Four minutes in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa1eouEYGiQ&feature=channel
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Congratulations, Lakers
While I despise the Lakers and their fans as much as all right-thinking people do, I can't find the result of the 2009 NBA Finals all that disagreeable.
First of all, the Lakers are a great team. I know some people like the cinderalla team- an average team that gets lucky at the right time to defeat superior teams, but I don't. I feel like the point of competition is to determine which team is best. If the championship goes to a team that isn't the best, isn't the system of competition a little screwed up? This season, there were only two candidates for team of the year, and the Magic weren't one of them.
I'm not using the term "great" lightly, either. The Cavs and Lakers each had gears that no other teams had. Between Jordan's last championship in 1998 and the Celtics' championship in 2008, the poster-team of the NBA was the Spurs, a very good but not legitimately great team (except for 2007) that took advantage of the absence of great teams to win four championships. The only great teams between 1999 and 2007 were the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, who repeatedly thrashed the Spurs, and the 2007 Spurs. In the last two seasons, there have been three great teams, and it's only appropriate that two of them went on to win championships.
Secondly, putting aside Phil Jackson's douchiness, and Kobe's superdouchiness, the Lakers play how basketball is supposed to be played- tough defense and a frenetic, uptempo, and improvisational, non-micromanaged offense with constant moving and unselfishness.
To the extent that basketball is a beautiful game, it's because it showcases individualism, creativity, improvisation, and of course, mesmerizing athleticism. While Phil Jackson doesn't make players more athletic, his offensive philosophy doesn't involve micromanaging automaton players like a football offense. His players are not chess pieces to be manipulated by the master strategist a la Larry Brown's boring-ass teams. Instead, they work in a flexible structure where players work together to create shots and read and react to the defense.
Thirdly, Kobe. Kobe's detestable characteristics are less severe than they have been in the past. He still has his flaws (shot selection, horrible teammate, etc.) all of which are rooted in the same personal defect (he's a narcissist sociopath), but he is very good. Basketbawful regrets living in a world where Antoine Walker and Sasha Vujicic are NBA champions, but can anyone say that Kobe is not a worthy NBA champion? Given my own avowed distaste for lucky teams and players, and my appreciation of worthy ones, I can't help but congratulate the Lakers on their 10th championship.
First of all, the Lakers are a great team. I know some people like the cinderalla team- an average team that gets lucky at the right time to defeat superior teams, but I don't. I feel like the point of competition is to determine which team is best. If the championship goes to a team that isn't the best, isn't the system of competition a little screwed up? This season, there were only two candidates for team of the year, and the Magic weren't one of them.
I'm not using the term "great" lightly, either. The Cavs and Lakers each had gears that no other teams had. Between Jordan's last championship in 1998 and the Celtics' championship in 2008, the poster-team of the NBA was the Spurs, a very good but not legitimately great team (except for 2007) that took advantage of the absence of great teams to win four championships. The only great teams between 1999 and 2007 were the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, who repeatedly thrashed the Spurs, and the 2007 Spurs. In the last two seasons, there have been three great teams, and it's only appropriate that two of them went on to win championships.
Secondly, putting aside Phil Jackson's douchiness, and Kobe's superdouchiness, the Lakers play how basketball is supposed to be played- tough defense and a frenetic, uptempo, and improvisational, non-micromanaged offense with constant moving and unselfishness.
To the extent that basketball is a beautiful game, it's because it showcases individualism, creativity, improvisation, and of course, mesmerizing athleticism. While Phil Jackson doesn't make players more athletic, his offensive philosophy doesn't involve micromanaging automaton players like a football offense. His players are not chess pieces to be manipulated by the master strategist a la Larry Brown's boring-ass teams. Instead, they work in a flexible structure where players work together to create shots and read and react to the defense.
