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.
Monday, December 8, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)