1891 replies to this topic

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Why would Klosterman keep Simmons in line? Simmons is his boss now.

"Right on, Bill! What ever you say, boss! The Red Sox season IS like Shawshank! I never looked it at that way before."

[Spacemans Bong]

John Marzano Olympic Hero, on 07 April 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

Why would Klosterman keep Simmons in line? Simmons is his boss now.

"Right on, Bill! What ever you say, boss! The Red Sox season IS like Shawshank! I never looked it at that way before."

I would hope Klosterman has enough integrity and spine to call Simmons out on his BS. He doesn't NEED this job. He could call up any magazine in America and land a good job within 20 minutes. He's Chuck Klosterman for God's sake.

To me it sounded more like a guy who picks and chooses his battles. If he didn't, he'd be arguing with Simmons over every sentence, particularly one as ideologically incoherent as that podcast was. He definitely thought the vast majority of what Simmons said was ill-thought and unworkable.

It's funny to hear Simmons's change of heart on women's sports. He now seems to think his daughter is going to be an NBA junkie like him and that she will probably be a Division I college player, so now women's hoops are great and fantastic because he looks at Maya Moore and sees his kid in 15 years.

Also, what the hell was he talking about when he was trying to denote the "Golden Era of college basketball"? How the hell does one not start that at Magic-Bird? Nevermind how he could go on and on about how great 80s Big East basketball was and not see the contradiction between that and giving the top 50 schools special benefits that would basically exclude the smaller Catholic colleges of the classic Big East from ever fielding Final four worthy teams again.

Edited by Spacemans Bong, 08 April 2011 - 04:05 AM.

[lostjumper]

That was a terrible podcast, and I only listened to half of it. Simmons came off as an ignorant fool in that podcast. His ideas about the stupid committee of 20, only guaranteed lottery players could come out, and the whole Maya Moore discussion was literally beyond belief.

He watched 1 womens basketball game, and in that game Moore made a 25 footer, so he comes up with this idea that in 10 years, Moore 2.0 could probably hang on as the 12th man in the NBA based on the ability to make 45% from 3 point range. Klosterman challenges him on whether a woman could hang with the men physically, and the Simmons switches the argument to say Memphis or Minnesota would do it to sell tickets. So then Klosterman challenges whether that would really work, and Bill switches the argument back, to say it would because a woman who could shoot 50% from 3 would be an asset to the team. You could hear Klosterman throw his arms up in the air and give up. In the midst of this discussion, Simmons recalls how he and his friends played a pickup basketball game with the best player at Holy Cross back in college, and was surprised and "unimpressed" and how bad she was compared to the other guys. He then rambled on about how women have a lower center of gravity and their legs are different then mens. On second thought, people should listen to this trainwreck of a podcast.

[PBDWake]

Btw, forgot my favorite part.

Klosterman: "So you recruit 4 one and dones, and then 6 kids whose sole job it is to graduate. What then?"
Simmons: "Well, good! At least you're graduating 50% of your players!"

[tims4wins]

So last Friday BS wrote part 1 of his NBA power poll, featuring the non-contenders, with the promise of part 2 coming today. Chances of an article actually appearing today? 40/60? 30/70? Just like he failed to write an Eastern Conference preview... perhaps he shall fail in this too.

[Remagellan]

PBDWake, on 08 April 2011 - 07:59 AM, said:

Btw, forgot my favorite part.

Klosterman: "So you recruit 4 one and dones, and then 6 kids whose sole job it is to graduate. What then?"
Simmons: "Well, good! At least you're graduating 50% of your players!"

That was good. My other favorite part was when, after all his "Memphis and Minny should sign Maya Moore 2.0 stuff", Simmons asked Klosterman what would he do if Jordan made him the GM of the Bobcats, or another small market team that supposedly can't compete with the bigger markets, and Klosterman quietly said something to the effect that he would pursue the most logical course towards assembling a winning team.

Without explicitly stating it, Klosterman was saying, "Hey dumbass, that's the only proven way to sell tickets--put together a winning team."

[Dehere]

PBDWake, on 07 April 2011 - 05:47 PM, said:

I also find it ironic that Bill Simmons, who left the Herald because he was learning the ropes on High School Sports when he thought he was ready for bigger and better things, finds the need to keep athletes in college to learn the ropes even when they think they're ready for bigger and better things.

To somewhat defend Simmons, if every writer and talking head who has sanctimoniously ripped coaches and players for leaving their schools only to later ditch their own employer for bigger and better was fired, there would be no sports media.

[Orel Miraculous]

PBDWake, on 07 April 2011 - 05:47 PM, said:

I also find it ironic that Bill Simmons, who left the Herald because he was learning the ropes on High School Sports when he thought he was ready for bigger and better things, finds the need to keep athletes in college to learn the ropes even when they think they're ready for bigger and better things.

Umm, you realize that after leaving the Herald he became the biggest sportswriter in America, right? And that he did it in a way that never would have been possible if he stayed at the Herald? It seems he was right about being ready for bigger and better things.

[drleather2001]

Orel Miraculous, on 08 April 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

Umm, you realize that after leaving the Herald he became the biggest sportswriter in America, right? And that he did it in a way that never would have been possible if he stayed at the Herald? It seems he was right about being ready for bigger and better things.

You're right! He sounds even less self-aware on this than I had first surmised!

[Gravistar]

drleather2001, on 08 April 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

You're right! He sounds even less self-aware on this than I had first surmised!

Regardless, the original analogy was stupid and not one Simmons should have been aware about. The ethical choice of taking guaranteed NBA draft money versus staying in school is wildly different from the choice of staying at a reasonable job vs. taking a risky chance for greater success. You can only even make this dumb analogy with the benefit of hindsight.

This last column is the Simmons I hate: his hysteria over the Celtics and Sox seems to be a capitulation to the irrational WEEI fan. I agree somewhat with the idea that the Celtics' trade killed some camaraderie among teammates and removed Perkins's presence, but as we all know, Simmons always, and I mean always, plays the sentimental card in these cases, and is then totally blindsided when life plays out in unsentimental ways. The Celtics continue to lack the offense they need, which is why they made that trade, and the game last night is not going to convince me into believing they're now soft.

An aside: it's clear from his use of "crushing it" and "killing it" in recent columns that he's been hanging out with corporate executive types with MBA's (probably in the effort to pimp his website for funding). It's kind of annoying. Anyone else notice this?

[The Social Chair]

The Celtics stuff didn't bother me. Simmons has always used his columns as therapeutic release. The part of the column that bugged me was when he said Dwight Howard shouldn't be an MVP candidate because he didn't want to go to Magic-Clippers game to watch him. Ridiculous logic.

[PBDWake]

Orel Miraculous, on 08 April 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

Umm, you realize that after leaving the Herald he became the biggest sportswriter in America, right? And that he did it in a way that never would have been possible if he stayed at the Herald? It seems he was right about being ready for bigger and better things.

Of course he was ready. That's the point. Which is why I don't understand his obsession with that system. He's talking about instituting a system where even people like LeBron James would have been forced to serve in, to them, the same needless internship. Bill Simmons didn't need to spend what could amount to 10% of his writing career interning at the Herald. He was capable of being a successful writer. But he wants to see a basketball version of that internship be required for all players. LeBron James did not need time in college basketball to be ready for the NBA in the same way Bill Simmons didn't need to cover high school sports for the Herald. But thank you for emphasizing what my point was.

*Morning after edit*

I think the source of my overall frustration is how he handles the NBA relative to everything else. I know he has the knowledge to be a powerful voice in the NBA, but he's so attached to the NBA he grew up with, he can't handle certain changing aspects of the game. In the Bill Simmons world, Boston, New York, the Lakers, Detroit, Chicago, and Philly should always be good, because they're the defining franchises of his world. Then, the other franchises all alternate rotating Lebron in Cleveland style superstars and 6-10 year windows of potential, and in the meantime between those players, those smaller franchises should be drawing their fans with old ABA/Globetrotter style promotions, like signing a woman for the sake of selling tickets, or holding open tryouts in your city for roster spots. And superstars never leave their cities, and definitely don't team up.

How he handles the NBA mentally is completely different than how he views any other sport or profession. He spent a solid what? 6 months? tooling on the Patriots for franchising and disrespecting Logan Mankins, and is so completely in the bag for the players in the NFL. And that's fine, and that's his viewpoint. But when it comes to the NBA, some of the same rights he expects for other athletes, he doesn't want disrupting his NBA world view. There's no similar level of venom at the owners for wanting to slash the NBA cap, limit max contracts to 4 years because otherwise the owners will spend too much money on mediocre players, or for things like David Stern unilaterally installing things like different balls, dress codes, and penalties for in game offenses the same way he murders Goodell for upping the fines on hits to the head in the middle of a season.

