I get the feeling occasionally that Dan Shaughnessy hates the Boston sports teams. Maybe he doesn't hate them, but just likes tweaking the fans of Boston sports teams and selling books based on the fan's collective misery. He's like Bill Simmons in that way...or is it that Bill Simmons is like Dan Shaughnessy in that way? No matter, Dan is not taking the Patriots loss to the Carolina Panthers very well. He thinks (or probably knows) the Patriots got robbed and says Patriots fans feel that way too (interestingly, if you read the comments from this article then you will see a good amount of Patriots fans say New England simply didn't play well to win the game, even with the ball call). So Dan lets off a little steam, references the Red Sox and then takes a few shots at Charlotte and the excitement around the game to make himself feel better about the Patriots losing. Tear others down to build yourself up. It's pretty much Dan's mantra outside of "Troll as hard as you can to get attention."
Walt Coleman never would have let this happen.
The Tuck Rule. Remember it? That's pretty much Dan's point here. Nostalgia in place of quality writing.
The Patriots were beaten by the Carolina Panthers, 24-20, on “Monday
Night Football”. And they forever will say they were robbed.
I'm pretty sure the Patriots will let the issue drop at some point and move on from this loss. Dan Shaughnessy may never move on from the loss, because Dan prefers to rekindle the past at every single opportunity.
It was a night that tested our faith, and everything that we know to be true about Patriot Football.
The fact Dan is using the term "Patriot football" but also capitalizing the "F" in football deserves a punch in the face. This is much like "The Cardinal Way" or "Team X Way" deserves a brief amount of physical violence that doesn't permanently injure someone but serves as a reminder to not be such a dumbass.
We know that the Patriots always win (five straight, 10 of 11) on
“Monday Night Football.” They always win after a bye week (10 of their
last 13). They always win in the second half of the regular season (24-1
the last three years). They always outsmart and outplay the other guys
in November.
This can't "always" happen. Considering the Patriots have lost a game on "Monday Night Football," have lost three times after a bye, and lost a regular season game in the second half over the last three years shows this doesn't "always" happen. Hyperbole is fun though.
They always cruise to the division title and a first-round bye and a second-round home game.
I will remember Dan wrote this after Dan writes the inevitable "This isn't the same Brady/Belichick Patriots team" and recalls how the Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004 if/when the Patriots are eliminated in the playoffs this season. The Patriots are dominant, at least until Dan needs to paint the Patriots as really good, but never good enough, while also indicating Brady and Belichick are past their prime.
They always break the hearts and spirit of pigskin pretenders. They
always get the last call of the game (Walt Coleman, tuck rule, January
2002).
I'm not sure if Dan is being sarcastic here or is really serious he expects the Patriots to get the last call of the game. I'll just assume Dan doesn't know if he is being serious or sarcastic either.
And so we waited for that last flag to go New England’s way. Tom Brady
had chucked his 40th and final pass into the end zone and it was clear
that Luke Kuechly had Rob Gronkowski wrapped up like King Tut and there
was a flag on the field and it looked like the Patriots were going to
get one more shot at winning the game.
"Wrapped up like King Tut." This is a good chance for me to remind everyone that Dan Shaughnessy has won the Massachusetts Sportswriter of the Year award multiple times. He has written books that sell more than five copies. As I say about sportswriting awards, a sportswriter eventually starts winning awards which validates his writing skill as long as he doesn't die or retire. Stay with it long enough and everyone gets a trophy.
Stand by for Brady to Kenbrell Thompkins for a walkoff TD followed by
David Ortiz launching a grand slam into the cop’s station in the
right-field bullpen.
There's no such thing as a "walkoff TD" and this is typical Dan Shaughnessy writing for him to make a reference to a Boston sports team while writing about another Boston sports team.
We were left with the sight of Brady screaming at a zebra as they came off the field.
Actually Brady and Ryan Mallett were screaming at an official as the officials immediately ran off the field without the politeness of providing everyone in the stadium the exact reason the flag was picked up. It left the viewers to think the only reason the flag was picked up is "because I said so."
Patriots coach Bill Belichick said he received no explanation as to why the flag was picked up.
“The last time I started asking an official about a call, that was the
wrong thing to do, so I have no idea . . . We’ve been down that road
before. Didn’t get one tonight. Didn’t get one at the Baltimore game
[last season with replacement officials].”
That’s Bill-speak. The rest of us, in Jackie Chiles-speak, were “shocked
and chagrined. Mortified and stupefied. Outrageous. A travesty of
justice.’’
Oh, a "Seinfeld" reference. I've become convinced if a network showed residents of the Northern-ish part of the United States in the 45-70 age bracket a channel that only had "Seinfeld" re-runs, a newscast involving Matt Lauer, and documentaries about JFK then that network would be the most popular network in the United States. Maybe that's just my experience.
New England hasn’t been this angry about a ruling against the Patriots
since the cheesy unsportsmanlike conduct/pushing call in a loss to the
Jets Oct. 20.
Dan always thinks the Patriots are getting screwed over on calls by the officials. That is until Dan has decided the Patriots stink, in which case they don't deserve these calls from the officials because the Patriots team as a whole is bunch of losers with no long-term direction but to continuously make the NFL playoffs, while having the audacity to not win the Super Bowl every year.
Brady was shredding the scared Panthers
Terrified, they were absolutely terrified. I'm surprised they even continued playing defense on the last drive.
“It’s exactly what we hoped for,’’ said Panthers coach Ron Rivera. “We
got pressure on the quarterback and our safety was in perfect position
to make the play for us.’’
Little known fact: Ron Rivera actually died in early October. He has been replaced by his twin brother Don Rivera, who took over the Panthers team after his brother's death after quitting his job as the manager of a CVS in San Diego. That's the only way I can account for Carolina winning more than six football games this year.
New Englanders begged to differ. This was like losing a World Series game on an obstruction call.
WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RED SOX TOO! EVERY BOSTON TEAM IS SO CURSED!
I like how the Red Sox won the World Series and Dan's main takeaway from the Series is that they lost a World Series game on an obstruction call. Dan probably wants to forget he counted the Red Sox out at the beginning of the season, but I'm sure his readers don't mind continuously reminding him of this article and this article.
Monday night’s game was one of the biggest sporting events in North Carolina since Michael Jordan left Chapel Hill.
Here we go. Dan is sad, so Dan decides to mock the irrelevance of sports in North Carolina. I would say the seven college Division-I NCAA national titles teams from North Carolina have won since 1984 were a big deal in the state as well. Or maybe getting an NFL, NHL, and NBA team (as well as losing an NBA team and then having it replaced with the Bobcats, an NBDL team that has to play NBA teams for some reason) since 1984 was a bigger deal too. In other words, few people cared in 1984 that Michael Jordan left Chapel Hill and making snide comments about the state reeks of sour grapes.
I do appreciate Dan's "we've been there a lot before so we don't get excited about 'Monday Night Football' home games anymore" attitude, but I have a feeling it's simply not true.
You would have thought the Panthers were a first-year franchise, all doe-eyed about this visit from the big, bad Patriots.
It was a home game on national television where the Panthers were 6-3 playing against a 7-2 Patriots team. It was a big game anyway, but the game being on national television gave it more relevance and importance. Carolina has been one of the worst, if not the worst, team in the NFL over the past 4-5 years so there's a little bit of excitement when the team is relevant again. I'm sure no one in New England gets excited about important games because they play those important games all the time and stuff (brushes shoulders off).
Carolina players, coaches, and fans were pumped and jacked.
So Patriots fans were not excited? Got it. The approximately 20% of the fans at Bank of America Stadium on that Monday night say differently.
It was Yahoo Squared
I don't get this. I don't know what Yahoo Squared is. I think Dan is just jealous that while he was attending the game on that Monday night he saw several Southern women whose perm looks better than his does.
It was hard not to think of the 2012 Houston Texans Frauds who came to Foxborough wearing letter sweaters with an 11-1 record.
Well, except the Panthers weren't 11-1, they were playing in Charlotte not Foxborough, and Carolina ended up winning the game. Other than that, it was the exact same thing.
Charlotte hadn’t hosted a Monday night game in five seasons.
Because the Panthers team was terrible, hence the excitement about having a team with a winning record playing on national television against another team with a winning record. Carolina had a 23-41 record since the 2008 season coming into the 2013 season. It's hard to get a home Monday night game when your team is terrible. When the team starts winning games again, it becomes a big deal.
The game was front-page news in the Charlotte Observer
The local newspaper covered the football game that will bring thousands of dollars in revenue to the city on the front page. Who does that? Inconceivable.
Dan is really trying hard to criticize the Charlotte area for being excited the Panthers were on "Monday Night Football" as if the Patriots are just so over playing big games, due to it being a way of life for them and all. The Patriots fans who bought tickets to the game seemed pretty excited to be attending a "Monday Night Football" game, but I'm sure these aren't "real" Patriots fans in Dan's opinion.
This was billed as a “return to relevance.’’
This was a reference to Don Rivera stating he wanted the Panthers team to become relevant and then stay as relevant. Really, the team had been irrelevant for a little bit of time. This isn't a headline that is being overjoyed, but referenced the team actually mattered for another week on the biggest stage provided to a team in the regular season.
and the cover of the sports section featured an ESPN camera with a big headline asking, “Ready For Prime Time?’’
It was a big game for the Panthers because it coincided with the team performing well again. A lot of cities get excited about a big football game.
The Panthers wore black jerseys and urged fans to dress in Johnny Cash casual.
Except they didn't call it Johnny Cash casual because not everyone in the South listens to country music and worships Johnny Cash. The fans were urged to wear black jerseys because the Panthers were wearing black jerseys.
Most complied.
Miami Heat and Oklahoma City Thunder fans think the Carolina Panther fans are such lemmings for following directions mindlessly.
Back from a three-game layoff (hip injury) Talib was burned on a 42-yard
over-the-top pass and objected to Smith’s hot-dogging after the catch.
Yeah, Smith kind of hot-dogs after a catch. It's his thing. That's just how he gets pumped up and gets the crowd pumped up. Since Smith has done it every single game over the past few years I would sort of expect Talib to expect it and adjust accordingly.
When Smith made a subsequent 5-yard catch on the same touchdown drive,
Talib grabbed Smith by the leg and refused to let go after the whistle.
Talib looked a little like Jeff Van Gundy holding on to Alonzo Mourning.
What? There's no reference to a Boston team here. There's a reference to a Knicks-Heat game. Surely this is a misprint.
After the Patriots tied it at 10 early in the third, Newton submitted a
highlight-reel run for the ages, eluding six tacklers and scrambling for
a 14-yard gain. ESPN-Info calculated that Newton actually ran 75 yards
for the 14-yard gain. You will see this one a lot in the days, weeks,
and years to come.
What a great description. I'm shocked Dan Shaughnessy hasn't gotten a job as a play-by-play guy as of yet. It's so crystal clear I can almost feel like I am there. Besides write well, make accurate predictions related to his job and not be an asshole, is there anything that Dan can't do?
“We left too much time on the clock,” said Newton. “With Tom Brady, I’ve seen that story before. I’ve read that book before.”
Unfortunately Newton has seen that story before by leaving too much time on the clock for Josh Freeman, E.J. Manuel, Matt Ryan, Tony Romo, and quite possibly every other NFL quarterback who had the ball on a final drive in the fourth quarter against Carolina over the past 2-3 years. So the idea that Tom Brady was going to lead a comeback was pretty much a given.
Going for his 39th career comeback win, Brady came back and threw 12
passes in less than a minute. The last one was picked, while Gronk was
held.
I don't know if that pass would have been complete if Gronk wasn't held. Robert Lester was right there, but if Gronk had come back to the ball he would have had a play on it. I guess we'll never know.
“We are relevant,’’ said Rivera.
“We were robbed,’’ said the Patriots.
The Patriots had other opportunities to win this game. They kicked a field goal late in the game when they perhaps should have gone for it on fourth down and the Patriots fumbled in the red zone. I agree there should have been a penalty on that last play. Who knows if Brady was given another shot to score a touchdown from the 13-yard line? Either way, perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but I feel like Dan is doing his best to take passive-aggressive shots at the opposing team and their fans. That's typical Dan though. He has to rip someone and if he can't rip the Patriots then he takes his aim at other teams in order to troll their fan base.
Showing posts with label hater-meter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hater-meter. Show all posts
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Friday, October 18, 2013
3 comments St. Louis Cardinals Super Die-Hard Fan/Writer Tries to Tell Everyone to Hate the St. Louis Cardinals Less in a Way That Makes Some People Hate the Cardinals More
Mollie Hemingway, I'm guessing she is no relation to Ernest Hemingway, writes for "The Federalist" and is just tired of everyone hating the Cardinals. I personally enjoy it because there's really no reason to hate the Cardinals other than the team's complaints about Yasiel Puig not playing the game of baseball the right way, the fact they constantly are a successful team, and they really don't want to be hated so stop it alright? What's funny to me is I'm not sure anyone wants to hate the Cardinals, but Cardinals fans can't stop getting in their own way when trying to make the hate stop. The more I hear about why the Cardinals should not be hated, the more I see why some people hate them. It's become increasingly clear Cardinals fans and sportswriters consider the Cardinals team to be a beacon of greatness and virtue in a sea of MLB teams who have no virtue and have excessive outward displays of emotion on the baseball diamond.
Hemingway basically says, "I can't see why anyone hates the Cardinals," then proceeds to tell us how the Cardinals are morally superior to every other baseball team and then list the accomplishments of the franchise. Yep, that's pretty much why some people hate you. This entire column tells us how great the Cardinals are. This is why you are disliked by some people, because you have to tell us what a great farm system your team has and how the team supports great values (like drunk driving---Tony LaRussa, PED use---Mark McGwire...I don't personally care about PED use, but when talking about the great values of the Cardinals organization I think this makes the PED use of McGwire relevant). This makes people not like you. Nobody likes it when you combat hatred with a response that you are so perfect it's impossible to hate you.
"We don't only think we have the best fans in baseball, it's also that our organization is so much better than yours. What? What's wrong with talking about how great we are? How can you hate that?"
The header of this column has a photo of the World Series titles that the Cardinals have won. You are leading off the column telling us how many World Series titles your team has won, then complain that people hate your team. When beginning an argument on why the Cardinals should not be hated don't include a picture of the World Series titles you have won, because that's pretty much why some people hate you.
So here is the column by Mollie Hemingway and it's contents is the exact reason some people hate the Cardinals these days. Any successful team and their fan base who can't figure out why they are hated and then defend why they shouldn't be hated with stories of the organization upholding great values is going to be hated. I'm a Duke fan. 90% of the world and 75% of the state of North Carolina hates Duke. I don't get it, but I get it. People are tired of hearing about how perfect Duke is and how Coach K is the class of the world, all while Duke is winning games and being upheld as a super-squeaky clean program. I don't wonder why people hate Duke because I know and I own it. If Cardinals fans could just own the hatred of their team then maybe they wouldn't write columns where they try to educate us all on how great the Cardinals organization is. We know how great the organization is because the sports media reminds us every five minutes.
I think the reason for the dislike of the Cardinals is pretty obvious. They are successful and hold themselves up to be a model organization which is better than other organizations. Fans of other baseball teams resent another team's success over the long-term and when that long-term success is combined with unbridled pretention about an organization upholding values it's a combination for great dislike.
A few weeks ago I met a senior vice president at a DC public relations firm. It being the post-season, we got talking baseball. He’s a huge fan. Season tickets to the Nationals. Weekend season tickets to the Orioles.
So he's a guy who has a favorite American and National League team. Sounds like a douche.
When I told him I’m a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan,
By the way if you have to add a word like "die-hard" to explain your fandom then you are trying too hard to sell yourself as a fan of the team. I'm a Carolina Panthers fan. I don't need to prove myself to you by telling you I'm a "die-hard" fan because I'm not insecure about myself.
“I loathe the Cardinals,” he said. “That’s impossible,” I replied. Nobody hates the Cardinals.
No, people do. Because some Cardinals fans like to say things like...
We’re a well-run organization with strong values.
This what this says to me:
"We consider ourselves to be morally superior to other teams because we tout our 'values.' By the way, we play in a stadium named after a beer mogul."
People may hate you because you constantly tout the organization's strong values as if other organizations don't have strong values.
Our fans are the best in baseball.
