Wednesday, April 1, 2009

6 comments The Biggest Loser: Simmons Mailbag Edition Part 2

Following up on Part 1 of Bill Simmons' mailbag, here is Part 2 of Bill Simmons "marathon" mailbag. As always, I will be making fun of the individuals who write questions to Bill as much as I make fun of Bill. If you missed Part 1, scroll on down and read what drivel Bill was spilling yesterday.

Q: Does the possibility of Isiah Thomas going to work for the Clippers make you want to renew your season tickets more or less? I think it should be more.-- Zach, Los Angeles

If I had made a sports wish list for "Clipper-related things that would be an unequivocal godsend for my column" before news broke of the Isiah talks last week, the top 10 would have looked like this:

Here's my real question...Can Bill Simmons answer a reader's question directly, that is without comparing it to something else in pop culture or making a list? I have covered very thoroughly that Bill can't just say something, he has to use 100 words to describe how he feels using comparisons from pop culture or comparing his feeling to another feeling he or someone else has previously had.

What I have not covered enough is Bill's obsession with lists. He makes lists for everything and anything. Every time a readers asks a question, out comes a list. When his wife asks him what he wants their housekeeper to fix for breakfast, does he make a list of things he normally likes in the morning? Does he walk around the house with a pen and pad making a list of things he likes to do on sunny days, cloudy days and rainy days so he can go to his list and never have to make a decision should the weather be sunny, cloudy or rainy? He's like the Rain Man of lists (see what I did there? Pop culture reference!). We all understand you like lists Bill, spare us the list and answer the question directly.

Bill would be a nightmare testifying at a trial. I am not even an attorney and I am getting a headache thinking about him on the stand answering questions.

1. Clippers hire me as GM but keep Mike Dunleavy as coach.

This is where it is really all heading. He wants to be the Clippers GM. Just like the Milwaukee Bucks situation, when he wanted to be GM of the team and everyone laughed at the idea. After the 6th week where he mentioned this, everyone realized, "this asshole really, really thinks he can be the GM for an NBA team. He's crazy and egotistical." I think we are going down a similar road here.

2. Clippers hire me as GM but allow me to choose my own coach.

I am not kidding, he wants to be the GM. I don't lie about things that are this serious.

5. Clippers bring in Isiah to run the team with Mike Dunleavy.

From what I'm hearing, Clippers employees have been trying to sell owner Donald Sterling on the fact that Dunleavy's return next season -- if Sterling doesn't fire him -- will result in an estimated $8-10 million in lost revenue from nonrenewals (suites, club seats, courtside seats and season-ticket holders). Eight to 10 million! That's how unpopular Dunleavy is with the paying customers ... and the solution would be to bring in the worst general manager of this decade to help him out?

Apparently Elgin Baylor has been replaced in Bill's mind as worst general manager of this decade. Though really, these two have always been interchangeable. It just depends on what point Bill has to prove at the time.

Again, sign me up. Not only am I renewing my tickets, I'm doing it with my fingers crossed and double crossed. Who knew my third book would write itself? We had "Breaks of the Game," we had "Season on the Brink," and now, "A Season in Hoops Hell."

Just to clarify, Billl's first book consisted of copies of his previous columns (with some new comments) that had been posted on his old web site and on ESPN, so that book sort of wrote itself as well. Bill's second book, the one we have been hearing about for over a year now, has still not be released and is not coming out for another six months. At the rate Bill works on his books, his third book, the one focusing on the Clippers 2009-2010 season would come out sometime in 2015.

7. ABC names Chris Kaman as this season's "The Bachelor."

"Coming up, it's the most dramatic rose ceremony yet as Chris forgets how many roses he has left and inadvertently knocks one of the girls over ..."

I laughed at this. I just want everyone to know I don't hate EVERYTHING he writes. Just anything he pretends is fact based and when he is repetitive.