Thirdly, Kobe. Kobe's detestable characteristics are less severe than they have been in the past. He still has his flaws (shot selection, horrible teammate, etc.) all of which are rooted in the same personal defect (he's a narcissist sociopath), but he is very good. Basketbawful regrets living in a world where Antoine Walker and Sasha Vujicic are NBA champions, but can anyone say that Kobe is not a worthy NBA champion? Given my own avowed distaste for lucky teams and players, and my appreciation of worthy ones, I can't help but congratulate the Lakers on their 10th championship.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Cleveland Steamers
To sum up the Cavs-Magic series, Lebron averaged 38.5/8.3/8 on 48.7% shooting, including 41.2/8.6/8.2 on 50% shooting over the first five games, which would have been enough to win the series if any of his teammates had shown up. What did they have to do? Play a modicum of defense and hit some wide-open shots.
Defense: In four losses, the Cavs gave up 106.3 points per game on 48.8% shooting, including 42.3% from three(at 11 3-pointers per game) in six games, compared to the Magic's season averages of 101 points on 45.6%/38.2% shooting. Fail.
Hitting wide open shots: In four losses, Lebron's teammates (steamers) shot 41.8% from the field including 29.5% from three. Particularly pitiful were the shooting performances in Games 1 and 4, a one- and two-point loss, respectively. In Game 1, the steamers shot 39.7% from the field and 26.3% from three (5-19), wasting Lebron's 49-6-8, 20-30, 3-6, 6-10 performance. In Game 4, the steamers shot a somewhat low but respectable 44.8% from the field, but a very low and unrespectable 16.7% from three (2-12), wasting Lebron's 44-12-7.
Obviously, the numbers don't always tell the whole story, but let me assure you that in this case, they do not lie. The steamers had lots of open shots and falled to hit them. They also failed to offer any resistance to Orlando's offense.
What a waste of one of the best individual performances ever.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Checking In
I know it's been a while, and for that I apologize to my legions of fan who patiently waits for my next post. Unfortunately, I've been suffering a prolonged bout of laconism, as I am wont to do.
My last thoughtful post was about the all-star game, and who I thought should have played. I put some thought into it, and was a little annoyed that NBA coaches, who choose the reserves, are apparently retarded. So annoyed in fact, that I didn't even bother choosing all-stars for both conferences.
I've since decided to move in a different direction as far as content goes. Instead of being a poor man's SI.com, ESPN.com, or what have you, with league-wide, team-by-team content, I'm going to adopt a more freedarko-like model, in which I riff about whatever interests me. After all, I don't watch enough NBA games to have a well-rounded and informed opinion on every team, so why do I even write previews and reviews pretending I do?
When I first created David Basketball Thoughts, I intended to write about issues that weren't getting enough attention, or to question widely held assumptions about the NBA, or basketball in general. I think part of the reason I neglected my blog was because I stopped writing about the kind of stuff that interested me: how Lakers fans are annoying and delusional, how Bruce Bowen is an ass, who's over/underrated, how the Cavaliers were under the radar for a good part of this season.
Anyway, I hope to start writing more soon, starting with a review of some of the first round. Or something else. I haven't decided yet.
My last thoughtful post was about the all-star game, and who I thought should have played. I put some thought into it, and was a little annoyed that NBA coaches, who choose the reserves, are apparently retarded. So annoyed in fact, that I didn't even bother choosing all-stars for both conferences.
I've since decided to move in a different direction as far as content goes. Instead of being a poor man's SI.com, ESPN.com, or what have you, with league-wide, team-by-team content, I'm going to adopt a more freedarko-like model, in which I riff about whatever interests me. After all, I don't watch enough NBA games to have a well-rounded and informed opinion on every team, so why do I even write previews and reviews pretending I do?
When I first created David Basketball Thoughts, I intended to write about issues that weren't getting enough attention, or to question widely held assumptions about the NBA, or basketball in general. I think part of the reason I neglected my blog was because I stopped writing about the kind of stuff that interested me: how Lakers fans are annoying and delusional, how Bruce Bowen is an ass, who's over/underrated, how the Cavaliers were under the radar for a good part of this season.
