The "That smarts!" Boston Red Sox, NBA and NHL Finals wrap-ups, Jalen Brunson v. Jayson Tatum, best Knick of all-time, John Tortorella and Mike Babcock, Wemby's future

Friday 6/19/26

The Boston Red Sox and the Colorado Rockies are the only teams in the league with less than 30 wins. After yesterday's loss at Fenway to Toronto, the Red Sox are now 29-43. Your record looks uglier when you're 20-something and 40-something rather than 30-something and 40-something. When the numbers skip like that. But now we're talking the aesthetics of sub-.500 records.

This is now a team you have to actively look away from. You don't want to see and probably don't want to know about it, which seems counterintuitive to these words I'm writing, but the larger point holds, I think. The record and how this team plays and looks "smarts." Like in times past when someone would stub their toe and say, "That smarts!" It smarts to watch them play, it smarts to not watch them play and check the box score in the morning.

The Red Sox looked as if they were going to have a mega-rare--for them--late inning come-from-behind win yesterday. They scored twice in the eighth, they were right there, and then Aroldis Chapman of all people blew the save and the game and took the loss.

I'd posted something Wednesday about how if you were on the Red Sox and had walked 26 times on the season, which is nearly halfway done, you'd have been tied for the team lead on that day. Well, hours later, the Red Sox got 7 walks and 7 hits...and managed to be shut out. They were 0-for-12 with runners in scoring position and left 13 men on base.

People being as smart as they are, I saw the following this morning posted in the Red Sox subreddit:

"I think it's time to turn our attention to 2027. Here's where it does get interesting though. Because I like our chances with basically the same group of players."

Yeah. Should go really well. I mean, the problem is probably just the "vibe." And that's definitely is where it gets interesting. Thanks for pinpointing that, chief.

It's amazing how stupid just about everyone is.

"Vibe," by the way, is a word beloved of idiots. The same as "literally." This is also the type of person whose analysis of music consists of saying "banger" and "slaps."

A Red Sox news item from the other day: Jim Rice getting a hole-in-one on the golf course. That this is a Red Sox news item says "all she wrote," basically, about the season. But many things do.

Wouldn't be surprised not to see Garrett Crochet and Roman Anthony again in 2026. The latter has little value right now. Like if you were going to trade him. Speaking theoretically. What could you get back? It wouldn't be much, right? Anytime you see Aroldis Chapman now in a Red Sox uniform could be the last time. I'd be very surprised if he isn't moved. It's hard to envision more than two or three guys on this team now also being members of a contending Red Sox team in the future if and there is one. A Sox starting pitcher or two could be on the move as well, including the new guys. Sonny Gray?

Payton Tolle hasn't been good of late. He has a tendency to go 5 or 6 innings and give up 3 or 4 runs, then offset those performances with a really good one where he goes 6 and gives up none or something along those lines. Sort of a soft 2.93 ERA, if that makes sense.

Baseball was immeasurably better when starting pitchers went deep. Maybe not immeasurably. But it was like 300% better. You became more invested personally. The starting pitcher was like the protagonist of the piece. Back he'd come again for another inning. You couldn't help but be invested in his journey. Your guy and their guy. You noticed stuff about both of them. Felt like you knew them in some way.

That the Hart trophy voting was that close was ridiculous to me. Connor McDavid is better at hockey (by a lot) than Mike Trout is at baseball, but they are both wildly overrated. They are not the all-time greatest of the all-time greats that those who give out awards treat them as and try to make them be.

Jeremy Swayman was one of the NHL's three Vezina finalists but he finished fifth in voting for the postseason All-Star team. You don't see that often. Telling.

I suppose we should talk about the conclusion of the NHL and NBA Finals. Vegas was done when their piece of shit--as a human--goalie kept giving up 4 or 5 goals a night and it was clear that this was how it was going to be and when Brandon Bussi--former Providence Bruin--was installed in the Canes' net. Frederik Andersen was hurt, but he had been faltering and the series could have gone along the way it started with 5-4 type of outcomes.

It's highly unlikely that anyone on this Canes team makes the Hall of Fame. I guess Sebastian Aho has a shot, but he's not a Hall of Fame player. Standards for current day players keep coming down, though. People think it's the standards for older players that have lessened, but that's wrong.

Bussi was a nice story. This was his age twenty-seven season and he had never played in the NHL prior to it. Carolina probably doesn't win the Cup without him.

I'd say I can't believe that the Edmonton Oilers are actually considering hiring Mike Babcock but, again, that's a prefatory remark one makes these days that isn't meant literally--see how I used that correctly?--but rather almost because you have to in order to express how backwards and, again, counterintuitive something is, which, of course, is now the norm of our dreadful society, culture, world, and the various cultures within culture, like sports culture.

This is a horrible human being who has the demonstrated ability to make these lug nut players, who live for little else--save drinking and getting women and being "one of the boys"--hate hockey and coming to the rink. Anything Edmonton does has to be approved by Connor McDavid who is the de facto GM. As I've said, I think he's a loser. As in, not a winning player. Some guys get winning and know how to win and find a way to win. Connor McDavid knows how to get stats. If I had to pick one way or the other, I think he doesn't win a Cup during his career.

Granted, I think a lot of "great" players without championships won't win championships, which won't play out that way, because, again, it's a lot, and someone has to win, right? McDavid may end up winning that way. But as I said above, he's the Mike Trout of hockey players but not overweight for many years, like Trout, and a much better player. As for Trout, he wouldn't be in my top 200 baseball players of all-time, but that's me.

People will turn red in the face and want to have at me with the proverbial baseball bat right now, but if you're reading this 100 years from now--which is unlikely, because words probably won't exist anymore, people will be robots with chips in their brains, which won't be brains at all but instead like a battery--and can think, and have any idea of history, or care about anything--again, all things that likely won't exist--you'll be like, "Damn, he was so right. He nailed that. He nailed all of it. How did he do that?"

The John Torterella thing in Vegas was weird, but they got what they wanted out of his hire, which I'm sure they knew all along was to be just for the rest of this season. Isn't that something? He could have won the Cup and he was gone. That Cup would have sealed the deal for him with the Hall of Fame, but as I've also written here, he was already getting in, unfortunately.

I wonder if anyone else would touch him. I'd guess no. Think about that. That team wasn't necessarily going to make the playoffs. They fire their proven coach, bring in this other guy, don't lose again in the regular season, and make it to Game 6 of the Finals. Clearly a big turnaround. What changed? One thing--the coach. The players were the same. And still that coach probably won't be hired by any other club in the league.

Torterella is also a horrible person, but not as horrible as Babcock. The former's thing is to belittle people. He doesn't do this because he's "protecting his players." He does it because he's a small man, a dick, and it makes him feel a certain way he wants to feel about himself.

The Knicks' run makes me feel a bit better, I guess, about the Celtics blowing those leads in last year's playoffs to New York. A sign of things to become. Turns out that's who the Knicks were. They won the title in an admirable way--team first. This could be the new direction in the NBA. The superstars don't win the titles anymore. Well, someone has to win, and there might be a superstar. But superstars aren't the drivers. Play-style and make-up are.

For instance, I don't think Jokic wins another title. I don't think he gets close. Don't think he ever makes it back to the Finals. Some of this "best of the best" players will have to win or win again, but, again, someone has to win. I think that's an important difference between going out and taking it. You're also seeing how different the regular season and playoffs have become in the NBA.

They've been that way for a while in the NHL. Or maybe I should say, "were that way for a while" in the NHL? No real surprises this year, right? Teams doing their thing in the regular season kept doing it in the playoffs. Colorado? Eh. Makar had a down year for him, then he got hurt in that Vegas series.

It never fails to take me aback how Celtics fans and Boston sports media people--the Mike Felgers of the world--talk about Jayson Tatum as an MVP type. "All the talent in the world," etc.

First of all: He's not an MVP player. He never has been. He will never win that award. He's never come close to winning it. He's never been seriously in the running. He's been around for a while. Why does everyone keep talking about him in this manner? Just because we're so stupid and there's nothing to stop or slow us down in our stupidity?

That's true--stupidity meets with no resistance now, because that resistance would take the form of intelligence, and when everyone's stupid and incapable of thinking, and thinking is punished anyway, and gets you nothing in this wretched world, which is wretched for these reasons, without ability or hope of repairing itself and going in a better direction, there is no intelligence and no intelligence-based system of checks and balances.

How can you not know, though what Tatum is? Tatum is a guy who, if he's healthy, he plays most of the games, and the stats over the course of a season will be there. They'll be fine. He'll average 28.1 points. His scoring average will...happen.

But he's not a "gotta have this right" now difference-maker. He's not a "go win us a game" guy. Jalen Brunson is. Is he as talented as Tatum? What kind of player do you want? Do you want the player who rises when it matters, or the guy who punches the clock, meets his quotas, and goes home and then comes back the next day?

Brunson has the winner's gene. I'd care more about that. Tatum may win another title, because he's a guy who isn't the guy. As we were just talking about, the main guys don't win like they used to. They win the once. If they win again, it's almost like a default--that idea of someone has to win. Tatum is really a passenger who scores a bunch. But he scores incidentally. The point accumulate. But he doesn't play with great purpose and vision. That's not who he is.

If the Celtics keep Brown and bring in Giannis, they could win the title next year if they found a way to make that work and roles were understood and accepted. Tall order, though, on multiple fronts. I honestly don't know what will happen with Jaylen Brown this off-season. Nothing would surprise me.

Giannis...he's a fat cat now. Won his one title, got complacent. You can tell how unprofessional he is and probably a bad teammate. Wants to be treated differently, all that. Lots of demands. I don't like his game much either. Does the one thing. You have these guys who are just big. They're not great basketball players, though they gets these statistical results.

Shaq was that way. Do you really think he was amazingly skilled? Take away the extreme size and the advantage that comes with it, and you don't really have anything there. Basketball is the sport where you don't need to be that good to be a so-called all-time great.

Outsized size will do it for you. Won't do it for you in hockey or baseball. You have to be good. Size can help. But size can't do it alone, and in basketball, it basically can. It doesn't often, because these guys are already huge, so very few people in history are going to be that much bigger than them.

Brunson has been pronounced the greatest Knick of all-time because, again, that's how people are. They just say whatever the hell they feel like saying and act as if they know, when people know nothing, have no idea of history, and aren't qualified to make these determinations.

It's like the idiot who only knows what's on Netflix and goes to the multiplex to see the garbage movie that is trending on social media, telling you that the latest thing they saw is the the best movie of all-time. No, make that literally the best movie of all-time. But you mention anything that's actually good to them, and of course they've never heard of it, let alone seen it. What? You think these people are studying cinema and just emerged from a year devoted to the works of F.W. Murnau? Probably not, right?

And who do these people loathe? Someone who actually knows. But you have to travel far and wide in our society to find someone who does, and it's very easy, too, to make sure that those people are shunned once they're identified as such. Because today, you shun someone by not hitting that like button, not sharing the post. You shun through what you don't do, rather than anything you have to actively do to them. And everyone intuitively knows to shun the rare person who knows.

Willis Reed won an MVP for the Knicks and two Finals MVPs. So, yeah. How are you going to beat that with a title, Finals MVP, and a third-team All-NBA finish? Brunson isn't winning a regular season MVP, he's probably never winning another NBA title, and he won't ever get higher than a second-team All-NBA spot, which he hasn't achieved to date and may never achieve. If he does this, next year will be the year. He's "in" right now, and voters will be looking to reward him. You get a boost the next season.

You used to see it in baseball. Some guy had a strong year in which he didn't make the regular season All-Star team. Then, when he wasn't as good the next year, he was selected for the Midsummer Classic. Spend some time on baseball-reference and you'll see lots of examples of this. Then the guy is never selected again.

Will Brunson make the basketball Hall of Fame? Yeah. It's not hard. Mo Cheeks is in. But realistically he's a Hall of Very Good player and not an all-time great. It's also likely to be downhill from here on out for him. Whoa, so negative, right? Nah. I just know my stuff. I know career arcs. Age. Trends. How it works. Almost always. That was his big thing, his moment, the defining stretch of games. He'll retire with one title, two or three more All-NBA nods, a career scoring average over 20, and the Knicks fans who remember 2025-26 will have a fondness for him.

Patrick Ewing was better, but Ewing didn't win a title obviously. But he was more of an elite player.

That brings us to Wemby and his future. When so many people were saying he was the greatest basketball player in the world, or one of them, or bound to be, but there anyone else out there saying what I did? That he was very limited, had huge flaws in his game, was largely a product of his size, and wouldn't end up being one of the fifty best NBA players of all-time, maybe not best 75, and maybe not all that much in the end?

I don't like his game. I don't like his arrogance. He's dirty. He's presumptive. When the Spurs beat the Thunder, he acted, and seemed to believe, that the championship was as good as won. After losing to the Knicks, he said that what bothered him the most was that it would be another 100 games before he was back in the Finals next year. Like it was just going to happen when it probably isn't going to happen. You'll likely to have two new teams in the Finals next year. This was after he said that the Spurs dominated most of the series.

Look...you can't say things like that after you lose, and lose in five. You have to shut your mouth. But they didn't dominate most of the series. They had leads, but that isn't the same as dominating, is it? If you race out to a 12-0 start to a game, and then the other team cuts it to 12-8, and you maintain a lead of 2, 3, 5 points until the end, when you lose your lead and lose the game, did you dominate? Or did you have a spurt and jump out to a lead?

If you dominate, that lead should keep going up. And if the Spurs dominated, what did the Knicks do in second halves and fourth quarters? Did they dominate those? This guy thinks he's so special and smart. He's neither.

As I've correctly said, he isn't a good rebounder. How can you have that height and not be a factor on the boards? Worse, he's a perimeter player. He's a wing. He plays like a wing. He has no low-post game to speak of. He doesn't have low-post moves. That's a skill a player usually has or hasn't. He can learn additional things--moves--when he has moves, but he won't become a player who develops moves without having a natural affinity for moves.

You'll say, he doesn't need low-post moves, he can shoot over people. I guess. But he's doing it from distance. Everyone but me thinks this guy is winning multiple MVPs. Maybe he will. But what do you have to do to win an MVP? You have to be a top scorer, right? You need to average around 30 points a game. Or more.

Wemby isn't a natural scorer. He doesn't consistently pour it in. He isn't a great all-around player. He's nothing as a passer. Weak rebounder as we've said. No low-post game. He's tall and blocks shots. You want to say he alters shots, too? Okay, add that.

He may win a title because, again, guys get their one, and he hasn't had his. But I don't see greatness in this player's game. I think he also got a ton of favorable calls and, let's be frank, judgments. He should have been suspended for a while for that elbow to the throat. A throat elbow? The league is pushing him. The golden child.

Limited. Overrated. Product of our mindless age. The age of the reel and just saying things. Parroting. No awareness of what is being watched or what went down previously. No historical awareness. No awareness of trends and how skill sets translate.

People aren't smart enough to remember all the guys who are billed as the guy who weren't the guy. It's like all the times someone was branded the new Bob Dylan. None of them were anything. The people saying what they're saying about Wemby now--or what they were saying three weeks ago--won't remember having said any of it because they're too stupid and will be saying the same stuff about someone else before too long.

Or maybe I'll be wrong and he'll be better than Hakeem Olajuwon, but I would be shocked.