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.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Why is Dallas "Clutch"?
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
NBA Finals Preview
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.
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.
Monday, May 9, 2011
NBA Draft Mockery 1.0
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.
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.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
So, The Mavs Are Pretty Good
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.
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.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Alien Clone Ghost NBA Team, etc
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.]
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.]
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Revisionist History: ReDraft 2006
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
#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
Friday, April 1, 2011
Historical Comparables: DeMarcus Cousins
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Goliath Always Wins: Alpha Dogs
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?
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?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
Goliath Always Wins: Playoffs?!?
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Changing Things Up
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.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Waiting For Groza Now On Twitter
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Shallow Thought Of The Day, Vol XIII
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.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Season Preview: Southwest Divison, Flotsam, and Jetsam
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
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
Monday, October 25, 2010
Season Preview: Pacific Divison
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!
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
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.
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.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Season Preview: Southeast Divison
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!
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
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)