Waiting For Groza

Island Of Misfit Mavs

2011-06-12T23:40:00.001-04:00

As Dallas improves to 68-18 with their two best players (Dirk Nowitzki and Tyson Chandler) in the lineup, and the country is forced to ponder the question, who is the more unlikely champion, J.J. Barea or DeShawn Stevenson, I thought I'd briefly trace the history of the various parts of this Mavs juggernaut, as it is a "who's who" of teams that fell just short of a championship, or were notable in some other way. If an NBA championship is supposed to bring "redemption", than this team redeemed a lot of people.

Nine years after the 2002 WCF, Peja Stojakovic is an NBA champion.

Eight years after the 2003 Finals, and ten after being traded for Stephon Marbury, its own type of infamy, Jason Kidd is an NBA champion.

Six years after the Malice At The Palace, Rick Carlisle is an NBA champion.

Five years after the 2006 Finals, Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry are NBA champions.

Four years after Amar'e got suspended for leaving the bench, Shawn Marion is an NBA champion.

Four years after being swept out of the playoffs by the Cleveland Cavaliers in Arenas' last good year, DeShawn Stevenson and Brendan Haywood (and Caron Butler) are NBA champions.

One year after being dumped by the Charlotte Bobcats* for cap relief, Tyson Chandler is the second best player on an NBA champion.

And somehow, someway, amazingly, Brian Cardinal is an NBA champion.

Cardinal jokes aside, this Mavs team has so many players who have been a part of so many interesting, fun, and important teams over the past decade, it's great to see so many of them finally win a championship.

It's been a fantastic 2011 for the NBA, here's to a great 2012. Hopefully, we'll get one.

Why is Dallas "Clutch"?

2011-06-10T15:19:00.001-04:00

Inspired by this post at The Painted Area.

In my Finals preview, I noted that [Dallas'] ability to space the floor and pass also means they are one of the only teams in the league whose crunch time offense is something other than an ugly ISO into a packed lane. But are there any other reasons Dallas has been so good in the clutch?

I don't think those players (Dallas' crunchtime lineup of Kidd/Terry/Marion/Nowitzki/Chandler) are intangibly "clutch", but have the skills to be better in clutch time basketball. Now, If you think about it, clutch time basketball is different from regular basketball. What are these differences?

1) More leeway is given to defensive players, especially in the area of "touch fouls."

Kidd and Marion are two of the best in the league at getting away with these types of plays, which helps the Mavs immensely.

2) Because of this, teams generally transition to a "give the ball to our best perimeter guy and hope he makes a play" offense. In 2011, it's really difficult to get the ball to your low post scorer in the final minute of the game in good position. (This is why Hedo Turkoglu was so important in 2009)

Dallas' zone, especially when anchored by Tyson Chandler, is frighteningly effective against this type of offense. Carlisle deserves a lot of credit here I think.

3) On the other hand, because of Dirk and Terry, Dallas has the personnel to run their normal offense extremely effectively during late game situations.

When Dirk gets the ball at the elbow, unlike guys like LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Rose, or Anthony, you can't stop the drive, and hope he misses a clean 17 foot fadeaway. If you play him tight, he's skilled enough to drive past his defender and/or draw the foul. If you double Dirk, he can reliably find Terry (or anyone, one of the advantages of being 7 feet tall is that it opens up passing lanes that almost none of the other crunch time perimeter scorers in the league have). Now, you have the guard who can hit the open three, the midrange shot, or find the open man with the ball, and the defense is already out of position because of the double team. Now Terry can get an open shot, find Kidd on the second pass for an open three, or get the ball back to Dirk if the defense adjusts. And, Dallas has an athletic 7-1 finisher hanging around the rim the whole time, and Kidd, Terry, and Nowitzki are all good enough passers to lob him an alley-oop.

The defensive advantages are obviously somewhat new, starting with the arrival of Kidd, but the Dirk-Terry dynamic has been happening for years. Dallas is uniquely effective in these situations because their two best offensive players are at their most dangerous doing what the other 29 teams have to be forced into doing at the end of the game.

NBA Finals Preview

2011-05-31T15:44:00.000-04:00

Both of these teams are better than you think.

Dallas? Don't let their overall record and point differential fool you. They have gone 64-16 with Dirk Nowitzki and Tyson Chandler in the lineup. They also won both regular season games against the Heat. Their ability to space the floor and pass also means they are one of the only teams in the league whose crunch time offense is something other than an ugly ISO into a packed lane.

Miami? After losing to Dallas on November 27th, they have gone 61-19. More impressively, they have gone 27-6 in their last 33 games, a 67 win pace, and looked better than Dallas in the conference finals. And Udonis Haslem, their 4th best player, is finally becoming healthy. And they have the best player in the series.

I think Miami is the favorite, but it should be an interesting series.

NBA Draft Mockery 1.0

2011-05-09T23:45:00.001-04:00

As more and more teams see their seasons end, and the slightly disturbing spectacle known as the "draft process" kicks into full gear, I find myself engrossed, in all the word's various possible meanings. Due possibly to the uncertainty concerning the existence of next year's NBA season, or the gods of basketball frowning on '92 babies, this year's draft has been described in terms like "historically weak".

This being a blog at least nominally focused on the history of the NBA, I'd be remiss in not mentioning the granddaddy of weak drafts, 2000. That was the draft in which Kenyon Martin was the best player taken. The best of the rest from that draft class was Michael Redd, Hedo Turkoglu, Mike Miller, and Jamal Crawford. For those concerned about the lack of poetry emanating from NBA circles, though, the draft was considerably more successful.

Which brings us to this year's draft. What follows is what I would do in each (lottery) team's situation, not what I think each team will do.

#1 MIN: Kyrie Irving, PG. Another point guard? The top two prospects right now are Irving, a point guard, and Derrick Williams, who looks like a more efficient Michael Beasley. Whichever pick they end up with, I wouldn't be surprised to see them choose an international big, probably Enes Kanter or Jonas Valanciunas. As for Irving, he's the closest thing to a sure bet in this draft, even if he doesn't have elite potential.
#2 CLE: Derrick Williams, PF. Cleveland needs everything, so they'll go for BPA here. I suspect Williams will mostly play at SF in the NBA, giving a team an efficient 20 and 7 with mediocre defense.
#3 TOR: Enes Kanter, C. Somewhat of an unknown quantity, but according to all reports, he's a polished scorer and all around player, by the standards of 18 year old centers. He won't be great, but Kanter and Ed Davis would give Toronto a frontcourt notable for something other than jump shots.
#4 WAS: Bismack Biyombo, PF. The player I'm highest on in this draft. His backstory reads uncomfortably like a sports movie, but watching him on YouTube it's hard not to get excited. He looks like an NBA player, he has DPOY potential, excellent intangibles, and he's playing excellently in the ACB as a raw 18 year old, a league featuring much tougher competition than the NCAA.
#5 SAC: Jonas Valanciunas, C. It seems like the Kings have talented young players at every position, they just need to figure out how to play together. At this point, with no elite talents on the board, the best option might be to take a Euro who won't be ready to come over for a couple years, when the Kings hopefully won't be developing eight players at once.
#6 UTA: Kemba Walker, PG. They've had good luck drafting point guards in the past, and Devin Harris' fate seems to involve being repeatedly unseated by a better, more famous replacement. Who am I to argue with fate? If Walker improves in the NBA like he did in college, he could be the next Terrell Brandon. I'm a bit leery of guys who weren't great until their junior year, though.
#7 DET: Kawhi Leonard, SF. Another team that needs everything. Leonard won't be a great scorer, but he can play defense, rebound, and slash.
#8 CLE: Brandon Knight, PG. Well, Cleveland desperately needs a guard that can create his own shot. I'm not sure what to think of Knight. He could be anywhere from CJ Watson to Chauncey Billups, depending on how much he improves.
#9 CHA: Marcus Morris, PF. The Bobcats need players who can put the ball in the basket competently, and Morris seems a decent bet to put together a steady string of 16 and 8 seasons with average defense.
#10 MIL: Alec Burks, SG. I think the Bucks are a scorer away winning games in the playoffs again. Burks is the best two guard in the draft, damning with faint praise as that may be.
#11 GSW: Jan Vesely, SF. He's big, athletic, exciting, and has questions concerning rebounding and man to man defense. Moving along...
#12 UTA: Jimmer Fredette, SG. Couldn't resist. The Jazz actually could use a bench gunner, FWIW. Davis Bertans (SF), the latest Peja clone, is a possibility here.
#13 PHO: Kenneth Faried, PF. An undersized four who can play defense, rebound like crazy, and run the floor? Seems like a good fit for the Suns.
#14 HOU: Chris Singleton, SF. He might be the best perimeter defender in the draft. If he can develop into a reliable catch and shoot three point shooter, which he showed flashes of in college, he could be an intriguing player.

If I had to pick one team to trade up, it would be Houston moving up for Biyombo, although that's really nothing more than a gut feeling. The Kings at #5 seem like a likely candidate to move down, those teams like to trade together, the Rockets have assets, and they desperately needs an interior presence/shot blocker.

So, The Mavs Are Pretty Good

2011-05-08T21:59:00.001-04:00

In the wake of the Dallas Mavericks' deconstruction of the Los Angeles Lakers comes the inevitable question, should we have seen their victory coming?

I can claim no prognosticative powers here. I didn't think Dallas would lose to the Blazers, but that was due more to pessimism about Portland than optimism concerning the Mavericks. I didn't think the Mavericks had much of a chance against Los Angeles, and even tweeted, when the playoffs began, about the easy road the Lakers had to the Western Conference Finals. Why was I so wrong? I think there were three main factors.

The first factor was that I underestimated how good Dallas is. I saw a team that went 57-25 with a plus 4.2 point differential, which is good, but hardly elite. However, if you eliminate games missed by Dirk Nowitzki and Tyson Chandler, Dallas' two best players (JET's heroics nonwithstanding), that record becomes 52-13 with a point differential over 6, which is "best in the Western Conference" territory.

The second factor was that I bought into the Laker narrative. Sure, they had plenty of weaknesses, and they struggled against a weak Hornets team, but they could turn it on when they wanted to, right? I thought they were just too big and too talented to lose this way. It turns out that they were until they weren't. Like the Spurs-Suns sweep of last year, this series is a reminder of how relying on established narratives can become lazy and inaccurate without asking if the reasons behind those narratives are still valid, in this case L.A's particular matchup advantages that Dallas was able to neutralize.

The third factor was the matchups, and I have said in the past that Dallas matches up well against the Lakers, but I didn't realize just how true that was. The Lakers' biggest weakness has always been small, quick guards, and their biggest strength has been imposing size and skill up front. Dallas was uniquely poised to take advantage, with Jason Terry and J.J. Barea shredding their perimeter defense, and their own trio of 7 footers (Chandler, Nowitzki, Haywood) neutralizing the Lakers' biggest strength.

On the other side, Dallas' biggest weakness the past few years has been, like L.A., quick guards. Exhibit A was their loss to San Antonio last year in the playoff series that briefly fooled people into thinking George Hill was a potential star. The Lakers (or the Blazers, for that matter) had no one who could exploit this weakness. Bryant's game is built around guile and precision instead of speed, making him the one type of good player Jason Kidd can still guard, and Derek Fisher, Steve Blake, and Shannon Brown provide the Mavericks with three of the only NBA players Terry or Barea can guard without looking atrocious.

Why did the Lakers get to the NBA Finals three straight years? One of the biggest reasons was that it was extremely difficult to score inside against them, and when an opponent takes your most efficient shot away from you, disaster often ensues. Fortunately for them, the Mavericks' biggest strength has been scoring from the outside, which they were able to do with ease against the Lakers' lackluster perimeter defense.

Oh, and for some reason Pau Gasol played terribly. Otherwise this series goes 6 or 7, maybe with the Lakers winning anyway.

Alien Clone Ghost NBA Team, etc

2011-04-23T16:09:00.001-04:00

After listening to the most recent Disciples Of Clyde podcast a couple days ago, I was motivated to put together my own Alien Clone Ghost NBA Team to save the human race. For those not inclined to click on the link, the idea is to put together the best NBA team possible.

9 Man Rotation
C: '92 David Robinson
PF: '65 Bill Russell ('03 Tim Duncan)
SF: '92 Scottie Pippen ('77 Bobby Jones)
SG: '91 Michael Jordan ('07 Manu Ginobili)
PG: '70 Walt Frazier ('88 John Stockton)

Injury Replacements: '04 Kevin Garnett, '83 Sidney Moncrief, '08 Chris Paul.

Coach: Bill Russell
Assistants: Phil Jackson, Tex Winter

Various Notes and Justifications

I tried to put together a team on which (1) everybody can play defense, (2) could match up against anybody, and (3) wouldn't have too many chemistry issues (you don't want Oscar, Jordan, Kobe, and Wilt in the same lineup for obvious reasons). The team would primarily run the triangle when the starting lineup was in, though there would be a decent amount of pick and rolls (especially when Stockton was playing). They could run just about anything, though.

Matchups explain why, for example, I chose Duncan over Garnett. Russell and Robinson together pretty much duplicate Garnett's skills (elite defense, passing, stretching the defense), while there wasn't another player on the roster with Duncan's low post skills. If I had gone with Kareem instead of Robinson, I would have chosen Garnett as the 6th man. I didn't choose Kareem mainly because I thought he was more of a ballstopper than Robinson, and would clog Jordan, Pippen, and Frazier's driving lanes (especially with Russell having no jump shot).

All of the starters would normally play 30-35 minutes. Duncan, the 6th man, would get about 30 minutes. Based on matchups, Stockton would play between 20-30 minutes, Ginobili 15-25, and Jones 5-15.

This roster assumes current NBA rules. If, for example, the team was playing without a three point line, I'd substitute Moncrief for Ginobili. If the team was playing without the handcheck rules, I might substitute a forward for one of the quick guards.

[EDIT 5/8/11-In retrospect, I'd probably substitute Nowitzki for Jones, and switch his minutes with Ginobili. This team could use another three point shooter, and that move would add arguably the most effective shooter in NBA history and a 7 footer who can play small forward at the cost of another defender off the bench. I think the rest of the team would be able to make up for it, though.]

Revisionist History: ReDraft 2006

2011-04-09T10:56:00.000-04:00

Players drafted in 2006 are finishing their fifth season in the NBA, which leads me to wonder, if we knew in 2006 what we know now, how would the 2006 draft, one of the weakest in recent memory, have looked?

#1: Toronto Raptors (27-55). Coming into the draft, Toronto's best players were Chris Bosh, who had averaged 23 and 9 the year before despite being only 21, veteran guards Mike James and Morris Peterson, who would leave that summer as free agents, and rookie Charlie Villanueva, who would be flipped for T.J. Ford two days after the draft. They decided to draft skilled international big man Andrea Bargnani, who has shown he can score, but does little else.

Despite the fact that others in the draft will have better careers, I think the best choice for Toronto would have been Brandon Roy (6th). He would have given the Raptors an elite wing to team with Bosh for a few seasons, and the team's inevitable winning would have made it easier to convince Bosh to stick around and other good players to join the Raptors (always difficult) so that Roy's eventual injury problems wouldn't have been crippling. Of course, this scenario is risky, and based on the premise that Toronto's management wouldn't give Roy a max contract and let Bosh go anyway. If you want a safer pick, then Toronto should have taken Rajon Rondo.

#2: Chicago Bulls (41-41). Chicago's future looked bright, with 23 year old Tyson Chandler, 20 year old Luol Deng, and 22 year old Ben Gordon all having played big roles the previous year. Kirk Hinrich (25) and Andres Nocioni (26) were also solid, and the team was hoping to add a star with the pick they had fleeced from the Knicks. Then they decided to trade down on draft day, draft Tyrus Thomas, and trade Tyson Chandler for P.J. Brown. It worked out okay in 2007, thanks to the acquisition of Ben Wallace and breakout seasons from Deng and Gordon, but in 2008 they only won 33 games. Of course, they picked Joakim Noah with another Knicks picked, lucked into Derrick Rose, signed Carlos Boozer, and held onto Deng, so everything worked out great in the end.

But, knowing their situation in 2006, what should they have done? Draft LaMarcus Aldridge (2nd), probably the best player available in the draft.

#3: Charlotte Bobcats (26-56). Their best player was Gerald Wallace (23), and they also had rookie Raymond Felton, promising center Emeka Okafor, and an uninspiring collection of veteran role players. And they picked Adam Morrison.

Who should they have picked? The BPA at this point is probably Rajon Rondo (21st), and in retrospect Charlotte should have taken him. Sure, there would be issues with putting him and Felton on the court at the same time, but when the cupboard is that bare, you need talent, not fit.

#4: Portland Trail Blazers (21-61). They had Zach Randolph, coming off a terrible season, and...Steve Blake and Joel Pryzbilla? Portland hit gold in this draft, somehow turning Tyrus Thomas, Victor Khryapa, Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair, and Trent Plaisted into LaMarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy. The next season they got rid of Randolph.

What should they have done? Exactly what they did, except perhaps giving Roy less money. But if Chicago wouldn't trade, and with Aldridge, Rondo, and Roy gone, the best players available are Paul Millsap (who replicates Randolph), Rudy Gay, and Kyle Lowry. They would probably take Gay (8th), but none of the options are really what you'd expect from the 4th pick in the draft.

#5: Atlanta Hawks (26-56). The young Hawks had Joe Johnson, Al Harrington, Josh Smith, Josh Childress, Marvin Williams, and Zaza Pachulia. Harrington was the old man at 25, and this team with a thousand wings really needed a point guard. Instead, they drafted a 6-9 forward that busted, and was traded for Mike Bibby.

What should they have done? Taken Kyle Lowry (24th). Someone to direct the offense that could actually defend and penetrate would have made these recent Hawks even better.

#6: Minnesota Timberwolves (33-49). I think Kevin Garnett won those 33 games by himself. Minnesota needed everything. So, they decided to draft and trade Brandon Roy for Randy Foye. That did not turn out so well. 2007 would be Garnett's last in Minnesota, the Al Jefferson show bombed, and now it's Kevin Love's turn to be a great power forward on a bad team.

What should they have done? Best player available, especially with Garnett having one foot out the door. The best player left is Paul Millsap (47th).

#7: Boston Celtics (33-49) or Portland Trailblazers (21-61). This is kind of complicated. Boston essentially traded this pick to Portland for Sebastian Telfair, who swapped spots with Minnesota. To complete the circle, Minnesota and Boston had swapped Ricky Davis and Wally Szczerbiak a few months before.

Whichever team was picking, Boston or Portland (or Minnesota), the best player available was Ronnie Brewer (14th). Brewer turned out to be better than Telfair, so maybe Boston doesn't make that trade (though I don't know how that affects future cap space).

#8: Houston Rockets (34-48). The Rockets drafted Rudy Gay, and shipped him to Memphis for Shane Battier.

Needless to say, the Rockets would gladly trade anybody still available at this point for Shane Battier. Let's say, J.J. Redick (11th).

#9: Golden State Warriors (34-48). The year before their upset of Dallas in the playoffs, the Warriors, led by Jason Richardson, Troy Murphy, and Baron Davis, chose Patrick O'Bryant, who didn't do anything in the NBA.

If they had this pick back? I'm not sure if he's the BPA, but Andrea Bargnani (1st) seems like he was born to be a Warrior.

#10: Seattle Supersonics (35-47). Remember them? This team led by Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, and Luke Ridnour chose Mouhamed Sene, and international big man who barely played in the NBA.

Who should they have taken? Thabo Sefolosha (13th). Funny how things sometimes work out.

#11: Orlando Magic (36-46). Back when Dwight Howard was still figuring things out (but still good), and Tony Battie was their fourth best player, the Magic chose J.J. Redick, a good pick in retrospect.

Now, the best player left would be, imo, Tyrus Thomas, but on the chance that Stan Van Gundy might kill him, the Magic draft Boobie Gibson (42nd).

#12: New Orleans/Oklahoma City Thunder (38-44). The Hornets finished near .500 thanks to the rookie Chris Paul and David West. The Hornets drafted Hilton Armstrong with their pick, but in this redraft, get Tyrus Thomas (4th).

#13: Philadelphia 76ers (38-44): As we approach the end of the lottery, there are only a couple players left from this draft that have done anything in the NBA, and the 76ers take Randy Foye (7th).

#14: Utah Jazz (41-41): Jordan Farmar (26th) is a good backup point guard for Deron Williams.

Summary
#1 TOR: Brandon Roy
#2 CHI (to POR?): LaMarcus Aldridge
#3 CHA: Rajon Rondo
#4 POR (to CHI?): Rudy Gay
#5 ATL: Kyle Lowry
#6 MIN (to POR?): Paul Millsap
#7 BOS (to POR? to MIN?): Ronnie Brewer
#8 HOU (to MEM?): J.J. Redick
#9 GSW: Andrea Bargnani
#10 SEA: Thabo Sefolosha
#11 ORL: Daniel Gibson
#12 NOK: Tyrus Thomas
#13 PHI: Randy Foye
#14 UTA: Jordan Farmar

Historical Comparables: DeMarcus Cousins

2011-04-01T16:20:00.000-04:00

DeMarcus Cousins has had a tumultuous rookie season, to say the least. The player many considered to be the most talented of the 2010 draft class has put up some impressive numbers; 18 points, 11 rebounds, and 3 assists per 36 minutes, but also some less than stellar stats, including a .428 FG%, and over 4 turnovers and 5 fouls per 36 minutes. I was interested to see what happened to similar players. Did they cut down on their mistakes, or flameout despite some initial gaudy stats?

Cousins has a usage rate over 27% and a rebound rate over 17%, meaning he can create shots and rebound at a high level in the NBA. What other NBA rookies have shown similar abilities, say, a usage rate over 24% and a rebound rate over 15%? The result? Fourteen other players have accomplished this feat while playing significant minutes. If you don't want to click on the list, they are David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Larry Bird, Shaquille O'Neal, Blake Griffin, Terry Cummings, Arvydas Sabonis, Alonzo Mourning, Elton Brand, Clark Kellogg, Ralph Sampson, Christian Laettner, Cliff "not Clifford" Robinson, and Karl Malone. Before you become too optimistic, it should be noted that Karl Malone was the only one of these players to approach Cousins' inefficiency. Lest you become too pessimistic, Karl Malone was nearly as inefficient as Cousins in his rookie year.

But this list is hardly fair. Who would honestly compare the 31 year old international superstar Arvydas Sabonis to a kid coming out after his freshman year? It's not just Sabonis, either. Robinson was 24, and the list is filled with polished four year players like Laettner, Bird, and Sampson. What about a cut off by age? Cousins is 20 this year. What does the list look like if we change the qualification to 21 or younger? The list becomes 2 Shaq seasons, 2 Elton Brand seasons, 2 Cliff "not Clifford" Robinson seasons, Tim Duncan, Blake Griffin, Terry Cummings, Clark Kellogg, and Antoine Walker. Again, Cousins' 2010 was easily the least efficient season in the sample (yes, Virgina, less efficient than Antoine Walker).

That's the good. What about the bad? This time, I looked for players 21 or under that had a turnover percentage over 16 (Cousins is at 18.2%), a field goal percentage under 46%, more than 4.5 fouls per 36 minutes, and a rebounding rate above 12 to weed out the smaller players not really comparable to Cousins. This resulted in a surprisingly small list. The only other player to play more than 1100 minutes (Cousins has played over 2000 this year) while fitting that criteria is Danny Fortson. Other players who, in limited minutes, fit the criteria were Erick Dampier, DeSagana Diop, and Andray Blatche.

What have we learned? That in the past 30 years of the NBA, when all of the stats I have been sorting by have been tracked, DeMarcus Cousins is unique. There really aren't any players like him. His best comparables are probably Danny Fortson, Antoine Walker, Karl Malone, and Cliff Robinson. Players don't put up the kind of numbers Cousins had if they aren't any good. On the other hand, if they do certain things as badly as Cousins has, they don't stay on the court very long. He's already practically a 20-10-3 guy. If he cuts down on the mistakes*, he's an all-star. If he can't, he's a less valuable offensive player than Bruce Bowen ever was. Unfortunately, considering the organization he's with, that kind of improvement seems unlikely in the short term.**

*i.e., make fewer bad passes, show better awareness on defense, and take more shots closer to the basket.
**I think the only player in recent memory to improve after going to the Kings has been Beno Udrih, for some strange reason.

Goliath Always Wins: Alpha Dogs

2011-03-22T19:02:00.000-04:00

Every team has a best player. Every team has a leading scorer. Every team has a best offensive player. Every team has a best defender. The identity of any one of these players cannot be deduced solely from the identity of any one of the other identities. For example, consider the 2011 New Orleans Hornets. Their best player is Chris Paul. Their leading scorer is David West. Their best offensive player is Chris Paul. Their best defender is (arguably) Emeka Okafor. Yet, it is impossible to logically reach any of those identities by knowing any of the other identities. A team's leading scorer is often its best offensive player, but not always. A team's best offensive player is often the team's best player, but not always. For example, Corey Maggette is a better offensive player than Andrew Bogut, but Bogut is still the Bucks' best player.

What other variables do we need to know in order to better determine who the "best" offensive player, defender, or overall player on a team is? To name a few, rebounding, passing, shooting efficiency, man defense, steals, blocked shots, altered shots, team defense, fouling, and screen setting. The distribution of talent in the NBA being what it is, figuring out the identity of the best player on a team is usually not that difficult, but there are always exceptions. These exceptions generally occur when a team has no very good players, like this year's Kings squad, or multiple good players like the 2010 Denver Nuggets, whose best player was either Carmelo Anthony, Chauncey Billups, or Nene, depending on the metric used. With all of these uncertain variables, how can we determine which player contributes most to the team winning?

Some of the issues concerning finding the best player are reminiscent of the issues concerning finding the best team. The best team is the one that wins, the one that controls the game. In the same way, it is expected that the best player is the one that contributes most to winning, and is the one that controls the game. This brings us to Alpha Dogs.

The Alpha Dog is the player that holds the most control over the game, the player that has the biggest positive impact of anybody on the floor. In the mythology's most unsophisticated form, his team will triumph because he will win the game for them. As we have already seen, there are a plethora of ways players can impact the game. Typically, the Alpha Dog is defined by his role on offense, which is taking the ball and scoring, as that is how teams win. This is an easy way to solve the "problem" laid out in the first two paragraphs. It is acknowledged that there is value in aspects of the game other than scoring, and the players who excel in these areas are called "role players". Every championship team has them, but they are not nearly as important as the Alpha Dog.

You may quibble with the assertions laid out in the previous paragraph, but I don't think it is disputable that for whoever believes in the Alpha Dog/Role Player dichotomy, the most important skill a basketball player can possess is to be able to create shots for himself. When looked at in this way, some of the Alpha Dog mythology starts to fall apart. The major problem with the mythology is that many skills result in more or better shots being taken for a team besides the ability to drive or create an open fadeaway jumper. What are some of those skills? Good passing, forcing a missed shot, forcing a turnover, grabbing a rebound, setting a good pick, etc.

