I saw someone post this on Facebook before Tango linked to it. I'm not naive enough to think this changes anything about Skip Bayless, but like you said, it is very cathartic.

Where does Bayless rank among other sports media putzes in incompetence? I dislike Cowherd the most, but Bayless is right there. Those are the two national guys that stick out the most to me. McCarver, Buck, and any other terrible announcers would be next. When you start including more regional guys, you get Francesa, Paige, Mariotti, and Shaughnessy. Compared to this group, "Hawk" Harrelson looks pretty good. I'll take blind optimism, homerism and annoying enthusiasm over the negativity and self-righteousness of the other guys. Harrelson, while annoying, clearly enjoys what he's doing, and that's worth something to me.

Does Jay Mariotti still exist? He was the worst, I think.

His brother makes a good taco.

Deadspin posted this article not too long ago. It turns out Mariotti is still lurking, and spoiler alert, still an @$$hole.

I wish Cuban had been better informed actually -- I don't come away from that thinking that Cuban understands the different defensive schemes or knows what they did to shut down LeBron.

But Bayless is kind of amazing in that clip. LeBron can cut up a defense whenever he "feels" like it? Early Cuban pulls out the "generalities" card and the "you don't deal in facts" card and Bayless responds with something like "LeBron was under the most intense pressure of any player ever in a final..."

And neither seems to tolerate the notion of randomness (luck, unexplainable bits that will remain unexplainable). To Cuban, LeBron can't just have a few bad games, his performance is due to the Mavs. To Bayliss, LeBron can't just have a few bad games, it has to be due to his effort/desire. Possibly Cuban avoided that line for "presentation" purposes -- i.e. "stuff happens" is not a particularly persuasive argument even if it is correct. But that does make it a rather "un-saber" sort of argument from Cuban. I felt he was at his strongest when he did brush up against that -- this year the Heat hit their shots; we wanted him to be Jordan feeding Kerr (it's the Paxson one that still makes my heart stop); why do you play a zone Skip?

I don't know squat about basketball, but I loved it when Skip challenged Cuban ("So what was your strategy to stop LeBron?") And Cuban actually had a detailed answer. Every time Cuban challenged Skip to back up his argument, he had nothing.

Walt, you make some valid points regarding Cuban. However, even with all of those flaws, Cuban still came off better than a majority of analysts. Also, Cuban is in a rough spot as an owner when trying to explain Lebron's "letdown" against the Mavericks in 2011. If he attributes James's performance to randomness, then Dallas players and coaches might take that as a slight against them. I would think it's in Cuban's best interest to attribute more than a fair share of credit to his team. That does hurt his credibility when he's playing the role of analyst, but he still mops the floor with Bayless.

I don't think it hurts Cuban's role as an analyst to point out that LeBron struggled against a match-up zone--especially one with a lot of different looks. He struggled against zone looks in this year's playoffs as well. Boston threw a fair bit of zone at LeBron this year, which he struggled against, due to a lack of outside shooting on the Heat.

Here's an article that included limited vs. zone stats for the Heat.

From this article, written around the same time:
"The Heat are ranked 20th against the zone, according to Synergy. They are No. 4 against a man-to-man."

Cuban wasn't wrong to point out how much the Dallas defense had to do with LeBron's performance.

Too bad he didn't work there because Mariotti and Deadspin deserve each other.

Cuban still came off better than a majority of analysts.

Oh I agree. I'm nitpicking. It's good to see somebody challenge the "choke" arguments as BS so that's worth celebrating (or whatever). I just don't find it that celebratory from a "saber" perspective per se. Cuban's argument is eseentially "strategy matters dumb ass" which is a pretty valid argument. :-) That strategy may or may not have been "saber-based" -- I guess he came close to that with his "90% of the plays go to the left" but that sounded like a made-up fact to me ... it can't really be 90% can it?

I'm just wishing it had been a better takedown. It really could have been a "Skip, do you know that about 2/3 of LeBron's drives to the left are successful but only 45% of his drives to the right? Did you notice that we always brought the double team from that side? Did you notice that whenever he came across the free throw line on the dribble, our center stepped in to clog the lane? Did you know we usually only play zone about 30% of the time but in that series we did so 62% of the time LeBron was on the floor? No, you didn't. All you noticed was LeBron stuck on the perimeter but you had no idea WHY he was stuck on the perimeter."

Not that I could have come up with that on the fly nor would I expect Cuban to.

Bayless was even worse prepared though. He should have at least had his "LeBron only scored X points in the 4th quarter" facts ready to go.

I liked how Stephen A and Skip would repeatedly misquote what Cuban had to say just a few minutes previously and Cuban had to correct them.

If Cuban had cited something like this, his argument would have been more saberist (sabery?).

His brother makes a good taco.

Seriously. Are there any comparable sibling pairings, where one is a public figure deservedly at the top of his field, and the other is a public figure among the very worst at what he does?

Cal and Billy.

Oh and although I dont like basketball and I have only a rough idea of who Skip Bayless is, I enjoyed the hell out of this clip when I watched the other day.

Total mismatch. Skip had that same look in his eyes that Jim Cramer had when Jon Stewart took him down.

Cal and Billy.

I meant to specify different fields.

I also meant to be gender neutral, though that doesn't affect Cal and Billy.

That's a great clip. Thanks for the link.

It confirms for me that I know as much about basketball as Skip Bayless does. The difference is that I don't say stupid stuff like "Miami wanted it more."

His brother makes a good taco.

I never before put together, prior to the Lounge discussion of this video last week, that Skip and Rick were brothers. Rick Bayless is one of my favorite "celebrity" chefs (such as that is). His cookbook is excellent, as is his PBS series.

Are there any comparable sibling pairings, where one is a public figure deservedly at the top of his field, and the other is a public figure among the very worst at what he does?

I assume we throw out Roger and Bill Clinton, or Billy and Jimmy Carter? The brothers in those cases were public figures only by virtue of being related to the more famous one. Tough enough to find two siblings who are both famous in different fields (most of the sibling pairs I can think of are either in sports or acting).

If you stretch it a little bit - Bruce Jenner and Kim Kardashian?

If Cuban had cited something like this, his argument would have been more saberist (sabery?).

Pretty good stuff, pretty good graphics. What I think it needs to add is info on "drives." I assume a lot of LeBron's shots near the hoop started with LeBron driving in from the perimeter (and fast breaks) and so it's not necessarily the case that the change is due to his new post game (although that's the most obvious explanation). In short, Bayless could look at those charts and say "see, I told you that LeBron was too passive, not getting to the hoop and creating enough. He was spending too much time on the perimeter." Those charts aren't necessarily consistent with Cuban's argument (not necessarily inconsistent either). Those charts suggest pre-2012 LeBron has always had the wrong mix of shots and stayed on the perimeter too often. Did the Mavs force him to the perimeter or did LeBron take his usual mix of shots or was LeBron happy to stay out there when pushed because he didn't realize how less effective he was out there (although how could he not, it's basketball 101).

Anyway, I don't think "saber" was Cuban's point, I think he was trying to make the "it's not choking" and "strategy" points. But a lot of this looks pretty simple. It's not that LeBron wanted it more. It's that LeBron used to play in a sub-optimal style (for his skillset) and the Mavs knew this and took advantage of it. This year*, LeBron played a smarter game (and improved his mid-range shooting).** Why don't you tell your readers that instead of all this psychological/moral garbage Skip?

* Assuming the charts in the article are representative. They're comparing several years to one year. Buried in the several years data could be an evolution towards LeBron 2012 rather than a sudden shift; also the sudden improvement could possibly be random (although it doesn't look that way).

** Again is that distribution of shots really the same? It could be that in earlier years a higher percentage of those mid-range shots were under pressure -- i.e. drives that got stopped and he put up an unbalanced runner under pressure -- rather than improved shooting percentage.

Anyway, I don't think "saber" was Cuban's point, I think he was trying to make the "it's not choking" and "strategy" points.

I agree, though I will note that the Mavs were an early adopter of 'saber style analytics' and have put significant resources into hiring stat-y types to assist the organization.

LeBron and A-Rod each took a lot of 'heat' that was undeserved, no question.
But post-2004, when A-Rod was made a scapegoat because - well, Jeter has da ringzz - he eventually really was unable to perform to his standards in the postseason.

And last year in the Finals, LeBron really did not seem ready to handle the pressure. The Mavs' D was very good, but LeBron seemed like a guy who did not want the ball, either, in the biggest spots. As the Finals rolled around ths year, LeBron pretty much admitted as such - just as A-Rod eventually did before finding his own postseason redemption.

A-Rod noticed, in the wake of LeBron's title:

excerpt
"I know exactly how he felt, and I was very happy for him," Rodriguez said. "I know he's going to take a deep breath now and really enjoy the rest of his career. We probably haven't seen the best of him, and I think we will now."

Rodriguez has followed the Heat closely and tries to make it to a few games during the baseball offseason, but he especially sees parallels between himself and James, who has been a popular target after leaving the Cleveland Cavaliers for a huge contract in Miami.

"Playing the villain is never fun, and it's tiring," Rodriguez said. "It's definitely not exciting. It's not all it's built up to be. I think for me, everything changed in '09 and I really had a chance to just enjoy the game again; more so now than ever."

.........

and yes, Bayless is an idiot.

Hopefully I'll live to see a day when Mark Cuban owns the Mets. He made Bayless look like the moron he is. I leap for the remote usually when he appears on the screen (like Cowherd and Dickie V) but it was DVR time once the Heat had won. I wanted to see that creep finally give LeBron some praise after insulting him for so many years. His opening statement was the epitome of damning with faint praise. For once I actually appreciated Screamin A Smith for eviscerating Pencil Neck, them Cuban finished the job. They made him look even more small and pathetic than usual.

Al Capone and his brother James (somewhat well known during his time) as a prominent law enforcement officer during Prohibition. I think he was also a body man for Coolidge (not in Secret Service though).

for this crowd: how about Randy Wolf and Jim Wolf. Not necessarily at the 'top of their professions', but each has reached the highest level of their respective professions.

siblings Billie Jean King and ex-Giants pitcher Randy Moffitt.

Are there any comparable sibling pairings, where one is a public figure deservedly at the top of his field, and the other is a public figure among the very worst at what he does?

Jeb and George W. Bush.

"I know exactly how he felt, and I was very happy for him," Rodriguez said. "I know he's going to take a deep breath now and really enjoy the rest of his career. We probably haven't seen the best of him, and I think we will now."


"Playing the villain is never fun, and it's tiring," Rodriguez said. "It's definitely not exciting. It's not all it's built up to be. I think for me, everything changed in '09 and I really had a chance to just enjoy the game again; more so now than ever."

So LeBron will be even better now, like ARod has been since 2009?

Bill and Roger Clinton?

The thing that struck me about the video is only incidental to Skip Bayless. Bayless is especially worthless, of course, but the kinds of stuff that he says is so typical of not just ESPN or even sports, but punditry in general. We live in an age where "experts" are typically nothing of the kind, where the size of one's audience is almost exactly inversely proportional to his/her expertise, and cliche and innuendo rule the day.

Maybe it's the same as it ever was - I don't mean this to be an old fogeyist rant - but it's as true at CNN and their ilk as it is at ESPN. At the highest levels, our discourse is run by complete morons, or at least people who are willing to pretend to be complete morons once they go on the air.

Bill and Roger Clinton?

He meant Bill and George Clinton.

Cuban did all right. But if you want to see a real behind the woodshed moment Jalen Rose took Bayless apart a few months ago.

for those of us who follow banking.

At the time they merged about 12 years ago, the then CEO of US Bancorp and then Firstar Bank were brothers, Jack and Jerry Grundhofer. Pretty impressive accomplishment for the siblings to reach that high of a level in banking.

Cuban did all right. But if you want to see a real behind the woodshed moment Jalen Rose took Bayless apart a few months ago.

Agreed. That was great.

Was I the only person who read Dick Groat's Link in No. 4 and couldn't, regardless how much the Deadspin guy tried to pile on Marriotti, get past the fact that they first offered him $1,000 per column? If you're interested in having sports media's most wretched figure* write for you, you've forfeited the right to the haughty attitude.

* An amazing distinction, considering the field.

Jimmy and Billy Carter.

Reggie Miller is an awful broadcaster while his sister Cheryl was a very successful athlete.

Ashlee and Nicole Simpson. One made a horrible fake reality show and the other made horrible fake music.

That should read Jessica Simpson.

On the successful siblings in very different fields front, you'll find the Attanasio boys. Mark is in the discussion for the game's best owner, while brother Paul was one of the creators of Homicide: Life on the Street.

What Cuban was pointing out was that so much of sportswriter "analysis" is BS that is unknowable and so can't be proven right or wrong, such as "Team X wanted it more" or "Team Y was soft," or "Team Z didn't show up to play" or "Team A showed their toughness" or "Team B wasn't ready to play" or "Team C wasn't motivated." You see this permeate the coverage in all three of MLB/NFL/NBA.

It's the result of writers not understanding what they're seeing, so they fall back on unprovable assertions about the character of the players wearing the uniforms.

And again, play any Diamond Mind type of game, and you'll see the same sequences of blown leads or blown saves or what not. But if you try to construct the narrative of "Team X didn't want it enough" in DMB, you will look foolish and everyone will notice, while if you try to do it with real players you will look just as foolish but nobody will notice.

You give the reader/viewer what they want and what they want is a story about good vs evil. They want the human side and so media gives them that. Why did Miami lose? Because LeBron is a bad man. Because Dallas is full of good people. So on and so on. Why did Miami win? Because Lebron grew into a hero. So on and so on. Writers and the media are not stupid. They aren't shoveling this stuff to an unwanting audience.

It's the result of writers not understanding what they're seeing, so they fall back on unprovable assertions about the character of the players wearing the uniforms.

Actually, I think it's the result of writers desperately wanting the winning and losing to be due to something other than which team has the superior combination more talent, skill, strategy, and luck. So they seize on unprovable assertions of character, and their heads explode when guys previously determined to lack the proper character attributes have success.

Remember:

ARod couldn't win, until he won.

Peyton Manning couldn't win, until he won.

Dirk Novitsky couldn't win, until he won.

Bonds choked in the postseason (well, not really), until he had one of the best postseasons ever.

Etc.

These people have nothing of any value to add.

I think people are missing the point. We're not looking for two siblings who are both super-good: one has to be notable but terrible, and the other, notable and quite good.

I'm blanking, of course.

I think people are missing the point. We're not looking for two siblings who are both super-good: one has to be notable but terrible, and the other, notable and quite good.

I know that was the point; I couldn't think of one either. Then again, in most fields (punditry and pop music would be two notable exceptions), it isn't terribly easy to become well known while being atrocious at the task at hand.

Are there any comparable sibling pairings

Tom Skilling

Jeff Skilling

Then again, in most fields (punditry and pop music would be two notable exceptions), it isn't terribly easy to become well known while being atrocious at the task at hand.

John and Jim Belushi. But I think the point was to get siblings in different fields - its hard to think of any notable siblings in different fields of work. Here is a good discussion on famous siblings in different fields, but I don't find any of the pairs to fit the above description.

Actually, I think it's the result of writers desperately wanting the winning and losing to be due to something other than which team has the superior combination more talent, skill, strategy, and luck. So they seize on unprovable assertions of character, and their heads explode when guys previously determined to lack the proper character attributes have success.

Yes, except for the last part: their heads don't explode unless and until they're confronted directly on their unprovable assertions.
Then they exhibit some combination of anger, frustration, and goalpost-moving.

It's not even just big-time sports, of course. I used to run into this stuff from a rec-league slow-pitch softball manager, who'd talk about guys who were "clutch" or "not clutch" and how we needed to "step up our game to a higher level" for the playoffs, how it goes to the team who "wants it more"... all that [stuff]. This guy kept meticulous stats going back literally decades. I tried once pointing out that most guys with any significant history on the team showed pretty much the same "playoff" stats as "regular-season" stats (within 10% or so either way; I wouldn't expect anyone at BBTF to be surprised by this), but a couple - specifically the manager himself and one of his bobos - had significantly worse playoff stats.
His response was... Baylessian? Hopeless.

Basically, their stats were worse because they cared so much.

But I think the point was to get siblings in different fields - its hard to think of any notable siblings in different fields of work.

You guessed it - Frank Stallone.

The only pair of brothers with totally unrelated claims to fame I can think of are Doug Fieger, the frontman of The Knack, and Geoff Fieger, famous crazy defense lawyer. But they are both equally atrocious.

my brother is a pretty good musician and god fearing man, while i'm an ink-stained wretch and beer drinker and painter and wannabe bohemian.

There's Paul and Molly O'Neill.