Kobe and the NBA

There’s been some interesting NBA news lately. This post is more like news and personal reminiscence. I’d like to start with Kobe Bryant’s vanishing trade demand to get it out of the way.

Bryant asked for a trade from the Lakers, but changed his mind after speaking with Phil Jackson. End of story, I guess, but I have two thoughts. One, where would Kobe have gone? He obviously doesn’t want to play for a middle-of-the-road team anymore, but if he’d gone to an already-great squad, he’d have to share the spotlight. I seem to remember his having a problem with that before once. If he went to, say, the Dallas Mavericks or Phoenix Suns, he’d end up taking a backseat to Dirk or Steve Nash in some ways.

Don’t get me wrong. Kobe’s substantially better at basketball than either of those guys. But think how Carmelo is still presented as the face of the Nuggets franchise, even after Allen Iverson joined the team. It’s not even necessarily that Bryant wouldn’t get the ball in crunch time-both of those teams would be insane not to force-feed him-but just that he’d have to share the glory. Could Kobe handle it? Um, what do you think?

Second, Kobe’s trade demand supposedly stemmed from a comment by a “Lakers insider” that Bryant had forced Shaquille O’Neal out of town. Why did that set Kobe off? I have no idea if the accusation is true-I always assumed it was, but don’t have / don’t remember any evidence that it is. But people have been saying that for years. Why the fuss now?

* * *

I’ve been following the NBA since the 1996-97 season (Kobe’s rookie year). For the fourth time in those eleven years, the San Antonio Spurs have made the NBA Finals. Congratulations to them.

That first year I watched, the Chicago Bulls went 69-13, tying for the second-best record ever. (This, after setting the all-time best mark the year before.) It was obvious from opening night they were going to win the championship. Of course they did, beating the Utah Jazz in six games.

The next year, the Chicago Bulls went 62-20, tying the Jazz for the season’s best mark. Though the Jazz had the homecourt edge (I think because they’d won the season series), the Bulls, of course, won the championship again in six games, capped by Michael Jordan’s amazing final minute in the last game. (I can still remember it: Stockton hits a three to put the Jazz up three, Jordan hits a lay-up, Jordan steals the ball from a careless mail delivery boy, then sinks the winning jumper to clinch the title.) I’m not going to lie, I was an all-out Bulls bandwagon fanboy, and I’ve never regretted it. They were just the most awesome force I’ve ever seen.

Anyway, those were about as suspense-less as two seasons could ever possibly be in any sport. There was no doubt the Bulls were going to win. Sure, some idiots doubted, and it usually did come down to some dramatic and memorable plays, but the Bulls always won. Deep down, I was looking forward to Jordan’s retirement, because I wanted to live in a world where other teams had a shot.

The lesson: be careful what you wish for. This regular season was as wide-open as they ever come. The Mavericks, Suns, and Spurs all looked like serious contenders, and perhaps the Detroit Pistons still do. Yet these playoffs are Bor-ing. I didn’t watch a minute of the Spurs-Jazz Western Conference Finals.

Back in the day, I watched the Bulls every single chance I got, even staying up the night before I took the ACT to do so. But the games just aren’t as compelling anymore.

Why do you think that is, and what does the NBA need to be huge again? Another dominant, charismatic player like Jordan? (If so, keep dreaming.) More great teams? Open season on all floppers? Am I completely wrong, and the league’s just fine? Or is the NBA in an irreversible decline?

Not that odd

I don't care.

About what? I don't care that the Boston Celtics didn't get the No. 1 pick in the NBA draft. It's the top story on ESPN.com right now-no, not that Portland did get the draft pick, and that its team and fanbase could be set for a decade. No, the big story is that the Celtics didn't win.

Not to turn into that guy, but how is that news?

The whole front-page billing is just an intro to Bill Simmons' article about the Celtics not winning the draft lottery. (At least I think that's what it's about. Haven't read it.) Hey, that's fine. That's the sort of thing the Sports Guy writes about, and he's more interesting than the straight news most of the time. And I understand that ESPN.com's top story section has to link to something. But there's really no reason to feel sorry for the Celtics.

