All right, class, what kind of things do we look for in an NBA draftee?
A player who's proven, or one with oodles of upside? A guy coming off a spectacular college career, or one coming off the bench for his Serbian club team? A player who's shown constant improvement, or one who mysteriously fared worse as a senior than a junior?
No, Kiki, put your hand down, it's the first answer to each of these questions, not the second.
Yesterday the Nuggets picked 20th in the first round, selecting Julius Hodge, shooting guard/small forward, out of North Carolina State. College fans will immediately recognize his name, as Hodge was the ACC Player of the Year as a junior. Unfortunately, he just finished his senior year, which was marked mostly by a dip in his scoring numbers (he developed a sudden inability to hit free throws or threes) and a punch to the groin by Wake Forest guard Chris Paul.
Hodge is mostly a mid-range and slashing-type scorer, kind of like the more-than-sufficient small forward we already have. (Actually, saying Hodge is effective from mid-range is pushing it-he shot 25.5% from the close-in college three-point arc last year.) I guess he fills Rodney White's spot as the Carmelo-like backup to Carmelo who won't mesh well with Carmelo, and who, therefore, will get few minutes. Also on the negative side, he's 6-7, 202 pounds and has the hairline of a man three times his age.
However, Hodge is a competitive guy and provided some of the best college trash talk in recent memory. So he has a chance, though he doesn't fit in with the team.
Well, what did the Nuggets need? An up-tempo point guard would be nice, and so would a low-post scorer. At that point in the draft, however, we're most likely to find someone to fill our most glaring weakness: an outside shooter (again, unless you think Voshon is some kind of cure-all).
At the 22nd pick, the Nuggets wised up and might have filled two of these holes by taking junior guard Jarrett Jack of Georgia Tech. He's got size (6-3, 202 lbs., the exact same listing as Chauncey Billups), outside shooting ability (three-point percentage rose each year, topping out at 44.2% this season), and big-game experience (a national title game appearance a year ago, and increased scoring each year in ACC play). Granted, he was awful in that title game (one-for-eight, five turnovers), but it's the 22nd pick in the draft.
Great pick!
Almost.
Of course, the Nuggets' braintrust couldn't resist the urge to tinker, so we sent Jack to Portland for the 27th pick and the 35th pick, with which we picked...drum roll, please...Linas Kleiza and Ricky Sanchez!
Again, that far down there are no guarantees, but it seems like even the undersized Salim Stoudemire or undermotivated Chris Taft has a better chance of chipping in.
And while Carmelo is young and Kenyon Martin is signed for years to come, the Nuggets are not in a position to build for the future. For one, we're barely squeaking into the playoffs as it is, so we need help now. Second, you don't make long-term arrangements around Marcus Camby's health, you know?
Nevertheless, we gave up on Jack, who will probably be decent and unspectacular pretty quickly, for two youngsters who might not make it to training camp.
I'm particularly intrigued by Kleiza, as the Denver Post was clearly scrambling for nice things to say about him. Directly from the Post's capsule:
"Strengths: Hustler whom coach George Karl compared with Eduardo Najera. Nickname is the Vanilla Gorilla. Losing 20 pounds opened the Nuggets' eyes. Weaknesses: Did not dominate in Big 12 in his two years with Tigers. Some were surprised he left early."
One of his strengths is his nickname? That's the best we can do? (Not only that, "Vanilla Gorilla" sucks. I think I saw it on the menu at Ben and Jerry's.)
Coach Karl compared him to a player already on our roster (Najera, so he doesn't fill a need), and Vandeweghe compared him to Matt Harpring. Harpring and Najera have nothing in common as players, so we're clearly not wasting too much time scouting these guys. And there's a reason the charge-drawing types often go undrafted-because there are a million guys willing to sell out their body to play in the NBA, and wise teams don't invest any value in them.
As for Ricky Sanchez, he's 17, 6-11 and 205, and is versatile for a man his size which, as always, is code for "can't rebound." Finally, late in the second round the Nuggets selected the Belgian assasin, Axel Hervelle! I don't know if he really goes by that nickname, but if he can't stick at forward, at least the Nuggets have a new lead guitarist. Rock on, Axel!
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Monday, June 27, 2005
Who cares?
So we finally got done with the NBA playoffs after nearly two months of stretched-out play, and tomorrow's the draft.
I really couldn't care less. I'm so burned out on the sport.
Sadly, there's nothing else going on worth mentioning, so we might as well get into it. (Yes, baseball, Pugs, but I haven't really started following that this year yet, sorry.)
Would the NFL hold its draft five days after the Super Bowl? Of course not, and not just because the league doesn't want to distract from the highlight of its annual calendar, the Pro Bowl.
Of course, the NBA's situation is a little different. College play ended two and a half months ago, and the teams want to get draftees ready for the all-important summer league play (because the kind of guys that need the summer league always end up players).
Not that when college basketball is over is relevant, anyway-the league is overrun by a bunch of high school players "just months removed from their prom" (I'm not quoting anyone in particular, but for some reason saying a player is just out of high school is more impressive if the prom is mentioned) and foreign America-haters who just want to steal our women and destory our freedom. (Come on, Alex, am I right?)
Of course, we won't be seeing high school players going anywhere in the draft after this year, now that the league has a minimum age of 19 in its new collective bargaining agreement, a development that was years too late and, therefore, completely pointless.
I used to agree with the idea of a minimum age on the basis that the influx of high schoolers really was ruining the league, as well as college ball, an overcoached game which needs little help making itself look bad. But now that we've seen high schoolers like LeBron James and Amare Stoudemire come in and not only play but produce big numbers, it's starting to look like teams' natural distrust for young players was the biggest reason none of the youngsters contributed out of the gate. (And a few one-and-done players, like Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh, could well have had a similar impact had they been rookies a year earlier.) Or maybe, with all the money at stake, youth leagues and development programs have improved. I won't pretend to know all the reasons, nor do I care.
So I guess was a simplistic fool, just like those who think the growing number of international players ruins the game, or that international players are a bigger risk then Americans. Yes, Nikoloz Tskitishvili was a spectacular bust, but that kind of anecdotal evidence doesn't mean every foreign player has been a failure. In fact, a ton have become stars, at least for league marketing purposes. Dirk Nowitzki, Peja Stojakovic, Yao Ming, Tony Parker, and near Finals-MVP The Amazing Ginobili!, among others, have developed into outstanding players.
(Each of these players has well-documented flaws-except for Ginobili, who receives only glorious praise for his creativity (I gotta admit, I loved his right-handed dunk down the lane late in Game Seven)-but every player has flaws. Kevin Garnett isn't quite the go-to guy his numbers suggest, Allen Iverson shoots too much, and Tim Duncan isn't immortal. Et cetera.)
But back to the original problem, why does the draft have to be right now? I guess baseball holds its draft in the middle of the season, but no one cares about that one. The basketball season is clearly way too long. Granted, basketball doesn't have the advantage of the huge television contract football does, but part of the reason football games are so cherished is because there aren't so many of them. The cat's kind of out of the bag here, but the NBA could at least try to fight overkill by moving the draft and playing postseason games a little more often.
Wouldn't all those playoff series be more compelling if there were more back-to-back games? I mean, by the end of the Finals I was just watching so I could argue with my friend the CEO, not because I cared at that point. It's not like baseball, where there's a huge and obvious benefit to moving games farther apart (better pitching).
(Baseball kind of suffers from the same endless season problem, but if MLB cut it down a lot, you'd have guys hitting .400 every year. Which isn't that big of a deal, I guess, it would just feel really cheap. And we all know how sacred that record book is.)
Anyway, since the draft is tomorrow, I suppose I should give my thoughts on a few of the biggest debates:
The No. 1 Pick: For who knows what predetermined reason, this is down to Marvin Williams of North Carolina and Andrew Bogut of Utah. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I was much more impressed with Bogut in the limited time I saw him than with Williams. I'm not about to endorse a center from the Mountain West as the best player in the draft, however. Bogut has impressive low-post skills, passing ability, and ball-handling for a center, but like just about every young big man, he could use an epic increase in strength. And he didn't play against a lot of people his size.
Williams, on the other hand, is a mystery. If he was really the best player at Carolina last year, why wasn't he starting? One point in his favor, according to Sports Illustrated, is that he beat Sean May in a game of one-on-one at a recent workout. Congratulations. I can think of a number of players who would probably destroy Tim Duncan in a game of one-on-one, none of whom I'd rather have on my team. (Seriously, Duncan ought to be taken by Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter if he's just been traded-but so what? It's a team sport. Or did you miss the Olympics?)
But then, I'm the one who thought any team that took Dwight Howard over Emeka Okafor was insane; yet Howard looks to be headed for a great career at this early stage (so does Okafor; who knows how they'll measure up in ten years). We'll see. I'd rather take someone like Chris Paul of Wake Forest, who seems to be more of a sure thing, but I guess I'm a wuss at this draft thing. I guess I'd take Williams out of these two, but only 'cause I'm a Tar Heels fan, not because I really know.
Point Guards: I would have never thought it, but somehow some have decided that Deron Williams of Illinois is a better pro prospect than Paul. I can't find the link but I swear I read Jay Bilas saying that earlier this morning. Anyway, even if he didn't, this is a no-brainer. Not only is Paul better, so is Raymond Felton of North Carolina. You can't get away with being a slow spot-up shooter in the NBA. Sorry, Darrin!
Two picks for the Nuggets: Even under Kiki Vandeweghe, who's supposedly the best executive since...well, in this town, a really long time, Denver's local ballers have a proud tradition of horrific drafts. And the consensus is that we'll trade up, hoping our two okay selections (20th and 22nd) will turn into one good one. I don't think we can move high enough for it to matter. I'd feel better keeping both picks if we draft players with a chance (I like Rashad McCants as an outside shooter if not as a 10-year two guard, and maybe Jarrett Jack at the other pick), but rest assured we'll screw it up anyway.
I really couldn't care less. I'm so burned out on the sport.
Sadly, there's nothing else going on worth mentioning, so we might as well get into it. (Yes, baseball, Pugs, but I haven't really started following that this year yet, sorry.)
Would the NFL hold its draft five days after the Super Bowl? Of course not, and not just because the league doesn't want to distract from the highlight of its annual calendar, the Pro Bowl.
Of course, the NBA's situation is a little different. College play ended two and a half months ago, and the teams want to get draftees ready for the all-important summer league play (because the kind of guys that need the summer league always end up players).
Not that when college basketball is over is relevant, anyway-the league is overrun by a bunch of high school players "just months removed from their prom" (I'm not quoting anyone in particular, but for some reason saying a player is just out of high school is more impressive if the prom is mentioned) and foreign America-haters who just want to steal our women and destory our freedom. (Come on, Alex, am I right?)
Of course, we won't be seeing high school players going anywhere in the draft after this year, now that the league has a minimum age of 19 in its new collective bargaining agreement, a development that was years too late and, therefore, completely pointless.
I used to agree with the idea of a minimum age on the basis that the influx of high schoolers really was ruining the league, as well as college ball, an overcoached game which needs little help making itself look bad. But now that we've seen high schoolers like LeBron James and Amare Stoudemire come in and not only play but produce big numbers, it's starting to look like teams' natural distrust for young players was the biggest reason none of the youngsters contributed out of the gate. (And a few one-and-done players, like Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh, could well have had a similar impact had they been rookies a year earlier.) Or maybe, with all the money at stake, youth leagues and development programs have improved. I won't pretend to know all the reasons, nor do I care.
So I guess was a simplistic fool, just like those who think the growing number of international players ruins the game, or that international players are a bigger risk then Americans. Yes, Nikoloz Tskitishvili was a spectacular bust, but that kind of anecdotal evidence doesn't mean every foreign player has been a failure. In fact, a ton have become stars, at least for league marketing purposes. Dirk Nowitzki, Peja Stojakovic, Yao Ming, Tony Parker, and near Finals-MVP The Amazing Ginobili!, among others, have developed into outstanding players.
(Each of these players has well-documented flaws-except for Ginobili, who receives only glorious praise for his creativity (I gotta admit, I loved his right-handed dunk down the lane late in Game Seven)-but every player has flaws. Kevin Garnett isn't quite the go-to guy his numbers suggest, Allen Iverson shoots too much, and Tim Duncan isn't immortal. Et cetera.)
But back to the original problem, why does the draft have to be right now? I guess baseball holds its draft in the middle of the season, but no one cares about that one. The basketball season is clearly way too long. Granted, basketball doesn't have the advantage of the huge television contract football does, but part of the reason football games are so cherished is because there aren't so many of them. The cat's kind of out of the bag here, but the NBA could at least try to fight overkill by moving the draft and playing postseason games a little more often.
Wouldn't all those playoff series be more compelling if there were more back-to-back games? I mean, by the end of the Finals I was just watching so I could argue with my friend the CEO, not because I cared at that point. It's not like baseball, where there's a huge and obvious benefit to moving games farther apart (better pitching).
(Baseball kind of suffers from the same endless season problem, but if MLB cut it down a lot, you'd have guys hitting .400 every year. Which isn't that big of a deal, I guess, it would just feel really cheap. And we all know how sacred that record book is.)
Anyway, since the draft is tomorrow, I suppose I should give my thoughts on a few of the biggest debates:
The No. 1 Pick: For who knows what predetermined reason, this is down to Marvin Williams of North Carolina and Andrew Bogut of Utah. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I was much more impressed with Bogut in the limited time I saw him than with Williams. I'm not about to endorse a center from the Mountain West as the best player in the draft, however. Bogut has impressive low-post skills, passing ability, and ball-handling for a center, but like just about every young big man, he could use an epic increase in strength. And he didn't play against a lot of people his size.
Williams, on the other hand, is a mystery. If he was really the best player at Carolina last year, why wasn't he starting? One point in his favor, according to Sports Illustrated, is that he beat Sean May in a game of one-on-one at a recent workout. Congratulations. I can think of a number of players who would probably destroy Tim Duncan in a game of one-on-one, none of whom I'd rather have on my team. (Seriously, Duncan ought to be taken by Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter if he's just been traded-but so what? It's a team sport. Or did you miss the Olympics?)
But then, I'm the one who thought any team that took Dwight Howard over Emeka Okafor was insane; yet Howard looks to be headed for a great career at this early stage (so does Okafor; who knows how they'll measure up in ten years). We'll see. I'd rather take someone like Chris Paul of Wake Forest, who seems to be more of a sure thing, but I guess I'm a wuss at this draft thing. I guess I'd take Williams out of these two, but only 'cause I'm a Tar Heels fan, not because I really know.
Point Guards: I would have never thought it, but somehow some have decided that Deron Williams of Illinois is a better pro prospect than Paul. I can't find the link but I swear I read Jay Bilas saying that earlier this morning. Anyway, even if he didn't, this is a no-brainer. Not only is Paul better, so is Raymond Felton of North Carolina. You can't get away with being a slow spot-up shooter in the NBA. Sorry, Darrin!
Two picks for the Nuggets: Even under Kiki Vandeweghe, who's supposedly the best executive since...well, in this town, a really long time, Denver's local ballers have a proud tradition of horrific drafts. And the consensus is that we'll trade up, hoping our two okay selections (20th and 22nd) will turn into one good one. I don't think we can move high enough for it to matter. I'd feel better keeping both picks if we draft players with a chance (I like Rashad McCants as an outside shooter if not as a 10-year two guard, and maybe Jarrett Jack at the other pick), but rest assured we'll screw it up anyway.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Clickety-clank, clickety-clank, the money goes into my piggy bank
You know, I've really grown sick of the Lakers over the last few years and I ought to talk about the Finals, but outside of Pistons fans and their multiple boyfriends (OOOOOOOOOOH!), I don't think anyone finds this year's series compelling...yet.
So what is up with Phil Jackson?
Rumors of his return to coach the Lakers have been public for weeks, but I was convinced he just wanted to raise his asking price from the Knicks. Why would Jackson, who at this point can write his ticket just about anywhere, want to return to work for an owner and star who ran him and the team's bets player out of town? (Why Phil Jackson would want to coach the Knicks is beyond me as well, but that's a whole other story.)
Money is obviously a motivator for Jackson; how could it not be? I'll never understand why fans want sports figures to pretend that money isn't important. If I was offered two jobs and one paid a lot better than the other, I'll probably follow the money. Doesn't everybody?
Despite all that Zen peace-of-mind stuff, Jackson has definitely been motivated by money in the past. Or have you not seen the Toyota commercials where he forsakes personal dignity and dresses up as some kind of cross between a monk and a Jedi Knight?
For someone completely unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes situation (someone like, say, me), money seems like it would have to be the only reason to go to the Lakers. Well, that and his girlfriend. He's definitely not going for a shot to set the NBA coaching record with a tenth ring.
The Lakers' roster is in shambles. Scan it and you'll recognize a number of names-Vlade Divac, Brian Grant, Lamar Odom, and of course Kobe-but you'll also realize it's just a collection of players, with no overall concept of team binding it together. Kind of like the Yankees.
(I recommend a scan on the Lakers website if you're following along at home, because you get to try to navigate the site through the most bizarre marketing tie-in I've ever seen. Your mouse cursor transforms back and forth between Lakers and McDonald's logos. I'd love to know what the Golden Arches paid for that. It's really annoying.)
The Lakers have a number of young players, only one of whom (Caron Butler) seems to have a chance to become any kind of a real difference-maker, and I'm having my doubts about him.
So the move doesn't make a ton of sense for Jackson (outside of the huge bucks), but what about for the Lakers?
I might be in the minority here, but I think Phil Jackson is an amazing coach, and his closest and only competition in recent times is probably Pat Riley.
Forget winning percentage-though his .725 mark is off the chain-Jackson has a championship percentage of .643-as in his teams have won nine championships in his fourteen years as head coach.
But Miiii-iiike, Phil Jackson's not a good coach, he's just always had the best players!
Fair enough. Many coaches will go their whole career without ever having a single player who reaches the greatness of Shaq, Kobe, Michael Jordan, or Scottie Pippen.
But a lot of coaches have had talented rosters seemingly ideal for championship contention, and fallen short time and again. Rick Adelman, Jerry Sloan, George Karl, Don Nelson...the list continues. So there must be some skill involved.
Jackson's worked very well managing egos in his career-well, except one obvious exception-and his teams are usually in superb condition and well-prepared. He also maximizes contributions from his role players and makes smart substitutions. Sort of like Joe Torre (ahem, in past years), he knows how to deal with a very talented team.
(And insert necessary blah blah blah triangle offense sentence here. I love how the triangle is always said to develop and inspire teamwork-as opposed to other offensive schemes, which require teammates to work actively against one another. Kind of like how football's West Coast offense requires timed passing, while other teams try to keep quarterbacks and wide receivers out of synch to keep defenses guessing.)
While we don't know how Jackson will do with a reloading roster, the fact that we haven't yet seen him in that situation does not mean, necessarily, that he can't be successful. He hasn't been in this kind of situation in the NBA, maybe, but the guy honed his coaching skills in the CBA, so he has experience with no-talent ballers.
The biggest question for me is not the talent level of his players, but the kind of players he has on the roster. In Chicago and L.A., many of his role players were perfect fits for a winning team-guys like Ron Harper, Steve Kerr, and Robert Horry never needed motivating. We'll see how guys like Devean George fit in on a team that probably won't win enough right away to satiate egos.
Of course, all of this is predicated on how well Jackson and Kobe can reconcile their differences, and whether Kobe can sublimate his ego long enough to play on a successful team again. Bryant's track record in this area is certainly underwhelming.
Bryant is a very talented player-not nearly the best in the league, as many have laughably suggested-whose self-centered competitive drive gets in the way of dealing with teammates. Last year was a struggle for the Lakers and may have humbled him. But based off his public statements, I doubt it.
It's a good hire for the Lakers, a smart move for Phil's bank account (okay, I guess he probably doesn't bring his jar of coins to a kindly teller lady, so it's good for his investments or whatever), and certainly good for the NBA. But while Jackson can be expected to lead the team back to the playoffs, a title is, barring major roster changes, completely unrealistic.
So what is up with Phil Jackson?
Rumors of his return to coach the Lakers have been public for weeks, but I was convinced he just wanted to raise his asking price from the Knicks. Why would Jackson, who at this point can write his ticket just about anywhere, want to return to work for an owner and star who ran him and the team's bets player out of town? (Why Phil Jackson would want to coach the Knicks is beyond me as well, but that's a whole other story.)
Money is obviously a motivator for Jackson; how could it not be? I'll never understand why fans want sports figures to pretend that money isn't important. If I was offered two jobs and one paid a lot better than the other, I'll probably follow the money. Doesn't everybody?
Despite all that Zen peace-of-mind stuff, Jackson has definitely been motivated by money in the past. Or have you not seen the Toyota commercials where he forsakes personal dignity and dresses up as some kind of cross between a monk and a Jedi Knight?
For someone completely unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes situation (someone like, say, me), money seems like it would have to be the only reason to go to the Lakers. Well, that and his girlfriend. He's definitely not going for a shot to set the NBA coaching record with a tenth ring.
The Lakers' roster is in shambles. Scan it and you'll recognize a number of names-Vlade Divac, Brian Grant, Lamar Odom, and of course Kobe-but you'll also realize it's just a collection of players, with no overall concept of team binding it together. Kind of like the Yankees.
(I recommend a scan on the Lakers website if you're following along at home, because you get to try to navigate the site through the most bizarre marketing tie-in I've ever seen. Your mouse cursor transforms back and forth between Lakers and McDonald's logos. I'd love to know what the Golden Arches paid for that. It's really annoying.)
The Lakers have a number of young players, only one of whom (Caron Butler) seems to have a chance to become any kind of a real difference-maker, and I'm having my doubts about him.
So the move doesn't make a ton of sense for Jackson (outside of the huge bucks), but what about for the Lakers?
I might be in the minority here, but I think Phil Jackson is an amazing coach, and his closest and only competition in recent times is probably Pat Riley.
Forget winning percentage-though his .725 mark is off the chain-Jackson has a championship percentage of .643-as in his teams have won nine championships in his fourteen years as head coach.
But Miiii-iiike, Phil Jackson's not a good coach, he's just always had the best players!
Fair enough. Many coaches will go their whole career without ever having a single player who reaches the greatness of Shaq, Kobe, Michael Jordan, or Scottie Pippen.
But a lot of coaches have had talented rosters seemingly ideal for championship contention, and fallen short time and again. Rick Adelman, Jerry Sloan, George Karl, Don Nelson...the list continues. So there must be some skill involved.
Jackson's worked very well managing egos in his career-well, except one obvious exception-and his teams are usually in superb condition and well-prepared. He also maximizes contributions from his role players and makes smart substitutions. Sort of like Joe Torre (ahem, in past years), he knows how to deal with a very talented team.
(And insert necessary blah blah blah triangle offense sentence here. I love how the triangle is always said to develop and inspire teamwork-as opposed to other offensive schemes, which require teammates to work actively against one another. Kind of like how football's West Coast offense requires timed passing, while other teams try to keep quarterbacks and wide receivers out of synch to keep defenses guessing.)
While we don't know how Jackson will do with a reloading roster, the fact that we haven't yet seen him in that situation does not mean, necessarily, that he can't be successful. He hasn't been in this kind of situation in the NBA, maybe, but the guy honed his coaching skills in the CBA, so he has experience with no-talent ballers.
The biggest question for me is not the talent level of his players, but the kind of players he has on the roster. In Chicago and L.A., many of his role players were perfect fits for a winning team-guys like Ron Harper, Steve Kerr, and Robert Horry never needed motivating. We'll see how guys like Devean George fit in on a team that probably won't win enough right away to satiate egos.
Of course, all of this is predicated on how well Jackson and Kobe can reconcile their differences, and whether Kobe can sublimate his ego long enough to play on a successful team again. Bryant's track record in this area is certainly underwhelming.
Bryant is a very talented player-not nearly the best in the league, as many have laughably suggested-whose self-centered competitive drive gets in the way of dealing with teammates. Last year was a struggle for the Lakers and may have humbled him. But based off his public statements, I doubt it.
It's a good hire for the Lakers, a smart move for Phil's bank account (okay, I guess he probably doesn't bring his jar of coins to a kindly teller lady, so it's good for his investments or whatever), and certainly good for the NBA. But while Jackson can be expected to lead the team back to the playoffs, a title is, barring major roster changes, completely unrealistic.
Thursday, June 9, 2005
National Basketball Association Finals Preview Blowout!
If you're looking for a stereotypical matchup breakdown for the NBA Finals between the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs, (Game One is tonight, 7 o'clock Mountain, ABC), you've come to the right place!
Center: Ben Wallace, Pistons vs. Nazr Mohammed, Spurs
Wallace might be the league's top defender, winning his third Defensive Player of the Year award this season and leading the Pistons in both blocks and steals. It's said he's an improved offensive player, but he still scores primarily on tips and wide-open dunks. "Big Ben" is horrific from the foul line, connecting on 42.8% this season. Also, his brother has taken on NBA players and can probably beat up Mohammed's brother.
Mohammed has been a good fit for the Spurs since being traded from the Knicks. It appears Isiah Thomas may have finally made his first mistake as general manager in New York, as Mohammed has started every Spurs' playoff game, averaging 8.1 points to go with a solid seven rebounds a night. He's serviceable in the low post, but the Pistons have a bevy of solid interior defenders who will neutralize his contributions. He's a starter in the sense that he's on the floor for tip-off, but Mohammed's average playing time, even in the postseason, is less than half of the game (23.1 minutes per night).
Edge: Pistons
Power Forward: Rasheed Wallace, Pistons vs. Tim Duncan, Spurs
'Sheed might not break technical records every year anymore, but he's more than capable of a hissy fit any time he's whistled for a violation. That said, he's one of the league's most versatile players, as he's capable of both low-post defense and offense out to the three-point line (a decent .348 from beyond the arc in the postseason).
Duncan is simply the best power forward of all-time, capable of dominating a game with his rebounding alone (even with Ben Wallace on the floor, Duncan might be the best board-man in the series). It's easy to stop Duncan from scoring-he's generally too disciplined a player to shoot when double-teamed. Unfortunately for opponents, he's more than willing to tear defenses apart with his passing. He doesn't rack up a lot of assists, but his passes often lead to another player's assist pass. His foul shooting can be a weakness, but so far he's hit on 73% of his playoff attempts. Despite injuries, he's upped his scoring to 24.9 points per game in the playoffs.
Edge: Spurs
Small Forward: Tayshaun Prince, Pistons vs. Bruce Bowen, Spurs
Prince is an outstanding perimeter defender who's skinny enough to stand out even among basketball players. He's solid offensively and will, occasionally, create his own opportunities from anywhere on the floor (.413 from three in the playoffs, up significantly from the regular season).
Bowen is a ferocious defensive player himself. He's a deadly spot-up shooter, but that's it. In the playoffs, Bowen is connecting on 42.1% of his three pointers and a church league-like 27.5% inside the arc. (That's not a misprint.)
Advantage: Pistons
Shooting Guard: Richard Hamilton, Pistons vs. The Amazing Manu Ginobili!, Spurs
Easily the best matchup of the series, but expect the small forwards to take on defensive responsibilities if either of these players gets hot.
Hamilton garnered a rep as the league's best-conditioned player in last year's playoffs, as though there's some way to determine this. He is averaging just under five minutes of rest a night in the postseason and is known best for his off-the-ball movement and mid-range shooting. He's seen as more one-dimensional than Ginobili, though this perception may be innaccurate. Has raised his playoff scoring numbers to 21.3 points per game on 48.1% shooting (from 18.7 and 44% in the regular season), but also contributes nearly five assists and four rebounds.
Ginobili has enjoyed a breakout season and has posted even better offensive numbers than Hamilton in this year's playoffs, scoring 21.8 per and connecting on an impressive 51 percent from the field. He has more range than Hamilton and is a legit three-point threat, but is most dangerous when he puts the ball on the floor and drives. Draws a ton of fouls and has taken nine free throws per game in the playoffs. Has taken over for Vlade Divac as reigning king of European flop artists. Oh, wait, I guess Argentina's not in Europe, whatever.
This is really close, and I hate when it's called "Edge: Even". I love Rip, but Ginobili is at the very top of his game.
Advantage: Spurs
Point Guard: Chauncey Billups, Pistons vs. Tony Parker, Spurs
Neither is what you'd call a prototypical point guard, yet each has led his team to a championship, showing how important that is.
Billups is the defending Finals MVP and can stick the deadly three-pointer. He's an assassin from the foul stripe. Will make the occasional poor decision, but then, so will Parker. Billups has more strength, but Parker has quickness and can get to the lane for a runner at just about any time. Both are just short of being called stars, but Billups' ceiling is probably a little bit higher.
Advantage: Pistons
Bench
Detroit has used a very short bench in the playoffs, as only Antonio McDyess (noted talent waste) and Lindsey Hunter (who, years ago, used to hit the three) have appeared in every game. Detroit does have the league's most infamous bench player in Darko Milicic, the Human Victory Cigar. The Pistons' starters seem to handle the heavy load just fine, but foul trouble could become a factor.
San Antonio gets big minutes from Robert Horry and Brent Barry, both of whom compliment Duncan's inside dominace with deadly outside shooting. Horry can contribute defensively as well. Beno Udrih spells Parker for about a quarter per game, but he's not exactly a difference-maker. I suppose Glenn Robinson could, theoretically, make a difference at some point, but that's as likely as Isiah Thomas making another mistake.
Advantage: Spurs
Coaching: Larry Brown, Detroit vs. Gregg Popovich, Spurs
Brown is a coaching legend who specialized in rebuilding jobs but finally broke through and won a championship last season. Popovich is by far the league's most underrated coach and has won two titles in his nine years as an NBA head coach. Obviously, Tim Duncan had a lot to do with that, but I'm not really sure how to evaluate coaching separately from roster talent anyway, so I'll go against the grain and give Pop some dap, too.
Advantage: Spurs
Outlook: The Spurs won four of my seven categories so I guess the easy thing to do would be to give them the series in seven. As much love as the Pistons deserve as defending champions, though, I don't see them presenting quite that big of a challenge to San Antonio. Spurs in six.
Center: Ben Wallace, Pistons vs. Nazr Mohammed, Spurs
Wallace might be the league's top defender, winning his third Defensive Player of the Year award this season and leading the Pistons in both blocks and steals. It's said he's an improved offensive player, but he still scores primarily on tips and wide-open dunks. "Big Ben" is horrific from the foul line, connecting on 42.8% this season. Also, his brother has taken on NBA players and can probably beat up Mohammed's brother.
Mohammed has been a good fit for the Spurs since being traded from the Knicks. It appears Isiah Thomas may have finally made his first mistake as general manager in New York, as Mohammed has started every Spurs' playoff game, averaging 8.1 points to go with a solid seven rebounds a night. He's serviceable in the low post, but the Pistons have a bevy of solid interior defenders who will neutralize his contributions. He's a starter in the sense that he's on the floor for tip-off, but Mohammed's average playing time, even in the postseason, is less than half of the game (23.1 minutes per night).
Edge: Pistons
Power Forward: Rasheed Wallace, Pistons vs. Tim Duncan, Spurs
'Sheed might not break technical records every year anymore, but he's more than capable of a hissy fit any time he's whistled for a violation. That said, he's one of the league's most versatile players, as he's capable of both low-post defense and offense out to the three-point line (a decent .348 from beyond the arc in the postseason).
Duncan is simply the best power forward of all-time, capable of dominating a game with his rebounding alone (even with Ben Wallace on the floor, Duncan might be the best board-man in the series). It's easy to stop Duncan from scoring-he's generally too disciplined a player to shoot when double-teamed. Unfortunately for opponents, he's more than willing to tear defenses apart with his passing. He doesn't rack up a lot of assists, but his passes often lead to another player's assist pass. His foul shooting can be a weakness, but so far he's hit on 73% of his playoff attempts. Despite injuries, he's upped his scoring to 24.9 points per game in the playoffs.
Edge: Spurs
Small Forward: Tayshaun Prince, Pistons vs. Bruce Bowen, Spurs
Prince is an outstanding perimeter defender who's skinny enough to stand out even among basketball players. He's solid offensively and will, occasionally, create his own opportunities from anywhere on the floor (.413 from three in the playoffs, up significantly from the regular season).
Bowen is a ferocious defensive player himself. He's a deadly spot-up shooter, but that's it. In the playoffs, Bowen is connecting on 42.1% of his three pointers and a church league-like 27.5% inside the arc. (That's not a misprint.)
Advantage: Pistons
Shooting Guard: Richard Hamilton, Pistons vs. The Amazing Manu Ginobili!, Spurs
Easily the best matchup of the series, but expect the small forwards to take on defensive responsibilities if either of these players gets hot.
Hamilton garnered a rep as the league's best-conditioned player in last year's playoffs, as though there's some way to determine this. He is averaging just under five minutes of rest a night in the postseason and is known best for his off-the-ball movement and mid-range shooting. He's seen as more one-dimensional than Ginobili, though this perception may be innaccurate. Has raised his playoff scoring numbers to 21.3 points per game on 48.1% shooting (from 18.7 and 44% in the regular season), but also contributes nearly five assists and four rebounds.
Ginobili has enjoyed a breakout season and has posted even better offensive numbers than Hamilton in this year's playoffs, scoring 21.8 per and connecting on an impressive 51 percent from the field. He has more range than Hamilton and is a legit three-point threat, but is most dangerous when he puts the ball on the floor and drives. Draws a ton of fouls and has taken nine free throws per game in the playoffs. Has taken over for Vlade Divac as reigning king of European flop artists. Oh, wait, I guess Argentina's not in Europe, whatever.
This is really close, and I hate when it's called "Edge: Even". I love Rip, but Ginobili is at the very top of his game.
Advantage: Spurs
Point Guard: Chauncey Billups, Pistons vs. Tony Parker, Spurs
Neither is what you'd call a prototypical point guard, yet each has led his team to a championship, showing how important that is.
Billups is the defending Finals MVP and can stick the deadly three-pointer. He's an assassin from the foul stripe. Will make the occasional poor decision, but then, so will Parker. Billups has more strength, but Parker has quickness and can get to the lane for a runner at just about any time. Both are just short of being called stars, but Billups' ceiling is probably a little bit higher.
Advantage: Pistons
Bench
Detroit has used a very short bench in the playoffs, as only Antonio McDyess (noted talent waste) and Lindsey Hunter (who, years ago, used to hit the three) have appeared in every game. Detroit does have the league's most infamous bench player in Darko Milicic, the Human Victory Cigar. The Pistons' starters seem to handle the heavy load just fine, but foul trouble could become a factor.
San Antonio gets big minutes from Robert Horry and Brent Barry, both of whom compliment Duncan's inside dominace with deadly outside shooting. Horry can contribute defensively as well. Beno Udrih spells Parker for about a quarter per game, but he's not exactly a difference-maker. I suppose Glenn Robinson could, theoretically, make a difference at some point, but that's as likely as Isiah Thomas making another mistake.
Advantage: Spurs
Coaching: Larry Brown, Detroit vs. Gregg Popovich, Spurs
Brown is a coaching legend who specialized in rebuilding jobs but finally broke through and won a championship last season. Popovich is by far the league's most underrated coach and has won two titles in his nine years as an NBA head coach. Obviously, Tim Duncan had a lot to do with that, but I'm not really sure how to evaluate coaching separately from roster talent anyway, so I'll go against the grain and give Pop some dap, too.
Advantage: Spurs
Outlook: The Spurs won four of my seven categories so I guess the easy thing to do would be to give them the series in seven. As much love as the Pistons deserve as defending champions, though, I don't see them presenting quite that big of a challenge to San Antonio. Spurs in six.
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
It's An Art to Live With Pain
Longtime Denver Nuggets fans were not shaken by last night's turn of events; indeed, a seasoned observer could have called the game's turning point as it happened.
The Pistons and Heat were locked in a not-quite-epic struggle for supremacy of the East and the proverbial ticket to the NBA Finals when Nuggets history came into play.
I refer, of course, to former Nugget Antonio McDyess, now of the Pistons, and his anti-clutch abilities.
Over a one-minute stretch in the fourth quarter McDyess contributed two missed buckets and a turnover as the Heat lead rose to 73-68. Predictably, he also managed a knee injury scare in that time.
At 7:39 left in the quarter Ben Wallace came in for McDyess with the Heat lead still at five. From then on the absence of McDyess was key, as the Pistons closed out the game with a 20-9 run for the win.
Of course, I've oversimplified. Hawks fans are probably saying the same thing about the four seconds Steve Smith spent on the floor.
The game came down to balance, which the Pistons have, and the Heat, last night at least, didn't.
Neither team got a particularly special contribution from its bench. But Shaquille O'Neal and Dwyane Wade combined for more than half of the Heat's shot attempts, while the Pistons starters each had between nine and sixteen tries. And they were nearly all good attempts, save for an unconscionable late three from the pride of Colorado, Chauncey Billups.
That's not to say that the Heat are, in general, too reliant on Wade and Shaq. Injuries were obviously a factor. If Richard Hamilton and Big Ben had been hampered with similar pain, the Pistons would have been in just as much trouble.
Shaq had an effective game, with 27 points and nine rebounds. He's capable of rebounding better but, under the circumstances, he did fine. And he hit half of his free throws (three of six). I think we're all way past sick of hearing about his free throw troubles, but I look at it this way: in his career, Shaq has attempted more than nine thousand free throws in the regular season alone. Nine thousand. Shouldn't he be a lot better just from the practice he's had during games?
Dwyane Wade wasn't great, and wasn't awful, though he was probably more bad than good considering what the Heat expect from him. He did have a stellar third quarter, hitting five shots in a row to lift Miami back into the game.
Naturally, this prompted the astute Steve Kerr to share the beautiful, "I don't know what it is, but whatever it is, he's got it," with us. I don't know a more meaningless cliche, but whatever it is, I haven't heard it. I can think of a lot of things "it" could be that are easily expressed in a few words: passion, competitiveness, talent, clutch ability. You would have to tweak the wording, though. ("I don't know what talent is, but whatever talent is, he's got talent.")
Despite the Clinton-esque mystery of "it", it wasn't kicking in for Wade down the stretch. He missed a few shots and committed an offensive foul as the Pistons took over. He was taking pretty solid shots, just not making them.
And the Willis Reed comparisons are pretty ridiculous, too. I know it's required to mention Reed whenever an NBA star is injured but plays anyway in a big game, but the situations couldn't have been less alike. Wade made a bigger contribution than Reed in the last game of the 1970 Finals (Reed hit two early baskets and never scored again), and Wade's injury was far less severe (Reed's thigh muscle was torn off the bone, for heaven's sake).
I love the Willis Reed game, if only because the real hero was Walt Frazier (36 points, 19 assists), who became the only New York athlete in history to have a big postseason game and not end up the center of attention for decades to come. (Has anyone ever heard about that World Series game when Reggie Jackson hit three home runs? Gather 'round, children...)
A final broadcasting highlight came when the boys showed a chart of how games one, two, and three in the series had been tied in the fourth quarter before the winning team went on a run to finish the game. And the talking heads talked about how important it was to take control. I might not have been a math major, but what kind of point is that? You'll find it's a trend in the NBA that whichever team finishes with the higher score generally wins the game. Because, you see, the team that scores more points after a tie is going to have more points for the whole...you know what, never mind.
Anyway, even if I was wrong about the Pistons' season being over, at least I was right about the job status of Larry Brown, whose glasses last night suggested he'd be better suited for travelling through time with Mr. Peabody, not being a distraction.
Congratulations to the Pistons, thanks for messing up my Finals pick, and let's go San Antonio in the next round. (A comprehensive Finals preview is forthcoming.)
(Pugs, I know you might want to hear about the ramifications of Clint Barmes' injury, but what can I say? The guy's really good, the Rockies are really bad, and expect the second of those to continue in his absence. The only good news is that he's not paid much by MLB standards. Which is not to say that the Rockies will go get a good replacement, but if his grocery-hauling story turns out to be like Jeff Kent washing his truck, at least we won't get rid of him.)
The Pistons and Heat were locked in a not-quite-epic struggle for supremacy of the East and the proverbial ticket to the NBA Finals when Nuggets history came into play.
I refer, of course, to former Nugget Antonio McDyess, now of the Pistons, and his anti-clutch abilities.
Over a one-minute stretch in the fourth quarter McDyess contributed two missed buckets and a turnover as the Heat lead rose to 73-68. Predictably, he also managed a knee injury scare in that time.
At 7:39 left in the quarter Ben Wallace came in for McDyess with the Heat lead still at five. From then on the absence of McDyess was key, as the Pistons closed out the game with a 20-9 run for the win.
Of course, I've oversimplified. Hawks fans are probably saying the same thing about the four seconds Steve Smith spent on the floor.
The game came down to balance, which the Pistons have, and the Heat, last night at least, didn't.
Neither team got a particularly special contribution from its bench. But Shaquille O'Neal and Dwyane Wade combined for more than half of the Heat's shot attempts, while the Pistons starters each had between nine and sixteen tries. And they were nearly all good attempts, save for an unconscionable late three from the pride of Colorado, Chauncey Billups.
That's not to say that the Heat are, in general, too reliant on Wade and Shaq. Injuries were obviously a factor. If Richard Hamilton and Big Ben had been hampered with similar pain, the Pistons would have been in just as much trouble.
Shaq had an effective game, with 27 points and nine rebounds. He's capable of rebounding better but, under the circumstances, he did fine. And he hit half of his free throws (three of six). I think we're all way past sick of hearing about his free throw troubles, but I look at it this way: in his career, Shaq has attempted more than nine thousand free throws in the regular season alone. Nine thousand. Shouldn't he be a lot better just from the practice he's had during games?
Dwyane Wade wasn't great, and wasn't awful, though he was probably more bad than good considering what the Heat expect from him. He did have a stellar third quarter, hitting five shots in a row to lift Miami back into the game.
Naturally, this prompted the astute Steve Kerr to share the beautiful, "I don't know what it is, but whatever it is, he's got it," with us. I don't know a more meaningless cliche, but whatever it is, I haven't heard it. I can think of a lot of things "it" could be that are easily expressed in a few words: passion, competitiveness, talent, clutch ability. You would have to tweak the wording, though. ("I don't know what talent is, but whatever talent is, he's got talent.")
Despite the Clinton-esque mystery of "it", it wasn't kicking in for Wade down the stretch. He missed a few shots and committed an offensive foul as the Pistons took over. He was taking pretty solid shots, just not making them.
And the Willis Reed comparisons are pretty ridiculous, too. I know it's required to mention Reed whenever an NBA star is injured but plays anyway in a big game, but the situations couldn't have been less alike. Wade made a bigger contribution than Reed in the last game of the 1970 Finals (Reed hit two early baskets and never scored again), and Wade's injury was far less severe (Reed's thigh muscle was torn off the bone, for heaven's sake).
I love the Willis Reed game, if only because the real hero was Walt Frazier (36 points, 19 assists), who became the only New York athlete in history to have a big postseason game and not end up the center of attention for decades to come. (Has anyone ever heard about that World Series game when Reggie Jackson hit three home runs? Gather 'round, children...)
A final broadcasting highlight came when the boys showed a chart of how games one, two, and three in the series had been tied in the fourth quarter before the winning team went on a run to finish the game. And the talking heads talked about how important it was to take control. I might not have been a math major, but what kind of point is that? You'll find it's a trend in the NBA that whichever team finishes with the higher score generally wins the game. Because, you see, the team that scores more points after a tie is going to have more points for the whole...you know what, never mind.
Anyway, even if I was wrong about the Pistons' season being over, at least I was right about the job status of Larry Brown, whose glasses last night suggested he'd be better suited for travelling through time with Mr. Peabody, not being a distraction.
Congratulations to the Pistons, thanks for messing up my Finals pick, and let's go San Antonio in the next round. (A comprehensive Finals preview is forthcoming.)
(Pugs, I know you might want to hear about the ramifications of Clint Barmes' injury, but what can I say? The guy's really good, the Rockies are really bad, and expect the second of those to continue in his absence. The only good news is that he's not paid much by MLB standards. Which is not to say that the Rockies will go get a good replacement, but if his grocery-hauling story turns out to be like Jeff Kent washing his truck, at least we won't get rid of him.)
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
Staying focused and playing basketball the right way
So today I was planning on laying in to Larry Brown.
Unfortunately, he finally issued a somewhat serious-sounding denial, which is exactly what he should have done days ago. I can't understand why coaches, players, and teams don't just issue flat denials in the media instead of delivering self-righteous lectures. I mean, it's not like Brown has had any issues lying about his career intentions before.
It's almost as if Coach Brown thinks his persuasive skills are so powerful, he can make reporters say to themselves, "By golly, he's right!", re-evaluate their lives, and stop pointing out that he has something of a history in the department of constantly switching jobs.
As a former sports reporter in the loosest sense of the term, I guess it's obvious I take the media's side in this. But it's not like reporters don't do stupid things, too.
Take, for example, this constant talk of distractions. Detroit won last night despite the rumors and speculation about the coach's future, which must have taken incredible focus and mental toughness.
Or, put it another way, how big of a distraction can this really be? You're telling me if you thought you might be getting a new boss (I've never worked for Larry Brown, but I don't think anyone considers him a player's coach), that would be so devastating on you that you couldn't do your job?
Don't most people hate their bosses?
Even if the possibility of the coach leaving is some kind of motivator to perform poorly, it's not like the players don't have a lot of reasons to play well, too. As in millions of reasons.
And maybe a little bit of turmoil is a good thing for an athlete in a physical competition. The Pistons wouldn't be the first team to play better angry.
I don't see Chauncey Billups at the free throw line obsessing about what he's going to do if his beloved coach moves to Cleveland, you know?
(The second, unasked question being: why would Larry Brown want to work in Cleveland? I can think of a lot better places from a basketball standpoint like, say, Detroit (LeBron or no LeBron). And do you want a boss who sounds like an infomercial?)
The storyline so often gets in the way of any actual study of cause and effect. Of course, if the Pistons lose and Brown ends up leaving, then the players must have been distracted, not that Miami being a superior team was a factor. Sort of like how the return of Joe Johnson saved the Suns in the fourth game of their near-sweep, convieniently ignoring the fact that he was back in game three as well. (I mean, Johnson might be good, but he's not so good that he'll save the series for Phoenix.)
Speaking of distractions, I'm just ready for some football! If the Broncos make a particularly stupid or unusually wise signing or cut today (today being important for salary cap reasons), then rest assured you'll read about it here.
Unfortunately, he finally issued a somewhat serious-sounding denial, which is exactly what he should have done days ago. I can't understand why coaches, players, and teams don't just issue flat denials in the media instead of delivering self-righteous lectures. I mean, it's not like Brown has had any issues lying about his career intentions before.
It's almost as if Coach Brown thinks his persuasive skills are so powerful, he can make reporters say to themselves, "By golly, he's right!", re-evaluate their lives, and stop pointing out that he has something of a history in the department of constantly switching jobs.
As a former sports reporter in the loosest sense of the term, I guess it's obvious I take the media's side in this. But it's not like reporters don't do stupid things, too.
Take, for example, this constant talk of distractions. Detroit won last night despite the rumors and speculation about the coach's future, which must have taken incredible focus and mental toughness.
Or, put it another way, how big of a distraction can this really be? You're telling me if you thought you might be getting a new boss (I've never worked for Larry Brown, but I don't think anyone considers him a player's coach), that would be so devastating on you that you couldn't do your job?
Don't most people hate their bosses?
Even if the possibility of the coach leaving is some kind of motivator to perform poorly, it's not like the players don't have a lot of reasons to play well, too. As in millions of reasons.
And maybe a little bit of turmoil is a good thing for an athlete in a physical competition. The Pistons wouldn't be the first team to play better angry.
I don't see Chauncey Billups at the free throw line obsessing about what he's going to do if his beloved coach moves to Cleveland, you know?
(The second, unasked question being: why would Larry Brown want to work in Cleveland? I can think of a lot better places from a basketball standpoint like, say, Detroit (LeBron or no LeBron). And do you want a boss who sounds like an infomercial?)
The storyline so often gets in the way of any actual study of cause and effect. Of course, if the Pistons lose and Brown ends up leaving, then the players must have been distracted, not that Miami being a superior team was a factor. Sort of like how the return of Joe Johnson saved the Suns in the fourth game of their near-sweep, convieniently ignoring the fact that he was back in game three as well. (I mean, Johnson might be good, but he's not so good that he'll save the series for Phoenix.)
Speaking of distractions, I'm just ready for some football! If the Broncos make a particularly stupid or unusually wise signing or cut today (today being important for salary cap reasons), then rest assured you'll read about it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)