Hey, you're still here? Sorry about not posting ever, I just don't read much online these days and I stick to Deadspin, TheBigLead and Firejaymariotti.
But I did catch that Bill Simmons went to Vegas recently. Oh yeah, you know what that Vegas means, another Vegas column about Vegas things that only happen in Vegas! Vegas. Bill and his Vegas friends are Vegas veterans, so you will be astounded at the hilarity of them playing Vegas craps, eating Vegas bad food, playing Vegas blackjack, having a group dinner, visiting a Vegas nightclub!!!! (oh boy!) and finally playing Vegas slots! Only in Vegas can you do all this! Seriously, if you try to get 10 guys together for dinner and fucking slots at Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun or Atlantic City, you'll get shot. Vegas!!!! VEGAS!!!
Since the columns (there's a day 1 and a day 2) are really long, I’ve just trimmed them down a bit, so you can get the Vegas gist.
These are the things you think about as you're driving to Vegas.
If there's someone else in the car, by Nevada law, you're required to scream out "VEH-GASSSSSSSSSSS!" like Double Down Trent.
Vegas. Vegas. Vegas.
Some people aren't quite meant for Vegas.
Time for another staple of any Vegas trip: Friday afternoon's "we just got here, we haven't gotten our gambling legs yet, we're not drunk or even buzzed ... let's grab this open craps table and throw dice together!"
That's veteran Vegas savvy -- you definitely want to be buzzed/drunk at the end of the night because it loosens you up and that's when you go on card runs, but you never want to be lightheaded drunk or sloppy drunk.
These are the things you say in Vegas.
Come on! It's Vegas! WE GOTTA SUCK IT UP! WE GOTTA FIGHT FOR THAT INCH! VEGAS!!!!
(VEGAS!!!!!!!!)
There's nothing quite like the feeling of waking up in Vegas and having absolutely no idea what time it is.
(These are the conversations you have in Vegas.)
Add this to the "great things about Vegas" list -- where else can you take a limo with 11 friends for 10 minutes?
I love Vegas.
Always respect the dead in Vegas.
(You gotta love Vegas.)
You know, every Vegas weekend has one song that every casino beats into the ground to the point that people groan when it comes on.
Call it the Vegas Diet.
Back to the room for second showers, shaves and a dress change, highlighted by Grady's phone call to his wife in which he adopts the Vegas Husband Voice.
(You're in Vegas, for god sakes.)
Out of nowhere, Mahady comes up with one of the three greatest Vegas ideas I have ever witnessed: Everyone throws in $100, we head to the slots and play as many Wheel of Fortune machines as possible at the same time.
Now I think we just need a new Vegas theory which I'm gonna call it the 'Vegas Shocker' theory.
(And if that e-mail didn't make any sense to you … well, you've never been to Vegas.)
Don't pull the Limo Price Bump move on old Vegas veterans like us, Driver With 17 Letters In Your First Name.
Time for another veteran Vegas move: My contact lenses are dry and killing me, so I order a spicy Bloody Mary with extra horseradish.
(Note: I should really teach a "What To Do In Vegas" class in college. UCLA, call me.)
These are the rules of Vegas.
See, it always evens out in Vegas.
Sometimes, you have to keep Vegas on its toes.
One of the mysteries of Vegas -- waking up that second morning and feeling fine.
"There should be a Web site that has before/after Vegas pictures," I say to Grady.
The obligatory hungover Vegas breakfast with Bish, Hopper and Grady.
We're just four washed-up Vegas sluggers watching a washed-up baseball slugger walk with his family.
Vegas, baby.
Vegas.
Vegas!!!!!
In all seriousness, the columns aren’t bad. I just can’t stand the constant references to Vegas like it’s another planet and Simmons acting like his friends and he do the town like a bunch of madmen.
Showing posts with label Bill Simmons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Simmons. Show all posts
Monday, September 7, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Bill Simmons is Smarter Than You Are
That’s why he sees all the real stories. Behind the numbers. Behind the uniforms and canned quotes, Simmons is able to break it all down for us. Why did Lebron have a great season in ’08-09? Give up? Kobe Bryant played in the Olympics.
From the mailbag.
I'd bet anything that Kobe secretly regrets being on the Redeem Team. He gained nothing exposure-wise because they showed every game in America in the wee hours;
But he gained something exposure wise with the tens of millions of people around the world who watched Olympic basketball. Is there anyone in the US who doesn’t know who Kobe Bryant is? Also, wasn’t that first game against China on at like 10AM Eastern time on a Sunday?
all he did was put unnecessary mileage on his knees when he could have been resting.
That’s all he did. That’s all that was accomplished in Beijing. When Kobe Bryant is 60 and his grandchildren ask him about the Summer of ’08, his first memory will be…. “Oh that was the summer I put some more mileage on my knees. Nothing else of substance happened. Next topic.” Then they’ll probably ask him about Shaq or about winning the dunk contest in ’97 or being accused of rape or something.
If that's not bad enough, he SINGLE-HANDEDLY altered the course of his main rival's career.
SINGLE-HANDEDLY! This needs to be in all caps, so you know how important it is to his point. That rival? None other than Lebron James, who was an underachieving, underperforming pile of crap before the Beijing Olympics. Lebron James...the guy whose high school games were nationally televised. The number 1 pick in the draft a few years back. That guy. His career path was altered by the Olympics. Right.
Fun fact – Lebron’s per game averages for Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals and Blocks either stayed the same or decreased from the season prior to the Olympics. Although he did play a couple less minutes because there were more blowouts. Still, his course was not altered any more than it would have been if Lebron had stayed home.
LeBron intimated as much himself: Only after watching Kobe's daily workout routine and nonstop commitment to defense did LeBron realize that he was selling himself short to some degree.
Did playing with Kobe Bryant (and Dwyane Wade, and Chris Paul, and…) make Lebron James better? Probably. How could playing with those guys not help your game? Is this something that we should credit with making him turn some sort of corner? No. This is like saying that Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade and Paul Pierce all wouldn’t have been the players they are today if they were drafted 1-3 slots higher. Oh wait, Simmons is convinced of that point too. He and other sportswriters love to take small, innocuous parts of the story, and make them the story. Because that’s what they think they are paid to do – point out the little things that dummies like you and me (especially you) miss because we aren’t as perceptive.
And when Kobe took over as the alpha dog in the gold-medal game (and everyone let him do it), that made LeBron realize, "I'm not quite there yet."
I bet a million dollars that Lebron James didn’t realize this, or think this after the gold medal game, and Bill Simmons is making up that he did so that he can tie it into his nice little bullshit anecdote.
Of the many reasons MJ skipped the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, I guarantee these were two of them:
The 1984 Olympics and the 1992 Olympics? Those are the two main reasons. He already had two gold medals. Just kidding. Bill is right. He was afraid that people would realize why he’s really good at basketball, in 1996, when he was 33 years old and had just unretired and led the Bulls to 72 wins.
"Why should I show these guys I'm trying to beat how I prepare every day?"
Double or nothing on the million dollars that Michael Jordan being afraid to show these guys how he prepares every day had nothing to do with him not playing in the 1996 Olympics.
and "Why should I give my foes any insight into what makes me me."
That’s the same thing as reason one. But very true, I doubt any of those guys knew much about Jordan in 1996. He had 4 rings, 8 scoring titles and 4 MVP's at the time .
He remembered how the 1992 Dream Team experience rejuvenated Barkley's career and didn't want to make the same mistake twice.
Um, I’m pretty sure the 1992-93 season coinciding with Barkley being traded to a good Suns team with a good blend of stars (KJ, Majerle) complementary players (West, Ainge, Chambers, Ceballos) and young guys who would pull productive years out of their asses (Oliver Miller, Richard Dumas) had more to do with his success in 1993 than the Olympics OR MICHAEL JORDAN PLAYING IN THE OLYMPICS. Barkley didn’t play remarkably better in ’93 than he had before; he just played with a better team than he had been dealt in Philly.
Anyway, if Kobe never plays in the 2008 Olympics, then LeBron and Wade become alpha dogs by default and spend the whole time playing poker or Bid Whist in Worldwide Wes' hotel room ... and Kobe is cruising to the title right now. He has to be kicking himself.
Sure.
Do you think Kobe has spent 5 minutes since he left Beijing thinking about the impact his presence at the Olympics may or may not have had on the other players? I don’t.
From the mailbag.
I'd bet anything that Kobe secretly regrets being on the Redeem Team. He gained nothing exposure-wise because they showed every game in America in the wee hours;
But he gained something exposure wise with the tens of millions of people around the world who watched Olympic basketball. Is there anyone in the US who doesn’t know who Kobe Bryant is? Also, wasn’t that first game against China on at like 10AM Eastern time on a Sunday?
all he did was put unnecessary mileage on his knees when he could have been resting.
That’s all he did. That’s all that was accomplished in Beijing. When Kobe Bryant is 60 and his grandchildren ask him about the Summer of ’08, his first memory will be…. “Oh that was the summer I put some more mileage on my knees. Nothing else of substance happened. Next topic.” Then they’ll probably ask him about Shaq or about winning the dunk contest in ’97 or being accused of rape or something.
If that's not bad enough, he SINGLE-HANDEDLY altered the course of his main rival's career.
SINGLE-HANDEDLY! This needs to be in all caps, so you know how important it is to his point. That rival? None other than Lebron James, who was an underachieving, underperforming pile of crap before the Beijing Olympics. Lebron James...the guy whose high school games were nationally televised. The number 1 pick in the draft a few years back. That guy. His career path was altered by the Olympics. Right.
Fun fact – Lebron’s per game averages for Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals and Blocks either stayed the same or decreased from the season prior to the Olympics. Although he did play a couple less minutes because there were more blowouts. Still, his course was not altered any more than it would have been if Lebron had stayed home.
LeBron intimated as much himself: Only after watching Kobe's daily workout routine and nonstop commitment to defense did LeBron realize that he was selling himself short to some degree.
Did playing with Kobe Bryant (and Dwyane Wade, and Chris Paul, and…) make Lebron James better? Probably. How could playing with those guys not help your game? Is this something that we should credit with making him turn some sort of corner? No. This is like saying that Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade and Paul Pierce all wouldn’t have been the players they are today if they were drafted 1-3 slots higher. Oh wait, Simmons is convinced of that point too. He and other sportswriters love to take small, innocuous parts of the story, and make them the story. Because that’s what they think they are paid to do – point out the little things that dummies like you and me (especially you) miss because we aren’t as perceptive.
And when Kobe took over as the alpha dog in the gold-medal game (and everyone let him do it), that made LeBron realize, "I'm not quite there yet."
I bet a million dollars that Lebron James didn’t realize this, or think this after the gold medal game, and Bill Simmons is making up that he did so that he can tie it into his nice little bullshit anecdote.
Of the many reasons MJ skipped the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, I guarantee these were two of them:
The 1984 Olympics and the 1992 Olympics? Those are the two main reasons. He already had two gold medals. Just kidding. Bill is right. He was afraid that people would realize why he’s really good at basketball, in 1996, when he was 33 years old and had just unretired and led the Bulls to 72 wins.
"Why should I show these guys I'm trying to beat how I prepare every day?"
Double or nothing on the million dollars that Michael Jordan being afraid to show these guys how he prepares every day had nothing to do with him not playing in the 1996 Olympics.
and "Why should I give my foes any insight into what makes me me."
That’s the same thing as reason one. But very true, I doubt any of those guys knew much about Jordan in 1996. He had 4 rings, 8 scoring titles and 4 MVP's at the time .
He remembered how the 1992 Dream Team experience rejuvenated Barkley's career and didn't want to make the same mistake twice.
Um, I’m pretty sure the 1992-93 season coinciding with Barkley being traded to a good Suns team with a good blend of stars (KJ, Majerle) complementary players (West, Ainge, Chambers, Ceballos) and young guys who would pull productive years out of their asses (Oliver Miller, Richard Dumas) had more to do with his success in 1993 than the Olympics OR MICHAEL JORDAN PLAYING IN THE OLYMPICS. Barkley didn’t play remarkably better in ’93 than he had before; he just played with a better team than he had been dealt in Philly.
Anyway, if Kobe never plays in the 2008 Olympics, then LeBron and Wade become alpha dogs by default and spend the whole time playing poker or Bid Whist in Worldwide Wes' hotel room ... and Kobe is cruising to the title right now. He has to be kicking himself.
Sure.
Do you think Kobe has spent 5 minutes since he left Beijing thinking about the impact his presence at the Olympics may or may not have had on the other players? I don’t.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Some Heroic Randomness
So between job, wife, baby and life I haven’t been able to read much online lately. When I do it’s usually financial news, given all that is going on. But I have been watching the NBA playoffs, and I had a few snippets I figured I’d throw up on the ‘ol blog.
