3 comments Hindsight is a Cold, Cold Bitch to Bill Simmons

What can bring me back? Bill Simmons. That's what. I haven't addressed this but I'm not "gone" and plan on writing here still. I just have to find time. Things get busy, it takes a while to write, so I have taken a forced sabbatical. I loved writing here and it literally took a change in life to where I had zero free time to rip me away from it. So I've moved back into my mom's basement, fired up the computer, and put up my Sabermetrics posters for today.

Scott on Twitter sent me this article and I couldn't not write about it. It's by Bill Simmons and it's from March 2012. It's about how terrible the Golden State Warriors are. It's not true anymore, but hindsight is a cold, cold bitch. As Scott told me, the self-appointed guru of the NBA doesn't look so great on this one. I tend to be long-winded (I know! Me?) so I'm going to only get to the pertinent parts of the column. It's a typical Simmons column. It's too long and he mistakes having a lot of content for quality content.

You might not know this, you might not believe it … but once upon a time, the Golden State Warriors won the NBA championship. 

Last year. 2015. Three years after this column was written the Warriors won a title.

I know some SimmonsClone is going to read this and bitch I'm being unfair to Bill by using hindsight. Get out of here. He uses hindsight all the time to tell us what "we" thought when he was wrong, and since Bill has enough of a ego to appoint himself as an NBA expert (and really believe he can be an NBA GM), it's not unfair at all to pick at him for writing a column about how terrible the Warriors were when this was no longer true less than a year after Bill wrote this column. The Warriors made the Western Conference Semifinals a year after this was written. Bill has to do better. And of course, Bill will NEVER remember he wrote this column or acknowledge it. He's too busy building a media empire.

And so it began. Three and a half decades later, the Golden State Warriors have morphed into the most tortured franchise in professional basketball. 

Professional franchises and fans bitching about how tortured they are? This is all Bill's fault. His whining about the Red Sox in the early 2000's made it okay to wallow in how tortured a team is.

the Warriors lack an identity beyond the whole “they suck every year, they always screw up, but at least they have great fans” tag.

Again, a whole three years later they won a title. I'll let this statement just sit here and let's think about how the Warriors lack an identity for a minute.

..............

..............

..............

..............


Okay, let's get back to it. I'm not ignoring the Warriors got booed in their own building. That is true. Bill is correct. What he isn't correct about is his criticism of the 2012 Warriors and the direction the team was taking. Bill starts documenting the terrible moves beginning with the 1976-1977 season in this column. The Warriors made the playoffs six times from the 1976-1977 season until the 2011-2012 season (when this column was written).

Bill counts down 60 reasons the Warriors annoyed their fan base. He, of course, essentially repeats many of the same points along the way. He just re-phrases how he writes, "The Warriors traded for Joe Barry Carroll and had a lot of drug users on their team in the 1980's" a few times.

15. Naturally, the Warriors blew things up again, flipping Richmond to Sacramento for the rights to Billy Owens, a talented but sluggish forward who (you’re not going to believe this) never reached his potential for Golden State.

Oh no! Facts are getting in the way of Bill's argument. This is where Bill hopes no one goes to look up whether this statement about Owens never reaching his potential is accurate or not. Spoiler alert: It's a lie. Owens had his best seasons in the NBA while playing for the Warriors. Yes, Richmond was still great after being traded by the Warriors, but Owens never reached his full potential. He came the closest playing for the Warriors early in his career.

Bill also conveniently skips over smart moves like drafting Latrell Sprewell with the #24 pick in the 1992 draft. This is a footnote to the column so as not to distract from Bill's point the Warriors couldn't ever do anything right.

17. The following year, Mullin, Hardaway and Owens missed a combined 107 games for the 34-win Warriors,

Yeah, but Owens never reached his full potential anyway, right?

This is typical Bill Simmons. He writes that trading for the rights to Owens was a mistake because he never reached his full potential with the Warriors and then uses the absence of Owens as a reason the Warriors stunk during the 1993-1994 season. He wants it both ways.

27. Coming off another lottery season (30 wins), the ’97 Warriors fired Adelman, hired college coach P.J. Carlesimo

Again, Bill only pays attention to facts to the extent they support his argument. "College coach" Carlesimo had a 137-109 record over three seasons with the Trail Blazers as their head coach. But yeah, he was a "college coach" and wasn't qualified for an NBA head coaching job. Sure.

Then Bill continues to show what the Warriors "missed" out on if they had drafted perfectly every single year even though this would never happen for any professional team no matter how smart their front office is.

a Hall of Fame Absolutely-Coulda-Drafted-Him Starting Five (Bird, Garnett, Kobe, T-Mac and Payton, with McHale coming off the bench). 

By the time McGrady and Garnett were any good Bird and McHale would have been retired/too old to contribute. But again, let's ignore facts and the passage of time relative to each player's ability level to focus on the point Bill wants to prove. Bill lives in a fantasy world where he is an NBA guru anyway, so may as well just drag ourselves into this fantasy where Larry Bird and Tracy McGrady would be playing meaningful minutes together.

39. The 2001 Warriors had more players (22) than wins (17). The league’s second-worst record earned them the fifth pick (Jason Richardson); they also drafted Troy Murphy (with the pick from the Blaylock/Terry trade) and stole Gilbert Arenas in the second round. Naturally, they celebrated that draft haul by egregiously overpaying Jamison (six years, $85 million). 

A 24 year old in the prime of his career who averaged 24.9 points per game? Was it really an overpay?

47. The ’08 Warriors won 48 games — their highest win total since 1994 — but somehow made history by winning the most games by any team that didn’t make the playoffs. Only the Warriors. 

Or only any other NBA team like the Sonics, Clippers, Cavs, etc that Bill feels like writing a "woe is them" column about. "Only the Warriors," unless this column is about another NBA team. In that case, just exchange "Warriors" for that team name.

53. In July of 2010, former Celtics minority owner Joe Lacob purchased the Warriors from Cohan, said all the right things, seemed intelligent/confident/competent and promised to turn things around.

ONLY THE CELTICS AND THEIR LARRY BIRD MAGIC COULD SAVE THE WARRIORS! NO ONE DENIES THE LUCK OF THE IRISH!

55. The facts heading into this season: The Warriors missed the playoffs 29 times in 35 years … the Warriors won four playoff series total in 34 years … the Warriors haven’t made the playoffs for two straight seasons since 1977 … the Warriors haven’t made the Conference Finals since 1976 … the Warriors haven’t had an All-Star since 1997 … the Warriors have earned spots at 16 of the last 17 lotteries (impossible but true) … the Warriors have made 22 top-14 picks since 1985 (including 11 in the top eight and five in the top three) … and the Warriors made so many bad first-round picks and overpaid so many guys over the past 35 years that I don’t even have time to type all their names again.

It's almost like what a team has done in the past doesn't necessarily matter as it pertains to moves they would make in the future. After "this season" the Warriors made the playoffs three straight years and won an NBA title. Bill Simmons thinks it's crazy that a team's past can't dictate their future. It's crazy because Bill prefers talking about non-sports related reasons why a team can/can't win games.

"This team gives a lot of high-fives! This has directly led to their success!"

"This team has more than one knucklehead on the roster! That means they can't win games!"

"This team has a curse on them!"

"This team isn't fun to watch, which happens to coincide with the team not winning games!"

56. For some reason, despite everything you just read for more than 4,000 words, Lacob decided to guarantee these tortured fans that their Warriors would make the playoffs this season. 

And then the Warriors made the playoffs the next season, made the playoffs again the season after that, won the NBA title that next season, and now are making a run at being one of the best NBA teams in history. Lacob missed by one season. Bill missed by a lot more in writing this column.

57. He hired Mark Jackson as his new coach (someone with no coaching experience whatsoever)

The Warriors then fired Mark Jackson after a 51-31 season and hired another coach WITH NO COACHING EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER! Again? Why?

This other head coach the Warriors hired with no head coaching experience then immediately led the Warriors to an NBA title. So the Warriors went 188-124 when hiring coaches with no prior coaching experience whatsoever. What dumbasses the Warriors are.

and signed off when Jackson vowed to turn Golden State into an elite defensive team despite the fact that, you know, its best three players couldn’t defend anyone.

How silly of Jackson to vow that he would turn the Warriors into a great defensive team. It would have been better if he had just not tried to teach the Warriors defense at all. That's a much better method of coaching.

Using Bill Simmons' logic, it's ridiculous for a head coach to vow that he will fix his team's biggest deficiency. Remember, Bill considers himself to be brilliant.

58. His team used its amnesty on Charlie Bell (one year, $4 million) instead of Andris Biedrins (three years, $27 million) so the Warriors could overpay DeAndre Jordan (four years, $43 million) … only the Clippers matched their Jordan offer, leaving Golden State without any outs with Biedrins (who’s been in a funk for four solid years, but hey, who’s counting?).

The Warriors later cleared Biedrins' contract by trading him to the Jazz  in order to gain salary cap space that led to them signing Andre Iguodala. Iguodala was a key to the Warriors' championship run and is an integral part of the current Warriors historically great team. But hey, who's counting?

59. His team waived Jeremy Lin to sign second-rounder Charles Jenkins, then claimed after Linsanity took off in New York that they loved Lin and never wanted to lose him.

Jeremy Lin then came back to Earth, was overpaid by the Rockets and now plays in the desolate NBA wasteland known as "Charlotte" for a team run by an owner who also seems to have no clue how to build an NBA team.

60. When his team struggled to compete in a brutally tough Western conference, Lacob’s staff promptly reversed course and made two of the weirdest trades in a while: sending Ellis and Udoh⁷ to Milwaukee for the defensive center/rebounder they’d been recklessly pursuing for months (settling on Andrew Bogut, who’s injured until April and missed a whopping 108 games these past three-plus years)

This trade added another piece to the current Warriors team that is winning games at a historical pace. Bogut is a great defensive center (which of course, who cares if the Warriors are trying to have a good defensive team, that's ridiculous) who has helped the Warriors in ways Udoh and Ellis could not.

and Stephen Jackson’s Non-Expiring Contract (two years, $19.3 million remaining), then flipped Jackson’s Non-Expiring Contract for Richard Jefferson’s Apocalypse of a Contract (three years, $30.5 million remaining) and a late first-round pick

The Warriors later flipped Jefferson to the Jazz, thereby clearing more room for Iguodala's signing, and the late first round pick turned into Festus Ezeli who is another good defensive player that has continued to improve through his career with the Warriors.

AND THEN tried to spin the deal as “We can’t make the playoffs, we need to bottom out this season so we finish in the top seven of the lottery and don’t lose our first-round pick to Utah.”

The Warriors then bottomed out and finished at #7 in the lottery, drafting Harrison Barnes, who has (you guessed it!) been an important part of the 2014-2015 NBA title team and has continued to improve throughout his NBA career. So as dumb as these trades seemed at the time, these two trades ended up netting the Warriors four players that contributed to an NBA title. When writing a column about how dumb these trades were and how the Warriors continue to screw their fan base over, it's probably best Bill just forgets he wrote all this. He hopes we forget too.

Imagine you’re a Warriors fan. Imagine you just endured everything just laid out these past 35 years. Imagine you didn’t trust your owners, your front office, anybody. Imagine they just traded your most entertaining player for an injury-prone center who can’t play,

Yes, imagine the Warriors are building a historically great team that can play and Bill totally went all-in on how bad the franchise was. Imagine that. Imagine how embarrassing that would be in hindsight that Bill wrote this column.

and imagine knowing that you can’t sign anyone else for two more summers because Biedrins and Jefferson

Imagine Bill's assumption are incorrect and they signed Andre Iguodala because they were able to clear Biedrins and Jefferson off the cap.

Imagine you have some of the best fellow fans in the league, only you rarely if ever have a chance to cheer anything

Imagine this isn't true anymore. Imagine this stopped being true less than a year after this column was written.

Imagine hearing that, after months and months of Chris Paul rumors and Dwight Howard rumors

Imagine that Bill Simmons dangles Dwight Howard here as a great free agent signing/trade target and then a year later Bill writes off Howard as a franchise player. Imagine it. You don't have to. It happened.

and “PLAYOFFS! PLAYOFFS! PLAYOFFS!” rhetoric,

Imagine if this happened a year later. We can only imagine...

your team just abruptly told you, “Oh, by the way, we’re going to tank the rest of this season because we don’t want to be haunted by a stupid trade from four years ago, but seriously, thanks for paying for season tickets this year.”

Imagine the Warriors were literally building the skeletal core of their championship basketball team as Bill wrote this column criticizing these moves. Imagine...

Imagine you were a paying customer and Chris Mullin Night doubled as the last bankably fun night of the season. Imagine the emotion inside the building with those Warriors legends on hand. Imagine everything cresting with Mully’s humble speech. Imagine the arrogance of Lacob grabbing that microphone — somehow deciding that he should be the last speaker of the ceremony, not Chris Mullin — and imagine your resentment over the past 35 years suddenly swelling as you realized, “Here’s my one chance to be heard.” 

I ask you … would you boo?

Yeah, I might boo. Imagine you were a huge NBA fan who prided yourself on your knowledge about whether a team was making smart moves or not. This is your identity in many ways. Imagine you were a huge NBA fan and you were also a (part time) writer and struggled when not using hindsight to show how "we" were wrong about something. Imagine you wrote this column about how the Warriors were on the wrong path...again. Imagine you were not correct about this. Imagine you suggested the Warriors fans should have been excited about the prospect of signing/trading a player you would write off a year later.

I ask you .... would you be worried people who read your columns notice you aren't as much of a guru when you can't use hindsight to defend your opinions that are passed off as fact?

5 comments Writer For Fansided Has the Hottest of Hot Michael Jordan Takes

Bleacher Report has sort of cleaned up it's act and gotten away from the amateur writers who provided the really shitty content on the site and hired real sportswriters for the site. It's sad, but happy. Sad, because I need those shitty writers for this site, but happy because that means there is less bad journalism in the world. Well, that's bad for this site too. Dammit! Fortunately, there are still sites like Fansided with micro-sites run by morons. I shouldn't be mean, but fuck it, many of these micro-sites do seem like they are run by morons.

Hat tip to the emailer who sent this article to me. It is truly one of the hottest of hot takes about what an asshole Michael Jordan is. This micro-site is called Sir Charles in Charge, while the author's name is Mark. Okay. What's nice is Mark has a warning up on the micro-site so that anyone who reads his columns isn't in shock from what he/she/it is reading:

Mark is not your typical NBA fan or writer. While some may look the other way when their favorite team or player has a bad game Mark will usually attack that story and go against the grain. 

Because NOBODY gives hot takes and reactionary points of view about a player's bad game. If I had to make a list of those who have the guts to do this then the list would only include Mark, most of the ESPN staff paid to give a opinion, everyone on talk radio whether it is a host or caller, anyone in the comment section on a sports article, and professional sportswriters. It's some elite company Mark finds himself in. LeBron didn't have a good few games in a row? Mark is going to attack the fuck out of that story and point out that LeBron is a piece of shit. Can't handle it? Mark (or Charles) is in charge, so get the hell out of here.

This is what he finds fun about writing, giving fans the honest truth even if they wish not to hear it.

He gives the very truth AT THAT VERY MINUTE to fans, even if they don't like it. "Like it" being defined as "Aren't partial to hot takes based on a player having one bad game and these hot takes only serve the sole purpose of helping the person giving the hot take to gain attention."

Speaking of attention, here is his article about how Michael Jordan is the most disrespectful and overrated man in NBA history. That doesn't seem like an extreme or non-factual statement at all. Is it possible this conclusion is not based on facts and instead is simply a reflection of the author's biased opinion? The answer, is that it could not be possible. Try to disprove how disrespectful and overrated Michael Jordan is. You can't, because Mark is spitting the truth and you just don't want to hear it. It's not that he's wrong, you just can't handle the truth.

Just because Michael Jordan is viewed as the Greatest of All Time doesn’t mean he deserves the respect of everyone — certainly not mine

Well then. I wish I didn't hear this, but someone had to tell me.  

Michael Jordan may be the greatest in many eyes, “The GOAT,  Money,  ICON” or whatever other name he is called these days, but I never saw him as much more than a product of great marketing. 

This could be because you are stupid and confuse "Michael Jordan the basketball player" with "Michael Jordan the business man." There are a lot of athletes who receive chances to market products and they receive these opportunities because they are good at a sports. The fact an athlete has a lot of endorsements and is well-marketed doesn't mean that athlete is a product of marketing. It's especially hilarious that Michael Jordan is being criticized as a product of great marketing, especially considering those six NBA titles and all of the NBA records he holds speak for themselves with zero marketing required. 

Could he play the game? 

Uh-oh. I hope the answer to this isn't another thing I don't want to hear. 

Yes, he was a bad dude on the court and accomplished many wonderful things

Product of marketing. That's all.  

but the majority of those plays were being done by half of the league back then, he was just the one they decided to immortalize in commercials.

Wow, I seem to only recall one NBA player switching hands on a layup during the 1991 NBA Finals, but I'm sure I missed it. The NBA probably erased my memory and removed all evidence of other players doing this. I also don't remember too many players starting from the foul line and dunking the basketball, but I'm sure Jon Koncak and Cliff Livington were doing this type of thing all the time while Uwe Blab waited his turn to show off his dunking skills. I must have missed Alvin Robertson putting on a dunk clinic from the foul line or winning a dunk contest. I blame the vast conspiracy to prop up Michael Jordan that makes me forget that Jordan was just one of hundreds of players doing the things he did. I didn't realize half the league was scoring 30 points per game either. I wonder if these players noticed when they scored a basket their team didn't get credit for the points? What a conspiracy to market a single individual.

Have you ever seen Clyde “The Glide” Drexler play? 

No, only you have seen Clyde Drexler play because he has been edited out of NBA history forever in order to further the myth of Michael Jordan. 

If you have, then you would know of the great plays he made throughout his career as well, but rarely do you see him in any NBA spots for advertising.

Part of the reason is he wasn't exactly a natural in front of a camera in local ads.

Not to mention, you don't see Drexler in any NBA spots for advertising because he's been retired for almost two decades now. You don't see Michael Jordan in any NBA advertisements anymore either. The only reason Jordan is still relevant in the NBA is because he owns an NBA team. Like he owns the team and so that sort of still gives him some connection to the NBA today. It's hilarious this writer (and I'm being kind in calling him that) is using Clyde Drexler has a comparison to Jordan, because Drexler has been recognized for his talents. He was on the Dream Team and he is in the Pro Basketball Hall of Fame. It's not like he's getting the short end of the stick when comparing his achievements to Michael Jordan's achievements. Drexler has one NBA title. Jordan has six NBA titles. Who cares which player was in the NBA ads? Jordan was a better player than Drexler and probably had a better agent (David Falk) than Clyde Drexler. But if you insist on pushing the point, here is Drexler in the signature NBA ads of the 80's. This is awkward now. 

Jordan shoes were being sold to the public for $100+ and for the kids that couldn’t afford them they were out robbing the kids that could.

Okay, well then. Now that you bring it up, Michael Jordan probably is responsible for kids robbing kids so they could have his shoes. What's weird is I have heard this argument before. I just don't know where. 

At some point make a statement to the public to stop the nonsense, drop the prices of your shoes to make them affordable, the same way that Stephon Marbury and Chris Webber did.

Now I know where I heard this argument. From Stephon Marbury. So basically the author is stealing talking points from Stephon Marbury in an effort to show how overrated Michael Jordan is and how he is a jerk.

But again, the author is stealing talking points from Chris Webber. Webber wanted more reasonably priced shoes, so his Fila shoes sold for $85 to $90, which is more reasonable than how much Jordan's shoes costs, but also not exactly cheap. The only examples of cheap shoes the author could come up with were shoes from Chris Webber and Stephon Marbury. I had to double check to make sure this article wasn't written in 1999.
 
Through all the ball-hogging, push-offs and crying when someone dared to touch him, 

It's like this article was not just written in 1999, but written in 1989. These are many of the same criticisms people had of Jordan back then. By the way, Jordan is 42nd all-time in career assists and he averaged 5.3 assists per game during his career, while Clyde Drexler averaged 5.6 assists per game. Maybe Jordan ball-hogged in a way where he got his teammates involved nearly as much as Clyde Drexler did. 

I still admired his game until the NBA decided it was time to win the gold medal, that’s when my hate for Jordan really became apparent.

This is when the author's hate for Jordan became apparent...to himself? The 1992 Olympics is when the author became fully self-aware.

He was the face of the NBA 

But only because the other players were edited out of commercials and erased from the memory of those watching the games. 

but it wasn’t going to be a “Dream Team” without him and he used that power to his advantage. Before the team ever assembled there was a power struggle going on between the Chicago Bulls and the Detroit Pistons, mainly between Jordan and Isiah Thomas.

The struggle on the court was mainly between Jordan and the entire Pistons team. The Pistons had the "Jordan Rules" where they essentially beat the shit out of him if he got near to the rim with the basketball. 

The Pistons treated the Bulls with as much respect that an alcoholic step-father treats his step-children.

The alcoholic step-father, who became an alcoholic from years spent trying to convince everyone of Clyde Drexler's greatness, treats his children terribly by robbing them and stealing their Air Jordan shoes. If they were Marbury or Webber shoes, it wouldn't come to this, but because Air Jordan shoes are so expensive, sometimes a child just has to get robbed. 

Jordan’s hate for Detroit was evident on the court, but behind closed doors he was plotting. When the call came to construct the Dream Team he saw his chance to put his power to use. He wasn’t going to play if a certain player was on the team.

Let's see, I hated the Pistons and I hated Michael Jordan. The Dream Team was winning the Gold medal no matter if Isiah Thomas or Marlo Thomas (just to stick with the 80's theme of this article) was the point guard. Yep, I don't really care what Jordan did or didn't do to keep Thomas off the team.

The author also conveniently leaves out that Isiah Thomas started the whole beef back in 1985 by freezing Michael Jordan out in the All-Star Game, but any evidence that may not make Jordan seem like the jerk the author believes him to be should be omitted. So the author complains the NBA made Michael Jordan into a product of marketing while claiming they were ignoring other NBA stars (which is absolutely false) in their marketing for the league, but in this column he only uses information that makes Jordan look bad in his treatment of Isiah Thomas while ignoring any culpability of Thomas in Jordan's behavior towards him.

At the time, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas and John Stockton were the best PG’s in the NBA.

And two of them were on the Dream Team. Only 12 players could make the team. There are five positions on an NBA team and 12 spots on the Dream Team roster. There can't be three players at every position on the roster, so Thomas didn't make the team because Jordan (and a couple others) could play point guard if they absolutely needed him to. 

Even Jordan, with his childish ways, knew that, but because of the disrespect he felt the Pistons gave him over the years and with them walking off the court when they finally beat the “Bad Boys,” Jordan was going to make sure Thomas would never play for the gold.

So Jordan wouldn't play if Thomas was on the team because Thomas froze him out of an exhibition game and then Thomas acted like a fucking baby and wouldn't shake hands after the Bulls finally beat the Pistons in the Eastern Conference Finals? Jordan is the bad guy though? I don't like Michael Jordan, but it seems Thomas had some karma coming back to him for the bitch move of walking his team off the court in the Eastern Conference Finals. Maybe Thomas shouldn't piss off the best player in the NBA.

If Thomas played on the team, Jordan would not and the league was too busy making money off his brand that they could not afford to let that happen, so what did they do? The same thing they always done, they kissed his butt, gave him another pacifier and let him have his way.

So let me get this straight. The NBA was so busy making money off the 1992 Olympics they couldn't afford to have Michael Jordan not participate as part of the squad? It's hard to speculate accurately, but did the NBA have a reason to want Michael Jordan on the 1992 Dream Team instead of Isiah Thomas? I don't know, but I do know there were a lot of really good players left off the team. James Worthy didn't make the team either.

Despite this author's attempts to pin Thomas not being on the Dream Team solely on Michael Jordan, there were plenty of other players who may not have participated had Thomas joined the team. So losing Jordan probably wasn't ideal, but losing Barkley, Pippen, Bird and Jordan? That's enough to keep the third-best point guard in the NBA off the team. Tough choices had to be made anyway, so why choose a player who was on the border of not making the team AND there were plenty of guys on the team who didn't like him?

But in came Chuck Daly to head the Dream Team, one of the greatest coaches in history and also the coach of said Pistons and Thomas. That’s how you know this was all personal between Jordan and Thomas.

Why play for the coach and not with the player?

I don't think it's a question of whether Michael Jordan liked Isiah Thomas or not. He didn't. The fact Jordan didn't like Thomas doesn't mean that Jordan alone had Thomas kept off the Olympic team and that's why he's overrated and a jerk. 

Like I said, I respect what he accomplished on the court, but what he did to Thomas always rubbed me the wrong way. Imagine if LeBron did the same to Kevin Durant or Kobe Bryant — he would get crucified, but since it was Jordan it’s like it gets swept under the rug.

Yes, it gets swept under the rug in that 23 years later it is still talked about. If anything, the idea Jordan kept Thomas off the Dream Team has been discussed too much over the past 23 years. It's part of the lore of Michael Jordan and how competitive he was. If the author thinks Jordan allegedly keeping Thomas off the Dream Team has been swept under the rug then he hasn't been paying attention. 

He took his position of power within the NBA and took away a once in a lifetime chance for one of the games greats.

The numbers situation took away a lifetime chance for one of the games greats. That's what happened. I would love to hear from the author on which player (outside of Laettner, because one college player was making the team) that he would have left off. Who would it have been? The 11th person to make the team after the first 10 players was named was...get ready for it...Clyde Drexler. So should the guy who the author thinks was just as good at basketball as Jordan have been removed from the Dream Team? If not, who should have not made the team? There were only two centers who made the team, so one of those can't be removed. Pippen or Chris Mullin? That leaves the team short in terms of small forwards, and especially since Pippen could also play point guard, he had added value. The bottom line is there wasn't room for Thomas even if players other than Jordan didn't like him. 

I have mixed feelings about Daly as well.

Well, that's good to know. 

Thomas was your player and you agreed to go on without him. Tell Jordan to suck it up and be a man about the situation.

This would have been awkward for Chuck Daly to say considering he didn't pick the players that made the Dream Team. I'm sure Daly could have worked hard to get Thomas on the team, but he probably knew that would make his job a lot harder than it needed to be. Why fight so hard to bring on a guy that many of the players don't like anyway, a guy who is the third-best point guard on the roster? 

What about his Hall Of Fame speech? To some it was funny and entertaining but the reality of it was he took another opportunity and the spotlight of many others to stand on his mighty soapbox and show his true colors.

That's Michael Jordan. It's who he is. 

Wow, talk about a guy with a serious hero complex. He was still taking shots at guys for no reason. Still taking shots at Magic Johnson and George Gervin for freezing him out in the 1985 NBA All Star game, he flew the player he was passed over for in high school simply to rub it in his face.

How can we forget the classic line the “organization didn’t play with the flu in Utah” — oh wow, some balls on this guy.

Yes, wow, some balls on this guy. Jordan almost as much balls as it takes to claim in an article that Jordan was just the product of great marketing. And that link about Johnson and Gervin freezing out Jordan in the 1985 All Star Game is actually an article about Isiah Thomas freezing Jordan out. The author clearly wants to mislead his readers and pretend it wasn't Thomas who was behind Jordan being frozen out. If anyone is trying to sweep the truth under the rug, it's the author trying to sweep the truth of Thomas and his involvement in the Jordan freeze out under the rug.

There is a reason why Charles Barkley and Jordan have remained so close throughout the years while he and Pippen have not. Pippen was the flunky, while Chuck would easily tell Jordan about himself.

A person like Jordan needs that one to put him in his place (Derek Fisher and Bryant) and he respects that about Barkley. When everyone is kissing your backside you need someone to slap you in the face every once in a while.

So because Jordan wants someone to slap him in the fact and stop kissing his ass, he tried hard to get a player who probably at some point actually slapped him in the face and wouldn't kiss his ass left off the 1992 Dream Team? If you don't use logic at all, then this might make sense. Unfortunately, the idea Jordan respects people who don't kiss his ass, but conspired to have an NBA player who didn't kiss his ass left off the Dream Team doesn't square.

Respect is earned and as fast as you get it, it can be taken away. To many, Michael Jordan is untouchable, they can’t see why someone could not like they guy.

This article isn't about liking or not liking Jordan. It says that Michael Jordan is the most overrated NBA player. Please argue the point you are trying make in an effort to prove your claim. Don't move the goalposts or try to make it seem like you didn't call Jordan overrated and that's the same thing as simply not liking Jordan.

You like who you like, simple as that.

I just didn’t — or don’t — respect Michael Jordan.

You don't have to respect Michael Jordan. Even a stupid person knows not respecting someone doesn't mean that player is the most overrated person in NBA history. Don't be stupid and stop with the hot takes. I'm going to write something that you may not want to hear. Your writing is not good at all. This is an embarrassment on so many levels.

4 comments Jason Reid Examines the Cruelty of the Salary Cap in Sports

Welcome to the blog, Jason Reid! Reid used to write for "The Washington Post," but seems to have taken a job with ESPN.com. Good for him. It's nice to move up (it's considered "up" so I'll just say it's "up" because the pay is most likely increased) in the world. Jason Reid is one of the brave souls who is willing to speak about the cruelty of the salary cap in sports and how it causes professional athletes to be grossly underpaid for the services they provide. There are also professional athletes who are grossly overpaid for the services they provide, but those aren't as much fun to talk about. Let's conveniently ignore those athletes. Instead, Reid focuses on how the salary is cruel to superstars like Russell Wilson and LeBron James. Yes, he uses the word "cruel" in this context. As if limiting LeBron James to earnings of $22 million in a year instead of his real free market value with no salary cap is on par with other cruel acts that take place in the world. I think Jason Reid needs some perspective and he also needs to stop using some slightly fuzzy math.

Let's talk about the myth that superstar athletes in the NFL and NBA are compensated fairly.

Let's talk about your definition of "fairly." Is it "fairly" compared to the rest of the free world and the average compensation of a worker? Or is it "fairly" compared to their skill set and how easy it is to find a similar skill set among other citizens of the free world? In and of themselves, professional athletes have a difficult skill set to replicate simply by existing as professional athletes. Because Russell Wilson plays in the NFL, this means he has a skill set that most other people do not. So what is "fair" should be relative to other NFL players. If anything, the rookie salary cap, not the NFL's overall salary cap for each team, is what has caused Russell Wilson to not be compensated fairly during his career.

The first issue with this column is that the salary cap is not cruel. It's a matter of fact. Just as state employees have a cap on how much they are able to earn in their respective field, for example a great teaching administrator can only earn so much in that position, the NFL and NBA have a cap on how much players can earn. Is it cruel that I earn more than someone who works as an administrative assistant to a City Manager, even though he/she has the exact same skill set in their field as I have in mine? No, it's a matter of fact for the field that we are both in. So for Russell Wilson and LeBron James it's not "unfair," it's a matter of fact in that player's chosen sport.

The second issue is nobody wants to hear about how NFL and NBA players are not compensated fairly. If there were no salary cap in these two sports then these players could earn more money. Using words like "fairly" and "cruel" overshadows and diminishes the point Jason Reid wants to prove by making it seem like he's trying to evoke sympathy for these players. He's not doing a very good job of proving his point.

The truth is, the best players in those leagues are grossly underpaid because of the salary cap. For Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson, that's a bad system.

Relative to football players, the rookie salary cap is why Russell Wilson is underpaid. Once Wilson gets a chance to hit free agency or accepts a contract offer from the Seahawks, he will no longer be underpaid. This comparison across different leagues isn't a very good comparison because each professional sport has it's own salary structure and revenue-sharing which can determine the salary cap and money available to pay these athletes. It's like saying I am underpaid in my profession compared to an investment banker. Sure, I am underpaid compared to an investment banker, but I'm not an investment banker. If I were an investment banker and earned what I earn now, there is a chance I would be underpaid compared to what others in my field earn. Similarly, stating because I'm an investment banker who earns $100,000 a year, then claiming I'm underpaid because a financial planner earns $250,000, wouldn't be a correct way to frame the argument in my opinion. To say, "Oh, well, if there was a different salary structure in place that had no salary cap then Russell Wilson would earn more money" may be a good point. To say he is underpaid compared to other athletic professions because this separate salary structure with no salary cap does not exist in the NFL is not a good point. Wilson should be compared to other NFL players to determine if he is underpaid. 

Seattle knows what it has: Wilson is a keeper. But at what salary? Like all teams, the Seahawks must balance their desire to reward Wilson with the need to maintain cap flexibility. Obviously, those issues are at odds.

Even if there were no salary cap, the Seahawks would have to balance their desire to reward Wilson with the amount of money the organization can afford to spend on Wilson. There is a reason even MLB teams, who play in a sport with no salary cap, can't go out and spend $100 million on a free agent. So even when there isn't a salary cap, there is still the profitability issue and spending ability related to this profitability issue that exists which prevents a team from rewarding their own players at maximum market value. Assuming every NFL team's spending ability is equal and endless is a faulty assumption. So there will always be some sort of budget professional franchises have where the player's reward must be balanced with payroll flexibility. It's shocking to Jason Reid that a salary cap designed to level the playing field does in fact level the playing field.

Although Wilson is a face-of-the-franchise performer, the former third-round draft pick won't be paid what he deserves for his role in the NFL's ongoing economic boom. 

He will be paid what he is worth compared to other NFL players.

Players who produce at a high level while leading their teams to championships provide the foundation of a league that reportedly generated about $10 billion in revenue last season.

Yes, the NFL earned that amount of money. Each individual team didn't earn $10 billion last season.

In contrast, this season's salary cap is set at $143.28 million per team. That's a small slice of a very big pie.

So Jason Reid's point is that the NFL makes a lot of money and each individual employee of the NFL or employee of an NFL team doesn't see a big slice of this very big pie? Much like how my company earns a lot of money and I only get a small slice of a very big pie? So the NFL players are being treated like 99.5% of American employees are treated to where they only earn a small subset of what the company earns as a whole. Excuse me if I can't quite muster up some more sympathy for Russell Wilson when he wants $25 million per year and is only being offered $18 million per year. I'm guessing Jason Reid earns a very small slice of what ESPN makes every single year. Does that mean he is underpaid? Does that mean Skip Bayless is underpaid because he only earns a few million of what ESPN earns every year? Of course not.

Even if Wilson receives a record package -- with an average salary of $22 million, Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers is the NFL's highest-paid player -- he'll still be a bargain based on the league's immense profitability.

This is a remarkably stupid comment. People can get their panties in a wad over CEO compensation, but compared to how much Bank of America makes annually in revenue, that would mean Kenneth Lewis was actually underpaid when he made $24.8 million while being bailed out by the federal government. As long as you use the logic that Jason Reid uses then the idea Lewis was underpaid may make sense. Who knew Lewis was so underpaid at the time?

The buzz is that the Seahawks, despite Wilson's impressive accomplishments for a quarterback at the outset of his career, would rather not break new salary ground because they don't have to (Wilson is under the team's control for at least three more seasons). 

And, of course, if it wasn't such a cruel fact of life that there is a salary cap in the NFL then Russell Wilson would be able to earn untold millions on the free market over the next three seasons, right? Wait, that's not right at all. Even if there was no salary cap and 15 NFL teams were looking to pay Russell Wilson $500 million to be their quarterback, Wilson can't even hit free agency for another three years. Not to mention, during two of those years Wilson would be one of the highest-paid players at his position. So again, Jason Reid is trying so hard to make it seem like if it weren't for the salary cap then Russell Wilson would be rolling in dough right now. That's not entirely true. Though, he could be rolling in dough compared to other athletes at his position if he were franchised for two straight seasons.

However, the argument that Wilson is nothing more than a game manager is ridiculous. That became clear after Wilson rallied the Seahawks to victory over the Packers in last season's NFC Championship Game.

Whether Russell Wilson is a game manager or not is irrelevant. Argue the point, don't try to create a whole new discussion because the topic for this column is inherently weak.

And ask yourself this about Wilson: How much could he command in free agency if there were no salary cap?

Ask yourself this about this question: Do you know the answer to the question or are you just speculating in order to prove your point? Ask yourself this as well: If the NFL had no salary cap would it improve the game?

With elite signal-callers in high demand, the list of bidders, undoubtedly, would be long for a charismatic winner who won't turn 27 until November. There's no way of determining how much Wilson would receive in such a scenario. 

I would disagree that the list of bidders would be long. Just like the list of serious bidders for an MLB free agent isn't long, there would be an even smaller list of NFL teams who would pursue Russell Wilson if he were a free agent in an NFL without a salary cap. The teams that would seriously pursue Wilson would be teams that don't currently have a starting quarterback under contract and would be willing to pay the amount of money Wilson would want.

In fact, I think I could make an argument that the list of bidders for Wilson would be higher with the salary cap and non-guaranteed salary structure the NFL has. If the 49ers want to pursue Russell Wilson then it's a lot easier to do that knowing that they don't have to pay Colin Kaepernick his full contract AND Kaepernick would have (under Reid's theory) gotten an even bigger, guaranteed contract if the NFL was a free market when the 49ers re-signed him. This means the 49ers would have a more difficult time of moving Kaepernick in a trade or would have to eat a lot of the contract if it were 100% guaranteed. This would obviously affect their ability to sign Russell Wilson. Under the non-guaranteed salary structure, the 49ers could cut ties with Kaepernick and sign Wilson, fully knowing they aren't on the hook for Kaepernick's entire salary.

I'm getting off-point. My point is the list of suitors for Russell Wilson wouldn't be as long as Jason Reid thinks because NFL teams who have a quarterback and don't want to pay for Wilson's contract demand won't be in the running for his services.

Wilson's situation is a glaring example of why the cap doesn't work for superstars, sports attorney David Cornwell says.

"Why should a Super Bowl-winning, and two-time Super Bowl-appearing, quarterback be fighting for money?" Cornwell, who represents 2015 No. 1 pick Jameis Winston, said in a phone interview the other day.

