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.
    

"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

"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.