This is from a recent column where Jemele Hill and Scoop Jackson answered some questions about the upcoming NBA playoffs.
Question: Which player is most likely to jump into the national spotlight and make fans think, "Damn, I didn't realize he was that good"?
Scoop Jackson: John Salmons of the Chicago Bulls. Being in Chi-town, I've been lucky enough to watch this dude light up teams ever since the trade that brought him here in February. While some players are straight slept on, this cat was hibernated on by everyone except his family members and probably some ex-girlfriends. He can flat-out ball! Now I know he's barely played in the playoffs before, and it's a whole other level of comp and intensity. But from what I've seen over the past 30 games or so, Salmons (along with Ben Gordon, because he's playing for a new contract) is going to make a lot of fantasy hoop dudes pissed because they've been hibernatin' on him.
This paragraph made my head spin.
Why?
1. He calls John Salmons “cat” and “dude”. He does this because it’s part of his ultra-cool “Ladies Man” like writing style. Ya dig? Sorry I’m hatin, yo.
2. He is clearly very pleased with his discovery that he could use the word “hibernating” to mean “really slept on” (he had the italics in there). Sorry, “hibernatin’”. Next he’ll just start dropping “natin” into columns or something.
3. It’s now acceptable to just take words that are never abbreviated and just abbreviate them without a period or anything. Example being competition just becomes comp. Scoop Jackson is a whole ‘nother breed of ter writers.
4. No fantasy hoop dudes were “hibernatin’” on John Salmons and Ben Gordon.
5. Fantasy leagues generally end with the end of the regular season, so even if people were sleeping on your boy, it wouldn’t matter.
6. Remember last year Scoop said that the Suns were pretty much guaranteed a finals spot because they traded for Big and he’s made the finals in his 3 previous stops in the NBA? I do. Okay that has nothing to do with this post.
Scoop also said that Tony Parker was the best point guard in the NBA and pointed to the fact that he’s won a finals MVP and Chris Paul hasn’t made a finals yet. Yup. It’s that simple folks.
Bill Simmons recently wrote a column about how the Bulls – Celtics playoff series is awesome and stuff, which included this sentence.
They [the Celtics and Bulls] have veteran crowds that know how to affect games and make them a little more fun to watch.
Yeah, take that San Antonio. You too, Los Angeles. In Boston and Chicago, we actually affect the games that we watch. We’re blue collar. We’re a part of the action. We have veteran crowds. Fact: The crowds in Los Angeles skipped college and are only in their second year of following the NBA. The crowd in New Orleans had an average age of 7. No surprise they aren’t in the playoffs any more. We direct the outcome in Chicago and Boston. It is our will, passion, and intensity as basketball fans that make our teams win. You douchebags can come late (LA) and stare at the jumbotron (which they probably do in like, Miami, because those people are stupid and are probably day dreaming about Gloria Estefan and Dan Marino fucking the whole time anyway). In Boston and Chicago, we’ll just keeping living basketball history, thank you.
You have to love any series in which Ben Gordon finally realizes his destiny as a playoff killer. As a Celtics fan, I'm terrified. As a basketball fan, I'm titillated. But it was always meant to be. Even if comparisons to Vinnie "Microwave" Johnson make more sense on paper, I'd liken him more to a shorter Andrew Toney.
Saying that Ben Gordon is a shorter Andrew Toney is like saying that Shaquille O’Neal is a shorter Wilt Chamberlain. They are, like, the same fucking height. Maybe ½ to 1 inch difference, which doesn’t matter unless you have freakish Sam Perkins-like arms. I know I know…Toney may actually be slightly taller…but it’s not like a 4 inch difference or something that would impact the way they play.
Last night I watched the Sportscenter recap of the great Bulls-Celtics game 6 matchup. Jalen Rose described Ray Allen’s game (51 points) as being “heroic”. Um, okay. A little strong, but it was an awesome game and he played great. I’ll go with that. Then about 20 seconds later the anchor had the following back and forth with Rose:
Anchor (I forget): How bad does Kevin Garnett want to be out there?
Jalen Rose: Oh…Heroically!
Yeahhhhh.. Sure. I like it, that’s my new word for “really”. I want Jemele Hill to write a real column that I can puke on heroically bad.
On WEEI this morning (Boston radio), they were talking about the play of Glen Davis in this series and specifically about the matchups with Chicago. Dennis and or Callahan pegged his height at 6’6” or even 6’5”. After the 6'5" comment, John Meter-Perel chimed in with “at most”. He’s listed at 6’9”. Why is this so hard? Some analysts talk about height like they are trying to quantify the players “heart” or something.
One day I’ll read a bad column and maybe comment on it.
This is from a recent column where Jemele Hill and Scoop Jackson answered some questions about the upcoming NBA playoffs.
Question: Which player is most likely to jump into the national spotlight and make fans think, "Damn, I didn't realize he was that good"?
Scoop Jackson: John Salmons of the Chicago Bulls. Being in Chi-town, I've been lucky enough to watch this dude light up teams ever since the trade that brought him here in February. While some players are straight slept on, this cat was hibernated on by everyone except his family members and probably some ex-girlfriends. He can flat-out ball! Now I know he's barely played in the playoffs before, and it's a whole other level of comp and intensity. But from what I've seen over the past 30 games or so, Salmons (along with Ben Gordon, because he's playing for a new contract) is going to make a lot of fantasy hoop dudes pissed because they've been hibernatin' on him.
This paragraph made my head spin.
Why?
1. He calls John Salmons “cat” and “dude”. He does this because it’s part of his ultra-cool “Ladies Man” like writing style. Ya dig? Sorry I’m hatin, yo.
2. He is clearly very pleased with his discovery that he could use the word “hibernating” to mean “really slept on” (he had the italics in there). Sorry, “hibernatin’”. Next he’ll just start dropping “natin” into columns or something.
3. It’s now acceptable to just take words that are never abbreviated and just abbreviate them without a period or anything. Example being competition just becomes comp. Scoop Jackson is a whole ‘nother breed of ter writers.
4. No fantasy hoop dudes were “hibernatin’” on John Salmons and Ben Gordon.
5. Fantasy leagues generally end with the end of the regular season, so even if people were sleeping on your boy, it wouldn’t matter.
6. Remember last year Scoop said that the Suns were pretty much guaranteed a finals spot because they traded for Big and he’s made the finals in his 3 previous stops in the NBA? I do. Okay that has nothing to do with this post.
Scoop also said that Tony Parker was the best point guard in the NBA and pointed to the fact that he’s won a finals MVP and Chris Paul hasn’t made a finals yet. Yup. It’s that simple folks.
Bill Simmons recently wrote a column about how the Bulls – Celtics playoff series is awesome and stuff, which included this sentence.
They [the Celtics and Bulls] have veteran crowds that know how to affect games and make them a little more fun to watch.
Yeah, take that San Antonio. You too, Los Angeles. In Boston and Chicago, we actually affect the games that we watch. We’re blue collar. We’re a part of the action. We have veteran crowds. Fact: The crowds in Los Angeles skipped college and are only in their second year of following the NBA. The crowd in New Orleans had an average age of 7. No surprise they aren’t in the playoffs any more. We direct the outcome in Chicago and Boston. It is our will, passion, and intensity as basketball fans that make our teams win. You douchebags can come late (LA) and stare at the jumbotron (which they probably do in like, Miami, because those people are stupid and are probably day dreaming about Gloria Estefan and Dan Marino fucking the whole time anyway). In Boston and Chicago, we’ll just keeping living basketball history, thank you.
You have to love any series in which Ben Gordon finally realizes his destiny as a playoff killer. As a Celtics fan, I'm terrified. As a basketball fan, I'm titillated. But it was always meant to be. Even if comparisons to Vinnie "Microwave" Johnson make more sense on paper, I'd liken him more to a shorter Andrew Toney.
Saying that Ben Gordon is a shorter Andrew Toney is like saying that Shaquille O’Neal is a shorter Wilt Chamberlain. They are, like, the same fucking height. Maybe ½ to 1 inch difference, which doesn’t matter unless you have freakish Sam Perkins-like arms. I know I know…Toney may actually be slightly taller…but it’s not like a 4 inch difference or something that would impact the way they play.
Last night I watched the Sportscenter recap of the great Bulls-Celtics game 6 matchup. Jalen Rose described Ray Allen’s game (51 points) as being “heroic”. Um, okay. A little strong, but it was an awesome game and he played great. I’ll go with that. Then about 20 seconds later the anchor had the following back and forth with Rose:
Anchor (I forget): How bad does Kevin Garnett want to be out there?
Jalen Rose: Oh…Heroically!
Yeahhhhh.. Sure. I like it, that’s my new word for “really”. I want Jemele Hill to write a real column that I can puke on heroically bad.
On WEEI this morning (Boston radio), they were talking about the play of Glen Davis in this series and specifically about the matchups with Chicago. Dennis and or Callahan pegged his height at 6’6” or even 6’5”. After the 6'5" comment, John Meter-Perel chimed in with “at most”. He’s listed at 6’9”. Why is this so hard? Some analysts talk about height like they are trying to quantify the players “heart” or something.
One day I’ll read a bad column and maybe comment on it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Was Magic Injured in the 1991 Playoffs?
I didn't think so. I mean, I suppose he could have been HIV positive, but it's tough to say that impacted his play (see numbers below). Also, it's not an injury. Bill Simmons felt the need to throw his "injury" into his on-the-fly list of the 10 biggest playoff injuries in the past 25 years:
(The 10 biggest playoff injuries of the past 25 years, in no particular order: Manu in '08; Isiah in '88; McHale and Walton in '87; D-Wade in '05; Duncan in '00; Malone in '04; Worthy in '83; Pippen in '98; Magic in '91; Doc Rivers in '94. All of those injuries potentially swung the Finals except for Pippen's back injury in '98 -- that was the year when Pippen played at 50 percent and MJ said, "Screw it, we're winning anyway.")
I don’t recall Magic being injured in the 1991 playoffs. In the 1991 finals, Magic Johnson played 43, 43, 50 (OT), 44, and 48 minutes. In the 1991 playoffs, Magic averaged 43.3 minutes, 21.8 points, 12.6 assists and 8.1 rebounds per game. That’s, you know, pretty good.
(The 10 biggest playoff injuries of the past 25 years, in no particular order: Manu in '08; Isiah in '88; McHale and Walton in '87; D-Wade in '05; Duncan in '00; Malone in '04; Worthy in '83; Pippen in '98; Magic in '91; Doc Rivers in '94. All of those injuries potentially swung the Finals except for Pippen's back injury in '98 -- that was the year when Pippen played at 50 percent and MJ said, "Screw it, we're winning anyway.")
I don’t recall Magic being injured in the 1991 playoffs. In the 1991 finals, Magic Johnson played 43, 43, 50 (OT), 44, and 48 minutes. In the 1991 playoffs, Magic averaged 43.3 minutes, 21.8 points, 12.6 assists and 8.1 rebounds per game. That’s, you know, pretty good.
Friday, May 9, 2008
ESPN Editors Realize They Need To Start Fact Checking Bill Simmons
Bill Simmons wrote a piece about Barry Bonds for the magazine a few weeks ago. In it, he noted the following:
For all intents and purposes, Bonds' career has vanished into thin air. His home ballpark has had three different names (Pac Bell, SBC and AT&T), but it was mostly considered the House That Barry Built. This season, though, all traces of his dirigible-size head have been erased. Forget about a statue, inside or outside the stadium; there isn't a plaque, a banner or even a picture. It's like Bonds never happened.
That's mildly interesting, right? Problem is the May 5th issue of ESPN Magazine pointed out that it's dead wrong.
On page 16:
We whiffed when we wrote that the San Francisco Giants had removed all traces of Barry Bonds from AT&T Park. Turns out, nods to the slugger pop up in 10 places, including:
- Behind Right-Centerfield, where a plaque marks the landing spot of infamous no. 756.
- Rightfield Portal, where his name appears alongside those of the three other Giants with at least 500 HRs.
- Leftfield, where there are replicas of his five MVPs adorning the Coke-bottle platform.
- Rightfield Portwalk, where seven of the 14 monuments that line the sidewalk fence commemorate his milestones.
- AT&T Park grounds, where Bonds stars in various displays that celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Giants' arrival to the Bay.
Yeah, but after those five spots, and five other spots, they've totally erased him!
For all intents and purposes, Bonds' career has vanished into thin air. His home ballpark has had three different names (Pac Bell, SBC and AT&T), but it was mostly considered the House That Barry Built. This season, though, all traces of his dirigible-size head have been erased. Forget about a statue, inside or outside the stadium; there isn't a plaque, a banner or even a picture. It's like Bonds never happened.
That's mildly interesting, right? Problem is the May 5th issue of ESPN Magazine pointed out that it's dead wrong.
On page 16:
We whiffed when we wrote that the San Francisco Giants had removed all traces of Barry Bonds from AT&T Park. Turns out, nods to the slugger pop up in 10 places, including:
- Behind Right-Centerfield, where a plaque marks the landing spot of infamous no. 756.
- Rightfield Portal, where his name appears alongside those of the three other Giants with at least 500 HRs.
- Leftfield, where there are replicas of his five MVPs adorning the Coke-bottle platform.
- Rightfield Portwalk, where seven of the 14 monuments that line the sidewalk fence commemorate his milestones.
- AT&T Park grounds, where Bonds stars in various displays that celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Giants' arrival to the Bay.
Yeah, but after those five spots, and five other spots, they've totally erased him!
Friday, April 4, 2008
Chronic Injuries are No Excuse!
I haven't been reading much lately, but I received the following point from Reader Matt - who is also Commissioner of my fantasy league and who I suspect is also a local Grand Wizard of the Dungeons and Dragons Dress Up Group that just skips the board game (or whatever D&D is) and acts everything out in real costume. Maybe I made that up, but I don't know what he does with his Saturday nights so we'll go with that.
Bill Simmons recently wrote a little summary of Chris Webber's career. It included a classic Simmonsian turn where he wrote something faux-poignant that conflicted something else in the column.
Since I'm lazy I'll just copy and paste Matt's e-mail here:
-----------------------------------------
Early in Simmon’s recent piece on Chris Webber, he states:
Of all the great players who passed through the NBA and never fulfilled their promise, Webber was the only one without a legitimate excuse.
Then he almost immediately follows it up with:
During his "prime" (1994 to 2004), he played 70 games or less in nine different seasons, missed 283 of a possible 870 games and battled a never-ending assortment of freak injuries, culminating with a knee tear in Sacramento that robbed him of his explosiveness and forced him to change his style on the fly (although he somehow remained effective for a few more years).
So to summarize: Webber had no legitimate excuse for never fulfilling his promise of greatness. Unless you count that rash of injuries that hit him during his prime, including a knee injury that forced him to change his fundamental style of play.
----------------------------------------------
Bill Simmons recently wrote a little summary of Chris Webber's career. It included a classic Simmonsian turn where he wrote something faux-poignant that conflicted something else in the column.
Since I'm lazy I'll just copy and paste Matt's e-mail here:
-----------------------------------------
Early in Simmon’s recent piece on Chris Webber, he states:
Of all the great players who passed through the NBA and never fulfilled their promise, Webber was the only one without a legitimate excuse.
Then he almost immediately follows it up with:
During his "prime" (1994 to 2004), he played 70 games or less in nine different seasons, missed 283 of a possible 870 games and battled a never-ending assortment of freak injuries, culminating with a knee tear in Sacramento that robbed him of his explosiveness and forced him to change his style on the fly (although he somehow remained effective for a few more years).
So to summarize: Webber had no legitimate excuse for never fulfilling his promise of greatness. Unless you count that rash of injuries that hit him during his prime, including a knee injury that forced him to change his fundamental style of play.
----------------------------------------------
Last I checked injuries could be a drag on performance, particularly if you're not able to physically be on the court. He also notes that Bernard King and David Thompson did have an excuse....drug use and knee problems. Perhaps if Chris had developed a coke habit to go with his chronic injuries, Bill would give him a pass for not living up to his potential. Last I'll just point out how insane the definitiveness of Simmons' first statement above is. Of all the great players who didn't hit their potential, he was the only one without an excuse. Doesn't C-Webb have more an excuse than Derrick Coleman, Shawn Kemp and Vince Carter? At his best, he was more effective than any of those guys.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Bill Simmons Rhetorical Mailbag Questions: Answered
Bill Simmons published an NBA mailbag yesterday. In one particular question he’s decided to (rhetorically) ask you, the reader (yeah you) some questions. Instead of all of us readers flooding his e-mail with the answers, I’ll just answer for all of us on this widely read weblog. Cool?
Q: Before Andrew Bynum got hurt, the biggest change with him was effort. He looked like he was out to prove himself every night. The interesting question is, without all the Mamba drama in the offseason, would Bynum be as good now? I really think the answer is no. While calling out Bynum that way was distasteful, it might be one of those clear moves Jordan would have made, deriding a young star until he responded or was reduced to a shell of his former self (Kwame Brown.) Am I giving Kobe too much credit?-- David, San Jose, Calif.
SG: Not at all. You can't overstate how much one slight can change the course of someone's career. Does Dwyane Wade play like a man possessed if he didn't slip to No. 5 in 2003? Do Paul Pierce and Caron Butler have the same careers if they didn't fall to 10 in their drafts? Would Chris Paul be the 2008 MVP at the two-thirds mark if three teams didn't pass on him in 2005? Does Chauncey Billups turn into such a killer if Rick Pitino hadn't given up on him after 50 games? Does Baron Davis turn his career around if New Orleans never gave up on him? You could call it the first cousin of the "Nobody believed in us!" factor with team sports, in which an aggrieved player goes to another level partially because he's trying to shove it in somebody's face.
Let’s go over the questions separately.
Does Dwyane Wade play like a man possessed if he didn't slip to No. 5 in 2003?
Dwyane Wade plays no differently than he did if he was drafted in a slightly different slot. I can see him now….hmmm…I was GOING to go all out this game/practice/workout, but since I was only drafted behind Lebron and Melo I’m going to take it easy.
Do Paul Pierce and Caron Butler have the same careers if they didn't fall to 10 in their drafts?
If those same teams had drafted them (but in different slots), then yes….careers are the same.
Would Chris Paul be the 2008 MVP at the two-thirds mark if three teams didn't pass on him in 2005?
Yes, he plays the same in 2008 regardless of where he was drafted in 2005. I don’t think Paul says “yeah, take that Atlanta!… for taking Marvin Williams ahead of me!”….after he sinks a jump shot.
Does Chauncey Billups turn into such a killer if Rick Pitino hadn't given up on him after 50 games?
Um…hmmm…..well…if you’re going to credit Pitino giving up on Billups as being the reason why he’s such a “killer”, then how do you explain the fact that his performance from the midpoint of the 1997-98 season, when he was traded, was virtually on par with his next 5 ½ years in the league? Billups didn’t really show his “killer”-ness until he got to Detroit. So I’m going to say that going to the right environment, with the right teammates and coaching, is what helped Billups go the next level.
Does Baron Davis turn his career around if New Orleans never gave up on him?
Is Davis that different now, or is he just playing with better players in a better system while not being hurt? The numbers would say he’s not (that) much different, but I honestly don’t watch much Baron Davis. He was pretty much at his worst when he was traded. Perhaps some of his improvement would be the result of maturity and not being injured all the time? No, it can’t be that. He’s still mad at New Orleans. Wouldn’t Davis feel good about his ultimate treatment in New Orleans, since they sent him to a better (at the time) franchise in his hometown at at time that he himself wanted to leave?
I’m sure there are certain select cases of a player’s career being slightly different based on the fact that they were drafted at a spot that they felt was too low in the draft, but to imply at all that Chris Paul is the player he is today because he was so insulted that he fell all the way to the number four slot in the 2005 draft is stupid. Imagine how good Lebron James would have been if Carmelo Anthony was taken in front of him! That’s silly. Lebron is as good as he can be, and a player’s performance and reputation on the court is the product of their talent, skills, effort, fitness level, teammates, coaching, and luck (injuries, foul calls, some big shots going in/out, etc.). Nowhere in that equation is “draft position”.
I’d also like to point these excerpts out:
David (San Jose): Am I giving Kobe too much credit?
Bill Simmons: Not at all.
Bill Simmons (2 paragraphs later): The funny thing is that it probably wasn't Kobe's intent at all; it just worked out that way.
So Kobe gets the credit for Bynum’s improvement (it obviously has nothing to do with the fact that he’s now in his third year and isn’t in his teens anymore and is a good player...he just wasn't trying before) even though Kobe’s intent was (probably) to just be an asshole and make fun of him, not to ridicule him into improving. The credit goes to....Kobe.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Yup, That’s the Only Reason
From Bill Simmons’ mailbag today. The underline is mine.
Q: Is it just me or does Manny not like keeping his batting helmet on when he is running the bases? Pretty sure I just saw him toss his helmet off before trotting into third and almost getting thrown out for overtrotting the base.--Steve, Madison, Wis.
SG: Funny you should mention this. I had the following conversation with my Dad during Game 2:
ME: You notice how Manny always flips his helmet off every time he runs the bases? He does it every time now.
DAD: Yeah, so?
ME: Well, why would you wear a batting helmet if you're going to flip it off every time you have to run? Isn't the whole point of the batting helmet to give protection and keep you from getting hit in the head by a ball on a close slide? Why wear the helmet at all? Why not just wear a cap?
DAD (thinking): Wait, why are you asking me this? It's Manny Ramirez! I'm supposed to explain something strange Manny Ramirez does??? He's Manny Ramirez!
Ha! That's true... it is Manny! Manny being Manny! So funny!
He also may wear a batting helmet so that, oh I don’t know, he doesn’t DIE if the ball hits him in the head while he’s at bat. He flips it off sometimes because it can bounce all over the place, mostly forward and over his eyes. Was that hard?
Q: Is it just me or does Manny not like keeping his batting helmet on when he is running the bases? Pretty sure I just saw him toss his helmet off before trotting into third and almost getting thrown out for overtrotting the base.--Steve, Madison, Wis.
SG: Funny you should mention this. I had the following conversation with my Dad during Game 2:
ME: You notice how Manny always flips his helmet off every time he runs the bases? He does it every time now.
DAD: Yeah, so?
ME: Well, why would you wear a batting helmet if you're going to flip it off every time you have to run? Isn't the whole point of the batting helmet to give protection and keep you from getting hit in the head by a ball on a close slide? Why wear the helmet at all? Why not just wear a cap?
DAD (thinking): Wait, why are you asking me this? It's Manny Ramirez! I'm supposed to explain something strange Manny Ramirez does??? He's Manny Ramirez!
Ha! That's true... it is Manny! Manny being Manny! So funny!
He also may wear a batting helmet so that, oh I don’t know, he doesn’t DIE if the ball hits him in the head while he’s at bat. He flips it off sometimes because it can bounce all over the place, mostly forward and over his eyes. Was that hard?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Bill Simmons Has Good Memory, Part III
Bill Simmons’ latest column is a prediction of who will win the NBA title this year. Here are some excerpts:
If you aren't picking the Spurs to take the 2008 NBA title, your reasoning is simple: They won last year.
You don't care that the Spurs have the best player, best coach and most experience. You don't care that they play so beautifully together, that they didn't lose anyone who matters from last season's team, that they went basically unchallenged last spring except for a brief moment in their series with the Suns. You don't care that no other potential contenders improved except Houston, Boston and maybe Chicago. The Spurs won last season, which means they can't win this season. That's the logic.
Who’s Logic? Since (and including) the 1987-88 Lakers, there have been 6 repeat champions (3 of them were three-peats). I could see that logic in baseball, maybe, but no one carries that thinking into the NBA. I haven't heard of anyone not picking the Spurs because they won last year.
So the Spurs are the only logical pick ... unless you're banking on history, the third -- and best -- approach to choosing an NBA champ. For years now, it has been nearly impossible to repeat without a player like MJ or Magic leading the way.
History suggests that it’s unlikely for the Spurs to repeat? What??? Sure you need Jordan or Magic…..or Isiah Thomas (1989-1990) or Hakeem Olajuwon (1994-1995) or Shaquille O’Neal (2000-2002). Are you saying that Tim Duncan isn’t in that class? I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but you’re not making sense. Are you saying that the rest of us don’t think he is, and that's why we're not picking them to repeat? I mean, they clearly are not a one and done champion, historically, because they've won a bunch of championships lately.
Even in a diluted league, the Spurs have won only in alternate years -- 2003, 2005 and 2007, although they came damned close in 2004, the year of Derek Fisher's miracle shot, and 2006, the year of Dirk's three-point play. You need to stay healthy and hungry, need a little luck, need your dominant player to be just that, need to avoid the pitfalls that come with success.
So it sounds like you’re saying they were sort of unlucky not to repeat. Why are you saying that “the logic” of so many is that they can’t repeat? This all makes zero sense.
In his book "Showtime," Pat Riley unveiled "the disease of more" and argued that "success is often the first step toward disaster." According to Riley, after the 1980 Lakers won, everyone shifted into a more selfish mode. They had sublimated their respective games to win as a group; now they wanted to reap the rewards as individuals, even if those rewards meant having to spend way too much time at Jack Nicholson's house. Everyone wanted more money, playing time and recognition. Eventually they lost perspective and stopped doing the little things that make teams win and keep winning, eventually imploding in the first round of the postseason. So much for defending the title.
And here is where his memory fails. After the 80’s Lakers last championship, a repeat in 1988, these were their playoff exits:
1989 – Lost in Finals
1990 (Kareem now retired) – Lost in Conference Semi-Finals
1991 (Mike Dunleavy now coach) – Lost in Finals
1992 (Magic Johnson now retired) – Lost in first round
So yes, Riley’s Lakers really showed their loss of perspective and lack of doing the little things by losing in the first round…..after Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had retired and while Pat Riley wasn’t coaching the team anymore. The Lakers top 3 scorers in 1991-92 were James Worthy, Sam Perkins, and Sedale Threatt. Of course we all know it was always more more more with Sedale Threatt.
Update: I read this wrong, see comments.
Which makes me wonder how TD and the Spurs get psyched for another 100-game grind. How do they keep tapping into that hunger when it's already been sated? The Bulls never let up because MJ wouldn't let them. Boston never let up because Russell wouldn't let them. What's driving the Spurs? Duncan and Popovich love winning, but they aren't puking before big games like Russell did, and they certainly aren't suffering from Jordan's severe competitive disorder (we learned this for sure in 2004 and 2006).
True, they don’t have Michael Jordan or Bill Russell. But I don’t know, maybe they do it the same way that Magic’s Lakers, Isiah’s Pistons, Hakeem’s Rockets and Shaq’s Lakers did it?
I realize Simmons didn’t forget about all these repeat championships, but he’s acting like his readers must have. He tells us why we’re not picking the Spurs because we think they can’t repeat, and that this particular line of thinking is wrong. Then he's telling us why it will be so hard for them to repeat. Ignoring the fact that repeat champions in the NBA has been fairly common for the last 20 years.
If you aren't picking the Spurs to take the 2008 NBA title, your reasoning is simple: They won last year.
You don't care that the Spurs have the best player, best coach and most experience. You don't care that they play so beautifully together, that they didn't lose anyone who matters from last season's team, that they went basically unchallenged last spring except for a brief moment in their series with the Suns. You don't care that no other potential contenders improved except Houston, Boston and maybe Chicago. The Spurs won last season, which means they can't win this season. That's the logic.
Who’s Logic? Since (and including) the 1987-88 Lakers, there have been 6 repeat champions (3 of them were three-peats). I could see that logic in baseball, maybe, but no one carries that thinking into the NBA. I haven't heard of anyone not picking the Spurs because they won last year.
So the Spurs are the only logical pick ... unless you're banking on history, the third -- and best -- approach to choosing an NBA champ. For years now, it has been nearly impossible to repeat without a player like MJ or Magic leading the way.
History suggests that it’s unlikely for the Spurs to repeat? What??? Sure you need Jordan or Magic…..or Isiah Thomas (1989-1990) or Hakeem Olajuwon (1994-1995) or Shaquille O’Neal (2000-2002). Are you saying that Tim Duncan isn’t in that class? I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but you’re not making sense. Are you saying that the rest of us don’t think he is, and that's why we're not picking them to repeat? I mean, they clearly are not a one and done champion, historically, because they've won a bunch of championships lately.
Even in a diluted league, the Spurs have won only in alternate years -- 2003, 2005 and 2007, although they came damned close in 2004, the year of Derek Fisher's miracle shot, and 2006, the year of Dirk's three-point play. You need to stay healthy and hungry, need a little luck, need your dominant player to be just that, need to avoid the pitfalls that come with success.
So it sounds like you’re saying they were sort of unlucky not to repeat. Why are you saying that “the logic” of so many is that they can’t repeat? This all makes zero sense.
In his book "Showtime," Pat Riley unveiled "the disease of more" and argued that "success is often the first step toward disaster." According to Riley, after the 1980 Lakers won, everyone shifted into a more selfish mode. They had sublimated their respective games to win as a group; now they wanted to reap the rewards as individuals, even if those rewards meant having to spend way too much time at Jack Nicholson's house. Everyone wanted more money, playing time and recognition. Eventually they lost perspective and stopped doing the little things that make teams win and keep winning, eventually imploding in the first round of the postseason. So much for defending the title.
And here is where his memory fails. After the 80’s Lakers last championship, a repeat in 1988, these were their playoff exits:
1989 – Lost in Finals
1990 (Kareem now retired) – Lost in Conference Semi-Finals
1991 (Mike Dunleavy now coach) – Lost in Finals
1992 (Magic Johnson now retired) – Lost in first round
So yes, Riley’s Lakers really showed their loss of perspective and lack of doing the little things by losing in the first round…..after Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had retired and while Pat Riley wasn’t coaching the team anymore. The Lakers top 3 scorers in 1991-92 were James Worthy, Sam Perkins, and Sedale Threatt. Of course we all know it was always more more more with Sedale Threatt.
Update: I read this wrong, see comments.
Which makes me wonder how TD and the Spurs get psyched for another 100-game grind. How do they keep tapping into that hunger when it's already been sated? The Bulls never let up because MJ wouldn't let them. Boston never let up because Russell wouldn't let them. What's driving the Spurs? Duncan and Popovich love winning, but they aren't puking before big games like Russell did, and they certainly aren't suffering from Jordan's severe competitive disorder (we learned this for sure in 2004 and 2006).
True, they don’t have Michael Jordan or Bill Russell. But I don’t know, maybe they do it the same way that Magic’s Lakers, Isiah’s Pistons, Hakeem’s Rockets and Shaq’s Lakers did it?
I realize Simmons didn’t forget about all these repeat championships, but he’s acting like his readers must have. He tells us why we’re not picking the Spurs because we think they can’t repeat, and that this particular line of thinking is wrong. Then he's telling us why it will be so hard for them to repeat. Ignoring the fact that repeat champions in the NBA has been fairly common for the last 20 years.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Bill Simmons Has a Good Memory, Part 2
I’m not going to go into Bill Simmons’ mailbag in a tremendous amount of detail, because FireJayMariotti beat me to it. But sometimes Bill likes to just selectively remember how shit went down in the past. He’s usually good at it, but sometimes he’s just way off. So off that even a quick read of his work makes me say, “what the fuck?”
So, Bill, what the fuck?
On the subject of Joe Borowski:
Can you win a World Series with a closer who makes the '96 John Wetteland look like Eric Gagne during his 84-save streak?
The implication, clearly, is that Borowski sucks so much he made a not-so-good closer look like Eric Gagne when Gagne was unreal. To me he has to be implying that Wetteland was not that good, or was even just average, because otherwise this makes no sense. You wouldn’t say, “he made Roger Clemens of ’97 look like Pedro Martinez of ’00!” That doesn’t make any sense.
John Wetteland:
1996 Regular Season: 63 innings, 69 K’s, 2.83 ERA, 179 ERA+.
1996 Playoffs: 12 1/3 innings, 15 K’s, 2.23 ERA, 7 saves, 4 World Series Saves, World Series MVP.
For what it's worth, he was also named Rolaids Reliever of the Decade for the 90’s. Yeah that guy sucked!
So, Bill, what the fuck?
On the subject of Joe Borowski:
Can you win a World Series with a closer who makes the '96 John Wetteland look like Eric Gagne during his 84-save streak?
The implication, clearly, is that Borowski sucks so much he made a not-so-good closer look like Eric Gagne when Gagne was unreal. To me he has to be implying that Wetteland was not that good, or was even just average, because otherwise this makes no sense. You wouldn’t say, “he made Roger Clemens of ’97 look like Pedro Martinez of ’00!” That doesn’t make any sense.
John Wetteland:
1996 Regular Season: 63 innings, 69 K’s, 2.83 ERA, 179 ERA+.
1996 Playoffs: 12 1/3 innings, 15 K’s, 2.23 ERA, 7 saves, 4 World Series Saves, World Series MVP.
For what it's worth, he was also named Rolaids Reliever of the Decade for the 90’s. Yeah that guy sucked!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Yo New York Post Don’t Brag or Boast
On the recommendation of The Big Lead I read a brief write-up of the Anucha Browne Sanders trainwreck by Andrea Peyser of the New York Post. The title: “Brave Lady Sends Message”. Alrighty. It was pretty not good as TBL pointed out. I just liked some of the quotes, particularly this surprising question/answer.
So I asked Anucha - did she ever regret it? If she had to do it over again, would she take a drink, rather than sue Knick coach Isiah Thomas and Madison Square Garden for sexual harassment?
She did not hesitate.
"No."
Really? Given that you asked her this after the judgment, and her options (in hindsight) are as follows:
A. Sue and win over $11 million.
B. Put up with working with terrible, belligerent, tyrannical assholes.
C. Finding another job (probably) for a lot less money
D. “Take a drink” with Isiah Thomas and try to work out their issues. After Thomas and MSG dragged her through some mud during the trial.
I would think A is the choice. But good thing you asked the question, to make sure.
By the way Bill Simmons had a great summary of the trial (pre verdict) here.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Bill Simmons Would Like You to Focus On Important Stuff!
It is hugely ironic to me that Bill Simmons is so outraged at the level of coverage given to the Bill Belichick issue that he has decided to preach to us and the networks about how our news prioritization is fucked up. This is a guy who has written thousands of words about old, socially irrelevant television shows and running diaries on completely useless shit. I’ll let him take it away:
We live in a world in which global-warming activists charter private jets to take them from speech to speech, then tell people not to use so much toilet paper. We live in a world in which American kids are getting killed every day in the Middle East and nobody will mobilize a valid protest until the President finally decides, "We're having a draft lottery." We live in a world in which you can Google the female star of the most popular Disney TV movie ever and see her naked, and NBC runs a popular show in which they trap potential child predators and film the confrontations on TV. We live in a world in which high school kids can decide they don't like another high school kid, so they can build an anonymous slam page and libel the hell out of him, and even though this happens and keeps happening, we still don't have any set-in-stone Internet laws to prevent this. We live in a world in which Perez Hilton and TMZ.com get their own TV shows, but "Friday Night Lights" is two months away from getting canceled. We live in a world in which every home run record from the past 10 years has to be taken not just with a grain of salt, but an entire salt shaker.
So save me the moral indignation about CameraGate. The whole world is screwed up. We watch football every week because the games are entertaining, because it's something to do, because it gives us something to discuss with our friends, co-workers and family members. If you're searching for a football-related moral cause with some meat, watch this month's feature about Earl Campbell on "Costas Now." He's the Texas hero who got chewed up and spit out by professional football; now he suffers from crippling back and knee problems and needs a cane or a wheelchair to get around. The NFL makes roughly a kajillion dollars a year, only its player's union doesn't give two craps about a deteriorating ex-star like Campbell, one of the watershed stars of the '70s and someone who helped push the league to its current heights. They have a lame pension program and no disability benefits, and they have a union head (Gene Upshaw) who openly admits he's paid to worry about current players and not former ones ... even though he's a former player himself. Of course, that story isn't nearly as controversial as the current Patriots scandal because we can't slap a "Gate" behind it. Too bad.
We live in a world where Bill Simmons gets paid to write running diaries of the Scripps National Spelling Bee and Comedy Roasts; where he gets paid to write about his favorite YouTube clips; where he gets paid to write about Las Vegas once a month, name drop his buddies, reference archaic, meaningless shows like Beverly Hills 90210 and talk incessantly about TV and Movies in a sports column. He should be licking is chops to write about an actual news story involving the NFL…on the field.
Simmons’ point is mind-bogglingly stupid but his self-righteousness is in his way of seeing that. Bill, Iraq has been going on for YEARS, so has just about all the things you noted (or other similar things), which is why during the Patriots game, the first game since “Camera-gate”, THAT was the big story. Who cares if, in the grand scale of immoralities, it ranks below other highly questionable circumstances? On Sunday, during the only NFL game on at night, and with the Patriots playing, it WAS STILL the story. You can’t get mad because one commentator didn’t interrupt the other to say, “Can we talk about Earl Campbell’s knees for one sweet minute?” It's not like they didn't cover the game and just rambled about the issue for 3 hours.
Nothing in your rant changes what should have been the story in the specific context of the Patriots game. During the first game after the incident, the incident IS the story (even if racism and war exist in the world). If Tony Dungy was accused of what Belichick is accused of, then you would be talking about it 10 times as much and with 10 times the disdain. You would be demanding that the Patriots be allowed to play the Bears to re-do the Super Bowl without the cheatin’ Colts.
I understand that Bill’s point was not that Global Warming or the Iraq war should have been front and center stories on Sunday night NFL. I guess his point was the world is so screwed up, we should just focus on the product on the field and minimize off-the field news. Did he actually talk about steroids there? Now THAT is a story that has received more than its share of attention. We should ignore the camera story and talk about it even more, because it's had a greater impact on sports? For a sportswriter to be so dismissive of a sports issue because it is minor in a global context (or even a global sporting context) is laughable. Especially when that sportswriter is the king of writing about inconsequential bullshit that is trivial even to the professional sports “world”.
The crazy thing is that Bill had a lot of good observations about the actual game. It’s too bad he couldn’t do what he was asking of the commentators and stop harping on “camera-gate”. The column is more effective and a lot less maddening without the two paragraphs I cited above.
We live in a world in which global-warming activists charter private jets to take them from speech to speech, then tell people not to use so much toilet paper. We live in a world in which American kids are getting killed every day in the Middle East and nobody will mobilize a valid protest until the President finally decides, "We're having a draft lottery." We live in a world in which you can Google the female star of the most popular Disney TV movie ever and see her naked, and NBC runs a popular show in which they trap potential child predators and film the confrontations on TV. We live in a world in which high school kids can decide they don't like another high school kid, so they can build an anonymous slam page and libel the hell out of him, and even though this happens and keeps happening, we still don't have any set-in-stone Internet laws to prevent this. We live in a world in which Perez Hilton and TMZ.com get their own TV shows, but "Friday Night Lights" is two months away from getting canceled. We live in a world in which every home run record from the past 10 years has to be taken not just with a grain of salt, but an entire salt shaker.
So save me the moral indignation about CameraGate. The whole world is screwed up. We watch football every week because the games are entertaining, because it's something to do, because it gives us something to discuss with our friends, co-workers and family members. If you're searching for a football-related moral cause with some meat, watch this month's feature about Earl Campbell on "Costas Now." He's the Texas hero who got chewed up and spit out by professional football; now he suffers from crippling back and knee problems and needs a cane or a wheelchair to get around. The NFL makes roughly a kajillion dollars a year, only its player's union doesn't give two craps about a deteriorating ex-star like Campbell, one of the watershed stars of the '70s and someone who helped push the league to its current heights. They have a lame pension program and no disability benefits, and they have a union head (Gene Upshaw) who openly admits he's paid to worry about current players and not former ones ... even though he's a former player himself. Of course, that story isn't nearly as controversial as the current Patriots scandal because we can't slap a "Gate" behind it. Too bad.
We live in a world where Bill Simmons gets paid to write running diaries of the Scripps National Spelling Bee and Comedy Roasts; where he gets paid to write about his favorite YouTube clips; where he gets paid to write about Las Vegas once a month, name drop his buddies, reference archaic, meaningless shows like Beverly Hills 90210 and talk incessantly about TV and Movies in a sports column. He should be licking is chops to write about an actual news story involving the NFL…on the field.
Simmons’ point is mind-bogglingly stupid but his self-righteousness is in his way of seeing that. Bill, Iraq has been going on for YEARS, so has just about all the things you noted (or other similar things), which is why during the Patriots game, the first game since “Camera-gate”, THAT was the big story. Who cares if, in the grand scale of immoralities, it ranks below other highly questionable circumstances? On Sunday, during the only NFL game on at night, and with the Patriots playing, it WAS STILL the story. You can’t get mad because one commentator didn’t interrupt the other to say, “Can we talk about Earl Campbell’s knees for one sweet minute?” It's not like they didn't cover the game and just rambled about the issue for 3 hours.
Nothing in your rant changes what should have been the story in the specific context of the Patriots game. During the first game after the incident, the incident IS the story (even if racism and war exist in the world). If Tony Dungy was accused of what Belichick is accused of, then you would be talking about it 10 times as much and with 10 times the disdain. You would be demanding that the Patriots be allowed to play the Bears to re-do the Super Bowl without the cheatin’ Colts.
I understand that Bill’s point was not that Global Warming or the Iraq war should have been front and center stories on Sunday night NFL. I guess his point was the world is so screwed up, we should just focus on the product on the field and minimize off-the field news. Did he actually talk about steroids there? Now THAT is a story that has received more than its share of attention. We should ignore the camera story and talk about it even more, because it's had a greater impact on sports? For a sportswriter to be so dismissive of a sports issue because it is minor in a global context (or even a global sporting context) is laughable. Especially when that sportswriter is the king of writing about inconsequential bullshit that is trivial even to the professional sports “world”.
The crazy thing is that Bill had a lot of good observations about the actual game. It’s too bad he couldn’t do what he was asking of the commentators and stop harping on “camera-gate”. The column is more effective and a lot less maddening without the two paragraphs I cited above.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Bill Simmons Has a Good Memory
The problem is, he trusts it too much and doesn't bother doing research. From his latest mailbag:
I feel the same way about Stern that I did about Red Auerbach during the six-month span when Auerbach turned down Dallas' offer of Sam Perkins and Detlef Schrempf for an aging Kevin McHale, traded Danny Ainge for Eddie Pinckney and Joe Kleine and picked Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway in the '89 draft. As we watched Smith run around like a spaz the next season while Hardaway was headed for rookie of the year, every die-hard Boston fan came to the realization he wasn't the magical Red Auerbach anymore.
His point is that Tim Hardaway was very good, and he's right. But David Robinson was the unanimous winner of the 1989-1990 NBA Rookie of the Year award, so I'm not sure what he's going for there.
I feel the same way about Stern that I did about Red Auerbach during the six-month span when Auerbach turned down Dallas' offer of Sam Perkins and Detlef Schrempf for an aging Kevin McHale, traded Danny Ainge for Eddie Pinckney and Joe Kleine and picked Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway in the '89 draft. As we watched Smith run around like a spaz the next season while Hardaway was headed for rookie of the year, every die-hard Boston fan came to the realization he wasn't the magical Red Auerbach anymore.
His point is that Tim Hardaway was very good, and he's right. But David Robinson was the unanimous winner of the 1989-1990 NBA Rookie of the Year award, so I'm not sure what he's going for there.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
The Bill Simmons Game
You may remember this post where I called out Bill Simmons for his nicknaming Kevin Durant. As a follow-up, let’s play a little game.
10 of these things were “analyzed” by Bill Simmons in this column about Kevin Durant and Greg Oden. The other 10 were not. Pick the 10 that you think are his.
1. Name: won by Durant
2. WOW Factor: Durant
3. Whammy! Factor: Durant
4. Unintentional Comedy: Oden
5. YouTube Clips: Durant
6. Intentional Comedy: Oden
7. Video Game Potential: Durant
8. Defense Repertoire: Oden
9. Clutch: Oden
10. Pantheon Potential: Durant
11. Vegas Factor: Durant
12. Impression made at NBA workouts: Oden
13. Fantasy Potential: Durant
14. Internet Presence: Even
15. Best “Skills”: Durant
16. Marketability: Durant
17. Stomach Punch Potential: Oden
18. Style/Swagger: Durant
19. Tremendous Upside Potential: Durant
20. Tremendous Downside Potential: Oden
The scoring grid
0-3 correct: This is actually hard to do, even if you just guessed. But you’ve probably never read Bill Simmons.
4-6 correct: You are reading the right amount of Bill Simmons, do not read any more. Keep skimming those 6,000 word mailbags.
7-9 correct: You are dangerously close to reading too much Bill Simmons.
10 correct: You imagine yourself chilling with Bill, J-Bug and Hench, and you probably named your dog “The Dooze 2”. Just stop.
I made up 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18
If you think those categories are useless (yeah I know, he’s just having fun), check out the ones he used a while back to compare David Ortiz and Larry Bird (middle of page).
Monday, July 2, 2007
Bill Simmons Draft Diary Diary
I unfortunately had to miss the draft last week, but I knew that Bill Simmons would give me the scoop, with his annual draft diary. I started out tearing this mofo apart, but unfortunately I got pretty bored with it, so I've only briefly commented on a few posts, below.
4:30 p.m. (PT): Thanks to rumors that the Celtics might trade the No. 5 pick, Wally Szczerbiak and Delonte West for a soon-to-be 32-year-old shooting guard coming off double ankle surgeries (Ray Allen), I just spent the last 20 minutes on basketball-reference.com trying to find one great shooting guard who didn't decline significantly in Years 12 through 14 of his NBA career. Here's the list: Reggie Miller. That's it. Also, I just threw up in my mouth and some of it went up the back of my nose.
Wow, right off the bat. I had post number 5 for the “threw up in my mouth” joke pool.
4:35: Jay Bilas calls Greg Oden "the ultimate high character guy." I would have gone with Gandhi.
I think when Bilas makes statements about players, he’s speaking about them in the context of them being NBA draft prospects. But, you know, good gag!
4:36: Stephen A. Smith on Portland taking Oden: "They better pick him -- THAT'S THE SENSIBLE THING TO DO." We're nearing the phase of his career when Smith might need to change his gimmick, kind of like when Puffy changed to P. Diddy. I think "Stevie A." or "The Notorious S.A.S." could buy him another two years. That's the sensible thing to do.
Billy S. The Sports Gentleman. Mr Sports Gal. You're just as stale, pal.
4:36: The Blazers select Greg Oden with the first pick -- a moment that would have been much more exciting if Ric Bucher and his new Gordon Gekko hairdo hadn't ruined it. (Note: After Buke's report, I wanted to "break" the report that the Sonics would pick Kevin Durant second; none of my editors would oblige. Cowards.) Meanwhile, Oden gets a full-fledged, "Thank God he seems like a good guy" smile from Stern during their handshake. If there was a bizarro version of the moment when he shook hands with J.R. Rider in 1995, that would have been it.
4:30 p.m. (PT): Thanks to rumors that the Celtics might trade the No. 5 pick, Wally Szczerbiak and Delonte West for a soon-to-be 32-year-old shooting guard coming off double ankle surgeries (Ray Allen), I just spent the last 20 minutes on basketball-reference.com trying to find one great shooting guard who didn't decline significantly in Years 12 through 14 of his NBA career. Here's the list: Reggie Miller. That's it. Also, I just threw up in my mouth and some of it went up the back of my nose.
Wow, right off the bat. I had post number 5 for the “threw up in my mouth” joke pool.
4:35: Jay Bilas calls Greg Oden "the ultimate high character guy." I would have gone with Gandhi.
I think when Bilas makes statements about players, he’s speaking about them in the context of them being NBA draft prospects. But, you know, good gag!
4:36: Stephen A. Smith on Portland taking Oden: "They better pick him -- THAT'S THE SENSIBLE THING TO DO." We're nearing the phase of his career when Smith might need to change his gimmick, kind of like when Puffy changed to P. Diddy. I think "Stevie A." or "The Notorious S.A.S." could buy him another two years. That's the sensible thing to do.
Billy S. The Sports Gentleman. Mr Sports Gal. You're just as stale, pal.
4:36: The Blazers select Greg Oden with the first pick -- a moment that would have been much more exciting if Ric Bucher and his new Gordon Gekko hairdo hadn't ruined it. (Note: After Buke's report, I wanted to "break" the report that the Sonics would pick Kevin Durant second; none of my editors would oblige. Cowards.) Meanwhile, Oden gets a full-fledged, "Thank God he seems like a good guy" smile from Stern during their handshake. If there was a bizarro version of the moment when he shook hands with J.R. Rider in 1995, that would have been it.
Rider was drafted in 1993, but close!
4:39: "You can't teach 7 feet!" The Notorious S.A.S. screams.
(See, it works. I told you.)
It didn’t work
4:40: I have to say, Oden seems like a legitimately good guy. Even Stu Scott seems charmed. If the Blazers were "Platoon," Oden would be Willem Dafoe, Zach Randolph would be Tom Berenger, and Brandon Roy would be the Charlie Sheen character caught in the middle between good and evil. The more I'm thinking about it, they might need to trade Zach. Like, right now.
Platoon, that’s topical. I can figure out the analogy based on the NBA dudes, but me and everyone else hasn’t seen Platoon in the last decade.
(Note: And just wait until John Hollinger comes out with his inevitable "Every quality 2-guard in NBA history declined as a player after Year 12 except Reggie Miller" feature to torture me. You know it's coming. Damn you, John Hollinger. Damn you.)
The majority of quality players have declined as a player after Year 12. This is not groundbreaking. It’s like saying, “no NFL running back improves after year 8.”
4:51: Al Horford speaks English, Spanish and Portuguese, but unfortunately, he doesn't speak Stu Scott. Have I used that joke before? Ah, screw it. I feel more depressed than an Elliott Smith album right now.
You have, but I love when ESPN guys make fun of other ESPN guys. I give Simmons kudos for this. He made jokes at Steven A. and Bilas' expense a bunch of times too.
5:12: Just had the following exchange with my buddy House:
House: "I'm driving home from softball, did your team make a trade?"Me: "Yeah, we traded the fifth pick, Wally and Delonte for Ray Allen."House: "Noooooooo!" (Raucous laughter.)
Fucking House, man. Tell me when something House says doesn't result in raucous laughter!
5:19: Just won a three-team parlay on Charlotte grabbing UNC's Brandan Wright at No. 8 (the old WNBA strategy strikes again!), Jay Bilas loving the pick ("He runs the floor like a deer!") and Bilas calling his wingspan "extraordinary" (easy money).
That Bilas is sooooo predicable, unlike Bill Simmons. I will now light myself on fire.
5:32: Looking disturbingly like Chris Mihm, Spencer Hawes goes 10th to the Kings. Now they have a young center who can't rebound or protect the rim, an aging center (Brad Miller) who can't rebound or protect the rim, a guy who started the biggest melee in NBA history (Ron Artest), the coach from "Hang Time" (Reggie Theus), tons of bad contracts, and owners (the Maloofs) who've made more reality-TV-show appearances than every other NBA owner combined. What a mess. O.J. Mayo should just buy a house in Sacramento now and get it over with.
Mark Cuban, an NBA owner, had a reality TV series (The Benefactor), so I don’t think that math will hold up.
5:37: The Notorious S.A.S. spends 60 seconds questioning Chicago's Noah pick, wonders why the Bulls didn't address low-post scoring without mentioning a single alternative (either in the draft or through trade), then adds at the end, "Again, [John] Paxson knows what he's doing, he's a phenomenal executive." I'd like that minute of my life back. No, really.
What he’s saying is factual, and would lead a listener to understand that they will likely be addressing the low-post scoring need. What do you want him to do, spout out massive 4 team deals that he thinks would solve everyone’s problems but no one would ever do, like you?
5:39: Our long national nightmare is over: The Hawks finally drafted a quality point guard (Acie Law IV). It's like Billy Knight just pooped in our fridge and ate a whole wheel of cheese, isn't it? Mark Jackson celebrates the occasion by making a midget joke.
I get the Anchorman reference, but I don’t get the joke. So we aren’t mad, because it’s amazing? Why would we be mad? What? Wouldn't the joke work better if he did something so dumb, even for him, that it amazed us? Never mind.
Yup, I’m one of his readers.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Simmons v. Cowherd part II
On today's Bill Simmons chat:
Mason: (SC): You should bring Cowherd on the BS report so he can show you how to do interesting radio.
Bill Simmons: (4:50 PM ET ) Does "interesting" mean "skim somebody's column over a 2-minute break, then pick it apart on live radio with no facts to back it up?"
I'm asking this with all honesty......Do people like Colin Cowherd? I thought he was one of those guys that you just listen to because he's so terrible, yet so smug that you just listen to get mad. Just me? Sweet.
By the way Round 1 was covered by awfulannouncing and a few other outlets/blogs.
Mason: (SC): You should bring Cowherd on the BS report so he can show you how to do interesting radio.
Bill Simmons: (4:50 PM ET ) Does "interesting" mean "skim somebody's column over a 2-minute break, then pick it apart on live radio with no facts to back it up?"
I'm asking this with all honesty......Do people like Colin Cowherd? I thought he was one of those guys that you just listen to because he's so terrible, yet so smug that you just listen to get mad. Just me? Sweet.
By the way Round 1 was covered by awfulannouncing and a few other outlets/blogs.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Bill Simmons: Only I May Steal Other People’s Nicknames
Bill Simmons has decided to do a hardcore comparison of Kevin Durant and Greg Oden to determine who is the better number 1 pick (here). He compared offense, defense, rebounding….just kidding…he mostly compared a bunch of stupid shit. One of the items Simmons’ “analyzed” was nickname. Or nickname potential, I guess. This is what he had to say:
NICKNAMES: Thankfully, there will be no T-Mac-ing either guy;
(that sounds gross)
not even Linda Cohn would be okay with G-Ode or K-Dur. Still, I don't see Oden ending up with a better alternative. He's trapped in that vaguely bland Sampras/Duncan/Ewing zone, where it makes the most sense to call him Greg. There is Robert Parish's nickname, The Chief, because Oden is similarly stoic and regal, but I'm morally opposed to recycled nicknames. I believe LaDainian Tomlinson should do time for stealing LT from LT. Plus, others might be morally opposed on PC grounds. So The Chief is out, and Greg it is.
Let’s summarize the first paragraph real quick and in his words: “I’m morally opposed to recycling nicknames.”
Meanwhile, despite some recent KD momentum -- color me lukewarm -- Durant is a natural for a supercool alias. Not something forced like King James, either. I nominate Plastic Man, after the cartoon superhero who always had a smoking-hot girlfriend (for obvious reasons). We never should have wasted such a great nickname on Stacey Augmon. I'm calling a mulligan. EDGE: Durant
The second paragraph (paraphrased): I have a great idea for a nickname! Stacey Augmon’s nickname! Plastic Man!
I know he’s saying that Augmon wasn’t worthy of the nickname (is it that good, really?), but really he’s just being lazy and contradicting himself. By the way, Augmon got that nickname due to some especially sick dunks he threw down early in his career where he had great extension with his left (dunking) hand. Sooo….no mulligan, sorry.
I think we should call him Air, Broadway, Yankee Clipper, Smokin’, or Magic. Are those taken?
Also, I think the last name "James" lends itself to the nickname of "King", so I disagree that it sounds forced. I did like the jab at Linda Cohn.
NICKNAMES: Thankfully, there will be no T-Mac-ing either guy;
(that sounds gross)
not even Linda Cohn would be okay with G-Ode or K-Dur. Still, I don't see Oden ending up with a better alternative. He's trapped in that vaguely bland Sampras/Duncan/Ewing zone, where it makes the most sense to call him Greg. There is Robert Parish's nickname, The Chief, because Oden is similarly stoic and regal, but I'm morally opposed to recycled nicknames. I believe LaDainian Tomlinson should do time for stealing LT from LT. Plus, others might be morally opposed on PC grounds. So The Chief is out, and Greg it is.
Let’s summarize the first paragraph real quick and in his words: “I’m morally opposed to recycling nicknames.”
Meanwhile, despite some recent KD momentum -- color me lukewarm -- Durant is a natural for a supercool alias. Not something forced like King James, either. I nominate Plastic Man, after the cartoon superhero who always had a smoking-hot girlfriend (for obvious reasons). We never should have wasted such a great nickname on Stacey Augmon. I'm calling a mulligan. EDGE: Durant
The second paragraph (paraphrased): I have a great idea for a nickname! Stacey Augmon’s nickname! Plastic Man!
I know he’s saying that Augmon wasn’t worthy of the nickname (is it that good, really?), but really he’s just being lazy and contradicting himself. By the way, Augmon got that nickname due to some especially sick dunks he threw down early in his career where he had great extension with his left (dunking) hand. Sooo….no mulligan, sorry.
I think we should call him Air, Broadway, Yankee Clipper, Smokin’, or Magic. Are those taken?
Also, I think the last name "James" lends itself to the nickname of "King", so I disagree that it sounds forced. I did like the jab at Linda Cohn.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Keith Law Does Not Like his Coworkers
Who can blame him? This is actually a positive post (about Keith) for a few chat answers he had on today’s ESPN chat. Keith is usually to the point, but I thought these were worth sharing with all 2 readers of this site.
Andy (Houston): Biggio is not getting any press because he is one of the most stand up players in all of sports. maybe he he bad mouthed his teamates (Owens), demanded trades (Kobe), or whined non stop (Owens again) he would be on sports center more often. It's sad that a future HOF isn't getting any press for this great milestone.
Keith Law: Seriously, you're making me want to write an article on how one player's selfish pursuit of a rather meaningless milestone is helping to sink his team's playoff hopes. Isn't that a story? If his initials were B.B., don't you think this would be a regular rant in sports sections everywhere? What if Biggio was African-American, or Latino? He's getting a free pass. Just be happy with that.
A fair point to pretty much beat down the Biggio fans. Biggio came up a few times in the chat, as to why he’s not getting as much attention for approaching 3,000 hits as some past players have received. It’s because he sucks, and it seems to be to the detriment of his team. Rather simple. He’s lucky he’s not getting negative attention, as Keith points out.
Also, how ludicrous is this guy's point, that Biggio doesn't get comparable attention because he's a "stand up player"? Like the most recent inductees into the 3,000 hit club were a bunch of hated guys (Gwynn, Ripken, Boggs, etc.). Well I hated Boggs but that's beside the point.
Bill "Sports Guy" Simmons (ESPN Studios) : Can't we talk Celtics basketball in your baseball chat?
Keith Law: Go away. And stop talking about Ronald Jenkees. Every time you mention him I think of Leroy Jenkins, and hear him shouting his own name over and over...
I would not have expected him to take this question, since they get thousands in these chats and given that they are employed by the same company, but then he also seems to let out some animosity towards Simmons. Simmons and Law would be exact opposites really. Simmons likes to talk about MTV crap and the NBA; Law is MLB with a focus on scouting, and literature. For the record I find them both somewhat entertaining, but for different reasons.
Fran (Helsinki, Finland): I hate this whole trend of glorifying scrappers. I like the workingman's hero as much as the next guy, but enough is enough. Biggio isn't good enough to play everyday anymore and he is sinking his team by chasing a milestone that does nothing for himself or the sport.
Keith Law: Couldn't agree more. The David Eckstein Fetish still baffles me. That's great that he plays hard. It's nice that he's succeeded against all odds. Why he gets more love than, say, Jimmy Rollins (or this year JJ Hardy) is beyond me.
Firejoemorgan does a good job of beating the hell out of the Eckstein/Erstad love thrown around, but you can't disagree with Keith here as well.
Dusty Baker (Egoville, Wisconsin_: Why won't the Orioles consider me for their coaching vacancy?
Keith Law: Maybe they're familiar with your work.
Just good, honest, accurate, short answers. The Dusty answer is outstanding when you consider they share an employer.
*Update*
As a couple of readers pointed out, there is also this gem:
Richie (Seattle): What's your take on the new ESPN player ratings? I haven't heard you or Neyer mention them.
Keith Law: Just a toy. No analytical value.
Andy (Houston): Biggio is not getting any press because he is one of the most stand up players in all of sports. maybe he he bad mouthed his teamates (Owens), demanded trades (Kobe), or whined non stop (Owens again) he would be on sports center more often. It's sad that a future HOF isn't getting any press for this great milestone.
Keith Law: Seriously, you're making me want to write an article on how one player's selfish pursuit of a rather meaningless milestone is helping to sink his team's playoff hopes. Isn't that a story? If his initials were B.B., don't you think this would be a regular rant in sports sections everywhere? What if Biggio was African-American, or Latino? He's getting a free pass. Just be happy with that.
A fair point to pretty much beat down the Biggio fans. Biggio came up a few times in the chat, as to why he’s not getting as much attention for approaching 3,000 hits as some past players have received. It’s because he sucks, and it seems to be to the detriment of his team. Rather simple. He’s lucky he’s not getting negative attention, as Keith points out.
Also, how ludicrous is this guy's point, that Biggio doesn't get comparable attention because he's a "stand up player"? Like the most recent inductees into the 3,000 hit club were a bunch of hated guys (Gwynn, Ripken, Boggs, etc.). Well I hated Boggs but that's beside the point.
Bill "Sports Guy" Simmons (ESPN Studios) : Can't we talk Celtics basketball in your baseball chat?
Keith Law: Go away. And stop talking about Ronald Jenkees. Every time you mention him I think of Leroy Jenkins, and hear him shouting his own name over and over...
I would not have expected him to take this question, since they get thousands in these chats and given that they are employed by the same company, but then he also seems to let out some animosity towards Simmons. Simmons and Law would be exact opposites really. Simmons likes to talk about MTV crap and the NBA; Law is MLB with a focus on scouting, and literature. For the record I find them both somewhat entertaining, but for different reasons.
Fran (Helsinki, Finland): I hate this whole trend of glorifying scrappers. I like the workingman's hero as much as the next guy, but enough is enough. Biggio isn't good enough to play everyday anymore and he is sinking his team by chasing a milestone that does nothing for himself or the sport.
Keith Law: Couldn't agree more. The David Eckstein Fetish still baffles me. That's great that he plays hard. It's nice that he's succeeded against all odds. Why he gets more love than, say, Jimmy Rollins (or this year JJ Hardy) is beyond me.
Firejoemorgan does a good job of beating the hell out of the Eckstein/Erstad love thrown around, but you can't disagree with Keith here as well.
Dusty Baker (Egoville, Wisconsin_: Why won't the Orioles consider me for their coaching vacancy?
Keith Law: Maybe they're familiar with your work.
Just good, honest, accurate, short answers. The Dusty answer is outstanding when you consider they share an employer.
*Update*
As a couple of readers pointed out, there is also this gem:
Richie (Seattle): What's your take on the new ESPN player ratings? I haven't heard you or Neyer mention them.