If you think your fans are the best in baseball, that's fine, it's an opinion and not a fact. Telling us how fucking great you are as fans is a very easy way to make people hate you. The very idea of saying, "Don't hate us, we are great!" will only make people hate you more because you have absolutely no modesty about you.
Hating the Cardinals is like punching your mother. Even if you were tempted, you just wouldn’t do it.
If my mother was constantly telling me what a great person she is and how she is the best person in the world compared to me, then I would probably end up having to outsource the punching, but she would be punched.
By the way, on Twitter when someone reacted to this column, this exchange happened:
No, he meant he is a fan of the Ford Broncos, not the Denver Broncos. Maybe Hemingway was confused because he forgot to leave "die-hard" off when describing his fandom.
But that Sunday at our church in Virginia, I was talking to the kindergarten teacher at our Lutheran school. She’s a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan.
Church, a place where only Cardinals fans go. Did you know the St. Louis Cardinals were Jesus' favorite baseball team? Also, again, if you have to write "die-hard" you are trying too hard.
As we all chatted about the Pirates series, the kindergarten teacher’s husband (a Nationals fan) interjected that he hated us and the Cardinals.
What? How could anyone hate perfection? Explain yourself and your illogical comment made in the house of the Lord!
I found it jarring. Two people in the same week saying something I’d never heard in more than three decades of being a Cardinals fan.
Hey, quick idea. Maybe if you stop telling non-Cardinals fans how superior the Cardinals organization is then they won't hate you as much. Maybe if you stopped pretending you don't cheer for a consistently successful team and this isn't a reason non-Cardinals fans don't like the Cardinals then some of the hatred will stop.
Then Mollie Hemingway talks about Drew Magary's column on why the Cardinals suck and has a very "Midwest" response to it, whatever that is.
Well then! Now don’t get me wrong. We all find East Coast elitist sneering to be persuasive, lacking in any sort of insecurity, and totally charming.
Speaking of insecurity, at least Magary didn't have to tell us he's a "die-hard" fan of a team. Also, Drew Magary is a lot of things, but East Coast elitist he does not appear to be.
However, while the Cardinals aren’t hurting in the payroll department, we’re not actually a top-10 payroll team.
The Cardinals are 11th in payroll. So technically, this is correct. YOU GOT BURNT MAGARY!
The Los Angeles Dodgers raised their spending to $236.8 million this year (for perspective, that’s just about $100,000 behind the Yankees, who spend more than anyone else in baseball). St. Louis spends about half of the Dodgers, coming in at $119.3 million.
Well, as Magary said:
They are a church casserole made out of cream of mushroom soup and Minute Rice. They are a horrible family staring at a Norman Rockwell painting of itself. It’s no coincidence that sabermetric punching bag David Eckstein spent a few years playing for the Cardinals, because no team in any sport puffs up its grittiness credentials quite like this one.
I love how Hemingway comes back against a claim the Cardinals paint themselves as gritty underdogs...by painting the Cardinals as gritty underdogs.
Whether spending $117.5 million less than the Dodgers slightly disadvantages us doesn’t matter. We took the first two games in the National League Championship Series despite the disparity.
Exactly. This sentence is another reason many people are learning to hate the Cardinals. Maybe it's not the Cardinals that some people are hating, but Cardinals fans that people are hating. These are the same fans who counter an argument the team puffs up its grittiness credentials by puffing the team's grittiness credentials, as well as counters arguments on why the team should not be hated by throwing the team's success in our face and announcing not only are Cardinals fans the best in the sport, but the team also lives on a higher moral plane than the rest of MLB teams.
We lost the third due to fielding mistakes and silent bats, not payroll differentials. But let’s not pretend that these are equivalent payrolls.
All baseball games are decided by fielding mistakes and silent bats, not payroll differentials. Teams win games on the field not based on the team's payroll. Being a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan I would assume you know this though.
Still. It’s clear that there’s been an uptick in Cardinals hatred. What’s going on?
Read the introduction to the column you just wrote, it's a big tip-off to what's going on and why.
Let’s first acknowledge some legitimate reasons for frustration with the Cardinals.
You. That's reason #1.
This is true. And it’s not just that they’ve done this, it’s how. As CATO’s director of multimedia Caleb Brown, a Cardinals fan, put it:
My sense is (and my experience may differ from yours) that the Cardinals have been great at pretty much precisely the right moments. 8-1 in elimination games in recent years?! That leaves a mark on people, especially since the Cardinals have really been beating teams that traditionally aren’t that good: 2006 Mets / 2006 Detroit / 2011 Brewers / 2011 Rangers / 2012 Nationals/ 2013 Pirates.
Ah yes, reminding the world how good the Cardinals have been in elimination games. Reason #2.
Also, in what tradition are the New York Mets, Detroit Tigers, Texas Rangers, and Pittsburgh Pirates not very good? Are we talking over the long-term or the short-term? If we are talking over the long-term these four teams have combined for 26 pennants and 11 World Series titles. Yes, these teams haven't traditionally been as good as the Cardinals, but in the long-term four of these teams have traditionally been very good baseball teams.
Fine, then Caleb Brown is talking about how these teams haven't been good in the short-term. For the Pirates, Nationals, Mets, and Brewers I can handle this, but the Rangers have made two World Series in the last four seasons and the Tigers were in the World Series last year. So I would love to know what "traditionally" means because I think in both the short and long-term it's a misnomer.
These clutch Cardinals
Reason #3.
wins sting all the more for those fans that thought this was their year.
BUT IT WASN'T THEIR YEAR BECAUSE THE TEAM WITH THE BEST ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND FANS WON!!!! DON'T HATE US BECAUSE WE ARE BETTER THAN YOU AND GOD'S CHOSEN BASEBALL TEAM!!
And you know how some teams are always the victims of bad calls? While you could never make up for what happened in the 1985 World Series — literally the worst call in sports history — the Cardinals have been on the receiving end of some good fortune in recent years.
Like everything goes right for the Cardinals when they need it to go right. The Braves collapse in 2011 allowing the Cardinals to win the World Series, Bud Selig adds a second Wild Card allowing the Cardinals to make the 2012 postseason...and there are other examples that I am just not thinking of right now.
They wouldn’t have even made it to the playoffs last year if MLB commissioner Bud Selig hadn’t added a second Wild Card slot. And then in that one-game playoff against the Atlanta Braves, they benefited from the hotly disputed “infield fly” call.
It wasn't an infield fly, but the Braves lost on their own accord...which is something Mollie Hemingway feels free to remind us of, showing the humility when having good fortune that Cardinals fans are said to have but seem to never actually show.
Well, that and the Braves made multiple costly defensive errors, even though they were the best defensive team that year.
Again, the lack of humility. Just admit your team got a call and move on. We know the Braves shot themselves in the foot prior to the infield fly rule that wasn't an infield fly. I think that's the major reason why some people don't like Cardinals fans. It's a lack of humility when responding to criticism of their team.
When Hemingway is stating the Cardinals are the benefit of lucky calls, she just can't leave it at that, but also point out the opposing team probably would have lost the game anyway. When confronted with some dislike for the Cardinals, she responds by saying the Cardinals are the best organization with the best values and the best fans, as if it is fact and not an opinion. She shows no humility in defending the Cardinals from the hatred.
The Cards lost their mystical and magical manager Tony LaRussa in 2011
Oh, for fuck's sake. Reason #4. Calling any manager mystical and magical is grounds for an immediate punch to the stomach from a grizzly bear.
and still made it to the playoffs the next two years.
This is what I am talking about with the lack of humility. She's defending the Cardinals from being hated by giving people more reasons to hate the Cardinals. No one wants to hear about how you replaced your Hall of Fame manager and still made the playoffs the next two seasons. Even if it is true, it's annoying.
With a brand spanking new manager Mike Matheny. They lost Albert Pujols and barely noticed the difference.
Yeah, you aren't very good at making people not hate your favorite team.
But being good — which is really what we’re talking about here — is not sufficient reason to dislike an organization.
No, it really is. Being good and always being reminded how Cardinals fans are better fans than you are and the Cardinals organization has such great values, combined with the winning, is sufficient reason to dislike the organization.
The Yankees 27 World Series titles, 40 American League pennants and 50 playoff appearances make them insufferable. The Cardinals top the National League in World Series wins with 11 World Series titles and 18 National League pennants. Tired of the Yankees? Of course you are. Everyone is. But being tired of the team with 11 World Series titles doesn’t make sense.
Yes, it really does make sense because they have the most World Series titles among National League teams and fans (JUST LIKE YOU!) constantly remind us of the perfection of the Cardinals minor league system, the greatness and dedication of their fans, and the values of the organization as if every other organization in the majors doesn't even have a minor league system, the fans don't care about the team, and the organization holds weekly orgies in the outfield.
The Cardinals, despite Magary’s imagination, are known far more for the hard work of team development than they are for their salary offers.
Grittiness, clutchiness, and having a magical, mystical manager. What's not to love?
Cardinals owners and management would rather spend $200 million on the league’s best scouting and farm system than on one aging and declining player. The fact that Cardinals fans are among the most loyal ticket buyers in baseball helps encourage this strategy.
Yes, Cardinals fans are fantastic. You know who has really great fans (even better than the Cardinals if you consider attendance percentage) and have won a couple of World Series recently, yet for some reason they don't go around calling themselves the best fans in baseball? The San Francisco Giants. It's called humility and Giants fans realize no one wants to hear them talk about how great they are.
The Cardinals and their fans certainly have not been tested too hard in recent years. And because of the, um, unfortunate situation of the Chicago Cubs, the Cardinals don’t even have a great rivalry going,
Oh yes, a passive-aggressive reminder the Cubs stink. Actually, this entire column is passive-aggressive in some ways. That's what I mean when I say Mollie Hemingway needs to own the hate rather than passive-aggressively tell us why no one should hate the Cardinals...then giving us several reasons to do so with the contents of this column.
You don’t have to love the Cardinals for the enthusiastic, passionate, loyal and civil fans (with surely one of the larger diasporas out there).
Yeah, there are tall white people, there are white people with light hair, white people with dark hair, white people who are short with dark hair, and then two Hispanic Cardinals fans.
You don’t have to appreciate Cardinals uniforms — the best looking in baseball.
Again, no fucking humility. Being a braggart is a great reason why fans like Mollie Hemingway make some people hate the Cardinals.
And, yes, it is frustrating to see a team play as well as the Cardinals do, with such a great team relationship as they have, year after year — if it’s not your team. No one says you have to love them. But you can’t hate them. It just reflects poorly on you.
Because if you can't love the perfection that is the St. Louis Cardinals clearly there is a problem with you. It's not them, their lack of humility, insisting on calling everything related to the Cardinals organization the best, but it's you for not appreciating the perfection that is the Cardinals organization. Cardinals fans like Mollie Hemingway are the parents of that kid in high school who never did anything wrong, was the best at everything, and then showed false modesty at his achievements while reminding you constantly of their achievements.
If the Cards were cheating their way to these victories, if they were buying them, if they were rude on and off the field … then fine.
How about if the Cardinals take over the mantle of "decorum police" and criticize other teams for excessive displays of excitement and "not playing the game the right way"?
But if you hate the Cardinals because, like Drew Magary, you hate Midwesterners and their casseroles and churchgoing, you may want to reconsider.
This column. This column would be my reason. I don't hate the Cardinals, but I find it hilarious Mollie Hemingway isn't self-aware enough to realize couching why the Cardinals should not be hated by telling us how great the organization is only feeds the dislike even more.
Sports teams should not be idealized extensions of ourselves.
Says the person who just wrote a column about how the Cardinals extolling the virtues and great value system the organization stands for. Mollie Hemingway's argument over why people shouldn't hate the Cardinals is essentially that they represent an idealized extension of ourselves and what we want our sports teams to be.
We should not lose ourselves in them.
Says the "die-hard" Cardinals fan who is so lost in the greatness of her team she can't fathom why a person would irrationally hate them.
They are mostly just money-making enterprises with the millionaire athletes, taxpayer-funded stadiums and offensive beer prices to prove it.
Which is why it is silly to extol the virtues of a money-making enterprise and suggest one money-making enterprise has a great value system than another.
But the organization and community of St. Louis does aim to promote good sportsmanship, a value the club has spent many decades cultivating.
Regardless of whether this is true or not, it sounds so haughty and full of yourself. It makes people not like the Cardinals.
In a world with O.J. Simpson and Aaron Hernandez,
Well, O.J. wasn't an active athlete when he got arrested. This was almost 20 years ago when Simpson was arrested and acquitted for the murder of his wife as well. It just doesn't seem like as a relevant of a reference anymore.
Also, in a world where magic and mystical managers get arrested for DUI, the Cardinals have to stand up for sportsmanship and good values.
But just because there’s been a breakdown in some places doesn’t mean that ball clubs that at least try to uphold values should be loathed.
Mollie Hemingway says we should not make sports teams idealized extensions of ourselves and then says no one should hate the Cardinals because they are idealized extensions of ourselves. Not only is she clueless as to why someone could really dislike the Cardinals, she also is able to contradict herself when making the argument on why a person should not irrationally dislike the Cardinals.
No matter how much Deadspin or others try to make Cardinal hatred a thing, it’s not going to happen.
People can get jealous and bitter when a team that wins a lot of games is also being held up as a morally superior team. It's sort of annoying.
Stop trying to make Cardinals hatred happen.
I think you did more than anyone else could to help the hatred of the Cardinals to thrive by writing this column.
Hemingway basically says, "I can't see why anyone hates the Cardinals," then proceeds to tell us how the Cardinals are morally superior to every other baseball team and then list the accomplishments of the franchise. Yep, that's pretty much why some people hate you. This entire column tells us how great the Cardinals are. This is why you are disliked by some people, because you have to tell us what a great farm system your team has and how the team supports great values (like drunk driving---Tony LaRussa, PED use---Mark McGwire...I don't personally care about PED use, but when talking about the great values of the Cardinals organization I think this makes the PED use of McGwire relevant). This makes people not like you. Nobody likes it when you combat hatred with a response that you are so perfect it's impossible to hate you.
"We don't only think we have the best fans in baseball, it's also that our organization is so much better than yours. What? What's wrong with talking about how great we are? How can you hate that?"
The header of this column has a photo of the World Series titles that the Cardinals have won. You are leading off the column telling us how many World Series titles your team has won, then complain that people hate your team. When beginning an argument on why the Cardinals should not be hated don't include a picture of the World Series titles you have won, because that's pretty much why some people hate you.
So here is the column by Mollie Hemingway and it's contents is the exact reason some people hate the Cardinals these days. Any successful team and their fan base who can't figure out why they are hated and then defend why they shouldn't be hated with stories of the organization upholding great values is going to be hated. I'm a Duke fan. 90% of the world and 75% of the state of North Carolina hates Duke. I don't get it, but I get it. People are tired of hearing about how perfect Duke is and how Coach K is the class of the world, all while Duke is winning games and being upheld as a super-squeaky clean program. I don't wonder why people hate Duke because I know and I own it. If Cardinals fans could just own the hatred of their team then maybe they wouldn't write columns where they try to educate us all on how great the Cardinals organization is. We know how great the organization is because the sports media reminds us every five minutes.
I think the reason for the dislike of the Cardinals is pretty obvious. They are successful and hold themselves up to be a model organization which is better than other organizations. Fans of other baseball teams resent another team's success over the long-term and when that long-term success is combined with unbridled pretention about an organization upholding values it's a combination for great dislike.
A few weeks ago I met a senior vice president at a DC public relations firm. It being the post-season, we got talking baseball. He’s a huge fan. Season tickets to the Nationals. Weekend season tickets to the Orioles.
So he's a guy who has a favorite American and National League team. Sounds like a douche.
When I told him I’m a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan,
By the way if you have to add a word like "die-hard" to explain your fandom then you are trying too hard to sell yourself as a fan of the team. I'm a Carolina Panthers fan. I don't need to prove myself to you by telling you I'm a "die-hard" fan because I'm not insecure about myself.
“I loathe the Cardinals,” he said. “That’s impossible,” I replied. Nobody hates the Cardinals.
No, people do. Because some Cardinals fans like to say things like...
We’re a well-run organization with strong values.
This what this says to me:
"We consider ourselves to be morally superior to other teams because we tout our 'values.' By the way, we play in a stadium named after a beer mogul."
People may hate you because you constantly tout the organization's strong values as if other organizations don't have strong values.
Our fans are the best in baseball.
If you think your fans are the best in baseball, that's fine, it's an opinion and not a fact. Telling us how fucking great you are as fans is a very easy way to make people hate you. The very idea of saying, "Don't hate us, we are great!" will only make people hate you more because you have absolutely no modesty about you.
Hating the Cardinals is like punching your mother. Even if you were tempted, you just wouldn’t do it.
If my mother was constantly telling me what a great person she is and how she is the best person in the world compared to me, then I would probably end up having to outsource the punching, but she would be punched.
By the way, on Twitter when someone reacted to this column, this exchange happened:
@AndrewFord22 When you say you're a Broncos fan, do you mean Denver Broncos?
— Mollie Z. Hemingway (@MZHemingway) October 16, 2013
No, he meant he is a fan of the Ford Broncos, not the Denver Broncos. Maybe Hemingway was confused because he forgot to leave "die-hard" off when describing his fandom.
But that Sunday at our church in Virginia, I was talking to the kindergarten teacher at our Lutheran school. She’s a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan.
Church, a place where only Cardinals fans go. Did you know the St. Louis Cardinals were Jesus' favorite baseball team? Also, again, if you have to write "die-hard" you are trying too hard.
As we all chatted about the Pirates series, the kindergarten teacher’s husband (a Nationals fan) interjected that he hated us and the Cardinals.
What? How could anyone hate perfection? Explain yourself and your illogical comment made in the house of the Lord!
I found it jarring. Two people in the same week saying something I’d never heard in more than three decades of being a Cardinals fan.
Hey, quick idea. Maybe if you stop telling non-Cardinals fans how superior the Cardinals organization is then they won't hate you as much. Maybe if you stopped pretending you don't cheer for a consistently successful team and this isn't a reason non-Cardinals fans don't like the Cardinals then some of the hatred will stop.
Then Mollie Hemingway talks about Drew Magary's column on why the Cardinals suck and has a very "Midwest" response to it, whatever that is.
Well then! Now don’t get me wrong. We all find East Coast elitist sneering to be persuasive, lacking in any sort of insecurity, and totally charming.
Speaking of insecurity, at least Magary didn't have to tell us he's a "die-hard" fan of a team. Also, Drew Magary is a lot of things, but East Coast elitist he does not appear to be.
However, while the Cardinals aren’t hurting in the payroll department, we’re not actually a top-10 payroll team.
The Cardinals are 11th in payroll. So technically, this is correct. YOU GOT BURNT MAGARY!
The Los Angeles Dodgers raised their spending to $236.8 million this year (for perspective, that’s just about $100,000 behind the Yankees, who spend more than anyone else in baseball). St. Louis spends about half of the Dodgers, coming in at $119.3 million.
Well, as Magary said:
They are a church casserole made out of cream of mushroom soup and Minute Rice. They are a horrible family staring at a Norman Rockwell painting of itself. It’s no coincidence that sabermetric punching bag David Eckstein spent a few years playing for the Cardinals, because no team in any sport puffs up its grittiness credentials quite like this one.
I love how Hemingway comes back against a claim the Cardinals paint themselves as gritty underdogs...by painting the Cardinals as gritty underdogs.
Whether spending $117.5 million less than the Dodgers slightly disadvantages us doesn’t matter. We took the first two games in the National League Championship Series despite the disparity.
Exactly. This sentence is another reason many people are learning to hate the Cardinals. Maybe it's not the Cardinals that some people are hating, but Cardinals fans that people are hating. These are the same fans who counter an argument the team puffs up its grittiness credentials by puffing the team's grittiness credentials, as well as counters arguments on why the team should not be hated by throwing the team's success in our face and announcing not only are Cardinals fans the best in the sport, but the team also lives on a higher moral plane than the rest of MLB teams.
We lost the third due to fielding mistakes and silent bats, not payroll differentials. But let’s not pretend that these are equivalent payrolls.
All baseball games are decided by fielding mistakes and silent bats, not payroll differentials. Teams win games on the field not based on the team's payroll. Being a die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan I would assume you know this though.
Still. It’s clear that there’s been an uptick in Cardinals hatred. What’s going on?
Read the introduction to the column you just wrote, it's a big tip-off to what's going on and why.
Let’s first acknowledge some legitimate reasons for frustration with the Cardinals.
You. That's reason #1.
This is true. And it’s not just that they’ve done this, it’s how. As CATO’s director of multimedia Caleb Brown, a Cardinals fan, put it:
My sense is (and my experience may differ from yours) that the Cardinals have been great at pretty much precisely the right moments. 8-1 in elimination games in recent years?! That leaves a mark on people, especially since the Cardinals have really been beating teams that traditionally aren’t that good: 2006 Mets / 2006 Detroit / 2011 Brewers / 2011 Rangers / 2012 Nationals/ 2013 Pirates.
Ah yes, reminding the world how good the Cardinals have been in elimination games. Reason #2.
Also, in what tradition are the New York Mets, Detroit Tigers, Texas Rangers, and Pittsburgh Pirates not very good? Are we talking over the long-term or the short-term? If we are talking over the long-term these four teams have combined for 26 pennants and 11 World Series titles. Yes, these teams haven't traditionally been as good as the Cardinals, but in the long-term four of these teams have traditionally been very good baseball teams.
Fine, then Caleb Brown is talking about how these teams haven't been good in the short-term. For the Pirates, Nationals, Mets, and Brewers I can handle this, but the Rangers have made two World Series in the last four seasons and the Tigers were in the World Series last year. So I would love to know what "traditionally" means because I think in both the short and long-term it's a misnomer.
These clutch Cardinals
Reason #3.
wins sting all the more for those fans that thought this was their year.
BUT IT WASN'T THEIR YEAR BECAUSE THE TEAM WITH THE BEST ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND FANS WON!!!! DON'T HATE US BECAUSE WE ARE BETTER THAN YOU AND GOD'S CHOSEN BASEBALL TEAM!!
And you know how some teams are always the victims of bad calls? While you could never make up for what happened in the 1985 World Series — literally the worst call in sports history — the Cardinals have been on the receiving end of some good fortune in recent years.
Like everything goes right for the Cardinals when they need it to go right. The Braves collapse in 2011 allowing the Cardinals to win the World Series, Bud Selig adds a second Wild Card allowing the Cardinals to make the 2012 postseason...and there are other examples that I am just not thinking of right now.
They wouldn’t have even made it to the playoffs last year if MLB commissioner Bud Selig hadn’t added a second Wild Card slot. And then in that one-game playoff against the Atlanta Braves, they benefited from the hotly disputed “infield fly” call.
It wasn't an infield fly, but the Braves lost on their own accord...which is something Mollie Hemingway feels free to remind us of, showing the humility when having good fortune that Cardinals fans are said to have but seem to never actually show.
Well, that and the Braves made multiple costly defensive errors, even though they were the best defensive team that year.
Again, the lack of humility. Just admit your team got a call and move on. We know the Braves shot themselves in the foot prior to the infield fly rule that wasn't an infield fly. I think that's the major reason why some people don't like Cardinals fans. It's a lack of humility when responding to criticism of their team.
When Hemingway is stating the Cardinals are the benefit of lucky calls, she just can't leave it at that, but also point out the opposing team probably would have lost the game anyway. When confronted with some dislike for the Cardinals, she responds by saying the Cardinals are the best organization with the best values and the best fans, as if it is fact and not an opinion. She shows no humility in defending the Cardinals from the hatred.
The Cards lost their mystical and magical manager Tony LaRussa in 2011
Oh, for fuck's sake. Reason #4. Calling any manager mystical and magical is grounds for an immediate punch to the stomach from a grizzly bear.
and still made it to the playoffs the next two years.
This is what I am talking about with the lack of humility. She's defending the Cardinals from being hated by giving people more reasons to hate the Cardinals. No one wants to hear about how you replaced your Hall of Fame manager and still made the playoffs the next two seasons. Even if it is true, it's annoying.
With a brand spanking new manager Mike Matheny. They lost Albert Pujols and barely noticed the difference.
Yeah, you aren't very good at making people not hate your favorite team.
But being good — which is really what we’re talking about here — is not sufficient reason to dislike an organization.
No, it really is. Being good and always being reminded how Cardinals fans are better fans than you are and the Cardinals organization has such great values, combined with the winning, is sufficient reason to dislike the organization.
The Yankees 27 World Series titles, 40 American League pennants and 50 playoff appearances make them insufferable. The Cardinals top the National League in World Series wins with 11 World Series titles and 18 National League pennants. Tired of the Yankees? Of course you are. Everyone is. But being tired of the team with 11 World Series titles doesn’t make sense.
Yes, it really does make sense because they have the most World Series titles among National League teams and fans (JUST LIKE YOU!) constantly remind us of the perfection of the Cardinals minor league system, the greatness and dedication of their fans, and the values of the organization as if every other organization in the majors doesn't even have a minor league system, the fans don't care about the team, and the organization holds weekly orgies in the outfield.
The Cardinals, despite Magary’s imagination, are known far more for the hard work of team development than they are for their salary offers.
Grittiness, clutchiness, and having a magical, mystical manager. What's not to love?
Cardinals owners and management would rather spend $200 million on the league’s best scouting and farm system than on one aging and declining player. The fact that Cardinals fans are among the most loyal ticket buyers in baseball helps encourage this strategy.
Yes, Cardinals fans are fantastic. You know who has really great fans (even better than the Cardinals if you consider attendance percentage) and have won a couple of World Series recently, yet for some reason they don't go around calling themselves the best fans in baseball? The San Francisco Giants. It's called humility and Giants fans realize no one wants to hear them talk about how great they are.
The Cardinals and their fans certainly have not been tested too hard in recent years. And because of the, um, unfortunate situation of the Chicago Cubs, the Cardinals don’t even have a great rivalry going,
Oh yes, a passive-aggressive reminder the Cubs stink. Actually, this entire column is passive-aggressive in some ways. That's what I mean when I say Mollie Hemingway needs to own the hate rather than passive-aggressively tell us why no one should hate the Cardinals...then giving us several reasons to do so with the contents of this column.
You don’t have to love the Cardinals for the enthusiastic, passionate, loyal and civil fans (with surely one of the larger diasporas out there).
Yeah, there are tall white people, there are white people with light hair, white people with dark hair, white people who are short with dark hair, and then two Hispanic Cardinals fans.
You don’t have to appreciate Cardinals uniforms — the best looking in baseball.
Again, no fucking humility. Being a braggart is a great reason why fans like Mollie Hemingway make some people hate the Cardinals.
And, yes, it is frustrating to see a team play as well as the Cardinals do, with such a great team relationship as they have, year after year — if it’s not your team. No one says you have to love them. But you can’t hate them. It just reflects poorly on you.
Because if you can't love the perfection that is the St. Louis Cardinals clearly there is a problem with you. It's not them, their lack of humility, insisting on calling everything related to the Cardinals organization the best, but it's you for not appreciating the perfection that is the Cardinals organization. Cardinals fans like Mollie Hemingway are the parents of that kid in high school who never did anything wrong, was the best at everything, and then showed false modesty at his achievements while reminding you constantly of their achievements.
If the Cards were cheating their way to these victories, if they were buying them, if they were rude on and off the field … then fine.
How about if the Cardinals take over the mantle of "decorum police" and criticize other teams for excessive displays of excitement and "not playing the game the right way"?
But if you hate the Cardinals because, like Drew Magary, you hate Midwesterners and their casseroles and churchgoing, you may want to reconsider.
This column. This column would be my reason. I don't hate the Cardinals, but I find it hilarious Mollie Hemingway isn't self-aware enough to realize couching why the Cardinals should not be hated by telling us how great the organization is only feeds the dislike even more.
Sports teams should not be idealized extensions of ourselves.
Says the person who just wrote a column about how the Cardinals extolling the virtues and great value system the organization stands for. Mollie Hemingway's argument over why people shouldn't hate the Cardinals is essentially that they represent an idealized extension of ourselves and what we want our sports teams to be.
We should not lose ourselves in them.
Says the "die-hard" Cardinals fan who is so lost in the greatness of her team she can't fathom why a person would irrationally hate them.
They are mostly just money-making enterprises with the millionaire athletes, taxpayer-funded stadiums and offensive beer prices to prove it.
Which is why it is silly to extol the virtues of a money-making enterprise and suggest one money-making enterprise has a great value system than another.
But the organization and community of St. Louis does aim to promote good sportsmanship, a value the club has spent many decades cultivating.
Regardless of whether this is true or not, it sounds so haughty and full of yourself. It makes people not like the Cardinals.
In a world with O.J. Simpson and Aaron Hernandez,
Well, O.J. wasn't an active athlete when he got arrested. This was almost 20 years ago when Simpson was arrested and acquitted for the murder of his wife as well. It just doesn't seem like as a relevant of a reference anymore.
Also, in a world where magic and mystical managers get arrested for DUI, the Cardinals have to stand up for sportsmanship and good values.
But just because there’s been a breakdown in some places doesn’t mean that ball clubs that at least try to uphold values should be loathed.
Mollie Hemingway says we should not make sports teams idealized extensions of ourselves and then says no one should hate the Cardinals because they are idealized extensions of ourselves. Not only is she clueless as to why someone could really dislike the Cardinals, she also is able to contradict herself when making the argument on why a person should not irrationally dislike the Cardinals.
No matter how much Deadspin or others try to make Cardinal hatred a thing, it’s not going to happen.
People can get jealous and bitter when a team that wins a lot of games is also being held up as a morally superior team. It's sort of annoying.
Stop trying to make Cardinals hatred happen.
I think you did more than anyone else could to help the hatred of the Cardinals to thrive by writing this column.
Friday, November 25, 2011
3 comments My Thanksgiving List(s)
This is the time of the year when writers make lists of things that they are thankful for in an effort to tie into Thanksgiving. There's nothing like getting all sentimental about being thankful remembering pilgrims and Indians eating together before the pilgrims' ancestors decided these annoying-ass dark-skinned Native Americans had to go and they were taking over this area known as North America from the Native Americans. I think history went that way. Honestly, most history is so painted over with fictions I am not sure we ever really know what actually happened. Regardless, this is the time of the year for lists. Well, I am going to make a non-sentimental list of 5 things I am thankful for, 10 changes sports need to make and 5 things that piss me off. Because that's what I do around this time of year.
Let's start with the changes that need to be made. Some of these are a big deal and others aren't so much. I could probably do a more fleshed-out version for each of these topics, but I won't do that today.
1. Charge calls near to the basket.
I hate charge calls under the basket. My favorite college basketball team is well-known for taking charges and I cringe whenever I see them take one close to the basket. It is such a subjective call and though the circle in the lane has helped clear things up a bit, I still get annoyed because I think any spot in the lane should be for the shooter. I don't know the rulebook by heart, but it seems many of the officials in college basketball can't seem to get the charge call correct. I feel like the prevalence of charge calls in college basketball prevents teams from playing good defense. Maybe someone thinks a charge call around the basket is good defense and I do think that way in general, but mostly I have a problem with charge calls around the basket. If a player is driving to the basket and is near to the lane, I think it should be a blocking foul. I get a bit irritated seeing a defensive player take a charge three feet away from the basket. I know this isn't how the rules play out, but I feel like the present college basketball charge call rewards bad defense.
2. The discrepancy in pass interference calls on offensive players and defensive players in the NFL.
How is it an offensive pass interference penalty gets 10 yards from the previous spot and a replay of the down, but if the defense commits defensive pass interference it is at the point of the foul? This discrepancy annoys me. I feel like the penalty for offensive and defensive pass interference should be the same. I used to worry defensive players would just commit pass interference if they weren't punished by the offense getting the ball at the spot of the foul, but now I realize that is sort of a silly worry. On a deep pass, it may seem ridiculous for the offensive player to not get credit for where he would have caught the ball absent the interference, but it is also ridiculous the defense only gets 10 yards from the previous spot when a potential interception is taken away by offensive pass interference. I think these penalties should be the same. I'm not sure I care whether the offensive or defensive pass interference penalty is adopted, just so they are the same penalty.
3. Decals on the basketball court in college basketball.
This happens all the time in college basketball. Some stupid tournament is happening in a city and there is a logo decal placed on the court to advertise one of the sponsors. I call it a decal on the court, but it is really a sheet of ice sponsored by Burger King or another company like that. So while these basketball players are on the court they have to watch out when running/walking over these logos because they are slicker than the rest of the floor. It's unsafe, ugly and has no place on the floor. Remove the decals from basketball floors. I always cringe when I see a player do a split or slip while dribbling around on the logo. One day someone is going to get hurt on those logos. Of course the NCAA doesn't care, because along with no giving a shit whether student-athletes ever go to class. They are in the business of making sure their sponsors get the right amount of ad space, even if that means a student-athlete has to tear a groin muscle or break their leg for Valvoline to get a decal on the court. One would think a dangerous spot on the court, a spot that not only serves no purpose being on the court, but is also slicker than the rest of the court would be banned. One would think wrong.
4. I'd like to see a salary cap in baseball, not permanently, but just for a few years.
Let me be clear. I do not want a salary cap in baseball permanently. I would like to see baseball have a salary cap for a few years though, just to see what happens. It's more of an interest to see what would happen than anything. I realize this is impossible. A sport can't switch between having a salary cap and no salary cap on a whim. I think it would be interesting to have the NFL salary cap in baseball for a few years. No, I don't believe baseball needs more parity and this is why there should be a salary cap, I just want to see MLB General Managers work within a cap for a few years. I do enjoy the parity in MLB and I also enjoy the parity in the NFL. It would be interesting to see a hard cap in MLB of $110 million and watch teams work to stay under this cap. It would also make the trade deadline on July 31st that much more interesting because some teams would try to acquire players and still not go over their cap space. I am not sure if a hard salary cap would change the sport too much, but I think baseball would be better if there was a salary floor and a salary cap for a few years. Just to see how it worked out.
5. I would like to get rid of the one-and-done rule.
I favor a two-and-through rule. The one-and-done rule is an NBA rule imposed on college basketball to make it seem like the NBA gives a shit about their athletes getting an education. In reality, this rule serves no purpose, other than to force colleges to enforce an NBA rule and deal with the consequences of the rule. I believe athletes should be able to go straight to the NBA after high school, but I also think there is something to be said for attending college for two years and then going to the NBA. I don't believe a two-and-through rule would cause an excessive amount of players to go to the NBA out of high school, it would improve the quality of the player coming out of college and at least it would give the student-athlete who wants to go to college two years to work on getting an education.
This rule would acknowledge there are those athletes who don't need to go to college and it would also give more lip service to athletes who want to go to college and begin an education while learning to play basketball against a higher level of competition. I think if we asked Harrison Barnes, Jared Sullinger, and Perry Jones, they would say two years in college helped their game improve and prepared them better for the NBA. I just don't know if I like the one-and-done rule anymore.
6. College basketball polls should be released on December 1.
I hate the idea perception of how strong a team is determines how highly ranked a team is. Why can't we just wait a month and start ranking college basketball teams at that point? Rankings are stupid this early in the season, but the polls do serve some purpose later in the season. I just don't see why/how a team can be ranked in a certain position based on perceived strength of the team. Why not wait a month and then rank the teams?
7. The College football coach's polls should be released after three weeks of the season.
I feel much stronger about this happening. A team ranked #20 in a preseason poll that ends up going undefeated could very well miss a shot at the BCS title game because they were ranked so high at the beginning of the season they didn't get a chance to leapfrog two other undefeated teams. Maybe this doesn't happen incredibly often, but why not wait a few weeks to rank the top football teams in the nation? It just makes sense in my mind to rank teams after three weeks of the season once we have seen how strong each team has looked on the football field. Sure, there is a bias in the ranking based on strength of schedule, but ranking the teams based on some information is better than ranking them based on having zero information.
This year's preseason poll Top 10 looked like this:
1. Oklahoma
2. Alabama
3. Oregon
4. LSU
5. Florida State
6. Stanford
7. Boise State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Texas A&M
10. Wisconsin
Four of those teams in the preseason poll aren't in the Top 10 at this point. Florida State and Texas A&M are unranked and Oklahoma State and Wisconsin are #11 and #12 respectively.
Of the four teams currently in the Top 10 that didn't start the season that way, Arkansas was #14, Virginia Tech was #13, Michigan State was #17, and Houston was unranked. It doesn't seem like there is a huge difference in their present ranking and their preseason ranking, but why not wait three weeks into the season to rank these teams? It can't hurt anything and maybe a team like Houston (or Boise State/TCU in the past) would get a higher ranking and receive a chance to be #1 or #2 without the rest of the teams in the major conferences having to lose a game. I also believe it would be much more interesting for the first coach's poll rankings to come out after a few games.
8. The bowl system in college football.
I'm not against the bowl system changing until I see a good playoff system idea set up. At this point, I am not sure the system will ever change or if there has been a quality alternative to the bowl system seriously considered. I would enjoy an 8 team playoff, which I think is enough teams to include championship-caliber squads as well as provide for the mid-majors to get a team or two into the playoff if deserved. My biggest beef with the bowl system is how underwhelmed I feel when I see the bowl projections. After a full season, I tend to feel like there has to be a bigger payoff than some of the bowl matchups. Here are Stewart Mandel's bowl projections. I'm very underwhelmed. In the BCS bowls, I am completely not excited by a Houston v. Michigan matchup. Nothing against those two teams, but it just doesn't excite me and I'm not sure this is a game America has been waiting all season to see. Virginia Tech v. West Virginia is another matchup I am not excited to see in a BCS bowl. I've seen West Virginia play in person and there are probably 20 other teams in the nation that are better than they are. They get an automatic bid because they are in the Big East.
I know it sounds silly to get rid of the bowl system because one person is underwhelmed by the matchups, but isn't the point of bowl games other than to lose money for the schools participating, to gain viewers and create exciting matchups? I can't believe I am the only one who enjoys the college football season and at the end of some football seasons feels a little underwhelmed at the bowl matchups in the BCS games.
Boise State loses one game and now they play Arizona State, the 5th best team in the Pac-12? Clemson had BCS hopes until this week and now they play an inconsistent UCLA team? Is Clemson going to be motivated to play that game? Probably not. We'll get another abomination of a game like last year's Washington v. Nebraska matchup where a bowl chose to take Missouri over Nebraska to punish Nebraska for leaving the Big 12. There are matchups I would enjoy watching, and I do enjoy many of these games every year, but I can't help but wonder why a team like Stanford or Oklahoma State can't get a shot at beating Alabama or LSU before there is an Alabama-LSU rematch? I guess I feel frustrated because there has to be a better way.
9. I would like the NBA to use the NBDL as a minor league system rather than a place where shitty players go to play.
This is somewhat in combination with my two-and-through rule above. Overall, I don't think the NBA knows how to use the NBDL. There is a stigma about playing at that level. I do realize the MLB minor league system is different from how the NBA works, but I would like to see each NBA team have a certain NBDL team. Maybe this is more about changing the perception of the NBDL, but if a player does go straight from high school to the NBA, that player can get playing time at the NBDL level to improve their game rather than sit on the bench in the NBA while getting little playing time. So maybe it is more about changing the perception of the NBDL and less about how teams use the NBDL.
In a perfect world, the NBDL wouldn't be a place where shitty players go to try and make it to the NBA, but is sort of a college basketball-lite league where they learn the NBA system they will be asked to run at the NBA level. In MLB, there are plenty of players who are veterans and take up spot on a main roster while superior, younger players are in the minors working on their skill set. This could work in the NBA as well. I know this sounds like a fantasy, but rather than have NBDL call-ups be rare, I would rather see teams use their NBDL team as a farm system of sorts to improve the NBA team. I feel like there is a disconnect in how the NBA uses the Developmental League and how they should use it. It may just be me.
10. A season opening NCAA-type tournament in college basketball with 32 teams.
I know the concern is this would overshadow the NCAA Tournament at the end of the year. I don't believe it will. I think a 32 team tournament opening up the year would help the momentum caused by Midnight Madness at schools. Rather than have these separate tournaments at the beginning of the year, why not have a 32 team tournament composed of the teams in the 32 team round of the previous year's NCAA Tournament? Actually, I don't care how the teams are chosen, as long as the competition level is high like it is in the NCAA Tournament. In fact, I would be fine with the teams from the round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament and the NIT Final Four getting in the season opening tournament with the NCAA Final Four teams getting a first round bye. It may be hard to schedule this logistically, but I have to believe this would be fun to watch.
Now 5 things I am thankful for...
1. Steve Smith (Carolina)
I just love this guy even though he talks too much shit, has an anger problem and is generally short with the media. When he punched Ken Lucas in the face in training camp a few years ago, I couldn't blame him. I had wanted to punch Ken Lucas in the face a few times as well. I'm not sure Panthers fans appreciate him as much as they should.
2. Aaron Rodgers
He is awesome at the football, which makes him fun to watch. Mostly, I love how he is making Brett Favre forgotten in Green Bay. Even when certain Green Bay-area writers try to cherry pick Favre statistics not using an entire season (I read an article from the past week with an author defending Lord Favre from the idea Aaron Rodgers is on his level and can't find the link), everyone should realize Rodgers is performing at a level Brett Favre rarely achieved. No matter how many Favre-loving writers try, the Packers did a great thing for the Packers over the long term by kicking Favre's old ass out the door and choosing to back Rodgers. I love he makes this decision look smart.
3. College basketball
I just love the sport. I know many people favor the NBA, but I can't help but enjoy college basketball. I realize it isn't basketball at its highest level, but it is still one of my favorite sports...even if my least favorite team won the title last year and my second least favorite team will probably win the title this year.
4. The NFL didn't go to an 18 game schedule
It was just a terrible idea. I hated the idea of more games and I am glad this wasn't a part of the new agreement between the union and players. Unless rosters were expanded I just don't see how teams could play 18 games and expect a healthy roster in the playoffs. Sometimes there is something to be said for not "improving" a product. I think this is one of those cases. Too much would have been too much.
5. Instant replay in the NFL
Remember when there was opposition to this? Why doesn't baseball expand replay? I feel like instant replay has added a nice element to the NFL because it shows when officials make really good calls and how stupid some head coaches are. Yes, for me instant replay is less about the actual replay but how it reflects on the competency of the officials and head coaches. Plus, it is fun to sit at home and pretend you are an official and see if you agree with the call on the field.
Now five things that piss me off...
1. Tebowmaniacs
They can get out of control. For example, when John Elway said on the radio recently Denver had not found their quarterback of the future and he was seen scouting Robert Griffin III and Landry Jones, the Tebowmaniacs went apeshit. They were writing crazy things about the greatest quarterback in the history of the Broncos franchise to him over Twitter. If the Broncos draft another quarterback and Tebow is really such a great quarterback he will find work with another team...or he may beat out the newly drafted quarterback and try to hold on to the job. John Fox likes winning and will go with a quarterback that does this for him. Trust me, Fox won't start a rookie quarterback he doesn't have faith in. These people get so wrapped up in cheering for Tebow sometimes logic and any sort of decorum goes out the window.
2. The NBA lockout
I don't miss the NBA that much right now. The NBA lockout pisses me off because I am not sure the owners and players realize the NBA wasn't exactly the most popular sport in the United States and the negative publicity of the lockout isn't helping the future or popularity of the sport. I enjoy watching the NBA, but this lockout doesn't seem to be doing anything but pissing off the diehard fans of the NBA and alienating any casual fans of the NBA. I'm not Bill Simmons and I don't believe I know how to fix the lockout, but I do believe this lockout has gone on long enough and a missed NBA season isn't going to benefit the league in the short or long-term.
3. Expanding the MLB playoffs and creating a one game playoff
I have accepted the MLB playoffs are probably going to be expanded. I can deal with that. The issue I have is the idea of creating a one game playoff between two of the Wild Card teams. I think this is beyond stupid. What the hell is one more game going to prove that 162 games haven't proven already? Why manufacture drama like this? Life isn't fair, but let's say one of the Wild Card teams won 90 games that year and the opposing Wild Card team won 84 games. Why should the 90 game winning Wild Card team have to play one more game to prove they deserve to be in the playoffs? I can get on-board with an expanded playoff, but don't manufacture drama and make any playoff more than just one game. If two teams have the same record I can understand a one game playoff, but a one game playoff deciding which team gets to advance after 162 regular season games have been played seems stupid to me.
4. The phrase "he just wins games."
This is such a lazy phrase. It conveys no knowledge as to why a person wins games and skips analysis to award the winning of a game to a particular player. For me, this is just an irritating phrase. It is usually used to describe a player who doesn't have the statistics thought necessary to win games, but somehow manages to win. The player's ability to win a game can be described in other ways, but it is easier just to use a simple catchphrase in the absence of doing any analysis.
5. The new MLB CBA (a portion of it)
Here in this link Craig Calcaterra talking a little bit about the new CBA. It basically ensures teams may spend less money on international signings and takes steps to ensure two sport athletes like Bubba Starling isn't going to choose baseball over another sport. This is just what baseball needs, a more efficient way to take the better athletes from looking at baseball as a potential sport of choice. What's next? God forbid baseball takes steps to make the sport more attractive of a sports-related career choice.
So maybe baseball is finally taking steps to achieve Tim Keown's goal of taking all foreigners out of the pool of available baseball players, but from the first look it seems this CBA makes an international sport less international and takes two-sport athletes away from trying to make it in baseball. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Hope you enjoy your Thanksgiving.
Let's start with the changes that need to be made. Some of these are a big deal and others aren't so much. I could probably do a more fleshed-out version for each of these topics, but I won't do that today.
1. Charge calls near to the basket.
I hate charge calls under the basket. My favorite college basketball team is well-known for taking charges and I cringe whenever I see them take one close to the basket. It is such a subjective call and though the circle in the lane has helped clear things up a bit, I still get annoyed because I think any spot in the lane should be for the shooter. I don't know the rulebook by heart, but it seems many of the officials in college basketball can't seem to get the charge call correct. I feel like the prevalence of charge calls in college basketball prevents teams from playing good defense. Maybe someone thinks a charge call around the basket is good defense and I do think that way in general, but mostly I have a problem with charge calls around the basket. If a player is driving to the basket and is near to the lane, I think it should be a blocking foul. I get a bit irritated seeing a defensive player take a charge three feet away from the basket. I know this isn't how the rules play out, but I feel like the present college basketball charge call rewards bad defense.
2. The discrepancy in pass interference calls on offensive players and defensive players in the NFL.
How is it an offensive pass interference penalty gets 10 yards from the previous spot and a replay of the down, but if the defense commits defensive pass interference it is at the point of the foul? This discrepancy annoys me. I feel like the penalty for offensive and defensive pass interference should be the same. I used to worry defensive players would just commit pass interference if they weren't punished by the offense getting the ball at the spot of the foul, but now I realize that is sort of a silly worry. On a deep pass, it may seem ridiculous for the offensive player to not get credit for where he would have caught the ball absent the interference, but it is also ridiculous the defense only gets 10 yards from the previous spot when a potential interception is taken away by offensive pass interference. I think these penalties should be the same. I'm not sure I care whether the offensive or defensive pass interference penalty is adopted, just so they are the same penalty.
3. Decals on the basketball court in college basketball.
This happens all the time in college basketball. Some stupid tournament is happening in a city and there is a logo decal placed on the court to advertise one of the sponsors. I call it a decal on the court, but it is really a sheet of ice sponsored by Burger King or another company like that. So while these basketball players are on the court they have to watch out when running/walking over these logos because they are slicker than the rest of the floor. It's unsafe, ugly and has no place on the floor. Remove the decals from basketball floors. I always cringe when I see a player do a split or slip while dribbling around on the logo. One day someone is going to get hurt on those logos. Of course the NCAA doesn't care, because along with no giving a shit whether student-athletes ever go to class. They are in the business of making sure their sponsors get the right amount of ad space, even if that means a student-athlete has to tear a groin muscle or break their leg for Valvoline to get a decal on the court. One would think a dangerous spot on the court, a spot that not only serves no purpose being on the court, but is also slicker than the rest of the court would be banned. One would think wrong.
4. I'd like to see a salary cap in baseball, not permanently, but just for a few years.
Let me be clear. I do not want a salary cap in baseball permanently. I would like to see baseball have a salary cap for a few years though, just to see what happens. It's more of an interest to see what would happen than anything. I realize this is impossible. A sport can't switch between having a salary cap and no salary cap on a whim. I think it would be interesting to have the NFL salary cap in baseball for a few years. No, I don't believe baseball needs more parity and this is why there should be a salary cap, I just want to see MLB General Managers work within a cap for a few years. I do enjoy the parity in MLB and I also enjoy the parity in the NFL. It would be interesting to see a hard cap in MLB of $110 million and watch teams work to stay under this cap. It would also make the trade deadline on July 31st that much more interesting because some teams would try to acquire players and still not go over their cap space. I am not sure if a hard salary cap would change the sport too much, but I think baseball would be better if there was a salary floor and a salary cap for a few years. Just to see how it worked out.
5. I would like to get rid of the one-and-done rule.
I favor a two-and-through rule. The one-and-done rule is an NBA rule imposed on college basketball to make it seem like the NBA gives a shit about their athletes getting an education. In reality, this rule serves no purpose, other than to force colleges to enforce an NBA rule and deal with the consequences of the rule. I believe athletes should be able to go straight to the NBA after high school, but I also think there is something to be said for attending college for two years and then going to the NBA. I don't believe a two-and-through rule would cause an excessive amount of players to go to the NBA out of high school, it would improve the quality of the player coming out of college and at least it would give the student-athlete who wants to go to college two years to work on getting an education.
This rule would acknowledge there are those athletes who don't need to go to college and it would also give more lip service to athletes who want to go to college and begin an education while learning to play basketball against a higher level of competition. I think if we asked Harrison Barnes, Jared Sullinger, and Perry Jones, they would say two years in college helped their game improve and prepared them better for the NBA. I just don't know if I like the one-and-done rule anymore.
6. College basketball polls should be released on December 1.
I hate the idea perception of how strong a team is determines how highly ranked a team is. Why can't we just wait a month and start ranking college basketball teams at that point? Rankings are stupid this early in the season, but the polls do serve some purpose later in the season. I just don't see why/how a team can be ranked in a certain position based on perceived strength of the team. Why not wait a month and then rank the teams?
7. The College football coach's polls should be released after three weeks of the season.
I feel much stronger about this happening. A team ranked #20 in a preseason poll that ends up going undefeated could very well miss a shot at the BCS title game because they were ranked so high at the beginning of the season they didn't get a chance to leapfrog two other undefeated teams. Maybe this doesn't happen incredibly often, but why not wait a few weeks to rank the top football teams in the nation? It just makes sense in my mind to rank teams after three weeks of the season once we have seen how strong each team has looked on the football field. Sure, there is a bias in the ranking based on strength of schedule, but ranking the teams based on some information is better than ranking them based on having zero information.
This year's preseason poll Top 10 looked like this:
1. Oklahoma
2. Alabama
3. Oregon
4. LSU
5. Florida State
6. Stanford
7. Boise State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Texas A&M
10. Wisconsin
Four of those teams in the preseason poll aren't in the Top 10 at this point. Florida State and Texas A&M are unranked and Oklahoma State and Wisconsin are #11 and #12 respectively.
Of the four teams currently in the Top 10 that didn't start the season that way, Arkansas was #14, Virginia Tech was #13, Michigan State was #17, and Houston was unranked. It doesn't seem like there is a huge difference in their present ranking and their preseason ranking, but why not wait three weeks into the season to rank these teams? It can't hurt anything and maybe a team like Houston (or Boise State/TCU in the past) would get a higher ranking and receive a chance to be #1 or #2 without the rest of the teams in the major conferences having to lose a game. I also believe it would be much more interesting for the first coach's poll rankings to come out after a few games.
8. The bowl system in college football.
I'm not against the bowl system changing until I see a good playoff system idea set up. At this point, I am not sure the system will ever change or if there has been a quality alternative to the bowl system seriously considered. I would enjoy an 8 team playoff, which I think is enough teams to include championship-caliber squads as well as provide for the mid-majors to get a team or two into the playoff if deserved. My biggest beef with the bowl system is how underwhelmed I feel when I see the bowl projections. After a full season, I tend to feel like there has to be a bigger payoff than some of the bowl matchups. Here are Stewart Mandel's bowl projections. I'm very underwhelmed. In the BCS bowls, I am completely not excited by a Houston v. Michigan matchup. Nothing against those two teams, but it just doesn't excite me and I'm not sure this is a game America has been waiting all season to see. Virginia Tech v. West Virginia is another matchup I am not excited to see in a BCS bowl. I've seen West Virginia play in person and there are probably 20 other teams in the nation that are better than they are. They get an automatic bid because they are in the Big East.
I know it sounds silly to get rid of the bowl system because one person is underwhelmed by the matchups, but isn't the point of bowl games other than to lose money for the schools participating, to gain viewers and create exciting matchups? I can't believe I am the only one who enjoys the college football season and at the end of some football seasons feels a little underwhelmed at the bowl matchups in the BCS games.
Boise State loses one game and now they play Arizona State, the 5th best team in the Pac-12? Clemson had BCS hopes until this week and now they play an inconsistent UCLA team? Is Clemson going to be motivated to play that game? Probably not. We'll get another abomination of a game like last year's Washington v. Nebraska matchup where a bowl chose to take Missouri over Nebraska to punish Nebraska for leaving the Big 12. There are matchups I would enjoy watching, and I do enjoy many of these games every year, but I can't help but wonder why a team like Stanford or Oklahoma State can't get a shot at beating Alabama or LSU before there is an Alabama-LSU rematch? I guess I feel frustrated because there has to be a better way.
9. I would like the NBA to use the NBDL as a minor league system rather than a place where shitty players go to play.
This is somewhat in combination with my two-and-through rule above. Overall, I don't think the NBA knows how to use the NBDL. There is a stigma about playing at that level. I do realize the MLB minor league system is different from how the NBA works, but I would like to see each NBA team have a certain NBDL team. Maybe this is more about changing the perception of the NBDL, but if a player does go straight from high school to the NBA, that player can get playing time at the NBDL level to improve their game rather than sit on the bench in the NBA while getting little playing time. So maybe it is more about changing the perception of the NBDL and less about how teams use the NBDL.
In a perfect world, the NBDL wouldn't be a place where shitty players go to try and make it to the NBA, but is sort of a college basketball-lite league where they learn the NBA system they will be asked to run at the NBA level. In MLB, there are plenty of players who are veterans and take up spot on a main roster while superior, younger players are in the minors working on their skill set. This could work in the NBA as well. I know this sounds like a fantasy, but rather than have NBDL call-ups be rare, I would rather see teams use their NBDL team as a farm system of sorts to improve the NBA team. I feel like there is a disconnect in how the NBA uses the Developmental League and how they should use it. It may just be me.
10. A season opening NCAA-type tournament in college basketball with 32 teams.
I know the concern is this would overshadow the NCAA Tournament at the end of the year. I don't believe it will. I think a 32 team tournament opening up the year would help the momentum caused by Midnight Madness at schools. Rather than have these separate tournaments at the beginning of the year, why not have a 32 team tournament composed of the teams in the 32 team round of the previous year's NCAA Tournament? Actually, I don't care how the teams are chosen, as long as the competition level is high like it is in the NCAA Tournament. In fact, I would be fine with the teams from the round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament and the NIT Final Four getting in the season opening tournament with the NCAA Final Four teams getting a first round bye. It may be hard to schedule this logistically, but I have to believe this would be fun to watch.
Now 5 things I am thankful for...
1. Steve Smith (Carolina)
I just love this guy even though he talks too much shit, has an anger problem and is generally short with the media. When he punched Ken Lucas in the face in training camp a few years ago, I couldn't blame him. I had wanted to punch Ken Lucas in the face a few times as well. I'm not sure Panthers fans appreciate him as much as they should.
2. Aaron Rodgers
He is awesome at the football, which makes him fun to watch. Mostly, I love how he is making Brett Favre forgotten in Green Bay. Even when certain Green Bay-area writers try to cherry pick Favre statistics not using an entire season (I read an article from the past week with an author defending Lord Favre from the idea Aaron Rodgers is on his level and can't find the link), everyone should realize Rodgers is performing at a level Brett Favre rarely achieved. No matter how many Favre-loving writers try, the Packers did a great thing for the Packers over the long term by kicking Favre's old ass out the door and choosing to back Rodgers. I love he makes this decision look smart.
3. College basketball
I just love the sport. I know many people favor the NBA, but I can't help but enjoy college basketball. I realize it isn't basketball at its highest level, but it is still one of my favorite sports...even if my least favorite team won the title last year and my second least favorite team will probably win the title this year.
4. The NFL didn't go to an 18 game schedule
It was just a terrible idea. I hated the idea of more games and I am glad this wasn't a part of the new agreement between the union and players. Unless rosters were expanded I just don't see how teams could play 18 games and expect a healthy roster in the playoffs. Sometimes there is something to be said for not "improving" a product. I think this is one of those cases. Too much would have been too much.
5. Instant replay in the NFL
Remember when there was opposition to this? Why doesn't baseball expand replay? I feel like instant replay has added a nice element to the NFL because it shows when officials make really good calls and how stupid some head coaches are. Yes, for me instant replay is less about the actual replay but how it reflects on the competency of the officials and head coaches. Plus, it is fun to sit at home and pretend you are an official and see if you agree with the call on the field.
Now five things that piss me off...
1. Tebowmaniacs
They can get out of control. For example, when John Elway said on the radio recently Denver had not found their quarterback of the future and he was seen scouting Robert Griffin III and Landry Jones, the Tebowmaniacs went apeshit. They were writing crazy things about the greatest quarterback in the history of the Broncos franchise to him over Twitter. If the Broncos draft another quarterback and Tebow is really such a great quarterback he will find work with another team...or he may beat out the newly drafted quarterback and try to hold on to the job. John Fox likes winning and will go with a quarterback that does this for him. Trust me, Fox won't start a rookie quarterback he doesn't have faith in. These people get so wrapped up in cheering for Tebow sometimes logic and any sort of decorum goes out the window.
2. The NBA lockout
I don't miss the NBA that much right now. The NBA lockout pisses me off because I am not sure the owners and players realize the NBA wasn't exactly the most popular sport in the United States and the negative publicity of the lockout isn't helping the future or popularity of the sport. I enjoy watching the NBA, but this lockout doesn't seem to be doing anything but pissing off the diehard fans of the NBA and alienating any casual fans of the NBA. I'm not Bill Simmons and I don't believe I know how to fix the lockout, but I do believe this lockout has gone on long enough and a missed NBA season isn't going to benefit the league in the short or long-term.
3. Expanding the MLB playoffs and creating a one game playoff
I have accepted the MLB playoffs are probably going to be expanded. I can deal with that. The issue I have is the idea of creating a one game playoff between two of the Wild Card teams. I think this is beyond stupid. What the hell is one more game going to prove that 162 games haven't proven already? Why manufacture drama like this? Life isn't fair, but let's say one of the Wild Card teams won 90 games that year and the opposing Wild Card team won 84 games. Why should the 90 game winning Wild Card team have to play one more game to prove they deserve to be in the playoffs? I can get on-board with an expanded playoff, but don't manufacture drama and make any playoff more than just one game. If two teams have the same record I can understand a one game playoff, but a one game playoff deciding which team gets to advance after 162 regular season games have been played seems stupid to me.
4. The phrase "he just wins games."
This is such a lazy phrase. It conveys no knowledge as to why a person wins games and skips analysis to award the winning of a game to a particular player. For me, this is just an irritating phrase. It is usually used to describe a player who doesn't have the statistics thought necessary to win games, but somehow manages to win. The player's ability to win a game can be described in other ways, but it is easier just to use a simple catchphrase in the absence of doing any analysis.
5. The new MLB CBA (a portion of it)
Here in this link Craig Calcaterra talking a little bit about the new CBA. It basically ensures teams may spend less money on international signings and takes steps to ensure two sport athletes like Bubba Starling isn't going to choose baseball over another sport. This is just what baseball needs, a more efficient way to take the better athletes from looking at baseball as a potential sport of choice. What's next? God forbid baseball takes steps to make the sport more attractive of a sports-related career choice.
So maybe baseball is finally taking steps to achieve Tim Keown's goal of taking all foreigners out of the pool of available baseball players, but from the first look it seems this CBA makes an international sport less international and takes two-sport athletes away from trying to make it in baseball. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Hope you enjoy your Thanksgiving.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
4 comments The Most Boring Conversation Ever Part 2: Bill Strikes Back
I was bored reading through this entire chat, so I really had to muster up the anger to mock Bill for it. You know what though? It worked out really well for me, I am pumped up, have had coffee, mom is at work and the fan in the attic is working, so let's do it! Today's post is going to be full of twists and turns, I can feel it.
Nick (Boston): Bill - while nobody works harder than Mel Kiper, what is the point of grading drafts the day afterwards? I feel like if you draft skill-position players that everyone knows, you're universally praised - and with the opposite, panned. The Lions had the greatest draft of the last ten years when they were able to land Charles Rogers and Kevin Jones in the first round a couple of years ago. Madness.
Bill Simmons: Put it this way: I don't even read post-draft grading columns anymore. It's ridiculous. KC traded their best defensive player for extra picks... OF COURSE they had the best draft on paper, but who the hell knows? With that said, I thought Jacksonville and Carolina had the 2 weirdest drafts ... Carolina especially.
I am not even going to choke up saying this, but this is a perfect question and answer for Bill. He seriously nailed this. Nick from Boston, who may well be the smartest person in the New England area, brings up a great point and Bill responds with a smart answer. The Chiefs had a ton of choices, so they had a great opportunity to fill holes in their team, so Bill makes a great point about them logically having the best draft. Buttttttttttttt......
What was so odd about the Carolina and Jacksonville drafts?
Here is what we know about these two teams:
Jacksonville: plays in the same division as Peyton Manning, has a great running game, is really lacking the big offensive playmaker in the air to get over the hump.
Carolina: plays in the oddest division in sports where every year a new team wins the division, coach is very, very, very dedicated to running the ball, needs to help Steve Smith out someway, somehow.
Here is what they drafted:
Jacksonville: 2 DE, 1 LB, 1 CB, 1 RB (Derrick Harvey and Quentin Groves being the two DE's and the key picks for Jacksonville). Jacksonville is taking a page from the Texans book and getting two good DE in the draft to put pressure on Manning, they must think they have covered their WR need with Williamson and Porter in the offseason, and they drafted Chauncey Washington, who is vastly underrated by the way, in case Drew or Taylor get injured. Seems like they have a plan to me. Pressure the QB, pressure the QB seems to be that plan.
Carolina: 1 RB, 3 OL, 1 CB, 2 LB, 1 DT, 1 TE (Jonathan Stewart and Jeff Otah being a RB and RT respectively as the key picks for Carolina). They pick up a big RB and a RT in the first round to improve the running game which will take pressure off Smith hopefully, they must think the pick up of Muhammad and Hackett in the offseason helps Smith out in the air, and are playing for this year in a division where no team has won the division crown two years in a row in like 7 years.
Will these moves work out? Maybe not, but at least they each have a plan. I don't think the drafts were that odd really, I think Bill is an idiot.
Hater-meter: 0.
Sean (Seattle): Have you ever seen a pitcher with King Felix stuff? People talk about all these Cain's, Hughes, Buchholz, etc, but Felix is so much more dominating than any of them. 97 FB, 94 2 seamer with serious movement, 84 changeup with great arm action, and a 78 curveball for a strike when he wants. He doesn't even throw his slider anymore, and that was always considered his best pitch. Thoughts?
Bill Simmons: Pedro in his prime had better stuff (at least of the guys in my lifetime that I watched), but you're right, Felix's "stuff" is significantly better than anyone else's "stuff." he's the only pitcher who makes me flick to his games if he's pitching to make sure he's not throwing a no-no.
Surprise, surprise, Bill says Pedro was better. Look at the caveat he throws in there: "of the guys in his lifetime," which is since the 1970's, "that I watched," which is only Red Sox games and absolutely no National League baseball. So Pedro has the best "stuff" (why the quotes?) of any Red Sox pitcher since the 1970's and King Felix is a close second. So if you take half the league out of the equation and only count the last 30 years, King Felix has great "stuff." Congrats King Felix, now go get an ERA under 3.50 and have hitters hit under .260 against you at least once in your career and I may agree.
My only other thought is, "why would you ask Bill Simmons a question that was not pop culture related?" You should expect a Joe Morgan-esque answer on this because Bill does not watch any other teams!
Hater-meter: 4
DC (NYC): are you ready for the max scherzer era?
Bill Simmons: I don't see him making it - bad name for a potentially dominant athlete. he sounds like he should be working for Rusty Hardin.
The most popular sports columnist on the most popular sports website does not think Max Scherzer is going to make it because of his name. Just thought I would mention that.
Hater-meter: 7.
Scott, Knoxville, TN: Love you, love your stuff, I hate the Pats, so it's bittersweet to see Jerod Mayo going to you guys. I just hope you value a player as good and as smart as he is. Go Colts!!
Bill Simmons: I speak for every Pats fan: We're thrilled for the Jerod Mayo Era. It's going to be nice to watch an inside linebacker keep up speedwise with another team's running back.
Other than the swivel action He-Man I wanted for Christmas when I was 7, I have wanted nothing more in my life than for Jerod Mayo to be a huge bust. It would please me greatly. You know another reason why Simmons is an ego filled piece of shit? He begins sentences with, "I speak for every Pats fan..." You don't, you piece of shit, you speak for you, and you think you speak for everyone else, but you don't. Some fans may have wanted Sedrick Ellis or another player in the draft, so you only speak for you. Shut up.
Two bandwagon fans of different teams speaking to one another, how wonderful. I am guessing Scott from Knoxville is a huge Peyton Manning fan, so he is a huge Colts fan, which pisses me off. Just a guess here but I think Scott is a tool. There is no Colts fan that also loves Bill Simmons unless they are a self loathing piece of shit. Oh, and I can tell Scott is a real piece of shit.
Hater-meter: 8. (just for all the "shits" I wrote)
Horn (Topeka, KS): Over three weeks have gone by, and I haven't heard a single mention of perhaps the greatest (definitely in recent memory) National Championship game. What gives, Simmons? I thought you were a basketball fan?
Bill Simmons: Sorry, I have had an insane schedule the past three weeks - had a question about that game that I was saving for the next mailbag, and also, I did mention the whole "microcosm" theory I had about that game in the last Links. So wait for the mailbag.
Simmonsologists also know that Bill HAS to be write about everything and he has predicted most things before they occurred. Please don't encourage him to talk about college basketball, it just annoys real college basketball fans. This is what his answer should have said to this question.
Bill Simmons: Sorry, I quit paying attention after my prediction of UCLA winning the title was incorrect, and I did not want to bring it up so no one would know that I was wrong and realize I know very little about the sport. Someone did email me about that recently. I want you to know though, I made up some shit bag theory and it turned out correct, so that is what we will focus on when I do answer the question.
Hater-meter: 9.
Eric (Catasauqua, PA): You're Chris Wallace, you get the second pick in the lottery and Beasley goes 1, who do you take at 2 with an already crowded backcourt in Memphis?
Bill Simmons: I think he should auction off the pick. Rose only played at Memphis for 5 months, it's not like he's a hometown hero or anything. They should be turning that pick into one blue-chipper and/or using it to get Brian Cardinal off their cap.
Nick (Boston): Bill - while nobody works harder than Mel Kiper, what is the point of grading drafts the day afterwards? I feel like if you draft skill-position players that everyone knows, you're universally praised - and with the opposite, panned. The Lions had the greatest draft of the last ten years when they were able to land Charles Rogers and Kevin Jones in the first round a couple of years ago. Madness.
Bill Simmons: Put it this way: I don't even read post-draft grading columns anymore. It's ridiculous. KC traded their best defensive player for extra picks... OF COURSE they had the best draft on paper, but who the hell knows? With that said, I thought Jacksonville and Carolina had the 2 weirdest drafts ... Carolina especially.
I am not even going to choke up saying this, but this is a perfect question and answer for Bill. He seriously nailed this. Nick from Boston, who may well be the smartest person in the New England area, brings up a great point and Bill responds with a smart answer. The Chiefs had a ton of choices, so they had a great opportunity to fill holes in their team, so Bill makes a great point about them logically having the best draft. Buttttttttttttt......
What was so odd about the Carolina and Jacksonville drafts?
Here is what we know about these two teams:
Jacksonville: plays in the same division as Peyton Manning, has a great running game, is really lacking the big offensive playmaker in the air to get over the hump.
Carolina: plays in the oddest division in sports where every year a new team wins the division, coach is very, very, very dedicated to running the ball, needs to help Steve Smith out someway, somehow.
Here is what they drafted:
Jacksonville: 2 DE, 1 LB, 1 CB, 1 RB (Derrick Harvey and Quentin Groves being the two DE's and the key picks for Jacksonville). Jacksonville is taking a page from the Texans book and getting two good DE in the draft to put pressure on Manning, they must think they have covered their WR need with Williamson and Porter in the offseason, and they drafted Chauncey Washington, who is vastly underrated by the way, in case Drew or Taylor get injured. Seems like they have a plan to me. Pressure the QB, pressure the QB seems to be that plan.
Carolina: 1 RB, 3 OL, 1 CB, 2 LB, 1 DT, 1 TE (Jonathan Stewart and Jeff Otah being a RB and RT respectively as the key picks for Carolina). They pick up a big RB and a RT in the first round to improve the running game which will take pressure off Smith hopefully, they must think the pick up of Muhammad and Hackett in the offseason helps Smith out in the air, and are playing for this year in a division where no team has won the division crown two years in a row in like 7 years.
Will these moves work out? Maybe not, but at least they each have a plan. I don't think the drafts were that odd really, I think Bill is an idiot.
Hater-meter: 0.
Sean (Seattle): Have you ever seen a pitcher with King Felix stuff? People talk about all these Cain's, Hughes, Buchholz, etc, but Felix is so much more dominating than any of them. 97 FB, 94 2 seamer with serious movement, 84 changeup with great arm action, and a 78 curveball for a strike when he wants. He doesn't even throw his slider anymore, and that was always considered his best pitch. Thoughts?
Bill Simmons: Pedro in his prime had better stuff (at least of the guys in my lifetime that I watched), but you're right, Felix's "stuff" is significantly better than anyone else's "stuff." he's the only pitcher who makes me flick to his games if he's pitching to make sure he's not throwing a no-no.
Surprise, surprise, Bill says Pedro was better. Look at the caveat he throws in there: "of the guys in his lifetime," which is since the 1970's, "that I watched," which is only Red Sox games and absolutely no National League baseball. So Pedro has the best "stuff" (why the quotes?) of any Red Sox pitcher since the 1970's and King Felix is a close second. So if you take half the league out of the equation and only count the last 30 years, King Felix has great "stuff." Congrats King Felix, now go get an ERA under 3.50 and have hitters hit under .260 against you at least once in your career and I may agree.
My only other thought is, "why would you ask Bill Simmons a question that was not pop culture related?" You should expect a Joe Morgan-esque answer on this because Bill does not watch any other teams!
Hater-meter: 4
DC (NYC): are you ready for the max scherzer era?
Bill Simmons: I don't see him making it - bad name for a potentially dominant athlete. he sounds like he should be working for Rusty Hardin.
The most popular sports columnist on the most popular sports website does not think Max Scherzer is going to make it because of his name. Just thought I would mention that.
Hater-meter: 7.
Scott, Knoxville, TN: Love you, love your stuff, I hate the Pats, so it's bittersweet to see Jerod Mayo going to you guys. I just hope you value a player as good and as smart as he is. Go Colts!!
Bill Simmons: I speak for every Pats fan: We're thrilled for the Jerod Mayo Era. It's going to be nice to watch an inside linebacker keep up speedwise with another team's running back.
Other than the swivel action He-Man I wanted for Christmas when I was 7, I have wanted nothing more in my life than for Jerod Mayo to be a huge bust. It would please me greatly. You know another reason why Simmons is an ego filled piece of shit? He begins sentences with, "I speak for every Pats fan..." You don't, you piece of shit, you speak for you, and you think you speak for everyone else, but you don't. Some fans may have wanted Sedrick Ellis or another player in the draft, so you only speak for you. Shut up.
Two bandwagon fans of different teams speaking to one another, how wonderful. I am guessing Scott from Knoxville is a huge Peyton Manning fan, so he is a huge Colts fan, which pisses me off. Just a guess here but I think Scott is a tool. There is no Colts fan that also loves Bill Simmons unless they are a self loathing piece of shit. Oh, and I can tell Scott is a real piece of shit.
Hater-meter: 8. (just for all the "shits" I wrote)
Horn (Topeka, KS): Over three weeks have gone by, and I haven't heard a single mention of perhaps the greatest (definitely in recent memory) National Championship game. What gives, Simmons? I thought you were a basketball fan?
Bill Simmons: Sorry, I have had an insane schedule the past three weeks - had a question about that game that I was saving for the next mailbag, and also, I did mention the whole "microcosm" theory I had about that game in the last Links. So wait for the mailbag.
Simmonsologists also know that Bill HAS to be write about everything and he has predicted most things before they occurred. Please don't encourage him to talk about college basketball, it just annoys real college basketball fans. This is what his answer should have said to this question.
Bill Simmons: Sorry, I quit paying attention after my prediction of UCLA winning the title was incorrect, and I did not want to bring it up so no one would know that I was wrong and realize I know very little about the sport. Someone did email me about that recently. I want you to know though, I made up some shit bag theory and it turned out correct, so that is what we will focus on when I do answer the question.
Hater-meter: 9.
Eric (Catasauqua, PA): You're Chris Wallace, you get the second pick in the lottery and Beasley goes 1, who do you take at 2 with an already crowded backcourt in Memphis?
Bill Simmons: I think he should auction off the pick. Rose only played at Memphis for 5 months, it's not like he's a hometown hero or anything. They should be turning that pick into one blue-chipper and/or using it to get Brian Cardinal off their cap.
GM Simmons strikes again. Pretend you win a new home in a drawing from HGTV. The HGTV representative shows up at your door and says, "here is your new home." GM Simmons would say, "I already have this string of really shitty trailer parks, I don't need a new home, what we really need is money and a smaller home rather than the one you are going to give me for free." This is why he should not be a GM.
My point is this. Being a hometown hero has nothing to do with this pick, what DOES have to do with this pick is you need a great player in the draft to help turn your franchise around if you are Memphis. Is Derrick Rose the one for Memphis or not? That is the question.
I am not sure what Simmons means by turning the pick into a blue chipper, because Rose is a blue chipper. How about you sell all the shitty trailer parks you have and try to start over with a new home? I think that is a better idea.
Hater-meter: 5.
Mike (Indianapolis): How good do you think Eric Gordon can be in the NBA, and what lottery team do you think would be the best fit for him?
Bill Simmons: I don't totally see it with him - beautiful shot and not a lot of big-game production. best-case scenario, he finds the right team that gives him time and minutes to develop like Joe Johnson did on Phoenix. Worst-case scenario, he goes to the wrong team and gets asked to do too much too soon.
This exact same statement, outside of the Joe Johnson reference, could be said about every upper tier prospect in every major sport. So which lottery team is the best fit again Bill? Remember this is your area of expertise?
Simmonsologists know when you ask Bill a specific question that does not involve New England teams or specific NBA trades, you get generic responses. Example A is right here.
Hater-meter: 3.
Jason S. (Columbus, OH): After listening to the Jack-O podcast a couple weeks ago I am convinced that we need an MTV classic! Like you wouldn't watch old Real Worlds, Road Rules, Remote Control, who knows maybe they could even devote an hour a day to playing some classic videos! At the very least we could make Aaron and Dominiq from LA sweat a little bit, Dom might even turn to the bottle again!
Bill Simmons: I have been poushing for MTV Classic for years. No idea why it hasn't happened yet - between the Real World, all the Awards shows, all the goofy specials they had in the 80's (remember John Mellencamp giving away a pink house?) and everything else, they'd have enough content, right?
Fuck you Jack S from Columbus, OH, Bill thought of that idea first. No matter what you do or suggest, Bill has thought of the joke or the idea first, so he agrees but how does it taste to be second motherfucker? Like Bahstahn creem pieh? Here's a sample list of things Bill thought of first:
1. The internet.
2. Chanting MVP.
3. MTV Classic.
4. Gravity.
5. Bikinis
Hater-meter: 2.
Brian (DC): Am I the only Red Sox fan that thinks Ellsbury is remarkably overrated? Every Sox fan thinks this guy will hit .330 and steal 150 bases and the fact of the matter is he will never be as good as he was in the World Series.
Bill Simmons: HOW DARE YOU!?!?!?????
No, you are not the only Red Sox fan that thinks this. Brian from DC, you seem to have Simmonsitis, where you think you have the only team and fan base in the world. Here's a secret: Everyone else in the world agrees with you. Ellsbury is a 3 tool prospect, it has been douche bags like you and ESPN that have overhyped him since he got hot for three weeks in October.
Notice how Bill does not respond to this with any arguments or any analysis, even though you KNOW he disagrees and thinks Ellsbury is the best thing since the Gauntlet returned. You know why? Because a member of Red Sox Nation does not argue with another member of Red Sox Nation, that's why. It's in the new book, "Red Sox Nation: Or how mildly interested fans of the sport baseball all latched on to one team because their lives needed extra meaning and they have low self esteem...and the other team they liked sucked and they want to be winners."
Hater-meter: 3.
D, SC: It's hour 3 and still no draft talk? Thanks for helping me get through another work day.
Bill Simmons: ive been waitring for some quality Draft questions - where are they? This seems like a good time to mention that my Dad, who watches every BC game, is convinced that Matt Ryan will be a bust because "he throws it up for grabs too much" (Dad's words). He's never been wrong about a BC player, ever. Warrants mentioning.
I see where Bill gets the Simmonitis from now. First off, this did not warrant mentioning, because I am sure he has been wrong about one BC player. Since when does Simmons wait for quality questions too? He posted some comments these assholes were making about Clemens and the Mindy McCready situation throughout the chat with underage jokes included. Based on that I think quantity, not quality, is what he is looking for. Maybe there were no draft questions that dealt with the Pats and that is why he has not answered any of the questions. I remind you one more time, he knows nothing about any other team, except the Patriots. Based on this, quality questions are probably not the problem, but "questions he can answer" is the issue.
Hater-meter: 2.
Matt (Seattle): I find it hard to believe the Pops picked Mattie Hasselbeck to be a Pro Bowl QB. Was he right on him???
Bill Simmons: Yeah, he really liked Hasselbeck. I take it back though - he was wrong on a BC guy once... Billy Curley. But that wasn't Dad's fault, he was getting old and kept confusing the guy for Dave Cowens.
I call bullshit on this one. I don't think he liked Hasselbeck to point where he thought he would be Pro Bowl quarterback. What is it with the Simmons family where they have to be right ALL THE TIME? If not, they think of what I call "a horseshit excuse."
Curley was drafted in 1994 and Hasselbeck in 1998, but the reason his dad missed on Curley was that Old Man Simmons was old in 1994. Not so much older in 1998, but mostly 1994. Maybe Curley just ended up in a bad situation where he was not given consistent playing time or was asked to do too much too soon. See? That Eric Gordon analysis can be used for every prospect.
Hater-meter: 9.
Josh (Troy, AL): hey Bill, how did your football fantasy league go this past year? i read in one of your columns that you thought you may have had the chance to go undefeated, and didn't know if it had ever been done before. I myself was until the second to last week, the injuries and madness ensued... I was just wondering if you sealed the deal. Oh, and props to Leodis McKelvin going 11th overall, I thought your Pats were gonna get him....
Bill Simmons: Nah, I lost twice during the season - won the title though. It's impossible to go undefeated in a league with good owners. I am convinced.
Read Bill's response but imagine him wearing a cowboy hat and relaxing in a rocking chair in a slow southern accent. Too much fun, huh? I love how he did not choke when he lost in the league, there were just good owners. He is probably in a fantasy league with the best owners in the world who are the most competitive and know the most about sports. See, this is "a horseshit excuse."
Hater-meter: 6.
Mike (Chicago): did your dad have flutie becoming the pride of Canada?
Bill Simmons: The Simmons family still believes that Flutie could have been an NFL force had he skipped the USFL and landed on the right NFL team. Nobody really figured out how to use him until he went to Buffalo. Raymond Berry didn't have a clue - it was a chore for Berry to stand upright on the sidelines for 4 quarters.
A sentence full of "horseshit excuses." This is what Simmons uses when he is wrong. Let's count them:
1. "Flutie could have been an NFL force had he skipped the USFL..."
-Remember how you ripped Charles Barkley for mentioning Rasheed Wallace's potential? But Flutie did not skip the USFL, just like Rasheed Wallace is not the best player in the league.
2. "...if he landed on the right team."
-If any player lands on "the right team" he is going to be good. Just like some QB's are better fits for different systems, but others just have natural talent.
3. "Nobody really figured out how to use him until he went to Buffalo."
-what were the other coaches having him do, kick the ball downfield to his receivers or making him play linebacker? He was a QB, so they were having him do the things that a QB does, which is take a snap and hand the ball off or throw the ball to a receiver. If he is a good QB, then that is how you use him. What you really mean is "nobody really figured out how to use a QB that is a hobbit." There is a difference between figuring out how to use a QB and having to use only a third of the playbook because the QB has physical limitations. Generally you don't refer to QB's as a position you may have to figure how to use the player. Usually it is a player that is too short for QB but could not take the beating of the running back position or a defensive player that is a tweener between LB/DE or S/CB that you have to figure out how to use them. Flutie could only play QB, so I am not sure how much more there is to figure out.
4. "Raymond Berry didn't have a clue..."
-now it is the coaches fault? Berry was 48-39 and 3-2 in the playoffs in his coaching career, so to blame him seems pretty stupid. It seems like anytime Bill is running out of "horseshit excuses" he falls back on it being the coaches fault. Doc Rivers, Grady Little, etc.
Hater-meter: 10.
Matt (Pittsburgh): How is it remotely fair that the Patriots, coming off the first 16 win regular season in history, are awarded the easiest schedule in the last decade? Are you excited to go 16-0 again but lose in the playoffs?
Bill Simmons: I have to be honest - the Draft was the first time in 10 weeks that I've read or thought about the NFL for more than about 10 seconds. I was traumatized by SB 42. And still am. This season could start 18 months from now and I'd be fine with it. I'm not ready to go back.
Remember this comment when he writes his first "Back to back 16-0 seasons" column. This is why Bill does not have a comment section on his columns, he can never think of a comeback to anything his readers say. I bet it takes him two hours to come up with his jokes and they still suck. This guy calls out his favorite team and all Bill can do is whine about how sad it was they lost the perfect season in the Super Bowl.
What's with his fucking sulking on this issue? Why is he acting like the Patriots loss was so horrible? They only lost one game the entire year! My favorite team did not even make the playoffs, so feel bad for me instead. This is another reason why Boston teams are pieces of shit, because any time they lose a series or a game, they want sympathy from the rest of the world for their bad luck. They have not realized yet that everyone hates them.
Hater-meter: 10.
(Boston): Bill...Does SB43 rank as the biggest punch to the gut you've ever felt in your life?
Bill Simmons: Sports-related, it was No. 3 behind game 6 '86 World Series and Game 4 of the '87 NBA Finals. The thing about the Pats loss is that we had 3 full hours to say, "Uh-oh, this doesn't feel right, this doesn't feel right" so the final drive was a huge stomach punch, but my stomach muscles were already flexed, if that makes sense.
See? In each case, his team was in the championship game and lost. Maybe ten years ago you feel sympathy, but at this point when Boston sports teams have won 5 titles in 7 years, it is hard to feel bad. Oh, but they still want that sympathy, it is like crack cocaine for these pathetic losers. How do you like them apples?
Hater-meter: 10.
To wrap it up, how about one of my favorite Simmons characteristics. The "it happened to me and I was there, so it was the biggest event that has ever occurred" characteristic. Except he contradicts what he said earlier in the chat.
Oliver (Los Angeles): How can two players in Juan Pierre and Fatman Jones be so different, yet play the same position, and so grossly underachieve? The two of them combined make a average 80 million dollar player
Bill Simmons: They are really the Lennon and McCartney of Free Agent Busts. Every sports fan in LA is going crazy about how bad they are during the 3 minutes per day when they aren't complaining about how everyone hates Kobe.
Really Bill? Here's what you said earlier this chat:
Dan ( Stamford, CT): With Barry Zito being 0-6 and being demoted to the bullpen, does this officially give the Giants signing him the title of worst signing ever???
Bill Simmons: What's funny is that it had the title on the day they signed him. Although Mike Hampton's contract has to be 1B to Zito's 1A on that list.
Lack of consistency Bill is why no one likes you and you can't write a column that includes comments at the end. If Pierre and Jones are Lennon-McCartney, then are Hampton and Zito the Harrison-Starr of worst signings ever?
Pierre and Jones were just two bad signings and anyone who knows anything about baseball should know this. I watched Jones for the past 10 years and knew he was on his way down in skill, but up in weight. Pierre has been criticized for at least three years now for being an out machine. The Dodgers knew all of these things before they signed them, which is why they are stupid and you even bringing this up is stupid and you are stupid overall and I am stupid for reading your chat.
Hater-meter: 10.
Self hater-meter: 1,000.
Monday, May 5, 2008
0 comments The Most Boring Conversation Ever Part 1: We Have No Hope
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/special/billsimmons?event_id=20425
The mere fact the web address has the words "special" and "event" contained in it made me sad inside. The best part of the chat is that he answers questions from hecklers, which makes him seem like a real big man until you realize he is the only ESPN columnist without comments available. I will give each answer of his a rating on a scale of 1-10 called the Hater-meter, which is very technical and measures how much more this answer makes me hate him. When you get a Boston Sports Guy chat, you know what you are getting, so to complain, bitch and moan is just stupid. Call me stupid then...By the way, this is going to be fucking loooooooooong.
Shawn from Cape Cod: Bill, are you as surprised/disturbed as I am by the players Doc has chosen to have on the floor at key points in games 3 and 4? Sam Cassell is a terrible fit for this series - he can't score or defend against the bigger, faster and more athletic Hawks. Ray Allen clearly can't defend Joe Johnson, and Eddie House was in the game when we had a 10 pt lead and needed a player (Rondo) to play lock down D and take the ball to the basket. I was calling for some Tony Allen on Joe Johnson about halfway through game 3. Clearly, the team as a whole is to blame here, but I can't help but worry about what I'm seeing from Doc, a guy who I felt has been solid all season.
Bill Simmons: I'll say this: It took 72 hours to undo 84 games - they don't have a rotation anymore, every bench guy has lost his confidence except Posey, and everyone is looking for their own shot. What scares me is that they played hard in both games. By the way, I'm typing this chat with 2 broken hands - after Doc left Ray Allen on Joe Johnson for the entire fourth quarter, I sparred for 10 rounds with the wall next to my sofa.
Oh shit, it is Shawn from Cape Cahhdd! Ok, doing this Dr. Phil style...
Shawn: You don't know anything about sports or the Celtics, I know you have always been a Knicks fan but are a bandwagon jumper. Shut up and go talk to your boys about how ahhsome Tom Brady is. You need to face the idea you could be a douchebag.
Bill: You are not a general manager and will never be one, so don't pretend you know how to coach or bring together a team. You are 37 and you are punching furniture, you need some real emotional help. Perhaps, you should look up your column from a few weeks ago about the death of a young athlete read it again and then think about what an ass you are and continue to be.
Hater-meter: 3
By the way, I am skipping as many of the boring Celtics related bitching questions as I can.
Will (Boston): First off, Bill is it true you called into WEEI last night after the game? Second, why is Mr. I hate Boston (Greenberg) on his soap box again pleading with the NBA to suspend KG? Do you think he will get suspended? Why was ZAZA not thrown out of the game for inciting a fight?
Bill Simmons: That's not true - i couldn't even talk to my Dad after last night's game, I was too pissed off. Look, neither guy should get suspended. And I loved Zaza standing up to KG, that was a great moment. As I wrote after game 2, everyone on that hawks team was peeing their pants except for Horford - I liked that they stood up for themselves in Games 3 and 4, I gained a lot of respect for those guys.
(Barely able to form the words) You--could--not call--your dad? How----are----we going to know what he said! HOW Bill? I need a quote from your dad ASAP! I love how Bill did not exactly state why neither guy should have been suspended. Garnett shoved a referee AND an Atlanta player and Boston player "left the bench" in the same way Stoudamire and Diaw left last year but they were suspended and the Celtics and Hawks player were not. It's almost like the NBA wants Boston in the Finals....I love how "NBA conspiracy Bill" does not mention this. I am glad he gained respect for the Hawks, because you know they were craving his respect. I personally gained respect for them when they beat the Celtics 3 times and almost won the entire series.
Hater-meter: 7
Dallas (Carrollton, TX: Avery Johnson has got to be fired right? He cancelled practice and threw a hissy fit and the players had their own meeting and practice. Let Paul Westpaul coach tonight instead of Avery "Lil Private" Johnson.
Bill Simmons: He's gone and I think D'Antoni is gone. It's time for both of them. Both are effective coaches, but they can only thrive with one type of roster and that's it - now they're coaching rosters that aren't in their wheelhouse and it's going about as well as the Miley Ray Cyrus photo shoot did.
Simmons thinks both coaches are gone? What a prediction! I guess the media reports that were confirming speculation of this on the same day he did this chat were right then! Simmonsologists hate it when he predicts stuff that is obvious, like when he said last week Horford would be a good pro. Also, who the fuck is Miley Ray Cyrus? I have never heard the "Ray" thrown in there at all. At least he did not say Hannah Montana.
Hater-meter: 6
kj, kent, oh: what a surprise! no cavs questions! hollinger took ONE question in his whole chat on the cavs/wiz series. glad to see ESPN is keeping up the hatred of all things LBJ. go on, pick the wiz again, genius!
Bill Simmons: My favorite thing about questions like this is that the people actually seem to believe what they're writing. You're right, ESPN needs to hype up LeBron more - we've been doing him a disservice.
Know how many people can recognize characteristics in other people because they possess those same characteristics themselves. Read that first sentence and think how many times has Bill believed what he is writing.
Hater-meter: 2
Nick (Colorado): Hey Bill, Do you see the Rockets beating the Jazz tonight and in a game 6 in Utah. I have a feeling that the Rockets can take both. Game 6 will have all the pressure on Utah, and I think the Rockets can capitalize on being the "underdog" as they did in game 3. T'mac's knee is a concern, but I think he's coming to play.
Bill Simmons: Very strange series - now that Rafer's back and Landry is giving them something, those teams are much closer than I thought. I think Houston wins tonight and I wouldn't be shocked to see them win Game 6. Utah lost a little luster for me not putting the Rockets away in Game 3 - title teams have to take care of business and they didn't. On the flip side, the Lakers are a great example of a contender taking care of business - that's how you do it. I was really impressed by them.
So if you add in their starting point guard and a key bench player to the rotation, Houston plays better? The same team that won 21 straight games? Thank God you are here to tell me these things. I can't help but wonder if the Celtics lost some luster for Bill when they did not put the Hawks away in Game 3. I mean, that is what title teams do. I think the Lakers had an easier time putting away their opponent in Game 3 because they were not playing a team that had won 21 straight games at one point this year. So what is the Celtics excuse for losing 3 games to a 39 win team? Bad coaching? Of course...and one more excuse coming. Wait for it.
Hater-meter: 9.
Brian Wayland MA: What's your fearless prediction for the Hawks-Celtics Series? Particularly Wednesday's game...
Bill Simmons: Depends on how injured Pierce is - that's the real problem here that nobody is mentioning. He hasn't been the same since he hurt his back in the first half of Game 2. If he was healthy, he would have been taking people to the hole last night - that's what he did on the road this year every time we needed points. Last night, he was like Antoine Walker. I think he's hurt. That's not an excuse because Atlanta played tougher and had the best guy on the court in game 3 (Smith) and Game 4 (Johnson). But it's hard to predict what will happen when PP looks like he's in pain.
Injuries, of course! You know why you have not heard anything about it? Because it did not occur and is not affecting his play at all. Normal brain v. Bill's brain example coming right up.
Normal Brain:
Pierce looks like he is hurt. I have not heard anything about it and no one has mentioned it, so I may just be imagining things or the Hawks have a good team or we are not as good as advertised. These could all be reasons why Pierce is not playing well.
Bill's Brain:
Pierce looks like he is hurt. He must be hurt because he is not playing as well as he usually does. Why is no one talking about this injury of his that has occurred? Come on, give us some mention of the injury that has occurred to Pierce! This is ridiculous! You would think if there was an injury to a key player, someone would say something. Why is no one talking about this? Let me mention this in my chat and not mention the possibility Atlanta is a good team. (Punches couch repeatedly)
Also, let's not call Pierce "PP" can we? I am not 8 years old, but that is kind of a dumb nickname.
Hater-meter: 10 (making shit up and not giving credit to another team)
Jake - Asbury Park, NJ: The South Park - Belichek is a cheater episode...please, your comments?
Bill Simmons: I loved it. Two Hall of Fame episodes back to back (with the other being the Canada on Strike episode). Whoops, we need a Doc question.
Canada on Strike was not a HoF episode. He lost all credibility here. How do I reach theez keedz?
Hater-meter: 1.
Beau (New Orleans): Did you see where Kenny Smith admitted on TNT that he may be talking to the Knicks about a front office position? I like Donnie Walsh (and Mark Jackson/Kenny Smith). However, Walsh is considering two guys with ZERO NBA coaching/front office experience to restore the NBA's marquee franchise? Your thoughts? It might just be crazy enough to work!
Bill Simmons: Come on, Kenny has experience - he just won the 2008 NBA Cares Celebrity Fantasy League!
Bill not only wanted to be General Manager of the Bucks but he also has never played basketball professionally, thereby making him even less qualified than Kenny Smith or Mark Jackson in my mind. Yet, he still makes a weak attempt to mock Kenny Smith. Simmonsologists see this everyday in Bill's behavior.
Hater-meter: 6.
Dazed & Confused: Can someone tell me why the Nuggets stink so bad? Two superstars - check. Great rebounder/shot blocker - check. Solid role players - check. Fat ugly coach - check.
Bill Simmons: Come on, the Nuggets had no heart all season. None of this was a surprise. When the going gets tough, they get going. In their defense, it's tough to get motivated to win a title when you've already broken the "Most tattooes on one team" record. How do you dip into the well and get fired up after that?
No heart means nothing and is not a statistic that can be measured, as we learn from David Eckstein, so don't use it as a reason. The correct answer is a lack of committment to defense. The joke about most tattoos is not funny and only attempts to cover up for the fact this answer is fucking pointless and stupid.
Hater-meter: 7.
James L, Whitby ON: Any NFL 2008 draft thoughts worth mentioning?
Bill Simmons: When the Pats picked Jerod Mayo, I called my Dad and he started to say something and I interrupted him and said, "Hold on a second, hold on... I hope we don't get a 15-yard penalty next year for... holding the Mayo. Sorry dad, it had to be done!"
He said "worth mentioning." That joke sucks and Jimmy Kimmel should have fired you instead of you "leaving." I am being serious, you should be executed for this joke. If I heard you say this joke, I would douse your Wes Welker jersey in gasoline, put it back on you and then set it on fire. Or you could do it and say, "I will now set myself on fire."
Hater-meter: 8.
Joppy (Newport Beach, CA): At what time either Sunday or Monday do you think the nerdy looking guy with the Hawks jersey on top of his dress shirt decided he had heard enough about this NBA thing in town and needed to be involved in the Hawks' run (after not watching one minute of hoops all season) and had his assistant find him floor seats?
Bill Simmons: You know it's a new bandwagon experience when the fans haven't even figured out that everyone should wear the same color shirt yet. I'd do the Levels of Bandwagon NBA Playoff Fans like this...
I am not going to subject you to a list like this. Let's just say the Celtics are not on there. I like how Boston fans act like they are more knowledgeable and devoted than any other team and in no way bandwagon. They may be able to name all the players on the current team but naming all the players 5 years ago would not happen.
Hater-meter: 4
The mere fact the web address has the words "special" and "event" contained in it made me sad inside. The best part of the chat is that he answers questions from hecklers, which makes him seem like a real big man until you realize he is the only ESPN columnist without comments available. I will give each answer of his a rating on a scale of 1-10 called the Hater-meter, which is very technical and measures how much more this answer makes me hate him. When you get a Boston Sports Guy chat, you know what you are getting, so to complain, bitch and moan is just stupid. Call me stupid then...By the way, this is going to be fucking loooooooooong.
Shawn from Cape Cod: Bill, are you as surprised/disturbed as I am by the players Doc has chosen to have on the floor at key points in games 3 and 4? Sam Cassell is a terrible fit for this series - he can't score or defend against the bigger, faster and more athletic Hawks. Ray Allen clearly can't defend Joe Johnson, and Eddie House was in the game when we had a 10 pt lead and needed a player (Rondo) to play lock down D and take the ball to the basket. I was calling for some Tony Allen on Joe Johnson about halfway through game 3. Clearly, the team as a whole is to blame here, but I can't help but worry about what I'm seeing from Doc, a guy who I felt has been solid all season.
Bill Simmons: I'll say this: It took 72 hours to undo 84 games - they don't have a rotation anymore, every bench guy has lost his confidence except Posey, and everyone is looking for their own shot. What scares me is that they played hard in both games. By the way, I'm typing this chat with 2 broken hands - after Doc left Ray Allen on Joe Johnson for the entire fourth quarter, I sparred for 10 rounds with the wall next to my sofa.
Oh shit, it is Shawn from Cape Cahhdd! Ok, doing this Dr. Phil style...
Shawn: You don't know anything about sports or the Celtics, I know you have always been a Knicks fan but are a bandwagon jumper. Shut up and go talk to your boys about how ahhsome Tom Brady is. You need to face the idea you could be a douchebag.
Bill: You are not a general manager and will never be one, so don't pretend you know how to coach or bring together a team. You are 37 and you are punching furniture, you need some real emotional help. Perhaps, you should look up your column from a few weeks ago about the death of a young athlete read it again and then think about what an ass you are and continue to be.
Hater-meter: 3
By the way, I am skipping as many of the boring Celtics related bitching questions as I can.
Will (Boston): First off, Bill is it true you called into WEEI last night after the game? Second, why is Mr. I hate Boston (Greenberg) on his soap box again pleading with the NBA to suspend KG? Do you think he will get suspended? Why was ZAZA not thrown out of the game for inciting a fight?
Bill Simmons: That's not true - i couldn't even talk to my Dad after last night's game, I was too pissed off. Look, neither guy should get suspended. And I loved Zaza standing up to KG, that was a great moment. As I wrote after game 2, everyone on that hawks team was peeing their pants except for Horford - I liked that they stood up for themselves in Games 3 and 4, I gained a lot of respect for those guys.
(Barely able to form the words) You--could--not call--your dad? How----are----we going to know what he said! HOW Bill? I need a quote from your dad ASAP! I love how Bill did not exactly state why neither guy should have been suspended. Garnett shoved a referee AND an Atlanta player and Boston player "left the bench" in the same way Stoudamire and Diaw left last year but they were suspended and the Celtics and Hawks player were not. It's almost like the NBA wants Boston in the Finals....I love how "NBA conspiracy Bill" does not mention this. I am glad he gained respect for the Hawks, because you know they were craving his respect. I personally gained respect for them when they beat the Celtics 3 times and almost won the entire series.
Hater-meter: 7
Dallas (Carrollton, TX: Avery Johnson has got to be fired right? He cancelled practice and threw a hissy fit and the players had their own meeting and practice. Let Paul Westpaul coach tonight instead of Avery "Lil Private" Johnson.
Bill Simmons: He's gone and I think D'Antoni is gone. It's time for both of them. Both are effective coaches, but they can only thrive with one type of roster and that's it - now they're coaching rosters that aren't in their wheelhouse and it's going about as well as the Miley Ray Cyrus photo shoot did.
Simmons thinks both coaches are gone? What a prediction! I guess the media reports that were confirming speculation of this on the same day he did this chat were right then! Simmonsologists hate it when he predicts stuff that is obvious, like when he said last week Horford would be a good pro. Also, who the fuck is Miley Ray Cyrus? I have never heard the "Ray" thrown in there at all. At least he did not say Hannah Montana.
Hater-meter: 6
kj, kent, oh: what a surprise! no cavs questions! hollinger took ONE question in his whole chat on the cavs/wiz series. glad to see ESPN is keeping up the hatred of all things LBJ. go on, pick the wiz again, genius!
Bill Simmons: My favorite thing about questions like this is that the people actually seem to believe what they're writing. You're right, ESPN needs to hype up LeBron more - we've been doing him a disservice.
Know how many people can recognize characteristics in other people because they possess those same characteristics themselves. Read that first sentence and think how many times has Bill believed what he is writing.
Hater-meter: 2
Nick (Colorado): Hey Bill, Do you see the Rockets beating the Jazz tonight and in a game 6 in Utah. I have a feeling that the Rockets can take both. Game 6 will have all the pressure on Utah, and I think the Rockets can capitalize on being the "underdog" as they did in game 3. T'mac's knee is a concern, but I think he's coming to play.
Bill Simmons: Very strange series - now that Rafer's back and Landry is giving them something, those teams are much closer than I thought. I think Houston wins tonight and I wouldn't be shocked to see them win Game 6. Utah lost a little luster for me not putting the Rockets away in Game 3 - title teams have to take care of business and they didn't. On the flip side, the Lakers are a great example of a contender taking care of business - that's how you do it. I was really impressed by them.
So if you add in their starting point guard and a key bench player to the rotation, Houston plays better? The same team that won 21 straight games? Thank God you are here to tell me these things. I can't help but wonder if the Celtics lost some luster for Bill when they did not put the Hawks away in Game 3. I mean, that is what title teams do. I think the Lakers had an easier time putting away their opponent in Game 3 because they were not playing a team that had won 21 straight games at one point this year. So what is the Celtics excuse for losing 3 games to a 39 win team? Bad coaching? Of course...and one more excuse coming. Wait for it.
Hater-meter: 9.
Brian Wayland MA: What's your fearless prediction for the Hawks-Celtics Series? Particularly Wednesday's game...
Bill Simmons: Depends on how injured Pierce is - that's the real problem here that nobody is mentioning. He hasn't been the same since he hurt his back in the first half of Game 2. If he was healthy, he would have been taking people to the hole last night - that's what he did on the road this year every time we needed points. Last night, he was like Antoine Walker. I think he's hurt. That's not an excuse because Atlanta played tougher and had the best guy on the court in game 3 (Smith) and Game 4 (Johnson). But it's hard to predict what will happen when PP looks like he's in pain.
Injuries, of course! You know why you have not heard anything about it? Because it did not occur and is not affecting his play at all. Normal brain v. Bill's brain example coming right up.
Normal Brain:
Pierce looks like he is hurt. I have not heard anything about it and no one has mentioned it, so I may just be imagining things or the Hawks have a good team or we are not as good as advertised. These could all be reasons why Pierce is not playing well.
Bill's Brain:
Pierce looks like he is hurt. He must be hurt because he is not playing as well as he usually does. Why is no one talking about this injury of his that has occurred? Come on, give us some mention of the injury that has occurred to Pierce! This is ridiculous! You would think if there was an injury to a key player, someone would say something. Why is no one talking about this? Let me mention this in my chat and not mention the possibility Atlanta is a good team. (Punches couch repeatedly)
Also, let's not call Pierce "PP" can we? I am not 8 years old, but that is kind of a dumb nickname.
Hater-meter: 10 (making shit up and not giving credit to another team)
Jake - Asbury Park, NJ: The South Park - Belichek is a cheater episode...please, your comments?
Bill Simmons: I loved it. Two Hall of Fame episodes back to back (with the other being the Canada on Strike episode). Whoops, we need a Doc question.
Canada on Strike was not a HoF episode. He lost all credibility here. How do I reach theez keedz?
Hater-meter: 1.
Beau (New Orleans): Did you see where Kenny Smith admitted on TNT that he may be talking to the Knicks about a front office position? I like Donnie Walsh (and Mark Jackson/Kenny Smith). However, Walsh is considering two guys with ZERO NBA coaching/front office experience to restore the NBA's marquee franchise? Your thoughts? It might just be crazy enough to work!
Bill Simmons: Come on, Kenny has experience - he just won the 2008 NBA Cares Celebrity Fantasy League!
Bill not only wanted to be General Manager of the Bucks but he also has never played basketball professionally, thereby making him even less qualified than Kenny Smith or Mark Jackson in my mind. Yet, he still makes a weak attempt to mock Kenny Smith. Simmonsologists see this everyday in Bill's behavior.
Hater-meter: 6.
Dazed & Confused: Can someone tell me why the Nuggets stink so bad? Two superstars - check. Great rebounder/shot blocker - check. Solid role players - check. Fat ugly coach - check.
Bill Simmons: Come on, the Nuggets had no heart all season. None of this was a surprise. When the going gets tough, they get going. In their defense, it's tough to get motivated to win a title when you've already broken the "Most tattooes on one team" record. How do you dip into the well and get fired up after that?
No heart means nothing and is not a statistic that can be measured, as we learn from David Eckstein, so don't use it as a reason. The correct answer is a lack of committment to defense. The joke about most tattoos is not funny and only attempts to cover up for the fact this answer is fucking pointless and stupid.
Hater-meter: 7.
James L, Whitby ON: Any NFL 2008 draft thoughts worth mentioning?
Bill Simmons: When the Pats picked Jerod Mayo, I called my Dad and he started to say something and I interrupted him and said, "Hold on a second, hold on... I hope we don't get a 15-yard penalty next year for... holding the Mayo. Sorry dad, it had to be done!"
He said "worth mentioning." That joke sucks and Jimmy Kimmel should have fired you instead of you "leaving." I am being serious, you should be executed for this joke. If I heard you say this joke, I would douse your Wes Welker jersey in gasoline, put it back on you and then set it on fire. Or you could do it and say, "I will now set myself on fire."
Hater-meter: 8.
Joppy (Newport Beach, CA): At what time either Sunday or Monday do you think the nerdy looking guy with the Hawks jersey on top of his dress shirt decided he had heard enough about this NBA thing in town and needed to be involved in the Hawks' run (after not watching one minute of hoops all season) and had his assistant find him floor seats?
Bill Simmons: You know it's a new bandwagon experience when the fans haven't even figured out that everyone should wear the same color shirt yet. I'd do the Levels of Bandwagon NBA Playoff Fans like this...
I am not going to subject you to a list like this. Let's just say the Celtics are not on there. I like how Boston fans act like they are more knowledgeable and devoted than any other team and in no way bandwagon. They may be able to name all the players on the current team but naming all the players 5 years ago would not happen.
Hater-meter: 4
Ted from Richmond: Dude, I just saw the E60 commercial on ESPN about you being in Vegas. You look like one of the vampire extras from The Lost Boys. Please tell me that was how you looked AFTER your 48-hour no-sleep-having gamblefest, not before. I'll bet your mom is worried about you.
Bill Simmons: Note to self: Don't stay out the night before drinking/gambling/smoking when you have to film a TV piece the next morning that's shown in HD.
He was gambling, drinking and smoking? He is so cool, not to mention, just like me. Why does Bill still think he is in the movie Swingers?
Hater-meter: 1.
Jason, Seattle, WA: Josh Howard played awful in Game 4. Do you think he would be better off smoking before Game 5 to relax his nerves? Or should he wait until the offseason (after the game in the locker room)?
Bill Simmons: What about a trade with Melo and Howard as the principles? Obviously Dallas would have to throw in more because Melo has more value than Howard, but wouldn't that make sense for both teams? Dallas gets a much needed scorer to team with Dirk - Denver gets a much-needed intangibles guy who doesn't care if he gets the ball and also has some good weed connections. Everyone wins.
The only problem with this trade is that Allen Iverson would flip out and kill someone. See, he went to Denver because they had another star who he could work well with. Another problem is that the Nuggets would be trading a very good player for a good player, which is the exact opposite of a trade's purpose. Also, how many tickets can you sell with Josh Howard as the main face of the franchise? Not many, that's how many. Milwaukee, my friends, you dodged a huge fucking bullet. You could be looking at a franchise that wins 45 games but has attendance in the hundreds of people per game. How long will it be before Bill realizes these trades don't work in real life?
Hater-meter: 7.
Pat (Pittsburgh, PA): What are the realistic chances of you returning to being a fan of the Bs next year and us actually getting hockey articles? The Habs/Bruins game 7 article didn't suck.
Bill Simmons: I think I figured out a loophole to get back in - I swore that I wouldn't follow them again until Jeremy Jacobs sold the team, but now that there's a salary cap, technically, every team has to spend the same amount of money. So there's no way he can screw us over by not spending enough money compared to the other contenders (like when Pittsburgh spent the extra money for Joey Mullen, Ron Francis, Bryan Trottier et all in '91 while we were still trotting out kids from the local Boston colleges as our 4th line).
OMFG, how much of a bandwagon fan is he? Can it get worse than to publicly proclaim you will never be a fan of a team until the owner leaves and then weasel your way out of it using the salary cap as an excuse? The salary cap has been in effect since 2005, but he was still a "hockey widow" up until the Bruins started winning again. Does it get any worse than this?
Hater-meter: 10.
Andrew (KC): If the Celtics were to lose to the Hawks, would it be a bigger disappointment then the Mavs choking last year against the Warriors?
Bill Simmons: Any scenario where the Celtics don't make the Finals is a huge disappointment - they have the most talented team in the East BY FAR and they won 66 games. Dallas lost to G-State because of the styles, because their coach panicked and because their best guy got psyched out. Boston has no excuse against Atlanta. None. They have a much better team.
No excuses except the coach is dragging the team down and Paul Pierce is injured. Right, Bill?
Tim (Hoboken, NJ): So, now that the B's are decent and have some promising young talent (lacking a legit netminder), you want to jump back on the bandwagon? Spare us...
Bill Simmons: No, I want to jump on the bandwagon because I could root for those young guys without worrying about them getting traded for 30 cents on the dollar and/or not getting help in the playoffs because the owner only wants to pay for a 12-man roster now that we have a salary cap.
Imagine if he had comments and the possibilities of reading things like this every day...
(20 minutes later) I love haters! I actually pissed my pants with joy when I read this. Bill's excuse is that he can't root for any team that is rebuilding or won't go spend extra money to get a better player, so he did not pay attention them. That is literally the definition of a bandwagon fan. Non-bandwagon fans sit through times when a team's players get arrested, when the best player's get traded and your team is not competing for a title every year. Somebody alert Bill, and I don't need a fucking ruling on this.
Hater-meter: 10,000.
Max (Boston, MA): If you love the Bruins so much why did you completely jinx them (just like the Patriots)? They had all the momentum and of course you had to write an article about them winning. Way to crash the bandwagon.
Bill Simmons: Not sure if you know this, but I don't have the power to jinx teams. I am not a witch doctor. That column was about getting sucked back into a sport that I had written off. I write about my life, and watching those Bruins games had become part of my life, so I wrote about it.
This is a rare occurrence even the most experienced Simmonsologist does not get to experience often. The reason for that is other than the handpicked "mailbag" we get, there is no feedback given on Bill. So what do we see when he gets questioned? Bill getting defensive, and his only defense is to be a fucking prick and contradict himself.
He talks about not wanting to jinx anything in his columns, so he makes no predictions or tries to reverse jinx something by choosing against his favorite team in an article. So he obviously believes in jinxing teams. Then, later in a chat, when someone accuses him of jinxing a team, he acts like the person is an idiot. After he treats the writer like a moron, he falls back on the standard, "I write like a fan and I am paid to write about my life, and I watched the games so I included them." Whereas, it should read, "I know nothing about sports and have very little knowledge overall, I get paid to combine sports and pop culture together...also I am a bandwagon fan and wanted to jump on ASAP."
Hater-meter: 1,000,000.
Chuck (LA, CA): Bill, do you just use Doc as your personal whipping boy when the Celts start to flounder? I mean who didn't see this coming...after digging into him all last season, then talking about him as a potential COY this year, then opening up this whole chat by throwing him back under the bus...why don't you ask your precious "MVP" for once why they can't beat a 37-win team?
Bill Simmons: He froze and he panicked. There's no other way to say it. We had 82 games to figure out the best 9 guys on this team and when they should play... and now it's Game 5 and nobody has any clue who the best 9 guys are because there's been so much overreacting and yanking around. That's not the coach's fault?
Bill Simmons: On top of that, when Cassell was ballhogging it in game 2 (in the first half, I think he took 20-footers on 8 of 9 consecutive possessions), Doc didn't nip that in the bud and you could tell it was taking the team out of what it was doing. Cassell has been a car crash in these playoffs and never should have sniffed Game 4 - on top of that, now Eddie House is sulking.
Bill Simmons: So yeah, I'm concerned.
Bill Simmons: Especially with Pierce banged up.
Remember "no excuses Simmons?" He is gone and in his place is "homerism, excuse filled Simmons." Oh, and Pierce is banged up, though there is no proof or record of this. But Bill Simmons knows, oh yeah, he knows.
This is all I can handle for one day. I will be back tomorrow-ish to finish off the shit filled chat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)