Bill Simmons: Good Luck With Your Life.
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
Spacemans Bong said:
I think 1986 puts that to theory to the test. Maybe you can't call it a bad year, but .....
January 1986-Patriots lose SB in embarrassing fashion, cocaine scandal story breaks the next day
April 1986-Bruins swept out of playoffs 3-0 by Canadiens
June 1986-Celtics win NBA title (yeah)
June 1986-Len Bias dies (not yeah)
Fall 1986-Bill Walton reinjures foot, effectively ending his career (and later in the season, forced into too many minutes in Walton's absence, McHale breaks his foot)
October 1986-Dave Stapleton mysteriously nailed to bench, Sox lose game.
Even with the Celtics win, I think 1986 was a very tough year in Boston sports. Bias' death took the shine off of the one championship pretty quick. Plus, after 1986, no boston team won a title until
Edit: I cant remember dates.
No way. Before 2001, '86 was almost universally considered the glory days. 3 out of 4 teams played for a championship and one of them won! Rough year?
Exactly. The '86 Celtics were one of the best NBA teams ever. Boston fans got to spend a season watching that team dominate the NBA, and then to pile on top got to watch dramatic, improbable Championship runs by the Red Sox AND Patriots? Some crappy things happened that year, but I think this just illustrates how skewed our perspective is.Hendu for Kutch said:
A friend is a die hard Kansas City sports fan. When the Royals beat the A's this fall, that was the first time the Royals or Chiefs had won a playoff game... since 1993. Take for example: in 2008 the Chiefs went 2-14 and the Royals went 75-87, and never reached or exceeded a .500 record after April 19th.
I was born in '83, and in '95 it felt like '86 was some mythological nirvana of Boston success, to be argued about Edward Gibbon-style for decades. If you want a year for a worst year smell test, post-'67 division, there are some real contenders in the '92-'95 range.
What irked me about the column was his whole premise about growing up arguing Wilt Vs Russell -- I'm 3 years older than Simmons and I grew up in Needham and I never argued that (those guys played in ancient history to me and my friends); and in watching the sad, injury-driven demise of Orr -- I remember Orr for sure, but with barely a recognition of the "tragedy" of his knee injuries destroying a sublime career -- and again, Simmons is 3 years younger than I.
Simmons was born in 1969; Russell retired in 1969 and Orr's career was over by 76 when he was 7. Basically he is stretching truth to make his point
Simmons was born in 1969; Russell retired in 1969 and Orr's career was over by 76 when he was 7. Basically he is stretching truth to make his point
So, Simmons, the ultimate homer for Boston/New England teams to almost everyone goes out of his way to try to come up with reasons his team could lose nearly every week because that gains him what? Everyone knows it's a shtick so what's the point?
If you think NE will blast the shit out of Indy, make the call. Instead, if that happens, we'll get some column or tweet next week about how that's what he really thought would happen, but he wasn't 100% sure Revis would completely shut Hilton down, so the backdoor cover was always possible.
If you think NE will blast the shit out of Indy, make the call. Instead, if that happens, we'll get some column or tweet next week about how that's what he really thought would happen, but he wasn't 100% sure Revis would completely shut Hilton down, so the backdoor cover was always possible.
To me, the problem isn't that Simmons's writing has gotten worse. It's that it's not only not gotten better, it hasn't changed at all. In the dozen or so years I've read his stuff, I've changed. I read through the Brady/Manning piece and, simply did not like it. Not, "it was amusing but I've seen it before."
While I dont think he's done this calculation, I think Simmons's approach is "there's a continuous supply of 25-year olds who enjoy my stuff as is, so i dont care about those who "age-out". Maybe it's calculated, maybe its just a reflection of the limitation of his writing/analytical skills. Most good writers (and all artists, probably) look back at their early stuff and while they might think its good, acknowledge their own evolution. Simmons says, "yeah, exactly the same."
While I dont think he's done this calculation, I think Simmons's approach is "there's a continuous supply of 25-year olds who enjoy my stuff as is, so i dont care about those who "age-out". Maybe it's calculated, maybe its just a reflection of the limitation of his writing/analytical skills. Most good writers (and all artists, probably) look back at their early stuff and while they might think its good, acknowledge their own evolution. Simmons says, "yeah, exactly the same."
This thread never makes any sense to me, since if all you guys do is complain about the guy, why do you continue to read him? With Bill, you know what you are going to get. If you want hard-hitting analysis or statistically driven conversation, go to Football Outsiders or another site. I don't read Simmons because I expect to greatly increase my knowledge of the upcoming games, or to make some profound statements that are based in fact, I read him because of the entertainment value, because Bill is going to be the one guy to waste words on topics like "Who will fill the NFL Pitchman void when Peyton retires" and to work in bizarre pop culture connections with sports. Some of his ideas are going to be downright stupid (can't stand the wonk team) but that is the price you pay when you read Simmons.
He has this pseudo-hate thread on here, but fwiw, I find him way, way more bearbale than others, because he doesn't have the snobbery of Shaughnessy or the lack of self-awareness of King.
He has this pseudo-hate thread on here, but fwiw, I find him way, way more bearbale than others, because he doesn't have the snobbery of Shaughnessy or the lack of self-awareness of King.
His theory that Peyton is heading to Tennessee to play one last season with the Titans is pretty astounding to me.
Does he not realize that the Tennessee Titans are the professions football team in Tennessee, and not the Volunteers? He tries to support this theory by casually floating out a tidbit at the end that Bud Adams will then be willing to give Peyton an ownership stake in the franchise, once Peyton retires. Ya know, to repay him for that one really awesome .500 season, and that huge windfall that Peyton was able to bring to the team for that one season. His other "piece of evidence" in support for this theory is the fact that Peyton's wife owns a 5% stake in the Memphis Grizzlies.
What in the actual fuck.
Does he not realize that the Tennessee Titans are the professions football team in Tennessee, and not the Volunteers? He tries to support this theory by casually floating out a tidbit at the end that Bud Adams will then be willing to give Peyton an ownership stake in the franchise, once Peyton retires. Ya know, to repay him for that one really awesome .500 season, and that huge windfall that Peyton was able to bring to the team for that one season. His other "piece of evidence" in support for this theory is the fact that Peyton's wife owns a 5% stake in the Memphis Grizzlies.
What in the actual fuck.
1993:
Kevin McHale retires (a year after Larry Bird) and Reggie Lewis dies.
Favored Bruins are swept by Sabres in the first round of the playoffs.
Sox go 80-82 under Butch Hobson, trotting out an opening day lineup of Scott Fletcher, Billy Hatcher, Mike Greenwell, Andre Dawson, Ivan Calderon, Scott Cooper, Tony Pena and Luis Rivera.
Patriots go 5-11.
Kevin McHale retires (a year after Larry Bird) and Reggie Lewis dies.
Favored Bruins are swept by Sabres in the first round of the playoffs.
Sox go 80-82 under Butch Hobson, trotting out an opening day lineup of Scott Fletcher, Billy Hatcher, Mike Greenwell, Andre Dawson, Ivan Calderon, Scott Cooper, Tony Pena and Luis Rivera.
Patriots go 5-11.
1. Because I used to love him and hope that every once and he is able to put out a vintage piece.Kliq said:
2. It is fun to complain about the guy and nitpick, also you must love the King thread.
3. He says some really stupid stuff. Assuming you are a pats fan, have you agreed to never talk about the final 99 seconds of the Ravens game?
I agree that someone universally considered to be the best hitter who ever lived (really, that's only a little bit hyperbole) should be in whatever pantheon you put together, but his lack of championships and the strong competition make it hard to make a case for him.
Who would you put him above? Russell and his two hands full of championships so you can keep Bird and have one from each sport?
Who would you put him above? Russell and his two hands full of championships so you can keep Bird and have one from each sport?
soxfan121 said:
My bad. I was assuming Bud was still the owner of the Titans. He didn't name Bud Adams specifically in the tweets, just said that the Titans would give him a stake in ownership.
I'm referring to his twitter timeline, posting from my phone at the moment so I can't link to it. But it was posted yesterday.
Granted it is on Twitter, and not a fully fleshed column. But this coming hot off the heels of his "tip" on twitter saying Mark Jackson was coming back to coaching, alluding to the Kings job, which never transpired. Regardless, that sort of prediction is reserved for "First time, long time" radio callers. Not someone who is a senior editor at a respectable website.
Barring a larger mountain, the best hitter who ever lived deserves a primo view from the pantheon next to Russell, Orr, and Brady. Larry can come over for beers.MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
Kliq said:
For better or worse, he, like King, is considered to be "an authority" on things, or someone "at the top of his profession." He, also like King, but somewhat less so, sets an agenda for what other people will be talking about. So, as someone interested in sports, I follow at some degree what the idiot-but-leaders-anyway say. One way is to actually read them. Another is to follow along here. With King I do the former. He is insufferable in the first-person, but I occasionally get something concrete out of the people he quotes. And farking him is a contribution to the community. Its been a couple of years since I've been able to get through an entire Simmons column. Obviously YMMV.
With both, though, these threads are entertaining.
More self-awareness than Peter King = world's tallest midget.
A good column that Bill will never write would be how Bill Russell gets votes, as many if not more than Larry Bird, for the Boston sports Mt. Rushmore. 20 years ago when I was a kid, Larry Bird would have been the near-unanimous choice as the Celtic representative. The debate would have been whether or not to have two Celtics, but whether we'd want to just leave off John Hannah because he was a lineman and put Yaz on along with Ted and Orr.
There seems to be several interesting reasons for this. A lot of people are a lot more cognizant about race in Boston and being a black athlete. People have realized Russell's dominance as a defender and how absurd it is for someone to have 11 championship rings (Henri Richard's the only other guy with 11, and he doesn't have an Olympic gold medal and two NCAA titles to boot). But Bird also seems to have had nowhere near the enduring status of folk hero that I thought he would have 20 years ago. Part of that is because he works for the Pacers, but even then, he's kind of fallen off the face of the Earth. With his success you'd think there would have been an enormous bandwagon for him to become Celtic GM and coach in the late 90s/early 00s, but I don't think that ever existed.
There seems to be several interesting reasons for this. A lot of people are a lot more cognizant about race in Boston and being a black athlete. People have realized Russell's dominance as a defender and how absurd it is for someone to have 11 championship rings (Henri Richard's the only other guy with 11, and he doesn't have an Olympic gold medal and two NCAA titles to boot). But Bird also seems to have had nowhere near the enduring status of folk hero that I thought he would have 20 years ago. Part of that is because he works for the Pacers, but even then, he's kind of fallen off the face of the Earth. With his success you'd think there would have been an enormous bandwagon for him to become Celtic GM and coach in the late 90s/early 00s, but I don't think that ever existed.
Richard Dietsch has updated his odds on where Simmons goes when his ESPN contract expires. Staying at ESPN still has the highest odds, with Simmons creating his own version of Glenn Beck's network at #2.
I find it very hard to believe that Yahoo! (rated the 4th most-likely destination) is going to pay him to create his own site -- Yahoo! has failed with that approach multiple times already.
I think he stays at ESPN -- he likes being at TV and I think the Glenn Beck approach would require too much work. That said, keep in mind that MLBAM is becoming a powerhouse in terms of hosting content like Beck and the WWE. I could see them being open to working with Simmons to try to build his own network.
I find it very hard to believe that Yahoo! (rated the 4th most-likely destination) is going to pay him to create his own site -- Yahoo! has failed with that approach multiple times already.
I think he stays at ESPN -- he likes being at TV and I think the Glenn Beck approach would require too much work. That said, keep in mind that MLBAM is becoming a powerhouse in terms of hosting content like Beck and the WWE. I could see them being open to working with Simmons to try to build his own network.
I don't think this is a factor at all.bosox79 said:
The thing that happened between Bird's playing days and now is that the Sox and Pats have won 6 World Championships and the Pats have a guy playing QB who is in the GOAT conversation at the most important position in team sports. Bird was my hero growing up but I was always aware of Russell and knew it was extremely unlikely any Celtic would ever surpass him in terns of legacy.
Bird has never been a serious consideration for the C's as coach or GM because he made it clear he does not want to tarnish his legacy here as a player.
In addition to Wiggum's points, I think A) Bird's prime was now 30 years ago, so there's two generations of basketball fans that grew up not ever really seeing him play; and B) Bird's era was followed up by the dominance of Jordan, which was a complete watershed for the NBA.
In short, as much as we Boston fans don't really want to admit it, the Bird era was a long time ago. Of course people are going to soften their views on him over time and as his performances get overshadowed by later stars.
In short, as much as we Boston fans don't really want to admit it, the Bird era was a long time ago. Of course people are going to soften their views on him over time and as his performances get overshadowed by later stars.
Ralphwiggum said:
He had a job in the Celtics front office, but bolted to the Pacers when the Celtics gave the GM/Coach duties to Pitino. He wanted that GM job with Celtics.
I stand corrected then. I thought I recalled an interview with him early into his retirement when he said he didn't want that because he wanted his record as a player for the Celtics to stand for itself. I knew he had a front office job but I thought it was a cushy PR type job.
The Celtics have become the established 4th team in Boston at this point. I honestly don't think their is anything lacking in Bird's legacy, considering he is the second best player for the 4th most popular franchise in the city. Non-sports fans from my millennial generation seem to know who he is.
drleather2001 said:
I don't know. Orr retired when Bird was at Indiana State and he still seems like a god in Boston. Ted's been dead for over 10 years and his legend hasn't diminished.
Bird's never going to become a footnote in history or anything like that, but when I was a kid he felt like the most popular athlete to ever play in Boston. Like I said, talk about this 20 years ago and he's the near-unanimous choice as the Celtic rep on Mt. Sportsmore, and the only thing that's happened since then is people are a little more willing to put Bill Russell's career in the context of the Civil Rights Movement.
I don't think that people are necessarily softening their views on Bird so much as we're getting a wave of neutral fans growing up and looking back. Russell has always been GREAT, but many Celtics fans had never seen him live. Bird, coming in, and what he meant to not just Boston, but in revitalizing the league with the Magic rivalry? We had a run where he and Magic were THE league. Add in that the 86 Celtics might have been the best team ever assembled and there are a lot of reasons why he's the best for Simmons and a generation, but not for the generation before or after. There's some bias to the players we see live, like how there's a generation that believes Kobe is neck and neck with Jordan for GOAT. Plus, with Garnett on the Celtics, Russell was brought back into the Boston spotlight more recently than Bird, both in comparisons and in terms of being around the team.
The proper Orr analogy wouldn't be to Bird, though, it would probably be to Wilt Chamberlain, Russell, or Jordan. Orr is in the conversation of best hockey player ever, along with Gretzky and (arguably) Lemieux.
Bird was great, and a true Boston icon, but he's on a slightly lower tier as far as how good/important he was to the game at large.
Bird was great, and a true Boston icon, but he's on a slightly lower tier as far as how good/important he was to the game at large.
drleather2001 said:
This is more likely. Basketball always seems to want to push forward, looking for the "next" MJ, the "next" Shaq, etc. So, there's always a desire to discount older players and puff up contemporaries. You don't seem to hear that as much in other sports. Nobody ever says the next Ruth or Payton. I guess Crosby got some "next" buzz but I never hear him compared to Gretzky anymore.
Anyways, the point is that basketball seems less reverent toward legacies and its past and more willing to let memories fade.
As great as Bird was, and he was great, he never surpassed Russell as a Celtic icon. Russell was Zeus and will always be Zeus.Spacemans Bong said:
Simmons is running scared from the Ballghazi story. Zero podcasts about it this week and today he releases his Trade Value (Part 1) column because it's obviously just the right time to run an evergreen. I'm guessing he doesn't want to weigh in because it'll make him look like a huge homer or an uninformed tool. Either way, he's coming up small here. Goodell levels of 'fraidy cat.
I would be so happy if he doesn't talk about it. Nothing would make me happier than him focusing on the NBA.
Haven't listened but this went up today. (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/grantland/player?id=12217953)
For what it is worth, Barnwell and Mays both said it was a non story and won't talk about again.
For what it is worth, Barnwell and Mays both said it was a non story and won't talk about again.
I listened to the convo with his dad for about 10 minutes before turning it off, just awful to listen to. Simmons speculated the NFL let this drag as a deflection from the Ray Rice incident during Super Bowl week, which makes no sense. He then argued this--ball deflation--is the first line in the Brady-Belichick "obituary" and it changes everything about Brady. The natural conclusion to the conversation is that Brady was left out to dry at the press conference on purpose indicating he might not be here next year.
No kidding. I'm as big a Simmons fanboy as there is and that podcast is absolutely fucking mind numbing. This plays into the worst of Simmons with the insane conspiracy theories he's always pimping. This whole week has been an exercise in stupidity.
Haven't gotten to it yet, but is the second half of this podcast with J-Bug any better?
Haven't gotten to it yet, but is the second half of this podcast with J-Bug any better?
Yeah, wow, I take back what I said. Maybe it's better Simmons stayed quiet on the matter. What a trainwreck of terrible opinions.
ifmanis5 said:
Totally agree. How about the nauseating bit with Simmons dad lamenting everyone at the store talking about the ball story instead of mentioning the game next Sunday? Total woe-is-me, pre-2004 Red Sox fatalist fan nonsense. Our team is still playing for the championship next week! I tuned in expecting to hear a Pats fan sacking up and recognizing the absurdity of all this.
The speculation over discord between Belichick and Brady was equally puzzling. Simmons couched it with "I'm not sure what to think at this point", but the truth is nobody has a clue what B&B discussed before their press conferences. Maybe there is discord, maybe there isn't. Assuming the worst is just as pointless as blindly believing everything is perfect between them. We don't know, and to be honest, shouldn't really care.
The other irritating bit was Simmons and Pops' criticizing Brady and the Patriots PR for not adequately preparing him w/ the media a few days ago. Isn't it possible they are focusing on Seattle instead of press approval ratings?
Anyway, I expect (err..hope?) Belichick and Brady have the thick skin and sharp focus to understand the priority is preparing for Seattle instead of winning press conferences.