That's pretty amazing. A "traditional" unicorn is replicable. A "true unicorn" is not replicable.
What does he think "unicorn" means?
What does he think "unicorn" means?
Pearl Jammin' with Grandpa, the Bill Simmons Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
And his description of Porzingis, a "true unicorn," is basically "Dirk Nowitzki with more attitude and better rim protection." Meanwhile, Anthony Davis is just a "tweener unicorn" because he's just a more athletic Kevin McHale.
This is, truly, just gibberish. More so than usual.
This is, truly, just gibberish. More so than usual.
If he compared that piece to anything of equal length from his Book of Basketball or some of his old ESPN NBA columns I think he would be( or more accurately should be) ashamed. He's got some work to do getting back to writing to put it mildly.
I'm a very casual NBA fan - enough to know history, names and current storylines. I had a hard time following it. A lot of it seemed like a crazy guy talking to himself. I did like the "Lebron plays like the queen on a chessboard" line, though.
I thought "Battle of the NBA Uniforms" was a column with potential until I realized what the headline actually said.
How intellectually lazy can you get? I guess no one can say he's wrong about the NBA unicorns, since he's the one who made up the concept, and who gives a shit anyway to argue.
How intellectually lazy can you get? I guess no one can say he's wrong about the NBA unicorns, since he's the one who made up the concept, and who gives a shit anyway to argue.
[QUOTE="dirtynine, post: 2062403, member: 284" I did like the "Lebron plays like the queen on a chessboard" line, though.[/QUOTE]
I don't assume Simmon's was trying to pass it off as his own, but if memory serves, I've heard Coach K refer to play-making bigs with that phrase before, and an old Grantland piece was actually titled Lebron James Controls the Chessboard.
I just find the whole shtick of creating arbitrary categories then justifying placement in them with his subjective "I can imagine.." bullshit so distracting. So Lebron's not a true unicorn because "I could imagine another 6-foot-8 super-athlete like LeBron who never gets tired and plays basketball like he’s the queen on a chessboard". And neither is Curry because, "I can imagine another playmaking magician like Curry with 30-foot range." But Gervin and Bird are "true unicorns" because they're... "unreplicable". And so is Rodman because he... "can't be replicated". For fuck's sake, that's awful.
But for the record, Simmons is a traditional unicorn because I can imagine another sportswriter who trades in poorly masked tautologies and nebulous, barely-drawn categorizations.
I don't assume Simmon's was trying to pass it off as his own, but if memory serves, I've heard Coach K refer to play-making bigs with that phrase before, and an old Grantland piece was actually titled Lebron James Controls the Chessboard.
I just find the whole shtick of creating arbitrary categories then justifying placement in them with his subjective "I can imagine.." bullshit so distracting. So Lebron's not a true unicorn because "I could imagine another 6-foot-8 super-athlete like LeBron who never gets tired and plays basketball like he’s the queen on a chessboard". And neither is Curry because, "I can imagine another playmaking magician like Curry with 30-foot range." But Gervin and Bird are "true unicorns" because they're... "unreplicable". And so is Rodman because he... "can't be replicated". For fuck's sake, that's awful.
But for the record, Simmons is a traditional unicorn because I can imagine another sportswriter who trades in poorly masked tautologies and nebulous, barely-drawn categorizations.
I mean, he made a piece about Anthony Davis, Embiid, Porzingis and Giannis suck.
But Townes isn't actually a unicorn at all, because he's just the evolutionary Rasheed Wallace. And Davis is only a "tweener unicorn" because, uh, he's just the evolutionary Kevin McHale? Wait, didn't you just say... Nevermind. Porzingis, now there's a traditional unicorn, and oh, he's also the evolutionary Dirk too. Well, we can all at least agree that Giannis is a true unicorn, and while he's not quite an evolutionary Scottie Pippen, he's not-not an evolutionary Scottie Pippen.
Edit- just saw G&MB already made the same point about inconsistencies in Bill's Unicorn Application Algorithm above.
But anytime you can create a ranking system based on your subjective comparisons to players of yore and your capacity to imagine what future players might be like, then apply it inconsistently, you've gotta do it.
But Townes isn't actually a unicorn at all, because he's just the evolutionary Rasheed Wallace. And Davis is only a "tweener unicorn" because, uh, he's just the evolutionary Kevin McHale? Wait, didn't you just say... Nevermind. Porzingis, now there's a traditional unicorn, and oh, he's also the evolutionary Dirk too. Well, we can all at least agree that Giannis is a true unicorn, and while he's not quite an evolutionary Scottie Pippen, he's not-not an evolutionary Scottie Pippen.
Edit- just saw G&MB already made the same point about inconsistencies in Bill's Unicorn Application Algorithm above.
