Scan barcode
cherrick8's review
5.0
This is a fun read that studies the NBA from every angle. Its funny, its entertaining and you will learn alot about professional basketball. I really enjoyed this book.
christianholub's review
4.0
Bill Simmons is, without a doubt, my favorite living writer. His ability to write in a unique voice that combines gut-splitting humor, undeniable statistical fact, and heartfelt passion for his subject represents everything I ever want to be as a writer. This book looks like a monster, but 700 pages of Bill Simmons is like 50 pages of David Foster Wallace on his best day (no offense to Wallace; I love him just as much, but sometimes his thought patterns can be hard to follow). I eagerly await the launch of Grantland.com.
x0pherl's review
2.0
This was a really massive book filled with all sorts of information that probably would have been really interesting if I had been following pro basketball for the past 40 years or so. What it didn't have (and I was looking for) was a nice explanation of the evolution of the game itself. Oh well, I made it through it, even if I did skim a lot of stuff.
zrearick1's review
5.0
There is no way that this book could have been more responsibly written by any living sportswriter.
mikeplewis's review
4.0
If you like the NBA and know the players, this is an interesting read. If you don't - there is no way you're getting through this book
It was interesting to see how all the players stack up according to Simmons and it's an easy read
It was interesting to see how all the players stack up according to Simmons and it's an easy read
archstanton's review
funny
informative
lighthearted
medium-paced
3.25
Great when it dropped, but pretty dated now.
mandalor3960's review
3.0
The Book of Basketball is probably one of the most experimental and expansive books on a sports league. The majority of his book has his own rankings of NBA players and the rest is made up of his analysis of changes in NBA from 1947-1984, a "What-Ifs" chapter, bits of his own life, and a multitude of jokes.
My criticism of his book fall in regards to his subjective view on some players and his placement of players in the pyramid.
You can't get sucked into his rhetoric. His use of language and humor is so well placed that by the end of the book, you will hate Wilt Chamberlain and Rick Barry and even believe that Sam Jones is better than George Gervin. You will dismiss the greatness in countless other great players because Simmons will spend the entirety of a resume of a player noting all the negative qualities and events. An open-minded basketball fanatic like myself won't succumb to a barrage of critique on a player and instead I'll remind myself that after all of Simmon's rhetoric and controversial subjective viewpoints, that Gervin is a superior player to Sam Jones and Wilt is not as bad despite coming second to Russell for the majority of his career.
Simmons lays out parameters for the placement of players in the pyramid but sometimes makes baffling and erroneous choices.
He puts Arvydas Sabonis at 86 above Connie Hawkins with the words: "If Hawkins makes it on the coulda-been preimise, we can't leave out Saba". Sabonis's "what if" is in regards to him joining the NBA at 31. Hawkin's "what if" is that Hawkins spent many years "toiling away" and not joining the NBA till he was 25. The first controversy I see in the ranking is that Simmons uses a "what could have been" clause here, which shouldn't have a place in ranking players. The potential that was never achieved shouldn't stand higher than those who achieved something, i.e., Gail Goodrich ranked at 88, An 09' Chris Paul Dwight Howard at 90 and 91. The second controversy comes in ranking Sabonis above Hawkins. If based on solely career statistics, Hawkins blows Sabonis out of the water.
He places Julius Erving at No. 16 because Erving was "one of the most groundbreaking, important and influential players ever". He rips apart Erving in the following paragraphs on his limitations, but he places Erving that high simply because of his transcendent aurora. He places Erving above No. 17 Karl Malone and No. 18 Charles Barkley.
His pyramid, if it were based on the parameters he laid out prior (that being grasp of the secret, effect on team, charisma with other player, trades in his prime, and short amazing careers valued over long mediocre careers), would have been fine for such an experimental pyramid like his.
He also placed Cousy at No. 21, despite Simmons explaining for pages about how the league was far inferior prior to 1955. If Simmons were to do his hard edged critique on Cousy like he did with pre-shot clock players like George Mikan, Cousy should not even be placed at twenty first.
I do not think there really exists such a Celtic player bias that other reviewers have stated. This is a superb take on the history of the NBA and trying to factor everything in. Just because my review features mostly negative takes on the book, doesn't mean the book was entirely erroneous. I enjoyed the book for the most part, falling dead halfway through the ranking of players. I liked the book more so for its concepts and less for the rankings. I think we in turn don't need to adhere to Simmon's pyramid or his subjective views but rather keep in mind "The Secret/The Choice" and try to look at basketball with an unbiased mind.
August 20, 2019
Update
With the adoption of my new rating system, a three star rating is befitting. The original review and original rating conform to the new rating system. Although my original review is mostly filled with criticisms, this book was an enjoyable read, provided me great knowledge on basketball players, and gave me new concepts (the "What-if" chapters, the pyramid ranking style, the "Secret"). For being more than seven hundred pages it length, it definitely was a slow read at some parts, but I think everything else makes up for it retaining a three star rating.
September 14, 2019
Update
I have debated whether to lower the rating of this book to two stars because of its length. I spent more than three months reading this book, and recall being bored with the ranking list about halfway through. However, I had sustained interest in the previous sections in the review that I mentioned as liking. I believe these sections are enough to bump the book to a three star rating. As a resource book, it is enjoyable to read.
March 9, 2020
Update
This book is listed with the 2.5O rating type. I believe the rating type was was specifically made for this book since no other books have this rating type. The description of the 2.5O rating type helps in understanding the rating of this book when it is divvied: "Like the 3B type: “Just liked it. Some four star-rated content, some two star-rated content,but mostly three-star. An enjoyable read”. It’s mostly an enjoyable read but it is a lengthy read. There’s also some three star-rated sections that take up large portions, but the two star-rated takes up more. The reason why this isn’t an automatic three star-rated, which would mean a name change for the rating type, is because the book is so lengthy that I doubt it as a three star-rating. Perhaps in the future I’ll be more comfortable removing changing the type name but this leans for sure to a three star-rating".
I still doubt the rating because of its length but I must remind myself that when looking at the book now, I feel drawn to begin reading it again and ignoring the length that had just shortly before daunted me.
I do not feel comfortable with the green and grey rating of the book, and have now changed it to yellow and grey because of my uncertainty. I am also believing the previous updates, which provided more support for three and four star-rated sections, as well as the belief that when I finished this book, I was pleased with it to the extent of rating the book at three stars.
My criticism of his book fall in regards to his subjective view on some players and his placement of players in the pyramid.
You can't get sucked into his rhetoric. His use of language and humor is so well placed that by the end of the book, you will hate Wilt Chamberlain and Rick Barry and even believe that Sam Jones is better than George Gervin. You will dismiss the greatness in countless other great players because Simmons will spend the entirety of a resume of a player noting all the negative qualities and events. An open-minded basketball fanatic like myself won't succumb to a barrage of critique on a player and instead I'll remind myself that after all of Simmon's rhetoric and controversial subjective viewpoints, that Gervin is a superior player to Sam Jones and Wilt is not as bad despite coming second to Russell for the majority of his career.
Simmons lays out parameters for the placement of players in the pyramid but sometimes makes baffling and erroneous choices.
He puts Arvydas Sabonis at 86 above Connie Hawkins with the words: "If Hawkins makes it on the coulda-been preimise, we can't leave out Saba". Sabonis's "what if" is in regards to him joining the NBA at 31. Hawkin's "what if" is that Hawkins spent many years "toiling away" and not joining the NBA till he was 25. The first controversy I see in the ranking is that Simmons uses a "what could have been" clause here, which shouldn't have a place in ranking players. The potential that was never achieved shouldn't stand higher than those who achieved something, i.e., Gail Goodrich ranked at 88, An 09' Chris Paul Dwight Howard at 90 and 91. The second controversy comes in ranking Sabonis above Hawkins. If based on solely career statistics, Hawkins blows Sabonis out of the water.
He places Julius Erving at No. 16 because Erving was "one of the most groundbreaking, important and influential players ever". He rips apart Erving in the following paragraphs on his limitations, but he places Erving that high simply because of his transcendent aurora. He places Erving above No. 17 Karl Malone and No. 18 Charles Barkley.
His pyramid, if it were based on the parameters he laid out prior (that being grasp of the secret, effect on team, charisma with other player, trades in his prime, and short amazing careers valued over long mediocre careers), would have been fine for such an experimental pyramid like his.
He also placed Cousy at No. 21, despite Simmons explaining for pages about how the league was far inferior prior to 1955. If Simmons were to do his hard edged critique on Cousy like he did with pre-shot clock players like George Mikan, Cousy should not even be placed at twenty first.
I do not think there really exists such a Celtic player bias that other reviewers have stated. This is a superb take on the history of the NBA and trying to factor everything in. Just because my review features mostly negative takes on the book, doesn't mean the book was entirely erroneous. I enjoyed the book for the most part, falling dead halfway through the ranking of players. I liked the book more so for its concepts and less for the rankings. I think we in turn don't need to adhere to Simmon's pyramid or his subjective views but rather keep in mind "The Secret/The Choice" and try to look at basketball with an unbiased mind.
August 20, 2019
Update
With the adoption of my new rating system, a three star rating is befitting. The original review and original rating conform to the new rating system. Although my original review is mostly filled with criticisms, this book was an enjoyable read, provided me great knowledge on basketball players, and gave me new concepts (the "What-if" chapters, the pyramid ranking style, the "Secret"). For being more than seven hundred pages it length, it definitely was a slow read at some parts, but I think everything else makes up for it retaining a three star rating.
September 14, 2019
Update
I have debated whether to lower the rating of this book to two stars because of its length. I spent more than three months reading this book, and recall being bored with the ranking list about halfway through. However, I had sustained interest in the previous sections in the review that I mentioned as liking. I believe these sections are enough to bump the book to a three star rating. As a resource book, it is enjoyable to read.
March 9, 2020
Update
This book is listed with the 2.5O rating type. I believe the rating type was was specifically made for this book since no other books have this rating type. The description of the 2.5O rating type helps in understanding the rating of this book when it is divvied: "Like the 3B type: “Just liked it. Some four star-rated content, some two star-rated content,
I still doubt the rating because of its length but I must remind myself that when looking at the book now, I feel drawn to begin reading it again and ignoring the length that had just shortly before daunted me.
I do not feel comfortable with the green and grey rating of the book, and have now changed it to yellow and grey because of my uncertainty. I am also believing the previous updates, which provided more support for three and four star-rated sections, as well as the belief that when I finished this book, I was pleased with it to the extent of rating the book at three stars.