Hoops can matter

The new blueprint for NBA success

2011-05-15T06:13:00.000-07:00

Mr. Eugene Ray Lee often spoke to me lately of the Grizz and the Okies of having found a new model for NBA success. These playoffs seem to be bearing out his statement as the Lakers and Celtics,the most dominant teams the last 3 years, crashed out in the second round taking all their prized size and muscle with them. Many, including Mr. Lee have seen this change coming for years, with the flock of quick point guards taking over the league. While I acknowledged the importance of this new class of player, I maintained my position that (all other things being relatively equal) size wins in basketball, and Paul/Rose/Wall, etc. were going to find winning a title difficult without the right supporting cast.

But as noted above, the two biggest teams are already on vacation this year. So do I scrap my theory and join the bandwagon that loves these quicks? Hell no! But it's helped me refine what I see as winning in the NBA today, something much more precise than "Biggest team wins".

These playoffs have indeed shown a new model for success. But I think this model was stumbled into a few years ago by the Celtics: Sure all these quick point guards are changing the league but I don't think they're either necessary or sufficient to win a title. But it is necessary to have personnel to handle this new type of Point Guard on defense. Offense in the NBA hasn't fundamentally changed I'd argue, these PGs merely offer a new point of attack- but there is no magic combination to score.

Let me look at the remaining 5 teams (awaiting game 7 of OKC-Memphis). The scorers for the remaining teams play these positions (I'll use a 15 ppg playoff average as cutoff):
Grizz: 4,5 (Randolph, Gasol)
Thunder: 1,3 (Westbrook, Durant)
Heat: 2,3,4 (Wade, James, Bosh)
Bulls: 1,3 (Rose, Deng)
Mavs: 2,4 (Nowitzki, Terry)

Hard to find any real pattern there.

But defense is a slightly different story. The story of the Celtics the last few years was always the big 3- and it was only fair the offensive focus was on them. And while I've often been quick to give credit to the Celtics famous defense these last few seasons to Thibodeau- I too shortchanged the importance of his players. Two of them in particular: Garnett and Perkins- the new model for NBA defense.

A big space-occupying center (Perkins) and a rangy PF to help weakside defense (Garnett). This may not be that a revolutionary model, but it seems more important than ever in keeping all those quick little buggers out of the paint. Look at the remaining 4/5 combos, and how many fit this model:

Grizz: Randolph/Gasol- check
Zombies: Ibaka-Perkins -big time check
Heat: Bosh/Anthony- check.
Bulls: Boozer/Noah- Boozer, rangy? Noah, space-occupying? Nope.
Mavs: Nowitizki/Chandler- Nowitizki, rangy? Hmm.

What's that 3 and a half you say, at best, out of five? Well, the Bulls haven't looked at all dominant in dispatching the two heavy underdogs it's faced so far- and my guess is there on their way out against the Heat. And if I truly must accept that the Mavs beat the Lakers on basketball merit instead of the Lakers merely falling apart due to infighting, then the Lakers biggest problem was the lack of someone capable of driving into the paint to expose the softness/slowness of the Mavs interior duo. I don't expect the Mavs will have the same fortune in the Conference finals, especially if it's Westbrook and Durant they'll be facing.

Boston essentially destroyed its good thing (and any chance of beating the Heat) when it traded Perkins, because it decided that James Posey was the most important piece of their championship team. The Spurs were quickly knocked out: they lack any real PF and Duncan never had the girth of a true center.

So, this summer if anyone starts talking to me too much about the need for quicksilver point guards to create a winner, I'll just remind them about some of the last few finals teams: the big Lakers, any team Perkins is on, and how Anthony vs. Noah was a more important matchup than Rose vs. South Beach's talents.

Commenting on the NBA with my eyes closed

2009-12-28T15:23:00.001-08:00

I don't know why my opinion should matter when I haven't been able to actually watch a game in a month, but here it is anyway:

Cavs- Seems like Hickson is giving them just enough to cancel out Shaq's suck. Other than that, this is last year's Cavs. So does that mean this year's Magic is still going to be their kryponite?

Hawks- They have better individual defenders across the frontcourt than even the Magic, but I still question their ability to throw team D at the Cavs and others. The home and home with the Cavs should be interesting in that regard.

Bulls- 11-17, but still 8th place! It was never about this year for this group, and while replacing Del Negro's a plus, I don't trust the Bulls braintrust to get the choice of the next coach right at all.

Toronto- About what I expected, a lot of offense, and no defense. That is, until Bosh is gone. It pains me to tell my Italian brethren here that Bargnani is no good, but at least once Bosh is gone he can slide into the 4 spot and start playing on both ends more like the Nowitizki he's supposed to be.

Knicks- But the Italians will be happy to know Gallinari is the only player worth a damn on the NBA's "premier" franchise.

Pistons- Finally got back all 18 of their high-priced swingmen back. And lost.

Wiz- Did I say they'd suck? I did, didn't I?

76ers- It's a shame really. Twice. AI (Iguodola that is) really should be somebody's Scottie Pippen. And Jrue Holiday could have been a great player, but it's looking like he'll be remembered as one of the best ever examples of players who should have stayed in school longer.

Dallas- Not too much to say about the top teams out West. Lakers are still top. Melo looks great, his team? Probably another 2nd or 3rd round exit. At least Dallas' record is different this year. Perhaps not quite as well balanced as the year they made the finals, but both teams take care of weaker competition, but hardly seem unstoppable.

Spurs- Do interest me however. Pop nursed Blair sufficently long enough, and is now starting him. Pop still has Parker and Duncan cruising though, and it'll be a while before we see if this team can win at least a couple of series. Blair is like Chuck Hayes with skill, and would give the Lakers problems in a series, still not sure if Ginobili and Duncan can get it done often enough to keep up with LA though. Regardless, if the Coach of the Year voting had any legitimacy at all though, there would be exactly three candidates every year for the award, and only three: Popovich, Phil Jackson, and Jerry Sloan.

Houston- Yeah, called this one too. In fact, some unabashed horn-blowing (surprisingly not a masturbation reference): If the season ended tonight I'd be 15 for 16 on playoff teams. The one mistake? The Wiz. What the fuck? I hate the Wiz! What was I thinking?

Minnesota- It's part love of sad underdogs, but I like this team. Well, mainly I'm rooting for Rambis and UCLA passer-through Kevin Love. Love Love. Maybe Flynn will turn into something, maybe they'll just have to wait for Rubio. I'll tell you what, here's what they need to do: trade Al Jefferson. I'm sure lots of teams would love to have him, but one gravitationally-challenged undersized big man is ok, but two is too many. Keep Love, spin Jefferson for legit big body (a Przbilla or Pachulia type would be more than adequate) and some perimeter help.

The NBA's Surprises- read: Teams we misunderstood

2009-11-26T01:07:00.000-08:00

Early season talk is always about "surprises". I think its interesting why the "surprises" are indeed surprising. Sometimes its due to unforeseen player development, for example Brandon Jennings coming in and being an impact player (indeed, he has become his team's 1st, and sometimes 2nd option). Hard to blame the pundits and wanna-be pundits (hello!), and water cooler pundits for not expecting this kind of impact from a player who couldn't get off the bench during his controversial adventure in Italy.

But sometimes the surprises happen just because we want to cling on to our ideas about teams. The most interesting team in this regard is certainly the Hawks. A team people tipped as up-and-comers three years ago, but generally underachieved the last two seasons, despite showing continued (albeit moderate) growth. Suddenly this year they've jumped at least a couple of levels from a slightly above average team to a team that is currently on top of the East. It seems most people would agree this team can compete during the regular season for one of the top 3 spots, but what about the postseason in the suddenly loaded top half of the East?

As near as I can tell, Atlanta's jump can be most specifically pinned to two things: their defense exploiting the incredible athleticism, and Josh Smith not shooting 3's. Some time ago, I described the basics of an ideal NBA defense. The Hawks actually expand on my ideas. A strong Center to fill the lane (with blocks a welcome bonus), and a shot-blocking PF on the weakside. Long and athletic swingmen, and a PG at least capable of defending the screen/roll well. Horford may give up a couple of inches, but him and Smith are a devastating combination, effectively shutting down the paint to penetration every night. Throw in Marvin Williams (who has all the tools to be the best defender at his position) and their frontcourt averages an incredible 6+ blocks per game. Conversely, I find their offense to be easily one of the ugliest of any playoff-bound team. I think teams that run endless screen/rolls (a la N.O.) are quite boring to watch, but at least there's some sort of team mechanism there. The Hawks just take turns in isolation, a throwback to the NBA's ugly 90's (Sorry Jordan fans, there was precious little entertaining offense in the 90's). This offense reminds me of Cleveland's, or Phoenix's, in that it works great against weaker defenses, and will rack up W's in the regular season, but come playoff time, these offenses will struggle mightily against the Bostons and Orlandos.

A couple of teams out West are earning themselves the surprise tag as well, but for a totally different reason than Atlanta's. Atlanta was a young team on the rise, after stuttering the past two season this year they've come out like gangbusters. Phoenix and Dallas however, are experiencing a collective deja-vu. Steve Kerr did his best to dismantle the run-n-gun of D'Antoni, but like a bad cold, he just couldn't shake it. After a little over half a season of mediocrity he gave up and let the team go back to doing what it does best, only for Amare to go down a couple of games later. Us pundity types had basically two games to judge the new-old Suns. They scored about 140 in each of those games. How did we miss that? Oh yeah, they were both against the Clippers. Well, Nash and Amare haven't changed in these 2 years, and the Coach and management no longer consider the bench a waste of money and minutes as Gentry is using a legitimate 9-man rotation. It's hard to recapture lightning in a bottle, but the Suns have done it. So, we can look forward to 60 wins and a 2nd or 3rd round exit in the playoffs. It's like making predictions with a cheat sheet to look at.

The Mavs are just plain mysterious to me. For me, they should have been champs over the Heat. No conspiracy, but the refs favored Wade's reckless drives to the hoop in that series. Then the undoing against the GSW's, and the teams psyche came unraveled. I gave some of the credit to their recent mediocrity to an unhealthy/uninspired Howard, who may still be out, but has been ably replaced by Marion. It still doesn't seem quite right that the key to this team's success could possibly be the SF, when they've had revolving PG's and Erick Dampier at C. But I don't see where else to look. Taking for granted Dirk and Terry's importance, it seems relevant that the return of an effective slasher/shooter and premier defender at the Howard's old position has perked up a team whose window had seemed not only closed, but destined to be ever more closed due to their advancing ages. So, can we we expect a repeat of the past in the playoffs for the Mavs, as I do for Phoenix? It's a little hard seeing this team getting 10 minutes from a 3-0 lead in the finals. The two teams that have already shown how they can be strong in the playoffs out West, Denver and LA, to me seem like better teams, but Dallas produces some funky matchups that I may look closer at as the season progresses.

It's all out there, if you want to understand it

2009-11-10T08:16:00.000-08:00

Phil Jackson has been quoted on a number of occasions of having said that (pardon the potentially dodgy paraphrase) teams pretty much show you everything you'll need to know about what the team can and can't do after only ten games. It may sound reductive (obvious he doesn't take into account the influence injuries have), but I fully agree. Even just watching one game in enough to get a feel for what the team wants to do, and 10 games is about right to see how their "style" matches up against teams with differing sets of strength and weaknesses.

For example, a good many people were sceptical about how Shaq could help LeBron. I was curious to see it in action, as I'm sure everybody was. Now, after watching one game, I understand how they plan on utilizing Shaq. Space for the Shaq in the Cavs offense will be created by marginalizing the influence of LeBron James. So, in what most people not in employed in the Cleveland front office will not consider a surprise, Shaq weakens this team. In fact, while watching the Cavs-Bulls game one of the announcers passed on GM Danny Ferry's opinion that the Cavs' lost to the Magic last season because they lacked height and length. My immediate reaction (which had lasted for a couple hours until just now): We must not have seen the same series. The Cavs had a dominant team that ran into its kryptonite in the Magic. Their defense, anchored by Howard was uniquely equipped to slow down LeBron (some). The bigger problem was Wallace and Ilgauskas were completely unable to stay with their men- the smaller Magic frontcourt were running right past their counterparts. What the Cavs need is one of these new-fangled jump-shooting power forwards, someone who can follow Rashard Lewis around the perimeter and space on offense for LeBron. Now when LeBron has the ball, Shaq hides (!) on the weakside, meaning Varejao now has to be jump shooter to leave the paint open for James. I can think of a number of afterthought players the Cavs could've had that would have fit better than Shaq, even two players I've often criticized like Matt Bonner or Zach Randolph could work in small doses. Yes, that's right, I said the Cavs need Matt Bonner...

...Or even Nenad Krstic, the Zombie Sonics' center. Caught the Lakers-Zombies game, and the OKC offense startled me because it seemed that its players all intentionally avoid ever setting foot in the paint if at all possible. Makes sense I guess, when both your PF and C are more comfortable shooting 3's than posting up. They have enough skill and athleticism to give teams a hard time, and might even make that run at the playoffs. There offense reminds me some of the old Bad Boys Pistons teams. Much of the offense is created by a "scoring" SF (Durant/Dantley) or penetration from the point guard (Westbrook/Thomas) and perimeter shooting from, particularly from the 5 spot (Krstic/Laimbeer). I'm not a fan of Krstic on that team. Green's a nice player, but he's no Mahorn/Rodman type that anchors the paint and owns the boards freeing a slick-shooting Center to roam on the perimeter. Instead Collison starts on the bench, despite his consistent production, and ability to at least do something in the paint. In fact a glance at 82games.com shows the Zombies are 23 points better over a 48 minute period with Collison on the floor than when he's on the bench. In fact the same stats show that the team is struggling anytime Green is the PF. I know the NBA's fallen with small, but there's a reason NBA players are still taller than you or I, height wins.

Which brings me to another PF-challenged team, the Bulls. Tim Thomas ain't gonna cut it in the long run. I liked Gibson at USC, wasn't sure if he had the size and range to cut it in the NBA, but he looked pretty good from what I saw of him. But what I saw was a team that almost worked great. Deng still isn't quite what he was, but looked fairly fluid. Problem was, he was often the guy drifting to the perimeter to space for the drives of Rose and Salmons. And Hinrich really should be starting in place of Salmons. He's got easily the best +/- among the guards not only because he's an excellent defender, but if someone needs to space out for Rose or Deng, Hinrich will do it without thinking twice.

I enjoy picking on the dregs of the East, but it may now be deeper than the west. The Bulls and Hawks were expected to be happy finishing in the 4 and 5 spots, but they look capable of making the top 3 in the east sweat considerably in a playoff series. But the most interesting development out East without question is...

The Heat! I gotta know: where did Jermaine O'Neal find the fountain of youth? Or has Riles taken to spiking the gatorade of O'Neal, Richardson, and Haslem- all three suddenly playing like its 2004. Chalmers is proving himself the steal of last year's draft, but the story here is all about the frontcourt. I watched some of their blowout against the Nuggets (whom I apologize to placing 4th in my picks basically because they don't interest me) and O'Neal looks smooth, instead of a step-and-a-half slow like he had been the last couple of years. Even Richardson looked good.

So how bout that East?

