Talk:Bill Simmons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

add Grady Sizemore and Jamal Abu Shamala to the Reggie Cleveland all-stars. He inducted them along with Nate Funk in his NCAA running diary on day 2

I have removed most of the content from the article because it was unsourced and speculative. Editors are welcome to add material that is written from a neutral point of view, is verifiable, and is supported by references. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose to deal with the fact that almost all of the information about Simmons is only available through ESPNinsider? Essentially everything that was in the article is true, but proper references aren't available to non-subscribers. Stilgar135 03:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm reverting the article until we can find proper sources, but we can't do HTTP links to material because it is in a paid archive. There are several people keeping an eye on this page for vandalism and also verifiable information; if you have problems with specific statements, please bring them up, and we can (hopefully) answer them. SGreenwell 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

let people edit the page - don't be a fascist

Seriously though, it's often the case that some facts in the article are misrepresented. As an example, the "Vice President of Common Sense" mentioned in the article is presented by you know-it-all editors as someone who can "veto any team move." By your description, this should include minor trades, free agent signings, draft choices, and other largely insignificant yet commonplace day-to-day personnel decisions. This is clearly not what Simmons is trying to get across. Would the VCPS care that the Red Sox optioned Javier Lopez to AAA and called up Kason Gabbard? Clearly not. In fact, if you cared to read the original article, he only mentions "big decisions" as lying within the jurisdiction of the VPCS:

"I’m becoming more and more convinced that every professional sports team needs to hire a Vice President of Common Sense, someone who cracks the inner circle of the decision-making process along with the GM, assistant GM, head scout, head coach, owner and whomever else. One catch: the VP of CS doesn’t attend meetings, scout prospects, watch any film or listen to any inside information or opinions; he lives the life of a common fan. They just bring him in when they’re ready to make a big decision, lay everything out and wait for his unbiased reaction."

This may seem like a minor point (and it is), but these things add up, and you don't let the common (and often more knowledgeable) folk correct things of these nature, you are seriously diminishing not only the integrity of Wikipedia, but also it fundamental purpose. I urge you to reconsider.

I'm befuddled. Obviously, I misremembered Simmons' description of the VP of Common Sense, so I'm glad that you were able to make it more accurate. I'm not sure where you're going from there. Since you haven't changed the article appropriately, it seems like you're more interested in bitching about not letting the "common folk" correct things than actually making Wikipedia better. The issue on the table is, how do we make a reliable article when the vast majority of the primary sources aren't available to the vast majority of readers. I (and, apparently SGreenwell) believe that a full deletion is a less desirable result than having fairly knowledgable, experienced editors work from memory. When we're wrong, it's a good thing to have others come in and correct us- that's the beauty of Wikipedia. But I really don't see how your class war analogy helps anything, or even where it's coming from. Stilgar135 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what class wars have to do with anything. My problem is, I fail to understand (a) why new or unregistered users are prevented from editing this page, and (b) why no mention of this is made on the page itself (eg - the person who blocked editing could have put up at the top of the page a "partially blocked" tag, or whatever the right terminology is). I for one was pretty confused when I tried to edit the page and couldn't find any "edit" markers - it's annoying that one has to browse the talk page for this kind of information.

My bad- I didn't realize that the page was blocked, either. A lot of people like to complain about what they see as elitism of Wikipedia, and I guess I automatically lumped you in with them; as always, I tried to be clever and metaphorical. Thus, "class wars". Anyway, I agree that protected pages should definitely have that fact posted on the front. I also don't think that this page is really a good candidate for protection- the problem isn't unregistered users vandalizing, it's that the information is so hard to verify. I guess all I can say is make good edits, become an "established user" and, if you see anything else in the article you think needs fixing before then, post it here. Stilgar135 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I fixed some of the replying earlier in this thread, to make it more clear who was responding to who. Second, I'm guessing the block is up because of some of the past edits to the page. I've generally been lenient on things that have been added (i.e. the Reggie Cleveland All-Star team) because we haven't really talked out consensus on this talk page. I think if we're now interested in chopping the article down, we should try to talk it out instead of just engaging in edit wars. Finally, please try to sign comments with the four tildes, even if you don't have an account. It makes the talk page easier to read. SGreenwell 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Note- Will someone include the semi- famous introduction of an US weekly fantasy league. The man single handedly created a way for women to enjoy fantasy leagues!!!

Simmons got his masters in political science from Holy Cross, not a degree in sports journalism. I'm positive of this, but I don't remember where I read it. He did however used to have a column in the college's paper. BallingOutFull 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a picture of his wife? He mentions her enough times and now with her weekly rants (which sound JUST like you'd expect bill simmons as a girl to write), i'd like to verify you know, thats shes actually a real person.

He's mentioned her many times over the years, as has other people like Adam Carolla; Carolla talks about going out with his wife and Bill and Bill's wife at one point. I don't think there are any pictures of her online, at least there weren't when I was curious about the subject a few months ago. Seeing as there's no pictures of Bill currently on this page, it would be hard to justify a picture of his wife instead. SGreenwell 18:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Simmons has said that he's never going to put any family pictures on SGW. Still, a bit more information about his wife could certainly help the article. Stilgar135 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the page misrepresents the Ewing Theory, a theory which I love. The key aspect of the Ewing Theory is not that the team has unusual success (which is vague) when a superstar leaves, but instead that the team is more successful sans-superstar than it was with-superstar. Either because of injury or because of departure, the Knicks performed better without Ewing than they did with Ewing. Implicit in the "Ewing theory" is a concession that the superstar is, Yes, a superstar. But his presence inexplicably damages the team. I'm not a Wikipedia guy, and I have no idea what will happen if I paste a URL here for proof, but here's a column addressing the issue specifically: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1193711&type=package

I changed it based on your suggestion. Please note that the Knicks were never better without Ewing (look at the stats and records), which destroys the Theory. It should be named the Drew Bledsoe theory...but I still like Simmons.Ramsquire 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he calls it the Ewing Theory because the one-time the Knicks made the finals in the past 15 years, Ewing was on the bench (Sprewell-Houston years). SGreenwell 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They were in the Finals with Ewing in '94 (made it all the way to Game 7), and he played all but nine games in '99, the time you are talking about. The Knick's record in those nine games? 4-5! Plus, after going to the 2nd round of the playoffs every year once Riley took over, and four Eastern Conference finals, they haven't sniffed the second round since he left. I don't count the inspired effort one night in Milwaukee during the regular season (as Simmons and many Knicks fan did to back up this theory) as showing the Knicks would be a better team without Ewing. They never were, and they certainly haven't been since. Ramsquire 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, non-Wikipedia guy again. I think it is valid to question the legitimacy of the Ewing Theory. All of the ridiculous debate on the Ewing Theory page, for instance, demonstrates that labeling players as "Ewing Theory" eligible is a fool's errand. Maybe Ewing shouldn't even be considered, as you've pointed out. But, anyway, I think there should be one additional clause in the definition which you changed: "...increased success after the departure or temporary absence of a superstar." As you've indicated above, if a player is missing even for a short while, and the team succeeds, that players suddenly becomes potential "Ewing Theory" fodder. Also, just for fun, I want to say here that the only value of the Ewing Theory is entertainment value. Understanding the premise of the Ewing Theory allows my friends and me to argue at length about who is, and who isn't, a Ewing Theory guy.

The link for Howie Kendrick should be removed from the Reggie Cleveland All-Stars and replaced by one from someone considerably less black.

There should be a mention of "The Unintentional Comedy Scale" somewhere in the article. EthanE5 03:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since "The Sports Guy" is essentially his nickname, shouldn't it be bolded (every other nickname on Wikipedia follows that format) - 192.187.4.162 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not (or at least it shouldn't be) just any nickname that's bolded. What should be bolded are phrases that would legitimately serve as alternate titles to the article. Basically, if it's bolded, then there really ought to be a page under that phrase in bold that redirects to the main page. In this case, though, "The Sports Guy" does indeed yield such a page that redirects here. So bolding is appropriate, and I have added it. Mwelch 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move Memes?

I was thinking about moving Memes to it's own page "Bill Simmons Memes". Right now this section takes up about half of his page and doesn't seem like it fits with a biography. Warhol13 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears needs to be added to the Tyson Zone section, as he mentioned that in today's piece. (EM)

She was already added earlier today. Bjewiki 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nate Funk needs to be added to the Reggie Cleveland All Stars, as per today's running diary