The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons

[Battierfan01]

After reading several great reviews on this book, I decided to purchase it at Barnes and Noble.(I understand that Shane Battier loves this book). I did some negative reviews on the book, but so far I am really enjoying it. The book seems to be well informative on the history of the NBA and I love that Simmons includes lots of footnotes that provide tons of humor. I was just wondering if anyone else has read this book and what are your thoughts??

[PumpkinFunk]

It's a great book. Bill Simmons is incredibly biased and that comes off, but the humor of the book is where it shines (and he does know a lot about the NBA, to be fair)

[Battierfan01]

It's a great book. Bill Simmons is incredibly biased and that comes off, but the humor of the book is where it shines (and he does know a lot about the NBA, to be fair)

Yeah I just started reading the book and I already love Simmons humor.

[superdave]

I finished it last month. Great read.

He gives a great account of the context of different basketball eras: the all/mostly white days on the early 50s, the better but still limited days through the late 60s where no one played D, and the ABA merger, then finally the post-merger modern era with the 3 pointer.

When he ranks the greatest players ever, you'll see that his rankings of Bird and Kareem show he's not as biased as you might think at first.

[RainingThrees]

I read some excerpts and it was pretty much an extended version of his column, funny and informative but extremely biased towards the Celtics. Calling Russell the equal of Chamberlain is just too much of a stretch.

[Cell-R]

I read some excerpts and it was pretty much an extended version of his column, funny and informative but extremely biased towards the Celtics. Calling Russell the equal of Chamberlain is just too much of a stretch.

He does make some convincing arguments, however.

Comparing individual statistics Wilt was better. Period.

Russell was more of a team player who, in the end, finished with 9 championships compared to Wilt's two.

Take it for what you want.

[superdave]

Actually Russell won 11 titles in 13 years. Chamberlain won 2.

Russell won 5 MVP awards, Wilt won 4.

I thought Simmons made a very, very convincing argument for why Russell was the better player historically.

He ranks Duncan ahead of Shaq historically for similar reasons. And I agree.

[DevilHorns]

Actually Russell won 11 titles in 13 years. Chamberlain won 2.

Russell won 5 MVP awards, Wilt won 4.

I thought Simmons made a very, very convincing argument for why Russell was the better player historically.

He ranks Duncan ahead of Shaq historically for similar reasons. And I agree.

Chamberlain wins only in the Darwinian sense, and by that, I mean in terms of # progeny. Sorry couldn't help myself.

[RainingThrees]

Actually Russell won 11 titles in 13 years. Chamberlain won 2.

Russell won 5 MVP awards, Wilt won 4.

I thought Simmons made a very, very convincing argument for why Russell was the better player historically.

He ranks Duncan ahead of Shaq historically for similar reasons. And I agree.

I never bought into the whole thing about championships determining how good a player is. Robert Horry has more than Jerry West, but who was better? Winning championships is 1st about how good a team is and second how lucky a team gets along the way. Russell's team was better than Chamberlains as Chamberlain was the only go-to guy on his team. The guy had to average an absurd amount of points to win. Russell didn't. I'll take 50 points per game over 19 all day.

[stillcrazie]

Bill Simmons -- biased? I am sure he figured out a way to work the Red Sox in.

[superdave]

I never bought into the whole thing about championships determining how good a player is. Robert Horry has more than Jerry West, but who was better? Winning championships is 1st about how good a team is and second how lucky a team gets along the way. Russell's team was better than Chamberlains as Chamberlain was the only go-to guy on his team. The guy had to average an absurd amount of points to win. Russell didn't. I'll take 50 points per game over 19 all day.

Actually Simmons compares the supporting casts for Wilt and Russell. They were pretty similar. It was Wilt's selfishness and need to stuff the stat sheet that brought his team down. In fact when he decided to be more team-oriented, his goal was still selfish - to lead the league in assists.

