Tag Archive: Shaquille O’Neal


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

There’s Something Happening Here, What It Is Ain’t Exactly Clear

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Evolution of the Game, GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — 2 Comments
01/04/2011

I wrote in the beginning of the season that one of the main storylines to keep an eye on is the evolution of the center position. (Here, in case you missed it the first time.)

Well, we’re almost halfway through the season, and, crunching the data regarding the center position specifically, the first conclusion to draw is that, well… um… there really isn’t much to base a conclusion on. That’s because so many of the centers have been hurt for significant chunks of time. If you play center in the NBA, chances are high that you’re having trouble walking these days. Apparently, having a “C” next to your name on an NBA roster means that you’re likely to be Crippled, or even that you might be Cursed.

Check it out: Yao is out for the season, and might be done forever. Oden, too. Bynum can never seem to give the Lakers a long stretch of healthy productivity. Kaman can’t get back on the court for the Clippers. Okur has hardly been available for the Jazz. The Suns might be a playoff team if Robin Lopez could return to the form he was in for parts of last year’s playoffs. And the Bulls could potentially be lethal — if they could keep their center, Joakim Noah, healthy.

Looking at all these injuries, I postulate that human bodies approaching or exceeding 7 feet in length are just not meant to run up and down a basketball court at the speed of today’s game. Actually, strike that. I don’t “postulate” anything — I’m trying to build up my street cred, and people with street cred don’t “postulate” things. Please let me try again… Looking at all these injuries, I hoopserve that human bodies approaching or exceeding 7 feet in length are just not meant to run up and down a basketball court at the speed of today’s game.

Nice. Now I got my street cred intact.

With my street cred intact, I’m ready for a few other hoopservations about the current state of the center position:
1a. If a team has a 7 foot body it can roll out onto the court, who can both walk straight and catch a basketball, that team is in good shape. Bonus points if the guy was born in the 1970′s, and was a force 5 or more years ago. He doesn’t have to be able to move fast or jump high. So long as he’s 7 feet tall and in one piece, you can fake your way through having a real center. Just roll him out there and hope nobody notices. It’s basically like Weekend at Bernie’s, if Bernie was 7 feet tall and used to be a good basketball player. Evidence in support of my point: Big Z in Miami. Duncan in San Antonio. And, of course, Shaq.
1b. If a team has a center who can stay relatively healthy, and produces about 12 points, 9 rebounds, and 2 blocks, it has a distinct advantage over other teams. In fact, if a team has such a guy, that team is almost certainly a playoff team. Evidence in support of my point: Roy Hibbert (13.5 ppg, 8 rpg, 1.8 bpg), Andrew Bogut (13.5 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 2.8 bpg), and Emeka Okafor (10.9 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 1.8 bpg).

2. It’s possible to win the battle of the paint armed only with a capable power forward. The numbers that some power forwards are putting up are just silly. They’re like video game numbers. I’m talking about Amar’e (26.4 ppg, 9 rpg, 2.3 bpg), Blake Griffin (21.7 ppg and 12.5 rpg), and Kevin Love (20.6 ppg and 15.6 rpg).

Where does this leave us? I think it’s wrong to say that a good power forward without a capable center alongside him is good enough to win with — in fact, it’s interesting that Blake and Love, with numbers like those, aren’t leading their teams to more victories. One possible explanation is that those guys don’t block shots (not the most meaningful stat in the world, but a good indicator of defensive presence in the paint) nearly as often as real centers do.  In contrast, Amar’e is blocking more than 2 shots per game.

Looking ahead, I’m psyched to see what the Bulls do when Noah and Boozer get to play together for a while, what the Lakers do when Bynum and Gasol develop a rhythm, whether the Mavs are able to get over the hump now that they have Chandler playing next to Nowitzki, and what the Hornets are able to do with West and Okafor. (And, as I’ve stated repeatedly, what the Clippers will do once Kaman and Griffin are playing together.)

In closing, let’s revisit the discussion about the Knicks trading for Carmelo, in light of this information. If they keep Felton and Stoudemire, then, with Carmelo and any mediocre perimeter shooter (Gallinari, Chandler, Fields, and Toney Douglas all fit the bill), they would be good enough on offense to play 4-on-5. That would enable them to play Turiaf (an offensive liability who is a presence on D) at center alongside Amar’e, giving them a distinct advantage over most teams in the league.

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

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

What to Watch For

Filed Under: '10 - '11 Season, Evolution of the Game, GM Consultant, Positions by Tweener — Comments Off
11/09/2010

It’s still early in the season, and I’m not going to be ready with season predictions until I do a bit more analysis.  For those who aren’t paying attention to hoops yet, here are a few storylines to keep your eyes on, that you won’t necessarily read much about on other hoops sites — not yet, at least.

1.     Terrible teams.  Some of the teams at the bottom of the league are just awful.  The Raptors didn’t make the playoffs last year, and they lost Chris Bosh.  They will be horrible.  The Pistons are bad.  The Timberwolves might be worse.  Casual fans have no reason to turn on a game that those teams are playing in.  To put in perspective how bad they are, I’m a few sentences into a discussion of the terrible teams in the league, and I haven’t even mentioned the New Jersey Nets, who were 12-70 last year.  Simply because they have Brook Lopez, the Nets are better than a few of the other teams near the bottom of the league.  Seriously.  Brook Lopez.

With a labor negotiation looming, and a commissioner who has already mentioned the possibility of contraction, I predict that the ineptitude at the bottom of the league will get lots of attention pretty quickly.

