Originally Posted by fpliii
I like his podcast and his columns (and loved the 30 for 30 series, which I believe he executive produced), but I don't care for him much as a studio analyst.
I'm really torn on his book though...the amount of research he did is admirable, but I found myself disagreeing with his arguments/logic/trains of thought more often than not. I think it's fine if you take the 'Book of Basketball' for what it is (as opposed to at face value, since it seems Bill performed a lot of research to find support for his arguments, rather than approaching the project with a blank state; this is just how it comes off to me, at least).
Totally agreed on his book of basketball. But generally aside from the really random wtf really things he has rankings wise: IE his argument for Chuck over Malone and then he goes with Malone because of his durability/length of career. And his praise on Stockton in his blog but putting him in level 3 at 25...when Stockton wasn't quite the player but most of his records are untouchable, and he should probably be at least level 4. And there's certain players who I could put him over.
And with the ESPN NBA thing, the best night in the Bill era was easily the night it was just him and Wilbon. They actually talked about real stuff, and were fairly analytical. I think he gets to call some shots too, because after the talking about sub .500 Lakers every telecast for the first few weeks he tweeted about it saying he doesn't want to talk about them and asked the viewers what they thought, and they mention them but it's totally different. I think if they let him control the show it'd be way way better.