Simmons does it again.

[Boris Badenov]

I have been one of the holdouts about Simmons (compared to others on this board anyway), but I am done. The guy makes no sense at all.

I KNEW he was going to bash Belichick about the 4th and 2, and of course he went and did just that:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnflpicks/091120

Now, my point is not to debate the call - we've already done that in another post http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=32930.0.

My point is that Simmons spins the argument around just to be contrary. First, he rags on statistics in general:

"Statistics can help. Absolutely. But you still need to watch games to have an educated opinion."

Ummm, OK. We were all watching that game, and I bet that Belichick occasionally watches some too.

But then he starts to rely on stats, claiming that 55% is much too high for the odds that Brady makes the play:

So we're saying 55.7 percent, huh? That's the success rate for a road team playing its biggest rival, in a deafeningly loud dome, coming out of a timeout -- a timeout that allowed the defense to get a breather and determine exactly how to stop the obvious five-receiver spread that was coming because the offense's running game sucked -- along with that same defense getting extra fired up because it was being disrespected so egregiously/willfully/blatantly/incomprehensibly. I say lower. By a lot.

Perhaps. I'll agree that we can't really know for sure, but I think reasonable people can disagree about whether Brady's chances were better or worse than the average here. I feel pretty good about Brady, Moss, Welker and Faulk in this situation. But yes they were on the road, etc. Fine.

But here is where he goes off the beam. If you look at the math, or even just think about it intuitively, one thing is clear: the better Manning's chances of making it are from anywhere on the field, the better off going for it looks as a strategy. But Simmons calls that "insane" thinking:

Insane Angle No. 2: "If they punted, Manning would have rolled down the field and scored, anyway."

Two things about this. One, if you apply Simmons' reasoning about Brady, you get a much higher-than-average number for Manning's chances (at home, best QB in the NFL, etc.).

But what is really awful about this? Suppose that you take this view about Manning's chances:

But Manning looms over everything. He owns those televised night games. He has alligator blood. He will steal any game in the last five minutes if you let him.

That makes going for it sound like a wise move, right? And who wrote that? One Bill Simmons, just a week earlier http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnflpicks/091113

I cannot take it any more.

[Roy Hobbs]

Funny enough, I actually liked that Simmons' article, because I think he's basically right:  people were forgetting common sense and trying to use statistics to defend an action that made no sense.  I absolutely agree with him that you can't analyze football players in a vacuum, and I thought his use of 2 point conversions -- rather than typical 4th-and-2s -- was a fairly interesting way to look at the situation, if you have to look at it statistically.

[Boris Badenov]

Funny enough, I actually liked that Simmons' article, because I think he's basically right:  people were forgetting common sense and trying to use statistics to defend an action that made no sense.  I absolutely agree with him that you can't analyze football players in a vacuum, and I thought his use of 2 point conversions -- rather than typical 4th-and-2s -- was a fairly interesting way to look at the situation, if you have to look at it statistically.

I'm not really taking issue with what he says - I think it's a debatable point. What I don't understand is the self-contradiction.

[Roy Hobbs]

Funny enough, I actually liked that Simmons' article, because I think he's basically right:  people were forgetting common sense and trying to use statistics to defend an action that made no sense.  I absolutely agree with him that you can't analyze football players in a vacuum, and I thought his use of 2 point conversions -- rather than typical 4th-and-2s -- was a fairly interesting way to look at the situation, if you have to look at it statistically.

I'm not really taking issue with what he says - I think it's a debatable point. What I don't understand is the self-contradiction.

Yeah, that quote you cited at the end definitely makes him look like he's reversing course, which is a Simmons' staple.  That being said, maybe he feels that Manning's "alligator blood" is more effective from 28 yards, than it would be from 70 yards out.

(Those are the statistics I don't buy into, the ones suggesting that the Colts only had something like a 15% greater chance of scoring from the 28 than he would have from their own 30.)

[Boris Badenov]

He also managed to reverse course while somehow making BOTH positions anti-Boston.

"Manning is unstoppable (and therefore better than Brady)."

"But, Belichick was stupid to make a decision based on the belief that Manning is unstoppable."

[Roy Hobbs]

He also managed to reverse course while somehow making BOTH positions anti-Boston.

"Manning is unstoppable (and therefore better than Brady)."

"But, Belichick was stupid to make a decision based on the belief that Manning is unstoppable."

Yeah, it's kind of comical, reading this:

Imagine you're me. . . .  You're all about the Boston teams.

Haha.  In recent seasons, he's crapped on the Celtics, Bruins, and Red Sox.  Now, he's turning his attention to the Pats.  If "all about" means "constantly and unfairly criticizes", he'd be accurate.

Plus, he has an enormous ego.

[connerhenry43]

rodney Harrison, bruschi, bill simmons. all three work in the media with obvious ties to boston and/or the pats. you probably get flack for being pro boston (or pro pats) too much, though in the case of RH and TB, their body of work is limited.  when "the decision" happened, these guys are smart enough to know, if they do not criticize "the decision" their creditability would be questioned. if you cannot question that move (and I am not saying i was for or against it), when will you have the guts to question bill belichick? again, not how i feel, but i have to imagine this is how these three guys, especially simmons, felt. i cannot imagine the amount of emails simmons gets when a boston team loses a high profile game. i did not care for his article, myself. he is not an expert (maybe i would say he is in nba, but he knows very little about MLB and NFL). i read him because he is funny. i do not need his analysis; he knows less about football than me, and tons of people i know. what he can do is write (very talented), make jokes, and make hilarious references.

but again, i am not saying these three (especially simmons) were not truthful in their comments; i am just saying they are smart enough to know they had to criticize "the decision", or their credibility would be questioned.

[FallGuy]

He also managed to reverse course while somehow making BOTH positions anti-Boston.

"Manning is unstoppable (and therefore better than Brady)."

"But, Belichick was stupid to make a decision based on the belief that Manning is unstoppable."

Yeah, it's kind of comical, reading this:

Imagine you're me. . . .  You're all about the Boston teams.

Haha.  In recent seasons, he's crapped on the Celtics, Bruins, and Red Sox.  Now, he's turning his attention to the Pats.  If "all about" means "constantly and unfairly criticizes", he'd be accurate.

Plus, he has an enormous ego.

Well, you're right about the enormous ego, but I think, from his public behavior at least, he manages it as well as a lot of people at his level of success do. I assume he's probably the highest paid and most influential sportswriter in the U.S.

I'm not really calling you on this Roy but his approach is one of a fan with a column, rather than an unbiased observer. Which means, like any other fan, he's going to contradict himself, get too excited, too down, etc. etc. I don't understand why people criticize him for this. That's his entire raison d'etre.

[Roy Hobbs]

He also managed to reverse course while somehow making BOTH positions anti-Boston.

"Manning is unstoppable (and therefore better than Brady)."

"But, Belichick was stupid to make a decision based on the belief that Manning is unstoppable."

Yeah, it's kind of comical, reading this:

Imagine you're me. . . .  You're all about the Boston teams.

Haha.  In recent seasons, he's crapped on the Celtics, Bruins, and Red Sox.  Now, he's turning his attention to the Pats.  If "all about" means "constantly and unfairly criticizes", he'd be accurate.

Plus, he has an enormous ego.

Well, you're right about the enormous ego, but I think, from his public behavior at least, he manages it as well as a lot of people at his level of success do. I assume he's probably the highest paid and most influential sportswriter in the U.S.

I'm not really calling you on this Roy but his approach is one of a fan with a column, rather than an unbiased observer. Which means, like any other fan, he's going to contradict himself, get too excited, too down, etc. etc. I don't understand why people criticize him for this. That's his entire raison d'etre.

Where did I criticize him for being a fan with a column?  If anything, I criticized him for constantly telling us what a huge fan he is, while always throwing his teams under the bus.  I've had my fill of anti-Celtics, Sox, and Bruins columns over the years.

I can't imagine a truly huge Celtics fan (like Simmons always reminds us he is) saying the Lakers and Cavs were unstoppable, and that the Cavs didn't have a chance.  I can't imagine said Super Fan #1 attacking Celtics management repeatedly, and focusing on the worst possible case scenario with KG (which was not supported by actual facts), and panning the signing of Rasheed (while praising the off-season moves of Cleveland).

Simmons' shtick has now become to show how "objective" he is, by bashing Boston teams. 

[PierceMVP08]

Say what you want about simmons but his book is hilarious... Love it.

[FallGuy]

He also managed to reverse course while somehow making BOTH positions anti-Boston.

"Manning is unstoppable (and therefore better than Brady)."

"But, Belichick was stupid to make a decision based on the belief that Manning is unstoppable."

Yeah, it's kind of comical, reading this:

Imagine you're me. . . .  You're all about the Boston teams.

Haha.  In recent seasons, he's crapped on the Celtics, Bruins, and Red Sox.  Now, he's turning his attention to the Pats.  If "all about" means "constantly and unfairly criticizes", he'd be accurate.

Plus, he has an enormous ego.

Well, you're right about the enormous ego, but I think, from his public behavior at least, he manages it as well as a lot of people at his level of success do. I assume he's probably the highest paid and most influential sportswriter in the U.S.

I'm not really calling you on this Roy but his approach is one of a fan with a column, rather than an unbiased observer. Which means, like any other fan, he's going to contradict himself, get too excited, too down, etc. etc. I don't understand why people criticize him for this. That's his entire raison d'etre.

Where did I criticize him for being a fan with a column?  If anything, I criticized him for constantly telling us what a huge fan he is, while always throwing his teams under the bus.  I've had my fill of anti-Celtics, Sox, and Bruins columns over the years.

I can't imagine a truly huge Celtics fan (like Simmons always reminds us he is) saying the Lakers and Cavs were unstoppable, and that the Cavs didn't have a chance.  I can't imagine said Super Fan #1 attacking Celtics management repeatedly, and focusing on the worst possible case scenario with KG (which was not supported by actual facts), and panning the signing of Rasheed (while praising the off-season moves of Cleveland).

Simmons' shtick has now become to show how "objective" he is, by bashing Boston teams. 

Wow. Not my read at all.

All huge fans react in all sorts of ways. Sox fans pre-04 were furious and fatalistic all the time; that's just part of the ups and downs of fandom. There were a lot of "true fans" who "threw their team under the bus" on Monday only to return Tuesday. That's the experience he's chronicling. If you accept his premise, that's HIM, then the ups and downs, the overreactions, are inevitable.

Why *can't* a truly huge Celtics fan express an opinion that the Cavs or Lakers are unstoppable if that's how they really feel? It's almost like there's a litmus test of blind devotion required to be a "true fan". (not you Roy, but in the aggregate).

His shtick has NOTHING to do with proving himself objective. I don't know how you get that from him at all. He's heart-on-his-sleeve, provacateur, all sorts of things - but attempting to appear objective - that's not a game he's playing. IMO.

[steve]

He also managed to reverse course while somehow making BOTH positions anti-Boston.

"Manning is unstoppable (and therefore better than Brady)."

"But, Belichick was stupid to make a decision based on the belief that Manning is unstoppable."

Yeah, it's kind of comical, reading this:

Imagine you're me. . . .  You're all about the Boston teams.

Haha.  In recent seasons, he's crapped on the Celtics, Bruins, and Red Sox.  Now, he's turning his attention to the Pats.  If "all about" means "constantly and unfairly criticizes", he'd be accurate.

Plus, he has an enormous ego.

Well, you're right about the enormous ego, but I think, from his public behavior at least, he manages it as well as a lot of people at his level of success do. I assume he's probably the highest paid and most influential sportswriter in the U.S.

I'm not really calling you on this Roy but his approach is one of a fan with a column, rather than an unbiased observer. Which means, like any other fan, he's going to contradict himself, get too excited, too down, etc. etc. I don't understand why people criticize him for this. That's his entire raison d'etre.

Where did I criticize him for being a fan with a column?  If anything, I criticized him for constantly telling us what a huge fan he is, while always throwing his teams under the bus.  I've had my fill of anti-Celtics, Sox, and Bruins columns over the years.

I can't imagine a truly huge Celtics fan (like Simmons always reminds us he is) saying the Lakers and Cavs were unstoppable, and that the Cavs didn't have a chance.  I can't imagine said Super Fan #1 attacking Celtics management repeatedly, and focusing on the worst possible case scenario with KG (which was not supported by actual facts), and panning the signing of Rasheed (while praising the off-season moves of Cleveland).

Simmons' shtick has now become to show how "objective" he is, by bashing Boston teams. 

Wow. Not my read at all.

All huge fans react in all sorts of ways. Sox fans pre-04 were furious and fatalistic all the time; that's just part of the ups and downs of fandom. There were a lot of "true fans" who "threw their team under the bus" on Monday only to return Tuesday. That's the experience he's chronicling. If you accept his premise, that's HIM, then the ups and downs, the overreactions, are inevitable.

Why *can't* a truly huge Celtics fan express an opinion that the Cavs or Lakers are unstoppable if that's how they really feel? It's almost like there's a litmus test of blind devotion required to be a "true fan". (not you Roy, but in the aggregate).

His shtick has NOTHING to do with proving himself objective. I don't know how you get that from him at all. He's heart-on-his-sleeve, provacateur, all sorts of things - but attempting to appear objective - that's not a game he's playing. IMO.

I agree.  Me and my friends bash our teams constantly.  It's the way we were brought up.  It's like venting about how you hate your crazy wife, you still love her but... she's still crazy.   

[guava_wrench]

Simmons doesn't bother me as much as he might because I view him as just entertainment.

He is pretty weak at reasoning, but great at entertaining. I do find his naive, everyday man logic frustrating at times, and his overconfidence in his own reasoning is particularly annoying. His fabrication of arguments to support his gut reactions seems obvious to me, though he seems to be oblivious to what he is doing.

[Eja117]

he definitely Monday morning quarterbacked as much as the next guy whereas he probably would have praised him as genius had they made it and come up with a million reasons that Belichek is the greatest coach ever.

Nevertheless I liked the way he broke down the main arguments.

But I thought he pulled those stats out of his wazoo and none of them felt right to me at all.

[steve]

People seem to be assuming the ball would have been safely punted 60 yards with no return. 

If Bill punted and the ball was returned to the Pat's 40 then Bill would be saying, "I thought we could punt it and not allow a return"  rather than "I thought our offense could get 2 yards" 

The call to go for it may not be the right one but it's not "reckless". 

Basically what I'm saying is that our offense is better than our special teams and our defense so it's not crazy that we tried to get 2 frigin yards.