No Angle

I'm listening the the BS Report with Colin Cowherd (whose radio show is the only other podcast I listen to, so the combination particularly intrigues me)

Simmons mentions that Colin always has an angle and how it's having the angle that makes him relevant and/or interesting. It all comes down to the angle and whether you have an angle and not just throwing stuff out there to see what sticks. You can disagree with everything, but at least his brain will start moving. That's the goal, to get people's brain moving.

My question about Tiger, Phelps, Federer, and Nadal was the stuff trying to stick...there was no angle


  1. I don't like Cowherd because he's kind of a blowhard, so the angle vs no-angle thing doesn't move me. Meanwhile I'd say Simmons rarely has "an angle," but almost always has something interesting. And sometimes his "angles" suck - look at the 4-billion-word Manny article or the 8-billion-word Clippers article for examples.

    It's okay to be interesting and random, at least in my opinion.

    By the way, smooth move by Mik just listing himself as MP... very mysterious...

  2. Aaron, I dismissed you too quickly. I apologize.

    Two things:

    1. Simmons is funnier than me, and that's what makes him better. My written reaction the Anderson Varejao signing ($50 million for a guy who gets like 7pts/8rebs a game) was "Typical NBA signing, overpaying for a role player when there was no reason to." Here is Simmons reaction (via Twitter):

    "sportsguy33 Fifty million for Anderson Varejao????? I have to go to bed. Upside down. With saran wrap over my head. HOW AM I NOT A GM???"
    'sportsguy33 Statement from Cavs: "Look, any time you can lock up a role player for $42.5m + incentives with the cap going backwards, you have to do it."'

    I mean, that is just plain hilarious. I was laughing out loud in my room reading that. He nailed it, and made me look like a curmudgeonly blowhard with his humor too.

    2. Listening to the full Cowherd interview, and I think Colin himself actually said it best - he just tries to approach all of his jobs with the perspective of "I'm going to stick to my strong opinion and try be funny, and that's worked out for me." I feel like that's a super healthy attitude, and I think it's worthwhile for us or anyone trying to put their opinions out there.

    Thoughts? Do you think it is in fact about angles, and I'm just wrong? A little of both?

  3. I think you hit the nail on the head on both accounts. Bill Simmons is funnier than any of us. Now we have a chance to be funny or interesting collectively, but none of us can do it on our own. And yes, by 'angle' I think they were referring to the well-thought, possibly polarizing or controversial opinion on any given subject matter. We don't need to be right or convince everyone we are. We are striving to be interesting.

  4. Following up on past conversations regarding the Sports Guy, this podcast provided a subtle, yet important observation regarding Simmons. We have often discussed how Simmons specifically made an effort to write from the point of view of the fan. He visited one locker room and was so disenchanted, he vowed to never use press credentials and only use access available to the general public.

    However, Simmons mentions that maybe 2 years ago, he realized that he inadvertently switched from being the underdog, fighting the establishment as the little man, to being an actual influence in sports. He now has enough followers that players, coaches, GM's (*cough* Dunleavy *cough*) actually sit up and pay notice. I first noticed this when he interviewed Baron Davis about going from the Warriors to the Clippers. That was definitely not something a normal fan could access.

    I believe his writing has adjusted, to prevent jumping the shark he has legitimately grown as a writer and a sports fan.

    And now he's the only reason why I will regularly check Twitter.