Why sports entries have fewer readers

Thursday 4/17/25

What about a sports-based example that reveals in microcosm how the world now works and the principle--the anti-principle--upon which following, monetization, platforming, hiring, awarding, liking, supporting, and hyping are now based?

The lowly Blackhawks ended their 2024-25 season with an OT win. Some Blackhawks media person--that is, someone whose job it is is to write about hockey--gets on Threads and says--which exclamation points--that the season had a perfect ending.

This isn't someone who knows hockey. Or reality. Or writes well. Has any insight, expertise. The Blackhawks won 23 games this year. The same as last year. They had a few more points because of their OT results, but there was no improvement from the prior season--which was Connor Bedard's rookie year--to this one.

Further, Bedard himself didn't progress. Or, if he did, you wouldn't know it, given the dearth of talent on the Blackhawks roster.

Also, Bedard--and his people (meaning his family--a big thing in this era, when oftentimes the helicopter-parenting extends all the way to the professional level and teams feel like they're at the mercy of those families to a degree, given the absurd amounts of money invested in young stars or would-be stars)--may well want out of town. A better season doesn't seem like it's on the horizon. The Blackhawks have been poorly constituted and ran for years now-- since they stopped winning Stanley Cups. They're a bit like the Patriots that way.

Now: How do you think it would go for me--the expert and the better writer--if I posted something synthesizing the above versus how it actually went for this guy who has no clue?

I'd be met with hate, yes? Hate and crickets. Because what could one say? Want to rebuff? Can only be done in the troll-style.

But people are going to like the other guy and follow him and support him, because what he said was stupid, simple, and wrong, but hap-hap-happy. That's how it works. You get nothing from that guy save things that are stupid, simple, and wrong--and shallow and bereft of any insight. People want to be lied to and/or told what they prefer to hear. They don't vet anything, think about anything.

They couldn't care less about the truth because they've warped the very idea of truth in their minds. The truth to them--and this is how people work now--is what makes people feel best. And, often, best about themselves.

Underline that. Aliens: If you're reading these words, that's going to be your big takeaway point here about humans--for lack of a better term--in the year 2025.

That guy isn't even doing his job. He's doing it as poorly as he can.

Tidbit: These sports entries on here--which display the greatest degree and range of sports knowledge in the world--are the entries with the fewest amount of readers. That's because many of the people who read this journal are in publishing and come here to hate and see what has been revealed about either their corrupt ways and total lack of ability, or that of their cronies.

Publishing people, as a rule, hate sports because they're not thinking people. They can't see the value in things. Everything in their lives is fake and a lie. They need to be led to believe that they're supposed to say Tommy Orange and Diane Williams are good at writing, and they they say it. That's how they are with everything because they are almost all completely lacking in an iota of a personal identity. And also because sports require ability, hard work, and there's competition and a level playing field.

Publishing people detest the notions of and don't stand a chance when there's real competition and a level playing field, they are the laziest people there are, and they're not talented.

Sports people, meanwhile, don't read. Publishing people don't either--they just look at words and play along. Hence, you can write about sports and have more knowledge, both in terms of now and historically, than anyone else in the world, and if you're not touted, platformed, hyped, etc., and you just write, no one's going to know about it.

But let us move on to a few sports-related odds and ends.

Doesn't it feel a little odd that the Celtics haven't won back-to-back titles since Bill Russell?

Pistons can and should beat the Knicks in the first round. Knicks have been heading for a first round exit/upset for much of the year. The Pistons have the potential to be a nice story.

The Warriors can beat the Rockets. Should? Close to should. Fifty-fifty.

Celtics should sit Brown for (at least) the first round. Can they win it without him? I don't. They still have a very good team. I also think Tatum will be better this postseason--less pressure. Can play free. Brown has been off this year. Feel like his game has regressed some. Bigger degree of separation this year between he and Tatum.

As I've said in here: This is the most wide open the NBA playoffs have been in a long time. Perhaps since those two years between the Bulls' two three-peats.

The Bruins' season came to a merciful end with a 5-4 OT loss to the Devils the other night here in Boston. Fittingly, Jeremy "The Market Setter" Swayman finished his year with one of his patented .808 save percentage performances. His final stats for the 2024-25 campaign: 3.11 GAA and .892 save percentage. Pretty good if this was 1985, but brutal now.

Strange to see Charlie Jacobs essentially blame Jim Montgomery in his after-the-season remrks for why the Bruins were dismal this year. It all started with Swayman and the massive issue that is believing and/or insisting that Charlie McAvoy is a stud defenseman, when he's not even a top pairing defenseman on a good team.

The locker room was off all year. Bad mix, lack of talent, aging guys, far too many under-performing guys, and, oh yeah, the worst goalie in the National Hockey League who is also detested by his teammates as the obvious phony he is, bad for chemistry, bad as the man, by which I mean the starter. He's a back-up or a guy who needs to share the net.

He also never should have worn a Bruins jersey again after that debacle of a game where he pulled a fake tough act, tried to fight the other team's goal--which was just an act anyway--and then let in everything thrown at him after. That would have been it for me. See ya. Gone. They won't win until they move on from Swayman and McAvoy. But they also need so much more. Unloading who they unloaded at the trade deadline was a kind of quiet start, at least, in the right direction.

I guess it's possible that Montgomery didn't want to be there and had packed it in, but he doesn't strike me as that kind of guy, much as he plainly did want to be in St. Louis. Speaking of which: They weren't going anywhere before they got him and now they're in the playoffs. The Bruins often look bad after firing/blaming their coaches, Bruce Cassidy being the worst example. Or best, as it were.

The Bruins were plainly a bad team. Bad teams have guys with bad plus/minus ratings. The second to worst plus/minus on the 2024-25 Bruins? Casey Mittelstadt at -17.

The worst? Mason Lohrei at -43.

What! That's a stat straight out of the Washington Capitals' 1974-75 season.

Meanwhile: Nikita Zadarov was +25. Morgan Geekie was second best at +3.

How does a team have one defenseman that's -43 and another that is +25? Has this ever happened before?

A bright spot, but with a caveat: David Pastrnak and his season. To put up 106 points on this sorry team is truly impressive. The next closest scorer: Morgan Geekie with 57 points. Pastrnak, I dare say, will even receive some Hart trophy votes despite his team finishing last in its conference. This is one of those soft Hart trophy seasons--you could give it to any number of four or five guys. If I had to guess, the finalists will be Kucherov, MacKinnon, and Hellebuyck, with Kucherov (who was benched last night...interesting) winning. Personally, my choice would be Cale Makar, but defensemen don't win this award and hardly ever get tapped as a finalist. Pastrnak will be a top ten finisher, though, and you might see him right around six.

Here's the caveat: Pastrnak is ideally suited to rack up points on a bad team. He's reminiscent of those players in the 1980s--a Mike Rogers, Blaine Stoughton, or Jacques Richard for instance--who would be on these woeful squads but have 100-point seasons. Pastrnak doesn't play a disciplined offensive game. He turns the puck over a lot. He authors many high-risk plays which can seem lackadaisical--or as if he's unconcerned, anyway.

Now, that doesn't much matter when you're getting drubbed 6-3 for the latest time and you have a goal and two assists. Then it's, "Well, he's still producing, what a star." I'd be careful with that. There are bad team scorers and winning team scorers. Pastrnak is like a luxury item on a winning team. If everyone else is playing a certain way, he's worth the risk because there's enough reward. But if he's you're end all, be all? You can be in trouble.

He's also matured, though, and he didn't quit this year. He kept playing to his credit. You don't see point discrepancies between the first and second guys on a team like this. That's a huge gap. You look at the stats for everyone on the Bruins this year and you wonder how the hell Pastrnak got 63 assists. It's like he was in on every goal, and I don't know this, but I wouldn't be surprised--I'd expect it, actually--if he factored in a higher percentage of his team's goals than any other player in the NHL.

Also: Morgan Geekie. Nice year. 33 goals. Found chemistry--if you want to call it that; not so fast for me--with Pastrnak. Got hot near the end of the year. Many goals in what was tantamount to garbage time. Again: Nice year. But: This to me screams career year and I don't expect him to ever score that many goals again. Don't count on him to. Don't build or retool like he will.

Only one 50-goal scorer in the league this year. And you knew for a while that's how it was going to be.

College hockey note: I was surprised today to learn that Boston College finished fourth in the final poll. I'd have had them out of the top ten. They spit the bit so much in the second half--and then more down the stretch--that I think eight or so would have been better. But definitely out of the top five. Not that this matters. The final poll in football is nice and you like to see your team in it. College hockey is about trophies.

The Red Sox took the last two against the Rays in Tampa and, with that, the series and are back to .500. Is this to be the season? A few games above .500, then a game or two below, then back to .500? I feel like we'll see now. Time to play some good ball and not bump along.

Just about every baseball fan and baseball person falls into the trap of saying, "It's still early," when it stops being early early on, to strike a Yogi Berri-ism. The Red Sox' season is already 12% of the way over. They "only" strike out 7 times last night (they had 2 in the first inning and I thought, "Here we go again").

I'm not sure I've ever seen a team strike out in the early stages of a season like this squad. I don't have cold hard numbers in front of me--that's just my impression. A tonal thing. Let's hope the Houck game from the other day--in which he was responsible for the worst start in Red Sox history--with the stack of strikeouts and Cora acting like a child and challenging a call down 15-1 in the eighth is the nadir.

They committed no errors in last night's 1-0 win (a contest completed in a very efficient two hours and seventeen minutes), which is also rare. Bregman was out of the line-up, being on paternity leave. He had one of the best games of his career the night before, going 5 for 5.

Was surprised that Dave O'Brien referred to him as the Sox' best player last night and did it in this matter of fact manner. Based off last year, anyway, you'd think it would be Duran. Then again, the latter isn't producing much so far this year--he finally hit his first home run--and Bregman is the shiny new acquisition. He's been a disappointment in the field at third--not any better, ironically, than what you'd normally get from Devers.

Bregman's walks, by the way--which, as I've stated, have dropped precipitously, in reaching last year's alarming total--are coming at an even lower rate this year. Very much bears watching. Guys who go from walking a lot to walking little are usually guys who have lost bat speed, or don't see the ball as well, or are more reliant on guessing, or can be pitched to more easily because they've now primarily fastball hitters and hitters who will chase or some combo.

As for Houck: I wasn't fooled by that one good start he had. He didn't have that good start so much as the winter-like weather had it. There wasn't going to be offense from either or any team that day at Fenway.

Baseball games in Tampa are better outside. So much more eye appeal. That dome they normally plays in also makes the game itself feel artificial. A test tube baby of a game.

Mike Trout is the most overrated player in the history of baseball. He's not going to be remembered for anything and people later on--allowing that there's anyone left to think or notice or look into things at all--aren't going to bring him up because ultimately no one cares about OPS+ and WAR in their heart and imaginations or in such a way as to be stirred by them or have their memories stoked. He's never going to have a big moment. You know what the biggest moment of his career will be? Being struck out by Ohtani in the World Baseball Championship.

But do you know who Mike Trout now is here in his age thirty-three season? He's Dave Kingman without the fun. He's hitting .190 in 17 games. He has 12 hits--half of them are home runs. Here's the most telling Trout stat of all: He has 1 double. He had 1 last year in 29 games. That's right: 2 doubles in 46 games. Wow.

Trout has long been out of shape. No one will say this, but it's true. This guy is proof of how empty some of these modern analytics stats can be. He'll make the Hall of Fame, but he's going to be a largely forgotten about player.

But you know what? His OPS+ right now, for this year, is 124. He's hitting .190 with 1 double!

As I've said before: You have to look at these things. You need to vet and understand context. No one, though, can do that or is going to. They're simply going to say the most surface-based thing, and that will, in their minds, tell the whole story, the way they want that story to be. Because that's key. It's like what I said above about reality.