9:25: Two straight first-down throws. Suddenly we’re on the Saints’ 36. I remember thinking, “Great, they’ll tie it, then whichever teams wins the coin toss will march down and score, and we’ll have to hear about how to fix overtime for the next nine months. Shoot me.”

(FYI: I know how to fix it. Win the toss and score a touchdown, game over. Make a field goal on the opening drive and the opponent gets one possession of its own. From there, sudden death rules. Find a hole in that idea. You can’t.)

Um, yes I can. Doesn’t his idea have the same problem as current system? The team that wins the toss still has the advantage. If Team A drives down and kicks a field goal, and Team B kicks its own field goal to tie the game, and now the game is decided by sudden death, doesn’t the team that gets the ball first (Team A) still have the advantage?

Sure, if Team A kicks a field goal, Team B has an opportunity to win the game with a touchdown, but they still are at a disadvantage if the game is tied after each team gets a possession. This isn’t fair, seeing as both teams were equally effective on their first overtime drive.

I like the blind bid idea. On a note card, each coach writes down the yard line at which he’s willing to take the ball, and whichever team that is willing to take the ball closest to its own goal line gets possession. Each team has an equal opportunity at possession and there is strategy involved. Do you have more faith in your offense or your defense? Would you rather take possession at your own 15-yard line or give the ball to to the other team at the 18-yard line?

It’s fair and fun.

In Bill Simmons’s most recent mailbag, a reader asks a question about former Redskins and Texans GM Charley Casserly…

Q: I’m taking Sports Leadership taught by Charley Casserly at Georgetown next fall. What percentage of the class is going to be on “How to draft a defensive end from N.C. State even when a running back from USC is available”?
– Rawiri, Washington

SG: Hold on, hold on, hold on … Charley Casserly is teaching at Georgetown??? This is the last straw! What’s next — Trevor Ariza’s agent and Lamar Odom’s agent teaching a class in sports law? For years, I’ve been waiting for some college or university to approach me about teaching a class called “Sports Column Writing 101,” “How to be Lazy and Succeed” or “Weaving Pop Culture and Sports to Your Own Literary Detriment.” Did I get one offer? Did UCLA ever say, “Let’s give Simmons a class, I bet 30 kids will be dumb enough to sign up?” Noooooooooooooo! But failed GM Charley Casserly gets to teach kids at Georgetown, the school I wanted to attend that brutally rejected me in 1988? This makes me want to skin sheep in front of a PETA rally. I’m so bitter right now.

Why is Simmons hating on Casserly? He doesn’t offer any evidence, so I guess that this is all about the Mario Williams-over-Reggie Bush pick in 2006. Only that pick has turned out pretty well for the Texans. Williams was a Pro Bowler last year and Bush has missed 10 games in his first three seasons.

In fact, after a semi-disastrous start in Houston in 2002 (David Carr, Jabar Gaffney and Fred Weary), Casserly rebounded in 2003-2006 by drafting five future Pro Bowlers (Williams, Andre Johnson, Jerome Mathis, DeMeco Ryans and Owen Daniels). Ryans was named Defensive Rookie of the Year in 2006. The Texans went 2-14 in the 2005 season, and Casserly was run out of town resigned after the 2006 Draft. But the team has improved since then, posting a respectable 22-26 record in the three years since his departure. Much of the credit for this leap is given to the aforementioned players that Casserly drafted.

Prior to joining the Texans, Casserly was the GM for the Washington Redskins, where he won Executive of the Year honors in 1999 after fleecing the Saints for all their picks in the draft (as well as a future first and third) while still landing the guy he wanted — Champ Bailey.

While Casserly did have his share of clunkers (Heath Shuler must be mentioned), the guy had his share of good picks as well. Again, I don’t know what Simmons’s beef is here, but if it’s the whole Williams/Bush thing, then he should check his facts — Casserly has been vindicated.

Read the first four parts of Correcting Bill Simmons.

Last year, when the Bucks had a GM opening, Bill Simmons started a campaign to fill the position. Fortunately, the Bucks hired John Hammond.

Fast forward a year, and Simmons is campaigning for the open Minnesota GM job, punctuated by this beauty in his so-called “epic” conversation with author Malcom Gladwell (the guy who thinks all underdogs should utilize the full-court press).

NBA teams rarely, if ever, think outside the box, and that’s one of at least 50 reasons why I could succeed as a GM.

This started out as a semi-joke, but I think over the course of the last year, Simmons’ ego, along with a few thousand emails of support from his readers, have convinced himself that he’s actually qualified to run an NBA franchise.

Look around the league and you’ll find that NBA general managers are usually former players, had front-office experience prior to getting the keys to a franchise, have advanced degrees in business and have an deep understanding of the salary cap and of how the fiscal side of the NBA works. Bill’s greatest strength is his ability to compare an athlete to a character to some random movie from the ’80s. What’s he going to do — sit Kevin Love down and tell him that his game reminds him of Chubby from “Teen Wolf”? How does this get the T-Wolves to the playoffs?

To me, the big question is whether or not Simmons keeps this up. Is he going to campaign for every open general manager position until he gets one (or more likely, dies of old age)? Or is there a certain point when all this I-can-run-an-NBA-team talk becomes so sad that he eventually just gives it up?

There’s no doubt about it — Simmons is an entertaining sportswriter, maybe the best in the stream-of-consciousness/pop-culture business. But he needs a reality check, and there’s no way to give it to him.

In Bill Simmons’ latest mailbag, he responds to a number of different reader questions. Most of his answers are fine, but a few are puzzling…

There should be a section on eBay that allows the auctioning of enticing future bets. For instance, a few weeks before the NBA season, I placed $300 on 15-to-1 odds that Cleveland would win the 2009 NBA title. Those odds have dropped to 2-to-1. Not that I would (after all, Cleveland is going to win the 2009 NBA title), but shouldn’t I have the option to sell that $300 ticket on eBay? What if someone bid $1,200 on it (which would be a smart move because, again, Cleveland is going to win the NBA title) and I was guaranteed a $900 return on my investment? Should I take the money? This would be a fun Web site, you have to admit. And if eBay can’t do it, then why couldn’t the casinos themselves build a Web site that allows people to sell future tickets and get a second cut on the action? It all makes too much sense.

Yeah…okay…this already exists — it’s called a “long-term market” and my favorite online sportsbook WSEX.com, has had them for at least five years now. Go to the site, hit “Pro Basketball” on the left, hit “Pro Championship” under “Long-Term Markets” on the main screen — there’s a long-term market where gamblers can buy and sell wagers on who will win the NBA championship. They have 1-pays (where only a share in the winner is worth something) and 4-pays (where shares in the winner, runner-up, and third and fourth place teams are worth something). You can buy and sell these shares throughout the year.

How does a guy that calls himself “The Sports Guy” not know about this? Didn’t he hit up any of his colleagues/friends at ESPN in all the time that he has pondered this eBay idea of his?

As of right…..now…..I’m not going to refer to Bill Simmons as “The Sports Guy” any longer. As far as I’m concerned, he has lost the right to have that nickname.

And then there’s this doozy…

Q: Why won’t you understand shooting percentages? 33 percent from beyond the arc is the equivalent of 50 percent from within. If a guy shot 50 percent from the field, would you be killing him for shooting? Of course not. You obviously realize how stupid that would be. Yet that’s what you’ve been doing — FOR YEARS — with your mind-boggling argument against 3-point shooting unless the guy can hit 75 percent of his 3s. Just think about it for a couple of seconds. Please … we are begging you.
– Nick, New York

SG: Dozens of readers e-mailed me Nick’s same stupid argument in a similarly condescending way, which is what makes the following so much fun: I’m not stupid, YOU’RE STUPID. That 33/50 logic only makes sense in a professional basketball league in which they aren’t calling fouls and you aren’t allowed to pass to a teammate … which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t currently exist.

Let’s say that one player attempts 12 3-pointers and makes four (for 12 points). His teammate attempts 12 2-pointers and makes six, but during that time — because he’s not standing 25 feet away jacking up 3s like an idiot — he also draws three fouls on his defender, creates two assists for teammates, makes three of four free throws, turns the ball over once, and misses one layup that gets tapped in by a teammate (we’ll call it 19 points). You’re telling me those two scenarios are equal? If I’m playing LeBron (a 31 percent 3-point shooter), ideally, I want him jacking up contested 3s because that means (A) he’s not getting to the line, (B) he’s not getting my guys in foul trouble, and (C) he’s not potentially creating shots for someone else. I can’t defend LeBron when he’s going to the basket, especially if he’s getting calls. But you know what? If he’s happy shooting 3s from 25 feet with a hand in his face, then I’m delighted. This is great. I want him to do that. And if he’s doing something that the other team WANTS him to do, then he’s doing the wrong thing. I’m fine with shooting 24-footers over 20-footers, but getting into the paint will always be more valuable than jacking up 3s. It’s just a fact.

(Note to Nick and everyone else who mailed me the 33/50 argument: I’m doing the Dikembe finger wave at you. Don’t come into my house.)

I’m happy that one (or a dozen) of his readers took him to task on this, but he didn’t really answer the question and what he did say, he said in a belligerent and deceptive manner. Here’s why:

1. He used the lowest hanging fruit — LeBron James — as an example.
As outlined in one of my previous posts, LeBron James should absolutely cut back on his three pointers, especially ones that are contested. He’s so productive when going to the hole that he should do it as much as possible, within reason. There is no other player in the league that is quite as productive when attacking the basket — okay, maybe there is, but let’s agree that LeBron is deadly when going to the hole — but Bill’s arbitrary “no three’s” rule doesn’t apply to everyone. Baron Davis was the other example in Bill’s original column and he’s not nearly as productive when attacking the basket.

2. He ignores the impact of the threat of the three.
LeBron has to take the occasional three because he needs to keep the defense honest. If he completely cuts them out of the game (and that’s what Bill wants, based on his suggestion from the original column that he should be fined anytime he takes one), then the defender will know that he doesn’t have to close out on him as hard and that’s going to close LeBron’s driving lanes down. This is going to result in a drop in productivity when he goes to the hole, especially when help defenders are able to stay home. This is doubly true for players that aren’t as quick or as strong as LeBron. They have to get their defenders out of position to get by them and it’s nearly impossible to do that without the threat of the long ball.

Again, it’s generally better to take the ball inside, but you can’t do that every single time because the defense will counter. Even if a team’s leading or second-leading scorer is only making 30% of his threes, it’s still okay to shoot a few (2-3 per game) because he’s getting three points for every make and he’s keeping the defense honest (and the driving lanes open).

It’s points like these that make it painfully obvious that Bill has never played basketball on a high level.

“The Sports Guy” is killing me. He’s at it again, harping on players that take too many three pointers even though they aren’t accurate from behind the stripe. I’ve already gone through this once, about a year ago, after Simmons slammed Tracy McGrady from shooting too many threes. Now, in his otherwise fine “Dumbleavy” diary/column, Bill’s targets are Baron Davis, Zach Randolph and…gulp…LeBron James.

7:35: LeBron bricks a 3-pointer that leads to Thornton’s fast-break dunk. Clips by 17, timeout Cavs. Let the record show that (A) LeBron is a 32.5 percent career 3-point shooter, (B) he went 0-for-6 in this particular game and (C) he should be fined every time he takes one.

6:54: Speaking of guys who should never shoot a 3, it’s Baron Davis! He just bricked one. If he told you that he’s a 32.3 percent career 3-point shooter and averaging 29.5 percent this season, then I told you that he takes five per game, would you believe me? You probably wouldn’t, right?

4:35: Randolph (aka Z-Bo) sinks an open 3 that he never should have taken because he’s a career 28.9 long-distance shooter. Maybe we should make it like a driver’s license — if you dip under 35 percent through 250 career attempts, you’re suspended from shooting 3s for a year?

Coaches live with guys shooting in the low 30’s from long range because…well…the shots are worth an extra point. It’s (almost) that simple.

LeBron is shooting 33.1% from long range on the season. He’s shooting 53.6% from two-point range. For argument’s sake, let’s say that for 100 straight possessions, LeBron launches a three every time down the court. If his numbers bear out, he’s going to make 33 of them, scoring 99 points. That’s 0.99 points per possession. Now, let’s say he shoots a two-pointer for 100 straight possessions. He’s going to make 54 of them, so he’ll score 108 points on 100 possessions, or 1.08 points per possession.

Now, for a guy like LeBron, it’s important to take free throws into account. He has taken 1,076 two-point shots and 667 free throws. According to 82games.com, he’s second in the league in “and 1’s” (where the player is fouled as he scores a bucket) with 82. That’s 1.17 a game.

Back to the 100-possession example. If LeBron takes 100 shots from inside the arc, based on his free throw numbers, he’s going to get fouled almost 24% of the time, assuming that the only time he’s fouled is when he’s attempting a shot…

= (667 free throws / 2 free throws per trip) / (333 trips to the line + 1076 two-point attempts)

= 23.6%

So he makes 41 buckets (76 actual attempts x 53.6% accuracy) for 82 points and shoots 48 free throws. His FT% is almost 77%, so he’s going to make approximately 37. So far, he’s at 119 points. Throw in some old-fashioned three-point plays (at a rate of 7.6%, so 5.8 additional free throw attempts on 76 two-point attempts), so rounding up that’s 5 additional points, for a total of 124 points (or 1.24 points per possession).

Is he better off with the two-pointer? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean he should completely abandon the long ball.

LeBron’s game is predicated on driving to the hole. If he decides not to take any threes, defenders will know what he’s doing before he does it. Granted, that doesn’t mean that they’ll be able to stop him, but if he’s not a threat on the perimeter, then the defender will have a better chance to stay in front of him as he tries to go to the hole. Part of the reason LeBron gets fouled so much is because his defender is out of position when he closes out on LeBron, and that puts James at a distinct advantage when he does go to the hole.

If I were managing LeBron’s shots, I’d try to convince him to reduce his three-point attempts per game from 4.8 down to about 3.0 or 3.5. He has no business taking a contested three unless he’s up against the shot clock. But if he’s open, and his defender is laying off, he should try to make a couple to keep everyone honest.

Now Baron Davis is a different animal. He’s shooting just 30.5% from long range and 40.2% on two-pointers. According to his numbers, he’s going to get fouled 14.7% of the time he takes a shot inside the arc. So for the 100-possession example, he’s going to score 93 points if he takes 100 three-pointers. If he takes 100 two-point shots, he’s going to take 85 attempts (making 34) and go to the line 15 times, taking 30 free throws. He’ll make 76%, or 23 points. So far, he’s at 91 points (68 from made buckets + 23 free throws). He has 15 “and 1’s” on the season, so he’ll get an extra free throw 2.7% of the time, so that means an extra two points from the charity stripe for a total of 93 points.

So, for Davis, it doesn’t matter whether or not he launches a three or goes to the hole, he’s still scoring at about the same rate. (If I were coaching Davis, I’d try to get him to pass more!)

And Zach Randolph?

Ah, who cares…

All else being equal, it’s usually better to take the ball inside when you can. You’re going to get the other team in foul trouble and create openings for other players to score. But Simmons’ notion that if you shoot less than 35% from long range that you should be shooting any threes is just silly.

One thing that struck me about Bill Simmons’ trade value column was his unabashed hatred for Michael Beasley’s game. He made three separate references to the rookie:

Jason Thompson: I mocked him on draft day and he shoved it in my face like a cream pie. Top-notch energy guy, good defender, lots to like. You know, if Michael Beasley wasn’t such a colossal disappointment and semi-fraud, the 2008 draft could have ranked among the best ever (and certainly superior to the more ballyhooed ‘07 class).

Colossal disappointment? Semi-fraud? Ouch.

Jeff Green: Great teammate, tough as nails, gives a crap, does whatever you need. He’s the anti-Beasley.

So Simmons is saying that Beasley is not a good teammate, isn’t tough, doesn’t give a crap and won’t do whatever you need? Ouch.

You have to love a country where Love’s best rookie card (Upper Deck’s ‘09 SPX set, the signed autographed jersey card) goes for one-eighth the money of Beasley’s card … and yet, Miami could offer Beasley for Love right now and Minnesota would make a face and hang up. Whatever.

Ouch.

All right, so how is Beasley faring this season? Here are his numbers:

24.2 mpg, 13.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg, 45% FG%, 39% 3PT

All of that combines for a PER of 15.34, which is #36 amongst power fowards. Not great, but since 15.00 is average, at least he’s above average.

Simmons looooooooooves Durant, and for good reason. The guy is playing great in his second season. But how did he fare in his rookie season?

34.6 mpg, 20.3 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 2.4 apg, 43% FG%, 29% 3PT

Hmm. That adds up to a PER of 15.87.

All right, so I think it’s fairly clear that statistically speaking, Beasley’s rookie year, on a per-minute basis, is comparable with Durant’s. It’s unfair to write him off as a “colossal disappointment” — he still projects to be a very good player. Had he been thrown to the wolves (like Durant was) and allowed to take 17.1 shots per game (instead of his current average of 11.6), I really think Beasley would be able to score 20+ a game too.

Since he can’t be speaking in quantitative terms, Simmons hatred must be qualitative. I’ll admit that I haven’t seen enough of Beasley in the NBA to say that he isn’t tough, is a poor teammate and doesn’t care. Are there any Heat fans out there who want to chime in about how they feel about their rookie right now?

This week, in his Ramblings column, he defends his Patriots over the whole Spygate fiasco.

If you have a national column in which you’re excoriating a sports team for cheating even though it already paid a severe penalty for what it did, and you’re hinting more revelations are coming down the road, and then it’s proven you were barking up the wrong tree … you need to admit defeat and quit blowing the situation out of proportion. No, really.

What gets me is that he thinks that the Patriots “already paid a severe penalty” for what they did. This is why Boston fans annoy me. Let’s see, the Patriots were caught videotaping the Jets sideline in a game last season and Matt Walsh produced more videotapes from 2000-2003, so it’s pretty clear to anyone that’s objective about the situation that the team has been videotaping their opponents’ sidelines during Bill Belichick’s entire run. And the “severe penalty” is losing a single first round pick and paying a fine? Is he serious?

If you took a poll of all NFL fans, I think the overwhelming majority would say that the Pats got off with a slap on the wrist. Their “punishment” was a joke considering that they knowingly broke the rules by stealing signals for at least seven years. If this were the Giants, Boston fans would be foaming at the mouth, bitching and complaining that the penalty wasn’t stiff enough.

Bill, take the Patriot Glasses off for a minute and look at this situation objectively.