FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over.
You can still e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach.
Comedy = Referring To The Existence Of Comedy Movie Borat
Bill Simmons is doing a running diary of today's March Madness games. I know: you click on a Simmons link, you're going to get pop culture references. You shouldn't expect otherwise. But tell me if you think this is going a little overboard.
From the introduction:
We have DirecTV's March Madness package in HD. We have an extra laptop so House can search things on Google. We have Borat's brother Bilo in a cage to the right of the TV.
One Borat.
9:49: For the first time today, CBS has commercials going on all three games at the same time. That leads to this exchange:
Me: We gotta come up with a name for that phenomenon … it's like a whitewash, but with commercials.
House: Whatever the name is of the town rapist in 'Borat' -- that's what we should call it."
Two Borats.
9:58: And the answer? We still can't figure it out. There's no info online other than Caracter accepted "benefits" from a family friend. Whatever that means. The important thing is that House's two Google searches so far today have been "Borat town rapist" and "Louisville Caracter issues." But seriously … you have love March Madness.
Three Borats.
10:22: Hey, where does Brook Lopez's twin brother rank among the most overmatched athlete twins in recent sports history? Ahead or behind Ozzie Canseco? He just threw the ball on the backboard on consecutive possessions while House repeatedly called him "Bilo Lopez" and JackO said in the Borat voice, "He no get this … he no get this …"
Four Borats. (Can you picture in your head just how funny JackO's Borat voice was? LOL!)
11:57: One of our friends just read the first two installments of the diary and wondered what was up with all the "Borat" jokes. Well, we watched the DVD twice yesterday -- once in the afternoon, once late at night. I can't remember the last comedy that I would have watched twice in one day. Has there been a better comedy since "Midnight Run"? I say no.
Five Borats. At this point, Simmons' own friend writes him and is like, dude, it is just plain sad how many times you have written the word Borat. Please stop.
12:38: Google update through three hours: "Borat town rapist" … "Caracter Louisville issues" … "Greg Gumbel buffet table" … "Oral Roberts name origin."
Six Borats. The diary has become the Epic Movie of diaries.
Bonus sweet ref:
9:42: Louisville 17, Stanford 6 … and Stanford has turned the ball over at least 45 times in six minutes. "They shouldn't have recruited Bilo Sagdiyev as their point guard," House jokes. By the way, the over/under for Bilo jokes over the next two days is 75½. I'd take the over.
I originally missed this one because I was searching for the word Borat. Sneaky! That makes seven references to the movie, which I believe Bill Simmons wrote and directed, giving him total license to do that, correct?
So of course I felt a little bad about mildly criticizing what basically amounted to a heartfelt obituary that Bill Simmons wrote for Dennis Johnson. Not you guys, though. A bunch of you wrote in with additional embellishments, overstatements, and just plain mistakes that Simmons made. Thanks, you heartless bastards.
Nearly all of the complaints I got centered around Simmons' hyperbole about DJ's signature play -- the post-Larry-Bird-steal layup in Game 5 of the '87 Finals. Here's what Simmons had to say (caution, extremely long):
Like everything else about his career, few remember his defining moment: The waning seconds of Game 5 in the '87 Eastern finals, when Bird famously picked off Isiah's pass and dished to DJ for the winning layup. Everyone remembers the steal and Johnny Most's call; nobody remembers DJ standing near midcourt, seeing Bird moving for the pass. Even as Bird snatched the ball out of Laimbeer's hands, DJ was already moving toward the basket with his hands up, ready to make the winning shot. From the mid-'70s to right now, I can only pinpoint a handful of players who would have instinctively known to cut toward the basket even as that steal was in the process of happening -- MJ, Magic, Frazier, Stockton, Reggie, Mullin, Rick Barry, Isiah (ironically, the one who threw the pass), Robert Horry, Dwyane Wade, Jason Kidd, Iverson, Nash, Kobe, and that's about it. Nobody else starts moving until after the steal happens. And by the way, if DJ never made that cut, Bird would have been forced to launch a fall-away 10-footer over the backboard to win the game -- which he probably would have made, but that's beside the point.
One more thought on that layup: the replay never does it justice. DJ was going full speed, hauled the pass from the left, then had Dumars coming at him from his direct right, so he had to shield the ball from Dumars, turn his body to the left and make a reverse layup that was much harder than it looked. My father and I were sitting on the opposite side of the main CBS camera, right in the tunnel where the players entered and exited (you can even see us at the end of this particular game), so you have to believe me on this one: that layup almost missed. Dumars changed the angle at the last second; DJ's layup struck the right side of the rim and somehow dropped home. Believe me, the layup was just as tough as the steal.
Whew. Now here's the play, which Simmons linked to in his article:
Notice anything? Many of you assholes did. Notably:
1. nobody remembers DJ standing near midcourt, seeing Bird moving for the pass.
When Bird steals the ball, at around 0:32 in the video, Johnson is pretty clearly standing just outside the three-point line, not "near midcourt".
2. Even as Bird snatched the ball out of Laimbeer's hands, DJ was already moving toward the basket with his hands up, ready to make the winning shot.
If you watch the video, this seems like a fairly large exaggeration. He sees the steal, then cuts. Heads-up play. He wasn't clairvoyant, though.
3. From the mid-'70s to right now, I can only pinpoint a handful of players who would have instinctively known to cut toward the basket even as that steal was in the process of happening -- MJ, Magic, Frazier, Stockton, Reggie, Mullin, Rick Barry, Isiah (ironically, the one who threw the pass), Robert Horry, Dwyane Wade, Jason Kidd, Iverson, Nash, Kobe, and that's about it. Nobody else starts moving until after the steal happens.
This is where a false premise devolves into borderline lunacy. Only those fourteen players would have cut during the steal (a thing DJ didn't really do)? As reader P.J. points out, how could he have left out Eckstein?
Also, Robert Horry? Robert Horry? You're telling me Robert Horry would have stormed the lane but say, Kevin Garnett wouldn't have. Or Scottie Pippen? James Worthy. How about, I don't know, Ginobili? The point isn't that the list isn't complete. The point is that the idea of even making such a list in the first place is sort of crazy.
4. DJ was going full speed, hauled the pass from the left, then had Dumars coming at him from his direct right, so he had to shield the ball from Dumars, turn his body to the left and make a reverse layup that was much harder than it looked.
I think the word you're looking for is "layup," not "reverse layup." Because what Dennis Johnson attempted and made on that play was a layup. A right-handed layup on the left side of the basket is not necessarily a reverse layup. A reverse layup is "A layup that's made after the shooter crosses under the basket to lay the ball in from the other side, usually because the shot might have been blocked on the original side of attack."
Again, we're still critizing an obituary here. Are people happy now? Jesus.
5. Believe me, the layup was just as tough as the steal.
Some of you passionately disagreed with this. Great.
Looking back, the main reason I wrote this post was to be the first guy on FJM to embed a YouTube video. Don't worry, everybody, baseball's in the air!
In DJ's honor, I'm going to needlessly nitpick an article written in his honor. I'm sorry. I'm a bad person. Yesterday, Bill Simmons wrote: He should have made the trip to Springfield when he was still alive. Instead, he'll be making it in spirit some day. Didn't have to be that way. If you're reading this, and you have a Hall of Fame vote and you didn't vote for Dennis Johnson the last few years, hang your head in shame.
Last fall, in an articlehe himself links to in the body of yesterday's column, Bill Simmons wrote:
So why was Dumars elected? For the same reasons most borderline candidates are: 1) He's a good guy, and 2) the voters don't know any better. But Joe D symbolizes an even larger problem. Fact is, neither Moncrief, DJ nor Dumars is a legitimate Hall of Fame choice.
The DJ stands for Dennis Johnson. I think Simmons' point was that the Hall of Fame has too many marginal guys, and he'd like to kick all the borderline members out. But paradoxically, that same lax standard is the only one by which you can argue today that Dennis Johnson truly belongs -- and Simmons not only makes that argument, he thinks anyone who voted otherwise ought to hang his head in shame.
So in the span of a few months, Simmons slams people who voted for Dumars, says neither Dumars nor DJ should make the hall, then abruptly does a 180 and slams everyone who voted against DJ.
I guess it's forgivable because a man died? Let's put it this way, on a scale of Dumars to DJ, my level of anger about this is Sedale Threatt.
In-Depth, Substantive Super Bowl Analysis Right Here!
Title is totally inaccurate.
Let's instead look at Bill Simmons' Super Bowl pick from last week, with the obvious caveat that picks are meaningless and no one that I know of guesses the future with any sort of impressive accuracy.
Bill? As for the big game, I'm picking the Bears and taking the seven points. Here's why:
1. As I mentioned Thursday, everyone in Miami seems to be handing the trophy to the Colts already. ... Um, didn't we learn this lesson already from the Saints-Bears game? You never want to be on the same side as the gambling majority. Ever.
Not a football reason.
2. The Bears are staying near the airport (not near anything), while the Colts are staying closer to the beach (and closer to all the trouble). That makes it about 20 times as likely that an Indianapolis Colt will be this year's winner of the Stanley Wilson/Eugene Robinson Award and distract his team in the process. I can't take the chance.
Not football-related.
3. It's been said a kajillion times, but how can anyone be sold on this Colts defense? Against the Chiefs, the Colts stacked the line against LJ and just made Herm Edwards and Trent Green try to beat them. Against the Ravens, they didn't even have to stack the line because Jamal Lewis is so freaking slow, so they concentrated on forcing Steve McNair to make mistakes (and he obliged). Against the Patriots, they gave up 34 points and it would have been more if Troy Brown didn't get flagged for that illegal pick and the fourth-quarter interference against Reche Caldwell had been called. Now you have a Bears team that can pound the ball with two running backs AND has the receivers to throw deep. I know the Colts will stack the line and force Grossman to beat them, but teams have been doing that against the Bears all season -- they always seem to make two or three big plays.
Kudos. Football. Ended up being wrong, but still: football. 4. Peyton Manning's record in big games: Not so good. A little better recently, but still ... not so good. I'd like to see him win one title at the college or pro level before I'm laying seven points with him in a Super Bowl game.
Not really football.
5. Remember when the 2003 Yankees outlasted the Red Sox in that seven-game bloodbath and had nothing left for the Marlins series because it was like they had already played their World Series? I'm not saying the same thing will definitely happen here, but it's worth mentioning the Letdown Potential here. The Colts and their fans just spent the past two weeks breaking out the popsicles and doing the "we finally made it" routine. Meanwhile ...
Baseball. Bullshit Capitalized Theory Reference (Letdown Potential).
6. The Bears just went 15-3, made the Super Bowl and then had to spend the next two weeks hearing everyone take shots at their QB and give them little to no chance of winning the game. They have all the makings of being one of those teams that pulls off a mild upset in a championship game and spends the next few days telling everyone stuff like "Nobody believed in us!" and "The only people who believed we could do it were the people in this locker room," followed by everyone getting annoyed that they won't shut up that nobody believed in them. But it's kind of true. Nobody believes in the Bears. That's the best motivating force in sports. It really is.
Psychology. Come to think of it, 5 was also psychology. Well, I believe in the Bears from Chicago. I see this being one of those Super Bowls that's crappy and disjointed for most of the first half, followed by a point explosion right near halftime and one of those second halves when the teams just trade scores (like the Pats-Panthers Super Bowl). And in those games, either team can win, right? So here are my predictions.
A. Chicago 33, Indianapolis 30.
B. Thomas Jones for MVP.
C. The greatest Manning Face of all-time.
D. A new record for "nobody believed in us" quotes.
E. A dead heat with the Sports Gal (she's one game ahead of me and picking the Colts) that can only be decided with the one sporting event that best determines whether you have a gambling problem: The 2007 Pro Bowl. I'm already giddy.
Of course A. was going to be wrong. No one gets those right. They're a semi-fun (ok, not really fun) waste of time. B. through E. also wrong. Congrats, Sports Guy!
** MEALY-MOUTHED ADDITION **
Just wanted to add that we all understand that hey, Bill Simmons isn't really even a sports analyst, per se. It's almost gotten to the point where criticizing him for his sports-related opinions is like criticizing Andy Rooney's political stances. It's beside the point. He's going for "light," "fun," "entertaining," "pop-culture-y," "fizzy" -- understood. That's why we don't write about him that much.
My question is: how long until he turns into Rick Reilly?
What's even stupider about point #5 in that column is that the natural comparison for that rivalry would be 2004, when the Red Sox staged a comeback to finally knock off their hated rival (who had owned them until that point) and then went on to utterly destroy their championship competitor who came from a clearly inferior league/conference. What do you know, just like 2004, the team from the better league/conference won? Of course, Simmons would never compare the Colts to the Red Sox...
...to that e-mail that Simmons posted (see Junior's post below).
Dude wrote: "In 1996-2000, it wasn't just that they had great chemistry (which they did), they didn't have nearly as much offensive talent so they were forced to play true October baseball."
Hmm. How much less offensive talent did they really have during that 5-year stretch?
In 2006, the Yankees scored 930 runs.
In the World Series Championship year of 1998, they scored 965.
From 1996-200, they averaged 899.6 runs / year. Compared against the 2006 juggernauts, that's a difference of 30.4 runs, or .19 runs / game.
And this difference in offensive talent (am I measuring it wrong?) is meant to be enough to explain the problem with the 2006 Yankees? At this point, I'm even willing to let go of the far more ridiculous assertion: that the problem is that they had too much talent.
Side note: in the 1998 World Series, the only series for which I currently have the energy to make the following calculations, the Yankees also scored 15 out of 26 of their runs on HRs. Or 54%. Or a percent that would have led MLB any of the years for which I've been able to find data. And yes, you should ignore those numbers because the sample size is tiny.
Not to quibble Jr., but it is worth noting how little the Buck-McCarver team extolled Endy Chavez's catch. We might have seen the single greatest postseason defensive play in the Division Series era (particularly if the Mets end up winning). I guess my point is generally that the pro-Cards bias has been unbelievable this series. Did you catch McCarver trying to spin Pujols's quotes about Glavine the other night? If Delgado had said the same about Carpenter, all we would have heard about all night is how Delgado hates America because he won't stand for the anthem 5 years ago (when the U.S. was using his native land as mortar dump.) McCarver-Buck are not good at their jobs.
Ok, it was 2 years ago. I got that from an abbreviated Google entry that ellipsied into a bit about Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf in the '95-'96 season. We've all been there, right fellas?
I hear you, Jr. For the record, I find it easier to root for the Mets knowing that Willie Randolph's daughter loves to watch Endy Chavez play the game. Ok, I'll stop clogging up the comments board.
Isn't it weird when it's raining at baseball games, and it looks from some angles like it's pouring, and then from other shots like it's not even raining at all?
