Latest Entries »

Let the Madness Begin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sports Guy should know better.

Leave a Comment: