As the college basketball season wraps up its first 2 months, it's clear that the talent level on display is something that hasn't been seen in a few years. There are two reasons: first, the freshman class boasts some impressive prospects. Second, some of the best prospects from last year's freshman class came back as sophomores. That decision, to turn down the draft and come back to school, seems to have worked out for college basketball fans. But does it work out for the players involved? If you devote any time to this thought, please think of Willie Warren.
For those who don't remember, Willie Warren was a McDonald's All-American who went to Oklahoma in 2008, teaming with a sophomore forward named Blake Griffin. After a freshman season that included a #2 seed in the tournament and an Elite 8 loss to eventual champion UNC, Warren had drawn the attention of several scouts, and was talked about as a potential lottery pick in the 2009 NBA Draft.
Warren faced a decision. Stay in school, or go to the NBA. After testing the waters, he decided to return to Oklahoma for his sophomore year. The season did not go well, and he ended up a 2nd round pick in the 2010 draft, going to the Clippers. 2nd round draft picks rarely get fully guaranteed contracts, and Warren was no exception. Lost in all the hoopla of the Clippers' recent Chris Paul trade, and Chauncey Billups signing? After only one season in the NBA, Wille Warren was waived this week.
What did it end up costing Willie Warren to come back to school for his sophomore year? A lot of people speculate on the relative pros and cons. Well, here are the dollars. Warren made $500k in the 2010-2011 NBA season, plus the value of one year's full ride to Oklahoma for the 2009-2010 season (optimistically, $50k). Toney Douglas, the 29th pick in the 2009 NBA Draft Warren pulled out of, has earned $2.1mm in his first two years in the league. Now, there are no guarantees that Warren would have been a 1st round pick in 2009. But, since 2006, 75% of all freshman draft entrants were drafted in the 1st round. It's not hard to do the math...
Leaving After Freshman Year: $2.1mm * 0.75 = $1.6mm earned
Returning for Sophomore Year: $0.5mm + $0.05mm = $0.6mm earned
The decision to return to school has already cost Willie Warren one million dollars in two years. According to some studies, that's almost half the money a college graduate earns in their whole life. Funny how the talking heads that bash kids like DeAndre Jordan and BJ Mullens for leaving early never seem to mention the actual value of an undergraduate degree. Why should they? It's not a million dollar decision to them if one kid stays or goes.
But it is a million dollar decision for that kid. And like most major decisions in life, he probably won't get a do-over. So, as the college basketball world prepares to question the sanity of teenagers deciding to go pro early this April, remind me: what's insane about earning more money in a year than most people do in their whole lives, to play a game? Especially when that offer doesn't last forever?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Gerald Henderson's Path to 20 Points Per Game
The 2011-2012 Bobcats season does not offer fans the promise of a deep playoff run, or frankly the reasonable hope of a playoff berth. No, as previously chronicled here, the Bobcats' path to relevance involves more than a few future lottery picks. With that in mind, progress can't be measured in team success, so it needs to be measured in individual success. So, let's look at one of the more critical pieces of the puzzle: Gerald Henderson. By most accounts, his on-ball defense, shot-blocking, passing, rebounding, etc. are at least passable for shooting guards in the league. But, does he have what it takes to score at a 20+ per game clip?
Obviously, when compared to the wing players that scored 20+ points per game last season, Henderson comes up noticeably short of the mark. Not only are the attempts nowhere near the group, but efficiency is lacking on free throws, 2 point attempts, and 3 point attempts. But, the story is far different when looking at the last 23 games of the season (March and April, after the Gerald Wallace trade):
Shot attempts increase noticeably, but notice that efficiency on all shots increased. In fact, when looking at the last 23 games, he was scoring at a more efficient clip than either Stephen Jackson (.909 points per shot on 20.3 shots per game) or Gerald Wallace (.865 points per shot on 18 shots per game) did last year as Bobcats.
So, what's it going to take to make Gerald Henderson a 20 point scorer this season? In a word: seven. As in, seven more shots per game. Given his efficiency scoring the ball, all he has to do is take seven more shots at the same level he played the last 23 games. Doesn't matter what kind of shots he takes. Even if he took seven more 3's a game, with his disturbingly low accuracy on that front, he'd get there. Now, at the end of the day, even if Gerald's numbers improve, and he joins the ranks of 20 point scorers in the league, will that make the Bobcats relevant? Frankly, no. But for a team that seems several pieces away from NBA relevance at the moment, it's a small comfort that maybe one of those pieces isn't as far away as it seems.
So, what's it going to take to make Gerald Henderson a 20 point scorer this season? In a word: seven. As in, seven more shots per game. Given his efficiency scoring the ball, all he has to do is take seven more shots at the same level he played the last 23 games. Doesn't matter what kind of shots he takes. Even if he took seven more 3's a game, with his disturbingly low accuracy on that front, he'd get there. Now, at the end of the day, even if Gerald's numbers improve, and he joins the ranks of 20 point scorers in the league, will that make the Bobcats relevant? Frankly, no. But for a team that seems several pieces away from NBA relevance at the moment, it's a small comfort that maybe one of those pieces isn't as far away as it seems.
Friday, December 9, 2011
The GM Decisions That Forced Chris Paul to Leave
At the end of the 2007-2008 season, the New Orleans Hornets were fresh off a very good season. They were the #2 seed in the West (56 wins), had just lost a close 7 game series to the Spurs (the defending champs), and Chris Paul had officially claimed the unofficial title of "NBA's Best Point Guard." The arrows were clearly pointing up for the franchise. Fast forward 3+ years, and Chris Paul is ready to leave. How did this happen? Well, most players, especially great players, want to win, get paid, and live in a great place (the ranking of those three are up to you). As far as winning, the Hornets effectively used the last 3 years to show CP3, step by step, that they could not give him a roster built to win. In fact, they couldn't even maintain the success of the 2008 season.
Step 1: The Hornets Sign James Posey
Fresh off the Celtics' 2008 title run, this certainly seemed like a good idea for a Hornets team that seemed one piece away from getting their own title. However, as previously discussed in this space, this may not have been the best use of a contender's limited cap space.
Step 2: Tyson Chandler Traded to the Bobcats
Despite the friendship between Tyson Chandler and Chris Paul, the positive boost the Paul-Chandler pick and roll gave the 2008 Hornet offense, and Chandler's above-the-rim superiority to Emeka Okafor, the Hornets thought this was a move to improve the team. Today, Emeka is an albatross contract the Hornets' can't move, and Tyson Chandler just helped Dallas win its first title, essentially playing the role he played in New Orleans.
Step 3: Botching The Draft
For teams in contention, turning late 1st round picks into quality rotation players seems like a stretch. Turning those picks into starters seems like alchemy. But the Hornets' use and development of draft picks has been spotty, at best. 2008? Traded Darrell Arthur, an athletic power forward that gives great depth and minutes to the Memphis frontcourt, for cash. 2009? Actually hit on two good prospects, Darren Collison and Marcus Thornton. But, traded both of them in less than a year for Trevor Ariza / Marco Belinelli and Carl Landry, respectively. 2010? It's too early to tell, but Quincy Pondexter and Brackins haven't yet shown they're rotation pieces on a contender.
Hindsight is always 20/20, but take a look at those moves in total, and the respective rosters they created:
Roster 1: Marcus Thornton, free agent Tyson Chandler, Darrell Arthur, post-injury David West
Roster 2: Emeka Okafor, Trevor Ariza, free agent Carl Landry, post-injury David West
Looks to me like one roster is a lot more appealing than the other. And, if you're Chris Paul, you've watched the New Orleans front office turn Roster 1 into Roster 2. If you had 5-7 peak years left, assuming your knee holds up, would you believe this organization honestly gives you the best chance to win?
I wouldn't.
Step 1: The Hornets Sign James Posey
Fresh off the Celtics' 2008 title run, this certainly seemed like a good idea for a Hornets team that seemed one piece away from getting their own title. However, as previously discussed in this space, this may not have been the best use of a contender's limited cap space.
Step 2: Tyson Chandler Traded to the Bobcats
Despite the friendship between Tyson Chandler and Chris Paul, the positive boost the Paul-Chandler pick and roll gave the 2008 Hornet offense, and Chandler's above-the-rim superiority to Emeka Okafor, the Hornets thought this was a move to improve the team. Today, Emeka is an albatross contract the Hornets' can't move, and Tyson Chandler just helped Dallas win its first title, essentially playing the role he played in New Orleans.
Step 3: Botching The Draft
For teams in contention, turning late 1st round picks into quality rotation players seems like a stretch. Turning those picks into starters seems like alchemy. But the Hornets' use and development of draft picks has been spotty, at best. 2008? Traded Darrell Arthur, an athletic power forward that gives great depth and minutes to the Memphis frontcourt, for cash. 2009? Actually hit on two good prospects, Darren Collison and Marcus Thornton. But, traded both of them in less than a year for Trevor Ariza / Marco Belinelli and Carl Landry, respectively. 2010? It's too early to tell, but Quincy Pondexter and Brackins haven't yet shown they're rotation pieces on a contender.
Hindsight is always 20/20, but take a look at those moves in total, and the respective rosters they created:
Roster 1: Marcus Thornton, free agent Tyson Chandler, Darrell Arthur, post-injury David West
Roster 2: Emeka Okafor, Trevor Ariza, free agent Carl Landry, post-injury David West
Looks to me like one roster is a lot more appealing than the other. And, if you're Chris Paul, you've watched the New Orleans front office turn Roster 1 into Roster 2. If you had 5-7 peak years left, assuming your knee holds up, would you believe this organization honestly gives you the best chance to win?
I wouldn't.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Watching Sports Through The BCS Lens
After another riveting college football regular season, it's time for the best part of the year. It's time to take all the information the sports world has gathered from the last three and a half months of games, mash up the stats and perceptions, and anoint the two participants that get to compete for the national championship. Since this system has created the most "exciting" regular season relative to other sports, isn't it time we acknowledged the primitive, flawed nature of the other major sports in determining a champion? Since the evolution of the BCS, how many other leagues have propped up imposters as their champions based on some ridiculous system that lets teams outside the top two compete?
National Basketball Association (BS Score: 54 out of 100). Over the past 13 seasons, 7 teams have laid false claim to the title in this sham of a sport. The most recent "champion," the Dallas Mavericks, couldn't even finish in the top two of its own conference, let alone the league. As a matter of fact, according to ESPN, they weren't even favored to win their 1st round series. Here's a list of "mythical" title holders over the past 13 seasons: Mavericks (2011), Spurs (2007), Heat (2006), Spurs (2005), Pistons (2004), Lakers (2002), Lakers (2001).
National Football League (BS Score: 69 out of 100). That's right, the Super Bowl we all obsessively watch every year isn't even a true title game. Complete sham. How else to explain a game where 9 of the last 13 champions didn't deserve to even play in the game? I mean, last year's Packers were the sixth best team in their conference. That means any observer with a brain would have justifiably picked five other NFC teams for the Super Bowl before they picked these clowns. Here's the list of pretenders from this sideshow: Packers (2010), Steelers (2008), Giants (2007), Colts (2006), Steelers (2005), Patriots (2004), Buccaneers (2002), Patriots (2001), Ravens (2000). If there's a silver lining here (and, believe me, I'm stretching to find one), turns out the NFL isn't the worst offender.
Men's College Basketball (BS Score: 77 out of 100). Connecticut (2011), Duke (2010), Kansas (2008), Florida (2007), Florida (2006), Connecticut (2004), Syracuse (2003), Duke (2001), Michigan State (2000), Connecticut (1999). That's right, 10 out of 13. 10 out of 13 times we wasted 3 weeks of our lives, filled out those stupid brackets, and for what? Seriously, it's like this sport doesn't even know it has a poll to rank these teams. If this level of deceipt seems hard to believe, check out the rankings for yourself. Not only did 10 champions have absolutely no right to even play for a title, but in 3 out of the last 9 years, the mythical champions weren't even preseason top 25 (UConn 2011, Florida 2006, Syracuse 2003). It's such a sham, the word "sham" isn't strong enough. I mean, the only thing that irritates me more than UConn doing something no one's ever done in Big East tournaments is watching them and Butler rob the world of the Ohio State-Kansas title game; I don't care what happened in March Madness, one of those two teams earned the true national championship.
As hard as it is to learn how much we've all been deceived by these sports, they show us why college football needs to ignore the morons that clamor for any kind of change to the current system. First, there's no money in it: these three sports have tried these flawed playoff systems, and people watch them less and less every year. Second, and more importantly, it's about more than money. It's about preserving the true spirit of sport. Because, deep down, the heart of sport is choosing who we think is best from an ever-shrinking group of eligible participants, and telling everyone else that not only are they inferior, but they'll never get a fair opportunity to prove otherwise on the field.
(In case the sarcasm was too thick, here's the same post in four words: the BCS is stupid.)
National Basketball Association (BS Score: 54 out of 100). Over the past 13 seasons, 7 teams have laid false claim to the title in this sham of a sport. The most recent "champion," the Dallas Mavericks, couldn't even finish in the top two of its own conference, let alone the league. As a matter of fact, according to ESPN, they weren't even favored to win their 1st round series. Here's a list of "mythical" title holders over the past 13 seasons: Mavericks (2011), Spurs (2007), Heat (2006), Spurs (2005), Pistons (2004), Lakers (2002), Lakers (2001).
National Football League (BS Score: 69 out of 100). That's right, the Super Bowl we all obsessively watch every year isn't even a true title game. Complete sham. How else to explain a game where 9 of the last 13 champions didn't deserve to even play in the game? I mean, last year's Packers were the sixth best team in their conference. That means any observer with a brain would have justifiably picked five other NFC teams for the Super Bowl before they picked these clowns. Here's the list of pretenders from this sideshow: Packers (2010), Steelers (2008), Giants (2007), Colts (2006), Steelers (2005), Patriots (2004), Buccaneers (2002), Patriots (2001), Ravens (2000). If there's a silver lining here (and, believe me, I'm stretching to find one), turns out the NFL isn't the worst offender.
Men's College Basketball (BS Score: 77 out of 100). Connecticut (2011), Duke (2010), Kansas (2008), Florida (2007), Florida (2006), Connecticut (2004), Syracuse (2003), Duke (2001), Michigan State (2000), Connecticut (1999). That's right, 10 out of 13. 10 out of 13 times we wasted 3 weeks of our lives, filled out those stupid brackets, and for what? Seriously, it's like this sport doesn't even know it has a poll to rank these teams. If this level of deceipt seems hard to believe, check out the rankings for yourself. Not only did 10 champions have absolutely no right to even play for a title, but in 3 out of the last 9 years, the mythical champions weren't even preseason top 25 (UConn 2011, Florida 2006, Syracuse 2003). It's such a sham, the word "sham" isn't strong enough. I mean, the only thing that irritates me more than UConn doing something no one's ever done in Big East tournaments is watching them and Butler rob the world of the Ohio State-Kansas title game; I don't care what happened in March Madness, one of those two teams earned the true national championship.
As hard as it is to learn how much we've all been deceived by these sports, they show us why college football needs to ignore the morons that clamor for any kind of change to the current system. First, there's no money in it: these three sports have tried these flawed playoff systems, and people watch them less and less every year. Second, and more importantly, it's about more than money. It's about preserving the true spirit of sport. Because, deep down, the heart of sport is choosing who we think is best from an ever-shrinking group of eligible participants, and telling everyone else that not only are they inferior, but they'll never get a fair opportunity to prove otherwise on the field.
(In case the sarcasm was too thick, here's the same post in four words: the BCS is stupid.)
Thursday, December 1, 2011
NBA Free Agents: Avoiding the Title Premium
In the NBA, there is no shortage of teams that feel like they may be one player away from perennial championship contention, one last cog away from a title-winning machine. For some teams (Knicks, Nets, Clippers), targets are major players. For others (Bulls, Thunder, Hawks, Grizzlies, Heat, Lakers, Spurs), the missing piece may be a more low key, subtle addition. While there's probably never going to be an easy way to assess a free agent's ability to develop individually, fit into a team's concept, fit into a team's locker room, etc., a common theme has emerged over the past few years: try not to over-pay for the role player that just won a ring. Not only is it unlikely he can play the way he did last spring for your new team, he may not be able to play that way again for anybody. Take a look at some notable role players from the last 3 NBA champions.
2008: James Posey (Celtics to Hornets)
Cog Factor: Played both small forward and power forward for the Celtics (giving the team added versatility to go big or small in crunch time), hit clutch threes, and played defense with the same intensity that became the hallmark of that team.
Red Flag We Should've Seen Then: During the '08 playoffs, shot 40% from three, a feat he had only accomplished once in 9 seasons of work. Also, he was 31 years old at the end of that season.
Post-Title Career: Signed with New Orleans, lowered his outside shooting accuracy in each successive year (32% last season), and is a potential amnesty candidate in the final year of his deal with the Indiana Pacers.
2009: Trevor Ariza (Lakers to Rockets)
Cog Factor: Played shooting guard and small forward, taking on opponents' most dangerous wing scorers on defense, shot 48% from three and sealed wins in the conference finals.
Red Flag We Should've Seen Then: Prior to the 2009 playoffs, Ariza's career high in 3 point percentage was 32%. Also, he was on his third team in five NBA seasons, despite oozing potential since his UCLA days.
Post-Title Career: Signed with Houston to be a 20 pt scorer despite never shooting more than 7.3 shots a game for a season. Shot less than 40% from the field in the ensuing 2 seasons (30% from three last season).
2010: Jordan Farmar (Lakers to Nets)
Cog Factor: Backed up Derek Fisher and, later, Shannon Brown during the Lakers' 2nd title run.
Red Flag We Should've Seen Then: Couldn't beat out Derek Fisher and, later, Shannon Brown for playing time.
Post-Title Career: Signed with New Jersey for a chance to start at point guard, which lasted 3 months into the season, at which point he started backing up Deron Williams.
Clearly, there are more than a few issues with signing role players fresh off the best moments of their professional careers (the last one notwithstanding, I'm actually a Jordan Farmar fan, and wish he got a real shot to run a team just once). With that in mind, take a look at some of the coveted free agents off this year's champion Dallas Mavericks.
Tyson Chandler
Cog Factor: Anchored Dallas' sneaky good defense for the title, while also providing an unexpected offensive punch.
Red Flags We Should Be Noticing: Posted career high 65% field goal percentage during the season, and near career highs in offensive and defensive rebound rates (14% and 20%) in the playoffs. Has missed 30+ games three times in his NBA career (including 2 out of the last 3 seasons). Oklahoma City rescinded a trade offer for Chandler citing health concerns, while trading for and extending Kendrick Perkins to do essentially the same job despite recently tearing his own ACL.
Deshawn Stevenson
Cog Factor: Classic D-and-3 role player for Dallas, guarding Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, and Lebron James/Dwayne Wade, shot 40% from 3 while taking over 3 three pointers a game.
Red Flags We Should Be Noticing: Has shot 40% from 3 for a season once in 11 NBA seasons. Only made 2 of 15 2 point attempts in 21 postseason games in 2011.
J.J. Barea
Cog Factor: Played backup point guard with particular success against the Lakers (averaged 11.5 ppg on 50% shooting, with 5.5 assists in the series).
Red Flags We Should Be Noticing: Has never shot better than 44% in any regular season, and shot 42% overall in the playoffs (39% against the Heat). Has never averaged 4.0 assists per game in season (averaged 3.4 assists per game in the 2011 playoffs). His offensive role includes running the pick-and-roll with Dirk Nowitzki, arguably the toughest and most unique screener to defend in the NBA.
Am I saying that these players aren't any good? Hardly. They just helped one of the more unlikely NBA champions in the last few years climb the mountain. But, it should be noted that, for every Tyson Chandler, there's a Samuel Dalembert. For every Deshawn Stevenson, there's a Shane Battier. For every J.J. Barea, there's a Marcus Thornton. And those guys might do the same job for a little less money next season.
2008: James Posey (Celtics to Hornets)
Cog Factor: Played both small forward and power forward for the Celtics (giving the team added versatility to go big or small in crunch time), hit clutch threes, and played defense with the same intensity that became the hallmark of that team.
Red Flag We Should've Seen Then: During the '08 playoffs, shot 40% from three, a feat he had only accomplished once in 9 seasons of work. Also, he was 31 years old at the end of that season.
Post-Title Career: Signed with New Orleans, lowered his outside shooting accuracy in each successive year (32% last season), and is a potential amnesty candidate in the final year of his deal with the Indiana Pacers.
2009: Trevor Ariza (Lakers to Rockets)
Cog Factor: Played shooting guard and small forward, taking on opponents' most dangerous wing scorers on defense, shot 48% from three and sealed wins in the conference finals.
Red Flag We Should've Seen Then: Prior to the 2009 playoffs, Ariza's career high in 3 point percentage was 32%. Also, he was on his third team in five NBA seasons, despite oozing potential since his UCLA days.
Post-Title Career: Signed with Houston to be a 20 pt scorer despite never shooting more than 7.3 shots a game for a season. Shot less than 40% from the field in the ensuing 2 seasons (30% from three last season).
2010: Jordan Farmar (Lakers to Nets)
Cog Factor: Backed up Derek Fisher and, later, Shannon Brown during the Lakers' 2nd title run.
Red Flag We Should've Seen Then: Couldn't beat out Derek Fisher and, later, Shannon Brown for playing time.
Post-Title Career: Signed with New Jersey for a chance to start at point guard, which lasted 3 months into the season, at which point he started backing up Deron Williams.
Clearly, there are more than a few issues with signing role players fresh off the best moments of their professional careers (the last one notwithstanding, I'm actually a Jordan Farmar fan, and wish he got a real shot to run a team just once). With that in mind, take a look at some of the coveted free agents off this year's champion Dallas Mavericks.
Tyson Chandler
Cog Factor: Anchored Dallas' sneaky good defense for the title, while also providing an unexpected offensive punch.
Red Flags We Should Be Noticing: Posted career high 65% field goal percentage during the season, and near career highs in offensive and defensive rebound rates (14% and 20%) in the playoffs. Has missed 30+ games three times in his NBA career (including 2 out of the last 3 seasons). Oklahoma City rescinded a trade offer for Chandler citing health concerns, while trading for and extending Kendrick Perkins to do essentially the same job despite recently tearing his own ACL.
Deshawn Stevenson
Cog Factor: Classic D-and-3 role player for Dallas, guarding Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, and Lebron James/Dwayne Wade, shot 40% from 3 while taking over 3 three pointers a game.
Red Flags We Should Be Noticing: Has shot 40% from 3 for a season once in 11 NBA seasons. Only made 2 of 15 2 point attempts in 21 postseason games in 2011.
J.J. Barea
Cog Factor: Played backup point guard with particular success against the Lakers (averaged 11.5 ppg on 50% shooting, with 5.5 assists in the series).
Red Flags We Should Be Noticing: Has never shot better than 44% in any regular season, and shot 42% overall in the playoffs (39% against the Heat). Has never averaged 4.0 assists per game in season (averaged 3.4 assists per game in the 2011 playoffs). His offensive role includes running the pick-and-roll with Dirk Nowitzki, arguably the toughest and most unique screener to defend in the NBA.
Am I saying that these players aren't any good? Hardly. They just helped one of the more unlikely NBA champions in the last few years climb the mountain. But, it should be noted that, for every Tyson Chandler, there's a Samuel Dalembert. For every Deshawn Stevenson, there's a Shane Battier. For every J.J. Barea, there's a Marcus Thornton. And those guys might do the same job for a little less money next season.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Recognizing a College Coaching Great
Sometimes, it's easy to take for granted the quality and volume of someone's accomplishments. They've done it so well, for so long, the bar they set becomes so high, that excellence becomes the expectation. Well, for at least a moment, let's take some looks at the amazing resume of a coach leading one of college basketball's most storied programs. That's right... it's time to check out how awesome Roy Williams is.
It's as simple as it gets, and while total wins matter, you can win a lot of games by: 1) winning a lot of the games you play, 2) playing a lot of games, or 3) a little of both. I believe that to measure greatness, you lean towards option 1, and by that measure, Roy Williams' career to date truly stands out. By the way, for those of you rooting for Roy to break the all-time wins record, don't hold your breath. Even if Coach K retired tomorrow, and Roy kept up his historic pace of winning nearly 29 games a season, he'd likely break the record sometime during the 2019-2020 season, at the age of 69.
WINNING THE CONFERENCE
Aside from winning a national title, the most prestigious thing a coach can do is win the conference, right? Again, when looking at regular season conference titles, the consistency of Roy is just amazing. "Oh, but conference titles are won in tournaments, not the regular season." Until recently, no. For conferences like the Big Ten (1998) and Pac-10 (1987), these are fairly recent developments that college basketball did just fine without for decades (in fact, a UA assistant coach pretty much summed up the real reason conference tourneys exist at all). But, if you want to have a discussion about the best college coaches of all time without Bob Knight and John Wooden (neither played in conference tournaments for the majority of their careers), knock yourself out. You'll probably love my next post, "Great Boxing Movies Excluding Rocky and Raging Bull."
WINNING IT ALL
For some people, there is no other way to measure greatness, and arguing with them is like debating degrees of danger with Colonel Jessup. Well, here you go. Fans of Coach K, this is the clearest way to put him head and shoulders above the peers of his era. For everyone else, maybe you didn't realize how much this shot mattered to a legacy at the time, but it mattered a lot. And in the era of the one-and-done blue chip recruit, the six-game winning streak required to cut down the nets, the top two guys on this list are going to be hard to catch, both in total titles, and titles per season. Unless Roy wins one in the next 3 seasons, at which point, he takes the #2 spot on a percentage basis.
So, as we march through the season, make sure to enjoy some UNC games this year. Because how often do we get a chance to watch one of the all-time great coaches in the ACC?
(Note: stats are calculated before this season's games, since the season is not complete)
WINNING THE GAME
It's as simple as it gets, and while total wins matter, you can win a lot of games by: 1) winning a lot of the games you play, 2) playing a lot of games, or 3) a little of both. I believe that to measure greatness, you lean towards option 1, and by that measure, Roy Williams' career to date truly stands out. By the way, for those of you rooting for Roy to break the all-time wins record, don't hold your breath. Even if Coach K retired tomorrow, and Roy kept up his historic pace of winning nearly 29 games a season, he'd likely break the record sometime during the 2019-2020 season, at the age of 69.
WINNING THE CONFERENCE
Aside from winning a national title, the most prestigious thing a coach can do is win the conference, right? Again, when looking at regular season conference titles, the consistency of Roy is just amazing. "Oh, but conference titles are won in tournaments, not the regular season." Until recently, no. For conferences like the Big Ten (1998) and Pac-10 (1987), these are fairly recent developments that college basketball did just fine without for decades (in fact, a UA assistant coach pretty much summed up the real reason conference tourneys exist at all). But, if you want to have a discussion about the best college coaches of all time without Bob Knight and John Wooden (neither played in conference tournaments for the majority of their careers), knock yourself out. You'll probably love my next post, "Great Boxing Movies Excluding Rocky and Raging Bull."
WINNING IT ALL
For some people, there is no other way to measure greatness, and arguing with them is like debating degrees of danger with Colonel Jessup. Well, here you go. Fans of Coach K, this is the clearest way to put him head and shoulders above the peers of his era. For everyone else, maybe you didn't realize how much this shot mattered to a legacy at the time, but it mattered a lot. And in the era of the one-and-done blue chip recruit, the six-game winning streak required to cut down the nets, the top two guys on this list are going to be hard to catch, both in total titles, and titles per season. Unless Roy wins one in the next 3 seasons, at which point, he takes the #2 spot on a percentage basis.
So, as we march through the season, make sure to enjoy some UNC games this year. Because how often do we get a chance to watch one of the all-time great coaches in the ACC?
(Note: stats are calculated before this season's games, since the season is not complete)
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Preseason View of the 2012 Draft Class
This week marked the official beginning of the college basketball season. While the prospect of a 6 month season is odd at best, playing a game on an aircraft carrier made it well worth watching. With the influx of new freshmen talent, in addition to the higher-than-typical number of prospects that returned to school this fall, there's a lot of talent to be evaluated in this year's season. With that in mind, it's a good idea to take a look at where players stand as we start the season. Using, in my opinion, the most reliable mock draft sources (here and here), this is how the players look going into the season.
TIER 1: CONSENSUS LOTTERY PICKS
The first thing to note is the draft positions of 0. While it's difficult to say who's definitely going pro and who's not (especially after last year), McAdoo, Beal, and Ross are considered top 10 picks in the 2013 draft, so they make this tier. Patric Young is probably the only questionable inclusion, but at least that leaves something up for debate.
Terrence Jones will be an interesting case to follow this year, given his current draft position. Conventional wisdom says that coming back to school would give him a chance to improve his game and show it off to scouts, whose new evaluations would move him up the board. After being a consensus lottery pick last year, he's currently the last consensus lottery pick on the board this year. We'll see if his choice to come back as a sophomore looks more like Blake Griffin or Devin Ebanks by the end of this year.
TIER 2: 1ST ROUND CONSIDERATION
The only consistent thing about this group is that it's all in the eye of the beholder. People could literally argue all day about how a player would function on an NBA court (Henson, Yarou), whether the college fit of system and player overstates pro potential (Taylor, Marshall), or if passing the eyeball test is enough to make a player worth the pick (Leslie, Dedmon). But here's some facts: there are 21 people on this list, for 16 picks. There were 15 people on the lottery list, for 14 picks. That means that end of the 1st round in June 2012, at least 6 of these players will either be waiting for next year or hoping they make it on a non-guaranteed contract.
TIER 1: CONSENSUS LOTTERY PICKS
The first thing to note is the draft positions of 0. While it's difficult to say who's definitely going pro and who's not (especially after last year), McAdoo, Beal, and Ross are considered top 10 picks in the 2013 draft, so they make this tier. Patric Young is probably the only questionable inclusion, but at least that leaves something up for debate.
Terrence Jones will be an interesting case to follow this year, given his current draft position. Conventional wisdom says that coming back to school would give him a chance to improve his game and show it off to scouts, whose new evaluations would move him up the board. After being a consensus lottery pick last year, he's currently the last consensus lottery pick on the board this year. We'll see if his choice to come back as a sophomore looks more like Blake Griffin or Devin Ebanks by the end of this year.
TIER 2: 1ST ROUND CONSIDERATION
The only consistent thing about this group is that it's all in the eye of the beholder. People could literally argue all day about how a player would function on an NBA court (Henson, Yarou), whether the college fit of system and player overstates pro potential (Taylor, Marshall), or if passing the eyeball test is enough to make a player worth the pick (Leslie, Dedmon). But here's some facts: there are 21 people on this list, for 16 picks. There were 15 people on the lottery list, for 14 picks. That means that end of the 1st round in June 2012, at least 6 of these players will either be waiting for next year or hoping they make it on a non-guaranteed contract.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Hoping for a Better Bobcats Future
It seems like forever ago, but the Charlotte Bobcats are barely 14 months removed from a 44 win regular season and #7 seed in the Eastern conference playoffs. Take a look at the team's major contributors (listed by average minutes, played at least 41 games) that season:
Gerald Wallace, Stephen Jackson, Boris Diaw, Raymond Felton, Tyson Chandler, D.J. Augustin, Nazr Mohammed, Stephen Graham
In the 14 months since the Bobcats' first playoff berth, 6 out of the 8 are gone. The longest tenured Bobcat (time with the team) is now either D.J. Augustin, Gana Diop, or Matt Carroll. If we weren't in an official rebuild mode before this draft, the departure of Jackson clinched it - it's time to tear it down, clean it out, and start over.
Before you spout off about how big free agent signings are the only path to title contender status, remember: Oklahoma City and Memphis proved that small market teams, run the right way (even if, in Memphis' case, it's sometimes in spite of themselves), can blow up a fringe playoff team and emerge on the other end as viable contenders. So, what's the secret?
Well, it's having 5 and 4 lottery picks, respectively, over 4 hopeless lottery bound seasons. More importantly, it's having 4 and 3 of those lottery picks, respectively, in the top 5 (note: Seattle/OKC traded its best player at the time, Ray Allen, for a top 5 pick - sound familiar?). And, if you don't think patience is necessary to accomplish this, consider: the average win total for OKC and Memphis over that 4 season span? 27 games.
There is a blueprint, and Rich Cho was part of executing it in OKC. The major part of that blueprint is stockpiling high draft picks, and making average-to-above-average decisions. It didn't take a genius to pick Durant after Oden went #1 in '07, and it didn't take a genius to take Rudy Gay at #8 (he went 3 picks after Shelden Williams) in '06. By the way, in hindsight, Saer Sene and Hasheem Thabeet were disasters as lottery picks for OKC and Memphis, and they're still sitting pretty today. They don't all have to be perfect picks, just more hits than misses, with one home run mixed in. So, Bobcats fans, let's try to maintain some perspective as we trudge through the dog days of the next few seasons. This may take a while.
P.S. And try not to throw too many stones at draft picks we don't like... because smarter people than you and me (these guys and these guys too) had Serge Ibaka behind Alexis Ajinca at the time. And if you didn't know enough to pick Serge back then, then you probably don't know enough to dispute the Bismack pick now. (This postscript is absolutely directed at myself, but if you're guilty of the same, then great. Two birds with one stone.)
Gerald Wallace, Stephen Jackson, Boris Diaw, Raymond Felton, Tyson Chandler, D.J. Augustin, Nazr Mohammed, Stephen Graham
In the 14 months since the Bobcats' first playoff berth, 6 out of the 8 are gone. The longest tenured Bobcat (time with the team) is now either D.J. Augustin, Gana Diop, or Matt Carroll. If we weren't in an official rebuild mode before this draft, the departure of Jackson clinched it - it's time to tear it down, clean it out, and start over.
Before you spout off about how big free agent signings are the only path to title contender status, remember: Oklahoma City and Memphis proved that small market teams, run the right way (even if, in Memphis' case, it's sometimes in spite of themselves), can blow up a fringe playoff team and emerge on the other end as viable contenders. So, what's the secret?
Well, it's having 5 and 4 lottery picks, respectively, over 4 hopeless lottery bound seasons. More importantly, it's having 4 and 3 of those lottery picks, respectively, in the top 5 (note: Seattle/OKC traded its best player at the time, Ray Allen, for a top 5 pick - sound familiar?). And, if you don't think patience is necessary to accomplish this, consider: the average win total for OKC and Memphis over that 4 season span? 27 games.
There is a blueprint, and Rich Cho was part of executing it in OKC. The major part of that blueprint is stockpiling high draft picks, and making average-to-above-average decisions. It didn't take a genius to pick Durant after Oden went #1 in '07, and it didn't take a genius to take Rudy Gay at #8 (he went 3 picks after Shelden Williams) in '06. By the way, in hindsight, Saer Sene and Hasheem Thabeet were disasters as lottery picks for OKC and Memphis, and they're still sitting pretty today. They don't all have to be perfect picks, just more hits than misses, with one home run mixed in. So, Bobcats fans, let's try to maintain some perspective as we trudge through the dog days of the next few seasons. This may take a while.
P.S. And try not to throw too many stones at draft picks we don't like... because smarter people than you and me (these guys and these guys too) had Serge Ibaka behind Alexis Ajinca at the time. And if you didn't know enough to pick Serge back then, then you probably don't know enough to dispute the Bismack pick now. (This postscript is absolutely directed at myself, but if you're guilty of the same, then great. Two birds with one stone.)
Monday, June 20, 2011
A Bobcats Plan for the 2011 Draft
Despite all the attention paid to deadline trades and free agent signings, franchise cornerstones arrive on draft night. As in, 26 of the last 32 NBA Finals MVP's were drafted by their respective teams*. For Bobcats fans, a good draft is an exercise in hope, and a great draft is almost delusional. How can I say that? From '06-'08, 3 out of 5 Bobcats lottery picks don't have NBA contracts for next season (4 out of 7 1st rounders). In fact, I'd argue the team's 3rd most successful draft was the 2010 Draft, because there weren't any draft picks to screw up.
But, as an extremely biased and optimistic fan, I believe the team's drafts have turned a corner. In '09, Gerald Henderson and Derrick Brown were good draft choices, and the acquisition of Rich Cho as a GM will undoubtedly bring an analytical element that the front office has never truly embraced. So, with withdrawal deadlines in the rearview mirror, and just a few days until the draft, it's time to finalize thoughts on what the Bobcats should do.
First off, trading up is not a good idea. There's a better chance of getting two solid starters at #9 and #19 than getting an All-NBA player in the top 5. Plus, the Bobcats have Chicago's 1st round pick next year. Seriously, would you rather package two picks for a chance at Irving/Williams/Kanter/Knight/Vesely/Walker this year, or do the same for a chance at Anthony Davis/Harrison Barnes/Perry Jones/James McAdoo/Austin Rivers next year? Plus, according to the ESPN Trade Machine, even an expiring contract like Diaw can't be traded, because he hasn't technically exercised his player option yet. Yeah, let's just wait this out, and get 2 starters and a rotation guy this year.
#9 Pick
Ideal Pick: Kawhi Leonard. You've already read about how much I like him, so let's not re-hash it.
Other Acceptable Picks (in order of preference): Jonas Valanciunas, Kemba Walker, Jan Vesely, Alec Burks, Nikola Vucevic, Klay Thompson, Chris Singleton
#19 Pick
Ideal Pick: Nikola Vucevic. The more I read about him, the more I like. He's a center from a size perspective (with a 6% body fat measurement at the combine, his 7-0 / 260 lbs. seems better than a lot of other big man prospects). He has a real offensive skill-set with his back to the basket, shooting range out to 20+ feet, and appears passable at minimum in the other facets (rebounding, defense, work ethic). He won't face the transition hurdle of the international prospects since he's played at USC for 3 years. I think he's a legit starting center in the league, and his combination of size, skill, and low risk is quite rare (feels a lot like Brook Lopez). In fact, I could even talk myself into a major reach by taking him at #9, that's how much I like him.
Other Acceptable Picks (in order of preference): Klay Thompson, Chris Singleton, Tobias Harris, Jeremy Tyler, Tyler Honeycutt
#39 Pick
Ideal Pick: Norris Cole. All I see is Eric Maynor when I look at Norris Cole. True point guard, with the physical size and athleticism to keep up with the pro game, a consummate floor general and team guy who will stick in the league. If you know of a reason that he won't make it, I'd like to know. Because, from my perspective, there aren't guaranteed rotation players (minimum) in the 2nd round... except for Norris.
Acceptable Picks (in order of preference): Jeremy Tyler, Jon Leuer, Jimmy Butler, Scotty Hopson, Josh Selby
*Dirk Nowitzki and Kobe Bryant acquired in draft day trades, but drafted that day. So I'm counting them in the 26.
But, as an extremely biased and optimistic fan, I believe the team's drafts have turned a corner. In '09, Gerald Henderson and Derrick Brown were good draft choices, and the acquisition of Rich Cho as a GM will undoubtedly bring an analytical element that the front office has never truly embraced. So, with withdrawal deadlines in the rearview mirror, and just a few days until the draft, it's time to finalize thoughts on what the Bobcats should do.
First off, trading up is not a good idea. There's a better chance of getting two solid starters at #9 and #19 than getting an All-NBA player in the top 5. Plus, the Bobcats have Chicago's 1st round pick next year. Seriously, would you rather package two picks for a chance at Irving/Williams/Kanter/Knight/Vesely/Walker this year, or do the same for a chance at Anthony Davis/Harrison Barnes/Perry Jones/James McAdoo/Austin Rivers next year? Plus, according to the ESPN Trade Machine, even an expiring contract like Diaw can't be traded, because he hasn't technically exercised his player option yet. Yeah, let's just wait this out, and get 2 starters and a rotation guy this year.
#9 Pick
Ideal Pick: Kawhi Leonard. You've already read about how much I like him, so let's not re-hash it.
Other Acceptable Picks (in order of preference): Jonas Valanciunas, Kemba Walker, Jan Vesely, Alec Burks, Nikola Vucevic, Klay Thompson, Chris Singleton
#19 Pick
Ideal Pick: Nikola Vucevic. The more I read about him, the more I like. He's a center from a size perspective (with a 6% body fat measurement at the combine, his 7-0 / 260 lbs. seems better than a lot of other big man prospects). He has a real offensive skill-set with his back to the basket, shooting range out to 20+ feet, and appears passable at minimum in the other facets (rebounding, defense, work ethic). He won't face the transition hurdle of the international prospects since he's played at USC for 3 years. I think he's a legit starting center in the league, and his combination of size, skill, and low risk is quite rare (feels a lot like Brook Lopez). In fact, I could even talk myself into a major reach by taking him at #9, that's how much I like him.
Other Acceptable Picks (in order of preference): Klay Thompson, Chris Singleton, Tobias Harris, Jeremy Tyler, Tyler Honeycutt
#39 Pick
Ideal Pick: Norris Cole. All I see is Eric Maynor when I look at Norris Cole. True point guard, with the physical size and athleticism to keep up with the pro game, a consummate floor general and team guy who will stick in the league. If you know of a reason that he won't make it, I'd like to know. Because, from my perspective, there aren't guaranteed rotation players (minimum) in the 2nd round... except for Norris.
Acceptable Picks (in order of preference): Jeremy Tyler, Jon Leuer, Jimmy Butler, Scotty Hopson, Josh Selby
*Dirk Nowitzki and Kobe Bryant acquired in draft day trades, but drafted that day. So I'm counting them in the 26.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Mavericks Heat Summary
Worst Player in the Series: Lebron James. Lost in the hailstorm of criticism of the "Frozen One" (looking for cutting nicknames that haven't been used yet) is the uniqueness of his performance in this series. Here's a look at the shot attempts (shots and free throws) from the last few Finals. These are the regular season leading scorers on their respective teams, which lost in the NBA Finals.
In the last 11 years, the leading scorers on a team in the Finals have continued to do what got them to the Finals. As in, shoot. Mostly, shoot more. In fact, there's really only one instance of someone's shot attempts going down, until this year. This is the thing that I cannot understand about the NBA Finals. Lebron had 1-2 bad games in the Boston series last year, but even a younger Lebron didn't respond to the pressure cooker of the Finals like this in 2007. This is not a subtle change in offense dictated by scheme or defense. This is something greater. And, in my opinion, there's only one person in the organization who could have done it...
Jerome James Award Winner: Dwyane Wade. He showed up in crunch time, when Lebron didn't. To that I say, "bull." As in, "remember the Bulls series?" When everyone wondered what was wrong with Wade, and Lebron was laying waste to the league's best defense in crunch time? What changed? Really, no one on the outside of the organization can ever know for sure. Probably most inside the organization don't.
Subjectively, watching Lebron and Wade interact sure looks like a big brother-little brother dynamic in my eyes. As in, when big brother says/does something, little brother falls in line. Was Lebron explicitly told to give up the ball? Probably not. But it's hard to imagine everyone's best player on the planet (pre-Finals) willingly giving up the ball a series after playing lights out in crunch time. He didn't do it in 2007, after dismantling the Pistons. What's different 4 years later? My theory: when the big brother tells the little brother it's time to fall in line, little brother usually listens. And if confidence wanes because your friend gave up on the co-alpha dog thing you agreed to just when it mattered most, it's probably tough to get back. And it probably cost the Heat a title.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The NBA Doesn't Need Parity, Because Fans Don't Want It
This year's NBA Finals are, in the eyes of many, a clash between traditional team-building and an AAU style, top heavy roster of talent. Given how the Heat team came together, and who the major teams were vying for the services of the 2010 free agent class (Chicago, New York, Miami, Los Angeles Clippers), it's easy to see how the next 10 years could play out in the NBA: all teams offer the same salaries, so the best talent gravitates to the biggest markets, together. Parity declines, because small markets don't have a level playing field to compete for titles. Less parity means more NBA cities/fans feel left out, and that's bad for the NBA overall. Right?
The truth is, it's just not that simple. Over the last 30 years, the NBA has enjoyed periods of tremendous popularity, and periods of general indifference from the casual fan. Conventional wisdom (which I agree with, in this case) would rank the last 3 decades in the following order of overall popularity: '91-'00, '81-'90, '01-'10. Taking a look at what happened in the league, not only is it difficult to say parity helped popularity, there's actually an argument that parity hurt popularity.
MAKING THE PLAYOFFS
Making the playoffs generally isn't like making the postseason in any other major sport, because upsets in NBA playoff series are so much rarer relative to other sports. But, while not everyone can win a title, at least a fan can say they were part of the action. Look at the data: every single franchise had a playoff berth in the last 10 years, including the Clippers, Warriors, Raptors, Wizards, even the expansion Bobcats (note: franchises started in a given decade are removed from the total teams number, seems fairer). The other decades can't come close to that. And, just as a counter to the "more than half the league makes the playoffs now" you're muttering under your breath: from 1984-1988, 69% of the league made the playoffs, way more than the 53% today, and nobody ever grouses about it.
MAKING THE CONFERENCE FINALS
Making the conference finals is a fair measure of how much team success gets spread around the league. If a team made it through 2 playoff rounds, it's most likely a good team. Therefore, franchises that made it during a decade probably had a good product to sell fans. In terms of total teams, the '00s are the clear winner here. And even on percentage terms, the most popular decade in the league gave fans the least parity in who they watched in the conference finals.
MAKING THE NBA FINALS
By this measure, the '00s don't stand out as the best in terms of parity, but look how much worse the '80s were. Seriously, think about this: from 1981-1990, the Western Conference gave fans two teams: Houston or the Lakers. That's it. Doesn't seem like a level playing field to me at all. Didn't seem to make the league less popular, though.
WINNING AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP
Well, there just can't be too much volatility in results here. Even college teams manage to make it through a one-and-done, six round tournament more than once in a decade. Again, though, the results seem somewhat clear. The '00s offered the most parity, even when lumping all Lakers titles in one group (which I'm sure Kobe would disagree with). If more franchises won titles in the '00s, and several teams winning is what parity is all about, why weren't the '00s the most popular decade in the NBA's history?
CONCLUSION
Other than the playoff success rate, I doubt there's anything truly groundbreaking in these numbers. Parity does not equal popularity for the NBA. Why? The truth is that the NBA doesn't thrive on the same thing that the NFL does. For whatever reason, casual fans are compelled to watch players, not franchises. And, success alone pales in comparison to a superstar's compelling story. That's probably why the 1998 NBA Finals (rematch of 1997 Bulls-Jazz, but Jordan's last run) were the highest rated ever, and the 2005 Finals (last two NBA champions) were the worst in recent memory.
Will small market teams that can't compete (2011 Kings) be forced to fail and leave behind fanbases? Yes, it's happened in each of the last 3 decades; in fact, it's how the Kings ended up in Sacramento. Will it kill the league? I very much doubt it. If the Patriots and Yankees have proven anything, it's this: Americans watch empires in sports, even if we think they're evil. So, if this is the beginning of the Heat's run, the NBA's probably in a good place from a popularity standpoint. From an entertainment standpoint, I'll enjoy it about as much as I did the '90s... which is to say, less than I enjoyed the last 8 years. Why? I guess I'm just less entertained by a story when I already know how it ends.
The truth is, it's just not that simple. Over the last 30 years, the NBA has enjoyed periods of tremendous popularity, and periods of general indifference from the casual fan. Conventional wisdom (which I agree with, in this case) would rank the last 3 decades in the following order of overall popularity: '91-'00, '81-'90, '01-'10. Taking a look at what happened in the league, not only is it difficult to say parity helped popularity, there's actually an argument that parity hurt popularity.
MAKING THE PLAYOFFS
Making the playoffs generally isn't like making the postseason in any other major sport, because upsets in NBA playoff series are so much rarer relative to other sports. But, while not everyone can win a title, at least a fan can say they were part of the action. Look at the data: every single franchise had a playoff berth in the last 10 years, including the Clippers, Warriors, Raptors, Wizards, even the expansion Bobcats (note: franchises started in a given decade are removed from the total teams number, seems fairer). The other decades can't come close to that. And, just as a counter to the "more than half the league makes the playoffs now" you're muttering under your breath: from 1984-1988, 69% of the league made the playoffs, way more than the 53% today, and nobody ever grouses about it.
MAKING THE CONFERENCE FINALS
Making the conference finals is a fair measure of how much team success gets spread around the league. If a team made it through 2 playoff rounds, it's most likely a good team. Therefore, franchises that made it during a decade probably had a good product to sell fans. In terms of total teams, the '00s are the clear winner here. And even on percentage terms, the most popular decade in the league gave fans the least parity in who they watched in the conference finals.
MAKING THE NBA FINALS
By this measure, the '00s don't stand out as the best in terms of parity, but look how much worse the '80s were. Seriously, think about this: from 1981-1990, the Western Conference gave fans two teams: Houston or the Lakers. That's it. Doesn't seem like a level playing field to me at all. Didn't seem to make the league less popular, though.
WINNING AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP
Well, there just can't be too much volatility in results here. Even college teams manage to make it through a one-and-done, six round tournament more than once in a decade. Again, though, the results seem somewhat clear. The '00s offered the most parity, even when lumping all Lakers titles in one group (which I'm sure Kobe would disagree with). If more franchises won titles in the '00s, and several teams winning is what parity is all about, why weren't the '00s the most popular decade in the NBA's history?
CONCLUSION
Other than the playoff success rate, I doubt there's anything truly groundbreaking in these numbers. Parity does not equal popularity for the NBA. Why? The truth is that the NBA doesn't thrive on the same thing that the NFL does. For whatever reason, casual fans are compelled to watch players, not franchises. And, success alone pales in comparison to a superstar's compelling story. That's probably why the 1998 NBA Finals (rematch of 1997 Bulls-Jazz, but Jordan's last run) were the highest rated ever, and the 2005 Finals (last two NBA champions) were the worst in recent memory.
Will small market teams that can't compete (2011 Kings) be forced to fail and leave behind fanbases? Yes, it's happened in each of the last 3 decades; in fact, it's how the Kings ended up in Sacramento. Will it kill the league? I very much doubt it. If the Patriots and Yankees have proven anything, it's this: Americans watch empires in sports, even if we think they're evil. So, if this is the beginning of the Heat's run, the NBA's probably in a good place from a popularity standpoint. From an entertainment standpoint, I'll enjoy it about as much as I did the '90s... which is to say, less than I enjoyed the last 8 years. Why? I guess I'm just less entertained by a story when I already know how it ends.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Aristotle vs. Fundamental
The dichotomy between the two was the stuff that always makes for compelling rivals. Shaq - freakishly athletic (underrated fundamentally), pure charisma in front of the public. Timmy - freakishly fundamental (underrated athletically), amazingly low key and private in public. But both players changed opposition game plans on offense and defense just by being on the floor, and elevated any team they were on to contender status.
It can't come close to matching the pure wattage and draw of Bird vs. Magic, but look at what each duo accomplished: Bird and Magic won 8 titles (3-5). For 10 consecutive seasons ('80-'89), anyone watching the NBA Finals was watching one of those two. Shaq and Duncan won 8 titles (4-4), and for 9 consecutive years ('99-07), people turned on the NBA Finals and watched one of these two.
When people look back, both of these guys are considered all timers, and potentially the best ever at their positions. But in the age of Sportscenter, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why most people prefer this over this. Hopefully, people can remember that though they went about it different ways, both were scoring two points, and achieving greatness.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
2011 NBA Finals Game 1
One game sample is going to produce some fluky stats. A couple of things that stood out:
- Dirk getting 0.90 PPS on 30 attempts (1.08 PPS in the OKC series). Didn't seem like great defense as much as Dirk not finishing looks at the rim that he normally makes, particularly in the 1st half. I doubt very much that continues as the series rolls forward.
- No Mavs player posted a positive plus/minus for the game.
- Bosh's offensive efficiency vanished against the Dallas frontline (0.63 PPS in Game 1 versus 1.10 PPS against Chicago).
- If it seemed like Shawn Marion played a decent game against Lebron on defense, then you got fooled just like I did. Lebron had 24 points on 18 shots. Wow.
- In a game where both teams struggled to score (0.85 and 0.87 PPS overall), rebounding and extra possessions (read: turnovers) were key, especially in the 4th quarter.
Monday, May 30, 2011
NBA Hater Response: The League is Rigged
Every lifelong NBA fan has run into him at one time or another. The most casual of basketball watchers (typically age 35+), who watches 60 minutes of actual NBA basketball a season, mostly of the highlight variety. For reasons that only the most twisted version of karma can justify, you're stuck talking to this guy about sports. You mention that you like the NBA, and suddenly, you're listening to some flimsy subjective analysis of why the NBA is inherently bad. And you have to make a choice.
You can meekly agree, affirming every ridiculous thing they say for the sake of avoiding an awkward conversation. If you're having a drink, you can throw it on them (the modern-day face slap with a glove). Or, you can fight stupid with fact. If you're like me, then you're too much of a man to go option #1. But, if you're like me, you're not man enough for option #2. So, you're stuck with option #3. If that's the way you're gonna go, this is an attempt to provide the weapons against the various arguments that come up, one by one.
Stupid Argument: The League is Rigged
The idea is that some group of people (the league office, David Stern, ESPN) decides the script every year so that the right teams play, and the right team wins. Therefore, the NBA playoffs are the same as the WWE's Royal Rumble. The basis of this argument usually stems from some game in which a marquee team received preferential treatment relative to a less popular team. First off, trying to bring up the same accusations in other sports (Duke basketball) don't work, so don't bother. The better path? A few recent series that didn't go the way the NBA marketing department would have wanted. And, as luck would have it, it turns out there are a few such instances.
2000 Eastern Conference Finals: Knicks vs. Pacers
What the NBA wanted: Knicks.
What the NBA got: Pacers.
With the Lakers playing the Blazers in the Western Conference finals, a Knicks win would have put them in the NBA Finals for 2 straight years, and given us Lakers-Knicks matchup for the title. Shaq vs. Ewing, Kobe vs. Sprewell, and the #1 and #2 NBA markets in the league showcase.The Pacers were a nice story, but New York's TV market dwarfed Indiana's. Could have been some serious ratings, but somehow, the league let the Pacers shoot 23 more free throws in the series (20 more in Games 5 and 6). NO RIGGING.
2002 Western Conference Finals: Lakers vs.Kings
What the NBA wanted: Lakers.
What the NBA got: Lakers.
Lakers-Kings in the Western Conference finals - a dream matchup for the league and fans. Two time defending champs against the most fun team in the league (fun to watch, fun to play for). In Game 6, the Lakers had a 40-25 disparity in free throw attempts, and won to force Game 7. Strange result considering that through 5 games, the Kings had shot 39 more free throws. Plus, the image of Mike Bibby's face fouling Kobe Bryant's elbow in the last 30 seconds just doesn't help things. POSSIBLE RIGGING.
2002 Eastern Conference Finals: Nets vs. Celtics
What the NBA wanted: Celtics.
What the NBA got: Nets.
While Lakers-Kings was the more compelling conference finals matchup that year, the Pierce-Walker Celtics had the chance to go back to the Finals, setting up the first potential Celtics-Lakers matchup since 1987. There's no more compelling NBA matchup than Celtics-Lakers, and there's no question who the league office wanted to win. Unfortunately, The Nets ended up winning, and got swept by the Lakers amid terrible ratings that would have been enormously helped by some Celtics-Lakers marketing. NO RIGGING.
2005 NBA Eastern Conference Finals: Heat vs. Pistons
What the NBA wanted: Heat.
What the NBA got: Pistons.
The Pistons were the defending champions, but Shaquille O'Neal had transformed the Heat from playoff team to title contender in the most famous trade of the decade. Shaq may have been the biggest draw since MJ left the league, and his return to the Finals with a new team and a new sidekick (a young Dwyane Wade) would certainly be a boon for the league. The most significant swing in this series was probably Wade's Game 5 rib injury, and it's unlikely the league wanted that to happen, since Spurs-Pistons was a ratings disaster. NO RIGGING.
2006 Western Conference 1st Round: Lakers vs. Suns
What the NBA wanted: Lakers.
What the NBA got: Suns.
The Lakers were back in the playoffs on the strength of Kobe Bryant's scoring and little else. The 7 Seconds or Less Suns, sans Stoudemire and Joe Johnson, just weren't as exciting. So, when the Lakers went up 3-1 in Game 4, everyone knew what the league would do next. Have the Suns shoot 7 more free throws than the Lakers in the next 3 games, and win 3 straight to send Kobe and the Lakers home. NO RIGGING.
2007 Eastern Conference 1st Round: Heat vs. Bulls
What the NBA wanted: Heat.
What the NBA got: Bulls.
The Miami Heat were the defending champions, and boasted two NBA All-Star game starters (Shaq and Wade), who had the #12 and #2 selling jerseys that year, respectively. The Chicago Bulls had no All-Star players, and were led by Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, and Luol Deng. Waiting in the next round would likely be the Detroit Pistons, who had developed a nice two year rivalry with the Heat in the conference finals. So, naturally, the Bulls swept the champs out of the playoffs. NO RIGGING.
2009 Eastern Conference Finals: Cavs vs. Magic
What the NBA wanted: Cavs.
What the NBA got: Magic.
The Cleveland Cavaliers were the league's best regular season team. Lebron James had won his first MVP, and his team was 8-0 in the 1st 2 rounds of the playoffs. Most sports media were watching Lebron perform at a transcendent level, and bursting with praise about the league's torch being passed to the next Great One. With the Lakers hurtling towards another Finals berth, the league had the chance for Kobe's Lakers versus Lebron's Cavaliers. Of course, the Magic won the series 4-2. NO RIGGING.
2011 Western Conference Semis: Lakers vs. Mavs
What the NBA wanted: Lakers.
What the NBA got: Mavs.
The Lakers were the two-time defending champs. Kobe was going for his 6th title. Phil Jackson was going for his 12th as a coach. Phil was even writing a book to chronicle his team's quest for the title. The Dallas Mavericks' postseason resume was more noted for historic collapses (2006 finals, 2007 1st round) than successes. With the Thunder waiting to resume their L.A. rivalry from the 2010 playoffs, and a Celtics/Bulls/Heat combatant likely waiting in the Finals, the Lakers could have brought the league its most successful ratings by making it back to the Finals. Naturally, the Mavs swept the Lakers straight out of the playoffs. NO RIGGING.
So, over the last 11 years, 8 times the league had a clear preference in who won a playoff series, based on the potential benefit for ratings and revenues. 7 times, the other guy won. So, the argument that the NBA is rigged is based on the league getting its way 12.5% of the time? Right.
Unfortunately, this argument is mostly hopeless against your combatant. They have no memory of anything that doesn't serve their ridiculous point of view, and will probably counter any example you use as wrong or a lie, for reasons they can't explain. Don't worry - when it comes to making rational, factual arguments, you're right. But arguing this point is like arguing politics: they don't like your point of view, and there's nothing you can say that will change their mind.
You can meekly agree, affirming every ridiculous thing they say for the sake of avoiding an awkward conversation. If you're having a drink, you can throw it on them (the modern-day face slap with a glove). Or, you can fight stupid with fact. If you're like me, then you're too much of a man to go option #1. But, if you're like me, you're not man enough for option #2. So, you're stuck with option #3. If that's the way you're gonna go, this is an attempt to provide the weapons against the various arguments that come up, one by one.
Stupid Argument: The League is Rigged
The idea is that some group of people (the league office, David Stern, ESPN) decides the script every year so that the right teams play, and the right team wins. Therefore, the NBA playoffs are the same as the WWE's Royal Rumble. The basis of this argument usually stems from some game in which a marquee team received preferential treatment relative to a less popular team. First off, trying to bring up the same accusations in other sports (Duke basketball) don't work, so don't bother. The better path? A few recent series that didn't go the way the NBA marketing department would have wanted. And, as luck would have it, it turns out there are a few such instances.
2000 Eastern Conference Finals: Knicks vs. Pacers
What the NBA wanted: Knicks.
What the NBA got: Pacers.
With the Lakers playing the Blazers in the Western Conference finals, a Knicks win would have put them in the NBA Finals for 2 straight years, and given us Lakers-Knicks matchup for the title. Shaq vs. Ewing, Kobe vs. Sprewell, and the #1 and #2 NBA markets in the league showcase.The Pacers were a nice story, but New York's TV market dwarfed Indiana's. Could have been some serious ratings, but somehow, the league let the Pacers shoot 23 more free throws in the series (20 more in Games 5 and 6). NO RIGGING.
2002 Western Conference Finals: Lakers vs.Kings
What the NBA wanted: Lakers.
What the NBA got: Lakers.
Lakers-Kings in the Western Conference finals - a dream matchup for the league and fans. Two time defending champs against the most fun team in the league (fun to watch, fun to play for). In Game 6, the Lakers had a 40-25 disparity in free throw attempts, and won to force Game 7. Strange result considering that through 5 games, the Kings had shot 39 more free throws. Plus, the image of Mike Bibby's face fouling Kobe Bryant's elbow in the last 30 seconds just doesn't help things. POSSIBLE RIGGING.
2002 Eastern Conference Finals: Nets vs. Celtics
What the NBA wanted: Celtics.
What the NBA got: Nets.
While Lakers-Kings was the more compelling conference finals matchup that year, the Pierce-Walker Celtics had the chance to go back to the Finals, setting up the first potential Celtics-Lakers matchup since 1987. There's no more compelling NBA matchup than Celtics-Lakers, and there's no question who the league office wanted to win. Unfortunately, The Nets ended up winning, and got swept by the Lakers amid terrible ratings that would have been enormously helped by some Celtics-Lakers marketing. NO RIGGING.
2005 NBA Eastern Conference Finals: Heat vs. Pistons
What the NBA wanted: Heat.
What the NBA got: Pistons.
The Pistons were the defending champions, but Shaquille O'Neal had transformed the Heat from playoff team to title contender in the most famous trade of the decade. Shaq may have been the biggest draw since MJ left the league, and his return to the Finals with a new team and a new sidekick (a young Dwyane Wade) would certainly be a boon for the league. The most significant swing in this series was probably Wade's Game 5 rib injury, and it's unlikely the league wanted that to happen, since Spurs-Pistons was a ratings disaster. NO RIGGING.
2006 Western Conference 1st Round: Lakers vs. Suns
What the NBA wanted: Lakers.
What the NBA got: Suns.
The Lakers were back in the playoffs on the strength of Kobe Bryant's scoring and little else. The 7 Seconds or Less Suns, sans Stoudemire and Joe Johnson, just weren't as exciting. So, when the Lakers went up 3-1 in Game 4, everyone knew what the league would do next. Have the Suns shoot 7 more free throws than the Lakers in the next 3 games, and win 3 straight to send Kobe and the Lakers home. NO RIGGING.
2007 Eastern Conference 1st Round: Heat vs. Bulls
What the NBA wanted: Heat.
What the NBA got: Bulls.
The Miami Heat were the defending champions, and boasted two NBA All-Star game starters (Shaq and Wade), who had the #12 and #2 selling jerseys that year, respectively. The Chicago Bulls had no All-Star players, and were led by Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, and Luol Deng. Waiting in the next round would likely be the Detroit Pistons, who had developed a nice two year rivalry with the Heat in the conference finals. So, naturally, the Bulls swept the champs out of the playoffs. NO RIGGING.
2009 Eastern Conference Finals: Cavs vs. Magic
What the NBA wanted: Cavs.
What the NBA got: Magic.
The Cleveland Cavaliers were the league's best regular season team. Lebron James had won his first MVP, and his team was 8-0 in the 1st 2 rounds of the playoffs. Most sports media were watching Lebron perform at a transcendent level, and bursting with praise about the league's torch being passed to the next Great One. With the Lakers hurtling towards another Finals berth, the league had the chance for Kobe's Lakers versus Lebron's Cavaliers. Of course, the Magic won the series 4-2. NO RIGGING.
2011 Western Conference Semis: Lakers vs. Mavs
What the NBA wanted: Lakers.
What the NBA got: Mavs.
The Lakers were the two-time defending champs. Kobe was going for his 6th title. Phil Jackson was going for his 12th as a coach. Phil was even writing a book to chronicle his team's quest for the title. The Dallas Mavericks' postseason resume was more noted for historic collapses (2006 finals, 2007 1st round) than successes. With the Thunder waiting to resume their L.A. rivalry from the 2010 playoffs, and a Celtics/Bulls/Heat combatant likely waiting in the Finals, the Lakers could have brought the league its most successful ratings by making it back to the Finals. Naturally, the Mavs swept the Lakers straight out of the playoffs. NO RIGGING.
So, over the last 11 years, 8 times the league had a clear preference in who won a playoff series, based on the potential benefit for ratings and revenues. 7 times, the other guy won. So, the argument that the NBA is rigged is based on the league getting its way 12.5% of the time? Right.
Unfortunately, this argument is mostly hopeless against your combatant. They have no memory of anything that doesn't serve their ridiculous point of view, and will probably counter any example you use as wrong or a lie, for reasons they can't explain. Don't worry - when it comes to making rational, factual arguments, you're right. But arguing this point is like arguing politics: they don't like your point of view, and there's nothing you can say that will change their mind.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Heat Bulls Summary
Best Player in the Series: Chris Bosh. He's been listening to everyone's garbage all season. The world knew how good Lebron and Wade were, but Bosh had toiled in relative anonymity despite regular season success and some nice play for Team USA. Watching Toronto the last 3 years, and Miami this year, no one had to adjust their game more than Bosh on the Heat. He's really the 2011 remix of 2008 Pau Gasol: overburdened #1 guy turns into a great sidekick (other good bets to get the same result: Andre Iguodala, Danny Granger). Incidentally, he lapped the field and then some in this series. How good was he? His 1.10 points per shot in this series was better than Dirk's 1.08 PPS in the OKC series. That is not a misprint. I'm not trying to imply that the two feats are the same, because they're not, and Dirk was far more impressive scoring the ball. I'm simply saying that Dallas should remember to account for this guy... after they figure out how to slow down the two-time MVP. And the All-NBA 2nd Team, Finals MVP from '06. Man, I do not want to trade lives with Rick Carlisle for the next three weeks.
Worst Player in the Series: Joel Anthony. Just so you know, before Game 5, this was Dwyane Wade's spot. That's how bad Wade was in this series, despite the 4 point play and the comeback and all that. But, luckily for Wade, Joel had one more 29 minute stink bomb to throw onto the court. I actually like Joel Anthony; he's in the league because he does the dirty work things that most players claim they do, but rarely do consistently. But the fact that Coach Spo will trot out Anthony, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Jamal Magloire, or Juwan Howard as the starting center in the NBA Finals next week really speaks to how good the Big 3 are. Or, if that isn't convincing enough: Mike Bibby started at PG for the Miami Heat in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference finals. 3 months and a day earlier, he was playing against the Heat in his first game for the Wizards, the 23 win team that would pay him to go away less than one week later.
Jerome James Award: Derrick Rose. Derrick Rose is my favorite player in the NBA. Humble, hard-working, and never shies away from accountability. There's no doubt that he could have used some more help from his teammates against Miami, but there are other things to take from this series. For example, here's a look at Chicago's top 5 regular season scorers:
The thing that jumps out... Noah and Korver lost a lot of shots, and lost a lot of efficiency. People can say whatever they want about the Bulls' individual struggles, but the bottom line is this. The point guard's job is to get everybody in the right spot, at the right time, so they can do their job well. Both Noah and Korver aren't going to get their own shot in iso situations, and it's Derrick's job to get them their points. In the regular season, both these guys had struggled offensively against the Heat, and they were going to need Derrick's help to get theirs. And they just didn't get enough help. Regardless of who this team brings in at SG next season, Miami will be waiting in the playoffs. And as evenly matched as these teams were (11 point difference in 5 games, plus an overtime), those future matchups will likely tilt on guys like Haslem getting theirs, and guys like Korver not. And that responsibility will fall to the league's youngest MVP.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Mavericks Thunder Summary
Best Player in the Series: James Harden. The month of March was basically our first look at Harden freed from the constraints of Jeff Green getting shots. In that month, he averaged 13.6 ppg on 15 shots (0.90 PPS). That's not good, but not terrible. In this series? 14.4 ppg on 13.6 shots (1.06 PPS). That level of efficiency is as ridiculous as it is unsustainable over a full regular season. How unsustainable? Well, Dirk couldn't do it this year. I think his play-making abilities were not similarly overblown; he's been a natural and willing passer since his ASU days. But for Thunder fans expecting him to produce like this every night for 82 games as a scorer next year, please temper expectations. For his sake, and your own.
Worst Player in the Series: Russell Westbrook. I hate to pile on him, because he's taken too much criticism. But, there are a few things that should be pointed out. First, during the regular season, Westbrook was the 5th worst point per shot scorer among players taking 18 shots per game, at 0.82 points per shot on 24.6 shots per game; in this series, he shot it to the tune of 0.77 points per shot... on over 30 shots per game. Second, during the season, he averaged 8.2 assists versus 3.9 turnovers; in this series, 4.8 assists versus 4.8 turnovers. His teammates may say he was playing the same game he has all season, but it's just not true. He shot more (and with less efficiency), passed less, and turned the ball over more. This is by no means the player he will always be, but for 5 games, Russell and KD looked like what Bron and Wade were supposed to look like in the playoffs: two ball dominant scorers who tolerated sharing the ball instead of working effectively together.
Jerome James Award: Jose Juan Barea. Even for guys that come off the bench, there are two sides to an NBA court: offense and defense. And if you're completely useless on one end, a good opponent will likely offset everything you do on the other end. And that's what happened to everybody's favorite "oh, man, he's not bigger or more athletic than I am, I could play in the NBA" player (incidentally, he's stronger than you are, he's way more athletic, and you couldn't play in the NBA if they said you didn't have to dribble). Consider: in 4 of the 5 games he played in, OKC outscored the Mavs while he was on the floor (-2, -12, -7, -8). In the other game (Game 3), the two teams tied in his 14 minutes. This was not the Laker series for Mr. Barea. And against whichever stifling defense comes out of the back-alley brawl that is the Eastern Conference finals, I think he could fare even worse.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
A One-Step Plan for Titles in OKC
On the heels of that Game 4 debacle, I'm sure there are a lot of people wringing their hands over the future in OKC. In a 7 game series, the superior team wins most of the time, with only a few potential exceptions (2007 Warriors, but that's the only one that comes to mind). As OKC looks ahead to the future, and its potential to contend for championships, the question has to be asked: is the current roster capable?
The front office has done an incredible job of hitting on high draft picks, paying players reasonable money and maintaining cap flexibility (e.g. the Collison deal). But is this team good enough to get better, from within, and win it all? The NBA has proven time and time again that it takes 2 stars, with a reliable 3rd option, to consistently contend for a title. Now, in Durant, one piece is definitely in place. So, is the 2nd piece in place? If you don't think Russell Westbrook is the answer, then there might be a deal that fixes everything you think is wrong with the Thunder's situation - trade for Chris Paul.
Why New Orleans does this deal: Chris Paul is going to leave, and if the front office could choose how it plays out, they'd probably lean towards Utah handling Deron Williams more than Denver handling Carmelo. Despite what everyone has said, Russell Westbrook is still an All-Star, All-NBA talent who may not have reached 3/4 of his potential yet. Plus, James Harden is a nice, young, rookie contract piece that can play next to him. The most onerous long term contract the Hornets are saddled with (Okafor) is traded out for a much lower number being paid to Perk. And Nate Robinson is a nice expiring piece for next year. And, if both Westbrook and Harden implode quickly, in three years Perk and Sefolosha are all that's left. If there's a team that can make a better offer, I'd like to see it.
Why OKC does this deal: Upgrade the point guard position with arguably the best pure point guard in the league, in his prime. Realistically, Russell Westbrook's best case scenario can't include the floor general skills and shooting of CP3. Okafor is not considered an attractive piece to every NBA team, but he's capable of giving OKC exactly what Perkins was supposed to and then some (physical interior defense, without playing 4-on-5 on offense).
The most serious hurdle to clear is including James Harden. He's showed well in this postseason, and may be offering a glimpse of potential All-Star talent. It's certainly possible. Of course, it's also possible that he's showing us exactly what we saw from Boris Diaw in '06, Rodney Stuckey in '08, Hedo Turkoglu in '09, and Goran Dragic in '10. And that would be the perfect combination of opportunity, matchups, and confidence. The one common thread between all those breakout stars of the playoffs? Their stock has gone down, and 3 out of 4 were playing on different teams within two seasons.
Would this deal represent a radical departure from the OKC blueprint? Not really. The team traded Jeff Green, one of the first building blocks of the current roster, because they saw an opportunity to upgrade the roster and open the championship window now. If the key ingredients this team is lacking include leadership, methodical execution of the offense in crunch time, and a 2nd true alpha dog to pair with Durant as he enters the physical prime of his career, this is a deal that I think must be done. Let's pair two of the most likeable, marketable, skilled competitors in the league in a small market, with a nice roster and a great fanbase, and let them go to work.
I mean, you tell me how Dallas would like to try closing out 2 minutes of crunch time against Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Serge Ibaka, Okafor, and a wing defender to be named later?
The front office has done an incredible job of hitting on high draft picks, paying players reasonable money and maintaining cap flexibility (e.g. the Collison deal). But is this team good enough to get better, from within, and win it all? The NBA has proven time and time again that it takes 2 stars, with a reliable 3rd option, to consistently contend for a title. Now, in Durant, one piece is definitely in place. So, is the 2nd piece in place? If you don't think Russell Westbrook is the answer, then there might be a deal that fixes everything you think is wrong with the Thunder's situation - trade for Chris Paul.
Why New Orleans does this deal: Chris Paul is going to leave, and if the front office could choose how it plays out, they'd probably lean towards Utah handling Deron Williams more than Denver handling Carmelo. Despite what everyone has said, Russell Westbrook is still an All-Star, All-NBA talent who may not have reached 3/4 of his potential yet. Plus, James Harden is a nice, young, rookie contract piece that can play next to him. The most onerous long term contract the Hornets are saddled with (Okafor) is traded out for a much lower number being paid to Perk. And Nate Robinson is a nice expiring piece for next year. And, if both Westbrook and Harden implode quickly, in three years Perk and Sefolosha are all that's left. If there's a team that can make a better offer, I'd like to see it.
Why OKC does this deal: Upgrade the point guard position with arguably the best pure point guard in the league, in his prime. Realistically, Russell Westbrook's best case scenario can't include the floor general skills and shooting of CP3. Okafor is not considered an attractive piece to every NBA team, but he's capable of giving OKC exactly what Perkins was supposed to and then some (physical interior defense, without playing 4-on-5 on offense).
The most serious hurdle to clear is including James Harden. He's showed well in this postseason, and may be offering a glimpse of potential All-Star talent. It's certainly possible. Of course, it's also possible that he's showing us exactly what we saw from Boris Diaw in '06, Rodney Stuckey in '08, Hedo Turkoglu in '09, and Goran Dragic in '10. And that would be the perfect combination of opportunity, matchups, and confidence. The one common thread between all those breakout stars of the playoffs? Their stock has gone down, and 3 out of 4 were playing on different teams within two seasons.
Would this deal represent a radical departure from the OKC blueprint? Not really. The team traded Jeff Green, one of the first building blocks of the current roster, because they saw an opportunity to upgrade the roster and open the championship window now. If the key ingredients this team is lacking include leadership, methodical execution of the offense in crunch time, and a 2nd true alpha dog to pair with Durant as he enters the physical prime of his career, this is a deal that I think must be done. Let's pair two of the most likeable, marketable, skilled competitors in the league in a small market, with a nice roster and a great fanbase, and let them go to work.
I mean, you tell me how Dallas would like to try closing out 2 minutes of crunch time against Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Serge Ibaka, Okafor, and a wing defender to be named later?
Friday, May 20, 2011
Going Solo: A Cautionary Tale for Durant and Westbrook
A very disturbing storyline is developing for the Oklahoma City Thunder in this postseason. Whether deserved or not (overdone, in my opinion), the successes of the team are being laid at the feet of Kevin Durant, while the struggles are heaped onto the shoulders of Russell Westbrook. Given the incredible youth and inexperience of virtually every major piece of the Thunder in postseason play, from coach on down the line (Kendrick Perkins' plus-minus contributions makes him a minor piece here), this is almost certainly unfair. Example: In the triple-overtime Grizzlies game, Westbrook misses at the end of regulation and OT #2 are ridiculed. Kevin Durant is exempted from criticism despite getting no closer than a step back 28 footer at the end of OT #1, in addition to openly complaining about not getting the ball for all the cameras to see. From the outside looking in, it appears to be wearing on Westbrook, which is bad for everybody.
The toughest thing to do in the NBA is put two upper echelon players on the same team while both are in their prime. Most of the time, one is past their prime, or not at it yet. Durant and Westbrook, and the league for that matter, are lucky enough to be in that rare position. The worst thing possible, for everyone involved, is if oustide pressures (read: media) and ego drive a wedge between these two, and force one to leave. This has happened before, and the results are not good.
Kevin Garnett and Stephon Marbury (1999): despite two consecutive playoff berths, Stephon was unhappy with his role, and demanded his way out. After being traded, Starbury and Garnett would make it past the 1st round just once, combined, in the next 9 years, despite piling up All-Star berths and All-NBA praise individually.
Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant (2004): despite 3 titles and 5 NBA Finals appearances, Shaq and Kobe were always considered two alpha dogs that somehow coexisted despite hating each other. Management chose the younger guy, and both players won titles without the other. However, we haven't seen a pairing of two All-NBA 1st team talents since, and who knows how many titles they could have won had they just figured it out.
Steve Nash and Joe Johnson (2005): The 7 Seconds or Less Suns were an amazing phenomenon in '04-'05, and the combination of Nash, Stoudemire, Marion, and Joe Johnson lost in the conference finals to the Spurs. Most people forget that a Joe Johnson concussion in that series hampered the Suns, who may have already been the Spurs' match in their 1st year playing together. Joe Johnson wanted a team and venue to showcase his 6-8 point guard abilities, and management worked out a trade to Atlanta. Joe Johnson has never gotten back to the conference finals, and the Nash Suns didn't until 2010.
Hopefully, Russell and Kevin understand how rare their combination is, and from a team success standpoint, it's hard to imagine them being better positioned than they are now for the long term. Money is a separate issue, and I'll never pretend to tell someone how or why to leave $10mm+ in guaranteed money on the table. But I'll always believe that it's easier to teach skill/poise to talented players than to teach talent to skilled/poised players. And there are examples of guys sharing or even ceding the spotlight for team success (Ginobli with Duncan). Jordan had to learn to trust teammates, and never won it all until he did. But he figured it out. So I say to Durant, Westrbook, Scott Brooks: figure it out. It's the best thing for all of us.
Unless New Orleans would take Westbrook in a package for Chris Paul, in which case you can disregard all of this.
The toughest thing to do in the NBA is put two upper echelon players on the same team while both are in their prime. Most of the time, one is past their prime, or not at it yet. Durant and Westbrook, and the league for that matter, are lucky enough to be in that rare position. The worst thing possible, for everyone involved, is if oustide pressures (read: media) and ego drive a wedge between these two, and force one to leave. This has happened before, and the results are not good.
Kevin Garnett and Stephon Marbury (1999): despite two consecutive playoff berths, Stephon was unhappy with his role, and demanded his way out. After being traded, Starbury and Garnett would make it past the 1st round just once, combined, in the next 9 years, despite piling up All-Star berths and All-NBA praise individually.
Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant (2004): despite 3 titles and 5 NBA Finals appearances, Shaq and Kobe were always considered two alpha dogs that somehow coexisted despite hating each other. Management chose the younger guy, and both players won titles without the other. However, we haven't seen a pairing of two All-NBA 1st team talents since, and who knows how many titles they could have won had they just figured it out.
Steve Nash and Joe Johnson (2005): The 7 Seconds or Less Suns were an amazing phenomenon in '04-'05, and the combination of Nash, Stoudemire, Marion, and Joe Johnson lost in the conference finals to the Spurs. Most people forget that a Joe Johnson concussion in that series hampered the Suns, who may have already been the Spurs' match in their 1st year playing together. Joe Johnson wanted a team and venue to showcase his 6-8 point guard abilities, and management worked out a trade to Atlanta. Joe Johnson has never gotten back to the conference finals, and the Nash Suns didn't until 2010.
Hopefully, Russell and Kevin understand how rare their combination is, and from a team success standpoint, it's hard to imagine them being better positioned than they are now for the long term. Money is a separate issue, and I'll never pretend to tell someone how or why to leave $10mm+ in guaranteed money on the table. But I'll always believe that it's easier to teach skill/poise to talented players than to teach talent to skilled/poised players. And there are examples of guys sharing or even ceding the spotlight for team success (Ginobli with Duncan). Jordan had to learn to trust teammates, and never won it all until he did. But he figured it out. So I say to Durant, Westrbook, Scott Brooks: figure it out. It's the best thing for all of us.
Unless New Orleans would take Westbrook in a package for Chris Paul, in which case you can disregard all of this.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
One of a Kind: Remembering the Pistons/Celtics
(This is a two part blog entry. To read Part 1, a recap of the Billups/Hamilton/Prince/Wallace/Wallace Pistons, read the words highlighted in blue. To read Part 2, a recap of the Rondo/Allen/Pierce/Garnett/Perkins Celtics, read the words highlighted in green.)
The Pistons/Celtics of 2004-2007/2008-2011 were a collection of lesser stars who, while somewhat accomplished individually, had never been to an NBA Finals, much less won a championship. While together, they had a four year run of incredible success. Several pieces had been in place for some time, but the finishing touch on the team’s core came with the acquisition of Rasheed Wallace/Kevin Garnett. A multi-skilled and athletic big man, he changed games on both ends of the floor, but had never gone further than the Western conference finals, losing to the Lakers of Shaq and Kobe. For most of us who watched, we thought his struggles stemmed from not having the mentality necessary to carry a team in crunch time, a thought driven by his willingness to make the right pass, no matter how much time was left on the clock (and possibly by a few 4th quarter misses). Once he arrived, conventional wisdom said this team was an instant title contender from day one. As it turned out, conventional wisdom was right.
The Pistons/Celtics of 2004-2007/2008-2011 were a collection of lesser stars who, while somewhat accomplished individually, had never been to an NBA Finals, much less won a championship. While together, they had a four year run of incredible success. Several pieces had been in place for some time, but the finishing touch on the team’s core came with the acquisition of Rasheed Wallace/Kevin Garnett. A multi-skilled and athletic big man, he changed games on both ends of the floor, but had never gone further than the Western conference finals, losing to the Lakers of Shaq and Kobe. For most of us who watched, we thought his struggles stemmed from not having the mentality necessary to carry a team in crunch time, a thought driven by his willingness to make the right pass, no matter how much time was left on the clock (and possibly by a few 4th quarter misses). Once he arrived, conventional wisdom said this team was an instant title contender from day one. As it turned out, conventional wisdom was right.
The calling card of the Pistons/Celtics throughout their four year run would be defense. The tandem of Rasheed Wallace/Kevin Garnett with Ben Wallace/Kendrick Perkins proved to be an ideal fit. Rasheed/Garnett was the vocal leader of the defense, providing excellent defense in help situations, as well as effectively snuffing out pick-and-rolls and guarding every conceivable type of forward with his combination of length, energy, and athleticism. Meanwhile, the interior power and rebounding of Ben Wallace/Perkins let the team leave even dominant centers like Shaq/Dwight single covered in the post. The ability of those two bigs to affect a game, combined with the previously underrated defensive ability of Chauncey Billups/Rajon Rondo at the point guard spot (earning All-NBA Defense honors during the run, but not before), created an incredible defensive team. Even a shooting guard like Richard Hamilton/Ray Allen, who had never been considered a piece of a good defensive team, bought in and contributed to a unit that genuinely intimidated the rest of the league.
While the reputation of the team came from defense, on offense this team was pretty impressive. Despite basically playing 4-on-5 because of Ben Wallace/Perkins being on the court, the team remained tough to defend. Rasheed/Garnett, with both a low post and face-up game, was a difficult matchup for most post defenders. Add to that Hamilton/Allen tirelessly running through a million screens, Billups/Rondo perfectly playing the role of floor general, and Wallace/Perkins available to crash the offensive glass, and most teams had serious problems trying to defend their sets. The biggest problem the Pistons/Celtics were supposed to have was, "who takes the shot in crunch time?" As it turned out, there were usually a few mismatches to exploit. Despite previous struggles as his team’s main go-to scorer, Rasheed/Garnett became a good option due to his combination of scoring ability and willingness to trust and find the open man if doubled. Hamilton/Allen was always dangerous as a shooter, and had to be respected coming off screens, either getting himself open or keeping help defenders occupied. However, when the team just had to have a bucket, usually the ball went to Billups/Pierce, as his Finals MVP trophy would eventually attest.
In their 4 season run, the Pistons/Celtics accomplished a lot. In terms of regular season success, they averaged 56/59 wins per year, including a league-best 64/66 wins in 2006/2008. The Pistons/Celtics earned 8/12 All-Star berths in 4 years (including 4 in one year), and 5/3 berths on All-NBA teams. They won their only NBA title in their first year together. They would come tantalizing close to another: in a matchup of the past two NBA champs, the Pistons/Celtics were tied/up 4 against the Spurs/Lakers going into the 4th quarter of Game 7 of the 2005/2010 NBA Finals, but ultimately lost the game, the series, and bragging rights as top dog of those 4 years in NBA history.
Ultimately, their last year wasn’t really a fair chance at one last run, because management decided to let Ben Wallace/Kendrick Perkins go, unwilling to pay him the long term money he wanted, and probably misunderstanding his importance to the team. It turns out, letting him go meant unraveling the very core of the defense and mentality the Pistons/Celtics had hung their hat on the previous three years, and the 2007/2011 season marked the end of their run. In the playoffs that year, they would finally lose to Lebron James, who after years of tormenting playoff losses to the Pistons/Celtics, losses that made us question if he could ever win a title, finally beat them in a series.
