Bill Simmons: Kind Of A Drama Queen?

[Ed. note - 1:57PM: It has been brought to my attention that some of the assumptions I made in this post were wrong and I've corrected them in this post. However, I stand by the title and general premise of the article.]

Yesterday during the Max Kellerman Show on 1050 ESPN Radio in New York, the Sports Fella popped on. They two are excellent foils to each other as both have unique perspectives and represent New York and Boston, respectively. They would make a fantastic radio combo, but ESPN would never put them together. Simmons anti-establishment position has been well-documented, and Kellerman has clashed with executives at ESPN, as well as FOX.

So, yesterday it took Simmons all of thirty seconds to start complaining about ESPN and their restrictive policies as to which radio shows he can or can not appear on.

[Ed. Note: I had to edit out some of Kellerman's excessive verbal tics, but other than that, the transcript is basically word for word]

[around the 0:40 mark (open that link in a new window)]

Max Kellerman: ...then I was mentioning, like, how you have a standing invite to come onto this show and you have invited me onto your podcast and everything, but is it kind of like... you have a friend that you are friendly with and everything, but you are like "Come over" or "Yeah, we'll see you" but you don't really mean it...? Is that what it's like with us?

Bill Simmons: No. No, what I said was... You know, we have the rule that ESPN talent can only go on ESPN shows, which is fine, but, you know, there are some shows that I'd like to go on, and I'm not allowed to go on, but then the show that's going against that show, has never invited me on.

Max Kellerman: I see...

Bill Simmons: So, basically I'm just banned from whatever that time slot is...

Max Kellerman: Oh I see, I see, I see what you are saying...

Bill Simmons: Yeah, without getting into details...

The show that he'd "like to go on" is obviously the Max Kellerman Show, but he's obviously "allowed to go on", considering he was on it right then. The show airs from 10:00AM to 1:00PM on the New York affiliate. The show on opposite that on the national stream? The Herd with Colin Cowherd (who has never invited Simmons on). If you'll recall, there was a dust up between Simmons and Cowherd about a year and a half ago:

While we're here, my ESPN colleague Colin Cowherd mocked my seven trade scenarios for Kobe on the radio last week without reading the entire column or even attempting to understand its premise, namely, that the trade options for Kobe were limited because (A) he needed to go to a big market for a team that could contend right away, and (B) nobody pays 100 cents on the dollar for a team looking to unload an unhappy superstar.

And if that wasn't bad enough, Cowherd embarrassed himself by not understanding basic NBA trading principles like "it would be valuable for L.A. to swap Vlad Radmanovic's contract for Bobby Sura's expiring contract in a T-Mac/Kobe deal because Sura's contract expires in 2008, which would buy them some cap space down the road."

Look, I know the radio business lends itself to hosts lazily skimming other people's columns and blogs ... but seriously, Colin, in the words of Mark Jackson, you're better than that. Your show's on for three hours a day and you get four giant commercial breaks per hour. That leaves you plenty of time to research your segments so you don't come off as misinformed. No offense.

Those are all fair points, but dumping "No offense" after saying someone "embarrassed himself" and using the word "lazily" in reference to their professional work ethic is like taking a shit on their pillow and then putting a mint on top. Cowherd later retorted that his show was actually on for four hours a day (from 6-7 Pacific time is his "mysterious West Coast hour") and that Simmons was in fact the uninformed one.

It never went any further than that and both ESPNers have publicly laid the conflict to rest.

But here is the weird thing. After Simmons calls out ESPN for not letting him go on Kellerman's show, this appears on the front page of ESPN.com.

If ESPN didn't want Simmons to go on Kellerman's show, why would they give it such a prominent billing that same day? (It's still up as of 8:00AM on Tuesday). Is this just Simmons and his blogging alter ego, (still complete with a picture of Tim Robbins at his breaking point in Shawshank) whining about ESPN's policies, again?

Would ESPN put that up knowing that the podcast leads off with Simmons' trademark ESPN bashing? The segment was about 18 minutes long and Simmons congratulates Kellerman at the end for running long.

Simmons: You know what, I love the fact that you fought the man and stayed on past that 8/40, 20/20 break.

Kellerman: I'm not playing around, I'm not playing games. Let me tell you something, it was 35 break, not 40. How do you like that?

Is Simmons just being a baby or constructing this talent vs. executive conflict in his own mind? He was clearly allowed to appear on the show and it was given as high profile a link as a random radio spot ever gets. I like Simmons, but I think I have to side with ESPN on this one; he's being a drama queen.

The other outstanding issue: It would be very unESPNlike to feature something on their front page with this kind of outright anti-management rhetoric. I thought the whole segment was fantastic and perhaps the editors just thought it was good enough to feature anyway.

Your thoughts?

Kellerman! Simmons! Francesa!

Neil Best of Newsday has been on top of the Kellerman story since it broke (err, I tipped him off about it and was not attributed)

And yesterday afternoon he transcribed a portion of the B.S. Report (at the 45:09 mark) where Simmons addressed the story about Kellerman and the rumors concerning Francesa. (I'm just going to blockquote the whole thing):

Bill Simmons: "Max Kellerman left his ESPN Radio New York show today. Uh, I'm throwing our hat in the ring. Our collective hat."

(Simmons' friend) JackO: "Fantastic. He left it? Why, he just gave it up?"

Simmons: "I don't know. Details have not come out."

JackO: "There was some ugliness?"

Simmons: "Who knows? I had a reader email a month ago and say he was at a restaurant where Max and Mike Francesa were having dinner together."

JackO: "Really? Uh, oh. The new Mad Dog, do you think?"

Simmons: "Mike and the Max Dog?"

JackO: "Mike and Max. It works."

Simmons: "Mike and Max?"

JackO: "Got the alliteration down."

Simmons (with a Francesa accent): "We'll be back, 'Mike and Max,' after this. 'Mike and The Max,' maybe?"

JackO: "Yeah, but that's his first name, he can't become The Max."

Simmons: "Let's say, hypothetically, Francesa and Kellerman, does that show work, or not?"

JackO: "You know, I've only seen Max Kellerman on TV. I've never listened to his radio show, so I don't know what he's like. It might be a case of too many lead dogs trying to be there, you know."

Simmons: "It's like a Kobe-Shaq."

JackO: "I'm not sure how it would work. One guy's got to be the second banana and know his role."

Simmons: "2003 Kobe and Shaq, not 2000 Kobe and Shaq. It would be interesting. I could see the show being great for like three months and them like fighting to the death."

JackO: "If you've already been the star of your own show it's tough to go back now and be the supporting actor."

Simmons (with a Francesa accent): "Hey, Max, let me tell you something, you're in the big time now. This is my show. You are a second banana, my friend."

JackO (with a Francesa accent): "You know, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight."

Simmons (with a Francesa accent): "I'm Jordan, you're Pippen, got it?"

Simmons: "But that would be interesting. Keep an eye on that."

The restaurant story is pretty interesting, but I would be curious to know if it came before or after Kellerman was notified that his air time was being cut back.

A Kellerman/Simmons show would be phenomenal, but obviously that's not going to happen because Kellerman can't go back to ESPN and Simmons can't leave. Even though I imagine he was kidding, I'd probably listen to a Simmons/JackO show. I give it a try at the very least. Too bad it would never happen because 1050 would never bring in such a personality so closely associated with Boston into the New York market, even if Simmons had JackO to balance him out.

"The Secrets Of Dork Elvis Will Be Mine"

I'm hesitant to make a tradition out of this, because it's beyond trite and cliched for a blog called "Fack Youk" to FJM Bill Simmons. It's completely unoriginal in two distinct ways. (-2 x -2 = 4??)

But again this week, he hit the lowest common denominator, "stats are for nerds". Reading that kind of lazy, anti-intellectual bullshit from a crotchety old newspaper hack is one thing, but from fantasy sports devotee who constantly references the current season of the Real World?

The Sports Guy is a unique case, because he bridges the gap between the old school and new school of sports writing. He pumps out content like a blogger but has the the rigid weekly schedule of a newspaper columnist. He made his name on the internet, but loves intangibles and greatness and as you will see in this column, considers any sort of statistical analysis dorky. And just like two weeks ago, right after he is finished reinforcing that stigma, makes suggestions for new interesting stats.

-----

Never come between an NBA stat geek and the truth.

A few weeks ago, I spent a Saturday at MIT's Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, or as I dubbed it, Dorkapalooza 2009!

I'd save the "Dorkapalooza 2009!" tag for something like this. Or this. It's only March.

A slew of statistical rock stars showed up: Dean Oliver, Aaron Schatz, John Hollinger. Panels argued topics like "Where are basketball analytics headed?" and "What's more important, coming up with a cool formula or kissing a girl?"

Rick Reilly approves this message.

The hottest celeb? My friend Daryl Morey, the Rockets GM, who was hounded by MIT students as if he were Britney among the paparazzi. I dubbed him Dork Elvis. Even he admitted that was funny. Begrudgingly.

How I imagine that going down:

Simmons: [Breathlessly] Daryl, Daryl... I can't believe how everyone is following you around this place trying to talk to you...

Morey: That's probably because they all knew I was going to be here and read the article Michael Lewis wrote about me for the New York Times a of couple weeks ago.

Simmons: You are a rock star. Like the Nerdy John Lennon. Or the Geeky Bono. Or the Dweeby Dave Matthews. No, I've got it... You are DORK ELVIS. Can we all agree that Daryl Morey is DORK ELVIS??!!?

Morey: I mean, it doesn't have anything to do with basketball...

Simmons: DORK ELVIS!!! Is that NOT hilarious?!??!

Morey: Yes, Bill. I suppose it is somewhat funny.


That's the thing about stat geeks: They have a sense of humor about themselves.

They have a sense of humor because they "begrudgingly" admit Bill Simmons' jokes are funny. Why stat "geeks", exactly? These guys are creating cutting edge statistical techniques to break down and quantify a very fluid, fast-paced sport played by some of the sickest athletes on earth. That sounds pretty cool to me.

And yes, I count myself among them.

Why does he throw himself into the nerds/geeks/dorks category? You know he doesn't think of himself that way. Aren't those terms more relevant to some one's personality type and social disposition? There is noting inherently nerdy about systematically drilling down into a topic like sports, which by most people's standards is about as far from geekdom as one can get. It's not like these guys are trying to calculate the Expected Value for plays in Magic the Gathering.

I played entire Microleague baseball seasons on my 1984 Apple and kept handwritten stats.

Okay, that's pretty nerdy.

I've played fantasy baseball since 1982. I frequent the Prospectus sites and devour their books. I try to hide my inner geek, but believe me, it lurks.

Yes, try to hide that intellectual curiosity. It will do wonders for your analytical sports columns.

Remember, I'm the guy who figured out Hickory High's title-game box score.

How could we forget?

In my mind, basketball lends itself to the perfect blend of objectivity and subjectivity. Statistics help only so much; we still have to interpret what we see.

Which is totally different than say, baseball, where there is nothing to interpret or read between the lines.

I hear that some NBA teams factor "clock-saving attempts" into adjusted shooting percentages. But do they share that info? Of course not. And that's what's wrong with this revolution: We have access to only some of the data.

It's been said that a lot of baseball teams have their own sophisticated methods of defensive analysis that they keep secret from the public, and more importantly, other clubs. Because that would, you know, sacrifice their competitive advantage and defeat the entire purpose of creating the system.

There's one problem with that: Baseball isn't basketball. It's an individual sport; teammates don't matter unless they can help get PEDs. (Sorry, I had to.)

No, you didn't. You (presumably) typed this at a computer. You could have very easily applied the backspace or delete button and removed those six words (or the three unnecessary ones in parentheses).

Every conceivable diamond talent can be measured objectively.

Can you measure a pick-off move "objectively"? Bunting? A catcher's ability to call a game? A third baseman's arm? A reliever's ability to hold runners on?

There is a long way to go before defensive metrics can be considered objective. John Dewan's Fielding Bible is great, but the methodology is still subjective [emphasis mine]:

Video Scouts at BIS review video of every play of every major league game and record detailed information on each play, such as the location of each batted ball, the speed, the type of hit, etc.

It's still a scout's eye, just more methodically applied. UZR is objective but still somewhat crude in terms of measuring defense, especially in the infield where Baseball Info Solutions locations data are less accurate.

I thought Derek Jeter was a great shortstop until the defensive stats told me otherwise.

I thought he was when I still lived in Boston and couldn't watch him play every night. Eventually you notice that, aside from the step-throw maneuver, Jeter doesn't make that many impressive plays and a lot of balls seem to get by him.

Like every other forward-thinking GM, he considers numbers not a sacred evaluation tool but rather part of a bigger process: How can we calculate the best way to win?

This isn't a phenomenon contained to "forward-thinking" GMs. Steve fucking Phillips probably thought stats were "part of a bigger process". No one thinks numbers are a "sacred evaluation tool", whatever that means.

Does it not bother anyone else that certain teams meticulously keep track of and hoard those moments? It's valuable data that would give us all a better understanding of what we're watching.

No, it literally does not bother anyone else.

In fact, that's what made Dorkapalooza so much fun. But one thing we all agreed on was that the basketball revolution will be much rockier than baseball's.

Are you shitting me? Please show me one column by a basketball writer who thinks statistics are ruining the game? ONE. Now go to FJM and start from the begining. Baseball is fraught with traditionalist fans and writers who have fought and continue to fight the movement tooth and nail.

It's not as simple as embracing WHIP and OPS or creating watershed, easy-to-prove stats like VORP and PECOTA.

Rough estimate, but I'd say that that 75-80% of baseball fans don't embrace WHIP or OPS. You won't find too many of them in the blogoverse, but you will in the stands. I'm not sure what good "proving" VORP or PETCOA would be, but I know it wouldn't be "easy".

NBA teams need to stop acting like they're protecting nuclear info during the Cold War. Aren't we in this together?

No...? Every NBA team, by definition is in it for themselves. Why should they give a shit if a very select few die hard fans want to know their advanced statistics? They league has them by the balls anyway, they really don't need to appease them by disclosing proprietary information. Do other businesses disclose their secrets to their customers...

When I asked Daryl that before begging for a few secret stats, he laughed the way Frank might if you asked for his RedHot sauce recipe. In other words, not a chance.

Shocking. You mean he wouldn't disclose his competitive advantages to one of the most popular sports writers in America?

Next year I'm returning to Dorkapalooza, strapping a recorder to my chest and getting him drunk on tequila -- or laser-printer fumes.

The secrets of Dork Elvis will be mine.

What, your laser printer doesn't fume?

/Morey files restraining order

Brilliant Insights Into Blogging (From Two People Who Know Nothing About It)

[I know what you're thinking. You are looking over at the scroll bar and saying "Wow, this post is long". It is, but don't let that scare you away. There is an escape hatch about 500 words in]

I must admit, when I dropped some podcast recommendations on Wednesday, I hadn't yet listened to the B.S. Report with special guest Rick Reilly. I read a couple accounts of the interview and didn't think there was anything too objectionable within. I also knew I was going to be busy and work and wanted to leave something substantive up there for the afternoon.

Well, I finally got around to listening to it, and I wholeheartedly retract my lukewarm recommendation.

In lieu our FJM Simmons feature* which comes around every two weeks when ESPN the Magazine ends up jammed in my mailbox, I'm going to transcribe the portion of the BS Report where Bill and Rick talk about blogs. I think it was necessary to put it down in writing to eliminate the ambiguity of trying to remember six minutes of conversation. It took forever, but it should be basically word for word, after stripping out some of their verbal tics.

