How To Undermine Your Own Point (part one), by Bill Simmons

     Page 157 of The Book of Basketball is the first page of a chapter called "The What-If Game." This book is 701 pages long; couldn't it have survived without sixty pages of pure conjecture? It's not like TBOB was so weighed down with dispassionate analysis to necessitate a chapter like this.
     Bill's number one choice for the greatest What-If in NBA history is: What if the 1984 draft turned out differently? That question is so broad as to render it almost meaningless. Differently for who? Which player? Which franchise?
   But Bill Simmons is far too smart to box himself in. "Oh, and you thought #1 would simply be 'What if Portland had taken MJ over Bowie?'" Bill must have anticipated that question because it's the most natural one to ask. But he explains his reasoning behind his lack of specificity:

     This draft was so complicated (emphasis mine) that it inspired Houston and Chicago to create the concept of "tanking" during the regular season.

     What exactly was complicated about the 1984 draft? Is he referring to the strategy of tanking, which is only as complicated as "You got a game tonight? Good, go lose it."? Is the famous depth of that draft the complicating factor? Because I would think a low-talent draft would be more complicated than a high talent draft. No larger point; I just thought it was a very poor choice of word.
     As usual, Bill Simmons is confused. He says from the outset that he's not focusing on Portland's failure to draft MJ; but that's almost entirely what he does with this question. In laying out the back story, Bill makes the following enumerated points:

The highlighted numbered points in dark blue bold are my paraphrasing of Simmons. Some of what he wrote was just imprecise enough to allow for some confusion. I'm still putting Simmons' verbatim quotes in bold and quotation marks.

1. Portland and Chicago were each willing to swap their pick for Ralph Sampson. Not about Jordan, but Bill can't resist devoting part of this paragraph to Jordan. And there's something else I need to point out here.

Remember that our theme is that Bill Simmons undermines his points or outright contradicts himself frequently. And in this #1, Bill sets the stage for one of many self-contradictions in just this What-If alone. After quoting Dr. Jack Ramsay of Portland saying that they had to have a center and would have made the Sampson trade, Simmons' comment is "I sure hope so." This tells me that Simmons' agrees with the idea that Portland needed a center. Keep this in mind, and refer back to it as you need to.

2. Many teams offered deals for Chicago's #3 pick, which lends weight to the idea that Portland screwed up by taking Bowie. "Eventually, the Bulls started feeling like they were sitting on a winning lottery ticket. And they were."

Uh, Bill? You know that it was no lock that Jordan would fall to #3, right? Teams were offering deals because it was a very deep draft. If Olajuwon or Jordan were off the board by #3, they could take Barkley or Stockton. Or even Kevin Willis, Otis Thorpe, or Alvin Robertson. My point is that teams were not out there saying, "If we get that number three pick, we'll get to draft the best player in NBA history!"

3. Patrick Ewing almost declared for the draft. "...Bulls GM Rod Thorn told Filip Bondy that Chicago had rated Jordan higher than Bowie because they were afraid of his injury track record." (Boy, what a horrible sentence) What's not clear is whether Thorn told Bondy this before or after the draft. I'm guessing after based on how teams typically operate, but who knows?

***THIS IS WHERE IT ALL GOES TO SHIT FOR BILL SIMMONS***

Just another reminder: We're discussing Bill's truly impressive ability to contradict himself, and boy does he.
(The next highlight is a verbatim quote)

"4. Jordan's potential was unclear because he played for Dean Smith in the pre-shot-clock era."
Okay, thesis established. First supporting sentence: "Everyone knew he was good, but how good?" We're all with you so far.

Then Bill starts the contradiction process.

"...Bobby Knight [Jordan's coach in the 1984 Olympics] called his buddy Stu Inman (Portland's GM) and implored (emphasis Bill's) him to take Michael. When Inman demurred and said that Portland needed a center, Knight reportedly screamed, 'Well, play him at center, then!'"

We're not there yet, but in passing this anecdote along Bill seems to think that Bobby Knight was a supreme judge of NBA talent. This is funny for two reasons: 1) In a footnote, Bill lists some of the players that were cut and some that were kept on the 1984 US men's team. The cut players? Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, Joe Dumars, and Terry Porter. The kept players? Jeff Turner, Joe Kleine, Steve Alford, and Jon Koncak. Bill makes a joke about David Duke being involved in the selection process, but I'm certain that most/all of the power rested with Bobby Knight. (Would a maniac like Knight even bother with coaching the Olympic team without that power?) 2) Bobby Knight coached Isiah Thomas, Calbert Chaney, a few guys who played a season or two in the NBA, and a zillion guys who were lucky if they made it to the CBA. Bobby Knight won national championships, but he wasn't doing it with future All-Stars the way Dean Smith did. So to appeal to Bobby Knight's authority on this matter just isn't true.

(Did that last sentence end poorly? It was on purpose and you'll soon see why)

"We also know that Nike (based in Portland) built an entire sneaker line around Jordan before he played an NBA game."

And you know, no one ever gave out a bad shoe deal before.

"So for anyone to play the 'We didn't know how good Jordan would be' card just isn't true." (emphasis mine)

See what I did there?

Oh, how badly I wished that was the biggest problem with this whole paragraph. The biggest problem was...well, I'll put the first sentence of the paragraph and the last sentence of the paragraph together and you tell me what's wrong:

"Jordan's potential was unclear because he played for Dean Smith in the pre-shot-clock era."
"So for anyone to play the 'We didn't know how good Jordan would be' card just isn't true."

Part two comes later.

Sim Bit #19: Bill Simmons, Condescending Prick, vol. 1

This Sim Bit may be even more insignificant than usual, but it just pissed me off enough that I couldn't let it pass without comment. From page 51, referring to the 2007-08 Celtics:

"Bench guys pulled for starters like they were the whitest, dorkiest tenth-graders..."

Ha ha ha, we white people are so dorky and stupid!

"...[Kevin Garnett] placed third in the MVP balloting because of subpar-for-him numbers;"

Or maybe Kobe finished ahead of KG because he didn't have Paul Pierce and Ray Allen playing alongside him. Yes, he did have Pau Gasol for half a season, but even if he's better than either Pierce or Allen, he's not better than both of them. Who ran the point for the Lakers? It wasn't a passing/defensive ace/future All-Star, that's for sure. And maybe Chris Paul finished ahead because he was the best player in basketball in 2008. The award is for the most valuable player, not "A" valuable player who plays for the best team. Of course, team success does (and should) play a role in the award, but Kobe and CP3 played for pretty good teams themselves.

"...meanwhile, the Celtics jumped from the worst record in 2007 to the best record in 2008."

Because Kevin Garnett, and only Kevin Garnett, joined the Celtics.

Here are your top eight in minutes played for the 2008 Celtics:

Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, James Posey, Eddie House, Tony Allen

And the top eight for the 2007 Celtics:

Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Delonte West, Rajon Rondo, Gerald Green, Paul Pierce, Sebastian Telfair, Kendrick Perkins

The names in red bold appeared on both Celtics teams.

"Where's the statistic for that? (Shit, I forgot: it's called wins)"

Take that, stat nerds! But Bill isn't done with you yet:

"But that's what makes basketball so great: You have to watch the games. You have to pay attention. You cannot get seduced by numbers and stats." (emphasis his)

What a colossal prick. I am Bill Simmons. I see things others do not see. I understand basketball as the legends do. I am...The Hoops Whisperer.

"...I couldn't help noticing LeBron's '09 Cavaliers developing Ubuntu-like chemistry..."

Players enjoying playing for a winning team apparently only began in 2007.

I don't know for a fact that there will be more instances of Condescending Prick-behavior elsewhere in the book, but it seems like a safe bet.

Debunking the Debunking: Finishing Up Myth #3

     I’m still not done with Myth #3. Let’s go back to the quote about playoff production:

“Hmmmmmmm. Russell’s numbers jumped and Wilt’s numbers dipped dramatically when there was money on the line, even though Wilt was routinely his team’s number one scoring option and Russ was number four or five.”

     I already knocked over the first part of that quote, but the second part deserves discussion as well. You see, I’ve watched a lot of playoff basketball, and the number one option actually has a hard job. Yes, he’s going to see the ball more, but the defenses are tougher than they are in the regular season, and those defenses are all game-planning to stop that guy. True, sometimes the game plan is to let the primary scorer get his while clamping down on everyone else, but Wilt Chamberlain was double and triple-teamed practically his whole life. I’m only guessing here, but I don’t think playoff teams were letting Wilt get his. (I’m also guessing here that “don’t let the other guys beat you” is a relatively recent strategy) If my conjecture is accurate, then options two, three, and four should have an easier time of things, and I have witnessed this happen in playoff games. One example from my favorite team: Avery Johnson. A left-hander from Louisiana, undersized for his position (sound familiar?), Johnson was basically dared to shoot open jumpers in playoff games.
     Simmons seems to think Russell had a tougher job getting his numbers in the playoffs than Chamberlain did because of their respective roles. I think it’s a push because secondary offensive options often end up with open looks that primary scorers don’t usually get.
     Let us recall that this Myth #3 is: “Statistically, Wilt crushed Russell”. But just a page and a half into it, Simmons says, “So yeah, by any statistical calculation, Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest season player in NBA history. I concede this fact. For the playoffs? Not so great.”
     So why did we do this? Why did Simmons shoehorn this myth into chapter two?
     Then, as if out of nowhere, Simmons' breakdown of Myth #3 drifts into strange waters. It was one thing when Russell and Chamberlain were getting all the credit/blame for their teams wins and losses, but at least Simmons was assigning hard data to each man. But starting on paragraph two of page 69 through page 74, Simmons genuflects at the Altar of Anecdotes. Which is baffling, since, wasn't Bill trying to debunk the myth that Wilt crushed Russell statistically?
     Here now, your Anecdote Typhoon:

• "…Wilt famously swatted shots like volleyball spikes for dramatic effect, Russell deflected blocks to teammates for instant fast breaks…"

How the hell did Boston ever lose a game if Russell could do this at will? The implication here: Wilt always blocked the ball out of bounds, and Russell and the Celtics always recovered Russell's blocks. The second implication: Wilt's blocks were meaningless. Let's pretend Wilt always did spike the ball out of bounds. Okay, but he probably blocked at least a few shots with the shot clock run down under three seconds. It's often hard to get a score in that situation.

• "Opponents eventually gave up challenging Russell and settled for outside shots…"

Then how did Russell block so very many shots? You'd think that if they really did give up, Russell would have been blocking a lot fewer after a couple of years in the league.

• "Boston's scorers…found themselves in the dream situation of worrying about scoring and that's it."

I'm sure that's it. Whenever Boston played Cincinnati, Cousy or Sam Jones just said, "Hell with this. I don't have to do shit to this Oscar guy, Bill will just block the shot." Johnny Havlicek just let Elgin Baylor go wherever he wanted because, fuck it, Bill's got him. Because pro basketball players are just that stupid and, apparently, eager to piss off their head coach by not making an effort.

• "[Wilt] wasn't a natural jumper like Russell (emphasis mine)…[and] many opponents learned to time those jumps and float shots over his considerable reach."

Are you getting the idea that Simmons wants us to believe that Russell blocked many more shots than Chamberlain? I am. Never mind that in Tall Tales - a book cited by Simmons in TBOB - Earl Strom, who officiated during that era, says that Russell and Chamberlain were averaging "8 to 10 blocks a night for most of their careers." In the same book, legendary statistician Harvey Pollack estimated that Russell and Chamberlain averaged over five blocks per night in their peak seasons, and over four per game for their careers. If Russell did block more shots than Chamberlain, he didn't do it by much. If some players did learn to beat Chamberlain's shot blocking, they didn't do it too often if Strom and Pollack are to be believed.

• "[Wilt would] stop challenging shots with four or five fouls even if he was hurting his team in the process. I'm not making this up. (Seriously, I'm not making this up.)"

We're going to discuss this in greater detail coming up, but you know how Bill Simmons proves that he's not making it up? He offers a quote by John Havlicek. Simmons then footnotes this quote with another Havlicek quote, this one gushing about Russell's awesomeness on defense. Bill seems to believe that the old Celtics can be counted on to provide honest, sober, unbiased evaluations on the Russell/Chamberlain debate. It's really sad, honestly.

