Simmons has been chirping at Collinsworth on his podcast since deflategate, probably that combined with tweeting about something player evaluation related got under his skin.
The Bill Simmons Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
Shit, you're right. But I looked it up, and Magic was on until September. So he had to have made something like 50 episodes. He blew Simmons away. No contest.
Is a 30 minute per week show on HBO really in the same category as a 4-5 night per week hour long talk show like Magic, Sajak and Chase hosted?
Hope with the show being cancelled he amps up the podcasts again. Guests other than Cousin Sal, Lombardi, House and Jack-O would be cool. I love all four of those guys, but some of Simmons' best podcasts are with other guest like Chris Sacco, Al Michaels, the dude from LA Olympics 2024, the Ticketmaster guy, etc. Excited for Collinsworth.
If only instead of cancelling the show HBO replaced him as the host with someone else. Then we could've seen The Ewing Theory come to life!
Laughing out loud at this. And Cousin Sal is the obvious answer. No one believed in him.
I've copied, pasted and texted this to some friends (gave credit to "poster on a Red Sox site I'm often on). Excellent job. Hysterical.
Well after being on this site for 15 years I finally made a contribution. My work here is done.
The Collinsworth and Micah Peters podcast was really enjoyable. Peters was especially great, I hope he's back soon.
Thinking about the cancellation more - was Bill just caught between regimes at HBO? I don't see why they'd pull the plug so quickly on someone whose brand they're linked to and who they have a continuing contractual relationship with. It's not like the show could've been expensive to produce unless he was talking basketball with dire wolves and dragons. What do they gain or save by running a movie tonight at the expense of embarrassing someone brought in to have a wide flung and continuing relationship with the network?
From what I've read, the new HBO president isn't a guy who fucks around; if the show stinks or doesn't have an audience, it's gone. It doesn't seem to matter who's producing it or who's starring in it. Look at Vinyl. Mick Jagger and Martin Scorsese are way bigger names than Simmons and the show was booted. Plus, it's not like people are blind; reporters can see the numbers. If the show was plummeting next year, his name and brand would take an even bigger hit.
Honestly, I'm not sure what good Simmons is to HBO. His show tanked and he's getting a fraction of the audience at the Ringer than he did at Grantland (and he's written, what, two columns for his own site?). I suppose he's going to produce sports documentaries for the channel. But I'd argue that HBO sports docs were fine without Simmons.
Honestly, I'm not sure what good Simmons is to HBO. His show tanked and he's getting a fraction of the audience at the Ringer than he did at Grantland (and he's written, what, two columns for his own site?). I suppose he's going to produce sports documentaries for the channel. But I'd argue that HBO sports docs were fine without Simmons.
Maybe they just thought, "this guy does not work" in this format, didn't see any way he would, and decided not to harm the "brand" further.
I wonder how much Collinsworth's involvement with HBO was a precursor to that tweet, the subsequent deletion, and his decision to be on Simmons' podcast.
Some are looking at the events as a sign that they are actually quite friendly. I wonder if its the opposite; that Collinsworth, a long-time HBO guy who's shaking his head at the Simmons hire, was asked by the network to cool it and help Simmons out by being on his podcast to A) mend fences; and B) do some cross-promotion of HBO projects (which Simmons desperately needs).
Some are looking at the events as a sign that they are actually quite friendly. I wonder if its the opposite; that Collinsworth, a long-time HBO guy who's shaking his head at the Simmons hire, was asked by the network to cool it and help Simmons out by being on his podcast to A) mend fences; and B) do some cross-promotion of HBO projects (which Simmons desperately needs).
Simmons may have marketing value but I'm not sure that he's all that valuable to the actual production of sports documentaries--I'm sure he's great at spitballing ideas for cool stories (hey remember when a bunch of NFL guys started bobsledding? Wasn't there an american sumo champion? who's the first american in the EPL?--there are three decent ideas in the making) and he's had success promoting them but actually making a film seems like a lot of work that other people handled.
Listening to that podcast, I didn't get the feeling they were anything but friends who had a Twitter joke get away from. Granted, Collinsworth could have just been acting but that would be an Oscar worthy performance. Their relationship seemed genuine and Collinsworth listened to Simmons and answered all the questions without edge.
Yes, Inside the NFL has been on Showtime for 8 years now, so Collinsworth hasn't been on HBO for almost a decade. I doubt that had anything to do with it, although I did have to check. I thought he might still be doing stuff for Real Sports, but it turns out I must have been remembering older stuff he did for them.
Inside the NFL has been on Showtime since 2008 but Collinsworth left in 2014. Per a cursory Google, he doesn't seem to have any other affiliation with either HBO or Showtime.
Anecdotal observation. I follow theringer on one of the twitter lists I have and after that site traffic article went up I've noticed just how much what they're producing falls into three categories that don't draw me to click at all.
1) NBA Daily observation- I like the NBA. But to draw conclusions etc from a day of games is foolish or obvious. For example I liked Oconnor in the other places he wrote but there's no incentive for me to click on an article proving " Live and die by the jump shot". When Simmons or Lowe would post about NBA on grantland the scope and source material would be far more compelling.
2) Niche/Tech observations- This is a tough one. I just feel like the few that I have read have been like well written ads. An easy pass to be honest
3) Music/Pop Culture/Video games- Honestly I don't know who the audience is for the theories they use for their headlines. The Ryans connection or Roy Hibbert's drop shot in COD ? Anna Kendrick's likability sounds like a mildly intriguing idea but I don't necessarily want to read a well developed theory on it.
For someone who would often peruse and read articles on Grantland the three factors add up to a huge problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. One way to do it would be for Simmons to actually produce some written work but I don't think he wants to at all.
1) NBA Daily observation- I like the NBA. But to draw conclusions etc from a day of games is foolish or obvious. For example I liked Oconnor in the other places he wrote but there's no incentive for me to click on an article proving " Live and die by the jump shot". When Simmons or Lowe would post about NBA on grantland the scope and source material would be far more compelling.
2) Niche/Tech observations- This is a tough one. I just feel like the few that I have read have been like well written ads. An easy pass to be honest
3) Music/Pop Culture/Video games- Honestly I don't know who the audience is for the theories they use for their headlines. The Ryans connection or Roy Hibbert's drop shot in COD ? Anna Kendrick's likability sounds like a mildly intriguing idea but I don't necessarily want to read a well developed theory on it.
For someone who would often peruse and read articles on Grantland the three factors add up to a huge problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. One way to do it would be for Simmons to actually produce some written work but I don't think he wants to at all.
I liked the column about Hibbert and CoD. Then again, I pretty much like almost every Concepcion writes.
Yeah - that's related to my weird takeaway from the Ringer: I follow the authors I already followed, and generally get linked to them through Twitter rather than the site proper. So I wind up reading Serrano, Concepcion, Lindbergh and (I guess) Titus pretty much religiously, but almost never make contact with their front page or any other writing. I'm pretty sure I'm exactly the target audience, so that seems like a massive failing.
Thread title really should be updated using the Collinsworth Tweet.
Bill Simmons, Gently Breaking Down.
Bill Simmons, Hit Show, Great Job.
Bill Simmons, Gently Breaking Down.
Bill Simmons, Hit Show, Great Job.
my issue with The Ringer is that a lot of the writing assumes the reader is a beginner in a topic. For example, Jazayerli's analytics war piece contains a lot of explanatory content https://theringer.com/2016-world-series-chicago-cubs-theo-epstein-analytics-war-9f1248c44eb7#.jgm6xx6f0
I would categorize a lot of the tech "deep dives" with the same issue
perhaps Grantland pieces uncovered a lot of topics that were not mainstream, but I always felt like the writing and analysis went deeper than the intro/fluffly stuff now
I would categorize a lot of the tech "deep dives" with the same issue
perhaps Grantland pieces uncovered a lot of topics that were not mainstream, but I always felt like the writing and analysis went deeper than the intro/fluffly stuff now
Yeah, the tech coverage has been pretty goddamn terrible. I can't even pick out one name to isolate the blame.
The tech and video games stuff are bad enough that not reading them wasn't enough--I literally just unsubscribed from the Channel 33 feed after seeing that last puff piece about "e-sports" and the related wank. Not enough time in the day to roll my eyes at them.
The NBA Power Rankings popped up on my Twitter feed and I decided to give it a read. And it was mostly pretty good, but this was written by an adult that is considered an NBA Expert:
Come on, man. A reverse jinx? Were your shoelaces crossed too, because that doesn't count, you know! It's hard to read Simmons after he writes shit like this because you start wondering: a. does he really fucking believe in reverse jinxes or b. if this is schtick, are you so thin-skinned that you can't ever admit that you're wrong? It taints the rest of the piece. Badly.
And that is my main problem with Simmons the writer, he hasn't grown one iota since he was banging out columns at Digital City. This is the type of crap that a 28-year-old kid writes. I don't know whether this is a loose transcript of his ranking podcast and he added more to this on that, but man, this just reads dumb.
BTW, why would you reverse jinx the Heat? Wade, James and Bosh are gone. I guess if you really hate Pat Riley (probably the answer) then you would, but then you give him the potential for a high lottery pick.
Emphasis mine.
Come on, man. A reverse jinx? Were your shoelaces crossed too, because that doesn't count, you know! It's hard to read Simmons after he writes shit like this because you start wondering: a. does he really fucking believe in reverse jinxes or b. if this is schtick, are you so thin-skinned that you can't ever admit that you're wrong? It taints the rest of the piece. Badly.
And that is my main problem with Simmons the writer, he hasn't grown one iota since he was banging out columns at Digital City. This is the type of crap that a 28-year-old kid writes. I don't know whether this is a loose transcript of his ranking podcast and he added more to this on that, but man, this just reads dumb.
BTW, why would you reverse jinx the Heat? Wade, James and Bosh are gone. I guess if you really hate Pat Riley (probably the answer) then you would, but then you give him the potential for a high lottery pick.
This I agree with 100%. I still listen to most of his podcasts but since the show started and his guests have been less varied (hopefully that changes), I've realized he has like 5 talking points he's had for 15 years. When he has interesting guests on they get masked but when he's only recapping the week or guessing lines it becomes very obvious. I realize I listen similar to the way I watch Seinfeld reruns where it's on in the background while I do 100 other things and it's enjoyable but I'm not really paying attention.
I also listen to Pardon My Take and they do weekly picks and every so often they'll break into a Simmons impression where one of the guys goes "It feels like one of those weeks where this happens and you have to think, you know, has Vegas figured it out or is it gonna get wonky" and it's really funny to listen to. But it's made large chunks of the Simmons podcasts unlistenable because he is an exact copy of the parody and it's all complete bullshit. He's no better than the millions of other amateur gamblers out there and doesn't have anything figured out. I wish he'd just drop all that stupid crap and come up with something new.
I don't gamble (partly because it's not my thing, but mostly because I'm a cheapskate) but the two "gambling" columns I used to read on the reg were Norman Chad's Friday column and Simmons. I hate to say this, but despite the same warmed-over dad jokes, Chad's was a consistently better read than Simmons' pieces. And that's mainly because Chad knew that no one could figure out the NFL and sports gambling as a whole, so the whole thing was a goof. Simmons really seems to think that there's some algorithm out there that only he can find and is constantly tinkering with his formula.
Of course, he's the only person that doesn't know his "formula" is 1000% bullshit. So he's always coming up with "reasons" why Team X lost to Team Y even though Simmons was positive that Team X was going to win big.
It's a very strange tick of his that he simply can't lose.
Of course, he's the only person that doesn't know his "formula" is 1000% bullshit. So he's always coming up with "reasons" why Team X lost to Team Y even though Simmons was positive that Team X was going to win big.
It's a very strange tick of his that he simply can't lose.
Your average 28 year old sportswriter has largely outgrown that stuff, because a dude born in 1988 who writes about sports for a living has probably bought whatever John Hollinger/Jonah Keri/Aaron Schatz/Gabe Desjardins is selling. It's downright weird whenever I read a piece by someone my age or younger who spouts empty platitudes about clutchiness or body language.
Yeah, Simmons has had three of those guys on his podcast, but he's totally willing to discard what they're saying if he wants to push intangibles to the front.
You're right about that, I'm showing my age.
What I meant to say is that this is the type of stuff Simmons was writing at 28, rather than some random 28-year-old today. My greater point, and one that I should have fleshed out a bit more, was that in his late 20s, Simmons (as a lot of us are) was still proving himself and if he made a mistake it wasn't because he was wrong, but because some force in the universe was conspiring against him. (And honestly, we've all been there. I've seen some of the stuff I've written here and elsewhere when I was young and I want to stick my head in a bucket. It's embarrassing.)
But Simmons should be beyond that now. He's a guy that's achieved a lot of good things and is recognized as a leader in his field and an expert on hoops. Most sportswriters apologize. Bob Ryan does it. Peter Gammons does it. Hell, Dan Shaughnessy does it. So Simmons doesn't need to resort to "reverse jinxes" and stuff like that. He can say, "Man, I thought that the Heat would be pretty good. Pat Riley teams are usually ready to play, but so far they've sucked this year. I didn't see that coming!" and I don't think that anyone would bat an eye. But when you write, "I was reverse jinxing them! LOL!" it comes of as if you're that 28-year-old kid who can never be wrong.
That's not a good look.
I hope he never changes, I accept him as he is. Better his current act than Keith Olbermann doing a wanna be Tom Snyder impersonation. Better than writing some goofy books like Mitch Albom did (the Morrie one was ok).
Really? You want to read the same warmed-over stuff week after week after week?
Whatever you think about Olbermann (whom I like a lot) or Albom (whom I think succcccccckkkkkkkkssss) at least they broadened their horizons a bit. In 20 years, Simmons is going to be pushing 70. Do you still want to read about "reverse jinxes" and his hackneyed reasons (Tom Brady III looked at Paris Hilton Jr. Jr. far too long in warmups--dead giveaway right there, guys!) why the Las Vegas Patriots were beaten by the Trumpton Redskins in Galactic Bowl IV.
He said he was reverse jinxing them on the podcast where he made the pick, he is just having fun. He talks about being wrong but he does have heavy confirmation bias, that's true, I just don't think it is a fatal flaw. How much does he have to talk about being wrong about his Detroit Lions to not make the playoff pick, his Hillary bet, or all of his other losers. He talks about them a lot.You're right about that, I'm showing my age.
What I meant to say is that this is the type of stuff Simmons was writing at 28, rather than some random 28-year-old today. My greater point, and one that I should have fleshed out a bit more, was that in his late 20s, Simmons (as a lot of us are) was still proving himself and if he made a mistake it wasn't because he was wrong, but because some force in the universe was conspiring against him. (And honestly, we've all been there. I've seen some of the stuff I've written here and elsewhere when I was young and I want to stick my head in a bucket. It's embarrassing.)
But Simmons should be beyond that now. He's a guy that's achieved a lot of good things and is recognized as a leader in his field and an expert on hoops. Most sportswriters apologize. Bob Ryan does it. Peter Gammons does it. Hell, Dan Shaughnessy does it. So Simmons doesn't need to resort to "reverse jinxes" and stuff like that. He can say, "Man, I thought that the Heat would be pretty good. Pat Riley teams are usually ready to play, but so far they've sucked this year. I didn't see that coming!" and I don't think that anyone would bat an eye. But when you write, "I was reverse jinxing them! LOL!" it comes of as if you're that 28-year-old kid who can never be wrong.
That's not a good look.
I don't read much of his stuff, I listen to it and maybe in print it has a totally different vibe.
Sure, but I still listen to old George Carlin albums, so what the fuck do I know.
I'd give Simmons a pass for having fun if he ever really held his hand up and said I'm wrong.
I'm now approaching the age Simmons was when I first discovered him, and it's really liberating to admit you're wrong a lot of the time. And I'm still an arrogant prick a lot of the time.
It's entirely possible, maybe even probable, that this is all just bantz for him and how he fills the minutes with Cousin Sal. But we kinda know first-hand that he's not much for growth.
I'm now approaching the age Simmons was when I first discovered him, and it's really liberating to admit you're wrong a lot of the time. And I'm still an arrogant prick a lot of the time.
It's entirely possible, maybe even probable, that this is all just bantz for him and how he fills the minutes with Cousin Sal. But we kinda know first-hand that he's not much for growth.
Sorry for providing context of your criticism of his written word. Unless you speak in proper sentences in your everyday life. In which case, kudos.
Why are you presuming I was being a smartass? What sort of mea culpa would have been acceptable to you?
Show me one or two of yours where you've been wrong, so I can know the kind of grace I should exhibit.
I always picture Simmons gambling as a cross between that movie Pi and my girlfriend playing blackjack for the first time upset at me I wouldn't let her hit on 17 when the next player drew a four because she just sensed a four was coming and thinking about it at the end of the night, if she just trusted her gut she would've won every hand.
Not that this means anything, but a major Simmons pet peeve of mine is the way he uses completely arbitrary numbers to bolster his analysis. "Only 12 guys in the league matter and you can't win a title without one of them," "he's a top 18 player," "they'll win 17-23 games." Listening to his NBA pod yesterday, it was tough to take his analysis seriously when half the time he's throwing shit out there thinking it's some profound piece of insight.
I was excited to listen to what Kevin O'Connor had to say. Unfortunately BS talked over his guest and had a preset list of points he wanted to hit and rushed on to the next team without letting KO chime in almost every time. Realize that's a BS tendency at times but that one seemed particularly rough. If they want to cover all 30 teams should prolly be a 2 parter.