9 comments Attack of the SimmonsClones!

When waiting that interminable long wait for Bill Simmons to post his Friday evening NFL picks, I realized I had not covered anything Bill Simmons has written lately. It isn't completely my fault to be honest with you. I don't read what Bill Simmons writes anymore on a weekly basis. He writes once a week and I'm usually not interested in what he writes about and I have no interest in hearing his podcasts, though I hear they aren't half-bad. Anyway, when I saw it was a Bill Simmons "real" mailbag full of SimmonsClones trying to appease their leader by completely copying the way he writes and just generally idolizing him, the Simmonsologist in me knew I had to not only mock Bill but those uber-Simmons fans who write into him in a desperate attempt to be exactly like Bill. Look, you can enjoy Bill Simmons' writing and not be a SimmonsClone. I call those who try to write exactly like Bill and seem to live for his acceptance "SimmonsClones." If their leader acknowledges and justifies their existence in this world by answering one of their questions in which they attempt to sound like Bill Simmons, well there is nothing else to live for at that point.

If I finish 11-0 against the spread in this year's playoffs, these Friday mailbags will keep going for the rest of my life, and yours, and your kids' lives, and your grandkids' lives, and for the rest of eternity, so help me Tebow.

I do like how Bill refers to "Tebow" in place of "God." It seems obvious, but I think it works fairly well. Bill can be a good writer at times. Also, I knew Bill would not finish 11-0 in the playoffs. His regular season picking record was 120-127-9, so if Bill finished 11-0 in the playoffs it would be like a #10 seed winning the NCAA Tournament.

As always, these are actual e-mails from readers.

Except for the emails Bill has made up of course. It's debatable to me at times whether these readers are just that pathetic to idolize Bill like they do, or it just turns out Bill makes some of these letters up.

Q: Congrats on going 4-0!!! Nobody believed in you!!!!!!

— David, Boston

SG: It took me 20 seconds to realize this wasn't a compliment.

I think David from Boston was going for the whole cliche that teams spout after they win a big game that "no one believed in them." At least I think that's what he was going for.

Q: The opening kickoff for Pittsburgh-Denver hitting the CROSSbar and coming to rest exactly on the 20 yard line sure seemed like an Omen, right?

Yes, it was an omen. The best part about Tebow's ascendance (see what I did there?) in the NFL conversation is the use of religious jokes and imagery in writing. I feel like its opened up a whole new avenue of jokes and imagery to use in sports.

A Tebow title coupled with a Clippers championship and you going 11-0 in the NFL playoffs … yeah, those things would make me quit my job and live off my 401k for the next six months until the world ends.
— Mike Desko, Chicago

SG: You don't have to worry about a Clippers championship, Mike — that's not happening on Vinny Del Negro's watch.

"Hi, I'm Bill Simmons and there isn't a single other executive or head coach that is as smart as I am. Everyone should hire me as their General Manager or head coach because I have the ability to make up fake trades and then ask 'who would say no' to the trade. Clearly this talent will translate perfectly to the real world. Someone please hire me."

You'd have a better chance of seeing Chris Paul and Blake Griffin French-kiss after an alley-oop.

I wouldn't put anything past Chris Paul. We all know how much he loves punching men's testicles. Maybe he likes that "athletic bi-racial Ginger" thing Blake Griffin has going for him. It's as if Derek Jeter, Michael Jordan and Carrot Top mated.

(Of course, if they fire Del Negro within the next few weeks and rent Phil Jackson for a four-month, $10 million playoff run … )

And the Clippers would only have to spend $10 million to do this? Where can they sign? Paying out the ass for a head coach is Bill's idea of an innovative way to improve the Clippers. There has to be some middle ground between keeping Del Negro as the head coach and renting Phil Jackson for a playoff run. I'm also not sure Phil Jackson can do much about the roster deficiencies that could plague the Clippers in the playoffs. I can't imagine why no one has hired Bill Simmons as a General Manager yet.

Q: A thousand years from now, will people build scenes of the 2010 NFL-Draft in front of their houses just like they do with the nativity play now? In the Pittsburgh game, they played in the stadium that's closest to heaven (Mile High). Tebow threw for 316 yards. Rothlisberger's interception came on 3rd and 16. Pittsburgh's time of possession was 31 minutes and 6 seconds.

SG: You just described why I have never been more frightened for a Patriots game. It's the first-ever Boston sporting event with zero upside. Name one result that would make Patriots fans feel fantastic afterwards.

How about the Patriots jumping all over the Broncos from the beginning and Tom Brady destroying the Broncos defense for nearly 30 points in the first half? Sure, I cheated and wrote this after the game, but I think Bill wants his readers to feel bad for what sees as the Patriots "no win" situation. He should probably just be happy his favorite team is in the playoffs, but whining about his teams' fate comes so naturally to Bill I'm not sure he can stop.

Even if Super Bowl XLII will always be the worst defeat in the history of the franchise, this particular loss would be more excruciating because we can see it coming …

YES! I love Bill's use of italics for emphasis at the end of a sentence. I would say for many franchises the loss in a Super Bowl is the worst defeat in the history of a franchise. Of course, most other franchises haven't won three Super Bowls over the last decade or so. This is why Bill gives Boston-area fans a bad name because of his inability to be self-aware. The Cleveland Browns haven't won anything significant in decades, yet Bill wants us to know how painful a loss in the playoffs would be for him.

How painful would a loss to the Broncos have been for the Patriots? It would even be worse than that one Super Bowl the Patriots somehow managed to lose. I realize the Pats had lost two straight playoff games and they expect more. Don't even get me started with Bill talking about how he can see the Patriots lose coming, while he also acknowledges what a huge upset it would have been if the Broncos beat the Patriots. No Pats fans wanted lose to the Broncos, but I feel like there should be a little perspective here. Bill is basically complaining his wallet can't fit all the one-hundred dollar bills he has and his diamond shoes are too tight.

If I were a Patriots fan, I would petition that Bill stop writing about New England area sports. I'm not saying Bill doesn't have a right to mourn a tough loss, but the way Bill writes is he seems to attempt to garner sympathy from his readers, many of whom would love their team to have a chance to lose a big game in the playoffs.

Here are four actual e-mails I received from gainfully employed, successful, rational people who root for the Patriots.

I don't want to spoil anything, but they all back Bill's point of view this would be the worst loss in the history of the Patriots team...or at least until next time the Patriots play a big game, in which case Bill sees that potential loss as the biggest loss in the history of the Patriots team. It's so tough being successful. I bet Bill thinks Jaguars fans have it good. At least they don't have to deal with the pain of losing big games.

E-mail no. 3 (a response to E-mail no. 2): "I have spent more time considering where to watch this game than what to feed my child this week

How about you feed your child a dose of perspective this week? Like maybe don't going around acting like someone you love or know has cancer or has died suddenly if the Patriots lose. How about feeding your child the reality that potentially losing a playoff game isn't the end of the world and quit acting like a playoff loss would literally be the end of your life as you know it? The Red Sox are going to be good this year, the Celtics---well they still have Rondo, and you can always jump on the Bruins bandwagon if all else fails.

Home seems like a bad call — I really might break something and it might lead to divorce. I'm a mess about this game too. I really have nothing soothing to say."

Home is a bad call, because breaking something out in public or at a friend's house is so much better than breaking something at home? Your wife won't divorce you if she finds out you destroyed a bar room stool in a hissy fit over your favorite NFL team not winning a game?

Who do you think wrote this next email "to" Bill? See if you can take a guess. Let's look at some characteristics of this email to figure it out.

E-mail no. 4: "My cousin Kristin's wedding reception is at the exact same time as this game. No TV's at the reception — my Dad already checked.

Talking about his father's obsession with his favorite sports team. Actually, talking about his father at all.

We are going to have 40 people grimly huddled around my iPhone watching what promises to be one of the biggest upsets in sports history as we're watching some stolen internet stream that cuts off right as Tebow's potential game-winning pass is soaring in the air, followed by me giving my father CPR for the next 20 minutes.

Another mention of his father reacting negatively to a Boston-related sports event. Extreme pessimism while also predicting the loss would be one of "the biggest upsets in sports history."

(Really? Would the Broncos having beaten the Patriots be one of the biggest upsets in sports history? The Broncos beating the Patriots probably would not have been one of the biggest upsets in sports history. The line on the game was 13.5 points, which is a lot and I am not denying it would be an upset, but one of the biggest upsets in sports as a whole? I think this is using hyperbole in order to prove a point. That point? Feel sorry for the writer of this email because his team is so good, it would stink to lose to a team that isn't very good.)

I have never felt more pessimistic about a sporting event in which my team would have to be beaten by a 7-to-1 underdog to lose — not ever."

Exaggerating what a potential loss would feel like and using hyperbole to describe how he feels before the game, while yet again acknowledging all of his sad feelings are unlikely since it would be a huge upset.

Guess who wrote it...

(By the way, that last e-mail was written by me. And it's all true. Cousin Kristin — you're lucky I like you.)

Bill Simmons wrote it to himself. Bill wrote this email much like the other "emails" in his mailbag that he presumably writes to himself but doesn't cop to it.

Q: The Saints/Lions game is happening as I'm writing this — in fact the Lions are up 14-7 with just under four minutes to play. Game over, Saints win. Why? The camera just showed Stafford with his hat on backwards. Brim-to-the-Back Guy cannot win a Super Bowl, and I don't think there's any way Brim-to-the-Back Guy out-duels Drew Brees in the Superdome.

Here is one Brim-to-the-Back Guy. I'm pretty sure he has won two Super Bowls.

Here is another Brim-to-the-Back Guy. He has won two Super Bowls.

Another Brim-to-the-Back Guy. He has one Super Bowl victory.

My point is perhaps Michael Keeney from Wisconsin should stop trying to be creative and funny in order to impress Bill. The quarterback for the Packers had his hat backwards at media day last year before the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl the Packers won. Fail. Stafford wears his hat backwards a lot, but this is a weak theory since quite a few Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks have worn their hat backwards at some point or another.

Has any Brim-to-the-Back Guy won the big game?

Tom Brady and the other two quarterbacks I linked. I can do what you didn't do and do more research on this non-pertinent issue. You have been in a Bill Simmons mailbag, so I am sure you now consider your life complete and don't care what I have to say.

Some'll claim Big Ben, you can't exactly say he was the leader of those Super Bowl teams.

Yeah, you can. The first Super Bowl the Steelers won despite Roethlisberger's performance, but he definitely led the Steelers to their second Super Bowl. A Brim-to-the-Back Guy won that Super Bowl.

You've got your finger on the pulse; you've the mighty combined forces of Grantland and ESPN's crack research teams.

The only thing Bill has his finger on the pulse of is whatever causes idiots like this to write in to Bill's mailbag and try to be exactly like Bill. To answer this question, you simply need a rudimentary knowledge of how to do an internet search.

SG: This was such a brilliant observation that, for about nine seconds, I thought about stealing the point entirely and pretending I never heard of Michael Keeney of Madison, Wisconsin.

Bill probably isn't kidding. We have reached the very bottom of the barrel when it comes to what is considered "a brilliant observation" if this observation, which also happens to be factually incorrect, is considered brilliant. Bill's mailbags are pretty much a masturbatory venture for him and his readers. The readers are thrilled to be in Bill's mailbag and it excites Bill to see idiots write in to his mailbag, come up with inane theories, and desperately attempt to write like Bill does. The readers get pleasure from seeing Bill print their emails and Bill gets pleasure from seeing how popular he is.

The only elite QB with less of a chance in a big game than Brim-to-the-Back Guy is Brim-to-the-Side Guy. In fact, the secret of Tom Brady's maturation into a franchise QB wasn't dropping to the sixth round; it was when he decided to stop being Brim-to-the-Back Guy.

Well, except for the fact he won a Super Bowl as a Brim-to-the-Back Guy. I'm guessing in order to keep this brilliant observation going, we can just ignore the theory not only is stupid, but also is factually incorrect.

Q: Did Marvin Lewis pull out the best Brad Childress performance of the season in Round One? It was just AWESOME!! I think he took pity on Bill Barnwell and decided to give him material until the end of the season.
— Pierre, Paris, France

Get ready for a Bill Simmons recycled joke. He changes the name, slightly changes the format, and then you have a ready-made recycled joke. Bill has done this quite a few times in his columns, but it started with the Atrocious GM Summit. I recall Bill writing about how a group of bad coaches/GMs should get together on a game show and compete against each other to prove their awfulness quite a few times. The joke worked better as the Atrocious GM Summit when it was introduced about 6 years ago, but because Bill has given up on thinking of actual creative ideas, he rips off his own idea and creates...wait for it...a Bad Head Coach game show. Creative, no? Actually I mean...creative? No.

SG: You know how ESPN tried to turn 2011 into The Year of the Quarterback? I wish we tried to turn 2012 into The Year of the Coach, if only so we could have created a 16-coach game show formatted somewhat like Chopped, with the contestants making impromptu coaching decisions instead of impromptu cooking challenges. Imagine Andy Reid, Marvin Lewis, Brad Childress and Norv Turner battling in the season finale of Botched.

Andy the Host: "Gentlemen, it's the second quarter of a playoff game, you're playing on the road and trailing by three, you're at midfield, the two-minute warning is coming up,

I'll save you the pain. It goes on like that. The idea was great the first time, the second time it wasn't so creative, and now once a few details have been switched around it is simply the same joke told a different way that has the same punchline of "these guys are clueless."

Basically, Bill is trying to pass this idea off as original, when it is just a variation on another one of his ideas. He tries to fool his readers into thinking it isn't recycled. When I used to do JoeChats (R.I.P.) I would sometimes do a "I wonder how this would work in real life..." scenario with one of Joe's responses. It was a continuing theme and I didn't change details around to pretend it wasn't a continuing theme. It's a continuation of a running idea. Bill changes the packaging around in an effort to think a Bad Head Coach show is different from his Atrocious GM Summit or any of the other ideas Bill has had for a coach/player/team/GM to make bad decisions in the company of each other in a competitive format.

Q: I understand why football coaches cover their mouth with their hand, clipboard, play chart, etc. during the game, but wouldn't it just make more sense for the headset manufacturers make the mouth pieces larger so that the full mouth is covered? Wait, did I just give away an amazing business idea??
— Doug, Oakland

SimmonsClones just want so desperately to be seen as creative in Bill's eyes. Do you know how stupid it would look to have a headset mouthpiece cover up the entire mouth? Not to mention when the coach wants to talk to someone who isn't on the headset he would have to push a rather large microphone to the side of the headset. The microphone would probably not go all the way to the side of the headset because the coach's face would be in the way of the huge microphone moving too far up and down.

Q: Has there ever been a more physically gifted WR than Calvin Johnson? Is it even close? He's clearly on the Bo Jackson All Stars (athletes we'll never see clones of.) I'm sure you have time to fill out the rest of that roster, which is way tougher than the NBA version, the Allen Iverson All Stars.
— Brock E., Denver

Another variation of the same theme. An All-Star team being named where each individual on the "team" have the same characteristic. I think Bill Simmons is very talented and when he gives a crap there aren't too many better writers. When he doesn't give a crap, we get another All-Star team named in a mailbag and then later posted to his Wikipedia page.

My list is short and sweet: Bo, Deion, Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, Michael Vick, Steve Young, Lawrence Taylor, Walter Payton, Randall Cunningham … and we're done, unless you want to include Jerry Rice (for being a freak just for being so technically perfect/precise) or Rob Gronkowski (who probably would have made the list if not for Jimmy Graham, who's equally superfreakish, which somehow nullifies the superfreakishness of both guys because part of being a freak is having no frequal).

So two players at the same position can't be on the team because their "superfreakishness" cancel each other out. Yet, Calvin Johnson and Randy Moss are both on the team, as are Randall Cunningham and Steve Young. Bill makes the rules, then somewhat contradicts his own rules. Not to mention, the idea a person who is a freak has no equal is faulty. A freak is a person who is unusual or irregular. There can be more than two irregular tight ends in the NFL at the same time.

Q: I just read your newest mailbag. I was disappointed because I spent most of it reading the bold text. You are an excellent and intelligent writer. Your readers, typically, are not. I would like to hear more from you and less from them. Please consider my concerns.

Sincerely, Finney.
— Finney, Clemson

SG: I'm guessing Finney didn't enjoy the last few e-mails. And for the record — the mailbag is my favorite column to write and has been since 1997. So there.

Bill attempts to pass it off like he enjoys writing the mailbag because it gives his readers a chance to speak. I would submit that's false. Bill likes to write his mailbags because it is an ego trip for him to read so many people write in trying to sound, act and think like he himself does. Above all, it seems Bill has an innate need to be adored and be considered the smartest guy in the room. He needs confirmation he is adored and he is the smartest guy in the room. His mailbag confirms both of these things for him. Believe me, I don't dislike Bill Simmons but I also don't believe he has very much respect for the readers that have made him so famous and successful.

Q: An idea for the 18-game schedule: each team plays 18 games, but (except for kickers and punters), no player can play in more than 16 games during the regular season. And this should be strongly enforced — if a player plays in even one play in a game, that counts as one of the 16. Imagine the endless debates over what games you decide to rest your best players — do you rest your starting QB against the weakest team you play, or maybe the best if you figure you're not beating that team anyway? Do you rest all your best players in two games, or mix and match? NFL Countdown would have to expand to 5 hours!!
— Mark Wooster, L.A.

I kicked around this idea a bit a year ago when the owners seemed to want to go to an 18 game schedule. It's scary for me I have the same idea as a SimmonsClone. Of course, eventually Bill will claim this idea for his own like he did with the Ewing Theory.

In fact, here's a vague, loosely-held together theory for you. Bill Simmons is like the band U2. Here the parallels I draw:

Early career

Bill Simmons wrote differently from the perspective of his audience. He was one of them and wrote like you and your friends talked and talked about the same things you and your friends talked about. He was good enough to write mainstream, but didn't write like mainstream writers. There was something different about him.

U2 was a different band. Political, but still rock and with enough mainstream sound to be mainstream, but was different from mainstream bands. They were like a college band that made it big.

Reaction to success

Bill Simmons reacted to success by writing a lot of the same things he had written before. He expanded on his previous theories and attempted to start new theories. Then he attempted to expand on his success in different avenues by writing for the Jimmy Kimmel Show and doing a Sports Guy cartoon. The audience didn't like that as much.

U2 reacted to success well (Achtung Baby) and expanded on their previous sound on that album. U2 then tried to expand on the sound more to take the group's sound in a different direction, but still be U2 (Zooropa). This wasn't popular with the audience.

Response to initial failure

Bill Simmons responded to the (somewhat) failure of writing for a talk show by diving back into his columns, writing a book, and expanded his brand at ESPN by executive producing "30 for 30." He achieved success doing this. Bill Simmons had found what worked for him and he wanted to search out change, but within the cocoon of knowing he still worked for ESPN.com.

U2 reacted to the failure of Zooropa and Pop, by writing an incredibly U2-sounding album "All That You Can't Leave Behind." They achieved success by going back to their original sound. They had re-found success and wanted to search out slight changes in sound, but within the cocoon of still sounding like U2.

Later Career

Bill Simmons started Grantland.com, which is a site where he writes once a week, mostly writing non-challenging columns which doesn't really show growth in Simmons' writing ability nor does it really present anything new to the audience. It is popular, so Simmons is more comfortable being popular and re-creating his previous ideas than challenging himself to get better. He has seen mainstream success and failure and knows what it takes for each. His writing doesn't need to improve because people will read his columns and his Grantland.com venture is backed by ESPN (and other great writers), so the odds of failure probably aren't great.

U2 followed up "All That You Can't Leave Behind" with essentially two sequel albums that sound very U2-ish. It doesn't change the U2 sound around. The band knows what sells albums and what audiences want to hear. They don't want to see them expand on their sound, they want U2 to re-create previously successful ideas. They know what mainstream success requires and what could have the potential to fail. The band's writing doesn't need to improve because people will buy their albums and the band has enough name recognition and forums to get their music out a new album with the "U2-sound" won't fail at this point.

I have always thought of U2 as the same band as R.E.M. if R.E.M. re-wrote "Out of Time" every four years, which they didn't. This made R.E.M. less popular, but I think it gave them more credibility as artists. There's nothing wrong with either Bill Simmons or U2 doing this, but I would like to see both of them grow a little more in their art.

SG: A possible wrinkle: If every team plays 18 games, that's 72 quarters in all … so why not tweak it so every player (except kickers and punters) can only play 62 quarters total?

Because that overcomplicates the issue. Bill's need to always improve on someone's idea, because he can't he isn't the smartest guy in the room, backfires here.

Did I mention that, as I type this email, I'm down on knees literally praying that my Tampa Bay Buccaneers hire 68 year old Marty "One and Done" Schottenheimer instead of Wade Phillips, Brad Childress or Mike Sherman? Not that those two thoughts are related or anything.
— Brandon, Vancouver

SG: Here's why I think the Bucs should hire Marty — you know how old people reach that stage when they just don't give a crap anymore and it's awesome?

(Cue overly long explanation that could be summed up easily in two sentences, but won't be due to Bill believing he comes off as more creative by comparing one thing to another in order to explain what he means rather than just saying what the hell he means)

That reminds me, here's a good rule of thumb for trades and coaching hirings: Float the guy's name out as a possibility, then check out the reaction from fans of his old team (bloggers, message boards, sports radio, etc.).

Remember, this guy actually believes he can be an NBA General Manager. We all know the most intelligent, non-reactionary group of people in the world are bloggers, people on message boards and callers to sports radio. Checking the reaction of these fans from his old team in no way could fail, could it? What could go wrong?

If the consensus can be described as "incredulously, deliriously and overwhelmingly sarcastic," you shouldn't trade for that player or hire that coach. It's that simple.

Yep, it's that simple. Bill Simmons for Bucks GM!

As a quick aside, I want everyone to remember in his January 6 mailbag Bill Simmons said the 49ers would not make the Super Bowl because their quarterback is Alex Smith. Bill then predicted the 49ers would beat the Saints.

Then Ragnar from Honolulu, who I won't rip because he lives in Hawaii and I want to live in Hawaii, criticizes Jim Nantz's call of the Steelers-Broncos game.

SG: I mean, Nantz had 10 minutes between the end of regulation and the first play from scrimmage in OT to come up with a clearly-written-ahead-of-time line just in case Tebow threw a game-winning pass in overtime!

Let's look at these lines Nantz should have come up with if Tebow threw the game-winning pass:

"Eighty yards, no flags, one miracle!"

I can somewhat see this one. Nantz would have to predict the play was a miracle, which any touchdown by the Broncos in overtime would be called a miracle regardless of whether it was or not. Nantz would have just inserted the amount of yards on the touchdown pass into his call. Still, for this specific call Nantz would have had to predict Tebow would throw an 80 yard touchdown pass.

"This is the dawning of the age of Demaryius!"

So before Demaryius Thomas caught the game winning touchdown pass, Jim Nantz should have predicted it was Demaryius Thomas who would catch the game winning touchdown pass? Nantz was expected to predict the Broncos would not only throw a game-winning touchdown pass, but that Demaryius Thomas would be the one to catch that pass, and then think of a catchy phrase to reflect this? This is what Nantz should have been doing in between the fourth quarter ending and overtime beginning? It just seems like this is a lot of predictions to make. Does Bill expect Nantz to do this with every Broncos player prior to overtime?

"Sudden death, sudden life, Tebow rises again!"

The Broncos never trailed in the game. This phrase therefore doesn't make sense.

"Look out, New England — the white Bronco is still on the loose!"

Creative, but a white Bronco isn't really relevant to New England and this seems like it would be roundly mocked. Of course, who am I to argue with Bill Simmons?

Q: Imagine if a Tim Tebow sex tape came out. It would have to be the biggest sex scandal fallout since Bill Clinton right? I asked several of my friends if they would rather see that or their football team win the Super Bowl and we all went with the sex tape.
— Ben Kendrick, West Hartford

The idiocy of Bill's readers sometimes shocks me. This guy's friends would rather see a Tim Tebow sex tape rather than their favorite team win the Super Bowl? I think he's making this up.

Q: I've been sucked into the Tebow magic but the porn industry seems to be dragging its feet. My buddy Marc and I were trying to come up with a proper name for the inevitable XXX Tebow movie and the best I could come up with was Bible Banger. Marc had the better one: A Third That's Long.

— Mike, Chicago

SG: All that work and neither of you could come up with Raging Tebowner? Yup, this is your sports columnist.

Yeah Bill, Mike from Chicago's idea was better.

Trying to remain objective while breaking down what would unquestionably be the most horrifying loss in Patriots history — not the worst, not the most bitter, but the most horrifying — was tougher than I thought. But here's the key point: You can't call the Broncos a "Nobody Believes in Us" team anymore.

And yet, earlier in this column Bill said the Patriots losing the Broncos would have been one of the biggest upsets in sports history. I'm confused. So the Broncos can't say "Nobody Believes in Us" anymore, but if they had beaten the Patriots it would have been one of the greatest upsets in sports history?

On Football Outsiders, Aaron Schatz wrote that — if Denver beat New England — it would be the third biggest upset of the last 20 years by F.O.'s DVOA ratings, trailing only Super Bowl XLII (arrrrgh) and Colts-Chiefs in 1995 (a gloriously macabre combination of bad luck, turnovers and Marty being Marty).

Bill leaves out an important point. Aaron Schatz wrote it would be the third biggest NFL PLAYOFF upset in the last 20 years if the Broncos had won. I still somewhat question if the Patriots losing to the Broncos would have been one of the greatest upsets in sports history. Maybe it would be one of the greatest upsets, of course it didn't happen so it doesn't really matter.

6 comments Bill Has Entered the Simmons Zone

You may ask yourself, "Gosh, I wonder what the Simmons Zone is...that doesn't sound like something that is real."

The Simmons Zone is when a reader can know exactly what a writer is going to write about before you even read what that writer has written. Yet you still have to read what he/she writes because it irritates you so much that no matter the topic of the column, halfway through the column you feel like you have read it before. No matter how many times you read the crap that person has written, you know that person is going to continue writing the same thing over and over again, and you are never going to stop reading. You only read for those brief times when the writer does something different and then you celebrate that and continue reading his later columns and get irritated again.

Now you may ask yourself, "That sounds like something bengoodfella completely made up and he is trying to pass it off as something factual. Wouldn't it just be easier just to say that a writer writes the same thing over and over again but you can't stop reading, rather than giving this occurrence a name and going through the whole motions of having to explain it?"

Yes it would...In something similarly related, Bill Simmons thinks Alex Rodriguez has reached the Tyson Zone. It's real though, just check Bill's wikipedia page (which I am not going to link because it is like linking to the Church of Scientology's web site...it is the same thing to me). Look for a mailbag a month from now with his SimmonsClones telling him other athletes who have reached the Tyson Zone. Bill could have written this entirely (not all together bad) column without mentioning the Tyson Zone, and he only does mention it once, but that phrase is like a code word for the SimmonsClones to send in mail relating about other athletes who have reached the Tyson Zone...then those athletes get included on his wikipedia page and the brand recognition of Bill Simmons has been increased. Bill is a smart man. He would not dare do one column without being self referential.

A friend asked me this question last week: How many consecutive columns could I extract from Alex Rodriguez?

My final answer: 10.

That would be about 30 under the record set by Wallace Matthews who, if I remember correctly, wrote 40 straight columns about A-Rod in early February to mid-March.

No modern athlete brings more to the idea table. He plays in New York for a team that stopped making the World Series as soon as he arrived.

Which was, again, completely his fault.

He's our highest-paid athlete in a tanking economy.

Depends on what metric you use. I would say he is highest paid in salary, yes, but overall he is not. I just did what is called "research." Bill must have meant highest paid in salary.

I don't know if A-Rod is the most interesting athlete either. I think A-Rod is kind of boring to be honest. Despite the fact I write about him weekly. I blame that on the fact the MSM is fascinated by him and his purple lips.

He's the star client of this generation's most despised agent.

So is the vastly "underrated" Manny Ramirez. To me, Manny is much more interesting than Alex Rodriguez.

We love to question clutch; he's notorious for coming through in small moments and choking in big ones.

I have never heard about this before. Though he did pretty well in the 2004 postseason.

We love "what ifs?" and he's provided two classics: What if that trade to Boston had happened, and what if the 2004 Yanks had finished that sweep at Fenway and A-Rod had become a playoff hero?

Shocking to me that Bill's "what ifs" for A-Rod both had an impact on the Boston Red Sox. It's like Bill's world revolves around them and thinks everyone else's world does as well. The "what if" about the A-Rod trade to Boston is valid but I sometimes think "what if" A-Rod had signed with the Seattle Mariners in 2001 instead of the Texas Rangers or "what if" the Yankees had not offered him a contract two years ago after he opted out? Who the hell would he be playing for now?

I hate "what if" games but if A-Rod had become a playoff hero in 2004, doesn't that mean Bill's previous comment about coming up small in big situations is not completely true? Simply because the Yankees lost also doesn't mean A-Rod came up small...I am just frustrating myself now trying to be logical.

A-Rod has even shattered the Tyson Zone: when an athlete's life turns so bizarre you become numb to any twist in his story.

I love completely made up terms like this! Unfortunately Bill is the only one who has been numb to any twist in A-Rod's story. The mainstream media was in shock when he admitted to using steroids, started dating Madonna, and they act like they are in shock when he does anything.

I am not sure how you can claim to be numb to any twist in a player's story and then claim to be able to write 10 consecutive columns about that player. If you are numb to any twist, it would not be that interesting to you, therefore columns would be hard to write. At least I would think so.

This wasn't the first time he seemed to unite a team simply by disappearing: It happened when he left Seattle (the Mariners jumped from 91 W's to 116) and Texas (71 to 89). As the theory goes, the never-ending circus that surrounds A-Rod -- his constant craving for attention multiplied by the nonstop media focus -- eventually overwhelms teammates and affects their play.

The Yankees are currently 0-2 going on 0-3. I really doubt this theory. If you are in New York, everything is a big story, so players should be able to get used to it after a while.

There's only one problem with the theory: It's not true.

Thank God Bill doesn't believe this. Though he still believes firmly in ubuntu.

He's simply a strange guy, not someone you'd want to drive cross-country with, for sure. But he's not a bad guy.

I would argue a bad guy is better to have on a team than a strange guy. At least you know what the bad guy is thinking. The strange guy...not so much. You never bring your kids around those guys.

Now explain this to me: How did teams "miraculously" succeed with every player in the previous paragraph? Everett won a ring with the White Sox. Kent and Bonds came within bullpen collapses of winning one of their own.

They played on good teams and clubhouse chemistry is not overrated but it certainly doesn't matter when a team has a lot of talent? That would be the reason I would give.

A famous goofball like Manny won two rings, played on 10 playoff teams and (very, very secretly) compiled one of the most successful résumés in baseball history.

Not secretly. Not secretly at all. Shut up about this. Everyone knows Manny is one of the greatest RH hitters of all time. He is not underrated simply because you want him to be underrated. There is no fair measurement of whether someone is underrated or not, but given the amount of media coverage, respect he gets from pitchers, and the amount of money he is being paid...Manny Ramirez is not underrated nor doing anything secretly that involves hitting a baseball.

Look, we love to romanticize clubhouse chemistry, mainly because we don't understand it, but also because it's a story line with legs. These guys didn't win because they were good, they won because they got along! They lifted one another, looked out for one another! They were a team! You know, the "Hoosiers" model.

Simmonsologists know that Bill loves to speak for everyone and how they are thinking. "We" don't love to romanticize clubhouse chemistry. Bill loves to romanticize it. He believes if guys are high fiving and getting along with each other it makes for a better team. Look for any article he has written about the Red Sox in the past or what he wrote about the Boston Celtics team last year. He believes this "team chemistry makes a better team shit." "We" don't.

Just because Bill is dumb enough to believe shit like this, doesn't mean everyone else does it. He just loves to speak for everyone else and how they feel or think. It drives me crazy.

If everyone is pulling for one another, fantastic. You can even win a division that way -- good karma invariably leads to goofy bounces and luck.

Exactly. Bill believes this shit. He thinks he is the fucking Buddha of sportswriting.

Throw in three titles in Oakland and Reggie Jackson -- the biggest clubhouse cancer of his generation -- won five rings in seven years. Which makes me think baseball chemistry is more overrated than Tim Burton.

But remember, you can still win a division with good karma. So tip your waitresses and give money to homeless men on the street because the next groundball up the middle might hit the pitcher's mound and go to the shortstop to start a double play. That is pure fact this can happen.

Clubhouse chemistry? It's just hocus pocus witchcraft baloney.

I will even go this far: There are undeniable positives to having one antisocial wild card in any close-knit environment. You know that one grating guy in your dorm hall or in your office? Don't you like bitching about him? You lob grenades at him as soon as he leaves the room. He's your running joke, an easy target. But he's also a galvanizing force, one of the few things that bring everyone else together: a mutual contempt for one human being that won't go away. You're stuck with him, so you make the best of it -- by belittling him.

Or as a normal person who is able to express his/her feelings by not comparing it to something else in the world or a person who does not have to meet a word count for a weak column might say..........sometimes making fun of or hating someone else can bring us all together.

It took me 13 words to say what it took Bill 7 sentences to say.

Every group needs an outcast just like every columnist needs a go-to guy for his column.

Jay Mariotti's go-to-guy who he belittles when he needs a column? The entire human race.

I won't write 10 A-Rod columns, but I could, and maybe that's all that matters.

Bill writing 10 columns about A-Rod would take nearly a month for him to do at the pace he writes. Maybe his numbness from A-Rod being in the Tyson Zone would wear off by then.

6 comments The Biggest Loser: Simmons Mailbag Edition Part 2

Following up on Part 1 of Bill Simmons' mailbag, here is Part 2 of Bill Simmons "marathon" mailbag. As always, I will be making fun of the individuals who write questions to Bill as much as I make fun of Bill. If you missed Part 1, scroll on down and read what drivel Bill was spilling yesterday.

Q: Does the possibility of Isiah Thomas going to work for the Clippers make you want to renew your season tickets more or less? I think it should be more.-- Zach, Los Angeles

If I had made a sports wish list for "Clipper-related things that would be an unequivocal godsend for my column" before news broke of the Isiah talks last week, the top 10 would have looked like this:

Here's my real question...Can Bill Simmons answer a reader's question directly, that is without comparing it to something else in pop culture or making a list? I have covered very thoroughly that Bill can't just say something, he has to use 100 words to describe how he feels using comparisons from pop culture or comparing his feeling to another feeling he or someone else has previously had.

What I have not covered enough is Bill's obsession with lists. He makes lists for everything and anything. Every time a readers asks a question, out comes a list. When his wife asks him what he wants their housekeeper to fix for breakfast, does he make a list of things he normally likes in the morning? Does he walk around the house with a pen and pad making a list of things he likes to do on sunny days, cloudy days and rainy days so he can go to his list and never have to make a decision should the weather be sunny, cloudy or rainy? He's like the Rain Man of lists (see what I did there? Pop culture reference!). We all understand you like lists Bill, spare us the list and answer the question directly.

Bill would be a nightmare testifying at a trial. I am not even an attorney and I am getting a headache thinking about him on the stand answering questions.

1. Clippers hire me as GM but keep Mike Dunleavy as coach.

This is where it is really all heading. He wants to be the Clippers GM. Just like the Milwaukee Bucks situation, when he wanted to be GM of the team and everyone laughed at the idea. After the 6th week where he mentioned this, everyone realized, "this asshole really, really thinks he can be the GM for an NBA team. He's crazy and egotistical." I think we are going down a similar road here.

2. Clippers hire me as GM but allow me to choose my own coach.

I am not kidding, he wants to be the GM. I don't lie about things that are this serious.

5. Clippers bring in Isiah to run the team with Mike Dunleavy.

From what I'm hearing, Clippers employees have been trying to sell owner Donald Sterling on the fact that Dunleavy's return next season -- if Sterling doesn't fire him -- will result in an estimated $8-10 million in lost revenue from nonrenewals (suites, club seats, courtside seats and season-ticket holders). Eight to 10 million! That's how unpopular Dunleavy is with the paying customers ... and the solution would be to bring in the worst general manager of this decade to help him out?

Apparently Elgin Baylor has been replaced in Bill's mind as worst general manager of this decade. Though really, these two have always been interchangeable. It just depends on what point Bill has to prove at the time.

Again, sign me up. Not only am I renewing my tickets, I'm doing it with my fingers crossed and double crossed. Who knew my third book would write itself? We had "Breaks of the Game," we had "Season on the Brink," and now, "A Season in Hoops Hell."

