Something Shanoff and something Simmons

Today's Daily Bandwagon opens with the following hilarious observation concerning the stadium deal that the D.C. city council just handed down:

It's arguably the biggest humiliation in sports-franchise relocation history.

"Arguably!" "History!" Stop it man, you're killing me! Oh, there's no doubt that this will be topic #1 the next time my friends and I sit down for our weekly sports-franchise relocation debate.

I also enjoyed his little riff on the surprising Sonics:

Fun with stats! Seattle is near the tops in the league in two newfangled efficiency metrics: "Points Per Shot" (PTS/FGA) and "Adjusted FG Pct" [(PTS-FTM)/FGA]/2. If you hate math, just gaze open-mouth at the shooting.

Oh man, trying to comprehend those bafflingly complex formulas is making my brain hurt! PTS? FGM? Beats me! But seriously folks, since when are these stats "newfangled"? I happen to know that one of my secret sources for the incisive numerical analysis that is a hallmark of this blog--we'll call him Stats Chump--was looking at Points Per Shot ages ago, and Adjusted FG Pct is simply a no-brainer. And even if you're not explicitly using those types of formulas, why, everyone who ever looked at a boxscore has made mental adjustments to the figures they see. I mean, has anyone ever been stupid enough to think something to the effect of, "Man! Shaq is near the top of the league in field goal percentage again! You wouldn't expect a guy that big to be such a great pure shooter!"

On the other hand, I did think that Shanoff made some reasonably good observations about our friends the Sox fans:

What's more overblown: Red Sox Nation's nonsense fixation on Pedro leaving, or their nonsense fixation on Curt Schilling too injured to start Opening Day? Wow, it only took six weeks for RSN to find something to be (a) bitter about and (b) worried about. (The over/under -- set at "end of winter meetings" -- was right on!)

Which leads me to Simmons' hysterical (but not "ha ha" hysterical) and incoherent column from yesterday on Pedro's move to the Mets. The man is completely out of his mind. First he is utterly inconsolable:

I can't emphasize this point strongly enough: Pedro's shocking departure was the worst possible thing that could have happened. Losing the most exciting pitcher in the history of the franchise was bad enough. Losing him because he leveraged the good will of the championship season into a far-too-generous offer from the Red Sox, then leveraged that offer into a suicidal contract from the Mets -- four years and $54 million for a six-inning pitcher with a history of shoulder problems -- I mean, how are we supposed to feel about this guy now?

Did he care about those seven years in Boston at all? Was he another hired gun like Clemens? Were all the stories about him true, that he was a prima donna who only looked out for himself?

Okay, thanks, Bill, you've stated your feelings pretty clearly. But by the end of the column, he's suddenly Mr. High Road:

He's going to get skewered in Boston over these next few days, weeks and months. I'm going to do my best to refrain from piling on with everyone else, if only because he brought me so much enjoyment over the years.

And he proceeds to pay tribute to the Pedro Years for the next few paragraphs. Boy, with friends like these, who needs enemies, eh? Stuff like this makes you wonder if Simmons ever goes back and reads his columns all the way through himself before he publishes them.

In between these massive mood swings, the guy is already ripping on the Red Sox front office for essentially breaking up the defending champs (even though he had previously stated that even the Sox's three-year offer to Pedro was too much) and implying more than a little bit that the brass just stumbled into this World Series title by pure luck. Luck! Eighty-six years without a championship, and the people who finally bring the trophy home are suddenly just lucky. How's that for gratitude? And what happened to the Gammons Genius Theory of Pitching that supposedly won it for them? Look, I loathe Roger Clemens as much as the next guy, and so I really hate to say this, but it looks like he might have been right when he said, shortly after the Sox won it all, that the Nation will "find something to complain about within a few weeks."

Naturally, the Sports Guy insists that it was a different story with the Patriots:

When this happened with the Patriots three years ago, they made it easy. The defending champs struggled to a 9-7 season, then bounced back with another championship, even rolling off a 27-1 stretch over the past 15 months. With the best coach in football and a memorable collection of big-game players, there hasn't been much to complain about. We trust the people running the team. We trust their judgment. End of story.

Oh you trust their judgment, do you? But unfortunately for you (and to your credit, actually), the Sports Guy's archives are a little too easy to find and browse through. And finding a quote that contradicts the preceding from the tough times of 2002 is like shooting fish in a barrel. Does this sound familiar?

To Patriots fans everywhere ... none of us knew quite how to act this season. Were the Pats underachieving? And if they were underacheiving, could we even really complain about it? Did last season even happen? Were they ever even good in the first place? Why did everyone forget about the five-year grace period that you're supposed to give your team after they win a championship? Why did so many of the local reporters, columnists and radio announcers relish playing the "Wet Blanket-Chicken Little" role for four straight months? Why wasn't any of this fun? Shouldn't it have been fun?

December 30, 2002, at the conclusion of the Pats' 9-7 season. Certainly sounds like a guy who trusts the front office's judgment, doesn't it? Just replace every "Pats" reference with "Red Sox," and there you go. Yesterday's column.