I am not going to comment much on the article I am linking today, but I wanted everyone to at least be alert to this article on Slate.com about Bill Simmons. A lot of what they say is directed towards his book and his NBA preview, and is done in a snarky manner, but there are some good points mixed in there. The article is a lot like Simmons' work, it is very entertaining. The two writers discuss Simmons and how he writes, which made me realize things I hadn't ever really thought about. I think it is worth a read.
I have over 100 posts with Simmons named tagged, some complimentary and more of them not-so-complimentary. He is an incredibly talented writer, I don't doubt that and I have never doubted that. Some of his fans border on too-dedicated to the point it reminds me of teenage girls in the 90's who loved the Backstreet Boys and every other boy band that came along. It is less of a fandom and more of a dedication and infatuation when it comes to some of Bill's fans.
There are 90% of sportswriters out in the world who I wish could write the way Bill Simmons does, but over the past years it has become less and less about his writing and what it says and more and more about him and what creative idea he has come up with. He is less of a insightful writer at this point and more of a self-referential and self-involved writer whose sole purpose is to present the world with his latest and most creative idea yet. He really has become a sort of a parody of himself.
I don't listen to his podcasts, but a great example of his writing become more and more self-involved are the constant retro-diaries and running diaries you can find in his archive. It's lazy to me. All he as written over the past many weeks are retro-diaries and live chats. A writer of his talent should not be writing retro-diaries and doing live chats as his sole contributions to journalism over a two week span. It shouldn't happen and it frustrates me. Much of his columns have steadily gone from focusing on the point of view of a fan to a steady stream of one-liners and attempts to add on to his previous theories and ideas. Basically, his writing has become all about him. It wasn't always about him, but now it is. He has taken the interest his fans got in what he wrote in the wrong way and believes they truly care about him and what his ideas are. His creative ideas used to serve as a backdrop to whatever else he was writing at that present time, now his creative ideas ARE what he writes about.
Obviously, there are exceptions to when Bill just does retro-diaries or live diaries of games...and he still writes some good columns. He did an NBA Finals preview a week or so ago, which is most of what the article I linked above also covers, but what I read wasn't terribly great. He always has a reason for why he was wrong about something and usually it ties into a new "rule" that will be thrown out the window when Bill discovers a different "rule."Some of this is discussed in the article I linked. I found a bit of that in his NBA Finals preview.
I am done rambling, but Bill Simmons has gone from an entertaining writer to a guy who is impressed with himself. His mailbags are an ode to him, through his fans writing in and trying to be like him and Bill trying to top whatever idea a reader has given him in email form. I compare him sometimes to Tom Cruise in that there used to be movies with Tom Cruise in them and now there are Tom Cruise movies. You have to be a Tom Cruise fan (generally) to watch the movie and enjoy it because you can't separate the movie from who he is. This isn't the case with every movie star, but it is true for Tom Cruise and now it has become true for Bill Simmons. There used to be a column by Bill Simmons on Page 2 of ESPN.com and now there are Bill Simmons columns that appear there. The self-referential focus of his columns doesn't let you get past the fact you are reading a Bill Simmons column.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the article I linked. It tells us how much of Bill Simmons articles are merely entertainment and not based on fact, but it feels like Bill believes what he is writing is pure fact. I have enjoyed his writing before, but this discussion in Slate.com points out a lot of what I think is wrong with his writing at this present time.
I started reading Bill about 6 years ago. About 2008 he became almost unreadable for me as his Boston-centric view wasn't just distorting what he was writing about, but also about how he was writing. He couldn't write without a pair of the thickest homerific glasses on. No call that went against the Celtics was a good call. Bosoton fans single handedly carried the teams to victory...crap crap crap. He couldn't jsut write an article about how the new Patriot stadium seemed to channel fan noise up and out, hurting the teams homefield advantage. He had to make it about how it took the greatest and most powerfully vocal fans out of the game, and keeping the team from winning. (Ok that's a bit of hyperbole, but it's a good example of what the writing had become.)
ReplyDeleteHe couldn't give credit to the Colts when they won a Super Bowl, and only grudgingly gave the Lakers credit for winning this series...while complaining that the Lakers got more foul calls, and how things might have been different if Perkins hadn't been hurt. When Laker fans in 2008 pointed out that they didn't have Bynum at all, and that the Celtics were getting all the foul calls, he said they were whiners, and that the Celtics got the calls because they were more aggressive.
It's one thing to be a fan and write about those teams mostly, but when it gets to the point where it actually effects the quality and legitimacy of the column, someone needs to take a step back and put down the Kool Aid.
On the other hand, his podcasts are pretty good, long as you avoid the ones about reality TV and where actors appear to shill a project while pretending to be "fill in the blank" fans. The David Duchovney podcast was just painful as he pretended to be a big NBA fan. He might be a basketball fan, but he sure didn't know much about the League or players. On the other hand, if you get a chance to listen to the Jim Nantz I thought it was fantastic. Recent others that were really good were with Jay Bilas, one with J.J. Reddick, and his first one ever with Buster Olney a couple weeks ago. You can listen at the ESPN site, or get them off iTunes. I work till 2 or 3am on Friday nights/Sat morning, and usually I listen to the weeks 2 or 3 podcasts he's done and I can't complain about it on the whole at all.
I started reading Bill back a/b 8 years ago...I think. I became tired of him about a year before I started writing on this blog for many of the same reasons you just mentioned. It's annoying b/c he is very, very talented, but he uses his talents to be homer-ific and basically start a brand. Your example is a good one of where I think his writing has gone.
ReplyDeleteHe is still making comments a/b Kobe struggling and not mentioning the Celtics choked the game away...or ran out of gas, which is what he would say. Either way, the Lakers won and Kobe has beaten the Celtics. It doesn't mean I like it.
I think his writing has started to be affected by his lifestyle and which teams he cheers for. He was much more bearable before his teams won and he became a best-selling author.
I didn't include postcasts in my criticism because I haven't heard them. I need to listen to them. I have heard one of them, but I just haven't found the time to listen to them and I probably should. His voice is a little annoying, but I have to say it may be better if there is someone there to balance him out.
I thought his columns during the 2008 Finals were awesome, and I was sorely disappointed that he used the cover-it-live gimmick for all seven games. He's not as good as writing on his feet as he is at going back over things four or five times and smoothing out all the wrinkles. I think the only columns that he has that are consistently good at this point are his NFL Picks columns. I used to expect his columns to be really good, insightful, and original, and now I'm only pleasantly surprised when they're like that. I'm still a huge fan though. Loved his book.
ReplyDeleteI thought the diaries were weak too. His NFL pick columns can be pretty good. His running diaries and chats are better when they in moderation. I think we are at an overload point now though.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed his book, though there were parts I would like to have posted here, but it was pretty obvious it was well-researched. I paid for it and don't regret it. Hell, I have read his previous book twice and I have enjoyed it both times. It was just a different kind of writing he did. What's frustrating for me is that he used to surprise me with good columns and good insights in his columns and it just doesn't happen anymore.
It is hard to keep up a level that he was at 6-7 years ago, but I am afraid he has changed to much now he can't even match that level again. Something is missing for me in his writing.
Bill's biggest problem is that his ego has grown to the size of a small plant/large moon.
ReplyDeleteHe actually seems to believe that he knows more about basketball than most of the NBA GM's, and how would do everything different if he were running things. This, in spite of the fact (well-chronicled on this blog, by the way)that Simmons never watches the NCAA until about two weeks before March Madness, and how he's wrong about his NBA picks more often than he's right.
I'm also annoyed that his podcasts have become far more frequent than his columns. He may think he's the most interesting man in the world, but I personally could find better things to do with my time than listen to his choirboy voice. Nowadays we'll be lucky if he writes more than one phoned-in column a week.
Longtime Simmons fan here, just discovered your blog while I was looking for anti-Jay Mariotti stuff.
ReplyDeleteCan't say I disagree with you on the main points though. It seems that these days he's more interested in churning out "Bill Simmons columns" than actually writing something interesting, which particularly sucks for those of us who know how interesting his writing can be.
And his recent draft diary (and the pre-draft chat with Chad Ford) made me seriously question whether he watches any college basketball (even the NCAA Tournament) at all, and if so whether he has any ability to analyse talent.