10 comments Bill Simmons Still Writes Articles for ESPN? Part 2

I started my epic (in length) Part 1 post about Bill Simmons on last Monday. I am so used to him putting columns out on Friday, I thought I could go a few more days without having to worry about another Simmons column. I was wrong. He posted a sentimental and syrupy dedication to Tiger Woods and how this had to do with his son growing up and having role models. Anyway, I wasn't entirely sure the purpose, but the end result reminded me that in Bill Simmons' world an athletic event is never about the event (Celtics/Red Sox winning a championship), it is about how this event affected him and his family. The athletic event is only able to be seen in regard to how it affected him. He believes the world truly revolves around him, I think. So here are my three least favorite parts of his Tiger Woods column, and no he didn't say Woods' comeback was more difficult than Muhammad Ali's (again), Bill would rather we just forget that column. God knows he will ignore its existence and never say he was wrong.

1. My son watched a few holes of the Masters with me on Sunday. He's nearly 3 and a half and hasn't figured out how to crap in the toilet yet. He spends most of his time naked or partially naked, barking out orders like "Put on Wow Wow Wubbzy!" and "I want graham crackers!" Every night, he promises us that he won't climb into our bed in the middle of the night, and yet, I always wake up around 4 a.m. because some snoring wildebeest is kicking me in the kidneys. Last week, the stubborn bastard sat still for a haircut for the first time only because we allowed him to play "Angry Birds" on an iPad. He's a man of many quirks. I'm not gonna lie.

One or two mentions of a family member isn't a terrible thing. I get that. Bill Simmons talks about his kids in his column pretty much every single time he writes one now. Specifically, he talks about his son. He's very proud he has a son, seeing as Bill has tendencies of showing a dislike or lack of respect for women in his books and columns, this shouldn't be a shock. If you read his books, you see the 9,000 porn references and many of his sports/pop culture analogies deal with crazy women. I'm not burning a bra and panties in anger here, but it is hard to ignore this stuff.

I think I've said it 900 times though. As a sportswriter, you can talk about your children all you want, but don't be offended when your bringing them in the spotlight brings them unwanted attention down the road. So in 2015 when someone posts a picture of Simmons' children/wife and they start getting harassed (Simmons' fans are crazy you know), Bill should blame himself mostly. Remember what happened with Peter King's daughters and Kissing Suzy Kolber. A person in the media spotlight sets the expectation of privacy his family gets, Bill should never forget that, though I am sure he will.

2. When he missed a seemingly easy eagle putt on 15, the gallery made a noise that you just never hear in sports anymore: the "Ahhhhhhhhhh-ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh" sound

Oh yes, that sound you hear during every missed putt in a big situation. But no, let's allow Bill to elaborate on his point of how you NEVER hear this sound anymore:

that happens with a missed 3, a warning-track fly ball or a bomb that misses a receiver's hands by two feet, only with a hint of "NOOOOOOOOOOO!"

So other than a missed 3, a warning-track fly ball or a bomb that misses the receiver's hands you NEVER hear this sound anymore. So this statement is correct in that it isn't correct.

3. I want my son to know that great athletes are meant to be appreciated, not emulated. He can steal Tiger's fist pump without wanting to become him. He can play Tiger's video game without feeling like Tiger is his best friend. He can imitate Tiger's swing without getting the urge to bed every cocktail waitress and model he meets.

Only Bill Simmons could try to write a sentimental column about his son appreciating athletes, while attempting to write a serious sentence about his son not having the urge to bed every model or cocktail waitress he meets as a sign of how we feel about athletes. My head hurts.

Also, I like how Simmons' son won't bed EVERY cocktail waitress or model he meets, but just some of them. Just a few.

So onto Part 2 of Bill's time killing NBA power poll.

Red Sox fans broke the record for "Earliest Pressing of the Panic Button Ever." The whole world feels different. Also, I'm down two remote controls, three knuckles and four bottles of whiskey.

I am sure we will be getting a column in early August from Bill about how angry emails/letters/faxes/messages were exchanged about the Red Sox 0-6 start, but now they have redeemed themselves by being in first place and looking unstoppable. Unless the Red Sox aren't in first place, in which case Bill will write a column about how baseball sucks and nobody likes it anymore, based entirely on the fact the Red Sox aren't having a good season.

Really, the Red Sox season had to be over before Tax Day? I hate everything.

