Plissken at the Buzzer

Possessives and Attributives

2008-08-05T23:47:00.001-07:00

Last Friday, Tom Ziller of Sactown Royalty, AOL FanHouse, The Sporting Blog, Ballhype, Hot or Not, WebMD, The Hawk and Tom Morning Show on B93.7 (All the Hits!), and Google.com asked us for our informed thoughts on the necessity of the apostrophe in the name of newest King Donte' Greene. Unsurprisingly, our comments were entirely unusable. We have reproduced them here to show you why.

Tom asked...
Shoals said one of you advanced thinkers had previously lobbied for the continued survival of Donte' Greene's apostrophe. Will either of you admit to the cause? I'm annotating Donte''s name on StR and a paragraph on the import of the apostrophe would be absolutely awesome.

Carter retorted...
Your use of "Donte''s" just made my day. Any world where that's proper punctuation is a world I want to live in. Initially I had slight pangs that I was being guilty of all sorts of, "oh those funny black people and their silly names," (speaking of which, how unintentionally tremendous was that ballhype post a while back), but really I'm just a fan of ridiculously unnecessary punctuation in any context, regardless of racial overtones. So ya, viva the apostrophe. Espn and everyone else needs to get their shit together.

Ty quipped...
If he names his son Donte' Jr, does the family contain two Donte's? This could result in some kind of Abbott and Costello routine that goes a little like this:
Douby: Who's there?
Hawes: The Donte's.
Douby: The Donte's what?
Hawes: The Donte's are there.

It will be the most popular scene in Douby and Hawes Meet Frankenstein.

Carter proffered...
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. You can't hear apostrophes.

Ty retaliated...
The conversation takes place by telegram. It's a period piece.

Carter riposted...
Oh ok. That's ok then.

While I'm not sure how an apostrophe can change the pronunciation of a name if it comes after the word, I'm so happy this mission has been left in your [Tom's] capable hands. I don't even know what blog is out there for the Rockets, but I'm sure whoever they are they would have dropped the ball. [Note: Plissken loves The Dream Shake!]

Ty rejoined...
I still think "Dontae' Jones" is better, but someday a parent will use the æ grapheme and sire someone who'll swallow planets whole.

Also, the summer I worked full-time in the Stanford basketball office my friend and made a list of all potential recruits with apostrophes (and we actually got one that year -- Da'Veed Dildy!). I still think "P'Allen" is the greatest name in history.

Tom interrupted the echo chamber...

P'Allen made me spit tea.

I wish someone would write on uncensored version of that chapter on names from Freakonomics.

Ty ignorantly questioned...
What is the Freakonomics chapter about?

Tom enlightened...
How funny names end up attached to kids who don't start off in the best financial/neighborhood situations.

Ty clutched his grad school diploma...
Do they attribute any cause to it?

Carter mixed up three stories...
Wasn't there evidence of external discrimation [sic] based on the fact that names were funny and therefore more likely to be black? Or am I thinking of a separate craigslist experiment that someone did in the same class as the guy who did the point-shaving paper?

Tom actually answered the question...
There was that evidence, but if I remember right (and I'm not sure I do -- that was ages ago) it was small in impact compared to the fact kids with the names tended to be born into dire straits.

I don't remember what they attribute as a cause for the funny naming conventions. I think illiteracy in some cases, and in others that the names aren't funny, and have some (possibly tenuous) connection to African dialects or whatnot.

Wait, how did this thread get so serious? I apologize, sincerely.

Ty failed to see the distinction...
I took Douby and Hawes incredibly seriously.

Carter made things uncomfortable...
Douby Hawes would be a good name. Up there with Sabian Roman. Consider it for a little ziller: Douby Hawes Ziller.

Plissken al Zumbador

2008-06-20T01:10:00.000-07:00

Yes, we haven't really tended this garden much lately. But that really doesn't matter, because we have the greatest thing in the history of the site to share with you. Someone by the name of "marcosfs," aka the greatest-ever member of YouTube, has posted the video that gave this blog its name. And it's in Spanish.

We watched the movie tonight for the first time since christening this blog, and it is clear that we chose well.

Oh, and now that our teams are out of the race, maybe we'll restart this thing again and become the first-ever NBA blog dedicated solely to the offseason.

Your Name Is Limitless: Final Four

2008-03-20T04:13:00.000-07:00

Our friend Mike doesn't watch any sort of basketball, but he loves to use stupid systems to pick his NCAA bracket every season. This year, he went with a team's best names. This is simply too good not to post. In the first round, a team's entire roster will be considered. Beyond that, only a team's superstar name (not the same as the name of the team's superstar) will be considered. His analysis follows. (Also, apologies on formatting -- I will try to fix it later.)

Final Four

Final Four:

American: Garrison Carr

USC: Ovinton J’Anthony Mayo

Memphis: Chance McGrady

Xavier: Charles Bronson

Finals:

USC: Ovinton J’Anthony Mayo

Xavier: Charles Bronson

Sometimes, even Bronson’s gotta lose

Your Name Is Limitless: West

2008-03-20T04:11:00.000-07:00

West

1^st Round:

UCLA: Chace Stanback, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Darren Collison

Miss Valley St: Stanford Speech

Chase Stanback wins, as we’re sure it’s a proper name.

BYU: Lamont Morgan Jr., Nick Martineau, Jimmer Fredette

Texas A&M: Andrew Darko, Beau Muhlbach

Drake: Leonard Houston, Kit Avery, Klayton Korver, Tyson Dirks

West Kentucky: Tyrone Brazelton, Desire Gabou, A.J. Slaughter,

A.J. Slaughter.

Connecticut: Jerome Dyson, Donnell Beverly, A.J. Price

San Diego: Trumaine Johnson, Clinton Houston

Purdue: Chad Sutor, Garrett Mocas, Chris Kramer, Tarrance Crump, Keaton Grant

Baylor: Mamadou Diene, LaceDarius Dunn, Tweety Carter

Xavier: Charles Bronson, Adrion Graves, Dante Jackson

Georgia: Troy Brewer, Terrance Woodbury

This was over once I saw Charles Bronson.

West Virginia: Da'Sean Butler, Cam Thoroughman, Cameron Payne, Wellington Smith, Ted Talkington

Arizona: Chase Budinger, Zane Johnson, Jerryd Bayless,

Duke: Lance Thomas, Nolan Smith, Martynas Pocius

Belmont: Shane Dansby, Keaton Belcher,

2^nd Round:

UCLA: Chace Stanback

Texas A&M: Beau Muhlbach

W. Kentucky: A.J. Slaughter

San Diego: Clinton Houston

Purdue: Keaton Grant

Xavier: Charles Bronson

West Virginia: Cam Thoroughman / Wellington Smith

Belmont: Shane Dansby

Sweet 16:

UCLA: Chace Stanback

W. Kentucky: A.J. Slaughter

Tough call here.

Xavier: Charles Bronson

West Virginia: Cam Thoroughman / Wellington Smith

Elite 8:

UCLA: Chace Stanback

Xavier: Charles Bronson

Your Name Is Limitless: South

2008-03-20T04:10:00.001-07:00

South

1^st Round:

Memphis: Chance McGrady, Doneal Mack

Texas Arlington: Dwight Gentry II, Jermaine Griffin, Cardell Hunter, Marquez Haynes, Rog'er Guignard

While Texas has a lot going for it (huge points for the unnecessary and most likely ungrammatical apostrophe in Mr. Guignard’s name), I have to give it to Memphis for Chance McGrady.

Mississippi State: Riley Benock, Kodi Augustus

Oregon: Bryce Taylor, Churchill Odia, LeKendric Longmire

Michigan State: Marquise Gray, Durrell Summers

Temple: Dionte Christmas

Christmas as a last name beats what probably should be a title , both of which would get blown out of the water by Christmas as a first name

Pittsburgh: Keith Benjamin, Cassin Diggs

Oral Roberts: Adam Liberty

Two first names always make for a strong name. Also, after much deliberation, it was decided that the quality of the school’s name should not affect this bracket

Marquette: Dominic James, Lawrence Blackledge, Lazar Hayward

Kentucky: Ramel Bradley

Stanford: Landry Fields, Taj Finger

Cornell: Jason Battle, Adam Gore, Jon Jaques

For some reason, Landry Fields wins

Miami Fla: Eddie Rios, Lance Hurdle, Fabio Nass, Landon Glover, Julian Gamble

St. Mary’s: Tron Smith, Wayne Hunter

Tron is pretty good, but Miami is a juggernaut.

Texas: Alexis Wangmene, Damion James, D.J. Augustin, Harrison Smith, Dexter Pittman, Clint Chapman

Austin Peay: Drake Reed, Todd Babington, Wes Channels, Fernandez Lockett, Duran Roberson

Another tough one, but “Fernandez Lockett” is pretty damn awesome.

2^nd Round:

Memphis: Chance McGrady

Miss: Kodi Augustus

Temple: Dionte Christmas

Pitt: Keith Benjamin

Marquette: Lawrence Blackledge

Stanford: Landry Fields

Sounds like cricket.

Miami: Fabio Nass

Austin: Fernandez Lockett

Sweet 16

Memphis: Chance McGrady

Temple: Dionte Christmas

Stanford: Landry Fields

Austin: Fernandez Lockett

Elite 8

Memphis: Chance McGrady

Austin: Fernandez Lockett

Your Name Is Limitless: Midwest

2008-03-20T04:08:00.000-07:00

Our friend Mike doesn't watch any sort of basketball, but he loves to use stupid systems to pick his NCAA bracket every season. This year, he went with a team's best names. This is simply too good not to post. In the first round, a team's entire roster will be considered. Beyond that, only a team's superstar name (not the same as the name of the team's superstar) will be considered. His analysis follows. Enjoy. (Also, apologies on formatting -- I will try to fix it later.)

Midwest

1^st Round:

Kansas: Brady Morningstar, Mario Chalmers, Chase Buford

Portland: Deonte Huff

Easy choice.

UNLV: Wink Adams, Troy Cage, Rene Rougeau, Mareceo Rutledge

Kent St.: Haminn Quaintance

Damn Haminn is a sweet name. Troy Cage beats sweet, though.

Clemson: Demontez Stitt, Zavier Anderson, K.C. Rivers

Villanova: Dante Cunningham

Vanderbilt: Keegan Bell, Darshawn McClellan, George Drake, Jermaine Beal

Siena: Darius Haddix, Ryan Rossiter

USC: O.J. Mayo, RouSean Cromwell

Kansas St: Clent Stewart

Ovinton J’Anthony.

Wisconsin: Wquinton Smith, Tanner Bronson, Morris Cain

Cal State Fullerton: Marcio Lassiter

Gonzaga: Austin Daye

Davidson: Stephen Rossiter, Can Civi

Can Civi? I don’t know, but I like it.

Georgetown: DaJuan Summers, Austin Freeman

UMBC: Cavell Johnson

Boring.

2^nd Round:

Kansas: Brady Morningstar

UNLV: Troy Cage

Less ostentatious.

Clemson: K.C. Rivers

Siena: Darius Haddix

USC: O.J. Mayo

Wisconsin: Tanner Bronson

Davidson: Can Civi

Georgetown: DaJuan Summers

Sweet 16:

UNLV: Troy Cage

Siena: Darius Haddix

USC: O.J. Mayo

David: Can Civi

Elite 8:

UNLV: Troy Cage

USC: O.J. Mayo

Your Name Is Limitless: East

2008-03-20T04:04:00.000-07:00

East

1^st Round:

UNC: J.B. Tanner, Wayne Ellington, Surry Wood

MSM: Pierre Brown

Pretty weak showing from Mount Saint Mary’s.

Indiana: Lance Stemler, Jamarcus Ellis

Arkansas: Nate Rakestraw

Lance is kind of a wild card. Stemler pulls it out.

ND: Tyrone Nash, Ty Proffitt, Carleton Scott

GM: Cam Long

Tough decision here. A strong showing from Notre Dame, but I feel that Cam Long has what it takes to go the distance. It’s short, it’s strong, and it rolls off the tongue.

Washington State: Fabian Boeke, Caleb Forrest, Stephen Sauls

Winthrop: Mantoris Robinson, George Valentine

Mantoris.

Oklahoma: Longar Longar, Cade Davis, Beau Gerber

St. Joseph’s: Tasheed Carr, Garrett Williamson, Charoy Bentley, Rockwell Moody

It takes a big man to beat Cade Davis, but Rockwell Moody just might be that man.

Louisville: Derrick Caracter, Preston Knowles

Boise State: Kurt Cunningham

Boise got nothing.

Butler: Avery Jukes

S. Alabama: Domonic Tilford, Chip Ivany, Demetric Bennett

Tennessee: Quinn Cannington, Cameron Tatum, Duke Crews

American: Garrison Carr

2^nd Round:

UNC: Wayne Ellington

Indiana: Lance Stemler,

George Mason: Cam Long

Winthrop: Mantoris Robinson

St Joe’s: Charoy Bentley / Rockwell Moody (I can’t decide)

Louisville: Derrick Caracter

S. Alabama: Chip Ivany

American: Garrison Carr

Sweet 16:

Indiana: Lance Stemler,

Winthrop: Mantoris Robinson

St. Jospeph’s: Charoy Bentley / Rockwell Moody (I can’t decide)

American: Garrison Carr

Elite 8:

Winthrop: Mantoris Robinson

American: Garrison Carr

Garrison Carr doesn’t just rely on a strong first name, as Mantoris does. He’s got the whole package.

There's Damage to Report

2007-11-25T03:40:00.000-08:00

Check out Kyle Lowry's line from tonight: 31 minutes, 17 points, 2/5 FG, 13/14 FT, 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 6 turnovers, 5 fouls.

Sadly, I was away from my television set the entire day and couldn't watch the game. Can someone provide an eyewitness account? I need to know more. I have a general idea of what it looked like given his style and my love for it, but that's no substitute.

At any rate, I submit that this is the Kyle Lowry statline.

New Number Order: Week 2

2007-11-21T23:21:00.000-08:00

We have a blog? Who in the what now?

Yeah, sorry about that. Things remain hectic in Plisskenville; it should be telling that we've made more posts on other sites than on this one recently. We are still alive, though, and the doctors tell us we have a good chance of surviving so long as we maintain the will to live.

That should be easier because of one of our newest Blogburgh extracurriculars: involvement in the utterly fantastic NCAA Basketball Blogpoll. Much thanks to everyone involved with that one for allowing us to be involved.

In our minds, one of the responsibilities of getting to vote is having to explain your picks and, as such, we will be writing weekly responses to our poll. Starting now, that is, because we couldn't last week (oops). If you want to check out the final poll for this week, please go here. Previous ranking (our ranking, not the official one) is in parentheses. Let the games begin:

1 (1). Memphis. Like I said way back in July, the Tigers are my favorite team (not my rooting interest, though) in the country. Watching them last Friday against UConn was quite frankly a revelation. Outside of the first ten minutes, they didn't even seem to play that well, but they were able to win convincingly anyway. To make a comparison to the NBA, they remind me a lot of the Warriors in that they're capable of being extremely physical without banging -- everyone is so athletic that high-impact contact occurs just because they play hard. Individually, Derrick Rose is as advertised and Chris Douglas-Roberts might be the most underrated player in the country. I'm not sure this team is the best team in the country -- they do play very sloppily at times -- but I like them too much to put them lower.

2 (2). Kansas. I must confess that I haven't seen them play yet and thus have no idea if they're actually better than UCLA, but they're too stacked to go anywhere else right now. The talent on that roster is just obscene; it's a damn shame that I have no faith in Bill Self to get them to where they should go by the end of the year.

3 (5). UCLA. I don't know why we ever had them 5th. Even without Darren Collison, the ball pressure is just filthy. Howland has to be the best coach in the country. As for Kevin Love, he's clearly a superior college player, but I'm very anxious to see what he can do against an NBA big man. I haven't seen much explosiveness around the rim from Love, and his regular pump fakes will be harder to pull off against superior defenders.

4 (3). Georgetown. There's still no one in the country who can guard Roy Hibbert, and those guards remain underrated. For now, that's enough to keep them this high.

5 (4). UNC. Like Kansas, I'm not convinced they have enough to win the whole thing. Instead of the coach being the problem, though, it remains their lack of a clear go-to guy in crunch time. Wayne Ellington's going to have to step things up if they want to justify the hype.

6 (6). Tennessee. I know they (or maybe just Chris Lofton) haven't been at their best so far this season, but I'm a sucker for any running team that presses. I just love the makeup of this roster.

7 (9). Washington State. Haven't seen them yet this year, so the ranking is mostly an assumption in praise of their performance last year.

8 (8). Indiana. One of the pollsters doesn't even have them ranked, and one of his reasons for said snub was that he doesn't like teams that rely heavily on freshmen. Uh, Eric Gordon is no ordinary freshman.

9 (7). Lousville. The loss of David Padgett has to hurt, but Pitino has enough horses inside to keep them solid in his absence.

10 (11). Oregon. This ranking will change after their loss to St. Mary's (w/out Bryce Taylor, though). I still think they're going to have a lot of trouble in crunch time this year with the absence of Brooks. And the defense will definitely be worse, as they showed in Moraga.

11 (12). Kansas State. Here's where the rankings become really, really hard to figure out. This one is basically a vote for Michael Beasley. We're convinced that he's the 11th best team in the country. I'm also a fan of anything related to Bill Walker and his insatiable hunger for victory.

12 (13). Duke. Shock of all shocks: I fully expect to like watching Duke this year. May they never make a basket on a true post-up.

13 (14). Texas A&M. This is probably too high for them. Big fan of DeAndre Jordan, though.

14 (NR). Michigan State. Seems like they've worked out the kinks after that horrific exhibition loss. Lost in the praise for UCLA's victory without Collison is that Drew Neitzel was sick in that game and didn't perform to his capabilities.

15 (15). Pittsburgh. Haven't seen them, but they've never proven themselves to be a bad team. For the last few years, it's been safe to assume that they'll end up in the Top 3 of the Big East. That earns them #15.

16 (17). Gonzaga. Heytvelt's out, yeah. But they still have Jeremy Pargo, and there are few players in the country that are as exciting as him off the dribble.

17 (24). Texas. I really don't like this team at all, but they had to go somewhere. I think Augustin is wildly overrated and will continue to think so until he joins the Sonics and starts passing to Durant like a sane person.

18 (19). Syracuse. This will change after the loss to Ohio State. Love Johnny Flynn, though. (Can you tell that a lot of these picks were based on players we like?)

19 (18). Marquette. Complete lack of an inside presence will hurt them. Plus, if there guards are as good as everyone says, then I would have liked to have seen them beat smallball Duke on Wednesday.

20 (10). Stanford. The #10 ranking was probably on account of homerism. But I refuse to believe that the Siena loss was as bad as everyone says. First, playing against a likely conference champion on the other side of the country at an early start time. Second, no practice that Friday because the airline lost the equipment. Third, Anthony Goods had as bad a game as I've ever seen. Fourth, Lawrence Hill was hurt. Fifth, no Brook Lopez, of course. Definitely not a good performance by any means, and Goods should theoretically play well if he's worthy of his reputation, but there were so many other factors in play that I refuse to believe it was a travesty. I also called it a few months ago, so you can't say no one saw it coming.

21 (25). Virginia. We are both in love with Sean Singletary. Seriously.

22 (NR). Davidson. This ranking is based on their excellent performance against UNC last week, but today's loss to Western Michigan will have us questioning it. Curry's injury doesn't seem to be holding him back at all, so they remain a viable choice for "Best Mid-Major."

23 (16). Southern Illinois. I have no idea why we put them 16th. Reputation, I suppose.

24 (NR). UConn. They played Memphis extremely well last Friday. AJ Price is a new man and the wings are astoundingly good athletes. Hasheem Thabeet, on the other hand, needs about fifteen more years of seasoning before I'd consider using a lottery pick on him.

25 (22). Arizona. Dropped after the Virginia loss, but we're also not sure they're that good to begin with. Budinger is super-talented but didn't assert himself nearly enough last year, Jordan Hill gets a lot of publicity but hasn't done much to earn it, Bayless isn't a natural point, and Radenovic was a matchup nightmare for lots of teams. I can't say I'm crying about any of this stuff.

Darn That Dream

2007-11-02T01:14:00.000-07:00

If you haven't seen it yet, my first post at FreeDarko went up Wednesday morning. I link only because it has some bearing on this post.

Tonight's game between the Jazz and Rockets validated everything I said on FD, and I'm both happy (because I was right) and sad (because it makes Utah less interesting). Let's run through this game really quickly.

The Jazz came out of the gates playing as well as they did on Tuesday night, and, oddly enough, they were also playing the same style. Everything moved quickly on offense; Deron shredded the defense via drive, pass, and shot; AK slid in between defenders; Boozer continued to show that he can lock up the paint at any tempo; and Ronnie Brewer finished and slashed like he knows how. The only player who really doesn't fit into this offensive style is Okur, but I suspect that's at least partly because Sloan doesn't really know what to do with him at this speed. The good news there is that Sloan's a smart guy, so any strong consideration of the issue would yield something productive. My guess is that they could very easily put Memo in a Young Dirk-type roving shooter role, but who knows what would come out of Sloan's seasoned brain.

It's also worth noting that the Jazz can play defense at this speed. Time and Jeff Van Gundy seem to have given running a no-defense stigma, but watching old games makes it clear that a potent offense and steadfast defense aren't mutually exclusive. A coach like Sloan can instill those values into a team without sacrificing points.

The good stuff happened for a little more than half of the first quarter. With around five minutes left in the first quarter, Sloan subbed Matt Harpring (death!) and Jason Hart for AK and Deron. The offense instantly slowed down, the plays developed more slowly, Boozer settled into taking jumpers (this isn't entirely fair -- he had a phenomenal statistical game) and the Rockets crept back and ultimately won the game with moderate ease. Now, some of the credit for that comeback has to go to Houston: they tightened up their defense, and Utah couldn't find an answer for McGrady. But Utah also played right into Houston's hands by stepping off the gas.

Deron Williams obviously has to sit at some point, but Jason Hart is not so terrible that he's incapable of dribbling up the court at high speeds. Harpring (death!) is a different story, but he can still shoot and score. My point is this: yes, the Jazz won't run as well when their best players are out. But this shit works for them, and they'd be foolish not to explore it as a legitimate option. In the FD post, I looked at this issue mostly from a long-term perspective, but the short term still matters here. Utah can stay where they are, utilize half of Kirilenko's skills, and hope for another favorable playoff draw. They can also work around their best players' strengths, dominate for long stretches of games, and become a legitimate force. It might take a little extra work and some critical thinking for their coaching staff, but it's the right move for this roster.

Other news:

- Our Warriors and Lakers previews are now up at We Rite Goode. Wishful thinking is here and realistic expectations are here. The entire preview has been fantastic, so I recommend that you check them all out. Thanks again to WRG for bringing us into the fold.

- The season preview is taking shape. Should be ready by early next week, which I think fits within the suitable preview-posting window.

Synthesizer Guide Book on Fire

2007-10-30T02:00:00.000-07:00

Anyone who reads this blog has probably figured out that we ripped off our post format from FreeDarko. That decision was mostly grounded in homage; we think it's one of the best sites on the internet. But the homage carries value beyond the respect we have for the blog. Quite simply, their format denotes a particular way of writing about basketball, and, in most of our posts, we've tried to use that intellectual, freewheeling approach.

So I announce with great pleasure that, beginning Wednesday or Thursday, we will start writing somewhat regularly for FreeDarko. This is a huge honor, obviously, and we could not be more excited. Given the respect we have for the site, we can only hope we don't screw anything up too horribly. Much thanks to everyone at FD, of course.

Some of you might be wondering what this announcement means for Plissken. Let me be frank: this blog is still very much a functioning website, but this new gig will obviously funnel some of our resources away from here. Things shouldn't change too drastically, though, and the good news is that I highly doubt many readers of our site don't check out FD on a regular basis. (If you don't, then shame on you.) Plus, at the risk of giving too much away, Big Plissken Announcement #2 will address this concern.

If you're visiting our site for the first time, welcome. As I said up top, we write somewhat heady posts about anything related to basketball. We also have an unnatural obsession with Marco Belinelli, and for some reason I write more posts about mascots than any sane man should. I hope you like the site and come back often.

Other brief, less exciting news:

- The fine folks at We Rite Goode invited us to be a part of their NBA preview, which solicited input from a great number of excellent writers hailing from all areas of Blogburgh. Our individual previews of the Warriors (me) and Lakers (Carter) are not yet up, but they have posted this fine introductory piece that details everyone's record predictions. They will be updating this entire week -- highly recommended. I'm sure we'll link our bits here when they go up, because we are whores.

- Speaking of NBA previews, we're going to write one within the week. I know that makes us significantly late to the preview-writing game, but I don't think it will be too much of a problem. We're trying to do something different, so groove on the idea of what that might be while you wait.

Doing the Knowledge

2007-10-26T01:14:00.000-07:00

First off, apologies for the shitty posting record over the last few weeks. Transitional time, blah blah blah, yada yada yada, excuse excuse excuse. We’ll do our best to be better. At any rate, the two big announcements I talked about should go into effect within the next week.

This news story is fairly old by now, but you may have heard that Brook Lopez, Stanford forward and one half of the Lopez Twins, was declared academically ineligible and then received an indefinite suspension for allegedly missing classes and a practice. Having some inside knowledge of the situation, I know that this particular incident doesn’t need much analysis: Brook simply didn’t try hard enough to do what he needed to do to stay eligible. There’s no lack of institutional control – it’s all about effort.

Frankly, the most interesting part of his ineligibility is that it happened at Stanford. At the risk of sounding like an arrogant alumnus, admissions standards are so high for athletes that all players are supposed to be self-motivated and ready to navigate a school that doesn’t coddle its players as much as other schools tend to. (Wow, that definitely made me sound arrogant.) Brook stopped efforting, and his work suffered for it.

One way of looking at his laziness is to say that Brook Lopez is headed to the NBA at the end of the year and therefore didn’t need to try – if he wanted to get drafted – and that would be exactly right. But it’s also easy to use that piece of information to argue that NCAA players should be paid, and that’s where things get more complicated.

The argument goes something like this: Brook’s situation shows that NCAA players are primarily using college for sports and couldn’t care less about school. At the same time, the schools exploit these players for money, so why not let these young men get paid for their exploits.

Well, for starters, they do get paid, and it’s in the form of a scholarship. Granted, some players don’t use that academics, but I think it’s a mistake to say that the majority use college for nothing more than sports, girls, and drugs. The fact of the matter is that not that many athletes end up playing professionally. Even if they don’t get much out of their education, college still provides them with the connections that could very well guarantee jobs and respect for years.

However, that explanation doesn’t kill the argument that these athletes aren’t using college for the education. Some do, certainly, but no more than a handful of scholarship players could be said to play college athletics for something other than the athletics; on the face of it, they want to play. But if they’re using college for sports, why do we choose to think of athletic programs as schools instead of glorified versions of the IMG Academy? Granted, the schools make a ton of money off of these players, but I’m not sure the players don’t earn back their per capita contribution to that income when they move on.

Whether college athletes use their schools for athletic development or simply for future connections, it would be a gross mistake to say they’re not getting something out of school roughly commensurate to what they give to that school. Paying players may seem like a simple solution to the issue of academically-lazy athletes, but that’s only the case if we insist on pretending that they’re all at school for the education. Many of Brook Lopez’s teammates want to learn, yes, yet there’s also Brook Lopez. And the system already accounts for him in full.

That's How We Do Here

2007-10-19T01:11:00.000-07:00

This week saw two unbelievably amazing Warriors-related videos come our way, and it's quite simply my duty to bring them to you.

First, we have this video of Baron, Stephen Jackson, and Al Harrington dancing to Soulja Boy Tellem. Shoals gave as good a take on the dancing as possible over at FD, saying that "The dance has become a tic, a comforting gesture, a stance." In the comments of that post, rebar makes an excellent point on the non-Soulja part of the video, explaining that Baron has become a combination of seriousness and goofiness that has before now been associated primarily with Agent Zero. Honestly, I don't have much to add to this one -- I just think it needs to be seen by everyone and hope I've touched someone's life.

Henry Abbott put this video up on TrueHoop the other day, but I think the link died, so I'm doing my part here. I really can't discuss this one rationally, so I'll do my best in bullet form:

Andris talks about horseshoes like it's a great American pastime. I think I've played it once or twice.
Why are they playing horseshoes in the first place? They couldn't just have a roundtable or video game battle?
Andris appears to be hosting the game. Apparently they don't put the rookies in the classy part of the resort.
The music and video quality makes me think they filmed this one in 1986.
Andris: "Marco's on fire." Get used to that one.
The Andris narration is fantastic. Sign him up for an audiobook.
Kosta Perovic appears to be the best at this game, which makes me think he has no chance of being a serviceable NBA player.
Andris: "See, me and Kosta, that's how we do here." I could not have said it better myself.

These videos both make one thing clear: I am very lucky to root for this team.

Light to No Coma

2007-10-16T01:58:00.001-07:00

We've been pretty poor about posting lately, and for that I apologize. Sadly, this is not a real post, but I did think it important to let people know that we're alive and thinking about basketball. Blame literary theory, if you want a reason for my relative absence. (Carter will have to come up with his own excuse.)

Anyway, Plissken is far from dead; if anything, these next few days/weeks will be a period of great growth for us. We'll be making the two biggest announcements in the short history of our site soon. Believe me when I say that these bits of news are both very important and that we could not be more excited about the prospects that both entail. Unfortunately, I can't go into detail now, but you'll know soon enough.

Have no fear -- we'll be back with real posts shortly. My first one will probably be about the unfortunate Brook Lopez situation, if you want something to look forward to.

Bloggin' to the Oldies: Rebirth of Slick

2007-10-10T21:47:00.000-07:00

Now that real basketball has up started again (sort of), you might think that resorting to a Bloggin' to the Oldies is unnecessary, but talk of Kobe modifying his role has me reminiscing back to a pivotal moment in Kobe lore: Game 4 of the 2000 NBA Finals against the Indiana Pacers (box score).

Kobe had missed Game 3 and most of Game 2 with a sprained ankle, which was clearly still bothering him on June 14th. For most of regulation, he over-relied on his jump shot, fouled instead of moving his feet on D, and committed some pretty dumb turnovers. He still managed to find ways to help his team, because even at age 21 and feeling gimpy, he was still Kobe Bryant. But as far as the Kobe narrative is concerned, the first 51 minutes are only really relevant for the contrast they provide with the final 2.

Up 3 with a couple minutes left to go in the extra period, Shaq (and his 36 points and 21 boards) fouls out. Kobe gives a cocky grin and drills one over Reggie. Then pulls one of the more swagtastic moves ever, with the "I got this. Keep your cool" gesture that has become synonymous with rising to the occasion. Then proceeds to calmly drill another long 2 over Mark Jackson (shown above) before getting the game-winning tip with 6 seconds to go, putting the Pacers down 3-1.

Revisiting that sequence (which, thanks to the YouTube gods, you can do here), what strikes me most is how stoked Kobe appears that Shaq has fouled out. Phil, Shaq himself, and, most especially, John Salley? All pretty stunned and troubled by the development. Kobe? From the moment the ball's in his hand, clearly relishing the opportunity. I feel like the way this passage of NBA history has generally been interpreted is along similar lines as the "Magic, Starting Center" game: a young player put in a difficult situation, rising to the challenge, and coming up big when it counted most. Comparing the two though, while they were both plenty cocky, Magic at least was a willing participant in the savior-by-circumstance plotline; for Kareem's sake at least, he portrayed himself as thrust into a tough situation and forced to make the best of it. Perhaps I'm projecting too much here, but Kobe's big moment doesn't appear tinged with any of the, "This is a rough spot, but we're going to suck it up and overcome it" attitude that I think fans at the time and since have assumed had to have been underlying the situation.

To be clear, I by no means intend this as a knock on Kobe, nor am I trying to make any bold claims about the Shaq-Kobe dynamic that eventually led to the downfall. I'm strictly interested in this from the perspective of what it says about Kobe and his approach to the game. Even tracing back to his initial championship, it was clear that he was a cold-blooded killer who was dying to take over the game when it counts, without interference. Even losing in Tuesday's preseason game proved to be too much for him to stay confined to the facilitator role when he started jacking up shots in a desperate attempt to one-up Kelenna Azubuike in the 3rd quarter. Bottom line: Kobe might be able to sublimate his instincts for long stretches, but when it comes down to it he will always want to do the jugular-stomping himself, regardless of the circumstance.

While Kobe's maturation may have been the main motivation for revisiting this game, I was also interested if I could glean any insight about Austin Croshere and Derek Fisher's signings to our respective teams. Let me be the first to say: that Austin Croshere can play. How no one gave him a massive deal based exclusively on this playoff series is beyond me. I've already expressed how happy I am about the Fisher signing, but I guess it's worth noting that at age 25 he was a liability guarding Jackson and had to be replaced by the 36-year-old Brian Shaw. Now 33, he'll still be an upgrade from Smush for charges drawn alone, but Lakers fans (myself included) need to exercise caution in nostalgically embellishing his defensive prowess.

Also, I've come to the conclusion that this Pacers team is one of the more underhated teams of all time. I feel like they deserve so much more hatred than they seem to have attracted. Maybe they've been spared eternal scorn because a lot of their heroics came at the expense of the Knicks, but Reggie single-handedly should have made this team one of the most rooted-against teams of the era. What I don't understand, I've heard refs reference "pulling a Reggie," so they were clearly aware of his bullshit, yet he still was rewarded for creating contact in a way that I've never seen prior or since. Mark Jackson, while extremely solid in pretty much every way, would waste half the shot clock every other possession backing people down. Not exciting to watch. Then there's my, perhaps irrational, despise for Rik Smits, who I choose to blame for the devolution of the big man. For some reason I feel like I'd be more forgiving of his brand of oafishness had he been Eastern European rather than Western, but would need someone like Padraig to explain why I might make that distinction. (side note to Pacers fans: having rooted for this team does not prove that you aren't racist)

In other news, I've decided to informally dub the summer of '07 as the Summer of Sam Perkins. First he popped up in a nostalgic Forum Blue & Gold post, then at the always hilarious Blowtorch, before hitting the big time at True Hoop. To top it all off, I think he's showed up in more of NBAtv's "Greatest Games" this summer than any player save Jordan or Pippen. We've watched him with the Lakers, Sonics, and now Pacers, across a 10-year span, pretty much nailing clutch shots regardless of hair style, uniform, or body fat.

At some point later this week look out for my thoughts on what Glen Rice's role on this Laker team might inform us about this year's Celtics.

Fear of a Black Planet

2007-10-08T23:52:00.000-07:00

Today's news that the Indiana Pacers consciously skew their marketing away from "hip-hop culture" to appease and market to their fanbase (via TrueHoop) brings up some very interesting points about race, Middle America, and white men's relationships to superathletic basketball-playing black men. While I don't want to paint all Indianans as young American kids just doing the best racist things they can, I do think there's a strong racial component to this story, and it deserves full attention.

(I desperately wanted to use this version of the video, but Universal won't let me embed from YouTube.)

Unfortunately, you're not going to find that analysis here. If this story tells us anything, it's that the "they just wanted white guys" half-jokes that followed last winter's Warriors trade are probably more than just unhinged speculation. If that's the case, then we can assume that it can happen again. Now, I'm not fan of racism in any form -- seriously, some of my best friends are black -- but I am always for trades that bring underappreciated players to more hospitable environments. With that in mind, here's a look at some potential racism-motivated trades that could come up over the course of this season.

Indiana Pacers
Justification: Who says lightning never strikes the same place twice?
Trade Proposal: Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley to the Lakers for Chris Mihm and Coby Karl.
Analysis: O'Neal and Tinsley are relics from the Palace Brawl era, a time when rap music blared through the Conseco Fieldhouse locker room and the Pacers actually won playoff games. ... Mihm is injury-prone, but at least he doesn't miss games due to suspension. ... Coby Karl isn't just white -- put him in a suit and he actually looks like your garden-variety Pacers season-ticket holder. If that doesn't scream "face of the franchise," I don't know what does. Get him in those Jim O'Brien ads, stat.

Boston Celtics
Justification: Sure, Boston's made great strides in terms of racial relations, but that could all come crashing down the minute the Three-Leaf Clover (I am proclaiming this to be the nickname) starts redefining the term "Black Irish."
Trade Proposal #1: Kevin Garnett to the Warriors for Austin Croshere.
Analysis: Everyone loves Garnett now, but what'll happen the first time he shows off his trademark intensity and yells at Brian Scalabrine? ... Croshere went to Providence and only shoots jumpers, so he should be just what the doctor of eugenics ordered.
Trade Proposal #2: Ray Allen to the SuperSonics for Wally Szczerbiak.
Analysis: Yeah, this trade already happened, but Ainge will likely call backsies on Sam Presti the minute the Celtics fanbase remembers that Ray was the lead character -- who slept with white women, no less -- in a Spike Lee movie.
Trade Proposal #3: Paul Pierce to the Clippers for Paul Davis and Dan Dickau.
Analysis: The Truth is a Boston mainstay, but there's always the chance that he'll get stabbed again. Definitely can't have that element wandering around Newbury Street on weekends. ... Dan Dickau has a cheerleader for a wife, and you can't get more impressive than that. ... Paul Davis is tall and white, in case you were unfamiliar with him.

New Orleans Hornets
Justification: New Orleans has a host of racial issues (brilliantly shown in FOX's new supersmash formulaic cop drama K-Ville!!!), although it's unclear to this outsider if those issues arise from the city's internal issues or national problems related to Hurricane Katrina. Don't worry, though, because this trade will work it all out.
Trade Proposal: Chris Paul to the Wizards for Darius Songaila.
Analysis: Here's how I see this one playing out: The Hornets start the year in a funk; ticket sales are low, the team loses, general discontent and questions about whether or not the team can survive in New Orleans abound, and Chris Paul remarks that "David Stern doesn't care about black people." Big Ernie Grunfeld calls up Jeff Bower, demands Chris Paul in exchange for five truckloads of cash and a solid Euro who won't complain. Bower says sure, sends CP3 on a plane to DC an hour later. Songaila arrives a week late.

Memphis Grizzlies
Justification: Memphis has a history of great blues and solid rap, but it's still in Tennessee, so it's only a matter of time before a bunch of guys named Jim Bob Cooter storm the Grizz front office.
Trade Proposal: Rudy Gay and Hakim Warrick to the Heat for Chris Quinn and Michael Doleac.
Analysis: Nothing's more stereotypically "hip hop" on the basketball court than a 6-8 uberathletic swingman, so why not trade both? ... Quinn and Doleac went to the two whitest colleges around (Notre Dame and Utah, respectively) other than Bob Jones University and BYU, so you know there's nothing to hate there.

Sacramento Kings
Justification: Sacto isn't the most backwards place on the planet, but it also has lots of cows, and lord knows there's a positive correlation between "amount of cows" and "amount of racists."
Trade Proposal: Ron Artest to the Knicks for David Lee.
Analysis: We all know Isiah doesn't care about this white person, and he's always up for bringing on another questionable personality who can play forward or point guard (maybe Ron-Ron can even play point forward!). ... The Kings get Max Weber's personal wet dream, a guy who'll work hard and deserves more playing time than what he gets in New York. (Note: This one is not a joke.)

Ringleader of the Tormentors

2007-10-04T23:25:00.000-07:00

The Warriors announced their captains today, and, as you've probably heard by now, Stephen Jackson, Matt Barnes, and Baron Davis were the choices. As expected, there has been outcry against the Jackson choice, with Epic Carnival, Adonal Obsessed, Three Idiots on Sports, and Mavs Moneyball registering complaints. While my opinion is obviously biased because I'm a big Warriors fan, I think Jackson is a perfectly suitable, if unconvential, selection. Although the man certainly has some issues, Jackson's a phenomenal teammate, a proven player in the clutch, and a symbol of what this Warriors team is all about. He might not be the most upright citizen, but that doesn't mean he's not the best person to lead a team into a tough game in the playoffs.

First off, picking captains is not a public relations move. It's not a contest to see who gives the best press conferences or gets in the least trouble. Captains exist to lead their teammates in everything basketball-related, and that's pretty much it. Yes, to a certain extent, every announcement is PR-related, but at some point basketball function has to outweigh those concerns. I think that's exactly the case here.

Jackson's teammates have always identified him as a phenomenal guy in the locker room and on the court. He's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (well, too much) that he'll back a teammate up if that person gets into trouble, earning the respect of anyone that wears his same uniform. It's extremely telling that a team as Right Way as the Spurs valued (and continues to value) his contribution to their championship team as much as they did. No less an unimpeachable source than Tim Duncan has claimed that Jackson is the "ultimate teammate", so it's not like this is something specific to the Warriors and Ron Artest. Simply put, Stephen Jackson is somebody that everyone feels perfectly comfortable going to war with.

Last postseason (and many postseasons before that), he also made it clear that he won't back down against a presumably superior opponent. Without Stephen Jackson around to get in the Mavs' faces and convince the younger players that the Warriors could win, there's simply no way that Golden State wins that series, although Baron would have kept it close just by the pure will of his balls. If a guy's an emotional leader and backs up his teammates, why shouldn't he be a captain?

There's also the issue of team identity, a point that Shoals argued in this pro-Jackson Fanhouse piece. The mark of insanity and on-the-edgeness are things that defined this team last year, so it makes sense that the organization would want to buy into those qualities going forward. Granted, those usually aren't traits that hold up particularly well over time, but there's also never really been a situation where those kinds of players defined the team instead of hanging around the margins as effective sideshow attractions.

My one major concern is that this new role could actually rein him in too much. Any attempt to change Jackson's mindset, particularly one focused on setting a Right Way example, will make him something that he's unequivocally not. Jackson -- and, by extension, the rest of the team -- thrives off of insanity. Losing that edge could throw off the Warriors' entire operation.

When you get right down to it, though, I'm not even sure this decision merits the attention it's getting. The NBA is not high school, where players don't have experience leading and thus look to older players for tons of guidance. Most of these guys have been captains or leaders at some level; they really only need someone to show them the ropes and set a general tone. Jackson does all those things and more. Captains certainly matter in the NBA, but they're not essential to the success of a team.

If I Can Change, And You Can Change, Everybody Can Change

2007-10-03T01:22:00.000-07:00

By now (you know, a day and a half later), the news of Andrei Kirilenko's English interview with KSL 5 of Salt Lake City is too old to print. However, instead of analyzing the greatness of quotes like "I want to burn on the floor," I'd like to take this post to commend AK for his tremendous analysis of the situation, to explain how I think this interview guards him against all relevant criticism of his trade demand, and to wildly predict that his comments represent a potentially huge step in how athletes approach their trade demands. His most important quotes have been reproduced elsewhere, but I've pasted them here for your pleasure and convenience:

"I don't know. I'm stuck in this situation. ... I just want him to help me again and help the team."

"I don't want to be an anchor for the team. ... Right now, I feel like an anchor, game-wise and money-wise. I want Jazz to be as happy as possible."

"[Jerry Sloan's] one of the best coaches in the world... It seems like I'm on a different page with the coach."

"Sometimes we don't know how to help each other."

"He is who he is. I don't want to change him. He's made himself as a coach like this. I want to wish him the best and success as a coach."

"I never said I want to be first option on the team. ... I think Deron, I think Carlos [Boozer], I think Memo [Okur], even Matt [Harpring], I think they, even more than me, are valuable offensively. I'm ready for that. But I'm not ready to be ignored at all."

To a certain extent, his reasoning here resembles that of a boyfriend or girlfriend who, after saying some nasty things at the beginning of a fight/breakup, reverses course and tries the "it's not you, it's me" approach with the hope of smoothing things over in the relationship's last moments. I don't doubt that AK harbors some of these feelings, but he seems too sincere for that to be his primary intent.

What impresses me most about these comments is that Kirilenko has looked at this situation from all sides; in a way, he wrote the definitive take on his own trade demand, rendering all other accounts superfluous. He understands that he has limited skills, but he knows that he's pretty damn good at what he does and can help another team (i.e. one that would use him with more attention to his skills) immensely. Consequently, he still has at least trade value, and the Jazz could probably get some nice pieces in return. It's extremely rare for a professional athlete -- or, more accurately, a really good professional athlete -- to take stock of his talents and limitations so honestly. That self-awareness necessarily blunts the claims that he's being arrogant and selfish. Essentially, he's now the anti-Drago.

AK's explanation of his relationship with Sloan is just as interesting in that it shows just how willing he is to make concessions to someone with whom he has an awful working relationship. By admitting that Sloan is a legendary coach -- and this is the really important part -- who still commands a great deal of respect and did a great job with last year's team, Kirilenko presents this disagreement as an issue of poor fit and respectful philosophical debate, not of macho posturing and O'Reilly Factor-style argument. Both sides retain their good points, leading to a friendly split and at least moderately happy ending for both sides.

While I think AK's tactics here are incredibly useful, he's still open to certain kinds of criticism. For instance, he still demanded a trade, so anyone who decries a player for lack of loyalty would have to apply that critique in this case. In this way, Shoals's recent point about the double standard in reaction to trade demands still holds. However, if you like to look at both sides of the issue and see how that player came to that decision -- if you can't tell, that's what I prefer -- then I don't think there's much of importance that can be thrown back in Kirilenko's face here.

But I don't want to stop with just AK's situation, because I think this interview has implications for future trade demands. If more players would take this path with the media, I think we'd see far fewer knee-jerk reactions of the "he's just being disloyal" sort. Not only would that lead to better situations for the players and teams involved, but media discussion would necessarily focus on the nuances of each case in addition to the generalities. It's probably unrealistic to expect extremely talented people to criticize themselves in an open forum on a regular basis, but some progress seems possible.

Before I go, a bit of important news: true Plissken OG commenter Ben Q. Rock (the archives say he commented twice on our first-ever substantive post) has taken his excellent Orlando Magic blog Third Quarter Collapse over to the collective at SB Nation. Anyone with even a passing interest in the NBA (so, you know, everyone reading this right now) should check it out. Congrats to Ben on the new, well-deserved gig.

No Scissors In Bed

2007-10-02T00:17:00.001-07:00

If you listen to most pundits, the big news from lakers' media day Monday was that Kobe's ready to play, but the real story of the Lakers' media day for me was unquestionably the physical changes Bynum's gone through since we last saw him in May. Namely, that his 'stache seems two shades thicker and his voice has dropped at least an octave. Yer growns up and yer growns up and yer growns up. The fact that he also looks freakishly thicker in a Howardesque way is exciting, too. His focus on conditioning this summer (via FB&G) is evident and, muscle strain aside, looks very promising. However, the key from my point of view has to be the facial hair. To get a better view you'll probably have to watch the Bucher video linked up top, if you can tolerate the sensationalist voiceover long enough to get to it.

Apparently I wasn't the only one keenly aware of the some of the Lakers' follicular changes, because Elie Seckbach was on the scene to report:

A few things that are particularly relevant from the clip:

Lamar Odom is under the impression that his barber thinks he's going to have an All-Star season. I'm of the opinion that his barber thinks he might secretly be a 12-year-old girl. I think there might be a kitten on the other side.

Also, Kwame shaved (rumor has it head-to-toe; whatever it takes in a contract year). All kidding aside, though, he does imply in the video that he lost the braids because he's apparently "a new player," which has me cautiously excited. Maybe it's naive of me to think that someone with the worst hands of any NBA player I've ever seen can have a breakout year in his 7th season in the league, but it's worth keeping an eye on, at the very least.

Finally, the most important non-Bynum related news from my standpoint: Sasha Vujacic, apparently not to be outdone by Robbie Cowgill, has really brought the whole Johnny look to a new level of perfection. Everyone guard your pipe this year.

As the Sun Greets the Dawn

2007-09-27T23:30:00.001-07:00

Over the past few days, several prominent media types have wondered out loud about how anyone could not want to play with Steve Nash, the consensus (at least in the mainstream) greatest point guard in the league and ultimate distributor of the world. These writers’ takes have come somewhere between outrage and bewilderment. In almost all cases, people just can’t understand why Marion would ever want to leave Steve Nash.

Thankfully, many citizens of Blogburgh have responded with a more respectable view of this situation. In his take on the trade request, David Friedman of 20 Second Timeout wrote a paragraph so good that I will simply reproduce it here:

The Marion story flies in the face of two pieces of "conventional wisdom" that the mainstream media touts: 1) Everyone in the NBA would love to play with Steve Nash and would accept less money to do so; 2) Nobody in the NBA wants to play with Kobe Bryant. Therefore, rather than simply reporting the facts, it will not be too long before many media outlets spin this story to fit in with "conventional wisdom." It will be interesting to watch this unfold and see if the spin becomes an attack on Marion for being "selfish," an attack on Marion for not being that valuable of a player or if somehow someone figures out a way to blame this all on Bryant. Rest assured that the face value facts--Marion wants to be traded from Phoenix to the Lakers--will not be simply reported as such for very long.

I couldn’t put it any better. Instead of dismissing Marion’s issue with the Suns as unreasonable hogwash, let’s try to answer the heretofore rhetorical question and figure out how anyone could not want to play with Steve Nash. (I should also give props to everyone in the FD comments. The idea for this post started there.) Before starting this exercise, I’d like to make it clear that I imagine Steve Nash is fun to play with. Teammates have spoken well of him for years; Marion is certainly an exception and not the rule.

However, that doesn’t mean that Nash’s game doesn’t have some traits that would irk a player of Marion’s caliber. For all his skills as a distributor, Nash gets many of his assists after creating angles with his dribble. When he uses that tactic, he uses up the majority of the possession with the ball in his hands, meaning that the finisher really only has to catch the ball and lay it in. Logically, that shouldn’t be a problem for the finisher, but Nash’s controlling of the ball necessarily focuses most of the attention on him. The other players, who still receive a fair share of attention, become known more as finishers than they would be otherwise.

The media attention that Nash receives compounds this problem. It’s not uncommon for a point guard to get attention, but Nash’s reputation as Ultimate Team Player A-#1 doesn’t perfectly match his penchant for controlling possessions, although they do certainly match closely. Any praise given to Nash for being a fantastic teammate must sting a player that knows he’s capable of being more than a clean-up man, which is a role that Marion and the other Suns often play.

In the end, I think it’s exactly that knowledge that makes this situation tough for Marion. If he hadn’t been successful without Nash, I’m sure he’d be less willing to part, but the fact that Marion was an all-star before Nash arrived means that he knows he can get more attention on another team. His willingness to leave Phoenix might seem odd, but it’s not insane by any stretch.

Crawling Can Be Beautiful

2007-09-25T23:34:00.000-07:00

The rumor mill is in full effect. According to Sporting News (via Ballhype, which really means via AZ Sports Hub and some other dudes, doesn't it?), an anonymous source claims there's a 50-50 chance of seeing an Odom-for-Marion blockbuster. Couple that with his fairly-legitimate-sounding trade demand and I think it's fair game to start getting mildly excited.

I know what you're thinking. We all remember what happened last time I got excited when a player the Lakers coveted made a "trade demand." [Tangent: have we ever had a summer filled with so many false threats and half-assed demands?] And god knows how long I've been advocating the AK-for-Odom hotness, which Kirilenko's vocal displeasure seems to have advanced none at all. So what makes this idle speculation any different than the past examples? Nothing, really, but I feel compelled to weigh in nonetheless, mostly because we don't got much else to talk about just yet.

First off, we've already shown that numbers don't lie and Odom isn't as good as I might want to believe he is. Seriously, though, in the PER-battle, Marion wins handily, hitting a career-high of 23.6 with Amare not around and cracking 20 in four other years. Odom peaked at 18.9 his sophomore year and has been under 18 in all three of his years on this end of Staples. (Hypocrite, you say? Agreed) Couple that with the fact that Marion's probably the best (or at least the most versatile) defensive player in the game, and it's hard not to see Marion as an upgrade. The real clincher for me, however, is that Marion hasn't dipped below 79 games a season since his rookie year. Odom, on the other hand, has missed an average of almost 20 games per season. That health upgrade alone could be worth an extra four or five wins over the course of a season. Honestly, the fact that Odom's behind on his recovery from shoulder surgery (via FB&G) and other GMs are even still looking at him is amazing to me.

There are a few downsides worth considering. Losing Odom's passing is probably the biggest problem I see. Not having Odom around would put a lot of pressure on Fisher, Farmar, and Luke to distribute. It's also worth considering that familiarity with the triangle is often cited as one of the most important factors for excelling in it. Odom in his fourth year in the system probably has a considerable edge over Marion in his first. The extra $3 million owed to Marion is also not insignificant, but a contract like Cook's would have to be included to balance the books, making the impact on the team's cap negligible (as far as I understand). At this point, there aren't a whole lot of non-lateral type of moves left out there, and this might be the best chance for the Lakers to make an upgrade. However, the deal would still have its drawbacks. Losing Cook would probably make the guys that made this video extremely happy, but the truth is the lost depth at PF could hurt down the road.

Would this move make the Lakers contenders? Probably not. Do I think that's a fair standard by which to judge all transactions? Definitely not. The bottom line for me is that trading Odom for Marion shows a willingness mix things up. As currently configured, the Lakers would be hard-pressed to make much noise come playoff time. Shoring up one of their major weaknesses (defense) and appeasing Kobe by acquiring a close friend of his (who's already saying things like the Lakes have "a great organization, great ownership") make this possible trade worth the risk.

Let's Plan a Robbery

2007-09-24T23:35:00.000-07:00

Last week, ESPN.com's Andy Katz wrote an article on the nonconference schedules of many top NCAA teams and how they could influence the proceedings on Selection Sunday. The Memphis Tigers occupied his top spot (in terms of both schedule quality and his pre-preseason Top 25), and for good reason. In a word, their schedule is just about perfect. Katz gave them a well-deserved A and detailed many of the reasons for that grade, but I'd like to go into more depth to show exactly why this slate of games fits their team so well.

The amount of big-name teams on the schedule is striking. The Tigers open the year with the 2K College Hoops Classic, a regional/NYC tournament that features Kentucky, UConn, and Oklahoma as the other preliminary hosts and logical opponents at Madison Square Garden. While those names all carry some weight, none of those teams is a potential worldbeater, meaning that Coach Cal will have time to bring Derrick Rose along against quality competition without fear of having in over his head right off the bat.

The game against USC in MSG a few weeks later is an absolute master stroke. While it won't be as big a challenge as it might have looked when Calipari scheduled the game (i.e. before the Trojans lost Nick Young and Gabe Pruitt to the NBA), a win over a solid Pac-10 team will carry a lot of weight this year. Perhaps most importantly, though, the Rose/Mayo matchup will undoubtedly bring a lot of attention to both programs, ensuring that Memphis's recruiting pipeline of freak athletes will not dry up any time soon.

As Katz mentions in his article, Memphis has some unbelievable home games on the schedule, including Arizona, Tennessee, Georgetown, and Gonzaga. I have no idea how the Tigers managed to work that slate out, but it ensures that they'll have at least two high-profile wins -- honestly, I'd be shocked if they don't get three or four from that group -- at hand when it comes time to assign #1 seeds.

Now, in looking at Memphis's schedule, it's important to realize that they must play a large number of quality nonconference opponents because of the general putridity of Conference USA. What looks like an incredibly tough schedule now will likely look as difficult as that of every major conference leader by the end of the season. Yet that's exactly what makes the location of the home and neutral games so important to the Tigers' chances of getting a #1 seed; it's as if Calipari knew exactly how many big wins they needed and acted accordingly.

If there's one hole in the nonconference schedule, it's that there's only one true road game, a likely win at Cincinnati in mid-December. However, even that criticism seems unimportant given Memphis's situation in C-USA. Essentially, preconference road games are only important insofar as they prepare a team for their toughest conference games away from home. Memphis, though, will be such an overwhelming favorite in every C-USA game that home and road designations won't even make much of a difference. Memphis's nonconference schedule is in place to win them a high seed and to prepare them for the grind of the tournament. The neutral games in New York do exactly that. The road game is just there for posterity.

Random site news: Things might be a bit spotty over the next week; I just started grad school today and don't want to screw anything up in the first week. However, I'm in the middle of writing a giant post (in terms of both length and importance to this blog) on the systems of college programs, so expect that some time soon.

Take Up Thy Stethoscope and Walk

2007-09-22T01:56:00.001-07:00

Filling in for Henry Abbott at TrueHoop, Jeff Clark of CelticsBlog wrote a blogging primer this Friday titled “NBA Blogging 101.” Essentially, Jeff laid out his list of suggestions for creating a quality basketball blog, although his comments could really apply to any blog of any sport or topic. For the most part, he hits the blogative nails on their heads, including a few that the Plissken braintrust hadn’t used: make an email address readily available (hey, when did that show up on the sidebar?!), write every day (uh, not so much this last week), and create some guidelines (our only rule is that there are no rules). The man has been around long enough and writes a good enough site to make him an expert on this topic; I imagine someone fairly ignorant of sports blogs could read his post and start a decent sports blog within days, or even hours. Additionally, his point about being an innovator and looking to new media for analysis is golden advice for someone more creative and tech-savvy than ourselves (see our layout). However, in the midst of all these great suggestions, I take issue with one of Jeff’s key insights: the idea that an upstart blogger must find a niche in order to be successful.

Given our focus (or lack thereof) at this site, it should not come as a surprise that I have a problem with the idea of the necessary niche. For any readers who don’t come here regularly, let me break down what we write: nuts-and-bolts commentaries on games and transactions, philosophical explorations of fandom, investigations of style, and the occasional half-serious goof. And that goes for both the NBA and NCAA. Are we overextending ourselves? I’d say it’s pretty likely. Is this approach any worse than writing a niche blog? I’m not so sure.

Jeff’s argument rests on a few basic points: 1) Broader topics like “the NBA” and “Boston sports” are already covered by bigwigs like Henry Abbott and Bill Simmons, respectively, so there’s no way you’ll stand out given that they dominate the market; 2) A niche—a classification that includes topics as broad as a specific team—addresses an uncovered topic and will therefore draw a readership. 3) You’ll become the expert on that topic, thus ensuring that people will turn to you when a story intersects with your focus. (I assume that Jeff is working under the assumption that the writers of his hypothetical niche sites are talented, so I will treat them as such in my analysis below.)

The first point is true; TrueHoop is the top NBA blog around and no one will be topping it any time soon. In fact, we’re probably at a point in Blogburgh’s history at which there are a fixed number (or close to it) of truly large sports sites. I still think a TrueHoop-type site written by a terrific writer/aggregator (for instance, a Kelly Dwyer clone without the name recognition—let’s call him Delly Kwyer) would be worthwhile, but it would definitely be tough to get it started. If a writer of that quality would have trouble developing a readership, then any young whippersnapper faces a stiff challenge if he wants his blog to become a must-read. I don’t think anyone would argue against that, so, as I stated a few paragraphs ago, the issue becomes whether or not the niche gets you more attention than the big-tent.

In his post, Jeff mentions a sports commercial site, a point guard site, and an NBDL site as potential niche blog ideas. Although I’m a bit skeptical about how much content you could create for a commercials site, a well-written one would certainly be worth a read every week or so. (Honestly, who wouldn’t read fifteen entertaining posts on the Jeremy Piven commercials?)

He deserves to be mentioned among the greatest philosophers of all-time.

The other two examples are tougher to consider. A point guard site would certainly be interesting, but I’m not sure it would feature any content that couldn’t be found on a larger analytical basketball site. I suppose the writer would focus his energies on watching point guards and thus have more to say, but it seems unlikely that a point guard fan would not like the other parts of a basketball game. I’m all for in-depth analyses of Chris Paul and Baron Davis, but those exist on other sites. Does the point guard niche fill a need? A larger niche site like a team-specific blog works because a built-in fan base exists prior to its creation. Once you get into smaller niches, those preexisting readerships dwindle in size.

The same issue comes up in the case of the NBDL site. I don’t deny that such a blog could be very interesting, but would it generate many readers? I’m sure there are six hardcore NBDL fans in Bakersfield who would go there every day, but high-traffic days would only really occur when players get called up to their NBA teams. Given that most smaller blogs (like this one, at the moment) get large numbers of hits only on days when they get linked on the big sites, I don’t see how the niche blog leads to a wildly different traffic situation than does the broader blog. Perhaps the niche would lead to a larger initial hit count. If anything, I imagine the niche would eventually cap traffic whereas the big tent would lead to incremental growth over a long period of time.

Jeff’s advice is still useful, though; I just think it needs some tweaking. If you read a good number of blogs, then you’ve probably seen that the vast majority of the best ones—including the ones that don't live in the high-rent districts of Blogburgh—have clear identities or specialties: The Painted Area provides extremely detailed, no-nonsense analysis; Basketbawful takes a humorous look at a wide range of basketball topics; and the Blowtorch’s Goathair is the male version of Miss Gossip. These sites/bloggers have their clear strengths, but they cover a number of topics and don’t suffer for it. The important thing is that, with all the blogs on the market now, they set themselves apart.

While those bloggers create clear identities out of their content, I don’t think that’s the only way to do it. There’s no reason that bloggers can’t perform the same function as the mainstream press in terms of the services they provide their readers. After a big game or transaction, I never read just one writer or site’s take on the issue; I almost always look at a handful of them. As long as the writer develops a clear writing style and shows a knack for creating unique and legitimate opinions, a blogger can easily enter into that rotation of regularly-read columnists. In fact, I turn to these kinds of bloggers just as often as I turn to mainstream writers, if not more often. Niches can work, but they’re not necessary if a writer’s opinions and approach demand attention.

Now, watch us announce a new direction for Plissken next week when we write a post on the JJ Redick Better Basketball ads.

Things Are More Moderner Than Before

2007-09-20T00:55:00.000-07:00

The Charlotte Bobcats have finally reached an agreement with the Montana rancher who owned the rights to bobcats.com, thus ending Charlotte's municipal nightmare over whether or not their basketball team would get to use a site name even simpler than bobcatsbasketball.com (via Charlotte Observer). The Bobcats are not a franchise to parcel out dynamite scoops one at a time, though, so they also announced Tuesday that they'll be trotting out new uniforms, using a new secondary logo, and redesigning the court for next season. In the words of team president Fred Whitfield, these changed "are about us improving as franchise -- on and off the floor." I commend the Bobcats for these changes, but there's one more they should make if they want to make the jump from expansion team to legit franchise: dump Rufus Lynx, their mascot.

At the beginning of August, I wrote a series of posts on the East and West mascots and their fits for their franchises. They were almost entirely lighthearted and two of my favorite posts to write, if only because I got to see some insane mascots I didn't know much about. For instance, you haven't really lived until you've seen the insane dog that Indiana calls Bowser, or Philly's Hip Hop the Rabbit, or Orlando's Stuff the Magic Dragon. Rufus, on the other hand, is shocking on an entirely different, much less innocent level.

Put quite simply, Rufus Lynx is a racist mascot. From his stereotypical slave name to this picture of him in pimp garb, Rufus is as close to a minstrel show performer as you're going to find in an NBA arena. Given that the league consists of mostly black players playing in front of mostly white audiences, I'm shocked that such a clear racial issue hasn't been talked about before. When you factor in that Robert Johnson, the founder of BET, owns the Bobcats, the entire situation just boggles the mind.

In that first mascot post, I summarized most of my thoughts on Rufus, but I neglected to link to his bio, which has so many ridiculous statements that I won't be able to do them justice in a normal paragraph. Trust me, you want these in numbered format:

1) "Those of you who have witnessed this furry but lovable character out in the community can positively testify to his character..." The phrase "furry but lovable" suggests that his fur usually precludes him from being lovable. In a sense, Rufus is "one of the good ones." Additionally, it seems like those that have seen him need to reassure their friends that he's safe. Odd.
2) "This hip team player will even use his natural characteristics..." The first in a series of descriptions that make it seem like Rufus is incapable of learning skills. Everything is a natural advantage.
3) "Rufus likes to ambush his prey with short bursts of speed and agility" This probably wouldn't seem like a big deal if not for the other issues, but it becomes a problem given everything else we hear about Rufus. Again, it's all about athleticism. Also, I realize that the Bobcats want their mascot to seem fearsome, but I doubt that the Jazz make Bear out to be a predator.
4) "It’s well-known that bobcats can leap 10 feet without any problems, but Rufus Lynx reaches even higher heights." Out of all the tremendous athletes of his species, Rufus jumps the highest. Why emphasize his species?
5) "There is an unbelievable soft side to Rufus Lynx" This could either mean that Rufus has a huge soft side or that it's hard to believe that someone like Rufus could have a soft side. Take your pick -- the latter is obviously worse.
6) "At first glance, Rufus appears in his orange color fur, dark sunglasses and high-top sneakers. Underneath his exterior is the heart of a lion, the strength of 10 men and the greatest enthusiasm in the NBA." Carries a good message about looking deep inside of people, but why even focus on his appearance as being the first thing we should look at? Why is his fur so terrifying in the first place?
7) "HEIGHT We can’t measure him; he won’t stand still" I don't even know what to say about this one.
8) There are countless other comments on Rufus's natural abilities, but listing them would be a chore. Honestly, they might as well have said that he has extra fast-twitch muscles.

Now, to be fair, they do explain the name. The genus/species name for a bobcat is "lynx rufus," which means that they didn't just pick "Rufus" out of a hat. In fact, that's mostly why I don't think the Bobcats brass made a conscious decision to make Rufus as awful as he is. Yet that doesn't make all of this business okay. I might be reading a lot into Rufus Lynx, but I think there's something there.

In the midst of all this change in Charlotte, this is an easily correctable issue. Plenty of teams -- particularly those in the Southeast Division -- have insane, nonsensical mascots that work a hell of a lot better than Rufus. Charlotte could have a new mascot after ten minutes of brainstorming, and they'd fix a lot of potential problems. I promise it'll be easy. At the very least, they'll do better than this guy.

Totally Natural

2007-09-19T03:18:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday’s news that Greg Oden will miss the entire regular season certainly put a bit of a damper on the greatness of the incoming rookie class, but we must remember that we have many, many good players to look forward to. As great as Oden has the chance to be, Kevin Durant has been considered the most exciting player in this class for quite some time, and, now that Oden’s out, I want to take this post to focus on the great things we have to look forward to about Durant’s game. However, instead of taking a broad look at Durant’s talents, I want to compare one aspect of his style with the same trait in the game of the greatest player ever, Michael Jordan.

When watching Jordan in his younger years (essentially any time up until his first retirement), it’s interesting to see how all of his movements and plays seemed completely natural. When Jordan made a play, it rarely seemed like he was actively trying to make that play throughout the possession. Instead, Jordan appears to have sized up the defense instantaneously and made his move based entirely on what the defense gave to him.

If that sounds like something that many players do, it’s because they all do something quite similar. But, with a player like Kobe, the time it takes to get from decision to play is always noticeable; in short, it looks like they’re at least thinking about what they’re doing. Jordan, on the other hand, internalized that process to the point where it’s not even really noticeable. He didn’t need time to decide; he operated so many moves ahead of everyone else that the domination looks like something he was born to do. In a way, he’s simultaneously and indistinguishably reactive and proactive. A player like Kobe more closely resembles the older Jordan, who clearly inflicted his will on the opposition.

I believe Durant has the same general quality to his offense game as did the younger Jordan. Playing for the strategically-challenged Rick Barnes, Durant rarely had plays run for him, requiring him to improvise in order to score. Whereas most young players—even the most talented ones—Durant took almost entirely quality shots, with the type of that shot largely determined by the defense situation. To be sure, the majority of his looks came from the perimeter because, like Dirk Nowitzki, he can get a perimeter jumper off against his usual defenders due to his height, but only a fool would say that Durant didn’t post up or drive on virtually everyone who guarded him.

Perhaps the most exciting thing about both players in regards to this naturalness is that they don’t appear to change when at their best. For instance, on paper, Jordan’s six three-pointers in the first half of Game 1 of the 1992 NBA Finals against the Blazers is one of the best examples of a player enforcing his will on a game in recent memory: Jordan responded to critics who said he wasn’t as good a shooter as Clyde Drexler by setting the finals record for threes in a half. In practice, though, Jordan doesn’t look to be doing anything other than taking the shots when they’re available to him; the Blazers were playing his drive, so he took outside shots.

Durant’s most famous clutch moments at Texas played out in similar fashion. In many cases, he appeared to take control of games in the final minutes, but those moments were more like extensions of his fantastic play at other points in the game. It’s for exactly that reason that I’ve had trouble referring to Durant as clutch—that term implies that he raises his game in a way that I just don’t see. It might be more apt to say that he maintains a high level or doesn’t shrink in crunch time.

The lack of change in Jordan and Durant’s styles from moment-to-moment likely comes from the immense amount of time they spent/spend in the gym. When one spends so much time practicing, everything becomes second nature. That combination of skill and athleticism separates Jordan and Durant from athletic players who also don’t appear to think much when playing. (I don’t mean to suggest that Kobe hasn’t spent enough time in a gym for his style to work in the same way; Kobe puts in more work than anyone else in the league. As I said above, though, his play seems predetermined in a way similar to that of the older Jordan. I don’t think that’s surprising considering when Kobe entered the league.)

The natural feel of his game is exactly what makes Durant such a promising player. As Bethlehem Shoals said last Thursday when Oden went down, we do not know what Durant will look like as a finished product. The free-flowing, seemingly improvised nature of his game is what produces that sense that anything is possible. When it seems like anything can happen at any single moment involving Kevin Durant, it logically proceeds that his career has no ceiling, too. I use that term in the truest sense; we really just don’t know what he will look like. The McGrady and Nowitzki comparisons make very general sense, but Durant will almost assuredly carve out his own style, if he hasn’t already. Even if he doesn’t reach the highest levels of the pantheon, he will be unique.

Before I finish, I want to make it abundantly clear that I’m not predicting that Durant will become a player of Jordan’s caliber. Durant has his faults (although I think that post goes overboard, most of it is well-reasoned) and has a lot of work to do before he becomes a top-shelf star in the NBA. In particular, Durant needs to improve his defense and passing before he can call himself an overall natural presence on Jordan’s level.

For now, though, these issues are inconsequential. Durant’s game has an exceedingly rare quality to it, and we have the privilege of getting to see what he does with it. Until training camp starts, let that be enough.

We Can Rebuild Him

2007-09-13T23:50:00.000-07:00

And suddenly the numbers game feels completely inconsequential now. To be perfectly honest, I don't feel like I have a ton to add to what's already been said, but I've felt the need all day long to share my thoughts here, to comfort and be comforted. It feels similar to the impulse experienced by people in a small town who come together at the scene of a bad accident, congregating without any definite purpose, not necessarily to contribute anything tangible, but just to make their presences felt and to feel the camaraderie of rest of the community.

Abbott's coverage all day long has been phenomenal, as usual, from putting things into perspective, to breaking down the procedure. I'm sure tomorrow he'll continue to stay on top of things. I'm very impressed with how well Abbott, as a Blazers fan, seems to be handling the news, particularly in keeping Oden's interests in the foreground. Similarly, Blazer's Edge has an admirable stoicism that I'm not sure I'd be capable of if I were in their position. Even as a general NBA fan without any personal connection to the Portland franchise, the news has bummed me out quite a bit. I know Henry's right that what we're feeling can't be remotely comparable to what be Greg must be going through, but I still think we can afford ourselves a certain amount of self-pity, as long as we keep that reality in mind.

Unlike Shoals, the idea that "It could have been worse: it could have bee Durant" doesn't really console me. I realize that the wild uncertainty of Durant is tantalizing, but I disagree about how Oden is destined to become a conventional big man. It might have taken some time to adjust to playing against other physically gifted 7-footers, but, if he could have wrecked terror on the defensive end anywhere near the extent to which he imposed himself on the collegiate game, he would have been thrilling to watch this year. Furthermore, I completely agree with Stop Mike Lupica (commenting on the Shoals post) that being robbed of the "Oden vs. Durant" debate definitely hurts. Unlike the LeBron vs. Melo connection, this one has been completely legitimate thus far and could have become one of those telling "Stones vs. Beatles"-type dichotomies in which a person's stance instantly tells you something about that individual. Even if Oden can ever come back 100%, the fact that they're not entering together has permanently altered the way that rivalry will develop.

On the other hand, maybe the fact that the Durant/Oden link has been momentarily severed will make the mailed-in stories like Simmons' post today a little rarer. I know Simmons-bashing has become an art form in Blogburgh -- a tradition we tend to try to avoid when possible -- but today's article was pretty unforgivable. First of all, even if it's your editors who come up with the titles of links to your articles, you can't start your article by saying "[Blazers' fans] don't deserve the 'Bowie 2.0' jokes," and have the link title on the front page be "Bowie Knife." Completely uncool. This situation is so unlike Bowie's for a laundry list of reasons that I don't think anyone needs to even bother arguing it. Additionally, the fact that this happened in no way validates anyone who argued that Durant should be the number 1 pick. There were and are plenty of legitimate points for Durant that don't need to rely on revisionist history bullshit. If Durant, god forbid, has a career-ending injury three years from now, no one is going to go back and question Sam Presti's decision-making. Completely unfair. It's also painfully obvious that Simmons had his anecdote about Oden walking like a 40-year-old completely written in his head weeks before ever going to the ESPYs. Have you seen how fluidly this guy moves on a basketball court? He runs the floor like a guard. Finally, the crap about Oden being a PR-driven pick is beyond absurd. Durant is the bigger marketing draw by far. Sure, Oden is goofy, has a blog, and is super charismatic, but it's not like Durant isn't a straight-laced dude who's going to sell a shit-ton of shoes, video games, and seats wherever he goes.

Because this has been kind of a downer of a day, we would like to end on an upbeat note. The first thing to keep in mind, as Ty pointed out, is that Portland is undoubtedly in the right hands. Pritchard and Nate handled the press conference beautifully, saying all the right things and appearing completely sincere. It's been said in many places elsewhere, but there are plenty of great pieces on that team that have lots of room to grow. The future of Portland definitely still looks bright from my perspective. Most importantly, as microfracture surgeries go, so far this does sound like it was as good as it could possibly be. I hope Oden spends a lot of time watching Amare, smiling. I know I'm going to need to.

So Rich a Stream of Speech

2007-09-13T03:52:00.000-07:00

It might seem a bit silly to write consecutive posts on Marco Belinelli when I haven't even watched him play a full game in more than two months, but I couldn't let this one go: Marco has started writing for nba.com about his experience in Eurobasket 2007 (thanks to this GSoM diary for the link). The preamble to his post makes it unclear if this will be a regular or one-time gig, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to break down a post from one of my favorite players in the league.

When analyzing an athlete's blog, I think there are two important questions to ask: 1) Is it any good? and 2) Did he actually write it? In Marco's case, the first question is very easy to answer, but the second could create one of the great debates of our time. Let's take a closer look.

Is it any good?
No, it's actually pretty awful. Gilbert Arenas's blog is obviously the gold standard for athlete blogs, and this one doesn't come close. As much as I like Gil's insane comments on issues such as his love of Tay Zonday, it's the insight into the experience of being a high-level basketball player, like his recent bit about trash-talking with Gary Payton, that make his blog a must-read instead of a pleasant diversion. Marco's work has none of these qualities. As far as I can tell, he says the following things: the summer has been busy, the American and European styles of basketball are different, Europeans take pride in playing for their countries, good NBA players play in the European Championships, his most memorable basketball moment was dropping 25 on Team USA last summer, and Italy has not played very well this tournament. Not exactly anything I couldn't figure out from box scores, prolonged exposure to Bay Area news outlets, and common sense.

Of course, that doesn't mean I won't read everything he posts. There's a lot to be said for quality, but who wouldn't want to read something from a guy this cool?

Did he actually write it?
My first instinct with an athlete's blog is to assume that a) someone wrote it for him or b) he dictated it to a stenographer. In this case, it's important to note that Marco's blog is riddled with grammatical and stylistic errors, including (but not limited to) missing articles ("This has been very busy summer for me"), verb tense inconsistencies ("That game changed my life because I score 25 points"), circular arguments ("Nowitzki is incredible, now especially, because he is MVP of the NBA."), and general Eurospeak ("that is a game I remember especially").

Given that Marco doesn't speak English very well, it seems entirely plausible that he wrote this without editorial input. I don't have any idea why the league's website editors would allow an ESL student to write without help, but the evidence at hand certainly indicates that there is a slight possibility that this is the case. There's also a chance that Marco dictated it to a typist, which would be in keeping with what we know about Arenas's blog.

However, I find it extremely hard to believe that someone working as a transcriber for nba.com (someone who's presumably interested in writing as a career) could refrain from making simple grammatical changes such as putting verbs into the correct form. So, we have a situation in which a lack of editorial oversight seems highly unlikely due to the sheer stupidity of the decision and a stenographer probably didn't transcribe Marco's words due to the easily correctable grammatical errors throughout his entry.

Given this dilemma, I would like to float out another possibility: nba.com had an intern fabricate a Marco Belinelli blog post. Imagine, for a second, that an intern interviewed Marco about his time at Eurobasket. That would seem to jive with the post's content -- the information is so bland that only a corporate entity could have forced Marco into saying it. (Once again, this suggestion seems to refute the possibility that no editors looked at the post.) Using that information, the intern then set about writing the post, keeping in mind that it had to look like it was written by a 21-year-old Italian shooting guard with remedial English skills. Thus, we get a post with glaring errors, but not too many in every sentence -- that would arouse suspicion.

If this is the case, then I think we can assume that nba.com has a genius intern working for them. It takes great skill to create a poor post like Marco's without having it seem like a parody. Work of this quality demands public recognition.

Be Prepared

2007-09-12T03:14:00.000-07:00

The Painted Area's been providing insanely excellent commentary on Eurobasket 2007 over the last few weeks, and I've been eating all of it up. On Monday, though, they made their best post yet, if only because it features the following video. Please watch it with the sound on, if you want the full experience.

We are well-established fans of Marco Belinelli -- I think Carter actually got upset with me when the Warriors drafted him one spot ahead of the Lakers. But, in the break between summer league and this tournament, I'd forgotten how frickin' awesome it is to watch him play. I honestly don't know if this post even has an original point to it (note the time I put it up), but I still think it's important for a few reasons: a) pretty soon, plays like this one will show up every night on our TV screens; b) YouTube is doing divinely ordained work, and it needs to be discussed as much as possible; c) Mullin did his homework, because Marco is an absolutely perfect (I am not throwing that word around lightly) fit for the Warriors.

Now that all that's out of the way, make sure to check out another excellent article on stats by Tom Ziller at Ballhype. The commenters have done their jobs once again, so I'd advise you not to stop with TZ's post. Thanks to anyone who's commented anywhere on the internets about this issue over the last few days -- it's been fun and we feel privileged to have been a part of it.

Of course, the Blowtorch might have outdone us all with a genius math post of his own.

Future Foe Scenarios

2007-09-11T01:52:00.000-07:00

It’s time to return to the wonderful world of the NCAA, a land we haven’t visited since I wrote this post on the methods used to create recruiting rankings. It’s been a while, but that doesn’t mean our zeal for college ball has waned at all.

The Pac-10’s shaping up to be the deepest conference in the country by far for this upcoming season, which should create a messy picture in the conference standings. As such, non-conference wins will be of supreme importance to the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee—impressive Pac-10 wins are nice, but you need something extra if you’re hanging around .500 in-conference. With that in mind, here’s a look at the non-conference schedules of Pac-10 teams and what they could mean to each program’s postseason chances. (Full schedules are linked in the team name.)

UCLA Bruins
Total Games: 13
Toughest Games: CBE Classic (neutral) (11/19-20), field includes Michigan State, Maryland, and Missouri; vs. Texas (12/01); vs. Davidson (12/08)
Potential Trap Game: at Michigan (12/22). The Wolverines will take some time to get used to John Beilein’s unusual system, but if they have a hot-shooting game they could always beat UCLA at home. It’s important to note that Beilein’s West Virginia teams had a good deal of success against the Bruins, beating them the last two years (although UCLA was without Darren Collison in last season’s game). This game happens right before the Bruins’ week-long break for Christmas, too.
Verdict: Not as tough as it could be, but good enough given the strength of the Pac-10 this year. UCLA will win a good deal of games with any schedule, so they should be able to get the few quality non-conference wins that they’ll need to be in the running for a #1 seed.

USC Trojans
Total Games: 12
Toughest Games: vs. Oklahoma (11/29); vs. Kansas (12/02); vs. Memphis (neutral in NYC) (12/04)
Potential Trap Game: at South Carolina (11/17). USC is young, it’s early in the season, it’s on the road at an SEC school, and the Gamecocks could be upset that no one outside of the South calls them USC.
Verdict: Floyd probably made this schedule when he thought Pruitt and Young would still be around, but it’s a great one nonetheless. The home game against Kansas is a potential goldmine, and the Memphis contest (aka the Rose/Mayo Battle) will help recruiting, at the very least. They lucked out in getting Oklahoma in the Pac-10/Big 12 event—that one will look better than its actual quality by the end of the year.

Cal Golden Bears
Total Games: 11
Toughest Games: at Nevada (11/28); at Kansas State (12/09)
Potential Trap Game: vs. Missouri (12/01). Mike Anderson’s team plays an unusual, fast-paced style that could get to stellar big men Ryan Anderson and DeVon Hardin.
Verdict: Winning one of those big road games would do wonders for a team that should finish around the NCAA bubble. Home schedule has no big names, but wins over Utah and San Diego State can’t hurt. This schedule can’t hurt them, although you’d like to see a big-time home or neutral game.

Stanford Cardinal
Total Games: 12
Toughest Games: at Northwestern (11/15); at Colorado (12/02); vs. Texas Tech (12/22); vs. Fresno State (12/29)
Potential Trap Game: Almost all of them, but at Siena (11/17) is the biggest of them all. Cross-country trip happening early in the season is a recipe for disappointment.
Verdict: Don’t even get me started. No big-time games in a year when the Cardinal should be pretty good. None of these wins will look particularly impressive at the end of the year, meaning that even an undefeated non-conference season wouldn’t help seeding. Stanford will need to win at least ten games in the Pac-10 to be a lock for the tournament, and ten wins won’t be a sure-thing this year. Thank Yahweh the Pac-10 plays a home/away schedule.

Oregon Ducks
Total Games: 12
Toughest Games: at Kansas State (11/29)
Potential Trap Game: at St. Mary’s (11/20). Comes at the end of a short WCC road trip and two games before the big K-State clash.
Verdict: Kansas State win would be huge, because I don’t think Oregon’s going to be as good as advertised this season. No other big ones on here, which shouldn’t come as a surprise given Ernie Kent’s scheduling habits—this is basically par for the course.

Oregon State Beavers
Total Games: 12
Toughest Games: at LSU (12/22)
Potential Trap Game: All the others. OSU should be better this year, but they’re still not good enough to call any game a gimmie.
Verdict: It makes sense for the Beavers to play an easy schedule, but they don’t have a prayer of making the NCAAs or NIT.

Arizona Wildcats
Total Games: 13
Toughest Games: vs. Virginia (11/17); at Kansas (11/25); vs. Texas A&M (12/2); vs. Illinois (in Chicago, so not really neutral) (12/8); at UNLV (12/19); at Memphis (12/29)
Potential Trap Game: at Houston (1/12). In the middle of the conference season, against a decent opponent, and on the road. Never underestimate having to travel halfway across the country at an inconvenient time.
Verdict: Hellish. I don’t expect Arizona to be a tremendous team this season, so it’s entirely possible they’ll enter conference play with five or six big losses. The good news is that they’re playing legitimate teams, so a big win or two could be the difference come Selection Sunday.

Arizona State Sun Devils
Total Games: 12
Toughest Games: Maui Invitational (neutral) (11/19-21), field includes Duke, Illinois, Marquette, Oklahoma St., and LSU; vs. Xavier (12/15)
Potential Trap Game: Many, but at Nebraska (12/02) should be tough, if not exactly a trap. ASU’s only game away from Tempe outside of the Maui Invitational.
Verdict: Perfect schedule for this team. They’re still finding their way around Herb Sendek’s system, but the Maui should be a great learning experience and the easy home games can bring some confidence-building victories. This is probably my favorite mediocre team in the country.

Washington Huskies
Total Games: 13
Toughest Games: NIT Season Tip-Off (neutral) (11/13-23), field includes Syracuse, Ohio St., and Texas A&M; at Oklahoma St. (12/01); vs. Pitt (12/08); at LSU (12/29)
Potential Trap Game: vs. Long Beach St. (11/26) Sandwiched between the NIT and the Oklahoma St. road game, meaning that the Huskies could overlook a team that made the NCAA Tournament last year.
Verdict: Lorenzo Romar finally schedules real teams on the road, but he does so during a likely off-year. Huskies have talent, though, so they could pick up some big wins, with Pitt and one of the talented NIT teams with a leadership vacuum as possibilities.

Washington St. Cougars
Total Games: 12
Toughest Games: vs. Air Force (11/23); at Baylor (11/30); at Gonzaga (12/05)
Potential Trap Game: Not many, but at Boise St. qualifies. On the road and early in the season.
Verdict: It’s a shame the Coug braintrust created the bulk of this schedule when they thought they’d be bad. All the games outside of the Baylor contest occur in the PNW or very close to Pullman—the Idaho games are basically short bus trips. This schedule could come back to bite them if they have a middling year in the Pac-10.

Territorial Pissings

2007-09-10T02:42:00.000-07:00

First things first: On Ballhype, Tom Ziller of Sactown Royalty and Fanhouse wrote a great rebuttal to Carter’s Friday post on PER. TZ's post is terrific, but the discussion in the comments is even better, so I’d advise anyone interested in stats to check it out. That is all.

This summer, I’ve avoided writing about the prospect of Don Nelson leaving the Warriors for several reasons, most notably that I've never believed owner Chris Cohan would be nearsighted enough to actually let it happen. Well, according to Geoff Lepper of the Contra Costa Times, the latest round of negotiations seems to have gone poorly and Nellie is returning to his home in Maui (via Fanhouse). There now appears to be a slight possibility that he won’t coach the team this season.

I can’t even begin to imagine the kind of karmic hellfire that will be visited upon Cohan if Nellie doesn’t come back. As Ziller wrote in the Fanhouse article on the same story (via’d up top), the fans will go apeshit if a deal doesn’t get done. Nellie is our shepherd, the man who brought us back to the playoff promised land. This team is on the rise, and you sure as hell don’t let the coach who helped you get there leave this late in the offseason.

The fans’ retribution, though, should pale in comparison to that of the players. As anyone who watched last year’s Dallas and Utah series knows, the Warriors have a lot of volatile personalities with histories of acting out on the roster. Baron Davis is a noted coach killer, Stephen Jackson can go off at any moment and has said he loves Nellie (“I don’t love no coach, but I love that man.”), and Monta Ellis might start openly weeping if the new coach makes him slow down at all. (At least Patrick O’Bryant would be happy!) I actually think the team would be decent with Keith Smart or Paul Silas running the show, but I’d feel a lot less comfortable about the team’s long-term prospects if one of them was thrown in right before training camp.

For those reasons and more, I still think Cohan’s eventually going to get something worked out. As the recent Foyle buyout and his willingness to sign players like Mike Dunleavy and Derek Fisher at above market-value have shown, Cohan is not cheap (whether or not he’s misguided is another story). If money’s the issue here, then I have to think the two parties will work something out.

Of course, if money were the only issue, the whole deal would probably be worked out by now. From this vantage, the whole argle bargle looks like a high-grade pissing contest, with one participant wanting an ultimately unnecessary extra few million for his troubles and another trying to reassert that he still writes the checks at the Oracle. (Note: For betting purposes, keep in mind that Nellie has the Bud Light Advantage.)

The good thing about pissing contests is that each participant eventually has to finish. Here’s hoping that Nellie and Cohan zip up soon and get back to the real business at hand: forcing out Sarunas Jasikevicius.

A Fraction of the Sum

2007-09-06T21:37:00.000-07:00

Last week, I set out to write a fawning post on Lamar Odom and how vastly under-appreciated he seems to be, particularly among GMs. So, like any good researcher, I set out to search for evidence that would support the conclusion I had already reached. I figured Hollinger's Player Efficiency Ratings, a frequent stop for bearers of unconventional wisdom, would be a good place to start. Upon finding that during the 06-07 season Lamar sported a surprisingly average PER of 16.1, I realized I would have to revise my angle. My first thought was that this was further evidence that despite his obvious virtues, maybe Lamar really is just a bad fit on the Lakers alongside Kobe. But after doing a little more digging and discovering that Lamar's PER was worse than the likes of Brent Barry, Earl Boykins, Bernard Robinson, etc., I came to the conclusion that the problem doesn't lie with Lamar or the Lakers' system, but with Hollinger's system and the thinking that goes behind new stats.

While spending a half-hour trying to decipher what caused his PER to drop 1.2 over the past two years, I started to realize one of my problems with stats of its ilk. Despite the limitations of traditional stats, we understand their flaws and can reasonably discuss them while keeping their limitations in mind. We know that the quality of a player's teammates will affect his assists, that a team's pace will skew its numbers, that a player's height should be considered when looking at rebounds (thanks FD), etc. Because we understand the limitations of these numbers, we can use them reasonably when discussing the impact of various players. With PER, on the other hand, nobody (or very few of us, I should say) understands it well enough to even know its problems. Maybe that's our problem, and the stat's been around long enough that the onus is on us to figure out its strengths and weaknesses, but, seriously, look at this monstrosity:

uPER = (1/MP)*
[ 3P
+ (2/3)*AST
+ (2 - factor*(tmAST/tmFG))*FG
+ (FT*0.5*(1 + (1 - (tmAST/tmFG)) + (2/3)*(tmAST/tmFG)))
- VOP*TO
- VOP*DRBP*(FGA - FG)
- VOP*0.44*(0.44 + (0.56*DRBP))*(FTA - FT)
+ VOP*(1 - DRBP)*(TRB - ORB)
+ VOP*DRBP*ORB
+ VOP*STL
+ VOP*DRBP*BLK
- PF*((lgFT/lgPF) - 0.44*(lgFTA/lgPF)*VOP) ]

Keep in mind that's just for the unadjusted PER. That equation still has to be adjusted for pace, and then normalized around 15. As an econ major who's had to take more than his fair share of stats classes, I'm still not capable of breaking down that equation in any meaningful way.

Now, this isn't intended to be a simple "PER sucks because it's complex" rant. My main problem with PER -- and a lot of the modern era stats -- is that by attempting to reveal truths by combining numbers, they often obscure most of the story. For example, I've never been a fan of relying on numbers that have been adjusted for minutes played. Rather than telling me that Ike Diogu averaged 22 points per 40 minutes during his time at Golden State this year, I'd much rather know that he averaged 7.2 points per game while averaging only 13.1 minutes. By combining those numbers, you lose a part of the story. Trying to extrapolate what someone does in limited time by assuming he could continue that production if just given a chance is terribly faulty logic. Unless you're David Lee, most players don't get buried on the depth chart without a reason. It's exactly that kind of reasoning that leads Hollinger to make ridiculous statements like Indiana got the best of the Harrington/Jackson trade.

That per-40-minute nonsense also makes it so Dajuan Wagner's PER was 17.2, Julius Hodge's was 16.0, and Pape Sow's was 16.4. In other words, without knowing a whole lot more about a player's statline, just glancing at their PER will often be completely useless. But isn't the whole point of the number to boil a player's statistical contributions down to one easy-to-reference number? By consolidating stats into more complex measures, you gain the ability to compare across players, but you lose explanatory power. Obviously there's a balance to be struck with this trade-off: for example, if given the choice between knowing a player's field goal percentage or his field goals made and field goals attempted, I'd take the former because it allows for clearer comparisons across players. PER simply takes that kind of thinking to the extreme. What is sacrificed by this metric is rarely worth what is gained.

As usual, I'd like to end this rant with a few disclaimers. I'm not saying I can't ever appreciate what Hollinger and APBRmetrics accomplish. For instance, in a recent post for TrueHoop, Kelly Dwyer used Penny Hardaway's 99-00 PER to explain that he had a quality year; in that case, writing ten stats would have been overkill. When trying to evaluate a player, 82games or Basketball Reference is almost always my first stop. Taking into account the extra value of free throws and 3-pointers when calculating a player's eFG% is a nifty trick. You very well might catch me referring to someone's PER at some point in the near future and will want to cry hypocrisy. But in the end, if you're going to take the time to analyze a player in depth, you might as well look at his entire statline to get the complete picture.

If Anything, They Should Be Rewarded

2007-09-06T01:55:00.000-07:00

The WNBA is in its 11th season, and, up until last night, I’d never watched a full game. In fact, until a few weeks ago, I hated the WNBA. I’m not exactly sure why—probably from the constant ads during NBA games—but I couldn’t stand anything to do with the league. Then, a few weeks ago, deep in the dog days of summer basketball withdrawal, I caught a few minutes of a regular season game…and kinda liked it. After talking with Carter about it, we decided to write some general impressions of Game 1 of the WNBA Finals, figuring that if we didn’t like that, we wouldn’t like anything. (Note: Terrible logic on our part. Can you imagine showing a non-NBA fan the Spurs-Cavs series and expecting him to like it?)

Since we made that decision, several other sites in Blogburgh have sang the praises (or at least given respect to) the WNBA: Michael of Project Spurs wrote this little ditty on his newfound appreciation for the San Antonio Silver Stars (via Ballhype) and Sports Media Watch brought up the curious situation of the league’s exciting playoff games and dismal ratings (via TrueHoop). These articles, though, tend to focus on the general perceptions surrounding the league. In this post, we want to talk about the style of basketball played on the floor between the East champion Detroit Shock and West champion Phoenix Mercury.

I’ll start with the positives. First, both Phoenix and Detroit have pretty impressive offensive transition games. (Phoenix, with its trio of Diana Taurasi, Cappie Pondexter, and Kelly Miller, seems to have more of a reputation as a running team, but Detroit doesn’t exactly slow things down.) They know how to space themselves on the break, make an early pass to get the ball back, and execute their clear game plan. Detroit won this game by a high final score of 108-100, and that score does not happen by accident.

That offensive execution extends to the half court, where both Phoenix and Detroit moved the ball excellently. A good portion of the credit for that has to go to terrific cuts and off-ball screens. When people suggest that women’s basketball has better fundamentals than the NBA, they’re talking about these things. As such, the offenses tend to flow pretty freely. The league is not without star power, too—Taurasi and Pondexter get into the lane quite often by way of their superior athleticism. Pondexter in particular is fun to watch.

Of course, the style play is not without some gigantic problems. The WNBA’s unpopularity is usually chalked up to the lack of dunks and other above-the-rim antics, but the speed gap is a much more important issue given that these women play on the same-sized court as the men. As any third-grader knows, a pass moves faster than a runner in any situation, which explains why quality ball movement will beat quality defense nearly every time at any level of basketball. In the WNBA, the offense makes smart passes, but the defense can’t move quickly enough to break them up or close out on shooters as often as more athletic players do. The result is a lot of open shots and easy looks, but it doesn’t look like great offense so much as a combination of solid offense and slow defense. It’s nice that offenses move quickly, but it's tough to say how much that matters when defenses aren’t equipped to handle that movement.

Those defensive problems were most obvious when one of the teams played a zone. With an NBA zone, smart passing can get the defense to scramble. In the WNBA, zone defenses have to contend with the fact that the women can’t slide over for help D quickly enough to deny penetration, which leads to even more collapsing and countless open shots. Frankly, I can’t fathom why a WNBA team would ever use a zone. Additionally, in a person-to-person (we’re PC here) defense, perimeter defenders can’t play up on the true playmakers for fear of getting burnt.

The relationship between quickness and the ball also has a noticeable effect on the boards, where boxing out was a major weakness for both teams. On a basic level, it’s tough to get a body on someone when you can’t move very quickly, but that becomes much more of a problem when you have to get a body on someone and grab a rebound at the same time.

The drop-offs in speed and athleticism were made clear in the quality of each team's non-stars. The best players, such as Pondexter, Taurasi, and Detroit’s Deanna Nolan were clearly the most talented players on the court in the first half because of their creative abilities. However, their actual stats were quite terrible: Pondexter had a horrific shooting half (I don’t have the exact stats in front of me, but she was 2/13 on field goals at one point in the 2nd quarter), Taurasi picked up four fouls in the half and made just a few baskets, and Nolan took just two shots from the floor. The NBA certainly has discrepancies between its superstars and average players, but the difference is nowhere near as stark. If, in my first game seeing LeBron, he put up a statline like those, I’d think him overrated, not the best player on the court by far.

Interestingly, I get the impression that the speed issue is what convinces many fans of women’s basketball that this version of basketball features superior fundamentals to the men’s game. In a system without so much athleticism, the fundamentals necessarily become a more visible part of the game. However, it seems foolish to suggest that NBA and NCAA men can’t make entry passes or slide over for help better than the women at their equivalent levels.

Unfortunately, this problem isn’t going away anytime soon. In a few of my Bloggin’ to the Oldies posts this summer, I’ve mentioned that the NBA needed to introduce the three-point line as a way to limit the clutter produced when ten athletic players all play around the key. Watching this WNBA game makes me think that the three-point line has a similar, yet negative effect on their style of play. If less athletic players set up away from the basket, that puts the defense at an extreme disadvantage. Ditching the three-point line would likely lead to players operating much closer to the basket, likely improving the competitiveness of each possession.

Again, I enjoyed this game, but these issues make it impossible for me to declare the WNBA a great league. There are problems, and I think they can be fixed. Even if they aren’t, though, I can still get behind this league, and I’m glad to know it’ll be there for me again during men’s basketball’s late summer drought. If I can love college basketball while still admitting that it’s not better than the NBA, I don’t see any reason why I can’t like the WNBA while still admitting that it’s not better than college basketball.

Random notes: Nancy Lieberman is an atrocious analyst. During the pregame, she actually said “It doesn’t matter if it’s Macbeth or Shakespeare, the antithesis is Laimbeer.” Now, that quote was in response to a comment about Phoenix Coach Paul Westhead quoting Macbeth to his players, but Lieberman still brought out a complete non sequitir and expected us to follow along. Shockingly, she topped herself at halftime when she asked league MVP Lauren Jackson “Was this part of the plan for you, to have the best season of your career, in your mind?” No, Nancy, I’m pretty sure she wanted to be terrible this year. … The Palace was mostly empty, which makes me wonder why they don’t move the games to smaller arenas to create a better atmosphere. I guess NBA teams like the extra money, but I’m sure they could work out some sort of profit-sharing deal. … The WNBA on ESPN has much better theme music than their NBA friends. I’m not sure what it was—I just know it wasn’t the Pussycat Dolls. … ESPN actually has the assistant coaches do interviews (with headsets!) while the ball’s in play. Even weirder, they interview players at the corner of the bench while the game’s going on, too. I can see how access could improve ratings, but those shenanigans have to have an effect on the quality of play. ... Carter actually put Diana Taurasi on his team in NBA Street a few months ago. After watching the game, he claims that she does not deserve her 100 shooting rating. ... The Mercury and Shock seem to have taken on the personalities of their NBA counterparts, which makes sense given marketing concerns. If the WNBA wants to build up its product amongst the established NBA fanbase in those cities, it makes sense that they'd want to show those fans something they already like.

Inside the Moral Kiosk

2007-09-04T22:35:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't been as prolific of late as I want to be; fighting the man by day has been sapping some of the creative juices. Thankfully Ty's done a solid job keeping shit humming in my absence, but hopefully you'll be hearing much more from me in the coming weeks. One thing my daytime duties as a class warrior have helped me realize, however, is that there is a gigantic disconnect between my ethics when sports are involved and my personal beliefs in non-sports-related daily life. While I don't think I can fully come to terms with this dilemma in the course of one late-night post, I at least want to get the conversation rolling on the topic with some of initial thoughts.

At the risk of sounding excessively douchey, when we first started this blog I had (and continue to have) aspirations of using sports as a prism for addressing some of society's more significant issues. What sports can tell us about life's controversies interests me greatly, yet the controversies of sports generally do nothing for me. To put it another way, in a perfect world, I'd want the interaction between sports and society to be almost purely metaphor. When the literal creeps up, I tend to shut off. I've had conspicuously little to say about the Donaghy situation, and never bothered touching the Marbury/Vick dust-up. For someone fascinated by corruption and greed in America, you'd think that when these issues directly intersect with what we cover here I'd be anxious to weigh in, but, when it comes to sports, my moral compass rarely get too agitated.

A couple different recent conversations helped bring my indifference to sports-related wrongdoings into focus. The first was an introductory conversation with a co-worker who happened to be a University of Oregon alum. Searching for topics of conversation, I was curious if she had any interest in their basketball or football teams. She was, she responded, to the extent that she had spent her four years ardently protesting the school's Nike ties. During my time in college I saw similar efforts to make Stanford athletics sweat-free, efforts that I never backed out of the fear that losing our Nike affiliation would affect the profitability and competitiveness of our basketball program. Now, normally I would fully support any effort to encourage economic justice in the developing world -- my co-worker and I probably see eye-to-eye on 90% of political issues -- but when my team becomes involved, my politics stop considerably short of my standard ideals.

A couple weeks later, the topic of Michael Vick came up during a conversation among friends. One person expressed that, in the entire debate, his predominant concern was losing the ability to watch Vick play. As someone with very little interest in the NFL, I needed to translate this sentiment into something I could relate to. The closest I could come was that, if Kobe had gone to trial, and I was on the jury and became totally convinced of his guilt, would I be more concerned with enforcing justice or ruining my home team's season? In the end, I have to believe I'd do the right thing, but I have to imagine I'd be at least a little conflicted. The fact that there would be any inner debate at all makes me worried about the amorality with which I treat sports.

Clearly, things are not as black-and-white for me as I might seem to be implying. My moral and political judgments do cross into the world of athletics fairly often. For example, I think LeBron unquestionably should have signed Newble's Sudan letter. Generally, I wish MJ had had a political conscience (at least vocally). I still think Tim Hardaway is a jackass. But I nonetheless have a willingness to look the other way, especially in the cases where the success of the team I root for is at stake, a tendency I have to find somewhat troubling. Perhaps I'm scrambling too many dissimilar things here. The moral question might be entirely distinct from the political one. Furthermore, not letting someone's off-court actions color your on-court view of them is one thing, while legitimately not caring about a person's transgressions simply because of their athletic ability is something else entirely. I think what I'm actually feeling is the former, but what I'm afraid I'm expressing at times here is the latter. I have no ambitions of completely resolving this personal conflict tonight, so I am legitimately interested in hearing whether this is a common struggle shared by other progressively-minded (or conservative-minded) sports enthusiasts. Can you hope to use sports as a tool to inform your world-view without letting your world-view influence how you watch sports?

Get Those Stakes Up Higher

2007-09-03T02:14:00.000-07:00

Team USA closed out the Tournament of the Americas this weekend in typically impressive fashion, thrashing Puerto Rico and Argentina to capture the gold and clinch a berth in the Beijing Olympics. No one can deny that this tournament was an unqualified success for the team, but, as I said last week, it became clear after just a few games that these games represent nothing more than a step on the road to the real goal: dominating the field next summer. As such, I’d like to focus on what comes next for Team USA, and what this tournament taught us about their chances in Beijing.

I have never been a big fan of Mike Krzyzewski, but he has done a terrific job with this team and program. While his attention to chemistry and overall player happiness has probably made an important difference in the locker room, I think his most important contribution has been to define the team’s system according to its biggest advantage. Other countries might be able to teach their players to shoot, defend, and play intelligently, but, until soccer becomes less popular around the world, Team USA will always have better athletes than the competition. As such, Coach K created an offensive system in which his players have freedom to improvise and a pressure defense predicated on forcing turnovers and getting out in transition. (Honestly, if I’d watched one of these games without knowing the coach, I’d have assumed this was a Don Nelson team) Given the personnel, this system is a perfect fit and a tremendous improvement over Larry Brown’s micromanaged garbage or the more structured system that Gregg Popovich almost certainly would have used. Barring historically terrible injury problems over the next few months, this is the system that Team USA needs to use for the foreseeable future.

That system should also determine any personnel changes that Colangelo, Krzyzewski, et al make before Beijing. In a general sense, this roster needs to serve as the base; they’ve proven that they deserve the chance to go for the gold. Several injured players, though, will certainly want to join the group, so I might as well address them now. In terms of skills, Dwyane Wade is a terrific fit for this team outside of his inconsistent jumper, but I’m not sure he’s selfless enough to be happy as a reserve. Regardless, Wade is making this team if healthy; I imagine he’ll take the place of Deron Williams or Mike Miller.

Chris Bosh probably would have started for this team if he hadn’t developed plantar fasciitis, so we must pencil him in for a roster spot, as well. Bosh could take Dwight Howard’s place in the starting lineup quite easily—the only possible issue would be that Bosh likes to handle the ball more often than Howard. At any rate, out goes Tyson Chandler. So far, so good.

Things get a little more difficult when Chris Paul enters the picture. The CP3/Deron debate is a tough one—Williams has the playoff experience and size, but Paul can probably run this type of offense more effectively. I don’t have a clear preference in this debate, although I’m a bigger fan of Chris Paul. However, I’m not sure Team USA even needs three point guards; with everyone on the roster playing a lot of minutes, Deron played a lot of time at off-guard, suggesting that a third PG would be unnecessary when rotations tighten up against better competition. If Colangelo wants to bring only two PGs to Beijing, then Wade will take Deron’s place and stand as the de facto emergency point.

Whatever decision the braintrust makes on the point guard situation will affect what happens at other positions. Carter and I are both fans of replacing Mike Miller with Kevin Durant, whose rookie year should determine his chances of making the roster. However, established players like Elton Brand might want to return to the team, which becomes an issue if Wade replaces Miller instead of Deron. Yet Brand does not quite fit with the super-athletic big men currently on the roster, so his inclusion would force a potentially damaging change to the system. Ditto Tim Duncan. On the other hand, Colangelo would have to think long and hard about bringing in Kevin Garnett, if he wants to play. Of course, that would create issues regarding who to drop, with that player likely being Tayshaun Prince or one of the young bigs.

As you can see, too many changes to the roster could create a mess. I think the smartest decision will be to bring in Wade, Bosh, and Durant at the expense of Deron, Chandler, and Miller, given the need to bring in athletic, young players who should get along with everyone involved. It might seem silly to predict roster choices a year early, but these are kinds of decision Colangelo et al. will need to make if they want to maintain this team’s greatness. Creating a collection of superstars might not always work, but, as this team has shown, creating a collection of superstars that complement each other works.

During this tournament, many have said that things will get tougher when Team USA plays teams like Argentina and Spain when they have all their players. That’s true, but let’s make some things very clear. Team USA doesn’t have all its players either (Wade and Bosh, at the very least, are improvements), although the differences between the missing players and their replacements are not as steep as those on the foreign teams. More importantly, we must remember that Team USA did not play its demolition crew starting lineup as much as other teams played their starters. Against better teams, the first unit will likely play more, allowing for more chances to dominate. Team USA will face stiffer competition, but let’s not act as if they can’t adjust to that situation. Adding all the factors together, I just don’t see this team losing in Beijing.

Random notes: Given that no one in this country cares about international basketball more than the NBA, Kobe’s happiness and LeBron’s jumper could end up being the most important stories from this tournament. If Kobe gets frustrated when he realizes that the situation in LA can’t compare to his time with this team, it’s entirely possible that he’ll force a trade for real (i.e. not rescind that demand immediately) and alter the championship landscape. LeBron, on the other hand, will become one of the best players of all-time once he develops a consistent jumper. If his play in this tournament is any evidence, that could happen at age 22—a situation without precedent. … I was shocked when Jason Kidd scored seven early points against Puerto Rico. Then I remembered that he’s Jason Kidd. It’s amazing how this team has freed up players to focus on what they’re best at, and it’s been a thrill to watch. … The referees called Saturday’s game as poorly as humanly possible. … Team USA shot 47% from long-range for the tournament. At first glance, that would seem to be a case of everyone getting hot at the same time, but I think that’s just what happens when the best players in the world shoot everything in rhythm.

Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride

2007-08-31T04:02:00.000-07:00

I thought I was done with the Team USA recaps until the championship game, but watching the Argentina game tonight pulled me back in. Yes, the margin (91-76) was closer than it has been, but this team is so much fun that I can’t stop watching and enjoying them. I’ve seen every minute of Team USA’s games in this tournament and wouldn’t have it any other way. At the risk of sounding too much like Bill Walton, an overpowering positive life force pervades everything they do on the court. As such, this recap won’t focus entirely on the strategic intricacies of the game; honestly, I just want to talk about some of my favorite things from the night. Hopefully some of you will have some to add, as well.

After LeBron’s perfect game against Uruguay, I assumed Kobe, arguably the proudest player in the league, would try his best to take back some of the spotlight. For the first few minutes, he did exactly that, scoring 15 in the first quarter. The best part of his early performance, though, was that he didn’t seem to be doing it primarily out of anger, although I’m sure there was some of that. It all came naturally. Kobe genuinely seems to love playing on this team, and it shows in most everything he does on the court. This is the highpoint of his post-Shaq career, and he knows it. Let’s remember to think about the good times when he submarines the Lakers in training camp.

LeBron was obviously phenomenal last night, but one play from tonight stood out to me almost as much as anything he did versus Uruguay. In the middle of the 3rd, LeBron thundered through the lane and scored a basket, only to be called for a highly questionable charge. On the next USA possession, LeBron picked up a loose ball, instantly barreled through a few Argentineans, checked an off-balance Luis Scola in the hip hard (he took his time getting up), and scored for an and-one. It was a truly great play, and, along with his improved shooting, evidence that LBJ might be growing up some. Of course, let’s see what I think about that after he hosts SNL in a few weeks.

Scola played limited minutes due to early foul trouble and the blowout, but I saw enough to know the Spurs made a mistake in trading him to a divisional rival. I watched a bit of Scola earlier in the tournament, although that didn’t quite prepare me for how well he matched up against the legitimate NBA post defenders on Team USA. The Rockets have to be thrilled; he should be a great fit opposite Yao. The high/low could be a really effective weapon for them, although those guys are talented enough to make just about anything work. Trading Scola wasn’t the worst idea for the Spurs simply because they don’t need him, but why trade him to a team in the West that needed just a few more pieces to be really dangerous? Big up yourself, Daryl Morey.

The 4th quarter featured perhaps my favorite moment from the entire tournament: Kidd’s attempted backboard pass to LeBron ... on the run ... from the right wing. It was an absolutely perfect pass; if LBJ had caught it cleanly and thrown it down, we’d be watching it for the next half-century. No one but Kidd could make that play half-work, and the fact that even tried it explains exactly why I’ve loved watching these games. They’ve been better than any All-Star Game I’ve seen.

And now, some extremely important off-the-court news. Las Vegas Review-Journal writer Jeremy Pond (who wears an eye patch!) has reported (towards the bottom of that page) that Amare and LeBron partied with UFC superstar Chuck Liddell, Ron Jeremy, and master illusionist Criss Angel last Saturday (via AZ SportsHub). I could really care less about Liddell, and Jeremy is pretty much established as a hanger-on at this point, but Criss Angel was partying with two of the best players in the NBA. I don’t know how many of you watch Mindfreak—it is truly the most ridiculous show ever—but this surprised me even more than the time he teleported into an armored truck. Who let him hang out with that group? Did he hypnotize them or something?

Shockingly, it gets even better. Angel’s chief rival, David Blaine, has also been hanging around the team, although Captain Jeremy Pond’s notes make it seem like no one’s let him in on the inner circle fun. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this whole situation for the last hour or two, and all I can picture is Angel pulling quarters out of Amare’s ear band-aid while Blaine sulks in the corner. My mind is officially blown.

Random notes: Someone with more internet talent than myself really needs to put that Kidd pass on YouTube. If you do it, I’ll be in your debt forever. … I could really care less about Ginobili, Oberto, and Hermann being out for this tournament, but I’m very upset about not having Pepe Sanchez around. It’s been too long since I’ve seen one of my favorite college point guards of all-time. … Argentina’s jerseys—particularly the road ones—are so bad that even Oregon would reject them.

Bloggin' to the Oldies: Seize the Hour

2007-08-30T02:46:00.000-07:00

It’s time once again for Bloggin’ to the Oldies, our series on classic NBA games and how they relate to today’s league. For this post, I’ll be looking at the 1991 Finals (specifically Games 1, 3, and 5) between the Lakers and Bulls. Some background for the uninitiated: In Michael Jordan’s first finals, LA won Game 1 on a Sam Perkins triple with 14 seconds left. The Bulls stormed back to win the next four contests, but many of them were close; Game 3 went to OT, and the Lakers were in Game 5 up until the final portion of the 4th.

I might as well start with the best player I’ve ever seen. I’ll save a dissection of Jordan’s exact game for an upcoming post (preview: it involves Kevin Durant)—for now, I’d like to talk about reactions to him. It’s interesting that Marv and Fratello never questioned Jordan’s credentials as the best player in the league. Magic, of course, received a lot of attention from the crew, too, but the general consensus seemed to be that it was only a matter of time before MJ would get his rings. Likewise, when Jordan missed a wide-open 17-footer at the end of Game 1 that would have won the game, the announcers said nothing about him choking. I can’t say how much of that reaction can be explained by MJ finally getting over the Detroit hump, and I know that Jordan already had a reputation for hitting clutch shots, but it’s worth noting just how much slack the announcers gave to someone who hadn’t won a championship at age 28. I doubt that would happen today, and, in fact, you could make an argument that LeBron gets (or at least got up until Game 5 of the Detroit series) unfair criticism for being a poor clutch performer despite having made several game-winners during the 06 Playoffs.

I could talk about Jordan forever, but the other Bulls deserve a huge amount of credit for winning that first championship. As you'd expect, that contribution starts with Scottie Pippen. A long discussion developed in the comments last week at FD about Pippen possibly being more important to the Bulls’ success than Jordan. Like I said in this post, I’m not ready to go that far, but, as Stop Mike Lupica explains, Pippen really doesn’t get enough credit for being how good he was. This was his fourth season, and, while his offensive skills weren’t fully developed yet, his defense is on another level compared to every wing playing today. The only moderately comparable player is Shawn Marion, but Pippen was much, much better in every defensive category. I can comfortably predict that we will never see a defensive tandem on the wings as impressive as Pippen and Jordan again. (I have too many Bulls games to talk about to go into full depth on Pippen right now. There’s a ton to say, though, so I’ll get to all of it eventually.)

I already talked about the 91 Lakers a bit here, but watching one game of this team doesn’t show off their most interesting quality. In that Warriors game, they played at an absolute breakneck speed, scoring close to 100 by the start of the 4th. In the Bulls series, with the same general lineup and substitution pattern, they played much more deliberately, waiting for the less experienced team to make mistakes. Honestly, these games closely resembled recent Spurs-Suns matchups in that Lakers tried to slow the athletically superior team down to a more manageable pace, relying on quality defensive rotations and ball control more than their legitimate scoring ability.

The Lakers might have only won one game, but they were close enough to win in the others that I watched. The fact that they were able to do that just weeks after playing at their top speed against the Warriors speaks to how versatile they were. From what I can tell, that versatility stemmed mostly from every starter’s excellent passing ability; if they needed a shot with the shot clock running down, they could find anyone with even a small opening. If Magic hadn’t contracted HIV, Showtime would’ve slowed down, but I’m willing to bet they would’ve made their fair share of finals.

This was clearly the Bulls’ moment, though. In the first game, they looked relatively unprepared for crunch time, but over the course of the series you can see them become more champion-like. When I use that term, I don’t mean that they got boring—they just looked incredibly comfortable in every situation. In Game 5, they executed much better down the stretch than the Lakers, which is surprising given the Lakers’ superior depth and experience.

A hero of the internet has posted the last few minutes of Game 5 and the entirety of Game 2 on YouTube. That’s a lot to watch, but it’s worth it if you have the time.

Miscellaneous notes on the series: In terms of jersey tightness, Magic was second only to Maurice Lucas. … I was pretty surprised by how impressive Vlade was at such a young age. The passing ability was there, as always, but he actually executed a spin off of Pippen from the high post that led into a free-throw line jumper. Related note: Vlade is the most Euro-looking Euro ever. He has taught Vlad Radmanovic well. … I remembered John Paxson as nothing more than a three-point specialist, but he was a pretty stellar all-around player, too. … The most shocking thing from this series, by far, was that Will Perdue was a generally solid contributor. In Game 1, he came in early, got a huge ovation from the crowd, and immediately scored a few baskets and blocked several shots. Marv couldn’t stop talking about how the Chicago crowd had completely embraced him. … With 10:40 left in the 4th of Game 1, the Lakers were up by 7. Jordan came in from his customary early-quarter rest and had a hand in the next ten points of the game, all of which occurred in two minutes. … AC Green was all energy at this point in his career. Nice to see him putting that sex drive to good use.

The Annexation of Puerto Rico

2007-08-29T20:28:00.001-07:00

No, this is not another post about last night's USA/PR game. I have recently been drafted by Jason Gurney (who goes by the clever alias "Jason" in our comments) to write a series of posts over at Ballhype about "17 Games," a new game they've created involving weekly NFL picks. (Yes, I like other sports, too.) There's a celebrity blogger group (featuring such Blogburgh stalwarts as Jamie Mottram and The Big Lead) for which I'm serving as an "up-and-coming" embedded correspondent. Essentially, that means I'll write weekly updates on the group and NFL-at-large. My first post, a preview of the competition, is up now.

Fear not, readers who don't care about football. This gig will not change my posting patterns here in any way; if anything, it'll probably make me take this whole blogging thing that much more seriously.

Site updates: I don't know how much more I can say about the Tournament of the Americas, but we should have a post up at some point later tonight on a topic of importance. Plus, if I were to write something on the Uruguay game happening right now, I would probably just laud LeBron the whole time. His first half was unreal.

Anyway, I'm heading back to the obliteration of Uruguay. Again, we'll be back later tonight.

Our Energy Would Simply Prevail

2007-08-29T02:01:00.000-07:00

After winning by a paltry 27 points on Monday against Mexico, Team USA got back on track and downed Puerto Rico 117-78 in front of another shamefully small crowd in Las Vegas. Given Puerto Rico’s recent success against its imperial overlord, a thumping of this magnitude bodes well for the continued improvement of what looks like the obvious favorite to take the gold in Beijing. The first quarter brought some troubles, but Team USA rebounded to make the second half inconsequential yet again.

In the first quarter, Team USA seemed to carry a hangover from the Mexico game. At the offensive end, there was a noticeable lack of ball movement and a willingness to take threes, while the team’s play at the other end featured poor help defense and a generally poor effort. Puerto Rico didn’t look particularly wonderful, though, and the Americans were able to create an impressive 24-15 lead by the end of the quarter. You really can’t argue with that margin, but, for a team with this kind of talent, domination needs to be obvious to even the most ignorant viewer.

The second quarter brought exactly that kind of performance, with Team USA outscoring PR 35-12. The offensive difference, as it has been throughout the whole tournament, was the team’s excellent ball movement. The Puerto Rican zone held up decently in the first quarter, but it got thrown around like a village baseball in the second. Of course, it became much easier to beat the zone once Team USA got out in transition more often, something they can do quite easily because of their tournament-long commitment to defense and phenomenal depth. A team like PR, which only has a few legitimate players, can’t hope to maintain their level of intensity when that handful of guys has to play nearly every minute of the game if they want any chance of winning. As they have done in every game, Team USA turned the entire second half into extended garbage time.

LeBron continues to be one of the most impressive players on the team. During the Mexico game, Bill Walton made the thoroughly ludicrous observation that Kobe and LBJ have not adapted to the international game as quickly as Carmelo, which is incredibly weird to hear coming from someone who excelled at so many things in addition to scoring. LeBron has obviously impressed in the scoring column, but his commitment to defense and unselfish play have made him seem like a much more integral part of the team than Carmelo. His performance in this tournament makes Cleveland’s inability to give him help even more frustrating. Honestly, I’m not sure which is worse: Danny Ferry’s lollygagging on signing Pavlovic and Varejao or the fact that bringing back those two players would give the Cavs the same roster they had last season.

Amare Stoudemire hit a three during Team USA’s big run, which has me incredibly conflicted. On one hand, it’s hard to get upset with someone for improving his game, particularly when that player had a reputation for being all athleticism, no skill. However, Amare should not be spending his time on the perimeter; his talents and situation with the Suns require him to be a force inside. The 12-footer he developed last season is a perfect move for him, and there’s no reason for him to venture out farther when his team already has several excellent three-point shooters. If Amare’s not careful, the Shawn Kemp comparisons could become all too real.

Team USA trotted out a zone for a good portion of the second half, and, once again, the results were poor at best. I know that the international game in many ways promotes the use of zones, but a team with shot blockers like Howard, Amare, and Chandler (plus Bosh when he gets healthy) should focus on shoring up its help defense. Flexibility can be nice—I’m just not sure it’s warranted in this case.

Throughout the Tournament of the Americas, we’ve been noting some of Bill Walton’s weirdest comments. Up until now, I’d considered them to be nothing more than his way of bringing some bizarre perspective to the game, but some of Walton’s remarks in this game have me fearing for his sanity. Late in the game, Walton quoted full passages from Phil Jackson’s book Sacred Hoops as if it were a Ginsberg poem. The passages had some connection to the game in that they were about Jackson’s time in Puerto Rico, but Walton took up at least three possessions with his dramatic reading. The sad thing is that, while his insistence on quoting Jackson was incredibly odd, he immediately followed it up with an even crazier comment. After finishing his speech, Walton told partner Al Saunders that “for every 100 Americans, there are 90 guns in this country.” Huh? Again, that came right after he quoted Phil Jackson’s experiences in Puerto Rico at length. Let’s make sure someone’s watching Bill, okay?

Only for Those with True Grit

2007-08-28T01:03:00.000-07:00

So much for my comment yesterday that nobody would come within 30 of Team USA. The Americans had another successful game, topping Mexico 127-100, but were unable to create a mindblowing lead due to the Mexicans’ tenacity and confidence. The final result was never in doubt, but this game said a lot about Team USA’s players and tendencies.

The epic first quarter (45-23 in ten minutes!) had the look of most of our outings in this tournament, with excellent ball movement, ridiculous alley-oops, and all the other details that signify full-scale annihilation. I was all set to write an entire post about how these games have ceased to resemble competitive basketball and that they’re really just superior all-star games in which the incredible plays arise from real situations instead of a desperate entertainer’s desire to “put on a show.”

Shreds of that concept showed up throughout the rest of the game, but Mexico announced that they weren’t going to quit with a terrific second quarter in which they actually out-scored Team USA 28-20. The Mexicans weren’t able to top Team USA in any other quarter, but any time things looked seemed to be on the verge of getting out of hand Romel Beck, Anthony Pedroza, Adam Parada, or Victor Mariscal made make a basket or two to keep the deficit in the teens or 20s. The outcome was never in question, but Mexico’s performance was easily the most impressive of any of Team USA’s opponents in this tournament. The simple facts that they never gave up, executed their cuts extremely well, and got into triple digits say a lot about their resolve and the coaching of Nolan Richardson. Honestly, if they had some legitimate players in the paint, I think they could have made this a real game.

While Mexico deserves the bulk of the credit for their play, Team USA should also shoulder some blame for failing to turn this game into an epic blowout. Given the success Kobe’s had defensively during this tourney, it seems weird to criticize his play at that end tonight. However, he let his inability to shut down Romel Beck affect his play offensively, resulting in the return of some of Kobe’s worse tendencies. Instead of playing the selfless team basketball that’s typified his play with Team USA, Kobe forced some questionable shots and drives. Some of those plays worked because, you know, he’s Kobe Bryant, but you would have thought he were playing with Sasha Vujacic instead of LeBron James. It’ll be interesting to see how he responds against Puerto Rico.

Coach K’s decision to start Chauncey Billups in place of Jason Kidd made absolutely no sense to me. I understand that Kidd needs more rest than any other player on the team, but he hasn’t played a great deal of minutes in this tournament in the first place, and it’s not as if the coaches can’t limit his minutes in the second half. The first quarter was obviously a success with Billups running with the first team, but things didn’t really get kicking until Kidd entered the game. Additionally, Billups had some trouble keeping Team USA from getting three-happy during some of their worst stretches. Kidd fits with that main lineup quite perfectly; his lack of a need to shoot works beautifully with three guys (plus Howard) who can finish easily. Billups, on the other hand, spends more time dribbling and fits much better with the second team, where his shooting makes him a nice addition to a lineup without great creative ability. Placing Billups on the first team gives Team USA two great lineups instead of one phenomenal lineup and one very good one.

Dwight Howard had yet another tremendous game, scoring 19 points on 9/10 shooting (I’m pretty sure all but one of those attempts was a dunk). Howard obviously won’t have the opportunity to be the fifth option in Orlando, but watching him with players of this caliber suggests that the Rashard Lewis signing will help him a great deal. Yes, the Magic overpaid a limited player, but Rashard’s scoring ability should take some pressure off of Howard, allowing him to freelance in a way he’s never experienced. Now, if only they could trade Jameer Nelson for Kidd.

Other notes on the game: FIBA rules continue to boggle the mind. Why do teams not get to carry over victories to Round Two involving teams that did not make that round? Aren't they completely different rounds with completely different consequences and situations? Teams shouldn’t be punished for beating the teams they were scheduled to play. I’m starting to think the FIBA bigwigs consult a Ouija board whenever they meet. … Mike Miller has turned into the Mark Madsen of Team USA. He could challenge Sarunas Jasikevicius’s 2007 record for “most times shown after a teammate’s dunk.” … Not Walton’s best game, but he still had some amazing moments. For instance, his love for the Baja Peninsula made it clear that it’s his favorite place to get stoned in Mexico. The highlight of the day, however, was his reference to “UCLA legend Lorenzo Mata.” I know that he uses that term for anyone with even a tangential relationship to the school, but I never expected to hear that phrase in my life.

Won't Be Long Now Before They Tear Us to Shreds

2007-08-27T03:00:00.000-07:00

Team USA kept rocking and rolling through the weekend, destroying Canada 113-63 on Saturday and mauling Brazil, the second-best team in the tournament, 113-76 on Sunday night. At this point, it’s clear that no one will come within 30 of the Americans at this tournament, and it’s not even worth pretending otherwise. In a way, this team is now a lot like next year’s Mavs: having established that they’ll be a favorite in the Olympics, Team USA now must focus everything they have on attaining the gold. It might seem silly for the team to focus on something that’s now a year away, but they need to take this tournament for what it is—a bunch of games against inferior, half-strength competition.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the weekend’s games didn’t teach us some important lessons about international and NBA ball. These games didn’t look quite as one-sided as those against Venezuela and US Virgin Islands, but the United States’ ability to dominate shows exactly how much deeper and more talented they are in comparison to the other teams in this tournament. It’s tempting to say that Argentina or Spain could come close to matching the USA at full strength, but Walton’s comments throughout the game today about how no other players in this tournament could even think about trying out for Team USA (Leandro would make the Select Team, though) speaks volumes about the talent gap around the world. Even a team like Brazil, which rotated well on defense for much of the first half and hit some tough shots, still couldn’t make it anything less than a blowout heading into the locker room at the break.

In the Brazil game, many players on both sides took advantage of the curious FIBA rule allowing players to interfere with the ball once it has touched the rim, a rule that both Carter and I find amazingly stupid. For one thing, it seemed to have been concocted by a bunch of stoned FIBA higher-ups playing NBA Jam in their basements. (Note: This scenario could also explain why it’s easier to make threes on the international court.) I know that game wins at life, but did they ever consider how this rule would affect the game? On a very basic level, the Americans will have even more of an advantage if we ever learn how to adjust to the ridiculous rule. Will anyone be able to out-jump Bosh, Amare, or Howard for a tip-in or block (or would it be a rebound?) off the rim? Carter only half-jokingly believes that Coach K should designate the center as a put-back and rejection man on every possession. On offense, his sole responsibility would be to stand at the elbow and swoop in for follow-dunks, while his defensive job would be to stand under the basket and swat everything up court as if he were making an outlet pass.

Much of Team USA’s success against Brazil can be attributed to Kobe Bryant’s typically excellent defense on Leandro Barbosa, who scored just four points (1/7 FG) after being the leading scorer for the tournament in his first three games. Everyone knows that Kobe wants to take the best perimeter player on the opposing team, but his performance here suggests that Phil Jackson made a mistake in not putting Kobe on Leandro during Barbosa’s full-scale demolition of the Lakers in the playoffs. To be sure, Leandro can take on a less noticeable role on a team with Nash, Marion, and Amare than he can on a team like Brazil, causing Phil to have to weigh his options in terms of where to put his best perimeter defender. However, putting that man on Raja Bell seems like a poor choice when a lightning fast guy like Leandro is embarrassing your team in every conceivable way. That would create an issue with regards to putting Jordan Farmar on the much bigger Bell, but I’ll take my chances with the less explosive player.

Dwyane Wade attended Saturday’s game against Canada in a bright red Team USA shirt, bringing to mind questions of exactly how he’ll fit in on this team. The starting lineup has been phenomenally successful and shouldn’t be broken up under any circumstances, which will likely force Wade to the bench. On a purely strategic level, that move would make a great deal of sense; Wade could man the two, allowing Coach K to quit using the bizarre Billups/Deron backcourt. However, Dwyane is far from selfless (we think he idolizes Marlo Stanfield—check the unnecessary lollipop in this Barkley ad) and might not take too kindly to being demoted to the second unit. This probably won’t be a huge deal, but it’s something to watch out for next year.

Way back in July, we said that LeBron might not be the best fit on this team. Well, we couldn’t have been more wrong. For my money, he’s been the third-best player on the team behind Kobe and Kidd (yeah, Melo has scored, but I’ll take LeBron). No small forward in this tournament can match up with his size, and even if that player did exist, Lebron would just drive past him for easy buckets. Most importantly, LBJ’s been able to incorporate himself into the team style with remarkable ease; his trademark 15-second hold-and-chuck isolation plays have been noticeably absent. That shouldn’t really be surprising, though, considering everyone compared him to Magic more often than they compared him to MJ. No team could ever have the talent of this team in the NBA, but LeBron’s performance just goes to show that the surrounding “talent” and system in Cleveland have significantly affected his style of play for the worse. We’ve said it before, but it deserves to be said as many times as possible: Mike Brown is making a serious, serious mistake in not letting LeBron run. Sasha Pavlovic and Tits Gibson aren’t the best wingmen around, but an open court talent of LeBron’s caliber only comes around once per generation.

Assorted notes: Bill Walton toned things down a bit in Thursday’s game, but this weekend had some amazing highlights. They included: an extended endorsement of Festival Express, a documentary about the Grateful Dead, Janis Joplin, and a bunch of other like-minded bands touring around Canada; an explanation of the origin of Brazil’s name; enough praise for Oscar Schmidt to make 50 million Brazilians blush; and a discussion of Nova Scotia’s odd time zone. … The Spurs should be really happy with their pick of Tiago Splitter, who looked very quick for a big man. He could probably contribute this year, if necessary. I’m sure the Spurs will gladly keep him in Spain, though. … Team USA had some rebounding issues against the bigger Brazilian frontline of Nene and Splitter, although some of those troubles could be explained by the lack of effort that attends a commanding lead. … Brazil pressed for one possession, which might be the stupidest idea in the history of basketball. Kobe hit an easy three on the play. … I can’t imagine “Cuarenta Minutos de Infierno” will have much success against a team with significantly more athleticism. Here’s hoping we can score 150 points.

A Gross Physical Salute

2007-08-23T22:59:00.000-07:00

Despite the massive margin of victory (according to the broadcast the second largest in FIBA history after the legendary Cuba thrashing of '92 ), tonight's game against the Virgin Islands wasn't nearly as exciting as yesterday's Venezuela contest. A lot of that can be attributed to a lackluster second quarter in which a disturbingly bad team actually outscored Team USA. Granted, it's hard to stay motivated when you've jumped out to an awesome 42-13 lead after the 1st quarter, but it's exactly that type of foot-to-jugular mentality that makes these blowouts worth watching. Because the Virgin Islands managed to be even worse than Venezuela, this game didn't uncover anything earth-shattering about Team USA and their readiness for top-level competition. Nevertheless, there were still a few issues worth discussing. (Note: this is another TK/CB joint production.)

Hey Vegas, you want a team in your city? How 'bout you start by by filling the stands when your own personal All Star wrecking crew comes to town. Forget the Donaghy stuff, that kind of underappreciation of the opportunity to watch some of the finest talents in the world worries me way more. Are these tickets dramatically overpriced or something? I can't imagine turnout being this pathetic if it had been in Venezuela. About 100 fans in the upper-deck of an 18,000-seat arena is pathetic.

At this point there's not much left to be said about Kobe. MJD summed it up perfectly in his recap of the Venezuela game: "Kobe Bryant is in [sic] the floor with LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwight Howard, three of the ten most physically gifted basketball players on the planet ... and Kobe's standing out head and shoulders above them." One thing that did stand out tonight that I was too jaw-droppingly impressed/amused to notice yesterday is how freaking happy he looks. And who could blame him? First off, he can't possibly do any wrong in this situation. It doesn't matter if he wants to play the facilitator or dominate the scoring, either way he'll look awesome. For practically the only time in his career, during the next few weeks his chorus of critics won't be able to say shit about him. More importantly though, he's getting to remember what it's like to play with real players. Although the powers that be probably mandated it, Kobe seems to genuinely like chilling with LeBron and Melo on the bench in a buddy-buddy kind of way I'm not used to seeing from him. Leaving this environment for the glamorous world of Larry Turner and Coby Karl is going to hurt. The first time Sasha goes to high-five him, Kobe might have to resist punching him in the face.

The Kidd/Bynum fiasco has to sting more than ever. Anyone who continues trying to defend Kupchak (or lil' Buss or big Buss or whoever) needs to stop rationalizing already. I don't care what system you're running, Kidd will work in it. I don't care how good Bynum's going to be someday, he's never going to average a triple-double for a playoff series. Kidd clearly made the very conscious decision to avoid dribbling whenever possible, which I never realized would make basketball that much more thrilling. At one point he tried to touch-pass a steal. His half court bounce-pass through three defenders was about as cool a way to commit a turnover as possible. I wasn't sure which was more shocking: that he actually took a shot, or that he dribbled four times on the same possession. We already mentioned some of this last time, but he's been brilliant enough that further analysis was needed.

The intensity of the second unit just isn't the same as that of the first. A lot of that's probably because Kobe sets an impossible standard, but Tayshaun really needs to take it upon himself to be the guy who sets the tone by playing harder than everybody. If they're going to insist on playing the Billups/Redd/Miller/Tayshaun lineup, there's really no need for him to be taking shots. He should be focusing on hustling his ass off on both ends making things happen, which for now doesn't seem to be happening. Also, we touched last time on our displeasure with Miller filling what we see to be Durant's spot, but this game strengthened our feeling that Redd can be both the designated shooter and a multi-faceted player at both ends. Miller can't.

On the Virgin Islands side of things, there's really not much to say other than that they looked really, really bad. Not that it would have helped any, but it's still a shame about Raja's surgery because I was really looking forward to the role-player-as-franchise-star experiment. Honestly, even as a pre-college UCLA fan, I (Ty) couldn't get excited about Jim Harrick on the sidelines. I will say, though, that it's unconscionable that he couldn't figure out a way to get the O'Bannons and Tyus Edney on the team.

Random non-USA notes: Be sure to check out the Painted Area's recaps of the Mexico-Puerto Rico game, the Canada-Brazil game, and the Uruguay-Panama game from Wednesday. His knowledge of the international game is kind of absurd. ... Mexico forcing 27 turnovers (11 against NBA PGs) sounds pretty hellish to me. ... Jose Juan Barea getting suspended for two games for cursing is bullshit, especially in a tournament this short. ... People need to stop talking about Varejao's absence from Brazil as though it's a huge deal. This team has Nene, Splitter, Barbosa, and plenty of other capable players. ... Argentina-Puerto Rico could be a good game tomorrow, especially now that Mexico's shenanigans have put Puerto Rico's back against the wall.

Now This Was a Superior Machine

2007-08-23T02:33:00.000-07:00

Team USA blew out Venezuela 112-69 Wednesday night in their opener to the Tournament of the Americas, but the margin of victory and box score do not begin to explain the important on-court issues and great moments that populated this contest. With that in mind, here’s Plissken’s rundown of what transpired on the court and in the broadcast. (Note: I don't want to take all the credit for this one; Carter and I worked on this post together.)

In our breakdown of the Team USA scrimmage last month, we talked at length about the intensity that Kobe brought to the proceedings, and nothing seems to have changed with regards to his mindset over the last few weeks. From the opening tip, it became clear that he’s taking this competition more seriously than just about everyone else involved (at least among those on Team USA). Honestly, he’s like the guy who takes your pickup game way too seriously and Ds up everyone hard, except he’s also the best player in the world. Kobe terrorized Venezuelan standout Greivis Vasquez on defense throughout the first half, easily justifying his request to guard the opponent’s best scorer in every game. Maryland’s Vasquez isn’t an NBA player yet, but he didn’t notch a triple-double in the ACC as a freshman by mistake. Kobe effectively bottled up the player most capable of embarrassing this team, which, for an outfit that's struggled with that recently, is nothing to sneeze at. It’s also worth mentioning that Kobe brought his Pilates instructor to Vegas with him, suggesting that he’ll unveil his most impressive shit in the fall.

Kobe’s contributions show up in the box score, but those of the game's second-most impressive player do not. Jason Kidd attempted no shots, dished four assists, grabbed three rebounds, and probably didn’t even hold the ball for more than 90 seconds combined, but he completely controlled the game’s tempo with a number of full court outlet passes off of both makes and misses. Without having looked at game tape, Kidd never seemed to hold the ball for more than one second; he had every move planned out well in advance of the defense. He’d be the perfect point guard for this team even if Nash were American, because no one can control tempo like him without dribbling. On a team with so many talented scorers, his skills cannot be talked about enough.

The backup point guard situation is a little less defined. We both believe that Kirk Hinrich should have made the team ahead of Billups; Hinrich’s a better defender right now and not too much worse of a distributor or shooter. Additionally, Billup’s greatest asset, his size, is essentially a non-issue on a team with Kidd and Deron Williams. Billups didn’t play poorly on Wednesday, but it’s frustrating to see him get minutes at Deron’s expense.

Another curious roster choice involves the decision to keep both Mike Miller and Michael Redd. The primary reason that this choice should be questioned is that the international line is close enough that players like Carmelo Anthony (who doesn’t exactly light things up from outside in the NBA) can become solid shooters. Three-point shooting was more of an issue when Melo, LBJ, and Dwyane comprised the primary wing rotation, but substituting a terrific shooter like Kobe for Wade nearly solves that issue. At that point, the decision becomes one of whether to keep Miller or Redd. For the sake of argument, let us assume now that Miller is the better shooter of the two. Even under these circumstances, Miller still misses shots (six misses from outside today), and it’s not like Redd is too far behind him. Additionally, Redd has a much more well-rounded offensive game than Miller, particularly off-the-dribble. Why not keep Redd, who’s still a terrific shooter, and put Kevin Durant in Mike Miller’s place? Lord knows Durant can get hot from long-range, and his complete offensive game and defensive length make him an asset at both ends of the court.

The shooter situation seems even weirder given that Miller and Redd play together on Team USA’s thoroughly bizarre second unit. The Billups/Miller/Redd backcourt is theoretically a zone-busting one, but they played very tentatively today. You can kill a zone by hitting outside shots, but stagnancy isn’t the best way to get those looks—penetration gets the defenders moving, thereby causing the zone to become frenzied and late-to-recover. I’m all for creating cohesive first and second units due to the fact that these players mostly haven’t played with each other before, but those units need to make more sense. However, it’s likely that the second unit will seem like a better five against a team with a quality zone—Venezuela played one of the most porous ones I’ve seen in quite some time.

In the frontcourt, all this talk about the injury to Chris Bosh potentially leaving the team dangerously thin inside looks like hogwash. It's an unfortunate injury, to be sure, and he would have been unbelievably awesome, but we still have Dwight Howard and Amare Stoudemire—uh, and Tyson Chandler, if Coach K ever decides to use him for more than mop-up duty in the fourth quarter. Let’s be real here: we're honestly worried about not sizing up against Samuel Dalembert? Nene and Tiago Splitter are solid, no doubt, but I think I'll take my chances with the manfreaks.

We were a bit worried that Kobe, Melo, and LeBron would have trouble meshing, but one look at them on the break completely ended that fear. Watching those three work together with Kidd makes the situations in LA and Cleveland that much more difficult to take. It’s ridiculous that Mike Brown won’t let loose the best open-court player in the league (ever?), and Kobe would do wonders with competent finishers.

Bill Walton can be a polarizing figure in the booth, but only the biggest Dead hater would give him poor marks for his work on Wednesday. Some of the highlights: opening the game with a detailed explanation of the origins of Venezuela’s name; not knowing what a fade haircut is (“so you go in and ask for a fade?”); comparing LeBron’s best dunk to Angel Falls, the largest waterfall in the world (and in Venezuela); telling us not to underestimate the importance of Scot Pollard in Boston; and, my personal favorite, praising Hugo Chavez for educating poor Venezuelans. Can you imagine Mark Jackson talking about how Hugo Chavez doesn’t govern “the right way”?

Before we leave you, some assorted thoughts from the game: Outside of Walton, the best broadcast moment came during halftime, when they showed part of a Coach K pep talk. The reactions said it all. Kobe was way more interested than everyone else, Carmelo looked like he realized exactly why he left college, Chandler looked like he knew why he never went, Amare didn’t seem to understand how anyone could take it seriously, LeBron chewed on his lip and seemed to be thinking about his favorite SNL sketch ideas, and Mike Miller looked furious that anyone would condescend to him like that. … Given his strength, there’s no reason for Carmelo to get blocked inside as often as he did. Missing five “twos” against a defense that awful is uncalled for. … Someone will burn the USA zone very badly at some point during this tournament or next year’s Olympics. On one possession, two Venezuelans made three consecutive passes to each other and beat the zone easily. … After about a quarter-and-a-half, Hector Romero, who looks vaguely like Etan Thomas, clearly decided he’d had enough of the blowout and started focusing on nothing but trying to block every shot. He was our favorite player on Venezuela.

Look at All the Beautiful Honeys Here

2007-08-21T23:16:00.000-07:00

Hours away from a reprieve from the dog days of basketballess summer, we here at Plissken are stoked to be able to talk about some games that didn't happen 30 years ago. There have been some good articles about Team USA's strategic concerns and roster issues around the internets. Kurt has had some quality work both at FB&G and at Ballhype on the U.S.'s need to focus on defense, and the Painted Area has been all over the topic with a great roundup of Olympic qualifying news and a look at the complexities of Team USA's defensive issues. Sheridan, as usual, has been pretty solid covering the news surrounding the team and the tournament. However, some important plotlines have gone underreported, so I've decided to take it upon myself to take a look at a few to watch.

Luis Scola: Making Spurs fans bitter and Rockets fans stoked
With his in-the-NBA countrymen out of the picture, Scola should have a chance to shine as a leader for Argentina, the Group A-favorites. When you have the greatest power of forward of all time and four recent championships it's probably hard to get too concerned with losing a 27-year-old prospect that's logged no time in the NBA, but if Scola lays waste to Group A you have to imagine some people in San Antonio start to feel a bit worse about handing a quality big man to a close division rival for nothing. Because of the rock-steadiness of Duncan, Houston's gain might be much more interesting than San Antonio's loss in this case. Even though it's being discussed, people probably aren't talking enough about just how much the Rockets improved themselves this offseason. The next couple weeks might help demonstrate that.

Raja Bell: Franchise Player
The U.S. Virgin Islands should provide a fascinating case study for what happens when you hand the keys to a team over to a guy who typically acts as a defensive and 3-point specialist. I'm not sure how this will factor into the role player discussion, but, regardless of that, I'm interested in seeing what Raja will be like as a primary option. The slight chance of a Kobe/Raja altercation on Thursday might pique your interest, or maybe you want to see Barbosa and Bell face-off on Saturday. Whatever the case, you know Raja has some kind of superstar-level flop up his sleeve for the occasion.

Jose Juan Barea: Fast as All Hell
Watching Barea run circles around everyone was one of the highlights of Summer League. I actually think losing Daniel Santiago, their starting center, might not be such a bad thing for Puerto Rico in the end, or at least for the people watching them play--anything that pushes a team towards embracing its identity is alright in my book. The pair of Barea and Arroyo should be as exciting to watch as any non-American duo.

Levon Kendall: Cool as Ice
The Canadian made a lot of noise on the international scene two years ago when he scored 40 in an upset victory over the United States. Of course, that game existed in print more than in any other form, so when college fans watched Pitt the next season, they were in for quite the shock: a white man with a Vanilla Ice haircut who's better at the nitty-gritty things than at scoring. With Nash and Magloire out of the tournament, the Canada will rely on Kendall for a healthy chunk of their scoring, giving him the chance to establish himself as a true international-ball idiot savant with a few huge games. Word to your mother. --TK

Cuarenta Minutos de Infierno
If you want to overachieve, having Nolan Richardson as your coach can't hurt. When run properly, his fast-paced system is probably as able to pull off an upset as any, so if you want the big money bet, Mexico might not be a bad choice. Tonight's match up with Puerto Rico is probably one of the non-U.S. games I'll be most interested in watching, mostly because I want to see a) how well Mexico can put on the pressure and b) how well Puerto Rico's guards respond to it.

Instigate the Role

2007-08-21T02:39:00.000-07:00

I’ve watched a number of classic games in the last few weeks in preparation for our “Bloggin’ to the Oldies” series, and the experience of closely watching teams I thought I had pegged has caused me to reevaluate my conception of what a role player does and how that player affects the greater makeup of a team’s system. Namely, a system with pre-defined roles can hold back certain players from reaching potential, and I’m not convinced it’s a superior method of building a team under all but the most rare circumstances. A more amorphous system, on the other hand, allows a player’s talents to define his role, thus letting players complement each other naturally. As such, calling anyone on teams like the Warriors or Raptors a role player seems silly. These are merely basketball players defining a team’s system on their own merits.

This idea first came to me while watching the 94 Rockets, a team I’d always remembered as built around Hakeem with a number of capable shooters taking advantage of the opportunities created by the big man in the middle. In that way, they seemed like the ProtoSpurs. Actually watching their games proved to me that I'd been very wrong. A closer look at the Rockets showed that Vernon Maxwell and Robert Horry, while not quite stars, were versatile talents capable of defending and scoring from deep or around the basket. Most importantly, Hakeem’s skills did not limit what they were allowed to do: instead of trying to restrict some of Maxwell’s more volatile tendencies, Rudy T let him play his own way, knowing that such fetters would keep him from being Vernon. Horry, even as a young player, was given leeway, too. In fact, even players like Kenny Smith and Otis Thorpe appear to have played the way they did simply because that’s what they were best at; Kenny looked past his prime on his occasional drives to the basket, and seeing Thorpe’s jumper explains why he rarely took them. In all cases, the players defined their own roles, even on a team this committed to rigid system principles like defense and ball control.

A quick perusal of most successful teams in NBA history uncovers similar relationships between non-primary players and their systems. The 95 Magic relied primarily on Penny and Shaq, but Dennis Scott, Nick Anderson, and Horace Grant played the only way they knew how and worked as secondary options. The Celtics and Lakers of the 80s had numerous players beyond Magic and Bird, but none of them could be called “role” players because they so clearly defined their own positions on the team. Even the Knicks of the same time period, one of the more frustrating teams to watch of the era, relied on defense and structured jump shots because they had no pure scorers outside of the entirely erratic John Starks. Looking at the truly successful teams of my basketball-watching lifetime (from about 1985 on), only a few can be said to be rigid system teams.

Yet even those cases are somewhat arguable. The first incarnation of the champion Bulls, while nominally a system team in that they ran the triangle, didn’t restrict Cartwright or BJ Armstrong, who mostly shot threes but still had freedom to attack the basket. The second version of the Bulls somewhat qualifies in that Luc Longley was given no room to do anything and Rodman really just defended and rebounded, but how much of that was because of their limits? More recently, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers likely qualify, as does the Shaq/Wade team in Miami.

The Spurs are quite clearly the best recent example of a successful rigid system team, letting Duncan roam the middle as every other position fulfills a well-defined role around him. The small forward exists almost exclusively as a three-point shooter and defender, while the post opposite Duncan only needs to make the occasional basket between rebounding and defending. To a certain extent, Parker and Ginobili’s undeniable talents have defined their own positions, but Popovich has reined them in from their more exciting early years. I don’t deny that the Spurs use a system that works for them, but the exactness of the system creates an environment in which a potential-filled player like James White is never allowed a chance to play his type of game. Additionally, the Spurified Parker and Ginobili give off the impression that they are not realizing their full potential—perhaps this incompleteness is why it’s difficult for many to think of the Spurs as a dynasty.

On a more general level, a system with stark divisions between its star and role players sets itself up for failure once that star stops performing at his top level. The team can only place those players into defined roles because the star is good enough to make that predictability unimportant; the star draws enough attention that the role players can still be successful doing basic things. Any disruption to that system, then, can send the whole operation into flux.

Additionally, the other players have to be perfect fits for the star talent. Look at the Lakers, who’ve unsuccessfully tried—okay, only half-tried—to surround Kobe Bryant, the best player in the NBA, with quality role players. After a few years, Kupchak and Co. have come up with nothing better than a team unlikely to gain home-court advantage in the first round.

Compare that fate to that of last year’s Warriors, who took a bunch of underperforming players and pulled off an amazing first-round upset. Likewise, the Pistons won a championship by letting a bunch of non-stars play to their strengths. A rigid system might work for a team like the Spurs that has one of the best three players in the league, but, for a developing team, it makes much more sense to let the players at hand define the team’s style. It’s much easier to pick up a few talents than it is to find players willing to forfeit some of their own skills for the sake of a few more wins. (It can be said that Don Nelson runs a rigid system of his own, but the difference there comes in realizing that Nellie has issues with players unwilling to fulfill their potential, as opposed to the other way around.)

Moving away from the team-building aspect of the role player/basketball player difference, it’s also important to consider how this change affects our understanding of these teams. Bethlehem Shoals of Free Darko ran an excellent post (with a solid comments section, as well) on this topic this Sunday, coming to the conclusion that certain second options actually play a more important role in facilitating a team’s system than the identifiable alpha dogs. I think Shoals goes a bit too far in inverting the conventional hierarchy, but his general point about giving these players more credit for defining their teams’ systems is one with which I can fully agree. The star-to-complementary trickle-down theory of definition is exactly what made me assume that Horry and Maxwell played easily defined roles, when in reality they played with Hakeem in a much more symbiotic relationship. Players of this kind, of which there are many in the league, must be recognized for their contributions to successful teams in a way that goes beyond describing them as complementary pieces.

That can be difficult for a GM, who must decide how much each player means to a particular team in concrete terms—if he doesn’t, he’s Isiah Thomas—but analysts (particularly those who don’t have ties to mainstream media outlets interested in television ratings, like bloggers) need to be more attentive to the dynamics behind particular systems.

Bloggin' to the Oldies: A Rare and Different Tune

2007-08-20T03:58:00.000-07:00

Time to turn back the clock once again with “Bloggin’ to the Oldies.” In this post, I’ll be looking at Game 6 of the 1977 Finals between the Portland TrailBlazers and Philadelphia 76ers. Some general background: This Blazers team has the same basic makeup as that described in David Halberstam’s Breaks of the Game, with Bill Walton, Maurice Lucas, and Lionel Hollins as the main pieces. The Sixers had one major star in Dr. J, although some other recognizable names like George McGinnis, Lloyd Free, Henry Bibby, and Doug Collins contribute, too. As for this particular game, the Blazers won in the final minute to close out the series. Walton rocked the box score with 20 points, 23 boards, eight blocks, and seven assists on his way to the Finals MVP award.

Although I’m now a Stanford guy, I was brought up a diehard UCLA fan, so watching Walton in his prime has been something I’ve wanted to do for quite a while. This game obviously provided me with that chance, and I must say that the unreal stat line above doesn’t tell the whole story. The points, rebounds, and blocks explain those aspects of Walton well enough—he’s a franchise center, and franchise centers control the paint—yet the passing is another story. Walton’s amazing passing abilities have been discussed before, but the centers of today so rarely make outstanding passes that Walton’s ability needs to be talked about in some detail. His ability to find cutters out of the post resembles that of Shaq (a tremendously underrated passer), except Walton did it much more often. At times, it looks like Walton passed based on instinct alone, although the rewatching plays on the DVR uncovers brief moments of recognition. Additionally, Walton fires outlet passes up the court faster than anyone around now, although everyone says that Wes Unseld topped him in the that regard.

Unfortunately, there’s no one currently in the NBA with the same kind of passing ability. However, Kevin Love, an incoming freshman at Walton’s alma mater, is said to possess freakish court vision for someone his size (6-9, 260 according to most lists, although word has it he dropped some weight). Anyone who watches UCLA regularly knows that—when they choose to do so—they run out on the break faster than anyone else in the Pac-10 (if not the country), so adding a phenomenal outlet passer can only help matters. Love’s skills become more intriguing when one watches the way the Blazers’ secondary players feed off of Walton’s versatility. Bottom line: I’m now officially scared shitless of UCLA next year, but I can’t wait to watch them.

I don’t want to single out Walton as the only terrific passer on the 77 Blazers, because every other regular made a few great dishes in transition or to a cutter from the wing or post. In theory, this team should be one of the most exciting teams ever: five guys, acting as a whole, throwing each other the ball simply because the other player had a great chance to score. Yet something about the non-Walton players constantly passing to cutters in the half court makes the whole operation seem rather systematic; I can only watch a wing pass to a man cutting through the lane so many times. I don’t mean to suggest that the Blazers were boring, or even less-than-exciting, but calling them one of the most exciting teams ever neglects the most important aspect of an exciting athlete: namely, that he does things we’ve never seen before.

The relative regularness of the secondary players in this game (apart from McGinnis, Lucas, and Hollins, who I’m sure I’d appreciate more if I watched multiple games) partly explains the relative rut the NBA found itself in before Magic and Bird burst onto the scene a few years later. Simply put, watching this game felt a lot like watching a college game, right down to the fans rushing the court at the end of the game. Outside of Walton and Dr. J, there was nothing particularly otherworldly about this game. When you get right down to it, that’s what makes the NBA as interesting as it is.

Random thoughts on the game: I feel stupid for not talking about Dr. J in greater detail in the main body of this post, particularly because he scored 40 points in the game. I must confess that I focused most of my attention on the Blazers during this game because of my Walton/UCLA connection. Honestly, when I saw that Dr. J had 40 I was pretty astonished. One obvious thing about his game is that he would still be a star today: the man rises faster than almost everyone playing now. … This game only makes me more confident in my earlier assertion that the NBA would have needed to introduce the three-point line if only to make avoid the clutter that comes with more athletic players. Even at this relatively early juncture in the athleticism boom of the modern era, players seemed to have less space to operate. … Nice to know that Brent Musburger has always been an atrocious announcer. Some of his worst moments: continually hyping the final round of the Kemper Open, as if it were a more important event than the deciding game of the NBA Finals; talking about the volume of the Portland crowd so much that viewers, who couldn’t hear the fans through the shoddy 70s audio equipment, must have thought he was exaggerating in order to make the game seem more exciting; and, worst of all, saying that the Blazers had the game won throughout the last two minutes even though it was usually a two-or-three-possession game. … Lloyd Free jumped unnaturally high on his shots. … In the first few possessions, Lucas trampled a few players, got tangled on the ground with Bibby for a few seconds, and knocked a player into a ref. … Jake Shuttlesworth ripped off his entire look from Dr. J. ... Someone needs to reprint Breaks of the Game.

Bloggin' to the Oldies: 40 Million Daggers

2007-08-14T15:37:00.000-07:00

This post marks the second in our “Bloggin’ to the Oldies” series, for which I watch one of the “NBA’s Greatest Games” and both relate that game to the current NBA and revise common impressions of the players and style of play. Today, I’ll be talking about Game 2 of the 1991 Western Conference Semifinals between the Warriors and Lakers. Some brief background on the game: the Warriors won 125-124 in the final minute, tying the series, which clearly motivated the Lakers, who won the next three (two in Oakland) to close out Golden State. Chris Mullin went out of his mind to lead the Warriors, missing just a few shots attempts on his way to more than 40 points. Magic Johnson had around 40, too. (Unfortunately, I can't find a box score anywhere.)

As a Warriors fan, I came into this game most interested in how much Nellieball has changed over the years. Defensively, things look just about the same. The Warriors used an undersized starting lineup with Alton Lister at center and Mario Elie, Mitch Richmond, and Chris Mullin at the forward spots, requiring double-teams to the post and general swarm nearly identical to the defensive tactics that characterized last season’s team. Of course, all that running around led to a lot of open looks for the Lakers, but Nelson and the players seemed plenty content to let that happen if it meant for chances for running.

At the offensive end, the Run-TMC team looked like they had a plan in a way that the current team does not. I’m not sure that difference has anything to with the team’s actual game plan, though—I stress that it just looked that way. In reality, Hardaway, Richmond, and Mullin were so clearly leaders of the offense that they necessarily had to take more shots. If Nellie’s system works because it gives players opportunities to score, then the best players on the team would logically have more opportunities to score just because their skills allow them those chances. Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington, while very good, are not on the same level as Richmond and Mullin, so it makes sense that the current team would have a more balanced look. I’m sure that would have changed had Mullin been able to trade for Kevin Garnett.

Chris Mullin was a great player, and I’m sure he would have thrived in any system, but the nature of his amazing performance in this game is part of what has me so excited about Marco Belinelli. Mullin hit an unbelievable number of his shots in this game, but most of them were the sort of looks that Nellieball creates for everyone. Last year’s Warriors team didn’t have an objectively great shooter; Jackson, Baron, Barnes, Harrington, and J-Rich can all make them fairly regularly, yet none would ever participate in a three-point shooting contest. Marco, however, has the chance to be one of the best shooters in the NBA. Additionally, while Mullin hit a decent amount of shots with hands in his face, he did so because of his extraordinarily quick release, and Marco has the same type of trigger. I doubt that he will ever get to Mullin’s level, but all Marco really has to do to be a valued member of the team is hit open shots, and there should be a ton of those.

Moving on to the Lakers, I now better understand why Jerry West’s reputation as a GM is as strong as it is. I always knew he did a great job putting together the 80s Lakers, but looking at this team—the second wave of the Lakers dynasty had Magic not contracted HIV—it’s clear that West had a clear vision with this group, as well. The frontline of Vlade Divac, Sam Perkins, and James Worthy was incredibly versatile, capable of scoring from the perimeter or post, running or playing a slower game, etc. This is something I’ll talk about more when I get to the Bulls/Lakers series from the same year, but it’s unreal that the Lakers could play such a fast-paced game against the Warriors and then beat the Bulls in the first game of the finals by slowing things down with the exact same lineups on the floor. It would’ve been interesting to see how long the Lakers could have kept up their regular runs to the finals with Magic still playing. Alas.

It bears noting that the Warriors won this game because of a ridiculously questionable foul call on Elden Campbell with three seconds left. Elie grabbed the board, Campbell got his arm tangled, and some bozo zebra called the foul. The Lakers lose, fans have to watch free throws instead of a potential game-winner, and an amazingly entertaining game comes down to the referees instead of the players. Referees seemed to be more consistent than they are now, in general, but it’s nice to know that they’ve always sucked in some areas.

Some random notes on the game: The score was 99-97 Warriors after three quarters. More evidence that a Suns/Warriors playoff series would have been the greatest thing ever. … I’m pretty sure Tim Hardaway’s early years will somehow get lost in the shuffle as the years go by, but, like Kevin Johnson, at least those who saw him will remember. … There are few sights that make me as happy as that of Sarunas Marciulonis barreling into the lane. He’s the reason I get upset about the Spurification of Ginobili. … I’m not sure there will ever be a player again like this incarnation of James Worthy, a small forward who spends a healthy chunk of his time in the post. … The Warriors could definitely use a guy like Tyrone Hill, a reasonably athletic power forward who doesn’t really need to do anything other than rebound and defend. I expect bigger things out of Brandan Wright eventually, but maybe he can be that type of guy for the next year or two. ... Jack Nicholson attended the game sporting dark, slicked-back hair, a moustache, and a dark suit. He looked more like Dan Aykroyd from the old SNL bad toy sketches than the coolest guy in the world.

Pay Your Rates

2007-08-13T20:10:00.001-07:00

The Warriors have bought out the last two years (via this Tom Ziller FanHouse article) of Adonal Foyle's albatross contract, signifying the end of Chris Mullin's purge of his less-than-stellar first few years as GM. I'm guardedly excited to get arguably the worst contract in the NBA off the books, but, without knowing the exact terms of the buyout, I will reserve judgment and simply lament that I won't get to say that one of the best guys in the league plays for my favorite team. What really excites me about this buyout is that it suggests another move will occur soon. If that doesn't happen, though, I fear Mullin will have missed a chance to take advantage of one of next offseason's best expiring contracts.

On Draft Night '97, I remember yelling at the radio (we did not yet have cable) that the Warriors should have taken Tracy McGrady. History has proven me correct, but I've always been a fan of Adonal, even if more for his off-court personality than for his on-court performances. That said, he was a decent rebounder/defender in his best years, and I still think he could be moderately productive on a slow-it-down team. The Warriors are not constructed to do anything close to slowing it down, of course, so getting rid of the contract was a good move if only for that reason. I'll miss the guy, but only on an emotional level.

In terms of depth, I'm not sure the buyout really changes anything. The Warriors had little post depth last year and weren't going to have much this year either. The deal could have some effect on team chemistry and general locker room morale, but this team belongs to Baron Davis. I'm not even sure any players have been around long enough to truly appreciate what Adonal's ten years of service stood for.

The roster implications of this deal are quite interesting. Before buying out Adonal, the Warriors had 15 players under contract. That number does not include Mickael Pietrus, who was given a qualifying offer at the beginning of the summer and thus has the choice to return. So, as of now, the Warriors have 14 players under contract, leaving one spot open. That means one of the following things has to happen: (1) a trade that brings back one more player than they give up, (2) Pietrus comes back, (3) a sign-and-trade involving Pietrus, (4) the team keeps an open roster spot (unlikely). Of these options, I think (2) and (3) are the most likely, although I won't speculate about the specifics of any deal right now.

I want to make it clear that this buyout needs to lead to a real trade for it to be an incredibly smart move instead of just a good one. The buyout money still applies to the salary cap, so there's not a great difference between paying Adonal for sitting on the bench and paying him for sitting at home; this situation is not analogous to that of Steve Francis, who the Blazers brass thought might be a bad influence on the young 'uns in Portland. If no move happens, Mullin just squandered an opportunity to hold one of the most coveted expiring contracts in the league next offseason. The Lakers outright released Brian Grant instead of waiting for his expiring contract a few years ago, and I bet Kupchak now wishes he'd kept and moved it for a serviceable player.

But that's all idle speculation. For now, let us appreciate one of the most impressive people in the NBA and perhaps the only GM in the NBA with the balls to admit that he made five poor decisions in his first years on the job. Quite shockingly, Mullin has rectified all of those mistakes, and the Warriors' future looks brighter for it.

For those of you haven't already, it's worth checking out Adonal's website democracymatters.org. Some good work going on there.

Human, All Too Human

2007-08-12T17:19:00.000-07:00

After the Warriors' upset of the Mavs last spring, commentators all over the internet, print, and television media claimed that Dirk Nowitzki had a lot of soul-searching to do. Well, it seems like he took that advice to heart. NBA.com's Johannes Berendt reports:

"We [Dirk and longtime coach Holger Geschwindner] toured five weeks through Australia, New Zealand and Tahiti. With a rucksack. That was about the only place in the world where nobody would recognize me and I could move somewhat freely," Nowitzki stated. "At Ayers Rock a few tourists noticed me but the trip was just right to clean my mind."

Down under, the Dallas Mavericks star was looking for answers.
"I have been exploring the sense of life. I haven't entirely found it yet but I will keep looking," he said with a smile.

Yes, Dirk spent five weeks on a life-considering backpacking trip through Oceania. Once I got over the hilarity of imagining Dirk on his form of an Australian walkabout, I decided that Dirk's introspective qualities are admirable, and I bet few NBA stars share them. However, this story also points to why he doesn't seem cut out for leading a team to a championship.It's possible that this trip will clear Dirk's head enough that he achieves some kind of zen relationship with the Larry O'Brien Trophy, but history has shown us that the most successful basketball players have had an unnatural obsession with doing everything possible to win. Namely, they spend the entire offseason working on their jumpers and shoring up their weaknesses.

To a certain extent, Dirk is doing just that: the article mentions that he's been working with Geschwindner quite intensely over the last few weeks. Of course, it also says that he's living at home, getting "the full-service treat from [his] mother," who irons his shirts, does his laundry, and tells him when to get haircuts. Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like the best way to improve one's toughness. Can you imagine Kobe doing the same thing?

I can't blame Dirk for wanting to go to Australia to clear his head. The trip actually sounds pretty cool, and he sounds fairly down-to-earth about the whole thing. I'd actually probably like him as a person. Unfortunately, his personality is exactly the kind of thing that makes him a frustrating basketball player; Dirk would rather get his mind right instead of learning some post moves. This trip might be the best thing for him in the long run, but I'm almost sure next spring we'll all see the same picture we did this playoffs: a confused, upset Dirk, wondering where everything went wrong.

We Demand To Be Taken Seriously

2007-08-08T21:20:00.000-07:00

The news of Reggie Miller’s possible return to the NBA confused and upset me quite a bit this morning. Should this move happen, I wouldn’t begrudge Reggie’s wanting to play another year, or even his hypocrisy. But why, with the little cap room they have left, would the Celtics want a player who needs plays run for him and doesn’t fill one of the team's many needs? Even outside of these issues, picking up Miller runs the risk of turning this year’s Celtics into a sideshow attraction when Pierce, Garnett, and Allen all appear to be on a collective mission.

While I’m not entirely certain why Reggie would want to return to a team that’s still a few players away from being a real championship contender, I have no idea why Ainge would be the one to approach him. Remember when Scottie Pippen wanted to work out for the Lakers last winter. There’s a reason Mitch Kupchak didn’t jump at the chance to sign him. (Danny, you know things are bad when I’m comparing you unfavorably to Kupchak.) As Tom Ziller said earlier today, Miller’s not a difference maker in any situation. The Celtics have too little room under the cap to use it on another scorer, particularly one who hasn’t played in a while and has always needed to get the ball coming off of screens in structured plays. On a related note, SimonOnSports pointed out that the Celtics already signed Eddie House, another player who needs to shoot, after the Garnett trade. What does Reggie bring that isn’t already there?

There isn’t a bevy of terrific role players on the market right now, but Boston should at least take a chance on a guy at a position of need. Plus, if Ainge wanted to spend the veteran minimum on Miller, then he should have just shelled out the extra money to bring on Brevin Knight, who recently jumped to the Clippers for $2 million/year, to play point and mentor Rajon Rondo. I’m not a fan of Ainge’s Scot Pollard signing (you know, because Scot Pollard’s ridiculous and couldn’t get off the bench in Cleveland), but at least he fills a need and doesn’t have to shoot to be successful.

Last week, when the Celtics traded for Garnett, I praised Ainge for finally providing an identity for the organization. It’s impossible not to have a semblance of a game plan now that the roster boasts three players of all-star caliber, but Ainge is doing his best to throw in role players that don’t fit the ostensible blueprint. Now, it is the end of the summer, and Ainge certainly doesn’t have a full list of pieces from which he can pick and choose his players. However, that doesn’t excuse him from making sensible moves. Reggie Miller is not a sensible move.

Luckily, it doesn’t appear that there’s a great chance of Miller heading to Boston. He still hasn’t made up his mind, and in the end I think he’ll end up back on TNT talking like a bad Bill Cosby impersonation and using words like “adversadility.” Ainge, though, should not get a free pass should this deal not work out. Pierce, Garnett, and Allen do not deserve Scot Pollard and Reggie Miller. I’ve already echoed Billups’s comments on this trade, but I’ll quote him this time: “It's about about three guys getting one more chance.” Don’t screw it up for them, Danny. Don’t make this team a joke.

Damn Right I'll Rise Again

2007-08-07T23:47:00.000-07:00

So maybe he didn't exactly demand a trade, but "It's time for me to move on, and the Lakers are the team I want Indiana to trade me to," sounds close enough for me. From everything Jermaine has said, and Bird's responses, it seems to me that they have to be past the point of no return. I agree with Abbott that you don't even entertain the thought of trading your superstar in the media unless you've already resigned yourself to pulling the trigger. And despite Jermaine's attempt to backtrack, you can't really ever come back from saying that you'd like to be somewhere else.

So now that we've agreed Indiana is moving JO sometime soon, the only questions remaining are to where and at what price. (Hint: the answers I want to hear are "the Lakers" and "for cheap," so the rest of this post will be my wishful thinking/predicting why that's going to happen)

First off, why the Bulls haven't entered the conversation is a total mystery to me. JO is exactly what that team needs to make it over the top, they have much better pieces to offer than anyone, and he's probably going to be had in a firesale. But Paxson never really seemed too anxious to get Garnett or Gasol, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by his complacency now.

So I'm going to operate from the unsubstantiated assumption that only the two teams I've consistently heard in the rumor mills are serious suitors: New Jersey and Los Angeles. Apparently New Jersey already offered Jefferson, Krstic, and Collins, but Indiana wanted Marcus Williams instead of Collins. With or without Marcus in the package, that's probably significantly better talent-wise than anything the Lakers can offer that doesn't include Odom.

Despite that, there are a few factors that put the Lakers over the top in my mind. First off, if Indiana's going to trade their franchise cornerstone (which we've already agreed they're doing; no going back now), then they have to commit fully to rebuilding. In Kwame the Lakers have a fat expiring contract to offer that New Jersey doesn't. Bynum is younger than Krstic and has a higher ceiling. Same to a lesser extent holds for Crittenton compared to Marcus. Furthermore, if you're going full-on rebuilding, I'm not sure why you'd want to commit to the 54 million owed to Jefferson over the next four years. Finally, while I've never bought into the don't-trade-in-conference rule, GMs seem to pretty consistently. With all that in mind, I think it's safe to say that the Lakers get the edge.

So now that we can all agree that a) Jermaine is going to be traded, and b) it's going to be to the Lakers, all that leaves is: at what cost? I'll spare you most of my full-blown shitty logic this time around, but basically because of Jermaine's quote, "I want to make it clear that I don't want to gut a team that I come to because then it'll be like I'm in Indiana all over again," I've pretty much decided that Lamar's not going to be included. I guess I'll save my analysis for how fricking awesome that will be for when it happens, but suffice it to say, the thought of a Fisher/Kobe/Luke/Lamar/JO lineup has me (and most Lakers fans) officially stoked.

New Skin for the Old Ceremony

2007-08-06T23:52:00.000-07:00

This post marks the start of a new feature on Plissken, one I’ve titled “Bloggin’ to the Oldies” in a delicious pun. Essentially, I (and possibly Carter, too) will watch one of the many NBA’s Greatest Games we have on our DVR and write about our impressions. Because this kind of exercise has the potential to devolve into a bunch of comments reiterating that Michael Jordan was really good at scoring, I’ll do my best to relate the style of play and players’ games to the NBA of today. This feature is still a work in progress, though, so please feel free to comment with some constructive criticism.

Today, I’ll tackle Game 7 of the 1969 NBA Finals between the Lakers and Celtics. This game doubled as the last game for both Sam Jones and Bill Russell, although the announcers’ reactions at the end of the game suggest that only Jones had announced that he was playing for the last time.

Unfortunately, NBATV massacred this game by only showing the fourth quarter. For a channel that usually does a great job with replays, it seems odd that they’d choose to show just one quarter of a game featuring Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, John Havlicek, and Sam Jones. As far as I can tell, this game’s also the only one from that era in the regular rotation. This choice wouldn’t be so bad if Wilt hadn’t hurt his knee midway through the quarter; essentially, viewers are robbed of watching one of the greatest players in league history. Did the tape get destroyed in a mysterious vault fire? Were the Pete Maravich dribbling drills on after the game really necessary? (Okay, those are actually pretty cool.)

What’s here is actually quite interesting, though. The most obvious thing about the game is that there’s no three-point line. Oddly enough, offenses still operated mostly the same way—or at least the way they do when teams have excellent post scorers. The Lakers regularly worked it inside to Wilt with the intention of sending it back outside for open jumpers. The clearest difference, though, is that those shooters set up much closer to the basket. Thus, you get situations like this one: Wilt passes out from the block to Jerry West at the free throw line. Would that ever happen now? It wasn’t even an odd angle, and there were four defenders in our right around the paint on the play. With no three-point line, everything happens in a much tighter space.

I’m no fan of what three-pointers have done to current players’ midrange games (or lack thereof), but watching this game made it clear to me that the NBA currently needs the three-point line if it wants offenses to score. Today’s extremely athletic players simply could not play in a confined space; defenders would roam all over the place and block many more shots. Teams likely would have adjusted and moved outside, but it’s still way too tempting to stay close to the basket when there’s no incentive to shoot from outside. If the purists got their wish, I think they’d see a very ugly brand of basketball for quite a while.

Referees still appeared to control the game way too much in 1969: Russell, Wilt, Jones, and Havlicek each had five fouls with about 7:30 left in regulation, and Sam Jones fouled out thirty seconds later. As such, no Wilt/Russell banging inside, and the legitimately thrilling (and series MVP) Jones didn’t get to finish out his career on the floor.

Jones, by the way, was the biggest revelation for me. I’d always heard about him as an important member of the Celtics championship teams, but history seems to have put him a notch or below Havlicek, Cousy, and Russell in the Boston pantheon, subsequently leaving him out of the history books for the casual fan. This might be an odd thing to say about one of the 50 Greatest, but I wish he got talked about more often and hope I get the chance to see more of his games.

The Wilt injury made it nearly impossible to see his full game (damn you NBATV!), although the few minutes I saw made it clear that he’d be able to hang with any franchise center of the modern era. Watching guys like Wilt make it clear that while the game has changed a lot in the last forty years, it’s still basically played the same way.

Bill Russell is a more difficult case, although I fully understand that I’m fairly ignorant on this case. Russell’s defense was clearly awesome, particularly on one play in the last minute during which he forced Mel Counts (Wilt’s replacement) to drive behind the basket and force up a hideous scoop shot. Russell’s offense was another story. On two separate occasions, he made a decent move to get clear looks from two feet, and in both he cases he bricked each attempt. This might seem like blasphemy, and please correct me if I’m just being stupid, but at this point in his career Russell seemed to have the same offense/defense split as Ben Wallace. Or maybe he just never worked on offense because he had Jones and Havlicek there to do most of the scoring.

Perhaps the worst part of having NBATV truncate the game was that I didn’t get a great feel for Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and John Havlicek. All three were clearly very good (and West and Havlicek’s unreal stat lines from the series prove it), but I can’t make any intelligent comments on any of them.

As a Warriors fan, I was very interested to see Don Nelson. Watching him play, one can see why he’s so good at teaching players to shrug off their mistakes. During one offensive possession, Nellie took the ball at the top of the key facing the near sideline so that he was looking right at Jerry West, who already had defensive position. Nelson then ran right into West, executing one of the worst charges I’ve ever seen. Instead of getting down on himself, though, Nellie hit a tough jumper with a hand in his face on the very next possession. Just goes to show that there’s always some continuity in the NBA.

A true prince of the tubes has uploaded the fourth quarter of this game to YouTube. Embedding's been disabled, but check out these links to Part 1 and Part 2.

New Paths to Helicon

2007-08-05T22:00:00.000-07:00

Preetom Bhattacharya of hoopsworld.com is reporting that the Warriors will sign Matt Barnes tomorrow to a one-year contract (article found via GSoM). Once it looked like Mullin had no chance of getting Garnett, I made it clear that I think resigning Barnes--particularly for just a year or two--would be the best move for this offseason. Now that it looks like things have turned out exactly that way, I don't think I have much to add on the Barnes subject, but the way that the Warriors have gone about their free agent business this offseason bears some deeper analysis. Along with the recent signing of Austin Croshere for one season, the Barnes deal exhibits the foresight that Mullin has brought to his dealings this summer.

As I said last month, Barnes is a much better option than Mickael Pietrus for the Warriors if only because he appears to have turned into a decent outside shooter. (No idea what happens with Pietrus now, by the way. I wouldn't mind seeing him signed-and-traded along with Sarunas Jasikevicius or Patrick O'Bryant, though. Doesn't matter who we get in return.) Barnes also becomes an important rotation player when he contributes the sort of floor game he did in last year's playoffs, although I wouldn't run to Vegas to bet on that becoming a regular occurrence.

It's that uncertainty surrounding Barnes's play last year that left him few options other than to take the Warriors' offer. Most teams likely took issue with Barnes being a probable "system player," but I applaud Mullin for not buying that Barnes is a sure thing just because he was successful last season. Barnes was good, but his season still had its valleys. The one-year deal gives the Warriors the chance to judge if Barnes can be consistent while also giving him the chance to make big money on the open market next season.

The other recent deal by the Warriors shows similar smarts. To be sure, I'm not ecstatic about Austin Croshere considering KG's name has been thrown around the whole summer,
but I don't see many bad things about this signing. Basketball-wise, Croshere can hit some threes and has experience playing with Nelson. As Say Hey said a few days ago, it might have made more sense for Nelson to take a chance on a possible sleeper, but I really don't see anything awful about picking up an older player, either. Croshere was considered especially bad when he was with the Mavericks because he was way, way overpaid. That's not an issue now that he's been signed for the veteran minimum. (The one thing I really don't get about this deal is that Baron and Croshere are known to dislike each other. Hopefully they'll get things right during camp.)

Evidence now suggests that Mullin focused on giving the team long-term flexibility once the Garnett deal fell through. (Actually, taken out of the Garnett context, everything from this summer seems to have been about keeping the future open.) Given the options, these one-year contracts are exactly what Mullin needed to do. This next season likely won't result in a better finish than the conference semifinals, but nothing short of Garnett would have bettered last year's showing. Golden State still has an excellent shot at making the playoffs next season, especially now that Elton Brand will be gone until February at the earliest.

Most importantly, giving people long-term contracts would have been a problem considering that Nelson probably won't be back in 08-09. I would bet that the team hires another coach who likes to run, but no one does anything close to what Nellie does, so creating the roster of the future based on his specifications would be a mistake. As I've said before, with a lot of important players coming off the books next summer (even Adonal will turn into an expiring contract!), Mullin can mold the next version of the Warriors without having to worry about players picked specifically for Nellieball.

One other Warriors-related note: everyone should check out this immeasurably terrible LA Times article on Baron's respective relationships with Oakland and LA. Fear the Beard and Tom Ziller have both written excellent reactions, so I will defer to them for analysis. I just can't believe Kurt Streeter's editors published this monstrosity.

Pendulous Skin (West Edition)

2007-08-03T02:14:00.000-07:00

The Plissken Mascot Spectacular reaches its exciting conclusion today with the breakdown of the Western Conference. For those who missed my look at the Eastern Conference mascots, I’m interested in how mascots match up with their respective franchises. The only mascots to get my arbitrary “perfect fit” ranking in the East were Benny (Bulls), Hooper the Horse (Detroit), and Harry Hawk (Atlanta), so the West teams have the chance to assert dominance in this field, too. However, I imagine they'll have a tough time rivaling the supreme insanity of Stuff the Magic Dragon (Orlando), Rufus Lynx (Charlotte), Bowser the Dog (Indiana), Hip Hop the Rabbit (Philly), and Burnie (Miami). Let’s git to gittin’.

Northwest Division

Denver Nuggets
Mascot: Rocky the Cougar
Description: Golden boy cougar
Strengths: Clean, classic mascot look.
Weaknesses: Must have some skeletons in his closet.
Fit with Current Team: Pretty awful. AI, Melo, and JR Smith all have less-than-clean reputations.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Eduardo Najera (aesthetically)

Minnesota Timberwolves
Mascot: Crunch
Description: Asshole wolf
Strengths: Being a dick.
Weaknesses: Making friends.
Fit with Current Team: Pretty good. I can’t imagine anyone’s too excited to be playing for the T-Wolves these days, so reactions like these from Crunch make sense.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Rashad McCants

Portland Trail Blazers
Mascot: Blaze the Trail Cat
Description: Gray mountain lion modeled on the Pink Panther
Strengths: Appears to be a solid mascot with no awful history.
Weaknesses: A bit uninspiring.
Fit with Current Team: Decent. “Good citizen” label fits, but this Blazers team is going to eat faces. Blaze needs to find his animal core if he wants to roll with Oden and Roy.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Channing Frye

(many thanks to Bethlehem Shoals for recently posting the video)
Seattle SuperSonics
Mascot: Squatch
Description: Hairier Chewbacca or taller, cleaned-up Cousin Itt
Strengths: The coolest-looking mascot in the league.
Weaknesses: Image threatens to eclipse solid skills as mascot.
Fit with Current Team: Up in the air. New ownership appears to be looking for fresh start with rookies and new city, which would render Squatch irrelevant. (Note: Squatch is maybe the best reason to keep the Sonics in Seattle.)
Closest Match on Current Roster: Robert Swift

Utah Jazz
Mascot: Bear
Description: Karl Malone in bear form; “The Energy Solutions Arena of mascots,” according to Carter
Strengths: Riding motorcycles. Getting the job done.
Weaknesses: Gets said job done in as boring a way as possible. Any endorsement opportunity.

Fit with Current Team: Frustratingly solid. Current team is capable of playing an exciting brand of basketball (see Warriors series), but Sloan will always make them retreat to structure.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Carlos Boozer

Southwest Division

Dallas Mavericks
Mascots: Mavs Man and Champ the Horse
Description: Man made out of a basketball and his blue horse
Strengths: Mavs Man always gets first pick on playground because it’s his ball. I’ve never seen a blue horse before, and I wanted to see a blue horse.
Weaknesses: Least imaginative names ever. Bring nothing new to the table.
Fit with Current Team: Awful. Call Dirk a loser if you want, but the Mavericks are fun. DeSagana, Dirk, and Pops are great names, too.
Closest Matches on Current Roster: Josh Howard (Mavs Man if he were a real player) and Greg Buckner (Champ the Horse)

Houston Rockets
Mascot: Clutch the Bear
Description: Most adorable bear in the universe on the surface, absolute terror underneath
Strengths: Harmless facade tricks victims into false sense of safety.

Weaknesses: Occasionally takes the joke too far, albeit hilariously.

Fit with Current Team: Almost perfect. Most of team looks extremely harmless/disinterested on surface (T-Mac, Yao, Franchise), but amazing talents lie dormant just waiting to strike. The only issue is that Clutch’s name doesn’t jive with recent performances in the playoffs.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Tracy McGrady

Memphis Grizzlies
Mascot: Griz
Description: A bluish grizzly bear
Strengths: Eating Timothy Treadwell.
Weaknesses: Even more unimaginative name than “Mavs Man.” Sandwiches.
Fit with Current Team: Poor. Will need to improve conditioning if he wants to run with Iavaroni.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Damon Stoudamire

New Orleans Hornets
Mascot: Hugo
Description: A slightly effeminate teal hornet
Strengths: Funny without being inexplicable.
Weaknesses: Feels like a holdover from another era.
Fit with Current Team: Poor. Hornets are clearly going in another direction, but Hugo’s still in the spotlight.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Peja Stojakovic

San Antonio Spurs
Mascot: The Coyote
Description: Basehead coyote
Strengths: Ruthless killer.
Weaknesses: Kills for drug money.
Fit with Current Team: Egregiously terrible. Lacks even keel needed to play in Pop’s system.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Marcus Williams (the one from Arizona)

Pacific Division

Golden State Warriors
Mascot: Thunder
Description: Anthropomorphized blue spandex
Strengths: Extremely athletic.
Weaknesses: Way too clean of a look.
Fit with Current Team: Could do worse. Athleticism would buy him minutes on the wing, but not rough enough around the edges to be a team leader.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Mickael Pietrus (and even he’s too rough. That makes me proud.)

Los Angeles Clippers
Mascot: Frankie Muniz (Billy Crystal a better choice as a fan, but Frankie is more of a mascot and needs the work)
Description: Has-been actor at age 21
Strengths: Apparently owns a lot of fast cars.
Weaknesses: Clearly became a Clippers fan just so he’d be a recognizable celebrity. No longer a celebrity.
Fit with Current Team: Solid. Only time will tell if the playoff success of two seasons ago was a fluke, but for now I’m willing to put the Clippers way above Frankie on the Hollywood power rankings.
Fit with Historical Team: Perfect. The Clippers will always play fifth fiddle to the Lakers in LA.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Jared Jordan

Los Angeles Lakers
Mascot: Mulholland Man
Description: Jack Nicholson
Strengths: Coolest guy in his profession. Winner of multiple Academy Awards.
Weaknesses: Devolved into self-parody. Drugs.
Fit with Current Team: Perfect. Lakers still hold a lot of sway over the NBA landscape, but they’re seriously diminished when compared to their past champions.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Phil Jackson

Phoenix Suns
Mascot: Go-Rilla
Description: Trampolining gorilla in people clothes
Strengths: Experience. Flashy without being obnoxious.
Weaknesses: Hasn’t changed game much in recent years.
Fit with Current Team: Nearly perfect. Suns have spent a few years in D’Antoni Ball, but it may be time for them to admit they need some new pieces.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Steve Nash

Sacramento Kings
Mascot: Slamson the Lion
Description: Entirely nondescript lion
Strengths: Fairly regal look. Unintentionally hilarious name.
Weaknesses: Boring in its simplicity.
Fit with Current Team: Great. The Kings haven’t been too interesting for a while now.
Closest Match on Current Roster: Spencer Hawes

What Did We Learn?
The West might be the vastly superior conference on the court, but—with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Squatch, Clutch, Mulholland Man)—it can’t compete with the East in terms of sheer mascot lunacy and relevancy.