Bill Simmons: Good Luck With Your Life.

[johnmd20]

PBD, that was really eloquent and expresses a lot of my frustrations* with Simmons too.
 
*Frustrations may be too strong of a word, I simply don't read him anymore. Or if I do, 90% of the time, I'm skimming.

 
In 2002, I vividly remember constantly refreshing the Page 2 website in hope that Simmons put something up. He was a MUST read and he was prolific. And, yes, the way he was writing had never been done before. He took a new medium and added an unbelievably fresh voice to that medium. It is the cause of his popularity now. And he deserves it, he was phenomenal.
 
But I read his columns now like JMOH. It's a bunch of skimming. His Super Bowl mailbag was the worst. His football picks are dumb, as is his manifesto. I wish he would be a bit more tongue in cheek with his gambling analysis, realizing everything he says about wagering is a joke that isn't applicable in any way whatsoever.
 
And he's not a writer anymore. That is also worth mentioning. He has had one original thought in the past few years.(his PED column) And that went nowhere. But he's officially a media powerhouse now. He doesn't need to write.

 

[Leather]

PBD sums it up pretty well, but I am more cynical than him and JMOH.
 
Over the years, I went from being bored with Simmons to being frustrated with him for not working harder to become a better writer; to take pride not only in his persona but also his craft.  He seemed to be in a unique position to make sports writing better.   Instead, by rigid adherence to schtick, he ended up creating his own brand of crappy sportswriting, which I guess I would classify as the Obtusely Juvenile form (aka the Frat Bro form), which is the opposite end of the spectrum from the holier-than-thou, pretentious, stuff that Shank or Borges put out.   While Shank and Borges treat their audience with contempt from on high ("I am a SPORTSWRITER, you are just a FAN!"), Simmons seemed to deliberately harden his position of being "Just a fan" to the point where he was making a point to act smug and proud to be under-informed.   This extended not only to non-basketball sports in the form of his aversion to new forms of statistical analysis (or analysis at all, or even general awareness, really), but also to his refusal to watch popular TV shows or movies.
 
To me,  it went beyond self parody; he was counting on the fact that by sheer virtue of his popularity, he never had to change, and he could pump out the same stuff year in year out, recycling the same jokes, using the same tired formats, because why not?  Simmons seemed to sit back and say: "Eh, good enough", and while it's more subtle than the aggressive version demonstrated by Borges et. al, it's a form of contempt for his audience, nonetheless.  As time went on, it became clear that Simmons ultimate objective was not to be a great writer, or to be an informative read to his audience, but to become popular.   And once he attained Homecoming King of Internet Writers status, he got fat and happy, rested on his laurels, and became more than a little arrogant.  He became kind of an asshole, frankly.
 
From an economic perspective, I get it (if it ain't broke...), and I know he went on to do other things.  But he talked on and on about what it was like to be a fan, but he didn't have enough respect for his own fans to put some effort into his writing and improve.   In musical terms (and to cross-reference another thread), it would be like the Beastie Boys releasing a version of "License to Ill" every year for a decade.  At some point, as a fan, it gets to be not only boring, but insulting, because it's a tacit admission of the mindset: "my fans will buy it even if it's recycled dogshit."
 
Well, I can see how that's appealing and bully for him and all that, but I admire people who work hard to make the most of their talents, not ones who find a niche and stay there because it's comfortable.  Bill Simmons doesn't get a pass because he was funny fifteen years ago, and the Bill Simmons of 2000 would agree with me whole-heartedly. 

 

[Phil Plantier]

Actually, I'd modify that a little bit: I think writers can stay in their niche for a long time, but only if their circumstances don't change. Simmons went from living hand-to-mouth in Boston to an upper middle class lifestyle as a minor celebrity in Los Angeles; his everyman niche is harder to maintain now that he is not everyman.* It's part of the reason that his pop culture references are hoary: he's been to busy to keep up with the latest.
 
I've been thinking lately of The Night Cabbie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Cabbie), a columnist in an SF newspaper who had a particular style and viewpoint. I don't believe he ever made a lot of money from that column, but it was able to maintain a consistent interesting viewpoint throughout. Of course, that was only over 8 years, and we are in year 14 or so of Simmons**, so maybe that's not the best comparison. 
 
*This is oversimplified, because he is a talented writer, and able to craft long pieces better than an average blogger or sportswriter. 
 
** This is a Simmons pet peeve of mine: back in the mid-2000s he would often say "please kill me if I'm still doing this in ten years" and he has ended up a cliche factory like the sportswriters he used to skewer ("Furman Bisher needs his sheets changed... Phil Mushnick hates everyone").

 

[SaveBooFerriss]

For me, the main subject of his writing has always been Bill Simmons, which made him unique at the time because there was little writing from the fan perspective.  He didn't write as much about the game itself, but how he observed and interpreted the game* and how the game affected him.   At some point, I become completely disinterested in the subject of Bill Simmons. Maybe it is because I could relate to him when he was writing from his apartment from Watertown trying to make a living.  I just don't relate to him now.  
 
*In writing about games, he wrote as much about the telecast as his did about what was going on on the court or the field. which was pretty unique at the time outside of the dedicated media columns.  I thought some of his best stuff was his media criticism.  Now at ESPN, he is pretty cuffed with regard to his criticism.    

 

[coremiller]

I think the big problem for Simmons is just that he's overextended, and so his writing has suffered.  Back in 2001 his only responsibility was to write.  Now he's on TV several times a week, executive-producing an ongoing documentary series, doing 1-2 podcasts/week, and is the Editor-in-Chief of a (relatively) major sports/pop culture website -- plus he's married with two young kids.  The reason he falls back on old cliches and tired tropes like mailbags is because it's easy and quick and he just doesn't have the time or energy to produce better, more original content.  He's even aware of it; he frequently includes in his mailbags a reader comment about how the mailbags are just an excuse for him to avoid actually having to write anything.  
 
Really, he should stop writing regularly altogether, and just do occasional one-off pieces when he actually has something insightful or original to say and has the time to take it seriously.  If he's moved onto bigger and better things, that's fine and understandable, but he should be self-aware enough to realize that he's just not in a position to write well given all the other stuff he's got going on and so he should quit trying.  But his following is large enough that even his crappy mailbags are probably huge traffic generators, and he doesn't want to (or maybe is contractually required not to) give that up.  So in that sense, he's just sold out.  

 

[joe dokes]

For me, the main subject of his writing has always been Bill Simmons, which made him unique at the time because there was little writing from the fan perspective.  He didn't write as much about the game itself, but how he observed and interpreted the game* and how the game affected him.   At some point, I become completely disinterested in the subject of Bill Simmons. . . . .  I just don't relate to him now.  
 

 
 
This is a really good point. But I dont think the issue is that he's no longer the underdog, writing from an apartment.  Its simpler, you dont relate to him because whether by age alone or other life circumstanmces, your "fan perspective" has changed.
 
He's gotten older, too. And he has kids and moved across the country. So his "fan perspective" has undoubtedly changed as well. Yet he writes as though it hasn't. Maybe he'd prefer to keep getting new 18(15?)-30(?)-year old fans who dont see his him (or care) as intellectually uncurious and his stuff as old and recycled, rather than growing with his audience. Its working for him. And its a shitload easier. It doesnt really matter if I mostly stopped reading Simmons (or Shaughnessy or Borges or Rick Reilly) because they changed or because I did.
 
By contrast, that I first read Roger Angell when I was 15 and still do more than 35 years later is a tribute to him; as it is to any writer that anyone can read throughout their entire life.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I think that Bill Simmons has gotten lazy in the last decade or so, but I also think that Bill Simmons got scared. Remember when he first started on Page 2 and one of his first columns were about how he and his buddy climbed Mt. Washington? It was bad and he was lambasted (rightly). I think that Simmons tried writing a "very serious" piece about something that happened to him and it completely blew up in his face and he was ridiculed. I don't think that he ever wants to deal with that again, so he takes the safe route week after week after week -- just bros being bros, feelings are dorks.
 
I'm not saying that this is a reasonable excuse, because it's not. Writers should push themselves and try new things, even if they're uncomfortable. As angry as I was with Joe Posnanski and his take on Joe Paterno, I have to admit that the guy stuck by his story and his POV. That takes some balls and I don't think that Simmons has that kind of fortitude. Maybe he realized that he wasn't a good writer and that he should stay on the safe side of the street, write what his fans like. There is something to recognizing your weaknesses, but if you keep playing it safe as a writer, you end up stale. Which is too bad, because as Leather said, Simmons had a chance to really change the dynamic of sports writing--and writing--in the coming century. Maybe the responsibility was too big for him? I don't know.

 

[Clears Cleaver]

Bill Simmons got lazy? scared? You guys are incredible. Bill Simmons wanted more than to write stupid sports columns and instead broaden both his horizons and checkbook.

Being a writer, despite all the idealistic hope of what a columnist can do with his prose, sucks. It doesn't pay. Getting pats on the backs from other writers for a job well done is maybe a liberal's dream but doesn't pay the bills. Simmons hated working for anyone, hated the bureaucracy and basically created his own brand and franchise. He did 30-30, is #1 podcaster in sports, created Grantland and is on NBA TV. He makes millions and millions of dollars a year. He doesn't write anymore because, well, he doesn't have to. Unless he wants to. He's got better things to do. In fact, he's got better writers writing for him. Perfect world.

 

[cromulence]

Bill Simmons got lazy? scared? You guys are incredible. Bill Simmons wanted more than to write stupid sports columns and instead broaden both his horizons and checkbook.

Being a writer, despite all the idealistic hope of what a columnist can do with his prose, sucks. It doesn't pay. Getting pats on the backs from other writers for a job well done is maybe a liberal's dream but doesn't pay the bills. Simmons hated working for anyone, hated the bureaucracy and basically created his own brand and franchise. He did 30-30, is #1 podcaster in sports, created Grantland and is on NBA TV. He makes millions and millions of dollars a year. He doesn't write anymore because, well, he doesn't have to. Unless he wants to. He's got better things to do. In fact, he's got better writers writing for him. Perfect world.

 
How does this differ from what anyone else has said? The problem is that we used to enjoy his writing, which is now rare and of shittier quality. It sounds like you were never a fan of his writing, which is fine, but then you should just say so instead of telling us how successful Simmons is.

 

[nattysez]

hated working for anyone, hated the bureaucracy 
 

What does this even mean?  He's working for the biggest entertainment company in the world (where he's worked for over a decade) and is constantly dealing with office politics.  Depicting him as having struck out on his own to stick it to the man is the exact opposite of what he's done.
 
The guy you're describing is Dan Patrick, who hated the bs at ESPN, created his own thing, and is now a big success.  Simmons used his popularity at ESPN to force the company to let him do some things he wanted to do, but other than risk to his brand, he didn't really have much at stake.  If Grantland and 30-for-30 flopped, he still had his writing career to fall back on.
 
FWIW, Nick and CreightonG captured my feelings about Simmons quite well. 

 

[luckiestman]

All I know is that Bill and Jalen have me more interested in nonCeltics nba ball than I have ever been. I can't dislike the guy.

 

[DJnVa]

All I know is that Bill and Jalen have me more interested in nonCeltics nba ball than I have ever been. I can't dislike the guy.

 
Who said they dislike him?
 
People are talking about his writing.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Being a writer, despite all the idealistic hope of what a columnist can do with his prose, sucks. It doesn't pay. Getting pats on the backs from other writers for a job well done is maybe a liberal's dream but doesn't pay the bills.
 

 
That's crap. Joe Posnanski still writes very well, has been at as long (if not longer) than Simmons, uses the same medium to convey his message (the internet) and doesn't fall back on the same old tropes. Bob Ryan has been writing since 1969 and he's pumping out new, interesting and evolving opinions, he's still growing. And there are countless writers across the country who don't atrophy and push the boundaries of good writing.
 
And a "liberal's dream"? Good writers doing good work get paid. Crappy writers doing crappy work also get paid. It all comes down to personal and professional pride. 

 

[Shelterdog]

Bill Simmons got lazy? scared? You guys are incredible. Bill Simmons wanted more than to write stupid sports columns and instead broaden both his horizons and checkbook.

Being a writer, despite all the idealistic hope of what a columnist can do with his prose, sucks. It doesn't pay. Getting pats on the backs from other writers for a job well done is maybe a liberal's dream but doesn't pay the bills. Simmons hated working for anyone, hated the bureaucracy and basically created his own brand and franchise. He did 30-30, is #1 podcaster in sports, created Grantland and is on NBA TV. He makes millions and millions of dollars a year. He doesn't write anymore because, well, he doesn't have to. Unless he wants to. He's got better things to do. In fact, he's got better writers writing for him. Perfect world.

 
Betcha Bill Simmons got paid a shitload to write when that's all he was doing.  You're also conflating "liberals" and "people who value writing."

