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.)

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.

Mavericks Heat Summary

 

Best Player in the Series: Dirk Nowitzki. This series was as compelling as it was strange. And Dirk was the 2nd most compelling player to watch for 6 games. As noted previously in this blog, Dirk Nowitzki already wore this year's crown as The NBA's best scorer. But, compare his overall shooting stats in this series (0.912 PPS) versus his regular season and previous series, and it looks like he played worse. That's not the whole story. He was methodical and efficient running the Dallas sets against a pretty good defense that, by the end of the series, looked completely lost. Oh, he also created a career's worth of 4th quarter highlights in 2 weeks. Hopefully next week during the draft, when every talking head is trying to call a tall European prospect the next Nowitzki, we can all realize how completely ludicrous that is. Dirk's on the list with Oscar, Larry, Shaq... one of a kind talents that we'll probably only see once.

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.

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.

Aristotle vs. Fundamental

Now that the world has reached the end of a great NBA player's career in Shaq, my reaction to his retirement is shockingly similar to my reaction watching him play for the last decade and a half: in his prime, there were few players that I enjoyed watching more... but I wish people could give his main rival the same credit. That rival: Tim Duncan.

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.

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.

Best part about a 7 game series: things can change from one game to the next. If you don't believe me, ask the Bulls if they thought they were about to lose 4 straight after blowing out Miami in Game 1 of the conference finals.