As you have heard unless you were living under a rock (not that there is anything wrong with that), Bill Simmons is out at ESPN. He may be out NOW or he may be out in September when his contract runs out. So another one bites the dust. Gregg Easterbrook is out at ESPN and I have no clue if TMQ will show up anywhere else. It was saved a few years ago after ESPN discarded Gregg for the first time, but who knows if another site will pick it up? I know Bill Simmons is going to land somewhere else, and though I don't think he enjoys writing as much as he used to, I'm sure he'll be writing for whatever site he joins or creates. For the time being, he's not writing for Grantland. So it seems Bill won't keep his mailbag promise during the playoffs. One of his last columns for Grantland is about Tim Duncan. As I explained in the last playoff mailbag Bill did, he loves writing about Duncan. I can only imagine how much he would write about Duncan if the Celtics had actually drafted him.
I was remiss a few weeks ago when I listed the contrivances Bill uses in his columns in place of actually writing a column. There has to be a contrivance. I forgot to mention the contrivance of a retro-diary. It's the lazier version of a running diary. Sort of a "Watch this game a few days later and describe what happened" sort of thing. So rather than simply write a column about "The Tim Duncan Question," Bill has to use a retro-diary as a contrivance for this discussion. It's such a (temporary) loss for this blog if Bill is done writing for Grantland. The list of those I can mock on a consistent basis is being pared down of late.
When my father retired as a school superintendent in 2009,
only a few months before his 62nd birthday, I remember friends and
family members being surprised that he didn’t stay longer. “You always
want to get out a year early, not one or two years too late,” my dad
always explained.
While I understand that Bill Simmons doesn't believe anything has occurred prior to his noticing it occurred, this quote has been said in different ways by multiple people through the years. Bill's father did not say it, though I understand that Bill believes because his father said it once then he obviously invented this line.
And if that’s true … what do we do about Tim Duncan?
I don't think there is anything "we" can do about Tim Duncan. He will either to decide to continue playing basketball or retire. "We" have no say in the decision.
Maybe Saturday’s Clippers defeat wasn’t as gut-wrenching as San
Antonio’s improbable 2013 Finals collapse, but Duncan’s murky future
gave Game 7 a different kind of desperation. He scored 27 points,
grabbed 11 rebounds, drained two game-tying, über-clutch free throws
with eight seconds to play … and missed blocking Chris Paul’s
last-second, double-clutch, series-winning banker by the length of maybe
two knuckles.
Otherwise known by most normal human beings as "two inches."
Ten years ago, he absolutely would have blocked that shot.
Five years ago, he probably would have blocked it.
Three years ago, he could have blocked it, but maybe not.
Four years ago, he probably would have blocked it, but ask again later.
Thirty years ago, he would not have blocked it.
Fifty years ago, Tim Duncan did not exist as a living, breathing human.
Was that the last play of his career? Duncan isn’t saying yet. Of the 14
greatest NBA players ever — Jordan, then Russell, then Kareem, then
Bird and Magic and Duncan and LeBron, then Wilt and Kobe, then West and
Oscar, then Hakeem and Shaq and Moses — 10 of the 14 retired at least
one or two years too late.
The lesson here is that uber-competitive athletes tend to not understand when they are supposed to retire, because they are uber-competitive athletes who have based their lives on being better than everyone else at their chosen profession.
So only the great Bill Russell definitely got out early — he dropped the
mic after winning back-to-back titles and beating Wilt, West AND Elgin.
BILL RUSSELL KNOWS WHEN TO RETIRE BETTER THAN YOUR FAVORITE ATHLETE KNOWS WHEN TO RETIRE! NO ONE DENIES THIS!
So those are the stakes for Tim Duncan. Leave right now. Leave everyone
wanting more. Leave people saying, “Keep playing! You’re still good at
this!” Leave with your legs still working. (Fine, one of your legs.)
Leave knowing that, by any calculation, you were one of the best two-way
players ever and one of the most beloved teammates ever. Leave with
five titles, two MVPs and an astonishing 15 All-NBA team nods.
Leave after your normally gruff coach said this about you …
“I continue to be amazed by Tim Duncan. He was our most consistent
player in the playoffs, at 39. He needed a little more help and I feel
badly he didn’t get it. It wasn’t for lack of trying. Even our players
shake their heads at his performance at both ends of the floor. He wants
it badly and does it the right way. It’s not about bells and whistles
and grunting and dancing and doing commercials and all of that stuff. He
just does it quietly and that’s why we feel badly when we don’t get it
done for him.”
That’s why we feel badly when we don’t get it done for him. Eighteen years and they’re still saying this about Timmaaay???
18 years? Something similar was said about David Robinson during the beginning of Duncan's career and I don't ever recall "Let's get this done for Tim Duncan" being a rallying cry during the first decade of Duncan's career either. But hey, Bill's memory is better than mine I'm sure.
What if he’s leaving two years early? What if he has one more vintage beauty in him?
What if Duncan retires and gets eaten by a grizzly bear while camping in the woods with his family because he couldn't outrun the bear due to no longer being in basketball shape? What if he comes back and has just an "okay" year and then retires at the perfect time for him? (Bill Simmons checks word count to see if he needs to kill more space)
Before he decides, I really hope he watches the last 12 minutes and 10
seconds of Game 7 again. Maybe it will get his juices flowing. Here’s a
retro diary to help fill in the blanks.
Yes, Bill is here to help Tim Duncan by providing the contrivance of a retro-diary that Duncan is sure to never actually read. The idea that every NBA player doesn't read his mailbag columns probably would come as a shock to Bill. But hey, here's a retro-diary for old time's sake.
0:10 remaining, third quarter (Clips 76, Spurs 76) With
Chris Paul resting on the bench, the Clips just “blew” a four-point
lead (three missed 3s, one turnover) and have a foul to give … Manu
Ginobili knows it … only Austin Rivers doesn’t realize that Manu knows
it … leading to the rarely seen “fouled in the act of shooting a 3 from
65 feet away” call … leading to the incredible sight of Rivers and his
son executing matching disbelief/sprint/stomp skids.
So why would Tim Duncan watch these 10 seconds again? This play has nothing to do with him at all and is just an attempt for Bill to mention he was at the game (in case you missed his previous column where he gnashed his teeth over his fate when trying to choose between attending this Game 7 or the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight) while being clever. This play had nothing to do with Duncan.
0:00 remaining, third quarter (Clips 79, Spurs 78) Paul
comes back, dribbles over midcourt, takes three steps (no travel call —
a pseudo-makeup), banks in a 37-footer and immediately stares down
referee Monty McCutchen for the NBA’s first-ever one-legged,
double-clutch, 37-foot F.U. banker.
And if bad NBA officiating which entails one bad call resulting in the officials doubling down and making another bad call as a "make up" doesn't bring Tim Duncan back from the brink of retirement then I don't know what will.
Yet another reason why Duncan should retire: Tony Parker might not be Tony Parker anymore. Check out these playoff numbers …
2013: 36.4 mpg, 20.6 ppg, 7.0 apg, 45.8% FG, 5.3 FTA, 21.5 PER
2014: 31.3 mpg, 17.4 ppg, 4.8 apg, 48.6% FG, 3.0 FTA, 15.8 PER
2015: 30.0 mpg, 10.9 ppg, 3.6 apg, 36.3% FG, 2.4 FTA, 6.3 PER
But if the Spurs have Patty Mills ready to fill the point guard role for Parker and they draft Tyus Jones then all will be right in the world.
Even if an Achilles strain hampered Parker, isn’t that the problem with aging point guards? It’s always something, right?
Great point based off an astute observation. With aging point guards (athletes) it's always something (as these athletes get older their bodies are more prone to breaking down). Maybe Tony Parker is the one who should realize it's time to retire.
11:04 (Clips 82-81) Three-pointer, Chris Paul. Quick tangent …
Yes, quick tangent away from the quick tangent about Tony Parker's regression away from the supposed column topic on why Tim Duncan should not retire quite yet. At some point, the reason Duncan should not/should retire (other than "Your point guard is getting old") will be given, right?
In 1976, I was there when a thoroughly banged-up John Havlicek made his famous off-one-leg running banker in the triple-OT game against Phoenix. I watched Kevin McHale play on a broken foot for four straight rounds in ’87. I watched Larry Legend submit multiple Hardwood Classics
moments in ’91 and ’92 while wearing a disturbingly bulky back brace. I
watched a gimpy Wade throw on his Batman costume and help out Superman
LeBron in those last two 2013 Finals games. But watching Chris Paul’s
trial-and-error routine with that faulty hamstring, once he returned to
Game 7 Saturday, ranks right up there. He just wouldn’t let that thing
derail him.
Bill WAS THERE to experience these things. I thought I remember McHale playing on the broken foot and Larry Bird trying to play with a balky back, but I don't remember because I WASN'T THERE like Bill was. His being there, means he has a perspective that no one else can manage to have on these events. He's more special than you and don't question it because it's true because Bill's parents told him that all the time when he was growing up about how special he was.
These guys happen to be otherworldly athletes; that’s why we watch. They make our dreams come true.
I really wish Bill would stop constantly referring to "we" and "our" in his columns, as if he speaks for all sports fans. For a guy who is known for a writing style that features a lot of first person accounts where he is JUST LIKE US, Bill seems to write in the third person quite a lot. His writing style has gone from "He's just like us!" to "He's just like how he wants to perceive us as being in order to make a point he wants to prove!"
It’s incredible to watch. I have been going to Clippers games for four
years; that was easily the best game I’ve ever seen Chris Paul play. It
was like watching someone win a NASCAR race with three tires. He had no
margin for error. None.
Bill will have to tell us what being at the game was like, because obviously on television it was impossible to see that Chris Paul was even hurt. I'm glad Bill was there to relay stories such as this, and I'm glad he has such little respect for his readers' ability to see Chris Paul was hurt, because that means "we" get to experience the game through the eyes of Bill Simmons. It's like viewing sports through the eyes of God.
And if anyone thought Bill wasn't going to write about this Game 7 as if it were the greatest game in the history of sports, then these people were wrong. Granted, it was a great game, but even if it wasn't then Bill would have pretended it was so he can justify his decision to not attend the Manny-Floyd (I like using first names better because it sounds like two really old men fighting) fight.
He’s the best point guard of his generation. Game 7 ended up being his
submission to the “Best Point Guards Ever” club — his version of Isiah’s
slightly-more-incredible Game 6 of the 1988 Finals. A game that I
absolutely revere even though a Bad Boy Piston was involved.
It was just a few short years ago that Bill called Rajon Rondo the best point guard in the NBA. I tried to find where he stated this, but I could not. So believe me or don't. Bill did state this in a column during the season when Chris Paul was injured, so obviously Bill was making an observation based entirely on immediacy. I wish I could find it, because I stated that Chris Paul is still the best point guard in the NBA. Anyway, Bill wants people to forget he ever wrote that.
By the way, is this column about Tim Duncan or Chris Paul?
Last point: After seeing how badly CP3 wanted Saturday’s game, it was fascinating to watch how badly Floyd and Manny didn’t
want their fight. They made an exceptionally lucrative arrangement to
stage a friendly 12-round boxing exhibition, our first-ever Happy To Be
There fight of the century.
Bill streeeeeeeeeeeeeetches to talk about the Floyd-Manny fight in some capacity.
This was the good-natured, hate-free, low-stakes battle that Drago and Creed were supposed to have had.
Isn't it interesting how Bill spent a portion of his last mailbag talking about what a huge fan of boxing he is, yet the only parallel to the Floyd-Manny fight is to a fictional boxing match? I feel like if Bill really was a huge boxing fan (instead of just suddenly becoming one a few weeks ago) then he could think of a real-life parallel and not a parallel based on a fictional fight.
When Manny fell behind heading into the last four rounds, you never felt
his urgency — because he didn’t have any. That dude had both arms
raised from the moment they told him how much money he was making. Game 7
wasn’t the best undercard for Floyd and Manny, that’s for sure.
Of course, Manny was hurt, but since Bill isn't a boxing fan anymore then he probably doesn't care.
10:06 (Clips 84-84) Missed Kawhi 3, Diaw rebound, Manu 3
(good!), Griffin turnover, Spurs fast break … and Kawhi blows a
twisting reverse layup that leads to a Matt Barnes dunk. I didn’t love
Kawhi’s last two games — no-showed Game 6, never went full Sharktopus in Game 7. Does he trust his own talent yet?
Or perhaps he is just a really good player that can't carry the Spurs team long-term when other players on the team are struggling? By the way, still no mention of Duncan. So is this column just a cheap excuse to talk about the exciting Game 7 that Bill attended? Probably.
8:27 (Clips 88-87) More back-and-forth action crests
with CP3 hitting a jumper, Duncan abusing DeAndre on the low post (he’s
officially in Game 6 2013 Finals Jedi mode), then Blake pulling off a
reverse layup for a three-point play (“hrrrrrrr-HAHHHHHHHH”).
Son of a bitch, Bill is just giving the play-by-play of the game right now. It's nearly impossible to stay awake. And what the fuck is "hrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-HAHHHHHHHHHHHHH"? What the fuck is that? If this were Bill's last column for Grantland then it would be fitting because this is one of his more obvious mail-in jobs.
That happened in the best two Game 7s I ever caught in person: 1981
Boston-Philly and 1987 Boston-Detroit. Everyone just kept climbing the
ladder as the fans glanced around in disbelief.
I have watched Game 7 of the 1987 Eastern Conference Finals probably 100+ times in my life (easily), so I didn't need to catch the game in person to know how exciting it was.
This was the exact point in Saturday’s game when it started happening — right here. (You’re gonna miss those moments, Timmay.)
Yes, Tim Duncan. You will miss these moments, because this column is about you. Except, it's not.
Then Jamal Crawford throws the ball away and fouls Parker. Let the
record show that Crawford scored nine crucial points during the game’s
darkest stretch for Clips fans,
So yeah, Jamal might have stunk in Round 1 — 11.7 points, 38 percent
shooting, 20 percent from 3 and a ghastly 8.86 PER. But those nine
no-CP3 points were nine of the biggest points of his career. The
Clips don’t win Game 7 without them.
The Clippers don't win Game 7 without them, mostly because if Crawford didn't score 9 points then the Spurs would have won due to having lost in reality by only two points.
5:58 (Spurs 95-92) Good God, it’s Hack-A-DJ!!!!!! He
makes only one of two. Can you really give DeAndre Jordan a $120
million, five-year extension when he’s become such a free throw
liability that he’s headed for a Game 7 crunch-time benching?
I probably wouldn't give DeAndre Jordan $120 million regardless, but yes, an NBA team will do this.
5:26 (Spurs 97-94) Duncan scores and CP3 bricks an 18-footer, leading to the game’s second Coulda Woulda Shoulda momentum swing play--Parker grabbed the rebound, only he forgot that Chris Paul loves
sneak-picking pockets after missed Clippers shots. Whoops. Pop flipped
out after this one. Not protecting a big defensive rebound against Chris
Paul — that’s like not moving the leftover pork chops far enough away
from the counter if you have a dog.
Great analogy Bill. Not protecting the basketball from Chris Paul is EXACTLY like leaving pork chops close to the edge of the counter where a dog can get them.
5:26 (Spurs 97-94) Barnes comes in for DeAndre. Hold this thought.
It's your thought, Bill. You can do whatever you want with it. "Hold that thought" usually goes for when another person is having a thought, no?
4:00 (Spurs 101-100) Diaw to Duncan inside for a layup,
Redick’s second straight 3 (off a nice pick from Blake), Parker with an
off-balance banker. Boom, boom, boom. Dizzying. Such a high level of
hoops. And the subtweet conversation of this epic run … no DeAndre!
I'm still confused as to what Tim Duncan has to do with this play-by-play that Bill is giving. If Duncan is supposed to miss playing in an extremely exciting Game 7, and that's why he should come back for another year, well these exciting games don't come along every year. Again, in reality Bill is only trying to frame his lazy play-by-play around Tim Duncan's potential retirement. Bill had made the decision to do a retro-diary and needed to frame it around something or else the laziness of it might become clearer.
Doc willingly sacrificed rim protection and defensive rebounding to
spread the floor and avoid the Seventh Circle of Hell (a.k.a. Game 7
Crunch-Time Hack-A-DJ). Say what you want about Doc, but this decision
took a set of watermelon-size balls. I loved it.
Bill just asked if an NBA team can give Jordan $120 million when he can't be on the court in crunch-time, then he says it takes balls for Rivers to pull Jordan in crunch-time. Was it a gutsy decision or a decision to take advantage of the Clippers outside shooting and move a liability off the court? So Rivers' move makes sense and didn't take a huge set of balls, right?
3:34 (Clips 102-101) Danny Green fouls a driving/careering/fearless Blake and Griffin drains both...How many times was Blake gasping for air on the bench like he’d just
finished a triathlon? Nobody played harder. He finally figured it out.
Great power forwards aren’t that complicated — once they hit their
playoff peaks, they start going for 24 and 12 every night and that’s
just how it goes.
(Bengoodfella chokes to death on hyperbole)
Look up Malone, Barkley, Pettit, Duncan, C-Webb, Garnett, Elgin … it
doesn’t matter. Those guys were getting 24 and 12 at their peaks. Blake
took it up a notch: For the series, he sent in his 42 Club application
by averaging 24, 13 and 7, with a 26.0 PER, which has never been done
for an entire NBA postseason.
Ah yes, no Bill Simmons column would be complete without Bill referencing something else he has written or referencing a contrivance he had previously created. By the way, is this column about Tim Duncan or is it about DeAndre Jordan's foul shooting, Blake Griffin, or Chris Paul? I'm becoming confused.
Maybe it IS time for Duncan to get out. Like winter in Game of Thrones, Blake Griffin is coming.
Except winter is never fucking coming in "Game of Thrones," so according to this parallel, the discussion will mostly revolve around Blake Griffin coming but it never actually happens.
2:50 (Spurs 103-102) Diaw misses a 5-footer, Barnes
blocks two Green putbacks (TWO!), then Duncan makes a layup AND gets
fouled by Griffin, followed by the textbook Duncan/Undertaker dead-eyed
shuffle/stomp-away/eye-bulge routine toward the sideline as his bench
erupts. Just a stupefyingly competitive sequence that doubles as
DeAndre’s best case for a $120 million extension, even before Duncan
misses the free throw, Diaw grabs the rebound (PAY DEANDRE!!!!!),
So DeAndre Jordan should get $120 million because the Clippers don't have any other good defensive rebounders? That type of logic is how two years from now the Clippers will be looking to rid themselves of Jordan's contract. It's terrible logic. Simply because the Clippers don't currently have good defensive rebounders means they should go pay Jordan $120 million any more than it means they should find (through free agency) better defensive rebounders to come off the bench.
2:12 (Spurs 105, Clips 105) In the words of Mike Breen, “Bang!!!!!!!!!!”
In the words of me, "Why the hell are you writing an entire column that consists of play-by-play of that game that provides no further insight into what happened on the court?"
Not since Robert Horry’s heyday has such a statistically shaky,
up-and-down, pseudo-journeyman doubled as such a valuable
you-can-go-to-war-with-him playoff guy. He made six or seven huge
fourth-quarter plays and vindicated Doc’s decision to bench DeAndre. Of
anyone who’s ever been married to a real-life reality show character,
Barnes is the one you’d want in a do-or-die basketball game — narrowly
edging Mauricio from Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.
I’ve seen Mauricio in action during multiple catfights and near
altercations — the dude never loses his composure. Cool as a cucumber.
Yes, anyone who has ever seen that show has seen him during the catfights and near altercations. Bill Simmons does realize other humans have television sets doesn't he? Like, other people were able to view Game 7 of the Spurs-Clippers series and can watch Bravo television shows as well. He isn't the only one who can view and experience these types of things.
The only Spurs who played as well in the 2015 playoffs as they did in
the 2014 playoffs: Duncan and Mills. Who woulda thunk? Maybe that’s one
more reason for Duncan to come back — new blood! Free agents!
Because the Spurs are well-known for having a lot of roster turnover between seasons. I'm sure it will be attractive for Duncan to come back knowing he'll get to play next to guys he hasn't played with for his entire career and there is a small chance he'll play in an exciting Game 7. Where can he sign up?
0:55 (Spurs 107, Clips 107) Kawhi makes a sweet
hesitation move, finds the right shot (an open 12-footer) and totally
short-arms it. Rebound, Griffin. (No DeAndre — still!) In the last three
second halves of this series, Kawhi shot 3-for-23 and made only one
shot that wasn’t a layup. That’s why, in Monday’s end-of-season press
conference, Pop broke down Kawhi’s development as a future franchise guy
by saying, “It’s a matter of understanding that it will be expected
night after night after night.”
Bill Simmons has been pushing Kawhi Leonard as one of the next great superstars in the NBA and even comparing him to Scottie Pippen. But now when he sees evidence this isn't true he is all, "Well Coach Pop said that Leonard has to prove he can do great things on a nightly basis," which is something anyone who had not already compared Leonard to a Hall of Famer knew. I'm sure Bill thinks that he is informing his audience of something new and revelatory by stating Leonard can't consistently be the MVP of the NBA Finals, when in fact it's Bill who needed to be informed of this.
Even if that next-level leap will eventually come, much like it just
came for Blake (three years older), Duncan can’t wait around forever. I
blame myself for throwing the Apex Scottie comparisons around.
Yes Bill, it's your fault. You made Kawhi Leonard not take "the leap" because you compared him to Scottie Pippen and when Leonard read your column/mailbag (as every professional athlete does, naturally) he thought too much of himself. Perhaps you can simply blame yourself for throwing the comparison to Pippen around and admitting that at this point it was a dumb comparison.
Kawhi isn’t all the way there yet. By the time he gets there, Duncan will be gone. Alas.
Again, it's laughable this column is titled "The Tim Duncan Question" when it seems this retro-diary is about everybody else in the Spurs-Clippers series except Duncan.
Monty McCutcheon belatedly calls Duncan for a body foul about 1.3
seconds after CP3 releases his missed jumper. Ludicrous whistle. When
they no-called Barnes’s body block on Parker at 1:23, for me, that was
our under-the-radar sign that the players would decide this game. Nope. Pop waves in disgust and turns back to his bench, like he was
watching a meter maid writing him a ticket, said “Screw it,” and left
the ticket on his car to get coffee. Go figure — Team Whine & Cheese
got the shakiest big call of Round 1. Had the roles been reversed, they
would have had to airlift a purple Doc out of Staples Center.
(Yes, this was Coulda Woulda Shoulda Play No. 6. And yes, Chris made
both free throws — giving him an astonishing 26 straight for the
postseason. Timeout, Spurs.)
Throughout this retro-diary, Bill talks about Coulda Woulda Should Plays, which is just a way to restate that certain plays could go either way and change the complexion of the game. Bill is taking an old idea about 50/50 calls or plays and re-naming them in order to make it seem like it's an original thought of his own.
0:08 (Clips 109, Spurs 109) The Spurs run a beauty of a
play, getting Duncan rolling to the basket off a switch and forcing
Redick to foul him. That means Duncan, hovering at 50 percent for the
series, now has to save San Antonio’s season from the free throw line.
In the moment, I found myself rooting for him like he was a Boston guy. You can’t go out this way. You have to make these.
This retro-diary is just absolutely riveting. If the sign of quality writing isn't play-by-play of a sporting event with the writer's own personal thoughts inserted into the narrative, then I don't know what is the sign of quality sportswriting. That's the beauty of Bill's writing. You have to give a shit about Bill and what he thinks or else it's wasted time reading what he writes. Everything he writes is framed around his point of view where he imposes his views as being the view of others as well.
Additional Point No. 2: I don’t see how the same guy who made THOSE free throws can retire...But I went to four of those seven games and didn’t see any laboring.
I watched from television and didn't see any laboring. Of course, I'm only watching on television, while Bill WAS THERE, so because Bill lives in a world where those people who watch sports on television aren't actually watching the sporting event then he knows more than anyone else does.
NBA big men and wrestlers age the same way — they get stiff and lose their balance. Happens to everyone. When I went to WrestleMania 31 and watched the actual Undertaker wrestling, guess what?
You tried to subtly brag about attending a sporting event without your audience knowing that you were trying to brag?
They played 341 minutes in this series; the Clippers took the lead for
good at the 340:59 mark. The Spurs knew what play was coming, and so did
the fans, only it didn’t matter. What’s amazing is that Paul always
seemed to think it was going in. Everyone went bonkers, obviously. I
have been in the building for some ear-splitting,
everyone-loses-their-shit NBA reactions, ranging from Havlicek’s
aforementioned banker (the triple-OT game) to Bird Steals the Ball to
Ray Allen’s 3 to a slew of others. Really, there’s no “loudest” sound.
Once you reach Everyone Loses Their Shit level, that’s it. You can’t get
higher.
Cue to three years from now when Bill talks about he attended a Celtics game where the crowd was the loudest he's ever heard while at a sporting event and this loudness can never be topped.
CP3 played brilliantly all series, injured himself at the worst possible
time, rallied back and ended up making history. And that seven-game
series/battle/war/life experience brought that whole team closer
together. Don’t sleep on the Clippers.
They were one of eight teams left in the NBA Playoffs, so it's hard to sleep on them.
Our final score: Clippers 111, Spurs 109. A.k.a. the Chris Paul game.
And I don’t care if it was Round 1. That’s one of the 12 best seven-game
series since 1976’s ABA-NBA merger if you’re ranking for star power,
general story lines, legacy-related story lines, closeness of the games,
atmosphere, and iconic games/plays/moments …
So has the Tim Duncan question been answered yet or no? Or was the whole "Here's why Tim Duncan shouldn't retire" just a way for Bill to do a retro-diary play-by-play of Game 7 in the Spurs-Clippers series without seeming like he's just writing a play-by-play of a sporting event?
Honorable Mention: 1978 Bullets-Sonics, 1980
Sonics-Bucks, 1981 Sixers-Bucks, 1988 Mavs-Lakers, 1990 Blazers-Spurs,
1992 Bulls-Knicks, 1993 Suns-Sonics, 1994 Suns-Rockets, 1995
Magic-Pacers, 2000 Knicks-Heat, 2000 Lakers-Blazers, 2004 Kings-Wolves,
2009 Celts-Bulls (lost its “Best Round 1 Series Ever” belt), 2010
Celts-Lakers, 2012 Celts-Heat.
Only three of these series involved the Celtics! That's it!
The Top 12: 1979 Bullets-Spurs (Ice blows a 3-1 lead),
1981 Sixers-Celtics (the championship belt holder), 1984 Celts-Lakers
(four iconic games!), 1987 Bucks-Celtics (best second-rounder ever),
You'll never guess this, but Bill knows the 1987 Bucks-Celtics series was the best second-rounder ever because he WAS THERE.
Our lost great 1980s series — they averaged 242.5 points per game, played an OT game and a double-OT game,
and Milwaukee led by eight in Game 7 with six minutes to go. Oh, and
Jack Sikma’s hair, Paul Mokeski’s mustache, Larry Bird’s hair, Randy
Breuer’s body and Kevin McHale’s body were involved! I went to Game 7
and it’s one of my 10 favorite games I have ever attended. So there.
See?
1987 Celts-Pistons (insane), 1988 Lakers-Pistons (doubly insane), 1995
Pacers-Knicks (Reggie vs. Ewing), 1998 Pacers-Bulls (MJ taken to the
brink), 2002 Lakers-Kings (the NBA goes WWE), 2006 Mavs-Spurs (the lost
great 21st-century series), 2013 Heat-Spurs (a life experience) and 2015
Spurs-Clips.
Only 4 of these 12 series involved the Celtics. That's it!
That’s an unassailable list.
Don't even bother assailing this list. It's unassailable. Questioning Bill Simmons about this list of great series is like questioning the Pope about his commitment to God. I love how Bill states his own list is "unassailable." He's a guy who truly believes the bullshit he writes is the gospel on sports. The ego he has...
The Spurs blew Game 6 at home, couldn’t put Game 7 away and lost when a
great player made an even greater shot. Either that was the best
possible way for Duncan to go out (with a bang, still playing well) or
the worst possible way (because it was, to borrow a poker term,
something of an unlucky beat). Only he knows.
So … should Duncan retire?
Oh, so the supposed topic of discussion for this retro-diary is going to be discussed at some point?...but not right now of course.
If it feels like a sports movie moment, that’s because it’s basically the plot in For Love of the Game,
Except it's not the plot of that movie at all, because Kevin Costner threw a perfect game and his team won, while Tim Duncan's team lost. But anyway, I'm sure this is an unassailable comparison so I'm not sure why I bother assailing it.
everyone’s favorite baseball movie that’s locked in the basement of a reprehensible romance drama.
EVERYONE'S favorite! It's Bill's favorite, so of course that means he speaks for everyone else in the world also. The world revolves around Bill and his beliefs.
Like everyone else,
EVERYONE ELSE! NO EXCEPTIONS! THIS IS UNASSAILABLE!
I love Vin Scully. I love Costner’s buddy on the other team who sold out
and joined the Yankees. I love watching John C. Reilly pretending to be
a catcher. I love the moment when Costner realizes he has a perfect
game going. I love Vern Schillinger Whiplash Simmons as Costner’s
manager. I love “Clear the mechanism.”
And again, this column is supposedly about Tim Duncan and whether he should retire. Right now, Bill is talking about a baseball movie though. Of course.
And I really love one particular moment, right near the end, when Chapel
realizes that everything hurts too much. That he doesn’t want to pitch
for anyone else. That he’s too expensive to keep but too stubborn to
switch teams. Everything just falls into place for him during that game.
He doesn’t want to pitch anymore. He wants to leave on a high.
This is what is wrong with Bill's writing. He writes, "So...should Duncan retire?" and then immediately does not answer the question, instead going through a long tangent about a movie that he----sorry, I mean everyone---likes in order to answer the question in the most convoluted way possible.
Always gets me. Well, couldn’t you see Duncan leaving that way next
month? No press conference, no fanfare, no farewell tour, no exit
interviews. Just tell ’em I’m done.
Yes Duncan will not make a big deal out of retiring, not because "For the Love of the Game" is a parallel to Tim Duncan's situation, but because Duncan has done everything without fanfare through his entire NBA career.
When you know it’s time to go, it’s not about the games, the locker
rooms, the camaraderie, the charter planes and the salaries anymore. All
of that stuff makes you want to keep playing, actually.
But preparing to play — that’s the culprit.
It’s the mental burden that saps you. You start missing your freedom.
You have to eat a certain way, sleep a certain way, prepare a certain
way. You learn to dread those mornings after back-to-backs. You hate
those early wakeup calls, hate being at the gym for hours by yourself,
hate working on things that you already learned a million years ago. You
already peaked, and you know it, so it’s all about killing yourself so
you can be 70 percent as good as you once were.
Bill knows this from his vast experience of never having played professional sports. It's funny how Bill states "we" know things when he cares to speak for everyone else, but when Bill wants to be the expert on the topic he is discussing all of a sudden "we" don't know something and Bill is the only one who has the experience enough to know. "We" thought Kawhi Leonard would be a superstar or "we" love a certain movie, but only Bill knows how good the crowd at the Staples Center was for Game 7 because he WAS THERE.
You have young dudes coming at you left and right, always looking to
prove themselves, doing anything possible to put themselves on the map
against you. Shit, you could see it with Blake Griffin in Round 1. He
didn’t just want to win, he wanted to take it to Duncan. Again and again
and again.
So it’s not about one more year. It’s about 18 of them, and how they add up and start subtracting from the current product.
Bill's writing is always very weak when he tries to be serious and insightful about sports. He tends to over-rely on hyperbole and unanswerable questions. These are the things that happen when Bill has 10% of a column idea and has to dream up the other 90% of the content.
Could the Spurs have beaten the Clips with a healthier Parker? Will free
agency help? Will Kawhi make The Leap? Could Duncan have blocked that
CP3 shot? Did he get there in time? Was he a split second late? Did his
brain see it coming, completely and totally, only his body couldn’t
quite get there?
As I said, he over-relies on unanswerable questions and hyperbole when he tries to be serious talking about sports.
He will disappear this summer, like he always does, and he will remain
in shape by swimming and eating plants and doing whatever else aliens
do. Some time before July 1, he will share his plan with the Spurs. Only
Duncan knows if it will be one year too early. I just know that he’s
one of the best basketball players I have ever seen.
This is the "insightful" ending of the column. I feel insighted.
I hope he comes back. And I hope he doesn’t come back.
