On Tuesday, we began the "conversation" between Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell and so I thought an appropriate Christmas present would be to put up the second part of their conversation for everyone's enjoyment. The discussion they have here is about concussions and the future of the NFL and why the NBA has it all right by being a smart league compared to the NFL...even though I am not sure this is true.
Gladwell: In last week's New Yorker, my colleague James Surowiecki made the argument that celebrities can get away with something so long as it confirms -- rather than contradicts -- our pre-existing impression of them. Charles Barkley can get a DWI and a few months later still be taken seriously when he talks about going into politics. No problem. We believe he's a carouser. Clinton can recover from Monica Lewinsky because we knew, going in, that he had a wandering eye, and we'd already adjusted our perception of him accordingly.
This an interesting and true, if not pretty obvious to those that have thought this through, point. Our perceptions of athletes determines how we treat them in tough times. This goes for normal people as well. That's why I make it a habit to be an asshole, I can pretty much say or do whatever I want.
Simmons: Let's move to a more uplifting topic: concussions...These guys damage their bodies and brains to entertain us, and we ignore the collateral damage or look the other way. Your point was that as we learn more and more about the effects of concussions, it was becoming tougher to look the other way. At least for you. Do you still feel that way?
Gladwell: But in answer to your question: Yes, football has kind of been ruined for me, I'm afraid. Understand that I live for the game. But I'm increasingly of the opinion that it is screwed up -- on a moral level -- in a way that no other professional sport is.
Yeah, this is probably true. Though I did look all weekend at the NFL games on Sunday and couldn't find a gun held to the head of any of these players to play the game of football for a living. So............it seems sort of like a personal choice to me.
Think about it. The league has a salary cap (which limits players' pay),
Limits the pay in the MILLIONS by the way. This is a small, yet incredibly important point that needs to be added. The pay is limited in the MILLIONS, which last time I checked, is a lot of money to be limited to making. Players can make more millions in endorsements or through business opportunities.
In other words, the owners reserve the right to limit the pool of money available to players, to walk away from contracts whenever they please and then hold no long-term responsibility for the health of the players whose contracts they have limited and declined to honor. Coal miners aren't treated this badly.
I can only make so much money, I live in "at-will employment" state (which means I can get fired for no reason at all or because I wore a blue shirt today), and no one pays my health insurance after I get fired. Coal miners may not be treated as badly as NFL players are treated, but there are millions of other individuals who are in their day-to-day jobs. Granted normal everyday workers aren't getting hit by people trying to tackle or block them, but many of the unemployed in America right now would lack sympathy for the contractual situation many NFL players are in.
I would also like to add that one of the other risks the players take is that they can make a good amount of money if they stick in the league for 5 years and potentially retire at an earlier age than most other Americans. This has to be factored in as well at some point. No one wants to hurt their body, but a player who sticks on an NFL roster for a couple of years has a pretty good nest egg that can be built up.
Logically, for a player to take a lot of wear and tear in the NFL he would have to play a lot and for a player to play a lot he probably gets paid a decent amount of money...either currently or could make even more money in the future. So a current player who gets beat up should be compensated fairly well for doing his job. I am not saying the NFL treats its players well, but the point that players make a lot of money now has to be made.
At some point, doesn't it become immoral to watch a sport that treats its players so badly? Most people don't go to boxing matches or dogfights on ethical grounds. So how is football different?
I agree that playing football is a dangerous sport, but I think it is different from boxing matches and dogfighting. I am pretty sure the dogs do not make the choice to fight or are at least coaxed into it in some fashion. Boxing is a sport that can be seen as fairly barbaric, but the entire point is to hit your opponent, so it's easy to boycott the sport on ethical grounds. I think football is different because the entire point of the sport isn't to injure your opponent, though of course some of that happens by accident/on purpose.
Football is a violent sport and the sport needs to take steps to ensure the safety of the athletes, but I think it's a bit much to protest the sport because it is immoral. The purpose of the game is not to fight, but to run with the ball while your opponent is either (a) trying to get the ball from you or (b) tackle you to the ground so you stop running. Football is not supposed to be a dangerous sport inherently, even though sometimes it can be seen that way.
Simmons: If you think football is bad, check out pro wrestling. It might not be a real "sport," but it combines every bad thing about every other sport. Steroids, painkillers and PEDs? Hell, yeah. Repeated concussions from chair shots? Absolutely. A union that doesn't look out for its members? There is no wrestling union, so I'm going to say yes. Fixed outcomes and shady referees? You betcha. Athletes getting paralyzed or dropping dead? And then some. (Google "dead wrestlers" sometime. Your eyes will pop out of their sockets.)
Great point by Bill. I hate "professional" wrestling personally. I know a lot of people like it, but I find it to be cheesy, fake and really, really pointless. That sport is full of pain-killing addicted guys who can barely move because the beating their body took. If there was ever a sport that needs its participants looked out for, this is it.
So I don't think this is unique to football. It's not like Americans care less about the long-term health of football players than other sports.
I may never say this again...I am glad Bill Simmons is here to speak some common sense.
But Muhammad Ali is punch-drunk. He should have retired in 1975 after the Frazier fight and ended up fighting another 150 rounds. Think about that. Boxing ruined this guy for life, and we enabled it.
If anyone saw the Ali v. Frasier "30 For 30" episode, I would ask you this question: After watching that documentary, who could have stopped Ali from fighting, outside of Ali himself? The answer is nobody. It was his choice and he wanted to do it. Maybe those who were alive at the time enabled it because they watched the fight, but Muhammad Ali is/was a big boy and he chose to get back in the ring. I really doubt he would have listened to anyone tell him he shouldn't get back in the ring.
Gladwell: I mean, if your son wants to play Pop Warner in a few years, can you really tell me you'd let him do it?
Simmons: Funny you should ask. My son is a wrecking ball and has one of those ripped little-kid bodies that makes him look like a 1780s blacksmith. (Important note: These genes came from my wife's side. I am built like Play-doh with bones.) He also has a hard head. And he's tough as nails.
Bill's son is the most ripped and toughest 2 year old child there has ever been. NO ONE DENIES THIS!!!! He is the smartest and toughest kid in the world, ask Bill's dad he will tell you.
Gladwell: I recently chatted with an ex-NFL player who argued that the league ought to consider weight limits, like saying no one can play above 275 pounds.That's a good start.
Because a hit on a receiver from a safety or linebacker isn't going to hurt as bad if the offensive linemen weight 275 pounds or less? Because it won't hurt a quarterback as bad when he gets blindsided by a 260 pound defensive end? The weight limit makes certain sense in some aspect of football, but for many of the concussion cases it wouldn't make a huge difference. Hollis Thomas isn't the one causing concussions, it's quick, strong guys like Rodney Harrison (220 pounds) who are knocking players out.
What if we made all tackles eligible receivers? What if we allowed all offensive players to move prior to the snap? What if we banned punt and kickoff returns, where a disproportionate number of head impacts happen?
What if we just changed the sport of football to where it was no longer recognizable as the sport it has become popular as? I would think a guy like Bill Simmons, who loves to compare players in different eras apparently, wouldn't like the idea of changing the rules and making it harder to compare players from different eras in football.
Simmons: Sports are always afraid to overreact and change their rules; they seem to think it's a sign of weakness or panic.
I guess I just don't see how tackles being eligible receivers is going to solve the concussion problem in the NFL. I am all for rules changes that make sense but if all offensive players can move prior to the snap, I think I miss how that is going to reduce concussions.
We need better concussion rules in place, stuff like "You're out for eight quarters if you get one concussion"
If a player gets a concussion in the 1st quarter of Game #5, he has to sit out until the 2nd quarter of Game #7? That extra quarter is crucial in his recovery time?
and "You're out for the year if you get two."
The first person to bitch when Wes Welker gets his 2nd concussion and has to sit out a year? Bill Simmons.
In fact, I could see Bill complaining that players are intentionally trying to cause concussions using late hits to knock players out of the game and for the year. Bill would be the absolute first to complain about the rule he advocates here.
But I don't think we need to overhaul the sport itself. Allowing all linemen to catch passes? Allowing everyone to move before the snap? Please. Go back to Canada.
America forever! Go back where you came from Canadian! Here's some beer, eh.
(Bengoodfella high fives himself for being jingoistic)
Gladwell: Don't get me started on Canadian football, which, for the record, is way more entertaining than its American counterpart.
"Holy shit is that Quincy Carter handing off to Rashaan Salaam? I am so entertained! I always wondered what happened to Henry Burris and Drew Tate. This is absolutely football at it's finest for sure."
Um, count me out of that discussion. I really, really want to respect the CFL but I am not sure I can do it with a straight face. I am sure it is exciting to watch, but I think I would prefer to stick to the NFL.
But here's the problem. Basketball feels to me like a smart sport. I would be quite happy if David Stern were the next president of the United States, and there are a number of owners -- like Cuban -- whom I feel have open and curious and intelligent minds.
I don't know how Bill Simmons can ever agree that basketball is a smart sport. He has openly lobbied for two General Manager positions on NBA teams because the owners are so stupid they don't know what to look for in someone to run the team. Bill has no experience running an NBA team but he thinks he can do just as well as some of the current NBA general managers. This is the league that gave us Isiah Thomas, James Dolan, and Donald Sterling. This is a league that, as Bill admits repeatedly in his book, completely ignored a drug problem in the NBA for almost a decade and lost many of it's great players to drugs, too much money too soon, and the NBA is a league that has teams which are in poor financial shape. I think Malcolm Gladwell is a little bit wrong here in thinking basketball is a smart sport.
I hate to say it, but while the NFL is behind the times on the concussion issue, they are ahead of the curve on competitive issues and how to create a league where from year-to-year there can be interest on the part of fans (except for franchises that are poorly run, but that's not the fault of the NFL model, but the individual owners and the GM's of those teams). I like the NBA, but I don't see how Malcolm Gladwell can consider it to be a "smart" league. Doesn't the NBA have a major integrity problem when it comes to officiating? This is the SMART sport that Gladwell uses as an example?
Or, to use a absurd example, this is a league that decides overtime possessions with a coin flip, in contravention of every rational principle of fairness.
As opposed to the NBA, which uses an arrow and a "held ball" to determine which team gets possession. That just seems so much more fair than a coin toss doesn't it? I hate the coin toss in the NFL also, but I just don't feel like the NBA is the forerunner in intelligence when it comes to sports in the United States. This is the same league that still lets Donald Sterling own a team and has let multiple owners rip a franchise right from under a city's nose for reasons that didn't quite seem fair in my mind.
Simmons: For me, the sport stuck most in the past is baseball. It took them 15 solid years and a forearm growing out of Barry Bonds' head to start handling the PED epidemic. They still don't have a salary cap or revenue sharing; nobody is going to give a crap until Joe Mauer signs with the Yankees for $270 million next winter and the entire state of Minnesota tries to light itself on fire.
This is a fairly good choice as well for a sport that isn't always smart. I do have to say I don't think anyone is going to give a shit when the Yankees sign Joe Mauer next winter, except for Red Sox fans of course, hence we get this concern from Bill. Though, if you recall, he is not as into baseball as he used to be because of (wink, wink) the PED situation and how he can't compare player's numbers from different eras...so he may not care where the hell Mauer goes.
The African-American talent pool is dwindling to 1960s-level numbers, and only Torii Hunter seems to be bothered by this.
In reality, what can be done about this? Are Major League Baseball executives supposed to round up African-Americans and force them to play basebal? Football and basketball are much easier sports to play with friends while growing up, you don't need a group of 12 people to play and you only need a ball and a court (or small field). It's not like MLB hasn't taken steps to ensure African-American kids get interested in baseball, it's just not the sport many kids grow up dreaming playing. I don't know how much can honestly be done about this.
We have the technology to create computer-generated strike zones and remove human error from pitch to pitch, only they would never dream of changing the game like that.
If done correctly, I would be in favor of this. The key words are "done correctly" and I don't know if this can be done by MLB. Though the way instant replay was integrated does give me hope for the technological future of MLB.
Same for outlawing pickoff throws (and making a rule that you can only lead 4-5 feet off every base) to speed up games,
Eliminating pickoff throws? Maybe there should be a limit of pickoff throws that can be made to each batter, (or politely asking Andy Pettitte to hurry the hell up) but eliminating them completely seems like a sort of bad idea to me. I am not against progress but what are the ramifications going to be if a runner leads 6 feet off the base? Is he out? If not, where is the incentive for a player to not lead off first more than the rules allow?
If a runner is called out for leading off too much, I can just see managers of MLB teams taking out measuring tapes and showing umpires his guy wasn't too far off first base. This just seems like a cluster of problems to me. The amount of time a pitcher takes between pitches is the problem, not necessarily pickoff throws to 1st base in general.
or preventing batters from stepping out of the box after every pitch, or giving pitchers a time limit to deliver every pitch.
These are two good ways to speed up a game in Major League Baseball. As I said previously, I would also be open to the idea of limiting the amount of pickoff throws to 1st base, but not outlawing them completely.
What about my idea that the NHL should cut back to 24 teams, then go a 12-team American conference and a 12-team Canadian conference?
Gladwell: I'm with you on the 24-team, Canadian-American conference idea, particularly since it turns the Stanley Cup finals into a border war every year. I was once in Brazil when Brazil was playing Argentina in soccer, and the entire country was in a state of advanced hysteria. I was at a conference and they stopped the proceedings, in the middle of the day, so everyone could go watch the game. Unbelievable. That's what happens when you combine sports and national loyalties. Can you imagine this happening every spring?
I have a feeling a championship between an American and Canadian hockey team in the Stanley Cup Finals would not have the same hysteria effect soccer in Brazil and Argentina has. It could be because 75% of the people in the United States are completely apathetic towards hockey in general. I think that might affect the hysteria rate during an international Stanley Cup Playoffs in America and Canada.
The league had 24 teams when Bettman took over, including eight in Canada. Now they have a whopping 30 teams, including more warm-weather American teams (L.A., Phoenix, Nashville, Carolina, Tampa, Florida, Atlanta, Anaheim) than Canadian teams (only six).
I haven't ever really gotten the idea that teams in "warm weather" climates shouldn't have hockey because it isn't cold in those cities. I am not saying these teams can support a team, though L.A., Carolina, Tampa, Florida, and Anaheim seem to do fairly well in being competitive (if I am not wrong, I know the Hurricanes are huge here in North Carolina...or at least near where I live), but what is inherently wrong with having "warm weather cities" have hockey teams? Other than the fact it's not traditional?
Hasn't Bill Simmons been railing on the NFL and MLB for hanging on to old fashioned traditions and not moving ahead with the times? Warm weather teams are progress and getting rid of old fashioned traditions, so Bill should like it. There needs to be more Canadian teams in hockey, I won't argue that point, but the NHL can pry the Carolina Hurricanes away from Raleigh out of Bill Cowher's cold, dead fingers.
Gladwell: It's incredible, isn't it? What I don't understand is how a country that is obsessed with hockey and supplies the lion's share of players and diehard fans to the NHL allows its national sport to be run by an American working out of New York City.
Those Americans are always ruining everything aren't they?
I think the Canadian teams should simply secede from the league and start over. And we'd take any northern American teams that wanted to come as well, particularly those in the upper Midwest and greater Ohio Valley which, if you'll remember your War of 1812 history correctly, is an area that really ought to belong to Canada anyway.
Malcolm Gladwell: Nerd until the very end.
I don't think too much of America would really care if the Canadian teams seceded from the NHL. I am sure Canada could run the NHL perfectly fine on their own, since the Toronto Raptors, Vancouver Grizzlies, and the Montreal Expos are/were such well-run organizations. I wouldn't mind seeing more teams play in Canada, the NHL is trying to become a more mainstream and popular league. I can't help but think if they moved more teams to Canada it might hurt any potential United States television contracts they may want to increase the popularity of the league. I don't know much about hockey in a financial sense, so I am sort of talking out of my ass.
Simmons: "Live Free or Die Hard," "Lethal Weapon 4," "Rocky IV" … Gladwell-Simmons IV! You talked me into it. Until next time.
Please, no more of these. I never knew I disliked Malcolm Gladwell and I have always wanted to read one of his books, but I am re-considering my position on this right now.
Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays, whichever works better for you) to everyone! Thanks for reading what we write here.
Showing posts with label malcolm gladwell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label malcolm gladwell. Show all posts
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
11 comments Simmons and Gladwell Exchange Some (Bad) Ideas: The Sequel Part I
A few months ago Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell got together and emailed each other ideas and just had a general conversation about sports. I covered it here. They decided this past Friday to have another go at a conversation like this and though I didn't absolutely hate the conversation, I of course feel the need to point out some stuff I disagreed with as an uninvited third party into the conversation. I have never read a book by Malcolm Gladwell, but I know what he writes about enough to get a general idea of where he is trying to come from in most discussions. I know he likes Bill Simmons, as many others do and I do 35% of the time, and I know this because he wrote the forward to Bill's new book and basically laid out the reasons why Bill Simmons should be an NBA General Manager. So I know that about him.
These two gentlemen have a mutual admiration society going with each other. The biggest similarities these two have in my mind is that they are both smart (and they know it), and the fact they both have great ideas they love to share them with others. Nothing is wrong with either of these characteristics. Sometimes it is just a bit much, that's all.
And now? We're trying it again. Like you didn't have enough distractions over the holidays, here are nearly 10,000 words of e-mails Gladwell and I exchanged about Kobe, Tiger, concussions, Donaghy, capitalization rates, celebrity sightings and everything else you can imagine.
Modesty? In fact modesty will not be present in this discussion.
SIMMONS
If you forced me to choose which three-quel this discussion was I think I am going with "Spiderman 3." It's the same cast (Gladwell/Simmons), similar ideas (let's discuss sports and advertise for how smart we both can be by brainstorming ideas) and the only difference is there are different conflicts to work through (different ideas about sports and the world), but we know everything is going to be solved by the end and there will eventually one (you know there will be a Gladwell-Simmons Part 4). Along the way there are some interesting ideas revealed that entertain me, but there are certain parts I just can't get past (the dancing in by Peter Parker and the fact both villains weren't very imposing in Spiderman 3) to enjoy in the end.
A very Simmons-esque comparison by me. If I had referenced a movie 20 years old maybe I could have written it exactly like he does.
I don't dislike either Gladwell or Simmons but I can't shake the feeling this exchange of emails is just an exercise by each of them to show each other and the reading audience how brilliant and well-thought out they can each be. It's like an arm-wrestling match using a computer.
"Godfather III" had the single biggest casting misfire of our lifetimes (Sofia Coppola as Michael Corleone's daughter).
Really? Denise Richards as a incredibly intelligent doctor named "Dr. Christmas Jones?" I know Sofia Coppola was a part of one of the most respected trilogies in the history of cinema and is blamed for screwing it up, but Denise Richards played (a) a doctor, (b) an intelligent doctor, (c) a doctor named "Christmas" and (d) a doctor with the last name "Jones." Did the scriptwriters get bored and just think a funny inside joke about Indiana Jones' non-existent sister would be funny? Or did they get lazy and think this:
(Scriptwriter #1) "This movie is coming out near Christmas, that would be a good first name for a scientist...what's a good last name?"
(Scriptwriter #2) "Llewelyn."
(Scriptwriter #1) "No, that name is too difficult to say and we have to direct it towards how the actress we cast for the role would appear to the audience. I don't think she would be a "Llewelyn" at all."
(Scriptwriter #2) "Who did we cast again? Wasn't it Gretchen Mol?"
(Scriptwriter #1) "Denise Richards."
(Scriptwriter #2) "Oh, 'Jones' will work for her then."
The single biggest casting misfire of our lifetimes could also be Rob Schneider in pretty much anything he has been in. This is a great time to re-read Roger Ebert's picture perfect take down of Rob Schneider in Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo. I feel like I have to re-read this movie review once a year, just for a good laugh.
I refuse to sit through "The Lord of the Rings," but apparently that's a great example for this.
Bill is going to get around to actually talking about sports here in a minute but right now he is showing off how smart he is by listing sequels that Gladwell-Simmons III could end up being like. I have sat through "The Lord of the Rings," all three of them, and I am not afraid to say I thought they were decent, but I would never sit through them again. I had a rather long discussion with my co-workers about this issue. They think I am crazy, but I didn't really like the movies all that much. Maybe you have to like the books to enjoy the movie or maybe you have to enjoy talking trees and hobbits. I don't really know.
No. 4: Rocky III.
The holy grail of re-sequels. Gets its own category.
"Rocky III" is not a great movie. Sorry. I know Bill has to go back to his favorite movies when making comparisons and he can't compare Gladwell-Simmons III to a movie half of his readers were alive for when it was in theaters...but I am not so sure "Rocky III" is the holy grail of "three-quels." In terms of cheesiness, then maybe that would be true, because there are parts of Rocky III that are epic in their cheesiness.
Our motives are pretty clear. If it's OK with you, even though I'm the white guy and you're the biracial Canadian,
Malcolm Gladwell is Canadian. Don't worry, if you forget this fact you will be reminded 94 other times in this discussion. Also, Canada does everything much better than the United States and nearly every other country does. You will learn that too.
Gladwell: but I was curious if anything has happened so far that makes you want to rethink your Hall of Fame pyramid. Do you have any regrets about "The Book of Basketball"?
I have regrets about Bill's Hall of Fame pyramid. He put Kobe Bryant at #15 of his pyramid behind Bob Pettit. We all love Bob Pettit but Kobe Bryant is probably a better basketball player in the annals of the NBA over him. I also regret that I completely agree with him about George Mikan and actually want him ranked way higher (like #70) than he was in the book. In today's NBA, George Mikan is an untalented, unathletic white center. That's it.
Gladwell: This is what the whole Tiger Woods mess has made clear, I think (and I'm sure we'll get back to him later): We have such incredibly narrow views of what sports celebrities are like. We just can't imagine them as having the full range of human needs and interests. I mean, why shouldn't Adonal Foyle be an art lover?
How narrow minded of us all to not have a broad view of what sports celebrities are like! I think the normal sports fan should take more time to find out what sports celebrities are like rather than just assume they are exactly how they present themselves to the public. Because in the realm of sports, what kind of art Adonal Foyle likes really should matter and all.
I watch sports not to give a crap about what kind of cereal an athlete likes or what he does with his time off from playing sports with his kids. I care about what he does on the field. I am not looking for a meaningful, long time friend...I want to be entertained with sports by sports celebrities. If I learn something interesting along the way, that's fine. I don't feel like I really need to get to know an athlete along the way to make the entertainment more pleasurable for me or to make my life feel more complete. Of course, we learn things about athletes along the way, but I don't feel like I am ignorant because I don't know what Allen Iverson's favorite Broadway play is.
Simmons: Anyway, I think you're right that sports fans are guilty of "athletic profiling."
