Category: ’10 – ’11 Season


Crossing the Line

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Comparing Eras, NCAA by Tweener — 2 Comments
04/03/2011

With only two teams left in the NCAA tournament, and a whole bunch o’ craziness behind us, I’m not really into it.   I acknowledge, at the outset, that part of this might just be sore-loser syndrome; Syracuse — my pick to win the whole thing — got bounced in the second round (and the pain was magnified by the fact that my budget for the next three months assumed that I would win my tournament pool — which, I have to admit, is nobody’s fault but my own).

Still, though, simply as a fan of the game, I’m not feeling this tournament.  I mean, I’m all for a good upset now and then to keep things exciting, but I think there’s a thin line between a good amount of upsets and complete chaos, and I think we’re now on the wrong side of that line.  Whether this is a one-time fluke, or a manifestation of a larger problem, is yet to be seen.

Unfortunately, there are some signs indicating that the college game is heading for trouble.  To get into a discussion about the state of the game, it probably makes sense to start at the foundation, and all big-time college sports are built on a shaky foundation.  The problem is that, in theory, the athletic teams are comprised of student-athletes, but, in reality, especially in men’s basketball, today’s athletes don’t seem so worried about being students.  I’m not one of those dudes who romanticizes previous eras; seasons played before the game was integrated are, in my opinion, illegitimate.  And I can find things to criticize about the game during each of the decades since.

That said, the game is not as good now as I remember it being in the past.  In my mind, the “golden era” of college hoops was the late ’70′s – mid ’80′s, when Magic, Larry, Isiah, Michael, Ewing, Mullin, and Derrick Coleman were doing their thing.  Even though a bunch of those guys left school before graduating, the sense was that they were student-athletes.  I don’t want to sound naive, and I’ll acknowledge that I have no idea whether Larry Bird, Derrick Coleman, or Chris Mullin actually went to class.  But at least they faked having a real connection to their schools.  It’s not like they showed up, played a season, and disappeared without even completing their second semesters.  Now that’s the norm at some of the big-time programs, like Kentucky.  Considering that all big-time college sports are built on a shaky foundation, consistently forcing fans to question the legitimacy of what’s being presented to them as “college basketball” is like playing with fire.

But that’s only part of the problem.  The number of guys who are capable of being “one-and-doners” is small enough that it wouldn’t have a broad impact on the game if there weren’t other issues.  But there are.  The main one, in my opinion, is that the game is so unpredictable that deep storylines don’t develop.  As I’ve blogged multiple times, the “experts” don’t have a clue what’s going on.  It’s now standard for a team that was hardly ever — if ever — ranked in the Top 25 to make the Final Four.  Some people look at this fact and see excitement, I look and see chaos.

See, I like a good storyline or two.  I like teams to emerge as powerhouses during the course of a season, and then clash in the tournament.  I like teams that get better as the season goes on, peaking around the time the tournament begins.  But when the teams who limp into the tournament wind up bullying around the teams that bullied their opponents around all season, it suggests that the season is close to meaningless.

Sure, there will always be good storylines, given the nature of the game.  When two traditional powerhouses play, it’s a story, even if they’re having sub-par seasons.  When a powerhouse plays an upstart, it’s the ol’ David v. Goliath storyline.  And when two upstarts meet in an important game, it also makes for compelling theater.

The problem is that those storylines exist by default; if that’s all the game has to offer, then it is in a damaged state.  In order to really grasp people, the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight need to include multiple teams with a few pro prospects on each, multiple traditional powerhouses, and multiple teams that have gotten fans’ attention over the course of the season.  If the teams people got familiar with while watching for months are not the teams still playing in the Elite Eight and Final Four, it fosters a sense of confusion that borders on complete chaos.

There’s plenty more venting to do, but I’ll stop. For now, I’m going to watch UCONN play Butler, and let the basketball fan inside of me enjoy a hard-fought game.  But, come next November, when the polls come out, and ESPN starts hyping the “big-time” teams it wants me to watch, I’ll be watching the NBA.  And when CBS starts broadcasting The Road To The Final Four, I’ll be in my car on The Road To Something Else To Do.  At the rate things are going, I see little reason to pay attention to the regular season.

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

Let the Madness Begin

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Comparing Eras, NCAA by Tweener — Comments Off
03/15/2011

And here we are, ladies and gentlemen.  March Madness.

