Bill Simmons: A top 5 thread this decade Rating Options

[Nator]

I've been pining for "Sweet sassy molassy" to become the catchphrase of this decade but I guess there's always hope that it will catch on in the 2010s.

That would be cooler than the other side of the pillow.

[mcpickl]

but it gave us this:

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=25029

That ones great, but this was my faorite. You can almost see the shark jumping at ESPN over Stus' shoulder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8wQ2ofnvrM

Spoken word!

[barew61]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...mp;sportCat=mlb

New column up on Ortiz/steroids/steroid era.

[JohntheBaptist]

For anything else? Whatever. We expect the worst. We are prepared to be disappointed by any baseball player. It's a sad place to be.

His premise is flawed, I think- baseball players are absolutely not more likely to "disappoint" (which is a ridiculous way to phrase it) now than they were the proverbial "back then." There have been cheating, lying, stealing, abusive, epic assholes in baseball and sports as long as people have played them.

What's changed is how people digest sports. It's an obsession now, not a pasttime. As a result of the increased demand and coverage, we find out about all that disappointment more.

As an extension of this, he claims we've stopped caring because we're so jaded, and while that may be true for those that ever had some standard to be "disappointed," he's not speaking for me because I stopped having the ability to be disappointed by some grown man I've never met around the age of 11.

edit- I did mean to add though that I really liked some of his points on Pujols- it looks bad, but it's also possible that he's just a prodigious talent playing in an era naturally suspicious of aberrant production. It does suck for sure that you can't just sit back and appreciate it, I guess.

This post has been edited by JohntheBaptist: Aug 11 2009, 11:00 PM

[DieHardSoxFan1]

His premise is flawed, I think- baseball players are absolutely not more likely to "disappoint" (which is a ridiculous way to phrase it) now than they were the proverbial "back then." There have been cheating, lying, stealing, abusive, epic assholes in baseball and sports as long as people have played them.

But people weren't made aware of those things "back then." If Donny Baseball banged three girls after a big game in the Bronx, ESPN didn't provide a breaking news report. What makes the steroid era so different is public consumption. Whenever a drug scandal breaks, television networks, newspapers, websites and radio shows all provide up-to-the-second reports on who got busted and (usually) what they took.

Today's baseball players are much more likely to disappoint, simply because we're told about their disappointments.

This post has been edited by DieHardSoxFan1: Aug 12 2009, 12:03 AM

[JohntheBaptist]

Wait- isn't that exactly what I said in my second paragraph?

What's changed is how people digest sports. It's an obsession now, not a pasttime. As a result of the increased demand and coverage, we find out about all that disappointment more.

This post has been edited by JohntheBaptist: Aug 12 2009, 12:12 AM

[DieHardSoxFan1]

Wait- isn't that exactly what I said in my second paragraph?

Read the first sentence and responded immediately. That was Rudyesque of me.

[sfip]

I give Simmons credit for noticing the past/present tense on Ortiz's statement. I didn't catch that. I didn't see anyone in the media or anyone in SoSH catch that, either. Of course someone in SoSH probably pointed that out and will be quoted here. If so, I give credit to SoSHers who caught that, too.

[John Marzano Oly...]

You know what? I could barely get through half of this piece of shit column. It's scattered, illogical and all over the place.

In the first paragraph he's like Columbo wondering if Ortiz is intentionally screwing around with verb tenses (for what reason, I'm not sure -- to make things palatable if he gets caught again? Would anyone give a shit?)

A few paragraphs later he's acting like Jim Garrison pouring over the Zapruder film when he's watching Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS. Again, who fucking cares. Look in the Yankee dugout, half the team was ripped on something. Are you expecting me to believe that you thought that the Yankees were all on steroids, but it never crossed your mind that the Red Sox were doing them too? Seriously?

Then I stopped reading because it started to become a "why me?" sob story. He can be such a bloody, sanctimonious vag some times.

He is the reason why Boston fans were blasted when the story came out: how could HIS team do this to HIM? The first few graphs I read were nothing more than the ramblings of a whiny cry baby. You know why the Sox sucked lat week, Bill? It wasn't because of Papi's troubles. It was because they couldn't hit with runners in scoring position. How does David Ortiz' situation negatively effect one half of the team but makes the other half stronger?

Mitch Albom said it best on Sunday during the Sports Reporters. "Only us here and our brethren writing care about the steroid issue any more. The public just doesn't seem to care." And he's right. I don't care any more.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Edited to make it clear that this quote comes from Simmons:

Now we're splitting hairs with eras? Come on. In 2006, I wrote that Barry Bonds' records should stay. In 2007, I wrote that Mark McGwire should be allowed in the Hall of Fame. Five months ago, I wrote that I'd remember watching the best guys of the steroids era whether they cheated or not. I meant this as a compliment. I am also a realist. If your favorite player broke a record or achieved something memorable from 1993 to 2008, there's a very good chance he had help. If your favorite team won a title or came close, there's a very good chance it wasn't the Good Ship Lollipop. No one team or player stumbled across an edge that everyone else didn't already know about. You don't have to like it -- in fact, I hope you don't -- but that's how it played out. And it's done. So why bother kvetching about it?

Taking the stance that "splitting hairs with eras" isn't worthwhile is all well and good, and it's certainly a reasonable perspective, and one for which a compelling case can be made. It doesn't work as well, however, when you're the one splitting the hairs.

I get that he's attempting to make the case that no era was "pure", but it doesn't seem like he actually believes that, nor do I think his archive suggests such. Further, I don't understand why that point is at all relevant to the argument he's making. Essentially, he's arguing that to be a baseball fan in the "present tense" one's guard must always be up; he specifically states that his guard was up with both Ortiz and Manny, and that he wasn't surprised (Of course, he wrote a piece called "Confronting My Worst Nightmare" in the wake of Manny's suspension, and then argued that Ortiz didn't use PEDs, and that his decline is the result of a falsified birth certificate , so conclude for yourself how guarded and prepared for anything Simmons really was). Which makes me wonder: if there is no such thing as a "pure" era, and we're truly splitting hairs here, then why the profound sense of dissapointment? And, of course, why the need to be guarded? If Simmons is actually a realist, as he claims, there would be no need to be guarded; in fact, you could easily argue that what Simmons is guarding against is the "realism" that he claims to be so in touch with.

Or maybe not, I dunno. It just sort of bothered me that he seemingly went out of his way to prove that his stance on this issue has been consistent over the years, but had to be so selective to make his case.

This post has been edited by Grin&MartyBarret: Aug 12 2009, 12:16 PM

[JohntheBaptist]

You know what? I could barely get through half of this piece of shit column. It's scattered, illogical and all over the place.

In the first paragraph he's like Columbo wondering if Ortiz is intentionally screwing around with verb tenses (for what reason, I'm not sure -- to make things palatable if he gets caught again? Would anyone give a shit?)

A few paragraphs later he's acting like Jim Garrison pouring over the Zapruder film when he's watching Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS. Again, who fucking cares. Look in the Yankee dugout, half the team was ripped on something. Are you expecting me to believe that you thought that the Yankees were all on steroids, but it never crossed your mind that the Red Sox were doing them too? Seriously?

Then I stopped reading because it started to become a "why me?" sob story. He can be such a bloody, sanctimonious vag some times.

He is the reason why Boston fans were blasted when the story came out: how could HIS team do this to HIM? The first few graphs I read were nothing more than the ramblings of a whiny cry baby. You know why the Sox sucked lat week, Bill? It wasn't because of Papi's troubles. It was because they couldn't hit with runners in scoring position. How does David Ortiz' situation negatively effect one half of the team but makes the other half stronger?

Mitch Albom said it best on Sunday during the Sports Reporters. "Only us here and our brethren writing care about the steroid issue any more. The public just doesn't seem to care." And he's right. I don't care any more.

This is a great post. I know someone upthread mentioned they liked the Ortiz-tense-thing, but to me that was one of those things that pop into your head maybe when you're reading the transcript and should probably stay there. If you've ever heard the guy speak at all in the past, nothing about that- when you actually listen to it- should stick out.

