I often enjoy Bill Simmons -- though I rarely agree with his analytical approach, particularly when it comes to baseball -- but today’s column is an absolute train-wreck in which many of his worst habits are on display. It’s contradictory with out working through or even acknowledging the contradictions. It’s irrational and illogical. It’s chock-full of mind-reading presented as objective fact, armchair psychoanalysis, absurd melodrama, and tedious efforts to turn everything into morality plays and character studies.
Basically, it’s just like the media’s coverage of politics.
Most striking is how frequently Simmons contradicts himself, without seeming to realize he has done so. Points 10 and 11 in his list of 24-random-thoughts-about-LeBron are that the Miami Heat wouldn’t be very good with James/Wade/Bosh. “No way they win more than 50,” Simmons insists. Point 13 is that James going to Miami would be a “cop-out” because “Any super-competitive person would rather beat Dwyane Wade than play with him. Don't you want to find the Ali to your Frazier and have that rival pull the greatness out of you?” Well, which is it? Would the Heat be mediocre with James/Wade/Bosh, or would going to the Heat show that James doesn’t have any competitive drive because playing with Wade would make things too easy?
In point 15, Simmons says James should go to Chicago: “That's where the rings are. The fact that he didn't say to Bosh, ‘Come to Chicago with me, we'll play with Rose and Noah and win six titles together’ was the single most disappointing outcome of the summer. That team would have been a true juggernaut…”
But Simmons had just ridiculed James for even considering joining Wade and Bosh in Miami, which he portrayed as crying for “HELP” -- something Jordan or Kobe never would have done. He said it would be “The move of someone who, deep down, doesn't totally trust his own talents any more.” Then -- in literally the next paragraph -- Simmons said James should go to Chicago to play with Rose and Noah, and should have brought Bosh along with him. And that Magic and Bird and Kobe would have done the same thing!
So, which is it? Is wanting excellent teammates (Wade, Bosh) a character flaw Kobe Bryant would never demonstrate? Or is wanting excellent teammates (Bosh, Rose, Noah) the kind of no-brainer move anyone -- including Kobe Bryant -- who cares about winning has to do?
Simmons rants for a few paragraphs about how evil James will be if he picks any team other than Cleveland. Ok, he doesn’t say “evil” -- he says it will be cruel, and unforgivable “Repeat: unforgivable,” and “the meanest thing any athlete has ever done to a city.” Oh, and in a sentence in which Simmons blasts James for having “lost all perspective,” Simmons says James leaving Cleveland would make him like Tiger Woods. Read that again: While blasting James for a lack of “perspective,” Bill Simmons compares signing with the Chicago Bulls or Miami Heat to Tiger Woods cheating on his wife with … well, with just about everyone.
Then, two paragraphs later, Simmons says James should pick Chicago or New York.
This inconsistency and incoherence is the inevitable result of Simmons obsession with turning everything an athlete does into some sort of character study. The thing is, though, missing a shot, losing a game, signing with Miami (or New York or Cleveland) … these things aren’t like, say, committing a double homicide in Brentwood. They generally don’t have anything to do with character. You have to strain to try to force them into such a framework.
The giveaway is that you can easily take any given James decision that people are portraying as indictments of his character and spin it as an indication of outstanding character.
Say he chooses Miami. Critics have accused James of having an unhealthy ego; of focusing too much on money; Simmons argues that going to Miami would show he isn’t mentally strong enough to win on his own. But going to Miami means taking less money than staying in Cleveland and leaving a situation in which he is unambiguously the only thing that matters about the entire franchise for a situation in which he is one of three stars. It’s a selfless act that (arguably) demonstrates that all he cares about is winning, which is what the Simmons types are constantly telling us should be an athlete’s highest priority.
See how easy that is? Things that are actually character studies -- like, say, committing a double homicide in Brentwood -- can’t be easily spun as both positives and negatives. There’s a fundamental truth that’s pretty hard to get around: Two dead bodies. But LeBron James signing with the Heat? That’s easy -- because there’s no fundamental truth to get around; it’s all just spin. (Actually, I think it’s much easier to argue that doing so would reflect well on James by the standards people like Simmons typically use* than it is to argue that it reflects poorly on James by those standards.)
Anyway: I don’t really care where James decides to play, though I’d probably prefer it to be anyplace other than Cleveland, if only because they seem likely to have the least interesting roster and team around him. Regardless of his decision, I doubt very much that it will reveal anything about his character, just as Bill Simmons (“The Boston Sports Guy”) moving to L.A. to write for a television show wasn’t a disloyal sell-out. It was just a guy making a decision about where to live and work.
And the other thing people have been complaining about -- James decision to announce his decision via an hour-long ESPN special -- doesn’t bother me at all precisely because of all the foolish psychoanalysis from people like Simmons. The media has spent years speculating about where James would go -- speculation that in recent weeks has increasingly involved judgmental attempts to infer reasons for various potential decisions. Who can blame him for wanting to tell his story his way?
* I say “by the standards people like Simmons typically use” for two reasons: To emphasize how incoherent the Simmons-esque position is, and to make clear that I do not stipulate to the validity of those standards. I don’t think it is inherently “good” or “bad” for an athlete to stay with the team s/he has been playing for, to take less money, to try to maximize earnings, to prioritize winning, to want to play for a team with a rich tradition of excellence, etc, etc. Basically, I don’t expect everyone to have the same priorities in deciding where to work and play, and see no reason why my priorities or Bill Simmons’s are morally superior to someone else’s.
Comments