8 comments Bill Simmons Clearly Has Writer's Block

I have set up a College Football Pick 'Em League for Yahoo. Personally, this is my second favorite fantasy league because it keeps my interest in college football games I wouldn't normally care about on Saturdays. I have set it up against the spread and the games we will be choosing are Top 25 games and games the Yahoo editors choose as "worthy" of being chosen. The ID is 1704 and the password is "asu." Feel free to join and it doesn't take long each week to pick the games, plus it is fun to go against the spread. We only have five people now and it doesn't take long to do every week.

I got an email today (thanks to Tom for emailing it to me), but it appears that Jay Mariotti got arrested. Shockingly, he wasn't arrested for bad journalism, but for getting in an argument with his girlfriend. I know it is also a shock that he has a girlfriend, much less is getting arrested for an argument with her. I wouldn't call this good news, but maybe the cops were a little tougher in arresting Mariotti as payback for writing an article once a week that someone should get fired.

There's no doubt in my mind that Bill Simmons must have writer's block. Today, he wrote an article about theories that he has. I like to think his writing process went like this:

"Should I write about the Patriots? No, I did that last week. Should I write about the NBA? No, it feels like it has been done already. Should I write about the Red Sox? No, my last column about them went over like a lead zeppelin and I haven't watched a game in a month now. (Begins thinking about a theory he can make up...and can't think of one theory...remembers Jennifer Aniston was on the cover of a magazine this week and she has a movie out. Now he has a column idea)

Today, Bill shares his theories about all sorts of things with us. More than ever, this feels like a blog posting more than an article written that would appear on ESPN.com. Of course, Gregg Easterbrook appears on ESPN.com so I am not sure where the line is drawn between idiocy, entertainment and sports.

I hate hearing the phrase "There's no answer." I can't accept it. Everything within reason should have an answer.

What happened to the Bill Simmons that wrote for ESPN before 2005? I can't think of the answer to that question and I would like an answer to this question.

Without further ado, here's my newest column gimmick, "Theories I've Been Chewing On Lately."

At least Bill can admit he has writer's block. When Woody Paige had writer's block he just starts making even worse puns.

Chewed-On Theory No. 1: "Why did Shaq sign with the Celtics?"

Notice how that didn't read "Why did the Celtics sign Shaq?"

Look at the way Bill uses sentence structure to get a point across. Learn how to move words around in a sentence and one day you may write for ESPN.com. Or as Bill would write,

One day you may write for ESPN.com when you learn how to move words around in a sentence.

I went through the seven stages of grief when the Celtics signed Shaq:

My initial reaction was "why the hell did the Celtics do that," along with a side of, "I wish Shaq would retire before he tries to ruin every NBA team." He's like the reverse-Favre. Everyone loves him, he makes every team worse, and you never doubt he is not retiring.

Within a week, I was convinced that Shaq would be like Bill Walton with the '86 Celtics: rejuvenated and reborn. That's what fans do.

That's what homer-ific fans do. Smart fans don't have to talk themselves into things. I don't see how Shaq fits in on any team at this point in his career unless he is fine playing 15-20 minutes per game and staying the hell out of the way of the other players on offense.

And that's what bugged me about this. Why would Shaq come back for a measly $1.3 million?

Because he loves basketball? He isn't ready to retire? He has absolutely nothing else going on in his life? He is going through a divorce and needs the money? He likes the road beef? $1.3 million is still a ton of money? He wants to prove he didn't drag LeBron down? He wants to prove he didn't drag the Suns down? He thinks he can still compete in the NBA?

Of course, Bill has a much, much, much more complicated theory than what I have. It's a theory that conveniently takes up enough words to fill an ESPN.com column...or 1/4 of an ESPN.com column in this case.

Shaq's reputation as a negative influence -- within the coaching community, he's despised -- gained steam these past two seasons, breathing new life into theories about why his alliance with Kobe may have self-destructed.

See? He is the anti-Favre. Some NFL teams would crawl over themselves to have Brett Favre despite the fact he should be a negative force in the locker room, he is selfish and an incredibly asshole-ish diva. Fans hate Favre, but teammates and players seem to love him. Whereas fans love Shaq, but his coaches and teammates don't always love him and he couldn't seem to find a job this summer.

By the summer of 2010, no contender would consider him except Boston. And only because the Celtics needed a center. It was a business arrangement of sorts: We need X, you need Y.

But again … what's Y?

Money. Another chance to prove he doesn't drag teams down. A chance to feel like he can still contribute in the NBA. A chance to compete against Dwight Howard. There are all good reasons for what "Y" could be.

I never, ever, EVER would have imagined him jeopardizing his relationship with Lakers fans by picking Boston. But that's what he did.

Jeopardizing his relationship with Lakers fans? He told their best player to eat his ass and then left town during a power struggle with that player, who by chance has won two championships without Shaq. I would think Lakers fans like Kobe a lot more than Shaq at this point. I am not even sure what the relationship between Lakers fans and Shaq is right now, but I just don't think of Shaq as a Lakers legend and I don't know if Lakers fans do either.

He's the biggest chess piece that ever switched sides in the rivalry.

I don't think this really counts for that. Shaq is so washed-up at this point, I don't can't believe Lakers fans really think he is a "chess piece," though he is near 400 pounds so he might be "the biggest."

… but still, he's going to saunter into Los Angeles wearing a Celtics uniform?

He's going to saunter in to Los Angeles wearing a Celtics uniform once this year. Once. Unless the teams meet in the NBA Finals. Yes, the Lakers and Celtics are rivals, but unless they play each other in the NBA Finals he isn't going to appear in Los Angeles that often.

Depending on how well Boston does (and how personally Lakers fans take it), Shaq could morph into the next Clemens, aka The Superstar Who Doesn't Really Belong To Any Team.

I think Shaq is already at that point. I don't think of him as a Laker really. Also, any comparison to Shaq as another Roger Clemens is retarded. Clemens was much more important to the history of the Red Sox than Shaq has been to the Lakers. Clemens joining the Blue Jays and the Yankees was him betraying the Red Sox fans, while I wouldn't think Lakers fans care anymore about what team Shaq plays for since he has shown himself to primarily be a hired gun at this point. Bill even makes this point later in this column that Shaq belongs to nobody. Shaq joining the Celtics as a hobbled, overweight, backup center isn't the same as Clemens tanking for the Red Sox, using PEDs and then deciding he is going to become the best pitcher in the American League again.

(Well, for about three years. Then Lakers fans will feel bad, put their bitterness aside and cheer him during his belated retirement ceremony for six of the 24 minutes.)

This was old the first time Bill said it. It's not getting any funnier or more clever. Would he be saying the same thing about Paul Pierce (he was 5-15 in Game 7) or Ray Allen (he was 3-14 in Game 7)? Of course not. Bill just is bitter and has to think of a reason why the Celtics were the better team, as if saying the Finals MVP had a poor Game 7 makes it less impressive the Lakers won the NBA Finals.

You can't even use the argument "The man just wants to win." He's already won four rings. He's a three-time Finals MVP. He banked a title without Kobe in Miami. He doesn't need to chase rings. The man has nothing left to prove.

Or does he?

(Cue overdramatic music)

He won a title as a sidekick to Wade in Miami. It's similar to having Kobe on his team, but the principle remains the same that he needed a great shooting guard to win a title. I don't think of that Heat title as really any more confirmation of what a great center Shaq was. He was a great center, but this was the point he started being a hired gun in my mind.

Quick tangent: Please don't tell me you thought Shaq and Kobe made up, or that you were snookered by their nauseating "We're friends again!" routine at the 2009 All-Star Game. Come on.

I see Bill Simmons has gone to the JemeHill school of "creating a contrary argument to a fictional belief that the writers somehow believes that most people hold when this isn't true."

You forget how much happened between these two. They butted heads constantly during the last two title seasons, and when Kobe sold Shaq out during his initial Colorado police interview in 2003, that was the final straw. It's been a one-upmanship game ever since. Occasionally, the hatred seeps out. Like "Tell Me How My Ass Taste." Like Kobe being unable to restrain his glee after getting his fifth ring.

I haven't forgotten about this and I would doubt anyone who watches the NBA has forgotten about this. I don't know who "you" is, but it certainly isn't me. Though I do like Bill's attempt to assume his audience is stupid in order to try and show them the error of their thinking. This is another JemeHill special. She pretends her audience is stupid and supposes her audience holds the fictional belief that she will be disproving.

O'Neal signed with Boston because "when I close my book at the end of the day, it's all about winning and nothing else.

O'Neal signed with Boston because they were the only contender that still wanted him on their team. They had a need at center and Shaq wanted to play for a playoff team.

My theory: I think Kobe's postgame routine got back to Shaq. I think it pissed him off. I think it got his competitive juices flowing for the first time in years. I think he realized Boston was his best chance to tie Kobe at five.

No. Boston was the only team good enough to make the playoffs who would offer him a contract. His best chance to tie Kobe at five would be with a couple of different teams in the Eastern Conference...at least in my opinion. Of course, he has burnt so many bridges with LeBron and Dwight Howard, the Magic and Heat were out of it. The Hawks didn't want to offer him a contract and that left one other "contender" and they just so happened to need him and it was done.

I think he wants this more than anything. I think he shows up next month in surprisingly good shape, and I think we'll be saying in November, "Wow, that Shaq signing may have been a great move by Boston!"

Remember the part of this column where Bill mentioned he had talked himself into the Shaq signing? He may be talking himself into this conclusion as well. Would we even know what Shaq looks like when he is in shape anymore?

And I think this will happen for only one reason: because Shaq hates Kobe and Kobe hates Shaq.

I actually don't hate this theory of Bill's, but I thought Shaq would get in shape when he could compete with Kobe as a member of the Heat and that didn't happen. I thought he would be in shape last year as a member of the Cavs to beat Kobe in the NBA Finals and that didn't happen. So excuse me if I am not completely believing this will happen.

Chewed-On Theory No. 2: Why is the Nolan Ryan/Robin Ventura photo so available?

It cracked me up at last year's National Sports Collector Convention, then it cracked me up again at this year's convention in Baltimore: That's right, it's the funniest signed photo in sports, the one of Nolan Ryan beating the crap out of Robin Ventura. It's funny to look at.

On my list of all-time favorite MLB fights, this one is at the top. I loved Nolan Ryan and I hated/hate/keep on hating Robin Ventura.

You probably haven't thought about that fight in a while.

I think about it at least once a week. You know, when I am watching my favorite team play baseball...I still do watch baseball because I don't find baseball boring. Those who don't watch their favorite team play baseball because the games are too long, the team doesn't have a good enough aura around it, or because they don't cheer for teams that aren't winning may not think about prior baseball fights anymore, so I can see how Bill may have forgotten about the Ryan-Ventura fight.

The autographed photo slays me. I thought about buying a framed one in Baltimore until I remembered that those things are always cheaper online. So I surfed the Web that night and … Good Lord! Amazon is selling it. Walmart is selling it. Steiner Sports has it. So does the MLB shop. And eBay. And dozens of other retailers

They are probably selling it because it is awesome.

It's going to be like a scene from a bad '80s sports movie -- the downtrodden loser getting his revenge in the end -- but it's going to happen in our lifetimes. Robin Ventura and Nolan Ryan will fight again. You wait.

Writer's. Block.

Chewed-On Theory No. 3: "Why can't Jennifer Aniston find a man?"

On the surface, this has nothing to do with sports. Just bear with me.

When historians look for the exact time Bill Simmons lost most of his credibility and started his downtrend into future host of "Entertainment Tonight," they will look no further than this theory. This is the part of the column where Bill takes a pop culture person/event and then takes 1,000 words to relate it to sports in the hopes his readers ask mailbag questions about it so he can eventually create a theory. This theory is ever-so-loosely related to sports.

Two for 11? Certainly nothing to put her on par with Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts or Reese Witherspoon. The other "Friends" stars faded into B- and C-list obscurity (or in Matt LeBlanc's case, F-list), so why didn't she?

Bill grades Jennifer Aniston's movies since 2004 and says she has two good movies, while saying she isn't on par with Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon...not so fast about that assumption (and no, I can't believe I am doing this either).

Reese Witherspoon has made a few movies since that time and they are:

Vanity Fair (2004): It cost more money than it made.

Walk the Line (2005): A hit movie, but she didn't exactly carry the movie. If Bill can't give Jennifer Aniston credit for "Marley and Me" I don't think Witherspoon should get credit for this movie.

Just like Heaven (2005): Terrible.

Rendition (2007): Again, she didn't really carry the movie and it wasn't that great anyway.

Penelope (2008): Was a supporting actress in the movie.

Four Christmases (2008): Terrible.

Monsters v. Aliens (2009): Her voice was in this, that's all.

How Do You Know (2010): It is described as, "A romantic comedy centered on the love triangle between professional softball player Lisa Jorgenson (Reese Witherspoon), a corporate executive, and a major-league pitcher." Also starts Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson, and Jack Nicholson.

We'll make it a good movie just to be nice, but it is a romatic comedy starring Reese Witherspoon, which isn't a good sign.

Witherspoon has 8 movies in that time with 2 hits and the rest are misses or just contained her voice.

Now for Julia Roberts since 2004:

Ocean's Twelve (2004): Terrible.

Closer (2004): It was bad and pointless.

Charlotte's Web (2006): Featured just her voice.

The Ant Bully (2006): Again, featured her voice.

Charlie Wilson's War (2007): Not bad, but it featured Tom Hanks and he was the main character.

Fireflies in the Garden (2008): It grossed $3.3 million.

Duplicity (2009): Not a good movie. Not at all.

Valentine's Day (2010): Quite possibly the worst movie of 2010.

Eat Pray Love (2010): It's not really a hit and it isn't really good, but I will give it to her.

Out of the 9 movies she has done, two of them were hits that actually featured Roberts in person and not just her voice.

Now for Sandra Bullock:

Crash (2004): Great film.

Loverboy (2005): I never knew this film existed.

Miss Congeniality 2 (2005): Terrible.

The Lake House (2006): Terrible. Terrible.

Infamous (2006): It was the movie about Truman Capote that wasn't good at all, but amazingly somehow it made a little over $2 million at the box office.

Premonition (2007): Terrible. Terrible. Terrible.

The Proposal (2009): It was a movie that did well at the box office.

All About Steve (2009): Possibly one of the worst movies ever.

The Blind Side (2009): Good movie.

So Sandra Bullock has 9 movies since 2004 and three of them were good and she has two absolute bombs in there too.

My point? I have none, except that Jennifer Aniston doesn't do too much worse at the box office than the other actresses Bill compared her to. I am not saying Aniston doesn't make terrible movies, but she has had some hits in there too, just like Witherspoon, Roberts and Bullock.

The short answer: Because of the Angelina/Brad/Jennifer love triangle, which is like Brett Favre's comeback/retirement/comeback routine multiplied by 10, but has been cruising along for twice as long.

Put your seatbelt on.

Aniston's life resonates with that demographic better than anyone. Now she's 41, still hunting for a man, her ovaries rumbling like Earl Campbell, but we're all a little confused because … I mean, how could Jennifer Aniston, of all people, not find a man? How could someone that attractive need a friend to set her up on dates? What the hell is going on here?

This is a sure sign that Bill Simmons has writer's block. He just spent 1,000 words setting up his theory on why Jennifer Aniston is single.

I think it's all a farce. I think she gravitates toward guys who could never be a potential husband (seriously, John Mayer?) and FWBs (friends with benefits) over actually finding herself the right match. And here's why: The longer this drags on, the longer she stays on the A list.

Someone needs to find themselves a real job ASAP...or at least go do a podcast. Anything can be better than going in-depth on the issue of why Jennifer Aniston is single.

Swinging this around to sports (and thank God, you were getting nervous): The Aniston dynamic resembles a great athlete who couldn't win a ring in his prime, but now time is running out and he only has a couple more chances. In sports, we love when this happens! I don't remember the intimate details of Joe Montana's last few seasons (or Isiah Thomas, Scottie Pippen, Keith Hernandez, whomever), but I remember everything about Karl Malone's last few seasons. And Barkley. And Elway. And Marino. And Elgin Baylor. And Ray Bourque. And Gary Payton. And now, LaDainian Tomlinson and Steve Nash. The last stage of their careers became compelling simply because they wanted a ring and we wanted them to win one.

This is the only paragraph that swings this "Aniston theory" back to sports. Either Bill is making a concerted effort to pull in some female readers or he has nothing to write about this week. He writes a column once a week, how can he not have something to write about?

So feel sorry for Steve Nash, but don't feel sorry for Jennifer Aniston. She's laughing all the way to the bank.

Can I feel bad for Bill?

Chewed-On Theory No. 4: "What's wrong with James Dolan?"

Bill then starts a theory about kids who have a bunch of money and then he breaks down where James Dolan fits in there. You know what? It doesn't fucking matter. Dolan is a terrible owner and he isn't willing to do anything to become a better owner and is prone to repeating his mistakes over and over because he isn't smart enough to run an NBA team. Bill can use 5,000 words describing why James Dolan sucks, but it is just because he can't run an NBA team very well or doesn't seem to know what he is doing.

Legacy kids can succeed or fail as sports owners like anyone else, but one thing sets them apart: They inherited their opportunity with, in some case, no real credentials at all. Let's say I retired in 20 years and turned this column over to my son, but he couldn't write and didn't know anything about sports.

You would think this was weird.

I would actually think this wasn't weird at all. Bill Simmons isn't my go-to person for knowledge about sports. I don't know if the type of talent Bill Simmons has can be handed down to his son.

You would make fun of him. You would say, "Why the hell would ESPN employ Simmons' son, isn't this the strangest thing ever?" In the business world, it's par for the course. It happens all the time.

No shit? Are you serious? See, I didn't know this because I was born yesterday with no working knowledge of the world and how it works.

The Knicks are that hardware store. I hate to break it to you. People keep expecting that Dolan will get the hang of owning the Knicks.

"People" can be defined as, "the fake population that Bill created to prove a point." I know Knicks fans and I don't know of one that thinks Dolan will get the hang of running the Knicks. Maybe I don't know the right Knicks fans.

It's never going to happen.

I think that is a good bet since he has already tried to hire Isiah Thomas again. What's next? Will he try to re-sign Jerome James and re-draft Jordan Hill?

Then again, it's just a theory.

It's never good to read what a person with writer's block can write. Considering one-third of this column was about why Jennifer Aniston is single, this was more painful than most.