Preseason's coming to a close, here's my last 'practice' post

2009-10-27T12:21:00.000-07:00

So let's fold in what we've learned the last couple of weeks of pretend basketball; and refine, and occasionally repeat, what I have previously laid out as my vision of this upcoming season.
West:

Lakers. I suppose I've still got them even winning the 1 seed on sheer depth, and still have (naive?) hopes that Bynum will stay healthy, and win back as least as many games as Artest might lose them compared to last year. Frankly, it's almost certainly not going to happen, even if Bynum is healthy and effective there'll be some possible awkward adjustments to make- namely, if Andrew's shooting more (he will be) who besides Artest will be shooting less? Kobe? Pau? Some games it'll work, others not, but I believe Andrew's improvement as well as Artest's arrival make them overwhelming favorites come playoff time.

Spurs. Had a great offseason followed by a great preseason. Great that is, because Blair seemed to show himself to be at least one of the top 5 talents in his class, just as he did in school. Not only has he already confirmed his 'steal' status (even if he plays only 20 games next year, he'll make 20 GMs look like absolute fools for passing on him) but he could be a legitimate difference maker for the Spurs. The Spurs are a legitimate title contender (one of 4 in my book- see below), but no team can win a title relying on Matt Bonner at the 4 spot. But who knows what Blair will be able to do? His whole no-ACL-having thing is not only weird but fairly unprecedented as far as I know. But if he can play a major role for the Spurs, I think they probably match up better with the Lakers than any other team in the whole league. An intriguing team for me, this.

Portland. I don't know, I don't feel like bumping the Nuggs' up, but I could see the Blazers not hosting a playoff series again this year. Looks like McMillan is as willing to declare Miller's signing a bust as I am, being that he can't find a way to pull Blake out of the lineup. Batum and Fernandez both have the ability to make even bigger impacts this year, too bad they not only share the same position with each other, but might even lose some minutes to a returned Webster. I've seen some positive buzz around Oden though, if he can make a breakthrough- and stay healthy- they should get that 3rd spot after all.

Dallas. I reluctantly move them up to the 6 spot, even if Howard's taking an extended smoke break to start the season.

New Orleans. Still don't like them, but I guess I'll turn down the grumpiness and admit they're probably a 7 or 8 seed.

Houston. Nobody is giving them a chance to even make the playoffs. Don't get it. Sure sportswriters and cranky old men love the "they didn't play hard" angle, but I mean really, the Lakers just didn't feel like trying in Game 6 against the Yao-less Rockets? Nonsense. As I've said before, Houston's strong points happened to coincide with LA's weaknesses, so they gave them a hard time. But hey, Houston is tough, and a very effective *team*. I know there's no "team" in NBA (the league that will now give us Iverson, Randolph, Gay, and Mayo on the court at the same time), and the best player does usually win in the end. But sometimes, just sometimes, teams win games too.

Phoenix. Had em pegged at 6 before. Saw on ESPN the other day their Lopez got hurt, and apparently that was a big blow. That's a very bad sign. Not the injury itself, but the fact that they're depending on him.

Clips. I mean, it's just sad. Sure, you can make the case Sterling deserves that team, but what did Griffin ever do to deserve such a curse?

East:
Cleveland. Still good, should win 60+. Offense has always been dull at the team level, now you'll have both Shaq and Varejao hogging space in the paint. But hey, Shaq's an improvement over Wallace, right? Still, of my 4 contenders, they may be my least favorite to win, just behind...

Orlando. Barring any untimely injuries, I don't see this team beating the Lakers. Too much size, and enough quicks in LA's front line to follow the Magic's 3 point chuckers. But, a Spurs-Magic series would be a whole different thing, and actually an entertaining series in my book. This looks to me to be a much better team than last year's. Problem is the 3 other contenders improved too. In fact I'm not sure last June's Laker team beats any of my 4 favorites from this year. Those Lakers were flawed, but no other team was able to exploit their flaws. In fact, only Houston came close. Carter's an obvious improvement at the 2, and at the individual level, the new Barnes/Anderson/Bass trio looks much more productive to me than Turkoglu. As long as Nelson and Carter can run the pick and roll effectively (very important that Nelson look to distribute more this year à la Turk) they have a strong chance of repeating as Eastern champs.

Boston. I hadn't expected to exclude them from the title talks, but I don't see any real improvement on this team, and a lot of potential for falling back into a second pack in the East, even if healthy. Fact is, this team's just old. And 'Sheed ain't gonna help that much in that regard either.

Chicago. I'll be rooting for them to get their pieces together, they do seem closer than anytime since MJ quit. I'd really like to see Deng come back and be important again.

The Wiz. Still suck.

Wait, that's not fair.

The East, Seeds 6-15. Still sucks. There, that's better.

A Revisionist Prediction of the West

2009-09-11T08:34:00.000-07:00

Retouches on my hurried and incomplete West picks:

1. Lakers- Questions:Can Bynum stay healthy? Will Artest have the good sense not to shoot the ball? Who's going to get the bulk of the minutes at PG (I'm rooting for Brown)?

2. Spurs- Questions: How's Manu's ankle? How much does McDyess have left? Can the defense be "crafty" enough to make up for old legs?
Frankly, I think this needs to be Parker's team, Manu or no Manu. Jefferson should help create space for Parker, but their interior defense looks awfully old. Not a top 5 defense anymore, but can finish 2nd if they're at least top 12.

3. Blazers- Questions: Who's going to be the real PG, Miller or Roy? Will Miller be anything but dead weight when Roy is the primary ballhandler? Will McMillan have the sense to play Fernandez more?

4. Nuggs: Zero changes from last year, but are they still one of the top teams in the West?

And here's where things get real complicated. I'll leave these questions here, but unlike the questions for the first four teams, I don't really have any guess what the answers are going to be.

5. Utah: Can all the high paid PFs get along? Last year was just an abberation, right?

6. Phoenix: Will the Gentry/Amare combination continue to average 140/game? (Only if they play the Clippers every game) Was D'Antoni as important as Nash to the run n' gun? Can Nash and Amare stay healthy and effective?

7. Houston: Can they find enough points on offense? (I think they'll do ok. They're lacking the star, but they're an expertly built team.)

8. Dallas: Can they rip the bong from Howard's lips? That's all I got.

9. New Orleans: Will Okafor will be a little better than a hobbled Chandler? Will everyone other than Paul (half excusing West and Okafor here) suck just some, or a helluva lot?

10. Clippers: Can Griffin really be a rookie saviour? Will somebody tell Thornton to stop shooting? How awesome is Gordon going to be this season? Will Baron care, or better yet, will he punch Dunleavy?

11. Okies: Will anybody really be able to tell how good Durant is getting if the rest of his team continues to suck?

12. Grizz: Will they be the first team to break out into an all-out brawl over who gets to shoot the ball? Will they also be the second team? And the first to win the game anyway?

13. Warriors: Will someone please tell Don Nelson he retired 5 years ago?

14. Minnesota: Will anyone care that their long-term rebuilding plan so far seems reasonable when they struggle to win 20 games?

15. Sacto: Will the stat geeks bromance with Kevin Martin ever fade, even after another 20 win season?

West Picks! Come n' get 'em!

2009-09-04T07:09:00.000-07:00

Racing against the clock before leaving for 2-4 days here, so I may choose to revise these when I have time to think clearly.

1- Lakers: No brainer. Right? Insanely deep. A Laker fan can hope Bynum, will come back bigger and badder (very possible) and stay healthy all season (possible, right?) . I wouldn't expect more than 65 wins here though, Kobe and Ron Ron will brick them out of between 5-10 they should have otherwise won. In fact, Euge you may be right about the Cavs winning at least 66 and being the perfect regular season team, but if Lakers stay healthy, there is no way anybody beats them in the playoffs.

2- Spurs: Much improved, could even if things break just right give the Lakers a run for their money for the 1 seed, but still way behind the Lakers if they were to meet in the playoffs.

3- Trail Blazers: I don't think signing Miller is a great signing, but he's an obvious improvement over Blake. Could challenge for 2 seed.

4- Nugs: Melo should compile numbers a little better than last year, but this team seems no stronger than last year's, but both San Antonio and Portland should be quite a bit better.

5- Jazz: Like last year, the West seems to have 3 teams from 2-4 that are about even, and 4 more from 5-8 about even. I'll give the Jazz the nod here even though everyone is predicting team turbulence because of the Boozer situation, but I think Sloan is one of the few coaches who can handle that kind of situation. Kirilinko slides back to SF, where he is surprisingly ineffective. But then again, so was CJ Miles.

6- Mavs: Let's not think about what the Mavs were a couple of years ago; now there a team with one mid-level star and nothing more than nice pieces after that. One difference maker is not enough to get homecourt in the west.

7- Hornets: Their 57 win total was a fluke. There, I said it. But 50 will always be attainable as long as CP3 has somebody, anybody to pass the ball to.

8- Rockets: I see so little difference between 5-8 that I almost put the Rockets 5th. ESPN has them 9th? Have we all already forgotten that 22 game winning streak from 2 seasons ago that was mostly achieved without McGrady or Yao? It wasn't just the Lakers not showing up in that playoff series last year, this is a very effective team, emphasis on team. Well, done GM Morey, you get my compliments. Liked their draft too.

9- Suns: Well, I think I'm actually going to revise this later, bumping someone. I don't know, do I trust Amare? He'll at least want to earn his max contract, right?

Gotta go... I'll get to Thunder and Clippers and seriously ponder if either has a chance at pushing for (or at least towards) playoffs.

Basket può essere importante\My East pre-preview for 2009-2010

2009-09-02T12:16:00.000-07:00

This is my first post that I've written since I've moved to Italy. We'll see how much this Italy thing complicates blogging ability. First, I've just been crazy busy restarting my life over here. But later there'll be the whole finding a way to see the games thing. I'm sure it'll work out some way or another.

But here we're writing because as often, someone else's article online got me wanting to say something. ESPN has already released it's predictions for this coming season. I honestly think it's a bit early for that, as it would be nice to see what kind of development some of the youngin's show in the preseason and to wait as long as possible to include knowledge of any possible injury developments into predictions.

First, a note on reg. season vs. playoffs. At this point the playoffs are the freshest thing on our minds, and it's tempting to take what we saw last postseason, tweak those teams according to offseason roster changes, and there's your evaluation for next season. In reality, the regular season is a different animal. Everyone talks about how important matchups are in the playoffs, but in reality a truth about all sports is that the team that is able to beat the best teams with the greatest regularity (read: playoff champs) isn't necessarily the same team that beats bad and mediocre teams with the greatest regularity. So being ranked first on this list does NOT necessarily mean I expect them in the Finals next June. That said...

My pre-preview:
East:
1. Cleveland- I doubt they'll win the same 66 games they did last year, but they shouldn't be far behind. Basically they traded Shaq for Wally World. Will Shaq make them better? Hmm. Will they miss Wally? No. More importantly LeBron remains a force that only 4 or 5 defenses in the league can even remotely slow down.

2. Boston- So the bet is will Boston will have less health problems than Orlando will have putting its new roster together...

3. Orlando- Though I think Orlando will be fine come playoff time. And frankly the 2 and 3 seeds are the same, for the most part, but being first means only having one real playoff series as opposed to two. But Cleveland seems a much safer bet than its two competitors out east.

4. Chicago- I like that the offense will be more based on Rose shooting and distributing the ball now that Gordon's "instant offense" will be gone. The bigs are still suspect, but Rose may be ready for another decent jump, which should be enough considering they should have a solid defense (and having Deng back should help too).

5. Atlanta- A little more depth than last year...

6. Miami- Beasley could pull a Len Bias or a Michael Vick\Plaxico\etc., but I don't think it would matter too much anyway. It's hard to see him ever doing anything important in Wade's shadow, especially without a real big man to free him up. Shame really.

7. The WIZ- I'm a Wiz-hater. I admit it. Don't much like Flip as a coach for that matter either. I don't see any consistent efficiency on offense, but lord knows they have lots of guys who at least know how to get their own shots, and they'll hit enough of them to finish around .500. But I put this team in the same category as Toronto: There should be a considerable improvement over last season, but both teams' restructuring has set them up for what looks like years of declining win totals.

8. Toronto- Ah, what fun predicting the annual East-clusterf*ck for the 8 seed. Hmm, of these 5 teams who will suck the least? I'll go with Toronto who may have rebuilt their team to give themselves an unprecedented 1-year window at a 7 or 8 seed. Really reaching for the stars in Toronto. Sure, Hedo will help, quite a bit this year (Belinelli might too) but Hedo's old, and Bosh will be gone after this season. In fact, he might even be traded during the season.

9. Detroit- What a waste. I don't get it. I thought I did for half a second, but nope. So Hamilton and Prince were the reason the Pistons weren't good last year? Really?

10. Charlotte- Charlotte may win 35 games every year for the next 15 years. Who loves mediocrity? MJ!

11. Indiana- I really want to believe Larry Legend that he doesn't draft white guys on purpose. Sure the better ones do usually tend to slip to the late lottery where the Pacers have been lately, but geez Larry, help a brother out and draft a brother some year.

12. Bucks- Who knows, if Bogut stays healthy maybe they even make a push at the 8 seed?

13. Nets- So many young pieces, three great young pieces in Harris, Lee, and Lopez. A black hole at forward (they should set up a chair on the sideline for Yi to post up to send some highlights to China worth seeing). If I'm LeBron though, honestly, I mean honestly, this team looks pretty intriguing, certainly more than the Knicks. He'd fit in awful nice with their youngins. Just sayin'.

14. Philly- Sure, Elton's a big question mark, but this team needs some help in the backcourt. Weird team this, only one in the NBA that looks to have a solid frontcourt but no guard help at all. ESPN lists Philly's starting backcourt as Jrue Holiday and Willie Green. Might this be the worst starting backcourt in history? And I like Jrue! Someday that is...

15. Knicks- The only thing harder than choosing an 8 seed in the East is choosing the last place team. If Lee and Robinson end up resigining, I'll bump them up 3 or 4 spots, but this team still sucks. And I can't see why LeBron would play here.

(West to follow...)

The reshuffling of NBA decks

2009-07-06T16:01:00.000-07:00

An answer to the series of posts Eugene cluttered up my facebook page with. Basically it's a quick look at the free agent signings thus far this offseason.

Gortat offered full mid-level contract by Mavs: Magic still have right to match the offer, but I doubt they'll want to spend that much money on a player who is averages about 10 minutes a game. I don't like the idea of a Gortat/Howard combo on the court at the same time, which I elaborated on in a somewhat dated response to comments here: http://hoopscanmatter.blogspot.com/2009/06/we-got-trades.html#comments
So what can the big Pole do in Dallas? Hard to say. He really should be an upgrade over Dampier. In fact, his arrival in the starting lineup seems to be a like-for-like change. Problem for Dallas is everyone in there starting lineup who isn't a 7-foot tall European seems to be over the hill. Josh Howard climbing out of his water pipe would do more for Dallas' chances of excelling than the arrival of the Hammer.

The Artest for Ariza "swap": Frankly, as a Laker fan, I love this. So long as Ron Ron can keep his love for crazy shots, and his love for just plain crazy in check, this is an important upgrade. I really like Ariza, and he should develop into one the top perimeter defenders in the league, but he lacks the muscle to knock the Carmelo's and LeBron's (and even the Pierce's) off of their game. Everyone talks about his steals against the Nuggets. But Carmelo's absolute dominance in the first 2 games of the series as been mostly forgotten. Eventually the Lakers dared J.R. Smith and co. to beat them, and threw the whole defense at Melo. Ariza completely destroyed Turkoglu during long stretches of the Finals, but the Lakers dodged a huge bullet in not having to guard LeBron. The Rockets may have actually got better here too. I think they're better served with somebody taking those shots besides Artest. I'm not sure Aaron Brooks, now truly a focal point on offense, is going to get them to an elite level, but this is good for them.

Villanueva and Gordon sign with Detroit: Not sure what to think about this one. Allegedly Detroit turned down a Stuckey-Prince-Hamilton deal for Rondo, these signings seem to suggest GM Joe Dumars is having second thoughts. How else do you explain these signings? Between Stuckey, Hamilton, Gordon, Villanueva, and Prince they're overloaded on the perimeter, and those first four guys will expect a lot of touches and shots. In the meantime, all Detroit has left up front is the 52 year-old Antonio McDyess and Jason Maxiell after losing Rasheed Wallace and trading Amir Johnson away. I'm guessing Dumars isn't done tinkering with the roster. At least, I hope he isn't.

Shaq creates new corny jokes to support his latest Hall of Fame sidekick: Another like-for-like starting lineup change with Shaq replacing Big Z. Both are old, big, and real slow. Big Z could step out of the lane and space for LeBron, Shaq is a better defender in the post and finisher at the basket. Both are going to have a real hard time keeping up with Dwight Howard on screen/rolls. A slight improvement for Cleveland perhaps. Absolutely imperative for Cleveland now that they resign Varejao, or find another big man who doesn't seem quite so out of sorts 20 feet from the basket on offense and defense.

Carter/Anderson to Orlando: A bit of a win-now type gamble for Orlando, but I'm ok with it. Maybe the Lakers' are the only team expose the undersized Lee with Kobe constantly taking him to the post, but if the Magic make it out of the East, the Lakers certainly figure to be waiting for them in the Finals again. Vince was expected to do a lot in Jersey, his role in Orlando should be rather more restrained. Instead of Turkoglu running the screen/roll with Howard, it'll be Nelson and Carter. Neither are quite as good as passers, but should be much more dangerous attacking the basket and spacing for the other off the ball. They definitely matchup better against the Lakers, maybe a little better against the Cavs, but they still better hope they won't have to face Boston. I do like Anderson a lot, however, and if Orlando is going to beat Boston in a playoff series, they're going to need a lot from Anderson.

Others:
J-Kidd staying put? Hmph, can't say I really care that much about that.
Wallace to the Celtics: Not sure how much he has left in the tank, but he could potentially be the perfect answer to the Magic's small Power Forwards and Cleveland's lead-footed big men.
Turkoglu to Toronto: I've made it abundantly clear how little I like this team here before, but this signing may actually get them the right to be beaten in the 1st round of the playoffs IF Bosh isn't traded first. So do I like this deal? Eh. Bosh is leaving anyway, and am I really supposed to believe a (quickly aging) Turkoglu/Bargnani core can win in this league? This deal will only be acceptable if Toronto sucks it up, deals Bosh, and gets some useful pieces back.
Lee to New Jersey: Lee will have a nice career here. Shame they had to give Anderson too to make the deal happen, but it's hard not to like that Net core with Harris/Lee/Lopez.
Nobody to Washington Wiz: HAHAHAHA! Has officially pulled alongside Golden State for franchise in worst position to win over the next several years. Sure, Don Nelson has gone completely insane, GSW will feature maybe the smallest backcourt ever with Ellis and Curry, and they're still going to be paying Corey Maggette for the next several years. But the Wiz are impossibly tied to the Arenas/Butler/Jamison core, even though I'd put the over/under for combined games missed for that trio at about 55 (I vote over) next year, and it can only go downhill from there.

The new era: Nash, Paul, Rose, Parker... and LeBron?

2009-06-29T00:23:00.000-07:00

One-trick-pony offenses are usually going to have a tough time winning in the playoffs, and the Cavs certainly proved to have only one trick. The world, and Nike, were stunned when they watched Orlando dispatch Cleveland in the playoffs. Yeah, Orlando is a nice team, and did a good job of showing how creaky that Cleveland interior was. Still, with the onslaught that LeBron James threw at Orlando, it was hard to imagine that Orlando would be able to resist it. But they sucked up LeBron attack after attack and came out standing, able to consistently outscore the Cavs.

Much better to be pony that knows a lot of tricks, even if they're not the most absolutely dominating tricks out there. The Lakers put out an offense capable of attacking from every point on the floor and could always find a way to score points. The exception to this rule is when a team has such a devastating first option, that developing a second option is just a waste of time as the second option would never be as productive as the first option is against it's worst matchup, Jordan's Bulls being one easy example.

But in at least the last 30 years, no Point Guard/Primary Ballhandler has ever been the indisputed no. 1 option of a championship-winning team. Because in the modern era it has always been too difficult for the primary ballhandler to be able to single-handedly create enough offense to justify being the only option (even Magic had plenty of help in the years he won). Good defensive teams (the kind that tend to show up late in the playoffs) can collapse on the ballhandler well enough while still containing the other shooters to limit good shots all around. But great post and weakside scorers tend to win out over great defense however. Just too much space to cover in those situations.

The new school of modern GMing says that the rules have changed for the current era, both literally and figuratively. Point guards can be such a devastating force now that hand-checking has been outlawed that PGs like Steve Nash and Chris Paul looked like they could take on the likes of the big-filled champs of San Antonio, Boston, and LA. They haven't broke through yet, but would you bet against a Paul or Derrick Rose carrying their teams to a championship someday? But each year so far they've come up short, both literally (the teammates around these point guards even tend to be undersized) and figuratively. But a few more lottery-dwellers seem to be looking to go toward the Nelly-ball/D'Antoni style.

How can you blame them though? Look what Chris Paul did for an otherwise mediocre Hornet team. A great point guard can now at least allow a weak franchise to make the postseason, and even be a dangerous team once there. But what about the true title contenders, presumably LA, Orlando, Cleveland, Boston, and San Antonio? LA's triangle offense will always be the antithesis of this style. Orlando, Boston, and San Antonio are likely to be even more dependant on their PGs than last year, with the return of Nelson, the growth of Rondo (doing a max contract push), and Parker who could actually become the indisputed #1 option on his team. Parker at this point seems a much better bet to win a title as a #1 option before Nash, Paul, or Rose because of the seeming overall quality of the players around him.

What about the LeBrons? Sure didn't look like there was much talent around the Icon. I once spewed about the Lakers' impending demise to the Cavs in the finals. Seems even more like the emotional knee-jerk reaction to an ugly second round loss now than it did then. The Cavs have lost much of the respect I had begrudgingly given them that year. I'm still not sure the Lakers' defense would have been tidy enough to stop the LeBron train anywhere near as well as Orlando did, but I still say that series could've gone either way. Doesn't matter though, and the real problem for Cleveland is that they have to get through an East with one team (Orlando) that seems to have their number, and another (Boston) team it's dead even with (15 or so straight wins by the home team in last two years).

Nobody thinks of the Cleveland offense being the same as New Orleans', but it is. Sure LeBron's a helluva lot bigger than Paul, maybe a little better, and technically plays a different position. But both are the true point guards of their teams, and they expected to create virtually all of their team's offense. LeBron is big enough that he has a couple extra wrinkles to his game, but much of the Cavs' offense is LeBron taking the ball on the perimeter and beating his man off the dribble and attacking the basket. So shouldn't LeBron be thrown in there with Paul/Nash/Rose then too? Looks great until he faces a great defense in the playoffs?

Interesting thing, it kinda looks like LeBron would actually be a much more devastating power forward setting the screens, rather than the point small forward dribbling around those screens. I never really understood why nobody would advocate playing LeBron more at the 4 AFTER mentioning how dominant he had been in relatively short stretches as the PF. A look at some of the most interesting stats among his splits between his time at the 3 and at the 4:
-His already amazing PER of 34.4 at the 3 dwarfed by the gargantuan 37.9 he put up at the 4. So he is more efficient offensively.
-His rebound per 48 minute rates: a very impressive 9.1 at the 3, to a still very-strong-by-Power-Forward standards 10.9 at the 4. The team's rebounding wouldn't likely suffer apparently.
-PER of opposing player and LeBron's blocks per game: at the 3 it's 13.6 and 1.3 blocks. At the 4 it's 14.2 and 2.0 blocks. A marginal improvement in opposing Power Forward's efficiency is likely more than compensated for by an increase in LeBron's effectiveness in shot blocking. Hard to say the defense gets any worse here, especially considering the sad sack of PFs the Cavs have on their roster.

But what about his ballhandling? That's what this is about, isn't it? I've heard LeBron downplay that PF role in interviews. He wants the ball in his hands, because he's special. So big and so skilled dribbling and passing? Move over Kobe, he's Magic and Jordan all rolled into one! Why would you effectively take away the gift that makes him most special? The triple-double's, man!

-Assists per 48 minutes: At the 3 he averaged 9.6 assists man! As a small forward! Did I mention all his rebounds too? He's a triple-double machine!

At the 4 he averaged a measly 8.4 assists. Wait a minute! 8.4? As a power forward? Sure, he probably played more than a little "point power forward," but I'm sure he set a couple screens for other players along the way, like a PF would. And it seems he finished and passed with devastating efficiency when he did. Imagine if he were to set a screen for a decent point guard (yes, Mo, we're ALL looking at you) how would you dare not collapse your entire defense on him to keep the ball out of his hands? And what if he does a pick and pop instead? There isn't a power forward alive who could cover him in that situation.

The thing is if LeBron really wants to be marketed as a Jordan/Magic hybrid he'll miss out on his greatest destiny: to be a Nash/Stoudamire hybrid or Stockton/Malone. Think of it, he could play either role with the separate skills of these legendary duos. He can be his own second option! "Oh well, we're up against a team that can stop the 'Stockton' LeBron, so we'll just have to unleash the 'Malone' LeBron!"

Please! Somebody call Phil Knight and get him to allow this to happen!

Wait, don't! I'm a Laker fan!!!!

We got trades!

2009-06-23T23:58:00.001-07:00

Trades are by far the most entertaining occurrence for an armchair GM. They give us the best fodder to chew. It's hard to really criticize Otis Smith for signing Lewis or if Dumars gives a max deal to Boozer. They had money to spend (that year) and those were the star-level players available. Would you rather add Lewis for no basketball cost or do nothing? Sure, maybe he wasn't Otis Smith's first choice-maybe not even his 20th, but he was the big free agent available that year. And the draft? Maybe you've seen Tyreke Evans or Brandon Jennings play, but I know I haven't. You're choosing from unknown quantities so you're hoping to find the best player available often rather than choosing for a system. It gives you a better idea of what a GM values than free agent signings do, but not much. Trades, on the other hand, speak clearly. The Spurs were willing to give up their unproductive bench players, and the cap space they would have given the Spurs in next year's Free Agent Bonanza. (Wouldn't Bosh or Wade have to at least consider the fact that if they'd sign with the Spurs they'd probably start the year as favorites to win the title?) Instead, San Antonio has decided to change course immediately. And the path that San Antonio has chosen is quite possibly the most exciting thing to happen in the short history of this blog. That's because San Antonio has gone to the...

Otis Smith school of team-building! Let's compare starting lineups shall we?
Power Forward: Greg Bonner = Rashard Lewis
I'll just stop here as I think I've already proved my point. In the most modern of eras devastatingly quick point guards drive and kick to (soft) 3-point shooting 4's. Orlando set the standard for this type of offense this year, and San Antonio is giving up on its hope of finding another big man to pair with Tim Duncan to allow him a David Robinson-type transition later in his career to instead follow Orlando's lead. One real post player (Duncan/Howard) and essentially 4 perimeter players. Offensively, this Spurs team looks considerably tougher than the Magic were last season (at least after the Nelson injury). Parker's ready to carry the offensive load, and seems ready to have a season worthy of MVP consideration. And Duncan is still a more effective post player than Howard is. Jefferson's the perfect fit on offense, and he'll be ok on defense. Problem is, Greg Bonner won't. And they just traded both his backups. Maybe they'll find a find a better 4, but it looks like the Spurs are going for the Rashard Lewis-light package.

Everyone out West is building with an eye to beating the Lakers, and I think this Spurs team would win more than the 1 game than the Magic won this June. Looking at the matchups the 4 with Gasol/Odom(<-?) should be very strong for LA like it was against Orlando, but Parker will kill LA on the other end. Don't think it's quite enough, but it's certainly an interesting start.

Pre-game thoughts on SVG

2009-06-09T16:34:00.000-07:00

I saw a problem, a fundamental problem in fact for the Magic in this series. I had declared Hedo Turkoglu all but lost in this series since I saw that he couldn't beat Ariza on the high screen/roll with Howard. Even doubted how much space this would allow Lewis. But I mostly play GM/informed observer, and I must observe my lack of tactical acumen I displayed here, which, fortunately for Orlando, Stan Van Gundy does not share. He's kept trying with the screen/roll but without much intent for Hedo to get going north/south. So SVG just got them to turn up the ball and man movement on offense, and especially hammered the ball into Howard and waited for double teams. Howard couldn't always make the right pass though, alternating hockey assists with turnovers down the stretch. That and the Magic's continued poor guard play cost them a very winnable game.

Van Gundy's rotation has taken plenty of criticism, certainly what he received in the first game was deserved, but pretty much all the strange lineups of the first half of game 2 were forced by foul trouble for Pietrus, Lee, and Lewis. I liked going without a Point Guard down the stretch, but as long as Hedo is going to cover Kobe, why not have Lee out there instead of Redick? Lee can't cover Kobe, but neither can J.J. And Lee should be able to stay close to Fisher.

He has an unorthodox style and has been a lightning rod for criticism all postseason, but Van Gundy has deftly guided a somewhat limited team that nobody believed would make it this far. Master of panic he may be, but he has also been overall a very effective coach, which I don't think anybody could say about our reigning Coach of the Year Mike Brown.

Counting Pre-Hatched Chickens

2009-06-05T00:01:00.000-07:00

I wanna revisit these matchups, what they mean. Better yet, let's revisit the Lakers first, especially where their defense succeeds and fails. Don't recall if I've elaborated here or not but my view on the frequently-maligned Laker defense. Let's start with the assertion that their defense is generally better than it gets credit for, and generally difficult to beat come playoff-time. Basically, their an excellent defense as good as any in the league when they don't have to face a team that can't exploit one of their three core weaknesses. These three core weaknesses are: Vulnerable against quick point guards; vulnerable against strong, athletic small forwards; and its big men are prone to be entirely dominated by more physical (not necessarily bigger) frontcourts.

The point guard weakness has been the most exploited so far in the playoffs, having played against (ordered sequentially and by effectiveness) Williams, Brooks, and Billups. Brooks was at times dominant in the series, but tended to disappear when the Lakers merely stopped making defensive mistakes. Williams, on the other hand took advantage of Laker mistakes, even when they played cleanly he simply could get wherever he wanted to, and could still outplay their defense. He didn't get much help, but Williams played terrific in that series. Billups at time would get his shot against Fisher, but you can't help but notice he looked at least a half a step slow and that maybe the Pistons weren't so dumb after all. They would have been lucky to win even one playoff series with Billups at that speed anyway.

Their small forward one has been their greatest weakness truth be told though in the last two years. Paul Pierce and the Celtics are the only team to beat them so far in that stretch, and he was really the (biggest) difference-maker in that series. Utah and Houston really had offensive black holes at the 3, but Denver of course has Carmelo. The first two games the Lakers had no answer for Carmelo, as Walton/Ariza didn't have much help. J.R. Smith couldn't score to save his life, but Anthony was scoring at will. The Lakers' defense adjusted, decided to dare Smith into beating the Lakers, and won 3 of the next 4. Instead of Pierce being reinvigorated by playing in LA, we were supposed to be facing the ultimate of all beast-like small forwards. Laker fans were actually afraid. But then Orlando bailed them out.

The famous "toughness" weaknesses is probably the least significant of the three, but real. Toughness maybe isn't the fairest word though. Odom and Bynum are actually quite tough, but fairly wiry. Gasol at times really is soft, but usually in the big games he gives enough effort that to criticize him for lack of toughness is a little unfair.

But all three play tall. They try to catch rebounds at their highest point, where little guys can't reach. Problem with that, as I'm sure Charles Barkley could tell you, you don't get rebounds by reaching higher, you get them from position. Lowering your center of gravity and disregarding the flight of the ball until it's in reach is what boxing out is all about. I pointed out in tonight's game when Andrew Bynum actually boxed out Dwight Howard. The rebound had bounced high, and Andrew sacrificed his chance of augmenting his rebound total by staying low and pushing back on Howard. Had he gone for it, Howard may have outjumped him and tapped it back to a teammate. As it was he still reached over Andrew's arms and tipped the ball, but Andrew had pushed him far enough away from the ball he couldn't angle the tip behind himself, but instead to a Laker guard. The Lakers aren't prone to executing this fundamental technique, and even on offense rarely show an understanding of the concept of leverage that's needed to handle other teams more comfortable with high-contact games. Utah's big men weren't as hard as last year's losing effort even. Houston rode this advantage together with Brooks' play to win 3 surprising games. And Denver only sporadically had an advantage over the Lakers in this regard (even Anderson plays somewhat like the Lakers' bigs, only less effectively).

Utah could only exploit one of these weaknesses and lost in 5 games. Denver really only exploited one, but maybe were somewhat less ineffective at exploiting the other two. Houston, on the other hand dabbled in all three. Brooks and Artest fit the bill, but weren't consistently good enough to ultimately be decisive. Their bigs did a terrific job of negating the Laker frontcourt, and the series went 7 games.

Soooooo, how does Orlando do?:
Alston- Nope. Uh-huh. Ain't gonna get it done.
Nelson- Killed the Lakers during the regular season. Couldn't get anything going last night. Can he have the most miraculous of comebacks?
Lee/Pietrus- Have to play better than Game 1- certainly can't play worse. Considering how well they played so far in the playoffs, there's no reason to believe won't play better. They should win back some of the points they lost tonight, but I can't see them being decisive in Orlando's direction either.
Turkoglu- Nope. Not here either. Maybe against Walton, but even he controlled Hedo in Game 1. But the Orlando offense will always struggle when it relies on Hedo vs. Ariza.
Lewis- Doubt it. Gasol's tough for him, but Odom's tough for him too, maybe tougher. He needs to score enough to make up for his lack of D and rebounding, but I doubt he'll be able to consistently.
Howard- It has to be him. If Orlando is going to challenge the Lakers, it has to be him (barring a comeback by Nelson that Willis Reed can only dream of). He might be. His performance tonight was opaque, never really dominating. He had the Lakers on the verge of serious foul trouble only 2 minutes into the 3rd quarter though, threatening to force Jackson to break up his 3-Big Man rotation. Andrew had just picked up his 4th, and Lamar quickly followed by picking up his 3rd. But Orlando was unable to get that critical 4th foul on either Odom or Gasol that would have led to either a Lewis-Powell matchup or a Howard-Mbenga (!) contest.

Maybe the man with the physique of a greek god can make like Atlas and put everyone on his shoulders and carry them to victory. But I remain convinced the only two players on the Magic who can beat the Lakers (when healthy) are Howard and Nelson. So Dwight, what have you got?

This is it!

2009-06-03T20:28:00.000-07:00

Here we are, 4-7 games away from months of forced basketball abstinence. Sure a few summer months of playing amateur GM can be entertaining, but we're looking at the prospect of a pretty entertaining finals, following up what's generally been a pretty entertaining playoffs. So, as expected a few weeks ago, it's Kobe and co. in the finals against one of his uber-athlete Redeem Team buddies. But seriously, America should be mad Orlando beat Cleveland. The amount of money that would have been spent to generate the insane amount of hype behind the LeBron/Kobe finals would have certainly pulled the country out of recession.

As previously stated, I'm a Laker fan. And unless I'm completely certain (and even then I'll try to squirrel out of it) I'm not going to pick against the Lakers. So there. So you want a level-headed, informative post about this series? Go back and read the last post, it wasn't bad. But I'm more than a little upset that the Magic are considered such heavy underdogs in this series, which makes it even more impossible for me to predict a Magic win. But someone explain to me why it's seen as such a stone cold lock the Lakers will win this series? People have been dumping on the Lakers all playoffs, and now eveyone takes for granted they can handle Dwight Howard? Insanity.

I expect a very close series. Not necessarily close games, but a close series. Here's my ultimate snapshot of this series: the Magic will be a better team for most of this series, but the Lakers will be better at closing games out. There's quite a bit of precedent for this so far this postseason. For all the criticism the Lakers received, they've won most of their games that were close going into the 4th quarter. They've just been prone to blowouts along the way, of both the good and bad variety. Eugene complained they won 6 games in that series against Boston, but officially lost 3 times. Against Cleveland they won 2 of the 4 games that were close down the stretch. Not to take away some quality clutch play from the Magic in that series but in almost every game it just felt like a matter of time until the Magic's superiority would see them to victory.

So it goes like this: I see the Lakers getting pounded on the boards in a couple of games, losing both. The Lakers will rotate to 3 point shooters better than people give them credit for in a couple of games, leading to a lot of Magic bricks and Laker wins. I see each team splitting the first 2 games. I see Kobe single-handedly winning 2 games for the Lakers, and single-handedly losing one or two games for the Lakers. Gasol and Odom will combine for 9 games in this playoffs where everyone will be left shaking their heads wondering why they couldn't do more, because each will have a few games leaving everyone wondering why they couldn't play that well every game.

So split the first 4, I'm picking the Lakers to win the ensuing best-of-3 series for a win in a total of 7 games. And let me be clear: I do not feel good at all about picking the Lakers to win, I would not put money on it, for example. But there it is anyway, Lakers win in 7.

BTW Eugene-You read the Simmons Finals preview? He called Otis Smith lucky too. Ha.

Thinking Aloud Time

2009-06-02T18:51:00.000-07:00

I never did get around to my breakdown of the greatest finals that never happened (Cavs-Lakers) as I had promised, and I'm not much more eager to figure out what I figure will happen in the real Finals. Just to be clear here, I'm a Lakers fan. And the Lakers are big favorites. So how big of an ass would I have to be to pick against them? But I'm having a hard time settling on a result here. Lakers in 6, 7? Magic in the upset?

There has been lots of talk about matchups (always a more useful discussion than "which team is playing the best?") because the Magic exploited their funky matchups to brush aside the heavily favored Cavs. So here's my take on matchups: just comparing across position (PG vs. PG) isn't very revealing. Sure LeBron is better than Turkoglu. We knew that. What's more interesting is if matchups lead to disruptions in the other team's playing style. Case in point: The Cavs' Plan A, B, and C are give the ball to LeBron and let him create and distribute when he sees fit. Maybe Mo Williams on the weakside is plan D. The Pietrus/Howard combo kept a still tremendous James somewhat under check. The Magic's Plan A, on the other hand, is the 3/5 screen roll, and then about equal amounts of Plan B and C- Howard in the post and Lewis shooting 3's. The Cavs couldn't overcome Big Z's lead-feet to do much to stop plan A, Varejao et al couldn't stop Howard on Plan B, and the Cavs had to commit their best weakside defender LeBron to either cover Turkoglu or stay with Lewis. Frankly, they exposed the mediocrity of the Cavs' defense.

So how do the Lakers do on Plans A,B, and C? Well, better than Cleveland did for sure. Howard down low is going to be a problem, Bynum will be doing well to average 15 minutes on the floor each game before fouling out or being benched. So Gasol will be his primary matchup. Pau has enough quickness to his step that he might frustrate some of his efforts to flip up his hook shot, but Howard is so much stronger he will score a lot of points simply due to deep position and he will kill Gasol on the boards. As far as the other two tactics the Lakers are very well set. The Lakers are extremely vulnerable to big athletic SFs (e.g. Pierce, Anthony, LeBron) because they are rather undersized at that position. But Ariza should be able to handle Hedo without breaking to much of a sweat. Honestly, I think this is an ideal matchup for Ariza and the Lakers, a slow-footed, finesse-loving European. And Lewis is not going to have a good time shooting over Gasol and Odom's long arms all series- I expect him to force quite a few 3's that will miss well wide.

So the Lakers look good, I should be happy right? Well, see, Orlando's real strength is that defense, so let's see how the Lakers matchup on offense. The Triangle Offense makes it impossible to narrow the Lakers down to 3 options, but they do play a similar style to Orlando in that they rely on their post play to open up space for their perimeter shooters. Ariza has been getting noticed for shooting 50+% from 3 points this playoffs. Well, those easy open catch-and-shoot jumpers he's been hitting in the first 3 rounds are going to dry up some against Orlando. The Magic can handle Gasol in the post, and Odom won't take Lewis to the post, so they won't have to collapse too much. Fisher, already struggling, will have almost 0 open shots this series. The Lakers shooters could have a real hard time this series, and if they do the Lakers will have a very, very hard time winning this series.

But I think two Lakers will ultimately be responsible for the Lakers' offensive success or failure: (drum roll) Kobe and Andrew. Okay, I know I go on about Bynum way too much here at times, and I don't really expect him to score much against Howard. BUT if he avoids fouling out, and doesn't worry about his point total and plays enough D for Phil to want to use him, he is a big key for the offense. Only because Lewis will have to guard Gasol whenever Andrew is out there, and that is a big mismatch in favor of the Lakers. I've seen a lot of talk about it, but it'll be a moot point if Andrew continues to play only 5 minutes in the second half of every game. Gasol then slides to center, and the new PF Odom is nearly a wash with Lewis. And then there's Kobe. Pietrus is good, but Battier was better. Of course, Battier didn't have Howard behind him...

Prelude to a Flip-Flop

2009-05-30T15:55:00.000-07:00

Ok, so in a ridiculous moment I declared the Lakers dead for the season, destined to remain titleless in post-Shaq era. But, that was admittedly silly and short-sighted. The NBA is in one of its transition periods where the lack of a dynastic team allows imperfect teams to ride favorable matchups to a title. I'm sticking with my call that the Lakers can't beat the LeBrons, but the matchups with a Magic team that would seriously miss the injured Jameer Nelson look much more favorable for LA.

Last year's finals was notable in that it was the 1st Finals since Michael Jordan had retired that didn't feature either Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'Neal. America loves guard-led teams like Jordan's Bulls, but the NBA has always been a big man's league. But Big Man or not, there is usually between 1-2 truly great teams that dominate an era. Sometimes that "era" may last 2 years (see: Isiah's Pistons or Olajuwon's Rockets), but it's clear that one team rules over the rest. But sometimes between dynasties, lesser teams can win. No disrespect to the Celtics last year, but it had one-off (dare I say fluke) written all over it.

This year 3 teams (at this very moment) still hope for a title. I'd venture to say none are truly great teams yet, but all of them could use a title this year to be a springboard for future dominance. LeBron has achieved a level of dominance that will eventually lead to a title. Dwight Howard is the game's next great big man, surrounded by shooters to take advantage of the (Thibideau) semi-zone everyone copied from Boston last year. Kobe seems poised to ride a young and talented team to possibly multiple titles. I honestly believe the Lakers are best positioned going forward so long as Baby Bynum's knees hold up.

But I see Andrew's relative ineffectiveness this season being lethal against the LeBrons, strangely I don't think it would be as important against Orlando. He'll go out there and foul Howard 4 or 5 times in 15 minutes each game and hand the reigns to Gasol and Odom for the remainder. But I'll break it down for real when and if Orlando closes this series out.

Random trade thought

2009-05-23T16:54:00.001-07:00

Had a little too much coffee last night, so I had time to think about things like random NBA trades. I liked this one: what would basically be a sign-and-trade with Varejao signing a mid-level contract (about $6 mil) and being traded to Toronto for Andrea Bargnani. Admittedly, Cleveland would suddenly be super-soft and slow (and really white!) in the frontcourt, but holy crap would that team be hard to guard. I'm going to call constructing this type of team the Otis Smith doctrine- have one player who other teams have to double team, then surround him with four shooters. Despite the defensive problems that could create, it would only help against Cleveland's main current rivals, the Magic and Celtics, who both have power forwards unlikely to punish a thin and weak Bargnani. Honestly, with LeBron running a high pick-and-roll with Bargnani, how could the defense collapse on icon and cover Bargnani and the other shooters?

Besides revitalizing the career of a player seemingly destined to be remembered as a bust, it could possibly help two desperate franchises hold on to their highly valued 2003 draft choices. Cleveland has this year and next to try to win a title or LeBron bails (maybe he'll bail anyway), and the vultures are already swooping around Toronto hoping to get a star like Chris Bosh on the cheap. Toronto has to do something, and fast to make Bosh feel at home in the Great White North. Bargnani never made sense in the same frontcourt as Bosh. (see here) Both "big men" (the tougher of which Shaq famously called the RuPaul of big men!) are rarely any closer to the hoop than the high post. Inserting Varejao would considerably toughen that team up, and leave more space for Bosh offensively to work. Maybe resign Marion on the cheap, and that team looks pretty good. Colangelo probably wouldn't like this trade because he wants to recreate Phoenix North, and he would have admit his No.1 overall choice was a bit of a mistake. But if they would make this trade, and find even a reasonably effective Shooting Guard they could be very competitive already next year. By the way, did Toronto have the worst collection of 2 guards in NBA history this year? Anthony Parker, Jason Kapono (probably more of a 3 for Toronto than 2 in reality), Joey Graham, and Quincy Douby. That is how you guarantee a last-place finish in the NBA. Shooting guard is an important position, but also a dime-a-dozen unlike big men or even point guards. Icky. see here

Game 1s happened. Discuss.

2009-05-21T12:45:00.000-07:00

Carmelo and LeBron had tremendous, dominating performances. Of course, both lost. So what could it mean? They will continue to dominate and sooner or later their teammates will join up with them and cruise to victory? Or did their surprisingly (even by their high standards) dominant performances mask fundamental problems their opponent can expect to exploit even when the class of '03 can't put in 50 points each?

Here's the deal with Game 1s. The coaches haven't really done their work yet. Especially in series (like both of these) where one (or both) teams come in with a quick turnaround from a long previous series. Playoffs are about repetition, you get used to what your opponent does. You know all their plays and pet moves. Then that series ends, and you play a whole 'nother team, one you probably haven't faced in weeks or even months. So the first game is more of a pickup game if you will. No trickery, best team (that night) wins. Period. Teams are allowed to do what they do best, but opposing weak spots may not necessarily get fully exploited. Then the adjustments begin in game 2, and the real fun begins. But Game 1 shows who has the real advantage, and where.

For instance, I thought that we might see some performances from LeBron that at least bore a passing resemblance to his performance against the Celtics in the playoffs. They closed the paint off to him, and he shot about 35% taking mostly jumpers. That certainly wasn't the case last night. So LeBron can dominate against a defense primarily focused on keeping him out of the paint. Can he continue that or does he still have some less efficient games in him?

Honestly, I actually watched very little of the Cavs-Magic game until the last 5 minutes. The one analysis I threw out in my preview was expecting lower-scoring games. 0 for 1 there. The Cavs scored at will in the 1st half, but slowed down in the 2nd half, whereas the Magic scored with relative ease in the second half. Some things learned: Euge was right, Wallace is shot, and the have nobody who can guard Lewis. I don't think the Cavs' starting lineup is terribly outmatched there, it wasn't like Lewis was blowing by Varejao or shooting really open 3's. He contested well at the end, but Lewis made some huge shots with a hand in his face. But something to watch going forward is the Cavs' frontline depth. Joe Smith can probably hang with Gortat, and slow down Lewis for a few minutes at a time, but if Varejao or Z get into foul trouble the Cavs will be in trouble.

Everyone hates the Lakers. Sure it's frustrating knowing what they're capable of and comparing that to what they actually produce. Remember though, nobody on this team had ever even won a playoff series before last year (looking right at you Pau!). Odom's a career underachiever, and Memphis sold Gasol for 20 cents on the dollar because they couldn't take his softness anymore. The real problem is, LA's got 3 bigs who want to play tall, but not big. Sometimes they figure it out and play right over the heads of other teams, sometimes the other teams throw their butts into the Lakers thighs and push them right out of the way.

Anthony's always had the look of being able to dominate the Lakers, but rarely has. Game 1 was all about him, easily outplaying even Kobe, sort of. Big time credit to Kobe for guarding 3 different players in the 2nd half, and while Melo showed he was still too strong for Kobe, Kobe systematically removed Melo's key sidekicks at crucial points in the game.

It's so hard to enthusiastically support the Lakers right now with how they've played. Especially when Carmelo remains such a difficult matchup for LA. But some very interesting other things occurred the other night as well: Smith will not score much against Kobe. (Called it!) Maybe he'll blow up (some) one game, but the real interesting thing is Kobe it seems Kobe may be able to stop J.R. even when he's not guarding him. He covers him for the first few minutes after he comes in and kills his confidence, then passes him off to Fisher and takes over on Billups. Denver's primary scoring outside of Melo comes from the perimeter, and if Kobe can take out both Denver's best scoring options from outside they are in serious trouble. They'll look to be more aggressive when not being guarded by Kobe, especially Billups, but I foresee many bricks from Smith in this series. The Lakers also dominated the boards at time in this game (called it), and will continue to throughout the series. The Lakers were +10 in offensive rebounds, and there's just no way a team can give the Lakers extra possessions consistently and be able to win.

And let me tie in the earlier thoughts about Game 1s and Kenyon Martin's ugly-ass fling-shot. He hit 4 or 5 of those in game 1. I can't help but think the Laker bigs will notice they can play off of him on Defense and still be able to swat that shot from his hip if you're expecting it. Defenses adjust. Kobe and Melo should both have to sweat a little bit more than they did to get the 40 they had in Game 1- both scored remarkably easily. The Lakers' shooters are little off target now, which is a concern, but I see considerably more difficulties for the Nugs' supporting staff in carrying the game.

Cavs-Magic, in 50 words or less

2009-05-20T17:39:00.000-07:00

My series sum-up, twitter-style: Cavs win in 6. Tough matchup for the Cavs, but I think both offenses will underperform in this series. But I'm giving the nod to the Cavs because I think they eek out a few more points when baskets are hard to come by.

What really matters in the playoffs?

2009-05-19T15:37:00.000-07:00

Ok, so most people expect the Kobe-LeBronathon (can I patent and market that term like Pat Riley did with 3peat?) in the finals, but lots of pundit types are flashing there extraordinary punditery skills picking either Denver or Orlando to pull off the upsets. Even the common man is expecting a couple of good series. This is the first time the NBA is looking at the prospect of 3 good series in the last 2 rounds for the first time since... I don't either. The reason all 4 teams are given a chance to win at least one series is nobody is really presenting the whole package right now, but everyone's got something to like.

For example, I picked the Lakers to rather easily beat Denver, despite their recent struggles and Denver solid play. On the other side Cleveland has looked untouchable (against some very dodgy competition) and Orlando has twice looked lost in these playoffs only to post impressive finishes. Cleveland's come in cruising and has the best player in LeBron, but the matchups all work out real nice for Orlando. So what wins out? Best team? Best player? Hottest team? Matchup advantages? Will experience swing a series? Let's look at who has which advantage- in chart form!

__________Lakers_______Nuggets________Cavs_____Magic
Best Team?-------X---------------------------------------X-------------

Best Player?-------X--------------------------------------X-------------

Hottest Team?---------------------X---------------------X--------------

Matchup Advantage?-X----------------------------------------------X--

Experience?-------X---------------------------------------X-------------
Ok, so that graph makes it look really bad for Nugs and Magic, but honestly some of the columns on this graph are a little redundant, and some Xs aren't as black and white as the graph would indicate. I don't think Best Player really matters, Best Team does. People always point to his 6 titles as proof he was best ever, but I don't think any one player in this playoffs is that much more dominant. In reality Best Team and Hottest Team are the same thing- Best Team would be maximum ability, and Hottest Team who has been closer to that max lately. And let's say the Cavs' experience nod over the Magic is marginal.

But still, picking winners for these series show the priorities of the pickers. Nugget lovers are the types who get caught up in what happened last round, disregarding things like who is better overall or has better matchups. Personally, I have no pity for these people.

Ah, but the other series. The Magic only have 1 check mark, but it's a fun one. Two years ago, the Warriors would have had that same 1 check mark against the favored Mavs, but won convincingly. Matchups matter. How much of an advantage do the Magic have there, and is it enough to overcome the seemingly otherwise superior Cavs? I suspect not quite enough, but it will fun finding out.

Did you see those commercials with puppet versions of Kobe and D-Ho?

2009-05-18T15:12:00.000-07:00

Yeah, me neither. It's hard to remember the last time we entered into a Playoff season where a Finals matchup seemed so predestined, and eagerly anticipated, as this year. There are already two different media campaigns hyping the impending showdown between Kobe and LeBron. In fact, at least so far, it isn't looking like Lakers vs. Celtics at all, where the great Magic/Bird duel fed a great rivalry between two great teams. Kobe vs. LeBron is just that, a rivalry between two players, not teams. How could it be Lakers vs. Cavs when we're not even sure LeBron is going to be in Cleveland in after next season? This series only really matters in the "who's better?" debate. After that series happens, one side will forever have a proof that the other side simply cannot refute. "Dude, Kobe is just like MJ. Willed his team to the title!" "LeBron averaged 30-8-8 though! The Lakers only won because the Laker bigs killed Cleveland inside." "Not Kobe's fault! Kobe would have never let them lose regardless, end of story. LeBron couldn't get it done." At which point the LeBron fan (because nobody is really a Cavs fan) bitterly drops the argument.

What do you mean they might not face each other? I'm pretty sure if that's not the matchup Nike will hire someone to shoot David Stern live at the stadium in front of 20,000 people. So, let's find some basketball reasons to explain why no conspiracies should be necessary to get the finals everyone wants.

Lakers beat Nuggets in 5 games.
I know, all us Lakers fans, myself included, went into a bit of a panic after those ugly losses in the Houston series. And while I still think the Lakers can't win the Finals without an effective Andrew Bynum (I love the irony that the resulting consensus on the Kobe-LeBron debate will forever be heavily influenced by Andrew Bynum) they should will win this series. Their heart will be questioned after at least a couple of questionable efforts. But the Lakers have more than enough to find a way to win 4 games here. J.R. Smith and the Birdman might cause some problems for the Lakers' bench (Farmar will be less effective this series largely due to Birdman's shot-blocking) I don't see either of those players being at all effective against the Lakers' starters. Smith will see Kobe in his dreams at night, and the Lakers' bigs will be able to keep Anderson honest and staying close to his man instead of wreaking havoc as a weakside shot-blocker. Martin never does anything against the Lakers, and pulled in all of 4.3 rpg in the 3 games he played against the Lakers this season. I have a hard time seeing Denver outrebounding the Lakers, outscoring the Lakers in the halfcourt or in transition.

Everyone loves the Nuggets energy, but the Nuggets' energy usually has to do with running up-and-down the court. The Lakers get bored with grind-it-out games won in the trenches. When teams bring "energy" by hitting the boards and playing good defense, the Lakers may or may not respond. But nobody does the up-and-down game better than the Lakers. And the running might be exactly what the Lakers need to wake from their doldrums. I have a hard time seeing anything other than the Lakers holding up their end of the deal and being there in the Finals.
(Cavs-Magic breakdown to come...)

Here's to next year...

2009-05-10T15:16:00.000-07:00

Well, I didn't expect to be making this post, certainly not now. Laker fans have impossibly high expectations for their team and tend to panic at the first win that was less than dominating. Nobody wins every game by 20. I'm tired of the insanity. I'm tired of people saying they need to get rid of Bynum. But I had been holding onto the belief they would pull it together and win come June. Never mind my mantra for the 1st half of the season that the Lakers would only win if Bynum brings them to the promised land (not asking anything crazy from him-just the shot-blocking and rebounding he was giving us before the injury). And then he got hurt. Even when he came back it was obvious he couldn't be physical even if he could hit the occasional bucket, I conveniently forgot about my mantra. Sure they pulled off a nice little streak after Andrew went down, playing plenty manly ball winning in Boston and Cleveland. But why would essentially the same team from last year suddenly be so much tougher over the long haul of the playoffs?

This team isn't actually identical to last year's. They do have a little bit of Andrew, but they might wish they didn't have any at all the way he's playing. They have Trevor Ariza, who's nice, but an inconsistent shooter. And the late emergence of Shannon Brown has been great. If ego-managing going forward weren't a factor, Brown should be getting starter minutes for the rest of the playoffs. So of the 3 changes, one is positive (Brown), one has so far been negative (Andrew), and one, well...

It's too late to fix now, but I believe the addition of Ariza may have been a case of too many good things. He took minutes primarily not from Luke Walton, with whom he splits the game, but Sasha Vujacic. The Lakers lineup to close out games last season usually featured Sasha at the 2 and Kobe at the 3. Kobe is a little undersized at the 3, but all the Lakers 3's struggle against bigger opponents somewhat. The Sasha/Kobe combo was about on par with this year's Kobe/Ariza pair defensively (and much better than the Kobe/Walton pair that often finishes games) and was better than any of this year's pairs on offense. Problemis it seems they can't even go back to that pair this year because Sasha's infamously fragile psyche is broken. So I'd make the case that the 3rd change has also been a negative for the Lakers. Does Michael Jordan want Luke Walton too?

So, in short, I'm going back to what I said for the first 50 games of this season, we can't win without a healthy Andrew. A healthy Andrew fixes a lot of the Lakers problems. An ever-older Fisher keeps letting by ever-qiucker PGs? No problem, Andrew will give them little men something to think about. Gasol's not a big fan of contact and never took to the idea of boxing out? Andrew's long arms will at least earn the Lakers a wash on the boards. The Lakers just haven't been that same offensive juggernaut of last year to make up for these faults.

They'll still make the Finals, and when they do I'll look at the matchups, and who knows, maybe that''ll change my mind. But as important as matchups are, best team still usually wins, and that's looking more and more like Cleveland, sad as I am to say it. But hey, there's always next year! Here's a thought, next year, when we play in Memphis, have Andrew sit that game out!

Round 2- The Short Version

2009-05-04T11:17:00.000-07:00

Lakers-Rockets- Lakers in 5. 5 might be generous, but I'm feeling it.

Nugs-Mavs- I'm trying to stick to my latest flip-flop, and say Mavs win the series in game six on an 8-foot Nowitiki fallaway jumper over Billups.

Cavs-Hawks- Cavs in 4. Maybe the Hacks win game 3 at home and avoid the sleep, but that's the best they can hope for.

Celtics-Magic- Celtics in 6. Celtics are too professional, have too much Rondo and Allen, and too much defense for the Magic here. Boston's probably the best team at collapsing the paint and then recovering to the 3 point line in the league, which is bad news for Orlando.

Chicago Bulls- The epitome of the new NBA?

2009-04-26T12:30:00.000-07:00

It's funny- John Paxson's taken his fair share of heat, particularly in the period from late last year when he lost out in the Gasol sweepstakes to earlier this year when his boss Jerry Reinsdorf essentially declared this year's team a failure. But then Paxson swung a late trade robbing the Kings of the few assets they had, which helped propel the team to the playoffs. Salmons in particular did a nice job just stabilizing the offense down the stretch, but has been a non-factor so far in the playoffs. Miller has perhaps helped a little more, but he's not the reason Chicago's been giving Boston such a hard time in this series. Obviously, it's been a lot of Derrick Rose, an occasional outburst from Ben Gordon, but the real bellweather of the team has been more the play of Joakim Noah and Tyrus Thomas. Both played very solid in game 1, with Noah collecting 17 boards and Thomas hitting several key jump shots down the stretch to boot. But both players have been absent at times in the subesquent 3 games, unable to outplay the Celtics' depleted frontline.

The Bulls have had a tremendous wealth of high draft picks over the recent years, some of which are generally considered to have underperformed. This perception, as well as Paxson's unwillingness to trade these assets, has generated the criticism Paxson has endured. Rose is obviously going to be a star, but Thomas, Noah, and Aaron Gray all seem still up in the air. The word potential gets thrown around, but because physical abilities can't be learned, but- one hopes, a jump shot can be learned. Rose's development alone should be enough to put the Bulls in the top half of the East, but his young bigs have to continue to develop for them to get to important places. I think Thomas still has more upside than Noah, as he finally started to show some progress in his offensive game this year. I think Noah's okay, but I'd really rather have a bigger guy alongside the equally skinny Ty Thomas. Can Gray be that guy in the future?

But whether by luck or design, the Bulls have a young core that seems to be a prototype for the modern NBA: quick Point Guard that can get in the paint and either score or distribute the ball, shooters/perimeter defenders on the wings, a long athletic 4 (ideally a weak-side shot blocking force- a la Thomas), and a big space-filling center to own the paint. Point Guards have seemingly owned this 1st round between the exploits of Parker, Rose, Rondo, Paul, etc. And the only way to slow them down is to have the bigs in the middle. Funny how those pieces may have worked out for Chicago. They've got the potential, but will they acquire the skill?

Young Eastern Coaches

2009-04-22T17:49:00.000-07:00

There's a kid on that Miami team I rather like... that Spoelstra kid. He's a real nice looking young coach, and after seeing 20 minutes of this series, I'm starting to think he can swing at least 1 game, thereby changing my predicted winner of the series, to the the Heat by outcoaching the pants off Woodson. He keeps a good emotional handle on the team, and just watching his team's offensive possesions when D-Wade is on the bench, he's sold me on his management of the team's play as well. Usually 1-man teams like the Heat struggle mightily when that 1 man is on the bench, but they still seem to execute their offense with a sense of purpose. He puts Beasley in the best possible positions to succeed, he's just not ready to succeed yet. And I was amazed when I just looked to see where the Heat finished Defensively: 11th in efficiency. That's amazing when you consider they've done that with either no true center at all, or with Jermaine O'Neal, which is the same as having no true center at all.
I feel like I should at least mention Del Negro of the Bulls. He hasn't knocked my socks off, but I don't mean that in a backhanded way. He seems to be growing into his role with a young team, a tough spot for even a seasoned coach.
There's a whole bunch of interim coaches who may or may not be around next season, but seems like these two will be able to hold on for a little while. But really keep your eye on that youngin' in Miami, I suspect he'll be considered among the league's elite before he's done.

Who the Lakers will beat on the way to the Finals

2009-04-17T11:35:00.000-07:00

Okay, so everyone knows the Lakers are the class of the West. Word's even getting out that Portland seems like the only team that could even take the Lakers to 7 games. It's true, it's all true.

1st Round
1. Lakers vs. 8. Jazz
The Jazz have one of the best home crowds in the NBA, and Williams will dominate stretches of this series. That crowd could push the Jazz to 2 home wins, but certainly not 3. The interesting thing in this series? Well, an ongoing unspoken Laker story-line is when will Andrew have the legs to really start grabbing some boards again. But the real story of this round? Will Phil Jackson be tempted to up Shannon Brown's minutes (again) after he watches Williams embarrass Fisher and Farmar over and over.
Lakers in 5.

2. Denver vs. 7. Hornets
At least the West will give us some interesting 1st round matchups. This one's real simple. If Tyson "we don't really want him" Chandler is remotely healthy the Hornets win this one. Thing is he's not healthy, and hasn't been all season, which leaves Chris Paul, James Posey, and a bunch of D-Leaguers. Fine, they have David West too. Denver's bench is chocked full of head cases, but I'd expect them dominate the Hornets bench. Of course, a bunch of guys from the local Y could dominate that bench.
Nuggets in 6.

3. Spurs vs. 6. Mavs
Remember when this was a premier matchup, like 2 seasons ago? No Manu, and a slowed Timmy, but expect lots and lots of Parker in this series. The Spurs are very vulnerable against bigger teams. But you can't consider the Mavs a bigger team when the Spurs tactic against the Mavs 7-foot power forward is to put Bruce Bowen on him.
Spurs in 5.

4. Blazers vs. 5. Rockets
Before everyone falls to hopelessly in love with the Blazers (wait til next year when the enfatuation really blooms) let's not overlook the Rockets are actually a really tough matchup for the Blazers. How do the Blazers like to score? Brandon Roy. Artest should make things hard for him. Aldridge. Scola and others can hold their own against him 1-on-1. Controlling the paint with their big centers? See Ming, Yao. Drive and dish to the Outlaw/Fernandez shooting combo. Few can help and close out shooters better than Battier.
Most of the non-matchup issues favor the Blazers however. The Blazers have a tremendous advantage playing in front of their crowd. An obvious problem the Rockets have is the lack of a playoff-caliber offense creator. Yao tends to tire and isn't the best 4th quarter player. Sure, the Blazers are all playoff rookies, but is that really worse than Houston's annual 1st round exit?

The Blazers are smoking hot coming in, and a trendy pick here. If I gambled in things other than poker, I'd be interested in the odds on the Rockets in this series cause I honestly see this one as a toss up. Ultimately, I'll play it safe and go with the team with the home court advantage (both in terms of qualtity of home advantage and quantity) that also doesn't lose in the 1st round every year.
Blazers in 7.

2nd Round
1. Lakers vs. 4. Portland
Ok, I'll talk matchups for a second, because they might matter next year when they face each other in the Conference finals. Aldridge vs. Gasol is interesting, both Power Forwards that don't rely on power much, but are more comfortable in the high post. I think Aldridge gets the best of Gasol, but not nearly as consistently as he should. Roy vs. Bryant is a classic matchup, two team leading studs. I'll give the slightest of edges to the Lakers at the PG spot, but I like how effective the Outlaw/Fernandez combo are at stretching the defense. This year it shouldn't be what makes or breaks the series, but ultimately the Bynum vs. Oden matchup should decide the Western Conf. rep for years to come. Both have serious question marks regarding their health hanging over their heads, but Bynum has proven he is going to be an All-Star if he can stay healthy. Oden should at least be able to guard him as well as any other center out west if he stays healthy (a bigger if than Andrew's "if he stays healthy" in my opinion), but he hasn't shown much sign of being able to make Andrew work on defense though.

How they will matchup with each other in years to come aside, the Blazers will win probably at least 1 home game here by 20 points. But I think the home court can even be overrated in the playoffs. If the Blazers do well enough to ever really put pressure on the Lakers by stealing an early game in L.A., the Lakers will respond and win Portland. In fact, I'll say Portland gets its fans hopes up by stealing one in LA, but subsequently will be eliminated at home in game 6.
Lakers in 6.

2. Nuggets vs. 3. Spurs
And the winner for weakest Conference finalist of the decade is...
The Spurs are down to about 1 and half of their Big 3, and Matt Bonner as your starting PF makes it awful challenging to have a solid defense.
There are some problems with the Nuggets, but you know what I don't get? Where's Carmelo? The old Nuggets were basically reduced to AI and 'Melo competing for who could jack up the most shots. In comes Chauncey, a pass-first team-leading type PG, straightens the team out and leads them to the 2 seed. Yet somehow Carmelo, the undisputed focus of the offense now, had his poorest season since his second season. I've always questioned his ability to win at the highest level, and even when he finally has a positive-influence team-leader on his team, instead of being positively impacted like Pierce was by Garnett last year, he's actually underperformed even more.
So each team has a serious gamer at PG, but unlike Billups, Parker can actually carry an offense by himself. That's all that's going to matter here.
Spurs in 5.

Thus setting up the rematch nobody is really dying to see...
1. Lakers vs. 3. Spurs
Not much different from last year. Reaching a bit, but here's what's changed:
- Andrew's back, giving the Lakers an even bigger height advantage
- Manu was banged up last year, this year he's just plain out
- Duncan's probably a smidge more beat up
and the real game changer...
- no Vladi Radmanovic this year
The Lakers' offense is probably slightly less potent than last year's but having Andrew in the middle to give Parker a hard time after he drives past Fisher/Farmar, key insurance against the Lakers' most glaring defensive deficiency. I've already talked about this ho-hum series enough.
Lakers in 5 again.

And finally......
1a. Cavs vs. 1b. Lakers
I'm way late on my picks, so I'm just gonna get this up and elaborate later.
Lakers in 6
See, Eugene, we agree after all.

Before I continue, some tidying up

2009-04-17T10:43:00.000-07:00

I originally made a an oversimplification in my Eastern Conf. predictions that matchups are everything in the playoffs. While a careful look at the matchups can indicate the team that should be physically superior, there are other mental aspects that complicate things. The playoffs are in interesting animal, that require a mental toughness that is practically impossible to acquire in any number of regular season games. There is nothing innate about knowing how to turn it on in a key game, or stop an opposing team's run before the game gets away.

Reporters and coaches love to throw out buzz words that is required of the team in that moment: "be aggressive!" or "we need more energy!" I actually hate both those phrases cause they don't really mean anything. I mean, I'm sure everyone in the playoffs is playing as hard as they can. But I was watching the Denver-Portland game that closed the season out. It was a game that smelled of playoffs, the Portland crowd was certainly into it. I picked it up in the 3rd, and Denver had just closed down what was a big Portland lead and reached striking difference. Then the 2nd units came in. Even in the 1st half Portland's bench dominated them, and they do seem to give Denver's bench (normally a good bench) serious matchup problems. Portland immediately started hitting shots, putting Denver on notice they had to respond quickly or Portland would turn it into a rout. Denver's answer lacked confidence, lacked "aggression" even. Good teams know to go to their bread and butter in these situations. For example, San Antonio gives it to Duncan-if the defense double-teams him, fine, he'll pass it out and they find the open man. Confidence, because they've done it all before, and they know what they do that allows them to win. What did Denver do? Launch up two or three early shot clock 3s (including a lovely dribble-dribble- step-back 3 from J.R. Smith) and a long 2 that resulted in a total of 0 points. The game was already over.

Matchups are key in the playoffs, but so is having the confidence to know that when things are tough, you go to your strength. Aggression? Sure, sometimes that's code for attack the basket, and there's nothing wrong with that. But sometimes an offense has to simplify and slow it down. Energy? I don't know, I think that's just code for rebounding- a very underrated stat in the playoffs. Pat Riley always told his Laker teams "No Rebounds, No Rings." It was true too, as winner of that stat almost won those Laker-Celtics games.

So that's why I have to renege on my Magic over Cavs prediction. History shows us you have to lose a big playoff series before you can win one, and these Magic have never played one before. When that big moment of the game comes, I doubt they'll have the ability and discipline to consistently get good shots. Howard's not ready this year, LeBron is.

Cavs will win, in 7.

UPDATE- Kudos to Eugene to finding the flaw in my all recent champs lost a big series before they won it- he remembered all the way back to last year's Celtics. Kudos to Eugene for also providing the explanation for that outlier to my theory- that the Boston's Big 3 had each lost Conference finals earlier in their careers for varying teams, bringing their collective chops to instantly turn the League's worst team one year into champs the next.

Ah, Say It Ain't So

2009-04-16T22:07:00.000-07:00

Well, sounds like KG's out for the playoffs. We're robbed of one of the 4 (!) legitimate title contenders solely because homo sapiens has yet to evolve efficient enough knees to handle the pounding that a 30-something 7-foot basketball player is exposed to. I want my money back.

So, a couple of corrections to the previous post: First, I wasn't expecting the Bulls to catch Philly (Seriously Philly, you couldn't beat Toronto???). So Orlando matches up with Philly, I'll say Magic in 5. And I laid out a couple of contingency plans based alternate levels of KG health. But 0% KG leaves a very different Boston team than my assumed 80% KG. I still say they beat the Bulls in 6, but the Magic will have way too much for them and Orlando will advance in 5 or 6 games. And is it bad I'm considering wiggling out of my Orlando over Cleveland prediction (sorry Euge)? I'm having doubts about their playoff readiness. I'll sleep on it, and get back to you tomorrow, with the rest of my picks.

The Eastern Conference Playoffs; foreseen!

2009-04-07T16:39:00.000-07:00

Ok, I can get a head start on my Eastern Conference playoffs prognostications since pretty much everything is settled out there. Only one thing remains unsettled, how's Kevin Garnett's knee? With Garnett, the Celtics are certainly contenders to repeat. Without him, it's nearly impossible to imagine them getting past the second round. And, unfortunate for us prognosticators, we may not even know how healthy he'll be until the second round starts. So, in the interest of butt-covering, there will be a lot of asterisks and if-he's-healthy type talk here. My default for these here predictions unless indicated otherwise will be that he is playing, but at only about 80-85% of his ability though.

First Round:
(We'll be quick here...)
1. Cavs vs. 8. Pistons- Pistons are old pros, and don't even have Iverson to blame here, but Cavs'll win easy, in 4 or 5 games.
2. Celtics vs. 7. Philly- Philly lost their 2nd best player to injury in Thaddeus Young, so I don't expect the brave effort they made last year in the first round to be repeated this time. Boston in 5.
3. Magic vs. 6. Bulls- Expect to see surprisingly soft Bulls' bodies bounce off Howard in this series. Magic in 5.
4. Hawks vs. 5. Heat- Should be entertaining. Two interesting, but flawed teams. The Hawks are young, and while they extended Boston to 7 last year, they never got too close in their road games. The Heat have Wade, and not much else. I say the Hawks' advantage in the paint and especially on the glass should be enough, but I'll call it in 7.
Second Round:
1. Cavs vs. 4. Hawks- Cavs win easy at home, but Hawks could take between 1-3 games in Atlanta. So, I'll split the difference and say Cavs in 6.

2. Magic vs. Celtics- The NBA rolled out a new playoff format this year, without ever having really acknowledged it. They instituted (for this year only) a 3-part Finals. There are exactly 4 teams who could win the title, who will matchup with each other in their own private tournament. The Magic and Celtics face off in the first round of this tournament, with the winner advancing to the Stage 2 of the Real Finals against the Cavs. The winner there advances to face the Lakers in the Finals of the Real Finals.

Schtick aside, this should be an excellent series. The Cinderella Magic vs. the Defending Champs. The quantity of Kevin Garnett available in this series appears to be the difference between the two teams. 0% KG? Magic romp. 100%KG? Celtics are on their way. 80% KG? ????

The playoffs are all about matchups. And the Celtics can create some difficult matchups for the Magic in the frontcourt- if KG is healthy. The Pierce-Turkoglu matchup should favor Pierce, but I don't look for either player to light the other team up. The paint is going to be well guarded by both teams, cutting penetration chances for both. Since I don't expect 30-point games from Pierce, the Celts are really going to need some scoring from KG. KG can shoot over Lewis, and any attention Howard has to expend on helping on KG will be a big advantage to the Celtics as it pulls the Magic D out of shape. The Celtic backcourt seems to matchup nicely against the Magic as well. Allen against Lee looks good for Boston (although Allen vs. Pietrus looks a little less good) but I think Rondo will be the key backcourt player in this series. If Howard has to spend a lot of this series covering Rondo the Magic will be in big trouble.

Orlando's offense vs. Boston's defense though works a little differently. Orlando doesn't have an offense that looks to exploit individual matchups as much as it looks to go to Howard, and then exploit whatever the defense covers less, the paint or the the 3-point line. I don't imagine there will be many games where Boston simply shuts down Orlando's offense, but I like Boston's defense as much as anyone's in the whole NBA for keeping the Magic under wraps. Perkins is ideal as a first line of defense against Howard- big, physical, but with some quickness. Garnett is still one of league's premier defenders, even if Lewis will lure him well outside the lane more often than he would like. And no team in the NBA is as crisp in its rotations to cover perimeter shooters as the Celtics are.

So obviously I like the Celtics, but they're already paper-thin even with KG out there. But if he's reasonably healthy he can contribute in enough small ways to allow his team to do what they need to do and win game 7 and advance.