 

[Zososoxfan]

I apologize if this has been mentioned upthread (not going to read 13 pages about Simmons), but Drew Magary over at Deadspin is a terrific and hilarious writer that strikes the same chord as Simmons did for me in his better years. I find myself laughing out loud in the office (completely innapropriately) when reading Magary in the same way I used to when reading Simmons.
 
I used to be like JMOH and refresh page 2 all the time waiting for new columns (Fridays were the best! I think the other day was Tuesdays?), but somewhere along the way recycling the same jokes and his focus on podcasts (along with my maturation and decrease in free time) led me away from his writing and his output more generally.

 

[nattysez]

I apologize if this has been mentioned upthread (not going to read 13 pages about Simmons), but Drew Magary over at Deadspin is a terrific and hilarious writer that strikes the same chord as Simmons did for me in his better years. I find myself laughing out loud in the office (completely innapropriately) when reading Magary in the same way I used to when reading Simmons.
 

Magary's been mentioned before.  I think I can sum up prior discussions by saying that he is not everyone's cup of tea, and is not regarded here as being at the same level as Simmons when Simmons was at his best.
 
That said, I generally enjoy Magary's Deadspin writing, really enjoyed his first book (The Postmortal), and thought his piece in GQ about Duck Dynasty that caused all that hubbub was very good.  But he can be a little hit-and-miss -- I didn't finish his second book.  Generally speaking, I feel like he's more "on my wavelength," if that makes sense, than Simmons, which is just personal preference.  As an added bonus, I don't cringe every time he writes about his kids, whereas Simmons has just about never written about his kids without me thinking "he doesn't seem like a very good parent." 

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

As an added bonus, I don't cringe every time he writes about his kids, whereas Simmons has just about never written about his kids without me thinking "he doesn't seem like a very good parent."
 

 
That's an interesting though, why do you feel that way?
 
BTW, I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but curious as to why you'd say that.

 

[The Social Chair]

Simmons introduces a well done Grantland video on Steve Nash
 
http://grantland.com/features/approaching-the-finish-line/

 

[NatetheGreat]

Simmons introduces a well done Grantland video on Steve Nash
 
http://grantland.com/features/approaching-the-finish-line/

 
I thought both the video and Simmons little intro piece worked well. Nash is a compelling subject, and I'm always a sucker for well done Lion in Winter athlete stories.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

I recently listened to the Simmons/Klosterman podcast on Michael Sam and Marcus Smart (among other topics), and I'm in the process of now listening to Slate's "Hang Up and Listen" podcast covering those same topics. The latter discussion is undeniably deeper and more thoroughly analytical, and yet I rather prefer listening to Simmons and Klosterman. This is partly for stylistic reasons (the Slate guys can get overly geeky, whereas Klosterman is thoroughly engaging), but it's also largely because Simmons is as influential as he is - more people listen to him, and as such it just feels more important and relevant somehow.
 
Does that make me a bad person?

 

[Leather]

Why is Simmons influential at all in regards to the Sam matter? 
 
I read you as saying " Bill Simmons is worth listening to because lots of people listen to Bill Simmons, so therefore he's worth listening to", and I think that's a little circular.
 
I do like Klosterman, although he can kind of get lost inside his own navel from time to time.

 

[Morning Woodhead]

In the Klosterman podcast, Simmons said something along the lines of "Now that you have a kid, I can't wait for you to start writing some pieces about being a father".  Klosterman stopped him and said something along the lines of   "I don't think I'm going to do that, because I didn't like reading those pieces when I didn't have a kid, and I don't like the idea of someone having an experience of when it happens to them, that WOW, now its very important!.  I'm wary about doing that"
 
Klosterman recognizes that just because something is important to him now, doesn't mean it should be important to everyone.  Simmons has yet to grasp this.  Just like Wire and Breaking Bad were over rated until he watched them.  There are about a billion more examples, but in one brief statement, Klosterman summed up a major issue with Simmons. 

 

[Leather]

Be that as it may...
 
I would bet $50 that within 2 years, Klosterman will write about being a father, and how it changes your perspective, at least once.

 

[SaveBooFerriss]

I recently listened to the Simmons/Klosterman podcast on Michael Sam and Marcus Smart (among other topics), and I'm in the process of now listening to Slate's "Hang Up and Listen" podcast covering those same topics. The latter discussion is undeniably deeper and more thoroughly analytical, and yet I rather prefer listening to Simmons and Klosterman. This is partly for stylistic reasons (the Slate guys can get overly geeky, whereas Klosterman is thoroughly engaging), but it's also largely because Simmons is as influential as he is - more people listen to him, and as such it just feels more important and relevant somehow.
 
Does that make me a bad person?

 
I think Klosterman and Simmons work really well together.  I always find Klosterman interesting on the BS Report.  He is definitely my favorite recurring guest.  I have heard him on other podcasts, including when he has hosted and I have found those less interesting.  Simmons seems to be able to keep him grounded.   Just my two cents.  

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I read you as saying " Bill Simmons is worth listening to because lots of people listen to Bill Simmons, so therefore he's worth listening to", and I think that's a little circular.

The bandwagon effect is real and it's spectacular!

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

It's more the sense that I'm listening to opinions that more people care about, and therefore it feels more like a water-cooler discussion topic than simply a piece of analysis in isolation. Or to put it another way: I myself don't particularly care what Simmons himself thinks about Michael Sam or Marcus Smart or the NFL playoff odds or his children, but I sense that other people do, and because he generally talks about these things in a listenable and humorous way, I'm generally keen to listen. (I tend to care more about Simmons' NBA-related opinions because of his basketball-related credentials, even if I would always agree with Zach Lowe over him if they disagreed about something.) If that's circular reasoning, so be it...but that's kinda how popularity works, isn't it?
 
I certainly don't think bandwagon-jumping has anything to do with this, at least in my case - I've been reading Simmons since his Digital City days, and I've enjoyed following his personal story almost as much as I have enjoyed consuming his output. As much as many people here seem naturally inclined to dump on him, I'm inclined to root for him...I knew him when he was nothing, and I *like* that he's now something, even if that natural progression means his written output in particular has suffered.

 

[TroyOLeary]

His interviews with Curry, Wall, Anthony Davis, Derozan up now are all good listens, but there was one line in the Derozan interview that I thought was a good microcosm of a lot of the problems people have with Simmons.  They were talking about the Los Angeles offseason pickup games organized by Chris Paul, and Simmons was talking about wanting to go to one, and he said something along the lines of "I won't tell anyone what I see there, I just want to be able to tell people I went."  Now this was a throwaway line in a casual section of an already casual interview, and there are plenty of other examples of Simmons expressing this same kind of sentiment, but just the way it was worded seemed like such a funny thing for somebody in (some form of) journalism to say.

 

[The Social Chair]

FYI Simmons is coaching the celebrity game at All Star Weekend tonight and Zach Lowe is his assistant coach which is a very Mark Jackson/Mike Malone situation.

 

[NatetheGreat]

FYI Simmons is coaching the celebrity game at All Star Weekend tonight and Zach Lowe is his assistant coach which is a very Mark Jackson/Mike Malone situation.

 
I bet Zach Lowe somehow already has a detailed breakdown of the best place on the floor to feed Kevin Hart and how best to defend Arne Duncan.

 

[Blacken]

His interviews with Curry, Wall, Anthony Davis, Derozan up now are all good listens, but there was one line in the Derozan interview that I thought was a good microcosm of a lot of the problems people have with Simmons.  They were talking about the Los Angeles offseason pickup games organized by Chris Paul, and Simmons was talking about wanting to go to one, and he said something along the lines of "I won't tell anyone what I see there, I just want to be able to tell people I went."  Now this was a throwaway line in a casual section of an already casual interview, and there are plenty of other examples of Simmons expressing this same kind of sentiment, but just the way it was worded seemed like such a funny thing for somebody in (some form of) journalism to say.

I thought about this too, but I think this also reflects on why people still like Simmons for some stuff (as do I): he's still a fan. That's a fan thing to say, and seeing him in a position to actually say that is kind of refreshing. I mean, I'd want to go to that, too, purely as a fan of the game of basketball. Simmons doesn't always separate his fandom and his sportswriting (I don't think you can call him a "journalist"), but sometimes that's for the good.

 

[nattysez]

Simmons (who Deadspin dislikes) did a podcast interview with Lena Dunham (who Gawker dislikes), so he's getting roasted on Deadspin.  I'll probably give it a listen, largely because I very strongly doubt Simmons has watched more than 3 episodes of "Girls," and I'm curious to see how he faked his way through the interview. 

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

Simmons (who Deadspin dislikes) did a podcast interview with Lena Dunham (who Gawker dislikes), so he's getting roasted on Deadspin.  I'll probably give it a listen, largely because I very strongly doubt Simmons has watched more than 3 episodes of "Girls," and I'm curious to see how he faked his way through the interview. 

I know he championed the first season of Girls on the podcast a couple years back, so I assume he's still watching.

 

[The Social Chair]

Deadspin going for easy clicks because their auidence of snarky bros already dislikes Simmons and Dunham, but there wasn't one quote there of note or interest.

 

[nattysez]

I know he championed the first season of Girls on the podcast a couple years back, so I assume he's still watching.

Whoops -- shows you what I know.  

 

[ForKeeps]

Yeah, they actually have a great chemistry, oddly enough. It's a really good discussion, as was the one from a couple years ago. But, I like Dunham, so. Also any time I'm on the opposite side of deadspin it makes me feel good.

 

[allstonite]

I agree the podcast was good. He makes her more likable and she makes him sound smarter. I still don't know whether I like her or the show (even after almost 3 seasons) but in a setting like this I think she's great. Deadspin is good for some things, but Simmons is a blind spot. It always comes off as too snarky. Not saying he doesn't deserve it a lot of times but I don't think this is one of those times

 

[jsinger121]

 

Bill Simmons ‏@BillSimmons  2m
Big day: Doing "NBA Countdown" tonight (7:30 ESPN), then filling in for Tommy Heinsohn for Celts-Lakers w/ Mike Gorman (10:30pm, CSNNE).
 

 

[NatetheGreat]

Stephen A and Skip Bayless may be low hanging fruit, but I thought this part of the recent NBA mailbag was spot on
 

Q: After porn star Ava Devine offered to have sex with every player on the Cavs team if they made the playoffs, they won 5 in a row before tailing off. How is this not a bigger story? How would you rank the current Cavs roster, in order from least likely to most likely, to follow-up on this offer should the Cavs make the playoffs? Anthony Bennett has to be most likely, right?
—Jim, Cleveland
SG: Since it’s the NBA, I’m going with “every player is the most likely.” But I’m glad you brought this up. Lord knows I’ve made enough “God Hates Cleveland” jokes, but if the Cavs are making a crazy playoff push during that final week, can you imagine First Takeright before the 82nd game?
Stephen A: I don’t care what the girl said, I don’t care how well the Cleveland Cavaliers happen to be playing right now … YOU CANNOT PROMISE SEX ACTS AS COMPENSATION FOR AN ACCOMPLISHED DEED, that is absolutely ILLEGAL! That is prostitution, Skip! The Cleveland Cavaliers CANNOT CASH IN THAT OFFER! I do not CARE if she made it, I do not CARE if she wants to deliver it, I do not CARE if she wants to keep it DISCREET! That offer has to go by the wayside. Adam Silver CANNOT allow those shenanigans in the National Basketball Association.
Skip: I’m gonna go the other way, Stephen A.
Stephen: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip: Lemme finish!
Stephen: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip: Lemme finish!
Stephen: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip: Lemme finish!
Stephen: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip: Lemme finish!
Stephen: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip: Lemme finish!
Stephen: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip: Lemme finish!
Stephen: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip: Lemme finish!
Stephen: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip: Lemme finish!
Stephen: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skip: Lemme finish, please.
Stephen: Go ahead.
Skip: An offer was made. Terms were set. The Cavaliers are close to achieving those terms.
Stephen: No! NO, SKIP! NO!
Skip: Ava Devine is a consenting adult. The Cavaliers are consenting adults.
Stephen: Not Anthony Bennett!
Skip: He’s 20!
Stephen: HE CAN’T DRINK YET!
Skip: He’s 20, and if he wants to have sex with Ava Devine, you can’t stop him and neither can I!
(QUICK CUT TO THE TEST PATTERN.)

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

That article has commenting enabled on it. I am surprised to say the least.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Stephen A and Skip Bayless may be low hanging fruit, but I thought this part of the recent NBA mailbag was spot on
 

 
I loled.

 

[jacklamabe65]

His discussion with his friend, Jack-o, concerning the 2014 was disturbing. He obviously hasn't "checked in yet" at all about the team. He thinks that they will be on autopilot, the typical year after a championship run. He obviously hasn't learned yet that this current team is anything but - and that they seem even more dedicated to repeating than anything else.  If he is the litmus test for most causal baseball fans, I can't wait to see their surprise when the season starts to unfold.  

 

[ifmanis5]

Bill is pathologically incapable of admitting a mistake.
 

Q: Stop me when I get to a person who would have evaluated Milwaukee higher than you in his pre-season rankings …
SG: First of all, words hurt. Second of all, the East was definitely going to be atrocious, so I thought one “lottery team” might swerve the other way and improbably sneak into the playoffs. The five possibilities: Milwaukee, Philly, Boston, Toronto and Charlotte. I just backed the wrong team — the Charlotte Hornbobnetcats would have been an even more ridiculous pick, and they’re headed for a 7-seed. Technically, my logic was sound!
 

 
I was right! It was the Bucks who were wrong! He sounds like Norma Desmond.

 

[nattysez]

The Golden State Warriors -- assessed as defensively questionable by Simmons at the start of the year -- are currently tied at #2 in opponents' FG% for the year.  

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

Bill is pathologically incapable of admitting a mistake.
 
 
I was right! It was the Bucks who were wrong! He sounds like Norma Desmond.

 
Do you really not see him making fun of himself there?

 

[deanx0]

 
Do you really not see him making fun of himself there?

 
Agreed. First of all, even printing that email is calling attention to his mistake, and the answer is clearly a joke. There's plenty of evidence that Bill doesn't like to admit when he's wrong, but this is not one of them.

 

[FungosWithJimy]

Time Magazine has a good piece on Nate Silver this week.  Simmons is mentioned and quoted in it. Interesting stuff.  It is subscriber content only unfortunately.
 
http://time.com/#13804/hey-sports-fans-its-time-for-math-class/

 

[ifmanis5]

 
Do you really not see him making fun of himself there?

Of course I do and he still manages to be a dick about it.
 
More importantly, his Twitter feed is now worthless; it's completely free of content and opinion. He completely punted being a human being on there and now it's just an endless stream of promos. That's exactly how you do not do Social Media. What happened to the Simmons of his PEDs column when he vowed to just say the stuff that was on his mind, consequences be damned? He's the exact opposite now in almost all facets of his brand except for his podcast.

 

[gmogmo]

Of course I do and he still manages to be a dick about it.
 
More importantly, his Twitter feed is now worthless; it's completely free of content and opinion. He completely punted being a human being on there and now it's just an endless stream of promos. That's exactly how you do not do Social Media. What happened to the Simmons of his PEDs column when he vowed to just say the stuff that was on his mind, consequences be damned? He's the exact opposite now in almost all facets of his brand except for his podcast.

Funny you bring that up, was just thinking the same thing.  Not a huge fan of his (especially his articles), but thought a decent twitter follow.  Can't remember the last time a tweet wasn't just a promo for the next 30/30 or a podcast he did.  No tweet on Revis is what hammered this home for me.

 

[BS_SoxFan]

Of course I do and he still manages to be a dick about it.
 
More importantly, his Twitter feed is now worthless; it's completely free of content and opinion. He completely punted being a human being on there and now it's just an endless stream of promos. That's exactly how you do not do Social Media. What happened to the Simmons of his PEDs column when he vowed to just say the stuff that was on his mind, consequences be damned? He's the exact opposite now in almost all facets of his brand except for his podcast.

I can't remember the specific episode, but on a recent BS Report he basically said that he was "done" with twitter and it certainly appears that he's only been using it to link articles/plug 30 for 30 since then.

 

[The Social Chair]

It was probably the Dr V story that triggered his defensiveness.
 
 
Here's an article from the Hollywood Reporter about Grantland
 
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/espns-bill-simmons-says-grantland-687842
 

 
"I think we have really figured out the multimedia thing, having two podcast networks and merging YouTube," the site's founder, who also co-hosts ESPN's NBA Countdown show, tells THR. "The next step for us is to use the rest of the company to help us -- maybe by getting a couple of our writers on TV," he says, adding, "I don't think [a Grantland] TV show is out of the question; there's a couple of ideas that we've been talking about.
 
"Connor Schell [vp ESPN Films] and I are doing a baseball movie [Million Dollar Arm, which is set for release in May] with Disney and Jon Hamm, so that's going to help us. It's little baby steps and all about trying to get people to know about the site.
 
"Right now we're in that same spot that 30 for 30 was their first year -- the ratings were fine, people liked it -- but now five years later everyone knows what it is and has an opinion on it. It hits a whole range of demographics, it is re-watchable and it affects people's lives. It gets me motivated with Grantland because I know we're not there yet."