The whole point of the book is "The Secret." Russell knew it and won 11 titles. Wilt never got it so he never reached his potential, winning only 2.

If stats were the point of basketball, then George Gervin would be a top 10 player. Guys like Tom Chambers and Vince Carter would by top 30. Quite simply, those guys were not all-time greats when compared to the team-first guys like Horry, Stockton, Pippen.

[Olympic Fan]

Russell is the greatest player in basketball history. Period.

The idea that winning is not a significant measure of greatness is ludicrous. Russell was not Robert Horry, a small contributor on great teams -- he was the reason those teams were great. It's the difference between Greg Koubek, the first NCAA player to appear in four Final Fours (a nice historical oddity) and Christian Laettner, who STARTED AND STARRED on four straight Final Four teams.

We've been over this before -- but the Boston Celtics never won anything before they got Russell -- they had never even reached the NBA finals. He joined the team in 1957 and they won the NBA title (and he was the MVP of the finals). They won 11 titles in his 13 years (losing one of the two when he was hurt). When he retired the year after winning his 11th title (beating Wilt head-to-head again in the seventh game when Wilt quit), the Celtics came back the next year with the same team minus Russell and finished with a losing record.

He won more MVPs that Wilt ... the only reason ill-informed fans (and a few ignorant media types) revere Wilt is that we have numbers to measure his offensive prowess ... we don't have numbers to measure the defensive impact that Russell -- the greatest defensive player ever to play the game -- had.

Yeah, he had a strong supporting cast. But so did Wilt -- he joined a Philadelphia team that had won the NBA title two years earlier and still returned three starters from that championship team. The only year he beat Russell's Celtics, his supporting cast was almost an all-star team (Wilkins, Lucius Jackson, Chet Walker, Bill Melchionni -- Billy Cunningham was the team's sixth man). Wilt couldn't beat Russell with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor at his side.

The year Wilt averaged 50 points a game, guess who the NBA players picked as MVP? (Hint: it wasn't the stat-stuffer).

Wilt choked in college ... Russell won back-to-back NCAA titles and finished his career on a 50-plus game winning streak. Wilt took time between college in the NBA to play for the Trotters. Russell took time out after his senior year to lead the USA to the Olympic Gold Medal.

Wilt couldn't carry Russell's jock. Much the same applies to Oscar, a great stat machine that couldn't win in college or the pros (his Cincinnati team actually had more success in the two years AFTER he left ... he finally earned a championship ring when he teamed late in his career with the great Jabbar).

The closest challenger to Russell was Jordan, who transformed a weak Bulls team into a championship team -- but his seven NBA titles pale compared to Russell's 11 (and his one NCAA title, riding on James Worthy's coattails, doesn't match the two titles Russell won in college).

[strawbs]

The closest challenger to Russell was Jordan, who transformed a weak Bulls team into a championship team -- but his seven NBA titles pale compared to Russell's 11 (and his one NCAA title, riding on James Worthy's coattails, doesn't match the two titles Russell won in college).

i thought you made some good points until saying russell was better then jordan based on championships. Anyone who watches the NBA knows that it is damn near impossible to win a championship without a dominant big man. Jordan did it 6 times! If you put him with a handful of hall of famers and a solid big man, any team with jordan would win the championship every year.

IMO russell is the greatest big man of all time but to say he is better then jordan due to the amount of championships he had is silly. Russell played with numerous hall of famers, jordan had pippen and a bunch of role players. Jordan is in a class of his own.

[RockLobster]

Simmons is a notorious Duke hater...however, I have a friend who's a huge Duke fan (fellow alum and DBR poster) who has this book and absolutely loves it. I haven't read it, but I've heard good things. If you don't mind giving a Duke hater your money, it sounds like a good pickup.

[77devil]

Russell is the greatest player in basketball history. Period.

The idea that winning is not a significant measure of greatness is ludicrous. Russell was not Robert Horry, a small contributor on great teams -- he was the reason those teams were great. It's the difference between Greg Koubek, the first NCAA player to appear in four Final Fours (a nice historical oddity) and Christian Laettner, who STARTED AND STARRED on four straight Final Four teams.

We've been over this before -- but the Boston Celtics never won anything before they got Russell -- they had never even reached the NBA finals. He joined the team in 1957 and they won the NBA title (and he was the MVP of the finals). They won 11 titles in his 13 years (losing one of the two when he was hurt). When he retired the year after winning his 11th title (beating Wilt head-to-head again in the seventh game when Wilt quit), the Celtics came back the next year with the same team minus Russell and finished with a losing record.

He won more MVPs that Wilt ... the only reason ill-informed fans (and a few ignorant media types) revere Wilt is that we have numbers to measure his offensive prowess ... we don't have numbers to measure the defensive impact that Russell -- the greatest defensive player ever to play the game -- had.

Yeah, he had a strong supporting cast. But so did Wilt -- he joined a Philadelphia team that had won the NBA title two years earlier and still returned three starters from that championship team. The only year he beat Russell's Celtics, his supporting cast was almost an all-star team (Wilkins, Lucius Jackson, Chet Walker, Bill Melchionni -- Billy Cunningham was the team's sixth man). Wilt couldn't beat Russell with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor at his side.

The year Wilt averaged 50 points a game, guess who the NBA players picked as MVP? (Hint: it wasn't the stat-stuffer).

Wilt choked in college ... Russell won back-to-back NCAA titles and finished his career on a 50-plus game winning streak. Wilt took time between college in the NBA to play for the Trotters. Russell took time out after his senior year to lead the USA to the Olympic Gold Medal.

Wilt couldn't carry Russell's jock. Much the same applies to Oscar, a great stat machine that couldn't win in college or the pros (his Cincinnati team actually had more success in the two years AFTER he left ... he finally earned a championship ring when he teamed late in his career with the great Jabbar).

The closest challenger to Russell was Jordan, who transformed a weak Bulls team into a championship team -- but his seven NBA titles pale compared to Russell's 11 (and his one NCAA title, riding on James Worthy's coattails, doesn't match the two titles Russell won in college).

I'm agnostic on Russell vs Chamberlain, but Wilt's key supporting cast on the 76ers championship team included Hal Greer and Wali Jones at guard, no one named Wilkins and Bill Melchionni was a non factor.

[hurleyfor3]

We've been over this before -- but the Boston Celtics never won anything before they got Russell -- they had never even reached the NBA finals.

The Celtics' first NBA Finals was in 1986. It wasn't called the NBA Finals before that.

[devildownunder]

I read some excerpts and it was pretty much an extended version of his column, funny and informative but extremely biased towards the Celtics. Calling Russell the equal of Chamberlain is just too much of a stretch.

uh-oh! Now you've gone and done it. I'm not getting involved in this.

[devildownunder]

I had to stop reading Simmons because his columns on espn.com are full of arrogant, biased nonsense. If this book is hailed as must-read material for basketball fans, maybe I'll find somebody to lend me a copy. No way I'm putting money in that tool's pocket.

[oso diablo]

Simmons is a notorious Duke hater...however, I have a friend who's a huge Duke fan (fellow alum and DBR poster) who has this book and absolutely loves it. I haven't read it, but I've heard good things. If you don't mind giving a Duke hater your money, it sounds like a good pickup.

that's what libraries are for.

my take on the book: well worth the read for a hoops fan, though it gets a bit redundant. Simmons is an absolute homer and a blowhard, but he makes some excellent points throughout. He's just out of his depth when he starts pontificating on race matters.

[BobbyFan]

If stats were the point of basketball

Actually, a statistic is the point of basketball - a team has to score more points than its opponent.

...then George Gervin would be a top 10 player. Guys like Tom Chambers and Vince Carter would by top 30.

No reasonable approach to statistics would lead Gervin to be a top 10 player, or Chambers or Carter top 30 players.