See how silly Bill looks now? The Red Sox season isn't over. This reactionary fandom doesn't look good on him. It's a long season. Also, I thought Bill could die in peace now that the Red Sox won the World Series? Isn't there also supposed to be a five year ban on him complaining about his team because they won the World Series 2007? I am pretty sure this is a rule Bill himself made up.

Fortunately, the NBA playoffs can distract me as the Red Sox make their bid for 0-162.

"My favorite baseball team can't win the World Series every year. We're so cursed. Everyone feel sorry for the team with the 2nd highest payroll in MLB because they were 0-6 at one point."

The Nyets were a mortal lock to overpay West this summer, this fall, this winter, or whenever the lockout was settled ... until he blew out his ACL last month. Even though that injury killed the Hornets' season, West's injury was somehow fortuitous. Why?

Because it weakened the Hornets and guaranteed they would go into the last year of Chris Paul's contract with him knowing he wasn't going to re-sign? Because Paul will remember the 4-0 sweep in the first round of the 2011 playoffs, will take one look at the roster and see the third-best player on the team isn't very good and be out of New Orleans mentally by next February?

I could see West exercising his player option for the 2011-12 season ($7.5 million), followed by a two-month lockout (he'll be rehabbing anyway), then a shortened season (an audition for his Summer of 2012 Suitors). Guess what? That's great for the Hornets because it might be (A) their last Chris Paul season,

So the Hornets would get the chance to lose their two best players in ONE offseason? Where can they sign up? How does a team get so lucky to be handed this treat by fate?

If he wants to sign an extension for less money than he would have gotten pre-ACL surgery, even better.

If David West wants to sign an extension for less money than he could have gotten pre-ACL that would be great...until Chris Paul leaves and then David West wants out of New Orleans too.

Last Hornets thought: How would you describe Emeka Okafor as a draft pick?

Solid NBA player.

We have draft terms like "sleeper," "stud," "late bloomer" and "bust" but not something to cover the Okafor types -- top-5 picks who carried high expectations, never met them but weren't disappointments, either. I suggest "Knish" after Knish from "Rounders,"

I suggest we don't give them a name. There comes a point where every athlete doesn't have to be categorized or given his own subset where he belongs to, a point where we are running out of names to call athletes and the creativity is stretched then. We've reached this point about two years ago in regard to Bill Simmons giving subsets of players catchy pop culture nicknames.

Your Knish All-Stars: Okafor, Mike Conley, O.J. Mayo, Jeff Green and Drew Gooden (starters), then Mike Miller, Mike Dunleavy and Randy Foye (bench). And yes, we're saving a spot for you, James Harden. And you too, Wesley Johnson.

They are just solid NBA players. That's all.

Anyway, here's how the next three months will play out for Hawks fans ... APRIL: The Hawks get crushed by Orlando in Round 1, a sweep highlighted by Zaza Pachulia starting three "someone hold me back, could someone hold me back so I look tough, HOLD ME BACK!" altercations with Dwight Howard,

This coming from a Celtics fan. The Celtics have Kevin Garnett on their team. I think Zaza Pachulia is the tallest and toughest player Garnett has ever picked on. If you are a midget, female or child of grade-school age, he will feel free to talk shit to you during a game. How can Bill talk shit about Pachulia when his own team has a guy who is famous for trash talking guys smaller than him?

12. Philadelphia 76ers
We're immersed in a memorable battle between Scott Skiles and Doug Collins for the career lead in, "Most Times A New Coach Has Gotten a Team To Overachieve, Been Anointed as Their Savior, Then Eventually Burned Them Out Because He's Too Intense." (Note: It's a "Best of 7" series and they're tied at three apiece -- Vegas has Skiles as a heavy favorite because he'll probably get fired a year before Collins does.) Hiring either of these guys is like submitting your beaten-down car to "Pimp My Ride" --

Yes, Bill Simmons is referencing "Pimp My Ride" in his columns as a relevant pop culture topic. Pretty soon I will not be shocked if at some point he references "Yo! MTV Raps."

Here's my suggestion: Collins and Skiles should just embrace their inner Winston Wolf and switch teams every year. Why not?

Because it is a stupid idea? These coaches would not be as effective in their first year because the players would know Collins and Skiles are leaving the team the next year and they will get a new coach and a new system. There would be no need to pay attention to their head coach. Collins' and Skiles' approach works because players have to buy-in knowing it creates success and neither coach is going anywhere for the time being. A hard-ass coach has less success if his shelf-life is short because the players can tune him out knowing he won't be around long. At least in my opinion this is true, but of course I am nowhere near as smart as Bill Simmons.

Poor Evan Turner might be the latest to get nailed by the Curse of Sam Bowie. Since Portland stupidly passed on MJ for Bowie with the second pick in 1984, we've seen the following calamities at No. 2: Steve Stipanovich, Len Bias (RIP), Armen Gilliam, Danny Ferry, Shawn Bradley, Stromile Swift, Jason "Not White Chocolate Or The Guy Accused of Killing His Chaffeur, But The One From Duke" Williams, Darko Milicic, Marvin Williams, Michael Beasley (even if he's rejuvenated, we have to call him a "bust" because Miami gave him away), Hasheem Thabeet, and now, potentially, Turner (who can't be officially called a bust yet, and actually, I kind of like him, but it can't be a good sign that Collins pushed out of his nine-man rotation). That's 12 of the last 26 picks ... nearly 50 percent!

I don't know if we can call Bias (he died for God's sake), Gilliam (13.7 ppg, 6.9 rpg), Jason Williams (he was playing well and had a motorcycle accident), or Marvin Williams (isn't a he a "Knish" player, it seems like he is) as calamities. They weren't great players, but they weren't calamities. I think Bill is exaggerating a bit to prove his point.

Even weirder, 12 other No. 2 picks that either worked out or kind of worked out (Kenny Anderson, Alonzo Mourning, Jason Kidd, Keith Van Horn, Antonio McDyess, Marcus Camby, Mike Bibby, Steve Francis, Tyson Chandler, Okafor, LaMarcus Aldridge) were traded by the teams that picked them either during the draft, right after the draft or sometime within the next four years.

What the hell does it matter if these guys were traded? How the hell is that relevant in determining the success of a #2 overall pick? Aldridge was traded before he even played for the original team that drafted him. There is a list of good basketball players who got selected here, so whether they got traded or not goes to prove very little.

Only Kevin Durant and Gary Payton ended up becoming franchise players for the teams that drafted them ... and yes, they were both drafted by a franchise that no longer exists.

So is the point that the #2 overall pick will either get traded or be a calamity?

So if you're counting Seattle's murdered franchise, we somehow went 0 for 26 in the "pick him second, pencil him as your franchise guy for the next 12-15 years, retire his jersey" department. How is that possible???

Player movement happens. That should be the rule here. Let's take a look at #1 overall picks since 1990 and see how many are the "pick him second, pencil him as your franchise guy for the next 12-15 years, retire his jersey" players standard that Bill holds the #2 overall picks to.

1990: Derrick Coleman
1991: Larry Johnson
1992: Shaquille O'Neal
1993: Chris Webber
1994: Glenn Robinson
1995: Joe Smith
1996: Allen Iverson...he got traded before he played in Philly for 12 years, so he doesn't count does he?
1997: Tim Duncan
1998: Michael Olowokandi
1999: Elton Brand

So for the 90's, we have one guy who fits that criteria Bill has set out.

2000: Kenyon Martin
2001: Kwame Brown
2002: Yao Ming
2003: LeBron James
2004: Dwight Howard
2005: Andrew Bogut
2006: Andrea Bargnani
2007: Greg Oden
2008: Derrick Rose
2009: Blake Griffin
2010: John Wall

So for the 2000's we have the POSSIBILITY of 4 players right now. Considering Howard has talked of moving on from Orlando and Griffin will never stay in Los Angeles, that leaves us with Rose and Wall, plus Howard and Griffin as long-shots to meet the criteria. In the words of Joe Morgan, it is too early to tell with them. So while Bill may seem to have a point, players aren't often with the same team for 12-15 years and then have their jersey retired by the team that drafted them. So I don't think he has a point with what he is trying to prove about the #2 overall pick. It can go for every other position in the draft as well.

11. Memphis Grizzlies
This year's Bizarro Good Management Team. They have an actual identity: a feisty team with size and toughness that defends the perimeter and are just crazy enough to think they can beat anyone.

So rather than admit the Grizzlies management haven't done so badly lately (which would involve Bill saying he was wrong about Chris Wallace being a terrible GM, which he refuses to do), Bill spends two entire paragraphs essentially saying the Grizzlies did well, but they had no idea they would do well. Some would see getting Battier for Thabeet as smart, but Bill says:

They blew the No. 2 pick in the 2009 draft (Thabeet), had to package him with another No. 1 just to dump him, but the deal landed them Shane Battier, who joined forces with Allen and turned them into a bitch defensively.

Other teams would get credit for this, but Bill can't go that way because he would have to say he was wrong. Like when he gives the Grizzlies credit for the Gay and Conley extensions (which I thought were bad as well), but he acts like the Grizzlies had never seen these guys play and just got lucky:

They overpaid Rudy Gay (transformed by his Team USA experience just a month later, although they couldn't have known that when they paid him) and Mike Conley (the dumbest premature extension of the last few years, but he's been solid for them).

Mind you, Gay and Conley aren't two guys the Grizzlies signed in free agency, but where two guys the Grizzlies had ON THEIR TEAM and chose to lock them down to an extension. On other teams it would be seen by Bill as a smart move, but he sees the Grizzlies as being so dumb these moves worked out...which is dumb.

Let's talk about something more uplifting: Aldridge's quest to go from "Hall of Fame All-Star Snub" to "All-NBA" in the span of 10 weeks. My All-NBA teams look like this ...

First team: Dwight Howard, Derrick Rose, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki. Not sure how anyone can make a case for Kobe over Wade: Wade is a more efficient scorer, he's a better defender, he carried a bigger load from night to night, he rated better with any advance metric you can name (PER, win shares, whatever), and he was playing three-on-five every night. It's no contest.

But Bill! Didn't you just say in Part 1 that advanced metrics didn't do Derrick Rose justice and you had to watch him live for him to be believed? What about the same thing for Kobe? He's played injured all year and still had an incredible year, while Wade could always rely on James if he was having a bad night. I find it hard to convince me using Bill's convincing that Wade shouldered a bigger burden than Kobe Bryant. After all, Wade has another 1st team All-NBA player on his team, while Kobe has a second team All-NBA (according to Bill) on his team.

So just based on the reasoning given here, it is tough for me to believe Wade carried a bigger burden than Kobe when that burden was shouldered by another first team All-NBA, plus Bill just got done describing in Part 1 how advanced metrics didn't do Derrick Rose justice and you had to watch him to see how good he was. Maybe the same goes for Kobe, which I know is a ridiculous thought for Bill to entertain because Kobe plays for the Lakers.

I can't give him my MVP vote for one simple reason: he leaves something on the table every night. Dwight Howard should be the league's most dominant player. Physically, there's nobody remotely like him. True story: I was watching SportsCenter the other night. My wife noticed Howard on TV and gasped, "Oh my God, who's that?" the same way you'd comment on the 12-year-old in Little League who's six inches taller than everyone else and has the makings of a mustache already. When I told her it was Howard, she said, "Just looking at him, it seems like he should be the best player, right?" Exactly.

Nothing speaks the truth any more clearly than the truth is spoken in the opinion of Bill Simmons' wife. Please think about the logic of what Bill Simmons just said and also know I don't necessarily disagree with his position on Howard. Bill just said that Dwight Howard should be the league's most dominant player (and so Bill bases his criticism of Howard on this) because Bill's wife saw him and assumed he was the NBA's most dominant player. That's the reasoning. That's it. This is how Bill writes and people like it.

The reason basketball isn't baseball -- and advanced metrics should be used to accentuate opinions we're already leaning towards having, instead of forming and shaping those same opinions -- is because basketball players directly affect their teammates and opponents at all times. If Howard is Orlando's best player, and he's holding something back every night how can you say that doesn't affect the Magic?

How can you say it only affects the Magic negatively? Maybe the fact Howard has the ball 2-3 possessions less per game gives other players a chance to have the ball and develop to where they may be able to be called upon and succeed when needed? As fans, we want star players to go out and dominate while still giving teammates the freedom to develop their game in the offense to where they can contribute if called upon in a crucial moment.

Maybe Howard realizes taking over the game isn't the best thing for this Magic team. I'm not saying it is true, but we can't automatically assume Howard holding something back hurts the Magic? Remember, he is a post player so when he has the ball there is a lot of standing around the perimeter, especially given how the Magic team and offense has been designed with perimeter players around Howard. I'm just throwing this out there. Also, Howard isn't an elite center in the terms of Hakeem or Shaq. This could be because he hasn't had a guy push him to be elite and I think that has hurt him.