I have a bunch of hoopservations about the college game, none of which is worthy of more than four or five sentences.  Thus, here is a potpourri of mini hoopservations:

1a.  For starters, this is not the site to come to for upset picks based on super-duper-insider info and fantastic scouting reports.  If you want that kind of analysis, keep surfing the ‘net and you’ll find it without too much trouble.  I’ve never seen St. Peter’s play.  Or Indiana State.  Or Belmont.  In fact, I thought Belmont was a horse race, not a college.

1b.  Great, I just offended all of my readers from Belmont.  When you only have eight loyal readers, you can’t afford to offend anyone, but I just did.  No wonder I’m having so much trouble attracting new readers.

2.  BYU, at one point this season, looked like a legit contender.  Then it suspended one of its best players for having sex with his girlfriend.  I have plenty of opinions about this, but they’d certainly offend some people and, well, I just can’t afford to offend anyone at this point.

3.  Is it too early to declare the expansion to 68 teams a failure?  If not, what additional information do we need before we are able to determine that the expansion was a bad idea?

4.  Jeff Capel got fired this week.  Not the biggest story out there, I know, but I think it’s interesting because of what it says about the way we perceive college coaches.  When Capel made VCU competitive, he was a hot young candidate for a job at a bigger program.   He took the job at Oklahoma, and did quite well, when he had Blake Griffin.  Since losing Griffin, he hasn’t done so well.  Funny how that works.  Take a step back and look at this: when he makes a team like VCU competitive, people think he’s a coaching prodigy.  When he recruits Blake Griffin, people think the praise was worthwhile.  Then when he loses Griffin and stops winning, people think he doesn’t even deserve to keep his job.  How about some perspective, folks?

5.  Last year, I hoopserved that tournament upsets, contrary to popular belief, generally did not involve a team with five underrated upperclassmen beating a team with five overrated underclassmen.  Rather, they generally involved a lower-seeded team having a star who carried it to a win.  (Here, if you’re interested.) In light of that, I looked at the list of this year’s leading scorers, and note that teams to keep an eye on are Penn St. (Talor Battle averages 20.1 ppg), Wofford (Noah Dalman averages 20 ppg),and BU (John Holland averages 19.2 ppg).  If you’re kind of into this angle, but you’re more interested in rebounds than points, I note that the list of leading rebounders includes Nikola Vucevic from USC (10.2 rpg) and Keith Benson from Oakland (10.1 rpg).

6.  It’s interesting that people can see what they want in this tournament.  Those who are down on the game will see that the top eight seeds are about as weak as the top eight seeds have been in a while.  Florida?  Notre Dame?  They’ll also see that the tournament is wide open, essentially because there is a lot of mediocrity, and very few teams that have potential for greatness.  Those who are not down on the game will see a lot to like about this tournament.  For starters, the defending national champion returns multiple critical starters, and heads into the tournament as a #1 seed.  And, they will see a bunch of potentially great matchups.  UCLA-Michigan State in Round 1?!? Seriously?  Plus, a potential matchup of St. John’s, the revitalized school from NYC, and BYU, the school that kicked a player off of its team for violating the school’s Honor Code — an Honor Code that, as I understand things, does not allow students to drink caffeine.  Like I said, I’m not going to comment on BYU’s decision, but you don’t need my commentary to see that St. John’s / BYU would be an interesting clash.  Looking down the road, a potential Ohio State / Syracuse matchup would be awesome.  Another run from Butler would be thrilling.  And, don’t forget, Kemba Walker might just grab the whole bracket by the throat and not let go.

I don’t know about you, but I’m psyched.

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

Calling Out The Sports Guy

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Comparing Players / Teams, Evolution of the Game, GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
03/09/2011

I meant to do this sooner, but, well I’ve been busy with, um… all that wild and crazy stuff I spend my time doing.  Like, really wild.  And really crazy.  Way too insane for me to put in writing, even while writing under a pseudonym.

The Sports Guy, whom I generally like and often agree with, posted his list of the top 50 NBA players ranked by trade value.  (In other words, not just the pure top 50 at the moment, but the top 50 when accounting for salary and age.)  I’m well aware that putting together such a list would be difficult, and I’m not going to nitpick.

There is, however, one glaring problem with the list.  Specifically, the Sports Guy ranked Tyreke Evans #39.

I couldn’t disagree more strongly.  In fact, I think Tyreke Evans might be the least valuable player in the entire league.  Literally, the least valuable.  The absolute very last guy in the league I would want on my team if I was a GM and we were drafting all of the players in the league.

To be clear, I have nothing against Evans.  I’m sure he’s a fine fellow.  I am not saying that there are not a  variety of different careers that he’d be good at — in fact I’m not commenting on his other career possibilities at all.  It just so happens, though, that he decided to pursue a career as a basketball player, and, well, I’m a basketball blogger who spends his free time commenting on basketball players.  Thus, me commenting on Tyreke’s chosen career path is entirely appropriate.

To understand my issue with Tyreke Evans, it’s important first to establish what, in my opinion, makes a basketball player valuable to a given team.  As I’ve blogged elsewhere (here and here, if you’re interested), there are generally two components of good teams:

1. They have players who perform specific basketball roles (passing, shooting, penetrating, rebounding, defending).  Usually, the teams with five guys who play the five positions as they have traditionally been played are well on their way to ensuring that they have guys performing each of the necessary roles.

2.  They have players who are in the “right spot” on the roster to win.  This means that the team’s best player is good enough to be the best player on a good team, that its second best player is suited to be the second best player on a good team, etc.  Taking, say, the guy who was the best player on a decent team, and plugging him into a roster where he’s, say, the third-best player, does not necessarily lead to success.  (See, e.g., Bosh, Christopher.)

Any team that puts Tyreke Evans on its roster is essentially saying that they think they can ignore these hoopservations.  Well, ignore my hoopservations at your own peril, NBA GM’s.  Keep ignoring me, and you might wind up like the Kings.

To elaborate a bit:  Tyreke Evans does not fit into any of the five traditional roles on a basketball team.  They call him a “point guard,” but a PG’s primary job is to get his team a good shot (whether it’s him or someone else who shoots it).  Evans jacks up a bunch of bad shots.  To be sure, Derrick Rose is not a traditional PG, either, and his shooting percentage is not particularly high, yet the Bulls are doing just fine.  That’s true, but it doesn’t validate Evans.  It merely leads to the second point…

Evans dominates the ball.  He’s not going to be the third guy on a good team — it’s just not his nature.  If he’s on your team, he’s one of the top dogs.  That’s true of Rose, too. The difference is that Rose is good enough to handle the load.  Evans just isn’t as good as Rose.  Once you step outside of the paradigm of the traditional positions, you have to be extra good to make it work.

At bottom, a team that has Evans is trapped.  It can’t add other stars, because his game just isn’t designed to complement other star players.  Yet, it won’t ever be good because, well, he’s just not good enough to be a lead player on a good team.  Thus, while he is “talented” in terms of being fast, strong, and agile, and also “skilled” in terms of being able to dribble and potentially do some other things, there is no reason to put him on your roster.  He’s kind of like Jerry Stackhouse, who scored lots of points and had lots of skills, but, when all was said and done, played in the league for 14 years and only once was an important player on a team that went deep into the playoffs (the ’05-’06 Mavs).

Is he literally the least valuable player in the league?  I dunno.  What I know is that, if I were running an NBA team, I wouldn’t want him in my starting lineup.  And when the time came to fill out my bench, I certainly wouldn’t look for a guy like him.  In any event, even if it made sense from a basketball standpoint, he’s going to command enough money that it doesn’t make sense from a financial standpoint to have him on your bench.  My advice to all of the NBA GM’s reading this (ahem) is let someone else pay him that money.

The Sports Guy should know better.

Tags: , , , ,
Comment

Red Storm Rising

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, NCAA by Tweener — Comments Off
02/26/2011

After beating Villanova today, the St. John’s Red Storm has victories over Georgetown, Notre Dame, Duke, UCONN, Pitt, and Villanova.  They’ve risen from being an unranked team to being the #25 team in the country, and should continue to climb once the new rankings come out.

Shouldn’t they be higher?  Like, much higher?  I guess voters are reluctant to place a team with nine losses too high.  To be fair, no team ranked ahead of them had lost as many games as of the time last week’s rankings came out.

Ok, fine.  Don’t voters, though, look closely at the quality of the opponents?  If so, didn’t they look at the Red Storm’s schedule and see that five of St. John’s losses came to teams consistently ranked within the top 25 this year — some even in the top ten: Notre Dame, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, and St. Mary’s.  Of those five teams, St. John’s avenged its loss against two of them: Notre Dame and Georgetown, splitting its season series with each of those teams.

It’s hard to imagine that a team from New York could be underrated, and it’s particularly hard to imagine that happening if it’s a Big East team from New York that has beaten Duke.  Yet, that seems to be what’s happening.

Perhaps the Red Storm will shoot up the rankings this week, or earn a high seed in the NCAA tournament in spite of a relatively low ranking in the polls, and this will all be moot.  For now, all that’s clear is that St. John’s is a force, and teams with championship aspirations should hope that they’re able to stay out of the path of this Storm for a long time.

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

And So It Ends.

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, NBA by Tweener — 2 Comments
02/24/2011

The Timofey Mozgov Era in New York is officially over. What to make of it now that it’s done? Well, as they say… you can’t spell Timofey without OFEY.

I’ve been discussing the ‘Melo trade with a bunch of folks. People generally seem to agree with me, that it was a good move. To the extent that they don’t, there are a few points that continue to get raised that I don’t agree with.

For starters, I’ve heard a few people say that they don’t mind giving up Chandler, Gallo, and Mozgov, but including the Felton for Billups swap really eats at them. I’m sorry, but when did Raymond Felton become better than Chauncey Billups? I must have fallen asleep for that part of the show or something. No disrespect to Felton, whom I like and enjoyed watching, but Billups has started at PG for an NBA champion, has an NBA Finals MVP Award, and has been an All-Star five times. (Here’s his wikipedia bio.)  He’s 34, I know, but it’s not like he’s breaking down — he was an All-Star just last year.  And spare me this chatter about him not being “designed for D’Antoni’s system.”  As of the moment the deal got made, the Nuggets were leading the NBA in scoring; Chauncey was their PG and second-best offensive player.  There are things that Felton does better, but this guy is ready to lead a high-octane offense.

I also keep hearing that the Knicks are going to be terrible at defense.  Well, that might be true, I’m not going to address it here.  I will, though, hoopserve that, if they happen to somehow figure out a way to ever get their opponent to miss, the Knicks are quite likely to get the rebound; they now have three of the NBA’s top-29 rebounders (Amar’e, Carmelo, and Landry Fields).  That doesn’t include Turiaf, who should pull down some boards once his minutes go up.

The last point I’ll make about the Knicks at the moment is that they wound up with three guys who have contributed to championship teams at a high level: Chauncey was a critical part of the Pistons’ championship team, Carmelo was the main man when Syracuse won, and Corey Brewer was a starter on the Florida Gators’ repeat championship teams.  I’m not saying this team is winning the championship, but that’s worth something.

Of course, the ‘Melo deal wasn’t the only big deal to go down.  Nobody is interested in reading my detailed breakdown of each deal, so I won’t go there.  For now, I’ll only hoopserve that some teams that were kind of on the border between contenders and pretenders made aggressive moves to get better: Atlanta got Hinrich, Oklahoma City got a legit big man (Perkins), the Blazers added Gerald Wallace, and the Grizzlies got Battier.  Each conference has more than four legitimate teams — it wouldn’t be shocking to see an upset or two.

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

The ‘Melo Drama Nears Resolution

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Evolution of the Game, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
02/20/2011

I’m trying to find something coherent to read on the internet about the Carmelo Anthony situation, but I can’t.  So, I figured I’d set out to write the only coherent posting on the internet about it.

The only problem is that I have nothing coherent to say about it.  Admittedly, that’s kind of a big problem.

Oh, well.  Instead of trying to say something coherent, I’ll just add to all of the incoherent material that’s already out there.  I’ve got a bunch of thoughts about the whole thing.  If you’re interested in reading yet another incoherent posting about it, well, read on!

Thought 1:  This is all LeBron’s fault.  Seriously.  Now, superstars can’t compete for a title if they aren’t on a team with other superstars.  Yet, at the same time, they don’t want to look like jerks the way LeBron did, so they don’t want to totally crush the franchise they are leaving behind.  If someone wanted to write a manual about how superstar players are supposed to handle the situation, I have no idea what the manual would say.

Thought 2:  We can debate whether or not Carmelo deserves to be thought of as a “superstar,” but, at least in terms of evaluating whether he’s acting like a jerk, it’s a moot point, because he thinks of himself as one and the free agent market is going to treat him like one if he ever winds up as a free agent.  So he’s got to act according to the new rules of how superstars act if they want to win a championship, and that’s what he is doing — bailing on his current team for a team with at least one other star.  Without, of course, looking like he forced that to happen.

Thought 3: I keep reading that part of the trade is that the Knicks trade Anthony Randolph and wind up with a first-round pick that they then send to Denver.  (Like here, for example.)  Anthony Randolph?  For a FIRST ROUND PICK?  Seriously?  I mean, if an NBA GM was willing to accept Anthony Randolph onto his roster, and, in exchange, was willing to give up his first round pick in his 2013 FANTASY BASEBALL DRAFT, that would make sense to me.  But giving up a first round pick in the NBA draft?  The one where real-life basketball prospects are drafted?  For Anthony Randolph?  That guy is averaging 2 points and 2 rebounds per game.  What am I missing?

Thought 4:  Denver’s management did not handle this the right way.  I recognize that they’re in a difficult spot; they can’t afford to get nothing back for Carmelo, but they can’t just pull the trigger on the first offer that passes the smell test because they also have to make sure that they get the best offer they can.  I get it.

The problem is that they’ve let this get too close to the deadline, presumably because they’re holding onto the hope that he’ll re-sign there.   They should have given Carmelo an internal deadline: sign the extension by ___, or we’re pulling the offer.  Once we pull the offer, we’re going to solicit offers from other teams, make it clear that we want to make a deal soon, and move on with our lives. And if anyone in the press asks why we traded you for 60 cents on the dollar, we’re going to tell them that you let our internal deadline pass and we couldn’t afford to get nothing for you.

Thought 5:  The Knicks’ management is not handling this the right way, either.  When I say that, I’m assuming that they want him on the team, and that they recognize it’s worth paying a high price for him.  I’ve already addressed this from a basketball perspective, and I’m not re-visiting that here.  (Go here and here if you’re interested.)  I’m just saying that, assuming they want him, they ran a big risk by letting this go on so long.  Whenever I discuss this with friends, the ones who disagree with me saying that the Knicks need to trade for him tell me that he’s going to come here as a free agent.  My response is that they don’t have a GUARANTEE that he’s going to come here as a free agent, because if they did it would be tampering. So if they want to be sure that they get him, they have to trade for him.

Thought 6: I get that superstars want to win titles.  And I get that they want to team up with other star players, to maximize their chances.  But I don’t get why they’re such bad recruiters.  I mean, why couldn’t LeBron ever convince a star to sign with the Cavs?  And why couldn’t ‘Melo ever convince a star to sign with the Nuggets?  If the answer is that they don’t want to play for small-market teams like the Cavs and Nuggets, then is there any realistic chance for teams like that to get good?

Thought 7: Putting aside the fact that I like Carmelo, like the Knicks, and want him to wind up here, this whole thing is depressing from the perspective of someone who simply wants what’s good for the game.  I have to hope that, in the future, teams and their star players heading into the last year of their contracts will realize that the time to strike a deal is before that last contract year begins.  Or that the next collective bargaining agreement addresses this productively.  The league will take a hit if this keeps happening.

Thought 8:  Ahh… who am I kidding?  Nobody wants to read 8 of my rambling thoughts in one sitting.  I’m just happy you got this far.  Agree or disagree with anything I said?  If so, I hope you’ll comment!

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

Does Bo Know Greatness?

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Comparing Players / Teams, NCAA, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — 2 Comments
02/13/2011

After beating Ohio State yesterday, the Wisconsin Badgers, and their coach, Bo Ryan, are getting lots of praise.  All of a sudden, Bo knows the spotlight.  And anyone paying attention has to acknowledge that his accomplishments are quite impressive.

He’s taken the Badgers to the Sweet Sixteen a few times, and the Elite Eight once.  He’s had them at the top of the polls, and consistently in the top 20.  The Badgers are 150-11 under Ryan at home.  Seriously.  150-11.

So, how good is he?  I’m certainly not here to bash him, but I have to note that the reason he’s 150-11, and, yet, still not typically discussed among the greats like Coach K, Tom Izzo, Jim Boeheim, Jim Calhoun, and a handful of others, is that he’s never won the whole thing.

I was talking to one of my friends who graduated from Wisconsin about Bo, and acknowledged that I didn’t realize just how impressive his accomplishments were.  (This was on Friday, before the upset of Ohio State.)  I also, though, noted that he’s the coach of a big-time program that consistently ranks in the top 20.  He’s got the profile and the resources to compete with anyone.

My friend’s answer was that he doesn’t recruit stars — he plays a specific system and he only recruits guys who are able to excel in that system.  He doesn’t want hotshot young talents, and they don’t want to play for him.

I think my friend is right, and Ryan deserves some credit for sticking to his principles.  But, at the end of the day, is it a strength or a weakness?

Think about it.  Why doesn’t he win championships?  Because he doesn’t recruit the caliber of player it takes to win championships.  Why doesn’t he — the coach of a big-time program with plenty of resources — recruit that caliber of player?  Because he has a specific system, and he only recruits guys who will excel in that system.  And why does he stick so strictly to that system?  Because he wants to win.

Well, ok… then shouldn’t we judge him by whether he won the whole thing or not?

Again, I’m not bashing the guy, I’m just raising the point.  How highly do we rank him among other coaches?  He runs his program with principles and discipline, and beats lots of good teams in the process.  But he doesn’t win the whole thing, which is generally what we expect great coaches to do.

Thoughts?  I hope you’ll share them.  In the meantime, lookout for the Badgers.  They’re climbing up the rankings, winning as a disciplined team, without any superstars.  Because, well, their coach doesn’t want any.

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

Marching Towards March

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, NCAA by Tweener — 4 Comments
02/06/2011

Ah, February… Scarves, gloves, shovels, hats, frozen windshields, slippery roads, and yellow snow.  At least the college basketball season is heating up!

A few notes about the NCAA before the MADNESS is upon us:

1.  Jimmer Fredette.  He’s the real deal; unlimited range, and good enough going to the rim that he keeps the defense honest.  Kind of reminds me of Stephen Curry at Davidson a few years ago.

Last year, when “mid-majors” were upsetting majors in the tournament, I hoopserved that, although conventional wisdom is that those upsets happen because the mid-major teams are more likely to have a bunch of seniors and juniors who had played together for years and mastered the system they played in, the victorious “mid-major teams” generally weren’t winning with gimmicky zone defenses or backdoor cuts on offense — they were generally winning because they had the best player on the court.  (Here.)  I’m going to be sure to keep that lesson in mind when I’m filling out my bracket, and deciding how far I think BYU is going to go.

2.  Jared Sullinger on Ohio State averages more than 18 ppg, 10 rpg, and shoots better than 58%.  My kind of player (which is ironic, considering that I break out in hives whenever I come within 2 feet of the paint).  Ohio State will be limited by the fact that they haven’t played a very tough schedule, but if there’s a way to overcome that problem, it’s with a big man who likes to operate down low — like Sullinger.

3.  The Big East is very tough to make sense of.  Lots of Big East teams are, or have been, ranked very highly.  And a bunch of these teams have lost conference games, making it difficult to determine whether the Big East is (1) simply much better and deeper than the other conferences, or (2) full of a bunch of mediocre teams, none of whom will be able to generate a head of steam heading into the tournament.

I’m not entirely sure how to answer that question, but it must be worth something that:

Pitt beat Texas, the #3 team in the country, and so did UCONN;

St. John’s beat Duke, the #5 team in the country;

UCONN beat Kentucky, the #10 team in the country, and

Syracuse beat Michigan State, back when Michigan State was the #8 team in the country.  Of course, since that game, Michigan State essentially fell apart, suggesting that it did not deserve to be ranked so highly in the first place.

That’s probably true, but it only shows us that traditional rivals to the Big East, such as the Big 10, are not exactly making a strong case to be recognized as the best conference in the country.  The rankings may be off, but it has to mean something that the Big East currently has three teams in the top 10 (Pitt, UCONN, Notre Dame) and four in the next 10 (Villanova, Georgetown, Syracuse, Louisville).  Unless my calculator is broken, that’s seven teams in the top 20, in a year when San Diego State and BYU are consistently ranked in the top 10.

Basically, even though they’ve burned me before, I’ll be picking Big East teams to advance deep into the tournament.  Well… at least until they run into Jared Sullinger’s Buckeyes or Jimmer’s Cougars.

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

Just Sayin’

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
01/28/2011

Right now, 45 games into their season, the Miami Heat are 31-14.

Last year, when LeBron had a supporting cast that was theoretically not even close to being as good as the “supporting cast” he has now, the Cavs, after 45 games, were 34-11. (Is it fair to call LeBron’s current teammates a “supporting cast,” given that one of them is arguably better than he is?)

