The Height of Wonkery: An In-Depth Look at the NBA With the Most Innovative...

[Pitty]

I understand but there's no posts anywhere and every JimLeavy post is a negative point. The NBA discussion on this site is awful outside of our Rondo debate. And to be fair, this article is the least stat geeky a stat geeky article can be. There's no deep formulas, more or less this is what happens when this player does this, but I understand.

That's because the NBA is pretty awful unless you live in one of about five cities.

[FedEx227]

Yeah, I agree. That's why in some ways you need to disassociate with homer-ism and be a fan of the sport. That way you'll be content watching Kings/Warriors on a Wednesday night.

[Senser81]

Unrelated, but have you read Bill Simmons' large Basketball book?

[FedEx227]

Unfortunately.

[ralaw]

Yeah, I agree. That's why in some ways you need to disassociate with homer-ism and be a fan of the sport. That way you'll be content watching Kings/Warriors on a Wednesday night.

That is how I am. While I like the Lakers I actually follow every team in the league.

[FedEx227]

Then, I read a much better basketball book that came out at the same time: FreeDarko Presents: The Undisputed Guide to Pro Basketball History

[FedEx227]

That is how I am. While I like the Lakers I actually follow every team in the league.

Ditto. I try to catch a different matchup or a different combo of teams as much as possible. TNT also helps in that regard, especially the Western Conference nightcap, they always bring good match-ups.

[Senser81]

Then, I read a much better basketball book that came out at the same time: FreeDarko Presents: The Undisputed Guide to Pro Basketball History

The FreeDarko book was amazing. Its an interesting read even for non-basketball fans. Top notch illustrations.

I'm just about done with Simmons' book (getting through the last pyramid level). I've found some of it to be interesting, but I don't really follow Simmons when he tries to bring in some of the basketball statistics. Its too inconsistent. Thats my problem with the book in general. Its like you are being presented with a factual argument...but its really just Simmons choosing who he likes/dislikes. Too much emphasis is placed on winning NBA titles, especially when it was the same handful of teams winning titles over and over again. Its like Sam Jones gets a top 50 ranking because "remember that one game in that one Finals series where Sam Jones scored 36 points? That was awesome".

Just way too many inconsistencies for my taste. Simmons point against Wilt Chamberlain..."put Wilt in today's game, and he's not averaging 50 ppg!" One, NO SHIT! Two, the opposite point is probably true...Wilt's athleticism and skill would have allowed him to at the very least compete in today's game. Three, the context of the book was comparing Chamberlain to Bill Russell...put Bill Russell in today's game, and is he any better than Ben Wallace? This happens throughout his pyramid rankings.

One item that I thought was interesting was Simmons' love for Tim Duncan and hatred for Kobe Bryant. Maybe my view has been wrong, but I've always seen Kobe as being the best player in the NBA or the 2nd best player to LeBron...I never thought Duncan was considered superior to Kobe.

[FedEx227]

You know the reason is because Kobe is on the Lakers and Simmons doesn't like the Lakers. He has no reason for it, Kobe is very clearly a top player of this generation. Duncan is really, really, REALLY good but I don't think he's at that level. He is one of the best PF of all-time, so don't take this as me putting him down.

I hated the book, absolute trash. There's a time and a place for long form blogs filled with your opinion and very little factual backing... a book is not it. When I'm reading a book, I want you to present an argument and back it up with facts. Simmons' book was tripe. It was nothing but a 500 page blog of his baseless opinions, most of which are beyond stupid.

Russell was better than Wilt because Wilt got traded a few times~!! Great argument without looking at ANYTHING involved including financial reasons for the teams that had Wilt and a multitude of other reasons but nope, Russell was only on one team, so he's better. Absolute tripe.

[Senser81]

Russell was better than Wilt because Wilt got traded a few times~!! Great argument without looking at ANYTHING involved including financial reasons for the teams that had Wilt and a multitude of other reasons but nope, Russell was only on one team, so he's better. Absolute tripe.

I liked Chuck Klosterman's point...if Chamberlain were on the Celtics, could he have done what Russell did? Probably. If Russell were on the Warriors/Sixers/Lakers, could he have done what Wilt did? Not a chance.

[FedEx227]

Absolutely not. Russell was great, don't get me wrong but he was a non-factor on the Celtics offense given his size and supposed skill-level. He was there to block shots then throw it down court to Cousy and others to score quickly. If they hadn't scored when he got down, then they gave it to him but it's pretty funny that he only averaged at 18 ppg (at most) despite being physically dominant at that time.

[ralaw]

. Duncan is really, really, REALLY good but I don't think he's at that level. He is one of the best PF of all-time, so don't take this as me putting him down.

You don't put Duncan on Bryant's level? Most people would say that Duncan is the GOAT at PF.

[FedEx227]

Yeah, the more I think about it, I probably would. I was thinking in the pantheon of all-time greats, Kobe is ahead of him but if we're doing generational or era. He's in that conversation with Kobe. He's no doubt one of, if not the greatest PF of all time and if I'm doing a top 5 of the era (say 1998-2008) I'm going with Duncan, LeBron, Kobe, Shaq and Garnett.

So forget what I said earlier, put him up there. I've always been a big defender of him too. I guess he's easy to forget these days because he's been just average for a few years now while a lot of other all timers went out as still pretty dominant. (Shaq of course had a few shit years but those are complete afterthoughts)

[DoubleDeuce]

I'd have Duncan over Kobe all-time. Duncan anchored several historically great defenses and is one of the greatest outlet passing bigmen ever (something not seen in the stat books). Even to this day, Duncan is one of the best defenders and most impactful players in the league (has career highs in block percentage and leads the league in Defensive Rating). Duncan is one of few players in history to have a season leading the league in Offensive Win Shares and others in Defensive Win Shares. I think only Kareem and Shaq have done it (interestingly, Kobe has never even led his team in Total Win Shares in a Laker championship season)

Not that Win Shares actually mean much

[Senser81]

I think when Kobe's career is finally over, his numbers will be almost Wilt-like. Its amazing to me how long Kobe has played and how productive he's been. I put Duncan on Kobe's level, but I would stop short of saying Duncan was/is better than Kobe.