The Simmons Site

God, how horrible, acknowledging that there was good reading before Jay McInerney.

 

Neither was Deadspin before it was Deadspin. Or most other websites.

 

And more substantively as someone pointed out, names are less important in a world of RSS feeds, Facebook and Twitter.

 

Personally, I find Simmons entertaining. I read the "Book of Basketball," loved every page and read every footnote (for those of you who also read it). The "War and Peace" comparison is dead on. He also doesn't know when to hit the off switch when he writes for the Net. I don't care if online space is endless, I don't finish most of what he writes. I made the Maloof piece last week an exception. I also agree with the frat boy comment. What I don't get is how he continues to worship the NBA, even though he mentions more than once in the book that officiating was rigged in certain playoff series (Kings-Lakers 2002, to name one). I just don't get that.

 

I think this has the potential to work pretty well. I think there are two Simmons:

1) The writer and columnist, who, depending on your perspective, is everything wrong with Internet sports columnists, or the guy who has used the medium the absolute best.

2) The idea man, the guy who tried to get 30 for 30 going, and who generally has a wide range of interests, judging from his podcast guests (everyone from Klostermann to Seth Meyers to sports figures to David Stern).

#2 strikes me as more of the one behind Grantland, since I doubt Simmons will be contributing much of his (ever-dwindling) writing to it. And for what it's worth, I think the name will work out pretty well, since it is just a compound of two words that are pretty hard to misspell.

 

I have no idea how the financial side of the site will work -- or work out -- but I think the content will be as good as the writers and editors producing it.

In other words, I'm pretty excited. I expect a lot of creativity, experimentation, risk-taking and general, well, different-ness than what's out there right now, sports writing-wise.

If Grantland ends up breaking a major NCAA scandal or hard news stuff, I will be shocked and mildly disappointed.

If it ends up becoming a repository for witty sports and pop culture ephemera, I will be mildly surprised and pretty let down. We already have the entire Internet for that.

If it DOSEN'T end up funding and producing and exposing and making possible at least one unforgettable and unique piece a month -- something that you've never really read anything like before -- I will be majorly shocked and massively disappointed.

To me, the last point is what matters with this site. There's no reason for ESPN to put major dollars behind same old, same old.

 

As I understand it (could be wrong), this site will present writing and reporting by writers Simmons believes have something to say about sports, or who he thinks will if they start writing about sports. So A LOT of its merit will depend on the writers themselves. Since the judging of the quality of writing is probably even more subjective than judgments about sex, with opinions on Bill's writing serving as Exhibit A, I predict reactions to Grantland will be widely varied, but probably all of them will be overwrought.

 

Preview article is up.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=110502/preview/katie-baker-on-the-new-york-knicks

 

Actually, two previews are online.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=110502/preview/molly-lambert-on-2011-summer-movie-preview

 

If that's a sign of things to come, oh my God, is that ever going to redefine the suck.

 

OK, I stopped reading the first one when the timeline was wrong. 1983 was 10 years after the "last banner was raised," not 11. I'm a math Nazi; that shit annoys me.

On to the second one.

 

Ya, can't do it. Sorry. Back to the bin Laden threads.