Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(127)
4 star:		(54)
3 star:		(18)
2 star:		(18)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I need to preface this by saying that I've been reading Bill Simmons for over 8 years now, before the fame, before the podcasts and almost frightening fan following.I've seen him mature from the old Boston Sports Guy to this all-media presence now, and in the process, his writing has greatly improved. The culmination of such an improvement is this wonderful book, "The Book of Basketball".

I managed to get an early copy of this book, and spent the next 48 hours plowing through it as fast as I could. It's very clear that Simmons put everything he had into the book. There aren't a lot of loose words around. Even the genitalia jokes are well-constructed. Yes, it's pretty good.

The basis of this book is determining who mattered in the NBA. Which teams, players, coaches, etc. played the biggest role in getting us to where we are today, in shaping our perception of what it takes to win in the NBA, and how we remember different players and events. It's very interesting to see him go back into the 60s and 70s and try to write about Walton, Russell, and Chamberlain and how they were perceived then, and try to get to see what forces created and changed that perception. This is ultimately what the book is all about. It reads almost like a history of the NBA, in a very easy-to-read style.

My personal favorites are his ABA pieces. Not nearly enough has been written about this crazy league, and Simmons did a very good job looking at just how things broke down, at what could have been, and how the ABA led to many fundamental changes in the NBA itself.

Finally, this is definitely a book for the NBA junkie. It's comic style and easy-to-read writing style does make it accessible to those with only mild-to-intermediate interest in the NBA, but at its core, it's for the junkies who want to fill up with as much NBA knowledge as possible. It's a great book, and for its price (as of October 27, 2009), a great deal.

(10/28) Still working my way through it, but here are my impressions so far:

(1) Buy the dead tree version even if you have a Kindle. Simmons buries an absurd amount of information in the footnotes, a lot more than just citations. They're set up as endnotes at the end of each chapter, which is awkward for Kindle users. The footnotes are almost like one of those extra audio tracks in a DVD where the director provides running commentary on a film; for better or worse, you're missing out on a lot if you skip the footnotes. Why he thought this was a good way to write a book is beyond me. But you're going to want to read the footnotes.

(2) if you bet "under 1.5" as the first chapter in which an NBA moment is compared to a scene in Shawshank Redemption, you covered.

(3) if this book had an MPAA rating, it would be rated R. He says things that he could never get away with in his ESPN columns. For example, he refers to going off birth control as "pulling the goalie" and calls the Hawks' selection of Marvin Williams in the 2005 draft (instead of Chris Paul or Deron Williams) "an Aretha Franklin sized mistake."

(4) I've probably read half a dozen different "Wilt or Russell?" articles over the years, and Simmons' handling of the debate is probably the best one.

Will update in coming days.

Update (11/3): Man Reads Entire Book of Basketball -- And Lives!

If the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract is the '86 Celtics of sports history books -- a timeless classic that could succeed in any era -- then TBOB is the '79 Sonics: a championship team but not one that will be remembered forever, and one that could probably only have won a championship in its own time. Why does TBOB fall short of the absolute pinnacle? Is it because of the salty language? (No; recall that James' entry on Don Mattingly in the Abstract is "100% ballplayer, 0% bulls&%$.") Is it because Simmons can barely contain his disdain for players like Kareem and Laimbeer? (Again, no; James can barely contain his disdain for Rogers Hornsby, Dick Allen, Maury Wills, etc.) Is it the fact that the book contains some post-consumer content (e.g. the entry on Pete Maravich is basically lifted directly from an [...] column he wrote about Pistol a few years back?) Again, James recycled old material for the Abstract, so that's not it. Ultimately it's the endless barrage of throwaway pop culture references that is going to make this book feel dated quickly (people might still remember Teen Wolf or Rocky IV in ten years, but is anybody going to care about Keeping Up With the Kardashians in 2019?)

All told, this book has freakish athleticism, jumpability, length, and tremendous upside.

If you know who the Sports Guy is, then you know what this book is like. I enjoyed it well enough, but by the end it got a bit tiresome. I've got no problem with 700-page books, but I can do without a 700-page book that recycles the same gags over and over and over (and over) again.

The positive side is that it's a fun ride and an easy read; there's a ton of info about the NBA and players who should be remembered; and Simmons' love of the game leaps off of the page.

The negative side is that there's a lot of padding, a lot of opinion presented as fact, and a whole lot of pseudo-statistics that are less convincing the more you think about them.* Editors are your friends, Simmons. You don't use the verb "sauntered" twice in three pages. The game is Bid Whist, not Bid Wist. You can't use your own "Trade Value" columns as independent evidence to support your own opinions. And "infinitely better" does not mean the same thing as "a lot better."

If Simmons had taken his best 400 pages this would have been a really great book. But he didn't. But if you like Simmons you'll like this. Buy it and read it like he recommends: dip into it for 50 pages, then walk away for a while. Because it's kind of like eating Halloween candy - enjoyable at the moment, but if you do it for too long you get sick of it.

*(My favorite is the table comparing performances for two guards from ages 22 through 24. Except for Allen Iverson he makes the "executive decision" to show ages 23-25 because AI "spent five months in jail and missed his senior year in high school." Yeah...that's not really how stats work. You can't just toss the numbers you don't like and pick the ones that support your argument. Well, obviously you CAN, but that's cherry-picking, not statistics.)

I have been reading Bill Simmons work since his Sports Guy website (about 9 years now) and have always been a huge fan. I've seen a decline in his writing in recent years, but I always assumed that was because ESPN was "holding him back", however I think this book pretty much solidifies his writing for me.

This book could have been something different. He could have written from his perspective as a viewer watching all those Celtics game as a young kid or focus on an era. Instead, he tried to write about everything about basketball. He could write a 10 part series and still wouldn't be enough.

Bill also references a lot of books that influenced him. You figure he would have at least attempted to write a book instead of just a 700-page ESPN column. This was probably my biggest gripe. There was no attempt whatsoever and along with those endless footnotes, it completely ruins the flow of reading a book. Part of me believes Bill wrote it this way because that is how he got to this point in the first place. Why try to write like someone else? I feel like Bill is smart enough to make some attempt and put a good piece of literature together.

The way I see this book is like Hollywood adapting a novel into a movie. They'll have to strip a lot of details and parts in a book and cram it into a 2 hour film. This works brilliantly sometimes, but many times, it doesn't work. This book to me is the Hollywood version of a book.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great to see him grow from a self-made website to #1 on NYTimes best seller and I will continue to read his columns, listen to his podcasts, and read his tweets. He's entertaining and I think that is part of the problem with this book. I am just trying to give my unbiased opinion on the book. I've learned a lot about the history of basketball from this book and I've learned a lot from Bill, not just in sports, but as a thinker - I just wish he could have written it better.

I've been reading Simmons on [...] for some time now. His columns have often provided me comic relief during a taxing work day or a grueling law school class. However, his columns are just that -- brief and instant gratification. The problem with this book is that it reads like a series of hundreds of mini-Simmons columns. At times, his grasp of the subject matter and eloquence in describing it shines through (for instance -- the Wilt v. Russell debate, his childhood Celtics memories, and his excerpt on Elgin Baylor), but more often than not, any given passage of the book reads like a shoddily put together column. The book is replete with cocaine and porn jokes, as well as references to obscure movies that only a limited cohort of his readers can comprehend. Furthermore, it is altogether too clear when Simmons is discussing an era or player that is foreign to his own experience. Take his section on the history of the NBA: it literally reads like a summary of 5-10 books that other people have written -- Simmons' only contribution to this section is, well, typical Simmons-column language (i.e., "X player ACTUALLY didn't do that, but wouldn't it be crazy if he did??"). Additionally, the book is unfortunately filled with several typos (numbers, years, improper tenses) -- I myself noticed nearly 10. All that being said, I think it's worth a read -- any dedicated NBA fan can certainly appreciate portions of the book. Just know going in that a significant portion of the book is terribly biased -- at times it just seems like Simmons is way in over his head.

Overall it's hard to bag on this book since I enjoyed reading it and kept my interest. But objectively it had a ton of flaws. It felt disjointed...when I got to certain players in his Hall of Fame list I had already heard a ton about them from his MVP and what-if section. I wonder if the book would have worked better going in chronological order of the league as I kept forgetting who won what in the late 1960s and which guys were overrated. He also repeats the same jokes over and over with too many porn references and too many "____ was a name that could have only existed in the 50s!!" or jokes about smoking cigarettes or drinking scotch.

There's a good book in here as the author is truly passionate about the game and does a nice job balancing historical statistics with how piers felt about the players and the true legacy. But this isn't the Bill James version of a basketball book as a lot of the "statistical" breakdowns are overly simplistic. And I think this is where the book fails to be a true great...it's an enjoyable read but that's about it as I can't take a lot of the analysis seriously.

Bill Simmons writes the most entertaining sports column on the internet, and his podcasts are lively and fun. His book is an exhaustive foray into a sport he feels passionate about, and his writing reflects his love for basketball. He does not come across as the foremost authority, but instead as a fan who thinks about things like "Pantheons" and ranking players by their abilities and impact on the game. I found myself frustrated by the Kindle version for not being able to skip forward to find out who ranked #1 in his list of best players, and I say that as a compliment. However, I feel that sometimes his love for the Celtics clouds his judgment at times (KG that high? Really?) but as any sports fan who sometimes takes things too seriously, this is entirely understandable, and ultimately forgivable. The Kindle version gets a lower mark due to the inability to readily access footnotes, which makes Bill's book unique, and takes the fun out of reading it. As a previous reviewer stated, buy the dead tree version.

Thoughts (Simmons style):

Simmons must have hired John Iriving's editor to edit this book... and that's not a complement. What was the point of the Grumpy Old Editor? To not edit?

I think this is the world longest coffee table book.

The Most Valuable Chapter? Why was this in the book? This was excruciating to read...

Over all, it's hard to disagree with where Simmons ranked everyone. The only WTF ranking I saw was Garnett over Isiah and Pippen. But everything else is nitpicking.

I'm not sure I needed a few thousand words about how Simmons once sat next to Jordan at a resturant. Actually, I'm positive.

Again, the editing of this book killed my rating of it. Stories are told twice, footnotes are repeated, guys are mislabeled or represented... crappy editing that absolutely killed this book. When talking about the '83 Philadelphia 76ers, when mentioning who they lose to in the playoffs next year, it says Philly in five. Apperently Vancouver and Minnesota entered the league at the same time (they didn't, Toronto and Vancouver did). These mistakes happen all the time. I know mistakes are made in a 700 page book, I expect three or five things to get past people... but twenty-five or more?

Most annoying aspect of the Book of Basketball? When Simmons starts out with quote from a former player (say Bill Bradley) discussing another player (random 70s player). Simmons tells us that this PERFECTLY describes random 70s player... and then Bill spends a few thousand words discussing random 70s player. 'hey look, I know that Bill Bradley just totally nailed Jerry West, but I'm going to lob on an extra 2,900 words to hammer home my own views on a guy I never saw play and as I said, is perfectly described by what Bill Bradley said already!'

Finally, I should say, Simmons' passion and love of basketball comes though and his endearing style makes the book hard to hate. But the flaws are too great to over come what should have been a fantastic book. The book wasn't a history of basketball as much as a review of the games great players and a few teams. I can't help but think that a "Fever Pitch" type book where Bill discusses his love for the Celtics would have been a trillion times better. I know Bill has said that this is the best book he'll ever write... but he's setting the bar far too low.

I thought I would enjoy this book, as I did Simmons's 'Now I Can Die in Peace'. After a promising introduction, it goes downhill. I lost track of how many times Simmons has to remind the reader Wilt was in it for the records... 4 times? 5? This book could have used a good editor, someone who would have said, "Bill, trees don't need to die for this." My editing technique was to say the hell with this and bring it back to the library.
As for the author photo, it was the first time I wished I could have reached out and smacked the author.

This is an enjoyable if flawed book. Simmons is a talented and creative writer, and he obviously loves basketball (maybe too much), but I wish that he was less impressed with himself and that he would cut down on the childish fratboy asides. I also disagree with a lot of his opinions (for example, I feel he overrates Scottie Pippen and David Stern and puts too much stock on the refs in the Dallas-Miami series; sorry but Dallas choked and simply could not stop D. Wade, and to totally blame the refs like he does is to overlook those facts), but hey that's to be expected in an 700 page book and our differing opinions is part of what makes this book interesting to me as well. So, in short, I like this book, just like I generally like Simmons' ESPN columns, but I also wish that he would stay on point more (this book is way longer than it needs to be), ditch some of his glaring pro-Boston biases, and start acting like the 40 year old he is rather than like an overexcited, horny 14 year old.