Anyway, I hope to start writing more soon, starting with a review of some of the first round. Or something else. I haven't decided yet.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Who should be selected in the 2009 NBA All-Star Game, Part I
Ideally, the best players would be the players we most want to watch. As much as some blowhards will attempt to browbeat us into thinking otherwise, enjoyability and effectiveness are not directly proportional. There are great players who are boring to watch, and there are exciting players who aren't that great. Since this is an all-star game, a player's basketball ability is not the only factor in determining the worthiness of his inclusion.
I'm not sure how the reserves' positions are chosen. I think it's two guards, two forwards, one center and two more at any position. At least that's what I'm going by for the sake of this post.
Western Conference:
Starters:
Guards: Chris Paul and Kobe Bryant. The best point guard and shooting guard in the NBA, respectively.
Forwards: Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki. After reading the intro, one might assume that Duncan would miss the list, but he's sixth on the MVP list this season, trailing only the Big Five. The Spurs are quietly on pace to win 56 games or so this year with Tony Parker (frighteningly overrated), Manure Ginobili (who has missed 13 of San Antonio's 43 games), Michael Finley (who is older than Greg Oden looks), Roger Mason, and a bunch of guys who are not good at basketball (Bruce Lee Bowen, Matt Bonner, George Hill).
I think a lot of people, myself included, have had enough Dirk Nowitzki in their lives over the last few years, what with his team in the finals one year, winning 67 games the next, and Dirk winning the MVP trophy by default. Now, his team's championship window has closed without them grabbing a championship. However, he's playing about as well as ever, averaging 26/8.5/2.5 on 48/38/92 shooting.
Center: Yao Ming. Center isn't the strongest position in the NBA, so 19.6 and 9.5 in 33 minutes is enough for starting honors in the West. Also, he's shooting 87% from the free throw line, which is pretty good touch for someone his size.
Reserves:
Guards: Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Kevin Durant, Brandon Roy. Point guards in any context, but especially in an all-star game, should be able to push the tempo, create and facilitate for teammates, and improvise plays. The ball should never be walked up the court in an all-star game except at the ends of quarters. Also, point guards should be able to see the court and pass the ball very well. This should go without saying, but the point guard's job is to make scoring easy for his teammates. Nash and Williams both do this better than other point guard contenders, Chauncey Billups and Tony Parker, so the former two get the nod.
Players who put up good numbers on bad teams tend to be scorned by the coaches and media, but people should pay attention to whether a team is bad despite a player's play, if his numbers are good because he's on a bad team, or worse, if the team is bad because the player has good numbers. Players who fall into the latter two categories tend to shoot a lot, and make a low percentage of them either because they have to take a lot of shots because their teammates are bad, or they take so many shots with so few points to show for it, thus hurting their team. Also, they usually don't play defense well and don't make the game easier for their teammates. I don't watch a lot of Kevin Durant and his "basketball-themed comedy group," so I can't comment on his defense, or his ability to raise his teammates' level, but I the shooting numbers tell us something about his scoring. He's averaging 24.7 points on 47/42/86 shooting. He's a pure scorer. He's not a consciousless gunner. He makes the shots he takes. I want to be able to see him without having to sit through a Thunder game.
Brandon Roy is averaging about 22-5-5 for a team that's on pace to win 49 games despite it's players second through fifth in minutes per game being Lamarcus Aldridge (who's a nice player, but 6.8 rebounds in 36 minutes from your starting power forward is awful for a 50 win team), Steve Blake (a 7th man on a championship team), Travis Outlaw (11.5/4/1), and Rudy Fernandez (11/3/2). Brandon Roy is the glue that holds it all together.
Forwards: Pau Gasol and Amare Stoudemire. Pau Gasol is averaging 17.5/9.1/3.4 on 56% shooting for a team that's on pace to win 66 games.
All my loyal reader will perhaps remember that I'm not crazy about Amare, but given the rest of the field, and given his potential to do amazing stuff, he should play in the all star game.
