It's weird
I think I have the opposite reaction to Simmons.
My interest in baseball has peaked along with my interest in sabermetrics. To each his own.

Though he makes a really good point about other sports. Baseball really does have the perfect storm of individual isolation that allows for pretty accurate player assessment. It's one of the reasons I can't really get that into hockey. I don't know enough about hockey to accurately assess players, and aside from a lifetime of watching games, I don't really have access to the kind of information I do on baseball players.

I find it a lot harder to enjoy conversations that are purely opinion based. I want some facts to chew on!

Fact: Bill Simmons is a Clippers fan.
Fact: He will claim he is not a Clippers fan despite buying season tickets for the past 7 years.
Fact: He will constantly tweet, update his blog, write in his columns how much of a hack Mike Dunleavy is.

And if you judged stuff by stats, you would think Wilt was better than Russell

Oh, cripes...

Uh, I would think Bill Russell would say Wilt was a better player too.

Uh, I would think Bill Russell would say Wilt was a better player too.

Count the ringzzzzzz11111111

Simmons seems like he needs to justify why he likes or doesn't like something. So you get 5000 words on why The Hills or 90210 is interesting when they really aren't. It can't be that HE likes or doesn't like something, it's that whatever he likes or currently doesn't like has some wide-sweeping implications for the culture. I think he's a good writer, but sometimes the egotism gets laid on pretty thick. (Also, do you ever get the feeling that when Chuck Klosterman and Simmons met, it was love at first sight like it was between Mark Wahlberg and John C. O'Reilly in Boogie Nights?) Oh ####! I'm becoming Bill Simmons!

Like it or not, a lot of people felt that Wilt always folded when he went up against Russell. I believe that the head-to-head stats don't show that but for some reason a lot of old-timers will make that claim. I think a lot of people thought Wilt was soft and unwilling to play defense, possibly due to him never getting ejected or fouling out. I haven't seen enough of Wilt to know if that was true but it's certainly true that if he was a sieve on defense, his value would be less than it would appear.

However, a guy who had was able to lead the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and assists is obviously a very talented player. (Although, on the downside, Wilt's scoring efficiency was not off the charts, but Russell's was far worse so that isn't applicable to the Wilt/Russell argument.)

I believe that the head-to-head stats don't show that but for some reason a lot of old-timers will make that claim.

Andy, please pick up the white courtesy phone. We would text or tweet at you, but I'm sure you don't know how that works. ;-

It's one of the reasons I can't really get that into hockey.

Interestingly (maybe), that's exactly why I am into hockey. The subjective views on players who aren't as skilled, but find success based on their tenacity. It tends to rely more on those intangibles that usually gets mocked here (and rightfully so most times). Bad bounces, broken sticks, crossbars, goals off defensemen's skates.

It's a good counter-balance to the more measurable baseball.

I just googled their head to head numbers (I hope they're accurate):

Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in 10 years. Russell won 88, Wilt won 74. Wilt averaged 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds vs. Russell. Russell averaged 14.5 and 23.7 vs. Wilt.

If accurate, it seems that Russell was able to limit Wilt's scoring a little but Wilt stepped up his rebounding, whereas Russell got right around his average numbers.


Either way, Kareem is the best C of all-time so the Wilt/Russell thing is pretty irrelevant. ;)

It can't be that HE likes or doesn't like something, it's that whatever he likes or currently doesn't like has some wide-sweeping implications for the culture.

I guess I never get that myself as much as he seems to promote some kind of wide-level yet shallow application. I don't think he finds 90210 deeply important to the culture as much as it's very important to him, some of his generation, and some of his friends but realizes it isn't that important ultimately. Now, he DOES have an ego about the sports stuff, and as far as basketball he definitely pays attention so his opinions are well-researched and lived in, so I give them validity there. I think he tosses off the pop-culture stuff.

I really did like the article on his dog, but I'm a sucker for stuff like that. I like his writing myself, and I know that he's a liberal sort; but I'd love to read him in ten years about talking about being insulting and dismissive to female basketball players when his daughter starts playing.

Yes, the WNBA hate is hard to fathom. I can understand not enjoying it, but why the antipathy?

Either way, Kareem is the best C of all-time so the Wilt/Russell thing is pretty irrelevant. ;)

This.

My favorite part of the interview is the constant use of brackets. I guess AV club readers don't know the first thing about basketball [a sport where you score points by throwing a ball throw through a hoop].

I like Simmons, but it sounds like his problem with baseball is that it's harder to have *dumb* opinions you pull out your butt. Also, he rips sports radio for being a big hatefest, but isn't "ARod/Peyton is a choking dog" *exactly* the sort of junk you'd hear on low-level sports radio?

Simmons seems like he needs to justify why he likes or doesn't like something. So you get 5000 words on why The Hills or 90210 is interesting when they really aren't. It can't be that HE likes or doesn't like something, it's that whatever he likes or currently doesn't like has some wide-sweeping implications for the culture. I think he's a good writer, but sometimes the egotism gets laid on pretty thick.

Well, that's kind of his shtick, and that's what his readers want - I don't think it's egotism. I doubt when his wife asks him what he wants for breakfast he pontificates about the cultural impact of Cheerios.

I do think sometimes he tries to hard to draw meaning from things because he feels like he has to, e.g., some ulterior motive for a team signing a certain player or a TV show having a plot twist.

So maybe I'm agreeing with you. But I don't think he thinks his opinions are important, just that he makes these conclusions and writes about them -- some are oddly fascinating and some are stupid.

I like Simmons, but it sounds like his problem with baseball is that it's harder to have *dumb* opinions you pull out your butt.

This.

Well, not the part about liking Simmons, but the rest of it.

I cant stand him anymore - especially his whole "I hate baseball" ####

I love the AV Club though - always a frequent visitor there - especially the TV section after a good episode of Mad Men or eastbound and Down

In my opinion, it’s not even that fun to follow baseball anymore, because you’re not allowed to have any opinions. You have to look up every opinion you’re supposed to have. “Oh, is A-Rod clutch? Let me look that up. Yes, he’s hitting .356 in the clutch. So I guess that means he’s clutch.” What’s fun about it? It’s like algebra.

Is he ####### serious with this ####???

His columns are like ####### algebra - all the same ####### crap every single time

I kind of agree with the overall sentiment, although not the specific examples he gave. I like a good flash in the pan, and I could do without the constant reminders that he's going to regress to the mean.

Fact: Bill Simmons is a Clippers fan.
Fact: He will claim he is not a Clippers fan despite buying season tickets for the past 7 years.
Fact: He will constantly tweet, update his blog, write in his columns how much of a hack Mike Dunleavy is.

Well, I go to a lot of Red Sox games. Not a season ticket holder, but I would if time and money allowed. But I'm not a Red Sox fan. I go because I love baseball, and love seeing baseball games. I don't want to fly all the way down to Atlanta every time I want to see baseball played in person. I assume its the same with Simmons - he loves basketball, he lives in L.A., so there you go. I think he works the Dunleavy thing more for the humor angle, and because he loves to rag on managers he thinks are bad.

Well, I go to a lot of Red Sox games. Not a season ticket holder, but I would if time and money allowed. But I'm not a Red Sox fan. I go because I love baseball, and love seeing baseball games. I don't want to fly all the way down to Atlanta every time I want to see baseball played in person. I assume its the same with Simmons - he loves basketball, he lives in L.A., so there you go. I think he works the Dunleavy thing more for the humor angle, and because he loves to rag on managers he thinks are bad.

And I think he feels bad for Clippers fans. It's like the same sympathy people here extend to Royals and Pirates fans.

I like Simmons, but it sounds like his problem with baseball is that it's harder to have *dumb* opinions you pull out your butt. Also, he rips sports radio for being a big hatefest, but isn't "ARod/Peyton is a choking dog" *exactly* the sort of junk you'd hear on low-level sports radio?

I would agree. It's the George Carlin bit about people driving slower than you being idiots and faster being maniacs. He's smarter than the talk-radio guys, so he doesn't like their act, but he's not as good as evaluation as many stats guys (even at basketball), so he dislikes them as well.

I have no dog in this fight really, but Simmons is right about one thing. Mike Dunleavy is a really, really, really bad coach.

I have no dog in this fight really, but Simmons is right about one thing. Mike Dunleavy is a really, really, really bad coach.

Agreeing is Raja Bell.

One of my favorite things about basketball is that you can’t break it down into some sort of science that makes total sense.

You know what? I absolutely agree with this.

Personality and creativity are important forces in basketball, in a way that they can never be in baseball.

Agreeing is Raja Bell.

I love that Doug Collins laughs after pointing out that Dunleavy subbed in Daniel Ewing.

The interview is far less painful than I expected.

Like it or not, a lot of people felt that Wilt always folded when he went up against Russell. I believe that the head-to-head stats don't show that but for some reason a lot of old-timers will make that claim.

Andy, please pick up the white courtesy phone. We would text or tweet at you, but I'm sure you don't know how that works. ;-

As you know as well as anyone, robin, basketball can't be reduced to individual statistics to nearly the same extent as baseball can. (And even in baseball, it has its limits.) Wilt was the greatest one-on-one center who ever lived, and if they ever had decided to make basketball a one-on-one contest, Wilt would have owned Russell and everyone else not named Hakeem or Shaq.

Until that time, however.....

Personality and creativity are important forces in basketball, in a way that they can never be in baseball.

Well, creativity is a lot easier to express in a game that's free flowing, but even with that, I'm not sure that Pedro or Maddux would have to take a back seat in creativity to any basketball player, even Jordan.

