2 Idiots Debate: Veronica Mars and Kickstarter

Did you guys hear that there’s going to be a Veronica Mars movie? Because fans funded it on Kickstarter?

You did? Not news?

OK, well did you hear that two aging blog proprietors got all worked up about it and had an e-mail debate?

I THOUGHT NOT.

2 Idiots Debate: The End of the World as We Know It?

What happens when David Simon Cowell and I emerged from our recent hibernation to discuss the lazy abomination that is Grantland’s obituary for the very much alive David Bowie?

Some misunderstandings!

Some fighting!

Some laffs!

Some navel-gazing!

One person who adores David Bowie and one person who doesn’t really have a dog in that race!

We use the word “inarguable” a surprisingly high number of times, given that we are in the midst of an argument!

And David Simon Cowell writes more words for this blog than he has in the last year combined! Who can fucking resist that?

2 Idiots Debate: Mad Men Season Five

After the long wait for its return, the new season of Mad Men is in the books. We laughed, we cried, we were simultaneously embarrassed and turned-on by Megan’s singing. Mostly, we disagreed.

Let’s grab a martini and hash it out.

2 Idiots Discuss: Pearl Jam Twenty and Pearl Jam’s Legacy

Join David Simon Cowell and I after the jump as we discuss Cameron Crowe’s new documentary, Pearl Jam Twenty.

2 Idiots Debate: The Steve Bartman Question

8 years after he first fell into infamy, Steve Bartman is back in the news. In the first entry in the new wave of ESPN’s great 30 for 30 documentary series, Alex Gibney explores the concept of the scapegoat through the story of the 2003 Cubs’ collapse.

There is hardly anybody in the U.S. who hasn’t heard the name Steve Bartman, and has at least some vague notion that he was blamed for a loss. Like other sports scapegoats (Fred Merkel, Bill Buckner, Chris Webber), Bartman had a momentary lapse, upon which was piled a mountain of frustration that he had nothing to do with. Unlike all the rest of these figures, Bartman wasn’t being paid for his performance on the field, and became a part of the action by pure bad luck.

Although it could have been worse (Andres Escobar was killed for a blunder, the subject of another strong 30 for 30 doc), the reaction by Cubs’ fans was wildly overblown. So where does Bartman stand now? More importantly, is it possible for a Cubs fan still scarred by the ’03 and ’04 seasons to completely let go of his irrational feelings. I took up the issue with The Lanky Hippy.

2 Idiots Debate: Why Is Mike Collins Such A DoucheNozzle?

We’re assholes. Seriously. We’re not professionals like Rick Santorum or Eric Cantor, but we’re certainly highly-ranked amateurs.

So when our buddy Surly Minnesota (Grand)Father started a Fantasy Football league several years back, we thought it would be funny to pick out one of the guys we’d never met and give him shit during the draft for no real reason. Thankfully, we picked the right guy. In addition to all the other fun aspects of Fantasy, now we look forward to torturing some guy named Mike Collins every year (Obviously, this is an online draft… we’re also highly-ranked cowards).

As the years have passed, the conceit has aged like a fine wine (at least for us). But what exactly makes Mike Collins so hateful? We decided to explore our feelings.

2 Idiots Discuss: The Year to Date

So it seems like the new thing with blogs to pause at the half-year mark and take stock of where we’re at. It’s similar to the whole year-end list-making orgy, but at half-mast. And hey! We have a blog! We can get in on this action!

Without further ado, we take a 30,000-foot view of 2011 so far, making sure to close the loop on various action items, establish best practices, and integrate Web 2.0 initiatives where appropriate. [Slightly more than] Halfway through 2011, y’all!

2 Idiots Debate: Oprah Winfrey

In an effort to come to the truth of the matter about important issues, and engage in our favorite pastime (arguing), we will from time to time engage in an e-mail version of a barroom debate. These will always be honest disagreements, not ESPN-style verbal fake wrestling. Join us after the jump as we debate the cultural force known as Oprah.

Oprah Winfrey’s final show on network television airs this week, so what better time to examine her legacy? Since David Simon Cowell is in Ecuador, and we never know from one minute to the next if he’s still alive or is being held for ransom by a drug cartel (that’s an Ecuador thing, right?), we have a guest debater this week to take his place.

I will be taking the anti-Oprah position of the debate. Obviously. My worthy opponent is none other than Stedman Graham, Oprah’s longtime companion. Welcome, Stedman!

2 Idiots Draft: The Saturday Night Live Fantasy Draft

Two pop culture aficionados. One historic but deeply flawed television show. Dozens of improv comedians, breakout stars and abject failures. Children, we present the Pop Culture Has AIDS official Saturday Night Live fantasy draft.

David Simon Cowell and I each drafted a cast from among every SNL player and cast member of all-time. The goal: to cull the best possible cast and create the best possible imaginary version of SNL.

First overall pick?

The rules:

• We each draft 10 cast members in a fantasy-sports-style snake draft.
• We must draft at least two female cast members.
• We must draft at least one non-Caucasian cast member.
• We must draft at least one Weekend Update host who actually performed those duties on the show.
• When evaluating our casts, the biggest factor is what each actor or actress did while on SNL; however, extracurricular activities and post-SNL careers can also be considered to a smaller degree.
• We must draft at least one cast member from each decade SNL was on the air, including the current decade.

Here we go. Party on, David Simon Cowell. Party on, Dilemma. (ugh)

2 Idiots Debate: The Oscars

Well, it’s that time again… the pop culture Super Bowl kicks off Sunday at 7 P.M. Chicago time (with, like the Super Bowl, the inane pre-game shows kicking off hours earlier). This year’s edition marks a pretty sedate year in movies… no blockbuster like Avatar, no great showdown like No Country for Old Men/There Will Be Blood, no abominations like Crash angling for Best Picture. In our year-end film wrap-up, we noted how slow a year it was for Hollywood. However, over the past couple of months as we caught up on Oscar nominees, we learned there was more than met the eye.

Counterpoint! Mad Men Season 4

I wanted to wait until after the Mad Men season finale to respond to David Simon Cowell’s post about the Curse of Season Four, and particularly his criticism of this season of Mad Men.

I disagree with DSC’s basic assertion that Mad Men season four is fundamentally inferior to the previous three seasons. If a Curse of Season Four does exist, it certainly didn’t infect Matthew Weiner.

In Which I Take the Bait…

So good ol’ DSC has written a post about Derek Jeter and his method acting. Now, his motivations for doing so are threefold:

1) He legitimately hates Jeter and the Yankees, and will leap at the slightest opportunity to excoriate them.

2) Classic second-city jealousy, lashing out with an unprovoked attack against New York. We’ve seen this before.

3) To rile me up, and bait me into writing an overly long, overly angry response. I see through it. But can I resist the temptation to defend my beloved Captain Intangibles? Can I be the bigger man? Can I rise above this petty squabble?

2 Idiots Debate: Reunion Concerts

In an effort to come to the truth of the matter about important issues, and engage in our favorite pastime (arguing), we will from time to time engage in an e-mail version of a barroom debate. These will always be honest disagreements, not ESPN-style verbal fake wrestling. For best results, get really drunk before reading (not only will our thoughts be more interesting, but they will seem much more sophisticated as well). Join us after the jump for a debate about the merits of reunion tours.

The Fundamental Ontological Riddles of our Time

I wanted to let this rest. I really did. I argued that baseball doesn’t need a salary cap. David Simon Cowell argued that it does. I should let my original data and arguments speak for themselves. But I can’t do that.

You see, the burden of proof is on me. Most people think that baseball needs a salary cap. They think that would be more fair. If you look at the issue on the surface, the idea appeals to common sense. If every team had the same spending limit, every team’s chances would be the same, right? Similarly, Mr. Cowell’s argument makes a lot of sense – as long you don’t peek beneath the surface and try to apply logic to his data points.

Here’s my original argument.
And here’s DSC’s response.

So I guess now that we’re going back to the well on this, we have to slap it with the ol’ 2 Idiots Debate tag.

2 Idiots Debate: The 2010 Oscars

In an effort to come to the truth of the matter about important issues, and engage in our favorite pastime (arguing), we will from time to time engage in an e-mail version of a barroom debate. These will always be honest disagreements, not ESPN-style verbal fake wrestling. For best results, get really drunk before reading (not only will our thoughts be more interesting, but they will seem much more sophisticated as well). Join us after the jump for an opinionated  2010 Oscars preview.

2 Idiots Debate: The Aughts in Review

In an effort to come to the truth of the matter about important issues, and engage in our favorite pastime (arguing), we will from time to time engage in an e-mail version of a barroom debate. Today’s discussion, essentially the decade in review, gets downright cordial, with more agreement than disagreement. What is the world coming to? Join us after the jump for some good-natured camaraderie (?)

2 Idiots Debate: Peyton Manning

In an effort to come to the truth of the matter about important issues, and engage in our favorite pastime (arguing), we will from time to time engage in an e-mail battle of wits. These will always be honest disagreements, not ESPN-style verbal fake wrestling. For best results, get really drunk before reading (not only will our thoughts be more interesting, but they will seem much more sophisticated as well). We start with an ongoing battle – the worth of Peyton Manning.

The Dilemma

Peyton Manning is either the greatest quarterback of all time, or at the very least, he’s on the shortest of short lists. Barring a catastrophic, career-altering injury within the next couple seasons, he is all but assured of retiring with the best numbers any quarterback has ever put up.

I’m guessing that statistics are going to be incidental to this discussion, but it’s important to establish them anyway. A brief look at Manning’s resume through 12 pro seasons:

Career record: 117-59
10 playoff appearances in 12 years, 1 Super Bowl
Career 64.8 completion percentage (4th highest all time)
Career 366/181 TD/INT ratio
2nd-highest ever career passer rating
8 straight seasons with 10 or more wins
The only four-time MVP winner in NFL history (I don’t put a lot of stock in NFL writers’ opinions, but this still seems worth mentioning)
Already 4th in career passing yards, and will likely finish in 1st
All-time leader in passing yards per game
Already 3rd in career passing touchdowns

There’s a lot more where that came from. I understand that numbers don’t tell the whole story, and that stats for QBs are imperfect to begin with. Football lags far behind baseball when it comes to advanced stats that tell an accurate story of an individual player. But it’s impossible to look at Peyton’s career stats and accomplishments and not be awed.

He’s played the vast majority of his career with the same putrid running game and abysmal defense that Dan Marino had, but with more regular season and playoff success. Of course, other guys have won more Super Bowls. But no one (again, other than Brady) has won more Super Bowls AND been one of the two or three best quarterbacks in the league throughout his career. With many athletes, you have to weight long-term consistency with short-term brilliance (i.e. Gayle Sayers vs. Curtis Martin, or something like that). With Manning, there’s no need, because he’s achieved at an impossibly high level for a ridiculously long time.

David Simon Cowell

There’s no doubt that those statistics are impressive…if you’re awed by the ability of someone operating in a system built for him to put up gaudy regular-season numbers at the expense of building a well-rounded team.

The idea that “he’s played the majority of his career with a putrid running game” is ridiculous. He had Marshall Faulk his first year. Peyton obviously wasn’t happy with him, however, because the next year they swapped him out for Edgerrin James. His day may have passed, but he was a very good, borderline great running back for a long time. He made four Pro Bowls, and holds the record for the most total yards per game in NFL history. Joseph Addai may not be quite at that level, but he did make a Pro Bowl and has a 4.1 yard career rushing average that would be even better if it counted the 25% of his production that falls under receiving. Compare this to the steady diet of retards and retreads with whom Tom Brady has won three Super Bowls, and it looks pretty good. The reputation of the Colts have had as being a bad running team is in large part due to an anomaly in statistical categorization. Because laterals and dump-off passes count under passing, not rushing, statistics (as a side note, that the NFL can’t find a way to account for this as part of the running game is ridiculous), and the Colts heavily utilize these techniques in their play, their true rushing ability is perennially underrated. But, of course, this helps to pad Peyton’s statistics, which is the most important thing.

And the idea that he has always played with an “abysmal defense” isn’t borne out by statistics either, although it is another nice excuse for the media to use since they can’t ever suggest any of Peyton’s failings might be of his own making. I’ll grant you that it was pretty bad when he first became a Colt, but over the past 8 years, its end-of-the-year rankings for scoring defense (which I would argue, that while imperfect, is the best way to rate an overall defense) have been 7, 20, 19, 2, 23, 1, 7, 5. A bit inconsistent, but there are plenty of teams that would take that. Plus, the Indy defense features two of the past five Defensive Players of the Year, even if they sometimes resemble Elijah Price more than Lawrence Taylor.

I’m sure it was an oversight, but nowhere in that long list did you mention any post-season stats. Let me help you out: 7-8 lifetime record, 6 of 10 postseason appearances without a win, 11-point lower QB rating than regular-season. Here’s my favorite though…in 2006, when the Colts won 4 post-season games and the Super Bowl (which pads the above numbers significantly), Peyton was horrible. He had a 3-7 TD-INT ratio and a 70.5 QB rating. The Super Bowl win that even gives you an argument was due to the “putrid running game and abysmal defense” bailing him out.

Being a great quarterback has to do with a lot more to do with statistics and media blowjobs. It may be frustrating for your Jewish mind to try to comprehend, but numbers aren’t everything. Intangibles like leadership and clutch-play are way more important. Peyton may be a (gulp) great QB, but greatest ever – come on!

The Dilemma

1) I don’t want to get too bogged down in stats, but I think you overrate the quality of the teams Manning has played on. Yes, he’s been on great teams, but he has always been the biggest reason they’ve been great. This season is a perfect example. The Colts went 14-2 (with one playoff win so far) despite a defense that was 8th in scoring defense and 18th in overall defense (so, essentially mediocre), last in the league in rushing (so even granting your point about counting dump-offs, this still wouldn’t be a quality rushing team), below-average special teams, and only two reliable receivers (Clark and Wayne).

Also, the reason the Colts have consistently rated OK in scoring defense is because Manning orchestrates long drives, keeping his defense off the field. And of Edgerrin James’s eight seasons in Indianapolis, four were good, two were mediocre, and two were either awful or injury-riddled. Given that Joseph Addai has never rushed for 1,100 yards in a year, that gives Manning a solid running game in less than half his seasons. Part of that, as you point out, is due to the Colts’ style. Part of it is due to either subpar running backs or subpar years from good backs. And part of it is because Manning is so fucking good the Colts don’t need to run the ball that much. But whatever. On to more important things…

2) Post-season success. It’s amazing how much someone’s reputation is forged early in their careers, when our minds aren’t made up about them yet. Manning, like Elway, was labeled a playoff choker after some struggles in his younger days. Meanwhile Brady played a string of fantastic playoff games early in his career, so he’ll forever be perceived as clutch. But as Bill Simmons himself points out, here are Brady’s QB ratings in his last eight playoff games: 74.0, 101.6, 57.6, 79.5, 141.4, 66.4, 82.5, 49.1. Inconsistent, and overall pretty shitty. But he’s still Tom Brady, the Golden Boy.

Manning has a career 8-8 record in the playoffs (including the Baltimore win last week). Brett Favre, who is widely considered a clutchy clutch clutchster (and who, like Brady, won a Super Bowl early in his career), is 12-10. And he’s absolutely killed his team with back-breaking interceptions in some of those 10 losses. Yet Manning’s a choker, and Favre’s a hero? First impressions remain foremost in our minds, but that doesn’t make them correct.

Manning has struggled somewhat in the playoffs, at least when compared to the regular season. But a dropoff in quarterback rating is to be expected in the post-season, when competition and defenses typically get much tougher. Maybe Peyton didn’t set the world on fire the year the Colts won the Super Bowl, but they still won it with him at the helm. How much of a choker can you be if you win four consecutive playoff games under insane pressure?

3) First of all, the precious intangibles you’re so fond of are incorporated IN the numbers you so revile. If the Patriots offensive line plays better because Tom Brady gives Matt Light a reacharound in the locker room at halftime, that shows up in the stats. Brady is pressured less, completes more passes, puts up better numbers. If a quarterback is a terrible leader, and his team reviles him and won’t play hard for him, it’s impossible for him to put up the kind of numbers Peyton’s put up every single year of his career. Clutch play shows up in wins and losses.

Intangibles, and even clutchiness, are based on ever-morphing opinions, which are in turn based on individual perception. You might think less of Peyton Manning because he screams at his left tackle. I might think less of Brett Favre because he fucks over his organizations every off-season while he’s deciding whether or not to retire. But we can’t prove that those traits matter on the field. All we have are the numbers, which show us that both those guys are great quarterbacks.

Relying on intangibles when judging athletes opens a Pandora’s box of perception issues. Our memories play tricks on us. Our minds form opinions based on personal biases that facts don’t support. All we have are the numbers.

David Simon Cowell

If sports just comes down to a conglomeration of ever-compiling statistics, then count me out. I may as well play Strat-O-Matic, and that shit is boooring. The idea that sports is only numbers increasingly destroys baseball, and I’m not going to let you do it to football goddamnit.

Obviously, this statistical debate is at an impasse…I think Peyton’s numbers are overblown and you don’t. But this really isn’t the crux of the reason that I hate him like Victoria Beckham hates a sandwich (sorry, been watching too many Jay Leno clips lately). I don’t mean to make you choke on your own bile, but it does come down to the hated i-word…non-numerical, unempirical intangibles. And while statistics can obviously illuminate unnoticed truths about games and careers, they don’t tell close to the whole story. We’ve both been in stadiums where a player’s behavior set a game off on a completely different trajectory, and might not even be mentioned in the recap, let alone the box score. It’s a cliche, but that famous John Elway play where he dove for the first down absolutely changed the behavior of that game…if you look at the stats, you only see he passed for a meager 123 yards. Was that the only reason the Broncos won…of course not. Would they have won without it…probably not. I’ve seen too many Colts games where Peyton’s demeanor cast a pall over his teammates to take the idea of his leadership (a necessary component for a great QB in my mind) seriously.

For me, the entertainment in watching sports comes in witnessing the rare unbelievable turn of events and in the glimpses into human interaction and character you get from following athletes. For you, the entertainment comes in watching the numbers like a stock ticker.

Quarterbacks are often the most simultaneously celebrated and reviled figures in sports. For everybody who loves Peyton, at least an equal number despise him…same with Brady, Favre, whoever (except Cutler…he just fucking sucks in every conceivable way). Football is an obvious metaphor for war, and they’re the generals. They’re doppelgangers for the Alpha Dogs in male culture. To me, Peyton Manning is an Eisenhower. He may get to be president, but when the shit is going down, he’s going to be back in HQ. He’ll never sacrifice himself in any meaningful way, he’s more comfortable giving orders to inferiors than exhorting them, he gets more credit than he deserves, his main value is crunching numbers, allocating resources and running and organization. It’s a necessary role, but not exactly romantic or heroic. Watching Peyton in the pocket, scanning the field like a robot, falling to his knees when he feels a hint of pressure, scowling at his receiver after every missed pass…there’s no humanity in it.

Whereas Brett Favre is like Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan, and I tear up every time.

The Dilemma

If Brett Favre is like Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan, then his stint with the Jets is like the shitty, maudlin ending to that movie with Matt Damon in old age makeup weepily mumbling, “Tell me I’m a good man.”

When it comes to judging players against one another, comparing eras, determining the “greatest of all time,” statistics are the only fair and accurate tool at our disposal. We must rely on numbers to prove that Peyton Manning is the best quarterback of all time, or that Tim Raines was a better hitter than Andre Dawson, or that the ’96 Bulls were the best basketball team ever. To rely on anything else, on opinion and the limited things we think we see with our own eyes, is to give in to our worst impulses as humans. It’s allowing our prejudices to control us, our initial reactions to guide us, our basest fears to own us.

Understanding this, and allowing facts rather than guesses to inform our opinions, enhances enjoyment of sports rather than detracting from them. I’m not any less thrilled by a one-handed interception because I correctly understand that the defensive back happens to be overrated. I’m not any less horrified seeing Syracuse hit a game-winning three-pointer against Georgetown because I know they could have taken a higher-percentage shot elsewhere on the court. Now, when I scream at a manager for changing pitchers in the 6th inning, I’m not just howling my frustration, I know I’m right. It’s just like how anyone with a brain can watch and enjoy The Wire, but I feel like I enjoy it, more than I otherwise would, understanding and analyzing some of the literary tropes your namesake David Simon uses.

Embrace the numbers, DSC. They’re the only things that can keep us warm at night. You needn’t be afraid any longer.

David Simon Cowell

For the sake of argument, let’s say I cede your point that statistics are the only way to judge who is the greatest quarterback of all time. Which stat do you use? Is it most career wins, passing yards and/or TDs (Favre)? Is it offset by the fact that he’s also the leader in INTs? Is it passer rating (Young)? Is he upgraded or downgraded because he didn’t get settled with a team until late in his career, and has more than 5,500 fewer pass attempts than Favre? Is it most Super Bowl wins (Bradshaw)? Was Vinny Testeverde a great QB because he’s in the Top 10 of passing yards and TDs? Does the fact that 15 of the top 20 all-time leaders in passer ratings are still active mean that we need not look back when discussing the best ever?

This is where your P.O.V. hits a dead end. Unless you get some sort of prodigy like Tiger Woods (and if he doesn’t get to 19 majors because he’s too busy fucking, there’ll be people arguing Nicklaus was better, with statistical evidence to back them up), they aren’t going to provide you with a definitive answer. I know what you’re going to say, that you have to look at the totality of the picture. But that involves interpretation as well. I agree that statistics are useful, and can narrow down the group. They certainly put Peyton in the Top Ten QBs of All Time. But they in no way “prove” anything beyond that (as if such things can be proven).

At that point, you’re left with interpretation and a personal judgement of what deserve emphasis, even if you’re looking only at statistics. And a great athlete is better than the sum of his stats. Relying on experience and personal interpretation solely can lead to trouble, certainly, but these differences and opinions are the greatest thing about humanity, not our ability to categorize and compile “facts”. It would be possible to make a statistical argument that Wilt Chamberlain was better than Michael Jordan, if you emphasized certain things. But when you take into account the differences in the way they were perceived by their peers and fans that lived through their eras, you realize this would be beyond silly. It’s things like the Flu Game or getting in Xavier McDaniel’s face that brought Jordan to the next pinnacle of greatness.

I’ve witnessed these things in Brett Favre and Tom Brady, in John Elway and Joe Montana. I’ve never seen anything close to them in Peyton Manning…in fact, I’ve seen the exact opposite. There’s no way a few more passing yards are as important.

Once you use statistics to get down to the group that deserves to be considered, I think a good way to judge greatness is with the Grandkids Test. When your Grandkids are learning about football who and what will you tell them about? If you’re a fan of that team, how will you describe a player? If you’re not a fan of that team, what moments will you see as historically significant or just overall fucking awesome stories? I assume Colts fans looove Peyton, but besides the drive to win the AFC Championship, what memorable moments has he produced? Especially when compared to Brady, Favre, Montana, Kurt Warner, etc. In that way, he’s like Marino Once you use statistics to get down to the group that deserves to be considered, I think a good way to judge greatness is with the Grandkids Test. When your Grandkids are learning about football who and what will you tell them about? If you’re a fan of that team, how will you describe a player? If you’re not a fan of that team, what moments will you see as historically significant or just overall fucking awesome stories? I assume Colts fans looove Peyton, but besides the drive to win the AFC Championship, what memorable moments has he produced? Especially when compared to Brady, Favre, Montana, Kurt Warner, etc. In that way, he’s like Marino (also: overblown regular season statistics, annoying commercials, arc and strength of Peter King jizz spray) – except for the fake snap for a TD against the Jets, I can’t think of one fucking thing that guy ever did except put up yards.

The Dilemma

The Grandkids Test is great — for determining who you’ll eventually tell your grandkids about. But it does very little to help us decide who was the best at what they did. It’s just another way to allow your own personal biases to enter into what should be as rational a thought process as possible. We’re trying to decide on facts here, and while we can debate which criteria we should use to get the truth, I think we owe it to ourselves (and our grandkids) to try to eliminate as much extraneous hokum and opinion from that process as we can.

In the end, we’re disagreeing on two central points:

1) Is Peyton Manning the best quarterback of all time? This is a simple barstool debate that we can approach from any number of different angles.

2) How do we determine the best quarterback of all time? Or really, how do we determine anything in the world of sports? To me, that’s the far more interesting discussion, and one I sense we’ll be revisiting on this blog often.

David Simon Cowell

I would guess that’s true, for better or worse.

I can’t believe it’s taken over 3,000 words to make a point that should be obvious – we’re both slapfaggots.

I’ll leave you with this: