4 comments Bill Simmons' "Fuck It, I Give Up on Writing Original Material So Here's a Mailbag" Volume 2; Getting Edumencated on How NBA Teams Can Tank

In Bill's last mailbag he came to the shocking conclusion that the Celtics are the perfect place for Kevin Love to end up. Who ever saw that coming? This week Bill gives the steps to tanking perfection and answers more email from his readers, who have become increasingly desperate to get their questions answered by Bill in a mailbag. Getting a question answered in the mailbag is one of the highest honors that a Simmonsite can receive, sort of the Congressional Medal of Honor for lemming, mindless fans of Bill. Let's have Bill teach us the correct steps to tanking, since there are only 10 steps and Bill is the only one who knows them.

The best part is that Facebook comments are allowed on Bill's mailbags! So if he cared and didn't mind having his fragile ego hurt then he could read the comments and see that he isn't universally loved. Also, there is only one question in this mailbag. That's it.

Editor’s note: Every Wednesday from now until the final day of the regular season (April 16), I am cranking out an all-NBA mailbag for the Triangle with a 5,000-word limit. As always, these are actual emails from actual readers. We’re tackling only one this week.

I'm going to get the obvious joke out the way now. Bill does a mailbag with only one question in it. It seems like may be an expert on how to tank after all. Just hilarious.

Maybe this mailbag will be the one that allows him to have the guts to stop writing columns like he so desperately seems to want to do.

Also, does Bill edit his own columns? The editor's note talks in the first person, so that's what has me a little confused.

Q: What are the odds that the Sixers finish their season on a 36-game losing streak? They’re at 15 already with 21 games to go. They put two actual NBA players on the floor each night, and things are so bad that I just thought about whether or not Byron Mullens is an actual NBA player. Is there a chance for L36?
— Jack, Philly

This is the question that required an entire mailbag to answer. It's from Jack (a common name) from Philly (a large city...also notice how many of Bill's "real" readers come from "Philly" as opposed to "Philadelphia." I just find this a little weird), so we know this is a real person and all.

SG: The short answer … YES!

The long answer...the rest of this freaking column. Apparently this is such a riveting question it requires a 5000 word answer.

You know how Lance Armstrong was the greatest cheater ever? 

I don't think Bill ever digresses. I think his writing is just one big digression.

How he blended his commendable charity work with state-of-the-art science and relentless lying to pull an ongoing Jedi mind trick on the American public?

He never failed a drug test that says he used PED's, but otherwise I'm not sure parts of the American public were fooled.

The 2013-14 Sixers have a chance to go down as the greatest NBA self-sabotagers ever. They haven’t been tanking games as much as obliterating any chance of winning them.

Nearly everyone understands the Sixers are tanking though, so how is this anything like Lance Armstrong fooling the American public? The Sixers aren't fooling anyone.

And they’re doing it because the NBA gives every team the same loophole …

If you want to throw away a season, depress your fans and disgrace the league for a 25 percent chance at the no. 1 pick and a 100 percent chance at a top-four pick … knock yourself out!

All four of the major sports give their teams this loophole. MLB, NHL, NFL, and the NBA. The only difference is the NBA has a lottery that doesn't guarantee the worst team in the NBA the first pick in the draft. So as far as comparisons go, the NBA gives teams a smaller loophole than any other major sport because the team with the worst record is only guaranteed at top-four pick and not the #1 pick in the draft. The NBA does less to give teams an incentive to tank than the other three major sports.

they’ve done everything short of signing Kevin Hart and Allen Iverson’s mom to 10-day contracts. And those moves might be coming next week. Would anything shock you? Look at the self-sabotage blueprint that Philly’s new owners and GM Sam Hinkie have followed.

Two pop culture references, with one of those references being dated. This doesn't shock me coming from Bill. Also, I'm still not understanding the comparison to Lance Armstrong since it is obvious the Sixers are tanking and it wasn't obvious to the American public Lance Armstrong was doping.

Step 1: Trade your best player for future assets if you don’t feel like he can be the best player on a championship team.

And that was a GREAT trade: Jrue Holiday for 2013’s no. 6 pick (Nerlens Noel) and New Orleans’s top-five protected first-rounder in 2014.

So the key to tanking is making a great trade that takes advantage of an overvalued player? Isn't this the key to putting together a good team and not just the key to tanking?

they improved their own 2014 lottery chances by turning 82 games of Holiday into zero games of the already-injured Noel. A crucial part of self-sabotage: maiming yourself in the short term. You don’t want to sorta suck or kinda suck in the NBA. You want to suck all kinds of suck.

Bill feels like he needs to tell us the best way to tank is to put yourself in a situation to lose as many games as possible. Apparently he doesn't think this is obvious to everyone already. It wouldn't be tanking if a team was trying to improve the team in the short-term would it? This seems obvious to me.

I love Rajon Rondo, but if the Celtics got a Holiday-like offer for him, I’d be packing his bags and his leather Connect Four case for him.

So I think Bill would agree this was a good trade overall and not just a good trade for tanking purposes. Of course, Bill has to shoehorn this trade into his discussion of tanking because he needs as many steps as possible on how to tank so he can make it seem more complicated than it really is. I think the key to being a great NBA team is to make great trades and if any GM has the chance to trade one of his players in a lopsided trade in his advantage then he should do it, right? I'm not sure why making great trades is part of tanking perfection, but should be a part of being a good GM.

Step 2: Don’t sign anyone who can help you, even if it means dipping under the salary-cap floor and going down as the cheapest NBA team ever.

Because Bill is out of column ideas and desperately needs to kill space he is going to rephrase "Try to lose as many games as possible by putting the worst players with the shortest contracts on the court as much as possible" quite a few times in this column.

What’s the point of signing veterans like Jarrett Jack, Carl Landry, and Shaun Livingston in July just because you have the extra money?...Screw that! Fill your bench with unproven young guys, failed draft picks and fringe bodies who make you say things like, “Wait, wasn’t that the dude on Jimmer’s BYU team who got suspended for getting laid?” and, “Is that the same Jarvis Varnado who was on Miami, or is this another Jarvis Varnado?”

Again, try to put the worst team on the court as possible. There's only so many times it can be said, but Bill isn't afraid of trying anyway. So far, the first two steps have been painfully obvious steps a team would need to take in order to suck in the short-term.

Step 3: Don’t get discouraged if you win early.

Philly started out 5-4 for two reasons: Michael Carter-Williams was better than everyone expected, and its three holdovers (Thad Young, Evan Turner and Spencer Hawes) clicked in a surprisingly entertaining way.

Yes, Michael Carter-Williams was better than EVERYONE expected. Bill didn't expect Carter-Williams to be this good, so obviously no one else thought Carter-Williams would be good. I thought Carter-Williams could "conceivably be great," if he shot the ball better and didn't turn it over. The talent was there, along with great height for a point guard.

The Sixers handled it perfectly — never celebrating, never improving their roster and allowing Young-Turner-Hawes to be thrown in every conceivable trade rumor without ever saying, “We kinda like what we have here … change of plans!”

Because the Sixers had already decided they were tanking and weren't going to turn their plan around. Basically, Bill is giving the Sixers credit for planning to tank and not changing their plan. Also, wasn't it just last week that Bill sort of insinuated Sam Hinkle is helping to keep his job by undergoing a long rebuilding plan? It seems like Bill wants it both ways kind of. He wants to say the Sixers have a great tanking plan (assuming the plan works) and he wants to say Hinkle was just buying himself time by dedicating the team to a long rebuilding plan (if the plan doesn't work).

By January, Carter-Williams was developing poor habits and learning to lose. Young was asking for a trade. And Hawes was mailing in games and carrying himself like the star of a hostage video. Well played, Philly.

Yes, well played. Because if there is one thing the Sixers want it is their rookie point guard developing bad habits and learning to lose.

Step 4: If you can’t get fair value for your trade assets, trade them anyway.

Before the deadline, Philly gave away Turner, Hawes and Lavoy Allen for three second-round picks, two expiring contracts they immediately bought out (Danny Granger and Earl Clark) and the immortal Henry Sims. People get carried away with second-round picks because they’re cost-effective assets if you nail them, but recent history says you have about a 10 percent chance of landing a rotation player from picks 31 to 40. 

Yes, but the second round goes past pick #40. So there is a 10% chance of landing a rotation player from 31 to 40, but what about the rest of the picks in the second round?

(Since 2009, only Draymond Green, Kyle Singler, Chandler Parsons, Lance Stephenson, DeJuan Blair and MAYBE Nate Wolters came through.) After that, you’d have a better chance of hearing someone say the words, “I think what James Dolan is doing is really smart … ” By stockpiling second-rounders (five in all), Philly gave itself a puncher’s chance of landing someone who, someday, might be 80 percent as good as Spencer Hawes.

The second round does go past pick #40 and since 2009 the following players have been selected past pick #41 in the second round.

Chase Budinger
Patrick Beverly
Jodie Meeks
Marcus Thornton
Danny Green
Lavoy Allen
Isaiah Thomas
Mike Scott

Notice one other thing about Green, Singler, Parsons, Wolters and some of these successful second round picks is they stayed in college for four years. So perhaps a team has a good chance of finding a contributors in the rotation by focusing on four year seniors? This, of course, isn't a hard-and-fast rule but just a suggestion.

Congratulations! But that’s a self-sabotage staple — you’re not throwing games, just making it impossible to win.

This is otherwise known as "tanking" and Bill will continue to rephrase, "Lose as many games as possible" in a way that makes it seem like he isn't repeating himself.

Step 5: If you can affect the playoff race just to be dicks, even better.

Philly gift-wrapped Turner and Allen for Larry Legend for 10 cents on the dollar. Then, the Sixers bought out Granger to save $500K over keeping his sign-and-trade rights and hoping one of the league’s most respected veterans affected Carter-Williams in a positive way. Granger signed with the Clippers, meaning Philly potentially improved two of the league’s five best teams. 

I'm not sure affecting the playoff race just to be dicks was part of the Sixers plan. They needed a team to take Evan Turner off their hands while getting back a player they hoped would only play one year for them and then go his own way (Granger). Then Granger didn't want to play for the Sixers so they bought him out and had no absolutely no control over which team he signed with. So the Sixers just took advantage of the Pacers willing to take on Turner and give back Granger, then bought out Granger with no regard to which team he might end up playing for.

Totally fine. The NBA enables this behavior — there’s no trade committee, no “spirit of the league” rule, nothing. So, why not?

Well, there is a "spirit of the league" rule when David Stern decides he doesn't want Chris Paul getting traded to the Lakers, but that's just a part of Stern's legacy. The "spirit of the league" rule only applies to trades made teams the NBA has controlling interest over and when Stern doesn't like what the GM of that team has chosen to do with his players. Totally fine. And Tim Donaghy was the only NBA official fixing games, so just believe it. Nothing to see here. Move on.

Step 6: Trade for Byron Mullens.

The man knows what he’s doing. Nice guy? Absolutely. Could he be your 12th man? Sure! But if you’re riding him for big minutes, you’re riding a center who doesn’t protect the rim, rebound, defend or draw a double-team. You’re riding a sabermetic eyesore. You’re riding a 3-point specialist who can’t actually make 3-pointers.

The awfulness of Mullens aside, he does shoot about 35% from three-point range on the season. So for a seven-footer that's not too terrible.

Even with the Clips pushing to dump Mullens to open up a roster spot, Philly still traded a second-round pick to get him. He ended up fetching one fewer second-round pick than Spencer Hawes did! Has there ever been a better self-sabotage move? It was like the 1987 Lakers landing Mychal Thompson, only the exact opposite.

I'm shocked they still traded a second round pick to get him. This is absolutely unbelievable. My mind is completely blown. Like really blown.

Here’s an interesting blueprint dilemma for Philly — only Carter-Williams can cost them a couple of losses (by playing too well), but the Sixers want MCW to win Rookie of the Year so that SOMETHING good comes out of this season.

My God, what a dilemma. Fortunately, the rest of the players on the Sixers roster aren't good at all, so the odds of Carter-Williams winning games by himself are not high. Dilemma fixed, thankfully.

The case for not shelving Williams with a bogus injury: He feeds into the self-sabotage as long as he’s forcing too many plays and cheating for steals over actually playing defense. Have you watched him lately? Yikes. That’s what happens when you enable an impressionable kid and allow him to chase the Rookie of the Year award over trying to win games. 

It's not Carter-Williams' fault he is cheating for steals over actually playing defense. He went to Syracuse simply so he wouldn't have to play a real defense and could sit back and hold his hands up in a zone, using his length to bother the offensive players. Carter-Williams isn't used to having to work on defense and actually play defense in a man-to-man situation. If he wanted to work on defense he wouldn't have gone to Syracuse.

Step 8: Give tons of minutes to young players who aren’t ready for them, and come up with as many doomed/goofy/ridiculous lineups as possible.

Whatever. If the Celtics landed Kevin Durant in 2007, do you think Boston fans would care seven years later that we played Allan Ray too much, or that Young Gerald Green had the green light to shoot from any spot on the floor, or that we played two and three point guards together at the same time?

A little revisionist history here. I think it was Greg Oden that teams were more excited to land originally in the 2007 draft, but I think it's fun to pretend it was Kevin Durant that teams were excited to acquire with the first pick in the draft. Durant eventually snuck up a bit on Oden, but mostly NBA teams were excited about Oden. Except the Celtics of course, because they are smarter than every other NBA team.

Again, we repeatedly played Delonte West, Rajon Rondo and Sebastian Telfair together at the same time.

Oh, "we." I didn't realize Bill played for the 2007 Celtics team. That is something that I did not know. 

Within a few months, we had KG and Ray Allen and nobody cared. Sixers fans won’t care in six months, either. Assuming there are still Sixers fans. 

I forgot "we" had them. Good point, Bill. I guess Bill was released off the Celtics roster fairly quickly during the 2007 season, because I don't remember him being on the roster. Also, the Sixers are rebuilding, which is different from being impatient and trading for two Hall of Famers because your fan base may not want to deal with a rebuilding situation. The Celtics didn't have the patience to rebuild.

Step 10: Weigh the benefits of self-sabotage against the long-term damage to your most valuable asset.

Isn't it a little funny that a fan of the Celtics, which is a team that hasn't ever really gone through a long rebuilding period with an actual plan to rebuild, is handing out the ten steps on how to tank? The Celtics have never had a long-term plan of being bad over multiple seasons to get better draft picks until this season, the 1997 season and possibly the 2007 season. Other than that, they mostly have been in "compete now" mode over the last...well, as long as I can remember.

The Sixers are only one loss behind, with no plans of ever winning again. But they shouldn’t ruin Carter-Williams to do it. In 1997, I watched M.L. Carr irrevocably alter Antoine Walker’s career with that same “Rookie of the Year on a Crap Team” carrot. As the Celtics threw away their last two months for Duncan ping-pong balls, they had Antoine playing out of position at center, hogging the ball, chasing his own numbers and learning horrendous habits.

Celtics, Celtics, Celtics, Celtics, Celtics...apparently they are the only example of a team that has tanked during a season in order to get a good draft pick. I would dare Bill to write a column about the NBA and not mention the Celtics. He can't do it, partially because he only does mailbags and doesn't write columns, but also because he's still the Boston Sports Guy. It's all he knows.

Trust me: Antoine was only 20 years old, and he NEVER recovered from those two months. He learned all the wrong things. All of them.

Oh yeah, I trust you. When have you ever lied or tried to deceive your audience by believing you could read minds?

Well, the same thing is happening to Carter-Williams right now. He might be special, he might never get there … who knows? He’s a fantastic athlete with size, and someone who quickly adapted to the speed of the NBA game and belonged from day one. Could he have the career that we always wanted Shaun Livingston to have — just a slew of 22-9-12’s on a series of entertaining teams?

"We" always did want Shaun Livingston to have that kind of career. I would have preferred Livingston have that kind of career after spending at least one year at Duke of course (he had committed there), that's what "we" wanted.

But he’s also a genuinely dreadful outside shooter (see Kirk Goldsberry’s shot chart below)

As I said back in June, he's gotta learn to shoot to be an outstanding player. The benefits of watching college basketball and not simply watching the NCAA Tournament and claiming to be an expert on college basketball players is immense.

he’s a little older than you think (at 22, he’s actually five months older than Kyrie Irving).

Don't tell me how old I think he is. I know exactly how old Michael Carter-Williams is. Not everyone ignores college basketball or lacks the knowledge that Bill thinks they lack because he lacks that knowledge. Shockingly (to Bill Simmons), there are people who know as much about basketball as Bill Simmons does.

They’re better off punting on Rookie of the Year, coming up with a bogus injury and keeping him away from the team’s festering stink. There are no good lessons from intentionally getting your asses kicked every night.

And of course because Carter-Williams is a robot, and not a human being, who doesn't care about his future earning value he will gladly sit out games with a fake injury in order to cost himself the Rookie of the Year award and perhaps get a reputation as slightly injury-prone. Why wouldn't Carter-Williams sabotage his future for the good of the Sixers team?

Please remember that Bill Simmons wants to be an NBA GM and has passively-aggressively attempted to land two NBA jobs over the last decade (Minnesota and Milwaukee). Can you imagine him as a GM going to his team's best player and telling that player to pretend to have an injury and sit out the rest of the season? I can't imagine how this would hurt this player's relationship with the team if the GM basically says, "We are trying to lose games, so be a sport and don't play the rest of the season and hurt your individual value for the good of the team."

We have too many teams (that’s never changing), a season that’s too long (that could easily be fixed) and far too much incentive for non-contenders to intentionally fail (that can DEFINITELY be fixed).

Again, I would argue the incentive to fail in the three other major sports is stronger because the NBA is the only major sport that has a lottery system which doesn't guarantee the worst team the first pick in the draft. Of course, in the NBA only five players play so one certain player can dramatically turn a team's fortunes around. I guess that's the flip side, but the NBA gives teams less incentive to tank by instituting the lottery system.

We also don’t have any penalties in place — not even something as simple as, “If you lose 90 percent of your games for any 35-game stretch during a season, your season-ticket holders receive a 30 percent discount for the following season.”

Oh, so the NBA would tell teams how much they have to charge for games. I can't imagine what's wrong with a heavy-handed approach like this, as nice as this sounds on paper.

Would we see as much self-sabotage if the owners’ wallets were involved? Somehow I doubt it.

Right, but good luck getting the owner's representative, the commissioner Adam Silver, to recommend measures that takes money out of his constituents' pockets. Not going to happen. Welcome to the real world, Bill where money matters.

Two weeks ago, I wondered about the best way for an NBA general manager to make sure he stays employed for four to five years. “The answer: Blow everything up, bottom out, build around young players/cap space/lottery picks, make a bunch of first-round picks, and sell the ‘illusion of hope’ to your fans. I’d like to see people in other professions try this.”

As a San Francisco reader named Aziz pointed out, I inadvertently “described the private equity business model. Take over a bloated company, load it up with debt, dump assets, cut research & development, and basically guarantee the company can’t do anything innovative for a decade. Once the debt is paid off, you have a company with nice free cash flow (‘cap space’).

What Bill means by "inadvertently" is "I had no idea the private equity business model worked like this, but I won't acknowledge that because I have to be the smartest most clever person in the room at all times and admitting I don't know something isn't going to ever happen, so I will think of a bullshit excuse like I inadvertently described a business model rather than admitting I didn't know this was the private equity business model."

Many NBA teams are now owned by private equity or venture capital investors, including some of our most unapologetic tankers.” One of them? Philly’s Josh Harris. Hmmmmmm. Could there be a correlation? And why would the NBA want any correlation?

Because if the end result is a really good team in Philadelphia then this model will have ended up working well.

The dirty secret of Stern’s last 18 months was that, as much as the 30 owners respected him, they also believed it was time for him to leave. And somehow, the smartest guy in the room was the last guy who realized it.

Who would have thought this would happen and has it ever happened before? Has a powerful person stayed past his prime and no one had the guts to notify him that he had stayed past his prime because they had respect for the job he had done. I'll say, "no," this is the first time this has ever happened.

It didn’t just win the last collective bargaining agreement; it destroyed the players and checkmated a fractured union. Do you realize that Brian McCann signed for more guaranteed money this winter than LeBron’s last contract?

Yes, I think many people are familiar with the comparisons of MLB salaries as compared to the salaries of players in other sports. In McCann's defense, he does stand up for traditional baseball values like not slow-trotting a home run, which is super-important to a sport that has a death-grip on it's past while refusing to allow the future to breathe.

His owners want to hear a little less about “growing the sport abroad” and a little more about “building the sport domestically.” Other than the way he treated people and carried himself, that was their single biggest issue with Stern.

Other than his heavy-handed approach to nearly everything and the fact he probably covered up a huge officiating scandal with the popular "lone gunman, not a conspiracy" argument, while waving his hand telling anyone who questioned him on this that "These aren't the droids you are looking for," and also finding a way to lose all of the momentum that the Bird/Magic/Jordan era gained during the late 1990's and early 2000's of course. So yeah, I think maybe the owners could have bigger issues with Stern than how he grew the game abroad...if they chose to of course. I personally believe David Stern grew the game abroad because he had no clue how to build the sport domestically.

Can you tell I'm not a big David Stern fan?

And that’s why this tanking bullshit matters. When 36 percent of your league is willfully throwing away the last five weeks of an 82-game season, you’re doing something wrong.

Remember when this column was about tanking? This is how Bill is ever-so-tenuously tying in tanking with David Stern. It's like Bill had enough for half a column about tanking and half a column about David Stern, so he just threw the two topics together with a mailbag question from a person named "Jack" who lives in a large city.

Stern stuck his head in the sand. He pretended self-sabotage wasn’t a recurring danger, just like he pretended the broken officiating system was fine … and the always-disappointing All-Star Saturday was fine … and the annoying 2-3-2 Finals format was fine … and the stunning lack of minority league executives at every CBA bargaining table was fine … and the embarrassing Chris Paul trade veto was fine … and The Decision was fine … and the Maloofs destroying basketball in Sacramento to the point that the fans had to revolt was fine … and Clay Bennett extorting Seattle for a new arena and ultimately hijacking the team was fine … and the league owning the New Orleans franchise as it landed the no. 1 overall pick was fine … and starting off Silver’s commissioner transition by hovering over him for an extra eight months was fine.

I completely agree with Bill. I'm not sure I see the tie-in with tanking, but I agree. Though notice that Bill Simmons didn't take these pointed of shots at David Stern while he was the NBA Commissioner. That's not coincidence. This is fairly typical of Bill to take shots at someone after they can't hurt him (because, let's be honest, if Bill had been this critical of Stern in a public forum while he was commissioner then he's just a little bit afraid Stern would derail his career momentum on the ABC/ESPN NBA pregame show...just a little bit concerned) or takes shots at a person and then backs down once he meets that person. Look no further than Bill bashing Isiah Thomas for years in print and then meeting Thomas in Vegas where Gus Johnson played peacekeeper between the two as they reconciled their differences (i.e. Bill backed down).

I would be a little afraid of Stern too if I were Bill, but it's no coincidence Bill goes a little harder on Stern once he isn't the NBA Commissioner anymore.

This isn’t tanking. Nobody is throwing games. They’re just shitting on them. And they’re doing it because it’s the smartest thing to do. Don’t pretend this is fine. It’s not.

I think it's completely fine. I don't like it and tanking is a good way to alienate your fans, but if the Sixers think this is the best way to turn their team around then that's their decision as an organization. NBA teams still have to draft well for tanking to work, so if the fans can wait it out and the team drafts well, then it could all work out in the end.

So this mailbag had one question. Next week, will the mailbag feature half a question before Bill interrupts the question and just talks about the Celtics for 5000 words? Stay tuned...

2 comments It's Over...Bleacher Report, You Win

I'm done (okay, not really). Bleacher Report has won. This is a site that is affiliated with TNT and has some sense of legitimacy in the world of sportswriting. Yet, on the site is probably the most useless and pointless article I have ever read. It is titled "Kevin Durant Has a Bad Habit of Farting While Getting a Massage." I'm not lying, here it is. It has over 71,000 reads as I write this. 71,000 reads about Kevin Durant farting while getting a massage. How can real journalism compete with this? Bleacher Report is affiliated with TNT, who apparently really wants their viewers to be directed to a website where we can find out when and where Kevin Durant has to fart.

The worst part is this article was written by a feature columnist for Bleacher Report, which in Bleacher Report terms seems to be like being a VP at a large corporation. There may be a lot of them, but it is also a title that is supposed to mean something. This is what it has come to. This is what it takes for the (partial) home for college basketball and the NBA to want to help advertise and work with your site. Congratulations TNT, you are responsible for telling us when Kevin Durant farts. That's sports journalism now.

I do think Skip Bayless is lowering the bar on ESPN, but he has help in getting that bar lowered. This article is an embarrassment for Bleacher Report and pretty much anyone who has ever picked up a pencil, pen, quill, or used a typewriter, computer, or any other type of electronic device that can assist a person in writing sports articles. There's nothing of substance in here.

A massage is supposed to be a relaxing release of tension, but for Kevin Durant, it seems he needs more than just taking it easy.

Durant was getting a rub-down in Taiwan and suddenly realized that he needed to fart

Breaking news! Why didn't ESPN cover this story? Actually, Kevin Durant farting is probably harder-hitting news than ESPN is used to covering.

It's crackin in Taiwan, but I'm gettin a massage and this lady put this Hot ass oil on my back sooo I'm about to fart..#GetBack
— Kevin Durant (@KDTrey5) July 16, 2013

But now wanting to show the depth of his research on Kevin Durant's ability to fart while receiving a massage, the author reveals Durant had to fart another time while he was receiving a massage back in 2010. If any major news organization is looking for an investigative journalist I think they should look no further than Bleacher Report.

Getting a massage..I'm face down and I gotta fart...what shuld I do?
— Kevin Durant (@KDTrey5) July 21, 2010

Fortunately the author has some advice for Durant in this dire situation.

The best words of wisdom I would give him are to just go for it. If you're paying somebody to help ease muscle tension, the expectation is complete relaxation.

Sure, it may be a bit rude in a public setting, but isn't a mid-massage passing of gas just a sign of a job well done?

What is the sign of a job not well done after reading an awful column? I want to know just so I can alert the author of this article.

There's another problem here that we need to talk about. What exactly is Durant doing tweeting during a massage?

And yet, you are writing about Durant Tweeting during a massage.

Just lay down on the massage table, close your eyes and whatever may happen, just let it out.

You win Bleacher Report. The terribleness you can display has no match nor way for me to overcome this terribleness.

Actually, on second though it probably makes a ton of sense for Bleacher Report to have a column about a fart. It seems appropriate for some of the content on the site. 

6 comments An Ode to Bunts: By Murray Chass

I have created Yahoo Fantasy Football and Fantasy College Football Pick 'Em leagues. We need a few more teams in the Fantasy Football league and need quite a few more teams in the College Football Pick 'Em league. Feel free to join up if you care to. The ID and password for the Fantasy Football league is "211530" and the password is "eckstein." The ID and password for the College Football Pick 'Em league is "1724" and the password is "asu." If there isn't room in the NFL league, email me and I will try to make room.

Murray Chass has another post up on his non-blog. Other than "Murder, She Wrote," "Diagnosis: Murder," Fay Vincent and basic math without all those complicated formulas I can't think of anything that Murray Chass likes better than bunting. Today he writes an ode to bunting called "Bunts are a beautiful thing." Even though he makes bunting sound like wonderful combination of flowers, puppies, kittens, and a warm blankie on a cold winter's night, this column is not a beautiful thing. Murray also, as is tradition now, struggles with sample sizes and with the use of numbers overall.

I don't hate bunting, but I am not in favor of saying how great bunting is while ignoring the fact somebody has to drive in a player on-base who has gotten a bunt hit.

If you’re as big on bunting as I am, seeing Juan Pierre pop a bunt over the third baseman’s head for a hit has to be the highlight of the week.

This was written on August 7th. The highlight of Murray's baseball-watching week was a bunt. I'm not sure if I can say anything about this that is funny or clever. Murray's favorite highlight of the week was a bunt. I think that says about everything I could say.

Pierre’s hit against the New York Yankees, though, was only one of four bunts that grabbed my attention last week.

Several bunts grabbed my attention last week as well. Several of these bunt attempts failed or turned into strikeouts. You won't be hearing about these bunts because Murray Chass only focuses on the bunt attempts that work. Apparently there were four of these.

Actually, bunts have been making a comeback recently. You can see at the bottom of this Tom Verducci column bunts are up 8% this year. In other news, poor managing is up 7% this year as well.

I kid of course. Bunts are great in moderation.

It was definitely a good week for bunting, sadly a lost art in today’s homer-happy game.

"Too many players try to hit home runs and drive guys in when they should be bunting to get on-base so another player can drive this player in. Players are too focused on driving players in and not having other players drive them in. I will celebrate the idea of a bunt and ignore the fact a player who bunts can only score if another player drives him in...possibly with a home run. I'm Murray Chass and I hate everything that has happened past 1992."

If Phil Rizzuto, the Yankees’ Hall of Fame shortstop, were alive, he would rejoice alongside me because as a player he was baseball’s master at bunting and in retirement its most ardent advocate.

Certain players should bunt. A player with a career OPS of 0.706 like Rizzuto better be a good bunter. Especially when his hitting career closely reflects another Hall of Fame player, Jose Offerman, and Rizzuto is most similar by age to the always-beloved David Eckstein.

By the way, did we ever figure out how Phil Rizzuto was in the Hall of Fame? It was his defense, right?

Gardner, the Yankees’ leadoff batter, opened a game against the Chicago White Sox with a bunt single, and Jeter duplicated his effort by also bunting for a hit.

The dual hits led to a four-run inning, and the four-run outburst led to an 18-7 win.

What small detail Murray Chass fails to point out while trying to say the bunting led to an 18 run game and a four-run inning is that two of those runs in the 1st inning were scored because of a selfish homer-happy player, Robinson Cano, hitting a three-run homer. Then, as if to spit in the face of all things holy and right in the world, homer-happy Eric Chavez hit a two-run home run later. What a selfish prick.

So while yes, the Yankees got two guys on-base to start the game through bunting, how the hell did those guys get home? Oh yeah, a home run. So home runs aren't so bad. Somebody has to drive those guys who bunt home to score runs, right? Why lift up bunting and take a huge crap all over the home run, which is how the bunters in this case scored? I have no idea why Murray would hate "homer-happy" players, which is a huge generalization. You do this type of thing when you are Murray Chass, that's why.

When is the last time you saw a team start a game with two bunt hits?

Never! Which means it needs to happen more often! When have you last seen a game start off with two players striking out? Well, it happened last week in this one game and the next two batters hit home runs. So basically, as long as two guys strikeout to start the game, the next two batters should hit home runs. This will happen nearly every time.

When it comes to bunting for hits, though, Pierre is by himself. His bunt hit against the Yankees was his major league-leading 15^th bunt hit of the season,

I would love to get a statistic on how many times Juan Pierre has tried to bunt for a base hit and failed. Isn't that the true determinant of how impressive the MLB-leading 15th bunt hit of the season will be? That's what I dislike about Murray. He threws out random statistics and doesn't give them perspective. If Pierre has tried to bunt for a hit 40 times, then a 15th bunt hit is nice. If Pierre has tried 60 times to get a hit by bunting and only succeeded, then it isn't so interesting. That's the problem with Murray Chass, and many people who hate new-age statistics, they want to throw out statistics like RBI's, saves, or hits without giving perspective for the other factors that go into these numbers.

For example, while I was writing this Juan Pierre was at 500 plate appearances this season. Jason Bourgeois is second in MLB with 11 bunt hits. He has 163 plate appearances. So who is really the more impressive bunter? Pierre has 4 more hits in 337 more plate appearances. If Bourgeois had as many plate appearances as Pierre he would have 33 bunt hits at this point.

Perspective, that's what we need before we start fondling Pierre's ass for great bunting.

In his career, which began in 2000, Pierre has 189 bunt hits, including two doubles. Closest to him in that time is Willy Taveras with 122.

Again, plate appearances for each?

Pierre has 7298 plate appearances
Taveras has 2644 plate appearances

Which of these bunters are more impressive? Taveras would have around 337 bunt hits in his career if he had as many plate appearances as Taveras. So Juan Pierre may be a great bunter, but it doesn't seem like he is THE best bunter when compared to other players. By the way, the same goes for Pierre stealing bases. He steals a lot, but gets caught a lot too.

The beauty of Pierre’s bunt against the Yankees was that third baseman Eric Chavez was coming in to protect against a bunt, and Pierre popped the ball over his head, too high for him to intercept, too far behind him to reach back and grab. Chavez was helpless in his effort to snare the ball.

Earlier in that series, and this is beautiful, Eric Chavez swung at a pitch and the outfielder had to watch it go in the seats, helpless in his effort to snare the ball.

Bunts are great. Home runs are great. There is a time and place for each.

“It was set up early in the series with CC pitching,” Pierre said by telephone from Minneapolis Friday, referring to CC Sabathia. “I bunted and Chavez got me out. He made a pretty good play. He was in real close, taking away the bunt down the line.”

So Chavez had gotten Pierre out earlier in the game on a bunt? Murray wants you to overlook this and focus on the fluke bunt that turned into a double. Which of these two things, a bunt for an out or a bunt for a double, happens more often would you think?

Pierre, a left-hand hitter, who turns 34 Sunday, did not claim to be able to pop the ball over the third baseman’s head any time he wanted.

