One thing that has never changed about my love of sports is my appreciation for the big game. This is something that I take a great deal of pride in: if it's important in sports, I want to see it. I went through great pains to see the Padres-Rockies sudden death playoff game two weeks ago, I watched Game 7 of last year's NLCS even though I'm not a fan of either the Cardinals or the Mets. College basketball, football, boxing - I like seeing the moments when athletes transcend their sport to become something amazing, something beautiful.
My love for ESPN.com's Page 2 has coincided with this evolution of fandom. When I first started to read it, I thought it was the greatest outlet for sports journalism available to me. The articles were varied, they dealt with the fan condition, they dealt with racism and sexism and all the great and worldly things that sports could encompass. However, after the first few years my love began to wain, and I would check every once in awhile for updates, maybe read Jason Whitlock's article (before he was fired), see if Simmons was updating. Now, however, it's done, it's been finished, it's been killed.
What Page 2 has become is a lazy, glossy shadow of its former self. Though the number of writers of color has (in my best estimate) quadrupled, Tom Boyd is the only one that I enjoy reading. Jemele Hill has a mean streak to her writing, something sinister that I simply can't get behind. I've tried, Snoop Jackson, but your style is just a little too much for me. Bomani Jones, isn't awful, per say, and neither is LZ Granderson, but they just don't jump off the page at me.
Then we have the old guard, which was always (in my humble opinion) the worst part about Page 2. I've never liked Jim Caple, I've never liked Eric Neel (except when he did basketball jones, that was neat), David Flemming is bad, and same goes for Patrick Hruby and Tim Keown. They just do nothing for me. For a website that has so much potential for outside the mainstream opinions on sports, these writers simply don't do enough.
This leaves Bill Simmons, and the conclusion to the point about watching baseball I was making earlier. I've always been a Simmons fan, even though I'm firmly entrenched in the midwest, which he doesn't give a fuck about. He has a lively understanding of language, and most of his writing pops with a youthful vigor which is sincerely lacking in most sports writing. However, the shtick is just getting old. Simmons was brought in to represent the home region of ESPN, a region that had beleaguered with sadness and hardship in sports for at least 10 years at that point. The Pats never did anything, the Celtics were terrible, the Red Sox were the little brother, the Bruins were no good, they lost the Whalers - it made sense. Now, after 3 Super Bowl rings, one WS ring, two massive free agent signings for the Celtics and the abject collapse of Hockey in America, Boston is on top. They're bigger than New York. They've won. They can shut the holy fuck up about it.
What made Simmons so popular (which is the point here) is that his troubles endeared him to everyone who grew up in a sad sports town. His Red Sox teams of the early 2000s reminded me of my Timberwolves - always great, but could never bring down the big guy. Same with the Vikings. Same (a little later) with the Twins. Now, he's living in the middle of success, a success that people from smaller markets will never understand or experience because we can't spend the damn money. Sure his Sox won the series, but only because they went crazy and bought free agent after free agent before 2004. These are all money issues, but Simmons never wants to take responsibility for them - he would much rather disparage small markets for having terrible fans, cold weather, ugly women, etc., etc., etc. This all leads to today's mailbag, where he wrote:
No matter how much you love baseball, it's nearly impossible to care about the Colorado-Arizona series. You might watch it, you might enjoy it, you might even gamble on it ... but unless you're an absolute baseball nut or a Rockies/D-backs fan, how could you honestly care who wins when neither franchise is older than Jamie-Lynn Spears? It's like going to a wedding in which you don't know anything about the bride or the groom.What about the fact that the Rockies are the hottest team in postseason baseball history, that they have an official religious affiliation, or a man who has stuck with the team for nearly 10 seasons with no playoff births and will now be playing for a shot in the World Series? What about the Diamondbacks - who, if I recall, were written off so many times this year as a pretender that they probably should have quit trying in June - making it this far with a team that has almost no holdovers from their 2001 World Series victory? (wait - do they have ANY holdovers? that might be worth looking up) What about the Diamondbacks having two of the most exciting young players in either league (Stephen Drew and Chris Young), plus the best pitcher no one seems to recognize? What about one of the most beautiful stadiums in one of the most beautiful cities in America? Or two fanbases that have never been given any credit? Or the fact that the Rockies might just make their first fucking World Series in the history of their franchise? No, you're right man. Nothing to care about here. Might as well put together your 32 plasma TVs and watch every NFL game with Hench, Sal, Lodi, Dreamy Pete, Huck, Tush, Skrape, and the rest of the gang while you all secretly wish the Yankees had made the ALCS. I can't take it anymore - I will never read a Bill Simmons piece again.
I hope David Ortiz eats Manny Ramirez.
No comments:
Post a Comment