Tag Archive: Kobe Bryant


Putting a Bow on the LeBron Discussion

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Comparing Players / Teams, NBA by Tweener — 10 Comments
06/16/2011

Alas, my friends.  The time has come to put a bow on Season 2 of hoopservations.com .  Hope you’ve enjoyed it as much as I have.

In closing, I think it’s appropriate to wrap up the LeBron conversation.  Assuming we have a basketball season to talk about in October, people’s opinions and perspectives on what we just WITNESSED are likely to change.  Now that the discussion is fresh, let’s do some year-end hoopserving about it.

My five-part rant generated a few comments about King James, disagreeing with my conclusions.  I’ll take them in turn:

COMMENT:  Did Magic play with Kareem and Worthy? Didn’t Clyde Drexler and some others team up with Hakeem to win? Also didn’t Malone and Payton team up with Shaq and Kobe to win a championship? Shaq played with Kobe (arguably both could be considered in the top 5 to ever play the game). Jordan and Pippen were nominated in the 50 best players ever and Jordan is arguably the best to ever play. For all the hate that everyone has against Lebron for choosing who he works with, it sums up to jealousy. Last night Van Gundy stated this and he made a great point.

RESPONSE:  We’ll start with Magic.  I’ve already blogged about this.  He won his first championship when Kareem was injured.  By the time he won the last one, Kareem was washed up.  Magic had won two before Worthy even joined the team.  In any event, it’s not like he spent 7 years failing to win with his own team and then ran to join a team with Kareem and Worthy.

Re Drexler, it’s true that he didn’t win until he joined Hakeem.  It’s also true that nobody talks about him as a top-15 player.  If you want to agree not to rank LeBron ahead of Drexler, I’ll agree that the situations are comparable.  The problem is that LeBron gets much more credit than Drexler, without credentials to warrant it.

Re Malone and Payton, yes they both joined the Lakers when they were old, after having spent their careers failing to reach the promised land.  It was lame of them.  And it didn’t work.  They still failed to win.  And nobody puts them in the top 15.  (Simmons ranked Malone #18, and Payton #40.  I’m assuming that Simmons would have to acknowledge that Wade and Dirk have both moved ahead of Malone since he published his book.)

Re Shaq and Kobe, now you’re just being silly.  The year before Shaq joined the Lakers was 95-96.  (Shaq’s stats here.)  Kobe wasn’t even in the league that year.  (Kobe’s stats here.)  So Shaq leaving Orlando for LA is not at all comparable to LeBron leaving Cleveland for Miami: one guy quit on his team to join a team that already had an established superstar, and one guy did not.

Re Jordan and Pippen… ah, I’m not gonna go there.  Already done that.

Re “it sums up to jealousy,” now you’re not even making sense.  I’m fat, slow, and can’t jump.  As a result, I’m jealous of all the guys in the NBA.  Even Brian Cardinal.  Hell, I’m jealous of some dude named Tim whom I met at the park, because he was able to complete a reverse lay-up without twisting his ankle.  There’s a reason why LeBron is the source of my anger, and it has nothing to do with jealousy.

COMMENT:  Lebron should be applauded and emulated. Lets look at some of the positives he has done verse others in our beloved sport – he actively sought out Warren Buffet. He took the power of making his professional life more fulfilling. Don’t we all do this when we search for a new job or career?

RESPONSE:  I don’t follow the Warren Buffet thing.  Regarding the idea of “we all do this,” it’s true that we all try to make our lives as fulfilling as possible.  It’s also true that we aren’t all in the discussion for being one of the top 15 basketball players of all time.  Thus, if I go to work for an established organization, it’s probably because I want to make a few more bucks or have a bit more job security — not because I’ve taken the easy way out on the quest for greatness.

COMMENT:  He has two kids with the same woman and has never been accused of negative or illegal activities. So far he has embraced being a role model. He plays team first basketball – what he loves passing – the horror. He loves playing defense – don’t follow that habit.

RESPONSE:  I have one kid with the same woman, and have embraced being a role model.  I’m still not in the conversation for top 15 basketball players of all time.  Bruce Bowen loved playing defense.  He isn’t, either.

COMMENT:  I hope Lebron wins, dances, and then Miami throws a party even more out there then their intro party. When this happens you will see me in the middle of it. Don’t hate because our game is captivating and beautiful to watch.

RESPONSE:  I hope you enjoyed the party.

COMMENT:  That is definitely the most credit you’ve given LeBron that I’ve read. Almost, for a second, sounded as if you liked him- but then I kept reading. Although I always enjoy your posts, I’m going to disagree with something you wrote (surprise)- I do not think Lebrons decision to go to Miami was cowardly- at all. He did what anyone would do to get ahead in his job, further his career and achieve the ultimate goal. He has taken ridiculous amounts of abuse from every city around and has held his head high through it all. He is a leader and has not tried to steal the spotlight at all. He has his eyes on the prize as does the rest of the Miami Heat players.  If he was wearing a USA jersey for the Olympics the country would be cheering for him.

RESPONSE: When LeBron decides to play for Team USA, it’s not like he’s looking at 30 different options and choosing the one that represents the easiest path to a title.  Team USA happens to represent the easiest path to a gold medal, but it’s not like LeBron chooses to be on Team USA instead of other teams.  He’s on Team USA because he’s an American citizen.

Now, before closing out the season, let’s summarize why LeBron is so disliked:

* He came into the league with more hype than any other player.  This isn’t necessarily his fault, but he certainly added fuel to the fire.  He tattooed “Chosen 1″ on his body.  He wore the number 23.  His nickname is King James.  His ad campaign says “We Are All Witnesses.” Clearly, he was trying to be something other than just an ordinary superstar.  (For some perspective, remember that other dudes near his level have nicknames like “Durantula,” and ad campaigns about falling down 7 times and getting up 8, or something like that.)  With so much hype and such an oversized personality, things were destined to come crashing down eventually if he failed to win a title.

*  For years, he fought sports gravity.  The general rule in sports is that people root for their own teams.  They sometimes become fans of guys on other teams, but rarely in mass numbers.  For the first few years of his career, LeBron was a phenom, and people generally rooted for him.  Then, about the time he stopped getting the benefit of the doubt as a result of being a phenom, his free agency was approaching. Fans of multiple teams thought they were getting him, so, instead of rooting against him like they ordinarily would, they rooted for him, almost as if he was one of their own players.  This, too, was destined to lead to a backlash, for reasons that are not necessarily LeBron’s fault.

*  ”The Decision,” and the following celebration, were both obnoxious.  If these were the only reasons people had to dislike LeBron, people would have gotten over them eventually.  But they weren’t the only reasons.

*  Even if he hadn’t done the stupid tv show or celebration, the decision (lower-case letters) to go to Miami was infuriating.  At the end of the day, ignoring everything else, he had to decide where to continue his career, and he made the unprecedented choice of trying to pursue greatness while taking a backseat to a superstar who had already established himself.  Millions of people (including me) see it as an act of cowardice, and don’t want him to be rewarded for it.

All of that said, it’s true that he hasn’t committed a crime and that, by all accounts, he’s a good family man off-the-court.  So, nothing he has done is irreversible.  Reversing the negative feelings about him, though, will be very difficult, because now he’s stuck on Wade’s team.  Now that people have woken up to what he did, there might be a ceiling on the amount of credit he’ll get, even if he does everything right and the team wins.  It will be hard for him to reverse things very quickly because the team would be excellent without him.  Decisions, though, have consequences, and that is the consequence of The Decision.

As far as human dramas go, it’s really quite fascinating.  I know that I’ll be watching next year, to see how he responds (assuming there’s a season!!).

Until then, enjoy the off-season, hoopservers!!!

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

The Anger is HEATing Up – Part 4 (A few more stats, and some props for LeBron)

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Comparing Players / Teams, NBA, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — 1 Comment
05/29/2011

I saw some poll, I believe on ESPN.com, the other day, asking people whether the MVP Award, if the rules were changed to have it account for playoff performance, should remain with Derrick Rose, or go to LeBron James.  A significant number of people, well above 50%, said it should go to LeBron James.

I guess none of those people watched the series between the Heat and the Bulls.

To anyone who watched, it’s perfectly clear that Derrick Rose must carry a substantially larger burden than LeBron James simply to keep his team competitive.  Rose doesn’t have anyone to give the ball to who can generate any offense on his own.  The Bulls’ only offense is this:

1.  Rose must do the best he can to make something happen, whether that be a shot for himself, or drawing the defense and passing to someone else for an open shot,

2.  Guys must make open shots when they get them, and

3.  At the very least, guys must make sure their shots hit the rim, because the Bulls have some good offensive rebounders.

Let there be no doubt: if the Bulls played without Rose and the Heat played without LeBron, it would be a bloodbath. A complete thrashing.  The Heat would have the two best players on the court.  (By the way, if I ever said that Carlos Boozer was better than Chris Bosh, I hereby officially admit that I was wrong – unless I happen to have said that Boozer is better at failing to finish near the rim than Chris Bosh is.)

So, when the Heat finished off the Bulls – and trust me, I’m well aware that LeBron was fantastic during the series – it didn’t establish that LeBron is more valuable than Rose; the only way the Bulls had a chance in the series was if Rose significantly outplayed LeBron.  The same is true of the other superstars in the league.

Some numbers:

Dwight Howard led the Magic in scoring this year, with 22.9 ppg.  The next leading scorer, Vince Carter, scored 7.8 fewer ppg (not to mention that he got traded mid-season).

Rose led the Bulls in scoring this year, with 25 ppg.  The next leading scorer, Carlos Boozer, scored 7.5 fewer ppg.

Dirk led the Mavs in scoring this year, with 23 ppg.  The next leading scorer, Jason Terry, scored 7.2 fewer ppg.

Kobe led the Lakers in scoring this year, with 25.3 ppg.  The next leading scorer, Pau Gasol, scored 6.5 fewer ppg.

7.8, 7.5, 7.2, and 6.5.  In stark contrast, the difference between LeBron’s production and the production of the next-leading-scorer on his team was 1.2 ppg.

To be clear, I’m not saying LeBron is less capable than any of these players.  In fact, I explicitly acknowledge that he has at least as much talent and skill as any of them.  He has stretches on offense when he looks unguardable, and his versatility on defense is remarkable.

I’m saying that LeBron doesn’t deserve the same amount of credit as Rose because he has to do a fraction of what Rose has to do — or, for that matter, what all of the other superstars in the league have to do — to keep his team competitive.

He used to carry a much higher burden than he does now, but he decided it was too much for him.  He chose to leave for a team where his burden would be much lower.

Remarkably, there are still many people who rush to give him credit, as if there’s nothing cowardly about his decision.

Rant forthcoming.

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

Energy Is A Talent

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — 2 Comments
05/10/2011

Watching the Lakers lose to the Mavs was quite a trip.  In my mind, the Lakers were the favorite to win the whole thing — the only team with a superstar on the perimeter, and multiple quality big men.

My theory made perfect sense.

Until the games started.

Watching the Lakers big men be so inconsistent reminded me of a conversation I had during last year’s playoffs, with my friend JZ.  JZ is a wise old hoopserver.  In fact, he’s a member of the Jedi Council of Hoopserving Masters.

Around this time last year, I told JZ that I just couldn’t understand why some players were as inconsistent as they were.  I can’t think of a different profession where someone who performs at a superstar level sometimes, an average level sometimes, and below average the rest of the time is still regarded as useful.  Yet, in basketball, it happens frequently.  We simply accept such players as “inconsistent.”  It was flabbergasting to me, I told him, that such “inconsistent” players get paid millions of dollars and do not even exert 100% effort every time they play.

JZ explained that energy is a talent.  I think it’s an excellent hoopservation, and would only add two points of clarification:

1.  ”Energy,” for purposes of this discussion, includes the thing we call “focus.”  The inability to devote the same effort to every game includes “energy,” which refers to the physical component, and “focus,” which refers to the mental component.

2.  When someone like, say, Lamar Odom, or Andrew Bynum, or Pau Gasol, looks like a superstar on Friday and a scrub on Sunday, it’s not because he isn’t trying, or stayed out too late on the Sunset Strip on Saturday night.  It’s just that energy isn’t one of the talents that made him a professional basketball player, so, even though he is exerting 100% effort on Sunday, it is 100% of a different energy level than he had on Friday.  In other words, the players who have the talent of high energy wake up every day with a high energy level, and when they exert 100% effort, it is 100% of an energy level that hardly changes.  The players who do not have the talent of energy do not wake up with the same energy level every day, and when they exert 100% effort, it is 100% of a different energy level on different days.  People who resent these players for not trying their hardest every game are missing the point.

Put a few guys on the same team who do not have the talent of high energy, and you’ll wind up with a team that looks like it has a personality disorder.  Like, for example, the Lakers.  The Lakers won two championships in a row, and looked, at times, like a juggernaut on their way to a third.  But, when their superstar (Kobe) started to slip just a little bit, and one of their other high-energy players (Artest) lost a half a step, then, all of a sudden, the team was heavily dependent on its low-energy guys.

It can work, if a few of those guys are playing at a high level each game, but it’s a risky venture.  There are lots of ways to try to win in the NBA, but talent usually wins out.  And energy is a talent.

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Comment

What’s The Best Model?

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — 5 Comments
04/17/2011

Here we are.  The 2011 Playoffs.

Of course, there are lots of interesting storylines to talk about as the playoffs begin.  What interests me the most is the clash of styles amongst the teams still standing.

To set the table for that discussion, I think it’s worthwhile to identify who I think the 20 best players in the league are (otherwise, discussions about which teams truly have “star” power get complicated, as it’s easy to call lots of players “stars” but much harder to identify the ones who truly are).  In no particular order, I think the top 20 players, divided into “superstars” and “stars” are:

SUPERSTARS

1.  Kobe

2.  Durant

3.  Rose

4.  LeBron

5.  Wade

6.  Howard

STARS

7.  Dirk

8.  Gasol

9.  Westbrook

10.  CP3

11.  Anthony

12.  Stoudemire

13.  Randolph (20 ppg, 12 rpg)

14.  Aldridge (22 ppg, 9 rpg)

15.  Rondo (11 assists, 2.5 spg)

16.  Ginobili (17 ppg, 5 apg, 4 rpg, 1.5 spg)

17.  Parker (18 ppg, 7 apg)

18.  Johnson (18 ppg, 5 apg, 4 rpg)

19.  Horford (15 ppg, 9 rpg, 1 bpg)

20.  Granger (21 ppg, 5 rpg)

We could probably debate a few of those guys (CP3, Anthony, and Stoudemire might deserve to be considered superstars, while Garnett, Pierce, Bosh, and Iguodala could be considered stars).  But, generally, it’s a pretty uncontroversial list of the 20 best players in the playoffs.  With that as background, the teams generally fall into a few groups:

NO STARS - Philly and Denver:  Both of these teams are athletic, exciting, and deep.  And neither has a chance to win more than one round, because they don’t have the necessary star-power.

ONE STAR - Dallas, Memphis, Portland, Boston, Indiana, New Orleans, Orlando and Chicago:  This is an interesting group. To me, the critical distinction among the teams in this group is that some of them have big guys who operate in the paint, playing alongside dynamic small guys.  Some do not.  The teams that do — Chicago, Memphis, Portland, and Indiana — are legitimate threats.  Dallas is better than it has been in years past because Tyson Chandler is an effective presence in the paint. But, Dirk, as great as he is, is not a traditional PF, and Kidd is no longer a dynamic PG.  New Orleans would be a threat, but for the crippling injury to David West.  Without him, there’s just not enough horsepower there.  Orlando, in my eyes, just doesn’t have the guards to go deep.  That leaves Boston and Chicago.  Before the Perkins trade, Boston had intimidating big guys and dynamic small guys.  Now they’ve lost the intimidation.  All is not lost, because, though they only have one of the top 20 players, it’s possible that they have four of the top 25.  They might be able to get by simply because they have so many guys who can win a game for them, but that’s less likely than it was before the trade.  Chicago is unique among this group, because it has a superstar guard playing alongside big guys who dominate the paint.

TWO STARS – Atlanta, New York, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Miami, and San Antonio:  The primary distinction among the teams in this group is that some have superstars and some do not.  Neither Atlanta nor San Antonio have superstars, but both have two stars playing with capable supporting casts (with all due respect to Tim Duncan, he is now a part of the supporting cast).  It’s rare for a team to win without a superstar, but Atlanta and San Antonio are threats — San Antonio specifically because it has the best backcourt tandem, and a very capable frontcourt.  New York is the wild card in this group, because, if Carmelo and Amar’e play like superstars, they might be good enough to make up for the glaring shortcoming on that roster; no big guys who intimidate anyone to play up front with those two.  Miami is the only team with two superstars, and also the only team that relies on Mario Chalmers and Joel Anthony for major minutes.  That leaves Oklahoma City and LA, both of whom have a superstar and a star.

In light of all of that, I’ll make this prediction: I expect Chicago, LA, San Antonio, and Oklahoma City to rise above the rest. Chicago and LA both have superstar guards playing alongside big men who dominate the paint.  San Antonio and Oklahoma City both have overpowering perimeter tandems playing alongside big men who, while not as good as the bigs on Chicago and LA, are effective down low.  Which of those four will emerge as champion?  Stay tuned.

 

 

 

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

The End of “Upside”?

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
01/18/2011

As the speculation about a trade involving Carmelo Anthony continues to swirl (in case you happen to have missed it, click here or here for recent examples), one of the things that amazes me is the continued mention of Derrick Favors as a centerpiece of the deal.  Yes, he of the 6.5 ppg and 5 rpg.  I guess the theory is that he has tremendous “upside.”

Well, yeah… if by “upside” you mean the amount of miraculous improvement we’d have to see for the guy to become an impact player.

For years, I’ve been unable to understand how so many NBA GM’s get intrigued by false “upside” so regularly.  To be clear, when I’m talking about players who were highly valued because of their “upside,” I’m talking about guys who went to college and didn’t perform at a star’s level.  Sorry for being all lawyerly, but, when I say “perform at a star’s level” I mean that the guy either started on a Final Four team, or was named to at least one of (i) his all-conference team or (ii) the All-American team.  That’s a relatively simple way to separate the guys who distinguished themselves in college from the guys who didn’t; only the first group contains guys with real achievements.

For all the talk of “upside” that we hear around the NBA Draft and the trade deadline, I can’t think of a single star who represents an example of someone with no track record of success but lots of “upside” who turned that “upside” into consistent performance.  Literally, not one.

Think of the top 15 players in the league today.  We could argue about who’s in that group, but it’s generally safe to say that it looks something like this (in no particular order)

1. Kobe

2. LeBron

3. Wade

4. CP3

5. Deron Williams

6. Amar’e

7. Howard

8. Dirk

9. Derrick Rose

10. Carmelo

11.  Durant

12. Pierce

13. Ginobili

14. Westbrook

15. Pao Gasol

When testing my statement that nobody who went to college and failed to distinguish himself wound up becoming a star, the guys who never went to college do not weigh on the analysis.  (I guess some might say that it’s a copout for me to make an argument about how young players get analyzed without addressing the stars who didn’t play in college.  But I’m not arguing that untested young guys never amount to anything — I’m arguing that the guys who played in college but didn’t do much don’t deserve to be treated like valuable assets.)

Working from that list of 15, let’s see what the data tells us:

1. Kobe – No college.

2. LeBron – No college.

3. Wade – Carried Marquette to the Final Four

4. CP3 – First Team All-American as a sophomore at Wake Forest

5. Deron Williams – Led Illinois to the Finals

6. Amar’e – No college.

7. Howard – No college.

8. Dirk – No college.

9. Derrick Rose – Led Memphis to the Finals

10. Carmelo – Led Syracuse to a championship

11.  Durant – AP player of the year as a freshman at Texas

12. Pierce – First Team All-American as a junior at Kansas

13. Ginobili – No college.

14. Westbrook – Played on a UCLA team that went to the Final Four

15. Pao Gasol – No college.

In sum, each of the guys on this list who went to college did some BALLIN’ when he was there.  There isn’t a single guy on the list who went to college and failed to assert himself.

Against that backdrop, let’s return to Derrick Favors.  A “power forward,” he was only the second-leading rebounder on his Georgia Tech team during his only year there.  (And it’s not like he was part of a dominating front-court tag-team with the next Moses Malone — the guy had fewer rebounds than someone named Gani Lawal.  Then again, maybe it’s possible that Lawal has tremendous “upside,” too, and that this was actually the most talented big-man tandem in the history of college hoops.  Ahem.)  That Georgia Tech team, a #10 seed, lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament.

Some guys look at that track record and, because of something about Favors (his height?  his jumping ability? his carefully trimmed goatee?) see reason to get excited about his “upside.”  I look at Favors, and see a guy who hasn’t done much to get excited about.  (Though I must admit that his goatee is well-maintained.)

The Nets were wrong to draft him at #3.  The Nuggets would be wrong to accept him as the main piece in a trade involving Carmelo Anthony.  All he’s got is “upside,” and history suggests that “upside” is nothing more than a wish that a guy who hasn’t accomplished much will miraculously get much better.

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

Fast Break

Filed Under: Comparing Players / Teams, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
12/14/2010

A couple of quick hoopservations as we move past the 1/4 benchmark of the season:

1.  Kobe Bryant has had an incredible, and quite unique, career.  He was the second star on a team that won 3 championships, and, since Shaq left, has also been the top dog on multiple championship teams.  How many guys can say that they were the second-best guy on multiple championship teams, and then stepped up to be the top guy on multiple championship teams?  I guess Magic did (he won as part of “Kareem’s team,” and, by the last of his championships, the Lakers were undoubtedly “his team”). Nobody else jumps to mind.

In order to rank Kobe amongst the all-time greats, one first has to decide whether they consider it more impressive to (i) make that transition, or (ii) be the top dog for an entire career.

2.  Chicago’s team is very WatchaBull.  (Sorry, I had to.)  And very good. I’m not saying they’ll win the title, or even the East, but that team is constructed the way I’ve been talking about constructing a team.  Their best player is a superstar, their second best player is one of the best “second” players in the league, and Joakim Noah might have more hair than anyone else in the United States be the best “third” player in the league. Plus, they generally fill traditional basketball roles. Boozer and Noah roam the paint on offense, and, on defense, they protect the rim and own the glass. Korver is one of the best spot-up shooters around, and is able to take advantage when defenses sag to guard his teammates. The big question is whether Rose is enough like a traditional point guard to pull it all together.

3. The Mavericks have won 12 of their last 13 games. Should we care? I dunno. Seems to me like the the Mavs go on this kind of streak every season, and inevitably fizzle somewhere along the way. Dirk is filthy good, and I hear that they’re playing some D for a change, but I’m not seeing a reason to think this Dallas team is the one that breaks through. They’re like the Chargers of the NBA. Consider me a doubter until they get it done.

4. The Clippers are now losing very close games, as opposed to losing big, as they are used to doing. You know what they say about moral victories: There’s no such thing as moral victories… unless you’re the Clippers. Joking aside, I stand by my prediction that those guys will be a threat when Kaman comes back. I just hope they’re not so far out of it by then that he doesn’t make a difference.

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

Season Predictions – Part 3 of 3

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, NBA by Tweener — 2 Comments
11/24/2010

Before crunching the numbers on the teams in the Western Conference, a few specific predictions and storylines to keep an eye on:

1.              If Chris Kaman returns soon for the Clippers, who are currently 2-13, the Clips will make a run at the playoffs.  Not that I think Chris Kaman is some kind of superstar, but he’s a real C, and, as I’ve blogged before, teams that play a real C have a big advantage.  (Even the Clippers.)  Put Kaman with Blake Griffin, and you’re looking at a squad that will have the advantage in the paint against all but the best teams in the league.  That matters, and will start to show up in the win column when Kaman comes back.  Let’s hope that guy comes back soon, because the people who keep the standings for the NBA might stop publishing a win column in the Clippers’ row if he doesn’t.

2.              Aside  from the superstars, the most important player out West is Richard Jefferson.  If that guy keeps ballin’ like he’s ballin’ then the Spurs will be in the mix until the very end.

3.              I know that Steve Nash is immensely popular in Phoenix, but it just doesn’t make sense for an aging PG who is as good as he is to remain on a team that’s going nowhere.  Hopefully one of the teams that’s a PG away from seriously contending (Memphis, Atlanta, Charlotte, and the Clippers come to mind) will find a couple of young assets to trade to Phoenix in order to grab Nash and make a run.  Unless it’s the Heat, in which case my head might spin off of my neck as I try to decide whether or not to root for that team.

4.              In making these predictions, I’m grading the Nuggets as if they will keep Carmelo, even though I expect them not to.  It’s not that I have any inside info, it’s just that I can’t see Denver risking losing him for nothing after what just happened to Cleveland and Toronto.

5.              As I type this, there are a bunch of major injuries that will have a big impact on the standings.  David Lee is a difference maker for the Warriors.  And Brandon Roy for the Blazers. Robin Lopez is also out, apparently for a month.  That makes it tough to get a read on some teams, but if I waited any longer, I’d have to call these “reflections” instead of “predictions.”

So, while I can still call them predictions, here they are (in the case of ties, I put the teams in the order that I expect them to finish).

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

Early Season Review and Preview

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, GM Consultant by Tweener — Comments Off
11/16/2010

We’re about ten games into the NBA season so far.  It’s late enough to start perceiving some trends, and still early enough to make predictions.

If you haven’t been paying attention, here’s what’s been hoopening:  Miami, after all the hype, is 6-4.  The Hornets, who had no hype, are 8-1.  The Lakers, who still aren’t fully healthy, are 8-2.  The Clippers, who are mostly healthy, are, well, the Clippers.  The Knicks have shown signs of life, but then allowed Kevin Love to put up a 30-30 game.  No joke.  At least 30 points and at least 30 boards.  (A question for the NBA’s official statistician: does it only count as a 20-20 game, because it happened against the Knicks?)  And, after improving to 2-0 against the Heat this year, Paul Pierce tweeted an absolutely classic tweet.

We’re now deep enough into the season that it’s an appropriate time to start talking about predictions.  I begin my analysis by looking at individual players; specifically, stars.  For a team to make the playoffs, it obviously must have balance, depth, and role players.  No question.  But, in general, it also must have at least 1 star.

I don’t see more than 1 or 2 NBA teams making the playoffs that do not have an All-Star on their roster.  The only team to do it last year was Milwaukee, and they had a few guys who were borderline All-Stars.  This is no coincidence; when attempting to pick the playoff teams, I start by trying to pick the All-Stars.  Then I add 4 borderline All-Stars per conference, and that tells me which of the teams are worthy of going through the hoopservations state-of-the-art (ahem) data analyzer to predict playoff teams.

As a starting point, here were last year’s All-Star rosters:

EAST:

LeBron James

Kevin Garnett

Dwyane Wade

Allen Iverson (injured)

David Lee

Dwight Howard

Al Horford

Chris Bosh

Paul Pierce

Gerald Wallace

Joe Johnson

Rajon Rondo

Derrick Rose

WEST

Carmelo Anthony

Tim Duncan

Kobe Bryant (injured)

Jason Kidd

Steve Nash

Amar’e Stoudemire

Pau Gasol

Kevin Durant

Dirk Nowitzki

Zach Randolph

Chris Paul (injured)

Chauncey Billups

Brandon Roy (injured)

Chris Kaman

Deron Williams

Right off the bat, we know there will be a few changes, because Iverson isn’t in the league anymore (he was barely in the league when he made the team last year, but his name won’t be on the ballot this year so the chances of a repeat are low), David Lee went to the Western Conference, and Amar’e went to the East.

Here’s what I see for the East:

1. LeBron James

2. Dwyane Wade

3. Amar’e Stoudemire

4. Dwight Howard

5. Danny Granger

6. Paul Pierce

7. Gerald Wallace

8. Joe Johnson

9. Rajon Rondo

10. Derrick Rose

11. Joakim Noah

12. Andrew Bogut

Borderline:

Brook Lopez

Al Horford

Andre Iguodala

Anderson Varejao

And here’s what I see for the West:

1.  Carmelo Anthony

2.  Kobe Bryant

3. Steve Nash

4.  Blake Griffin

5.  Pau Gasol

6.  Kevin Durant

7.  Dirk Nowitzki

8.  Manu Ginobili

9.  Chris Paul

10.  Brandon Roy

11.  Deron Williams

12.  Russell Westbrook

Borderline

Stephen Curry

Zach Randolph

Tony Parker

David West

So, the teams we can eliminate from playoff consideration because they simply don’t have enough talent are: Detroit, Toronto, Washington, Sacramento, Minnesota, and Houston.  That probably doesn’t count as going out on a limb, so let me push the envelope a bit… at least 4 of those teams will win fewer than 30 games.

Soon, I’ll analyze each of the other teams and generate playoff predictions.

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

Assume Your Positions

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Evolution of the Game, GM Consultant, Positions, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — 1 Comment
11/13/2010

There are a couple of developing storylines in the NBA, like the Hornets being awesome and the Heat being mediocre, that I’ll be hoopserving about over the next few weeks.  Before getting into the specifics, it’s necessary to set the table with a general discussion about the 5 positions on a basketball team.

Basketball is different from other sports, like baseball and football, where distinct positions have clearly defined roles, and correspond to specific places on the field.  In baseball, for example, the first baseman stands in a different place than the second baseman, who stands in a different place than the center fielder, etc.  In football, the offensive linemen block the opposing defenders, the wide receivers run routes to get open, and the quarterback puts his hands on the center’s gluteus muscles at the beginning of most plays.  There is some room for flexibility — think infield shifts in baseball and the Wildcat offense in football — but not much; if a WR lined up for a play with his hands on a teammate’s gluteus muscles, well… let’s just say that it would throw the other team for a loop.

Our game, basketball, is different.  On any given possession, guys are moving around, regularly occupying multiple spots on the court.  People often talk about 5 distinct positions on a basketball team, but those positions are not nearly as distinct as they are in other sports.

Partially because of this flexibility, teams started taking liberties with the positions, almost disregarding them in some instances.  Now we have “combo guards” like Tyreke Evans.  We have teams that try to play without a center.  The Raptors, for example, start a “center” who averages more 3-point-attempts than blocks per game.  (There’s probably some kind of joke to make about the fact that HIS NAME IS ANDREA, but nothing is coming to me at the moment.)  And, as I’ve already blogged, I have no idea what the difference is between a shooting guard and a small forward in today’s game.

I’m no traditionalist, but this movement away from traditional positions strikes me as a problem.  The positions exist for a reason; there are different roles on a basketball team that need to be filled.  Basketball teams need a guy to control the tempo, pressure the ball on D, and break the opponent’s D down with dribble penetration — typically, the PG.  They need a spot-up shooter, to take advantage when defenders go help out on the ball — typically, the SG.  They need a guy to create his own shots from the wing — typically, the SF.  And, they need two guys responsible for the paint; posting up on offense, rebounding and intimidating on defense — typically, the PF and C.

Theoretically, the roles are not specific to any position.  Teams can rely on a “point forward” to create shots for teammates (think Anthony Mason, when the Knicks were good in the ’90′s).  They can rely on a small forward to rebound and block shots (think Shawn Marion from his days on the Suns).  But these attempts generally fall short.  The positions are not completely interchangeable.

To be sure, it’s true that some teams have won without some of the roles being filled. Jordan’s Bulls, Shaq’s Lakers, and Kobe’s Lakers generally won without getting major minutes from an excellent, traditional point guard.  This doesn’t prove that it’s a good idea to play with glaring voids, as much as it proves that, when you have Jordan playing with Pippen, Shaq playing with Kobe, or Kobe playing with Pao, you’ve bought yourself some flexibility to depart from the typical template.

So… that’s a very long-winded way of saying that the impressive play of the Hornets, who have the game’s best true PG (CP3), a center who rebounds and blocks shots (Okafor), a low-post scorer (West), and guys who fill in around them, is not so surprising.  Nor is the disappointing play of the Heat, who have a subpar PG and no interior presence.  More on that to come.

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

I Was Out, Talking Hoops…

Filed Under: Comparing Eras, Comparing Players / Teams, GM Consultant, NBA, Talking About Hoops by Tweener — Comments Off
05/10/2010

So, I was out with a couple of friends last week, talking about hoops.

One of the friends is the dude I mentioned the other day, who thinks that the NBA needs The Undertaker to sign with some team as a power forward.  When we were out, he and I discussed the possibility, and agreed that The Undertaker would be best suited as a sixth man.  When it came time for him to check in, the announcer would turn off all the lights in the arena, and play his music.  Then smoke would rise from the scorer’s table, and he’d check in.  He’d plant himself in the middle of the lane on defense, daring the referees to whistle him for defensive 3 seconds.

Anyway.  Someone else I was out with had some intelligent things to say about hoops.  We were discussing LeBron, and I was making my case that he’s held to a different standard than other players.  Basically, the stuff I’ve said in a few different places (like here and here among others).  We started comparing LeBron to some of the other all-time greats.  Predictably, we acknowledged that LeBron hasn’t won a championship yet, and he argued that it’s because LeBron’s supporting cast is terrible.  I pointed out that LeBron now has Antawn Jamison, who has been a 20-and-10 guy for a while, Mo Williams, who was an All-Star last year, and a trio of 3 skilled big men, none of whom is a superstar (anymore) but who, collectively, represent as good a group of C’s / PF’s as just about any team other than the Lakers.  He was looking at me like I had three heads.  His points were that:

  1. Jamison and Mo Williams are not good enough to be the second and third best players on a championship team unless they have a complete freak of a superstar leading the way.  He argued that neither of them ever did much of anything other than put up big numbers for bad teams before they joined the Cavs, and that guys who merely put up big numbers for bad teams aren’t good enough to be among the best players on a championship team.
  2. The reason why people rank LeBron favorably against other all-time greats who never won a title (Barkley, Ewing, Stockton, Wilkins, etc.) is that none of those guys was ever the best player in the league.  And LeBron is.

Interesting points.  A few responses:

One of the very first postings on this site hoopserved that, whenever we compare two superstar players against each other, we wind up talking about their teammates instead of the players themselves.  I now have an addendum: when we do that, and wind up comparing their teammates, we often wind up comparing their teammates’ teammates.  So, when we compare LeBron to Kobe, and I make the point that LeBron has a 20-and-10 guy in his supporting cast, it’s considered a legitimate counter-argument for someone to say that Jamison isn’t really a viable member of a championship supporting cast because Jamison only put up those gaudy numbers when he had lousy teammates.  And, when I point out that Mo Williams was an All-Star just last year, it’s considered a legitimate counter-argument for this guy to say that he was only an All-Star because LeBron made him one.

That seems like a simple enough point, but it’s actually kind of remarkable.  We expect our superstars to make their teammates better.  When it happens, and the superstar winds up with an All-Star teammate, we give the superstar the credit for making the guy an All-Star, but, if we want to argue that the superstar’s teammates are lousy, we’re able to say — with a straight face — that his supporting cast is terrible even though it includes an All-Star, because the superstar was responsible for making the guy an All-Star.  Of course, if no teammates wind up on the All-Star team, we don’t have to hold it against the superstar for failing to elevate his teammates; we can just use it as evidence that the supporting cast is awful. Either way, someone can say that the superstar’s supporting cast is terrible — whether it includes any All Stars or not.

Deep breath.  I must admit that, first hearing someone say this, it actually makes sense.  But, upon review…. no.  No way.  As us lawyer-folk say, it doesn’t withstand scrutiny.  At bottom, it’s just a way to perpetually excuse the superstar’s failure to win a championship; you shouldn’t be able to say his teammates are terrible if none make the All-Star team, and still argue that they’re terrible even if one or two of them make the All-Star team on the logic that they’re only on the All-Star team because the superstar raised their levels of play.

The bottom line is that LeBron has a good enough supporting cast for a superstar to win with.  Whether they’re good enough to be All-Stars without him is completely irrelevant.  Let’s see if he gets it done.

As to my friend’s other point, that LeBron is ranked favorably against Barkley, Ewing, Stockton, etc. because LeBron is the best in the game at this moment, and none of those guys was ever the best in the game, I think it’s a fair point.  But it begs the question: is LeBron really the best in the game at this moment?  When he plays like he played on Friday, I know that it’s folly to argue that he is not.  But the problem is that he doesn’t always play like that.  (See, for example, YESTERDAY.)

Whatever.  I’m not going to argue – not right now, at least – that LeBron isn’t the best in the game at this moment.  When I even hint at such an opinion, I piss off 3 of my 4 readers (they love LeBron), and, well, that’s not a good thing for a blogger to do.  So, without mentioning LeBron, let’s consider a broader question for now:  can a guy who has not proven himself capable of being the best player on a championship team be the best player in the league?  Is it possible?

Here’s what I’m thinking: The guys who distinguish themselves as stars – say, the top 20 guys in the league – generally do so because they are highly skilled, and either very (a) big, (b) fast, or (c) strong.  To dig a bit deeper, some guys make a big impact by using their strength (e.g., Ben Wallace in his prime), some make a big impact by shooting the lights out (e.g., Kyle Korver), some make a big impact because they are gritty and have high “basketball IQ” (e.g., Shane Battier), and some make a big impact because they are freakishly athletic (e.g., Gerald Wallace).  But, to be one of the real stars of the league – one of the top 20 guys – you typically have to have a combination of talents.  These guys separate themselves from the rest of the league based on talent and hard work.

Within that group of 20 stars, though, the cream rises to the top not because of skill or athleticism, but because of personality.  We have various ways of describing it: they have a “killer instinct,” or they are “clutch,” or they are capable of “willing their team” to victory.  Whatever the cliche, the point is that the guys who really rise to the top do so because something about them enables them to grab a game by the throat and not let go until they win.

If you’re with me so far, then you’ll probably be with me when I say that it’s hard to think of how a guy could be recognized as the best player in the league until he proves that he’s able to grab a playoff series by the throat and not let go until his team wins a championship.

If you’re with me still, well, you’ll have to acknowledge that the only guys in the league who have proven that they can be the best player on a championship team are Kobe, Wade, Billups, Pierce, Duncan, and Shaq.  (Carmelo Anthony deserves honorable mention, because when he was in college he proved that he could grab the playoffs by the throat and lead his team to a championship.  Where I come from, winning in college still counts for something.)

So, without mentioning that guy I said I wouldn’t mention, I must say… With all due respect to 75% of my readership, nobody on that list has a name that rhymes with KaBron Rames.  Sorry.

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