[*Also because the column in the magazine was quite excellent and there was basically nothing to take issue with]

Reilly is the one who really comes across like an idiot here. Simmons is in interview mode, but Reilly makes almost the exact same cliched, uninformed points that Buzz Bissinger did on Costas Now about a year ago, but in the typical hokey, yuk yuk fashion so brilliantly mocked by Fake Rick Reilly on Twitter.

It only takes a few minutes to listen to the relevant part (24:30-30:00, give or take), so if you are interested, that would be the easiest thing to do. I've transcribed that portion (with a few parts omitted) and I'm going to make my comments in footnote form. That should save the 3 or 4 of you who might find this interesting some reading.

For those who aren't interested in reading the 800 word transcription and 12 subsequent footnotes, I'll sum it up in one paragraph:

Reilly claims the supposed feud between him and Simmons was made up by bloggers, ignoring the fact that ESPN brought him in at roughly four times Simmons salary when he produces a fraction of the content. It might be a one way feud, but it's certainly not made up. They agree that the internet is mean-spirited and say that sometimes bloggers only go for traffic over good content/accuracy (which ironically is pretty inaccurate). Reilly says that he doesn't want to hear some one's criticism if he's never met them before, inadvertently compares himself to a "poor 7th grade girl" and ends with a flourish about why his opinion is more important than that of a person who doesn't have the access that he does.

To which I would like to pose this question: What have you done that was so great with your access, Rick, beside deliver 800 word blowjobs to the people that you got paid to spend time with? Rick Reilly is the epitome of why access doesn't mean a fucking thing. A beat writer? Yes. He needs access. But the only good stuff Reilly has ever done did not result from the ridiculous celebrity-level entree he has been given into the sports world.

You are free to go, the rest of this post is extra credit.

-----

The first twenty minutes consist mostly of the breathless name-dropping and star-fucking that you have come to know Rick Reilly for. That is egregious in it's on right, but the part I really took issue with came a little later.

At right about the 24:30 mark, BS & RR are talking about the difference between their writing styles (mainly column lengths) and how that is a function of Simmons coming up online and Reilly doing so through newspapers and magazines, which leads to this:

Reilly: What I don't get is why people think that there is this feud between us. Because, obviously, we are two completely different styles. But what I dont get is, why can't there be both? What can't I be old school and why can't you be new school? I mean why do they have to fake this whole, "they hate each other"?

Simmons: [deep breath] Aaaaahhh, I don't have an answer for that one... (1)

RR: I think you do, because you understand, like some of these guys, it seems like the only way to get attention in a blog, and I'm not saying all blogs are like this, but a lot of them, it seems like the only way to get attention is to rip.

BS: Right...

RR: Is to just rip, rip, rip. There's nothing added, it's all just... the joy of destruction sometimes and I think that's how you get picked up on the blogosphere is by ripping, or coming up with a fake rumor about two people who actually like each other! (2)

BS: Yeah, you know what, I've found that, the biggest issue I have with the bloggers is that sometimes they'll do anything for traffic. (3)

BS: And I do think you should have to have some sort of guidelines to it. You know, for instance, there was a blogger who, after I went on a radio station in Boston... they asked me about you, I talk to you on email about it, and I said some comment like "he touches my soul" or whatever. And the blog: "Simmons Rips Reilly!" In print it didn't capture that it was like this totally joking exchange I had with these guys. and it seemed like it was the goal of the blogger was to get picked up by Deadspin and some of these other blogs, so they would subsequently get the traffic. So they didn't care if they were being accurate or not, they just wanted the traffic. And I think that's when you can get into danger. Is when you are going for traffic over actual accuracy. (4)

...

BS: Well do you actually check out the blogs, or no?

RR: We'll I just get people who seem to think that you want to see everything written about you and I really don't, because I understand criticism, I get criticized, I criticize other people, I know that's part of the game. But I don't really want to read people that have never met me. Or some guy that's an actuarial by day and at night is trying to do this blog and is pissed that he never got hired as a sports writer. And so he's gonna take it out on me and other people that are hired. You know, I don't really need to head his gripes, you know? (5)

...

RR: To me it's a lot like 7th grade girls. Because in the old days, when I was in 7th grade, 7th grade girls all gossiped about each other, right? But the poor girl didn't have to hear it. (6) But now, cause I had a 7th grade girl, they put it on blogs, and they start websites like "I Hate Amber". You know?

...

BS: ...There is a mean-spiritedness that's come up, I guess it's like a snarkyness, and I don't know if I've helped to contribute to that or not, but I hope not. (7)

RR: But generally they LOVE you, you're part of that new school! (8) You can imagine what they say about me. Because I didn't come up with that world. And I just don't see the value of a guy who never goes to a game, never meets the athlete, I don't particularly want to hear his opinion. (9)

RR: I've been doing this 31 years, for a living, I feel like I go out there, I'm in the locker rooms, I'm in the clubhouses, I'm meeting these guys, I'm hearing what they are saying, whatever. It seems to me a guy like that has a little more valued opinion than some schmo who, as I say, is holding down couch springs on his mom's basement. (10)

RR: Having said that though, there are some really funny guys who I know have no access, that are really funny, and good, and I read them. (11) I think that kind of, you are the leader of those guys who don't want access because you kind of want to be part of that world where you get to just shoot from the hip and you never have to see the guy, the 6'8" 280 pound guy that you totally ripped the day before. (12)

1. /raises hand... I do, I do, I do, I do!!! It's because ESPN gave Rick Reilly $17M when Bill Simmons was already their top writer/personality and he gets paid about a quarter of that to write about 4 times as much.
   
   
2. Yeah, a total fabrication. Bill Simmons loves the fact that you get paid over $4M a year to write 800 words every two weeks.
   
   
3. Simply not true. I wrote a post a while back (actually concerning Simmons and Max Kellerman) make some erroneous assumptions and taken to task in the comments for it. I had to write a follow-up post to set things straight. I would take it back in a second. You think those 2,500 visits mean a thing if what the people are reading is garbage? The end goal is developing a readership and if what you are writing is inaccurate, who is going to come back to the site?
   
   
4. See above. Traffic means nothing for building a readership if the content isn't good.
   
   
5. No, Rick, I don't know. You don't want to read criticism from people you've never met? You are a writer. Why does someone have to know you as a person to criticize the things you write?
   
   
6. It's funny, because I don't think he set out to make himself the poor 7th grade girl who was getting picked on in that analogy, but that's sure where he ended up.
   
   
7. Yeah, there is some snarkyness, because you can find plenty of fluff pieces like the the shit Reilly writes in the mainstream media. The internet didn't beget snark. It was always around, it just took a long time for society to circumvent traditional media outlets to connect on that level. Even the meanest drivel written on the shittiest blogs represents, on some level, what people were already saying to each other in bars and in their living rooms. Is some of it repulsive, even to me? Yes. But it's easy to steer clear of it: Don't go on SEC message boards.
   
   
8. Except Simmons isn't part of the new school, as far as anyone in the new school should be concerned. He made his way on the internet, but it was before it was cluttered with a trillion blogs. It's not like he's writing three blog posts a day.
   
   
9. Why does having access make you a real journalist? Rick Reilly is the least objective writer I've ever had the displeasure of reading. He fawns over athletes like he's an US Weekly intern as evidenced by the first half of the podcast.
   
   
10. "As I say". I didn't know Rick Reilly invented the "Mom's basement" cliche... Or maybe he was just taking credit for the "holding down the springs" part. That's creative, Rick. I like what you did there.
    
