In the world of sports writing, there may not be a more polarizing figure that ESPN’s Bill Simmons. Hate him, love him, whatever, he does massive numbers for ESPN.com and the guy’s got enough F U money not to care what you think.

But will he care what someone at Sports Illustrated thinks? Gelf Magazine interviewed SI’s Jim Gorant, who had some interesting thoughts on blogs and the success of Simmons. His words and our analysis after the jump:

One thing I’ve noticed is that in the age of blogs and ESPN, everyone is an expert and the experts are idiots. Everyone presents his opinion as the only opinion and any contradictory opinion as idiocy. There’s very little wiggle room; either you agree or you’re a know-nothing moron.

As for the Sports Guy, I’ve only read him four or five times, but my take is that he’s basically a comedy writer working within the realm of sports. I’ve had dozens of people recommend him to me, and when they do, they always say, “you have to read this guy, he’s hilarious.” It’s not “he’s interesting” or “intelligent” or “provocative” or “supplies really original insights and reporting.” It’s simply that he’s funny and makes a lot of cultural references that resonate with people of a certain age. Having said that, you’d be a fool not to recognize that he’s touched on something that really works as a form of entertainment. It’s something like a traditional column mixed with a diary. Whatever you want to label it—comedic-op-ed, blogging, stream-of-consciousness—the key in the end is that it’s done well. He is funny. My sense is that a lot of people out there have tried to duplicate the formula, but none that I know of have succeeded.

We wouldn’t go as far to say the ‘experts are idiots,’ but he’s onto something. One thing we see less and less of are the ‘experts’ actually quoting general managers or coaches or owners. And really, why give quotes to the paper that could twist them when you can go to the team-friendly website and put out a press release disguised as a story? This makes us wonder – are the ‘experts’ watching the games on TV just like we are, and offering their opinion? Or are they behind the scenes, working the phones and actually gathering information? This we wonder. All we’re sayin’ is that there should be more outstanding pieces in Slate like this that talk about how infrequently the ‘experts’ are quoting folks. Because in an era where writers are increasingly shuttling between radio shows and TV appearances, you’re seeing less quoting and more opinion.

As for Simmons, for the longest time, we were like Gorant in that we never read him. We’ve begun to read him more recently, but only because so many readers email us with strong opinions about him. We’ve never been one to hang on the every word of any writer (fine, maybe Norman Chad or Kornheiser in his early 1990s, pre-ESPN prime), so we probably aren’t the best ones to critique his writing. His NBA draft diary was a fun read and made us wonder … given a night to focus on just the NBA draft and being as funny as you can … couldn’t Yahoo or Sportsline or SI have hired some blogger to give that a stab? But therein lies the rub – anyone who even remotely attempts humor is a ‘copycat’ and obviously will be ridiculed endlessly. Still, seeing the success of Simmons, it appears as if the smart move would be for a rival outlet to give somebody a year to prove him/herself as a comedy sports writer. Problem is, too many places will want to pull the plug after two months if traffic isn’t through the roof. Imagine if we pulled the plug on this bad boy after two months? It’s as if the sporting media treats writers the same way sports teams treat coaches – the quick hook.

One Sports Fan’s Dream Year (Gelf Magazine)