tyler Hansbrough Has No Skills But Tries Hard
I am not the biggest UNC fan in the world and dislike their man-boy Tyler Hansbrough even more than a normal human ever should but what annoys me most is the perception of him and it is summed up well by Dick Vitale during the Duke-Carolina game Saturday night. And I quote Dickie V...
"Tyler Hansbrough is the only basketball player I have ever seen who tries his hardest on every play and never takes a possession off and that is what makes him so great."
What games is he watching where players are walking up the court playing Guitar Hero and taking bathroom breaks while someone is on the foul line? Maybe he is confusing the NBA with college ball. I don't really know, but what I do know is I watch a lot of college ball and I am pretty, pretty, pretty sure he is not the first basketball player to try his hardest on every play and never take a possession off. I have no proof of this of course, but neither does Dickie V that Hansbrough is the first. It is like he is saying "I am the first person to eat a bucket of ice cream and watch Deal or No Deal while wearing a Speedo." I can't prove it but I can mock it. So it is just a test of wills at this point between me and Dickie V...
Also, enough of the, "he gets the most out of his talent, look at this gritty white person play." Hansbrough is going to be Player of the Year (not a prediction, I just announced it officially, so fuck off nominating/voting committee). Isn't it possible he could just have a lot of skill and what really compliments that skill is how tenacious, annoying he is? Tyler Hansbrough was ranked #10 in his recruiting class and is just about 300 points off the UNC record for points scored. That sounds like an accomplishment to me that belies actual skill. I don't have the box scores but he held his own in High School games against LeBron James and Greg Oden. Check out the boxscore (and when you do send it to me because I spent 20 minutes looking for it online). Can we please give him credit that he might be a good basketball player? Maybe he has skill and he tries? Has anyone ever thought about that? Anyone?....No? Great then...thanks Dickie V for speaking what everyone but me thinks then.
On a side note, I am literally blogging to myself at this point, I need readers.
"Tyler Hansbrough is the only basketball player I have ever seen who tries his hardest on every play and never takes a possession off and that is what makes him so great."
What games is he watching where players are walking up the court playing Guitar Hero and taking bathroom breaks while someone is on the foul line? Maybe he is confusing the NBA with college ball. I don't really know, but what I do know is I watch a lot of college ball and I am pretty, pretty, pretty sure he is not the first basketball player to try his hardest on every play and never take a possession off. I have no proof of this of course, but neither does Dickie V that Hansbrough is the first. It is like he is saying "I am the first person to eat a bucket of ice cream and watch Deal or No Deal while wearing a Speedo." I can't prove it but I can mock it. So it is just a test of wills at this point between me and Dickie V...
Also, enough of the, "he gets the most out of his talent, look at this gritty white person play." Hansbrough is going to be Player of the Year (not a prediction, I just announced it officially, so fuck off nominating/voting committee). Isn't it possible he could just have a lot of skill and what really compliments that skill is how tenacious, annoying he is? Tyler Hansbrough was ranked #10 in his recruiting class and is just about 300 points off the UNC record for points scored. That sounds like an accomplishment to me that belies actual skill. I don't have the box scores but he held his own in High School games against LeBron James and Greg Oden. Check out the boxscore (and when you do send it to me because I spent 20 minutes looking for it online). Can we please give him credit that he might be a good basketball player? Maybe he has skill and he tries? Has anyone ever thought about that? Anyone?....No? Great then...thanks Dickie V for speaking what everyone but me thinks then.
On a side note, I am literally blogging to myself at this point, I need readers.
0 comments What If I Made More Attempts To Be An NBA GM?
Simmonsforgm.com.
I stink at breaking down articles and mocking the writer. This will never stop me, just lower the expectations of the reader (if I ever get any). I went into this article thinking it was going to be two outcomes: A bunch of "What if's" that concern the Celtics where Simmons can write about his favorite team or a bunch of "What if's" that will show off his knowledge of the league, allow him free reign to make shit up and massage his ego. I guessed correctly. It is hard to criticize the article since it is purely a work of fiction. i.e. "What if Darko had turned out to be a stud for Detroit." or "What if Grant Hill had somehow stayed healthy in Orlando?"
I think the question should have been, "What if Detriot drafted Dwayne Wade/Chris Bosh" but what do I know? I could never run an NBA team like Simmons. I also don't have an ego so large that I believe I could have hung out with Tom Brady after the Super Bowl and not gotten kicked out of the room.
I stink at breaking down articles and mocking the writer. This will never stop me, just lower the expectations of the reader (if I ever get any). I went into this article thinking it was going to be two outcomes: A bunch of "What if's" that concern the Celtics where Simmons can write about his favorite team or a bunch of "What if's" that will show off his knowledge of the league, allow him free reign to make shit up and massage his ego. I guessed correctly. It is hard to criticize the article since it is purely a work of fiction. i.e. "What if Darko had turned out to be a stud for Detroit." or "What if Grant Hill had somehow stayed healthy in Orlando?"
I think the question should have been, "What if Detriot drafted Dwayne Wade/Chris Bosh" but what do I know? I could never run an NBA team like Simmons. I also don't have an ego so large that I believe I could have hung out with Tom Brady after the Super Bowl and not gotten kicked out of the room.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
0 comments What To Expect
I would tell you what I like, but let's be honest, it is much more fun to read about what I don't like. In no particular order:
1. Bill Simmons: I used to love reading his "columns" and enjoyed laughing at his pop culture jokes from a total selection of 7 movies. Now I call him the boy band of "columnists" because he is a one trick pony that writes his "columns" on Boston sports related themes and throws in references to famous people he knows. I will post about him a lot.
2. Sportswriters in particular. Sportswriters write very poorly, hyperbolized and infantile articles that can aim to a mass audience of idiots. This includes puff pieces and articles that should never have been written because they are self explanatory. Many sportswriters and journalists hate blogs and the internet is because they revel in getting the inside scoop on an athlete and knowing that person one on one. That is the nature of their job, to know athletes and ask them questions and find out information, not to think. The same people who like Jay Mariotti, Bill Plaschike (don't care to spell it correctly), and a bunch other wonderful sportswriters are the same ones who don't like "The Wire." "The Wire" makes you think, and so would an informed, intelligent article about David Eckstein, as opposed to another Mighty Mouse Strikes Again back rub we usually get. Sportswriters know most people are lazy. The articles they squirt out are aimed at those who like good entertainment and an easy read, and it makes the athletes talk to them more, which makes them look good. Unfortunately there is a group of people who are as well informed about sports who don't get paid to write about sports. Those people take the words the "expert" sportswriters say and make them look like asses. That makes them sad inside and hate the internet. You will find much more of this.
3. Boston sports. Does there have to be a Boston sportswriter on every show? What do they know that a writer from Michigan does not? Oh yeah, Boston sports. I am tired of Boston sports, not a huge fan of New York sports either, but ESPN is a huge fan of both!
4. I will have links and much less exposition in the future, I promise, I just wanted to give an introduction on what I don't like.
1. Bill Simmons: I used to love reading his "columns" and enjoyed laughing at his pop culture jokes from a total selection of 7 movies. Now I call him the boy band of "columnists" because he is a one trick pony that writes his "columns" on Boston sports related themes and throws in references to famous people he knows. I will post about him a lot.
2. Sportswriters in particular. Sportswriters write very poorly, hyperbolized and infantile articles that can aim to a mass audience of idiots. This includes puff pieces and articles that should never have been written because they are self explanatory. Many sportswriters and journalists hate blogs and the internet is because they revel in getting the inside scoop on an athlete and knowing that person one on one. That is the nature of their job, to know athletes and ask them questions and find out information, not to think. The same people who like Jay Mariotti, Bill Plaschike (don't care to spell it correctly), and a bunch other wonderful sportswriters are the same ones who don't like "The Wire." "The Wire" makes you think, and so would an informed, intelligent article about David Eckstein, as opposed to another Mighty Mouse Strikes Again back rub we usually get. Sportswriters know most people are lazy. The articles they squirt out are aimed at those who like good entertainment and an easy read, and it makes the athletes talk to them more, which makes them look good. Unfortunately there is a group of people who are as well informed about sports who don't get paid to write about sports. Those people take the words the "expert" sportswriters say and make them look like asses. That makes them sad inside and hate the internet. You will find much more of this.
3. Boston sports. Does there have to be a Boston sportswriter on every show? What do they know that a writer from Michigan does not? Oh yeah, Boston sports. I am tired of Boston sports, not a huge fan of New York sports either, but ESPN is a huge fan of both!
4. I will have links and much less exposition in the future, I promise, I just wanted to give an introduction on what I don't like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)