• "In the end, Russell's teams won championships and Wilt's teams lost them."

I give Simmons credit for finally noting that Russell and Chamberlain actually have teammates, but Wilt won championships, too. His 1967 76ers and 1972 Lakers went 68-13 and 69-13, respectively. Chamberlain was on one team that won during the Russell era; Bob Pettit was on the other one, and Pettit's Hawks beat an injured Russell.

Here is a list of awesome basketball players who won fewer championships than Wilt Chamberlain:

Neil Johnston, Dolph Schayes, Paul Arizin, Bob Pettit, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Earl Monroe, Elvin Hayes, Bob Lanier, Pete Maravich, Artis Gilmore, Julius Erving, George Gervin, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, Bernard King, Moses Malone, Dominique Wilkins, Clyde Drexler, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, Allen Iverson

Here is a second list of awesome basketball players who won as many championships as Wilt Chamberlain:

Walt Frazier, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Bill Walton, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson

These lists, while not comprehensive, illustrate that while Wilt certainly could have won more championships, achieved a hell of a lot on an individual AND team level.

Sim Bit #3 and #3.1

A Sim-Bits double header!

p. 331 - "I'd rather have the [Dennis] Rodman from '87 to '91…and '96 to '98."

Ummm, by that logic, I'd rather have the 68-74 Ford Mustang and the 94-98. I mean, if your argument is that you'd rather have "A" Dennis Rodman, shouldn't you narrow it down more than this? Shit, my favorite team was when Tim Duncan played for the Spurs.

Plus, in the parenthetical to the "96-98 Rodman", Simmons claims: "…[Rodman] played Karl Malone so effectively in back-to-back Finals." Okay, let's check:

Malone, 1997 regular season: 37 MPG, 27 PPG, 10 RPG, FG 55%/FT 76%, 28.9 PER, .268 WS/48
Malone, 1997 playoffs:           41 MPG, 26 PPG, 11 RPG, FG 44%/FT 72%, 22.2 PER, .127 WS/48
Malone, 1997 Finals:              41 MPG, 24 PPG, 10 RPG, FG 44%/FT 60%

I guess it was Rodman's effective free throw defense that kept Malone's points down, because Malone's shooting percentage was the same in the Finals as it was during the rest of the playoffs. Maybe 1998 is what Simmons was thinking of:

Malone, 1998 regular season: 37 MPG, 27 PPG, 10 RPG, FG 53%/FT 76%, 27.9 PER, .259 WS/48
 Malone, 1998 playoffs:           40 MPG, 26 PPG, 11 RPG, FG 47%/FT 79%, 24.2 PER, .184 WS/48
 Malone, 1998 Finals:              41 MPG, 25 PPG, 11 RPG, FG 50%/FT 79%

There is no evidence here to suggest that Dennis Rodman defended Karl Malone any more effectively than anyone else.

and now...

How long did Reggie Miller play basketball? Well, Miller was drafted in 1987 and didn't sit out or retire at any point during his career, which ended after the 2004-05 season. So…let's work this out on paper:

01. 1987-88
02. 1988-89
03. 1989-90
04. 1990-91
05. 1991-92
06. 1992-93
07. 1993-94
08. 1994-95
09. 1995-96
10. 1996-97
11. 1997-98
12. 1998-99
13. 1999-2000
14. 2000-01
15. 2001-02
16. 2002-03
17. 2003-04
18. 2004-05

By my count, Reggie Miller played eighteen seasons. (If you disagree, I refer you to the list above and invite you to point out where I went wrong) How many seasons did Reggie Miller play, according to Bill Simmons?

Sadly, it depends on which page of the book you read.

p. 343 - "[Pyramid number] 63. Reggie Miller…Resume: 15 years" 
p. 344 - "Reggie [Miller] played for sixteen seasons (1988-2005)…" (emphasis mine in both cases)

One figure is a typo, unless the other one is. Neither one are right.

Summary - The Story So Far

I'm a long-winded bastard who will never say in five words what I can say in twenty. But I have good news for you: I'm going to use this post to summarize everything that's happened on Bill Simmons' Bogus Book so far.

The Book of Basketball
     Obviously, these are posts dealing with Bill's bestseller.

Bill Simmons' Basketball Hall of Fame

• It's a pyramid with all the best players on the top floor. Which is great, because people love to crowd into the top floor of a building that only gets smaller as it rises. Not to worry, though: There are more players at the top level than at the next level down. You know, pyramids.
• There are ninety-six players in the BSHOF. And that number will never change, says Bill. And we'll have to throw players out when new players make a greater impact than the previous honorees.

Russell versus Chamberlain

• Simmons says he can prove - yes, prove - that Bill Russell was better than Wilt Chamberlain.
• Despite having such an ironclad argument, Bill Simmons engages in what I call "Simmons' Steps to Subterfuge". They are:
1. Frame Issue With Negative Emotion - comparing the pro-Wilt argument to the OJ Simpson defense team
2. Gloss Over Relevant Facts - his claim that everyone had a good supporting cast in the old days because the NBA was so small. Never mind that the sport wasn't fully integrated when Bill Russell entered the league. Never mind that the shot clock had only been around for two years at that time. Never mind that NBA basketball was only in its eleventh season, that the jump shot was still a pretty new concept, that the lane was narrow, that dunking was frowned upon. The league was small, so every team was good.
3. Muddy The Waters - despite claiming to compare Russell and Chamberlain, Simmons examines Russell's first three seasons and throws out a bunch of names and resumes. The aim here is to build his credibility by mentioning a bunch of players his audience knows nothing about.
4. Never Define, Never Explain - Bill's modus operandi, and really the foundation of the entire book. His arguments basically rest upon the phrase "Because I said so". There are more Simmons's Steps to Subterfuge, but I don't want to spoil anything.
• According to Bill, there are six common myths about the Russell-Chamberlain debate. The ones we've looked at so far are:
• Bill Russell had a better supporting cast
• He really, really did
• Bill Russell wasn't a very good offensive player
• This myth doesn't exist, and
• Simmons thinks "offense" = "passing"
• Statistically, Wilt crushed Russell
• This is true on an individual level, but Simmons apparently thinks all stats - wins, losses, championships - are individual stats.

