JBill said:
This is a really great. Wesley Morris using Lets Be Cops to talk about this situation is also pretty stellar http://grantland.com/features/lets-be-cops-review-michael-brown-shooting-ferguson/
Really, really strong day for Grantland.
Grantland
- Thread starter Leather
- Start date
This is a really great. Wesley Morris using Lets Be Cops to talk about this situation is also pretty stellar http://grantland.com/features/lets-be-cops-review-michael-brown-shooting-ferguson/
Really, really strong day for Grantland.
I think a bigger problem with the whole thing is that the bands concept pretty unfairly discriminates against rap acts. I think this is the big part of why it seems to run out of steam in the 2000s. Non traditional acts start to take over and this includes rap acts. I remember thinking it was criminal to not even have a mention of JayZ because he's actually been conducting something of a heavy weight title defense ever since that one summer jam where he dissed mobb deep and Nas. And more to the point he really was pretty much on top of the world on the early 2000s in large part because of the failure of traditional bands to make a challenge to him.Kliq said:
But then couldn't Jay Z and Kanye West be considered a band? They only have one official release but it's been an ongoing collaboration since that same summer jam as West was the one who wrote the beat for takeover.
I guess this whole band restriction just made the whole piece flawed from the get go and someone should have killed it in the crib.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
You were not interested in seeing that less than 2 seconds between the "fastest" and "slowest" teams in the league does not matter when not really analyzing anything?
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I especially enjoyed his bitching in a footnote that "this column sucks because I have to write so many preview columns." How did an editor let that stay in?
I can't stand his work, but - as far as internet writers go - he has a fairly tough gig.
He's tasked as some sort of new wave NFL gambling and analytics guru, but there is only so many places to go with that persona. How many ways is there to analyze gambling or analytical trends in the NFL? Dude needs to branch away from that and stop muddying the water with his garbage.
He's tasked as some sort of new wave NFL gambling and analytics guru, but there is only so many places to go with that persona. How many ways is there to analyze gambling or analytical trends in the NFL? Dude needs to branch away from that and stop muddying the water with his garbage.
The bolded is a wonderfully great pithy phrase.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/a-short-history-of-clippers-owner-steve-ballmer-freaking-out-in-public/
Barnwell's It Factor piece was garbage. Clearly from the premise alone it wasn't going to be statistically interesting in any way, but it wasn't even etymologically interesting. He mentions tracking by punching "it factor" into Lexis Nexis and it is 100% clear he did basically nothing but that. Just painfully half-assed research, for no particular point.
Jimy Hendrix said:
I guess you didn't read far enough to get the commentary on the media before/after mentions when a prospect fizzles out, which was a solid knock on the smarmy bullshit industrial complex and by far the most interesting part of the piece. And of course the research was half-assed, the subject was the It Factor for Pete's sake. The whole first half was half tongue-in-cheek.
I did get to some of that stuff, but I was worn out and gave up even right there. I guess the point such as it is, that "it factor" means nothing in particular and is smarmy nonsense, seemed transparently obvious to me and then it just went on and on about nothing in particular before getting to a point.JimBoSox9 said:
I didn't read the whole thread but...has Rembert been discussed here at all? (Other than the Ferguson piece which I agree is very good). I personally don't get the love for him at all. I have read a good amount of his stuff and I don't find it funny or insightful at all. The Rembert Explains hook that they had him do for a while is a pretty easy, generic idea that I think any writer with talent could easily do.
I am a fan of Simmons and the site in general, but his undying love for Rembert and Jacoby (who I also really don't like yet Simmons constantly pimps) is pretty mind boggling to me
I am a fan of Simmons and the site in general, but his undying love for Rembert and Jacoby (who I also really don't like yet Simmons constantly pimps) is pretty mind boggling to me
On the Barnwell thing, I generally like his work and it's pretty obvious to decipher what he is writing because he actually cares about or he is writing because someone *cough Simmons cough* thinks is a really cool idea that he should write about.
I mean, can't you see Bill coming up with that "It Factor" concept then making Barnwell research and write about it?
I mean, can't you see Bill coming up with that "It Factor" concept then making Barnwell research and write about it?
Barnwell has his own thread of fail and I came here to trash his 'It' column as well.Jimy Hendrix said:
His 'it' column doesn't have 'it.' That's the level of the writing.
Instead, read the Phil Hartman piece. It's quite good: http://grantland.com/features/the-glue-understanding-the-comedy-of-phil-hartman-saturday-night-live-newsradio-the-simpsons/
Andrew Sharp with an abortion of a column today, The Genius and Stupidity of Bill Belichick
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-genius-and-stupidity-of-bill-belichick/
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-genius-and-stupidity-of-bill-belichick/
Did he sell high on Matt Light? Tedy Bruschi? Vince Wilfork? He doesn't sell on people he thinks will be productive in the future, and neither of the examples he gave are valid points that BB was wrong. Moss was a train wreck and Welker's already having more concussion issues. Not to mention the whole 45 man roster compared to a third of that in basketball, and ignoring the Spurs "selling" of players like Bruce Bowen.
Mays and Barnwell actually like the Pats this year* (on their podcast), but Mays is concerned that if they are hit with the same defensive injuries (entire front 7 basically) as last year they do not have the depth to be a top unit. He bemoans the fact that they do not have the same type of depth on D as Seattle.....
*Recorded before Kelly was cut and Mankins was traded.
*Recorded before Kelly was cut and Mankins was traded.
Ginobli and Parker signed team friendly deals with the Spurs, leaving money on the table, in order to keep the team as competitive as possible. Mankins refused to do the same. Not even remotely a fair comparison. And the Welker stuff is the same revisionist garbage we've heard since last year. The Pats decided to go with Amendola instead of risking losing out on both. Welker then had to settle for less money from Denver than the Pats were offering. People seem to forget that Welker is one who overplayed his hand, not the Pats.
This is the real shit sundae:
Love the backhanded compliment of "great coach BUT he's got a great QB and plays in a bad division." I hear that one all the time from idiot fans of other teams who seem to take for granted that pummeling the teams you're supposed to beat isn't a sure thing in this league. And I guess it's Belichick's fault that Wilfork, Mayo, Gronk, and Talib were all injured for the AFC title game last season. Or that Gronk rolled his ankle before Super Bowl XLVI. Or that one the craziest and luckiest plays in Super Bowl history happened against his team. Roster full of holes? That's the same kind of moronic thinking that leads people here to cherry pick the bad draft picks while conveniently ignoring all the ones they've nailed. Every roster has holes. It's called the salary cap, dumb ass. Part of the reason Seattle is in such good shape is because they're paying their franchise QB peanuts. Let's see how their roster looks in a few years after everyone wants to get paid. The Pats were able to handle that transition with aplomb and continue to do so. Other teams decide to give Joe Flacco ridiculous contracts.
He also gets the year wrong when referencing Reche Caldwell. That was the 2006 season, not 2005.
This is the real shit sundae:
Love the backhanded compliment of "great coach BUT he's got a great QB and plays in a bad division." I hear that one all the time from idiot fans of other teams who seem to take for granted that pummeling the teams you're supposed to beat isn't a sure thing in this league. And I guess it's Belichick's fault that Wilfork, Mayo, Gronk, and Talib were all injured for the AFC title game last season. Or that Gronk rolled his ankle before Super Bowl XLVI. Or that one the craziest and luckiest plays in Super Bowl history happened against his team. Roster full of holes? That's the same kind of moronic thinking that leads people here to cherry pick the bad draft picks while conveniently ignoring all the ones they've nailed. Every roster has holes. It's called the salary cap, dumb ass. Part of the reason Seattle is in such good shape is because they're paying their franchise QB peanuts. Let's see how their roster looks in a few years after everyone wants to get paid. The Pats were able to handle that transition with aplomb and continue to do so. Other teams decide to give Joe Flacco ridiculous contracts.
He also gets the year wrong when referencing Reche Caldwell. That was the 2006 season, not 2005.
I just noted this on another board, but the "benefits from playing in a bad division" argument is so flawed it's barely worth mentioning. It's the type of thing CHB mentions a hundred times a week during football season.
Since Brady came back from his ACL injury, the Pats are 24-6 in the division (.800, or about a 13-3 seasonal record) and 37-15 (.755, or about a 12-4 season) outside the division. They're in no way a product of a weak division. They kick the shit out of everyone.
You can't pay everyone. There's a fucking salary cap. I mean, Revis and McCourty need new deals for next year. If the Pats let them walk they'll get killed for that too. So when the Pats clear up some money by trading a good but older player who's cap figure is higher than his production, they'll get killed again.
It just seems to me that no team has legions of writers, pundits and fans so anxious to minimize their success like the Pats do. These people take it so personally when the Pats part ways with well known players (who are well known only because of the success they had under BB and the Pats: the Mankins draft pick was widely considered a mistake when it was made, Welker became a superstar with the Pats after being underused in Miami and tossed away by SD). SB just noted the Flacco contract, which was stupid the day it was signed and only looks worse now.
Since Brady came back from his ACL injury, the Pats are 24-6 in the division (.800, or about a 13-3 seasonal record) and 37-15 (.755, or about a 12-4 season) outside the division. They're in no way a product of a weak division. They kick the shit out of everyone.
You can't pay everyone. There's a fucking salary cap. I mean, Revis and McCourty need new deals for next year. If the Pats let them walk they'll get killed for that too. So when the Pats clear up some money by trading a good but older player who's cap figure is higher than his production, they'll get killed again.
It just seems to me that no team has legions of writers, pundits and fans so anxious to minimize their success like the Pats do. These people take it so personally when the Pats part ways with well known players (who are well known only because of the success they had under BB and the Pats: the Mankins draft pick was widely considered a mistake when it was made, Welker became a superstar with the Pats after being underused in Miami and tossed away by SD). SB just noted the Flacco contract, which was stupid the day it was signed and only looks worse now.
What drives me particularly insane is that all these arguments rest upon: "HOW CAN THEY BE SQUANDERING BRADY'S YEARS - HE SHOULD HAVE A MILLION SUPER BOWLS BY NOW"
But who are these wondrous teams and QBs who just rock out 5 or 6 SB wins in 13 years? Oh, yeah, none of them.
No matter how good Brady is, Super Bowls are extremely difficult to win. Tom Brady has started more Super Bowls than anyone other than Elway, who also has five. He has won more Super Bowls than anyone but Bradshaw, Montana and Aikman. And he's the only one of those who isn't retired and he's the only one to do those things in the salary cap era. Are people really arguing that Brady should have, what, 7 Super Bowl starts and 5 wins? That would make him so far and away the best quarterback of all time that it would almost make a mockery of the sport.
So, basically, the argument is "well, if you look at it a certain way, BB might not actually be the best coach ever."
Um, okay?
But who are these wondrous teams and QBs who just rock out 5 or 6 SB wins in 13 years? Oh, yeah, none of them.
No matter how good Brady is, Super Bowls are extremely difficult to win. Tom Brady has started more Super Bowls than anyone other than Elway, who also has five. He has won more Super Bowls than anyone but Bradshaw, Montana and Aikman. And he's the only one of those who isn't retired and he's the only one to do those things in the salary cap era. Are people really arguing that Brady should have, what, 7 Super Bowl starts and 5 wins? That would make him so far and away the best quarterback of all time that it would almost make a mockery of the sport.
So, basically, the argument is "well, if you look at it a certain way, BB might not actually be the best coach ever."
Um, okay?
A variant of this conversation popped up in the Peter King thread. Without going into details they have had a chance to win almost every year since 2005 with a few breaks.MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
People refuse to understand how much has to go right to win a SB and that feeds into the "Squandering" arguments. Maybe one of those years BB could have done something to improve the chance of winning, but that would limit there competitiveness in the following years and thus reduce the number of opportunities to get the breaks needed to win an SB.
Looking at the 5 SB's the pats have played in with Brady it is very easy to see a world where they won 5 of 5 or 1 of 5 (I don't see a game where they are not a lot better than the Eagles) or 3 of 5 but beat the Giants twice and lost to the Panthers and Rams (excluding the impact of winning a superbowl(s) on team building etc.) Luck is a massive factor in the end, I am still amazed that the 07 team lost. I know how and why, but that team was the best team I have every watched, in the conversation for the best of all time.
Change about six plays total, and Belichick has 0 (maybe 1) rings before 2007 and 3 after. Any argument about Belichick that uses the SB wins timeline as evidence is an auto-close for me.
I thought it was a very good article and the comments here basically confirm that. That SJH doesn't like it just means there was something not-all-the-way-totally-awesome said about BB and/or the Pats.
And it is ridiculous to be arguing about the division point. It has been a shitty division for a while. I do not think that is the key to the Pats success, but, come on. A little intellectual honesty?
Drocca said:
The author implied it was indeed a part of the Pats' success. That's the notion that's being challenged, not whether or not the division has been shitty.
Drocca said:
Drocca said:
You know what Derek? It's pretty goddamn insulting to me that pointing out the flaws in a writer's article makes me a thin-skinned fanboy. You're smarter than that.
The only question of intellectual honestly here is the writer's, who tried to argue that the Pats benefit from a shitty division while completely missing the fact that their winning percentage is pretty much the same both within and without of the division. If the division is particularly shitty, then by extension of looking at the Pats' records the whole NFL is shitty, since the Pats win at the same rate against both.
The writer fucked up and it's not unfair or intellectually dishonest to note that. Others have pointed out the writer's flawed comparisons to the Spurs.
Ok, that's a fair point and I was baiting you hard. BUT, I do think BB the coach and BB the GM should be graded separately. The first is an A and the latter a B, to me. I know there is a salary cap, but all GM's and pseudo-GM's work with the same structure.
Drocca said:
That's more than fair. Frankly I'm inclined to agree with your grades there. The drafting IMO has improved since Pioli left.
I do think, in all honesty and trying hard to put my fandom aside a bit, that the Pats' injuries last year were getting pretty badly underreported as the year went on. Ben Volin in the Globe has been shitting on Amendola all preseason ("He had no targets in the AFCCG!") without once mentioning his pretty severe injury.The Pats lost about 7 starters for the year, on both sides of the ball; in that vein going 12-4, kicking the shit out of a very good Colts team in the playoffs and then reaching the AFCCG is one helluva year.
The Mankins deal is an odd one to me in that Mankins was clearly not worth his salary cap figure while still being a very, very good player. Tough to know how this one will turn out. It's a big risk..
Not to beat a dead horse but it's also worth pointing out that one team, ONE team, has achieved a .500 or better record versus the Patriots in the BB era and that's Carolina at 2-2. I mean are teams and their fans outside the AFC East really sitting there thinking the week they're getting ready to play the Patriots that they're merely paper tigers due to their weak division? Heck, everyone's darlings and model of franchise success of the past 10-plus years, the Pittsburgh Steelers, are just 3-7 against their overrated, super-hyped rivals to the north.
This isn't always the case, but they do sometimes (refreshingly, IMO) take a day or two to digest the news and then offer a good, well thought out take. I don't think they'll let the story go without something, even if it's tomorrow.JimBoSox9 said:
Maybe it's the Central Texas resident in me, but I absolutely loved Grantland's the history of the American waterpark.
EDIT: Holy shit. Shea Serrano's writeup on the twentieth anniversary of "Mortal Kombat II" is tremendous, too. Serrano is probably my favorite person on the entire internet.
EDIT: Holy shit. Shea Serrano's writeup on the twentieth anniversary of "Mortal Kombat II" is tremendous, too. Serrano is probably my favorite person on the entire internet.
That Mortal Kombat piece was such a fun column to read. Thanks for pointing it out. I was a Raiden man myself. And I was almost first in line to see the Mortal Kombat movie, which was awesome in a "bad movie" way.
I found myself agreeing completely with everything he said about those games - except for the ratings. I was DEVASTATING with Reptile.
Last week was the twenty year anniversary of the release of "Mortal Kombat II" and the free Green Day concert at the Hatch Shell (which you can read about here), otherwise known as the [then] best week of my entire life.
Last week was the twenty year anniversary of the release of "Mortal Kombat II" and the free Green Day concert at the Hatch Shell (which you can read about here), otherwise known as the [then] best week of my entire life.
johnmd20 said:
Loved the part about invisible Reptile.
Maybe I missed where this was talked about before, but did they completely remove comments from Grantland in general? I remember that there was no commenting on any of Simmons' writing, but now it looks site wide.
They used to allow comments on their blogs, so anything that got posted under "The Triangle" or "Hollywood Prospectus." They didn't allow comments on their main page/feature stories. Now I think they've just gotten rid of them altogether. I don't particularly miss them, but I can't think of a site where comments add much. Too much noise unless they are heavily moderated.
I can't wait to read the Mortal Kombat column. Just looking at the character select screen at the beginning of the column, I'm amazed at how great a job they did balancing them. Other than Mileena (and some people loved her), I'd be good to roll with any of them. Most fighting games I played back then had 2 or 3 great characters and everyone else sucked.
Honestly I'm not sure what more anyone can say about Goodell at this point. He's incompetent and almost certainly a liar, this isn't his first big fuckup but it is perhaps his most egregious, the NFL look like callous and hypocritical blowhards who only care about their image....Everyone knows this. Maybe someone like Charles Pierce could write a really good "take 'em to the woodshed" verbal takedown (although Olbermann kinda nailed that the other day), but that isn't really Simmons' wheelhouse. I kinda feel like he put this out because he felt like he had to weigh in, but there's nothing here that everyone else hasn't been saying all week.
It reminds me a little of the Sandusky fiasco, in that there were a small handful of journalists who wrote genuinely insightful things about it, and then an entire industry of guys just expressing their outrage in nearly identical fashion to everyone else. I guess in a way that's just how sports works--nobody ever says "well, 50 other guys are writing a superbowl column, so I guess I don't need to". But somehow the absurdity is driven home a lot harder when the issue at hand is something more important than wins and losses.
It reminds me a little of the Sandusky fiasco, in that there were a small handful of journalists who wrote genuinely insightful things about it, and then an entire industry of guys just expressing their outrage in nearly identical fashion to everyone else. I guess in a way that's just how sports works--nobody ever says "well, 50 other guys are writing a superbowl column, so I guess I don't need to". But somehow the absurdity is driven home a lot harder when the issue at hand is something more important than wins and losses.
What is the consensus on the Hollywood Prospectus? Outside of Wesley Morris I tend to find it pretty miserable, particularly anything done by Molly Lambert, who laid down this gem today: http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/miley-cyrus-puerto-rico-tour-twerk-padded-butt-dance/
Kliq said:
I like Andy Greenwald and Wesley Morris a lot. I think they're two of the better critics in their respective mediums. Chris Connelly is pretty good on the podcasts.
Chris Ryan is...fine. Never says anything that memorable, but he and Greenwald bounce off each other reasonably well.
Molly Lambert is awful.
A-freakin-men. This is great, except for maybe the P.S.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/pedro-martinez-letter-to-clayton-kershaw/
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/pedro-martinez-letter-to-clayton-kershaw/
Yup.curly2 said:
Kershaw is really good. But he's not as good as Pedro at his prime. No one since the 19th Century is.
Pedro's adjusted ERA+ in 2000 was 291 second best ever, best since Tim Keefe in 1880. Kershaw this season 210--24th best ever. Absolutely spectacular, but in no way in the same league as Pedro. The only other guys in the top 10 who pitched since 1914 are Maddux twice in the 4 and 5 spot, Bob Gibson once and Pedro in 1999. The best comp Kershaw has to Pedro on ERA+ is 2003 when Pedro's ERA+ was 2011. So to be clear, Kershaw is spectacular. He's so good, that he's almost as good as Pedro's fourth best season--but not quite.