Category Archives: Positions

As all 3 of my devoted readers know, I have blogged frequently about how LeBron’s teammates in Cleveland were good enough to win a title with, and a bit less frequently about the flaws with the current Miami Heat roster (give me time, we’re only 25% through the season).  After all that blogging, I knew, as I watched the Heat put a beating on the Cavs last week, that I had some ‘splanin’ to do.  So, let me ‘splain…

In this posting, I talked about the importance of having players in the appropriate “slot” on their rosters, and said that the fortunes of a few teams in today’s NBA make more sense when seen through that prism.  (Apologies to those who were eagerly awaiting this follow-up; I said I’d elaborate on the point in my “next posting,” and then my next posting wound up being about Jim Boeheim.  Sorry.)

The Heat and the Cavs are two clear illustrations of what I’m trying to say.  I’ll start with the Cavs, who looked dreadful — not because they don’t have good players on the team, but because each player is playing one or two “slots” ahead of where he belongs.

To quickly go down the roster: Mo Williams is not capable of being the best player on a good NBA team.  But he’s perfectly adequate to be the second best player on a contender.  (Some people scoff at this, I know.  But they’re wrong.  Mo Williams is comparable to Jason Richardson, Vince Carter, and Roy Hibbert, each of whom is the second-best player on a playoff contending team.)  If Antawn Jamison is your second-best player, you’re in bad shape, but you could scrape by with him as your third-best.  Anderson Varejao was one of the best fourth-best-players in the league, and J.J. Hickson is a capable fifth-best player.  But, as the third and fourth best guys on a team, they are average at best.  Guys on the Cavs’ bench, like Daniel Gibson and Ramon Sessions, can play quality minutes on a good team, but can’t be expected to get an otherwise-deficient team over the hump.

Basically, the Cavs are one superstar away from having the pieces in place to be a competitor.  In other words, they were good enough to win with LeBron.  To be fair, I think they needed an upgrade in the third-best player slot, bumping Jamison to fourth and Varejao to fifth, in order to be dominant.  But, as far as holes on a roster go, a team that only needs an upgrade in the 3rd slot to be dominant is right in the mix of things.  So… just because they got pounded by the Heat, and looked hapless in the process, doesn’t prove that LeBron’s supporting cast in Cleveland wasn’t good enough to win with.

Then there’s the Heat, one of the most interesting experiments with an NBA roster that I can remember.  It’s not clear who the #1 guy is, because they have two #1 guys. Having LeBron and Wade in the top two “slots” on your roster has a chance to work simply because of the combined talent; they might  just be talented enough to overcome the fact that neither of them is really suited to be a “second” guy on any team.  And Bosh might one day become a capable “third” guy, but he has no track record of doing that.  All he’s ever been is the best guy on a terrible team.

After that, it gets ugly, especially with their current injuries.  Mario Chalmers is not good enough to be the fourth best guy on a championship team.  Joel Anthony, well, he’s not even a rotation player on a championship team!

The key here is Mike Miller.  In terms of talent, he’s clearly good enough to be the “fourth” guy on a championship team.  And, because he’s such a good spot-up shooter — capable of making a big impact while having the ball in his hands for only one or two seconds per possession if his teammates are creating good looks for him — his game is suited to be the fourth best guy on a very good team.

But there’s no guarantee that Miller will make this team much better.  For starters, he can’t do anything to change the fact that only one of the “top 3” guys on the team is in the “slot” where he belongs.  And, getting back to the earlier point about having guys on the floor who fill traditional roles on a basketball team (which I blogged about here), it’s not clear to me that a lineup of James, Wade, Bosh, and Miller is capable of greatness.  Sure, they’re talented enough to consistently beat about 85% of the teams in the league.  But what about teams with an excellent point guard and big man?  I just don’t see how that lineup stops Parker and Duncan, CP3 and West, Rose and Boozer, or Rondo and KG with any regularity.

More on that over the next few weeks, I’m sure.

