FJM is a closed forum, but we welcome reader feedback. We're especially interested in corrections of our work, and research (usually number-crunching) that we may not be able to do ourselves. Please check the comments section as well, where we often post readers' opinions, and, less frequently, announce that we were wrong about something.
You can e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach individually.
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...
Bill Simmons' latest is a critique of the state of football broadcasting, a commendable idea. Unfortunately, the whole thing is a bit of a sprawling mess. I found these two sections to be somewhat at odds with each other:
You can't say things deteriorated this season because this has been an ongoing problem for more than 20 years, ever since the Cosell-Meredith-Gifford team peaked and John Madden exploded onto the scene, followed by the networks' collectively deciding, "instead of accepting that these were two once-in-a-lifetime situations that cannot be recreated, we're going to kill ourselves trying to recreate them."
Simmons posits in the first paragraph that the main problem is that the networks have been unsuccessfully trying to rip off Cosell-Meredith-Gifford and Madden, two beloved broadcasting entities. Fine, it's an opinion. But then, later in the same column, he throws this out there:
And that's the biggest problem with football announcing right now (well, one of the biggest): Nobody is trying to rip off the guys who everyone loved the most.
What? What happened to the argument you led off this piece with? People didn't love Howard Cosell and John Madden?
Fledgling broadcasters everywhere, please, you have our permission -- rip off Summerall and Albert. I'll settle for three poor man's Marvs and Pats and maybe even a couple of homeless man's Marvs and Pats.
Huh? Seriously, I'm just confused. Unless he's saying that these are the only two guys it's okay to hire lukewarm copies of.
And we know he can produce in the clutch from that monster 2004 MVP season that culminated in a sublime 32-point, 21-rebound Game 7 against the Kings. We can also agree, his career would have been different if he had somehow switched places with Duncan.
Okay, no real problems here. Garnett had a great game that I vaguely remember.
But maybe KG is too passionate for his own good.
Uh oh. What about that Game 7 ... ?
By all accounts, he's so wound up before games, it affects everyone around him; he wouldn't even allow anyone to listen to music in the locker room before Cassell arrived. He's not above punching teammates in practices. And he's famous for yelping ferociously after big plays, clenching his fists and screaming toward the ceiling like a WWE wrestler.
The first thing is kind of dickish, the second might be a problem chemistry-wise (but I've certainly heard similar stories about Jordan and Bird), the third thing ... not sure that impacts his basketball abilities that much.
He's never learned to adapt his game to the situation; he plays the same in a mid-November blowout and a deciding playoff game, which explains why he seemed spent during the 2004 conference finals against the Lakers.
The argument takes a strange turn here. Kevin Garnett, by Simmons' own estimation the fourth-greatest power forward to ever live, can't "adapt his game to the situation." He's penalized by Simmons for playing hard in the regular season. And he's completely "spent" in the 2004 conference finals, a series that began literally two days after KG dropped 32 and 21 in Game 7 against the Kings. (I looked it up. May 19 and May 21.) Remember that game, Bill? You wrote about it four sentences ago.
That was his longest season by far -- seven months and exactly 100 games -- and in classic KG fashion, he averaged 24-14-5 in the regular season and an almost identical 24-15-5 in the playoffs.
Strange strange strange. What kind of basketball monster magically posts dramatically better statistics in the playoffs? I looked up Michael Jordan's numbers, and even they're not significantly better -- he scores three more points per game than in the regular season (in four more minutes per game), and that's partially because his creaky Washington years lowered his regular season average. So putting up the same statistics in the playoffs isn't "classic KG fashion," it's classic NBA player fashion. It's all players.
Here, just to make sure, let me check Shaq's numbers. Regular season Shaq: 26, 12, and 3. Playoff Shaq: 26, 12, and 3. Hmm. Someone can't adapt to the situation!
Let me also add that there is absolutely nothing wrong with averaging 24, 15, and 5 in the playoffs. Superstars like Duncan know when to dominate and when to keep something in reserve for big moments.
Aargh. Regular season Tim Duncan: 23.3, 12.7, 3.3. Playoff Tim Duncan: 24.1, 12.7, 3.6. My point isn't necessarily even that Tim Duncan doesn't dominate big moments. It's that these statistics are woefully inadequate for even coming close to proving anything of the sort. It's like trying to split one of Billy Koch's Morgellons fibers with a battle axe. I'd rather he just leave the pretend statistical evidence out of it and just admit that he's writing about a gut feeling and nothing more here.
KG plays only in fifth gear.
Duncan fucking sits on his ass for half the year idling in neutral like the lazy shithead he is. Jordan had an actual mechanical switch in his back that Scottie Pippen would manually set to the proper gear according to the situation. Only Pippen, though. One time Bill Cartwright tried to get at the switch and Jordan bit his left hand off. That's why Bill Cartwright doesn't have a left hand. True story.
P.S. Regular season Larry Bird: 24.3, 10.0, 6.3. Playoff Larry Bird: 23.8, 10.5, 6.8 (in four more minutes per game). Classic Bird fashion.
...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.
I'm now waiting for Jose Valentin and Paul Lo Duca to get in the batters' box together, put their hands on the same bat, and swing away to hit a walk-off grand slam.
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.
They were pretty reserved, you're right! I was only using all caps because it sure is funny that after I blasted Endy and Jose and Paul just hours ago, one of them came through and may have saved the game for the Mets, thus undoubtedly reinforcing Jonathan T.'s confidence in his Role Players Win Games Theory.
Also, the stuff about Endy not hitting well in the playoffs so far is mainly just me crying.
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?
Bill Simmons just printed and heartily endorsed an email I'm not totally on board with. Take a look:
Anyway, out of all the Yankee fans I heard from, the most rational argument came from Jonathan T., who sent along the following post-mortem:
"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. The current Yankee lineup isn't built for the postseason. You just can't rely on three-run homers with the great pitching in the playoffs, while you can in much of the regular season (especially playing Tampa and Baltimore 38 times). With a great set of contact hitters and speed guys --Damon, Jeter, Abreu, Melky, Cano -- this team should be hit-and-running, stealing at every opportunity, taking extra bases, bunting, etc. However, with power hitters like Sheffield and A-Rod clogging up the end of the lineup (such as Game 4, when A-Rod hit eighth), they can't. There is actually TOO MUCH talent. Are you honestly going to bunt with runners on first and second and no one out with the 25-million-dollar man up? Of course not. But if former eighth-place-hitter Scott Brosius is up, it's a no-brainer. So it's not just their lack of chemistry but the fact that playoff teams thrive off role players. Even if you take a loaded team like the Mets, they still have guys like Endy Chavez, Jose Valentin and Paul Lo Duca. Baseball front offices, regardless of the payroll, should build their teams like baseball teams, not fantasy baseball teams."
(Note: The Yankees are NOT allowed to hire Jonathan T. as their VP of Common Sense. I'm never handing over his e-mail address. Ever.)
Huh. So Jonathan, your argument is that the Yankees had too much offensive talent. Really.
I'll be charitable and throw out the obvious FJM-bait of "great chemistry" and "true October baseball." Let's examine what's really being put forth here. Jonathan is saying that postseason baseball is qualitatively different from regular season baseball. I'm listening. Why is it different? The only answer Jonathan gives is "great pitching." Okay. I'll accept that the pitching is probably, on average, better in the postseason than in the regular season (today's NLCS Game 7 notwithstanding). So far, so good. Now it gets tricky, though. It's Jonathan's claim that because the pitching is better, it is incumbent on all successful playoff teams to do the following: "hit-and-running, stealing at every opportunity, taking extra bases, bunting, etc." The "etc." stands for Ecksteining. Actually, everything in between the quotation marks stands for Ecksteining.
I'm not buying it. Is there any evidence that shows that the benefits of these strategies are increased against better pitching? That we should replace Alex Rodriguezes and Gary Sheffields with bunting Endy Chavezes and sacrificing Jose Valentins? Think about it. Seriously. If you play these games a hundred times, in what crazy nightmare simulacrum are you voluntarily going to war with Endy and Jose over Alex and Gary?
Basically: do you want shittier hitters because you're facing better pitchers? Because that's what Jonathan is saying.
And let's move from the general to the specific. Did the Yankees lose to the Tigers because dozens of men were left on base, just begging to be sacrificed over? Nope. It was much simpler: they weren't on base enough to begin with. In Game 3, they were held to five hits and two walks the whole game. To win the game in nine innings, they would've had to have gotten every single one of those guys in via the hit-and-run-and-steal-and-bunt method somehow. Game 4 was even worse. Nine innings: six hits, one walk. That's it. Not to mention the fact that by the time the Yankees got on base for the first time, they were already down 7-0. Remember Jeremy Bonderman's five perfect innings to start the game? Remember that, Jonathan? Game 2 was the only game the Yankees lost while getting a decent number of men on base. They lost that one 4-3. But you know why they were so close in that one? A goddamn three-run homer. No wonder they lost -- can't have those in the playoffs.
The Yankees' "greatest lineup in history" wasn't actually the greatest lineup in history for those four games because Gary Sheffield and Hideki Matsui were still coming back from injuries and Jason Giambi was pretty messed up, too. Joe Torre decided that those guys at 50 or 75% were still better than 100% mediocre Melky Cabrera or 100% terrible Andy Phillips. I think that's a perfectly defensible position. On top of that, for two games, Kenny Rogers and Jeremy Bonderman were lights out. Even those awesome hitters weren't getting on base against them.
So it's not just their lack of chemistry but the fact that playoff teams thrive off role players.
That's right: in the playoffs, role players are more important than good players. That's just good ol' common sense.
Even if you take a loaded team like the Mets, they still have guys like Endy Chavez, Jose Valentin and Paul Lo Duca.
How are Endy Chavez, Jose Valentin and Paul Lo Duca that different from Melky Cabrera, Robinson Cano and Jorge Posada? Also, fuck you for suggesting that any of those guys are better than Gary Sheffield or Alex Rodriguez (or, I'm sorry -- more useful in the playoffs against great pitching because teams thrive off of role players in the postseason, like everybody knows). I mean, seriously. I've been civil for like nine hundred words. But that is just fucking ridiculous.
P.S. "Clogging up the end of the lineup"??? You win a goddamn Dusty Baker Award. Wear it with pride, my friend.
P.P.S. Let us never forget that Bill Simmons says this is the "most rational" argument he has heard and suggests that Jonathan would make an excellent "VP of Common Sense" for a baseball team. Never forget.
I didn't put any cheap shots in the post, so here's one:
Endy Chavez should replace the name on the back of his jersey with the words "TRUE OCTOBER BASEBALL."
Other guys, feel free to join in.
Another P.S. He's using the Mets as an example of how to succeed in the playoffs? The same Mets who had to scrape and claw against the horrendous Cardinals to force a Game 7?
You know how after almost any team loses in any sport, someone says in a really annoying voice, "Well, they just didn't want it enough!" Bill Simmons is doing that, but taking it to a whole new level. He's now implying that by overrating a team, the media can trick them into not wanting it enough. Seriously.
Read what he wrote below, and think about how when taken as a whole, everything seems to flow together and make sense.
What happens when a team doesn't have anything to prove?
Look at the Yankees. Everyone handed the World Series to them before the playoffs started, to the point it became a no-win situation, no different from any of the Team USA basketball collapses the past few years. The Yankees were a peculiar mix of All-Stars, washed-up veterans and nobodies who weren't as collectively good as we thought, a team with some fundamental flaws (defense, chemistry and pitching), a team that easily could be taken down by some live bats and a couple of good arms. As soon as they started struggling, they self-imploded and that was that. Everyone was shocked.
But was it really that shocking?
Sounds pretty good. But wait until I take it line by line and nitpick it to death. This will be enjoyable to at least one person. Probably KT.
What happens when a team doesn't have anything to prove?
The Yankees hadn't won a World Series in five years and they're expected to win every year by a crazy boss. They had a lot to prove. Not to mention that the bulk of the team is made up of non-True-Yankee losers whom everyone wants to crucify. Don't you think it would've helped Gary Sheffield or Jason Giambi out reputation-wise to win a championship in New York? How about, um, Alex Rodriguez? I'm pretty sure he had something to prove.
Look at the Yankees. Everyone handed the World Series to them before the playoffs started,
Everyone. Actually, if you follow that link, you'll find that six out of nineteen ESPN experts picked the Yankees to win the Series. Seven picked the Twins. Humorously, only one picked a team that is not already eliminated.
to the point it became a no-win situation,
I think if the Yankees had won the World Series, that would have counted as a "win." They lost, so it was "not a win." I'm being over-literal, but come on. It would have been awesome for those guys to win and prove they were "championship material" guys who don't "choke" and instead "do all the little things" or "whatever it takes" to "get the job done." Being the favorite, which they very marginally were, I think, despite how the ESPN folks voted, does not make your situation a "no-win" one.
no different from any of the Team USA basketball collapses the past few years.
A lot of people were picking Argentina and Spain last time. ESPN.com's Chris Sheridan would not shut up about it.
The Yankees were a peculiar mix of All-Stars, washed-up veterans and nobodies
I think a lot of teams are a mix of All-Stars, washed-up veterans and nobodies -- not sure it's that peculiar. I guess the implication here is that they needed more hungry kids to hungrify them. Also, gritty veterans instead of washed-up veterans. And firebrands.
a team with some fundamental flaws (defense, chemistry and pitching),
I'm going to print these words in sizes of relative importance:
defensechemistrypitching
That totally wasn't worth it. Let's move on.
a team that easily could be taken down by some live bats and a couple of good arms.
Again, this is almost every team in baseball history with the possible exception of the '27 Yankees. "Live bats and a couple of good arms" are what make teams good. This is like saying "You know what the 2006 Yankees' kryptonite was? A good fucking team, that's what."
As soon as they started struggling, they self-imploded and that was that.
Uh huh. They self-imploded. They wanted to lose. They quit. Very plausible.
Everyone was shocked.
I was surprised. I thought the Yankees were slightly better. And I still think that if they played the Tigers 100 times, the Yankees would win like 52 of them. Not that interesting.
But was it really that shocking?
No, but not because of your elaborate media-jinxed-them theory. It's because in a five-game series, anything can fucking happen. I can't stress this enough. The Royals swept the Tigers. Is it because the Tigers had nothing to prove or because the media thought they had the best lineup of all time? No. It was because the Tigers had three shitty days in a row. In baseball, that happens.
This particular Yankee team didn't even seem to like one another
DON'T CARE DON'T CARE DON'T CARE
By Game 4, they clearly didn't want to be there anymore. You could see them checking out as the game went on.
What I saw was Jeremy Bonderman with filthy stuff and Jaret Wright with Jaret Wright stuff.
They had no fight in them.
Hindpsycho. This is baseball. The only semblance of "fight" I can think of is maybe taking more pitches than usual? Or what? I don't know, you tell me. Again, Bonderman was throwing darts. How do you fight that?
Did the gushing stream of "greatest lineup ever!" angles soften them in the end?
No, goddammit, it didn't soften them. Is anyone buying this?
Sure seemed like it -- they didn't seem to be like a team that was battling for anything.
Anger subsiding ... indignance waning ... resistance weakening. Jesus. Define battling. This is baseball. Fouling off pitches? Catching and throwing the ball with an angry, serious expression on your face? I bet they were trying to do those things.
As soon as the Tigers pulled a Buster Douglas in Game 2 and punched them in the chops, they were never the same.
You've silenced my arguments with that metaphor. Point, Simmons.
Torre panicked and started switching his lineup around.
This is a tangible fact (well, the switching part is, not the panicking part). I don't believe it was a very big factor at all.
The bats went silent. Guys started screwing up. A-Rod peed on himself against Zumaya. The Tigers smelled the kill and finished them off. And that was that.
Here is my alternative explanation. It doesn't have as much to do with guys' feelings and the media and Hideki Matsui thinking he has nothing to prove.
Game One: the Yankees throw a good pitcher. They win.
Game Two: the Yankees throw a good pitcher but they lose a close one.
Game Three: the Yankees throw Randy Johnson, a pitcher with a 5.00 ERA. Also, Kenny Rogers is genuinely good for a game. They lose.
Game Four: the Yankees throw Jaret Wright, a bad pitcher. They lose.
On the larger issue of whether mercenary All-Star squads with no chemistry can ever win championships, thanks to everyone who's written in and suggested the recent successes of the Detroit Red Wings (2002) and Chelsea of the English Premier League.
Here's what I would like just one person to write:
In the regular season, the Tigers were 95-67. The Yankees were 97-65. Pick-'em.
The Yankees had a great line-up. The Tigers had a very good line-up. Ad: Yankees.
The Tigers had Verlander, Bonderman, Robertson, Zumaya, Rodney, Rogers, Grilli, and Jones. The Yankees had Mussina, Wang, Rivera, and nobody else. Unless you count RJ, who is 43 with a balky back and had a very mediocre year. Ad: Tigers.
The series is best-of-five, which when two teams have nearly identical winning percentages, is the equivalent of a coin-flip.
"[I]t's right up there with Norman Dale's "I love you guys" speech in "Hoosiers" and Paul Crewe's "For Caretaker" speech in "The Longest Yard" in my book."
"But with Damon, as I wrote in my column (after he left), they pursued him with the same enthusiasm of Nicole Richie halfheartedly poking at a Caesar salad."
"I bet Schilling reads this stuff, shakes his head, then goes to work out with the same look on his face that Clubber Lang had training for the first title fight with Rocky."
"I thought you were just soaking the moment in, and only because the place was so freaking loud that it almost seemed like the scene in "Karate Kid 2" when Daniel-San has to fight the crazy Japanese kid to the death and everyone is banging those drumsticks."
And for the first time, I'm wondering if the whole "been there, done that" syndrome has sunk in. More than any other sport, football teams rely on emotion over anything else.
Not only are the Cardinals back at home, not only have they been handed a second life, but out of every sport, baseball hinges on emotion and momentum more than anything else.
I guess the distinction is that football teams rely on emotion more than baseball teams, but the sport of baseball hinges more on emotion (and momentum, of course) than the sport of football.
Hockey and basketball are both played by clockwork automatons.
I hate to say it, but the Chicago White Sox have destiny on their side.
I hate that you hate to say it but are leading your article with it anyway. Also, why do you hate to say it? Astros fan?
Anyone who has watched the White Sox in the playoffs has seen that glimmer in their eye – the confidence that they expect to win.
I've watched the White Sox in the playoffs. I watched them crush the Red Sox. I watched them destroy the Angels. Funny, what I drew from watching them is that they have great 1-4 starting pitching, very solid defense, a good bullpen and guys who can hit home runs. Wasn't watching their collective eye and the amount of glimmer within said ocular cavity.
I'm telling you: The White Sox have a twinkle in their eye, a lot like the Red Sox had last year.
And I'm telling you that's a meaningless statement you are basing entirely on the fact that the Red Sox won it all last year and the White Sox are up 2-0 in the World Series.
Just throwing it out there to sidetrack the Baseball Crank's day, but after Brad Lidge's second demoralizing walkoff homer, is there any way to figure out the ratio of "Closer eventually bouncing back and becoming effective again" to "Closer who was never the same"? For instance, Calvin Schiraldi was probably the best pitching prospect in the Boston farm system before the '86 playoffs -- look at his regular-season stats in 1986 compared to everything that followed in his career. And what about Byung Hyun-Kim, Donnie Moore, Mitch Williams, Mark Wohlers, Tom Niedenfuer ... really, the only guy I can remember who kept chugging along was Dennis Eckersley after the '88 World Series. Anyway, let's see what the Crank can dig up on this.
This has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread on the Sons of Sam Horn message board (check out pages 5 through 12). I believe all of those names save Niedenfuer came up (and Jose Mesa was thrown in).
I'm just going to pick out one name in particular: SoSH flashpoint Byung-Hyun Kim. We all know he had a disastrous 2001 World Series. Psyche-crushing, right? Irreparable mental damage?
2001: ERA 2.94, ERA+ 156, 19 saves 2002: ERA 2.04, ERA+ 216, 36 saves
It wasn't until 2004 that BK fell off a cliff. We might never know why, but he lost velocity on his fastball.
What's that? You want one "Moore" piece of evidence? (Previous sentence written by New York Post headline writers).
Donnie Moore 1986: ERA 2.97, ERA+ 138 1987: ERA 2.70, ERA+ 161
I think he got injured midway through the '87 season and his career was pretty much over after that.
The point is, Simmons is calling these guys closers "who were never the same" after pitching poorly in the postseason.
Kim got better after his 2001 debacle. Moore, in a small sample, also improved after 1986's disaster.
I understand why people make these mistakes. Our memories are faulty and it's easier to believe that a guy stops being able to do his job correctly after suffering a devastating failure at work. But just because it's easy to believe doesn't mean it's true.
Thankfully, people have written down what happens in baseball games and we don't have to trust our memories. We can look at results. And we should.
Really, Bill Simmons? Dennis Eckersley is the only guy you can think of who has rebounded from a crushing save in the postseason? That's your only counterpoint to what is already an unstable premise to begin with? Is there a reason you forgot Mariano Rivera who, for all his successes, has failed more spectacularly than any closer in history? His only saving grace (n.p.i.) has been that his failures were not the result of a dramatic home run, but then he went ahead and had some pretty good "rebound" years. There are dozens of reasons why relievers become ineffective, and I'd wager that the majority of these cases are physical in nature.
What's really amazing about Moore is that we basically know his head was fucked up that whole time. He was never able to get over the psychological trauma of giving up that Hendu tater -- or so the anecdotes tell us. And yet, despite an emotional spiral that would end in unspeakable tragedy, he was still able to put up pretty good numbers.
Reader Jim Bulger points out that Simmons is factually incorrect: Brad Lidge did not give up consecutive walk-off home runs. The Pujols shot came in the top of the 9th, and the Astros had a chance to come back in the bottom of that inning.
In fact, Lidge went on to strike out Reggie Sanders right after his psyche was indelibly scarred by Pujols.
Sadly, the rest of the Astros-Cards series seems predictably depressing (unless you're a St. Louis fan). Not only are the Cardinals back at home, not only have they been handed a second life, but out of every sport, baseball hinges on emotion and momentum more than anything else.
What about biathlon or ski jumping? Or emotionball? How about momentum-hockey? In the NBA, teams can lose the most devastating game possible and bounce back two days later as a completely different team (like the Nets after Game 3 of the 2002 Boston series). That doesn't work in baseball. Once you have the momentum, the other team has to take it back. And they can't do that when they're reeling on the road and wondering what the hell just happened. That's why I believe the Astros are finished, just like that '86 Angels team was.
Game 5 was a devastating loss, and the Cards are indeed going back home, but doesn't starting Oswalt (2.94 ERA) and Clemens (1.87) as opposed to Mulder (3.64) and Morris (4.11) at least even out the supposed momentum?
Because they are human beings who are actually playing in the games as opposed to vague theories about psychology and sports performance.
Also, I'm not sure I really want to do this, but I'm sure our readers can point out instances where a baseball team has lost the most devastating game possible and bounced back "as a completely different team" immediately afterwards, like Simmons says the 2002 Nets did.
I believe if you go all the way back to 2001, the Diamondbacks lost successive heartbreakers to the Yankees before coming back to beat them 15-2 in Game 6 and 3-2 in Game 7. Wait, Simmons mentions this in the column but dismisses it for some strange reason.
There was also the ALCS last year, when the Red Sox came back from a pretty seriously devastating Game 3.
Anyway, if you read on in the article (which I just did), Simmons hedges his bets a little with this paragraph:
You could even call me an expert. And according to my research, your team is cooked unless they can create a new Level of Losing for the Cardinals -- the "Reverse Dead Man Walking" Game on either Wednesday or Thursday.
Okay, so the Astros are toast unless they're not.
I know Simmons' articles are mean to be light and fluffy and fun, but I bet there's a small part of him (and a large segment of his readership) that genuinely believes what he's saying is absolutely true. People want to believe this stuff.
Yeah...guess what? Turns out the Astros won easily, in St. Louis. Turns out baseball is more about pitching and hitting than "Dead Man Walking" games or "momentum" or "The Godfather, Part II" or "Caddyshack" or any other of Simmons's go-to references that have nothing to do with actual sports,
It was bound to happen: FJM's first Bill Simmons post. Today he's taking on (surprise, surprise) the current state of the Boston Red Sox.
"For instance, we gave up a Human Standing Ovation (Roberts, who wanted to play every day -- like they couldn't have found him 350-400 ABs?) for three stiffs (including a career head case who admittedly staged a dugout argument to get traded two weeks ago)."
>> Roberts wanted to play every day. I repeat: Roberts wanted to play every day. You just said it. The Red Sox have three outstanding (hitting, at least) outfielders -- Roberts just wouldn't have gotten enough ABs. That's exactly why Jay Payton went crazy and did whatever he did to get traded.
And while Jay Payton isn't Andruw Jones, he's not a stiff, either. He was probably one of the best fourth OFs in baseball before he got traded. He plays a strong CF and his career OPS+ is 100 even. Having him on your bench is valuable -- unless, of course, you knew before the season started he would demand a trade, which I don't think anyone could have predicted.
"We also paid $40 million for a "29-year-old" All-Star shortstop who appears to be between 34 and 37 years old (no lie). "
>> The Renteria contract seems like a slight overpay. But Orlando Cabrera, who is worse at the plate and arguably worse in the field, commanded $32 million.
"Two other free agent targets (Pavano and Beltre) turned out to be Grade-A busts on other teams, continuing the bizarre ritual of GM Theo Epstein's getting bailed out of dubious offseason moves (Contreras, Vazquez and the A-Rod/Manny/Nomar/Ordonez quagmire) because other teams squashed his plans."
>> This criticism, if that's what it is (and it sure seems like it), is really, really bizarre. Simmons wants it to come across as an offhanded, Isn't that interesting? sort of observation, but I think he might actually believe that Theo Epstein has been an extremely lucky GM. Almost everyone thought Pavano and Beltre would be good, if not as good as they were last year. Javy Vazquez looked like a stud -- and his K/BB ratio is pretty impressive this year. And who didn't want to get rid of Manny's contract and get A-Rod in the process? Any case made for that non-move would have to be based on chemistry concerns.
"Here's the point: The Red Sox tried to have it both ways. And you can't create a "Let's not dwell on past achievements, we need to build the best team possible and keep moving forward" mind-set, then give ninth, tenth, fifteenth and twentieth chances to Bellhorn, Foulke, Embree and third base coach Dale Sveum (who would have spawned a potential riot at Kenmore Square in any other season). Were we moving on from last year or clinging to last year?"
>> Embree was DFA'd. Foulke went on the DL. Did the Red Sox wait too long? Maybe by a few games, but who was going to come in and replace them? Cla Meredith? Lenny Dinardo? Lest we forget, Matt Mantei was already put on the DL and John Halama has proven to be as ineffective as anyone in the bullpen.
So options were limited.
As for Bellhorn, it looks like the Tony Graffanino Era has already begun.
"If we're clinging to last year, why not keep Cabrera and Roberts (two of the most beloved players from that team), and why wait until the last second to sign Pedro (only the most significant pitcher in the history of the franchise)?"
>> Cabrera cost $32 million over four years and he has a .659 OPS this year. Renteria is a better player.
Roberts would hardly be playing, and like both of us agree, he didn't want to come back and not be a starter. Give it up.
I'm sure the Red Sox miss Pedro's production, but apparently there was a mutual dislike between Petey and the front office. That's really too bad.
"Even though they're 10 games over .500 -- just like last year's group at the same point in the season -- it's impossible to imagine them competing in October without 2-3 more major moves to upgrade the bullpen and the bottom of the order."
>> Come on. The bottom of the order? Where Bill Mueller hits? The Red Sox's bottom of the order might be the best in baseball. As of today, the Sox are 2nd in baseball in runs scored; they trail the Yankees by a single run. Have you seen other teams' bottoms of their lineups? The Yankees are running Tino Martinez and Bubba Crosby out there.
By the way, Mark Bellhorn, who was indeed struggling before he went on the DL, has an OBP of .328, which coincidentally is exactly the same as that of Robinson Cano, the Future of the Yankees who bats 2nd in their lineup.