And I admit that my analogy with his journalism career is not a perfect one, but my point is this. In the NBA and in his own career, talent wins out. Nobody can or cannot tell you when you are ready. And my point was, for someone who WAS ready before other people thought he was, I would hope he had some level of sympathy for people who believed the same thing. I don't believe that a mandatory two years in college is a sound system, nor do I believe that it's one created with the best interests of the players.

Edited by PBDWake, 09 April 2011 - 08:56 AM.

[mcpickl]

John Marzano Olympic Hero, on 07 April 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

Why would Klosterman keep Simmons in line? Simmons is his boss now.

"Right on, Bill! What ever you say, boss! The Red Sox season IS like Shawshank! I never looked it at that way before."

Are you serious?

Klosterman basically called Simmons a weirdo in that same podcast for dragging his daughter to Clippers games.

I think Klostermans' biggest strength is challenging others opinions and he doesn't seem to give an eff whether they like it or not.

[Gravistar]

PBDWake, on 09 April 2011 - 12:43 AM, said:

How he handles the NBA mentally is completely different than how he views any other sport or profession. He spent a solid what? 6 months? tooling on the Patriots for franchising and disrespecting Logan Mankins, and is so completely in the bag for the players in the NFL. And that's fine, and that's his viewpoint. But when it comes to the NBA, some of the same rights he expects for other athletes, he doesn't want disrupting his NBA world view. There's no similar level of venom at the owners for wanting to slash the NBA cap, limit max contracts to 4 years because otherwise the owners will spend too much money on mediocre players, or for things like David Stern unilaterally installing things like different balls, dress codes, and penalties for in game offenses the same way he murders Goodell for upping the fines on hits to the head in the middle of a season.

And I admit that my analogy with his journalism career is not a perfect one, but my point is this. In the NBA and in his own career, talent wins out. Nobody can or cannot tell you when you are ready. And my point was, for someone who WAS ready before other people thought he was, I would hope he had some level of sympathy for people who believed the same thing. I don't believe that a mandatory two years in college is a sound system, nor do I believe that it's one created with the best interests of the players.

Appreciate the explanation w/r/t Simmons's career, and I understand your original point much better now. It seems like in this thread though that we've gone over the talent versus right time, right place question several times. And I think the conclusion that people like JMOH and others have come to (one that I'm sympathetic with) is that Simmons's real skill is not writing itself, but his foresight and ability to take advantage of new media. So he has a talent, but not one that the Herald would have recognized right away or known how to make use of; he had to go to the internet to really take advantage of things. I'm not trying to take away from his writing skills - he's a good writer, alright, but I believe his evident insecurities play to his advantage, because he's one of those people who wants to be in the know about what's new and what's popular at any given moment.

[CreedBratton]

The Social Chair, on 08 April 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

The Celtics stuff didn't bother me. Simmons has always used his columns as therapeutic release. The part of the column that bugged me was when he said Dwight Howard shouldn't be an MVP candidate because he didn't want to go to Magic-Clippers game to watch him. Ridiculous logic.

This line bothered: "The more I watch this Celtics team, the more I realized that they were overachieving those first 3½ months because of chemistry and swagger."

Ummm he does realize Perkins had nothing to do with the great start and that it was Shaq playing right? I used to be one of Simmons biggest defenders but after everything in the last little while, it is tough to care to much for him anymore.

[mgoblue2]

Quote

If my son needs a role model, and he will, that person should be me.

Greatest Simmons line ever?

[NatetheGreat]

whenever Simmons writes about his kids he starts to veer dangerously close to Rick Reilly territory--that today's topic was his son, golf, and role models in sports made it like an 8.9 on the Reilly scale, and thats not a good thing.

[Tartan]

I dunno, I actually think he did a decent job making his point without pouring on layer after layer of schmaltz. Was it preachy? Yeah. But he didn't rely solely on hackneyed heartstring tugging like Reilly.

I don't think it was a particularly great article, but it was a ways away from Reilly territory.

[SaveBooFerriss]

NatetheGreat, on 11 April 2011 - 05:20 PM, said:

whenever Simmons writes about his kids he starts to veer dangerously close to Rick Reilly territory--that today's topic was his son, golf, and role models in sports made it like an 8.9 on the Reilly scale, and thats not a good thing.