2 Comments:

  • your momma

    The knicks beat down reminded me of another NY beat down – when the Jets talked trash to the Patriots and got their butts handed to them – similar to the Knicks and the Heat. Did people forget that Lebron is the best regular season player in the NBA – I know Knicks fans will know that after the game. The knicks put up a good fight for the first half but the cream always rises to the top. I think Big Z had at least three blocks and D. Wade who is maybe 6’4″ got a big block on your premiere big man. Landry fields is a letter shy of what Cubans refer to as ropa vieja. Keep balling and keep your heads up Knicks fans – hopefully as much as all of you don’t want to admit it – you need Melo to become a top tier team.

  • TeesteBon

    Just popping in to say nice site.

1 Trackback or Pingback for this entry:

Leave a Comment:

Be Where You Belong

Talking about LeBron – as many people have been doing recently – brings up lots of conversations that are worth exploring on their own.  When he was on the Cavs, lots of people said that his “supporting cast” wasn’t good enough to win with (a view that I disagreed with, as I’ve stated many times on this blog).  Then, when he joined up with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, lots of people predicted that they’d be a dominant team, and, when they started the season slowly, lots of people spoke about the “chemistry issues” that the team was having.

In order to really delve into a discussion that tests the validity of any of those opinions, it’s first worthwhile to have a more general discussion about how to construct a good team.  I’ve already blogged about the importance of having players who fit particular basketball roles.  (Here.)  That’s an important part of the process, but it’s only part.

The other important part of the process of constructing a good team is having a roster of guys who, for a lack of a better phrase, “are where they belong.”  You want the best guy on your roster to be someone built to be the lead dog on a good team.  You want your second best guy to be suited to be second best, your third guy to be suited to be third best, etc.

True hoopsters undertstand that this is hard to accomplish.  Not everyone who’s suited to be a #1 guy on a roster can simply become a #2 guy on a roster successfully.  And not everyone who’s great at being a #2 can necessarily become a viable #1.  The same is true of players up and down the roster.  And it’s important to have guys in the right “slots”; if the players on a team are merely one slot “off” it can be the difference between a terrible team and a championship competitor.

Speaking generally, the guys who are best suited to fill the “lower roles” on a team are able to make contributions without dominating the ball on offense.  That doesn’t mean they can’t be scorers; some of them might be spot up shooters or guys who do most of their scoring in the paint.  Or, they can be guys who contribute without scoring much at all, usually by blocking shots and rebounding.

One of the players who illustrates this most clearly is Scottie Pippen.  Pippen was a great #2 – perhaps a perfect #2.  He was an adequate #1, but not fantastic, and certainly not great.  The Bulls teams he played on without Jordan never made the Finals, and the talented Blazers teams that he played on never did, either.  (Nor did the Rockets teams that he was on, but I don’t think of him as the “#1 guy” on those teams.)

In today’s game, there are multiple guys who illustrate the point.  To name a few:

Ben Wallace.  Not long ago, he started for – and was an important contributor to – a championship team.  But, put him on a bad team, and he’s not capable of making them competitive.  I think that, even now, towards the end of his career, there’s still a role for him to play on a good team.  But Detroit might be the worst team in the league, and having him in the starting lineup does next-to-nothing to make them competitive.

Ray Allen.  During his time on the Sonics, he was only a mediocre “top dog.”  (There’s a reason they traded him in his prime.)  On the Celtics, where he has generally been the #2 guy (while Garnett was hobbling and Rondo was ascending) or the #3 guy (since Rondo’s ascension), he is a great weapon.

Nate Robinson.  On a bad Knicks team, his inconsistency was crippling.  They didn’t have enough to win when he wasn’t scooting around the court like Sonic the Hedgehog, but he wasn’t consistent enough for them to depend on.  Coming off the bench for the Celtics, he is a valuable asset.

Moving “up” on the totem pole obviously has its risks; Rip Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince are not nearly effective as a 1/2 punch (sorry, Rodney Stuckey) as they were when Chauncey was the top dog.  Going the other direction, Shawn Merion used to be an All-Star as the #2 on Phoenix, but isn’t making much of a contribution being lower on the Mavericks’ totem pole.

Seeing basketball through this prism helps explain the successes, failures, and difficulties of a number of NBA teams this season.  That’s the subject of the next posting.  In the meantime, I hope you’ll share your comments!

Leave a Comment: