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.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)