Part of the problem the snobbish Gladwell and Simmons don't realize is that sports fans don't have access to learn about what some athletes do in their spare time. It's not like we can go interview them or get invited to their house for dinner. So that leaves only the public persona for the average sports fan to chew on and decide what to think about a player. In the limited realm of the media and how the athlete presents him/herself in the media, there has to be a certain amount of "athletic profiling" that goes on.
Allen Iverson has cornrows and tattoos, and he shows up late for practice, and he takes too many shots, so this means he isn't articulate and self-aware (even though he is).
No one assumes because Iverson looks like he does and shows up late for practice (which is also something a sports fan would not know, so I don't know how they could base their "athletic profiling" on a fact they didn't know), he isn't articulate or self-aware. Maybe there are people that think this, but I would say the majority of sports fans who love the NBA don't think this.
Mariano Rivera keeps a low profile, is super-religious and doesn't say much publicly, so this means he has nothing to say (even though Peter Gammons, in his farewell piece for ESPN.com, called him the single most distinctive athlete he covered). Bill Belichick gives monotone answers in news conferences, so this means he doesn't have a sense of humor (even though everyone who knows him swears he does). In all of those cases, our learned perceptions were wrong.
These aren't "learned perceptions" necessarily, these are stereotypes that Bill has made up that the fake generic stupid sports fan thinks. Bill Simmons is stereotyping the average sports fan by criticizing him/her for having misconceptions about athletes. Oh, the irony! Maybe a learned perception Bill and Sir Gladwell have wrong is that sports fans have these learned perceptions and truly believe them.
Bill Simmons seems like a nice, average guy, but this doesn't mean he isn't a raging asshole. I know Jeremy Conlin has a good experience at Bill's book signing with Bill, so he may not be an asshole. Of course how can anyone who knows Matt Damon, Jimmy Kimmel and Adam "the funniest person in the world if you don't know anyone else in the world" Corrolla be an asshole, right? I am just saying that the public persona of an athlete can be different from the reality and I would think most people can recognize this.
Gladwell: Years ago, I did a story on Tupac, and I tracked down some poems he wrote when he was in high school. They were all about flowers and sunsets and warm kisses. Before there was thug life, apparently, there was hug life. Who knew?
I knew that. I don't believe many sports fans are quite as dumb as these two guys think that they are.
Simmons: To answer your rankings question about my book from five tangents ago, I have many small regrets (to be expected) and one big one: Putting Iverson (No. 29) too high. That was the one Pyramid-related instance of my affection for someone clouding my judgment to some degree.
Or there could be other instances where Bill's affection for someone/something clouded his judgment in his book, like the 954 times he talks about the Boston Garden crowd rising as one to cheer on the team because they are the most educated sports fans in the world. My personal favorite is the time in his book when he said the Celtic crowd starting cheering for the Bulls (with Pippen and Jordan, I think he was referring to the '96 version) because the Celtic crowd knew what greatness was and they were seeing it right then. Whereas some people may see that as a little fickle for the home crowd to cheer for a team beating the snot out of the home team, oh no that's not true, the Boston Garden fans KNOW greatness (as the most educated fans in the world that they are) and they celebrate greatness by cheering for the Bulls.
So I have complaints about Bill Simmons, why do I read and enjoy his latest book? Other than the fact I hate myself of course. Your guess is as good as mine, but he can be a pretty good writer when he isn't writing about things like the passage above.
Gladwell: To me, Olympic swimmer Dara Torres is far and away the greatest athlete of our generation. She's been a world-class athlete for 25 years, in a sport where women often peak in their late teens.
This is the type of shit that happens when we sports non-fans and "great thinkers" like Malcolm Gladwell start talking about sports and "thinking." I like Dara Torres and respect all that she has done in the sport of swimming, but she is not FAR AND AWAY the best athlete of our generation.
Also, swimmers DO NOT peak performance-wise in their late teens. Young swimmers do well at the Olympics, and not to get into a swimming related argument but swimmers are in their peak in their very early 20's in my opinion. Really that doesn't matter because either way, Dara Torres is not the best athlete of our generation, much less earning this title, "far and away."
And the finest athletic performance of the past decade has to have been Tom Watson's win at the British Open this year at age 59, with an artificial hip no less -- and I say "win" because even though he finished second in a playoff, I think we can all agree that the difference between his play and Stewart Cink's play that weekend was effectively zero.
But Stewart Cink did win the British Open, which is all that matters. Again, with all due respect to Tom Watson it's not like he was doing anything outside of hitting a golf ball and walking around the golf course. I know golf is hard, but is this the finest athletic performance of the decade? Ok, maybe the finest performance in golf, I will at least entertain this argument, but not in all athletics. There isn't a better performance in the decade other than Tom Watson finishing second in the British Open? Is Malcolm Gladwell sure about this?
Malcolm Gladwell is a "thinker" which means he "believes himself to be really smart." These last 2 statements were not smart.
I'd love to see you factor in age-weighted performance:
Simmons: But age-weighted performance is era-specific to some degree. Think of the advantages for today's athletes with dieting and nutrition, personal training, exercise equipment, athletic equipment, medicine, sneakers, surgeries and first-class travel. Is there any way Dara Torres could have had her career in 1955? Of course not.
Thank you for bitchslapping him with some common sense Bill. It was God's will you did this and He loves you greatly.
Gladwell: Yes. You can only do longevity comparisons within generations. Torres' accomplishment is that of the swimmers who first went to the Olympics in 1984, she's the only one who was still an Olympian in 2008 -- where, I should add, she medaled.
Yes, you can only do longevity comparisons within generations...but medical advances have been (sorry for the terminology) advancing extremely fast even since 1984, so there is no real way to even compare those generations. The same knee injury that knocked out Bernard King in the 1980's would be a one year setback for him now, so with the latest medical advances it's hard to even compare players in the same generation. So the 1984 Dara Torres doesn't have the medical advantages the 2008 Dara Torres has. It's hard to compare players who are even 20 years apart in the same sport sometimes.
Maybe Gladwell isn't aware of the latest medical advances because he gets healthcare in Canada where they have universal healthcare and can't afford these new "fancy" treatments!
(Bengoodfella high-fives himself for making a topical political comment that makes very little sense)
(By, the way, that Derek Jeter and not Watson was Sports Illustrated's athlete of the year was a crime. For Jeter to have had the year Watson did, he would have had to lead the Yankees to a World Series title in 2033.)
Bill Simmons would have had more success talking to a horse's ass about sports. The reasoning behind the statement that Jeter should have not gotten athlete of the year over Tom Watson is some terrible reasoning. There is a huge, massive, large difference in the skills required to play golf at the age of 59 years old and the skills required to play baseball at the age of 59. These two sports and ages aren't even comparable to each other. Apparently Malcolm Gladwell thinks all sports awards should be given to a person based on how old they are and what they achieved at that age. An 84 year old who runs a marathon is athlete of the year (To show just how non-sports oriented Gladwell is, it's actually called "Sportsman of the Year" by Sports Illustrated) over pretty much any other athlete involved with sports.
Gladwell: What we're talking about is what are called capitalization rates, which refers to how efficiently any group makes use of its talent. So, for example, sub-Saharan Africa is radically undercapitalized when it comes to, say, physics: There are a large number of people who live there who have the ability to be physicists but never get the chance to develop that talent. Canada, by contrast, is highly capitalized when it comes to hockey players: If you can play hockey in Canada, trust me, we will find you.
Hurry up everyone and buy Malcolm Gladwell's latest book if you want to hear more arguments about capitalization rates and why Dara Torres is the best athlete of our generation! You know you want to read more about it, so go buy the book...or buy the book for someone you hate, just to make them suffer more. I would bet Gladwell's book sales have gone down overall from people returning his newest book after reading the beginning of his exchange with Bill Simmons.
Case in point: Everyone always says what an incredible advantage it has been for Peyton Manning to have had the same offensive coordinator and the same offensive system his entire career. Football offenses are so complex now that they take years to master properly, and having one system in place from the beginning has allowed Manning to capitalize on every inch of his talent. On the other hand, someone like Jason Campbell has had a different offensive coordinator in virtually every season of his pro and college career (and I'm guessing he'll get another this offseason). I'm not convinced that it's possible to say, with certainty, that Campbell has less ability than Manning.
Someone please make this man stop typing. Please...do it for all that is sacred in this world. I don't give a crap if Malcolm Gladwell thinks it is not possible to say, with certainty, that Jason Campbell has less ability than Peyton Manning. I don't give a shit about capitalization rates or anything else when it comes to comparing these two individuals. Just look at the difference in their careers at every level of football they have played and that should be enough data to show us all that, in fact, Peyton Manning has more quarterbacking ability than Jason Campbell. Jason Campbell may be more athletic, but Peyton Manning has more ability than Campbell no matter how many offensive coordinators he has had. I understand capitalization rates, they are like "what if" scenarios for the economic world, but I think we have seen enough of Campbell and Manning to make a decision on which one has more ability.
Jason Campbell will get a new offensive coordinator this offseason...when the Redskins don't re-sign him as a free agent. I get capitalization rates, I am not a dumbass, but this is what's called pure speculation, no matter how much Gladwell tries to give it a different name. I think even if Jason Campbell played in the same offense for 5 straight years he would never have as much quarterback ability as Peyton Manning. Part of the reason Manning has played in the same offense at Indianapolis so long is because he has made the offense work successfully, that has to count for something right?
I'm only sure we can say that Campbell has not been in a situation that has allowed him to exploit his talent the way Manning has. We just don't know how good he is capable of being -- and we may never know.
I think I am pretty confident so far in predicting how good Jason Campbell can be compared to Peyton Manning. If these two switched teams I guarantee everyone Peyton Manning would have had a better career than Campbell in Washington, while playing for the Redskins, than Campbell would have had in Indianapolis in the same offense for years. I have no proof, but of course neither does Malcolm Gladwell when he makes his statement.
I find it strangely bizarre that Malcolm Gladwell thinks Tom Watson was the 2009 SI "Sportsman of the Year" and Dara Torres is the best athlete of our generation, and he is absolutely sure of this, but he isn't sure Jason Campbell wouldn't be as good as Peyton Manning if he played in the same offense for his career. It's not like Peyton ran the Colts offense at Tennessee or anything. Manning hasn't been playing in the same offense since he was in junior high. At some point, he had to learn a new offense just like Jason Campbell has had to do. There is a reason Manning has played on one offense his entire NFL career, and that is because he runs the offense well.
Would Jason Campbell's career be different if he had one offensive coordinator over his entire NFL career? Probably, but I don't think one offensive coordinator would have allowed him to show that he has enough ability to be considered one of the top 5 quarterbacks of all-time. That's very near where Peyton Manning is right now.
Gladwell: But Donaghy says -- and the FBI apparently confirms -- that he got 80 percent of his picks right. Isn't that incredible? So if Iverson were really the great player that people -- like, say, you -- believe, then why does he antagonize refs? Now that we know getting calls is a real and apparently measurable phenomena, should that be factored into your player rankings?
Yes, Bill should have factored in the player's "referee likability factor" to determine whether a player was liked by the NBA officials or not. When attempting to gather together a statistics-backed informative list of the top players of all-time there is nothing like throwing in a few completely subjective criteria such as this to screw up the entire process.
So is Iverson a better player because he didn't get officials' calls or does this make him a worse player because they didn't like him? More importantly, how the hell do you measure this?
Simmons: You're right, I should have graded every Pyramid player from 1 to 10 on their ability to butter up referees.
No, you shouldn't have. This would have been a bad idea in my mind. Does everyone like what Bill is doing by discussing his book in his ESPN columns? If you haven't read the book, you can't enjoy his columns as much, and if you like Bill Simmons you want to enjoy the column...so you go and buy the book.
Certain players (Rick Barry, Iverson, Rasheed, Antoine Walker) made it much harder on themselves by not playing The Ref Game, which goes like this: Don't show them up; don't complain and moan every time you don't get bailed out; don't swear at them or menace them in any way; don't run 25 feet in disbelief after a bad call; and most importantly, call them by their names and not "man," "ref" or "you."
How do you quantify this? I don't know of a way other than using a subjective system of how these players are remembered as to whether the officials liked them or not. At that point, Bill could just throw in 5-6 other subjective criteria into the discussion that would be relevant to which players are the best in NBA history because once you include subjective criteria (other than Bill's own biases and opinions) there isn't much going back.
Gladwell: Leonard Little left a party, got into his car and hit and killed a young woman. He blew .19 on the Breathalyzer. What happened to him? He did 60 days. Six years later, he was arrested for drunk driving again. He still plays for the Rams. Michael Vick did bad things to dogs and went to jail for two years and become the personification of evil. I mean, I love dogs and I was appalled by Vick's behavior. But in what universe is it a bigger crime to fight pit bulls than it is to get wasted and kill an innocent person?
This is a good point. Leonard Little should still be in jail. I mention this once a month and I don't think I mention it enough.
And now we have Tiger Woods, who fooled around on his wife and hit a fire hydrant. And in the middle of this absurd circus, the reigning King of Kings of the NBA and role model to millions is a man who not that long ago was accused of rape and lucked out of a trial because, by all appearances, he was able to buy off his accuser in a civil settlement. Huh?
I don't get the inequity of these punishments. No court is accusing or convicting Tiger Woods of anything, while Kobe settled with his accuser like many other athletes secretly/not-so-secretly have done. Kobe was in legal trouble until he paid off/settled with his accuser. The only person Tiger Woods is in trouble with currently is his wife.
So while Malcolm Gladwell may have a point if he wasn't talking about the justice system and was talking about the reaction of each of these player's wives "should have had" to their situations, he doesn't have a point because Tiger Woods is in no legal trouble...other than the fact his wife is going to divorce him and force him to obliterate the PGA tour over the next couple of years to make more money.
Simmons: It's all about our expectations for famous people. Football players are impossibly big and punish their bodies in an impossible way. All bets are off with them: HGH, steroids, painkillers, whatever. We're ready for anything.
This is a good point by Bill. I don't know if the Leonard Little situation is a result of the expectational difference between him and Vick, I think good lawyering has more to do with that, but I can see his point overall.
I know it makes me angry. I am drifting away from baseball -- just a little -- partly because I loved comparing players from different eras so much, and now I can't.
Well, that and the fact the Boston Red Sox haven't won a World Series in a few years, and really, who wants to pay attention to a team that doesn't win the World Series every year?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have heard Bill's excuse previously for why he completely gave up on the Boston Bruins (the owner didn't spend enough money, which is not a completely good reason), which resulted in him jumping back on the bandwagon every year come playoff time. Now we have heard Bill's excuse for not paying attention to the Red Sox as much lately. Of course it has nothing to do with the fact they aren't as good anymore (which also seems to be a common thread when Bill pulls away from his favorite teams...not to mention the Red Sox aren't bad at all), but because he is just so angry that the Steroid Era has prevented him from using statistics to compare players from previous eras.
Nevermind in his 10 years or so of writing a column I have never actually seen him compare players in baseball from different eras, at least he hasn't done it in-depth that I can recall. This is Bill's excuse from pulling away from the Red Sox, and of course it has nothing to do with the fact they aren't winning the World Series every year...even though I would think the Red Sox recent "dry spell," which isn't even a dry spell has something to do with Bill's reduced interest. So in conclusion, he isn't a fair weather fan, he just has moral outrage at times that happens to coincide with the decline/semi-decline of his favorite teams.
It sucks. I hate what happened. But that's a whole other story.
Which is a story we will never hear because Bill is not about to write down that he gave up on the Red Sox for this reason. He learned his lesson after his "I'm an NHL widow" column a few years ago followed by his jumping back on the Bruin bandwagon, which was followed by readers writing in and calling him a fair weather fan. Bill shall make no more bold public statements like that in the future.
That's enough for today. I will have the second part of the Bill Simmons/Malcolm Gladwell conversation in a few days. After TMQ of course...unless TMQ sucks to make fun of, which almost never happens.
These two gentlemen have a mutual admiration society going with each other. The biggest similarities these two have in my mind is that they are both smart (and they know it), and the fact they both have great ideas they love to share them with others. Nothing is wrong with either of these characteristics. Sometimes it is just a bit much, that's all.
And now? We're trying it again. Like you didn't have enough distractions over the holidays, here are nearly 10,000 words of e-mails Gladwell and I exchanged about Kobe, Tiger, concussions, Donaghy, capitalization rates, celebrity sightings and everything else you can imagine.
Modesty? In fact modesty will not be present in this discussion.
SIMMONS
Yeah, this could end badly. I also worry about the third act of anything. For instance, when Hollywood follows a sequel with the dreaded "III," the concession is usually, "We knew this was going to suck, but we couldn't resist cashing in on this franchise one last time." I hope that's not us. But you got me thinking … third movies (re-sequels?) can veer in one of four directions:
Anyone up for a list? You better be because you are getting one. What's up with Bill Simmons calling it a "re-sequel?" He knows pop culture and it is a "three-quel." Come on, he has to get this.If you forced me to choose which three-quel this discussion was I think I am going with "Spiderman 3." It's the same cast (Gladwell/Simmons), similar ideas (let's discuss sports and advertise for how smart we both can be by brainstorming ideas) and the only difference is there are different conflicts to work through (different ideas about sports and the world), but we know everything is going to be solved by the end and there will eventually one (you know there will be a Gladwell-Simmons Part 4). Along the way there are some interesting ideas revealed that entertain me, but there are certain parts I just can't get past (the dancing in by Peter Parker and the fact both villains weren't very imposing in Spiderman 3) to enjoy in the end.
A very Simmons-esque comparison by me. If I had referenced a movie 20 years old maybe I could have written it exactly like he does.
I don't dislike either Gladwell or Simmons but I can't shake the feeling this exchange of emails is just an exercise by each of them to show each other and the reading audience how brilliant and well-thought out they can each be. It's like an arm-wrestling match using a computer.
"Godfather III" had the single biggest casting misfire of our lifetimes (Sofia Coppola as Michael Corleone's daughter).
Really? Denise Richards as a incredibly intelligent doctor named "Dr. Christmas Jones?" I know Sofia Coppola was a part of one of the most respected trilogies in the history of cinema and is blamed for screwing it up, but Denise Richards played (a) a doctor, (b) an intelligent doctor, (c) a doctor named "Christmas" and (d) a doctor with the last name "Jones." Did the scriptwriters get bored and just think a funny inside joke about Indiana Jones' non-existent sister would be funny? Or did they get lazy and think this:
(Scriptwriter #1) "This movie is coming out near Christmas, that would be a good first name for a scientist...what's a good last name?"
(Scriptwriter #2) "Llewelyn."
(Scriptwriter #1) "No, that name is too difficult to say and we have to direct it towards how the actress we cast for the role would appear to the audience. I don't think she would be a "Llewelyn" at all."
(Scriptwriter #2) "Who did we cast again? Wasn't it Gretchen Mol?"
(Scriptwriter #1) "Denise Richards."
(Scriptwriter #2) "Oh, 'Jones' will work for her then."
The single biggest casting misfire of our lifetimes could also be Rob Schneider in pretty much anything he has been in. This is a great time to re-read Roger Ebert's picture perfect take down of Rob Schneider in Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo. I feel like I have to re-read this movie review once a year, just for a good laugh.
I refuse to sit through "The Lord of the Rings," but apparently that's a great example for this.
Bill is going to get around to actually talking about sports here in a minute but right now he is showing off how smart he is by listing sequels that Gladwell-Simmons III could end up being like. I have sat through "The Lord of the Rings," all three of them, and I am not afraid to say I thought they were decent, but I would never sit through them again. I had a rather long discussion with my co-workers about this issue. They think I am crazy, but I didn't really like the movies all that much. Maybe you have to like the books to enjoy the movie or maybe you have to enjoy talking trees and hobbits. I don't really know.
No. 4: Rocky III.
The holy grail of re-sequels. Gets its own category.
"Rocky III" is not a great movie. Sorry. I know Bill has to go back to his favorite movies when making comparisons and he can't compare Gladwell-Simmons III to a movie half of his readers were alive for when it was in theaters...but I am not so sure "Rocky III" is the holy grail of "three-quels." In terms of cheesiness, then maybe that would be true, because there are parts of Rocky III that are epic in their cheesiness.
Our motives are pretty clear. If it's OK with you, even though I'm the white guy and you're the biracial Canadian,
Malcolm Gladwell is Canadian. Don't worry, if you forget this fact you will be reminded 94 other times in this discussion. Also, Canada does everything much better than the United States and nearly every other country does. You will learn that too.
Gladwell: but I was curious if anything has happened so far that makes you want to rethink your Hall of Fame pyramid. Do you have any regrets about "The Book of Basketball"?
I have regrets about Bill's Hall of Fame pyramid. He put Kobe Bryant at #15 of his pyramid behind Bob Pettit. We all love Bob Pettit but Kobe Bryant is probably a better basketball player in the annals of the NBA over him. I also regret that I completely agree with him about George Mikan and actually want him ranked way higher (like #70) than he was in the book. In today's NBA, George Mikan is an untalented, unathletic white center. That's it.
Gladwell: This is what the whole Tiger Woods mess has made clear, I think (and I'm sure we'll get back to him later): We have such incredibly narrow views of what sports celebrities are like. We just can't imagine them as having the full range of human needs and interests. I mean, why shouldn't Adonal Foyle be an art lover?
How narrow minded of us all to not have a broad view of what sports celebrities are like! I think the normal sports fan should take more time to find out what sports celebrities are like rather than just assume they are exactly how they present themselves to the public. Because in the realm of sports, what kind of art Adonal Foyle likes really should matter and all.
I watch sports not to give a crap about what kind of cereal an athlete likes or what he does with his time off from playing sports with his kids. I care about what he does on the field. I am not looking for a meaningful, long time friend...I want to be entertained with sports by sports celebrities. If I learn something interesting along the way, that's fine. I don't feel like I really need to get to know an athlete along the way to make the entertainment more pleasurable for me or to make my life feel more complete. Of course, we learn things about athletes along the way, but I don't feel like I am ignorant because I don't know what Allen Iverson's favorite Broadway play is.
Simmons: Anyway, I think you're right that sports fans are guilty of "athletic profiling."
Part of the problem the snobbish Gladwell and Simmons don't realize is that sports fans don't have access to learn about what some athletes do in their spare time. It's not like we can go interview them or get invited to their house for dinner. So that leaves only the public persona for the average sports fan to chew on and decide what to think about a player. In the limited realm of the media and how the athlete presents him/herself in the media, there has to be a certain amount of "athletic profiling" that goes on.
Allen Iverson has cornrows and tattoos, and he shows up late for practice, and he takes too many shots, so this means he isn't articulate and self-aware (even though he is).
No one assumes because Iverson looks like he does and shows up late for practice (which is also something a sports fan would not know, so I don't know how they could base their "athletic profiling" on a fact they didn't know), he isn't articulate or self-aware. Maybe there are people that think this, but I would say the majority of sports fans who love the NBA don't think this.
Mariano Rivera keeps a low profile, is super-religious and doesn't say much publicly, so this means he has nothing to say (even though Peter Gammons, in his farewell piece for ESPN.com, called him the single most distinctive athlete he covered). Bill Belichick gives monotone answers in news conferences, so this means he doesn't have a sense of humor (even though everyone who knows him swears he does). In all of those cases, our learned perceptions were wrong.
These aren't "learned perceptions" necessarily, these are stereotypes that Bill has made up that the fake generic stupid sports fan thinks. Bill Simmons is stereotyping the average sports fan by criticizing him/her for having misconceptions about athletes. Oh, the irony! Maybe a learned perception Bill and Sir Gladwell have wrong is that sports fans have these learned perceptions and truly believe them.
Bill Simmons seems like a nice, average guy, but this doesn't mean he isn't a raging asshole. I know Jeremy Conlin has a good experience at Bill's book signing with Bill, so he may not be an asshole. Of course how can anyone who knows Matt Damon, Jimmy Kimmel and Adam "the funniest person in the world if you don't know anyone else in the world" Corrolla be an asshole, right? I am just saying that the public persona of an athlete can be different from the reality and I would think most people can recognize this.
Gladwell: Years ago, I did a story on Tupac, and I tracked down some poems he wrote when he was in high school. They were all about flowers and sunsets and warm kisses. Before there was thug life, apparently, there was hug life. Who knew?
I knew that. I don't believe many sports fans are quite as dumb as these two guys think that they are.
Simmons: To answer your rankings question about my book from five tangents ago, I have many small regrets (to be expected) and one big one: Putting Iverson (No. 29) too high. That was the one Pyramid-related instance of my affection for someone clouding my judgment to some degree.
Or there could be other instances where Bill's affection for someone/something clouded his judgment in his book, like the 954 times he talks about the Boston Garden crowd rising as one to cheer on the team because they are the most educated sports fans in the world. My personal favorite is the time in his book when he said the Celtic crowd starting cheering for the Bulls (with Pippen and Jordan, I think he was referring to the '96 version) because the Celtic crowd knew what greatness was and they were seeing it right then. Whereas some people may see that as a little fickle for the home crowd to cheer for a team beating the snot out of the home team, oh no that's not true, the Boston Garden fans KNOW greatness (as the most educated fans in the world that they are) and they celebrate greatness by cheering for the Bulls.
So I have complaints about Bill Simmons, why do I read and enjoy his latest book? Other than the fact I hate myself of course. Your guess is as good as mine, but he can be a pretty good writer when he isn't writing about things like the passage above.
Gladwell: To me, Olympic swimmer Dara Torres is far and away the greatest athlete of our generation. She's been a world-class athlete for 25 years, in a sport where women often peak in their late teens.
This is the type of shit that happens when we sports non-fans and "great thinkers" like Malcolm Gladwell start talking about sports and "thinking." I like Dara Torres and respect all that she has done in the sport of swimming, but she is not FAR AND AWAY the best athlete of our generation.
Also, swimmers DO NOT peak performance-wise in their late teens. Young swimmers do well at the Olympics, and not to get into a swimming related argument but swimmers are in their peak in their very early 20's in my opinion. Really that doesn't matter because either way, Dara Torres is not the best athlete of our generation, much less earning this title, "far and away."
And the finest athletic performance of the past decade has to have been Tom Watson's win at the British Open this year at age 59, with an artificial hip no less -- and I say "win" because even though he finished second in a playoff, I think we can all agree that the difference between his play and Stewart Cink's play that weekend was effectively zero.
But Stewart Cink did win the British Open, which is all that matters. Again, with all due respect to Tom Watson it's not like he was doing anything outside of hitting a golf ball and walking around the golf course. I know golf is hard, but is this the finest athletic performance of the decade? Ok, maybe the finest performance in golf, I will at least entertain this argument, but not in all athletics. There isn't a better performance in the decade other than Tom Watson finishing second in the British Open? Is Malcolm Gladwell sure about this?
Malcolm Gladwell is a "thinker" which means he "believes himself to be really smart." These last 2 statements were not smart.
I'd love to see you factor in age-weighted performance:
Simmons: But age-weighted performance is era-specific to some degree. Think of the advantages for today's athletes with dieting and nutrition, personal training, exercise equipment, athletic equipment, medicine, sneakers, surgeries and first-class travel. Is there any way Dara Torres could have had her career in 1955? Of course not.
Thank you for bitchslapping him with some common sense Bill. It was God's will you did this and He loves you greatly.
Gladwell: Yes. You can only do longevity comparisons within generations. Torres' accomplishment is that of the swimmers who first went to the Olympics in 1984, she's the only one who was still an Olympian in 2008 -- where, I should add, she medaled.
Yes, you can only do longevity comparisons within generations...but medical advances have been (sorry for the terminology) advancing extremely fast even since 1984, so there is no real way to even compare those generations. The same knee injury that knocked out Bernard King in the 1980's would be a one year setback for him now, so with the latest medical advances it's hard to even compare players in the same generation. So the 1984 Dara Torres doesn't have the medical advantages the 2008 Dara Torres has. It's hard to compare players who are even 20 years apart in the same sport sometimes.
Maybe Gladwell isn't aware of the latest medical advances because he gets healthcare in Canada where they have universal healthcare and can't afford these new "fancy" treatments!
(Bengoodfella high-fives himself for making a topical political comment that makes very little sense)
(By, the way, that Derek Jeter and not Watson was Sports Illustrated's athlete of the year was a crime. For Jeter to have had the year Watson did, he would have had to lead the Yankees to a World Series title in 2033.)
Bill Simmons would have had more success talking to a horse's ass about sports. The reasoning behind the statement that Jeter should have not gotten athlete of the year over Tom Watson is some terrible reasoning. There is a huge, massive, large difference in the skills required to play golf at the age of 59 years old and the skills required to play baseball at the age of 59. These two sports and ages aren't even comparable to each other. Apparently Malcolm Gladwell thinks all sports awards should be given to a person based on how old they are and what they achieved at that age. An 84 year old who runs a marathon is athlete of the year (To show just how non-sports oriented Gladwell is, it's actually called "Sportsman of the Year" by Sports Illustrated) over pretty much any other athlete involved with sports.
Gladwell: What we're talking about is what are called capitalization rates, which refers to how efficiently any group makes use of its talent. So, for example, sub-Saharan Africa is radically undercapitalized when it comes to, say, physics: There are a large number of people who live there who have the ability to be physicists but never get the chance to develop that talent. Canada, by contrast, is highly capitalized when it comes to hockey players: If you can play hockey in Canada, trust me, we will find you.
Hurry up everyone and buy Malcolm Gladwell's latest book if you want to hear more arguments about capitalization rates and why Dara Torres is the best athlete of our generation! You know you want to read more about it, so go buy the book...or buy the book for someone you hate, just to make them suffer more. I would bet Gladwell's book sales have gone down overall from people returning his newest book after reading the beginning of his exchange with Bill Simmons.
Case in point: Everyone always says what an incredible advantage it has been for Peyton Manning to have had the same offensive coordinator and the same offensive system his entire career. Football offenses are so complex now that they take years to master properly, and having one system in place from the beginning has allowed Manning to capitalize on every inch of his talent. On the other hand, someone like Jason Campbell has had a different offensive coordinator in virtually every season of his pro and college career (and I'm guessing he'll get another this offseason). I'm not convinced that it's possible to say, with certainty, that Campbell has less ability than Manning.
