62 replies to this topic

[BigDMcGee]

I think simmons is at his best, when he's writing about the pure emotion of being a fan. the agony and the emotion of big moments ( which for him, involve boston sports). Then, I really enjoy his work. I think a great deal of his pop cultural references/analogies are gimmicky at this point. They seem awkward and inorganic. But I think what frustrates me the most about Simmons is open hostility to statistics and reason based analysis of sports, even though he claims he like certain stat and is "getting into them" or w/e. He is basically like every other sports writer in that respect. I think the basic problem i have with all sports writers ( or sports analysts on TV that came up through newspapers/blogs), is that they are "english" people. That they studied either english, writing or journalism in college. So, when they write an opinion piece, a blog, or spout off on some talking heads show, they have to form a narrative for every story, turn all analysis into some sort of angle or story. Which is fine, but not when they reject reason, statistics, facts, and objective analysis whole cloth when telling their story. They pick and choose what stats to use, instead of looking at the facts/stats objectively and making the story. I can forgive a guy like Tony Kornheiser for doing this because he's legitimately funny, he's bitter, and he's filled with hate, so his radio show is still golden despite his sports opinions being grossly ill informed and often moronic. But Bill Simmons is supposed to be from a different era. He should know better. And I simply don't find him funny enough anymore to put up with his half baked, biased sports analysis. I read only a fraction of the stuff he writes these days, and I've almost phased him out completely. Occasionally I'll find a grantland piece I like or find interesting, But most of pieces I have zero interest in and none of the writers have captured my imagination.

[uncooper]

Simmons is annoying.I like Grantland.Patton Oswalt recently wrote an article about how "nerd culture" used to be about becoming fascinated by some weird little segment of entertainment media, and doing the painstaking legwork of learning the history, the fabric, the influences, and the tangents of that particular thing. There is a Japanese word otaku, which basically means "a person that has become obsessed with learning everything about something esoteric." He gives the examples of comic books, science fiction movies, and underground music.Oswalt goes on to lament that nerd culture has just become mainstream culture, because you can become an otaku on ANYTHING in an hour on the internet.Anyway, I suspect that a huge percentage of Grantland's readers are frequent consumers of shitty media; specifically bad sports talk radio and bad sportswriting in newspapers and magazines. To them, Grantland is a shocking breath of fresh air. The writing is decent, the ideas seem fresh, the awful cliches are gone, the status quo is questioned, they appreciate irony.The people who have done the legwork to find great writing about sports know that Grantland is not the first or best example of this type of writing, and they bristle at the implication. For the otaku of excellent sportswriting on the internet, it might be annoying that the mainstream has (kinda?) latched on to this site, which also enjoys the obvious advantage of a high profile staff.I'm somewhere in the middle. I've probably loved between four and seven articles. I don't think I've hated any. I don't mind the typos as much as some of you.Oh, and I love the Humblebrag monthly recaps.

[ajs510]

CindyLou, on Tuesday, August 30th, 2011, 7:23 PM, said:

I read the whole thing earlier today and actually thought, "Wow, Wang would hate this."

I've had the same reaction to recipes and TV Guide entries. Wang hates everything.

[speedz99]

ajs510, on Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 6:40 AM, said:

I've had the same reaction to recipes and TV Guide entries. Wang hates everything.

I think that Wang is a very capable writer, and holds high expectations for people who write professionally. He often forgets that most people are pretty bad at their respective jobs. He also forgets that most people are blissfully ignorant to certain rules and regulations in the English language, and it's ok for writing to be at the level of the readership in many cases.

[CindyLou]

BigDMcGee, on Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 2:06 AM, said:

He is basically like every other sports writer in that respect. I think the basic problem i have with all sports writers ( or sports analysts on TV that came up through newspapers/blogs), is that they are "english" people. That they studied either english, writing or journalism in college. So, when they write an opinion piece, a blog, or spout off on some talking heads show, they have to form a narrative for every story, turn all analysis into some sort of angle or story.

Tactical Bear, on Wednesday, August 17th, 2011, 9:54 PM, said:

I've been thinking about it, and the reason I dislike Simmons -- and I don't hate him nearly as much as I implied a few days ago -- is the same as the reason I hate almost all sports writers (with a few very notable exceptions).

[BigDMcGee]

whoa.. in the sick thread I assume? Yeah, I would have just quoted that, I agree completely.

[Tactical Bear]

Just so everyone knows, that's from my favorite webcomic, xkcd. Link here.

[mk]

Tactical Bear, on Tuesday, August 30th, 2011, 6:45 PM, said:

I miss him so much. I watch Parks and Recreation just to feel closer to him.

Poscasts

[Tactical Bear]

mk, on Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 10:18 AM, said:

Poscasts

Oops. I thought I addressed this earlier when JoeyJoJo mentioned it. I definitely listed to every Pos/Schur Poscast. The drafts are a lot of fun.

[speedz99]

speedz99, on Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 1:18 PM, said:

Well clearly the point of Grantland is to appeal to a wider audience than just hardcore sports fans. For example: I've sent my girlfriend, who has no interest in sports whatsoever, a few links from the site, including an article on women in movies (prompted by Bridesmaids), and one of the youtube compilation articles that included a lot about music. She now browses through the site now and again, and will even tolerate pop culture articles that include some spins on sport-related topics. Personally, I think the site is fine. There have certainly been a handful of huge winners in terms of articles, and as long as you're willing to pick around the complete losers (like on any site), there's a solid rate of articles that are at least palatable in order to find some gems (which have become increasingly rare, but it may be a cycle).

TB, did you want to debate about this bullshit or not? QUIT WASTING MY MOTHERFUCKING TIME.

[Tactical Bear]

speedz99, on Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 2:17 PM, said:

TB, did you want to debate about this bullshit or not? QUIT WASTING MY MOTHERFUCKING TIME.

Just busy. I've written a response to your comment; it's just a matter of finding a free hour with a computer so I can type it up and submit it. I'd rather not do this on a phone.

[BigDMcGee]

Another thing that I imagine tilts the shit out of TB about Simmons is that he's largely a public sports bettor and an idiot when talking about any other form of gambling, but thinks he's a sharp.

[Tactical Bear]

BigDMcGee, on Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 6:16 PM, said:

Another thing that I imagine tilts the shit out of TB about Simmons is that he's largely a public sports bettor and an idiot when talking about any other form of gambling, but thinks he's a sharp.

I'm on record -- I believe in the MusicThread, within the last 10 days -- explaining that his NFL playoffs betting manifesto is what makes me unable to take him seriously, ever, no matter what. NARRATIVES!It takes a special kind of arrogance to believe -- based entirely on the supposition that paying attention to sports qualifies one to better handicap NFL lines than Vegas oddsmakers -- that one can beat the book. I don't care that he's square. I hate that he approaches sports betting so blindly, so absurdly and stupidly and with either negligence or willful stupidity.He's not curious. He begs the question, and holds on to his absurd conclusions with unfounded and vigorous dogmatism

[brvheart]

I'm super curious to hear your thoughts on his new article from today. Since it's all about baseball stats.

[Poppy_Hillis]

Tactical Bear, on Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 12:38 AM, said:

I'm on record -- I believe in the MusicThread, within the last 10 days -- explaining that his NFL playoffs betting manifesto is what makes me unable to take him seriously, ever, no matter what. NARRATIVES!It takes a special kind of arrogance to believe -- based entirely on the supposition that paying attention to sports qualifies one to better handicap NFL lines than Vegas oddsmakers -- that one can beat the book. I don't care that he's square. I hate that he approaches sports betting so blindly, so absurdly and stupidly and with either negligence or willful stupidity.He's not curious. He begs the question, and holds on to his absurd conclusions with unfounded and vigorous dogmatism

Did you clean up on the Baylor game or what!?

[speedz99]

Tactical Bear, on Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 12:46 PM, said:

Just busy. I've written a response to your comment; it's just a matter of finding a free hour with a computer so I can type it up and submit it. I'd rather not do this on a phone.

I'm curious; did you you 'write' a response in your head, or is it actually written down on a piece of paper?

[Dread Aidan]

brvheart, on Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 2:05 AM, said:

I'm super curious to hear your thoughts on his new article from today. Since it's all about baseball stats.

Here's what I believe: The best player on a noncontender shouldn't be considered "most valuable" unless (a) his numbers demolish everyone else's numbers, and (b) there wasn't a kick-ass candidate from a better team.Does this make any sense at all?I've had some thoughts about the MVP kicking around in my head that probably don't make much sense either. It seems to me that the goal of advanced metrics is one of two things: either better predict future success or to strip away all the things that players don't control to find out how well they did the things they do control. The first is meaningless in an MVP discussion, so let's focus on the 2nd.Hypothetical Player A gets 600 AB's and hits a single in every single one. Nobody is ever on base and nobody ever drives him in. His team loses every single game because they never score a run.Hypo Player B gets 600 AB's and hits a single in every single one. There is a runner on 3rd every time and his team wins every game and he is the only player on the team with an RBI. Advanced stats will tell you that A and B are the exact same player. They performed exactly the same way with what they could control. But isn't B pretty clearly more valuable to his team? I think it's a version of the clutch discussion. There's no such thing as a clutch player, but there are obviously clutch plays. Shouldn't that matter? When deciding who was MV, I don't want to know how many wins a player contributed all else being equal, I just want to know how many wins a player actually contributed. An RBI is highly contextual, but it still contributes to a win.

speedz99, on Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 10:10 AM, said:

I'm curious; did you you 'write' a response in your head, or is it actually written down on a piece of paper?

I'm hoping it's hand-written on notebook paper. Or a cocktail napkin.

[YonYonson]

the problem is the award itself. mvp is an ambiguous term, and it needs to be done away with. replaced by:AL Offensive Player of the year (Bautista)NL Offensive Player of the year (Braun)AL Starting Pitcher of the year (Verlander)NL Starting Pitcher of the year (Halladay)AL Defensive Player of the year (Alcides Escobar)NL Defensive Player of the year (not sure)

[Dread Aidan]

YonYonson, on Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 9:14 AM, said:

the problem is the award itself. mvp is an ambiguous term, and it needs to be done away with. replaced by:AL Offensive Player of the year (Bautista)NL Offensive Player of the year (Braun)AL Starting Pitcher of the year (Verlander)NL Starting Pitcher of the year (Halladay)AL Defensive Player of the year (Alcides Escobar)NL Defensive Player of the year (not sure)

But that's what makes it a fun discussion. Offensive player of the year can be determined by looking at who the league leader in WAR or something is. I heard Jonah Keri mention something interesting regarding the Verlander for MVP talk. The pitcher can't be MVP camp likes to say that a player who only plays every 5th game can't ever be as valuable as someone who plays every game. But an everyday player will get something like 600 plate appearances in a year while Verlander will face about 800 batters this season. Why isn't Verlander just as valuable?

[SuitedAces21]

i dont subscribe to the pitcher cannot be mvp newsletter. verlander has a serious case based on the way the mvp has typically been awarded. i just find the debate a waste of time. quit arguing about who is most valuable and honor the best players in the league with appropriate awards.