Bill Simmons skyhook

[dr.hee]

Wilt basically claimed that the Knicks were a team of destiny that season.

So Wilt wasn't that intelligent apparently. Destiny? Gimme a break. What's next? Wilt missed all these freethrows because Russell had a Voodoo doll, cursing him with shitty mechanics?

[LAZERUSS]

So Wilt wasn't that intelligent apparently. Destiny? Gimme a break. What's next? Wilt missed all these freethrows because Russell had a Voodoo doll, cursing him with shitty mechanics?

Well, the Knicks were clearly the better team that year.

And Wilt "lost" all those H2H's with Russell, not because of poor FT shooting (BTW, Russell wasn't much better in his post-season career, either), but because Chamberlain was cursed with pathetic rosters that played even worse in the post-season. And that is undeniable.

BTW, as poorly as Wilt's teammates played, most all of them played better WITH Chamberlain, than withOUT Wilt.

In fact, later on, I will challenge Simmons' take that Wilt played with just as many HOFers as Russell did. Not only did Russell play with his much longer (and far more games), they of course, played much better than Wilt's, as well. Again, though, Wilt still generally got more out of his "HOFers", than they did without him.

[Nowitness]

Well, the Knicks were clearly the better team that year.

And Wilt "lost" all those H2H's with Russell, not because of poor FT shooting (BTW, Russell wasn't much better in his post-season career, either), but because Chamberlain was cursed with pathetic rosters that played even worse in the post-season. And that is undeniable.

BTW, as poorly as Wilt's teammates played, most all of them played better WITH Chamberlain, than withOUT Wilt.

In fact, later on, I will challenge Simmons' take that Wilt played with just as many HOFers as Russell did. Not only did Russell play with his much longer (and far more games), they of course, played much better than Wilt's, as well. Again, though, Wilt still generally got more out of his "HOFers", than they did without him.

8 less ppg from regular season to playoffs.

who isn't improving their play now?

[SpecialQue]

Simmons needs to stick to talking about things he has actual first-hand knowledge of, like removing your gag reflex.

[dr.hee]

Well, the Knicks were clearly the better team that year.

And Wilt "lost" all those H2H's with Russell, not because of poor FT shooting (BTW, Russell wasn't much better in his post-season career, either), but because Chamberlain was cursed with pathetic rosters that played even worse in the post-season. And that is undeniable.

BTW, as poorly as Wilt's teammates played, most all of them played better WITH Chamberlain, than withOUT Wilt.

In fact, later on, I will challenge Simmons' take that Wilt played with just as many HOFers as Russell did. Not only did Russell play with his much longer (and far more games), they of course, played much better than Wilt's, as well. Again, though, Wilt still generally got more out of his "HOFers", than they did without him.

Holy shit, Simmons scared already. Hopfefully we can talk him out of suicide after getting totally owned. Another essay incoming? My god, Wilt...

[AlphaWolf24]

thing is that same logic can be applied to you. Imo, high school basketball isnt really teaching you anything.

True....

yet I don't get payed to talk hoop...nor is it my Profession...


yet I'm sure I know 1,000% more then Simmons about the actual game.....


My point was....I'm not taking swimming lessons from someone who obviously never been in the water...





my opinions only

[Stringer Bell]

Hmmm...

Page 236 from 'Wilt---Just Like Any Other 7 Seven Foot Black Millionaire Who Lives Next Door'...(written in 1973)



Maybe Wilt made that comment in another book of his, but he certainly didn't do in that one. More than likely he did not, and more than likely, he was mis-quoted...INTENTIONALLY.

And there was absolutely nothing in that quote that was not accurate, BTW. Frazier murdered West in the '72 Finals, and outplayed him in the '73 Finals (particularly in the clinching game.)

Excuses.....excuses.

No wonder you are such a Wilt "stan".

Misquoted

[SamuraiSWISH]

And Jordan drafted Kwame. What's your point?

And? ...

He was the consensus number 1 pick, it wasn't like MJ took some gamble when there was vastly superior prospects to be taken ahead of him. All GMs in his situation were going to take him.

Pepetually one of the dumbest things to get on MJ's case about.

[Legends66NBA7]

F[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck Bill Simmons.

[LAZERUSS]

F[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck Bill Simmons.

[DatAsh]

I think sports are often peaks and valleys rather than simple evolution. For instance, boxing's quality has gone down as a whole due to diminished interest and lack of teaching. The technically skills of fighters, as a whole, in the 60s-90s are just far better and deeper than today. In-fighting, footwork, subtle defense and counters, etc...The big increases in boxing's talent and technique came during the 40s. The gap is huge.

With basketball, I just think that it got better from the 60s to 80s due to various reasons. "The eye test", which is just another way of saying "my opinion". There's no way to prove anything. Since the 80s/90s, the quality of the players has increased in some ways and decreased in others. Compare the center position of the past few years to that of 20 years ago, centers like Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Shaq, were all in on near their primes, or up-and-coming and performing at an extremely high level. But in other positions, you have players like Dirk who are unique.

I don't know if the current era is "better" than the 80s and 90s. I do think it was more fun to watch back then.

But anyway, Simmons has his own opinion like anyone else and I don't have a problem with Wilt at 6, he's only putting fellow legends ahead of him. You can put him at 1 for domination and changing the rules by being so great, or have him below those other guys for the reasons he gave, I don't care.

Now people on this board who say crap like "Wilt/Russell would be D-leaguers or benchwarmers in today's era", that's a different story and I think that is hogwash.



"Harsh" may be the wrong word to use in Simmons's description of Kareem. He just likes making fun of Kareem.

But the criticism on Erving's game I thought was too much and inaccurate.

He ranks him high (16) for historical impact. He said Erving couldn't shoot a 15 footer, was more style than substance, and was a subpar defender. Erving was an okay mid-range shooter. I've seen him make many mid-range shots, some of them in traffic and awkward angles, use the glass on them, fadeaway on them...An 18 footer basically sealed the 83' title. Of course this is a small sample size, but most accounts have him as an average to okay shooter from mid range and the outside. Not some serial bricklayer.

His defense wasn't bad either. Gambled a bit too much, but wasn't subpar IMO.

There was plenty of substance in addition to style. Not just the ABA MVPs and titles, but in the NBA in his late 20s and early 30s, he was consistently scoring in the early to mid 20s per game on respectable efficiency, along with 7-8 boards and 4 assists per game. Finishing 2nd, 1st, 3rd, and then 5th in MVP voting from 80-83, 5 All-NBA 1st team appearances in 6 years.

Edit: Actually, looking at it again, he just contradicts himself on Erving. In regards to the "more style than substance", Simmons had Erving as a top 5 player in 4 of 5 seasons from 1978-83, and then top 10 in 1984 at age 34.

It seems to make little sense to me to downplay the "substance" of a player, making it sound like the guy was more just exciting than a real great player, and then saying he was one of the 5 best players in the league for a 5 year period (barring one season).

I also do not get how Doc "barely outplayed" Bob Gross in the 77' Finals. Doc played great. He just happened to play great in the same series when Bill Walton had one of the best, most complete, performances in Finals History.

Walton was the best player in the series, Doc was 2nd. Whomever was 3rd was a distant 3rd.

Erving was not a sub-par defender.

[SpecialQue]

F[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck Bill Simmons.

[Paul George 24]

This is the guy who is obsessed with trashing Wilt Chamberlain's legacy...

skyhook

[Rake2204]

Interesting topic. I think it's quite possible to learn and know an incredible amount about the game of basketball without having much playing experience, but it's a tough road. Some of my best coaches were guys who had less-than-mediocre basketball playing success throughout their lives. They were excellent X's and O's guys, knew how to manage time, drilled correctly, understood how to adjust and handle player personalities, and they could read the court well enough to understand what was occurring and how they could adjust their team to counter.

On the other hand, my best individual-skill builder was a former minor league ballplayer with a near endless amount of legitimate basketball ability and experience.

And, in yet another category, some of the best basketball players I've ever played amongst had relatively awful basketball knowledge. They had incredible instincts that those on the outside looking in would never fully understand but they may never fully grasp the intricacies of the game itself.

So I guess, as an analyst, I'm not sure it takes being a former high level player to analyze games, roster management, and organizations. It wouldn't take rocket science for a guy like Bill Simmons, even with his poor ability, to recognize bad plays or moves in games. Would his inexperience on the hardwood affect his ability to truly understand why certain decisions may have been made by certain players? Maybe. And if his job was to give detailed instruction of how a player could physically improve specific maneuvers, I think that could be a problem.

Otherwise, I think there's a lot that a studious fan of the game could have to offer in lieu of an incredible basketball playing background. That said, I feel it'd be in their best interest to be forthright in what they do not know. It can be pretty easy to pluck out those types once they step into the realm of the unknown.

[hawkfan]

Learning basic fundamentals of basketball isn't difficult.