Doesn't it bother you that Serge Ibaka plays harder than Howard every night? Doesn't it bother you that Celtics fans watch Orlando and think, "That team is soft ... I hope we can play them in the playoffs?"

Nope, I prefer the Magic play soft.

Doesn't it bother you that Howard still defers to Jameer Nelson down the stretch?

Yes, that bothers me. Do I think the Magic would be better if Howard would assert himself more? Probably, but I do leave the option open that Howard "holding something back" (which is something I guess we'll just assume he does?) is not bad for the Magic and gives other guys a chance to shoot and makes him more successful in the post because other teams know he will kick the ball out to his teammates.

I spent some time with Phil Jackson and Game 7 of the 2010 Finals happened to come up, mainly because I felt like torturing myself. That game was decided within the six feet around both baskets. A turf war, if you will. The Lakers were a little tougher, a little bigger and a little deeper on that specific night. That's why they won. Twelve years earlier, Jackson's Bulls played another one of those turf war games in a Game 7 against Indiana. Jordan and Pippen (neither taller than 6-foot-7) somehow controlled the turf. Chicago prevailed. I asked Jackson if the two games reminded him of each other. He couldn't have agreed fast enough.

As if you need further proof of how smart Bill Simmons is...Phil Jackson just agreed with him.

I know computer programs are spitting out LeBron's numbers as evidence that he's the leading MVP candidate, but how can anyone watch Miami for six straight months and come to the conclusion that LeBron was even 0.00000000001 percent more important to Miami than Wade?

Bill Simmons just wrote this. A few paragraphs earlier he wrote this:

The reason basketball isn't baseball -- and advanced metrics should be used to accentuate opinions we're already leaning towards having, instead of forming and shaping those same opinions --

So we just will ignore the advanced metrics when they don't achieve the conclusion we want to achieve? I agree that advanced metrics should be used to accentuate opinions we already have, but do we just ignore the metrics we they agree with a conclusion we don't? I don't think so, but Bill tends to use advanced metrics when they agree with him and then go with the whole "you haven't seen this player play" when the metrics disagree with him. He wants it both ways. Here are examples from his power poll:

1. Advanced metrics did not agree with him about Derrick Rose being MVP. He said you need to watch him play to get a real feel for his ability. So Bill ignored the advanced metrics.

Advanced metrics agreed with him when comparing Dwight Howard's statistics to other All-NBA center's statistics in order to prove that Dwight Howard isn't reaching his full peak, so naturally Bill goes with the advanced metrics because it proves his point.

2. Advanced metrics do not agree with Bill Simmons that Dwayne Wade is as important to the Heat as LeBron James, so Bill says the following:

but how can anyone watch Miami for six straight months and come to the conclusion that LeBron was even 0.00000000001 percent more important to Miami than Wade?

Bill is falling back on the whole "you need to watch them play" argument. It seems to be a trend. He uses metrics when they prove what he wants to be proven, but then falls back on the lazy "you have to see him play" argument when the advanced metrics don't prove what he wants proven.

I don't know how Wade and LeBron stayed so patient with Bosh, who just wasn't ready for any of this. So it WAS an achievement, and if we were allowed to pick co-MVPs, I would. But picking one of them? Come on.

So Bill is suggesting LeBron and Wade are named co-MVPs because neither one of them was more important to the Heat? This would be a better choice for MVP than just choosing Rose or another player? I'm not so sure.

I was looking forward to a Celtics-Heat playoff series for so many reasons, but mainly because it was a battle for everything I ever believed about basketball. Hell, it was the premise of my entire NBA book: that there was more to basketball than just a bunch of individually talented dudes playing together, that the concept of "team" mattered, that structure beat chaos, that there were ways to evaluate players beyond statistics, that there was a "secret" to all of this. Miami tried to cheat that structure and my Celtics were going to make them pay.

