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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)