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.

Joe Buck Hates The Yankees

How many times have you heard someone say something similar to that headline? I've heard it a lot. Why do people think that announcers hate their team? Why Buck specifically?

First, I think it goes without saying that Buck is infinitely more competent than Chip Caray. Or as Craig Calcaterra said during the ALDS, "He's still basically terrible, but he's less offensive than the other terrible announcer who only has his job because of nepotism". Bill Simmons jokingly suggested that HBO create the "Chip Caray Show" and put it on before Buck's to make the latter look better by comparison.

Fro the record, I don't have a problem with Joe Buck and wouldn't say he's "terrible". I think he does an satisfactory job of calling the game and that's something most of us took for granted until Caray came on the scene. Say what you will about Buck, but he doesn't inaccurately describe what's happening on the field very often or repeatedly shove words like "fisted" up our... well, you know.

I think a big part of the reason that people don't like Buck and McCarver (aside from ol' Tim's sometimes nonsensical declarations) is the tone of Joe Buck's voice. He comes across as slightly smug and smarmy. People believe that Joe Buck thinks he's better than them. I don't know whether or not that is actually the case, or to what extent other announcers feel that way, but I think it oozes through the speakers from Buck to a much greater extent.

The other reasons that people dislike Buck are the same for all national broadcasters, especially in baseball. Most teams have home announcers that sound more folksy and are easy on the local nine. When a player fouls up, fans are going to be upset, and therefore much more likely to misdirect their anger towards the announcer. So Buck might point out the same thing that Michael Kay would, but the voice isn't as familiar, the tone a bit sharp. Sometimes it's not the message as much as it is the messenger.

Local broadcasters also know the team inside and out and tailor their calls to fans who know more about their guys. On the weekends during the season and all games in the playoffs, whether we like it or not, the marginal viewers that represent that giant increase in ratings are casual fans or supporters of other teams. We are the ones watching all the games regardless, so why are the networks going to cater to us? So if FOX wants to maximize its ratings, they have to kowtow to people who aren't intimately familiar with Robinson Cano's lack of production with runners in scoring position.

In the end, I think the most telling thing is that a certain section of fans from all over the country think the announcers hate their team. I've heard countless Red Sox fans say that Buck hates the Red Sox. The Angels blog we kept talking about during the ALCS thought Buck had a pro-Yankees bias. Is it possible that Buck and McCarver hate every team? I guess, but isn't it more likely that fans all hate the same announcers? I would have to agree with McCarver when he sad said, “Quite simply, the bias comes not from the voice, but from the ears”.

When it comes right down to it, which announcers are universally liked? Vin Scully. Anyone else? Would Vin Scully have been so widely revered if his career was beginning now and we could all bitch about his calls on Twitter?

Broadcasting is a tough job and due to the duration of time on the air and proximity to the fans, it's the one position in sports that might be more scrutinized than what happens on the field. Maybe there's someone in broadcasting school right now with a killer voice and background in sabermetrics who is going to universally beloved 15 or 20 years from now.

But I kinda doubt it. People are going to find something to hate about that guy too. We hold our announcers to impossibly high standards and sports fans are always going to find something to critique during the countless hours they are on the air. With the lines of communication now available on the internet, I think it's fair to wonder if any national broadcaster will ever be truly loved again.

Today In Headlines That Shouldn't Need To Be Written

Why Last Night’s Loss Doesn’t Necessarily Mean This Is 2004 All Over Again

Jon DeLessio over at The Sports Section at New York Magazine would like to talk you down from a metaphorical ledge. His hostage negotiation tactics include A) comparing 2009 A-Rod to 2004 David Ortiz, B) saying that the homefield advantage is somehow better this time although both teams went (57-24) at home, and C) pointing out that CC Sabathia would start a Game 7 should it be necessary. Guess which one of these is a valid point. If you said C, congratulations, you may be a rational person!

The problem is that the people who are standing on said ledge are not going to be talked down from it.

If you've given up on this series after one loss, you're a special kind of pathetic. That's the kind of fatalism reserved for Red Sox, Cubs and Mets fans.

Here are some reasons that this year, even if the worst case scenario comes to fruition, isn't 2004:

1. The deficit wasn't 3-0
2. These aren't the Red Sox
3. This isn't 5 years ago
4. There are 5 players out of 50 that the two playoff rosters have in common - six if you count Johnny Damon, which I don't

So no, Wallace Matthews. This wouldn't be worse than 2004, you moron.

Just as a blowout victory in Game 4 didn't predict success in last night's game, one tough loss doesn't mean the Yanks are going to drop the last two. Relax everyone, it's still match point and we've got the next two serves.

Remember when everyone was in agreement that this was going to be a great series? Well, in a great series, there are going to be triumphs and tragedies. Glorious victories and heartbreaking losses. Let's try not to lose our minds so badly in the latter that we can't enjoy the former.

It's Friday night. Blow off some steam. I might be witnessing some amateur pugilism. Some of you are probably planning to get extremely drunk. Others may be doing slightly more respectable activities like going out to dinner and seeing a movie. Do your respective things and let's meet back here sometime tomorrow afternoon.

Okay Maybe One More Thing...

The Bethpage Report

Yesterday, for the second Tuesday in a row, I headed out to Bethpage State Park. This time, however, I wasn't planning on playing 18 and we didn't get rained out. I love to play golf, but couldn't care less about the PGA Tour on a week to week basis. Like many of you, however, if I'm trying to take a nap on a Sunday, golf is the perfect backdrop. It's almost as if the announcers know you are trying to sleep.

That said, I love the US Open. I think I only like the British Open because it's on when you wake up in the morning and I'm not captivated by the Masters or the PGA Championship. But the US Open winds my clock. I love the fact that they take an incredibly challenging course and make it impossibly hard. Having the winning score end up around par every year is also a refreshing change from tour events like last week, when the winning score was -18.

As is the case with all of golf's majors, the early part of the week leading up to the US Open is reserved for players to play practice rounds, get a feel for the course, and fend of all the annoying autograph hounds. Despite the practice being explicitly forbidden by the tournament, even on practice days, it's still wildly prevalent.

Every time a player goes from a green to the next tee they have to walk past dozens of people sticking out US Open hats, flags, posters, shirts and other memorabilia for them to sign. It's the reason that Tiger sneaks out at 7am and only plays 9 holes. It's probably cool to walk away with a US Open flag with a bunch of signatures on it, but in order to do so, you have to constantly pester the players for them. Not my cup of tea.

My friend Mike got our Trophy Club passes on Craigslist for half of face value including shipping. Why they were $60 to begin with is beyond me, but we got a pretty good deal. We took the LIRR from Penn Station out to the Farmingdale stop. It was $14 a person, with shuttle service right to the course and took a little over an hour both ways. Highly recommended if you are going out to the course from Manhattan. I promise it's faster and less of a hassle than driving.

We checked out the driving range and short game area when we first got there. One thing that was truly amazing is that each player practices with the same kind of balls they play with. As a result, there is a staff of 3-4 volunteers at all times taking the balls off the practice green and sorting them by brand. The entire tournament is staffed by volunteers. It's too bad the USGA doesn't make any money off of this thing or there isn't $7.5M in prize money given away, cause you'd think that these poor schlubs sorting the fucking golf balls might deserve to be compensated for their efforts.

We walked the entire course in reverse, and below you can find some of the better pictures I took. You can check out the entire layout here.

#5 - 478 Yard Par 4

# 6 - 408 Yard Par 4

#10 - 435 Yard Par 4

#17 - 207 Yard Par 3

#4 - 517 Yard Par 5

What's amazing about #4 is that #7 is 525 yards... and it's a Par 4. Even for the pros, that's pretty ridiculous. At a certain point, it's not a two shot hole anymore. There are 3 par 4's over 500 yards at Bethpage. That ain't right.

The total length of the course as the players will take it on this weekend is 7,426 as a Par 70. To give you an idea, that's about 200-400 yards longer than most tour stops and about 1,000 yards or more than the tracks your average Sunday slashers call home. And most of those are par 72's.

I'd be willing to bet two things I noticed yesterday are going to lead to somewhat lower scores this year than when Tiger won the Open here in 2002. #1) It was wet. This might make it more difficult for your average Joe, but wetter conditions allow the pros to hold fairways and greens and they'd gladly trade the distance they lose off their drives to be hitting from the fairway and have their approach shots sit softly on the greens. #2) The rough is graduated. This means that right off the fairways, there won't be the six inch rough that vexed the players last time. The rough is still long, no doubt, but it's not nearly as punitive as it was in past Opens, namely when it was at Winged Foot in '05 the winning score was Geoff Ogilvy at +5.

I doubt I'm going to make it out for any of the actual tournament days, but it's probably for the better. As Malcom Gladwell said in a conversation with Bill Simmons a few years back, golf is probably the sport that has the most to gain by being televised live. You miss a ton when you are on the course but watching on TV, they can omnisciently bring you all of the best action.

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. 

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.
    

Humpday Podcast Recommendations

I sort of gave up listening to ESPN Radio after the unceremonious conclusion of the Max Kellerman Show and instead have transitioned over to podcasts. They are great for a couple of reasons:

1. You can turn them on whenever you want
2. You can pause them if something comes up
3. The hosts generally aren't pompous asshats (coughColinCowherdcough)
4. They occasionally allow foul language
5. They are free
6. THERE ARE NO COMMERCIALS

Here are three podcasts that have been produced in the last day or so, that you may or may not enjoy. There's really not a whole lot of risk involved, considering all you have to lose is the time you spend listening to them. On the other hand, if you do like them, you've got a free source of entertainment and something to make you temporarily forget how much you hate your job.

Here you go:

• The Bronx View (51 mins): I've linked to these guys before and they are top notch. The production and sound quality is excellent and they represent the rational and even-keeled Yankees fan in all of us. This show features Dan LaTorraca from Pinstripes PA who writes about the Scranton-WB Yanks at the blog linked above.
  
  
• On the DL (47 mins): They transitioned to a daily podcast back in the beginning of March and have a steady stream of great guests. Today, they have Dan Shanoff and Dan Steinberg from The Sporting Blog and D.C. Sports Bog, respectively. I would recommend perusing their archives for the shows with Steve Phillips, Trey Wingo, Tony Kornheiser, Darren Rovell and Annie Duke. If you are wondering how they get all these awesome guests, I don't know either.
  
  
• The BS Report (w/Rick Reilly) (46 mins): It's just like Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer (except not at all). It's pretty congenial and obviously was arranged to quell the rumors in the blogosphere that they hated each other. [Update: More to come on this]
  
  
• Also, The River Ave. Blues Radio Show should be out tomorrow.

By my calculations, taking into account some interruptions, those should get you well into the afternoon.

-----

And just as a totally random aside: Who gets bitchslapped by an umbrella thief?

"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

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.

"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.

Fantastic News

Fack Youk has been picked up by ESPN:



Despite of all the Widget bashing, erroneous Simmons hating, and Nate Silver questioning, we are now part of the ESPN family. They've specifically requested more incoherent rants from Big Willie Style.

[Ed. Note: That's not a photoshop, just a random Internet Explorer glitch.]

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.

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?

Happy Trails, Chase Wright

On the infamous night that Chase Wright gave up four consecutive home runs at Fenway Park, I was out with a couple of friends at Blondie's on 79th St. It was the same night when the Celtics gawt totally fackin' warked by David Staahrn in the 2007 NBA Draft Lottery and were given a pick three spots above where they were supposed to be.

The Yankees carried a 3-0 lead in the bottom of the third inning. Wright retired Kevin "Fack" Youkilis and David Ortiz on fly balls, when Manny Ramirez stepped to the plate.

Manny smashes one into the Green Monster.

Whatever, it's one run.

Next up, J.D. Drew. He drills it into the Red Sox bullpen in right.

It's okay, we still have the lead.

Then Mike Lowell lofts one over the Green Monster.

Okay, fuck. But it's still tied.

Finally, Jason Varitek pulls one into left field, it's high...

/Smashes face into plate of wings.

Wright finished the inning by retiring Willy Mo Pena, but was replaced by Colter Bean in the top of the 4th. The Yanks actually rebounded to take the lead in the 6th inning, but Scott Proctor gave up three runs in the 7th that sealed the deal.


In a span of 13 pitches, Wright became only the second pitcher in MLB history to give up four round trippers in a row, while simultaneously washing his Yankee career down the drain. Wright is at the level where guys are just looking to get another shot at the bigs. When your second to last outing included giving up a historically incredible offensive feat to your arch rivals, it's hard to get that stink off of you. He had posted a 2.85ERA last year, primarily in Double-A, but wasn't called up when the rosters expanded.

Today the Yanks traded him to the Brewers for Eric Fryer. After a lackluster Rookie Ball showing, Fryer busted out last year for Single-A West Virginia batting .335/.407/.506 in 104 games, while playing LF, 1B and even catcher (39 games).

Chase, I'm guessing the NL Central is going to be a lot more kind to you than the AL East was. You're left handed and only entering your age 26 season, so your best days are probably ahead.

I ain't mad at cha, homey.

SSOF?

There's nothing cooler than dissecting sports grammar! Right guys?

(silence)

Anyway... My post this morning on the Knicks and LeBron got me thinking about the title of D'Antoni's system. Shouldn't it be ":07 Seconds Or Fewer"? You can count seconds. The only way it should be "Less" is if the implication was ":07 Seconds Or Less (Time)". But I'm thinking that SSOL just sounded better and that it's gramatically incorrect.

Amazingly, I have a friend who works as an Account Exec. over at Simon & Schuster and I asked her to do some digging for me. Let's just say I was vindicated.

BAM! And she even managed to dredge up some other titles that were proposed:




(Nod: Simmons)