Read The Book of Basketball: The NBA According to The Sports Guy by Bill Simmons Online

the-book-of-basketball-the-nba-according-to-the-sports-guy

There is only one writer on the planet who possesses enough basketball knowledge and passion to write the definitive book on the NBA.* Bill Simmons, the from-the-womb hoops addict known to millions as ESPN.com’s Sports Guy, is that writer. And The Book of Basketball is that book. Nowhere in the roundball universe will you find another single volume that covers as much in sThere is only one writer on the planet who possesses enough basketball knowledge and passion to write the definitive book on the NBA.* Bill Simmons, the from-the-womb hoops addict known to millions as ESPN.com’s Sports Guy, is that writer. And The Book of Basketball is that book. Nowhere in the roundball universe will you find another single volume that covers as much in such depth as this wildly opinionated and thoroughly entertaining look at the past, present, and future of pro basketball.From the age-old question of who actually won the rivalry between Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain to the one about which team was truly the best of all time, Simmons opens–and then closes, once and for all–every major pro basketball debate. Then he takes it further by completely reevaluating not only how NBA Hall of Fame inductees should be chosen but how the institution must be reshaped from the ground up, the result being the Pyramid: Simmons’s one-of-a-kind, five-level shrine to the ninety-six greatest players in the history of pro basketball. And ultimately he takes fans to the heart of it all, as he uses a conversation with one NBA great to uncover that coveted thing: The Secret of Basketball.Comprehensive, authoritative, controversial, hilarious, and impossible to put down (even for Celtic-haters), The Book of Basketball offers every hardwood fan a courtside seat beside the game’s finest, funniest, and fiercest chronicler.* More to the point, he’s the only one crazy enough to try to pull it off. ...

Title : The Book of Basketball: The NBA According to The Sports Guy
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780345511768
Format Type : Hardcover
Number of Pages : 736 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

The Book of Basketball: The NBA According to The Sports Guy Reviews

  • Will Johnson
    2018-10-31 15:22

    Reprinted from my website Secure Immaturity:The Sports Guy (aka Bill Simmons) is an engaging, Internet personality. He previously wrote a book that was a collection of his highly successful and entertaining Internet postings regarding his beloved Red Sox. Any fan of Simmons knows that he is a rabid Boston sports fanatic, most notably the Celtics and Red Sox. If there is any weakness to his writing it is that he is insanely biased to those Boston teams. When approaching topics from a fan perspective (like the love of the game (MLB or NBA) or fan experiences) then Simmons is top notch but when it comes to overall analysis that involves perspective and objectivity, the bias comes out and makes his opinions seem less relevant.The sad thing about The Book of Basketball is that it is Simmons gargantuan attempt at putting the NBA in perspective by ranking the all-time greatest teams and players for most of its length. When Simmons focuses on fan experiences or the love of the game he excels. The book starts out this way and is highly engaging. The prologue may be about his beloved Celtics but it describes his attendance at games, his joy at watching some of the greatest players play and sharing those experiences with his father. The next chapter focuses on ‘The Secret’, a concept Isiah Thomas explained to him about winning. Since the concept is something Simmons and the reader can remember and has (or currently is) witnessed/witnessing, the concept and portrayal in the book is equally as engaging as the opening, heart felt prologue.The problem is the ‘objective’ analysis sections. A majority of the book is a breakdown of the 96 greatest players of all time (separated into five levels, the top being the Pantheon). This is all fine and dandy until you realize almost every Celtic ever known is on this list. I can’t particularly argue with it (as my friend and SI contributor Tony points out ‘they did dominate basketball for multiple decades) but while the Celtic players get almost heavenly like bios, other players come under scrutiny and ‘but they had this problem’. . .kind of analysis that makes you wonder if you are reading a ‘Greatest’ list or a ‘Great but. . .’ list. The nastiest trick is that Simmons pretends to be unbiased by placing his beloved Larry Bird as #5 all time behind hypothetical rival Magic Johnson (#4) and real enemy Kareem Abdul Jabbar (#3). He even references, verbatim, ’see, I’m not a homer. . .I put Magic 4th!’. But then he puts Bill Russell as #2. Despite the dominance of the man (and a respect I equally share with the author) there is no way the dude is #2 all time! Simmons even spends hundreds of pages describing how pre-merger NBA players wouldn’t stand a chance against post-merger NBA players. . .so how could Russell, a player from the 60s who had virtually no competition at his position and faced fewer (and less talented) teams be placed so high? Because he’s a Celtic damn it. . .that’s why.The worst offender is the Greatest Teams section which is also heavily dominated by Celtics teams. I’m not saying Celtics teams from different eras don’t deserve credit but placing the 1986 Boston Celtics over the 1996 Chicago Bulls as the greatest team of all time is just plain blasphemy. And I’d like to say Simmons uses great research to back up his decision but when the only thing he can come up with is ‘the Bulls struggled in the playoffs’ (they went 15-3) and ‘the Sonics, with no bench, won 67 that year. . .that season was a joke’, I’m not really buying the argument. He derides the players on the bench (Luc Longley, Jud Beuchler, etc) as not holding a candle to Bostons’ Hall of Famers. Duh? Those ‘losers’ on the bench won 72 games and defended their title two more times. The ‘86 Celtics won 60-odd games and didn’t even defend the title the following year (which he chalks up to injuries and Len Bias’ death. Great piled it on the dead guy! Plus he says injuries are part of the game in one section but uses it as his major defense in this section). Something tells me the Bulls won more with less and did it better. Keep in mind. . .I’m an Orlando Magic fan. I got swept in the ‘96 Eastern Finals by that Bulls team.This kind of writing suits the Internet but not a 700 page book meant to be the end-all be-all of basketball info. I picked this book up looking for excellent analysis and unbiased opinions: looked like I picked the wrong guy. Since Simmons is an Internet writer first with a gimmick (the fan’s perspective) I gave him a pass. But over 400 pages of ‘objective’ analysis is pushing it. The book does have a ‘you’ve worn out your welcome’ feel to it. The four hundred mark would have been fine but this book gets old after you start entering the 600 page area. Simmons is known for his humorous footnotes and pop culture references but they also overdue there welcome. While I enjoyed the experience overall, I think it would have behooved the Internet writer to make his first foray into book writing be less gargantuan and interested mainly in his gimmick/expertise. I never could trust Simmons for objectivity before and I certainly can’t trust him now.This is a hard one to recommend. If Simmons’ ESPN articles are PG/PG-13 then this book is Rated R. There is some foul language, an unbelievable amount of dick jokes and the ability to rip apart anyone he wants without input from his web hosts and employers. Simmons spends one chapter comparing Bill Russell (Celtic) and Wilt Chamberlain. The goal, in the beginning of the chapter, was to compare why Russell was a better winner and player then Wilt despite statistics to the contrary. Instead it ends up being how much of an asshole Wilt was and how bad of a person he was. In the end I felt bad for Wilt even if some of the things he did were pretty assholeish (new word). This is not objective writing. . .this is ‘academic’ bashing.I admire the amount of work that went into the book but despite the 700 pages it does feel like it is missing something (besides credibility and objectivity). I feel that for a book its size it should have more to it then just a bunch of lists and random analysis. I also feel that the book should have been a)edited better (there are myriad amounts of typos towards the end which proved the book was being rushed) and b)released later. To release a book after the 2009 Playoffs (the transcripts were written before or during the Playoffs) where major arguments (especially about Kobe and Dwight Howard; The Lakers and Orlando Magic) are made is asking for trouble. The book’s release date made some of the book instantly obsolete. And why not just change all of the transcript? Simmons adds an epilogue focusing on the ‘09 Finals and a few footnotes showing how the transcript was made false by the Playoffs. Why? Just change a paragraph here or there. Ugh. . .it was frustrating and doesn’t make a lot of sense.Oh well. . .you get a decent book here. But when you sit down and lug around a 700 page book I want a large amount of quality, not a large amount of mediocrity. Enjoy at your own risk if you are a fan of basketball or of a specific team. If you are a fan of the Boston Celtics then this is God’s gift to you.

  • Joe
    2018-10-27 10:16

    Ultimately, a pretty disappointing book. As a big fan of the Sports Guy's columns about the NBA, I thought I would be laughing from beginning to end and learning a lot. Neither turned out to be true. By expanding upon the worst parts of his columns - his obsessive biases towards certain types of players and teams - and mostly ignoring the profound insight he usually incites with his biting humor, Simmons comes off as someone who spent too much time watching pro basketball and now can do nothing but rant about it. I wanted to learn about all the great players of history in this book, but instead I mostly learned what Simmons thinks is wrong with them. It's clear that Simmons has thrived online due to the work of his editors in corralling his babbling and refining his humor. The supposedly hilarious footnotes in this book consist of nothing but bad porn star humor, bad 80's movie humor, and Simmmons making jokes about how he can't stop making porn star and drug jokes. It is to our great benefit that ESPN keeps this boorish immaturity out of his columns. I began glazing over them about halfway through the book. I thought, perhaps, that I was just on Sports Guy overload, but I kept reading his columns online while I read this book, and they continued to make me chortle. By the last section, "the best teams ever," I was skipping pages entirely, as it was obvious that Simmons was just blasting out whatever it took to prove his favorite team of all time, the '86 Celtics, were also the best team of all time. You could pick apart this book's rhetoric from many different angles, but I think it can be nicely summarized by saying that Bill Simmons is a second rate writer who, because of the popularity of his humor and his honest insights, has been tricked into thinking he is in the upper echelon. The best parts of this book are when Bill quotes other writers. But just because you hang out with Malcolm Gladwell and Chuck Klosterman (and get them to contribute amazing passages to your tome of rants) doesn't mean you can keep up with them on the page.

  • Doug Stotland
    2018-10-26 12:06

    If you're a huge NBA fan, a guy, are between the ages 40 and 48 (as of 2012) and have watched an insane amount of TV and movies this is a no-brainier 5 star book(1). Otherwise I don't think you'll like it.I haven't enjoyed a book this much in a very long time. Malcom Gladwell nails it in the forward here he says Bill Simmons is what you would be if you had endless hours to devote to being a fan. Bill Simmons is hilarious + his love of the NBA and his ability to create analogies from random stuff (mostly movies and TV shows) that I love gave me great joy. I've seen other people criticize B.S. for his lack of objectivity in compiling his rankings. It didn't bother me. B.S.'s excruciatingly detailed arguments and justifications for each ranking were mostly ingenious, interesting and often hilarious. The book opens with a love letter to the Celtics and then he proceeds to claim he's objective for the ensuing 750 pages(2). But he is a homer and that's part of what makes the book such a joy to read. Seeing the game through his eyes makes it difficult not to love the NBA more(3).I'll spoil it for you cause there's no suspense: Russel was better than Chamberlain and the 85 Celtics were better than the 96 Bulls (4).(1) I'm considering it for my sports book pantheon. Definitely better than Halbertsam's breaks of the game, which, ironically, would be sacrilege for B.S.(2) citing his ranking Magic Johnson 1 spot above Larry Bird as definitive proof that he's not a homer. (3) I almost had to go double negative I was so excited about this observation.(4) Claiming anyone other than the 96 Bulls was the best team in the history of the NBA is definitive proof that B.S. is a total homer.

  • Paul Mcleod
    2018-11-20 12:23

    When Chuck Klosterman and, of all intellectual giants, Bill Walton can destroy the theoretical foundation of your 700-page book's analysis in ten pages worth of cameos...well, it's probably asking too much for you to admit that you wasted the last two years of your life and start over from scratch, but that's probably what you should do. The Book of Basketball works alright as entertainment, though the expanded license for dick jokes fails to enhance Simmons' humor much, but as a work of analysis, it's a complete waste. In what field besides sports could someone claim to be an expert on a widely discussed subject without even attempting to engage the latest rigorous research devoted to it? Wait, Sarah Palin, don't answer that.Most every potentially interesting position Simmons takes depends on just-so stories or special pleading or just plain circular logic. The Bill Russell vs Wilt Chamberlain chapter has been widely deplored, and rightfully so. I became viscerally angry as I read it. Most of the player-ranking section is less maddening, but the bit at the end in which Simmons ranks the top teams in NBA history sets our teeth to gritting once more. A more accurate and less risible version would've been called "Top NBA teams that Bill Simmons enjoyed watching or, having not been alive to see them, enjoys the idea of watching." Not a very interesting list, sure, but at least it would have been honestly labelled.Nothing is as dumb as the Isiah Thomas / "The Secret" story, though (no, not that Secret. It's a different Secret that applies only to the NBA). He'd teased the story in his column for years, and I was fully prepared to have my mind blown. And then it turns out to be a fairly uneventful conversation between three minor celebrities about the fake almost-fight that two of them had, which culminates in the earth-rending revelation that BASKETBALL IS A TEAM SPORT. I could see how, if you were Bill Simmons, this whole episode might have seemed a bit surreal, but to a third party it's not that astonishing at all.Or at least Simmons lacks the ability, even though he strains, to convey the surreality and astonishment to we the reading third parties. And that's the main problem: Bill Simmons is at best a competent writer. He's agreeably conversational for the most part, and he has excellent comic timing (although if you've read many of his columns you can anticipate his rhythms as they unfold by now), but eliciting emotional responses is beyond him and has always been. So is producing prose that is a pleasure to read just for its construction (a rare gift, sure, but one that Klosterman possesses so obviously that his one-page passage makes the text around it seem little but a vast ashen wasteland). Simmons knows this, and apologizes for it frequently, but the best apology would have been to abstain from mediocrity in the first place.

  • Andrew
    2018-11-03 14:06

    It's incredibly entertaining at best, infuriating and a drunken digression at others. Simmons views himself as an expert, and that comes through on every page - whether in his decision that John Stockton played in era of "inflated assists" or his condemnation of the last twenty minutes of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. He's just not that smart, frankly. In both cases, he makes specious claims and then moves on to more specious claims or backs them up with statistics that are supposed to be taken at face value.The most embarrassing section is early, when he reveals "The Secret." Spoiler alert: the secret is that championship teams rely on teamwork, not individual superstars. Wooah!!! I've never heard that before! Oh, except I have - my T-Ball coach told me that when we just assumed that we would win every game with the help of this skinny, white-headed kid named Kevin Geshke who hit solo home runs every time he walked to the tee (we did, thus disproving Simmons thesis). But Simmons dedicates pages and pages to a point that my Grandmother understood, without attempting to figure out the groups who disproved that (the '06 Heat for instance, or the early 00's Lakers).Simmons ranking of players is arbitrary and ultimate critic-proof, but he finds a way to take pot-shots at the players he doesn't like (like Stockton and Clyde Drexler) and elevates those he does on revisionist history (like Allen Iverson). The best part, and what it makes it ultimately worth reading for the ardent NBA fan, is his "What if" section: when he takes episodes from NBA History and wonders what would have happened if the ball had swung a different way: what if Len Bias hadn't died and the Celtics had an extra big man in the late 80s? what if Jordan got drafted by Portland?Still, while entertaining, it's pretty maddening.

  • Jake
    2018-11-03 09:19

    Here's the problem with being a huge fan of a prolific columnist: When you've read every single word a guy has squeaked out for 7-plus years, you start to know all his (or her, I suppose) jokes, all their beats and all their tendencies. You lose the element of surprise.So when it was announced that The Sports Guys new basketball book was more than 700 pages, I cringed. Not sure if I could take that many pages of Karate Kid jokes and Celtics handjobs. My infatuation with the guy has died wuite a bit over the last year and a half, and I absolutley planned to avoid this monstrosity. But goddamn Amazon roped me in for like $12, and I couldn't pass it up. I put it next to the shitter and away we went.For the most part, I was very pleasantly surprised. Yeah, a lot of the jokes and riffs are familiar, and huge chunks are just over-expanded versions of ideas he shat out in columns ad nauseum over the years, but for the most part, I was entertained. There isn't a single person who knows the NBA better than this guy. As one of the last true basketball fans alive, that means something to me. And except for an entire chapter devoted to tongue-bathing Bill Russell's taint, Simmons manages to keep his Boston-centric blatherings to a minimum. Even the Russell chapter is digestable because it destroys Wilt Chamberlain at the same time, and that is always a good thing.Anyway. If you haven't been exposed to Simmons nonstop for the last decade, and you give a shit about the NBA at all, give her a read. It's beter than you think.

  • Hilary
    2018-11-03 08:21

    I have to confess that finishing this book felt like something of a chore. At 700 pages, you really have to love basketball, or Bill Simmons - or both - to get through it. I like basketball a lot, but I can't pretend to have followed it very closely, historically. The Book of Baseball would have been an easier read for me, because I already know more about the main characters. I started this months ago and plugged away, plugged away, finally devoting the better part of a weekend to finishing it. I told myself, "You bought this book, now read it!"And why did I buy it? I do love Bill Simmons. Or, at least, I did. I think I need a little break from him, for the time being. His writing is much better suited to (relatively) pithy internet columns. In this book, he makes too many jokes about his forthcoming Pulitzer for any of them to be very funny. And enough jokes about the inevitable publication of "The Second Book of Basketball" to make me nervous. I need a two-week vacation from any sentence beginning "The Mount Rushmore of [obscure pop culture reference:] would have to include...."But he IS entertaining, and that's why I stuck with it. I definitely learned a lot about a sport of whose history I was fairly ignorant. The huge middle section of the book is devoted to the ranking - and detailed analysis - of the players Simmons deems the 96 greatest of all time. Ninety-six! (He's leaving room for four more to emerge in the modern era.) He starts with #96 and works his way up, so it was somewhere in the eighties that I lost steam and gave up for a while. However amusingly written, it is really hard to read pages and pages about Arvydas Sabonis and Cliff Hagan if you knew next to nothing about them, going into it. But once I renewed my commitment to finish the damn thing, his countdown grew more and more interesting, as we entered the territory of players with whom I was more familiar. A statistical comparison of Bailey Howell and Bobby Dandrige is tough going for me, but by the time I reached Simmons' Top 30 I was much more interested.Here's the thing, though: Simmons ends his book by assembling - with the previous 650 pages as evidence - The Greatest Team of All Time. He's not just picking the twelve greatest players, of course, but the twelve who would best function together, complementing each other and assuring victory. And guess what? He picks all post-merger players. Going back to his Top 96 ranking, he included Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson and Moses Malone in his Top 12 "Pantheon" - but none of these merit inclusion on his Greatest Team Ever roster. Not even on the bench. The reason is obvious: we aren't confident that their game would translate to the modern era. I understand that, and I even agree. But what, then, is the point of ranking those top 96 all on one scale, if we're admittedly judging them on completely different criteria? And, since this list takes up 300+ pages, the obvious next question is: What is the point of this goddamn book?Simmons finally comes close to offering an answer, in his epilogue: he visits Bill Walton at his San Diego home and, in the course of their conversation, Walton jokes about being known to later generations as "Luke's dad." Simmons is enraged, but his motivation for writing this book comes into clearer focus for me, as the reader. He just wants us to know and appreciate these guys. I don't know how many people will make it through the whole thing, but I appreciate what he's trying to do: pay homage to a sport's history, and to the men who helped it evolve.Ultimately, I'd say that Simmons failed to convince me that lists like these - the bread and butter of his NBA columns - are anything less than wildly arbitrary. He does, however, provide a terrific reading list of the NBA-related books mentioned throughout his own, and once I finally feel the need to pick up a basketball book again, there are several on there I definitely want to check out. Just give me a couple of months.

  • Bobby Otter
    2018-11-07 10:11

    Thoughts (Simmons style):Simmons must have hired John Iriving's editor to edit this book... and that's not a complement. What was the point of the Grumpy Old Editor? To not edit? I think this is the world longest coffee table book.The Most Valuable Chapter? Why was this in the book? This was excruciating to read... Over all, it's hard to disagree with where Simmons ranked everyone. The only WTF ranking I saw was Garnett over Isiah and Pippen. But everything else is nitpicking.I'm not sure I needed a few thousand words about how Simmons once sat next to Jordan at a resturant. Actually, I'm positive.Again, the editing of this book killed my rating of it. Stories are told twice, footnotes are repeated, guys are mislabeled or represented... crappy editing that absolutely killed this book. When talking about the '83 Philadelphia 76ers, when mentioning who they lose to in the playoffs next year, it says Philly in five. Apperently Vancouver and Minnesota entered the league at the same time (they didn't, Toronto and Vancouver did). These mistakes happen all the time. I know mistakes are made in a 700 page book, I expect three or five things to get past people... but twenty-five or more? Most annoying aspect of the Book of Basketball? When Simmons starts out with quote from a former player (say Bill Bradley) discussing another player (random 70s player). Simmons tells us that this PERFECTLY describes random 70s player... and then Bill spends a few thousand words discussing random 70s player. 'hey look, I know that Bill Bradley just totally nailed Jerry West, but I'm going to lob on an extra 2,900 words to hammer home my own views on a guy I never saw play and as I said, is perfectly described by what Bill Bradley said already!' Finally, I should say, Simmons' passion and love of basketball comes though and his endearing style makes the book hard to hate. But the flaws are too great to over come what should have been a fantastic book. The book wasn't a history of basketball as much as a review of the games great players and a few teams. I can't help but think that a "Fever Pitch" type book where Bill discusses his love for the Celtics would have been a trillion times better. I know Bill has said that this is the best book he'll ever write... but he's setting the bar far too low.

  • Jan
    2018-10-21 09:21

    This highly entertaining book is many things: a fan's love letter to his favorite sport (and the players and teams who made it so), an attempt to place professional basketball in the cultural (and racial) landscape of twentieth century America, and an attempt to settle arguments about what matters on the basketball court.Bill Simmons is successful on the first two counts, but is tenuous on the third. The first is the emotion of the fan's experience; there are passages that sent shivers down my spine, particularly about the nearly indescribable feeling of watching someone like Michael Jordan or Larry Bird walk into a packed basketball stadium with very little doubt as to who would win the game in the end. The second refers to both the author's facility with pop culture references and analogies, which provoke genuine laughter page after page, but also the league's impact on the American consciousness as it has evolved since the 1950's.Simmons provides insights into players' psychology and experience, mainly to try to explain the Secret of basketball, which is that team play and unselfishness trump ball-hogging and stats in a sport which often seems to revolve around individual excellence. Can we really say that a player like Wilt Chamberlain was great when he often obsessed over reaching various statistical milestones rather than willing his team to win at all costs? What if his teammates considered him a pain to play with, and being around him often made the game more difficult? On an emotional level, all of these arguments make great sense, which to me invalidates the central structure of the book, which is a comprehensive ranking of the greatest NBA players from 1-96 (in addition to the best teams). As Simmons says himself, there have been maybe fifteen players who have understood the Secret. That's it. An ordered ranking of these players seems like splitting hairs, and it distracts from the central pleasure of the Book of Basketball: a steady stream of great anecdotes about inhuman talents, flashy dunkers, the kinds of men who couldn't bear anything but winning, and those who could never quite push themselves to lift the veil.

  • Derek
    2018-11-19 08:17

    The Sports Guy is known for his willingness to authoritatively state his opinions in an entertaining manner featuring his parenthetical prowess, command of pop cultural metaphor, crazed zeal for his subject matter, seemingly endless encyclopedic dissertation of facts, and personal connection to the material and the reader. His 700-page tome features all of these Simmons standby techniques, as well as his signature voice, punctuated by his overactive love of footnotes and casually vulgar interjections. You have to like Simmons to like the book, especially since it contains many ideas, considerations, or even direct excerpts from his past decade of work. It's not hard to like Simmons; the challenge is the subject matter, as he delves as deeply as almost anyone has into the history of the NBA statistically, anecdotally, and argumentatively. The result is a highly informative and entertaining read that sustains its momentum throughout its length, though it occasionally succumbs to fatigue (a point not unnoticed by Simmons in his myriad footnotes). It allowed a casual fan like me to appreciate the game more intimately, and I now have an authoritative source to whom I can appeal if ever I feel the need to reiterate some of the assertive assumptions provided in the book. I am not sure if I would sit down and re-read the entire book, but it will certainly stick around as a resource and a source of entertainment. It was a great summer holiday read (I've read the book in the context of being away from home over the past ten days), and a great reminder of some of the things I love about sports and writing. Now if only someone would write a book like this about the NHL...

  • Solistas
    2018-11-09 14:20

    7,5 μήνες, 750 σελίδες και πάλι καλά τα πήγα. Το ατελείωτο βιβλίο του Simmons για το ΝΒΑ είχε αναγνωστικά την ίδια λειτουργία που είχε κι η συλλογή με τα κείμενα του Lester Bangs. Ένα τακτικό διάλειμμα για τις ώρες που η λογοτεχνία δεν μου έκανε ή για τα συχνά διαστήματα που ο χρόνος μου δεν επιτρέπει μυθιστορηματικά ταξιδάκια αλλά 20λεπτες τζούρες ανάγνωσης μέσα στην ημέρα. Τη δουλειά του λοιπόν την έκανε και με το παραπάνω, αφού ο Simmons όταν δεν τον παίζει φοβερός μπασκετικός αναλυτής είναι απολαυστικός κ όταν τυγχάνει να γνωρίζεις τις ατελείωτες αναλογίες ποπ κουλτούρας με το ΝΒΑ που παραθέτει καλύτερα από κάθε άλλο,γελάς μόνος σου. Το μεγάλο του πλεονέκτημα είναι ότι έχει έναν οπαδικό τρόπο να προσεγγίζει το άθλημα (άσχετα αν προσπαθεί να επιχειρηματολογήσει για το αντίθετο) κι αυτό τον έκανε άλλωστε τον πιο επιτυχημένο δημοσιογράφο του χώρου του. Ως παλιός κ φανατικός οπαδός των Celtics, έχει γράψει ατελείωτες σελίδες για τον Larry Bird και τον Bill Russell (όπου το παρακάνει με την αποθέωση αλλά οκ, είπαμε είναι οπαδός κ ο Russell πηρε κ 11 πρωταθλήματα, δεν μπορεί να κρατηθεί ο άνθρωπος), διάφορες κακεντρέχειες για τον Kareem κι ένα εξαιρετικό κομμάτι για τον καλύτερο παίχτη όλων των εποχών, όπου δικαιωματικά ο Simmons γράφει τις καλύτερες του αράδες.Είναι προφανές ότι το βιβλίο δεν ενδεικνύεται για κανέναν που δεν είναι κολλημένος με το ΝΒΑ (προσωπικά είμαι τέτοιος, ειναι το μοναδικο πρωταθλημα κ το μοναδικό άθλημα γενικότερα που παρακολουθώ) αφού το μέγεθος του είναι απαγορευτικό για τυχόν περιέργειες. Νομίζω πως θα πιάσω κ αλλο τέτοιο βιβλίο οπότε μέχρι του χρόνου τέτοια εποχή δεν θα σας χαλάσω το timeline με αθλητισμό.

  • John Saylor
    2018-11-13 14:32

    This book was very fun to read. It was full of everything from basketball to movies, and it wasn't just another boring informational. It reads very well, and even if you don't read all of it order, each section could be a miniature book. Along with entertaining you throughout, Bill Simmons puts a lot of thought into his writing. He takes everything from the Hall of Fame to An All time All-NBA team. Even if you are an NBA fan yourself, and don't agree with his choices at first, he explains them in such a way that you have to at least consider what he's saying. He truly fits the definition of a sports guy, and he is, even at place as full of analysts like ESPN. I have come to agree with almost everything he says, mainly because of the facts that he has backing up his arguments. Even if you just want to read a book about the NBA, without all of the extra facts, you can (most of the details are in the footnotes, and there are a lot of footnotes), but if you begin to read this book, you'll get pulled in and won't let go.

  • Jesse
    2018-11-08 10:18

    a lot of great basketball history almost ruined by two things: 1) a sometimes sickening love for the boston celtics and 2) finding david fosters wallace's style in a book about basketball (replete, with made-up proper noun titles, exuberant friendly narrative voice and a scholarly knowledge mixed with bawdy asides and metaphors, oh - and the dead giveaway - footnotes (not that dfw has a total claim to footnotes, but simmons uses them in almost the exact same way)... but other than these two things, the book was great.

  • David Lomax
    2018-11-16 14:13

    So I read this book during the basketball lockout to keep me company. And I finished just as the strike ended. I didn't buy this book as a hardcover even though I know a lot of people who raved about it. But when I flipped through it in the store, I just couldn't get myself to pay for it because the writer is such a die hard Celtics fan.When it came out in paperback, and was updated to incorporate the Lakers winning the championship (yeah, you guessed it, I'm a Lakers fan) I saw that the writer took that into account and it was what got me to buy it.I'm glad I waited to read this version because obviously his opinions are updated with the recent success of the Lakers, but also there's a lot of info that's been updated (with footnotes that are clearly marked as "updated" footnotes - I would have hated to have been this guy's editor!) which adds to his opinions, even changes some (in the case of Kobe).Look Simmons has a ton of insight that not just a long love of the game has given him. Like any expert who has insight one of the requirements has to be an obsessive attraction to the subject matter and there is no question Simmons has that. And he is an entertaining writer. Yes, many of his pop culture references will probably be dated in less than a decade, but as he points out in the book, so will the appreciation we have for the athletes we so admire... then forget after they retire. And Celtic and Laker rivalry aside, Simmons tried to be fair when he needed to be. He rags on Kareem throughout the book... except when he breaks down his standing in the player greats section. He sets aside the jabs and writes a very clear headed, balanced assessment of his game, ranking him number 3 of alltime. No Laker/Kareem fan can really ask for better treatment than that. On other Lakers he is also insightful. His chapter on Magic is very smart as Simmons is able to put Johnson in the proper perspective not only as a great player, but someone that changed the sport... and even transcended it with his personal life. His writing throughout the book on Wilt Chamberlain seems accurate enough, but will come off as harsh to his supporters. Too bad the big guy is not alive to have his say (wonder if Simmons planned it that way!). His chapter on Jerry West was really interesting, something I wasn't sure I felt captured the vibe of the player and the franchise he played for (and where I thought one of the places Simmon's bias for the Celtics showed through). But now that I've read West's book, I had to reassess Simmon's take -- it is very consistent with the way West himself saw his own playing days!The problem I had with the book is obvious. As a fan of the Celtics I believe the writer gives too much credit to players like Russell and Bird and even Hondo. Look all three were great players, and two of the three changed the sport, but I have a problem with Bird being ranked 5th (again to his credit, Simmons ranks Magic 4th) when arguably one of the things that Bird lacked was defense. Obviously a fantastic shooter and passer and a great teammate... but not a great defender. He was obviously... a winner and that's why I concede Bird certainly belongs in the top ten with his offensive prowess. Again, I believe that if Simmons is going to rank Bird 4th he got it right with putting magic ahead of him. Magic was a better all around player and he could change his game to fit whatever personnel and style his teammates were capable of playing. Russell is another matter entirely. He is ranked 2nd. Should he be that high? Perhaps, but still Russell dominated as a player playing on a string of great teams in a very talent light league. I don't put Chamberlain as high for exactly the same reason (and more, which Simmons goes into relentlessly).The other place the bias shows is the ranking of the greatest teams of all time. He has the 72 lakers at 9th. I watched every game that year and I can tell you, that team was amazing. Way better than they come off on paper. I tell people, this team was so good... Elgin Baylor started on the team at the beginning of the year... and retired. But the real egregious mistake is ranking the 2001 Los Angeles Lakers as 5th all time. As Simmons points out, this team had injuries throughout the season, but come March, and then throughout the playoffs, they were unbeatable... and I mean that almost literally. They came within one game of sweeping the entire playoffs. I got to believe that may never happen again. And you want to know something, I still don't think the above covers how awesome this team was. Again, saw every game and there was no question the Lakers were going to win it all... no one was even close.So who does Simmons rank higher: the 89 Pistons (please!!!); 87 Lakers (I agree that team is in the running) the 96 Bulls (despite their W-L record, I believe they are a bit overrated, but yes I will acknowledge they are certainly in the top 5; and... wait for it... the 1986 Celtics. C'mon... really... seriously??? Simmons actually says that the 86 celtics would have "swollowed up" the 2001 lakers. Only in Simmon's dreams. First off, I think the 87 Lakers were better, and so were the 96 bulls. So, as you can see, I had some problems. And I focused on these problems in this review... but it takes nothing away from what Bill Simmons achieved with this book (which I certainly hope he continues to update like Bill James once did with the Baseball Abstract). In fact this book is hands down the best book ever written on capturing the sport's greatness, and all over newcomers will probably be compared to this as the first and final test. This book was so insightful... that the last year Phil Jackson coached the Lakers he handed out a few copies to chosen players he knew were hoping to be students of the game.

  • Justin Evans
    2018-11-07 12:09

    Each summer we in the United States go from having 3 great sports to watch and talk about, to having one okay sport. But sports television keeps going for 24 hours a day. I watch sports TV with lunch, but in summer, it's so boring that I often end up doing the dishes instead. For the last three years, I've spent my summer lunches going through this book. Simmons is better than most sports journalists inasmuch as he can write more than one sentence without making me cringe, and he has a sense of humor. Is that worth 700 pages? It if you're reading it over three years. It is not if you think these sorts of things should be 'objective,' which is ridiculous. Well, this is not objective, and who cares, it's *freaking sports people, one small step up from daytime soap operas in terms of importance*. One fairly embarassing problem with this book, though. Allow me a digression. I had a friend in high school who, for some reason, had an extremely upper class English accent. Was he English? No. He wasn't faking it either. But it made him stand out among the rest of us, all proud strines ('Australian'). To fit in, he tried to swear a lot. It was even worse than the original accent. Imagine if someone in the middle of a BBC mini series suddenly started calling the women bitches. I bring this up because Simmons, too, tries to fit in, only in his case he's trying to fit in with a very blokey sports culture. So every second page has a story about a strip club, or how women should stay in the kitchen, or how WNBA isn't basketball. Bill Simmons: any WNBA player could beat you at basketball, and any WNBA player could beat you in a fight. So could any stripper. Please stop with the "I'm just one of the guys" shtick. It's embarrassing for you, and more than a little demeaning to, well, all women. But as I mentioned, this is a book about basketball. It is entertainment, and that is all. No need to get too upset.

  • Markus Molina
    2018-11-07 08:17

    I'm so grateful a book like this exists about basketball. It's the basketball bible. Any hardcore basketball fan should read this ASAP. It's an in depth view of the history of the league and contains fun lists and comparisons to different eras and teams and players. It's just a lot of fun to read. I'll admit, for being five stars, the book isn't incredibly written, but Simmons makes up for it with humor and pop culture references. He throws in about 1000 Boogie Nights references, which is one of my favorite movies of all time, and that was fun. My one big complaint is the "what if" section of the book. Could not care less about that stuff. I admit I skipped that stuff. I tried reading it, and just couldn't get into it. The biggest chunk of the book is counting down greatest players of all time, and that was a very entertaining read. I really enjoy how in depth Simmons goes with comparisons. He sometimes argues too well for certain things, like about Kareem or Wilt perhaps being overrated and bad teammates, and it leaves you confused when he ranks them so high. And then in other sections, he argues so well for things, like the '01 lakers, and I wonder how they aren't higher on the GOAT team list. Anywho, lots of fun. Very enjoyable. And although I don't agree with everything, I still think it's worth reading and thinking about.And usually, I reserve my 5-star ratings for life altering books, or books that I'd be able to recommend to anyone--but this book is only for the most hardcore of hardcore basketball fans.

  • Brad
    2018-11-18 12:06

    Disclosure: I regularly listen to Bill Simmons B.S. Report podcasts and I usually read his columns on espn.com thus I'm a fan of his work.That being said, I was somewhat disappointed with TBOB. Overall it was very insightful, but parts of it were a little tiresome. I found myself skimming certain portions - especially if they dealt with players that played in the NBA during the 50s and 60s. Other than a few interesting tidbits about the history of the NBA (evolution of the shot clock, 3-point shooters, etc.), I found these parts of the book somewhat boring.I did, however, enjoy reading about the players and teams that I remember watching as a child and up until now, i.e. from the early 80s through present day. Mr. Simmons does an excellent job of discussing some of the inner details of many of the NBA players and teams from the past and present.Another detail of the book that bothered me was Mr. Simmons frequent use of curse words throughout the book. I understand using a few intermittent curse words to get a point across, but to continuously use them throughout the book was a bit of a turn off. Simmons does not "swear" during his podcasts or in his columns on espn.com so I know it's possible for him to do so in a 700 page book.At 700 pages this book is definitely a sizable read. Only recommended for those that are fans of the NBA and all the drama that it regularly brings each season.

  • Nick
    2018-10-30 11:06

    I am a fan of Bill Simmons' columns and podcasts. I also read his earlier book on the Boston Redsox. Compared to his other work, this book was just a grind. I didn't read it so much as cross it off my todo list. At 700 pages, it is long, but I actually didn't notice myself watching the page number too much. It was more that the different rankings and lists just seem to go on forever. I also don't think the book turned out this way due to a lack of effort on Simmons' part. It just seems to not be very fun for some reason.I think the high-level structure of the book is good, but it was simultaneously way to detailed and omitted crucial facts. For instance, in his basketball pyramid, where he discusses the top basketball players ever, he includes some minute details but doesn't include a picture of each player or the years in which they played. I would have settled for fewer details on the player with a picture of him.The descriptions of the players also seemed to focus on their negative qualities. I suppose that may have been a necessity. After all, each of these players was very, very good. It is probably easier and more to the point to tell us what each lacked. This does give the book the feel of someone just bitching about basketball players page after page though.I'm still a fan of Simmons, but this isn't his best product.

  • Ben
    2018-11-14 10:28

    Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of Simmons. Sure he's not the "best" sportswriter (my personal favorite is ESPN's Phil Ball, who covers the Spanish soccer league, La Liga) but it is easy to chuckle while reading his columns and appreciate how he weaves pop culture into his columns. His new fabulous Grantland website is also something that should be applauded.While I enjoyed parts of this book, the problems I see with it are as follows: 1) length (750 pages) 2) parts of it merely rehash many of his older ESPN columns 3) not suited to a casual fan who is not familiar with 60s/70s HOFers 4) Boston-centric (no surprise there)As a young person, though, point #3 above must not be ignored -- Simmons' dedication to those retired players allow us younger people to understand why certain names were overrated or underrated, and how these guys played the game.The other difficult thing when one takes on a task like this is that modern players rankings will swing wildly due to recent performance (notably Dirk and LeBron in the 2011 finals) -- one would have to update the rankings every few years.I don't recommend, unless you are a really dedicated basketball fan. Casual fans can stick with the free columns on ESPN and Grantland.

  • Mike
    2018-11-03 10:17

    I enjoyed this book, but man a livin' - there aren't many books where you can say the author probably should have cut out 500 pages... Bill Simmons has an incredible knowledge of the NBA (current and historical), much of which is first hand knowledge (having grown up with Celtics season tickets), but even with his internet articles I've always thought he talks too long. I really enjoyed the anecdotes (which he draws from his own life, but also from all of the NBA books and interview he has read), and the ranking of the best players ever was good, but some of his sports arguments are a little far to me (he wants to have a top 10 or top 100 list for absolutely everything).A few minor complaints: one, reading the book (which has an average of about 100 footnotes per chapter) is a bit difficult with the Kindle; two, he's definitely a homer for the Celtics (no surprise to anyone who has read his online articles, but it still bothers at times); and three, it is definitely crude at times. Not constantly, but over the course of seven hundred and some pages it adds up. It's more than a little disturbing, in fact, that he can quote (and make top ten lists) just as quickly with pornography as with sports.Still, if you like the NBA you'll definitely find things to like in this book.

  • Dekean Baines
    2018-10-28 10:19

    This Book was actually pretty good, I thought this book would have mostly statistics on the latest player and the famous players. This book teaches you how to play basketball and how it works. Bill Simmons shared some "basketball secrets" that most people or players don't even know. Most people think you just have the skills to play basketball since you were a kid or you just can't play at all. But one of Bill Simmons favorite quote is, "But that's the thing of Basketball: You don't play games on paper". Bill Simmons loved basketball since he was a kid, he'd watched every single michael Jordan game that would come on and study his every move on how to be a succesful basketball player. He also did the same thing to LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, and a few more players. He'll notice if that person has talents or not. But some people don't like how people review players like Bill Simmons, so this is what he said. He said, "If you don't agree with me, I have two words for you: Shut up!

  • Daniel
    2018-11-02 10:31

    In the interest of complete disclosure, I have to say that I am one of the biggest fans of the NBA that you will find. I have been since about 1980 and I have a lot of useless basketball trivia floating around in my head. That said, I have nothing on Bill Simmons (though I would love to chat with him about it some day). If you are a casual fan of the sport, this book is probably not for you except maybe for use as a sports reference book or some great bathroom fodder. It reads sort of like an Encyclopedia Naismithica of the game, a veritable Gray's Anatomy of information if George Carlin had been allowed to footnote all the body parts we're secretly ashamed of with his insightful, urbane banter.In all seriousness, I love this book. I would recommend it to anyone who wanted to step up from being a casual fan to a serious fan as the How To guide to getting there. Mostly, it is a fun and quirkly look at the sport that while mostly playing second fiddle to the NFL probably doesn't deserve to and maybe won't in the future.

  • Saba
    2018-11-17 10:34

    I love basketball and am fan of the NBA (there are a few of us out there), but my knowledge of pro basketball pre-1992 was limited, so I appreciate the book as a resource that is fun to read, well argued, and well researched. Freed from ESPN's censors, however, Bill Simmons' humor unfortunately resorted to one to many dick and tit jokes. Though in his articles he makes subtle (and at times not so subtle) remarks about how he is limited by corporate censorship, it turns out that extra work he had to put into his humor was actually beneficial to his writing. Also, never let a writer who is better than you write a section in your book. Chuck Klosterman's 500 words on Wilt blew everything Simmons' wrote out of the water and I couldn't help thinking that I wish Chuck had written the book, not Bill. With that said, the book will remain on my shelf as almost a sort of basketball reference manual. I can easily see myself reaching for it the next time I need to defend Tim Duncan.

  • HenryMehring
    2018-10-29 07:22

    I think this book was pretty good. I like basketball and sports, and Bill Simmons is a good sports writer, having his own sports website. The book starts off about him as a young Celtics fan. Each section is kind of like a book. It includes a debate about who's better: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain, and a chapter about what ifs. A big part of the book was the top basketball players of all time. It just has tons of Basketball. I liked this book, and the only downside to me is that the top players is as of 2010. I would have liked it more if it had some parts about the Bucks, my favorite team, and I am a big basketball fan in general. This book is really long and it took me almost all summer to read

  • Ray Charbonneau
    2018-11-01 10:27

    Entertaining, but it's 700 pages of opinion masquerading as fact. The fact that he bails out on the history of the league when he reaches the mid-80s is a big problem. So is daring to compare his book to Bill James'. This was fun, but it won't age well.

  • Danny Gibson
    2018-10-27 07:12

    Reading this book is like arguing across the Thanksgiving table with your masshole uncle. Simmons has a truly encyclopedic knowledge of pro players, and advances one conceit about teamwork (dubbed The Secret by Simmons and later The Choice by NBA great Bill Walton [the fact that the actual athlete is more poetic tells you all you need to know]) which is called on throughout this collosal text. TBB's most troubling feature is its handling of race. Black and White American dynamics are tied to the game, Simmons doesn't have the nuance to write compelling on the topic, and you're left wishing he had just focused on who could take who one-on-one.

  • Patrick
    2018-11-04 09:15

    As a Bostonian, I've long been an apologist fan of Bill Simmons. His writing style is unique and much more conversational than most sportswriters, and whether he'll admit it or not, he really was the first sports blogger to be accepted by the mainstream. In small doses, such as a weekly or column on ESPN.com, he's a breath of fresh air. Over the course of 700 pages on the other hand...let's just say a little Simmons goes a long way.The book isn't without merit, or charm. Simmons claims to have done extensive research on the book (watching old videos, reading many, many insider books on players and teams, etc.) and it shows. In my mind, there's never been any question that Simmons knows the game of basketball, and this book proved that he is a true student of the game as it pertains to the NBA. I'm a big basketball fan, but I'm also only 27 years old, and I'm not ashamed to say that I learned a thing or two from this book. His breakdown of Wilt vs. Russell was especially enlightening, and while allsome of his opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt, it is good to remember that before he was that guy on ABC broadcasts shouting about how a particular play was terrible in his distinctive cadence, Bill Walton was actually quite a basketball player.Simmons makes some great points, such as when he mentions how quick we are to forget how great some of the players and teams of the past were in favor of our new flavors of the week (does anyone else remember when Harold Miner was called 'Baby Jordan'?). At the same time, Simmons bemoans the way that individualism has hurt the NBA as it has devolved into a game of superstars and me-first prima donnas instead of a team game, pining for the days of the '86 Celtics and '70 Knicks. He then completely undermines this point by devoting nearly 2/3's of the book to ranking the 96 greatest individual players in the league's history (the "Pyramid"), and then devoting a (relatively) short chapter following the Pyramid to discussing the greatest teams of all-time, which he speeds through (again, relative to the number of pages in the book, and the Pyramid in particular). You can't have you cake and eat it too.The book's biggest problem, and Simmons's biggest problem as a writer in general, is a lack of direction. It has almost no cohesion whatsoever, and is rather an assortment of anecdotes and memories jumbled together with subjective assessments of players and teams from the history of the NBA. It doesn't have a lot of flow, and Simmons rambling style, while great in a short column on the web to break up the workday, doesn't work nearly as well in such large doses, and in fact starts to grate after a while. His jokes, footnotes, and--especially--his references, all wear extremely thin by the time the end rolls around.Also, the book is littered with typos. Seriously. And not just misspellings or brainfarts, but stuff that any editor worth his salt should have easily picked up on first review. For example, on page 660, "Was it a coincidence that Chicago banged out 72 wins during the same season when (a) the Association expanded to Vancouver and Minnesota..." Minnesota was an expansion team in 1989. He's clearly referring to the Toronto Raptors, but that's a pretty inexplicable mistake that obviously should've been fixed before the printing process. At another point, he refers to "Drexler's Pistons" (p. 609) when he clearly meant to refer to Clyde Drexler's Trail Blazers, on page 619 he writes, "the drinks keeps coming", etc. The book is lousy with typos. It's a little embarrassing. Maybe "Grumpy Old Editor" should've taken less time arguing about how great the Knicks were and more time actually reading the text of the book.Finally, in typical Simmons fashion, he pathetically ranked Magic Johnson one spot higher on his "Pyramid" than Larry Bird. Now, I'll accept arguments that Magic was better than Larry. As a Celtics season-ticket holder myself, I won't agree, but I'll hear them out. I won't from Bill Simmons though. Simmons, the ultimate Celtics homer, ranking (arguably) the greatest Laker of all time higher than a Celtics legend who dominated the game when Simmons was in his formative years? That reeks of "hey, I'm not a homer, look, I even ranked Magic one spot ahead of Bird"-ism (yes, I just created an 'ism' to justify Simmons crazy reverse homerism). He did the same thing 2 years ago when he gutlessly picked the Lakers to beat the Celtics in the 2008 NBA Finals and then claimed it was a "reverse jinx." Come on. I know it's tough to be a complete homer on a national stage, but don't disrespect your childhood idol just so you can justify ranking the '86 Celtics ahead of the '96 Bulls. That's just sad.Anyway, I know I'm being hard on Simmons, but I think he needs it. There was no reason for this book to be 700 pages. At all. Was it enjoyable? Absolutely. Was it redundant? Constantly. He could've trimmed at least 300 pages off this book and not missed a beat. But maybe it's my fault for reading it cover to cover like a book, rather than leaving it in my bathroom for a couple of years and reading it one bathroom break at a time. It's a worthwhile book, but Simmons could stand a new editor.

  • Anna
    2018-10-27 09:21

    I mostly picked this up to try to learn about great NBA players of the past and what made them so great. I am a huge Golden State Warriors fan and am well-versed on the NBA teams and players of today, but don't know a whole lot of specifics about those who came before I was born and before I got interested in watching basketball.I enjoyed Simmons' sense of humor immensely. Every so often he would elaborate on something he thought was funny that was actually irrelevant and annoying (that huge "Teen Wolf" metaphor and mentioning Spencer and Heidi?), but for the most part I feel like I got a fairly good grasp on what I wanted to by reading his arguments. I'm not a huge analyzer of the stats, but he gave me good basics and I can always use YouTube to help me discover the rest.

  • Man Ching
    2018-10-27 15:31

    I read Bill Simmons’s The Book of Basketball. I enjoyed his book, as it is a fun survey of NBA history. The book isn’t just a numbers game or just breaking down plays. It includes enough human interest elements that it should appeal to a casual fan or diffident parties (like me; I can count the number of basketball games I’ve seen – TV or live – on both hands.) Simmons does a fantastic job of conveying his love of basketball. For me, he really brought different basketball eras to life, inserting comments from players, coaches, and sportswriters. He also seems fairly astute in breaking down plays and describing the flow of the game.Yes, I bought the book because I think Bill Simmons’s writing. If you enjoy his blog, you will find that same breezy conversation style here. The man has a gift for dropping pop culture references and making it germane to his arguments. But what I like most is that he is earnest in trying to understand and to make his readers appreciate the people who play a game for a living.His segment on Elgin Baylor was moving, in showing how racism affected this one man; in some ways, it was probably more effective than if he just talked in general terms about the 1960’s. His whole book works because it stays at the personal level. Even in his discussion of teams and individual players, he takes pains to discuss how this person was and is regarded by his peers and teammates.In this way, I think Simmons did a fantastic job of making a case that basketball can contain as much historical perspective as baseball. This is something that should not have to be argued. Baseball has a lock on “the generational game by which history can be measured” status. What seems important is that there are human elements that make it accessible between generations: things like fathers taking their sons to the games, talking about the games and players, the excitement of watching breathtaking physical acts that expand how one views the human condition, and the joy and agony of championship wins and losses. While baseball’s slow pace lends itself to the way history moves one (periods where nothing seems to happen punctuated by drama), it doesn’t mean other things happen in a vacuum. Style of play, the way the players are treated, and the composition of the player demographic all reflect the times. These games can be a reflection of society, and one can see the influence of racial injustice in something as mundane as box scores as integration occurred.Simmons blend basketball performance, its history, and its social environment of basketball effectively, some examples could be found in his discussion of Dr. J, Russell, Baylor, Kareem, and Jordan. In discussing why there probably won’t be another Michael Jordan (or Hakeem, or Kevin McHale), he takes inventive routes. Most of his points relate to societal/basketball environment pressures. Players are drafted sooner, the high pay scale for draft picks lower motivation to prove their worth, and perhaps society itself would actively discourage players from behaving as competitively as Jordan did. I suppose it’s interesting, but I’m not sure if that matters so much if the player is perceived to be an excellent player. Regardless, it seems to me that Simmons has been thinking about these things for some time. And I found it fun to read his take on basketball.And I liked this book because it gives the lie to the weird view that someone who hasn’t done something cannot make reasonable, intelligent statements about it. Simmons wasn’t a professional basketball player, but he certainly uses every resource available to absorb the history and characters populating the game. He read a fair bit, he watched and rewatched games, he talked to players, he talked to people who covered basketball and he watched some more. And he isn’t afraid to raise issues that occur to readers; you’ll see what I mean when you read his footnotes.The book (and his podcast) confirms my opinion of Simmons as the smart friend who’d be a blast to have (one who bleeds Celtics green, watches sports for a living, and must keep up with Hollywood gossip, gambles, and pop culture because it gives him ammunition for columns).***There are some issues with the book, mainly in how statistical analysis of basketball is portrayed. I should be upfront and say that these issues did not detract from his arguments (for reasons that will be clear later), but I wish he would reconcile eyeball and statistical information. And because I’ve decided one focus of this blog should be how non-scientists deal with science (and scientists), I thought I should offer some thoughts on some of these issues.If you wish to continue reading, you can go to http://notimetoread.wordpress.com/201...

  • Brendan
    2018-10-31 11:08

    For better and for worse, this book has a lot of basketball and a lot of Simmons.I have long enjoyed Bill Simmons' columns, primarily because of his ability to engage in detailed and insightful analysis of sports while writing in an entertaining style. I prefer this style to the dry, technical style of most detailed sports writing. The Book of Basketball is written in that style and allows you to enjoy highly detailed analysis of players and teams from many different eras. Simmons' knowledge of basketball is impressive and he has clearly done his homework before writing this book. His many opinions go far beyond superficial statistical comparisons, championship counting and popular/media perceptions of players and teams. Rather, he carefully and impressively considers countervailing factors such as teammates, the quality of the competition, the styles of play in different eras and other factors that provide new insights about players and teams.This book falls short in multiple areas, however.First, it seems entirely unedited. This book is basically 750 pages of a guy's opinion about basketball. It easily could have been hundreds of pages shorter without cutting any substance (for instance, do we really need page after page of his opinions on which 5 historical players would provide the best full court press, the best transition offense, etc.?). Worse are the footnotes - over a thousand of Simmons' observations about basketball and culture. While some of these are insightful, many of them are repetitious jokes about 70s and 80s players who used cocaine and forced comparisons of players/teams to movie and TV scenes and characters. Again, hundreds of these footnotes add nothing to the book but cause it to drag on endlessly. I'd gladly read hundreds of pages of well-written prose or analysis, but Simmons' endless lamentations about Len Bias and Wilt Chamberlain slams grow wearisome.Second, the bias in the book is relentless. Simmons makes no secret of his deep allegiances to Boston teams, but the entire book seems constructed to explain why all the Celtics' players and teams were better than everyone else...usually at the expense of Lakers' players, who are attacked as often as the Celtics' players are praised. Celtics players who won lots of championships despite limited statistics are praised as possessing "The Secret," thereby making them better than Wilt Chamberlain. But Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal are ripped for selfishness and weak competition despite winning many championships.The "Greatest Team" chapter is just an excuse for Simmons to find a way to tear down every other great team to elevate his beloved 1986 Celtics to the #1 spot - the 72-10 1996 Bulls team that went 15-3 in the playoffs was knocked down because its postseason wins were not as impressive as the 1986 Celtics (who also went 15-3 in the playoffs); the 69-13 1972 Lakers team with the 33-game winning streak "barely made the Top 10" because of weak competition and failure to defend the title (Simmons has no trouble making excuses for the 1986 Celtics, who also failed to defend). Examples like this are legion in this book. Simmons is free to write books gushing about Celtics' greatness (much like his books about the Red Sox). But this Book is positioned as an objective review of the sport, not a fan raving about all the great Celtics teams.Simmons just isn't what he thinks he is. He is not so clever that every one of his thoughts needs to be heard. And while he fashions himself a basketball expert, he's really just another fan so blinded by love of his team (and hatred of the Lakers) that it calls into question many of his opinions and analyses. I really learned a lot about basketball history and players from this book, but I really liked Bill Simmons a lot less after I read it.