The Book of Basketball (Bill Simmons)

[Andrew]

Got it for Christmas, just finished reading it this evening and was wondering if anyone else has given it a look.

I'd highly recommend it, well worth a read if you're a basketball fan and especially if you're a fan of Simmons' Page 2 stuff. I haven't always been his biggest fan but the book is pretty entertaining as much as it's a serious look at the game and the history of the NBA. Be prepared to read a lot of footnotes though as there's some funny asides in there. I have to say he did a pretty good job with the Pyramid, his concept for the Basketball Hall of Fame which doubled as a means of rating and ranking the top 96 players in the history of the league up until this point. There are a few errors here and there, dates that weren't double-checked and the like which are sometimes a bit distracting when they pop up but ultimately he makes solid arguments that give players from all eras their due.

[The X]

Sounds alright. I might give it a read when Sit lends it to me

[J@3]

I can't stand Simmons and don't take his basketball opinions seriously so I'm not sure if I'd like this but if I see it around I might pick it up.

[Fresh8]

Sounds alright. I might give it a read when Sit lends it to me

I'm stuck on chapter 3... heard it takes a while to get into it and I haven't really had a good chance to sit down and read it. Maybe will have better luck soon.

[Andrew]

I can't stand Simmons and don't take his basketball opinions seriously so I'm not sure if I'd like this but if I see it around I might pick it up.

I've felt that way at times but I was pleasantly surprised by the book. He's done a decent job of containing his homerism, too.

[Rip32]

I love Bill Simmons so I really liked the book. I got it in October and kind of got side tracked around the greatest players section, but I've since caught up and gotten to the #1 team of all time section. I think he has some fun ideas about basketball, which is something a lot of writers lack. It's guys like Simmons and SI NFL writer Peter King that aspire me to continue to major in Journalism in college despite the fact that it's a career that's continually shrinking here in the US.

My favorite parts of the book are the footnotes, they always make me laugh.

[benji]

It's guys like Simmons and SI NFL writer Peter King that aspire me to continue to major in Journalism in college despite the fact that it's a career that's continually shrinking here in the US.

Strange, considering what they do isn't journalism.

[shadowgrin]

He wants to make a better world and give credibility back to journalism after all what he's witnessed or read from them.
(that's how I interpret it)

[Rip32]

It's guys like Simmons and SI NFL writer Peter King that aspire me to continue to major in Journalism in college despite the fact that it's a career that's continually shrinking here in the US.

Strange, considering what they do isn't journalism.

Simmons maybe, but you say that about Peter King? I don't know how writing the most popular football column in America in the world's most popular sports publications isn't journalism. He reports too, something Simmons doesn't.

Regardless, my goal is to be them.

[Fresh8]

It's guys like Simmons and SI NFL writer Peter King that aspire me to continue to major in Journalism in college despite the fact that it's a career that's continually shrinking here in the US.

Strange, considering what they do isn't journalism.

Simmons maybe, but you say that about Peter King? I don't know how writing the most popular football column in America in the world's most popular sports publications isn't journalism. He reports too, something Simmons doesn't.

Regardless, my goal is to be them.

You don't need to wait, you can start now! In this day and age, anyone can be a journalist. Citizen journalism is the thing for the future.

[shadowgrin]

Sit has a point.

[benji]

Simmons maybe, but you say that about Peter King? I don't know how writing the most popular football column in America in the world's most popular sports publications isn't journalism.

They're sportswriters or columnists, they aren't journalists. I'd argue journalism is dispassionate, leaving much of what is considered journalism today really just advocacy or editorializing.

An English major would be better than a Journalism major to learn how to actually write. And as Sit hints, actually writing is better than both. Simmons got his start blogging for his own site. Because in the end, to be a writer, you have to be compelling, you can't learn that.

[Rip32]

They're sportswriters or columnists, they aren't journalists. I'd argue journalism is dispassionate, leaving much of what is considered journalism today really just advocacy or editorializing.

An English major would be better than a Journalism major to learn how to actually write. And as Sit hints, actually writing is better than both. Simmons got his start blogging for his own site. Because in the end, to be a writer, you have to be compelling, you can't learn that.

I see what you mean, I guess journalism to me is reporting the news (plus you can't major in sports writing). I figure with a Journalism major and Broadcasting minor, I may not be rolling in the dough once I find a job, but I'll at least be doing something I love.

You don't need to wait, you can start now! In this day and age, anyone can be a journalist. Citizen journalism is the thing for the future.

Believe me, I try lol. If I had 1/8 of the readers that tool Perez Hilton does, I'd be one happy man.

[J@3]

Regardless, my goal is to be them.

Your opinions on the NBA generally make sense, so you've already failed in becoming Simmons.

[Christopherson]

What about Simmons' basketball opinions do you not agree with?

Personally, I loved the book. If you care about the history of basketball, read the book.

[Oznogrd]

I personally love Simmons but you have to remember to take everything with a grain of salt. His columns can be totally utterly wrong, but at least their still amusing to read. Hence benji/others points about you dont have to be accurate, you have to be compelling. I love alot of his 'theories' for sheer laughs even though 3/4 of them are complete shit he makes up from week to week.

[benji]

What about Simmons' basketball opinions do you not agree with?

From a mailbag last year:

Q: Why won't you understand shooting percentages? 33 percent from beyond the arc is the equivalent of 50 percent from within. If a guy shot 50 percent from the field, would you be killing him for shooting? Of course not. You obviously realize how stupid that would be. Yet that's what you've been doing -- FOR YEARS -- with your mind-boggling argument against 3-point shooting unless the guy can hit 75 percent of his 3s. Just think about it for a couple of seconds. Please ... we are begging you.
-- Nick, New York

SG: Dozens of readers e-mailed me Nick's same stupid argument in a similarly condescending way, which is what makes the following so much fun: I'm not stupid, YOU'RE STUPID. That 33/50 logic only makes sense in a professional basketball league in which they aren't calling fouls and you aren't allowed to pass to a teammate ... which, as far as I can tell, doesn't currently exist.

Let's say that one player attempts 12 3-pointers and makes four (for 12 points). His teammate attempts 12 2-pointers and makes six, but during that time -- because he's not standing 25 feet away jacking up 3s like an idiot -- he also draws three fouls on his defender, creates two assists for teammates, makes three of four free throws, turns the ball over once, and misses one layup that gets tapped in by a teammate (we'll call it 19 points). You're telling me those two scenarios are equal? If I'm playing LeBron (a 31 percent 3-point shooter), ideally, I want him jacking up contested 3s because that means (A) he's not getting to the line, (B) he's not getting my guys in foul trouble, and (C) he's not potentially creating shots for someone else. I can't defend LeBron when he's going to the basket, especially if he's getting calls. But you know what? If he's happy shooting 3s from 25 feet with a hand in his face, then I'm delighted. This is great. I want him to do that. And if he's doing something that the other team WANTS him to do, then he's doing the wrong thing. I'm fine with shooting 24-footers over 20-footers, but getting into the paint will always be more valuable than jacking up 3s. It's just a fact.

(Note to Nick and everyone else who mailed me the 33/50 argument: I'm doing the Dikembe finger wave at you. Don't come into my house.)

Hence benji/others points about you dont have to be accurate, you have to be compelling.

And no matter what, people will still spend hours fisking your columns:
http://bottom-of-the-barrel.blogspot.co ... ter%20King
http://bottom-of-the-barrel.blogspot.co ... %20Simmons

[Christopherson]

Please benji, elaborate, what is so bad about LeBron going into the paint and getting layups/free throws instead of jacking up threes? I'm all for a guy like LeBron shooting threes when he has a chance to get set, I'm sure his percentages on the shots are just fine. In fact, I think he is probably a good enough shooter that those threes would be incredibly advantageous and efficient. However, LeBron also shots a lot of off-the-dribble pull up fade away heat check three pointers which aren't good shots.

One thing that I think Simmons understands is that there will ALWAYS be a part of basketball that cannot be explained by numbers, and I am a huge numbers fan. Sometimes, you can't determine if a shot was a good shot purely based on the numbers. You have to consider the qualitative effect it has on the other players in the game. Things like, how hard do I want to work to try and get that rebound? Am I a little bit pissed he took that shot so early in the clock when I had a mismatch on the block? Did the defense get to rest for a possession because they weren't attacked? We can't measure these things now, and I don't believe we ever will be able to. Anyone who has ever played a lot of basketball knows these things matter in a game and a season.

[benji]

But that's not the argument he's arguing against. People have been trying for years to make Simmons aware that shooting 33% from three is not like shooting 33% from two, it's actually equivalent to shooting 50%.

He responds to this by creating a hypothetical in which one player shoots 33% from three and does nothing else vs. a player who shoots 50% from two and does lots of other things. Which is a completely separate argument and really more of a non sequitur than an argument.

Shooting threes does not preclude a player from doing other things (see: Shawn Marion and Chauncey Billups for near ideal examples) anymore than you could take a player who does nothing but shoot long two-point jumpers on offense and use that as an indictment of the idea of taking two-point shots.

Indeed, this started originally from his criticism of Billups as a lousy offensive player, which I think started back in 2006. Simmons brought it up constantly how Billups shot only 42% and it was all his three point attempts which were 5 out of 12.5 of his attempts hurting the Pistons. If Simmons understood the argument that Nick sent him, he'd realize that Billups was shooting at an effective rate of 51%. Not only that but if he understood Billups he'd realize that Billups got to the line at the same rate he bombed threes and was a sure thing at the line, so his true shooting was 60%. 6th in the league, and combined with Billups low turnovers and 8.5 assists a game gave him the best offensive rating in the league.

So even though Billups jacked up threes at a high rate, he was still getting to the line and dishing assists, something that Simmons seems to believe someone who takes three pointers cannot do.

And really, if you look at the leaders in three point attempts over the last decade, you get guys like Jason Richardson, Ray Allen, Antoine Walker, Gilbert Arenas, Gary Payton. I don't think any of these guys were criticized for their lack of activity on offense and standing in one place bombing threes. (And half of them have been criticized for trying to do too much on offense and not doing more sitting and bombing. And it holds going back, Larry Bird once led the league in three point attempts. I doubt Simmons would ever think to criticize the Basketball Jesus.)

One thing that I think Simmons understands is that there will ALWAYS be a part of basketball that cannot be explained by numbers

He's a fair-weather friend to stats when they completely agree with him. And he manipulates them like nobody's business to support his opinions. Nobody actually argues the counter to this opinion anyway, so it's a straw-man.

Side Note: Good to see you back around, one of the handful of people on here that can make good posts and have good discussion/debate. (Even if we play devil's advocate with each other a lot.)

[Christopherson]

I guess I was unaware of his ongoing rant against 33% 3point shooters, or the Billups criticism.

Are there any other big Simmons beefs you have?

I really loved the idea of the secret in his book. I played on a team in high school who had complete grasp of the secret. We had no business playing in a state title game based on talent. Hell, we were better the year before on an individual talent basis. But we "got it" as a team that year. We clicked. We didn't win because our stats were good. Our stats were good because we won. That doesn't make any sense, and I can't explain it, but well fuck it. You ether get what I am saying or you don't.

For the record, I would have fucking hated to play with a guy like Antoine Walker or Gilbert Arenas.

[benji]

I don't hate Simmons, I'm in the illini (Oznogrd) camp in terms of finding him enjoyable to read. I really like his Trade Value, Draft Diaries, the big ones more than mailbags, etc. I'm used to reading things I disagree with but I like Simmons train of thought style, I used to read a lot more sports writing but it's basically just him anymore since it's mostly all insufferable. I considered getting his book and almost did when it was so cheap on Amazon, but got something else with my small "fancy things" budget.

And even the above is not really a beef. The only issue I took is that he kept repeating this until he finally broke and then gave the above argument instead of actually addressing the point. (Plus he was so fucking arrogant with the "UR STUPID" and "MUTOMBO FINGER")

I'm not actually anywhere near the stats-are-everything proponent my posts would make me seem, but we're discussing things we aren't participating in that we don't have symmetrical information on. In such a case, I think the hard data that describes players over a larger sample is more valuable than the opinions of someone who caught a couple games on ABC or just made them up based on prior preconceptions.

The problem with Walker isn't that he uses so many possessions, it's that he uses so many of them poorly. LeBron James uses a lot of possessions, but only...certain people...complain about that.

[J@3]

What about Simmons' basketball opinions do you not agree with?

I don't read his articles anymore so nothing recent comes to mind, but a lot of his predictions and general declarations are generally way off. Back when I enjoyed him he was just an average fan who was extremely funny, and now he's become an average fan who's fairly funny but is convinced he's an expert on the sport. His humour also became dominated by excessive pop-culture references from the late 80's-mid 90's, it used to show up here and there but at one point you couldn't get through an article without having to read 3 paragraphs about Beverly Hills 90210 or the Karate Kid.

God knows if he's improved, the last thing of his I remember reading was that the Milwaukee Bucks would win 19 games this season. They are currently at 18.

[jonthefon]

IMO, Simmons is pretty solid outside of his homerism and his lack of knowledge of baseball. Granted, there are times where he gives some shit opinions or he's just ignorant, but hey, he's putting himself out in the open and mostly his columns are funny. That LeBron column was a stinker though.

[The X]

I'm a big fan of his draft diaries (always a must read) & his references to his father & his mate House or whatever he's called. But like any columnist, there will be things you do agree with & don't agree with. I definitely don't agree with the 3pt argument since it lacks any logic. He got given facts & then added a whole range of assumptions that weren't relevant & didn't actually assist his position.

All that being said, I do plan to hit up Sit to read the book in next couple of months.

[Andrew]

His humour also became dominated by excessive pop-culture references from the late 80's-mid 90's, it used to show up here and there but at one point you couldn't get through an article without having to read 3 paragraphs about Beverly Hills 90210 or the Karate Kid.

It's not too bad in the book, the pop culture comparisons weren't too intrusive and usually funny and apt. It is something he can get carried away with at times but I suppose that's his trademark.