With the exception of the Bulls-Celtics series, the rest of the '09 NBA Playoffs have been completely unwatchable (and even the Bulls-Celtics is a tough sell with the TV networks highlighting every Garnett F-bomb). The Hornets lost to Denver 121-63 a few days ago. Brutal. Just go ahead and call me when LeBron and Kobe meet in the finals. Until then, here is an amusing Playoff entry from SI's Scott Howard-Cooper.
It's foolish to put too much stock in one quote after one game, especially a game with the emotions of a season-ending defeat, but just try disregarding the Jerry Sloan assessment of Utah reserve point guard Ronnie Price in the televised news conference Monday.
[But that would be foolish!]
"I've never seen a guy play that hard in my life in that situation," the Jazz coach said.
[OK.]
It's Sloan, the most anti-hyperbole guy in the NBA and possibly the world, so: Wow.
[The most anti-hyperbole guy in THE WORLD.
Anti-hyperbole.
The World.
Wow is right.]
Showing posts with label nba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nba. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Losing breeds... winning?
Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel "explains" how Tracy McGrady's selfishness paved the way for Magic's future success.
And, to think, all these years I've been erroneously blaming Me-Mac for essentially quitting during the 2003-04 season when the Magic lost 19 consecutive games at one joyless juncture and finished the season with an NBA-worst 21-61 record.
[What does "essentially" quitting mean? Who cares-- attacking a guy's character here with vagaries here!]
Without the Magic's disastrous difficulties of five seasons ago, they would likely still be in a state of utter disrepair.
[hgjhmujkmjghu7yikknm3asctnh5hnq
Let me try to wrap my mind around this one: If the Magic weren't terrible five years ago, then they would probably STILL be terrible now..... even though (under this logical gem) they *weren't* terrible five years ago?]
Let's be honest, shall we? Without Dwight on the team, the Magic would today be the Bobcats, who took Emeka Okafor with the No. 2 pick in that 2004 draft. Actually, they might be worse than the Bobcats.
[Great point. If not for event X occuring, team A *might* be different.]
If McGrady had been a real leader who refused to give up in 2004 instead of the team captain who abandoned ship and sat out the final 10 games of that season with one of his mysterious ailments, the Magic might be the Grizzlies right now.
[Did I already mention that Bianchi thinks that McGrady is a total pansy? I mean, who gets injured or sick anyways?? Sounds bogus to me too....]
The San Antonio Spurs, coincidentally, were 21-61 the year before Tim Duncan arrived and have won four championships in the years since. Could the Magic conceivably be on a similar path? What better person to ask than....
[...Tim Duncan? The Spurs GM?]
...Magic reserve point guard Tyronn Lue, who was shipped to Houston along with McGrady after the calamitous 2004 season but now is back in Orlando.
[Or him. Done!]
And, to think, all these years I've been erroneously blaming Me-Mac for essentially quitting during the 2003-04 season when the Magic lost 19 consecutive games at one joyless juncture and finished the season with an NBA-worst 21-61 record.
[What does "essentially" quitting mean? Who cares-- attacking a guy's character here with vagaries here!]
Without the Magic's disastrous difficulties of five seasons ago, they would likely still be in a state of utter disrepair.
[hgjhmujkmjghu7yikknm3asctnh5hnq
Let me try to wrap my mind around this one: If the Magic weren't terrible five years ago, then they would probably STILL be terrible now..... even though (under this logical gem) they *weren't* terrible five years ago?]
Let's be honest, shall we? Without Dwight on the team, the Magic would today be the Bobcats, who took Emeka Okafor with the No. 2 pick in that 2004 draft. Actually, they might be worse than the Bobcats.
[Great point. If not for event X occuring, team A *might* be different.]
If McGrady had been a real leader who refused to give up in 2004 instead of the team captain who abandoned ship and sat out the final 10 games of that season with one of his mysterious ailments, the Magic might be the Grizzlies right now.
[Did I already mention that Bianchi thinks that McGrady is a total pansy? I mean, who gets injured or sick anyways?? Sounds bogus to me too....]
The San Antonio Spurs, coincidentally, were 21-61 the year before Tim Duncan arrived and have won four championships in the years since. Could the Magic conceivably be on a similar path? What better person to ask than....
[...Tim Duncan? The Spurs GM?]
...Magic reserve point guard Tyronn Lue, who was shipped to Houston along with McGrady after the calamitous 2004 season but now is back in Orlando.
[Or him. Done!]
Thursday, April 2, 2009
LeBron and Arbitrary Statistical Benchmarks
Big fan of Michael Wilbon here, but his piece on LeBron's chances at averaging a triple-double was fail-tastic.
We see all-court brilliance like this every 25 years or so, when a player is extraordinary in basketball's primary skills: scoring, rebounding and passing. Only Oscar Robertson, in 1962, has averaged double digits in those three categories over an entire season.
[OK.]
It has been such an unreachable mark, like hitting .400 for an entire season or scoring 100 points in a single game, that it's now presumed to be unthinkable that a player would average a triple-double over a full NBA season.
[Except that every other NBA columnist is writing "LeBron! Triple-Double!" articles now. Makes it seem at least kind of thinkable, right? Oh, and also, what makes an impossibility (which none of the noted achievements are, by the way) an unreachable mark versus *such* an unreachable mark? Infinity plus one!]
Robertson, who isn't one to throw a lot of phony praise at today's players, said of James: "I am definitely impressed with LeBron. . . . [He's] so gifted in his abilities. He doesn't even know, yet, all of what he can do."
[For example, last week it was reported that LeBron realized that he was fluent in Mandarin. Neat.]
There are those who think LeBron could, if he decided it was a priority.
[Great point. Accumulating as many points, rebounds and assists as possible would be a stupid top priority, especially when LeBron has that cool baby powder entrance to focus on each game. I'm sure that LeBron actively decides to limit the number of points, rebounds and assists he gets each game. It just makes sense. Think about it.]
Even if LeBron wanted to go after the season-long triple-double it might be out of his reach because what Robertson did is the pre-steroid statistical equivalent of hitting .350, with 55 home runs and 160 runs batted in.
[???? This is turning into some kind of sportswriting Madlibs. Oooh! I want to try one:
...what Robertson did is the (arbitrary sports era) pre-forward pass statistical equivalent of (your favorite number) 20 points in a single game.
Fun.]
He knows it's going to be difficult, but Robertson repeated that he believes LeBron has a chance.
[What is he supposed to say? "You know, Mike, actually..., not a huge LeBron fan here. Seems a little flash-in-the-pan-y for me. I bet he levels off big time."]
That such a discussion even exists and that one of the five best all-around players in history has an open mind about LeBron doing it is one of the best arguments for him being MVP this season....
[This statement makes the BBWAA seem like Dr. Gregory House. Let me see if I got it. One of the "best" arguments for LeBron being named the 2008-09 MVP is that *one* retired player mentioned to a reporter that LeBron has a "chance" at having an historic statistical season... at some point in the future?
Sold. Start etching that plaque now!]
We see all-court brilliance like this every 25 years or so, when a player is extraordinary in basketball's primary skills: scoring, rebounding and passing. Only Oscar Robertson, in 1962, has averaged double digits in those three categories over an entire season.
[OK.]
It has been such an unreachable mark, like hitting .400 for an entire season or scoring 100 points in a single game, that it's now presumed to be unthinkable that a player would average a triple-double over a full NBA season.
[Except that every other NBA columnist is writing "LeBron! Triple-Double!" articles now. Makes it seem at least kind of thinkable, right? Oh, and also, what makes an impossibility (which none of the noted achievements are, by the way) an unreachable mark versus *such* an unreachable mark? Infinity plus one!]
Robertson, who isn't one to throw a lot of phony praise at today's players, said of James: "I am definitely impressed with LeBron. . . . [He's] so gifted in his abilities. He doesn't even know, yet, all of what he can do."