In my opinion, it’s not even that fun to follow baseball anymore, because you’re not allowed to have any opinions. You have to look up every opinion you’re supposed to have. “Oh, is A-Rod clutch? Let me look that up. Yes, he’s hitting .356 in the clutch. So I guess that means he’s clutch.” What’s fun about it? It’s like algebra.

Hmmm... let's see, in October 2007, immediately following the World Series, Simmons had the following to say about baseball:

This time around, if you loved the Red Sox, you simply watched the games and savored the chance to follow such a likable, entertaining team. You didn't have to worry about Fox bringing up Babe Ruth every 30 seconds; you weren't worrying about the various ways the Sox could potentially break your heart; and you weren't thinking about things like, "Am I hyperventilating right now?" and "Should I nudge my Dad to make sure he's still alive?"

No, you were marvelling at the little things that make baseball so great -- like Pedroia's freakishly fast hands at second base, Manny's surreal ability to turn a two-strike count into an advantage, Youkilis grinding down relievers with those 11-pitch at-bats, Beckett practically snarling as he waits for his next sign. There was even a signature moment of the playoffs: Drew's improbable grand slam at the beginning of Game 6, the unforgettable instant when everything started to make sense even as absolutely nothing was making sense.

Those looks like fun opinions to me. And he pulled his 3-year old daughter out of bed to watch the last out of the World Series.

Unless there was some major statistical revolution between 2007 and 2009 that I missed, I'm tempted to think that the Sports Guy's fading interest in the sport might have some relationship to his favorite team not winning the championship the last couple of years.

I've written a few times about my antipathy towards Simmons, mostly focusing on his glibness, shallowness, and incredible self-importance masked by a friendly over-grown frat boy persona. Some of the comments people are making in response to this interview have helped me hone that opinion a bit finer. I think that comment about what would happen when he met Klosterman kind of did it.

I started disliking him back when he was the Boston Sports Guy. Part of it was that he was prone to the same kind of whinging about how woe-begotten the Sox and Sox fans were, something that offended me deeply. Part of it was what I noted above, the glibness, the shallowness, etc. But now I remember what really took the cake. Above all else Bill prized his sycophantic readers, and in return stroked them like a thirteen year old discovering himself for the first time. His "Yes folks, these are my readers" mailbags were replete with MBS's from Bill to reader and back again. It was pretty nauseating.

Anyway, from my seat of ignorance he does seem to know basketball well and that's confirmed by people I know who clearly know the game. He's been wildly successful at doing what he loves, and my distaste is in the minority.

Still, he's the sports world equivalent of Malcolm Gladwell and I'm not a fan in the slightest.

#12: It's not that Simmons hates the WNBA itself as much as he hates the NBA's efforts to keep promoting it years after it's been made clear that it's just not taking off as a sustainable league.

I love the AV Club though - always a frequent visitor there - especially the TV section after a good episode of Mad Men or eastbound and Down

I have especially enjoyed their end-of-the-decade best of tv reviews.

I'm tempted to think that the Sports Guy's fading interest in the sport might have some relationship to his favorite team not winning the championship the last couple of years.

I would think it's the opposite. He got complacent and lazy. I think he wrote four Baseball articles in the last two years. One to defend Manny, one about how Manny's steroid accusations crushed his memories and one that was some kind of acceptance (it's like the stages of death!) when Ortiz's accusations came out.

Four articles in two years? *&*% you Simmons. We don't need you. Go back to rooting for the Bruins, who you swore never to support as long as the current owners had them.

Simmons has this annoying tendency to cast himself as some kind of lone martyr, bravely dissenting from the conventional wisdom. This Wilt-Russell thing is a good example. I have no dog or interest in that fight, beyond noting with some bemusement the ferocity with which Boston fans will argue the point. But almost every time I hear or read a commentator commentating on the issue, it's to say Russell was better. Clutchness and big game performance and choking and yada yada yada. They may or may not be right. I don't know. And literally every time Simmons references Wilt-Russell (which he's done plenty of times in his column), it's to: A. trumpet the Russell arguments, and B. complain about how no one gets it. He even says in TFA he was shocked, SHOCKED that everyone he talked to agreed with him.

It was the same sort of thing when he was on his Manning jihad in the early part of the decade. Every NFL column included a slighting reference to Peyton Manning, usually in comparison to Brady, and they all featured some aside like, "Why won't anyone say this?" Well, again, everyone was saying it. If you owned a television, radio or computer at the time and didn't come across someone throwing out the "choker" label on Manning you just weren't paying attention.

It's as if persecution is a central part of his narrative. And I'm sure that's how he sees himself, the regular guy, telling it how it is even though the clueless mainstream media doesn't get it. In reality, most of his insight is squarely within the mainstream conversation. He expresses it in an entertaining way, but he's not Martin Luther calling out the Catholic Church at the Diet of Worms. He's not the first person to suffer from this sort of thing. And in the long run, a persecution complex isn't that big a deal. Simmons is a sportswriter, after all. It's not like he can launch ICBMs at the people who annoy him.