2.     The evolution of the PG and C positions. Both of these positions are in a state of flux, basically pulled between the past and, um, an alternative model.  (Sorry, but I just can’t refer to Channing Frye playing center as “the future.”)  There are a bunch of PG’s in the league who play it the way I like to see it played: controlling tempo, creating shots for their teammates, and pressuring the ball on D.  I’m talking about, among others, Chris Paul, Steve Nash (without the “pressuring the ball on D” part), Tony Parker, Derron Williams, Rajon Rondo, and Jason Kidd.  Then there are a few young guys who shoot more than I like to see PG’s shoot, but are quite effective at it, and might just change the game in the process.  I’m talking about Tyreke Evans and Brandon Jennings.  Somewhere in the middle of the two groups are Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook.  The way these PG battles play out will have a big impact on the future of the game.  (My money is on CP3, Rajon Rondo, and their crew.)

A similar thing is happening at C.  As I blogged last year, the guys playing center seem to be getting smaller, and generally less center-esque than they used to be.  But, a funny thing happened during the evolution of the center position into a bunch of tall guys who shoot 3’s…. Some guys started playing C the old-fashioned way, and giving their team a big boost in the process.  There are now a bunch of C’s who stand 6’10” or taller, block shots, grab rebounds, and leave the 3-point shooting to the little guys.  I’m talking about Dwight Howard, Joakim Noah, Chris Kaman, Emeka Okafor, the Lopez brothers (as touched on above, the Nets are better than 4 or 5 teams at the bottom simply because they have a real C).  And, Shaq and Tim Duncan are still roaming the paint.  If Greg Oden and Yao get healthy enough to play serious minutes, then the C position might be returned to what it used to be.

3.     The Miami Heat.  Obviously, they’re a big story for a whole bunch of reasons.  I’ll be addressing them plenty over the next few weeks, and don’t want to get too deep into them right now.  I bring them up simply to point out that, while the PG and C positions are in a state of flux, the Heat have essentially decided that the two positions hardly matter at all; they loaded up all the talent they could at SG, SF, and PF, and basically decided that they could win without a capable PG or C.  My money is against it.  (Basically, I agree with what Jason Whitlock wrote here.)

All of that, and I haven’t even mentioned Kobe and Phil going for another three-peat, the Knicks acquiring their best player since Ewing, or Blake Griffin looking like an instant star.  I LOVE THIS GAME!!

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

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

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

Will A Champion Be Built Via Free Agency?

Filed Under: GM Consultant, NBA by Tweener — Comments Off
01/01/2010

Much is made of the potential of the free agent class of 2010. Some teams have designed their rosters to maximize their cap space this off-season, and some stars are expecting to cash in.

If you look only at the talent that will be on the market (LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Dirk, etc.), the hoopla is justified. (Get it? HOOPla.) But, if history is any guide, teams expecting to turn their fortunes around via free agency are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Championship teams are almost never built around a player who was acquired via free agency. Look at the champions of the past 20 years. The Bulls were led by Jordan and Pippen, the Spurs by Duncan and Robinson, the Bad Boy Pistons by Thomas and Dumars, and the Rockets by Olajuwon and Drexler. Each of those teams drafted or traded for each of those players.

The 05-06 Heat acquired Wade via draft and Shaq via trade (that’s why Odom is on the Lakers). The 07-08 Celtics acquired Garnett and Allen via trade (that’s why Al Jefferson is on the Wolves and Jeff Green is on the Thunder), and Pierce via draft. Last year’s Lakers were led by Kobe and Bynum, whom they drafted, and Gasol, whom they traded for. The 03-04 Pistons are kind of an anomoly, because they won without a superstar. Two of their main players – Billups and Wallace – blossomed into stars as Pistons after mediocre careers elsewhere. That team is not really a model that other teams can expect to replicate. (When the Pistons acquired Billups via free agency, he had never averaged more than 14 ppg or 6 apg at the time.)

That leaves only the three-peat Lakers of ’00, ’01, and ’02. They acquired Shaq via free agency.

So, if history is any guide, then, unless you’re signing someone as dominant as Shaq via free agency, and you already have a young Kobe Bryant on your roster, you ain’t transforming your team from mediocre to champion via free agency.

Why is this? I don’t know. Two initial thoughts come to mind: First, if your team has enough money to spend on a superstar free agent, then it’s probably a pretty lousy team, and one superstar free agent won’t be able to turn it around.

Second, the team that signs a particular free agent probably offered him more money than all of the other teams. Thus, there’s a good chance that the team that signs him has overrated him. Think about it; 1 team decides to offer the guy, say, $10 million per year. The 29 other teams in the league fall into one of two categories: either they don’t think the guy is worth more than $10 million (if they did they would have offered him more than that), or their present payroll prevents them from offering him that much. (These teams were probably already better than the team that wound up getting him, as noted in the paragraph above).

If the team that signed him is going to get significantly better, then the player has to prove himself worthy of such a high salary. There’s a chance that he does, but, remember, a bunch of teams did not think he was worth $10 million, so there’s a good chance that he doesn’t. Even if he turns out to be a star, he has to be so good that he makes the lousy team he signed with better than the teams that already had a bunch of guys making a bunch of money.

When we think of someone as talented as LeBron signing with a lousy team, it’s easy to start thinking of that team becoming an instant contender. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, I’m just saying that it’s not how teams historically improve themselves. When you hear talk about a team getting much better via free agency, be skeptical.

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