Center: Shaquille O'Neal. Center isn't the strongest position in the NBA, so 17.9 and 9 in 30.5 minutes is enough for reserve honors in the West. Also, he's shooting 62% from the free throw line, which is pretty good touch for someone his size who can't shoot free throws.
Honorable Mention:
Carmelo Anthony- Injuries were limiting him when he was playing, and now they're preventing him from playing.
Chauncey Billups- A good point guard who's doing a great job in Denver, but who's not as good as either Nash or Williams.
Manu Ginobili- Maybe he would make it another year, but the other guards are more deserving.
Al Jefferson- Statistically, he's a good numbers/bad team guy, and I have heard rumors from people claiming to actually watch the Timberwolves that he's bad at defense. I'll take their word for it.
Tony Parker- A very good but not elite point guard.
David West- 20 points? Good. Seven rebounds in 38 minutes as a power forward? Not so much.
I'm not sure how the reserves' positions are chosen. I think it's two guards, two forwards, one center and two more at any position. At least that's what I'm going by for the sake of this post.
Western Conference:
Starters:
Guards: Chris Paul and Kobe Bryant. The best point guard and shooting guard in the NBA, respectively.
Forwards: Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki. After reading the intro, one might assume that Duncan would miss the list, but he's sixth on the MVP list this season, trailing only the Big Five. The Spurs are quietly on pace to win 56 games or so this year with Tony Parker (frighteningly overrated), Manure Ginobili (who has missed 13 of San Antonio's 43 games), Michael Finley (who is older than Greg Oden looks), Roger Mason, and a bunch of guys who are not good at basketball (Bruce Lee Bowen, Matt Bonner, George Hill).
I think a lot of people, myself included, have had enough Dirk Nowitzki in their lives over the last few years, what with his team in the finals one year, winning 67 games the next, and Dirk winning the MVP trophy by default. Now, his team's championship window has closed without them grabbing a championship. However, he's playing about as well as ever, averaging 26/8.5/2.5 on 48/38/92 shooting.
Center: Yao Ming. Center isn't the strongest position in the NBA, so 19.6 and 9.5 in 33 minutes is enough for starting honors in the West. Also, he's shooting 87% from the free throw line, which is pretty good touch for someone his size.
Reserves:
Guards: Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Kevin Durant, Brandon Roy. Point guards in any context, but especially in an all-star game, should be able to push the tempo, create and facilitate for teammates, and improvise plays. The ball should never be walked up the court in an all-star game except at the ends of quarters. Also, point guards should be able to see the court and pass the ball very well. This should go without saying, but the point guard's job is to make scoring easy for his teammates. Nash and Williams both do this better than other point guard contenders, Chauncey Billups and Tony Parker, so the former two get the nod.
Players who put up good numbers on bad teams tend to be scorned by the coaches and media, but people should pay attention to whether a team is bad despite a player's play, if his numbers are good because he's on a bad team, or worse, if the team is bad because the player has good numbers. Players who fall into the latter two categories tend to shoot a lot, and make a low percentage of them either because they have to take a lot of shots because their teammates are bad, or they take so many shots with so few points to show for it, thus hurting their team. Also, they usually don't play defense well and don't make the game easier for their teammates. I don't watch a lot of Kevin Durant and his "basketball-themed comedy group," so I can't comment on his defense, or his ability to raise his teammates' level, but I the shooting numbers tell us something about his scoring. He's averaging 24.7 points on 47/42/86 shooting. He's a pure scorer. He's not a consciousless gunner. He makes the shots he takes. I want to be able to see him without having to sit through a Thunder game.
Brandon Roy is averaging about 22-5-5 for a team that's on pace to win 49 games despite it's players second through fifth in minutes per game being Lamarcus Aldridge (who's a nice player, but 6.8 rebounds in 36 minutes from your starting power forward is awful for a 50 win team), Steve Blake (a 7th man on a championship team), Travis Outlaw (11.5/4/1), and Rudy Fernandez (11/3/2). Brandon Roy is the glue that holds it all together.
Forwards: Pau Gasol and Amare Stoudemire. Pau Gasol is averaging 17.5/9.1/3.4 on 56% shooting for a team that's on pace to win 66 games.
All my loyal reader will perhaps remember that I'm not crazy about Amare, but given the rest of the field, and given his potential to do amazing stuff, he should play in the all star game.
Center: Shaquille O'Neal. Center isn't the strongest position in the NBA, so 17.9 and 9 in 30.5 minutes is enough for reserve honors in the West. Also, he's shooting 62% from the free throw line, which is pretty good touch for someone his size who can't shoot free throws.
Honorable Mention:
Carmelo Anthony- Injuries were limiting him when he was playing, and now they're preventing him from playing.
Chauncey Billups- A good point guard who's doing a great job in Denver, but who's not as good as either Nash or Williams.
Manu Ginobili- Maybe he would make it another year, but the other guards are more deserving.
Al Jefferson- Statistically, he's a good numbers/bad team guy, and I have heard rumors from people claiming to actually watch the Timberwolves that he's bad at defense. I'll take their word for it.
Tony Parker- A very good but not elite point guard.
David West- 20 points? Good. Seven rebounds in 38 minutes as a power forward? Not so much.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Lebron James and Bill Brasky
Do any of my reader remember the Bill Brasky skits on SNL from the mid-90's? Here's a refresher. Back when Lebron was about to host SNL's season premiere, ESPN.com columnist DJ Gallo suggested the following skit: "Bill Brasky: Patrons at a bar are loudly proclaiming the greatness of a man they all know named Bill Brasky. "His family crest is a picture of a barracuda eating Neil Armstrong!" "He breast-feeds John Madden!" "He once punched a hole in a cow just to see who was coming up the road!" Minutes later, more patrons flood into the bar after a Cavaliers game lets out. They start up with their own tales of LeBron James. "He was 6-foot-5 in the seventh grade!" "He scored the last 25 points in Game 5 of the conference finals!" "He got Lasik eye surgery without pain medication!" The Brasky fans soon agree that James is more impressive."
The similarity between Lebron and Bill Brasky that I like the most is how their height and weight keep increasing. He came into the NBA at about 6-8, 240, but I've seen him described as 6-8.5, or even 6-9. His stated weight usually ranges from 250 to 260, which seems reasonable. However, some people can't help but exaggerate. In a game against the Bulls about a month ago, the telecast listed him as 273 pound at one point, and then at 274 later in the telecast. Apparently, he's growing more powerful by the minute. In today's Espn.com NBA Writers Roundtable, J.A. Adande describes Lebron as weighing 285 pounds.
I'd like to see the hyperbole going on forever, but it's hard to imagine him going above 285. Maybe a few more pounds, but that's pretty near the ceiling. Likewise, I can't see anyone describing him 6-10 or higher. 6'-9.5"? Definitely possible. If he peaks in the playoffs and the Cavs win a championship, which is a likely possibility, I would like to say him described as, say, 6-11, 310 pounds.
The similarity between Lebron and Bill Brasky that I like the most is how their height and weight keep increasing. He came into the NBA at about 6-8, 240, but I've seen him described as 6-8.5, or even 6-9. His stated weight usually ranges from 250 to 260, which seems reasonable. However, some people can't help but exaggerate. In a game against the Bulls about a month ago, the telecast listed him as 273 pound at one point, and then at 274 later in the telecast. Apparently, he's growing more powerful by the minute. In today's Espn.com NBA Writers Roundtable, J.A. Adande describes Lebron as weighing 285 pounds.
I'd like to see the hyperbole going on forever, but it's hard to imagine him going above 285. Maybe a few more pounds, but that's pretty near the ceiling. Likewise, I can't see anyone describing him 6-10 or higher. 6'-9.5"? Definitely possible. If he peaks in the playoffs and the Cavs win a championship, which is a likely possibility, I would like to say him described as, say, 6-11, 310 pounds.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)