Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Welcoming....
I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome a new contributor to Poor Man's GM! Please welcome, jfoon131! He'll be (hopefully) posting stuff up as well, maybe it'll be a good break from my normal output. Welcome!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sports Science Isn't Science
At least not when it comes to basketball.
The other day I found this video via Ball Don't Lie's 10-Man Rotation.
It was a feature trying to debunk the idea that Shaq's poor free throw percentage was due to his height and the size of his hands. The feature brought in Lakers' guard Sasha Vujacic and had him shoot a bunch of free throws, and then tried to distract him while he's shooting. Vujacic, for what it's worth, is a good free-throw shooter (career 88%), and naturally was sinking anywhere between 8 of 10 to 10 of 10 freethrows. To "simulate" Shaq-like conditions, the guys on the show give Vujacic stilts (the equivalent of 6 inch tin cans tied to his feet) and rubber gloves (basically) the size of Shaq's hands. Then they blindfold Vujacic, and he still sinks 8 of 10 free throws. Myth of size and height obviously debunked, right? Wrong.
If you carefully watch Vujacic shooting the free throws with the gloves, you'll notice that the gloves flop around a lot on his release because his hands obviously don't fit the glove. Now, I'm not saying by any means that Shaq's supposed to be a great free throw shooter if the hoop were 6 inches higher and the ball twice as large, I mean, his form is horrible. However, the simulation run on Sports Science does nothing to really simulate the conditions Shaq shoots free throws under. Firstly, the stilts, while they raise Vujacic to Shaq's height, don't really simulate what Shaq's body experiences when he's shooting a free throw. As you see with good free thow shooters, the form encompasses the entire body, while there is a change from the different height you shoot the ball at, it's not necessarily the most accurate emulation, though perhaps, not much can be done with that.
My biggest beef with the experiment is the hands. Obviously if you make Shaq sized gloves, and put any other basketball player's hands into them, they're not going to fit, there's going to (generally) be a lot of space between where a normal (in this case Vujacic's) basketball player's hands end and where Shaq's end. Therefore, when Vujacic shoots the ball, the ball is still resting on his hand, so he shoots it like he would normally shoot the ball, there's just a big rubber glove between the ball and his hand. However, the way the ball rests and the release are all the same as if he shot the ball from his own hands. I mean, if I tie a piece of paper onto my hand because Shaq's hand is the size of the same as that piece of paper, and hold the ball, do I know what it's like for Shaq to hold a basketball? While height may not be a huge factor (Pau Gasol is about the same height and a much better free throw shooter and Yao Ming is taller and also a much better shooter), it doesn't necessarily take into account hand size and strength. I can't say how big Shaq's hands are for sure but I would imagine that if your hands really were as big as Shaq's, then you might have problems shooting a ball. The more accurate test would have been to shrink the hoop and the ball to a size where Sasha Vujacic would have been the equivalent of Shaq on the court, then see if that affects it. Shaq may not be a great free throw shooter, even if he were smaller, but nonetheless, this video does nothing to debunk his normal excuse of size.
From my experience (I'm 6-0 and can kind of palm a basketball) it's harder to shoot a foam nerf ball about the size of a softball on a 7 foot nerf hoop than it is to shoot an NBA size regulation basketball on a 10 foot hoop. Maybe it makes a difference. Either way, the video does nothing except validate that Vujacic can shoot free throws in circus situations. So if you want to win a stuffed animal from a carnival, bring Sasha with you.
The other day I found this video via Ball Don't Lie's 10-Man Rotation.
It was a feature trying to debunk the idea that Shaq's poor free throw percentage was due to his height and the size of his hands. The feature brought in Lakers' guard Sasha Vujacic and had him shoot a bunch of free throws, and then tried to distract him while he's shooting. Vujacic, for what it's worth, is a good free-throw shooter (career 88%), and naturally was sinking anywhere between 8 of 10 to 10 of 10 freethrows. To "simulate" Shaq-like conditions, the guys on the show give Vujacic stilts (the equivalent of 6 inch tin cans tied to his feet) and rubber gloves (basically) the size of Shaq's hands. Then they blindfold Vujacic, and he still sinks 8 of 10 free throws. Myth of size and height obviously debunked, right? Wrong.
If you carefully watch Vujacic shooting the free throws with the gloves, you'll notice that the gloves flop around a lot on his release because his hands obviously don't fit the glove. Now, I'm not saying by any means that Shaq's supposed to be a great free throw shooter if the hoop were 6 inches higher and the ball twice as large, I mean, his form is horrible. However, the simulation run on Sports Science does nothing to really simulate the conditions Shaq shoots free throws under. Firstly, the stilts, while they raise Vujacic to Shaq's height, don't really simulate what Shaq's body experiences when he's shooting a free throw. As you see with good free thow shooters, the form encompasses the entire body, while there is a change from the different height you shoot the ball at, it's not necessarily the most accurate emulation, though perhaps, not much can be done with that.
My biggest beef with the experiment is the hands. Obviously if you make Shaq sized gloves, and put any other basketball player's hands into them, they're not going to fit, there's going to (generally) be a lot of space between where a normal (in this case Vujacic's) basketball player's hands end and where Shaq's end. Therefore, when Vujacic shoots the ball, the ball is still resting on his hand, so he shoots it like he would normally shoot the ball, there's just a big rubber glove between the ball and his hand. However, the way the ball rests and the release are all the same as if he shot the ball from his own hands. I mean, if I tie a piece of paper onto my hand because Shaq's hand is the size of the same as that piece of paper, and hold the ball, do I know what it's like for Shaq to hold a basketball? While height may not be a huge factor (Pau Gasol is about the same height and a much better free throw shooter and Yao Ming is taller and also a much better shooter), it doesn't necessarily take into account hand size and strength. I can't say how big Shaq's hands are for sure but I would imagine that if your hands really were as big as Shaq's, then you might have problems shooting a ball. The more accurate test would have been to shrink the hoop and the ball to a size where Sasha Vujacic would have been the equivalent of Shaq on the court, then see if that affects it. Shaq may not be a great free throw shooter, even if he were smaller, but nonetheless, this video does nothing to debunk his normal excuse of size.
From my experience (I'm 6-0 and can kind of palm a basketball) it's harder to shoot a foam nerf ball about the size of a softball on a 7 foot nerf hoop than it is to shoot an NBA size regulation basketball on a 10 foot hoop. Maybe it makes a difference. Either way, the video does nothing except validate that Vujacic can shoot free throws in circus situations. So if you want to win a stuffed animal from a carnival, bring Sasha with you.
Taking the Next Step: Part 2
Orlando Magic
59-23 in 2008-2009
Lost to LA Lakers 4-1 in NBA Finals
Orlando surprised a lot of people (not me though) by making their way to the NBA Finals past the defending champs in Boston and then the Eastern Conference favorites of LeBron and co in Cleveland. Upon reaching the big stage, they ran up against Western Conference powerhouse of the Los Angeles Lakers, where they were quickly downed in 5 games. Without a draft pick in a weak draft, and with little flexibility in their payroll, the Magic needed to make a change via trade, and while the offseason is still young, Magic have already made a good start in coming back as strong favorites in the East.
Vince Carter
The big deal that Otis Smith ended up landing to help the Magic, especially in late-game situations was a major trade of Rafer Alston, Tony Battie, and Courtney Lee for Vince Carter and Ryan Anderson. Despite being already 32, Vince Carter has shown that he still has game, averaging a solid 20.8 points, 5.1 rebounds, and 4.7 assists per game last season. A solid addition to the strong core Orlando already has based around Dwight Howard, Rashard Lewis, and Jameer Nelson. While Carter's contract is fairly unattractive, making upwards of $33 million over the next two seasons, with an $18 million team option in the 2011-2012 season. However, given the inflexibility of Orlando's payroll situation, it's a sacrifice that has to be made to add a player of Carter's caliber. The addition of another All-Star takes pressure off of the others on the roster already, and is mutually beneficial for both Carter and the rest of the Magic. It helps too that Carter has always wanted to play for Orlando (which is near his hometown).
Ryan Anderson
Ryan Anderson isn't exactly the name that pops to mind when you think of a player worth trading for, but at the very least, the Magic do get some youth to work with in return for sending Courtney Lee up to New Jersey. In essence, the Magic and Nets just swapped last year's draft picks (Nets drafted Anderson at number 21 and the Magic Lee at 22). Ben Q at Third Quarter Collapse does an apt analysis of what Ryan Anderson brings to the floor. As Ben Q points out, DraftExpress lists Ryan Anderson to have the upside of Troy Murphy, and potentially be as big of a dud as Brian Cook. Which is to say, that he'll probably end up somewhere in the middle, so to speak. At the very least Anderson is a big body that can sop up minutes at the backup PF spot and continue to spread the floor. This would be especially useful should Stan Van Gundy want at points in time to move Rashard Lewis back to SF slot and have a longer lineup.
The Free Agent Situation
Well, the Magic really only have the MLE to work with (somewhere between $5 million and $6 million) in order to fill their remaining roster slots. However, with potentially two big names on their way out, this could prove to be an interesting (and more difficult) situation for the Magic. First, is the situation with Hedo Turkoglu. Hedo has already opted out of his contract, and with the addition Carter's salary, it would be hard for the Magic to resign Hedo for much more than what he makes now. While Hedo has expressed interest in returning to the Magic, it's not certain whether he would opt for a 5 year $35 million deal in Orlando over something closer to a 5 year $50 million deal or something from someone like Portland with cap space. However, that's what Carter was for, worst case, he's an upgrade from Hedo, best case, he's a super addition and the Magic easily boast the best starting lineup in the entire league. Upgrade from Hedo? Really? I'm sure several Magic fans are wondering about that. Well here's how it breaks down, if we take their last season as indicative of what their 2009-2010 performance will be:
Who would you rather take? Well, save for 0.2 assists and 0.2 rebounds, player A is obviously better. For those of you that haven't guessed, Player A is Vince Carter, Player B is Hedo Turkoglu. Given that Turkoglu is a 6-10 small forward, you would expect him to rebound better than a 6-6 shooting guard, I'm not going to say it's a knock against Hedo but more lean towards the direction that Vince Carter is just that good of a player.
