Be Prepared

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.