I can't speak for other Bulls fans, but from my point of view going into the season I was hoping that the addition of Hamilton on the wing(granted he's not the player he was five years ago but definitely a significant upgrade), along with the maturation of Rose as a player, all while keeping one of the best benches in the league intact would even the odds with the Heat. Its going to be awesome when the young stars in the league(Rose, Durant, Westbrook, Griffin, Love, Wall) get to around Lebron's age. If you think the league is competitive now....
And a healthy Carlos Boozer. Let's not forget he was playing at 70% all of last year. That and our starting 2 guard averaged 4.3 points a game. I repeat, four dot three points a game. Yes, we were easily expecting a much different series this year.
I agree; it certainly appeared that the Bulls would give the Heat a much tougher challenge in the playoffs this year. But that's different than claiming they would have beaten them if Rose wasn't injured. You're still an underdog to a team you lost 1-4 to in the playoffs last year, even if you added a nice player like Hamilton or Boozer is playing a little better. I think that's debatable; guys who are 23-24 and have been in the league for either 4 (Love) or 5 (Durant) seasons might be at or very close to their primes. If you look at the all-time greats, they peaked or were very close to it at that age, when they were in their absolute athletic primes. In Griffin's case especially, he continues to get by on his once-in-a-generation athleticism while his technique and skills remain very average by NBA starting power forward standards. Once his athleticism declines, (as it did with Amare, another insane athlete who nevertheless had a more polished game than Blake at the same age) how good will he be?
I dont understand the point. What does Scottie Pippen know about winning anything with the star missing? Beyond writing a letter on how to nab a chubby white girl, I dont think Id be taking Pippen's advice on anything.
Whoa, calm the fuck down there. Scottie's wife is fucking hot. Spoiler Let's not get out of pocket here...
I simultaneously like Bill Simmons and want to see him on fire. He's lightyears ahead of just about anyone else at the Fox News of Sports, but that's not exactly saying much.
What exactly is your issue here? That 2012 is ranked too highly? This is what Simmons actually says: So basically the gist of the article is "This stuff happens all the time, let's look at other examples and see where this one ranks among other seasons." Sometimes I think contra-Simmons sentiment has reached ridiculously knee-jerky proportions.
I honestly can't tell if he knows that the whole point of an asterisk is to point out a footnote. They're the same fucking thing. Are there people out there who think there should be asterisks in the record books with no explanations? This whole put-an-asterisk-on-everything shit is getting stupid. The original asterisk was for Maris's home run record. Maris played more games in his season than Ruth did in his, so I can see wanting to point out that they aren't comparing apples to apples. If they want an asterisk next to this years champ, then I want the record book to list every player who missed a game against the Bulls due to injury the year they won 70.
No, I'm not anti-Simmons, KIMpossible red dots me all the time for being pro-Simmons, I just love how this article is just a shit stirrer. You know everyone dates Simmons for 2 things, 1) He's a Boston homer, self-admitted, repeatedly self-admitted, he talks about it all the time. Some people are smart enough to get over that and realize it doesn't color all of his views and he can make points that aren't invalidated simply by "OMG HE'S JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE HE'S A BOSTON FAN." 2) He's the most read sports writer in general, he's the man, so he's hated for that too.
I think the distinction is that an asterisk in this context connotates illegitimacy, whereas footnotes merely mean there's more to the story. And Parker the third reason to hate Simmons is his penchant for Name In Capital Letters theories and things that either are cutesy, not as insightful or true as he thinks, or both. i.e. The Ewing Theory, The Tyson Zone, Manning Face, etc. There's a reason he's often paired with Malcolm Gladwell for panels and interviews. In my opinion, people take these too seriously and either won't shut up about them, or excessively demonize them. He's sort of Meanderer-In-Chief, and I put these more in the category of "hey have you noticed..." observations that srs bsns facts.
Which is why its fucking stupid. An asterisk is just an unnumbered footnote. Without a footnote, no one knows why there's a star on the page. If a title or record is illegitimate, the word you're looking for his vacated. If Bonds or the Patriots or the Saints cheated, you don't put an asterisk next to their name with a footnote saying "except they cheated so it doesn't really count." When you get people talking out their asses, you end up with someone like Simmons writing articles arguing about synonyms like they're distinct concepts. And you know damn well that Simmons knows better. He's got a masters in Print Journalism and has probably read plenty of style manuals. But his livelihood depends on stirring up idiots who couldn't tell you what an asterisk looks like, but they know it means "a sports guy did a thing I don't like."
The Ewing Theory makes me irrationally angry. IT IS NOT A THEORY THAT SOMETIMES A THING THAT IS IMPROBABLE HAPPENS BUT MOST OF THE TIME IT DOES NOT. What annoys me about his analysis is that he's piled the bullshit so high that no matter what happens he's got a bunch to sling. Double super reverse jinx! Also, his friend JackO who is like his designated Yankees fan makes me ashamed to be a Yankees fan. Edited to add: Simmons also does this thing of assuming that everybody who reads him is a bro-y sort of guy. Also he is a profoundly terrible gambler who thinks he knows more than Vegas. Or at least pretends to?
These are not my issues with Simmons at all. Simmons is a decent basketball mind; he is certainly smarter than the average sports writer on the subject, but possesses no special insight, and generally knows less than any half-decent coach, GM, or scout. Some of the things he writes are accurate if obvious. Others are blithering idiocy. I can handle arrogance just fine if it's backed up by outstanding knowledge of the game. I can also handle an okay basketball mind who occasionally writes completely stupid shit as long as he doesn't present himself as some keen expert on the game. But arrogance combined with limited knowledge? That's irritating. It's especially dumb considering the wealth of outstanding basketball writers there are on the Internet right now, even on smaller blogs. For instance, read this piece, done very much in a Bill Simmons style, and tell me it isn't better than anything Boston Billy has written about basketball in 2 years.
Actually he doesn't. Bros don't watch The Wire and he has extensive Wire references throughout his columns. I'm pretty sure he doesn't go a month without bringing it up. Also, he and Cousin Sal are terrible gamblers, they do it for fun and comment on how no one should make most of the bets they do. he has guys like Schatz on to talk about what the sharps are actually doing and what Vegas is doing, he never claims to be an expert. Anyway... The Knicks are about to be elimated, and for the first time, the champions are going to get knocked out of the playoffs in the first round. Crazy shit.
Sure they do. They also make idiotic Facebook polls about "who is the coolest character: Omar or Stringer Bell?", and after the creator of the show David Simon politely mentions that they are missing the point, they respond by calling him a "condescending, humorless blowhard". In Simmons' mild defense, he has a few guests on his podcast and writers for his site like Schatz, Bill Barnwell, Mike Lombardi, and Chris Brown that really know their shit, and are genuinely outstanding experts on their sport. Too bad that 95% of Grantland is the same style of arrogant, frequently brainless shit Billy spews out, only five times worse. As for the playoffs, so far the level of play has been excellent. Dallas is just too old, creaky, and lost just enough critical players from last year's run (Tyson Chandler, JJ Barea) to overcome a buzz-saw like the Thunder again this year.
I think that "this is guaranteed to lose" is just gambling talk. Maybe it's just the way that he justifies his bets that rubs me the wrong way, but when he says stuff like, "I'm betting against this quarterback on the road" with that smugness, it's hard to take him seriously. He also bragged about his results in the Super Contest, which I think he put something like 10 grand down on. That being said, his style definitely has a fluidity to it that's really hard to replicate. Also, it's hilarious that Bill talks about how realistic the Wire is. Not that it's not, I just want to know from what position he's making that call. His experience in the Bodymore trap? As far as pop-py writers that I like unambiguously, I have to be the millionth person to endorse Joe Posnanski. He really is that good, in my opinion.
I don't read this thread much, so apologies if y'all already talked about this. Spoiler I'm almost ready to jump on the bandwagon based on logo alone.