Newsflash: The Cavaliers are awesome.

Everyone knows the Lakers and Celtics are great teams, but I seem to be the only one who knows that the Cavaliers are, too.

Through today, the Cavaliers are 17-3 with a scoring margin of +13.3. The record for the highest scoring margin ever for a full season is 12.3, held by the 69-13 1972 Lakers. Are they going to win 85% of their games for the rest of the season (70-12)? No. Are they going to outscore their opponents by 13 points per game for the entire season? No. But they're completely hidden under the shadows of the Lakers and Celtics, and they deserve to be brought into the light.

Let's look at their current eight-game win streak: 14-point win at home versus Atlanta (12-7), 18-point win against New York (9 and 11), 35-point home win against Oklahoma City (2-19), a 15-point home win against Golden State (5-15), a 12-point win in Milwaukee, a 36-point home win against New York, a 24-point home win against Indiana (7-13), and a 20-point win in Charlotte (7-13). Eight games, eight double-digit wins, a 21.8 point scoring margin. Not bad, eh?

But there's more. In several of these games, they built huge early leads, then let them evaporate in the fourth quarters while the starters rested. Therefore, the 21.8 scoring margin doesn't do justice to the Cavaliers' domination. Against Atlanta, they were up by 21 after three quarters only to win by 14. Against the Knicks they were up 29 at half, but only won by 18. Against Oklahoma City, they were up by 34 at half, by 40 after three quarters, but only won by 35. Against Golden State, a 26-point cushion after three quarters turned into a mere 15-point win. Against Charlotte, a 26-point lead decreased into a 20-point margin over the final 12 minutes. In only two of their last eight games did the Cavs not lead by at least 20 going into the final period: In Milwaukee, they were only up by five, but wound up winning by a respectable 12. Against Indiana, they were only ahead by 16, but outscored the Pacers by eight in the final period.

During their eight-game win streak, the Cavs have averaged a 23.6 point lead entering the fourth quarter. Have most of the teams ranged from bad to supershitty? Yes, but they're not that shitty. That's like saying, "oh yeah, he shot 40 on a 60-par course. How would he do on a 70-par course?" I dunno. 50? The combined average scoring margin for the eight teams is -3.8. Theoretically, that means a 21.8 point scoring margin against them would be like an 18-point scorign margin against an average schedule, and a 20.7 point scoring margin after three quarters. That's pretty good. Great, even.

Rules for Championship-Counting

I was browsing the wikipedia article on NBA Finals when I noticed something odd. Apparently, the Oklahoma City Thunder have appeared in three NBA Finals. In the "Notes," section, it says "All appearances as the Seattle SuperSonics franchise(.)" I already knew that there was a tradition of counting Finals appearances (and all games, for that matter) for a franchise, even when those appearances came when the team was located elsewhere, but only a few days ago did I fully realize how retarded this is. Why do the Lakers get to include the five championships that the Minneapolis Lakers won towards their Finals count? Why are the Philadelphia Warriors' three finals appearances credited to the Golden State Warriors and not to the Philadelphia team? Why is the second Baltimore Bullets franchise's grouped with the Wizards' record, and not with that of the first Baltimore Bullets(1)?

Here's a new rule: Championships go to the home team's city, not to the franchise. How would this rule change things? Here's how the affected teams are now:

Los Angeles Lakers: 14-15 (5-1 as Minneapolis Lakers, 9-14 as Los Angeles Lakers)
Philadelphia 76ers: 3-6 (1-2 as Syracuse Nationals, 2-4 as Philadelphia 76ers)
Detroit Pistons: 3-4 (0-2 as Fort Wayne Pistons, 3-2 as Detroit Pistons)
Golden State Warriors: 3-3 (2-1 as Philadelphia Warriors, 0-2 as San Francisco Warriors, 1-0 as Golden State Warriors)
Atlanta Hawks: 1-3 (1-3 as St. Louis Hawks, 0-0 as Atlanta Hawks)
Washington Wizards: 1-3 (0-1 as Baltimore Bullets, 1-2 as Washington Bullets)
Oklahoma City: 1-2 (1-2 as Seattle Supersonics, 0-0 as Oklahoma City Thunder)
Baltimore Bullets: 1-0 (not the same Baltimore Bullets as current Washington Wizards)
Sacramento Kings: 1-0 (1-0 as Rochester Royals, 0-0 as Sacramento Kings)
Chicago Stags: 0-1 (folded in 1950)
Washington Capitols: 0-1 (folded in 1951)

What needs to change? Splitting up the Lakers' championships is self-explanatory. The Minneapolis Lakers' championships, however, are not credited to the Minnesota Timberwolves given the nearly three-decade absence of NBA basketball from Minneapolis. All championships won by a team based in Philadelphia are credited to the 76ers. Syracuse keep their rightful championship and other appearances. Fort Wayne keeps its two Finals appearances. The Golden State Warriors get to keep the San Francisco Warriors appearances, since it's basically the same city. The St. Louis Hawks keep their four appearances, and Atlanta gets its well-deserved 0 appearances. Seattle keeps their appearances. If another team relocates to Seattle, that new team will be credited with three appearances and one championship. The Washington Wizards keep the Bullets' record, but the two Baltimore Bullets franchises' records are combined. I'm open to combining Baltimore's and Washington's records since the two cities are 40 miles apart, and it's possible that Baltimoreans follow the Wizards. Sacramento's appearance stays in Rochester. The Washington Capitols' appearance is added to the Wizards' total. The Chicago Stags' appearance can be merged with the Bulls', unless the Bulls would prefer to remain 6-0 and let the Stags keep it. Here are the new standings among affected teams:

Los Angeles Lakers: 9-14
Chicago Bulls : 6-0(1?)
Minneapolis Lakers: 5-1
Philadelphia 76ers: 4-5
Detroit Pistons: 3-2
St. Louis Hawks: 1-3
Washington Wizards: 1-3
Syracuse Nationals: 1-2
Golden State Warriors: 1-2
Seattle SuperSonics: 1-2
Baltimore Bullets: 1-1
Rochester Royals: 1-0
Fort Wayne Pistons: 0-2
Atlanta Hawks: 0-0
Oklahoma City Thunder: 0-0
Sacramento Kings: 0-0



(1) There was a Baltimore Bullets team that joined the NBA for the 1948 season, but folded during the 1955 season. Then, a team moved from Chicago to Baltimore for the 1964 season and stayed there 10 seasons, before moving to Washington, D.C.

The Summer of 2010 Free Agent Class

If you read a lot of basketball press, you are probably aware that a lot of teams are trying to shed salaries so they can make some big signings in the summer of 2010. Here's my list of the top 13 available free agents (The player's age during the summer of 2010 in parentheses):

The Old Guys:

13. Steve Nash (36)- Considering that most contracts are going to be for at least a few years, Nash is going to be really old, like 39 if it's a four-year deal. Thirty-nine is really old, especially for someone who's had back problems since at least his late twenties. However, he is a big name, and knowing the NBA, I'm sure someone will rush to sign him to a long-term contract.

12. Tracy McGrady (31)- Thirty-one going on 41. Has this guy aged badly or what? Given how much he's been declining the last six seasons, I can't see him getting better than where he is now: a 22-5-6 player on a team that may or may not make it into the second round. Any team that would sign him would have to imagine how good he would be at 35 or 36, although they probably won't.

11. Manure Ginobili (32-33)- I have a hard time figuring out what to make of him. On one hand, he has an olympic gold medal, a silver medal at the '02 worlds, and was a Nocioni buzzer-beater away from making the finals (and a probable gold) at the '06 worlds, and he won three NBA titles with the Spurs. On the other hand, the international results should have an asterisk because Team USA's "leadership" fell asleep at the wheel during Argentina's peak. When he's on the Argentina team, they are 2-4 against Team USA, seven- and eight-point wins at the '02 worlds and '04 olympics, eight- and 33-point losses at the 2003 Olympic Qualifier, and 15- and 20-point losses at the '06 worlds and '08 Olympics. The '02 and '04 results could have easily been the same if those American teams weren't so terribly selected and coached. With both the Spurs and in international play, he's been in the right place at the right time. On the other hand, I look at his statistics from last season, and he averaged 25.1/6.2/5.8 per 40 minutes, which were legitimate second team all NBA numbers and first team some years if Popovich had given him the playing time. I can't decide whether he's way overrated or way underrated. I'm going to say both. People don't appreciate how good he is nor how lucky he has been.

As for his free agent status, I wouldn't be surprised to see him go to Europe. Consider that 1) He's from Argentina, so culturally speaking, living in Europe is about the same as living in the U.S., as opposed to American players who are at home in the NBA and maybe uncomfortable or uninterested in Europe. 2) He's already proven himself in the NBA, so he may be less likely to take a pay cut to stay in the NBA. 3) He may not have to take a paycut. Childress' 3-year, 13.5 million euro tax-free salary is roughly the equivalent of a 3 year, $30 million dollar NBA contract. 4) He is a known quantity in FIBA rules, having excelled in international competition, and in Europe before coming to the NBA. He played in Euroleague finals in 2001 and 2002, winning the first and losing the second. He is one of the biggest stars that plays equally well in FIBA rules as in the NBA. Therefore, European teams wouldn't be making much of a risk in signing him.

The X-Factor:

10. Tyson Chandler (player option) (27)- A lot of astute baskeball observers made a big deal of New Orleans signing James Posey this summer. While Posey is not a star, he compliments stars with tough defense, three-point shooting, and toughness. Tyson Chandler, while playing a different position, has a similar effect on his team. He isn't going to sell tickets, but he protects the rim, rebounds, plays defense, and finishes what Chris Paul creates. Of course, he could chose not to opt out of his contract, too.

The Guys Who Probably Aren't Going Anywhere:

9. Rajon Rando (restricted) (24)- He's a very good defender, and offensively, he's more of a facilitator than a creator, both of which make him a good fit for the Celtics as currently constituted. He will be a restricted free agent, meaning the Celtics can match any offer from any other team. Since he has more value to the Celtics, he will probably stay in Boston for a while.

8. Dirk Nowitzki (player option) (32)- Second on this list only to Tracy McGrady in the "stars whose lights have dimmed in recent years." Jesus, this guy almost won a championship, then won 67 games and an MVP (in an uberweak MVP race), and now he just looks sad and defeated. I think Dallas will try to keep him because he means so much to the Mavericks. However, if it doesn't look like the Mavs have turned things around by then, he may go somewhere where he can be someone's Scottie Pippen (his idol) and win a championship.

7. Joe Johnson (28)- A very good player, but let's not get carried away. As Atlanta's best player for three years, he's averaged 22-4.2-5.7 and the Hawks have won 26, 30, and 37 games. I don't think the Hawks will let anyone outbid them. Besides, the Hawks are an up and coming team. I can't see JJ leaving a deep playoff contender for some crappy team. Wait...

6. Carlos Boozer (28)- A 21-11-3 guy for the Jazz. He's such a good fit with D-Will and Jerry Sloan, I think the Jazz will see to it that he stays.

