Interesting playoff scenarios tonight. Here's what's on the line:
Possible playoff matchups:
Chicago: Miami, Orlando, Washington, New Jersey
Cleveland: Miami, Orlando, Washington
New Jersey: Toronto, Chicago
Washington: Toronto, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit
Orlando: Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit
Only Chicago and New Jersey control their own destiny. And they play each other. Actually, only New Jersey is in complete control of their own destiny, in that they can win and assure playing Toronto. So, it's almost like a playoff game in that they can eliminate Chicago (at least as their first round opponent) by beating them tonight. This is good for the Cavaliers, sort of.
A Chicago win will assure the Bulls the second seed, but could leave them playing Washington, Orlando or New Jersey. New Jersey, likewise, cannot assume that the teams below them will lose, since both Washington and Orlando could move up in the seeding with a victory, and thereby avoid playing Detroit.
New Jersey owns tiebreakers versus both teams below them. They swept the season series from Washington and went 2-2 versus Orlando. They also have a better conference record than Orlando.But Orlando holds the tiebreaker over Washington by virtue of a superior record versus playoff teams within the conference.
Washington, though injured, is facing a very unmotivated Indiana team. Washington can avoid playing Detroit in the first round with a victory, ensuring them either the sixth or seventh seed. If they lose, Orlando can pass them for the honor of playing Cleveland or Chicago. The Magic, with something to play for, host Miami, a team trying to get healthy for the playoffs with absolutely nothing on the line.
The Cavs are obviously not in control of their own destiny. They need a Chicago loss/New Jersey win (and a victory over the Bucks) to avoid Miami and secure the No. 2 seed. So the real question is who would New Jersey rather play, Toronto or Chicago? And if New Jersey were to lose, who would Washington rather play?
A win tonight will give N.J. splits (2-2) versus both Chicago and Toronto, but Chicago just took them apart a few weeks ago, so you have to assume they'll be happy to avoid them in the first round. But this is not quite as meaningful of a game for New Jersey as we would like it to be. Here's what the experts say:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-070417
Washington has been spanked by Chicago recently as well, so I think it's safe to say they would prefer to play Toronto or Cleveland. As previously stated, a victory for Washington keeps them out of Detroit, but it also significantly decreases their chance of playing Chicago, while increasing their chances of playing Toronto. By my calculations, their chances of playing Cleveland are about the same whether they win or lose (1 in 4 compared to 1 in 5).
The best scenario for Cleveland is obviously for both New Jersey and Washington to win, as the depleted Wizards are probably the weakest team right now.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
That's, like, your opinion man
A friend sent me this message the other day:
As I noted earlier Bill Simmons of ESPN.com is big on bashing LeBron...here's his latest:
[Thumb's Down] To LeBron James, who coasted through the Skills Challenge on All-Star Saturday and played the All-Star Game with the uplifting,charismatic intensity of a female porn star trying to break one of those"most male partners in one afternoon" records. Could we end up putting him in the "Too Much, Too Soon" Pantheon some day? Will he become the basketball version of Eddie Murphy, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson and every otherceleb who became famous too quickly and eventually burned out?
Here's what I know. I had four conversations with connected NBA people over the weekend that centered around the same themes: LeBron isn't playing nearly as hard as he did last season; it looks like his only goal right now is to get his coach fired; he's regressing as a basketball player (especially his passing skills and his shot selection); he made a huge mistake firing his agent and turning his career over to his buddies back home (all of whom are in over their heads); he was a much bigger problem during the Olympics than anyone realized; he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself anymore; he has an overrated sense of his own worth and his ownimpact in the sports world (as witnessed by the ESPN interview last week when he answered the "What are your goals?" question with two words: "Global icon"); he's been protected by magazine fluff pieces and buddy-buddy TV interviews for far too long; he doesn't have the same relentless drive to keep dominating everyone like Wade and Kobe have; and basically, we're much closer to LeBron re-enacting the career arc of Martina Hingis, Eric Lindros
and Junior Griffey than anyone realizes. This will evolve into THE dominant NBA story of the next two months. You watch.
To this I responded:
I have no doubt that there are many Lebron-haters out there, ESPECIALLY amongst NBA "insiders." I suspect its actually trendy in NBA circles to trash "King" James. Well, I think it's mostly, but not entirely, bullshit, but for what it's worth I'll address each point:
1) First, I've always loved Bill Simmons, but his bit is actually starting to get old. His social commentary is funny, but I would hardly call him an expert -- hence the Page 2 billing. Secondly, it's the f***ing All Star game, in Vegas, and everyone but Dwight Howard was clearly hung-over. Even so, Lebron's stat line led the Eastern Conference. So I don't begrudge any lack of enthusiasm (he tried that alley-oop to himself, didn't he?). Back to our pornstar analogy: I don't think it matters if the chick coasts on a few studs, so long as she has a nice body and attempts a few nice moves in the process. It's the All Star Game. Records Room. B-1.
2) I agree Lebron is not playing as hard as he did last season. I think he looks tired. I also think that the Cavs brass and Lebron learned last year that the regular season is a marathon, not a race. Remember that it was Detroit that was far and away the best team in the league last year during the regular season. Miami proved that the important thing is to peak at the
right time and have all your players healthy for the stretch run into the playoffs. Lebron looked exhausted by the end of the Washington series, and was pretty much out of gas versus Detroit. One of the few things Mike Brown has done well this year is utilize the bench and rest his starters. Lebron's minutes are down to just over 40 per game -- still one of the highest in the league, by the way. Let's also not forget, that unlike nearly every other premier player in the league, Lebron has not been injured in his first 3+ years, so he didn't benefit from that extra down time. Nor has he been benched as the result of nagging injuries.
3) I think that there was considerable dissention within the ranks toward Mike Brown, and rightly so. Brown was too obsessed with defense, and he failed to consider that the Cavs were underachieving so much on offense that playing good defense was often futile and even self-defeating. Thankfully, Brown seems to have gotten the message, and the Cavs have made some rotation changes and are trying to push the tempo more. In Brown's defense, though, this is the first year installing the new offensive system, while the defense is on year two. This is reflected in the team's statistics. Also, pretty much all the teams with the best defense are near the top of the standings, while the best offensive teams have widely disparate records.
4) I hate to say it, but, at least in the short term, I agree that at times it looks like Lebron has regressed just a bit this year. Again, though, I blame this mostly on fatigue and frustration with the offense and surrounding cast. I think he and Coach Brown have finally come to an understanding. My biggest fear is that they will try to force feed Ilgauskas like they did last year. That really is what brought the offense to a grinding halt.
5) James fired his agent, Aaron Goodwin, almost two years ago, man. Since then things have continued to go quite swimmingly for Lebron. He has continued to grow his endorsement portfolio with only top brands and he successfully negotiated a contract extension with the Cavaliers that set the standard for several of his NBA peers (I thought that was a pretty shrewd move). I am sure that NBA "insiders" would like to think that only the good ol' boy network can get things done though. Also, he didn't "turn his career over to his buddies" -- from everything I've read, there is no mistaking who the CEO of that company is. Perhaps peple have been reading articles like this:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-07/02-11-07/20sports.htm
Seems almost identicle to the list you gave. The author fails to note that a) Lebron already has the best deals out there (Nike, Coke), b) the big fish only take the best endorsements (let scuba man down there hump T-mobile), and must be wary of saturation.
http://benjamincox.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-too-bad-lebron-signed-that-contract.html
6) I don't know about the "problem during the Olympics." Can you elaborate?
7) He seems like he's still having fun, but he's not 19 anymore. Maybe he's just growing up? Didn't you change a bit from 19-22? Overall though, he seems like basically the same guy to me, except he expects a few more foul calls. Again, normal for a four year veteran of his stature.
8) Lebron has said from almost day one that he wants to transcend the sport/be an icon. This is a) not news and b) something originally perceived in a positive way.
9) "He's been protected by magazine fluff pieces and buddy-buddy TV interviews for far too long." Pure Lebron hate speech. Yes, like Michael Jordan before him, Lebron and his handlers have been very careful about how they've portrayed him, keeping him as bland as possible for Wal-Mart America. I wouldn't say he's been "protected" by fluff pieces, though. I'm
calling bullshit here for sure. He's protecting his "brand" by not making political statements and the like. So what? He has his whole life after making his millions to make statements. He still gives a tremendous amount to charity and has been amazingly giving in his home town of Akron. Plenty of guys would have big-timed the hometown by now. Do you even know where Dwayne Wade is from?
10) First off, I don't put Wade in the same category as Kobe when it coms to "relentless drive." Wade has yet to prove that to me. Also, Wade has missed a bunch of games with injuries and generally had a lot more time to rest and recover than Lebron.
11) "basically, we're much closer to LeBron re-enacting the career arc of Martina Hingis, Eric Lindros and Junior Griffey." Well, again this just shows the credibility of your sources. I'd take Griffey's career any day.
12) "This will evolve into THE dominant NBA story of the next two months. You watch."
Are these your words, or your "insider"s words? Either way, I highly doubt it will be more than a footnote. Lebron is still in the top 7 or 8 in efficiency rating, and there's not that much season left. I expect the Cavs to continue to improve and finish strong. I also expect that Lebron's FG% and assist rate will improve between now and the end of the season. Want to wager?
As I noted earlier Bill Simmons of ESPN.com is big on bashing LeBron...here's his latest:
[Thumb's Down] To LeBron James, who coasted through the Skills Challenge on All-Star Saturday and played the All-Star Game with the uplifting,charismatic intensity of a female porn star trying to break one of those"most male partners in one afternoon" records. Could we end up putting him in the "Too Much, Too Soon" Pantheon some day? Will he become the basketball version of Eddie Murphy, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson and every otherceleb who became famous too quickly and eventually burned out?
Here's what I know. I had four conversations with connected NBA people over the weekend that centered around the same themes: LeBron isn't playing nearly as hard as he did last season; it looks like his only goal right now is to get his coach fired; he's regressing as a basketball player (especially his passing skills and his shot selection); he made a huge mistake firing his agent and turning his career over to his buddies back home (all of whom are in over their heads); he was a much bigger problem during the Olympics than anyone realized; he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself anymore; he has an overrated sense of his own worth and his ownimpact in the sports world (as witnessed by the ESPN interview last week when he answered the "What are your goals?" question with two words: "Global icon"); he's been protected by magazine fluff pieces and buddy-buddy TV interviews for far too long; he doesn't have the same relentless drive to keep dominating everyone like Wade and Kobe have; and basically, we're much closer to LeBron re-enacting the career arc of Martina Hingis, Eric Lindros
and Junior Griffey than anyone realizes. This will evolve into THE dominant NBA story of the next two months. You watch.
To this I responded:
I have no doubt that there are many Lebron-haters out there, ESPECIALLY amongst NBA "insiders." I suspect its actually trendy in NBA circles to trash "King" James. Well, I think it's mostly, but not entirely, bullshit, but for what it's worth I'll address each point:
1) First, I've always loved Bill Simmons, but his bit is actually starting to get old. His social commentary is funny, but I would hardly call him an expert -- hence the Page 2 billing. Secondly, it's the f***ing All Star game, in Vegas, and everyone but Dwight Howard was clearly hung-over. Even so, Lebron's stat line led the Eastern Conference. So I don't begrudge any lack of enthusiasm (he tried that alley-oop to himself, didn't he?). Back to our pornstar analogy: I don't think it matters if the chick coasts on a few studs, so long as she has a nice body and attempts a few nice moves in the process. It's the All Star Game. Records Room. B-1.