*Mini-asterisk side note- KG could be less than healthy, helping lead to a Magic victory. So how would Orlando matchup with the Cavs? Pretty well I think. This really seems to be the Cavs' year, but I'd have to say Orlando in 6. Having Howard to plug up the middle against LeBron goes a long way. Big Z would be the perfect counter to Howard by hitting enough 18-footers to lure Howard out of the paint-if this series was happening about 6 years ago. Big Z breaks out into a flop sweat just getting his uni on and off. I predict an on-court heart attack by game 5, and the Magic wrapping it up at home in game 6.

Leaving the second round of the Real Finals, a.k.a. the Conference Finals:
1. Cavs vs. 3. Celtics- The fact that the home team has not lost a game in this series since LeBron was in diapers doesn't seem to bode well for the Celtics. I said earlier the playoffs are about matchups, and I feel the best team (in a head-to-head sense) most always wins, home-court advantage not withstanding. But here it has all the hallmarks of actually mattering: It seems like these two teams could play a 100 times, and neither team would win more than 55 games. One team plays with a tremendous atmosphere at home, the other never loses at home even though home (Cleveland) is hardly anywhere anybody really wants to be.

So I'm not even going to bother to really break this one down, it's all pretty much a wash. But I feel confident that the first 6 games of this series will be split. Even if someone steals a road game, that team will cough one up at home later. Leaving game 7 in Cleveland, a game in which Boston has no chance. The Global Icon will write the first chapter of real significance in his career-I'm not even going to count getting to the finals in '07- setting up Kobe vs. LeBron in the finals (I'm not even going to pretend there's any suspense in the West) for what should be one of the most watched finals in many, many years. Here's to hoping the refs don't ruin it.

It's not plagarism if you change some words around

2009-03-24T18:37:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I was reading some John Hollinger article, and I liked the idea, so I'm just going to steal it. He was rating the 10 or so teams who are totally out of playoff contention by who had the best chance of making the playoffs next year. Sounds like fun, so I'm going to take a crack at it. You can find his article (and team order) here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090319

I'm gonna list the teams eligible for inclusion here: Knicks, Raptors, Wiz, Warriors, Thunder, T'Wolves, Grizz, Clips, Kings.

1. T'Wolves- It's still going to take about 50 wins to get in the playoffs out West this year, and that's probably too much to ask any of these teams. I don't think the T'Wolves have the highest ceiling here, but they seem the most likely team to pip a spot if the playoff threshhold should fall to a more reasonable 44 wins or so. Minny showed some solid progress this year before Al Jeff blew up his knee. Add another high lottery pick and a returning Corey Brewer (for what that's worth) on top of this year's team, and there's more than enough NBA-level talent to be at least a .500 team next year.

2. Thunder- This Thunder team has an awful lot of talent, but they're young, and next year might be one too soon. They'd be a lock number 1 here for me if they hadn't shipped back Chandler. Krstic is a skilled enough guy, but Durant and Green could potentially be a title-winning forward tandem- if they find a big own-the-paint center, and Krstic ain't gonna be it. Maybe they grab Thabeet and he turns out not to be a bust? Scary.

3. Clippers- Could win 20 next season like they could win 50. How does 50 wins happen? Well, they fire their trainer, and bring in a good witch doctor to keep Camby, Kaman, Baron Davis, Randolph, and everyone else who misses between 10-80 games a season healthy all season. Then they fire Dunleavy. That adds at least 10 wins right there. In fact, if just those two things happened, this team would be fighting for home-court, not the 8 seed. Alas, witch doctoring is a fading field of research, and Donald Sterling is too cheap to pay another coach while Dunleavy is still under contract.

4. No, I'm done here.

Ok, it's so easy to make the playoffs in the East, but the choices here are so bad. The Knicks will probably get worse before they get better, since it seems they're afraid to spend their LeBron money on resigning David Lee. Hollinger really likes the Wiz and kinda likes the Raptors, but I'm very unconvinced by the Wiz's youngin's, unconvinced at how effective Arenas will be, and unconvinced management isn't going to dump contracts like Jamison's or Butler's over the summer. And again, unlike Mr. Hollinger, I don't like the Raptors one bit. Calderon's a nice player, but not a game changer. Bosh is, but he's already checked out, and will probably be traded before the next trade deadline. And if I talk anymore smack on Bargnani I think my Italian relatives will be very unhappy with me.
The others out west; the GSW's are trying to challenge Isiah Thomas' record of worst legacy left after firing (I pick on him a lot here, but it's taking the Knicks at least 2 years of scorched-earth rebuilding which will allow them to gamble on some free agents. He's basically basketball's version the finance CEOs that led their companies into ruin.) The Warriors have a couple interesting pieces, but no team, no coach (c'mon Don, enough already), and no cap space for several years. The Grizz have some talent, and maybe in a few years they luck into some better balance among their pieces, but I hate the Gay/Mayo combo, but they won't have the sense or balls to trade one of them. And the Kings, oy? Am I supposed to get excited about Kevin Martin, and, um, Jason Thompson?

The truth about true shooting percentage

2009-03-10T01:54:00.000-07:00

Stats in basketball are interesting, yet in baseball, statistics are dominant. Statistics have always been carefully analyzed in baseball, less so in the NBA. Recent statistical revolutions have touched both leagues, but perhaps differently. Sure Baseball has some fancy new ways to measure fielder's defensive ability, but the only thing that really seemed to change the game was statistics indicating that the ability to draw walks was underrated. While this change seems logical, I'd argue the game itself changed, with increased home run rates making walks more valuable, not to mention baseball's recent obsession with pitch counts making hitters who work a count more valuable as well. This new stat-loving generation has perhaps had a greater impact on Basketball. For one thing, it has totally changed scouting. Coaches now know if LeBron is a more likely to make an 18-footer from the left corner or the right corner. But in terms of player evaluation, well, the results of the new calculus (which, typically, de-emphasizes scoring and emphasizes efficient shooting) have not been consistently accepted by the basketball watching public-at-large.

Some of this calculus' new conclusions go down easy. 'A player scoring 20 ppg but shooting 40% is not only not helping his team- he may very well be killing it,' would be one example, and that's a statement I'm sure every coach in NBA history would agree with. I think true basketball fans have always realized the importance of FG%. Some new measures have been cooked up to refine FG%, such as true shooting percentage, which factor in 3pt percentage, and some count free throws as half a field goal as well. Most of the various player analysis metrics out there combine shooting efficiency with varying formulas taking into account other stats such as rebounds, assists, etc. They weight each stat differently according to the recipe's cook, but all rely heavily on some form of shooting percentage which is designed to measure his offensive "efficiency."

But sometimes these analyses madden traditionalists. For example, take Rajon Rondo. Stat geeks love him. My two favorite stat gurus (whom I sincerely respect) John Hollinger and David Berri created formulas that rate Rondo the 2nd best and best player, respectively, on the Boston Celtics. A traditionalist would ask how that's possible when teams go out of their way not to guard him, because other teams seem to think he can't shoot. The new calculus continues to point at his astronomical shooting efficiency and say he in fact shoots very well. So who's wrong, the coaches, or the stats?

Neither, I say. We're just missing an important piece of the puzzle. Rondo shoots a terrific FG%, but regularly turns down open looks most other player would exploit. His rigorous shot selection leaves a smallish collection of FG attempts that mostly come on plays near the hoop (nobody denies his effectiveness finishing around the basket) and very very wide open jumpers. The new calculus loves this shooting stinginess. So do traditionalists- no coach would want a player to shoot a ton just to try to keep the defense honest if he's going to miss them anyway.

The key is that Rondo is left open much of the game, intentionally. The new calculus doesn't factor this, and merely rewards his high shooting percentage. But the other teams' coaches aren't choosing not to guard him so he can rack up better numbers for his fantasy league team. They're using that defender to help better guard the other 4 players. I can't prove it here, but I'm pretty sure it's harder to score 4 on 5 than it is 5 on 5. In fact, other teams tend to focus greatly on the Big 3, because if you have to leave somebody open, much better it be Perkins or Rondo than Pierce or Allen.

I think there's a missing stat in this new calculus. A stat that keeps track of the percentage of uncontested shots a player takes (I'm sure this stat is measured by someone, only it's compiled by the teams themselves, and they don't share). Now, it's not something that will replace all other stats, but used hand-in-hand with field goal percentage will give us a much better idea of true "true" shooting percentage. A higher uncontested shot percentage would indicate that typically other teams defenses sag off of that player to guard others. Indeed, "star" players would likely have a very low number in this stat, as they attract the most attention from the defense. I think this stat could still be used in a very interesting way to measure star players as well, if we tweak it a little bit. The greater the impact a player has on offense, the higher the uncontested shot percentage of the other 4 players on the floor should be. The best players change the ways opposing defenses play, sometimes even against the will of the defense. What better measure of the old cliche about "making your teammates better" could there be? Efficiency should always be valued- but this stat would indicate who is being efficient at their teammates expense by not keeping defenses honest. It could even be used to measure defensive ability, an improvement over +/- of sorts. If opposing offenses tend to have more uncontested shots when a particular player is on the floor, it would suggest his teammates have to overcompensate to cover his liabilities or he frequently fails to make the appropriate rotations on defense. It would be a very subjective stat (what would officially qualify as uncontested?) but so is the assist statistic. If any degree of uniformity could be found it would be an immensely telling statistic. Now if only the teams would share their data.

UPDATE

2009-02-19T13:27:00.000-08:00

Hoopscanmatter would like to announce that the previous post has been rescinded.

The team that Bill Simmons will not name keeps getting better

2009-02-18T13:42:00.000-08:00

We’ve been hearing it was going to happen, but it was still sad to see. Word was we were going to see teams make trades based not on talent, or even with the intent of getting under the cap to sign free agents, but trades that purge payroll solely for the sake of purging payroll.

The New Orleans Hornets traded one of their most important pieces away for two live bodies they have the right to not pay next season. This trade didn’t really bother me until I read a quote from the Hornets’ GM claiming that Wilcox and Smith would actually do something useful for the team. Chandler may have been having an off year, but Wilcox has been having an off career and Smith is old enough to be Wilcox’s dad.

But how does this trade work for the Okies? I too wanted to hate this team after what the franchise did to Seattle, but their core is looking better all the time. They ably filled a hole at center and they will undoubtedly win the Pau Gasol- Kwame Brown memorial trophy for biggest heist of the year. They are obviously still missing a point guard, but the rest of the starting five of the future seems set with Westbrook, Durant, Green, and now Chandler.

The pieces aren’t all together yet, but we’re starting to get an idea of what it might look like. Chandler (if healthy) will provide them with a rebounding and shot blocking presence they have lacked. Overall, there are a lot of things to like about their (future) defense. Long and quick defenders like Westbrook and Durant on the perimeter and Chandler to man the paint. They were already 21^st in defensive efficiency- which isn’t really all that bad considering their extreme youth. On offense though there are still some holes in the big picture.

The Okies are commonly compared to the Spurs since their GM is a former San Antonio man. But this team’s offense currently resembles MJ’s Bulls more than Duncan’s Spurs. Durant obviously plays the role of the new MJ, the focal point of the offense. While neither played alongside a big man who was a threat to score from the low post, MJ benefited from the Triangle Offense that easily allowed him to slip into the post and give the team an inside scoring threat. This is a development I see as essential to Durant’s success. He will be guarded by a man smaller than he is for the rest of his career, and the best way to exploit this is to back him down into the post. The rest of their offense makes a lot more sense with Durant in the post- Green, who is already their best 3-point shooter can space the defense, Westbrook can look for a lane to attack the basket, and Chandler will look to rebound everybody else’s shot. The Triangle Offense never gets any consideration outside Phil Jackson’s world but it sure looks like a perfect fit here.

Another thing the acquisition of Chandler does is that it makes the acquisition of the right point guard even more important. A point guard who can effectively run a pick and roll with Green and Chandler could put this offense over the top. Chris Paul famously did wonders with Chandler and David West, and Green looks like he can be much better than David West. The Okies won’t need a dynamo with Paul’s level of ability with Durant there to be the primary scorer, but at least a Calderon-type would be nice. When he’s not just giving it to Durant he would have to just run the screen roll and get the ball to the bigs were they can score and hit the odd open 3 when they present themselves.

They’re not there yet, but how does an armchair GM not love the direction OKC is moving?

A review of the 2006 Draft Class

2009-02-09T21:27:00.000-08:00

Adam Morrison's trade to the Lakers the other day got me thinking about his being drafted 3rd that year. Trying to remember the rest of the top of that draft, I remembered Bargnani going 1st, but I drew a blank on the rest. I remembered the CP3 and D-Will draft was the year prior, but I had convinced myself Roy, Aldridge, Gay and co. went in the draft a year after. I guess I didn't want to remember that those players were passed up for the likes of Bargnani and Morrison. I think it was an interesting draft, one with more than a couple of future stars, but also an apparent abundance of busts. I think a couple of factors led to it there being an unusually high amount of bad choices: the end of the straight-to-the-NBA-from-High-School era and what I would refer to as a false dawn of the "Age of Europeans" in the NBA, which probably had less to do with what Europeans were really accomplishing in the NBA, and more with what Dirk Nowitzki accomplished.

European players had been popping up in the NBA draft with increasing frequency for years. One had only to watch a terrific playoff series between San Antonio and Dallas to understand why. The four real stars of the series all were born outside the U.S., and while Tim Duncan "feels" American, at least to this American; Parker, Ginobili, and Nowitzki spoke with heavy accents and were killing our Dream Teams regularly. So when the draft came a little after that series, it felt like it was only time a European go first in the draft (even though the All-American D-Wade and Shaq duo brought home the title).
Then, on top of that Jerry Colangelo's team wins the first pick. He was outspoken upon his arrival in Toronto that the NBA, and indeed its teams that wished to win in this new era, would do well to "Europeanize". After all, he had just constructed a winner in Phoenix looking to Italy (somewhat) for it's coach in Mike D'Antoni. I've expressed here my opinion before of D'Antoni, that the system he implemented was very significant in Phoenix's success. Colangelo made a brilliant hire and constructed a fine team, but he seemed to take from it as lesson that a fast-pace, jump-shooting, "international" style was the way of the future. After all, his Suns were knocked out by Nowitzki's Mavs in the playoffs. Nowitzki, was European as they came. Slow as the day is long, and still soft by power forward standards Nowitzki seemed to herald a new type of NBA player. A player who was almost a throwback to the 80's when shooting and skill could still trump athleticism.

Two lottery picks seemed heavily influenced by this train of thought. A third player almost fits- but doesn't. The two that did:
1. Andrea Bargnani- Toronto
3. Adam Morrison- Charlotte

The closing of Adam Morrison's time in Charlotte officially means GM Michael Jordan means has made two of the worst picks in the history of the draft with Morrison and Kwame Brown. Whether people begin to scrutinize the pick of Bargnani and use equally harsh words remains to be seen. So, now with some hindsight, it seems athleticism has won after all. I'm not convinced.

Sure athleticism has a huge advantage, but skill can still win when it learns it doesn't have to hurry. Indeed, athletically challenged scorers succeed by not trying to be faster than the defense. Sometimes speed just makes things complicated, ask Kwame Brown, whose brain could never catch up to his body. Nowitzki, Ginobili, and even Steve Nash have no problem finding a spot to get the shot they want, and the skill to make it more often than not.

Morrison seemed to have had that ability in college. One could perhaps slightly pardon Jordan for this reason. In the pros Morrison has struggled. Losing his second season to injury certainly didn't help, and maybe Phil Jackson will be able to resurrect his career in LA. But Bargnani seemed to have required a greater leap of faith having never played against the athletes that dominate the American game.

And much better would Toronto be right now had they drafted Rudy Gay or Brandon Roy paired up with Chris Bosh and Jose Calderon? That would be one of the best offenses in the East. This turned out to be a fairly devastating pick as the Raptors head toward the bottom of the standings and seemed poised to lose Chris Bosh to free agency if he isn't traded first.

The pick that didn't belong to the same group, but should have:
11. J.J. Redick

What was the difference between Morrison and Redick? Both were prodigious scorers in college, Redick going to the higher-level program even. Both primarily jump-shooters who can put the ball on the floor but are fairly unathletic. Why did Redick fall to eleven? In fact, many at the time thought that was even too high. In short, the 6' 4" Redick looked like just another one-dimensional shooter, but the taller Morrison and Bargnani looked like Dirk Nowitzki.

The athletes:
About a decade earlier Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant and a few others made some GMs look foolish for passing on their can't-miss athleticism just because they had never played college ball. The draft became less about finding the best player, and more about finding the body that could possibly develop into the best player. Starting with the 2006 draft, the NBA sought to change this and required at least one year of school. But several players were drafted on the same raw tools analysis used previously.
2. Tyrus Thomas- Chicago
4. LaMarcus Aldridge- Portland
5. Shelden Williams- Atlanta
6. Randy Foye- Minnesota
7. Brandon Roy-Portland
8. Rudy Gay- Memphis
9. Patrick O'Bryant- Golden State
10. Saer Sene- Seattle
*This list shows the players final destinations, ignoring the importance of Viktor Khryapa and others changing teams.

The best case one could make for drafting Thomas second would require several uses of the words potential and athleticism, because his skill was certainly lacking. Aldridge showed more polish and skill, but it was unclear at the time who got the best of the draft day trade swapping the two young forwards.
Today, it seems quite clear Aldridge is the superior player. I think Aldridge has some larger holes in his game (mainly an overall softness) from what you would expect for a player who was the best frontcourt player of his draft class. It seems those holes might have been perfectly covered by lucking into winning Greg Oden's rights (presuming he can stay healthy).

Putting Sheldon Williams in the "athletes" list is a bit of a stretch, but how else do you explain this pick? I mean seriously! Everyone picks on the Hawks for passing Chris Paul, but at least Marvin Williams isn't a total bum.

Randy Foye will be a rotation player for a while in the NBA, but Telfair and Foye may very well be the worst starting backcourt in the NBA. Both are small, neither shoot well, and both contribute their share to Minnesota's terrible defensive mark (26th in defensive efficency).

Brandon Roy and Rudy Gay were almost certainly the best 2 players in this draft. Roy went as low as he did because he actually wasn't considered much of an athlete, and there were concerns of Gay's work ethic. But both were obviously extremely talented players. Roy has gone to an ideal situation in Portland, Gay less so in Memphis. I don't understand why anyone would pair him with OJ Mayo's exceedingly similar game (Gay's FG% and PPG have declined this year). He'll be a free agent in 2010 and someone's gonna throw a lot of money his way (which Memphis likely won't match) and if it's the right situation for him I really believe he could go on to win a lot of games.

Sure, O'Bryant and Sene don't belong in the NBA, but it's hard to criticize their picks too much. The Warriors and Sonics went for home runs passing on a field of low ceiling players. They were still bad picks I guess, but it's hard to justify to fans picking a guy who'll never be anything more than a bench player with a pick in the 9 or 10 spot.

All of the teams that flubbed their 2006 top 10 draft pick look to be headed back to the lottery again this year: Toronto, Chicago, Charlotte, Minnesota, Golden State, Seattle. So before everyone is quick to point out MJ's failure in that draft, let's look a little closer at Colangelo, Paxson, and McHale. All of the GMs of the teams on that list have felt some heat in the last couple years, but Colangelo, the one who made what was likely the greatest mistake in this draft, has received perhaps the fewest calls for his head. Living apparently on past glories, he's subjected the poor fans to some dismal basketball, and prospects for the future look awfully bleak.

Phoenix- Is Steve Kerr, the next Isiah Thomas?

2009-02-06T14:22:00.001-08:00

First off I would like to thank Steve Kerr. Oh what the hell, let's thank Isiah too. Isiah provided NBA fans (of the non-NY variety) a good many chuckles during his tenure as Knick GM. His teams failure provided powerful arguments that good cap management is important, and that GMs can't simply accumulate "stars"- read scorers, nay, volume shooters!- and expect that team to win.

But it seems the web's starting to fire up a little bit about the Suns. Steve Kerr has made many controversial moves starting with the Shaq-Marion trade last year. It felt hard to judge that trade last season because just as the Suns seemed to be coming together (with Amare posting amazing numbers) the playoffs started and their old nemesis used a famous double overtime victory to basically crush Phoenix's spirit and cruise to victory in the series. But Kerr's purge had just begun. He then axed D'Antoni, brought in Porter, and later this season brought in Jason Richardson for Diaw and Bell.

Before I continue, I must make one thing clear- I am not an irrational apologist for the D'Antoni Suns. I am not one of the deluded few that believe that Phoenix would have beat the Spurs were it not for the controversial suspensions in the playoff series two seasons ago. In fact, I believe if those two teams played each other in ten hypothetical playoff series, the Spurs would have won at least nine times. But I do believe they were better than anyone else that year. And considering how devastating Amare was after Shaq's addition last year, imagine if Phoenix had a younger, more mobile center? Picture that team with a healthy Andrew Bynum. They would have been a new dynasty. Of course, quality centers are hard to acquire, and Shaq, apparently was the best they could do.

But Steve Kerr's distrust of D'Antoni's run and gun style led him to essentially dismantle a team (with Amare trade rumors swirling, he may not be done) that was considered a title favorite by many at the start of last season. I believe he has fallen into a trap similar to the one Isiah dwelled in for so many years: His misguided basketball dogma that simply does not take into account what actually happens on the court. Kerr believes, first and foremost, that halfcourt basketball wins playoff series. That's a pretty sound axiom, as every championship team the last two decades won their titles in the halfcourt. Fast break points were an important weapon allowing those title-winners to get extra gimme points, but never was never really Plan A.

But Kerr used that axiom in a very simple way when making decisions. He seemed to think that size equals halfcourt ability. On defense in the halfcourt, the Suns were somewhat lacking. In fact, I believe the difference between the Spurs and the Suns that year was indeed the Spurs defensive superiority. But it's difficult to argue that giving away what were essentially the three best defensive players on the team- Bell, Diaw, and Marion- for two players who were considered marginal defensive players at best could really help. And halfcourt or otherwise, the Suns were getting the job done shooting an impressive 49% in the 5 games Diaw and Amare were available. Problem was the Spurs still outscored them in them in three of those five games.

But I think Kerr's most devastating decision, far worse than his trades, was his decision to fire D'Antoni. D'Antoni would have to be on anybody's list for 5 best coaches in the NBA right now, and I don't see how Porter has a job as an NBA head coach. He floundered in his previous head coaching stint in Milwaukee, taking a .500 club to the 52 loss level by his second season. Sure, he was brought in to not be D'Antoni, but couldn't he have at least quitely kept a couple of his offensive schemes? Under Porter's style, Steve Nash has returned to the slightly above-average point guard he was in Dallas and Amare has essentially mentally quit in response to the decline of the amount of offense run through him.

Indeed, Phoenix's decline has been more demonstrative of D'Antoni's excellence than the Knicks managing to stay in the playoff hunt with a limited roster. His system was more than just fast and gimmicky. It found a way to attack space and create good shots before a defense can set up. People explain Amare's fall off this year by saying that Shaq clogs the lane for Amare. It's true, he's been forced to be more of a high-post/perimeter player, which is not his strength. But how did Amare produce such incredible numbers after Shaq arrived last year? D'Antoni found a way to use Shaq largely as a decoy to lure away big men from the basket opening even more space for Amare. Good coaching on offense often has nothing to do with calling any number of highly structured plays. Phil Jackson has had a fair amount of success without practically ever calling a play. But both coaches had systems that allowed players to best use their skills, using tactics to place a player in a situation where he often succeeds which allows the coach to trust his player to freely create.

Kerr's changes have decimated a once great offense, and the current Suns actually lower defensive efficiency ratings than D'Antoni's teams. Isiah will be famous as one of the worst GMs in modern history, not only because he constructed awful teams, but his predecessor was hamstrung by his contracts for over two seasons after his departure even. Kerr has a way to go to become the butt of jokes at the same level as Isiah, but the speed he changed a team from championship contender status to a team I believe is unlikely to make the playoffs is truly awe-inspiring.

Some thoughts on this year's rookies

2009-01-28T13:43:00.000-08:00

I felt compelled to write a little about this year's rookie class (which seems particularly talented and deep) after seeing Eric Gordon play some the last couple weeks. Let me make this clear, when I look at rookies I don't judge them on a basis of "Can they average 20?" or "Will they be a perennial All-Star?" My question is, "Can they help a team win a title?" Some players will be the Jordans, Duncans, and Shaqs that are the centerpiece of title-winners, but they come along only once every few years. But they still need help, guys to fill roles. And in my view "role player" is not synonomous with "journeyman." All players can fill certain roles on a team, the question is what roles do they fill, and how much better than the average player are they in that role? So if I were every GM, and redoing the draft today, what would be different?

Derrick Rose is still going to go first. He's a tremendous talent. He just has no team around him, and I think that makes it really hard to judge him, especially considering he's a point guard. But he's goes first because he will win his team a lot of games. However, it must be said, point guards are rarely cornerstones of champions, only Isiah's Pistons have done it in my lifetime. So he'll need a lot of help to win (Isiah had plenty), which he doesn't have yet.
So who's #2? Michael Beasley's a tremendous talent. Beasley's biggest problem is his size- when was the last time a 3/4 tweener led his team to a title? He could become the next Barkley, but even with Wade alongside him, they won't be able to win without a center who can dominate the paint- a Heat-champion-era Shaq would be perfect. But, problem is, not too many of them around.
But wait, what about Brook Lopez? Is he the "best" talent available? Probably not. And while conventional wisdom says you draft the best talent available at this point of the draft, conventional wisdom also says teams with D-Wade don't finish bad enough to get #2 picks. I think Beasley-Wade guarantees more 50-win seasons, but I think Wade-Lopez has a better chance of winning a title. Quality big men are very rare, and that's why Bowie and Olajuwon went before Jordan and Oden went before Durant. Bowie went bust, Oden might, but Olajuwon won. And not only are there no Jordans left in this draft, the Heat already have a Jordanesque guy in Wade.
Other thoughts a little more briefly...
Don't like Mayo, especially in Memphis where he only takes shots away from Gay and Conley. Memphis can't rebound to save their lives, but traded the best rebounding rookie-Love- for Mayo. Mistake.
Westbrook will not be a star in the NBA. Watched him a lot at UCLA, high quality athlete and defender, but he can't shoot. A big time reach at #4.
Love fit perfectly in Memphis, but he's just another undersized big man in Minny, a team that needed a guard who can actually create a little offense like Mayo.
But my favorite pick of the Draft that did actually happen was Eric Gordon. The Gordon-Thornton-Randolph trio deserves comparisons to Allen-Pierce-Garnett. Sacriledge you say? Compare them individually. Gordon-Allen = Gordon is the next Allen. Simple. Gordon's jump shot is the prettiest to come along since Allen, and like a young Ray Allen, he can attack the basket nicely. Thornton-Pierce = Ok, no contest about who's better yet, but they have the same type slashing game. Al could become a quality poor man's Pierce. Randolph-Garnett = Both rebound well, but Randolph I think has a much more solid offensive game, but obviously is much, much weaker defensively than Garnett. So, let's move ahead 2-3 years to let Gordon and Thornton mature some. That's not good enough to win a title is it? Maybe with a better coach it is. Nobody thought that the Celtics would be a an all-time great defensive team before last season. Why were they? I don't buy that Garnett's defensive intensity rubbing off on his teammates crap. Why did that never happen in Minnesota? Two words. Tom Thibideau. His defense (now copied by the Cavs, Lakers, and Magic-the top 4 teams in the league) changed the game last year. So who's to say some future coach couldn't find that magic defensive touch that would allow Donald Sterling to raise a trophy? Oh, right, Donald Sterling says it couldn't happen.

Pre-ramble

2009-01-20T16:59:00.000-08:00

Let me apologize in advance. I'm too wordy. Good sportswriters have a certain dryness in their writing style that is essential to the craft. I don't have that.
But I feel I have some points of view that are not getting sufficient burn in the conversations in the blogosphere or other media.

Allow me summarize what's often the main gist behind the arguments that will grace this page. Personally, I feel my views are best classified as (amateur) economist. I feel the idea of explaining Basketball in terms limited resources is a very powerful one.
Wait! I know you're all ready to lump me in with all stat geeks like the Hollinger's of the world. While I believe the data they're producing can't be ignored, those producing it tend to believe that their data tells everything you need to know even if taken completely out of context.
Take the two most relevant stat producers that I've seen on the net-John Hollinger from ESPN, and David Berri from the Wages of Wins blog. Berri crunches numbers, posts the graphs and briefly explains what the data says. His points are made completely in the language of statistics, almost never discussing the "intuitive" analyses of basketball (in fact, he usually focuses on data that refutes "intuition" or "common sense"). Hollinger is famous for his PER and stat analysis with ESPN, but he does frequently discuss what his eyes see watching games in his columns, and provides very sharp "traditional" analysis as well. Yet, when he made preseason predictions this year, he seemed to be a prisoner of his own calculus, and chose the Jazz to come out of the Western conference because they had the largest point differential.

Now, I think they've both done a great job changing how people view NBA stats. They say over and over straight points per game measurements tell very little. But the stats (and proponents of strict statistical analysis) at times can be hostile to an application of basic basketball logic.

Let me make one example and I'll wrap it up. I was going to do Allen Iverson, but I'll save that for a later post. I think Amare Stoudamire is actually a more interesting one. Last season, his stats improved considerably after the arrival of Shaq. I suppose a statistical explanation of this could be that Marion shot the ball more than Shaq did last season, so some of those extra shots fell to the uber-efficient Amare. Of course no statistical model can fully quantify Amare's weakness on defense, but let's ignore that for now. Previewing this season Hollinger said: "Stoudemire projects to finish third in the NBA in PER, and I'm wondering if that doesn't undersell him." It hasn't worked out that way this year with D'Antoni out of town. In fact, his PER is the lowest he's posted in a healthy year since the last time he started a season with a coach other than Mike D'Antoni. Without an offensive system specifically designed around his skill set, he is producing far less wins for his team. Berri's stats see the decline too, but don't understand why: he notes that Amare and Nash both have had drop-offs in their 08-09 stats but follows that with "The Suns can be even better if Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire return to the form we saw last year." And I think "intuition" will inform you well that there will be no return to form this year. But I'll spell out my intuition later...