Bill Simmons is a traitor

[fan33]

It's been pretty clear since he started writing articles that he is more interested in page views.  It's embarrassing really that someone who acts as if he some pop culture enthusiast is so visibly transparent. The guy watches the 'OC' and 'The Hills' for heaven's sake.  He's a blogger.  No offense but, he knows less about basketball then most of the posters on this site.

I'm being persuaded, on third thought...

Bill Simmons is a traitor and a rascal giving a bad name to rascals everywhere, save his likeminded LaLaland fold!

BEAT LA...BEAT LA...BEAT LA is where we need to take this

[Ersatz]

For me, it's less about who he actually predicts than that fact that he who claims to be one of the NBA's 20 greatest fans doesn't seem to actually watch games--and that he submits to the casual-fan love of Kobe.

For one, he says Ray is "only a spot-up shooter--that's all he gives you." Obviously ridiculous: Ray's explosiveness to the hoop was one of the great surprises of the season; he has had some nifty passes and high-assist games; his team defense has been superb and his one-on-one defense has at times--I'm thinking of the second game against the Lakers--been amazing

Simmons says that the Cs have no one to make a big shot at the end of the game, unlike Kobe's automatic clutchness (never mind that Kobe's career has been filled with big-game moments where he's pouted through them and refused to shoot, or where he's purposively given his teammates crappy passes so he can point to their bad play, or that he's taken out-of-control, triple-teamed shots when he's had open teammates). Apparently Paul Pierce's rich history of making game-winning shots, of incredible fourth-quarter play in big-time situations, hasn't happened. It's been erased in Simmons-world, in favor of more and more Kobe-love.

And that's just a sampling.

[Ersatz]

And just a quick add to the previous: Simmons claims to be a basketball lover, a lover of the game, a purist, but he hated the 2005 Finals. I would think anyone who claimed to be a fan of the game of basketball, instead of a fan of the business of basketball, would have been in heaven for that series: great coaching, great, smart playing, clutch performances. Easily the best series of the last 15 years. And soi-disant basketball fan hated. That says something.

[TitleMaster]

Concerning the whole flying issue...

Teams, nowadays, charter private flights. They don't sit around at airport terminals, like the rest of us, and deal with delays and annoying ground staff who forget how to properly tag the luggage.

So effectively, they get to stretch out over leather couches for 5.5 hrs to get from Boston to LA. You know, given the fact I'd done it, flying economy, for all these years, while having to show up for 8AM meetings, it's not a big deal.

[BudweiserCeltic]

And just a quick add to the previous: Simmons claims to be a basketball lover, a lover of the game, a purist, but he hated the 2005 Finals. I would think anyone who claimed to be a fan of the game of basketball, instead of a fan of the business of basketball, would have been in heaven for that series: great coaching, great, smart playing, clutch performances. Easily the best series of the last 15 years. And soi-disant basketball fan hated. That says something.

Huh? Boring is boring regardless of how much you appreciate the game of baskteball.  Simmons is not alone in that regard.

[bleedingreen]

And just a quick add to the previous: Simmons claims to be a basketball lover, a lover of the game, a purist, but he hated the 2005 Finals. I would think anyone who claimed to be a fan of the game of basketball, instead of a fan of the business of basketball, would have been in heaven for that series: great coaching, great, smart playing, clutch performances. Easily the best series of the last 15 years. And soi-disant basketball fan hated. That says something.

Huh? Boring is boring regardless of how much you appreciate the game of baskteball.  Simmons is not alone in that regard.

Yeah I concur, that series blew.

[Evantime34]

In Bill Simmons' most recent podcast, he predicts a Lakers-Celtics Finals, with his "buddy House".  He goes on and on about how objective he is, etc., and how he's watched all the games.

His conclusion?  Lakers beat Celtics in six.  Kobe is the alpha dog that the Celtics don't have.  Celtics don't have anybody who can definitely score at the end of games, and Celtics can't win "tight games".  KG can't get it done in crunch time.  He's not "totally sold" that Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Sam Cassell can hit big shots (despite Ray Allen doing so all year long).  Ray Allen is "not an all-star", is "not a great defender", and is "a spot-up shooter, and that's all he is" (he watches the games?  Really?).  The Celtics turnaround was only due to "one guy".  Lakers have a "charmed season" and the "perfect storm", and the Celtics can't "match firepower" with "Ko-bay" (Ko-bay?  Seriously?  Living in La-La land has really eroded Simmons).

The only decent point Simmons made is about the 2-3-2 format of the Finals.  If the road team wins one of the first two games, it makes it a lot harder to win the series.  That's why the Celtics are going to crush the Lakers in the first two games of the series.

(And, before anybody says Simmons is just trying to avoid a "jinx", why did he 1) pick the Lakers in the first, second, and third round?  Listen to the interview: Simmons is readily picking against the Celtics, and he's convinced of it.)

Hat tip to Perkisabeast and RealGM.

That really hurts to hear I'm a big Bill Simmons fan for how he covers the C's. I think he believes that, is that he doesn't think this years team compare to his beloved teams of his childhood (he was more connected with that team than this team, he was going to games back then and in Boston). I think he has a new bias towards an LA team that he gets to be around more readily. All in all sad that he would say that.

[Sweet17]

Interesting points from the above poster.

 I think Simmons is out of touch on this one. LA looks great - except when the play the C's - as do a TON of other teams. The C's are that good, IMHO.

I think the whole "avoiding a jinx" thing is a crock. Simmons is honestly picking against the Cs. I see three basic reasons why..

1) He staked alot of his "reputation" on his Doc hating. Entire colums have been dominated by his attacks on this guy. It makes him look like a moron now that Doc is doing well.

2) His LB love. This team won ONE LESS then the best of the three championship games in the regular season. A convincing post season run and a championship places them right there with the 80's team of old. Many fans of that team want to believe they were the best teams ever. I think the above poster is likely right. I think SECRETLY Simmons wouldn't mind a loss because that would keep LB and company on the pedastel.

3) The LA factor. I think the general hype and love of Kobe has gotten to him. You know it kinda gets to EVERYONE. You here about Kobe and watch him and worry about how he will "kill" the Cs. But against the C's PP matches up with him JUST FINE. It's kind of amazing as you expect Kobe to just torch and dominate him but it doesn't seem to happen.. Actually it's Paul who has put on some awesome performances out there in LA.

I know some people love Bill Simmons. But lets face it more often then not he is WRONG. I don't know that one giant archive exists of his columns but when it comes to bball and the C's he has been wrong so often it's not even funny.. Heck I remember him plugging some scrub PG over KA back in the Jim Obrien era only to watch KA have a solid season and really help the C's in the playoffs..

Pete

[mikeford]

lets consider this a blessing because simmons has been wrong about pretty much every playoff prediction he's ever made in his life.

[paintitgreen]

I listened to the podcast a few days ago and I think Simmons is just saying who he honestly believes will win. There's no reverse jinx, that's just how he feels. While I disagree, I don't see why it needs to go to personal attacks on him. Yeah, we want him to be a fan first and foremost, and he is a Boston sports fan. But he's also a "journalist" and is supposed to be honest.

1. The dude watches basketball, I think that's clear. I think the comment someone made about hating every other team in the NBA except the Celtics is fine, if that's how you feel, but appreciating other teams doesn't make somebody less of a Celtics fan. For example, I like watching Golden State, Phoenix, San Antonio and Denver. I like those teams in general. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want the Celtics to win when and if they play those teams. It just means I like basketball, it's my favorite sport, and that's why the Celtics are my favorite Boston team. I don't pick my favorite team based on who's winning, I pick it based on which sport I enjoy watching the most. That's why it's Celtics-Pats-Red Sox for me and always has been.

2. There's nothing wrong with somebody who loves the NBA and can afford it buying season tickets to another team. If I lived in Houston and had the cash, I'd buy Rockets season tickets. Not because I love or even like the Rockets, but because I love basketball and would love the opportunity to watch 41 games every season.

3. Simmons mentioned in the podcast and MVP article that he has watched all or almost all of the Celtics games this year. I see no reason not to believe that.

4. Believing the Celtics won't win it all is not the same as not wanting them to win it all. Just because he thinks the Lakers and Kobe are really good doesn't mean he wants them to win. He just thinks they will.

5. Kobe is really good. He might be a jerk, a rapist, a questionable teammate, an egomaniac, but he's really really good. I picked KG as MVP, but that doesn't mean Kobe hasn't had an amazing season this year and an amazing career overall. Face it, Kobe can take over a game offensively like nobody other than Lebron can in the NBA. It's not a knock on KG or Pierce to say they can't control a game offensively. Kobe is just better offensively.

6. Simmons has written this year about the Celtics, or at least talked about them, and he hasn't been flowery in his praise. He has questions, which are honestly quite understandable. The Celtics have the best record and best MOV by far, but in games against playoff teams, the Celtics are 27-14, the same as Detroit, a half game behind Utah (28-14) and only 1 1/2 games ahead of the Lakers (26-16). So they haven't completely dominated all the best teams. Until they prove it, it's reasonable to believe a team that has done that (Lakers with big wins in the second half of the season over Phoenix, San Antonio, New Orleans, Dallas and Utah) has a better chance of winning it all.

(FYI, I disagree with him there. I'm closer to Hollinger's thinking. I believe the Celtics can and probably will crush their way through the playoffs. I expect them to win in 4, 4, 4-5 and 5-6 respectively.)

7. He doesn't trust Doc. He's not alone in that department. If we have a bunch of close games, I would not be very excited about our strategist. (Still, I don't think we'll be in enough close games that it will threaten our season.)

8. The Lakers should make it to the Finals based on scheduling. Denver gives up too many easy plays to beat the Lakers in a 7 game series. I thought Kenny Smith's analysis on this point was dead on. The Lakers will probably play Utah in the second round. While I like Utah a lot, I don't think they have the personnel to play LA. I don't think they have the defensive mindset to beat the Lakers. I think they'd beat almost any other team, but I can't see them shutting down even 2 of the Lakers' 3 top guns (Kobe, Pau, Odom). In the WCF, it's all up in the air. I think any of the 4 remaining teams (Phx-SA-NO-Dal) could make it. It's 50-50 at that point, meaning the Lakers have a good chance.

It's not like the Lakers are some crappy team that Simmons is picking out of nowhere. They had the best record in one of the best conferences EVER. I think the Celtics will beat whoever makes it out of the West. But this is not such an outlandish pick that it's worth everybody or anybody getting upset about and throwing out allegations like "Simmons is biased toward LA." LA is really really good. They were good in the beginning of the year and got a 27-year old All Star caliber power forward for zero rotation players, when they already had a quality starting lineup and bench. They are very very dangerous and anybody who thinks they're a pushover is blinded by homerism. While I would pick the Celtics to take the Lakers in 6, I don't think it's crazy to pick the Lakers in 6 and don't see why everybody else does.

Yes, Simmons is a Boston sports fan and no Boston sports fan wants the Lakers to beat the Celtics, but he can't just pick Boston every time. He is trying to make a living out of this (and LA is an expensive place to live and raise kids.)

[jaketwice]

I listened to the podcast a few days ago and I think Simmons is just saying who he honestly believes will win. There's no reverse jinx, that's just how he feels. While I disagree, I don't see why it needs to go to personal attacks on him. Yeah, we want him to be a fan first and foremost, and he is a Boston sports fan. But he's also a "journalist" and is supposed to be honest.

1. The dude watches basketball, I think that's clear. I think the comment someone made about hating every other team in the NBA except the Celtics is fine, if that's how you feel, but appreciating other teams doesn't make somebody less of a Celtics fan. For example, I like watching Golden State, Phoenix, San Antonio and Denver. I like those teams in general. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want the Celtics to win when and if they play those teams. It just means I like basketball, it's my favorite sport, and that's why the Celtics are my favorite Boston team. I don't pick my favorite team based on who's winning, I pick it based on which sport I enjoy watching the most. That's why it's Celtics-Pats-Red Sox for me and always has been.

2. There's nothing wrong with somebody who loves the NBA and can afford it buying season tickets to another team. If I lived in Houston and had the cash, I'd buy Rockets season tickets. Not because I love or even like the Rockets, but because I love basketball and would love the opportunity to watch 41 games every season.

3. Simmons mentioned in the podcast and MVP article that he has watched all or almost all of the Celtics games this year. I see no reason not to believe that.

4. Believing the Celtics won't win it all is not the same as not wanting them to win it all. Just because he thinks the Lakers and Kobe are really good doesn't mean he wants them to win. He just thinks they will.

5. Kobe is really good. He might be a jerk, a rapist, a questionable teammate, an egomaniac, but he's really really good. I picked KG as MVP, but that doesn't mean Kobe hasn't had an amazing season this year and an amazing career overall. Face it, Kobe can take over a game offensively like nobody other than Lebron can in the NBA. It's not a knock on KG or Pierce to say they can't control a game offensively. Kobe is just better offensively.

6. Simmons has written this year about the Celtics, or at least talked about them, and he hasn't been flowery in his praise. He has questions, which are honestly quite understandable. The Celtics have the best record and best MOV by far, but in games against playoff teams, the Celtics are 27-14, the same as Detroit, a half game behind Utah (28-14) and only 1 1/2 games ahead of the Lakers (26-16). So they haven't completely dominated all the best teams. Until they prove it, it's reasonable to believe a team that has done that (Lakers with big wins in the second half of the season over Phoenix, San Antonio, New Orleans, Dallas and Utah) has a better chance of winning it all.

(FYI, I disagree with him there. I'm closer to Hollinger's thinking. I believe the Celtics can and probably will crush their way through the playoffs. I expect them to win in 4, 4, 4-5 and 5-6 respectively.)

7. He doesn't trust Doc. He's not alone in that department. If we have a bunch of close games, I would not be very excited about our strategist. (Still, I don't think we'll be in enough close games that it will threaten our season.)

8. The Lakers should make it to the Finals based on scheduling. Denver gives up too many easy plays to beat the Lakers in a 7 game series. I thought Kenny Smith's analysis on this point was dead on. The Lakers will probably play Utah in the second round. While I like Utah a lot, I don't think they have the personnel to play LA. I don't think they have the defensive mindset to beat the Lakers. I think they'd beat almost any other team, but I can't see them shutting down even 2 of the Lakers' 3 top guns (Kobe, Pau, Odom). In the WCF, it's all up in the air. I think any of the 4 remaining teams (Phx-SA-NO-Dal) could make it. It's 50-50 at that point, meaning the Lakers have a good chance.

It's not like the Lakers are some crappy team that Simmons is picking out of nowhere. They had the best record in one of the best conferences EVER. I think the Celtics will beat whoever makes it out of the West. But this is not such an outlandish pick that it's worth everybody or anybody getting upset about and throwing out allegations like "Simmons is biased toward LA." LA is really really good. They were good in the beginning of the year and got a 27-year old All Star caliber power forward for zero rotation players, when they already had a quality starting lineup and bench. They are very very dangerous and anybody who thinks they're a pushover is blinded by homerism. While I would pick the Celtics to take the Lakers in 6, I don't think it's crazy to pick the Lakers in 6 and don't see why everybody else does.

Yes, Simmons is a Boston sports fan and no Boston sports fan wants the Lakers to beat the Celtics, but he can't just pick Boston every time. He is trying to make a living out of this (and LA is an expensive place to live and raise kids.)

Lots of good points. TP.

[biggs1221]

I think its worth adding to this discussion that last year Simmons came down pretty hard on Holy Cross basketball (his, and my, alma mater).  He criticized the team and its coach for its 4 first round tourney losses over a six or seven year period, and said they should move down to division 2.  Mind you, Holy Cross is a small, mid major, in Worcester, which has never been higher than a 12 seed in the last 10 years.  Moreover, in all its first round games, HC put scares into some of the best teams in the tourney.

These comments of his certainly came across as if he "lost touch with his roots."  HC D1 basketball is essentially the athletic pride of the school, and the coach (Ralph Willard) is probably one of the better college coaches out there.  While I wish they won at least once, the team made 4 good showings. 

(it would have also helped their chances of winning in the tourney if they got better than a 14 seed in 2003.  Any fan who followed the team that year would have realized they were probably one of the top 25 teams in the nation, finishing the year with like 15 straight wins and only 4 losses overall.  Yet, cause they are a small school, they got jobbed and had to play DWade's Marquette in the first round (which I believe made it to the final four).  Anyway, Im still bitter about that one)

[kenmaine]

Here's how out of touch with "media" I am.
I honestly have no idea who Bill Simmons is and I don't even care. It's time-consuming enough just watching the games, without getting worked up over the opinions of some writer or podcaster or "pundit" or whatever he is.
BTW, the Lakers look pretty good to me. But anyone who doesn't think PP can hit big shots at the end of games is just plain wrong, whether it's stupidity, ignorance, bias or whatever.

[Steve Weinman]

I think its worth adding to this discussion that last year Simmons came down pretty hard on Holy Cross basketball (his, and my, alma mater).  He criticized the team and its coach for its 4 first round tourney losses over a six or seven year period, and said they should move down to division 2.  Mind you, Holy Cross is a small, mid major, in Worcester, which has never been higher than a 12 seed in the last 10 years.  Moreover, in all its first round games, HC put scares into some of the best teams in the tourney.

These comments of his certainly came across as if he "lost touch with his roots."  HC D1 basketball is essentially the athletic pride of the school, and the coach (Ralph Willard) is probably one of the better college coaches out there.  While I wish they won at least once, the team made 4 good showings. 

(it would have also helped their chances of winning in the tourney if they got better than a 14 seed in 2003.  Any fan who followed the team that year would have realized they were probably one of the top 25 teams in the nation, finishing the year with like 15 straight wins and only 4 losses overall.  Yet, cause they are a small school, they got jobbed and had to play DWade's Marquette in the first round (which I believe made it to the final four).  Anyway, Im still bitter about that one)

Though I don't look to push us off topic here, since you brought up HC hoops, biggs, have you ever read Feinstein's The Last Amateurs?  I'm not as particularly close a follower s I'd like to be of mid-major and minor college hoops, but reading Feinstein's book about the Patriot League really upped my interest big time.  It's may well be Feinstein's best work (and he has quite a bit of good stuff out there), and it's definitely one of my favorite books of all time.  As someone with some HC ties, while you'd probably know a lot more of the history than I did going in, seems like the sort of thing you would appreciate if you ever got your hands on it, and your mention of the college reminded me...so just figured I'd mention it.

-sw

[goCeltics]

The guy is a living hex, he jumped back on the bruins bandwagon and get beat 5-0 in game seven. No way I want him picking the c's for a championship