Alex Rodriguez hit .250/.356/.486 this year with 33 home runs, which surprised the shit out of me. That's pretty damn good for a guy who is 40 years old. Of course, as soon as he starts hitting poorly next year the New York media will jump all over him again for the mistake of continuously getting older. Regardless of how good of a year A-Rod had at the plate, and regardless of how little controversy he stirred up, he still did many things wrong. He participated in an unfunny skit, he didn't increase YES ratings, he made his teammates like him, and most egregiously, he showed up early to Spring Training. Simply because the season is over doesn't mean that A-Rod still isn't doing things wrong. Of course. Now he was hired as an analyst for Fox during the playoffs and is ruining everything for "the kids," while poisoning their mind with the idea if they use steroids to enhance their performance then they may one day also be able to be a sports analyst. Christine Brennan has had enough of this and does a public service by finally speaking out about this travesty. In fact, Brennan says they (Fox) "swing and miss" (GET IT?????????) by hiring A-Rod as an analyst.
Of the thousands of baseball players and experts Fox Sports could have
selected to appear on its postseason shows, it picked the worst.
You mean the guy who has been banned from baseball permanently, Pete Rose?
It chose the most notorious, earnest and purposeful cheater to ever play
the game. It chose the man whose name is synonymous with
performance-enhancing drugs.
Barry Bonds? Roger Clemens? Mike Piazza's bacne?
It chose A-Rod.
Oh no, not A-Rod. His mere presence on the Yankees roster has caused steroid use among youth to be nearly tripled since April. Millions of kids are dying, with their last breath screaming, "I just wanted to be like A-Rod!" What about "the kids," doesn't Fox care about the kids at all?
Alex Rodriguez,
who admitted to using steroids from 2001-03 and then was suspended for
the entire 2014 season for his big role in the Biogenesis scandal, isn’t
just any old baseball steroids guy. He is the guy.
He's the guy unless you want to consider Mark McGwire "the guy," Barry Bonds "the guy" or Roger Clemens "the guy." It all depends on the type of article being written really. In this case, A-Rod is "the guy" but this could change if the column is about which current Hall of Fame eligible players should receive the honor of induction. When it comes to a Hall of Fame discussion, McGwire, Bonds and Clemens are the face of steroids. In fact, I would argue given all the government resources and the hysteria surrounding the breaking of Roger Maris' home run record that these three players will always be the face of the Steroid Era. I don't see A-Rod in that role.
Congratulations, Fox.
You're ruined the world's ability to prevent drug use among teens and driven thousands of young children away from the heroin they are using and into the arms of steroids by hiring A-Rod. Congrats.
What a terrible message this sends to children
WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING KIDS? DO "THE KIDS" KNOW ABOUT A-ROD BEING ON FOX? WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES IT SEND WHICH SAYS A BASEBALL PLAYER WHO CHEATED IS STILL CAPABLE OF DISCUSSING BASEBALL IN A NETWORK TELEVISION ENVIRONMENT?
if kids actually watched playoff baseball games anymore.
Oh, so it's not hurting the kids at all because they don't watch baseball? So disaster averted and we can all move on to other things. Though, if "the kids" did still watch baseball then A-Rod being on Fox would be a total disaster. Let's assume kids don't watch baseball, acknowledge nobody watches FS1 (yet...ever?), and still work under the assumption that A-Rod is singlehandedly poisoning today's youth. Sound like fun? Great, Christine Brennan will now continue.
Experts say the use of performance-enhancing drugs by kids in high school sports has reached epidemic proportions.
Experts also say kids in high school are increasingly getting addicted to heroin and other drugs such as that. I'm not going to downplay the impact of steroids, but the use of heroin among high school kids has also reached epidemic proportions. I really don't believe A-Rod being an analyst for Fox is going to drive more kids towards using steroids any more than his playing baseball for 162 games a year would drive them in that direction already.
Seeing superstars suspended or hauled before Congress can act an a deterrent to these kids.
This is the biggest crock of shit I have read in this column so far. Hauling these superstars before Congress can serve as a deterrent to these kids? I have quite a few issues with this statement.
1. How does Christine Brennan know this is true? Is there research she can cite that says seeing superstars hauled before Congress is a deterrent to drug use among kids? Is there anything she can use to show this as a true statement, outside of any anecdotal evidence or the idea this is what she WANTS to believe is true? I see nothing in this column confirming this statement isn't a lie.
2. If superstars being hauled before Congress or being suspended really served as a deterrent, then how come experts say the use of PED's by kids is reaching epidemic proportions? Using logic, which I know isn't something Christine is doing right now, wouldn't the stricter MLB drug policy after the Steroid Era where big name players (like A-Rod) have been suspended have served as a deterrent to using PED's?
3. Christine Brennan can't cite how A-Rod has been suspended twice, in an effort to expose his true villain tendencies, then explain that's why he shouldn't be working for Fox, and then claim seeing baseball players get suspended serves as a deterrent to kids. It doesn't work this way. So if seeing players get suspended did serve as a deterrent, then it wouldn't make a difference at all if A-Rod works for Fox during the postseason.
4. If seeing superstars hauled before Congress was a deterrent, then there should be a decrease in high school kids using PED's. These kids grew up seeing Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Clemens hauled in front of Congress and in court fighting accusations of PED use. Seeing this would cause a decrease in PED use among high school kids, if this statement by Brennan wasn't a crock of shit.
Seeing them propped up on pre-game shows as faux stars does not.
But A-Rod has been suspended! That's the deterrent for "the kids," right?
Perhaps next year, Fox can put together a panel featuring A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro.
Bonds has worked with Giants hitters during Spring Training and McGwire has been a hitting coach in the majors. I get how Christine Brennan is upset, but it's well-known in baseball that A-Rod is a student of the game and knows something about hitting. He's a cheat and has a huge ego, but he's also really good at hitting a baseball and analyzing the game.
Fox Sports’ baseball audience is minuscule compared with the NFL’s, but
that doesn’t make the network’s decision any less egregious. In fact,
that’s probably why Fox did it, to try to boost ratings.
Let's see...no one watches Fox, players like A-Rod who get suspended serve as a deterrent to kids and kids don't watch baseball anyway. So how are A-Rod and Fox ruining kids by having him show up on their postseason coverage again?
It’s not a coincidence that one of Rodriguez’s fellow studio analysts is Pete Rose.
It's not a coincidence. Fox wants ratings and they want guys on their postseason shows that have played in the postseason and played the game at a high level. They also want eyes on their show and Rose/A-Rod also serve that purpose. ESPN hired Tim Tebow, but is he more qualified to talk about college football because he's a good person, as compared to the qualifications of Rose/A-Rod to talk about baseball even though they haven't always been good people? I wouldn't think so.
Our senses are so dulled by the misbehavior of athletes these days that
most of us probably don’t give it a second thought when a bad guy like
Rodriguez shows up talking about the playoffs. Do we have any standards
anymore?
I bet Christine Brennan's editor asked this same question when reading this article.
Or maybe we still do. Could you imagine an Olympics telecast featuring Ben Johnson? Lance Armstrong hosting coverage of the Tour de France?
It feels different with A-Rod being on MLB's postseason coverage. Perhaps because he is still an active player and has served his suspension. I can't explain the difference honestly.
Tonya Harding on Olympic figure skating? Thankfully, I think we’re safe from all three, at least for a few more years.
If she knew enough about Olympic figure skating these days, then I would have no issue with Tonya Harding commenting on Olympic figure skating. The issue is there are more knowledgeable commentators available to discuss Olympic figure skating. A-Rod is a really knowledgeable source about baseball and knows today's players because he is still an active player himself.
For all baseball’s talk and action on the subject of PEDs, it has never
taken them as seriously as the Olympic world has, and it still does not.
But MLB takes PED's much more seriously than every other major sport. Sorry, but the NFL and the NBA have a PED problem (mostly the NFL) even if they don't know it yet. Human beings don't look like NFL players look and I don't believe some guys in the NBA get as strong as they are without some additional help. I'm not pointing a finger at any certain players, but MLB has a strong PED policy. It's not strong enough for some people, of course. It never will be.
That’s why the sport allows someone who has flaunted the rules as badly as A-Rod has to still be one of the faces of the game.
A-Rod is not one of the faces of MLB. He is not. He's never really even been the face of the Yankees either. A-Rod doing postseason work for Fox doesn't make him a face of baseball. Max Scherzer does postseason work for Fox too and I'm not sure he can be considered one of the faces of baseball (perhaps wrongly). Even on his own team, Bryce Harper, Jonathan Papelbon and Stephen Strasburg move the needle more than Scherzer tends to, even if Scherzer appears on Fox's postseason coverage.
This tells us that the game, and Fox Sports, will do anything to get attention.
"The game" had nothing to do with Fox hiring A-Rod. That was a decision by Fox. Trust me, if MLB really had an issue with Pete Rose and A-Rod being hired by Fox then neither of these individuals would be working on Fox's postseason coverage.
Anything.
What about "the kids?" What will the kids who don't watch baseball on Fox and who are already deterred from using PED's by A-Rod's suspension for PED use think about A-Rod being seen on Fox's postseason coverage? Will it drive them right back into the arms of PED's, seeing that they could also one day get a job as a studio analyst if they just use enough PED's to get there? What will happen if an entire generation of studio analysts use PED's in order to further their career and make an even playing field that much more uneven?
Showing posts with label do it for the kids. Show all posts
Showing posts with label do it for the kids. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Monday, October 5, 2015
2 comments Phil Mushnick Is Tired of These Showboats and Knows David Cone Agrees With Him On This Even Though He Says He Doesn't
Phil Mushnick is the crankiest of cranky-pant sportswriters. He hates everything. Well, he doesn't hate how things used to be back when athletes didn't show off (you know, show off in a way like pointing to centerfield when he was predicting he would hit a home run), didn't say things for attention (you know, like predict a Super Bowl victory while lounging at the pool), and certainly weren't me-first athletes like today's athlete is. Phil Mushnick misses those days that most certainly never actually occurred. Now it's just athletes out for themselves and the media looking to pander to these athletes. This just infuriates Phil. Much like everything outside of the existence of oxygen infuriates Phil. Mushnick knows David Cone agrees about how showboating is ruining sports, despite Cone actually saying that he does not agree. It's just "The Man" forcing Cone to say these things and that's why he doesn't agree with Phil, not because he really doesn't agree the modern athlete is too much of a showboat. After all, sports ARE NOT intended to be entertainment, so Phil doesn't know where these athletes get off trying to be entertaining.
In the discourse of a week, how much of what we’re told to believe by experts is not even believed by the experts?
42.35%. That's how much we are told to believe on the air by experts is not actually believed by these experts. Well actually, these experts don't actually tell us to believe these things they don't believe, but they simply don't spend most of a game's broadcast ignoring the game in favor of railing against showboating in sports. Phil Mushnick takes this to mean these experts LOVE showboating, because they do their job, which is to call the game and not interject personal opinions on the downfall of sports civility into the broadcast at every possible chance.
John Madden, off air, claimed to dislike all the chest-pounding and trash-talking. He said he didn’t like show-offs. Who does?
It depends on your definition of a "show-off." I'd also like to add that John Madden coached the Raiders back when they were the hard-hitting and personality-driven Raiders teams, so the fact he claims to not like trash-talking and chest-pounding is kind of ironic given the teams Madden coached. Jack Tatum fucking paralyzed Darryl Stingley during a preseason game. But again, let's forget all this and paint John Madden as a guy who prefers straight-laced players. I like myths.
Yet on the air, over forced laughs, he said he loved the biggest all-about-me guys — Deion Sanders and Randy Moss, for two — as great entertainers.
Because that's what they are, entertainers. It's sports. Sports are supposed to be fun and entertaining, not boring. I realize the fact sports are supposed to be entertaining causes Phil Mushnick to stare disapprovingly over the top of his glasses and shake his head.
Of course, Madden’s big-selling video games were — still are — loaded with excessively brutal images and showboating, a primary come-on as seen in commercials and on the packaging. Madden made an added fortune encouraging the young to believe what he doesn’t believe.
I'm pretty sure John Madden never came out on telecasts and said he loved showboating and how players talk trash all the time. Also, Madden wasn't deeply involved with the "Madden" football games to where he probably has a clue what sort of in-depth imagery the game is showing. And one more thing, it's a fucking video game. Brutal images and showboating? It's a video game that is supposed to be fun. Put the pitchforks back to wherever the hell you got them from.
Friday, the Yanks were down, 5-0, in the first, when Alex Rodriguez took an inside first pitch that was called a strike. On YES, Rodriguez was seen questioning the umpire. Also on YES, Paul O’Neill said this about that:
A-Rod was questioning the umpire? What a terrible display of showboating from A-Rod to question the umpire. No old-school baseball player would EVER question an umpire's decision-making ability. These young kids (A-Rod is 40 years old) just don't know the respect that previous generations who absolutely refused to question the umpire knew.
(Phil Mushnick goes outside to get his paper and shakes his fist at the neighborhood kids who once again are playing near the curb, which is where his flowers are planted. Such a "me-first" attitude on these kids. Back in Phil's day, kids would stay as far away from flowers as possible, but these days because of video games, kids think it's perfectly fine to stand in close proximity to flowers.)
“That’s the count I don’t think umpires understand. Strike one or ball one changes the whole at bat.”
OK, but what was O’Neill suggesting? Umps should call the first pitch differently from all others?
I think it is very clear what O'Neill was suggesting. He's suggesting that the umpires pay great attention to making sure the call on the first pitch is the correct one. O'Neill isn't suggesting the umps call the first pitch differently, but wants them to pay extra special attention to making sure the call is correct on the first pitch. It would be nice if the home plate umpire would pay special attention to every pitch, but O'Neill was simply observing the first pitch sets up how the rest of the at-bat may go. There is a reason pitching coaches love their pitchers to throw first pitch strikes. I understand though. I understand Phil's job is to bitch about sports and not actually understand the sport he is bitching about.
Wouldn’t he prefer that umpires “understand” all pitches the same — as balls or strikes?
Yes, he would. He was simply observing the first pitch is very important because it decides the direction of an at-bat in some ways and an umpire needs to be sure he doesn't miss a call on the first pitch. That's all.
In the fourth, the Jays’ Edwin Encarnacion homered to make it 8-1. Instead of quickly circling the bases, he took his time, extending his right arm as if a bird were perched on it. “Walk-the-parrot” is the latest in ESPN-rewarded check-me-out attention-grabs.
I remember the time (okay, I don't remember it, but I remember the story about it) Babe Ruth pointed to center field and predicted he would hit a home run in the World Series. ESPN wasn't around, so why did Ruth do this? Of course, this isn't showboating, it's just a fun story about a great baseball player.
“Does that bother you, Coney?” O’Neill asked David Cone.
And it likely bothered O’Neill, or he wouldn’t have asked.
Or it didn't bother O'Neill as an ex-hitter and he wondered if an ex-pitcher was also not bothered by Encarnacion's "parrot" walk. Phil Mushnick just makes the assumption that O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question of whether someone else was bothered. This is a potentially incorrect assumption. Perhaps O'Neill just wanted the perspective of an ex-pitcher on Encarnacion's walk.
But Phil Mushnick doesn't think like this. He assumes a conclusion and then fits his argument to fit that conclusion, even if the conclusion takes more assumptions to fit into the argument. Obviously O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question, obviously David Cone is bothered because Phil Mushnick wants him to be bothered and obviously when Cone says he isn't bothered then he is simply kowtowing to the corporate gods who he owes his broadcasting career to. So David Cone's opinion isn't his real opinion and Phil Mushnick knows this because he wants Cone's real opinion to agree with what he's writing in this column. Because any fan of the Braves knows the corporate gods who hand out broadcasting jobs would not immediately fire announcers who appear stodgy and behind the times. Joe Simpson and Chip Caray are so modern and allow their thoughts to be determined by what is currently popular. Mushnick is working under the assumption YES doesn't want their announcers sounding behind the times, while anyone who watches a baseball game on television and hears the announcers talk know this isn't true.
What we know personally and professionally about Cone is he must hate it; hate it as a former pitcher, a dad, a sportsman and a right-headed human.
The opinion Cone espouses on television to thousands watching and listening must not be his real opinion because it's not what Phil Mushnick wants David Cone to believe. Cone's own opinion isn't his real opinion. "The Man" is just keeping Cone down and Mushnick knows this is true because he wants it to be true so his opinion on showboating can be held as the correct opinion and not the opinion of an old man who needlessly complains about entertainment being too entertaining.
But he couldn’t or wouldn’t say it for fear of condemnation as out-of-touch with an anything-goes, bereft-of-sport sports world, so he took the modern media path and pandered to it, blessed wrong as right:
Because, again, baseball announcers are never saying anything that seems out-of-touch during a baseball broadcast. This never happens. I like how Phil creates his own reality where even those things that others say which may seem to disagree with a position Phil holds are not truly the opinion that person holds. It's all because "The Man" is going to keep them down and prevent any deviation from the modern media path. That's the only real explanation for why a person affiliated with sports would disagree with Phil's opinion. "The Man" is forcing them to hold an opinion they don't agree with. You know sort of the same thing, except using the opposing point of view, that Phil Mushnick does by insisting those who don't agree with him must really agree with him. He forces his opinion on others and won't allow anyone with a different opinion from him to hold that opinion.
“Nowadays, it’s a different game. Buck Showalter had an interesting comment about it: Modern ballplayers are responsible for this, about governing their play. If they’re OK with it, he’s OK with it. …
David Cone thinks baseball players should police themselves, which is definitely an old-school mentality. Perhaps "The Man" allows Cone to say some old-school things, but admitting he doesn't like showboating crosses the line. Or maybe, Phil Mushnick is wrong and David Cone's opinion really is his opinion.
“Some of it has been good for the game. The old days of keeping your head down and not showing anyone up — that’s a thing of the past. And in some ways, that’s a good thing. You still want to respect the game, but there’s a fine line there and you know when you cross it.
Oh yeah, this is a totally modern point of view. Look at David Cone sticking hard to the party line. He's talking about respecting the game and there being a line you don't cross in terms of celebrating. It sounds pretty much like Cone believes the old-school way of players policing themselves and a player not celebrating too much, except that can't be true, because "The Man" has Cone under his thumb and is forcing Cone to not agree with Phil Mushnick on whether Edwin Encarnacion's "parrot" celebration is too much showboating. It's a huge conspiracy.
“If you hit a home run into the upper deck and you want to ‘walk the parrot,’ go ahead, walk the parrot. … It’s definitely a more lenient attitude toward the display of emotions, which for, the younger generation is a good thing.”
Against every wish Phil Mushnick has, times change. Players display more emotions this day in age than they used to (or maybe they do, I'm not even sure this is true), so David Cone has come to terms with this and realizes it's not bad for the game. Of course, Phil Mushnick secretly thinks David Cone is lying. Or does he? Now, showing thorough senility, Phil manages to argue with the opinion that he doesn't truly believe David Cone holds. So Phil thinks Cone doesn't like celebrations like "walk the parrot," but then argues with Cone over an opinion he doesn't believe Cone really holds.
Really? Immodesty — often rehearsed and planned — is a good thing?
Cone didn't say anything about "immodesty" and therein lies the issue. Phil thinks it is immodest to celebrate a home run with a "walk the parrot" celebration, but Cone sees it as just a part of the game that is acceptable as long as the players find it acceptable. Phil can label this "immodesty," but that doesn't mean it's true.
The most conspicuous rewards such “natural enthusiasm” reaps are brawls, personal fouls and striking home-run poses — posing doubles and into singles.
Well, there are no personal fouls in baseball. Even in basketball, personal fouls are a part of the game and not always as a result of a player showboating. Also, baseball brawls were around well before Edwin Encarnacion started strutting around the bases like a parrot. So what was the reason for baseball brawls back in the good old days when athletes were modest and never celebrated? You know, those days that never existed which Phil clings so tightly to. Brawls happened then, but supposedly players didn't showboat. I wonder how Phil explains this.
Forgive me, but I don’t believe a word of what Cone or Showalter said; I believe that they believe that it stinks, that showboating has no tangible or next-generation upside, leaving our sports in further decay.
I don't need to forgive you for being senile and trying to force your point of view on others. I realize that you realize your argument sucks and so you need to make many assumptions in order to even churn out 250 words on a topic. Regardless of your opinion on showboating, pretending someone agrees with you because you so desperately want them to is pathetic. In fact, just assuming people agree with your opinion is immodest isn't it?
In the discourse of a week, how much of what we’re told to believe by experts is not even believed by the experts?
42.35%. That's how much we are told to believe on the air by experts is not actually believed by these experts. Well actually, these experts don't actually tell us to believe these things they don't believe, but they simply don't spend most of a game's broadcast ignoring the game in favor of railing against showboating in sports. Phil Mushnick takes this to mean these experts LOVE showboating, because they do their job, which is to call the game and not interject personal opinions on the downfall of sports civility into the broadcast at every possible chance.
John Madden, off air, claimed to dislike all the chest-pounding and trash-talking. He said he didn’t like show-offs. Who does?
It depends on your definition of a "show-off." I'd also like to add that John Madden coached the Raiders back when they were the hard-hitting and personality-driven Raiders teams, so the fact he claims to not like trash-talking and chest-pounding is kind of ironic given the teams Madden coached. Jack Tatum fucking paralyzed Darryl Stingley during a preseason game. But again, let's forget all this and paint John Madden as a guy who prefers straight-laced players. I like myths.
Yet on the air, over forced laughs, he said he loved the biggest all-about-me guys — Deion Sanders and Randy Moss, for two — as great entertainers.
Because that's what they are, entertainers. It's sports. Sports are supposed to be fun and entertaining, not boring. I realize the fact sports are supposed to be entertaining causes Phil Mushnick to stare disapprovingly over the top of his glasses and shake his head.
Of course, Madden’s big-selling video games were — still are — loaded with excessively brutal images and showboating, a primary come-on as seen in commercials and on the packaging. Madden made an added fortune encouraging the young to believe what he doesn’t believe.
I'm pretty sure John Madden never came out on telecasts and said he loved showboating and how players talk trash all the time. Also, Madden wasn't deeply involved with the "Madden" football games to where he probably has a clue what sort of in-depth imagery the game is showing. And one more thing, it's a fucking video game. Brutal images and showboating? It's a video game that is supposed to be fun. Put the pitchforks back to wherever the hell you got them from.
Friday, the Yanks were down, 5-0, in the first, when Alex Rodriguez took an inside first pitch that was called a strike. On YES, Rodriguez was seen questioning the umpire. Also on YES, Paul O’Neill said this about that:
A-Rod was questioning the umpire? What a terrible display of showboating from A-Rod to question the umpire. No old-school baseball player would EVER question an umpire's decision-making ability. These young kids (A-Rod is 40 years old) just don't know the respect that previous generations who absolutely refused to question the umpire knew.
(Phil Mushnick goes outside to get his paper and shakes his fist at the neighborhood kids who once again are playing near the curb, which is where his flowers are planted. Such a "me-first" attitude on these kids. Back in Phil's day, kids would stay as far away from flowers as possible, but these days because of video games, kids think it's perfectly fine to stand in close proximity to flowers.)
“That’s the count I don’t think umpires understand. Strike one or ball one changes the whole at bat.”
OK, but what was O’Neill suggesting? Umps should call the first pitch differently from all others?
I think it is very clear what O'Neill was suggesting. He's suggesting that the umpires pay great attention to making sure the call on the first pitch is the correct one. O'Neill isn't suggesting the umps call the first pitch differently, but wants them to pay extra special attention to making sure the call is correct on the first pitch. It would be nice if the home plate umpire would pay special attention to every pitch, but O'Neill was simply observing the first pitch sets up how the rest of the at-bat may go. There is a reason pitching coaches love their pitchers to throw first pitch strikes. I understand though. I understand Phil's job is to bitch about sports and not actually understand the sport he is bitching about.
Wouldn’t he prefer that umpires “understand” all pitches the same — as balls or strikes?
Yes, he would. He was simply observing the first pitch is very important because it decides the direction of an at-bat in some ways and an umpire needs to be sure he doesn't miss a call on the first pitch. That's all.
In the fourth, the Jays’ Edwin Encarnacion homered to make it 8-1. Instead of quickly circling the bases, he took his time, extending his right arm as if a bird were perched on it. “Walk-the-parrot” is the latest in ESPN-rewarded check-me-out attention-grabs.
I remember the time (okay, I don't remember it, but I remember the story about it) Babe Ruth pointed to center field and predicted he would hit a home run in the World Series. ESPN wasn't around, so why did Ruth do this? Of course, this isn't showboating, it's just a fun story about a great baseball player.
“Does that bother you, Coney?” O’Neill asked David Cone.
And it likely bothered O’Neill, or he wouldn’t have asked.
Or it didn't bother O'Neill as an ex-hitter and he wondered if an ex-pitcher was also not bothered by Encarnacion's "parrot" walk. Phil Mushnick just makes the assumption that O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question of whether someone else was bothered. This is a potentially incorrect assumption. Perhaps O'Neill just wanted the perspective of an ex-pitcher on Encarnacion's walk.
But Phil Mushnick doesn't think like this. He assumes a conclusion and then fits his argument to fit that conclusion, even if the conclusion takes more assumptions to fit into the argument. Obviously O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question, obviously David Cone is bothered because Phil Mushnick wants him to be bothered and obviously when Cone says he isn't bothered then he is simply kowtowing to the corporate gods who he owes his broadcasting career to. So David Cone's opinion isn't his real opinion and Phil Mushnick knows this because he wants Cone's real opinion to agree with what he's writing in this column. Because any fan of the Braves knows the corporate gods who hand out broadcasting jobs would not immediately fire announcers who appear stodgy and behind the times. Joe Simpson and Chip Caray are so modern and allow their thoughts to be determined by what is currently popular. Mushnick is working under the assumption YES doesn't want their announcers sounding behind the times, while anyone who watches a baseball game on television and hears the announcers talk know this isn't true.
What we know personally and professionally about Cone is he must hate it; hate it as a former pitcher, a dad, a sportsman and a right-headed human.
The opinion Cone espouses on television to thousands watching and listening must not be his real opinion because it's not what Phil Mushnick wants David Cone to believe. Cone's own opinion isn't his real opinion. "The Man" is just keeping Cone down and Mushnick knows this is true because he wants it to be true so his opinion on showboating can be held as the correct opinion and not the opinion of an old man who needlessly complains about entertainment being too entertaining.
But he couldn’t or wouldn’t say it for fear of condemnation as out-of-touch with an anything-goes, bereft-of-sport sports world, so he took the modern media path and pandered to it, blessed wrong as right:
Because, again, baseball announcers are never saying anything that seems out-of-touch during a baseball broadcast. This never happens. I like how Phil creates his own reality where even those things that others say which may seem to disagree with a position Phil holds are not truly the opinion that person holds. It's all because "The Man" is going to keep them down and prevent any deviation from the modern media path. That's the only real explanation for why a person affiliated with sports would disagree with Phil's opinion. "The Man" is forcing them to hold an opinion they don't agree with. You know sort of the same thing, except using the opposing point of view, that Phil Mushnick does by insisting those who don't agree with him must really agree with him. He forces his opinion on others and won't allow anyone with a different opinion from him to hold that opinion.
“Nowadays, it’s a different game. Buck Showalter had an interesting comment about it: Modern ballplayers are responsible for this, about governing their play. If they’re OK with it, he’s OK with it. …
David Cone thinks baseball players should police themselves, which is definitely an old-school mentality. Perhaps "The Man" allows Cone to say some old-school things, but admitting he doesn't like showboating crosses the line. Or maybe, Phil Mushnick is wrong and David Cone's opinion really is his opinion.
“Some of it has been good for the game. The old days of keeping your head down and not showing anyone up — that’s a thing of the past. And in some ways, that’s a good thing. You still want to respect the game, but there’s a fine line there and you know when you cross it.
Oh yeah, this is a totally modern point of view. Look at David Cone sticking hard to the party line. He's talking about respecting the game and there being a line you don't cross in terms of celebrating. It sounds pretty much like Cone believes the old-school way of players policing themselves and a player not celebrating too much, except that can't be true, because "The Man" has Cone under his thumb and is forcing Cone to not agree with Phil Mushnick on whether Edwin Encarnacion's "parrot" celebration is too much showboating. It's a huge conspiracy.
“If you hit a home run into the upper deck and you want to ‘walk the parrot,’ go ahead, walk the parrot. … It’s definitely a more lenient attitude toward the display of emotions, which for, the younger generation is a good thing.”
Against every wish Phil Mushnick has, times change. Players display more emotions this day in age than they used to (or maybe they do, I'm not even sure this is true), so David Cone has come to terms with this and realizes it's not bad for the game. Of course, Phil Mushnick secretly thinks David Cone is lying. Or does he? Now, showing thorough senility, Phil manages to argue with the opinion that he doesn't truly believe David Cone holds. So Phil thinks Cone doesn't like celebrations like "walk the parrot," but then argues with Cone over an opinion he doesn't believe Cone really holds.
Really? Immodesty — often rehearsed and planned — is a good thing?
Cone didn't say anything about "immodesty" and therein lies the issue. Phil thinks it is immodest to celebrate a home run with a "walk the parrot" celebration, but Cone sees it as just a part of the game that is acceptable as long as the players find it acceptable. Phil can label this "immodesty," but that doesn't mean it's true.
The most conspicuous rewards such “natural enthusiasm” reaps are brawls, personal fouls and striking home-run poses — posing doubles and into singles.
Well, there are no personal fouls in baseball. Even in basketball, personal fouls are a part of the game and not always as a result of a player showboating. Also, baseball brawls were around well before Edwin Encarnacion started strutting around the bases like a parrot. So what was the reason for baseball brawls back in the good old days when athletes were modest and never celebrated? You know, those days that never existed which Phil clings so tightly to. Brawls happened then, but supposedly players didn't showboat. I wonder how Phil explains this.
Forgive me, but I don’t believe a word of what Cone or Showalter said; I believe that they believe that it stinks, that showboating has no tangible or next-generation upside, leaving our sports in further decay.
I don't need to forgive you for being senile and trying to force your point of view on others. I realize that you realize your argument sucks and so you need to make many assumptions in order to even churn out 250 words on a topic. Regardless of your opinion on showboating, pretending someone agrees with you because you so desperately want them to is pathetic. In fact, just assuming people agree with your opinion is immodest isn't it?
Monday, June 15, 2015
4 comments Slate Wants to Get Rid of Youth Sports Leagues, Because This Will Totally Get Rid of Obnoxious Sports Parents
Baseball is dying, football will eventually die and now "Slate" wants to get rid of youth sports leagues. It appears that sports, while seemingly to be as popular as they have ever been, are in fact dying. Who knew? A columnist for "Slate" writes that it is time to get rid of youth leagues, specifically Little League, because it serves no purpose other than to allow parents to fill the void in their own soul through their children's sports activities. God knows if youth leagues went away parents would find no other way to fill that empty part of their soul where the crowning sports glories of the past that never happened reside. Get rid of Little League, get rid of obnoxious sports parents. Plus, one city has shown a decrease in sports participation and it may be a sign youth sports participation is declining everywhere. So rather than answer the question of whether this decline in youth league participation is just indicative of one specific area and not a worldwide trend, the author responds to this possibility with "Who cares," which probably sums up his attitude towards youth sports and affects his point of view that all youth sports should be eliminated. Because mostly, we can't have kids becoming stressed. Kids who become stressed become adults who haven't learned how to deal with stress and adults who don't know to handle stress are definitely the type of person the world needs more of. Parents would never find a way to stress their children out if it weren't for youth sports. No way. No how.
Is Little League participation on the wane? And, if so, should we care?
Who cares if Little League participation is on the wane? If you don't care for Little League like the author doesn't care for Little League then that's his point of view. End of column. The author doesn't care if Little League dies or not, while those who do care can continue to participate. Good talk. Let's move on to ano---
Those were two major questions raised by a Wall Street Journal piece from last week documenting the apparent decline of casual sporting leagues in a nation of kids who have either been bewitched by video games or encouraged to specialize in one sport year-round—or both, if the sport in which they specialize is competitive Minecraft.
Here's my issue with casual sporting leagues. It's not that I don't want my kids to participate, but it's a massive time suck. There are only so many hours in a day and one practice during the middle of the week for an hour, combined with games every Saturday morning can kill a family's free time. That's just for one kid. If a family has multiple children, that's multiple games during the weekend and multiple practices during the week. I don't think that's the entire reason why youth leagues have declined, but kids participating in sporting events all year round means all year round the kids will have to be somewhere at 6pm every single Tuesday evening and be free every Saturday from 8am to 11am (depending on the time of the game) nine months of the year. When there are two parents working and other kids in the household who have shit to do during the week, it becomes a time suck. No more do we live in a society where mommy can take the kids to soccer practice at 5:30 a couple times a week. Mommy sometimes doesn't get home until 5:45pm and then mommy wants to do shit that mommy wants to do, like stop doing work or eat a plate of food. I'm sure these were problems in the past as well, but from my personal experience, these leagues are a time suck, especially when practice takes place in the middle of the week. But there are parents who don't mind their child participating in one sport or participating in all sorts of sports throughout the year. They enjoy youth sports and that's good for them. I enjoyed youth sports as a kid, but I also used to ride my bike to tennis and baseball practice, and now parents are generally required to stand there while practice is going on. My parents didn't have to attend practice for two of the four sports I played because I went alone.
{I was thinking about this the other day. I rode my bike to school everyday...elementary school. I met my friends outside their house and we rode our bike three miles to school. I would go to school, come home, do my homework and then leave again. I would never let my kid do that. Same goes for tennis and baseball practice. My mom was not there for either practice. She just knew where I was (without a cell phone!) and trusted I would be home at some point or later tell her where I was going. Now if my son wants to play soccer, practice is on a field that is eight miles away from my house. It's just how it is I guess, but I think this has something to do with youth leagues being on the decline. Parents have less free time and don't feel right sending their kid out the door by themselves. If I sent my son out the door to go to the park by himself he would look at me like I was drunk. He's going to be nine years old in July. He can ride his bike 2.5 miles to the park, but the idea I would let him do that would blow his mind. I recognize this is anecdotal evidence, but I do believe time constraints are part of the reason for decline in youth sports league participation...assuming it is declining.}
Whether you find the WSJ report convincing and conclusive—and there are good reasons to be skeptical of it—it should raise in your mind an overwhelmingly important point: Little League and other youth sports leagues are terrible, and we should not be sad to see them go.