Why is this?  Well, it’s complicated.  We’ll explore some of the reasons over the next few weeks.

For now, I’m just pointing it out.

Tags: , , ,
Comment

More ‘Melo Musings

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, GM Consultant, NBA, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — Comments Off
01/26/2011

It’s been a few weeks since I blogged about the possibility of the Knicks getting ‘Melo (here, if you missed it or want to read it again).  Well, the guys on local sports radio are still talking about it (and so are the guys on the podcasts I listen to), so I might as well keep going.

Add him, Knicks.  Like, yesterday.

From the people who don’t think it makes sense for the Knicks to acquire him, I hear two general themes: (1) that he isn’t “efficient” on offense, and (2) that he isn’t very good on defense.  I’ll address them in turn.

He Isn’t “Efficient” On Offense: As the argument goes, Carmelo takes a bunch of bad shots, and is a “ball-stopper.”  The guys who make this argument back it up with some new-age statistics.  I’d respond with some statistics of my own, but, in my experience, people typically aren’t interested in reading nerds argue about basketball statistics and, well, I’m having enough trouble recruiting readers as it is.  So I’ll stay away from a heavy statistical argument.

Here’s the deal: the Nuggets were 17-65 the season before Carmelo arrived.  Now, they’re consistently one of the top-10 offensive teams in the league, as measured by total points scored.  (Last year – #3; 2008-09 – #6)  During each of those seasons, Carmelo was their leading scorer.

So… either Carmelo is “efficient” on offense, or Nene and the Birdman have been operating at a level of “efficiency” never seen before, in order to make up for his deficiencies.  I don’t need complicated statistics to tell me which of those two things has been going on in Denver.

He Isn’t Very Good On Defense: Some Knicks fans believe that Carmelo, on the defensive end, represents a significant dropoff from Wilson Chandler. To hear them talk about it, you’d think that Wilson Chandler plays D like Scottie Pippen, and Carmelo gets all of his points by cherry-picking.

Talking about defense is tricky, for at least two reasons: (1) it’s harder to measure statistically than offense, and (2) even when watching a game, it’s easier to identify good offense than good defense – the difference between “good defense” and “bad defense” on a given possession can be imperceptible to a casual observer, like, for example, a good defender getting his hand within 2 inches of a shot and a bad defender getting within 4 inches of a shot.

Frankly, I haven’t sat down with hours of video comparing Carmelo and Wilson Chandler reacting on defense in similar situations.  So, maybe I’m just missing something.  But I’ve seen enough of Wilson Chandler to know that he’s no Scottie Pippen, and I’ve seen enough of Carmelo to know that, whatever his defensive shortcomings may be, he’s spent his entire NBA career as the best player on a playoff team.  (And he won the national championship during his only year at Syracuse.)  If he’s not playing any defense, opposing coaches are doing a pretty lousy job taking advantage of that.

And the statistics, for what they’re worth, undermine the argument that Chandler is a significantly better defender than Carmelo.  Chandler, for his career, averages .7 steals per game, .9 blocks per game, and 5.3 rebounds per game.  (As my coach always said, rebounding is a part of defense, because getting a rebound takes an opportunity away from the other team to score.)  Carmelo, for his career, averages 1.1 steals per game, .5 blocks per game, and 6.3 rebounds per game. Consider that Carmelo plays more minutes per game, and it’s about a statistical wash.

Yes, I understand that the Knicks would be giving up more than just Wilson Chandler, but Chandler, from what I’m hearing, would be the main piece.  Landry Fields is good, and draft picks are nice to have, but those things shouldn’t hold up a trade for Carmelo Anthony.

At bottom, there are two fundamental reasons to get Carmelo: the first is that he’s one of only a handful of players in the league – there are, what, 10 of them? – with a track record of consistently being the primary scorer on a high-scoring offense.  Wilson Chandler… not so much.  The second is that, when your team has Mike D’Antoni as its coach and Amar’e Stoudamire as its big man, nobody’s going to confuse you for the Bad Boy Pistons on the defensive end.  Your formula is to score a whole bunch o’ points, and play just enough defense to hold your opponents to about 105 points per game.  Carmelo fits — he improves the team on offense, and, even if he does nothing else on D, his offensive prowess provides the Knicks with the luxury of plugging defensive-minded players like Turiaf into the lineup for more minutes.

Make the trade, Knicks.

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