The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons

[superdave]

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.

I went to a book signing here in DC when the book first came out. I asked Simmons to put an inscription in for my bro-in-law who is a UNC fan. I said "you might not want to write it...it's a little offensive." He said "try me."

I asked for "To Grieg - Dean Smith is the anti-christ." He not only wrote that but added "smoking" in there on his own. My sister said my bro-in-law was not too pleased to have "Dean Smith is the smoking anti-christ" in his book.

So Simmons cant be all bad. And I really do recommend the book. It's fun, interesting and well thought out. He even admits when and where he's a homer. Full of good stories and helps you to compare guys from different eras like LeBron vs. Oscar, Wilt vs. Shaq, etc.

[Trooper]

I just finished the book and found it to be insightful, well-researched (almost absurdly so), and funny if you appreciate simmons brand of humor...which some of you obviously do not. I happen to enjoy it.

Some of the best parts of the book are firsthand interviews with guys like Isiah Thomas, Steve Kerr, and Bill Walton. People who have played and worked in the game on multiple levels, and the stories are simply fascinating.

He's definitely biased towards the celtics, but it's not so much in his evaluation of their historical stars, but more in how he treats some of their role players throughout the years that are overly glorified.

His chamberlain vs. russell argument is well researched both statistically and qualitatively with views from people who played with/against him. This is not an area of bias...albeit an opinion that can be debated (i personally agree with him on russell...and i'm a chicago guy and bulls fan, so no bias here).

As Duke fans who really understand basketball, I'd think people on this board would generally love his view on basketball greatness that lauds/values the Scottie Pippens, Shane Battiers, Bill Russells, and the like...

As for his dislike of Duke, people need to get over themselves. Virtually no one is a Duke fan...I live in NY, which is a haven of Blue Devils fans, and almost every non-alum I know hates our hoops team. Despite our recent lack of tourney success, we're still the Yankees of college hoops...and that's a great, great thing. The fact that Simmons makes the occasional crack about our team is really not a reason to not read/purchase a great book.

[David]

I like Simmons' columns on ESPN.com but found the large # of footnotes in his books very distracting. I was constantly going back-and-forth between the main text and his jokes in the footnotes, which ultimately led to a very disjointed read. As a professor once told me, if it's not worth saying in the main text, it's not worth saying...

Did this bother anyone else?

[Olympic Fan]

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.

Mea culpa ... I got my Hall of Fame guards mixed up in my mind. I was trying to think of Hal Greer and Lenny Wilkins popped into my mind.

I checked this time to make sure. When Wilt finally beat Russell (for the only time in the playoffs), his supporting cast included:

Hall of Fame guard Hal Greer (the No. 2 scorer on that team)
Hall of Fame forward Billy Cunningham (the sixth man on that team)
7-time NBA all-star Chet Walker (the starting small forward)
6-time NBA all-star Larry Costello (a reserve guard)
4-time NBA all-star Johnny Green (a reserve forward)
3-time NBA all-star Bill Melchionni (a reserve guard)
1-time NBA all-star Lucius Jackson (the starting power forward)

That's three Hall of Famers (counting Wilt) and eight all-stars!

The two regulars on the team that never made the all-star game were starting guard Wali Jones, a quality player who averaged over 10 points a game in an 11-year career, and backup guard Matt Goukas, who played 10 years in the NBA.

[Jarhead]

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.

No, it isn't.

[Dawun]

I enjoyed the book. Simmons is bias, but he does not try to pretend he is not. That's what I respect most about him. He's brutally honest, and that's all you can really ask for from a die-hard Celtics fan. With that said, I was shocked at how high he ranked Allen Iverson. I respect the guy's game (I don't), but I don't see how he's ranked above players like Kidd, Nowitzki, and Wade. He scored in bunches, and occasionally played the passing lanes well. He had a ton of heart, and was one of the best scorers in the history of the game. However, his influence on the game was beyond negative. So many kids try to emulate the dude, and it only leads to a kid wanted to dribble a lot and shoot. He wasn't fundamental, and he rejected authority, which can be good, but if it's done to the extreme, you can't really grow. His game did not evolve, and he did not make his teammates (like Steve Nash). I don't dislike AI, but I don't think he should be in the top 30.

[RainingThrees]

No, it isn't.

Yeah, I think I got that point after the whole board took the other side of the argument. But thanks for throwing in your two cents as well.

[superdave]

I enjoyed the book. Simmons is bias, but he does not try to pretend he is not. That's what I respect most about him. He's brutally honest, and that's all you can really ask for from a die-hard Celtics fan. With that said, I was shocked at how high he ranked Allen Iverson. I respect the guy's game (I don't), but I don't see how he's ranked above players like Kidd, Nowitzki, and Wade. He scored in bunches, and occasionally played the passing lanes well. He had a ton of heart, and was one of the best scorers in the history of the game. However, his influence on the game was beyond negative. So many kids try to emulate the dude, and it only leads to a kid wanted to dribble a lot and shoot. He wasn't fundamental, and he rejected authority, which can be good, but if it's done to the extreme, you can't really grow. His game did not evolve, and he did not make his teammates (like Steve Nash). I don't dislike AI, but I don't think he should be in the top 30.

Let's see, AI was league MVP once, NBA Finals appearance once (with probably the worst suporting cast to ever make the Finals), league leader in scoring 4x (one of 4 players in history to do this), 2nd highest playoff average ever behind MJ, 3x 1st team all NBA, 3x 2nd team, 1x 3rd team.

10x all-star. 6th highest scoring average ever.

Hmmm sounds good to me.

[Battierfan01]

Let's see, AI was league MVP once, NBA Finals appearance once (with probably the worst suporting cast to ever make the Finals), league leader in scoring 4x (one of 4 players in history to do this), 2nd highest playoff average ever behind MJ, 3x 1st team all NBA, 3x 2nd team, 1x 3rd team.

10x all-star. 6th highest scoring average ever.

Hmmm sounds good to me.

I agree, like him or not, the dude could put the ball in the basket!!

[Dawun]

Let's see, AI was league MVP once, NBA Finals appearance once (with probably the worst suporting cast to ever make the Finals), league leader in scoring 4x (one of 4 players in history to do this), 2nd highest playoff average ever behind MJ, 3x 1st team all NBA, 3x 2nd team, 1x 3rd team.

10x all-star. 6th highest scoring average ever.

Hmmm sounds good to me.

J Kidd took a terrible Nets team to the finals TWICE! They did not have a dominate scorer, yet they were able to beat out teams led by AI, Allen, Carter, and McGrady. Kidd is also a 9 time All Star, 6th time All NBA (five on the first team), 9 time ALL DEFENSIVE (four on the 1st team), Rookie of the Year, and second in Assist (all time). He also finished top ten in MVP voting five times, and should have won in 01-02.

How is AI a greater player (in history) over a guy like Jason Kidd? Kidd deserves to be in the top 30, not some ball hog, who did not make his teammates better, complained about practice, and put scoring above any other facet of the game. Most NBA players know how to put the ball in the basket. BTW, AI took 27 shots per game one year. 27 shots! That's insane. Yes, his team was bad, but even when he was surrounded by talent (Denver Nuggets), he wasn't able to adjust. He thought his way of playing basketball was the most effective way, and once Billups took over, we saw exactly why AI shouldn't be one of the top 30 players in history. It's not about lack of talent, it's about his inability to adjust. He's one of the most stubborn basketball players in the history of the game.

[superdave]

J Kidd took a terrible Nets team to the finals TWICE! They did not have a dominate scorer, yet they were able to beat out teams led by AI, Allen, Carter, and McGrady. Kidd is also a 9 time All Star, 6th time All NBA (five on the first team), 9 time ALL DEFENSIVE (four on the 1st team), Rookie of the Year, and second in Assist (all time). He also finished top ten in MVP voting five times, and should have won in 01-02.

How is AI a greater player (in history) over a guy like Jason Kidd? Kidd deserves to be in the top 30, not some ball hog, who did not make his teammates better, complained about practice, and put scoring above any other facet of the game. Most NBA players know how to put the ball in the basket. BTW, AI took 27 shots per game one year. 27 shots! That's insane. Yes, his team was bad, but even when he was surrounded by talent (Denver Nuggets), he wasn't able to adjust. He thought his way of playing basketball was the most effective way, and once Billups took over, we saw exactly why AI shouldn't be one of the top 30 players in history. It's not about lack of talent, it's about his inability to adjust. He's one of the most stubborn basketball players in the history of the game.

http://dimemag.com/2009/12/who-has-h...or-jason-kidd/

Kidd had Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin (while he was still explosive). AI had George Lynch and Todd Macollouch. Both got waxed by the Lakers, although I think AI won game 1 all by himself in 2001.

AI's MVP award is probably the difference maker vs. Kidd as far as all-time ranking.

[Dawun]

http://dimemag.com/2009/12/who-has-h...or-jason-kidd/

Kidd had Richard Jefferson and Kenyon Martin (while he was still explosive). AI had George Lynch and Todd Macollouch. Both got waxed by the Lakers, although I think AI won game 1 all by himself in 2001.

AI's MVP award is probably the difference maker vs. Kidd as far as all-time ranking.

He made both of those players significantly better. AI had a magical year, I give him that. But, if we look at their body of work, and the fact that Kidd made players better, why wouldn't you go with Kidd? In fact, I would take GP over AI. Here's a question, if you were starting a franchise, would you pick AI or J Kidd?

[Dawun]

Also, Kidd's game evolved. His game aged much better than AI's game. I thought my fellow Duke fans would appreciate Kidd's impact on the game more than AI's. The stats/achievements also back Kidd more. The only thing AI was better at was scoring. That's it. Nothing else.

[superdave]

Also, Kidd's game evolved. His game aged much better than AI's game. I thought my fellow Duke fans would appreciate Kidd's impact on the game more than AI's. The stats/achievements also back Kidd more. The only thing AI was better at was scoring. That's it. Nothing else.

Isn't this a Clash vs. Police argument? Or a Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam argument?

[pfrduke]

Isn't this a Clash vs. Police argument? Or a Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam argument?

Clash, Pearl Jam. Next?

[NSDukeFan]

I enjoyed the book. Simmons is bias, but he does not try to pretend he is not. That's what I respect most about him. He's brutally honest, and that's all you can really ask for from a die-hard Celtics fan. With that said, I was shocked at how high he ranked Allen Iverson. I respect the guy's game (I don't), but I don't see how he's ranked above players like Kidd, Nowitzki, and Wade. He scored in bunches, and occasionally played the passing lanes well. He had a ton of heart, and was one of the best scorers in the history of the game. However, his influence on the game was beyond negative. So many kids try to emulate the dude, and it only leads to a kid wanted to dribble a lot and shoot. He wasn't fundamental, and he rejected authority, which can be good, but if it's done to the extreme, you can't really grow. His game did not evolve, and he did not make his teammates (like Steve Nash). I don't dislike AI, but I don't think he should be in the top 30.

He has actually commented on one of his podcasts that this was one of his biggest mistakes in the book, as he went more with his heart with AI as he felt he was one of the toughest guys ever in the league who gave it his all every night (except of course for practice.)

[KandG]

Very good book, really enjoyable for 500 pages or so. But 700 pages of provoking arguments and frat boy humor gets a little exhausting and more than a little old by the end. Also, the way he discusses race is pretty cringe-inducing, and one woman sportswriter I know couldn't finish the book because of some of the retrograde jokes about women.

The pro-Boston stuff is there, but I have a very strong sensitivity to it (I live in Massachusetts) and all things considered it wasn't too bad -- some of his best jokes were at the expense of Boston guys, and he does what he can to acknowledge when he's being a fan, and when he needs to rise above homerism to make some reasoned judgments.

[devildownunder]

Clash, Pearl Jam. Next?

there was a clash v police dichotomy/rivalry? I missed that whole dialogue, but like both bands.

[superdave]

Clash, Pearl Jam. Next?

Mmmmm, I'll go Clash and Nirvana. Both major turning points in rock music, albeit short-lived careers. Same for AI's effects on The League, and career.

As for BS's vulgarity, yes, it's true. But when I went to the book signing, there were 500 males between the ages of 18-35. And 3-4 females. I dont think he advertises anything other than who he is (which is also true of the homersitic tendencies) and that is refreshing.

[devildownunder]

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.

Robert Horry and Scottie Pippen are all-time greats? Maybe Pippen by a really loose definition but Horry? No way.