The Bill Simmons Podcast - Chuck Klosterman on Romo's Big Moment, The Fyre Festival, 3-Pointers and Serial Killers | The Bill Simmons Podcast (Ep. 475)

Episode Date: January 30, 2019

HBO and The Ringer's Bill Simmons is joined by his longtime pal Chuck Klosterman to discuss Super Bowl week, the next generation of sports announcers, sports evolution, documentaries including: 'Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened,' 'Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes,' and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today's episode of the Bill Simmons Podcast brought to you as always by ZipRecruiter. You know what's smart? Doing lots of podcasts during Super Bowl slash NBA trade deadlines coming up week. This is my third one of the week. If you count the rewatchables, proof of life. Oh yeah. You know what else is smart? Going to ZipRecruiter.com slash BS to hire the right people for your business.

ZipRecruiter is rated number one by employers in the US. Based on Trustpilot rating of hiring sites with over a thousand reviews, their technology identifies people with the right skills for your job, actively invites them to apply. Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com slash BS. ZipRecruiter is the smartest way to hire. We're brought to you by the rewatchables, which I just mentioned. We're brought to you by the world's greatest website, TheRinger.com and The Ringer Podcast Network. We're brought to you by Fairway Rowland. That is our revamped golf podcast

hosted by the one, the only, Joe House. You might remember the Friday Rowland happening on this podcast originally. And now House is leading a cast of characters. On this first one was Chris Vernon, Megan Schuster, Amanda Baleonis. I'm going to pop on there every once in a while. Kevin Clark will be on there. Harry from Against All Odds.

How about that? Craig's horrified by that one, Craig, the producer's there. Yeah, we're going to have a whole bunch of people through the years. We're going to concentrate on what's happening, not just in the golf world, but who to gamble on because that's really the most important thing. And also what's going on with social media and all the

stuff that we love about golf. So check that one out. It's called Fairway Rowan. If you haven't subscribed to that podcast before, subscribe to it now. Coming up, our old friend Chuck Klosterman. But first, our friends from Pearl Jam. All right, Chuck Klossmer is here in studio,

and we realized we've been doing podcasts together for like 10 years, and I don't think we've ever done one in the same room. We've done one. It was the one that we did when Grantland was starting and Nightline was there. Oh, filming us. Yes. So we kind of, we did a podcast that day. We talked to Barkley initially.

Oh, we talked in the 7, 10 a.m. Los Angeles thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then we did a podcast and then we also sort of faked like we were doing a podcast, I feel like. How do we fake a podcast? We sat in the chairs and we were talking to each other like normal people,

but if it was just B-roll, it looked like we were discussing something. We probably ended up getting in a sub-sort of argument. I don't know. That was like seven years ago. Yeah. It was not a very comfortable way to have a conversation. So, yeah, being filmed while trying to pretend

you're not being filmed in some podcast studio is a little weird. Super Bowl week. It is. I asked you, my first Super Bowl week was February, 2002, the Rams-Pats. It was the first time I'd ever been. And I had a lot of mystery about what it was like.

Didn't, you know, I'd always dream someday I'll get to walk down Radio Row and somebody will grab me and I'll get to go on their show. You dream about Radio Row? It's part of it. Cool. Someday I'll go to media day and I'll see how weird it is. And then you go and it's like, all right, it's kind of fun.

It's contrived. But now in 2019, everything is so available. Everybody's videotaping each other and there's Instagram and all these different things. Do we need Super Bowl week anymore? Well, I suppose we need more, right? Because we have more ways to get all these businesses that we just traffic in imaginary stories that's like sort of what the world is now for the most part right the media world is mostly constructed stories so i think we probably need there's

really a real necessity for it now for like how many stories will run, have run this year about the idea that Super Bowl Media Day is insane? I bet there are 20 stories. God, I feel like that story was dead 10 years ago. Well, it doesn't matter. It's not going to change, right?

No one's going to go to it and actually be like, actually Media Day is the most important way to understand football. That's not going to happen. I think anybody who's sent to that,

certainly if you're sent to it for the first time, your takeaway is going to be, this is just a circus. I bet if you Google Superbowl media day and circus, I don't know how many hundreds of things would come up. But so, I mean, you know what,

when you say, do we need it? What would have to happen do we need it? What would have to happen to constitute needing it? Like for a legitimate reason that we authentically need this. I guess the thing I always wondered is why the radio stations and TV crews have to go. Isn't that sort of one of the viewed as one of the perks in getting that job? You will get to go to the Superbowl.

You will get to cover the Superbowl from the site. Technically a perk. Yeah. That's how like South by Southwest used to be that way for like being a music journalist. You got to go there for four days in, you know, kind of late winter, early spring when it was really nice in Austin and see a bunch of shows and

walk around with a, what's it called? When the thing that like your, your badge, it's a laminated badge. Yeah. There's a word for it. There's like a, for, for what the thing is called, but it was like you walk around wearing that thing. It's just with an L and a lanyard, something like that. Yeah. Lanyard. Lanyard. Yes. It's like you get to walk around with a lanyard. Um, uh, and that, you know, you, you rarely, you would always come back with things to write about, but there was, there wasn't, it wasn't essential. Like, it's not like the story couldn't exist without it. Uh, that's just part of it. So I think for a lot of radio guys, it's like, you know, uh, they get up every morning at 7am to do this job, but they know one time of the year they get to go to this place where they get

to kind of interact with other people like them. And, you know, I remember when I went no to, it was still pretty early in the internet and everything was being covered traditionally. And I was really excited because i felt like i hadn't seen that many people just go there and write about like how fucking weird it

was and all these different things about it it was like this is great so i'll be able to get always thinking like i'll be able to get like five columns out of how crazy this week is but by 2007 it was like everybody had seen that on the internet for, you know, for that whole decade. And now by 2019, I guess the only new interesting wrinkles would be the Instagram and the fact that everybody can videotape. You know, they can go to Media Day now and just cut little clips and immediately put them up. Well, first of all, what was the first Media Day and was that one actually useful? Was that one just a press conference where like there were 12 journalists there and it was a chance to talk? I mean, what year did that start?

I have no idea. I was watching those NFL films, you know, the old, you know, like the old. You love those. I love those. And like they're showing like the Dolphins Vikings Super Bowl and the pageantry around that game is less than like a wildcard game now. Yeah. It's like, it's just like this game is happening. You know, they were playing it outdoors in Houston and it looks cold.

It's like, it's a weird, you know, it's like it was pre-Astrodome. Where do you stand on the whole Patriots fatigue thing? Well, I don't know. I generally am of the opinion that dynastic teams are good for sports. That's how I feel. Especially when they're based in the Boston area. Well, I suppose, you know, it's like, the thing is, it's like I root kind of against the Patriots now, like most of America.

And yet if it comes down to the very end and it's a close game, I'll be like, ah, it'll be kind of charming if the Patriots win. It's afraid it can do it again. So here's, so here, here's the one question I want to ask you about the Superbowl. I feel like this will be a kind of a controversial take,

but okay. First of all, I feel like this is a strange situation where the dynastic team, there's no pressure on them whatsoever. I feel like there is all the pressure is on the Rams, even though, you know, even though that they're technically, I think, in Vegas, the underdog. I feel like the pressure is on the Rams. And I would go so far as to say that the pressure on Tom Brady is less than the pressure on Tony Romo. Tony Romo announcing?

Because, okay, so for the law, Romo is introduced, okay? What he's introduced is an analyst. He does this thing where he predicts plays, okay? Yeah. And everyone is just like, I've never seen anything like this before. And then, you know, I remember hearing like Brent Musburger on his radio show being like, what Tony Romo is doing is negative. Like he's stepping all over Jim Nance or whatever. That's the wrong protocol.

And people were kind of like, this is a new thing. And then he kind of got away from it. Last in the AFC title game. Chiefs game, he brought it back. He really brought it back at the apex level. Yeah. Okay. And there was suddenly this recognition that's like,

oh yes, he does this for whatever reason. He got pushed away from doing this, but he does this and this makes him different. He is going to be the analyst of this period. He's going to totally surpass Chris Collinsworth. So I feel the pressure is on him to not only predict plays in the Super Bowl, but to really accurately nail them. And if he doesn't attempt this or if he attempts it and fails, his position in kind of the canon of analysts is going to fall through the floor. But if he succeeds, he might go to the top.

Maybe the best ever. So I feel the pressure on his legacy as a broadcaster is much greater than even if brady comes out let's say brady goes 11 for 27 he plays awful has four picks it's not like people are going to change their opinion and be like huh actually he's the fourth best quarterback of all time his position seems pretty secure in fact if he were to struggle it would more be a sort of indictment of the fact that that there is an age ceiling to this. You can't play until you're 45 or whatever.

I don't feel there's any performance he could have that would radically change the way he's viewed as a quarterback. However, for Romo, it is not the case. This is it. This is as big a moment for him. This is a bigger moment for him as a broadcaster than any moment he faced as a player. I got to think about that one. Well, what's it you, he never played in a Super Bowl. He never played in a conference final, right?

He never played in a conference final. You know, he, so he fumbled the snap against the Seahawks on the PAT, but he handled it incredibly well. Like he's his, you know, I, I think the way he sort of behaved in the wake of that was seemed mature and reasonable. And it almost has been like, kind of like a learning lesson, like this can happen to you and you can still have a career. But the nature of the way things worked, he never had a game where it was sort of like, the way we perceive this guy going forward, it's tonight. But I think that's happening with his broadcast career. Here's why I don't think he's going to be nervous.

Although he has less pressure than Goff. Goff has the most pressure of the quarterbacks. But it's odd that Brady's starting the game and is the third most pressure among quarterbacks in the stadium. Yeah, that is pretty weird. Here's why I don't feel like he has pressure. I think he can do this in his sleep.

And I think you're right. I think they probably told him, look. They clearly did. Tone it back. They clearly did. And I don't know whether Nance was against him doing it. So that part's interesting too, because Nance replaced Musburger.

That was like the Deborah Norville, Jane Pauly type situation. Remember they got rid of Musburger. Yes, way back. So that might be Musburger. That was like the Deborah Norville, Jane Pauly type situation. Remember they got rid of Musburger. Yes, way back. So that might be Musburger just trying to start animosity with Romo and Dance. No, I think it has, you know,

I think Musburger has, you know, I listened to him on the Vegas Stats Network. I just, I still find, I love listening to him. I absolutely love that you listen to the Vegas Stats and Information Network. All the time. Those guys, man, they really follow it all.

Like they just, I, because there's just, there's more. Although it's odd. They often have guys like from the casinos on the show. So when they're talking about things, they have to be trying to direct betters. Yeah, you're subconsciously trying to. Well, yo, because they're always be like, you know, there's a lot of money on the bears. It's all going on the bears.

That has to be an attempt to get people to vote or vote to vote to bet on their opponent to balance the scales because they want balanced tickets. But anyways, Musburger has has like some like very like, uh, uh, like hard and fast rules about how broadcasting should work.

And, you know, he still does the Raiders games and they're on the Vegas sports because they're preparing for this. And, and he was like, what Tony Romo is doing is sort of like, uh,

it's, it, it contradicts what the role of the analyst is supposed to be. The analyst is not supposed to be the analyst is not supposed to be a magician but someone to help you understand it but the way romo does it i would say is my favorite version of color commentating i've ever seen well what's funny mackinrow at when he first started covering tennis it was similar because he was so candid about things and insightful and real kind of like clear, but. And in basketball, we've never gotten this close

with anybody. Steve Kerr probably got the closest, but he never would have stepped on the announcers and just been like, they're doing this and this is, and it's going to, and he's getting the ball right there. Well, it's also, it's harder. It's harder to do in like basketball is a sport where it's like, sometimes everyone knows where it's going. And if everyone doesn't, no one knows it's like kind of an all or nothing thing. So I, you know,

I watched a game with him once when he was still playing at Jimmy's house. And I think I talked about it on a podcast after, and I was saying how I thought he was going to be an amazing analyst because he was doing this when we watched a game with him. And I think it was like a, it was a Packers playoff game and they were going to line and he was just like telling us what was going to happen. And it was fucking weird. I think he can just do this.

Well, and I, you know, I, I, they're probably, and there might be a handful of guys who can, I mean, maybe anybody. Do you know that people have like photographic memories and you're like, wow, that's amazing. They could just pick up a script or remember the page. He might just be able to look at, just see what the defense is, what formation is, and just instantaneously know what the right decision is. Well, and also he's watching it from a vantage point that he would have loved to have as a quarterback. Yeah. He can actually see what's happening.

And I'm not arguing that he's the only person who can do this, but he's the only person who does do it. No, not only is he the only person who can do it, he's doing it at a crazy accurate level. Collinsworth, after the play, could be like, here's what happened. That left guard missed a block, and then this guy, and that rushed the throw, and then you'll see the replay, and he's right.

But he won't tell you before the play. Collinsworth is impressive because it does seem like he sees things that I didn't see. Yeah, he can see the 22 guys. Yeah, he doesn't, you know, he's not watching the ball. I, as a person, still am typically watching the ball, no matter how much I tell myself that it'll be better if I don't. I do. But it's just, there was just some situations in that Patriots game where he would say what

would happen. And it would happen so exactly that it was hard to not kind of react like, Oh wow. Like, you know, over and over again. It was even cooler for me. I watched with my dad and my uncles and my friend Brady,

Kevin Brady. But we, he was, you know, it was such a tense moment of the game. And, you know, third and 10. And you're watching and thinking like, man, I hope they give it to Edelman. I hope Edelman can get open. And then Romo's going, watch this. They're going to send Edelman right over the middle. He's going to be open, Jim. And then he would be open. But it was weirdly reassuring for

how nervous we were for the moment. Because Romo was telling us things that we were like, oh, this is good. What that happens, we were for the moment. Because Romo was telling us things that we were like, oh, this is good. What that happens, we're in good shape. But there was a lot of media attention in the wake of the conference final games about this. I saw many things written about Romo. I did wonder, it's like, are they going to say, kind of back off a bit, kind of like back off this a little bit,

or are they going to say, go for it? And I hope they do. But if he goes for it, he's just, the pressure's on. He's got to be right. Well, I wonder how long, like, do you lose the skill after a couple years? Like, just from not having played football every year that you're away from it, you lose the ability. Because, like, I thought Collinsworth when the first few years,

when he was out really saw the game in a way that he still is like, I would say 80, 85% can see it. But early Collinsworth was like really revelation. Well, because I suppose, or maybe I'm just more used to him. When you're just out of the league,

you also have a, you know, hyper knowledge of all the personnel in a way that probably does detract as time moves on. Well, this is, I mean, this is the problem that the Barkley and Shaq and Kenny are going to face eventually, because they're going to hit a point where they haven't, none of them have played against any of the guys they're talking about. And I still feel like there's- Kenny Smith is at that point now. But two of them are. I'm saying Shaq has at least played against LeBron.

Like he can speak to what it's like. But at some point, these new guys that are going to become available, like Vince Carter and Dwayne Wade, I want to hear Vince Carter say, this is why I love his podcast that he does for us, because he's still playing against these guys. And he has like real observations about what it's like to go against that. I don't know if that matters as much against football because it's not, it's not, you know, Tony Romo can't really talk about Aaron Donald unless he blocked him. I guess, I mean, you can talk about how scary it is to be chased

by him, but basketball, you can really be like, all right, when you're on the court against Giannis and he does, and he takes that second big step, you're just going to be later. Like they can actually kind of explain it. I guess it's the, the biggest thing with basketball, it seems with like, say the players only when they're on, on the NBA network or whatever, and it's just the players talking or whatever. That's a, that's a rough night. Yeah. It's, but it's, it's, it's strange always when you start watching it, because I'm never aware that it's players only.

And I'm like, well, this is, oh, oh this is why because it's just the players talking they seem to have you know a different view on who is great and who is not great like it players are the only people who seem to really respect Carmelo Anthony. Yeah. This is one of my favorite weird topics. Across the board. I think Kyrie is like this too. Now everybody, I think Kyrie gets his just due,

but I think the other players, like they just can't believe how good he is. There's certain players that they'll go, oh my God, this guy. Well, I mean, Kyrie's got an amazing handle and it's very obvious. You can just watch it and see that. And, you know, it's- But his ability to finish in the air with both hands... But the thing is, there's a large percentage of the basketball media, which is really

now more like the basketball industry, who say Carmelo is bad. I know, but that's... Carmelo is bad. Like, they will say, like, that he is no better than a replacement value player or whatever. But players do not think that. Players do not think that way will say like that, that he is no better than a replacement value player, whatever, but players do not think that players do not think that way. I think that, you know, there are a bunch of guys around the NBA right now who would be excited if they heard Carmel

Anthony was coming to their team and all the writers in that town would hammer the team for doing that. You know, I'm glad you brought him up because I think this happens sometimes. The last few years of somebody's career ends up over affecting how people talk about that person as they're heading toward the tail end. I think it's definitely up with Carmelo. If you read anything now, it's like the guy was a disaster.

And it's like, that guy was a great basketball player. He was on that 09 Denver team that almost made the finals. He was by far the best part of that team. He had really no great teammates that I remember I did a piece about this once, like his best teammate, the first 10 years of his career was like Chauncey Billups and like a later in his career, Chauncey Billups. And then in 2013, that Knicks team was really good. He finished third in MVP. And my thing is like, if you finished top three MVP, you were a great player.

Like if we finished a season and you were one of the best three players in that season, that's it. There's nothing else to talk about. Like Dwight Howard, same thing. Like people can shit on Dwight Howard now, but Dwight Howard was like the best center in the league for seven years.

But it's funny how sometimes near the end, if the ending's bad, it's like it taints the whole thing. And then we eventually rally back because I think it's happened with TMAC. I think that it more has to do- TMAC now I think people appreciate it. It's not just that the ending is bad. It has to do with the ending is long. Because I remember talking about how the end of Jabbar's career was going to taint our memory of him. That last year was brutal.

But it didn't happen at all. Or Jordan with the Wizards. Now it's almost like the thing is, God, can you believe that Jordan had a 50-point game as a Wizard? It almost seems now as a positive thing. I'm a Jordan Wizards defender. He didn't play for three years. He came back and he was like 20 a game with bad knees. He was battling all these young dudes.

They're all coming at him every night. It was weirdly impressive. It really is. Although it didn't seem that way at the time. Because we thought he was going to be like the best player in the league. And a guy from the Washington Post like wrote a book about it. And it would be like Jordan was an embarrassment again with his 19.4 assist effort. And I was like, well, that's not terrible.

I mean, it's like, you know. That was, I feel like that book was when sports books started to change. Well, he. Because he was that guy. Remember, he was like on the fringes of the locker room just like being sneaky. He was hired by the Washington Post to exclusively cover Jordan. Okay. And Jordan shut him out.

Exactly. And then it's also the kind of beat that you take solely. Well, not solely. I can't read his mind. But I would say if I was in that position where I knew I was going to spend, you know, two or possibly more years covering one person. And it's one of the most famous people in the world. The idea of writing a book at the end

would be the logical move. So I think that the entire time he was covering him, he was also placing it, everything he was seeing into a very large narrative. I didn't like that book. Cause I just felt like it, the writer was mad that he didn't get access. So that colored the way he wrote about the season.

And I didn't feel like it was nice enough. I remember reading the book. I think I blurbed that book. I'm not a hundred percent sure. You blurbed every book for five years. Well, if I, if someone asked me. From 02 to 07, I think you were on 50% of the books. I blurb a book and I know the person asking me,

I'm going to normally do it. I mean, it's like, you know, because the thing is everybody knows that blurbs are moronic it's like and the people who understand most the people who understand it most are the people in the publishing industry who care the most about them even though they're the most aware that the main reason a book gets blurbed is because either the writers know each other or the agent represents both people or the editor happens to edit both people or the editor has a friend at another publishing house we could really use this you know yeah but if knowing that it is not really meaningful but in some ways really

helps the person out because it's like you you know, especially a first time writer, their editor is like, you've got to get blurbs for this. We just, you know, my boss will be happy if you do. You were blurbaceous. Sure. Is that a word? I don't think so. Hold on. We need to break. Yeah. Let's talk about Sonos Beam. It's a smart compact soundbar for your TV and the newest addition to the easy to use Sonos home sound system. I can't speak. I love Sonos though. I was always like waiting my whole life for, for home sound theater to get just easier and better. I remember like in the mid nineties, the DVD boom happened and everybody tried to get these home theater systems and it was all a disaster and the stuff was too big and the speakers

would blow out the moment you accidentally put the volume up too big and now it's just like we've perfected it. The Beam has changed the way I watch sports. It's made movies better. As you know, I love watching movies if you've ever heard the rewatchables.

It allows you to ask Alexa for game scores. It allows you to get sports news. It's not overwhelming. It has streaming services and airplay. It fills the room with rich, brilliantly clear sound. It's easy to set up. Connects to your TV with just one cord. Syncs with your existing remote, which I also love. Walks you through the setup step by step. And again, I mentioned built-in Amazon Alexa. You can connect the speakers over your Wi-Fi

list anywhere in the house. It's just smart. It's what you want in 2019. Go to Sonos.com to learn more and order your Beam today. That is S-O-N-O-S.com, the Sonos Beam. Check it out. All right, back to that whole thing about the last few years tainting a legacy. It's always funny when this happens because after a year passes, everyone forgets and they just remember the good stuff. And we see this happen all the time. Like Shaq, Shaq had a really kind of depressing last couple of years, right?

And plus he was like, you know, 50, 60 pounds heavier and it just become kind of a parody of what Shaq was. Nobody talks about that now. They talk about Laker Shaq. So I think with Carmelo, I think eventually things will circle around and people like, you know what? For his era, like some of the production he had and if he was the best guy on a team that had decent talent, you were a fringe contender.

That's going to be his legacy. He may also become emblematic of this shift that has happened in the NBA and if someone's trying to explain this shift after it's forgotten maybe they will use him as an example of somebody who there was a time when the things he did was extremely valuable and then things switched in a way with the same player or next it's not quite the same player but a similar type of player like him was uh like, uh, you know who this happened to this happened in baseball. Um, the Steve Garvey, Jim Rice types, there was this air in the seventies and eighties and Steve Garvey was like the best first baseman for years and years. It was like, if you asked anybody, I don't even think he's in the baseball hall of fame. And if you go back and look at his stats, you're like, wow, his OBP wasn't high enough.

And they'll criticize about all these things, but his job was to just drive in runs and put his bat on the ball when guys were on base, right? They just thought about things differently. Carmelo's job wasn't to get to the free throw line and shoot threes. His job was to, they would throw him the ball and he would try, he'd have these big guys underneath.

He would try to figure out, could he get to the rim? Should he just take a pull up 20 footer? Nobody was telling him pull up 20 footers were bad. So I don't know how we hold that against his career because he played the way everybody played at the time. Whereas it's interesting. Some of the guys, you look at the advanced metrics now and some of the older guys it's actually really favorable for them like like larry bird was a 50 40 90 guy one year but we didn't know what that was we didn't think it mattered barkley his numbers really translate well to the stuff we care about now but he didn't know

that at the time that was just the way he played although he shot a lot of threes at a very low percentage that was as his career went on he he started taking, he was like a 30%. But I'm saying like the Philly- But I guess the fact that he was taking them at all by modern standards is like, it was good. He should have been, you know? And then other guys didn't age as well. But, you know, Iverson was playing 43, 44 minutes a game and taking a lot of shots because he was on a shitty team. I don't know.

It's tough to go backwards and kind of legislate how people should have played. But it's interesting when people played the way that we've kind of learned should have been the way maybe you played. And now we have this Harden thing, which I know you have some thoughts on. Yeah. Okay. So there was that stretch where Harden was scoring all these points. But the biggest thing was he was scoring these unassisted baskets. He was just, it was like a gaudy kind of insane number and what i kept seeing over and

over again were people saying like not only is he scoring you know at this insane rate he's scoring in the hardest way possible these are all unassisted he's, it's almost doubly impressive. I started thinking about something like, okay, so the way basketball seems to be played now is your best matchup is whichever guy has the greatest advantage over the guy who's covering him. Yeah. Everything you're doing is trying to get a mismatch. So Harden is the best player on his team. The gap between Harden and whoever's guarding him is greater than the gap between every other Rocket and who's guarding them. So is having him just bring the ball up and attempt to score, and if he's doubled, he throws it to the open guy who's standing on the perimeter, is it actually a better, more efficient way to do this?

To double harden that 50 feet from the basket? No, to just say to your best player, if you can handle the ball, bring the ball up court and try to score. Every time? Yes. And if someone comes over and doubles, then you throw it to that guy and he'll be wide open.

And a wide open him is better than a double covered you. But for the most part, almost play the way a fifth grade team does if they really want to win. I was going to say, you're basically describing eighth grade girls basketball. This is my daughter's team. We have one great guard and she could basically get a good shot every time so unless they double team her she just gets a good shot every time and it's basically james arden well because i i know you're kind of like pushing the panic button on the celtics i i can see this from your your your kind of twitter world i'm just upset about it but you know i i do have this

this sort of fear that as much as we like Brad Stevens, okay, what he has done is sort of built the team to work the way basketball has always worked, which is that you wanted a lot of good guys who share the ball and you don't know who's going to beat you tonight and everyone can do it. Would they be better off if Kyrie Irving just played like Harden? And that he was taking the vast majority of shots. I've been making this case. Because it seems as though, like, you know, like,

Hayward is a fine player, Tatum is a fine player, all these guys are pretty good, but the difference between them and who they're playing against, because the league has improved so much, is not that great. But there is a gap, usually, between Kyrie and who is guarding him. So this is the case for how Kyrie should get better as a player. Because he doesn't have to do what Harden does. I don't think he's strong enough to every single night take 30 shots and 12 free throws, stuff like that. But there's nights where you have to kind of read your team and go, it's a back-to-back.

We're in Miami. I should take over this first half. Make sure the game doesn't get away from us. And he doesn't really think that way. Whereas I think that some of the best players in the recent history of the league, they have a sense for when they should take. Steve Kerr would always talk about this with Jordan. He would, cause he used to come on my pod ironically before the Warriors got 73. And he would say, nobody's ever doing that again because we would have 10 games a year where Jordan was just like, oh, we don't have it tonight. I'm going to win this by myself. And that's kind of what Harden's been doing now for six weeks.

But I wish Kyrie would do that every once in a while. And I think all great players should instinctively know, we don't have it tonight. I'm going to win this one for us tonight. I mean, I guess what I'm saying is my fear, because the NBA is such a better product now than it used to be. But if there is some realization that the more you run an offense, the greater possibility of something bad going wrong or something bad happening, something wrong happening, that the best possible thing to do is just give the ball to your best player. Allow him to bring the ball up 94 feet.

Yeah, but that's been basketball since the 60s. What's been basketball since the 60s? I mean, Kobe was doing that last decade, remember? That was basically the entire post-Shack Lakers. I feel like somebody else would bring it up and he'd bounce to the wing and they'd give him the ball. There was one pass. He didn't bring the ball up himself.

That's the weird thing about Harden. He brings the ball up himself. And it takes away the possibility of anyone else fucking it up in a way. I don't think Harden's, I think this is a complete aberration and a complete, I don't think this can be replicated. This is, this is almost like. He does have the three things that you need, that he's a great three-point shooter. He's a very good free throw shooter if he goes to the rack and he is a good passer.

So if guys come over, you know, during that stretch, you know, where he, all of us scoring all those unassisted baskets, he had like 24 assists or something or 21 assists

during that period. It wasn't like the team didn't have any assists. They all just came from him. There might not be a lot of other guys who could do that. But you're also,

you're leaving out two things. One is that he's unguardable. Like if he misses, it's because he missed. It's not because somebody like shut him down, which is puts him on a list of not it's, it's less than six guys, you know, like Jordan was unguardable and teams had to do all these different tricks just to like, stay in front of them and knock them down. And that's why the Jordan rules became a book. Harden's the first guy I've seen.

I don't even think, I don't even think you could say LeBron was unguardable. I think he had stretches, but this is like. Well, he couldn't shoot as well. Yeah, there were things. He couldn't shoot as well from the outside. You kind of nudged him. You nudged him to doing things that he wasn't great at. And you just kind of hoped he missed.

Kobe was like, same thing. Kobe, you know, you, you kind of tried to, it was a 31, 32% three point shooter. A lot of those years kind of hoped that he would settle for long twos, maybe not go to the basket. The hardened thing. It's like, I watch these games and I'm not really sure what the team should do other than double team him.

But if you double team him, he's going to throw the ball over to Ariza or something, standing alone in the corner. It's like, and then all those shots are worth three points, which is like, this is the second piece of this. Daryl figured out the right guys to put around him so that in every

situation, you're kind of screwed. It just seems as though that, that this type of player, the type of player he is is going to emerge more and more which is that a guy who specializes in these specific things of of shooting from distance going to the rim and getting fouled but still being able to deliver the ball to open guys and then the floor is spread and what do you i don't know what you do i don't

know what what is what you're supposed to do in that scenario. It does seem like an incredibly efficient way to score. You're basically doubling down on somebody who's your best player. And the thought is like, all right, if there's 30 possessions a game where he's going to try to score, what if we made that 42? This is kind of what Westbrook did with OKC. The problem was he wasn't efficient with all the attempts he was getting. They didn't have a good offense. They were like 17th or 18th when he was doing that. Houston has a good offense when they're doing that. They're scoring 140 points in these games.

So they basically doubled down on the one thing they had that was working. Now Chris Paul's going to come back. And I wonder, does he screw it up? Well, Harden's definitely going to score less. Like I, didn't you do like a pod of this Shea or whatever? And you were talking about what's. Oh yeah. He had the shelf life of when to go for 80. It had to happen during that period.

Like it's. Well, this isn't sustainable. I honestly think he's, would get hurt if this kept going at some point. I don't know if he would get hurt. Why would he get hurt? Because all the free throws he's taking. I don't think you can do this for six straight months. I really don't.

I don't know. It's too physically punishing. It would be one thing if he was playing on the block and they were throwing the ball to him over and over. He was getting clubbed. He gets followed in the least physical ways possible sometimes. Like, it seems like it doesn't, while you're watching the game live, it doesn't even seem like a follow. They show the replay. It was, I guess.

Does it shock you? Like, when you, it's funny, like, because we grow up and we, both of us like the history of stuff. was, I guess. Does it shock you? It's funny because we grow up and both of us like the history of stuff that we're watching one of the all-time craziest basketball seasons ever from this guy. The fact that he's going to be 37 points a game and go into this level where it's basically just him and Wilt and this one Michael Jordan here and that's it it's kind of staggering it is it's staggering that he seemed to improve so much from already being a pretty good player right but it does seem like

he moved up an entire tier and that was an surprising thing you know um I I guess it is it's just that it's, it's just stranger to me just how different basketball is in general. If someone had told me 10 years ago, it's like,

what sport's going to be the most different 10 years from now? I think everyone would have said basketball. Everyone would have said football, right? Yeah,

right now he's at 36.3. Jordan got to 37.09. So, he'll probably settle around 36 because I do think Chris Paul is going to cut into it. I'm with you though. By the way, I also think football is really different. When you watch the, if you watch games from 15 years ago,

the guys getting just crushed over the middle and some of the stuff on the special teams and how the quarterbacks are treated, it really is different. It's shocking. I don't feel it is as philosophically different as basketball is though. I feel like, because it, it just, it, it, uh, football has, you know, they changed the rules a lot in football and that's part of it.

And, you know, and, and, uh, you know, football's controlled by the coaches so much that you expect that to a degree, that there's going to be new ways of thinking. And we're going to, oh, we're going to bring the spread in. We're going to bring, you know, all these different things. And basketball, you don't really anticipate that happening. It doesn't seem like it can change that much, but it has changed completely. Brook Lopez making five threes in a quarter. I watched him the other night. Yes.

He was like, he started four for four and he wanted the fifth and they wouldn't give him the ball. But it was, and then. So like how long can Brick Low play his play now? Guys his size could already play a long time, longer than their effectiveness seemed to be. But now he has this other skill. He could play a long time. The part that amazes me is

just how easily guys are making threes now. Like just the sheer totality of guys on an NBA roster who can make a 28 footer. I know. I remember I was going, I was living in Boston when they had the three point line, which was Bird's first season. And we had this guy, Chris Ford, who eventually became a coach. He made the first three pointer. Yeah. And he was kind of our three point specialist.

And he probably made, I bet he didn't even make 90 in a coach. He made the first three-pointer. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he was kind of our three-point specialist. And he probably made, I bet he didn't even make 90 in a season. And he had this little shot where he kind of pushed it from almost his chest, like a little kid. But when he would shoot it, and somebody opening the ball would swing around and he would take it,

and it always seemed weird. It was like, oh, he tried one of those three point shots and now it's just you'll watch games where the team will take more threes than twos. This is 40 years. I guess the two biggest

things that have happened are the dunk and the three point shot in the last 75 years of basketball. Think about Kareem. The last 75 years of basketball? Because think about Kareem. The last how many years? Last 75 years of basketball. When did, okay, they added three seconds in the lane with George Mike and that was a huge change.

So is that 70 years or 65? He played. 54. Yeah, so when Russell comes in, it's 56. So that's 50, 60, 60, 60 plus years. So since Russell comes in, I think I read offensive goaltending. I would not put that ahead of those two.

No, I would not. But I remember in the 81 finals, Bird made like the dagger three to kind of finish off the Rockets. And it was like, oh my God, like he took a three to make it. You know, now it's like, of course he would have taken 12 threes a game.

Yes. It's pretty bizarre. It is bizarre. I kind of do miss, I miss two things. Or is it bizarre that it took so long to happen? I mean, anybody. Well, this is Daryl's case. Daryl's like, where the fuck was everybody?

He was saying this last decade, you know, but even like we were at Grantland when this started. And I think the Knicks took a lot of threes one year. When Patino was there. No, no. I'm saying like 2012 range. It was a Carmelo, J.R. Smith team. We were at Grantland. I was doing countdown that year.

And the Knicks had one month where they were just taking like 25, 26 threes a game. And that was the first time I really remember thinking, this feels like we're heading, we're something starting to change because the Celtics took a shitload of threes with Pearson Walker, but it always felt like a gimmick. It didn't feel like something that was actually something. To me,

it didn't seem like that until the Warriors. That was the first time when I was sort of like, it is better. This is just, they're going to be better doing this. And, and you would see it happened a little bit in college that, you know, some college programs were completely built around three point shooting.

Oh yeah. But when you get down to the final four, it was still traditional. It was still, well, I mean, you could argue, except for the Warriors, it's always backfired. It has. Yeah. You saw it last, last June with the two conference finals. You saw the Celtics just completely die by the three.

And then the Rockets the next day also completely died by the three. I have a hot take, by the way. Okay. I think I got to look at the schedule to make sure I'm not going to fuck this up. But I really do think the Warriors could win like 25 straight here. I think that, I think they're about to go. It reminds me a little where Miami was when Miami won the 27th straight in 2013 or 14, whatever year that was, where they just, they've gone through some shit. They're kind of tired of each other.

They had a lot of talent. It became a grind. You get the bullseye on you. Every day people are coming at you. And then a couple of things shift. And then it's like, oh yeah, this is fun. And something clicks for a couple months. And I feel like they're in that mode now.

I think the joy is back with them. They went through a lot of shit. And it was really the Boogie Cousins thing. And him coming in there and having like this new toy has kind of made it fresh. It's hard to imagine that at this point, having had success like that for so long that they could stay focused every night for 25 games.

So we're taping this on a Tuesday. Last night they killed Indiana. They had 39 assists. That tells me something good is happening with them. So I'm looking at their schedule. They were 25 and 14. Now they're, oh, shit. They're 25 and 14.

Now they're 36 and 14. So they've won 11 straight. If you go through, it's pretty doable. They have a lot of home games. I feel like they have one last great stretch in there, and then I think, who the hell knows, Durant might leave, Klay might leave, all that stuff. But I think they have one last great moment in them,

regular season thing, where they just kind of lay the smack down for a month. It could be. I mean, that's totally possible. I do think they'll win the finals again. But are you saying a regular season accomplishment? I'm saying like there's not been a lot of greatness from them this year for the kind of roster they have.

And I think this could be their great moment. Let's take one break. Let's take one more break to talk about the New York Times crossword. If you're listening to this podcast, you've already figured out really smart ways to spend your time. No smarter way to listen to this podcast. Here's another one. The New York Times crossword app, a fun, clever way to stay sharp. Every day there's a new puzzle, a new opportunity to challenge yourself and play. And now with the mini crossword,

you can squeeze in a game in just a couple minutes. Each mini puzzle is stimulating, quick, and most important, fun. Play by yourself or challenge your friends. Post your best times to share the satisfaction that comes from solving. Whenever you have some downtime, discover wordplay every day. It's time well spent. Am I the only one who's done the New York Times crossword app in the bathtub? Craig, do you think that's weird? I do it every night.

You do? I do the little mini one every night before I go to bed. Not in the bathtub though. Not in the bathtub. I think I invented that. Download the New York Times crossword app at nytimes.com slash mini. And you can see why we are making ourselves smarter by using this thing.

Check it out. I have a list of things we want to talk about. You mentioned Tom Brady, by the way. There's an alternate universe where the Malcolm Butler play doesn't happen and Atlanta doesn't fuck up the Super Bowl and the Pats have lost five straight Super Bowls heading into the Super Bowl. Because you're talking about, I agree with you,

Brady probably has less pressure on him at this point than anyone who's in this quote-unquote legacy-defining thing. It's kind of like, what else could happen? So he wins six Super Bowls. Great, now he's had as many titles as Jordan. I guess that's something. But I feel like he cemented his legacy in the Atlanta game. Yes.

It's over at this point. He's the best ever. Well, I think there's particularly less pressure because it would even be one thing if the only team who'd ever beaten them is the Giants. But the Eagles beat them too, so they've won most, but they've lost some. That was bad for Eli. Yeah, it's like, exactly.

Eli would have been like the Patriot killer. That would have been his legacy. Or it would have somehow, or there would have been some secondary reason it would have happened. But because he's lost to two different franchises, it's like, well, if he lost again, I just don't think it would have much meaning. Unless, yeah, even if he had like a- Because people were, they were done, it seemed like, in September. He rope-a-doped us. Well, or it just worked out that way.

One of the two, from their perspective, they were like, we were playing hard then, we're playing hard now, I suppose. I don't think there was any consciousness of that. You interviewed Brady once, right? Yeah. How many years ago was that uh post deflategate yes yes because it was only about deflategate that was the whole thing yeah uh all right here's here's what i got on my list let's go fire festival yeah you saw both of the docs yes yes. Yes. And I just, I think it would be great if all crazy news events had competing documentaries about them. The fact that there was two of them made it so much better than if there had just been one. It definitely drove an incredible amount of awareness to both and became its own narrative.

And when you're doing a documentary, awareness is what matters. If it's good, you just want to make sure people knew about it. I also think it was one of those things when it happened, it was a big deal online for a couple of days, but it was also one of those things I just didn't know what happened and I really wanted to learn about it.

So when I saw it was coming, I was like, this is great. I can't wait to watch this. And it really was epic. I still want to know what happened to Ja Rule in like the last 15. Let's talk about the Netflix one because I feel like that was more complete.

Ja Rule has the one conference call. I thought the Hulu one was superior. Really? Explain why. Well, okay, but I watched the Hulu one second and it might be a situation that whatever one I watched second. But the Netflix one to me seemed like this is what happened.

The Hulu one seemed to be more like here's a per you know you can actually see what the person who did this what he is like even though he's not saying anything revelatory you got a real sort of understanding of of what because my thing when i was watching the netflix one is like how charismatic is this guy? How is he convincing these people to do this? It's like they, they, they, you know, it's, he's over and over again, sort of putting himself in this amazing position. I don't know what he's offering anyone starting with that stupid credit card moving into this festival. Then when you see him in the Hulu one, he is not charismatic.

So it sort of makes it even a bit more fascinating that but that's my case for the netflix one the netflix one i we it doesn't have the mcfarlane interview which i actually made me like it more because there's more mystery about him and i left it with more questions but once you actually see him interviewed it just becomes even more kind of confusing like oh this guy's kind of a fucking schlub well there's a lot what's going on it was it was interesting but maybe predictable of how much glee people took in seeing the failure of these like being able to relive the failure because in one way or the other, every individual involved is an unlikable type of person,

whether they're a supermodel or there's, you know, some kind of entrepreneurial rapper, or it's a business guy who just seems to believe that there are no consequences to what he does to the people who are the influencers who want to go to this thing and who sort of self-identify as an influencer or the influencers who are telling people to go there and they have no idea if it's going to be what it is it might be a complete disaster they're just getting paid and they're just going to use it it is but like okay so are you technically an influencer what do you you mean? Well, you have whatever,

a million people on Twitter or whatever. You have a huge Instagram account. A million? That's like six million. Come on. Whatever the case it is, whatever how many fucking people it is. Five million.

The thing is, is an influencer something you become because whether you want to or not, you just are, or is it something you need to self-identify as? Well, I think once you have the ability to alert a lot of people on something, no matter what that is, you become an influencer. The question is how you want to use that power.

Well, or does influencer dictate that you're someone that a brand sees as someone to go to, to say, will you wear this tie? Or will you say that these headphones work? We'll give them to you in exchange. Like, does an influencer, is an influencer just someone who has influence? Or does it mean you are being paid to promote something? You are a form of-

I feel like that's what an influencer is. So it's actually like on their fucking tax return they write influencer yeah okay i think that's that's their job that's basically 60 percent of how the jenner kardashian dynasty speaking of dynasties how they got to where they got like they don't i i just don't feel like they happen if there's not everything that happens with social media eventually. So. Because the one who missed it, the tragedy, it's not, I mean, tragedy is the wrong word. It's probably for her a tragedy, but Paris Hilton just too soon. Kim Long, five years too early.

Now there's like, there's some documentary about like internet celebrities or whatever. And they talk about her like she's George Washington. It's sort of like, we did not documentary about like internet celebrities or whatever. And they talk about her. I saw it. George Washington. It's sort of like, we did not realize you were sort of creating this world. I had some issues with that documentary. It's like, don't, don't make Paris Hilton a sympathetic figure. That's not.

Well, they didn't succeed at that. She definitely was not. Tell me this. Do you, what differences either practically or culturally do you see between the kind of person we saw in like those fire festival documentaries, the people who've labeled themselves as influencers and the idea of Bruce Jenner selling Wheaties as a form of advertising? Hmm.

Like, have they, part of me is like, well, they've just sort of cut out this middle area where they need someone to give them a job to do this. But then another part of me says that there seems to be, there's something troubling about the idea that there's an audience of people who recognize that the only thing the person is doing is sort of working as a conduit between them and what they can buy. And it doesn't bother them at all that that is the situation that the person like Bruce Jenner, for example, it's like, well, it's almost like, well, he's selling Wheaties. This is his reward for winning the decathlon. He's done this thing. I think you're looking at it wrong. I might be. So the Bruce, like Bruce Jenner or Michael Jordan, Nike's, whatever. It's somebody who's popular enough that if they do a deal with a brand, they are now lending their credibility to that brand.

So it's like, sure. Michael Jordan wears these sneakers. Giannis right now. Whoever. The influencer thing is different. Yeah, because the credibility that Michael Jordan brings to the shoe is based on this thing that is connected but unrelated. He's great at playing basketball. Okay. And as a consequence, he is able to influence people to buy shoes or McDonald's or Coke or whatever.

But the implication is that he has good taste. But I don't know why we would think that. It's like Michael Jordan eats McDonald's, so therefore I should eat McDonald's. Because Michael Jordan is my hero. And it almost seems in that situation less taste-based because McDonald's is coming to Jordan. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Where when the influencers, it's almost as though they are actually choosing these things that they're advocating for or supporting. Although, of course, I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the amount of compensation.

Well, okay, let me ask you this. No, go back to the influencer thing for a second. Well, no, this is the same way. But here's the difference between a Michael Jordan and an influencer. Because this ties into social media and just, I think why people seem to like it or gravitate to it. Somebody's Instagram account. If you look at like these supermodels or whoever, it's always the best version of themselves and every picture and every video. And you basically, you don't see, what's her name? Emily Ratajkowski. You don't see her like,

I'm on my couch. I'm really sick today. Look how ugly I look. It's always like the best possible version. She's like, I'm in Cabo. Look at me in this bathing suit. I'm at this party. Oh, here I am in my friend's Ferrari. And it's like, and people follow that because it's kind of like whatever the weird internet version of the American dream is, right? Oh man, I wish I could date her. I wish I could be her or whatever. So when they tell somebody this music festival is going to be off the hook, people actually listen to them and follow them because they think like, if I go there, people like Emily are going to be there. And I think that's what's weird about it.

Isn't that the way that like, okay, from the outside, that's how it looks. But actually the people who are most consumed with this culture are aware of all the things you're saying. They're aware that these people are not really showing their life. They're showing a version of their life. I don't know if they're totally aware. I think they want to be part of people's lives. That's why they comment and they put in Twitter replies, hope they see the replies. But here's why I think that they are aware, because they do it themselves.

Right. Like even somebody who is just on Instagram or just on Facebook, but posts a lot and posts a lot of photographs. They, for the most part, are doing the exact same thing an influencer is doing. They're creating the best version of their life. So I can't imagine that that person then looks at these famous people and goes like, oh, well, actually, though, that's a reality. I know that my own online persona is a construction, but that's real. I think that they know it's a construction. But obviously they doning that person for, for I guess, lack of a better term, the entertainment they provide by showing this fake version of their life? Do they see it actually the way you would watch a television show, except that they're static images and they know they're not real, But they're almost like, well, they're so good at this

and they themselves are an attractive person. So I'm looking at these things that are attractive to me. And the reason that they went to this fire festival is not that they were confused by the influence, but that they assumed that the influence must be justified. Well, I think there's one other wrinkle to this. I think you're right. But I also think this is something that has invaded everything in the,

in this decade specifically. It's like that red rope type of type of mentality where it's, you know, I noticed that I remember when Brooklyn, they were doing the Barclays Center and Jay-Z they built the special VIP club that was like the ultra exclusive VIP club

like the 4040 club yeah and that's what this guy Billy tapped into with the credit card he created this credit card it's like it's a black card

I don't really know what you got out of the card what made it special but it looked cool. They took your credit card. Yeah. The preexisting credit card you have, copied everything off the strip,

put it onto a heavy black card. And then I think that there was some like- And then made the demand really hard to get. So if somebody had them, you were in this like little cool club, but this is like, you know, the Soho house,

all these different places where it's all about, it's really hard to get into this. You have to know somebody, you have to be cool. And I think that's what Fyre Festival kind of ties into that. It's like, here's this music festival. We don't have a lot of tickets available. Hot models are going to be here. And it's like, you have this entryway into this whole world

that people think exists. And then meanwhile, the world have this entryway into this whole world that people think exists. And then meanwhile, the world didn't even exist because the guy's making it all up and people paid for it. They were mad at themselves probably more than him. I think it was in the Netflix documentary. One person does make sort of a, like a kind of a controversial, but true point. Like he's discussing Woodstock and he's like, there were all these problems with woodstock there was no water yeah there were no bathrooms there was you know to get there it was ended up being a one-lane road that like you know there was all these parking issues it

wasn't actually in woodstock they had to find the second location there was all these problems with Mud, no bathrooms. But because the performances were great or good enough, and because no one got seriously hurt. That we know about. I think some people did get hurt. Probably did, but it was not, you know, that, because no one got hurt really. Like, I don't know, was anyone hurt in the Fyre Festival? I don't think anyone was hurt, you know know i think people are just cold and hungry that because the event is was was just the decision was made that the event was positive all the negative things became charming like all those things about woodstock now all these problems are seen as somehow like they give credibility to the

event itself. So I do think in one respect that they could have been right. If they, if that all the, they could have had all these problems, but if the performances were incredible, if somehow Kanye West would have performed at this and it would have been just, you know, I mean, their lineup was very, I mean, every step along the way they made mistakes. But like, I do think that all of these terrible things that we see in this documentary, if it had ended up becoming a cross to people as like this was an amazing event, they would actually be happy they had to sleep in tents.

Well, the problem is you had to do it no way out, I think is the difference in that. Woodstock, at least there was a road in and a road out. In this case, you were trapped on this island. And nothing was happening. And nothing was happening. And you might be trapped there for the rest of your life, for all you know. I thought, I think the crazy thing for me is that this happened near the end of this decade with all the technology we have now. That all people would have had to do is like,

should I go to the Fyre Festival and Google it? And there were pictures up, but there were websites already being like, they're not building anything. This is all a big scam. And people went anyway, which I thought was an interesting dynamic in itself. Like it was almost like the hope of this thing

they probably thought wasn't going to happen was still worth going because if it worked out, it would have been so great. Like they're rolling the, it's almost like a Hail Mary. It's like a weekend Hail Mary. Man, this probably isn't working out, but fuck it. I'm going. Yeah. Well, we'll just get, you know, and there's so much information. There was probably information about how awful it was going to be, but then this, you know, conflicting information that it's going to be great. And when you give everybody all the information, they don't know what is true.

Like if, you know, if you have all possible information, none of it's good. You know where this is all leading. They're going to have to really do this festival again. I mean, somebody should buy the rights to the festival and they should actually really try to do it and put real money behind it and build the whole thing and follow whatever role model or whatever blueprint he laid.

Because guess what? There's going to be a ton of awareness for it the next time around. And it might actually be cool. And it'd be amazing if somebody pulled it off. I want somebody to do it. Maybe the ringer should have a music festival. No, I think it has to be the fire festival. It has to be called the Fyre Festival. And then it goes on for 20 years and people are like, ah, man, remember that first one was a disaster? Well, they were already planning a second one like in the wake of this failure, but then it, you know.

I think it is, it's one of the most bizarre stories of all time. Right down to the guy who was going to go drive to give the guy a blowjob. What was that guy's name? John King? He Billy-assed him. That was fucking insane. That's when I was watching with my dad and my Uncle Bob and my wife. And when that happened, my dad

jerked up like he had been electrocuted. He was like, what's going on here? Also, the guy didn't seem that blown away by the request. He was like, you know, this is? Well, also the guy didn't seem that blown away by the request. Or disgusted by it? He was like, you know, this is going to be crazy. Listen to this. It's like, you know.

That was bonkers. People do like, they do like failed festivals though. Whether it's this or Woodstock 99 or Altamont. Woodstock 99 got, yeah, Woodstock 99 and Altamont got dark though. Yeah. Woodstock 99 was. Yes. You know.

Yeah. Worse. The Bundy doc you have not seen yet. I have not. It kind of snuck up on me. I didn't even know what that was happening until I see all these people talking about it. It is. It's a tour de force.

I really enjoyed it. Just a serial killer representing himself in court has to be one of the five weirdest things that's ever happened. Well, I know. He's cross-examining cops and witnesses. It's like, how does this happen? At the end, the judge, if I recall, is like, I'd like to see you in my courtroom. Yeah, he's praising him. But you went the other way, kind of.

It's like, yeah, you did go the other way. He's like, good luck to you, son. He's like, this guy's going to get electrocuted. Instead of law school, you killed a lot of women. That's the other get electrocuted. Instead of law school, you killed a lot of women. That's the other way, I guess. There's a lot of history about how nobody even really, this term serial killer wasn't even used. And I don't want to step on it too much because I don't want to spoil it.

But the part I never knew was that, you know, because he was in law, you know, he was a lawyer and he was working with police and all this stuff. And at one point had all this access to all these crimes and all these different, you know, they basically had hired him to figure out how can we do a better job with like awareness with working with other cities and basically gave him the blueprint for how to be like the worst serial killer of the decade. Because he was like, oh, he's cause he was a smart dude. He's reading all the information. It's like, oh, so if I just do this and I do this and I, and I move around to different States, um, nobody will ever catch me. Well, the system isn't built to catch somebody

like this. Cause there's no collaboration at all. because I write about him a little bit in that book I Wear the Black Hat that whole book is littered with things that eventually became documentaries and series it's like OJ is in there NWA is in there, Monica Lewinsky is in there except I didn't get

any upside from it, it's like I wrote about all these things and then other people made successful things about it I don't think they were my it. It's like I wrote about all these things and then other people made successful things about it. I don't think they were my ideas. I kept waiting for someone to say, like, that's weird that all these things line up. acts is that typically with serial killers the there is this desire to immediately portray them as a monster by focusing on the act like jeffrey dahmer like he was a cannibal or whatever you know yeah you know john wayne geisy he dressed as a clown like did the most grotesque thing about him but with ted bundy the beginning of any story about him starts with how attractive he was and how he was so charming

and how it's like he is the one serial killer who actually was this personification that you sometimes see in bad fictional films about serial killers the attractive likable sort of person the well-educated so i talked about this about this on the last pod I did briefly. I think his attractiveness was overrated. I just think he was way more attractive than John Wayne Gacy and some of these other people. So I said he was spherical or handsome. He wasn't like JFK Jr.

Well, let's see, because Mark Harmon plays him in a movie, right? Mark Harmon was much better looking than Ted Bundy but yeah I remember it was the Deliberate Stranger the Ted Bundy movie with Mark Harmon and that was fucking creepy like him driving around in the buggy and all that stuff but you know

the 70s for serial killers it was just a gravy train because people were still hitchhiking. Nobody's using alarms and the police, you know, you had no computers back then. You could just, you could kill somebody and then kill somebody 30 minutes away. And they wouldn't even know it was the same murder. And the crazy thing in this Ted Bundy thing, when he escapes the second time, he goes to Florida, kills five more people than they catch him and they don't know what his name is and they have no idea it's the ted bundy who's the top 10 future sure yeah for days i mean

that's this is like a question that sort of is like a kind of a true crime question it's could we have a serial killer well no it's like okay like the book the devil in the white city that talks about a serial killer during the Chicago World Fair, right? Yeah. And that's one of the few documents we have of, you know, I guess Jack the Ripper would be another. There's a limited number of stories about serial murdering before you get to like the 60s or the 70s. And then there's just, we have tons of them. Comes an epidemic. So there is, I think, kind of a central question of that is serial murder, an extension of

modernity, like did the world change in a way that created this possibility in people or has it always existed, but in the past, because, you know, the way we've solved crimes and the way we covered crimes was so much different that we did not recognize that actually 14 seemingly unrelated murders were done by the same person. Like no one knows the answer to this question, but it's an interesting thing to think about. Could something have changed about society

that introduced the idea? Because that certainly seems to have happened with mass murder. Like mass murder is a relatively new phenomenon. Did the three point line change mass murder? The thing with the serial killers these days, I don't know if it could happen again. Because I think the technology, the DNA stuff,

the fact that you have more cameras than ever, that, you know, like in the Ted Bundy one, he goes down to a park and he just takes these two girls. Now you had cameras all over the place. You'd have somebody who's filming their two-year-old daughter and Ted Bundy's in the background. I just don't think you can get away with it. I don't think anybody could kill more than i don't know you get the six or seven so like what you're arguing is that like the situation with like son of sam like david berkowitz yeah that guy's caught where he kills two people the entire city for a summer is obsessed with the possibility that this guy is going that that couldn't happen anymore that that's an impossibility i don't know that's interesting

you would it would seem as though things like, that would be one upside to things like social media and the ability of everyone to have a phone and all these things, it would be less likely that- And these weird DNA companies where people give their DNA to see if they're related to- Like 23andMe or whatever. 23andMe and Ancestry, all that stuff. And then they clearly, you know,

now the police are just using, they have this whole database now of DNA. So, so you, you're saying that maybe there's someone out there who would love to kill a bunch of people, but he was like, but I did 23 and me three years ago.

Right. Now they're going to have, I blew that. I, you know, it was like, I didn't really want to kill anybody then. And now that I do,

I can't. Or think about like clear. Oh, sure. Like TSA. There's all these different ways to get your fingerprints now. I think it would have to be somebody from another country. And I think they would have to keep moving.

I don't think you could do it like in the old days where it's like, I'm just in the Pacific Northwest. I'm just going to take out hitchhikers for three years. Like there's no way they would catch that person. They probably would. You'd, you know, now that you're mentioning it, it doesn't seem as though the serial killer scare, like doesn't seem to happen that much anymore. Like I remember growing up, there was a guy in Atlanta who was killing boys, like little kids or whatever. Oh, the Wayne Williams. Yeah. I remember that story, you know, and now there's a much less, I guess it's also because of the access to automatic weapons.

Maybe the person who used to be a serial killer is now like I can – I don't need to do it over a long period of time. Yeah, I think it's – Although the motive always seems different. Whereas the mass murderer seems to be trying to make a statement about society where serial killers are dealing with something that's more interior. So I guess maybe we can't lump those together. Well, that was what Bundy was saying, that he thought each murder

would make him happy, and then he wouldn't have to do it anymore. But each one left him unfulfilled. So we would think the next one would be. But they did some stuff about how there's something off in his brain. To no surprise, there's something off in his brain but at the end of his life i'm sure this is in the documentary but like at the very end of his life he tries to argue that it was all

because of pornography right but all that had really happened is somebody who was a researcher interested in the idea the effect of pornography on culture talked to him and he was like, hey, you're into pornography? That's why. Like he did have a con man, pretty obvious con man tendency that he would tell people whatever he believed that they wanted to know.

How many female serial killers have we had? Just the one Charlize Theron played and maybe like one other one? It's rare. Like, you know, there's like a book called like the mammoth book of killer women, which like lists the history of female murderers and an overwhelming. Was that your first book? A lot of these, a lot of the cases seen with, with female killers involving poison and poison

is a hard way to, to kill a lot of people with. Like you have to, unless you're in a position in food service or something like that, in which case, you know, it's hard to kill a lot of people poisoning them. One of my favorite movie tropes, there was this movie called, I like the Black Widow trope. I like this woman and she kills the guy and then she moves on to the next one. But there's this movie called Black Widow with Teresa Russell and Deborah Winger where she was on like her fourth husband. Now you'd probably be able to figure out right away she was the Black Widow because we have the internet and you just Google some stuff. But back then you couldn't. you know, the woman that she might actually have the dark side and she might've done this before and she might be finding these certain types. That's a good idea for a series.

But I would think that, well, I mean, okay, so Killing Eve, what's the premise of that? That's somebody who- Well, she's like a killer hit man, I thought. Yeah, she's a hit man. Black Widow would be a good Netflix series. Shit, I just gave away another idea. Every episode, she just gets married again. Black Widow would be a good Netflix series shit I just gave away another idea or I don't know

could that be perceived as sort of misogynistic because you're suggesting that the nature of of like there's something I wonder if there would be some hesitance

you think it would be some controversy that's good for my show well I suppose, sure. This is a topic we want to talk about when art becomes controversial because I think both of us are uncomfortable with even something like Green Book, which people...

I hear all the points, but people are so upset about the dramatization of this person's, all movies are dramatizations, you know? And it's like, at some point we're going to hit a weird place with art where if everything doesn't go perfectly in the way that this, these different demographics want it to go,

then the art's going to be rejected. And I know, I think art's supposed to like make us think and make us well okay but that i i think this is something i don't know if this is something that's changing and it will and it will continually be this way or if we're just going through a period i think that the idea that art is supposed to make us think where now there is uh maybe more emphasis on the idea that art should reflect a moral underpinning. But do you agree with that? Because I don't know if I necessarily always agree with that. In a sense, it's like agree or disagree.

It doesn't really matter. It's like the world moves the way the world moves and you can complain about it but that's just the way it is yeah now oh i just i'm hesitant to to talk because i realize that the way i grew up and the thoughts i have uh one i don't have control over like i was i grew up at a time and a place with the experience i've had i don't have control over my own thoughts. So the things that I think are right or wrong. Has shifted this decade. Well, no, no, not has shifted.

It's that I didn't really have agency over. Like a lot of the things I believe are, are just a consequence of the experiences I've had and the people I've met in the time I lived. It's not as though, you know, so, you ask me, like, is it preferable for the emphasis of art to make you think, is that preferable to the idea that art is supposed to symbolize sort of moral correctness or whatever? My answer is, yeah, but I don't know if I am a credible source because I'm speaking from my experience. My experience tells me that. really just sort of at the end of the second Bush's administration and sort of the rise of Obama that like for a lot of people,

politics became popular culture for them in a way that maybe has always existed in the past, but not so directly. That like their interest in politics and sort of, you know, political science in a way was similar to the way people would once have interest in film or television or all these things, things that had politics kind of built into them, but you could still sort of see it separately. So once people were like, well, very consciously, it's like my interest is in the, like the nature of society and the politics of society. They're going to put that into all the art they consume.

And it does become an important thing. It's like, it's the motive they're interested in art. That's I guess the change. So you think it's blended together in a way that you can't separate them in the same way anymore? Well, and I think the priority has changed.

The priority, like it was, you know, there was, say you read The Village Voice, read the film coverage in The Village Voice in the 80s and 90s, it would be like, oh, they're looking at these films and they're really talking about the politics. You know, it's like, it's kind of unique. They're not just saying the movie's entertaining or unentertaining or the performances are good or bad.

They're saying like, what does this really say about labor or capitalism? But now that's kind of all of it. Now that's the first thing people are interested in. So anytime that they're kind of like you say like consuming Green Book or whatever, the first thing that they're thinking about before they even experience the film is this understanding that the political meaning here is what's going to matter to me. And they start with that. Like, I think that that's, that is the thing that has changed. And I, and I don't necessarily think it's worse, but it's different.

And for somebody, whatever, you know, when things change like that quickly as it really has. And I think for the people who were sort of spent a long time trying to understand the world in one way. But you thought that changed from Crash. Well, I'll say this about the, I think that's about this Green Book situation. I think Crash and then to a lesser extent,

Three Billboards. I think that there are people who like, I'm not going to wait for this thing to be recognized in a way and then say, I'm not going to wait for this thing to be recognized in a way and then say, I have problems with it. They're trying to get ahead of it. And they're trying to sort of anticipate. Like with me, with Russell Westbrook's MVP in 2017, I just wanted to be on the right side of history before the voting. You know, you were still wrong about that. No, I was dead right. I'm so right. And i've thought about this well i want to tell you this okay you

know why part of the reason you were wrong okay i was right okay so in your mind i was around but when we're talking about the most valuable player yeah okay i think you still think about that as who is the most valuable player to their team. Yeah. That's what it's supposed to be. It's a league award. So it was who was most valuable to the league. And there is no question that Russell Westbrook was the most valuable extension of the NBA that season. There's no question about it.

People were more interested in what he was doing and whether or not he could achieve this goal. That's a different award. That's the who won the season award. It's the most valuable. That's the Who Owned the Season award. It's the most valuable player of the National Basketball Association. That's the award. So the award is for the league. It's who is best for the league.

He was the best for the league that year. Quickly on the art thing, because we got to go. People have always gotten pissed off about movies and pulled different things into it. I think it's just easier to mobilize people now. Like for instance, Cruising, Al Pacino, really good movie, underrated. People, you know, it's kind of slipped through the cracks. But when they were making it, it was controversial because it was basically about this gay serial killer. And then Pacino goes undercover to stop him.

And there were all these gay activists who were like, this movie's homophobic and they shouldn't be doing this. This is bad. This is going to make relations between gay people and straight people worse, all that stuff. And then the movie came out, they protested it, and then it kind of went away. I would love to know what would happen if Cruising came out in 2019 done the exact same way.

I think people would flip out in the same way, but they would mobilize in a totally different way to the point that I almost don't think they would have released the movie. I think they would mobilize in a totally different way to the point that I almost don't think they would have released the movie. I think they would have, I think they would have actually like gotten, they probably would have shelved it over dealing with just the anger toward it. If you're talking about, if cruising, the way cruising is, if there was a version of that made now.

Well, that, I mean, that would be the 2019 version of cruising. The thing is the 2019 version of cruising very possibly might be made by a gay director might star a gay star and perhaps there would be oh so you're saying they would account for all this stuff ahead of time well because and there might be an aspect to the film that was sort of like the fact that society still perceives a large chunk or some chunk actually not a a large chunk anymore, but a chunk of society still sees, you know, that is an aberrant behavior. It forces people in the situation where a serial killer can can succeed because they're they're not allowed to sort of live life the way a normal person is. And that change, like you maybe you'd make all these changes.

The cruising is a totally different movie. There's no way that the way the movie was then. 1980 cruising. Yeah. Or even like, okay, so when basic instinct came out, you know,

that was a real controversial film. Yeah. You're right. Do you remember what was controversial about it? That she was bisexual, right? Not just that she was bisexual, but that her girlfriend was a murderer was like, you know, and that she was bisexual, but that her girlfriend was a murderer.

And that she was a murderer. And that somehow everybody in that film who seems to suggest that they are lesbian or bisexual is a murderer. And they're like, people are going to watch this movie and think that that's part of gay culture or whatever. What should have been controversial was Michael Douglas' balls. When they did the wide shot of him walking to the bathroom and his balls are swinging like a grandfather clock.

It's like, I don't need this on my 50-foot screen. Keep Michael Douglas' balls away from my eyeballs. That should have been the controversy check. That's, you know, that's, you know,

it's an interesting movie to watch again. Like if, because I don't think people do. I don't think people, they're like, oh, let's check out Basic Instinct. But, you know, it's got- It's a, movie to watch again. Like if, cause I don't think people do. I don't think people, they're like, oh, let's check out basic instinct,

but you know, it's got. It's a, that movie is amazing. That's a borderline rewatchables. Oh, it seems like I would be right. It's amazing.

Cause she's amazing in it. She is. She is out of control. Just awesome. And then there's just like, you know, it's, it's just the very premise.

Like would someone committing murders, write a book about committing murders there's just like, you know, it's, it's just the very premise. Like would someone committing murders write a book about committing murders? Yeah. Like, you know, it's like this question and Joe Esterhouse wrote it. And like now, you know, he's one of these people who everything he wrote, whether it's this or show girls or whatever, he really did figure out a way to have it both ways. Which is like, I'm presenting this incredibly salacious thing okay this sort of salacious almost like um you know uh like like anybody who sees this is going to be sort of jarred by the content regardless of how much they think the movie is good or bad and And then as time passes,

I'll just say it was irony. Cause that's what happens with all those movies. Now all his movies end up having like a, like a longer lifespan because he sort of changes the meaning of what the meaning, what the movie is, you know? All right.

We, we covered everything except I want you to see high flying bird. Cause I think you'll be fascinated by a movie that ends with Harry Edwards. I'll just leave you with that. Oh, really? Yeah. He's in the final. Harry Edwards has a cameo in it.

I also, I just want to say that you should watch the Amazon Prime show, Patriot. It's the best show I've seen in a very long time. You told me to watch the Lewinsky-Clinton thing. Oh, sure. Yeah. You watched that? Oh, I plowed through it. That thing was great. Yeah. Was, I mean, Lewinsky takes some liberties. She tries to make it seem like she kept a low profile, but I was on Jimmy Kimmel's show and she guest hosted with us for three days. Like she's continually made runs at trying to

stay in the public eye. It's not like she's, she's been like, oh, you know, for years I couldn't go out in public. It's like, nah, you're pretty public the whole time. That was my only quibble. I think she has leveraged the situation in a bunch of ways. Well, this is one situation where she knows she can be sympathetic if she just tells the truth. That's all she has to do.

I think she's a really good writer. I've liked the stuff I've read from her. She wrote a piece in The Guardian that was very good. Yeah, I think she's, it's like the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar when the people are like, how are you good at this? You're just a celebrity. Now you're good at writing. Kareem's stuff is really good.

I like his perspectives. Chuck, as always a pleasure. When's your book coming out? Oh, well, the book's coming out in July. And we should mention you're out here to do two different rewatchables, which we're not going to name, but Chuck's going to be in two of them.

All right. This is a pleasure. My pleasure indeed. All right. Thanks to Zip Recruiter. Thanks to Chuck Klosterman. Thanks to the New York Times Crossword. Again, if you're looking for something smart to do

while waiting for your latte, sitting on the train or snacking in the break room, play the New York Times crossword. Again, if you're looking for something smart to do while waiting for your latte, sitting on the train or snacking in the break room, play the New York Times mini crossword. The mini puzzle can be solved in about two minutes for a fun, stimulating way to spend your downtime. Challenge yourself and enjoy wordplay every day. Download the New York Times crossword app at newyorktimes.com slash mini.

And thanks so much to the Sonos Beam, the smart compact soundbar for your TV. Beam has changed the way I watch sports. I watch movies. It allows me to ask Alexa questions. It's not intrusive. It's not that big. You can find out all this stuff.

All you have to do is go to Sonos.com to learn more and order your Beam today. S-O-N-O-S.com. Don't forget about the rewatchables proof of life. Don't forget I'm going to be on against all odds with cousin Sal and the trifecta banging out Superbowl props. And then we'll come on fine and mine on Thursday and we'll finish the job. We're also going to talk about on Thursday, the trade value, putting up the January list and some of the guys that moved up and down on that list. So I will see you then. I don't have feelings within On the wayside I'm a bruised soul

I never was And I don't have feelings within