The second issue would be the issue of Marcin Gortat, who is an excellent backup big man. Let's look at some numbers first:
Comparatively, Player A looks to be the strongest player, though the rebounding rate and field goal percentage of Player B is significantly improved, the block rate of Player A is just phenomenal. Nonetheless, players A and B are both fairly comparable. Player A is Chris Andersen last season, why Chris Andersen? Well, DraftExpress lists him as Gortat's upside, as you may have guessed, Player B is Marcin Gortat, Player C, is Chris Andersen in his 2nd year, as Marcin Gortat was last season. Obviously Gortat will command some attention as one of the better big men in a league where it's difficult to find such talent, so it's possible that they would not be able to retain him, as he currently is had for the extraordinarily cheap salary of $700k.
Should the Magic retain both Turkoglu and Gortat (by some miracle) their lineup would look something like:
PG- Jameer Nelson, Anthony Johnson
SG- Vince Carter, JJ Redick
SF- Hedo Turkoglu, Mickael Pietrus
PF- Rashard Lewis, Ryan Anderson
C- Dwight Howard, Marcin Gortat
However, if the Magic should lose out on keeping either or both of Hedo and Gortat, then I would presume Pietrus would slide to the starting SF spot and there would be holes at both the backup center and SF slots.
Possible Solutions
Well, there isn't a whole lot for the Magic to work with in terms of free agency, and they don't have a whole lot to trade with, so it'd be hard to figure out anything major. Likely, after all is said and done, the Magic will only have what's leftover from the remainder of the pickings from free agency, especially as they no longer really have any tradeable assets. I believe that should Hedo be lost to free agency, that Otis Smith should make a priority of re-signing Gortat, as it's easier to facilitate a solution at the SF position than it is to find a quality big man.
The Backup Center
There really aren't a whole lot of options when it comes to finding a solid backup big man for cheap. The Magic could always go back to Adonal Foyle, however, that's a major downgrade from the production that Gortat brings. Other names that come to mind that wouldn't be too expensive may possibly be Rasho Nesterocvic or Chris Mihm, possibly Zaza Pachulia as well. Ideally though, if I were the Magic, I would try to keep Marcin Gortat.
The Small Forward Issue
Since Hedo has opted out, the question ends up being where he will sign. If he does end up signing somewhere other than Orlando then the feasible solution would be to slide Pietrus to the starting SF slot as something of a defensive specialist (think Bruce Bowen on the Spurs) and find a legitimate backup SF, then finding someone via free agency to back him up. One name that possibly comes to mind would be Marquis Daniels, as the Pacers have let him walk. Daniels, while not a great 3 point shooter, does add solid defense and scoring off the bench. The question would be how well he embraces his role, especially given his performance last season in the wake of injuries to both Mike Dunleavy and Danny Granger. The second question would be how cheap he could be had for. Ime Udoka and Matt Barnes are other names that pop to mind.
However, there is one other solution that I could possibly think of. That would be finding a legitimate starting PF that can play alongside Dwight Howard and sliding Rashard Lewis back to the SF slot, having Mickael Pietrus be the first man off the bench as a defensive stopper (think James Posey on the Celtics). Again the question would be whether or not Otis Smith could command such talent given the inflexibility of the budget, since he has to sign multiple players with such a limited amount of money. However, should Hedo walk, I would not be opposed to trying for someone like Antonio McDyess or Paul Millsap, or possibly even Drew Gooden.
Other Minor Issues
I think that while Anthony Johnson is an adequate backup point guard, I wouldn't mind trying to upgrade or bring in some young talent to develop as the 11th, 12th, or 13th man on the squad to fill out the roster.
That's basically my take on the Magic moving forward.
59-23 in 2008-2009
Lost to LA Lakers 4-1 in NBA Finals
Orlando surprised a lot of people (not me though) by making their way to the NBA Finals past the defending champs in Boston and then the Eastern Conference favorites of LeBron and co in Cleveland. Upon reaching the big stage, they ran up against Western Conference powerhouse of the Los Angeles Lakers, where they were quickly downed in 5 games. Without a draft pick in a weak draft, and with little flexibility in their payroll, the Magic needed to make a change via trade, and while the offseason is still young, Magic have already made a good start in coming back as strong favorites in the East.
