I like Bill Simmons as much as anybody else...

But this is a column he wrote before the NBA playoffs that he might want to bury where no one can find it, before a smart-ass like me pokes fun at it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part1/100416&sportCat=nba
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part2/100416&sportCat=nba

I'll preface this by saying that when you're in the prediction business, you're going to be wrong a lot. But it's still fun to look back and see just how wrong we were.

I think this spring could be the last stand for the Rejuvenated Atlanta Hawks.

And what a stand it was. Has a team ever gone out so meekly before? They got swept in 4 games by Orlando by approximately 30 points a game, but not before needing 7 games to beat the undertalented Milwaukee Bucks. With Joe Johnson leaving it was their last stand, but it wasn't exactly the stuff of "300."

I think Larry Brown could absolutely outcoach his first- and second-round opponents this spring.

Stan Van Gundy in Round 1, Mike Woodson in Round 2 ... and Mike Brown looming in Round 3. I'm just sayin'.

He could...if his team could win a game first. The Bobcats were swept in the first round by Orlando. I wouldn't argue that Larry Brown is a better coach than Van Gundy, Woodson or Mike Brown, but the NBA is all about the players, and the Bobcats don't have them.

I think Ernie Grunfeld should be the 2009-10 Anti-Executive of the Year.

He turned Dallas into a contender and made Cleveland the overwhelming favorite.

In retrospect, those deals didn't hardly do anything for Dallas or Cleveland. Jamison was MIA for the Cavs in round 2, and Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood didn't mean a thing as the Mavs lost to the Spurs in round 1.


I think Cleveland will win the 2010 title.

Best team, best player, best season. Of course, we could have said that last year. But Jamison and Shaq give the Cavs a flexibility last season's team just didn't have.

Jamison was useless, and Shaq clogged up the lane. That Cleveland team is shit, and I'm never buying into their hype again, even if LeBron does come back.

I know "Deron Williams or Chris Paul?" is a legitimate debate.

I only mention this one because Simmons now goes out of his way to say that Rondo is the best PG in the NBA, when a mere two months ago he wasn't even in the discussion. I personally like Chris Paul the best, but Williams and Rondo are damn good and so is Derrick Rose. It is a legitimate debate, but it's between four PGs, not two.

I know the Celtics are going to lose in Round 1.

Wait, it gets better.

I know Cavs-Mavericks is a smart Finals wager in Vegas.

In retrospect, I have no idea why we ever bought into these teams. Well okay, Cleveland has LeBron. But Dallas' second best player is Jason Kidd, and that just doesn't cut it. Dirk should go to Phoenix and play with Steve Nash again. He's not winning a championship in Dallas unless they somehow bring in another superstar.

I can prove that the 2010 Orlando-Cleveland series will be different than the 2009 Orlando-Cleveland series.

It will be different, in that it won't happen. Orlando was a lot worse than last season (who knew Hedo was such a valuable player for them?), and Cleveland was, at best, no better.

I can prove that the Disease of More exists.

Our latest example: the 2009-10 Los Angeles Lakers.

This is the stuff that kills you. When you go out of your way to say that the favorite has a fatal flaw...and then that flaw never appears.

I can prove that chemistry matters

Group 1 (has it): Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Atlanta, Portland, Milwaukee, San Antonio and Phoenix.

Group 2 (doesn't have it): Boston, Los Angeles.

Group 3 (unclear): Orlando, Utah, Miami, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver.

Okay, now this is where we get into trouble. Simmons too often falls into that fairy tale bullshit about chemistry mattering more than talent, and he thinks that somehow he can quantify chemistry. I don't doubt that chemistry exists and matters, but you can't actually prove it. Look at the teams he put in group 1; only Phoenix acquitted themselves nicely this postseason. Oklahoma City did fine but they still lost in the first round, as did Portland and Milwaukee (no fault really; they just aren't talented enough); Dallas and Cleveland were big busts, while San Antonio got swept in the second round. And then there's Atlanta; pardon my french, but what in the fuck are the Hawks doing in a "good chemistry" group? The Hawks have horrible chemistry; a whole bunch of selfish players who had other ideas besides winning in the 2nd round (what those ideas were is still a mystery). I mean, what the fuck Simmons. The Hawks???

I appreciate that a whopping 6 playoff teams have unclear chemistry, as if proving my point that chemistry is unquantifiable. But does Simmons come to this conclusion, despite his own evidence? Nope, he'll still tell you can see good chemistry and bad chemistry, even though 6 playoff teams that he no doubt saw play at least 20 times this season he had no clue about.

And then there's the group 2, the two playoff teams that Simmons thought absolutely, positively had bad chemistry this season; they are, of course, the two teams facing off in the NBA Finals. Maybe now we can drop the magic beans bullshit and analyze teams for their talent rather than their pixie dust?

--------

My point here isn't to pick on Simmons, since I like his NBA writing a lot and I actually agreed with a lot of this back when it was written. I liked Cleveland and Dallas as well, and thought Boston would go out early. When you make predictions you're going to be wrong, and Lord knows I've been wrong many times. I just wish he would stick to basketball, and drop the fairy tale stuff. Chemistry doesn't put the ball in the basket; pixie dust doesn't put a hand in Kobe's face as he rises for a jump shot. The game is about the players, except in those rare circumstances where players are openly gunning for themselves or something, in which case yes that's problematic.

Kinda like, I don't know...the Atlanta Hawks. I still can't believe he thought they had good chemistry.