Archive for February, 2010


A Word About Aging Superstars

Filed Under: GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
02/27/2010

Recently, I’ve been thinking about the impact that aging has on a person. No, it’s not because I see the impact that aging has on my hairline every time I look in the mirror. Rather, it’s because of some of the things being done by aging superstars in the NBA.

As you all know, Tracy McGrady joined the Knicks recently. To date, he has played in 4 games for the Knicks, and has put up point totals of 26, 15, 6, and 23. When he puts up 20 or more points, it’s easy for Knicks fans to get excited that they have T-Mac, not as good as he once was, but still a star. When he puts up 6, it’s easy for Knicks fans to worry that the best player on their team is an old dude who just has nothing left. (By the way, McGrady is only 30, but, given his history of injuries, I think it’s non-controversial to say that he’s on the downside of his career, and group him with other “aging superstars.”)

Following McGrady’s short career with the Knicks reminds me of when I used to watch Lawrence Taylor play for the Giants at the end of his career. He clearly wasn’t as good as he had once been, no longer dominating games, or even making a consistent contribution. But, every time the ball was snapped, there was a sense that LT was going to do something spectacular. And sometimes he did. For moments, he looked like the LT we remembered, rather than an old dude with nothing left.

The point, for me, was that aging superstars can still be superstars sometimes. What they lose, generally, is not the ability to be spectacular at any given moment or for any given game, but, rather, what they lose is the ability to be consistently spectacular. The body can still do what it used to do – sometimes – but injuries take longer to heal, and fatigue sets in more quickly.

Think of Michael Jordan on the Wizards. Over an 82-game season, he wasn’t even good enough to lead them to the playoffs. But at times, he was brilliant. Do you remember the New Year’s Eve game when he dropped 43 points? Or just look at what Jason Kidd did last night: 19 points, 16 rebounds, and 17 assists. He’s not as good as he once was, but, on any given night, he can still be awesome.

If you’re with me so far, raise your hand. Good, it looks like you’re all with me.

If this is right, that aging superstars are still superstars, but only sometimes, I think it means that teams that have an aging superstar as one of their 2 best players are in trouble; they just have too many off nights from one of their top 2 guys to be a real force. I think this means that Dallas is in trouble, it’s hard to see them winning multiple 7-game series with Jason Kidd as one of their best two players (and, with due respect to Caron Butler, Kidd is one of their best two players). On the other hand, I think this yet another reason to recognize that LeBron has a very capable supporting cast; the second-best Cav, Mo Williams, is young, and an aging Shaq still looks like Shaq every once in a while (he had 20 points and 7 boards – on 9-for-13 shooting – on Tuesday night).

The most interesting teams to look at through this lens are the Spurs and Celtics. If the Celtics are healthy, then, at this point, their best two players are probably Rondo and Pierce. It’s not yet clear (to me, at least) whether Pierce is on the downside of his career, or whether he’s just suffering a drop in numbers because of nagging injuries. If he’s healthy, and he’s not yet on the downside of his career, then the Celtics‘ two best players are reliably consistent, and their supporting cast includes two aging superstars — who will like like Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett about once every 2 or 3 games. Not bad. Turning to the Spurs, Tim Duncan pretty clearly fits the profile of an aging superstar. Check out his Game Log; he has multiple games of 25 or more points, and multiple games of 15 or fewer points. If he’s one of their top two weapons, the Spurs are in trouble. But, if Ginobili and Parker are both healthy, and Duncan is their third-best option, that’s a scary team.

All of that said, I have a plan for the Knicks: They should sign the best two young stars they can get. Then they should surround those two dudes with a bunch of aging superstars. Keep McGrady. Add Iverson. Shaq. Ray Allen. Grant Hill. Rotate their minutes, so that McGrady Iverson, and Shaq play heavy minutes during the games when Hill and Allen rest. Then switch, so everyone stays fresh. Once every 2 or 3 games, they’ll look like the Dream Team.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Go Thunder

Filed Under: GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
02/23/2010

I think the Oklahoma City Thunder is my favorite team in the NBA. Am I the first person outside of the state of Oklahoma to ever utter that sentence?

(By the way, is it even a proper sentence? If the Celtics were my favorite team, I’d say the Celtics ARE my favorite team, not that the Celtics IS my favorite team. So, do I say that the Thunder IS my favorite team, or the Thunder ARE my favorite team? Oh, wait, I forgot… this is a blog for people who like basketball, not for dorks who waste time thinking about boring grammar questions. I should save my moronic grammar musings for my next blog that nobody is going to read: grammarvations.com)

Anyway, I’m all about the Thunder. There are a bunch of things about that team that I like:
1. They have a quiet, unassuming star. And he’s young. And he’s getting better. And his nickname is Durantula.
2. They built their team through the draft. I’m not sure why I find this so appealing, but I like that the main guys on the Thunder have been on the Thunder, I mean the Sonics, I mean the Sonics / Thunder for their whole careers. Nick Collison was drafted by Seattle, and never played for anyone else. Same with Jeff Green (actually, he was traded to the Sonics, but he never played for a different pro team). And Kevin Durant. And Russell Westbrook. And James Harden. This team didn’t get good just by signing one star and trading for another. This team was built methodically. Each draft pick complemented the others, and, collectively, they constitute an actual team.
3. They’re young, and, yet, accomplished. This team has multiple guys who played well for premier college teams. Durant was the Player of the Year at Texas. Harden was an All-American at Arizona State. Collison was an All-American on a Kansas team that went to the Final game. Russell Westbrook started for a UCLA team that went to the Final Four and Green started for a Georgetown team that did, too.

They have Serge Ibaka. That has to count for something.

These guys seem like good dudes, they’re young, and they’re good. Ever since the Knicks dissed my boy Ewing I’ve been a free-agent fan. I think I found my squad.

Tags: , , , ,
Comment

Thumbs Up To The Knicks For Getting T-Mac

Filed Under: '09 - '10 Season, GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
02/20/2010

Much has been said about the Knicks trading for T-Mac. If you’re interested in reading about it, and haven’t had the chance to, you can check out some other people’s opinions here, and here.

I don’t have anything particularly interesting to say about the salary-cap ramifications of the deal that hasn’t already been said: the Knicks cleared a bunch of cap space, which will prove to be a good thing if they sign 2 superstars, and will prove to be a complete waste if they don’t. I’ve already blogged that it’s very difficult to build a championship team via free agency, and I won’t repeat myself (if the number of comments are any indication, nobody thought it was particularly worthwhile the first time). It’s a risky move to give away draft picks in exchange for freeing up cap space, but if any team can build via free agency, the New York Knicks with a whole bunch o’ cap space is as likely a team as any other to get it done.

When talking about the McGrady trade, I’m more interested in exploring the possibility that he – T-Mac – actually winds up helping the Knicks for reasons that have nothing to do with the salary cap. To be clear, I haven’t even seen McGrady move in months. For all I know, he limps around, or grimaces when he walks. Obviously, if that’s the case, he ain’t helping the Knicks on the court. I have to assume, though, that for the Knicks to give up draft picks in the trade, they had to at least see that he moves fluidly and without pain on the court. If that’s the case, then I think an under-reported aspect of this trade is that McGrady himself could be a valuable piece to a solid Knicks team in the near future.

That’s because basketball, much more so than football or baseball, is a game dominated by stars. Role players are important, if the team already has stars in place. But role players alone won’t make a bad team good.

Whatever else may be true about McGrady, he has been a star before; he’s one of the few guys in the league who has ever been the best player on a playoff team. In fact, I don’t think there are more than 30 guys in the league who can make that claim. By my quick count, the list begins with the 16 guys who were the best player on a playoff team last year:
1. LeBron
2. Pierce
3. Joe Johnson
4. Dwight Howard
5. Wade
6. Andre Iguadala
7. Derrick Rose
8. Richard Hamilton
9. Kobe
10. Carmelo
11. Duncan
12. Brandon Roy
13. Yao
14. Dirk
15. Chris Paul
16. Deron Williams

It also includes the following guys:
1. Iverson
2. Nash
3. Shaq
4. Kidd
5. Chauncey Billups
6. T-Mac
7. Ray Allen
8. KG
9. Baron Davis (remember when the Warriors were a threat?)
10. Arenas
11. Vince Carter
12. Grant Hill

There are probably 2 or 3 guys that I’m forgetting, so let’s say there are about 30 guys in the league who were, at some point, the best player on a playoff team. One team in the league has three of them (Celtics), and 6 teams have 2 of them (Cavs, Magic, Mavs, Sixers, Nuggets, and Suns). Following me? That covers 15 of the 30 guys.

That leaves 23 other teams in the league and 15 other guys who have ever been the best player on a playoff team (and one of those 15 guys is Gilbert Arenas, who, um, has some issues).

Well, the Knicks just got one of those guys. I’m not saying he can lead them back to the playoffs — as I said, I don’t even know if he’s walking without a limp. I’m saying that he has breathed rarified air, and he’s only 30 years old. If he’s able to be 75% of what he once was, he’s probably good enough to be the second or third best player on a solid team.