    
11. I'm sure they would be thrilled to hear what you said about them 8 seconds before that.
    
    
12. Ex-fucking-actly. Bloggers don't have to be afraid that someone is going to kick their ass for telling the truth. They don't have an agenda to push. They don't have people to answer to. Sometimes that's a bad thing, because there are no editors to catch our every typo and maybe we miss some stuff while watching the game at home. But at the same time, I think we do a great job of relating to other fans. The reason why old media types hate blogs is they are not the target audience. Personally, I could give a shit what Murray Chass or Rick Reilly or Mike Lupica thinks about this site. There seem to people some like-minded people out there that find it mildly interesting, and that's good enough for me.
    

I Stand Corrected

Earlier today, I wrote a post detailing The Sports Guy's on-air complaints about ESPN's policy regarding what radio shows he was allowed to appear on. I was wrong about what he was referring to in his cloaked bitching to ESPN management.


Awful Announcing now has the audio:



I thought ESPN didn't want him to go on with Max Kellerman in favor of Colin Cowherd's National show. He has never been on The Herd, in no small part due to the feud that I brought up in the previous post.

I did some more in-depth research and here is an except from one of Simmons' chats:

Kevin (Chappaqua, NY): Bill, with the Mike and the Maddog show no longer on the airways and the classic radio 1, 2 combo having gone their separate ways, What do you think there interactions will be at their first Super Bowl apart? I'm sure they will be fighting for guests, giving evil snickers and stares across radio row, while Mike sips on his Diet Coke and Dog fidgets uncontrollably in his chair. My questionthough is if you were asked to go on both shows and only had time for one, who you going with?

Bill Simmons: I would go on Mike's show. There's a 85% chance that Dog has never read a single thing I've written. Mike and I have a love-hate relationship (mostly love) but at least he reads me... the last time I was on, they grabbed me on Media Row and I was sick... I want a second chance... sadly it can never happen because I am not allowed to go on non-ESPN shows ... even though the show that goes against Mike's (Michael Kay) has never asked me to come on. Yup, this is my company.

So as commenter JJV first pointed out, the show that he was talking about wanting to appear on was Mike Francesa's (Mike'd Up) and the show that hadn't invited him on was the Michael Kay Show on 1050, which is up against Mike'd Up.

I think my overall point still stands. Simmons is a bit of a drama queen and never misses an opportunity to publicly slam ESPN for any policy that he disagrees with. I find it hard to believe he's really that upset about not being ask to go on Michael Kay's show.

As The Big Lead pointed out, it's not a great match, seeing that Michael Kay is predominantly a Yankees guy and bringing Simmons on wouldn't really appeal to his audience. Has there been a good reason to bring him on? It's not like TSG has been promoting anything recently.

I would tend to think that Simmons is just bitching because he can't go on Francesa's show and is just using the fact that Michael Kay hasn't asked him to come on (without any incentive to do so) as an excuse to whine about ESPN management (again).

I respect what Simmons does, but ESPN pays him close to $1M, and I don't think anyone held a gun to his head when he agreed to the terms of the contract. He has a job that every blogger would trade for in a second, even if you had to take his annoying nasally voice and were consigned to writing 90% of your columns about Boston teams for the rest of your career. I just get the feeling that no matter what happens, he's going to be a malcontent.

Still, I was wrong, and thought the record should be set straight. An anonymous commenter on the last post really summed it up, though:

Anonymous said...
Yeah dont be a dipshit, the show he wants to go on is Mike'd Up on WFAN (Formerly Mike and the Mad Dog)but he is not allowed by ESPN and he is not invited on the ESPN--1050 Michael Kay Show. Dont just spill diarhea [sic] from your mouth.

Buzz Bissinger, is that you? I believe in this case the "diarhea" would have been flowing from the tips of my fingers since these are the interwebnets and I actually had to type all of that up. Also, apostrophes are your friends, don't be afraid to use them. Thanks for your input, though. Feel free to share your sage and flawlessly written insights anytime, whoever the fuck you are.

"Their degree of greatness doesn't matter, just the greatness itself."

Maybe a pregnant Candace Parker being on the cover of the new ESPN The Magazine started me off on the wrong foot, but I couldn't help but FJM Bill Simmons' column.

I'm hoping The Sports Guy didn't write the headline...

You don't need stats to know greatness. Meryl taught me that.

...because his entire column seeks to undermine it.

Only 59 years old, Streep has been in 40 movies (stat) (not including voice-overs and cameos), taken home Oscars for Sophie's Choice (best actress) and Kramer vs. Kramer (best supporting actress) (stat) and drawn 13 other nominations (stat). She's been nominated for 23 Golden Globes (stat) and won six (stat). She has two Emmys (stat).

If we called age "Years Lived (YL)", that would be a stat too. Just like the people rail against "advanced" statistics in baseball, Simmons rips off a bunch of numbers that when strung together give you an idea of how good of an actress Meryl Streep is, but individually are fairly arbitrary and incomplete. If only someone could devise a better analytical technique...

Only Katharine Hepburn had a more decorated career -- four Oscars and 12 nominations in all -- but Streep has a lot of years left to pass her.

Hang on to that, because we are going to need it later.

Statistics allow us to compare players with one another, follow their peaks and valleys, determine which are most responsible for their team's success. Hollywood doesn't work like that.

Well, yeah it kind of does. This entire column is about actors' peaks and valleys. It's just that the "teams" come together temporarily and are disbanded when production of a movie is finished. You can't determine that the producer, director, and starring actors are mostly responsible for the success of a movie?

It's an industry of extremes -- this movie had the biggest opening weekend, this guy made the most money, this woman used to be terrific until she went crazy -- that hinges on what everyone believes, not on what can be proved.

I'm pretty sure which "movie had the biggest weekend" and which "guy made the most money" can be proved.

At some point in his career [Jack Nicholson] broke into the greatest actors club, the membership of which we have all subconsciously agreed upon. We know who the best actors are. We just do. It's why Hollywood has never built a Hall of Fame. We don't need it.

You know there is a Hollywood Walk of Fame, right?

Sports are objective (you win or you lose), whereas movies are almost entirely subjective.

All of the numbers you've cited for movies are "win or lose" (Oscars, Emmys, Golden Globes). And movies are so subjective that we can all "subconsciously agree upon" the membership of the "greatest actors club"?

If the Oscars were reliable, they would help us create a formula that enabled us to rank actors of all eras.

Well, Nate Silver created a formula to predict this year's Oscars using past results and they were fairly reliable. I wouldn't expect you to know anything about that though, because you don't read blogs.

Well, what if we tried anyway?

Then it would completely contradict the title of this column?

Let's make best actor/actress nods worth seven points and nominations worth three. Then let's make best supporting actor/actress nods worth three and nominations worth one(...)

Top 13 actors: Nicholson (38); Spencer Tracy (35); Laurence Olivier (32); Marlon Brando (30); Hoffman, Newman (29); Jack Lemmon (28); Peter O'Toole (24); Gary Cooper, Hanks, Penn (23); De Niro and Pacino (22).

>8

Are you happy with those rankings? Me too! I'm a genius! Yeah, Pacino and De Niro should be higher, but they were robbed in '74 and '76, so their stats make sense.

That, and like you said about Meryl Streep, their careers aren't over. But why would this part of the column agree with another? That would totally shatter the precedent you've established.

Other than that, I have no major qualms besides a failure to account for iconic performances like De Niro's in Raging Bull (should it be worth 10?)...

No major qualms with the system you just arbitrarily created? I mean, I'd like to think that you read this once or twice after you wrote it. You probably could have gone back and worked it in.

Now, if you feel like getting your supernerd on, you could figure out Simmons Points on a per-film basis by dividing SPs by movies made... a Hollinger-like AER (actor's efficiency rating) ... or even VODM (like baseball's value over replacement player, only it would be value over Dermot Mulroney).

Why does it have to be me getting my "supernerd on", Bill? You are the one who just named the fucking statistic you just created after yourself. Why do you have to deflect the "statistics are nerdy" stigma, dude? Because fantasy sports are so much cooler?

But that's not the point. We've had ample time to figure this all out, and we've never bothered.

Maybe the reason that we've never bothered is because acting is not quantifiable unless you want to start tallying things like "lines spoken" or "scenes appeared in".

The numbers that you've cited throughout this column (award nominations and victories) are just like measuring an athlete by the number of championships won. Award shows each happen once a year. Being nominated is sort of like making the playoffs. There are an incredible number of variables that go into making a movie aside from that person's performance, most of which are well beyond their control.

We never felt the need to validate Brando's brilliance by raving that he's the most consecutively nominated leading actor (four, from 1951 to '54), nor do we pimp Nicholson by pointing out that he's the only living actor with three Oscars.

Those are some really interesting stats you just used to indicate greatness. That's not what Meryl taught you.

Those guys are legends. Their degree of greatness doesn't matter, just the greatness itself.

Yes, once you surpass the Greatness Threshold (GT) it doesn't matter. Which of course is why you began this column proclaiming Meryl Streep as the "greatest living actor" and state your case with absolute certainty.

Maybe we overthink this stuff. The truth is, either you're great or you're not.

And I think that we can all subconsciously agree that Bill Simmons' is great.

-----

Here's what I don't understand: He makes up a pretty interesting system, finds some holes in it, and even goes as far as to create more insightful ways of looking at it. And right after he does that, he just shoots it down all in the name of "stats are for nerds". Then he wraps up by stating a fucking stupid truism: "either you're great or you're not"? Thanks for that, Bill.

Why couldn't he write the column and actually try to create some sort of a rubric for measuring actors against each other? It would have been interesting. The crux of it is already in there, just trapped inside a two inch coating of condescending bullshit.

Impromptu Movie Review: The Wrestler

No spoiler alert needed, I'm gonna keep this as non-specific as possible.

The first time I heard (read) of The Wrestler was in Bill Simmons' column in ESPN The Magazine, which I was reading in my apartment, the bathroom.

Supposed to be a joke. Give it a second. Okay.

I haven't cared about professional wrestling since I was about seven years old, but found this movie to be throughly enjoyable. The reason they can call the movie something generic like "The Wrestler" is that the shadowy world of professional wrestling has never been cinematically delved into with so much as a mini series. It achieved a level of realness and believability rarely attained outside of The Wire, and as Simmons says, Rourke was exquisitely cast:

To be honest, I still can't figure out how we didn't get Nicolas Cage in this movie. For $15 million, he gladly would have bleached his Con Air hairdo, bulked up to Kiss of Death proportions, made a few Nic Cage faces—and given us a thoroughly mediocre film. Director Darren Aronofsky should be applauded for avoiding the big-budget route, instead scaling down to an indie and rolling the dice with Rourke. Because Rourke carries this movie. Every frame.

I'm not a movie guy, and aside from some pretty grizzly, bloody scenes, it was awesome. Highly recommended.

And wow... two of my last five posts on a blog called "Fack Youk" praised the Red Sox and agreed with Bill Simmons. Fuck me.

Nice Try, Sports Guy

It was only a matter of time until Bill Simmons weighed in on the demise of David Ortiz. We've already had some fun with it, but not nearly as much as our buddy Simon on Sports who did some digging on FanGraphs and found out that they estimate Ortiz's value on the free agent market to be negative $5.2M. 

In his most recent ESPN The Magazine column, Simmons sounds like he's left Papi for dead:

At first, we Sox fans thought we were just watching an early-season slump. Then three weeks passed and we started worrying. The guy couldn't hit the ball out of the infield. His bat was so slow he had to cheat on fastballs; even then, he couldn't catch up. One swing a night made him look like the drunkest batter in a beer league softball game. Look, I've seen slumps. This was different. This was the collapse of a career.

I'm not ready to throw dirt on the guy quite yet. His struggles weren't quite as bad as Ortiz, but at the begining of last year, everyone had completely given up on a 36 year old Carlos Delgado and he ended up raising his OPS by over 200 points in the second half.

Like I did when the Manny HGC story came out, Simmons assumed that there was a good chance Papi's torrid mid-00's were a product of the juice, but he's since changed his tune. 

He just looked old. It reminded me of watching Jim Rice fall apart in the late '80s, when he lost bat speed overnight the way you and I lose a BlackBerry. That was painful too.

By mid-May, I was pondering another theory: Maybe Papi was older than he claimed. In Seth Mnookin's book Feeding the Monster, he recounts the story of how Boston nearly blew the chance to acquire Ortiz because they were concerned that he was much older than the media guide said.

This is an intersting theory, and right off the bat it seems to make a lot of sense. High profile Dominican guys like Vlad Guerero and Miguel Tejada have both been busted for fudging their ages recently, so the when performance seems out of line, it's reasonable to question that. 

Watching Papi flounder now, I'd believe he's really 36 or 37 (not 33) before I'd believe PEDs are responsible.

If he was three years older, it would make it more likely to me that Ortiz used PEDs.

On the surface, Ortiz being older seems to explain away his decline and works to rationalize him at this stage of his career. However, Ortiz's prime already took place in his late 20's and early 30's. If you take Simmons' lower estimate and add three years to his age, he would have hit 10 home runs at the age of 27, when a player is nearing the end of their ostensible physical prime. 

In Papi's defense he made a remarkably steady rise to being a power hitter, increasing his home run totals and slugging percentage every year from 2000 to his apex in 2006. The incredible (and somewhat suspicious) thing about Papi's carrer arc is that the biggest jump in home runs (+11) came when he went from the 12th best home run hitting park in 2002 (HHH Metrodome), to the 25th (Fenway), a layout that does not favor left handed hitters. 

Papi's late peak wounldn't be totally unprecedented. Raul Ibanez's highest home run total was 33 at age 34. However Ibanez didn't fall off a cliff like Papi. Despite hitting in Seattle, one of the very worst home run hitter's parks in the league, Ibanez continued with 21 and 23 HRs over the next two seasons and will almost certainly set another high water mark this year. Jason from IIATM,S can't help but wonder if something in up with him too. 

Every player ages, but not too many become totally useless in the matter of one season like Ortiz has, or goes on a sudden homer binge at age 37 like Ibanez. Unfortunantely for them, a significant portion of those who have these dramatic late career fluctuations are linked to steroid use, so the suspicions are going to swirl. 

The Next $305M Deal

[Sorry for the lack of content today, but I was knee deep in a gigantic report that I worked on 'til 10 on Friday night, put it on few more hours on over the weekend, which was due today and still probably isn't going out until tomorrow morning. This piece was originally drafted on Friday, but I didn't even have a chance to touch it up and post it. We should be back to the regularly scheduled programming tomorrow.]

If this offseason is any indication of things to come, I wouldn't be all that surprised if A-Rod's deal is still the biggest in baseball history when he retires.

Like the values of homes across the country, we just assumed contracts in sports would keep getting larger. For my entire lifetime, when you made an investment in a home, it inevitably looked better five or ten years down the road.

When the Yankees signed Derek Jeter to his 10 year extension in 2001, they probably thought the market was catch up with the contract, which is probably why they didn't include any reverse escalator clauses for what were presumably going to be his decline years. The market hasn't collapsed around that deal (yet), but it certainly hasn't outpaced it.

Think about how much of a reversal of public opinion is going to be necessary to turn around the economy right now. I see numbers for a economic tracker we are doing at work and I can tell you that roughly 65% of people think the economy is worse than it was a month ago, and basically everyone else thinks it's staying the same.

Since the Dow Jones is really just a reflection of consumer confidence, it's not looking like this is turning around anytime soon. At least during the Great Depression they didn't have 8,000 forms of media constantly reminding everyone how fucked they were. We can throw as much money at this problem as we want, but things are going to get better until people think it's getting better, because perception is reality.

At what point are people going to start putting new money in the stock market and expecting to make money, like before? I'm a child of the 90's. That's where I did most of my growing up (from 6-16), and financially, it couldn't have come in a more prosperous time. On January 2nd, 1990 the Dow opened at 2,753 and on December 31st 1999, it closed at 11,453.

That means if you just invested in the DJIA for ten years, you could have more than quadrupled your money. Today, the Dow is sitting at 6,874, so if you had kept it in for the last nine years (or 9 months), you would have lost almost half of what you made. Infinite growth is unsustainable. The expectation of infinite growth leads to exaggerations (Enron) and shortcuts (sub-prime) which ripple out from their specific domains (the current Banking mess). I'm an even worse financier than I am a sports blogger, so please tell me where I'm off-base.

[Bill Maher hit on some of this on Real Time on Friday night, after I had already written this. My sister will vouch for me. Stop looking at my drafts on Blogger, Bill. You dick.]

And unfortunately that means it's going to trickle down to sports at some point. I'm not sporting Bill Simmons tin foil hat just yet, but if attendance starts dropping, how can it not affect the bottom line? There are only so many other expenses you can trim on a sports franchise. The player's salaries make up the vast majority of operating costs.

Most importantly, who is going to be the type of player to get a bigger deal than A-Rod? Not a pitcher, obviously. It would have to be an excellent defensive player with power at either CF, SS, or possibly 2B, 3B or C. Hanley Ramirez got his and he's not that great defensively. Evan Longoria is locked up through 2016 with club options. Albert Puljos is going to be "31" when his contract is up. It would probably have to be some young buck who's just a prospect now, and tears up the minors, makes it to the majors at age 18, like A-Rod did, and becomes a free agent at 25. Even then, a $252M deal, much less a $305M one, seems like quite the lofty goal.

Anyone up for a friendly wager?

[This is my last depressing A-Rod related post for a while. I promise.]

Foggy Morning Links

Mornin' Fackers. Are you a little hazy from having burnt the "midnight oil" like Thor last night? Hopefully this small batch of heady links will rouse you from your herbally-induced malaise.

Curtis Granderson wrote about adapting to New York City living - off the field - over at Big League Stew. That's him at Target on the right. Any man who has ever shopped for bedding at a big box retailer has sported the same look on their face.

The Wezen-Ball Tater Trot Tracker has gone mainstream. It got linked by the excellent non-sports blog The Awl, has its own website and is now selling t-shirts whereby you can espouse your personal home run trot philosophy. I'm more of a "swing hard, run hard" kind of a guy.

Mike Fast at the Hardball Times looked at the difference in velocity between pitchers throwing from the windup and the stretch and found that there almost isn't one. Tango thinks that although the velocity might be comparable, pitching from the stretch could be an more inherently stressful motion. Over the winter, we wondered if Javy Vazquez might lose a little something from the stretch since he pitches poorly with runners on base. When I get some time, I will try to look at the data and see if I can find anything of interest.

Jonah Keri made his second appearance on the BS Report with Bill Simmons. I haven't listened to it yet, but it's going to be hard to top the first one wherein he singlehandedly converted Simmons to sabermetrics (only a slight exaggeration).

More podcasting: a new version of FanGraphs audio is up.

"Pardon my language, but f**k the Yankees."

Unlike every member of the Boston media, Patrick Sullivan took a look at the state of the Red Sox from a rational perspective. It's not all doom and gloom, but it ain't exactly cupcakes and ponies, either. Whether or not their first 14 games are indicative of how good they are or not, they've dug themselves a significant hole.

Further proof that Johnny Damon is a 6 year old boy in a 36 year old man's body: he's growing a mohawk.

Craig Calcaterra, who was at the forefront of the "NL Pitcher tests positive for PEDs" fracus yesterday notes that 10 of the last 16 PED suspensions have been handed down to pitchers and wonders while it's still the sluggers who are the primary targets of public shame.

You probably saw this yesterday somewhere else, but it's still worth noting that CC Sabathia stopped by his hometown and attended a Little League game at a field he helped renovate.

The first batch of UZR ratings are in. Proceed with small sample size freak outs... ZOMG Johnny Damon is now the greatest left fielder EVAR!

It might be a little slow around here today, but check back this later afternoon. If nothing else, we'll have the game preview for you this evening.

Winter Weekend Roundup

Good morning Fackers. With the exception of the overtime shootout between the Packers and Cardinals last night (which was the highest scoring playoff game in NFL history) there wasn't much in the way of interesting football to watch this weekend. Three of the games featured leads of two touchdowns or more during the first half and only one ended up with a final score within 10 points. Joe picked two of the four games correctly, which was a whole lot better than Bill Simmons, who went 0-4.

Football maybe have disappointed, but the Hot Stove kept burning all weekend long, offering up some warmth during a very cold weekend along the East Coast.

First, from the Yankees:

• Much to the chagrin of staffers at the NY Daily News, countless teenage girls and (reportedly) Tim McCarver, the Post believes that they have uncovered the date of Derek Jeter and Minka Kelly's wedding - this coming November 5th, two days after Game 7 of the 2010 World Series. Mark Melancon actually got married over the weekend, no one really cares about that.
  
  
• The Yankees are rumored to be in "serious talks" with Jerry Hairston, Jr. Neyer likes it as does Joe from RAB, each citing the value of versatility.
  

• Johnny Damon is still in search of a job, with the Braves one of a "handful of teams" Damon believes he "could win" with. The Yankees tried to tell Damon that this is how the market would play out, but unfortunately for him Scott Boras was more concerned finding a place for Matt Holliday. Via River Ave. Blues, Aubrey Huff signed with San Francisco, further limiting Damon's options.

And around the league:

• Although they had been pursing Aroldis Chapman "like crazy", the first news of the Reds' involvement came Sunday in the form of a tweet from Jeff Passan of Yahoo. There were some good jokes involving Dusty Baker and/or communism to be made, but they were snatched up pretty quickly. Here's a nice, if slightly outdated, video report on the Cuban lefty.
  
  Reds beat reporter John Fay says that the deal is for $25M over 5 years with an option for the 6th year. However, Chapman will be paid over a period of 10 years and his 2010 salary will only be in the neighborhood of $1M.
  
  Our buddy Craig thinks this is a good risk for the Reds at this point, adding another high upside arm to a young rotation. The A's were reportedly the next highest bidder.

• The Rangers signed Vlad Guererro for $5M plus incentives.

• Daisuke Matsuzaka told a paper in Japan that he hurt his thigh before the World Baseball Classic last year, but didn't bother to inform the Red Sox. Fans might see this as good news since it could explain some of his difficulties last season, but I can't imagine the organization is too pleased.

• Ed Wade continues to do his best to be included in "The Contest".

• Murray Chass lectured bloggers for making grammatical mistakes and, in accordance with Muprhy's Law, made some of his own in the process.

Why Do 8-8 Teams Host Playoff Games?

Like Joe, I would have picked the Colts and the Falcons yesterday. Objectively, analytically, theoretically they seemed like the better teams. Manning's Colts had won 9 straight, and Matty Ice's Falcons had taken 5 out of their last 6. They both had better records than the 8-8 division winners, and were Vegas favorites. Now we are left to grapple with annoying football analyst talking points like home field advantage.

In a single game, how much does it really matter? Ironically, in baseball, where you have the tangible advantage of batting in the bottom half of the inning, home field advantage creates a 54/46 advantage, slightly less significant than in football (56/44). Vegas says 3 points, Bill Simmons says "nawt that impawtahnt any mahwah", so who really knows? One would imagine crowd noise certainly can have a greater motivational impact on players in more physical-effort-oriented sports. The adrenaline spike provided by the crowd's cheers isn't going to help Mariano Rivera locate his cutter, but it might help Brandon Jacobs punch it into the endzone. Regardless, can we just give HFA to the better team?

It's bad enough that winning a division automatically grants a team a playoff berth when teams with better records get locked out. That's probably not going to change. But those teams get to host the game too? Why? Both the Cardinals and the Chargers were 3-7 outside their division. Can we please at least give home field advantage to the team with the better record?

As a fan of a team with a first round bye, I am thrilled by the outcomes of yesterday's games (sorry Joe). Let these teams win at home in their domes, because next weekend those teams are going on the road to the blustery Meadowlands or to chilly (in January) Charlotte, where the Panthers went 8-0 this season. But taking my personal rooting interests (for this season alone) out of the equation, the system is kinda retarded.

Some Saturday Reading

The Yankee Universe reviews A-Rod's World Series at bats one by one.

Joe P from RAB breaks down how the Yankees might use the double switch while in Philly.

If Hideki Matsui makes a start in the outfield at Citizen's Bank Park, I may lose my mind.

Great story from Bob Klapisch:

"I’m Shawn Carter," said the youngish guy who showed up at my door with a real estate agent. "You don’t know who I am, but you will."

I thought Carter – Jay-Z – was a polite, soft-spoken guy who looked a lot like Dwight Gooden. Indeed, he said he was a Mets fan (back then). Jay-Z was such an easy-going guy he decided to buy my townhouse at full asking price, with no negotiating.

I'm not sure what was less surprising: The fact that Joe Posnanski wrote 2,500 words on Derek Jeter's failed two strike bunt attempt, or the fact that it was immensely enjoyable to read.

Wezen-Ball provides some historical perspective on poor postseason umpiring.

Alex from Bronx Banter does the same for idea that the crowd was quiet during the first two games of the World Series because the fans are too rich.

Is the curveball just an illusion?

Tommy Craggs at Deadspin finally arrived at the palace in the Bronx in the "Why Your Stadium Sucks" series. According those who contributed to the post, the Stadium is a "travesty", "ugly", and "profoundly un-American". If there's a problem with the New Yankee Stadium, in my opinion, it's that it reflects (corporate) America a little too well.

And finally, this isn't reading but here's Bill Simmons' interview with Steven Colbert. Not that I would ever have this choice, but there's no way I would do an interview with Colbert. It's hard enough to not seem like an idiot when promoting something, let alone when you are doing an interview with a fake character whose shtick it to say the opposite of a good interviewer would.

Comment Of The Day

I've seen friends of the blog Jason from IIATM,S and Craig from Shysterball do this on occassion, and it is with great pleasure that I pull this comment from longtime reader mmb1980, from my earlier post about A-Rod and Swine Flu. In it, I asked you folks which of those two things you thought were more annoying. He responds:

Both.

I've had enough of A-Rod, I've had enough Selena Roberts, and I've had enough Girardi's characteristically contrived reaction to both.

I've never particularly liked A-Rod, so the fact that I'm even feeling a tinge of human sympathy for him at this point leads me to believe that Roberts and her publisher have overplayed their hand.

At this point for me, A-Rod has entered what Bill Simmons refers to as "The Tyson Zone" - you can tell me anything about him at this point, however outrageous, and I wouldn't reject it out of hand.

What does bother me amongst these newest allegations is the pitch-tipping thing. I don't care if the games were decided are not - if the allegations are true those actions are inexecusable, wholly selfish, and taken with blatant disregard for his teammates. But yet, not surprising.

Meanwhile, Selena Roberts may be well-respected in journalistic circles, but it's just as easy to believe she has her own agenda as it is to believe the charges she levies against A-Rod. Also, I think that it's been a conflict of interest having her SI colleague Tom Verducci sit on the MLBN panel both times she's appeared there for special sit downs.

There's also the issue of MLBN getting two exclusive sit downs with her on this topic, while MLB is actively investigating A-Rod.

As for the swine flu - I've had just about enough of that as well. At the risk of brining religion into the discussion, I went to mass yesterday. There was a 50-something married couple sitting in front of me. The husband reluctantly shook my hand during the rite of peace only to be immediately rebuked by his wife: "We're not shaking hands, remember!". Then she proceeded to give me a fist bump. Seriously. I was stupified. Having been sufficiently whipped by the old ball and chain, the husband sheepishly asked me "You haven't been to Mexico lately have you?"

Wow. So much taking part in a basic act of fellowship. People that concerned about it oughta just put on their hazmat suits and hole up in their plastic bubbles until the whole thing blows over.

FWIW I'm sick of hearing about the economy too. Enough rambling from me; gotta finish some work so I can drive 90 minutes to go sit in the rain at the Stadium.

Well said on the A-Rod/Selena Roberts stuff, and that story about mass is absolutley astonishing. Thanks for stopping by and good luck with the game, mmb. 

I love the fact that we've got some really smart people sharing very thoughtful opinions on a site as flippantly named as this one. It's easy to do. If you don't have a blogger account, just pick "Name/URL" where it asks you to select a profile and leave the URL blank if you don't have a site you want to link to. There is an option to comment anonymously, obviously, but if you don't want to use your real name, I would prefer if you just created a temporary nom de plume.  

Sometimes the comments on the site are extensive and well-informed like the one above, and many times they are short and funny. I get an email sent to me when one is left, so I read all of them and respond pretty frequently. Comments help make this and every site what it is and they are always appreciated. 

The Other Type Of Football

In the early days of the YES Network, as the network searched for programming to fill airtime, YES reached an agreement with English soccer club Manchester United, where YES would re-air recent Man U games on "Manchester Mondays", much as they currently do with Notre Dame football. Thanks to their free spending ways and successful history, Manchester United and the Yankees are often compared to each other. When Bill Simmons undertook a search for an English Premier League team to support three years ago, he immediately ruled out Manchester United based on the parallels to the Yankees.

I never played soccer, but I've had a passing interesting in the sport since the United States' strong showing in the 1994 World Cup. While I'll watch international competitions, I never really took an interest in club play.

Lately however, I've started paying some attention to the English Premier League and UEFA Champions League. Having the Fox Soccer Channel has helped, as have the early morning Saturday games airing on ESPN prior to College Gameday.

In attempt to nurture to my interest, I've been trying to do a little reading on the sport. This morning, I came across an interesting piece on Manchester United midfielder Ryan Giggs. At 35 years old the career-long Red Devil is climbing or atop all sorts of Man U all-time leader boards. After it was assumed he was on the downslope of his career, he's enjoying a late career renaissance, highlighted by being named Player of the Year for the first time following last season. In reading the article, I couldn't help but notice several parallels to a resurgent 35 year-old career-long Yankee.

It's yet another Thursday off day. It's slow around here. Give it a read and I promise not to mention soccer again any time soon.

A Long, Hot, Sloppy Mess

If at any point during last night's game you were bitching about how it would never end, don't worry, you weren't the only one. At 3 hours and 49 minutes, it was the Yanks' third longest nine inning game of the season. A grand total of 11 pitchers gave up 29 hits, and 11 walks. The defenses were charged with four errors which led to a total of five earned runs.

I had the pleasure of having the majority of this odessey described to me by none other than John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman on my drive upstate. I was in traffic on the Westside Highway when the game started and I got to my destination north of Albany in time to watch Peter Moylan serve up a two run double to A-Rod in the top of the seventh. I lost reception during the 3rd & 4th innings when I was passing through some mean thunderstorms in the Catskills, but 880AM, 94.3FM & 104.5FM stuck with me for the better part of the way.

I would say the radio duo was in rare form, but Sterling saying things like "That's why you can't predict baseball" no fewer than six times and constatnly speculating what the score should be isn't that uncommon. Big John also should have been called for his epic verbal balk on Teixeira's deep foul in the top of the 2nd. "It is high! It is far! It is gooooooonneeee... Oh wait, it's foul." He then claimed the ball missed being a home run by "a foot", but having yet to see the replay, I'm skeptical.