5. Brandon Roy (restricted) (25-26)- Not sure if he's good enough to be the centerpiece of a championship caliber team, unless it's a very balanced team (which the Blazers are/will be), and one with a strong defense (ditto, if Greg Oden plays 20 years younger). He's the face of a young, unselfish, good-guy, high character team. The Blazers will likely offer the maximum, and if they don't they're more than likely to match any offer sheets. They won't let him go anywhere.

Fourth, Bronze, and Silver:

4. Chris Bosh (player option) (26)- His numbers have gone up this year, but that can be attributed to his increase in playing time. Throwing out his first two seasons (his second and third years out of high school), he has averaged 22.6/9.8/2.5 on 50% shooting and 81.4% of free throws. He's an okay defender, but not a great rim-protector and shotblocker. He probably means more to Toronto than to anyone else, unless he can lure either someone else to his new team. They probably won't be the only team offering him a max contract. Where he signs may influence what the top two decide.

3. Amare Stoudemire (player option) (27)- He has his pre-microfacture athleticism back, and he isn't so dependent on Steve Nash any more. However, he still doesn't rebound as well as he should, he's still a bad defender, and he doesn't make things easier for his teammates. He's a very explosive scorer and has a jaw-dropping mid-range game, but he shouldn't be mistaken for a dominant big man.

2. Dwyane Wade (player option) (28)- The Good: Career averages of 25.8/5/6.9 since his secodn season, good defense, gets to the free throw line, clutchness, playoff experience. The Bad: Plays an average of 63 games per season, including 51 each of the last two, not really sure how he's going to age given his penchant for getting injured, which is an issue considering he would be 33 at the end of a five-year contract. My money is on Wade ending up in New York if number one (whose name I won't mention lest I ruin the surprise) doesn't.

The Chosen One:

1. Lebron Raymone James (player option) (25)- Where do we begin? Post-rookie career averages of 28.9/7.3/6.8 on .479/.327/.726 shooting, much-improved defense, the size and strength of a power forward, the quickness of a guard, the court-vision, anticipation, and passing of a hall-of-fame point guard, the wisdom and poise of a 20-year veteran, the ability to raise the level of his teammates or carry them on his shoulders, shot selection and feel for the game, indestructability, the wisdom of age, the vigor of youth. This season, his minutes are down from the last few years. If he were averaging 41.5 minutes per game like he has the last four years, he would be averaging 32.6/8.6/7.6. And he's still improving. The bad: Shoots too many threes, dribbles too much (although not as much this year since Mike Brown installed an actual offense this year), free throw shooting, defense not as good as it could be.

Where might Lebron go if he leaves Cleveland? The most common options brought up are in order of probability: New York Knicks, New Jersey/Brooklyn Nets, Portland Trailblazers, Detroit Pistons, Olympiakos. Olympiakos is not going to offer him $50 million. While the billionaire owners may not care about the bottom line, they don't care that little. The Pistons would have been a good choice from a basketball perspective a few years ago, but not in an overall sense, and no longer in even a basketball sense, since Cleveland has a good supporting cast now. The Blazers have been mentioned because they have a highly respected coach, a really young nucleus, and oodles of cash in the summer of 2010, and Nike is located in Oregon. Only the first three make sense, but in any event, I don't see him leaving Cleveland for anywhere besides New York. The Nets, even if they are in Brooklyn by the 2010-11 season, are the Nets. That would be like joining the Clippers. Technically, it's in the same city, but the spotlight burns brighter on, and the city cares more about, its rival.

That leaves the New York Knicks and the Cleveland Cavaliers. What are the reasons for signing for each of them?

New York Knicks: Lebron has said he wants to be a billionaire, which would require investing in a lot of different industries, i.e. clothing, music, movies, etc., which is easier to do in New York than in Cleveland. There are a lot of rumors about Lebron's Nike contract (and his other contracts) having a clause that would increase its value if he moved to a bigger market. I don't know if that's true or not, but what is true is that his Nike contract, which he signed in the summer of 2003, was for seven years. When he opts out in 2010, he will not have a shoe contract. Do you think his next shoe contract would be worth more if he's playing in Cleveland or New York? Mike D'Antoni has a successful track record as a coach, and Donnie Walsh has a successful track record as general manager. If you take out Walsh's first few seasons, when he was getting his feet wet and had not made much of an impact on the team, and the last few seasons, when he had to trade away Ron Artest (who had gone completely bonkers) and Stephen Jackson (who "has been charged with felony criminal recklessness and a number of other misdemeanors, including assault, disorderly conduct, and two counts of battery"), say, between 1994 and the Jackson trade, the Pacers went 634-483 (48.5 wins per 82), and that's without either the resources of the Knicks or the big-market lure of New York that he has now. Lebron says New York is his favorite city.

Cleveland: Cleveland is one of few teams that have enough cap space to sign two max contracts in 2010. They are the only one that can sign two without going over the salary cap because of the Larry Bird exception, which allows team to re-sign their own free agents without going over the salary cap. Things can change between now and 2010, but Cleveland is the team most likely to have both a lot of cap space and a good, championship contending supporting cast. Maurice Williams and Daniel Gibson are both signed through 2013 for a combined $13.2 million per year, and Delonte West will be there through 2011. The contracts of Eric Snow, who works on NBATV, and Wally Szczerbiak, the one-dimensional spot-up shooter who can't hit open shots, both expire after this year. Obviously, they'd have to sign some more players, but they would have inroads in re-signing their own contributors (Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Anderson Varejao, Ben Wallace?, Sasha Pavlovic?). The Cavs have a team built for the playoffs. They play tough, physical defense, rebound well, and have overachieved three years in a row (almost beat 64-18 Pistons in 2006, went to Finals as 2 seed in 2007, should have beaten 66-16 Celtics last season). If you take that as well as Danny Ferry's vow to spend however much it takes to build a championship team, the Cavs could easily shape up to be the team most likely to offer Lebron a chance to win championships. Also, he's from Ohio.

NBA 2008-9 Preview: Western Conference

15. Minnesota Timberwolves
2007-8 Record: 22-60
Projected Record: 21-61
Notes: Meh.

14. Memphis Grizzlies
2007-8 Record: 22-60
Projected Record: 22-60
Notes: Meh.

13. Oklahoma City Thunder
2007-8 Record: 20-62
Projected Record: 23-59
Notes: They should have won 15 games last season considering their scoring margin, but Kevin Durant's maturation should account for a few wins.

12. Denver Nuggets
2007-8 Record: 50-32
Projected Record: 24-58
Notes: Marcus Camby was the deodorant that covered up their otherwise stinky defense the past few seasons. This year, they are going to blow ass. Also, I think this will be the year Allen Iverson's age finally catches up to him. He's 33.

11. Sacramento Kings
2007-8 Record: 38-44
Projected Record: 26-56
Notes: A franchise that's going nowhere fast. Did you know that Kevin Martin led the league in free throws made per game last season? That he shot .456/.402/.869 and averaged 23.7 points?

10. Los Angeles Clippers
2007-8 Record: 23-59
Projected Record: 32-50
Notes: They won 23 games last season without Brand (who only played the last eight, when they were tanking anyway.) They added Baron Davis.

9. Golden State Warriors
2007-8 Record: 48-34
Projected Record: 35-47
Notes: They lost Baron Davis, around whom the team ran. Stephen Jackson is probably underrated, but Monta Ellis is equally overrated.

8. Dallas Mavericks
2007-8 Record: 51-31
Projected Record: 44-38
Notes: Their championship window officially closed some time last season. Dirk Nowitzki must be so deflated. After almost having a 3-0 lead in the 2006 Finals, winning 67 games in 2007 only to lose in the first round, and now his team looks like a 40's win team for the next few years. He'll be 30 this year. Supposedly, Jason Kidd bristled under Avery Johnson's micromanagement, but Rick Carlisle is in a similar mold as Avery.

7. Phoenix Suns
2007-8 Record: 55-27
Projected Record: 47-35
Notes: The Suns were 24-14 (58-24) before the Shaq trade, and 21-13 (51-31) after it. Most of the key players are really really old: Steve Nash, Raja Bell, Grant Hill, and Shaquille O'neal will be 35, 32, 36, and 37 years old, respectively, at the end of the season. Shaq is not motivated to turn a 47 win team into a 50+ win team. Amare Stoudemire is a bigger cancer than Suns fans will admit. Boris Diaw suffers from what Dr. Basketbawful calls vaginaitis. At least they have Rudy Fernandez, who looked pretty good in the Olympics and tore up the Spanish league last season. Oh, wait.

6. Portland Trailblazers
2007-8 Record: 41-41
Projected Record: 50-32
Notes: Last season, they were the youngest team in the NBA, the third youngest team ever, and yet they won 41 games. Granted, they won a disproportionate amount of close games last season, and they went on a 17-1 run (including a 13-0 run), mostly under the radar. This year, there's been a lot of hype, and teams will be prepared for them. They are a good chemistry team already, and Greg Oden will only help in that regard. I don't think they're quite ready to be serious contenders for the Finals, but next year, and the next 12 years after that, they will be.

5. San Antonio Spurs
2007-8 Record: 56-26
Projected Record: 52-30
Notes: They're old. They'll coast through the season. They'll be better in the playoffs than in the regular season, but there are too many good teams in the West and they're not quite a championship contender.

4. Utah Jazz
2007-8 Record: 54-28
Projected Record: 56-26
Notes: Pick and roll. Deron Williams. Carlos Boozer. Jerry Sloan.

3. Houston Rockets
2007-8 Record: 55-27
Projected Record: 57-25
Notes: They added Ron Artest, who is a great small forward defender and will be taking minutes from Shane Battier, a great small forward defender. While he should help the Rockets, he's not the missing piece that will push them into championship contention. They were already a very good defensive team last season, so they won't be getting a lot better. Fun fact: Tracy Mcgrady, despite being a very talented player, and despite having played in the NBA for many years, has not won a playoff series.

2. New Orleans Hornets
2007-8 Record: 56-26
Projected Record: 58-24
Notes: The big move for them was signing James Posey the archetype of the X-factor who can swing a championship from one team to another. He plays good defense, hits threes.

1. Los Angeles Lakers
2007-8 Record: 57-25
Projected Record: 62-20
Notes: They should have won last season, but they choked a little in the finals. If they do win, Kobe will become even more overrated. Andrew Bynum is really good and will be 21 years old all season. Bynum's per 40 min stats over his first three seasons, in points and rebounds: 8.8/9.5, 14.2/10.8, 18.2/14.1.

NBA 2008-9 Preview: Eastern Conference

15. Milwaukee Bucks
2007-8 Record: 26-56
Projected Record: 24-58
Notes: Meh.

14. New Jersey Nets
2007-8 Record: 34-48
Projected Record: 27-55
Notes: Meh.

13. New York Knicks
2007-8 Record: 23-59
Projected Record: 28-54
Notes: Nowhere to go but up. Once upon a time, when Isaiah Thomas was still running the Knicks (into the ground), he described his actions with the Knicks: "When you move into your house, the guy who poured the concrete never really gets a chance to live in that beautiful house that he built, and our job right now is to make sure that we lay the concrete and we lay it correctly.” That's an interesting way to describe signing overpaid overrated cancers to long-term contracts. The roster is still really crappy, but I think new GM Donnie Walsh and new head coach Mike D'Antoni will go a different way and lay a foundation based on a culture of professionalism and teamwork. The win-loss record won't change much, but I think fans will sense a change in the culture of the team. They'll still suck, but they won't be as embarrassing to watch.

12. Indiana Pacers
2007-8 Record: 36-46
Projected Record: 32-50
Notes: Meh.

11. Charlotte Bobcats
2007-8 Record: 32-50
Projected Record: 34-48
Notes: Eventually, they will be a playoff team, and everyone will have underestimated them, but they're like the Clippers in that you can ignore the roster and just predict they'll suck and you'll be right 90% of the time. Oddly, I haven't heard anyone say Adam Morrison reminds them of Larry Bird recently.

10. Atlanta Hawks
2007-8 Record: 37-45
Projected Record: 36-46
Notes: They'll have Mike Bibby for the whole season instead of just part of it, which should help, but they lost Josh Childress to Olympiakos, which hurts. You may remember their close series with the Celtics in the playoffs last season, but you shouldn't forget that they only made the playoffs because of the weakness of the Eastern Conference.

9. Miami Heat
2007-8 Record: 15-67
Projected Record: 37-45
Notes: They'll probably have Dwyane Wade for more than 51 games this season. They'll have Shawn Marion the whole season. They tricked some stupid team into taking Shaq's fat ass and fatter salary and even fatter ass, and fatterer salary. Michael Beasley will begin his Good Numbers On A Bad Team Guy Hall Of Fame career.

8. Chicago Bulls
2007-8 Record: 33-49
Projected Record: 42-40
Notes: They Bulls went 49-33 in 2007, but won 16 fewer games the next season with pretty much the same roster. I don't know about Derrick Rose. I've seen him compared to Jason Kidd, but I don't know how apt that is. Rose averaged 14.9/4.5/4.7 as a freshman, whereas Kidd averaged 13/4.9/7.7. Besides the similarity in size and strength, they didn't look all that similar to me from what little I saw of him.

7. Washington Wizards
2007-8 Record: 43-39
Projected Record: 43-39
Notes: Caron Butler is their best and most important player. Gilbert Arenas is their best paid player. I see the Wizards staying a little above .500 for most of the season, not defending too well, and losing in the first round of the playoffs, much like the last three seasons. I'm just going to copy-and-paste this for every Wizards preview for the foreseeable future.

6. Philadelphia 76ers
2007-8 Record: 40-42
Projected Record: 47-35
Notes: They added Elton Brand, a career 20-10 guy, who can score inside, and should move Andre Iguodala to a role as second option, closer to his natural role as third option.

5. Orlando Magic
2007-8 Record: 52-30
Projected Record: 51-31
Notes: I'm feeling a 23-14 from Howard. Turkoglu will not repeat his 19.5/5.7/5.0 season as defenses focus on him, and people will stop saying he's the real MVP of the Magic, thank God. Their point guards aren't good enough to get the Magic's wins into the high 50s.

4. Toronto Raptors
2007-8 Record: 41-41
Projected Record: 52-30
Notes: Last year, they outscored their opponents by 2.9 points per game, meaning they should have won 50 games. They lost T.J. Ford, who was only taking minutes from a better point guard Jose Calderon, and added Jermaine O'Neal, who's been called overrated (rightfully) for so long, he's actually a little underrated. Also, I see them flying under the radar and getting a few extra wins before other teams realize how seriously the Raptors should be taken.

3. Cleveland Cavaliers
2007-8 Record: 45-37
Projected Record: 53-29
Notes: They won 50 games in 2006 and 2007, and only won 45 last season after two contract holdouts, Lebron missing 7 games due to injury (Cavs went 0-7 during that span, of course), and having Larry Hughes on the roster, fruitlessly aiming jump shots at the hoop. The Cavs advanced to the finals in 2007, and lost in the conference semis in 2006 and 2008, both times in series they should have won. They are a team that's built for the playoffs. Mo Williams should improve their offense from "awful in spite of Lebron James" to "decent but only because of Lebron James." Their record won't improve much, but they'll probably be in the finals again.

2. Detroit Pistons
2007-8 Record: 59-23
Projected Record: 55-27
Notes: They really haven't slipped that much since they won a championship in 2004. They just went from a postseason team to a regular season team. I expect them to bore their way to 55 wins, then disappoint in the playoffs again.

1. Boston Celtics
2007-8 Record: 66-16
Projected Record: 60-22
Notes: They're a little older, and more importantly, a little less motivated to win every single game. They will not repeat as champions.

NBA vs. Euroleague: An Analysis

Most people who follow basketball around the world would agree that the best basketball league is the NBA. They would also agree that the second best league is the Euroleague, which is made of the best teams from various domestic leagues in Europe, and which runs concurrently with the domestic leagues.

But how much better is the NBA? We can use subjective criteria, like how we feel a given Euroleague team would do in NBA competition, and vice versa. Unfortunately, this can lead to people choosing information to fit preconceived notions about the levels of the respective leagues. For example, it's a common belief in some quarters that NBA players are selfish, have no fundamentals, only play one-on-one, etc. On the other hand, we could look at the results of previous Euroleague vs. NBA games, factoring in things like location, scoring margin, and the strength of the teams in their respective leagues.

Since the 2003-04 preseason, there have been 30 games between NBA and Euroleague teams. The NBA teams have won all five scheduled for this preaseason, all of which were home games for the NBA teams. Since we don't know how the involved teams will fare in their respective leagues this season, I will discard them, and only consider the previous 25 games.(1,2)

For those of my reader who don't follow the Euroleague, it consists of several different stages, but I'm only going to consider the Regular Season, which consists of 24 teams divided into three groups of eight (four groups of six, starting this season), who play a home-and-away round robin, with the top five teams from each group and the best sixth place team among the three groups, advancing to the Top 16 (or the top four from each group, starting this year).

Of the 25 games I'm considering, 14 have been on the NBA team's home court, eight on the Euroleague's home court, and three on a neutral court (in Europe).

Neutral Games: NBA 3, Euroleague 0.
Combined NBA regular season winning percentage: .626
Combined EL regular season winning percentage: .690
Scoring Margin: NBA +14.7
Conclusion: It's hard to make a strong conclusion given the sample size, however, the scoring margin is pretty comfortable.

Euroleague Home Court Games: NBA 4, Euroleague 4.
Combined NBA regular season winning percentage: .476
Combined EL regular season winning percentage: .670
Scoring Margin: Euroleague +.1
Conclusion: By looking at just the head-to-head record and scoring margin, it would appear that the Euroleague and the NBA are at a similar level. However, taking into account the quality of the teams within their respective leagues, and home-court advantage (more on that later), it again appears that the NBA is better.

NBA Home Court Games: NBA 13, Euroleague 1.
Combined NBA regular season winning percentage: .504
Combined EL regular season winning percentage: .633
Scoring Margin: NBA +21.4
Conclusion: The Euroleague's only win on an NBA court was the two-time defending champions and eventual EL runners-up Maccabi Tel Aviv's last-second 105-103 win over a 27-55 Toronto Raptors team. Some of the more embarrassing Euroleague losses include: 2006-7 Efes Pilsen (8-6) losing 120-66 to 42-40 pre-Stephen Jackson Golden State Warriors, Maccabi Tel Aviv losing their last three away games by a combined 87 points to NBA teams with a combined 120-126 record, all in seasons either coming after or leading to a match in the Euroleague Final, 2007 EL champions Panathinaikos losing to Houston and San Antonio by 37 and 22 points, respectively. Outside of Maccabi's fluke win, and two other close games (six- and three-point wins), the NBA is 11-0 with a scoring margin of +26.5 points.


Conclusion: The NBA's 20-5 record is skewed by the disproportionate number of home games for NBA teams. The Euroleague's relatively impressive record on their home courts is also skewed. While teams usually win a higher percentage of games on their home court, the percentage doesn't go from 7% on the road to 50% at home, nor is there usually a 20-point swing between home and away games. How do we account for such a large disparity? I would hypothesize that Euroleague home-court advantage is magnified in a once-a-few-seasons situation where the fans get to see their team take on an NBA team, and that therefore, the record in NBA arenas is more indicative of the true disparity between NBA and Euroleague teams.

What does the record look like when home and away games are weighed equally? The Euroleague winning percentage against NBA teams would be 28.6% (2/7). The combined winning percentage of the NBA and Euroleague teams would be 65% and 49%, respectively. In other words, a team with a 65% record in the Euroleague regular season would win about 23 games in an NBA season. But how would a team with a 50% record (in other words, an average team) do in 82 games against teams with an average winning percentage of 50% (in other words, an NBA schedule)? Well, if a .500 team would win 76.9% as many games as .650 teams, which I'm assuming it would, or at least somewhere close to that, then the average Euroleague team would win 18 games, which is roughly the average record for the worst team in the NBA.

How would the best Euroleague teams do? No team has won the Euroleague after playing NBA teams in the preseason, but there have been five runners-up who have done that. These teams have a combined 2-3 record (1-0 home, 0-1 neutral, 1-2 away), which is fortunate considering the -6.8 scoring margin, and the NBA teams averaged 31.2 wins. Also, there have been seven games between defending Euroleague champions and NBA teams. Defending EL champion teams have a combined 2-5 record (1-1 home, 0-1 neutral, 1-3 away), also fortunate considering a -11 scoring margin. The NBA teams averaged 42.7 wins. Four games have been contested between the defending EL runners-up and NBA teams. All of them were played by the 2006-7 Maccabi Tel Aviv. They went 0-4 (0-2 neutral, 0-2 away), losing by an average of 22.5, although their NBA opponents averaged 54 wins. In games in which a Euroleague team either reached the Final the previous season, or would go on to reach the Final, the Euroleague teams were a combined 2-10 (1-1 home, 0-3 neutral, 1-6 away), which is fortunate considering the -16.2 scoring margin in such games. The NBA teams averaged 44.8 wins. It's hard to reach a conclusion with such a small sample of games. However, it would appear that even the best Euroleague teams would make below average NBA teams.





(1) ASVEL Lyon-Villeurbanne, BC Khimki, Estudiantes, and of course, the Chinese national team, were not Euroleague teams when they played these games.
(2) I am only going to consider the exhibition games from the 2000's because I can't know for sure which European teams were in the Euroleague or what their records were before 2001, and because most would agree that the landscape of international basketball has changed between 1999 and 2003, with non-American players and leagues improving and closing the gap between themselves and American players and the NBA.

Someone call the Whaaaaaaaambulance

I recently wrote about how dominant Team USA was at the Olympics, but apparently I was delusional. Thanks to Ricky Rubio for enlightening me: "We demonstrated that we're better. If the officiating had been with FIBA rules, we would have won." Ricky Rubio wasn't the only whiner from the Spanish side- Felipe Reyes: "It was scandalous. It's infuriating that they officiate that way." Rudy Fernandez: "If they change the rules, they should tell us." Jorge Garbajosa: "I'm biting my tongue."

Congratulations to Spain, the real gold medalists.*

*of being pussies

2007-8 NBA All Underrated Team

In my "2007-8 NBA All Overrated Team", I gave some criteria for overratedness. The criteria for underratedness are the opposite.

Point Guard: Jose Calderon, Raptors- Became the sixth player to shoot 50/40/90 during a season (Larry Bird 87,88; Mark Price 89; Reggie Miller, 94, Steve Nash 06,08; Dirk Nowitzki 07). Averaged 8.3 assists and 1.5 turnovers, for a 5.37 a/to ratio. Began April with 21 assists and one turnover, then finished the season with 45 assists and zero turnovers. Will shine brighter next year now that he doesn't have to inexplicably share time with TJ Ford, who isn't as good as Calderon.

Shooting Guard: Kevin Martin, Kings- Averaged 23.7 points on superefficient 45/40/87 shooting. Led the league in free throws made per game. One of the best pure shooters in the NBA. At the beginning of the 2007 season, his breakout year, when he averaged 24.9 points per game after the first 12 games after averaging 11.1 the season before, I remember thinking that teams would adjust and then he'd fall down to Earth. Two seasons later, he's shooting 45.6 percent as the opponent's primary defensive focus, averaging 23.7 per game.

Small Forward: Shawn Marion, Suns/Heat- Averaged 15-10 on 52.6% shooting, with 2.02 steals and 1.49 blocks for the Suns before averaging 15-12 on 48% shooting for the Heat. For all the talk over the last four seasons about how the Suns don't play any defense, they were always average defensively. They play at a faster pace, meaning there are more possessions, meaning opponents score more. On defense, he played alongside Steve Nash (can't keep his man in front of him), Raja Bell (overrated), Amare Stoudemire (2005-8 Knicks level of indifference towards defense), Leandro Barbosa (bad defender), and Boris Diaw (not a terrible defender, but he had to play center in D'Antoni's system). In spite of all that, the Suns had Marion to cover up teammates' defensive weakness by guarding other teams' point guards, power forwards, and everything in between, rebounding better than any other small forward (minimizing a major disadvantage of smallball).

On offense, he filled out the break, didn't take a lot of bad shots, and consistently contributed while rarely having the ball in his hands. People always point out how Nash makes teammates look good, but Marion makes Nash look good by playing so well off the ball. How many times has Nash jumped in the air with nowhere to pass the ball, then Marion materializes out of nowhere to prevent Nash from looking like a total boob? He doesn't get credit for how smart he is because he is a finisher and not a creator, but if he can score in the high teens and low 20's for most of his career without taking a dribble, he has to have some basketball IQ.

Luckily, the Suns got rid of him and replaced him with Shaq, a move that's going to look better and better over the next two years and $40 million.

Honorable Mention: Shane Battier, Caron Butler, Danny Granger Gerald Wallace

Power forward: Anderson Varejao, Cavaliers- Averaged 8.2 rebounds in 27.4 minutes per game. Plays annoying physical defense, drawing charges, boxing out, harassing opponents. On offense, he doesn't shoot a lot, but he does get a lot of offensive rebounds and tip outs. He's basically a glue-guy, the kind of player that good teams need to build around a superstar. While it's often said that Lebron's teammates don't give him any help, they do in fact contribute in a lot of unglamorous ways that go unnoticed, mostly by playing good defense, and Varejao epitomizes the overlooked contributions.

Honorable Mention: Tyson Chandler

Center: Andrew Bynum, Lakers- Averaged 13/10/2 blocks and shot 64% in 29 minutes per game. Averaged 8/6/1.6 blocks and shot 56% in 2007, and 1.6/1.7/.5 and shot 40% in 2006. Next year, he'll probably get around 15-17 points, 12 rebounds, 2.5 blocks, and the Lakers will win 63ish games and the first of several more championships. Fuck. Also, he'll turn 21 right before the season starts. Any proclamation that he'll join the Mikan/Chamberlain/Abdul-Jabbar/Shaq pantheon of Laker centers is premature, but he'll be pretty good.

2008 Olympics Review

To get an idea of how dominant the 2008 USA Olympic basketball team was, let's look at the last eight Olympic semifinalists:

Record
2004 Argentina: 6-2
2004 Italy: 5-3
2004 USA: 5-3
2004 Lithuania: 6-2
2008 Lithuania: 5-3
2008 Argentina: 6-2
2008 Spain: 6-2
2008 USA: 8-0

10+ point wins, 20+ point wins, 30+ point wins
2004 Argentina: 2,1,0
2004 Italy: 2,1,1
2004 USA: 2,1,1
2004 Lithuania: 3,2,0
2008 Lithuania: 3,2,1
2008 Argentina: 5,1,0
2008 Spain: 5,1,1
2008 USA: 8,7,4

Scoring Margin:
2004 Argentina: +5.8
2004 Italy: +4.6
2004 USA: +4.6
2004 Lithuania: +7.1
2008 Lithuania: +4.3
2008 Argentina: +7.3
2008 Spain: +7
2008 USA: +27.9

In 2004, Argentina ended up on top of a heap that luckily didn't include the best team in the tournament, Spain. Argentina lost two games in group play, won another by one, and another by four. They won their quarterfinal game by five. In 2008 USA won their first seven games by at least 20 points, and were only challenged in the final in which they still put away Spain by double digits, 118-107.


After the failures of Team USA at the 2002 and 2006 World Championships and at the 2004 Olympics, it was obvious that there are problems with American basketball. To an extent, play is too selfish, too much emphasis is put on highlight dunks over fundamentals, there's too much one-on-one play, etc., and to an extent, non-American players are probably brought up in an environment where they're drilled in fundamentals and teamwork is glorified more than individual achievement. However, both the weaknesses of American players and the virtues of non-American ones were overstated.

Team USA's success started with defense (which surely NBA players can't excel at since it's not flashy, right?). Opponents shot 40.3% from the field, 29.9% from three, and averaged 10.6 assists and 19.3 turnovers. Only one team shot above 45% against Team USA, and that was the final, where Spain played out of their minds and shot 51.4% The 78.4 points per game average is inflated by the quick pace and abundance of possessions in USA games. Team USA on the other hand, shot 55% from the field, 37.7% from three (including 41.7% over the last five after a horrific start, and 13-28 in the final against the second best team in the tournament), and averaged 15.8 assists and 13.8 turnovers. The assists number is deceptively low because Team USA had a lot of one-on-zero fast breaks, and because opponents would force Team USA to go to the line instead of getting easy buckets. Team USA brushed off 2-3 zones for easy layups and wide open threes.

What about the other teams, who play collectively, unselfishly, and with full grasp of the fundamentals of basketball? Well, here's what I saw in my limited time watching non-USA teams: Greece setting multiple moving picks on pretty much every possession against Spain. Not just moving while there's contact with the defender, but leaning in the shoulders, hip checking, and giving the defender a little shove towards half court every single time. This is the fundamental basketball I keep hearing about? Lithuania being completely unable to solve the Spanish 2-3 zone that the USA obliterated twice. Greece forgetting how to run an offense in the fourth quarter of their quarterfinal game against Argentina, and instead, just standing around and passing the ball along the perimeter, begging the Argentines to step in and steal it, which they did a few times. Carlos Delfino chucking the ball like an LSU-era Pistol Pete against Team USA, shooting 7-19 (3-10 from 3), a lot of them the ugly kind of shots that barely hit the opposite side of the backboard. Spain shooting 31.5% from three for the tournament. Argentina shooting 6-23 from three against Team USA after shooting 4-21 in their last game against USA two years ago. That's 10-44 (22.7%) in their last two games. Can you imagine the blowhards' reactions if Team USA had clanked that many threes over two games, one a semifinal and the other for a bronze medal?

I'm not bringing these things up to insult foreign teams or to deny that weaknesses of Team USA and American basketball in general, but to say, hey, maybe the foreign teams aren't the paragons of fundamentals and teamwork they are sometimes made out to be, nor are NBA players the embodiment of everything wrong with basketball today.


Two rising young players were expected to make an impression at the Olympics and they both did just that.

Rudy Fernandez, 23, of Spain, will play for the Portland Trailblazers next year after having a breakout year at DKV Joventut in the Spanish ACB. He averaged 13.1 points, 3.5 rebounds, and 2.1 assists for Spain, and shot 47.3/.400/.792. He shot 7/13, 5/9, 3/3 in the final against USA for 22 points. He was actually drafted by the Suns in 2007 but was traded to the Blazers in exchange for cash. And no, "cash" isn't another player's name. The Suns gave up the guy who just lit up the Redeem Team, and who is already NBA-ready, for a tiny bit of money. His salary will be about a paltry $4.2 over four years. I guess management had to make room for Shaq's $40 million over two years. I will now blow my brains out.

Ricky Rubio, 17, also of Spain and of DKV Joventut, will play at least one more year in the ACB and the Euroleague since they qualified for this upcoming season. He averaged 4.8 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.1 steals for Spain in only 18.3 minutes. Unfortunately, he shot 28% from the field and 2-12 from three for the tournament. But he has plenty of time to work on that. He was great court vision, and super quick hands and defensive anticipation. Two years ago (at age 16), he led the Euroleague in steals with 3.45 per game in only 18.3 minutes per game. I thought he played very well for a 17 year old, and is, barring injury, a surefire future NBA All-Star and Hall-of-Famer. His play in the tournament was underwhelming for me, though. While his long arms, quickness, and anticipation allowed him to disrupt offenses by getting in the passing lanes, he had difficulty staying between opposing point guards and the basket. In a half-court offense, his contributions consisted of standing five feet behind the key and making passes to players coming off of screens. He did what the offense called for, but he didn't show that he can create, finish around the rim, or shoot. Of course, he's only 17, so all these things will improve.

Some things I agree with: http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/2008/08/usa-basketball-all-stars-and-role.html
http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/11077/shoals_unlimited_olympics_proving_that_nbas_style_of_play_still_rules_the_hardwood#page_break

Olympics Pool Play Review

You can see all the scores and standings here and the statistical leaders here. I won't summarize pool play because it's all right there.

Biggest (positive) surprise: Tie. China and USA. China lost to Greece and the USA by 31 points two years ago, to Spain by 25 four years ago. This year, they lost to a much better USA team by 31 points, lost to a better Greece team by 14, and had a double-digit lead to blow in the fourth quarter against Spain. The home-court advantage (and officiating) helped, but they were not the pushovers they have been in the past. Team USA came in as the favorite, a little ahead of Spain, and little more distance between them and Greece, Argentina, Russia, and Lithuania. After a 21-point win against Angola (whom they should have beaten by 40 on a bad day and 60 on a good one), they played at 85% potential (still didn't shoot well) against Greece, winning by 23, then obliterated the second best team, Spain, by 37, then finished pool play with a 49-point win over a respectable German team.

Biggest disappointment: Russia. The defending Eurobasket champions beat lowly Iran in the first game, then lost their next four, losing out on a spot in the quarterfinals to Croatia and Australia.

What else have we learned?
Even though Lithuania won Group A over Argentina, I think Argentina is better. Argentina is like the Spurs- they coast through the regular season, then turn it on when the games really count, like when they went 3-2 (including a 1-point win) in Athens, only to end up at the top of the heap on the last day.

Team USA will won gold. Duh. They're number one in scoring (103 ppg) and number one in scoring defense (70.8 ppg) despite playing at a much faster pace than most teams. Despite putting a lot of emphasis on forcing turnovers, and contrary to Doug Collins' bemoaning of Team USA's "feast or famine" defense, the Americans allow the lowest field goal percentage by a 7.3% margin over the number two team (36.6% to Lithuania's 42.9%), and the lowest three-pointer percentage by a 6.4% margin (26.9% to China's 33.3%). Even when teams don't turn the ball over, they struggle to get good looks. The only defensive blemish is the relatively poor rebounding. Three teams have a better rebound margin than USA's +2.2: Spain (+9.6), Croatia (+6.6), and Greece (+4.8). Offensively, they've only been firing on all cylinders for the last two games, and firing on most cylinders in the third to last game.

Angola and Iran are as bad as we thought they were.

Quarterfinal predictions:
Argentina vs. Greece: Argentina in a close one.
USA vs. Australia: USA in a not close one.
Spain vs. Croatia: Spain by 10.
Lithuania vs. China: Lithuania by eight.

Semis:
USA vs. Argentina: USA by 22.
Spain vs. Lithuania: Spain by 6.

Bronze medal game: Argentina over Lithuania by 10, resulting in Argentina's overtaking of the number one FIBA ranking.

Finals: USA over Spain by 17.

USA vs. Russia, Australia

Whereas the first three exhibition opponents were easily pulverized by Team USA, the last two, Russia and Australia offered resistance to Team USA, and in doing so, gave us a glimpse into the weaknesses that may be the downfall of Team USA.

USA vs. Russia: The story of this game is that after the first quarter, the USA looked like they were going to cruise to another 30+ point victory, but Russia played an effective 2-3 zone and kept it close. After a 29-17 first quarter, Team USA outscored Russia 60-51 the rest of the way for an 89-68 win. It should be kept in mind that Russia are the reigning Eurobasket champions, beating Greece, Lithuania, and Spain along the way to the title last summer. Even though Spain beat Russia 91-56 back on July 20th, I'm going to attribute that to Russia's rustiness and working out a rotation more than Spain's overwhelming superiority, unless Spain has advanced that much in the last 12 months, or Russia has regressed that much. Judging by the way Russia played against the USA, I doubt Spain beat that Russia by 35.

Anyway, Russia is good, and we should already know that Team USA isn't going to beat run everyone out of the gym. I would take a 21-point win over Russia any day of the week. That game was certainly no cause for panic, but it did raise some concerns. Even though Team USA's offense looked awful, and very similar to the last few years' versions, i.e. little ball movement, or player movement away from the ball, it was actually pretty effective, thanks mostly to Deron Williams' poking holes through the zone (9 assists, 0 turnovers), and a little to Kobe for keeping the USA ahead when Russia was making it close. Over the last three quarters, in a mostly half-court game, USA shot 57% from the field, and made four of eight three-pointers and eight of 12 free throws. They also had 14 assists and 10 turnovers, while forcing only 12 turnovers from Russia (in other words, few fastbreaks). The relative lack of offensive production had more to do with the slower pace of the game than with an ineffective offense. The defense was fine, too. Russia only shot 39.7% from the field, and 4-17 from three (23.5%). The real reason why the game was so close was the lack of control of the defensive boards. Russia had 12 offensive boards and won the overall rebounding battle 43-35, thanks in large part to Carlos Boozer, Dwight Howard, and Chris Bosh combining for one rebound in 38 minutes. Bottom line, they killed Russia, a legitimate medal contender by a lot. If they play every game like they did, would they win gold? Probably. If the three big men can avoid being quite so invisible on the boards, the answer would change to "definitely."

USA vs. Australia: Australia is not very good. They will most likely be competing with Croatia for fourth place in Group A and a chance to face the winner of Group B (USA or Spain) in the quarterfinals. The 2006 team beat Australia 113-73 in the round of 16. The 2004 team beat Australia 89-79. However, the "Redeem Team" was only leading 46-42 early in the third quarter after leading 44-29 at halftime. They pulled out an ugly 87-76 win. Again, the offense involved too much dribbling, too much isolation, and too little movement of players and of the ball. While the Americans only shot 3-18 from three, a lot of the shots looked really good leaving their hands. They also shot 20-33 (60.6%) from the free throw line, thanks to Dwight Howard's pathetic 0-fer-6. Look at it this way. Let's say USA had shot 6-18 from three instead (which is still comfortably below their 40% over the five games). Suddenly, it turns into a 96-76 win, which is a certified ass-whooping. I know that's a big if, and that they don't allow mulligans when the real games start, but it's comforting that the team's floor is such that they can not throw the ball in the ocean and still score 87 points. The defense, on the other hand, was not as comforting. Australia, who were playing without Andrew Bogut, shot 47.5 percent from the field, and made eight of 20 threes. If the USA plays like this in the real tournament, they will not win gold.

It's now clearer than ever that Team USA will not steamroll their opponents to the gold medal. However, there are a few bright spots to be taken away from the last two exhibitions. 1) These games were a wake-up call. The games will not be a series of uncontested alley-oops and one-on-zero fastbreaks. 2) Contrary to the claims of some, Team USA does in fact have an effective half-court offense. It can be ugly and it can struggle at times, but every team has lulls where they struggle to score, and teams don't get extra points for playing beautiful basketball. 3) Much of the ugliness of the Australia game can be attributed to the fact that they didn't practice the day before the game. A lot of times, especially in the third quarter, Australia was running the simple kind of plays that would have been stopped if the USA was prepared and had studied the scouting reports, which they probably will do in the real games. I consider it like the annual UA pre-Christmas game, when the team isn't really itself and so loses a game they should win or badly loses a game that should at least be close. If USA meets Australia in the medal round, I highly doubt Australia keeps it within 11 (or 20, for that matter). 4) When opponents made runs to make a game close, USA never panicked and calmly rebuilt the lead. When Lithuania cut 17-point half-time deficit to 9 points with a bunch of early third quarter threes, USA made some adjustments and went on a 14-3 run that put them ahead 75-55. When Russia was down just 10 with a few minutes left in the third, USA went on a 10-0 run that effectively put the game away. When Australia cut a 15-point half-time deficit to four points in the third quarter, USA went on a 7-2 mini-run, eventually building the lead to 16 with two minutes left in the game, before Australia whittled the final deficit to 11. On past teams, players responded to adversity with hero's complexes (2002), rattled confidence (2006), or plain old awfulness (2004). The leadership on this team raises the floor of this team and makes the team less vulnerable.

USA vs. Turkey and USA vs. Lithuania

While Canada sucks at basketball, Turkey is almost respectable, and Lithuania is probably one of the top six teams in the Olympics. Therefore, these two games revealed more about Team USA than the Canada game.

USA vs. Turkey:
Let's start out by examining how good Turkey is. In the 2007 and 2005 Eurobasket Championships, they went a combined 2-8, with the two wins coming against the Czech Republic in 2007 and Bulgaria in overtime in 2005. Last year's team suffered a 17-point loss to Lithuania, a 30-point loss to Germany, a 15-point loss to Slovenia, and a 21-point loss to France. At the 2006 WBC, they finished fifth behind Spain, Greece, USA, and Argentina, which looks impressive until you realize their group play consisted of two-point wins over Lithuania and Brazil, and a mere seven-point win over Qatar (who are exactly as good at basketball as you'd think). They lost to Argentina 83-58 in the quarterfinals. Team USA should win by 35.

How did Team USA do in the three criteria I mentioned in the USA vs. Canada post?
Solid Defense: F for the first quarter, A for the last three. USA started with the too-much-of-the-court pressure instead of locking down the last third of the court, and as a result, Turkey scored 30 first quarter points. When the Americans played a less risky defense over the last three quarters, Turkey scored 7, 22, and 23 points.

Protecting the rim and the defensive glass: D. Allowing 16 offensive rebounds is not very impressive. Luckily, Turkey didn't seem to capitalize with putbacks. Preventing easy buckets and controlling the backboards are usually a foundation for any great team, but I think this team could probably win by an average of 25 points a game without outrebounding their opponents. Not that they'd want to. Still, at the 2007 Olympic Qualifier, they only outrebounded opponents by an average of 2.9 per game, but outscored them by an average of 39.5 points per game. Granted, the Olympic field is going to be tougher than the Olympic Qualifier field, but obviously, this team's success doesn't depend on dominating the glass. Being able to outrebound teams would put less pressure on the other aspects of the game.

Patient and efficient offense: A. Except for the 17 turnovers, most of which were from trying to beat a zone with one pass instead of multiple passes, USA was excellent on offense. Six of 14 from three, 69.5% shooting overall, 26 of 32 free throws.

Overall: B. Really, the only available grades for this team are A and F. I'm not going to say there aren't moral victories in sports, but those usually involve things like overachieving, enjoying the unselfishness and teamwork, and generally reaching their full potential but just not being able to win against a better team. If USA plays reasonably near their potential, they will win. Therefore, anything less than a gold medal gets an F. No offense to the other teams, but the Gold medal is in USA's hands unless they give it away. Would Team USA win gold if they played every game like they did against Turkey? Maybe not, but the main weakness in this game was addressed by Coach K in the post-game press conference: "I think we’ve realized that we’re not going to blow a team out in the first quarter and just continue to play solid defensively and try and wear a team down. What we are coming off the bench with – are Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and etcetera. We have guys who can come in and wear a team down. Once we realize it’s not going to happen in the first quarter, but towards the middle of the second quarter and then towards the end of the third quarter where we can break the game open and that’s what we did. We allowed them to get into a little comfort zone because we tried to blow them out too fast." If they play every game like they did in last three quarters, which is more likely than playing like they did in the first quarter, they will win gold.


USA vs. Lithuania:
How good is Lithuania? Lithuania is probably somewhere between fourth and sixth best among teams in the Olympics this year. I have Russia, Greece, and them in fourth through sixth, but I haven't decided on the order. At the 2007 Eurobasket, they went undefeated until the semifinals, where they lost to eventual champion Russia 86-74, then beat Greece 78-69 for bronze. At the 2006 World Basketball Championship, they went 3-2 in their group, with a two point loss to Turkey, and an overtime loss to Greece. They actually led the group in scoring margin, but Greece (5-0) and Turkey (4-1) each had better records. After sqeezing by Italy in the round of sixteen, they lost to Spain 89-67. At the 2005 Eurobasket, they finished in fifth place with a 5-1 record. A week ago, they lost an exhibition match against Spain 91-66. The only teams I can say with certainty are better than Lithuania are Argentina, Spain, and USA. USA should win by 30.