Nope. Not really. Perhaps the author doesn't care for youth sports, but they teach teamwork and are fun to play. I would play youth league sports if it weren't for the fact I'm not a youth. Some of the best memories of my childhood was playing youth sports. They can be terrible at times, but they can also be great. Much like everything else in the world.
the Journal reported that while 8.8 million children between the ages of 7 and 17 played baseball in 2000, only 5.3 million children in that age group did the same in 2013. It’s worth noting, though, that the study seems to document declining youth participation in almost all sports, not just baseball.
But of course the author only focuses on Little League, because baseball is dying and all of that. May as well just stick to the story.
By the way, the fact participation has declined around all sports (I believe) reflects the demographic changes more than it reflects declining interest in organized youth sports. Sports are very popular and more and more families just don't have the time for their kids to take part in multiple sports over a calendar year.
The only sport highlighted by the Journal with increased participation from 2000 to 2013 is tackle football,
And more and more kids are playing only one sport and it makes sense the kid's choice would be the most current most popular sport.
proving once again that Americans do not read the newspaper.
Or proving once again that kids like football and parents haven't gotten to the point they where they believe football can't be made reasonably safe at the youth league level.
The Journal also reported on the declining fortunes of a youth baseball league in Newburgh, New York, a city “on the front lines of the fight for baseball’s future.” Whereas 206 children played Little League in Newburgh in 2009, only 74 signed up to play this year
A sample size of one city. What could go wrong with extrapolating a larger trend out of this one city's fortunes?
Extrapolated to the wider world, this purported Little League participation crisis is bad news for Major League Baseball, given that the boy who plays baseball grows up to be the man who spends $149 on a Mark Trumbo jersey.
Baseball is dying at a much younger age now! Also, you can get a Mark Trumbo jersey for cheaper than $149. If a man spends that much on a jersey there is a chance he is getting ripped off.
Is the Newburgh Little League crisis truly indicative of broader Little League trends? Or is the Journal’s piece just a small-sample-size look at the amateur sporting fortunes of an impoverished city in a cold-weather region?
Great question. Let's see i---
And does it matter?
Since this is the second time you have posed this question and this entire column is based around the premise that this one small sample size is indicative of a larger trend, then yes, I would say that it does matter. I do like how the author throws out potentially misleading information and then rather investigate whether the information is misleading or not he just throws his hands up and says, "Fuck it, let's pretend it's accurate." The author makes contentions and then tries to end the discussion with "And does it matter?" before these contentions can be proven correct or incorrect.
Along with Mom and apple pie, Little League baseball symbolizes wholesome Americana. But just as apple pie is fattening and Mom won’t stop nagging you to come visit, neither is Little League an unalloyed good.
In your opinion, not on the whole.
Little League was founded in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, in the 1930s by a man named Carl Stotz who grew to hate what his creation became. “Originally, I had envisioned baseball for youngsters strictly on the local level without national playoffs and World Series and all that stuff,” Stotz later said, according to Mark Hyman in his book on youth sports, Until It Hurts. Then, in the 1950s, businessmen essentially staged a hostile takeover, forced Stotz out of the league, and proceeded to turn it into the worldwide entity that it is today, with its international World Series and its ESPN affiliation.
So for the last 60 years Little League has been a corporate creation that takes the soul out of sports? Interesting that youth league participating is only now declining. Besides, someone is going to find a way to make a buck off almost anything sports related. It's nearly impossible to avoid.
I became utterly disgusted,” said Stotz. He died a bitter man.
I'm sorry this happened, but it doesn't mean that Little League doesn't serve some good.
Stotz found the bigness of Little League to be awful in part because it seemed like an exploitative ploy that used kids’ athletic ambitions to fill adult-sized voids.
And if Little League didn't exist then these adults would have no other way to fill those voids. Is that what I am to believe? Outside of outlawing sports on the whole, there is really no way for society to prevent adults living their athletic ambitions through their children. And why is Little League getting picked on here, like there aren't other sports where adults live out their athletic fantasies? Spending time trying to prevent parents from living out their athletic fantasies through their children is a fool's errand.
For children, Carriere argues, Little League served to reinforce social order; it was “a highly supervised activity that engendered in children a healthy respect for law and order, taught proper gender roles, and, most importantly, brought families together.”
It still can be this. For every parent who lives out their sports fantasy through their child, there are three parents who just enjoy watching their child play a sport. Okay, that's an estimate, but any person attends a youth league game in any sport knows the majority of parents attending are either (a) disinterested or (b) just hoping their child has fun.
The league helped compensate for the denatured character of postwar corporate labor while simultaneously preparing boys to enter the workforce and “accept such dispositions as specialization, rationalization, and bureaucratization.” By formalizing unstructured youth sporting play, modeling it on professional leagues, putting adults in charge, and keeping score and maintaining league standings, Little League “began to be seen as simply one stop on the trajectory of young people’s professional lives.”
It's also a way to teach children to compete and get used to losing every once in a while. It still serves a purpose, even if there seems to be less and less participation.
So why should this bother us? Because youth sports leagues are stressful and regimented at their worst, and even at their best, they promote the idea that organized, performative play is the most valid and important kind of play.
What? This is ridiculous. Kids can play in a spontaneous or organized fashion. It's not one or the other. Youth leagues promote the idea that an organized competition with rules, people enforcing those rules and families showing up to support the kids is a fun activity. It's not some regimented task. Anyone who thinks a youth sports league is a regimented task children are forced to perform hasn't been to any 5 or 6 year old youth league games.
The mere fact that adults take such a keen interest in the sporting activities of children invests those activities with an importance that just screwing around in a vacant lot will never have.
Much like school. Adults showing interest in children doing their homework, getting good grades and being a high achiever says that learning is important and just randomly learning knowledge is not something that is valued.
That’s a horrible attitude to promote.
Exactly. Adults showing an interest in their child succeeding in school tells the kid that organized learning is the only learning that will be accepted and not encouraging learning outside of school is a horrible attitude to promote.
I played organized youth baseball until I was 14 or so, and the fun moments I remember are vastly outnumbered by the terrible and stressful ones: botching a critical play and feeling horrible about it for a week, failing to make all-star teams because the coaches nominated their own kids, the tension and agita of pretending these games have actual stakes, and the sense that if you don’t perform at your best, you’re letting everybody down.
So basically, the author had a bad experience in Little League. The author thinks this means that every child had the same experience in Little League that the author had. While criticizing organized sports for imposing one worldview on children, the author is imposing his own worldview on organized sports. The author believes his experiences in organized sports are the experiences of every child in organized sports. Because he has these feelings, every child must have these feelings. Bill Simmons is that you?
In contrast, the most fun I had in childhood was with ad hoc games with other kids from my neighborhood: basketball on my driveway until dark, baseball with maybe four other kids in a vacant lot.
Spontaneous play is better than organized play
Again, the irony of the author criticizing organized sports for imposing one view on how sports are supposed to be played, while imposing his own view on how sports are supposed to be played in wanting youth leagues to be eliminated is delicious.
"I had a bad experience in Little League. Little League tells children that organized sports are the only way that sports can be played. Little League, and youth leagues like it, should be left to die because there is only one way to play sports...spontaneously."
The two can coexist, of course.
Apparently not. This entire column is about how organized sports can not co-exist with spontaneous sports, because organized sports are part of an attempt to suck the fun out of sports to fulfill their parents' fantasies of athletic achievement. So apparently the author does not think organized sports can co-exist with spontaneous sports.
But spontaneous play allows children to be in charge of their worlds for a while, to set and explore their own rules and boundaries, to exercise their imaginations in addition to their bodies.
Children can do both. They can play sports with their friends sometimes and then play organized sports against other children at other times. The author says it doesn't have to be one or the other, but he doesn't mean it, because the premise of this column is that children can't play spontaneous sports due to the lessons organized sports teaches.
So who cares whether youth baseball really is waning in Newburgh?
Obviously you do because this entire column is based around the idea youth baseball is declining in popularity, especially in Newburgh. You then use the waning of baseball in Newburgh as a reason why it would be fine if Little League just was eliminated all together. So it seems you deeply care if youth baseball is really waning in Newburgh, because it proves the point you want to prove.
As long as they can play pickup games, the town’s children will be fine.
And they can play pickup games while playing organized sports. It's awful hard to find 18 kids that all can play baseball at the same time, so just playing pickup baseball is hard. The same goes for a pickup game of football. Organized sports have their place in society. If the reason for getting rid of organized sports is because there are parents who take it too seriously, well, these parents will just find something else to take too seriously. You can't get rid of Little League because a minority of parents live out their fantasies through their children.
Is Little League participation on the wane? And, if so, should we care?
Who cares if Little League participation is on the wane? If you don't care for Little League like the author doesn't care for Little League then that's his point of view. End of column. The author doesn't care if Little League dies or not, while those who do care can continue to participate. Good talk. Let's move on to ano---
Those were two major questions raised by a Wall Street Journal piece from last week documenting the apparent decline of casual sporting leagues in a nation of kids who have either been bewitched by video games or encouraged to specialize in one sport year-round—or both, if the sport in which they specialize is competitive Minecraft.
Here's my issue with casual sporting leagues. It's not that I don't want my kids to participate, but it's a massive time suck. There are only so many hours in a day and one practice during the middle of the week for an hour, combined with games every Saturday morning can kill a family's free time. That's just for one kid. If a family has multiple children, that's multiple games during the weekend and multiple practices during the week. I don't think that's the entire reason why youth leagues have declined, but kids participating in sporting events all year round means all year round the kids will have to be somewhere at 6pm every single Tuesday evening and be free every Saturday from 8am to 11am (depending on the time of the game) nine months of the year. When there are two parents working and other kids in the household who have shit to do during the week, it becomes a time suck. No more do we live in a society where mommy can take the kids to soccer practice at 5:30 a couple times a week. Mommy sometimes doesn't get home until 5:45pm and then mommy wants to do shit that mommy wants to do, like stop doing work or eat a plate of food. I'm sure these were problems in the past as well, but from my personal experience, these leagues are a time suck, especially when practice takes place in the middle of the week. But there are parents who don't mind their child participating in one sport or participating in all sorts of sports throughout the year. They enjoy youth sports and that's good for them. I enjoyed youth sports as a kid, but I also used to ride my bike to tennis and baseball practice, and now parents are generally required to stand there while practice is going on. My parents didn't have to attend practice for two of the four sports I played because I went alone.
{I was thinking about this the other day. I rode my bike to school everyday...elementary school. I met my friends outside their house and we rode our bike three miles to school. I would go to school, come home, do my homework and then leave again. I would never let my kid do that. Same goes for tennis and baseball practice. My mom was not there for either practice. She just knew where I was (without a cell phone!) and trusted I would be home at some point or later tell her where I was going. Now if my son wants to play soccer, practice is on a field that is eight miles away from my house. It's just how it is I guess, but I think this has something to do with youth leagues being on the decline. Parents have less free time and don't feel right sending their kid out the door by themselves. If I sent my son out the door to go to the park by himself he would look at me like I was drunk. He's going to be nine years old in July. He can ride his bike 2.5 miles to the park, but the idea I would let him do that would blow his mind. I recognize this is anecdotal evidence, but I do believe time constraints are part of the reason for decline in youth sports league participation...assuming it is declining.}
Whether you find the WSJ report convincing and conclusive—and there are good reasons to be skeptical of it—it should raise in your mind an overwhelmingly important point: Little League and other youth sports leagues are terrible, and we should not be sad to see them go.
Nope. Not really. Perhaps the author doesn't care for youth sports, but they teach teamwork and are fun to play. I would play youth league sports if it weren't for the fact I'm not a youth. Some of the best memories of my childhood was playing youth sports. They can be terrible at times, but they can also be great. Much like everything else in the world.
the Journal reported that while 8.8 million children between the ages of 7 and 17 played baseball in 2000, only 5.3 million children in that age group did the same in 2013. It’s worth noting, though, that the study seems to document declining youth participation in almost all sports, not just baseball.
But of course the author only focuses on Little League, because baseball is dying and all of that. May as well just stick to the story.
By the way, the fact participation has declined around all sports (I believe) reflects the demographic changes more than it reflects declining interest in organized youth sports. Sports are very popular and more and more families just don't have the time for their kids to take part in multiple sports over a calendar year.
The only sport highlighted by the Journal with increased participation from 2000 to 2013 is tackle football,
And more and more kids are playing only one sport and it makes sense the kid's choice would be the most current most popular sport.
proving once again that Americans do not read the newspaper.
Or proving once again that kids like football and parents haven't gotten to the point they where they believe football can't be made reasonably safe at the youth league level.
The Journal also reported on the declining fortunes of a youth baseball league in Newburgh, New York, a city “on the front lines of the fight for baseball’s future.” Whereas 206 children played Little League in Newburgh in 2009, only 74 signed up to play this year
A sample size of one city. What could go wrong with extrapolating a larger trend out of this one city's fortunes?
Extrapolated to the wider world, this purported Little League participation crisis is bad news for Major League Baseball, given that the boy who plays baseball grows up to be the man who spends $149 on a Mark Trumbo jersey.
Baseball is dying at a much younger age now! Also, you can get a Mark Trumbo jersey for cheaper than $149. If a man spends that much on a jersey there is a chance he is getting ripped off.
Is the Newburgh Little League crisis truly indicative of broader Little League trends? Or is the Journal’s piece just a small-sample-size look at the amateur sporting fortunes of an impoverished city in a cold-weather region?
Great question. Let's see i---
And does it matter?
Since this is the second time you have posed this question and this entire column is based around the premise that this one small sample size is indicative of a larger trend, then yes, I would say that it does matter. I do like how the author throws out potentially misleading information and then rather investigate whether the information is misleading or not he just throws his hands up and says, "Fuck it, let's pretend it's accurate." The author makes contentions and then tries to end the discussion with "And does it matter?" before these contentions can be proven correct or incorrect.
Along with Mom and apple pie, Little League baseball symbolizes wholesome Americana. But just as apple pie is fattening and Mom won’t stop nagging you to come visit, neither is Little League an unalloyed good.
In your opinion, not on the whole.
Little League was founded in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, in the 1930s by a man named Carl Stotz who grew to hate what his creation became. “Originally, I had envisioned baseball for youngsters strictly on the local level without national playoffs and World Series and all that stuff,” Stotz later said, according to Mark Hyman in his book on youth sports, Until It Hurts. Then, in the 1950s, businessmen essentially staged a hostile takeover, forced Stotz out of the league, and proceeded to turn it into the worldwide entity that it is today, with its international World Series and its ESPN affiliation.
So for the last 60 years Little League has been a corporate creation that takes the soul out of sports? Interesting that youth league participating is only now declining. Besides, someone is going to find a way to make a buck off almost anything sports related. It's nearly impossible to avoid.
I became utterly disgusted,” said Stotz. He died a bitter man.
I'm sorry this happened, but it doesn't mean that Little League doesn't serve some good.
Stotz found the bigness of Little League to be awful in part because it seemed like an exploitative ploy that used kids’ athletic ambitions to fill adult-sized voids.
And if Little League didn't exist then these adults would have no other way to fill those voids. Is that what I am to believe? Outside of outlawing sports on the whole, there is really no way for society to prevent adults living their athletic ambitions through their children. And why is Little League getting picked on here, like there aren't other sports where adults live out their athletic fantasies? Spending time trying to prevent parents from living out their athletic fantasies through their children is a fool's errand.
For children, Carriere argues, Little League served to reinforce social order; it was “a highly supervised activity that engendered in children a healthy respect for law and order, taught proper gender roles, and, most importantly, brought families together.”
It still can be this. For every parent who lives out their sports fantasy through their child, there are three parents who just enjoy watching their child play a sport. Okay, that's an estimate, but any person attends a youth league game in any sport knows the majority of parents attending are either (a) disinterested or (b) just hoping their child has fun.
The league helped compensate for the denatured character of postwar corporate labor while simultaneously preparing boys to enter the workforce and “accept such dispositions as specialization, rationalization, and bureaucratization.” By formalizing unstructured youth sporting play, modeling it on professional leagues, putting adults in charge, and keeping score and maintaining league standings, Little League “began to be seen as simply one stop on the trajectory of young people’s professional lives.”
It's also a way to teach children to compete and get used to losing every once in a while. It still serves a purpose, even if there seems to be less and less participation.
So why should this bother us? Because youth sports leagues are stressful and regimented at their worst, and even at their best, they promote the idea that organized, performative play is the most valid and important kind of play.
What? This is ridiculous. Kids can play in a spontaneous or organized fashion. It's not one or the other. Youth leagues promote the idea that an organized competition with rules, people enforcing those rules and families showing up to support the kids is a fun activity. It's not some regimented task. Anyone who thinks a youth sports league is a regimented task children are forced to perform hasn't been to any 5 or 6 year old youth league games.
The mere fact that adults take such a keen interest in the sporting activities of children invests those activities with an importance that just screwing around in a vacant lot will never have.
Much like school. Adults showing interest in children doing their homework, getting good grades and being a high achiever says that learning is important and just randomly learning knowledge is not something that is valued.
That’s a horrible attitude to promote.
Exactly. Adults showing an interest in their child succeeding in school tells the kid that organized learning is the only learning that will be accepted and not encouraging learning outside of school is a horrible attitude to promote.