Vince Carter
The big deal that Otis Smith ended up landing to help the Magic, especially in late-game situations was a major trade of Rafer Alston, Tony Battie, and Courtney Lee for Vince Carter and Ryan Anderson. Despite being already 32, Vince Carter has shown that he still has game, averaging a solid 20.8 points, 5.1 rebounds, and 4.7 assists per game last season. A solid addition to the strong core Orlando already has based around Dwight Howard, Rashard Lewis, and Jameer Nelson. While Carter's contract is fairly unattractive, making upwards of $33 million over the next two seasons, with an $18 million team option in the 2011-2012 season. However, given the inflexibility of Orlando's payroll situation, it's a sacrifice that has to be made to add a player of Carter's caliber. The addition of another All-Star takes pressure off of the others on the roster already, and is mutually beneficial for both Carter and the rest of the Magic. It helps too that Carter has always wanted to play for Orlando (which is near his hometown).
Ryan Anderson
Ryan Anderson isn't exactly the name that pops to mind when you think of a player worth trading for, but at the very least, the Magic do get some youth to work with in return for sending Courtney Lee up to New Jersey. In essence, the Magic and Nets just swapped last year's draft picks (Nets drafted Anderson at number 21 and the Magic Lee at 22). Ben Q at Third Quarter Collapse does an apt analysis of what Ryan Anderson brings to the floor. As Ben Q points out, DraftExpress lists Ryan Anderson to have the upside of Troy Murphy, and potentially be as big of a dud as Brian Cook. Which is to say, that he'll probably end up somewhere in the middle, so to speak. At the very least Anderson is a big body that can sop up minutes at the backup PF spot and continue to spread the floor. This would be especially useful should Stan Van Gundy want at points in time to move Rashard Lewis back to SF slot and have a longer lineup.
The Free Agent Situation
Well, the Magic really only have the MLE to work with (somewhere between $5 million and $6 million) in order to fill their remaining roster slots. However, with potentially two big names on their way out, this could prove to be an interesting (and more difficult) situation for the Magic. First, is the situation with Hedo Turkoglu. Hedo has already opted out of his contract, and with the addition Carter's salary, it would be hard for the Magic to resign Hedo for much more than what he makes now. While Hedo has expressed interest in returning to the Magic, it's not certain whether he would opt for a 5 year $35 million deal in Orlando over something closer to a 5 year $50 million deal or something from someone like Portland with cap space. However, that's what Carter was for, worst case, he's an upgrade from Hedo, best case, he's a super addition and the Magic easily boast the best starting lineup in the entire league. Upgrade from Hedo? Really? I'm sure several Magic fans are wondering about that. Well here's how it breaks down, if we take their last season as indicative of what their 2009-2010 performance will be:
| Per 36 | FG% | 3pt% | PTS | RBDS | ASSTS | STLS | BLKS | TOS | ||||||||
| Player A | 43.7% | 38.5% | 20.8 | 5.1 | 4.7 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 2.1 | ||||||||
| Player B | 41.3% | 35.6% | 16.8 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 2.8 |
Who would you rather take? Well, save for 0.2 assists and 0.2 rebounds, player A is obviously better. For those of you that haven't guessed, Player A is Vince Carter, Player B is Hedo Turkoglu. Given that Turkoglu is a 6-10 small forward, you would expect him to rebound better than a 6-6 shooting guard, I'm not going to say it's a knock against Hedo but more lean towards the direction that Vince Carter is just that good of a player.
The second issue would be the issue of Marcin Gortat, who is an excellent backup big man. Let's look at some numbers first:
| Per 36 | FG% | PTS | RBDS | ASSTS | STLS | BLKS | TOS | |||||||
| Player A | 54.8% | 11.1 | 10.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 4.3 | 1.7 | |||||||
| Player B | 57.2% | 10.9 | 13.0 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 1.1 | |||||||
| Player C | 40.0% | 12.1 | 10.9 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
Comparatively, Player A looks to be the strongest player, though the rebounding rate and field goal percentage of Player B is significantly improved, the block rate of Player A is just phenomenal. Nonetheless, players A and B are both fairly comparable. Player A is Chris Andersen last season, why Chris Andersen? Well, DraftExpress lists him as Gortat's upside, as you may have guessed, Player B is Marcin Gortat, Player C, is Chris Andersen in his 2nd year, as Marcin Gortat was last season. Obviously Gortat will command some attention as one of the better big men in a league where it's difficult to find such talent, so it's possible that they would not be able to retain him, as he currently is had for the extraordinarily cheap salary of $700k.
Should the Magic retain both Turkoglu and Gortat (by some miracle) their lineup would look something like:
PG- Jameer Nelson, Anthony Johnson
SG- Vince Carter, JJ Redick
SF- Hedo Turkoglu, Mickael Pietrus
PF- Rashard Lewis, Ryan Anderson
C- Dwight Howard, Marcin Gortat
However, if the Magic should lose out on keeping either or both of Hedo and Gortat, then I would presume Pietrus would slide to the starting SF spot and there would be holes at both the backup center and SF slots.
Possible Solutions
Well, there isn't a whole lot for the Magic to work with in terms of free agency, and they don't have a whole lot to trade with, so it'd be hard to figure out anything major. Likely, after all is said and done, the Magic will only have what's leftover from the remainder of the pickings from free agency, especially as they no longer really have any tradeable assets. I believe that should Hedo be lost to free agency, that Otis Smith should make a priority of re-signing Gortat, as it's easier to facilitate a solution at the SF position than it is to find a quality big man.
The Backup Center
There really aren't a whole lot of options when it comes to finding a solid backup big man for cheap. The Magic could always go back to Adonal Foyle, however, that's a major downgrade from the production that Gortat brings. Other names that come to mind that wouldn't be too expensive may possibly be Rasho Nesterocvic or Chris Mihm, possibly Zaza Pachulia as well. Ideally though, if I were the Magic, I would try to keep Marcin Gortat.
The Small Forward Issue
Since Hedo has opted out, the question ends up being where he will sign. If he does end up signing somewhere other than Orlando then the feasible solution would be to slide Pietrus to the starting SF slot as something of a defensive specialist (think Bruce Bowen on the Spurs) and find a legitimate backup SF, then finding someone via free agency to back him up. One name that possibly comes to mind would be Marquis Daniels, as the Pacers have let him walk. Daniels, while not a great 3 point shooter, does add solid defense and scoring off the bench. The question would be how well he embraces his role, especially given his performance last season in the wake of injuries to both Mike Dunleavy and Danny Granger. The second question would be how cheap he could be had for. Ime Udoka and Matt Barnes are other names that pop to mind.
However, there is one other solution that I could possibly think of. That would be finding a legitimate starting PF that can play alongside Dwight Howard and sliding Rashard Lewis back to the SF slot, having Mickael Pietrus be the first man off the bench as a defensive stopper (think James Posey on the Celtics). Again the question would be whether or not Otis Smith could command such talent given the inflexibility of the budget, since he has to sign multiple players with such a limited amount of money. However, should Hedo walk, I would not be opposed to trying for someone like Antonio McDyess or Paul Millsap, or possibly even Drew Gooden.
Other Minor Issues
I think that while Anthony Johnson is an adequate backup point guard, I wouldn't mind trying to upgrade or bring in some young talent to develop as the 11th, 12th, or 13th man on the squad to fill out the roster.
That's basically my take on the Magic moving forward.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Taking the Next Step: Part 1
San Antonio Spurs
54-28 in 2008-2009
Lost 4-1 to Dallas in 1st round of playoffs
I'm a Spurs fan, and to be honest, I might be closing down Poor Man's GM in favor of a Spurs blog, so I can better follow what's going on with one specific team. There's only really three teams I pay a lot of attention to in terms of moves (San Antonio, Portland, and Orlando). Anyways, after an embarrassing ousting in the first round by the Dallas Mavericks, it was clear that the Spurs needed to retool their roster, in fact, it was just short of a major overhaul. I would like to commend RC Buford and the entire Spurs front office for creating a situation in which it is realistic to believe that the Spurs can continue to chase their fifth title.
Richard Jefferson
First thing we need to discuss is the Richard Jefferson trade. I believe the package ultimately ended up as Bruce Bowen, Kurt Thomas, and Fabricio Oberto (who was later traded to Detroit for Amir Johnson, and will likely be waived) for Richard Jefferson. If you've read any of my posts in the past, I haven't been entirely kind to Richard Jefferson, and you'll read a lot of posts talking about how Jefferson's +/- and PER aren't really telling since Milwaukee was such a shoddy outfit, especially after the loss of Andrew Bogut and Michael Redd to injuries midway through the season. I also believe that the type of game Jefferson has tends to thrive the most when he's not a focal point of the offense. He's only one season removed from his best statistical season, where he came into the season averaging 22.6 points per game as the third offensive option behind Vince Carter and Jason Kidd during his final season as a Net in 2007-2008. He's a potent offensive option, and honestly, is basically a Vince Carter-clone, as he brings much of the same things, perhaps not as effectively, but his offesnive game is similar. He can hit the open three, not proficiently, but well enough to keep defenses honest, he can create his own shot, he can finish at the rim, being traded to Milwaukee he immediately spiked up to the 2nd option behind Michael Redd, and once Michael Redd was out for the season he soon became the focal point of the offense for the Bucks, which isn't something he's super comfortable with as it seems. So now, on the Spurs, he doesn't need to be, he just needs to let his game come to him. I think overall it's a smart move by the Spurs, while Jefferson's contract isn't exactly pretty, being owed about $29 million through 2011, he does add something the Spurs have needed for a while, athleticism. While Jefferson now becomes less of a focal point in the offense, that doesn't mean that his offense isn't to be respected, playing in the Spurs system is going to get him good looks and ample scoring opportunities, though Ginobili, Duncan, and/or Parker are no Jason Kidd in terms of setting up teammates, they do a solid job of it. Additionally, Jefferson is a known enough offensive threat to really take some of the defensive pressure off of the Big 3, so it's definitely a step in the right direction, as Greg Popovich can afford to rest his Big 3 more, without sacrificing as much on the offense, Jefferson, has shown to be fairly resilient over the past years, playing all 164 games over the past 2 regular seasons.
The big question comes down to how well Jefferson plays defend. All in all, this is a fairly difficult question to assess. Jefferson has never been known as a lock-down defender by any stretch of the imagination, but just how good (bad) is he? In comparing him to the players he would effectively replace (Michael Finley, Bruce Bowen, Ime Udoka), it's hard to say based on defensive winshare and points allowed, since usage of said players are so different. Michael Finley (surprisingly) has the highest defensive winshare with 2.7 while Richard Jefferson has 2.5, however, Jefferson also allows the most points per 100 possessions (at 110). It's hard to dictate that Jefferson is a horrible defender but it can't be said that he's a stellar one either. HoopsHype calls him, "A tough defender when he's into it." Whatever that means. I think ultimately it means you don't need to hide him on the defensive side, he won't be a liability, but it also means that he probably isn't your best bet to be chasing Kobe and LeBron around the court for 35+ minutes. I think this might be an issue that needs to be addressed as the Spurs move forward, because a wing pairing of Roger Mason and Richard Jefferson or Manu Ginobili and Richard Jefferson might leave the defense somewhat lacking and I don't believe that Greg Popovich should sacrifice that much defense for the offensive improvement. I'll talk about this later.
The Draft
In this year's draft, the Spurs showed us, as a friend of mine put it, that first round picks don't matter. DeJuan Blair, slotted by some mock drafts to be taken in the lottery, projected by DraftExpress to be taken at the 20th pick in the first round, somehow fell, all the way into the Spurs' laps at the 37th overall (2nd round 7th pick). There's a lot of speculation on how it might be because of his two surgically repaired knees, though not having any ACLs hasn't stopped him from being competitive at games and attending every practice (and game save one DNP), or from averaging 15.7 points and 12.3 rebounds in his last season at Pittsburgh. If you take a look at his pace-adjusted per-40 minute statistics (the NCAA equivalent of pace-adjusted per 36), this guy is a scary monster: 23 points, 18 rebounds, 1.8 assists, 2.3 steals, and 1.4 blocks on 1.8 turnovers, shooting 59.3% from the field. 18 rebounds per 40 minutes. I'll let that sink in a little.
At the very least we know, despite being 6-7, he can rebound, and he can hustle, and he's everything you want in a PF. He was ranked 3rd overall for rebounding in the NCAA, 1st for offensive rebounds (5.6 per game). DraftExpress lists his best case scenario as being Paul Millsap (sweet) and worst case as being Reggie Evans. Even then, at the worst case, you get a guy who you know is intense and hustles and will grab you rebounds, everything you want in a reserve big. Given how well Blair has played, it's pretty apparent that his game can translate into the NBA, if only at 10-15 minute intervals, which is all the Spurs are really asking of him. Both Jack McClinton and Nando De Colo look to be like long-term projects, and I would suspect they get thrown to Austin and left in France respectively.
More to come
Obviously this can't be it for the Spurs. The roster as currently constructed would look something like:
PG - Tony Parker, George Hill
SG - Roger Mason Jr, Manu Ginobili
SF - Richard Jefferson, Michael Finley?, Ime Udoka?
PF - Matt Bonner, DeJuan Blair
C - Tim Duncan, Ian Mahinmi
There definitely is something to be said about continuity and chemistry, but I'm still of a mind to trade Roger Mason and/or Matt Bonner if possible to improve on the roster. I have question marks behind Finely and Udoka simply because they have a player option and team option respectively. Were I the Spurs front office, I'd let Udoka walk, but I don't know why Finley wouldn't take his player option, unless he wants to retire. I believe that the Spurs are going to be willing to pay the luxury tax this season, and therefore even with the addition of Blair and Jefferson, there should be a fairly significant amount of the MLE left available for whatever free agents San Antonio might be pursuing.
The most immediate need to me, is simply finding a defender. There are enough options for scoring, what the Spurs need is someone on the wings to chase the Kobe Bryants, LeBron Jameses, and Dwayne Wades around the court, and make open threes. This could be either via trade or via free agency, now ideally this would be something of a Raja Bell in his prime type of player, but Raja Bell is neither available nor in his prime anymore, so let's look around for someone else. One name that's a possibility might be DeShawn Stevenson, not sure how the Wizards are going to work out their backcourt glut of Gilbert Arenas, Nick Young, Mike Miller, Randy Foye, DeShawn Stevenson, and Dominic McGuire, I'm going to assume that either Mike Miller or McGuire slide to the SF slot, and then Foye would be the backup PG? Hard to say, since the roles aren't really defined, but he's worth a look at. From free agency, I'd still say maybe Marquis Daniels, though he doesn't really shoot very well. Dahntay Jones, made famous after tripping Kobe Bryant, is another possibility, he plays solid defense. Trevor Ariza would be awesome, though I doubt the Spurs would be able to offer anything close to what he'd command. Maybe Anthony Parker? Though it's possible that they look to younger talent for their needs, like someone from Austin or something.
The second need would be the need for a center to play next to Tim Duncan, or rather, a true big that can spread the floor, doesn't have to be center, though it would be nice if he were center eligible. I'm still not sure as of right now that Ian Mahnimi or Matt Bonner are the answer. Maybe Mahnimi develops, but I'm definitely not sold on Bonner. The ideal would be Rasheed Wallace, but if he's asking for at least $8 million, then he's both unaffordable and not worth the price, not at the ripe age of 34. The kind of big that is ideal is one that is able on defense and can spread the floor with some midrange shooting, leaving Duncan alone in the paint. While Duncan can ably hit those 15-19 foot wing jumpers, it'd still be nice to have someone do that for him so that Duncan can operate where he's most effective, in the paint. Another option would be to bring back Rasho Nesterovic for cheap, but perhaps better could be had. I can't really think of anything available, but those are the immediate needs that the Spurs still need to address. Otherwise, looking good.
54-28 in 2008-2009
Lost 4-1 to Dallas in 1st round of playoffs
I'm a Spurs fan, and to be honest, I might be closing down Poor Man's GM in favor of a Spurs blog, so I can better follow what's going on with one specific team. There's only really three teams I pay a lot of attention to in terms of moves (San Antonio, Portland, and Orlando). Anyways, after an embarrassing ousting in the first round by the Dallas Mavericks, it was clear that the Spurs needed to retool their roster, in fact, it was just short of a major overhaul. I would like to commend RC Buford and the entire Spurs front office for creating a situation in which it is realistic to believe that the Spurs can continue to chase their fifth title.
Richard Jefferson
First thing we need to discuss is the Richard Jefferson trade. I believe the package ultimately ended up as Bruce Bowen, Kurt Thomas, and Fabricio Oberto (who was later traded to Detroit for Amir Johnson, and will likely be waived) for Richard Jefferson. If you've read any of my posts in the past, I haven't been entirely kind to Richard Jefferson, and you'll read a lot of posts talking about how Jefferson's +/- and PER aren't really telling since Milwaukee was such a shoddy outfit, especially after the loss of Andrew Bogut and Michael Redd to injuries midway through the season. I also believe that the type of game Jefferson has tends to thrive the most when he's not a focal point of the offense. He's only one season removed from his best statistical season, where he came into the season averaging 22.6 points per game as the third offensive option behind Vince Carter and Jason Kidd during his final season as a Net in 2007-2008. He's a potent offensive option, and honestly, is basically a Vince Carter-clone, as he brings much of the same things, perhaps not as effectively, but his offesnive game is similar. He can hit the open three, not proficiently, but well enough to keep defenses honest, he can create his own shot, he can finish at the rim, being traded to Milwaukee he immediately spiked up to the 2nd option behind Michael Redd, and once Michael Redd was out for the season he soon became the focal point of the offense for the Bucks, which isn't something he's super comfortable with as it seems. So now, on the Spurs, he doesn't need to be, he just needs to let his game come to him. I think overall it's a smart move by the Spurs, while Jefferson's contract isn't exactly pretty, being owed about $29 million through 2011, he does add something the Spurs have needed for a while, athleticism. While Jefferson now becomes less of a focal point in the offense, that doesn't mean that his offense isn't to be respected, playing in the Spurs system is going to get him good looks and ample scoring opportunities, though Ginobili, Duncan, and/or Parker are no Jason Kidd in terms of setting up teammates, they do a solid job of it. Additionally, Jefferson is a known enough offensive threat to really take some of the defensive pressure off of the Big 3, so it's definitely a step in the right direction, as Greg Popovich can afford to rest his Big 3 more, without sacrificing as much on the offense, Jefferson, has shown to be fairly resilient over the past years, playing all 164 games over the past 2 regular seasons.
The big question comes down to how well Jefferson plays defend. All in all, this is a fairly difficult question to assess. Jefferson has never been known as a lock-down defender by any stretch of the imagination, but just how good (bad) is he? In comparing him to the players he would effectively replace (Michael Finley, Bruce Bowen, Ime Udoka), it's hard to say based on defensive winshare and points allowed, since usage of said players are so different. Michael Finley (surprisingly) has the highest defensive winshare with 2.7 while Richard Jefferson has 2.5, however, Jefferson also allows the most points per 100 possessions (at 110). It's hard to dictate that Jefferson is a horrible defender but it can't be said that he's a stellar one either. HoopsHype calls him, "A tough defender when he's into it." Whatever that means. I think ultimately it means you don't need to hide him on the defensive side, he won't be a liability, but it also means that he probably isn't your best bet to be chasing Kobe and LeBron around the court for 35+ minutes. I think this might be an issue that needs to be addressed as the Spurs move forward, because a wing pairing of Roger Mason and Richard Jefferson or Manu Ginobili and Richard Jefferson might leave the defense somewhat lacking and I don't believe that Greg Popovich should sacrifice that much defense for the offensive improvement. I'll talk about this later.
The Draft
In this year's draft, the Spurs showed us, as a friend of mine put it, that first round picks don't matter. DeJuan Blair, slotted by some mock drafts to be taken in the lottery, projected by DraftExpress to be taken at the 20th pick in the first round, somehow fell, all the way into the Spurs' laps at the 37th overall (2nd round 7th pick). There's a lot of speculation on how it might be because of his two surgically repaired knees, though not having any ACLs hasn't stopped him from being competitive at games and attending every practice (and game save one DNP), or from averaging 15.7 points and 12.3 rebounds in his last season at Pittsburgh. If you take a look at his pace-adjusted per-40 minute statistics (the NCAA equivalent of pace-adjusted per 36), this guy is a scary monster: 23 points, 18 rebounds, 1.8 assists, 2.3 steals, and 1.4 blocks on 1.8 turnovers, shooting 59.3% from the field. 18 rebounds per 40 minutes. I'll let that sink in a little.
At the very least we know, despite being 6-7, he can rebound, and he can hustle, and he's everything you want in a PF. He was ranked 3rd overall for rebounding in the NCAA, 1st for offensive rebounds (5.6 per game). DraftExpress lists his best case scenario as being Paul Millsap (sweet) and worst case as being Reggie Evans. Even then, at the worst case, you get a guy who you know is intense and hustles and will grab you rebounds, everything you want in a reserve big. Given how well Blair has played, it's pretty apparent that his game can translate into the NBA, if only at 10-15 minute intervals, which is all the Spurs are really asking of him. Both Jack McClinton and Nando De Colo look to be like long-term projects, and I would suspect they get thrown to Austin and left in France respectively.
More to come
Obviously this can't be it for the Spurs. The roster as currently constructed would look something like:
PG - Tony Parker, George Hill
SG - Roger Mason Jr, Manu Ginobili
SF - Richard Jefferson, Michael Finley?, Ime Udoka?
PF - Matt Bonner, DeJuan Blair
C - Tim Duncan, Ian Mahinmi
There definitely is something to be said about continuity and chemistry, but I'm still of a mind to trade Roger Mason and/or Matt Bonner if possible to improve on the roster. I have question marks behind Finely and Udoka simply because they have a player option and team option respectively. Were I the Spurs front office, I'd let Udoka walk, but I don't know why Finley wouldn't take his player option, unless he wants to retire. I believe that the Spurs are going to be willing to pay the luxury tax this season, and therefore even with the addition of Blair and Jefferson, there should be a fairly significant amount of the MLE left available for whatever free agents San Antonio might be pursuing.
The most immediate need to me, is simply finding a defender. There are enough options for scoring, what the Spurs need is someone on the wings to chase the Kobe Bryants, LeBron Jameses, and Dwayne Wades around the court, and make open threes. This could be either via trade or via free agency, now ideally this would be something of a Raja Bell in his prime type of player, but Raja Bell is neither available nor in his prime anymore, so let's look around for someone else. One name that's a possibility might be DeShawn Stevenson, not sure how the Wizards are going to work out their backcourt glut of Gilbert Arenas, Nick Young, Mike Miller, Randy Foye, DeShawn Stevenson, and Dominic McGuire, I'm going to assume that either Mike Miller or McGuire slide to the SF slot, and then Foye would be the backup PG? Hard to say, since the roles aren't really defined, but he's worth a look at. From free agency, I'd still say maybe Marquis Daniels, though he doesn't really shoot very well. Dahntay Jones, made famous after tripping Kobe Bryant, is another possibility, he plays solid defense. Trevor Ariza would be awesome, though I doubt the Spurs would be able to offer anything close to what he'd command. Maybe Anthony Parker? Though it's possible that they look to younger talent for their needs, like someone from Austin or something.
The second need would be the need for a center to play next to Tim Duncan, or rather, a true big that can spread the floor, doesn't have to be center, though it would be nice if he were center eligible. I'm still not sure as of right now that Ian Mahnimi or Matt Bonner are the answer. Maybe Mahnimi develops, but I'm definitely not sold on Bonner. The ideal would be Rasheed Wallace, but if he's asking for at least $8 million, then he's both unaffordable and not worth the price, not at the ripe age of 34. The kind of big that is ideal is one that is able on defense and can spread the floor with some midrange shooting, leaving Duncan alone in the paint. While Duncan can ably hit those 15-19 foot wing jumpers, it'd still be nice to have someone do that for him so that Duncan can operate where he's most effective, in the paint. Another option would be to bring back Rasho Nesterovic for cheap, but perhaps better could be had. I can't really think of anything available, but those are the immediate needs that the Spurs still need to address. Otherwise, looking good.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
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:
Ok, let's say per game isn't necessarily a fair comparison as some players have played more games than others.
Per 36 Minutes:
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.
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.
Monday, June 1, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