9. Clippers owner Donald Sterling starts showing up in pajamas for games like he's Hugh Hefner.

That reminds me, if you've ever wondered whether Sterling was always like this, a 1982 Sports Illustrated piece about eccentric NBA owners includes the following Sterling tidbits: He became so excited during an opening night victory that he "he unbuttoned his shirt to the navel while the game was in progress" ... he was "fined $10,000 by the league for suggesting the Clippers might purposely lose games in order to get the first pick in the draft" ... he owed hundreds of thousands to a variety of creditors, including one Oakland hotel who "refused to accommodate the Clippers at the end of last season for not paying their bills" ... and he hired an assistant general manager named "Patricia Simmons, a former model and occasional Sterling companion, who has what one San Diego newspaper described as 'no known basketball background.'"

Sort of how Bill has "no known basketball background" and still wanted to be GM for the Milwaukee Bucks.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Donald Sterling Era!

NEVER gets old. Not even the 900th time you read something bad about a team Bill or one of his readers writes and you know Bill is going to follow it up with "Ladies and gentlemen..."

Q: Wanted to make sure you saw this NPR story about what life is now like in Zihuatanejo, Mexico (the scene of the world's most famous platonic man-hug). Apparently, it is ground zero for the Mexican drug war. A sampling: "A few months ago, the heads of eight soldiers and a former police chief were found in plastic bags just north of Zihuatanejo." Between Andy's boat-rehabbing ability and Red's reputation as a "man who can get things," don't we know who sits atop this new narco-syndicate?-- Dan L., Brooklyn, N.Y.

I think scientists should research Bill's loyal readers, the ones who send in questions like this, to find out what genetic malfunction causes them to send in stupid questions that make them think Hollywood movies are real life. Movies are fictional, they are not real. Movies are the result of some guy (the writer of the movie) who spends hours a day in his living room (like a blogger) but is cooler because he has tons of drugs and women with various STDs around him at all times. This "writer" then just makes a bunch of shit up as a fictional story, much like what some of Bill's columns contain, and then sells it some movie producer....blah, blah, blah. My point is that it is ALL FICTION. Red and Andy don't exist, they never have and they never will. I think some of Bill's readers need to know this.

Crossing fictional movies with real life is funny the first 100 times it is done, but when EVERY question from a reader involves something similar to this type of crossover, it gets old incredibly quickly.

SG: Good Lord, what if you just described the plot for "Shawshank 2: A Place With No Name?"

But what if it was set in the mid-'80s and Robbins and Freeman signed on?

I would not watch.

What if it was more of a retro-'80s action movie (think "Miami Vice" or "Scarface") and Michael Mann signed on to direct?

Both of which failed at the box office when they came out. Bill should know this.

What if a bitter Andy (still haunted by his "Shawshank" experience) edged to the dark side and decided to become a drug kingpin, with Red begrudgingly joining him but narrating things like, "When Andy started wearing white linen suits and slicking his hair back, I guess you could say I was concerned ..." and "There was a look in Andy's eye that I had never seen before. He had gone over the edge. This wasn't a case of missing my friend. My friend was gone. And he wasn't coming back."

I would put it in my NetFlix queue and watch it just to mock Bill.

Q: Your theory on young coaches coming to Holy Cross as a stepping stone has been put in place at Binghamton University (Tony Kornheiser's alma mater). We moved to D-I in 2001 and are known as an academic university. After a few years, we moved to your stepping-stone theory and hired a Georgetown assistant, Kevin Broadus. This is his first head coaching job and he has been accepting transfers from bigger schools who have had off-court problems. We are now coming under fire by the New York Times. My friends and I don't care; we are just happy to be in the tourney. Would you care if your university sold out its academic standards to have a winning basketball team?-- David, New York

I don't exactly remember this "stepping stone" theory, but I want to emphasize, David the Dumbass from New York...THIS WAS NOT BILL'S THEORY, THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING LONG BEFORE BILL LATCHED ON TO IT. (See, he made me use all caps and now I am overly angry)

Look at the resume of ANY coach coaching an upper echelon team that was ranked high in the AP/Coaches Poll for college basketball. On that resume there will most likely be a starting coaching job with a smaller school. I am sure there is an exception and if someone wants to point it out to me, I will listen. More importantly, this is not Bill's theory that Holy Cross is used as a stepping stone, because every small school is used as a stepping stone, Bill's school is not special in this aspect, though I know he wants it to be. Other than Roy Williams, who was a semi-controversial choice at Kansas in 1988 because of his lack of experience, I can't think of any coach at a successful program right now, off the top of my head, that did not start at a smaller school and work his way up. It's how the job market in EVERY industry works. You don't get hired as CEO, you have to start somewhere and small crappy schools (sports wise, not academics) like Holy Cross are no exception and not special. Shut up.

Q: In Part 1, how did you leave Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer off your list of top five Dream Celebrity Guest Messages for your voice mail? "Leave a message NOW! WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME! DO IT! WHERE IS YOUR MESSAGE???"-- Aaron L., Valparaiso, Ind.

Aaron, quit writing Bill and go to class. You don't want to end up like Tysen in Washington and work at Burger King.

Q: Here's a new word for Webster's: "D'Inflation - (n). The inflation of a player's per-game statistics as caused by the particular style or system of the coach they are playing for. See: D'Antoni, Mike." Example: "Hasheem Thabeet is pretty high on people's draft boards, but Jim Calhoun's defensive system has caused D'Inflation of his block numbers." Thabeet is no Dikembe. Thoughts?-- Mike S., Alexandria, Va.

I hope everyone can see why I call these people who write in SimmonsClones. They take something Bill says like it is gospel, then make up a theory that Bill would make up and present it to him. It's like he has little clones who perpetuate his stupid ideas all over the United States and the world. It's like a cult for white kids between the ages 18-25.

I don't have a problem with everyone between the ages of 18-25, just the ones who read what Bill writes and want to be him. I made the arbitrary cut off at 25 because when I turned 25 I started reading Bill's columns and thinking, "these are kind of shit" and began to dislike them. I don't know what made me change my mind but this happened to others I know as well.

Q: So a few of us were talking at lunch today and one of my co-workers was telling a story about a male friend who got engaged to someone completely out of his league but phrased it as, "He Marko Jaric'd this girl." I loved the phrase. Why can't it be used forever to describe this type of situation?-- Jimmy, Emmaus, Pa.

Another SimmonsClone question. Simmonsologists, which I pridefully call myself one, know that Bill loves to create theories and then have his readers regurgitate similar theories back at him because they massage his massive ego and make him feel like he is still plugged in to what "the kids" want. I believe he has an incredible need to feel relevant. I am not going to link it but look at his Wikipedia page sometime. He has to love that shit. It's like a shrine to him and his ideas. His Ewing Theory was very smart, but it has been pretty downhill since then.

SG: The readers are on fire! Somebody alert the editors of that the world is being altered.

I try to keep this site fairly clean with the sexual imagery and all of that (not because I feel like I am a big bad adult, but because it distracts from what I am saying), so I don't want to write what this self congratulatory tone between Bill and his readers feels like to me, but I will say it begins with "circle."

Q: How could you not mention the two Coreys in your "Most Famous Bromances" answer (in the March 6 mailbag)? They even made a TV show about them! Also, what category do they fall under? Biggest train wreck? Fame to lame? Longest fall from grace? Unintentional comedy? They have it all.-- Jon, LaCrosse, Wis.

This is a question that has nothing to do with sports or anything sports related. It is a question that is completely self referential to one of Bill's previous mailbags. Clearly I do not approve of this and will not copy and paste the list of "bromances" that Bill lists after this.

In fact, the readers sent along so many quality bromances that I'm forced to run the first-ever "sequel answer to a previous mailbag question."

Literally every question asked in Bill's mailbag is a sequel to a previous mailbag question or is a sequel to a column that Bill wrote. Or an addendum to a column or question that Bill featured previously. Or a footnote that needed to be added to what Bill had written previously. Everything is a sequel in Bill's world.

Bill writes something, his readers write him an email agreeing and thinking of other ideas along the same lines, Bill then thinks of a name for this and writes down other instances of this, and then he incorporates this new name into a column at a later time, and finally one of Bill's SimmonsClones writes about an incident similar to the original idea and the new idea becomes a sort of spin off of the original idea. It just feels like this is the cycle for me.

Q: Not only did we steal Seattle's team, we stole their mascot, too. Get over it.-- Jason, Oklahoma City, Okla.

Thank you Jason from Oklahoma City.

Q: Did you see the Heat-Pistons game on Sunday, March 22? I know the announcers were carrying their orders from the league office to praise Wade at every opportunity, but in the last minute, Wade fell down on a touch foul after getting touched on his foot (got the whistle), then blocked two shots where he mauled the Pistons with way more contact (no calls). Are the refs warming up for the playoffs or what?-- Sam G., Ann Arbor, Mich.

SG: Here's what ticks me off: As the Miami Salvatores were whistling their way to the 2006 title, you might remember me writing a column that started, "Forget about who's winning the championship. I'm starting to feel like the future of the NBA is at stake." I warned everyone that a Miami victory meant we could "look forward to another decade of perimeter scorers going 11-for-32 in big games, teammates standing around while stars dribble at the top of the key waiting to challenge two defenders at once, and refs deciding every big game (like in Game 5) by how they interpret contact when the same guy is recklessly driving to the basket over and over again."

Remember yesterday's mailbag and Bill's misunderstanding of 3rd grade math? Remember how he was inferring players should drive to the basket as much as possible because that is what is best for the team and is more beneficial than shooting 3 point shots? Now try to rectify Bill's insatiable need for players to drive to the basket with his bitching here about when "the same guy is recklessly driving to the basket over and over again." I can't do it.

One day he tells players to drive to the basket rather than shoot 3 point shots because it draws fouls and sets up teammates and the next day he is bitching that players drive to the basket over and over again and draw fouls. I don't get it. Bill really does not know how to create a logical argument in my opinion. One day you can't portray driving to the basket and getting fouled as a good thing and the next day bitch about players who do exactly that and get the same foul calls from "bad" officiating. Playing both sides does not work. You can't use the bad officiating to your advantage in an argument when it feels convenient.

The real problem is that Bill is afraid the Celtics are going to lose to the Cavs in the Eastern Conference Finals. This has nothing to do with the NBA, it has to do with the fact LeBron James gets these types of calls and Bill is preemptively bitching about the officiating as an excuse for when/if the Celtics lose. He made his original statement about the officiating in the NBA Finals a few years ago, but is only bringing it back up because he doesn't want it to happen to his team.

Basically, the team with LeBron or Wade will win the next 10-12 titles

Kobe, LeBron and Wade are officiated differently than everyone else. And you know what else? They know it. Watch LeBron at the end of games now -- he barrels toward the basket, bounces off guys and knows he'll get a call.

But if you don't think we're headed for a Kobe-LeBron Finals, you're insane. As your gambling accountant, I suggest you investigate those 6-to-5 odds on a Cavs-Lakers Finals.

See? I believe I am right.

Q: If I had to pick a worst sports pick-up line about someone on the ESPN staff, it would be: "John Hollinger's playoff odds projects you and me in the finals."-- Matt, Durham, N.C.

SG: Come on, there's no way that beats, "Hi, I'm the Talented Mr. Roto." But you got me thinking, what would be some other terrible ESPN-related pickup lines? Here's my top 10:

The Rain Man of lists strikes again. He is non-stop with his lists.

Q: Should Kobe win the MVP for spending the summer turning Lebron into the best player in the NBA?-- Michael, Inglewood, Calif.

Take Michael Jordan, the greatest player of all time. Jordan didn't retire from the NBA in 1993 because he was burned out; it happened because he had spent three solid years eviscerating everyone in his path (not just those three straight titles, but when he emerged as the undisputed alpha dog on the Dream Team), came up for air, looked around, couldn't find an intriguing challenge that he hadn't already conquered and decided, "Screw it, I want to play baseball."

This may have some validity to it but I think Jordan is too competitive to just give up his crown as the best player in basketball on the best team in basketball and retire at the height of his career. That's just my opinion though, I am not going to try and pass it off as fact, like someone I know...

If you took the 2001 Lakers (Shaqobe at its apex, and, yes, I just lumped them together like Bennifer or Brangelina), put them in a time machine and sent them back eight years to the summer of '93, does Jordan leave the NBA to play baseball? No way! He would have looked like a coward.

Yeah maybe. Though I have to admit, I think Shaq and Kobe's Laker teams beat Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls teams. Not by much and it would be a great series, but no three headed monster (like those Bulls had) ever sufficiently guarded Shaq in his prime and then throw in Kobe on those teams who is like a mini-Michael Jordan...I think it would be the Lakers in 6/7 games.

Of course there is no way to prove Bill's "no way!" opinion here, so we can just assume he is right. Look for either a sequel column about this idea or a reader in the next mailbag refer to this. Bill will then take his point that can't be proven and make blanket statements of fact which will piss me off...because there is no way to prove him wrong, but he still feels like he is completely right.

But that's what happened with Kobe, LeBron and Wade -- starting with the 2008 Olympics, as soon as it became patently clear they were the three best basketball players alive in some order, it's been ON ever since. Did you see how LeBron responded to Wade's post-All Star Break scoring explosion?

I am having a hard time reading what Bill is writing here about these players taking their games to the next level, mostly because he just got finished complaining about how many foul calls these three players specifically get from the officials during a game. I don't know, to complain about the unfair officiating and then respond in awe at the ability of these players to put up massive amounts of points seems quite contradictory to me. I realize it is not these three guys fault that the officials, in Bill's opinion, favor them, but it doesn't explain to me why Bill is suddenly ignoring his own perception they have an officiating advantage when looking at their statistics.

I need to quit trying to understand him.

After reading your Dorkapooloza column and Hollinger's PER column about LeBron and MJ, I truly feel that no one is counting for the defense that MJ faced compared to what Lebron faces now. MJ's heyday was during an era when the hand-check was legal -- otherwise he would have completely destroyed the league. What do you think?-- Nate, New York

SG: I disagree ... he would have completely and totally destroyed the league. You left out the other factor: Back in Jordan's day, teams could cream him every time he drove to the basket without any real repercussions. Remember the secret "Jordan Rules" that Detroit had? It was actually one rule, and here was the rule: Hammer his butt as hard as you can over giving up a dunk or layup. Riley's Knicks teams took it a step further and physically assaulted him with 2-by-4s and chainsaws, or maybe it just seemed like that. You can't do that stuff now.

That may be a part of it, but my silly theory adds another part to it. With the beginning of free agency and summer basketball camps that these players begin attending at the age of 9 years old, the NBA players have had a chance to socialize and get to know each other more than they did in the past. (I told you it was silly) I think that part of the reason LeBron can drive to the basket is that no one wants to cream him on his way to the basket because you never know when you may have to play with LeBron or which guy on your team played with LeBron on a high school summer league team. Basically I think it is very, very buddy-buddy and the defensive rules in conjunction with this really accomodate a player being able to drive to the basket without getting creamed.

The bigger question: What's the point of having reporters or columnists sit courtside when 97 percent of them don't use that access for their stories? Most of the savvier teams (the Lakers, Celtics, Cavs and others) already came to that realization and moved press sections to the corners or balconies.

If this sounds like an argument a journalist might make, don't be fooled, Bill is not a journalist. He is an entertainer, he just works with journalists and knows tons of journalists, but he is not to be held to that standard because he is an entertainer.

Jason Quick (The Oregonian) and Brian Windhorst (Cleveland Plain Dealer) are two examples of thoughtful beat writers who use their access as a strength -- not just plum courtside seating, but locker room access for overheard conversations, mood reads or even armchair psychology -- and really, that's why I have both of them bookmarked.

That's reason No. 485 why newspapers are struggling so badly right now; their writers squandered unbelievable access to sporting events to the degree that readers gravitated toward the opinions of columnists and bloggers writing from their living rooms.

I am not going to disagree with Bill on this issue, though I do think it is kind of funny "the opinion of columnists and bloggers writing from their living room" describes Bill perfectly as well. He writes his opinions from his living room, so he is bascially complaining newspapers are dying because readers are reading his column instead of a column that gives the the reader access to sporting events. I just it interesting he is observing that newspapers are dying because people read his column instead of someone else's.

Q: I just told a friend the news that Kate Winslet is no longer going to be naked in movies. This prompted us to realize Winslet's breasts were the first that both of us had seen. We also realized this was true for tons of guys born in the mid- to late-'80s (making them 12 or younger when they saw "Titanic"). She has to hold the record for the actress claimed as "the first one" by the most guys. What lucky movie star holds the title for you?-- Sumter, Pittsburgh

...and I officially feel old. Let's do some math really quick (no need to pay attention Bill, I know you don't understand math...I am not always great, but I think I have this one):

Titanic came out in 1997, which would make someone 12 or younger when they saw the movie, which would make them about 21/22 years old now. That fits perfectly in my 18-25 year old demographic that Bill speaks to. Not that every Simmons fan is that age but I would say the predominant amount of his fans are...or at least the morons that write him seem to be around this age.

Since it's no fun unless you name it, I'm calling this the Apollonia Corleone All-Stars after Michael's Italian wife in "The Godfather" (a movie that, again, EVERYONE saw).

Of course he would give it a name. How can he be self-referential without a proper name for this? This man...he just absolutely is in love with himself. He loves to name shit and create lists. I am slowly going insane.

Q: Clark Kellogg is talking about baking soda and Jim Nantz has to do everything including telling viewers that Blake Griffin is being doubled every time down the floor. Admit it. You miss me, don't you?-- Billy P, Las Vegas

I did not realize how much I missed Billy Packer until he was gone. I hate Billy Packer because he hated my favorite team since they did not offer him a scholarship in the late 1950's (I think) and he had to go to Wake Forest. He actually hated every ACC (and quite possibly every Division I) team and I really miss him. I miss observations like, "Really Jim, Duke has no chance in this game," and "N.C. State is a group of underachievers who will never accomplish anything." At least that is what it sounded like he was saying to me.

Let's just say I have fond childhood memories of hating Billy Packer and I want them back. I miss Billy Packer...bring him back.

SG: I kinda sorta do. I have to admit. Here's the best example I can come up with: My street needed to be paved for two years. I learned where all the potholes were, avoided them and never stopped bitching about it. But you know what? I liked bitching about it. When they finally paved the street and made it like every other street, I missed having that bitch crutch.

Whereas I just gave my opinion and said why...Bill Simmons can't do that, he has to spend more than 4 sentences explaining how he feels, which is something I wrapped up in the first sentence. He annoys the piss out of me when he doesn't say something and he has to compare it to something else.

Q: Do you think that it would be possible for you to write an entertaining article without foul language, personal attacks ("Dumbleavy"?), or references to bodily functions? I'd love to see this in your mailbag without a personal attack. Give it a try.-- Scott Jennings, Seneca

Scott could have very well quit writing after "entertaining article" and it would have been accurate. Though every once in a while, Bill does pull a good one out, I will give him that.

SG: Go poop on yourself.

That pile of poop Scott craps out would be smarter than 84% of Bill's readers who contribute to his mailbag.

(I just realized as I was writing that sentence it sounds like I am openly baiting Bill Simmons loyal readers to attack me and call me a moron. That's not the case, I really believe 84% of them who contribute are morons...I can't help the way I feel)

By the way, a belated "Got you!" to everyone who Googled Scarlett Johansson's topless scene in "The Killing Game" -- both the scene and movie were made up. You guys are too easy.

Does Bill have short term memory loss or something? He wrote the same damn thing in his mailbag yesterday. The exact same sentence. No different. None. fGet an editor or at least get an editor who can do his job correctly.

Q: You know how you mentioned "Halter Top Day?" In Columbia, Mo., when all the sorority girls from Mizzou walk around campus in their warm-weather attire, well, we call that "Dirty Old Man Day", and we eat McDonald's take out at Brady Commons and take advantage of the fact that no one really knows that we're on a two-hour lunch break. It's a tradition as ingrained in us as roto drafts and Busch beer. Probably even moreso. We volunteer for "Mail Boxes Etc." duty during sorority rush to drive-by the sorority houses. I think this is a much bigger holiday than you could possibly image.-- George, Columbia, Mo.

