The Bill Simmons Thread

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,622
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.

Really? I thought the guy was acting shy and Simmons was trying to get him to talk. I thought he was horrible and I was left yearning for the days of Jalen Rose.

That's why I think Klosterman is such a good guest, he doesn't take any shit from Simmons and it makes for good episodes.

Edit: What I mean to say is that Kev was a low energy guy
 
Last edited:

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
6,055
I don't think Simmons is meant to be taken as seriously as he is criticized. Especially his podcast. They come off more as friends shooting the shit.

The main annoying thing about Simmons NBA analysis is he is always doing 2 things 1) relating everything back to the Celtics and adding some ridiculous one sided trade 2) is constantly spouting intricate trade ideas that would never happen to show off his NBA knowledge
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
The complaints about Simmons' podcast are ridiculous. It's always entertaining and when you're shooting the shit, you're always going to say something stupid. That is just the way it is during free form talks.

But his work behind the mic(if not the TV camera) is stellar. His podcast is at the top of my listen list. But but but, he made a reverse jinx joke about Miami. What an IDIOT. So petty.
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,378
north shore, MA
I like Kevin O'Connor, but Simmons was constantly trying to set him up and O'Connor fell flat every time. Simmons would say something like "What does Team X do going forward?", or "Do you think Team Y should make a deal involving Player Z?.....and O'Connor would always respond with some variation of "Gee, I don't know Bill..." or "Yeah, that's a really hard situation". You don't need to come out with a Hot Take, but have an opinion.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
I like Kevin O'Connor, but Simmons was constantly trying to set him up and O'Connor fell flat every time. Simmons would say something like "What does Team X do going forward?", or "Do you think Team Y should make a deal involving Player Z?.....and O'Connor would always respond with some variation of "Gee, I don't know Bill..." or "Yeah, that's a really hard situation". You don't need to come out with a Hot Take, but have an opinion.
That's because Simmons makes stupid suggestions. "it's time for the Knicks to trade Carmelo," etc.
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,378
north shore, MA
That's because Simmons makes stupid suggestions. "it's time for the Knicks to trade Carmelo," etc.
I mean, I don't disagree, but that should make it even easier to have a definitive answer. Gee whiz Bill, that's a tough one! KO just came off as overly deferential to his boss, which is understandable.

Edit: ghastly typo
 
Last edited:

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
He did convince Simmons that that was a bad idea.

He also did a shitty job with the New Orleans/Orlando questions. "What trade should New Orleans make?" when New Orleans has shit for assets and there's not an obvious move out there isn't an ideal conversation starter.

Likewise, I think Simmons specific question about New Orleans/Orlando was "Shouldn't Orlando trade two guys to New Orleans for their pick?" He didn't specify which two guys.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Kevin O'Connor is fine in print but doesn't have much personality in a podcast format. He's too level-headed to be interesting. That's why Zach Lowe was so good with Simmons; he'd shoot him down and offer some insight in return.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
Kevin O'Connor is fine in print but doesn't have much personality in a podcast format. He's too level-headed to be interesting. That's why Zach Lowe was so good with Simmons; he'd shoot him down and offer some insight in return.
Kevin's background is a writer/reporter. He's a writer first who happens to cover the NBA. Zach's background is more data analyst driven who then writes about his findings. I think that's a key difference.
So, when Bill asks a silly body language question to Kevin, Kevin answers as a guy who covers the league and repeats what he hears from his sources and from the games that he's watched. Zach answers the question (after a long pause where you can hear his eyes rolling on the phone) with 'here is what the numbers actually say about that' so you get a better answer because he's solving the question from a more fact-based context.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
The complaints about Simmons' podcast are ridiculous. It's always entertaining and when you're shooting the shit, you're always going to say something stupid. That is just the way it is during free form talks.

But his work behind the mic(if not the TV camera) is stellar. His podcast is at the top of my listen list. But but but, he made a reverse jinx joke about Miami. What an IDIOT. So petty.
NASA would have to develop new ways to measure infinitesimally small periods of time – maybe even whole new maths, much like Newton did when he invented the calculus because he needed it to do his other work on physics – even to begin to hypothesize how quickly a podcast organized around Simmons's critics' suggestions would crash and burn.

The idea that he sometimes gets things wrong, or doesn't always have a scientifically accurate understanding of how the world works empirically, or is, frankly, a flawed human being? The notion that these are fatal flaws for his podcast? I mean, Jesus Christ...
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
The quality of his guests has plummeted outside the ESPN universe.
It's really glaring recently. Just looked at his archive, since Labor day, he's done 27 podcasts. 25 of them have included either Cousin Sal or Joe House. Sometimes both. I like both of them as guests, but really need some variety, and people actually working in the business if you want to go in depth on what's going on in football/basketball. Having Mike Lombardi helps for football, but it's been mostly House for hoop. Not having the ESPN folks has really hurt him. Has to be killing him to not have Zach Lowe, Marc Stein, Brian Windhorst and Chad Ford. He'd likely be having at least one of them on every week.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
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.
Simmons actually said in his podcast that if you listen to the original podcast he said he was reverse jinxing them ten minutes after making the prediction that they would be good; it wasn't just something he through in during this podcast to avoid admitting he was wrong.

Right after that he also talked about how during the draft several years back he thought Portland should have taken Austin Rivers instead of Dame and how wrong he was.
 

Morning Woodhead

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2011
967
I listened to his podcast with House on Friday. It was perfect Simmons. Him and House went 1-2 in their picks, but Simmons said "He should have gone 2-1 because he knew the Redskins were going to get a backdoor cover, and he should have bet that, and also the Vikings only missed the spread by 1/2 point", so he has a really good feel for things now.

Perfect.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,622
I listened to his podcast with House on Friday. It was perfect Simmons. Him and House went 1-2 in their picks, but Simmons said "He should have gone 2-1 because he knew the Redskins were going to get a backdoor cover, and he should have bet that, and also the Vikings only missed the spread by 1/2 point", so he has a really good feel for things now.

Perfect.

The newest podcast with Sal is great and he opens with how unbelievably wrong he was about the Seattle/Carolina game (he must lurk here). Sal makes a great nepotism joke later in the show.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
Simmons actually said in his podcast that if you listen to the original podcast he said he was reverse jinxing them ten minutes after making the prediction that they would be good; it wasn't just something he through in during this podcast to avoid admitting he was wrong.

Right after that he also talked about how during the draft several years back he thought Portland should have taken Austin Rivers instead of Dame and how wrong he was.
So wait, since he said he was reverse-jinxing the Heat in the original podcast, it makes it okay? Alright. To each his own, I suppose. But again, and I can't believe that I'm wasting any brain power on this, what's the purpose of reverse-jinxing the Heat? To piss off Pat Riley? Riley will get a top three pick if the Heat suck. James, Wade and the rest of the hatable Heat teams of five years ago are gone.

But the bottom line is the fact that Simmons claims that "I reverse-jinxed" another team is just a stupid thing for any grown man to say.
 

Three10toLeft

New Member
Oct 2, 2008
1,560
Asheville, NC
Funny enough, pertaining to the discussion about his guests on the BS Podcast since he's gone solo, I waited on BS and Gladwell recently. It seems like Gladwell is in his ear about branching out and getting more "fun" podcast guests, I mentioned to them I look forward to the "Guess The Lines" podcast every week, Gladwell said he tries to listen to it but can only get through a 20-30 minutes of it before he turns it off.
 

HoyaSoxa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2003
1,252
Needham, Mass
The Andy Cohen podcast was pretty good, despite the fact I have never watched a second of Real Housewives, in large part for the discussion about how Cohen, a behind the scenes producer with very limited experience in front of the camera, was able to transition so successfully to hosting a live talk show 5 nights a week. Simmons of course never made any comparisons to his own experience, but the subtext really smacked you in the face. Obviously Simmons and Cohen are extremely different personalities, but the stripped down, loose, fun vibe of Watch What Happens Live, produced by mutual friend Michael Davies, also may have served Simmons better than what he ended up attempting.
 
