I think you are all forgetting that he's been having problems with his laptop, and that is why the writing has fallen to the wayside.
Bill Simmons: Good Luck With Your Life.
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
:lol: And his B'Berry. It's all a conspiracy!!deanx0 said:
He figured out that talking on TV makes a lot more money, is a better, easier, lifestyle and you get to hang with famous people. Most people would make that choice. I'm not mad at the guy, I just miss the columns and his A-game when it comes to writing about the NBA.
I hope he does quit. He's being wasted. And so is Wilbon who isn't a host and shouldn't be playing traffic cop. All they need is Jalen, Magic and an actual host.shlincoln said:
shlincoln said:
Viewership for Countdown was flat this year and I wonder if both Simmons and his bosses are concluding that everyone is simply better off if he stays in the digital world where, let's face it, he's a titan and a profit center, rather than in TV where he's basically an afterthought.
He's had a year of doing TV. It hasn't been a raging success but he didn't fall on his face either. It's gone ok. It's easy to let him walk away now and spin it as a chance for him to spend more time with his kid and focus on what he does best. His comments in the linked story seem to lay the groundwork for that.
I think Magic is terrible as an analyst. He's like a weathervane, telling you what has happened and not whats going to happen. IMO Rose is the best analyst.on that panel. Wilbon, is ok, as is Simmons who brings a one-off take--a non-insider fans take on stuff.ifmanis5 said:
I think the biggest knock on the show is that it sucks in comparison to the TNT crew. Charles and Kenny are great, they know their stuff, are funny, work well with Ernie, (Shaq is wasted and expendable) and the ESPN guys get killed in comparison.
Chris Webber is great on TNT/NBATV but they already have Barkley, Shaq, and Kenny in the big spot. If ESPN could get Webber and pair him up with Jalen they'd have the makings of a good show.
ifmanis5 said:
Hemingway never said that, nor did he ever do that. No serious writer writes drunk, only amateurs who hang on to some misguided romantic notion of the "writer's life." Hemingway himself did all his writing stone cold sober from about 5 AM to noon, then he got piss drunk. Sorry for the digression, but I see that quote attributed to him all the time and it never fails to piss me off.
I agree with that article. They need to drop Magic and bring in a real host. I don't think that guy is Wilbon, because he's frankly more of an analyst (or, put different, likely views himself as more of an analyst). I think Jalen and Simmons work off of each other, but there's too much bowing before the Magic alter for my tastes. However, part of their problem is that they will never be as good as the TNT guys, because that's just about impossible. I mean, they air re-runs of Inside the NBA on NBA.tv. (This may be a minority view, but I think Shaq is getting better. I do agree he's unnecessary, though. Ernie/Kenny/Chuck is phenomenal, and you don't need more than that.)
Yeah, I can't wait to dig into this later today. It's about damn time.John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Okay, I've read one paragraph and I already have a gripe.
On the lack of Spurs mainstream appeal and lack of publicity:
Hey, Bill... you work for a company, ESPN, that has essentially ignored all other sports (except for the NFL) in favor of breathlessly reporting every bowel movement from Shaq, Kobe and LeBron over this past 15-year Spurs run and the company that you work for, Bill, ESPN, being the textbook definition of the mainstream sports media, has totally ignored Duncan and the Spurs. Care to point that out in your thesis statement? No? Look in the mirror, dude. The company you work for is patient zero for this problem. Probably deserves a mention in your reasoning. Was this scrubbed out by an editor or did you just have another brainfart?
I wonder if the next evolution of Simmons as a writer is just to try and write serious NBA pieces and save the jokes for podcasts/NFL/Wilbon banter. Maybe it's just me, but all of the pop culture witty aside stuff seemed to fall flat in this otherwise outstanding piece, like this paragraph:
That's a paragraph with a nice perspective and a clunky end.
That's a paragraph with a nice perspective and a clunky end.
Presumably he wants the article to be about Tim Duncan and the Spurs and your desires would likely shift the focus of the opening paragraph so as to make it more of an indictment on ESPN as opposed to the celebration of a generational talent.ifmanis5 said:
ifmanis5 said:
I'm going to guess that an editor took it out or he didn't want to make it the focus. He actually went on a rant a week or 2 ago on a podcast about this. I believe it was the Jalen and Jacoby one where he called out ESPN about always making them talk about the Lakers even though they were a .500 team and he wished they would talk about the Spurs more because they are exciting especially to basketball fans. He also had that little video dedication to Duncan last week.
And again..
Gee, I wonder which national sports cable network could possibly be responsible for that?
This was a fun read and totally enjoyable, but really, Bill. Come on. Take at least some responsibility here- if you're going to pat yourself on the back for quoting yourself as praising Duncan early and often in his career (which he did several times) at least broach the subject that the front page of ESPN.com at that time and SportsCenter was a 24/7 Kobe/Shaq/Jordan jizzfest and a .1/.1 (if that's a time measurement) Duncan/Spurs anything. It's not all on the brainless riff-raff culture you put down as 'a culture that rewarded cool commercials.' It's the company you work for. It needs to be mentioned.
Gee, I wonder which national sports cable network could possibly be responsible for that?
This was a fun read and totally enjoyable, but really, Bill. Come on. Take at least some responsibility here- if you're going to pat yourself on the back for quoting yourself as praising Duncan early and often in his career (which he did several times) at least broach the subject that the front page of ESPN.com at that time and SportsCenter was a 24/7 Kobe/Shaq/Jordan jizzfest and a .1/.1 (if that's a time measurement) Duncan/Spurs anything. It's not all on the brainless riff-raff culture you put down as 'a culture that rewarded cool commercials.' It's the company you work for. It needs to be mentioned.
Simmons writes a two part article about how exciting the Spurs are, and halfway through part one I'm bored to death. Not going to even bother with part 2.
Least exciting champions of all time in any sport at any time.
Least exciting champions of all time in any sport at any time.
You obviously are not aware of the New Jersey Devils. The NHL changed the rules because their system was so damn successful in both winning and making hockey boring.Rocco Graziosa said:
Agreed. The neutral zone trap was brutal to watch. I've never been bored watching the Spurs. Just the opposite usually.kenneycb said:
I can see the argument that the earlier incarnation of the Spurs was boring. For a while, they were a defensive powerhouse, and their best offensive player was a big man whose game, while very effective, was certainly not dynamic or entertaining. That Spurs-Pistons final was a pretty "boring" series.
But for a while, the Spurs' calling card has been their offense, not their defense, and it's built around movement, precision passing, and death by pick-and-roll. I'd say they are one of the more entertaining teams in the league now. That definitely wasn't always the case, though.
But for a while, the Spurs' calling card has been their offense, not their defense, and it's built around movement, precision passing, and death by pick-and-roll. I'd say they are one of the more entertaining teams in the league now. That definitely wasn't always the case, though.
Yeah, that Devils team was terrible to watch, though the '94 Devils/Rangers ECF was pretty great.
Mine has always been the '98/'99 Yankees.
Especially that 1998 the team, the one that won 114 games on their way to a World Series (and an 11-2 record in the playoffs). What a remarkably balanced and completely unexceptional roster. Eight of their nine regular position players hit between 17 and 26 HRs (the ninth hit 10). Four of their five starters had ERAs between 3.55 and 4.24 (El Duque had a 3.14 ERA). They didn't even have Clemens yet and Boggs was gone.
Even the playoffs were a snooze, with only one of their 13 games decided in the 9th inning or later (the Indians won Game 2 of the ALCS in extras).
Sure I hated that team with a passion at the time (and still hate Jeff Nelson, David Wells, and others), but in hindsight? How many of those players deserved much emotion either way? Tino Martinez? David Cone? Bernie Williams? Scott Brosius?
The banality of evil indeed.
Mine has always been the '98/'99 Yankees.
Especially that 1998 the team, the one that won 114 games on their way to a World Series (and an 11-2 record in the playoffs). What a remarkably balanced and completely unexceptional roster. Eight of their nine regular position players hit between 17 and 26 HRs (the ninth hit 10). Four of their five starters had ERAs between 3.55 and 4.24 (El Duque had a 3.14 ERA). They didn't even have Clemens yet and Boggs was gone.
Even the playoffs were a snooze, with only one of their 13 games decided in the 9th inning or later (the Indians won Game 2 of the ALCS in extras).
Sure I hated that team with a passion at the time (and still hate Jeff Nelson, David Wells, and others), but in hindsight? How many of those players deserved much emotion either way? Tino Martinez? David Cone? Bernie Williams? Scott Brosius?
The banality of evil indeed.
CreightonGubanich said:
Good point. I just don't like their stars, so I STILL don't enjoy watching them. But most of all the article was boring as hell, which I suppose has nothing to do with the Spurs. (although its not really a feather in their cap) Which was really my point.
I don't love Simmons' podcast (although him with Jalen + Jacobi is really good), but he's pretty good on ESPN. He's come a long way.
Here's the background: http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2013/06/14/bill-simmons-is-mad-espn-edited-his-joke-about-dwyane-wade-visiting-germany-before-game-4-from-a-sportscenter-replay/
One tangent -- Jason McIntyre says "no one watches the 1 a.m. SportsCenter." Right, except for, oh, anyone in the Pacific time zone who wants to watch the evening SportsCenter (now, why you'd watch SportsCenter at all is a different question). There's a reason it's called the "LA SportsCenter," genius.
One tangent -- Jason McIntyre says "no one watches the 1 a.m. SportsCenter." Right, except for, oh, anyone in the Pacific time zone who wants to watch the evening SportsCenter (now, why you'd watch SportsCenter at all is a different question). There's a reason it's called the "LA SportsCenter," genius.
dynomite said:
That 94 Devils club was 2nd in the league in goals so they weren't so boring then. Incredible depth...Scott Stevens actually led the team in points, but they had 14 guys in double figures in goals.
nattysez said:
"Bill Simmons recently had an employee leave New York City in a rental car on a 3-month road trip to “explain America.” That has nothing to do with this story, but I just wanted to share the most ridiculous thing an ESPN employee has ever actually thought out loud with you"
McIntyre is not the brightest guy in the world is he.