Come on now. I know the Celtics are known for being a "real team" and all of that stuff, but they essentially brought three great players together (Pierce, Garnett, Allen) and hoped it worked out. It did work out because all three players were veterans and have given up part of their individual control for the team concept. So Bill has a point, but this whole thing about the Celtics being a "real team" may true in regard to chemistry, but the Celtics essentially brought three great, but older, players together in 2007 and hoped it worked out. It isn't like they had an overall plan to build the team only with players that had great chemistry, they brought three great players together and tried to get it to work out. That's what the Heat did in 2010. So there may be a structure, but I see the Celtics as a team that had chemistry bond together with their team and the Heat haven't yet. So Bill's bizarre idea the Celtics are morally superior because of this wonderful chemistry that has been built doesn't sit well with me, because I don't believe (Ubuntu or not) that was the overall intention.

Guys like Luol Deng and Joakim Noah might not be able to sell tickets, but you can win titles with them because they don't care about anything other than doing what it takes to win.

(Bengoodfella vomits up from an overdose of meaningless hyperbole)

Someone like Boozer might not be worth $70 million, but it's hard to find guys who can grind out 20-10s every night and not take it personally if they don't touch the ball in the final three minutes of close games.

This exact thing is what Bill criticizes Dwight Howard for not doing. Is it because he is the "star" on the Magic team that Bill criticizes, not compliments him, for grinding out 20-10's every night and not demanding the ball down the stretch? It's fine for an overpaid (in Bill's words above) borderline All-Star like Boozer to do this, but not Dwight Howard? If Howard was seen by Bill as less talented then he would be fine with Howard not demanding the ball down the stretch, that's what I draw from this.

Someone like Rose might not seem any more or less special statistically than the other MVP candidates, but when your best player buys into everything your coach is selling, plays hard for every minute of every game, doesn't care about his own numbers, stays humble and does whatever it takes to win from night to night, how could he not be considered "valuable?"

This is hyperbole. Isn't Bill Simmons supposed to be above writing like this?

Then Bill goes on and on about how great Derrick Rose is.

That's what happened in Chicago with Rose. He sets the tone day after day after day; everyone else eventually fell into place. When your best player cares that much, it's contagious.

But again, Bill isn't ready to name him MVP.

I will remember the 2010-11 season for LeBron and Wade, for Blake Griffin, for the dumb Celtics trade, and for how hard Derrick Rose played every night. He willed the Bulls to a No. 1 seed. Unfortunately, we don't have an advanced metric to quantify that specific achievement -- just a primitive, overrated statistic called "wins." I guess we'll have to make due. Derrick Rose, you're my 2010-11 MVP.

There is it! The announcement I haven't been waiting for.

The playoffs exacerbate every quality you have, good and bad. You just never know how a team will respond until they're responding. I believe in this Bulls team ... but it's the playoffs, and you just never know.

So Bill has gone on and on for a few paragraphs now about how the Bulls were the best team in the NBA this year, are better than any playoff team in the Eastern Conference from 2010, and how they have the MVP on their team, but he just can't afford the chance he could be wrong about something so he can't say he picks them to win the NBA Title.

So he hedges and says "it's the playoffs, and you just never know." Now, come mid-June when the Bulls on their way to winning the NBA Title, he will go back to what he wrote here as exact proof that he knew the Bulls would win all along. He will show us all how he got the situation exactly correct and he knows the NBA better than we ever could.

Now, come mid-June if the Heat are in the NBA Finals and the Bulls aren't, Bill can point to this last sentence and say, "I said you never know in the playoffs. The Bulls looked good, but (pulls out bullshit reason to supports something he said)." This is how Bill can be right. He makes a statement and hedges on the statement. There's nothing wrong with this, unless you are the type of person who likes to go back and point out how right you were in making a prediction...and Bill is that kind of guy. You can't be wrong if you hedge a bit.

if the Lakers win three in a row, that puts them on a whole other level historically. Here are all the NBA teams that won three straight:

Minneapolis: 1952-54
Boston: 1959-66
Chicago: 1991-93
Chicago: 1996-98
LA Lakers: 2000-02

It's really, really, REALLY hard for me to believe that the 2009-11 Lakers are 16 wins away from joining that group. But I think they will. L.A. over Chicago in six.

This, for those who have read Bill for many years, is what is called a "reverse jinx" attempt. Bill does this and will sometimes later admit he did this. What's great for him (yet again), is that if it works then the Lakers don't win the NBA Title (which makes him happy), and if the Lakers do win, well he predicted they would! I'm not sure I actually believe this is Bill's prediction.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go wander into traffic.

Please really do this.