The reason often given for the prioritizing of this particular skill is that it is most valuable late in games when it is more difficult to run a set offense. In these situations, the advantage often goes to skilled swingmen who can create their own shots. These are the players generally considered Alpha Dogs. Now, it is very likely that these types of players have an advantage in these situations. Still, all that means is that when one is constructing a team, having a wing player that can create his own shot is a priority. That does not necessarily outweigh everything else that happens on the basketball court.

An easy example of a situation in which the best player and the player filling the role of Alpha Dog are different players is the 2009 Orlando Magic with Dwight Howard and Hedo Turkoglu. Looking at that team, it seems silly to suggest that Turkoglu was the Magic's best player because he was the best at creating shots in the final minute. It seems silly to suggest that he exerted more control over the game than Dwight Howard.

Another, more controversial, example is the Los Angeles Lakers. Kobe Bryant is not a bad all-around player, but his greatest skill lies in taking, and sometimes making, shots that nobody else would even attempt. He scores a lot of points and the ball is usually in his hands. On the other hand, Pau Gasol is a decent scorer, but most of his contributions come in the areas of rebounding, passing, defense, and missing a lower percentage of his shots than his teammates, including Bryant. To the casual observer, it sure looks like Bryant's the one controlling the game because he's the one with the ball, but are the ways Gasol creates extra shots just as important, if less obvious?

By asking these questions, it should be obvious that I am casting doubts on the Alpha Dog/Role Player dichotomy. But I want to continue to use it to explore issues of winning and teambuilding. Next time: is there something special about winners?

Just Hibernating

2011-01-17T14:09:00.001-05:00

I'll be back in a few months, probably.

Goliath Always Wins: Playoffs?!?

2010-12-13T14:07:00.000-05:00

The following set of essays are some of my thoughts concerning the way NBA fans and writers think about the sport, particularly those aspects regarding “winners” and “champions.” First though, I want to return to the basics of how we think about these subjects, beginning with the playoffs.

Questions beget questions, often making it difficult to find a suitable starting point. The question, “does the best team usually win the championship” raises the question “how do we judge which team is best” as well as the question “why use a playoff system to determine a champion?” Both questions seem to point to an answer that would include the proposition that head to head matchups are an acceptable solution to the “problem” of determining dominance. Yet even accepting this answer, we we still want to know, “why do we want to determine a champion in the first place?” This leads into all sorts of questions about the nature of competition and competitive sports (are there any other kind of sports?).

Why is the playoff system seemingly omnipresent in professional (and even amateur) sports? One reason for its dominance is money. Ever since team owners realized that people would pay more money to see the best teams play against each other, they have tried to get the best teams in their arenas. Some proof of this theory can be seen in the success of the Harlem Globetrotters, especially in the years before black players starred in the NBA. More proof can be seen in the difference between attendance figures of your average NBA team's home games against the Lakers and the Clippers. As well as featuring quality games, a playoff system adds extra games, and the corresponding extra revenue. There's a reason the gradual trend in professional sports has been towards more games in a season, not less. It is therefore not surprising that the playoffs have assumed such a central role in the sports season when it is in the financial interests of the owners, players, and league(s) that they are so important.

None of this is to suggest that playoff series are meaningless or are not usually won by the best team. What it does show is one reason the focus on the playoffs as the ultimate test of a player (and team's) skill and worth is arbitrary. There is nothing about the game of basketball that inherently demands a playoff system. Furthermore, if one must have a playoff system, why a linear series of head to head matchups instead of a round robin type format? A round robin has the dramatic disadvantages of teams playing games after they have been eliminated, and holds the possibility of one team being eliminated in favor of a team it had defeated. On the other hand, our current system anoints the “best” team as the one that has matched up best against its opponents. Ask the 2007 Mavericks what happens to an excellent team when faced with an inferior team that matches up well against them. (Or, I would argue, the 1995 Jazz.) Whatever the case, it is difficult to make the argument that a few head to head contests provide a better measure of team quality than many games against varied competition.

But surely I would not want to claim that the playoffs do not give us any new information besides a few extra data points tacked on the end of the season. What gives the playoffs their importance? As far as I can tell, the genuine importance of the playoffs comes from the fact that the players attach greater worth to the playoffs than the regular season. What player will say that they try harder in a March game against the Clippers than in Game 7 of the NBA Finals? In extreme form, this can be seen in the success of the 2001 Lakers and 2010 Celtics, who (the popular narrative goes) sleepwalked through much of the regular season before deciding to “turn it on” during the playoffs. Finishing with a better regular season performance is not always indicative of team quality, as a comparison of last year's Hawks and Celtics would show. Of course, it is questionable whether those teams could have kept it together for a whole season even if the championship format had required them to do so. And acknowledging the reality of this added importance should not lead us to forget about the frail contingencies of matchups and streaky shooting that provide the foundation for many championships (those not of the Fo' Fo' Fo' variety). The results of the playoffs tell us much, but do not tell us all.

This perspective stands in contrast to some mainstream NBA coverage, in which the pursuit of rings has reached an obsession that would make Gollum blush with shame. The way the Miami Heat have been covered and discussed would be far different were it not so. As Kobe Bryant moves closer to winning his sixth championship, the Jordan comparisons become ever more present (and annoying). And as it becomes more unlikely that stars and superstars like Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Tracy McGrady, Jason Kidd, and Vince Carter will win an NBA title, their careers are judged accordingly. Some, like McGrady and Carter, will be judged harshly, and some, like Nash, will be seen as valiant, but never quite good enough. As long as the current narratives hold, some of these players will be remembered fondly, and won't necessarily even be underrated, but the same sense of tragedy will inevitably pervade our memories of them. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Conceding the possibility that the first championship teams may have been motivated more by their playoff bonuses than any thoughts of ephemeral immortality, it seems impossible not to recognize the impact that “championship mythology” has in the 2011 NBA. Next time, I'll talk about Alpha Dogs and role players and the hierarchical prism through which we tend to view basketball players.

Changing Things Up

2010-11-16T18:54:00.000-05:00

I'm going to try something a bit different with this blog over the next couple months. I'll continue my "best there ever was" series in abbreviated form, but I want to try writing some longer, more thoughtful pieces. Why? To work on my writing and to look at NBA history from a different angle. Hopefully it'll be interesting, if infrequent.

Waiting For Groza Now On Twitter

2010-10-30T21:05:00.000-04:00

Now ignored in two mediums! Seriously, I'm trying Twitter out, and I have no idea if it'll work, or if I'll like it, but I have the same reservations about this blog. Anyway, a post on NBA history will be coming tomorrow since I think I got all of the season preview stuff out of my system, and I'm hoping Twitter will provide me with an outlet for my current NBA thoughts. Also, I'll put the gadget on the sidebar tomorrow.

Thoughts on the NBA, Week One

2010-10-30T12:29:00.000-04:00

If I were head coach of the Milwaukee Bucks, my starting lineup would be Andrew Bogut/Luc Richard Mbah a Moute/Corey Maggette/Carlos Delfino/Brandon Jennings. Maggette brings something to the Bucks they didn't have last year; an ultra-efficient 20 PPG scorer that can create his own offense. Meanwhile, Drew Gooden, the Bucks' other major acquisition, has brought a little bit of scoring to go with his customary cringeworthy defense. Bogut should get healthier as the season goes on, so I'm not worried about the team's 0-2 start, but the Bucks' success was built on their defense, and while you can survive with one terrible defender, it's tough to thrive more than that. My proposed lineup has low post scoring (Bogut, Maggette), mid range scoring (Maggette), three point shooting (Delfino, Jennings), free throws (Maggette), passing (Jennings, Bogut, Delfino) interior defense (Bogut, Mbah a Moute), perimeter defense (Jennings), and speed (Jennings, Mbah a Moute).

I can't believe I'm saying this, but the Wolves have the makings of a good team. Michael Beasley has looked impressive so far, and if he can score efficiently, gives Minnesota one of the best forward tandems in the league. The other half of that tandem, Kevin Love, is probably the best rebounder in the league, and will be an All-Star if he gets enough playing time. Through the first two games, Luke Ridnour is playing as if last year's improvement was not a fluke, and they have a decent collection of role players. However, I don't know how many wins this will translate into, as Kurt Rambis doesn't want to play the team's best player (24 and 27 minutes in the first two games for Love), which is the type of thing that tends to hurt a team.

Here's hoping Stephen Curry gets healthy soon. The Warriors offense is almost unstoppable right now, especially with Monta Ellis rediscovering his efficiency. There is no way Golden State will shoot this well all season, but it's fun to watch while it lasts, and they will be one of the best shooting teams in the league. At the same time, the defense looks highly problematic. They gave up 128 points to a team starting two defensive specialists on the second night of a back to back, and their backup center is Dan Gadzuric.

Chris Paul was amazing in the Hornets opener. His line (17 points, 16 assists, 1 turnover) was impressive enough, but watching the game, it was even more impressive to see how many open shots he created for his teammates. The Hornets being the Hornets, they missed a fair amount of those wide open shots, but David West played well (9-14 from the field), and New Orleans won.

Watching their first two games, it looked like the Rockets needed two things; a point guard that could play defense, and a center that could block shots and rebound. Houston will get #1 when Kyle Lowry (whose praise I have sung on these pages before) returns this week, and they just signed Erick Dampier to give them another 7 footer to spell Yao. Also, Luis Scola and Kevin Martin are a fantastic inside-outside combination, even if they both look incredibly awkward at times.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol XIII

2010-10-27T10:32:00.002-04:00

Watching the Rockets last night, it seemed that the Trevor Ariza-Courtney Lee trade was, from the Rockets perspective, not so much about Trevor Ariza or Courtney Lee, as about Chase Budinger.

Season Preview: Southwest Divison, Flotsam, and Jetsam

2010-10-26T17:14:00.000-04:00

And now for something completely different; a preview without shtick!

After a disappointing year in which they finished with the 4th most expected wins in the NBA (55) and lost in the second round after their second best player broke his face, the Spurs added one of the best centers in the world. As the previous sentence intends to make clear, the bar for "success" in San Antonio is a wee bit high. Predicting that the Spurs will become old and ineffective overnight has practically become a cottage industry over the last few years, but if San Antonio can get good performances once again from Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker, the young guns, led by Splitter, Blair, and Hill, are good enough to bring another championship banner back to Texas.
Projected Record: 53-29, 3rd in West.

Even if Yao only plays 1,500 minutes this year, that's a huge improvement over David Andersen. Luis Scola has developed into a 20-10 guy, Kevin Martin continues to pair high usage with high efficiency, Shane Battier is still Shane Battier, and Chase Budinger, Patrick Patterson, Kyle Lowry, Aaron Brooks, Jordan Hill and Courtney Lee is a lot of young talent. I'll be surprised if the Rockets have the same roster at the end of the year, but as it is, this team should be very good.
Projected Record: 50-32, 4th in West.

Dirk's a great player, and Beaubois and Dominique Jones have a lot of potential, but I have no faith in the rest of this team. Kidd can't stay in front of any point guard in the NBA or NBDL, Marion can't create any offense, Butler will clang an extraordinary amount of 20 footers, Terry will continue to decline, and the centers will play decent defense and provide very little offense. Could this team get to the Finals? Sure, if Carlisle plays the youngsters, and they develop faster than expected, and Donnie Nelson parlays that Mavs' many expiring contracts into another star. It's just not very likely.
Projected Record: 47-35, T-6th in West.

Chris Paul is one of the five best players in the NBA. After that, the Hornets don't have a whole lot. Jerryd Bayless, David West, and Trevor Ariza are decent players, but New Orleans has almost no depth. Still, the addition of Bayless may be enough to push the Hornets into the bottom half of the Western Conference playoff bracket.
Projected Record: 44-38: T-8th in West.

Marc Gasol (who should be even better) and Zach Randolph should be a highly effective inside tandem. O.J. Mayo and Rudy Gay are also above average players who will miss a lot of shots, but also make a lot of shots. On the other hand, the point guards are dreadful, and the defense is questionable at best. Expect another ~.500 season for Memphis, which should be the peak of this team's run.
Projected Record: 42-40: 11th in West.

Finals: Heat over Lakers in 6.
MVP: Chris Paul
Rookie of the Year: Blake Griffin
Scoring Champion: Kevin Durant
Rebound Champion: Kevin Love
Assist Champion: Chris Paul

Season Preview: Pacific Divison

2010-10-25T23:07:00.000-04:00

And now, for something completely the same! More previews in limerick form!

A man from Italy called Mamba/Center of attention and drama/But how many they'll win/When age starts to kick in/Is on Pau, not Kobe's la bombas.
Projected Record: 55-27, 2nd in West.

Arriving in Phoenix is Hedo/To whom defense is as the dodo/Only Robin rebounds/Amare can't be found/But Suns say, with Nash what can't we do?
Projected Record: 43-39, 10th in West.

Twenty and five and five for Tyreke/But many wins the Kings couldn't eke/Carl Landry and Cousins/In the tough West tussling/Much havoc on offense will they wreak.
Projected Record: 36-46, 12th in West.

Forty nine victories says Schoene/If it seems crazy, please don't blame me/Curry, Ellis one and two/They'll score points, that is true/But can they stop anyone with Lee?
Projected Record: 34-48, 13th in West.

Number one Griffin unstoppable/Other Clippers not pitiable/But let us get real/Do you really feel/They will stay healthy and capable?
Projected Record: 32-50, 14th in West.

In case anyone was wondering, I think the Lakers will make the Finals, but think Portland will win more games during the season thanks to superior depth. Tune in tomorrow for the exciting conclusion to this series!

Season Preview: Northwest Divison

2010-10-25T00:25:00.000-04:00

In this, the Waiting For Groza season preview extravaganza, we move on to the Northwest Division. Joining me, as always, for this installment is Agnew, the megalomaniacal anthropomorphic eggplant living in my fridge. Why? Because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Waiting For Groza: Moving on to the Western Conference, up first in the Northwest is...
Agnew: Agnew is bored an tired an hungry an wants chicken soup an meatballs an warm jelly an a Lithuanian toothpick factory! Agnew is going home!
Waiting For Groza: Can I persuade you to stay? It's not like I know what I'm talking about, and we need a facade of reasonable analysis.
Agnew: Agnew will stay on one condition and that condition is that Agnew will preview this whole division using nothing but the form of limerick form!
Waiting For Groza: I'm probably going to regret this...

Agnew: There was a team called the Blazers/Lady Luck did them no favors/Greg, Joel, Nick, and Roy went down/Rose Garden cheers still did sound/And now they're stuffed with good players.
Projected Record: 56-26, 1st in West.

Agnew: There was a team everybody loved/To the limit the Lakers they shoved/Now with great expectations/From Durant's ministrations/To break the Plexiglass hard enough.
Projected Record: 49-33, 5th in West.

Agnew: From Stockton to Deron in Salt Lake/The winning streak has been hard to break/Replacing Carlos with Al/Might take a while to gel/By about March this mixture should take.
Projected Record: 47-35, T-6th in West.

Agnew: Carmelo, Carmelo, Carmelo/It makes Agnew sick like warm Jell-O/What about Billups and Nene/Leading the team into May/While to a new team he says "Hello".
Projected Record: 44-38, T-8th in West.

Agnew: The laughingstock of Minnesota/Placing their hopes in Love and Frodo/Some talent is there/It might not be fair/But faith in Kahn? Not one iota.
Projected Record: 21-61, 15th in West.

Season Preview: Southeast Divison

2010-10-23T21:05:00.000-04:00

Up next, I preview the Southeast division with the assistance of Agnew, the megalomaniacal anthropomorphic eggplant living in my fridge. Why? Because it seemed like a good idea at the time. (Atlantic, Central)

Waiting For Groza: I can't wait to see the Heat play, and I'm sick of hearing about them. Are you in the same boat?
Agnew: Agnew is not in a boat! Agnew is not with a goat! Agnew thinks the Heat's lack of depth will prevent them from winning 70 games! But Agnew thinks they will batter the NBA into submission in the spring, and Agnew is never, ever, never wrong!
Waiting For Groza: Wade's hamstring problems and Mike Miller's injury have certainly demonstrated how vulnerable this team is to injuries without the kind of depth that contenders like the Magic, Lakers, and Blazers can boast.
Projected Record: 65-17, 1st in East.

Waiting For Groza: It seems like we're settling into the same routine with the Orlando Magic; they'll play excellent defense, hit their threes, have the best bench in the league, win around 60 games, and hope to avoid a healthy Celtics team in the playoffs.
Agnew: The Magic fill Agnew with disgust! While the other contenders were improving their teams, hoping to win this summer's arms race, who did the Magic add? Chris Duhon! Agnew's diligent research has identified Duhon as a point guard not good enough for the Knicks! The Knicks! Agnew thinks that this is the year Vince Carter finally bounces back to MVP consideration.
Projected Record: 61-21, 2nd in East.

Waiting For Groza: Even though the Joe Johnson contract was moronic, and the Hawks struggled mightily in the playoffs, everybody's returning from a team that won 53 games, including the ubertalented Josh Smith. Without any major upgrades, this team won't contend for a championship, but should make the playoffs easily.
Agnew: You know what Agnew likes? Ripping the souls from his enemies while hearing their beloved goldfish caterwaul in the background! You know what Agnew hates? Assuming players who have just had career years will continue playing at that level! Josh Smith, Al Horford, Joe Johnson, and Jamal Crawford all had their best years ever. If you think that will happen again, Agnew has some land in Florida to sell you, even if he can't understand why anyone would want to move to Florida!
Projected Record: 46-36, 5th in East.

Waiting For Groza: The Bobcats made the playoffs on the strength of great defense, and enough offense from Gerald Wallace and Captain Jack. After losing Tyson Chandler and Raymond Felton, can they do it again? I'm not optimistic, but if D.J. Augustin or Shaun Livingston can run the offense, and the Cats find a competent center, a repeat performance is possible.
Agnew: Agnew will devastate the hopes of Bobcats fans everywhere with seven words: Nazr Mohammed, DeSagana Diop, and Kwame Brown. Is Agnew good, or what?
Projected Record: 34-48, 9th in East.

Waiting For Groza: Coming off the kind of season that gives utter chaos a bad name, Washington has added John Wall and Kirk Hinrich to play alongside Gilbert Arenas. David Kahn, thou art an amateur! If Arenas, Josh Howard, and Andray Blatche play to their potential, the Wizards could challenge for a playoff berth. Unfortunately, it's more likely that something will go horribly wrong with at least one of those players.
Agnew: The Wizards are Agnew's kind of bad team! So many players who could be good, but won't. Is this the year Yi turns the corner? Will Josh Howard bounce back? Will Andray Blatche turn into an All-Star? Will Gilbert Arenas regain his form? Will JaVale McGee become a defensive stopper? Of course not! But you can fool yourself into thinking that it could! That's real wizardry! Agnew approves!
Projected Record: 26-56, 12th in East.

Tomorrow, we move on to the West!

Season Preview: Central Divison

2010-10-23T13:44:00.000-04:00

Atlantic preview here. Again, we are joined by the two official Waiting For Groza season preview correspondents, Agnew, the anthropomorphic eggplant that has lived in my fridge for the past three years, and Geoffrey St. Geoffrey, advance scout for the Providence Steam Rollers and Zollner Pistons.

Waiting For Groza: Last year, the Milwaukee Bucks rode Andrew Bogut and an excellent defense to a surprisingly successful season. After adding Maggette, Gooden, Larry Sanders, and Chris Douglas-Roberts, can this team build on last year's success?
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: I remember talking with Red [Auerbach] one time, and he confided, "Do you think Tommy [Heinsohn] was a great defender? How about Cooz? Ramsay? [Sam] Jones? A great defender in the pivot erases many mistakes." I still don't know what he was talking about.
Agnew: Agnew does not fear the deer! Agnew would eat the deer if Agnew had a mouth and a digestive system capable of processing venison! Agnew is never baffled, but cannot understand why Drew Gooden is on this team! Agnew would rather have Ilyasova, Mbah a Moute, and Larry Sanders, and prefers his backup centers to play defense while not sipping brandy from the skulls of their enemies!
Projected Record: 50-32, 3rd in East.

Waiting For Groza: Chicago added Carlos Boozer and several other members of the Jazz to build around Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, and Luol Deng. This team should play defense, but it remains to be seen whether the new additions can stimulate an offense that was near the bottom of the league.
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: It is quite difficult to achieve victory when one cannot participate. That point was driven home to me when some representatives of Mr. Russo stopped by the arena one day to warn me that Dave had better "shape up" or else. That's when I learned how difficult it is to win if you cannot play, young man.
Agnew: Agnew sees a point guard that can't pass, a center that can't score, a power forward that can't stay healthy, and a shooting guard that can't create his own shot. And this team is supposed to be good? Agnew laughs at these futile hopes, which are more ridiculous than the circus which kicks the Bulls out of the United Center every year! Agnew will eat Chicago, and then will eat your city soon!
Projected Record: 45-37, 6th in East.

Waiting For Groza: Can a team built around Danny Granger, Darren Collison, and Roy Hibbert rise to mediocrity, or will the Pacers finish with a win total in the thirties for the fifth straight year?
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: Back in the thirties, I participated in an informal contest between New York collegians on break. The other team had two players who were rather bigger than anyone on our squad, and their offense consisted of throwing the ball off the backboard to themselves until it eventually fell through the hoop. Even my superior ballhandling skills could not prevent us from being trounced. Twas an unfortunate day.
Agnew: Agnew never sleeps! Except when the Pacers are around, because then Agnew knows he will not be threatened! Zzz!
Projected Record: 33-49, 10th in East.

Waiting For Groza: Now we come to the question everybody wants answered. How bad will the Cavs be without LeBron? I've seen answers ranging from mediocre to putrid. They have some promising players; Varejao, Sessions, Hickson, Mo Williams, but a lot of rebuilding to do.
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: Ah yes, the old "team losing a superstar" conundrum. Will they be a wounded tiger or a neutered tiger? And more importantly, why do I care?
Agnew: The howls of anguish emanating from Cleveland are music to the ears of Agnew, as are the howls of anguish and lamentations of the folk after Agnew lays waste to another village! Agnew thinks this team will rise again to torment the Midwest, just not this year!
Projected Record: 28-54, 11th in East.

Waiting For Groza: Finally, we come to the Detroit Pistons.
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: I can't do this anymore. It's too depressing.
Waiting For Groza: What do you mean?
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: I'm going to pretend this team doesn't exist anymore. It's less painful that way. You and Mr. Eggplant can continue.
[click]
Agnew: Agnew agrees. Agnew can't requisition the necessary spite for this team. Agnew kinda feels sorry for them. Agnew wants warm milk and cookies to make him feel better before eviscerating the Southeast like a defenseless kitten, which is also a good metaphor for the Pistons!
Projected Record: 19-63, 15th in East

Tune in next time as Agnew rejoins me in an attempt to preview the Southeast without the assistance of fictional nineteen fifties anecdotes. Same time, same channel!

Season Preview: Atlantic Divison

2010-10-22T18:10:00.001-04:00

For the unofficial* Waiting For Groza season preview, it is my pleasure to introduce the two official Waiting For Groza season preview correspondents, Agnew, the anthropomorphic eggplant that has lived in my fridge for the past three years, and Geoffrey St. Geoffrey, advance scout for the Providence Steam Rollers and Zollner Pistons.

*Official preview not forthcoming.

[transcribed by Mrs E.E. Pifflebottom of the Tryton L. Peckham Typing Bureau, Inc. Thank you, Donny!]

Waiting For Groza: Let's start in the East, with the Atlantic Division. The Boston Celtics seem to be the overwhelming favorites here. Another year older, they probably won't win 60 games, but will be dangerous in the playoffs if KG is healthy.
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: Back in '53, when we were facing Syracuse, I remember Andy Phillip snatching a rebound and sprinting to the other end of the court trying to score. But he was the only one running. He couldn't get a shot off against Earl Lloyd, so he tried a behind the back pass which was snagged by Paul Seymour. Most of our guys were so slow that they were still down on the other end, so Syracuse couldn't get a fast break going, but Dolph hit a shot anyway. What was the question again?
Agnew: All shall fear the Celtics! Not so much as they fear Agnew, Destroyer of Worlds, but fear shall be happening nonetheless! Garnett and Rondo are crazy, and Agnew approves, but the rest of the team is old and Sheed is missing. Like Emperor Melongena, he shall be missed throughout the galaxy, for it is only through calculated insanity that this team wins!
Projected Record: 49-33, 4th in East.

Waiting For Groza: Next up, the Knicks. They turned over most of the roster, and have their most talented team since Allan Houston was a good player. An Amare led offense should be good, and they have a lot of break out candidates; Danilo Gallinari, Anthony Randolph, Toney Douglas, Timofey Mozgov, Kelenna Azubuike, and that clone of Steve Nash that D'Antoni smuggled out of Arizona. But will it be enough to mask their lack of defense?
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: I'll tell you what I think of the Knicks. Back when I was in the NBA, there was a center named Ed Macauley who started for the Boston Celtics. He was a wonderful offensive player, with all kinds of moves, and a brilliant outside shot. His teams always fell in the playoffs despite the best backcourt combination in the league. One evening, after the game, we were splitting a cab, and he got out at his apartment first, saying he'd loaned his wallet to Cooz, but would be back in a second with his half of the fare. The next morning, I woke up in the gutter, covered in vomit. What do you think of that, young man?
Agnew: Agnew is bored by this team. He hates New York, because they celebrate mediocrity. Agnew is not mediocre. Agnew blows things up! Agnew dances in the fiery ashes of his enemies' burning houses! The Knicks have erected a colorful facade to hide a beige interior. Agnew will say nothing more about this team.
Projected Record: 38-44, 7th in East.

Waiting For Groza: The New Jersey Nets went 12-70 last year, but have added Troy Murphy, Derrick Favors, Anthony Morrow, Travis Outlaw, and Jordan Farmar to replace one of the worst collections of talent ever assembled. How many games can this very different team win?
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: In the days when I was a young man, we killed Commies, and people who looked like Commies, and people who might have thought about becoming Commies! We didn't let them purchase basketball teams! The idea! Hmph.
Agnew: If you cannot destroy your enemies, which Agnew never worries about, then you should terrify them in any way you can! The 2010 Nets would have made Agnew run away, if Agnew had legs, and was not so brave and courageous and was utterly impossible to frighten! A mediocre basketball team frightens nobody. Stick to what you do best, Nets!
Projected Record: 35-47, 8th in East.

Waiting For Groza: Toronto has seemingly turned into the Island of Misfit International Ballers, with Bargnani, Calderon, Barbosa, and Kleiza playing significant roles for the Raptors this season. This team should score, but won't be able to stop anyone, unless Amir Johnson turns into Ben Wallace.
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: The Toronto Huskies didn't have a single player over 6'5 play at least half of their games, and were absolutely dreadful after Ed Sadowski, their star big man, departed 10 games into the campaign. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, as they say in Montreal, though I have no idea why. I don't speak German.
Agnew: The best defense is not a good offense! The best defense is to rip your opponent limb from limb while cackling gleefully! They will be disarmed, and you can score at will! If Agnew coached the Raptors, they would live up to their proud mascot, who Agnew could still destroy if he wanted to, but he doesn't! Even Agnew can be merciful! But not too much mercy! Agnew is watching you!
Projected Record: 25-57, 13th in East.

Waiting For Groza: We come to the last team in the Atlantic, the 76ers. They have some talent; Iguodala, Speights, Evan Turner, Holliday, Lou Williams, Young, but I don't really know how any of it fits together. I don't think they will be able to shoot that well, and the interior defense is suspect, to say the least. They exchanged their best rebounder and interior defender for Spencer Hawes, and their best player is on the trading block. Will Turner figure things out in his rookie year? Will Speights or Lou Williams become an All-Star? Or is this team doomed to another season with a win total in the twenties?
Geoffrey St. Geoffrey: I never understood why Syracuse moved to Philadelphia. Each place is utterly ghastly. I hated traveling to Syracuse to scout the Nationals. Dolph Schayes was brilliant, and the rest of the team would pressure you, and try to cause havoc. I could have told Mr. Zollner that without sitting a bus attempting to make it to the depot before being crushed by the glaciers on either side of it. And the fans were worse, a bunch of rowdy hooligans, who were at once obnoxious and scarce. I can understand fleeing, but why leave Hell for Tartarus?
Agnew: Agnew understands that the Sixers could have a frontcourt of Spencer Hawes, Elton Brand, and Andres Nocioni. His lips curl in disgust at the depths to which a once proud franchise has fallen until Agnew remembers that the Sixers were never proud, certainly not compared to Agnew, proudest of all the proud beings that have ever, ever been proudly prideful!
Projected Record: 23-59, 14th in East.

Come back later, or tomorrow, or next year, or something, for the rest!

The Best There Ever Was: Shooting Guards 26-30

2010-10-19T23:00:00.001-04:00

The story so far. In this ongoing series, I've been looking at the best 30 players ever at each position, and how current players match up to them. I started with point guards, and now I'm on to the shooting guards.

30: Drazen Petrovic. It is actually a coincidence that this post is coming out somewhat concurrently with Once Brothers. Petrovic didn't have as good of a career as many shooting guards not on this list, but was their equal at his best, as he showed in the NBA and international play.

An excellent shooter, Petrovic is fourth all time in three point percentage. In his final season in the NBA, Petrovic scored 22 PPG on a .605 TS%, and was named to the third team All-NBA. But his ranking here is only partially based on his short NBA career, and is heavily influenced by his performance in international play, where he led the ACB in scoring in 1989, was named MVP of the European Championship, and led Yugoslavia and Croatia to silver medals in the Olympics.

29: Gail Goodrich. The Chris Bosh to Wilt and West's LeBron and Wade, Goodrich was a 6'1 combo guard who came up with the Lakers and was taken in the expansion draft by the Suns. In 1970, he teamed with Connie Hawkins and Dick Van Arsdale to transform Phoenix into a decent team in only its second year in existence. After that season, he was traded back to L.A., where he played for several years before signing a big contract with the Jazz, and providing a demonstration on the folly of signing a 33 year old 6'1 combo guard to a big contract.

Goodrich's best season came in 1972, not coincidentally the only season those Lakers won a championship. Goodrich gave the Lakers a second guard who could handle the ball, score from everywhere on the court, and find Wilt for easy baskets. Looking at the roster, the concern would be that Goodrich's talents were redundant with West on the team, but the dual threat seemed to make the team more effective, because both were good passers, making it close to impossible to defend both of them.

28: Steve Smith. Smith was a rarity; a NBA nomad that was actually a very good player who played for very good teams. He only missed the playoffs once during his career, in his second season in the league, though he only won one title, as a role player with San Antonio. If Smith is forgotten or underrated, it is another data point in support of Bill James' observation that players who do a bit of everything well tend to be forgotten in comparison with players who have one outstanding skill. Smith never came close to leading the league in scoring, wasn't a defensive standout, and only made one All-Star team, but did everything well for about a decade on some very good teams.

27: Jason Terry. The Robin to Dirk's Batman, no matter what Josh Howard or Devin Harris enthusiasts may claim, the JET has combined accurate shooting with good passing with, well, more accurate shooting for a decade. Terry has never been considered a great player; he's not much of a defender, isn't a "number 1" scorer, and has never made an All-Star or All-NBA team. A decade's worth of efficient offense adds up, and Terry's status as the 2nd best player on a team that came thisclose to winning a championship is impressive, though I'm not sure if that's more of an argument for Terry's or Dirk's value.

26: Mitch Richmond. The "middle child" of Run TMC, both alphabetically and positionally, Richmond is the guy I think of as the prototypical "good scorer on a bad team." As befits the middle child, Richmond didn't (and doesn't) get as many accolades as Hardaway and Mullin. That said, it's difficult for me to make the case that Richmond is underrated historically. He wasn't much of an all around player, offering little but scoring and durability. Still, those are two skills that every team needs, and at his best Richmond scored 26 PPG on .454/.428/.861 shooting in 81 games, while featuring one of the prettiest jumpers ever.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol XII

2010-10-17T12:07:00.001-04:00

Magic Johnson : Anfernee Hardaway : : Michael Jordan : Latrell Sprewell

Point Guards and Titles

2010-10-16T01:35:00.000-04:00

Given that I've recently run a series on the best point guards ever (and will start the series on shooting guards very soon), this discussion on TrueHoop made me wonder; how difficult is it to win a championship building around a point guard? One answer is that it is difficult to build a championship roster around a star of any position, just ask Donnie Nelson or Danny Ferry.

But if your team is fortunate to land an all-time great point guard as its unquestioned best player, how can it win a championship? Here are some teams that may point toward that question's answer.

1973 Knicks. Eight man rotation: Walt Frazier/Earl Monroe/Dean Meminger/Bill Bradley/Phil Jackson/Dave DeBusschere/Jerry Lucas/Willis Reed. I wrote about this team the other day. They surrounded Walt Frazier, the best point guard in the league, with balanced scoring and excellent defense. Besides Frazier, the rest of the rotation scored between 11.3 and 17.7 points per 36 minutes. They had two other celebrated defenders in Willis Reed and Dave DeBusschere, and a number of good passers. A very good team, the Knicks used defense and depth to take advantage of John Havlicek's injury to beat the Celtics before beating the Lakers in five.

1987 Lakers. Eight man rotation: Magic Johnson/Byron Scott/Michael Cooper/James Worthy/A.C. Green/Kurt Rambis/Mychal Thompson/Kareem Abdul-Jabaar. Undoubtedly the best team in the league that year, LA took the best point guard ever, and surrounded him with two of the best finishers in the league, one of the best outside shooters in the league, and a collection of hard-nosed role players. Unlike the rest of the teams on this list, L.A. won by overwhelming opponents with offensive firepower.

1988 Jazz. Eight man rotation: John Stockton/Rickey Green/Bob Hansen/Thurl Bailey/Marc Iavaroni/Karl Malone/Melvin Turpin/Mark Eaton. Not the best of the Stockton-Malone Jazz squads, that would be the '97 squad*, but one on which Stockton was clearly at his best, and was easily the team's best player. Karl Malone and Thurl Bailey handled most of the scoring load, putting up a lot of points with mediocre efficiency, while Bob Hansen provided decent efficiency at low usage. Mark Eaton anchored the league's best defense, but was unbelievably awful on offense; 7 points on .457 TS% with a 1:2 AST/TO ratio. The rest of the Utah offense, along with the bench, could be charitably described as "nonexistent".

*On which Stockton was the most productive player in the playoffs, but got "Jordan-ed" in the Finals.

This team wasn't great, but they were good. Featuring the best defense in the league, they had 51 Pythagorean wins, went 29-13 over the second half of the season, and pushed the Lakers to seven games in the second round of the playoffs, falling just short of knocking off the defending (and eventual) champs mostly on the strength of a great performance by Stockton. What differentiated them from the better teams on this list? Their main failing was depth. While the Lakers and Knicks each featured a half dozen decent scorers (or better, in L.A.'s case) for Magic and Frazier to pass the ball to, the Jazz only had three other competent offensive players, and it showed, as they lacked the firepower to outlast the Lakers.

1996 Sonics. Eight man rotation: Gary Payton/Nate McMillan/Hersey Hawkins/Vincent Askew/Detlef Schrempf/Shawn Kemp/Sam Perkins/Ervin "No Magic" Johnson. The Defensive Player of the Year, Payton led a squad that finished 2nd in the league in defensive efficiency. Like the '73 Knicks, the Sonics had a great defense and balanced offense, led by Payton and Kemp. Hawkins and Schrempf provided efficient scoring, while Perkins and Askew filled in the gaps nicely. The Sonics won 64 games and lost to the Bulls in the Finals, but in most years would have been good enough to win a championship.

2003 Nets. Eight man rotation: Jason Kidd/Lucious Harris/Kerry Kittles/Richard Jefferson/Rodney Rogers/Kenyon Martin/Aaron Williams/Jason Collins. The best team in a weak East, the Nets rode a great defense (1st in the league) and balanced offense to the Finals. Kidd's passing made an offense led by Richard Jefferson, Kerry Kittles, and Kenyon Martin mediocre, which was enough to get the Nets to the Finals, but not enough to get them past San Antonio. The less said about the rest of the offense, the better.

2008 Hornets. Eight man rotation: Chris Paul/Jannero Pargo/Bonzi Wells/Morris Peterson/Julian Wright/Peja Stojakovic/David West/Tyson Chandler. The Hornets rode great offense from Paul and great defense from Tyson Chandler to 56 wins. David West and Peja Stojakovic were the primary recipients of Paul's largesse. However, the Hornets weren't very deep; Paul, Chandler, West, and Stojakovic accounted for the vast majority of the team's positive contributions.

What have we learned from these examples? Unless you can overwhelm your opponents with talent like the Showtime Lakers, in order to win a championship around a great point guard, here are the two major points to take away from this exercise. 1) Defense wins. Okay, I already knew this, but having a point guard that can play good defense helps quite a bit. 2) Depth is key when building around a great point guard. It was the difference between the '73 Knicks, '87 Lakers, and '96 Sonics on the one hand, and the '88 Jazz, '03 Nets, and '08 Hornets on the other hand. If I may speculate for a moment, depth may be more important for these teams because a good point guard can still run an offense well when their opponent has a good enough defense to neutralize their primary offensive sets, if the supporting cast is up to the challenge. The '73 Knicks could beat you with Monroe, Reed, Lucas, DeBusschere, etc carrying the load for a game or two. If you could take away Karl Malone* or David West, the Jazz or Hornets were done.

*Note how much adding Jeff Hornacek helped the Jazz in the playoffs (94-98).

Astute readers may notice that I did not mention the '88-'90 or the '04-'08 Pistons despite the fact that they featured excellent point guards, and won titles.* Even more astute readers may recall that those teams are usually held up as exceptions in what I am now calling "championship blueprinting". What this cursory glance of mine shows, though, is that these teams were not exceptions to the rule. Rather, by building around their star point guards with defense and depth, I think those teams experienced success that was both predictable and repeatable, once you know how to look.

*Two other teams to consider; '79 Sonics and '10 Suns. The Suns had better than expected defense and excellent depth, and overachieved considerably. The Sonics won a title, and came close on other occasions, with a balanced, if mediocre, offense, and excellent defense, of which Gus Williams was a large part.

NBA League Pass Choice, Part 2

2010-10-13T20:45:00.001-04:00

Last time, I looked at blackouts and redundant games as two of the factors to consider when choosing which teams to watch on NBA League Pass Choice. This time, I acknowledge the obvious. I want to watch teams that are good, or are at least intriguingly bad. But which teams are those?

It is often said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This may be true, but a lot of beholders behold somewhat similarly. In other words, there may be some people who find the Pistons or Sixers enthralling, but very few of them live outside Michigan and eastern Pennsylvania.

Socrates, a lanky swingman for Panathinaikos, once noticed that beauty and virtue tend to be found together. In the same way, winning and entertaining basketball also have a special relationship. Sure, there are some good teams that are brutal to watch. The nineties Knicks are the Michael Jordan of this category. But teams like the Heat, Magic, and Lakers are all aesthetically pleasing when they're "on." This is true as you go down the standings. The Nuggets and Jazz are more entertaining than the Pacers and Clippers.

As anyone who has watched a James Bond movie can tell you, there are exceptions to the relationship between beauty and virtue. Some of the classic femme fatales are the talented youngsters, the superstar without help, and the Warriors. This category comes down to what style of basketball and storylines you prefer. My particular poisons are young teams and teams with plenty of players I like watching for some reason (an idiosyncratic list). The Houston Rockets are the champions of the latter category, featuring Kyle Lowry, the Chuckwagon, Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Yao, Shane Battier, and Chase Budinger.

Using these principles as a guiding light, what teams will I be watching too much of during the 2011 season? The Houston Rockets, who have few blackouts, a lot of intriguing players, and the talent to win 45-55 games. The Milwaukee Bucks, who also have few blackouts, will probably grab the #3 or #4 seed in the East, have a top five center, and could start Corey Maggette and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute next to each other in the kind of strategic min-maxing usually reserved for Dungeons & Dragons. The Utah Jazz, who have the fewest blackouts in my hometown of any 2010 WC playoff team, and should be entertaining. A hidden benefit of choosing these teams? Between these three, only 6 of their 25 games against the Heat, Magic and Lakers will be blacked out.

I will also be watching the OKC Thunder, despite their many TV appearances (and general overrating), mostly because of Serge Ibaka, Nick Collison, Kevin Durant, and James Harden's beard. The Sacramento Kings have barely any blackouts, should be entertaining (Cousins-Landry will be a devastating combination sooner or later), and are a "young team on the rise" (phrase copyrighted by the Portland Trail Blazers, Kevin Pritchard, and Paul Allen's phalanx of attack lawyers).

The other two teams are TBD at this point. New York would be intriguing if they weren't blacked out. New Orleans has Chris Paul and not much else. The Blazers should be a great team to watch in November, but I don't know if I want to watch "The Return of Juwan Howard" come February. The Wizards will either be surprisingly good or a complete trainwreck. Either one is acceptable. I'd choose them in a heartbeat if I had faith in Gil's knee. And Toronto should have an interesting offense with Jose Calderon, Linas Kleiza, Andrea Bargnani, and Leandro Barbosa, but I don't know if watching that defense on a regular basis is medically advisable. Or maybe I'll go outside at some point this winter. Life is full of surprises, as the Blazers training staff knows.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol XI

2010-10-12T22:37:00.000-04:00

Chris Bosh, Udonis Haslem, Mike Miller, Joel Anthony, and Mario Chalmers is probably a better supporting cast than Anderson Varejao, Antawn Jamison, Mo Williams, Anthony Parker, and Delonte West. Oh yeah, Dwayne Wade helps, too.

TBTEW: Point Guard Wrap, Current Players

2010-10-10T15:34:00.000-04:00

Full List
30: Stephon Marbury
29: Jimmy Jones
28: Doc Rivers
27: Andre Miller
26: Fat Lever
25: Derek Harper
24: Calvin Murphy
23: Mookie Blaylock
22: Gus Williams
21: Anfernee Hardaway
20: Terrell Brandon
19: Sam Cassell
18: Tim Hardaway
17: Bob Davies
16: Tiny Archibald
15: Lenny Wilkens
14: Mark Price
13: Maurice Cheeks
12: Isiah Thomas
11: Terry Porter
10: Bob Cousy
9: Kevin Johnson
8: Chauncey Billups
7: Steve Nash
6: Jason Kidd
5: Gary Payton
4: Walt Frazier
3: John Stockton
2: Oscar Robertson
1: Magic Johnson

Gilbert Arenas and Tony Parker are close to cracking the top thirty. Parker needs about one more good year to knock Starbury off the list, while Agent Zero needs about two more borderline All-Star seasons. Although at this point, I'm not sure what to expect from him. Baron Davis is looking unlikely to make the list, but could make it with a late career resurgence. Deron Williams will probably end up somewhere in the teens. I think he's somewhere between Tim Hardaway and Kevin Johnson as a point guard that does everything well on offense. In terms of overall effectiveness, Rajon Rondo is somewhat similar to Maurice Cheeks, but I think he has "Jason Kidd" potential. Billups, Nash, and Kidd could flip based on the rest of their careers, but I don't think any of them will get to the top five. If he can stay healthy, Chris Paul will get to the top five, and if he can sustain his 2008+2009 performance, he has a good shot at the #1 overall ranking. At his best, he combines great ballhandling, scoring, and ballhawking as well as any point guard ever.

NBA League Pass Choice, Part 1

2010-10-09T01:10:00.001-04:00

For unrepentant NBA junkies, NBA League Pass is like Christmas every day for half a year. For those of us who like to at least pretend we have a day job and/or a life, there is League Pass Choice, which lets you watch seven different teams with the disclaimer that the games are subject to blackouts in the case of nationally and locally televised games. That disclaimer is important. It means that I, for example, will be unable to watch Knicks games, Nets games, ABC, ESPN, TNT, and NBA TV games. Obviously, this affects the amount of each team's games that I am able to watch.

Let me use the Boston Celtics as an example. The Celtics have 33 nationally televised games, and play 6 non nationally televised games against the Nets and Knicks. That means that I would be paying for 43 games minus the games against my other six teams that were not blacked out (since I would be getting those games anyway). That's likely another half dozen games or more that I would miss, leaving me with less than half of the Celtics schedule-most of which are the games against the league's bottom feeders. Unless I'm a Celtics fan, or really enjoy watching them play, that's not very enticing.

To give some other examples, the Miami SuperFriends have 29 nationally televised games, and 4 against my locally blacked out teams-33 total. What's more, all of their games against the Lakers, Magic, Celtics, Spurs, Thunder, and Bulls are on national TV. The Houston Rockets only have 11 nationally televised games, and 14 blacked out altogether. The Milwaukee Bucks have 15 blacked out games, while the San Antonio Spurs have 26. Looking at League Pass this way won't tell you who you should pick-the Thunder have 28 blackouts, while the Pistons only have 9 blackouts, but I'd much rather watch 50 Thunder games than 70 Pistons games-but it's helpful.

The other part of this calculation is the games your seven teams will play against each other. If I choose several teams from the same division, then there are a lot of redundant games. For instance, I could choose the Thunder, Jazz, Nuggets, and Blazers or the Thunder, Jazz, Nuggets, and Bulls. If I choose the second option, I still get to see a lot of the Blazers and I get to see more total games because there are less redundancies in the schedule.

Next time: factoring in team quality and the entertainment factor.

TBTEW: Point Guards 1-5

2010-10-07T20:37:00.000-04:00

5: Gary Payton. Payton has the lowest career free throw percentage of any point guard on this list, a distinction he is likely to hold until Rajon Rondo plays a few more seasons. Despite not being a very good shooter, Payton was the best point guard in the games for almost a decade, from the mid nineties through the early aughts. Probably the best defender on this list, Payton combined outstanding defense with high usage, great passing, a low amount of turnovers, and fantastic durability-if it wasn't for the '99 lockout, he would have topped 3000 minutes in nine straight seasons (95-03).

It will be interesting to see how players who peaked from 1999-2004, when the NBA went through a mini deadball era, will be remembered. The league wide decreases in offensive efficiency and pace mean that those players have less impressive stats than their predecessors and successors. The other factors that usually help a player to be remembered are team success and (generally offensive) style. Payton had a bit if both, but not enough that he's guaranteed to be remembered as one of the five best at his position, which he is.

4: Walt Frazier. Another lockdown defender, the man known as Clyde was the best guard of the seventies, and the most stylish NBA player ever. He could do everything on the court; score (efficiently), pass, rebound, and defend. Frazier is the first player on this list to have won a championship as a team's clear superstar. While Billups, Isiah Thomas, and Gus Williams all may have been the best player on their team, there were other players on each of those squads that were at or near the same level as those players. Not so on the 1973 Knicks.

By 1973, injuries had limited Willis Reed into a supporting role, and the rest of the roster was talented, but lacked a star. They did have one of the best collection of veteran role players ever assembled-Reed, Jerry Lucas, Earl Monroe, Dave DeBusschere, and Bill Bradley, along with a couple of talented backups in Dean Meminger and Phil Jackson. Still, Frazier was the only one on the team to finish in the top 20 in PER or Win Shares, a rare accomplishment on a championship team. The only players to do that since the merger have been Magic Johnson (1987), Michael Jordan (1998-Pippen*), Tim Duncan (2003), and Dwayne Wade (2006-O'Neal*).

*didn't qualify for the PER list due to injury, otherwise would have made it

3: John Stockton. The numbers, especially the assists, are almost unreal in their quantity and consistency. Nineteen years in the league. Not missing a game in seventeen of those years. Nine straight seasons leading the league in assists. Fifteen years leading the league in AST%. Sixteen straight seasons with a PER over 21. Career marks for steals and assists that won't be touched anytime soon.

Often called the best pure point guard, Stockton's the only point guard (before Chris Paul, if you believe in his defense) to combine ridiculous assist totals, excellent defense, and ultra efficient shooting, a reflection of the three attributes a good point guard is supposed to possess (court vision/passing, ballhawking, and accurate shooting).

When you play in 19 different postseasons, you are bound to have some disappointing postseasons and also some good postseasons, even if they don't result in championships. Stockton's best postseasons came almost a decade apart. The first was in 1988, when he set the record for assists and steals in a playoff series, outplaying Magic Johnson as the Jazz pushed the eventual champions to seven games. The second came in 1997, when he destroyed Matt Maloney, leading the Jazz to the Finals, where they lost to the Bulls despite Stockton's heroics (especially in Game 4).

2: Oscar Robertson. Put up great numbers thanks to playing almost every minute at a ridiculous pace, while being better than everyone else. The fast pace of the sixties, and the fact that top players played a few more minutes a game than they do now, means that his numbers aren't quite as impressive as they seem. Still, the man averaged a triple double over his first five years; something no one else has ever done (in any one season).

During his first few seasons, Oscar's Royals were near the top of the league in offense, but near the bottom in defense, as the frontcourt of Wayne Embry, Bob Boozer, and Jack Twyman was competent offensively but couldn't stop anyone. Jerry Lucas arrived in 1964, just in time for Jack Twyman to hit the "I've stopped being good" portion of his career. The Royals led the league in points scored, won 55 games and lost to the Celtics on the backs of Robertson, Lucas, and one of the worst supporting casts in the league. The next year featured more of the same, as a 48 win campaign was stopped by Wilt's Sixers. The Royals slid back into mediocrity over the next few years as Robertson slowly started to decline, Lucas never quite matched his rookie year, and the best players Cincinnati could surround them with were Adrian Smith and Happy Hairston. It was probably this experience, along with leading the fight for NBA free agency, that led Robertson to recently applaud the idea of stars teaming up to win a title, in defiance of the "alpha dog syndrome."

What made him so effective? The Big O probably had the best midrange game ever. A deadly shooter from 10-20 feet, he used his 6'5 frame to back down smaller guards, and create shots for himself, often drawing a foul in the process-there's a reason he led the league in made free throws four different times. And if the defense focused on him, he could find the open teammate with a pinpoint pass.

1: Magic Johnson. The difference between 1 and 2 on this list is very close. On the one hand, Magic was the more prolific passer, won more (with better postseason stats), and had better per minute stats. On the other hand, Robertson was the better scorer, was more dominating, and had more impressive overall stats. Ultimately, I went with Magic for the simple fact that I view Oscar's 45 minute a game seasons as an artifact of the sixties instead of an indication that he would/could play 45 minutes a game in the modern era. Maybe that's unfair.

But let's talk about Magic. The numbers are ridiculous. In 1987, he averaged 24-6-12 for a 65 win team, then averaged 22-8-12 in the championship run (with great efficiencies). 23-8-13 in 1989. A career playoff average of 20-8-12 (.595 TS%). If you like advanced stats, he finished in the top 4 in Win Shares 8 times (although strangely never in first).

I could go on for pages, but you don't need me to tell you how good Magic was. The only thought I'll leave you with is that the Showtime Lakers were the last offensive minded team* to win a title, as well as the worst defensive squad to win since the merger**. That's how good Magic made that offense.

*Of course, other teams with excellent offenses have one. Just not another team whose identity was almost solely in its offense.
**And no, the 2001 Lakers don't count. They were excellent defensively when they could be bothered to try.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol X

2010-10-03T11:18:00.000-04:00

From 2006 through 2010, Jason Collins has appeared in 280 games, logging 5448 total minutes. In that span of time, Collins has averaged 4.2 points, 6.1 rebounds, 0.8 blocks, and 5.4 fouls per 36 minutes. He has shot .391/.188/.473 for a true shooting % of .420. His offensive rating over that span is 87, and his defensive rating is 107. His PER is a whopping 3.9. He is set to make over 1.2 million this year as a member of the Atlanta Hawks. Enjoy it, Jason.

Four Factors: 2005 Bulls

2010-09-29T12:31:00.000-04:00

After Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Steve Kerr, and Luc Longley left following the Bulls' 1998 championship run, Chicago fell on hard times. From 1999 through 2004, they won more than 23 games only once, a 30-52 season in 2003. During those years, plenty of talent cycled through Chicago, but it was usually traded away or injured before it had a chance to do much. For example, in a series of trades, the Bulls managed to turn Ron Artest, Brad Miller, Ron Mercer, and Donyell Marshall into two years of Jalen Rose and an old Antonio Davis. Then in 2005, a very young Bulls team broke through with 47 wins, looking to have a bright future. That bright future never quite materialized, but let's take a look at what that 2005 Bulls team team did well (and poorly) using Four Factors.

1.) Shooting. The Bulls were a weak shooting squad, finishing 24th in eFG%. Big men Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler were the only Bulls with more than 20 minutes a game to shoot better than the league average, and that was only because they rarely attempted shots outside of point blank range. Backup forward Othella Harrington was perhaps the team's most effective shooter, with a .512 eFG% despite two thirds of his shots being jumpers (compared to less than one third for Chandler and Curry). Among the regulars, Chris Duhon and Andres Nocioni were especially bad in this category. However, the Bulls were near the top of the league on defense, behind only the San Antonio Spurs. The credit should go to the whole team for good team defense, although Tyson Chandler and Kirk Hinrich had the best defensive reputations on the team (on which they were number one and number two in minutes played), and led the Bulls in blocks and steals.

2.) Rebounding. The Bulls were 19th in offensive rebounding and 7th in defensive rebounding. Chandler deserves most of the credit here, finishing third in the NBA in rebound percentage behind only Kevin Garnett and Ben Wallace. Forwards Nocioni, 19 year old Luol Deng, Antonio Davis, and Harrington also did decent work on the glass. Eddy Curry was particularly bad in this category, finishing with less than 7 rebounds per 36 minutes despite playing center.

3.) Turnovers. The Bulls were 8th in the league at forcing turnovers thanks to the quick hands of Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon, along with that team defense I mentioned earlier. The Bulls played at a faster than average pace, finished 8th in the league at forcing turnovers, and yet as a team finished only 21st in steals. This meant that Chicago forced a lot of pressure turnovers that ended possessions without any one player getting credit for the steal. That is a sign of good team defense. On the other side of the ball, the Bulls turned the ball over more than any other team in the league, which is not a sign of good team offense. Part of the problem was inexperience, with rookies Luol Deng and Andres Nocioni turning the ball over much more than they ever would again. Another part of the problem was big men with little ball handling skills (Chandler and Curry). Surprisingly*, the only one of the Bulls' top 9 players (in terms of total minutes) to post an above average turnover rate was Kirk Hinrich.

*Surprisingly because TOV% measures turnovers against shots taken, which means players with a lot of assists, who have the ball in their hands a lot, but aren't shooting, tend to look worse than they actually are by this measure.

4.) Free Throws. The Bulls were decidedly below average in this category, ranking 22nd in getting to the line and at sending opponents to the line. Once again, these were team wide problems. Tyson Chandler (especially) and Eddy Curry were the only Bulls that were very good at getting to the line. On the other end, Luol Deng was the only Bull particularly good at playing defense without fouling.

Why were the Bulls good? The most important reason seems to have been the team defense, which the stats can only tell us about indirectly. Going by traditional boxscore statistics, Tyson Chandler was really their only good player, providing excellent rebounding, blocks, and efficient scoring. The Bulls also got decent seasons from Kirk Hinrich, Eddy Curry, and a career year from reserve Othella Harrington. That does not seem like a recipe for success, and offensively it wasn't, as the Bulls finished 27th in the league in Offensive Rating. However, fantastic team defense anchored by one of the best defenders in the NBA was enough to get the Bulls the number 4 seed in the East.

TBTEW: Point Guards 6-10

2010-09-24T22:42:00.000-04:00

To see the previous posts in this series click on the "the best there ever was" tag at the bottom of the post.

10: Bob Cousy. Like Isiah Thomas, Cousy is a player whose stats don't quite match his reputation. Or maybe his stats match his reputation, but his reputation doesn't match his statistical "value". Either way, his stats and his reputation agree that he was the best point guard of the fifties, the best passer in the game, and a shaky shooter.

Most of Cousy's perceived value came from his passing, and his ability to run an offense, which was excellent. Even though he was also a prolific scorer, averaging over 18 points a game for his career, he was inefficient, always shooting below 40% from the field. From what I understand, he could score in transition, but was not a good shooter. He was a good rebounder for a point guard, but wasn't much of a defender, in that respect being similar to most of the players from the pre-Russell era. In my opinion, then, he deserves to rank somewhere in between Isiah Thomas (very good passer, inefficient shooter, decent defender) and Kevin Johnson (a more efficient scorer than Thomas).

9: Kevin Johnson. I don't know if people realize how good KJ was. Of course, there's the dunk on Olajuwon which remains famous, but the early 90s Suns are remembered as the team that went to the Finals when Barkley was there. This inevitably means that it is forgotten that the Suns had won between 53 and 55 games the previous four seasons with a core of Kevin Johnson, Jeff Hornacek, Tom Chambers, and Dan Majerle. KJ was the best player on that team, averaging 21 and 11 on a .587 TS% during that span.

Unfortunately, he was hampered by injuries after that stretch, playing at least 60 games just twice after his age 25 season, and he was done by age 31. Offensively, the lack of a consistent outside shot (until his last couple seasons) was his only weakness, and his passing combined with his knack for drawing fouls and finishing inside made him a scarily effective offensive player.

8: Chauncey Billups. Owner of the coveted "best player on a championship team" designation, Billups was similar to Terrell Brandon in that both players played on very slow teams, were great free throw shooters, and rarely turned the ball over. As in Brandon's case, these factors contributed to Billups' "traditional stats" understating his performance. Billups has also been an excellent three point shooter, making him a very efficient scorer despite low field goal percentages, and has been a better defender than his steals would indicate.

Another interesting feature of Billups' career is his current streak of nine straight 50 win seasons over three different teams. The Pistons and the Nuggets had both won 50 games the year before he arrived, but both teams enjoyed greater success after he arrived in town. It doesn't prove anything about his value, but the fact that his teams consistently won argues for a high ranking.

7: Steve Nash. You all know the deal. So much virtual ink has been spilled on Nash during the past five years that anything I say will be extraordinarily redundant. Coming off an age 35 season in which he averaged 17-11 on another 50-40-90 while leading the Suns to the Western Conference Finals, it is safe to say that Nash has broken the age curve. It is sufficient to say that the list of guards who have had a season with a PER of at least 20 (while qualifying for the scoring title) at the age of 35 or older is John Stockton and Steve Nash. If he can keep playing at a high level for a couple more seasons, he could climb a couple more spots on this list.

6: Jason Kidd. The man who could do everything on the basketball court but consistently hit a jump shot. Like Nash, Kidd appears to have beaten Father Time, continuing to rack up the rebounds, assists, and steals into his late thirties, while becoming a much better shooter, knocking down 42% of his threes the past two seasons. In this case, the stats don't tell the whole story. Unlike Nash, a large part of Kidd's value came from his defensive ability. Even though his craftiness still helps him force turnovers, he has slowed down to the point where he can no longer contain quick guards. Unfortunately for the Mavericks, in the 2011 Western Conference, facing a good, quick guard is a nightly occurrence. Kidd remains an effective player, and he is still capable of guarding many 2's and 3's, but he is no longer as valuable as he was several years ago, despite what his statistics may indicate.

A Note On Comparing Players

2010-09-22T10:08:00.000-04:00

In my ongoing series, The Best There Ever Was, my comment on Bob Cousy turned into its own post about some of the difficulties of comparing player from the fifties to players from the modern game.

One problem of assigning value that I alluded to in my Bob Davies comment is that the 1950s NBA was very different from the moderns NBA in ways other than lower FG%, slower pace, and other things that can be statistically normalized. For example, the 1950s NBA was dominated by big men. By any statistical measure, almost all of the best players in the league were big men; Bill Russell, George Mikan, Bob Pettit, Dolph Schayes, Neil Johnston, Ed Macauley, and Maurice Stokes, to name some of the best. Most of the other stars were forwards like Paul Arizin, Elgin Baylor, George Yardley, and Cliff Hagan. Really good guards were a rarity. Cousy, Bob Davies, Bill Sharman, and Bobby Wanzer (for a few seasons) were excellent, but after them there were only decent players like Gene Shue, Dick McGuire, and Slater Martin, whose stats make them look like borderline all-stars instead of borderline Hall of Famers.

Why was this? One reason was the lack of the three point shot. Without the three, defenses could easily pack the paint and dare opponents to live off the 25 foot jumper. With those baskets only counting for two points, successful attempts hurt less than they do in the modern game. This is one reason good defensive centers like Bill Russell and Nate Thurmond were more valuable in the fifties and sixties than they could be in the modern game-Russell didn't have to worry about Jerry West hitting a lot of threes. I'll return to this issue in the Bill Sharman comment of the shooting guard rankings.

Another reason was the game's physicality. Some people complain that the hand check rules have made it impossible to defend quick guards, but in the fifties every kind of defensive malfeasance was allowed and encouraged on a nightly basis. In that kind of environment, the best players were usually the biggest and strongest, rather than the most skilled. This is why Larry Foust, the epitome of a "big ox", was, statistically, better per minute than Bob Cousy.

Given the big differences between fifties, big man dominated basketball, and modern, guard centric basketball, what do I do in these ratings? I don't want to simply note that Cousy (for example) was statistically rather similar to players like Stephon Marbury and Rod Strickland, and conclude that he has been vastly overrated. On the other hand, just because he was the best point guard of his era doesn't automatically make the equal of Oscar or Magic or Stockton. So, what I've done is try to imagine how the player's game would translate to the modern game, and rate them accordingly. For example, Bob Cousy was the best passer in the game, excellent in transition, a poor shooter, and a mediocre to poor defender. In my opinion, then, he deserves to rank somewhere in between Isiah Thomas (very good passer, inefficient shooter, decent defender) and Kevin Johnson (a more efficient scorer than Thomas). Feel free to complain about the imprecision of this method in the comments :)

Four Factors: 1976 Celtics

2010-09-17T18:50:00.000-04:00

1976 was one of the most balanced years the NBA has seen. There was a clear "best team in the league", Rick Barry's Golden State Warriors. Beyond the Warriors, there were a handful of good, but flawed, teams. There were the aging Celtics, led by Dave Cowens, who did not feature a meaningful contributor under 27. There were the anonymous Cavaliers (2nd in point differential), who were paced in points, rebounds, and assists by Jim Chones, Jim Brewer, and Jim Cleamons. There were the Unseld-Hayes Bullets, Bob McAdoo's Braves, and the Phoenix Suns, led by Paul Westphal and Alvan Adams.

As many of you probably know, the Celtics outlasted Phoenix in an exciting, if sloppy, championship series after the Suns had upset Golden State under unusual circumstances. But my question is, why were the Celtics good enough to win 50+ games and a championship? This is where Four Factors comes in. The Four Factors are shooting, rebounding, turnovers, and free throws. Since these four categories cover every interaction that takes place on a basketball court, looking at them tells you what teams are doing better (or worse) than their opponents.

1.) Shooting. The Celtics were the 17th most accurate team in the league (by eFG%). Out of 18 teams. The good news is that they were the fifth best at stopping opponents from making shots, so they were only outshot by three percentage points. Still, one does not expect a championship contender to be outshot. There was plenty of blame to go around on this category. (The '76 Celtics had no depth, so I'll be focusing on the starters.) In a league that shot 46%, Cowens shot 47%, Havlicek, Charlie Scott, and Jo Jo White shot 45%, and Paul Silas shot 43%. Mediocre offense wasn't new for the Celtics, but by this point the field goal defense had slipped from "great" to "good".

2.) Rebounding. Here's where Boston won most of their games. The team led the league in offensive rebounding, and was a close second in defensive rebounding behind the tough, but offensively inept, Chicago Bulls, finishing well ahead of the number three New York Knicks. Cowens and Silas did most of the work here, combining for over half of Boston's total rebounds. Cowens averaged 16 a game, and Silas grabbed 13, second and fourth in the league respectively. The next highest was Charlie Scott with 4.4 a game. In fact, Silas grabbed more rebounds than Scott, Havlicek, and White combined. The Celtics also got some good rebounding out of reserve forwards Jim Ard and Steve Kuberski, but most of the credit here goes to Cowens and Silas for destroying opponents on the glass.

3.) The Celtics also compensated for their poor shooting by not turning the ball over that much, finishing fifth in that category. However, that success was outweighed by the fact that they were the worst team in the league at forcing turnovers, as might be expected from an old team. The guards were especially disappointing in this regard, getting about the same amount of steals as the 35 year old Havlicek and the center.

4.) Boston also rarely got to the foul line, finishing 13th in this category. Silas and reserve Don Nelson were the only Celtics especially good at reaching the foul line, while Jo Jo White somehow managed to take only 3.1 free throws compared to 18.2 field goal attempts per game. Boston was good at keeping opponents from reaching the free throw line, finishing third in that category. All of the starters except Charlie Scott deserve the credit here. Jo Jo White fouled the least, but Cowens and Silas' numbers are impressively low for good interior defenders.

By looking at the Four Factors, how did Boston win? Rebounding, rebounding, rebounding, and the ability of most of the team to play solid defense without fouling. That's really it. At everything else, they were anywhere from close to average to bad. But the presence of two great rebounders, along with good team defense, was enough to win another championship for Boston in lieu of any great teams.

TBTEW: Point Guards 11-15

2010-09-14T00:35:00.000-04:00

15: Lenny Wilkens. "Two's company, three's a crowd." The originator of this phrase was not talking about retrospective point guard rankings, but the phrase does apply. In discussing great point/combo guards from the sixties, there is an obvious top two of Oscar Robertson and Jerry West (who I have rated as a shooting guard).

After those two, Wilkens was the best point guard of the sixties. Deserving the appellation "hard-nosed", he was one of the best defensive guards of the sixties, along with Jerry West, K.C. Jones, and Al Attles. He displayed the same tenacity on the offensive end, making up for poor field goal percentages by getting to the line constantly. Also a good passer, his assist numbers were depressed early in his career because the St. Louis offense ran through Bob Pettit and Cliff Hagan, but when his teams needed him to create more shots on offense, he led the league in AST% three times in his mid thirties.

14: Mark Price. Steve Nash 1.0. Or is Steve Nash Mark Price 2.0? Whatever the case, Price was a diminutive (white) dead eye shooter and excellent passer for a series of Cavalier teams who were a few bad breaks away from a dynasty (see: Jordan, Michael).

In his third year in the league (1988-89), Price put up the celebrated .500/.400/.900, averaging about 19 and 8, while leading the Cavs to a 57-25 record (and we won't talk about what happened next). He was just as good the next year, before going down with an ACL injury in the fall of 1990. Amazingly, he made it back for the 1991-92 season, and maintained his high level of play for the next three seasons, albeit at reduced minutes. After that the injuries returned, kicked off by a foot injury in 1995, and he was unable to bounce back this time.

How good was he? At his best, during the six seasons from 1989 through 1994, he averaged a shade under 20 points and 9 assists per 36 minutes while shooting .487/.406/.915. Offensively, he was as good as any point guard on this list not named Magic, Oscar, Stockton, or (Suns era) Nash. However, he wasn't very good defensively, and his small amount of minutes (relative to the point guards above him) prevents me from ranking him any higher.

13: Maurice Cheeks. A point guard that did almost everything right, Cheeks showed how a point guard could be effective without putting up big numbers. He boasted a career high of 15.6 PPG (in 39 minutes) and failed to reach double digit assists in any season. However, it would be incorrect to characterize his accomplishments as "not showing up in the box score." They are there, just not immediately obvious.

The first indication that Cheeks was better than might be expected from his career average of 11 and 7 are his steals. Cheeks finished in the top 10 in the league in steals per game every year from 1979 through 1988. As might be expected, he was one of the best defensive guards in the game, making five All-Defensive teams (four first teams). Second, while he did not do a lot of scoring, he was very efficient, shooting over 52% for his career, and shooting over 50% his first nine years in the league, with a high of 57% in 1985.

While Cheeks he did not put up crazy assist totals, he was still an excellent passer, averaging between 6.4 and 9.2 assists per game every year from 1980 through 1989, without committing a lot of turnovers. Finally, Cheeks was very durable, playing at least 68 games in his first 13 seasons, and leading the league in minutes played in 1986. The combination of excellent defense, efficient scoring, good passing, and durability help explain why Cheeks was better than his career averages originally make him look.

12: Isiah Thomas. In terms of historical rankings, Thomas is undoubtedly the most controversial point guard, with some rating him as a top 5 point guard, and others placing him much lower. On the one hand, he averaged 19 points, 9 assists, and 2 steals for his career, he was a key player on two championship teams, and he did play better in the playoffs. On the other hand, he was inefficient and the Pistons' success had a lot to do with their defense, which was led by Dennis Rodman, Joe Dumars, and Bill Laimbeer.

How one values Thomas depends on how one values shot creation and "leading" a winning team versus everything else. Conventionally, the best player on a team is the player that leads that team in scoring. There are some obvious exceptions to this rule of thumb, such as Bill Russell, but by and large a team's scoring leader is considered the team's leader, especially when there is no obviously better player. In Thomas' case, he is considered the best player on back to back championship teams, putting him in elite company. But is he really?

The championship Bad Boys teams were unusual in that one could make a case for any of four players as the team's best player. There was Isiah Thomas, who led the team in scoring and assists both championship years. There was Joe Dumars, who dominated the ball less than Thomas, but was more efficient and garnered First Team All-Defensive honors each year. There was Dennis Rodman, fearsome rebounder and arguably the best defender in the league. Finally, there was Bill Laimbeer, the defensive anchor who provided efficient offense and fantastic defensive rebounding. Who was the best player on the team? I don't know, but when you have three other players that can plausibly claim to be as good as Thomas, it seems to weaken the argument that the Pistons' success shows that Thomas is a top 5 point guard.

11: Terry Porter. He played forever, and was really good at his best. That's really the argument for Porter as a great point guard. His career numbers of 12.2 PPG and 5.6 APG don't look so good, but those numbers are artificially deflated by a number of 20 minute/game seasons at ages when most of his peers on this list were retired. It does not seems fair to hold those years against Porter's durability, especially as he was effective in that part time duty. Per 36 minutes, he averaged about 16 and 7 for his career. In his best seven year stretch, 1987-1993, he averaged 17 and 8 with a true shooting of 59% in 35 minutes a game.

Although it's largely forgotten since the Blazers failed to win a championship, Porter was just as effective in the playoffs as he was in the regular season. From 1989-1992, Porter averaged 20 and 7 with a true shooting of 63% in 61 games. The Blazers reached two Finals, but fell short against the Pistons and Bulls.

The title "second best player on a Finals loser" doesn't have as much cachet as "best player on a championship team", but when you consider that in Porter's best three years, his team won 59, 63, and 57 games, losing twice in the Finals and once in the WCF, it puts his accomplishments in perspective. And while they were pretty good players, a frontcourt of Kevin Duckworth, Buck Williams, and Jerome Kersey isn't going to win 60 games without a killer backcourt. And Drexler didn't do all of it by himself.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol IX

2010-09-10T22:14:00.000-04:00

How on earth did the 1984 Knicks, with a starting lineup of Bill Cartwright, Truck Robinson, Bernard King, Rory Sparrow, and Ray Williams, lead the league in Defensive Rating?

You Must Be Joakim!

2010-09-09T17:47:00.001-04:00

Hopefully for the Bulls, this is just another instance of summer silly season speculation, but there are rumors flying around the internet that Chicago would be willing to part with Joakim Noah in a Carmelo Anthony deal. Here are four reasons, in no particular order, why that would be a really bad idea.

1.) Money. Noah is cheap, and Chicago will likely be able to sign him to an extension for less than max money. Anthony will command a max contract, giving Chicago much less financial flexibility.

2.) Defense. Noah is developing into a top flight defensive center, and the Bulls just brought in a top defensive coach. The combination could, with the right role players, make the Bulls a top 5 defensive team in the next couple years. On the other hand, how do you think a lineup featuring Anthony, Boozer, Rose, and journeyman center X (or maybe Omer Asik?) will fare defensively?

3.) Rebounding and passing. Noah is an elite rebounder, and one of the best passing bigs in the game. Both facets of Anthony's game are mediocre.

4.) Chemistry. My last concern is, would the Bulls run their offense through Anthony or Rose? Both players need the ball in their hands to be valuable, and while I don't doubt that Anthony would make the Bulls' offense better, my question is, would he improve it enough to justify giving away a chance at an excellent defense? Remember, the Bulls can already expect a big improvement on that side of the ball thanks to the Carlos Boozer signing.

The More Things Change...What Will Morey Do Next?

2010-09-07T23:59:00.000-04:00

Last year, the biggest concern for the Houston Rockets was, "Who will shoot the ball?" With Yao, Artest, and McGrady out at the beginning of the year, the Rockets desperately needed some of their low usage players to turn into primary scoring options-a role that Aaron Brooks and Carl Landry capably filled.

This year, the Rockets are in the exact opposite situation. Whereas last year they had no "proven scorers", this year they have four players who can put up 20 a game in Yao, Kevin Martin, Aaron Brooks, and Luis Scola, who averaged about 20 a game after the Carl Landry trade last year.

This is a good thing for the Rockets offense, as all four players can get their points within the offense, and it prevents opposing defenses from keying in on any one player. However, this configuration leaves Yao and Battier as the only above average defenders in the Rockets' lineup alongside their offensive surplus, making me think that they could move some of the offense for defense.

The big deal they just gave Luis Scola, along with his recent production, makes me think that he'll stay, and they seem pretty high on Kevin Martin as well. That makes Brooks the logical choice to be moved, especially as his likely replacement, Kyle Lowry, is a better passer, defender, and fits in better with their "take a million trips to the free throw line" philosophy.

The perfect fit for Aaron Brooks would be a fringe playoff team desperate for a point guard. Charlotte, which really needs an offensive option besides Wallace and Captain Jack, Memphis, which is still trying to make the Mike Conley experiment work, and Atlanta, who is relying on Mike Bibby way too much, seem like the most likely destinations.

Atlanta seems less likely than the other two, if only because they are unlikely to trade Johnson, Smith, or Horford, and none of their secondary players are particularly attractive trade bait. Charlotte's cupboard is also relatively bare after Wallace, Jackson, and Tyrus Thomas, but thanks to Erick Dampier's unguaranteed contract, a willingness to take on payroll in exchange for another playoff run could lead to a three team trade. Memphis has more assets and an unpredictable front office, but I don't see an obvious two team trade there. A three team trade would be the most likely option for either Memphis or Charlotte.

In a Brooks deal, the Rockets would probably be targeting at least one of the following; an eventual replacement for Yao, depth at point guard, and another wing if Battier's expiring contract is moved in any deal. In a hypothetical deal, Houston could send Aaron Brooks to Charlotte, Charlotte could send Dampier's contract to a team looking to shed payroll (like New Orleans or Philadelphia), and that third team could send some players to the Rockets. For example, it could look something like this.

TBTEW: Point Guards 16-20

2010-09-03T17:25:00.001-04:00

20: Terrell Brandon. I know what you're thinking. Of the two talented, but often injured, point guards from the mid-nineties, you choose Brandon over Penny Hardaway? Terrell Brandon may have been less memorable, but he was just as effective. At his best, Brandon was recognized as one of the top guards in the game, making back to back All-Star Game appearances in 1996-1997, and starring on this memorable SI cover.

Brandon's 1996 is a great example of how conventional stats can understate a player's contributions. His numbers, 19 points on 47% shooting, 7 assists, 2 steals per game, are very good, but hardly "best point guard in the game" material. However, he put up those numbers on uncannily mistake-free play. He almost never missed a free throw, played good defense while never fouling, and had an extremely low turnover rate. The other major factor to consider is team context. The Cavs were the slowest team in the league with a pace factor of 82.3. The difference between the Cavs and the next slowest team in the league (Detroit), was the same as difference between Detroit (28th) and the 12th fastest team in the league (Houston).

To put it in other words, in 1996 Penny Hardaway scored more points and had more assists per game than Brandon. However, Brandon scored on a higher percentage of his team's possessions, and assisted his teammates on a higher percentage of his team's possessions, than Hardaway. Looking at his statistics this way shows how good Brandon was.

19: Sam Cassell. Sam Cassell's teams made the playoffs in 10 out of 13 seasons from 1994 through 2006. The only exceptions were a year he got traded twice, a 41 win team, and a 44 win team. Cassell has never been viewed as a star, only making one All-Star game, but he's been a consistent scorer and passer for some very good offenses for more than a decade.

As for the very good offenses, consider the 1998 Nets. Featuring a starting lineup of Cassell, Kendall Gill, Kerry Kittles, Keith Van Horn, and Jayson Williams, they finished 5th in the league in offense. Cassell also starred for the Ray Allen-Glenn Robinson Bucks, who were consistently one of the top offenses in the leagues. Cassell had his finest season in the coveted "only good player other than Kevin Garnett*" role. The Wolves won 58 games riding a MVP caliber season from Garnett and an excellent season from Cassell, before being derailed by an injury to Cassell in the playoffs.

*The magic of Fred Hoiberg notwithstanding.

18: Tim Hardaway. The "T" in TMC (and "Tim" in TimZo), Hardaway was everything a good point guard should be. He could run an offense, piled up assists, and scored from beyond the arc and in the lane. As a key component of some of the most exciting offenses of the nineties and some of the most effective grind it out defensive-minded teams of the nineties, he showed that he could be effective in a wide variety of situations.

If he's everything a point guard should be, why isn't he ranked with the elite point guards? Despite his success with the Heat, Hardaway was a mediocre defender, a mediocre rebounder, and he posted mediocre efficiencies. For me, this spot on the list is the Hall of Fame "bubble" (to use college basketball terminology).

17: Bob Davies. The first great point guard. Trying to evaluate him statistically is very difficult, so this ranking is based on his reputation, what statistics we have (which are good), and his status as the best player on the only team to beat Mikan's Lakers in their prime. Davies is famous for being the first pro guard to feature the behind the back dribble, and other "flashy" moves, several years before Bob Cousy.

One reason that Davies is hard to evaluate is that we don't have any statistics for him until he was 29, when he joined the BAA (which was to become the NBA the following season), which he led in assists. We know that he was a two time All-American at Seton Hall, and he was the NBL MVP in 1947. When compared to his peers, Davies probably deserves to be a little higher on this list, but I bumped him down a little bit due to uncertainty.

16: Tiny Archibald. Best known for leading the league in points and assists in 1973, Archibald put up big numbers for mediocre Kings teams and smaller numbers for much better Celtics teams. One of the most entertaining players in the league, the creative Archibald was a one man offense for a series of mediocre teams. As might be expected from a player nicknamed "Tiny", Archibald struggled with defense and rebounding, but he made up for it with sheer offensive production.

The quintessential NYC point guard, Archibald was what NBA fans hoped Starbury would become. Maybe not a great defender, but dominant on offense, electric in transition, and able to run a great team when circumstances demanded it. Unfortunately, Marbury never reached that level, further confirming the theory that the original is better than the sequel.

TBTEW: Point Guards 21-25

2010-08-25T23:30:00.001-04:00

25. Derek Harper: Some (actually most) players finish their career with a one sentence biography. In Derek Harper's case, that sentence is "one of the best players never to make an All-Star team." It is often left unclear whether he deserved to make an All-Star team, or if he was just a good player who played forever. The truth lies somewhere in between. While Harper was a good, never great player, who did play forever, he was an All-Star caliber player at his best. The problem was that he just happened to have his best seasons in a conference that featured Magic, Stockton, Terry Porter, KJ, Fat Lever, and Sleepy Floyd's career year (1987).

Harper is also notable for leading the only two non-Dirk Dallas teams to reach 50 wins, the extremely balanced 87-88 Mavericks, who featured an eight man rotation of Harper, Mark Aguirre, Rolando Blackman, James Donaldson, Roy Tarpley, Sam Perkins, Detlef Schrempf, and Brad Davis-all good players. Since there was no superstar on those teams, and they were prevented from reaching their full potential due to Roy Tarpley's injury and drug problems, they have been somewhat forgotten today, but for a couple years they were very good.

24. Calvin Murphy: Murphy's notable contribution to basketball trivia occurred when he set the NBA record for consecutive made free throws (.892 FT% for his career). Murphy definitely fell into the category of "shoot-first" point guard. The sharpshooting guard, who spent his whole career with the Rockets, averaged over 5 assists only twice in his career, but his effectiveness can't be doubted.

A Rockets team whose only other consistent scoring options were forward Rudy Tomjanovich and (first) guard Mike Newlin and (later) Moses Malone finished 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 6th, 1st, and 4th in Offensive Rating from 1974-1980 (Murphy's prime). Unfortunately, the Rockets' defense was as bad as their offense was good. Some of the blame can go to Murphy, who had a lot of steals, but at 5'9, struggled to guard bigger players. Despite his team's defensive struggles, Murphy helped his team much more than he hurt them, helping some less than talented teams to mediocrity during his best years.

23. Mookie Blaylock: While Murphy's offense covered his limited defense, Blaylock's excellent defense helped make up for his offensive struggles. Mookie never hit more than 43% of his shots, and almost never reached the foul line. He shot the three fairly well during the middle of his career, but when they started falling at 30% rather than 35%, his efficiency numbers turned ugly. But when he wasn't shooting the ball, he was one of the best point guards in the league.

Regularly at the top of the league in steals, Blaylock made 6 All-Defensive teams in his career, often using his defensive acumen to start fastbreaks the other way. Mookie was also an excellent passer, posting a career high of almost 10 assists in 1994, and averaging almost 7 a game for his career.

As a side note, the 1997 Hawks are a very interesting team. Their starting lineup played a whopping 72% of the team's total minutes. The Hawks featured a backcourt of Blaylock (in his best season) and Steve Smith, who led the team in scoring. Mutombo started at center, and the forwards were Laettner (18-9-3) and Tyrone Corbin. There was no bench to speak of, but the Hawks still won 56 games before losing to the Bulls in the playoffs.

22. Gus Williams: Williams is probably the most obscure player (though not the worst) to ever lead a championship team in scoring. Dennis Johnson and Jack Sikma are usually remembered as the leaders of that team, but Williams led the team in USG%, AST%, STL%, and PER. But what was more impressive was his playoff performance. En route to the 1979 title, Williams averaged 27 points and only 2.5 turnovers on 48% shooting in 17 games (this was not an aberration, Williams consistently performed very well in the playoffs for the Sonics).

Williams' biggest weakness was a lack of familiarity with the foul line and three point line, leading to some less than stellar offensive efficiencies, especially by the standards of the offense-happy eighties. But he was excellent defensively, very good at creating shots for himself or his teammates (though he never posted gaudy assist totals), and he committed a surprisingly low amount of turnovers, leading to a very effective all around game.

21. Anfernee Hardaway: It's a shame that Hardaway's career is always punctuated with the sigh, "if only". If only he had stayed healthy, he would have fulfilled the promise he showed in 95 and 96. How good was he? Well the numbers say he was really good-in '96, his best season, he averaged 22-7 with 2 steals and excellent efficiency, and finished 7th in the league in PER, and 4th in Win Shares. If he had stayed at his 95-97 level of play for several more years, then had a normal decline phase, he would be in the top 5 of this list. But the Legend of Penny wasn't just about the numbers, it was about how he got them. But don't take my word for it. There are plenty of Hardaway highlights on YouTube. Start with this one, and go from there. And be happy that we got as much as we did.

TBTEW: Point Guards 26-30

2010-08-23T23:32:00.000-04:00

Introduction

30. Stephon Marbury: Starbury holds the distinction of being one of the most maligned athletes of his generation. Much of the criticism is warranted; he was never a good defender, he probably dominated the ball a bit more than he should have, he wasn't especially efficient, and his teams never won all that much.

But let's focus on what he could do. You don't average 19 points and 8 assists over a 13 year career without doing something right, and Marbury could certainly create shots for himself and for his teammates. It's also not true that he always lost; he was the leading scorer (and assist-er) on the 44 win 2003 Suns.

What I consider his most impressive performance occurred on the 2004 Knicks, who he joined through a midseason trade. The Knicks were floundering, at 14-21, when they traded for Marbury, and promptly went 25-22 the rest of the way. That does not seem particularly impressive, but when you consider that the Knicks' other four starters come playoff time were Nazr Mohammed, Kurt Thomas, Tim Thomas (who was replaced by an old Penny Hardaway after he was injured in Game 1 against the Nets), and Shandon Anderson, I think Marbury deserves a lot of credit for keeping that group near .500.

29. Jimmy Jones: The best point guard of the ABA. How good was he? I don't really know. He had some statistically dominating seasons in the early years of the ABA, especially 1969, when he averaged 26-6-6 while leading the league in FG% and PER. He wasn't a one year wonder, averaging 19-5-5 over 7 ABA seasons, and improving on those numbers (and efficiency) in the playoffs.

An efficient scorer, Jones is a difficult player to evaluate because I don't know how his impressive statistical output would have translated to a superior league. It is easy to point to his lack of success in the NBA as proof that he simply dominated a weak league, but it should be noted that he didn't reach the ABA until he was 23, had his best year at 24, had a decent season on a per minute basis in his first NBA season, 1975, and started to decline rapidly when he hit 31-in an era when quick guards did not age well. So, how good was he? I'm still not sure, but the ABA's best point guard deserves a mention here.

28. Doc Rivers: Doc will probably be remembered as a coach more than a player, but he was a very good player as a pass-first point guard in the 1980s. Rivers may be underrated now because he never received big minutes (and put up big statistics), always less than 33 a game, but per minute stats reveal a prolific passer and tough defender.

I was surprised by how much Doc Rivers resembled his protégé, Rajon Rondo, statistically. From 1986-1988, Rivers' best three seasons, he averaged 15 points, 11 assists, and 2.3 steals per 36 minutes, which is pretty close to what I think Rondo can achieve. Add that to decent rebounding and a surprisingly good ability to draw fouls, and you have all the makings for a great, unheralded point guard.

Unfortunately, Rivers fell off after those three years, and only averaged 27 minutes a game over his career, preventing him from climbing any higher on this list, but it should be remembered how great he was for those few years.

27. Andre Miller: He's never been great, but he's been good for a long time. His best season was probably 2002, when he averaged 17 and 11, winning the assist crown, but almost a decade later he was anchoring an overachieving Blazers team, without missing a beat in between (okay, there was that year with the Clippers he wasn't so great, but I think "being on the Clippers" counts as extenuating circumstances).

In making these ratings, I generally favored peak performance over longevity, but quietly consistent performance over a whole decade should be recognized. And I know I didn't realize how many good seasons Miller had strung together until I made these rankings, and I suspect I'm not the only one. I think part of it is that he's always played out of the spotlight. He left Cleveland before LeBron got there, and then swapped teams with Iverson in the Denver-Philly trade, both times ending up on the team with less media attention. Plus he played for the Clippers.

26. Fat Lever: Lever is the other end of the spectrum from Miller. He only had four good years, but they were a great four years. From 1987 through 1990, he averaged 19 points, 9 rebounds, 8 assists, 2.5 steals, and only 2 turnovers. That's right, over a four year period, he almost averaged a triple double, was one of the best defensive guards in the game, and never turned the ball over. If he could only shoot, there would have been no holes in his game. As it was, he gave us four great years of unorthodox domination and someone we could compare to Rajon Rondo while making ourselves feel smart. And isn't that enough?

The Best There Ever Was

2010-08-23T17:45:00.004-04:00

Lists, especially of the "who's best" variety, are one of the easiest ways to spur conversation and argument, especially when talking about sports. Sometimes it seems that is all they are good for, but there is a possibility that a list, in this case about basketball, will make one think about how they evaluate players, what skills are valuable, and will teach one more about the history of the game.

With the justification behind me, in an attempt to start blogging regularly I will be ranking the top 30 historical players at each position, with commentary and musings on where unranked current players are projected to end up in these lists. I will include current players in the actual rankings, but only current players whose historical position is somewhat stable. You won't really go wrong if you use the 2003 draft as a cutoff point, even if I don't always follow it. I am starting with point guards, the first installment of which will be posted later tonight.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol VIII

2010-08-22T22:58:00.003-04:00

Did you realize that Magic Johnson and John Stockton peaked at the same time? By Win Shares, Magic's best 5 year stretch was 1987-1991. By the same measure, Stockton's best 5 year stretch was 1988-1992. (This is one of the reasons that the 1988 Lakers-Jazz WC Semifinals deserves to be remembered much more than it is.)

The Intriguing Nets

2010-08-14T21:50:00.001-04:00

When Mikhail Prokorov bought the Nets, there was hope that the team would make a big splash in free agency. That didn't happen, but the Nets have almost completely turned over their roster after last season's 12-70 debacle, and they added another piece in this week's four team trade.

Last year, the Nets top ten players, in terms of minutes, were Brook Lopez, Courtney Lee, Devin Harris, Terrence Williams, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Yi Jianlian, Trenton Hassell, Josh Boone, Jarvis Hayes, and Keyon Dooling.

This year, that list will probably be something like; Brook Lopez, Troy Murphy, Devin Harris, Anthony Morrow, Travis Outlaw, Terrence Williams, Jordan Farmar, Derrick Favors, Kris Humphries, and Quintin Ross.

That means that the Nets have effectively traded Lee, CDR, Yi, Hassell, Boone, Hayes, and Dooling for Murphy, Morrow, Outlaw, Farmar, Favors, Humphries, and Ross. Just upgrading all of that replacement level talent would be enough to catapult the Nets out of the East cellar, but what intrigues me is how this talent fits together, especially on the offensive end.

Now, this team will struggle defensively, although Lopez and Williams certainly have the potential to become very good defensive players. However, this team has the following offensive assets. 1) A skilled 7 footer that can control the paint (and averaged 19 PPG on efficient shooting as a 21 year old sophomore). 2) A point guard that can get into the lane at will, and draws a lot of fouls. 3) One of the best stretch fours in the league. 4) The best pure shooter in the NBA. Add to that another forward who can hit the three (Outlaw), a guy who should be deadly in transition (Williams), a decent backup point guard (Farmar), and whatever Favors turns out to be, and the Nets have the makings of a good offensive team.

Aside from replacing the offensive "contributions" of the departing Nets, the newcomers (Murphy and Morrow especially) should open up the offense considerably for Devin Harris and Brook Lopez. New Jersey finished 29th in 3 point percentage last year, and the appearance of a dangerous perimeter game should mean fewer double teams for Brook Lopez (especially with the opponent's power forward needing to chase Troy Murphy around the perimeter), open up more lanes to the basket for Devin Harris and Terrence Williams, and give the Nets a deadly drive and kick game.

It is difficult to make the case that the Nets will be anything more than a 35 win team that could sneak into the last playoff spot in a top heavy East, but their newfound offensive firepower could transform New Jersey, the worst offensive team in the league last year, into an entertaining team, and make them a more attractive destination for next year's star free agents (barring a lockout, of course).

Great Players, Small Minutes

2010-08-02T18:26:00.000-04:00

Typically, great players receive 35-40 minutes a game. However, there are exceptions, All-Star caliber players who, for whatever reason, received lesser minutes. These players tend to be underappreciated since they don't put up big (conventional) numbers, but while they were on the court, they had few peers. Here are three of the best.

Manu Ginobili. Per 36 minutes-19 points-5 rebounds-5 assists-2 steals. Ginobili is the king of this category, with a career high of 31 minutes a game, and a career average of under 28 minutes a game, despite ridiculous on-court productivity. As a shooting guard who has never averaged 20 points a game, he is generally not viewed as a superstar, but his all around game compares favorably to the other top shooting guards of his era. Why has he never garnered bigger minutes? A combination of durability concerns, and Popovich's apparent belief that San Antonio is best served by having one of its two stars on every unit (for instance, this past year, San Antonio's top 35 lineups used either Duncan (and/)or Ginobili). This results in less overall minutes for Ginobili, but in a configuration that makes his minutes more valuable to the Spurs.

Arvydas Sabonis. Per 36 minutes-18 points-11 rebounds-3 assists. Sabonis is one of the NBA's greatest "what-if" stories. The big Lithuanian didn't come to the NBA until he was in his thirties with leg and feet problems (the main reason he played more than 27 minutes per game only once during his NBA career), but was still a highly effective player with the Blazers during the late nineties. He was famous for his passing, but also was an efficient scorer, excellent rebounder, and good defender. Despite playing his best ball overseas, Sabonis' rate and advanced stats are similar to that of Hall of Famer Bob Lanier, providing a clue to his effectiveness.

Bobby Jones. Per 36 minutes-16 points-8 rebounds-3.5 assists-2 steals-2 blocks-56% FG percentage. Was Bobby Jones a star? The answer may tell you more about the person answering the question than about Bobby Jones. On the one hand, it seems ludicrous to label a player who averaged 12 points and 6 rebounds for his career a "star". On the other hand, he was a great defender who did everything well (except for outside shooting), and managed to be selected to 4 NBA All-Star games, plus an appearance in the 1976 ABA All-Star game as a member of the league-best Denver Nuggets (he probably would have made the All-Star team anyway that year). If you favor players who can create their own offense, you probably won't think much of Jones. If you are enamored with defense and efficiency (as I am), then he's a Hall of Fame level player on a per minute basis (consider this comparison to current players, focusing on rate and advanced stats). Despite his effectiveness, he only played more than 30 minutes a game three times in his career, and only once in the NBA, where he spent 10 of his 12 seasons. The main reason for his lack of playing time, which mainly occurred after he joined the Sixers, was that Philly had a stacked frontcourt, with coach Billy Cunningham needing to find enough playing time for Jones, Julius Erving, Caldwell Jones, Darryl Dawkins, and Steve Mix. This led to Jones' minutes being limited, and his eventual role as sixth man extraordinaire (for which he won the NBA's first sixth man of the year award in 1983).

Has This Happened Before?

2010-07-15T16:55:00.000-04:00

The obvious parallel to the James-Wade-Bosh superteam assembling in Miami is the Wilt-West-Baylor Lakers of 1969-1972. That triumvirate was only around for one year, 1969, as Wilt missed almost all of 1970 with an injury, and Baylor played a combined 11 games in 1971 and 1972 before retiring. The main difference between those two teams is age-all three players were in their thirties by the time the team was put together, which led to declining performance and injuries, a fate that doesn't seem likely to happen to these Heat (unless Wade falls apart due to injuries).

The short answer to the question, "Has this happened before?" is no. However, there is one team from the NBA's prehistoric era that bears a passing resemblance to these Heat; the 1956 and 1957 Philadelphia Warriors. In those two seasons, the Warriors had the NBA's two best offensive players, Neil Johnston and Paul Arizin, little depth, and weak interior defense. In 1956, the Warriors rode the league's best offense* to the NBA's best record (45-27). They fought past the scrappy Syracuse Nats** in the Eastern Finals, and then blew past Fort Wayne in the Finals. The Warriors fell back to 37-35 the next year with the loss of Tom Gola (the team's third best player), and the arrival of Bill Russell in Boston, making the division quite a bit tougher. They fell to the Nats in the first round of the playoffs, and Neil Johnston would decline the next year, ending the team's "run".

All of which is to say, a team with two superstars and little interior defense has won a title, but the last year it happened was Bill Russell's senior year at the University off San Francisco***. I'm not counting the Heat out (the additions of Haslem, Miller, and Z make that roster even more formidable), but that fact has to encourage the Lakers.

*The Celtics scored more points per game, but that was a function of tempo (read: Cousy). The Warriors were much more efficient.
**This was an interesting team in the mid-50s. They had one superstar and a bunch of scrappy guys (Paul Seymour, Earl Lloyd, George King) who couldn't shoot, but played defense and won a surprising amount of the time.
***With the possible exception of the Lakers during the last couple Showtime championships (on the defensive front, they were much deeper than this Heat team).

Winning

2010-07-10T15:17:00.000-04:00

"If you fix your mind on the goal of winning and stay honest with yourself, you'll come to realize that winning isn't about right or wrong, or the good guys and the bad guys, or the pathway to good life and character, or statistics. Winning is about who has the best team, and that's all."-Bill Russell (Second Wind* page 123)

All of which is to say that I agree with this rant. According to the winningest player of all time, winning is about having the best team, and who am I to argue? Anyway, LeBron did the "right" thing if he wants to win, even if he went about it in the most annoying manner possible.

*I can't recommend this book highly enough.

A Good Draft

2010-06-29T13:42:00.001-04:00

With another NBA draft in the books, this is what the top ten looks like, as expressed historically, as far as I can tell. Standard disclaimers apply.

1. Wizards: A better Baron Davis.
2. 76ers: John Havlicek with good, not great, defense and durability.
3. Nets: Shawn Kemp.
4. Timberwolves: Robert Horry with a little more scoring.
5. Kings: Zach Randolph 2.0 Now with real defense!
6. Warriors: A poor man's Larry Nance.
7. Pistons: Vlade Divac.
8. Clippers: Josh Smith with worse passing.
9. Jazz: Steve Smith.
10. Pacers: Caron Butler.

An Open Letter To The Internet

2010-05-14T02:01:00.000-04:00

Dear People,

Just relax. LeBron James is human. No one can win a championship by themselves. No one has a great game every night. Even Jordan, in my opinion the best player ever, had another top 25 player in his prime, and a very good supporting cast. A very good team that relies on defense and a balanced offensive attack will often beat a team with a superstar and a mediocre supporting cast. That is just how basketball works. That was the case when the Bad Boys beat the young Bulls, it was the case when the Sonics beat Kareem's Lakers two years in a row, and it is the case now. This a surprise because the Celtics were written off, not because any player, even LeBron, is an unstoppable force. Just remember, even Jordan needed Pippen. Even Jordan needed Dennis Rodman to shut down the Mailman. Even LeBron is human. And that's a good thing, because if he wasn't fallible, what would be the point of watching?

Sincerely,

Waiting For Groza

More Doppelgangers

2010-05-13T18:40:00.000-04:00

Career stats; the numbers are normalized to 36 minutes a game. These are just their basic stats, but their other numbers are pretty close, too.

Player	PTS	REB	AST	TO	FG%/3P%/FT%	TS%	PER
Kevin McHale	20.7	8.5	2.0	2.3	.554/.261/.798	.605	20.0
Carl Landry	18.0	7.9	1.0	1.8	.557/.286/.786	.615	18.9

Player	PTS	REB	AST	TO	FG%/3P%/FT%	TS%	PER
Damon Stoudamire	14.5	3.8	6.6	2.5	.406/.357/.833	.505	15.4
Luke Ridnour	13.0	3.1	6.7	2.3	.424/.347/.864	.512	14.5

Player	PTS	REB	AST	TO	FG%/3P%/FT%	TS%	PER
Jeff Green	14.8	6.1	1.8	2.1	.444/.348/.760	.522	12.7
Ryan Gomes	14.2	6.3	1.9	1.6	.453/.361/.807	.531	13.6

This post was made possible with the use of Basketball-Reference's play index.

A Final Thought On Lakers-Thunder

2010-05-03T20:01:00.000-04:00

I know the series ended a few days ago, and no one cares about it anymore other than the people who are going to raid the game footage for their Luke Walton highlight videos, but as a follow up to my (subjective) observation that Collison played much better defense on Bynum and Gasol than Kristic did, I took a look at each player's plus/minus numbers for the series.

Using traditional boxscore stats, Kristic looked better than Collison. Each player was on the court of 129 minutes, 21.5 a game. Kristic averaged 7 points, 6 rebounds, and a 14.6 PER. Nick Collison averaged 3 points, 5 rebounds, and had a 5.1 (that's not a typo) PER. And yet (per ESPN's boxscores) plus/minus tells a completely different story, with Kristic at -41 for the series and Collison at +33.

Small sample size caveats apply, but I think it's safe to say something was going on here, and there's a good chance that something was what I noticed subjectively-that Collison was not allowing whichever Laker big he was guarding to get good positioning down low, while the Lakers were dominating down low when Kristic was in the game.

It seems that Scottie Brooks might have noticed this too, because after subbing Collison in for Kristic in the third quarter of Game 6, he kept Collison in for the rest of the game. Initially, it seemed not to matter because, even though the Lakers couldn't get anything going inside, their scrubs got hot from downtown (the Lakers went 12-24 from three on the game). However, Collison's defense, and a couple of absolutely beautiful picks he set to free Durant and Westbrook for key three pointers down the stretch, were a big part of what allowed the Thunder to catch the Lakers and almost win the game. All of which just goes to show that a player with a 5.1 PER can be valuable.

Defensive Basketball Writing Challenge

2010-04-28T02:07:00.000-04:00

Inspired by this Henry Abbott post, here goes my attempt at writing the "game story" for last night's Lakers-Thunder ~~game~~ beatdown from a defensive perspective.

Lakers Use Stifling Defense To Take Series Lead

Andrew Bynum and the Los Angeles Lakers turned up the defensive intensity for Game 5, and it showed. Their demolition of the Thunder was based on two simple principles, protecting the paint and defending in transition, executed to perfection.

Whenever the Thunder tried taking the ball inside they were stymied, first by the defense of Bynum, who closed off the paint and prevented any Thunder big men from consistently getting good post position, and second by the Lakers strategy of packing the paint with three or four players (including 7 footers Bynum, Pau Gasol, and Lamar Odom, along with defensive standouts Ron Artest and Kobe Bryant), giving the Thunder no room to operate.

This strategy may have backfired if the referees had called this game uncharacteristically tight, but the zebras opted to let the teams play, especially in the first half, only sending players to the line when there was particularly egregious contact.

Because of the Lakers' dominance in the paint, in the half court the smaller Thunder were forced into settling for outside jumpshots, their kryptonite. Making matters worse, their only dangerous jump shooter, Kevin Durant, was bothered all night by the stellar defense of Artest, who gave Durant no room to operate, a strategy which worked excellently when combined with the Lakers' successful efforts to protect the paint.

The second key to the Lakers triumph was their transition defense. The Lakers used their exceptional length and athleticism to disrupt and derail the Thunder attack. Oklahoma City roasted Los Angeles in transition in Game 4, but the Lakers were ready for it in Game 5, hustling back on every play, and not allowing an uncontested transition basket while the game was competitive.

Once the Lakers were hustling back on every play, they used their superior length to get into the passing lanes, making life hell for Thunder point guard Russell Westbrook, who finished with eight turnovers. Even when the Thunder made it to the basket, the Lakers were still able to block, contest, and alter shots, turning what should have been easy scoring opportunities into fast breaks headed the other way. Deprived of baskets in transition and in the paint, the Thunder were forced to rely on contested jump shots, seldom a winning formula.

On the other side of the ball, the Thunder gave a good effort, but couldn't stop the Laker offense. They generally played very good defense at the point of attack, but the Lakers were making an extra pass or two on every possession, and the Thunder's rotations couldn't keep up, leading to easy lay-ups for Gasol, Artest, and company. However, even if OKC's rotations had been crisper, they would still have been in trouble as Bynum and Gasol were able to get excellent position in the low post against Nenad Kristic and Jeff Green whenever they wanted, leading to easy baskets of the assisted and put-back varieties.

The only man able to contain the Laker bigs at all was Thunder center Nick Collison, who played for a ten minute stretch in the late first quarter and early second quarter. Collison, the only member of the Thunder to draw a charge on Tuesday, replaced Kristic at center and was able to keep the Lakers guards from penetrating at will, as well as preventing Bynum from setting up shop in front of the basket. This forced the Lakers to settle for more jumpers. Not coincidentally, this stretch of the ballgame was mildly competitive, the Thunder only losing 21-18. However, once Kristic returned to the game, the lay-up line resumed, en route to the trouncing.

Shaq and Stock

2010-04-26T20:34:00.000-04:00

I feel confident in saying that at least 95% of basketball fans think that Shaquille O'Neal was a better basketball player than John Stockton. I think Shaquille O'Neal was a better player than John Stockton. But why do I think that? I never saw Stockton or O'Neal play night in and night out during their primes. Is it because of reputation? That doesn't seem like a good enough reason. What about the statistical case? If Shaq was definitely the superior player, he should have superior stats, right?

As you can guess, I didn't pick these players out of the blue. I was reading this post the other day [ed note-I wrote most of this about a month ago, let it sit, then finished it today], and I noticed that O'Neal and Stockton had identical WS%-the statistic that was being used to rank players. Win Shares are one of two popular "player rating systems", PER being the other. But why are player rating systems necessary? What's wrong with regular stats?

Shaq and Stockton are the perfect couple to illustrate the problem. For example, consider the question "which player created more points on offense?" The player who scores 25 points with 3 assists or the player who scores 15 points with 12 assists (per 36 career averages)? Well, if we assume that each assist led to a two point basket, Shaq is responsible for creating 31 points, and Stockton has created 39. But it's not that simple. On an assist, sometimes it is a spectacular pass that leads to an easy score and sometimes a pass leads to a contested jumper that the shooter knocks down. So, let's say that assists are worth less than two points. To be arbitrary, let's count an assist as "one point, assuming we have good reasons for doing so. Then, Shaq has created 28 points and Stockton has created 27. But wait! What about great passes leading to fouls? Which player had a greater % of their shots assisted? Not to mention rebounds, defense, etc.

Win Shares and PER purport to address a lot of these concerns by providing proper weightings, and for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume they do a good, if not perfect, job of resolving many of these problems. So how do they stack up? Before I get to those numbers, I want to bring up the issue of playing time.

Stockton played 19 seasons, Shaq is finishing up his 18th season. Stockton was more durable than Shaq, playing in 1504 games compared to Shaq's 1170. Shaq played more minutes a game, 35 instead of 32. At their peaks, Stockton played 39 minutes a game and Shaq played 40. Overall, Stockton played 47,764 minutes compared to Shaq's 41,166. Both players played 3,000 minutes 3 times, although Stockton played 2,800 minutes 10 times compared to 5 for Shaq.

Stockton leads Shaq in total Win Shares 208-179. Per 82 games, that works out to 12.6 WS for Shaq and 11.3 for Stockton. Per season, that is 10.0 for Shaq and 10.9 for Stockton. Per minute, as we've established, they are exactly the same. Which is preferable? I don't know.

Who was better at their best? Well, Shaq's best was 18.6 Win Shares, while Stockton's best was 15.6. On the other hand, Stockton finished in the top 10 in Win Shares 11 times, compared to 7 for Shaq. Shaq posted at least 13 Win Shares 6 times (probably would be 7 if not for the lockout), while Stockton did so 9 times. Which is preferable? I don't know.

What about PER? In that category, Shaq trumps Stockton 26.6 to 21.8. The advantage was 30.6 to 23.9 at their peaks. Based on this stats, Shaq was clearly the better player. So why don't I write the Win Shares results off as a fluke and tout them as evidence that Shaq was the better player? Because most of PER's known "shortcomings" are in areas that would probably benefit Stockton, like durability and defense (except for steals and blocks, I think). In addition, either PER systemically underrates point guards, or Win Shares overrates point guards. Paul, Magic, Oscar, Frazier, and Billups, the other top PGs by this method, all rank much higher in WS% than in PER. In addition, there are only three point guards in the PER top 50, suggesting that PER may undervalue point guards.

So much for statistics. On balance, the statistics seem to indicate that Shaq is the better player, given his scoring, rebounding, and PER, but there are good reasons to doubt that the statistics actually indicate that, including the uncertain relationship of points and assists, Win Shares, and PER's point guard issues.

But I suspect most fans don't think Shaq is a better player because 25 points and 11 rebounds is that much more impressive than 15 points and 12 assists. It is because Shaq was more dominating. At his best, Shaq could dominate the game like Wilt. We remember him overpowering other players en route to four titles. If he took nights off, or coasted during the regular season, or didn't do the little things when it didn't matter, it wasn't important. After all, he won an MVP, deserved at least one more, and won 4 titles. In Shaq's best season, 2000, he averaged 31 and 15 in the playoffs en route to a championship (although only shooting .456 from the line in those games, and I'm sure I don't have to mention the Portland series). In Stockton's best season, 1989, he averaged 27 points and 14 assists (4 steals, 2 blocks!, 4 turnovers, .601 TS%) while the Jazz were swept in the first round by the seventh seed Golden State Warriors, a series in which 4 of the 6 Jazz players who saw substantial minutes, Thurl Bailey, Bob Hansen, Mark Eaton, and Darrell Griffith, combined for negative Win Shares.

And yet, it is not hard to see how it could have been different, through no fault of Shaq's. If it wasn't for Dick Bavetta and Bennett Salvatore, Shaq would "only" have 2 championships, and Stockton's Jazz had the misfortune of running into Jordan's Bulls when they were at their strongest. And is it fair to blame Stockton for Hakeem Olajuwon destroying the Jazz? No more so than blaming Shaq for failing to contain Chauncey Billups.

I could go on talking about the lack of dominant centers in the early aughts, and the importance of the new hand check rules, but I'm sure you get the point. Why am I writing this? I think I have two reasons; the first being to test the limits of what "total value" box score statistics can tell us. We know that Shaq was better, but there's a (fairly strong) statistical case to be made that Stockton was his equal. On the other hand, I am writing this post as a challenge to our subjective memories. Of course we remember Shaq as the better player, but so many of those memories are based on contingencies outside of Shaq's control: if Portland makes their free throws, if the Lakers and Heat don't get those favorable calls, how is Shaq remembered? Is he remembered as he should be, the most dominating big man of the past dozen years, or is he remembered as the guy who dominated statistically, but missed his free throws, destroyed his team's chemistry, and got dominated by Hakeem? I don't know, but it's worth remembering that many of these subjective reflections are based on extraneous events, and that is where statistics can help us see the larger picture.

So, who is the better player? As a fan, I would say Shaq, as he was better at his peak, which I value over longevity, and yet remarkably durable. And yet, if I were a GM lucky enough to pick between Shaq and Stockton, knowing what I know now, I have to wonder, "Are the half dozen years I get from Shaq before he forces his way out of town really more valuable than the twenty I'll get from Stockton?" In that case, we have a situation in which Shaq is more valuable, but Stockton is more valuable to his organization, and I don't know how to quantify or qualify that.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol VII

2010-04-24T14:48:00.001-04:00

One of the memes floating around this year's playoffs has been that this is Dirk Nowitzki's best chance to win a title. But I'm not sure this is accurate. The first reason is that I am pessimistic about this group's ability to win a title. Every team that has won a championship in recent memory has done so with great defense or two stars (usually both). This Dallas team has neither.

The second reason is that I think they have a better shot next year, or in 2012, because of Rodrigue Beaubois and some advantageous contracts. If Beaubois continues to improve, and gets 30-35 minutes a game, he could become the excellent second option that the Mavs need. They have Dampier's valuable contract to deal this summer, as well as Butler's expiring to add pieces. If they get a good return on those players, and if Marion can remain a good defender, then a starting five of Kidd-Beaubois-Marion-Nowitzki-Haywood (with Terry, the Dampier and Butler bounties, and Rookie X off the bench) would be improved defensively (with Beaubois guarding the quick guards that destroy the Mavs now) and offensively.

Playoff Preview

2010-04-15T16:53:00.000-04:00

I should be posting more regularly soon & etc. But for now, here's the official Waiting For Groza playoff preview. Who will win the championship? Who knows? But here's what we do know.

-The Lakers will win a game they should have lost due to poor officiating.
-The Jazz will be eliminated by a team below them in the Hollinger Power Rankings.
-The shrieking of Celtics fans over the calls Dwayne Wade gets will be audible from outer space.
-Cavs-Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals. Book it.
-And if you watch too much NBA coverage over the next two months, you will start believing that the success of failure of the Cavs will determine whether the city will transform into the New Jerusalem or if the Cuyahoga River will be transformed into the gates of Hell (again).

But if there's one thing to remind yourself of before these playoffs, it's that, despite what many analysts will tell you, the vagaries of fate in a close game are not the true measure of a man's worth as a basketball player or a human being. And even if the Lakers win a championship, despite not trying during the regular season, those 82 games still have meaning, as there is more to the game of basketball than the team that stands victorious after two months of work sprinkled with luck and occasional horrific officiating. So, when the Suns or Bucks get knocked out, let us remember them for the seasons they had, not the ring that eluded them. Because if basketball is about disappointment for 97% of the players, coaches, and fans, then we are doing something wrong.

March Madness Thoughts

2010-03-29T01:08:00.001-04:00

No, I'm not dead and this blog is still (theoretically) alive. In the past week and a half, I was traveling, then working on a long, rambling post that I'm still not done with, then getting sick, then being way too busy, and trying to find time to watch some of the tournament in between all of that (and having an alleged life away from the internet). I should have the aforesaid long, rambling essay up by Wednesday, and regular posting after that.

Anyway, while I was watching the Kentucky-West Virginia game, one of the announcers mentioned that when WVU guard Joe Mazzulla was asked who Kentucky reminded him of, he answered "Golden State". After watching that game, I could see why. Loads of talent (which is what the announcers took him to mean) and no idea how to play cohesively. Even though any NBA team should waltz through this tourney, I think Golden State would have the "best" chance of losing to a college team if such a matchup took place, due to apathy, lack of defense, and crappy big men.

Another Tournament observation...it's funny going to Draft Express and seeing Givony shoot down people who see some 6'1 shooting guard put up 25 against some sixth seed or something and think "1st Round Pick". If anything, I have the opposite problem. I'm watching these games thinking "There is no way Devin Ebanks is an NBA player" or "If Cole Aldrich can't stop Jordan Eglseder's midrange game, is he really much more than Erick Dampier with better footwork*"?

*To be fair, that's still a good player.

Anyway, my point is that the only player I've seen this month that may be undertouted (in the random assortment of games I've seen) was a 6'8 center from a mid-major that lost its conference championship game and didn't make the tournament. I'm convinced that if he were two inches taller, Kenneth Faried would be a lottery pick. I know it's Morehead State, but he's a rebounding monster (which translates very well), seemed to have NBA-level athleticism from what I saw, and I think he has the defensive chops to guard most NBA power forwards. His offensive game is very raw (he showed some good instincts but his ballhandling and perimeter game are sorely lacking) and there is a chance that he'll simply be overpowered in the NBA, but I think he'll be remembered as one of the steals of the draft (assuming he comes out).

Also, if I had a time machine, I would seriously consider kidnapping Jimmer Fredette and forcing him to play in the ABA. I don't know if he can make it in the NBA as anything other than Craig Hodges 2.0, but damn, he would have been fun raining threes, beating slower players down the floor, and flashing those acrobatic finishes in the ABA. Can you imagine Fredette running point for the 76 Nuggets (David Thompson-Dan Issel-Bobby Jones)? Oh well.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol VI

2010-03-19T09:16:00.003-04:00

Since February 1, Vince Carter is shooting .515/.489/.826 (in 22 games). He is averaging 19 points a game with 3.4 assists and only 1.4 turnovers.

All-Lucky Bastards Team

2010-03-16T12:10:00.006-04:00

Context matters. It is easier to look good as a role player on a good team than as a focal point on a bad team. Just ask Courtney Lee. But "context" goes beyond that; whether you play with a great point guard, whether you have good coaching, and whether you are a good "fit" for your team. With that in mind, this is the All-Lucky Bastards Team, for those players who ended up in the perfect situations. That is not to say that these players weren't good-they were-but they were placed in a setting that maximized their talents.

C: Arnie Risen. Who? One of pro basketball's earliest stars, the 6'9 center played for the Rochester Royals and Boston Celtics from 1949 through 1958. In the pre shot clock era, averaging 16 points a game (which he did three times) was considered impressive, and he was a very good rebounder, which was enough to get him elected to the Hall of Fame in 1998. Why was he lucky? As will become a theme, Risen played with the best point guard of his era (Bob Davies) on a team with the best backcourt of its era (Davies-Wanzer then Cousy-Sharman). In the days when the center was the most important player on the team and guards settled for chucking twenty five footers most of the time, having skilled guards that could break down a defense undoubtedly helped Risen. As well, Risen (like most of the players of his era) was fortunate to play when he did, dodging the Russell-Wilt "leap" in competition by being a part of the Celtics when Russell was drafted and retiring before the other outstanding centers of the sixties entered the league. His late career move to Boston undoubtedly helped his HOF chances, giving him three championships (with two franchises).

PF: Tom Heinsohn. Heinsohn was a power forward with a pretty, if inefficient, outside shot that he could get off against anybody at anytime. He wasn't great at rebounding or playing defense, so it would be nice if he landed on a team with a big man who could cover him in those areas, while tipping some of his misses back in. And it wouldn't hurt if said big man couldn't create his own shot, so the team would genuinely need Heinsohn to create shots. And, as long as we're asking, it wouldn't hurt for Heinsohn to play with the best passer in the history of the game (up until that point) and the best coaching staff in the game. The luckiest bastards of the lucky bastards, Heinsohn spent his whole career with an all time great team that used his skill set perfectly.

SF: James Worthy. If there was ever a perfect fit between player and system, it was James Worthy and Showtime. With his speed, athleticism, and dunks, Worthy was deadly in transition. (Being fed the ball by Magic Johnson didn't hurt, either.) He wasn't as good creating shots in the half court and wasn't a great defensive player, but those (relative) weaknesses didn't matter on those Lakers. "Big Game James" was a very good player no matter what, but how would he be remembered if he was forced to be the #1 option on a conventional team? Luckily, we never had to find out.

SG: Bill Bradley. Really more of a three, but he played shooting guard some of the time. Bradley was a great college player, which wasn't "luck", but he was drafted by the Knicks, and spent his prime playing on the Frazier-Reed team that won two championships. Bradley fit in very well with those Knicks. He was a decent scorer, especially as a third or fourth option, but his real contributions came as a passer, defender, and "glue guy" for a well publicized great team. His academic credentials and college stardom cemented his reputation as a "heady" player, which combined with his college stats, got him into the Hall of Fame in 1983. What would have happened if he hadn't been drafted by an excellent team? It's tough to know, but glue guys on bad teams aren't celebrated nearly as much.

PG: Tony Parker. Parker is a very good player that fell into a great situation. A very fast shoot first point guard without a good outside shot, Parker landed on an excellent team that needed him to shoot, had stars that didn't mind having a shoot first point guard, surrounded him with good three point shooters that he could kick the ball to (Ginobili, Barry, Bowen, etc), and could cover for his defensive shortcomings. All of these factors, plus a great coaching staff that helped Parker acclimate quickly when he came over from Europe at 19, allowed Parker to do what he does best-get into the lane and score-without his limitations slowing him down. The result? Three championships.

Historical Doppelgangers

2010-03-11T00:54:00.000-05:00

It's time to play...Name Those Players! Both players are 7 foot "true" centers who were drafted in the top ten.

Player	Age	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	BPG	TS%	PER
Player 1	25	32.5	16.2	10.4	1.9	2.5	.549	21.1
Player 2	25	31.7	17.2	12.1	1.5	2.9	.529	20.8

Player 1? Andrew Bogut's 2009-10 season, which has been a "breakout" season for him.
Player 2? Robert Parish's 1978-79 season, which was the closest match (among centers aged 24-26) that I could find for Bogut's 2009-10. Parish would peak two years later, in 1981 for Boston, and famously play for a very, very long time. I do not expect Bogut to play for as long as Parish, but it has to be encouraging for the Bucks that he is playing at the same level as the Hall of Famer at this point in his career.

The Ballad Of Alex Groza

2010-03-09T13:54:00.001-05:00

There was a man from Martins Ferry
A basketball team he could carry
With the shots he put up
For Coach Adolph Rupp
But of gamblers he should have been wary

There was a team from Kentucky
That for a time was quite lucky
With Groza and Beard
Everywhere were they feared
Back to back gonfalon, ducky

On the horizon danger was lurking
Scoundrels and thieves had been working
To give games away
Trading pride for pay
In the final seconds not “Dirking”

There was a league called the NBA
Where Groza and Beard went to play
Second in scoring
Percentages soaring
Better than Mikan or Schayes, I say

But the scandal came tumbling down
And the news spread all over town
Like Mountain Landis
Mo was merciless
And to exile Groza was bound

Centers Don't Fear The Ramsay

2010-03-04T13:08:00.003-05:00

The Portland Trailblazers' difficulties with keeping their big men healthy in the 70s and 80s has not gone undocumented, so I'll spare you the 857th recap of the Walton/Bowie disaster. What I hadn't realized before was that almost no center stayed healthy and good beyond his years playing for Jack Ramsay. This goes from the cases like Darrall Imhoff and Tom Owens*-journeymen who spent what would be the end of their career playing for Ramsay's teams to Steve Stipanovich, who retired at age 27 with a mysterious knee injury after missing 7 games in his entire 5 year career. It includes Bob Rule, who was injured when Ramsay's Sixers picked him up, and it includes Bob McAdoo, who averaged 78 games during 4 years for Ramsay, and reached that total only once again.
*Who has a weird career arc-he was a decent young center in the ABA, went to Houston and barely played after the merger, peaked at the age of 29 with the Blazers, and was washed up a few years later.

In the final tally, we have centers who were injured or declined precipitously A.R. (after Ramsay): Bob McAdoo, Bill Walton, Sam Bowie, Steve Stipanovich, Bob Rule, Tom Owens, Darrall Imhoff.
Centers who were fine A.R.: Mychal Thompson (who declined statistically, but stayed healthy and was a key part of some pretty good Lakers teams.

The Curse of...Any sports coincidence must be the result of some sort of curse, so...Ramsay became the Sixers coach the year after they traded Wilt to the Lakers and thereafter (almost) no center was the same after leaving Ramsay. So can we say that Bill Walton, Sam Bowie, Bob McAdoo, Steve Stipanovich, etc fell victim to the Curse Of Wilt?

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol V

2010-02-25T12:13:00.004-05:00

While watching the Rockets earlier this year, they always seemed to go on a run when Kyle Lowry came in the game. His stats weren't that impressive; he drew a lot of fouls, but didn't shoot all tht well, his assist rate was good but not great, subjectively he seemed to be a very good defender, but he didn't get a ton of steals. Despite his less than stellar stats, his adjusted plus/minus has been among the best on the team all season.

Lowry was injured recently, and I was curious to see how the Rockets would fare without that "spark". As it turns out, not well. They have gone 2-6 in his absence, giving up between 97 and 125 points in each game, with the nadir coming against Indiana when the Rockets lost because they didn't have anyone who could guard TJ Ford. The Carl Landry-Kevin Martin trade didn't help (for this year, it'll help when Yao gets back), but the Rockets really miss Lowry right now.

How Did David Robinson Perform Against Elite Centers?

2010-02-20T20:35:00.000-05:00

The David Robinson-Hakeem Olajuwon debate can be summarized easily: In head to head matchups, Olajuwon outperformed Robinson (especially in the playoffs). Against everybody else, Robinson was better. So, who was better?

That's a question I'm not going to answer right now. However, one argument (which has many variants) that is often made in the context of this argument is, "David Robinson played really well against bad teams, but didn't show up when he was facing another great player." I was interested to see if that was true, so I looked at all of the games Robinson played against Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Shaquille O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning, and Dikembe Mutombo (the great centers of the 90s) during his (and partially their) prime (1989-90 through 1997-98*).
*Except for games against Hakeem in 1997-98, when Hakeem was clearly not in his prime.

Warning: Lots of stats ahead!

Robinson faced Hakeem 38 times, including 6 playoff games. The Spurs went 22-16 in those games, losing the playoff series in 6.
David Robinson (vs Hakeem Olajuwon)
MPG: 40
PPG: 22
ORB: 3.8
DRB: 8.0
RPG: 11.8
APG: 3.2
SPG: 1.9
BPG: 3.3
TOG: 3.7
FG% .476
FT% .731
TS% .547
Hakeem Olajuwon (vs David Robinson)
MPG: 40
PPG: 27
ORB: 3.4
DRB: 8.7
RPG: 12.2
APG: 3.6
SPG: 1.8
BPG: 3.5
TOG: 3.2
FG% .470
FT% .788
TS% .526
If you remove the playoff numbers from the totals, Hakeem loses almost 2 points a game and 15 points of TS%, leaving them with close to equivalent production. Hakeem played great defense against Robinson, forcing him into worse shooting and more turnovers than usual.

David Robinson faced Patrick Ewing 14 times in those 9 years. The Spurs went 8-6 in those games.
David Robinson (vs Patrick Ewing)
MPG: 39
PPG: 26
ORB: 3.4
DRB: 6.8
RPG: 10.2
APG: 3.0
SPG: 1.8
BPG: 3.2
TOG: 3.6
FG% .518
FT% .653
TS% .563
Patrick Ewing (vs David Robinson)
MPG: 38
PPG: 23
ORB: 2.4
DRB: 8.9
RPG: 11.3
APG: 2.7
SPG: 1.1
BPG: 3.0
TOG: 3.6
FG% .435
FT% .682
TS% .463
Ewing, like Olajuwon, forced Robinson into a lot of turnovers, but Robinson had a much easier time scoring against Ewing than against Hakeem. On the other end, Ewing's efficiency plummeted against Robinson.

David Robinson faced the young Shaquille O'Neal 9 times when he was with Orlando and Los Angeles. The Spurs went 5-4 in those games.
David Robinson (vs young Shaquille O'Neal)
MPG: 41
PPG: 28
ORB: 3.7
DRB: 8.3
RPG: 12.0
APG: 4.7
SPG: 2.7
BPG: 2.4
TOG: 2.6
FG% .473
FT% .796
TS% .554
Shaquille O'Neal (vs David Robinson)
MPG: 39
PPG: 26
ORB: 3.3
DRB: 9.3
RPG: 12.7
APG: 1.8
SPG: 0.7
BPG: 2.0
TOG: 3.9
FG% .514
FT% .578
TS% .540
Once Robinson hit his mid 30s, and Shaq was at his absolute best, Shaq started to dominate. But before those years, I think Robinson outplayed Shaq in head to head situations.

David Robinson faced Alonzo Mourning 1o times when he was with the Hornets and Heat. The Spurs went 6-4 in those games.
David Robinson (vs Alonzo Mourning)
MPG: 35
PPG: 29
ORB: 3.0
DRB: 7.3
RPG: 10.3
APG: 2.5
SPG: 1.5
BPG: 2.0
TOG: 2.4
FG% .553
FT% .781
TS% .620
Alonzo Mourning (vs David Robinson)
MPG: 35
PPG: 21
ORB: 2.4
DRB: 6.0
RPG: 8.4
APG: 1.6
SPG: 0.8
BPG: 2.8
TOG: 2.7
FG% .507
FT% .689
TS% .570
Neither really stopped the other, but Robinson easily outperformed Mourning in these games. In the next two years, when Mourning was at his best, the two faced each other once, and Robinson outplayed him (in a Heat win).

David Robinson faced Dikembe Mutombo 28 times when he was with the Nuggets and Hawks, including a three game sweep against Denver in the 95 playoffs. The Spurs went 22-6 in these games. As Mutombo was something of a defensive specialist, I'm only going to give Robinson's statistics. If you're curious, Mutombo averaged 11 points/game in these matchups.
David Robinson (vs Dikembe Mutombo)
MPG: 37
PPG: 24
ORB: 2.5
DRB: 7.8
RPG: 10.3
APG: 2.9
SPG: 1.6
BPG: 3.8
TOG: 2.1
FG% .487
FT% .757
TS% .567

In 99 games (against these 5 centers), during his prime, Robinson averaged over 24 points a game, and 11 rebounds a game, with a true shooting percentage of .564% (.494% from the field). Those are impressive numbers to put up against top flight centers, and they lead me to conclude that the "Robinson only performed well against bad teams" argument is wrong.

Thinking About Cleveland's Options

2010-02-16T13:13:00.003-05:00

All stats for the 2009-2010 season.

Player A
Points/36 Minutes: 22.0 (career: 22.1)
Rebounds/36 Minutes: 8.9 (career: 9.3)
Assists/36 Minutes: 1.1 (career: 1.4)
Turnovers/36 Minutes: 2.8 (career: 2.7)
True Shooting Pct: .610 (career: .605)
2 Year Adjusted Plus-Minus: -4.76

Player B
Points/36 Minutes: 24.2 (career: 20.3)
Rebounds/36 Minutes: 7.0 (career: 6.3)
Assists/36 Minutes: 2.9 (career: 2.7)
Turnovers/36 Minutes: 2.9 (career: 2.9)
True Shooting Pct: .626 (career: .581)
2 Year Adjusted Plus-Minus: -2.79

Both players are injury prone, and neither plays defense well. Player A is a power forward sometimes masquerading as a center, while Player B is a small forward. Player B seems to be having a better year, but Player A's career numbers are better. Adjusted Plus-Minus doesn't really like either player, but Player B actually has a slightly positive rating for this season.

Player A? Amare Stoudemire

Player B? Corey Maggette

All of which is to say, if the Cavs don't get Amare, then Maggette is not a bad fallback option. And they probably wouldn't have to give up as much to get him, either.

Brendan Haywood Is The Best Mavericks Center Ever No Really: A Play In One Act

2010-02-13T23:53:00.009-05:00

Scene: a darkened auditorium. There are very few people in the seats and a monstrous spotlight on the court.

Enter: PA Announcer

Aaaaannnd now, ladies and gentlemen, the top 5 centers in Dallas Mavericks hiiiisssssstoooorrryy!!!!

applause

In the first category, we have honorable mentions for some decent players who weren't really centers, but played there anyway because yooouurr Dallas Mavericks didn't have anyone else!!! Let's here it fooooooorrr Raef LaFrentz, Drew Gooden, Roy Tarpley, and Saaaaammm Perkins!!!

wild applause

Now, the number 5 center in Dallas Mavericks history. From Dakar, Senegal, the man who has blocked more shots than he has made, DeSaganaaaaa Diop!!!

wild applause followed by highlight reels of Diop alternately blocking shots and turning the ball over

For your Dallas Mavericks, the number 4 center of all time. You've seen him in posters, you've seen him posterized on YouTube, you've seen him in Space Jam, you may even have seen him on Walker, Texas Ranger...the seven foot six inch shot-blocker extraordinaire, from Landstuhl, Germany, Shaaaawwwnn Bradley!!!

feverish applause during which the PA announcer runs down to the court and dunks on Bradley

The number three center of all time for the Dallas Mavericks. He has shot over 60% the last four years, and is one of the NBA's better rebounders. The man you know as Ericka for his inconsistent effort, from Jackson, Mississippi, Erick Dampiiieeeerr!!!

mild applause, after some confusion it is determined that Dampier is not in the building

Now, the number two center in Dallas Mavericks history. Going back to the 80s, to the days of Mark Aguirre and Derek Harper, to a man who seldom missed and seldom fouled, from the United Kingdom, the incomparably efficient Jaaaaammeeess Donaldson!!!

euphoria in the crowd, Brad Davis and Dick Motta are seen celebrating courtside while highlights from that time Dallas almost beat the Lakers in the playoffs are shown on the MiniTron

Finally, the man you've all been waiting for. The best center to ever put on a Dallas Mavericks uniform, he's a defensive standout who is in the NBA top 10 in rebounds and blocks per game, formerly the best player on the Washington Wizards, from New York, New York, Breeeeeendaaaannn Haaaaayywooooodd!!!

pause. is he really better than Jamison? best player on a bad team doesn't mean anything. anyway, he's never made an all-star team like Donaldson, who was really good let me tell you, and we still can't beat the Lakers...actually he is kinda good...ecstatic rioting in the streets

Exeunt

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol IV

2010-02-11T23:53:00.003-05:00

I should have some actual honest to goodness historical content here by the end of the weekend, but for now I'm content to present: this week in Stockholm Syndrome!

So, I was watching some of the Nets-Bucks game* on Wednesday (it seemed like a good idea at the time) when Keyon Dooling left the game with an injury, and the Nets broadcast team (Ian Eagle and Jim Spanarkel) expressed dismay (fair enough, it always sucks when someone gets injured). Then, perhaps getting carried away, they opined that Keyon Dooling was a competitor, and the Nets needed him to "keep that competitive edge going". Yes, those Nets. Then, after noting how washed up Jerry Stackhouse** was, the announcers return to the topic of Dooling, praising the veteran's competitiveness and swagger. Aside from a hilariously inappropriate use of swagger, I think this is a verifiable case of Stockholm Syndrome. Somebody may need to stage an intervention.
(For those curious, this sequence happened late in the 2nd quarter)

*It was a surreal experience to watch Luke Ridnour shred an "NBA" team.
**How sad is it that a pair of people praising Keyon Dooling still notice that Stackhouse sucks? That may be the low point of Stack's career.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol III

2010-02-06T18:23:00.002-05:00

I was perusing Mike Bibby's stats, and to my surprise, I discovered that Bibby is only 31. He's been a prominent basketball player since the mid 90s, and was a key player on a championship contender 8 years ago, so I thought he was older than that, but what's interesting is the amount of basketball "archetypes" Bibby has embodied in his career.

First, he was a key player on two outstanding Arizona teams (including a national champion), giving him "college star" status. Then, he was the "good young player on a bad team" with the Grizzlies for just long enough to make that phase of his career memorable. Then he moved to Sacramento just in time to become a key part of the better Webber-Peja-Divac teams, becoming a "key part of a great team". Then, after the Kings declined, he was the "good veteran trapped on a bad team." Finally, he was traded to the (young) Hawks, where he became the "veteran mentor", seeming old in comparison to Josh Smith and company.

Bibby was in each of these roles for at least two seasons, but never much longer than that, meaning that all of these phases of his career are distinct from each other, but never taking up too much of his career. And I think the final factor here is that Bibby plays "old" now, not running all over the place, and using the open three as his primary offensive weapon.

You Wouldn't Have Thunk It

2010-01-31T23:43:00.005-05:00

After Andre Miller, who is a good player, but hardly a scoring machine, put up 52 points on the Dallas Mavericks the other day, I used Basketball-Reference's Game Finder to find all the other 50 point scorers (from 1987 to the present), and I found some other unlikely heroes.

Tony Delk, who scored 53 points for the Phoenix Suns in a 121-117 overtime loss to the Sacramento Kings on January 2nd, 2001. Delk went 20/27 from the field and 13/15 from the line, and finished with 53 points, 6 rebounds, 0 assists, and only 2 turnovers in 50 minutes of action. However, the rest of the team shot 27/74 (.365), including a 5/18 night from Jason Kidd and a 2/10 performance from Clifford Robinson. Meanwhile, Vlade Divac scored 34 for Sacramento, and Peja added 33 on a combined 24/37.

Willie Burton, who scored 53 for the Philadelphia 76ers in a 105-90 victory over Miami on December 13, 1994. Like Delk, the rest of Burton's team failed to pick up the shooting slack, with Clarence Weatherspoon shooting an egregious 4/20. However, the Adelman Kings were a much better team than the Glen Rice-Kevin Willis-Bimbo Coles Heat, and Burton's 53 points on 19 shots and 28 free throw attempts were enough to carry the 76ers, who enjoyed a 51-20 free throw attempt disparity.

Vernon Maxwell, who scored 51 points for the shorthanded Houston Rockets in a 103-97 victory over Cleveland on January 26, 1991. This game took place a couple weeks after Hakeem Olajuwon was injured by a Bill Cartwright elbow to the face, and the Rockets depended on Maxwell, Otis Thorpe, and Kenny Smith for offense. Maxwell went 14/25 from the field and took 22 of Houston's 27 free throws in a comeback win. The game was a sloppy affair, with Houston turning the ball over 26 times and Cleveland coughing it up 25 times. The Rockets withstood Larry Nance's 29-10-4 (steals) and Darnell Valentine shooting 9/11 with 5 steals.

Tracy Murray, who scored 50 points for the Washington Wizards on February 10, 1998 in a 99-87 win over the hapless Golden State Warriors, who were led by Joe Smith's 36. Murray went 18/29 from the field and 9/10 from the line. The rest of the Wizards shot 19/62 (31%), not giving Murray much help, although Rod Strickland's 20 assist night certainly helped (Strickland also scored 21 and added 12 rebounds). Fellow 50 point scorer Tony Delk appeared in this game, shooting 6/19 and turning the ball over 7 times.

Dana Barros, who scored 50 points for the 76ers on March 14, 1995 in a 136-107 loss to Houston (yes, the same 76ers team that Willie Burton scored 53 for). Barros actually averaged 21 points that year for a team with no other legitimate scoring options (Burton's outburst notwithstanding), so it wasn't that surprising that he scored 50 points, but I included this game for the reason that he scored 50 points while attempting only 2 free throws. How did he do it? By shooting 21/26 from the field, including 6/8 from three! Impressively, Barros added 8 assists while only turning it over 4 times. Clarence Weatherspoon had another bad game, shooting 5/13 with 4 turnovers (4 turnovers is acceptable when you have 50 points and 8 assists, not when you have 11 points and 1 assist), while the Rockets had Clyde Drexler, Kenny Smith, and Mario Elie combine to score 72 points on 23/34 shooting.

2000s In Review, part 2

2010-01-29T21:11:00.003-05:00

Single Season Teams of the Decade

2008 Boston Celtics
My choice for the best single season team of the decade. They won 66 games behind three future Hall of Famers, all close to their primes, as well as great defense from their chief role players (Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, James Posey). This team has only two knocks. First, due to Garnett aging and fighting injuries, they were only great for one year. Second, they struggled in the first couple rounds of the playoffs.

2005 San Antonio Spurs
The most consistently good team of the decade. This is my pick for the best of those teams-a team that won 59 games with the best point differential in the NBA despite Tim Duncan missing 16 games. The Spurs got a great year from Manu, Tony Parker was starting to hit his peak, Duncan was his usual great self, and the Spurs had an almost perfect group of role players in Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry, and Rasho Nesterovic.

2000 Lakers
The best regular season of the Shaq-Kobe Lakers (67-15). They struggled in the playoffs, nearly blowing a 3-1 lead to Portland, but still won a title. In addition, this team had the best third option of any of the Shaq-Kobe teams in Glen Rice.

Worst Champion

2006 Miami Heat
What Happened? Dwayne Wade singlehandedly destroyed the Pistons, and then the Heat benefited from some "questionable" calls to win Games 3, 5, and 6 by a total of 6 points over Dallas.

Best Also-Ran

2009 Cleveland Cavaliers
What Happened? Orlando got hot from three (41%), and Mo Williams couldn't hit the broad side of a barn during the first 4 games.

Honorable Mentions

2001 San Antonio Spurs
What Happened? The Lakers decided to try, and also hit a lot of threes, 44% compared to 22% for San Antonio. (In the regular season, San Antonio hit 41% from deep and LA hit 34%).

2003 Dallas Mavericks
What Happened? Dirk got injured, and the best Nowitzki-Nash squad lost to a very good Spurs team in the conference finals

2002 Sacramento Kings
What Happened?
Dick Bavetta and a good Lakers team. I don't want to say anything else, except that it's a shame this team never won a title.

Dynasties of the Decade

2003-2007 Spurs
2000-2002 Lakers
2003-2008 Pistons

Worst Teams of the Decade

2000 Clippers

Reasons they won 15 games: a rookie Lamar Odom, Derek Anderson, who was kinda decent, I guess.

Reasons they only won 15 games: three of their starters were Maurice Taylor, Michael Olowokandi, and Tyrone Nesby. Enough said.

Seeds for future success: They continued to suck, which allowed them to draft Tyson Chandler, who they were able to use to fleece the Bulls for Elton Brand, who led the Clippers within one game of the Western Conference Finals in 2006 in exhibit C of the "Sam Cassell makes teams better than you'd think" argument. And that's pretty much the high point of the Clippers franchise (and no, Bob McAdoo winning the '75 MVP doesn't count).

2001 Bulls

Reasons they won 15 games: The Bulls actually had a decent collection of talent-Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Brad Miller, Ron Mercer, Jamal Crawford, and supersub Fred Hoiberg.

Reasons they only won 15 games: Their problem was that, with the exception of a 21 year old Elton Brand (and Hoiberg), none of it was very good yet.

Seeds for future success: The next time the Bulls would win more than 30 games was 2005. None of the above players would be on that Bulls team. That team was built around a great defense anchored by Tyson Chandler (acquired for Elton Brand) and Kirk Hinrich (1st round pick in 2003), and molded by Scott Skiles. Other draft picks that contributed included Eddy Curry (2001-4th overall) and Ben Gordon (2004-3rd overall). What happened to all that young talent from 2001? In one of the more underrated horrible trades of the new century, Artest, Miller, and Mercer were traded for a package of Jalen Rose and three other guys that didn't do much. Two years later, the Bulls traded Rose and Donyell Marshall to the Raptors for a 35 year old Antonio Davis and two other guys who didn't do much. If you're keeping track, the Bulls managed to turn a young Ron Artest, a young Brad Miller, Ron Mercer, and Donyell Marshall into two years of Jalen Rose and an old Antonio Davis. When you factor in the Elton Brand trade, and the Jay Williams accident, it's amazing to see how much talent Chicago hemorrhaged during those years.

2003 Cavs

Reasons they won 17 games: Ricky Davis, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, a young Carlos Boozer

Reasons they only won 17 games: Ricky Davis, Darius Miles, the Dajuan Wagner experience.

Seeds for future success: LeBron! LeBron! LeBron! The Cavs built a good team around LeBron and Big Z (Boozer having jumped ship to Utah), and have become a championship contender in the past couple years after adding role players like Anderson Varejao and Mo Williams. The reason? Unlike the Bulls and Clippers, they were lucky enough to bottom out in time to draft the best player of his generation.

2005 Hawks

Reasons they won 13 games: a couple good very young players in Josh Childress and Josh Smith, and 2 veteran scorers in Antoine Walker and Al Harrington.

Reasons they only won 13 games: When your veteran leader is Antoine Walker, you're in trouble.

Seeds for future success: Josh Smith is turning into an excellent player, Atlanta was able to use a combination of young talent (Boris Diaw) and draft picks to fleece the Suns for Joe Johnson, and the Hawks' continued ineptitude allowed them to draft Al Horford in 2007. In contrast to the Cavs, for example, the Hawks success has had more to do with good trades (for Joe Johnson, Mike Bibby, and Jamal Crawford) than it does with picking up a great player with a high draft pick as a result of ineptitude.

Ironic Sentence Of The Night

2010-01-26T23:54:00.004-05:00

I'm watching the Sacramento-Golden State game, and the announcer just uttered the sentence, "Beno Udrih read the [Golden State] defense perfectly". To which my first thought was, "doesn't there have to be something in order to read it?"

In other NBA news, the Dallas Mavericks have tied a somewhat obscure record: most consecutive victories in one point games, at 10. They tie the record held by the 1960 St Louis Hawks, who were also led by a white forward, Bob Pettit, and lost to a superior Celtics team in a closer than it should have been 7 game series. There are a few parallels between the two teams, including the whole "best white player in the league" thing, as well as the "not quite as good as the league's elite" thing. To stretch the analogy until it breaks, I guess Jason Terry is Cliff Hagan (top perimeter scorer), Jason Kidd is Slater Martin (veteran point guard who can't shoot), although not even Mark Cuban is as unlikable as Clyde Lovellette-who was like Bill Laimbeer with a cowboy fetish-allegedly was.

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol II

2010-01-20T14:23:00.003-05:00

(Good) NBA Centers, 25 and Under, 2010 edition
Dwight Howard
Andrew Bynum
Brook Lopez
Al Horford
Marc Gasol
Andrew Bogut
Kendrick Perkins
Joakim Noah
Greg Oden

(Good) NBA Centers, 25 and Under, 2000 Edition
Marcus Camby
Brad Miller
Ben Wallace (if you consider him a center)

The current crop of young NBA centers doesn't match up to the late 80s, when the NBA had David Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing, Brad Daugherty, Vlade Divac, Rik Smits, and Rony Seikaly. But it's light years better than 2000, and comparable to 1980, when the NBA's under 25 centers included Moses Malone, Jack Sikma, Bill Cartwright, Alvan Adams, Tree Rollins, Darryl Dawkins, and James Edwards.

How Good Were The West/Baylor Lakers?

2010-01-15T15:08:00.002-05:00

Los Angeles famously lost 8 Finals (7 to Boston) between 1959 and 1970 while having two (then three) of the greatest NBA players in their primes. Were they a great team that consistently choked away series they should have won? Or were they simply a good team that lost to better teams? How many championships should they have won? I want to try to answer these questions with a year by year look at the Lakers.

1958: The post-Mikan years hit their nadir, as the Lakers finish a league worst 19-53, with only three decent NBA players on the roster (Vern Mikkelsen, Larry Foust, Dick Garmaker).

1959: The Lakers pick up Elgin Baylor in the draft, and improve to 33-39. They upset the Hawks in the playoffs before getting crushed by a much better Celtics team in the Finals.

1960: Mikkelsen and Foust leave, and Rudy LaRusso arrives. Other than Elgin, LaRusso is the only thing resembling a decent player on the roster, and the team slips to 25-50. As 6 of the 8 teams made the playoffs in those days, the Lakers made it to the conference finals before losing to the Hawks in a surprisingly close 7 game series.

1961: Jerry West's rookie year. He struggles at times, and finishes the year averaging 18 points and 4 assists. Elgin has a sublime season (35-20-5), Rudy LaRusso becomes a decent player, and the Lakers improve to 36-43 before losing to the Hawks again in a much closer 7 game series (they lost 3 games by 1 or 2 points, including Games 6 and 7).

1962: Jerry West becomes Jerry West, Elgin only plays 48 games due an Army commitment (but averages 38-19-5), and the Lakers win the West at 54-26. In the playoffs, with Elgin back, they took care of the Pistons, before losing to the Celtics in overtime of Game 7 (the Frank Selvy game). Were the Lakers the better team? Statistically, it's hard to make the case. Even though the Lakers won 54 games, the Celtics won 60, and more tellingly, outscored their opponents by 9.2 points per game compared to the Lakers' 2.2 PPG advantage. Now, that number may be depressed because the Lakers lost Baylor for about 30 games. However, even with Baylor, the Celtics outscored the Lakers by 29 points in the Finals, suggesting that the better team did win. A look at the Lakers roster reveals 2 superstars, one good player (LaRusso), and not much else. Meanwhile, the Celtics had one superstar (Russell), two very good players (Sam Jones and Heinsohn, who was having a career year-22 and 10 in 30 MPG), and four good players (defensive stopper Satch Sanders, an older Bob Cousy, sixth man Frank Ramsey, and defensive specialist KC Jones).

Even though the West-Baylor combo was better than the Russell-Sam Jones combo, the Celtics were so much deeper than the Lakers that I'm forced to consider them the superior team. The fact that the Lakers got that close to beating the Celtics is impressive, although the fact that the Finals started two nights after Boston had finished a grueling seven game series with Wilt's Warriors probably helped LA to jump out to a 2-1 advantage.

1963: The next year, the Lakers got Baylor (34-14-5) back for the whole season, but West only played 55 games due to an injury. The Lakers finished 53-27, as Dick Barnett joined the team, and gave the Lakers another scoring option, although LaRusso slipped a bit. In the playoffs, the favored Celtics (58-22) and Lakers struggled to put away Oscar's Royals and Pettit's Hawks, but they both prevailed in 7 games to reach the Finals. The Celtics weren't as good as in 1962, as some of the old guard (Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey) was on the decline, and rookie John Havlicek wasn't yet ready to pick up the slack. Still, the Celtics, behind Russell and Sam Jones, comfortably led the league in Wins and Point Differential again. In the 1963 Finals, the Lakers outscored the Celtics, but lost a close series in 6 games, as Tommy Heinsohn had a great series.

I think this was the best of the pre-Wilt Laker teams, when West was healthy. West's injury happened towards the end of the regular season, and then he came back for the playoffs. In their first 55 games (when West presumably played), the Lakers were 43-12. In their last 25, they went 10-15. Although they lost the Finals, they essentially played the Celtics to a standstill, and were a few plays away from winning. I don't know that they were better than the Celtics, but they weren't much worse.

1964: After two peak seasons from Baylor and West, Baylor started to decline in 1964, averaging 25 and 12 after averaging 34 and 14 the previous year. Baylor was still good, but he was no longer a superstar, and the Lakers declined to 42-38. They still had only four reliable players (Baylor, West, LaRusso, and Barnett), and Wilt's Warriors took the top spot in the West.

1965: West has his best year yet (31-6-5), and the Lakers grab the top spot out west at 49-31. The Lakers weren't as good as the Celtics, who went 62-18. To make matters worse, Baylor got injured before the playoffs. West carried the team to the Finals by averaging 41 PPG, but the hobbled Lakers were no match for Boston, and probably wouldn't have won even if healthy.

1966: Baylor feels the lingering effects of his knee injury, and averages just 17 and 10 in 65 games. West averages 31-7-6, and carries the team (primarily LaRusso, Leroy Ellis, and Walt Hazzard by now) to the Finals in a weak West-at 45-35, the Lakers win the division handily. The Celtics were weaker than previous years, but still a superior team (54-28). They were still much deeper than the Lakers, with a top three of Russell, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek along with role players KC Jones, Satch Sanders, Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, and Willie Naulls. It wasn't as impressive as previous years, but Elgin Baylor was hobbled and the Lakers' 5th best player was Walt Hazzard. Still, the Lakers were able to stretch the Celtics to 7 games on West's heroics.

1967: The '67 Lakers in a nutshell: Darrall Imhoff led the team in minutes. Baylor had a bounce back year, but he and West (who wasn't as good as in '65 and '66) battled injuries, LaRusso gave them much less, and the team finished 36-45. They were swept by the Nate Thurmond-Rick Barry Warriors in the first round. One encouraging sign: the first real shot at playing time for guards Gail Goodrich and Archie Clark.

1968: A bounce back season (52-30) for the Lakers, as Archie Clark had a breakout season (20-4-4). Elgin goes for 26-12 and West goes for 26-6-6 in 51 games. With Darrall Imhoff, Tom Hawkins, Gail Goodrich, and Mel Counts, the Lakers finally put together a decent group of role players. In the East, the Celtics (54-28) upset the 76ers in 7 games to advance to the NBA Finals, where they beat the Lakers. Boston was an old team by this point, but still very good, with the addition of Bailey Howell giving them another good player to team with Russell, Jones, and Havlicek.

1969: Wilt comes to LA. However, the team does not noticeably improve (55-27), as their depth takes a big hit with the losses of Gail Goodrich (to PHO in the expansion draft), Archie Clark (in the Wilt trade), and Darrall Imhoff (ditto). In addition, Wilt and coach Butch Van Breda Kolff spend the season feuding. Despite all this, they make it to the Finals and take a 3-2 lead on Russell's last Celtic team. And then, everything falls apart. West pulls his hamstring in Game 5, then Wilt suffers a minor injury in Game 7, and his coach famously refuses to put him back in the game. The Lakers lose by two, Van Breda Kolff is fired, and the Lakers are titleless once again. The Celtics deserve some credit here. Despite their mediocre record (48-34), their point differential was better than many of the teams that finished ahead of them-including the Lakers. Still, LA probably should have won a championship in this two year stretch.

1970: Wilt gets injured, and misses almost the whole season. Despite his absence, the Lakers finish 46-36. Wilt then returns for the playoffs, and the Lakers meet a very tough Knicks team in the Finals. With both teams fighting injuries (most notably Willis Reed), and two overtime games, the series came to a game 7. Then Willis Reed limped on the court, Walt Frazier took over the game, and the rest is history.

1971: The next year, Elgin Baylor missed the season due to injury, but the Lakers got solid performances from Happy Hairston and Gail Goodrich, back with the team after two years in Phoenix. The Lakers went 48-34, and were no match for the Kareem-Oscar Bucks.

1972: The year the Lakers finally win. Goodrich and West have great years, and the addition of forward Jim McMillian countered the loss of Baylor. The team wins 69 games and beats the Knicks in 5.

One striking aspect of the Lakers during this period is that, until 1972, they never had a team that was obviously the best team in the league going into the playoffs. The '62 and '63 teams were the only teams to have the best of West and Baylor, but neither team had both players for a full season, and the Celtics won more games with a vastly superior point differential each season. I'm inclined to believe that, when healthy, those teams were almost as good as the Celtics, but without game by game data that shows what games both players were on the court for, I'm forced to guess. Then, in 1968 and 1969, the Lakers put together teams that were about as good as the Celtics (the Celtics had more wins in '68 and a better point differential in '69 while the Lakers had more wins in '69 and a better point differential in '68), and came very close to beating Boston both years. The Lakers probably should have won one title in '62-'63 and one in '68-'69. Were they unlucky? Yes, but sometimes you make your own luck-West and Baylor were both injury prone, which often came back to hurt the Lakers, they didn't have a deep team until 1968 (and then got rid of most of that depth the following year), and Butch Van Breda Kolff wasn't going to win any coach of the year awards. Still, they were unlucky not to win at least one title during that time frame.

Player of the Week: Leroy Ellis

2010-01-10T20:23:00.002-05:00

After a one week hiatus due to technical problems, the Player of the Week series returns with a look at obscure Lakers, Bullets, Blazers, and Sixers center Leroy Ellis. Ellis was drafted in the first round by the Lakers in 1962, one pick before John Havlicek, joining a loaded Lakers team that already featured Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Dick Barnett, and Rudy LaRusso.

That Lakers team was in the process of finding new ways to lose in the Finals every year despite having West and Baylor (although Elgin was done as a dominant player after 1963). Ellis was considered part of the problem, as the Lakers shopped around for a dominant center for nearly a decade before landing Wilt Chamberlain for the 1969 season. But by that point, Ellis was long gone. He spent four years with the Lakers before landing on a bad Bullets team for the 1967 season.

The Bullets had been mediocre the year before, but had lost their best player (Bailey Howell) to Boston. With a core of Leroy Ellis, Gus Johnson, and Kevin Loughery, the Bullets finished 20-61. Despite the lack of talent around him, or maybe because of it, he posted career highs in points and rebounds with 15 and 12. The Bullets drafted Earl Monroe with the second overall pick in the 1967 draft, and improved by 16 games with a core of Monroe, Johnson, Ellis, and Ray Scott. They ended up with the second overall pick again, and drafted Wes Unseld. While the pick was excellent for the franchise, as the Bullets immediately improved to 57-25 with improvement from young players Earl Monroe and Jack Marin, a career year from veteran guard Kevin Loughery, and 18 rebounds a game from Rookie of the Year and MVP Wes Unseld, it wasn’t good for Leroy Ellis. With Unseld taking the lion’s share of playing time in the middle, Ellis’ minutes per game fell from 35 in 1968 to 20 in 1969 to 16 in 1970.

By this time, Ellis was largely irrelevant to the Bullets, and was taken by the Blazers in the 1970 expansion draft. Ellis responded with (arguably) his best season, averaging 16 and 12 in 35 minutes for the expansion Blazers, teaming with rookie guard Geoff Petrie to lead Portland to a surprisingly competitive 29-53 record. After the season, Ellis was traded back to the Lakers for a second round pick (which would become Ollie Johnson). He backed up Wilt and Happy Hairston on the 72 Lakers, one of the greatest teams of all time, finally winning a championship. However, Ellis would immediately return to the other end of the spectrum, being traded to the 76ers for Bill Bridges ten games into the 1973 season, becoming a “key” part of that legendarily awful 9-73 team. He hung around with Philadelphia for a few more years, retiring after the 1976 season.

That transition, from the best team in basketball to the worst, really sums up Ellis’ career. He wasn’t a great player, and if you depended on him, you weren’t that good, but he was good enough to be a role player on a very good team for over a decade. He wasn't a good scorer, but he was a decent rebounder, and there were certainly worse centers around.

After his basketball career, Ellis stayed out of professional sports, opening a tire store, although he continued to play (non professionally) into his sixties. Some of his kids became basketball players, including his son LeRon, who played three years in the NBA. Ellis was a man who knew the importance of a good first syllable, naming some of his other kids LeRoy Jr, Lisa, and Lee (who was tragically murdered at the age of 19). Sadly, Ellis is now suffering from cancer that may be terminal, but he is still keeping a positive outlook.

2000s In Review, part 1

2010-01-07T11:09:00.003-05:00

As the 2000s have ended, and the 2010s have begun, here is a look back at the decade, starting with the best (and worst) players of the decade.

All-NBA-1st Team
C: Shaquille O'Neal
PF: Tim Duncan
SF: Kevin Garnett
SG: Kobe Bryant
PG: Jason Kidd

I know Garnett wasn't a small forward, but he was the 2nd most productive player of the decade, behind Duncan, so it felt right to put him on the first team. The toughest choice was Kidd vs Nash, and I went with defense over offense.

All-NBA-2nd Team
C: Pau Gasol
PF: Dirk Nowitzki
SF: Paul Pierce
SG: Ray Allen
PG: Steve Nash

I'm counting Pau Gasol as a center, and he really was this good, even with Memphis. His 2006 season, when he averaged 20-9-4.5 with efficient shooting (without a real point guard) for one of the best defensive teams in the league, was probably the best season by a center not named Shaq or Dwight Howard this decade, and his 2009 was just as good. In addition, he played a lot more than other comparable centers like Yao Ming and Dwight Howard.

All-NBA-3rd Team
C: Ben Wallace
PF: Elton Brand
SF: LeBron James
SG: Manu Ginobili
PG: Chauncey Billups

Ginobili gets the nod over Wade and Iverson because I think he had more value between 2000 and 2009. It was a tough decision, though, especially between Wade and Ginobili, and I'm not sure I made the right call. I will say this-if Ginobili had played 32-36 minutes a game instead of 28, there would be no question here.

Least Valuable Players
C: Michael Olowokandi (LVP)
PF: Mark Madsen
SF: Darius Miles
SG: Trenton Hassell
PG: Milt Palacio

I made the cutoff 400 games, which is about 5 seasons. Miles wasn't as bad as the rest of the guys on this team, but he was almost as bad, and wreaked enough financial havoc that I gave him a subjective "boost".

All-Offense
C: Shaquille O'Neal
PF: Dirk Nowitzki
SF: Peja Stojakovic
SG: Kobe Bryant
PG: Steve Nash

One of the great "what-ifs" of the decade. What if Nowitzki doesn't get hurt in the 2003 playoffs? The Mavericks play the Spurs tight without him, and with him, they probably win the championship. This probably persuades Cuban to keep Nash over Erick Dampier, and instead of a multipolar decade controlled by San Antonio, Phoenix never becomes a contender, and the next five years become an arms race between Dallas and San Antonio. Probably.

All-Defense
C: Ben Wallace
PF: Tim Duncan
SF: Ron Artest
SG: Bruce Bowen
PG: Jason Kidd (Just forget the past couple years, okay?)

This was the decade of the great defensive small/combo forward, when what I call the "Pippenization" of the position reached its apex. This started in the late 1980s when the best small forwards had included the likes of Larry Bird, Adrian Dantley, Dominique Wilkins, Alex English, Bernard King, Kiki Vandeweghe, James Worthy, and Mark Aguirre. A decade and a half later, the pendulum had swung the other way. Besides Bowen and Artest, we had Shane Battier, Tayshaun Prince, Shawn Marion, Gerald Wallace, Andrei Kirilenko, Josh Smith, and LeBron James.

No Rings All-Stars aka The Gollum Awards
C: Yao Ming
F: Dirk Nowitzki
F: LeBron James
G: Jason Kidd
G: Steve Nash

I suspect LeBron will win (at least) one over the next few years. Kidd was never on a good enough team until now, Yao was never healthy for long enough, and Dirk and Nash ran into the hellacious combination of the Spurs and controversial (bad) officiating.

Worst Championship Starters
C: Rasho Nesterovic (07 Spurs)
F: Fabrico Oberto (05 Spurs)
F: Antoine Walker (06 Heat)
G: Ron Harper (00 Lakers)
G: Derek Fisher (09 Lakers)

To be clear, this means that a player has to be the team's starter in the playoffs. I'm not counting cases like Samaki Walker starting the majority of his team's games, then never seeing the court during the playoffs. These generally fall into two categories: player who used to be good, and team without a center that needs somebody to jump for the opening tip and play twenty minutes (to be fair, Nesterovic wasn't a bad player, just a mediocre player having a below average year).

Best Role Players
C: Kendrick Perkins
F: Udonis Haslem
F: Shane Battier
G: Brent Barry
G: Raja Bell

Other candidates included Anderson Varejao, Mike Miller, half of the players on the 2001 Sixers and 2009 Rockets, Birdman, Doug Christie, Leandro Barbosa, late career Reggie Miller, and Jameer Nelson, when healthy.

Worst Stars
C: Carlos Boozer
F: Zach Randolph
F: Antoine Walker
G: Latrell Sprewell
G: Stephon Marbury

There wasn't a good choice at center, so I just added another forward. I'm not claiming that these players are necessarily overrated now, just that they were treated as stars, or put up "star numbers" without being that good.

All-Crazy Team
C: Chris "Birdman" Andersen
F: Rasheed Wallace
F: Ron Artest
G: Stephen Jackson
G: Agent Zero

Gil is a crazy in a good way. I wish we had more NBA players like, but him. I don't know how crazy Birdman every is, but (1) he looks crazy and (2) he plays like a crazy person.

I'd Like To Thank My Point Guard For Making Me Look Good
Richard Jefferson
Shawn Marion
David West

Point Guard? What's A Point Guard?
LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
Elton Brand

Point Guard? What's A Point Guard? (Point Guard edition)
Allen Iverson
Gilbert Arenas
Steve Francis

And Some Individual Awards

Marlon Brando Award for widest career swing: Tracy McGrady, for going from a top 5 player to a guy that a team without a consistent perimeter scorer refuses to play in just six years.

Tim Duncan Award for consistency: Tim Duncan, for being Tim Duncan.

Ted Stepien Award for front office mismanagement: You might think I'm going with Isiah Thomas, for just about everything he did while running the Knicks. And you'd be right. However, he gets to share the award with James Dolan, who let Isiah run amok far after it should have been clear to any rational person that Isiah was incompetent.

The "Can We Get A Mulligan On This Award" Award: Avery Johnson for Coach of the Year.

Bill Sharman Award for best shooter: Ray Allen
Dennis Rodman Award for best rebounder: Ben Wallace
John Stockton Award for best passing: Steve Nash
Manute Bol Award for shotblocking: Theo Ratliff
Adrian Dantley Award for being a free throw machine: Dwayne Wade
MVP of the Decade: Tim Duncan

Nothing Changes On New Year's Day

2010-01-01T15:48:00.005-05:00

There are still six teams, the Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Spurs, Cavs and Mavericks, with a legitimate shot at the championship, while the Warriors and 76ers are still a mess. Chris Paul and LeBron are still really good, and Trenton Hassell and Ryan Hollins aren't. However, because the new year is a time for blind optimism, here is why 2010 will be better than 2009 for every team that is currently below .500.

Toronto Raptors-Because Andrea Bargnani is developing into a good offensive player, giving the Raptors a potentially great offense.
New York Knicks-Summer 2010! Summer 2010! Summer 2010! Oh, alright. Because Danilo Gallinari is becoming Peja 2.0, giving the Knicks a credible #2 option after the summer.
Philadelphia 76ers-Marreese Speights! Andre Iguodala! A surprisingly good shot at John Wall!
New Jersey Nets-Brook Lopez is already one of the best centers in the east. Lopez, Devin Harris, a top 3 pick, and a big free agent as the core of a team (probably) moving to Brooklyn? Yes, please.
Chicago Bulls-Vinny Del Negro should be gone soon, and then...Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, Luol Deng...this has the potential to be an exciting team.
Milwaukee Bucks-Brandon Jennings! He's like Magic, Oscar, and Gamera rolled into one! Also, Andrew Bogut has looked good this year, and Ersan Ilyasova was an absolute steal.
Detroit Pistons-Considering what has happened since the last time I wrote something good about this team (a million straight losses), I'm going to give this one a pass.
Indiana Pacers-They're the grittiest team in the league!
Charlotte Bobcats-They are currently 2nd in Defensive Rating, and have the potential to steal some first round games with that stifling defense. Also, Gerald Wallace is averaging over 12 rebounds a game right now. As a small forward.
Washington Wizards-They have talent! They just need to put it together! Just imagine that team with another lottery pick! That's a lot of talent, right?
Minnesota Timberwolves-Kevin Love is a rebounding machine. I wouldn't be surprised to see him average 15 rebounds a game soon. And the Wolves have been playing a lot better since he returned from injury.
Sacramento Kings-This is a team with a really bright future. A lineup of Tyreke Evans, Kevin Martin, Omri Casspi, Jason Thompson, and Spencer Hawes could be absolutely frightening (and extremely entertaining) if everyone stays healthy and continues to develop. They've been a .500 team in a tough conference with some of those guys injured this year. Watch out.
Los Angeles Clippers-They've been non-pathetic even without Blake Griffin. Kaman is averaging 20 a game this year, Al Thornton has turned into an average player (shock of the year for me), and Eric Gordon has had a solid sophomore season. More importantly, Donald Sterling can't own the team forever. Right?
Golden State Warriors-Don Nelson may turn uncrazy at some point. The front office could become (not dys)functional. You never know. At least they have talent.
Memphis Grizzlies-Marc Gasol is the best player everyone's heard of that they think no one else has heard of. Rudy Gay and OJ Mayo are good young players. And Lionel Hollins has figured out how to motivate Zach Randolph. Somebody give that man a medal.
New Orleans Hornets-CP3! He's pretty much locked down the PG spot on the All-NBA first team for the foreseeable future, and is a great reason for optimism.

I'll be posting some retrospective stuff on the past decade in the next couple of weeks. More regular posting will return (or commence) as we get away from the holiday season.

Player of the Week: Billy Paultz

2009-12-27T23:55:00.004-05:00

This week, we honor Nets, Spurs, Rockets, Hawks, and Jazz center Billy "The Whopper" Paultz. A big, slow, white guy, Paultz played in those halcyon days when a big, slow, white guy with a decent jumper could be an All-Star. (Actually, never mind)

Paultz debuted for the ABA’s New York Nets in 1970-71, averaging 15 and 11 his rookie season. He never really got much better, or maybe he got better at roughly the same rate as the ABA, but remained an efficient scorer, capable rebounder, and excellent shot blocker for the next nine years with the Nets and Spurs, by which time the ABA was history. He moved to the NBA and begun to decline by the early 80s, and starting bouncing around the league, going from the Spurs to the Rockets, back to the Spurs, to the Hawks, and finally to the Jazz before retiring in 1985.

While in the ABA, Paultz played for a couple of mediocre Nets teams before Dr. J joined the franchise in 1973-74, and the Nets won their first championship, with Paultz (16 and 10), Larry Kenon, and Brian Taylor anchoring the supporting cast. Paultz was traded after the 1975 season to San Antonio, where he joined former teammate Larry Kenon (acquired by the Spurs in a separate trade), George Gervin, and James Silas. In the ABA's final season, the Spurs won 50 games, but lost to the Nets in the playoffs. San Antonio would join the NBA the next year, and would remain a solid team with an excellent offense, but their poor defense would doom them in the playoffs each year (of course it feels strange to write that now). While there was plenty of blame to go around for San Antonio’s defensive failures, Paultz wasn't immune to criticism of his defense. He was a good shot blocker, but, as Dan Pattison wrote, "His biggest weakness stems from the fact he doesn't stop anyone on defense." The Whopper was just too slow and unathletic to play effective man to man against many of the league's centers.

But Paultz was a man who knew his limitations and knew what he could do. As he once said, "I'll never be an Artis Gilmore," he said, "but I think I can do the exact same things a Beaty does." A bit more optimistically, "I have realized that I'm not an overpowering type center. I don't really know what my category is. I have always been the type of player that can do a little bit of everything." And Paultz was a good player. His well rounded offensive game, including a very good jump shot, and shot-blocking ability made him a very valuable player for nearly a decade. (And Zelmo Beaty was a good player, so it's not like Paultz was being too harsh on himself.)

After retiring, Paultz didn't seem to have a second career in basketball as a coach or announcer. The Whopper was co-owner of a Long Island restaurant called the Salty Dog, although I can't find any evidence that that particular restaurant still exists.

Today's Billy Paultz…As indicated earlier, Paultz is somewhat similar to Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Brad Miller. All three are good jump shooters, decent rebounders, and mediocre defenders. Paultz was a better shot blocker than Miller, and a better passer than Ilgauskas (although a worse passer than Miller).

Here is a 50 second Billy Paultz highlight clip, from Paultz's days with the Rockets, courtesy of YouTube, which includes a clip of Paultz blocking a Larry Bird layup. Unfortunately, I cannot really direct you to more frivolous Billy Paultz-related links, as Paultz never really had much of a cultural impact other than his association with a sandwich.Which is kind of a shame.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T09:59:00.003-05:00

The tradition of NBA games on Christmas Day on December 25, 1947, the league's second season, with Carl Braun's New York Knickerbockers defeating the hapless Providence Steam Rollers (6-42 that year), who were led by Kenny Sailors and Ernie Calverley.

Some other Christmas Day factoids
-Dallas has only played 2 games on Christmas Day. They are 2-0
-Portland has the best overall record at 13-2
-Oscar Robertson has the most points and assists in Christmas Day history. Kobe is getting close, by virtue of seemingly playing on Christmas every year.

Some other things that don't require a full post...

It being Christmas gives me the excuse to link to this.

Also, that John Kuester post is looking pretty stupid now. At least I was right that the Pistons should suck.

Player of the Week posts should go up on Sunday from now on.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol I

2009-12-23T14:30:00.003-05:00

Is it just me, or does former ABA center/power forward Red Robbins look a lot like actor Neil Patrick Harris? Robbins, who passed away this year, was one of the ABA's better centers in the league's early years despite being only 6'8. He was a good rebounder, never turned the ball over, and developed a good outside shot, leading the ABA in 3 point percentage in 1972. His best year came in 1970, when he averaged over 16 and 16, and he won a championship as a role player with the 1971 Utah Stars, who were led by Zelmo Beaty and Willie Wise.

Player of the Week: Sam Lacey

2009-12-17T19:35:00.010-05:00

Sam Lacey, a center best known for his passing, played 13 seasons in the NBA, mostly with the Kansas City Kings in the 1970s. The Cincinnati Royals took Lacey with the number 5 pick after he led the New Mexico State Aggies to the Final Four. When he arrived, the Royals were in full rebuilding mode after Bob Cousy inexplicably traded Oscar Robertson to the Bucks for the immortal duo Charlie Paulk and Flynn Robinson.

Lacey, despite averaging double-digit rebounds, struggled during his first two years in Cincinnati. The team, built around Tiny Archibald, Tom Van Arsdale, and Johnny Green, was decent offensively, but porous defensively. Lacey contributed almost nothing on offense, shooting 42% from the field each year without piling up the assists for which he would later be known. The next year, 1973, the Royals moved to Kansas City and became the Kings. Tiny Archibald had a fantastic season, leading the league in points and assists, but the team was destroyed on the boards (despite Lacey's best efforts-he averaged 12 a game) and Lacey was the only thing close to a credible interior defender on the team.

The next year, Bob Cousy was let go after a poor start and Tiny Archibald was injured, but Lacey responded with his best season yet. He only scored 14 points a game (his career high), but chipped in over 13 rebounds, almost 4 assists, and (in the first year they were tracked) started a 7 year run of seasons in which he would total over 100 points and 100 blocks-Hakeem, Dr J, the Admiral, and Ben Wallace are the only other players to do the same. This raises the question, was Lacey a great defensive player like the other guys on that list? I would say that he wasn't great, but he was good. He was on some very good defensive teams (75, 79, 80), and numerous bad defensive teams. So he wasn't a player who guaranteed you a good defense, but he could be a part of a very good defense. He was an excellent defensive rebounder, got a lot of steals (for a center), and a good amount of blocks. However, he didn't have a great reputation (from what I can tell) and was never named to the All-Defensive Team. It could be argued that he was overlooked because he played for a mediocre Kansas City team, but it's also likely that he was overmatched in one on one situations against elite centers like Kareem and McAdoo. Overall, I would guess he was an above average defender, but not All-Defensive Team material.

The next year, 1975, was Lacey's best. He averaged over 14 rebounds a game, led the league in defensive rebounds as Kansas City finished 4th in the league in defensive efficiency, averaged over 5 assists, set a career high with 1.7 steals a game, blocked over two shots a game, and made his only All-Star Team. In addition, Kansas City, despite the lack of a legitimate scoring threat in the frontcourt, rode Tiny Archibald and a good defense to the only playoff appearance of the Archibald era. The Kings looked like they had a (relatively) bright future-Archibald and Lacey were only 26-but the team struggled in 1976, Archibald was traded to the Nets, and Lacey's play and playing time diminished in 1976, 1977, and 1978. For the 1978 season, the team even acquired Tom Burleson to compete with Lacey for playing time.

However, Lacey and the Kings bounced back in 1979. With a starting lineup of Lacey, Bill Robinzine, Scott Wedman, Otis Birdsong, and Phil Ford, the Kings were the best in the league at forcing turnovers, Lacey and Ford combined for 14 assists a game, and second year player Otis Birdsong led the offense with 22 points a game. The team won 48 games before losing to Phoenix in the playoffs. The Kings followed the same formula to 47 wins and another first round loss to the Suns in 1980. Lacey averaged a career high 5.7 assists a game, and was a key part of the Kings' ability to force the most turnovers in the NBA. Lacey dropped off a bit in 1981, was traded to the Nets in 1982, and finished his career on the Stepien Cavs in 1983.

Sam Lacey has been mostly forgotten, it seems. He wasn't a big scorer, didn't play for any great teams, played in a small market, and played much of his career in the same division as Kareem (earlier in his career), Bob Lanier, and Artis Gilmore (later in his career). In addition, he never had a notable coaching or broadcasting career, and hasn't done anything particularly shocking or controversial since he retired.

In his biography of Bob Cousy, Bill Reynolds tells the story that Lacey would hire a limo to pick him up from the airport after road trips, something that Cousy found unbelievable. The point of the story is that Cousy was having trouble reaching the "new generation" of basketball players who were "spoiled and pampered". Whether the blame falls on Cousy or players like Lacey is left up to the reader, but the lack of cohesion between players and management helps explain why Cousy and the Kings wasted some of Tiny Archibald's best years.

Today's Sam Lacey...Phil Jackson has compared Lacey to Joakim Noah, and who am I to disagree with the Zen Master? It seems like a good comparison. Both players are good rebounders, good passers, good but not overpowering defenders, and subpar scorers. One difference is that Lacey was more of a jump shooter, while Noah gets almost all of his points around the rim, with the result that, while Lacey was the better shooter, Noah is the more efficient scorer.

Unfortunately, YouTube is severly lacking in 1970s Kansas City Kings footage, but here are the highlights from a 1978 game against the Cavs. Watch at 0:16 for a nice feed from Lacey to Otis Birdsong.

John Kuester for Coach of the Year?

2009-12-13T11:56:00.009-05:00

First of all, I know that it's ridiculously early to start handing out end of the season awards. But without taking anything away from Rick Adelman, Paul Westphal, Alvin Gentry, Mike Woodson, or any other coach whose team is playing surprisingly well (although I'm not that surprised by the Rockets, that's due in part to Adelman), the most surprising team (to me) this year has been the Detroit Pistons.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm an idiot for not understanding what Joe Dumars was doing, but when you consider the injuries this team has sustained, the fact that they are playing .500 ball astounds me. It may not seem so surprising, considering this was a .500 team last year, but looking at their offseason additions and subtractions (plus injuries) seems to predict a major regression.

The nine players who played the most minutes for the 2009 Pistons were Antonio McDyess, Kwame Brown, Rasheed Wallace, Jason Maxiell, Tayshaun Prince, Richard Hamilton, Arron Afflalo, Allen Iverson, and Rodney Stuckey. For the 2010 Pistons, it is Ben Wallace, Kwame Brown, Jonas Jerebko, Jason Maxiell, Charlie Villanueva, Austin Daye, Ben Gordon, Will Bynum, and Rodney Stuckey. How many of these changes could be expected to make the Pistons better?

Change #1: Replacing Antonio McDyess with Ben Wallace. Coming into the season, Wallace had been declining steadily since 2006, only played 12.6 MPG for the Cavs during their playoff run last spring, and almost retired after the loss to the Magic before signing with the Pistons for the veteran's minimum. Meanwhile, McDyess almost averaged a double-double for the Pistons last year, and was given a three year contract by the Spurs for the mid-level exception. It's safe to say that this was expected to be a downgrade for the Pistons. Instead, Ben Wallace is having his best season in several years, and McDyess has been somewhat disappointing for San Antonio.

Change #2: Replacing Sheed with Charlie Villanueva. I think it's safe to say that I didn't think replacing Sheed with someone with the worst defensive rating on last year's Bucks (and a sparkling .529 TS%) wouldn't end well.

Change #3: Due to injury, the Pistons have been forced to replace Tayshaun Prince, arguably their best player last year, with the rookie duo of Jonas Jerebko and Austin Daye. While they haven't been exactly good, they have played much better than I would expect two non-lottery picks to play.

Change #4: Replacing the injured Rip Hamilton with Ben Gordon. Gordon's been a bit better offensively, probably a bit worse defensively, which is about what was expected.

Change #5: Increased playing time for Rodney Stuckey and Will Bynum (especially) replacing Arron Afflalo and Allen Iverson. Unless Stuckey or Bynum improved, this seemed like treading water, with better chemistry. However, Bynum has been better than expected as the team's 6th man.

Looking at the Pistons (assuming you knew about their injuries) before the season, the bulk of their offseason moves would seem to indicate a step backwards. Why hasn't this happened? A 35 year old Ben Wallace has bounced back, Will Bynum's filled in capably, and somehow a team that's giving significant minutes to two rookies, a 6'0 combo guard, Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva, and Kwame Brown has been an average defensive team so far. Maybe their success so far has been a fluke. With Rip Hamilton coming back from injury, Kuester will have more talent to work with, and a .500 record may not warrant Coach of the Year consideration, especially if Tayshaun Prince returns soon. But the fact that this team has been competitive is impressive enough to throw Kuester into the Coach of the Year discussion, for now.

What About Ed?

2009-12-10T20:32:00.008-05:00

So, I was shocked to find out that Chuck Hayes, at 6'6, is the shortest starting center in NBA history, going back to the 1946-47 season. Of course there have been games with shorter players starting at center, but Hayes is the shortest player to regularly start at center for an NBA team, defined by the Elias Sports Bureau as starting for "20 consecutive games"...and that's the catch. You see, Chuck Hayes, while short for an NBA starting center, is not the shortest player to ever regularly start at center for an NBA team. Now, I am not sure how many shorter players regularly started for their teams at center during the NBA's early years without meeting the "20 consecutive games" requirement, because "games started" were not tracked until 1982, and I don't have access to the same sources Elias did, but I'll give one example of a 6'5 center from the early days of the NBA.

Even though he evidently never started 20 consecutive games at center, Ed Sadowski, at 6'5, was one of the premier centers of the early NBA. And looking at some of his teams, it seems like a huge stretch to argue that he wasn't the regular starting center. First of all, everything I've read about Sadowski refers to him as a center, and taking a closer look at his teams supports the "Sadowski as center" theory. Sadowski only played 4 years in the BAA/NBA (I'm counting the BAA as part of the NBA as Elias evidently did to stretch their claim back to 1946-47), as the BAA wasn't formed until he was 29 years old. In 1946-47, after doing his best to forever destroy professional basketball in Canada (a topic for another post), he was traded to Cleveland, before moving to Boston, Philadelphia, and finally Baltimore to end his career in 1950. I'll just look at his last two seasons, as I think they provide enough evidence that he (or someone as short or shorter) was a regular starting center.

Starting with the eminently forgettable 1950 Bullets, their top 6 players appear to be the 6'5 Ed Sadowski (who plays in 52/68 games after coming over in a trade early in the season, the 6'5 Walt Budko (68 games), the 6'4 Blackie Towery (66 games), the 6'3 Tommy Byrnes (53 games) the 6'2 Paul Hoffman (60 games), and the 6'0 Joe Dolhon (64 games). In fact, only three players over 6'5 appeared in a Bullets game all season-Lee Knorek in one game, Ron Livingston in 16 games, and Les Pugh, who appeared in 56 games, averaging 4.5 points per game. Did he start? Sadowski, Budko, and Towery (all frontcourt players) all averaged at least 5 more shots a game than Pugh, suggesting they received more playing time. Even if nobody started 20 straight games at center, I find it hard to believe that Sadowski (or maybe Budko) wasn't the regular starting center for this team, although I suppose it's possible that Pugh was started at center to win the opening tip or something.

But the next case is even more obvious; the 1949 Philadelphia Warriors, for whom Sadowski played all 60 games and finished 7th in the league in scoring. The only players on that team taller than Sadowski were Roy Pugh (probably related to Les) who appeared in 13 games and scored 20 points on the season, and Elmore Morgenthaler who appeared in 20 games and scored 42 points all year. As far as I can tell, the starting lineup on that team was Sadowski, Joe Fulks (the BAA/NBA's first 'star'), Gale Bishop, Angelo Musi, and George Senesky. It's almost impossible for that team not to have started a 6'5 or shorter player as their regular center.

Chuck Hayes is an underappreciated player, and it's very impressive that he's able to shut down centers half a foot taller than him. He's a great defender in the low post, takes lots of charges, gets more than his fair share of steals, isn't a rebounding liability like you would fear, and is one of the best passing centers in the league. I even suspect that I'll be on the "Chuck Hayes for all-defense" bandwagon by the end of the year. But he's not the shortest regular starting center in NBA history. He is probably the shortest regular starting center since the adoption of the 24 second clock, and the fact that someone else did it in the late 1940s does not take away from his accomplishments. And we don't need to obsfucate the stats to acknowledge that. So, stop it Elias Sports Bureau, with your cherry-picking endpoints, and give Ed Sadowski his due, along with Chuck Hayes.

Player of the Week: Ernie Vandeweghe

2009-12-09T11:26:00.008-05:00

Here at Waiting For Groza, we plan to take a close look at the career of one player from the past every week. Today, we take the wayback machine to the early 1950s when an NBA player could be named Dr. Ernest Maurice Vandeweghe Jr. (For the 15 people on the internet that might notice, this post (and concept) is an expanded and rewritten version of something that I posted on the TH boards a while back)

Ernie "Doc" Vandeweghe was a medical student in the early 1950s who moonlighted as the Knicks' 6th man. Often he would get out of his classes at Columbia, rush to the Knicks game, often arriving after the game had started, before Joe Lapchick (the Knicks coach for Vandeweghe's whole career) would put him in the game. As a 6th man, Vandeweghe often finished games as a key part of the Knicks team that went to (and lost) three straight NBA Finals in the early 1950s. The Knicks lacked a superstar, but with Vandeweghe, Harry Gallatin, Dick McGuire, Nat Clifton, Vince Boryla, Connie Simmons, Max Zaslofsky, and Carl Braun (in '53) they were the deepest team in the league. When they reached the Finals, the Knicks were very competitive, but lost to teams with conventional 'stars'-Bob Davies' Rochester Royals in '51 and George Mikan's Lakers in '52 and '53. To make the losses even more painful, the Knicks lost the 1951 and 1952 Finals in 7 games, making them one of two teams to lose back to back 7 game Finals (the 69-70 Lakers are the other).

Ironically, Doc Vandeweghe was constantly limited by injuries, including a knee injury that effectively ended his career in 1954 when he was only 25, but when he was on the court, he was developing into an excellent player. His 1953 career high of 12 points per game on a .435 FG% along with 5.6 rebounds and 2.4 assists in 29 minutes does not seem to be all that impressive, but in a league where the average player shot 37% from the field, and teams averaged under 83 points a game, his numbers were good enough for 10th in the league in PER (obviously a simplified version of the current formula, as many of the stats used to calculate it weren't tracked in the 1950s). Vandeweghe also had a good defensive reputation, and was one of the best small forward/shooting guards in a league that was dominated by big men. How much did big men dominate in the early 1950s? I know PER is an imperfect measure, but in 1953, Vandeweghe's best season, 7 of the top 8 (and 14 of the top 20) players in PER were either centers or power forwards, Bob Cousy being the only exception (Bill Sharman, Bob Davies, Carl Braun, and Bobby Wanzer were the others who made it in the top 20). In 1952, only Cousy and small forward Paul Arizin (who spent 1953 and 1954 in the military) cracked the top 9.

Although he was a good basketball player, Vandeweghe is best known for his life off the court. After he retired, the Canadian-born doctor became a physician for the US Air Force. While he was stationed in Germany, his wife (and former Miss America Colleen Hutchins) gave birth to future NBA star Kiki Vandeweghe. However, Kiki was far from the only standout athlete the Vandeweghe clan produced. Kiki's sister Tauna was an Olympian swimmer, while younger brother Burk won a medal in beach volleyball in the 1994 Goodwill Games. The only member of the Vandeweghe family not to be a world class athlete is Ernie's daughter Heatherly, who became a doctor. The Vandeweghe sports dynasty has not stopped as two generations, either. Ernie's granddaughter CoCo (the family insists on interesting names, apparently) won the junior US Open in tennis in 2008. After leaving the military, Dr. Vandeweghe has served as an advisor to different medical, sports, and banking organizations, participated in President Gerald Ford's Olympic Sports Commission, and is still giving speeches and working at the age of eighty one.

Today's Ernie Vandeweghe...A lesser Manu Ginobili...If Mike Miller played defense...If Stephen Jackson was more selective.

More Ernie Vandeweghe fun...A reprint of a classic NY Times article from 1956 about Dr. Vandeweghe...The third part of a 1953 documentary on the Minneapolis Lakers that has some Vandeweghe highlights...An SI piece on the Vandeweghe family from 1969 (featuring a 10 year old Kiki)...Also, I'd be remiss not to mention this biography of Joe Lapchick.

What's The Point? A Short Introduction.

2009-12-08T20:46:00.002-05:00

The last thing the world needs is another blog. Especially a basketball blog written by someone who doesn't even pretend to be a basketball expert. While I can tell a pick and roll from a drive and kick, and know my PER from my Win Shares, there are plenty of other places that you can go for more in-depth analysis than I can provide. Instead, this a blog primarily about basketball history. This is a blog about Sam Lacey. This is a blog about Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf. This is a blog about Red Robbins. This is a blog that will give proper recognition to Dikembe Mutombo's postseason brilliance. This is a blog about the NBA and the ABA and the BAA and the NBL and (god willing) the ABL, but probably not the NBDL. This may even be a blog about Alex Groza. Finally, this is also a blog about the current NBA in which, in deference to established internet protocol, I will complain about Anthony Randolph's playing time and express amazement at the Rockets' refusal to take 16-23 foot jump shots. So, welcome to Waiting For Groza, where we're still waiting for the Indianapolis Olympians to fulfill their potential.