During the bottom of the 5th(?) inning Hall of Fame President Jeff Edelson joined the broadcast and was giving a cute little pitch for visiting the HoF about how it's "only 2000 blocks north of Manhattan" or something. It was then Suzyn clumsily interjected that the Women In Baseball exhibit is one of the most visited in Cooperstown. (Hmm... why could that be?) Edelson goes "Yes, that's right Suzyn, it is quite popular". Suzyn then said "And do ya know who's face is in that exhibit? Right when ya walk in?" Apparently the answer to those questions is Suzyn Waldman. I know what that technically means, but I can't bring myself to type it out.

Still talking about the exhibit, she added "And they have the real Dottie Hinson in there. She's much prettiah than Genner Davis". Honestly, how many times do you think Suzyn has seen A League Of Their Own? Is there even the slightest chance that if you asked her right now, she wouldn't tell you it was her favorite movie? Did Bill Simmons write this paragraph for me?

It's not easy to keep track of an entire baseball game on the radio, especially one as topsy turvy as the abomination that took place in Atlanta. I'm kind of glad that I wasn't able to actually see most of what was going on, for 11-7 games typically lack aesthetic appeal.

Since we just recapped ten extra games in the past three days and I'm four pours into some Lagavulin, I'm not going to get into the box score minutiae. Let's go to the bullet points, shall we?

• A-Rod woke the fuck up with a home run, drove in four runs and scored another.
  
  
• Derek Jeter reached base six time, via four hits, a walk and an error and scored 4 runs.
  
  
• Johnny Damon drove in three on three hits while also drawing two walks
  
  
• Andy Pettitte and Derek Lowe were both chased before they could finish their respective halves of the fourth inning, but the difference was that Pettitte only gave up 6 runs (!)
  
  
• The bullpen only allowed one run in 5 1/3 innings
  

Good times. The Yanks' zany adventure through the National League East continues tonight as they return to New York and make their first trip to the Shea-k Shack. If you are going to be attending any of the games this weekend, I highly recommend you click that link.

Divisional Weekend - Saturday Games

Okay Fackers. Last week I went 2-2, correctly predicting both AFC Wildcard Weekend matchups but brutally butchering the NFC tilt. 2-2 isn't so bad I guess. I mean Adam Schefter went 1-3. Mike Greenberg went 0-4 as did Bill Simmons. Eric Allen was the only "expert" on ESPN did better than me. Some of you told me that I should "stick to baseball." Well should Adam Schefter find another job? Should Greenie resign? (Trick question, Mike is absolutely awful and should resign for a lack of sports knowledge that is not remotely compensated for by humor).

Despite the Giants not being involved and the fact that 75% of the games were certifiable blowouts, I think that a good number of you Fackers were pleased with the results--namely the Jets winning and the Patriots gettin' knawked the fack out by the Ravens. Let's hope that the Cowboys lose this weekend.

Well, I'm back offering more NFL Playoffs content. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment. Or maybe I have fun writing these posts.

In my opinion, Divisional Weekend is the best weekend of the sporting year. Two entire days of football, wherein the Super Bowl pretenders are knocked out and the heavyweights - the #1 and #2 seeds - make their postseason debuts. We get to speculate about whether the top seeds should have rested their starters in the final weeks of the regular season and sought health at the expense of momentum. I certainly can't wait until 4:30 on Saturday.

The elements do not figure to be be a factor this week as 3 of the games will be in domed stadiums and the other will be in San Diego. Certainly not what I think of when I think of playoff football. Regardless, it would be difficult for the games not to be better than last weekend's slate. Unlike last weekend, we are going to split the posts up. Here are Saturday's games:

Arizona Cardinals (+7) at New Orleans Saints, Saturday 4:30 PM EST. The Cardinals are coming off a thrilling 51-45 overtime victory in which a defensive touchdown ironically ended the highest scoring NFL postseason game ever. Go figure. Some, including the aforementioned Mike Greenberg say that the Cardinals will be exhausted and mentally drained from the victory and the "long" flight from Arizona to Nawlins. I say bullshit. If the Saints lose, they'll say they were rusty coming off their first round bye. Rest, or lack thereof, is thoroughly overrated.

Meanwhile, the Saints, who were 13-0, before losing their final three contests, look to get back on the winning track so that they can win their first ever Super Bowl title. Incidentally, no team has ever lost its final 3 games and won the Super Bowl. If Brees, who was screwed in the MVP voting, plays like he did during the Saints' first 14 games, we could see a shootout of epic proportions at the Superdome akin to what we saw in Glendale last weekend. Brees finished the regular season with 4,388 yards (6th in the NFL) and led the Saints to a league-leading average of 31.9 points per game. (Interestingly, Cardinals QB Antrel Rolle was quoted as saying he'd rather face Saints QB Drew Brees any day of the week than face Packers QB Aaron Rodgers again.)

Cardinals WR Anquan Boldin, who missed the Wild Card matchup, did not practice Wednesday and is questionable.

How The Cardinals Can Win: Exploit the Saints' 26th-ranked pass defense. Also, they will need to replicate their running game that they had against the Packers (Nawlins was particularly vulnerable to the run in their final 3 games). Follow the Cowboys' gameplan and blitz the shit out of Brees and limit him to underneath passes. DO NOT GET BEAT BY THE BIG PLAY!

How The Saints Can Win: Big plays from Brees. Blitz the shit out of Warner and force picks.

My Prediction: I think this game will be a proverbial barnburner that comes down to the last possession. Offense rules. Kurt Warner, the surefire future Canton inductee, drives the Cardinals down the field for a Neil Rackers field goal with 20 seconds left.

Cardinals: 38
Saints: 35

Ravens (+7) at Colts, Saturday 8:15 PM EST: This is a game of contradictions. Current Baltimore team versus former Baltimore team. Top seed versus the lowest seed. The Ravens, in my opinion are undoubtedly the hottest team in the NFL. The Colts, au contraire, are the most rested team as a result of not having played their starters in 3.5 weeks.

The Colts are led by three-time MVP QB Peyton Manning (Peyton won the award this season to join Brett Favre as the only three-time winner of the sport's most prestigious award). Under center for the Ravens is Joe Flacco - he who owned a stat line of 4/10, 34 yards (tied with Miami's Bob Griese for the fewest in a playoff win in the Super Bowl era) over the fackin' Pats.

The Ravens had the 5th rated run defense; the Colts had the 24th rated run defense. The Ravens, led by the diminutive yet ravishing Ray Rice, finished 5th in the NFL in rushing; the Colts finished 32 of 32 in the same stat. As a matter of fact, the only similarity of the two teams is the relative inexperience of their head coaches - John Harbaugh is in his second year at the helm of the Ravens (and has two postseason appearences); Colts boss man Jim Caldwell, who has been critiqued by more Americans than President Obama over the last month, is a rookie.

So Who Will Win?

The Colts Can Win If: They are able to stop Ray Rice. As simple as that.

The Ravens Can Win If: Ray Rice runs wild. And Manning throws 3 INTs.

Prediction: Earlier in the week I was telling everyone who would listen that the Ravens would advance to the AFC Championship game. I was only one of the few who picked the Ravens over the Pats and I have a special affinity for Ray Rice because I picked him in the late rounds of my fantasy draft and he ended up one of the top Fantasy RBs. However, after looking at the matchups, I am not so sure anymore. Mainly, I am not too confident in Joe Flacco after the numbers he put up in Foxborough. Manning throws for 300 with 2 TDs with Addai running in another. Rice plays well with 140 combined yards and a TD, but not well enough to compensate for Flacco's turnovers.

Colts: 24
Ravens: 17

Come back on Sunday for the other two breakdowns. Enjoy the games!

Sláinte,
Joe