This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
So much worse. I used to have a commenting account over there back when Will Leitch was running the show. I abandoned it a while back, right around when Leitch left and Daulerio took over, and came over here to get my online jollies instead. Big improvement in my opinion. Funnier and more interesting and varied group of folks here in the FFA.
Just a horrible piece. So far the site is batting about .200 wrt which articles are actually good, imo.
I like Simmons quite a bit, but that's pretty spot on.
I think it's trying to be an online New Yorker, except about sports and reality shows.Not making it.
If you liked that, the weekly Peter King takedowns by that same writer are great.I kind of like Simmons too, but this piece hit on my main problem with him. He arbitrarily makes up rules and distinctions, and then writes as if those rules and distinctions mean something. There's very little objective truth when it comes to evaluating, say, individual players in team sports, or teams across different eras or even different seasons, but he acts like his rankings of these things are not only valid, objective distinctions, but also that those distinctions are really really important. So when he took it to something even more subjective and meaningless- when someone is a movie star- he made himself an easy target.
They just seem to be pumping out way to many articles. The one on Bartolo Colon was especially
. I watched the game against the Jays that it is talking about and it really had nothing to do with Colon's performance. If I remember correctly, there were two hard hit balls, a couple of dribblers and a horrible error which would have ended the inning with only 2 or 3 runs being scored. The guy recognizes this, but still felt the need to post a quick article about a guy who isn't good anymore and that no one will care about outside of Yankee fans.
You are describing Colin Cowherd more than Simmons. At least Simmons does the "opinionated fan" angle. Cowherd does it like he's giving a lecture. Not to mention Cowherd is not even close to an expert on anything in sports.
Yep, I agree with all of that. Kind of hard to feel like he gets my perspective when he's flying back and forth across the country to watch NBA playoff games on a whim.The two things that bug me the MOST about Simmons are really just small things (and only apply to his podcasts I think): The first is related to the arbitrary rules/rankings thing. He can't have a conversation in which he doesn't arbitrarily rank something on a list of top/most/greatest/whatever. "The 2003 Spurs were in the Top 4 most likable teams of all time." "Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson are two of the Top 13 color commentating duos ever in American ball sports." "Chicken and waffles is Top 8 for most surprising good dinners I've ever heard of."
For all his faults, he is a good interviewer. He knows when to shut up and let the guest do the work, and when to pipe up and steer them away from something dull or towards an interesting subject. And it seems like he always gets to all the questions I have in my head about a particular guest.
Yes. The root of it is he entertains me. Even when he's interviewing Klosterman (who is PAINFUL to listen to sometimes) I still listen because I'm more entertained than annoyed. I don't watch any of the reality tv stuff they talk about, but those discussions entertain me (same reason I read the Bachelorette thread - Pickles is that thread's Simmons). And his long form interviews with analysts and commentators are pure joy to me.
As far as I can tell, this is its only purpose.
Nice of you to step in for Finless during his absence.people being pretty tough on the site. pretty tough to have a 100% success rate. i'm willing to give it time
Yep. So far some solid features and some really poor efforts from the regulars on the shorter stuff, but they're still developing. Of the regular writers, it's becoming more clear who I can ignore completely (I know I'm not going to like anything Jay Caspian Kang writes). I really enjoyed the Michael Schur/Nate DiMeo article on cricket. Hope one or both of them contributes more. David Shoemaker seems like a decent writer even if he does only write about wrestling.people being pretty tough on the site. pretty tough to have a 100% success rate. i'm willing to give it time
This. Not sure what the big deal is. The articles tell who the author is and lend an idea as to what the content will be. No one is being forced to read it.
Sometimes we need a reminder like this to keep things in perspective. If there's one good story a day in Grantland, then I'm ahead of the game.
Don't really understand how his celebrity prevents him from being the a "Sports Guy." He's like many of us in that we have never played any of the sports at a professional level, never coached sports at a professional level, and probably never had the talent to play sports beyond 8th grade. He also didn't enter the sports media to become a broadcaster or analyst. So his columns/writing lacks the technical nuance of a former professional coach, player, or broadcaster. To me he analyzes things in a way that die-hard fans of a sport do. I don't think his writing/perspective has changed much, just his tax bracket. He's still a mega homer for the Boston teams, still loves basketball above all else, and still is the most entertaining sports columnists.
Klosterman and Simmons are two of the best writers in existence. So long as it has those two the site will be fine. The rest of the lineup are the literary equivalent of the Cleveland Cavaliers.
In which case the site is already a roaring success. If Michael Lewis and Malcolm Gladwell start writing it will put Grantland over the top.
Because his appeal has always been based in part on relatability, and it's a simple fact that he can't relate to a lot of things- sports or otherwise- the way he used to. Remember his entertaining Vegas columns, with the stuff about the $10 and $25 tables, and the joy of unexpected comps, and how its always a milestone when you and your buddies finally don't have to share rooms? He can't write from that perspective, obviously. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Just off the top of my head here's some things common to most sports fans that he can't write about: struggling to get tickets to a big game, the ridiculous markup on beer at stadiums, the guys in the cheap seats, sitting at a sports bar for hours watching the games (everywhere he goes he'll be noticed), and so on.I certainly don't begrudge the guy his success, it's very deserved. I still like some of his written stuff and most of his podcast work. He still does a good job when he's not trying to create arbitrary rules or lists or drawing improper conclusions from sports results because he doesn't seem to really grasp the concept of variance. But he's not a regular fan any more in many respects, so he's lost that perspective to his writing.'No. 16 said:
Much of his writing doesn't resonate with me the way it used to. He's lost his "everyman" appeal.
Someone made a similar post about Howard Stern recently, and it is spot-on for both of them. I don't begrudge either guy being successful or living large, but it certainly diminishes their ability to continue doing things from the same point of view they used to.
step in?'Good said:Nice of you to step in for Finless during his absence.'mr. furley said:people being pretty tough on the site. pretty tough to have a 100% success rate. i'm willing to give it time
Where can I read his stuff? Never heard of the guy.
I didn't get it.
To Klondike Bars.I didn't get it.
Agreed. Really want to read The Game now.Long piece, but I liked this Kornheiser story on Nolan Ryan from 1980: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6761350/bringing-all-back-home
I wonder if any recent events might have precipitated that change.