According to ESPN.com itself, the Celtics only had a 19.9% chance of winning the top pick anyway. What were their chances of grabbing one of the top two? I don't freakin' know, but it's still less than fifty percent. (Um, I think.) In other words, the Boston Celtics probably weren't going to get Greg Oden or Kevin Durant. And believe it or not, the probable thing actually came to pass. That's the whole point of the lottery: to randomly reward some weak teams and punish others. No, that's not it-it's to discourage tanking, and the Celtics would be wise to remember that.

Of all teams, the Celtics should have learned this lesson already. Who can forget the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth coming from Boston after the 1997 draft lottery? The prize that year was Tim Duncan, who lived up to billing as a franchise cornerstone. (Duncan's only been the best player since Michael Jordan left the Bulls. He's MJ's true successor as greatest champion in the league, though Shaq was even more dominant for a brief stretch. (Turns out big men still are the key to basketball-Jordan didn't revolutionize the game in that particular sense, he was just that great. But that's a story for a different day.)) Remember? The Celtics had the best chance to land Duncan, who instead went to San Antonio, which was rewarded for not rushing center David Robinson back from injury.

In an article I actually did read yesterday, Simmons whined about the Celtics not getting Duncan so long ago. Well, the Celtics had a 27.51% chance of winning the lottery that year. Yes, that's a better chance than any other team had. But, you see, that means they had a 72.49% chance of not winning the top pick. Even though the Celtics had the best odds of any one team, all the other teams combined had a better chance than the Celtics. That might seem obvious to you, but some people don't get it.

Simmons also argued that the Celtics somehow deserved to win in his pre-draft article, even though he mentioned in there that Boston once won sixteen championships in a thirty-year stretch. (That includes eleven of thirteen during Bill Russell's career.) In other words, if you didn't know, the Celtics were the Yankees of the NBA for three decades...but to like the tenth power. More than half of a league's championships in thirty years? That's just insane. I can't imagine living through even part of that stretch as a fan...and then thinking I somehow deserved more. He knows there are thirty teams in the league, right, and that one title in three decades might be fair? He also claimed that Boston's been through a lot, but I think it only feels like that because the Celtics are such a high-profile team. Or am I supposed to believe Rick Pitino really was so much worse than, say, Bernie Bickerstaff?

The only argument a Celtics fan can make is that the lottery fails to reward the truly crappy squads who, in a sport like football, would have received a high pick based purely on record. Why does the NBA do it differently? Because its season is way too long, and they don't want a team to tank for thirty games. In other words, the NBA is trying to protect the fanbase by giving teams a reason to actually try. Good for them.

Simmons, whose writing I usually like, openly rooted for the Celtics to lose this year. I don't think I could do that for one of my favorite teams. I've been upset enough not to care much one way or the other, but I've never outright wanted them to lose. (The lone possible exception is if a late-season loss would mean a more favorable playoff matchup.) I think it would be jacked to want your team to lose, though I can't quite articulate why. Sounds to me like the Celtics and their fans got what they deserved.

Suns-Spurs suspensions

By now, you've surely seen Robert Horry's knockdown of Steve Nash the other night. If not, you can watch it next to this ESPN article about the suspensions.

Yesterday the NBA announced that Horry has been suspended for Games 5 and 6 of the Spurs' series with the Suns. Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Suns were both suspended for one game (Game 5) for leaving the bench area during the scuffle that followed Horry's hit.
I don't like this.

First, suspensions during the playoffs just suck. I don't want the Suns to win at all, but I definitely don't want them to win because of an Horry suspension. I do want the Spurs to win, but not because Amare Stoudemire wasn't allowed to play.

Second, the suspensions affect the Suns a lot worse than they affect the Spurs, especially considering the seriousness of the offenses. Now, I do think Stoudemire and Diaw should have been suspended. Even I know you can't leave the bench when something like that is going on, and I'm not even in the NBA. It's the rule. It's a really dumb rule, and it's an outdated reactionary rule, but at least it's clear and, unlike perhaps the Tuck Rule, something you should expect players to know. If the two Suns hadn't been suspended, that would have been clear preferential treatment, which is something the NBA would never do during the playoffs (rolling my eyes).

Third, I think the suspension of Horry might be too harsh on its own, though by some standards it isn't. The first time I saw the hit, I was like, wow, that was brutal. But you watch it again and it's clear that Nash is twirling his arms and legs for no reason. The hit was uncalled for and unnecessary, but there's a lot of that in postseason basketball. It's not usually in the open court, but it happens.

It's just hard to compare suspensions because the NBA has gone so wacky lately. Think about Carmelo's punch earlier this season that cost him fifteen games. Was that seven and a half times worse than Horry's hit? Of course not. From a basketball standpoint, it wasn't even as bad as Horry's hit. I mean, Nash was a lot more likely to get hurt from flying through the air and landing on an ankle wrong or something than Mardy Collins was from a fallaway punch in the face. (I think avoiding injury/player safety should be the league's biggest concern in these situations.) But Carmelo's hit looked a lot worse, and the league responds more to the image than the actual play. That does make some sense, considering how many people saw the highlights but not the actual game.

Of course, regular season games aren't equivalent to playoff games. In a vacuum, I probably wouldn't have suspended Horry at all, though it would have been unfair to bench two Suns and no Spurs for that play. The good news for the Spurs is that Horry will back for a potential Game 7, where he will probably hit a series-winning three.

It's sort of a fine line for the NBA. They don't want fighting, or at least they don't want to give non-fans an excuse to brand all players as thugs, and yet they know conflict and competition are what sells. It's funny because I'm probably more interested in the series now that suspensions have been handed out, but the game tonight will probably be much worse than it would have been if Stoudemire and Diaw were playing. If I watch, and the Spurs win big in a snoozer, do I really want to keep watching? Probably not. And that's too bad for the league, because this could be the last good series of the playoffs.

NBA playoffs (or, HPS lives)

Oh, yeah, I have a blog. What's happened in the last week and a half? (Aside from the obvious.)

1. When I said the Spurs were the best team in the West, I used some statistics, but one expression would have summed it up more quickly:

Tim Duncan > Steve Nash > Dirk Nowinzki

Duncan's a proven winner and probably the best player ever at his position. He's got two MVPs and won three Finals MVPs as the key to three championship teams. Basically, to me, he's beyond reproach.

Nash has never played in the Finals, but he has won two MVP awards. He didn't deserve either one, but it's an honor just to be nominated. Nash puzzles me because he's so wildly overrated (no defense and no rebounding, and before you say he's a point guard just remember that Jason Kidd, the best NBA point before Nash, routinely notched impressive numbers in the category), yet it's obvious he makes a huge difference to his current team. He's MVP-like in the sense that losing him would be so damaging to his team, though I've always thought that was a dumb reason to call someone MVP. (I'm more of a best player in the league kind of guy, regardless of whether his front office has a good contingency plan.) Anyway, he always plays his guts out, even if the nose thing the other night was pretty disgusting.

Nowinzki, on the other hand, played like garbage in this year's playoffs. It's true that he had a good game or two and was terrific until the Finals last year. I'm not saying he's bad at basketball or anything. I'm just pointing out that great players make a positive impact in almost all of their team's playoff games, and Nowinzki still doesn't quite do that. Unlike truly great players, he can be schemed against, which makes him the Shaun Alexander to Duncan's LaDainian Tomlinson.

2. So yes, the Mavericks got a nightmare matchup in the first round and lost. Pretty historic upset, though the Mavericks weren't as good as you'd expect a 67-win team to be. Good for the Warriors and good for Don Nelson, who I never really would have thought of rooting for otherwise.

3. Now the Warriors are playing the Jazz. For a spot in the Western Conference Finals. That sort of blows my mind, though I don't think either team has a prayer against San Antonio or Phoenix. Clearly the NBA needs some kind of reactionary change to how the playoffs progress. (Not really.) Hey, here's a question now that we're on the Jazz: who's better, John Stockton in his prime or Steve Nash now?

4. If I hadn't just checked, I could not have told you the matchups in the Eastern Conference. Pistons-Bulls and Nets-Cavs. Yay. How about that? (I would say Suns-Spurs right now is the real NBA Finals, if I hadn't just gotten burned on that Patriots-Chargers Super Bowl. But seriously, can this play out any other way?)