Seeing him rant for three paragraphs in a chat transcript about how the late 90s were the worst modern basketball has been, all to attack the career of Karl Malone, really drove home what a petty, reductive source this guy is. And you could tell how serious he was, since there wasn't a single joke or hamfisted pop culture reference in those three paragraphs.

And, or course, there still isn't all that much evidence to support his stance on quality of competition, particularly as regards the West in the late 90s.

The 96/97/98 Sonics, Lakers (96 they draft Kobe, pick up Horry, and a guy named Shaq), Rockets and Spurs (bad 97, strong in 96&98) were poor teams? Really? And how does he draw this conclusion? With little more than the circular argument that Utah was superior during this period, with the fact that there were two expansion teams as an addendum. But as an argument regarding skillsets and worth, even if the *teams* were worse during this time, how does this prove that Karl Malone was a lacking player? The conflation of team result with individual greatness is typically myopic and self-serving, which is how a Boston Dynasty homer like Simmons can surmise and justify Kevin McHale>>>Karl Malone.

Best in conference? On some limited level, sure. But does conference record truly prove which team was the best for a given year?

The power of subjectivity, versus or as a subversion of ordinary language philosophy.

The only problem I have with this post, really, is that it bites off more than it can chew on the basis of statistical analysis as broad-based conclusion. It offers itself up as a subject that it can't really encompass or prove out.

Statistical systems are limited, numbers are constant. But *watching* games and teams play is a numeric basis that often gets forgotten with those same systems, which leads to bad equations and, therefore, conclusions.

Simmons has some real issues with bias, that go beyond his homerism for NE teams.

One of them appears to be his dislike for the 90s Jazz.

Circular logic and whatever method necessary to arrive at his preferred conclusions are easily spotted, such as his argument that the Jazz were favored to beat the 1996 Sonics (where? Seriously, where?) in a seven game series where the latter had won 64 games versus Utah's 55, and that this proved that Sloan's group were "chokers".

The obvious point would be, somewhere in there, that Utah was the better team, then, right?

Well, no, not really, as Simmons then goes on to argue that Utah could only make the Finals after the conference got weaker on talent. Yet his earlier argument assumes that Utah should have easily beaten the best team in the conference, Seattle, in 1996.

I also find his conclusion that Utah benefited from a weak West to be seriously suspect, and likely stemming very simply from the fact that he disliked the outcome of Utah representing the West two straight years. Within that, when Seattle beats Utah, complete with an ailing Stockton, by four total points in a game 7 home game for the 1996 conference title, this proves that the West was stronger; yet when Utah beats a Rockets team that has three hall of fame players, that also just beat a Sonics team that was very similar on roster talent to the 1996 iteration, this proves that the West was weak.

Something tells me that if Houston had won the West, we'd be hearing from this same guy that the 1997 playoffs were amongst the greatest ever, particularly the Finals matchup.

Further, Utah -- over the course of those two playoff runs -- defeated four teams with records of 55 wins or better, and came within a few baskets of twice defeating the Dynasty Bulls, including losing the first Finals by a combined four points to a selfsame Bulls team that won 69 games. Comparing by way of another era -- namely Simmons' preferred (that of his youth) of the 1980s -- the Lakers didn't defeat a single team with 55 wins or better in the conference playoffs over a 4 year span, and usually played opponents with barely better than .500 records throughout those conference playoffs; in fact, for the conference title in 1987, they played a team with 39 wins. In 1984 they played the Suns, a team with 41 victories.

Yet would Simmons question the quality of those Lakers teams based on those opponents? Of course not, because that may say something negative about the 80s Celtics and that overall era by proxy.

Simmons, I'm sure, would argue that this lack of competition points to a top-heavy league in the mid 80s, which means that the very best truly were great teams. Is that a workable argument? Sure. But it also works and carries through to the late 90s when, unfortunately, Utah was probably the second best team in the league while Jordan was dominating.

And Utah, even under that rubric, faced what appears to be far tougher competition -- even if or argued as top-heavy competition -- than the 80s Lakers, defeating teams with impressive records on a regular basis in May. Whereas LAL actually had a sub-.500 record for a number of years against teams with 50+ wins in the playoffs.

I think, like a great many people, Simmons hated those 90s Utah teams, particularly their stars, and that this shows in his poor argumentation. Some of his debates with Hollinger on Malone and Stockton have shown this as well, as he also tries to press the idea that Malone's stats were falsely created through pace -- even though Malone's stats stayed steady from the time of a far faster league to a far slower one.

But then, I also think that Simmons is a pretty poor sports mind that gets by on leftover jokes from Jimmy Kimmel, itself a terrible talk show.