George from Columbia, Missouri is part of the 84% of the readers I was talking about. Also, "a much bigger holiday than you could possibly image?" Doesn't he mean "imagine?" If Bill is going to make up these emails from his "readers" he could at least proofread his own work a little.

SG: Yup, these are my readers.

Yup, and you are their idol. They write in to get approval from you that the ideas they have are clever, you give them that approval, you create a fake name/list for their idea, take the idea for your own by adding something to it, and then refer to it constantly. Get ready for more references to how Bill should be the Clippers GM, I have a feeling they are coming.


Eric said...

Think I figured out why that line about Scarlett in a fake movie appears twice. Yesterday was the mistake.

The letter in today's mailbag with his response including the fake movie was originally supposed to be in yesterday's batch. Which is why he also put in the "got you!" thing yesterday. But at the last minute, he (or his editor) cut the letter, but forgot to cut the follow up saying "got you."

The way it appears today is the way it should've been... The fact that the punchline was delivered yesterday, before the set-up, was the accident. Big oops. I would've found it pretty funny had I read it in sequence.

By the way, in yesterday's posting, the "got you" fragment has been removed. If not for your recap, there'd be no proof someone messed up...

Bengoodfella said...

I think you are right. It really made no sense yesterday at all and I wasn't sure why he included it. I guess Bill does have an editor, just not a very good one that catches all of the mistakes that are made.

Normally, I would be indignant that something was removed from the original post to cover a mistake, like I was when Jay Mariotti completely changed around his "conference tournaments suck in general" article which was inexcusable in my opinion, but it doesn't bother me really they covered this up. This was an editing mistake so I am not going to be critical, though really I should be critical of the editor.

I am proud to be of the ones that have proof of the mistake though. It did seem so random yesterday didn't it?

Martin said...

Wow, it sounds like todays mailbag was twice as offensive as yesterdays. This entire 2nd part comes across as nothing except self referenceing and toady worship. At least yesterday he was trying to answer some real questions, even if all he did was prove he can't understand basic math.

Bengoodfella said...

Yeah, today's mailbag consisted primarily of jokes and references to past mailbags and columns. Martin, you pretty much nailed it, that's all it was.

Other than his little bit about Kobe and LeBron, there was very little of substance in it. I wish he had screwed something up majorly math-wise so I could mention it, but he was too busy making lists and pretending Scarlett was nude in a movie.

Martin said...

Do you think he spends a lot of time pretending Scarlett was nude in a movie? I am of the opinion he does.

I had a remembrence from earlier. Have you moticed that Bill's mailbags resemble the horrific "Joe Chats" that Fire Joe Morgan used to tear up? The fanbois write in one question, and Bill answers something else, makes a list out of it, while bringing it all around to the Big Red Mach.....ur , one of his pet theories. To me, it is eerily similar.

Bengoodfella said...

I think maybe ESPN teaches a seminar on how to answer chat questions and it is possible they were using a computer to help teach the class so Joe Morgan did not listen and Bill Simmons was too busy analyzing the role of Adrian in the Rocky movies to pay attention. That could be possible.

There is a similarity in how they answer the questions though. They answer the question as quickly as possible so they can get around to talking about what they want to talk about. In Joe's case, he wanted to make sure he gave no opinion and mentioned the Big Red Machine and in Bill's case, he wants to make a list to bring up some half assed theory and then expounds upon it.

"Bill, I am sorry to hear that your dog died recently. Is that the hardest it has ever been to lose an animal for you?" Bob R. Colorado Spring, Colorado

SG: Thanks Bob, it was hard. I felt like Rocky while he thinking of the towel in to prevent Drago from beating Apollo to death. There was nothing I could do about it, but throwing in the towel earlier may have done something. Doesn't it always seem like you miss some relatives more than others? I call it my Dead Relative Theory and I would have to say my top 5 favorite dead relatives are as follows..."

I think Bill spends A LOT of time thinking of Scarlett nude in a movie. I would say potentially 8%-10% of his day is involved with this. You know, this could be the main reason his book is taking so long to complete.