kenneycb said:
Probably for the same reason you've been carrying Simmons' water for five years or so: because bullshitting about this stuff is fun.
Bill Simmons: Good Luck With Your Life.
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
Probably for the same reason you've been carrying Simmons' water for five years or so: because bullshitting about this stuff is fun.
Nah, I just think people say a lot if stupid things in this thread. Saying so almost got me thread banned earlier in the year or something like that. Agree with the larger point though. You did just sum up SoSH in a handful of words.Shelterdog said:
Yet you still take the effort to bitch about him...why exactly?
This seems like something you have a lot of trouble with. It really isnt complicated.
He exists, as does this thread. I can read. What's confusing about this? If all you've got is shit about how I spend my time I'd call that pretty telling.
He's a lightweight. Youre cool with that. I get it.
This seems like something you have a lot of trouble with. It really isnt complicated.
He exists, as does this thread. I can read. What's confusing about this? If all you've got is shit about how I spend my time I'd call that pretty telling.
He's a lightweight. Youre cool with that. I get it.
I'm more apathetic. It just stands out in a sub forum that is basically Jay Sherman impressions post after post because like watching/reading/listening to things that piss them off (Cafardo, F&M, etc). Some of his stuff is good, some isn't. I generally don't care enough to comment either way.
I do find it funny you take umbrage with the fact I called you out for making a 100% bullshit and factually incorrect point because I randomly remembered Simmons wrote a Marathon Monday/Marco Sturm Game article from a time when I was in college.
And yes I actually am jealous of him and his ability to get front row seats at B's games because I don't care about the merits of people's fandom or ability to admit it (I'm a 2008 B's that stayed on and 2013 Sox bandwagoner) and I want those seats, though probably 10 or so rows up.
Hugs and handpounds.
I do find it funny you take umbrage with the fact I called you out for making a 100% bullshit and factually incorrect point because I randomly remembered Simmons wrote a Marathon Monday/Marco Sturm Game article from a time when I was in college.
And yes I actually am jealous of him and his ability to get front row seats at B's games because I don't care about the merits of people's fandom or ability to admit it (I'm a 2008 B's that stayed on and 2013 Sox bandwagoner) and I want those seats, though probably 10 or so rows up.
Hugs and handpounds.
Dalton Jones said:
On the contrary - I imagine there are legions of Simmons fans who view him as a celebrity as much as a writer (or broadcaster/etc.), and many of those people will love to learn more about celebrities' family members, because that's the direction celebrity culture is headed in. I would guess that at least as many people were curious enough to ask, "So, what does the Sports Guy's daughter sound like and think like?" as were repulsed by the idea of listening to the end of the podcast. After all, he's written about her plenty in the context of her Kings hockey fandom and mentions her in other contexts fairly often; many people would be happy to extend their interest in her one step further. And yet, if you were repulsed at the thought and went ahead and listened anyway, how is that any different from flicking through a gossip mag while waiting for a haircut or doctor's appointment, even if just to express your revulsion at the genre or to feel morally superior over everyone involved in its creation?
Again, this was three minutes at the end of podcast running nearly an hour. Simmons didn't ambush you by sneaking his daughter into the middle of a podcast. Sometimes he calls his dad or says a few off-topic words at the end of a podcast devoted to something else; often he reminds you that you're free to stop listening if you're not interested before he carries on. Why is this a big deal?
Dalton Jones said:
I think it's pretty simple: he simply doesn't have to work very hard anymore. In terms of his professional outlook: he is wealthy and has earned a spot with ESPN that essentially places him at the top of his profession (from a status/payscale point of view), with enough autonomy where he doesn't have to worry about impressing any of his colleagues. But larger than that, I think, is that he clearly exists in an echochamber of adoration that reinforces his belief in himself that he is Fucking Awesome. How many emails from fans do you think he reads, on a weekly/monthly basis, that tell him how great he is, how great his mailbags are, how funny he is, etc... Given his past reactions to criticism, it would not surprise me if that's all he reads about himself. And we know he reads them, because he puts his favorite emails into a monthly (roughly) mailbag.
In a nutshell, there's been no motivation for him to work on his writing for at least six or seven years, or whenever he got a big contract extension for his work with ESPN. And since good writing is hard, and gives a permanent record of stuff that people can make fun of him for, or call him out on, he likely opts to spend as little time writing as possible. It's a lot easier, and more fun, to get a buddy or two over and a semi-celebrity and just bullshit on a microphone for 45 minutes.
In the end, I don't think Simmons ever really wanted to be a great writer. He wanted to be with the sports In Crowd and writing was his only viable way to get there. Once he achieved that, he stopped giving a shit about writing.
drleather2001 said:
I think I have been critical of Simmons as much as most, but I think you are off base on a few things here. First, the idea that he doesn't work hard. His writing has taken a back seat, but he also is involved in a lot of other projects, including creating a whole new platform - Grantland. I can't say that he doesn't work hard, but I agree he doesn't work hard on his writing.
I do think Simmons wanted to be a great writer. I don't think Simmons in his wildest dreams thought he would become what he has become. I think he wanted to be the next great Boston sportswriter. I don't think he ever imagined that he would become the type of celebrity that he has become. If you told 1999 Simmons that he would someday be on a National NBA pregame show, he would have told you you were insane (my guess).
I think he does more stuff. I don't get the impression he "works" very hard at anything, though.
The impression I get is that he pitches a lot of ideas that he comes up with, both at ESPN proper and at Grantland. Other than that, what does he *do*? He talks into a microphone without doing any prior research for the NBA, he BSs with his buddies on podcasts, and on occassion he talks to athletes and then, more or less, lets us all know what they talked about.
He's never on a deadline, he's never charged with doing research or getting a scoop, all he basically has to do is show up and be Bill Simmons. And, yes, he does that a lot. But that's not the same as saying he works hard at his craft.
I mean, honest question: how much actual work do you think he does at Grantland? Weekly meeting or two? Guy doesn't do web design, he doesn't write 99% of the material, he isn't in charge of getting advertisers...he's a figurehead who probably signs off on a few decisions once in awhile. That's like saying Paul Newman must work really hard because he has a whole line of salad dressings to sell to people, and he's fucking dead.
EDIT: and, look, I could be totally wrong. He might read and edit every piece that pops up on Grantland, and hand-approve each and every "30 for 30" story and meet with the producers daily to talk about what's going on with that series. But given how lackadaisacal (sp?) he's become with his writing and first-hand output, I sincerely doubt that's the case.
The impression I get is that he pitches a lot of ideas that he comes up with, both at ESPN proper and at Grantland. Other than that, what does he *do*? He talks into a microphone without doing any prior research for the NBA, he BSs with his buddies on podcasts, and on occassion he talks to athletes and then, more or less, lets us all know what they talked about.
He's never on a deadline, he's never charged with doing research or getting a scoop, all he basically has to do is show up and be Bill Simmons. And, yes, he does that a lot. But that's not the same as saying he works hard at his craft.
I mean, honest question: how much actual work do you think he does at Grantland? Weekly meeting or two? Guy doesn't do web design, he doesn't write 99% of the material, he isn't in charge of getting advertisers...he's a figurehead who probably signs off on a few decisions once in awhile. That's like saying Paul Newman must work really hard because he has a whole line of salad dressings to sell to people, and he's fucking dead.
EDIT: and, look, I could be totally wrong. He might read and edit every piece that pops up on Grantland, and hand-approve each and every "30 for 30" story and meet with the producers daily to talk about what's going on with that series. But given how lackadaisacal (sp?) he's become with his writing and first-hand output, I sincerely doubt that's the case.
I have no idea what Simmons' typical day entails and that is why I am hesitant to say he doesn't work hard. I imagine he works about as hard as he did in his digital cities days when he spent half his days reading other columns and posting links with snarky comments (kind of like Olney, but with snark) and the other half working on a column/mail bag/running diary. He never been on a deadline, charged with doing research of getting a scoop (with the possible exception of his time with Kimmel).
You might be 100% right, but I am not ready to draw the inferences that you are drawing.
You might be 100% right, but I am not ready to draw the inferences that you are drawing.
It can't be said often enough how goddam hard it is to produce great writing. It's not just a talent thing, it's time, revisions, re-working and re-wording- in short it's a lot of manual labor. Bill just doesn't have the time or is able to burn the calories needed to do it on a level we used to expect from him.
I think he does have a full day with all the other things that he currently does and the writing part of his career is way down on the priorities list and it shows. He basically whiffed on a Red Sox Win The World Series column; even his tried and true Friday picks column is just wading through a vomit of words just to get to one or two half decent thoughts or jokes. Everything he publishes feels like a first draft. Writing isn't riding a bike, it's climbing a tall mountain every time and Bill just doesn't have it in him anymore. He's moved on to other stuff.
I think he does have a full day with all the other things that he currently does and the writing part of his career is way down on the priorities list and it shows. He basically whiffed on a Red Sox Win The World Series column; even his tried and true Friday picks column is just wading through a vomit of words just to get to one or two half decent thoughts or jokes. Everything he publishes feels like a first draft. Writing isn't riding a bike, it's climbing a tall mountain every time and Bill just doesn't have it in him anymore. He's moved on to other stuff.
ifmanis5 said:
More than his baseball or football, for sure. But then again, read upthread about how he was basing his opinion on Golden State's defense simply by watching one game. He's not a serious analyst even for the NBA, though that does appear to be his favorite sport, and he almost certainly spends more time watching the NBA than any other sport.
drleather2001 said:
I agree. It really doesn't seem like he works hard at all. This is only my impression and is ONLY a guess. But what he produces is mostly fluff or off the cuff bullshit. And what does it say about Simmons that almost every single original writer for Grantland is gone and it's been like two years? That could be for a variety of reasons but I am personally guessing it is because people didn't want to work for a lazy boss like Simmons.
Writing doesn't pay. It's a commodity in today's media. He's was ahead of the game going to the Internet. Then he was a leader in podcasting. Then he crushed it with 30 for 30 and the Grantland site.
I think he will next develop scripted shows or movies.
But writing columns would be a terrible waste of his time financially at this point. Even though its probably his first love. Instead, he pays people he enjoys reading to write about things he wants to read about. Good for him
I think he will next develop scripted shows or movies.
But writing columns would be a terrible waste of his time financially at this point. Even though its probably his first love. Instead, he pays people he enjoys reading to write about things he wants to read about. Good for him
I actually very clearly didn't take umbrage with it. Just trust me that I'm not taking umbrage at anything you're going to say. I acknowledged it and conceded the point. It was not 100% bullshit, in fact--I likely misread JMOH's post, but I took it to mean that he had actually done with the Bruins what he did with the Red Sox because I don't read him anymore and I know that JMOH does. It really doesn't change things, either. He's still full of shit.kenneycb said:
It's the half-wit "why do you bother discussing it?!" shit you do. On a messageboard.
Grantland has been pretty successful for ESPN, has it not? If Simmons was able to do that and at the same time avoid paying the high priced talent maybe that says the opposite thing about him than you are suggesting, at least from ESPN's perspective.
I don't think any of us really have any clue how hard he works, although I don't have any qualms with the sugegestion that he doesn't work very hard on his writing anymore. But I think the suggestion that he's been lazy or whatever as the editor-in-chief of Grantland is not supported by any facts whatsoever.
Edit: this is in response to JohnnyMD
I don't think any of us really have any clue how hard he works, although I don't have any qualms with the sugegestion that he doesn't work very hard on his writing anymore. But I think the suggestion that he's been lazy or whatever as the editor-in-chief of Grantland is not supported by any facts whatsoever.
Edit: this is in response to JohnnyMD
Ralphwiggum said:
I see no evidence whatsoever that he does anything of substance for either Granland or 30 for 30 other than be a figurehead and, in Grantland's case, post things he used to post on Page 2 on the Grantland site.
Again, I could be totally off, but people here seem to concede that Bill Simmons had this massive and all-encompassing hand in creating and developing 30 for 30 as well as Grantland, and I won't concede that point because other than being told by ESPN, which has a clear interest in co-opting SImmons' popularity in a key demographic, there's not much to back it up.
Where's the beef.
EDIT: I don't think he's lazy, by the way. I just think he spreads himself thin and doesn't really commit to any single medium or forum, and generally skates by because of his reputation.
This is kind of a stretch, no? Which writers are all gone? Kang, Baker, Keri, Phillips, Barnwell, Lambert.... I can't think of any that have left that were there in the beginning, they've added a ton. Do you mean like the big name writers they touted in the beginning? None of them wrote much to begin with, other than Klosterman.johnmd20 said:
Really? Pretty much his entire writing oeuvre has been writing about himself or his buddies. Even when he writes about another subject, it's how that other subject affects him (see the Bill Russell piece, half of it is him dry-heaving and not believing that he's in Russell's house*).
* And honestly, he's 40+-years-old who was on TV three times a week with Magic Johnson, when is he going to stop acting like a college freshman meeting Skrillex (is that who the kids listen to these days? I don't know)?
I know that Simmons has written that he has a bunch of screenplays he wrote lying around his house, I'm not sure just how good they are.
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
And how many sitcoms boil down to being about the writer/star and his/her friends? That describes practically every stand-up comic's foray into the sitcom world (at least their first go-round).
I don't know if that's in Simmons' future, but I don't think he's incapable of writing a script of some sort. Or maybe going the Grandland/30 for 30 route and being a gatekeeper for scripted TV or movies. We're talking about a guy who has obsessed about sports movies for years. I wouldn't be shocked to see him become an executive producer for ESPN's next attempt at a Playmakers type series or a remake of White Shadow.
JBill said:
Klosterman and Wright Thompson? Those are the only two I can think of off the top off my head. Eggers was a name bandied about pre-launch, but I'm guessing that was tied to the relationship with McSweeney's and was played up for hype. He only ever wrote one short thing about Wrigley.
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Let's not forget the greatness of the Sportsguy cartoon. He should get a major motion picture based on his life green lighted based on that alone.
Executive Producers don't write. they provide money, make sure everything is running on time and on budget, and get a cut in profits.
Simmons had a shot at writing comedy for the masses on the Jimmy Kimmel show, and by all accounts he was a failure at it.
Simmons had a shot at writing comedy for the masses on the Jimmy Kimmel show, and by all accounts he was a failure at it.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Yeah and aside from "The Cosby Show", "Seinfeld" or "Roseanne" most of these sitcoms sucked.
And remember, most of these guys that had bad sitcoms or terrible movies are funny to begin with. Simmons is amusing, but he isn't funny or has a unique point of view like Jerry Seinfeld or Roseanne Barr or Bill Cosby.
TroyOLeary said:
Gladwell, Colson Whitead and Chris Jones were some other early big name contributors who went AWOL.
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Those three are also hard core exceptions. "The Cosby Show" presented a black family as upper middle or even lower upper class. "Seinfeld" had the pointlessness of their lives lens. And Roseanne, similar to Cosby, broke ground in its portrayal of a union family. That they are exceptions, I think, underscores your point--they brought something else to the table, to use the phrase.
I think that Bill legitimately deserves a lot of credit for bringing the '30 for 30' series to life and getting some big names to participate, but some of you are overselling this like it was a groundbreaking innovation. The anthology format dates back to the 1920's on radio and was a staple of the first two decades of television, The Twilight Zone being probably the best known example to most people.
Reverend said:
That's my point (which I think you see). I mean, in the 90s (as the saying goes) studio execs were giving sitcom deals to comedians as they stepped off the plane in LA. Anthony Clark, Jamie Foxx, Tim Allen, Ray Romano, Tom Arnold, Pauly Shore, Jeff Foxworthy, Brett Butler, Martin Lawrence, Ellen DeGeneres, Norm MacDonald, George Lopez, Drew Carey, George Carlin, Andrew "Dice" Clay, Paul Reiser and there's a ton more. Some of these shows were pretty good, some of them were pretty bad, but most were mediocre because they didn't do anything different and that's with some legitimately funny people.
Simmons' sense of humor has always been a derivative of things that were edgy in the late 80s/early 90s. Basically he's a Letterman disciple (which there is nothing wrong with as 90% of all young funny people are, even if they don't know it) but his humor hasn't really evolved much since then. Bill Simmons is funny to his readers because he's Bill Simmons, basically he's a comfy pair of slippers. But if you don't know who Bill Simmons is or if Bill Simmons isn't going to appear in your show or movie (and why should he) will it be funny? Will it be interesting? It may be popular, but that doesn't mean it's going to be good.
I lived in Seattle briefly (2000-2002), and the first Boston Sports Guy column I remember was his running diary of the Sox signing Manny Ramirez (Paraphrasing a quote: "It got awkward when Duquette said to Ramirez, 'Now you won't have to face Pedro, and my hobbies include murdering prostitutes in cheap motel rooms.'") I laughed so hard at this and other columns, and urged people to read him so often, that my nickname in my office was "BSG's Little Bitch." When he first joined Page 2, it not only seemed like a natural fit for both him and that site, but he was the only writer on that site who was appointment reading for me.
In those early years, I was thrilled to have Simmons represent the Boston sports fan on the national stage. It probably had a lot to do with living outside New England for the first time, but his writing and mailbags were comforting and a community to me in the way SoSH is now (I hadn't found SoSH yet at this point). When the Patriots broke the dam on Boston championships in 2001, I was surrounded by Seahawks fans who were happy for me, but I needed the Simmons Superbowl mailbag to get the euphoria-sharing that I now get from a SoSH gamethread. And at the center of the whole thing was Simmons, guiding the discussion and making very funny jokes along the way. I was a huge fan. I thoroughly enjoyed "Now I Can Die in Peace," although the subject matter made that a pretty low bar.
Now....the easiest thing I can say is that he's not appointment reading for me, and hasn't been for a long time. I still don't quite understand what Bill Russell has to do with the 2013 Red Sox. I don't know why, when talking about Russell not forgiving Boston for some racist incidents, he didn't mention Russell sitting courtside Game 6 in 2008 or hugging Kevin Garnett after the victory. Russell hasn't forgiven Boston, the same Russell who tried to mentor Antoine Walker about being a leader on the Celtics? The same Russell who spoke to the 2002 Patriots about building a dynasty and what it takes to repeat as champions?
I have no problem with a guy living in LA, hanging out with celebrities, making money, being on TV, and bragging about his kids. Fine, whatever. But he clearly stopped being the "voice" of the Boston sports fan a long, long time ago, and I wish he'd just admit that and embrace it. You made a choice to live in LA and raise your kids there. Stop mailing in the cheap article about what World Series victory means to you if, in the end, it didn't mean that much.
In those early years, I was thrilled to have Simmons represent the Boston sports fan on the national stage. It probably had a lot to do with living outside New England for the first time, but his writing and mailbags were comforting and a community to me in the way SoSH is now (I hadn't found SoSH yet at this point). When the Patriots broke the dam on Boston championships in 2001, I was surrounded by Seahawks fans who were happy for me, but I needed the Simmons Superbowl mailbag to get the euphoria-sharing that I now get from a SoSH gamethread. And at the center of the whole thing was Simmons, guiding the discussion and making very funny jokes along the way. I was a huge fan. I thoroughly enjoyed "Now I Can Die in Peace," although the subject matter made that a pretty low bar.
Now....the easiest thing I can say is that he's not appointment reading for me, and hasn't been for a long time. I still don't quite understand what Bill Russell has to do with the 2013 Red Sox. I don't know why, when talking about Russell not forgiving Boston for some racist incidents, he didn't mention Russell sitting courtside Game 6 in 2008 or hugging Kevin Garnett after the victory. Russell hasn't forgiven Boston, the same Russell who tried to mentor Antoine Walker about being a leader on the Celtics? The same Russell who spoke to the 2002 Patriots about building a dynasty and what it takes to repeat as champions?
I have no problem with a guy living in LA, hanging out with celebrities, making money, being on TV, and bragging about his kids. Fine, whatever. But he clearly stopped being the "voice" of the Boston sports fan a long, long time ago, and I wish he'd just admit that and embrace it. You made a choice to live in LA and raise your kids there. Stop mailing in the cheap article about what World Series victory means to you if, in the end, it didn't mean that much.
I didn't listen to it. As soon as he announced his daughter was coming on I lost interest and stopped.ConigliarosPotential said:
This is probably one of the main reasons he sticks to podcasts now vs. writing articles. His "analysis" just does not hold up to any kind of serious scrutiny. If you are going to fling a bunch of shit and theories against the wall (entertaining as it may be), better to do it in a podcast where it's tougher for people to parse it and break it down Kissing Suzy Kolber Style.ivanvamp said:
When every word you write gets dissected by 10 different websites it's not the best medium to choose (for him). Simmon's columns were meant to be printed out and read on the shitter (and left for the next guy to read - that's how we used to do it 10 years ago kiddies before smart phones), not dissected as if it's a doctoral thesis up for review.
Connelly and klosterman is like having Manny and Ortiz in your lineup. It's always a must listen when one is on.ifmanis5 said:
I just listened to the whole thing. Simmons in a nutshell: compelling guests, inane, shallow Bill with some incredibly lame comments. Plus Klosterman's act is getting thin.
Now get off my lawn....
Now get off my lawn....
leetinsley38 said:
I get what you are saying, in particular because between 2002 and 2005 I used to print off his columns and leave them by the shitter at work, but this is a false dilemma, and one of the things that makes objective discussion of Simmons' work difficult with his die hard fans.
Nobody expects, or even wants, Bill Simmons to adopt a Bill James level understanding of statistics or metrics, or anything close to it. Simmons has always made statements that are 90% subjective and based on his own anecdotal experiences. Back when he kept on top of teams and players (i.e. had his finger on the pulse of the Red Sox), his judgments were, if not objectively correct, typically completely relatable. In fact, most of his comments from "back in the day" didn't really relate to performance so much as his impressions of players, and how he related to them as a fan (not only the Clemens piece, but also tidbits like wondering, while watching El Guapo and Rod Beck sit in the dugout together, if Beck blamed his farts on the non-English speaking Garces.).
And that was great! But he doesn't watch the fucking games anymore, so his subjective opinions are no longer worth a damn. And because he disregards all but the most basic (read, old) statistics, his objective opinions aren't worth a damn, either. Yet he frequently speaks with the same authority, with a tone that for the past few years has bordered on contemptuous, regarding his opinions on the Red Sox and, to a lesser extent, the Patriots.
Nobody expects him to become a stat-head. But we can fairly expect that the self-appointed Boston Sports Guy, when he speaks for us (even without us asking), shuld be attuned a little more to what actual Boston fans, in the year 2013, think. And, beyond that, maybe caring a little bit about whether what he's saying is actually correct, and, if necessary, admit when he's wrong.
I mean, if a national media personality is deliberately choosing not to put his work into writing because he's afraid people on other websites will tear it apart and call out his bad arguments, well, maybe instead of retreating to safer waters, he should re-think the shit he's putting into writing. Shank is a disdainful prick, but at least he has the balls to put his stupidity into print where everyone can take a shot at it.
But I don't think that's why he doesn't write anymore (or at least, not the main reason). I just think writing takes time and he'd rather do stuff that's less work.
Podcasts are also a lot easier to do time-wise. You can churn out, say, four or five podcasts in the time it takes to write one article.leetinsley38 said:
Edit: Note podcasts numbers pulled squarely from ass.
The Social Chair said:
I was going to post the same thing. Unless I'm missing something, he seems criminally underutilized in his current role with ABC/ESPN.
He seems pretty involved in making hiring decisions. More than once people have talked about him trying to poach away quality writers from other publications (e.g. Emily Nussbaum at the New Yorker).
Also, the Kennedy podcast is really good. Usually I think Klosterman steals the show on these things, but Connelly was easily the best of the bunch. His point about how Oswald's bio was fairly unique in how well it could support any narrative theorists dream up made a lot of sense to me.
Normally the term pop culture makes me roll my eyes, but Connelly seems to have a knowedgable take on literally everything that happened in popular books, music, sports, films, television, whatever since 1955. The way he casually works in rather impressive nuggets of knowledge is remarkable.
To be fair there's a difference between making picks against the spread and putting your actual money on the line.
Right. I think the Broncos will beat the Patriots on Sunday but I'm sure as hell not going to put money down on it.
moondog80 said:
I think the Andre the Giant is hilarious. He isn't doing an impression of Andre the giant, he is doing a ridiculous parody of Andrew Luck, which makes it pretty funny.
If he had any capability to develop scripted series or theatricals it would have happened already.
I agree. Yet he constantly talks about how studios operate, get shows done, etc. I think he clearly wants to try to write a movie or TV show and now maybe has the pull to do it. But I agree that if he had a good idea already beyond 30 for 30 he would have moved on it
I agree. Yet he constantly talks about how studios operate, get shows done, etc. I think he clearly wants to try to write a movie or TV show and now maybe has the pull to do it. But I agree that if he had a good idea already beyond 30 for 30 he would have moved on it