Sim Bits

• These are small portions of The Book of Basketball that didn't merit a long post, but needed to be addressed anyway:

Shaq and Shaq Alone
Gloss over relevant facts, indeed.

Shower Rape is a Gold Mine For Comedy
Commentary is superfluous.

No One Is Better Qualified To Comment on Racial Matters Than A Privileged White Kid From Boston
.

Off-Topic

• If all I did was write about The Book of Basketball, I'd go freaking mad.

The 2011 NBA Finals
Nailed it.

Still Alive!
I went eighteen months without posting. What the hell, I'm poor. When the computer crashes, it can take some time to get a new one when you're not made of money. And if you've forgotten your old password...well, the point is, BSBB is back.

Catching Up
All the comments I missed in those eighteen months.

Bill Simmons on the Baseball Hall of Fame*
*From 2007. George W. Bush was still president when Bill Simmons had something to say about the Baseball Hall of Fame, but: since the BBHOF was in the news, Bill couldn't let it go without saying something. For those of you who think, "Bill Simmons used to be good", this column proves: no. No he did not.

...and that's where we're at now. I swear I'll finish this Wilt v. Russell business very soon, and we'll move on to other parts of this stupid book. And I'll go off-topic more often because it is a very stupid book. Although, for the sake of balance, I'll write a post about the stuff in the book that I liked. It wasn't all bad. Only mostly.

Debunking the Debunking: Myth #3 of the Russell-Chamberlain Debate

“Russell’s career offensive numbers can’t compare except for REBOUNDS (emphasis mine).”

     We’re moving on to the next myth Simmons looks to debunk: “Myth no. 3: Statistically, Wilt crushed Russell.” And the quote above appears in the first paragraph of this myth-busting; how’s that for an inaccurate start? I’ll meet Bill halfway: a rebound can trigger the fast-break (especially with a rebounder who can pass the ball well), and of course, offensive rebounds can be directly put back for points. I will grant that we didn’t track offensive rebounds back then, but I’d wager good money that even in the sixties, 1) the great majority of rebounds were defensive and 2) most of those didn’t trigger a fast-break. I have nothing to bolster this opinion with, so draw your own conclusions on this point. My larger point is that rebounds aren’t offensive stats, which I assumed even casual fans knew.

     While we’re on the subject of rebounds, Russell was a great rebounder of course and, as Simmons suggests, in the same zip code as Chamberlain. But Wilt was in a much nicer house.
     Both men averaged 22 rebounds per game; Wilt 22.9, Russell 22.5. I don’t think they were this close in reality. Let’s consider a few things:

• Wilt played four seasons after Russell retired, from 1970-73. While Russell started his entire career in a very inaccurate shooting era, Wilt played three plus seasons (just 12 games in 1970) when teams shot the ball more accurately. Compare 57-59 with 70-73 to see what I’m getting at:

     This table doesn’t account for some things, but this is just to give you an idea. From 1957-59, there were 62, 72, and 69 rebounds to be had per game – Russell’s three years without Wilt in the league. From 1970-73, Wilt’s three-plus seasons without Russell in the league, there were 53, 49, and 50 rebounds to be had. Anyone else think Wilt would have had more rebounds if he was exactly the same age as Russell?

• Russell was 0.1 rebounds better than his career average (22.6 from 22.5) from 1960-69, Wilt’s first ten seasons. During that same period, Wilt was 1.4 rebounds better (24.3 from 22.9).
• You have seen how really big guys don’t always make the best rebounders, right? Where they have a size and strength advantage on one hand, they are slower to react and move on the other, right? The best rebounders I’ve watched are Moses Malone, Larry Bird, Lafayette Lever, Dennis Rodman, Charles Oakley, Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, Jayson Williams, Ben Wallace, and Zach Randolph. Not one of these guys was seven feet tall (despite Hakeem’s height listing), but they all had quick feet and reaction time to the ball. They were usually the first player off the floor when the shot rebounded and could jump repeatedly in one spot, like a jump rope exercise. In the films I’ve seen, Bill Russell looks bodily like Dennis Rodman – same height, same long arms – and it’s easy to imagine him dominating the glass in the way that Rodman often did. But in the games they played against each other, the larger and presumably slower Chamberlain was five rebounds better than Russell in 142 matchups. (28.7 RPG for Wilt, 23.7 RPG for Russell)

“At this point, you are thinking, ‘Come on Simmons, this is crazy. You have no case.’ Well, here are some more stats for you:”

     This came after Bill mentioned Russell’s and Wilt’s head-to-head points/rebounds averages. But Bill came ready with a devastating counter:

Wilt’s record against Russell: 58-84
Russell’s record against Wilt: 84-58

     You see, in Simmonsland, all stats are player stats. Points, rebounds, assists, blocks, wins, losses, championships – these can all be achieved by individual players. But the hilarious part of the W/L stat above: it’s listed twice. All Simmons had to do was run the stat out there like this:

Russell’s record against Wilt: 84-58

     And it means exactly the same thing as listing it twice. Was he trying to give Russell credit twice? (actually, he probably was)

     But Simmons hasn’t emptied his pistol yet. Next, he urges us to check out their playoff numbers:

Wilt: 160 games, 22.5 points, 24.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 47% FT, 52% FG
Russ: 165 games, 16.2 points, 24.9 rebounds, 4.7 assists, 60% FT, 43% FG

     And after showing these lines off, Simmons says:

“Hmmmmmmm. Russell’s numbers jumped and Wilt’s numbers dipped dramatically when there was money on the line, even though Wilt was routinely his team’s number one scoring option and Russ was number four or five.”

     That passage is chock full of wrong. Let's start with the first part of that quote:

Russell’s numbers jumped and Wilt’s numbers dipped dramatically

     That is one (highly skewed) way to look at it. If Bill was talking about only scoring average, he’d be right about Wilt’s dipping dramatically (as far as it goes), but it’s just wrong to say Russell’s numbers jumped. We’ll start with Russell:

16.2 points (up from career average of 15.1)
24.9 rebounds (up from career average of 22.5)
4.7 assists (up from career average of 4.3)
60% FT (up from career mark of 56%)
43% FG (down from career mark of 44%)

     Does this look like numbers jumping up to you? Yes, Russell did improve in all but one category, but the only mark which looks like a big jump was rebounds, and basketball fans are well aware that shooting accuracy goes down in the playoffs; why wouldn’t Russell’s rebounds go up?

Now let’s look at Wilt:

22.5 points (down from career average of 30.1)
24.5 rebounds (up from career average of 22.9)
4.2 assists (down from career average of 4.4)
47% FT (down from career mark of 51%)
52% FG (down from career mark of 54%)

     Like Russell, Wilt’s numbers are in the same ballpark as his regular season numbers except for rebounds (which we just discussed) and points; but there is a very specific reason Wilt’s scoring didn’t drop as much as you might think.

     As Simmons himself points out, Wilt Chamberlain changed his style of play over time. He was receptive to this change as suggested by Coach Alex Hannum before the 1967 season. This style of play resulted in Wilt 2.0, the do-it-all center fixated (in often ludicrous fashion) on assisting teammates’ baskets. Wilt 1.0 was wired to score every point in sight. (Wilt 1.0 played in 52 playoff games, Wilt 2.0 played in 108) I have a better way to illustrate a player’s playoff contributions – focus on each season instead of the aggregate.

     I have a philosophical question here, and my frame of reference for it is the 1962 season and playoffs. This was the year Wilt averaged 50 points during the season and “only” 35 in the playoffs. And my question is this: is your team really hurting getting 35 per game as opposed to 50? I’m not asking people to break down the 1962 season and playoffs to look at the question exactly – I just mean in the general sense.
Let me explain the table. Numbers in red are stats that dropped significantly, numbers in green are the stats that rose significantly. The numbers in bold are the stats Wilt led the playoffs in, therefore sometimes a red or green stat will be in bold. (How I defined significant: 4+ PPG, 2+ RPG, 2+ APG, 2+ FG% points, 4+ FT% points)
      As you can see, Wilt’s scoring and FG shooting dropped significantly on six and nine occasions respectively. His rebounding only dropped significantly once, his assists four times. His FT% was all over the place: it dropped significantly six times and rose significantly three times. Not surprising that Wilt couldn’t maintain consistency at the line, of course. Other significant gains: rebounding six times, assists twice, and FG% twice. Wilt was, overall, a little worse in the playoffs than in the season, but again – in reference to my earlier question, Wilt was worse to the tune of: 33 PPG, 35 PPG, 29 PPG, 28 PPG, 23 RPG, 6.5 APG, 57.9 FG%, 54.5 FG%, 56.3 FG%, 55.2 FG%. The standards he created were so great that those numbers were all significant drops compared to his season stats that year. I’ll admit that my methods are by no means comprehensive, but they’re more detailed than Simmons’ methods.
     Let’s give Russell the same treatment:

     In general, Russell was a little better during the playoffs than he was during the season, and Wilt was a little worse (owing in part to some stratospheric regular season standards). Russell certainly deserves credit for his playoff performance, but it is inaccurate to say that Russell’s numbers “jumped” or that Wilt “dipped dramatically” in the playoffs.
     Next time: we'll discuss the second half of the "Russell's numbers jumped" quote.

Sim Bit #22: Bill Simmons, President of Race Relations, Part One

Unfortunately, there are a bunch Sim Bits on race. From a footnote on page 91:

“Pettit’s quadruple-printed card remains the easiest to find. Go figure, they quadruple-printed Pettit (white) and single-printed Russell (black). I’m sure this was a coincidence.”

Let’s look at this soberly:  In 1957, Bill Russell wasn’t Bill Russell yet. You’ll recall that it was Russell’s teammate Tommy Heinsohn who won the Rookie of the Year award over Russell. At the time, I’m certain that no one beyond Red Auerbach understood Russell’s real value. It’s a fact that Bob Cousy, not Russell, won the MVP award that season. Bob Pettit won the MVP and the NBA scoring title the season before. I have no doubt that Bob Pettit was a more important player than Russell was in 1957, but no, go on ahead Bill Simmons – just keep on casually making accusations of racism.

In fact, Simmons himself calls Bob Pettit the Alpha Dog of the 1957 season, but the people alive at the time who made the cards were racists for thinking the same thing?

Tomorrow: back to why we're here.

Bill Simmons on the Baseball Hall of Fame*

*From the year 2007. He's too lazy to be bothered about it now. Instead, he dredged up something he wrote six years ago that's kind of relevant now. In his own words:

Here's a column I wrote about the Baseball Hall of Fame in January 2007 for ESPN The Magazine, back when I still cared who made it. Six years later, I find myself saying, "I don't even care anymore, the place has been ruined." Alas.

Let me translate:

Here's a column I wrote for ESPN The Magazine, back when I still put some effort into my writing and didn't try to shoehorn references to movies or tits or Vegas in every other sentence. Six years later, I find myself saying, "Why on Earth did I ever write stuff? I could have just podcasted my way onto the Jimmy Kimmel show, for whom I used to write, and onto ABC's NBA coverage." Oh well, the Baseball Hall of Fame is in the news, so here's something I wrote about it less than ten years ago. Cha-ching!

Sounds more appropriate. Anyway, here is Bill's "take" on the Baseball Hall of Fame. From 2007.

Sports Guy Time Machine: Baseball HOF Revisited

Normally, I enjoy the week the Baseball Hall of Fame inductees are announced. Not this year. With Mark McGwire's inclusion on the 2007 ballot, we have officially entered the Let's Blackball the Potential-Steroids-Guy Era.

I'll try to keep TBOB out of this, but when you read it, did you notice how much stuff child Bill Simmons had? I get the sense from this passage that Bill could be a difficult child and got a lot of that stuff to placate him.

Some writers won't vote for McGwire because he probably used steroids — keep in mind there's never been proof that he did,

Uh, Bill? And other writers who use this argument? Pay very close attention to what I am about to say, because it is important. In fact, I'll go to the dreaded Red Bold Font, center-justified, to emphasize it:

We are not voting to put Mark McGuire in jail.

All of this "innocent until proven guilty" talk means absolutely nothing in terms of the Hall of Fame. The reason we have the "innocent until proven guilty" standard in place is because a man's liberty is at stake. But if McGwire never makes the HOF, he still has all the rights and freedoms you and I do.

If writers are not allowed to judge HOF candidates on anything but their statistics, then let's just write a computer program that objectively awards the most worthy candidates. Because everybody loves it when computers decide big sports questions.

other than a visible bottle of andro and those 135 pounds of muscle he added from 1990 to 2002

Bill is like that defense lawyer who will concede the prosecution every bit of supporting evidence that they can produce and insist on acquittal anyway. "Sure, my client's DNA was found at the crime scene, and the bloody footprints are a perfect match the custom-made shoes that only my client owns, and sure my client's alibi is that he was singing karaoke at a bar but they never host karaoke nights and it closed two years ago; and sure, my client once hired a pilot to pull an airplane banner around which announced his intent to kill the victim and that plane flew over the stadium which hosted the most-watched World Cup final in history, but did anyone actually see my client kill the victim??"

which would be fine if they weren't so pious about it.

Pious, of course, means: a hypocritical display of virtue.  Hypocrisy doesn't seem to be at play here. A pertinent example of hypocrisy would be if Barry Bonds got into the HOF and then started to campaign against Roger Clemens' candidacy on the basis of "Clemens was a dirty juicer."

Not content with simply dismissing McGwire's candidacy and moving on, they need to climb on their high horses and rip the guy to shreds.

"Sportswriter X, are you voting for Mark McGwire on your HOF ballot?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"I shouldn't support my stance. I should just say no and move on. That's what Bill Simmons would want."

Of course, many of them would appear on any radio or TV show for 50 bucks and a free sandwich.

Bill Simmons - staunch opponent of media whoring.

We're supposed to believe they would refuse the chance to take a drug that would enable them to do their job twice as well and make 10 times as much money? Yeah, right.

Bill is probably right. How does this absolve Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa, exactly? Elite athletes are intense competitors who will too often disregard rules, laws, or personal safety to try and succeed. This is precisely why an outside perspective is needed. You ever hear ex-players who say that if they had had access to PEDs in their day, they would have used them? Mike Schmidt was one player who said that, and he wasn't saying that to be a sports radio shock-jock - he was being honest.

There are many people who would commit murder if they could get away with it. Why don't we just assume that everyone's a murderer? That's a better world.

These people have now become the self-proclaimed moral arbiters of baseball, and they need you to know that Big Mac cheated, disgraced the game, deceived the public, tainted the record books and pushed the sport into a spiritual free fall.

Actually, they weren't self-proclaimed. HOF voters belong to the BBWAA, and for that they are expected to consider the morality and ethics of the game. (quoting directly from the voting rules) "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." (emphasis mine)

They rush to tell you that they can't vote for McGwire because their conscience won't allow it. San Jose Mercury News columnist Ann Killion wrote that she can't vote for McGwire because she wouldn't be able to explain it to her kids.

I'll admit it, that sounds a little douchey.

She concluded her column with this: "All I can do is cast my own vote judiciously. And be able to look my kids in the eyes when I do it."

Still douchey, but she's a voter. That's her right. There are much worse reasons for voting against candidates, that's for damn sure.

Ann, I'm glad you're such a thoughtful mom. Seriously, that's great.

Bill Simmons is engaging in what I like to call antisarcasm. It's sarcasm that sounds sincere. Regular sarcasm does too, only with just enough voice inflection or facial expression to give it away. If Bill said this to her face, Ann Killion would ask, "Really?", and Bill would say, "Oh, God no! You think I was serious? The only parental concern you should have is keeping your daughter from becoming a stripper. Otherwise, you're a self-righteous prick. Oh, and I'm friends with Dork Elvis and Malcolm Gladwell. Eat my shit."

But a vote for McGwire isn't exactly an endorsement of drug use.

Most votes for McGwire would probably be something like, "He was a user in an era of users, but we can't keep them all out. And he was among the very best of them."

A vote against McGwire isn't a vote against drug use per se, but more like, "I don't believe it's appropriate to enhance performance beyond good nutrition and maintaining physical fitness. And McGwire's career production only really took off when he used, meaning that he wasn't good enough to make the HOF without the PEDs."

And anyway, part of our country's problem is the shortsighted way we "protect" our kids from life's harsh realities.

Gotta keep her off the pole, Bill. Everything else is fanatical and overprotective Andrea Yates shit.

Janet Jackson's nipple slip was such a traumatic moment for Americans that some live sporting events now run on tape-delay,

Why must every goddamn TV channel be HBO? Maybe it's the parents themselves who don't want to see nip-slips and upskirts all the time.

and Howard Stern fled to SIRIUS to escape the clutches of the increasingly fascistic FCC.

Oh, please, please please, Bill - start writing about politics and society more often. Your own Unintentional Comedy Scale would be able to divide by zero.

Meanwhile, any kid can glimpse Britney's crotch if he or she is even remotely familiar with Google,

Really? Well. Sounds like all parents everywhere should just give up then.

and anyone can be slandered anonymously on a blog or message board.

This sounds like something a narcissistic, insecure writer would say.

Look, our country is screwed up.

People like Bill love to say things like this to sound profound. It's true, except 1) there's a lot of good going on that we tend to ignore in favor of the bad, and 2) that condition isn't exclusive to the United States.

Whether we like it or not, people will always gamble, use illegal drugs, drink and drive, cheat on their spouses, cheat on tests, lie and steal, ditch their families, swear and fight, use performance-enhancing drugs. Banishing Mark McGwire from Cooperstown isn't going to make any of that go away.

1) Is Mark McGwire in Cooperstown now? 2) Does anyone believe that voting against McGwire for the Hall will in turn make humanity's darker instincts go away? (The answers are No and Of Course Not, You Fucking Asswad Bill) Bill must really believe that every HOF voter is like Ann Killion squared, someone who packages her HOF vote together with social commentary. Which, I must reiterate, is perfectly OK. Not what Bill would do, not what I would do, but perfectly valid.

Let's stop pretending that the Baseball Hall of Fame is a real-life fantasy world — a place where we celebrate only the people and events we can all unanimously agree deserve to be celebrated — and transform it into an institution that reflects both the good and bad of the sport.

Why? First of all, I take issue with the idea that the HOF is a (ignoring the oxymoron for the moment) "real-life fantasy world". It is a place to celebrate excellence. And while certain members of the HOF have their moral failings away from the game, the voters were confident that the men they put into the Hall treated the game with integrity.

Let's take two players - one in the Hall, one out - Ty Cobb and Mark McGwire. Cobb was a racist and a horse's ass, but he played the game with integrity as far as we know. (Integrity relative to his era, of course) McGwire seems like a nice person, but in my view he extended and improved his career by artificial means. I have no problem with the idea that a jerk like Cobb is in and a nice guy like McGwire is out. It's not about their humanity - it's about their respect for the game.

Wait — wasn't that Cooperstown's mission all along?

Probably not, since you provided nothing to support this rhetorical question. Normally what one does here is ask the question, then point to some old document in support of the question. Not even an anecdote here from Bill, which seems very telling to me.

Shouldn't it be a place where someone who knows nothing about baseball can learn about its rich history? Isn't it a museum, after all?

Do museums frequently do this? I thought all they did was put works on display. Usually, the back story to museums can be found in college courses.

If that's the case — and I say it is

Glad that's settled.

then how can we leave out Pete Rose, the all-time hits leader and most memorable competitor of his era?

He broke a rule that one should never break if you care at all about the integrity of the sport. As if that weren't enough, he lied about it. Which apparently doesn't matter to Bill, as long as you hit enough singles. I guess Ichiro can go on a five-state arson spree and still get into the HOF by Bill's logic.

And how can we even consider leaving out McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, the three most memorable hitters of the 1990s? We're supposed to stick our heads in the historical sand and pretend these people were never born?

No, you jackass. They won't cease to exist if they never make the Hall.

Imagine if the rest of the world worked like this. Word is, JFK cheated on his wife. Should we change the name of the airport and remove all his memorabilia from the Smithsonian?

There are no guidelines to voting for president. Presidential voters can support a candidate because of his deficit reduction plan, his personal appearance, or the sound of his name.

HOF voters, on the other hand, have to consider (remember this?): "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." (again, emphasis mine)

McGwire boasts some undeniable credentials:
• He was the most famous slugger of his era and one of the most intimidating physical presences in sports history. While he was at his apex, you didn't turn the channel when he was at bat. Under any circumstance.

Maybe you didn't. I really didn't, and don't, give a crap about baseball until mid-August.

• He broke an untouchable record (Maris' 61), belted 245 homers over a four-year span

At an age when athletes typically do their best work, right?

finished with 583 home runs (seventh on the all-time list)

All legitimately.

and made 12 All-Star teams.

For Christ's sake, Bill! If you want to argue for McGwire, at least make some real arguments.

• He appeared in a Bash Brothers poster with Jose Canseco that nearly shattered the Unintentional Comedy Scale.

Tris Speaker's funniest poster doesn't come close to McGwire's. Point, Simmons.

• He's the most successful athlete of all time with flaming red hair.

Enough, Bill. If you're going to write a column about a serious topic, lay off the goddamn jokes. I know it's your schtick, but in this instance it undermines your whole point.

• When a painful strike canceled the 1994 World Series and nearly killed the sport, two events got people caring again: Cal Ripken's breaking Lou Gehrig's consecutive-games record in 1995, and McGwire's and Sosa's battling for Maris' record three years later.

And at the time they were showered with great praise and big money for that. How much do you want reward these (possibly? probably?) fraudulent achievements?

Watch the end of 61* sometime, or reread Mike Lupica's gushing book, Summer of '98.

You're asking me to watch Barry Pepper and to read Mike Lupica? Dude, a little compassion, please.

(Note: Lupica now argues that Big Mac doesn't belong in the Hall. He never says anything about returning the profits from his book, however.)

...reread Bill Simmon's gushing book, Now I Can Die In Peace. (Note: Simmons has gone back to bitching about the Sox failing to win the World Series. He never says anything about returning the profits from his book, however.)

The home run chase meant something back then. And by the way, when it was going on, we all chose to overlook the fact that McGwire was a can of green paint away from being the Incredible Hulk and that Sosa looked like he was developing a second jaw. Let's not forget that.

We didn't "overlook" anything. People want to believe that what they are watching is real. We are a lot less trusting now, thanks to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, A-Rod, Canseco, Caminiti, Giambi, etc, etc, etc.

• When McGwire finally broke Maris' record, his subsequent handshake-hug with Sosa was the single most awkward sports-related moment since Apollo and Rocky embraced on the beach in Rocky III. That's gotta count for something.

I know that if McGwire does get in, this will be the first thing his presenter mentions.

• His "I'm not here to talk about the past" speech is running in a dead heat with Denny Green's "They were what we thought they were!" rant for the honor of Most Ridiculously Enjoyable Public-Speaking Sports Moment of the Decade.

GOD, make it stop.

• Unlike Bonds, McGwire actually seems ashamed about what he might have done.

Something else that differentiates Bonds and McGwire: Bonds has a strong HOF case, even taking juicing into account. (And I think Bonds is loathsome)

Forget the fact that there were no testing procedures in place to catch him. If he took steroids, he did break the rules.

"Yes, my client was seen entering the victim's home a half hour before the stabbing..."

All that does is give him something in common with Hall of Famers like admitted ball doctorer Gaylord Perry

My understanding is that Perry admitted to the spitball after he was elected to the Hall. Not that it makes things right, but was one guy doctoring the ball remotely the same as a good number/majority of big leaguers juicing? And it's not like baseball was turning a blind eye to Gaylord Perry or that fans were all excited about Perry's spitball. He just found ways to avoid detection. And honestly, I would have no problem throwing cheaters out of the Hall after the fact.

 and Ty Cobb, a virulent racist who deliberately tried to hurt other players

Spiking is cheating. Absolutely. But it's the kind of cheating that is out in the open and subject to reprisal. It's a fair kind of cheating, if you will.

 and was accused of fixing at least one game.

But did anyone have any proof???

Are we really going to play the morality card for Big Mac when Cobb is in the Hall? Who's OK with this?

If I had a daughter who was about the same age as Ty Cobb and Mark McGwire (not an easy feat, admittedly), I would recommend she marry McGwire. If I had one HOF vote and my choice was Cobb or McGwire, I'd vote for Cobb. On balance, McGwire is a better person than Cobb, but not in terms of baseball integrity.

I hate to break the news to Ann Killion's kids, but people have been cheating in baseball for decades.

Then don't. Ann Killion and her life partner, if she has one, are the people primarily responsible for teaching her kids life lessons. Then it's their grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers. Somewhere towards the bottom of that list is a sportwriter who believes excellence is a sham and that good parenting = keeping daughters from becoming strippers.

They've fixed games,

The players that we know to have fixed games are not in the HOF as far as I know.

stolen signs,

If you get caught stealing signs, you get a fastball to the ribs. I really doubt stealing signs helped anybody get into the HOF.

corked bats,

When players get caught corking, they get punished appropriately.

slimed balls,

Gaylord Perry got away with it. I'm certain many/most others didn't.

popped greenies

A performance enhancer that apparently a lot of guys got away with. What do you expect, Bill? That I shouldn't care now because nobody cared back in the 60's?

and, yes, injected steroids and rubbed HGH cream.

No difference at all between stealing signs and suddenly playing the best baseball of your life at an advanced age.

We're told that baseball is America's pastime, the implication being that it mirrors real life.

There's no need for an implication when a straight definition will do. Pastime means: An activity that someone does regularly for enjoyment rather than work; a hobby. Nothing in the phrase "America's Pastime" implies anything beyond "Americans enjoy baseball". Idiot.

And you know what? It's true. A long time ago, Babe Ruth showed us that athletes, like everyone else, are imperfect. More recently, Rose hammered home the point for any of us who might have forgotten it. What did McGwire make clear? That human beings are always searching for an edge, and when they find it, they use it.

So why can't we have a place that celebrates the exemplary? Just because people are imperfect doesn't mean we have to be reminded of it at every turn. At a wedding ceremony, should we point out that the bride flashed her tits at Mardi Gras for four straight years? Should we point out that the groom once made a drunken pass at his cousin at her father's funeral? Must every fucking thing in life be a comment on the complex duality of human existence?

If we really want to do the right thing, let's vote in Rose and McGwire as soon as possible, then inscribe on Rose's plaque that he's a dirtbag who bet on his own team, and inscribe on McGwire's that he almost definitely used performance enhancers and wouldn't answer questions about it under oath.

I'd rather put them in with full honors. If people want the whole story on Rose and McGwire, on Cobb and Perry and anyone else, they can read about it elsewhere.

And if that information is too sobering for your kids, well, don't take them to Cooperstown. Take them to Disneyland.

I hate to break it to Bill Simmons' kids, but Walt Disney was accused of anti-semitism. And stay off the pole.

Catching Up

Like I said, it's time to get back to the comments I missed in the past eighteen months. BenHarding asked the following on Part One of my Wilt v Russell post:

Have you considered that Boston has more hall of famers than st Louis even though the two teams might be similarly talented is because Boston won more championships and hall of fame voters put a lot of value on championships. Player x could be just as good as player y only because player x played on a better team that won more championships he is more likely to be voted in the hall of fame.

Well, sure. There is definitely some "chicken-or-egg" involved on this topic. But in Part Six on this same topic, I believe I presented enough evidence to show that Boston had a crushing advantage in talent in most seasons. My case was not simply to say that Hall-of-Fame talent settles the matter.

From Part Seven, Bipan stops by to praise the site:

I'm glad you posted this on your blog! I'm so sick of people citing Mr. Simmons book as the unofficial basketball bible. I mean he does make some decent points, but I really disliked his negative portrayal of Chamberlain. Keep up the good work!

Thank you, sir/ma'am!

Steve agrees with me, and makes the same point I made with a lot fewer boring words:

Yes, and, Russell played with his HOF teammates on the same team at the same time. Wilt's were spread out at different times on different teams. And in nate Thurmond's case, he was a rookie who had to play out of position at center because of Wilt, and didn't blossom into a star center in his own right till Wilt was traded.

From my Finals prediction post (which I totally nailed LOL), Squall has a kind note for me:

Thank U for sharing your info!

You're quite welcome, Squall. Obviously you read my post very closely. Say, since I have your ear, do you know where can I get low-priced athletic footwear?

cheap basketball shoes

Wow! You helpfully provided a link! Thanks, Squall!

I should probably branch out into contemporary Simmons, too. Or I could make this into a full-on basketball blog, too. I don't know. But I'm back in bidness.

Still Alive! and other things

Let's just attribute my long absence to a perfect storm of computer issues, forgotten passwords, and other related maladies. But while I haven't lost my distaste for mocking Simmons and his so-called "classic", I'm wondering if it's even worthwhile to keep posting about it. Hell, the book wasn't new the last time I posted - I mean, does anyone really care about this book now? What's more, Simmons' recent work has been godawful. He established himself in a time when internet snark and pop culture references were fresh and funny. Now they're tired and played out (at least pop culture references are - snark will never die) and Simmons hasn't adjusted. If anything, he's become more juvenile and facile over time.

In most respects, Bill Simmons rates a "meh" with me. But, returning to a point I've made before, it really bothers me how he's become a kind of basketball oracle. Baseball has Bill James, and basketball has...well, the first name's the same anyway. So I suppose I owe it to posterity to finish my breakdown of Bill Simmons' Bogus Book. To get all of my objections on the record for future generations. Granted, future generations will have to find this site on the Wayback Machine while the Book of Basketball will be mandatory reading for English majors, but still. The point is, I'll be on record somewhere.

Normally, I answer comments in the comment section. But because I've been away for such a goddamn long time, the next post will be devoted to those comments I wasn't able to get to. Thanks again to everyone who has read, is reading now, and will continue to read. Special thanks to Ben from Bottom of the Barrel who still has my site linked on his.

Hello, hello,
well it's good to be back
good to be back
Hello, hello
Hello