[For example, last week it was reported that LeBron realized that he was fluent in Mandarin. Neat.]
There are those who think LeBron could, if he decided it was a priority.
[Great point. Accumulating as many points, rebounds and assists as possible would be a stupid top priority, especially when LeBron has that cool baby powder entrance to focus on each game. I'm sure that LeBron actively decides to limit the number of points, rebounds and assists he gets each game. It just makes sense. Think about it.]
Even if LeBron wanted to go after the season-long triple-double it might be out of his reach because what Robertson did is the pre-steroid statistical equivalent of hitting .350, with 55 home runs and 160 runs batted in.
[???? This is turning into some kind of sportswriting Madlibs. Oooh! I want to try one:
...what Robertson did is the (arbitrary sports era) pre-forward pass statistical equivalent of (your favorite number) 20 points in a single game.
Fun.]
He knows it's going to be difficult, but Robertson repeated that he believes LeBron has a chance.
[What is he supposed to say? "You know, Mike, actually..., not a huge LeBron fan here. Seems a little flash-in-the-pan-y for me. I bet he levels off big time."]
That such a discussion even exists and that one of the five best all-around players in history has an open mind about LeBron doing it is one of the best arguments for him being MVP this season....
[This statement makes the BBWAA seem like Dr. Gregory House. Let me see if I got it. One of the "best" arguments for LeBron being named the 2008-09 MVP is that *one* retired player mentioned to a reporter that LeBron has a "chance" at having an historic statistical season... at some point in the future?
Sold. Start etching that plaque now!]
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Note to NBA Players: C'mon, guys! Team owners are *only* billionaires! Let's be flexible here.
Interesting piece in the NY Times this week where Howard Beck discusses the NBA's future with super-agent David Falk. Hat-tip to The Guy Who Knows Things for passing this along. (And a finger-wag to Nils for going into witness protection.)
The N.B.A.’s system is broken, Falk says, and fixing it will require radical measures that almost guarantee a standoff in 2011, when the collective bargaining agreement expires.
[But LeBron can still be on the Knicks, right? In any event, I'm assuming that "radical measures" implies compromise on multiple fronts.]
Falk said he believed Stern, the commissioner, would push for a hard salary cap, shorter contracts, a higher age limit on incoming players, elimination of the midlevel cap exception and an overall reduction in the players’ percentage of revenue.
[Aaaaaand I would assume incorrectly.]
“The owners have the economic wherewithal to shut the thing down for two years, whatever it takes, to get a system that will work long term,” he said in an extensive interview to discuss his new book. “The players do not have the economic wherewithal to sit out one year.”
[*Two* years? Wouldn't a lot of NBA guys just go play overseas (where a lot of them are already wildly popular)? Although, this is assuming that the Euro leagues still have money.]
The players, he said, must recognize that the owners have the ultimate leverage. Many are billionaires for whom owning an N.B.A. team is merely a pricey hobby.
[Ugh.]
Unlike most of his peers, and the union leadership, Falk is an advocate of the age limit, which Stern won during collective bargaining negotiations in 2005. Falk said the limit, now 19 years old, should be raised to 20 or 21.
[That sounds totally impractical from a player representation standpoint.]
His reasons are purely practical.
[(shaking head)]
The influx of underclassmen to the N.B.A. has eroded fan familiarity and the quality of play, Falk said. An age limit will create more polished and prepared rookies, while the N.C.A.A. provides free advertising for future N.B.A. stars.
[Oh, ok. So that last sentence should have actually read that his reasons are purely practical FOR OWNERS. From a player's perspective, I am almost positive that "Making (potentially) millions of dollars" > "Providing free advertising for your future employer."]
Changes to the salary cap and the age limit sound like sacrifices from the player’s side.
[I would certainly see it that way.]
Falk does not see it that way.
[This is still super-agent David Falk, right? That is, super-agent to NBA players, right? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!]
“The only logical way over the next 25 years that players are going to make more money is to grow the pie,” Falk said.
[Yep. Take note, Kobe. If you want to be more richly compensated two decades from now, you are going to have to make some concessions in the present day. Wait, what's that, Kobe? You say that won't be playing in the NBA 20 years from now? Well why not? You'll be in your mid-50s? Hmmmm. Hey, what's that over there!?! (scurries away)]
It seems to me that current players aren't likely to benefit (outside of potentially avoiding a work stoppage) from making the kinds of concessions noted herein by Falk. But you know who will? Well, owners, obviously. But also...... agents like David Falk who will still be representing NBA players 25 years from now, albeit new and different players. Clever, right?
The N.B.A.’s system is broken, Falk says, and fixing it will require radical measures that almost guarantee a standoff in 2011, when the collective bargaining agreement expires.
[But LeBron can still be on the Knicks, right? In any event, I'm assuming that "radical measures" implies compromise on multiple fronts.]
Falk said he believed Stern, the commissioner, would push for a hard salary cap, shorter contracts, a higher age limit on incoming players, elimination of the midlevel cap exception and an overall reduction in the players’ percentage of revenue.
[Aaaaaand I would assume incorrectly.]
“The owners have the economic wherewithal to shut the thing down for two years, whatever it takes, to get a system that will work long term,” he said in an extensive interview to discuss his new book. “The players do not have the economic wherewithal to sit out one year.”
[*Two* years? Wouldn't a lot of NBA guys just go play overseas (where a lot of them are already wildly popular)? Although, this is assuming that the Euro leagues still have money.]
The players, he said, must recognize that the owners have the ultimate leverage. Many are billionaires for whom owning an N.B.A. team is merely a pricey hobby.
[Ugh.]
Unlike most of his peers, and the union leadership, Falk is an advocate of the age limit, which Stern won during collective bargaining negotiations in 2005. Falk said the limit, now 19 years old, should be raised to 20 or 21.
[That sounds totally impractical from a player representation standpoint.]
His reasons are purely practical.
[(shaking head)]
The influx of underclassmen to the N.B.A. has eroded fan familiarity and the quality of play, Falk said. An age limit will create more polished and prepared rookies, while the N.C.A.A. provides free advertising for future N.B.A. stars.
[Oh, ok. So that last sentence should have actually read that his reasons are purely practical FOR OWNERS. From a player's perspective, I am almost positive that "Making (potentially) millions of dollars" > "Providing free advertising for your future employer."]
Changes to the salary cap and the age limit sound like sacrifices from the player’s side.
[I would certainly see it that way.]
Falk does not see it that way.
[This is still super-agent David Falk, right? That is, super-agent to NBA players, right? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!]
“The only logical way over the next 25 years that players are going to make more money is to grow the pie,” Falk said.
[Yep. Take note, Kobe. If you want to be more richly compensated two decades from now, you are going to have to make some concessions in the present day. Wait, what's that, Kobe? You say that won't be playing in the NBA 20 years from now? Well why not? You'll be in your mid-50s? Hmmmm. Hey, what's that over there!?! (scurries away)]
It seems to me that current players aren't likely to benefit (outside of potentially avoiding a work stoppage) from making the kinds of concessions noted herein by Falk. But you know who will? Well, owners, obviously. But also...... agents like David Falk who will still be representing NBA players 25 years from now, albeit new and different players. Clever, right?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Wishful thinking!
Brian Windhorst of the Cleveland Plain Dealer thinks that even after a 52-point, triple-double performance at MSG, Knick fans are SOOOO over LeBron.
Like most of the Northeast, the country's largest city is in a veritable midwinter deep freeze these days. For now, apparently, so is the unfolding LeBron James 2010 drama.
[Is he serious? He can't be serious, right?]
After getting peppered about his future during the Cavaliers' previous visit in November, James enjoyed a more subdued trip to Madison Square Garden on Wednesday.
[Did Windhorst miss the part where LBJ was the first person since *1975* to score 50+ and register a triple-double in the same game? Definitely a more subdued trip.]
Even the questions from reporters during James' pregame media session focused on his recent play and the Cavs' All-Star snubs.
[Like that time he went for 52, 11 and 10? Yeah, I'd probably ask about that too.]
Like most of the Northeast, the country's largest city is in a veritable midwinter deep freeze these days. For now, apparently, so is the unfolding LeBron James 2010 drama.
[Is he serious? He can't be serious, right?]
After getting peppered about his future during the Cavaliers' previous visit in November, James enjoyed a more subdued trip to Madison Square Garden on Wednesday.
[Did Windhorst miss the part where LBJ was the first person since *1975* to score 50+ and register a triple-double in the same game? Definitely a more subdued trip.]
Even the questions from reporters during James' pregame media session focused on his recent play and the Cavs' All-Star snubs.
[Like that time he went for 52, 11 and 10? Yeah, I'd probably ask about that too.]
Friday, December 19, 2008
Judging Championship Potential with Ian Thomsen
Headlined “The Simplest Way I Can Tell To Judge Championship Potential,” you would be forgiven for assuming that this article by Ian Thomsen would include a heavy dose of number of actual games won tempered by a nod to strength of schedule and consideration of the team’s injury situation. You would be forgiven because, well, that way of judging championship potential actually makes sense.
Instead, we get this:
In honor of the extended holiday, here is an extended look at the simplest way I know to gauge NBA championship potential. Search the roster of any team for an MVP-level talent with the leadership and drive of Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon or (to cite the newest example) Kevin Garnett.
Tell the Minnesota Timberwolves that KG was all that was needed to be a championship contender. Or the Detroit Pistons that you need a singular MVP-level talent. Wait? What’s that? You reference the Pistons in your next sentence?
Well more than half of the NBA teams are absent this kind of star, which means you can essentially write them off as championship contenders (unless they are the Detroit Pistons of a few years ago, as you'll see below).
I can see that this method of evaluation is not going to be so simple after all.
In fact, if you bother to read the article because you are, like me, desperately interested in learning a simple way to determine championship contenders, you get a two-page list of awesome basketball players since the 80s and the following lessons:
2. Awesome players help teams win championships
1. You need luck to get those players on your team
1a. Coaches are less likely than players to earn an NBA championship ring because only one coach gets to win every year compared to a whole team of players
Not only simple, but totally useful for determining who might be in pole position to win this season!
Thank you Mr Thomsen for being totally uninformative in a most uninteresting way and still hitting your editor-mandated word count for the week. You, truly, are among the reasons that traditional media readership has fallen off a cliff.
Instead, we get this:
In honor of the extended holiday, here is an extended look at the simplest way I know to gauge NBA championship potential. Search the roster of any team for an MVP-level talent with the leadership and drive of Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon or (to cite the newest example) Kevin Garnett.
Tell the Minnesota Timberwolves that KG was all that was needed to be a championship contender. Or the Detroit Pistons that you need a singular MVP-level talent. Wait? What’s that? You reference the Pistons in your next sentence?
Well more than half of the NBA teams are absent this kind of star, which means you can essentially write them off as championship contenders (unless they are the Detroit Pistons of a few years ago, as you'll see below).
I can see that this method of evaluation is not going to be so simple after all.
In fact, if you bother to read the article because you are, like me, desperately interested in learning a simple way to determine championship contenders, you get a two-page list of awesome basketball players since the 80s and the following lessons:
2. Awesome players help teams win championships
1. You need luck to get those players on your team
1a. Coaches are less likely than players to earn an NBA championship ring because only one coach gets to win every year compared to a whole team of players
Not only simple, but totally useful for determining who might be in pole position to win this season!
Thank you Mr Thomsen for being totally uninformative in a most uninteresting way and still hitting your editor-mandated word count for the week. You, truly, are among the reasons that traditional media readership has fallen off a cliff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
