Rooting for the Mediocre
I’m reading Bill Simmons’ The Book of Basketball: The NBA According to The Sports Guy. It’s a lot of fun, and something most NBA fans should enjoy, albeit full of analytical claims I disagree with. One of the most interesting of those claims is a kind of meta-claim he makes near the beginning of the book attributing to himself extra-normal insight from his youth spent as a Celtics fan. It was from watching the truly great teams like the Celtics and the truly great players like Larry Bird that you come to really understand the game since those are the guys who, themselves, understand the game best.
I think this is kind of backwards. You sentimentalize teams you root for, and if you root for a team that’s really good—the Celtics or the Lakers or the Yankees (or the Canadiens?)—you wind up sentimentalizing success. And since the point of a sports competition is to win the games, sentimentalizing success gets people extremely confused. Thus we wind up hearing an awful lot in the book about “character” and how you need good character guys to win. If you’re a Celtics fan, this probably makes a lot of emotional success. The Spurs succeeded in the 2000s because of their great character guys. They were good people. Which means that the Celtics won all those championships because they were such good people. But of course I don’t want to say that the Knicks teams I rooted for in the nineties lost because of “bad character.” So more prosaic ideas come to mind—for example, by the time the team peaked Patrick Ewing was already on the old side and even at peak Ewing, though very good, was never the top big man in the association.
I think common sense is that you understand a sport by watching the best teams play it without having a strong rooting interest. Just watching, relatively dispassionately, to see the best athletes in the world go at it. To wax poetic you need to be “the listener who listens in the snow, / And, nothing himself, beholds / Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.” Otherwise you get too hung up on the idea that the ‘86 Celtics were better than the ‘96 Bulls (something that all and only people from Boston seem to think) and start twisting your whole worldview around to accommodate that conclusion.
68 Responses to “Rooting for the Mediocre”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 6th, 2009 at 8:40 am
But of course I don’t want to say that the Knicks teams I rooted for in the nineties lost because of “bad character.”
It’s fine to think that the Knicks of the nineties lost independent of their bad character as long as you acknowledge that bad character.
The Simmons book is surprisingly fun.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:41 am
The best teams in any sport are the best because they have the best combination of players, period. The includes the skills of the players, and the the on-field/court/ice management to some degree, and the skill of the player acquisition personnel. It has nothing to do with what kind of people the players are. A player can be a bitchy and sadistic emotional cripple and play great, or be courageous, decent and honest and totally suck.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:46 am
I’m also enjoying the Simmons book, but I recommend people read it like he’s recommended: in smaller doses over a period of time.
When I read too much of it one sitting his know-it-all schtick gets a little stale (three cocaine era jokes, funny; 23 cocaine-era jokes, significantly less funny) and I start wondering what I’m doing. But when I put it down and come back to it later, I like it all over again.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
I’m not a huge proponenet of the character/clubhouse issues, but I don’t think the claim is completely without merit. Obviously, what’s important in determining whether you win or lose games is how the players perform on the court. But I’d argue that performance is not independant of character.
Starting with the offseason and going all the way through the year, the level of consistent effort guys put forth in part depends on their character. There have been plenty of guys in the NBA (and NFL) who have coasted or not put forth full effort at times. It’s widespread enough that the idea of a contract year is almost cliche. The flip side to that, though, is that lots of guys aren’t really trying that hard in non-contract years.
Further, in basketball there is something in team chemistry, since so much of what needs to be done relies on coordination and cooperation in the flow of the game. Having guys that work well together as a unit is important. And a selfish player really can undercut a teams success, even though his numbers may improve as a result.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Micheal Jordan, is , was and always will be an asshole. The Bulls won because he’s such an asshole not because he was a paragon of virtue.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I once met Magic Johnson, in a parking garage in Lansing, so I, too, have a special insight into basketball!
November 6th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I once sold Phil Jackson a pizza as he was passing through my shitty midwest town. I have been a winner ever since.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Character and success do no go hand in hand. See, for example, the 86 Mets, George Steinbrenner, most Miami Hurricanes football teams, etc.
See also Leo Durocher: “Why they’re the nicest guys in the world! And where are they? In seventh place.”
November 6th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I think you’re misreading “character” here. Jordan was an asshole, and when you get to the Jordan part (SPOILER, HE’S NUMBER ONE) Simmons talks about it. He mentions in passing several times that Bird was a passive aggressive dick towards McHale and was dumb enough to break his hand in a bar fight. Magic cheated, again and again, then spent several years, as Simmons notes, frankly embarrassing himself by going out of his way to talk about his very heterosexual exploits that led him, not at all gay, to become infected. He was straight, by the way, you hear?
The point of “character” in this context is Rick Barry, who was an astounding player but Simmons just has a wealth of jaw dropping Barry stories for someone like me who was born in 1982. About how much his teammates disliked him, about what a jerk he was, and climactically for the evaluation of Barry’s career, petulantly not shooting the ball during the second half of a Finals game.
Remember, Simmons “learns The Secret” from Isiah, but Isiah was a prick; that’s just beside the point for basketball.
I enjoyed the book a great deal, though I think it suffers from Simmons’ typical sloppy reasoning in several places, there are some pet peeves I would’ve liked him to address/not buy into, and the editing left a great deal to be desired. (NOT a shot at the book’s length, which I enjoyed, but at several overt typos in the Yglesian style, and more importantly several cases where the sentence on the page doesn’t say what I’m sure Simmons meant. e.g., he’s ticked off that Dave Bing made the NBA’s 50 Best at 50 team over #53, #56, etc., on his list. Well, #53 is Dwyane Wade, so I don’t think that’s who Simmons thought should’ve been one of the 50 best in 1996.)
I also thought – I think you get most of this in the Unseld section – the discussion of advanced stats was valuable and interesting. Simmons’ own proposals are at least partly jokey, but I think there is a lot to his observation that the stats revolution as it’s available to the public (Hollinger, etc.) seems like it’s very different than the stats revolution in NBA front offices, which is by and large a closely guarded secret. There’s a point where Simmons wishes “offensive fouls drawn” was in the box score, and he footnotes it by saying that when he mentioned this to Darryl Morey, Morey replied “Why do you think we have Carl Landry?” In some ways I think you could understand Simmons’ book as an attempt to do, without the access and resources of an NBA team, the kind of assessments the teams themselves are doing, but on a historical basis. (He doesn’t entirely succeed, for several reasons, but I wound up being, e.g., convinced by his take on Kareem v. Wilt.)
November 6th, 2009 at 9:55 am
I always knew you were a Habs fan.
Go Leafs!!!
November 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Well it’s impossible to refute the character argument since “character” is never defined. Baseball analysis does a better job with the word “makeup,” which which still relatively undefined, refers more to a pattern of professional maturity than it does some abstract and subjective moral compass.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Lovely poem. Thanks.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Couldn’t you have used a picture of Starks hurling a three? It hurts to look at Ewing taking a shot. Ugly, ugly, ugly.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Baseball analysis does a better job with the word “makeup,” which which still relatively undefined, refers more to a pattern of professional maturity than it does some abstract and subjective moral compass.
I think that’s what Simmons was shooting for. Obviously being “a good guy” doesn’t really matter much to him – he argues that Dave Bing is overrated historically because he was and is thought of as a good, admirable guy, and again many of the guys in this book aren’t people we’d admire if they weren’t successful athletes. Simmons doesn’t care that Wilt was or claimed to be the most promiscuous man in America, he cares that Wilt decided it would be a good idea to gun for leading the league in assists, of all things, rather than prioritizing more mundane concepts like “how about we win the game.”
November 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am
One good way to gain insights about basketball is by playing a lot of basketball against good players in a variety of situation over years. It helps if you’re a middling athlete who generally over-achieves by studying hard in all aspects of life. Most great coaches were average players without much capacity to be erratic on the court. They got by through analysis. That analysis helped them make smart decisions to compensate for a lack of processing speed. They overachieved through tacit admission of their natural deficiences and that became habit that would limit better performers. The best players often have very little insight into why they do what they do on the court or at least can’t explain it that well. They learned the language of the game over the years and can fake it. A guy like Steve Nash just happens to be a pretty smart guy, good at the particular task of appearing to be insightful and thoughtful about the game – a totally different task. The guy who talks about the game well and the guy who plays the game well by making athletic decisions so fast they aren’t really what you’d call decisions, those guys don’t interact much. What you think is locker-room cliche is probably that to a certain extent, but also partly just where your average professional athlete’s mind is at when it comes to the sport they play. They don’t have much insight. If they’re any good, they have rare talent, work ethic, and something almost like autism, also into which they don’t have much insight. Meanwhile the non-athlete can probably gain more insight into a sport on xbox than by watching the Celtics instead of the effing Raptors.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
when ewing was in his prime, he was every bit as good as hakeem and david robinson, his peers in his prime. suffering as he does from small hands and feet, he got pushed off the block a little too easily and missed rebounds he should have had (he couldn’t palm the ball, which is amazing for a 7-footer), but he was nonetheless a terrific player (the best pick-and-roll chaser i ever saw).
and yes, the ‘86 celtics could beat the ‘96 bulls in a best of 7: i have no idea how matthew believes the ‘96 bulls would defend the celts front court.
which has nothing to do with character and everything to do with parish-bird-mchale-walton being extremely tough to defend.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Good point.
As a life-long Rockets fan, I have inexplicable malice towards the San Antonio Spurs.
I can’t explain it (but make no apologies for it!).
November 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I’m also enjoying the Simmons book. I’m about 2/3 through and have found only 1 jaw-dropping error, where he claims DJ was the best defensive 2 guard of the last 30 years (hello, anyone remember that Jordan guy?). I would also quibble where he says Rodman was one of the 3 best rebounders of all time (he’s pretty clearly the best rebounder of all time, by a decent margin too) and, if anything Rodman is too low on his Pyramid at #69 (although my inner Beavis thinks #69 is perfect for Rodman, heh-heh). Still, an entertaining read.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“The Spurs succeeded in the 2000s because of their great character guys. They were good people. Which means that the Celtics won all those championships because they were such good people.”
That lame generalization (of an admitted generalization) is an overreach of Simmons-like proportions.
That’s your take on why teams with good chemistry succeed? Seriously?
Please just stick to political analysis and posts about the plight of bikers in a car crazy world. Or better yet, keep this hoops thing going and let’s get some posts as to why the Knicks should have won with Charlie Ward and Chris Childs as its point guards.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I would submit that anyone who thinks Ewing in his prime was as good as Hakeem in his prime is simply wrong. Look at the ‘94 finals: aside from Ewing, every player on that Knick team was superior to his opposite number on the Rockets, and Pat Riley is a better coach than Rudy Tomjanovich, but the Rockets won because of their advantage at center (and because John Starks couldn’t hit anything at all in game 7).
November 6th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I lived in Boston from 78 through 89 and I think the 96 Bulls were better than the 86 Celtics.
On the other hand, there is something to that “character” business. Character isn’t the right word, determination and guts are more relevant (good moral character is hard to reconcile with assaulting opposing players as all but one ‘86 Celtic starter did at least once (the exception is Dennis Johnson IIRC).
I forget the year, but the last year the Celtics beat the Pistons in the NBA East they showed considerable guts and determination winning with 2 very injured big guys McHale had a broken foot and Parish couldn’t run — the Celtics won in games where he hobbled up and down the court and lost when he was on the bench (for the injury and a one game suspension for aggravated assult).
The next 2 years show that you can’t win championships with guts and determination alone. You also have to get the ball through the hoop. Oh and year after (Pistons loose final series to Lakers) shows that Isaiah Thomas might be a loudmouth and a terrible coach, but he had guts and determination setting the one quarter finals scoring record in 12 minutes which he started injured and finished with his old injury plus 2 new ones. Goes to show (again) guts are not enough.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Even though the 1986 Rockets lost in 6 (they could have lost in 7 or won in 7 if that Jerry Sichting/Ralph Sampson fracas didn’t happen, although my memory could be faulty), it’s worth watching if only for then-Akeem Olajuwon’s numerous punishing blocked shots on Bill Walton.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am
What Robert Waldmann said (except for the 86 celtics v. 96 bulls, of course).
I think an actual problem with Simmons’ book, that he points out all the time, is that he’s not sure what to do about the players of yore, and I’m not sure he ever comes up with a consistent solution. But what do you do with George Mikan, who transported to the present day probably couldn’t hang in a high quality D1 college game? How do you rate the greatest player of the pre-shot clock era? Simmons’ book is really all about context, in a variety of ways, and one perhaps inevitable weakness is that he’s not sure how to balance a player’s success in the context of his time period against his probable success in a modern setting, or if you prefer an abstracted setting with modern players.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am
“Otherwise you get too hung up on the idea that the ‘86 Celtics were better than the ‘96 Bulls (something that all and only people from Boston seem to think) and start twisting your whole worldview around to accommodate that conclusion.”
There’s plenty of folks who think the ‘96 Bulls aren’t the be-all, end-all of basketball. Those are the folks who actually watched NBA basketball in ‘96 and recognize the overall quality of the league was not, shall we say, at an all-time high.
Mike
November 6th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I lived in Boston from 78 through 89 and I think the 96 Bulls were better than the 86 Celtics.
Because you’re a good, decent, and honest soul. But how honest? The ‘87 Lakers were better than the ‘86 Celts, too.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:07 am
There’s plenty of folks who think the ‘96 Bulls aren’t the be-all, end-all of basketball.
Gawd, you know what? You’re right. I don’t even think the ‘96 were the best of Jordan-led Bulls team. So: ‘86 Celts maybe better than the ‘96 Bulls. But still worse than the ‘87 Lakers.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Robert Waldman – “On the other hand, there is something to that “character” business. Character isn’t the right word, determination and guts are more relevant….”
Agreed that character is real but character isn’t the right word. The problem is that character in sports is from the 50s and we still accept the moral content for some reason. Pro athlete fails to live up as human being is an easy column to write.
A better word wouldn’t set up good contributors who also happen to have adult maturity as potential civic failures. A better word and it’s never any real surprise that Jordan is a jerk – a sociopath even.
The only thing that should surprise is if Jordan had taken whatever it was that made him Jordan and used it to become the greatest serial killer of all time on the side.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am
I live in neither Boston nor Chicago, but I’d say the 86 Celtics were better than the 96 Bulls. The 87 Lakers were better than the 96 Bulls, too.
And there no way Ewing was ever as good as Hakeem. Or Robinson, but that one’s closer.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am
jimmybiscuit -
I’m trying to imagine that Hall of Fame induction speech.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:17 am
The question of character is much more interesting in basketball than in baseball. Because basketball relies on teammate cooperation on both ends of the floor on every play, it is easier for a malcontent to hurt the team performance with uninspired or selfish play. That said, I think that people like Simmons have gone a little bit too far in the opposite direction towards overrating the importance of chemistry.
Also, Ewing the equal of Robinson or Olajuwon? No. Ewing was a very good player who played in the biggest media market in the country. Robinson and Olajuwon were two of the all-time greats. Even if you concede that Ewing was evenly matched offensively with Hakeem, he was nowhere near the defender that Hakeem (easily the best defensive center of the mid 80s-90s era). Robinson was much better offensively than both and held his own defensively too.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am
You have to remember that people from Boston tend to think they’re smarter and have “extra-normal” insight into almost everything. That’s where Simmons is really coming from. We’re the most knowledgeable baseball fans, basketball fans, Premier League soccer fans, alternative music fans, classical music fans, history buffs, etc. etc. However we do cede extra-normal insight into football to Steelers fans for the most part, and we gave up on hockey years ago.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:34 am
and yes, the ‘86 celtics could beat the ‘96 bulls in a best of 7: i have no idea how matthew believes the ‘96 bulls would defend the celts front court.
Huh? Scottie could defend Bird. And Rodman could defend McHale. Parish might be more difficult, but the Luc Longley/Bill Wennington/John Salley/Buddha Edwards multi-headed monster would do OK.
On the flip side, who on the ‘86 Bulls is going to defend Jordan and Pippen? There is no way DJ, Ainge and Bird could even hope to keep up with those guys.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I would submit that anyone who thinks Ewing in his prime was as good as Hakeem in his prime is simply wrong. Look at the ‘94 finals: aside from Ewing, every player on that Knick team was superior to his opposite number on the Rockets, and Pat Riley is a better coach than Rudy Tomjanovich, but the Rockets won because of their advantage at center (and because John Starks couldn’t hit anything at all in game 7).
Tom, please stop.
You’re making child-me sob again 15 years ago.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:41 am
You have to remember that people from Boston tend to think they’re smarter and have “extra-normal” insight into almost everything. That’s where Simmons is really coming from. We’re the most knowledgeable baseball fans, basketball fans, Premier League soccer fans, alternative music fans, classical music fans, history buffs, etc. etc. However we do cede extra-normal insight into football to Steelers fans for the most part, and we gave up on hockey years ago.
And that, vanya, is why the rest of Red Sox Nation can still agree with the rest of the country about the parentage, hygiene, and sexual deviancy of Massholes.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:43 am
aside from Ewing, every player on that Knick team was superior to his opposite number on the Rockets
Really?
Oakley and Mason were better than Thorpe and Horry? I don’t think so.
Starks, Greg Anthony, elderly Derek Harper and Hubert Davis were better than Kenny Smith, Sam Cassell and Mad Max? I don’t think so.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am
“Scottie could defend Bird. And Rodman could defend McHale.”
‘96 Scottie and ‘86 Bird would be a good matchup. But ‘86 McHale would absolutely destroy ‘96 Rodman.
Mike
November 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am
And Rodman could defend McHale.
Pretty good general point, but I think McHale would have eaten him. As (poor) evidence, check out the vs. DET game logs for ‘87-’88. It looks like McHale averaged about 25 against a Pistons team with Rodman on it (second year). That’s the year the Pistons got by the Celts, too.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:46 am
The Riley-era Knicks are a bad team to pick in this example, because they’re one of the few teams I would say really is morally reprehensible. They damn near ruined basketball; it was 10 years before D’Antoni and Nash saved it. Seriously, I’m the biggest NBA fan I know, and by about 2001 even I was losing interest.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
SCMT: Rodman probably would have been guarding Bird in those games. In his first few years in the league Rodman played SF. That’s when he was an out-of-this-world man-to-man defender, absolutely anywhere on the court. Later he couldn’t keep up on the perimeter and he became a 4.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Um, I misremember, but didn’t they change the rules so that McHale’s style of attempted homicide, sorry, I meant aggravated assault, again, sorry, I meant physical play wouldn’t work in 96? Thus, to bring up the contextual point again, how could we compare his work with Rodman’s?
Although, I seem to recall the Bulls trouncing the Knickerbockers despite Gordon Gekko ordering them to go for the jugular with dirty, HIV-infected shanks.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
The Riley-era Knicks are a bad team to pick in this example, because they’re one of the few teams I would say really is morally reprehensible. They damn near ruined basketball; it was 10 years before D’Antoni and Nash saved it. Seriously, I’m the biggest NBA fan I know, and by about 2001 even I was losing interest.
Even child-me would agree that we played very naughty.
But then, this whitewashing is a New York staple.
C’mon, the fuckers in the Bronx have been pumped up to be the most “professional” (in a professional league?) team in baseball. Despite being a band of often reprehensible mercenaries in an already mercenary league, everyone else *still* feels the need to polish their poles.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Let’s remember that the 87-88 Pistons also played Salley and Mahorn at PF too. I think it would have been an interesting matchup. McHale could certainly have used his size advantage over Rodman. I wonder if the Bulls might have thought about putting Toni Kukoc on McHale to negate the size factor? Kukoc was rail thin, but could use his size to defend effectively for a few years there until his back gave out.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:52 am
The main weakness of those 90s Bulls teams was depth. Their rosters, past the top 3 or 4, are just depressing. Go to basketball-reference.com and look at some of the clowns who got big minutes on those teams. Yes, they were singularly dominant, but apart from those Bulls, the mid-late 90s were not a good time for the NBA. The 80s stars were either retire or past their prime, and the post-Jordan, LeBron-era guys hadn’t arrived yet. The league had almost as many teams as it does now but without the depth of foreign talent. It was a rough time to be a fan.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Al – Looking back, I overstated slightly, but I’d still take Mason over Horry, Charles Smith over Herrera, and definitely John Starks over Maxwell. Oakley and Thorpe are a push, while Harper vs. Smith and Anthony vs. Cassell are hard to call – very different skills, with the Knicks guards having a real edge on defense but the Rockets guards better shooters. Remember that Cassell was a rookie that year. The only position (aside from center) I’d definitely give to the Rockets is Mario Elie vs. Hubert Davis.
And Pat Riley was definitely a better coach than Rudy T.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
I’m enjoying Simmons’s book, but its rightful place is on the top shelf of the toilet. I recommend you read it in pieces, skip around, otherwise the self-indulgant writing tends to get a tad bothersome.
As a Knicks fan who was probably at every important Knicks playoff game in the 90’s, I hated Ewing. With a passion. The knicks had a habit of stealing good players from other teams only to have them flounder in New York (Rolando Blackman, Xavier McDaniel, etc…). Why did they not succeed? Because our offense simply ran through Ewing, who slowed it to a halt with his laborious post moves. In 1999, when the Knicks acquired Larry Johnson and Allan Houston, the pattern remained similar…until Ewing got hurt. Suddenly the other parts of the Knicks blossomed and these players reached their full potential. Not only this, but the team displayed a togetherness that took them from the 8th seed all the way to the NBA finals.
Patrick Ewing…what a douche. There’s a reason why Simmons coined the Ewing Theory (When your team inexplicably gets better after losing your star player.) Because, though he was a great individual talent, he was a crap team player.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Rodman probably would have been guarding Bird in those games.
Good point. Also, as I recall, he didn’t start.
McHale could certainly have used his size advantage over Rodman.
I don’t know if it would be the size so much as the moves. I hated the big goon, and even I’ll admit that he was just wrong in the post. I would take Rodman vs. Duncan as a best-available proxy.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Their rosters, past the top 3 or 4, are just depressing. Go to basketball-reference.com and look at some of the clowns who got big minutes on those teams.
Bah. Those teams had 7 legitimate NBA players on them: MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Longley, Harper, and Kerr. Since all you need in the playoffs are 7 1/2 players (you’re not going to play the 8th man big minutes), that was pretty much sufficient.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
John Starks over Maxwell
What would you pay to see that as a cage match? I’d forgotten how much crazy there was in the league in those days.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I don’t know if it would be the size so much as the moves.
But I wonder if Worm’s phenomenal agility would have negated the moves. If anything, I could see McHale abandoning the moves and simply using the step back jumper – which he released from way over his head. It would have been very difficult for Rodman to defend, giving up the height.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Brett, so many of my friends could not understand why I liked Spree.
Because he was also a huge douche, but he always seemed better at playing with, y’know, the rest of the fucking team than Ewing.
Moreover, the Gold Club case extinguished any residual affection I might have had for the face of the Knicks while I was growing up.
Actually, child-me initially liked Starks better, because I wasn’t a very tall dude.
Until.
Well.
You know.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Given his interests, blogasm moment for Yglesias’s blog: KJ to marry Michelle Rhee. Frankly, I think he should be insulted that he wasn’t chosen to break this.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
KJ to marry Michelle Rhee.
Bi-coastal couple? That’s going to be difficult.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Bi-coastal couple
Those were just rumors about KJ; nothing was ever proven. And I don’t think you should read too much into Rhee’s pant suit.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Whoever said that Ewing and the Knicks ruined basketball for them for ten years is probably your average NBA fan.
Good team players create chemistry. Average team players know their role and do not disturb others. Eccentric team players are Jack Haley.
Not sure where guys like Ewing and Iverson fit in. Ewing is worse than Antoine Walker because also better. Every year with a Ewing or an Iverson is a double or nothing that never hits.
Why GMs can’t see this adjust accordingly with a better idea of what constitutes a franchise player while downgrading the Ewings and Iversons to good-but-not-great or great-but-awful status as need be is hilarious.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Nice Wallace Stevens reference. Trust your readers to recognize the lines at once. Some of us read the blog, (because friends do) hoping for the occasional literary reference.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
A 40ish Ernest Hemingway once decked a very drunk, 60ish Wallace Stevens. And bragged about it later. Tried to sound casual about it, but couldn’t.
Stevens had been annoyed at Hemingway and, in his drunkenness, thought he could take him. Stevens was a pretty big guy. But, like I said, 60 something.
Winning has nothing to do with character.
My favorite Stevens, btw, is his Love’s Labour’s Lost parody, The Comedian as the Letter C.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Yeah, John Starks and Mad Max were basically the same player, except Starks was a little bit better at everything.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Jeff Davis — Mine is “The Idea of Order at Key West.” For she was the maker of the song she sang . …
How come no one on the site is talking about the Phillies/Yankees game? One can love literature and baseball too. I’m in Philly and proud of our team. I actually think there are many parallels between baseball and politics.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Fuck the goddamn Canadiens. Those son of a bitches ruined my childhood. Every time one of my teams was on the verge of advancing in playoffs the Canadiens would get a lucky goal or my guys would hit the pipe or the Forum Ghosts would descend from the rafters and steal the game and break my hear..rr..hold on. Incoming…I have just been informed that I am “twisting my world view around to accommodate that conclusion.”
It’s true. The Canadiens of the 70’s were a beautiful team, a dynamic team, but I couldn’t see it; so filled with rage and hatred was I for the stinking Les Habitants.
Even now when I hear French-Canadian accented English I cringe, and think how much I hated the La’s.. Lafleur, Lamaire, Laroche, Larose, Lapointe, Larocque, and Laperriere.
I need to get over this. Or maybe I don’t. I find myself missing them. The Canadiens. I miss hating them.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
A lot of teams match up well with the ‘96 Bulls frontcourt. That advantage isn’t much use if you can’t get past the Bulls’ perimeter defense.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
The Bulls obviously had great perimeter defense, but you know, Larry Bird did pretty well against the Lakers and Michael Cooper was considered at least one of the best wing defenders of his day. Rather than actually caring about who’d win head to head in a series (among other caveats, sometimes you do get into rock/paper/scissors situations in sports), I think it’s worth recalling something else that Simmons points out in the book; you literally couldn’t rebuild the 86 Celts today. If you magically transported the team forward into today’s economy and CBA, and adjusted those guys’ salaries to the modern equivalents of what they were making in the 80s, the Celtics would be tens of millions of dollars over the cap. (The same is surely true for the Lakers of that era as well.)
November 6th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I’m about 2/3 through and have found only 1 jaw-dropping error, where he claims DJ was the best defensive 2 guard of the last 30 years (hello, anyone remember that Jordan guy?).
DJ started out in the 2 spot but — during his heyday with the Celts — was firmly established at the point. And, yeah, I kinda think he was the best defensive point guard in the game’s history. (I think Mo Cheeks was pretty close in this regard — full disclosure: I grew up a Sixers fan — but I’m willing to give DJ the nod. He was pesky, pesky as all get out.) Does Simmons consider DJ as an occasional two-guard or as a mostly-point-guard? I haven’t bought the book, of course. Moreover, I haven’t cared about basketball in at least a decade. What do you guys see in the game of today?!
And how anyone could claim that Ewing was every bit as good as Hakeem is beyond me. P.E. was a very good player, to be sure. But one of the league’s all-time greats? Not a chance.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Yeah, John Starks and Mad Max were basically the same player, except Starks was a little bit better at everything.
Whatever his limitations and faults, Vernon Maxwell was a true lockdown defender, a term not generally associated with John Starks.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Moreover, I haven’t cared about basketball in at least a decade. What do you guys see in the game of today?!
If you gave up on the game in the late 90s, give it another chance. Its closer to the NBA of 1989 than the NBA of 1999. Also, you get to watch LeBron. A thing of beauty is a joy forever.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
The problem with basketball is that its often in the interest of players to overshoot and play shitty defense. Simmons is simply saying that the great teams have enough character to avoid such a pitfall. You can be an ass like Micheal Jordan. But Jordan knew his role on the team (especially during the Phil Jackson era when he played defense and distributed the ball).
November 7th, 2009 at 12:26 am
i missed much of this due to travelling today, but to return to the matchup question: it’s actually very clear how a celts-bulls matchup would go. the celts would put dj on jordan and tell him “son, satch sanders once played a great game of defense on elgin the night he got 72, so as long as you hold jordan to an average of 50, we’ll be fine.” mchale and bird would both spend time on pippen and make him work for the points and they’d simply shut down the rest of the bulls offense.
meanwhile, the front-court matchups are simply not favorable on defense for the bulls: rodman could shut down either mchale or bird but not both, pippen would make the other work hard, but parish (and walton swinging in) would eat up the bull center combo and walton in particular would be hitting bird and ainge for 3s.
as for ewing, hakeem, and robinson: there’s no question that over the totality of career, hakeem was better than patrick or robinson, but that doesn’t mean that every single year he was better. during their respective primes, there were season when each was best, and of the three, ewing had by far the weakest teammates.
as to the notion that the knicks were man-for-man better than the rockets other than hakeem: that may be the most unique basketball opinion i’ve ever seen. yes, hakeem outplayed patrick in the finals (although patrick did, after all, set the still-standing nba finals blocked shot record) but what kept the knicks from the ring was john starks’ game 7 shooting, pure and simple.
November 7th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“as to the notion that the knicks were man-for-man better than the rockets other than hakeem: that may be the most unique basketball opinion i’ve ever seen.”
People are forgetting that Derek Harper came to NY from Dallas earlier that year, 94. Derek wasn’t with NY when the Rockets beat NY in NY to start the season 15-0.
When Derek was in Dallas he always killed Kenny Smith. Picked his pocket so many times I have a video of Derek Harper on a breakaway after a steal, Kenny Smith trailing behind, running on a loop in my brain whenever someone mentions Derek Harper. Even when Mavericks sucked, Derek made them competitive with the Rockets and the Rockets lost a lot of games to them – including one memorable, key game down the stretch in 93.
Going into the 94 Finals, that match up – Derek vs Kenny – scared the hell outta me.
With regard to Hakeem vs. Robinson vs. Ewing: People are also forgetting that Olajuwon completely outplayed Robinson in the 95 Western Conference finals. I mean it was not even close. Hakeem made him look bad and of course was totally nonchalant and classy afterwards.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
i was taking one last look at this thread before it disappeared so mister nomer, let me say with respect to hakeem that i put him in the top tier of nba centers with russell, wilt, and kareem.
walton would be in that group if he had stayed health.
then i’ve got shaq and moses malone.
and then a cluster that includes patrick, robinson, nate thurmond, dave cowens, willis reed, wes unseld, robert parish, and one or two others i’m not thinking of now.
as for derek harper: a harper in his prime and the knicks could have won something, but he wasn’t and they didn’t.