When we look back on the Pistons/Celtics in 10-20 years, it will probably turn out that the for all their intensity, late game heroics, and larger-than-life swagger, they just don't stack up to the team that beat them in the 2005/2010 NBA Finals, the Spurs/Lakers. That's just the way it is... we don't say the Sixers were the equal of the Lakers in the '80s, and we don't say the '06 Heat were as good as the Tim Duncan Spurs. For better or worse, the world uses championships as the final measure of historical greatness. And, as time passes, these teams will likely be nice stories, but ultimately placeholders as we shifted between teams of real historical significance in the NBA.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Drafting for the Bobcats
The NBA Draft is a lot like hitting a baseball, something I know literally nothing about. There are different definitions of success, and different ways to go about getting it done.
- Sometimes you don't need to be a hero, and just advancing runners is a good enough win (low upside, low downside).
- Sometimes, you're situated to take a reasonable shot at an extra base hit, knowing that it's okay that it might not work out (the calculated risk).
- Sometimes, you flail so hard at the ball that the most likely outcome is you walking back to the dugout, after looking really stupid. But, for whatever reason, you wanted that home run so bad, you decided it was time to take a shot.
In my opinion, DraftExpress provides everything you'd want to know about a prospect and more, but here's my view of what the Bobcats are looking at in their draft slots, and what I think they should do.
#9 (Joakim Noah/Brook Lopez to Joe Alexander)
Laying Down the Bunt: Kawhi Leonard, Marcus Morris
The 2-0 Swing: Donatas Motiejunas, Alec Burks
Swinging Out of Your Shoes: Bismack Biyombo
My Pick: Kawhi Leonard. I see shades of Gerald Wallace (great rebounder, energy and versatility on defense), with a little sprinkle of Andre Iguodala (underrated passer handling the ball, particularly in the open court, potential lockdown defender). Is he the best player on a title contending team? No. But the last 6 champions needed a glue guy wing defender like this on their team (Prince, Bowen, Posey, Bowen, Posey, Ariza, Artest). He's ready to play in the NBA tomorrow, and when I watched him play a few games at SDSU, I saw versatility, athleticism, two-way ability, and hustle. I want Kawhi Leonard on the Charlotte Bobcats. Don't argue. Just accept it.
#19 (Ty Lawson to Quincy Douby)
Laying Down the Bunt: Kenneth Faried, Chris Singleton
The 2-0 Swing: Jordan Hamilton, Tyler Honeycutt, Travis Leslie
Swinging Out of Your Shoes: Lucas Noguiera, Josh Selby
My Pick: Lucas Noguiera. I can already hear the Alexis Ajinca comparisons. They're both 7 footers that make Kevin Durant look like Ron Artest. I can't say that I disagree, but... he's 18 years old, with ridiculous physical potential. Easy to compare him to Ajinca and laugh, but tell me how he's different from Serge Ibaka as a prospect in 2008? He's a longshot, but he may be stashed overseas for a year or two...or forever. I'd rather use the $1.2mm salary that pick is allotted as dry powder for a potential free agent offer (spoiler alert: he plays for the Kings).
#39 (Landry Fields to Stanko Barac)
Laying Down the Bunt: Nolan Smith, JaJuan Johnson, Trey Thompkins
The 2-0 Swing: Darius Morris, Jereme Richmond, Norris Cole, Charles Jenkins
Swinging Out of Your Shoes: Scotty Hopson, Malcolm Lee, Jeremy Tyler
My Pick: Norris Cole. In the 2nd round, there aren't a lot of All-Star caliber players available. In fact, it's important to remember that most of these guys are out of the league in less than 2 years. With that in mind, this is where I pick the guy that has a spot on an NBA roster. That guy? Norris Cole. True point guard, with NBA size, demonstrated ability to run a team (esp. in pick-and-roll) and do what it takes to help his team win. Case in point? Over 20 ppg against Butler (3 games) as the focal point of his team's offense, and 20 rebounds in a game (in college, I believe a young Rajon Rondo was the last PG to do that). This was Cleveland's sleeper before they got the #1 pick and Kyrie. Now, hopefully, he'll be our sleeper.
- Sometimes you don't need to be a hero, and just advancing runners is a good enough win (low upside, low downside).
- Sometimes, you're situated to take a reasonable shot at an extra base hit, knowing that it's okay that it might not work out (the calculated risk).
- Sometimes, you flail so hard at the ball that the most likely outcome is you walking back to the dugout, after looking really stupid. But, for whatever reason, you wanted that home run so bad, you decided it was time to take a shot.
In my opinion, DraftExpress provides everything you'd want to know about a prospect and more, but here's my view of what the Bobcats are looking at in their draft slots, and what I think they should do.
#9 (Joakim Noah/Brook Lopez to Joe Alexander)
Laying Down the Bunt: Kawhi Leonard, Marcus Morris
The 2-0 Swing: Donatas Motiejunas, Alec Burks
Swinging Out of Your Shoes: Bismack Biyombo
My Pick: Kawhi Leonard. I see shades of Gerald Wallace (great rebounder, energy and versatility on defense), with a little sprinkle of Andre Iguodala (underrated passer handling the ball, particularly in the open court, potential lockdown defender). Is he the best player on a title contending team? No. But the last 6 champions needed a glue guy wing defender like this on their team (Prince, Bowen, Posey, Bowen, Posey, Ariza, Artest). He's ready to play in the NBA tomorrow, and when I watched him play a few games at SDSU, I saw versatility, athleticism, two-way ability, and hustle. I want Kawhi Leonard on the Charlotte Bobcats. Don't argue. Just accept it.
#19 (Ty Lawson to Quincy Douby)
Laying Down the Bunt: Kenneth Faried, Chris Singleton
The 2-0 Swing: Jordan Hamilton, Tyler Honeycutt, Travis Leslie
Swinging Out of Your Shoes: Lucas Noguiera, Josh Selby
My Pick: Lucas Noguiera. I can already hear the Alexis Ajinca comparisons. They're both 7 footers that make Kevin Durant look like Ron Artest. I can't say that I disagree, but... he's 18 years old, with ridiculous physical potential. Easy to compare him to Ajinca and laugh, but tell me how he's different from Serge Ibaka as a prospect in 2008? He's a longshot, but he may be stashed overseas for a year or two...or forever. I'd rather use the $1.2mm salary that pick is allotted as dry powder for a potential free agent offer (spoiler alert: he plays for the Kings).
#39 (Landry Fields to Stanko Barac)
Laying Down the Bunt: Nolan Smith, JaJuan Johnson, Trey Thompkins
The 2-0 Swing: Darius Morris, Jereme Richmond, Norris Cole, Charles Jenkins
Swinging Out of Your Shoes: Scotty Hopson, Malcolm Lee, Jeremy Tyler
My Pick: Norris Cole. In the 2nd round, there aren't a lot of All-Star caliber players available. In fact, it's important to remember that most of these guys are out of the league in less than 2 years. With that in mind, this is where I pick the guy that has a spot on an NBA roster. That guy? Norris Cole. True point guard, with NBA size, demonstrated ability to run a team (esp. in pick-and-roll) and do what it takes to help his team win. Case in point? Over 20 ppg against Butler (3 games) as the focal point of his team's offense, and 20 rebounds in a game (in college, I believe a young Rajon Rondo was the last PG to do that). This was Cleveland's sleeper before they got the #1 pick and Kyrie. Now, hopefully, he'll be our sleeper.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Thunder Grizzlies Summary
BEST PLAYER IN THE SERIES: MARC GASOL. If it hadn't happened in two consecutive series, the Jerome James Award may have been re-named. Because it's hard to imagine Pau's little brother living up to the hype of these 13 games going forward (don't worry, Marc, I'm calling it the Ben Gordon award before I do that). No one player can claim to benefit more from Memphis' run than Marc. Z-Bo got the headlines, Mike Conley and OJ (I'm not calling him "Juice") got the highlights, but watching the Grizzlies games, this guy made it all happen. From keeping double teams off Randolph by quietly torching single coverage, to providing shooting touch and passing from the mid-post, to gutting out unbelievable minutes for a player his size, the 2011 playoffs should be remembered in part for Marc downgrading the Pau trade from fleecing to fairly lopsided. (What's that, Celtics fans? Don't want to chime in about how Telfair is the only Celtic left on Minnesota's team from the Garnett trade? No interest in mentioning that Minnesota traded Al Jefferson, the centerpiece of the deal, for less than what the Bobcats got for Gerald Wallace? Hmmm, the silence is making me uncomfortable...)
WORST PLAYER IN THE SERIES: KENDRICK PERKINS. Honestly, what is there to say? Only Tony Allen and Sam Young were worse from a raw plus/minus standpoint in the whole series, and they were hindered by being on the team that lost 4 games in the series. He epitomizes everything some people started to dislike about the end of the Pistons and Celtics' recent runs: way more bark than bite, way more perception than production. There's no better way to make your rep as an interior defender when you can't guard either of the starting bigs for the other team.
REVERSE JEROME JAMES AWARD: RUDY GAY. Really feel for this guy. First, he gets what any basketball player would dream of by signing a max NBA contract. Then, he gets to read about how he wasn't worth the money, because he couldn't lead his team. After stepping his game up in ways pretty much all of us couldn't imagine, and helping to lead Memphis to a potential playoff berth, his shoulder injury forces him to the sidelines for the best run his franchise has ever had. Players tried to play lip service to his absence hurting the team, but given how far above their ceiling the Grizz performed, would any of us blame them for doubting that fact? Well, I do.
There's an argument that OJ's bench scoring wouldn't be possible if he was sharing shots and minutes with Gay, Randolph, and Gasol. Here's another argument: in this series, the Grizzlies struggled to space the floor effectively for Randolph and Gasol, due to a lack of proficient outside shooters. In this series, the Grizzlies struggled to generate crunch time offense, especially when Randolph was off. Guess who solves those problems? How about a 6-8 gazelle who can get his own shot, shoot 40% from 3 (this season), play some real on-ball and help defense when called upon, and hit a shot with the clock running down (note: all highlights from this season):
Rudy Gay Game Winner Against the Heat
Rudy Gay Ties Game Against Suns
Rudy Gay Game Winner Against the Raptors
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Heat Celtics Summary
BEST PLAYER IN THE SERIES: RAJON RONDO. Ever since the Perkins trade, it felt like everyone acknowledged that the team was different without him, and maybe not title-worthy. The truth for the last 2-3 years, even though his teammates seemed to try to deny it: Rondo was the key to the Celtics title runs. Their amazing playoff run last year was directly tied to his play. And as opposed to other guys on the team, he proved a level of toughness in this series that his teammates have not, and likely will not ever, match. I do have to say this, though... Rondo's a great player, but his jump shot wasn't that much worse than Derrick Rose's a few years ago. And look what changed. Heal up that elbow, and come back after the lockout with a jumper.
WORST PLAYER IN THE SERIES: LEBRON JAMES. I don't doubt that Lebron's personal 10-0 run to ice Game 5 was a big deal for him and his team. But compare his regular season numbers to his numbers in this series:
Regular Season: 26.7 ppg (0.98 PPS), 7.5 rpg, 7.0 apg vs. 3.4 topg
Against Boston: 28.0 ppg (0.93 PPS), 8.2 rpg, 3.6 apg vs. 3.4 topg
Watched a lot less of Lebron getting easy buckets for less talented teammates (everyone's generic measure of greatness), and a lot more of Lebron taking contested step back 2's and 3's (the goal of any defense against Lebron), which he hit less efficiently than he did in the regular season (Game 5 being a notable exception). Without the 16-0 run to close out game 5, Lebron would have had an overall negative plus/minus for both Game 5 and the overall series. If anything, this series confirmed to me that beating the Celtics, particularly for Lebron, was more about the help he got from his team than his individual efforts.
JEROME JAMES AWARD: PAUL PIERCE. Everything that Rondo was in this series, Pierce was not. Rondo played 2+ games with a dislocated elbow. Paul Pierce was once carried off the court and put in a wheelchair, only to jog back out 5 minutes later (does that have anything to with this series? No, but if I can't mention it in an NBA blog, why am I blogging at all). If he's the heart and soul of the team, why is it that in Games 3-5, the Celtics did better without him on the floor by the numbers? Plus, from flipping the ball back to a one-armed Rondo who needed help, to openly pouting at teammates for botching the last play of regulation in Game 4, he didn't seem to exude the spirit of a leader. Incidentally, wonder why no one pouted at him for giving up 2 threes and 2 turnovers in the last 2 minutes of Game 5, with the Celtics' season on the line? Hopefully, this is the last time I'm forced to pay attention to the diva antics of 2008's self-proclaimed (and confirmed by no one) best player in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)