So a sports attorney who represents NFL players think that these NFL players should get paid more, meaning the attorney representing that NFL player would get paid more? No way! So David Cornwell holds this opinion based on his own selfish need to make as much money as possible and this affects whether his opinion truly has merit or not? You don't say. Who would have thought that money and having a stake in how money is distributed could affect a person's opinion on a topic? Certainly not me. 

"If [teams] can cut players when they don't perform to their contracts, why can't we have a system where players are guaranteed to benefit [as much as they should] when they perform?"

Because the NFL union didn't negotiate guaranteed contracts into the latest collective bargaining agreement. Had they chosen to do so, then perhaps the players would be guaranteed to benefit when they perform. Also, guaranteed contracts are an entirely different issue from the cruelty of the salary cap. Jason Reid's shaky writing skills are combining these two issues, but they are two separate issues. The NBA does have fully guaranteed contracts and they still have a salary cap. So it's not the NFL owner's fault the players don't have fully guaranteed contracts, because the players chose not to negotiate this into the latest CBA. I understand the point, but I get a little tired of the players and ancillary figures to the players bitching about non-guaranteed contracts. They could have negotiated this into the latest CBA and chose not to. David Cornwell nor Jason Reid should talk about the unfairness of non-guaranteed contracts when it was the NFL players who chose not to pursue this. 

NFL players are compensated spectacularly (the league's starting salary is $435,000). Anyone who suggests otherwise should be ridiculed.

(points at Jason Reid and then begins ridiculing him)

But relative to the revenue they generate, superstars have been exploited historically.

Relative to the revenue they generate nearly every employee is exploited historically. There's no point in running a business if the employees eat up all the profits with their compensation. It sort of defeats the purpose of the business if all revenues go to the employees doesn't it? Relative to the revenue the NFL generates, even Roger Goodell is exploited using Jason Reid's logic. 

And the salary cap, designed to foster competitive balance among teams, has improved the owners' bottom lines much more than it has benefited their most important employees.

And of course because there is no salary cap in baseball, the owners are poor and can't make any money of their teams. Right? Speaking of bottom lines, even if there was no salary cap, NBA and NFL teams still have bottom lines that they must meet in order to make money. This is yet another point that Jason Reid is missing, that professional sports organizations still have budgets and a set amount that they will spend on their most important employees.

 "As a general proposition, there's a strong argument that can be made that, when properly applied, a salary cap can be good for the overall good of the game," said Cornwell, who worked for the NFL early in his career.

"But there are so many moving parts to determine if it's properly applied. And, there's no question about it: The current salary-cap structure is especially harmful to the best players."

And notice how David Cornwell doesn't make mention of when the salary cap is good for the overall good of the game. He says, "Sure, a salary cap can be great, but this one is super-bad," without mentioning when a salary cap could be "properly applied." If there is any salary cap, then there is a good chance the best employees won't be receiving their top market value, but this also doesn't mean these employees are underpaid. 

One issue that David Cornwell doesn't address is how the salary cap treats the 95% of the NBA players who aren't superstars. There are far more NBA players who aren't superstars than there are players who are superstars. Wouldn't the true test of a salary-cap structure be how players in that sport are compensated over all skills levels, not based simply on how much money superstars can earn?

Cleveland Cavaliers forward LeBron James has dominated the NBA over the past seven seasons, winning four league MVP awards and twice being selected the NBA Finals MVP. Yet, James, who this week became an unrestricted free agent for the third time, has never had the NBA's highest salary.

Who did have the highest salary during this time? Other superstars who are exploited by the salary cap in the NBA. I like how Jason Reid is all, "Superstars should be compensated like they are superstars. See, LeBron hasn't ever been the highest paid player in the NBA," then ignores who was the highest paid player in the NBA over this time. I'm guessing it's probably another superstar who is supposedly held down by the salary cap. Whoops.

By signing contracts that have included escape clauses, James has maximized his earning potential, re-entering free agency and receiving new deals as the cap has increased. Unfortunately for James, cap rules limit how much he can earn based on many factors. There's no telling what teams would offer James if the salary cap were not a factor.

There is no telling. What I believe I can tell is that whatever team offered James this contract also has a budget they can spend on other players which will be greatly affected by how much James earns.

NBA revenue is about $5 billion.

NBA revenue is $5 billion, but every NBA team doesn't have revenue of $5 billion. I feel like Jason Reid is seeing this $5 billion figure and saying, "Hey, LeBron James only earns $20+ million of this! Look at his value to the league!" This isn't the best way to argue LeBron James is underpaid. If James earned $100 million this season on the NBA's $5 billion in revenue then he's still only earning 2% of the overall revenues of the NBA. Is LeBron James more important to the NBA than that? I'm sure Jason Reid would argue he is. 

When one the greatest players in NBA history fails to get close to fair contract value because of the salary cap, major change is needed.

Jason Reid is all over the place. One minute he's talking about the NFL's salary cap, then he's talking about the NFL's non-guaranteed salary structure and now he's back using his fuzzy math discussing how the overall revenues of the NBA are $5 billion and he thinks LeBron James should get a larger piece of this. All while not realizing each NBA team (and there are 30 of them) doesn't earn $5 billion each year. 

"It's indefensible that LeBron James exposes himself to the risk of injury by opting out and taking one-, two-year deals to get higher salary-cap numbers," Cornwell said. "And it's not just an issue for the Cleveland Cavaliers.

David Cornwell seems to really struggle with personal responsibility and how these NFL and NBA players are partly responsible for their situation. LeBron James doesn't have to sign a one or two year contract. I bet the Cavs would love it if he signed a longer deal, but LeBron chooses to sign these contracts to max out his earnings. So I don't know if it's "indefensible" that LeBron has to opt-out and take these shorter contracts, but it's something he has chosen to do in order to capture a few extra million dollars that he doesn't need to live his life. It's really hard for me to feel bad for LeBron James because he opts out of a contract in order to earn a few extra million dollars. That's not something I can relate to. LeBron chooses to opt out to capture as much money as possible. That's his choice.

"All of the other owners shouldn't want him to do it ... because a rising tide lifts all ships. That's what the superstar players provide. Why would anyone want to risk [losing] those players because of the salary cap?"

I don't understand. Where would these players go to earn more money playing basketball? Is Cornwell saying that LeBron would leave the Cavs because he keeps opting out of his deal? Because I'm pretty sure the other NBA owners would like that very much, because it means they have a shot at signing LeBron James. Also, if I'm not wrong, James can get the most money by re-signing with the Cavs. So I'm not entirely sure where the risk of losing these players may exist.

That's a good question.

Is it a good question? Where would a superstar player go instead of playing in the NBA with a salary cap?

But with revenues ballooning for owners in the NFL and NBA under the salary cap system, it's a risk they're apparently willing to take.

Yes, revenues are ballooning from television deals and the like, which is why the salary cap keeps rising in both sports. A salary cap prevents star players from earning their maximum potential on the free market, but it's not a "cruel" system, these players aren't really underpaid, and the fact the NBA have revenues of $5 billion doesn't mean that each of the 30 teams has unlimited money they are able to spend on their employees. Sure, the NBA teams make money even if they claim they don't, but even MLB teams (and they have no salary cap) have a budget they must meet. Revenues are ballooning, which is why the salary cap is rising, but I don't feel bad for LeBron James or Russell Wilson because they have a limit on how much they can earn. A salary cap structure isn't an ideal system to maximize a player's earnings, but it's not a cruel system either. Get some perspective.

2 comments Bill Plaschke Also Claims Baseball is Dying, But Don't Worry, He Has Solutions

We've heard from many sportswriters about just how dead baseball is. For a sport that is dead, there sure is a lot of talk about that sport. One would think if baseball was really dying that it wouldn't create so much interest in it's death. Bill Plaschke adds to the chorus and provides solutions to increase interest in baseball. I'm not entirely sure how some of these changes for baseball will do anything for World Series ratings. I guess it's not Bill's job to create solutions that fix the supposed problem he is trying to fix. It's Bill's job to improve baseball, and even though these solutions have nothing to do with World Series ratings, these great World Series ratings will come. If baseball removes the DH, they will come.

The pressure is off, America. The Fall-Over Classic is finished.

It was a really good World Series. What I watched of it, I enjoyed. Much like any other sporting event that runs too late though, I can't always watch the whole thing live. There was no pressure, it was an enjoyable World Series. But that's not enough! Not by a long shot. How dare the World Series be enjoyable, because ratings. Ratings!

No more fourth-place teams battling fifth-place teams for a first-place trophy.

Yeah, but the fourth and fifth place teams beat the teams better then them in a five or seven game playoff. It's not a fluke if it happens in a five or seven game series...or at least it shouldn't be a fluke.

No more rules chaos, home-field confusion and seriously creepy Rob Lowe commercials.

Okay, where's the confusion about homefield advantage? The team who wins the All-Star Game gets homefield advantage. There's a lot of issues with how homefield advantage is determined, but it's a very simple idea to understand.

It ended Wednesday after the only one of the seven games that folks actually watched. 

If I'm not wrong, and I don't think I am, all of the seven World Series games were among the Top 20 shows in primetime during a given week. I have discussed this before.

You're off the hook for another year, America. You no longer have to feel bad about not watching the World Series.

Let me get this straight...no one watches the World Series, but those who do watch the World Series only watch out of guilt? Is there anyone who watches a television show or sporting event because they would feel guilty if they didn't watch it?

Even though the Game 7 victory by the Giants over the Kansas City Royals was watched by nearly 24 million viewers, that was nearly double the average of the previous six games, making this still the second-least watched World Series in history.

Which I am sure only increased the guilt those 24 million who watched Game 7 felt. Imagine how guilty these people would feel if Game 7 wasn't one of the most watched television programs during the week it aired.

Baseball's premier event was tackled for a huge loss by "Sunday Night Football," outsmarted by the "The Big Bang Theory" and devoured by the zombies of "Walking Dead."

Bill Plaschke has won awards for this type of writing by the way. I can't figure out why print media is dying.

Yes, there are many more channel choices than the days of, say, a 1978 Dodgers-New York Yankees series that drew a huge rating. But what explains a recent decline that shows five of the least-watched Series all occurring in the last seven years?

What explains it is there are many more channel choices then the days of, say, a 1978 Dodgers-New York Yankees series. The fact there are more channel choices would easily explain the recent decline in ratings for the World Series. It's not like many more channel choices is a trend that is 30 years old. It's been the last decade or so when Americans have had so many channel choices and have chosen to try and afford all of those channel choices.

This is like saying (and this is hypothetical), "Sure, there are healthier more affordable options available then 20 years ago when McDonald's had record revenues. But what explains a recent decline in revenues where five of the last seven years have been the lowest revenue earning years for McDonald's?"

There's your answer. It's right there. More options.

Make no mistake, baseball is a thriving sport.

It's thriving, yet dying. It's the Keith Richards of sports.

The Dodgers sold for more than $2 billion, then cut a cable television deal worth four times that amount. Baseball's top-10 attendance totals have all occurred in the last 10 years.

People still love their hometown teams.

IF PEOPLE LOVE THEIR HOMETOWN TEAMS THEN HOW COME TOP-10 ATTENDANCE TOTALS HAVE ALL OCCURRED IN THE LAST 10 YEARS?

So Bill Plaschke's conclusion is that interest in baseball needs to be rekindled based on World Series ratings. This despite knowing:

-World Series still draw relatively good ratings.

-MLB teams are worth more now than every before.

-People still love their hometown teams.

-More people than ever are choosing to attend baseball games.

So as long as Bill ignores the financial aspect and the fact fan interest in seeing their favorite team play live has never been higher, baseball desperately needs to rekindle interest in the sport. This because the World Series doesn't draw record-setting ratings. No one is interested in the sport of baseball, as long as you ignore those who are interested in the sport of baseball that attend games.

The problem is, they're increasingly falling out of love with the actual game. The national pastime has sadly become a regional pastime.

True. This isn't a sign that fans are falling out of love with the game, but simply choose not to watch a game between two teams they have no rooting interest in. It happens in every sport except for the NFL, because people are currently obsessed with the NFL.

Every team has plenty of fans, but when those teams are eliminated from postseason, those fans stop watching because suddenly it's all about only, ugh, the baseball.

No, you can't claim to know what a large group of people are thinking like this. Those fans stop watching because there are other shows on television they want to watch, and while they enjoy the sport of baseball, they don't care to see another team celebrate a World Series victory. There are World Series I haven't watched because I can't stand to not watch my favorite team participating in the World Series. But no, Bill Plasckhe knows what every baseball fan thinks because he's so fucking smart and can read minds. I love baseball, but that doesn't mean I will spend my evenings watching two teams who aren't my favorite team play baseball game. It's a long season. I'm kind of tired towards the end of it.

Few people drive to their local stadiums saying, "I want to see a baseball game." No, it's almost always, "I want to see a (insert team name here) game."

I never say I want to go see an NFL game. I always say, "I want to see a Team X game." I'm not even sure what Bill is trying to say here. Only 30 areas of the United States even have a local baseball team (which obviously is a point that proves just how out of touch Bill Plascke is). Someone who lives in Nebraska isn't going to drive hundreds of miles to see the Texas Rangers play on a given night just because he wants to see a baseball game. That's an important point for Bill to understand. There aren't a whole lot of "local stadiums" with MLB teams around the country. I would ask if Bill was referring to minor league baseball here, but he doesn't once refer to minor league baseball in this article.

It's 2014. I don't have to pay for a ticket to go see a baseball game. I can turn on my television. It's certainly not the same thing, but Bill is acting like the ability to see a baseball game is a rare resource when that's not true. Baseball is everywhere. I disagree with Bill's assertions on so many levels. In fact, I would argue a lot of people who attend minor league baseball games go simply because they want to watch a baseball game. But again, Bill doesn't seem to be talking about minor league baseball.

It's not that way in football, where many folks watch the NFL just because they love watching football, which is the reason the league has thrived despite not having a team in its second-largest market. The same goes for pro basketball, where folks are attracted to the fast pace and incredible athleticism even if their hometown team — say, the Lakers — might not win a game again, ever, in the history of the world.

It must be awkward for Bill to write a column knowing the facts won't fully back up the assertions he is trying to make. He's acting like the NBA Finals get incredibly great ratings compared to the World Series. This isn't entirely true. The World Series are lower than the NBA Finals ratings, but Plaschke should hold off on the NFL comparison.

People love watching football, but the NBA has the benefit of their star players being in the NBA Finals on a near yearly basis (which isn't good luck, but good marketing). The NBA Finals ratings don't blow the World Series ratings out of the water as Bill suggests might be true.

Once again this fall, baseball did not have a true World Series. It didn't even have a National Series. It had a San Francisco-Kansas City Series with a few outsiders watching from the cheap seats.

This is really true of every sport's championship game or series. The NBA Finals are really a series between the two teams with everyone else just watching. The same goes for the Super Bowl. The difference is the number of outsiders who choose to watch from the cheap seats.

Baseball is my favorite sport, the sport I covered for 10 seasons as a beat reporter. It is the most regal yet rawest of endeavors, the perfect marriage of sport and humanity. I love it, yet as a columnist for this newspaper, I have not covered a World Series for seven years

So basically Bill Plaschke is one of those people who he claims have fallen out of love with baseball. Because he lacks interest in the sport, he assumes others lack interest as well.

because it is no longer a sport that resonates beyond the love for the local teams.

Right, but that's fine and doesn't mean baseball is dying. Baseball is a regional sport now, but it doesn't mean fan interest needs to be rekindled in the World Series. It just means the World Series won't draw the ratings it used to draw.

Baseball used to be Mr. October, now it is October miss.

Again, this type of writing has won Bill Plaschke multiple sportswriting awards.

Here's hoping incoming commissioner Rob Manfred can overcome his sports stilted smugness and agree. Here's some ideas to get him started.

Here is some ideas that will help increase interest in baseball and the World Series, despite the fact a couple of these ideas won't help increase interest in baseball because they are cosmetic changes to the game that wouldn't usually affect a person's enjoyment of watching the sport be played.

Use a pitch clock to shorten the games.

MLB is already trying this out during the offseason.

This season's Game 4 required nine innings but lasted four hours. In 1960, a pressurized seventh game of the World Series between the Yankees and Pittsburgh Pirates produced 19 runs, yet lasted only 2 hours 36 minutes.

How many commercial breaks were there during this game? Also, there is no way to combat that baseball has become a more specialized sport. Teams make more pitching changes than they made 54 years ago and this slows the pace of the game. The only way to combat this would be to make each game seven innings long as opposed to nine innings long.

The simplest and best way would be to install an 18-second pitch clock, cutting down on the average major league delivery time of about 22 seconds. It would quicken deliveries, force batters to stay in the box, and make the game feel faster. Pro basketball tried this in 1954, and its newfangled 24-second clock saved the game.

I'm interested to see how this works. Now whether this would increase ratings for the World Series is an entirely other matter. If the game is faster, does Plaschke know more viewers will begin to enjoy the sport of baseball?

Increase the division series to seven games.

So the key to rekindling interest in the World Series is to increase the division series to seven games? If the division series is seven games more people will watch the World Series and fall back in love with baseball? I don't see how the hell this makes sense logically. I don't think the length of the division series has anything to do with baseball's World Series ratings or someone's love for the sport. Does Bill really think there is someone out there who says, "I used to love baseball, but now the season isn't long enough. If they just increased the season by two more games I think I could fall in love with the sport again"?

This wouldn't lengthen baseball's schedule — just reduce the days off between series — but it would fortify baseball's integrity.

Ah yes, "fortify baseball's integrity." How many people don't watch the sport of baseball because it lacks integrity? And since when does playing more games involve having more integrity?

Of the three major sports that conduct their postseasons in series of games, baseball is the only one where the first round is only five games, which means it's the only sport where six months of greatness can be erased in three bad days.

But there is also an argument that what makes football so exciting is that the sample sizes and margin for error are so small. Every game means something, so fans of football tune in to see what happens because teams only get one chance to win a game and advance in the playoffs. I don't see how making the division series longer is going to make baseball more popular.

Fans should want the World Series to be contested by the two best teams over the course of six months, not simply the hottest teams in October. The Giants and Royals were fun, but do you really believe they were baseball's two best teams?

No, but both teams won a five and seven game series. They proved they deserved to meet in the World Series. The NFL has one game playoffs and I don't recall Bill Plaschke bitching when a Wild Card team makes it to the Super Bowl or claiming the "real" best NFL team didn't make it to the Super Bowl. All of a sudden, baseball has to ensure the best teams make it to the World Series, so obviously extending the playoff season will make this happen. 

DH or no DH, make up your mind.

How the hell would making a decision about the DH create more fan interest in baseball and the World Series? Maybe choosing to implement the DH in both leagues or in neither league is a positive change for MLB, but whether both or neither league have the DH should have no effect on the World Series ratings.

It is stunning that baseball's most important series is still conducted under two different sets of rules, with no designated hitter allowed in the National League city. Can you imagine the NBA eliminating the three-point line for three games in the middle of its championship series?

It's not entirely the same thing. A better comparison would be if a three-point specialist was allowed on the home court of a Western Conference team, but not on an Eastern Conference team. MLB doesn't change the rules of baseball on an American/National League field, they just change the use of two players within those rules.

Without the use of their DH, Billy Butler, the rules change seriously hurt the Royals this October, and it almost always hurts the American League team. Of the last nine World Series, 25 games were played under National League rules, and the AL team is 8-17 in those games.

Of the last nine World Series, 24 games were played under American League rules, and the NL team is 11-13 in those games. It's not like the National League thrives under American League rules.

Not to mention, whether the DH is used or not probably won't have an effect on how many people choose to watch the World Series and whether the sport will stop becoming more popular regionally.

Give home-field advantage to the team with baseball's best record.

I don't understand how the hell this will positively affect the ratings for the World Series. Does Bill honestly think there are people who don't watch baseball or don't watch the World Series because they don't like how homefield advantage is decided for the World Series? This would be a cosmetic change that shouldn't have a significant impact on baseball's ratings.

Manfred's first act should be to end the practice of allowing an exhibition game in the middle of July, a.k.a the All-Star game, to determine home-field advantage in the most important games of the season.

Fine, let's say I agree. How does changing homefield advantage to the team with the best record increase World Series ratings? People are going to love baseball again because they like how the Giants got homefield advantage because they had a better record than the Royals? I doubt it.

That further cheapens a World Series that has been discounted enough.

Sure, fine. Will this increase ratings though? It seems Bill Plaschke has four suggestions to rekindle interest in baseball and increase World Series ratings, yet two of these reasons really are cosmetic changes to the sport and wouldn't necessarily increase World Series ratings nor seem to have to do much with why baseball is considered more of a regional sport. Not well done, Bill. 

4 comments Skip Bayless Wants To Clear Up That He Doesn't Hate Andrew Luck; Only Manages To Reinforce That He Loves Skip Bayless

There are very few redeeming qualities that Skip Bayless has. He's a troll, but he's also good for amusement. He's such a joke, that it is amusing. So that's his one redeeming quality. He's fun to laugh at and makes me feel better about myself. Skip Bayless has written another column that is essentially about Skip Bayless. Sure, it's about Andrew Luck, but it's about how Skip Bayless doesn't hate Andrew Luck. I'm pretty sure Skip Bayless farts into a glass and then smells it.

Not long ago I had the unexpected pleasure of meeting Mike Wells in ESPN's cafeteria. I read every word Mike writes about the Indianapolis Colts for ESPN.com. And right away I thought, "He's as good a guy as he is a reporter."

That's a great story, Skip. I bet Mike Wells' version of the story goes this way:

"Not long ago, I saw Skip Bayless in ESPN's cafeteria. I tried to avoid him by running over to the salad bar, but he saw me and then approached me. He was nice to say he likes my writing, but then began to ask me why I have never written about Andrew Luck not being the quarterback Tim Tebow could have been. He got distracted halfway through the conversation by seeing his reflection in a mirror, then said I should consider writing about how overrated Andrew Luck is because he isn't in the Hall of Fame, yet 'everyone' says he's already a first-ballot Hall of Famer. I asked him why he hated Andrew Luck and then Skip turned bright blue yelling about LeBron James. I pretended I was choking and got taken away by ambulance just to get away from him."

But then he turned his investigative skills on me. "I have to ask you something I get asked so often by Colts fans," he said. "Why do you hate Andrew Luck?"

And Skip immediately thought, "That's a great column idea! It could be about ME not liking Andrew Luck. I was wondering when the next column idea about myself would come to me."

I'm sure it sometimes seems that way to Colts fans who watch "First Take." Allow me to explain.

I DO NOT HATE ANDREW LUCK.

Oh, well allow me to explain then. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. GO AWAY.

It's true I love the previous Colts quarterback, guy named Peyton, far more than I do Luck so far.

And of course, based on the fact he is supposed to be an objective observer, Skip should base his criticisms and praise on which players he likes the most and least. Obviously.

And it's true I like (or liked) Robert Griffin III slightly more than I do Luck.

Jump off that RG3 bandwagon as quickly as possible, Skip! Hurry!

But that's as a quarterback, not as a guy.

Again, "as a guy" shouldn't matter when discussing RG3's performance on the field. Well, it shouldn't matter to an objective observer who doesn't enjoy creating narratives, strawman arguments, leaps in logic, and poor conclusions of an athlete's skill based on how much this observer personally likes the athlete. Once the objective observer starts basing conclusions on feeling and opportunities to troll, they turn into what Skip Bayless is. It's a sad state to be in.

From all I read and hear, Andrew Luck just might be the finest young man ever to be a star NFL quarterback. Not an ounce of RG-Me in him. No Johnny Manziel "money" signs or bad signs after hours. None of Colin Kaepernick's chip-on-shoulder-pads.

But he does have a disgusting beard. That's not the sign of a fine young man.

No Twitter or Instagram blunders -- Luck doesn't even have an account.

And of course having a flip phone, no Twitter or Instagram blunders means that Andrew Luck is a good person. He doesn't publicize his blunders or choose to show his life in a very public manner, so that makes him a fine young man.

No relentless national-TV ads for Nationwide-is-on-your-side or Papa John's or Buick, like that former Colts quarterback.

So let's be clear about the logic Skip Bayless is using. Skip likes Peyton Manning more than he likes Andrew Luck due to on the field reasons. The reason Skip thinks Luck is a fine young man compared to other quarterbacks is because he doesn't do commercials like these other quarterbacks (including Peyton Manning), who apparently aren't fine people, are seen doing. So Skip bases his opinion of Andrew Luck on his on-the-field abilities, except for RG3, who doesn't perform as well as Luck on or off the field, but Skip still likes him better. Skip likes Peyton Manning best of all because he performs well on the field, except when Skip decides Manning doesn't perform well on the field. So Skip thinks Manning doesn't have the legacy he should because he hasn't won only a single Super Bowl, and isn't a fine man because he does commercials. Meanwhile, Skip wants to wait for Andrew Luck to win a Super Bowl (presumably so he can criticize Luck for not winning more Super Bowls), but thinks he's a fine young man because he doesn't do national commercials. I'm just confused as to how Skip judges these NFL quarterbacks. One minute he cares about what Manning does on the field, while also stating Manning needs to do more, the next minute he is stating he won't give Luck credit until he achieves what Peyton Manning has achieved.

Obviously nothing to hate there.

And yet, Skip by his own admission likes RG3 more, even though Griffin isn't on Luck's level on or off the field. Go figure.

But what I do not like -- and cannot fathom -- is the premature enshrinement of Andrew Luck. Seriously, it's as if he already has been inducted into Canton's Hall of Fame.

Skip Bayless is taking a page from the Jemele Hill school of sportswriting where he attempts to disprove something that few people believe. No one is prematurely enshrining Andrew Luck into the Hall of Fame. Luck's eventual ascent to one of the NFL's best quarterbacks is simply being acknowledged, that's all. Of course, if Skip didn't overstate his opposition's opinion then HE would seem like the one who is exaggerating. He can't have that. So Skip paints the opinion of others that Luck is becoming an elite quarterback as an exaggerated stance of putting Luck into the Hall of Fame already in order to cover up for his own exaggerated position on Luck.

Again and again I hear analysts refer to him as a cinch first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Where the fuck are you reading this stuff? Are the voices in your head saying these things, Skip?

A Google machine search shows this isn't being discussed. In fact, THIS ARTICLE came up as one of the first hits on the search. Sounds like Skip is making up his opponents' argument.

He's "already a top five quarterback" and some experts make the reverential case he just might already be the NFL's best QB.

There are a lot of arguments being made. There is also a huge leap from "cinch first-ballot Hall of Famer" to "already a top five quarterback." It's an epic leap that must be taken to get there. 

Call him Andrew Lock, as in Hall of Fame Lock. Fans everywhere -- not just Indy fans -- have been conditioned to believe Luck is well on his way to becoming The Greatest Ever.

Very few people are writing or saying this. This argument exists only in the head of Skip Bayless, which is probably one of the most frightening places in the world to exist. Again, Skip is making the opposition to his position seem to have their own extreme opinion when this isn't true.

That's all they hear on TV.

This is a lie.

No doubt the young man, in his third NFL season, is almost as good on the field as he is off it. But -- and it's quite possible I dreamed this -- didn't Andrew Luck throw SEVEN INTERCEPTIONS in two playoff games last January?

Yes, he did throw seven interceptions in two playoff games in January. He threw six touchdowns as well, but he threw seven interceptions in two games. That's two fewer interceptions than completions Tim Tebow threw the last time he appeared in a playoff game.

Did anyone but me notice this?

No Skip, you are the ONLY ONE who noticed this.

Most fans, if their QB threw seven picks in two playoff games, would be more inclined to believe that QB belonged in Canton, China, instead of Canton, Ohio.

Yeah, maybe. But again, very few people are making the argument that Andrew Luck should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. This seems to be an argument that Skip Bayless is making up.

It's now out of bounds, even un-American, to exercise the slightest objectivity when it comes to Andrew Lock, who just might be the most media-protected third-year QB in NFL history.

That's a rather specific criteria there Skip.

Notice the rather Bayless-ian argument Skip is making here. He's saying he doesn't dislike Andrew Luck, he just doesn't like the argument by others (which doesn't exist) that Luck is a first-ballot Hall of Famer already. This makes him not like Andrew Luck...yet. So Skip's opinion of Andrew Luck is entirely formed based on his perception of others' opinion of Andrew Luck.

"I don't like 'NCIS: Los Angeles' because my mom thinks it's one of the best shows on television right now."

See how insane that argument sounds? That's Skip's argument. It's not that Skip has an argument against Andrew Luck, he has an argument against his perception of the argument others have IN REGARD to Andrew Luck. Skip is his own special kind of crazy.

CAN WE PLEASE WAIT UNTIL THIS JANUARY TO CORONATE THIS KID, JUST TO MAKE SURE HE CAN WIN ONE PLAYOFF GAME WITHOUT TURNING THE BALL OVER?

Right, because that's the only criteria that matters. Luck could go 4-24 for 45 yards, but as long as he doesn't turn the ball over then he's all good with Skip Bayless. Sure.

He's now all of 1-2 in the postseason -- six touchdown passes to eight interceptions. I certainly don't hold his first playoff game against him -- that was Luck's rookie year and that was The Return of Ray Lewis, in Baltimore, and the Ravens were about to go on a Super Bowl roll. Luck was only 28-of-54 for 288 yards, no TD passes and one interception.

Yes, he "only" threw for 288 yards as a rookie quarterback starting a road playoff game against the team that won the Super Bowl.

For that matter, I'm willing to disregard a rookie season in which Luck completed a surprisingly low 54 percent of his passes and finished second in the NFL (to Mark Sanchez) in total turnovers.

Yes, I can see it's forgiven. Thanks be to Skip Bayless for his forgiveness.

Peyton Manning completed 56.7% of his passes during his rookie year, while leading the NFL in interceptions.

Irsay basically told the NFL world that Luck would be better than an aging Peyton Manning with a surgically repaired neck, maybe even in the short term.

No, he did not. He said he wanted to draft a younger franchise quarterback rather than try and get a few more years out of Peyton Manning and then go searching for a franchise quarterback that may not be available at that time.

Still, during his second season last year, Luck continued to play surprisingly subpar games that nobody (but me) seemed to notice. His QBR (scale of 0-100) was only 42.5 in Week 6, a 19-9 Monday night loss at San Diego ... only 13.6 in Week 10, a 38-8 home loss to St. Louis ... 21.9 in Week 12, a 40-11 loss at Arizona ... and 37.1 in Week 13, a 22-14 home win over Tennessee.

Yes Skip, you are the only one who notices these things. Thank God (or should I say, "Thanks be to You, Skip Bayless") that you are around to notice these things.

As of the time Skip wrote this, Luck also had QBR's of 83.1 against Denver, 89.3 against Philadelphia, 94.1 against Jacksonville, 96.7 against Tennessee, 62.0 against Baltimore, 91.4 against the Texans, 73.5 against the New York Giants, and 74.7 against the New England Patriots during the 2014 season. But why talk about Luck's third season when Skip can point out how a quarterback whose greatness is based on his projected improved play didn't play at times well during his second season?

By the way, Luck's QBR against the Chiefs in the playoffs last year was 93.5. This won't be mentioned by Skip because he's too focused on Luck's interceptions, while ignoring the QBR criteria he himself used to prove Luck isn't very good.

Then came the home playoff game against Kansas City last Jan. 4. Luck threw his second interception on the first play of the second half. Moments later, the Chiefs led 38-10. He threw his third interception later in the third quarter, setting up a Chiefs field goal that kept the Colts in a 41-24 hole.

From then on Andrew was very good ... but very Lucky. The Chiefs lost their top two running backs, Jamaal Charles and Knile Davis. They lost their fastest receiver, Donnie Avery. On defense, they lost two of their best players, sack artist Justin Houston and cornerback Brandon Flowers, and bookend pass-rusher Tamba Hali was also hurt. Luck was pressured on only two of 25 second-half dropbacks. A goal-line fumble bounced right back to Luck, who dived home for a touchdown.
Indy won 45-44.

Sure, he got lucky. That's fine. He also had a QBR of 93.5. Stick to the criteria you yourself use to judge Luck.

But at New England the following Saturday night, Luck went from three to FOUR interceptions and somehow the Patriots stayed healthy enough to hang on to a 43-22 win. 

"Somehow" the Patriots stayed healthy enough. It wasn't luck they stayed healthy enough, because luck only kicks in when Skip Bayless needs it to in order to prove his point.

And please feel free to focus on my personal biases when it comes to Luck.

That's all that needs to be focused on, because that's the main reason Skip Bayless evaluates professional athletes in the way he does. His personal biases ARE his evaluation of a player.

I watched a lot of Luck at Stanford, and before his draft, I could not forget the awful second half at Oregon his junior year, the late pick-six he threw at USC his senior year and that he got outplayed by Brandon Weeden (three TD passes, one interception to two TD passes, one interception) while losing his final college game in the Fiesta Bowl.

I like how Skip conveniently skips the different offenses these two quarterbacks were running. Colt Brennan outplayed a lot of quarterbacks when he was in college. Weeden ran a spread, quarterback-friendly offense at Oklahoma State. You know, a similar offense that led to Weeden and Geno Smith being drafted in the first and second rounds respectively, while Luck ran a pro-style offense at Stanford.

I'd like to hear from Skip on how Luck's line of 27-31 for 347 yards with two touchdowns and one interception was him getting outplayed by Weeden's line of 29-42 for 399 yards with three touchdowns and one interception. Luck had a rating of 196.0 to Weeden's 167.7. Luck had 52 fewer yards on 11 fewer pass attempts.

By the way, Tom Brady didn't even start full-time in college and Peyton Manning couldn't beat Florida. Bringing up shit that happened in college isn't always the best indicator of a quarterback's ability in the NFL. 

I predicted Robert Griffin III would prove to be the slightly better pro -- and for a season I was right.

For a season Skip was right, which means to the rest of the population that Skip was wrong. But Skip can't be wrong because he was right for a really short period of time. Skip wants readers to focus on that short period of time instead of the larger period of time where Griffin has regressed while Luck has progressed.

For now, RG III has lost confidence in his injured legs, has lost some of his teammates and has been in danger of losing his job. But RG III vs. Luck isn't over. Not yet.

Okay, no one said RG3 v. Luck was over yet. Notice how Skip is desperately trying to turn this discussion of Andrew Luck into a debate over RG3 versus Luck. It's all he knows. Debate, debate, debate where facts don't matter if the volume of your voice is loud enough.

On air, I also took this stand the day Irsay parted ways with Peyton: big mistake. Peyton, I said, would give the Colts a better shot at winning the Super Bowl in each of the next three seasons. I believe I've been right about that, too.

And Skip was making the fallacy of assuming the switch from Manning to Luck was a short-term move, which it clearly wasn't. So as usual, Skip is arguing on the wrong points in the hopes of scoring points by changing the frame of the discussion through making assumptions that help to prove his point.

But remember, I'm now forced to evaluate Luck by "top five" standards.

Nope, that's a standard you set by claiming others set this standard.

That's the context in which Luck is often reverently ranked on "First Take."

This doesn't mean this is the context on which Luck is ranked everywhere else. "First Take" is an outlier because it has two moronic mouth-breathing trolls debating each other. You can't assume you are skinny just because you are the lightest one at fat camp. Being the tallest midget doesn't mean you can dunk a basketball on a ten foot goal.

Remember, too, our show is two hours of live, unscripted debate five days a week. We defend our positions with often stubborn pride and passion -- sometimes twice a show on an issue such as Luck vs. Peyton or Luck vs. RG III. "Hating" Luck is more about hating losing a debate.

As I have said previously, the debate over Luck has nothing to do with his performance, but has to do with Skip's ego and which way his personal biases steer him.

But I'm starting to wonder who has lost more objectivity about Luck -- me or his universe of supporters. Just about every analyst I know (as well as Stephen A.) dug in on Luck's future greatness before he was drafted.

Nobody, Skip. Nobody could ever have more objectivity than the guy who admits he lets his personal biases against Luck affect his opinion of Luck. Who could be more objective than a person who admits his personal biases play a part in his player evaluations?

They all want to be proved right.

Said Skip Bayless while talking about himself.

Heck, many fans surely root for Luck just because he comes across as such a humble, normal guy who happens to be star quarterback.

Earlier in this column Skip stated that Luck was a good guy because he came across as a humble, normal guy. So it's not okay to cheer for Luck because of this. It's interesting that Skip thinks these people lose objectivity of Luck's performance because they personally like him, while Skip thinks his own objectivity isn't marred by the fact he doesn't personally like Luck for reasons created in Skip's own head.

But, at the risk of committing heresy, is it fair to ask if Luck has a weird propensity for almost inexplicably losing focus for a quarter, or a half, or even a game and throwing what-was-he-thinking interceptions?

No, it's not heresy if you can name specific situations where this has occurred. It's relevant in regard to Luck's performance. Stop acting like a victim and misframing the opposition's argument.

I (for one) need to see Andrew Lock win a few more playoff games.

Of course you do, Skip. You ragged on Peyton Manning and his legacy after he won a few more playoff games. Keep moving the goalposts, Skip, so that you can save your ego from the possibility that you may ever be wrong. Once Luck wins a few more playoff games it will be, "Why hasn't Luck won more Super Bowls?" Also, no one said Luck is a lock for the Hall of Fame, so don't call him "Andrew Lock."

And this could (even should) be his turn and time. He now has a running game (thanks to Ahmad Bradshaw)

He's injured now.

Who knows? Luck's team could wind up with home-field advantage all the way to the Super Bowl. If he pulls off what Russell Wilson did last playoffs, I'll be the first to stand and applaud.

No, you won't. You will move the goalposts again in an effort to not be seen as wrong. Then you'll screech some bullshit on "First Take," and the only idiot in the media ESPN could find who can't out-debate Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, will screech bullshit back and we all lose.

Until then, alone, I will wait and see.

You are not alone. No one said Andrew Luck was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. You make things up. Go away.