The steroid column from any sports-writer has slowly become the token self-indulgent "stretch the muscles" piece. What is this his 45th? When Pedro comes back tainted we're going to get an epic rehash.

There is a slow news trickle on the story and people really do seem over it.

This post has been edited by JohntheBaptist: Aug 12 2009, 11:25 PM

[John Marzano Oly...]

You know what, I read this article again because I thought that I may have been too harsh on it yesterday. I don't think that I was harsh enough. What a fucking pussy. If he throws that "What will say to the children" line one more time ...

And this line took the cake

"For anything else? Whatever. We expect the worst. We are prepared to be disappointed by any baseball player. It's a sad place to be."

Really? You're a 40-year-old man with two children and guys 10-15 years younger than you--people you don't even know--disappoint you? Disappoint you? There's a line between being a fan and being a complete moron. With this column he destroyed that line.

I read something today from Bronson Arroyo and he said something about Manny Ramirez, steroids and the fans. Basically he said, if Manny turns 50 and dies of liver failure (complications with steroids-caused) would anyone really give a shit? And it's true. I like Manny Ramirez the Boston Red Sox baseball player. He seems like a swell guy. But after he traded his B hat for an LA hat, I stopped giving two shits what happens in his life.

How or why Bill Simmons doesn't get that (the article was pretty much pleading with his readers to get angry) I have no idea.

[johnmd20]

Really? You're a 40-year-old man with two children and guys 10-15 years younger than you--people you don't even know--[i]disappoint/i]you? Disappoint you? There's a line between being a fan and being a complete moron. With this column he destroyed that line.

I read something today from Bronson Arroyo and he said something about Manny Ramirez, steroids and the fans. Basically he said, if Manny turns 50 and dies of liver failure (complications with steroids-caused) would anyone really give a shit? And it's true. I like Manny Ramirez the Boston Red Sox baseball player. He seems like a swell guy. But after he traded his B hat for an LA hat, I stopped giving two shits what happens in his life.

How or why Bill Simmons doesn't get that (the article was pretty much pleading with his readers to get angry) I have no idea.

His Ortiz piece wasn't good, I agree. And his sanctimony is really over the top, people, IN GENERAL, do not care anymore. When Papi was outed, I didn't even bat an eyelash. I didn't care. I wasn't surprised. I was not disappointed. I just want the Sox to win the division and another World Series title.

Simmons is barely writing anymore, so he's out of practice and if he's not writing about basketball, he doesn't know what he is talking about and he tends to lean towards hyperbole and it's overly sentimental. He is no longer the voice of the average fan. He's the voice of the out of touch fan. It is a big change from 10 years ago, but he's ten years older, married, kids, etc. And he's living the life that he has earned. But I hope his book(and his future books) is/are good because if Simmons turns into CHB, it will be horrific. It seems like he's headed that way, which is really shocking.

I also do NOT care what we will say to the children.

[bostonbruen]

You know what? I could barely get through half of this piece of shit column. It's scattered, illogical and all over the place.

In the first paragraph he's like Columbo wondering if Ortiz is intentionally screwing around with verb tenses (for what reason, I'm not sure -- to make things palatable if he gets caught again? Would anyone give a shit?)

A few paragraphs later he's acting like Jim Garrison pouring over the Zapruder film when he's watching Game 6 of the 2004 ALCS. Again, who fucking cares. Look in the Yankee dugout, half the team was ripped on something. Are you expecting me to believe that you thought that the Yankees were all on steroids, but it never crossed your mind that the Red Sox were doing them too? Seriously?

Then I stopped reading because it started to become a "why me?" sob story. He can be such a bloody, sanctimonious vag some times.

He is the reason why Boston fans were blasted when the story came out: how could HIS team do this to HIM? The first few graphs I read were nothing more than the ramblings of a whiny cry baby. You know why the Sox sucked lat week, Bill? It wasn't because of Papi's troubles. It was because they couldn't hit with runners in scoring position. How does David Ortiz' situation negatively effect one half of the team but makes the other half stronger?

Mitch Albom said it best on Sunday during the Sports Reporters. "Only us here and our brethren writing care about the steroid issue any more. The public just doesn't seem to care." And he's right. I don't care any more.