Solid defense: B+. Team USA finally stopped the stupid press and instead tried to just plain shut down Lithuania. There were a few instances when Lithuania got easy buckets off the pick-and-roll even though pick-and-roll defense was supposed to be a point of emphasis in training camp after the Greece debacle. Also, occasionally, shooters were not closed out on, letting Lithuania shoot 55% from three (12-22). Lastly, USA committed way too many stupid fouls. Lithuania made 22 of 27 free throws.

Protecting the rim and the defensive glass: B. Eleven offensive rebounds for Lithuania and a 37-39 overall disadvantage for Team USA.

Patient and efficient offense: Thirty-four assists, 11 turnovers. Sixty-four percent shooting, 44 percent from three. They did struggle a little with the 2-3 zone, but Deron Williams was able to penetrate and do whatever he wanted inside. Importantly, they cut down on turnovers this game. The offense for this team is so good. They get so many easy baskets, especially in transition. It remains to be seen how they will do against a team with players who can handle half-court pressure, and are smart enough to send a few guys back in transition.

Overall: A. If they play every game like they played against Lithuania, they would win a gold medal.

USA vs. Canada

Last night's game against Canada was the first of five pre-Olympic exhibition games for Team USA. These games don't count for anything except helping Coach K settle on a rotation and to work out any last kinks.

Team Canada sucks, and the final score (120-65) was impressive. However, the Team USA's ability to crush bad teams has never been in doubt. The question is how able they are to avoid losing against the good teams. While the Canadas of the world are easily overrun by the superior athleticism of the Americans and eventually beat themselves with turnovers and bad offensive and defensive possessions, the Argentinas and Spains and Greeces don't get rattled, they don't make terrible mistakes on defense, and they don't waste offensive possessions. They have a plan and execute. In order to beat the good teams, Team USA will have to out-execute them. No relying on Anthony getting one-on-zero fast break dunks when opponents fail to get back in transition, no relying on opposing point guards to get flustered and turn the ball over when pressured. What will be required are solid defense that takes opponents out of their preferred offense, protecting the rim and the defensive glass, and patient and efficient offense.

How did Team USA do in these areas against Team Canada?
Solid defense: B. Canada got a lot of open looks, especially in the first quarter. However, after that, they didn't get a lot of good looks. Team USA's quick hands and quick feet are going to create turnovers, even against the best teams, but I wish K would cut out the 3/4 court pressure stuff. That's never ever going to work against NBA-quality point guards, which all of the good teams happen to have. I understand Coach K likes pressure defense, and that a team as athletic as this one should pressure opponents, but maybe the team would be better served shutting down the last 1/3 of the court, instead of kinda shutting down half or more.

Protecting the rim and the defensive glass: B. They outrebounded Canada 38-24, but then again, Canada sucks. This will probably be an issue for USA. I can see Team USA struggling against teams with good frontlines, not just with rebounding but with the prevention of layups and putbacks. Dwight Howard is the only natural shotblocking big man on the roster. Like a lot of people, I would like have liked to see Tyson Chandler on the roster instead of Tayshaun Prince. While having Tyson Chandler on the court lowers the team's offensive ceiling, it raises the team's defensive floor even more. Of course Tyson Chandler injured himself a little after Prince's selection, so it's a moot point.

Patient and efficient offense: A-. First of all, this team not only has zero problems with selfishness, shooting, rattleability, but there is not a trace of evidence that any of these things may manifest themselves. No one overdribbled, underpassed, exhibited a hero's complex, etc. In fact, no one's done that at all for the last 11 games, going back to the Olympic qualifier last year. USA was a little sloppy at times, committing 19 turnovers, hence the A-.

Overall: A. If they play every game like they did last night, they will win gold.

2007-8 NBA All Overrated Team

What makes someone overrated?

1) A player is overrated when he is thought to be better than he really is. Stephon Marbury used to be overrated, but now everyone realize he sucks, so he's no longer overrated. Being overrated doesn't mean someone is a bad player. It just means he is not as good as he is reputed to be.

2) Scoring is highly rated, while doing so efficiently is not. Therefore players who score a lot of points because of the sheer volume of shots tend to be overrated.

3) Rebounding is highly rated, but it should be kept in mind that players of certain positions should get more rebounds. For example, a point guard who grabs six rebounds per game is more valuable than a power forward who grabs eight (with regard to rebounding) because the point guard is getting more than his opponent while the power forward is grabbing fewer than his.

4) Defense is underrated. Players who do not play it well are overrated.

5) Having chemistry with teammates is underrated. Making things easier for teammates will help a player's team win, but a lot of little things go unnoticed, so players who do not do them tend to be overrated.

That gives you an idea of my philosophy. Without further ado, the players who received the most unwarranted praise during the 2007-8 NBA season:

1. Point Guard: Tony Parker. It is the role of the point guard to bring the ball up the floor, create for teammates, distribute the ball, and generally run the offense, and defend other point guards. Point guards are supposed to make things easier on offense for their teammates. Tony Parker does not. He gets a certain allocation of shots, which he makes with surprising efficiency, but Tim Duncan does most of the creating for himself or for others. The Spurs have had a good but not great offense, but to the extent that they have been successful, it has been because of their team defense, which cannot be attributed to Parker in any way. He's a top 10 point guard in the NBA, but I want to punch the tv whenever anyone (Mark Jackson) says Parker is a top five or better point guard. He's in the top five among point guards who don't get their teammates easy baskets. I'll give him that.
Dishonorable Mention: TJ Ford, Devin Harris, Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas

2. Shooting Guard: Kevin Durant. Yes, shooting guard. I read that Durant played shooting guard to avoid banging against bigger bodies. I don't know for sure if this is true because I was too busy not watching the Sonics to notice. He did redeem himself towards the end of the season, but from October through February, he averaged 19.3 points on 39.9% shooting, to go with 4.1 rebounds, and 2.3 assists. Four rebounds for a 6-9 guy with a 9 foot wingspan? 2.3 assists for a guy with an outstanding basketball IQ? I'm not saying he was that bad, or that he won't have a great career, but he was a one-dimensional player whose one dimension was overshooting.
Dishonorable Mention: Ben Gordon, Kobe Bryant

3. Small Forward: Tayshaun Prince. Tayshaun Prince is a pretty good defender, and an above average role player, but he went from underrated his first few years to overrated. He's a good role player you'd like to have on a good team, but averaging 13-5-3 doesn't merit a spot on the US National Team now that the national team is good again.
Dishonorable Mention: Paul Pierce, Luol Deng

4. Power Forward: Amare Stoudemire. Amare Stoudemire is a great finisher. If someone can create an open shot anywhere from 17 feet and in, he will probably make it. He's one of the best mid-range shooting power forwards in the NBA. But... he doesn't do all the things the make a big man truly dominant. He is a below average rebounder and a below average defender. This automatically rules him out of any consideration for dominant big man status. Plus, he doesn't create shots for himself or his teammates, and worst of all, he's an immature egomaniac. Examples:
In the 2005 season, he was fouled late in a close regular season game against the Spurs and before shooting free throws, he started doing pushups on the ground until Steve Nash pulled him up. Of course he missed a free throw that left his hands in a way that suggested he had been doing pushups or some other straining activity with his arms. He missed the free throw(s? Or one of two free throws? I can't remember) and the Suns ended up losing in overtime.
When Nash won his first MVP award, I remember Amare saying (although I can't find the quote) that he, Nash, and Shawn Marion were the MVPs, basically taking credit for winning the MVP. It's one thing for the MVP to share credit with teammates. It's another for a teammate to share his teammate's MVP's adulation with himself.
A quote I stumbled on when looking for the three-MVP quote was this gem from 2007: "In the MVP talk, remember that Steve Nash has three All-Stars and Dirk Nowitzki has two. Kobe Bryant has none." Translation: I'm great. Adulate me! Pay attention to me!"
Lastly, the suspension for leaving the bench. Is the rule stupid? Yes. Is Robert Horry a dick? Yes. Is David Stern and arrogant douche about the whole incident? Yes. But none of those things resulted in Amare (and Boris Diaw) being suspended. Amare chose to leave the bench. Horry and Stern didn't possess his soul and move his feet away from the bench and towards the mini-melee. Amare's own agency did that. He forgot the rule and in order to show his machisimo and toughness (and not to defend Nash, since Horry was already on his way to the Spurs bench), he chose to approach the melee, earning himself a suspension according to rule that every player should know.
It's widely accepted that the Spurs would have won the series anyway because the Spurs are just a terrible matchup for the Suns, but not by me. I've seen people ask, "was there ever a time when you thought the Suns had a chance to beat the Spurs in the playoffs?" and my answer would be "yes, only in 2007." The altercation took place after Game 4 had been decided, therefore games 1-4 (which were split 2-2) were not affected by the suspensions, right? Amare and Boris were back for game 6, so we can agree that game 6, which the Spurs won, was not affected by the suspensions, right? How about Game 5? Let's compare the Suns scoring output and shooting percentage in games 1,2,3,4, and 6 to those of Game 5. Scoring in games 1,2,3,4, and 6 (in order): 106, 101, 101, 104, 106. Field goal percentage in the same games: 46, 53, 49, 48, 48. Averages, 103.6 points on 48.8% shooting. How'd they do in Game 5: 85 points on 40% shooting. Now, I can't guarantee that Amare would have prevented an 85-88 loss, but considering that the Spurs' defensive strategy was to let Amare go off as long as the shooters didn't go off (hence Amare's huge series in 2005), there's a very good chance that if we could go in a time machine, the Suns would have played a Game 7 instead of ending losing the series 4-2. Would the Suns have won a Game 7? I don't know, and anyone who pretends to is full of shit. But the Suns had a chance to win a championship, and Amare did his part to throw it away.
One last note on Amare: To give you an idea of what to expect from the post-Nash, Amare-"led" Suns, assuming he stays here, let's look at his record without Nash since the 04-05 season: 23.5 points on 49.4% shooting, four wins, ten losses, and a scoring margin of -6.7 ppg (103.3-110). Impressive. I guess that's why Nash pretended to endorse Amare for MVP this past season.
Dishonorable Mention: Lamarcus Aldridge

5. Center: Shaquille O'Neal. The field for overrated centers isn't very strong, but Steve Kerr's overrating of Shaq gives Shaq the honor. The Suns' record and scoring average before the Shaq/Marion-Banks trade: 34-14 (58-24 over 82), 109.4-103.3 (+6.1) After the trade: 21-13 (51-31), 111-107.5 (+3.5). When I looked at the 2005-7 Suns, I always thought to myself, if only the Suns could give up four more points per game, they'd be able to contend for a championship. The 1999-2002 Shaq was indisputably the best player in the NBA, but the 2008 Shaq is old, slow, and over the hill. You know what else he's over? Rated.
Dishonorable Mention: Nah.