“I wish I could do it regularly,” he said, “because I’d do it all the time. If I get a pitch up and out, I try to hit it over his head. Actually, I want to hit the ball toward the shortstop if he’s charging. I’ve gotten a couple doubles doing that. I’ve been successful with it.”

If a player could pop the ball over the third basemen's head anytime he wanted, he would pretty much do this anytime he wanted, which means he could essentially get a hit anytime he wanted. Just logically, I think every MLB player would love to hit the ball exactly where they wanted to regularly. It would prevent a lot of outs from being made.

Kay and John Flaherty, his partner in the booth, proceeded to debate whether or not Pierre deliberately did what he did.

Interesting debate. I'm kidding, it really isn't interesting.

It was surprising that someone who has been around for Pierre’s entire career would not know of his ability to bunt, using his bat the way a magician uses his wand.

I think the idea of Juan Pierre using his bat like a magician uses his wand is a bit overstated. Pierre is a .296/.346/.363 hitter and as I showed earlier in this post, it isn't like he is the greatest bunter in terms of getting hits while bunting that the majors have ever seen. He's just had more opportunities. If Pierre waves his bat like a wand, I would love to hear the analogy for a player who is a great hitter AND bunts for hits with more effectiveness than Pierre does.

Aybar, the Angels’ shortstop, led off the eighth inning of a game the Tigers were ahead, 3-0, by bunting. Nothing wrong with the leadoff batter trying to get on base in a tight game, right? Except Justin Verlander was pitching a no-hitter and didn’t appreciate Aybar’s attempt to spoil it with a bunt single.

This wasn’t a bush league move in my mind. Bunting is a part of the game of baseball and if Verlander is mowing down hitters why should the batter sit back and not try to change things up? It is Aybar’s job to win the game for his team, so if he thinks he can get a good bunt down, then I have no issue with that. It isn’t like the batter owes it to the pitcher to help him throw a no-hitter.

The pitcher apparently was so unnerved by the bunt that he fielded it and threw the ball away, enabling Aybar to reach second on the two-base error. He went on to score, and the Angels added a second run on Macier Izturis’ single, certainly justifying Aybar’s bunt.

Aybar’s bunt was justified in that he has an obligation to get on-base for his teammates so they can win the game. Whether a run scored because of his bunt or not is irrelevant. He had a right to bunt because he has an obligation to help his team win the game.

If the game had been one-sided, I would agree that bunting to break up a no-hitter is a poor play.

I would absolutely disagree. I don’t have a problem with a player bunting to break up a no-hitter. It sounds like a bitch move, but at what point does a team getting no-hit concede the game and stop doing everything they can do to win the game? In the 6^th inning does the team not bunt in some effort to help ensure the odds of them being no-hit are greater? Why would they do that?

I think a team should do whatever it took to not get no-hit. Maybe this is one of the unofficial rules of baseball I don’t understand, but I don’t get why a team in the 7^th, 8^th, or 9^th inning should just accept they need to take fewer steps in order to ensure they don't get no-hit. It makes not of sense to me. I believe a team should take pride in not getting no-hit, which means not laying down.

Not in this instance, however. Pitchers can’t expect the opposing team to accept its fate and lay down its weapons.

Look, any team can accept their fate that they will lose a game, but I think a team should have pride they don’t get no-hit. In football, a team that is getting shut out doesn’t stop throwing the ball to ensure the other team shuts them out. In basketball, a team doesn’t try to stop guarding a player simply because he is hot and scoring a ton of points. Or at least a team shouldn’t do this.

In 1978, the Atlanta Braves stopped Pete Rose’s record-threatening hitting streak at 44 games, and Rose complained bitterly that the Braves’ pitchers did not challenge him with fastballs but instead threw him off-speed stuff. Well, they were trying to get him out, and if he couldn’t handle off-speed pitches, they chose the right strategy.

Pete Rose is probably just angry he lost money. He probably had $500 that his hitting streak would get past 45 games. Would he have preferred it more if the Braves pitchers threw him underhand?

How is throwing off-speed stuff not challenging a hitter who can’t hit off-speed stuff? If he can’t hit the ball, isn’t that challenging?

Verlander would have preferred that Aybar swing away, but his bunt triggered a rally that nearly pulled the game out for the Angels. You can’t legitimately argue with that strategy.

I agree with Murray’s point, but his logic is a bit off. Verlander was angry AT THE TIME the bunt happened. This is why Verlander's concentration was sort of shaken. Verlander, unless I haven’t heard about this ability of his, can not predict the future, so he had no way of knowing the Angels would almost win the game partially because of this bunt. So Verlander was arguing with the strategy of bunting AT ALL in this situation, not knowing the effect on the game.

Sure, it is easy in hindsight to look back and say it was a great move, which it was. But Murray can’t assume Verlander can predict the future. So his criticism of Verlander is correct in that he should have been fine with the bunt, but Verlander probably hated the strategy BEFORE he knew the effect on the outcome of the game. So Verlander shouldn't be criticized for not liking the bunt attempt after it immediately happened, since he didn't know it would help the Angels make it back in the game. He only knew it blew his no-hitter.

Then Murray talks about Alex Rodriguez with the most moral man he knows. It’s not anyone that would immediately come to mind of course. Anyone who follows Murray Chass knows who this is…

I posed that question to Fay Vincent, the former baseball commissioner and the most moral man I know. He provided a good answer, as he usually does.

Murray Chass’s blog seems to be co-written by Fay Vincent. Any time Murray needs to do research he asks Fay Vincent.

“No matter how wealthy someone is,” Vincent said, “a gambler can get to him. Say the player owes him $100,000. He says to the player, ‘Forget what you owe. The next time you know something about the team, an injury, a player going through a tough time, call me and let me know.’ The gambler is looking for an edge.”

What words of brilliance/common sense from Fay Vincent. I think at this point Murray just wants an excuse to put a quote from Fay Vincent in his columns.

I guess we should just be happy Murray didn’t take on Sabermetrics head-on with Fay Vincent. Actually, I sort of enjoy hearing outdated and poorly researched opinions, which is probably why I give Murray Chass hits on his non-blog.

11 comments Bill Simmons Thanks Us With A Mailbag

I have set up a Yahoo College Bowl Pick 'Em league for the upcoming bowl season. Everyone who wants to should feel free to sign up. The group ID is "3711" and the password is "jamarcus." I don't think there is a limit on how many can sign up.

As I have described many times before, I have a love/hate relationship with Bill Simmons. I bought his new book and I have generally enjoyed it, but at the same time many of his comments and other things he does/says/thinks annoys the heck out of me. A great example of this is that I was cruising through his book actually enjoying some of his "what-if" scenarios (which is surprising in itself) when I ran into his question of "What If the Hawks Had Taken Chris Paul?" I agree, the Hawks should have taken Paul, but in his criticism of the Hawks choosing Marvin Williams he said (paraphrasing), "When Marvin Williams played for UNC, he didn't start for them. I took that as a bad sign."

I am not arguing with the conclusion Bill came to that Paul should have been drafted by the Hawks, but I am arguing with this reasoning. Marvin Williams played one year in college with a North Carolina Tar Heels team that won the National Championship. It was a loaded team. Check out the roster. Marvin Williams did not start because he was a bad basketball player or because he wasn't worthy of starting, but he was the 6th man for that team because he was stuck behind Jawad Williams, a senior, at the Power Forward position. There were upperclassmen blocking him at every starting position and anyone who knows one of the traditions in college basketball (and especially UNC) knows it is not often a skilled upperclassman will be benched for a freshmen (for a variety of reasons that are basketball related and non-basketball related. For another example, super-freshmen Ed Davis did not start over Deon Thompson last year). It seemed to work out well for UNC that year because they won the National Championship. Bill seemed to miss this idea a little bit in his explanation of why Marvin Williams was a bad pick at #2, which he was.

Enough rambling, let's get on to Bill's mailbag. Peter King could learn a little bit from Bill Simmons on how much mail to put in a mailbag.

I just wanted to thank everyone who came out for my book signings in Washington, Philly, New York, Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Chicago and Phoenix. Yes, I have regained some feeling in my right thumb. Yes, I would do it again. Everyone could not have been nicer. In their honor, I'm breaking out a special holiday mailbag. As always, these are actual e-mails from actual readers.

As was stated previously by Jeremy Conlin in the comments here, Bill Simmons seems to actually appreciate and enjoy his fans. He doesn't seem like he is too good for them or talk down to them while up high on his pedestal (ok maybe Bill has done this sometimes), like maybe a Peter King would do. That's my touchy-feeling nice Bill Simmons comment for the day.

What if LeBron announces he will pick his 2010-11 team live on ABC on a certain date for a show called "LeBron's Choice?" What type of crazy ratings would that get?-- Drew, Columbus, Ohio

SG: "LeBron's Choice" sounds too much like a Lifetime movie -- like, he became the first NBA player to make himself pregnant and now he can't decide whether to give up the baby for adoption or not.

Drew, your idea sucks. Bill Simmons will now improve upon your idea changing the name and proclaiming his new name change for this event is better.

If people were willing to pay $44.99 for a UFC 106 card headlined by Jenna Jameson's washed-up husband fighting a guy who hadn't won in two years, I'm pretty sure they'll pony up $44.99 for "Decision 2010: LeBron's Verdict."

Because "Decision 2010: LeBron's Verdict" doesn't sound like a bad "Daily Show" feature or a Nancy Grace special or anything. I think this is a draw, while "LeBron's Choice" does sound like a bad television movie, Bill's title that he thinks is better "Decision 2010: LeBron's Verdict" sounds like a bad special featuring attorneys.

Q: What is the "30 for 30" documentary you wish was made that wasn't?-- Tyler, Seattle

SG: Andre the Giant. Hands down. It never got past the discussion stage because the WWE owns the key footage and would have wanted to produce it; we would have wanted an elite filmmaker.

Not to quibble, but have all the "30 for 30" documentaries been by "elite" filmmakers so far? They have been fairly accomplished filmmakers, except for Kirk Fraser, the guy behind the Len Bias documentary, which was essentially a rehashing of an already existing documentary. Fraser had executively produced the first documentary and he directed the "30 for 30" episode. I don't know if I would call him elite. But I don't think they have all been elite so far. Bill is using the word "elite" a little too loosely here.

So that's No. 1 for me. My runners-up: Tim Richmond, the Clippers, the Artest melee and how Rocky Balboa ended the Cold War.

I am not a big NASCAR fan at all, but a Tim Richmond documentary would have been fantastic. He was a riveting person and it would have been a riveting documentary. Check out his wikipedia biography and tell me I am wrong, if you dare. I hate NASCAR but would have watched this documentary.

Oh, and if you think Bill was kidding about the Rocky Balboa thing...sadly, he wasn't.

(Note on the Rocky idea: I really did want to do that one. My plan was to shoot it like a real documentary -- like it actually happened -- and interview the "Rocky IV" actors today but in character, then stage some fake news footage from the time, then have current media people talking about it like everything was real: Rocky climbing the mountain in snow boots, the Drago-Balboa fight, Apollo dying, everything.

So in the middle of real documentaries by "elite" filmmakers about real life events covered from a different angle, Bill Simmons wanted to include a fake documentary about one of his favorite movies...and he wanted to do this by pretending this fake event was a real event and create a documentary about the fake event? This would have fit into the "30 for 30" format how again?

Also, nobody but me liked the idea. That was another problem. My question is this: Would you have turned the channel if "Burning Hearts: How Rocky Ended The Cold War" was on? No way. I refuse to believe it.)

There is a reason no one else liked the idea. It stinks. Maybe someone would have watched this documentary, but how are we supposed to take "30 for 30" seriously at all if there is a documentary about a fake sporting event included? I wonder if Bill thinks this is another idea the "old and non-relevant" documentaries HBO put out completely overlooked...doing a fake documentary on a 23 year old movie.

Somehow I can't believe Bill was serious about doing this. Why am I shocked by this?

Q: Are you not completely shocked after finding out that Andre Agassi's amazing mohawk mullet after all these years was a wig? Forget that he was doing a year of meth with an assistant named "Slim." The fact that one of my all-time favorite sports hairstyles was synthetically made is the most unbelievable revelation from his or any book, right?-- Ben B., Charlottesville, Va.

Somewhere in 1989 a distraught young Bengoodfella is clutching his Andre Agassi "Hit the Ball As Loud As You Can Shirt" and wondering how Agassi's hair can't be real.

Agassi's revelations made me like him compared to Pete Sampras even more. I was always Team Agassi because I didn't like Sampras and thought he came off as fake. While Agassi was doing crystal meth with an assistant named "Slim," I know Pete Sampras was doing something equally as worse. He had to be, he can't be as boring as he seems. I just know Pete Sampras was doing lines of coke off a hooker's stomach, he just needs to write about it.

SG: I couldn't agree more. I was flabbergasted. If there were a Hall of Fame for memorable sports hairdos and facial hair decisions, my first-ballot inductions would be Agassi's mohawk mullet, Barry Melrose's mullet, Barry Sanders' helmet Afro, Rollie Fingers' mustache, Dr. J's ABA Afro, Baron Davis' beard, Al Hrabosky's Fu Manchu, Ray Bourque's playoff beard, Jake Sikma's blonde permafro, Shawn Michaels' extended uber-mullet, everything that was happening with Larry Bird's face and hair in 1986, and two other slam dunks I know I forgot (and I know you'll remind me).

I hope everyone likes how Bill Simmons just threw in "...and two other slam dunks I know I forgot" just in case there were other immortal hair styles he didn't know of or remember but he wanted to make sure everyone knew that HE KNEW what they are, but he just forgot. It's not that Bill doesn't have knowledge of these hairdos or facial hair decisions, it's just that he "forgot" two of them and can't seem to remember them right now. As soon as a reader chimes in with a couple more Bill will "remember" the other two like he had known them all along.

Bill always has knowledge of everything, sometimes he just needs someone to remind him how much he actually knows...it's not that he doesn't know some things, he just needs to be reminded that he remembers.

Q: Bill Belichick just got outcoached by an unblinking mannequin. Excuse me while I go vomit "Exorcist"-style and gouge my eyes out with a blowtorch. I will sell my soul for this never to happen again.-- Alex, Warwick, R.I.

Awww...it's kind of nice to see Alex from Warwick, Rhode Island try to write a sentence exactly like Bill Simmons does. Just to guarantee Alex writes in here and calls me a jackass, I am going to keep ripping him a little here. This is exactly why I call some of Bill's fans "Simmons Clones" because this is exactly like a sentence Bill Simmons would write. It has absolutely no original thoughts. It's just a game of "Bill Simmons Mad Libs" where you state what happened and then threaten to do things to yourself while referencing pop culture.

Example: Peyton Manning has beaten Tom Brady twice in a row. I feel like the Sterling Cooper employees did on "Mad Men" after the British guy got run over by the lawnmower more amazed at what is happening while wiping blood off me. Excuse me while I go floss with razor blades. This would never have happened if Bill Belichick was still alive.

SG: Reading that e-mail doubled as the only time I cracked a smile for six hours after the Pats-Colts game. And it lasted only 0.43 seconds.

It's the journalistic equivalent of a tribute band. Of course Bill liked it.

SG: I never wanted to do a book on tape because the footnotes were such a big part of the book. Just couldn't imagine how they would translate to tape. Then a writer interviewed me for Entertainment Weekly and gave me the greatest idea ever:

I don't know if everyone just read that sentence but Bill wants us to know that he got interviewed by Entertainment Weekly. He's a pretty big deal. People know him.

Q: Today is Saturday, aka College Football Day. I am pretty sure I have heard the word "arguably" said at least 15 times on the studio show I am watching. By them saying "Florida is ARGUABLY the best team in college football," are they actually making an argument?-- Josh, Wilmington, Del.

SG: Either you think Florida is the best team in college football or you don't. By declaring the Gators are "arguably" the best, all you're really saying is that someone could argue they are the best -- which makes no sense, because anyone could argue anything and that doesn't have to mean it's true...So "arguably" is a word that means nothing other than, "I don't really believe this, but I'm throwing it out anyway."

I can see Bill's problem with the word "arguably," but I think he has what it means completely wrong. When someone writes/says "arguably" that person is saying he/she believes something to be true, but he/she can understand that others may not hold the same opinion. It isn't a sign that someone doesn't really believe what he/she says, it's a sign that person knows the opinion may not be widely held.

For example, I would say, "I arguably think that Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback right now than Brett Favre," because I know it is an arguable statement because my belief is not widely held. This is the entire purpose of saying "arguably" though the phrase is overused at this point in time.

Q: Did Marv really fight with Fiddy's posse at Kimmel's show? I never know what to believe on the Internet these days. -- Katie B., Dallas

SG: Me, neither. Although I'm fired up that it led to multiple readers sending me an e-mail with subject headings like, "50 Cent/Marv Albert brawl?" Had it really happened, we definitely should have thrown the grainy security camera footage into the "2012" trailer. Sadly, it did not happen. My old boss Jimmy Kimmel explains:

Bill's old boss Jimmy Kimmel? I didn't know that Bill Simmons used to work for a mediocre late night show. He hasn't mentioned this in at least two weeks so I had completely forgotten.

"The original L.A. Times story in no way suggests that there was any interaction between Marv and 50 Cent or Marv and anyone. I don't know where that came from. I am starting to fear that some Web site journalists don't always check facts. Sorry to ruin the fun. In the meantime, I am now carrying a gun just to be safe."

Oh that Jimmy Kimmel, what a funny guy. I think if I had to choose between whether he or Adam Carrolla were funnier, I would throw myself off a bridge.

(Now someone is going to comment that I just threatened to hurt myself like Bill Simmons does and I am hypocrite. Because we should all just assume Bill Simmons is the first and only person ever who used the "I am going to hurt myself in anger" joke, which clearly he isn't.)

Q: How could you forget Joakim Noah in your "Sports Hate" column? How? I thought we had something special! I don't think I know you anymore. -- Justin, Minneapolis

There is one idea the entire sports universe can get behind and that idea is that Joakim Noah is a freaking asshole that no one in their right mind should ever like. This one idea binds us all together. Men, women, children and even potentially extra-terrestrials hate Joakim Noah. I am not being hyperbolic, I know University of Florida fans who don't like him that much. No one likes Joakim Noah.

Q: This one is a little serious, but please don't mistake the note for being preachy or abrasive. We've known Donald Sterling to be a shady character for some time, but those recent allegations and subsequent settlements are rather tough to stomach. Housing discrimination is a particularly nasty form of racism, don't you think? Seeing as your season-ticket money pads the man's wallet, do you plan to continue supporting the Clippers in light of their owner's legal settlement with the federal government? If so, where do you draw the line?-- Ben, Brooklyn

Let's get to Bill's explanation. Line by line.

SG: Good timing. I have been thinking about this a lot. You're right, he was revealed to be a relatively vile human being. And you're right, it feels weird to put money in his pocket. On the flip side, I get material from those Clipper games that helps my column,

Donald Sterling helps Bill make money by putting out good columns for ESPN. It is ok to make money off of a person who was found guilty of housing discrimination, it's just not ok to make money off housing discrimination. Hey, Bill's not discriminating he's just using the person who does the discriminating to make some money himself.

I don't think I would have as big of a problem if Bill had said he gets to make fun of Sterling in his columns as sort of a payback, but Bill framed the sentence like it's ok to put money in Sterling's pocket because it helps Bill out personally. Bill draws the line at the point where it doesn't help him write columns apparently.

I don't personally think Bill should sell his tickets because the owner of the Clippers is an asshole, but I think Bill should just say he doesn't want to sell the tickets and not try to explain.

and it's my only chance to see NBA basketball in quality seats on a regular basis.

He can't afford Lakers tickets. I can see that. So Bill's need to make money and see good NBA basketball is more important to him than knowing he puts money in the pocket of a person who had to settle a lawsuit for discrimination.

So here's my uneasy compromise: keep the seats, but don't forget to mention every once in awhile that the owner of the Clippers recently settled a $2.7 million housing discrimination

Because nothing is going to embarrass Donald Sterling more than an ESPN writer mentioning a couple times a year what a bad person he is. That will be what will teach Sterling a lesson, having a season ticket holder who Sterling is probably not aware of bad mouth him. I think Sterling would be more shocked if a season ticket holder didn't bad mouth him. This is Bill's payback, reminding everyone what a bad person Donald Sterling is.

(Just remind me to mention this every so often. I won't forget, but if I do, remind me.)

That's his payback, unless he forgets of course.

Q: I'll make it simple. Miguel Cabrera: Yes or no?-- Patrick, Weymouth, Mass.

SG: Yes. Yes. And yes. For three reasons ...

1. He's only 26, which makes the 0.26 blood-alcohol thing much more defensible to me. Look, I am ashamed of at least 50 things that I did in my mid-20s. You don't know any better in your mid-20s, only you kinda do, but not totally. You don't appreciate anything. You're supposed to start growing up, but you're not quite ready yet. You can keep acting like an ass and keep assuming that someone will always give you a second chance, whether it's with a job, a woman or whatever. If you're 29 and things like the 0.26 are still happening during the biggest weekend of your team's season? Yeah. That's a problem. I am willing to forgive the 25-26 range.

Bill is willing to forgive players who make mistakes in the 25-26 year old range? If anyone has read his latest book or read any of Bill's columns you would find it ironic it doesn't sound like he has forgiven Kobe Bryant for the sexual allegations against him in Colorado in 2003.

Kobe was 24 years old at the time.

Q: With the benefit of a little hindsight, how do you think the top-10 of the 2009 NBA draft would look if it went down today?-- Michael McNamara, Jacksonville

Remember back in May and June when Bill Simmons said this NBA Draft was weak and there didn't seem to be many good players in the draft? I do. Now certainly the 2009 NBA Draft isn't the strongest of all-time but I don't think it is as weak as Bill Simmons claimed it was. There may not be a ton of star players that come out of the draft, but it's been stronger so far than Bill gave it credit for. Which is not shocking since he has only a passing interest in college basketball. We won't hear Bill say he was even 10% wrong about this draft though.

Draftexpress.com's Jonathan Givony was the only one I can remember last June even attempting the "Jennings has a chance to be awesome" case. My friend Hirschy was the only New Yorker I knew who thought the Knicks should have drafted him at No. 8.

I don't like to toot my own horn and I also realize it is really, really early in the NBA season, but here is what I said about Jennings on May 22 of this year.

At #6 I said the Timberwolves should choose Brandon Jennings:

This would be a good fit for a point guard and to me, Brandon Jennings fits in perfectly well at this spot. I have a feeling that either the Knicks or the Wolves are going to take DeRozan though. It is just a feeling I have. I think Jennings would be perfect to put together with Love and Jefferson, but I think the Wolves are going to look for a big time athletic scorer,

I was wrong about the T-Wolves looking for a big time athletic scorer, they were looking to draft two guys at the same position and ensure the franchise stays screwed up. Still, I thought Brandon Jennings should go #6 in the draft.

At #7 I had the Warriors taking Jennings and I said:

This makes sense to me. I don't know what else to say really. If Jennings is available he should be the pick for Nelson's offense. I would say Lawson but he is a reach at this point and really Jennings could be a special player.

It's not like I "called it" or anything, but I thought Jennings could be a special player and I still obviously think this. Believe it or not, I am not writing this to let everyone know I am right, but to show that not everyone had Jennings going past the #8 pick in the NBA Draft. There were some people who Bill is not aware of in the world, shocking this could happen, who would have had Jennings go to New York at #8.

Everyone else (like me) fell into the whole "bad attitude, immature, couldn't get big minutes in Italy, can't shoot, hit-or-miss pick" trap with Jennings.

That is not true. I am not the only one who believed in Brandon Jennings. Because Bill fell into this trap he just assumes that everyone else did as well, which is not true. I had questions about Jennings because he didn't exactly light up Europe, but I had seen him play a little bit when he was in high school and knew he had talent. Bill is just lumping everyone else in with himself regarding Jennings and he only does this because he assumes because he was wrong other people were as well...which isn't necessarily true. So no, everyone didn't fall into that trap Bill is describing here. Due to the fact Bill sees himself as an NBA expert (which to an extent he is), I think he believes others make mistakes like this if he does.

Can you blame us? What signs were there that this kid had a chance to be great other than the fact that he was the best high schooler a year earlier?

Other than the fact he was the best high school player a year earlier, I guess there were no other signs he could be a good NBA player.

He seemed like a total head case.

He did seem like a total head case playing basketball in Europe. If we put most 18 year olds in Europe to play professional basketball then they would seem like head cases also. Jeremy Tyler is currently falling apart overseas, that's what can happen when you put teenagers overseas to play professional basketball.

Jennings is a lefty Chris Paul, only if Paul could shoot 20-footers and threes with a hand in his face. More importantly, his teammates love him. And he has a wonderful sense of The Moment already. I can't say enough about him. He's a superstar in training. He's the first Buck in 25 years who could actually sell tickets and jerseys there. Amazing. He will save basketball in Milwaukee, as long as this early start doesn't go to his head. And it might.

Ok, simmer down now. I don't want to overreact too much to his hot start. He looks like he will be good, but it is still very, very early in the NBA season.

so let's pay tribute for once to someone who absolutely crushed a decision: Bucks GM John Hammond. It's one of the best draft picks ever. A franchise-alterer.

I wonder who Bill Simmons would have picked if he had been named the Bucks GM like he wanted to be?

Q: So I thought that as an avid "Rocky IV" fan, you would appreciate this. I went to the doctor the other day to get my flu shot. I asked the nurse if I could blast "Hearts on Fire" on my iPhone and look up to the left with a stoic look on my face as she administered the shot into my arm. She didn't get the reference, and had a puzzled look on her face, but all my friends have gotten a good chuckle out of the story. Your thoughts?-- Josh, Chicago

Josh, I am sure all your co-workers at Applebee's are still going to be enjoying that story five years from now.

Q: After listening to the Mike and the Mad Dog "reunion" show, my friend and I started talking about how we feel like kids of divorced parents at this point (with Mike and Dog as the parents). I thought I would share with you the top five moments of my short life thus far:

1. Losing my virginity.
2. Playing in the U.S. (golf) Amateur.
3. Making a game-winning shot in a basketball game when I was 10.
4. Getting a "That's a good job there, Jason" from Dog the only time I called into the show as a cracked-voice 17-year-old.
5. Seeing Wake Forest play in the Orange Bowl.

That's it, that's the list.-- Jason, Winston-Salem

Bill's readers are so wild and crazy! I hope he enjoyed watching Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl because it doesn't look like it is going to happen again anytime soon.

SG: Yup, these are my readers.

And Bill is bragging about this.

2 comments Bill Plaschke Gets the Panic Room Ready

The title of Bill Plaschke's latest "column" is "Lakers Are Hot But They Still Lack That Spark." I initially thought this was a joke about how they don't have Lisa Leslie or Candace Parker from the LA Sparks playing for them and wanted to roll my eyes at his weak attempt at humor. The column is actually about how the Lakers don't have that "spark" Bill wants to see. This may sound stupid because the Lakers are currently 21-3 and on pace to come just short of the NBA record for victories in a season, they are on a pace for a 72 win season.

I calmed down knowing Bill Plaschke is often privy to knowledge normal sports fans don't have. Just like when Andre Ethier, the Oakland A's 2005 Minor League Player of the Year and two time Pac-10 All Star OF was unearthed by an old scout who Bill was able to get an exclusive interview with, so Bill must know something that would cause us to not think Bill Plaschke is an eternal idiot for suggesting some mysterious and intangible element of "spark" is missing from a team on pace to top 72 wins.

Let's see.

"They've lost that spark."

The record denied it. The talent refuted it. The crowd tried to ignore it.

Then the Lakers took the floor and lived it.

Phil Jackson is known as a master motivator, so has it occurred to Bill that maybe Phil is saying something like this to keep his team from becoming too in love with itself and continuing to play hard? Apparently not, though you can't just pick and choose when you believe every word that comes out of a coach's mouth.

What the hell could this "spark" be that Phil Jackson is speaking about? Could it be an attitude, a little midget that runs around in a lightning costume to pump the team up, the electricity in the building, or could it be that Phil Jackson is an ex-pothead hippie who just makes shit up to motivate this team?

You may notice that Bill has four sentence fragments that begin his article. Bill is a rebel and spits in the face of traditional English and journalistic standards...He doesn't actually spit consciously, he just has that lisp and out comes spit every once in a while.

Sitting under the basket, $22-million loser Stephon Marbury was more aggressive with his Blackberry. Sitting courtside, there was more defense played by Vanessa Hudgens on Zac Efron.

Wearing gold, the Lakers were red-faced and heavy-lidded and extremely fortunate to escape with a 116-114 victory over a gimmick team that shouldn't have had a squirting flower of a chance.

Oh yes, Bill is complaining a lot about the Lakers winning a game by a small amount. This doesn't make him an asshole, because he is not a fan of the Lakers, it just makes him a stupid dipshit for writing a column about how the Lakers have lost their "spark."

The Lakers trailed most of the game, sometimes by as many as 15, and eventually won only because their guests finally lost their legs.

The Lakers do really, really suck. They came back and won the game down by more than single digits. Only the really shitty teams are capable of that. Because they were losing at one point by more than double digits this win only counts for half a win. If the Lakers had that "spark" they would have led the whole game and then the win could have counted for 1-2 wins, depending on whether the "spark" the Lakers had was clearly seen and how long the "spark" could be seen for.

And you thought hockey had a complicated scoring system.

Even with Pau Gasol out with strep throat, the Lakers shouldn't have needed a Trevor Ariza ally-oop layup with 1:03 left to take the lead for good.

We get it, the Knicks suck, but the Lakers also played without their second best player and still won the game. That has to be a positive.

Do sportswriters who don't have anything to write about just sit back in their chairs and just think of the most incorrect point of view to espouse in a column to increase readership? The Lakers are 21-3! That is 21 wins and 3 losses. There is nothing wrong with this team, other than the incompetence of the sportswriters that cover it.

If only they were the team that began the season with the league's best defense, not allowing 100 points until the eighth game, bragging about how they were the new Boston. Well, Boston held these Knicks to 101 points. Detroit held them to 96. Cleveland held them to 82.

This is not college football where the score of the game gets you more points in the standings. Who gives two shits how bad other teams had beaten the Knicks, it doesn't matter. Did Boston beat the Knicks without Kevin Garnett, did Detroit beat them without Rasheed Wallace, and did Cleveland beat them without whoever the hell is their second best player? There is a clear difference in each game with the fact Gasol did not participate, even if you want to compare the scores of other teams who played the Knicks.

Sure, the Lakers have had a lot of home games, but they still have a great record.

I also found a guy who thinks this is all poppycock. "You have to lighten up a little bit," said Knicks Coach Mike D'Antoni. "They're pretty good."

How big of an asshole do you have to be to tell the coach of an 11-14 team who just lost to a 21-3 team that the 21-3 team has lost it's "spark?" I wish D'Antoni had slapped Plaschke in the face like a little bitch.

Is there anything more annoying than someone who bitches about their team, even though that team is superior to almost every other team in that sport? That is why I always kept quiet about my favorite college basketball team when they don't play well, because it is annoying. Plaschke could learn a lesson from me.

Here's what I found.

Kobe Bryant Hasn't Pushed Them Yet.

So that is what the spark is, Kobe Bryant is the spark! Therefore the Lakers have not lost their "spark," it just has not happened yet.

Derek Fisher's and Jordan Farmar's Defense Hasn't Pushed Them Yet.

So they are the "spark?" Am I high?...is this heaven?...why is this man with a slight lisp spitting on me?

"A lot of this is because we're still learning to play with each other," said Farmer. "There's been a lot of changes, and we haven't quite come together all the time."

Farmer? Did Plaschke interview a farmer for his opinion, and if he did, why does this not surprise me in the least?

Sure, the Lakers are not perfect but they have a great record and they are never going to admit they have everything together because they are a competitive team that wants to always improve.

Which leads to the next theory . . .

Stab me in the eye now...

The Schedule Hasn't Pushed Them Yet.

Teams get lazy at home and tough on the road. Yeah, the Lakers have played 15 games at home and only eight outside Staples Center.

Wow, in that case maybe the schedule not has pushed them. If teams get tough on the road, you could argue the 15 games played at home have been the hardest games for the Lakers because the road team has played hard in these. Therefore if the Lakers are being lazy at home and are still going 14-2 at home, then they don't even need a "spark" because they are a great team if they can be lazy and still beat teams that are "tough" on the road.

Basically, the Lakers don't even need a "spark." They just got through the toughest part of its schedule without it and will just get "tough" on the road. Take your theory, that I just disproved with logic, and shove it up your butt Plaschke. Please don't lisp-spit on me.

Also, the Lakers are 14-2 at home and 7-1 on the road, that equals out to the EXACT SAME WINNING PERCENTAGE both places. So I just disproved your road/home theory with logic and numbers. I win.

Like their team, they both need to grow, and fast, no matter what the record says.

No, they don't. They are getting ready to play games on the road where they will no longer be lazy. The Lakers have the league right where they want them right now. The "spark" of playing on the road in a hostile environment is going to catapult them to the stratosphere in "sparkiness."

Why so serious Bill?

The Lakers are a sultry, splendid 21-3.

Now if they'd only act like it.

The Lakers are 21-3. If only you would write columns about this and not some mysterious "spark" that playing on the road, Kobe Bryant, or Jordan Farmar will provide. You are officially on my watch list you incompetent little bugger. Or as you would say.

My watch list. That is where Bill is. He is a little bugger.