Simmons Takes a Few (Deserved) Shots

At Slate's blog Scocca two guys with whom I must admit I was unfamiliar until today, Tom Scocca and Josh Levin, obliterate The Sportsguy's Finals Preview column at ESPN.com.

Deadspin Giveth to the Sportsguy, Taketh Away Brutally

Just days after Deadspin founder Will Leitch wrote a nice piece recognizing the contributions of The Sportsguy Bill Simmons, the site publishes Charles Pierce's absolute takedown of Simmons' new book on the NBA. (Extra credit to Pierce for linking this glorious Molly Ivins evisceration of Camille Paglia.)

I know it is too grad-schoolish of me, but I find sympathy with both Leich and Pierce on Sportsguy.

A Little Tearjerker

If you are an animal lover the fact that you know what's coming will in no way soften the blow when you read this Sportsguy story about "Dooze," his beloved family dog.

Sportsguy on Manny, Epically

Sportsguy has an absolute tour de force essay on Manny leaving the Red Sox that falls into the must-read category. It is very long, and shows Sportsguy playing to his strengths, which he does too infrequently. I also would be willing to bet that for Simmons this article represents an homage to the recently departed David Foster Wallace -- the epic scale, the 39 footnotes -- though he does not tip his hand on that. I also agree with Simmons to some degree -- while he seems a bit too charitable to Manny about the slugger's departure, I too find myself rooting for him, still liking him, and lamenting that he is not part of the Sox run this fall.

Boston Days

Sportsguy has a fantastic column from earlier in the week in which he juxtaposes the flourishing Boston sports scene, and especially the re-emergence of the Celtics, with what he sees as a renaissance of the city of Boston, as embodied in the Big Dig. I think there is a great deal to this argument, as does the Slice.

Sportsguy on An Athlete Dying Young

For a reminder of what Sportsguy is like when he is truly on, I would strongly recommend that you take a look at this article on the death of a high school athlete in Los Angeles. This is heartbreaking, essential reading.

Sportsguy Slips

In his NFL picks column today Sportsguy wrote a paragraph that at first simply made my jaw drop because of its stupidity. But as the hours have passed I have become actively angry about it. Here is the offending paragraph:

So these past few years have been surreal for Boston fans: Three Super Bowl titles and a World Series title, the transformation of the Sox-Yankees feud into a full-fledged rivalry, and the evolution of the Patriots from a perennial black sheep to the undisputed villain of the NFL. Back in 1999, when the fortunes of our sports teams had sunk so low that Gerry Callahan dubbed Boston "Loserville," I would have happily settled for one contender to watch ... and I probably would have chopped off a pinky like Ronnie Lott to make it happen. Eight years later, we have three legitimate contenders. It's amazing.

Keep in mind a few salient facts. Bill Simmons is arguably the most popular, widely read sportswriter in America. He works for the unquestionable sports entertainment empire, the "Worldwide Leader" in sports. I'll guarantee he is making a huge income. And he is from Boston and demonstrably a huge Boston sports fan. And yet he wrote the following sentence: "Back in 1999, when the fortunes of our sports teams had sunk so low that Gerry Callahan dubbed Boston 'Loserville,' I would have happily settled for one contender to watch ... and I probably would have chopped off a pinky like Ronnie Lott to make it happen."

Bill Simmons would have "happily settled for one contender to watch" on the Boston sporting scene in 1999. In 1999 the Red Sox made the postseason for the second year in a row for the first time since the Babe Ruth era. They defeated Cleveland in a rather memorable series in which an injured Pedro Martinez came in from the bullpen to shut the Indians down over several innings.

"Back in 1999, when the fortunes of our sports teams had sunk so low that Gerry Callahan dubbed Boston 'Loserville,' I would have happily settled for one contender to watch ... and I probably would have chopped off a pinky like Ronnie Lott to make it happen."

The 1998 New England Patriots, whose season extended into 1999, made the playoffs, and the 1999 Pats were 8-8. In other words, the Patriots were a contender for postseason play in 1999, as for more than half of that year they looked back on a season in which they had just made the playoffs, and then when their season began in September they began 6-2. Heading into their November 15 game against the Jets, the Patriots were not only a contender, they were one of the best teams in the AFC.

"Back in 1999, when the fortunes of our sports teams had sunk so low that Gerry Callahan dubbed Boston 'Loserville,' I would have happily settled for one contender to watch ... and I probably would have chopped off a pinky like Ronnie Lott to make it happen."

And while I know that Sportsguy is not a hockey fan, that is hardly the fault of the Bruins, who won their first round series against Carolina and took the Sabres, who went to the Stanley Cup Finals, to six games before losing. In 1999.

"Back in 1999, when the fortunes of our sports teams had sunk so low that Gerry Callahan dubbed Boston 'Loserville,' I would have happily settled for one contender to watch ... and I probably would have chopped off a pinky like Ronnie Lott to make it happen."

The Celtics that year were terrible. The other three Boston professional sports teams were by any definitions contenders. Simmons' performance here is simply ghastly, and given that he writes for an online source, and that the research of the facts of this assertion about the putridity of Boston sports in 1999 is a fingerclick away, how can Simmons and his corporate overlords justify this sort of half-assed performance?

(He also misuses the word "irony" and both misuses and misspells the word "ubuntu." Where the hell is his editor?)

The Sports Pages

A couple of sports-related items caught my eye today that I thought worth sharing.:

Lord knows I've been critical of Sportsguy when I thought he needed it. But the criticism largely comes from the fact that Sportsguy really has made an enormous contribution to the way we understand sports journalism. And when he is on, he can be great. Well, in his latest piece for ESPN: The Magazine he reminds us of that greatness. The article's premise actually comes from one he fully acknowledges borrowing from someone else, but he articulates it well by using Celtics great John Havlicek, almost inarguably the most overlooked top 15 or 20 player in NBA history. He argues that we are too quick to devalue past stars when we elevate the new generation's sporting heroes. I would categorize this as a must-read.

I also should note that I enjoyed Sortsguy's latest blog entry. I think this sort of approach plays to his strengths -- brief commentary on several topics plus some reader emails and lots of links. I think the one thing that I have concluded about Sportsguy is that I have the most issues with him the more self-indulgent he gets. When he plays to lots of his srengths in small doses it is more palatable than reading 5000 words worth of reader emails and responses because after a certain amount of time the forced jokes and the emailers trying to write just like Sportsguy gets annoying. This blog entry had just the right balance, and I would encourage him to keep the blog going after basketball season.

Meanwhile Thunderstick sent me Joe Lemire's recent SI.com column on former Red Sox fan favorite, Rich Garces, known around Red Sox Nation as "El Guapo." Guapo is making a comeback and is currently pitching for the Nashua Pride in my home state, New Hampshire. Thunderstick lives in Nashua, and writes, "I am determined to find out where Guapo lives and to run into him at a Nashua bar." Oddly, stalking becomes the Thunderstick. I would go so far as to say that El Guapo is one of the ten most popular Red Sox non-stars in the team's history.

Finally, belated props to the Cavaliers. I know that Tom is going insane (and I presume the same of Donny Baseball, except he manages to maintain some shred of dignity in his comportment) and he happens to be arriving tomorrow in San Antonio for the big dcat wedding, and his arrival coincides with game one of the NBA Finals here in the River City. Suffice it to say that we are navigating all options to be at the AT&T Arena tomorrow night. Spurs supporters are pretty good fans, though, and so we will have to shell out some coin for the privilege.

But like Meatloaf (who sucks), Tom would do anything for love, and so when the announcers mention something about a scuffle in the upper deck involving a frothing Cavaliers fan and two dozen ordinarily slow-to-anger Spurs fans after a borderline call against the Cavaliers, that'll likely be us. Good times. And Spurs fans: No hitting the face. Because on Saturday I'm gonna get married on top of a mountain, and there's going to be flutes playing and trombones and flowers and garlands of fresh herbs. And we will dance till the sun rises. And then our children will form a family band. And we will tour the countryside.

And you're all invited. (Please don't tell Ana I invited you all.)

Sportsguy's Evidence Problem

Sportsguy has been so up and down in the last couple of years that I probably could go after him for every other column if I wanted to be that guy. Probably once a month or so I really go after something I read in the realm of politics or sports or pop culture or history that is stupid or misinformed and that also is arrogant, which makes the stupidity and misinformation all the more galling. Sportsguy's latest, a rip job of Doc Rivers, the Celtics coach, provides an example of the sort of hatchet-job journalism that he used to so decry back when he was one of us, at least normatively.

There are so many directions in which I could go, with the monumentally unfunny conceit of a top ten list of fake reasons why they are keeping Rivers on by offering a contract extension at the top of the list. But there is a sidebar that he includes that he believes makes his most powerful argument, which is that Doc gets immense credit for improving the young players on the Celtics and yet Sportsguy believes that to be nonsense. So let's look at his sidebar, keeping in mind that I am hardly a Doc Rivers apologist, shall we? I'll put Sportsguy's comments in quotation marks and will precede my responses with ***.:

"Who are these 'young guys who have really improved under Doc Rivers'?"

***Scare quotation marks. Well played, sir.

"• Al Jefferson, definitely. He's been the big success story."

*** This may not be starting off as well as you think it is. I know your logic -- concede that one player has improved without question. It makes you look fairminded and magnanimous. But here is the problem -- Al Jefferson has become a legitimate young star in this league. When he entered the NBA he had immense promise but because of inconsistency and foul trouble he could not stay in games. Last year he hurt his ankle and was a nonfactor -- coming into the season, some C's fans were even worried that AJ would turn into a bust. Instead he has had a breakout season, especially in the last half. Whatever else you have to say after this, the best young player on the C's has improved a great deal. It's hard to see how what follows is going to be as trenchant as you think it is going to be. I'm sensing an argument along the lines of "The Bulls of the 90s did not have superstar shooting guard play other than Jordan." Al Jefferson equals five Sebastian Telfairs. But I'll continue to play along.

"• Tony Allen was making major strides until he blew out his knee while executing a flying one-handed slam four seconds after the whistle blew. Can't count him."

*** Wait a second. Can't count him? Assuming you do not think that it is Doc's fault that Allen got hurt (do you?) the only part of your sentence that is relevant is "Tony Allen was making great strides . . .". Well, why the hell can't you count that? The issue is whether young players have improved under Doc. The answer, by your admission, is that he was improving. If you won't count him, it is because doing so undermines your argument.

"• Rondo looked exceptionally good in the preseason, then was inexplicably buried behind inferior players for the next four months. Did he "improve" or did Rivers just start playing him? I'm going with the latter. Can't count him."

*** Maybe this is a fair argument, though let's keep in mind that during the preseason Simmons was already firmly on the Rondo bandwagon, so it is possible that he saw a more polished player than Doc did, who sees these guys every day in practice, scrimmages, and games. I realize that playing pickup ball at Holy Cross gives you the insight of a professional point guard (Note: he has actually written a column on this before. No I am not going to Google it.) but let's just say that young players are pretty unpredictable. His argument is only sound if you buy that he was good enough to play more from the outset, and even then if you do not believe that he is any better now than he was in October. This "can't count him" conceit is already bothering me.

"• Gomes and West are up and down; their per-minute numbers are no different than last season's. Same for Kendrick Perkins. They are better only because of an extra year's experience; that's it. Can't count them."

*** Note the caveat: "Their per-minute numbers are no different than last season's." This is an interesting argument. Per-minute numbers can be a very useful stat, especially if taken from a sample size that will prove it legitimate. If a guy has averaged comparable minutes and his numbers have dropped, that is telling. But when a young guy gets more minutes from his rookie to his second year and his numbers go up accordingly, that might well be (is?) a sign of improvement. A coach trusting a guy to play 32 rather than 22 minutes, and having the player's productivity increase is to my mind a clear sign of maturity, and yes, of improvement. So what has happened with Gomes and West? Gomes averaged 22.5 minutes per game last season and started 33 games. He shot 48.7% from the field, 75% from the line, grabbed 4.9 boards a game and scored 7.6 points per contest. This season he started 56 games (that seems significant . . .) and averages 31 minutes per. He has shot 47%, 82% from the line, and has averaged 5.6 boards and 12.1 points per game. Let's just say I am not convinced that Gomes has not improved. As for West? Simmons seems right -- West plays slightly less, starts less frequently, and his numbers are slightly down. Of course he improved tremendously from his rookie year to his second season, when Doc was also the coach, so that sort of complicates things. Basically, I'm not willing to concede that these guys have not improved under Doc given that both players have improved under Doc. Whether they have improved enough is another question. But you having poorly conceived your argument is not my fault.

"• Gerald Green still runs around like a chicken with its head cut off. I don't blame Doc here because Green's hoops IQ almost can't be calculated; there's a decent chance he arrived in this country three years ago in a UFO. Can't count him."

*** I tend to agree that in the long term, for all of his talent, Green is going to hit a ceiling and will be out of the league in four years. Nonetheless, the question is not what will happen, it is improvement. And in his second year in the league, Green is playing just under twice as many minutes than last year, averages more than twice as many points and exactly twice as many boards. That means he is "better" than he was last year. And if he is better than last year it means he has improved. And if he has improved that means you not only can count him, but if you are being intellectually honest, you must count him. Plus, you admitted that you don't blame Doc -- whether that is for Green's basketball IQ or for you using the phrase "like a chicken with his head cut off" is another matter.

"• Leon Powe is headed for a distinguished 12-year career in Italy. Can't count him."

*** But again, the question isn't what Leon Powe's future holds. The question is: Has he improved under Doc Rivers? You created the fucking question, not me. It is the entire gist of your argument. At least adhere to it. So has Powe improved? Well he has not played a lot. But in April he has had by far his most productive month by far. March was his third most productive month. Second was the first month of the season, November, when he played six games and presumably Doc had not yet gotten a sense of the sort of player that he is and where he fit into things. Oh, and he scored a season, and thus career, high of 19 the other night. It appears from looking at the evidence that Leon Powe will be a better Italian league player tomorrow than he would have been in November. That is to say, he has improved under Doc Rivers.

"• Over the past six months, Telfair's career free-falled to the degree that "AND 1" sent scouts to the last 10 Celtics games. Can't count him."

Agreed. Telfair has not improved. You are categorically right on one player, the last one you named. Otherwise a case can be made that every other player you mentioned has improved. And let's keep in mind that you see this improvement deal as your ace in the hole argument.

"• As far as I can tell, we have no other young players."

This waste of verbiage probably seemed cutting when you felt that you had made it clear that your argument was so absolutely true that you did not have to look at the very evidence that you accused others of ignoring. At least you are brazen in your hypocrisy. In the meantime, I very much look forward to Kevin Durant or Greg Oden wearing green in a few months.