Someone please make this man stop typing. Please...do it for all that is sacred in this world. I don't give a crap if Malcolm Gladwell thinks it is not possible to say, with certainty, that Jason Campbell has less ability than Peyton Manning. I don't give a shit about capitalization rates or anything else when it comes to comparing these two individuals. Just look at the difference in their careers at every level of football they have played and that should be enough data to show us all that, in fact, Peyton Manning has more quarterbacking ability than Jason Campbell. Jason Campbell may be more athletic, but Peyton Manning has more ability than Campbell no matter how many offensive coordinators he has had. I understand capitalization rates, they are like "what if" scenarios for the economic world, but I think we have seen enough of Campbell and Manning to make a decision on which one has more ability.
Jason Campbell will get a new offensive coordinator this offseason...when the Redskins don't re-sign him as a free agent. I get capitalization rates, I am not a dumbass, but this is what's called pure speculation, no matter how much Gladwell tries to give it a different name. I think even if Jason Campbell played in the same offense for 5 straight years he would never have as much quarterback ability as Peyton Manning. Part of the reason Manning has played in the same offense at Indianapolis so long is because he has made the offense work successfully, that has to count for something right?
I'm only sure we can say that Campbell has not been in a situation that has allowed him to exploit his talent the way Manning has. We just don't know how good he is capable of being -- and we may never know.
I think I am pretty confident so far in predicting how good Jason Campbell can be compared to Peyton Manning. If these two switched teams I guarantee everyone Peyton Manning would have had a better career than Campbell in Washington, while playing for the Redskins, than Campbell would have had in Indianapolis in the same offense for years. I have no proof, but of course neither does Malcolm Gladwell when he makes his statement.
I find it strangely bizarre that Malcolm Gladwell thinks Tom Watson was the 2009 SI "Sportsman of the Year" and Dara Torres is the best athlete of our generation, and he is absolutely sure of this, but he isn't sure Jason Campbell wouldn't be as good as Peyton Manning if he played in the same offense for his career. It's not like Peyton ran the Colts offense at Tennessee or anything. Manning hasn't been playing in the same offense since he was in junior high. At some point, he had to learn a new offense just like Jason Campbell has had to do. There is a reason Manning has played on one offense his entire NFL career, and that is because he runs the offense well.
Would Jason Campbell's career be different if he had one offensive coordinator over his entire NFL career? Probably, but I don't think one offensive coordinator would have allowed him to show that he has enough ability to be considered one of the top 5 quarterbacks of all-time. That's very near where Peyton Manning is right now.
Gladwell: But Donaghy says -- and the FBI apparently confirms -- that he got 80 percent of his picks right. Isn't that incredible? So if Iverson were really the great player that people -- like, say, you -- believe, then why does he antagonize refs? Now that we know getting calls is a real and apparently measurable phenomena, should that be factored into your player rankings?
Yes, Bill should have factored in the player's "referee likability factor" to determine whether a player was liked by the NBA officials or not. When attempting to gather together a statistics-backed informative list of the top players of all-time there is nothing like throwing in a few completely subjective criteria such as this to screw up the entire process.
So is Iverson a better player because he didn't get officials' calls or does this make him a worse player because they didn't like him? More importantly, how the hell do you measure this?
Simmons: You're right, I should have graded every Pyramid player from 1 to 10 on their ability to butter up referees.
No, you shouldn't have. This would have been a bad idea in my mind. Does everyone like what Bill is doing by discussing his book in his ESPN columns? If you haven't read the book, you can't enjoy his columns as much, and if you like Bill Simmons you want to enjoy the column...so you go and buy the book.
Certain players (Rick Barry, Iverson, Rasheed, Antoine Walker) made it much harder on themselves by not playing The Ref Game, which goes like this: Don't show them up; don't complain and moan every time you don't get bailed out; don't swear at them or menace them in any way; don't run 25 feet in disbelief after a bad call; and most importantly, call them by their names and not "man," "ref" or "you."
How do you quantify this? I don't know of a way other than using a subjective system of how these players are remembered as to whether the officials liked them or not. At that point, Bill could just throw in 5-6 other subjective criteria into the discussion that would be relevant to which players are the best in NBA history because once you include subjective criteria (other than Bill's own biases and opinions) there isn't much going back.
Gladwell: Leonard Little left a party, got into his car and hit and killed a young woman. He blew .19 on the Breathalyzer. What happened to him? He did 60 days. Six years later, he was arrested for drunk driving again. He still plays for the Rams. Michael Vick did bad things to dogs and went to jail for two years and become the personification of evil. I mean, I love dogs and I was appalled by Vick's behavior. But in what universe is it a bigger crime to fight pit bulls than it is to get wasted and kill an innocent person?
This is a good point. Leonard Little should still be in jail. I mention this once a month and I don't think I mention it enough.
And now we have Tiger Woods, who fooled around on his wife and hit a fire hydrant. And in the middle of this absurd circus, the reigning King of Kings of the NBA and role model to millions is a man who not that long ago was accused of rape and lucked out of a trial because, by all appearances, he was able to buy off his accuser in a civil settlement. Huh?
I don't get the inequity of these punishments. No court is accusing or convicting Tiger Woods of anything, while Kobe settled with his accuser like many other athletes secretly/not-so-secretly have done. Kobe was in legal trouble until he paid off/settled with his accuser. The only person Tiger Woods is in trouble with currently is his wife.
So while Malcolm Gladwell may have a point if he wasn't talking about the justice system and was talking about the reaction of each of these player's wives "should have had" to their situations, he doesn't have a point because Tiger Woods is in no legal trouble...other than the fact his wife is going to divorce him and force him to obliterate the PGA tour over the next couple of years to make more money.
Simmons: It's all about our expectations for famous people. Football players are impossibly big and punish their bodies in an impossible way. All bets are off with them: HGH, steroids, painkillers, whatever. We're ready for anything.
This is a good point by Bill. I don't know if the Leonard Little situation is a result of the expectational difference between him and Vick, I think good lawyering has more to do with that, but I can see his point overall.
I know it makes me angry. I am drifting away from baseball -- just a little -- partly because I loved comparing players from different eras so much, and now I can't.
Well, that and the fact the Boston Red Sox haven't won a World Series in a few years, and really, who wants to pay attention to a team that doesn't win the World Series every year?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have heard Bill's excuse previously for why he completely gave up on the Boston Bruins (the owner didn't spend enough money, which is not a completely good reason), which resulted in him jumping back on the bandwagon every year come playoff time. Now we have heard Bill's excuse for not paying attention to the Red Sox as much lately. Of course it has nothing to do with the fact they aren't as good anymore (which also seems to be a common thread when Bill pulls away from his favorite teams...not to mention the Red Sox aren't bad at all), but because he is just so angry that the Steroid Era has prevented him from using statistics to compare players from previous eras.
Nevermind in his 10 years or so of writing a column I have never actually seen him compare players in baseball from different eras, at least he hasn't done it in-depth that I can recall. This is Bill's excuse from pulling away from the Red Sox, and of course it has nothing to do with the fact they aren't winning the World Series every year...even though I would think the Red Sox recent "dry spell," which isn't even a dry spell has something to do with Bill's reduced interest. So in conclusion, he isn't a fair weather fan, he just has moral outrage at times that happens to coincide with the decline/semi-decline of his favorite teams.
It sucks. I hate what happened. But that's a whole other story.
Which is a story we will never hear because Bill is not about to write down that he gave up on the Red Sox for this reason. He learned his lesson after his "I'm an NHL widow" column a few years ago followed by his jumping back on the Bruin bandwagon, which was followed by readers writing in and calling him a fair weather fan. Bill shall make no more bold public statements like that in the future.
That's enough for today. I will have the second part of the Bill Simmons/Malcolm Gladwell conversation in a few days. After TMQ of course...unless TMQ sucks to make fun of, which almost never happens.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)