24 comments Simmons and Gladwell Exchange (Bad) Ideas

I knew that Malcolm Gladwell, writer of interesting books, and Bill Simmons, writer of interesting/annoying Internet columns, were on good terms before I read their conversation because Gladwell wrote the foreword to Bill's new book coming out in October. I never knew that they liked each other so much. I expected a back and forth debate on topics, but instead we got a situation where one person threw out an idea and the other person pretty much drooled over how much they liked that idea. It's all very lovey-dovey for my tastes. It shouldn't shock me really. Bill put up a video from Casey Wilson (maybe 10% of the world knows who she is) on his Twitter about negative comments on the Internet saying how much he liked her view mocking them, so I would not expect him to actually have an email exchange with someone who will challenge his ideas. Bill doesn't allow comments on his columns, blog, or any other type of feedback because he doesn't want negative comments about his ideas.

For those that don't understand what the big deal about this is, imagine if you read this blog everyday and I spouted off ideas that were blatantly incorrect or that you thought were stupid, but I did not allow comments so you could never give your opinion or try to correct me. Jeremy could never give his opinion on Kyle Lowry, Rulebook couldn't correct any wrong facts I put out there, and most of all we could never publicly accuse Mike Schmidt of using steroids. It's fucking frustrating. Not that Bill would ever read the comments below his articles, it would probably cause him to rupture an artery with anger. I digress...but there are three parts to this conversation and I am going to list an idea these two had and tell why I disagree with it.

This is a loooooooooooong column so if I miss something you think is a good/bad idea, I just probably decided to skip over it. Basically I will have to dispense with the smart ass comments at Bill and just cover the ideas these two had. This is a freaking love-fest. They like each other.

SIMMONS

Malcolm, thanks for agreeing to exchange e-mails with me even though "Outliers" topped The New York Times best-seller list for five straight months (and counting) and earned you enough money to purchase the Grizzlies with your March residuals. (Just remember to hire me as your GM. Don't forget me. DON'T FORGET ME!!!!!!)

I would normally complain Bill just needs to let this drop because it is not happening, the joke isn't funny anymore, and I am still not buying the whole "what do we have to lose?" principle that seems to guide the reasoning behind this and many of the other ideas in this conversation. But, I won't say that...

I thoroughly enjoyed the book even if you totally missed an obvious chapter: How the dawn of the Internet made Anna Kournikova about three times as wealthy as she would have been had she broken onto the tennis scene 10 years earlier. Does she bank $50 million in endorsements without horny teenagers Googling her? No way.

Here is the first idea that I think is incomplete. Bill's idea for a new chapter in Malcolm's book about Kournikova could go for nearly every attractive female athlete/non-athlete since the Internet age. Ask Erin Andrews and Allison Stokke how this goes. Any mention of Andrews gets more hits for a site and she even appears in the new Madden 2010. Stokke became an Internet sensation just based on pictures that her father would probably slap everyone across the face with a hammer for ogling. If it is not for the Internet, no one has a clue who she is and now she is appearing on some show for SpikeTV.

I know Bill was one of the first to write about how Kournikova was underage, and kudos to him, but would Maria Sharapova and every other attractive athletic female make nearly as much in endorsements without the Internet and horny teenagers? I don't think so. And yes, Kournikova sucked at tennis so she made more in endorsements just because she was attractive, but Sharapova doesn't exactly light up the tennis courts anymore and she is still doing camera and modeling. Horny teenagers have helped a lot of women become more popular, not just Kournikova.

Take Dave Roberts, a speed/defense/intangibles guy whose career spanned from 1999-2008 (the heart of the steroids era). He retired right when it became illegal to show up for spring training carrying 35 pounds of extra muscle and a bigger head. Five years ago, Roberts was a fringe starter; today, he'd be a hot commodity with savvier teams gravitating toward speed and defense. You have to create runs from scratch in 2009, which means you need guys like Dave Roberts.

I know what Bill is talking about here, yet I have no idea what Bill is talking about here. Quintin McCracken is all over Roberts' Baseball Reference comparables and his career OBP is around .342. Not that much has changed really in baseball since Dave Roberts retired last year and I don't think he would now be a desperately wanted baseball player. Look at Juan Pierre's numbers and how they compared to Dave Robert's career numbers. They are quite similar and we all know what the world seems to think of Juan Pierre. I think Bill is just making shit up about Dave Roberts because he played for the Red Sox and is a hero for the team. Roberts would not be in any higher demand today than he was one year ago because I don't think baseball has changed all that much really. Speed and defense was always important for teams...at least the good ones.

GLADWELL

In fairness, Gladwell does disagree with a point Bill made about Larry Holmes I did not print. He did it very nicely though. I want a smackdown.

OK, so imagine we throw 1973 Larry Holmes in a time machine and transport him forward 15 years. He wins a few fights, knocks out "Quick" Tillis and replaces Buster Douglas in the token no-name spot in the Japan fight against Tyson, becoming an instant mega-celebrity after his "shocking" knockout of Iron Mike.

Bill absolutely loves "what if" scenarios. "What if" no one ever read Bill's column online and ESPN did not give him a shot? Would he be an annoying bartender in Boston, calling himself The Boston Sports Guy (his ego would force him to keep that name) and be married to a woman who he calls the Sports Gal? See, I can't even do a creative "what if" scenario because they annoy me so much.

GLADWELL

Nick Faldo. Think about it. He wins six majors. He's the dominant golfer of the late 1980s and early 1990s. But we don't mention him in the same breath as, say, Arnold Palmer, even though Palmer only won one more major than Faldo. And why? Because Palmer had Nicklaus and Faldo had, well, Scott Hoch, Mark McNulty and John Cook. Now imagine he comes along in the late '90s and goes toe-to-toe with Tiger Woods from the beginning. All of a sudden Faldo gets immeasurably magnified by the comparison.

I absolutely agree about this. Nick Faldo is, in my opinion, the best golfer of the past 20 years that very few people actually consider to be a great golfer. He is not considered one of the great for some reason. I hated him because he was so good.

I think Faldo could have been the Mickelson to Woods if he had come along later.

and Faldo in his prime was terrifying. He was surly and tough and charismatic and emotionally and psychologically bulletproof, and I feel like he'd do a better job of getting under Tiger's skin than anyone out there right now.

I disagree with this. I don't think Tiger would have had any major psychological problems competing with Faldo at all because Woods is a machine. He doesn't get psychological problems or affected in any fashion. Faldo would have competed with Tiger on the golf course, but that is about it I believe. I think the only reason Faldo was so terrifying is that he played against a group of golfers he was superior to and even when he went one-on-one with Greg Norman, Norman would fall apart under the stress at crucial points...like when he stepped on the golf course before the final round or ate breakfast and thought about having to make an important putt. Faldo was great but his mental bulletproof aura I believe was a result of playing lesser and less mentally tough golfers.

SIMMONS

In my book, I make the point that we spent so many years searching for an archrival for Jordan -- the Frazier to his Ali, someone who'd bring the best out of him -- when really, that player was Lenny Bias, and one cocaine binge ruined what should have been a fierce rivalry. Of the incoming NBA stars from 1984-90, only Bias possessed the talent and swagger to stand up to MJ in his prime.

I am just incredibly fucking shocked that Bill thinks a Boston Celtic could have been able to stand up to Michael Jordan in his prime. Gosh, I thought he would name someone from another team. I guess we can see his basketball book will be Boston-centric as well. The best part for Bill is that there is no fucking way we can disprove his argument here because NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS what would have happened. This is why Bill likes "what if" arguments, because you can't prove him wrong. It's not facts, its not basketball history, but just pure speculation. Bill loves that.

Len Bias was great in college but because he did not play one freaking minute in the NBA we have no way of knowing if he was going to be a massive bust because of drugs or the next great player. If we had to guess, drugs would have probably ruined his career and he never would have reached his potential. What was his potential? We have no idea but just because he was good in college doesn't mean he would have been absolutely great in the pros. Knowing Bias did drugs at least once there are probably 8 different paths his career could have taken, but Bill chooses the one that makes him as great as Michael Jordan...and he just happened to be drafted by the Celtics. We can't even argue this point though, because we have no idea, which is why Bill makes the argument so strongly. He can't be wrong!

I am going to hate Bill's book.

GLADWELL

You're right. I am a bit obsessed with the full-court press at the moment. I just did a story for The New Yorker about how underdogs beat favorites, which had a lot about basketball in it.

Basically Gladwell said a lesser team should always press a better team because it gives them a better chance to win. It's a typical "I know very little about sports but I will make an observation that seems smart until others think about it" comment.

There are two other things here that fascinate me. After my piece ran in The New Yorker, one of the most common responses I got was people saying, well, the reason more people don't use the press is that it can be beaten with a well-coached team and a good point guard. That is (A) absolutely true and (B) beside the point. The press doesn't guarantee victory. It simply represents the underdog's best chance of victory.

Does it? Pressing at certain points in the game might work well but a better team is going to to be able to beat the press and it will lead to easier baskets. Not to mention to set up a press effectively you have to score a basket, which is not always easy to do against a great team. I am not going to say pressing a lot is a bad strategy, but I will say it is risky at best and there is no real evidence I have seen (unless you want to count one game, which is one game and not really a ton of evidence) it would work.

Others criticized this better than me. Here. Here. Here.

Here is a quote that proves Malcolm is not quite understanding what an underdog is:

Then, of course, Pitino takes one of his first Louisville teams to the Final Four in 2006 and this season's team to the Elite Eight, and no one's going to argue that either of those teams were filled with future Hall of Famers.

This season's team was the #1 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament. They were the consensus best team in the country coming into the NCAA Tournament after playing in the toughest conference, which is the Big East. Then the press got killed by Michigan State who was the #2 seed. Basically, the press allowed a lesser team to beat the better team. Also, both Louisville teams were loaded. 2006. 2008.

If you are going to think of ideas at least pretend you know what the hell you are talking about. Louisville recruits well and those players they recruit are by no means scrubs who can't play. When Louisville presses it is often the case of the better team pressing the inferior team.

When we were talking, Pitino called over Samardo Samuels, who is, of course, Jamaican -- his point being that this was his ideal kind of player, someone who substituted for a lack of experience with a lot of hunger. There is something weird, isn't there -- and also strangely beautiful -- about a coach who deliberately seeks out players who aren't the most talented?

Samuels is the untalented #2 ranked PF in the 2008 recruiting class and the #9 recruit overall. If that is not the most talented, then I want a team of not talented players. It's called research Malcolm.

Of course, Bill loves the idea of a press.

SIMMONS

If Pitino had just kept that nucleus -- Walker, Billups, Mercer, Barros, Brown, McCarty, Bowen, Knight and DeClercq -- been patient and allowed his young guys to take their lumps, we would have had something (and remember, Pierce was coming in the '98 draft).

I watched those games as well and I want to that would have been a long wait for several of those players. They did have some talent but it took a few years for Bowen, Billups and McCarty to develop. Some never really did. I am talking about DeClercq, Knight, and Mercer.

With a 12-man roster, you'd only need to train five or six guys to pull off that press. Let's say next season's Bulls trained the following five: Joakim Noah, Ty Thomas, Kirk Hinrich, Lindsey Hunter and Generic Athletic/Hungry Swingman X. They practice and practice until they become a well-oiled pressing machine. For the first five minutes of every second and fourth quarter, they unleash that killer press on their opponents … who, by the way, would be playing backups during that time, making it even more effective.

What if the other coach plays his starters at this point in anticipation that the Bulls are going to press? What if one of those guys that presses gets hurt or becomes ineffective during the year? I am not saying it would not work, I am saying to take five/six guys and teach them to press is a great idea in theory, but I don't know how well it would work in real life.

In this scenario, the Bulls wouldn't press with Rose, Deng, Brad Miller, Ben Gordon or even John Salmons if they could help it.

This would also happen to be (and yes I am ready for magical 36 minute statistics proving me wrong), a not very good defensive squad that would either play against the other team's starters or backups. I would like to see this to see how it works, but I am not very encouraged it could. Also, the Bulls have to resign Ben Gordon before he can play for them again.

Couldn't they have pressed for 10 minutes a game with Al Thornton, Mike Taylor, DeAndre Jordan, Fred Jones and Mardy Collins? Why the hell not? Oh, wait, I forgot … they have a dunce as a coach.

Again, I want to point this fact out. To press effectively it has to come after a made basket. If you have a team consisting of players who aren't your best offensive players, you may not get a chance to press. I just want this to be taken into account when the discussion about pressing in the comments invariably comes. It's not like this group of individuals can just automatically press the opposing team. They have to make a basket, then they can press.

GLADWELL

Why wouldn't you have a special squad of trained pressers come in for five minutes a half and press Kobe and Fisher? Worst-case scenario is that you exhaust Kobe, and make him a bit more vulnerable down the stretch. Best case is that you rattle the Lakers and force a half-dozen extra turnovers that turn out to be crucial. And if you lose, so what? You were going to lose anyway.

Worst case scenario is that the Lakers beat the press consistently and it doesn't matter that Kobe is vulnerable down the stretch because he is on the bench looking at the women in the crowd during the 4th quarter because the game is a blowout. I guess I just have a problem overall with the "we are going to lose anyway" strategies that are being thought of here. I think pressing can be great if done in moderation, but at the NBA level I don't feel like it would be as effective as at the college level. Not to mention if you press the Lakers, they have two guys, Gasol and Odom both of whom can handle the ball and serve as the press buster in the middle of the court. I don't think Gladwell took this into account before he started typing.

And -- since I know you love lists -- who would be your all-time full-court press team? One rule: you can't pick people who would otherwise be considered all-time greats. So no Jordan or Pippen.

SIMMONS

I'll give you two different teams. If you went with superstars or All-Stars, you'd go with 1993-94 David Robinson, '88-89 Dennis Rodman, '91-92 Scottie Pippen, 2008-09 LeBron and 1991-92 Jordan.

Bill must have gotten an F in Listening Skills in Kindergarten.

GLADWELL

I feel the same way about the attitude of professional football teams toward the no-huddle offense. Right now, great teams (such as the Colts and Patriots) use the no-huddle selectively, as a way to maximize their dominance. But why don't bad teams use it? If you were the Lions, why not run the no-huddle this season? Why not put together a lighter, better-conditioned offensive line and a radically simplified playbook and see what happens? It's not as if you are risking a Super Bowl if it backfires. Your offensive line is lousy anyway, so there's no harm in tearing it down, and your fans aren't going to turn on you if you get killed while you work out the kinks.

More "what do we have to lose?" strategies. It's easy to do this. Just get a lighter more well conditioned offensive line that can play the no-huddle offense, a quarterback that can make audibles at the line of scrimmage and has the skills to run the no-huddle offense, and make the playbook smaller! It's that easy.

What happens if the team doesn't want to run the no-huddle or the no-huddle is not working? They now have a lighter offensive line that has trouble running the ball. Running the no-huddle is a great idea at times but with an inexperienced or an average quarterback running the offense it has the potential to be a turnover problem for the offense when Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are not running the offense.

Basically, you just can't take any quarterback, especially one that plays for a bad team have the no-huddle work effectively for you.

Best teams pick first. How fun would that be? Every meaningless end-of-season game now becomes instantly meaningful. If you were the Minnesota Timberwolves, you would realize that unless you did something really drastic -- like hire some random sports writer as your GM, or bring in Pitino to design a special-press squad -- you would never climb out of the cellar again.

Peter King thought of this idea with the NFL and it will just turn into the rich getting richer. Do you really want to give the Cavaliers Blake Griffin and the Wizards Wayne Ellington? That's the best idea we have. How about the crappy teams just draft well and figure out what the hell they are doing? Wouldn't that be easier?

SIMMONS

Now you're just lobbing me softballs. I am a fervent "Every lottery team should have the same odds" believer for two reasons: Not only would it eliminate any incentive to tank down the stretch for a "better" draft pick (really, better odds at a better draft pick), but the current setup penalizes potential franchise players by giving them too much responsibility for carrying inferior teams.

Ok, that is not really what Gladwell was talking about. I actually do like Bill's idea better honestly. Give every lottery team an equal chance for each pick in the draft. I hate Gladwell's idea of giving the best teams the best picks, but Bill's idea where every team has an equal chance to get every pick seems good to me. I would even take that idea out of just the lottery teams and give it to everyone, but I am not that crazy, so I will stick to the lottery teams.

I am currently paying for season tickets to the hopeless Clippers, who deliberately antagonize their fan base with decisions like, "We're going to bring Mike Dunleavy back for a seventh season even though he has the first-ever 0 percent NBA approval rate from our fans."

I think Bill believes he is being forced to buy these season tickets. Stop complaining and don't go if you don't want to pay for them.

That's why we can't keep rewarding lower classes at the expense of the elite franchises. And if this makes me an NBA Republican, so be it.

Not surprisingly Bill's favorite team is an elite franchise.

GLADWELL

Or how about eliminating the draft altogether? I'm at least half-serious here. Think about it. Suppose we let every college player apply for and receive job offers in the same way that, oh, every other human being on the planet does. That doesn't mean that everyone goes to L.A. and New York, because you still have the constraints of the cap. It does mean, though, that both players and teams would have to make an affirmative case for each other's services.

That way we can have package deals and all the other shit I hate about college basketball happen. Teams will try to circumvent the cap and find ways to cheat this system. Ok, that is a minor concern I have, but I can only imagine the scandalous events that would occur.

Mostly, I just don't like this idea.

SIMMONS

Also, if you eliminated the draft, then my annual draft diary would die, and Chad Ford's archives wouldn't be nearly as fun to read. I would miss the draft. Desperately. The easy fix, and the only fix, is to give every lottery team the same odds. Done and done. You also forget that every NBA player wants to live in either Southern California, New York, Phoenix or Florida. So unless you're prepared to put all 30 teams in those four regions, we can't dump the draft.

Not so much love-fest here but I have to say I agree with Bill. I like it when he talks sense.

GLADWELL

I don't know if readers realize how this has gone. You e-mail me something. I fret and agonize and worry and send something back a day and a half later. Then half an hour passes and a 1,000-word e-mail pops up in my inbox, with the taunting subject line "Back at you." You are basically one of those Doug Moe Denver Nuggets teams from the 1970s, which would put up 85 points in the first half.

H writes 2 columns per week if the readers are lucky and it is his full time job. He writes a lot of words when he does write but when guys on AOL's sports page post a new column everyday, it doesn't seem as much like Bill is busting his ass. Of course, he also does the BS Report. I'm just saying it is his full time job to write. He has nothing else to do, I would expect him to write a lot.

Bands can go different ways just like successful basketball teams. McCartney and Lennon were two geniuses who ultimately needed one another (like Young Magic and Older Kareem, or Shaq and Young Kobe), whereas MJ and LeBron were more like Sting or Springsteen (someone who could carry the band by themselves).

I would just like to point out that both Sting and Springsteen never had a sidekick like Lennon/McCartney to rely on but both artists have had more success within the band setting. Springsteen was putting out double albums on the same day, doing acoustic albums on barely sold out tours, and writing movie soundtrack songs in the 90's until he got back with the E-Street Band and Sting had disappeared off my radar in the early 2000's until he got back with the Police this summer. I don't think they can carry a band by themselves and have the same success they had before. Similarly, MJ never got over the hump without Scottie Pippen. Basically they can carry a team/band so far but they need the supporting cast to be the best or better than many.

I really have no idea what I am talking about right now. I feel high.

GLADWELL

In your book, you talk about McHale's decision to keep playing the '87 playoffs with a broken foot, and how he was never really the same after that.

Anybody else get the feeling this book is going to be about Bill's boyhood memories of growing up as a Celtics fan and it will contain many stories about how great that team was, along with hyperbolic examples, like how Len Bias would have kept up with Michael Jordan?

They were so successful for so long that they grew overconfident and arrogant and complacent. The biggest obstacle to success is success.

That is kind of how I feel about Bill Simmons.

I think we will end on that. I tried to cut all the agreeing out of this, because that is no fun. So what we learned today is that Malcolm Gladwell may not watch sports and Bill Simmons' basketball book may cause a book burning that has not been seen since Germany in the 1940's.