Comments on: Layups: Book of Basketball Painting

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 03:42:15 +0000

Who's the guy under Naismith in blue?? Bugging the heck out of me! Only guy I can't name...

By: AYC

AYC — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:33:02 +0000

PS The 87 Lakers could probably beat the 96 Bulls too

By: AYC

AYC — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:27:12 +0000

With the obvious exception of the 2 spot, where MJ played, the 86 Celts have the advantage over the 96 Bulls at every starting spot: Parish over Longley, Mchale over Rodman, Bird over Pippen, DJ (or Ainge) over Harper. Off the bench, Walton was better than Longley too. I think Simmons is kind of a jerk, but I wouldn't dismiss his Boston homerism in this case.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:01:50 +0000

I think people are underrating the 86 Celtics' chemistry in areas that don't show up as much in the statistics. I did not live through that era but from the (relatively little compared with living through the 2001 Lakers era) footage that I've seen, they were a ridiculously good passing team and frequently toyed with opponents just by passing the ball around until a player had a wide open shot. Most of the time that beats having a super dominant player. Besides, don't forget that the Celtics had Bill Walton on the bench to slow Shaq if Parish struggled. Dennis Johnson could do a good defensive job on Kobe. Who did the Lakers have on the bench to help on Bird? Also, the Celtics were unbeatable at home, then again the Lakers were an impressive road team at the time so if any team would be able to come away with a win in the Garden it would be them. All that said, da 96 Bulls should have still been tops.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:09:39 +0000

Thanks so much, Jay!

Mike Tussey -- I don't think there's a key out there. We could probably put one together quickly.

By: James B

James B — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 04:27:09 +0000

-DBM Kobe is the one that really smashed the Spurs in '01, and I agree that the '86 Boston team against Kobe and Shaq in '01 would have been seriously challenged. In 2 series they (Lakers) completely dismantled the league's best offense defense.

By: dbm

dbm — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:49:33 +0000

Jay- Yeah, I agree. I read the copy at my local library. Incredible effort from Simmons, but a little much on the Celtic bias. He argues so hard at times for Russell over Chamberlain that it almost looks like he doesn't believe it in his heart. For instance, he does not argue nearly as hard for Magic over Bird. Reason: He really believes it. Other stuff: '86 Celtics number one? I think not. The 1996 Bulls should have been number one...the fact that the 1997 team was so dominant clinched it for me. Not having the ;97 Bulls in the top 5 (because of no two teams in the top 5 rule he just made up?) comical. I thought he did bring up an interesting point about the 2001 Lakers. My brother and I talk hoops all the time, and we both always thought that those Lakers would have been a tough out for the 90's Bulls because of Shaq. I do have to again disagree with Simmons though on saying the '86 Celtics would "handle" or take apart or whatever the 2001 Lakers. He based that on McHale and Chief. The problem is, in real life 2001, Shaq smashed the Spurs in the postseason, sweeping them. The Spurs had Duncan and Robinson. Robinson was a little older, but still very solid on D. As a defensive duo, give me Duncan and Robinson over Parrish and McHale any day. Now, the Lakers might have had trouble with Bird, but the Celtics would have had similar trouble with Kobe. It is one of those things: Those Lakers did not accomplish enough to merit the top ranking, but match-up wise, I think they would give a lot of the other great teams trouble.

By: Mike Tussey

Mike Tussey — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:43:35 +0000

Is there a key for the Haines paintings of BB greats?

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:53:55 +0000

You can actually look at simmons' current rankings here:

http://www.austinbell.tv/bookofbasketball.html#7

I tend to agree with most of what he writes in his columns, but when I was flipping through the book at barnes and noble, I came across a lot of things that bothered me. I didn't end up buying it. Then again, in a 700 page book, you're bound to found things you disagree with. I just think he can be stubbornly opinionated at times, and that came across in the book. It was certainly a great effort on his part.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:23:00 +0000

that's Nate Thurmond