Thumbs up, Knicks.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

No More Excuses For The Cavs Now, Right?

Filed Under: Comparing Players / Teams, NBA, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — 1 Comment
02/18/2010

Weeks ago, I hoopserved that LeBron’s supporting cast is quite good, and, not long before that, hoopserved that LeBron, for whatever reason, is often not judged by the same standards that people use to judge other superstars.

Well, now LeBron’s supporting cast also includes Antawn Jamison, and I hope that anyone who had doubts about LeBron’s supporting cast before is now ready to acknowledge that his supporting cast is more than adequate enough for a superstar to win a championship with.

Check some numbers:
Here is a list of last year’s top-40 PPG leaders. The list includes 3 guys (Jamison, Shaq, and Mo Williams) ASIDE FROM LEBRON who are currently on the Cavs. It doesn’t include 3 guys aside from Kobe who are currently on the Lakers. Or 3 guys aside from D-Wade who are currently on the Heat. Or 3 guys aside from Carmelo who are currently on the Nuggets. So we know that LeBron’s supporting cast is right up there with anyone else’s when it comes to scoring.

Of course, the game involves more than scoring. True. So, check out a list of last year’s top-40 RPG leaders. It, like the scoring list, includes 3 guys currently on the Cavs who are not named LeBron (Jamison, Varejeo, and Shaq).

It’s also worth noting that, when the teams in the league are ranked by opponent’s points per game, the Cavs are second in the league. LeBron certainly ain’t guarding all 5 guys on the opposing team every night, so his teammates have to get some credit for playing good D, too.

Sounds like a pretty good squad to me. A once-in-a-generation player would certainly be able to win a championship with that squad.

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

Looking Back, Looking Forward

Filed Under: '09 - '10 Season, NBA, Season Predictions by Tweener — Comments Off
02/13/2010

Now that the All-Star game is over, it’s a good time to look back at the NBA season so far, and also ahead at what’s to come.

I’ve made a bunch of predictions on this site, and voiced multiple opinions, and now is as good a time as any to see whether the season is shaping up consistent with my predictions and opinions.

Starting with the Eastern Conference overall, I predicted the following playoff teams:
1. Orlando
2. Boston
3. Cleveland
4. Atlanta
5. Miami
6. Chicago
7. Charlotte
8. Washington

Just about everyone expected Boston, Cleveland, Orlando and Atlanta to be the top-4, and it looks like they will be. I don’t deserve any credit for getting that group right, nor do I think I deserve to be knocked for the fact they will apparently finish in a different order. If the playoffs ended right now, the only one of the teams I picked to be in that would not be in is Washington. I’ll give myself a pass on that one because of everything that has happened in Washington, but I seem to have underestimated the Raptors, who, at 29-23, are currently the #5 team in the East.

Out West, I predicted the following:
1. Lakers
2. Nuggets
3. Spurs
4. Mavericks
5. Trailblazers
6. Hornets
7. Suns
8. OKC

I’ll give myself a pass for picking the Hornets (who, if the season ended today, would not be in), because my pick was motivated by the man-crush I have on Chris Paul, and he has been injured for a significant part of the season. I’ll give myself credit for picking the Suns and Thunder, both of whom were not in the playoffs last year, and would be in if the season ended today. And I’ll beat myself up for sleeping on the Jazz, who, at the moment, are the #3 seed.

Looking at some of my opinions more specifically, I was a big supporter of the Sixers’ decision to sign Allen Iverson. Before Iverson’s first game, Philly was 5-15. Right now, they are 20-32, which means that they’ve been 15-17 since the signing. Where I come from, that’s called an improvement. Granted, Iverson has missed a bunch of games since he came back, so it wouldn’t be fair to say that he turned the team around. But, it also wouldn’t be fair to say that the Sixers made a mistake by signing him. I’ll give myself credit for that opinion. (It’s fun to grade yourself, by the way… you can give yourself credit for just about anything, as long as you can come up with some justification that makes sense to yourself.)

Another opinion that has, so far, stood the test of time, was the opinion I expressed, on November 29th, that people were getting a bit too carried away about Brandon Jennings. At that time, the Bucks had a winning record, Jennings had recently put up a 55-point game, and people were in a tizzy about this rookie who dropped in the draft. I said that people were getting carried away. Right now, the Bucks no longer have a winning record, so I’ll give myself credit for that opinion, as well.

Then there’s the ranting I did about the Jazz. On January 28, I asked who on the Jazz was overrated: Williams, Boozer, or Sloan. I said that one of them had to be, because each was highly regarded, and, yet, the Jazz were nothing special.

Well… Ummm… Huh.

The Jazz, if the season ended today, would be the #3 seed out West. They’re 9-1 in their last 10 games. I think it’s safe to say that I was wrong about that one.

Yeah.

In fact, that one leaves me with so much egg on my face that it almost wipes out any credibility I developed otherwise.

So… now that my predictions seem to be right only slightly more often than they are wrong, it seems that I’m not particularly good at making predictions. Therefore, of course, I’ll make some more predictions:

Cleveland, currently the #1 seed in the East, will not be in the Finals. (NOTE: They might make a major trade, which could obviously change things.) When they are not, the conventional wisdom will be that LeBron has no teammates who know how to play the game, even though those teammates are all good enough to contribute to a 43-11 team.

Utah, currently the #3 seed out West, will finish lower than #3.

San Antonio, currently the #5 seed out West, will win at least one playoff series.

The Nets will win at least 9 games, but only barely.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

A Word About Lottery Picks

Filed Under: GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
02/13/2010

There were a few terrible games in the NBA this week. One was the Knicks-Kings. I caught a few minutes of that game towards the end of regulation, and I heard the announcer utter the sentence “Wilson Chandler needs to have the ball in his hands here.” I wondered whether that sentence had ever been uttered during an NBA game before, and realized that it probably had not been.

Then, on Wednesday, the Bucks – on the road – pounded the Nets by 20, to “improve” to 24-27. I wondered whether any team had ever improved to 24-27 by pounding its opponent by 20, and shocking absolutely nobody by doing so. I realized that no team probably ever had.

Then I wondered whether these games tell us anything about the NBA as a whole, and I realized that, as good as the NBA is near the top (I think the talent in the league is as good as I’ve ever seen it, and I’m quite impressed by multiple teams), the NBA is also quite weak at the bottom.

Then I watched part of the Rookie – Sophomore game, and listened to the announcers talk about the guys on the court having very bright futures. I wondered whether that was actually true, and realized that the announcers of the Rookie – Sophomore game essentially say the same thing every year.

Then I wondered whether I have anything worth blogging about that relates to any of these observations, and realized that, if I don’t get to it quick, my readers will feel like they just wasted their time reading 4 rambling paragraphs that make no coherent point.

So, I’ll attempt to make a coherent point. Here goes:

There are a couple of bad teams in the league, and there has to be something to learn from them. Somewhat remarkably, with a few exceptions, the teams that are bad have been bad for a while. The Knicks have been bad since Ewing left; the Kings have been bad since the Webber / Divac / Bibby group disbanded; the Nets have been bad since Jason Kidd left; the Warriors, with the exception of that exciting team led by Baron Davis and Stephen Jackson, have been bad since RUN TMC; and the Clippers have been bad since, well, since they’ve been the Clippers.

I say that it’s somewhat remarkable for bad teams to stay bad for a while, because the system is designed for that not to happen. The system is designed for the bad teams to become better, by giving them the highest draft picks. Sometimes, teams can turn around their fortunes with one pick (e.g. Cleveland drafting James, Denver drafting Anthony, and Miami drafting Wade). But many teams never seem to turn around their fortunes.

The easy explanation is just to say that the Clippers, Knicks, Bucks, etc. simply don’t know what they’re doing. And, to some extent, that’s a good explanation. But I think that’s only part of it. I think that part of the problem is that bad teams don’t respect the value of a top-5 pick enough.

Here’s what I mean: No team should ever plan to have multiple-top-5 picks within a few years. You have to be terrible for a while to have multiple-top-5 picks within a few years. And you don’t want to be terrible for a while.

Thus, if you have a top-5 pick, you need to treat it like it’s gold. If you think there’s a guy who can turn your franchise around, use it to take him, and then build a team around him. But, if you don’t think there’s a guy who can turn your franchise around, trade the pick. Get a veteran. Or more picks. Or a future pick. Whatever you do, don’t spend a top-5 pick on a guy who can’t turn your franchise around.

It seems simple enough, yet it’s very rare for top-5 picks to get traded. It’s much more common for top-5 picks to get used on talented guys who look good in the Rookie-Sophomore game, but never wind up turning the fortunes of their franchises around — which might explain why the fortunes of so many franchises never seem to turn around.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Zach Randolph Is An All-Star. What Does That Say About The NBA?

Filed Under: Comparing Eras, Comparing Players / Teams, GM Consultant, NBA, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — Comments Off
02/07/2010

Few developments in the NBA this season have been more surprising than the Grizzlies becoming a playoff contender, or, more specifically, the Grizzlies being led to playoff contention by Zach Randolph. After spending the last few years on the Knicks and Clippers, Randolph was so far removed from playoff contention that he wasn’t even able to watch the playoffs on TV – he had to travel 100 miles to the nearest sports bar in order to watch them. Now he’s the best player on a team fighting for a playoff spot in the Western Conference.

What does this tell us about the NBA? I see at least three things:
Lots of players come into the league with lots of hype, at
a very young age. If they don’t produce quickly, they are written off as disappointments. Yet, even after a few years of disappointing play, they are still young and talented. Randolph is only 28 years old. In other walks of life, it isn’t considered strange for a person to be better at his job and more mature when he’s 28 than he was when he was 24. It shouldn’t seem all that crazy when a 28-year-old player finally “gets it,” and starts to approach his potential.

The game is not “evolving” to a place where good post players are obsolete, as some have wondered. Teams with guys who like to operate in the paint have an advantage over teams that try to win exclusively from the perimeter.

We’re at a moment now where there are very few excellent post players. So, the opportunity exists for a guy like Zach Randolph to step up and dominate. Consider: KG is now a shell of his old self. Things like this now happen to Shaq. More importantly, three of the best young big men are out for the season; Yao, Greg Oden, and Blake Griffin. Plus, the stars of the future, like Jordan Hill, are just getting their feet under them. Actually, strike that last sentence. I got to see much of the Cavs-Knicks game yesterday, and it became clear that Jordan Hill is simply another version of Anderson Varejo, but one that grabs fewer rebounds and makes fewer hustle plays.

Still, the point remains that three of the best young big men in the Western Conference are injured this year. The table is set perfectly for Zach Randolph to sit down and feast. If he’s an All-Star NEXT YEAR, then that will be a big deal. Becoming an All-Star this year is a good accomplishment, but, really, he’s just filling a void.

Tags:
Comment

Random Thoughts

Filed Under: '09 - '10 Season by Tweener — Comments Off
02/03/2010

I had the good fortune to attend two live NBA games in the last 8 days. The first was the Knicks-T’Wolves game on January 26th. Remarkably, the Knicks – who were 17-26 the moment the ball tipped – completely squashed the Wolves. The Knicks jumped out to a 15-0 lead, and were up by 28 at one point in the first quarter. Yes, the first quarter. The only reasonable conclusion to draw was that the Wolves had to be one of the worst teams in league history to get pounded so badly by a 17-26 team. Then, 5 days later, the ‘Wolves pounded the Knicks by 21. Thus, the Knicks are bad enough to get pounded by a team that was humiliated by a 17-26 team only a few days before.

I’m not sure what conclusion to draw. Perhaps the teams are inconsistent. Perhaps they are just both bad basketball teams, each capable of being absolutely horrific on any given night. Or perhaps they are both very good at home. Um, no. That’s not it. It must be something else.

On a different note, I was at the Celtics-Lakers game on Sunday. What a joy to watch. The teams were good, and, no less importantly, it actually felt like a basketball game. They didn’t have ridiculous entertainment during each timeout, like the Knicks and the Heat have (as I’ve blogged before). During timeouts, they played music to get the crowd going, and showed pictures of fans cheering for the home team on the JumboTron. Good for the Celtics.

Separately, I was hoopserving the All-Star rosters today, and noticed something. If you believe that a player is usually in his prime between the ages of 29 and 31, then the ages of the guys on these rosters are almost the exact opposite of what you would expect them to be. Check it out: of the 24 All-Stars, 7 were born before 1/1/79, which means that they are at least 31 years old. 14 of them were born after 1/1/82, which means that they are not yet 28 years old (for purposes of simplicity, I’m pretending today is January 1st instead of February 3rd).

A digression for a second… two of the All-Stars, Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant, were born in 1988. Yup. Nineteen-friggin’-eighty-eight. I was already getting rejected by girls in 1988; these guys weren’t even crawling yet. Sigh.

Digression over… Only 3 of the 24 All-Stars were born in 1979, 1980, or 1981, even though the guys born in those years are the guys one would expect to be in their primes right now. So, there are 7 guys over 31, 14 guys under 29, and only 3 guys who are 29, 30, or 31.

I, for one, have no idea why this is. Was there some rule change in AAU basketball that impacted the guys from ’79, ’80, and ’81? Did something happen in the NCAA around the time those guys were in college? Is there any reasonable explanation for why this would be the case?

Tags:
Comment