(If you haven’t read the apologia already, you may want to start here. Trust me, everything will make more sense.)
Chapter II: Russell, then Wilt
pgs. 57-83
Is Russell-Wilt in fact the “greatest debate in NBA history”?
Simmons seems to think so; I don’t really care. It’s just not that important to me. I respect and admire their bodies of work but I missed both of these guys, as did Simmons, which I think is part of my beef with this chapter. Simmons is at his best when he’s narrating stories starring himself, his second best when he’s telling stories starring others but featuring him, his third best when he’s telling stories about stuff he witnessed with his own eyes and at his fourth best (notice, I didn’t say worst, key distinction) when he’s telling stories about stuff he wasn’t a part of and didn’t witness but feels compelled to speculate about. I’m least interested in Simmons the polemicist because he’s forced to rely on statistics (which he feels ambivalent about) to make his points. He’s like a post-injury Gilbert Arenas in this way. He’s still effective, but without his full arsenal of explosive finishes around the rim he’s not as intimidating, exciting or effective.
“Hidden fact from the Russell era: KC Jones was abominable offensively. Playing 30 to 32 minutes a game post-Cousy, KC averaged 7.8 points and 5.3 assists, shot 39% from the field, and didn’t have to be guarded from 15 feet.” (63)
“Of the great guards who peaked in the ’50s, Cousy was a 37.5% shooterl Sharman, 42.6%; Slater Martin 36%; Bob Davies, 37%; Guy Rodgers, 38%; Richie Guerin, 42% and Dick McGuire, 39%.” (70)
These two quotes underscore my beef with this entire chapter. It’s so carefully and painstakingly constructed to champion Russell that it’s careless about its use of stats to support its thesis. The first quote is supposed to show us how bad Russell’s supporting cast was in 1964; the second is supposed to illustrate how bad shooting was in the NBA in general during that era. But if shooting was generally bad (and in fact, Cousy was the lousiest of them all), how can it also be a basis for singling out KC Jones as a weak Russell sidekick? Put differently, if KC was no worse a shooter than any other guard of the era, then using his field goal percentage to bolster Russell only shows us one thing: the lengths Simmons’s will go to prop up Bill Russell.
Something I noticed while reading this chapter: practically everyone who played in this era was an All-Star, All-NBA, is in the Hall of Fame or all three. We’re talking about a league with nine teams. Really, how competitive was the NBA as a whole back then? The questions I found myself asking were, “How good were any of these guys? How many of them would have been playing if there wasn’t a cap on the number of black players in the league?”
Speaking of the Hall of Fame. I’ve been meaning to voice my thoughts about the proposed idea of opening up the HOF voting process to fans and sports writers. Bad idea unless fans and sports writers alike are pre-screened for actual basketball IQ. Look at the mess fans make of the All-Star team.I’m as big an Allen Iverson fan as there is but he has no business starting the All-Star game.
“So why doesn’t Russell get credit for his passing?” (66)
There were certain points in this chapter when I wondered if Simmons wasn’t a little paranoid. This is one of them. I genuinely wasn’t aware that Russell didn’t get credit for his passing.
“Wilt cared about statistics more than winning.” (71)
Notice how this sentence phrased. Notice that it doesn’t say Wilt didn’t care about winning, just that he cared more about statistics. I’m not going to even attempt to argue with Simmons about this. What I will suggest is that Wilt needed other motivations. Winning is the highest standard of excellence in a team sport but I think Wilt was so dominant that he needed other motivations to stay interested in the game, especially when he played the same eight teams night and night out. Maybe if we’re going to blame Wilt for anything it’s that he suffered from ADD (in which case, of course, “blaming” him would be cruel).
Interesting (in my opinion) stats observation: Simmons has a deeply conflicted relationship with stats. He’s not averse to using them but he is hyper-aware of relying on them because of how they can skew perception. The thing is, this entire chapter is based in statistics, which makes the whole enterprise clumsy at times. On one hand he’s trashes Wilt for obsessing over his stats but on the other he obsessive trashes Wilt with stats. (Note: If Simmons played in the NBA he’d be the guy who stands at the three-point line and takes off down the court as soon as a shot goes up. Ballers call those guys cherry pickers or Jason Kapono, i.e. Simmon’s 6’8” doppelganger.)
The Gay Wilt innuendo:
They’re scattered all over the chapter. Simmons will never come out and suggest it because he has more sense and some tact, but the suggestion the Wilt might’ve been gay (he was lifetime bachelor who loved clothes and cats, Simmons tells us) seems loaded. I’m not suggesting that Simmons would have had a problem with Wilt being gay (I think he’d just find it funny) just that his unusual preoccupation with Wilt’s sexuality is…unusual. That’s all. I’ll leave it at that.
The Myth-list format:
Note to self: If you’re going to debunk myths, you should at least cite the source of those myths. Otherwise they just look like ideas you’ve come up with so you can spend 30 pages debunking them.
Wilt’s Carcass
The chapter closes with a long and revealing quote from Wilt’s autobiography in which he declares basketball “a game, not a life or death struggle” and distinguishes himself from Russell (“I don’t need scoring titles or NBA championships to prove that I’m a man.). In fact, it’s a beautifully rendered piece of writing, only Simmons can’t allow himself to see anything that Wilt said or did clearly. Instead Simmons suddenly morphs back into kid in the Garden who believed Larry Bird could walk on water. His final Bravheart tirade against Wilt’s bloodied pulp is so relentless that by the time I read the chapter’s last words I wanted to grab him by the shoulder and tell him to put down the ax. In my opinion, this whole thing could have been excised without compromising the book in the least. On the flip side, you gotta appreciate a 40 year-old who shamelessly goes to bat for his childhood idol. That’s love. That’s loyalty.
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
(If you haven’t read the apologia already, you may want to start here. Trust me, everything will make more sense.)
Chapter II: Russell, then Wilt
pgs. 57-83
Is Russell-Wilt in fact the “greatest debate in NBA history”?
Simmons seems to think so; I don’t really care. It’s just not that important to me. I respect and admire their bodies of work but I missed both of these guys, as did Simmons, which I think is part of my beef with this chapter. Simmons is at his best when he’s narrating stories starring himself, his second best when he’s telling stories starring others but featuring him, his third best when he’s telling stories about stuff he witnessed with his own eyes and at his fourth best (notice, I didn’t say worst, key distinction) when he’s telling stories about stuff he wasn’t a part of and didn’t witness but feels compelled to speculate about. I’m least interested in Simmons the polemicist because he’s forced to rely on statistics (which he feels ambivalent about) to make his points. He’s like a post-injury Gilbert Arenas in this way. He’s still effective, but without his full arsenal of explosive finishes around the rim he’s not as intimidating, exciting or effective.
“Hidden fact from the Russell era: KC Jones was abominable offensively. Playing 30 to 32 minutes a game post-Cousy, KC averaged 7.8 points and 5.3 assists, shot 39% from the field, and didn’t have to be guarded from 15 feet.” (63)
“Of the great guards who peaked in the ’50s, Cousy was a 37.5% shooterl Sharman, 42.6%; Slater Martin 36%; Bob Davies, 37%; Guy Rodgers, 38%; Richie Guerin, 42% and Dick McGuire, 39%.” (70)
These two quotes underscore my beef with this entire chapter. It’s so carefully and painstakingly constructed to champion Russell that it’s careless about its use of stats to support its thesis. The first quote is supposed to show us how bad Russell’s supporting cast was in 1964; the second is supposed to illustrate how bad shooting was in the NBA in general during that era. But if shooting was generally bad (and in fact, Cousy was the lousiest of them all), how can it also be a basis for singling out KC Jones as a weak Russell sidekick? Put differently, if KC was no worse a shooter than any other guard of the era, then using his field goal percentage to bolster Russell only shows us one thing: the lengths Simmons’s will go to prop up Bill Russell.
Something I noticed while reading this chapter: practically everyone who played in this era was an All-Star, All-NBA, is in the Hall of Fame or all three. We’re talking about a league with nine teams. Really, how competitive was the NBA as a whole back then? The questions I found myself asking were, “How good were any of these guys? How many of them would have been playing if there wasn’t a cap on the number of black players in the league?”
Speaking of the Hall of Fame. I’ve been meaning to voice my thoughts about the proposed idea of opening up the HOF voting process to fans and sports writers. Bad idea unless fans and sports writers alike are pre-screened for actual basketball IQ. Look at the mess fans make of the All-Star team.I’m as big an Allen Iverson fan as there is but he has no business starting the All-Star game.
“So why doesn’t Russell get credit for his passing?” (66)
There were certain points in this chapter when I wondered if Simmons wasn’t a little paranoid. This is one of them. I genuinely wasn’t aware that Russell didn’t get credit for his passing.
“Wilt cared about statistics more than winning.” (71)
Notice how this sentence phrased. Notice that it doesn’t say Wilt didn’t care about winning, just that he cared more about statistics. I’m not going to even attempt to argue with Simmons about this. What I will suggest is that Wilt needed other motivations. Winning is the highest standard of excellence in a team sport but I think Wilt was so dominant that he needed other motivations to stay interested in the game, especially when he played the same eight teams night and night out. Maybe if we’re going to blame Wilt for anything it’s that he suffered from ADD (in which case, of course, “blaming” him would be cruel).
Interesting (in my opinion) stats observation: Simmons has a deeply conflicted relationship with stats. He’s not averse to using them but he is hyper-aware of relying on them because of how they can skew perception. The thing is, this entire chapter is based in statistics, which makes the whole enterprise clumsy at times. On one hand he’s trashes Wilt for obsessing over his stats but on the other he obsessive trashes Wilt with stats. (Note: If Simmons played in the NBA he’d be the guy who stands at the three-point line and takes off down the court as soon as a shot goes up. Ballers call those guys cherry pickers or Jason Kapono, i.e. Simmon’s 6’8” doppelganger.)
The Gay Wilt innuendo:
They’re scattered all over the chapter. Simmons will never come out and suggest it because he has more sense and some tact, but the suggestion the Wilt might’ve been gay (he was lifetime bachelor who loved clothes and cats, Simmons tells us) seems loaded. I’m not suggesting that Simmons would have had a problem with Wilt being gay (I think he’d just find it funny) just that his unusual preoccupation with Wilt’s sexuality is…unusual. That’s all. I’ll leave it at that.
The Myth-list format:
Note to self: If you’re going to debunk myths, you should at least cite the source of those myths. Otherwise they just look like ideas you’ve come up with so you can spend 30 pages debunking them.
Wilt’s Carcass
The chapter closes with a long and revealing quote from Wilt’s autobiography in which he declares basketball “a game, not a life or death struggle” and distinguishes himself from Russell (“I don’t need scoring titles or NBA championships to prove that I’m a man.). In fact, it’s a beautifully rendered piece of writing, only Simmons can’t allow himself to see anything that Wilt said or did clearly. Instead Simmons suddenly morphs back into kid in the Garden who believed Larry Bird could walk on water. His final Bravheart tirade against Wilt’s bloodied pulp is so relentless that by the time I read the chapter’s last words I wanted to grab him by the shoulder and tell him to put down the ax. In my opinion, this whole thing could have been excised without compromising the book in the least. On the flip side, you gotta appreciate a 40 year-old who shamelessly goes to bat for his childhood idol. That’s love. That’s loyalty.
Share this:
Like this: