Tag Archives: Chauncey Billups

And So It Ends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments:

  • Sippy

    How can you not address the Knicks’ defensive shortcomings? As you all saw last night, two All-Stars and a fabulous point guard weren’t enough to defeat the worst team in the league, which point up its fourth highest point total of the season against New York. Knicks coach Antoni (notice the absence of a D) is allergic to defense, as are all the teams he coaches. Knicks top priority needs to be one of those grizzly veterans who plays lockdown defense, not adding anymore stars.

  • Tweener

    Sippy! Nice to have you on board.
    Regarding Antoni (I like that, by the way), I hear you that he doesn’t have a record of coaching good D. Four responses to that:
    1. Antoni, for better or worse, is the coach of the Knicks right now. To try to win with Antoni as your coach, it makes no sense to construct a roster of players who are primarily focused on D. Now, whether or not Antoni SHOULD BE the Knicks coach, that’s a different discussion. The point is that he is, and one you put him in that spot, you’ve got to build your roster accordingly. Given that he’s the coach, the ‘Melo move makes lots of sense.
    2. The Knicks now have a bunch of good defenders / rebounders: Fields, Turiaf, Balkman, Douglas, Brewer. That group at least brings SOME defensive toughness to the team. If Billups / Antony / Amar’e can do their thing on the offensive end (and they will), it’s a group good enough to win lots of games with.
    3. I still don’t get what people think would have been a better option than making the deal. When I ask the question of people who didn’t like the deal, all I hear is that the Knicks should have “waited for free agency in 2012” to make their team better. But that’s a year and a half away. And, anyway, didn’t we already try the whole wait-and-hope-free-agents-come-make-us-a-championship-team thing? Haven’t we learned?
    4. You’re really making judgments after two games? Two?

Leave a Comment:

Be Where You Belong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a Comment: