The Best of the Best

Is this something really worth looking at? Is this something really worth talking about? It comes up all the time, and it comes up frequently. The question is, does it really matter? Firstly, let's get this straight, we're talking about a game. That's right, read it closely, a game, G-A-M-E, game. Sure players get paid millions of dollars to play this game, but it's no less or more of a game because of that. The argument of "best", "better", and "bad" almost seems like a dumb, arbitrary way for ESPN and 2ksports to come up with player ratings for their game. "Player X is awesome, let's give him an overall rating of 97." "Player Y dominates in the post, let's give him rebound and low post ratings of 99." etc...

Why do I bring this up then? Well, I came across this interesting article (interesting and well-written at that) by Reed at Forum Blue and Gold. I actually stopped reading ESPN a while ago so I haven't had a chance to read the Bill Simmons article they keep talking about in there, especially since I feel like ESPN analysts are basically paid more to spout the same nonsense that Kelly Dwyer does, and I like how Dwyer writes better. If I want arbitrary judgment thrown out at a team I'll read Dwyer or watch Kenny Smith and Charles Barkley, if I want to know about a specific team, I'll go to SBNation or something.

Now that I've done all my prefacing, let's jump into the meat. I agree with Reed's first two premises (I can't comment on the third as I haven't read the Simmons article): Kobe Bryant is NOT Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant is NOT LeBron James. Due to the large number of variables that goes into the game of basketball when making such comparisons (i.e. skills, physical attributes, opponents, teammates, coach, rules, etc...) I believe that you could insert "better than" after the NOTs and still say it's true. On the same respect, I believe you could take the converse (Michael Jordan/LeBron James is not (better than) Kobe Bryant), and it would be true too. You can't make direct comparisons, furthermore, there's no real purpose to it. Basketball isn't tennis, in which, even if you have players with different games, they play each other and a clear victor is declared. I can say that Pete Sampras is better than Pat Rafter because Pete Sampras has consistently beaten Pat Rafter in Wimbledon. I can't say that Roger Federer is necessarily better than Pete Sampras because Sampras is 10 years older and therefore the two can never meet in their primes. If Federer beats Sampras's record for titles? Maybe, but hey, maybe Sampras's competition was stiffer, we'll never really know. Now jumping back to basketball from the tennis analogy, we can't make that kind of comparison, because even with same era stars, it's not a matter of Kobe playing LeBron, the team has to be taken into account too.

Let's take a look at some numbers:

Per Game:

		FG%		3PT%		FT%		PPG		RPG		APG		SPG		BPG		TO
Player A		45.5%		34.1%		84.0%		25.1		5.3		4.6		1.5		0.6		2.9
Player B		47.1%		32.8%		73.8%		27.5		7.0		6.7		1.8		0.9		3.3
Player C		49.7%		32.7%		83.5%		30.1		6.2		5.3		2.3		0.8		2.7

Ok, let's say per game isn't necessarily a fair comparison as some players have played more games than others.

Per 36 Minutes:

		FG%		3PT%		FT%		PPG		RPG		APG		SPG		BPG		TO
Player A		45.5%		34.1%		84.0%		24.8		5.2		4.6		1.5		0.6		2.9
Player B		47.1%		32.8%		73.8%		24.4		6.2		5.9		1.6		0.8		2.9
Player C		49.7%		32.7%		83.5%		28.3		5.9		4.9		2.2		0.8		2.6

Who's the best player? There's no real way of telling I suppose, but I would love to have anyone of those three on my team. If you haven't guessed already, these are the career averages of Kobe (Player A), LeBron (Player B), and Michael Jordan (Player C). So numbers don't tell us anything conclusive. Well what then determines which player is the best? I could throw Dwayne Wade into the conversation and his numbers would be remarkably similar (career averages of 25.2 points, 4.9 rebounds, and 6.7 assists per game). Is it the number of rings?

Bill Russell has 11, no one doubts Russells greatness, then there are a bunch of Celtics from the 60s that have anywhere from 7 to 10, Celtics whom I've never heard of before. Robert Horry has 7. Michael Jordan has 6, Steve Kerr has 5, Kobe has 4, and LeBron has none. Heck, even Antoine Walker has one, heck, even Sun Yue and Mengke Bateer have one. Even Adam Morrison and Brian Scalabrine have one. So rings obviously isn't a good comparison, otherwise, LeBron is worse than Kobe, who is worse than Jordan, all of whom are worse than Robert Horry (and all of whom are worse than Sam Jones).

What about the ultimate intangible of "making his teammates better"? Well, it's hard to say which player is better at "making his teammates better". Is it winning percentage? Statistics? If either were the case, then Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash make their teammates awesome. The more I think about the concept of "making his teammates better", the more I realize that most of it is pretty much an utter load of crap. The main influence that players have on one another is attitude and habits, granted given that case, then it's possible that certain veteran players or more proven players imprint their own good attitudes and habits on the team, however, when people talk about "making teammates better" this isn't what they're talking about, the effect that players have on each other off of the hardwood or in practice is generally referred to as "lockerroom influence", "making his teammates better" then, is what? Is it changes in statistical production? Well, if that's the case, then players that are good at "making teammates better" shouldn't need a good supporting cast, because he should make them good just simply by being on the floor with them. Obviously this isn't the case, as we see the woes of the Hornets and Cavaliers these past couple of years. No player is going to turn another player from a 10-2-2 guy to a 20-5-5 guy just by merit of playing next to him. Is it then the number of assists? Creating opportunities for other teammates? Well, that's not really the case either, because assists are a two way street. The ideal case is that the player "making his teammates better" creates an easy bucket for his teammate, hence the assist. However, what also counts as an assist, is if I pass the ball to my teammate and he creates his own shot (in a given amount of time). I got an assist, I made my teammate better, right? Also, there is the onus on the recipient of the play/assist/opporutnity to make the bucket. If my teammate draws a double-team and kicks it out to me and I brick the open jumper, does that mean my teammate isn't trying to play unselfishly and "make his teammates better"? These are probably the foremost reasons why I don't really like that phrase.

My point is simply this, there's no real reason to say who is better and who is the best. Really, there isn't. They're different players, and to some extent playing a different game, they play against different opponents with different teammates. Can there be a definitive best? No. Let's just then appreciate these athletes for the gifts and talents they bring to the game then.

It's THE FINALS... dun dun dun.....

Ok, maybe not so dramatic as people expected. Lakers were definitely the safe pick coming out of the West, but I had definitely been backing the Magic this whole time. I'm glad that they could make it. I'm sure it's not much of a secret that I don't like the Lakers very much. Sure they're a great team on paper, Kobe's probably the best player currently in terms of basketball ability (LeBron is awesome, but I would still currently give it to Kobe), they have a solid bench, likeable guys (except maybe Vujacic). So before Lakers fans start getting all indignant and self-righteous about how I should give the Lakers more props, let me quickly say, that that is exactly the reason I don't like the Lakers (that is, Lakers fans getting all indignant and self-righteous because I don't think Lakers are undefeatable). I'll admit as much as the next guy that Lakers should win it all, they certainly have the talent to do so, so I'll be as much on the bandwagon as anyone else in saying that it's all a mind game.

I thought the Finals were like the Playoffs in that the series would be 2-2-1-1-1, but I was wrong, and it in actuality is 2-3-2, which changes my prediction a little. For some reason, given that it's 2-3-2, I have a hard time seeing this go to 7 games, though it is possible, but only if both teams win all their home games in the first 5. If this year's Playoffs have taught us anything, it's that you can't really bank on anything that should happen. Manu Ginobili and Kevin Garnett should have been healthy, LeBron should have been defeating the Celtics in the Conference Finals because Mo Williams should have made the difference for the Cavs, Lakers should have swept all competition out the door easily because the Rockets should have folded when they discovered Yao Ming's foot fracture instead of taking the Lakers to 7 games.

Ok, we're past all that now, so lets get down to what is going to make or break this series for either team: the matchups. While regular seasons don't mean everything when it comes to a seven-game series, you can't blatantly disregard them either, John Hollinger did that, and he picked Cleveland to win in 5. Matchup wise, it's rather swung in the Lakers' favor currently, as the this is the major matchup in which the loss of Jameer Nelson will seriously hurt the Magic. From a position reference, the only clear cut advantage any team can really get on the Lakers, on paper or otherwise, is at the point guard position, and Jameer Nelson is just the type of guard that would give the Lakers fits. He was crucial to the Magic's two victories over the Lakers both at home and at Staples, Nelson is basically Aaron Brooks at an All-Star level. So the question(s) end up being: is Derek Fisher bad enough to make Rafer Alston look that good? (and the answer is likely no) so therefore, who can replicate Nelson's production? All eyes should naturally turn to Rashard Lewis and Hedo Turkoglu. Courtney Lee and Mickael Pietrus will definitely have their hands full trying to guard Kobe, and the matchups between Odom and Ariza on Lewis and Turkoglu are pretty comparable. Should Bynum be used in limited minutes, Gasol could really stretch the Magic defense by pulling Howard out of the paint. For the Lakers it's all about staying focused on offense, getting Howard out of the paint, and hitting the subsequent cutters from the high post. While I would argue that outside of Howard, Alston, Lee, Pietrus, Turkoglu, and Lewis are all long and above-average man defenders, the Lakers just have too many weapons. On defense, Lakers have to keep Dwight Howard off the glass, while Lewis isn't a great rebounder for his height, they still can't afford to let him have a good rebounding game either.

Magic I think will go back to their newfound strategy of running a Dwight Howard/Hedo Turkoglu high screen and roll with Lewis, Alston, and Lee/Pietrus spotting up from the 3pt mark. Howard really needs to dominate the glass, especially on the offensive end. I know it sounds stupid and cliche to say this, but basically, the Magic need to hit their open threes. I'm sure several Magic fans, and probably a lot of Rockets fans will cringe at this as well, I think at least 1 game will be decided by the play of Rafer Alston, he's going to have to be big, as that is the only position that Magic can really exploit. Specifically, it's "whatever guy Derek Fisher has to guard".

While the change in the schedule has sort of thrown me in for a loop, I'm going to call it this way, the way I originally called it...

Magic in 6, otherwise Lakers in 7.

Actually you know what? I'm feeling gutsy again...

Magic in 5 on sheer momentum based on the fact that they have 3 home games in a row.

As we've seen though in this year's Playoffs, it could swing either way.

Let's get to it.

LeBron's Team

I think I've probably made mention of this somewhere before, but, honestly, LeBron still needs help on his team. Firstly, let me make note that this is purely my own analysis and opinion, and therefore, feel free to make any sort of disagreement here, I will agree to disagree with you on any point where we can't meet eye to eye. Now that that's out of the way, let's get to what we're talking about. I believe that the Cavaliers have yet to be as successful a team as possible is simply this: we're misinterpreting the kind of player that LeBron James is. Let me let that sink in for you a little more and reiterate my point: the Cleveland Cavaliers as currently constructed is a bad fit for LeBron James.

I'm not really going to go into the whole Kobe vs LeBron thing, but the fact remains, that LeBron, for all extensive purposes, is more of a facilitator than someone who takes over games. Before everyone starts hounding me, and looking to bash in what little NBA credibility I have, I ask that you first hear me out. I'm not saying LeBron cannot take over games, as shown over and over through the regular season, and more importantly, via the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals, LeBron obviously has the talent and the ability to not only take over games, but entire series. It appeared this year was LeBron's year, given the Cavaliers' strong regular season performance and quick romp through the first two rounds of the playoffs. However, if 2007 showed us anything, it is that regular season success is not indicative of post season success (see Dallas Mavericks). Furthermore, if we look at the matchups that LeBron and co had through the playoffs, it's not surprising that they swept a Pistons squad that stopped caring and a Hawks squad that had been depleted of its top defenders (Marvin Williams and Al Horford). However, now faced with an Orlando team that has traditionally matched-up well against Cleveland, the top team of the regular season looks mortal, in fact, they look like their done. After last night's loss, the Cavs now return to Cleveland facing the dreaded 3-1 deficit, and while these games are tight, a LeBron James buzzer beating fallaway three is more likely to clank off the rim than go through the net (he's a respectable 35% from beyond the arc, but even that's more misses than makes, it's simple math).

Here's three times that LeBron has led the Cavs to at least the Eastern Conference Finals and each time the Cavs have fallen short. First was an embarassing Finals sweep at the hands of the Spurs, then a 7-game series loss to the revamped Boston Celtics, and now (ok, I may be getting ahead of myself) they head into the next game facing a 3-1 series deficit to the Orlando Magic, meaning, they have to win three in a row, including one in Orlando, where they have yet to win a game this season. In fact, they haven't been close. In their four contests in Orlando, only the most recent overtime loss was decided by less than 10 points (the last playoff game in Orlando they lost by 10, then in the regular season they lost their two contests in Orlando by 29 and 11).

As much as I hate these championship Bulls comparisons, I'm going to use it to illustrate my point, since it's something that everyone is fairly familiar with. Firstly though, I want to point out, that like any analogy, the comparison isn't perfect, so in no way are the current Cleveland Cavaliers anywhere near being analogous with the say 1996 Chicago Bulls. Now I know that somewhere buried in previous posts that I don't want to dig up, that I've said that Mo Williams is not somebody I want as a second option on my team. Sure, he's better than Zydrunas Ilgauskas or Drew Gooden or Larry Hughes as a second option, but still... even then. Everyone says Mo Williams was supposed to be the Scottie Pippen to LeBron's Jordan, he was supposed to ease the offensive pressure, give the Cavs another ball handler, and that is where everyone got it wrong. Again let me state my disdain of these classic Bulls comparisons, and Michael Jordan comparisons and all that, but I will use this analogy so that people get a clear idea, here's what it really boils down to: Mo Williams is no Scottie Pippen, in fact, he's closer to probably a Toni Kukoc than anything else, and here's the kicker: LeBron James is much closer to Scottie Pippen than he is to Michael Jordan. So there is the basic premise under which I believe the Cavs are unsuccessful.

I'm not saying that the Cavs should move LeBron James to second fiddle or anything, I'd still loev to have LeBron as my primary scoring option, but I'm asking that Mike Brown and the Cavs recognize that LeBron is more of a facilitator than he is a scorer. I'm not saying that Danny Ferry has to find a "Michael Jordan" type player to play next to LeBron, this is why I think the whole Bulls analogy is stupid. I believe that all the flak that LeBron received in Game 2 of the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals for passing the las shot to Donyell Marshall instead of taking it himself, really changed how everyone looks at LeBron. Everyone wants him to be the go-to guy, and sure, he subsequently carried the Cavs in 4 straight wins to the Finals. However, I believe that that play is very telling of the kind of player that LeBron is.

Quite frankly, you can't really construct a team around LeBron like the 76ers did in 2001 with Allen Iverson. You can't just surround LeBron with role players and have him dominate the ball, and after about 4 years I think Mike Brown is starting to figure that out. Mo Williams is the first step, but I don't think it's necessarily the be-all-end-all. While it's nice to have another point of origin for the offense to run through, it's also not the greatest need of the Cavaliers. What I believe the Cavaliers need is, well, in short, a second-option. I don't know that that's very clear, as that's what Mo Williams was supposed to be, but let me try to explain this a little better.

As LeBron James is more of a facilitator than anything else, I believe that what the Cavaliers need is a scorer. Someone that LeBron James can consistently pass the ball to and rely on to score. Probably someone that can create his own offense, but regardless, someone that LeBron can facilitate for. In usage of another bad '90s basketball analogy, LeBron needs something of a Karl Malone to his John Stockton. I think ideally that type of player would be something akin to a post scorer, but the point remains the same. Jason Kidd not only had Vince Carter, but also Richard Jefferson on the Nets. When playing together, Jefferson then became the 6th leading scorer in the league for that season (I forget which). Likewise, I believe that LeBron is the kind of player that can draw out that sort of improvement or production from his fellow teammates, additionally, he's also blessed with the talent and ability to get his own as well.

Wherever LeBron ends up, I hope that the GMs realize this one thing, before LeBron needs a solid supporting cast, he needs someone he can pass the ball to, someone he can rely on to score. It sounds arbitrary, and arguably Mo Williams meets that need, but it's hard to exactly articulate what specifically I mean. Let me try one last way of explaining this. Should we go back to the Bulls analogy (as a note Pippen could take over games too), should Pippen and Jordan have switched roles (where Pippen was the go-to guy), the Bulls still would have needed the scoring that came from Jordan, and in that sense, that player is what the Cavs need. LeBron has aspects of both Pippen and Jordan, but he doesn't make up for the both of them, the Cavs, or rather, whatever team LeBron is on, needs a player to help make up for that difference. I really have to stop doing these comparisons and come up with better examples, but hey, I think it gets the picture across, sort of. In short, LeBron needs someone to pass the ball to that can score, he needs a go-to option that's not himself.

Round 2: Who's left standing?

EASTERN CONFERENCE

(2) Boston Celtics vs (3) Orlando Magic
Series tied 2-2

When I look at the current roster breakdowns I really can't say that an already thin Boston squad, less Kevin Garnett and Leon Powe should have any chance. However, I don't know that Orlando has a fully healthy squad either, as both Hedo Turkoglu and Rashard Lewis were battling injury prior to entering the post-season. Given how rought the first round with the 76ers was, I highly doubt that either one is back 100%, and so, we have a series. It's not like both teams held home court either, they both split their homecourt showings so far in the series. However beat the Magic may feel though, the Celtics must feel even more so, as their stars are older and they had to go through a grueling 7 game series with Chicago in the first round, including a total of 7 overtimes played in addition to the 336 minutes of regulation gameplay.

Without Garnett, the Garden is no longer an impregnable fortress, the Celtics are but a shadow of themselves last season, their roster coming in from last season has gone from stellar to above-average to now sitting somewhere at slightly above-average. I personally don't think their chances really lie with Ray Allen finding his stroke, with Paul Pierce attacking the basket and getting to the line more, but really with how well Rajon Rondo plays, without Garnett, Rondo becomes all that much more important to making the Celtics run, losing the defensive presence of Garnett means that Rondo has to step it up on the offensive end, making up for those lost stops, because realistically, no combination of Mikki Moore, Glen Davis, and Brian Scalabrine can make up for that, tack onto that the loss on the offensive end and the loss of Leon Powe, and you need someone to step up. Maybe Eddie House does it every third game, maybe Ray Allen gets hot, but consistently you need someone to replace one of the legs of the tripod that is the Big 3, Rondo's the closest to that right now, hopefully the fit doesn't make the Celtics too wobbly.

I'd like to give the series straight away to Orlando, but for some reason, the Magic always have me kind of second-guessing myself whenever I want to pick them, or maybe I just second-guess myself a lot in general. Kelly Dwyer mentions how Hedo Turkoglu is playing significantly worse than he did in the regular season, and that is a cause for concern. Magic fans may be out to lynch me for this, but I honestly don't see Hedo as a long-term solution to the Magic franchise, and therefore, is expendable (via sign-and-trade maybe). However, that's just me speculating. Fortunately, Rashard Lewis is picking up the slack somewhat, averaging an additional 2.4 points, 0.7 rebounds, and 0.6 assists in an additional 2+ minutes of play. Additionally, rookie Courtney Lee has definitely looked to be a solid contributor. Something about the Magic not being able to close out games has definitely worried me some when it comes to this squad, however, I'm still confident that Dwight Howard's dominance will carry through. In light of Kendrick Perkins' injury, the Magic have the obvious advantage, in that, even if Perkins plays, he won't be 100% and therefore, no one can really contain Dwight. Hopefully Stan Van Gundy will use this to his advantage.

While I second-guess myself, I'm still going to go with my pick: Orlando in 6.

WESTERN CONFERENCE

(1) Los Angeles Lakers vs (5) Houston Rockets
Series Tied 2-2

Everyone thought the series was over when Yao Ming broke his foot. Lakers would take Game 4, thereby sweeping Rockets at the Toyota Center, and then handily exit the Rockets out of their first taste of the second round in a long, long time. That was what was supposed to happen. Obviously by the way I'm writing, it didn't. You've all heard about how Lakers just didn't show up in Game 4 and therefore the Rockets (namely Aaron Brooks) walked all over them. 34 points for Brooks, 23 for Battier, Lakers were just getting out-hustled out there. I mean, this is the Rockets surviving a 4-19 shooting night from Ron Artest.

Moving forward from there, I'm sure the Lakers have woken up, though they tend to take like every other game off in the playoffs, I fully expect them to handily wipe the floor with the Rockets in Game 5, which should make Game 6 interesting, because, do the Lakers get complacent again or do they keep playing with intensity? Talent has never really been a question for the Lakers, but desire has always been. Now we tack on to that the issues with Andrew Bynum's knee and Lamar Odom's back, the once invincible Lakers are starting to show more than just some minor kinks in their armor, everyone's starting to think, maybe the Lakers aren't quite as invincible as everyone thought in the regular season. Unfortunately for the Lakers, the Rockets are a team that matches up fairly well against them, in that they have multiple defensive options (Shane Battier and Ron Artest) to throw at Kobe, and their no-fouling defensive rotations don't allow the Lakers to punish them by getting to the free throw line.

Rockets are now down their two top go-to options in Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming. They have an ever decreasing margin of error because they no longer have score-at-will players on the floor. However, given how team-oriented the Rockets' offense runs, it doesn't seem to bother them too much, however, I would be a little worried as a Rockets fan because you can't really bank on 34 and 23 point performances from Aaron Brooks and Shane Battier consistently. However, if the right people get hot at the right time, there's still a shot. Ron Artest has obviously been playing sub-par, but a good game from him at the right time, could be all the difference. One thing with losing Yao is that Lakers lose the running advantage they once had, however they gain a tremendous size advantage as Adelman has decided to start Carl Landry next to Luis Scola, and now the Rockets have no player over 6-9 (except maybe Chuck Hayes) in their rotation. However, the Rockets need to look to exploit the PG matchups as much as possible as Brooks and Lowry both run circles around Fisher.

The logical side of me says Lakers in 6, but I'm feeling gutsy today, Rockets in 7.

(2) Denver Nuggets vs (6) Dallas Mavericks
Nuggets lead series 3-1

I was really expecting this to be over yesterday, but I also am not tremendously surprised by the fact that this went to a 5th game. I don't really feel like talking about the whole Kenyon Martin and Mark Cuban thing as there's already a lot out there about it. To put it succinctly, Denver is the better team, but Dallas just willed themselves out of a sweep. I'm actually fairly surprised by how well Denver has been playing and in light of that, with game 5 going back to the Mile High City, Dallas doesn't really stand a chance. I don't have anything more to say about this. Denver in 5.

Beware: The NBA Jades

People will tell me that the NBA is a business, I should expect things like this. Still, there's a part of me that clings on to the hope that the NBA can be what it was supposed to be, a showcase of the best basketball players in the world playing basketball. I wasn't really sure which word I should've emphasized, "playing" or "basketball" so I just decided to italicize both. This isn't really a recent development either, well, arguably it could be recent given that I haven't been on the NBA (blogging) scene for very long. Don't get me wrong, business is business, NBA is here to make money, it's not some charity or non-profit, it's in it for the money, David Stern is in it for the money. So it really shouldn't be surprising that the two leaders in jersey sales this year, Kobe Bryant (no. 1) and LeBron James (no. 2) get star treatment. At least, in my head, it shouldn't be surprising, no, the question isn't whether or not this is a shocker, but whether or not it's wrong.

Some people might come out and ask me whether or not they even get star treatment, honestly, I think it's rather hard to look at anything other than the box score and think otherwise. I know, I'm pulling out my conspiracy theorist hat, and it's jading me towards quality basketball, I suppose it was inevitable. As I said, this wasn't really a recent development, but honestly, I think it's gotten so blatant in this season's playoff series that it's sort of the proverbial "last straw". What is it? Well quite simply watch below:





This happened last night, and my gut instinct is that the NBA will rule the contact "incidental" and Kobe might get a slap on the wrist and a fine, but nothing more, not the suspension he's deserving of. Now someone's going to come up to me and say, "Well, Ron Artest was playing physical, he was like right on top of Kobe, so it was just an accident." Bull. Sure, Artest is a physical defender, but don't tell me that elbow was not purposefully thrown, you can't tell me that Kobe didn't know Artest was there, he [Artest] was sitting right on top of him [Bryant]. Some guy has his elbows on my shoulders, I'm pretty sure that if I threw an elbow backwards I'd deck him in the chest, gut, or throat, maybe the chin.



If that got a suspension, I don't know why Kobe's shouldn't, unless of course, players named Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, or anyone that plays for the Celtics can't get suspended (maybe it's one of those unwritten NBA rules). I'm not going to go into whether or not Artest should or should not have been ejected, but think about it, wouldn't you get mad if a ref doesn't call a foul on someone who just threw an elbow, at your throat? If Artest were really trying to draw a foul, do you think he'd use his throat? Seriously. Think about it. As I said, this is somewhat the tip of the iceberg:



Ok, so this play is pretty questionable, but still. It looked like Hinrich stumbled into Rondo, and Rondo naturally wants to get Hinrich off him, so... he subsequently throws him into the scorers' table? Uh... how did this not warrant a suspension? Oh right, because he plays on the same team as Kevin Garnett, and he's a Celtic, and all that good stuff, and David Stern's favorite Eastern Conference team is from Boston.

If you noticed, I threw LeBron up there too. I don't think LeBron has done anything like this, but still, given the physicality of LeBron's style of play, how he goes for those highlight reel blocks, and how he just barges through everything, you'd think he'd average at least two fouls a game, but he doesn't. Sure LeBron is a great player and all, but how in the world does a player THAT physical average 1.72 fouls PER GAME. I find it hard to believe. I'd believe it if he were a jump shooter, but heck, we've all seen the LeBron highlights, he's anything but a jumpshooter and plays no defense whatsoever, even then, that's hard to believe.

I'm not going to start on my conspiracy theory on how David Stern (and thereby the NBA) hates the Spurs. Don't get me started. Still, look for yourself, I'll give kudos to Stu Jackson if he does decide to suspend Kobe (as he should) but for some reason I doubt he will. This is dumb.

I feel like going to gnaw on something in frustration now.

Moving forward, onward, whatever you want to call it...

Post season is over, well, for some teams, so far the Pistons, Jazz, Spurs, and most recently the Hornets.  I got a chance to see 3 minutes of the 4th quarter of game 4 of the Houston-Portland matchup.  So it goes without saying that I haven't really been following the Playoffs very closely, rather, almost not at all, besides Kelly Dwyer's Behind the Boxscore that shows up in my feeds every morning.  I don't really have time or the inclination to go through and talk about every team that was bounced and how they should improve.  How the Pistons really went into the post season not really caring because the team was built on a core that probably won't be there next year.  How Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess are walking next year, and how the only players that are guaranteed to be wearing Piston's blue come September are Rodney Stuckey and Will Bynum.  How the Carlos Boozer probably won't be returning to the Jazz, how he's overpaid and overrated,  and how they were plagued with injuries.  How no one other than Jerry Sloan is willing to take ownership of the team, which it what keeps it from being championship caliber.  How the Hornets' roster of Chris Paul, Rasual Butler, Peja Stojakovic, David West, Tyson Chandler, Antonio Daniels, James Posey, Sean Marks, and Hilton Armstrong are the modern day Western Conference equivalent to the 2006-2007 Cleveland Cavaliers roster of Larry Hughes, Sasha Pavlovic, LeBron James, Drew Gooden, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Daniel Gibson, Eric Snow, Ira Newble, Donyell Marshall, and Anderson Varejao.

If you've read me long enough, you know I'm a Spurs fan, and so, as you've likely guessed, I'm going to talk about the Spurs.  While it bothers me somewhat that it's Dallas of all teams that's ousting my beloved Spurs, rather embarassingly, from the first round, there's a part of me that's sort of glad that they were rather soundly trounced.  No one ever likes seeing their team lose, but nonetheless, I hope that Greg Popovich and RC Buford see this as a strong wakeup call that it's not 2005 anymore.  While Tony Parker has evolved to become the star that everyone hoped for, Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan, while by no means quickly losing ground to old age, aren't really quite what they were almost 5 years ago.  I don't want to hear the, "If only Manu were healthy..." excuses, the fact of the matter remains, outside of the Big 3 of Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker, the San Antonio Spurs are a mediocre team, at best.  

Please don't tell me otherwise, I have no delusions of grandeur.  Don't tell me how Roger Mason has been clutch, because while he's made a couple of big shots, he's a relatively ineffecient player and scorer.  He's just getting more attention because he's not buried behind Gilbert Arenas and Antonio Daniels on the Wizards.  In the additional 9 minutes of play he's averaging an additional 2.7 points, 1.5 rebounds, 0.4 assists, and 0.3 turnovers on 3 additional shot attempts, shooting roughly the same percentages (with a slightly increased 3pt shooting percentage I attribute to better looks).  11 points, 3 rebounds, and 2 assist, with essentially no steals, no blocks, and a couple of threes in 30+ minutes of play isn't my definition of stellar.  The guy turns 29 by the start of the next regular season, so I can't really imagine him getting better.  Don't get me wrong, he's solid, an average role player, I just don't want people getting the wrong idea he's some kind of savior.  If you don't believe me, check his per 36 numbers between this year and last.  He actually did better last year because he had to facilitate more, since the only time he got to see significant floor time was when both Arenas and Daniels were injured.

I know Michael Finley can get hot once and a while and shoot the Spurs to a win.  However, the distance between such games is growing ever larger.  The man is 36, we have to remember that.  He's almost 10 years removed from his best season.  This isn't the 1999 22 point per game Michael Finley, this is the 2009 9 point per game, with streaky 3s, as capable of being red hot as he is consistently ice cold.

While Bruce Bowen is a solid contributor on the defensive end, he's about a month shy of 38.  In basketball terms, 38 is a big number, when referring to age, big numbers are bad.  Ok, maybe not "bad" but certainly it doesn't help his athleticism and ability to stay in front of younger, more athletic players.  Same goes for Kurt Thomas and Fabricio Oberto, who are 36 and 34 respectively.  

Finally, while Matt Bonner has been a pleasant surprise this season, it's only because everyone had absolutely no expectations about him whatsoever coming into the season.  When nothing turns out to be something, it's always something of a shock (in a good way).  Let's be honest though, while Bonner's production was somewhat serindipidous, he's not much more than a poor man's version of Al Harrington or Andrea Bargnani.  That's pretty bad.  Granted, he's no Mark Blount or Brian Cook, but still, I don't know that it merits 23 minutes per game.  

Jacque Vaughn was, well... Jacque Vaughn, I don't know that I really need to say much more than that.  As for Drew Gooden, it was too little, too late.  He's good, and he played fairly well with the Spurs, but I think that he's going to want more than he's worth, at least to the Spurs.  There are other intricacies involved with Gooden, I'll get into that later.  

Generally speaking, you could probably just read Timothy Varner's post at 48 Minutes regarding how the Spurs should move forward, which boils down a lot of the needs.  It doesn't quite sum up what I want to talk about, but definitely is worth reading.  I take a slightly different approach from Varner, but I think his ideas have merit and work too.  Sounds like Varner is going to have a bunch of upcoming posts as to how the Spurs should improve their roster, so I'd always keep an eye on what Graydon and Varner have going on there, it's usually good stuff.

As you might've heard, the salary cap is supposed to fall.  If you're not sure what that means, it means that teams are allowed less money to sign their players.  Since as the cap falls, so does the luxury tax threshhold and likely the mid-level exception.  The current salary cap is set at $58.68 million, it's expected to drop to $57.3 million, now in terms of salary flexibility, it doesn't mean much for the Spurs, as they're over the cap either way, however, if the MLE drops, they have less money with which to improve their roster.  If we look at the roster next season, the Spurs will have approximately $66 million in salary tied up in Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Thomas, Bowen, Mason, Bonner, Hill, Mahinmi (if they exercise their team option), and Finley (if he exercises his player option).  Of the above mentioned players, the core I think Spurs should rebuild around are Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Hill, and Mahinmi.  While it would be nice to retain Mason and maybe Bonner, I personally don't think it necessary, and am willing to part with them, if it means an improvement to the roster, in short, they're not untouchable.

So far, the only thing the Spurs really have to play around with are expiring contracts, as everyone on the roster except essentially Duncan and Parker are not guaranteed past 2010.  Given that a lot of teams are probably looking to cut costs, it's not a bad situation to be in.  We'll see how all that pans out though.  However, before we start looking into that, I want to address one thing:

Should the Spurs trade Manu Ginobili?

In short, my answer is: no.  I suppose I should probably expound on that a little bit, there are various posts/comments and such around the internet regarding whether or not Manu should be traded.  There are various reasons to think consider trading Manu.  He's 32, he's beat up, and he's not getting younger, and therefore has the "injury-prone" label applied to him, especially given his style of play, granted, he's never played a whole season in his 7 season in the NBA, but still, he has been playing basketball essentially for the past 2-3 years (since the 2006-2007 season), straight, meaning no offseason (FIBA qualifiers and then Olympics).  I'm not going to get into whether or not he should've been allowed to represent Argentina in the international games, but I'm just going to say this, while the Spurs pay him, they don't own him.  Let the man make his decisions.  You don't see Laker fans complain about how Kobe put off hand surgery and represented the US, oh yeah, Kobe's turning 31 by the way. 

Anyways I digress.  While I won't off handedly turn down any offers for Manu (like say LeBron for Manu), I don't believe that it's in the Spurs' best interest to trade him.  Firstly, as he has the "injury-prone" label, I don't think his stock is that high.  Yes, I think we all realize that he's only one season removed from the best statistical season he's ever had (2007-2008), but still, given that he hasn't played for most of the year, and only played a gimpy 44 games this season, I don't know that the Spurs could really get anything of significant value back for him.  Secondly, I believe that Ginobili can still continue to contribute to the Spurs, and I honestly don't want to take the risk that Ginobili comes back with a vengence next season, on a different team.  I can't really articulate another reason beyond that it just feels wrong, but I honestly think that a player of Ginobili's ilk is definitely something the Spurs need and it brings an intangible aspect of mojo and chemistry to the lockerroom.  I'm sure Ginobili will be reasonable about what to expect in the form of an extension next season.  Spurs are good at drafting players that usually are (reasonable about their salary).

So what've we got to work with?  Well, simply put, we have the MLE (approximately $5 million), tack on another million or so for a veteran's minimum, plus upwards of $20 million in expiring contracts.  Rumors are swirling about how Rasheed Wallace is a significant possibility come this offseason.  While 'Sheed isn't exactly what the Spurs need to get younger (he turns 35 by next season), he's definitely what the Spurs want in another big man to play around Duncan.  He's solid in the low post, he's a decent mid-range to long-range shooter, he's effective as a defender for a big man, he's a shot blocking presence, a decent rebounder, and he's played for a defense-first championship caliber Detroit Pistons.  Finally, 'Sheed being 35, would likely not field offers anywhere near his current salary of $13 million per year.  If 'Sheed is serious about winning another ring, there's not much better place than the one team that has won the most rings in the past 10 years (4 since 1999, Lakers have 3, Pistons 1, Miami 1, Boston 1).  Timothy Varner mentions somewhere in his post that Spurs might be able to get Wallace for about $3.5 million of the MLE, ok, let's say he takes that much, what are the Spurs' other options now?

I've been pretty extensive looking through the free agency list, and honestly, for under $2 million, I don't know that we could sign anyone great, reasonably, I say we have a decent shot at someone like Walter Herrmann, who's been somewhat buried in the Piston's roster ever since the trade for Allen Iverson.  Herrmann is currently signed for $2 million, I don't know if Pistons want to keep him, but surely, the Spurs could afford to try to throw at least a little money at him.  Marquis Daniels is another intriguing option, but it's possible that he might be commanding a little more than Spurs could really afford.

Given the money situation, restricted free agents like Marvin Williams, Josh Childress, Paul Millsap, Brandon Bass are all a little out of reach.  Before we get any further though, so as not to utterly confuse you all, I suppose it would be best to sit down and hammer out what exactly the Spurs need.  Well, the obvious answer would be, any player not named Tony Parker, Tim Duncan, or Manu Ginobili, but it helps to have something a bit more concrete of an idea.  There are two dire needs that have shown up towards the waning stages of the regular season and well into the playoffs that seem to plague the Spurs.

First order of business I believe would be a legitimate big man to play next to Tim Duncan.  The Spurs believed that it would be young French draft prospect Ian Mahinmi, but he was injured during the course of the season and therefore couldn't play.  However, I don't really see Mahinmi being the solution in the near future.  While he continues to develop under Duncan, I think that as of now, he'd best serve  as a sort of energy man off the bench, much in the mold of Anderson Varejao or Brandon Bass.  While, I've yet to see him play, hopefully he gets some more playing time and experience in and it pans out.  However, the immediate need for a big man that can immediately step into a starting role and play next to Tim Duncan then still remains very real and very unfilled.  The roles have traditionally been filled with big men that were able defenders and able to spread the floor with a mid-range jumper, generally spreading the floor and allowing Duncan to work his magic in the low post.  For those that don't remember, this group includes David Robinson in the later years of his career, Rasho Nesterovic, and Fabricio Oberto.  While Kurt Thomas fits this role fairly well, his offense is somewhat too inconsistent to rely on, hence, Popovich went with Matt Bonner, sacrificing defense for some added offense.  While Drew Gooden might be serviceable, and while both he and Duncan can play on the block and pull out defenses, I'm not a fan of Gooden when he starts jacking up wing 20 footers.  The general consensus is that his game isn't versatile enough and too similar to Duncan's for him to be worth much money to hold on to.  Additionally, his weakness on the defensive end certainly doesn't help matters any.  

Enter Rasheed Wallace.  No one expects Wallace to carry a team anymore, and on the Spurs he won't have to.  He's a solid man-to-man defender, and between him and Duncan, they can split defensive assignments against opposing bigs.  While 'Sheed isn't inclined to play much in the low block anymore, he certainly is more than able when the need arises, and he won't have to really do it all that much.  Additionally, the need for his offense is generally something he's been doing a lot of lately (much to the frustration of many Detroit fans I'm sure), that is, shooting outside jumpers.  No one questions Wallace's ability to play solid defense in the post, and of course, Wallace, while not known to be a crusher, does add a much needed shot blocking presence outside of Duncan for the Spurs' frontcourt.  The biggest caveat with Sheed is simply that he might be something of a headcase, however, I think that two things mitigate the risk and make it worth taking; first, if 'Sheed wants to win, he knows he has to shape up.  Remember, he played for Larry Brown, I'm sure Greg Popovich is used to having to deal with antics as such after Dennis Rodman.  Secondly, Tim Duncan will still be there to help keep 'Sheed in line.

Now, I don't believe Rasheed Wallace to be the ultimate answer, but he certainly is the most realistic and I believe will help the Spurs tremendously.  Granted if I could choose any player flirting with free agency, I'd actually take Mehmet Okur over Rasheed Wallace.  However, given the situation, I highly doubt that Okur would opt out of his contract from the Jazz ($9 million) as he knows given the market he won't get anything more, and I highly doubt that the Spurs could offer him much, unless they pulled a sign-and-trade.  Varner declares the Spurs to be major players in the 2010 market, and he's probably better informed than I am, however, I still don't really see the Spurs making a huge splash.  However, I'm not going to complain if Spurs manage to somehow nab Chris Bosh via free agency.  Given that, if Spurs really are looking into the 2010 free agency, and that the only reason Mehmet Okur would opt out would be for a longer contract since he's not getting a bigger one, then I don't know that the Spurs would want to go for Okur.  While I'm rather skeptical about the amount of involvement Spurs will have in the 2010 free agency, I'm in agreement with Varner that should we tie someone up long term, at a fairly steep price, we might as well swing for the fences.  $10 million per for Mehmet Okur for the next 5 seasons isn't exactly my idea of a home run.

There are also a number of restricted free agents that might come cheap, names such as Paul Millsap, David Lee, Charlie Villanueva, and Brandon Bass have all played themselves into prominence.  However, being RFAs, I don't believe that their respective teams are willing to let them just walk, especially not at whatever the Spurs might be asking for.  Furthermore, I see all of these guys more as kind of hustle players, and therefore, I'm willing to let these guys walk for the sake of seeing how Mahinmi pans out.  I don't see any of these guys starting well next to Duncan, hence I generally tend to look more for players that are center eligible, and I mean on a normal team, not in a Mike D'Antoni offense.

Secondly, I believe that an upgrade in the wing position is needed, primarily the starting and backup SF position.  Currently, the spot is platooned between Michael Finley, Bruce Bowen, and Ime Udoka.  Now the commonality between the three is that they can all kind of hit threes, Bowen and Udoka are known more for their abilities on the defensive end, and Finley is just a slight upgrade offensively and downgrade defensively from the two.  I believe this to be one of the biggest needs of the Spurs, and to make the biggest impact, I believe that the Spurs will have to trade themselves into a good spot.  The biggest issue, is how the Spurs can't keep up with more athletic and younger teams, well to solve that, I would imagine the Spurs would just have to get more athletic and younger.  Ideally, you'd want someone that can defend and hit threes (i.e. Bowen and Udoka).  Now if I were to make a list of lockdown defenders, I could tell you that I don't see any of them falling into San Antonio in the near future, so, since we're likely not getting the likes of Shane Battier or Tayshaun Prince, I would propose that the Spurs alter some of the criteria, this would undoubtedly change the overall "feel" of the Spurs, but I think the long run make them better.  I'll take an above average defender, esepcially if the Spurs land someone like Rasheed Wallace.  I'm also willing to forgo 3 point shooting prowess to the level that said player can make enough to keep defenses honest.

That being said, I'm not sure that the free agency then is the best place in which the Spurs will be able to make a major splash and upgrade their roster, in which case they will need to do something via trade.  However, one name in free agency that I've continually brought up and will continually bring up is the name of Walter Herrmann.  I'm sure most of you are wondering who the heck I'm talking about, those of you that actually know me and have talked with me about basketball have surely heard his name mentioned somewhere in the course of conversation before.  Fabio, as he's known in the basketball world, has proven that he's effective when he gets minutes.  He's a little older, yes, turning 30 this June, however, he's on Detroit's books for $2 million and is a free agent this summer, and averages slightly more than 10 minutes per game, playing just under 6 minutes per during the playoffs.  He's shown on Charlotte and in Detroit that if he's given extended minutes he can definitely do some damage.  Additionally, he's a solid defender and can hit threes, he understands the team chemistry thing as he's won an Olympic gold medal playing with fellow Argentines Manu Ginobili and Fabricio Oberto, so I don't see chemistry being a huge issue.  He's not a guy that demands shots, and is someone that makes the most of them.  He's virtually an ideal Spur.  RC Buford, if you are reading this, and ignore everything else I say, FIND A WAY TO SIGN WALTER HERRMANN!!!

Anyways, there are a number of other options both in restricted and unrestricted free agency that seem to be fairly intriguing.  My sign-and-trade dream player that's semi-realistic would likely be Marvin Williams, who's definitely shown that he can step up and play big when he's called to do so.  The only reason I say semi-realistic is because of the ineptitude with which the Hawks' front office handled the Josh Smith and Josh Childress contracts last offseason.  Additionally, he and Raymond Felton are the only players picked top 5 in their class to not have a contract extension agreement already reached (the other 3 players being Andrew Bogut, Deron Williams, and Chris Paul).  Re-signing Williams should be something of a no-brainer for the Hawks, but it's possible that they re-sign Mike Bibby for way too much and can't afford to match offers made to Williams.  Of course, I doubt the Spurs would be the ones making that sort of offer.  Josh Childress would be another guy I'd look for, but I don't know that he's coming back from Europe quite yet, and again, Hawks still own his rights.

Another player to look at would be Marquis Daniels, who has played exceptionally well for the Pacers, in light of injuries to Mike Dunleavy and Danny Granger throughout the season (mostly Dunleavy).  He's rather expensive at the moment, so I don't really expect Indiana to pick up his $7.3 million team option.  If he can be convinced to play for less, then it might be worthwhile.  

Otherwise, the Spurs really have to look into various trade options in order to better improve their situation on the wings.  Milwaukee looks to be a venue of possibility, however, the only player I'd really look into in Milwaukee would be Joe Alexander, as he's little used.  While I'd rather have Luc Richard Mbah-a-Moute, I understand that Milwaukee probably would be a little unwilling to part with him.  Alexander is somewhat little used and I see a lot of potential there that the Spurs could really tap into.  I think a system like the Spurs is one where Alexander could really thrive in.  The main problem is that I don't really see the Bucks adding salary just to get rid of Alexander, as they're looking to cut costs to be able to re-sign Ramon Sessions and Charlie Villanueva.  Therefore, it's possible that they might ask the Spurs to take Richard Jefferson as part of the package.  While I'm not entirely against having Richard Jefferson on the roster, I am opposed to adding $13 million in salary for a single player while having to dump virtually all tradeable assets (it'd end up being something like Bowen, Oberto, Bonner, and Thomas for Jefferson and Alexander).

I'm actually not super opposed to taking on Jared Jeffries's contract on the condition we can land Wilson Chandler.  Bowen and Oberto for Jeffries and Chandler would be the scenario.  Of course, that likely tears a hole in any 2010 plans that the Spurs may have had. 

Another player I'm rather fond of would be Kelenna Azubuike.  Though I doubt the Warriors part with him, and would likely give the Spurs Jamal Crawford or Corey Maggette in the process, both at prices that I wouldn't want, it's still something to consider.  That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing Stephen Jackson back in a Spurs uniform.

All in all, there aren't a whole lot of options out there, so I'm kind of digging the bottom of the barrel here.  I highly doubt that the Spurs land Trevor Ariza somehow, but Jamario Moon might be another player that they decide to take a risk on.  Ultimately, I'm sure RC Buford has a plan worked out, and he probably has better scouts for younger players in D-League and Europe than I do.  As you can see, the Spurs need to seriously retool their roster.  The premise I think will be generally the same, fundamentally sound, defensive basketball, just how it's done will be somewhat different.  However, I think the Spurs, with the right moves, can definitely stay in the thick of it.

Nonplussed...

I don't know if I'm the only one that thinks this, but is it me, or do refs like LeBron?  A lot.  No one's really mentioning it though.  [Insert David Stern conspiracy theory].  It was a moderately big deal when Leon Powe went to the line 13 times in game 2 of the Finals last year, a big deal because the entire Lakers squad only went to the line 10 times.  Ok, I can see how that's weird, I mean, it is the Lakers, and it is Leon Powe.

I haven't seen the games really all that much, but it is sort of interesting that in the first two games of the series LeBron has already had 31 attempts at the charity stripe.  31 in two games (14 in the game 1, 17 in game 2).  That's a lot.  Especially when you consider that EVERY PISTON COMBINED has only seen 28 attempts.  [Insert David Stern conspiracy theory]