Keith Law: Just a toy. No analytical value.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
1996 Chicago Bulls - 72-10
But Bill Simmons wants more, he wants them to beat the 1986 Celtics at some point in that season, along with the '87 Lakers, the '85 Bears and the '27 Yankees. I don’t know what Bill Simmons has against the ’96 Bulls, but whatever it is I have to disagree. In his latest chat he devotes a lot of time to fielding questions related to the Bulls (and the Sopranos). I know he’s reacting more to the questions and an analysis done by John Hollinger that has the Bulls as the best team ever, but he says some things here that are nutty and difficult to ignore. You can tell that the chatters were getting frustrated with him as well. I like Bill’s work and he knows a ton about the NBA, a lot more than me, but this was not impressive.
It starts with a discrete question about Karl Malone being allowed in the discussion of the greatest PF ever, with Tim Duncan. I agree with Simmons that Duncan takes that, hands down. Simmons follows with three paragraphs, the last one is below.
Bill Simmons: Here's the point: You always have to factor in "quality of the league" for any of this historical stuff. Malone's resume is "helped" by how they made the Finals for 2 straight years, but what about all the years when they didn't make it with stronger teams? All right, I'm done venting. But I want Hollinger to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better scoring system. Any system that makes the '96 Bulls better than the '92 Bulls (the single best MJ team) and doesn't make the 2001 Lakers a top-7 team of the past 30 years needs to be refined.
There is no measure or system that could be compiled that would result in a conclusion that the ‘92 Bulls were better than the ’96 Bulls. The ’96 Bulls win this argument based on record, playoff record, point differential, and points scored per game and allowed per game (relative to the league). They were a deeper team, with better numbers, and they went 72-10. They also came back the next year and won 69 games. No numbers based system will have the '92 team coming out on top.
Here is Hollinger's analysis. It has a lot of flaws, and I agree with Simmons' overall point that it's weighted towards teams with inferior competition.
Brian (Worchester): WOAH WOAH WOAH! Are you saying the 1996 Bulls aren't the best team ever? I HATE the Bulls but I still have to respect their alltime greatness!
Bill Simmons: Yes. Emphatically. I think they won the most games ever. I would not have them in the top-10. You're telling me they could have beaten the 2001 Lakers in a series? Or the '86 Celtics? Or the '85 Lakers? or the '83 Sixers?
Gimme a break. Bill Simmons doesn’t have the ’96 Bulls in his top 10 NBA teams ever. I don’t know where to start, so I won’t. But that’s fucking crazy-talk. Pontificating on who would win a 7 game series is a lot of fun, but there’s no way he can name 10 teams that would take the ’96 Bulls in a 7 game series.
Mac (Tuscaloosa AL): I think that Hollinger is making the assumption (which you have to in an "objective" system) that the quality of play is constant. Otherwise, it devolves into argument about the level of play, which can't be proved, and you wind up with (as I saw on a blog this weekend, referring to the statements you made in a column) someone saying that the Celtics and Lakers of the eighties can't be among the greatest ever because Bird and Magic weren't "athletic" by today's standards -- like they were considered athletic then.
Bill Simmons: Then that's the wrong assumption. You cannot evaluate the last 60 Finals teams without coming up with some method to figure out A) quality of the league for that season, and B) quality of each conference. For instance, if the Spurs destroy the Cavs (which they should), does that make them one of the best teams ever? Hell, no! I think they're the 2nd best team of the past 10 years, but again, they shouldn't get extra credit because they happened to beat a subpar Eastern rep four teams in the Finals.
Agreed.
Bill Simmons: The fix for Hollinger is easy - include a variable where he awards points for each season for strength/weakness of the league and strength/weakness of the Finals opponent. For instance, the '85 Lakers beat a really good Celtics team. Isn't that between 10-15 times more impressive than the '96 Bulls rolling through a terrible conference and beating a young Seattle team that was about 2 years away from peaking (and never did because Kemp went nuts)?
This is where I lose Bill. The fact that the ’85 Lakers beat a great team in the finals helps to substantiate their greatness. But the fact that the ’96 Bulls did not beat a team of the same caliber should not discount their greatness. It makes it more difficult to support, but it does not mean that they wouldn’t have beat the crap out of much much better team in that same position. Their greatness is not limited by that of their opponents, it just becomes more difficult to support (if that makes sense). That’s what Simmons viewpoint seems to be. I fail to see how the Lakers going through the Suns, Blazers and Nuggets before facing the Celtics in 1985 makes them world beaters (this is in response to the terrible conference comment). Was that great competition in the Western Conference? Simmons loves to just hide under the blanket statement of “everyone was good back then”. How historically great were the ’86 Rockets? Better than the '96 Sonics?
Does anyone ever say, "well the '85 Bears were good but they can't be considered one of the best teams because they beat a crappy Patriots team in the Super Bowl?" Of course not. It is fair to say the fact that they were not really tested on the biggest stage makes it difficult to gauge the team's ceiling.
Also the fix for Hollinger is the “Bill Simmons patented ‘what my gut says’ variable”.
Barrett (Nashville): Hey Bill, I understand your point about Hollinger's rating system, but yours is flawed as well. How do you define a "really good Celtics team" objectively? Sure, it's a fair assumption that they were better than the '96 Heat or Knicks, but how do you compare on a standardized basis? You can't, because if the entire league is subpar one year, you can only statistically compare it to itself.
Bill Simmons: You just described my problem with NBA stats in a nutshell: You cannot interprete the NBA solely through stats. It's inane. Too much depends on situations, talent levels from year to year, quality of teammates, circumstance and everything else. Stats are incredibly helpful, but at a certain point, you have to incorporate analysis, homework and opinion as well. The 2001 Lakers didn't peak until the playoffs, but they decimated a really good conference (an especially strong year for the West), crushed the Sixers in the Finals and trotted out a team with an unstoppable center at his absolute peak, as well as Kobe during a point in his career where he may have been his most valuable because he was still OK with being Robin to Shaq's Batman (and was still awesome by himself, as witnessed by the way he destroyed the Kings with the 48-point game in the playoffs).
I agree with Bill’s general point of NBA stats. It’s not like baseball.
If the 2001 Lakers didn’t peak until the playoffs started, shouldn’t that be a little bit of a knock on their greatness? I get that the stats from the 2001 season may not be the best representation of their ability, but it is a record of their performance, in many ways. I agree, those Lakers teams were great. Among the best ever. I just can’t unequivocally throw out that they are better than the ’96 Bulls.
Bill Simmons: Anyway, any scoring system that A) overvalues the '986 Bulls, and B) undervalues the 2001 Lakers needs to be tinkered with... that was my only point. I am confident that Hollinger will figure this out.
No backtracking, your point is clearly broader than that. Any scoring system that has the ’96 Bulls in the top 10 teams of all time, in your opinion, needs to be tinkered with. The problem is that if you polled all the players, coaches, writers, and used every statistical analysis, the overwhelming conclusion would be that they are in the top 5.
Messiah (NY): I don't understand one thing about your Malone argument. You said that he made it to the finals by default because the rest of the teams had finally declined, but you say the Bulls played in a horrible year for basketball in 96. How can both of those be true?
Bill Simmons: '96 thru '99 was the weakest stretch in the history of the league. the Jazz were heavily favored to come out of the West in '96, they choked against the Sonics.
Those Jazz teams (’97 and ’98) were good. You can’t decide now that they weren’t good teams. I have every confidence that if Jordan doesn’t un-retire those Jazz teams win back to back championships. Just like if Jordan doesn’t retire, the Houston Rockets probably don’t win any championships.
Also, they did not choke against the Sonics. The Sonics were good! They won 64 games! 9 more than the Jazz! How’s that a choke? You can’t just say that the ’96 through ’99 period was the weakest stretch in the history of the game. That’s crap. That’s just a convenient canvas to use to set up your anti-Bulls arguments. What was the strongest? Oh right, the period where your favorite player and favorite teams were good.
Vernon (Indianapolis): Sorry to keep harping on this issue, but you're way off on the '96 Bulls. Rodman was still very good (a hall-of-famer if he wasn't nuts), Ron Harper was solid, Kukoc was making the mold for Eastern Europeans everywhere and they still had the dynamic duo. And if you think p-o'ed Jordan in 1996 loses to anyone ever you haven't watched an NBA game in your life.
Vern-dog, I agree with you completely.
Bill Simmons: Congrats, but who's guarding Shaq on that team? Who's guarding McHale? Who's guarding Kareem? Shawn Kemp destroyed them in the Finals, what do you think those guys would have done?
Luc Longley is guarding Shaq, like he did in ’96 when they played the Magic in the playoffs. Dennis Rodman is guarding McHale, he was a good defender. I mean, Mchale will get his points but it's not like Rodman's any slouch there. Who the hell is guarding Jordan? The best scorer of all-time? Huh? I mean, no one could handle Mchale, but the Celtics lost games right? Oh right, there were a lot of Mchale stoppers in the 80's.
I mean, who’s guarding Shaq on the ’96 Bulls? This isn't THAT hypothetical! This happened. It can’t be the guy that actually guarded Shaq when they destroyed Shaq’s 60 win team can it? Shaq would eat up that guy! Yes, I know Shaq was better in '01, but I just found that amusing. That Bulls team had 3 lock-down defenders and outstanding team defense. They went through Mourning, Ewing and Shaq in those playoffs. I think that hurts your argument of them not being able to handle big men on defense.
I also love the revisionist history on Kemp. Kemp averaged about 20 and 11 during the regular season that year, shooting 56% from the floor. He was a very good player before he decided to focus on eating and making babies. He destroyed the Bulls to the tune of 24 and 10 on 55% shooting. This equals…..TOTAL DESTRUCTION!
Mike (Hartford): Who guards Shaq? Who guards Kareem? Who guards McHale? For crying out loud, who guards Jordan! I think you are grossly underestimaing the ability of a hungry Jordan (which is pretty much the only Jordan there is). I think Jordan was too mentally strong and the supporting cast was too competent to ever be defeated by anyone. Too much fire, too much willpower, too much Jordan that year.
Thanks, Mike.
Bill Simmons: Hey, I loved MJ, thought he was the best basketball player ever. But his career was unbelievably fortunate - he never faced Hakeem in his prime, or Shaq, or Duncan, or Moses... that team was constructed in a way that any big man and true point guard gave them trouble, but they never faced both at the same time.
This is just retarded. Can’t you flip that around and point out that virtually no one except Isiah’s Pistons succeeded against Jordan after he had 3 seasons under his belt? Oh right, there were no good players for 10 years. Or Bird was fortunate he didn’t have to face Shaq, Jerry West, Kobe Bryant, Duncan and Jordan (in his prime)? What is the point? Ask Barkley, Ewing, Stockton, Malone, and Drexler, all all-time greats, how they feel about playing in the Jordan era. I’m sure Hakeem would rather Jordan been out of the league (or mostly in ’95) than in it in ’94 and ’95 or he may not have those rings.
I've already discussed this problem with big men that you just made up. Gary Payton, John Stockton, and Jason Kidd are all-time great "true point guards" and I don't remember them giving the Bulls any real headaches. The 96-98 Bulls did not have problems with "true point guards", but you could argue they had some problems with really quick, smaller guards like Damon Stoudamire and Allen Iverson. I don't think this translates into Dennis Johnson and Magic. I think they are much better equipped to handle bigger guards that are not lightening quick penetrators.
Todd (Tucson): If the 2001 Lakers played the 1996 Bulls, would Ron Harper guard himself?
Bill Simmons: That would be fantastic.
The 2001 Harper would win though, because the Western Conference was THAT strong!
Cory-AZ: yea, the 1991 Lakers didn't have a great point guard in Magic, and a good enough center in a young Divac + Sam Perkins Combo...Also, Ewing and Starks werent good. I think Ewing is underrated reason being Jordan always destroyed him in his prime
Bill Simmons: Not a good example - the Lakers got killed by injuries in that series.
What?????? I’m not going to look anything up here, but I know that finals well. The Lakers were lucky to win game 1 (Perkins hit the three, Jordan’s 18 footer rimmed out). To my knowledge the Lakers got killed by injuries to the tune of James Worthy and Byron Scott having to sit out game 5. The Lakers were down 3-1. That series was done. That’s just nuts. They were both good players at the time but the Lakers had zero chance of winning games 5, 6 and 7.
Adam (chandler, az): Was watching the replay of game 4 87 finals (magic's skyhook), and heard this stat....the Lakers had won in the garden in 85, and since that point the C's were a ridiculous 94-3! I'm pretty sure either of those 2 teams would've handled the '96 Bulls
Bill Simmons: Me, too.
Look, those teams were great, but Bill has offered us nothing here. Who’s the greatest of all-time? I have no idea, but the ’96 Bulls are top 5, and much of what Bill’s saying is terribly misleading. If the ’86 Celtics played in Chicago and the ’96 Bulls played in Boston, who wants to guess how differently this line of questioning would have gone? He’d be talking about how he and J-bug were discussing that Jordan was to the NBA was Alton was to the Real World/Road Rules challenges or something.
It starts with a discrete question about Karl Malone being allowed in the discussion of the greatest PF ever, with Tim Duncan. I agree with Simmons that Duncan takes that, hands down. Simmons follows with three paragraphs, the last one is below.
Bill Simmons: Here's the point: You always have to factor in "quality of the league" for any of this historical stuff. Malone's resume is "helped" by how they made the Finals for 2 straight years, but what about all the years when they didn't make it with stronger teams? All right, I'm done venting. But I want Hollinger to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better scoring system. Any system that makes the '96 Bulls better than the '92 Bulls (the single best MJ team) and doesn't make the 2001 Lakers a top-7 team of the past 30 years needs to be refined.
There is no measure or system that could be compiled that would result in a conclusion that the ‘92 Bulls were better than the ’96 Bulls. The ’96 Bulls win this argument based on record, playoff record, point differential, and points scored per game and allowed per game (relative to the league). They were a deeper team, with better numbers, and they went 72-10. They also came back the next year and won 69 games. No numbers based system will have the '92 team coming out on top.
Here is Hollinger's analysis. It has a lot of flaws, and I agree with Simmons' overall point that it's weighted towards teams with inferior competition.
Brian (Worchester): WOAH WOAH WOAH! Are you saying the 1996 Bulls aren't the best team ever? I HATE the Bulls but I still have to respect their alltime greatness!
Bill Simmons: Yes. Emphatically. I think they won the most games ever. I would not have them in the top-10. You're telling me they could have beaten the 2001 Lakers in a series? Or the '86 Celtics? Or the '85 Lakers? or the '83 Sixers?
Gimme a break. Bill Simmons doesn’t have the ’96 Bulls in his top 10 NBA teams ever. I don’t know where to start, so I won’t. But that’s fucking crazy-talk. Pontificating on who would win a 7 game series is a lot of fun, but there’s no way he can name 10 teams that would take the ’96 Bulls in a 7 game series.
Mac (Tuscaloosa AL): I think that Hollinger is making the assumption (which you have to in an "objective" system) that the quality of play is constant. Otherwise, it devolves into argument about the level of play, which can't be proved, and you wind up with (as I saw on a blog this weekend, referring to the statements you made in a column) someone saying that the Celtics and Lakers of the eighties can't be among the greatest ever because Bird and Magic weren't "athletic" by today's standards -- like they were considered athletic then.
Bill Simmons: Then that's the wrong assumption. You cannot evaluate the last 60 Finals teams without coming up with some method to figure out A) quality of the league for that season, and B) quality of each conference. For instance, if the Spurs destroy the Cavs (which they should), does that make them one of the best teams ever? Hell, no! I think they're the 2nd best team of the past 10 years, but again, they shouldn't get extra credit because they happened to beat a subpar Eastern rep four teams in the Finals.
Agreed.
Bill Simmons: The fix for Hollinger is easy - include a variable where he awards points for each season for strength/weakness of the league and strength/weakness of the Finals opponent. For instance, the '85 Lakers beat a really good Celtics team. Isn't that between 10-15 times more impressive than the '96 Bulls rolling through a terrible conference and beating a young Seattle team that was about 2 years away from peaking (and never did because Kemp went nuts)?
This is where I lose Bill. The fact that the ’85 Lakers beat a great team in the finals helps to substantiate their greatness. But the fact that the ’96 Bulls did not beat a team of the same caliber should not discount their greatness. It makes it more difficult to support, but it does not mean that they wouldn’t have beat the crap out of much much better team in that same position. Their greatness is not limited by that of their opponents, it just becomes more difficult to support (if that makes sense). That’s what Simmons viewpoint seems to be. I fail to see how the Lakers going through the Suns, Blazers and Nuggets before facing the Celtics in 1985 makes them world beaters (this is in response to the terrible conference comment). Was that great competition in the Western Conference? Simmons loves to just hide under the blanket statement of “everyone was good back then”. How historically great were the ’86 Rockets? Better than the '96 Sonics?
Does anyone ever say, "well the '85 Bears were good but they can't be considered one of the best teams because they beat a crappy Patriots team in the Super Bowl?" Of course not. It is fair to say the fact that they were not really tested on the biggest stage makes it difficult to gauge the team's ceiling.
Also the fix for Hollinger is the “Bill Simmons patented ‘what my gut says’ variable”.
Barrett (Nashville): Hey Bill, I understand your point about Hollinger's rating system, but yours is flawed as well. How do you define a "really good Celtics team" objectively? Sure, it's a fair assumption that they were better than the '96 Heat or Knicks, but how do you compare on a standardized basis? You can't, because if the entire league is subpar one year, you can only statistically compare it to itself.
Bill Simmons: You just described my problem with NBA stats in a nutshell: You cannot interprete the NBA solely through stats. It's inane. Too much depends on situations, talent levels from year to year, quality of teammates, circumstance and everything else. Stats are incredibly helpful, but at a certain point, you have to incorporate analysis, homework and opinion as well. The 2001 Lakers didn't peak until the playoffs, but they decimated a really good conference (an especially strong year for the West), crushed the Sixers in the Finals and trotted out a team with an unstoppable center at his absolute peak, as well as Kobe during a point in his career where he may have been his most valuable because he was still OK with being Robin to Shaq's Batman (and was still awesome by himself, as witnessed by the way he destroyed the Kings with the 48-point game in the playoffs).
I agree with Bill’s general point of NBA stats. It’s not like baseball.
If the 2001 Lakers didn’t peak until the playoffs started, shouldn’t that be a little bit of a knock on their greatness? I get that the stats from the 2001 season may not be the best representation of their ability, but it is a record of their performance, in many ways. I agree, those Lakers teams were great. Among the best ever. I just can’t unequivocally throw out that they are better than the ’96 Bulls.
Bill Simmons: Anyway, any scoring system that A) overvalues the '986 Bulls, and B) undervalues the 2001 Lakers needs to be tinkered with... that was my only point. I am confident that Hollinger will figure this out.
No backtracking, your point is clearly broader than that. Any scoring system that has the ’96 Bulls in the top 10 teams of all time, in your opinion, needs to be tinkered with. The problem is that if you polled all the players, coaches, writers, and used every statistical analysis, the overwhelming conclusion would be that they are in the top 5.
Messiah (NY): I don't understand one thing about your Malone argument. You said that he made it to the finals by default because the rest of the teams had finally declined, but you say the Bulls played in a horrible year for basketball in 96. How can both of those be true?
Bill Simmons: '96 thru '99 was the weakest stretch in the history of the league. the Jazz were heavily favored to come out of the West in '96, they choked against the Sonics.
Those Jazz teams (’97 and ’98) were good. You can’t decide now that they weren’t good teams. I have every confidence that if Jordan doesn’t un-retire those Jazz teams win back to back championships. Just like if Jordan doesn’t retire, the Houston Rockets probably don’t win any championships.
Also, they did not choke against the Sonics. The Sonics were good! They won 64 games! 9 more than the Jazz! How’s that a choke? You can’t just say that the ’96 through ’99 period was the weakest stretch in the history of the game. That’s crap. That’s just a convenient canvas to use to set up your anti-Bulls arguments. What was the strongest? Oh right, the period where your favorite player and favorite teams were good.
Vernon (Indianapolis): Sorry to keep harping on this issue, but you're way off on the '96 Bulls. Rodman was still very good (a hall-of-famer if he wasn't nuts), Ron Harper was solid, Kukoc was making the mold for Eastern Europeans everywhere and they still had the dynamic duo. And if you think p-o'ed Jordan in 1996 loses to anyone ever you haven't watched an NBA game in your life.
Vern-dog, I agree with you completely.
Bill Simmons: Congrats, but who's guarding Shaq on that team? Who's guarding McHale? Who's guarding Kareem? Shawn Kemp destroyed them in the Finals, what do you think those guys would have done?
Luc Longley is guarding Shaq, like he did in ’96 when they played the Magic in the playoffs. Dennis Rodman is guarding McHale, he was a good defender. I mean, Mchale will get his points but it's not like Rodman's any slouch there. Who the hell is guarding Jordan? The best scorer of all-time? Huh? I mean, no one could handle Mchale, but the Celtics lost games right? Oh right, there were a lot of Mchale stoppers in the 80's.
I mean, who’s guarding Shaq on the ’96 Bulls? This isn't THAT hypothetical! This happened. It can’t be the guy that actually guarded Shaq when they destroyed Shaq’s 60 win team can it? Shaq would eat up that guy! Yes, I know Shaq was better in '01, but I just found that amusing. That Bulls team had 3 lock-down defenders and outstanding team defense. They went through Mourning, Ewing and Shaq in those playoffs. I think that hurts your argument of them not being able to handle big men on defense.
I also love the revisionist history on Kemp. Kemp averaged about 20 and 11 during the regular season that year, shooting 56% from the floor. He was a very good player before he decided to focus on eating and making babies. He destroyed the Bulls to the tune of 24 and 10 on 55% shooting. This equals…..TOTAL DESTRUCTION!
Mike (Hartford): Who guards Shaq? Who guards Kareem? Who guards McHale? For crying out loud, who guards Jordan! I think you are grossly underestimaing the ability of a hungry Jordan (which is pretty much the only Jordan there is). I think Jordan was too mentally strong and the supporting cast was too competent to ever be defeated by anyone. Too much fire, too much willpower, too much Jordan that year.
Thanks, Mike.
Bill Simmons: Hey, I loved MJ, thought he was the best basketball player ever. But his career was unbelievably fortunate - he never faced Hakeem in his prime, or Shaq, or Duncan, or Moses... that team was constructed in a way that any big man and true point guard gave them trouble, but they never faced both at the same time.
This is just retarded. Can’t you flip that around and point out that virtually no one except Isiah’s Pistons succeeded against Jordan after he had 3 seasons under his belt? Oh right, there were no good players for 10 years. Or Bird was fortunate he didn’t have to face Shaq, Jerry West, Kobe Bryant, Duncan and Jordan (in his prime)? What is the point? Ask Barkley, Ewing, Stockton, Malone, and Drexler, all all-time greats, how they feel about playing in the Jordan era. I’m sure Hakeem would rather Jordan been out of the league (or mostly in ’95) than in it in ’94 and ’95 or he may not have those rings.
I've already discussed this problem with big men that you just made up. Gary Payton, John Stockton, and Jason Kidd are all-time great "true point guards" and I don't remember them giving the Bulls any real headaches. The 96-98 Bulls did not have problems with "true point guards", but you could argue they had some problems with really quick, smaller guards like Damon Stoudamire and Allen Iverson. I don't think this translates into Dennis Johnson and Magic. I think they are much better equipped to handle bigger guards that are not lightening quick penetrators.
Todd (Tucson): If the 2001 Lakers played the 1996 Bulls, would Ron Harper guard himself?
Bill Simmons: That would be fantastic.
The 2001 Harper would win though, because the Western Conference was THAT strong!
Cory-AZ: yea, the 1991 Lakers didn't have a great point guard in Magic, and a good enough center in a young Divac + Sam Perkins Combo...Also, Ewing and Starks werent good. I think Ewing is underrated reason being Jordan always destroyed him in his prime
Bill Simmons: Not a good example - the Lakers got killed by injuries in that series.
What?????? I’m not going to look anything up here, but I know that finals well. The Lakers were lucky to win game 1 (Perkins hit the three, Jordan’s 18 footer rimmed out). To my knowledge the Lakers got killed by injuries to the tune of James Worthy and Byron Scott having to sit out game 5. The Lakers were down 3-1. That series was done. That’s just nuts. They were both good players at the time but the Lakers had zero chance of winning games 5, 6 and 7.
Adam (chandler, az): Was watching the replay of game 4 87 finals (magic's skyhook), and heard this stat....the Lakers had won in the garden in 85, and since that point the C's were a ridiculous 94-3! I'm pretty sure either of those 2 teams would've handled the '96 Bulls
Bill Simmons: Me, too.
Look, those teams were great, but Bill has offered us nothing here. Who’s the greatest of all-time? I have no idea, but the ’96 Bulls are top 5, and much of what Bill’s saying is terribly misleading. If the ’86 Celtics played in Chicago and the ’96 Bulls played in Boston, who wants to guess how differently this line of questioning would have gone? He’d be talking about how he and J-bug were discussing that Jordan was to the NBA was Alton was to the Real World/Road Rules challenges or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)