I read somewhere that they cut a bunch of inane chatter between him, Magic, and the other guy, and that this joke just happened to be in the middle of it.
So he watches SportsCenter to see himself on TV, and then thinks that his joke was cut because it's somehow too edgy? Seems to me more like they figured (rightly) that most people wouldn't even get it, or wouldn't care, and that it was just pointless banter.
So he watches SportsCenter to see himself on TV, and then thinks that his joke was cut because it's somehow too edgy? Seems to me more like they figured (rightly) that most people wouldn't even get it, or wouldn't care, and that it was just pointless banter.
Yup. They probably cut it for time. Typical Bill flying off the handle at every possible slight.drleather2001 said:
nattysez said:
I think the point was more that this edit didn't even effect probably 95% of SC viewers, but Bill is acting like he's been impossibly humiliated.
That is to say: Nobody would notice he was censored, at all, if he hadn't opted to start stomping around complaining about it. It was a stupid joke, and he's using a routine edit by SC to start acting like he's the fucking Lenny Bruce of the sports world.
Some of you guys must really really hate simmons to side with espn. I'm going to guess, but id bet this isnt the first time he's had issue with them cutting a segment. This is the same company who wouldnt let their employees discuss the Big Ben rape story, when it was all over the news. The same company that made him cancel his interview with Obama in 2008.drleather2001 said:
drleather2001 said:
I agree he is very thin skinned, but impossibly humiliated is a bit of an overstatement? He was probably excited because he thought he said something hilarious, and pissed they edited it. I can absolutely see where he's coming from. Bill is a proven writer but not a proven TV personality.
gammoseditor said:
No, but I think he's really growing into his role at that desk. He has palpable chemistry with Rose, and really goes a good job of providing analysis from the "fans" point of view. Readily admits when he's wrong, and seems to know more about basketball than Magic Johnson who either can't convey his knowledge or doesn't have any.
He's really done a lot with the electronic media side of his career. The 30 for 30 project is reaching epic levels, and his video podcast is very well done.
His writing however, has predictably suffered. I don't even look for his columns anymore.
You are 100000% right, Rocco. The Rose / Jacobi / Simmons pods are GREAT. Straight-up great. 30 for 30 saved sports documentaries for all intents and purposes.Rocco Graziosa said:
And yeah, his writing is kind of meh at this point. And yeah, he's thin-skinned. But the good things he brings to the table test (to use a Simmons) are so strong that I can't help but just ignore the bad ones.
CaptainLaddie said:
Saved sports documentaries? Calm down. Some of the 30 for 30's have been good and some have been awful. They still do not compare to anything HBO does. I have a hunch that sports docs would've continued to be made had the delicate genius of Bill Simmons not come up with the idea of "hey, we should do sports documentaries on ESPN". Guy is an executive producer. Let's not get carried away. ( I know, too late).
I can't think of an awful 30 for 30. The worst one was, IMHO, the Red Sox one, which says a lot.
LMontro said:
Simmons talk aside, 30 for 30 is much better than HBO. HBO has a rock-solid but rather homogenized documentary style that goes after obvious, big stories and films them in a predictable (if entertaining) manner. HBO hasn't made anything as gripping as "The Two Escobars" or as fun as "Winning Time". "Winning Time" in particular is exactly the sort of finding and telling of a great story where a narrative doesn't obviously lie that HBO doesn't bother to cover, but that is the hallmark of great documentary filmmaking.
HBO has a style and they do it well, but that style alone prevents them from coming close to 30 for 30's best work.
Seriously? There have been many truly terrible ones. Many. The "Broke" one, the Miami U one, the LA/ NWA one. Its a great idea, I'd say the quality rate's been 50/50 at best. I can actually only think of a small handful that were even worth watching a second time. Agreed a welcome challenge to HBO's entries, but I'm really not sure what about sports documentary has been "saved" by it either.CaptainLaddie said:
Still, he deserves immense, immense credit for it IMO, speaking as someone who's really never liked him that much. That and Grantland are examples of him absolutely maximizing the potential that he started with which, to me, was never ever going to be "great writer" anyway.
Any list of bad 30 for 30s has to start with "There's No Place Like Home" (the search for James Naismith's original rules of basketball). But the overall quality of the series has been way better than 50/50 - more like 80/20, IMHO.
LMontro said:
They don't even compare? That's an utterly ridiculous, hyperbolic statement. They do compare, some of them are up there with anything HBO has done.
Some have definitely not been great, but that is bound to happen when you are making so many different episodes. Many of them have been truly outstanding, and when I see that they have produced another one (either a short or a full-length documentary) I am watching. HBO sports documentaries are fine and I may watch one if I stumble across it but I am not looking for them nor am I anxiously awaiting their next effort (and this is coming from someone who loves HBO and who only watches ESPN when 30 for 30 is on). Saying that 30 for 30 saved sports documentaries may be a stretch but they are appointment television for me and IMO should be for any sports fan, but particularly anyone who came of age as a sport fan during the 80s and 90s.