I played organized youth baseball until I was 14 or so, and the fun moments I remember are vastly outnumbered by the terrible and stressful ones: botching a critical play and feeling horrible about it for a week, failing to make all-star teams because the coaches nominated their own kids, the tension and agita of pretending these games have actual stakes, and the sense that if you don’t perform at your best, you’re letting everybody down.
So basically, the author had a bad experience in Little League. The author thinks this means that every child had the same experience in Little League that the author had. While criticizing organized sports for imposing one worldview on children, the author is imposing his own worldview on organized sports. The author believes his experiences in organized sports are the experiences of every child in organized sports. Because he has these feelings, every child must have these feelings. Bill Simmons is that you?
In contrast, the most fun I had in childhood was with ad hoc games with other kids from my neighborhood: basketball on my driveway until dark, baseball with maybe four other kids in a vacant lot.
Spontaneous play is better than organized play
Again, the irony of the author criticizing organized sports for imposing one view on how sports are supposed to be played, while imposing his own view on how sports are supposed to be played in wanting youth leagues to be eliminated is delicious.
"I had a bad experience in Little League. Little League tells children that organized sports are the only way that sports can be played. Little League, and youth leagues like it, should be left to die because there is only one way to play sports...spontaneously."
The two can coexist, of course.
Apparently not. This entire column is about how organized sports can not co-exist with spontaneous sports, because organized sports are part of an attempt to suck the fun out of sports to fulfill their parents' fantasies of athletic achievement. So apparently the author does not think organized sports can co-exist with spontaneous sports.
But spontaneous play allows children to be in charge of their worlds for a while, to set and explore their own rules and boundaries, to exercise their imaginations in addition to their bodies.
Children can do both. They can play sports with their friends sometimes and then play organized sports against other children at other times. The author says it doesn't have to be one or the other, but he doesn't mean it, because the premise of this column is that children can't play spontaneous sports due to the lessons organized sports teaches.
So who cares whether youth baseball really is waning in Newburgh?
Obviously you do because this entire column is based around the idea youth baseball is declining in popularity, especially in Newburgh. You then use the waning of baseball in Newburgh as a reason why it would be fine if Little League just was eliminated all together. So it seems you deeply care if youth baseball is really waning in Newburgh, because it proves the point you want to prove.
As long as they can play pickup games, the town’s children will be fine.
And they can play pickup games while playing organized sports. It's awful hard to find 18 kids that all can play baseball at the same time, so just playing pickup baseball is hard. The same goes for a pickup game of football. Organized sports have their place in society. If the reason for getting rid of organized sports is because there are parents who take it too seriously, well, these parents will just find something else to take too seriously. You can't get rid of Little League because a minority of parents live out their fantasies through their children.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
13 comments Bill Simmons and The Inhumane Choice of Having to Choose Between Attending a Game 7 or a Boxing Match
Bill Simmons made his early writing career a success by being just like you and me. He talked with his friends about sports, girls, and pop culture like you talked about those topics with your friends. That was the supposed hook of his columns. Those days where Bill can relate to his readers are long over, not that you would know it from reading how his SimmonsClones readers worship his every move. Bill is more likely to end up on a "Power 100" list from "Sports Illustrated" then he is to end up at a sports bar where he talks to normal people. He's a multi-millionaire who has desperately (and semi-successfully in the eyes of some) hung on to his "everyman" quality. Just as long as you ignore most of what he writes, everyone he hangs out with, his Instagram account, and pretty much everything else about him, then you would think he's JUST LIKE YOU AND ME! In this column/mailbag, Bill talks about ultimate dilemma that the upper 1% entitled of sports fans can face. Should he attend Game 7 of the Spurs-Clippers or go to the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight? Hey SimmonsClones, he's not like you and this should prove it. Drop your idolatry and please realize he's playing you for fools.
That won't ever happen of course. It's also nice how Bill writes a column about this major, major dilemma like he is rubbing it in his readers' faces that he even has this choice. He's essentially bragging about how he can do either and his readers won't give a shit because they live to serve him and live their lives vicariously through him. Complaining about having to choose between these two options is just a douchebag move. Just try to be humble and not brag. That's not something Bill can do, because he lives to tell everyone how special he is. He should be making this decision without trying to write about the decision in his article. Bill had made the decision to attend Game 7, but he couldn't resist allowing his readers the opportunity to know he made this choice. Bill also takes the time to explain to his readers, who apparently he feels are all mouth-breathing morons because they aren't him, the special bond between a dad and a daughter.
During Eddie Murphy’s first SNL season, Joe Piscopo started appearing on “Weekend Update” as a goofy sports anchor who shouted the big stories in exclamation points. Saturday would have been perfect for him. NHL playoffs! Kentucky Derby! Game 7! The big fight!!! SATURDAY!!!!!!
I mean, this is typical of Bill Simmons' writing. There's no need for this pop culture reference other than for Bill to say he made the reference and cover up for the fact Bill lacks the ability to simply write an introductory paragraph.
In my first playoffs mailbag column two weeks ago, you might remember me seeing the NBA’s schedule for Round 1 and fretting about one of the all-time sports fan conundrums. If the Clips-Spurs battle miraculously produced a Game 7, that would undoubtedly happen on Saturday night. I already had my ticket for that hypothetical game. But I also had a chance to attend Floyd-Manny, which meant witnessing a once-in-a-generation fight in Vegas with my L.A. buddies. Can’t lose either way, right?
Right, which is why this isn't a difficult choice. Which is also why this isn't something you build your weekly mailbag around unless you just simply want to swing your dick around a little bit and point out that you have the choice of attending a fight or going to a Game 7. Honestly, maybe Bill's readers do care and that's pathetic. Otherwise, nobody else cares and this "Saturday decision" column is just a way for Bill to brag about all the cool shit he gets to do. He's very proud of everything he has accomplished and can't wait to tell everyone about it.
You never want to make a tough decision until you HAVE to make a tough decision … and now we’re here.
My definition of a "tough decision" probably is a little bit different from Bill's idea of a "tough decision." This decision is only tough in that Bill will miss out on an opportunity, but either way he's winning.
Game 7, Spurs at Clippers: 5 p.m. PT, Los Angeles.
Or …
Mayweather-Pacquiao, 8:30 p.m. PT (approximately), Las Vegas.
Pick one.
(Yikes.)
Most people would just say, "I'll figure it out" and go from there. But not Bill, not at all. Bill sees a chance to brag about these two opportunities he gets AND he can get half of a column out of fully breaking this decision down? Yes, thank you more please. Bill can kill column space when he's out of ideas AND the world can know that he's wealthy and connected? The least tough choice Bill had to make was whether to do a full breakdown of this decision.
Here are the for-and-against cases for Game 7 and The Fight.
Because nothing screams "excitement" like getting to go through someone else's pros and cons list.
The Case For Game 7: Even before it officially became “One of Best Round 1 Series Ever,” we knew it had a chance to broach “Feels Like The Finals If They Happened In Round 1” (which is exactly what happened) …
IT'S A SERIES THAT IS TOO OVER-QUALIFIED TO JUST BE A ROUND 1 SERIES!
thanks to those quietly dramatic Hack-a-DJ moments, these contests balloon to nearly three hours and feel a little like those Yankees–Red Sox nail-biter marathons from 2003 and 2004 (without 86 years of baggage and eight decades of hammer-versus-nail story lines, but still) …
GREATEST RIVALRY EVER! NO ONE DENIES THIS!
can Clippers fans affect the game without coming off like a bunch of whining maniacs who inadvertently work their boys into a whining froth (and vice versa?) …
Yes, those Clippers fans are just whining maniacs aren't they? This coming from the guy who built his early career on whining about his favorite sports teams, while inventing new and different ways his teams were cursed for dramatic effect.
I could keep going and going, but one thing I’ve learned in life is that there’s really never a good excuse to miss a Game 7 … in fact, you can use that for your high school yearbook quote if you’re under 18.
“One thing I’ve learned in life: There’s really never a good excuse to miss a Game 7.” —Bill Simmons
Bill is trying to get quoted in people's yearbooks now. So by the way, if there is never a good excuse to miss a Game 7 then why is Bill gnashing his teeth so hard trying to make a decision here? If he feels so strongly that Game 7 is a "can't miss" game then the decision is made, right? Of course not! Bill makes up rules, doesn't stick to them and eventually contradicts these rules over time. So he wants to use "never miss a Game 7" as a yearbook quote, but doesn't mind missing a Game 7 himself.
Most likely, Bill realizes he has half of a column idea for a change and he wants to work it out like he really thought of attending the Mayweather-Pacquaio fight.
The Case For The Fight: We’ve been waiting for Floyd-versus-Manny for six to seven solid years …
I really haven't been looking forward to it. Mayweather does not have a very exciting boxing style, which is why he has to be more exciting out of the ring, because his fighting style in the ring is slow and defensive. It's not exactly Mike Tyson in his prime out there.
I’ve been to a couple of Big Fights in my life, and, from a buzz/electricity/eye candy/celebrity/fashion/comedy standpoint, there’s simply nothing like them …
Bill hasn't bragged in a few paragraphs, so he figured he would just go ahead and do it. Bill has many expensive bottles of wine that he keeps in a separate room next to his leather-bounds books.
But a relentless (and deserved) assault by the media and on social media, too, has rendered him so completely unlikable that the unthinkable happened. Within the past two weeks, a groundswell of media members have been imploring everyone to boycott the fight … and they didn’t seem crazy.
I will not be boycotting the fight for two reasons.
1. As seen by the constant references in his "Book of Basketball" of women as whores or pornstars, as well as Bill's insistence throughout the history of his columns for ESPN.com where he positions women as nags who can singlehandedly bring down a great man's performance in a sporting event with their nagging, Bill hates women. Just in general. Not any specific women and there are women he likes, but mostly, women are bitches and who hasn't wanted to punch one or two at a certain time? I mean, who says "no" to that?
2. No really, why should Bill care about something like a dude hit a woman a few times?
First, I have been a boxing fan since I fell in love with Ali during the mid-1970s, back when Ali’s Wide World of Sports appearances resonated in ways that you couldn’t possibly understand 40 years later.
Ah yes, it's another episode of "I was there so I experienced first hand what no one else can ever experience ever again" from Bill. These are all episodes where Bill attends a sporting event or witnesses something that thousands of others witness, but he acts like he has a special, different perspective from everyone else.
Of the top 200 moments in my life when I said to myself, purely as a sports fan, “I don’t know if I feel good about this,” I think boxing was involved in 185 of them.
Oh, well at least Bill feels bad about liking boxing. As long as he continuously apologizes while displaying the same lack of interest in changing his behavior then all should just fine. We'll call it "The Peter King Rule" where a sportswriter does/says dumb shit and never seems to learn.
Remember, the goal of boxing is to repeatedly punch your opponent, either to accumulate points or to knock him unconscious; it’s one of the most primitive sports we have, and if you’re thinking about attaching humanity and morality to it, you’re fooling yourself.
I'm not the one talking about how much I like boxing despite all of the faults the sport and it's participants have. So save the lecture. It sounds like only Bill is the one fooling himself, yet because he likes boxing then obviously "we" are fooling ourselves as well.
Watching Saturday’s fight doesn’t mean that you condone Floyd’s vile behavior. It’s apples and oranges. This isn’t a sport where you can just pick and choose your viewing based on some arbitrary (but well-intentioned) moral compass. It doesn’t exist. Not in boxing.
So basically Bill's reason for not boycotting the fight was that boxing is a terrible sport so there's no way for him to like the sport and take the moral high ground. That's fine, but could very well be a reason to stop watching the sport. Rather than waste space in this column and the reader's time with rambling, Bill should just write, "I like watching boxing and refuse to stop watching it just because there are some reprehensible characters." Instead, Bill rambles around and makes it seem like he's saying more than he truly is saying.
Second and more important, what’s going to be more entertaining than rooting against Floyd Mayweather? He’s the greatest boxing villain we’ve had since George Foreman 40 years ago! How can anyone not dislike this guy? We get to root for someone to punch Floyd in the face for 12 rounds? I’m supposed to BOYCOTT this? Stop it.
This is probably a good point.
The Case Against Game 7: I mean, shit. It’s Game 7. Even Johnnie Cochran in his prime couldn’t make a good case against a Game 7.
And yet, Bill is wasting space pretending like this is a difficult decision. Like I wrote earlier, he'll do anything to find a topic to write about in his columns. Even if Bill has to create a rule like, "There's no excuse for missing a Game 7" in the very same column/mailbag where he is trying to think of an excuse to miss Game 7. Obviously the concept of this column will come off as a contrived since Bill strongly believes there is no reason to miss a Game 7.
The only “case” I can make against it: Add up Hack-a-DJ plus commercials plus prime-time TV timeouts and this baby could swell past 8 p.m. PT; throw in an unexpected overtime and suddenly you’re looking at 8:30 (yeeeesh), and that’s without factoring in the Staples Center exit (never easy) and traffic (always there). So, yeah, attend Game 7 and there’s a real chance of missing a chunk of the fight (which, based on the history of these fights, probably won’t start until 8:45 p.m. PT).
Whatever time this game ends, I’ll be the guy weaving through the postgame crowd like Barry Sanders and driving home like Dom Toretto. Ride or die.
What is Bill's sudden fascination with "Fast and the Furious"? It's like he has attached himself to these films as an example of modern day pop culture that he will use as a reference and wants to keep beating this reference into the ground.
My biggest problem with the timing of this bout: In December 2012, a cartoonishly enhanced Juan Manuel Marquez —
What kind of 10th grade juvenile fuckery is this to put enhanced in italics? It sounds like you are having a seizure if this sentence is spoken out loud with "enhanced" emphasized.
as Marquez briefly unplugged Manny’s brain for nearly two minutes as everyone frantically Googled “Marquez” and “HGH.” He didn’t just knock Manny out; we thought Manny was dead.
"WE" thought Manny was dead. All of "us."
Now, there are two schools of thought after something like that happens. Either …
There are two schools of thought and only two schools of thought. Any other thought is not a part of either of these schools and should not be considered. There are only two options, at least until Bill thinks of a third option.
1. That knockout (and all the ensuing adversity and doubt) actually made Manny stronger. And it wasn’t just the knockout; it was the devastating feeling of knowing that you had let your entire country down. I mean, Manny IS the Philippines.
That's a link to a Grantland column of course. Because Bill's columns are also a clearinghouse for links to other Grantland columns.
2. You’re never the same after you get knocked the F out like that. You’re never the same. You’re NEVER the same.
Okay, I get it. I'm NEVER the same after I get knocked the fuck out like that. I don't know why Bill insists on using "you" in this situation since 99.9% of his readers aren't boxers and it would be just as easy to write "boxers" as opposed to saying "you," but that's the type of writing that Bill provides to his readers.
Here’s where I would love to be wrong: I believe in the second school of thought (not the first, which feels a little too media-created for me).
(Bengoodfella's head explodes)
Bill Simmons, a member of the media, says "there are two schools of thought after something like that happens..." and then lists these two schools of thought. Bill then dismisses one school of thought, yes he dismissed one of his own ideas, by stating it was a "media creation" which is obviously true because Bill Simmons is a member of the media and just thought of it. I'm not sure how far down the rabbit hole Bill is here, but at this point I think he just created an idea, dismissed the idea and then blamed the media for it's creation.
I don’t see how having your brain get demolished to the point that it says “I’m shutting down for two solid minutes to regroup” is ever a good thing.
(Bengoodfella types sadly) But you just thought of it yourself. With your brain.
By the time that first bell rings, Floyd will have worked himself into a defiant, me-against-the-world frenzy. Only it won’t be a frenzy, because that’s not how Floyd works. He uses outside forces to drive himself to a deeper performance level — improved concentration, deeper resolve, almost like he took Bradley Cooper’s special pill in Limitless.
Cram that pop culture reference in there, Bill. If it won't go at first, just keep pushing. You can get it crammed into the discussion if you just try hard enough.
He’s one of the best ever at hitting people while rarely, if ever, getting hit. And when he’s locked in, when he’s truly locked in, he cannot be beaten. It’s just about impossible.
Hey, remember when this column was about Bill's big decision that had to be made for last Saturday night? Yeah, I barely do too.
Will the fight end up being as special as everyone hopes? Probably not. I hope I’m wrong. I hope Manny pulls off a semi-miracle. Yes, I will watch. No, I’m not going. I made my choice. Game 7.
Great, I'm glad it took hundreds and hundreds of words to get to the point where Bill makes a decision on which sporting event he will choose to attend. His readers definitely needed to be taken through the process on how decided which event to attend, all while feeling like Bill is waving his success in their face and being a douchebag overall, only to come to the conclusion that Bill came to in the beginning based on a rule he created. That rule is there is no excuse to miss a Game 7, yet Bill was going to ignore that rule. Of course.
And by the way? I didn’t have a choice. My daughter turns 10 tomorrow. She’s already a master guilt-tripper and consistently ropes me into doing whatever she wants. It’s a dad-daughter thing and it’s impossible to explain;
Unless you are one of the hundreds of million of people alive on the planet Earth who also have a daughter. In that case, this exclusive club of being whipped by your daughter is easy to explain because it's something hundreds of millions of fathers experience. But go on, tell me about this special bond you and your daughter have that is too difficult to explain. Please tell me more, it's fascinating to hear you experience things no one else has experienced.
I’m spending the entire day with her, then going to Game 7 … and only because she allowed me to do so. Yes, I’m daughter-whipped.
Wow, you are spending the whole day with your daughter? That's amazing and almost like something a parent would do. Fucking bizarre, man. I'm glad she allowed you to go to the basketball game.
I bring this up for a crucial reason: Every May, my daughter’s birthday party falls on an unbelievable sports day.
Oh yeah, that does sound crucial. I don't know how Bill managed to make this incredibly hard decision of deciding which sporting event to attend during the same week he had to give up watching sports during the afternoon to spend time with his daughter on her birthday. If choosing between the boxing match and Game 7 was a Sophie's Choice, having to spend time at home prior to making Sophie's Choice with your kids is clearly the equivalent of being locked in a room with Bill Simmons for an entire day.
I still enjoy how Bill goes through his whole thought process. He doesn't mean to, but he comes off pretty douchey. Actually, he probably means to.
And I could have avoided this, year after year, had my wife and I done the math pre-pregnancy and aimed (no pun intended)
I don't get why this would be a pun, because unless Bill's wife has the world's most bizarre vagina that resembles an elaborate hole on a miniature golf course, he shouldn't have to do too much aiming while attempting to conceive a baby.
Here’s the point: If you’re pulling the goalie and you’re a psycho about sports (and there are more of us out there than you’d think),
Oh okay, there are more of "us" out there than I think? Thanks for telling me because I'm currently reading a column about sports, so the odds are decent that I'm pretty psycho about sports. Bill Simmons telling his readers there are more people out there who are psycho about sports is pretty rich. Why must he lecture his readers on obvious matters such as this?
don’t be afraid to get a little Gladwell/Outliers/Canadian Hockey Parent Weird and aim for a certain birthday range. You can get a little sports-fan selfish about it. It might work, it might not.
Bill Simmons probably believes that he is pushing a new idea here. The idea of planning when a child is born. Families plan when they are going to have their children all the time and will avoid certain months or times of the year. It's called "family planning" and it is done all the time, even if Bill wants to try and throw a sports-bent to it in order to pretend this is a new idea.
But that’s how I came to pick Game 7 (and my daughter, kind of) over The Big Fight.
Thanks and feel free to never explain something like this again. Of course, Bill WILL do something like this again because he wants his readers to know he even had the option of attending two exciting sporting events. Bill is never afraid to tell all his readers the cool shit he gets to do. Anything to soothe his ego.
Time to rip through some NBA emails. As always, these are actual emails from actual readers.
Hey Bill, how about you aim to write an entire column without a mailbag of some sort?
(And as I write this, Bill posts a full column about Tim Duncan. He did it once AND he wrote about Tim Duncan yet again when he wrote a two-part column on Duncan just a few years ago. I'll tell you when I'm impressed.)
Q: During G-State/New Orleans, my son said to me, “You know who Curry is? Gretzky.” And we realized that Warriors/Oilers parallels worked all the way down the roster. Draymond Green? Mark Messier. Klay Thompson? Jari Kurri. Andrew Bogut? Grant Fuhr. You can even make a case for Andre Iguodala and Craig MacTavish. I just can’t think of anyone Curry reminds me of more than the Great One. Skinny. Not a great athlete. And a genius.
—Eric S., Provo
I'm just going to stare in silence at the computer screen knowing this reader just compared Draymond Green to Mark Messier and Andrew Bogut as Grant Fuhr. I mean, no. Don't. Let's allow the Warriors to be the Warriors without comparing Draymond Green to Mark Messier. It's like saying Luc Longley is Grant Fuhr just because they both protected the goal on championship teams. Sometimes the similarities begin and end at the same place.
Bill shoots this idea down saying:
Do we have to bring the best hockey forward ever into this? By the time Gretzky turned 27 (Curry’s age now), he’d already won three Cups and eight straight Hart Trophies (EIGHT!!!) and broken every conceivable NHL scoring record...Do we have to bring the best hockey forward ever into this? By the time Gretzky turned 27 (Curry’s age now), he’d already won three Cups and eight straight Hart Trophies (EIGHT!!!) and broken every conceivable NHL scoring record.
Sometimes (okay, oftentimes) Bill's readers are a little too eager to get his attention and resort to just writing stupid shit.
Let’s just say “He’s a little Gretzky-ish at times” and be done with it.
Yes, "let's" say that. I bet since Bill is a huge LA Kings fan now, he wanted to be the one who made the comparison to Wayne Gretzky but his readers beat him to it. So of course, he had to crap on the idea since they got to the idea before he did.
Q: Regarding your mailbag question on the most appropriate name for the Ben Simmons tanking process over here, a great guy is known to be a ‘top bloke.” Why not call the Ben Simmons tanking process “Choke for the Top Bloke?”
—Jono Adelaide, Australia
BS: Not bad. Last Friday, I asked the readers to see if they could top “Lossie for the Aussie” or “Skimmin’ for Simmons.” My favorite runner-up suggestions: Blunder for Down Under, Poo for a Kangaroo, Bend Down for Ben, DeRailin’ for the Australian and Pulled Asunder for Down Under.
I'm pretty sure everyone remembers, Bill. It was a week ago, not a decade ago. Stop trying to run mailbag contests and just get to the part where you top your readers' ideas with a more clever idea of your own.
Q: Wouldn’t the obvious candidate be “B.S. for B.S.?”
—Alex, Manhattan, KS
BS: “B.S. for B.S.!”
That’s right … B.S. for “B.S. for B.S.”!
That's right! That's right! Why is Bill so excited?
That's fine though. Bill can pay attention to college basketball for a month every year, but I'm going to go on record as saying I think Skal Labissiere is going to give Simmons a great run for his money as the #1 overall pick. That is, unless the NBA doesn't want 6'11" power forward/center combo guys who can run the floor, block shots, are good shooters, excellent rebounders, and have great intangibles. In that case, yes, Ben Simmons will probably easily be the #1 overall pick. Don't sleep on Skal. He's going to Kentucky, while Ben Simmons is going to LSU. It should be fun to watch, but I am not even close to giving the #1 overall pick to Simmons right now. I wouldn't expect Bill to know who Skal Labissiere is though. He only knows about Ben Simmons because they have the same "B.S." initials and last name of "Simmons."
After all, we are talking about a franchise forward with the exact same name as my only son and who just so happens to be entering the same draft lottery in which my favorite team has its own pick, Brooklyn’s pick (UNPROTECTED!) and Dallas’s pick (top-seven protected — and yeah, that team is Year 18 Dirk, Knee Surgery Parsons and Just About Nobody Else right now). This is too important. I need more time.
Oh God, I'm not going to be able to handle it if the Celtics landed Ben Simmons in the draft. I mean, I could handle it, but I couldn't handle Bill's bullshit if Simmons was drafted by the Celtics. Fortunately, the Celtics probably won't be in a position to draft Simmons, even with all of those first round picks.
Also in last week’s mailbag, I gave everyone one week to top “James Dolan, disaster expert” in a new game called “Find someone who has the exact same name as a celebrity, but also has a ridiculous job that somehow ties into how ridiculous the celebrity is.”
Now, some might say I cheated by not including the other Bill Simmons — a.k.a. “El Wingador,” the renowned chicken wing eating champion who went to jail for cocaine trafficking. But I’ve been in the same room with cocaine only once in my life — during Game 7, 2004 ALCS, the bathroom of an undisclosed Boston bar, when I had gone in there to pee and inadvertently walked in on two guys snorting lines off the bathroom sink.
I find it hard to believe that Bill Simmons attended a prep school and Holy Cross, but only managed to be in the same room as cocaine once...and that wasn't even in college.
It’s true: Lenny Bias blew three to four Celtics titles, but he also ruined any chance of me ever trying cocaine.
Well that makes sense. Bill otherwise would have used cocaine, but because Len (not Lenny, it's not Lenny...you aren't Tommy Heinsohn) Bias died after using cocaine Bill decided that it wasn't worth it. Nice to hear that he makes personal life decisions like this not based on what he does or does not choose to want to do, but because it didn't work out well for an NBA player.
"I was going to start using heroin, but the fact Kurt Cobain had a drug problem that helped contribute to his death really turned me off to it. If Kurt Cobain had not used heroin and then died an early death, the urge to stick in a needle in my arm and chase the dragon would have been too much for me to resist! I mean, I really want to use heroin a lot."
That raises a separate mailbag question (I’ll save you the energy): Would I rather have those three to four titles and maybe four to five extra Bird-McHale years (since Bias would have extended their careers) even if it meant there would have been a good chance I’d have at least tried cocaine in college (and then who knows?) … or would I rather keep things the way they were? And the answer, obviously, is OF COURSE I WOULD HAVE WANTED THE EXTRA TITLES AND THE EXTRA BIRD-MCHALE YEARS!!! ARE YOU CRAZY???????
I always have loved the idea that Len Bias would have extended the Bird-McHale years. Bill furthers this idea simply because there is no way anyone can prove him incorrect (there's no way of knowing what Bias would have done for the Celtics), but would having Len Bias around really have caused Bird's minutes to be cut and solved the back problems that plagued him throughout his late career? Bird would have been like, "Oh sure fine, I'll cut my minutes and hand the reins of the team off to this young guy, because I'm concerned about my physical well-being."
That doesn't sound like anything the Larry Bird I knew would do. The same Larry Bird who emotionally abused opponents and teammates. He would have stepped back even just a little bit and shown concern for his physical well-being? Not sure I see that.
Q: Have you noticed that every time CP gets called for a personal, he looks like a toddler who just lost his favorite toy? It’s unbelievable.
—Tyler, Fremont, Nebraska
BS: The Clippers can’t beat San Antonio when they’re worried about the refs for three straight hours. Just play basketball, for God’s sake. As a Los Angeles reader named Ryan points out, it’s not a coincidence that they ended up with someone nicknamed “Big Baby” on this team.
It's no coincidence this "Big Baby" character was drafted by the Boston Celtics, which just so happens to be Bill's favorite NBA team. It's also no coincidence this "Big Baby" guy attended the same college that Ben Simmons, Bill Simmons' new favorite college basketball player, will be attending next year.
Q: Kia commercial idea: Doc Rivers forces Blake Griffin to drive his new Kia 220,000 miles. Car predictably breaks down on the highway, leading Doc to complain loudly about the quality of the California roads.
—Alex H, Baltimore
BS: Come on, come on. They’re trying. Game 6 was a big step forward.
The fact Bill is noting that current Clippers players and the Clippers' head coach complain all the time, when there are ex-Celtics players on the Clippers team and the Clippers' head coach won an NBA Title in Boston with the Celtics is too much for me. I have died of an irony overdose.
Q: You always talk about Rondo being a 90-10 guy, is he now a 10-90 guy?
—Elie, Los Angeles
BS: It’s not that bad. He’s a 50/50 guy now — you love 50 percent of the stuff he does and you hate the other 50 percent. How ’bout the Mavs stiffing Rondo on his 2015 playoff share? Is there a better way to show your contempt for a teammate than stiffing him on his playoff share? I love sports sometimes. I wish ESPN voted on playoff shares every year. I would totall— AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I’M GETTING ELECTROSHOCKED!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Bill still loves to play the "ESPN rebel" angle in his columns and when he is throwing his annual hissy-fit over something ESPN has done. Yet, he loved ESPN enough to stay with them for the past 15 years and is perfectly fine setting up Grantland knowing he had the full financial backing support of the ESPN web of influence. If Bill does leave ESPN, rest assured he will go to another larger sports organization. He wants to be the rebel and outsider, but he's always taking the money and the influence like an insider, because that's what he is.
Bill is like a politician who states that the power should be taken away from the PAC's and other powerful organizations and put into the hands of the people. Bill the politician would state there needs to be campaign finance reform, all while PAC's "not affiliated" with him that just happen to be affiliated with him in some way are collecting millions of dollars to fund his campaign. He puts on a good show about being the outsider, but he loves that ESPN money and exposure he gets.
Then Bill makes a comparison of The Undertaker to Tim Duncan, which is probably the comparison that inspired him to write (another) column about Tim Duncan. Take inspiration where you can get it, I guess.
Q: Does no one care that Lamarcus Aldridge shot 33% against Memphis in Round One? I know Z-Bo and Big Spain are tough, but that’s not exactly the performance you want going into free agency.
—Kevin Linger, Arlington, VA
BS: No because Aldridge wasn’t leaving Portland unless Round 1 went badly. Yes because that series proved something we already knew: Aldridge is a star, but he’s not a superstar. (You’re not a title contender just because he showed up. But in a 2008 Celtics-type scenario, where he’s one of three All-Stars, that’s different. So you’re one-third of the way there with him.)
Oh really? From last week's mailbag:
You could make a strong case for Aldridge being in play this summer.
He’s from Dallas and attended the University of Texas, which opens up going-back-home possibilities in San Antonio (Duncan’s replacement?), Dallas (the Mavs’ new franchise guy?) AND Houston (his best chance for a quickie Finals trip).
So with two of those teams Aldridge would be part of a three-headed All-Star, but Dallas? As the franchise guy? Is Bill referring to Aldridge as a franchise guy here, because if so, he contradicts his own opinion a week later. Then Bill listed the three NBA teams that Aldridge would seriously consider joining.
Which makes me think Orlando (assets + talent + youth + Florida), Boston (assets + youth + role players + President Stevens + great owner/front office) and New York (biggest market, Carmelo, top-three pick, cap space) could be legitimate LaMarcus players here.
Now a bigger contradiction! So where are the three-headed All-Stars on these teams? The Knicks have Carmelo, while the Magic and Celtics don't really have any perennial All-Stars at this point. At no point when providing the formula each team has that would draw Aldridge does Bill write "another All-Star" as being part of the draw. So either Bill thinks another All-Star isn't a draw for Aldridge (which would make sense because he mentions Aldridge doesn't like sharing face time with Lillard for commercial opportunities) or he made up the whole "Aldridge needs two other All-Stars around him to succeed" idea in this very mailbag and has no concern if it contradicts his idea of where Aldridge would end up this summer as a free agent.
In the mailbag a week or two ago, Bill never mentioned that Aldridge would need two other All-Stars around him to win a title. This leads me to believe he, as usual, is making things up on the spot. One would think when discussing Aldridge's free agency and the teams he might choose as a free agent that "Hey, he won't win a title with any of these teams because they don't have two other All-Stars" would come up at some point. It seems like something Bill would mention this since he seems to believe this statement is true.
Q: Save this email, because I’m calling it right now: Myles Turner is going to be an NBA superstar. In three years, when he’s first-team All-NBA and carrying the Cs with Smart and Thomas to the Finals, you can run this email and say “Man, that guy nailed it.”
—Tito Crafts, Northampton, MA
BS: I’ll do you one better: I will run that email and say, “Man, Tito Crafts nailed it.” I’ll throw in italics and everything.
HAHA! Maybe it's the stink of Rick Barnes, but I don't think Myles Turner will make one All-Star team. He's a center who doesn't run the floor like a young person should (seriously, he doesn't move like a 19 year old) and loves to shoot three-point shots when allowed to. He could be a star, but the fact he chose to play for Rick Barnes concerns me greatly. That's bad decision-making right there. I don't think Myles Turner will be an NBA superstar. Ever. Never. Not happening. Of course, I thought Andre Drummond wasn't motivated enough to be an NBA star, so I've been wrong before. I feel pretty confident about this one. Turner couldn't steal minutes from Grimace (that's Cameron Ridley) at Texas, so I don't feel good about him stealing minutes from actually good basketball players in the NBA.
Q: In your 2007 MVP Column you wrote this about Tim Duncan:
This is simply a reminder that Bill Simmons has written about Tim Duncan A LOT over the years. Imagine if the Celtics had landed Duncan in the draft instead of not having a shot at him. There is a chance Bill would have written 2-3 columns per year about Duncan. And yes, it seems at this point writing about Duncan is the only thing that gets Bill motivated enough to write a full column without gimmicks other than YouTube videos.
Now regarding Kelly Olynyk ripping Kevin Love's arm out of socket:
By the way, I’ve been watching Father Kelly for two years; he’s a clumsy, uncoordinated, way-too-nice, laid-back Canadian who sucks at boxing out and had just heard his coach scream at his entire team about not giving up offensive rebounds. I believe it was a fluke. Then again, I’m the same guy who still believes Bernard Karmell Pollard should serve prison time, so I’m probably not an unbiased observer here.
Which is why Bill should be ignored when it comes to almost anything he writes. He tends to come to a conclusion and then finds a way to defend that conclusion. Olynyk meant to do it and it wasn't a fluke. Maybe I'm biased because I never wanted the Celtics to draft Olynyk.
Q: Did the Celtics just lose whatever (admittedly small) chance they had of signing Kevin Love this summer when Olynyk dislocated Love’s shoulder?
—Josh, Boston
BS: Are you kidding? If Love holds any real bitterness, we’ll waive Father Kelly tomorrow! We’ll strip his clothes, force him to walk from Charlestown to the South End wearing an “I’m sorry, Kevin” sign.
Yes, "we" will do this. Also, why shame Olynyk in this way if the injury was a fluke? If it was a fluke then Olynyk should have nothing to be sorry for.
The reason he didn’t intentionally hurt Love doubles as the reason he’s expendable: Again, he’s a clumsy, uncoordinated, way-too-nice, laid-back Canadian who sucks at boxing out (and can’t protect the rim).
Keep repeating the same shit over and over. At some point, maybe you can find someone to believe you. And yes, all of those reasons are why a Gonzaga team built around Olynyk couldn't make the Sweet Sixteen and I didn't want the Celtics to draft him.
Q: It’s not like we need any more proof that God hates Cleveland, but doesn’t Olynyk bear a striking resemblance to Jesus? God isn’t even trying to hide it at this point.
—Mike, Chicago
Sure Mike, if you are one of the idiotic people who thought Jesus looked more like a Canadian and less like a dude of Middle Eastern descent and want to white-wash Jesus into looking like something he probably didn't look like, Olynyk and Jesus are pretty much twins.
BS: I’m starting to feel bad. Can I cheer the Cleveland fans up for a second?
When Wade knocked Rondo out of the playoffs in 2011 I'm sure Bill thought it was just "a fluke" and he has no hard feelings. Sure, I believe that. There's always a reason why Bill's favorite team isn't dirty or didn't intentionally hurt a player. In this case, Olynyk is just uncoordinated so he mistook a player's arm for something else. Maybe Olynyk was frustrated because Stevens was on the team's ass about offensive rebounding and took his anger out on Love? Of course not. He's a nice guy.
Then one of Bill's readers gives a convoluted analogy to why the Cavs fans are not loud enough at games, and of course, it ends with a reference to masturbating. Shouldn't it disturb Bill (because it disturbs the shit out of me) that so many of his readers write into his mailbag by talking about masturbating?
So Cavs fans have the breakup reunion hangover where you can’t quite put 100% of your emotion into it yet because your brain won’t let you! After all, you still keep the lotion and tissues in your bedside drawer just in case.
—Craig, Columbia, MD
BS: Yup … these are my readers.
Yes, they write into your mailbag to discuss jerking themselves off. It reflects on you that these are your fans. But hey, let's ignore that and hear more about how you had to make the difficult choice between buying a fully loaded BMW convertible or a fully loaded Lexus that has more room for the family. I'm sure your readers would love to read about you swinging your dick around a little bit more.
That won't ever happen of course. It's also nice how Bill writes a column about this major, major dilemma like he is rubbing it in his readers' faces that he even has this choice. He's essentially bragging about how he can do either and his readers won't give a shit because they live to serve him and live their lives vicariously through him. Complaining about having to choose between these two options is just a douchebag move. Just try to be humble and not brag. That's not something Bill can do, because he lives to tell everyone how special he is. He should be making this decision without trying to write about the decision in his article. Bill had made the decision to attend Game 7, but he couldn't resist allowing his readers the opportunity to know he made this choice. Bill also takes the time to explain to his readers, who apparently he feels are all mouth-breathing morons because they aren't him, the special bond between a dad and a daughter.
During Eddie Murphy’s first SNL season, Joe Piscopo started appearing on “Weekend Update” as a goofy sports anchor who shouted the big stories in exclamation points. Saturday would have been perfect for him. NHL playoffs! Kentucky Derby! Game 7! The big fight!!! SATURDAY!!!!!!
I mean, this is typical of Bill Simmons' writing. There's no need for this pop culture reference other than for Bill to say he made the reference and cover up for the fact Bill lacks the ability to simply write an introductory paragraph.
In my first playoffs mailbag column two weeks ago, you might remember me seeing the NBA’s schedule for Round 1 and fretting about one of the all-time sports fan conundrums. If the Clips-Spurs battle miraculously produced a Game 7, that would undoubtedly happen on Saturday night. I already had my ticket for that hypothetical game. But I also had a chance to attend Floyd-Manny, which meant witnessing a once-in-a-generation fight in Vegas with my L.A. buddies. Can’t lose either way, right?
Right, which is why this isn't a difficult choice. Which is also why this isn't something you build your weekly mailbag around unless you just simply want to swing your dick around a little bit and point out that you have the choice of attending a fight or going to a Game 7. Honestly, maybe Bill's readers do care and that's pathetic. Otherwise, nobody else cares and this "Saturday decision" column is just a way for Bill to brag about all the cool shit he gets to do. He's very proud of everything he has accomplished and can't wait to tell everyone about it.
You never want to make a tough decision until you HAVE to make a tough decision … and now we’re here.
My definition of a "tough decision" probably is a little bit different from Bill's idea of a "tough decision." This decision is only tough in that Bill will miss out on an opportunity, but either way he's winning.
Game 7, Spurs at Clippers: 5 p.m. PT, Los Angeles.
Or …
Mayweather-Pacquiao, 8:30 p.m. PT (approximately), Las Vegas.
Pick one.
(Yikes.)
Most people would just say, "I'll figure it out" and go from there. But not Bill, not at all. Bill sees a chance to brag about these two opportunities he gets AND he can get half of a column out of fully breaking this decision down? Yes, thank you more please. Bill can kill column space when he's out of ideas AND the world can know that he's wealthy and connected? The least tough choice Bill had to make was whether to do a full breakdown of this decision.
Here are the for-and-against cases for Game 7 and The Fight.
Because nothing screams "excitement" like getting to go through someone else's pros and cons list.
The Case For Game 7: Even before it officially became “One of Best Round 1 Series Ever,” we knew it had a chance to broach “Feels Like The Finals If They Happened In Round 1” (which is exactly what happened) …
IT'S A SERIES THAT IS TOO OVER-QUALIFIED TO JUST BE A ROUND 1 SERIES!
thanks to those quietly dramatic Hack-a-DJ moments, these contests balloon to nearly three hours and feel a little like those Yankees–Red Sox nail-biter marathons from 2003 and 2004 (without 86 years of baggage and eight decades of hammer-versus-nail story lines, but still) …
GREATEST RIVALRY EVER! NO ONE DENIES THIS!
can Clippers fans affect the game without coming off like a bunch of whining maniacs who inadvertently work their boys into a whining froth (and vice versa?) …
Yes, those Clippers fans are just whining maniacs aren't they? This coming from the guy who built his early career on whining about his favorite sports teams, while inventing new and different ways his teams were cursed for dramatic effect.
I could keep going and going, but one thing I’ve learned in life is that there’s really never a good excuse to miss a Game 7 … in fact, you can use that for your high school yearbook quote if you’re under 18.
“One thing I’ve learned in life: There’s really never a good excuse to miss a Game 7.” —Bill Simmons
Bill is trying to get quoted in people's yearbooks now. So by the way, if there is never a good excuse to miss a Game 7 then why is Bill gnashing his teeth so hard trying to make a decision here? If he feels so strongly that Game 7 is a "can't miss" game then the decision is made, right? Of course not! Bill makes up rules, doesn't stick to them and eventually contradicts these rules over time. So he wants to use "never miss a Game 7" as a yearbook quote, but doesn't mind missing a Game 7 himself.
Most likely, Bill realizes he has half of a column idea for a change and he wants to work it out like he really thought of attending the Mayweather-Pacquaio fight.
The Case For The Fight: We’ve been waiting for Floyd-versus-Manny for six to seven solid years …
I really haven't been looking forward to it. Mayweather does not have a very exciting boxing style, which is why he has to be more exciting out of the ring, because his fighting style in the ring is slow and defensive. It's not exactly Mike Tyson in his prime out there.
I’ve been to a couple of Big Fights in my life, and, from a buzz/electricity/eye candy/celebrity/fashion/comedy standpoint, there’s simply nothing like them …
Bill hasn't bragged in a few paragraphs, so he figured he would just go ahead and do it. Bill has many expensive bottles of wine that he keeps in a separate room next to his leather-bounds books.
But a relentless (and deserved) assault by the media and on social media, too, has rendered him so completely unlikable that the unthinkable happened. Within the past two weeks, a groundswell of media members have been imploring everyone to boycott the fight … and they didn’t seem crazy.
I will not be boycotting the fight for two reasons.
1. As seen by the constant references in his "Book of Basketball" of women as whores or pornstars, as well as Bill's insistence throughout the history of his columns for ESPN.com where he positions women as nags who can singlehandedly bring down a great man's performance in a sporting event with their nagging, Bill hates women. Just in general. Not any specific women and there are women he likes, but mostly, women are bitches and who hasn't wanted to punch one or two at a certain time? I mean, who says "no" to that?
2. No really, why should Bill care about something like a dude hit a woman a few times?
First, I have been a boxing fan since I fell in love with Ali during the mid-1970s, back when Ali’s Wide World of Sports appearances resonated in ways that you couldn’t possibly understand 40 years later.
Ah yes, it's another episode of "I was there so I experienced first hand what no one else can ever experience ever again" from Bill. These are all episodes where Bill attends a sporting event or witnesses something that thousands of others witness, but he acts like he has a special, different perspective from everyone else.
Of the top 200 moments in my life when I said to myself, purely as a sports fan, “I don’t know if I feel good about this,” I think boxing was involved in 185 of them.
Oh, well at least Bill feels bad about liking boxing. As long as he continuously apologizes while displaying the same lack of interest in changing his behavior then all should just fine. We'll call it "The Peter King Rule" where a sportswriter does/says dumb shit and never seems to learn.
Remember, the goal of boxing is to repeatedly punch your opponent, either to accumulate points or to knock him unconscious; it’s one of the most primitive sports we have, and if you’re thinking about attaching humanity and morality to it, you’re fooling yourself.
I'm not the one talking about how much I like boxing despite all of the faults the sport and it's participants have. So save the lecture. It sounds like only Bill is the one fooling himself, yet because he likes boxing then obviously "we" are fooling ourselves as well.
Watching Saturday’s fight doesn’t mean that you condone Floyd’s vile behavior. It’s apples and oranges. This isn’t a sport where you can just pick and choose your viewing based on some arbitrary (but well-intentioned) moral compass. It doesn’t exist. Not in boxing.
So basically Bill's reason for not boycotting the fight was that boxing is a terrible sport so there's no way for him to like the sport and take the moral high ground. That's fine, but could very well be a reason to stop watching the sport. Rather than waste space in this column and the reader's time with rambling, Bill should just write, "I like watching boxing and refuse to stop watching it just because there are some reprehensible characters." Instead, Bill rambles around and makes it seem like he's saying more than he truly is saying.
Second and more important, what’s going to be more entertaining than rooting against Floyd Mayweather? He’s the greatest boxing villain we’ve had since George Foreman 40 years ago! How can anyone not dislike this guy? We get to root for someone to punch Floyd in the face for 12 rounds? I’m supposed to BOYCOTT this? Stop it.
This is probably a good point.
The Case Against Game 7: I mean, shit. It’s Game 7. Even Johnnie Cochran in his prime couldn’t make a good case against a Game 7.
And yet, Bill is wasting space pretending like this is a difficult decision. Like I wrote earlier, he'll do anything to find a topic to write about in his columns. Even if Bill has to create a rule like, "There's no excuse for missing a Game 7" in the very same column/mailbag where he is trying to think of an excuse to miss Game 7. Obviously the concept of this column will come off as a contrived since Bill strongly believes there is no reason to miss a Game 7.
The only “case” I can make against it: Add up Hack-a-DJ plus commercials plus prime-time TV timeouts and this baby could swell past 8 p.m. PT; throw in an unexpected overtime and suddenly you’re looking at 8:30 (yeeeesh), and that’s without factoring in the Staples Center exit (never easy) and traffic (always there). So, yeah, attend Game 7 and there’s a real chance of missing a chunk of the fight (which, based on the history of these fights, probably won’t start until 8:45 p.m. PT).
Whatever time this game ends, I’ll be the guy weaving through the postgame crowd like Barry Sanders and driving home like Dom Toretto. Ride or die.
What is Bill's sudden fascination with "Fast and the Furious"? It's like he has attached himself to these films as an example of modern day pop culture that he will use as a reference and wants to keep beating this reference into the ground.
My biggest problem with the timing of this bout: In December 2012, a cartoonishly enhanced Juan Manuel Marquez —
What kind of 10th grade juvenile fuckery is this to put enhanced in italics? It sounds like you are having a seizure if this sentence is spoken out loud with "enhanced" emphasized.
as Marquez briefly unplugged Manny’s brain for nearly two minutes as everyone frantically Googled “Marquez” and “HGH.” He didn’t just knock Manny out; we thought Manny was dead.
"WE" thought Manny was dead. All of "us."
Now, there are two schools of thought after something like that happens. Either …
There are two schools of thought and only two schools of thought. Any other thought is not a part of either of these schools and should not be considered. There are only two options, at least until Bill thinks of a third option.
1. That knockout (and all the ensuing adversity and doubt) actually made Manny stronger. And it wasn’t just the knockout; it was the devastating feeling of knowing that you had let your entire country down. I mean, Manny IS the Philippines.
That's a link to a Grantland column of course. Because Bill's columns are also a clearinghouse for links to other Grantland columns.
2. You’re never the same after you get knocked the F out like that. You’re never the same. You’re NEVER the same.
Okay, I get it. I'm NEVER the same after I get knocked the fuck out like that. I don't know why Bill insists on using "you" in this situation since 99.9% of his readers aren't boxers and it would be just as easy to write "boxers" as opposed to saying "you," but that's the type of writing that Bill provides to his readers.
Here’s where I would love to be wrong: I believe in the second school of thought (not the first, which feels a little too media-created for me).
(Bengoodfella's head explodes)
Bill Simmons, a member of the media, says "there are two schools of thought after something like that happens..." and then lists these two schools of thought. Bill then dismisses one school of thought, yes he dismissed one of his own ideas, by stating it was a "media creation" which is obviously true because Bill Simmons is a member of the media and just thought of it. I'm not sure how far down the rabbit hole Bill is here, but at this point I think he just created an idea, dismissed the idea and then blamed the media for it's creation.
I don’t see how having your brain get demolished to the point that it says “I’m shutting down for two solid minutes to regroup” is ever a good thing.
(Bengoodfella types sadly) But you just thought of it yourself. With your brain.
By the time that first bell rings, Floyd will have worked himself into a defiant, me-against-the-world frenzy. Only it won’t be a frenzy, because that’s not how Floyd works. He uses outside forces to drive himself to a deeper performance level — improved concentration, deeper resolve, almost like he took Bradley Cooper’s special pill in Limitless.
Cram that pop culture reference in there, Bill. If it won't go at first, just keep pushing. You can get it crammed into the discussion if you just try hard enough.
He’s one of the best ever at hitting people while rarely, if ever, getting hit. And when he’s locked in, when he’s truly locked in, he cannot be beaten. It’s just about impossible.
Hey, remember when this column was about Bill's big decision that had to be made for last Saturday night? Yeah, I barely do too.
Will the fight end up being as special as everyone hopes? Probably not. I hope I’m wrong. I hope Manny pulls off a semi-miracle. Yes, I will watch. No, I’m not going. I made my choice. Game 7.
Great, I'm glad it took hundreds and hundreds of words to get to the point where Bill makes a decision on which sporting event he will choose to attend. His readers definitely needed to be taken through the process on how decided which event to attend, all while feeling like Bill is waving his success in their face and being a douchebag overall, only to come to the conclusion that Bill came to in the beginning based on a rule he created. That rule is there is no excuse to miss a Game 7, yet Bill was going to ignore that rule. Of course.
And by the way? I didn’t have a choice. My daughter turns 10 tomorrow. She’s already a master guilt-tripper and consistently ropes me into doing whatever she wants. It’s a dad-daughter thing and it’s impossible to explain;
Unless you are one of the hundreds of million of people alive on the planet Earth who also have a daughter. In that case, this exclusive club of being whipped by your daughter is easy to explain because it's something hundreds of millions of fathers experience. But go on, tell me about this special bond you and your daughter have that is too difficult to explain. Please tell me more, it's fascinating to hear you experience things no one else has experienced.
I’m spending the entire day with her, then going to Game 7 … and only because she allowed me to do so. Yes, I’m daughter-whipped.
Wow, you are spending the whole day with your daughter? That's amazing and almost like something a parent would do. Fucking bizarre, man. I'm glad she allowed you to go to the basketball game.
I bring this up for a crucial reason: Every May, my daughter’s birthday party falls on an unbelievable sports day.
Oh yeah, that does sound crucial. I don't know how Bill managed to make this incredibly hard decision of deciding which sporting event to attend during the same week he had to give up watching sports during the afternoon to spend time with his daughter on her birthday. If choosing between the boxing match and Game 7 was a Sophie's Choice, having to spend time at home prior to making Sophie's Choice with your kids is clearly the equivalent of being locked in a room with Bill Simmons for an entire day.
I still enjoy how Bill goes through his whole thought process. He doesn't mean to, but he comes off pretty douchey. Actually, he probably means to.
And I could have avoided this, year after year, had my wife and I done the math pre-pregnancy and aimed (no pun intended)
I don't get why this would be a pun, because unless Bill's wife has the world's most bizarre vagina that resembles an elaborate hole on a miniature golf course, he shouldn't have to do too much aiming while attempting to conceive a baby.
Here’s the point: If you’re pulling the goalie and you’re a psycho about sports (and there are more of us out there than you’d think),
Oh okay, there are more of "us" out there than I think? Thanks for telling me because I'm currently reading a column about sports, so the odds are decent that I'm pretty psycho about sports. Bill Simmons telling his readers there are more people out there who are psycho about sports is pretty rich. Why must he lecture his readers on obvious matters such as this?
don’t be afraid to get a little Gladwell/Outliers/Canadian Hockey Parent Weird and aim for a certain birthday range. You can get a little sports-fan selfish about it. It might work, it might not.
Bill Simmons probably believes that he is pushing a new idea here. The idea of planning when a child is born. Families plan when they are going to have their children all the time and will avoid certain months or times of the year. It's called "family planning" and it is done all the time, even if Bill wants to try and throw a sports-bent to it in order to pretend this is a new idea.
But that’s how I came to pick Game 7 (and my daughter, kind of) over The Big Fight.
Thanks and feel free to never explain something like this again. Of course, Bill WILL do something like this again because he wants his readers to know he even had the option of attending two exciting sporting events. Bill is never afraid to tell all his readers the cool shit he gets to do. Anything to soothe his ego.
Time to rip through some NBA emails. As always, these are actual emails from actual readers.
Hey Bill, how about you aim to write an entire column without a mailbag of some sort?
(And as I write this, Bill posts a full column about Tim Duncan. He did it once AND he wrote about Tim Duncan yet again when he wrote a two-part column on Duncan just a few years ago. I'll tell you when I'm impressed.)
Q: During G-State/New Orleans, my son said to me, “You know who Curry is? Gretzky.” And we realized that Warriors/Oilers parallels worked all the way down the roster. Draymond Green? Mark Messier. Klay Thompson? Jari Kurri. Andrew Bogut? Grant Fuhr. You can even make a case for Andre Iguodala and Craig MacTavish. I just can’t think of anyone Curry reminds me of more than the Great One. Skinny. Not a great athlete. And a genius.
—Eric S., Provo
I'm just going to stare in silence at the computer screen knowing this reader just compared Draymond Green to Mark Messier and Andrew Bogut as Grant Fuhr. I mean, no. Don't. Let's allow the Warriors to be the Warriors without comparing Draymond Green to Mark Messier. It's like saying Luc Longley is Grant Fuhr just because they both protected the goal on championship teams. Sometimes the similarities begin and end at the same place.
Bill shoots this idea down saying:
Do we have to bring the best hockey forward ever into this? By the time Gretzky turned 27 (Curry’s age now), he’d already won three Cups and eight straight Hart Trophies (EIGHT!!!) and broken every conceivable NHL scoring record...Do we have to bring the best hockey forward ever into this? By the time Gretzky turned 27 (Curry’s age now), he’d already won three Cups and eight straight Hart Trophies (EIGHT!!!) and broken every conceivable NHL scoring record.
Sometimes (okay, oftentimes) Bill's readers are a little too eager to get his attention and resort to just writing stupid shit.
Let’s just say “He’s a little Gretzky-ish at times” and be done with it.
Yes, "let's" say that. I bet since Bill is a huge LA Kings fan now, he wanted to be the one who made the comparison to Wayne Gretzky but his readers beat him to it. So of course, he had to crap on the idea since they got to the idea before he did.
Q: Regarding your mailbag question on the most appropriate name for the Ben Simmons tanking process over here, a great guy is known to be a ‘top bloke.” Why not call the Ben Simmons tanking process “Choke for the Top Bloke?”
—Jono Adelaide, Australia
BS: Not bad. Last Friday, I asked the readers to see if they could top “Lossie for the Aussie” or “Skimmin’ for Simmons.” My favorite runner-up suggestions: Blunder for Down Under, Poo for a Kangaroo, Bend Down for Ben, DeRailin’ for the Australian and Pulled Asunder for Down Under.
I'm pretty sure everyone remembers, Bill. It was a week ago, not a decade ago. Stop trying to run mailbag contests and just get to the part where you top your readers' ideas with a more clever idea of your own.
Q: Wouldn’t the obvious candidate be “B.S. for B.S.?”
—Alex, Manhattan, KS
BS: “B.S. for B.S.!”
That’s right … B.S. for “B.S. for B.S.”!
That's right! That's right! Why is Bill so excited?
That's fine though. Bill can pay attention to college basketball for a month every year, but I'm going to go on record as saying I think Skal Labissiere is going to give Simmons a great run for his money as the #1 overall pick. That is, unless the NBA doesn't want 6'11" power forward/center combo guys who can run the floor, block shots, are good shooters, excellent rebounders, and have great intangibles. In that case, yes, Ben Simmons will probably easily be the #1 overall pick. Don't sleep on Skal. He's going to Kentucky, while Ben Simmons is going to LSU. It should be fun to watch, but I am not even close to giving the #1 overall pick to Simmons right now. I wouldn't expect Bill to know who Skal Labissiere is though. He only knows about Ben Simmons because they have the same "B.S." initials and last name of "Simmons."
After all, we are talking about a franchise forward with the exact same name as my only son and who just so happens to be entering the same draft lottery in which my favorite team has its own pick, Brooklyn’s pick (UNPROTECTED!) and Dallas’s pick (top-seven protected — and yeah, that team is Year 18 Dirk, Knee Surgery Parsons and Just About Nobody Else right now). This is too important. I need more time.
Oh God, I'm not going to be able to handle it if the Celtics landed Ben Simmons in the draft. I mean, I could handle it, but I couldn't handle Bill's bullshit if Simmons was drafted by the Celtics. Fortunately, the Celtics probably won't be in a position to draft Simmons, even with all of those first round picks.
Also in last week’s mailbag, I gave everyone one week to top “James Dolan, disaster expert” in a new game called “Find someone who has the exact same name as a celebrity, but also has a ridiculous job that somehow ties into how ridiculous the celebrity is.”
Now, some might say I cheated by not including the other Bill Simmons — a.k.a. “El Wingador,” the renowned chicken wing eating champion who went to jail for cocaine trafficking. But I’ve been in the same room with cocaine only once in my life — during Game 7, 2004 ALCS, the bathroom of an undisclosed Boston bar, when I had gone in there to pee and inadvertently walked in on two guys snorting lines off the bathroom sink.
I find it hard to believe that Bill Simmons attended a prep school and Holy Cross, but only managed to be in the same room as cocaine once...and that wasn't even in college.
It’s true: Lenny Bias blew three to four Celtics titles, but he also ruined any chance of me ever trying cocaine.
Well that makes sense. Bill otherwise would have used cocaine, but because Len (not Lenny, it's not Lenny...you aren't Tommy Heinsohn) Bias died after using cocaine Bill decided that it wasn't worth it. Nice to hear that he makes personal life decisions like this not based on what he does or does not choose to want to do, but because it didn't work out well for an NBA player.
"I was going to start using heroin, but the fact Kurt Cobain had a drug problem that helped contribute to his death really turned me off to it. If Kurt Cobain had not used heroin and then died an early death, the urge to stick in a needle in my arm and chase the dragon would have been too much for me to resist! I mean, I really want to use heroin a lot."
That raises a separate mailbag question (I’ll save you the energy): Would I rather have those three to four titles and maybe four to five extra Bird-McHale years (since Bias would have extended their careers) even if it meant there would have been a good chance I’d have at least tried cocaine in college (and then who knows?) … or would I rather keep things the way they were? And the answer, obviously, is OF COURSE I WOULD HAVE WANTED THE EXTRA TITLES AND THE EXTRA BIRD-MCHALE YEARS!!! ARE YOU CRAZY???????
I always have loved the idea that Len Bias would have extended the Bird-McHale years. Bill furthers this idea simply because there is no way anyone can prove him incorrect (there's no way of knowing what Bias would have done for the Celtics), but would having Len Bias around really have caused Bird's minutes to be cut and solved the back problems that plagued him throughout his late career? Bird would have been like, "Oh sure fine, I'll cut my minutes and hand the reins of the team off to this young guy, because I'm concerned about my physical well-being."
That doesn't sound like anything the Larry Bird I knew would do. The same Larry Bird who emotionally abused opponents and teammates. He would have stepped back even just a little bit and shown concern for his physical well-being? Not sure I see that.
Q: Have you noticed that every time CP gets called for a personal, he looks like a toddler who just lost his favorite toy? It’s unbelievable.
—Tyler, Fremont, Nebraska
BS: The Clippers can’t beat San Antonio when they’re worried about the refs for three straight hours. Just play basketball, for God’s sake. As a Los Angeles reader named Ryan points out, it’s not a coincidence that they ended up with someone nicknamed “Big Baby” on this team.
It's no coincidence this "Big Baby" character was drafted by the Boston Celtics, which just so happens to be Bill's favorite NBA team. It's also no coincidence this "Big Baby" guy attended the same college that Ben Simmons, Bill Simmons' new favorite college basketball player, will be attending next year.
Q: Kia commercial idea: Doc Rivers forces Blake Griffin to drive his new Kia 220,000 miles. Car predictably breaks down on the highway, leading Doc to complain loudly about the quality of the California roads.
—Alex H, Baltimore
BS: Come on, come on. They’re trying. Game 6 was a big step forward.
The fact Bill is noting that current Clippers players and the Clippers' head coach complain all the time, when there are ex-Celtics players on the Clippers team and the Clippers' head coach won an NBA Title in Boston with the Celtics is too much for me. I have died of an irony overdose.
Q: You always talk about Rondo being a 90-10 guy, is he now a 10-90 guy?
—Elie, Los Angeles
BS: It’s not that bad. He’s a 50/50 guy now — you love 50 percent of the stuff he does and you hate the other 50 percent. How ’bout the Mavs stiffing Rondo on his 2015 playoff share? Is there a better way to show your contempt for a teammate than stiffing him on his playoff share? I love sports sometimes. I wish ESPN voted on playoff shares every year. I would totall— AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I’M GETTING ELECTROSHOCKED!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Bill still loves to play the "ESPN rebel" angle in his columns and when he is throwing his annual hissy-fit over something ESPN has done. Yet, he loved ESPN enough to stay with them for the past 15 years and is perfectly fine setting up Grantland knowing he had the full financial backing support of the ESPN web of influence. If Bill does leave ESPN, rest assured he will go to another larger sports organization. He wants to be the rebel and outsider, but he's always taking the money and the influence like an insider, because that's what he is.
Bill is like a politician who states that the power should be taken away from the PAC's and other powerful organizations and put into the hands of the people. Bill the politician would state there needs to be campaign finance reform, all while PAC's "not affiliated" with him that just happen to be affiliated with him in some way are collecting millions of dollars to fund his campaign. He puts on a good show about being the outsider, but he loves that ESPN money and exposure he gets.
Then Bill makes a comparison of The Undertaker to Tim Duncan, which is probably the comparison that inspired him to write (another) column about Tim Duncan. Take inspiration where you can get it, I guess.
Q: Does no one care that Lamarcus Aldridge shot 33% against Memphis in Round One? I know Z-Bo and Big Spain are tough, but that’s not exactly the performance you want going into free agency.
—Kevin Linger, Arlington, VA
BS: No because Aldridge wasn’t leaving Portland unless Round 1 went badly. Yes because that series proved something we already knew: Aldridge is a star, but he’s not a superstar. (You’re not a title contender just because he showed up. But in a 2008 Celtics-type scenario, where he’s one of three All-Stars, that’s different. So you’re one-third of the way there with him.)
Oh really? From last week's mailbag:
You could make a strong case for Aldridge being in play this summer.
He’s from Dallas and attended the University of Texas, which opens up going-back-home possibilities in San Antonio (Duncan’s replacement?), Dallas (the Mavs’ new franchise guy?) AND Houston (his best chance for a quickie Finals trip).
So with two of those teams Aldridge would be part of a three-headed All-Star, but Dallas? As the franchise guy? Is Bill referring to Aldridge as a franchise guy here, because if so, he contradicts his own opinion a week later. Then Bill listed the three NBA teams that Aldridge would seriously consider joining.
Which makes me think Orlando (assets + talent + youth + Florida), Boston (assets + youth + role players + President Stevens + great owner/front office) and New York (biggest market, Carmelo, top-three pick, cap space) could be legitimate LaMarcus players here.
Now a bigger contradiction! So where are the three-headed All-Stars on these teams? The Knicks have Carmelo, while the Magic and Celtics don't really have any perennial All-Stars at this point. At no point when providing the formula each team has that would draw Aldridge does Bill write "another All-Star" as being part of the draw. So either Bill thinks another All-Star isn't a draw for Aldridge (which would make sense because he mentions Aldridge doesn't like sharing face time with Lillard for commercial opportunities) or he made up the whole "Aldridge needs two other All-Stars around him to succeed" idea in this very mailbag and has no concern if it contradicts his idea of where Aldridge would end up this summer as a free agent.
In the mailbag a week or two ago, Bill never mentioned that Aldridge would need two other All-Stars around him to win a title. This leads me to believe he, as usual, is making things up on the spot. One would think when discussing Aldridge's free agency and the teams he might choose as a free agent that "Hey, he won't win a title with any of these teams because they don't have two other All-Stars" would come up at some point. It seems like something Bill would mention this since he seems to believe this statement is true.
Q: Save this email, because I’m calling it right now: Myles Turner is going to be an NBA superstar. In three years, when he’s first-team All-NBA and carrying the Cs with Smart and Thomas to the Finals, you can run this email and say “Man, that guy nailed it.”
—Tito Crafts, Northampton, MA
BS: I’ll do you one better: I will run that email and say, “Man, Tito Crafts nailed it.” I’ll throw in italics and everything.
HAHA! Maybe it's the stink of Rick Barnes, but I don't think Myles Turner will make one All-Star team. He's a center who doesn't run the floor like a young person should (seriously, he doesn't move like a 19 year old) and loves to shoot three-point shots when allowed to. He could be a star, but the fact he chose to play for Rick Barnes concerns me greatly. That's bad decision-making right there. I don't think Myles Turner will be an NBA superstar. Ever. Never. Not happening. Of course, I thought Andre Drummond wasn't motivated enough to be an NBA star, so I've been wrong before. I feel pretty confident about this one. Turner couldn't steal minutes from Grimace (that's Cameron Ridley) at Texas, so I don't feel good about him stealing minutes from actually good basketball players in the NBA.
Q: In your 2007 MVP Column you wrote this about Tim Duncan:
This is simply a reminder that Bill Simmons has written about Tim Duncan A LOT over the years. Imagine if the Celtics had landed Duncan in the draft instead of not having a shot at him. There is a chance Bill would have written 2-3 columns per year about Duncan. And yes, it seems at this point writing about Duncan is the only thing that gets Bill motivated enough to write a full column without gimmicks other than YouTube videos.
Now regarding Kelly Olynyk ripping Kevin Love's arm out of socket:
By the way, I’ve been watching Father Kelly for two years; he’s a clumsy, uncoordinated, way-too-nice, laid-back Canadian who sucks at boxing out and had just heard his coach scream at his entire team about not giving up offensive rebounds. I believe it was a fluke. Then again, I’m the same guy who still believes Bernard Karmell Pollard should serve prison time, so I’m probably not an unbiased observer here.
Which is why Bill should be ignored when it comes to almost anything he writes. He tends to come to a conclusion and then finds a way to defend that conclusion. Olynyk meant to do it and it wasn't a fluke. Maybe I'm biased because I never wanted the Celtics to draft Olynyk.
Q: Did the Celtics just lose whatever (admittedly small) chance they had of signing Kevin Love this summer when Olynyk dislocated Love’s shoulder?
—Josh, Boston
BS: Are you kidding? If Love holds any real bitterness, we’ll waive Father Kelly tomorrow! We’ll strip his clothes, force him to walk from Charlestown to the South End wearing an “I’m sorry, Kevin” sign.
Yes, "we" will do this. Also, why shame Olynyk in this way if the injury was a fluke? If it was a fluke then Olynyk should have nothing to be sorry for.
The reason he didn’t intentionally hurt Love doubles as the reason he’s expendable: Again, he’s a clumsy, uncoordinated, way-too-nice, laid-back Canadian who sucks at boxing out (and can’t protect the rim).
Keep repeating the same shit over and over. At some point, maybe you can find someone to believe you. And yes, all of those reasons are why a Gonzaga team built around Olynyk couldn't make the Sweet Sixteen and I didn't want the Celtics to draft him.
Q: It’s not like we need any more proof that God hates Cleveland, but doesn’t Olynyk bear a striking resemblance to Jesus? God isn’t even trying to hide it at this point.
—Mike, Chicago
Sure Mike, if you are one of the idiotic people who thought Jesus looked more like a Canadian and less like a dude of Middle Eastern descent and want to white-wash Jesus into looking like something he probably didn't look like, Olynyk and Jesus are pretty much twins.
BS: I’m starting to feel bad. Can I cheer the Cleveland fans up for a second?
When Wade knocked Rondo out of the playoffs in 2011 I'm sure Bill thought it was just "a fluke" and he has no hard feelings. Sure, I believe that. There's always a reason why Bill's favorite team isn't dirty or didn't intentionally hurt a player. In this case, Olynyk is just uncoordinated so he mistook a player's arm for something else. Maybe Olynyk was frustrated because Stevens was on the team's ass about offensive rebounding and took his anger out on Love? Of course not. He's a nice guy.
Then one of Bill's readers gives a convoluted analogy to why the Cavs fans are not loud enough at games, and of course, it ends with a reference to masturbating. Shouldn't it disturb Bill (because it disturbs the shit out of me) that so many of his readers write into his mailbag by talking about masturbating?
So Cavs fans have the breakup reunion hangover where you can’t quite put 100% of your emotion into it yet because your brain won’t let you! After all, you still keep the lotion and tissues in your bedside drawer just in case.
—Craig, Columbia, MD
BS: Yup … these are my readers.
Yes, they write into your mailbag to discuss jerking themselves off. It reflects on you that these are your fans. But hey, let's ignore that and hear more about how you had to make the difficult choice between buying a fully loaded BMW convertible or a fully loaded Lexus that has more room for the family. I'm sure your readers would love to read about you swinging your dick around a little bit more.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
2 comments Sportswriter Who Doesn't Cover Baseball Regularly, Yet Has a Hall of Fame Vote, Wants to Void PED-aided Home Run Record So PED-aided Home Run Record Isn't Surpassed
Philip Hersh covers the Olympics for the "Chicago Tribune." He covered baseball quite a few years ago, so naturally he still has a Hall of Fame vote. Because that makes sense and this is one of the 50 issues currently plaguing the baseball Hall of Fame voting system. That's beside the point. Hersh is keeping his vote for the Hall of Fame to prevent the PED-users from entering the Hall of Fame. It's not really a noble cause, but whatever gets him up in the morning, I guess. Hersh thinks that MLB should void some of the home runs that A-Rod has hit so that he doesn't pass the home run record that Barry Bonds set. First off, A-Rod isn't passing Bonds. It's not happening and I would bet money on this. Second, does he recognize the logic of voiding home runs set by a PED user so he doesn't pass a record set by another PED user is all kinds of crazy? He does, but he doesn't care. The integrity of the game is what is important, even though giving a Hall of Fame vote to a guy who regularly covers the Olympics probably isn't in the best interests of the integrity of the game either.
Here is Hersh's background:
Philip Hersh, the Olympic specialist for Tribune Co., has covered 17 Olympics and reported from some 50 countries in 30 years with the Chicago Tribune. He likes to use sport as a way to write about the culture of a country or an athlete. Hersh graduated from Yale with a Bachelor of Arts in French literature. His passions include chamber music, road cycling (takes no PEDs except Advil) and Dr. Siri mysteries.
I don't think that precludes him from having a Hall of Fame vote, but since he is a self-admitted globetrotter then I wonder how he has time to pay attention to baseball enough to continue having a Hall of Fame vote? Also, is Hersh the only baseball Hall of Fame voter with a BA in French literature?
I love Hersh's picture alongside his column. It looks like he is very displeased that his picture is being taken because these newfangled cameras are going to suck just a little bit of the soul out of him. What happened to just taking a Polaroid picture and shaking it until it developed?
Alex Rodriguez reported Monday to the Yankees’ spring training camp, two days before position players were expected.
Which of course is another example of something that shows the selfishness of A-Rod in that he didn't even warn the Yankees he would be showing up early to prepare for the season. The Yankees want A-Rod to do his own thing and handle questions from reporters in his own way without involving them, but he should at least keep them updated on his every move. They want control over how A-Rod handles and interacts with the media until they don't anymore.
The repeat doping offender must have wanted to get a head start on his recently reported vow to break Barry Bonds’ career home run record.
Oh sure, Bonds' career home run record is THE OFFICIAL home run record when it comes time for Alex Rodriguez to chase it, but when it comes time to put Bonds in the Hall of Fame based on his all-time home run record, Hersh prefers to leave Bonds out of the Hall of Fame with his tainted record. It's the official home run record until it isn't convenient for it to be the official home run record.
If baseball’s leaders were fully committed to anti-doping, there would be no way Rodriguez could get close to Bonds’ 762 (***) home runs, no matter how many more years the 39-year-old A-Rod plays.
Absolutely true. If baseball's leaders were committed to anti-doping then they would void A-Rod's home runs so that the real home run king, Barry Bonds, could have his record stand. Well, then they would have to void Bonds' home runs since he is tied to PED's as well. So that leaves Hank Aaron's home run record, though given the fact he played during a time of vast greenie use there really isn't any guarantee that Aaron didn't use something that is now illegal for MLB players to use. So baseball should probably void that record too and give it back to Babe Ruth. Though, given Ruth's proclivities off the field, there is no guarantee he didn't have an STD that helped him hit the baseball further and there was simply no testing that could prove this STD contributed to his power surge. So it's probably best if MLB voids his home run record as well, just to be safe. That leaves Roger Connor as the all-time home run king. But he retired in 1897, so he didn't even play against any quality competition during an era when baseball integrated. It's probably best to void that home run record too. In fact, let's just say there is no home run record and talk about it no more. Void every home run ever hit and every win ever won by any team that may or may not have had a PED user, greenie user, carrier of a super-powerful STD, and player who played prior to integration. Throw away the record book and start the records over beginning during the 2015 season. That should ensure there is no funny business with the MLB record book.
Because baseball should wipe at least 190 home runs from Rodriguez’ current total of 654.
Maybe just round up to 200. Fuck it, why not? If MLB is going to start eliminating records then let's just make it easier to keep count and start rounding up or down.
Sprinter Ben Johnson lost an Olympic gold medal and a world record after a positive drug test.
A gold medal is a totally different thing from an all-time home run record in baseball. One takes place over a short period of time, while the other takes place over a 20+ year baseball career. They aren't comparable to each other.
Sprinter Marion Jones lost five Olympic medals and had all results from nearly a year-long period erased after she admitted to doping.
Still not the same thing. These are individual performances and baseball is a team sport.
Little League International stripped Jackie Robinson West of a U.S. title for playing fast and loose with geographical boundaries for its team members.
This is a team sport and it's little league, not professional baseball. I don't think MLB should be in the business of just removing home runs that a player hit because he used PED's. The MLB record book is going to be a bit of a mess already and I see no reason to remove home runs used in the win total of the teams that A-Rod played for. I think it would make the MLB record books even more convoluted and confusing to understand. Worried about "the kids" and what they will think of PED users? Try to tell "the kids" that A-Rod played for the Yankees and hit home runs that count in the win total of the Yankees but don't count for the MLB record book. Sure, the wins count, but the actions taken to get the win do not count.
And baseball leaves A-Rod’s numbers as is?
Yes. You are a quick learner.
Rodriguez told ESPN he had used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001 through 2003. He hit 156 home runs in those three seasons.
This is how Hersh got to the 190 home runs total. Of course, if A-Rod says he used PED's from 2001-2003, then why wouldn't Hersh trust a guy who has lied multiple times about his PED use? Let's base A-Rod's career home run total on when A-Rod states he used PED's. What could go wrong?
The Miami Herald reported Rodriguez told federal agents he had used banned substances from late 2010 to October 2012. He hit 34 home runs in 2011 and 2012.
And again, this is a number that can be trusted because A-Rod has always spit out the truth about his PED use?
Yet the .pdf document spelling out Major League Baseball’s policy on drug prevention and treatment includes no reference to invalidating / erasing individual statistics of a player who tests positive or admits to doping, a common part of discipline for such offenses in Olympic sports.
Which is why voiding the home runs that A-Rod hit so that another PED user can be the all-time home run king is a dumb idea. It's professional baseball, not the Olympics. There is no MLB policy on changing the record book or erasing statistics of a player who tests positive or admits doping and there should not be. Simply because Philip Hersh loves the Olympics and thinks the Olympic penalty for doping is the best policy doesn't mean that MLB should agree. Altering the record book and simply pretending a record wasn't set is a bad precedent for MLB to start doing. Maybe the Olympics are fine with just erasing history, good or bad, but I don't think MLB should be in that business. If so, there would be a lot of history and records set in the 1960's that violated today's MLB policy on drug preventing and treatment. If records are set which violate MLB's policy on drug prevention and treatment, then those records need to be consistently erased from the record books. We wouldn't want a stain on the record book by having any greenie users holding important MLB records.
MLB spokesman Pat Courtney confirmed in an email that the MLB discipline for doping, proved by test or admission, does not include erasing statistics.
Did this really require an email confirmation? There is nothing in the policy that mentions erasing statistics and MLB has never erased statistics before.
It will be even more laughable if A-Rod, who is returning from a one-season doping suspension, passes Bonds’ record, even if that mark hardly is sacrosanct.
MLB wouldn't want the travesty of a PED user surpassing the home run mark set by another PED user. It seems that Hersh uses the LIFO method of statistic erasing. The last person who sets the home run record by using PED's is the person whose name gets erased from the record book first. Bonds may have used PED's, but he was before A-Rod in the record books so his tainted record stays.
It already needs asterisks (***) because of Bonds’ involvement with PEDs, his ridiculous claims of having used them unknowingly notwithstanding.
Why does Bonds get an asterisk but A-Rod's record (that he won't achieve) gets erased completely? The randomness of life? Or is this just how the Olympics would handle the situation? We all know the IOC is an incorruptible organization so it's best to base MLB policies on what the IOC would do in a given situation.
If Manfred wanted to show the sport really has cleaned itself up and that his is a new era, he should start by wiping all the demonstrably tainted statistics from the record books.
But rest assured, this wiping of tainted statistics from the record books would have to include any baseball players in the 1950's through the 1970's that used a substance which is now banned by MLB. The statistics weren't tainted at the time they were set, but those statistics were achieved using methods that violate the current MLB policy on drug prevention.
That means not only A-Rod’s but those of every other player for whom there is a known period of use.
Of course, with many of these players having lied about using PED's in the first place, it's smart to just trust them on the time period in which they used PED's. Of course.
Their best days shouldn’t be numbered.
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!
Philip Hersh will now retire from writing or thinking about baseball until next winter when his Hall of Fame ballot comes in the mail. These are your Hall of Fame voters.
Here is Hersh's background:
Philip Hersh, the Olympic specialist for Tribune Co., has covered 17 Olympics and reported from some 50 countries in 30 years with the Chicago Tribune. He likes to use sport as a way to write about the culture of a country or an athlete. Hersh graduated from Yale with a Bachelor of Arts in French literature. His passions include chamber music, road cycling (takes no PEDs except Advil) and Dr. Siri mysteries.
I don't think that precludes him from having a Hall of Fame vote, but since he is a self-admitted globetrotter then I wonder how he has time to pay attention to baseball enough to continue having a Hall of Fame vote? Also, is Hersh the only baseball Hall of Fame voter with a BA in French literature?
I love Hersh's picture alongside his column. It looks like he is very displeased that his picture is being taken because these newfangled cameras are going to suck just a little bit of the soul out of him. What happened to just taking a Polaroid picture and shaking it until it developed?
Alex Rodriguez reported Monday to the Yankees’ spring training camp, two days before position players were expected.
Which of course is another example of something that shows the selfishness of A-Rod in that he didn't even warn the Yankees he would be showing up early to prepare for the season. The Yankees want A-Rod to do his own thing and handle questions from reporters in his own way without involving them, but he should at least keep them updated on his every move. They want control over how A-Rod handles and interacts with the media until they don't anymore.
The repeat doping offender must have wanted to get a head start on his recently reported vow to break Barry Bonds’ career home run record.
Oh sure, Bonds' career home run record is THE OFFICIAL home run record when it comes time for Alex Rodriguez to chase it, but when it comes time to put Bonds in the Hall of Fame based on his all-time home run record, Hersh prefers to leave Bonds out of the Hall of Fame with his tainted record. It's the official home run record until it isn't convenient for it to be the official home run record.
If baseball’s leaders were fully committed to anti-doping, there would be no way Rodriguez could get close to Bonds’ 762 (***) home runs, no matter how many more years the 39-year-old A-Rod plays.
Absolutely true. If baseball's leaders were committed to anti-doping then they would void A-Rod's home runs so that the real home run king, Barry Bonds, could have his record stand. Well, then they would have to void Bonds' home runs since he is tied to PED's as well. So that leaves Hank Aaron's home run record, though given the fact he played during a time of vast greenie use there really isn't any guarantee that Aaron didn't use something that is now illegal for MLB players to use. So baseball should probably void that record too and give it back to Babe Ruth. Though, given Ruth's proclivities off the field, there is no guarantee he didn't have an STD that helped him hit the baseball further and there was simply no testing that could prove this STD contributed to his power surge. So it's probably best if MLB voids his home run record as well, just to be safe. That leaves Roger Connor as the all-time home run king. But he retired in 1897, so he didn't even play against any quality competition during an era when baseball integrated. It's probably best to void that home run record too. In fact, let's just say there is no home run record and talk about it no more. Void every home run ever hit and every win ever won by any team that may or may not have had a PED user, greenie user, carrier of a super-powerful STD, and player who played prior to integration. Throw away the record book and start the records over beginning during the 2015 season. That should ensure there is no funny business with the MLB record book.
Because baseball should wipe at least 190 home runs from Rodriguez’ current total of 654.
Maybe just round up to 200. Fuck it, why not? If MLB is going to start eliminating records then let's just make it easier to keep count and start rounding up or down.
Sprinter Ben Johnson lost an Olympic gold medal and a world record after a positive drug test.
A gold medal is a totally different thing from an all-time home run record in baseball. One takes place over a short period of time, while the other takes place over a 20+ year baseball career. They aren't comparable to each other.
Sprinter Marion Jones lost five Olympic medals and had all results from nearly a year-long period erased after she admitted to doping.
Still not the same thing. These are individual performances and baseball is a team sport.
Little League International stripped Jackie Robinson West of a U.S. title for playing fast and loose with geographical boundaries for its team members.
This is a team sport and it's little league, not professional baseball. I don't think MLB should be in the business of just removing home runs that a player hit because he used PED's. The MLB record book is going to be a bit of a mess already and I see no reason to remove home runs used in the win total of the teams that A-Rod played for. I think it would make the MLB record books even more convoluted and confusing to understand. Worried about "the kids" and what they will think of PED users? Try to tell "the kids" that A-Rod played for the Yankees and hit home runs that count in the win total of the Yankees but don't count for the MLB record book. Sure, the wins count, but the actions taken to get the win do not count.
And baseball leaves A-Rod’s numbers as is?
Yes. You are a quick learner.
Rodriguez told ESPN he had used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001 through 2003. He hit 156 home runs in those three seasons.
This is how Hersh got to the 190 home runs total. Of course, if A-Rod says he used PED's from 2001-2003, then why wouldn't Hersh trust a guy who has lied multiple times about his PED use? Let's base A-Rod's career home run total on when A-Rod states he used PED's. What could go wrong?
The Miami Herald reported Rodriguez told federal agents he had used banned substances from late 2010 to October 2012. He hit 34 home runs in 2011 and 2012.
And again, this is a number that can be trusted because A-Rod has always spit out the truth about his PED use?
Yet the .pdf document spelling out Major League Baseball’s policy on drug prevention and treatment includes no reference to invalidating / erasing individual statistics of a player who tests positive or admits to doping, a common part of discipline for such offenses in Olympic sports.
Which is why voiding the home runs that A-Rod hit so that another PED user can be the all-time home run king is a dumb idea. It's professional baseball, not the Olympics. There is no MLB policy on changing the record book or erasing statistics of a player who tests positive or admits doping and there should not be. Simply because Philip Hersh loves the Olympics and thinks the Olympic penalty for doping is the best policy doesn't mean that MLB should agree. Altering the record book and simply pretending a record wasn't set is a bad precedent for MLB to start doing. Maybe the Olympics are fine with just erasing history, good or bad, but I don't think MLB should be in that business. If so, there would be a lot of history and records set in the 1960's that violated today's MLB policy on drug preventing and treatment. If records are set which violate MLB's policy on drug prevention and treatment, then those records need to be consistently erased from the record books. We wouldn't want a stain on the record book by having any greenie users holding important MLB records.
MLB spokesman Pat Courtney confirmed in an email that the MLB discipline for doping, proved by test or admission, does not include erasing statistics.
Did this really require an email confirmation? There is nothing in the policy that mentions erasing statistics and MLB has never erased statistics before.
It will be even more laughable if A-Rod, who is returning from a one-season doping suspension, passes Bonds’ record, even if that mark hardly is sacrosanct.
MLB wouldn't want the travesty of a PED user surpassing the home run mark set by another PED user. It seems that Hersh uses the LIFO method of statistic erasing. The last person who sets the home run record by using PED's is the person whose name gets erased from the record book first. Bonds may have used PED's, but he was before A-Rod in the record books so his tainted record stays.
It already needs asterisks (***) because of Bonds’ involvement with PEDs, his ridiculous claims of having used them unknowingly notwithstanding.
Why does Bonds get an asterisk but A-Rod's record (that he won't achieve) gets erased completely? The randomness of life? Or is this just how the Olympics would handle the situation? We all know the IOC is an incorruptible organization so it's best to base MLB policies on what the IOC would do in a given situation.
If Manfred wanted to show the sport really has cleaned itself up and that his is a new era, he should start by wiping all the demonstrably tainted statistics from the record books.
But rest assured, this wiping of tainted statistics from the record books would have to include any baseball players in the 1950's through the 1970's that used a substance which is now banned by MLB. The statistics weren't tainted at the time they were set, but those statistics were achieved using methods that violate the current MLB policy on drug prevention.
That means not only A-Rod’s but those of every other player for whom there is a known period of use.
Of course, with many of these players having lied about using PED's in the first place, it's smart to just trust them on the time period in which they used PED's. Of course.
Their best days shouldn’t be numbered.
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!
Philip Hersh will now retire from writing or thinking about baseball until next winter when his Hall of Fame ballot comes in the mail. These are your Hall of Fame voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)