Welcome to the second part of my infinite-part series, Correcting Bill Simmons. To find out why I started this series, feel free to read the first part. Simply stated – Bill Simmons is an entertaining writer, but sometimes he goes off the reservation and says something absurd.
I listened to my first Bill Simmons podcast today. You know the saying, “she’s got a face for radio”? Well, Bill has a voice for print. Don’t get me wrong – it’s not his fault and there isn’t really anything he can do about it, but he sounds like the weasely-faced kid with the shit-eating grin that you went to high school with. You know, the guy who claimed to be your friend but you just knew that he’d jump your girl’s bones if he had the whisper of a chance.
Anyway, in an otherwise thorough and entertaining column about the downfall of the Suns, he wrote the following about how Grant Hill affected the Suns’ attack:
For a team that revolved around high screens with Nash and Stoudemire, perfectly executed fast breaks and high-percentage 3s, Hill subtly changed what the Suns were. You didn’t have to worry about defending him or Marion 25 feet from the basket — two of the five Suns on the court, by the way — making it impossible for them to spread the floor on those Nash/Stoudemire high screens.
Granted, Hill’s career three-point accuracy (27%) isn’t going to keep opposing coaches awake at night, but why throw Marion under the bus? He shot 34.7% while with the Suns this season, which was a bit better than his respectable career percentage (34.1%). He was extremely dangerous from the corners, so team absolutely had to stay with him while Nash and Stoudemire ran their pick-and-roll. Remember, given the extra point, shooting 34.7% from three-point range is the same as shooting 52% from two-point range.
I’m not sure why Simmons can’t grasp this concept. He seems to be prejudiced against guys that shoot less than 36% from long range.
