In Bill Simmons’s most recent mailbag, a reader asks a question about former Redskins and Texans GM Charley Casserly…

Q: I’m taking Sports Leadership taught by Charley Casserly at Georgetown next fall. What percentage of the class is going to be on “How to draft a defensive end from N.C. State even when a running back from USC is available”?
– Rawiri, Washington

SG: Hold on, hold on, hold on … Charley Casserly is teaching at Georgetown??? This is the last straw! What’s next — Trevor Ariza’s agent and Lamar Odom’s agent teaching a class in sports law? For years, I’ve been waiting for some college or university to approach me about teaching a class called “Sports Column Writing 101,” “How to be Lazy and Succeed” or “Weaving Pop Culture and Sports to Your Own Literary Detriment.” Did I get one offer? Did UCLA ever say, “Let’s give Simmons a class, I bet 30 kids will be dumb enough to sign up?” Noooooooooooooo! But failed GM Charley Casserly gets to teach kids at Georgetown, the school I wanted to attend that brutally rejected me in 1988? This makes me want to skin sheep in front of a PETA rally. I’m so bitter right now.

Why is Simmons hating on Casserly? He doesn’t offer any evidence, so I guess that this is all about the Mario Williams-over-Reggie Bush pick in 2006. Only that pick has turned out pretty well for the Texans. Williams was a Pro Bowler last year and Bush has missed 10 games in his first three seasons.

In fact, after a semi-disastrous start in Houston in 2002 (David Carr, Jabar Gaffney and Fred Weary), Casserly rebounded in 2003-2006 by drafting five future Pro Bowlers (Williams, Andre Johnson, Jerome Mathis, DeMeco Ryans and Owen Daniels). Ryans was named Defensive Rookie of the Year in 2006. The Texans went 2-14 in the 2005 season, and Casserly was run out of town resigned after the 2006 Draft. But the team has improved since then, posting a respectable 22-26 record in the three years since his departure. Much of the credit for this leap is given to the aforementioned players that Casserly drafted.

Prior to joining the Texans, Casserly was the GM for the Washington Redskins, where he won Executive of the Year honors in 1999 after fleecing the Saints for all their picks in the draft (as well as a future first and third) while still landing the guy he wanted — Champ Bailey.

While Casserly did have his share of clunkers (Heath Shuler must be mentioned), the guy had his share of good picks as well. Again, I don’t know what Simmons’s beef is here, but if it’s the whole Williams/Bush thing, then he should check his facts — Casserly has been vindicated.

Read the first four parts of Correcting Bill Simmons.

…when I read a Bill Simmons mailbag.

Anyway, there was a really funny moment Thursday that could have only happened at a Lakers game. Near the end of a third-quarter timeout, the camera caught Val Kilmer and three of his chins on the JumboTron, punctuating the moment by playing “Danger Zone” by Kenny Loggins. You know, a “Top Gun” homage. He took a second or two to get the joke, then unleashed one of those “Very funny, you got me, just know that I’m on a lot of meds right now” smiles. And this would have been enjoyable on its own, but they cut to someone else in the stands. …

That’s right. …

Tom Cruise!

He caught on a little quicker and did the Tom Cruise Over-Laugh. And this would have been great on its own, but the Lakers pushed it to another level: They went split-screen with Kilmer and Cruise with “Danger Zone” still blasting. As far as I was concerned, this was the most emotional reunion in Lakers history. Cruise kept laughing; Kilmer looked mildly perturbed. (After all, he’s an actor, dammit! That was 23 years ago! He’s made a lot of movies since then!) At this point, I was praying they’d cut to Anthony Edwards in Section 312 but he wasn’t there.

Ha! Great one about Anthony Edwards sitting in the upper level.

Wouldn’t that make more sense than gutting the franchise like a fish (which they will), saddling [Chris] Paul with a terrible team and eventually pushing him to demand a trade? I can’t see any scenario in which Chris Paul is a happy New Orleans Hornet in two years. Which means he’ll find a better team. Sorry, N’Awlins. Over.

Not over. Chris Paul is signed through the 2012 season. The Hornets need to find a way to unload Peja Stojakovic’s contract, and it probably won’t happen until he’s in the final year of his deal in 2010-2011. They can either add a star-level player who has two or three more years on his deal (and his team wants Peja’s expiring contract instead) or they can wait until Stojakovic is off the books and reload. In the summer of 2011, David West will be 30, so he should still have three good years left.

It’s funny. Peja’s contract got the Hornets into this mess, but if New Orleans had continued to develop Julian Wright instead of signing James Posey for $6 million per season, they wouldn’t be a luxury tax team, and they wouldn’t be looking to give Tyson Chandler away.

A few readers e-mailed me after Barkley commented that Melo was the best “pure” scorer in the NBA (wondering what that meant), and my answer is this: It means Melo gets his points easier than anyone else does. There are six ways to score in a basketball game: Make 3-pointers, post up, beat guys off the dribble, score in transition, score in traffic and get to the line.

He forgot the offensive glass. And this guy thinks he’s qualified to be an NBA GM?

Maybe this will be part of my pitch to take over the Clippers: “If an outsider could turn Fiat around, an outsider could turn the Clippers around!”

Great. I want the Clippers to fire Dunleavy as much as the next guy, but not if it means 3,000 words from Simmons about why he should take over as GM.

The one fascinating thing about “Kobe Doin’ Work” was Kobe’s contrived interactions with his teammates; it’s like he was taking us for fools. Watch this, I’m going to talk Italian to Sasha Vujacic. And what’s funny was that his teammates all had a “Wait a second, he never talks to me!” look on their face as soon as he walked away. It was a massive miscalculation of the average NBA fan’s IQ, and digging even further, a blown chance to show people that he’s a ruthless competitor who demands the best from everyone around him.

I couldn’t agree more.

The difference in quality between pre-DUI Chuck [Barkley] and post-DUI Chuck has been jarring. In a good way. He even looks lively during TNT’s integrated commercial spots when he’s trying to seem excited about “X-Men.” And he was singing the praises of Orlando and Denver well before it became chic to do so. We’ve come a long way since the days when he was praising Dallas and Detroit for the Kidd/Iverson trades.

This made me think of that Charles Barkley T-Mobile video game commercial…

I love the skin tight black bodysuits. Classic.

Here’s a bonus one with Dwight Howard…

“I’m gonna try something fancy. Watch this.”

When discussing why Robert Horry is on a list of the players with the top overall winning percentages, Simmons made this comment…

Robert Horry’s career is going to be studied for months by John Hollinger’s perplexed great-great-great-great-grandchildren in the 2100s, and ultimately they’re going to throw their hands up, shake their heads and move on to a topic that actually makes sense.

It’s not that complicated. Horry was a solid role player who (a) could fit in anywhere (b) didn’t think he was better than he was (and never demanded an outrageous contract) and (c) was always in the right place at the right time. He played with the three greatest big men of recent memory in their primes: ‘92-’96 Hakeem Olajuwon (2 titles, 1 MVP), ‘96-’03 Shaq (3 titles, 1 MVP) and ‘03-’08 Tim Duncan (2 titles). A career 34% three-point shooter, Horry had the innate ability to hit shots in the clutch, and had plenty of opportunity with all of the double-teams that Olajuwon, Shaq and Duncan demanded over the years. Plus, he was a good defender, so he was always on the court in crunch time. Like I said — right place, right time.

That’s it.

Last year, when the Bucks had a GM opening, Bill Simmons started a campaign to fill the position. Fortunately, the Bucks hired John Hammond.

Fast forward a year, and Simmons is campaigning for the open Minnesota GM job, punctuated by this beauty in his so-called “epic” conversation with author Malcom Gladwell (the guy who thinks all underdogs should utilize the full-court press).

NBA teams rarely, if ever, think outside the box, and that’s one of at least 50 reasons why I could succeed as a GM.

This started out as a semi-joke, but I think over the course of the last year, Simmons’ ego, along with a few thousand emails of support from his readers, have convinced himself that he’s actually qualified to run an NBA franchise.

Look around the league and you’ll find that NBA general managers are usually former players, had front-office experience prior to getting the keys to a franchise, have advanced degrees in business and have an deep understanding of the salary cap and of how the fiscal side of the NBA works. Bill’s greatest strength is his ability to compare an athlete to a character to some random movie from the ’80s. What’s he going to do — sit Kevin Love down and tell him that his game reminds him of Chubby from “Teen Wolf”? How does this get the T-Wolves to the playoffs?

To me, the big question is whether or not Simmons keeps this up. Is he going to campaign for every open general manager position until he gets one (or more likely, dies of old age)? Or is there a certain point when all this I-can-run-an-NBA-team talk becomes so sad that he eventually just gives it up?

There’s no doubt about it — Simmons is an entertaining sportswriter, maybe the best in the stream-of-consciousness/pop-culture business. But he needs a reality check, and there’s no way to give it to him.

In Bill Simmons’ latest mailbag, he responds to a number of different reader questions. Most of his answers are fine, but a few are puzzling…

There should be a section on eBay that allows the auctioning of enticing future bets. For instance, a few weeks before the NBA season, I placed $300 on 15-to-1 odds that Cleveland would win the 2009 NBA title. Those odds have dropped to 2-to-1. Not that I would (after all, Cleveland is going to win the 2009 NBA title), but shouldn’t I have the option to sell that $300 ticket on eBay? What if someone bid $1,200 on it (which would be a smart move because, again, Cleveland is going to win the NBA title) and I was guaranteed a $900 return on my investment? Should I take the money? This would be a fun Web site, you have to admit. And if eBay can’t do it, then why couldn’t the casinos themselves build a Web site that allows people to sell future tickets and get a second cut on the action? It all makes too much sense.

Yeah…okay…this already exists — it’s called a “long-term market” and my favorite online sportsbook WSEX.com, has had them for at least five years now. Go to the site, hit “Pro Basketball” on the left, hit “Pro Championship” under “Long-Term Markets” on the main screen — there’s a long-term market where gamblers can buy and sell wagers on who will win the NBA championship. They have 1-pays (where only a share in the winner is worth something) and 4-pays (where shares in the winner, runner-up, and third and fourth place teams are worth something). You can buy and sell these shares throughout the year.

How does a guy that calls himself “The Sports Guy” not know about this? Didn’t he hit up any of his colleagues/friends at ESPN in all the time that he has pondered this eBay idea of his?

As of right…..now…..I’m not going to refer to Bill Simmons as “The Sports Guy” any longer. As far as I’m concerned, he has lost the right to have that nickname.

And then there’s this doozy…

Q: Why won’t you understand shooting percentages? 33 percent from beyond the arc is the equivalent of 50 percent from within. If a guy shot 50 percent from the field, would you be killing him for shooting? Of course not. You obviously realize how stupid that would be. Yet that’s what you’ve been doing — FOR YEARS — with your mind-boggling argument against 3-point shooting unless the guy can hit 75 percent of his 3s. Just think about it for a couple of seconds. Please … we are begging you.
– Nick, New York

SG: Dozens of readers e-mailed me Nick’s same stupid argument in a similarly condescending way, which is what makes the following so much fun: I’m not stupid, YOU’RE STUPID. That 33/50 logic only makes sense in a professional basketball league in which they aren’t calling fouls and you aren’t allowed to pass to a teammate … which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t currently exist.

Let’s say that one player attempts 12 3-pointers and makes four (for 12 points). His teammate attempts 12 2-pointers and makes six, but during that time — because he’s not standing 25 feet away jacking up 3s like an idiot — he also draws three fouls on his defender, creates two assists for teammates, makes three of four free throws, turns the ball over once, and misses one layup that gets tapped in by a teammate (we’ll call it 19 points). You’re telling me those two scenarios are equal? If I’m playing LeBron (a 31 percent 3-point shooter), ideally, I want him jacking up contested 3s because that means (A) he’s not getting to the line, (B) he’s not getting my guys in foul trouble, and (C) he’s not potentially creating shots for someone else. I can’t defend LeBron when he’s going to the basket, especially if he’s getting calls. But you know what? If he’s happy shooting 3s from 25 feet with a hand in his face, then I’m delighted. This is great. I want him to do that. And if he’s doing something that the other team WANTS him to do, then he’s doing the wrong thing. I’m fine with shooting 24-footers over 20-footers, but getting into the paint will always be more valuable than jacking up 3s. It’s just a fact.

(Note to Nick and everyone else who mailed me the 33/50 argument: I’m doing the Dikembe finger wave at you. Don’t come into my house.)

I’m happy that one (or a dozen) of his readers took him to task on this, but he didn’t really answer the question and what he did say, he said in a belligerent and deceptive manner. Here’s why:

1. He used the lowest hanging fruit — LeBron James — as an example.
As outlined in one of my previous posts, LeBron James should absolutely cut back on his three pointers, especially ones that are contested. He’s so productive when going to the hole that he should do it as much as possible, within reason. There is no other player in the league that is quite as productive when attacking the basket — okay, maybe there is, but let’s agree that LeBron is deadly when going to the hole — but Bill’s arbitrary “no three’s” rule doesn’t apply to everyone. Baron Davis was the other example in Bill’s original column and he’s not nearly as productive when attacking the basket.

2. He ignores the impact of the threat of the three.
LeBron has to take the occasional three because he needs to keep the defense honest. If he completely cuts them out of the game (and that’s what Bill wants, based on his suggestion from the original column that he should be fined anytime he takes one), then the defender will know that he doesn’t have to close out on him as hard and that’s going to close LeBron’s driving lanes down. This is going to result in a drop in productivity when he goes to the hole, especially when help defenders are able to stay home. This is doubly true for players that aren’t as quick or as strong as LeBron. They have to get their defenders out of position to get by them and it’s nearly impossible to do that without the threat of the long ball.

Again, it’s generally better to take the ball inside, but you can’t do that every single time because the defense will counter. Even if a team’s leading or second-leading scorer is only making 30% of his threes, it’s still okay to shoot a few (2-3 per game) because he’s getting three points for every make and he’s keeping the defense honest (and the driving lanes open).

It’s points like these that make it painfully obvious that Bill has never played basketball on a high level.

“The Sports Guy” is killing me. He’s at it again, harping on players that take too many three pointers even though they aren’t accurate from behind the stripe. I’ve already gone through this once, about a year ago, after Simmons slammed Tracy McGrady from shooting too many threes. Now, in his otherwise fine “Dumbleavy” diary/column, Bill’s targets are Baron Davis, Zach Randolph and…gulp…LeBron James.

7:35: LeBron bricks a 3-pointer that leads to Thornton’s fast-break dunk. Clips by 17, timeout Cavs. Let the record show that (A) LeBron is a 32.5 percent career 3-point shooter, (B) he went 0-for-6 in this particular game and (C) he should be fined every time he takes one.

6:54: Speaking of guys who should never shoot a 3, it’s Baron Davis! He just bricked one. If he told you that he’s a 32.3 percent career 3-point shooter and averaging 29.5 percent this season, then I told you that he takes five per game, would you believe me? You probably wouldn’t, right?

4:35: Randolph (aka Z-Bo) sinks an open 3 that he never should have taken because he’s a career 28.9 long-distance shooter. Maybe we should make it like a driver’s license — if you dip under 35 percent through 250 career attempts, you’re suspended from shooting 3s for a year?

Coaches live with guys shooting in the low 30’s from long range because…well…the shots are worth an extra point. It’s (almost) that simple.

LeBron is shooting 33.1% from long range on the season. He’s shooting 53.6% from two-point range. For argument’s sake, let’s say that for 100 straight possessions, LeBron launches a three every time down the court. If his numbers bear out, he’s going to make 33 of them, scoring 99 points. That’s 0.99 points per possession. Now, let’s say he shoots a two-pointer for 100 straight possessions. He’s going to make 54 of them, so he’ll score 108 points on 100 possessions, or 1.08 points per possession.

Now, for a guy like LeBron, it’s important to take free throws into account. He has taken 1,076 two-point shots and 667 free throws. According to 82games.com, he’s second in the league in “and 1’s” (where the player is fouled as he scores a bucket) with 82. That’s 1.17 a game.

Back to the 100-possession example. If LeBron takes 100 shots from inside the arc, based on his free throw numbers, he’s going to get fouled almost 24% of the time, assuming that the only time he’s fouled is when he’s attempting a shot…

= (667 free throws / 2 free throws per trip) / (333 trips to the line + 1076 two-point attempts)

= 23.6%

So he makes 41 buckets (76 actual attempts x 53.6% accuracy) for 82 points and shoots 48 free throws. His FT% is almost 77%, so he’s going to make approximately 37. So far, he’s at 119 points. Throw in some old-fashioned three-point plays (at a rate of 7.6%, so 5.8 additional free throw attempts on 76 two-point attempts), so rounding up that’s 5 additional points, for a total of 124 points (or 1.24 points per possession).

Is he better off with the two-pointer? Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean he should completely abandon the long ball.

LeBron’s game is predicated on driving to the hole. If he decides not to take any threes, defenders will know what he’s doing before he does it. Granted, that doesn’t mean that they’ll be able to stop him, but if he’s not a threat on the perimeter, then the defender will have a better chance to stay in front of him as he tries to go to the hole. Part of the reason LeBron gets fouled so much is because his defender is out of position when he closes out on LeBron, and that puts James at a distinct advantage when he does go to the hole.

If I were managing LeBron’s shots, I’d try to convince him to reduce his three-point attempts per game from 4.8 down to about 3.0 or 3.5. He has no business taking a contested three unless he’s up against the shot clock. But if he’s open, and his defender is laying off, he should try to make a couple to keep everyone honest.

Now Baron Davis is a different animal. He’s shooting just 30.5% from long range and 40.2% on two-pointers. According to his numbers, he’s going to get fouled 14.7% of the time he takes a shot inside the arc. So for the 100-possession example, he’s going to score 93 points if he takes 100 three-pointers. If he takes 100 two-point shots, he’s going to take 85 attempts (making 34) and go to the line 15 times, taking 30 free throws. He’ll make 76%, or 23 points. So far, he’s at 91 points (68 from made buckets + 23 free throws). He has 15 “and 1’s” on the season, so he’ll get an extra free throw 2.7% of the time, so that means an extra two points from the charity stripe for a total of 93 points.

So, for Davis, it doesn’t matter whether or not he launches a three or goes to the hole, he’s still scoring at about the same rate. (If I were coaching Davis, I’d try to get him to pass more!)

And Zach Randolph?

Ah, who cares…

All else being equal, it’s usually better to take the ball inside when you can. You’re going to get the other team in foul trouble and create openings for other players to score. But Simmons’ notion that if you shoot less than 35% from long range that you should be shooting any threes is just silly.

One thing that struck me about Bill Simmons’ trade value column was his unabashed hatred for Michael Beasley’s game. He made three separate references to the rookie:

Jason Thompson: I mocked him on draft day and he shoved it in my face like a cream pie. Top-notch energy guy, good defender, lots to like. You know, if Michael Beasley wasn’t such a colossal disappointment and semi-fraud, the 2008 draft could have ranked among the best ever (and certainly superior to the more ballyhooed ‘07 class).

Colossal disappointment? Semi-fraud? Ouch.

Jeff Green: Great teammate, tough as nails, gives a crap, does whatever you need. He’s the anti-Beasley.

So Simmons is saying that Beasley is not a good teammate, isn’t tough, doesn’t give a crap and won’t do whatever you need? Ouch.

You have to love a country where Love’s best rookie card (Upper Deck’s ‘09 SPX set, the signed autographed jersey card) goes for one-eighth the money of Beasley’s card … and yet, Miami could offer Beasley for Love right now and Minnesota would make a face and hang up. Whatever.

Ouch.

All right, so how is Beasley faring this season? Here are his numbers:

24.2 mpg, 13.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg, 45% FG%, 39% 3PT

All of that combines for a PER of 15.34, which is #36 amongst power fowards. Not great, but since 15.00 is average, at least he’s above average.

Simmons looooooooooves Durant, and for good reason. The guy is playing great in his second season. But how did he fare in his rookie season?

34.6 mpg, 20.3 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 2.4 apg, 43% FG%, 29% 3PT

Hmm. That adds up to a PER of 15.87.

All right, so I think it’s fairly clear that statistically speaking, Beasley’s rookie year, on a per-minute basis, is comparable with Durant’s. It’s unfair to write him off as a “colossal disappointment” — he still projects to be a very good player. Had he been thrown to the wolves (like Durant was) and allowed to take 17.1 shots per game (instead of his current average of 11.6), I really think Beasley would be able to score 20+ a game too.

Since he can’t be speaking in quantitative terms, Simmons hatred must be qualitative. I’ll admit that I haven’t seen enough of Beasley in the NBA to say that he isn’t tough, is a poor teammate and doesn’t care. Are there any Heat fans out there who want to chime in about how they feel about their rookie right now?

…Forget the sheer entertainment value that comes from following Manny on a daily basis. Just look at the stats. He’s three quality seasons away—90 HRs, 300 RBIs, 550 hits and a .900 OPS—from becoming the greatest righthanded hitter ever. Add those to his career numbers, and he’s sitting in the top 10 in career OPS and slugging, the top three in RBIs, the top seven in homers and closing in on 3,000 hits. And no one who saw him in all his Ruthian glory with the Dodgers last summer or reach base 24 of 36 times in October can honestly say he’s washed up. Say he tanked it in Boston, but only after you concede that he played 22 of 24 games for them in July and had the best offensive month of anyone on a team he was allegedly quitting on.

Whatever. The guy was created to hit baseballs. Even at 36, he can perform this task at an abnormally high level, make any decent team good and any good team great. And yet nobody wants him after his messy divorce with Boston—a divorce that, by the way, the Red Sox cannot escape without blame. Manny gave them seven quality years and two titles, and they yanked him around in Year 8. No, he didn’t handle it well; I’m not sure I would have handled it well either.

So he’s spent the winter sitting on the open market like a sofa on Craigslist. The Angels, who need him more than anyone, claim they’re fine with Juan Rivera. Really? Juan Rivera? That’s what you’re telling your fans? I don’t get it.

All I can tell you is this: Manny is immensely fun to watch day in and day out. He’s a monster offensive force, a historic one, even. And he is exceedingly, incredibly available. He will draw fans to any ballpark, and nobody is interested. You can say it’s because he’s a cancer; I say it’s because he’s unequivocally underrated. He will soon find a team and prove one of us right.

And it’s going to be me.

To me, underrated means that a player is better than what is perceived of him by the general public. (The general public being fans and the media.)

Therefore, Manny isn’t underrated. Everyone knows he’s one of the best hitters baseball has ever seen and everyone knows that his offensive numbers are phenomenal. If people only focused on his goofy behavior and his bad defense, then I would say that he’s underrated. But they don’t. The majority of the public always rushes to say that Manny is an offensive juggernaut.

Simmons is reaching here and what’s funny is that he’s setting himself up for a future column. He knows a determined Manny will produce next season no matter where he ends up and when he does, Simmons can say, “See! I told you this guy was underrated!”

No, he’s always been that good. Everyone knows that.