no, it is preposterous. i click on the thread on occasion, and half the time what i read has nothing to do with basketball. there is a huge noise:signal ratio in there.

the guy just wrote a 700 page book on basketball, he has way better things to do

I'm sure we all have way more better things to do.

With that said, I'm with ya Triumph. I doubt he lurks here let alone post. And considering his columns, his posts would have to be microbobish. And none of the basketball posters really fit that bill afaik.

I don't think he posts/lurks here either, but come one man, dude constantly refers to the movies, shows, and games he watches, as well as all the books he reads. He's not some guy commuting several hours each week to work, globe trotting the world, attending meetings, etc. He's a writer.

I don't understand how you can feel like the level of basketball in which the players aren't good enough athletes or ballhandlers to get to the hole or create their own shots is 'better' somehow. What's great about watching the ball move around the key like four times a possession so somebody can finally get a long two? THEY HAVE TO WORK THAT HARD BECAUSE THEY SUCK.

Well, maybe I *can* understand - there are definitely aspects of college football I prefer to the NFL. I prefer the fan experience of the NFL, because there's usually drama and tension every week. NCAA ball has wacky, esoteric offenses and defenses, though, which I really appreciate - I love random schools running 4-4s and 3-3-5 stacks and the Double-Eagle Flex and Urban Meyer's spread option and Paul Johnson and all the stuff you never get to see in the pros. Is it the same thing, though? No, right? Not all those things are just intrinsically less efficient 'gimmicks,' I don't think.

(Let's face it, being a Texas fan the last two years has been pretty ****ing dull. 22-1 is nice and all, but 85% of the games are like - if you're not up by five scores at halftime and looking forward to Chiles or Gilbert handing it off in the 2nd half, something's terribly wrong. Gets to wear on you sometimes. Particularly in Southern California, where Texas is probably the locals' most hated program and everybody loooooves to hate.)

True.

This is valid, doesn't change the fact that there's alot of very v good NBA related analysis/discussion in there as well.

This is not why it's preposterous for Simmons to be posting in threadzilla. A better reason is how mind numbingly stupid he often is wrt the NBA. The guy spews more garbage armchair analysis than you could imagine.

And if you're looking for a reason that it's absurd for Simmons to be posting in 2+2s NBA thread, you could probably find a better example than him writing a 700 page book about the NBA.

I don't get how people think the NBA is some how more like street ball than the NCAA.

I like college ball a lot because the atmosphere is so appealing. However, the level of play is basically terrible and it's because there's a ****load of chuckers just chucking and not taking good shots. (which is why watching WSU the past few years as so nice).

People actually run offense in the NBA imo (and the ******ed rules strongly benefit 1 on 1 play because you can just be all Wade like and throw yourself into the lane and get a foul call). It's just boring as **** because like 3 games a year actually matter prior to the playoffs, and David Stern has done (imo) a terrible job of having the rules make the product any better.

Dids,

See above!

lol Bill Simmons doesn't read Threadzilla.

The only link between well-known ESPN columnists (not Simmons though) and 2p2 would be the APBMmetrics forum, which a lot of hoops insiders certainly read and a handful of 2p2 posters are active at, but there's very little chance they've ever come to 2p2 NBA threads

Yeah I don't think Bill Simmons is reading 2p2.

I like to think that if he did, every single god damn word he has to say on poker wouldn't make my ears bleed.

"But I raised with AK, how did I not win the hand?"

sorry 2 offend (i am sure its well deserved whatever i said - prolly drunk yankee trolling - my bad). rat is cool though c'mon.

Exactly.

hahaha

No one is arguing that the players are better. "THEY HAVE TO WORK THAT HARD BECAUSE THEY SUCK" is not an argument against his position, its just yelling things that are obviously blatantly true. Some people (like me) feel that college basketball is more entertaining for many reasons (players seem to care way more, it not being 1 on 1 every possession, more storylines (imo) existing, ncaa tournament being the best event in sports, etc).

Some people prefer to watch the LLWS to MLB baseball. They are different games, and some people just enjoy them more. Same with basketball. its just a matter of personal taste and everyone yelling about it either way is pretty stupid

please to be explaining what a basketball storyline entails, thanks.

george mason going to the final 4 as an 11 seed

Curry taking an otherwise pretty bad davidson team deep into the tournament

will northwestern finally get to the NCAA tourney for the first time ever

things like that, while in the NBA its...will the lakers or the celtics or MAYBE the cavs win the championship?

It's crazy that you're a Celtics/Chargers fan, and I'm a Lakers/Broncos fan, (that alone is wtf), and yet we get along. Diamond sharp wisdom ya dig.

god this thread has taken a sharp left towards Suck City since it was moved to SE

can we go back to discussing how awful Cinch is please

People will kill time how they kill time. The implication here is that somehow Bill Simmons is "too good" for 2+2 and I simply don't think that's the case. Of course, if you are referring to a random person then yeah, there's a very small chance they post or read here, but I honestly don't think that declines in the case of Simmons. Tiger Woods probably. Not Bill Simmons. Dude probably just sits around all day. Plus his OT rants are right in line with the NBA thread so it's not like he'd be off-put by them.

lol at this being the only storylines possible in the NBA. That's ridiculous.

And yeah Cinderella tourney runs are nice and those don't happen often in the NBA, but the NBA also produces the most games between the best teams with more on the line. Better imo.

Like City ain't no storyline.

I'm sure we could have a high variance crapshoot like March Madness. That would be an effective way to make inferior teams look better via variance.

right, some people like the best couple of teams playing the most games, which is cool. however, some people also like there being a chance at a substantial underdog winning, which doesnt really happen in the NBA, but it does happen in college. Its just an opinion thing, which is why arguing with MT2R is useless. No one is going to convince the other person that they are right