Mithc Albom is a sanctimoneous piece of shit. The sports media doesn't care either. If they did, they would have blown open this story in 1998 when it was right in front of them. But instead they chose to get caught up in the HR chase just like the rest of us. Now they all sit back and act high and mighty claiming they are the only ones that care and that they are the only ones out there attempting to preserve the national past time - throwing the players, the league and, now the FANS under the bus. Here's the deal, if a writer wrote anything positive about the 1998 HR chase and didn't bother once to question the source of the new found power are hereby forbidden from writing on the subject.

[Spacemans Bong]

As anybody with a good memory knows not only did the sports media not report on steroids as soon as they found out, they actively vilified the AP guy who broke the andro story in 1998. I was traveling with my dad when it broke and I read articles in Boston, Chicago, Seattle and SF that all said "Shut the fuck up, killjoy!"

[MyDaughterLovesT...]

Simmons has always traded heavily in nostalgia and sentimentality. Some of you actually liked his stupid dog-dying column, so blame yourselves at least a little bit for fueling that fire.

This is Simmons' stock in trade: over-write, over-feel, over-exaggerate, over-examine, etc. If you're surprised by his reaction to Papi, you shouldn't be. If you just think it sucks and is a worthless read and want to express that, by all means, I think many of us are in agreement.

This is a guy who's so nostalgic he not only rewatches crap like Teen Wolf, he thinks other people do, too. The Karate Kid? Hoosiers? Shawshank? These are feel-good, "it's getting dusty in here," sentimental girl movies dressed up like guy movies and while they might some of them be good, they are universally wrapped up in the idea that all ends well, everyone's nice on the inside, and the underdog always has a chance.

That's Bill, through and through. For whatever reason, the high-priced, talent-laden idiots of 2004 were somehow underdogs in Bill's mind, the ultimate Hoosiers, and for him, Papi and Manny being on steroids is like if Red hanged himself at the end of Shawshank or Jimmy Chitwood all of a sudden developed a meth addiction or Daniel-san date-raped his girlfriend. In reality, all of things might have happened, just as our 2004 superstars did steroids, but in Bill's Hollywood-addled mind, these things can't ever happen or the sky will fall and we'll all cry like babies.

It's infantile and ridiculous. He can be funny, especially about basketball, and he can sometimes do some great research and bust out a cool column, but his appeal to the common man/everyman has completely lost its efficacy and an editor somewhere should slap him across the face and tell him to wake the fuck up to modern day reality.

[URISoxFan]

Well, to be fair, the chances of Jimmy Chitwood not turning to meth at sometime in his life was pretty nil, I would think.

[ifmanis5]

This is a guy who's so nostalgic he not only rewatches crap like Teen Wolf, he thinks other people do, too. The Karate Kid? Hoosiers? Shawshank? These are feel-good, "it's getting dusty in here," sentimental girl movies dressed up like guy movies and while they might some of them be good, they are universally wrapped up in the idea that all ends well, everyone's nice on the inside, and the underdog always has a chance.

You left out his irritating love affair for his favorite movie of the decade(!!!) Almost Famous which is most certainly a chick flick in 70's dude clothing.

[Alternate34]

The problem with Bill Simmons isn't that he writes over emotionally and nostaligcally. It's that he can't do it well. He doesn't have or at least doesn't use the most descriptive vocabulary. He tries to translate his emotions through overrated movies and disjointed metaphor, often times metaphors using those crappy movies. When he does do some decent writing, it is when he effectively conveys these emotions. He just doesn't do it all that often.

[8slim]

I finally read the Ortiz piece, and I really didn't think it was that bad. Not a master work or anything, but I got the overall point. I do like that he went after the "steroid era*" nonsense. Although I do agree that the Field of Dreams/What do I say to my kids part was bad. Seriously, does anyone really worry about such things?

One line did make me chuckle though:

It's about standing by your team through thick and thin, even when it's making you feel more embattled and foolish than Rod Blagojevich's wife.

Maybe Mark Sanford?

This post has been edited by 8slim: Aug 16 2009, 07:08 AM