I think we are at the point that 40% of his columns going forward will be about his kids or reference his kids.

[Shelterdog]

SaveBooFerriss, on 12 April 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

I think we are at the point that 40% of his columns going forward will be about his kids or reference his kids.

That may be a good thing. Most writers are at their best when they write about what they know and care about. Simmons probably has a lot more to say about the things like the sports media business/raising kids in LA as a wealthy B-list celebrity/creating a tv series or website than he has to say about the latest MTV series or even the Red Sox.

[8slim]

SaveBooFerriss, on 12 April 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

I think we are at the point that 40% of his columns going forward will be about his kids or reference his kids.

I disagree, but even it were to be "40%", is that bad? He's a 40 year old father of 2. Seems like it makes more sense, and is more authentic, than writing about the Real World/Road Rules Challenge.

Edited by 8slim, 12 April 2011 - 10:59 AM.

[teddykgb]

Listening to the podcast with norm McDonald, unbelievable how stoned norm seems, he's barely comprehensible

[gtg807y]

teddykgb, on 12 April 2011 - 05:41 PM, said:

Listening to the podcast with norm McDonald, unbelievable how stoned norm seems, he's barely comprehensible

Norm did a call-in with an Atlanta sports talk station this morning, which I guess would have been about 6 AM Los Angeles time. He was completely incomprehensible and out of it, but it sounded more like he'd just woken up. At least with Simmons he picked up a little steam as the podcast went on.

Edit: still was disappointing for Norm fans like myself, but considering how off he sounded this morning, I had tempered my expectations.

Edited by gtg807y, 12 April 2011 - 08:19 PM.

[bostonbruen]

lostjumper, on 08 April 2011 - 07:28 AM, said:

That was a terrible podcast, and I only listened to half of it. Simmons came off as an ignorant fool in that podcast. His ideas about the stupid committee of 20, only guaranteed lottery players could come out, and the whole Maya Moore discussion was literally beyond belief.

He watched 1 womens basketball game, and in that game Moore made a 25 footer, so he comes up with this idea that in 10 years, Moore 2.0 could probably hang on as the 12th man in the NBA based on the ability to make 45% from 3 point range. Klosterman challenges him on whether a woman could hang with the men physically, and the Simmons switches the argument to say Memphis or Minnesota would do it to sell tickets. So then Klosterman challenges whether that would really work, and Bill switches the argument back, to say it would because a woman who could shoot 50% from 3 would be an asset to the team. You could hear Klosterman throw his arms up in the air and give up. In the midst of this discussion, Simmons recalls how he and his friends played a pickup basketball game with the best player at Holy Cross back in college, and was surprised and "unimpressed" and how bad she was compared to the other guys. He then rambled on about how women have a lower center of gravity and their legs are different then mens. On second thought, people should listen to this trainwreck of a podcast.

I just listened to the podcast. The one thing I disagree with Klosterman is Simmons taking his kid to a game at 5.5. I totally understand that and I'm sure Simmons and his daughter have a great time.

[TheGazelle]

bostonbruen, on 13 April 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

I just listened to the podcast. The one thing I disagree with Klosterman is Simmons taking his kid to a game at 5.5. I totally understand that and I'm sure Simmons and his daughter have a great time.

I thought this was the dumbest part of the podcast. That honestly felt like Klosterman had never interacted with a child, ever.

[8slim]

Since I enjoy his appearances on the BS Report I picked up a few Klosterman books last weekend. Just finishing up 'Sex, Drugs & Coco Puffs' and I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I enjoy his writing style, he's funny and engaging. But many of the arguments he makes start from a faulty premise and involve ridiculously tortured logic to get to his conclusion.

In the podcasts he often comes across as vastly smarter than Simmons. But in this book he comes across as a guy who just desperately needs to feel like he's the smartest guy in the room. I mean most chapters could start with "Let me tell you why everyone is wrong about <insert topic here> and, only because I'm such a "thinker", let me tell you the truth".

Maybe that book is just one of his weaker efforts?

[Grin&MartyBarret]

8slim, on 13 April 2011 - 09:36 AM, said:

Since I enjoy his appearances on the BS Report I picked up a few Klosterman books last weekend. Just finishing up 'Sex, Drugs & Coco Puffs' and I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I enjoy his writing style, he's funny and engaging. But many of the arguments he makes start from a faulty premise and involve ridiculously tortured logic to get to his conclusion.

In the podcasts he often comes across as vastly smarter than Simmons. But in this book he comes across as a guy who just desperately needs to feel like he's the smartest guy in the room. I mean most chapters could start with "Let me tell you why everyone is wrong about <insert topic here> and, only because I'm such a "thinker", let me tell you the truth".

Maybe that book is just one of his weaker efforts?

I agree on Sex Drugs & Coco Puffs. It seemed ridiculously formulaic to me, and I never got through the entire thing.

That said, I do think he's vastly more intelligent than Simmons, need to be the smartest guy in the room aside. And I'm excited for his contributions to Simmons' new site, because I thoroughly enjoyed Klosterman's running Final Four blog a couple of years back. It was probably the most enjoyable thing I've ever read on ESPN.com.

[BrazilianSoxFan]

Couple days later, but I really liked the Kevin Millar podcast. He is extremely well spoken for an ex-ballplayer.

[Marciano490]

Shelterdog, on 12 April 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

That may be a good thing. Most writers are at their best when they write about what they know and care about. Simmons probably has a lot more to say about the things like the sports media business/raising kids in LA as a wealthy B-list celebrity/creating a tv series or website than he has to say about the latest MTV series or even the Red Sox.

The thing that bothers me about him writing through the lens of his children is that it's so unnecessary. Why is The Masters important or more important seen as the backdrop to a little boy's enthusiasm? It weakens the argument he's making that Tiger's aborted comeback was a really big deal, because it seems the column's point is that his interest in the round grew out of his son's.

Also, as someone without kids, I just find someone talking about their kids and their cutsie-wutsie behavior to be off-putting. A gentile can laugh at Roth, and a Jew can be moved by Bach, but I think most non-parents have a hard time really being enthralled by stories about other people's kids doing stuff that isn't that amazing.

[BrotherMouzone]

Marciano490, on 13 April 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

The thing that bothers me about him writing through the lens of his children is that it's so unnecessary. Why is The Masters important or more important seen as the backdrop to a little boy's enthusiasm? It weakens the argument he's making that Tiger's aborted comeback was a really big deal, because it seems the column's point is that his interest in the round grew out of his son's.

Also, as someone without kids, I just find someone talking about their kids and their cutsie-wutsie behavior to be off-putting. A gentile can laugh at Roth, and a Jew can be moved by Bach, but I think most non-parents have a hard time really being enthralled by stories about other people's kids doing stuff that isn't that amazing.

Couldn't agree more. Shit I don't care about:

1. Your kids
2. Your fantasy teams
3. Your poker/blackjack hands

Simmons violates all three.

[LMontro]

Marciano490, on 13 April 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

The thing that bothers me about him writing through the lens of his children is that it's so unnecessary. Why is The Masters important or more important seen as the backdrop to a little boy's enthusiasm? It weakens the argument he's making that Tiger's aborted comeback was a really big deal, because it seems the column's point is that his interest in the round grew out of his son's.

Also, as someone without kids, I just find someone talking about their kids and their cutsie-wutsie behavior to be off-putting. A gentile can laugh at Roth, and a Jew can be moved by Bach, but I think most non-parents have a hard time really being enthralled by stories about other people's kids doing stuff that isn't that amazing.

Good post, and to pile on, this is also coming from a guy who made fun of writers that wrote about their kids and said that he wouldn't do that. It always baffles me that not many give a shit about "the bestest writer ever" being a huge hypocrite.

[Shelterdog]

Marciano490, on 13 April 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

The thing that bothers me about him writing through the lens of his children is that it's so unnecessary. Why is The Masters important or more important seen as the backdrop to a little boy's enthusiasm? It weakens the argument he's making that Tiger's aborted comeback was a really big deal, because it seems the column's point is that his interest in the round grew out of his son's.

Also, as someone without kids, I just find someone talking about their kids and their cutsie-wutsie behavior to be off-putting. A gentile can laugh at Roth, and a Jew can be moved by Bach, but I think most non-parents have a hard time really being enthralled by stories about other people's kids doing stuff that isn't that amazing.

There's nothing necessary or unneccessary about anything in a sports column. The question is whether it's interesting and well-written.

BSG has changed from a young, poor, single, antiestablishment firebrand who to a semifamous rich father of two to a major sports establishment figure. I think he's going to do a better job writing about what's actually going on in his life (hey, how about a book about his year as a late night comedy writer? What is a celebrity kid's six year old birthday party? What are agents and contract negotiations with ESPN like) than crapping out random "comparing sports to TV show X" columns. Yeah his audience would change and the Bro set might not like him as much but that's the curse of changing as a person.

[Marciano490]

Shelterdog, on 13 April 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:

There's nothing necessary or unneccessary about anything in a sports column. The question is whether it's interesting and well-written.

BSG has changed from a young, poor, single, antiestablishment firebrand who to a semifamous rich father of two to a major sports establishment figure. I think he's going to do a better job writing about what's actually going on in his life (hey, how about a book about his year as a late night comedy writer? What is a celebrity kid's six year old birthday party? What are agents and contract negotiations with ESPN like) than crapping out random "comparing sports to TV show X" columns. Yeah his audience would change and the Bro set might not like him as much but that's the curse of changing as a person.

I think I understand your point, and I certainly am not getting down on Simmons for changing his style and subject matter to reflect his evolving life. AC/DC and Keith Richards aside, there comes a point when it's sad seeing old men carrying on like they're 20 year olds. However, to make my point within the confines of yours, I don't think this new style of his is interesting or well-written. When he validates the importance of cultural or atheltic phenomena through his children's eyes, it just seems lazy and unimportant to me. Kids go gaga over the dumbest things; I don't think Dora the Explorer or the Olsen Twins or watching a puppy sleep are meaningful because a random 3.5 year old does. It comes across more that he doesn't have a way to put us in the moment, or to fill out the article, so he mushes on about what videogames his kids like to play and how they react to things on tv. If the kid were watching Tin Cup, he probably would've been just as excited at a made putt.

At the end of the day though, peoples' tastes in writing is wholly subjective. I just saw a link to a Yahoo Answers page where someone posted the first page of Infinite Jest as his own work and asked for feedback. The reviews were pretty harsh, yet many people consider that the novel of our times. I agree that there is nothing necessary or unnecessary about anything in a sports column, and I agree that I'm not the arbiter of what's good or bad. But, I also know it's been a long, long time since anyone asked me if I'd read Simmons' latest column, or sent along one of his jokes. At this point, I read him out of boredom or with the same hope with which I watched Tyson's last few fights.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Quote

sportsguy33 Bill Simmons
I love people bitching b/c I was trying to pass along info I had. Twitter is seriously starting to get annoying. Why do I even bother?

Quote

sportsguy33 Bill Simmons
Sorry that your free tweets that you willingly signed up for didn't live up to your expectations today. Give me a break.

Bill is angry at his Twitter followers for not loving him unconditionally.

[Alternate34]

BrotherMouzone, on 13 April 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Couldn't agree more. Shit I don't care about:

1. Your kids
2. Your fantasy teams
3. Your poker/blackjack hands

Simmons violates all three.

Shit I don't care about:

1. Shit you don't care about
2. Formulaically spouting about shit you don't and all the cool kids don't care about.

Seriously, as said above, it is about whether he writes well about it. Joe Pos, a man elevated to god status around here, writes about his kids and kids in general somewhat frequently. The reason it is interesting is because he writes well.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Grin&MartyBarret, on 14 April 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

Bill is angry at his Twitter followers for not loving him unconditionally.

I don't understand:

A. Why his Twitter fans are pissed. He gave the link.
B. Why Simmons would give a shit.

Unless of course, his fans are calling him out because he has the wrong information.

[Shelterdog]

Alternate34, on 14 April 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Shit I don't care about:

1. Shit you don't care about
2. Formulaically spouting about shit you don't and all the cool kids don't care about.

Seriously, as said above, it is about whether he writes well about it. Joe Pos, a man elevated to god status around here, writes about his kids and kids in general somewhat frequently. The reason it is interesting is because he writes well.

To defend Brother Mouzone:

1.) Sportsguy does a shitty job writing about his kids. Here's a particular gem: "It's my No. 2 highlight of the fall, trailing only my son climbing on my wife's head last week, squatting on top of it while wearing a poopy diaper and screaming, "STINKFACE! "http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnfl2010/week8picks&sportCat=nfl

2.) Almost everyone should avoid writing about bad beats, cute stuff kids do, and fantasy sports-it's exceptionally hard to say anything new or interesting about those three subjects because we all know the basics about all three. What makes those topics interesting is our own personal connections to a kid/poker hands/fantasy sports teams and you've got to be truly gifted to make me care about your connection to your kid or team.

Edited by Shelterdog, 14 April 2011 - 02:31 PM.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I thought this was a pretty good example of interesting writing about your kid.

It's not a maudlin sap-fest.

[weeba]

John Marzano Olympic Hero, on 14 April 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

I thought this was a pretty good example of interesting writing about your kid.

It's not a maudlin sap-fest.

I thought you were going to post Poz's Harry Potter piece, which was fantastic.

I do like Drew Magary's "stream of consciousness" writing style though

[weeba]

This one: http://joeposnanski....of-secrets.html

and this one: http://joeposnanski....ie-prefect.html

[dirtynine]

Learning to use Twitter for good info/tainment has taken me most of a year. I started out with the Twitter default set of, like, the 20 people everybody in my demographic follows. SG, Ebert, Conan... the regular. I finally started unfollowing posters like Simmons when I realized that 75% of his tweets just seemed to bug me. It sounds weird, but this took me a long time to figure out. And the stupid act of "unfollowing" was surprisingly difficult - like knowing you're missing out on the conversation a bunch of other people are having about stuff you like. I eventually did the same thing to Twitter god Roger Ebert - for every tweet of his I enjoyed, a bunch more somehow seemed self-serving or egotistical. And I love RE's writing. It's surprisingly tough to put content out there that is that short, worth reading, and not self-indulgent.

[nattysez]

Magary has become for me what Simmons once was. Magary provides his opinions about sports without acting like they're definitively correct (unless he's doing so for comedic value) and his non-sports thoughts speak directly to me, as we're roughly the same age and in the same stage of life. As I've gotten older, Simmons has become unreadable to me because of his immaturity, which manifests itself in three ways.

First, I don't think there is one thing I've read Simmons write about his home life that hasn't made my skin crawl other than his eulogy for his dog. He presents himself (intentionally or not) as a lousy parent and a boor of a husband. Whether this is actually what he's like in real life is beside the point. What matters is that, as a reader, I've gone from seeing his persona as someone who I'd want to befriend to someone I loathe.

Second, as has been well documented, his writing style hasn't changed over time, to the point that he's using the same pop culture references that he did 10 years ago.

Finally, he continues to have an incredibly high opinion of himself while remaining spectacularly thin-skinned.

As someone who slavishly read and listened to his output until a few years ago, I'm amazed to say that I haven't read anything he's written, or listened to a single podcast, for nearly a month now, and I don't miss him at all. The Joe-Rany podcast, JoePoscast, Jonah Keri podcast and Kevin Goldstein podcasts provide more than enough listening material each week, and between my Twitter feed (which doesn't include Simmons), Deadspin, the Big Lead, and Posnanski and Sheehan's near-daily writings, I've got plenty to read. There's no reason for me to read or listen to someone who seems like a jerk and whose opinions I don't respect.

Oh, and, I bought Klosterman's Eating the Dinosaur book when it first came out and couldn't finish it. To me, he combined the worst elements of Simmons and Gladwell. Unreadable.

[LMontro]

Grin&MartyBarret, on 14 April 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

Bill is angry at his Twitter followers for not loving him unconditionally.

The "it's free so don't bitch" thing is pretty weak.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

LMontro, on 14 April 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

The "it's free so don't bitch" thing is pretty weak.

And for a guy who doesn't like "The Simpsons" shares an almost a word-for-word rebuke toward his/their fans.

[johnmd20]

LMontro, on 14 April 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

The "it's free so don't bitch" thing is pretty weak.

I wish I could have bought stock in "Simmons will whine about the behavior of his followers on Twitter" 12 months ago.

[drleather2001]

nattysez, on 14 April 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

Oh, and, I bought Klosterman's Eating the Dinosaur book when it first came out and couldn't finish it. To me, he combined the worst elements of Simmons and Gladwell. Unreadable.

I can understand how someone might think that, but I've always felt that Klosterman is pretty clear that, deep down, he recognizes the absurdity of his own success/popularity. There's sort self-deprecating side to Klosterman's stuff that he's managed to maintain, and I think is sincere.

Also, for better or for worse, Klosterman doesn't shy away from defending his point of view (however random it might seem) with a lucid argument. His calling card, his entire shtick in fact, is talking about semi-meaningless bullshit on a high level. I think that's what makes him entertaining, because I am exactly the type of guy that will go on at a bar for 25 minutes creating a 5-point argument on why "Forrest Gump" is a piece of shit. Some people think I'm being obnoxious, elitist, and won't even engage because "it's just a movie!" and or "It won best picture!". Others recognize that it's not necessarily the subject of discussion that matters so much as engaging in a quality discussion/argument for its own sake. Chuck Klosterman is clearly the latter.

Also, I think he's funny in a Woody Allen-ish sort of way.*

Again, though, I can totally understand why people might find him (and me, for that matter) annoying.

* as opposed to Simmons, who lately veers too close to Dane Cook/meathead/frat style humor for my tastes.

Edited by drleather2001, 15 April 2011 - 09:34 AM.

[cromulence]

John Marzano Olympic Hero, on 15 April 2011 - 04:36 AM, said:

And for a guy who doesn't like "The Simpsons" shares an almost a word-for-word rebuke toward his/their fans.

Wait wait wait - is he on record as not liking The Simpsons? If true, this is the best reason to dislike Bill Simmons to date. If you can't appreciate classic Simpsons (season 1-10), there's something wrong with you.

[ifmanis5]

cromulence, on 15 April 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

Wait wait wait - is he on record as not liking The Simpsons? If true, this is the best reason to dislike Bill Simmons to date. If you can't appreciate classic Simpsons (season 1-10), there's something wrong with you.

He hasn't see The Big Lebowski either, because he just wants to be 'the guy who hasn't seen it' guy.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

cromulence, on 15 April 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

Wait wait wait - is he on record as not liking The Simpsons? If true, this is the best reason to dislike Bill Simmons to date. If you can't appreciate classic Simpsons (season 1-10), there's something wrong with you.

This was a number of years ago, back at his old DC site, so it may not be word-for-word accurate and perhaps his tastes have changed (though I sincerely doubt it) but someone sent in a mailbag question and asked him why he didn't use Simpsons quotes for his end of the season columns (this was a clever gag that he used to do where he'd use a movie or TV show's quotes to describe certain highs and lows of the NFL, NBA or MLB season. I liked it). Anyway, he said that he never "got into" the Simpsons, so he didn't know too much about them. Then he said something dismissive about it being "just a cartoon" (or something along those lines).

The only reason why I remember this is because up until this point, Simmons had touched on just about everything I had liked spanning from 1990 until 1999 or 2000, Public Enemy, "Dazed and Confused", NWA, Pearl Jam, "Goodfellas", "Seinfeld", etc. It was uncanny that every time I seemed to read his column, he was using my cultural touchstones to talk about the day's sports. This was mind-blowing to me. BTW, the context of this is great. The only person who did this was the CHB but his pop culture references stopped at 1980 with "Animal House" references. If someone got fired, you could guarantee that Shank's lede the next day would be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Anyway, when he said that he wasn't fond of "The Simpsons", I was shocked.

BTW, if Simmons didn't bitch about the Twitter comments and just retweeted them followed by a quick, "Yup, these are my readers." that would have been a funnier way of dealing with it, right?

[Shelterdog]

cromulence, on 15 April 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

Wait wait wait - is he on record as not liking The Simpsons? If true, this is the best reason to dislike Bill Simmons to date. If you can't appreciate classic Simpsons (season 1-10), there's something wrong with you.

It's probably the best but here's a close second. He doesn't like Lebowski. From a New Yorker festival thing he did with Gladwell (who I freaking loathe but agree with 100% here):

....Gladwell argued that the Coen brothers were some of the few film directors to have produced more than three truly great movies. Simmons disagreed.

“That’s why I don’t read Slate.com,” he [SG] said, and a confused, troubled hush fell over the room of New Yorker subscribers. “A certain kind of person likes a Coen brothers movie.”

“The certain kind of person who likes The Big Lebowski,” Gladwell countered, “is the certain kind of person I like.”

[SG also said he didn't like A Serious Man because it was "artsy-fartsy." Real good critique there bro; if a piece of art is the least bit challenging it should be ignored! Wait for it...these are our writers...]

As for Klosterman, I generally like him but I can see how he comes across the wrong way sometimes. Maybe it's just his public shtick but he steers conversations to pop culture obscuranta and then he dominates the conversation with some spiel about how Styx is superior to Boston or whatever. It's not clear that he could carry on a conversation with someone who isn't a massive pop culture geek.

EDIT: Holy cow ifman, I didn't realize he hadn't even seen Lebowski.

Edited by Shelterdog, 15 April 2011 - 10:38 AM.