It's exactly what it is. He's admitted it all year. It's Benjy Bronk level shitty schtick.tims4wins said:
Bill Simmons: Good Luck With Your Life.
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
He's insinuated it in the past, maybe not specifically LBJ but a general prevalent use in the NBA. Putting that allegation directly into writing adds a bunch of potential non-ESPN shit I imagine he wouldn't want to deal with. I was watching LeBetard's show where they had to explicitly make Papi say he had no evidence to definitively say JJ Watt was on PEDs, even though he is, after making an accusatory statement. The skinny part is probably a bit of a workaround without getting into mucky waters.LuckyBen said:
jimbobim said:
I don't know if its laziness, or just that he has reached the outer limits of his writing abilities, especially when it isn't about the NBA. Now that the bright light is really on him, it's apparent that the only sport he can provide really good analysis of is NBA basketball. There's no shame in that. Under scrutiny and comparison, his analysis of the NFL and MLB, for example, just withers. And even the wittiest of writers on those sports cannot survive without a foundation of solid analysis, which Simmons lacks in the non-NBA context. He can either "go to school" on football or he will forever be churning out the same stuff.
His basketball analysis isn't much different from his football knowledge, he just clearly follows the sport closer and knows a lot about 80's basketball. Listen to his latest podcast with Jalen or the one with Lowe and it still boils down to the Clippers having terrible body language, Lebron James tanking conspiracy theories and trade ideas. I think his basketball stuff comes off stronger largely because of how good Lowe is at playing off his lazy analysis and coming up with something interesting. Barnwell is his go-to football guy and he's just as prone to lazy analysis and hyperbolic stuff as Simmons.
That said I still enjoy Simmons the facilitator of content and I'll listen to his podcasts depending on the guest and watch his basketball hour.
That said I still enjoy Simmons the facilitator of content and I'll listen to his podcasts depending on the guest and watch his basketball hour.
On his podcast Bill promised to move back to Boston if the Celtics draft Ben Simmons. He was serious.
A picks mailbag is, at best, something Gawker would do. Or Dear Abby. It's so hack and it's also an insult. He has a byline on the column but he didn't come up with any of it. His readers do and Simmons responds.
Yup, seems like they're about to cut Brady this winter. Great detective work, Scoop Simmons- no one can bullshit the host of the BS Report.
Before the podcast goes up today, what are the odds on Bill having forgotten Playoff Manifesto Rule #17 or something and having "misdiagnosed" the Ravens as the "Wonk Team", when if he had just followed the road map he had laid out, it was clear the Colts were?
PBDWake said:
Well, obviously the Colts are the 2015 version of the wonk team now. I mean, they are 2-0 this year in the playoffs. Obviously it's them. Now.
I hope he just revels in how amazing that game was. I think he's got it in him. Unfortunately, I suspect Sal will be either comatose or completely bonkers. If he thought the Lions play wasn't PI, I can only imagine what he thinks of the Dez non-catch.
A little late, but:
The 2006 Patriots lost, in horrifically painful fashion, to their arch rival, giving Manning an obviously clear shot to beat the Bears (who have to be the worst SB participant since...The Bengals?).
The 2006 Red Sox finished 3rd in the AL East, after coughing up 1st place with a 2-month free fall that culminated with their star pitching prospect announcing he had cancer.
The 2006-07 Bruins finished last in their division, allowing 70 more goals than they scored.
The 2006-07 Celtics won 24 games, and Red Auerbach (and D.J.) died during the season. Somehow, despite having the 2nd worst record, they end up with only the 5th overall pick in a draft that had two can't miss (cough) prospects.
2006/07 was, IMO, clearly worse. Regardless, it would have been nice if he had maybe, I dunno, looked into it a bit.
The 2006 Patriots lost, in horrifically painful fashion, to their arch rival, giving Manning an obviously clear shot to beat the Bears (who have to be the worst SB participant since...The Bengals?).
The 2006 Red Sox finished 3rd in the AL East, after coughing up 1st place with a 2-month free fall that culminated with their star pitching prospect announcing he had cancer.
The 2006-07 Bruins finished last in their division, allowing 70 more goals than they scored.
The 2006-07 Celtics won 24 games, and Red Auerbach (and D.J.) died during the season. Somehow, despite having the 2nd worst record, they end up with only the 5th overall pick in a draft that had two can't miss (cough) prospects.
2006/07 was, IMO, clearly worse. Regardless, it would have been nice if he had maybe, I dunno, looked into it a bit.
drleather2001 said:
Are you asking rhetorically?
Wonk team is a Simmons made (I think) nickname about the team in the playoffs who surprises and does much better than expected. Naturally, he picks the wonk team after the season is over, guaranteeing he never picks the wrong wonk team. It's a ridiculous term.
The wonk team was Baltimore, because they won in the first round. But now the wonk team will be Indy because they won in the first round and won on the road in the second round. Therefore, at worst, the wonk team will be 2-1 in the playoffs, continuing the playoff dominance of the wonk team.
RIrooter09 said:
In the first sentence of the column, no less. Jesus. It's either illegal or it isn't. There is nothing quasi about it.
drleather2001 said:
Because it's wonky when the team who is expected to do poorly does well. No, seriously.
Um....That's not what "wonk" means.
It's used more often (in my experience) to talk about people who follow politics or policy making very closely. As in "Oh, he's a real clean energy wonk.".
It's used more often (in my experience) to talk about people who follow politics or policy making very closely. As in "Oh, he's a real clean energy wonk.".
It's an abbreviated use of the word wonky, which does mean "crooked or off center".
