Bill Has Entered the Simmons Zone

You may ask yourself, "Gosh, I wonder what the Simmons Zone is...that doesn't sound like something that is real."

The Simmons Zone is when a reader can know exactly what a writer is going to write about before you even read what that writer has written. Yet you still have to read what he/she writes because it irritates you so much that no matter the topic of the column, halfway through the column you feel like you have read it before. No matter how many times you read the crap that person has written, you know that person is going to continue writing the same thing over and over again, and you are never going to stop reading. You only read for those brief times when the writer does something different and then you celebrate that and continue reading his later columns and get irritated again.

Now you may ask yourself, "That sounds like something bengoodfella completely made up and he is trying to pass it off as something factual. Wouldn't it just be easier just to say that a writer writes the same thing over and over again but you can't stop reading, rather than giving this occurrence a name and going through the whole motions of having to explain it?"

Yes it would...In something similarly related, Bill Simmons thinks Alex Rodriguez has reached the Tyson Zone. It's real though, just check Bill's wikipedia page (which I am not going to link because it is like linking to the Church of Scientology's web site...it is the same thing to me). Look for a mailbag a month from now with his SimmonsClones telling him other athletes who have reached the Tyson Zone. Bill could have written this entirely (not all together bad) column without mentioning the Tyson Zone, and he only does mention it once, but that phrase is like a code word for the SimmonsClones to send in mail relating about other athletes who have reached the Tyson Zone...then those athletes get included on his wikipedia page and the brand recognition of Bill Simmons has been increased. Bill is a smart man. He would not dare do one column without being self referential.

A friend asked me this question last week: How many consecutive columns could I extract from Alex Rodriguez?

My final answer: 10.

That would be about 30 under the record set by Wallace Matthews who, if I remember correctly, wrote 40 straight columns about A-Rod in early February to mid-March.

No modern athlete brings more to the idea table. He plays in New York for a team that stopped making the World Series as soon as he arrived.

Which was, again, completely his fault.

He's our highest-paid athlete in a tanking economy.

Depends on what metric you use. I would say he is highest paid in salary, yes, but overall he is not. I just did what is called "research." Bill must have meant highest paid in salary.

I don't know if A-Rod is the most interesting athlete either. I think A-Rod is kind of boring to be honest. Despite the fact I write about him weekly. I blame that on the fact the MSM is fascinated by him and his purple lips.

He's the star client of this generation's most despised agent.

So is the vastly "underrated" Manny Ramirez. To me, Manny is much more interesting than Alex Rodriguez.

We love to question clutch; he's notorious for coming through in small moments and choking in big ones.

I have never heard about this before. Though he did pretty well in the 2004 postseason.

We love "what ifs?" and he's provided two classics: What if that trade to Boston had happened, and what if the 2004 Yanks had finished that sweep at Fenway and A-Rod had become a playoff hero?

Shocking to me that Bill's "what ifs" for A-Rod both had an impact on the Boston Red Sox. It's like Bill's world revolves around them and thinks everyone else's world does as well. The "what if" about the A-Rod trade to Boston is valid but I sometimes think "what if" A-Rod had signed with the Seattle Mariners in 2001 instead of the Texas Rangers or "what if" the Yankees had not offered him a contract two years ago after he opted out? Who the hell would he be playing for now?

I hate "what if" games but if A-Rod had become a playoff hero in 2004, doesn't that mean Bill's previous comment about coming up small in big situations is not completely true? Simply because the Yankees lost also doesn't mean A-Rod came up small...I am just frustrating myself now trying to be logical.

A-Rod has even shattered the Tyson Zone: when an athlete's life turns so bizarre you become numb to any twist in his story.

I love completely made up terms like this! Unfortunately Bill is the only one who has been numb to any twist in A-Rod's story. The mainstream media was in shock when he admitted to using steroids, started dating Madonna, and they act like they are in shock when he does anything.

I am not sure how you can claim to be numb to any twist in a player's story and then claim to be able to write 10 consecutive columns about that player. If you are numb to any twist, it would not be that interesting to you, therefore columns would be hard to write. At least I would think so.

This wasn't the first time he seemed to unite a team simply by disappearing: It happened when he left Seattle (the Mariners jumped from 91 W's to 116) and Texas (71 to 89). As the theory goes, the never-ending circus that surrounds A-Rod -- his constant craving for attention multiplied by the nonstop media focus -- eventually overwhelms teammates and affects their play.

The Yankees are currently 0-2 going on 0-3. I really doubt this theory. If you are in New York, everything is a big story, so players should be able to get used to it after a while.

There's only one problem with the theory: It's not true.

Thank God Bill doesn't believe this. Though he still believes firmly in ubuntu.

He's simply a strange guy, not someone you'd want to drive cross-country with, for sure. But he's not a bad guy.

I would argue a bad guy is better to have on a team than a strange guy. At least you know what the bad guy is thinking. The strange guy...not so much. You never bring your kids around those guys.

Now explain this to me: How did teams "miraculously" succeed with every player in the previous paragraph? Everett won a ring with the White Sox. Kent and Bonds came within bullpen collapses of winning one of their own.

They played on good teams and clubhouse chemistry is not overrated but it certainly doesn't matter when a team has a lot of talent? That would be the reason I would give.

A famous goofball like Manny won two rings, played on 10 playoff teams and (very, very secretly) compiled one of the most successful résumés in baseball history.

Not secretly. Not secretly at all. Shut up about this. Everyone knows Manny is one of the greatest RH hitters of all time. He is not underrated simply because you want him to be underrated. There is no fair measurement of whether someone is underrated or not, but given the amount of media coverage, respect he gets from pitchers, and the amount of money he is being paid...Manny Ramirez is not underrated nor doing anything secretly that involves hitting a baseball.

Look, we love to romanticize clubhouse chemistry, mainly because we don't understand it, but also because it's a story line with legs. These guys didn't win because they were good, they won because they got along! They lifted one another, looked out for one another! They were a team! You know, the "Hoosiers" model.

Simmonsologists know that Bill loves to speak for everyone and how they are thinking. "We" don't love to romanticize clubhouse chemistry. Bill loves to romanticize it. He believes if guys are high fiving and getting along with each other it makes for a better team. Look for any article he has written about the Red Sox in the past or what he wrote about the Boston Celtics team last year. He believes this "team chemistry makes a better team shit." "We" don't.

Just because Bill is dumb enough to believe shit like this, doesn't mean everyone else does it. He just loves to speak for everyone else and how they feel or think. It drives me crazy.

If everyone is pulling for one another, fantastic. You can even win a division that way -- good karma invariably leads to goofy bounces and luck.

Exactly. Bill believes this shit. He thinks he is the fucking Buddha of sportswriting.

Throw in three titles in Oakland and Reggie Jackson -- the biggest clubhouse cancer of his generation -- won five rings in seven years. Which makes me think baseball chemistry is more overrated than Tim Burton.

But remember, you can still win a division with good karma. So tip your waitresses and give money to homeless men on the street because the next groundball up the middle might hit the pitcher's mound and go to the shortstop to start a double play. That is pure fact this can happen.

Clubhouse chemistry? It's just hocus pocus witchcraft baloney.

I will even go this far: There are undeniable positives to having one antisocial wild card in any close-knit environment. You know that one grating guy in your dorm hall or in your office? Don't you like bitching about him? You lob grenades at him as soon as he leaves the room. He's your running joke, an easy target. But he's also a galvanizing force, one of the few things that bring everyone else together: a mutual contempt for one human being that won't go away. You're stuck with him, so you make the best of it -- by belittling him.

Or as a normal person who is able to express his/her feelings by not comparing it to something else in the world or a person who does not have to meet a word count for a weak column might say..........sometimes making fun of or hating someone else can bring us all together.

It took me 13 words to say what it took Bill 7 sentences to say.

Every group needs an outcast just like every columnist needs a go-to guy for his column.

Jay Mariotti's go-to-guy who he belittles when he needs a column? The entire human race.

I won't write 10 A-Rod columns, but I could, and maybe that's all that matters.

Bill writing 10 columns about A-Rod would take nearly a month for him to do at the pace he writes. Maybe his numbness from A-Rod being in the Tyson Zone would wear off by then.