The Ringer is Live

That's kind of what narcissists do, right? They view the world through the occasional slights perpetrated against them - the one or two negative things in a sea of praise. Often, they're successful, too.

Many - not all - excellent writers/journalists I know are wired precisely this way. They're kind of self-absorbed. There was a comment on here somewhere about what it takes to reach a certain station in the business, and to that, I would have added "healthy self-absorption." The idea that what you write about a subject actually matters and that people will and should care, or, more to the point, that most people care - or will even know! - how good it is. They often have pretty good taste and timing about such things, too.

Narcissism is often a helpful quality in writers/reporters. Self-focus tends to be motivating, and the will to report something - to get to the bottom of something, to get that key detail, to be dogged - is important. The good ones are often consumed with a project.

I'm not sure those traits translate into a good boss. Good bosses do not die on every hill, they do not make funding and staffing issues personal, they do not gloat over hand-picking a staff and seemingly delighting in the collapse of a Web site because the site could not carry on without their daily celebrity star power. That's a writer's mentality. That's why writers aren't in charge of many things; they'll make four great dishes from scratch while collectively forgetting to put forks and napkins on the table.

That doesn't mean I think Bill Simmons is a bad person, or that he couldn't be a good boss. I just didn't see him being a good boss at Grantland - not from the outset, not ever. Not based on what I'd heard and read, and not based on some bizarre literary underpinnings early on. I didn't write "popular" or "well-liked" boss, although some bosses are. I wrote good. I think a good boss is ultimately well-liked, or at the very least well-respected by their writers. But when much of the rest of ESPN snipes at you - that's not all jealousy. I'd argue it's not much of that at all.

So it is surprising to me that the guy once again wants 100 people working under him, or that anyone would want to invest in that. Similarly, I will question, at least at the outset, anyone choosing to make Peyton Manning a NFL head coach. (Presuming Manning lacks the self-awareness to pursue such a thing.)

 

Outstanding point. I appreciate that Grantland writers took up for Simmons. He showed writers respect and granted them a level of autonomy (in the case of the Dr. V story, perhaps too much autonomy). But cross-threading here a bit, I feel with Simmons and Grantland as I do Spencer Hall and SB Nation: because you can write doesn't mean you can manage effectively.

A good manager might have swallowed his pride long enough to not get canned and leave the fate of dozens of writers and copy editors in limbo. Simmons put his need to get a hot take out there over the future of his entire publication, then doubled-down by refusing to work the NBA draft, for which he had a contractual obligation. He was in business for Bill Simmons, not for the staff.

Moral of the story: publications probably shouldn't have managing editors who are celebrities and thus bigger individually than the sum of the parts.

 

I never knew the thing about refusing to work the NBA draft. Firing him for the Goodell comment seemed asinine, but refusing to fulfill his contractual obligations is definitely a shit-canable offense.

 

I always thought the appeal of Bill Simmons was that he was "just like us," i.e. the average sports fan. He was the guy on the couch who was handed a website on which to talk sports and other shit. I never thought it was because he was an exceptional writer or sublimely witty (which I don't think he is). I thought it was because he, at least early on, could have been the friend you regularly watch games with. This friend just happen to write for ESPN. I think by getting into fights with his boss and taking shots at them after leaving, he further cultivated that image.

I'm no Bill Simmons fan. He was my least favorite writer on Grantland. I find his writing style horrendous and his personality, both on TV and on podcasts, grating. But I have to applaud him for striking that sweet spot of appearing to be both highly paid media personality/regular guy with a beer on the couch. That clearly struck a chord with a lot of people. Good on him for making that a success.

 

I've been visiting The Ringer pretty much daily. I read Grantland fairly regularly, but Simmons is rarely the one I read or listen too. I used to read Sports Guy all the time in my early 20s, but I guess I just sort of outgrew it. I'll give Simmons credit for recognizing the Sports Guy wasn't really something he could forever and transitioning to a role where he features other people's work as much as his own.

Whatever you think of him, he's always had a good grasp of where things are heading.

 

I've never been a fan of Bill's writing. Too long-winded for my tastes. That said, I actually liked his Durant column, probably because he eased back on the word count and got to the point quickly. (Well, quickly for him, anyway.)

 

His precarious spot is a whole lot different than the rest of ours. Let's say he flops at HBO. He will still have cleared many millions of dollars. Barring a Michael Richards-esque breakdown, I don't think he will have flopped so resoundingly that he cannot find work. I'm sure Jimmy Kimmel would take him on. Or he could become the in-house host for '80s docs on E! or VH-1 Classic (I'm just spitballing here but you get my drift). Or he could write movies. I suspect he will work for as long as he wants to work, and that he won't have to work as long as any of us.

ESPN got out of the Bill Simmons business. Just as it got out of the Curt Schilling business, and the Kyle Whelliston business, and the business of many other writers and personalities, some of whom got sliced b/c Disney had a bad year and some of whom got sliced b/c it was no longer worth putting up with their bullshit. WE have all worked for someone who got US out of their business. This does not make him special, no matter how much he thinks otherwise.

 

About the NBA draft—it was watching Simmons on NBA draft coverage one year that I thought, for the first but not the last time, that he was faking it, and he knew it. I saw a guy who was pressing because he didn't in his own expertise. I have no idea of my interpretation was correct, but it makes sense to me that he would bail on the NBA draft live show.

 

I like Bill, but I don't think anyone (except, I guess, HBO) would say he was good on television. Even after two years or however long it was that he was on TV, he never seemed comfortable.

 

You pretty much just described every elite athlete (as you noted by bringing it back to Peyton at the end). It's interesting that it's somehow more tolerable coming from an athlete, maybe b/c we're used to narcissistic athletes while the business has ground most writers' egos into dust?

 

Whom do you hate more, Peyton or Bill?

 

I don't hate anyone. Except tattooed deskers.