But anytime you can create a ranking system based on your subjective comparisons to players of yore and your capacity to imagine what future players might be like, then apply it inconsistently, you've gotta do it.
Last edited:
Well said on all of this, but I can't remember a Simmons that didn't do all of these things. Which isn't a defense, just that the Bill Simmons you've just discovered and expect nothing of reads really well. The actual Bill Simmons has always been a lousy writer with some fun quips who was doing something unique when he first started and is now doing something everyone is doing, and not that well.
He started and gained notoriety for being the first to take specifically internet writing and perspective to sports--he filled a vacuum and people followed. As that was discovered and he exploded, he attracted attention, before internet sports writing became diffused across different sites not necessarily boasting the imprimatur of old media. He was able to capitalize on the fact that many still sought non-internet brand recognition in consuming media--he was on ESPN.com. Those two elements were a huge head start, that he earned, but I think overstated his value to a company like, say, HBO. It's all catching up to him and he didn't/ doesn't have any other pivots in him to keep himself that viable.
He's going to continue to wane, I think, because he's not that talented, has nothing particularly insightful to offer, and you can't throw a rock on the internet without hitting another Bill Simmons that does Bill Simmons better than Bill Simmons. I buy that he's fantastic in podcast form (though he's a poor interviewer), but he's not some sought-after media mogul based on having a good podcast.
And just so we cut this off at the jump, there's nothing wrong with really loving his work. At all. And I'm not suggesting there is.
He started and gained notoriety for being the first to take specifically internet writing and perspective to sports--he filled a vacuum and people followed. As that was discovered and he exploded, he attracted attention, before internet sports writing became diffused across different sites not necessarily boasting the imprimatur of old media. He was able to capitalize on the fact that many still sought non-internet brand recognition in consuming media--he was on ESPN.com. Those two elements were a huge head start, that he earned, but I think overstated his value to a company like, say, HBO. It's all catching up to him and he didn't/ doesn't have any other pivots in him to keep himself that viable.
He's going to continue to wane, I think, because he's not that talented, has nothing particularly insightful to offer, and you can't throw a rock on the internet without hitting another Bill Simmons that does Bill Simmons better than Bill Simmons. I buy that he's fantastic in podcast form (though he's a poor interviewer), but he's not some sought-after media mogul based on having a good podcast.
And just so we cut this off at the jump, there's nothing wrong with really loving his work. At all. And I'm not suggesting there is.
I haven't been able to get through either of his last two columns. The hypothetical oral history of Boogie's trade to the Celtics I hung in for one paragraph, and the newest one lost me from the get-go for the inconsistencies cited above. This idea of creating these artificial categories are why I find his pod segments with Lombardi, who seems to have a new form of them every week (blue chippers are now 60 minute players, but no, maybe they're DeNiro in Goodfellas), so hard to listen to.
I think Simmons should stick to podcasting and producing now. Even in the former, he's been surpassed by the people he's brought together. Andy Greenwald, Chris Ryan, and Robert Mays are all better podcasters than Simmons is, and there is no scale (although I'm sure Lombardi and Simmons could come up with one) to measure how much better Greenwald is at interviewing people than Simmons is. He's going into TV writing now, but Greenwald would be awesome in a half-hour post late night one-on-one interview show like the one Bob Costas used to have.
Dead on. I'm not a regular viewer of her show, but Katie Nolan is doing the show Simmons wishes he could have turned AGW into, but he couldn't because he's just not as good at bringing Bill Simmons act to TV as she is.
I think Simmons should stick to podcasting and producing now. Even in the former, he's been surpassed by the people he's brought together. Andy Greenwald, Chris Ryan, and Robert Mays are all better podcasters than Simmons is, and there is no scale (although I'm sure Lombardi and Simmons could come up with one) to measure how much better Greenwald is at interviewing people than Simmons is. He's going into TV writing now, but Greenwald would be awesome in a half-hour post late night one-on-one interview show like the one Bob Costas used to have.
Amusingly, Simmons opened up his latest podcast with House by saying there was one section in the Unicorns article which would have been longer, but he wanted to save some of the material he would have written for the podcast. Sheesh...
(And to go off on a mini-rant, while I agree that Simmons has done a good job in recruiting podcasting talent to the Ringer, the number of random F-bombs dropped while I'm listening to podcasts with my kids in the car is disconcertingly high...talking about adding nothing to the table. These guys are all good enough and smart enough not to have to rely upon the F-bomb crutch, and I'd have thought any gains in "edginess" would be more than counter-balanced by the lack of family friendliness you've now created.)
I'm not sure how much longer I'm going to keep listening to Simmons' podcasts, either. I've always enjoyed Cousin Sal and House (although House is definitely in danger of overexposure), and semi-recurring guests like Klosterman, Gladwell and Al Michaels are great because of what they bring to the table, but a) those guests rarely appear anymore, and b) Simmons increasingly fails to pass his own "table test". I've only got so many hours in my week for podcast listening, and Simmons is already falling behind other Ringer podcasts in my pecking order, to say nothing of the much wider podcasting world out there.
(And to go off on a mini-rant, while I agree that Simmons has done a good job in recruiting podcasting talent to the Ringer, the number of random F-bombs dropped while I'm listening to podcasts with my kids in the car is disconcertingly high...talking about adding nothing to the table. These guys are all good enough and smart enough not to have to rely upon the F-bomb crutch, and I'd have thought any gains in "edginess" would be more than counter-balanced by the lack of family friendliness you've now created.)
In Simmons defense, AGW was doing 2-3x the audience of Katie's show on a network that's in many millions fewer homes. The difference, I think, is largely a matter of expectations. Katie's show is done on a shoestring and if she does 100k viewers at 11:30p, well, that's pretty much fine. Simmons signed a massive contract and got massive promotion. When you cash a big check you're expected to deliver big impact and he didn't even though his show was quantifiably more popular than Katie's.
If Simmons ever wanted to take a huge pay cut to do a show more like Garbage Time or Men In Blazers - shows that are almost like televised podcasts - I think he could absolutely deliver on that. It would just be a big recalibration in what he's trying to do.
How sad for Bill that he isn't even relevant enough to be mentioned as one of 2016's big losers in The Ringer's Winners and Losers column.
Joe House is so terrible. Bill threw out all that juicy George Karl NBA dirt on him and Joe had nothing. Actually, even less than nothing. Bill knows some actual NBA experts, maybe talk to them about it?
Or even better, book Karl himself on the show. That was a total waste of time.
Or even better, book Karl himself on the show. That was a total waste of time.
House wasn't familiar with the book, so all of that got dropped on him in the moment. I think he was more unprepared than anything.
The worst of House is when he goes into his "In the last 11 games Green Bay has played with at least two players who write florid calligraphy, they are 8-3 against the spread," gambling stats. They are always so useless.
He didn't need to be familiar with the book, he's followed the NBA for years and thought the Bulls trading Pippen for Kemp in 1994 would 'not make much of a difference.' He was lost.
EDIT: Although I do agree, those generic gambling stats are also useless filler.
He can't get good guests anymore. Talked to a friend of a friend who produces some big name podcasts, and he said it's pretty well-known in that industry that The Ringer is struggling. Not getting the listens they expected, advertisers not happy, and not attracting big name guests.
It is notable when he specifically notes how long an advertiser has been with them in his ad spots. I'm fascinated to see what happens with The Ringer . It badly needs a lot of changes discussed at length in this thread. The quickest fix would be for Bill to produce multiple not shitty articles a week and maybe even a return of his mailbag. Given his unicorn and Boogie pieces I'm not optimistic.
Also found it interesting he expanded with the Sports Movie HOF thing.
Wow that surprises me. I knew the site probably wasn't doing well because, as had been discussed here, outside of a few writers it's not that great. I figured the podcasts would be thriving however given the carry over from Grantland. That's a shame because I still enjoy most of the podcasts they offer. I know Bill will survive and hopefully get back to being better eventually but I hope the Watch will stay together for a long while
Edit: I haven't listened yet but I do like the idea of the Sports Movie podcast especially as a device if he's not getting good guests anymore
Someone the other day posted this long bit on Twitter with Simmons going on for a good five minutes setting up some inconsistency in JERRY MAGUIRE that had his partner in anticipatory stitches. The big reveal? That the "You had me at hello" line, where the support group was also meeting, probably took place at around 2 am. This baroque, "get a load of this" build up for that. How anyone could stand to listen to him talk about movies is totally beyond me.
Bill Simmons is a basic bitch.
Bill Simmons is a basic bitch.
Last edited:
I chuckled when I saw that Axelrod got Obama on his pod before Jon/Dan got him on Keepin' It 1600
wonder how that is playing
wouldn't he himself have to do the sports radio/podcast/TV round to promote Ringer, his podcast network and his writing?
that was one his complaints about not being able to do non-ESPN media...I'm sure DP Show and Richard Deitsch would have him on
As much as Bill complained about ESPN, they always had Grantland on the front page of ESPN (which is in the top 10 or 20 most trafficked sites in the world) and when Bill himself wrote, it would be above the (electronic) fold. No other outlet is going to give his web presence more of a push.
I was surprised that during the run-up to election day, the Keepin' It 1600 pod couldn't attract any better advertisers than Omaha Steaks. Not sure if that's a reflection on The Ringer specifically or podcasting in general.
weren't some of those episodes live too? and some were audio versions of periscope/FB Live streams (i.e. post debates)?
I see that Mrs. Simmons is going on The Bachelor podcasts...is this where it jumps the shark?
Not that I'm her target audience for this, but I'm pretty sure she's contributed to Bachelor-related podcasts in previous years.
It's podcasting in general. Two big factors: 1- audio is just not sexy. For example, terrestrial radio still generates large audiences but advertisers look at it as old fashioned and ad agency buyers don't want to devote budget to it because it's not bright and shiny like social media. Pandora has done better because streaming is sexy, but that leads to #2- podcasts are terribly measured. There is still no reliable, third party measurement of podcast listening. So advertisers are also hesitant to spend on it because tracking the return on that investment is extremely challenging.
It's a shame. Podcasting is such a wonderful medium. It's drawing much more as dollars than years ago but it's woefully underdeveloped.
It also almost entirely removes two types of sponsors, local ads and B2B. Measuring ROI is tough in any non-digital medium, but I feel like podcasting has better analytics potential that traditional tv or radio commercials.
Medium, the platform that publishes The Ringer, is pivoting away from offering revenue-sharing arrangements with content producers. Not sure where this leaves The Ringer - I'm unclear if they were expected to be self-sustaining via advertising revenue, or if they are bankrolled by HBO.
Simmons wrote a decent - not great, but decent late-era Simmons - NFL column on Wild Card week:
https://theringer.com/bill-simmons-guide-to-wild-card-weekend-nfl-playoffs-207539e78d1d#.gjp42ects
If he'd only write one column like this every week or two, a lot of his loyal fans would forgive him a multitude of sins. (Maybe they'd even check out more Ringer content on a regular basis.)
https://theringer.com/bill-simmons-guide-to-wild-card-weekend-nfl-playoffs-207539e78d1d#.gjp42ects
If he'd only write one column like this every week or two, a lot of his loyal fans would forgive him a multitude of sins. (Maybe they'd even check out more Ringer content on a regular basis.)
anyone listen to the whole episode?
http://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/today-in-real-or-fake-bill-simmons-launches-weird-anti-nick-saban-podcast-tirade.html
from the blogger:
http://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/today-in-real-or-fake-bill-simmons-launches-weird-anti-nick-saban-podcast-tirade.html
from the blogger:
are we sure there is no BS Superfan hanging on his every word?
You know how many times in the last decade your last sentence has been written on this site?
The more interesting part of this article to me was classifying him as one of those guy who covers his idiot tracks by placing a bunch of his commentary on the "maybe I'm just kidding" line. If someone was there to tell him how spot-on the Saban thing was he wouldn't have meant it as a joke then.
where does this feud fit in the BS pantheon of feuds with famous people?
BS vs. Doc Rivers
BS vs. Mike & Mike
BS vs. John Skipper
BS vs. Saban
Saban might honestly have no idea who Bill Simmons is, so I'd rank this feud pretty low. Like in the same way if someone told you Belichick had never heard of Taylor Swift, you'd be like, sure that's plausible.
You forgot Cris Collinsworth, although that lasted all of a weekend.where does this feud fit in the BS pantheon of feuds with famous people?
BS vs. Doc Rivers
BS vs. Mike & Mike
BS vs. John Skipper
BS vs. Saban
As Al Capone, played by Bob DeNiro, in the Untouchables said, "we laugh because it's funny and we laugh because it's true." Simmons was making a joke, but there is some bit of truth to what he is saying.
1-3 on his picks this weekend. "All four home teams won't win this weekend. That doesn't happen."
Yeah but if Brock would have had his usual turnovers, and if the Dolphins didn't fumble twice in the red zone, and if the Packers didn't hit that Hail Mary, all the games would have turned out different. It was a wonky week of games, and I still feel good about my picks./BS
It is kind of funny that Simmons broke most of his gambling "manifestos" on Oakland and Miami. He acknowledged that in the column, but it's still hilarious.
Also, I listened to his podcast with Rubin this weekend, I thought the Saban thing was funny. It did sound like a joke and a PIPIN' hot take, but it was humorous more than anything.
I didn't think the Saban thing was all that funny but I thought it was pretty clear it was supposed to be a joke.
I found it funny only because it came out of nowhere and Simmons went into full Skip Bayless HOT TAKEZ mode from the moment he started the rant.
I know this is sour grapes/depression talking, but after those guys spent most of October saying that the election was completely over and "don't be fooled by those who say it's tightening," I really could not care less about their future opinions.
It seems like Bill is making a push to cozy up to Fox a bit. He had genuine nice things to say about Skip Bayless and Chris Carter, and today's pod has Joe Buck on it. It makes sense as I've been wondering why the quality of Bill's guests has been so mediocre of late. I know he's verboten for Bristol employees but he should he pulling better people than he has been.