Kenya Basketball Terrorists

I was looking over the to fiba.com news archive see what was going on before the Olympics when I saw this.

All NBA Actual Team

The All NBA Teams are chosen by selecting two guards, two forwards, and one center for each team. The DBT "All NBA Actual Team" is selected by myself and consists of five players who would make up the best lineup in the NBA, if they actually had to play together. In other words, it's not a matter of simply picking the best point guard, the best shooting guard, etc. The players would have to fit together and form a great whole.

The 2007-8 All NBA Actual Team:

Point Guard: Deron Williams- There's a very clear line separating the top three point guards in the NBA from the rest. Williams, Chris Paul, and Steve Nash are the top three. Whereas Paul and Nash are the centerpieces of their respective teams, around whose playmaking the entire offense revolves, Williams plays in a more diverse offense in which he distributes the ball and even plays off the ball at times, in addition to pick-and-rolling like the others. I think Williams would be the most capable of thriving in an offense that doesn't revolve around him.

Shooting Guard: Kobe Bryant- He can play on or off the ball, defend, shoot from distance. Who else is there?

Small Forward: Shawn Marion- He rebounds awesomely for his position, scores 18-20 per game without dominating or even holding the ball for long periods of time, is a good defender, and he can finish on the break. You did know that this is an uptempo team, right? He's a great fit for an uptempo team. If you run an uptempo team, and he's on your team, you probably shouldn't trade him for a fat old tird. Hypothetically. Why not Lebron? Because the way Lebron played this year (dribbling 16 seconds per possession) wouldn't fit in with this team, or any great team, for that matter (Bravo, Mike Brown). The team could sure use his passing, though.

Power Forward: Kevin Garnett- He excels at everything except at being the alpha leader, which he wouldn't have to do on this team. He rebounds, plays defense, and is unselfish. Plus, there wouldn't be as much pressure on him to score in the low post, with the center in the middle.

Center: Dwight Howard- It's hard not to pick Tim Duncan because he's won so much and he's been a top 3 player for about a decade, but I think this year is the first post-dominant Shaq year when Duncan wouldn't be the All NBA Actual Center. While Tim Duncan is a better passer and a smarter basketball player, Dwight is a much better rebounder, much younger, and I'm not sure how Tim Duncan would fit into an uptempo offense since he's old and the Spurs have been balls-twistingly slow for as long as he's been there. I suppose I'd trust him with an outlet pass more than Dwight, but overall, I would cautiously say that Dwight Howard has passed Tim Duncan as the best big man in the NBA.

2008 NBA Finals

This was probably the most highly anticipated NBA Finals in 10 years. The polarizing Kobe Bryant and the Lakers on one side versus Kevin Garnett and his Celtics on the other. Kobe trying to prove he can win a title without Shaq. Garnett trying to prove he can win a title. The best team in the East versus the best team in the West. The two best teams in the NBA were facing each other for the first time in 10 years. And of course, Celtics versus Lakers.

Of all the aforementioned storylines, the most overrated was easily the Celtics-Lakers rivalry. In the 80's, when the Celtics-Lakers rivalry was at its best*, the teams had two opposing identities: the Lakers, personified by Magic, were flashy and exciting, while the Celtics, personified by Bird, were hard-nosed and white. Really white. Just as importantly, both teams had an aura of greatness about them. Not just the teams, but the clubs themselves. The Lakers and Celtics were good then, they had been good in the past, they would be good in the near future, and they would probably always be good. The Celtics and the Lakers weren't just any other team.

Now, they are just two other teams. In the seasons between Celtics last two championships, they have gone 837-853 (40.6 wins per 82). There's no sense of inevitability about their greatness. Last season, there was no difference between playing the Celtics and playing the Charlotte Bobcats, except the Bobcats were better. Opponents didn't mark the Celtics on their calendars and weren't in awe when they stepped onto the court in the TD Banknorth Garden. Fans didn't care when they saw the Celtics were next in the same way that baseball fans' eyes light up when they say even an average Yankees team on the schedule. The Celtics just aren't special. The Lakers aren't either. They missed the playoffs in 2005 and deservedly lost in the first round the following two seasons.

Yeah, the Celtics and Lakers were both really good this year, it's hard to think of these two teams as having a rivalry when one has been nondescript and average for 20 years, and the other had been under .500 for the three seasons preceding this one combined.

But I digress. Some of the other storylines are still interesting though:

Kobe trying to prove he can win a title without Shaq. Well, he didn't do it this year, but he probably will next year, and maybe a few years after that. And yes, I did just barf a little.

Garnett trying to prove he can win a title. There was never any doubt about this for me. The problem with KG is that he can't take over at the end of games, and he doesn't really make his teammates better. Some people misidentified him as a good numbers/bad team type of player because, well, because he put up great numbers on mediocre teams for so many years. The method of good numbers/bad team players is that they're usually inefficient, and don't positively impact their teammates. For example, someone who scores a lot of points by shooting a high percentage of the team's shots, or gets a lot of assists by dominating the ball and refusing to get hockey assists (which they don't get credit for). Garnett, on the other hand, has always shot the ball efficiently, and rebounded very well. It's not like he averaged 13 rebounds per game the last three seasons, but he would have averaged 10 per game if only he were on a good team. Garnett is a flawed player, but he's definitely not a loser. Now, no one can say he is.

Another storyline about the Finals would be the continuing evolution of Kobe Bryant, but I think I have a bigger post in store for him, so I'll hold off on that for now. I'll just say right now that no matter what happens the next few years, Kobe < MJ.

*Of course, the Lakers and Celtics played in the Finals six times in the 60's, but the Celtics won all of them. It wasn't so much a rivalry as it was a nonstop ownage. It was Malone and Stockton versus Jordan's Bulls, but three times as bad.

Notes on Boston-Cleveland series

I was going to do a review and preview of all the series, but some of the matchups didn't interest me, and I had no desire to write anything. Here's a little something I wrote about the second round match-up between the Cavaliers and the Celtics:



1 Boston Celtics def. 4 Cleveland Cavaliers (4-1)- Every game was won by the home team. Luckily, Boston had home-court advantage, so they move on. For all the talk about how bad Lebron's teammates are, it was they who carried him in this series. The team defense held the Celtics (who averaged 100.5 points during the regular season) to 84 per game for seven games. If Lebron hadn't shot 2-18 (0-6 from 3) and committed 10 turnovers in Game 1, they would have won the series.

Sometimes it seems like Lebron forgets how good he is. He keeps dribbling and dribbling, looking for a driving lane, and then other times, he just knifes through defenders and gets to the hoop at will. He did the same thing in the 2006 WBC against Greece, where he looked clueless until the last few minutes, when he had an epiphany and realized he could get to the rim and finish against anybody.

Is there a worse offensive coach in the NBA than Mike Brown? Consider they have Lebron James, who, while not without his faults, is already one of the most unstoppable offensive players ever. He can drive to the rim, finish, pass, and for the most part, makes good decisions. He shot 48.4% from the field without a trustworthy jumpshot, got to the line, and averaged 30 points and 7.2 assists. While Lebron doesn't have an all-time great supporting cast, he does have teammates with complimentary skills. Zydrunas Ilgauskas can create his own shot in the low post and can make open mid- and long-range jumpshots. And he's an above average passer for a center. Pavlovic is a good spot-up shooter, and part of the reason he makes such poor decisions is because of the Cavs' (non-)system. Daniel Gibson and Delonte West are both good shooters (Gibson being a great one), who aren't pure point guards, but any offense with someone like Lebron (or Kobe or Michael) doesn't need a pure point guard. They need a point guard who can get the ball up the court, distribute the ball, knock down open jump shots, and generally play off of them. Think John Paxson, B.J. Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Derek Fisher. None of these guys are above average NBA point guards, but they each won three championships by compimenting superstars. Are Daniel Gibson and Delonte West any worse than these guys? Also, the Cavs were second in the league in offensive rebounding, due to defenders losing rebounding position to rotate to Lebron, and Anderson Varejao's and Ilguaskas' offensive rebounding process. What kind of offense has Coach Mike been able to mold with these parts? The 19th best in the league. Where would they rank without Lebron, good shooters, and so many offensive rebounds and putbacks? Whenever I watch the Cavs, I find myself wondering how good their offense would be if Phil Jackson was coaching them.

I like Kevin Garnett, but his weaknesses were really on show during this series. That he's better off as a sidekick and that he isn't clutch is already well known, but what jumped out at me was how much energy he spends letting everyone know how much energy he's spending. He yelled, he pounded his chest, he goal tended shots after fouls, but did he or his teammates outwork their Cavalier counterparts?

David's Awards: 2008 NBA MVP

The 2008 NBA MVP race is the best in a few years for several reasons:

1. There have been three different players who were on pace to win the MVP for an extended period of time, and one who should have been but wasn't because the winner was decided before the All-Star Break.

2. Each of the top five candidates play different positions and have different games. Chris Paul is a strong, fast, explosive point guard. Kobe Bryant is a scoring specialist who has specialized in winning more than scoring for a change. Lebron James is a 6-8, 250 pound point-power-forward-guard, who could potentially average 35 points a game as easily as 10 assists over a season. Kevin Garnett is an unselfish, versatile power forward who set the unofficial record in intangible differences made on teammates. Dwight Howard is a legitimate center and probably the most powerful player in the NBA.

3. The candidates are really good this year. With all due respect to Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki, they didn't so much win the the last three MVPs as the MVPs fell into their laps because no one else won them. The last few years, the question was who's the least undeserving. This year, it's who's the most deserving.

On to my picks. There were five players who distanced themselves from the pack. Here they are in reverse order:

5. Dwight Howard:
The Good: Howard, who's only 22, played all 82 games (for the fourth year in a row), averaging 20.7 points on 59.9% shooting, 14.2 rebounds, and 2.1 blocks. So he scored a decent amount on few shots, rebounded well for his position and protected the rim. He also drew enough attention that his team shot 38.6% from three, 4th best in the NBA.

The Bad: Even though he creates open shots for his teammates just by being on the court, he still isn't a good passer, and needs to do better at making things easier for his teammates in order to be a true MVP. Also, he disappears too often. He's had 10 field goals or fewer in 27 games. Granted, his point guards aren't exactly 50-win-NBA-team-starting-point-guards quality, and they deserve some of the blame for that, but still, MVPs aren't taken out of a game so easily. Lastly, unlike the top four he doesn't pass the litmus test I described in my post about annoying MVP criteria: "Can I picture David Stern saying into a microphone, "Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm proud to present the award for the 2007-2008 National Basketball Association's Most Valuable Player to Dwight Howard of the Orlando Magic."? No. Not this year.

4. Kobe Bryant:
The Good: The 29 year old played 82 games, averaging 28.3 points, 6.3 rebounds, 5.4 assists, 7.6 free throws out of 9 attempts, none of which are all-time impressive, but the Lakers' offense works best when there isn't anyone putting up all-time numbers. His numbers are comparable to Jordan's during the Bulls' threepeats, but not quite as many points, and a lot more missed shots, and worse defense. He is finally trusting his teammates to make plays, and is more willing to do things that help the team win but that won't necessarily bring credit to him, like make passes that lead to assists, outlet passes, make cuts to open spaces and not necessarily to get the ball.

The Bad: He still takes too many horrible, sometimes indefensible, shots. Someone with his ability to get to the basket, his ability to shoot, and in an offense like the triangle should shoot 50% from the field easily. Instead, he shot 45.9% (the Lakers as a whole shot 47.6%). He took 20.6 shots per game this year, after shooting 22.8 per game last year, and 27.2 the year before. You'd think if he took 6 fewer shots per game, he'd pass on mostly the bad ones and keep the good ones, but not really. He doesn't really change his proportion of bad shots, and his field goal percentage doesn't change much either.

Is he a better teammate than he's ever been? Sure, but consider what an ass he's been and still is. From the Washington Post April 15th: ""This is a special crew. I have more bullets in the chamber now," Bryant said. "We had Smush Parker, who is not really playing now. We had Kwame Brown, who's in Memphis and not really playing much now. That was my point guard and my center, and in a pretty tough Western Conference, we still managed to win 45 games [in 2005-06] and get in contention. Now I'm fortunate to have weapons that my peers have had the last several years, with [Amare] Stoudemire and [Shawn] Marion, [Tony] Parker and [Manu] Ginóbili. Now I have weapons.""

There is probably a lot about Kobe's psychology that can be concluded from this, but I'd like to focus on one thing: his lack of empathy. Empathy plays a big part in teamwork. I'll help you make a shot because if you make a shot, I feel the same as if I hit the shot myself. I'll set a screen, or run the floor, or make an outlet pass, or shoot, or do whatever helps my teammates, because when they do something good, I feel like I've done something good. Kobe does not feel empathy with his teammates. That's why he specifically called out two of his former teammates and told the world, "they suck. They are the reason we weren't as good the last few years. Kwame and Smush. It's their fault." He's the hero, and they are either impediments to his success, or objects at his disposal. I'm not just deducing this from his above comments. It's evident in how he has played the last 12 years.

While it's true that he's toned down his douchebaggery this year, he's still not as well-liked by his teammates as the top three...

3. Lebron James:
The Good: Lebron, who is 23, played 75 games, during which the Cavaliers went 45-30 (49-33 over 82), and lost all seven without him. He averaged 30 points on 48.4% shooting, 7.9 rebounds, 7.2 assists, 1.8 steals, and 1.1 blocks. His defense has improved a lot over the last few years. He is better at making his teammates better than anyone in the NBA outside of Steve Nash and Chris Paul. He gets to the line a lot. He's one of the top five passers in the NBA, at least.

The Bad: His jump shot is still streaky. He shoots too many threes. He misses too many free throws for a wing player. Although he takes too many bad shots, that can mostly be attributed to his coach, whose offense system has been described as "the random offense" (YAYsports!) or the "Look at Lebron. He's so shiny" offense (Basketbawful). As good a passer as Lebron is, he's not a point guard. If the Cavs are in a play, and he gets the ball, he'll make the right decision every time (i.e. when and where to shoot, or pass, or dribble.) When he has to make a play out of nothing, he doesn't know what to do and instead settles for his terrible jump shot. As Charley Rosen pointed out, "[h]ere's an obscure stat to ponder: In the Cavs' half-court sets, LBJ received 40 passes when he was stationary and only seven passes when he was in motion. Subtracting the shots that he took (1-3), James wound up cashing in four of his dimes after he caught the ball on the move." In other words, if the defense is already out of position and scrambling by the time Lebron gets the ball, he will recognize a weakness and exploit it. He's a genius, remember? If he gets the ball while nine other players stand around, he has a harder time orchestrating a play that will allow him to exploit a weakness. That's where running an offense should come in.

While I think Lebron has played the best basketball for most of the year until Chris Paul went bonkers after the ALL-Star Break, I can't put him ahead of Paul because he still didn't perform as well as he could have. Steve Nash's performances during his MVP seasons were helped by playing in a system that maximized his abilities and impact. He wasn't punished for this. By the opposite token, Lebron's performance this year was hurt by playing in a terrible offense, and he shouldn't be rewarded or given any handicap points for that. This is the third season he's been the consensus preseason MVP pick, both for the media and for me, and for the third season in a row, he's failed to win the MVP. He'll probably be the preseason MVP pick next year, too.

2. Chris Paul:
The Good: Paul, who just turned 23, averaged 21.1 points on .488/.369/.851 shooting, 4.0 rebounds, and 11.6 assists, and 2.7 steals. He became the 8th player to average 20 points and 10 assists for a season, joining Oscar Robertson (62, 64-7) Nate Archibald (73), Isiah Thomas (84-7), Magic Johnson (87, 89, 90), Kevin Johnson (89-91), Tim Hardaway (92, 93) and last and least, Michael Adams (91*). After the All-Star Break, he averaged 21.9/4.1/12.6 on 50.7/41.5/82.3 shooting, and 25 and 11.3 on 51% shooting during his first 10 playoff games.

The Bad: There's not much bad. I will point out that the Hornets had the 5th best offense, while the Deron Williams-led Jazz had the best. Also, although this doesn't really hurt his case for MVP, it's not pointed out often enough that he's kinda dirty. Because he's so fun to watch, people who should know better either overlook or sometimes even praise his shoves, elbows, and other dirty stuff. In college, he punched Julius Hodge in the balls, for God's sake. That's not feisty or tough. That's bullshit. No one should get a free pass to act like Bruce Bowen or Bill Laimbeer. Let's not be hypocritical, okay. Also, I know I'm in the minority here, but I still think Deron Williams is better, but that's perhaps a topic for another day, preferably an offseason day.

1. Kevin Garnett:
The Good: His numbers were deflated by his reduction in playing time. His per-38 minute numbers were 21.8/10.7/4. Not that great, I'll grant you, but his main contribution was in intangibles. Garnett changed the culture of the team. They're the only NBA team that has the intensity and solidarity of a college team. Are they going to win a championship? Probably not, but they won 66 games and had a scoring margin of +10.4. Only the 1962 Celtics, the 1972 Lakers, and the 92, 96, and 97 Bulls had a double-digit average scoring margin. Let that sink in. Of the top 10 All Time Teams named in the NBA's 50th anniversary, seven didn't outscore their opponents by double digits. The 2007-8 Celtics did.

As Bill Simmons put it, "Look at the Celtics last season and look at them this season. Does any of the good stuff happen without Garnett? Any of it?" I say no.

The Bad: He doesn't take over down the stretch. As good as he is, and as efficient as he is, he's not a take charge and lead the team in the clutch kind of leader. Also, he spends twice as much energy as anyone else on the court, but half that energy is spent letting everyone know how much energy he's spending (popping his jersey, talking/yelling to himself/others, goaltending shots after the whistle, etc.)

But none of that is why he isn't winning the award. Before this season, he had one MVP and Kobe Bryant had zero. If Garnett hadn't won an MVP before, and Kobe had, is there any chance Garnett doesn't get it this year? No.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm proud to present the David's Basketball Thoughts Award for the 2007-2008 National Basketball Association's Most Valuable Player to Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics. Congratulations.

*The 1990-1 Denver Nuggets made no effort to win baskeball games. They basically let opponents score so they could get the ball back and pad their stats. They gave up 130.8 points per game.

Second Round Midview

Sorry I was too lazy to do a preview.

East:

1 Boston Celtics vs. 4 Cleveland Cavaliers: Here we have the most overachieving team of the regular season against the most underachieving team. The Celtics' biggest strength was how hard they worked. Yeah, they were unselfish on offense and played great defense, but that stems from literally playing with playoff-level intensity all season. The Cavaliers had contract holdouts, Lebron missing seven games (0-7), injuries, and a late-season trade. Now, both teams are at 100% and trying 100%, and there isn't much difference between the two teams.

In Game 1, Lebron shot 2-18 (0-6 from three) and committed 10 turnovers, the Cavs shot 31% and 22% from three (4-18), yet had a lead with 90 seconds left, were tied with 39 seconds left, and Lebron missed a freakin' layup that would have tied the game with nine seconds left. While the Celtics played poorly, the Cavaliers played abominably. I think the Cavaliers have more room for improvement than the Celtics.

Mike Brown is an awful offensive coach, but he is a great defensive coach. The Cavs were fourth in the league last year in defensive efficiency, and were only 12th this year, but the Varejao holdout and then injury hurt them. Since January they've given up 95.2 points per game, which would be fifth in the league. The Cavaliers don't give up easy baskets and they rebound the ball well (#1 in rebounding margin this year). Defense is less flashy and sometimes overlooked, but the Cavs almost won a road playoff game over a 66-win team in which they shot 31%. Good defense is less noticeable than bad defense. When your team is contesting shots, getting stops, and grabbing rebounds, it's easy to take it for granted, but when they're giving up open threes and uncontested layups and dunks and putbacks, you start pulling your hair out. The Cavs usually look bad, but give them credit. They're going to have a chance to win most games.

Prediction: Cavs in six. The Celtics haven't impressed me at all. Even ignoring the seven-game series with the 37-45 Hawks, I think their biggest strength, playoff-intensity, has been factored out because everyone's raised themselves to the Celtics' level. Also, the Cavs really should have won Game 1, and I think they are less likely to play as terribly as the Celtics are.

2 Detroit Pistons vs. 3 Orlando Magic: I don't have any more insight than I did when I wrote my original playoff preview. Well, besides the first three games of the series, but I didn't watch any of them.

Prediction: Pistons in six.

West:

1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. 4 Utah Jazz: In my original preview, I wrote, "[t]his matchup, should it occur, would showcase the fourth and fifth highest scoring teams in the NBA (behind Golden State, Phoenix, and Denver)." Obviously, I would want to watch this one, right? Yes, but I didn't want to hear commentators frothing at the mouth when describing the 2008 MVP. I didn't want to hear the Laker faithful cheering "MVP" whenever Kobe did something good. I originally predicted the Lakers would win in six.

Prediction: Lakers in five, with the Lakers winning either Game 3 or 4, and being blown out in the other one, then finishing up at home.

2 New Orleans Hornets vs. 3 San Antonio Spurs: Chris Paul is really good. 24/5/12 on 50% shooting for the playoffs. The Spurs are really old. While it may seem like the Spurs are good since they just beat the Suns, keep in mind that the Suns are no longer good. I originally picked the Mavericks to win this series, and while I'm tempted to stick by that prediction, I am actually going to change my prediction and go with the Hornets.

Prediction: Hornets in five. While I should be careful not to underestimate the experience and discipline of the Spurs, I should also be careful not to underestimate the unstoppability and genius of Chris Paul. Does anyone have an answer for Chris Paul?