Bill ends the column (and perhaps his last column with Grantland) with a reach for a thought-provoking comment. So, Bill doesn't give a shit what Tim Duncan does? That's my conclusion at least. It's funny, because if this is Bill Simmons' last column/mailbag/retro-diary for Grantland, then this last sentence is how I feel about him as well.
Showing posts with label San Antonio Spurs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label San Antonio Spurs. Show all posts
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Thursday, July 3, 2014
4 comments Josh Levin Thinks The Spurs' Stars Shouldn't be Praised for Taking Less Money; May Misunderstand How the NBA Cap System Works
I'm a free market guy. I think athletes should be able make whatever amount of money teams are willing to offer them. I also understand how a salary cap can create more parity and I think adds a certain amount of intrigue to a sport. NFL/NBA teams can't just outspend other teams to get the players they want and have to be careful with the salary cap room they have. Josh Levin thinks it is bad for the Spurs' stars to be praised for taking less money to win games. Yeah fine, players should be able to make as much money as they want to make. That's a position I can understand. The problem is players can make as much money as they want, but if these players want to be on a team with other great players then a sacrifice may have to be made. Tim Duncan may make $12 million instead of $15 million and Tony Parker may make $13 million instead of $15 million. It's up to the individual player to make the decision and I don't think it's a bad thing for NBA players to choose to give up money in order to have room to sign other players.
The main reason Josh Levin seems to not like players like Duncan, Parker, Ginobili taking less money is that these funds end up back in the pocket of very wealthy owners. There are two very fundamental issues with this point of view.
1. The problem isn't Spurs players taking less money, it's the NBA system and the NBA salary cap. Don't take issue with players who want to win and say they shouldn't be praised. Guys like Duncan, Parker, James, Wade, Bosh, and Ginobili made a personal decision within the NBA salary system to take less money. This is the decision they should be praised for. These six players aren't taking less money to put back in the pocket of wealthy owners, they are taking less money so other quality players can play on their same team. The decision should be praised, because while working within the NBA salary system, they are taking less money for team gain. The constant is the NBA salary cap system and that can't be changed.
2. There is a thing called the "luxury tax" which teams pay once they have exceeded the soft cap the NBA has. Now, as I just said, the constant is the NBA salary cap system which can not be changed. So the ideal that Levin works towards is players like Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili getting paid what they are worth on the free market. Say the Spurs choose to sign all of these players to market value contracts and then end up with a total cap amount of over $100 million (like the Nets had this year). The Spurs will then end up with a luxury tax bill of $80 million. Where does this money go? I'll give you a hint...not to the poor, not to the hungry, not to middle class tax breaks...but to the owners of each NBA team. So if the Spurs' three stars did choose to make free market value for their services and the Spurs were willing to pay it, then Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili would actually be putting money in the pockets of wealthy owners anyway. It's the system and it isn't going to be changed soon. Don't blame the Spurs' stars and say they shouldn't be praised for taking less money. The alternative either means Parker/Duncan/Ginobili will play for a different NBA team that will work hard to not go too far over the soft cap (thereby giving the wealthy owners more money) or the Spurs will pay the luxury tax (thereby giving the wealthy owners more money). Guess what? The system is set up to pay wealthy owners more money. It's almost like this isn't a coincidence.
Anyway, here is Levin's article about why the Spurs stars should not be praised for taking less money.
The Spurs play a beautiful game. They show the value of hard work, team play, and humility. San Antonio has one of the best coaches in pro sports, and their general manager is a genius. All of these statements are true, and they merge to form a positive feedback loop.
"A positive feedback loop." Not that Josh Levin is trying to sound super-extra technical when discussing that the Spurs seem to resemble many of the positive attributes sports fans look for in a team.
The players work well together because their GM, R.C. Buford, did a great job acquiring talent, which makes the team more successful, which makes more players buy into Gregg Popovich’s team concept
Those who don't buy-in go find somewhere else to play basketball. Those who are fat (ahem, Fatty Mills) lose weight and buy-in or lose minutes to another player. Nice set-up for an NBA team if you can get it.
This isn’t how things have typically worked in the NBA. When he was the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, Pat Riley—now the president of the Miami Heat—said his team succumbed to the “disease of more.”
Levin's titles this article "The Disease of Less." So wanting "more" is the way towards a team imploding and not succeeding, while so wanting "less" is the way towards a team succeeding and winning titles. And yet, wanting "less" is a bad thing supposedly. I always thought the purpose was to win games.
As Bill Simmons described it in a 2007 column, “Everyone wanted more money, playing time and recognition. Eventually they lost perspective and stopped doing the little things that make teams win and keep winning.”
In San Antonio, the opposite has happened.
Those Lakers also had a group of younger players with large egos (namely Magic Johnson), while the Spurs best players are older and wiser. I know Levin isn't making a direct comparison, but the "Disease of More" tends to strike teams with players who have leaders that are younger and less able to subjugate their egos.
A little bit of fun from that column is the cockiness and shocking wrongness of Bill's writing. Here are some of the gems from that column:
If you aren't picking the Spurs to take the 2008 NBA title, your reasoning is simple: They won last year.
(And while we're here, if you're turning your back on a proven winner for a McGrady-Yao combo with zero playoff success between them, or a Dallas team with the emotional makeup of the Spears clan, or a Celtics team coached by the immortal Doc Rivers, or a Bulls team that's collectively younger than the cast of "Hannah Montana," you deserve what you get.)
Oh yes, this is back when Doc Rivers wasn't a genius because he didn't have a team of three Hall of Famers surrounding by a probable Hall of Famer (Rondo) and a very deep bench with skilled role players. Amazing how Bill bashed Rivers when Rivers didn't have the talent to succeed, only to forget that he bashed Rivers once the Celtics started winning. And yes, that's a "Hannah Montana" reference.
When the Sox were trying to win in 2003 and 2004, it felt like life-or-death to me. Three years later, I found myself just as caught up in October, but a small piece was missing -- every game carried urgency and tension, only that life-or-death component had vanished. As much as I wanted the Sox to keep winning, my life wasn't going to fall apart if they lost, because they'd already won in 2004. Oddly, it was somewhat liberating to watch these 2007 playoffs. I found myself thinking about how great it would be if they kept winning, not how painful it would be if they lost.
There is a lot of Red Sox talk in this column. Because the column was about the NBA and which team would win the title it obviously makes complete sense to talk about the Red Sox.
It's the boring pick, the logical pick, but as much as we hate to admit it, sometimes sports is boring and logical. That's why I'm going with the Spurs over the Bulls in five, and that's why, eight months from now, you won't even remember that I was right.
No one will remember Bill was right, because he wasn't. The Celtics were NBA Champs and the Bulls didn't even make the playoffs. I like how cocky Bill was about his prediction though. Anyway, back to the Spurs and why the fact their big stars take less money puts money into the pocket of wealthy owners.
As the Spurs’ Big Three of Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili have gotten older and more established, they’ve willingly taken on less, playing fewer minutes and taking smaller salaries. These sacrifices have allowed San Antonio to pay for and develop valuable complementary players like Boris Diaw, Tiago Splitter, and Marco Belinelli. It’s a simple salary-cap calculus: There would be no team ball if Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili weren’t team players when it came to their own contracts.
And this is obviously a disease that should be avoided. Why would these stars take less money for playing fewer minutes so the Spurs can put a better team around them? Don't Parker, Ginobili, and Duncan know doing this puts more money in the pocket of NBA owners who would obviously be extremely poor if it weren't for the corporate welfare these three NBA stars are providing to them?
the same basic story can be found in Miami. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh all took less than the NBA’s maximum salary to team up together on the Heat. The trio learned to play together and have won two championships in the take-my-talents-to-South-Beach era—one more than the Spurs in that time.
It's taking Josh Levin quite a while to get to the point of this column. These three players can make up some of this money in endorsement deals they would receive for playing on an NBA team that wins multiple championships. Sure, that money be available regardless of whether James, Bosh, and Wade took less money, but the championships very well could not be there.
Elite NBA players are now effectively serving as their own general managers. By slashing their own earnings to fit themselves and their teammates under the salary cap, they’re sacrificing money in addition to the lucre they’ve already given away in the league’s collective bargaining agreement.
This is true. This is how the NBA salary cap system is set up. It is set up to try and prevent a team from signing 3-4 max contract players and dominate the NBA. Of course, it hasn't worked out that way because NBA players are choosing to take less money in order to win NBA championships, which obviously is a good thing in terms of setting an example of teamwork, but a bad thing for these NBA players receiving market value for their services.
Let's not forget these players aren't exactly going broke taking less money. This past season Tony Parker earned $12.5 million, Duncan earned $10.3 million, Ginobili earned $7 million, LeBron/Bosh earned $19.07 million and Wade earned $18.5 million. It's not like they are cutting their earning potential in half or anything like that.
While Detroit Tigers slugger Miguel Cabrera signed a deal that will pay him what averages out to $29 million a year, James makes $19 million annually, which is just below the league’s maximum salary.
And the result of this is the Tigers are having to trade away pitchers like Doug Fister, who wasn't traded away due to the Tigers wanting to save money but to get "flexibility," and not being able to hand Max Scherzer the type of contract he and Scott Boras want. Poor Jon Heyman, now he's going to have write a few articles talking about what a great pitcher Scherzer is in an effort to help Boras get max value for Scherzer's services.
My point is that even in the free market league that is MLB, every team has a budget whether they want to admit it or not.
Though the players agreed to this system—it was collectively bargained, after all—it puts them in the awkward position of having to sacrifice salary in order to preserve their public image.
In terms of "sacrificing money" they are still very wealthy millionaires. I realize they aren't maximizing their value, but this is the same system the NFL has, except theirs is a hard cap.
If guys like Duncan and James were paid closer to what they’re worth in the NBA’s version of an open market, they’d risk being labeled selfish superstars who care more about money than winning...But if you take less and win more games, you’re praised for your selflessness—well, at least if you’re in San Antonio.
I fail to see why the Spurs (and even the Heat) stars should not be praised for being selfless. The fact is these players can't make their market value anyway, so they choose to take less money than they could receive according to the CBA, which means this is a somewhat selfless move.
Seattle Seahawks fans are not aggrieved by the fact that Super Bowl–winning quarterback Russell Wilson made a mere $500,000 in 2014. Rather, they’re overjoyed that he’s so underpaid, which allows the team to spend that much more on other positions. And Saints fans aren’t supporting tight end Jimmy Graham’s quest to be paid as an upper-crust wide receiver rather than a middle-class tight end—the less money he gets, the better players the team can put around him.
What a shocking turn of events that fans of the Saints and Seahawks want their team to put a quality product on the field. Gosh, it's so selfish of Saints and Seahawks fans to want Wilson/Graham to be underpaid so their respective teams can be more flush with open salary cap space. Because I'm sure Russell Wilson and Jimmy Graham are very concerned that Seahawks and Saints fans may be underpaid for the quality of the job they do.
For some players, taking less money is the best possible decision. I’d imagine that Tim Duncan has more cash than he’ll ever need, and that another championship ring will bring him more happiness than another couple of million dollars. It’s also hard to empathize with a player who’s already superrich and passes up the chance to be super-duper rich
It's not about empathizing or not empathizing with a player. It's about whether a player is willing to take less money for the greater good of the team. Some players do, other players don't. I fail to see why not taking the maximum amount of money possible should not be praised.
But when a player doesn’t get paid what he’s worth, much of that money—the portion that doesn't end up in the pockets of lesser NBA talent—just ends up in the pocket of an even wealthier owner
If the player does get paid what he is worth then an NBA team can go over the luxury tax threshold and this goes right in the pocket of more than one wealthy owner. Either way, the system is set up for the owners to get paid. When a player doesn't get paid what's he worth, that money can go to the lesser NBA talent, and then yes, the money can go to making more money for that specific team's owner. But if that player gets what he's worth then that owner is still going to make that money. It's just the team won't spend money on the lesser player.
Josh Levin is working under the false assumption that an owner doesn't have a set salary limit he's willing to allow his team to spend up to. For example, say the owners of the Spurs sets the team's budget at $73 million. That's the budget. Now how that money gets split up to get to $73 million doesn't matter. The owner of the Spurs probably isn't going to say, "Set the budget at $73 million unless Duncan wants a max contract in which case I'm willing to spend $78 million." The owner will say, "If Duncan wants a max contract then make it work to where the team is only spending $73 million and staying as far below the luxury tax as possible."
It's a zero-sum game. Even if the owner did go to $78 million then that's over the luxury tax threshold and other very wealthy owners will reap the rewards of the Spurs owner going over the soft cap. These owners are getting paid regardless. Bet on that. It's not like the money Duncan is choosing to not receive in a salary is going into the owner's pocket. It's being spent on players like Tiago Splitter. So yes, the owners are getting rich but it's not like the Spurs owner is pocketing the money Duncan doesn't receive. It goes to other players. There is only so much of the pie to go around in terms of salary spent on Spurs players. The end result is the same regardless of whether Parker, Duncan, Ginobili take up 85% of this space or 60% of this space. NBA owners are going to spend what they care to spend on players.
There is a reason Parker, Duncan, Ginobili are sacrificing money and it isn't because they just like to. They know the Spurs' budget and they know the owner is getting paid regardless. It's only a matter of how much talent is around them and how much money it takes to keep/acquire that talent.
a fellow whose earnings aren’t capped in any way, and who could sell his franchise for north of $1 billion whenever he gets bored or gets caught being a racist.
But again, Levin is missing the point that the owners are going to be paid anyway. Players sacrifice because the amount ownership will spend is set. If the amount isn't set and a team goes over the soft cap then ALL owners get rich from the luxury tax implications of a team going over the soft cap.
So, let’s praise the Spurs’ selflessness on the court—their crisp passing, movement without the ball, and tireless team defending. But the Big Three’s willingness to reduce their salaries isn’t something that should be celebrated
Yes, their willingness to reduce their salaries is something that should be celebrated. The NBA salary system doesn't have to be celebrated, but the willingness of star players to reduce their salaries within the system should be celebrated. The argument that NBA owners pocket the money not spent on Tim Duncan, LeBron James, etc. isn't a persuasive argument because the reason these players took less money is to fit other players on the team. The reality is an NBA team is going to spend a certain amount of money, so these players have to take less money or else have a crappy supporting cast surrounding them. The NBA salary system is fixed and the amount an NBA team is willing to spend on salaries is somewhat fixed. Tiago Splitter got paid because Duncan/Parker/Ginobili weren't paid market value. If these three players were making more money then Splitter wouldn't be on the Spurs team and the Spurs owner would still be filthy rich.
Instead, let’s stump for a system in which a team like the Spurs can win a title by playing a beautiful game on the court, and NBA legends like Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili get paid something closer to what they’re worth.
These are two separate issues that Josh Levin is failing to separate out as two separate issues. Within the NBA salary system Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili were unselfish in taking less money. Outside of that issue, it is fine to stump for a system in which these three players can get paid closer to what they are worth. Go for it. Do it. Just don't write that these three players shouldn't be praised for taking less money within the confines of the current system. These players should be praised for working within the current system to achieve team success. The fact Josh Levin doesn't like the system these three players are working within is a different issue that has nothing to do with how the Spurs play basketball or whether the unselfishness of taking less money should be praised or not.
The main reason Josh Levin seems to not like players like Duncan, Parker, Ginobili taking less money is that these funds end up back in the pocket of very wealthy owners. There are two very fundamental issues with this point of view.
1. The problem isn't Spurs players taking less money, it's the NBA system and the NBA salary cap. Don't take issue with players who want to win and say they shouldn't be praised. Guys like Duncan, Parker, James, Wade, Bosh, and Ginobili made a personal decision within the NBA salary system to take less money. This is the decision they should be praised for. These six players aren't taking less money to put back in the pocket of wealthy owners, they are taking less money so other quality players can play on their same team. The decision should be praised, because while working within the NBA salary system, they are taking less money for team gain. The constant is the NBA salary cap system and that can't be changed.
2. There is a thing called the "luxury tax" which teams pay once they have exceeded the soft cap the NBA has. Now, as I just said, the constant is the NBA salary cap system which can not be changed. So the ideal that Levin works towards is players like Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili getting paid what they are worth on the free market. Say the Spurs choose to sign all of these players to market value contracts and then end up with a total cap amount of over $100 million (like the Nets had this year). The Spurs will then end up with a luxury tax bill of $80 million. Where does this money go? I'll give you a hint...not to the poor, not to the hungry, not to middle class tax breaks...but to the owners of each NBA team. So if the Spurs' three stars did choose to make free market value for their services and the Spurs were willing to pay it, then Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili would actually be putting money in the pockets of wealthy owners anyway. It's the system and it isn't going to be changed soon. Don't blame the Spurs' stars and say they shouldn't be praised for taking less money. The alternative either means Parker/Duncan/Ginobili will play for a different NBA team that will work hard to not go too far over the soft cap (thereby giving the wealthy owners more money) or the Spurs will pay the luxury tax (thereby giving the wealthy owners more money). Guess what? The system is set up to pay wealthy owners more money. It's almost like this isn't a coincidence.
Anyway, here is Levin's article about why the Spurs stars should not be praised for taking less money.
The Spurs play a beautiful game. They show the value of hard work, team play, and humility. San Antonio has one of the best coaches in pro sports, and their general manager is a genius. All of these statements are true, and they merge to form a positive feedback loop.
"A positive feedback loop." Not that Josh Levin is trying to sound super-extra technical when discussing that the Spurs seem to resemble many of the positive attributes sports fans look for in a team.
The players work well together because their GM, R.C. Buford, did a great job acquiring talent, which makes the team more successful, which makes more players buy into Gregg Popovich’s team concept
Those who don't buy-in go find somewhere else to play basketball. Those who are fat (ahem, Fatty Mills) lose weight and buy-in or lose minutes to another player. Nice set-up for an NBA team if you can get it.
This isn’t how things have typically worked in the NBA. When he was the coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, Pat Riley—now the president of the Miami Heat—said his team succumbed to the “disease of more.”
Levin's titles this article "The Disease of Less." So wanting "more" is the way towards a team imploding and not succeeding, while so wanting "less" is the way towards a team succeeding and winning titles. And yet, wanting "less" is a bad thing supposedly. I always thought the purpose was to win games.
As Bill Simmons described it in a 2007 column, “Everyone wanted more money, playing time and recognition. Eventually they lost perspective and stopped doing the little things that make teams win and keep winning.”
In San Antonio, the opposite has happened.
Those Lakers also had a group of younger players with large egos (namely Magic Johnson), while the Spurs best players are older and wiser. I know Levin isn't making a direct comparison, but the "Disease of More" tends to strike teams with players who have leaders that are younger and less able to subjugate their egos.
A little bit of fun from that column is the cockiness and shocking wrongness of Bill's writing. Here are some of the gems from that column:
If you aren't picking the Spurs to take the 2008 NBA title, your reasoning is simple: They won last year.
(And while we're here, if you're turning your back on a proven winner for a McGrady-Yao combo with zero playoff success between them, or a Dallas team with the emotional makeup of the Spears clan, or a Celtics team coached by the immortal Doc Rivers, or a Bulls team that's collectively younger than the cast of "Hannah Montana," you deserve what you get.)
Oh yes, this is back when Doc Rivers wasn't a genius because he didn't have a team of three Hall of Famers surrounding by a probable Hall of Famer (Rondo) and a very deep bench with skilled role players. Amazing how Bill bashed Rivers when Rivers didn't have the talent to succeed, only to forget that he bashed Rivers once the Celtics started winning. And yes, that's a "Hannah Montana" reference.
When the Sox were trying to win in 2003 and 2004, it felt like life-or-death to me. Three years later, I found myself just as caught up in October, but a small piece was missing -- every game carried urgency and tension, only that life-or-death component had vanished. As much as I wanted the Sox to keep winning, my life wasn't going to fall apart if they lost, because they'd already won in 2004. Oddly, it was somewhat liberating to watch these 2007 playoffs. I found myself thinking about how great it would be if they kept winning, not how painful it would be if they lost.
There is a lot of Red Sox talk in this column. Because the column was about the NBA and which team would win the title it obviously makes complete sense to talk about the Red Sox.
It's the boring pick, the logical pick, but as much as we hate to admit it, sometimes sports is boring and logical. That's why I'm going with the Spurs over the Bulls in five, and that's why, eight months from now, you won't even remember that I was right.
No one will remember Bill was right, because he wasn't. The Celtics were NBA Champs and the Bulls didn't even make the playoffs. I like how cocky Bill was about his prediction though. Anyway, back to the Spurs and why the fact their big stars take less money puts money into the pocket of wealthy owners.
As the Spurs’ Big Three of Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili have gotten older and more established, they’ve willingly taken on less, playing fewer minutes and taking smaller salaries. These sacrifices have allowed San Antonio to pay for and develop valuable complementary players like Boris Diaw, Tiago Splitter, and Marco Belinelli. It’s a simple salary-cap calculus: There would be no team ball if Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili weren’t team players when it came to their own contracts.
And this is obviously a disease that should be avoided. Why would these stars take less money for playing fewer minutes so the Spurs can put a better team around them? Don't Parker, Ginobili, and Duncan know doing this puts more money in the pocket of NBA owners who would obviously be extremely poor if it weren't for the corporate welfare these three NBA stars are providing to them?
the same basic story can be found in Miami. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh all took less than the NBA’s maximum salary to team up together on the Heat. The trio learned to play together and have won two championships in the take-my-talents-to-South-Beach era—one more than the Spurs in that time.
It's taking Josh Levin quite a while to get to the point of this column. These three players can make up some of this money in endorsement deals they would receive for playing on an NBA team that wins multiple championships. Sure, that money be available regardless of whether James, Bosh, and Wade took less money, but the championships very well could not be there.
Elite NBA players are now effectively serving as their own general managers. By slashing their own earnings to fit themselves and their teammates under the salary cap, they’re sacrificing money in addition to the lucre they’ve already given away in the league’s collective bargaining agreement.
This is true. This is how the NBA salary cap system is set up. It is set up to try and prevent a team from signing 3-4 max contract players and dominate the NBA. Of course, it hasn't worked out that way because NBA players are choosing to take less money in order to win NBA championships, which obviously is a good thing in terms of setting an example of teamwork, but a bad thing for these NBA players receiving market value for their services.
Let's not forget these players aren't exactly going broke taking less money. This past season Tony Parker earned $12.5 million, Duncan earned $10.3 million, Ginobili earned $7 million, LeBron/Bosh earned $19.07 million and Wade earned $18.5 million. It's not like they are cutting their earning potential in half or anything like that.
While Detroit Tigers slugger Miguel Cabrera signed a deal that will pay him what averages out to $29 million a year, James makes $19 million annually, which is just below the league’s maximum salary.
And the result of this is the Tigers are having to trade away pitchers like Doug Fister, who wasn't traded away due to the Tigers wanting to save money but to get "flexibility," and not being able to hand Max Scherzer the type of contract he and Scott Boras want. Poor Jon Heyman, now he's going to have write a few articles talking about what a great pitcher Scherzer is in an effort to help Boras get max value for Scherzer's services.
My point is that even in the free market league that is MLB, every team has a budget whether they want to admit it or not.
Though the players agreed to this system—it was collectively bargained, after all—it puts them in the awkward position of having to sacrifice salary in order to preserve their public image.
In terms of "sacrificing money" they are still very wealthy millionaires. I realize they aren't maximizing their value, but this is the same system the NFL has, except theirs is a hard cap.
If guys like Duncan and James were paid closer to what they’re worth in the NBA’s version of an open market, they’d risk being labeled selfish superstars who care more about money than winning...But if you take less and win more games, you’re praised for your selflessness—well, at least if you’re in San Antonio.
I fail to see why the Spurs (and even the Heat) stars should not be praised for being selfless. The fact is these players can't make their market value anyway, so they choose to take less money than they could receive according to the CBA, which means this is a somewhat selfless move.
Seattle Seahawks fans are not aggrieved by the fact that Super Bowl–winning quarterback Russell Wilson made a mere $500,000 in 2014. Rather, they’re overjoyed that he’s so underpaid, which allows the team to spend that much more on other positions. And Saints fans aren’t supporting tight end Jimmy Graham’s quest to be paid as an upper-crust wide receiver rather than a middle-class tight end—the less money he gets, the better players the team can put around him.
What a shocking turn of events that fans of the Saints and Seahawks want their team to put a quality product on the field. Gosh, it's so selfish of Saints and Seahawks fans to want Wilson/Graham to be underpaid so their respective teams can be more flush with open salary cap space. Because I'm sure Russell Wilson and Jimmy Graham are very concerned that Seahawks and Saints fans may be underpaid for the quality of the job they do.
For some players, taking less money is the best possible decision. I’d imagine that Tim Duncan has more cash than he’ll ever need, and that another championship ring will bring him more happiness than another couple of million dollars. It’s also hard to empathize with a player who’s already superrich and passes up the chance to be super-duper rich
It's not about empathizing or not empathizing with a player. It's about whether a player is willing to take less money for the greater good of the team. Some players do, other players don't. I fail to see why not taking the maximum amount of money possible should not be praised.
But when a player doesn’t get paid what he’s worth, much of that money—the portion that doesn't end up in the pockets of lesser NBA talent—just ends up in the pocket of an even wealthier owner
If the player does get paid what he is worth then an NBA team can go over the luxury tax threshold and this goes right in the pocket of more than one wealthy owner. Either way, the system is set up for the owners to get paid. When a player doesn't get paid what's he worth, that money can go to the lesser NBA talent, and then yes, the money can go to making more money for that specific team's owner. But if that player gets what he's worth then that owner is still going to make that money. It's just the team won't spend money on the lesser player.
Josh Levin is working under the false assumption that an owner doesn't have a set salary limit he's willing to allow his team to spend up to. For example, say the owners of the Spurs sets the team's budget at $73 million. That's the budget. Now how that money gets split up to get to $73 million doesn't matter. The owner of the Spurs probably isn't going to say, "Set the budget at $73 million unless Duncan wants a max contract in which case I'm willing to spend $78 million." The owner will say, "If Duncan wants a max contract then make it work to where the team is only spending $73 million and staying as far below the luxury tax as possible."
It's a zero-sum game. Even if the owner did go to $78 million then that's over the luxury tax threshold and other very wealthy owners will reap the rewards of the Spurs owner going over the soft cap. These owners are getting paid regardless. Bet on that. It's not like the money Duncan is choosing to not receive in a salary is going into the owner's pocket. It's being spent on players like Tiago Splitter. So yes, the owners are getting rich but it's not like the Spurs owner is pocketing the money Duncan doesn't receive. It goes to other players. There is only so much of the pie to go around in terms of salary spent on Spurs players. The end result is the same regardless of whether Parker, Duncan, Ginobili take up 85% of this space or 60% of this space. NBA owners are going to spend what they care to spend on players.
There is a reason Parker, Duncan, Ginobili are sacrificing money and it isn't because they just like to. They know the Spurs' budget and they know the owner is getting paid regardless. It's only a matter of how much talent is around them and how much money it takes to keep/acquire that talent.
a fellow whose earnings aren’t capped in any way, and who could sell his franchise for north of $1 billion whenever he gets bored or gets caught being a racist.
But again, Levin is missing the point that the owners are going to be paid anyway. Players sacrifice because the amount ownership will spend is set. If the amount isn't set and a team goes over the soft cap then ALL owners get rich from the luxury tax implications of a team going over the soft cap.
So, let’s praise the Spurs’ selflessness on the court—their crisp passing, movement without the ball, and tireless team defending. But the Big Three’s willingness to reduce their salaries isn’t something that should be celebrated
Yes, their willingness to reduce their salaries is something that should be celebrated. The NBA salary system doesn't have to be celebrated, but the willingness of star players to reduce their salaries within the system should be celebrated. The argument that NBA owners pocket the money not spent on Tim Duncan, LeBron James, etc. isn't a persuasive argument because the reason these players took less money is to fit other players on the team. The reality is an NBA team is going to spend a certain amount of money, so these players have to take less money or else have a crappy supporting cast surrounding them. The NBA salary system is fixed and the amount an NBA team is willing to spend on salaries is somewhat fixed. Tiago Splitter got paid because Duncan/Parker/Ginobili weren't paid market value. If these three players were making more money then Splitter wouldn't be on the Spurs team and the Spurs owner would still be filthy rich.
Instead, let’s stump for a system in which a team like the Spurs can win a title by playing a beautiful game on the court, and NBA legends like Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili get paid something closer to what they’re worth.
These are two separate issues that Josh Levin is failing to separate out as two separate issues. Within the NBA salary system Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili were unselfish in taking less money. Outside of that issue, it is fine to stump for a system in which these three players can get paid closer to what they are worth. Go for it. Do it. Just don't write that these three players shouldn't be praised for taking less money within the confines of the current system. These players should be praised for working within the current system to achieve team success. The fact Josh Levin doesn't like the system these three players are working within is a different issue that has nothing to do with how the Spurs play basketball or whether the unselfishness of taking less money should be praised or not.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
7 comments Bill Simmons Introduces 24 Questions that Linger from the NBA Finals, Unfortunately One of Them Isn't "How Many Minutes Does It Take for Bill to Throw a Hissy-Fit About Not Getting a Chance to Speak"
Bill Simmons has questions that linger after the NBA Finals, much like the stench of his hissy-fit on the NBA Countdown set about how long it had been since had lost gotten to speak will linger in the mind of those who wonder if Bill Simmons is really the entitled whiner rumors suggest that he can be. So desperate for something to write about now that his ideas for columns have dried up, Bill essentially tries another form of his mailbag. Instead of someone else asking the questions for him to answer, he asks the questions and then answers them.
Leave it to the San Antonio Spurs. Just one day after celebrating one of the most emotional title clinchers in NBA history, the “Ozymandias” episode of the Duncan-Pop era was rendered irrelevant by America’s first World Cup game.
It's called the "24 hours news cycle" and it churns quickly when the hot sports takes run out.
Q: In recent sports history, how many redemption stories were better than that of the 2014 Spurs?
I wouldn't call it a "redemption story" necessarily. The Spurs were beaten by super-clutch Ray Allen last year, but they still had Game 7 they could win and failed to do so. The Spurs were beaten and didn't necessarily need redemption, but I guess it's more fun to create a narrative to go along with an NBA Finals rematch.
There are two kinds of sports redemption:
AND ONLY TWO KIND OF SPORTS REDEMPTION...unless Bill finds another version related to a Boston sports team and needs to create a third type of sports redemption.
The first is an individual battling back from a personal tragedy (think Michael Jordan after his father’s murder), major injury (think Derrick Rose next season)
I think Bill needs to look up the definition of "redemption." I don't think returning from an injury or coming back after two years of retirement really qualify as "redemption." Maybe it's just me.
the second is an entire team recovering from an unforgettably devastating defeat (the 2014 Spurs). Ideally, the team would want to avenge the defeat right away. If it’s against the same opponent, even better. If it’s done convincingly, with all demons being exorcised, even better. There’s no way to rank the redemptive power; you’re either in the group or you’re not.
These are the rules people. Bill doesn't make the rules, well, he does make them. There's also nothing he can do about them. Well, actually he will probably eventually contradict or change these rules. Either way, for right now, these are the rules on how a team can be redeemed.
From the past 40 years, here’s the group that San Antonio joined:
You may not believe this, but three Boston teams will be mentioned in this section. I know, it's shocking that Bill would make rules and then use his favorite sports teams as examples of these rules.
the ’85 Lakers (avenged their ’84 Finals collapse in Boston); Sugar Ray Leonard (avenged his Roberto Duran loss with the “No Más” fight); the ’89 Athletics (won the World Series one year after being haunted by the Gibson homer); the ’89 Pistons (swept the Lakers after getting bounced in back-to-back years by Boston and L.A. in the most excruciating ways possible); and, of course, the 2004 Red Sox (lost on 2003’s Boone homer, rallied from 3-0 down to beat the ’04 Yankees, then won their first World Series in 86 years).
Every column Bill ever writes will at some point call back to the 2004 Boston Red Sox. It's the opposite of the gift that keeps on giving. If we want to talk about lingering, this Boston team is the fart in Bill's column that will always linger. It doesn't go away.
What's interesting (not really) is Bill leaves out quite a few teams on this list (1991 Bulls, 2007 Giants who came so close to ruining the Patriots perfect streak during Week 17 only to ruin it during the Super Bowl, and I can mention others) and now the Heat theoretically could be looking for redemption next year in the NBA Finals. After all, they want to redeem themselves for failing to win three NBA titles in a row, right?
The best thing about a redemption title: That “unforgettably devastating” defeat becomes forgettable pretty fast. Boston fans stopped thinking about Boone’s homer a little before midnight on October 27, 2004.
Still lingering and always will be. Sometimes I think Bill writes columns specifically to mention the 2004 World Series title.
Anyway, I have been in the house in 1984, 1985, 1986, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 when an NBA team won a championship; Sunday night was the most emotional scene I can remember.
Little brag going on in that sentence under the guise of providing information (which is actually an opinion) that proves the point Bill wants to prove. Bill has been in the house for eight NBA title clinching games and that was the most emotional scene he can remember, so that proves Bill's point that Game 5 was the most emotionally satisfying win for Spurs fans. Also, Bill has seen eight teams clinch an NBA title. This is important to know.
Q: Magic Johnson, Tim Duncan … Kawhi Leonard??? Wait … what??? How good can this guy be?
In the last three games of the 2014 NBA Finals, Kawhi went head-to-head against the world’s best basketball player AND OUTFREAKINGPLAYED HIM. He even earned a nickname that hasn’t caught on yet: “Kingslayer.”
Small sample size alert. Leonard is developing into a great player, but let's pump the brakes on him a little bit. But good news, this is exactly what Bill will say and use the fact we should pump the brakes on Leonard backed by...Bill's own past opinion on a player who didn't end up being a great NBA player.
So, long-term, what are we looking at? Before you play the Pippen 2.0 card, please read the following paragraph about Mystery Player X from one of my 2007 columns …
Who was Mystery Player X? Josh Howard!!!
OH NO!!!
OH YES, BILL!!!!
If someone as smart as Bill Simmons could be wrong about a player's potential, then nobody is safe from incorrectly evaluating an NBA player's potential.
That might be the single worst paragraph in my entire ESPN.com archives.
It's not.
Could he climb to Pippen 2.0 heights? Like Pippen, he fell into the perfect situation, blessed with an all-time superstar teammate, a Hall of Fame coach, multiple leaders/mentors, successful teams and the luxury of asserting himself offensively on his own terms.
Pippen was drafted in 1987 and played for Doug Collins before playing for Phil Jackson. He didn't fall into playing for a Hall of Fame coach. The Bulls pre-Phil Jackson were a playoff team but nowhere near as successful as the Spurs teams were prior to Leonard playing for them. It's just not a very good comparison. Pippen wasn't even close to initially being in as good of a situation as Bill is painting him as being in.
Since Pippen was a 22-year-old rookie, Kawhi got a two-year career jump on him. But Pippen was Chicago’s backup playmaker, so he handled the ball way more than Leonard does (hence, more points and more assists).
Age 20: 8.6 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.6 apg, 50-45-81%, 1.6 stocks, 15.1 PER, 1.2 WS
Age 21: 13.5 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 1.0 apg, 55-39-63%, 2.3 stocks, 18.9 PER, 3.1 WS
Age 22: 14.2 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 1.6 apg, 51-42-74%, 2.4 stocks, 18.7 PER, 2.9 WS
And Pippen’s first four playoff years …
Age 22: 10.0 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 2.4 apg, 47-50-46%, 1.6 stocks, 10.0 PER, 0.1 WS
Age 23: 13.1 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 3.9 apg, 46-39-64%, 2.3 stocks, 14.4 PER, 1.3 WS
Age 24: 19.3 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 5.5 apg, 50-32-71%, 3.4 stocks, 18.7 PER, 1.9 WS
Age 25: 21.6 ppg, 8.9 rpg, 5.8 apg, 50-24-79%, 3.6 stocks, 22.0 PER, 2.9 WS
Because Pippen had a better all-around skill set in terms of handling the ball, that means Pippen has better statistics in terms of assists and points, and well, he was also a better rebounder than Leonard has been so far in his career.
It’s not that ludicrous to compare them.
No, it's not that ludicrous to compare them. It's premature and probably ludicrous, but not THAT ludicrous. Pippen was the better scorer, play maker, and rebounder, but otherwise Leonard and Pippen are pretty comparable to each other.
Over the next two years, as Duncan and Ginobili get phased out, Kawhi will assume a bigger offensive burden.
But can he handle the bigger burden? Leonard is the fourth offensive option (maybe even lower sometimes) for the Spurs. Pippen was the second option for the Bulls offense (by a longshot according to field goal attempts) from his 2nd season in the NBA on. Leonard has never been higher than 5th on the Spurs team in field goal attempts. So he's never been the focal point of the opposing team's defense and hasn't had to assume a bigger burden. It's fallacy to think he'll continue to thrive with more of an offensive burden.
Because I think Scottie would have defended LeBron just about exactly the same way. Regardless, that was awesome. A star was born. Let’s keep him away from Josh Howard, please.
Bill points out the mistake in assuming a Leonard will develop into a great second banana on a championship team, compares him favorably to Scottie Pippen, and then says a star was born. What could go wrong?
Q: Couldn’t you argue that LeBron should have won the Finals MVP, considering Miami would have gotten swept by 40 points per game if he hadn’t played?
A: Put it this way: When I was an unborn fetus during the 1969 Finals, I probably kicked my mom in the stomach when Jerry West won the Finals MVP. How valuable could you have been if your team lost? Absurd.
As a whole, this isn't absurd. This question is more often dealt with in MLB when it comes time to name the AL/NL MVP, but if a guy like LeBron drags a Heat team that Bill describes in this column as looking like the 2010 Cavs to the NBA Finals then that means he is pretty valuable, right? He's possibly the most valuable player in that if any one player was removed from the Spurs or Cavs his removal from the Heat would have most negatively affected his team. I'm just saying, there is a way for a player from the losing team to be the MVP and it's not absurd.
Q: What was San Antonio’s luckiest moment of the past 15 years not counting their three lottery wins?
A: Not trading Tony Parker during the summer of 2010 or 2011 when 90 percent of the league would have reacted to 2010’s Phoenix sweep and 2011’s ass-kicking from Memphis by saying, “Let’s cash in our best trade asset and reboot this thing ASAP.”
This wasn't luck, this was a smart personnel decision. There is a difference.
The lessons: Trust your infrastructure, trust continuity, don’t make big trades just to make big trades, and if that’s not enough, count on the fact that you’re the Spurs and you have a steady stream of horseshoes falling out of your ass.
This from a Celtics fan.
Q: Wait, the Spurs won three lotteries? Didn’t they win only two?
Technically, yes — they won in 1987 (Robinson) and 1997 (Duncan). But considering that George Hill morphed into a third guard during this year’s playoffs, I’m counting 2011’s Leonard-Hill trade as San Antonio’s third lottery win. Grantland’s Zach Lowe wrote wonderfully about that trade last year, but the odds of Leonard falling to no. 15 in 2011 — making that trade possible — had to be lower than San Antonio winning the 1987/1997 lotteries.
After Utah took Burks at no. 12, I wrote in my Draft Diary, “How has Kawhi Leonard not been taken yet? What am I missing?”
Of course while touting that he liked Leonard when he was drafted and traded to the Spurs, and he considers this to be the third lottery the Spurs won, Bill forgets this statement,
TRADE! Ric Bucher reports that San Antonio is sending George Hill to Indiana for the rights to Kawhi Leonard. Like it for both teams.
So while talking about how badly the Spurs robbed the Pacers in the Hill-Leonard trade (based entirely on this year's playoffs by the way), Bill brings out an old quote from his draft diary showing that Leonard should not have lasted until the 15th pick. In that same draft diary Bill states he likes the trade for both teams. Funny how he leaves out "what he knew" at the time and fails to mention how "what he knew" at the time doesn't jive with his current opinion. Interesting how that works.
To recap: The Spurs needed Michael Jordan, Dork Elvis AND the Basketball Jesus to blow the Kawhi thing, along with everything else that happened. They NEVER should have gotten Kawhi. That’s Lottery Win No. 3.
Right, but I don't know if this was luck because the Spurs had to have the foresight to trade up for Leonard. It's not like the Spurs just sat there and took Leonard, they traded a proven NBA player to move up and acquire Leonard's rights. Maybe they were lucky Leonard was there, but they made a smart move to get Leonard when he was available. I don't know if I would call this luck. If so, the Celtics were lucky they landed Rondo and Pierce, which is something I know Bill would never consider to be true.
Also, when did Daryl Morey become a drafting genius? I must have been absent that day.
Q: Will we always remember the Cramp Game, or will that just fade away over time?
The Finals result was so decisive — and LeBron’s overall workload so ridiculously daunting — that I can’t imagine anyone holding those Game 1 cramps against him long-term. (Well, unless they’ve never played sports.)
Um, Skip Bayless.
Not to sound like Clint Eastwood sitting on the porch in Gran Torino, but I attended 40 or 50 Boston Garden games that were hotter than Game 1. The Garden wasn’t air-conditioned and they didn’t have suites, so everyone was packed into that place like 300 college kids cramming into someone’s apartment at a keg party. That’s how Game 5 of the 1984 Finals — a.k.a. the Heat Game, when it was 96 degrees outside and 296 degrees inside — became one of the defining Bird games. Fans were fainting in the stands. The Lakers were sucking from oxygen masks on their bench. We were deliriously hot during that game; we felt like cars overheating.
OUR ARENA IS LESS AIR CONDITIONED AND MORE STIFLING THAN YOUR ARENA!
Yes, we have reached the point where Bill has to point out his favorite NBA team's arena was less air conditioned than another NBA team's arena.
But it actually added to the atmosphere — we felt like we were playing, too — and that’s what happened, to a lesser degree, during Game 1. San Antonio’s fans were going bonkers down the stretch, they loved the conditions and REALLY loved that LeBron couldn’t handle them (even if it wasn’t his fault).
I will also never forget doing the postgame show and SportsCenter segments for an hour after the game, with the humidity from open doors combining with TV lights to make us feel like we were wearing fire-retardant suits. Ever been a groomsman wearing a tuxedo in an oppressively hot church, when the sweat starts soaking through and you start feeling like you just swam in your clothes? That’s what it felt like. Bizarre night.)
These stories from the NBA Countdown set never don't get old. Bill is very, very proud of himself for being on NBA Countdown and I am sure there is a subset of the population (Simmons fanatics) who love these stories because they love Bill, but don't count me in that group. It all sounds like he's bragging and very impressed with himself to me.
I watched every Finals game in San Antonio with Doug Collins from our set behind one of the baskets.
Oh, more stories from the NBA Countdown set. Stories from NBA Countdown are starting to rival YouTube videos and bad pop culture jokes as space fillers in Bill's columns.
And as we became buddies over the last eight months, I realized that Doug had something of a hierarchy of praise that went like this.
Level 1: “Coach, that guy is tough.”
Level 2: “Coach, that guy is a BITCH.”
Level 3: “Coach, that guy is a [12-letter word].”
I'm riveted to my computer screen right now. Is it possible to be riveted to your computer screen? If so, I am. Where will Doug Collins place Kawhi Leonard on this hierarchy of praise? I MUST KNOW AND THE ANSWER ISN'T CLEAR TO ME AT ALL, SO KEEP DRAGGING THIS STORY OUT, BILL!
Level 3 didn’t happen that often (and never in mixed company). And if it happened, he’d usually nudge me and whisper, “Coach, coach, that guy is a [12-letter word].” There was no higher praise from him. During Game 5, Doug blessed Kawhi with Level 1 and Level 2, then something else happened (I think it was one of those big Kawhi 3s) and Doug briefly lost his mind, pounding my arm, breaking Level 3 code and yelping, “Coach, that guy is a [12-letter word]! He is a [TWELVE-LETTER WORD]!!!!!!” That’s right, Kawhi Leonard single-handedly created Level 4 on the Coach Collins Hierarchy of Praise.
Oh my, what an epic turn of events! This story was completely relevant to the column and didn't feel forced at all. I was very, very interested in the hierarchy of praise that Doug Collins has. My only regret is this story is now over, but I'm sure Bill will kill space with more stories from the NBA Countdown set. Maybe he will get to the one where Sage Steele gets fired because she calls Bill a whiny asshole for complaining he went 10 whole minutes without being able to talk. That's a story I would like to hear.
Q: Can you give me three reasons why Miami lost the title other than “San Antonio was better”?
Reason 1: The decrepit East fooled the Heat into thinking they were better than they were — hence last summer’s risky Beasley-Oden dice rolls over targeting more reliable role players,
This is complete hindsight. Augustin wasn't considered a valuable guy, Livingston had never played 76 games in a season during his career where he had played for eight different teams. Bill has to be better than this. Oden-Beasley were a roll of the dice, but he's being disingenuous to use hindsight in order to criticize the Heat for not signing these other players.
Reason 2: They spent the season resting Wade and keeping him from playing back-to-backs, foolishly putting an even bigger burden on LeBron (a far more important player for them). Not only did that gamble NOT pay off — get ready for the eBay listing “GAME-USED FORK FROM DWYANE WADE’S BACK: 2014 FINALS” — but that unneeded LeBron mileage backfired on Miami in the Finals. He wore down and actually seemed human a few times.
Considering the Spurs also used the strategy of resting their older starters, Bill can see why this tactic would be attractive for the Heat though, right? It seems like it makes sense to rest Wade when possible.
Reason 3: Playing in four straight Finals is the NBA’s version of running a marathon, doing a triathlon, scaling a 15,000-foot mountain and finishing a Tough Mudder in back-to-back months. (You can do it; you’d just be a lunatic.) Wade, Bosh and James played five seasons in four when you incorporate those 87 playoff games; combined, they played over 10,000 more minutes than Duncan, Parker and Ginobili since 2010-11.
This is a boring reason based on facts. That can't be the real reason the Heat lost the title. Give me something more intangible and bullshit-based, Bill.
And it’s not just the physical toll — many times in the playoffs, they looked like they didn’t have much fun playing together. On Monday, Chris Bosh confirmed as much, telling an AP writer, “I don’t think anybody really enjoyed this season like in years past. There was no, like, genuine joy all the time. It seemed like work. It was a job the whole year.”
See, Bill had this prior thought WAY BEFORE Bosh said the Heat team wasn't having fun on the court together. See, Bill knew the Heat weren't having fun together, but he just forgot to mention it because that bitch Sage Steele didn't give him a forum to speak his views on the subject. But Bosh's quote pretty much just confirmed what Bill already knew and he isn't at all piggy-backing off Bosh's quote and pretending he thought this was true prior to Bosh's quote. Not. At. All.
If you remember, that kind of happened to them last season, too … and then they ripped off that 27-game win streak and regained their collective mojo.
So the point is the Heat are talented and don't have to enjoy playing with each other? Or is the point the Heat can go on a run and "regain their mojo" anytime they want? Either way, this reasoning is simply hindsight based on the outcome of the NBA Finals.
Q: Which obscure movie quote captures what happened to Miami those last three Finals games?
We have to go back to 1989 for Young Flanagan in Cocktail saying, “Everything always ends badly; otherwise it wouldn’t end.” Just ask the 2004 Lakers (three straight losses), 1991 Lakers (three straight losses), 1991 Pistons (sweep), 2011 Lakers (sweep) and 1996 Rockets (sweep) — all of their “runs” ended ignominiously, only we were saying to the bitter end, They’ll be fine; they won’t go out this way. And they usually do. One of MJ’s greatest moves may have been not returning to the ’99 Bulls. It would have happened to him too.
Michael Jordan and the Bulls just lost the 1999 NBA Finals that occurred solely in Bill Simmons' head. I also like how "we" were saying "They won't go out this way." This is another example of "we" being wrong because "we" share Bill Simmons' thoughts and he has personally never been wrong, so "we" have to be wrong as a collective group.
In his place, we can unretire all Dwyane Wade fat-guy jokes. Once upon a time, we wondered if he’d become the next Michael Jordan — in 2014, it’s actually happening.
Yes, "we" wondered if Wade would be the next Jordan. Not Bill, but "we" were wrong. I hate it when my thoughts I didn't know I had were wrong.
Q: Gut feeling — have we seen the best of Chris Bosh?
Almost definitely. For one thing, he suddenly has 11 years, 796 regular-season games, 89 playoff games and nearly 32,000 career minutes on his NBA odometer. But once the minutes, rebounds and free throw attempts start slipping, that’s the beginning of the end for elite big guys —
Q: Gut feeling — is it over for Dwyane Wade?
He's 32 years old with a lot of wear and tear on his body. I mean, this isn't exactly a bold statement. Still, it seems very reactionary for Bill to start counting the Heat out for next year. It seems like something he would regret and then make an excuse for why "we" were wrong about the Heat.
Everything bottomed out during those last two Finals games — the nadir of Wade’s career, no question — when Wade got swallowed up in the paint over and over again, couldn’t finish plays, kept turning the ball over, couldn’t defend anyone and jogged around on defense with his spirit broken. I don’t meant to sound harsh; this was genuinely disheartening to watch.
Bill watched Wade jog around on defense from the makeshift television in the NBA Countdown so you know he had a better view than anyone else did. The makeshift television doesn't lie.
But his body is breaking down — it’s undeniable now — and the history of terrific 2-guards once they pass that his-body-looks-like-it’s-breaking-down point couldn’t be more bleak. (T-Mac? Richmond? Drexler? Sprewell?)
To be fair, the history of athletes once they pass the point of where it looks like their body is breaking down isn't good. So it's not just 2-guards this affects. Once an athlete looks like his body is breaking down on him, there's a bad history of this simply being true.
Could he reinvent himself Manu-style as a scorer/creator off the bench? Maybe. Just know that this happens to every great player — all of them, without exception — and we never accept that it’s happening until it’s way too late.
"WE" never accept this happens to every great player until it is too late. :WE" never do. I hate it when we as a collective group are wrong because Bill is wrong. But hey, when "we" are wrong "we" are wrong.
I don't mind the use of "we" as it pertains to a group of people, but the way that Bill uses it, to put thoughts into the mind of a large group of people, is just a way to shield himself from being wrong. It's perfectly fine to say, "we" in terms of referring to a large group of people or even"we" in terms of a group whose thoughts you know to be true. Bill just uses the term in assuming everyone else has the same thoughts he has when these thoughts just happen to be wrong.
Q: OK, so if you were LeBron, what would you do this summer?
(LeBron opted out of his contract with the Heat as I copied and pasted the sentence above)
We also don’t know how many skeletons are buried out there — for instance, if Wade and LeBron made a pact during the 2008 Olympics to play together, then spent the next two to three years colluding on their 2010 destination, then got Riley involved at some point during the 2009-10 season, AND MULTIPLE PEOPLE KNEW THIS WHOLE STORY, I think it would be risky for LeBron to walk away (and have that stuff belatedly come out).
Maybe I'm underplaying this story a bit, but I don't know if this is a huge revelation. I've pretty much assumed those three decided in 2008 they would be on the same team once they became free agents, if possible, and then once it became possible they followed through on the deal.
Who would tell this story though, assuming it would be salacious? Not Pat Riley and not anyone in the Heat organization who cares to have a career after the story gets told. Not LeBron, not Wade, not Bosh, and not anyone who wants to deal with the best NBA player on the planet holding a grudge against him/her. I've always assumed they colluded and as much as it sucks as a fan of the Raptors/Cavs, there's not much to be done. It's not like Bosh/James did anything wrong to become free agents.
So here’s where LeBron and agent Rich Paul have to throw their weight around — they have to convince everyone involved (not just Wade and Bosh, but Miami’s owners, too) to restructure those deals. Let’s say Wade and Bosh opt out of their 2014-15 deals, then sign for $58 million apiece over the next four seasons. And let’s say the numbers look like this: $12.5 million (next year), $13.5 million, $15 million, and then $17 million apiece for the 2017-18 season (when the salary cap will be $20 million to $25 million higher, anyway). So Bosh and Wade get slightly more than $15 million guaranteed beyond what they’re already owed.
Now I'm confused. Bill Simmons, who just stated we had seen the best of Chris Bosh and states he would not pay $20 million per year for Bosh, thinks the Heat should give Bosh $15 million MORE guaranteed, including $17 million in the last year of a contract? So Bill wouldn't pay Chris Bosh $20 million per year, but he would give him $15 million more guaranteed, including $17 million in the last year of the contract. I want Bill to be an NBA GM. I need to see him make moves like this.
Also, Bill has just stated that Wade is pretty much done and went to great lengths to point out just how done Wade is. Why would the Heat extend Wade's contract and give him more money guaranteed? Why does Bill think this is a good idea? If Wade is done, is giving him more money guaranteed, including $32 million as a 35-36 year old a great move? This has to be a joke.
And let’s say LeBron exercises his 2014-15 player option for $20.6 million. Throw in Norris Cole’s salary ($2 million), convince Udonis Haslem to retire (and just overpay him as a Heat employee and the newest member of the Miami Mafia), and suddenly you have nearly $20 million to spend on one more big gun (Carmelo). Or, you could go a different way and pursue one or two elite free agents (Kyle Lowry, Pau Gasol, Luol Deng, Marcin Gortat, even Lance Stephenson), combined with a couple of veterans (Paul Pierce, Trevor Ariza, Spencer Hawes, Vince Carter) and maybe one role player (Shaun Livingston, Josh McRoberts, Greivis Vasquez).
This is a typical Bill Simmons idea. He's losing the forest for the trees. Yes, the $20 million can go a long way and I think he has some good ideas, but he also just signed two players that he admits are clearly on the decline to longer contracts worth more guaranteed money. Sure, the cap will be higher (which is being assumed), but the Heat would still be spending $64 million over two years on two players who are on the decline. It's not a smart long-term move.
Q: If LeBron does leave Miami, where would he go?
Door No. 2 (+400 odds): He goes back to Cleveland and convinces Carmelo to come with him. Do NOT rule this out. Especially if Cleveland hires a coach who LeBron likes. The Cavs are loaded with young assets and could create whatever team LeBron wanted.
It would be fun if LeBron came back to the Cavs. The problem is those hurt feelings from four years ago, plus LeBron is 29 years old. He wants to win now. Do the Cavs have a team that can win titles now with LeBron on the team? I think that's debatable.
Door No. 3 (+500 odds): LeBron rolls with Doc and CP3 in Los Angeles — something that would only require the Clippers to trade DeAndre Jordan’s expiring deal, Matt Barnes’s expiring deal and Jamal Crawford’s deal (expires in 2016) to different teams with cap space (super-easy), then use last year’s first round pick (Reggie Bullock) and/or a future first rounder, along with $3 million of Steve Ballmer’s money (chump change!), to dump Jared Dudley (two years, $8.5 million remaining) on someone with cap space (also doable). Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and J.J. Redick will make about $48 million combined next season — if the Clips cleared everyone else (again, VERY doable), they could offer LeBron a deal starting at about $15 million. And he’d get to reinvent himself in Los Angeles, with a coach he loves, a superstar he respects and a billionaire owner who’s ready to splurge on a great team.
I feel the need to mention that Bill harped on and on about how the Clippers needed to sign another big man at the trade deadline this year and he now thinks it is a good idea for the Clippers to trade their best center and essentially have a whole at that spot. It's not a bad idea, but I feel like I need to mention this. It would be fun to watch, that's for sure.
And don’t think the Clips aren’t pursuing it, because they are.
Wait, so you mean an NBA is actively pursuing options to get the best player in the NBA to play for that team? No way.
He’d look like a sellout for going to Houston. Phoenix is never happening. And going back to the Midwest but picking Chicago over Cleveland? Come on.
Right, because LeBron has always worried about looking like a sellout. His move to Miami which netted him two NBA titles made him look like a sellout and it didn't seem to bother him one bit.
Q: Do you really think Carmelo Anthony could save Miami?
No. Serge Ibaka could save Miami. Marc Gasol could save Miami. Joel Embiid four years from now could save Miami. The Heat didn’t lose the 2014 Finals because of their offense; they lost because their supporting cast sucked, they couldn’t defend anyone, and Wade and Bosh aren’t the same guys anymore.
Again, I come back to the question of why the Heat would pay the two guys who aren't the same guys anymore $15 million more guaranteed than they already have to? It's not a smart long-term move and I'm not sure it's a smart short-term move either.
Q: After watching Miami get rolled over in the Finals, how many Eastern Conference teams are saying to themselves right now, We can make the Finals next year!!! No, really, who’s stopping us????
I’m counting eight: Chicago (easily the best bet because of the Noah-Gibson-Carmelo-Butler-Rose potential), Indiana (can it flip Hibbert into a different asset?), Washington (hey, Wiz fans, you ready to wildly overpay Ariza and Gortat???), Charlotte (don’t forget, it has cap space and the no. 9 overall pick), Toronto (one more elite player away from being interesting), Brooklyn (if Brook Lopez can come back and Deron Williams miraculously turns into a franchise point guard again), Cleveland (loaded with tradable assets if it wants to go that way), and Boston (if it gets Kevin Love).
I don't get why the Celtics will become an Eastern Conference Finals contender if they land Kevin Love. He's great, but he's also only one player and the Celtics would have to add more guys than just Love to suddenly vault them into contention for the Eastern Conference Finals. They were the team with the #6 overall pick for a reason.
(Note to any Knicks fan: Please, for your own sanity, stop typing the “What about us?” email, delete it, and stare at your computer screen in silence for a few seconds until you crash back to reality. Thanks.)
With Carmelo opting out of his contract with the Knicks it does open up cap room for them and playing anywhere near Phil Jackson has worked out for superstars in the past. What am I thinking? Of course the Celtics, who will have to trade assets to get Love, will go from being the #6 overall pick in the draft to an Eastern Conference Finals contender simply by trading for Kevin Love.
Q: Enough with the crappy East — let’s go back to the Spurs! What was the most underrated Spurs-related story line?
Second, you can’t sleep on how important it was that Duncan-Manu-Parker took less money to stay with the Spurs.
I think very, very few people have slept on how important it was that these three players took less money to stay with the Spurs. It's pretty much the reason the team was able to put a great team around these three players. I'm not sure who is sleeping on this. Probably "we" are.
But at the same time, they played for 25 to 30 percent less than their market value, which allowed San Antonio to re-sign Tiago Splitter and afford Boris Diaw, Marco Belinelli, Danny Green and Matt Bonner.
This has been covered repeatedly I think. The sacrifices those three players made allowed the Spurs to win the 2014 NBA title. I'm not sure why Bill would think anyone is sleeping on this being a Spurs storyline and it's not at all underrated.
Then Bill does real analysis (no sarcasm) about how the Spurs improved from 2013 and has an interesting point about the Mount Rushmore of NBA coaches. It gives me false hope that he can be salvaged as a writer.
Q: Has anyone in NBA history had a better career than Tim Duncan?
We’re not arguing “Best Player Ever” here, just start-to-finish careers. Think of it this way: You’re starting a team from scratch, you can grab any player from NBA history … and you can build around that one player for up to 20 years. If you pick Jordan, you’re getting 11 full Chicago seasons, two abbreviated Chicago seasons, a lost baseball season and those two Wiz seasons.
Fine, I choose Jon Koncak.
But if you want to succeed for two decades, you’d gravitate toward all-encompassing excellence, durability, longevity and the knowledge that, at some point, the winning pedigree of that player would win you a few titles. (Sorry, Reggie Miller, John Stockton and Karl Malone … you just got crossed off.)
If you notice, Bill essentially setting this up to where a certain player would be the obvious answer. I'm not going to argue against Duncan's career, or "the Duncan Show" as Bill put it in a two-part column over a year ago, but the criteria is essentially being set up to where this certain player is the answer. Bill is rigging it. Why have a player for 20 years? Why not 15 years? Well, then Jordan/Bryant become a guy to consider. Why include winning pedigree? Because that takes Malone and Stockton, both players who performed well over a long period, out of the running. He's rigging it with criteria that takes out certain players who would otherwise be viable candidates.
Duncan’s résumé: 17 seasons; 5-1 in the Finals; won titles 15 years apart; 14 All-Star Games; back-to-back MVPs; three Finals MVPs; Rookie of the Year; 10 first-team All-NBAs; three second-team All-NBAs; never had a winning percentage below .600; never missed the playoffs; 19.9 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 2.2 BPG, 50.6% FG, 24.6 PER, 191.6 WS (reg. season); 21.3 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 2.3 BPG, 50% FG, 24.6 PER, 36.2 WS (playoffs). The best player of the post-MJ generation — it’s true.
The résumé of The Guy You Should Have Picked: 20 seasons (19 as an asset); 6-4 in the Finals; won titles 17 years apart; won two Finals MVPs (14 years apart); six MVPs; 19 All-Star Games (!!!!); 10 first-team All-NBAs; five second-team All-NBAs; 16 seasons with a winning percentage over .600; missed the playoffs twice; leads the NBA in minutes and points; 24.6 PPG, 11.2 RPG, 2.6 BPG, 55.9% FG, 24.6 PER, 273.4 WS (regular season); 24.3 PPG, 10.5 RPG, 2.4 BPG, 53.3% FG; 23.0 PER; 35.6 WS (playoffs).
That guy? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
While it is unusual for Bill to be kind to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, notice that he chooses criteria that perfectly matches up with Kareem's career. Where did the 20 year requirement come from? Oh yeah, that's how long Kareem played. The whole idea of a player having the best career would be better served if the time period required were shorter than 20 years since 99% of NBA players don't play in the league for 20 years.
Kareem remains our most underrated great player. Nobody had a better start-to-finish career. But if Duncan plays two or three more years, makes another Finals and reaches that 20-year mark? It might become an argument, right?
No, because Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant had great careers, but they just didn't play for the cherry-picked 20 seasons. Jordan's career isn't less than Abdul-Jabbar's career simply because Abdul-Jabbar played for so long. The same goes for Kobe Bryant. His career hasn't lasted 20 years, but he's been productive for 16 of his 18 seasons. It sort of ruins the point of the exercise in putting a time period on it when discussing a player's career, since each player's career lasts a different period of time.
Duncan’s most underrated “skill”? He’s one of the greatest and most unselfish teammates of all time. The Spurs realized early on that they could build a franchise around his personality, his competitiveness and his work ethic, so that’s exactly what San Antonio did.
Again, the fact Duncan is unselfish is not in any way underrated. It's defined his career essentially and has been widely mentioned and discussed. I can't fathom how Duncan's unselfishness could be considered underrated.
Everyone from Duncan’s generation was jealous of the players who got to play with Tim Duncan. It’s one of many reasons why he’s had the second-greatest career of all time.
And of course Bill can't simply appreciate Duncan's career, he has to create some sort of contrived way of appreciating Duncan's career in order to be the smartest guy in the room. It's like how Bill can't allow a reader in his mailbag to have a better idea than him. Bill won't allow anyone to appreciate Duncan without trying to find a new way to appreciate Duncan.
Leave it to the San Antonio Spurs. Just one day after celebrating one of the most emotional title clinchers in NBA history, the “Ozymandias” episode of the Duncan-Pop era was rendered irrelevant by America’s first World Cup game.
It's called the "24 hours news cycle" and it churns quickly when the hot sports takes run out.
Q: In recent sports history, how many redemption stories were better than that of the 2014 Spurs?
I wouldn't call it a "redemption story" necessarily. The Spurs were beaten by super-clutch Ray Allen last year, but they still had Game 7 they could win and failed to do so. The Spurs were beaten and didn't necessarily need redemption, but I guess it's more fun to create a narrative to go along with an NBA Finals rematch.
There are two kinds of sports redemption:
AND ONLY TWO KIND OF SPORTS REDEMPTION...unless Bill finds another version related to a Boston sports team and needs to create a third type of sports redemption.
The first is an individual battling back from a personal tragedy (think Michael Jordan after his father’s murder), major injury (think Derrick Rose next season)
I think Bill needs to look up the definition of "redemption." I don't think returning from an injury or coming back after two years of retirement really qualify as "redemption." Maybe it's just me.
the second is an entire team recovering from an unforgettably devastating defeat (the 2014 Spurs). Ideally, the team would want to avenge the defeat right away. If it’s against the same opponent, even better. If it’s done convincingly, with all demons being exorcised, even better. There’s no way to rank the redemptive power; you’re either in the group or you’re not.
These are the rules people. Bill doesn't make the rules, well, he does make them. There's also nothing he can do about them. Well, actually he will probably eventually contradict or change these rules. Either way, for right now, these are the rules on how a team can be redeemed.
From the past 40 years, here’s the group that San Antonio joined:
You may not believe this, but three Boston teams will be mentioned in this section. I know, it's shocking that Bill would make rules and then use his favorite sports teams as examples of these rules.
the ’85 Lakers (avenged their ’84 Finals collapse in Boston); Sugar Ray Leonard (avenged his Roberto Duran loss with the “No Más” fight); the ’89 Athletics (won the World Series one year after being haunted by the Gibson homer); the ’89 Pistons (swept the Lakers after getting bounced in back-to-back years by Boston and L.A. in the most excruciating ways possible); and, of course, the 2004 Red Sox (lost on 2003’s Boone homer, rallied from 3-0 down to beat the ’04 Yankees, then won their first World Series in 86 years).
Every column Bill ever writes will at some point call back to the 2004 Boston Red Sox. It's the opposite of the gift that keeps on giving. If we want to talk about lingering, this Boston team is the fart in Bill's column that will always linger. It doesn't go away.
What's interesting (not really) is Bill leaves out quite a few teams on this list (1991 Bulls, 2007 Giants who came so close to ruining the Patriots perfect streak during Week 17 only to ruin it during the Super Bowl, and I can mention others) and now the Heat theoretically could be looking for redemption next year in the NBA Finals. After all, they want to redeem themselves for failing to win three NBA titles in a row, right?
The best thing about a redemption title: That “unforgettably devastating” defeat becomes forgettable pretty fast. Boston fans stopped thinking about Boone’s homer a little before midnight on October 27, 2004.
Still lingering and always will be. Sometimes I think Bill writes columns specifically to mention the 2004 World Series title.
Anyway, I have been in the house in 1984, 1985, 1986, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 when an NBA team won a championship; Sunday night was the most emotional scene I can remember.
Little brag going on in that sentence under the guise of providing information (which is actually an opinion) that proves the point Bill wants to prove. Bill has been in the house for eight NBA title clinching games and that was the most emotional scene he can remember, so that proves Bill's point that Game 5 was the most emotionally satisfying win for Spurs fans. Also, Bill has seen eight teams clinch an NBA title. This is important to know.
Q: Magic Johnson, Tim Duncan … Kawhi Leonard??? Wait … what??? How good can this guy be?
In the last three games of the 2014 NBA Finals, Kawhi went head-to-head against the world’s best basketball player AND OUTFREAKINGPLAYED HIM. He even earned a nickname that hasn’t caught on yet: “Kingslayer.”
Small sample size alert. Leonard is developing into a great player, but let's pump the brakes on him a little bit. But good news, this is exactly what Bill will say and use the fact we should pump the brakes on Leonard backed by...Bill's own past opinion on a player who didn't end up being a great NBA player.
So, long-term, what are we looking at? Before you play the Pippen 2.0 card, please read the following paragraph about Mystery Player X from one of my 2007 columns …
Great player. The closest thing to Scottie
Pippen since Pippen, although he’s not the dunker or the destructive
defensive presence that Pippen was. Still, we could be making room for
[Mystery Player X] in the Second Banana Hall of Fame some day along with
greats like Pippen, Johnny Marr, Kevin McHale, Ricardo Tubbs, Kevin
Johnson, Reed Rothchild, Shawn Kemp, Nate Dogg, Hank Kingsley, Young
Kobe, Old Shaq, Jeff Garlin, Andrew Toney, Beavis and everyone else.
See, "we" may be wrong about Kawhi Leonard because Bill Simmons (the shining example of what every sports fan thinks) was wrong about a player in the past who didn't turn out to be as great as Bill thought he would be.
Who was Mystery Player X? Josh Howard!!!
OH NO!!!
OH YES, BILL!!!!
If someone as smart as Bill Simmons could be wrong about a player's potential, then nobody is safe from incorrectly evaluating an NBA player's potential.
That might be the single worst paragraph in my entire ESPN.com archives.
It's not.
Could he climb to Pippen 2.0 heights? Like Pippen, he fell into the perfect situation, blessed with an all-time superstar teammate, a Hall of Fame coach, multiple leaders/mentors, successful teams and the luxury of asserting himself offensively on his own terms.
Pippen was drafted in 1987 and played for Doug Collins before playing for Phil Jackson. He didn't fall into playing for a Hall of Fame coach. The Bulls pre-Phil Jackson were a playoff team but nowhere near as successful as the Spurs teams were prior to Leonard playing for them. It's just not a very good comparison. Pippen wasn't even close to initially being in as good of a situation as Bill is painting him as being in.
Since Pippen was a 22-year-old rookie, Kawhi got a two-year career jump on him. But Pippen was Chicago’s backup playmaker, so he handled the ball way more than Leonard does (hence, more points and more assists).
Age 20: 8.6 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.6 apg, 50-45-81%, 1.6 stocks, 15.1 PER, 1.2 WS
Age 21: 13.5 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 1.0 apg, 55-39-63%, 2.3 stocks, 18.9 PER, 3.1 WS
Age 22: 14.2 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 1.6 apg, 51-42-74%, 2.4 stocks, 18.7 PER, 2.9 WS
And Pippen’s first four playoff years …
Age 22: 10.0 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 2.4 apg, 47-50-46%, 1.6 stocks, 10.0 PER, 0.1 WS
Age 23: 13.1 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 3.9 apg, 46-39-64%, 2.3 stocks, 14.4 PER, 1.3 WS
Age 24: 19.3 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 5.5 apg, 50-32-71%, 3.4 stocks, 18.7 PER, 1.9 WS
Age 25: 21.6 ppg, 8.9 rpg, 5.8 apg, 50-24-79%, 3.6 stocks, 22.0 PER, 2.9 WS
Because Pippen had a better all-around skill set in terms of handling the ball, that means Pippen has better statistics in terms of assists and points, and well, he was also a better rebounder than Leonard has been so far in his career.
It’s not that ludicrous to compare them.
No, it's not that ludicrous to compare them. It's premature and probably ludicrous, but not THAT ludicrous. Pippen was the better scorer, play maker, and rebounder, but otherwise Leonard and Pippen are pretty comparable to each other.
Over the next two years, as Duncan and Ginobili get phased out, Kawhi will assume a bigger offensive burden.
But can he handle the bigger burden? Leonard is the fourth offensive option (maybe even lower sometimes) for the Spurs. Pippen was the second option for the Bulls offense (by a longshot according to field goal attempts) from his 2nd season in the NBA on. Leonard has never been higher than 5th on the Spurs team in field goal attempts. So he's never been the focal point of the opposing team's defense and hasn't had to assume a bigger burden. It's fallacy to think he'll continue to thrive with more of an offensive burden.
Because I think Scottie would have defended LeBron just about exactly the same way. Regardless, that was awesome. A star was born. Let’s keep him away from Josh Howard, please.
Bill points out the mistake in assuming a Leonard will develop into a great second banana on a championship team, compares him favorably to Scottie Pippen, and then says a star was born. What could go wrong?
Q: Couldn’t you argue that LeBron should have won the Finals MVP, considering Miami would have gotten swept by 40 points per game if he hadn’t played?
A: Put it this way: When I was an unborn fetus during the 1969 Finals, I probably kicked my mom in the stomach when Jerry West won the Finals MVP. How valuable could you have been if your team lost? Absurd.
As a whole, this isn't absurd. This question is more often dealt with in MLB when it comes time to name the AL/NL MVP, but if a guy like LeBron drags a Heat team that Bill describes in this column as looking like the 2010 Cavs to the NBA Finals then that means he is pretty valuable, right? He's possibly the most valuable player in that if any one player was removed from the Spurs or Cavs his removal from the Heat would have most negatively affected his team. I'm just saying, there is a way for a player from the losing team to be the MVP and it's not absurd.
Q: What was San Antonio’s luckiest moment of the past 15 years not counting their three lottery wins?
A: Not trading Tony Parker during the summer of 2010 or 2011 when 90 percent of the league would have reacted to 2010’s Phoenix sweep and 2011’s ass-kicking from Memphis by saying, “Let’s cash in our best trade asset and reboot this thing ASAP.”
This wasn't luck, this was a smart personnel decision. There is a difference.
The lessons: Trust your infrastructure, trust continuity, don’t make big trades just to make big trades, and if that’s not enough, count on the fact that you’re the Spurs and you have a steady stream of horseshoes falling out of your ass.
This from a Celtics fan.
Q: Wait, the Spurs won three lotteries? Didn’t they win only two?
Technically, yes — they won in 1987 (Robinson) and 1997 (Duncan). But considering that George Hill morphed into a third guard during this year’s playoffs, I’m counting 2011’s Leonard-Hill trade as San Antonio’s third lottery win. Grantland’s Zach Lowe wrote wonderfully about that trade last year, but the odds of Leonard falling to no. 15 in 2011 — making that trade possible — had to be lower than San Antonio winning the 1987/1997 lotteries.
After Utah took Burks at no. 12, I wrote in my Draft Diary, “How has Kawhi Leonard not been taken yet? What am I missing?”
Of course while touting that he liked Leonard when he was drafted and traded to the Spurs, and he considers this to be the third lottery the Spurs won, Bill forgets this statement,
TRADE! Ric Bucher reports that San Antonio is sending George Hill to Indiana for the rights to Kawhi Leonard. Like it for both teams.
So while talking about how badly the Spurs robbed the Pacers in the Hill-Leonard trade (based entirely on this year's playoffs by the way), Bill brings out an old quote from his draft diary showing that Leonard should not have lasted until the 15th pick. In that same draft diary Bill states he likes the trade for both teams. Funny how he leaves out "what he knew" at the time and fails to mention how "what he knew" at the time doesn't jive with his current opinion. Interesting how that works.
To recap: The Spurs needed Michael Jordan, Dork Elvis AND the Basketball Jesus to blow the Kawhi thing, along with everything else that happened. They NEVER should have gotten Kawhi. That’s Lottery Win No. 3.
Right, but I don't know if this was luck because the Spurs had to have the foresight to trade up for Leonard. It's not like the Spurs just sat there and took Leonard, they traded a proven NBA player to move up and acquire Leonard's rights. Maybe they were lucky Leonard was there, but they made a smart move to get Leonard when he was available. I don't know if I would call this luck. If so, the Celtics were lucky they landed Rondo and Pierce, which is something I know Bill would never consider to be true.
Also, when did Daryl Morey become a drafting genius? I must have been absent that day.
Q: Will we always remember the Cramp Game, or will that just fade away over time?
The Finals result was so decisive — and LeBron’s overall workload so ridiculously daunting — that I can’t imagine anyone holding those Game 1 cramps against him long-term. (Well, unless they’ve never played sports.)
Um, Skip Bayless.
Not to sound like Clint Eastwood sitting on the porch in Gran Torino, but I attended 40 or 50 Boston Garden games that were hotter than Game 1. The Garden wasn’t air-conditioned and they didn’t have suites, so everyone was packed into that place like 300 college kids cramming into someone’s apartment at a keg party. That’s how Game 5 of the 1984 Finals — a.k.a. the Heat Game, when it was 96 degrees outside and 296 degrees inside — became one of the defining Bird games. Fans were fainting in the stands. The Lakers were sucking from oxygen masks on their bench. We were deliriously hot during that game; we felt like cars overheating.
OUR ARENA IS LESS AIR CONDITIONED AND MORE STIFLING THAN YOUR ARENA!
Yes, we have reached the point where Bill has to point out his favorite NBA team's arena was less air conditioned than another NBA team's arena.
But it actually added to the atmosphere — we felt like we were playing, too — and that’s what happened, to a lesser degree, during Game 1. San Antonio’s fans were going bonkers down the stretch, they loved the conditions and REALLY loved that LeBron couldn’t handle them (even if it wasn’t his fault).
I will also never forget doing the postgame show and SportsCenter segments for an hour after the game, with the humidity from open doors combining with TV lights to make us feel like we were wearing fire-retardant suits. Ever been a groomsman wearing a tuxedo in an oppressively hot church, when the sweat starts soaking through and you start feeling like you just swam in your clothes? That’s what it felt like. Bizarre night.)
These stories from the NBA Countdown set never don't get old. Bill is very, very proud of himself for being on NBA Countdown and I am sure there is a subset of the population (Simmons fanatics) who love these stories because they love Bill, but don't count me in that group. It all sounds like he's bragging and very impressed with himself to me.
I watched every Finals game in San Antonio with Doug Collins from our set behind one of the baskets.
Oh, more stories from the NBA Countdown set. Stories from NBA Countdown are starting to rival YouTube videos and bad pop culture jokes as space fillers in Bill's columns.
And as we became buddies over the last eight months, I realized that Doug had something of a hierarchy of praise that went like this.
Level 1: “Coach, that guy is tough.”
Level 2: “Coach, that guy is a BITCH.”
Level 3: “Coach, that guy is a [12-letter word].”
I'm riveted to my computer screen right now. Is it possible to be riveted to your computer screen? If so, I am. Where will Doug Collins place Kawhi Leonard on this hierarchy of praise? I MUST KNOW AND THE ANSWER ISN'T CLEAR TO ME AT ALL, SO KEEP DRAGGING THIS STORY OUT, BILL!
Level 3 didn’t happen that often (and never in mixed company). And if it happened, he’d usually nudge me and whisper, “Coach, coach, that guy is a [12-letter word].” There was no higher praise from him. During Game 5, Doug blessed Kawhi with Level 1 and Level 2, then something else happened (I think it was one of those big Kawhi 3s) and Doug briefly lost his mind, pounding my arm, breaking Level 3 code and yelping, “Coach, that guy is a [12-letter word]! He is a [TWELVE-LETTER WORD]!!!!!!” That’s right, Kawhi Leonard single-handedly created Level 4 on the Coach Collins Hierarchy of Praise.
Oh my, what an epic turn of events! This story was completely relevant to the column and didn't feel forced at all. I was very, very interested in the hierarchy of praise that Doug Collins has. My only regret is this story is now over, but I'm sure Bill will kill space with more stories from the NBA Countdown set. Maybe he will get to the one where Sage Steele gets fired because she calls Bill a whiny asshole for complaining he went 10 whole minutes without being able to talk. That's a story I would like to hear.
Q: Can you give me three reasons why Miami lost the title other than “San Antonio was better”?
Reason 1: The decrepit East fooled the Heat into thinking they were better than they were — hence last summer’s risky Beasley-Oden dice rolls over targeting more reliable role players,
Shaun Livingston, Jodie Meeks, D.J. Augustin, Alan Anderson and Anthony Tolliver were out there.
This is complete hindsight. Augustin wasn't considered a valuable guy, Livingston had never played 76 games in a season during his career where he had played for eight different teams. Bill has to be better than this. Oden-Beasley were a roll of the dice, but he's being disingenuous to use hindsight in order to criticize the Heat for not signing these other players.
Reason 2: They spent the season resting Wade and keeping him from playing back-to-backs, foolishly putting an even bigger burden on LeBron (a far more important player for them). Not only did that gamble NOT pay off — get ready for the eBay listing “GAME-USED FORK FROM DWYANE WADE’S BACK: 2014 FINALS” — but that unneeded LeBron mileage backfired on Miami in the Finals. He wore down and actually seemed human a few times.
Considering the Spurs also used the strategy of resting their older starters, Bill can see why this tactic would be attractive for the Heat though, right? It seems like it makes sense to rest Wade when possible.
Reason 3: Playing in four straight Finals is the NBA’s version of running a marathon, doing a triathlon, scaling a 15,000-foot mountain and finishing a Tough Mudder in back-to-back months. (You can do it; you’d just be a lunatic.) Wade, Bosh and James played five seasons in four when you incorporate those 87 playoff games; combined, they played over 10,000 more minutes than Duncan, Parker and Ginobili since 2010-11.
This is a boring reason based on facts. That can't be the real reason the Heat lost the title. Give me something more intangible and bullshit-based, Bill.
And it’s not just the physical toll — many times in the playoffs, they looked like they didn’t have much fun playing together. On Monday, Chris Bosh confirmed as much, telling an AP writer, “I don’t think anybody really enjoyed this season like in years past. There was no, like, genuine joy all the time. It seemed like work. It was a job the whole year.”
See, Bill had this prior thought WAY BEFORE Bosh said the Heat team wasn't having fun on the court together. See, Bill knew the Heat weren't having fun together, but he just forgot to mention it because that bitch Sage Steele didn't give him a forum to speak his views on the subject. But Bosh's quote pretty much just confirmed what Bill already knew and he isn't at all piggy-backing off Bosh's quote and pretending he thought this was true prior to Bosh's quote. Not. At. All.
If you remember, that kind of happened to them last season, too … and then they ripped off that 27-game win streak and regained their collective mojo.
So the point is the Heat are talented and don't have to enjoy playing with each other? Or is the point the Heat can go on a run and "regain their mojo" anytime they want? Either way, this reasoning is simply hindsight based on the outcome of the NBA Finals.
Q: Which obscure movie quote captures what happened to Miami those last three Finals games?
We have to go back to 1989 for Young Flanagan in Cocktail saying, “Everything always ends badly; otherwise it wouldn’t end.” Just ask the 2004 Lakers (three straight losses), 1991 Lakers (three straight losses), 1991 Pistons (sweep), 2011 Lakers (sweep) and 1996 Rockets (sweep) — all of their “runs” ended ignominiously, only we were saying to the bitter end, They’ll be fine; they won’t go out this way. And they usually do. One of MJ’s greatest moves may have been not returning to the ’99 Bulls. It would have happened to him too.
Michael Jordan and the Bulls just lost the 1999 NBA Finals that occurred solely in Bill Simmons' head. I also like how "we" were saying "They won't go out this way." This is another example of "we" being wrong because "we" share Bill Simmons' thoughts and he has personally never been wrong, so "we" have to be wrong as a collective group.
In his place, we can unretire all Dwyane Wade fat-guy jokes. Once upon a time, we wondered if he’d become the next Michael Jordan — in 2014, it’s actually happening.
Yes, "we" wondered if Wade would be the next Jordan. Not Bill, but "we" were wrong. I hate it when my thoughts I didn't know I had were wrong.
Q: Gut feeling — have we seen the best of Chris Bosh?
Almost definitely. For one thing, he suddenly has 11 years, 796 regular-season games, 89 playoff games and nearly 32,000 career minutes on his NBA odometer. But once the minutes, rebounds and free throw attempts start slipping, that’s the beginning of the end for elite big guys —
I'll be sure to remember this next year when Bosh is the second or third-best player on an NBA title winning team. Bosh may be done, but counting the Heat out after a loss in the NBA Finals seems very reactionary to me.
Q: Gut feeling — is it over for Dwyane Wade?
He's 32 years old with a lot of wear and tear on his body. I mean, this isn't exactly a bold statement. Still, it seems very reactionary for Bill to start counting the Heat out for next year. It seems like something he would regret and then make an excuse for why "we" were wrong about the Heat.
Everything bottomed out during those last two Finals games — the nadir of Wade’s career, no question — when Wade got swallowed up in the paint over and over again, couldn’t finish plays, kept turning the ball over, couldn’t defend anyone and jogged around on defense with his spirit broken. I don’t meant to sound harsh; this was genuinely disheartening to watch.
Bill watched Wade jog around on defense from the makeshift television in the NBA Countdown so you know he had a better view than anyone else did. The makeshift television doesn't lie.
But his body is breaking down — it’s undeniable now — and the history of terrific 2-guards once they pass that his-body-looks-like-it’s-breaking-down point couldn’t be more bleak. (T-Mac? Richmond? Drexler? Sprewell?)
To be fair, the history of athletes once they pass the point of where it looks like their body is breaking down isn't good. So it's not just 2-guards this affects. Once an athlete looks like his body is breaking down on him, there's a bad history of this simply being true.
Could he reinvent himself Manu-style as a scorer/creator off the bench? Maybe. Just know that this happens to every great player — all of them, without exception — and we never accept that it’s happening until it’s way too late.
"WE" never accept this happens to every great player until it is too late. :WE" never do. I hate it when we as a collective group are wrong because Bill is wrong. But hey, when "we" are wrong "we" are wrong.
I don't mind the use of "we" as it pertains to a group of people, but the way that Bill uses it, to put thoughts into the mind of a large group of people, is just a way to shield himself from being wrong. It's perfectly fine to say, "we" in terms of referring to a large group of people or even"we" in terms of a group whose thoughts you know to be true. Bill just uses the term in assuming everyone else has the same thoughts he has when these thoughts just happen to be wrong.
Q: OK, so if you were LeBron, what would you do this summer?
(LeBron opted out of his contract with the Heat as I copied and pasted the sentence above)
We also don’t know how many skeletons are buried out there — for instance, if Wade and LeBron made a pact during the 2008 Olympics to play together, then spent the next two to three years colluding on their 2010 destination, then got Riley involved at some point during the 2009-10 season, AND MULTIPLE PEOPLE KNEW THIS WHOLE STORY, I think it would be risky for LeBron to walk away (and have that stuff belatedly come out).
Maybe I'm underplaying this story a bit, but I don't know if this is a huge revelation. I've pretty much assumed those three decided in 2008 they would be on the same team once they became free agents, if possible, and then once it became possible they followed through on the deal.
Who would tell this story though, assuming it would be salacious? Not Pat Riley and not anyone in the Heat organization who cares to have a career after the story gets told. Not LeBron, not Wade, not Bosh, and not anyone who wants to deal with the best NBA player on the planet holding a grudge against him/her. I've always assumed they colluded and as much as it sucks as a fan of the Raptors/Cavs, there's not much to be done. It's not like Bosh/James did anything wrong to become free agents.
So here’s where LeBron and agent Rich Paul have to throw their weight around — they have to convince everyone involved (not just Wade and Bosh, but Miami’s owners, too) to restructure those deals. Let’s say Wade and Bosh opt out of their 2014-15 deals, then sign for $58 million apiece over the next four seasons. And let’s say the numbers look like this: $12.5 million (next year), $13.5 million, $15 million, and then $17 million apiece for the 2017-18 season (when the salary cap will be $20 million to $25 million higher, anyway). So Bosh and Wade get slightly more than $15 million guaranteed beyond what they’re already owed.
Now I'm confused. Bill Simmons, who just stated we had seen the best of Chris Bosh and states he would not pay $20 million per year for Bosh, thinks the Heat should give Bosh $15 million MORE guaranteed, including $17 million in the last year of a contract? So Bill wouldn't pay Chris Bosh $20 million per year, but he would give him $15 million more guaranteed, including $17 million in the last year of the contract. I want Bill to be an NBA GM. I need to see him make moves like this.
Also, Bill has just stated that Wade is pretty much done and went to great lengths to point out just how done Wade is. Why would the Heat extend Wade's contract and give him more money guaranteed? Why does Bill think this is a good idea? If Wade is done, is giving him more money guaranteed, including $32 million as a 35-36 year old a great move? This has to be a joke.
And let’s say LeBron exercises his 2014-15 player option for $20.6 million. Throw in Norris Cole’s salary ($2 million), convince Udonis Haslem to retire (and just overpay him as a Heat employee and the newest member of the Miami Mafia), and suddenly you have nearly $20 million to spend on one more big gun (Carmelo). Or, you could go a different way and pursue one or two elite free agents (Kyle Lowry, Pau Gasol, Luol Deng, Marcin Gortat, even Lance Stephenson), combined with a couple of veterans (Paul Pierce, Trevor Ariza, Spencer Hawes, Vince Carter) and maybe one role player (Shaun Livingston, Josh McRoberts, Greivis Vasquez).
This is a typical Bill Simmons idea. He's losing the forest for the trees. Yes, the $20 million can go a long way and I think he has some good ideas, but he also just signed two players that he admits are clearly on the decline to longer contracts worth more guaranteed money. Sure, the cap will be higher (which is being assumed), but the Heat would still be spending $64 million over two years on two players who are on the decline. It's not a smart long-term move.
Q: If LeBron does leave Miami, where would he go?
Door No. 2 (+400 odds): He goes back to Cleveland and convinces Carmelo to come with him. Do NOT rule this out. Especially if Cleveland hires a coach who LeBron likes. The Cavs are loaded with young assets and could create whatever team LeBron wanted.
It would be fun if LeBron came back to the Cavs. The problem is those hurt feelings from four years ago, plus LeBron is 29 years old. He wants to win now. Do the Cavs have a team that can win titles now with LeBron on the team? I think that's debatable.
Door No. 3 (+500 odds): LeBron rolls with Doc and CP3 in Los Angeles — something that would only require the Clippers to trade DeAndre Jordan’s expiring deal, Matt Barnes’s expiring deal and Jamal Crawford’s deal (expires in 2016) to different teams with cap space (super-easy), then use last year’s first round pick (Reggie Bullock) and/or a future first rounder, along with $3 million of Steve Ballmer’s money (chump change!), to dump Jared Dudley (two years, $8.5 million remaining) on someone with cap space (also doable). Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and J.J. Redick will make about $48 million combined next season — if the Clips cleared everyone else (again, VERY doable), they could offer LeBron a deal starting at about $15 million. And he’d get to reinvent himself in Los Angeles, with a coach he loves, a superstar he respects and a billionaire owner who’s ready to splurge on a great team.
I feel the need to mention that Bill harped on and on about how the Clippers needed to sign another big man at the trade deadline this year and he now thinks it is a good idea for the Clippers to trade their best center and essentially have a whole at that spot. It's not a bad idea, but I feel like I need to mention this. It would be fun to watch, that's for sure.
And don’t think the Clips aren’t pursuing it, because they are.
Wait, so you mean an NBA is actively pursuing options to get the best player in the NBA to play for that team? No way.
He’d look like a sellout for going to Houston. Phoenix is never happening. And going back to the Midwest but picking Chicago over Cleveland? Come on.
Right, because LeBron has always worried about looking like a sellout. His move to Miami which netted him two NBA titles made him look like a sellout and it didn't seem to bother him one bit.
Q: Do you really think Carmelo Anthony could save Miami?
No. Serge Ibaka could save Miami. Marc Gasol could save Miami. Joel Embiid four years from now could save Miami. The Heat didn’t lose the 2014 Finals because of their offense; they lost because their supporting cast sucked, they couldn’t defend anyone, and Wade and Bosh aren’t the same guys anymore.
Again, I come back to the question of why the Heat would pay the two guys who aren't the same guys anymore $15 million more guaranteed than they already have to? It's not a smart long-term move and I'm not sure it's a smart short-term move either.
Q: After watching Miami get rolled over in the Finals, how many Eastern Conference teams are saying to themselves right now, We can make the Finals next year!!! No, really, who’s stopping us????
I’m counting eight: Chicago (easily the best bet because of the Noah-Gibson-Carmelo-Butler-Rose potential), Indiana (can it flip Hibbert into a different asset?), Washington (hey, Wiz fans, you ready to wildly overpay Ariza and Gortat???), Charlotte (don’t forget, it has cap space and the no. 9 overall pick), Toronto (one more elite player away from being interesting), Brooklyn (if Brook Lopez can come back and Deron Williams miraculously turns into a franchise point guard again), Cleveland (loaded with tradable assets if it wants to go that way), and Boston (if it gets Kevin Love).
I don't get why the Celtics will become an Eastern Conference Finals contender if they land Kevin Love. He's great, but he's also only one player and the Celtics would have to add more guys than just Love to suddenly vault them into contention for the Eastern Conference Finals. They were the team with the #6 overall pick for a reason.
(Note to any Knicks fan: Please, for your own sanity, stop typing the “What about us?” email, delete it, and stare at your computer screen in silence for a few seconds until you crash back to reality. Thanks.)
With Carmelo opting out of his contract with the Knicks it does open up cap room for them and playing anywhere near Phil Jackson has worked out for superstars in the past. What am I thinking? Of course the Celtics, who will have to trade assets to get Love, will go from being the #6 overall pick in the draft to an Eastern Conference Finals contender simply by trading for Kevin Love.
Q: Enough with the crappy East — let’s go back to the Spurs! What was the most underrated Spurs-related story line?
Second, you can’t sleep on how important it was that Duncan-Manu-Parker took less money to stay with the Spurs.
I think very, very few people have slept on how important it was that these three players took less money to stay with the Spurs. It's pretty much the reason the team was able to put a great team around these three players. I'm not sure who is sleeping on this. Probably "we" are.
But at the same time, they played for 25 to 30 percent less than their market value, which allowed San Antonio to re-sign Tiago Splitter and afford Boris Diaw, Marco Belinelli, Danny Green and Matt Bonner.
This has been covered repeatedly I think. The sacrifices those three players made allowed the Spurs to win the 2014 NBA title. I'm not sure why Bill would think anyone is sleeping on this being a Spurs storyline and it's not at all underrated.
Then Bill does real analysis (no sarcasm) about how the Spurs improved from 2013 and has an interesting point about the Mount Rushmore of NBA coaches. It gives me false hope that he can be salvaged as a writer.
Q: Has anyone in NBA history had a better career than Tim Duncan?
We’re not arguing “Best Player Ever” here, just start-to-finish careers. Think of it this way: You’re starting a team from scratch, you can grab any player from NBA history … and you can build around that one player for up to 20 years. If you pick Jordan, you’re getting 11 full Chicago seasons, two abbreviated Chicago seasons, a lost baseball season and those two Wiz seasons.
Fine, I choose Jon Koncak.
But if you want to succeed for two decades, you’d gravitate toward all-encompassing excellence, durability, longevity and the knowledge that, at some point, the winning pedigree of that player would win you a few titles. (Sorry, Reggie Miller, John Stockton and Karl Malone … you just got crossed off.)
If you notice, Bill essentially setting this up to where a certain player would be the obvious answer. I'm not going to argue against Duncan's career, or "the Duncan Show" as Bill put it in a two-part column over a year ago, but the criteria is essentially being set up to where this certain player is the answer. Bill is rigging it. Why have a player for 20 years? Why not 15 years? Well, then Jordan/Bryant become a guy to consider. Why include winning pedigree? Because that takes Malone and Stockton, both players who performed well over a long period, out of the running. He's rigging it with criteria that takes out certain players who would otherwise be viable candidates.
Duncan’s résumé: 17 seasons; 5-1 in the Finals; won titles 15 years apart; 14 All-Star Games; back-to-back MVPs; three Finals MVPs; Rookie of the Year; 10 first-team All-NBAs; three second-team All-NBAs; never had a winning percentage below .600; never missed the playoffs; 19.9 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 2.2 BPG, 50.6% FG, 24.6 PER, 191.6 WS (reg. season); 21.3 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 2.3 BPG, 50% FG, 24.6 PER, 36.2 WS (playoffs). The best player of the post-MJ generation — it’s true.
The résumé of The Guy You Should Have Picked: 20 seasons (19 as an asset); 6-4 in the Finals; won titles 17 years apart; won two Finals MVPs (14 years apart); six MVPs; 19 All-Star Games (!!!!); 10 first-team All-NBAs; five second-team All-NBAs; 16 seasons with a winning percentage over .600; missed the playoffs twice; leads the NBA in minutes and points; 24.6 PPG, 11.2 RPG, 2.6 BPG, 55.9% FG, 24.6 PER, 273.4 WS (regular season); 24.3 PPG, 10.5 RPG, 2.4 BPG, 53.3% FG; 23.0 PER; 35.6 WS (playoffs).
That guy? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
While it is unusual for Bill to be kind to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, notice that he chooses criteria that perfectly matches up with Kareem's career. Where did the 20 year requirement come from? Oh yeah, that's how long Kareem played. The whole idea of a player having the best career would be better served if the time period required were shorter than 20 years since 99% of NBA players don't play in the league for 20 years.
Kareem remains our most underrated great player. Nobody had a better start-to-finish career. But if Duncan plays two or three more years, makes another Finals and reaches that 20-year mark? It might become an argument, right?
No, because Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant had great careers, but they just didn't play for the cherry-picked 20 seasons. Jordan's career isn't less than Abdul-Jabbar's career simply because Abdul-Jabbar played for so long. The same goes for Kobe Bryant. His career hasn't lasted 20 years, but he's been productive for 16 of his 18 seasons. It sort of ruins the point of the exercise in putting a time period on it when discussing a player's career, since each player's career lasts a different period of time.
Duncan’s most underrated “skill”? He’s one of the greatest and most unselfish teammates of all time. The Spurs realized early on that they could build a franchise around his personality, his competitiveness and his work ethic, so that’s exactly what San Antonio did.
Again, the fact Duncan is unselfish is not in any way underrated. It's defined his career essentially and has been widely mentioned and discussed. I can't fathom how Duncan's unselfishness could be considered underrated.
Everyone from Duncan’s generation was jealous of the players who got to play with Tim Duncan. It’s one of many reasons why he’s had the second-greatest career of all time.
And of course Bill can't simply appreciate Duncan's career, he has to create some sort of contrived way of appreciating Duncan's career in order to be the smartest guy in the room. It's like how Bill can't allow a reader in his mailbag to have a better idea than him. Bill won't allow anyone to appreciate Duncan without trying to find a new way to appreciate Duncan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)