Unless there was some major statistical revolution between 2007 and 2009 that I missed, I'm tempted to think that the Sports Guy's fading interest in the sport might have some relationship to his favorite team not winning the championship the last couple of years.

He's talked about this on his podcast, but not as much in his columns. And you're largely right, it does have to do with the Red Sox more than anything. However, it's not so much their fading fortunes (which, compared with most teams, have not faded at all). Simmons says that the Sox teams of a few years ago were more filled with a Kevin Millar-fed happy go lucky attitude, and since 2004 that has declined. Meanwhile, the Yankees, which he always viewed as terribly buttoned down, got to be (this year largely because of Nick Swisher) a happy go lucky team. Also, because of the PED revelations about Manny and Papi, he lost all of his fandom for those individuals, which he really had earlier.

Well, creativity is a lot easier to express in a game that's free flowing, but even with that, I'm not sure that Pedro or Maddux would have to take a back seat in creativity to any basketball player, even Jordan.

Yes, pitchers are the exception to the rule.

If you RTFA, you will note Simmons adds this, something I partly agree with: "That’s why I don’t even really go to other games (besides hoops) anymore, other sports. ... Baseball depends on the seats, and these games are so freaking long now that, I don’t know, I’d rather watch them at home, for the most part. If I lived near Fenway, I’d want to go to games."

Baseball games are too long. The pace of the games is pathetically slow. It just keeps getting worse. However, other than a few blow-outs, long baseball games at good ballparks don't bother me so much as long, slow games on TV bother me. I would not rather sit at home and watch a baseball game on TV ever.

Simmons has this annoying tendency to cast himself as some kind of lone martyr, bravely dissenting from the conventional wisdom. This Wilt-Russell thing is a good example. I have no dog or interest in that fight, beyond noting with some bemusement the ferocity with which Boston fans will argue the point. But almost every time I hear or read a commentator commentating on the issue, it's to say Russell was better.

I completely agree with this. I'm surprised that Simmons thinks he's going against conventional wisdom here.

I'll say one thing that I find anti-conventional wisdom and completely wrong: Simmons' take that John Stockton was not a a great player, just a very good one. I don't know how anyone can justify that idea. I mean sometimes I feel like using the super idiotic "A Time to Kill" argument with Simmons. "Close your eyes. Now imagine he was a Celtic." If Simmons did that, he's understand Stockton's greatness.

#32 - I can see everything you're saying except the self-importance part. As noted already, he can be glib, shallow and fickle, but as for self-important or arrogant, I don't see it. I'm curious what makes you think that.

I think a lot of people here don't like him because he's so fickle when it comes to baseball. But to be fair, he's not a real "sportswriter" so I think he can get away with it. He knows a shitload about basketball and a decent amount about football. He doesn't know much about baseball. I respect the fact that he doesn't pretend to, unlike many writers who try to make their voice heard on anything sports.

Simmons has this annoying tendency to cast himself as some kind of lone martyr, bravely dissenting from the conventional wisdom. This Wilt-Russell thing is a good example. I have no dog or interest in that fight, beyond noting with some bemusement the ferocity with which Boston fans will argue the point. But almost every time I hear or read a commentator commentating on the issue, it's to say Russell was better.

I completely agree with this. I'm surprised that Simmons thinks he's going against conventional wisdom here.

Depends on whose "conventional wisdom" you're talking about. To the extent that winners usually determine history's narrative, I guess you could say that the CW does favor Russell. But where do all those MVP's fit into this? Russell won five of those, but Wilt won four. And nearly every time I've heard some ESPN argument about it, it's just that: an argument, with Wilt defenders throwing up those individual numbers just as heatedly as Russell's defenders throw up those rings. About the only thing you might say where the CW favors Russell pretty decisively is among his contemporaries, and even there they're almost always certain to qualify it by saying that Wilt was the more dominant one-on-one force. Russell himself never denied that, though Tripon (and others) sometimes misinterpret that to mean that "Russell 'admits' that Wilt was a 'better' player," which of course is not the same thing.

And here's where Simmons' point about basketball vs baseball is so well taken. You've got a similar longstanding argument in baseball about Williams and Dimaggio, only it's different in that unlike Wilt vs. Russell, where the division has always been fairly close, in the baseball comparison it's gone from a nearly unanimous favoring of Dimaggio to a fairly solid consensus that Ted was the more valuable of the two.

Part of that shift is due to the longevity factor (it's tough to argue that all those extra seasons don't make Ted the clear Career Value choice), but much of it is simply due to the gradual acceptance of a more sophisticated statistical take on the concept of "value," with walks in particular being noted and valued in a way that they never were in the period when they were both still active.

Which means that even though on a park-neutralized basis, the difference between their rate stats in nearly all respects is a LOT closer than their raw numbers might lead us to believe (see Allen Barra's book for a good breakdown of that), the key factor of all those extra Williams walks gives him a decisive edge in terms of overall offensive value. And even though in part those extra walks came about because Williams had less protection in the lineup than Dimaggio did, and because the Yankees determined that Dimaggio would contribute more value to his team by putting more balls in play. A mistaken concept, perhaps, but in the light of his team's continued success (9 championships in 13 years) it would have been tough to say that at the time.

The point here is that there's no basketball number corresponding to walks. No number that would add to a re-evaluation of Wilt in a way that would show his "real" value was greater than his contemporaries realized. Which means that we've got an argument that's not likely ever to be settled with a consensual Final Judgment.

Although any serious basketball fan will, of course, realize that Simmons is right. Wilt was a choker and Russ was a winner.(smile)

Well, that's kind of his shtick, and that's what his readers want - I don't think it's egotism. I doubt when his wife asks him what he wants for breakfast he pontificates about the cultural impact of Cheerios.

This made me feel sympathy for Chuck Klosterman's wife.

I love the AV Club though - always a frequent visitor there - especially the TV section after a good episode of Mad Men or eastbound and Down

Seconded. I also enjoy their podcasts.

#32 - I can see everything you're saying except the self-importance part.

His reader letter columns, full of how hip we are versus how square they are sentiments.

His previously mentioned habit of portraying himself as the lone voice of reason surrounded by ignoramii.

I'd add more, but it's really a style thing. I hated the movie Swingers. Simmons loved it, and seems to want to be Vince Vaughan. I'm not into it.

Depends on whose "conventional wisdom" you're talking about. To the extent that winners usually determine history's narrative, I guess you could say that the CW does favor Russell

I am 28 and every time I've heard this argument in my life, it's been in favor of Russell and a lesson on teamwork/intelligence/defense/clutchness whatever.

On another, stupider board I once read a member say that "Wilt Chamberlain never won anything. He was a glorified Derick Coleman." The kid was probably 16 and of course had never seen a minute of either Russel or Chamberlain playing basketball, but the fact that he was so unstudied and yet seemed so certain on this issue gives you an idea of how decisively sports culture takes Russell's side.

Baseball games are too long. The pace of the games is pathetically slow. It just keeps getting worse. However, other than a few blow-outs, long baseball games at good ballparks don't bother me so much as long, slow games on TV bother me. I would not rather sit at home and watch a baseball game on TV ever.

I don't disagree with this, but basketball fans complaining about baseball's pace of game issues is the pot calling the kettle black. Ever watched the last two minutes of a basketball game?

In baseball, players decide the pace and time of the game. Yankee-Red Sox games are five hours long because the players decide to make it that long.

In basketball, the refs decide the pace and time, mostly through foul calls.

In basketball, the refs decide the pace and time, mostly through foul calls.

Except towards the end of games, when teams start deliberately fouling the opposition to stop the clock.

Depends on whose "conventional wisdom" you're talking about. To the extent that winners usually determine history's narrative, I guess you could say that the CW does favor Russell

I am 28 and every time I've heard this argument in my life, it's been in favor of Russell and a lesson on teamwork/intelligence/defense/clutchness whatever.

On another, stupider board I once read a member say that "Wilt Chamberlain never won anything. He was a glorified Derick Coleman." The kid was probably 16 and of course had never seen a minute of either Russel or Chamberlain playing basketball, but the fact that he was so unstudied and yet seemed so certain on this issue gives you an idea of how decisively sports culture takes Russell's side.

But again, it depends on what you mean by "conventional wisdom." If you listen to sports talk radio in Boston, it means one thing. OTOH if you ask people with a bit more knowledge on the subject, the majority of them would probably still favor Russell, but it wouldn't be nearly so one-sided, and it would almost always be qualified by acknowledging Wilt's one-on-one superiority.

In fact, one of the better books of its type, Elliot Kalb's Who's Better Who's Best, rates Wilt above Russell, but below Shaq (in terms of "best player"). He doesn't convince me, but what's important to note is that he based his opinion in part on interviews with hundreds of their contemporaries, who did seem to favor Russell, but not by any great margin. That's certainly part of "conventional wisdom," isn't it? "Conventional wisdom" can't always be reduced to the lowest common denominator of the yahoos who call into sports talk radio. In this case it's really a remarkably mixed set of opinions---which shouldn't be surprising in the case of two historically great players whose greatness is defined by radically different standards.

I'm no prude, but is it really necessary for him to drop so many f-bombs (similar to Andy bypassing this site's nanny for no real reason)? I've noticed this a few times while he's been promoting the book.

But the original point was that Simmons was treating the idea that Wilt was superior as conventional wisdom. Even if we grant you the idea that it is a slippery term, the point about Simmons' pseudo contrarianism stands.

Speaking of conventional wisdom, is the idea that Stockton is a great player safe?

Yeah. I mean, Stockton's a clear HoF guy right?

Doris, it's impossible for me not to read your posts in her coughing voice. May she rest in peace.

I don't know if it's necessary but he knows his audience it seems. Maybe it's a strategy being pushed by his publisher?

About the only thing you might say where the CW favors Russell pretty decisively is among his contemporaries, and even there they're almost always certain to qualify it by saying that Wilt was the more dominant one-on-one force.

For what it's worth, Rick Barry, who was a contemporary (but 8 years behind), strongly believes Wilt was much better than Russell. Barry used to say on his radio show that if Wilt had played on those Celtics teams, the Celtics would have won as many championships and more games per season. No way to know if that is right or not. But Barry (who perhaps has some bias* on this question) felt very strongly that Wilt was superior in every respect.

*I don't know if he has a personal grudge. He was never a teammate of either Chamberlain or Russell, but (being that a lot of people hated Rick Barry in his time) it's not impossible that a bias informs Rick's view of them.

Yeah. I mean, Stockton's a clear HoF* guy right?

He was voted in his first year of eligibility, this year. Also, it does not hurt when you are the all-time career Assists leader by 50% more Assists than second place and it is likely that no one will pass you for another generation:

1. John Stockton* 15806
2. Mark Jackson 10334
3. Jason Kidd 10274
4. Magic Johnson* 10141
5. Oscar Robertson* 9887
6. Isiah Thomas* 9061
7. Gary Payton 8966
8. Rod Strickland 7987
9. Steve Nash 7623
10. Maurice Cheeks 7392

Vaughan, scotto? You've got DMB on your brain.

I have mixed feelings about the man, but I thought the basketball book was really good. That said, Barra already did a whole chapter on Wilt vs. Russell. I may have to reread that book to compare the two essays.

But the original point was that Simmons was treating the idea that Wilt was superior as conventional wisdom. Even if we grant you the idea that it is a slippery term, the point about Simmons' pseudo contrarianism stands.

But where in this interview does Simmons say anything about conventional wisdom being on either side of the question? All he says that "if you judged stuff by stats, you would think Wilt was better than Russell," which is a point that's pretty hard to argue with, since that's what Wilt's backers always rely on. Perhaps he writes in the book about Wilt's being the CW choice (which I haven't yet read), but I don't see him saying that here.

For what it's worth, Rick Barry, who was a contemporary (but 8 years behind), strongly believes Wilt was much better than Russell. Barry used to say on his radio show that if Wilt had played on those Celtics teams, the Celtics would have won as many championships and more games per season. No way to know if that is right or not. But Barry (who perhaps has some bias* on this question) felt very strongly that Wilt was superior in every respect.

I have no question that if Wilt had played on those Celtics teams, and had altered his game accordingly to fit in with his teammates, the Celtics would have won just as many titles as they did under Russell. But that's a big "if," even though Auerbach could be a very persuasive coach.

But if Chamberlain had taken those 1965-69 Celtics teams, and had stuck with the style he used for the first half of his career---and if Russell had had Jackson, Walker, Jones, Greer and Cunningham to work with, I doubt if the Celtics would have won anything.

I have no idea what Barry meant by what he said, but then as a forward who was as close to Wilt in terms of talent and moodiness as you could get, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he identified with Chamberlain, both as a player and as a human being. His pouting performance in that final game of the 1976 Western finals against Phoenix was more than a little reminiscent of how Chamberlain played in that final game of the 1968 Eastern finals.

In basketball, there's a lot of motion, but it just doesn't go anywhere. Make a really dynamic, amazing play? Woo, you get maybe 2% of the winning total for the game.

But where in this interview does Simmons say anything about conventional wisdom being on either side of the question?

In the interview he says:

The one thing I’ve been surprised about is that I really thought the Russell/Wilt chapter was going to be controversial. But the consensus from people who read that seems to be, “Oh my God, you totally swayed me.” I presented such a compelling case for Russell. I haven’t heard a counter-argument yet.

Which is sort of what I mentioned before. Simmons thought he was on the unpopular side, and was shocked to find out that most everyone agrees with him. Granted, he draws the most self-aggrandizing conclusion imaginable from that, but there you go. And the "everyone thinks Wilt is better" stuff tends to show up more in his columns, which I'm not going to comb through to find.

In saying that a given point of view is "conventional wisdom," I in no way mean to imply that everyone agrees with it. Lots of people disagree with a lot of pieces of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama isn't a Nazi. And we can find a lot of people who strenuously disagree with that.

I should also say that I don't want to present myself as any kind of expert on popular streams of thought in NBA discourse. The NBA's not really my thing. But it absolutely does seem like every time I catch a sportswriter talking about Wilt/Russell, the prevailing sentiment is the Andy/Simmons take. Maybe I've just been unlucky in that regard. Or maybe it has something to do with Bob Ryan's frequent presence on ESPN and his frequent inclusion in all discussions of NBA history.

Also, I don't want to lose the forest for the trees here. I used the Wilt/Russell case as the readiest example of the dynamic that annoyed me. If it's not 100 percent accurate, it doesn't change what I was saying. Simmons is pretty mainstream vanilla, and he still tends to act like an outsider throwing bombs.

In basketball, there's a lot of motion, but it just doesn't go anywhere. Make a really dynamic, amazing play? Woo, you get maybe 2% of the winning total for the game.

Well, in baseball, you can make an incredible diving catch, but you've just made only 3.7% of the outs for the game.

Well, in baseball, you can make an incredible diving catch, but you've just made only 3.7% of the outs for the game.

Yes, but a fantastic catch can prevent as much as 100% of opposition runs from scoring.

After reading a good portion of this interview, and the entire accompanying thread, my opinion of Bill Simmons is exactly what it was before: he sucks. He's not funny. He knows less about both baseball and pop culture than I do, leaving those portions of what he writes uninteresting to me. And his favorite sport appears to be professional basketball, which is one step this side of pro wrestling, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah. I mean, Stockton's a clear HoF* guy right?

Seriously? The guy that is the all-time leader in assists and steals by HUGE margins? Those aren't unimportant stats. The guy may or may not be the best point guard of all time (most would say not I imagine) but he is upper-tier HOFer. Maybe like Tris Speaker or Warren Spahn. The best? Maybe not, but a lot closer to the best than to merely a very good player.

I'm no prude, but is it really necessary for him to drop so many f-bombs (similar to Andy bypassing this site's nanny for no real reason)? I've noticed this a few times while he's been promoting the book.

Huh? It's Bill Simmons. It's what he does.

I've actually never read more than ten sentences of Simmons before this thread, so I've had no prior opinion of him. But I just out and bought the book to judge it for myself, since even his critics seem to admit that he's a knowledgeable basketball fan, and the comparison to the BJHBA interested me.

I'm no prude, but is it really necessary for him to drop so many f-bombs (similar to Andy bypassing this site's nanny for no real reason)? I've noticed this a few times while he's been promoting the book.

Huh? It's Bill Simmons. It's what he does.

It's pretty obviously what he'd like to do, but 95% of the stuff he does is relatively clean because of his employer. He went a little overboard with the freedom in places (a c--- ring reference - really?). I think it's an entertaining book that's worth buying. Also wouldn't be surprised to see him divorced in a few years given his attitude toward women and sex.

Random question: Is there an NBA version of BBTF? What about of Baseballprospectus?

I'm only middlingly into basketball, but my girlfriend is addicted and we've starting going to games and the in-person experience at an NBA game is freakin' incredible if you sit close enough. (Simmons is dead right about that.) I'd love to learn more about the game from whatever their sabermetric-equivalent is.

There's a basketballprospectus but I believe their focus is mostly at the college level.

EDIT: 82games and Freedarko are also supposed to be good.

Is there an NBA version of BBTF? What about of Baseballprospectus?

'Zop, there is a Basketball Prospectus that covers both the pro and college game. There used to be a site called Courtside Times that had a similar setup to here. True Hoop is supposed to be one of the bast basketblogs. But I'm not sure if they have much of a community of commenters there.

82games and Freedarko are also supposed to be good.

I find 82games unintelligible- what I'm looking for is the articles (and commentary) that will explain to me what the hell all those stats mean and how they arrived at them.

Basketballprospectus is great for college, but sorely lacking for the NBA game.

One of my favorite things about basketball is that you can’t break it down into some sort of science that makes total sense. And that’s why this current statistical revolution really bugs me. I think we’re figuring out ways now to use stats to try to isolate what players do, but you’re never going to be able to rate players against one another, because out of all the sports, basketball is the one that depends the most on the relationship somebody has with his teammates.

I know someone who did some consulting for the Miami Heat about a decade ago; he did some saber-ish stuff to see which combinations of players worked together the best.

I didn't think it would be possible for me to hate basketball more than I do, but MULTIPLE THREADS ON A BASEBALL WEBSITE have managed it.

I didn't think it would be possible for me to hate basketball more than I do, but MULTIPLE THREADS ON A BASEBALL WEBSITE have managed it.

Yeah, where are the Chess Boxing threads!?!?!

There's no true bbtf equivalent - you have to peck and poke more. Try the apbrmetrics board - not super high volumes, reflects the relative infancy of that craft - but there's good stuff there.

82games is very good, though they've moved away from analysis. I'm just glad they still make that data public, given Beech's role with the Mavs. Basketballprospectus is ... a mixed bag. My biggest issue with them is that they don't produce very much. They do have some good people, though - I've long liked their "main stat guys" Pelton (NBA guy - also the site admin for the apbr board mentioned above) and Pomeroy (NCAA) in particular. Last year's NCAA annual was, to be honest, kind of lacking IMO - but the NBA one is useful.

Freedarko is a totally different beast. Worth checking out and interested in "truth", but via a totally different route than the stat guys.

Outside your question, Truehoop is a very good blog/aggregator with an appreciation for stat-y stuff. Hoopshype is what I use to find the news stories d'jour (checking out realgm.com every now and then as well). Random-ish other recommendations: shamsports (nice salary data + obscure transactions stuff + occasionally amusing stuff) and hoopdata (some stats which are hard to find, like charges taken and shooting by distance from the basket, but minimal commentary). I haven't really checked out basketball-reference's blog, but liked what I'd see by the guy (Neil Paine) who does it before Sean hired him.

***

he did some saber-ish stuff to see which combinations of players worked together the best.
A lot of people think this is where we should go (including Wayne Winston who just left the Mavs) but I worry about the sample size issues...

I know someone who did some consulting for the Miami Heat about a decade ago; he did some saber-ish stuff to see which combinations of players worked together the best.

I do think that saber-ish stuff does work better for hoops than football. But stats like PER have their limitations (esp with defense.)

PER in particular does. Hollinger had defensive PER for awhile (centered on zero - add it to regular PER), but I'm not sure where that went. While matchups (and, hence, individual skills) REALLY matter in basketball - moreso than other sports - I do think that approach is a valid starting point.

Also wouldn't be surprised to see him divorced in a few years given his attitude toward women and sex.

I've had the exact same thought for awhile.

Also wouldn't be surprised to see him divorced in a few years given his attitude toward women and sex.

Part of me thinks a lot of that is the persona he's created.

#75, thanks, that's just the kind of info I was looking for.

Charle's F Pierce's take on the book.

Also wouldn't be surprised to see him divorced in a few years given his attitude toward women and sex.

Part of me thinks a lot of that is the persona he's created.

That's what a lot of us thought about Howard Stern too.

Charle's F Pierce's take on the book.

That link took me to Deadspin, which I've sworn off permanently; but I managed to read the first paragraph and I can see my reasons for doing so still stand.


That's what a lot of us thought about Howard Stern too.

Heh. Well, I never thought that about that dickweed, so.

Also wouldn't be surprised to see him divorced in a few years given his attitude toward women and sex.


I've had the exact same thought for awhile.

I'm with Lassus on this one, I think "The Sports Guy" is to Bill Simmons as "Stone Cold" is to Steve Austin. There's some truth in there, but it is considerably exaggerated for effect.

Or "GGC":Jon Daly. You think I go around IRL thinking everyone hates me because I don't agree with them about everything?

Thanks for linking the Pierce piece, which was hilarious; and which linked to a late, great, Molly Ivins column on Camille Paglia. You've made my November. Fimmonf, indeed.

Seriously? The guy that is the all-time leader in assists and steals by HUGE margins? Those aren't unimportant stats. The guy may or may not be the best point guard of all time (most would say not I imagine) but he is upper-tier HOFer.

Agree completely on Stockton, but take another look at that list in #56. Someone more knowledgeable about basketball than me can correct me if I'm wrong, but four of the top ten players on the all-time assists list are questionable at best to make the HOF: IMHO, Jackson (#2 on the list!), Strickland and Cheeks won't ever make it; Kidd might. You can't compare assists to hits, home runs, wins, etc. in baseball.

That's what a lot of us thought about Howard Stern too.

Heh. Well, I never thought that about that dickweed, so.

"Creating a persona" and "being a dickweed" are hardly mutually exclusive propositions; I'd say Simmons is at least a little bit of a dickweed; and as RB says exaggerates it for effect.

I'd say Simmons is at least a little bit of a dickweed; and as RB says exaggerates it for effect.

Didn't he write for Jimmy Kimmel? They seem like pretty good comps to me.

Didn't he write for Jimmy Kimmel? They seem like pretty good comps to me.

Wait, for STERN? Or for each other?

Regarding #88, I understand the point; but somehow connecting Simmons to Stern in any way regarding their, er, dickweediness seems to throw the whole point far enough out of whack to be inapplicable, at least to my eyes.

I've read and enjoyed Charlie Pierce before, but that piece on Simmons felt rather personal (even while many of its points seemed quite plausible; I haven't read the Simmons book yet). Is it worth pointing out that in 2000, Pierce (also a fan of Boston teams) published a book called Sports Guy, a term which has since become 100% owned by one Bill Simmons?

Also, kudos to those above who have raised the sexism issue w/r/t Simmons. Shtick or not, it is probably the thing about Simmons that bothers me most, and he very, very rarely (so far as I can tell) gets called out on it (presumably because the sports world in general tends to be fairly sexist).

Wait, for STERN? Or for each other?

Kimmel and Simmons are decent comps, I mean. They're both sort of frat-boy clowns.