Hey, take it up with Simmons. The term is idiotic and the process of selecting the 'wonk' team after the fact is ghastly.
Hey, take it up with Simmons. The term is idiotic and the process of selecting the 'wonk' team after the fact is ghastly.
johnmd20 said:
I'm with leather. While the root of wonk is wonky I've always heard of a wonk is someone who's obsessed with--and reasonably knowledgeable about--some particular public policy issue. (I view wonks as a close cousin of geeks, just cousins who typically lack math and science skills).
Anyhow the concept is idiotic and the term is particularly stupid since it misuses a pretty common usage of the term.
For a guy you really seem to dislike and ridicule, a lot of you seem to read, listen to and watch a lot of Bill Simmons. Or is that why you watch, listen and read him, to ridicule? I stopped reading Shaughnessy about 4 years ago, and it's been liberating. I recommend it.
drleather2001 said:
In 2010:
- the 2010 Bruins blew a 3-0 series lead AND a 3-0 lead in Game 7.
- the Celtics blew a 3-2 lead series and lost the Finals in 7 games to the Lakers.
- the Patriots lost a playoff game at home to one of their biggest rivals as double-digit favorites.
- the Red Sox missed the playoffs.
johnmd20 said:
The Wonk Team is a ridiculous term. But the bolded part isn't exactly fair: the Wonk team was always the #8 playoff seed*— at least it was in the column where he unveiled the 'theory' (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2014-nfl-gambling-guide/). And it is eerie how well the #8 seed performed collectively over the 2007-13 span. Where it got especially silly was this year, when he switched 'Wonk' status from the overall #8 seed to the Ravens based retroactively on the Wild Card week results.
* Edit: I am wrong: not the 8th seed but one of the bottom 4 seeds.
Klosterman podcast, guys!
Still early doors, but I did like that Klosterman pushed back on Bill trying to wedge in the Ewing Theory to OSU's 3467562 quarterbacks.
I don't think this is a discussion Boston sports fans should be having, at least if they want to counter the entitled assholes stereotype. This year and 2007 would count as Great Years! in Cleveland sports.
When a bad year still involves one of your teams contending for a championship, it's not a bad year.
Still early doors, but I did like that Klosterman pushed back on Bill trying to wedge in the Ewing Theory to OSU's 3467562 quarterbacks.
drleather2001 said:
I don't think this is a discussion Boston sports fans should be having, at least if they want to counter the entitled assholes stereotype. This year and 2007 would count as Great Years! in Cleveland sports.
When a bad year still involves one of your teams contending for a championship, it's not a bad year.
m0ckduck said:
There are 12 teams in the playoffs, not 8. So the wonk team is the best performing team ranked from 8th to 12th. This team is picked after the fact. You aren't correct and it's a stupid term and it's only a great theory because it has the benefit of making the picks after the games are played.
I'll tell you this, if the johnmd playoff picks theory was allowed to make its selections after the games are played, I would rate at an accuracy level of 100%.
Spacemans Bong said:
Well, he could have said that, and that would have been nice.
Or he could have delved into it a little bit and, with the caveat it's been a great 10 years, determined which year was the "worst".
He did neither.
No he mocked the person for being an entitled asshole as they clearly deserved.drleather2001 said:
Spacemans Bong said:
Yes, that was an all-timer. Klosterman basically had to explain to Bill what the theory was as he had written it. Apparently even Bill is not paying attention to what Simmons is writing these days.
I also liked the moment when Klosterman was running down Linklater's movies and Simmons admitted that he hadn't been listening.
Simmons seems to basically just rewrite the exact same Manning vs Brady column every year, with the only difference being whoever is "on top", inevitably decided purely by who played better in the recent period prior to him writing the column.
I mean, I suppose you could say thats true about every Manning vs Brady column, but for whatever reason it seems especially glaring with Simmons.
I mean, I suppose you could say thats true about every Manning vs Brady column, but for whatever reason it seems especially glaring with Simmons.
Simmons must've been a great read for his English lit professors.
Good lord he can torture an analogy.
Good lord he can torture an analogy.
I usually like Simmons, but this article made no sense and even the basic facts weren't checked. How can someone "win" 10-8 if the other guy didn't play the whole season? How did Manning win in 2012 if the Pats beat them in week 5 and went a round deeper in the playoffs?joe dokes said:
Possibly. I've wondered that if Bill was from Chicago or Seattle, would I bother to read him? At this point I would not.The Tax Man said:
He did come along at the right time with the right voice so even if he was from somewhere else I would have been interested in his writing when he started. By now I'd do nothing but make fun of him, though. At least he didn't do the Championship Belt bit again.
Is this gross oversimplification or revisionist history? As I recall, the debate raged on through Super Bowl week and even into the offseason. It was never this cut and dry during 2001. I think most people were on board after Bledsoe got traded, but it was definitely a conversation up to that point.
Also, did people really hate Manning before Brady came around? He was really good, but the Patriots were still the Patriots of old. Regardless of the accuracy of that claim, the entire tone of this piece comes off as Simmons taking it upon himself to speak for an entire legion of fans and it really bothers me because I think a ton of people would disagree with many of the things he presents as unquestionable truth (usually to fit some narrative or analogy).
I've been a Simmon's guy for awhile but its obvious that he's losing his touch faster than Peyton lost his.IMO he wrote 95% of this before last week-end when Peyton's performance killed the Broncos and should have killed this POS.
We have all agreed not to talk about it and it was such a terrible job. Not the correct way to limit risk, definitely not. If only we had someone who played madden on the sideline.weeba said: