Bill Simmons: Good Luck With Your Life.
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
Went to read the new simmons on grantland.
Saw "Lesson No. 1: Colin Kaepernick is a man's man."
Closed the window.
Saw "Lesson No. 1: Colin Kaepernick is a man's man."
Closed the window.
Oh you missed a couple of profundities.
At one point he tries to explain his pop culture reference by explaining what "Hill Street Blues" was, and then explaining how a catch phrase to that 30 year old show is kinda-sorta applicable to today's NFL because lots of people get hurt.
At one point he tries to explain his pop culture reference by explaining what "Hill Street Blues" was, and then explaining how a catch phrase to that 30 year old show is kinda-sorta applicable to today's NFL because lots of people get hurt.
Finished listening to the 2nd Birdmester marathon podcast(s) with Jalen - yet another entertaining listen. However, the one thing I just can't get over is the number of times that Bill makes a reference to his experience playing pick-up basketball to justify an argument or draw a parallel to something happening in the NBA. He does it about 3x per podcast at this point and it's driving me fucking insane. You're absolutely right Bill, playing with Russell Westbrook is exactly like that year at Holy Cross that Hench went on a hot streak in intramurals, but refused to pass and it made you and Jack-O sad. Glad you could synthesize the Westbook-Durant dynamic for us in relatable terms. (Aside: it reminds me of the way that Doris Kearns-Goodwin goes on TV and tries to explain contemporary events with stupid historical parallels that are profoundly irrelevant. Sure, I bet if Obama speaks softly and carries a big stick like Teddy Roosevelt, it will fix HealthCare.gov.)
/end rant
/end rant
CouchsideSteve said:
Those are some of my favorite parts. The best is that Jalen just goes along with it
I don't have a problem with that, because I think part of the appeal of the NBA for anyone who has ever played basketball, even though the players are obviously worlds better in the NBA, certain on court personality types and approaches to the game show up at all levels. I've never played with anyone as good as JR Smith, but I've certainly played with the shitty pickup versions of JR Smith that inhabit every gym in America.
This week on the always excellent Hang Up and Listen podcast, Josh Levin mocks Simmons and the Playoff Gambling Manifesto.
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/hang_up_and_listen/2014/01/price_of_gold_30_for_30_hang_up_and_listen_on_the_nfl_playoffs_the_baseball.html
The Simmons takedown starts at 57:20.
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/hang_up_and_listen/2014/01/price_of_gold_30_for_30_hang_up_and_listen_on_the_nfl_playoffs_the_baseball.html
The Simmons takedown starts at 57:20.
In reading his latest mailback I thoroughly enjoyed how people made fun of his Lone Survivor blurb that made it into the movie's promotion.
I also appreciate his pointing out how absurd are the miraculous recoveries of NFL athletes while pointing out how tough of a time Lindsay Vonn had to come back from a similar injury under a more strict regime.
Taking down his playoff manifest is like shooting fish in the barrel. Is there anyone who takes this shit at face value?
I also appreciate his pointing out how absurd are the miraculous recoveries of NFL athletes while pointing out how tough of a time Lindsay Vonn had to come back from a similar injury under a more strict regime.
Taking down his playoff manifest is like shooting fish in the barrel. Is there anyone who takes this shit at face value?
Exactly. Taking down his gambling manifesto? Edgy stuff. Even Simmons, for as thin skinned as he is, has been destroying his picks for weeks now in his mailbag. Looks like someone at Slate wants to pick up some page views/listeners by taking down an easy target with a big name.Nick Kaufman said:
Stu Nahan said:
Yup, all the trappings of linkbait 101: take something that nobody is really talking about and isn't trending anywhere, bury it 57 minutes into a podcast, don't reference it in the headline, don't mention Simmons by name in the text-based recap. I'm sure he generated tens of hits by including that.
If we all agree that Simmons' gambling manifesto is utterly worthless and best read for a chuckle or an interesting tidbit here and there, what is the audience for which a takedown is aimed for?
Dan Dierdorf?
Dan Dierdorf?
People who like to laugh?
I'm pretty sure the women of OK Cupid are not generally football fans.
Just thought this was funny from his article today about Bernard Pollard:
http://grantland.com/features/the-super-bag/
http://grantland.com/features/the-super-bag/
Don't laugh, bro... I live in Indy and read that article. The power of Christ compels you... Pollard is clearly a demon. He may be the personification of 200 DEMONS.
From Bill's podcast w/Joel McHale: "Do what you're good at. Some people are good at something and then they try a whole other thing and it doesn't work out." Oh really, BOSTON Sports Guy?
Not being a hater here. I'm totally fine with him branching out to do other things that don't involve writing solely about Boston sports at the rate and quality he used to produce. But, the fact that the above sentence came out of his mouth of Bill 'One Column A Week (That's Usually Just a Mailbag Anyway)' Simmons, without a hint of self awareness or irony, hit my funny bone in a certain way.
Not being a hater here. I'm totally fine with him branching out to do other things that don't involve writing solely about Boston sports at the rate and quality he used to produce. But, the fact that the above sentence came out of his mouth of Bill 'One Column A Week (That's Usually Just a Mailbag Anyway)' Simmons, without a hint of self awareness or irony, hit my funny bone in a certain way.
The podcast with Wesley Morris about Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a perfect example of why I find him frustrating. I really would like to listen to Wesley Morris talk about PSH's career for 30 minutes, but as they go through his roles, they get sidetracked because Simmons keeps acknowledging that PSH was good in a particular movie but that he just didn't get the movie. I would listen to a lot more of this stuff if Simmons never gave his opinion on anything.
Chris Connelly is so damned good. Billy just needs to serve up some decent questions and get out of the way.
To be honest, I tuned out and paid half attention whenever BS started talking, but they went on for a few minutes about how BS didn't like The Master. Morris tried to explain why he liked it (the performances, the commentary on acting and our society's fascination with con men) but BS didn't engage. BS instead posited/acknowledged the following: (1) his dislike for the movie is attributable to his subpar intelligence (which Morris had to downplay because BS is his boss. In fact, BS was wrong, it's not his intelligence, its the poor taste that makes him exult in 90210 reruns) and that (2) he might like it better if he was high.
I groaned when Simmons pulled out the "So...top five blah blah blah." It's always some lazy half-assed observation and this time was no different.
Did he say PSH's legacy was tainted by dying with a needle in his arm? Because that is something Bill Simmons would say.
Did William Goldman have a strange moment on the podcast that bill covered and moved on from? I'm not sure if I missed something or if Leo dicaprio is also dead .
I loved the Goldman interview but do wish Simmons didn't do as much "movies as competition"
Goldman had some real gems
I loved the Goldman interview but do wish Simmons didn't do as much "movies as competition"
Goldman had some real gems
epraz said:
Morris has his own podcast with Alex Pappademas and they talk about Hoffman's legacy as well. It's a good listen
http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/do-you-like-prince-movies-podcast-philip-seymour-hoffman-and-woody-allen/
Does anyone in this thread LIKE Bill Simmons? Or is this strictly the "shit on Bill Simmons" thread? 
FungosWithJimy said:Does anyone in this thread LIKE Bill Simmons? Or is this strictly the "shit on Bill Simmons" thread?
I like him. I think some of the critiques of him are overblown, but I'm not going to go on forums and White Knight for Bill Simmons.
FungosWithJimy said:Does anyone in this thread LIKE Bill Simmons? Or is this strictly the "shit on Bill Simmons" thread?
I'm willing to say that I mostly enjoy his podcast (depending upon the guest). I think he's decent at asking questions and getting better at letting the guest speak. Sure, he'll say some stupid shit occasionally, and he'll try to make everything fit into some sort of larger narrative, but that is who he is. I'm not looking for or expecting deep insights from The BS Report. I know that going in. Every once in a while he'll get a guest like Al Michaels and BS will just let them tell stories, and those can be excellent.
At the end of the day, I'm looking for something tolerable to fill the silence while I'm doing something else.
I don't read his stuff anymore for all the reasons that don't need to be rehashed here. That I don't like reading him but don't mind listening to him probably has something to do with the active/passive nature of reading vs. the way I listen to podcasts.
To be honest, I don't like his public persona. I don't know him of course and one of the elements of fame is that thousands of total strangers get to express strong opinions of you as a person without actually knowing you. We critique the public image, which I don't doubt is a pale imitation of the real thing.FungosWithJimy said:Does anyone in this thread LIKE Bill Simmons? Or is this strictly the "shit on Bill Simmons" thread?
That said, I think that for a person with his power and in his position he lacks a lot of things: gravitas, for one. This is probably an antiquated virtue that is absurd to employ in this context. But I think when he treads on ground that requires a little reflection beyond the fratboy sensibility that, as I say above in the thread, he's cultivated throughout his career, he reveals himself to be a callow young lad, which is no longer funny when you're 44.
He's very thin skinned, too, a fact that has been amply demonstrated on this site, on local radio, and on the national stage with his spats with Doc Rivers among others.
His writing is no longer good. As is the case with Peter King, he needs an editor to reign him in but he's become too important to have one and his writing isn't important enough to merit one. He has carte blanche at Grantland and there's no one around him to tell him when his writing sucks. This is a formula for laziness and self-indulgence.
He's not stupid. He got out in front of the recent disaster of the horrific piece on the transsexual golf inventor and nipped the professional consequences for him and his online mag in the bud. Perhaps he learned from the episode and it will give him an opportunity to grow up.
When Bill has a good podcast or column, we say so here. His podcasts are generally quite good. His columns are generally useless.
In the last 5 years or so I think we really gushed over two of his columns. One was a pledge after attending the Sloan Conference to write more intelligently about baseball (and sports in general) using advanced stats in a more analytical way. Of course, not only did he not do that, he essentially punted writing about baseball entirely. The other column we liked was his PEDs rant where he resolved to write more openly about sports topics that he really wanted to get out of his system. And of course he literally never wrote another column like that again. Those are two examples of why his writing reviews have been mostly negative here. His podcast and NBA writing are worthy of attention. His other writing, which is now essentially just mailbags, are getting the reaction they deserve.
In the last 5 years or so I think we really gushed over two of his columns. One was a pledge after attending the Sloan Conference to write more intelligently about baseball (and sports in general) using advanced stats in a more analytical way. Of course, not only did he not do that, he essentially punted writing about baseball entirely. The other column we liked was his PEDs rant where he resolved to write more openly about sports topics that he really wanted to get out of his system. And of course he literally never wrote another column like that again. Those are two examples of why his writing reviews have been mostly negative here. His podcast and NBA writing are worthy of attention. His other writing, which is now essentially just mailbags, are getting the reaction they deserve.
Bill Simmons the basketball historian/fan is great. He also gets great guests on his podcasts and generally does a good job.FungosWithJimy said:Does anyone in this thread LIKE Bill Simmons? Or is this strictly the "shit on Bill Simmons" thread?
I end up enjoying all his NBA columns and about 1 out of every 10 non NBA columns.
FungosWithJimy said:Does anyone in this thread LIKE Bill Simmons? Or is this strictly the "shit on Bill Simmons" thread?
[SIZE=10pt]It’s like when you ‘discover’ a groundbreaking musical artist or band before they become popular. Their sound is like nothing you had really heard before. The band is brash and unapologetic – their lead singer calls out aging rockers who have coasted for years on reputation and suggests that great rock and roll artists probably have a ten-year shelf life before they should just hang it up. It’s tremendous fun to be a fan as everyone else catches on to what you’ve been seeing all along and their popularity skyrockets. They keep it going at first but then something changes – their music starts to feel safe, designed to appeal to their new base and get radio airtime instead of pushing boundaries like they once did. They do use their influence in new and interesting ways (starting a new label to promote other artists who may be overlooked), but their own music becomes nothing special. At some point, you realize it’s fifteen years on and not only have they not ‘hung it up’ after ten years, but they’ve become the exact type of group they used to rail against and make fun of. The lead singer who was once so full of piss and vinegar now enjoys being a member of the club too much to ever rock the boat again.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]That’s what it feels like for some of us who have been following Bill since the Digital City days. [/SIZE]
Dalton Jones said:
This sums it up perfectly for me. Callow, thin-skinned frat-boy lacking gravtitas. But also, we don't know anything about him "for real". And his own work is occasionally entertaining or informative, but less and less so.
I also understand that I just may not be his target audience (I'm about 10 years older than he is). So it goes.
Mike Gorman said Simmons is going to be the analyst when the Celts play the Lakers in a few weeks.
I like Simmons, but still think much of the criticism he gets is fairly deserved. I like him because I was in high school when he started writing for Page 2, and at the time, no one else was doing what he was. He was a touchstone for most of the conversations my friends and I had about sports - from the Brady/Bledsoe controversy to Antoine Walker's game to Pedro and Nomar. I thought he had a unique ability to put the Boston fan's perspective into words. I actually remember a time when I looked forward to what Simmons might say about a particular topic. That seems entirely foreign to me now; I think that's partly due to how I've changed over the years, but it's also partly because Simmons' writing has gotten worse, especially on baseball. He was never an analyst, but I think he's now lost touch entirely with most Red Sox fans. I really think he lost interest after they won the Series in '04. He liked the narrative of being a Sox fan more than he ever liked baseball.
I like Simmons for light reading and laughing at bad jokes. I never go into one of his columns expecting serious, deep analysis. If I did so, then I would consider him abysmal. OTOH, I should note, that serious analysis shouldn't be the end all and be all of sports coverage. Most of us follow sports to kill boredom or unwind from other things. Deep analysis is excellent at elucidating winning strategies and such, but often times it's a hard slog to go through. Some of the new statistic oriented stuff feel like reading an academic journal, mostly because it is academic journal stuff. That, truth revealing as it may be also partially defeats the whole sports endeavor as a way to have fun and unwind.
Like others, I ve been reading him since his Digital Cities days. I think he had a fresh point of view, but what he mainly brought to the table - and you can call this either an innovation or being at the forefront of a wave- was what I would call conversational journalism. With conversational journalism you didn't read articles by an authority figure at the top telling you what has happening in an impersonal manner, but by a figure who wrote personally to you as a friend while interweaving substance with off the cuff humors and personal texture. Think of his NBA draft columns. He didn't write a dry article about the draft like major organizations do, but he wrote from his couch watching the draft along with his dad as it happened.
That was widely different from the pre-internet days. The blogs came and virtually everyone seemed to do it. Nowadays Peter King does it (although he was also at the forefront of this trend) and people get apeshit about it.
I do agree there's a certain callowness about the man -and although I don't think his public persona is all different than his private persona, it doesn't rub me the wrong way.
So anyway. Bill Simmons is a mature brand now and his take isn't fresh and he doesn't have to offer any new innovation. But when his career is over he would have Grantland, 30 for 30 and being at the forefront of a new wave in journalism on his resume. That's not a bad record to have on your deathbed.
Like others, I ve been reading him since his Digital Cities days. I think he had a fresh point of view, but what he mainly brought to the table - and you can call this either an innovation or being at the forefront of a wave- was what I would call conversational journalism. With conversational journalism you didn't read articles by an authority figure at the top telling you what has happening in an impersonal manner, but by a figure who wrote personally to you as a friend while interweaving substance with off the cuff humors and personal texture. Think of his NBA draft columns. He didn't write a dry article about the draft like major organizations do, but he wrote from his couch watching the draft along with his dad as it happened.
That was widely different from the pre-internet days. The blogs came and virtually everyone seemed to do it. Nowadays Peter King does it (although he was also at the forefront of this trend) and people get apeshit about it.
I do agree there's a certain callowness about the man -and although I don't think his public persona is all different than his private persona, it doesn't rub me the wrong way.
So anyway. Bill Simmons is a mature brand now and his take isn't fresh and he doesn't have to offer any new innovation. But when his career is over he would have Grantland, 30 for 30 and being at the forefront of a new wave in journalism on his resume. That's not a bad record to have on your deathbed.
I started reading Simmons in college. It was awesome. A lot of the vitriol directed at older, "the way it should be", sportswriters, and lazy ones that have their column pre-written save for some pre-marked blanks for player names and scores before games appealed to me. I hated many sports writers in the early 2000s.The ones I did enjoy (Bob Ryan in particular) only made me angrier at those that sucked. So Simmons was a voice working against that condescension in the writing, and he played into my college age sense of humor pretty well.
But over the years, I think I've gone through a familiar arc for anyone who reads Simmons for an extended period of time. You mature, and you kind of like maturing along with your writers. Those writers you used to rail against for pre-writing columns? Well, you begin to realize that just because there are Teen Wolf references and a gambling manifesto doesn't mean columns aren't mailed in just as often. And even worse, at least there are deadlines for the newspaper guys. The moment I remember actually giving up on Simmons was a few years ago. I was excited for a potential Celtics playoff run that season, and wanted his opinion as a basketball guy. But he didn't write about the season in the pre-season. Then, a couple of weeks in, we get his, and I shit you not, "Western Conference Retro-preview" for the season, like his retro diaries. Then he just never wrote anything about the Eastern Conference.
But really, I think the biggest problem is that he paved the road for his own superiors to come. And I realized that there is a middle ground. Keith Law can be bitingly sarcastic and give good insight. Joe Posnanski can be creative and heartfelt and tell the best stories. The internet has given a voice to everyone, and Bill Simmons is no longer "that writer who I most empathize with". I can find writers who write exactly what I'm looking for. I don't really have to settle anymore.
So I still check in every so often, but I no longer really make the effort to read his columns. I can't remember the last one I did. I used to still really enjoy his podcasts, but last year I got laid off of work and found a job with almost no commute, so I don't get through those very often anymore. Now? I just check here to see if there's anything worth mentioning.
But over the years, I think I've gone through a familiar arc for anyone who reads Simmons for an extended period of time. You mature, and you kind of like maturing along with your writers. Those writers you used to rail against for pre-writing columns? Well, you begin to realize that just because there are Teen Wolf references and a gambling manifesto doesn't mean columns aren't mailed in just as often. And even worse, at least there are deadlines for the newspaper guys. The moment I remember actually giving up on Simmons was a few years ago. I was excited for a potential Celtics playoff run that season, and wanted his opinion as a basketball guy. But he didn't write about the season in the pre-season. Then, a couple of weeks in, we get his, and I shit you not, "Western Conference Retro-preview" for the season, like his retro diaries. Then he just never wrote anything about the Eastern Conference.
But really, I think the biggest problem is that he paved the road for his own superiors to come. And I realized that there is a middle ground. Keith Law can be bitingly sarcastic and give good insight. Joe Posnanski can be creative and heartfelt and tell the best stories. The internet has given a voice to everyone, and Bill Simmons is no longer "that writer who I most empathize with". I can find writers who write exactly what I'm looking for. I don't really have to settle anymore.
So I still check in every so often, but I no longer really make the effort to read his columns. I can't remember the last one I did. I used to still really enjoy his podcasts, but last year I got laid off of work and found a job with almost no commute, so I don't get through those very often anymore. Now? I just check here to see if there's anything worth mentioning.
PBD, that was really eloquent and expresses a lot of my frustrations* with Simmons too.
*Frustrations may be too strong of a word, I simply don't read him anymore. Or if I do, 90% of the time, I'm skimming.
*Frustrations may be too strong of a word, I simply don't read him anymore. Or if I do, 90% of the time, I'm skimming.