2) I agree Lebron is not playing as hard as he did last season. I think he looks tired. I also think that the Cavs brass and Lebron learned last year that the regular season is a marathon, not a race. Remember that it was Detroit that was far and away the best team in the league last year during the regular season. Miami proved that the important thing is to peak at the
right time and have all your players healthy for the stretch run into the playoffs. Lebron looked exhausted by the end of the Washington series, and was pretty much out of gas versus Detroit. One of the few things Mike Brown has done well this year is utilize the bench and rest his starters. Lebron's minutes are down to just over 40 per game -- still one of the highest in the league, by the way. Let's also not forget, that unlike nearly every other premier player in the league, Lebron has not been injured in his first 3+ years, so he didn't benefit from that extra down time. Nor has he been benched as the result of nagging injuries.
3) I think that there was considerable dissention within the ranks toward Mike Brown, and rightly so. Brown was too obsessed with defense, and he failed to consider that the Cavs were underachieving so much on offense that playing good defense was often futile and even self-defeating. Thankfully, Brown seems to have gotten the message, and the Cavs have made some rotation changes and are trying to push the tempo more. In Brown's defense, though, this is the first year installing the new offensive system, while the defense is on year two. This is reflected in the team's statistics. Also, pretty much all the teams with the best defense are near the top of the standings, while the best offensive teams have widely disparate records.
4) I hate to say it, but, at least in the short term, I agree that at times it looks like Lebron has regressed just a bit this year. Again, though, I blame this mostly on fatigue and frustration with the offense and surrounding cast. I think he and Coach Brown have finally come to an understanding. My biggest fear is that they will try to force feed Ilgauskas like they did last year. That really is what brought the offense to a grinding halt.
5) James fired his agent, Aaron Goodwin, almost two years ago, man. Since then things have continued to go quite swimmingly for Lebron. He has continued to grow his endorsement portfolio with only top brands and he successfully negotiated a contract extension with the Cavaliers that set the standard for several of his NBA peers (I thought that was a pretty shrewd move). I am sure that NBA "insiders" would like to think that only the good ol' boy network can get things done though. Also, he didn't "turn his career over to his buddies" -- from everything I've read, there is no mistaking who the CEO of that company is. Perhaps peple have been reading articles like this:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-07/02-11-07/20sports.htm
Seems almost identicle to the list you gave. The author fails to note that a) Lebron already has the best deals out there (Nike, Coke), b) the big fish only take the best endorsements (let scuba man down there hump T-mobile), and must be wary of saturation.
http://benjamincox.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-too-bad-lebron-signed-that-contract.html
6) I don't know about the "problem during the Olympics." Can you elaborate?
7) He seems like he's still having fun, but he's not 19 anymore. Maybe he's just growing up? Didn't you change a bit from 19-22? Overall though, he seems like basically the same guy to me, except he expects a few more foul calls. Again, normal for a four year veteran of his stature.
8) Lebron has said from almost day one that he wants to transcend the sport/be an icon. This is a) not news and b) something originally perceived in a positive way.
9) "He's been protected by magazine fluff pieces and buddy-buddy TV interviews for far too long." Pure Lebron hate speech. Yes, like Michael Jordan before him, Lebron and his handlers have been very careful about how they've portrayed him, keeping him as bland as possible for Wal-Mart America. I wouldn't say he's been "protected" by fluff pieces, though. I'm
calling bullshit here for sure. He's protecting his "brand" by not making political statements and the like. So what? He has his whole life after making his millions to make statements. He still gives a tremendous amount to charity and has been amazingly giving in his home town of Akron. Plenty of guys would have big-timed the hometown by now. Do you even know where Dwayne Wade is from?
10) First off, I don't put Wade in the same category as Kobe when it coms to "relentless drive." Wade has yet to prove that to me. Also, Wade has missed a bunch of games with injuries and generally had a lot more time to rest and recover than Lebron.
11) "basically, we're much closer to LeBron re-enacting the career arc of Martina Hingis, Eric Lindros and Junior Griffey." Well, again this just shows the credibility of your sources. I'd take Griffey's career any day.
12) "This will evolve into THE dominant NBA story of the next two months. You watch."
Are these your words, or your "insider"s words? Either way, I highly doubt it will be more than a footnote. Lebron is still in the top 7 or 8 in efficiency rating, and there's not that much season left. I expect the Cavs to continue to improve and finish strong. I also expect that Lebron's FG% and assist rate will improve between now and the end of the season. Want to wager?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Roster issues
According to Hollinger's rating system, updated daily, Gooden ranks #63. I think Z ranks fairly high there as well. Hughes is obviously a huge disappointment. He is our highest paid player, was supposed to be our #2 guy, but he is #4 at best. I don't think that Hughes has ever had a sustained stretch where he has been healthy, but given the money and production you can't deny he's been a big bust so far.
But what upsets me most is the Cavs apparent unwillingness to trade Anderson Varejao. His value will never be higher than it is now. He has no offensive game outside of 4 feet, and while I admire his defense and hustle, the reality is that he is not much more than a poor man's Tony Battie. Teams want him. If we can get some serious help in the backcourt, we should trade him now.
Regarding the Gooden, the traditional media continues to repeat the Cavs mantra that Gooden is "inconsistent" yet they refuse to give him consistent minutes. By that, I don't just mean his overall minutes per game, but sustained stretches on th court. Every time Gooden starts to warm up, Brown takes him out. I will asume that there are occassional defensive lapses, but Brown needs to look at the big picture in terms of developing chemistry and continuity that the Cavs talked about so much in the preseason. Apparently that doesn't apply to Gooden.
Z has made his own bed, to a point. His shots develop so slowly that its too easy for other teams to defend, and it forces the offense to remain in spread position for too long without anyone moving through the lane. He also doesn't pass well out of the double team, which is in fact one of the main definitions of a center. He is slow rolling off the pick and roll, and then doesn't make the interior pass when the weakside help gets there before he does. This is a deadly combination. He also compensates for his lack of speed by coming out of the pick early before forcing the defense to commit. I don't deny Z's skills, but I agree more and more with Charlie Rosen's assesment that he is a bad match for this team, and would actually be much more valuable as a bench player.
Have we ever seen the "big" athletic lineup with Lebron, Hughes, Gooden, Marshall and Varejao? That lineup would dominate on the boards without sacrificing too much on defense. That lineup could run, the middle would be much more open for slashers Lebron and Hughes to get to the rack, and yet we would still have Marshall camping out for three's. So, Lebron or Hughes would handle the rock, while Varejao would set the high screens. Gooden would essentially be the center on offense, with Varejao at the 4, Marshall at the three (your classic baseline shooting small forward). On defense, though, Varejao would be the center, with Gooden guarding the other team's 3. We could also run this offense with Gibson instead of Hughes. Tonight, we might see this with Gibson, Hughes, Gooden, Marshall and Varejao. I just think the Cavs talked so much about wanting interchangeable, athletic players to implement their defensive strategy, yet they never seem to play
those guys at the same time, even when it might help their offense as well.
But what upsets me most is the Cavs apparent unwillingness to trade Anderson Varejao. His value will never be higher than it is now. He has no offensive game outside of 4 feet, and while I admire his defense and hustle, the reality is that he is not much more than a poor man's Tony Battie. Teams want him. If we can get some serious help in the backcourt, we should trade him now.
Regarding the Gooden, the traditional media continues to repeat the Cavs mantra that Gooden is "inconsistent" yet they refuse to give him consistent minutes. By that, I don't just mean his overall minutes per game, but sustained stretches on th court. Every time Gooden starts to warm up, Brown takes him out. I will asume that there are occassional defensive lapses, but Brown needs to look at the big picture in terms of developing chemistry and continuity that the Cavs talked about so much in the preseason. Apparently that doesn't apply to Gooden.
Z has made his own bed, to a point. His shots develop so slowly that its too easy for other teams to defend, and it forces the offense to remain in spread position for too long without anyone moving through the lane. He also doesn't pass well out of the double team, which is in fact one of the main definitions of a center. He is slow rolling off the pick and roll, and then doesn't make the interior pass when the weakside help gets there before he does. This is a deadly combination. He also compensates for his lack of speed by coming out of the pick early before forcing the defense to commit. I don't deny Z's skills, but I agree more and more with Charlie Rosen's assesment that he is a bad match for this team, and would actually be much more valuable as a bench player.
Have we ever seen the "big" athletic lineup with Lebron, Hughes, Gooden, Marshall and Varejao? That lineup would dominate on the boards without sacrificing too much on defense. That lineup could run, the middle would be much more open for slashers Lebron and Hughes to get to the rack, and yet we would still have Marshall camping out for three's. So, Lebron or Hughes would handle the rock, while Varejao would set the high screens. Gooden would essentially be the center on offense, with Varejao at the 4, Marshall at the three (your classic baseline shooting small forward). On defense, though, Varejao would be the center, with Gooden guarding the other team's 3. We could also run this offense with Gibson instead of Hughes. Tonight, we might see this with Gibson, Hughes, Gooden, Marshall and Varejao. I just think the Cavs talked so much about wanting interchangeable, athletic players to implement their defensive strategy, yet they never seem to play
those guys at the same time, even when it might help their offense as well.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Cavs beat Spurs again!
Bennie and I sat in the second row. The view of Eva Longoria was fantastic. I wonder if she knew we were sitting in her seats! I think the dude sitting next to us was a scout.
I got curious and looked at their roster, pegging Beno Udrich as a guy we might be wiling to take a flyer on at point guard. What would it cost us? Well, I thought to get a guy like Andre Miller we would for sure have to give up Varejoa. But Beno? I would hope we could get him for Sasha and Snow. It would probably be a package deal. I think they might have interest in Sasha because the Spurs really need some youth and athleticism on the wing. All this was just in my mind, of course, until I came across this little tidbit in the San Antonio Express:
"Do the Spurs look to make any type of trade before the deadline and who might they look to deal?
–Joseph Rodriguez, San Antonio
The Spurs are always looking at possible deals before the trade deadline. Finding one that works, however, is the hard part.
In the past three seasons, the Spurs have made one Deadline Day trade (Malik Rose for Nazr Mohammed) and had two others all but done before they collapsed (Rose for Kurt Thomas; Brent Barry for J.R. Smith). You can probably expect to hear three names come up in conversations this season: Eric Williams (he has an expiring contract); Jackie Butler (he’s young and not playing); and Beno Udrih (he has a cheap contract, he’s young, he’s skilled and he seems to have signed a three-year lease in Pop’s doghouse).
Barry surfaced in last week’s talks regarding Los Angeles Clippers’ swingman Corey Maggette, but the Spurs have been reluctant to move him – at least in that deal – because he’s finally playing like they hoped he would when they
signed him."
According to Bennie we were sitting next to this fellow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Demps
I got curious and looked at their roster, pegging Beno Udrich as a guy we might be wiling to take a flyer on at point guard. What would it cost us? Well, I thought to get a guy like Andre Miller we would for sure have to give up Varejoa. But Beno? I would hope we could get him for Sasha and Snow. It would probably be a package deal. I think they might have interest in Sasha because the Spurs really need some youth and athleticism on the wing. All this was just in my mind, of course, until I came across this little tidbit in the San Antonio Express:
"Do the Spurs look to make any type of trade before the deadline and who might they look to deal?
–Joseph Rodriguez, San Antonio
The Spurs are always looking at possible deals before the trade deadline. Finding one that works, however, is the hard part.
In the past three seasons, the Spurs have made one Deadline Day trade (Malik Rose for Nazr Mohammed) and had two others all but done before they collapsed (Rose for Kurt Thomas; Brent Barry for J.R. Smith). You can probably expect to hear three names come up in conversations this season: Eric Williams (he has an expiring contract); Jackie Butler (he’s young and not playing); and Beno Udrih (he has a cheap contract, he’s young, he’s skilled and he seems to have signed a three-year lease in Pop’s doghouse).
Barry surfaced in last week’s talks regarding Los Angeles Clippers’ swingman Corey Maggette, but the Spurs have been reluctant to move him – at least in that deal – because he’s finally playing like they hoped he would when they
signed him."
According to Bennie we were sitting next to this fellow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Demps
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Making the parts fit
Seems like overall, Gibson is being tested/groomed for the starting position. It’s hard to argue with the way they’ve handled this situation. Whether we are 10 games or 20 games away from Boobie being the starter, I don’t know. Have we found our BJ Armstrong? VERY similar skill set: same size, defensive acumen, and nice looking stroke. Similar handles at this stage of their career as well. Defensively, Gibson is still not quite as strong as Snow, but he shows a lot of promise.
In one of my posts last year regarding the Damon Jones signing, I mentioned that by the end of their contracts, both Jones and Snow would be fairly effective as backups, assuming we have a young, developing starter. Both have two guaranteed years remaining, and could be part of a salary dump in their final year. That last year is actually very valuable to the Cavs as trade bait in 07-08, when other teams may be looking to clear cap space.
Scott Pollard’s role is strictly as injury insurance and as a practice player. We are very deep in the frontcourt. Pollard was basically signed in case Z or V got injured.
The Cavs offense is terrible, although it showed signs of life versus Atlanta – hardly a worthy test. That said, I think it’s far too soon to make a statement about Brown’s ability to develop younger players. Gibson and Shannon Brown are only rookies, just a few months into their professional careers. The only other young players that Coach Brown has inherited have been Varejao and Pavlovic. I think he’s done okay there, if anything giving too many minutes to Varejao. Pavlovic would be more vauable to another team. And I don’t think anyone could kiss Lebron’s butt more than Silas did.
The Cavs never imagined Shannon Brown as anything but a two guard. Ferry was very clear about that over the summer. Turns out that he is a bit shorter than Gibson, though (although he is a bit stockier). I don’t think the Cavs are giving up on Shannon yet, but his path into the rotation isn’t quite as clear as Gibson’s, given his ball handling skills. Plus, Gibson has shown the better stroke in games, and apparently in practice as well.
I am not overly concerned about the Cavs at this point. I think that the organization made a commitment to give the starters more rest this year, trying to avoid injuries and burnout. This worked very well for the Heat last year, although it cost them some games during the regular season.
My main concern is that they are not giving Gooden quite enough minutes, and have relegated him to complete garbage man status in the offense. This is a terrible waste of his abilities, especially considering how often our offense stagnates, that we didn’t sign him for his defense, and he is still one of the younger players on the team. The dude has logged shockingly few minutes!
Gooden’s post up game is actually one of his best assets, but requires that someone actually pass him the ball on the block with time on the shot clock. He is also athletic and he can run, which makes him perfect with LeBron and Hughes. I think the main problem is that he doesn’t compliment Z very well, especially since one of Z’s most glaring weaknesses is his inability to pass out of the double team. Interior passing, Denny -- we don’t have it. You can’t have a player who is completely ignored on offense (Gooden), especially when you already have a starter that is rarely guarded anyway (Snow). Gooden, for his part, is actually quite a good passer. I am also starting to agree more and more with last year’s critics who said that Z wouldn’t fit very well with the rest of the team they are building. This should be the real issue being discussed.
In one of my posts last year regarding the Damon Jones signing, I mentioned that by the end of their contracts, both Jones and Snow would be fairly effective as backups, assuming we have a young, developing starter. Both have two guaranteed years remaining, and could be part of a salary dump in their final year. That last year is actually very valuable to the Cavs as trade bait in 07-08, when other teams may be looking to clear cap space.
Scott Pollard’s role is strictly as injury insurance and as a practice player. We are very deep in the frontcourt. Pollard was basically signed in case Z or V got injured.
The Cavs offense is terrible, although it showed signs of life versus Atlanta – hardly a worthy test. That said, I think it’s far too soon to make a statement about Brown’s ability to develop younger players. Gibson and Shannon Brown are only rookies, just a few months into their professional careers. The only other young players that Coach Brown has inherited have been Varejao and Pavlovic. I think he’s done okay there, if anything giving too many minutes to Varejao. Pavlovic would be more vauable to another team. And I don’t think anyone could kiss Lebron’s butt more than Silas did.
The Cavs never imagined Shannon Brown as anything but a two guard. Ferry was very clear about that over the summer. Turns out that he is a bit shorter than Gibson, though (although he is a bit stockier). I don’t think the Cavs are giving up on Shannon yet, but his path into the rotation isn’t quite as clear as Gibson’s, given his ball handling skills. Plus, Gibson has shown the better stroke in games, and apparently in practice as well.
I am not overly concerned about the Cavs at this point. I think that the organization made a commitment to give the starters more rest this year, trying to avoid injuries and burnout. This worked very well for the Heat last year, although it cost them some games during the regular season.
My main concern is that they are not giving Gooden quite enough minutes, and have relegated him to complete garbage man status in the offense. This is a terrible waste of his abilities, especially considering how often our offense stagnates, that we didn’t sign him for his defense, and he is still one of the younger players on the team. The dude has logged shockingly few minutes!
Gooden’s post up game is actually one of his best assets, but requires that someone actually pass him the ball on the block with time on the shot clock. He is also athletic and he can run, which makes him perfect with LeBron and Hughes. I think the main problem is that he doesn’t compliment Z very well, especially since one of Z’s most glaring weaknesses is his inability to pass out of the double team. Interior passing, Denny -- we don’t have it. You can’t have a player who is completely ignored on offense (Gooden), especially when you already have a starter that is rarely guarded anyway (Snow). Gooden, for his part, is actually quite a good passer. I am also starting to agree more and more with last year’s critics who said that Z wouldn’t fit very well with the rest of the team they are building. This should be the real issue being discussed.
Saturday, November 4, 2006
In defense of Eric Snow
Obviously the lack of a perimeter game seems more glaring for a perimeter player, especially one who can't really penetrate all that well. I'll concede that. But is it really that much worse than an interior player with no interior game? All I'm saying is that this would be a big problem on a lot of teams, but I think it's only a small problem on this team.
Ferry's backcourt additions were meant to further marginalize Snow's lack of offense. An important, and often overlooked, detail in this discussion is that the Cavs are only counting on Snow for about 25 minutes a game. Every team has a fifth best starter. The good teams are the ones with the best 3-4 starters plus the best bench.
The Cavs have a similar situation with Ilgauskas. Zydrunas's critics often point out that he is a liability on defense, and that his style of play conflicts with the Cavs' otherwise athletic, up-tempo roster. But the Cavs frontcourt depth will allow them to play more athletic lineups early in the game. This should have effect of negating Z's foul proneness by slightly reducing his minutes played which will ensure that he will always be available as an offensive weapon in close games when the tempo slows down. Over the course of an entire season, this should also ensure that Zydrunas will be fresher for the playoffs. So, Zydrunas is not the "wrong" center for this team as it is currently constructed. On the contrary, he is an unbelievable weapon when employed appropriately.
Jones is playing more minutes than I thought he would. He is still our most likely player to be traded.
Last night brown used Hughes at the 3 (defensively) when Lebron rested. He went big (tall) at the other two frontcourt spots, playing Z and Varejao. He played Jones and Wesley at the guard spots, but on offense it looked like Hughes was handling the ball. I thought it was a sound lineup. He left Hughes in, and surounded him with both height and perimeter shooting without sacrificing too much ballhandling. I think a lot of lineups could work, but I suspect the main rule will be that when Lebron sits, Snow will sit as well.
Sasha Pavlovic is not yet 23 years old. On this team he might be trade bait. I think he has plenty of potential, but given the team's overall depth I would be thrilled if we could get him 10 minutes per night.
I'll dig up my old "thesis," which compared the evolution of the Cavs to MJ's Bulls. As I recall, I was pretty bullish (no pun intended) on the Cavs chances for THIS season. My main point was that the Bulls went from being a very average team (in MJ's first three years) to a championship team without making any drastic changes (though they did have the benefit of some high draft picks). On paper, those Bulls teams were every bit as "flawed" as LBJ's Cavs.
Ferry's backcourt additions were meant to further marginalize Snow's lack of offense. An important, and often overlooked, detail in this discussion is that the Cavs are only counting on Snow for about 25 minutes a game. Every team has a fifth best starter. The good teams are the ones with the best 3-4 starters plus the best bench.
The Cavs have a similar situation with Ilgauskas. Zydrunas's critics often point out that he is a liability on defense, and that his style of play conflicts with the Cavs' otherwise athletic, up-tempo roster. But the Cavs frontcourt depth will allow them to play more athletic lineups early in the game. This should have effect of negating Z's foul proneness by slightly reducing his minutes played which will ensure that he will always be available as an offensive weapon in close games when the tempo slows down. Over the course of an entire season, this should also ensure that Zydrunas will be fresher for the playoffs. So, Zydrunas is not the "wrong" center for this team as it is currently constructed. On the contrary, he is an unbelievable weapon when employed appropriately.
Jones is playing more minutes than I thought he would. He is still our most likely player to be traded.
Last night brown used Hughes at the 3 (defensively) when Lebron rested. He went big (tall) at the other two frontcourt spots, playing Z and Varejao. He played Jones and Wesley at the guard spots, but on offense it looked like Hughes was handling the ball. I thought it was a sound lineup. He left Hughes in, and surounded him with both height and perimeter shooting without sacrificing too much ballhandling. I think a lot of lineups could work, but I suspect the main rule will be that when Lebron sits, Snow will sit as well.
Sasha Pavlovic is not yet 23 years old. On this team he might be trade bait. I think he has plenty of potential, but given the team's overall depth I would be thrilled if we could get him 10 minutes per night.
I'll dig up my old "thesis," which compared the evolution of the Cavs to MJ's Bulls. As I recall, I was pretty bullish (no pun intended) on the Cavs chances for THIS season. My main point was that the Bulls went from being a very average team (in MJ's first three years) to a championship team without making any drastic changes (though they did have the benefit of some high draft picks). On paper, those Bulls teams were every bit as "flawed" as LBJ's Cavs.
Cavs beat Spurs
I'm not so sure that one win could be so significant this early in the season, but it was certainly a benchmark of some magnitude. I think the fact that we haven't won in San Antonio since 1988-1999 season is significant. Combined with last season's playoff showing, we can certainly feel this victory marks the return to the late 80's glory. It looks like the team has taken a step forward. Everyone came to camp in great shape and you can sense a comfort level, trust, and comraderie that wasn't yet fully developed last year. This is what a venture deep into the playoffs can do for a team. As I said at during last offseason, the team will get better with time. Some national pundits have questioned why Ferry didn't do more this offseason, particularly with the backcourt. As usual, these gurus failed to give a single example of exactly what plausable moved Ferry should have made. Ferry made some small, but significant changes, and would probably be willing to make a big move if the right deal presents itself. But, barring injury, this team is a contender without making any changes, so the deal would have to be absolutely perfect.
Yes, the Cavs are a great rebounding team. This is one of the reasons I like the Gooden deal so much. Had he been on the floor late against the Pistons ....
We have great, quality frontcourt depth and flexibility. Just about every possible combination of frontcourt skills can be put on the court at the same time. About the only weakness (and its only a slight definciency) is physicality on defense. This weakness is somewhat mitigated by several related factors:
1) The new rules that de-emphasize the interior game
2) Depth (highlighted somewhat dubiously in this case by the Pollard
aquisition) gives us plenty of fouls to go around and
3) lack of quality big men that can score inside and also make foul shots
The Cav's backcourt defense seems improved, but it's too early to make any statements. I would like to think the Lebron's experience with Coach K in the Olympics will improve his defensive game. Based on what we've seen from LBJ so far, I think it's a good bet. Hughes and Snow both look to be in excellent physical condition.
One overlooked factor for the Cavs backcourt is David Wesley. As mentioned earlier, Ferry's critics seem to think that his failure to significantly upgrade the backcourt is a major shortcoming.
1) As one astute comentator pointed out, the Cavs major offseason aquisitions were Gooden and Hughes. This team played most of the season and all of the playoffs without a healthy starting SG. Getting a healthy Hughes back is a big deal.
2) Some critics wonder how the Cavaliers will replace Flip Murray. What these critics overlook is that Murray did most of his damage as a result of Larry Hughes' injury. Murray is also one of the most inefficient players in the league. The guy has to be on the court for 40 minutes to get decent production out of him. For the role we expect him to play, Wesley is actually a far better (and cheaper) compliment. Wesley plays good defense and has a much more consistent shot than Murray. Wesley will also provide a much better mentor for Shannon Brown, who from all accounts will very soon also be both a better defender and a better shooter than Murray. Murray was Hughes Lite, which is just not exactly what we need from a bench player.
3) There seems to be almost an obsession regarding Eric Snow as a starting point guard. While I would love for the Cavs to get rid of Snow's $6 million per year over the next three years, that's just not going to happen. And if it does, Danny Ferry will be a genius in my eyes. But what exactly will six million bucks buy you at the PG position these days? And, all things considered, would that buy a significant upgrade over Snow? Last I checked, Kirk Hinrich just signed a 5 year deal for over $9 million per year. And Hinrich is not exactly a good defender, which brings me to my last point:
Most of the skepticism regarding the Cav's success with Snow at the point is based on a false notion of traditional "positions" in basketball. The NBA has been slowly moving away from defined positions for almost two decades. The Cavs, like the Spurs and Pistons before, have based their organizational philosphy on athleticism and flexibility. With the Cavs, big Z is an
obvious exception. But why is it any more acceptable for a team like the Bulls to have one, or sometimes two, frontcourt starters with little or no scoring ability, but not for the Cavs, who start FOUR very legitimate scoring options (Lebron, Hughes, Gooden, and Z), to have one starter who's primary raison d'etre is defense and ballhandling?
Yes, the Cavs are a great rebounding team. This is one of the reasons I like the Gooden deal so much. Had he been on the floor late against the Pistons ....
We have great, quality frontcourt depth and flexibility. Just about every possible combination of frontcourt skills can be put on the court at the same time. About the only weakness (and its only a slight definciency) is physicality on defense. This weakness is somewhat mitigated by several related factors:
1) The new rules that de-emphasize the interior game
2) Depth (highlighted somewhat dubiously in this case by the Pollard
aquisition) gives us plenty of fouls to go around and
3) lack of quality big men that can score inside and also make foul shots
The Cav's backcourt defense seems improved, but it's too early to make any statements. I would like to think the Lebron's experience with Coach K in the Olympics will improve his defensive game. Based on what we've seen from LBJ so far, I think it's a good bet. Hughes and Snow both look to be in excellent physical condition.
One overlooked factor for the Cavs backcourt is David Wesley. As mentioned earlier, Ferry's critics seem to think that his failure to significantly upgrade the backcourt is a major shortcoming.
1) As one astute comentator pointed out, the Cavs major offseason aquisitions were Gooden and Hughes. This team played most of the season and all of the playoffs without a healthy starting SG. Getting a healthy Hughes back is a big deal.
2) Some critics wonder how the Cavaliers will replace Flip Murray. What these critics overlook is that Murray did most of his damage as a result of Larry Hughes' injury. Murray is also one of the most inefficient players in the league. The guy has to be on the court for 40 minutes to get decent production out of him. For the role we expect him to play, Wesley is actually a far better (and cheaper) compliment. Wesley plays good defense and has a much more consistent shot than Murray. Wesley will also provide a much better mentor for Shannon Brown, who from all accounts will very soon also be both a better defender and a better shooter than Murray. Murray was Hughes Lite, which is just not exactly what we need from a bench player.
3) There seems to be almost an obsession regarding Eric Snow as a starting point guard. While I would love for the Cavs to get rid of Snow's $6 million per year over the next three years, that's just not going to happen. And if it does, Danny Ferry will be a genius in my eyes. But what exactly will six million bucks buy you at the PG position these days? And, all things considered, would that buy a significant upgrade over Snow? Last I checked, Kirk Hinrich just signed a 5 year deal for over $9 million per year. And Hinrich is not exactly a good defender, which brings me to my last point:
Most of the skepticism regarding the Cav's success with Snow at the point is based on a false notion of traditional "positions" in basketball. The NBA has been slowly moving away from defined positions for almost two decades. The Cavs, like the Spurs and Pistons before, have based their organizational philosphy on athleticism and flexibility. With the Cavs, big Z is an
obvious exception. But why is it any more acceptable for a team like the Bulls to have one, or sometimes two, frontcourt starters with little or no scoring ability, but not for the Cavs, who start FOUR very legitimate scoring options (Lebron, Hughes, Gooden, and Z), to have one starter who's primary raison d'etre is defense and ballhandling?
Monday, October 23, 2006
Point Guard situation: reprinted from the Disappointment Zone
As for the Cavaliers point guard situation, I commend the brass for apparently thinking outside the box. They seem to have decided to abandon traditional positional philosophy and focus more on collections of skills and matchups on the floor at any given moment. They obviously feel that they have enough players who can handle the ball (read: Lebron, occassionally Hughes) even when their true point, Snow, is not on the floor (which is likely to be more often this season). The drafting of Shannon Brown and the aquisition of Wesley gives them something they did not have last year: a viable DEFENSIVE replacement for Snow. They always knew they could have Lebron or Hughes handle the ball for extended stretches, but when Snow was off the floor the team was very vulnerable defensively against quicker backcourts.
Perhaps the now fitter Damon Jones will be able to log more time on the floor with Hughes handling the ball, but I think Jones will again be the odd man out more often than not. He will be used in very specific situations when his long distance abilities are needed (think Steve Kerr).
Of course, we shouldn’t give the Cavs too much credit for adopting this outlook — what choice did they have? The free agent market at the point position has been sparse for two seasons running and for at least one more to come. The 2006 draft was deep at the point position, but without standouts (not that they would have gotten a hypothetical standout with the 25th pick anyway). This leaves the trade market, which, barring a blockbuster deal, wouldn’t be likely to land us a significant improvement. And we haven’t even mentioned our impossible cap situation yet, have we?
Perhaps the now fitter Damon Jones will be able to log more time on the floor with Hughes handling the ball, but I think Jones will again be the odd man out more often than not. He will be used in very specific situations when his long distance abilities are needed (think Steve Kerr).
Of course, we shouldn’t give the Cavs too much credit for adopting this outlook — what choice did they have? The free agent market at the point position has been sparse for two seasons running and for at least one more to come. The 2006 draft was deep at the point position, but without standouts (not that they would have gotten a hypothetical standout with the 25th pick anyway). This leaves the trade market, which, barring a blockbuster deal, wouldn’t be likely to land us a significant improvement. And we haven’t even mentioned our impossible cap situation yet, have we?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Luke & Wally - Together at Last
I don't think we need another 3. Supposedly Hughes can play the 3, although I have serious doubts about that. I think we have ways of playing without a traditional 3, just as we have ways of playing without a traditional point guard. Imagine a big lineup of Snow, Hughes, Gooden, Marshall and Z. Or even a bit bigger with Snow, Hughes, Gooden (3), Pollard (4), Z. OR Snow, Hughes, Marshall (3), Pollard (4), Z. OR Snow, Hughes, Gooden (3), Marshall (4), Pollard (5). Did I mention Varejao?
The overall team concept was to get longer and more athletic, while maintaining the ability to shoot. It is assumed that athleticism increases the ability to play defense, and allows for more flexibility in terms of substitutions and matchups. Whether Mike Brown knows how to exploit this is up for debate. Big Z kind of throws a wrench in this strategy, and Marshall's conditioning was also problematic last year, but now we could potentially field an all athletic lineup of Hughes, Brown, Lebron, Gooden, and your pick of Varejao or Pollard. That lineup wouldn't be huge up front, but overall would be bigger and faster that any lineup another team could put on the floor. The only spot wanting there would be a more athletic
center. Perhaps that's why they are looking at this Jones guy, although the improved Marshall, or the scrappy Pollard might be just the right fit.
Back to the question of resting Lebron though: I think that the main issue when we take Lebron out is not worrying about replacing his ball handling, but rather his athleticism and energy. So I say you make sure that when Lebron is rested, Hughes and Gooden must both be on the floor. So my small, non-Lebron lineup might be Snow, Brown, Hughes, Gooden, and Varejao. And my big non-Lebron lineup would be Hughes, Brown, Gooden, Varejao, and Z. The small lineup features ball handling and athleticism. The second lineup sacrifices some ball handling but replaces it with size AND scoring. I don't see why we can't manage to play ten minutes of basketball with one of these lineups.
The overall team concept was to get longer and more athletic, while maintaining the ability to shoot. It is assumed that athleticism increases the ability to play defense, and allows for more flexibility in terms of substitutions and matchups. Whether Mike Brown knows how to exploit this is up for debate. Big Z kind of throws a wrench in this strategy, and Marshall's conditioning was also problematic last year, but now we could potentially field an all athletic lineup of Hughes, Brown, Lebron, Gooden, and your pick of Varejao or Pollard. That lineup wouldn't be huge up front, but overall would be bigger and faster that any lineup another team could put on the floor. The only spot wanting there would be a more athletic
center. Perhaps that's why they are looking at this Jones guy, although the improved Marshall, or the scrappy Pollard might be just the right fit.
Back to the question of resting Lebron though: I think that the main issue when we take Lebron out is not worrying about replacing his ball handling, but rather his athleticism and energy. So I say you make sure that when Lebron is rested, Hughes and Gooden must both be on the floor. So my small, non-Lebron lineup might be Snow, Brown, Hughes, Gooden, and Varejao. And my big non-Lebron lineup would be Hughes, Brown, Gooden, Varejao, and Z. The small lineup features ball handling and athleticism. The second lineup sacrifices some ball handling but replaces it with size AND scoring. I don't see why we can't manage to play ten minutes of basketball with one of these lineups.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Lebron, Gooden, and the draft
Well, I have come to grips with the Lebron deal.
In the end, the signing is a good thing, even if it's for one less year than we all would like. It certainly made me feel better that some other marquee players took the same route, especially with Wade coming off a championship season in Miami. Financially, the shorter deal makes total sense for James and Wade, both of whom are making enough money from endorsements to justify the risk. Plus, Wade must realize that his chances of winning another championship in Miami will diminish significantly each year as Shaq gets older, and drastically once he stops playing altogether. I thought 'Melo was smart to take the longer deal. Bosh definitely should have taken the longer deal.
According to published reports, the Cavs and Drew Gooden are far apart on a new contract. Drew is restricted and no team has the cap room to make him a significant offer. So, the Cavs are obviously very much in the driver's seat. I just hope they don't overplay their hand; offensively talented 24 year old power forwards are not easy to come by. And regardless of the
Cavs' negotiating position, Gooden was the team's second best offensive option in the playoffs last year, in addition to being their most consistent rebounder. Right now it seems that the Cavs aren't offering much more than the mid-level exception, somewhere around $6-million per year. Clearly this is the bottom side of the negotiations. The top side is the 6-year/$60-million deal that Nene just inked. I predict that Drew's contract, if he signs, will be in the $8 million per year range. The Cavs are saying they will match any offer Drew gets -- the same posture Chicago took with restricted free-agents Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler last year, when there was a lot more money going around. Chandler got signed to a long-term, bad contract (6 years/$64 million). Curry was signed and then traded to the Knicks. Personally, I think $10 million a year wouldn't be such a terrible deal for the Cavaliers, especially considering they are almost certain to get the best six years of the guy's career. But the Cavs are playing things close to the vest, basically stalling to see if they can pull off some kind of blockbuster in a sign and trade deal.
Lastly, I have been researching Shannon Brown and Daniel Gibson since the days leading up to the draft. I was going to post a compilation of my findings tonight anyway, but as I was reading up on the Gooden situation I came across this article by Terry Pluto. Much as it pains me to say it, Terry did his research well, and did his job for me. Terry seems to have the scoop on the Cavs again lately, no doubt the result of Danny Ferry returning to town:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14949076.htm
I think the end result here is a guy in Brown who could contribute immediately as a third/fourth guard and eventually be a starter. Upside equals solid NBA starter. Downside is probably marginal NBA starter/sixth man type. He is basically a slightly bigger (presumably healthier) Dajuan Wagner who can play tough defense and shoot a little bit. I heard an interview with Ferry and he said that they do not think that Brown has the handles to play the point. But Ferry also said in the same interview that he expects Larry and Lebron to handle the ball anyway. So, there you have it. Obviously they think he can fill Flip Murray's role right now (Murray signed a smaller-than-expected contract with Detroit), and perhaps even be a little better (better defender, probably a better shooter).
Gibson is a tougher read. Supposedly he is 6'2", and even at that he is considered small as a shooting guard. I was going to make the same comparison to Damon Jones. And I often compare Damon Jones to Steve Kerr. Steve could shoot, but was always too slow to defend well or penetrate, and never had quite good enough ball-handling skills to play the point. That
doesn't mean you wouldn't want him on your team though. Supposedly Gibson is a better defender than either Kerr was or Jones is, but that remains to be seen. When is come to defense, though, it doesn't hurt to be 20 years old (Jones is 30). It's not a coincidence that Jones has been mentioned in trade rumors.
Overall, the Cavs, with some luck, did a good job in the draft. Chad Ford had our picks ranked as the 21st, 28th, and 51st best NBA prospects this year. Ferry clearly values guys that can shoot and defend, especially further down in the draft. Most of the players they were reportedly interested in at point guard were poor shooters, and I think they were overjoyed to see Brown fall to them. That said, I think there were players higher in the draft that they would have loved to have had. I know they were very high on Randy Foye (picked 7th), for instance, who has been lighting it up in the summer league, and I believe they were trying to trade up to get him. Why else would they have worked a guy out who was clearly not going to be available late in the first round?
Danny Ferry and Mark Shapiro have become good friends, so it's no shock that they share some of the same organizational philosophies. The one trend we see here is that Ferry is especially averse to paying free agent dollars for marginal talent that could be obtained through the draft. When it comes to the team's top seven rotation players, you are going to have to pay (and sometimes overpay), but beyond that, some version of VORP clearly comes into play. The main difference between Shapiro and Ferry in this scenario is obviously their respective owners' purse strings.
In the end, the signing is a good thing, even if it's for one less year than we all would like. It certainly made me feel better that some other marquee players took the same route, especially with Wade coming off a championship season in Miami. Financially, the shorter deal makes total sense for James and Wade, both of whom are making enough money from endorsements to justify the risk. Plus, Wade must realize that his chances of winning another championship in Miami will diminish significantly each year as Shaq gets older, and drastically once he stops playing altogether. I thought 'Melo was smart to take the longer deal. Bosh definitely should have taken the longer deal.
According to published reports, the Cavs and Drew Gooden are far apart on a new contract. Drew is restricted and no team has the cap room to make him a significant offer. So, the Cavs are obviously very much in the driver's seat. I just hope they don't overplay their hand; offensively talented 24 year old power forwards are not easy to come by. And regardless of the
Cavs' negotiating position, Gooden was the team's second best offensive option in the playoffs last year, in addition to being their most consistent rebounder. Right now it seems that the Cavs aren't offering much more than the mid-level exception, somewhere around $6-million per year. Clearly this is the bottom side of the negotiations. The top side is the 6-year/$60-million deal that Nene just inked. I predict that Drew's contract, if he signs, will be in the $8 million per year range. The Cavs are saying they will match any offer Drew gets -- the same posture Chicago took with restricted free-agents Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler last year, when there was a lot more money going around. Chandler got signed to a long-term, bad contract (6 years/$64 million). Curry was signed and then traded to the Knicks. Personally, I think $10 million a year wouldn't be such a terrible deal for the Cavaliers, especially considering they are almost certain to get the best six years of the guy's career. But the Cavs are playing things close to the vest, basically stalling to see if they can pull off some kind of blockbuster in a sign and trade deal.
Lastly, I have been researching Shannon Brown and Daniel Gibson since the days leading up to the draft. I was going to post a compilation of my findings tonight anyway, but as I was reading up on the Gooden situation I came across this article by Terry Pluto. Much as it pains me to say it, Terry did his research well, and did his job for me. Terry seems to have the scoop on the Cavs again lately, no doubt the result of Danny Ferry returning to town:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14949076.htm
I think the end result here is a guy in Brown who could contribute immediately as a third/fourth guard and eventually be a starter. Upside equals solid NBA starter. Downside is probably marginal NBA starter/sixth man type. He is basically a slightly bigger (presumably healthier) Dajuan Wagner who can play tough defense and shoot a little bit. I heard an interview with Ferry and he said that they do not think that Brown has the handles to play the point. But Ferry also said in the same interview that he expects Larry and Lebron to handle the ball anyway. So, there you have it. Obviously they think he can fill Flip Murray's role right now (Murray signed a smaller-than-expected contract with Detroit), and perhaps even be a little better (better defender, probably a better shooter).
Gibson is a tougher read. Supposedly he is 6'2", and even at that he is considered small as a shooting guard. I was going to make the same comparison to Damon Jones. And I often compare Damon Jones to Steve Kerr. Steve could shoot, but was always too slow to defend well or penetrate, and never had quite good enough ball-handling skills to play the point. That
doesn't mean you wouldn't want him on your team though. Supposedly Gibson is a better defender than either Kerr was or Jones is, but that remains to be seen. When is come to defense, though, it doesn't hurt to be 20 years old (Jones is 30). It's not a coincidence that Jones has been mentioned in trade rumors.
Overall, the Cavs, with some luck, did a good job in the draft. Chad Ford had our picks ranked as the 21st, 28th, and 51st best NBA prospects this year. Ferry clearly values guys that can shoot and defend, especially further down in the draft. Most of the players they were reportedly interested in at point guard were poor shooters, and I think they were overjoyed to see Brown fall to them. That said, I think there were players higher in the draft that they would have loved to have had. I know they were very high on Randy Foye (picked 7th), for instance, who has been lighting it up in the summer league, and I believe they were trying to trade up to get him. Why else would they have worked a guy out who was clearly not going to be available late in the first round?
Danny Ferry and Mark Shapiro have become good friends, so it's no shock that they share some of the same organizational philosophies. The one trend we see here is that Ferry is especially averse to paying free agent dollars for marginal talent that could be obtained through the draft. When it comes to the team's top seven rotation players, you are going to have to pay (and sometimes overpay), but beyond that, some version of VORP clearly comes into play. The main difference between Shapiro and Ferry in this scenario is obviously their respective owners' purse strings.
Friday, December 2, 2005
Simmons compares the Cavs to MJ's Bulls
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/051130
Gotta' love Simmons -- he combines knowledge with a great sense of humor. You need both if you are going to follow the NBA. Its funny stuff.
Regarding Cleveland, Simmons got some things right and some things wrong. He is right that in the Indiana game, combined with the San Antonio loss, we do have the beginnings of a disturbing trend. But would we feel any better if we had gotten blown out by a lousy team? Indiana did just that, getting hammered at Charlotte. Then they lost at home to Atlanta! Those are the two worst teams in the league. But Simmons overstates the Cavaliers situation. The Indiana game, embarrassing as it was, was just one game -- just one bad game, on the road, against what many people think could be the top Eastern team. And Hughes was sick. As I saw it, we were flat that night, and shot poorly, while Indiana hit everything. Indiana is a tough match up for us anyway, what with Artest being able to guard our all-world player. Lebron did not handle it well. He was trying to post Artest up all game, instead of attacking the basket and PASSING. And the Cavs have to get the ball to Z when we are forced into half-court sets. That's why we have him. Its part of what will eventually make the team great.
Simmons's comparison to the late-80's Bulls is very interesting, but just a bit flawed. This is actually a much better team now than the Bulls had in '88, but with much less playoff experience. The result, however, might end up being the same. From 1985-1987, MJ's first three years in the league, the Bulls made the playoffs three times, despite never winning more than 40 games (so I don't want to hear about how bad the league is, Doc. Remember, the NBA has always thrived on dynasties come playoff time, and never had anything resembling parity during the season. If anything, the Association as a whole is more competitive this year than ever before). In 1988, the Bulls finally won 50 games, and handed the Cavs a first round exit before losing to Detroit in the conference semis. In 1989, the Bulls slipped to 47 wins, but still beat out the Cavs (the better team at the time), then Knicks, finally losing to eventual champion Detroit. A 55 win season (89-90) led to the same result in 1990. The Bulls then went on to win three championships from 1991-1993.
What did the Bulls do to improve over that span? Not as much as you might think. Basically from 1985-1987, they had MJ and a collection of old stiffs. They didn't have a winning record in any of those years, despite playing against terrible talent. Despite having the best young player in the league, this was a bad team, making the playoffs one year with a 32-50 record.
In 1988, they were a bit better team and actually won 50 games. They had gotten rid of some of the old guys and had acquired two first round draft picks, Horace Grant (5) and Scottie Pippen (10). Pippen played some significant minutes, but only averaged about 8 points a game. Grant sat the pine behind Charles Oakley and averaged about 7 points. They beat the up and coming Cavaliers in round one, just after the Nance trade.
1989 saw the emergence of Pippen and Grant, and Oakley was gone. Also, the Bulls acquired veteran center Bill Cartwright from the Knicks, relegating stiff David Corzine to the bench. Cartwright, for some reason, has received credit as a defense difference-maker on that Bulls team despite the fact that he was never a significant shot blocker and was only an average rebounder. During his best years he actually put up some pretty good offensive numbers, averaging 15-17 ppg as a Knick. Mainly, though, he was an upgrade over Corzine, and wasn't quite as likely to get abused on the defensive end against the likes of Ewing and Daugherty. That year the Bulls dropped to 47 wins, but made it into the conference semi's before losing to the Pistons.
1990 the Bulls made little changes, save for newcomer Stacey King. They also had a rookie named B.J. Armstrong who looked promising, but played little. The team got a little better as Grant and Pippen continued to improve and the teamed learned to play together. The Bulls won 55 games and lost again to the Pistons in the conference finals.
The 1991 team finally beat the Pistons and went on to beat an ailing Lakers team in the finals. The biggest change the Bulls saw that year was the development of Armstrong as a key player, relegating the likes of Craig Hodges and John Paxson to the bench. Ditto for 1992-1993 championship years. Cartwright continued to fade, but newcomers like Scott Williams picked up the slack.
So which Bulls team was Simmons referring to? The closest team I can see is that 47-win (1988-)1989 team just after they got Cartwright. That was their "big" free agent signing that year. The Cavs, though, already have a better center in Z and our "Pippen," Hughes, is farther along in his development than the actual Pippen was. Gooden looks a lot like Grant did -- a rebounder with nice offensive skills. The bench, once ours gets healthy, looks very similar. That Bulls team made it to the conference finals and lost to the eventual champions. I'd take that outcome, although I think we will will 50 games.
So, how did the Bulls finally win it all? It was simple. They developed young talent every year, and slowly pushed starters into bench roles as the talent got a little better. This allowed for a deep team, with 10-12 players able to play significant minutes. And they had Phil Jackson who knew how to use these players. The infusion of young talent also allowed for great defensive effort. The team knew who the scorers were, and everyone played defense. They made only a few timely free-agent signings, for role players. And then, the core spent a few years learning to play together. And of course, Michael Jordan got better every year too. People forget that Jordan was in his 7th year before he won a championship, his fourth year before he even played on a winning team. Clearly the Cavs are ahead of this curve, winning 42 games in LBJ's second year.
So, what are the keys for the Cavaliers to get to the next level? One could argue that it will be the development of players like Pavlovic, Jackson, and Varejao, along with drafting a point guard at some point in the very near future (he would be our Armstrong). We already have the rest in place. Damon Jones will be our Paxson, and Snow will be the backup point (Hodges?) in years 3-4. Marshall will come off the bench as a Livingston-type player, only better.
1) Draft a point guard. I am in favor of trading someone some package of bench players at the end of the year to move up a few notches in draft position.
2) Keep Gooden at the end of the year. Match any reasonable offer for this guy. He is still only 25 years old and getting better.
3) Don't forget to develop the youngsters. This was both Lenny Wilkins' and Fratello's fatal flaw.
4) Don't do too much (don't trade Ron Harper!). This has the makings of a very good team, potentially better than the Bulls ever were. Mainly they just need time for the core to learn to play together. By next year the Cavs should be serious championship contenders with a good chance to win it all in 2008.
Gotta' love Simmons -- he combines knowledge with a great sense of humor. You need both if you are going to follow the NBA. Its funny stuff.
Regarding Cleveland, Simmons got some things right and some things wrong. He is right that in the Indiana game, combined with the San Antonio loss, we do have the beginnings of a disturbing trend. But would we feel any better if we had gotten blown out by a lousy team? Indiana did just that, getting hammered at Charlotte. Then they lost at home to Atlanta! Those are the two worst teams in the league. But Simmons overstates the Cavaliers situation. The Indiana game, embarrassing as it was, was just one game -- just one bad game, on the road, against what many people think could be the top Eastern team. And Hughes was sick. As I saw it, we were flat that night, and shot poorly, while Indiana hit everything. Indiana is a tough match up for us anyway, what with Artest being able to guard our all-world player. Lebron did not handle it well. He was trying to post Artest up all game, instead of attacking the basket and PASSING. And the Cavs have to get the ball to Z when we are forced into half-court sets. That's why we have him. Its part of what will eventually make the team great.
Simmons's comparison to the late-80's Bulls is very interesting, but just a bit flawed. This is actually a much better team now than the Bulls had in '88, but with much less playoff experience. The result, however, might end up being the same. From 1985-1987, MJ's first three years in the league, the Bulls made the playoffs three times, despite never winning more than 40 games (so I don't want to hear about how bad the league is, Doc. Remember, the NBA has always thrived on dynasties come playoff time, and never had anything resembling parity during the season. If anything, the Association as a whole is more competitive this year than ever before). In 1988, the Bulls finally won 50 games, and handed the Cavs a first round exit before losing to Detroit in the conference semis. In 1989, the Bulls slipped to 47 wins, but still beat out the Cavs (the better team at the time), then Knicks, finally losing to eventual champion Detroit. A 55 win season (89-90) led to the same result in 1990. The Bulls then went on to win three championships from 1991-1993.
What did the Bulls do to improve over that span? Not as much as you might think. Basically from 1985-1987, they had MJ and a collection of old stiffs. They didn't have a winning record in any of those years, despite playing against terrible talent. Despite having the best young player in the league, this was a bad team, making the playoffs one year with a 32-50 record.
In 1988, they were a bit better team and actually won 50 games. They had gotten rid of some of the old guys and had acquired two first round draft picks, Horace Grant (5) and Scottie Pippen (10). Pippen played some significant minutes, but only averaged about 8 points a game. Grant sat the pine behind Charles Oakley and averaged about 7 points. They beat the up and coming Cavaliers in round one, just after the Nance trade.
1989 saw the emergence of Pippen and Grant, and Oakley was gone. Also, the Bulls acquired veteran center Bill Cartwright from the Knicks, relegating stiff David Corzine to the bench. Cartwright, for some reason, has received credit as a defense difference-maker on that Bulls team despite the fact that he was never a significant shot blocker and was only an average rebounder. During his best years he actually put up some pretty good offensive numbers, averaging 15-17 ppg as a Knick. Mainly, though, he was an upgrade over Corzine, and wasn't quite as likely to get abused on the defensive end against the likes of Ewing and Daugherty. That year the Bulls dropped to 47 wins, but made it into the conference semi's before losing to the Pistons.
1990 the Bulls made little changes, save for newcomer Stacey King. They also had a rookie named B.J. Armstrong who looked promising, but played little. The team got a little better as Grant and Pippen continued to improve and the teamed learned to play together. The Bulls won 55 games and lost again to the Pistons in the conference finals.
The 1991 team finally beat the Pistons and went on to beat an ailing Lakers team in the finals. The biggest change the Bulls saw that year was the development of Armstrong as a key player, relegating the likes of Craig Hodges and John Paxson to the bench. Ditto for 1992-1993 championship years. Cartwright continued to fade, but newcomers like Scott Williams picked up the slack.
So which Bulls team was Simmons referring to? The closest team I can see is that 47-win (1988-)1989 team just after they got Cartwright. That was their "big" free agent signing that year. The Cavs, though, already have a better center in Z and our "Pippen," Hughes, is farther along in his development than the actual Pippen was. Gooden looks a lot like Grant did -- a rebounder with nice offensive skills. The bench, once ours gets healthy, looks very similar. That Bulls team made it to the conference finals and lost to the eventual champions. I'd take that outcome, although I think we will will 50 games.
So, how did the Bulls finally win it all? It was simple. They developed young talent every year, and slowly pushed starters into bench roles as the talent got a little better. This allowed for a deep team, with 10-12 players able to play significant minutes. And they had Phil Jackson who knew how to use these players. The infusion of young talent also allowed for great defensive effort. The team knew who the scorers were, and everyone played defense. They made only a few timely free-agent signings, for role players. And then, the core spent a few years learning to play together. And of course, Michael Jordan got better every year too. People forget that Jordan was in his 7th year before he won a championship, his fourth year before he even played on a winning team. Clearly the Cavs are ahead of this curve, winning 42 games in LBJ's second year.
So, what are the keys for the Cavaliers to get to the next level? One could argue that it will be the development of players like Pavlovic, Jackson, and Varejao, along with drafting a point guard at some point in the very near future (he would be our Armstrong). We already have the rest in place. Damon Jones will be our Paxson, and Snow will be the backup point (Hodges?) in years 3-4. Marshall will come off the bench as a Livingston-type player, only better.
1) Draft a point guard. I am in favor of trading someone some package of bench players at the end of the year to move up a few notches in draft position.
2) Keep Gooden at the end of the year. Match any reasonable offer for this guy. He is still only 25 years old and getting better.
3) Don't forget to develop the youngsters. This was both Lenny Wilkins' and Fratello's fatal flaw.
4) Don't do too much (don't trade Ron Harper!). This has the makings of a very good team, potentially better than the Bulls ever were. Mainly they just need time for the core to learn to play together. By next year the Cavs should be serious championship contenders with a good chance to win it all in 2008.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
The NBA's new math
Tonights game against Washington should be a good test for the Cavaliers. The Wizards lost Larry Hughes, but managed to pick up three other good players. Like Milwaukee, Washington was able to make some money-smart moves to put them in the playoff hunt this year. Supposedly, Washington offered to best the Cavaliers offer for Hughes, but by then it was too late -- Hughes was sold on playing with Lebron, all else being relatively equal. Losing Hughes was a shot for the Wizards, but they got three good players through free-agency and will compete all year. In the end, Washington may be a better team this year than last, but of course those moves would not have been made had they kept Hughes.
I had intended to post my NBA preview a few weeks back, but a) I was way too busy and b) nobody was interested (not that this has ever stopped me before). In any case, one of the points I wanted to make was that in all the preseason power rankings I thought that the Nets were unbelievably over-rated, and the retooled Milwaukee Bucks extremely under rated. The Bucks will make the playoffs, you can print the tickets. And I thought this was probably true BEFORE they traded for Magloire. In fact, I think that all five central teams will make the playoffs. That leaves only three spots from the other two Eastern divisions. Those spots will likely be filled by Miami, Washington and the winner of the Atlantic division, likely the Nets. My only other thought is that we should never count out a team coached by Larry Brown. Its a long season, and there is plenty of time for him to right that ship, even if the Knicks don't really have the right kind of talent. If the Knicks or another Atlantic team steps up, Chicago will be the odd team out.
Here is an article from SI Extra which should be of interest:
Hank
Measure of Success
Those stat guys are at it again, and now the Moneyball math of baseball has come to the NBA. Armed with dazzling equations, NBA front offices are finding entirely new ways to quantify a player's talent and judge his real value.
By Chris Ballard
If Dean Oliver and his peers are right, then you are wrong. Wrong if you think Michael Redd is a very good player, wrong if you think Jason Collins is a bad one and wrong if you believe Shane Battier is just another Dukie with a so-so NBA career.
Oliver is a Cal Tech grad with an engineering Ph.D. who works as a paid consultant to the Seattle SuperSonics. He is also part of a small but growing movement, comprising both league insiders and outsiders, that sees its sport through a statistical prism similar to that of the young, laptop-toting generation of baseball executives made famous in Moneyball, Michael Lewis's best-selling book about Billy Beane and the Oakland A's. The teams at the forefront of the movement have hired math whizzes such as Oliver, 36, or former Rhodes scholar candidates such as Sam Presti, 29, the Spurs' assistant general manager, or Stanford MBAs such as Sam Hinkie, 27, a special assistant to Rockets G.M. Carroll Dawson. Joining forces with a burgeoning cult of independent statheads and academics, these new insiders have the same goals as their more celebrated baseball brethren: to identify, through complex statistical analysis, trends, talent and value that no one else sees. By looking deeper than traditional measures of success like ppg, rpg and FG%, they are challenging conventional NBA wisdom and changing, if at first incrementally, how players are evaluated and teams are scouted.
Take, for example, the case of Collins, the fifth-year center for the Nets. To the casual fan Collins is rather unimpressive. He rarely scores, doesn't block many shots for a center and has an embarrassing habit of laying in balls that, at 7 feet tall, he should be dunking. He is the type of player who could go his entire career and never make a SportsCenter highlight, an anonymity reinforced by his career stats (5.6 points, 4.9 rebounds, 0.6 blocks). But what if one were to dig deeper and measure other aspects of his game? The number of charges taken. The positioning on rebounds. The efficiency of picks set. The fouls not committed.
Perhaps then one would come to the same conclusion as Oliver's compatriot Dan Rosenbaum, a 35-year-old UNC Greensboro economics professor, occasional correspondent of Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and originator of a respected player-rating system. According to Rosenbaum's calculations, Collins is not a stiff at all but one of the NBA's premier defensive centers: the fourth-most effective in the league over the last three seasons, behind only Ben Wallace, Dikembe Mutombo and Theo Ratliff. The methodology is complex but at its core his system measures how New Jersey performs when Collins is on the floor versus when he's off it. Think of it as basketball's version of hockey's plus-minus ratio with a few esoteric twists. The upshot: Over the last three seasons the Nets have been remarkably more effective at the defensive end with Collins in the lineup; they foul less, allow fewer free throws, rebound better and allow fewer points. "He's very consistent and consistently very good," says Rosenbaum, "meaning he's either the luckiest center alive and teams just fall apart when he's on the court, or he's doing something."
On the other hand, Rosenbaum argues that Redd is, statistically, a defensive disaster, his worst-rated two guard in the league by a wide margin. Not even the Bucks guard's scoring ability (23.0 points per game in 2004-05) can counterbalance his defensive flaws. Over the course of any given 100 possessions, the Bucks are 4.5 points worse on defense with Redd in the game -- and only 2.5 points better on offense. As for Battier, by Rosenbaum's calculations he was the best defensive small forward in the league last season. Memphis was 6.3 points better (per 48 minutes) than its opponent with Battier on the floor and 4.8 points worse with him on the bench.
This approach is far from an exact science, a point that even the statheads emphatically make. For one, unlike baseball, in which individual performance can be easily isolated, the success of a basketball player is influenced by nine others. Still, coaches such as the Rockets' Jeff Van Gundy and the Spurs' Gregg Popovich and front office executives such as the Sonics' Wally Walker are keeping an open mind about their sport's new math. Says Walker, "In the bigger picture it is helpful. It does allow us to do apples-to-apples comparisons of players and combinations. Data points you can add to the old-fashioned [measures]."
Today franchises -- and, for that matter, anyone with a computer -- have access to countless complex statistics that are disseminated through the Internet, most notably by the game-charters at 82games.com, a website that provides a staggering amount of data, sliced and diced in hundreds of different ways. This season Roland Beech, a 36-year-old suburban dad who runs the site out of his Northern California home, will have more than 100 volunteers charting games and tracking everything from contested shots to off-the-ball player movement. Not surprisingly, among the most avid visitors to the site are NBA front-office personnel, one of whom asked in a recent e-mail, "Can you add rebound of own shot percent to the rebounding stats?"
The growing appetite NBA front offices have for this outsider-generated data has, in turn, created a market for hiring these statheads on staff. They're employed largely as advisers, not decision-makers, but it's not far-fetched to think that they'll be pulling the strings in the near future. Among the most promising from this group is Celtics senior vice president for operations Daryl Morey, 31, who graduated from MIT's Sloan School of Management and considers Bill James, the patron saint of quantitative analysis in sports, to be his role model. While Morey by no means ignores points per game, rebounds per game and other statistics popularly held up as benchmarks of success, he also recognizes that those numbers can inflate (or deflate) a player's value. Instead he is constantly looking for other, more obscure indicators of success such as turnover ratios, eFG% (a weighted field goal percentage that takes into account the added value of three-pointers) and productivity per possession. Yet all of these apparent abstractions have a clear bottom line. "It's the same principle," says Morey of the comparisons with Moneyball. "Generate wins for less dollars."
That has led Morey and the Celtics to such players as Dan Dickau, whom the Celtics acquired in a sign-and-trade this summer from the Hornets for a second-round draft pick. During his first two years in the league, the 6-foot point guard was renowned more for his moppish hair than his skills. After being traded from the Mavericks to the Hornets last season, he was, for the first time in his young career, given a chance to play significant minutes, and he averaged 13.2 points and 5.2 assists. But those statistics told only part of the story. What attracted the Celtics to Dickau were some less-heralded numbers. His ratio of 4.7 assists last season for every bad pass is on par with the 4.8 average of Steve Nash, widely considered to be the game's premier pure point guard. One can reasonably surmise that playing with better players, Dickau would have had a higher ratio. This is not to suggest that Dickau is a Nash-caliber player, only that, at the price of $7.5 million over three years, Dickau might have been undervalued by the market.
The new math is not just for evaluating individual player value. It's also a useful tool in scouting team tendencies. During the postseason Oliver -- who is best known for his book, Basketball on Paper, which is full of sprawling equations and includes chapters addressing such vexing questions as "The Significance of Derrick Coleman's Insignificance" -- focuses on Seattle's opponents. Using a program he created called Roboscout, which draws on box scores, shot chart data from 82games.com and play-by-play information, he seeks tendencies that a more traditional scout might not notice.
Last spring, for example, as the Sonics prepared to face the Spurs in the second round of the playoffs, Oliver turned up evidence that while San Antonio was a dominant defensive team, particularly in the paint, it was not bulletproof. "When you go at the midrange, there was a big hole," he explains. "Compared to the rest of the league, the Spurs are 30-35 percent less vulnerable than the rest of the league from three-point land but 30 percent more vulnerable from midrange." So, partly on Oliver's advice, the Sonics pulled up for 15- to 18-foot jumper after jumper. In the end Seattle increased its midrange shooting more than any other Spurs opponent and surprised many people by taking a superior San Antonio team to six games. "If you have a good midrange game against us, you have a better chance," confirms Spurs assistant Mike Budenholzer. "And with the Sonics, since we wanted to keep them off the three-point line, that left us weaker in the midrange game."
As one can imagine, not all basketball people buy into the concept that some geek with a computer can tell them how to play the game. Still, one doesn't find the generational divide or the hostility between traditionalist and stathead that's so pervasive in baseball. This is, in part, because the NBA numbers spit out by the computers of Oliver, Hinkie and Morey often reinforce the beliefs of old-schoolers rather than refute them. In fact, the number crunchers have found some unlikely allies within basketball's old school. Del Harris is not young (he's 68), mathematically inclined ("I can't even remember my phone number") or high-tech (rather than a tablet PC or laptop, he carries around thick blue binders of stats, marked "offense" and "defense"). Regardless, the Mavericks assistant has long been one of the coaches most open to statistical analysis, dating to his days as coach of the Rockets, Bucks and Lakers. As a result, he has cred with both crowds.
For years the Mavericks have worked with Jeff Sagarin (of Sagarin football ratings fame) and Indiana University professor Wayne Winston. The duo, who created a system called WINVAL in 2000 -- a precursor to Rosenbaum's adjusted plus-minus formula -- sends regular updates throughout the season to Cuban, Harris and coach Avery Johnson. "Some of the conclusions," says Harris, who parses the data, "make you laugh, like when they take data from a few games and tell us one of our best defenders is actually our worst." Still, there is plenty of promising data to consider.
Last year, after Game 5 of Dallas's second-round playoff series against Phoenix, Winston sent an e-mail that broke down how different Mavs combinations fared against various Phoenix lineups. The correspondence highlighted a recurrent postseason theme. As Winston wrote, in scenario after scenario, "Daniels Stack horrible," "Daniels and Stack a disaster," "Stack and Daniels a killer." In each situation the team fared poorly -- a minus-13 point differential here, a minus-15 point differential there -- when Marquis Daniels and Jerry Stackhouse play together. Harris discussed the findings with Johnson, who took them into account in substitution patterns (he didn't even play Daniels in Game 6), even if they weren't easily explained. "It didn't make sense to us why," says Harris. "Both are good players, and both do well with other combinations. But together, it didn't work out."
As for the players themselves, most have no idea that they've been reduced to living, dribbling equations. Sonics forward Nick Collison, for example, is unfamiliar with the new math, even though Oliver works for his team. "I've heard about what he does, seen him at practice," says Collison, "but I'm not sure how it works." When he was informed that according to Oliver, he is one of the NBA's more effective reserves (opposing teams shot about 3% worse when the Sonics sub was in the game), Collison brightens up. "Good," he says. "Then he's a genius."
THE ROLAND RATING
One of the simplest measures of a player's worth is his value to his team when he's on the court versus when he's off it. At 82games.com this is called the Roland Rating, which measures a team's net points, per 48 minutes, with each player on the floor. Though Roland admits it isn't perfect -- substitution patterns and the quality of a player's teammates must be taken into account -- it's a good place to start.
THE BEST (2004-05)
1. Tim Duncan +16.6
2. Jason Kidd +16.0
3. Manu Ginobili +15.5
4. Dirk Nowitzki +15.3
5. Steve Nash +15.0
THE WORST*
1. Alan Henderson -17.6
2. Leandro Barbosa -12.6
3. Rodney Buford -10.8
4. Andres Nocioni -10.6
5. Devin Harris -10.2
*Minimum 1,000 minutes
Issue date: October 24, 2005
I had intended to post my NBA preview a few weeks back, but a) I was way too busy and b) nobody was interested (not that this has ever stopped me before). In any case, one of the points I wanted to make was that in all the preseason power rankings I thought that the Nets were unbelievably over-rated, and the retooled Milwaukee Bucks extremely under rated. The Bucks will make the playoffs, you can print the tickets. And I thought this was probably true BEFORE they traded for Magloire. In fact, I think that all five central teams will make the playoffs. That leaves only three spots from the other two Eastern divisions. Those spots will likely be filled by Miami, Washington and the winner of the Atlantic division, likely the Nets. My only other thought is that we should never count out a team coached by Larry Brown. Its a long season, and there is plenty of time for him to right that ship, even if the Knicks don't really have the right kind of talent. If the Knicks or another Atlantic team steps up, Chicago will be the odd team out.
Here is an article from SI Extra which should be of interest:
Hank
Measure of Success
Those stat guys are at it again, and now the Moneyball math of baseball has come to the NBA. Armed with dazzling equations, NBA front offices are finding entirely new ways to quantify a player's talent and judge his real value.
By Chris Ballard
If Dean Oliver and his peers are right, then you are wrong. Wrong if you think Michael Redd is a very good player, wrong if you think Jason Collins is a bad one and wrong if you believe Shane Battier is just another Dukie with a so-so NBA career.
Oliver is a Cal Tech grad with an engineering Ph.D. who works as a paid consultant to the Seattle SuperSonics. He is also part of a small but growing movement, comprising both league insiders and outsiders, that sees its sport through a statistical prism similar to that of the young, laptop-toting generation of baseball executives made famous in Moneyball, Michael Lewis's best-selling book about Billy Beane and the Oakland A's. The teams at the forefront of the movement have hired math whizzes such as Oliver, 36, or former Rhodes scholar candidates such as Sam Presti, 29, the Spurs' assistant general manager, or Stanford MBAs such as Sam Hinkie, 27, a special assistant to Rockets G.M. Carroll Dawson. Joining forces with a burgeoning cult of independent statheads and academics, these new insiders have the same goals as their more celebrated baseball brethren: to identify, through complex statistical analysis, trends, talent and value that no one else sees. By looking deeper than traditional measures of success like ppg, rpg and FG%, they are challenging conventional NBA wisdom and changing, if at first incrementally, how players are evaluated and teams are scouted.
Take, for example, the case of Collins, the fifth-year center for the Nets. To the casual fan Collins is rather unimpressive. He rarely scores, doesn't block many shots for a center and has an embarrassing habit of laying in balls that, at 7 feet tall, he should be dunking. He is the type of player who could go his entire career and never make a SportsCenter highlight, an anonymity reinforced by his career stats (5.6 points, 4.9 rebounds, 0.6 blocks). But what if one were to dig deeper and measure other aspects of his game? The number of charges taken. The positioning on rebounds. The efficiency of picks set. The fouls not committed.
Perhaps then one would come to the same conclusion as Oliver's compatriot Dan Rosenbaum, a 35-year-old UNC Greensboro economics professor, occasional correspondent of Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and originator of a respected player-rating system. According to Rosenbaum's calculations, Collins is not a stiff at all but one of the NBA's premier defensive centers: the fourth-most effective in the league over the last three seasons, behind only Ben Wallace, Dikembe Mutombo and Theo Ratliff. The methodology is complex but at its core his system measures how New Jersey performs when Collins is on the floor versus when he's off it. Think of it as basketball's version of hockey's plus-minus ratio with a few esoteric twists. The upshot: Over the last three seasons the Nets have been remarkably more effective at the defensive end with Collins in the lineup; they foul less, allow fewer free throws, rebound better and allow fewer points. "He's very consistent and consistently very good," says Rosenbaum, "meaning he's either the luckiest center alive and teams just fall apart when he's on the court, or he's doing something."
On the other hand, Rosenbaum argues that Redd is, statistically, a defensive disaster, his worst-rated two guard in the league by a wide margin. Not even the Bucks guard's scoring ability (23.0 points per game in 2004-05) can counterbalance his defensive flaws. Over the course of any given 100 possessions, the Bucks are 4.5 points worse on defense with Redd in the game -- and only 2.5 points better on offense. As for Battier, by Rosenbaum's calculations he was the best defensive small forward in the league last season. Memphis was 6.3 points better (per 48 minutes) than its opponent with Battier on the floor and 4.8 points worse with him on the bench.
This approach is far from an exact science, a point that even the statheads emphatically make. For one, unlike baseball, in which individual performance can be easily isolated, the success of a basketball player is influenced by nine others. Still, coaches such as the Rockets' Jeff Van Gundy and the Spurs' Gregg Popovich and front office executives such as the Sonics' Wally Walker are keeping an open mind about their sport's new math. Says Walker, "In the bigger picture it is helpful. It does allow us to do apples-to-apples comparisons of players and combinations. Data points you can add to the old-fashioned [measures]."
Today franchises -- and, for that matter, anyone with a computer -- have access to countless complex statistics that are disseminated through the Internet, most notably by the game-charters at 82games.com, a website that provides a staggering amount of data, sliced and diced in hundreds of different ways. This season Roland Beech, a 36-year-old suburban dad who runs the site out of his Northern California home, will have more than 100 volunteers charting games and tracking everything from contested shots to off-the-ball player movement. Not surprisingly, among the most avid visitors to the site are NBA front-office personnel, one of whom asked in a recent e-mail, "Can you add rebound of own shot percent to the rebounding stats?"
The growing appetite NBA front offices have for this outsider-generated data has, in turn, created a market for hiring these statheads on staff. They're employed largely as advisers, not decision-makers, but it's not far-fetched to think that they'll be pulling the strings in the near future. Among the most promising from this group is Celtics senior vice president for operations Daryl Morey, 31, who graduated from MIT's Sloan School of Management and considers Bill James, the patron saint of quantitative analysis in sports, to be his role model. While Morey by no means ignores points per game, rebounds per game and other statistics popularly held up as benchmarks of success, he also recognizes that those numbers can inflate (or deflate) a player's value. Instead he is constantly looking for other, more obscure indicators of success such as turnover ratios, eFG% (a weighted field goal percentage that takes into account the added value of three-pointers) and productivity per possession. Yet all of these apparent abstractions have a clear bottom line. "It's the same principle," says Morey of the comparisons with Moneyball. "Generate wins for less dollars."
That has led Morey and the Celtics to such players as Dan Dickau, whom the Celtics acquired in a sign-and-trade this summer from the Hornets for a second-round draft pick. During his first two years in the league, the 6-foot point guard was renowned more for his moppish hair than his skills. After being traded from the Mavericks to the Hornets last season, he was, for the first time in his young career, given a chance to play significant minutes, and he averaged 13.2 points and 5.2 assists. But those statistics told only part of the story. What attracted the Celtics to Dickau were some less-heralded numbers. His ratio of 4.7 assists last season for every bad pass is on par with the 4.8 average of Steve Nash, widely considered to be the game's premier pure point guard. One can reasonably surmise that playing with better players, Dickau would have had a higher ratio. This is not to suggest that Dickau is a Nash-caliber player, only that, at the price of $7.5 million over three years, Dickau might have been undervalued by the market.
The new math is not just for evaluating individual player value. It's also a useful tool in scouting team tendencies. During the postseason Oliver -- who is best known for his book, Basketball on Paper, which is full of sprawling equations and includes chapters addressing such vexing questions as "The Significance of Derrick Coleman's Insignificance" -- focuses on Seattle's opponents. Using a program he created called Roboscout, which draws on box scores, shot chart data from 82games.com and play-by-play information, he seeks tendencies that a more traditional scout might not notice.
Last spring, for example, as the Sonics prepared to face the Spurs in the second round of the playoffs, Oliver turned up evidence that while San Antonio was a dominant defensive team, particularly in the paint, it was not bulletproof. "When you go at the midrange, there was a big hole," he explains. "Compared to the rest of the league, the Spurs are 30-35 percent less vulnerable than the rest of the league from three-point land but 30 percent more vulnerable from midrange." So, partly on Oliver's advice, the Sonics pulled up for 15- to 18-foot jumper after jumper. In the end Seattle increased its midrange shooting more than any other Spurs opponent and surprised many people by taking a superior San Antonio team to six games. "If you have a good midrange game against us, you have a better chance," confirms Spurs assistant Mike Budenholzer. "And with the Sonics, since we wanted to keep them off the three-point line, that left us weaker in the midrange game."
As one can imagine, not all basketball people buy into the concept that some geek with a computer can tell them how to play the game. Still, one doesn't find the generational divide or the hostility between traditionalist and stathead that's so pervasive in baseball. This is, in part, because the NBA numbers spit out by the computers of Oliver, Hinkie and Morey often reinforce the beliefs of old-schoolers rather than refute them. In fact, the number crunchers have found some unlikely allies within basketball's old school. Del Harris is not young (he's 68), mathematically inclined ("I can't even remember my phone number") or high-tech (rather than a tablet PC or laptop, he carries around thick blue binders of stats, marked "offense" and "defense"). Regardless, the Mavericks assistant has long been one of the coaches most open to statistical analysis, dating to his days as coach of the Rockets, Bucks and Lakers. As a result, he has cred with both crowds.
For years the Mavericks have worked with Jeff Sagarin (of Sagarin football ratings fame) and Indiana University professor Wayne Winston. The duo, who created a system called WINVAL in 2000 -- a precursor to Rosenbaum's adjusted plus-minus formula -- sends regular updates throughout the season to Cuban, Harris and coach Avery Johnson. "Some of the conclusions," says Harris, who parses the data, "make you laugh, like when they take data from a few games and tell us one of our best defenders is actually our worst." Still, there is plenty of promising data to consider.
Last year, after Game 5 of Dallas's second-round playoff series against Phoenix, Winston sent an e-mail that broke down how different Mavs combinations fared against various Phoenix lineups. The correspondence highlighted a recurrent postseason theme. As Winston wrote, in scenario after scenario, "Daniels Stack horrible," "Daniels and Stack a disaster," "Stack and Daniels a killer." In each situation the team fared poorly -- a minus-13 point differential here, a minus-15 point differential there -- when Marquis Daniels and Jerry Stackhouse play together. Harris discussed the findings with Johnson, who took them into account in substitution patterns (he didn't even play Daniels in Game 6), even if they weren't easily explained. "It didn't make sense to us why," says Harris. "Both are good players, and both do well with other combinations. But together, it didn't work out."
As for the players themselves, most have no idea that they've been reduced to living, dribbling equations. Sonics forward Nick Collison, for example, is unfamiliar with the new math, even though Oliver works for his team. "I've heard about what he does, seen him at practice," says Collison, "but I'm not sure how it works." When he was informed that according to Oliver, he is one of the NBA's more effective reserves (opposing teams shot about 3% worse when the Sonics sub was in the game), Collison brightens up. "Good," he says. "Then he's a genius."
THE ROLAND RATING
One of the simplest measures of a player's worth is his value to his team when he's on the court versus when he's off it. At 82games.com this is called the Roland Rating, which measures a team's net points, per 48 minutes, with each player on the floor. Though Roland admits it isn't perfect -- substitution patterns and the quality of a player's teammates must be taken into account -- it's a good place to start.
THE BEST (2004-05)
1. Tim Duncan +16.6
2. Jason Kidd +16.0
3. Manu Ginobili +15.5
4. Dirk Nowitzki +15.3
5. Steve Nash +15.0
THE WORST*
1. Alan Henderson -17.6
2. Leandro Barbosa -12.6
3. Rodney Buford -10.8
4. Andres Nocioni -10.6
5. Devin Harris -10.2
*Minimum 1,000 minutes
Issue date: October 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)