Just to clarify, Billl's first book consisted of copies of his previous columns (with some new comments) that had been posted on his old web site and on ESPN, so that book sort of wrote itself as well. Bill's second book, the one we have been hearing about for over a year now, has still not be released and is not coming out for another six months. At the rate Bill works on his books, his third book, the one focusing on the Clippers 2009-2010 season would come out sometime in 2015.

7. ABC names Chris Kaman as this season's "The Bachelor."

"Coming up, it's the most dramatic rose ceremony yet as Chris forgets how many roses he has left and inadvertently knocks one of the girls over ..."

I laughed at this. I just want everyone to know I don't hate EVERYTHING he writes. Just anything he pretends is fact based and when he is repetitive.

9. Clippers owner Donald Sterling starts showing up in pajamas for games like he's Hugh Hefner.

That reminds me, if you've ever wondered whether Sterling was always like this, a 1982 Sports Illustrated piece about eccentric NBA owners includes the following Sterling tidbits: He became so excited during an opening night victory that he "he unbuttoned his shirt to the navel while the game was in progress" ... he was "fined $10,000 by the league for suggesting the Clippers might purposely lose games in order to get the first pick in the draft" ... he owed hundreds of thousands to a variety of creditors, including one Oakland hotel who "refused to accommodate the Clippers at the end of last season for not paying their bills" ... and he hired an assistant general manager named "Patricia Simmons, a former model and occasional Sterling companion, who has what one San Diego newspaper described as 'no known basketball background.'"

Sort of how Bill has "no known basketball background" and still wanted to be GM for the Milwaukee Bucks.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Donald Sterling Era!

NEVER gets old. Not even the 900th time you read something bad about a team Bill or one of his readers writes and you know Bill is going to follow it up with "Ladies and gentlemen..."

Q: Wanted to make sure you saw this NPR story about what life is now like in Zihuatanejo, Mexico (the scene of the world's most famous platonic man-hug). Apparently, it is ground zero for the Mexican drug war. A sampling: "A few months ago, the heads of eight soldiers and a former police chief were found in plastic bags just north of Zihuatanejo." Between Andy's boat-rehabbing ability and Red's reputation as a "man who can get things," don't we know who sits atop this new narco-syndicate?-- Dan L., Brooklyn, N.Y.

I think scientists should research Bill's loyal readers, the ones who send in questions like this, to find out what genetic malfunction causes them to send in stupid questions that make them think Hollywood movies are real life. Movies are fictional, they are not real. Movies are the result of some guy (the writer of the movie) who spends hours a day in his living room (like a blogger) but is cooler because he has tons of drugs and women with various STDs around him at all times. This "writer" then just makes a bunch of shit up as a fictional story, much like what some of Bill's columns contain, and then sells it some movie producer....blah, blah, blah. My point is that it is ALL FICTION. Red and Andy don't exist, they never have and they never will. I think some of Bill's readers need to know this.

Crossing fictional movies with real life is funny the first 100 times it is done, but when EVERY question from a reader involves something similar to this type of crossover, it gets old incredibly quickly.

SG: Good Lord, what if you just described the plot for "Shawshank 2: A Place With No Name?"

But what if it was set in the mid-'80s and Robbins and Freeman signed on?

I would not watch.

What if it was more of a retro-'80s action movie (think "Miami Vice" or "Scarface") and Michael Mann signed on to direct?

Both of which failed at the box office when they came out. Bill should know this.

What if a bitter Andy (still haunted by his "Shawshank" experience) edged to the dark side and decided to become a drug kingpin, with Red begrudgingly joining him but narrating things like, "When Andy started wearing white linen suits and slicking his hair back, I guess you could say I was concerned ..." and "There was a look in Andy's eye that I had never seen before. He had gone over the edge. This wasn't a case of missing my friend. My friend was gone. And he wasn't coming back."

I would put it in my NetFlix queue and watch it just to mock Bill.

Q: Your theory on young coaches coming to Holy Cross as a stepping stone has been put in place at Binghamton University (Tony Kornheiser's alma mater). We moved to D-I in 2001 and are known as an academic university. After a few years, we moved to your stepping-stone theory and hired a Georgetown assistant, Kevin Broadus. This is his first head coaching job and he has been accepting transfers from bigger schools who have had off-court problems. We are now coming under fire by the New York Times. My friends and I don't care; we are just happy to be in the tourney. Would you care if your university sold out its academic standards to have a winning basketball team?-- David, New York

I don't exactly remember this "stepping stone" theory, but I want to emphasize, David the Dumbass from New York...THIS WAS NOT BILL'S THEORY, THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING LONG BEFORE BILL LATCHED ON TO IT. (See, he made me use all caps and now I am overly angry)

Look at the resume of ANY coach coaching an upper echelon team that was ranked high in the AP/Coaches Poll for college basketball. On that resume there will most likely be a starting coaching job with a smaller school. I am sure there is an exception and if someone wants to point it out to me, I will listen. More importantly, this is not Bill's theory that Holy Cross is used as a stepping stone, because every small school is used as a stepping stone, Bill's school is not special in this aspect, though I know he wants it to be. Other than Roy Williams, who was a semi-controversial choice at Kansas in 1988 because of his lack of experience, I can't think of any coach at a successful program right now, off the top of my head, that did not start at a smaller school and work his way up. It's how the job market in EVERY industry works. You don't get hired as CEO, you have to start somewhere and small crappy schools (sports wise, not academics) like Holy Cross are no exception and not special. Shut up.

Q: In Part 1, how did you leave Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer off your list of top five Dream Celebrity Guest Messages for your voice mail? "Leave a message NOW! WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME! DO IT! WHERE IS YOUR MESSAGE???"-- Aaron L., Valparaiso, Ind.

Aaron, quit writing Bill and go to class. You don't want to end up like Tysen in Washington and work at Burger King.

Q: Here's a new word for Webster's: "D'Inflation - (n). The inflation of a player's per-game statistics as caused by the particular style or system of the coach they are playing for. See: D'Antoni, Mike." Example: "Hasheem Thabeet is pretty high on people's draft boards, but Jim Calhoun's defensive system has caused D'Inflation of his block numbers." Thabeet is no Dikembe. Thoughts?-- Mike S., Alexandria, Va.

I hope everyone can see why I call these people who write in SimmonsClones. They take something Bill says like it is gospel, then make up a theory that Bill would make up and present it to him. It's like he has little clones who perpetuate his stupid ideas all over the United States and the world. It's like a cult for white kids between the ages 18-25.

I don't have a problem with everyone between the ages of 18-25, just the ones who read what Bill writes and want to be him. I made the arbitrary cut off at 25 because when I turned 25 I started reading Bill's columns and thinking, "these are kind of shit" and began to dislike them. I don't know what made me change my mind but this happened to others I know as well.

Q: So a few of us were talking at lunch today and one of my co-workers was telling a story about a male friend who got engaged to someone completely out of his league but phrased it as, "He Marko Jaric'd this girl." I loved the phrase. Why can't it be used forever to describe this type of situation?-- Jimmy, Emmaus, Pa.

Another SimmonsClone question. Simmonsologists, which I pridefully call myself one, know that Bill loves to create theories and then have his readers regurgitate similar theories back at him because they massage his massive ego and make him feel like he is still plugged in to what "the kids" want. I believe he has an incredible need to feel relevant. I am not going to link it but look at his Wikipedia page sometime. He has to love that shit. It's like a shrine to him and his ideas. His Ewing Theory was very smart, but it has been pretty downhill since then.

SG: The readers are on fire! Somebody alert the editors of urbandictionary.com that the world is being altered.

I try to keep this site fairly clean with the sexual imagery and all of that (not because I feel like I am a big bad adult, but because it distracts from what I am saying), so I don't want to write what this self congratulatory tone between Bill and his readers feels like to me, but I will say it begins with "circle."

Q: How could you not mention the two Coreys in your "Most Famous Bromances" answer (in the March 6 mailbag)? They even made a TV show about them! Also, what category do they fall under? Biggest train wreck? Fame to lame? Longest fall from grace? Unintentional comedy? They have it all.-- Jon, LaCrosse, Wis.

This is a question that has nothing to do with sports or anything sports related. It is a question that is completely self referential to one of Bill's previous mailbags. Clearly I do not approve of this and will not copy and paste the list of "bromances" that Bill lists after this.

In fact, the readers sent along so many quality bromances that I'm forced to run the first-ever "sequel answer to a previous mailbag question."

Literally every question asked in Bill's mailbag is a sequel to a previous mailbag question or is a sequel to a column that Bill wrote. Or an addendum to a column or question that Bill featured previously. Or a footnote that needed to be added to what Bill had written previously. Everything is a sequel in Bill's world.

Bill writes something, his readers write him an email agreeing and thinking of other ideas along the same lines, Bill then thinks of a name for this and writes down other instances of this, and then he incorporates this new name into a column at a later time, and finally one of Bill's SimmonsClones writes about an incident similar to the original idea and the new idea becomes a sort of spin off of the original idea. It just feels like this is the cycle for me.

Q: Not only did we steal Seattle's team, we stole their mascot, too. Get over it.-- Jason, Oklahoma City, Okla.

Thank you Jason from Oklahoma City.

Q: Did you see the Heat-Pistons game on Sunday, March 22? I know the announcers were carrying their orders from the league office to praise Wade at every opportunity, but in the last minute, Wade fell down on a touch foul after getting touched on his foot (got the whistle), then blocked two shots where he mauled the Pistons with way more contact (no calls). Are the refs warming up for the playoffs or what?-- Sam G., Ann Arbor, Mich.

SG: Here's what ticks me off: As the Miami Salvatores were whistling their way to the 2006 title, you might remember me writing a column that started, "Forget about who's winning the championship. I'm starting to feel like the future of the NBA is at stake." I warned everyone that a Miami victory meant we could "look forward to another decade of perimeter scorers going 11-for-32 in big games, teammates standing around while stars dribble at the top of the key waiting to challenge two defenders at once, and refs deciding every big game (like in Game 5) by how they interpret contact when the same guy is recklessly driving to the basket over and over again."

Remember yesterday's mailbag and Bill's misunderstanding of 3rd grade math? Remember how he was inferring players should drive to the basket as much as possible because that is what is best for the team and is more beneficial than shooting 3 point shots? Now try to rectify Bill's insatiable need for players to drive to the basket with his bitching here about when "the same guy is recklessly driving to the basket over and over again." I can't do it.

One day he tells players to drive to the basket rather than shoot 3 point shots because it draws fouls and sets up teammates and the next day he is bitching that players drive to the basket over and over again and draw fouls. I don't get it. Bill really does not know how to create a logical argument in my opinion. One day you can't portray driving to the basket and getting fouled as a good thing and the next day bitch about players who do exactly that and get the same foul calls from "bad" officiating. Playing both sides does not work. You can't use the bad officiating to your advantage in an argument when it feels convenient.

The real problem is that Bill is afraid the Celtics are going to lose to the Cavs in the Eastern Conference Finals. This has nothing to do with the NBA, it has to do with the fact LeBron James gets these types of calls and Bill is preemptively bitching about the officiating as an excuse for when/if the Celtics lose. He made his original statement about the officiating in the NBA Finals a few years ago, but is only bringing it back up because he doesn't want it to happen to his team.

Basically, the team with LeBron or Wade will win the next 10-12 titles

Kobe, LeBron and Wade are officiated differently than everyone else. And you know what else? They know it. Watch LeBron at the end of games now -- he barrels toward the basket, bounces off guys and knows he'll get a call.

But if you don't think we're headed for a Kobe-LeBron Finals, you're insane. As your gambling accountant, I suggest you investigate those 6-to-5 odds on a Cavs-Lakers Finals.

See? I believe I am right.

Q: If I had to pick a worst sports pick-up line about someone on the ESPN staff, it would be: "John Hollinger's playoff odds projects you and me in the finals."-- Matt, Durham, N.C.

SG: Come on, there's no way that beats, "Hi, I'm the Talented Mr. Roto." But you got me thinking, what would be some other terrible ESPN-related pickup lines? Here's my top 10:

The Rain Man of lists strikes again. He is non-stop with his lists.

Q: Should Kobe win the MVP for spending the summer turning Lebron into the best player in the NBA?-- Michael, Inglewood, Calif.

Take Michael Jordan, the greatest player of all time. Jordan didn't retire from the NBA in 1993 because he was burned out; it happened because he had spent three solid years eviscerating everyone in his path (not just those three straight titles, but when he emerged as the undisputed alpha dog on the Dream Team), came up for air, looked around, couldn't find an intriguing challenge that he hadn't already conquered and decided, "Screw it, I want to play baseball."

This may have some validity to it but I think Jordan is too competitive to just give up his crown as the best player in basketball on the best team in basketball and retire at the height of his career. That's just my opinion though, I am not going to try and pass it off as fact, like someone I know...

If you took the 2001 Lakers (Shaqobe at its apex, and, yes, I just lumped them together like Bennifer or Brangelina), put them in a time machine and sent them back eight years to the summer of '93, does Jordan leave the NBA to play baseball? No way! He would have looked like a coward.

Yeah maybe. Though I have to admit, I think Shaq and Kobe's Laker teams beat Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls teams. Not by much and it would be a great series, but no three headed monster (like those Bulls had) ever sufficiently guarded Shaq in his prime and then throw in Kobe on those teams who is like a mini-Michael Jordan...I think it would be the Lakers in 6/7 games.

Of course there is no way to prove Bill's "no way!" opinion here, so we can just assume he is right. Look for either a sequel column about this idea or a reader in the next mailbag refer to this. Bill will then take his point that can't be proven and make blanket statements of fact which will piss me off...because there is no way to prove him wrong, but he still feels like he is completely right.

But that's what happened with Kobe, LeBron and Wade -- starting with the 2008 Olympics, as soon as it became patently clear they were the three best basketball players alive in some order, it's been ON ever since. Did you see how LeBron responded to Wade's post-All Star Break scoring explosion?

I am having a hard time reading what Bill is writing here about these players taking their games to the next level, mostly because he just got finished complaining about how many foul calls these three players specifically get from the officials during a game. I don't know, to complain about the unfair officiating and then respond in awe at the ability of these players to put up massive amounts of points seems quite contradictory to me. I realize it is not these three guys fault that the officials, in Bill's opinion, favor them, but it doesn't explain to me why Bill is suddenly ignoring his own perception they have an officiating advantage when looking at their statistics.

I need to quit trying to understand him.

After reading your Dorkapooloza column and Hollinger's PER column about LeBron and MJ, I truly feel that no one is counting for the defense that MJ faced compared to what Lebron faces now. MJ's heyday was during an era when the hand-check was legal -- otherwise he would have completely destroyed the league. What do you think?-- Nate, New York

SG: I disagree ... he would have completely and totally destroyed the league. You left out the other factor: Back in Jordan's day, teams could cream him every time he drove to the basket without any real repercussions. Remember the secret "Jordan Rules" that Detroit had? It was actually one rule, and here was the rule: Hammer his butt as hard as you can over giving up a dunk or layup. Riley's Knicks teams took it a step further and physically assaulted him with 2-by-4s and chainsaws, or maybe it just seemed like that. You can't do that stuff now.

That may be a part of it, but my silly theory adds another part to it. With the beginning of free agency and summer basketball camps that these players begin attending at the age of 9 years old, the NBA players have had a chance to socialize and get to know each other more than they did in the past. (I told you it was silly) I think that part of the reason LeBron can drive to the basket is that no one wants to cream him on his way to the basket because you never know when you may have to play with LeBron or which guy on your team played with LeBron on a high school summer league team. Basically I think it is very, very buddy-buddy and the defensive rules in conjunction with this really accomodate a player being able to drive to the basket without getting creamed.

The bigger question: What's the point of having reporters or columnists sit courtside when 97 percent of them don't use that access for their stories? Most of the savvier teams (the Lakers, Celtics, Cavs and others) already came to that realization and moved press sections to the corners or balconies.

If this sounds like an argument a journalist might make, don't be fooled, Bill is not a journalist. He is an entertainer, he just works with journalists and knows tons of journalists, but he is not to be held to that standard because he is an entertainer.

Jason Quick (The Oregonian) and Brian Windhorst (Cleveland Plain Dealer) are two examples of thoughtful beat writers who use their access as a strength -- not just plum courtside seating, but locker room access for overheard conversations, mood reads or even armchair psychology -- and really, that's why I have both of them bookmarked.

That's reason No. 485 why newspapers are struggling so badly right now; their writers squandered unbelievable access to sporting events to the degree that readers gravitated toward the opinions of columnists and bloggers writing from their living rooms.

I am not going to disagree with Bill on this issue, though I do think it is kind of funny "the opinion of columnists and bloggers writing from their living room" describes Bill perfectly as well. He writes his opinions from his living room, so he is bascially complaining newspapers are dying because readers are reading his column instead of a column that gives the the reader access to sporting events. I just it interesting he is observing that newspapers are dying because people read his column instead of someone else's.

Q: I just told a friend the news that Kate Winslet is no longer going to be naked in movies. This prompted us to realize Winslet's breasts were the first that both of us had seen. We also realized this was true for tons of guys born in the mid- to late-'80s (making them 12 or younger when they saw "Titanic"). She has to hold the record for the actress claimed as "the first one" by the most guys. What lucky movie star holds the title for you?-- Sumter, Pittsburgh

...and I officially feel old. Let's do some math really quick (no need to pay attention Bill, I know you don't understand math...I am not always great, but I think I have this one):

Titanic came out in 1997, which would make someone 12 or younger when they saw the movie, which would make them about 21/22 years old now. That fits perfectly in my 18-25 year old demographic that Bill speaks to. Not that every Simmons fan is that age but I would say the predominant amount of his fans are...or at least the morons that write him seem to be around this age.

Since it's no fun unless you name it, I'm calling this the Apollonia Corleone All-Stars after Michael's Italian wife in "The Godfather" (a movie that, again, EVERYONE saw).

Of course he would give it a name. How can he be self-referential without a proper name for this? This man...he just absolutely is in love with himself. He loves to name shit and create lists. I am slowly going insane.

Q: Clark Kellogg is talking about baking soda and Jim Nantz has to do everything including telling viewers that Blake Griffin is being doubled every time down the floor. Admit it. You miss me, don't you?-- Billy P, Las Vegas

I did not realize how much I missed Billy Packer until he was gone. I hate Billy Packer because he hated my favorite team since they did not offer him a scholarship in the late 1950's (I think) and he had to go to Wake Forest. He actually hated every ACC (and quite possibly every Division I) team and I really miss him. I miss observations like, "Really Jim, Duke has no chance in this game," and "N.C. State is a group of underachievers who will never accomplish anything." At least that is what it sounded like he was saying to me.

Let's just say I have fond childhood memories of hating Billy Packer and I want them back. I miss Billy Packer...bring him back.

SG: I kinda sorta do. I have to admit. Here's the best example I can come up with: My street needed to be paved for two years. I learned where all the potholes were, avoided them and never stopped bitching about it. But you know what? I liked bitching about it. When they finally paved the street and made it like every other street, I missed having that bitch crutch.

Whereas I just gave my opinion and said why...Bill Simmons can't do that, he has to spend more than 4 sentences explaining how he feels, which is something I wrapped up in the first sentence. He annoys the piss out of me when he doesn't say something and he has to compare it to something else.

Q: Do you think that it would be possible for you to write an entertaining article without foul language, personal attacks ("Dumbleavy"?), or references to bodily functions? I'd love to see this in your mailbag without a personal attack. Give it a try.-- Scott Jennings, Seneca

Scott could have very well quit writing after "entertaining article" and it would have been accurate. Though every once in a while, Bill does pull a good one out, I will give him that.

SG: Go poop on yourself.

That pile of poop Scott craps out would be smarter than 84% of Bill's readers who contribute to his mailbag.

(I just realized as I was writing that sentence it sounds like I am openly baiting Bill Simmons loyal readers to attack me and call me a moron. That's not the case, I really believe 84% of them who contribute are morons...I can't help the way I feel)

By the way, a belated "Got you!" to everyone who Googled Scarlett Johansson's topless scene in "The Killing Game" -- both the scene and movie were made up. You guys are too easy.

Does Bill have short term memory loss or something? He wrote the same damn thing in his mailbag yesterday. The exact same sentence. No different. None. fGet an editor or at least get an editor who can do his job correctly.

Q: You know how you mentioned "Halter Top Day?" In Columbia, Mo., when all the sorority girls from Mizzou walk around campus in their warm-weather attire, well, we call that "Dirty Old Man Day", and we eat McDonald's take out at Brady Commons and take advantage of the fact that no one really knows that we're on a two-hour lunch break. It's a tradition as ingrained in us as roto drafts and Busch beer. Probably even moreso. We volunteer for "Mail Boxes Etc." duty during sorority rush to drive-by the sorority houses. I think this is a much bigger holiday than you could possibly image.-- George, Columbia, Mo.

George from Columbia, Missouri is part of the 84% of the readers I was talking about. Also, "a much bigger holiday than you could possibly image?" Doesn't he mean "imagine?" If Bill is going to make up these emails from his "readers" he could at least proofread his own work a little.

SG: Yup, these are my readers.

Yup, and you are their idol. They write in to get approval from you that the ideas they have are clever, you give them that approval, you create a fake name/list for their idea, take the idea for your own by adding something to it, and then refer to it constantly. Get ready for more references to how Bill should be the Clippers GM, I have a feeling they are coming.

8 comments Bill Simmons: It's Just Bill Being Bill

The first thing I did when I got into work this morning was go to the WWL and see that the Redskins signed Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall to a total of $150 million in contracts and with almost $60 million in guaranteed money. I began laughing because they got a two turds for one deal and only had to pay $150 million! I give both of those players three years before they are cut. Typical Redskins move. I am surprised they did not make a play for Pacman Jones.

After a two week layoff, we finally have a Bill Simmons Friday column to sink our teeth into. Bill gives us the reason why he did not do an All Star column this year and the reason is a horseshit excuse. This is the Bill I have come to know and not enjoy. This column is a definitive Bill Simmons column, full of homer-ific ramblings, unfunny jokes and fuzzy information. This is a great, bad column.

I skipped my annual NBA All-Star Weekend column because I was frantically trying to finish my book. At least that's how I rationalized it.

The book was a convenient excuse. I could have found time to pump out that column. I just didn't want to hand it in.

Man, I wish I had a job where I was required to write three columns every two weeks and one of those weeks I could just feel lazy and just not hand in a column. That would be very nice. I am sure Bill had other more important things to do in working on his book, so I can understand.

That's what I ended up discussing for four solid days in Phoenix. Hands down, it was the most depressing All-Star Weekend I've ever attended.

Oh. Apparently Bill did not have better things to do and the "working on the book" excuse was completely a horseshit excuse. I love how he acts as if the reason he did not write the column was because he was depressed about the state of the NBA, but his depression just happens to coincide with the All Star Weekend where he was admittedly too lazy to write. So he rationalized the book excuse to himself but doesn't believe it when he says it. I think he may be insane.

It would have been about money. You might remember me writing that the NBA was the No Balls Association two years ago. Now it's the No Benjamins Association.

No Balls Association! That was so hilarious! Simmonsologists know that Bill called it that because teams were afraid to make big trades and then they finally did make big trades with Jason Kidd going to Dallas and Shaq going to Phoenix and those trades have helped to submarine both franchises. Bill Simmons for Bucks GM! The teams took Bill's suggestion and it seemed to fail miserably. Bill Simmons for Sports Czar!

No Benjamins Association! It is like NBA, but with a different word instead of Basketball. Brilliant.

I wish ESPN had a No Bill Association clause.

We should have been talking about Kevin Durant's coming-out party,

The coming out party where he played a bunch of rookies and scored a ton of points where no defense was played or the coming out party where it took him an hour and a half to play a game of H-O-R-S-E?

With the country embroiled in its worst economic crisis in 80 years, the NBA is quietly bracing for its own little D-Day … only outsiders don't fully realize or care.

I guess Bill is assuming that he is an insider here, because he gives us a bunch of information about this problem we don't know about...supposedly. Here is the thing. The thing is that outsiders know NBA franchises are in trouble, simply because 15 teams have had to borrow money to keep running, and most people have had their interest in the NBA dwindle over the past several year but they don't care as much as Bill does.

For one, Bill likes the NBA more than 99% of America so he is naturally going to care more, second many Americans and people around the world are worried enough about making their own ends meet to really care about the state of an NBA team (Bill does not have to worry money, so he has more time to worry about the NBA), and third, a lot of people are going to think the NBA has brought a lot of the trouble on themselves. They have poor attendance because of a poor product and a lot of the money problems are the result of teams overpaying for mediocre talent. Sure this goes on in every sport but that sport also manages to stay interesting and keep attendance up. The NBA has not done this very well. I don't care what anyone says, I enjoy watching college basketball 3 times more than an NBA game and for the sole reason it actually looks like the college players care.

Even trade talk -- normally a staple of any All-Star Weekend -- revolved more around themes such as, "They have to cut payroll," "They can't take on any money right now" and "They're too terrified of the tax to do anything."

Again, this goes to a bad product that is put on the court. The NBA is not in crisis mode but when a significant portion of the population fails to care anymore, that is not a good thing. I don't hate the NBA and will watch a game, but there is only so many times I can watch four guys stand around while one player does something. I watched the Magic-Heat game the other night and the offense for the Magic consisted of five players running down the court, Hedo Turkoglu getting the ball and trying to get it inside to Dwight Howard while J.J. Redick and Tony Battie stood in opposite corners of the court and Anthony Johnson hung out on the perimeter on the same side as Redick. Not exciting. There is no movement from any of the players, I feel like I am watching the game in slow motion a lot of times because the crowds are quiet and the players are just lounging around the court. Maybe it is just me, but this has been a long time coming, the decline of the NBA.

Insiders like Bill should know this. Ironically, I have watched more of the NBA over the last couple of years, but I still recognize the league is in a little trouble.

Teams wanted to dump clearly superior players on Portland at the deadline just to get Raef's insurance money. Phoenix would have traded Shaq for Raef and Channing Frye's expiring contract in a heartbeat.

This type of trade does not make sense to the average fan. They don't understand what the hell insurance money has to do with a player and a trade. MLB doesn't have this problem and the NFL doesn't have this problem. The NBA does.

Jersey supposedly offered Vince Carter and two protected No. 1's for Raef's contract,

Again, protected No. 1's? The average fan does not know what that is as well...and why the hell would the Nets give away Carter like that? The NBA has a lot of trouble connecting with the average fan who doesn't get into the NBA because trades like this make no sense to them. I am into the NBA and don't understand this.

These type of problems are what Bill Simmons does not understand is really wrong with the NBA's attendance. It's not the economy completely, it is that the NBA is hard to get a grasp on, and even when you do get a grasp the product is inferior. I am talking about the casual fans here, not diehards or someone who has a favorite team they follow.

The league would love for you to believe that attendance hasn't been affected, but the NBA's official tally counts only total "customers," counted as paid tickets, comps (seats given to celebrities, sponsors, friends of the team or whomever, a number that can be fudged any way you want), discounted tickets and no-shows.

Bill is right about this.

The fans in my section at Staples Center finally figured out how Dunleavy dresses for games: like someone who owns a funeral home. No, really, He wears ugly gray suits or light blue suits; they always look as if he bought them at a two-for-one sale; and he always looks like he's going to tell you how sorry he is that your aunt passed away. He even slicks his hair back like an extra on "Six Feet Under."

That is one of my favorite shows of all time and I don't get this joke. If you are going to make pop culture references, at least let them make sense. Neither Nate nor David had slick backed hair on any season of the show...at least that I can recall.

Half the arena is empty most nights, unless they're playing a team with transplant fans in Southern California

When Boston played in Denver on Monday, the place brimmed with so many Celtics fans that Carmelo Anthony angrily stormed off before Boston's blowout victory even concluded. That has been a recurring theme in general: Fans of popular visiting teams (Boston, New York, Cleveland, the Lakers) overpowering home arenas of unpopular teams.

At what point are we going to stop calling them "transplant fans" and start calling them what they really are? Fair weather fans. You can't tell me that the Cleveland Cavs fans travel well either or the fans are in Southern California for any good reason, other than the fact the Cavs have LeBron James and he is popular, so therefore so is the team.

If Larry Nance was dead and was in a grave, he would rolling in it right now...because these Cleveland "fans" don't know who the hell he is. Just because Bill is a "transplant" fan doesn't mean we can't call these other fans fair weather fans.

The NBA is turning into the WNBA.

Don't laugh, it is kind of true.

Yet declining attendance isn't even one of the league's four biggest problems right now. I would rank the top four like this:

1. The 2011 Lockout That Hasn't Happened Yet

I don't know how much I would really care...and I actually like the NBA. Maybe the NBA should lock out its players and force them to use illegal PEDs, I mean it worked for baseball's popularity.

Let's say ESPN paid me $5 million a year for each of the past four years, and I felt pretty good about staying there with that number.

Please tell me this is a Rick Reilly crack.

Let's say I hired 10 interns and locked them into deals for $100,000 apiece through 2012

These interns would be responsible for thinking of new jokes and also writing the columns for Bill while he is busy writing his new book/going to the All Star game.

See, we learned a dirty little secret in the last lockout: An inordinate number of NBA players live paycheck to paycheck. Yes, even the guys making eight figures a year.

You can send donations to:

I Don't Give a Flying Fuck

Up Your Ass Way

Are You Kidding Me, U.S.

Again, this is where the NBA is losing the average fan. Why is someone going to pay $40 for a ticket to see a bunch of millionaires stand around the court and do nothing, then hear they spend all that money on crap? This happens in EVERY sport but basketball has the stereotype that the players are lazy, not because of racial issues, but because there is only one basketball and teams tend to talk the ball up the court now and only two guys touch the ball on one possession on offense. You can see players try in every other sport, at least in baseball it is understood there is a lot of standing around.

Quick tangent: You're asking yourself, "Wait, how can a dude making $8-10 million a year live paycheck to paycheck?" Easy. First, he's only banking 40 percent once the IRS and agents are done with him.

This is where Bill Simmons is being his typical asshole self. He said "only" banking 40% of the money, because he does empathize with these players for paying so much in taxes on the insane amounts of money they receive as income. That "only" takes it from a good point he is making to Bill whining on behalf of a bunch of already overpaid millionaires. Bill is completely out of touch with the world and it is hard to read articles by someone who says "only" in this instance.

When the players' union waves a white flag and the lockout finally ends (2012? 2013?), I predict a raise of the individual salary max (to $24-25 million), a softer salary cap, a restriction on long-term contracts (can't be more than three years unless you're re-signing your own star), the elimination of opt-out clauses and the midlevel exemption, and the rookie age limit rising to 20. That's seven predictions in all … and I bet I'll end up nailing six.

Not to harp on this again, but this is where the NBA is losing customers again. You don't have to be a financial genius to understand what Bill is saying here, but the casual fan doesn't have time in his life to figure out what a "mid-level exception" and "the elimination of opt-out clauses" means for the sport in the long run.

I bet Bill ends up nailing 3 of those...and I don't see how raising the salary max will fix anything at all.

2. The fear of trading ultimately hurting the quality of the league

I think Bill is wrong here. It is not the fear of trading, it is the bizarre and random ass way the financials of the NBA are set up. Trading has become a salary dump because teams are allowed to do that with impunity and the trade has to be completely equal (nearly) financially, so Shaq can't get traded for Devin Harris and Brandon Bass because the contracts don't match up. I think the 120% rule (or whatever it is...I like the NBA and don't even know) is stupid.

Trading players has actually put the Suns and the Mavericks in this situation. They acquire better players, which cost money, and then they have to start shedding salary when the trades don't work out.

(think Mychal Thompson, Brian Williams, Clyde Drexler, Pau Gasol, Rasheed Wallace, Jason Kidd, etc.)

Gasol and Jason Kidd were trades made just last year and Wallace was traded a few years ago. Two of those trades resulted in an NBA Finals appearance for a team and the New Jersey trade for Jason Kidd resulted in a Finals appearance for the Nets. These were GOOD trades...but now those exact teams having to dump salary because the players are not worth the money anymore. Teams can add players, but it has to be in a good trade and the way the luxury tax is set up, it is hard to add players that are good.

Every other contender except Orlando had a fixable flaw, thought about fixing it, then said, "Nahhhhh … maybe we can win anyway." Boston never replaced James Posey. Cleveland never landed a quality shooter with size. The Lakers never found Andrew Bynum insurance.

This isn't hard to figure out. Attendance and everything else associated with the sport is in decline, so the teams don't have money to pay for these players over the salary cap. They can't afford the luxury tax. The solution is not with the actual NBA teams, the solution is with marketing the NBA and making sure everyone is in the stands for every game. Sell outs of arenas are the answer and Bill acknowledges attendance sucks but he still doesn't think the financial decline is solely because of that, but also because of no trading amongst the teams. This is wrong in my opinion.

3. Lousy officiating

The NBA has an interest in the best players making it to the playoffs and succeeding. That is how the NBA did well in the 80's and 90's and that is how it will continue to thrive.

I bet you won't know what team Bill is really concerned about concerning this issue though, the team that always gets screwed over because the league is after them. Which one is that? That's right the NBA Champion Boston Celtics are always getting screwed.

But sure enough, with the Celts somehow leading by just one (they were awful all night) and only 35 seconds to play, Rajon Rondo missed a free throw that ricocheted to Mardy Collins, only Big Baby Davis somehow swiped the ball away as Richardson's whistle blew. The Boston bench exploded, thinking it was an undeserved foul, only Richardson had blown his whistle for a Clippers timeout.

He called a timeout when the Celtics could have gotten the ball? How unfair, the Celtics deserve a shot at getting the ball back before the referee calls timeout. I have not seen a replay but how dare the official make a mistake.

One problem: Collins never had the ball. He fumbled the easy rebound to Davis even as the Clippers were signalling for time. Richardson granted the timeout because he's inept at his job and didn't make sure Collins, you know, actually secured the rebound.

Don't forget the NBA wants the Clippers to win the game. I wonder if the referee also caused the Celtics to not score as many points for the other 47 minutes of the game? If not, then the loss was not completely the referees fault...even if he did blow the call.

So TNT's record audience was treated to a comically choppy slopfest in which Boston's best player (Kevin Garnett) fouled out on a touch foul 35 feet from the basket with five minutes to play.

The referees called a touch foul on Kevin Garnett. How dare the referees have the balls to call a foul on Garnett, much less 35 feet away from the basket. The Celtics are always getting screwed over like this.

What Bill should really be worried about is not that the officials called this foul, but what Kevin Garnett was doing 35 feet from the basket trying to commit a foul. Of course why question Garnett when you can bitch about the officiating?

The NBA: Where Amazingly Bad Officiating Happens. When will someone take responsibility and admit that something is seriously, drastically, undeniably wrong?

Exactly, the Mavericks can get screwed over as much as it takes in the NBA Finals, but once the Celtics start not getting all of the foul calls, then we know the officiating is terribly wrong and Bill more than talks about it, he wants to take action now.

For a league that claimed to take the Donaghy scandal so seriously, we haven't seen any inclination that it did. Not even a hint.

Exactly. The NBA Finals were the Celtics-Lakers last year, which was the best case scenario for the NBA, so Bill brings up a great point. Of course he is too stupid to realize his arguing about the officiating being unfair would also have the effect of proving maybe there could be a case bad officiating put the Celtics in the NBA Finals last year, since that is what the NBA wants. Nevermind this though.

So that's the climate for the No Benjamins Association right now: Murky, unpredictable and not so lucrative. And you wonder why I didn't want to write about All-Star Weekend.

That reason probably had more to do with laziness and a whole lot less to do with the fact Bill is actually depressed about the NBA. If he just started getting depressed about the state of the NBA, then he is about two years too late.

Other than the NFL, the NBA will emerge from this financial quagmire in the best shape of any professional sport; not just because its billion-dollar deals with Disney and Turner (inked fortuitously in the summer of 2007) run through the 2015-16 season but because the Lockout That Hasn't Happened Yet will ultimately solve every major league issue except its stupefyingly dreadful officiating.

Only time and constant bitching will solve that major officiating problem of the Celtics not getting every single favorable call in a basketball game. Other than the complete folding of NBA teams and the fact teams can't afford to run a team at all, I would say that the Celtics getting gypped on a few calls during a game is very high among the league's concerns.

I like how Bill Simmons seamlessly manages to throw in basketball's major problems like league attendance, teams losing money, and franchises going under with the fact the Celtics can't get any favorable calls during games. It's just Bill being Bill. He manages to take a league wide problem that affects the economics of basketball and throw in a complaint about how his favorite team getting screwed over on calls during games as if this is an example of a massive problem going on in the league. Sure, officiating generally sucks, but I guarantee poor officiating is not one of the top reasons the NBA is struggling financially.

Good job Bill, you wrote a Friday column.