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. :p

[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.

[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. :cool:

[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-had-a-better-career-allen-iverson-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-had-a-better-career-allen-iverson-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? :D

[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? :D

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

[superdave]

Clash, Pearl Jam. Next? :D

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.

[Dawun]

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.)

I heard about that. I feel like most people who defend AI defend him for similar reasons. The guy was ferocious, and played every minute (in the game) like it was his last. He's also a cultural icon, so it's easy to see him in a different light. You sort don't want to root against him almost. As a basketball purist, I don't think any of that matters. Kidd played the game with just as much heart and passion. I can say the same for GP, Nowitzki, and Nash. I think there are players on the list (who AI ranks above) that played with just as much heart, but also contributed in every facet of the game (including the playoffs).

[pfrduke]

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.

To make this moderately relevant, Nirvana is David Thompson to Pearl Jam's Clyde Drexler. Discuss...

[Billy Dat]

I am a Simmons fan, but lines like the following from his just-posted NBA Trade Value Column test my faith:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...ons/100208/one

"Carlos Boozer: Gets a Trade Value DNP because he's a free agent-to-be. I can't tell if the Jazz would trade him, or if anyone wants him. You know what else this means? For the first time ever, no Blue Devils in the top 40! Woohoo! Suck it, Duke! This never would have happened if Mike Krzyzewski was still alive."

[Starter]

I'm not a Simmons fan. He knows the game, but his ballast and bluster make him practically unreadable most of the time, and that's from a guy who has a fair amount of ballast and bluster.

[superdave]

"Carlos Boozer: Gets a Trade Value DNP because he's a free agent-to-be. I can't tell if the Jazz would trade him, or if anyone wants him. You know what else this means? For the first time ever, no Blue Devils in the top 40! Woohoo! Suck it, Duke! This never would have happened if Mike Krzyzewski was still alive."

I guess I dont really evaluate columnists based on how they treat my teams, unless they are ridiculous. A lot of times DBR posters disagree but a columnist is still on target.

Simmons point about Boozer is fair. I think there's a perception that Boozer is often injured and completely happy to be a hired gun, moving from team to team based on the bottom ($) line.

[Neals384]

I've never been a Celtics fan, but I watched many games in those days...

In addition to the skills already mentioned by others, Russell was the best ever at starting the fast break. He'd grab a rebound, and before even hitting the floor, he was into his motion for a half-court outlet pass. The Celtics thrived on the fast break, and it all started with Bill. He made the players around him better, which you can't say about Wilt.

[Heelo]

My biggest issue with the Simmons book was his whole "The Secret" angle.

It's TEAMWORK.

What a revelation... :rolleyes:

[DevilHorns]

Didn't want to start a whole thread for this, but thought it was an interesting read on how Rasheed Wallace can completely destroy your team:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100407&sportCat=nba

I have only been able to experience Rasheed back from his UNC days a few times on ESPN classic, but do you guys remember him being this obnoxious in college? What a credit to the UNC program, hah.

[Son of Mojo]

Do I remember him being that obnoxious? GOD yes. He's one of those guys I couldn't wait to be gone, not for his ability (Jamison fell into that category) but because he was just such an irritant. Truly someone I have never cared for in any capacity. I'm trying to remember if it was on here somewhere or another place where I read the story about how he treated a Trailblazer fan who was there for a signing and was treated well by every player on the team BUT him. Cantreed effectively blew off the fan very harshly. Anyone better remember the specifics of that story?

[WillJ]

I'm enjoying the fact that Duke's title must be killing Simmons.

[DevilHorns]

I'm enjoying the fact that Duke's title must be killing Simmons.

Funny actually, he tried all that he could to jinx Duke (look at his twitter on the ESPN page 2 site).

I still don't understand why he hates Duke so much.

[verga]

loves Jordan, he was great, he won championships (6) in the NBA, he won (on the coattails of Worthy) one NCAA title. After Worthy left they got beat early in the NCAA the next year by Indiana. Bill Russell was the most dominant player to ever play basketball. If you wanted to win you had to have Russell. Two NCAA titles, 11 NBA titles and a Olympic Gold Medal, when it meant something to do so. I was having a conversation with a friend once and we were talking about who would win if we were to pick our own teams, along the same lines as a NBA draft. He kept saying as long as he could have Jordan, i could have the first pick. I told him we would do it that way and that he had absolutely NO chance of ever beating me. So i took Bill Russell, he took Jordan and then i took Magic, he said, you know what, you're right, its impossible to beat a team with Russell and Magic on it and i agree. Todays fan, drinks from the ESPN koo-ade, why do you think todays kids know nothing of Russell, yet they know everything about Jordan? TV, Jordan became a marketing celeb, yet many of the players who played with Jordan did not and continue to dislike him and his ways. I've seen just about every player to ever play the game in the last 50 years and it would be almost impossible to pick who is what but i'll try. Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar) was the greatest basketball talent i ever saw. He was the greatest High School, College and Pro player i ever saw BUT if i wanted to start a team, to win a championship, i'd take Russell, he knew how to win and he never quit, thats my take, jmo.

[pjhw2021]

I guess I dont really evaluate columnists based on how they treat my teams, unless they are ridiculous. A lot of times DBR posters disagree but a columnist is still on target.

Simmons point about Boozer is fair. I think there's a perception that Boozer is often injured and completely happy to be a hired gun, moving from team to team based on the bottom ($) line.

As a Jazz fan I couldn't have been happier to see Boozer go. Not worth the money.

I don't think anyone should be offended by anti-Duke comments from Simmons or anyone else. When a team is historically successful, people will hate. It's a fact. Accept it and move on.

[NSDukeFan]

I got this book for Christmas and am very excited to read it. I like Simmons and am even more impressed now that he has been showing respect for coach K and the job he did with the Olympians.

[gam7]

I got this book for Christmas and am very excited to read it. I like Simmons and am even more impressed now that he has been showing respect for coach K and the job he did with the Olympians.

Just bought it for my dad for his birthday. Looking forward to borrowing it promptly after he receives it!

[NSDukeFan]

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.
I am not the fastest book reader in the world. Unfortunately, I only get through about 4 a year or so (quite a few more than Kemba Walker, apparently.) I finally got through this one and it was a very enjoyable one, in my opinion. I agree that it was nice to get a perspective on some of the different eras in the NBA and ABA and how that may have impacted stats and how good players were. One part I didn't necessarily like however is how some earlier players or teams were severely discounted, or eliminated from consideration, because of their era. That was his way to analyze all the information and make rankings and it didn't take away much for me.

I did appreciate his final rankings for Kareem (who he, annoyingly to me, always refers to as a ninny, but he did have a nice write-up about him), Magic and Larry and enjoyed his discussions about why he ranked players above or below others.


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.
I also generally like Simmons brand of humor, though I didn't need to read some of his cruder references. I agree his first hand interview are highlights of the book and the Walton discussion was a nice ending.

His Russell vs. Wilt discussion was fascinating to me and I always enjoy when Olympic Fan chimes in with his perspective on GOAT from time to time. After reading that well researched chapter, I would find it hard to argue for Wilt over Russell as a basketball player that gives his team a better chance to win.

I agree with your point that Duke fans may often appreciate his valuation of a basketball player, which makes it all the more frustrating when he goes on his anti-Duke rants. I would expect he appreciates the way Duke plays and has at times shown an appreciation for coach K, but the anti-Duke angle is one of his shticks and probably just an irrational hatred from childhood, like his anti-Yankee, anti-Laker sentiment.

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?
I actually mostly enjoyed the footnotes, as I would look forward to the additional information that many of them provided.

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.
I never did get tired reading the book, but agree that some of the frat boy humor, race and sexist discussions may take away from his well-researched and passionate discussion of the NBA. I guess that is what some of his fanbase reads him for.

Robert Horry and Scottie Pippen are all-time greats? Maybe Pippen by a really loose definition but Horry? No way.
I was surprised to see Horry ranked as highly (or at all) as he was, enjoyed his rationale for it, but would still have to disagree with Simmons there. I don't disagree with his ranking of Pippen and think Pippen would make a great documentary. I wonder if Pippen is at least partially responsible for the draft combine picks like Olowokandi, because of how he came out of nowhere, showed very well at pre-draft camps and then turned out to be a fabulous pro.

loves Jordan, he was great, he won championships (6) in the NBA, he won (on the coattails of Worthy) one NCAA title. After Worthy left they got beat early in the NCAA the next year by Indiana. Bill Russell was the most dominant player to ever play basketball. If you wanted to win you had to have Russell. Two NCAA titles, 11 NBA titles and a Olympic Gold Medal, when it meant something to do so. I was having a conversation with a friend once and we were talking about who would win if we were to pick our own teams, along the same lines as a NBA draft. He kept saying as long as he could have Jordan, i could have the first pick. I told him we would do it that way and that he had absolutely NO chance of ever beating me. So i took Bill Russell, he took Jordan and then i took Magic, he said, you know what, you're right, its impossible to beat a team with Russell and Magic on it and i agree. Todays fan, drinks from the ESPN koo-ade, why do you think todays kids know nothing of Russell, yet they know everything about Jordan? TV, Jordan became a marketing celeb, yet many of the players who played with Jordan did not and continue to dislike him and his ways. I've seen just about every player to ever play the game in the last 50 years and it would be almost impossible to pick who is what but i'll try. Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar) was the greatest basketball talent i ever saw. He was the greatest High School, College and Pro player i ever saw BUT if i wanted to start a team, to win a championship, i'd take Russell, he knew how to win and he never quit, thats my take, jmo.
I really enjoyed your post and unfortunately, it is way too old to give sporks for it.

[superdave]

If El Dirko (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nowitdi01.html)makes the Finals, he jumps up Simmons' pyramid list a few spots (37th in the first edition of the book; may have moved up in the paperback). But imagine this: Dirk leads the Mavs to titles this year and next, winning the Finals MVP twice, then fades away in 2017.

Does he leap into the top 10 of all-time? That's basically the arc of Hakeem's career, although Hakeem was an all-time great defender. Dirk's ceiling at this point is around 13th/14th. But he's probably working his way into Barkley(19)/Malone(18) range now.

Here's some career stats hilights:
1st, 2nd or 3rd team all-NBA for 11 straight seasons now.
28th alltime in scoring (including ABA); chance to make top 5-6 with 4-5 more seasons.
2007 MVP.

Also, Jason Kidd (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html)(42) could be rising as well. He's 3rd on the all-time 3-pointers made list, 3rd on the steals list and 2nd on the assists list behind Stockton. He could leap past Gary Payton (40), Steve Nash (38) and Sam Jones (33) among point guards. (http://www.bareknucks.com/bill-simmons96-greatest-nba-players-ever)

Kobe was upgraded to #8 in the paperback (I think) and probably missed a chance of cracking the top 5 with a title and Finals mvp this year. He's got maybe 1-2 more title chances left unless the Lakers pull off a monster trade (Dwight Howard).

[NSDukeFan]

If El Dirko (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nowitdi01.html)makes the Finals, he jumps up Simmons' pyramid list a few spots (37th in the first edition of the book; may have moved up in the paperback). But imagine this: Dirk leads the Mavs to titles this year and next, winning the Finals MVP twice, then fades away in 2017.

Does he leap into the top 10 of all-time? That's basically the arc of Hakeem's career, although Hakeem was an all-time great defender. Dirk's ceiling at this point is around 13th/14th. But he's probably working his way into Barkley(19)/Malone(18) range now.

Here's some career stats hilights:
1st, 2nd or 3rd team all-NBA for 11 straight seasons now.
28th alltime in scoring (including ABA); chance to make top 5-6 with 4-5 more seasons.
2007 MVP.

Also, Jason Kidd (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html)(42) could be rising as well. He's 3rd on the all-time 3-pointers made list, 3rd on the steals list and 2nd on the assists list behind Stockton. He could leap past Gary Payton (40), Steve Nash (38) and Sam Jones (33) among point guards. (http://www.bareknucks.com/bill-simmons96-greatest-nba-players-ever)

Kobe was upgraded to #8 in the paperback (I think) and probably missed a chance of cracking the top 5 with a title and Finals mvp this year. He's got maybe 1-2 more title chances left unless the Lakers pull off a monster trade (Dwight Howard).

I agree Dirk has a chance to move up in Simmons' rankings, but I think those are some pretty huge hypotheticals about multiple titles and Finals' MVPs. I think if he leads the team to the finals this year, he probably moves up, but I am not willing to make predictions beyond that. Otherwise, you can make predictions about anyone who leads a team to a championship will move up these rankings and I think that is fair. E.g. Derrick Rose moves in if Chicago were to win, same with Durant for OKC. LeBron and Wade move up if Miami wins. The figures you state about Nowitzki are pretty compelling though.

I agree that Kidd could be moving up as well, but I have a hard time seeing him pass Nash, unless he plays quite a bit longer than Nash, since Nash is still playing and playing better than Kidd.

I doubt Kobe would have cracked the top 5 with a title and MVP, but who knows. I would think the Lakers had a better title opportunity this year than they will next year, but I guess that is why they play the games.

[superdave]

I doubt Kobe would have cracked the top 5 with a title and MVP, but who knows. I would think the Lakers had a better title opportunity this year than they will next year, but I guess that is why they play the games.

If Kobe were to win another title and Finals MVP, he'd have 6 titles and 3 Finals MVPs. That puts him ahead of Duncan's 4 titles and 2 MVPs and up their in the Magic and Larry conversation. When Kobe eventually retires, he's probably going to either be 2nd all-time in scoring behind Kareem or 3rd behind Malone. Not bad.

It's just cool to speculate about all this stuff because of the guys that are active players now who are already top 50. Guys like LeBron, Rose and Durant are so young that it's a lot harder to project where they wind up. LeBron could easily go down as the greatest player to never win a title (top 20), or he could win 2 titles and be a top 10, or he could win 5 and be top 5-6.

I really do hope these guys stay healthy. It's kinda sad to think about where Chris Paul might have gone. I suspect he wont play the massive number of minutes to be in league with Shaq, Kobe, Duncan and Dirk.