OK, so here's the situation:
This is an article that was written on ESPN.com by somebody named Chris Broussard.
The summary, if I may be so bold, reads like this:
1. Nobody who covers the NBA actually knows anything about coaching styles... they are lazy journalists who don't understand the game because they haven't played it.
YES OK THAT IS A GOOD POINT.
2. I, on the other hand, understand basketball because I have played it.
I AM WITH YOU GO AHEAD AND DROP KNOWLEDGE.
3. Mike Brown is a good coach because, uh, he "relates to his stars" well and "the Cavs are good at defense and rebounding."
YOU JUST BECAME THE EXACT THING YOU RAILED AGAINST EARLIER IN THE ARTICLE.
Listen, I fully agree that most everyone who writes about the NBA is incredibly lazy and says things like "the Celtics are playing with the heart of champions" and "Kevin Love is a good basketball player because he has such good stats". I accept that. The NBA is fun to write about because you don't have to know any stats... you just watch a game and say "Oooooooo that Kevin Durant sure can shoot it!" and you're off. But if you CALL OUT those people who do that, then you can't do it.
And for the record, Mike Brown is not a very good coach. He's average. He has no discernable offensive system, and his defense is good because of LeBron. Without the talent on his team, he would not be successful. Top tier coaches are able to guide teams to a specific style that exceeds their talent... or exploits opponents' weaknesses. Mike Brown doesn't do that.
Ok, then I read the first few paragraphs of this garbage.
I don't need to go into why that whole premise sucks, but let's just say this... the concept that the Celtics and the Bulls are going to play an epic playoff series just because the Bulls are "up and coming" and the Celtics are "aging" is only valid if it is true, which it is not. The Celtics' best players are guys like Rondo, Davis, Perkins... etc. Without KG, the only olds on the team are Ray and Pierce. The rest are young bucks. But again, we don't need to waste ink on this... Simmons is a homer and ignorant to everything about the NBA save salaries and Boston, so yeah.
THE POINT OF THIS ENTIRE POST
I'm listening to Hubie Brown covering this Cavs game and last night I heard Doug Collins. How is it possible that these two men know so much about the way that basketball is played? Their knowledge so outstrips any of the analysis I have ever read in print, ever, and they say it every night. And it's always fresh, always dynamic. See, that's the draw of the NBA, in a nutshell... the fact that it's always changing, that sometimes there are upsets because of the flow of the game and the changing dynamics. And these guys are right there, calling it out as it happens, identifying weaknesses and trends. So why when I read JA Adande does he sound 1% as smart as Hubie? Comparing Doug Collins to Bill Simmons in terms of overall sport knowledge is like comparing Stephen Hawking to Joe Theismann.
My recommendation: just watch the games. Don't read any of this fucking filth out there. I haven't read a good NBA column in years (though I will stubbornly give Simmons props for his article re: All Star Weekend this year, as it identified things that nobody else is talking about) and it's getting worse. The true talent is on television. Is that the way it's supposed to be?