3 comments Rollling Stone's Profile of Bill Simmons Intrigues Me

Believe it or not, I try to avoid writing about Bill Simmons. His writing tends to frustrate me so much and the constant nagging feeling that I will end up psycho-analyzing him as opposed to critiquing his writing tends to overwhelm me. His writing is so much about him and what he thinks, it's very difficult to separate the two at times. "Rolling Stone" did a feature on him recently and much of it really intrigued me because of things that Bill said and the little contradictions in his personality that I think has an effect on his writing showed up in the feature. It's well-written and actually is intended to actually be about Bill, which is a nice change of pace since many of Bill's columns are supposed to be about sports and end up being about himself.

In the last few minutes of a belligerent game, full of glaring, taunting, and pushing, the hometown Clippers are in the process of erasing Dallas' comfortable lead, scoring 23 of the last 27 points. To Simmons' dismay, the crowd doesn't seem to appreciate that they're watching one of the best games of the year.

This is why Bill speaks for all sports fans, because no one can appreciate sports like he can. 

The L.A. fans celebrate his feat with a mild golf clap. "He could dunk with his dick and nobody here would stand up to applaud," Simmons mutters.

These are fans of Los Angeles' second favorite sports team. It's not like fans in Los Angeles have a reputation for being rowdy, much less become rowdy for the city's second favorite team. 

Simmons was raised mostly in Boston, where every loss is like a death in the family,

Cliche alert! Other cities take losses hard like Boston does. It's just most other cities don't have major journalists on repeat telling their readers just HOW FUCKING HARD those cities take the losses.

and even at 44, he watches sports with the delight of a kid —

Bill Simmons is the Brett Favre of sports fans.

"We have similarly thorough backgrounds when it comes to movies, TV, sports and other worthless things," says his friend Jimmy Kimmel,

Would any profile of Bill Simmons be complete without a name-drop of Jimmy Kimmel? Did you know that Bill used to write for Kimmel's show? He has Kimmel's phone number too. Just ask him to show you and he will. Really, he has it!

who hired Simmons as a joke writer on Jimmy Kimmel Live! "Bill's very funny, he's married pop culture and sports more than anyone else, and he built his own media empire from a little blog."

He's married pop culture and sports more than anyone else, but this marriage hasn't really progressed very much in the past 5-7 years. If it's a marriage, then this marriage is at the "We know each other's jokes and are bored with each other stage of marriage, so maybe we should have kids to see if that spices things up." Spoiler alert: Grantland has succeeded and "30 for 30" is often brilliant, but Bill's writing did not get spiced up. In fact, Bill's passion for Grantland and his other endeavors only highlights the lazy, recycled manner of his columns and pop culture references. 

Simmons started to accrue a huge following in 1997, when he began blogging on AOL's Boston website in the role of an irritant and smart aleck, under the name Boston Sports Guy. 

All magnates have haters; Simmons makes it easy by frequently getting into feuds.

Bill probably should have just kept that "Boston Sports Guy" name. It was apt then and is still apt now. Also, keep the idea Bill played the role of the "irritant and smart aleck" in mind. Later Bill will say that he doesn't want to hire writers for Grantland who aren't nice on Twitter. It's fine for Bill to be an irritant as long as he has ESPN's backing while doing so, but he doesn't want to hire those other writers who are irritants on Twitter. Interesting set of rules for himself and others. 

On NBA Countdown, Simmons plays a slightly exaggerated version of himself: a comedic troublemaker, "the wild card who doesn't give a shit," he tells me. "I'm part historian, part know-it-all, and part shit-stirrer. I don't hold back – that's the key."

It's okay to stir the pot, just don't start feuds or be a troll. Well, other people shouldn't start feuds or be a troll. If Bill chooses to do both of these things then that's fine. There are different rules for him because he's Bill Simmons. 

The shit has been successfully stirred: Within minutes, Twitter is in flames. "Never hated a sports analyst as much as I hate Bill Simmons," I read as I scroll through his mentions, followed by "I want to punch him in the face," "He is such a douche" and "If Bill Simmons ever got in a car accident, I would be happy." There are compliments, too, but, let's face it, those are boring.

It just shows Bill's popularity that there are negative things being written about him on Twitter. No other media personality ever has anything negative said about him on Twitter. Bill is the only one to experience hatred, this is what makes him so unique. 

Sports Twitter is a mire of stupidity, homophobia, and violent threats.

But hey, it's a great place for Bill to advertise Grantland and these people who are stupid and homophobic are many of the same people who make Bill popular. But yeah, fuck these people.

Sports Twitter also has some intelligent thought about it, but sportswriters tend to prefer to respond to and focus on the idiots on Twitter. For some reason, a lot of people complain about Sports Twitter and then take great pains to highlight those who are stupid on Twitter, as opposed to highlighting those who aren't stupid. 

Simmons uses Twitter almost exclusively to promote and link to Grantland material.

This is seemingly becoming more and more what Bill uses his Grantland columns for. Well, linking Grantland material and linking YouTube videos. 

He also writes fewer sports columns than he used to, partly because

He's out of ideas, he thinks he's better than just being a writer, he has no interest in writing, and he understands that his shelf life is limited and he has recycled material for a few years now? 

TV and movies occupy more of his time.

Plus, Bill seems to be a starfucker at heart and it's really, really hard to try to be a popular media personality when he is associated mainly with writing. Television and movies is where the real potential to starfuck comes into play. 

The Internet gave him a career, an audience, wealth, influence, and fourth-row seats for the Clippers. But lately, Bill Simmons is kind of over the Internet.

Ah, well here's something that isn't a shock. Bill uses the Internet to become who he currently is, but then once his status has been elevated he's too good for the Internet. The Internet is just so mean these days, unlike the old days when Bill used to get recognition by writing entire columns around taking cheap shots at coaches, teams, and general managers. That wasn't mean, because Bill had ESPN behind him when he took cheap shots at Isiah Thomas, teams and players. 

Unlike almost every other site, Grantland doesn't pick fights. "There's a mean-spiritedness on the Internet that we've stayed away from," Simmons told me in his office. "It seems to be getting angrier — especially Twitter, which is full of coyotes, waiting to attack the next victim."

Right...If Bill had any sense of self-awareness he would know that there's a certain mean-spiritedness to some of the things he said about Isiah Thomas over the years. He even had Thomas threatening to fight him. Bill used to beat on Thomas for comedic effect and many times some of his comments felt below the belt. It's fine for Bill to take shots at Isiah in an ESPN column, because how could any column with ESPN behind it be mean-spirited? Once Bill managed to attain fame, suddenly a peace was brokered with Thomas. Bill got what he wanted out of it, he's used Isiah's terribleness for his own ascension and now he's ready to move on. 

Isiah Thomas isn't the only target of Bill's feuds and mean-spiritedness. He got in a feud with WEII-AM's "Big Show" as well. Why was the "Big Show" mad at Bill? Well...

Ordway said that Simmons "has ripped his show in print, but he's always been friendly in person." Ordway: "We're not bullying anybody. We're doing exactly what he's done for years in print where he's ripped everybody. He does the exact same schtick that he's accusing us of." 

It seems Bill used some of that mean-spiritedness on Twitter that he accuses others of to Tweet the following: 

"Hey WEEI: You were wrong, I did a Boston interview today. With your competition. Rather give them ratings over deceitful scumbags like you."

But no really Bill, it is everyone else on Twitter and the Internet that is mean-spirited and you just want Grantland to stay above the fray like you did, right?

His thoughts about vengefulness took on a different meaning only a few hours later, when the shit-stirrer was now in a shitstorm of his own.

Interesting how Bill wants to be a shit-stirrer but gets upset at those who react to the shit-stirring he causes. The Internet and Twitter are so mean to react to Bill's attempts to cause trouble! What a victim! Bill is so cursed! How can it be that Bill intentionally stirs up trouble and then people react negatively to it? How unforeseen!

Two days earlier, the site had published a story, "Dr. V's Magical Putter," about Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt, a female physicist who had invented a new, possibly superior golf putter. When writer Caleb Hannan investigated her background, he learned Vanderbilt was a transgender woman. Despite having agreed to her demand that he not write about her life, Hannan told Vanderbilt that he'd discovered the secret she clearly wanted to keep private, and he outed her to an investor.

On that Friday night, Simmons dismissed the furor — just more "mean-spiritedness on the Internet."

This shows how Bill doesn't like to be criticized. Any criticism of his or Grantland's work doesn't have merit and it's just mean-spirited. Because after all, when could Grantland or Bill EVER be wrong about something? 

Oddly, a master of new media was badly misreading what was happening. The next day, he took his daughter to her soccer tournament, and during a break between games, looked online, where the angry reactions had continued. "That's when everything turned," he says, "and I started to think we'd made a serious mistake.

Notice the use of Bill's typical "we" made a mistake. The editor-in-chief of Grantland isn't going to say "he" made a mistake, because admitting a mistake would go against Bill's ego believing himself to be perfect and without fault, but "we" made a mistake. Bill loves to use the proverbial "we" whenever he is wrong about something, even when he's the editor-in-chief of Grantland who is glad to soak up any compliments he may receive for the success of the site, but says "we" made a mistake when something goes wrong.

The story's misjudgment was not the result of malice. The Grantland staff is more diverse, in gender and race, than most publications ("God forbid we ever get credit for that," he grumbles),

What an ass. Oh sure, a Grantland article led to a person committing suicide due to subject of the article being outed as transgender, but Bill wants this to be ignored in favor of Grantland's diversity. 

"Sure, this article led to a person killing themselves, but isn't this a small price to pay for diversity at Grantland?" 

But Simmons also didn't fully understand why people despised the article. "Crazy" and "hysterical" responses on Twitter had made him "embarrassed for mankind,"

Bill is your typical stereotypical only child. He doesn't like being told he is wrong, so he naturally refuses to initially admit he is wrong, and then when confronted with being wrong he gets defensive. These are the hallmarks of a person who grew up rarely being told he/she was wrong so he/she doesn't know how to handle this type of rejection. Of course, it's embarrassing for mankind there is a negative reaction to a Grantland column that resulted in a suicide. It's mankind's fault, not the editor-in-chief's fault. 

and he didn't agree with me that Grantland never should have mentioned the fact that Vanderbilt was a transgender woman.

It was agreed upon before the article was written that Dr. V's private life would not be a part of the article. If this agreement was in fact real, then Bill is absolutely, unequivocally wrong that Vanderbilt being a transgender woman should have been mentioned in the column. 

Like a lot of people, especially people in the sports world, he's amiss in issues of gender and sexuality; a few weeks later, during a podcast in which he discussed Michael Sam, a college football player who came out in February, Simmons used the offensive phrase "sexual preference" – not out of hostility towards Sam, but out of ignorance. 

I don't think "sexual preference" is derogatory if used in the correct fashion. I have a sexual preference for women. It's who I prefer. This doesn't indicate anything bad or that I have/don't have a choice in this preference. It simply indicates what I prefer. I don't see the ignorance here to be honest. Perhaps I'm too ignorant to see the ignorance. 

Simmons wrote a lengthy apology for the "Dr. V" story, which Grantland posted the next Monday. The article, he admitted, lacked empathy for Vanderbilt, and should not have outed her posthumously. His apology was thorough and almost self-flagellating, but was also mitigated by his defensiveness, which ESPN Executive Vice President and Executive Editor John A. Walsh told me he found "unfortunate."

Bill does not want to be wrong. It's not something I made up because I'm bored. It's why he uses the term "we" when talking about himself being wrong about an issue. Of course ESPN isn't going to piss off their golden goose, so "unfortunate" is as far as they will go in publicly discussing Bill's response to the Dr. V article and controversy (started by those "crazy" and "hysterical" people who put a black mark on mankind...you know, those people who don't like it when an editor-in-chief gets defensive rather than just accepting he was wrong). 

And ESPN ombudsman Robert Lipsyte, an accomplished 76-year old writer, added his own column, in which he called the article "inexcusable" in its "unawareness and arrogance." He described Simmons as "a talented, overextended 44 year old" with "considerable vision and celebrity." Lipsyte did not intend "celebrity" as a compliment.

Bill would never hire Lipsyte for Grantland because he is attempting to start a feud with Bill by criticizing him. Also, Bill chases this celebrity so it's not a compliment nor is it inaccurate. 

He won't say whether or not he has a bookie in L.A., which means he likely does.

He's so cool. He has a bookie, he drinks and smokes pot.

And if he offers you a bet, you should probably take it — last football season, he won only 108 out of 256 picks against the spread in his column. "It was kind of a bummer," he says, though he points out that in 2006, he had his wife Kari make her own football picks in his column. "And she beat me. So if I had credibility after that gimmick, it was an accident."

Here's the issue though. I get that Bill says he believes himself to have no credibility, but he does not really believe this. He spends inordinate amount of his columns writing rules for gambling and setting up corollaries and other guidelines on how a person should gamble. For someone who doesn't think he is good at gambling he sure has a lot of gambling advice he likes to dispense to others. It's almost like he doesn't believe that he believes he is not good at gambling. It's the fake humble thing he tends to do. 

Simmons is credited as an Internet visionary, but he went into new media only because old media rejected him. "Boston," he says, "is where I failed."

And you aren't going to believe this, but Bill doesn't like going back to where he failed and he acted like a child by taking shots at Boston writers early in his career. Yes, the same Bill Simmons that is embarrassed by mankind and talks about a meanness on the Internet used to spend his early career taking shots at Boston writers because he wanted to be them. Again, the same meanness that is a bad thing today is what drove Bill Simmons to start a career writing online. 

He began his career as a lackey at the Boston Herald, the lesser of the city's two daily papers, "organizing Chinese-food orders" and covering high school teams. He stood outside the Herald building on the Mass Turnpike, smoking cigarettes and "wondering what the fuck I was gonna do with my life."

These are the types of things a lower-level newspaper employee does to pay his dues and eventually get a shot to write more. But Bill Simmons isn't happy being lower-level because he's Bill Simmons and through his mere existence he doesn't deserve to be anyone's lackey. 

TV anchors and newspaper columnists keep their jobs for decades, and at the Herald, "mediocre writers were blocking my way," Simmons later wrote. 

What mean-spiritedness Bill displays. 

"I didn't do myself any favors," he adds now. "I was probably too arrogant, and could barely hide my disdain for some of the writers."

But since it turned out okay for him, this wasn't him being an asshole like those people on the Internet today who are arrogant and barely hide their disdain for a writer's work. It's totally different because it's Bill Simmons who has disdain, which makes it perfectly fine. 

He considered going into commercial real estate with his stepdad before he came across a new website, AOL, where even a Herald reject could write.
He wrote with a fan's dismay and delight, rejecting the idea of being objective (a Boston partisan, he openly despises the L.A. Lakers and any team from New York), and attacking local sportswriters by name.

I'm sorry, what was that again? 

and attacking local sportswriters by name.

I must have read that wrong because that seems mean-spirited. Let me read it again. 

and attacking local sportswriters by name.

In the mid-90's Bill Simmons was attacking local sportswriters by name, while in 2014 he is railing against the following: 

"There's a mean-spiritedness on the Internet that we've stayed away from," Simmons told me in his office. "It seems to be getting angrier — especially Twitter, which is full of coyotes, waiting to attack the next victim." One false move, he added, and you find yourself in "a 24-hour shitstorm."

just more "mean-spiritedness on the Internet."

"Crazy" and "hysterical" responses on Twitter had made him "embarrassed for mankind,"

So when Bill started out taking shots at local sportswriters, after working side-by-side with some of these writers by the way, it was perfectly fine. No problem there. It's just Bill giving his opinion and it's the correct opinion because it's the opinion of Bill Simmons. But when others on the Internet give their opinion and get angry at something written on Grantland Bill thinks these people are "coyotes" and "mean-spirited." But of course. What's good for Bill isn't good for everyone else. He now is the guy getting attacked and all of a sudden being attacked gives Bill a sad face, so attacking sportswriters is no longer okay. 

In 2000, when ESPN launched Page 2, a site that mixed sports, pop culture and humor, Simmons waited for his phone to ring. "That was probably the lowest I sunk, when ESPN didn't hire me for Page 2," he says. He was in his early thirties, still borrowing money from his parents. A few months after the launch, he wrote a column mocking ESPN's annual awards show, and his taunts got noticed.

Yes, Bill got noticed by being mean-spirited and being angry about ESPN's annual awards show. He was just another Internet writer being mean and that's how he got noticed. Now that Bill has made it, he would hate the guy he was in early thirties for doing this, right? 

If there's a moral, it's this: Bite the hand you cannot kiss. 

Or the moral could be that you need to be a really good writer, which Bill was at the time. Back during the time when he was self-aware enough to realize he is the angry person on the Internet that currently scolds. 

Deadspin is to mocking Simmons what Michael Jordan is to basketball, so I asked Tommy Craggs, the site's editor, to summarize the case against him. Craggs denounced Simmons' "chuckling, incurious, cleverest-guy-standing-around-the-Phi-Delt-keg writing voice," and dismissed him as "nothing more than a dispenser of dull, honkified conventional wisdom about sports." He also said Simmons had been smart in not hiring Bill-Jr. clones at Grantland, adding that a site full of Simmons-ish prose "would suck."

I'm getting ready to link a column from Deadspin where Craggs gives his entire unedited version of how he described Simmons. It has a much different tone than these quotes. 

What is it with these guys? They're nearly as bad as Sports Twitter. Charles Pierce of Esquire wrote a snarlish review of Simmons' Book of Basketball (on Deadspin, of course), mocking his frequent digressions into gambling, movies, his friends, and strip clubs, and concluding with the words, "Get the fuck over yourself." This lead to an angry exchange of emails and posts, during which Pierce called Simmons a "mendacious, whiny little thin-skinned bag of breeze."

I'm sure this wasn't mean-spirited though.

Several months later, Simmons hired Pierce as a staff writer, so presumably, all has been forgiven.

In the Deadspin article of outtakes from this interview, Bill will say he won't hire writers who beef with other writers on Twitter. This hire of Charles Pierce seems to prove this wrong. Maybe the difference is Simmons-Pierce didn't beef on Twitter. I'm not sure I see the difference in beefing in email form or over Twitter. Again, another little Simmons contradiction between his expectations for others and his personal actions. 

"ESPN was idiotic," says Simmons, who can match any athlete for self-confidence. "They fucked with my column for the first year, taking out jokes, and I was pissed off. They were rebuilding their site around me, but they were paying me nothing. So I had a meltdown: I didn't turn in a column. I was like, 'Attica! Attica!' " He laughs.

Bill is very, very lucky ESPN saw his talent and didn't tell him to hit the road. ESPN gave Bill a forum to become popular and this temper tantrums could easily lead to "What happened to the Boston Sports Guy?" articles in present time. 

It wasn't Simmons' last fight with his bosses. They've suspended him from Twitter twice for tweets: for referring to Boston sports-radio hosts who worked for an ESPN affiliate as "deceitful scumbags," and also for saying an interview that aired on ESPN was "awful and embarrassing."

But again, Bill wasn't angry about this. He didn't do this in anger or to be mean. He works for ESPN so how could he be compared to a random person on the Internet/Twitter who would call Bill a "deceitful scumbag" or say he's "awful and embarrassing." It's totally different when Bill does it because he is famous and the random person on the Internet/Twitter is not. There are things that it is okay for Bill Simmons to do, while he is proud to look down on others for doing those same things.

Convincing the network to do 30 For 30 required "a year of arm-twisting," he says. When it was a success, and his basketball book had been a big hit, his contract was up for renewal. "I had a little leverage." He told ESPN that he wanted his own site, or he'd leave and do it elsewhere.

"When we were launching, we didn't realize technology advances would help us so much." GIFs, Instapaper, wi-fi, embeddable links — all foster the ease of promoting a digital magazine. "The iPad has been a godsend — it's probably the greatest thing that's' happened to Grantland. Nobody knew the fucking iPad was coming. I didn't. We hit at the right time."

And the part that Bill won't acknowledge, being backed by ESPN helped so much too. Having Grantland cross-promoted across multiple ESPN forums and media, allowing Bill the money and name to hire big name writers so these writers feel comfortable a move from CNNSI.com to Grantland isn't a lateral move, and just overall helping Grantland get started so it gains momentum and works. That's partly because ESPN is behind him, though I'm sure Bill won't acknowledge this. 

Let's be a little honest here. Even the success of Bill's books are partly attributed to his affiliation with ESPN. I give Bill a lot of credit, he did a hell of a job building his brand, but his first book was a collection of his ESPN columns and his second book benefited from Bill's presence on Page 2 and ESPN.com. Bill of course had something to do with it, but I don't think Bill ever gives ESPN enough credit for his successes. But why would he? Having the largest sports media site behind him couldn't have been an advantage for the success of his (admittedly great) ideas, could it? He's fortunate he didn't bite the hand that fed him too hard early in his career.

Now that he oversees an empire, Simmons says he doesn't care as much about Boston teams. "It's not life-or-death anymore," he says with a shrug.

And it shows. It shows in the articles Bill writes. He's just like the everyday fan, if that everyday fan became wealthy, rejected the method on which he became wealthy, forgot where he came from and then dismissed those things he once liked and kept him grounded for those things which make him a lot of money and fame. For Bill, this is probably a win. He's not the guy who lives and dies by his teams, though this does call into question the assertion early in this article that "every game is life or death in Boston." It seems it's life or death for Bill until it becomes about money and fame. 

But that might not be true. His daughter loves L.A.'s hockey team, the Kings, so he took her to see them play his team, the Bruins. "Boston won, and I taunted her on the way home. She started crying. She was, like, six years old."

Wow, what a big man. Hopefully Bill does make $5 million per year so he can pay for his daughter's therapy when she gets older. But hey, taunting a six year old until she cries, that's pretty fucking manly. 

You know what I'm going to ask...is taunting a six year old "crazy" or "mean-spirited"? 

A few years later, they went to another Kings-Bruins game, and this time her team won. "She was yelling and high-fiving everyone," Simmons says, "and she taunted me."

Bill probably smacked her. That'll learn her to taunt the great Bill Simmons!

So here is the Deadspin article on the 18 things left out of this Bill Simmons profile. 

I ate sushi with Bill in L.A., watched him tape podcasts in New York, talked to him on the phone, and emailed with him, and when it was over, I had a bunch of quotes that didn't fit into my Rolling Stone profile, but would, I thought, interest Simmonsologists,

I have no idea where the word "Simmonsologists" comes from, but if you search my archive I first used the term in 2008 as a tag on a Bill Simmons post. Carry on...

1) There will probably be another edition of The Book of Basketball
 

"I've got to re-do the pyramid to figure out where LeBron James is. I think I'd put him sixth, all time. Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and then LeBron. Kevin Durant might be in the top 50 or 60 now. Dirk Nowitzki moved into the top 20. Maybe I'll charge people half-price, or you can get a discount if you bring back your copy of the old book." 

Right, I bet this will happen. Sure. I'm sure Bill's publisher will be perfectly happy with this happening. 

4) David Stern hates him.
 

"David Stern hates me. I wrote some negative stuff about him during the last lockout, and I think he took it personally. I sat next to him at a documentary screening once. He said to his wife, 'This is Bill Simmons.' There was a little contempt in his voice. She shook my hand like I had just pooped in it."

I'm sure it's nothing a little Gus Johnson brokering a handshake or two won't fix. 

5) If you want a job at Grantland, stop being a jerk on Twitter.
 

"We have a kind of 'no dicks' policy. We try to hire decent people, not people who are assholes or cause trouble.

Hmmm...would 1997 Bill Simmons get hired by Grantland? It doesn't sound like it. Also, Bill has been suspended by ESPN for being a jerk on Twitter. So it's another case of "Do as I say, not as I do" from Bill...which of course fine since he is the editor-in-chief of Grantland, but it also doesn't make me a jerk or mean-spirited for pointing this contradiction out. 

8) He jinxed the Pats' 2008 Super Bowl victory.
 

"When there were two minutes left in the game, my dad and I took a picture with the scoreboard behind us, like, 'Hey, we're going to go 19-0!' And I do feel like that might have singlehandedly swung the game. People don't mention that. They mention the [David] Tyree catch, but they don't mention that picture, or God going, 'Really? You're taking a picture? Alright, watch me change the outcome of this game.' The larger point is, every Pats fan felt that way. Karma killed us." 

If Bill is being serious about this then his self-absorption has reached an all-time new high. "People don't mention that Bill singlehandedly swung the game." This has to be Bill being not serious, though it is hard to tell since Bill tends to be pretty fucking self-absorbed at times. He may really think the fact he and his dad took a picture with the scoreboard behind them changed the outcome of the game. 

12) He might leave ESPN.
 

The NBA's current TV deals with ABC/ESPN and TNT run through the 2015-2016 season, and Fox Sports and even NBC are expected to bid aggressively for subsequent rights. "My contract expires next year. If ESPN doesn't have the broadcast rights to the NBA, it will make me re-evaulate what I should do next. I want to work for whoever has the NBA."

I see Bill is already renegotiating his next contract with ESPN by pretending he would leave. Maybe he would, who knows? I've heard this stuff before though and it didn't happen. 

13) He's made peace with nearly everyone he's antagonized.
 

"Doc Rivers and I talked on the phone. Isiah Thomas and I did a handshake hug. I think the guy who's maddest at me now is Rick Barry. I said in my book that he was unlikeable. He was! He was the most loathed guy in the league, probably of all time.

I'm still having trouble reconciling Bill's anger towards Internet comments and his suggestion he only hires "nice guys" on Twitter for Grantland with the fact he's antagonized sports figures in print and on Twitter. 

14) ESPN is his other spouse.
 

"I had a weird epiphany about ESPN last Christmas. Sometimes my wife gets mad because I watch football all day—which is funny, since me watching sports pays for everything.

Even if true, it's not a thing to say. 

ESPN is a complicated place. Many people have used pieces of the company to their advantage. You can do a radio show and go home, or you can do a radio show, then badger the website until they let you write for them. I've probably done it the best, and I don't mean that as a compliment to myself."

By Bill saying, "I don't mean that as a compliment to myself" I think Bill entirely means this as a compliment to himself. Really, I don't know another way this can be taken. 

16) Joe Montana > Tom Brady.
 

"The rules were different when he played. Guys could dive at his knees, hit him in the head, crush his receivers over the middle. If Brady wins a fourth Super Bowl, then I'd say Brady."

This is a good example of Simmons logic. He attributes the difference in Brady and Montana to the rules changes, then says if Brady wins EXACTLY AS MANY SUPER BOWLS AS MONTANA WON, then Brady was the better quarterback. So basically, Montana is the better quarterback because he's won more Super Bowls. But yeah, rule changes and all...that's the reason. Sure. 

Anyway, read the Bill Simmons piece at "Rolling Stone." It's interesting for no other reason than to hear Bill go from the blogger who criticizes sportswriters using his opinion of that sportswriter's work to the multi-media mogel who thinks anyone who criticizes sportswriters using their opinion of that sportswriter's work is mean-spirited and that's why he essentially ignores criticism of work he or Grantland has done.

4 comments Dan Shaughnessy Hates Ideas and Loves it When the Red Sox Fail

The Boston Globe seems to have put Dan Shaughnessy behind a pay wall, which makes me laugh. They expect people to pay to read his writing? This would be like a supermarket packaging pig feces and then trying to sell it for $10/pound to their customers. Sure, customers may want pig feces if it is free. After all, you never know when having pig feces around may pay off, but customers certainly aren't going to pay for it. I'm sure Shaughnessy won't be behind a pay wall for too much longer.

Dan Shaughnessy chuckles at the idea the Red Sox need more input from Bill James. He chuckles so much at the idea Bill James has anything positive to provide the Red Sox that the curls on his head bounce and his Rosecea flames his face up so red, it looks like he is choking. Earlier this year, Shaughnessy was on the Bobby Valentine bandwagon (or maybe not, he was probably playing both sides), but now that Valentine has been a disaster Dan Shaughnessy hates every suggestion to improve the Red Sox and provides no suggestions of his own. One thing we know for sure, Bill James isn't the answer Shaughnessy is looking for.

Picked-up pieces while chuckling over the Yankees’ imitation of the 2011 Red Sox . . .
Dan thrives on the misery of others. He thrives when the Red Sox can't win games and when other MLB teams can't win games. Of course if the Yankees did a better imitation of the 2011 Red Sox then that would mean the 2011 Red Sox collapse was no longer the worst collapse in baseball history and Dan Shaughnessy could no longer rub this in the face of Red Sox fans. So I'm assuming he doesn't want the 2012 Yankees to surpass the collapse of the 2011 Red Sox. Dan thrives on the Red Sox misery and we can't have any other team's misery overshadowing the misery of the Red Sox.

You have to hand it to John Henry. Overseeing the worst Boston baseball team since the mid ’60s . . .

But hey, Bill Simmons is interested again! That means a lot to everyone.

The 1992 Red Sox were 73-89 and the 1994 Red Sox went 54-61 in a strike-shortened season. So I would argue this may not be the worst Boston team since the mid '60's as it was built at the beginning of the year. The 2012 version of the Red Sox was re-built to be bad in order to be good again. So there appears to be a purpose behind the terribleness of the Red Sox, not that Dan really cares about anything like "having a plan" or "reacting like a patient and thoughtful human being might react to a team going through a rough period."

readying for a return home to more phony sellouts with John Farrell managing in the other dugout . . .

So is Dan insinuating the Red Sox should have hired John Farrell? If so, the Red Sox totally should have fired Terry Francona after an 89-73 season in 2010 so they could have hired John Farrell, even though he had zero managerial experience. Other than the fact it would have made no sense at the time, it would have been a very smart move. It's so great what hindsight is able to teach us about what the Red Sox should have done two years ago. In retrospect, maybe the Red Sox shouldn't have signed Carl Crawford. If only the Red Sox had someone on staff who was against this Crawford signing at the actual time of the signing. Now THAT would be a person who was worth keeping around.

Hey wait, the Red Sox did have a guy who didn't seem enamored with the Crawford signing. He didn't like the way that Crawford would age. The Red Sox definitely need to keep this guy around and they know that right now. This is as opposed to Dan Shaughnessy having the experience of knowledge two years down the road and seeming to reach a conclusion he never would have reached two years prior to now when stating that John Farrell is in the Blue Jays dugout.

(It took me 10 minutes to get that sentence right and it still isn't right. Basically, the Red Sox would have had no reason in 2010 to fire Francona and hire Farrell, so complaining the Red Sox are playing against Farrell in 2012 as manager of the Blue Jays, as if he should be the manager of the Red Sox if management knew what they were doing is stupid.)

Anyone who clicked on those links knows by now, but the guy I say the Red Sox should keep around is Bill James...but Dan disagrees. I would think Dan would agree with James since Crawford is an example of everything "wrong" with the 2011 and 2012 Red Sox teams.

and the owner of the Boston Red Sox has come to the conclusion that the answer to all of the Sox’ problems is . . .WE NEED MORE BILL JAMES!

How stupid of them to rely on a person who was against one of the very signings that Dan Shaughnessy (seemingly) thinks the Red Sox should have never made. Just dumb! What the Red Sox should do is wait two years for the year 2014 and then try to figure out who they should have hired in 2012 to help solve the Red Sox problems. All problems and solutions can be identified using hindsight, and even if there is no way to solve these problems two years later, at least it makes Dan Shaughnessy feel smart to use hindsight in a sarcastic fashion.

Wow. Swell idea. Why not bring back Joe Kerrigan, Carl Everett, and Harry Frazee’s great-grandson, Max Frazee? Maybe we can round up Rick Pitino, Pete Carroll, Roger Clemens, Antoine Walker, Dave Lewis, Acie Earl, and Albert Haynes­worth while we’re at it.

Typical Dan Shaughnessy writing. He is packaging every Boston failure in with the idea of bringing Bill James back for a larger role, as if failure is endemic in the Boston area. He's so negative. Dan is choosing to chase negativity rather than focus on the fact Bill James has two World Series rings from the Red Sox in 2004 and 2007 for his contributions to those teams.

The last time we heard anything from James was back in mid-July when he made comments about Joe Paterno that might have gotten another man fired. Contrarian Bill said Joe Pa knew less about Jerry Sandusky “than everyone else there.’’

Bill James' opinion on Joe Paterno is completely irrelevant when it comes to his ability to judge baseball talent.

A few days after those remarks went public, Henry and Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington had a talk with James. They told him to stop talking about Paterno. Then they issued a joint statement, distancing the ball club from James and telling us that they told him to cease and desist.

James' comments were stupid. There's no doubt about that, but his comments have nothing to do with whether he can be successful in his role with the Red Sox.

I assumed they also revoked his phone privileges and recommended he stay in the windowless basement of his Kansas abode.

Ba-da-boom!

Bill James is a stupid blogger who lives in a windowless basement because he spends all of his time in his basement because he doesn't like sunlight because bloggers don't like sunlight. This is as opposed to Dan Shaughnessy who is lily-white but the only reason he doesn't go out in public is because 90% of the people who read the Boston Globe want to kick his ass.

Henry tells the Herald’s Michael Silverman, “One of the biggest issues we’ve had is that Bill James was a great resource for us but fell out of favor over the last few years for reasons I don’t really understand. We’ve gotten him more involved recently in the central process and that will help greatly.’’

James, we are told, was not a fan of the Carl Crawford acquisition.

One would think being against the Carl Crawford signing is a sure sign that Bill James perhaps should be involved in the central process more actively. A person who thought this would not be named "Dan Shaughnessy." Despite the fact Shaughnessy thinks nearly everything the Red Sox have done over the last two years was a mistake, he also believes re-involving a member of the Red Sox staff who uses "data" is also a mistake.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, but then it is hard to make sense when the central position in every column Dan writes is that everything is broken and nothing can be fixed in regard to whatever solution is being suggested. Dan believes the Red Sox need a change of direction, but he doesn't think re-involving James is this necessary change of direction. Perhaps Dan believes bitching, moaning and trolling Red Sox fans is the only way to truly solve any issues the team has.

Dan is at-heart a lousy politician. Everyone else's idea for a solution are terrible ideas, but Dan has no suggestions of his own and brings nothing to the table. He just knows that certain idea sucks.

Wow. Theo Epstein’s fault again, right? Apparently, everybody was powerless over the wishes of the bad boy GM in the final days.

It just seems James' point of view on Crawford was not heeded. That's all. The Red Sox are saying, "Maybe that guy who had some ideas which partially contributed to two World Series titles should be listened to a bit closer from now on." Considering the Carl Crawford signing went over like a led zeppelin I would think Dan would support a member of the Red Sox staff who spoke this view about Crawford having a larger role in the organization.

More Bill James. We’re told that Larry Lucchino runs the Red Sox. We’re told that Cherington is going to be allowed to actually be a general manager.

Cherington will be allowed to be the general manager, but Bill James' point of view may take on more weight now. This isn't a difficult concept to understand as long as you are trying to understand the concept and not being stagnant and willfully stupid.

Great. Let’s get some data to find out how the Sox can solve their problems.

Yeah, let's not use data to solve problems. Let's just continue to sign the biggest free agent available and see how that works. I can't imagine how this wouldn't work.

Dan is a great backseat analyst. He knows every single problem the Red Sox face, but he has no fucking clue on how to formulate his own solution to these problems. That's not his job. His job is to serve as the person who says every idea is stupid. I can't fathom how the idea of using data to solve the issues the Red Sox team faces is a bad idea. What's the alternative to using data? Using the Red Sox own two eyes to determine how to turn the team around? John Lackey and Carl Crawford looked really good when viewed through a person's eyes.

All those losses certainly must have something to do with UZR and Wins Above Replacement.

Let's allow Dan to derisively mock something he doesn't completely understand. It only shows his ignorance, which he is too ignorant to understand.

Who needs human interaction or eye contact?

Bill James is a blogger who loves stats. He hates human interaction and has a disorder which prevents him from having the confidence to make eye contact with other humans. This is the same boring cliche and half-assed joke 100 other sportswriters have made about Sabermetricians instead of actually taking the time to understand and develop a knowledge about Sabermetrics.

A person doesn't have to like or agree with another person's point of view, but derisively discussing that point of view while engaging in cliched and tired stereotypes, while clearly not having a full knowledge of that point of view is absolutely an offense newspapers should force their writers to move away from. This is the reason newspapers are dying. They can't or refuse to connect with an audience they have some animosity towards. The Boston Globe allows Shaughnessy to write his columns in such as a way as to be trolling his audience. I have come to the conclusion the only way Dan could be fired is if he murdered someone, and even then the Globe would probably allow Shaughnessy one more column to taunt the family of the person he killed. The Globe favors cheap sports journalism that provides pageviews over thought-provoking sports journalism that can build a customer base. That's some of what is wrong with newspapers and sports journalism.

More Bill James is guaranteed to make the Sox right.

No one has stated hiring Bill James will make the Red Sox right. Stating that Bill James will have more involvement in the evaluation process for the Red Sox isn't putting him out there as a cure-all, but is simply stating he will have something productive to offer. Of course, if Dan Shaughnessy overstates what the Red Sox intentions are for James then he will consider himself as being correct when the Red Sox don't win 8-10 World Series titles in a row.

Sorry if this column is too short. I’m a little winded after running a sub-three-hour marathon with Paul Ryan.

Look a politically relevant comment!

Convincing Dan Shaughnessy that he does in fact suck at writing a coherent and persuasive column is like convincing an 82 year old man not to talk to a chair.

4 comments Watch Out Minka Kelly, Ian O'Connor Wants to Give The Jeter a Thorough Back Rub

You may not have heard, but Derek Jeter got his 3,000th hit recently. This story fell under the radar, but it does deserve some recognition. Fortunately, that's why Ian O'Connor exists, to give attention to Derek Jeter. So he's written one of the most embarrassing odes to Derek Jeter that has ever been read by the public. I am 76% certain this was not supposed to be for public consumption and O'Connor was writing all of these thoughts down in his diary and accidentally sent it to ESPN.com for publication. ESPN.com upon seeing this article and comparing to the other journalism on the site thought it was just fantastic and published it. So we have what appears to either be an embarrassing journalistic come-on, which means Minka Kelly better watch the fuck out, or Ian O'Connor just really, really, really enjoys watching Derek Jeter play baseball.

Here are my favorite parts of this load of crap. I won't comment a lot, because it isn't necessary.

The ball was in the air, disappearing into the kind of white clouds Norman Rockwell loved to paint, and Derek Jeter watched it the way a child watches a runaway balloon floating across a midsummer sky.

Read this sentence again. Try not to laugh. I dare you.

This is some crap a 7th grade English teacher would given a "D-," then smack the child across the face for being stupid, step on the child's foot and immediately send them to the school nurse for drug testing.

He was young again. We were all young again.

I went out driving later that day and it turns out I wasn't old enough to drive a car anymore. Apparently I was 12 years old again. The policeman who pulled me over and I got a good laugh about this as we reminisced over how young the Jeter makes us feel.

These two sentences make Baby Jesus cry...but at least he's young again!

The script was so wonderfully absurd, the shortstop said, "I wouldn't have even bought it."

The Jeter wouldn't have bought it because it didn't have breasts nor was it a famous brunette. Those are the criteria The Jeter requires.

Jeter didn't merely become the 28th major leaguer and first Yankee to reach 3,000 hits, and the only man not named Wade Boggs to do so with a homer; he turned the afternoon into a this-is-your-life review of his greatness, claiming five hits and the winning RBI against the Tampa Bay Rays and choking the life out of the non-stop talk of his imminent demise.

No, it didn't. If Jeter goes 0-15 over his next four games, he is still batting 0.250 during that span. Demise still imminent.

One last time, with feeling, Jeter was No. 2 in your program and No. 1 in your heart.

Warning: This sentence could kill your kitten. Don't let your kitten read this sentence.

But Price lost the duel for No. 2,999 in the first inning, when the shortstop singled through the hole near short on a 3-2 pitch. "He could've thrown it in the dugout," Jeter said, "and I would have swung."

Oh, Yankees fans are well aware of that. No need to remind them.

"You want to hit the ball hard," Jeter said. "I didn't want to hit a slow roller to third base and have that be replayed forever."

Because The Jeter is so important, his 3,000th hit will be replayed forever. On a loop. In the sky. Just so the angels can see it and have a better view.

But nothing interfered with Jeter's sense of theater, then or now. Saturday, with a full Stadium house standing and chanting his name, the captain wasn't about to settle for an inside-out bloop over the second baseman's head.

If it had been a bloop, Jeter would have requested the at-bat been done over so he could get a better hit. The umpire would allow it without a shred of hesitation. The umpire just wants to feel young again.

Jeter punched a single past the drawn-in defense to put the Yankees ahead for good and, incredibly, match his career high of five hits.

Somewhere in Vegas, Pete Rose was nervous.

Rose was actually nervous because he had bet $100,000 Jeter wouldn't ever go 6 for 6 during a game in his career and Rose wasn't planning on paying out this money if he lost. The life of a gambler never rests.

In the Bronx, Jeter was partying like it was 1999. "My mentality is still that I'm young," the shortstop said.

I AM YOUNG NOW TOO! THANKS BE TO THE JETER!

"I don't care how much his ability has diminished, I guess you could say," Joe Torre said. "At 37, it is no surprise that you are not as good as you were at 27. But he still scares me if I'm in the other dugout."

What's really scary is how much sugary, hero-worship crap has been written about Jeter after he hit his 3,000th hit. Let's cut back on it please.

"I grew up with these fans," he said.

He rewarded them with a simple gift.

The gift of hitting his 3,000th hit so ESPN would shut the fuck up about wondering when he was going to hit it. Thanks be to The Jeter.

By playing baseball the way he played it in his prime, Derek Jeter made everyone in the house feel like a little kid.

The only thing worse than using a shitty cliche like this is using the same shitty cliche about everyone feeling young again 4-5 times in the same article. Ian O'Connor talks so much about being a kid and feeling young he should be a registered sex offender at this point.

Ian O'Connor is the author of The Captain: The Journey of Derek Jeter.

You mean Ian O'Connor worships this athlete and writes doe-eyed articles about the very athlete he wrote a book about, and therefore profits from this athlete's hero worship when people read his book? I didn't see that one coming.

The only thing missing from this article is a smiley face at the end and lines where Ian O'Connor practices writing his new name, Ian O'Jeter, which is much cooler than Ian Jeter. Gay marriage is legal in New York now, so I think we just saw Ian O'Connor make his move.

The ball was in the air, disappearing into the kind of white clouds Norman Rockwell loved to paint, and Derek Jeter watched it the way a child watches a runaway balloon floating across a midsummer sky.

Yes, that sentence actually got written.

10 comments A Sad Day for Mike Wilbon

Don't get me wrong: I love Mike Wilbon. Pardon The Interruption, in my opinion, the best sports television show on ESPN (Hence my old blog title's name, Pardon The Opinion). But his recent transition to the written word has soured my disposition. Clearly, he is no stranger to pen and paper. The Washington Post housed his ramblings for quite some time before ESPN scooped him up. But what separates him from the other ESPN regulars is his biting, Bengoodfella-type commentary. On PTI, neither he nor Kornheiser (talking about Tony should probably be an entirely different conversation) subscribe to the unequivocal praise the mainstream journalism pumps out on a daily basis. Instead, they bash and criticize athletes and teams without equivocation. In fact, I'm sort of surprised that shows like PTI and Around the Horn are even allowed to air on ESPN.

Unfortunately, Wilbon recent foray into writing has signaled his transition into, "one of those guys." Normally I do not do a line by line dismantling of writers (as fun as it seems), but I believe that it is time. I still, and always will, enjoy Mike Wilbon on PTI. I even went back to the Washington Post archives and enjoyed many of his musings. But since Wilbon began writing for the almighty corporation, a growing trend has emerged. Today, my frustration came to a head. This puff piece on the Chicago Bulls leaves me utterly disappointed.

There was sobbing throughout Northeast Ohio and plenty of whining in New York City when LeBron James decided to take his talents to South Beach. Meanwhile, in Chicago, Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah shrugged and went back to the gym.

Along with every other player not named Allen Iverson. I'm tired of the "this guy works harder than everyone else cliche. If so many guys work hard, then no one is actually working harder than anyone else. And to be honest, some players do not work hard. The entire Boston Celtics' roster spends every non-basketball minute resting their fragile shells. If they were to take the court on a more-than-necessary basis, impending doom would probably overwhelm the gym and send Pierce, Allen and Garnett into the depths of injury-plagued hell. After Garnett witnessed "The Decision," he probably continued icing his knee while murming trash talk to no one in particular. If there were ever a man predestined for senility, it was this guy.

[Rose] already thought his team worthy, and after Bulls management redirected its free-agent efforts and signed Carlos Boozer and Kyle Korver, Rose believed his boys could rumble with anybody. Nothing has changed his mind, especially now that Chicago has won six straight and begun to fully incorporate Boozer into the lineup since his debut Dec. 1.

The only problem with the statement above is the statement below.

Don't get me wrong, this season's team isn't a finished product in terms of personnel -- acquiring a proven shooter is an absolute necessity.

It's OK, finally, to fall in love with the Bulls again, starting with the fact Rose and Noah didn't spend all summer begging for help; it's indicative of a tough-mindedness that ought to immediately endear this squad to Chicago.

Most players would not beg for LeBron. Most players want to win on their own. Is this not the debate the has continued to permeate every aspect of NBA discussion? LeBron choosing wins (well, at least that's what he planned) over glory is the unique move, not Rose and Noah watching their roles diminished by the addition of another superstar.

Not trading Noah -- in fact, doing just the opposite and signing him to a long-term deal -- already has proved to be the right move, if for no other reason than Noah's value to the Bulls is so much greater than his statistical contribution, even his prolific rebounding.

Trading Noah may have upset team chemistry, but take a look at the NBA over time: talent almost always defeats chemistry in the long run. You may point to the Heat as the perfect counter example, but we are yet to surpass the 30-game mark of the season. The Lakers add Pau and they get 3 straight finals appearances and two titles. Boston acquires Garnett and Allen and chemistry magically ignites, leading to 1 and 1/2 NBA titles (they gave away last year's title. As much as I appreciate Derek Fisher's ability in the clutch, he should never be the reason a team wins an NBA title. Sure, Pau played well but the corpse of Derek Fisher brought it home).

Noah is one tough SOB, as evidenced by him playing through a right hand injury. Rose is toughness squared. And the rest of the Bulls had better take a cue from them. Each was instrumental in leading his college team to the NCAA title game, which historically has forecast a degree of success in the NBA.

I love unprovable generalities.

He made himself a better 3-point shooter the old-fashioned way: by practicing the darned thing until he got it right.

If it were that easy, the entire NBA would do it. Apply that to free throws and maybe Shaq hits 75% from the line. Imagine the NBA titles/scoring titles/unstoppability due to the loss of hack-a-Shaq that would ensue.

Rose's emergence as a 25-point scorer and the acquisition of Boozer means Deng, who is so much more comfortable in Tom Thibodeau's offense than he was in Vinny Del Negro's, should be much more effective as a guy who is often the team's No. 3 scoring option. The clamor to trade Deng (along with Taj Gibson) for Carmelo Anthony has rightly quieted.

When Derrick Rose gets triple teamed and needs another perimeter scorer to help out, luckily he can look to Deng instead of Carmelo. Noah would have been part of that deal as well, but you can replace a Noah for half the price. You don't pay for energy/rebounders, especially when that negates a Carmelo trade. They're everywhere (see Ronnie Turiaf).

And let's be honest. Does a team with Melo and Rose and Boozer have a worse chance against the Celtics than one of Noah, Rose and Boozer? It's not even a comparison.

Though Carmelo is one of the league's top seven or eight players, and though teams that acquire great players in exchange for nice players usually make out like bandits in the long term, the Bulls would have had to rework everything had they traded for Carmelo.

I just hate the general "I'm going to support the contrarian argument simply because it sounds nice" cliche. Sure, they would have to rework a bit, but are you telling me that 50 games is not long enough to get to know each other?

You would not want to take the ball from Rose, or let go of Noah or Gibson, or do anything that would dramatically change the Bulls from what they appear to be at the moment, which is no worse than the third-best team in the Eastern Conference, depending on how convinced you are that Miami has found its stride.

Third best in the East does not equal best in the East. Nor does it mean you can defeat any top West team. So you can have 3rd best with just Rose guiding the offense, or a Melo/Rose tandem terrifying opposing defenses. Seems like an easy choice.

0 comments Puff Pieces On Old People Using Cliches

I put a message up on the Yahoo Football board with a possible compromise to our current situation. Give feedback for those that care on what you think about it.

It's been a long week in my part of the woods and to add to my misery, there hasn't been a whole lot of bad journalism this week. It's so bad even a Bill Simmons column isn't worth tackling for this week and there are times I would love to write about one his columns just to make fun of him.

Before I get to a puff piece Bill Plaschke wrote about an old scout, I want to share a conversation I heard on PTI yesterday between Kornheiser and Wilbon. I just can't even fathom how sportswriters can be so stupid after working in the business for so long...hell, maybe that is the problem they work in the business too long and get stupid. They were discussing Jamie Moyer's move to the bullpen to make room for Pedro Martinez and the conversation went something (I am trying my best to remember...but I get the key points) like this.

(Wilbon) "Jamie Moyer is not happy he is moving to the bullpen with Pedro Martinez, does he have a case Tony?"

(Kornheiser) "He does. He leads the team with 10 wins and even Ruben Amaro, Jr. recognizes he may have misled Moyer a little bit, saying he signed him 'under the pretense of starting.'"

(Wilbon) "He really has been awful this year though. He has an ERA of over 5.00 Tony. That's really not good."

(Kornheiser) "He has 10 wins this year, which leads the team! They can't just put him in the bullpen when he has more wins than anyone else on the staff."

(Wilbon) "He has the worst ERA of all qualifying starting pitchers though Tony, he is not pitching well this year."

(Kornheiser) "Moyer is also a known quantity in the locker room and nobody knows Pedro Martinez in that Phillies clubhouse. I think we could be looking at another Rip Hamilton-Allen Iverson situation here."

(Wilbon laughing that he still has to work with this moron) "You really think this is a situation like that."

(Kornheiser realizing he has made zero sense) "I think it could be a similar situation but I don't see how you just put Moyer in the bullpen."

Why is it sportswriters can't understand that wins are a product of run support? The Phillies scored double digit runs last night, pretty much any pitcher in Major League Baseball could have won the game last night. The best part was when Kornheiser realized he was making no freaking sense he just automatically switched to the "clubhouse leader" argument, which is the standard backup for a journalist when there is really not a case to be made for keeping a player in the day-to-day lineup, no matter the sport. If you have no point or are losing the argument, just say the player is a "clubhouse leader," that seems to be the sportswriter rule.

-Gary Parrish thinks coaches have been fired for less than what Rick Pitino has done.

Remember, Eustachy was pushed out of Iowa State after photographs of him partying with young women and drinking cheap beer surfaced. It was a bad deal, no question. But was it worse than a married man nailing a stranger on a table in a restaurant, and then paying for a subsequent abortion?

Rick Pitino is never going to get fired. There is no way it is happening. If his name wasn't Rick Pitino he would be fired already, but he has a National Championship and has the Louisville basketball team in the Top 25 every single year. People are offended by his actions but a Louisville basketball team that doesn't have the name recognition and recruiting prowess of a Rick Pitino Louisville basketball team offends these people even more.

I never had that much respect for Rick Pitino as it is, but what little I had left is pretty much gone now. His idea the money he gave the woman he was sleeping with was NOT for an abortion and was for health insurance is bullshit. The simple fact is he gave a pregnant woman who wanted an abortion and had no health insurance $3,000. There's no difference in what the money was for and what is was used for. I am sure he didn't write "for abortion" or "for health insurance" in the description part of the check. I am not so stupid enough to believe Pitino when he says the money was not for an abortion.

I'd keep Rick Pitino as my head coach, and all indications are that he will indeed continue as Louisville's head coach. But it took a couple of radio guys in Iowa to remind me that coaches (specifically Eustachy) have been removed for much less,

I don't think Pitino will get fired but this incident has put him on notice at the University of Louisville. Basically the team has one more reason to fire him if the team starts to perform poorly. If the school had any guts they would fire him, but if Pitino had any guts he would quit. I don't know how he is expected to go into a recruit's house and talk about his program with any sort of a straight face. How can he even talk to his team this year with everyone knowing his extracurricular actions have revealed him as someone has sex with women in restaurants, gets them pregnant and then tries to lie about why he gave her money. This is embarrassing for the school, but I fully expect him to be the head coach this year and next.

I am not jumping up on my high horse or anything. There is a different attitude in college athletics towards actions such as this because Pitino is dealing with kids who he serves as a role model for and he is also possibly one of the few male authority figures in their lives as well. There is not a higher standard for him as a person but he should set a higher standard for himself just based on the fact he represents the school and everything he does reflects on the school in some way.

-This is probably my favorite FJMorgan post they ever did. It was about Bill Plaschke and his fascination with puff pieces on old people. Well, Plaschke has done it again.

The old scout has a shuffling gait from years of chasing prospects, deep wrinkled skin cancer from doing it in the sun, declining vision from describing it all in tiny handwritten notes on crumpled paper.

He hasn't literally been "chasing" prospects Plaschke. I would say this "gait" is due to this old scout being old and not being able to walk as well as he used to.

When I first read this sentence, my initial thought was, "I really hope this guy isn't still driving a car," which of course he is. Call me crazy but an elderly gentleman who can barely walk anymore, and can't see either, isn't the type of person I like to meet out on the roads of America.
Even more compelling is what he doesn't have.

No wife, no children, no air conditioning in his cluttered, ancient house on a hill near Dodger Stadium, and no more expense account from his bosses with the Seattle Mariners.

I feel like I am reading a 9th grade paper. Plaschke has a real problem getting subtlety across in his columns. There have been four paragraphs and we have already been treated to descriptions of "a shuffling gait," "his cluttered, ancient house," and "tiny handwritten notes." We get it. He's old.

During the middle of this week's national high school showcase Area Code Games at USC, the old scout excuses himself from his folding chair to return to his battered convertible parked on a nearby street.

Unable to afford the campus lot, he has to feed the meter.

How much is the campus lot? I need to know this because if the meter is $1.00/hour and there are 3 sets of games, he could be looking at paying $9.00 to park. I can't imagine the campus lot would be that much more expensive with a visitor's pass.

Also, where does he get all the quarters from? Is he constantly pulling them from behind a young child's ear?

"I'm beat up and broke down," Phil Pote says, laughing. "If you don't slow down, you will end up like me."

You will end up like me.

I don't even know what that means. His job is to sit in the stands and scout baseball players, then get in his car and go sit and scout other baseball players. This isn't exactly the rat race he is involved in. I know there is a lot of travel involved with being a scout but it seems from all indications in this article that Pote only scouts in a small area. I am not trying to disrespect the profession but I don't get how he needs to "slow down."

Once a scout reaches the age of 76 like Southland legend Pote, there is no way to retire gracefully, so they simply don't retire.

I wonder if Bill Plaschke can write a sentence that is not a cliche.

Why is there no way to retire gracefully? You walk into the office of the team you work for and say you have saved up enough money and are looking to retire. Farewell, goodbye.

When you offer to meet Pote at his home, he sets up two folding chairs down the left-field line of a prep baseball game.

"This is my home," he says.

Oh Jesus. Not only is Bill Plaschke writing in cliches, this Pote guy is a walking cliche. These two are perfect for each other. If there was any justice in this world, these two could get married and move to a gritty ranch in Montana and write books about the majesty of senior citizens together using only cliches, 3-5 word sentences and a paragraph for each sentence.

Plaschke writes like he is writing a children's book. Every sentence would be a new page.

While other scouts are ensconced in bleacher seats in the shade, Pote opts for a better view under the sun.

This could be why he has skin cancer. I don't feel sorry for him, I just think he is stupid for not sitting in the shade if given the opportunity.

"It's not about seeing better, it's about hearing better," he says. "I want to hear the ball off the bat. I want to hear the players talk. I want to hear the game."

Yet he says this with a giant hearing aid in each ear.

Possibly Bill Plaschke is confused about the purpose of a hearing aid. Hearing aids are worn to help people hear things better. Perhaps Bill Plaschke believes hearing aids are worn to signify that someone is elderly, gritty and sun drenched. I don't really know, but I am pretty sure after reading the last sentence he doesn't know what a hearing aid does.

Nothing given, it seems, and everything taken.

We are not talking about soldiers, someone who takes in and cares for mentally/physically handicapped children or a social worker who brings food to poor children in third world countries. We are talking about a baseball scout who makes a living watching people play baseball and then grades them on well they play. Quit the melodrama.

"Like any old scout, I'm full of b.s." Pote says. "But I think I dispelled enough of it over the years that there isn't any left."

You will end up like me.

Quit repeating that sentence. If Bill Plaschke had any pride left in his lisp loving body, he would be embarrassed at the way he repeats statements like this...but he doesn't.

First thing you notice is, it's tough for Pote to watch a game from his spot down the left-field line because his view is increasingly blocked.

Stretched golf shirts everywhere, scouts leaving the stands and lining up to say hello to him, to thank him, to pump that fist.

Everyone either loves Phil Pote or they don't want to give him a chance to scout the players. I prefer to look at it from the jaded point of view that his fellow scouts don't want him to be able to see the game and scout the players they want to scout.

Like many scouts, he not only found prospects, he groomed them, spending more than 30 years coaching inner-city Los Angeles baseball in places like Fremont High, Locke High and Los Angeles City College.

"He would go places nobody else would go," remembers Derrel Thomas, a longtime major leaguer who went to Dorsey High.

(Bengoodfella whispering) "Does that mean he would go where black people lived?"

Derrel Thomas may be a new entry in the category of "Most Underachieving First Pick of the Draft Ever." Check out these badass numbers.

During Pote's 50 years scouting for the Oakland Athletics, Dodgers and Mariners, he signed several notable major leaguers, including Matt Keough, Chet Lemon and Wayne Gross.

Chet Lemon, that was a pretty good signing. Matt Keough sounded pretty familiar to me and now I know why. An All-Star pitcher with a career losing record AND he now he has a slight drinking problem? Now that is a good signing!

The third thing you notice is that Phil Pote does all of this the hard way.

I would like to know at what point doing something "the hard way" became honorable? Call me a jerk but it just seems stupid, not honorable, to try and do your job the hard way.

Unlike virtually every other scout alive, he doesn't use a computer, he has no e-mail address, he has never accessed the Internet. Unlike most scouts, he also doesn't use a radar gun or video camera, nothing but a stopwatch and a stare.

Which, with all due respect, could explain why he has been working for 50 years and his notable signings are all from the 1960's and 1970's. Again, with all due respect to Phil Pote, if you aren't using technology like this to evalute players then you probably don't have a place in scouting today. You should probably be fired. If he worked in what I call "the real world" meaning "my exact job" and I insisted on working with a typewriter and writing all my notes down by hand, I would be fired fairly quickly.

"I came into this world without all that technology, I will leave without it," says Pote.

He came into this world without his hearing aids, yet he still uses THAT technology to hear better. Go figure.

Also, unlike everyone in all areas of baseball, Pote doesn't work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, as he observes his Sabbath as a Seventh Day Adventist.

I tried this at a job interview once. It didn't work.

Listen to the story of how Crenshaw's Darryl Strawberry signed his first contract with the New York Mets only after Pote -- who didn't even work for the Mets -- assured him that he was being treated fairly.

So far we have been treated to four players who Pote had a hand in signing and two of them have had substance abuse problems at some point in their lives. I just wanted to point this out.

Listen to the story of how Pote's Fremont team wore uniforms with giant numbers because he wanted them to walk into hostile suburban schools with oversized pride.

Well, that and as Bill Plaschke mentioned earlier Phil Pote can't see that well anymore. It's hard to manage a team when you can't read the numbers on your own teams uniforms.

Oversized numbers caused oversized pride? What are the odds the suburban school kids made fun of the oversized numbers and Pote's players by saying the numbers were big because they were stupid or something?

"Phil Pote was my inspiration for that program," says Young, a former major leaguer from south Los Angeles. "I remember I signed my first contract and I bought a new car and I was cruising around when I ran into Phil."

He ran into Phil with his new car? That would be a much interesting story.

"I don't have much time left," Pote says. "I'm just an old beat-up guy, but I'm hoping somebody will still listen."

I am still waiting for a quote from Pote that is not a cliche or cliche based...

Tacked to the backstop of a green gem of a baseball field is a square wooden sign

"Pote Field" it reads.

Here Bill Plaschke boldly takes on decades of English sentence structure rules and decides to start a new paragraph without ending the last paragraph in a period.

By the way, the most sentences any paragraph had on this page of Plaschke's column was 2 sentences and it only happened twice. Yes, every other paragraph is one sentence long...and he doesn't even use run-on sentences like I do.

You will end up like me.

An elderly gentleman with skin cancer who lives out of a car and refuses to use modern technology to do his job and speaks in cliches. I really hope not. That being said, I really like his straw hat.

Cliche count (by sentence): 16.