kenneycb said:Yet you still take the effort to bitch about him...why exactly?
Probably for the same reason you've been carrying Simmons' water for five years or so: because bullshitting about this stuff is fun.
kenneycb said:Yet you still take the effort to bitch about him...why exactly?
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:
Probably for the same reason you've been carrying Simmons' water for five years or so: because bullshitting about this stuff is fun.
Dalton Jones said:And you've hit rock bottom when you disrespect your audience by inflicting upon it the narcissistic turn of giving over the podcast to your eight-year old daughter. You've either lost touch with reality if you think people want to listen to that or simply grown to have contempt for them.
ConigliarosPotential said:
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:Simmons is a mystery to me. This is a guy who was an incredibly compelling, incredibly funny read when he started out at digital city. It was like he'd invented a genre with the Boston Sports Guy, saying things we all thought but had no venue to say, using the internet, this relatively new thing, to blog about sacred cows in the media and take them down. He eviscerated the tired hacks who'd never been held accountable before. You could argue that sites like deadspin and barstoolsports sprang from Bill's irreverent sensibility. But as he moved up the ladder his writing got worse and he became less interesting. I suppose this is a natural progression for some. He hasn't lost his creativity. It's just no longer a literary creativity. As his writing has become more formulaic, more predictable, more trite, his creative juices have not waned; 30 for 30, Grantland (despite the pretentious title) and his early use of the podcast format all testify to his ability to take a chance and to foster new talent or create new venues for the already talented.
And yet, he's become smaller. He lacks intellectual depth and this really comes through in all the platforms he uses, the platforms he created and which give voice to other talents but which seem to diminish his own when he uses them. On his podcasts, in his own writing he comes across as shallow and sophomoric, like an adolescent. And you've hit rock bottom when you disrespect your audience by inflicting upon it the narcissistic turn of giving over the podcast to your eight-year old daughter. You've either lost touch with reality if you think people want to listen to that or simply grown to have contempt for them.
drleather2001 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.
He's pretty plugged into the NBA. His basketball opinions carry some weight.ivanvamp said:I would never go near him for any serious analysis, but so what?
ifmanis5 said:He's pretty plugged into the NBA. His basketball opinions carry some weight.
drleather2001 said: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.
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: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.
Ralphwiggum said: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
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:
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.
I think he will next develop scripted shows or movies.
John Marzano Olympic Hero 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*).
JBill said: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.
John Marzano Olympic Hero 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.
Red(s)HawksFan 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.
TroyOLeary 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:
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.
Reverend 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 didn't listen to it. As soon as he announced his daughter was coming on I lost interest and stopped.ConigliarosPotential said:
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?
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:
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.
Connelly and klosterman is like having Manny and Ortiz in your lineup. It's always a must listen when one is on.ifmanis5 said:The bashing of his writing aside, the Connelly/Klosterman JFK podcast is a great listen.
leetinsley38 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.
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.
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: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.
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.
The Social Chair said:I could listen to Connelly talk about anything. Does he have a podcast?
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.
I can't remember the last time I wagered against the Lions. I just don't enjoy it. I mean, what's fun about wagering against Calvin Johnson?
Bucs (+8.5) over LIONS
Don't say I'm scared of laying this many points with Jim Schwartz! 'Cuz I ain't scared! OK?
moondog80 said:
I agree, not a big deal at all. I find it much more troubling that his impression of Andre the Giant is awful, yet he continues to do it.