My Two Common Cents

UFC on Fox 2

2012-01-30T18:45:00.000-08:00

The UFC’s second event on Fox was not a good showing. Here’s why (in order of occurrence):

Jon Jones- Jon Jones is charismatic, so I expected him to do a good job as an analyst. Unfortunately, he did not. The way he was sitting back in his chair and constantly looking down at his notes seemed half-assed. Maybe he was nervous or not fully prepared, but he didn’t speak with authority when he was talking. He didn’t come across like an expert on the fighters. In fact, I thought he was so bad that he dragged down Randy Couture. And I think it takes a lot to bring down the usually awesome Couture.

Demian Maia- Opening the broadcast with a Demian Maia fight was a poor choice, because his fights are bi-polar. He's either really entertaining or he's excruciating. When he fights on the ground, he’s great to watch. When he fights standing up, he’s awful. Because of that, he should never be the first fight on a card. Ever. In fact, I’d prefer that he no longer fight on main cards at all. That way if he has a fight contested on the feet, the world will have been spared of not witnessing a boring decision with some of the sloppiest stand-up around. And if he has a fight contested on the ground, then it will probably be short enough to be added to the broadcast and the world will get to see his brilliance. Unfortunately, the former happened. Just without the sparing part.

Matchmaking/Lack of hype- The fights on the main card of a broadcast should fall into one of two categories: likely to be exciting or high stakes. The fights on this card were supposed to be the latter. So while the Bisping-Sonnen and Rashad-Davis fights didn’t deliver the greatest action, you can’t fault the UFC. They chose high stakes fights over likely to be entertaining. What you can fault UFC for was the lack of hype around the conclusion of the fights. The hype for the Sonnen-Silva rematch paled in comparison to what happened after Sonnen tore through Brian Stann. His post-fight speech wasn’t as good and not having Anderson Silva there made it far less exciting. I don’t think that was an effective sell for the rematch. Maybe there was a reason Silva couldn’t be there, but they didn’t have that excuse with Jones and Rashad. How do you have Jon Jones in the building and not bring him into the cage after the main event? The best way to take the spotlight off of the lack of action in the cage is to shift the focus to the results and what it means going forward. They didn’t really do that. The event didn’t leave you saying “those fights were awesome” or “I can’t wait to see Sonnen-Silva II and Rashad vs. Jones”. We didn’t get to see awesome fights, nor the proper hype for awesome fights to come. So for that, I think this event was disappointing.

Now while there were mistakes made on this broadcast, I still think the biggest mistake the UFC has made thus far is not airing Guida-Henderson on their first broadcast. That was a huge misstep. It was the perfect introduction fight for casual viewers. Think of how much favor the UFC would have built up with that fight. How much more forgiving would the casual fan be of boring fights, if they had seen that fight? Instead, they've been subjected to four fights that haven't delivered. Instead of the UFC putting their best foot forward, man have they struggled out of the gate (at least quality of the fights wise).

For future broadcasts, they need to do a better job of making entertaining matchups or driving home the importance of the fights. And please make Curt Menefee, Randy Couture and Kenny Florian the permanent analysts for the broadcasts. No more guest analysts that are there just to hype future fights. If they want to hype a fight, do it in the cage or in an interview ringside. Leave the analysts to be unbiased and analyze.

Hopefully the next broadcast is successful, so the decision to not air Guida-Henderson doesn't continue to haunt the UFC.

UFC on Fox review

2011-11-12T22:05:00.000-08:00

I thought UFC's debut on national television was a success. The production aspects of the show were spectacular. The set looked great and I thought Curt Menefee, Dana White, and Brock Lesnar did a great job with their pre-fight and post-fight commentary. The show had a pretty good flow for only broadcasting one fight. As far as the fight goes, it went almost exactly as the experts predicted. Unfortunately, I thought it was a little disappointing though. With Velasquez being out for over a year and Dos Santos claiming to be less than 100%, neither guy seemed to be at the top of their game. It wasn't terrible, but it was far from what I think they would deliver if they were both 100%. On a normal night, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But I think the fighters being less than 100% was exacerbated by the fact that it was the only fight on the broadcast. If the show had been a half-hour longer, allowing the Guida-Henderson fight to be air on television, I think the show would've felt much stronger. It's one thing for the fight to not deliver the quality expected. It's another for it to happen as the only fight airing on TV.

But that's what happens in unscripted sports. Not every fight delivers every time out. The important thing for the UFC is that they delivered on the things they could control. The production was great, they crowned a new heavyweight champion, and they promoted their next two big heavyweight fights (Lesnar-Overeem and the winner taking on JDS). Which is why I consider the show a success, in spite of the fight not being as good as it would be under different circumstances. I look forward to the day Velasquez and Dos Santos cross paths again and I look forward to many more UFC broadcasts on Fox.

Velasquez the underdog?

2011-11-12T17:06:00.000-08:00

I was reading Sherdog’s “Pros Pick” article for tonight’s heavyweight title fight between Cain Velasquez and Junior Dos Santos and I was surprised to see that 12 experts picked Dos Santos to win, while only 4 picked Velasquez. I wonder why they favor Dos Santos so much. He didn’t finish Roy Nelson or Shane Carwin, what makes them think he’ll finish Velasquez? Do they think he has a weak chin? If memory serves, he did get a little rocked in his fight with Cheick Kongo, but he seems to have a pretty good chin. Besides, Carwin got a little rocked in his fight with Gonzaga and he wasn’t finished by JDS.

Or is it because Cain hasn’t fought in over a year? Are they banking on Cain having ring rust? Because if Cain’s cardio is close to normal, and Dos Santos can’t finish him before the championship rounds, then this fight is Cain’s to lose. Basically, Dos Santos has to do what he couldn't do to Carwin or Nelson or he's in big trouble. I’m not saying JDS doesn’t have a shot, but I’m surprised he’s the favorite. Regardless, these guys are the two best heavyweights in the world and it doesn’t matter to me who wins. Should be an excellent fight. It's about time the UFC debuts on national television!

NFL ramblings

2011-09-17T17:05:00.000-07:00

Vernon Davis' fantasy value:

I was listening to a fantasy football podcast from ESPN and a remark was made about not being that high on Vernon Davis because he has Alex Smith throwing to him. In the last two years, Davis has put up 1,879 yards and 20 TDs. And who was his quarterback for 20 of those 32 games? Oh that’s right, Alex Smith. Then again, Alex is entering his seventh year in the league. You’re usually a worse quarterback in your seventh year than in your fifth or sixth, right? Especially if you’ve replaced the worst head coach in the league, who knew nothing about offense, with an offensive minded coach. And if you’ve added another weapon on offense, in the form of Braylon Edwards, that opposing defenses have to account for. But yeah, this year Alex is really going to have a negative effect on Vernon.

Arizona's preseason ranking:

Most preseason rankings had the Arizona Cardinals finishing in second place in the NFC West. Unless Kevin Kolb is the second coming of Kurt Warner (which I’m going to guess he’s not), how do they foresee that happening? Since Arizona last won the division, they’ve lost Warner, Anquan Boldin, Antrel Rolle, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Karlos Dansby, Tim Hightower and Steve Breaston. They’ve added Kevin Kolb, Kerry Rhodes, Joey Porter, and Patrick Peterson. Kolb, Rhodes and Porter are downgrades from Warner, Rolle, and Dansby and Peterson’s just a rookie. Now, I’m not saying it’s impossible that Arizona finishes in second. But if you’re just looking at their team on paper, how on earth do you project them to do well? Their roster looks seriously downgraded from their previous playoff teams. And while they beat Carolina, they also gave up almost 500 yards to them. Anything can happen, but I just don’t get why people think Kevin Kolb makes up for all the other roster changes.

Peyton Manning's value:

I was listening to Mike & Mike last week and they talked about what kind of effect that Manning being out for the year would have on the Colts. They mentioned that it would have a more drastic effect on the team than the one Brady had when he missed the whole year. That parlayed into saying that Manning is more valuable than Brady. The problem I have with using this scenario as a comparison between Manning and Brady is that it’s not really about them. It’s about their back-ups. The man who stepped in for Brady that year was Matt Cassel. The man who will step in for Manning is Kerry Collins. One, it turns out, is a starting caliber quarterback who had been in the system for three years prior. The other is a just-retired player who has been in the system for three weeks. You don’t use the drop-off from Manning to Collins or Curtis Painter with Brady’s drop-off to Cassel to compare Manning and Brady's value to each other. That isn’t a commendation of Manning. It’s an indictment of his back-up. The true value of Manning and Brady should be done by comparing Manning and Brady. Not by comparing how the Patriots do with Cassel versus how the Colts do with Collins/Painter. Saying Manning is more valuable because his back-up is of less quality is meaningless. The Colts are worse off than the Patriots because they have a worse back-up quarterback. Not because they have a better starting quarterback.

Manning's injury may be Luck-y:

With news that Peyton Manning had a third neck surgery, people have suggested he just shut it down for the year. Not only would that be the best thing for him, but it could benefit the team long-term if it put them in a position to draft Andrew Luck. I hope that doesn’t happen. Since they’ve had Peyton, they’ve put no time into developing a backup quarterback. If that backfires on them while Peyton’s out, they deserve that. You can’t put all your eggs in one basket and not expect disaster when that basket breaks. But if that were to land them the best QB prospect out there, because it happened to be the year Luck was coming out, that would just be ridiculous. The best QB in the draft should go to the team that needs it in the near future. A team with a starting quarterback of Manning’s caliber should have to develop a quarterback that could eventually take over. Just like the Patriots did with Cassel and are doing with Mallet while they still have Brady, what the Packers did with Rodgers while they had Favre, and even what the Eagles did with Kolb while they had McNabb. Not have one fall in their lap while their star quarterback is injured.

Record-breaking Week 1:

On a positive football related note, the NFL had a very strong opening weekend. Not just in quality, but record breaking as well. Rodgers and Brees set a record for each having 300+ yards and 3 TDs with no interceptions during the same game on opening weekend. Ted Ginn Jr. became the first player to return a kickoff and a punt for a touchdown in the first game of the year. Cam Newton threw for 400+ yards, the most by a rookie in his first game. Sebastian Janikowski tied the NFL record with a 63-yard field goal. Dallas lost for the first time in history when leading by 14+ points in the 4^th quarter, bringing their overall record to 241-1-1. Brady threw for 500+ yards, which is a team record. There's definitely worse ways to kick off a new season than with half a dozen historic happenings. Should be a good year.

NFL Predictions

2011-09-06T15:29:00.000-07:00

For fun, I thought I'd make some predictions about the NFL season. Here are my guesses on who will make the playoffs, who will advance to the Super Bowl, and who will win MVP.

Playoff Teams:
I think the AFC playoff teams are the easiest to predict, as it will look pretty similar to last year, with the Patriots, Steelers, Jets, and Ravens all returning. The only differences I see are the Chargers and Texans replacing the Chiefs and Colts. With Marcus McNeill and Vincent Jackson not holding out this year and the possibility that Ryan Mathews stays healthy, the Chargers offense could be even more explosive than last year. And the defense should stay solid, if not improve, with the additions of Takeo Spikes, Travis LaBoy, and Bob Sanders. I think the Texans have a couple things going for them. One is that Peyton Manning may miss a couple games (or more), presumably removing the Colts from their usual playoff spot. The other is that their defense should be improved, with the signing of Johnathan Joseph and the hiring of Wade Phillips as defensive coordinator. With the regression of the Colts and the strengthening of their defense, Houston should walkaway with the division.

Like the AFC, I see four NFC teams returning to the playoffs from last year: the Falcons, Eagles, Packers, and Saints. The most obvious newcomer to the playoffs this year should be the Rams. The Seahawks QB situation appears to be abysmal. The Niners have a new coaching staff. The Cardinals have upgraded the QB position. However, they're now without Hightower, Breaston, Rodgers-Cromartie, and Joey Porter's a year older. I think the worst case scenario for the Rams is that they end up tied with the Niners going into their week 17 match-up. And since that game is in St. Louis, it's safe to assume that they advance to playoffs even in their worst case scenario.

The final NFC playoff team is trickier to predict. I think Chicago and Tampa probably take a step back, I think the Lions are probably a year away from the playoffs and the Giants look decimated by injuries. Contrary to most people's opinion, I actually think the Vikings have a shot. They no longer have drama surrounding the head coach and I think McNabb is an upgrade over Favre. He had a decent season in Washington, which he should be able to outperform that with the likes of Peterson, Harvin, Schiancoe and Jenkins surrounding him. The question for the Vikings is whether or not their defense will slip, with the subtractions of Pat Williams and Ray Edwards. The other candidate to make the playoffs is the Cowboys. Their offense should improve, if Romo can stay healthy. And while I don't trust their defense, it's not like there's much room to regress. I think the Vikings will be better than people think, but Dallas has an easier schedule (and probably even division, at this point). So I'm going with the Cowboys to make the playoffs.

Super Bowl picks:
I think the Rams and Ravens are long shots and I don't think the Cowboys or Texans will have good enough defenses to make it to the Super Bowl. That leaves the Packers, Steelers, Eagles, Falcons, Saints, Patriots, Jets, and Chargers. Most teams don't make it to the Super Bowl two years in a row, so it would be tough to pick the Packers or Steelers. The Eagles are the most talented team in the league. In a normal year, they'd be a near lock to make the Super Bowl. But with limited time to jell, it's hard to pick them. The Falcons are a very good team. They would probably be my favorite to win the NFC, if it weren't for the Saints. Not only are the Saints a very good team, but they're two years removed from the Super Bowl (so no hangover) and they have the most continuity and stability in the league. Which, following a lockout, historically bodes well for not only a Super Bowl appearance, but a win as well. Who do the Saints play? I think it comes down to the Patriots, the Jets, and the darkhorse Chargers. The Patriots are supremely talented, but their last two playoff appearances have been shaky. The Jets have been to the AFC Championship game two years in a row, but they're starting to feel like the team that gets really close without ever getting over the hump. Therefore, I'll pick the Chargers to make a surprise Super Bowl appearance. I might as well pick an underdog, since the Saints seem like the safest pick in football. Regardless of who comes out of the AFC, I think the Saints will win the Super Bowl.

Final rankings for Super Bowl Favorites: Saints, Falcons, Eagles, Packers, Cowboys, Rams for the NFC and Chargers, Patriots, Jets, Steelers, Texans, and Ravens for the AFC.

MVP:
I sort of feel like it's Michael Vick's award to lose. But while that may give him a head start, I think it also leaves little room for error. So I'm guessing that it comes down to Philip Rivers or Matt Schaub. Both could have monster years. Will Schaub benefit from the narrative of taking his team from third place to first place? Or will he suffer from the possible narrative that it took a Peyton Manning neck injury for the Texans to make the playoffs? I went into this thinking it would be the former, and that I'd pick Schaub, but I'm going to guess that Manning's storyline will compete for attention with Schaub's production. So I'm going with Philip Rivers to be the MVP.

No matter how right or wrong my predictions end up, it should be an exciting year of football.

Contract Disputes: Loyalty or Business?

2011-08-30T18:48:00.000-07:00

Due to a labor dispute, it's been awhile since I've posted anything. That's right, I was holding out for more money. Okay that's not true, but it seems to be a common occurrence these days in the world of sports. Following a lockout filled summer (one big contract dispute), there's been individual contract disputes with some players. Probably the most publicized contract dispute, currently going on in the NFL, is Chris Johnson's. Personally, I've never been a fan of contract disputes. I think my perception of them has always been that they only happen out of greed. These guys make millions of dollars. Why do they need to holdout for more money?

But then there's the current situation with Frank Gore. He wants a contract extension before the start of the season. Instead of viewing a potential contract extension as a reward for being one of the best RBs in franchise history, I've read comments from fans saying it that would be a bad business decision. Since he's not likely to produce at a high level for more than two years, they feel that the Niners should just let him walk at the end of the year. It's just business.

Just business? Those fans may say it's just business now, but what if Gore had a contract dispute three or four years ago? Would it have been just business then as well? Last year, Vincent Jackson's holdout lasted long into the season. Was that just business? Or what if Chris Johnson's holdout leads to him missing games this year? Would that be considered just business? Or is it just business because Gore is on the back end of his career?

It seems like fans have contradictory opinions on contract disputes. If a player is in their prime, people may question their loyalty to the team or think they're greedy. But if a player is past their prime, then it's just business. In reality, contract negotiations either involve loyalty or they don't. It's irrelevant where a player is at in their career.

Now this isn't to say that loyalty should trump business entirely. Teams shouldn't hand out ridiculous contracts just to keep a player. But if someone looks at the Gore situation and the idea of loyalty doesn't enter the conversation, then it shouldn't when Chris Johnson or any other players holds out for money. If you expect the players to show loyalty to their teams, then you should expect the teams to reciprocate that loyalty. But if you don't get mad when teams treat the players in a business manner, then you can't get mad when the players do the same. You either expect loyalty or you don't. You either view it as "just business" or you don't.

But you can't expect the owners to treat the players like a business and expect loyalty in return.

Greater Yankee: Jeter or Rivera?

2011-07-06T14:33:00.000-07:00

A couple months ago, ESPN New York put together a list of the "50 Greatest Yankees". What caught my eye was the rankings of Jeter and Rivera. Jeter was ranked 7th and Rivera was ranked 5th. Rivera over Jeter? That struck me as odd. How can a guy who plays a fraction of games be greater than a guy who plays full games on a regular basis? Jeter has played 2,358 games in pinstripes. Rivera has played in 1,183 innings. Jeter's played twice as many games as Rivera's played innings. Not only does Jeter play more, but he also contributes on both sides of the ball. He's won five gold gloves and his career BA is .312. Jeter's four hits away from being the first Yankee to have 3,000 hits and he's fifteen away from being in the top 25 of all-time.

The case for Rivera is that he's the greatest closer of all-time. While that's certainly true, closers aren't as valuable as they're perceived to be. According to Joe Posnanski, teams haven't been more successful with the modern idea of a closer than they were before. He writes, "Teams held 95.5% of their ninth-inning leads in 2010. Teams held 95.5% of their ninth-inning leads in 1952." That's not to say Rivera doesn't make a difference. Since he joined the Yankees, they have held a lead "97.3% of the time when they lead going into the ninth inning." So he does make a difference, but how much of a difference? If 97.3 is probably the best (or close to it), and 95.5 is the average, that would mean the worst team holds the lead about 93.7 percent of the time. It's definitely a difference, but is it really enough of a difference to say he's greater than Jeter?

I would say no. One guy brings value to the offense and defense for the entire game. The other guy brings value to the defense for one, maybe two, innings. The difference in value is evident in their Wins Above Replacement, with Jeter having 70 and Rivera having 54.4. This isn't to say that Rivera isn't one of the best Yankees of all-time. I just don't see how he can be greater than an all-time great that plays day in and day out. Would you rather have a HOF shortstop and an All-Star closer or a All-Star shortshop and a HOF closer? I'd choose the former.

I'd rather have greatness everyday than greatness occasionally.

NBA: Looking Forward

2011-07-03T19:06:00.000-07:00

After a fantastic season, the NBA now finds itself in an unfortunate situation: a lockout. I'm not going to discuss the specifics of the lockout (there's plenty of articles around that can do that). All I'll say is that it needs to be resolved before the start of the season and the league needs more revenue sharing. I'm not just saying it needs to be resolved before the start of the season because I want to watch basketball. It needs to be resolved before the start of the season because if the league cancels games next year, they could very well undercut all the momentum they built this past season. And it would be a shame for the league to take a huge hit while it's rising in popularity. As far as revenue sharing goes, I think the league needs more of it because a well-managed small market team shouldn't have less financial flexibility than a big market team that's horribly managed. The current system basically punishes small market teams that do too well at drafting and assembling teams. Oklahoma City should be able to afford keeping Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden etc. at their market value. The same goes for Memphis. As a basketball fan, I would love to see Memphis be able to keep Randolph, Gasol, Gay, Mayo, Conley, Allen, Arthur, Vazquez and Battier. That's a championship caliber team that should be able to remain intact. If the Lakers or Knicks would be able to afford keeping that team together, then Memphis should be able to as well. Bigger payroll flexibility should be the result of quality draft picks and good management, not market size. Personally, I'd prefer if the teams with the highest payrolls were the teams that were built organically (like Memphis and OKC).

Another big thing that could make the NBA even more enjoyable next season is less foul calls. After the horrendous flopping by Wade in LeBron in the third and fourth game of the Finals (which I previously wrote about), the refs refrained from blowing their whistle on every hint of contact during the final two games. Somewhat surprisingly, the games were noticeably better when the refs let them play. I wasn't surprised that the games were better with less foul calls, I was surprised by how much better they were. It made a huge difference in the quality and flow of the game. Now I understand the league's desire to keep things in control and civilized on the court, but that doesn't mean the refs need to blow their whistle on every smidgen of contact. If the league cracked down on flopping and the refs weren't so whistle happy, the quality of the games would improve tenfold.

In addition to the practical things listed above, I also have a wish list of players I'd like to see moved around that I think would make the league better. But before listing those, I'd like to address some trades that did happen before the lockout.

J.J. Hickson to Sacramento- This was a surprising trade. I assumed that Cleveland didn't draft Derrick Williams because of they already had Hickson, then they go and trade him for Omri Casspi. I'm not really sure why Cleveland made this trade, but it could be a really big steal for Sacramento. I think Hickson and Cousins could be a really formidable frontcourt duo for years to come.

George Hill to Indiana- I like this move for the Pacers. Hill is a good (presumable) replacement for Ford, not to mention he's younger and cheaper. The main piece given up by Indiana was Kawhi Leonard. Leonard is probably more useful backing up Jefferson than he would be backing up Granger, so I think it was a good trade for both parties.

Rudy Fernandez to Dallas, Andre Miller to Denver, Raymond Felton to Portland- This was a fantastic trade. Fernandez should fit in perfectly with Dallas. He's a good shooter that I think could be very productive in Dallas' offense. Miller is a good pickup for Denver. Instead of having both Lawson and Felton in their primes, they get a veteran who's better suited to be a backup. And Miller should be a good locker room leader as well. Finally, I think Portland gets the best pickup of all with Felton. Portland needed to get younger at the point and Felton is a quality player in his prime. Portland now only has one guy on their roster over the age of 30. I really hope Roy and Oden can stay healthy and contribute next season, because I think that would make Portland a title contender. Felton, Matthews, Wallace, Aldridge, Oden, Mills, Roy, Batum and Camby is a very good rotation.

Now next season is already in position to be really good, but I thought it would be fun to explore some roster moves that I think would make it even better. Some are dream scenarios and some are more practical that I think should happen:

Aaron Brooks to the Lakers- Most people think the Lakers need a big overhaul to return to contention. I think they'll be fine with a longer offseason and a renewed motivation. The one area of their roster that they could address is the point guard position. I think Aaron Brooks would inject some athleticism to the team that's in serious need of it, especially at the point. This is a practical suggestion, but one unlikely to happen with Blake on the roster.

Kevin Love to the Heat- This is the most unlikely scenario of all. Part of me is resistant to Love leaving, because he's a franchise player that's only 22. Minnesota can still build around him; it's not like he's rotting away there yet. But the other part of me is thinking about how perfect Love is for Miami. He's a fantastic rebounder and is the best outlet passer in basketball. He's the perfect player to spark Miami's fast breaks. Also, he doesn't need the ball in his hands, like Bosh does, to be effective on offense. Instead, he's a great 3-pt shooter that would stretch the floor. If Love were to go to Miami, I'd like to see Bosh go to Milwaukee. I think he would form a nice trio with Jennings and Bogut. As much as I wouldn't want to see Love end up in Miami (making them deadly), it would be fascinating to witness such an explosive team.

Kevin Martin to Chicago- Chicago needs a second scorer and Martin would fill that role nicely. Instead of wasting his prime on a team that's rebuilding, it would be better if he were able to contribute to a contender. Since this is unlikely to happen, and might cost the Bulls to give up too much, the more realistic scenario I'd like to see is Marcus Thornton going to Chicago. He's a RFA with the Kings, so Chicago would only have to offer a good amount of money - and not have to part with valuable players - to bring him in. Thornton is starter quality and could be the secondary scorer Chicago is lacking. Maybe Chicago can't win a title with Boozer as its second scorer, but I think they could with him as their third or fourth scorer (behind Rose, Thornton and maybe Deng). I'd rather see Thornton be a starter on the Bulls than to presumably come off the bench behind Evans in Sacramento.

Marcin Gortat to New York- Gortat's a quality center that isn't as valuable to a sliding Suns team as he would be to a rising Knicks team. I think he'd fit nicely with Stoudemire. He would provide good interior defense and wouldn't clash with Amar'e on offense. He'd definitely be an upgrade over Turiaf and I think a Billups-Fields-Anthony-Stoudemire-Gortat starting lineup would actually be able to win a playoff game.

Al Jefferson to Boston- This is the trade I'm least confident in how successful it would be. But I think Jefferson could provide a scoring presence down low that Boston is lacking and, at the very least, would be an upgrade over the geriatric centers they had last year. I'm not sure that Jefferson is Utah's franchise center of the future (especially now that Williams is gone), so I don't think they'd be losing a critical piece. It would also be interesting to see Jefferson return to the team that drafted him.

Chris Paul to Orlando- This one comes with a prerequisite: that Chris Paul will leaving New Orleans. I don't want to steal Paul from the Hornets; but if he's going to leave anyway, I'd like to see him end up in Orlando. Why? Because it gives Howard the All-Star sidekick he needs to win a championship. Paul's a great 3-pt shooter (which is practically a necessity in Orlando's offense) and I think a Paul-Howard pick and roll would be the lethal. I think it would be the best big man-guard combo since Stockton and Malone. Another addition I'd like to see is Grant Hill joining the Magic. He's a good defender and 3-pt shooter, and it would be good to see him return to the team where he missed so much of his career. Paul and Hill would be defensive upgrades over Nelson and Turkoglu. I'd like to Richardson returned, albeit at a cheaper price, because I think a Paul-Richardson-Hill-Anderson-Howard lineup would be championship caliber. And how good would the ECF be with that team against a Chalmers-Wade-LeBron-Love-Anthony lineup? If Orlando's dream scenario and Miami's dream scenario both came to fruition, I think "where amazing happens" would actually be an understatement.

Unfortunately, most of those are unlikely to happen. I wish they would, because I think they would make those teams better without really hurting the teams giving up players (with exception of Minnesota and New Orleans, which is why I'd only do those assuming that the future of those teams with Paul and Love were bleak). And no, I'm not just favoring big market contenders. I didn't suggest anything for small market contenders like Portland, Memphis, or OKC because I think they already have championship caliber teams. The trades I listed above address weaknesses. I don't think Portland, Memphis, or OKC have any (assuming Roy and Oden can stay healthy, Gay doesn't have to be traded, and Durant establishes himself as the leader of his team). If those teams stay the way they are, the league cracked down on flopping, officials called less fouls, the league increased revenue sharing to keep small market teams (like Memphis) in tact, Chicago got a quality shooting guard, Boston and New York got quality centers, the Lakers played motivated, and Dallas re-signed their FAs, the league would be so much better next season.

Whenever that will be.

NBA: Season in review

2011-06-25T19:14:00.000-07:00

What a great year of NBA basketball. It wasn't the same old teams doing well and it wasn't a completely new set of teams on top. There was the perfect mix of established teams and new blood. The Lakers, Spurs, Mavs, Celtics and Magic all won 52+ games and there was the addition of the Heat, Bulls, and Thunder to the top tier. Add in Amare and Carmelo going to the Knicks, Kevin Love's Double-Double streak, and Blake Griffin's endless highlight reel of dunks and there were so many intriguing teams and storylines to follow this year.

The regular season was very entertaining, and that would continue in the playoffs. Here's what I think are the highlights of the first three rounds:

Most Memorable Series Performance: Chris Paul
Chris Paul put on a clinic against the Lakers in the first round of the playoffs. He averaged 22 points, 11.5 assists, 6.7 rebounds, and 1.8 steals per game, while shooting 55% from the field and 47% from beyond the arc. His performance was even more impressive, considering that almost all of his regular season numbers were down across the board after having knee surgery last season (he averaged just 15.8 points and 9.8 assists per game). It was great to see Paul return to form and hopefully he can carry that over to next year.

Honorable Mention: LeBron James. LeBron had a great series against the Bulls in the ECF. He averaged 25.8 points, 7.8 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 2.4 steals and 2 blocks per game. And he did that while guarding the MVP of the league. Through the first two rounds of the playoffs, Rose's averages were 28.8 points, 8.2 assists, and 4.5 rebounds per game while shooting 42% from the field. With LeBron guarding him, he averaged 23.4 points, 6.6 assists, and 4.4 rebounds per game while shooting just 35% from the field.

Most Memorable Game Performance: Brandon Roy
With less than 40 seconds to go in the 3rd quarter, the Blazers trailed Dallas 67-44. To that point, Roy had 3 points and zero assists. Then he took over. He finished the 3rd quarter with an assist to Aldridge and a 3 that bounced in at the buzzer. He followed that up with one of the greatest 4th quarters in playoff history, finishing with a game-high 24 points and a game-high 5 assists. In and of itself, it was an amazing performance. But like Chris Paul, it was made even more amazing considering that Roy was coming off of double knee surgery that caused him to miss almost half the season. Last year, Roy was arguably the third best shooting guard in the league. But after a knee surgery last year during the playoffs and double knee surgery this year (supposedly making his knees now inoperable), it's unknown how long he'll be able to play basketball and how good he'll be able to be.

Now Roy's performance wasn't the best of the first three rounds, that honor would have to go to Dirk's 48 point masterpiece against OKC (12 of 15 from the field and 24 of 24 from the line), but it was the most memorable for me. Part of that is because I unfortunately missed most of Dirk's amazing performance. But the other part of it is the circumstances surrounding Roy's performance. One of the best players in the league has career-threatening injuries and is relegated to the bench, then leads his team on one of the best comebacks in playoff history in front of one of the best crowds in the NBA and then delivers an excellent postgame interview. Words don't do it justice, so just watch this excellent recap of the game. And watch this video (at least the last two minutes) for the raw footage of his performance, to really get a feel for the atmosphere of the game. It's definitely a performance I'll never forget.

Most Memorable Game: Memphis vs. Oklahoma City- Triple OT
I think this is pretty obvious, seeing as it was triple OT. Big shot after big shot. Great crowd in Memphis. Just a fantastic game.

Most Memorable Series: Memphis vs. Oklahoma City
The only playoff series to go seven games. It included the best game of the playoffs, and a team (Memphis) on one of the most memorable playoff runs that I can remember. Most people knew Memphis was better than an eighth seed, so I wasn't shocked to see them beat San Antonio in the first round, but I was pleasantly surprised by how good they actually were. They were very impressive in the postseason and gave the Thunder a run for their money. It was just a great series with two young, energetic teams battling to advance in the playoffs. It had great offense, great defense, hot crowds, and stars in the making (Durant, Randolph, Westbrook, Mayo, Harden, Gasol, Conley). Would anyone complain if this was the WCF in the future? I know I wouldn't.

After a great regular season and a great start to the postseason, is it any wonder that the Finals was one of the best Finals of all-time? Other than going 7 games, could it have gone any better? Game 2 featured one of the greatest comebacks in Finals history and games 3 and 4 were decided by a total of 5 points. You had the most hated team in the league going against a team led by one of the easiest superstars to root for. Dirk Nowitzki is just incredible and so fun to watch. It was awesome to see him finally get a ring, and even better to see it come at the expense of the team that beat him five years ago. There was not a better team for Dirk to beat in the Finals. It was a storybook ending. Dallas got revenge on Miami and proved that it takes more than talent to win a championship.

Side note: It's stupid for anyone (*cough* Dan Le Batard) to say Miami would've won if LeBron just played like LeBron. You can't point that out and ignore that Dallas' second best player never suited up. Or that Brendan Haywood's injury limited him to three minutes total after game 2. Yes, LeBron didn't play up to his ability, but Dallas still won with Cardinal, Stojakovic, and Mahinmi playing instead of Butler and Haywood. Dallas deserved to win.

All in all, it was a fantastic series that was a fitting end to a fantastic season.

*stats provided by http://www.basketball-reference.com/
*Blazers-Mavs recap provided by http://espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=310423022&period=0

Winning Personality? LeBron needs a little Magic.

2011-06-19T11:01:00.000-07:00

At the end of this season, two things happened that has sparked an interesting question: Is there a personality type best suited for winning? The first thing that happened was Shaq's retirement. As Shaq's career came to a close, people talked about all that he had accomplished. But they also questioned whether or not he could have accomplished more. Shaq touched on this in his retirement press conference, when he talked about how he would have scored more points than Wilt if he hadn't missed so many games and so many free throws. This is true. Shaq missed a total of 351 games over his 19-year career (an average of about 18 games per year). If he played in just 100 more games, at his career average of 23 points per game, and shot just 65% from the stripe, he would have finished above Wilt and Jordan. If he would've been more committed to staying healthy and practicing free throws, he would have finished his career 3rd all-time in scoring instead of 7th.

Shaq is one of the funniest, most entertaining guys to ever play basketball (maybe even the most). While that translated to him probably having the best relationship with the media of any player ever, did it hurt his career? Was he too gregarious to maximize his talent? Is someone who's naturally outgoing and fun-loving going to be as hard-working as you need to be to fulfill your potential? It's an interesting question, and one that came up again following LeBron's lackluster Finals performance.

Is LeBron's personality more Shaq than Jordan? If so, is that holding him back from reaching his full potential as a player? I would say so. I think there is truth to fun-loving guys being "underachievers" (in that they could be great players, but not as great as they could have been). Shaq isn't the only example of this. I think Barkley is similar. He has an outgoing personality and is someone who wasn't always in premium shape. Kevin McHale is another one. In The Book of Basketball, Bill Simmons states that Kevin McHale "was the funniest Celtic of all time." He also mentioned that Bird thought McHale underachieved. He writes:

"People always assumed they were friends - you, know the whole 'two big goofy-looking white guys' factor - but they rarely mingled and McHale was the only teammate Bird always avoided praising, partly because of their friendly rivalry, partly because Larry resented the fact that basketball didn't consume McHale like it consumed him. He praised Parish and DJ constantly but never seemed to have a compliment for McHale that wasn't at least a little backhanded. Even after their careers were over, Bird bemoaned the fact that McHale never drove himself to become the best player in the league, saying that his teammate could have become an MVP had he 'really wanted it.'"

There does seem to be some type of connection with personality and fulfilling your potential. Bringing this back to LeBron, should he strive to have as much fun as possible, while looking to achieve success, or should he put all his energy into having as much success as possible? Should he follow in Shaq's footsteps or Jordan's? I think neither. I can think of one guy who balanced both fun and success and, ironically, it's the guy LeBron's most often compared to: Magic Johnson. Magic was exuberant, but I don't think that he feels like he left anything on the table, like Shaq may, and he didn't need to be pathological like Jordan to do it. So I don't think LeBron needs to model himself after Jordan. But if he doesn't want to end up leaving something on the table, he needs to evolve somewhat (like actually learning to play in the post).

LeBron doesn't need to be like Mike to achieve success. He just needs a little Magic.

O'Brien or Oscar?

2011-06-08T19:52:00.000-07:00

Someone needs to tell LeBron and Wade that June is about winning the Larry O'Brien trophy and that the Oscars happened back in February. While flopping and exaggerating fouls has been a growing problem in the NBA for awhile, it has now gotten completely out of hand. Here's an example of Wade's acting ability from game 3. Not to be outdone (like he has been when it actually comes to basketball), LeBron put on his own performance in game 4. At least he's stepped up part of his game from the ECF. He's gone from over-exaggerating to completely fabricating (maybe he got some pointers from Bosh). Awhile ago, I wrote about how Wade and LeBron need a history lesson. The way they flop only reinforces that. You would never see Magic, or Bird, or Jordan flop at all, let alone the way Miami's stars do. LeBron has now entered into the soccer player territory of flopping and it's a disgrace to the game.

If the players don't have enough integrity to respect the game themselves, then the league is going to have to step in. First, I think they should have officials brush up on physics. If a player falls faster and harder than the contact, it's a flop. Unfortunately, while that may help a little, the game is too fast for the refs to make the correct call every time. Therefore, the league is going to have to implement an incentive for the players to not fake getting fouled. What they need to do is review games and fine players. If a player clearly flops, fine him ten or twenty thousand dollars. If that doesn't work, start handing down suspensions. That might sound harsh, but the penalties should be harsh. There's no reason for this crap to continue. If players don't want to lose money, all they have to do is not flop. If they want to flop, they can take the penalty or go play soccer.

I want to watch basketball. If I wanted to watch basketball with acting, I'd watch Coach Carter.

Necessary Danger?

2011-06-01T18:10:00.000-07:00

I wanted to write about the Posey situation right after it happened, but I held back. I held back because I didn't want to write a purely reactive piece. I wanted to let it sink in and think about it rationally. If I was going to say that baseball should make changes, I wanted it to be because I thought it was needed and not because I had just seen Posey get run over a thousand times on TV. So I took some time to take a step back. In that time, I've read opinions saying that baseball should get rid of home plate collisions and I've read opinions saying that it's just a part of the game.

The reasons for why they should take it out have been pretty compelling. Grant Brisbee's article noted that "it's the only element of contact in a non-contact sport. It's like the NFL using Scrabble to decide games that are tied after regulation -- it's the exact opposite of how the rest of the game is played." An article written by Dave Cameron noted, "Major League catchers already endure enough wear and tear on their bodies as is. They break down in their early thirties and have the shortest careers of any position on the field. Why should we also expect them to have to stand in and take hits that no other player on the field has to take? Why do they have to be football players when everyone else gets to play baseball?" That Cameron article also included a hilariously ironic quote from Kevin Millar about the A-Rod interference play from 2004.

As compelling as those reasons are, the reasons for leaving collisions in persuade me just as much that they're not necessary. Basically, because I've yet to really find any good ones. Here are the reasons for why things should stay the same: Because "it's just a part of the game," the catchers wear protective gear, and because scoring a run is on the line. "It's just a part of the game" is the dumbest "reason" there is. That's not a reason. It's just a statement. An observation of how things are is not a justification for why they should stay that way. The catcher wears protective gear? Is that really a valid reason to use, when a catcher has had a season-ending injury - as the result of a collision - for the second year in a row? It sure is protective....just not from serious injuries. Now we come down to the issue of a run being on the line. The problem with this reason is that, technically, a run isn't always on the line. A collision can happen when the catcher has the ball or is fielding the ball. If you're colliding with a guy who he hasn't even secured the ball yet, wouldn't you have most likely scored anyway? And if you're colliding with a guy who has secured the ball, wouldn't you most likely be out anyway? How many times has a guaranteed out been undone by a collision?

The problem with collisions is that they can be done "in case". Plays happen so fast that a runner is not always going to be sure whether or not a collision is necessary to score, so they could end up running over the catcher "in case" they were going to be out. Should we really allow catchers to get run over, because the runner may have been out otherwise? Or when they could be out anyways? A runner should risk a lot of harm for the little chance that it may benefit his team? Is it really necessary to subject a catcher to a collision, where an out could stay an out or a run could stay a run, for the small chance an out could become a run?

Frankly, it seems like most of the arguments for leaving things the same are more of a resistance to change than a resistance to the results that the change would actually have. What would the adverse affect be, if no home plate collisions happened? What would the game lose? If catchers couldn't obstruct the path to the plate and the baserunner was mandated to slide into home (when there's a play at the plate), how different would things actually be? And any change that would happen, would it really be so much so that it negates the benefit of not subjecting the catchers to unnecessary punishment?

Player safety should be more important than this idea that somehow baseball would lose something if home plate collisions never happened. People should stop focusing on the idea that baseball would be changed and focus on how things would actually be different. If they did, I think they'd realize that they're fighting for way less than they think they are. How often is a player at risk of injury during a collision? Always. How often is a collision unequivocally necessary to score? Hardly ever. Why on earth are people supporting such a high risk, low reward play?

The rarity of success that a collision brings should not be more important than the widespread danger it entails. Make baseball safe. Throw collisions out.

Heir to Air?

2011-05-30T20:35:00.000-07:00

Even though I believe Scottie Pippen's remarks were blown out of proportion, they still re-aggravated a longstanding question: Who's the next MJ? Out of every player that has been compared to Jordan, only two are realistically within that realm: Kobe and LeBron. This has led to a seemingly endless discussion of who's better than who. Who's better: Jordan or Kobe? Jordan or LeBron? Kobe or LeBron? The problem with these discussions is that they often blur the lines between past, present, and future. People will use Kobe's legacy as reasoning for why he's better than LeBron currently, or they'll use LeBron's current production as reasoning why he's better than Kobe all-time, or they'll compare Jordan's career to what LeBron may do in the future. Inconsistent parameters lead to a senseless discussion. If you're using what Kobe did in 2006 to say he's better than LeBron in 2011, you're being foolish. Analytical comparisons should stay in the same time frame. Compare currently to currently or all-time to all-time, but don't go randomly between them. With that said, let's sort through the Jordan-Kobe-LeBron debate.

As of right now, how do they compare all-time? I'd rank them Jordan, Kobe, then LeBron. Jordan's clearly number one, for obvious reasons. Kobe's second because he already ranks among the ten greatest players to ever play the game. He has the most compelling "next MJ" case of anyone in the last decade plus. Despite what most people would like to believe, his resume stacks up nicely to Jordan's. It's very similar, but does fall a little short. LeBron is behind Kobe because his accomplishments don't match up. Not just in championships (which I think is a pretty inadequate way of comparing individuals), but also in overall recognition (All-NBA Teams, All-Defensive Teams etc). Kobe's the most skilled player in the world and was the best two-way player in the game for the better part of a decade (at least the best two-way wing player, depending on where Duncan fits in). LeBron's track record just isn't long enough to surpass Kobe, at this point.

How do they rank currently (obviously excluding the retired one)? I'd put LeBron above Kobe. I think Kobe being injured in the postseason makes it feel like there's a bigger gap between them than there may be, but I'd still give the nod to LeBron. One guy is 32 and has played 15 years in the league and the other is 26 and has only played 8 years in the league. One guy's exiting his prime, while other one appears to be reaching his apex. Putting Kobe above LeBron would be like if Jordan had continued playing into Kobe's career and someone said a 37-year old Jordan was better than a 22-year old Kobe. I think people who put Kobe above LeBron in '11, or would've put Jordan above Kobe in '01, are not comparing the current state of both guys. I think they're comparing the track record of the veteran against the prime of the other player. Otherwise I think common sense would dictate that the guy in his prime would have the advantage.

How will they rank in the future? As close as Kobe is to Jordan, I don't think he'll ever pass him. Whether or not the rankings get switched up depends on what LeBron does in the next few years. In theory, LeBron should be able to pass Kobe and Jordan. He's at least as talented as the other two. And when you combine that with his superior physical talents, you'd assume he could pass them. The chink in LeBron's armor appears to be his mentality. The reason Jordan is better than Kobe and LeBron is because he was an assassin, but he also learned to trust his teammates. For the most part, Kobe's too much of an assassin and LeBron's too much of a facilitator. If LeBron had half the competitiveness and ruthlessness of Jordan or Kobe, he would have a legitimate shot at being the best player ever. Kobe eventually learned to trust his teammates. Will LeBron ever learn to play cold-blooded, on a consistent basis? If he does, he'd have a good shot at passing Kobe and challenging Jordan.

The one thing that could prevent that from happening is his decision to team up with Wade. No, not because LeBron couldn't win without help. All the greats need help. Bird had McHale, Magic had Kareem, Jordan had Pippen, Shaq had Kobe, Kobe had Pau etc. The difference is that those tandems had a clear pecking order. As great as their sidekicks were, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq and Kobe were the alpha dogs of championship teams. Elite players should be the alpha dog of their team. Who's the alpha dog of Miami? That's what I think the problem is for LeBron. He didn't get a great sidekick. He got an equal. If he would've teamed up with Bosh, I don't think anyone would've seen that as hurting his legacy. It's that he teamed up with Wade. LeBron should want to prove that he's better than Wade, just like he should want to prove he's better than Kobe, Durant, Carmelo, and Howard.

Him teaming up with an equal seemingly reveals his desire to be the best, or lack thereof. Kobe wanted to be 'the man' so bad that he forcefully ended a dynasty by pushing out Shaq. LeBron doesn't appear to care about whether or not he's 'the man'. And if he doesn't have that, how's he going to be better than Jordan? That's why I think teaming up with Wade could hurt his all-time standing. Because it wasn't just him getting help to win titles, it was him seemingly relinquishing the alpha dog role. For him to rid that perception, I think he'd have to win multiple championships as 'the man'. If he shares the spotlight with Wade, I think it hurts him.

Is LeBron the heir to Jordan? It's not impossible, but he would have to develop an assassin demeanor and be the preeminent player on his team if he wants to catch Air.

Great Scottie!

2011-05-29T00:36:00.000-07:00

"Michael Jordan may be the greatest scorer to ever play the game, but I may go so far as to say LeBron James is the greatest player to ever play the game." Did Scottie Pippen really say LeBron is better than Jordan? Stop the presses....or actually....start the presses! Get the story out ASAP and make sure to blow it way out of proportion!

Scottie Pippen's remark about LeBron sent shock waves through the sports world. Almost immediately, people freaked out. How could he say such a thing? No one's better than Jordan! No one will ever be better than Jordan! People jumped on him so fast that by the time he clarified his statement it was seen as backtracking. The knee-jerk reaction of the media, and the fans, is comical. The second you say something, it becomes your definitive opinion. Any further statement you make on the matter isn't regarded as you explaining the nuances of your opinion, it's regarded as you taking your foot out of your mouth. I wonder how many people that blasted Scottie even heard the full context of the statement, because every article I read only included a 30 to 90 second sound bite or just the quote itself. If you listen to the extended clip, you'll hear that Scottie's statement was in response to Chris Broussard asking, "How good do you think LeBron James can be all-time? Can he challenge Michael for that mythical title?"

The problem was that Chris asked him a two-part question. He asked Scottie if he agreed that Jordan is the greatest of all-time and if LeBron could challenge him. Scottie answered "I think he can," and then elaborated. For some reason, Chris took that to mean that Scottie was answering "no" to the question about Jordan being the best, because he tweeted: "I don't agree with Pippen. MJ is the greatest of all-time. LeBron has chance to be top 10, 5 or higher if he starts winning rings." Did Scottie mean that LeBron is better than Jordan? Well, he clarified what he meant, when he later tweeted: "Don't get me wrong, MJ was and is the greatest. But LeBron could by all means get to his level someday."

I believe the failure in this situation is on the interviewers. Chris asked him a two-part question and, even though Scottie never specifically addressed both questions (and used the words "can" and "may"), he never asked a follow-up question. How do you not ask a follow-up question, after the answer didn't blatantly address both the analytical and hypothetical questions? Especially if you think he answered differently than one would expect? To recap, Scottie included "can" and "may" in an answer to a hypothetical question about a "mythical" title and that morphed into "Scottie thinks LeBron's better than MJ." Unbelievable.

Because no one asked Scottie point blank if LBJ is better than MJ, I'll continue to assume that his answer was indeed aimed at the hypothetical question and that it was just a "rare" occurrence of the media taking a sound bite and blowing it out of proportion

NBA Finals looking good

2011-05-21T14:54:00.000-07:00

We're down to four teams, which means there are four NBA Finals possibilities. The NBA is in good shape, because there's a 75% chance of having an intriguing Finals match-up. What are they?

Chicago vs. Oklahoma City
This series would probably be the most fun. Both of these teams are new and exciting. In a year that included "The Decision" and the "Melo Drama", it was refreshing to see two new teams that were built so fundamentally. They didn't spend the most money to get where they are now. In fact, the Bulls and Thunder have the lowest payrolls of any playoff teams, and actually have two of the lowest payrolls in the league. The only teams with lower payrolls were the T-Wolves, the Clippers, and the Kings (who are all rebuilding). Without spending 100 million dollars, on the likes of LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Stoudemire, Carmelo or Joe Johnson, they were able to find the right type of players to surround their superstars with. And they did a good job, because they're the two deepest teams left in the playoffs (probably even the two deepest teams in the league). Both are loaded with talent and are legitimately 10 deep. It's pretty amazing that both franchises have built such talented teams without breaking the bank. They also happen to be built similarly:

Superstars- Durant and Rose
Secondary Superstars- Westbrook and Boozer
Third scoring option- Harden and Deng
Defender who can score- Ibaka and Noah
Wing defender- Sefolosha and Bogans/Brewer
Interior defender- Perkins and Thomas
3-Pt Shooter- Cook and Korver
All-around player- Collison and Gibson
Backup point guard- Maynor and Watson
Backup center- Mohammed and Asik

And those are just the similarities of the rosters. It gets better when you think about the actual match-ups: Rose vs. Westbrook, Durant vs. Deng, Ibaka vs. Boozer, and Noah vs. Perkins. This series wouldn't be about bad blood or a rivalry. It would just be two exciting, talent-rich teams battling for a championship.

Miami vs. Dallas II: Dirk's Revenge
Five years ago, Dirk Nowitzki came the closest he's ever been to getting a championship. Unfortunately for him, he was bested by Dwyane Wade and the Heat. If the Mavs were to get back to the Finals, a rematch against Miami would be very enticing. The main storyline would obviously be whether or not Dirk could avenge the Finals disaster of 5 years ago and finally get a ring. The interesting sub-plot for the Mavs would be the, presumed, final chance for some deserving veterans (Kidd, Terry, Marion) to finally win a title.

Oklahoma City vs. Miami
This match-up would have the most contrast. On one side, you have a team of built through free agency and spending money. On the other side, you have a team built through draft picks and trades. While LeBron had a television special to announce where he was playing, Durant quietly announced on Twitter that he had signed a contract extension. These teams are practically night and day. It's a clash of the most honorably built team in the league against the team that's despised for the way it was assembled. One team has spent years finding quality players - that fit their system - to surround their stars with, while the other team spent tons of money on big free agent superstars and a rotating door of veterans to try and compliment them. It's the right way to build a championship versus the wrong way. It would be quite poetic for the team that's been organically built, over the last four years, to beat a team that has tried to buy its way to a championship.

As long as we don't end up with Dallas against Chicago, it should be a very entertaining Finals. Not that Chicago-Dallas would be bad. Just not as interesting as the other three possibilities.

The Case for Shaw

2011-05-19T13:11:00.000-07:00

With Phil Jackson's retirement, the Lakers find themselves searching for a new coach. The expected choice has always been Brian Shaw. He's been apart of the organization for over a decade, both as a player and assistant coach, and has the endorsements of Kobe Bryant, Derek Fisher and Luke Walton. But now reports are coming out that the Lakers are interested in Rick Adelman and Mike Dunleavy, among others. This has sparked a debate about whether or not the Lakers should stay in-house, with Shaw, or go with an outside hire of a veteran coach. Some worry about the idea of having a rookie head coach for a team that's ready to win now, but should that be that big of a concern?

While veteran coaches have a proven history that would benefit them, there's also history on the side of Shaw. Every dynasty that has made a coaching change has done so with the promotion of an assistant, and has done so successfully. The Lakers replaced Paul Westhead with assistant Pat Riley, the Celtics replaced Bill Fitch with assistant K.C. Jones and Bill Russell took over for Red Auerbach; while Russell wasn't technically an assistant, it was still an in-house hire of a rookie head coach. Three times a dynasty has changed coaches. Three times it was a first time head coach. Three times that rookie head coach went on to win multiple championships. While veteran coaches may have more experience, they also come with different philosophies. Shaw knows the players and he knows the system. Continuity should count for something. Instead of focusing on the history of each coach, the Lakers should focus on the history of assistant coaches being promoted in the midst of dynasties.

If the Lakers go in a different direction, it should be because they want to go in a different direction. It shouldn't be out of a fear of handing over the keys to a first-time head coach. That fear is bogus, when there's a clear history of assistant coaches successfully maintaining dynasties.

Heat's stars need a history lesson

2011-05-17T16:49:00.000-07:00

The Heat's star-studded duo, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, have repeatedly shown a rather surprising disregard for basketball history. The first instance of this occurring was while LeBron was with the Cavs, when he announced that he was switching numbers. I still find it hilarious that he thought no one should wear Michael Jordan's number, then proceeds to switch to Bill Russell's. Not only is it a dumb idea to suggest that the whole league should retire a jersey number, but if there was one guy in history who that would be done for it would be Bill Russell. The first African-American coach in NBA history, he won two titles as a player-coach, and is the greatest champion in team sports history. Of course, all those accomplishments happened on the court. Maybe LeBron doesn't feel the need to not wear Russell's number because was never the global icon that Jordan was, which is what he appears to value the most.

The second instance that occurred was at the Heat's celebration party. You know, where they weren't celebrating winning, but celebrating three guys signing contracts. At that non-championship championship-caliber party, Wade made a comment about the quality of the trio. He said that they were "arguably, the best trio to ever play the game of basketball." How does the quality of this trio compare to Jordan-Pippen-Rodman, Magic-Kareem-Worthy, Bird-McHale-Parish, West-Chamberlain-Baylor, or Shaq-Kobe-Horry? Other possibilities include: Reed-Frazier-DeBusschere, Erving-Malone-Barkley, Jordan-Pippen-Grant, Kareem-Oscar-Dandridge, Russell-Cousy-Sharman, and Russell-Havlicek-Jones. The advantage for the Miami trio is that they teamed up in their primes. If you had all the aforementioned trios teaming up in their primes, Miami's may not even be top 10. But even just comparing them to the actual production of the other trios, when they really happened, I still don't think Miami's trio is top 5.

The most recent example, of a misstep assessing history, is when James and Wade said that the Boston "Big Three" was their inspiration for coming together. There's a major difference between the Garnett-Pierce-Allen combo and the James-Wade-Bosh combo: one group was in their prime when they did it, the other was not. Garnett was 31 years old and in his 13th season. Allen was 32 years old and in his 12th season. Pierce was 30 years old and in his 10th season. James, Wade, and Bosh were all in their 8th seasons and were 26 years old, 29 years old, and 26 years old, respectively. The blueprint Garnett and Allen made was coming together after a decade of trying to win with other teams. Neither Garnett, nor Allen, nor Pierce were two of the three best players in the world, when they teamed up. Neither were Barkley, Pippen and Olajuwon, when they teamed up. And neither were Malone or Payton, when they went to the Lakers.

The '99 Rockets, '04 Lakers, and '08 Celtics were veterans coming together to win championships. They weren't players, at the top of their game, collaborating with their competition. To compare the situations is misleading. If Boston's "Big Three" were the true inspiration, they would've stuck with their teams three more years before teaming up. But I guess that would require them having an accurate view of history, which they don't seem to have.

On the Contrary: Phil Jackson's not overrated

2011-05-15T16:54:00.000-07:00

A recent article quoted Scot Pollard saying the following about Phil Jackson:

"I just think he’s one of the most overrated coaches of our time. He’s only had the greatest players of our era on his teams. Put him in charge of the Sacramento Kings this year, and I don’t mean to offend Sacramento fans, but put him on a team with no Hall-Of-Famers on it at least no one that has established themselves as a Hall-Of-Famer already, put him as the Head Coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers right now and let’s see how he does next year with no Hall-Of-Famers on the team. That’s all I’m saying."

First of all, what would coaching the Cavs or the Kings prove exactly? That he couldn't win a title with those teams? Nobody could win a title with those teams. Besides, no one is saying that coaches don't benefit from great players, but why are we pretending like Phil's the only one to do so? Every Red Auerbach title included Bill Russell and at least three other future Hall-of-Famers (with four of his teams having as many as seven). Bill Russell won two titles as a player-coach, but not without fellow future HOFers John Havlicek and Sam Jones. Pat Riley never won a championship that didn't include Magic, Kareem, or Shaq. Gregg Popovich never won a title without Duncan. Rudy Tomjanovich never won without Olajuwon. John Kundla never won without Mikan. K.C. Jones never won without Bird, McHale, Parish, or Johnson. Red Holzman, Tommy Heinsohn, Chuck Daly and Alex Hannum all never won without at least two future HOFers.

I just listed every coach that has ever won multiple championships. Not one of them has done it without having a.) one of the 13 best players to ever play or b.) at least two future HOFers. So yes, Phil Jackson benefited from coaching great players. But so has every other coach that has ever won multiple championships. To pretend that Jackson somehow benefited more than others is foolish. It completely minimizes the personalities that he had to deal with. Bill Simmons addressed this in his latest column, which just happens to be about Phil Jackson (I'd highly recommend reading it). Here are two quotes:

"He never gets enough credit for successfully handling two of the three most difficult NBA superstars ever: Jordan and Kobe (with Wilt being the third)."

"When people dismiss Jackson's credentials with 'Anyone could have coached Michael Jordan,' they are wrong."

To give an example of the difficulty of coaching Jordan, here's what Simmons wrote in The Book of Basketball:

“For years and years, Jordan couldn’t rein himself in. He cared about winning, but only on his terms – he also wanted to win scoring titles, drop 50 whenever he pleased and treat his teammates like the biggest bully in the prison block – which led Phil Jackson to adopt the triangle offense in a last-ditch effort to prevent Jordan from hogging the ball (and, Jackson hoped, embolden his supporting cast).”

People look at what happened in the '90s and assume Jordan was just destined to win multiple championships. Just because he ended up as one of the most successful basketball players ever, that doesn't mean championships were always inevitable. In his book, The Jordan Rules, Sam Smith states:

"It was already a popular theory that the Bulls would never win a title because Jordan's style of one-on-one play eliminated the other players as contributors. But the fans loved it, and to Reinsdorf, that meant money."

"[Doug] Collins had always told [Reinsdorf] the Bulls couldn't win with Jordan, and Reinsdorf had always told friends he knew only two things about basketball: 'You win with defense and team play.' He could have one, he knew, but perhaps not the other as long as Jordan dominated the scoring."

You can't look back at what happened with Jordan and the Bulls and assume that would've happened in any scenario. Why are people, in 2011, making inferences about the degree of difficulty it takes to win with Jordan? Should we listen to people who had zero involvement with the Bulls, or people who had firsthand experience? Because, in the '80s, the Bulls' coach and management didn't think that Jordan equaled "guaranteed championships." So much so that they actually considered trading him. Smith states that, during the 1987-88 season, Clippers owner Donald Sterling "offered any combination of five players or draft choices," in exchange for Michael Jordan. With two of the draft picks they could get from the Clippers, they would possibly be able to draft Rik Smits and Mitch Richmond. They also thought maybe they could trade Charles Oakley or Horace Grant for Kevin Johnson, "leaving the Bulls a starting five of Johnson, Richmond, Pippen, Grant or Oakley, and Smits. The Bulls thought about it long and hard; they were almost sure the deal could get them a title faster than staying with Jordan. But in the end, Reinsdorf held firm: Michael Jordan was untradable. Period."

Jordan had made multiple appearances on the All-NBA First Team, the All-Defensive First Team, the All-Star team, had won multiple Scoring Titles, had won Defensive Player of the Year, and had won a MVP award. Did those accolades stop the Bulls from trading him? Nope. It was because of money and because Reinsdorf feared that "such a trade would force him right out of town."

If winning with Jordan is so easy, why was Doug Collins fired? The Bulls had gone to the Eastern Conference Finals that year; it wasn't like they completely whiffed in the playoffs or something. Why wasn't he the recipient of six championship rings, if having Jordan is all that's needed? And if winning with Shaq and Kobe is so easy, then why did Dell Harris get fired? In '97 and '98, the Lakers won 56 and 61 games respectively. The '98 Lakers had four All-Stars, yet couldn't win one game against the Jazz in the Western Conference Finals.

If success is independent from coaches, then why did the "Showtime" Lakers replace Paul Westhead with Pat Riley? Why did the '80s Celtics replace Bill Fitch with K.C. Jones? It means something that Pat Riley won four rings with Magic, while Paul Westhead only won one. It means something that K.C. Jones won two rings with Bird, while Bill Fitch only won one. And it means something that Phil Jackson won 11 rings with Jordan, Shaq, and Kobe, while Doug Collins and Del Harris won zero. There's a reason why Jones, Riley, and Jackson were the primary coaches during dynasties and had more success than their predecessors. If having elite players leads to championships, than Fitch, Westhead, Collins, and Harris should have experienced the prolonged success that their replacements did.

Both Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics pushed out coaches. Isn't it telling that Jordan's Bulls never pushed out Phil? It's not like Phil let the Bulls do whatever they wanted. He instituted the system that he wanted and they followed suit. Is that not pretty significant? Is it not noteworthy that even when Kobe did push out Phil that he was eventually brought back? If Phil doesn't bring a lot to the table, then why would Kobe let him return? If he could win championships with just about any coach, why on earth would he do it with the guy that blasted him in a book? How does the fact that Phil didn't end up on whatever revenge list that Shaq did not speak volumes? Not only did Phil have only one major falling out during his coaching career, he repaired the one he did have. How many other coaches could say the things about a player that Phil said about Kobe and still be welcomed back by that player? Especially by a player with Kobe's ferocity? He obviously has something that makes the players want him to be the coach.

Bill Simmons stated in his column, "Coaching isn't just about calling plays, riding the officials and figuring out strategies. Really, it's management more than anything else. You manage people. Jackson managed people better than anyone." Westhead couldn't successfully manage Magic's Lakers and Fitch couldn't successfully manage Bird's Celtics, yet people are going to minimize that Phil Jackson could successfully manage Jordan and Kobe - two far more difficult players - for over 18 years?

Auerbach managing Russell, Riley managing Magic, Popovich managing Duncan and Kundla managing Mikan are all regarded as successful, but Jackson managing more difficult superstars makes him overrated? Phil had more success than any other coach, with more difficult superstars (other than Wilt) than any other coach has had to deal with. That shouldn't be ignored or minimized. It should be admired. Phil Jackson is not overrated.

On the Contrary: Dirk's not Top 10

2011-05-13T16:04:00.002-07:00

In an article on espn.com, Rick Carlisle recently stated, "In my opinion, [Dirk's] a top 10 player in NBA history because of the uniqueness of his game and how he's carried this franchise on his back for over a decade."

I'm sorry, but Dirk Nowitzki is not one of the 10 best players in NBA history. Here's the unequivocal top 9 players in history (in no particular order):

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Oscar Robertson

For Dirk to get that last spot, he'd have to be better than Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Moses Malone, and Jerry West. He's not. I don't think that he'll end up better than Baylor or Erving. Add in guys like Karl Malone, LeBron and Kevin Garnett and Dirk's clearly not top 10. In the hardcover edition of The Book of Basketball, Bill Simmons ranked Dirk at 37 all-time. The 2009 edition of Slam Magazine doesn't even have Dirk in the top 50. So no, Dirk is not one of the top 10 players of all-time.

Countdown to 12?

2011-05-13T16:04:00.000-07:00

The rumors of Dwight Howard wanting to go to LA started months ago. And with the Lakers recent playoff disaster, the "Dwight Howard to LA" discussion has kicked up a notch. Magic Johnson said that everyone on the Lakers should be expendable but Kobe. If that became the case, the long shot of getting Howard would seemingly become a realistic possibility. Should LA go after Howard? Should they make any significant trades at all?

Why they shouldn't:
I think everyone saying the Lakers are "old" is overblown. Why? Because the team they just lost to is older than them. I think people are underestimating how difficult a 3-peat really is. This isn't a team that's just "old". It's a team that is coming off three straight Finals appearances. And during that time, Kobe and Pau played in the Olympics in '08 and Odom just played in the FIBA World Championship this past off-season. Their three main players have only had two short off-seasons of no basketball, during a span where they've played 405 games (not including international games). Isn't it possible they're just burnt out? Should they really mess with a championship core because they couldn't make it to the Finals four years straight?

Why they should:
If fatigue was not the primary reason for poor play, there would be two reasons to shake up the team: lack of cohesiveness and lack of competitiveness. I don't think fatigue was the only contributor to Gasol's poor play. Even though he has been labeled "soft", his passivity was on another level. Something else had to be going on. The rumor is that his girlfriend broke up with him, and that there may have been an additional problem with Kobe, made sense to me. He looked like he didn't care at all whether or not the Lakers made it to the Finals. He looked so apathetic that I'm half expecting him to announce that he's taking his talents to South Beach. But now he's saying that those rumors of conflict are false. He said that it was the false rumors being spread that caused him problems. False rumors caused you to play bad? They caused you to lack any semblance of aggression? They caused you to show no heart, even after Phil Jackson got in your face multiple times?

If that's true, that's ridiculous. The Lakers aren't paying him 17 million dollars to be affected by what people are saying on the internet. If that's not true, and the source of his abysmal play was a result of conflict between teammates, then the Lakers would need to make some trades. Either way, here are their possibilities going forward...

Lakers stand pat:
I'd prefer not to see Dwight Howard in a Laker uniform. I like to see franchise guys stay with their team. Besides, I thought Bynum was the only one besides Kobe who looked invested in winning. I would like to see LA be loyal to him. I'd prefer they make some minor changes - such as acquiring Aaron Brooks and someone like Jared Dudley - but, ideally, the core should remain intact.

LA makes a trade without getting Howard:
If LA is going to make a trade, here's what I'd like to see happen (working off the idea that Josh Smith is going to leave Atlanta and that Golden State needs to trade Curry or Ellis):

LA gets Josh Smith and Stephen Curry
Atlanta gets Pau Gasol
Orlando gets David Lee and Zaza Pachulia
Golden State gets Jameer Nelson, Ryan Anderson and Chris Duhon

LA gets younger and more athletic. Atlanta immediately becomes a serious contender, with a pretty scary lineup. Orlando gets a solid frontcourt of Howard, Lee, Bass and Pachulia. Golden State gets a compatible point guard for Ellis and a power forward duo of Anderson and Udoh that will be around for a long time.

Howard to LA:
Let's assume that Kupchak thinks LA needs to make some trades and that it's true Dwight Howard wants to play in LA and follow in the footsteps of Shaq, Wilt and Kareem. If this were to happen, here's how I'd like to see it play out:

LA gets Dwight Howard and Josh Smith
Orlando gets Andrew Bynum, Stephen Curry, and David Lee
Golden State gets Jameer Nelson, Ryan Anderson and Zaza Pachulia
Atlanta gets Pau Gasol

The Lakers get the guy they want and Josh Smith. Orlando gets a solid foundation of Bynum and Curry (both only 23), along with a quality player in Lee. And the results for Atlanta and Golden State would be virtually the same as the prior trade suggestion.

If Dwight Howard ending up in LA is inevitable, I would love to see Orlando get Bynum, Curry and Lee. At least then they would be set up with two young, very good players.

The Most Presti-gious GM

2011-04-29T13:19:00.000-07:00

Since the Thunder rose to prominence last year, I've heard good things about their GM Sam Presti and how he built the team. Most of the things, though, have been generic statements about draft picks, trades, or cap space. Intrigued, I decided to research exactly how Presti transformed a lottery team into a championship contender. Here's what I found:

'07-'08:
The 2007 NBA Draft happened three weeks after Presti was hired as the GM. What's the first thing he does? Trade the team's best player and leading scorer to the Celtics. In exchange for Ray Allen and the 35th pick (Glen Davis), Seattle got the 5th pick (Jeff Green), a 2008 second-round pick, Delonte West, and Wally Szczerbiak. The eventfulness of that draft would continue, as the team took Kevin Durant with the 2nd overall pick. Two weeks after trading the team's leading scorer, Presti traded the team's second leading scorer. In exchange for Rashard Lewis, Seattle got a conditional second-round pick and a 9 million dollar trade exception. Presti then traded that second-round pick to Phoenix in exchange for Kurt Thomas, a 2008 first-round pick and a 2010 first-round pick.

Prior to the trade deadline, Presti would make a couple more moves. First he traded Thomas to San Antonio for Brent Barry and Francisco Elson (expiring contracts) and an exchange of 2009 first-round draft picks. Then he traded West and Szczerbiak to Cleveland for Donyell Marshall and Ira Newble; both of whom were later waived.

'08-'09:
The 2008 NBA Draft would prove to be just as successful for Presti as 2007 was. The biggest success was drafting Russell Westbrook, with the 4th overall pick. Additionally, he used the draft pick acquired from the Phoenix trade to select Serge Ibaka. Draft day would also see the Pistons trade D.J. White to Seattle for the No. 32 and 46 overall picks.

In December 2008, the - recently renamed - Thunder signed restricted free agent Nenad Krstic. The following month, the Thunder traded Johan Petro and a 2009 second-round pick for Chucky Atkins and a conditional first-round pick. Then they flipped that pick to Chicago for Thabo Sefolosha.

'09-'10:
With the third pick in the 2009 NBA Draft, the Thunder selected James Harden. With the pick that they swapped in the San Antonio trade, they drafted Bryon Mullens. Finally, they traded cash considerations to the Bobcats in exchange for the 54th pick (Robert Vaden).

In December 2009, the Thunder traded the draft rights of Peter Fehse to Utah for Eric Maynor.

'10-'11:
With LeBron taking his talents to South Beach - along with Bosh - Miami needed to clear cap space, so they sent Daequan Cook and the 18th overall pick in the 2010 Draft to Oklahoma City in exchange for the 32nd pick. The Thunder then flipped that pick to the Clippers for a future conditional first-round pick. Presti then packaged their first-round pick (21st overall) with the first-round pick they got from the Kurt Thomas/Phoenix trade for Morris Peterson and the 11th overall pick (Cole Aldrich) from New Orleans. That summer also saw the Thunder sign free agent Royal Ivey.

The biggest move of the season would come when Oklahoma City agreed to send Jeff Green and Nenad Krstic to Boston in exchange for Kendrick Perkins and Nate Robinson. Presti followed that trade deadline shocker by sending Morris Peterson and D.J. White to Charlotte for Nazr Mohammed.

Let's recap (cliff notes version):
Drafted: Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Mullens, Vaden

Free Agents: Nenad Krstic, Royal Ivey

Trades: Ray Allen & Glen Davis -> Jeff Green, Delonte West, Wally Szczerbiak -> West and Szczerbiak become cap space, Green and Krstic become Perkins and Robinson

Rashard Lewis -> second-round pick -> Kurt Thomas and two first-round picks -> Serge Ibaka, Cole Aldrich, Morris Peterson and cap space

No. 32 and 46 picks -> D.J. White

Johan Petro -> conditional first round pick -> Thabo Sefolosha

Draft rights of Peter Fehse -> Eric Maynor

No. 32 pick -> Daequan Cook and 18th pick (18th pick becomes future conditional first-round pick from Clippers)

D.J. White and Morris Peterson -> Nazr Mohammed

After four years, the only current roster member that is pre-Presti is Nick Collison. The transformation of the franchise is astounding. With some great draft picks, a few free agent signings, and some amazing trades, Presti has built a championship caliber team. The most amazing part is that this championship caliber team is the third youngest team in the NBA. I think it's safe to say that Sam Presti is a genius and the best GM in basketball.

On the Contrary: Cleveland's record not evidence for LBJ being MVP

2011-04-26T14:55:00.000-07:00

Anyone who thinks Cleveland's record is evidence for why LeBron should be MVP, think again. The team did not lose 42 more games than last year just because LeBron left. This year's team is not the same as last year's team. Here's a comparison between the main ten guys last year, and the main ten guys this year (in order of minutes played):

'10 CLE                                              '11 CLE
LeBron James                                     J.J. Hickson
Mo Williams                                      Ramon Sessions
Anthony Parker                                Anthony Parker
Anderson Varejao                             Daniel Gibson
J.J. Hickson                                      Antawn Jamison
Delonte West                                     Ryan Hollins
Zydrunas Ilgauskas                             Mo Williams
Shaquille O'Neal                                  Anderson Varejao
Daniel Gibson                                   Alonzo Gee
Jamario Moon                                     Christian Eyenga

Of last year's ten main guys, only five carried over to this year. And of those five guys, two of them (Williams and Varejao) played 67 games for the Cavs...combined. Last year, Shaq was the first-string center and Ilgauskas was the second-string center. This year, the Cavs started the year with Varejao at center. Then he got hurt; so essentially, this year's team had what would've been last year's fourth-string center starting. And they didn't even have a consistent center, so their "fourth-string center" was a rotation of multiple guys.

It's not like the Cavs just lost LeBron. They lost a lot of production from last year's main contributors (Williams, Parker, Varejao, Hickson, West, Ilgauskas, O'Neal, Gibson, Moon). To prove that, let's compare the stats they had in 2010 and the stats those guys contributed to the Cavs in 2011.

'10 stats:
5,316 points     2,548 rebounds     1095 assists     in 14,704 minutes played

'11 stats:
3,433 points     1,606 rebounds     857 assists     in 9,035 minutes played

That's a drop of 1,883 points, 942 rebounds, 238 assists, and 5,669 minutes played. That would pretty much be the equivalent of last year's team losing Shaq, Parker and Ilgauskas (1705 points, 931 rebounds, and 285 assists in 4868 minutes) and then some. Unless you think that last year's team could replace Shaq, Parker, and Ilgauskas with three players from the '11 Cavs and still win 61 games, that lost production actually means something.

Just in case you're thinking that playing without LeBron contributed to his former teammates' lower production, let's look at the numbers some of those guys contributed to other teams:

1,016 points     605 rebounds     246 assists     in 3,351 minutes played

Add those to the stats his former teammates contributed to Cleveland this year, the total is:

4449 points     2211 rebounds     1103 assist     in 12,386 minutes played

Yes, their total stats is lower than it was in 2010, but so was their minutes played. In 2011, they played 84% as much as they did in 2010. Not coincidentally, they scored 84% of the points, had 87% of the rebounds, and over 100% of the assists they had in 2010. LeBron's former teammates were as productive without him as they were with him. The problem for Cleveland is that they were either injured or on other teams.

Cleveland didn't just lose their best player. They lost their starting center, their backup center, and they only had their starting point guard and last year's backup power forward for less than half the year. Their main holdovers were a 22-year old power forward, a 35-year old shooting guard, and their backup point guard.

Two final stats that show how the teams differ:

42% of the minutes played in 2011 were by guys who were not even on the team in 2010.

Last year, the Cavs had 11 guys play in 50+ games (this includes LeBron). Those guys averaged 93% playing time for every game. How much playing time did those 11 guys average for Cleveland in 2011? 48%.

Losing their best player definitely hurt them, but so did injuries and the departure of other players. Seeing as LeBron's absence is not the only alteration from last year's team, Cleveland's record is not definitive proof of his value.

*stats taken from http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/

"The truth about Kobe Bryant in crunch time" Rebuttal

2011-04-23T20:34:00.000-07:00

A couple months ago, Henry Abbott wrote a column disputing that Kobe is the king of crunch time. While he made some good points, he failed to address some basic flaws to the stats he presented. For one, he didn't acknowledge the degree that the postseason affected them. When the stats just combine regular season and postseason totals, you're ignoring the levels of postseason play. How many other players in the league have taken clutch shots in the Conference Finals or NBA Finals? How can you get an accurate interpretation of the stats, if you're not differentiating the difficulty of a game-winner against the Grizzlies in the first round and the difficulty of a game-winner against the Pistons in the Finals? I think it's erroneous to put the same amount of weight on a late-postseason shot (Conference Finals or Finals), an early-postseason shot (first or second round), and a regular season shot.

More importantly, he fails to acknowledge the vast difference in the number of attempts. There's absolutely no way you can compare the percentage made of 30 attempts to the percentage made of 115 attempts. In case you don't believe me, let me ask a question: Who's the greatest 3-Pt shooter of all-time? I'm guessing at least one of these two names came to mind: Ray Allen or Reggie Miller. Why not Steve Kerr? Or Hubert Davis? Or Drazen Petrovic? They, along with 36 other guys, have a better 3-Pt percentage than Ray Allen (and an additional 4 guys after Allen have a better percentage than Miller). Why are there no people pointing out that Allen ranks 40th all-time in 3-Pt percentage and Miller ranks 45th? How could they be the cream of the crop, if there's at least 39 guys more accurate than them?

Could it be because none of the guys ahead of them in percentage are ahead of them in attempts? And that most of them aren't even in the top 50 in attempts? You bet it does. Why? Because making 40% of 6,000 3-pointers is more impressive than making 45% of 1,600. If you omitted anyone ahead of Allen and Miller who did not finish in the top 50 in 3-Pt attempts, the list goes from 35+ guys down to 8. And now looks like this:

Steve Nash-     1565/3644   .429
Brent Barry-     1395/3442   .405
Mike Miller-       1298/3215   .404
Dale Ellis-         1719/4266   .403
Allan Houston-   1305/3247   .402
Dell Curry-        1245/3098   .402
Peja Stojakovic- 1760/4392   .401
Glen Rice-         1559/3896   .400
Ray Allen-         2612/6554   .399
Dennis Scott-    1214/3060   .397
Reggie Miller-    2560/6486   .395

Let's apply that same principle to the list that Abbott provided. If you omitted anyone who didn't have at least 60 attempts, the number of guys with better percentages than Kobe would drop from 24 to 5. Let's look at the updated list:

Dirk Nowitzki-   25/65   38.5%
Tim Duncan-     23/62   37.1%
LeBron James-   23/69   33.3%
Ray Allen-         23/70   32.9%
Vince Carter-    31/96   32.3%
Kobe Bryant-    36/115   31.3%
Allen Iverson-    21/68   30.9%
Kevin Garnett-   22/72   30.6%

While there are still guys with higher percentages, the differences in the amount of attempts is still relevant. Yes, Kobe has missed more clutch shots than four of the five guys ahead of him have even attempted. But guess what? Ray Allen has missed more 3's than six of the eight guys ahead of him have even attempted. It's alright for Allen to miss a lot, because he takes a lot, but it's not the same for Kobe? If Ray Allen shooting 44% more 3-pointers than Steve Nash makes up for the 2 higher percentage points Nash shoots, shouldn't Kobe shooting 40% more shots than LeBron and Allen make up for their higher percentages? Especially if you're comparing Kobe's late-postseason shots to LeBron's and Allen's early-postseason shots?

Now I'm not saying that I refuse to believe Kobe's not the most clutch player in the league. If you can prove that Nowitzki or LeBron are better, than I'll believe it. But ignoring the affect that a higher volume of shots has on a percentage, and ignoring the different levels of postseason play in which shots are happening, is a failure to do so. You can't pretend that Dirk shooting 50 less shots than Kobe, and none in the Conference Finals or Finals, doesn't matter. And if Ray Allen missing more 3's than most people take isn't enough to not be considered the greatest 3-Pt shooter of all-time, then the amount of clutch shots Kobe has missed is not enough to prove he's not the most clutch player in the league today.

There may be a case to be made that Nowitzki, Duncan, LeBron, or Allen are more clutch than Kobe, but Henry Abbott did not successfully make it.

*stats taken from http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/

Welcome

2011-04-20T14:40:00.000-07:00

After occasionally writing about sports on social networking sites, I've decided to branch out and start my own sports blog. Since this is my first original post, I guess I will explain the purpose of this blog. (I say "original post", because - as you might have noticed - I've already technically posted stuff. Those, however, are things I've written in the past that I used to work out the kinks with formatting and email subscription; in addition to just archiving them on this site) Anyway, back to the point of the blog. If the title, and subheading, wasn't clear enough, the main perspective of this blog will be a common sense view of sports. It might sound basic, but too often I feel like sports stories lack common sense.

An example from the recent past was the Jay Cutler situation in the NFC Championship. After the game, the story was about players - who weren't even on the Bears - calling out Cutler for not playing with an injury. Most of the narrative around that story was, "How tough is Cutler". The problem with that narrative is that it ignores the big question, "When did playing hurt become an expectation?"

The Flu game, the Bloody Sock game, the Willis Reed game. Those games are instantly recognized by their names. The fact that specific games even have names speaks volumes. Those games are remembered for the performances of men who were not 100%. Jordan wasn't even injured, yet it's still remembered as a classic performance. Why? Why is Jordan playing with the flu a big deal? Why is Schilling pitching with a bum ankle a big deal? Why is Willis Reed limping around on a basketball court a big deal?

They're a big deal because they were extraordinary performances. Extraordinary, as in they weren't ordinary. If they were out of the ordinary, doesn't that mean that not playing when you're injured is ordinary? Because it seems like people believe that not playing when you're hurt is what's out of the ordinary. It seems like playing hurt is now expected. At least that's the implication when someone like Jay Cutler is chastised for not playing with an injured knee. And if everyone's expected to play hurt, then why do we admire Jordan, or Schilling, or Reed for playing when they were less than 100%? Wouldn't they just doing what athletes are expected to do?

This is the problem. If you play hurt, it's amazing. If you don't play hurt, you're a wimp and you have no heart. That doesn't even make sense. Where's the baseline? What's the expectation? Playing hurt is measured against the expectation of not playing hurt, and not playing hurt is measured against the expectation of playing hurt. It's inconsistent. The expectations need to be clear. If we're going to revere athletes that play hurt, then we're saying that playing hurt is not expected. If we're going to chastise athletes that don't play when they're hurt, then we're saying that playing hurt is expected. Which one is it? Because it can't be both.

So that's one example of something I would address with a common sense point of view. The reason I combined the blog with "my two cents" is because I didn't want to limit myself to just those kinds of posts. I wanted to leave myself open to write other kinds of things, whether it be opinion pieces or in-depth player evaluations etc.

Finally, I'm going to try and steer away from fluff pieces, such as "tonight's game was awesome." Because I want to write things of substance, I'm not sure how often I'll be posting stuff. Also, I won't be announcing it anywhere else when I do (this is where the email subscription comes in). If you want to keep current on things I write, without consistently checking the site, just subscribe and you'll get an email when I write something new.

I think that's good enough for my first post. Feel free to comment on anything I write (whether it be an agreement or disagreement). Thanks for reading!

Michael Jordan: Not a One Man Show pt. 3

2011-04-14T16:36:00.000-07:00

The first two parts of this series examined Jordan's teammates individually, so there wasn't exactly a reference point for how good they were as a team. In part one, I mentioned how Kobe's teammates are generally regarded more favorably than Jordan's (at least by the general public), so why not compare the two? Obviously the late-90's Bulls had a better supporting cast than the Lakers, so here's a Finals comparison of Jordan's early teammates ('91-'93) with Kobe's ('08-'10). In order to account for overtime, the averages will be per 48 minutes.

Averages of the Bulls per 48 minutes (minus Jordan):

’91 Finals-
68.8 PTS   31.9 REB   16.1 AST   .516 FG%   6.9 STL   3.5 BLK   8.8 TOV

’92 Finals-
67.0 PTS   32.1 REB   20.0 AST   .493 FG%   5.2 STL   4.8 BLK   10.8 TOV

’93 Finals-
62.4 PTS   33.0 REB   19.5 AST   .457 FG%   6.0 STL   4.4 BLK   8.7 TOV

That’s a total three year average of:
65.9 PTS   32.4 REB   18.7 AST   .486 FG%   6.0 STL   4.3 BLK   9.5 TOV

Averages of the Lakers per 48 minutes (minus Kobe):

’08 Finals-
68.2 PTS   32.5 REB   14.3 AST   .456 FG%   4.2 STL   3.0 BLK   9.7 TOV

’09 Finals-
65.5 PTS   33.6 REB   8.6 AST    .452 FG%   5.6 STL   3.7 BLK   6.5 TOV

’10 Finals-
62 PTS   34.4 REB   10.7 AST   .423 FG%   5.1 STL   5.4 BLK   8.6 TOV

That’s a total three year average of:
65.0 PTS   33.6 REB   13.0 AST   .447 FG%   4.9 STL   4.1 BLK   8.3 TOV

Jordan’s teammates outperformed Kobe’s in virtually every way. Wouldn't that make them better? We know Kobe has a good supporting cast, so it should speak volumes about Jordan's supporting cast that they outproduced Kobe's. Jordan's teams were good enough that Bill Simmons placed three of them ('91, '97 and '96) in the top 10 teams of all-time, and placed the '92 Bulls in the Honorable Mention section, in The Book of Basketball. Kobe was only on one team in the top 10 ('01) and one in the Honorable Mention section ('00), and both of those involved Shaq. If Kobe's current teammates don't measure up to his early decade teammates, and the early decade teammates are comparable to Jordan's teammates, doesn't that mean Kobe's current teammates don't measure up to Jordan's as well? And if everyone thinks Kobe has a good supporting cast, and they don't measure up to Jordan's, how good were Jordan's?

Considering the individual stats of Jordan’s teammates, the way they performed after he left for baseball, the fact that they outproduced Kobe’s teammates in the Finals, and where they rank historically should provide concrete proof that Michael Jordan was not a “One Man Show”.

*stats from http://www.basketball-reference.com/

Michael Jordan: Not a One Man Show pt. 2

2011-04-11T11:32:00.001-07:00

Originally written July 3, 2010. Updated 4/11/11.

In part one, I examined the cornerstones (Pippen, Grant, Rodman) of the help that Jordan received in his championship years. In addition to the main two or three pieces that every championship team has, there are role players that contribute to the success of the team. How good were the key role players from the Bulls' dynasty? Let’s examine some of the main role players and see.

Role Players: First Three-peat
John Paxson-
Paxson was a near picture perfect role player. He didn’t put up fantastic numbers, but that wasn’t required of him. He was efficient with the numbers he put up, and was a clutch shooter. In fact, he literally won the Bulls’ third championship, with a series clinching three-pointer in the last seconds of game six. Paxson misses that shot and the Bulls would have had to play a game seven in Phoenix. Luckily for Jordan, and the rest of the Bulls, Paxson didn’t miss.

Paxson’s regular season percentages:
’91: FG%- .548, 3-Pt%- .438
’92: FG%- .528, 3-Pt%- .273
’93: FG%- .451, 3-Pt%- .463

Paxson’s posteason percentages:
’91: FG%- .530, 3-Pt%- .143
’92: FG%- .525, 3-Pt%- .444
’93: FG%- .583, 3-Pt%- .625

During the Bulls’ first three-peat, Paxson averaged .523 FG% and .403 3-Pt% in the regular season and .538 FG% and .446 3-Pt% in the postseason. Those are very solid averages. Good role players don’t take a lot of shots; they just make the ones they do take. That’s just what Paxson did.

Craig Hodges-
Craig Hodges was a very good three-point shooter. In fact, he won three consecutive Three-Point Contests [1]. Only other person to do that? Some guy named Larry Bird. Look how many times Hodges’ name appears in the Three-Point Contest records.

Hodges played during the Bulls’ first two championships. Here are his three-point percentages:
’91: .383 in the regular season and .393 in the postseason
’92: .375 in the regular season and .450 in the postseason

The guy shot an average .379 3-Pt% in the regular season and .419 3-Pt% in the postseason. Man, role players that knock down 40% of their three-pointers are so worthless. Oh yeah, Hodges only ranks 36th all-time in 3-Pt pct.

B.J. Armstrong-
The Bulls only had Hodges for two championship runs. I guess it’s a good thing they had Armstrong for all three.

Here’s his regular season averages:
’91: FG%- .481, 3-Pt%- .500
’92: FG%- .481, 3-Pt%- .402
’93: FG%- .499, 3-Pt%- .453* (*led the NBA in 3-point percentage)

Postseason averages:
’91: FG%- .500, 3-Pt%- .600
’92: FG%- .453, 3-Pt%- .294
’93: FG%- .524, 3-Pt%- .512

Armstrong shot .497 FG% and .441 3-Pt% in those three regular seasons, and .493 FG% and .460 3-Pt% in those three postseasons. Armstrong wasn’t half bad. He only ranks 9th all-time in 3-Pt pct.

Now that it’s clear that Jordan had no help during those first three championships, let’s look at how little help he had in his last three…

Role Players: Second Three-peat
Ron Harper-
Was Ron Harper any good? His stats on the Bulls weren’t that great, but was that a result of what he brought to the table or what he was asked to bring to the table? In his first 8 years in the league, prior to going to Chicago, Harper averaged 19.5 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 5.0 apg, and 2.1 spg (Jordan’s career steals per game was 2.3). Those are very, very strong averages. Harper was capable of performing well in a big role; it just wasn’t required of him.

Toni Kukoc-
During the Bulls’ second three-peat, Kukoc was the team’s third leading scorer and a productive bench player. In 1996, Kukoc won the Sixth Man of the Year award.

Here were his regular season averages:
’96: FG%- .490, 3-Pt%- .403
’97: FG%- .471, 3-Pt%- .331
’98: FG%- .455, 3-Pt%- .362

Postseason averages:
’96: FG%- .391, 3-Pt%- .191
’97: FG%- .360, 3-Pt%- .358
’98: FG%- .486, 3-Pt%- .377

Kukoc shot over 45% from ’96-‘98, and did so once in the postseason. He was a decent three-point shooter, as he shot between 33% and 40% over the same span of time, and only dipped under that in the ’96 postseason. Being only a decent three-point shooter means that Kukoc doesn’t quite live up to Hodges and Armstrong before him. The only way the Bulls could make up for that is if they had, say, someone with the highest career 3-Pt pct of all time.

Steve Kerr-
Well, you don’t say. If it isn’t the guy with the highest 3-Pt pct of all-time. What a coincidence! Does anything else need to be said, other than that he has the highest 3-Pt pct of all-time? From downtown, Kerr shot .515 in ’96, .464 in ’97 and .438 in ’98. Also, Kerr shot .448, .429, and .434 in the postseason of those respective seasons.

No one can doubt the quality of those late-90s teams, with Pippen and Rodman. Add in Harper, Kerr and Kukoc, and Longley for good measure, and those are far from subpar teammates. There’s no room for argument that Jordan’s late-90s teammates were not of high quality. But what about those early-90s teams? If the earlier exposition didn’t do enough for you, I guess I will have to give a practical example of those early teammates being good.

Let’s go back to 1994. Michael Jordan has left the Bulls. They must have been in shambles, right? The so-called “greatest player ever” leaves, that has to make some kind of dent. So what happened? In '93, the Bulls’ record was 57-25. In ’94, Pippen leads the Jordan-less Bulls to a measly 55-27 record. Oh yeah, and Pippen missed 10 games in the beginning of the year (at which time the Bulls went 4-6). Had he not missed any games, it’s more than plausible that the Bulls match, or beat, their record from the year before. Man, the Bulls sucked without Jordan. He leaves and virtually nothing happens. The team doesn’t miss a beat. Maybe that was because of the guy that took his spot. Who was that? Pete Myers. Who’s Pete Myers? Exactly. Now granted, ’94 was when the Bulls brought in Kerr and Kukoc to come off the bench, but still…Pete Myers?

Imagine what they could have done if they had replaced Jordan with a decent sidekick for Scottie. Not necessarily a Hall of Fame player, but just an All-Star caliber player (maybe someone like Alan Houston, in his prime). If Scottie could do what he did with Myers playing, imagine what Scottie could do with Alan Houston instead. Now is it becoming clear why Tex Winter considered the idea that Jordan needed Scottie more than Scottie needed Jordan?

Even with Pete Myers, the Bulls were close to advancing, past the Knicks, to the Eastern Conference Finals. In The Book of Basketball, here’s what Bill Simmons has to say, “During MJ’s ‘sabbatical,’ Scottie (20.8 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 5.6 APG, 49% FG) dragged the Bulls to within one fecally pungent call of the Eastern Finals and should have been our ’94 MVP runner-up behind Hakeem.” He adds, “Hue Hollins whistled a touch foul on a last-second Hubie Davis jumper in Game 5, pretty much gift-wrapping the series for the Knicks. Even Vince McMahon was embarrassed by that call.”

Now I'm not saying Michael Jordan wasn't valuable, or instrumental to the Bulls' success. Of course he was. But at the end of the day, he was surrounded by the following:Two of the greatest defensive players ever (one of which happens to be a top 25 player of all-time, and the other is the greatest rebounder of the past generation), a guy with the 36th best 3-Pt pct ever, a guy with the 9th best 3-Pt pct ever, and a guy with the best 3-Pt pct ever. On top of that, role players such as Horace Grant, Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, John Paxson, Luc Longley and Bill Cartwright.

Yeah, Michael Jordan barely had help.

[1] http://www.nba.com/history/allstar/shootout_alltime_winners.html
*stats provided by http://www.basketball-reference.com/

Michael Jordan: Not a One Man Show pt. 1

2011-04-11T11:08:00.001-07:00

Originally written June 30, 2010. Updated 4/11/11.

My biggest pet peeve, when it comes to basketball, is people saying or implying that Michael Jordan won six championships by himself. When people bring up the Lakers most recent championship, they always talk about how much help that Kobe has. Yeah, well Kobe’s sidekick isn’t one of the top 30 players of all-time. Gasol and Odom are good, but Pippen and Rodman they are not. Scottie Pippen is one of the top 25 or 30 players to ever play the game. If Mitch Kupchak could trade Kobe’s supporting cast for Jordan’s supporting cast, I believe he would do it. People tend to forget, or not realize, how good Jordan’s teammates really were, so let’s examine them. The first part of this series will focus on the big three of Jordan’s teammates: Pippen, Grant and Rodman.

Scottie Pippen (all six championships)
In Elliot Kalb’s book Who’s Better, Who’s Best in Basketball?, Scottie Pippen is ranked as the 29th best player ever. In Bill Simmons’ book The Book of Basketball, Scottie Pippen is ranked as the 24th best player ever. I will quote both of these books often, as well as using some quotes from Charley Rosen that I’ve used in a past blog, to provide multiple assessments of Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman. (By the way, I highly recommend both of these books for any serious basketball fan)

Here’s some quotes from Bill Simmons’ book:
“The first five Dream Team choices were Jordan/Magic/Bird, then Robinson and Pippen in that order. Those were the five ‘no-brainers,’ according to the committee.” Think about that for a minute. On a team that included Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Clyde Drexler, Karl Malone, and Patrick Ewing, Scottie Pippen was chosen fifth as a “no-brainer”.

“Of anyone I’ve ever seen in person, Pippen was the best defender.”

“a consistently destructive presence who became nearly as enjoyable to watch defensively as Jordan was offensively.”

“Nobody covered more ground or moved faster from point A to point B. It was like watching a cheetah in a wildlife special – one second Scottie would be minding his own business, the next second he would be pouncing. Everyone remembers Kerr’s jumper to win the ’97 Finals, but nobody remembers Pippen tipping the ensuing inbounds pass, then chasing it down and flipping it to Kukoc to clinch the game.”

“Only Jordan was a better all-around player in the nineties…and that was debatable.”

“Ron Harper to SI in ’99, ‘Everybody talks about MJ first, but Pip had a more all-around game. Defense, offensive rebounds, defensive boards: Pip made the game easier for us to play.’”

“he became one of four postmerger players (along with Cowens in ’78, Kevin Garnett in ’03, and LeBron in ’09) to lead his team in total points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks in the same season.”

“And he redefined the ‘point forward’ concept during the nineties, allowing the Bulls to play any combination of guards without suffering in the ballhandling/defense departments.”

“Chuck Daley created a great term to describe Scottie: a ‘fill in the blanks’ guy. If a teammate was getting killed defensively, Scottie had his back. If you needed rebounding, Scottie went down low and grabbed some boards. If you needed scoring, Scottie could create a shot or attack the rim. If you needed a turnover, Scottie had a better chance of getting it than anyone. If you needed ballhandling, he could do it. And if you needed to shut someone down, he did it.”

“During the Dream Team practices, Daly called Scottie his second-best player and told David Halberstam, ‘You never really know how good a player is until you coach him, but Pippen was a great surprise in Barcelona – the confidence with which he played and the absolutely complete nature of his game, both on offense and defense. No one else really expected it.’ According to Halberstam, MJ returned to Chicago after the Olympics and told Phil Jackson, ‘Scottie came in as just one of the other players, and none of the others knew how good he was, but then he kept playing, and by the end of the week it was clear that he was the top guard there – over Clyde and Magic and Stockton. It was great for people to see him in that setting and see how good he really was.’ For those of you scoring at home, that’s sixteen combined rings paying homage.”

“Jackson told SI in ’99, ‘[Scottie] was probably the most liked player by the others. He mingled. He could bring out the best in players and communicate the best. Leadership, real leadership, is one of his strengths. Everybody would say Michael is a great leader. He leads by example, by rebuke, by harsh words. Scottie’s leadership was equally dominant, but it’s a leadership of patting the back, support.’”

“NBA draft code words ‘upside,’ ‘length’ and ‘wingspan’ were pretty much invented during the Pippen draft.”

“Irrefutable fact: Jordan never would have retired in ’99 unless he knew for sure that Scottie was leaving.” How about that? Michael Jordan retired, because he didn’t want to play without Scottie. You know what that says to me? Michael Jordan wouldn’t win without Scottie Pippen. If he thought he could just get someone else, and win more championships, wouldn’t you think he would do it? People say, “Kobe’s never won it without Shaq or Pau”. Yeah, well Jordan never won it without Pippen. And with Scottie leaving in ’99, he refused to try.

Here’s some quotes I’ve used in a past blog:
Charley Rosen- "an incredible defender and facilitator. With his length and athleticism, Pippen could excel at every position except center. Like a middle linebacker in the NFL, it was Pippen who called the defensive signals."

Rosen- "Indeed, there were times when Phil Jackson would berate a player for departing from the previously designed defensive alignment. Only one self defense was acceptable: ‘Scottie told me to do it.’"

Bill Cartwright- "Former teammate and current Bulls coach Bill Cartwright flatly states that Pippen 'was as much a part of winning the championships as MJ. I don't think it would have gotten done without him.’"

Tex Winter- "Michael realized how easy it was to play with him and how he helped make his teammates better. It's often said Jordan needed Pippen and Pippen needed Jordan. I'm not sure Jordan didn't need Pippen more than Pippen needed Jordan." Hold on. Did everyone read that? The “Michael Jordan Did It Alone" Car just came to a screeching halt. Former Bulls Assistant Coach, and mastermind of the Triangle Offense, just considered the idea that Jordan needed Pippen more than Pippen needed Jordan. That is a telling statement.

If the above quotes aren’t satisfactory in proving the phenomenal player that Pippen was, here’s some quotes from Elliot Kalb’s book for good measure:
“One of the best defensive players in the game, with the ability to guard – lock up and shut down – virtually anyone under seven feet tall. In the 2003 season – his 16th – Pippen would guard anyone from Atlanta power forward Shareef Abdul-Rahim to San Antonio point guard Tony Parker to Boston small forward Paul Pierce. This gave his teams incredible versatility.”

“He had excellent ball-handling skills and was a skilled passer.”

“Doug Collins: ‘Scottie and Michael were the two best perimeter defensive players ever. Scottie could shut down anyone and take away half the court.’”

Let’s do a little recap, shall we? Phil Jackson, Chuck Daly, Doug Collins (three great coaches), Assistant Coach Tex Winter, former teammates Ron Harper and Bill Cartwright, and sports analysts Charley Rosen, Bill Simmons, and Elliot Kalb all singing the praises of Pippen. Notice how quick people in the Bulls organization (Jackson, Winter, Harper, Cartwright, even Jordan himself) are to talk about how great Scottie was and how much influence he had on the success of the team? When you’re said to be the second best player on the Dream Team, the greatest team ever assembled, you’re pretty dang good.

Horace Grant (first three championships)
Charley Rosen:
"an outstanding post-up defender, quick and sure on his defensive rotations, Grant was also a dependable jump shooter from the vicinity of the foul line, a runner, and a determined rebounder. Sure, sometimes he zigged when he should have zagged, and he was often Jackson's scapegoat — but, through it all, Grant always came to play."

During the Bulls’ first three-peat, Grant’s averages were:
‘91- .547 FG% and 8.4 rpg
’92- .578 FG% and 10 rpg
’93- .508 FG% and 9.5 rpg

Grant’s three year average of .544 FG% and 9.3 rpg would put him in the top 10 and top 15 of those respective statistical categories, in 2010.

In his book, Elliot Kalb outlines the affect that Grant, and later Rodman, had on the Bulls:
Chicago Bulls Rebounding
1993 +269 rebounds than opponents
1994 +309 rebounds than opponents
Grant leaves
1995 +80 rebounds than opponents
Rodman joins teams
1996 +541 rebounds than opponents
1997 +403 rebounds than opponents
1998 +426 rebounds than opponents

The rebounding numbers dropped pretty dramatically when Grant or Rodman weren’t around.

Dennis Rodman (second three championships)
Here’s some quotes from Elliot Kalb’s book:
“Rodman led the NBA in rebounds with three different franchises. He won two rebounding titles with the Pistons. He won twice with the Spurs. He was the league’s leading rebounder with the Bulls three consecutive seasons.”

“He should be remembered for being the player who hustled non-stop – and did all the dirty work. He would dive on the floor. He would deny the entry pass. He would pass up shots so his teammates would be happy. He gave his team more extra possessions than anyone.”

“Rodman was the greatest defensive forward of all time.”

“What team wouldn’t be excited to have a player do all the dirty work, shut down the opposing team’s leading scorer, and dove for every loose ball?”

“For a three-year period that encompassed the 1993, 1994, 1995 NBA seasons, Dennis Rodman averaged 18.1 rebounds per game. Of those 223 games, he grabbed 20+ rebounds in 94 of them.” You’ve got to be kidding me! In 42 percent of his games over three seasons, he pulled down 20+ rebounds. That’s just astounding. Kalb went on to say, "And why is that impressive? No other player has averaged as many as 18 rebounds per game in a single season (nevermind three consecutive seasons) besides Rodman since 1974." Rodman is the best rebounder of his generation. Over three and a half decades (1974-2010), no one comes close. Bill Simmons, in his book, chimes in, “Statistically, he’s one of the greatest rebounders ever (along with Russell and Chamberlain) because he grabbed such a significant percentage of his team’s boards.” He adds, “The ’92 Pistons averaged 44.3 rebounds a game; Rodman grabbed 42% of them. Russell’s highest percentage for one season was 35%; Wilt’s highest was 37%.” His numbers are even more impressive, considering the guy was only 6’8”."

Kalb adds another layer to Rodman’s rebounding, by pointing out that he didn’t take rebounds away from teammates:
“Robinson’s rebound total in two years with Rodman were 10.7 per game and 10.8 per game. Do you know what Robinson’s career average is? It was 10.8 per game. Scottie Pippen’s rebound totals in three years with Rodman were 6.4, 6.5, and 5.2 per game. Scottie’s career average for rebounds was 6.6 per game. Michael Jordan’s rebound totals in three years with Rodman were 6.6, 5.9, and 5.8 per game. Michael’s career average for rebounds was 6.2 per game.”

Elliot Kalb also pointed out that the ’95 Spurs were 42-7 with Rodman, 20-13 without him. A similar effect happened in ’99, when Rodman joined the Lakers. That year, the Lakers started out 7-6. Rodman joined the team, and they won 9 straight, but he only stayed with them for a total of 23 games that year. In total, the Lakers were 17-6 with him and 14-13 without him.

Past quotes from Charley Rosen:
"[he] solved the mysteries of the triangle offense in a matter of weeks. He was smart and quick (vertically and horizontally). He willingly sacrificed his body, ran the court, and played madcap defense."

"For sheer athleticism — jumping (both elevation and quickness off the floor), speed, hand-eye coordination, flexibility, anticipation, reaction and instinct — Rodman was indeed in a class by himself. Also, his on-court intelligence was vastly underrated. For example, where players like Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Darrell Walker, and several others were never able to grasp the intricacies of the triangle offense, Rodman picked it up in a flash. Plus, Rodman's court awareness was as accomplished as the league's most celebrated point guards. And he lead the NBA in rebounding seven times while being an integral part of five championship teams."

A quote from Bill Simmons’ book:
“He guarded Larry Bird better than anyone. Nobody else came close. Other than Kevin McHale, nobody could defend so many different types of players effectively: Magic, Bird, Malone, Kemp, Barkley, Worthy, Jordan…”

Dennis Rodman positively affected four franchises (Pistons, Spurs, Bulls, Lakers), and helped two of them win five championships.

No one should ever say that Jordan won with only Pippen and Rodman. You don't put an only in front of two of the greatest, if not the two greatest, defensive forwards of all-time. What wins championships? Defense.

That wraps up part one. Part two will be about the role players Jordan had.

NFC Worst?

2011-04-10T23:16:00.001-07:00

Originally written September 24, 2010. Updated 4/12/11.

During one of his podcasts, Bill Simmons discussed football with Cousin Sal. One of the things they touched on was how the NFC West is the worst division in football, and maybe even in sports. This seemed odd to me, considering two NFC West teams have gone to the Super Bowl since 2006. So I did a little research. Here's the playoff records of each division, for the last 6 years:

AFC North: 13-8 (.619)

NFC West: 9-6 (.600)

NFC North: 9-7 (.563)

AFC East: 9-9 (.500)

NFC East: 11-13 (.458)

AFC South: 7-9 (.438)

NFC South: 6-8 (.429)

AFC West: 4-7 (.364)

That's right. The NFC West has the second best playoff record in the league, during that time span. The only division with a marginally better record is the division that beat them both times in the Super Bowl. And it's not like both NFC West teams just made it to the Super Bowl. Both could've, or should've, beat the Steelers either time.

Granted, playoff records aren't entirely accurate of a division's quality. The NFC East, for example, has had multiple teams make the playoffs five times in the last six years. And four of those five times, two NFC East teams have faced each other, thereby screwing up the division's postseason record, ensuring a loss and victory simultaneously.

So instead of just looking at the overall postseason records, why not see how the NFC West stacks up against the highly touted NFC East and NFC South divisions head-to-head? The West is 4-1 against the East and 4-0 against the South.

Now, this isn't pretending that, top to bottom, the West is better than all the other NFC divisions. Obviously the East and South are better divisions. At least during the regular season. And that's the key: regular season. The problem with the whole "NFC Worst" discussion is that it completely ignores the postseason, which is the only thing that truly matters. It completely ignores the fact that the West has the second best playoff record (including at least one victory every year), is 8-1 against the East and South, and has been to two Super Bowls in the past six years. What a horrible division!

And if your problem with the NFC West is the quality of the games they provide during the year? Well, you can find interest in the games by realizing whatever teams comes out of the West is almost assuredly going to have some measure of postseason success. Watch Giants-Eagles for the quality game it provides during the regular season. Watch Rams-Seahawks for the impact it will have on the playoffs.