Last edited:

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
2,472
Really? The only thing I disagreed with him on was AGW succeeding as a monthly show rather than weekly. I don't think he could make that type of show work at all regardless of how often it was on. But I didn't see too much else in there where he sounds bad. Going at ESPN again? (he's not wrong about them wanting the brand over personalities)
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
Sounds like the model Bill wants/ought to pursue is chasing compelling pairs of really important personalities to interview in pairs, a la the Durant/Nas interview he mentioned. Maybe incorporating some nicely produced packages. And not to do it weekly, so it shouldn't be highly topical. That's not a half-bad idea, although I think scheduling it monthly would be death -- better to bang out a batch of 6-10 of them and then release them weekly (or all at once).

Has the importance of 30-for-30 (including repeatability), but is distinct. And added bonus of not being very expensive to produce.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I'm not going to parse everything from that interview, because there's a lot of good ideas there (Tyson week would have been awesome and AGW probably would have been pretty good as a monthly magazine, but HBO already had/has that with Real Sports).

But there are two comments where I was sort of flummoxed:

"Look at all the people that succeed in it. It’s all people who are like these characters. Even someone like Sam Bee, who I think that show’s great. She’s a performer. Or like [John] Oliver. Oliver can stare at the camera for 40 minutes and just do this thing.”


I don't think that Simmons gets it. Sam Bee and John Oliver aren't playing characters, they're playing slightly heightened versions of themselves. I mean if Bill Simmons thinks that AGW failed because he wasn't a "character", then he's wrong.

“I think isn’t that part of all this stuff? When you have some success with anything, I think, at a certain point people are like ‘fuck this guy.’ "


No. That's not really true at all.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,380
I don't think that Simmons gets it. Sam Bee and John Oliver aren't playing characters, they're playing slightly heightened versions of themselves. I mean if Bill Simmons thinks that AGW failed because he wasn't a "character", then he's wrong.
I took that to mean that he couldn't amplify himself like they do. I think he is saying the same thing you are - that they turn themselves "on" for that show and amplify who they are. He learned he couldn't do that every week, at least not like those people could. I think that bore itself out, too (from the 2 episodes I watched).

I certainly don't think he came off poorly in those quotes overall, minus a couple statements. But I didn't listen so it's tough to tell the context in the flow of conversation as well.
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
2,472
Sounds like the model Bill wants/ought to pursue is chasing compelling pairs of really important personalities to interview in pairs, a la the Durant/Nas interview he mentioned. Maybe incorporating some nicely produced packages. And not to do it weekly, so it shouldn't be highly topical. That's not a half-bad idea, although I think scheduling it monthly would be death -- better to bang out a batch of 6-10 of them and then release them weekly (or all at once).

Has the importance of 30-for-30 (including repeatability), but is distinct. And added bonus of not being very expensive to produce.
This is what I think would have worked too (I thought the interviews/discussions were the best parts of the ones I watched) but then it becomes basically a visual version of his podcast with better guests. Would people watch that? I personally would rather just have the podcast but that level of guests (Durant, Affleck) might not go on if it's just a podcast. It seems there's not a market for what he specifically wants to do and he's not good enough at TV to get broader and attract a larger audience.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I took that to mean that he couldn't amplify himself like they do. I think he is saying the same thing you are - that they turn themselves "on" for that show and amplify who they are. He learned he couldn't do that every week, at least not like those people could.
And yet, that is pretty much was HBO was selling when they promoted AGW (and probably what he and his team sold HBO in turn).
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I took that to mean that he couldn't amplify himself like they do. I think he is saying the same thing you are - that they turn themselves "on" for that show and amplify who they are. He learned he couldn't do that every week, at least not like those people could. I think that bore itself out, too (from the 2 episodes I watched).
I don't disagree with you, but whether you call it an amplification or a persona or whatever, that's something that's developed over years and years of practice in front of a live audience. Bee was a member of sketch group, Oliver was a stand-up comedian, Trevor Noah was a standup, Larry Wilmore, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, etc. All of these people cut their teeth performing in front of audience for years and cultivated that persona or amplification or "character" (which again, is not right word. John C. Reilly plays a character, Jiminy Glick was a character, The Colbert Show's Stephen Colbert was a character).

Bill Simmons was on NBA Countdown for a year or two and has a podcast, it's a totally different animal. He wasn't ready for this and I think that boils down to my ongoing problem with Simmons: he's not aware of himself. I don't know exactly what I want the guy to say, but to say "All of these guys have a character" like all Simmons had to do was jump into this character and he'd have been a success isn't true.

He wouldn't have been a success any more than you can say Skip Bayless is a "success" because he slips into a pedantic asshole character before his show begins.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I don't disagree with you, but whether you call it an amplification or a persona or whatever, that's something that's developed over years and years of practice in front of a live audience. Bee was a member of sketch group, Oliver was a stand-up comedian, Trevor Noah was a standup, Larry Wilmore, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, etc. All of these people cut their teeth performing in front of audience for years and cultivated that persona or amplification or "character" (which again, is not right word. John C. Reilly plays a character, Jiminy Glick was a character, The Colbert Show's Stephen Colbert was a character).

Bill Simmons was on NBA Countdown for a year or two and has a podcast, it's a totally different animal. He wasn't ready for this and I think that boils down to my ongoing problem with Simmons: he's not aware of himself. I don't know exactly what I want the guy to say, but to say "All of these guys have a character" like all Simmons had to do was jump into this character and he'd have been a success isn't true.

He wouldn't have been a success any more than you can say Skip Bayless is a "success" because he slips into a pedantic asshole character before his show begins.
I agree with your point about getting reps in, but let's reaffirm that you need a base of talent no matter how many free throws you shoot. Your list is particularly good here because it features a lot of people who don't necessarily have TV looks - Oliver, Letterman, Leno and others who don't have TV voices - Leno (again), Noah with his accent. Their success shows there are a lot of ways to overcome traditional deficits and still make it as a TV personality, but the one thing you seemingly can't overcome is lack of charisma, and that's where I think Bill is sunk.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I agree with your point about getting reps in, but let's reaffirm that you need a base of talent no matter how many free throws you shoot. Your list is particularly good here because it features a lot of people who don't necessarily have TV looks - Oliver, Letterman, Leno and others who don't have TV voices - Leno (again), Noah with his accent. Their success shows there are a lot of ways to overcome traditional deficits and still make it as a TV personality, but the one thing you seemingly can't overcome is lack of charisma, and that's where I think Bill is sunk.
You're right, you can't teach charisma, but you can hide it. One of the reasons why I didn't like watching AGW was because it was uncomfortable and not in a Michael Scott/Nathan Fielder way. It's apparent that Simmons was not at home in front of the camera (and I don't think he was on NBA Countdown either) but there were so many guys on the panel, it didn't really matter. But when he was front and center on his own show, it was magnified.

I think that if Simmons had some reps (and again, I'm not sure how he could do that aside from actually doing it, which would be tough because he's really famous) he or his producers could have figured something out. Simmons wasn't put in a position to succeed, but I don't think that Simmons realizes this yet. Maybe he does and just doesn't feel like talking about it but I think that in order to put this debacle behind him, he's should come clean.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
You're right, you can't teach charisma, but you can hide it. One of the reasons why I didn't like watching AGW was because it was uncomfortable and not in a Michael Scott/Nathan Fielder way. It's apparent that Simmons was not at home in front of the camera (and I don't think he was on NBA Countdown either) but there were so many guys on the panel, it didn't really matter. But when he was front and center on his own show, it was magnified.

I think that if Simmons had some reps (and again, I'm not sure how he could do that aside from actually doing it, which would be tough because he's really famous) he or his producers could have figured something out. Simmons wasn't put in a position to succeed, but I don't think that Simmons realizes this yet. Maybe he does and just doesn't feel like talking about it but I think that in order to put this debacle behind him, he's should come clean.
Watching the .75 episodes of AGW that I did, I was reminded of the Louie episodes where he's being groomed to take over for Letterman and sent off to talk show host boot camp. I wonder if such a thing exists and if Simmons went through it.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
"It's weird, ESPN is a place that they never want anybody to get their own little fiefdom of power, basically. They want the brand to win."

That's so weird how the people who run a multibillion dollar, publicly traded company prioritize the company's success over employees who want to be bigger than the brand.

Honestly I don't think Simmons sounds so bad overall in this piece. That line just played funny to me.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
"It's weird, ESPN is a place that they never want anybody to get their own little fiefdom of power, basically. They want the brand to win."

That's so weird how the people who run a multibillion dollar, publicly traded company prioritize the company's success over employees who want to be bigger than the brand.

Honestly I don't think Simmons sounds so bad overall in this piece. That line just played funny to me.
Especially since Simmons actually had just that in LA and most in Bristol were pissed at him because he had that fiefdom status. Then he comes out and complains about it. I mean, he sounds like an entitled dick there. But also, the NFL folks had way more sway than just about anyone else on campus. All you had to do was look at their catering and you knew who paid the bills. And the NFL people crushed Simmons in the end.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Bill wrote a pair of columns today that were either horrible or brilliant, maybe both.
 

Drocca

darrell foster wallace
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
17,585
Raleigh, NC
That was a great game; I'm not a Pats fan but it sure was fun to watch. The dozen or so Pats fans I watched it with seemed happy.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,458
In the latest Guess the Lines podcast, Simmons said that the 2004 Patriots had "an unsatisfying Super Bowl win, if that's even possible" against the Eagles. On behalf of fans of at least 27 or 28 other NFL franchises, I'd like to point out that no, Bill, that's not even possible.
I'd agree that it was probably the least dramatic of the 6 BB/TB SuperBowls.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I like his podcasts with Cousin Sal, but his impersonation of Andre the Giant is cringe-worthy, yet he continues to do it. And Andre has been dead for over twenty years, how much of his audience even gets the reference at this point?
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,047
Auburn, MA
I like his podcasts with Cousin Sal, but his impersonation of Andre the Giant is cringe-worthy, yet he continues to do it. And Andre has been dead for over twenty years, how much of his audience even gets the reference at this point?
He can get away with it because he's no longer drawing a young demo. Overwhelming majority of his fans are 35-55.
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
2,472
He does sound a lot like Andew Luck (Andrew the Giant) though. Also Sal's Macho Man is really really good. Someone on a wrestling podcast I listened to a while ago said the key to a good Macho Man is to not always yell and do the "OH YEAH" (like Bill did) but to talk in the voice much softer and quieter like Macho Man did most of the time. Sal's was great
 

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,047
Auburn, MA
He does sound a lot like Andew Luck (Andrew the Giant) though. Also Sal's Macho Man is really really good. Someone on a wrestling podcast I listened to a while ago said the key to a good Macho Man is to not always yell and do the "OH YEAH" (like Bill did) but to talk in the voice much softer and quieter like Macho Man did most of the time. Sal's was great
I'm going to assume that was Dan Soder. His impression of the Macho Man is uncanny.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
https://theringer.com/battle-of-the-nba-unicorns-bdf6c4a7b331#.itvo8j3x9

New article up today. I'm not sure there's anybody in the world who needs an editor more.

I mean, what does this even mean:

So maybe there are three versions of an NBA unicorn: the one we had/haven’t seen before but might be replicable (the traditional unicorn), the one we’ll probably never see again (the tweener unicorn), and the one we’ll definitely never see again (the true unicorn). Those lists look like this:
And that's basically the thesis of the whole piece.