This is an excellent description of what has happened in 2016: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/28/12306780/democratic-convention-speeches-patriotism-rhetoric
The Republican party (largely because it is an older and whiter party) has traditionally laid claim to........well.......tradition. That America is great and (as Reagan said) a shining city on the hill where people want to come and we are the best and the brightest and the greatest.
That the GOP can claim this message has stuck in the craw of most Democrats. The party has (at least since 1968) appealed to many who have been underserved by "tradition" (women, minorities, gays, the poor) and don't enjoy the idea that America is great, but no so great to them.
Enter Donald Trump.
The message from the 2016 GOP Convention in Cleveland was well summed up by Trump -- trust me, I am great, America sucks, we are stupid, we always lose, be afraid, be very afraid. Everything about America sucks and you should be terrified to step out your door any day of the week. Only I, Donald Trump, can make America great again (cuz it sucks right now).
By going with this message, Trump has ceded the more traditional GOP message of love of country to the Dems. And who do the Dems have to ram that message home? Bill Clinton -- raised very poor by a mom who abandoned him for years. Joe Biden - raised lower middle class in Scranton, PA. Barack Obama - raised as a mixed race child by his white grandparents and white single mom.
These gentlemen can tell a very compelling story of loving America and loving the people at the lower end of the economic spectrum, because they grew up there.
The Republicans? Well, they can still hang tight to the hope that they will get enormous tax cuts for the rich (most of whom personally hate Trump, but they still want his proposed ridiculous $34 trillion giveaway) and enjoy the fact that maybe they can get every scared, disaffected, poor and uneducated white person in the nation to vote Trump and that will be good enough for now. The coalition of the frightened, uneducated, racist and poor may be enough to win. But winning to what end? Once this coalition is in power, what will they hope to achieve? Will dirty jokes become legal again? Will white people get more power? Will all fanatics just stop being fanatics?
Congrats, Republican Party, you have lost the one thing you were really good at -- being optimistic and patriotic. Your new pitch? "We will keep Timofey Mozgov's taxes low!" or "David Duke seems to like us!"??
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
A Personal Note - The Value of Education
I was sitting in my office today looking at my passport and the two types of foreign money I picked up today for the European trip I will be on next week. What went through my head was the old Talking Heads song, and the line, "My God, How did I get here!?!?"
My grandfather on one side worked the factory line for Westinghouse. His wife never worked for pay. They had like 6 kids. A 20 year old sibling missed graduation ceremonies for an 18 year old to babysit the 1 year old baby. When the 18 year old became 20, it happened again.
My grandfather on the other side was a dairy farmer with a farm wife who also did not work outside the home. They also had like 6 kids. The floor of the main room of my grandma's house was so slanted that if you dropped a marble from one inch off the floor, it would roll to the far, far corner, very quickly. They were not wealthy, to say the least.
My father did well in high school, though not that well (top 20%) and went to the Ag School at Cornell to study animal science. He always notes that he went to the STATE school at Cornell, not the fancy private school. Eventually got a teaching certificate, eventually went and got an advanced degree in guidance counseling. He met my mom, who was working as a secretary at Cornell.
They had 5 kids. We regarded ourselves as "middle class." I mean, we drove old cars and we shared a lot of hand me down clothes with our many cousins and my dad cut my hair (very badly) until I was 17. And we never really had much money. But we were not "poor". I remember when I was 16 or 17 my dad showed me he had a net worth of $80,000. We are 27 years apart, so my dad would have been mid-40s. He was really happy and proud to show me how well he was doing.
Anyway, I got to go to college, and I did well, so I got to go to law school, and I did well, so I got a job. Today, 27 years out of school, being my father's son, I always complain about how much things cost, and I always complain that I have no money or that someone is taking all of my money for frivolous stuff like college tuition. But, in my head, I know I have money and when things go poorly and the kids wreck a car for the 9th time or get their 4th speeding ticket, I know I can afford to pay. I don't like to, and I bitch about it pretty loudly, but I have the money, I can pay. I am doing OK.
As I stared at my passport and my funny looking money, I felt pretty grateful that my dad and mom, both of whom came from very, very little, both valued education so much and funded me all they could and gave me the chance to get to the point where I have opportunities that they never had at my age and that their parents could only dream of. Anyway, just a personal note. We will get back to more advanced statistics basketball and hot celebrity women sightings as soon as possible.
P.S. -- things haven't been so stable in Europe lately, so think kind thoughts for me July 30-August 5.
My grandfather on one side worked the factory line for Westinghouse. His wife never worked for pay. They had like 6 kids. A 20 year old sibling missed graduation ceremonies for an 18 year old to babysit the 1 year old baby. When the 18 year old became 20, it happened again.
My grandfather on the other side was a dairy farmer with a farm wife who also did not work outside the home. They also had like 6 kids. The floor of the main room of my grandma's house was so slanted that if you dropped a marble from one inch off the floor, it would roll to the far, far corner, very quickly. They were not wealthy, to say the least.
My father did well in high school, though not that well (top 20%) and went to the Ag School at Cornell to study animal science. He always notes that he went to the STATE school at Cornell, not the fancy private school. Eventually got a teaching certificate, eventually went and got an advanced degree in guidance counseling. He met my mom, who was working as a secretary at Cornell.
They had 5 kids. We regarded ourselves as "middle class." I mean, we drove old cars and we shared a lot of hand me down clothes with our many cousins and my dad cut my hair (very badly) until I was 17. And we never really had much money. But we were not "poor". I remember when I was 16 or 17 my dad showed me he had a net worth of $80,000. We are 27 years apart, so my dad would have been mid-40s. He was really happy and proud to show me how well he was doing.
Anyway, I got to go to college, and I did well, so I got to go to law school, and I did well, so I got a job. Today, 27 years out of school, being my father's son, I always complain about how much things cost, and I always complain that I have no money or that someone is taking all of my money for frivolous stuff like college tuition. But, in my head, I know I have money and when things go poorly and the kids wreck a car for the 9th time or get their 4th speeding ticket, I know I can afford to pay. I don't like to, and I bitch about it pretty loudly, but I have the money, I can pay. I am doing OK.
As I stared at my passport and my funny looking money, I felt pretty grateful that my dad and mom, both of whom came from very, very little, both valued education so much and funded me all they could and gave me the chance to get to the point where I have opportunities that they never had at my age and that their parents could only dream of. Anyway, just a personal note. We will get back to more advanced statistics basketball and hot celebrity women sightings as soon as possible.
P.S. -- things haven't been so stable in Europe lately, so think kind thoughts for me July 30-August 5.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie -- Choosing a Bus Driver
As I was contemplating Trump's speech last night (summary -- the fucking world is ENDING people, ENDING! No one has a job, everyone is poor, people are dying everywhere!!!!), I asked myself -- this guys is so incompetent and unstable, so why do I prefer him to Ted Cruz?
I arrived at this analogy.
Suppose that in early November I want to attend a Gophers football game and the only way for me to get there is to take one of four buses. The potential drivers are Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie.
Trump -- If I choose Trump, I will get on his bus and I literally have no idea what will happen. It may never get started. He may walk off the bus and leave us in the parking lot. We may end up in Des Moines or Madison. Hell, who knows what will happen? He clearly doesn't know how to drive a bus. He doesn't seem particularly concerned about it and keeps shouting "we will get there and quickly!!!" Terrifying experience, but maybe by some miracle we will get to, say, downtown Minneapolis and we can walk or train it from there, or we may end up right by the stadium. Or we end up at the bottom of Lake Minnetonka.
Ted Cruz -- the bus will be spotless, we will be forced to pray every 5 minutes, and Ted will have a full tank of gas and freshly changed oil and a full tune up. He will know everything there is to know about a bus and how to drive it. He will also close the door and announce, "We are driving straight to Hell." When informed that I really do not want to go to Hell, he will advise me that the Constitution and his general concept of "Freedom" demands that everyone be taken directly to Hell. We will end up in Hell. Everyone there will say, "You selected Ted Cruz's bus, what did you expect?"
Hillary Clinton -- the Clinton bus will be like the Cruz bus, clean, well maintained, she has her license. She won't be quite the driver Cruz is, and she will be insufferable over the P.A. system. "Guys, did you see that right turn! I am so great!" When she gets lost she will call someone at the bus company and fire them, remarking, "Guys, I am so sorry that my greatness was diminished briefly by that idiot. Oh well, back to more stories of me and how great I am." The bus will end up six to ten blocks from the stadium and Hillary will say, "Get out. My time for you idiots is over. I have to recall/make-up more stories about myself and how awesome I am."
Bernie Sanders -- he obtained his knowledge of bus driving by watching videos of others driving and remarking how driving a bus must suck and how it would be way, way better if robot chauffeurs would just take us to the game in flying cars. But now he is driving the bus. He really doesn't want to drive the bus, he just wants the robots to exist. As the bus meanders wildly through the Interstate Highway System, Bernie complains about why the roads are not paved with gold, since it is everyone's right to expect gold-paved roads. As we approach, say, Duluth, Bernie stops the bus and says, "OK, each one of you, how much did you make last year?" I end up handing over 85% of my money, some of which is given to other riders and some of which goes toward Bernie's goal of the robot chauffeurs. He ends up with like $300 and says, "Robot chauffeurs, here we come!" Eventually at a stoplight in downtown Duluth someone knocks him out and drops him in the back seat and we just ignore him and one of us drives the bus back to the game. Of course we are now 3 hours away, having started only 30 minutes away. None of the other passengers will give me my money back and they want all of Bernie's robot money as well.
So, as hard as it is to stomach, I will take the Hillary bus. The Trump bus actually might be less painful and there is a small chance he will get us closer to the game, but we could all die. The Bernie bus would just be a bizarre experience and I don't really want to give away 85% of my money. In a way, I would feel better about choosing Cruz as a driver because at least he is competent and I would be driven by someone intelligent and willing to work effectively toward his goal. But I really don't want to be driven to Hell, even if it is effectively and efficiently. Sorry, Ted, you finish last.
1) Hillary
2) (tie) Bernie and Trump
4) Cruz.
I arrived at this analogy.
Suppose that in early November I want to attend a Gophers football game and the only way for me to get there is to take one of four buses. The potential drivers are Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie.
Trump -- If I choose Trump, I will get on his bus and I literally have no idea what will happen. It may never get started. He may walk off the bus and leave us in the parking lot. We may end up in Des Moines or Madison. Hell, who knows what will happen? He clearly doesn't know how to drive a bus. He doesn't seem particularly concerned about it and keeps shouting "we will get there and quickly!!!" Terrifying experience, but maybe by some miracle we will get to, say, downtown Minneapolis and we can walk or train it from there, or we may end up right by the stadium. Or we end up at the bottom of Lake Minnetonka.
Ted Cruz -- the bus will be spotless, we will be forced to pray every 5 minutes, and Ted will have a full tank of gas and freshly changed oil and a full tune up. He will know everything there is to know about a bus and how to drive it. He will also close the door and announce, "We are driving straight to Hell." When informed that I really do not want to go to Hell, he will advise me that the Constitution and his general concept of "Freedom" demands that everyone be taken directly to Hell. We will end up in Hell. Everyone there will say, "You selected Ted Cruz's bus, what did you expect?"
Hillary Clinton -- the Clinton bus will be like the Cruz bus, clean, well maintained, she has her license. She won't be quite the driver Cruz is, and she will be insufferable over the P.A. system. "Guys, did you see that right turn! I am so great!" When she gets lost she will call someone at the bus company and fire them, remarking, "Guys, I am so sorry that my greatness was diminished briefly by that idiot. Oh well, back to more stories of me and how great I am." The bus will end up six to ten blocks from the stadium and Hillary will say, "Get out. My time for you idiots is over. I have to recall/make-up more stories about myself and how awesome I am."
Bernie Sanders -- he obtained his knowledge of bus driving by watching videos of others driving and remarking how driving a bus must suck and how it would be way, way better if robot chauffeurs would just take us to the game in flying cars. But now he is driving the bus. He really doesn't want to drive the bus, he just wants the robots to exist. As the bus meanders wildly through the Interstate Highway System, Bernie complains about why the roads are not paved with gold, since it is everyone's right to expect gold-paved roads. As we approach, say, Duluth, Bernie stops the bus and says, "OK, each one of you, how much did you make last year?" I end up handing over 85% of my money, some of which is given to other riders and some of which goes toward Bernie's goal of the robot chauffeurs. He ends up with like $300 and says, "Robot chauffeurs, here we come!" Eventually at a stoplight in downtown Duluth someone knocks him out and drops him in the back seat and we just ignore him and one of us drives the bus back to the game. Of course we are now 3 hours away, having started only 30 minutes away. None of the other passengers will give me my money back and they want all of Bernie's robot money as well.
So, as hard as it is to stomach, I will take the Hillary bus. The Trump bus actually might be less painful and there is a small chance he will get us closer to the game, but we could all die. The Bernie bus would just be a bizarre experience and I don't really want to give away 85% of my money. In a way, I would feel better about choosing Cruz as a driver because at least he is competent and I would be driven by someone intelligent and willing to work effectively toward his goal. But I really don't want to be driven to Hell, even if it is effectively and efficiently. Sorry, Ted, you finish last.
1) Hillary
2) (tie) Bernie and Trump
4) Cruz.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Melania Trump -- Loves Her Some Michelle Obama
https://www.yahoo.com/news/melania-trump-speech-writer-mciver-000000807.html
So, after two days we get an official explanation that says the following:
1) When asked who she most admires, Melania Trump turns to..........Michelle Obama. The Devil Incarnate for the GOP base. The person they spent 7+ years saying hates "whitey" and who forces kids to try to eat healthy food -- which is basically the end of the world.
The person who, along with her Kenyan, Muslim, Gay-Loving, Police-Hating, non-citizen, fake-school-going, not-that-bright husband, have ruined America and all that is great about America. The family that causes her own husband to stand up with a goofy hat on and say "Make American Great Again." That Michelle Obama. She admires her.
She wants to quote her. She wishes she was just like her (or possibly she thinks she is just like Michelle Obama).
Wow. Question one for the Trump Campaign -- does your wife admire Michelle Obama?
2) Melania tells the writer lady -- "Hey, in her speech, Michelle Obama said these things (fills in what MO said). I want to say that too."
So the explanation is that the speech writer thought that the exact things stated by Michelle Obama, that Melania was providing to the speech writer, were not actually in Michelle Obama's speech? That they were a paraphrase?
Imagine I told someone, "Hey, you know what Tom Thibodeau said the other day in the huddle? He said, "Don't give up corner threes and shrink the floor defensively. Rebound up and through the ball."". Does the person I am speaking to think that these words are somehow my interpretation of what was said? That Thibs didn't use these exact words? I mean, come on.
What happened here is either that 1) the speech writer lady was asked to look at an old Michelle Obama speech and take the parts Melania liked. She did so, verbatim. She thought no one would ever know; or 2) the speech writer changed the words around some and gave it to Melania, who said, "uh, no. I want to say exactly what my hero Michelle Obama said." and she changed the words. .
So, after two days we get an official explanation that says the following:
1) When asked who she most admires, Melania Trump turns to..........Michelle Obama. The Devil Incarnate for the GOP base. The person they spent 7+ years saying hates "whitey" and who forces kids to try to eat healthy food -- which is basically the end of the world.
The person who, along with her Kenyan, Muslim, Gay-Loving, Police-Hating, non-citizen, fake-school-going, not-that-bright husband, have ruined America and all that is great about America. The family that causes her own husband to stand up with a goofy hat on and say "Make American Great Again." That Michelle Obama. She admires her.
She wants to quote her. She wishes she was just like her (or possibly she thinks she is just like Michelle Obama).
Wow. Question one for the Trump Campaign -- does your wife admire Michelle Obama?
2) Melania tells the writer lady -- "Hey, in her speech, Michelle Obama said these things (fills in what MO said). I want to say that too."
So the explanation is that the speech writer thought that the exact things stated by Michelle Obama, that Melania was providing to the speech writer, were not actually in Michelle Obama's speech? That they were a paraphrase?
Imagine I told someone, "Hey, you know what Tom Thibodeau said the other day in the huddle? He said, "Don't give up corner threes and shrink the floor defensively. Rebound up and through the ball."". Does the person I am speaking to think that these words are somehow my interpretation of what was said? That Thibs didn't use these exact words? I mean, come on.
What happened here is either that 1) the speech writer lady was asked to look at an old Michelle Obama speech and take the parts Melania liked. She did so, verbatim. She thought no one would ever know; or 2) the speech writer changed the words around some and gave it to Melania, who said, "uh, no. I want to say exactly what my hero Michelle Obama said." and she changed the words. .
Monday, July 18, 2016
Why I Like Tyus Jones, And You Should As Well
Obviously I am pre-disposed to like Tyus Jones. I am a Minnesota resident, went to Duke Law School, and am a long-term season ticket holder of the Timberwolves. But that, of course, does not mean that I have to like the guy. I have been very negative on many Wolves players and Duke players through the years, and certainly there are many, many Minnesota players who aren't the answer as basketball greats, so why do I like Tyus Jones?
1) Tyus Jones is a winner -- high school state champion, national champion and MOP in the Final 4 in his one year as a Duke player. When games get important, Tyus Jones plays better.
2) Tyus Jones makes his teammates better -- you will note that in the Summer League the Wolves were struggling mightily when Kris Dunn was playing, despite Dunn's constant forays to the hoop (some of which were rather impressive) and his ability to get steals, rebound, block shots, etc. Then when Dunn got a concussion the Wolves were basically forced to give Tyus the ball and let him run the offense. When Tyus is in charge of the offense, guys get open shots. It is as simple as that. He wants to run the offense, and if your offense gets guys open, he will hit them. Why do you think Jahlil Okafor so badly wanted to play with Tyus at Duke? If you are open on the post, Tyus will look for you and get you the ball. Reid Travis went from a top 120 player to a top 40 player in one AAU season with Tyus. Brock Bertram played at Apple Valley with Tyus - his stock was never higher. Then he had to play AAU without Tyus; stock not so great.
3) Any Coach Who Has Relied Upon Tyus Has Done Well -- Apple Valley, champions, Duke, champions, USA Basketball, champions. Sam Mitchell plays him almost not at all -- 29 wins.
My Response to Detractors
The general statements of detractors regarding Tyus Jones are that 1) he is too small; 2) he is not very athletic; 3) he is a mediocre shooter; and 4) he is a terrible defender.
Too Small
Tyus is roughly the same size as Chris Paul and slightly bigger than Mike Conley. Tyus, at 6'2" and 195 pounds, certainly isn't appreciable smaller than Steph Curry or Damian Lillard or Kyrie Irving.
Not Very Athletic
Tyus can dunk. Ricky Rubio has a very hard time dunking. My son was a very good athlete and always one of the top 2-3 fastest guys on any team he played on. He played against Tyus in baseball -- Tyus is way, way faster. Tyus was a great youth league pitcher. To say he is a poor athlete is ridiculous. Tyus played at Duke against Louisville's guards and Carolina's guards and Virginia's guards and Michigan State's guards. The higher the level of competition, the better Tyus played. Duke was the national champion.
Is Tyus as athletic as Russell Westbrook? John Wall? Of course not. That means he is not one of the top 8 most athletic guards in the league.
Mediocre Shooter
Guys who are 17-18-19 years old are generally nowhere near complete as shooters. I can name you dozens of guys who could not make a mid-range shot as a young player and who improved greatly as they went along in the NBA. Magic. LeBron. Jordan. Karl Malone. I mean, I am not talking about just schlubs who struggle to make a roster here. Anyone willing to work on their shot and gets consistent playing time generally becomes a significantly better shooter (Ricky Rubio perhaps being the exception that proves the rule).
Terrible Defender
NBA Basketball is not an "individual defense" game for most players. If you are Kawhi Leonard or Draymond Green or LeBron, or if you are a center, you may be able to make a positive difference defensively. The other guys? They just need to know where they are supposed to be defensively, get in the way, and do their best to occasionally get a steal or dive for a loose ball.
Tyus's defensive rating last year was 111. That is bad. The Wolves' overall defensive rating last year? 110.8; almost exactly as bad. Among the guys who had worse DRtg than Tyus last year? Andrew Wiggins (113), Shabazz Muhammed (114).
Haters of Tyus Jones are acting as if playing for only spot minutes as a 19 year old PG on one of the worst defensive teams in the league means Tyus's best defensive effort is a 111 DRtg. If he plays at all under Thibs, that rating will go down 4 points immediately, just because his teammates are trying to play defense. And even if it doesn't, since 1979 there are 27 small guards with at least two All-Star selections and a career DRtg of 108 or worse, including Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, Steve Nash and Deron Williams. Nash's career DRtg is 111. Mark Price (named a top 100 player of all-time by ESPN) is also on the list.
And a Final Note: the negative reviews of Tyus Jones' ability confuse me. For example, what do we hear about Tyler Ulis's selection by the Suns? "Great pick, steal of the draft, really can run a team, good offensively." The Suns, despite not having to do so for a second round pick, signed him to a guaranteed 2-year deal. Consensus -- He is AWESOME! But he played against Tyus Jones yesterday. Tyus destroyed Ulis. Had it been a fight, they would have stopped it. Jones was bigger, stronger, faster, better shooter. Yet, while Ulis is something akin to Nate Archibald, Tyus sucks?
Then you look at guys around the league -- Mike Conley is signed for $150M. Delly (6'4", 198 pounds) gets $37M. Tyler Johnson (6'4" 186) gets $50M. The Hawks won 60 games with Jeff Teague at the point, and they basically abandoned him shortly thereafter for Dennis Schroder, now both Teague (6'2" 186 lbs.) and Schroder (6'1" 172) will be making big money and starting.
If this is the market for NBA PGs, then why do local media seem to have so much glee that "Tyus will never play"? Why are you happy about that? Cuz he is a local? Cuz he played at Duke? Any objective review of the kid's ability will show you that he is a good solid backup PG, and he should, in the right situation, be a good starting PG. This is a guy who you want to jettison?
I like Tyus Jones, and you should as well.
1) Tyus Jones is a winner -- high school state champion, national champion and MOP in the Final 4 in his one year as a Duke player. When games get important, Tyus Jones plays better.
2) Tyus Jones makes his teammates better -- you will note that in the Summer League the Wolves were struggling mightily when Kris Dunn was playing, despite Dunn's constant forays to the hoop (some of which were rather impressive) and his ability to get steals, rebound, block shots, etc. Then when Dunn got a concussion the Wolves were basically forced to give Tyus the ball and let him run the offense. When Tyus is in charge of the offense, guys get open shots. It is as simple as that. He wants to run the offense, and if your offense gets guys open, he will hit them. Why do you think Jahlil Okafor so badly wanted to play with Tyus at Duke? If you are open on the post, Tyus will look for you and get you the ball. Reid Travis went from a top 120 player to a top 40 player in one AAU season with Tyus. Brock Bertram played at Apple Valley with Tyus - his stock was never higher. Then he had to play AAU without Tyus; stock not so great.
3) Any Coach Who Has Relied Upon Tyus Has Done Well -- Apple Valley, champions, Duke, champions, USA Basketball, champions. Sam Mitchell plays him almost not at all -- 29 wins.
My Response to Detractors
The general statements of detractors regarding Tyus Jones are that 1) he is too small; 2) he is not very athletic; 3) he is a mediocre shooter; and 4) he is a terrible defender.
Too Small
Tyus is roughly the same size as Chris Paul and slightly bigger than Mike Conley. Tyus, at 6'2" and 195 pounds, certainly isn't appreciable smaller than Steph Curry or Damian Lillard or Kyrie Irving.
Not Very Athletic
Tyus can dunk. Ricky Rubio has a very hard time dunking. My son was a very good athlete and always one of the top 2-3 fastest guys on any team he played on. He played against Tyus in baseball -- Tyus is way, way faster. Tyus was a great youth league pitcher. To say he is a poor athlete is ridiculous. Tyus played at Duke against Louisville's guards and Carolina's guards and Virginia's guards and Michigan State's guards. The higher the level of competition, the better Tyus played. Duke was the national champion.
Is Tyus as athletic as Russell Westbrook? John Wall? Of course not. That means he is not one of the top 8 most athletic guards in the league.
Mediocre Shooter
Guys who are 17-18-19 years old are generally nowhere near complete as shooters. I can name you dozens of guys who could not make a mid-range shot as a young player and who improved greatly as they went along in the NBA. Magic. LeBron. Jordan. Karl Malone. I mean, I am not talking about just schlubs who struggle to make a roster here. Anyone willing to work on their shot and gets consistent playing time generally becomes a significantly better shooter (Ricky Rubio perhaps being the exception that proves the rule).
Terrible Defender
NBA Basketball is not an "individual defense" game for most players. If you are Kawhi Leonard or Draymond Green or LeBron, or if you are a center, you may be able to make a positive difference defensively. The other guys? They just need to know where they are supposed to be defensively, get in the way, and do their best to occasionally get a steal or dive for a loose ball.
Tyus's defensive rating last year was 111. That is bad. The Wolves' overall defensive rating last year? 110.8; almost exactly as bad. Among the guys who had worse DRtg than Tyus last year? Andrew Wiggins (113), Shabazz Muhammed (114).
Haters of Tyus Jones are acting as if playing for only spot minutes as a 19 year old PG on one of the worst defensive teams in the league means Tyus's best defensive effort is a 111 DRtg. If he plays at all under Thibs, that rating will go down 4 points immediately, just because his teammates are trying to play defense. And even if it doesn't, since 1979 there are 27 small guards with at least two All-Star selections and a career DRtg of 108 or worse, including Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, Steve Nash and Deron Williams. Nash's career DRtg is 111. Mark Price (named a top 100 player of all-time by ESPN) is also on the list.
And a Final Note: the negative reviews of Tyus Jones' ability confuse me. For example, what do we hear about Tyler Ulis's selection by the Suns? "Great pick, steal of the draft, really can run a team, good offensively." The Suns, despite not having to do so for a second round pick, signed him to a guaranteed 2-year deal. Consensus -- He is AWESOME! But he played against Tyus Jones yesterday. Tyus destroyed Ulis. Had it been a fight, they would have stopped it. Jones was bigger, stronger, faster, better shooter. Yet, while Ulis is something akin to Nate Archibald, Tyus sucks?
Then you look at guys around the league -- Mike Conley is signed for $150M. Delly (6'4", 198 pounds) gets $37M. Tyler Johnson (6'4" 186) gets $50M. The Hawks won 60 games with Jeff Teague at the point, and they basically abandoned him shortly thereafter for Dennis Schroder, now both Teague (6'2" 186 lbs.) and Schroder (6'1" 172) will be making big money and starting.
If this is the market for NBA PGs, then why do local media seem to have so much glee that "Tyus will never play"? Why are you happy about that? Cuz he is a local? Cuz he played at Duke? Any objective review of the kid's ability will show you that he is a good solid backup PG, and he should, in the right situation, be a good starting PG. This is a guy who you want to jettison?
I like Tyus Jones, and you should as well.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Top 100 NBA Free Agents -- Where Did They Go? What did they Get?
Thanks to cbssports.com for the chart. I will identify my thoughts by grade.
General thoughts -- a lot of guys who get B's are good but are slightly overpaid. C's are kinda like I feel "ehhhh, Ok, fine"
D -- that is a bad idea.
F -- inexcusable, simply cannot be explained.
Rondo gets an F+ because while he was wretched last year (absolutely did not try) if you could get him to try he would be a low-level starter, so it may be worth a shot but it is pretty close to inexcusable.
Solomon Hill gets a D minus because it is a really bad idea, but he is not so clearly terrible or unworthy of the money that I could place him with an F.
General thoughts -- a lot of guys who get B's are good but are slightly overpaid. C's are kinda like I feel "ehhhh, Ok, fine"
D -- that is a bad idea.
F -- inexcusable, simply cannot be explained.
Rondo gets an F+ because while he was wretched last year (absolutely did not try) if you could get him to try he would be a low-level starter, so it may be worth a shot but it is pretty close to inexcusable.
Solomon Hill gets a D minus because it is a really bad idea, but he is not so clearly terrible or unworthy of the money that I could place him with an F.
| RANK PLAYER | '15-16 TEAM | '16-17 TEAM | CONTRACT |
| 1. Kevin Durant (SF) | Thunder | Warriors | *2 years, $54M Grade A |
| 2. LeBron James (SF) | Cavaliers | -- | -- |
| 3. Andre Drummond (C) | Pistons | Pistons | *5 years, $130M Grade B - have to do it, but a huge risk for |
| 4. Al Horford (C) | Hawks | Celtics | *4 years, $113M Grade B |
| 5. Mike Conley (PG) | Grizzlies | Grizzlies | *5 years, $153M Grade D |
| 6. DeMar DeRozan (SG) | Raptors | Raptors | *5 years, $139M Grade B |
| 7. Bradley Beal (SG) | Wizards | Wizards | *5 years, $128M Grade C |
| 8. Nicolas Batum (SF) | Hornets | Hornets | *5 years, $120M Grade D |
| 9. Hassan Whiteside (C) | Heat | Heat | *4 years, $98M Grade B |
| 10. Dwyane Wade (SG) | Heat | Bulls | *2 years, $48M Grade C |
| 11. Dwight Howard (C) | Rockets | Hawks | *3 years, $70.5M Grade C |
| 12. Tim Duncan (PF) | Spurs | Spurs | *player option Retired |
| 13. Dirk Nowitzki (PF) | Mavs | Mavs | *2 years, $40M Grade C |
| 14. Dion Waiters (SG) | Thunder | -- | -- |
| 15. J.R. Smith (SG) | Cavaliers | -- | -- |
| 16. Chandler Parsons (SF) | Mavs | Grizzlies | *4 years, $98.5M Grade C |
| 17. Pau Gasol (PF) | Bulls | Spurs | *2 years, $30M Grade A |
| 18. Kent Bazemore (SF) | Hawks | Hawks | *4 years, $70M Grade B |
| 19. Ryan Anderson (PF) | Pelicans | Rockets | * 4 years, $80M Grade C |
| 20. Bismack Biyombo (C) | Raptors | Magic | * 4 years, $72M Grade C |
| 21. Jordan Clarkson (PG) | Lakers | Lakers | *4 years, $50M Grade A |
| 22. Marvin Williams (PF) | Hornets | Hornets | *4 years, $54.5M Grade C |
| 23. Evan Turner (SG) | Celtics | Blazers | *4 years, $70M Grade D |
| 24. Festus Ezeli (C) | Warriors | Blazers | *2 years, $14.7M Grade B |
| 25. Courtney Lee (SG) | Grizzlies | Knicks | *4 years, $50M Grade B |
| 26. Harrison Barnes (SF) | Warriors | Mavs | *4 years, $94M Grade C |
| 27. Matthew Dellavedova (PG) | Cavaliers | Bucks | 4 years, $38.5M Grade C |
| 28. Evan Fournier (SG) | Magic | Magic | *5 years, $85M Grade B |
| 29. Jeremy Lin (PG) | Hornets | Nets | *3 years, $36M Grade B |
| 30. Allen Crabbe (SG) | Blazers | Blazers | *4 years, $75M Grade B |
| 31. Gerald Henderson (SG) | Blazers | Sixers | *2 years, $18M Grade C |
| 32. Ian Mahinmi (C) | Pacers | Wizards | *4 years, $64M Grade F |
| 33. Darrell Arthur (PF) | Nuggets | Nuggets | *3 years, $23M Grade D |
| 34. Arron Afflalo (SG) | Knicks | Kings | *2 years, $25M Grade C |
| 35. Boban Marjanovic (C) | Spurs | Pistons | *3 years, $21M Grade D |
| 36. Marreese Speights (PF) | Warriors | Clippers | *vet minimum Grade A |
| 37. Trevor Booker (PF) | Jazz | Nets | *2 years, $18M Grade B |
| 38. Meyers Leonard (PF) | Blazers | Blazers | *4 years, $41M Grade B |
| 39. Joakim Noah (C) | Bulls | Knicks | *4 years, $72M Grade C |
| 40. Al Jefferson (C) | Hornets | Pacers | *3 years, $30M Grade A |
| 41. Donatas Motiejunas (PF/C) | Int'l | -- | -- |
| 42. Mirza Teletovic (PF) | Suns | Bucks | *3 years, $30M Grade C |
| 43. Luol Deng (SF) | Heat | Lakers | *4 years, $72M Grade A |
| 44. Matt Barnes (SF) | Grizzlies | Kings | *2 years, $12M Grade D |
| 45. Eric Gordon (SG) | Pelicans | Rockets | *4 years, $53M Grade D |
| 46. E'Twaun Moore (SG) | Bulls | Pelicans | *4 years, $34M Grade D |
| 47. Brandon Jennings (PG) | Magic | Knicks | *1 year, $5M Grade B |
| 48. Jared Dudley (SF) | Wizards | Suns | *3 years, $30M Grade C |
| 49. Joe Johnson (SG) | Heat | Jazz | *2 years, $22M Grade D |
| 50. Ty Lawson (PG) | Pacers | -- | -- |
| 51. Tyler Johnson (SG) | Heat | Heat | *4 years, $50M Grade D |
| 52. Jerryd Bayless (PG) | Bucks | Sixers | *3 years, $27M Grade C |
| 53. Maurice Harkless (SF) | Blazers | -- | -- |
| 54. Langston Galloway (SG) | Knicks | Pelicans | *2 years, $6M Grade D |
| 55. Andrew Nicholson (PF) | Magic | Wizards | *4 years, $26M Grade C |
| 56. Leandro Barbosa (SG) | Warriors | Suns | *2 years, $8M Grade D |
| 57. Deron Williams (PG) | Mavs | Mavs | *1 year, $10M Grade A |
| 58. Lance Thomas (SF) | Knicks | Knicks | *4 years, $27M Grade B |
| 59. Austin Rivers (PG) | Clippers | Clippers | *3 years, $35M Grade C |
| 60. Manu Ginobili (SG) | Spurs | Spurs | *player option |
| 61. Jared Sullinger (C) | Celtics | Raptors | *1 year, $5.6M Grade B |
| 62. Timofey Mozgov (C) | Cavaliers | Lakers | *4 years, $65M Grade F |
| 63. Wesley Johnson (SF) | Clippers | Clippers | *3 years, $18M Grade D |
| 64. Randy Foye (PG) | Nuggets | -- | -- |
| 65. Richard Jefferson (SF) | Cavaliers | Cavaliers | *2 years, TBD Grade B |
| 66. Garrett Temple (SG) | Wizards | Kings | *3 years, $24M Grade F |
| 67. O.J. Mayo (SG) | Bucks | N/A | N/A Suspended for 2 years |
| 68. David Lee (C) | Celtics | -- | -- |
| 69. Raymond Felton (PG) | Mavericks | -- | -- |
| 70. Alan Anderson (SG) | Wizards | -- | -- |
| 71. Hollis Thompson (SG) | 76ers | -- | -- |
| 72. Marcus Thornton (SG) | Wizards | -- | -- |
| 73. Cole Aldrich (C) | Clippers | Timberwolves | *3 years, $22M Grade C |
| 74. Tyler Zeller (C) | Celtics | -- | -- |
| 75. Brandon Bass (PF) | Lakers | -- | -- |
| 76. Miles Plumlee (C) | Bucks | -- | -- |
| 77. D.J. Augustin (PG) | Thunder | Magic | *4 years, $29M Grade D |
| 78. Jamal Crawford (SG) | Clippers | Clippers | *3 years, $42M Grade F |
| 79. Rajon Rondo (PG) | Kings | Bulls | *2 years, $28M Grade F+ |
| 80. Seth Curry (SG) | Kings | Mavs | *2 years, $6M Grade A |
| 81. Solomon Hill (SF) | Pacers | Pelicans | *4 years, $52M Grade D- |
| 82. David West (PF) | Spurs | Warriors | *1 year, $1.55M Grade A |
| 83. Nene Hilario (C) | Wizards | Rockets | *1 year, $2.9M Grade A |
| 84. Kevin Seraphin (C) | Knicks | -- | -- |
| 85. Quincy Acy (SF) | Kings | -- | -- |
| 86. Dwight Powell (PF) | Mavs | Mavs | *4 years, $37M -- Grade B |
| 87. Isaiah Canaan (PG) | 76ers | -- | -- |
| 88. Lance Stephenson (SF) | Grizzlies | -- | -- |
| 89. Zaza Pachulia (C) | Mavs | Warriors | *1 year, $2.9M -- Grade A |
| 90. Markel Brown (SG) | Nets | -- | -- |
| 91. Troy Daniels (SG) | Hornets | Grizzlies | *3 years, $10M -- Grade F |
| 92. Greivis Vasquez (PG) | Bucks | -- | -- |
| 93. Luis Scola (PF) | Raptors | -- | -- |
| 94. Anthony Tolliver (PF) | Pistons | Kings | *2 years, $16M -- Grade B |
| 95. Ish Smith (PG) | 76ers | Pistons | *3 years, $18M -- Grade C |
| 96. Alonzo Gee (SF) | Pelicans | -- | -- |
| 97. Luc Mbah a Moute (SF) | Clippers | Clippers | *2 years, $4.5M -- Grade F |
| 98. Amar'e Stoudemire (PF) | Heat | -- | -- |
| 99. Jeff Green (PF) | Clippers | Magic | *1 year, $15M -- Grade B |
| 100. Jon Leuer (PF) | Suns | Pistons | *4 years, $42M -- Grade D |
Friday, July 01, 2016
NBA Free Agency Spending Run Amok -- Looking For Analogies
Not that anyone actually reads my stuff, but it is out on the Internet, so I had to scrap my "guy walks into a strip bar and is handed $600" analogy or my "there are 15 available hookers" analogy and move on to one that won't get me labeled as a less attractive and poorer Donald Trump.
So - we will go with something I know well....food.
NBA owners are flush with cash due to the new TV contract. By agreement, they must give the players roughly 50% of league revenues (revenues subject to this split are defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement). Therefore, to simplify matters greatly, let's say that the league gets $6 billion and must give $3B of that to the players. Dividing by 30 teams - $100 million spent per team.
The league rules also require you to pay 90% of that money no matter what. If you don't, you pay it to the league who distributes it to the other players. You need to pay $90M.
If every team were 41-41 and played in the same city, and were run equally well, and every player was a free agent every year, than you'd have no issue. The talent would be roughly equally divided. But that is not the case, there are a lot of places that talent does not want to go.
Some places (Miami, Dallas, San Antonio, New York) will attract talent, others (Minnesota, Milwaukee, OKC, Sacramento) will not attract talent. Some organizations are viewed as horribly run (Philly). So, what is our analogy here for NBA owners?
NBA owners are like guys who are sitting in one of 30 restaurants. One guy might be in a Taco Bell in Sacramento or a Applebee's in Minnesota while another guy might be in a 5-star steakhouse in Miami. Each has been given $100 to spend. He can spend as little as $90. He can spend all $100, and if he reads the rules, he can actually spend $150 (but he'd have to give another $50 that will be split between the guys who don't spend $100).
If you are the guy in a 5-star steakhouse, you won't have any trouble spending $100. You will probably want to find a way to spend $150, even if it costs you an extra $50. You have great options. If you are at a Ruby Tuesday's in Charlotte, it ain't gonna be pretty to try to spend that $100. A couple steaks, salad bar, dessert, liquor. You can do it, but you won't feel good about it (Nic Batum 5 years $120M).
Now imagine the poor guys in the Taco Bell. You have $100 and you have only spent $30. $70 worth of Taco Bell food? Yikes. Well, maybe that Gordita Crunchwrap Supreme Dos Locos whatever is worth $8? (Dion Waiters demanding $28M per year) or I know Nachos Grande are good. Maybe I will just give the guy behind the counter $100 and say "keep it" (Harrison Barnes seeking $28M per year)? I mean, you have to spend $90. Do you really want to order like 80 bean burritos? 75 chips and cheese? You'd really like to order that ribeye steak and Caesar salad combo the guy in Miami is buying, but you are in a Taco Bell. WTF are you going to do?
Now, since everyone has stopped reading, let's return to the stripper analogy. You happen to have wandered into a club in some city and because it is National Customer Appreciation Day they hand you $600 and say "spend between $540 and $750 and we won't let you leave until you have." If you are in a crappy town, you are going to make some really really awful decisions with that money. If you are in an OK town, you just need to use some common sense. If you are in the best town, you will have so many options that your head will spin. You just have to be not an idiot (for example, $72M for Joakim Noah coming off a skein of injuries may not be the best idea).
Anyway -- enjoy NBA free agency. And if you feel bad for the NBA owners, don't. They have been handed their money by the new TV deal. Whatever decisions they make with it, you can be impressed or laugh heartily, but never feel sorry for billionaires handed money.
So - we will go with something I know well....food.
NBA owners are flush with cash due to the new TV contract. By agreement, they must give the players roughly 50% of league revenues (revenues subject to this split are defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement). Therefore, to simplify matters greatly, let's say that the league gets $6 billion and must give $3B of that to the players. Dividing by 30 teams - $100 million spent per team.
The league rules also require you to pay 90% of that money no matter what. If you don't, you pay it to the league who distributes it to the other players. You need to pay $90M.
If every team were 41-41 and played in the same city, and were run equally well, and every player was a free agent every year, than you'd have no issue. The talent would be roughly equally divided. But that is not the case, there are a lot of places that talent does not want to go.
Some places (Miami, Dallas, San Antonio, New York) will attract talent, others (Minnesota, Milwaukee, OKC, Sacramento) will not attract talent. Some organizations are viewed as horribly run (Philly). So, what is our analogy here for NBA owners?
NBA owners are like guys who are sitting in one of 30 restaurants. One guy might be in a Taco Bell in Sacramento or a Applebee's in Minnesota while another guy might be in a 5-star steakhouse in Miami. Each has been given $100 to spend. He can spend as little as $90. He can spend all $100, and if he reads the rules, he can actually spend $150 (but he'd have to give another $50 that will be split between the guys who don't spend $100).
If you are the guy in a 5-star steakhouse, you won't have any trouble spending $100. You will probably want to find a way to spend $150, even if it costs you an extra $50. You have great options. If you are at a Ruby Tuesday's in Charlotte, it ain't gonna be pretty to try to spend that $100. A couple steaks, salad bar, dessert, liquor. You can do it, but you won't feel good about it (Nic Batum 5 years $120M).
Now imagine the poor guys in the Taco Bell. You have $100 and you have only spent $30. $70 worth of Taco Bell food? Yikes. Well, maybe that Gordita Crunchwrap Supreme Dos Locos whatever is worth $8? (Dion Waiters demanding $28M per year) or I know Nachos Grande are good. Maybe I will just give the guy behind the counter $100 and say "keep it" (Harrison Barnes seeking $28M per year)? I mean, you have to spend $90. Do you really want to order like 80 bean burritos? 75 chips and cheese? You'd really like to order that ribeye steak and Caesar salad combo the guy in Miami is buying, but you are in a Taco Bell. WTF are you going to do?
Now, since everyone has stopped reading, let's return to the stripper analogy. You happen to have wandered into a club in some city and because it is National Customer Appreciation Day they hand you $600 and say "spend between $540 and $750 and we won't let you leave until you have." If you are in a crappy town, you are going to make some really really awful decisions with that money. If you are in an OK town, you just need to use some common sense. If you are in the best town, you will have so many options that your head will spin. You just have to be not an idiot (for example, $72M for Joakim Noah coming off a skein of injuries may not be the best idea).
Anyway -- enjoy NBA free agency. And if you feel bad for the NBA owners, don't. They have been handed their money by the new TV deal. Whatever decisions they make with it, you can be impressed or laugh heartily, but never feel sorry for billionaires handed money.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
If You Are Going to Play 13 Years in the NBA, Should It Be Ages 19-31, or Ages 21-33?
Charles Barkley does not rank LeBron James as a top 7 player, in part, because LeBron had a "head start" in his first 13 seasons.
Although at first blush that comment makes no sense (13 seasons is 13 seasons, you are evaluating the same thing) a friend said he thought Barkley's point was that LeBron got to play his first 13 seasons at ages 19-31 (whereas Barkley and Jordan, for example, got to play theirs at ages 21-33 or 22-34).
So let's put it to the test and review the issue of what sort of Win Shares do guys put up ages 19-21 versus ages 30-32 and 31-33.
Here goes.
1) 53 guys have put up at least 10 WS by the time they reached their age 21 season (which basketball-reference.com defines as turning 21 before February 1 of the season). http://bkref.com/tiny/vdGNF LeBron is the top at 35.6, the lowest guy on the top 10 is Andre Drummond at 22.0. The median of the top 10 is 25 WS. The median of the 53 guy list is Brook Lopez at 13.7 WS.
2) There are 259 guys who have put up at least 10 WS ages 31-33: http://bkref.com/tiny/Op77U
Karl Malone is #1 at 45.7WS. The 10th ranked guy is Artis Gilmore at 35.4. The median of the top 10 is 40.1 WS. The overall median of the 259 guy list is Jerry Sloan at 14.6 WS.
3) Moving on to ages 32-34. There are 186 guys with at least 10 WS. http://bkref.com/tiny/HAowU The top guy is Michael Jordan at 54.5WS and #10 is John Havlicek at 31.5 WS. The median of the top 10 is 35.8 WS and the median of the entire list is 17 WS.
Ergo, what we see is that there is no evidence that it is better to play your first 3 seasons at ages 19-21 or even 18-21 than it is to play seasons at ages 31-33 or 32-34. If anything, the statistics indicate that you will generally play better at ages 31-33 and 32-34 (and there is generally no significant difference whether it is 31-33 or 32-34).
If you look at the age 31-33 list, in particular, you will see that LeBron's early career 35.6 WS gave him very little, if any, advantage on the 11th-12th-13th seasons of guys with whom he is generally compared. There is either no difference or a very slight difference that cuts both ways depending upon the player.
The greatest indictment of Barkley's claim (if it can fairly be said to be his claim) is that Michael Jordan (to whom James is generally compared) at an older age was better than the 19-21 year old LeBron James, and using the 32-34 age period, the old Jordan was better than the young LeBron by over 6 WS per season. So, if you take two all-time greats and play one at age 19-21 and one at 32-34, they will both lead their age groups in WS, but the one who plays 32-34 will be roughly 50% better!
CONCLUSION -- as a general rule, it is better for your stats to play your first thirteen years in the NBA at ages 21-33 or 22-34 rather than ages 19-31.
Although at first blush that comment makes no sense (13 seasons is 13 seasons, you are evaluating the same thing) a friend said he thought Barkley's point was that LeBron got to play his first 13 seasons at ages 19-31 (whereas Barkley and Jordan, for example, got to play theirs at ages 21-33 or 22-34).
So let's put it to the test and review the issue of what sort of Win Shares do guys put up ages 19-21 versus ages 30-32 and 31-33.
Here goes.
1) 53 guys have put up at least 10 WS by the time they reached their age 21 season (which basketball-reference.com defines as turning 21 before February 1 of the season). http://bkref.com/tiny/vdGNF LeBron is the top at 35.6, the lowest guy on the top 10 is Andre Drummond at 22.0. The median of the top 10 is 25 WS. The median of the 53 guy list is Brook Lopez at 13.7 WS.
2) There are 259 guys who have put up at least 10 WS ages 31-33: http://bkref.com/tiny/Op77U
Karl Malone is #1 at 45.7WS. The 10th ranked guy is Artis Gilmore at 35.4. The median of the top 10 is 40.1 WS. The overall median of the 259 guy list is Jerry Sloan at 14.6 WS.
3) Moving on to ages 32-34. There are 186 guys with at least 10 WS. http://bkref.com/tiny/HAowU The top guy is Michael Jordan at 54.5WS and #10 is John Havlicek at 31.5 WS. The median of the top 10 is 35.8 WS and the median of the entire list is 17 WS.
Ergo, what we see is that there is no evidence that it is better to play your first 3 seasons at ages 19-21 or even 18-21 than it is to play seasons at ages 31-33 or 32-34. If anything, the statistics indicate that you will generally play better at ages 31-33 and 32-34 (and there is generally no significant difference whether it is 31-33 or 32-34).
If you look at the age 31-33 list, in particular, you will see that LeBron's early career 35.6 WS gave him very little, if any, advantage on the 11th-12th-13th seasons of guys with whom he is generally compared. There is either no difference or a very slight difference that cuts both ways depending upon the player.
The greatest indictment of Barkley's claim (if it can fairly be said to be his claim) is that Michael Jordan (to whom James is generally compared) at an older age was better than the 19-21 year old LeBron James, and using the 32-34 age period, the old Jordan was better than the young LeBron by over 6 WS per season. So, if you take two all-time greats and play one at age 19-21 and one at 32-34, they will both lead their age groups in WS, but the one who plays 32-34 will be roughly 50% better!
CONCLUSION -- as a general rule, it is better for your stats to play your first thirteen years in the NBA at ages 21-33 or 22-34 rather than ages 19-31.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
LeBron's Block On Iggy -- Picture
Interesting to note, earlier in the game, Iguodala had a layup where he attempted a reverse layup and was fouled. James obviously subconsciously recalled that event, because as he rises up (per ESPN Sports Science, 35.5 inches at 20 mph, contacting the ball at 11.5 feet) he places his left hand in a position to attempt a block if Iguodala attempted the reverse. Unsung defensive hero per Sports Science - JR Smith, whose flail at Iggy cost Iggy 0.15 seconds, allowing LeBron enough time to get into position, where he had a window of 0.20 seconds from release to backboard to legally block the shot.
Friday, June 24, 2016
The Timberwolves' Draft Night, Kris Dunn and Ricky Rubio
Boston last night was sitting at #3 and everyone said they would take Kris Dunn and trade him. But there was a rub. The Celts have 4 guards who, next year, will be as good or better than Kris Dunn (Thomas, Smart, Bradley, Turner). So, if you take Dunn, your options are to play him almost not at all, trade him, or trade someone else.
The difficulty becomes this -- you are a guy with two nice TV's living in a one-room apartment. They are nice TVs, everyone knows you have them and nowhere to put them. Now you put them on the market and say "best offer." Everyone says "$4". You say, "Hey, I am going to just keep them both, maybe one will break down. Maybe I can put them both up and watch two shows or just watch one on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays."
If your TV is worth $800, you may get $400. Or you may be offered $4.
The Celtics chose not to do that. They chose Jaylen Brown. So they basically bought a stove rather than a fifth TV.
The Timberwolves, on the other hand, had a TV that was a little too big and had some flaws in the picture (Rubio) and they bought a brand new TV.....that is a little too big and has the exact same flaws in the picture. I would bet they thought they could trade Dunn and LaVine for Jimmy Butler, which would have been awesome. (You don't just acquire 27 year old 8 WS guys every day). But that failed.
So now the Wolves live in a one bedroom apartment and have two TVs, same flaws. One is a little newer. So they can just throw the old one in the trash or give it to Goodwill or hope that someone really needs a TV and will pay 50 cents on the dollar.
They really, really needed a shooter, like someone needs to buy food to survive. Two excellent shooters were available (Hield and Murray). The Wolves could have taken their asset and bought some food. Instead, they bought another TV that they did not need. And they spent the rest of the night saying, "Shit! Maybe if I don't take the TV out of the box, it will be worth more than I paid."
That is how the Wolves ended up taking the #5 pick and Ricky Rubio and turning it into Ricky Rubio 1.0 and Ricky Rubio 2.0(Dunn).
So where does that leave the Wolves as far as options go?
1) Keep both and play them at different times -- this is like watching the one TV three days a week and the other 4. Why?
2) Keep both so you have insurance if one breaks down -- certainly a luxury to have if you are the Spurs or Warriors, but c'mon. You spent the #5 for an injury replacement?
3) Keep them both and play them together -- neither can shoot. Wiggy isn't exactly a deadly marksman either. So.....your three smaller positions will feature basically no outside scoring?
4) Trade Dunn -- you won't get the utmost value, but he is like the new TV in the box. You might be able to convince someone he has no flaws at all.
5) Trade Rubio -- his flaws are well known. So you are hoping to trade him for a nice bicycle that no one ever rides, or a used car that runs pretty well for its age. You will get screwed on this deal, but you have to do it or sit there and watch the TV lying dormant on the floor of your closet.
As you can tell, I am no fan of the Kris Dunn draft. Here is a Skip Bayless-esque "hot take" for you -- I predict Tyus Jones will be a more successful NBA player in his career than Kris Dunn. And we already have Tyus Jones.
But if you love Kris Dunn, then your best decision for your team is to play him immediately, dump Rubio for a sack of basketballs and some hand powder and move on to the Kris Dunn Era. If you don't think he is that great, you probably should never have drafted him, kept Rubio and drafted Hield or Murray.
The difficulty becomes this -- you are a guy with two nice TV's living in a one-room apartment. They are nice TVs, everyone knows you have them and nowhere to put them. Now you put them on the market and say "best offer." Everyone says "$4". You say, "Hey, I am going to just keep them both, maybe one will break down. Maybe I can put them both up and watch two shows or just watch one on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays."
If your TV is worth $800, you may get $400. Or you may be offered $4.
The Celtics chose not to do that. They chose Jaylen Brown. So they basically bought a stove rather than a fifth TV.
The Timberwolves, on the other hand, had a TV that was a little too big and had some flaws in the picture (Rubio) and they bought a brand new TV.....that is a little too big and has the exact same flaws in the picture. I would bet they thought they could trade Dunn and LaVine for Jimmy Butler, which would have been awesome. (You don't just acquire 27 year old 8 WS guys every day). But that failed.
So now the Wolves live in a one bedroom apartment and have two TVs, same flaws. One is a little newer. So they can just throw the old one in the trash or give it to Goodwill or hope that someone really needs a TV and will pay 50 cents on the dollar.
They really, really needed a shooter, like someone needs to buy food to survive. Two excellent shooters were available (Hield and Murray). The Wolves could have taken their asset and bought some food. Instead, they bought another TV that they did not need. And they spent the rest of the night saying, "Shit! Maybe if I don't take the TV out of the box, it will be worth more than I paid."
That is how the Wolves ended up taking the #5 pick and Ricky Rubio and turning it into Ricky Rubio 1.0 and Ricky Rubio 2.0(Dunn).
So where does that leave the Wolves as far as options go?
1) Keep both and play them at different times -- this is like watching the one TV three days a week and the other 4. Why?
2) Keep both so you have insurance if one breaks down -- certainly a luxury to have if you are the Spurs or Warriors, but c'mon. You spent the #5 for an injury replacement?
3) Keep them both and play them together -- neither can shoot. Wiggy isn't exactly a deadly marksman either. So.....your three smaller positions will feature basically no outside scoring?
4) Trade Dunn -- you won't get the utmost value, but he is like the new TV in the box. You might be able to convince someone he has no flaws at all.
5) Trade Rubio -- his flaws are well known. So you are hoping to trade him for a nice bicycle that no one ever rides, or a used car that runs pretty well for its age. You will get screwed on this deal, but you have to do it or sit there and watch the TV lying dormant on the floor of your closet.
As you can tell, I am no fan of the Kris Dunn draft. Here is a Skip Bayless-esque "hot take" for you -- I predict Tyus Jones will be a more successful NBA player in his career than Kris Dunn. And we already have Tyus Jones.
But if you love Kris Dunn, then your best decision for your team is to play him immediately, dump Rubio for a sack of basketballs and some hand powder and move on to the Kris Dunn Era. If you don't think he is that great, you probably should never have drafted him, kept Rubio and drafted Hield or Murray.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
LeBron Derangement Syndrome - Why So Angry About 3rd Title & 3rd Finals MVP?
In the movie "Bad Teacher" Jason Segel plays a gym teacher arguing with a grade school student over the Jordan/LeBron debate. The kid says "LeBron is a better passer AND a better rebounder." Segel responds that Jordan won 6 titles. The kid replies, "Is that the only argument you got?" Segel, "It is the only argument I NEED!"
In "We're The Millers" a 10 pound bundle of marijuana falls on Jennifer Aniston's lap in plain sight of another couple, and she and Jason Sudekis claim that it is a baby named LeBron. Sudekis, "We wanted to name him after a prima donna who will never be as good as Jordan."
LeBron's team just won a Finals in which he led both teams in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. That has never occurred. According to ESPN, that has never occurred in any playoff series ever, at any time. They used to play 2 out of 3 series in the late 70s early 80s. Magic and Moses and Bird never did it for a two game stretch? Apparently not. If you search for Finals Games since 1984 (when the basketball-reference.com database goes back to) in which a player registered 25 points, 9 assists, 2 steals and 2 blocks in a game, you get Dennis Johnson 1985, Michael Jordan twice, and LeBron James three times.........three times this year! In this series, LeBron had the #1 and #3 Finals "Game Score" of any Finals game played since 1984. LeBron, therefore, just had two of the three greatest Finals games played in 33 years.
Against this background, the Skip Baylesses of the world replied after these historic results -- "Kyrie should have been the MVP." The Ric Buchers of the world, "LeBron quit on his team in Game 4." These comments make the speaker look so ignorant and borderline insane that you have to wonder what causes the LeBron Derangement Syndrome. I mean, I don't care for Kobe, but this would be similar to me watching Kobe score 81 points and the very next day saying "Carmelo Anthony is better." (Skip Bayless, by the way, has actually stated that Carmelo and Johnny Manziel are better at their sports than is LeBron).
I mean, LeBron is NOT a guy who tanked a playoff game intentionally because he had been criticized for shooting too much the last game (Kobe) or who has been accused of raping a hotel employee, or who regularly showed up for the regular season 20-40 pounds overweight (Shaq - to whom Kobe allegedly compared his own Colorado problems, saying Shaq was just as bad) or who intentionally tried to humiliate his teammates every day in practice (Jordan) or who lost millions gambling and decided to retire suspiciously, or a guy who engaged in an amount of unprotected sex with so many partners while married that he got an incurable disease (Magic). LeBron has not, to my knowledge, ever abandoned his daughter and refused to talk to her or to pay $40/week in child support for her (Bird).
Undoubtedly James has many skeletons in his closet of which I am unaware (almost every athlete cheats on his wife, it is almost a given, so I assume that there is that to start), but certainly the players we hear LeBron compared to are not exactly saints who are preferred to LeBron due to their sparkling reputations and perfect lifestyles. Certainly "The Decision" (which raised money for charity) was poorly done, but has it not been completely redeemed? The people hurt the most by The Decision are now more than happy with LeBron.
And the reasons given for hating LeBron generally range from ridiculous ("I don't like his tweets over Kevin Love") to self-contradictory ("he went to Miami to win/and he doesn't care enough about winning"). I heard one yesterday from a radio caller who said that LeBron's numbers should be "discounted" because "he has the ball in his hands so much" and he doesn't "do much off the ball." So, James is lazy, unassertive, lacks a desire to win, but at the same time puts up otherworldly numbers because he is only playing for himself....but not to win......plus he passes too much to others and should shoot more, except he should also play off the ball more.
The evaluation of LeBron James on a regular season basis and a playoffs pre-Finals basis is that he is a top 2 player. LeBron is #1 all-time in Value Over Replacement Player (VORP), both in the playoffs and the regular season. LeBron is #1 by a substantial margin over Jordan for career playoff Win Shares. LeBron is the most versatile player of all-time and it is not remotely close. He is now 10X first-team all-NBA, so the whole argument that it is "too soon" to evaluate his career makes no sense - he has more first-team all-NBA's than only two guys, and he has played more career minutes than Bird or Magic.
So, why the irrational hate of LeBron James now, after his 3rd title and third Finals MVP (ignoring Russell who played when there was no Finals MVP, only Shaq, Magic, Duncan and Jordan also have 3+ titles and 3+ Finals MVPs)? As I discussed with my friend Scott (shout out to Scott), the reason probably lies way back at the top of this item -- the only argument that these haters have enjoyed against LeBron over the years is this vague belief that he is a loser and if he were so great then why doesn't he win the title and Finals MVP every single year? Well, now he has won as many titles as Bird, and he has more Finals MVPs and two more conference titles. He has as many Finals MVPs as Magic and Duncan and Shaq. He is the only guy to win Finals MVP by defeating Duncan, and he has also won a Finals MVP defeating Curry and the 73-win Warriors. That really sticks in the craw of the people who worship Jordan and Magic and Bird and Kobe and believe that there is something inherently bad about casting LeBron in the same light.
And LeBron's name will always now be mentioned in discussing the NBA Finals -- team overcame a 3-1 deficit to win; only player to lead both teams in all positive stats. That is just galling for haters. Not only did James win, he did so in a manner that was unique. You cannot say, "well Jordan also came back from 3-1...." or "Magic also led the Finals in all 5 stats." It did not occur. So you are left with arguments like "He could have had he wanted to!" which is like me saying that if I were single I COULD go find the hottest professional cheerleader in town and have sex with her. So long as I never am in a position to do that, I don't need to worry about proving or disproving it. Does not trying or having the opportunity make me better than the guy who actually accomplished the feat? One would say ----------- no.
Anyway - when I make up my next "36 greatest players" list, I may have to consider moving LeBron up from #4. He has certainly earned consideration. And with the Mount Rushmore conversations? Hard for anyone seriously to argue LeBron is not top 4. There just is not a lot of meat left on those bones except "I personally dislike the guy."
And to Skip Bayless and Ric Bucher, as Nelson Muntz would say -- "Ha! Ha!"
In "We're The Millers" a 10 pound bundle of marijuana falls on Jennifer Aniston's lap in plain sight of another couple, and she and Jason Sudekis claim that it is a baby named LeBron. Sudekis, "We wanted to name him after a prima donna who will never be as good as Jordan."
LeBron's team just won a Finals in which he led both teams in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. That has never occurred. According to ESPN, that has never occurred in any playoff series ever, at any time. They used to play 2 out of 3 series in the late 70s early 80s. Magic and Moses and Bird never did it for a two game stretch? Apparently not. If you search for Finals Games since 1984 (when the basketball-reference.com database goes back to) in which a player registered 25 points, 9 assists, 2 steals and 2 blocks in a game, you get Dennis Johnson 1985, Michael Jordan twice, and LeBron James three times.........three times this year! In this series, LeBron had the #1 and #3 Finals "Game Score" of any Finals game played since 1984. LeBron, therefore, just had two of the three greatest Finals games played in 33 years.
Against this background, the Skip Baylesses of the world replied after these historic results -- "Kyrie should have been the MVP." The Ric Buchers of the world, "LeBron quit on his team in Game 4." These comments make the speaker look so ignorant and borderline insane that you have to wonder what causes the LeBron Derangement Syndrome. I mean, I don't care for Kobe, but this would be similar to me watching Kobe score 81 points and the very next day saying "Carmelo Anthony is better." (Skip Bayless, by the way, has actually stated that Carmelo and Johnny Manziel are better at their sports than is LeBron).
I mean, LeBron is NOT a guy who tanked a playoff game intentionally because he had been criticized for shooting too much the last game (Kobe) or who has been accused of raping a hotel employee, or who regularly showed up for the regular season 20-40 pounds overweight (Shaq - to whom Kobe allegedly compared his own Colorado problems, saying Shaq was just as bad) or who intentionally tried to humiliate his teammates every day in practice (Jordan) or who lost millions gambling and decided to retire suspiciously, or a guy who engaged in an amount of unprotected sex with so many partners while married that he got an incurable disease (Magic). LeBron has not, to my knowledge, ever abandoned his daughter and refused to talk to her or to pay $40/week in child support for her (Bird).
Undoubtedly James has many skeletons in his closet of which I am unaware (almost every athlete cheats on his wife, it is almost a given, so I assume that there is that to start), but certainly the players we hear LeBron compared to are not exactly saints who are preferred to LeBron due to their sparkling reputations and perfect lifestyles. Certainly "The Decision" (which raised money for charity) was poorly done, but has it not been completely redeemed? The people hurt the most by The Decision are now more than happy with LeBron.
And the reasons given for hating LeBron generally range from ridiculous ("I don't like his tweets over Kevin Love") to self-contradictory ("he went to Miami to win/and he doesn't care enough about winning"). I heard one yesterday from a radio caller who said that LeBron's numbers should be "discounted" because "he has the ball in his hands so much" and he doesn't "do much off the ball." So, James is lazy, unassertive, lacks a desire to win, but at the same time puts up otherworldly numbers because he is only playing for himself....but not to win......plus he passes too much to others and should shoot more, except he should also play off the ball more.
The evaluation of LeBron James on a regular season basis and a playoffs pre-Finals basis is that he is a top 2 player. LeBron is #1 all-time in Value Over Replacement Player (VORP), both in the playoffs and the regular season. LeBron is #1 by a substantial margin over Jordan for career playoff Win Shares. LeBron is the most versatile player of all-time and it is not remotely close. He is now 10X first-team all-NBA, so the whole argument that it is "too soon" to evaluate his career makes no sense - he has more first-team all-NBA's than only two guys, and he has played more career minutes than Bird or Magic.
So, why the irrational hate of LeBron James now, after his 3rd title and third Finals MVP (ignoring Russell who played when there was no Finals MVP, only Shaq, Magic, Duncan and Jordan also have 3+ titles and 3+ Finals MVPs)? As I discussed with my friend Scott (shout out to Scott), the reason probably lies way back at the top of this item -- the only argument that these haters have enjoyed against LeBron over the years is this vague belief that he is a loser and if he were so great then why doesn't he win the title and Finals MVP every single year? Well, now he has won as many titles as Bird, and he has more Finals MVPs and two more conference titles. He has as many Finals MVPs as Magic and Duncan and Shaq. He is the only guy to win Finals MVP by defeating Duncan, and he has also won a Finals MVP defeating Curry and the 73-win Warriors. That really sticks in the craw of the people who worship Jordan and Magic and Bird and Kobe and believe that there is something inherently bad about casting LeBron in the same light.
And LeBron's name will always now be mentioned in discussing the NBA Finals -- team overcame a 3-1 deficit to win; only player to lead both teams in all positive stats. That is just galling for haters. Not only did James win, he did so in a manner that was unique. You cannot say, "well Jordan also came back from 3-1...." or "Magic also led the Finals in all 5 stats." It did not occur. So you are left with arguments like "He could have had he wanted to!" which is like me saying that if I were single I COULD go find the hottest professional cheerleader in town and have sex with her. So long as I never am in a position to do that, I don't need to worry about proving or disproving it. Does not trying or having the opportunity make me better than the guy who actually accomplished the feat? One would say ----------- no.
Anyway - when I make up my next "36 greatest players" list, I may have to consider moving LeBron up from #4. He has certainly earned consideration. And with the Mount Rushmore conversations? Hard for anyone seriously to argue LeBron is not top 4. There just is not a lot of meat left on those bones except "I personally dislike the guy."
And to Skip Bayless and Ric Bucher, as Nelson Muntz would say -- "Ha! Ha!"
5 Most "Consistently Accomplished" Players of All-Time -- Michael, LeBron, Magic, Duncan, Russell - No Advance Stats Used
Here is what I have done, I took my top 18 players (ranked in 2015) and ESPN's top 18 ranked players (ESPN ranked early 2016) and eliminated players who appeared on one list but not the other. This eliminated David Robinson, Mikan, and Pettit from my list and Dirk, Barkley and Dr. J from ESPN's list, leaving these 15 guys:
1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. LeBron
5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Karl Malone
8. Bill Russell
9. Shaq
10. West
11. Oscar
12. Bird
13. Hakeem
14. Moses
15. Kobe
I
Those 15 guys have been evaluated both by me and by ESPN's panel of dozens of basketball "experts" to be top 18 players of all-time.
So, how do you cut down the list? Well, to purport to be the most accomplished player of all-time, you should at least have won 2 regular season MVP awards. If you cannot claim to have been evaluated by your contemporaries as the best player in the league twice while you were playing, you don't really have much of an argument. So....
Delete -- West (0), Oscar (1), Shaq (1), Kobe (1)
11 guys left.
Then let's eliminate any player without 3+ titles. This eliminates Hakeem (2), Wilt (2), Moses (1) and Karl Malone (0).
That leaves us with 7 guys -- Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Duncan, Magic, Russell, Bird
Then you eliminate all guys without 3+ Finals MVPs (unless it is Russell, who played when the award did not exist and won 11 titles). This eliminates Bird (2) and Kareem (2).
That leaves you with only 5 guys -- Michael, LeBron, Duncan, Magic, Bill Russell.
You can decide how to break that 5 way tie. But what I did was go back to the ESPN list and my list and give the guys the point level of where they ranked on my list and the ESPN list. Lower score is better:
5th Place -- Bill Russell (7th on ESPN list, 8th on mine)
4th Place -- Tim Duncan (8th on ESPN list, 5th on mine)
3rd Place -- Magic Johnson (4th on ESPN list, 6th on mine)
2nd Place -- LeBron James (3rd on ESPN list, 4th on mine)
1st Place -- Michael Jordan (1st on ESPN list, 1st on mine).
There ya go.
1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. LeBron
5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Karl Malone
8. Bill Russell
9. Shaq
10. West
11. Oscar
12. Bird
13. Hakeem
14. Moses
15. Kobe
I
Those 15 guys have been evaluated both by me and by ESPN's panel of dozens of basketball "experts" to be top 18 players of all-time.
So, how do you cut down the list? Well, to purport to be the most accomplished player of all-time, you should at least have won 2 regular season MVP awards. If you cannot claim to have been evaluated by your contemporaries as the best player in the league twice while you were playing, you don't really have much of an argument. So....
Delete -- West (0), Oscar (1), Shaq (1), Kobe (1)
11 guys left.
Then let's eliminate any player without 3+ titles. This eliminates Hakeem (2), Wilt (2), Moses (1) and Karl Malone (0).
That leaves us with 7 guys -- Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Duncan, Magic, Russell, Bird
Then you eliminate all guys without 3+ Finals MVPs (unless it is Russell, who played when the award did not exist and won 11 titles). This eliminates Bird (2) and Kareem (2).
That leaves you with only 5 guys -- Michael, LeBron, Duncan, Magic, Bill Russell.
You can decide how to break that 5 way tie. But what I did was go back to the ESPN list and my list and give the guys the point level of where they ranked on my list and the ESPN list. Lower score is better:
5th Place -- Bill Russell (7th on ESPN list, 8th on mine)
4th Place -- Tim Duncan (8th on ESPN list, 5th on mine)
3rd Place -- Magic Johnson (4th on ESPN list, 6th on mine)
2nd Place -- LeBron James (3rd on ESPN list, 4th on mine)
1st Place -- Michael Jordan (1st on ESPN list, 1st on mine).
There ya go.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Logic 101
Exhibit A -- Peter King (not the football writer, the Congressman):
Guy is a terror suspect, can we:
1) tap his phone? Yes.
2) listen in on all of his communications? Yes
3) place him on 24 hour surveillance? Yes
4) send him to a CIA black site? Yes.
4) waterboard him? Yes.
5) take away his right to a public jury trial? Yes.
6) send him to Guantanamo forever with no trial at all? Yes.
7) Make it difficult for him to obtain a gun? Whoa, whoa, whoa, the man has due process rights!!!!
Exhibit B -- LeBron James detractors:
"The guy's game is deficient in many areas."
"The guy doesn't try hard"
But he leads all playoff performers in various stats. "F you, stat nerd!"
His team has lost only 5 games and won 14. "Only the Finals matter!"
And LeBron has been the best player in the Finals. "He should be better. He doesn't try!"
How do you judge whether he tries or not? "When he tries, he goes 40-10-10. He could do that every single night easily."
So the issue of whether he is trying is determined by the stat line he can put up? "Yes."
But when he has the #1 stat line overall, that does not matter and is not a fair measure of his play? "F you, stat nerd."
If his game is deficient in many areas, doesn't that mean it is a miracle he is even good at all in any round of the playoffs? "Apologist!"
So is he a great talent? "No."
But if he tried he could go 40-10-10 every night? "Yes."
Not sure which Exhibit is worse, but what each has in common is that the speaker(s) come into the discussion with a clear conclusion (I can never say anything bad about guns; LeBron sucks) and really refuse to see the glaring logical problems with their position.
Guy is a terror suspect, can we:
1) tap his phone? Yes.
2) listen in on all of his communications? Yes
3) place him on 24 hour surveillance? Yes
4) send him to a CIA black site? Yes.
4) waterboard him? Yes.
5) take away his right to a public jury trial? Yes.
6) send him to Guantanamo forever with no trial at all? Yes.
7) Make it difficult for him to obtain a gun? Whoa, whoa, whoa, the man has due process rights!!!!
Exhibit B -- LeBron James detractors:
"The guy's game is deficient in many areas."
"The guy doesn't try hard"
But he leads all playoff performers in various stats. "F you, stat nerd!"
His team has lost only 5 games and won 14. "Only the Finals matter!"
And LeBron has been the best player in the Finals. "He should be better. He doesn't try!"
How do you judge whether he tries or not? "When he tries, he goes 40-10-10. He could do that every single night easily."
So the issue of whether he is trying is determined by the stat line he can put up? "Yes."
But when he has the #1 stat line overall, that does not matter and is not a fair measure of his play? "F you, stat nerd."
If his game is deficient in many areas, doesn't that mean it is a miracle he is even good at all in any round of the playoffs? "Apologist!"
So is he a great talent? "No."
But if he tried he could go 40-10-10 every night? "Yes."
Not sure which Exhibit is worse, but what each has in common is that the speaker(s) come into the discussion with a clear conclusion (I can never say anything bad about guns; LeBron sucks) and really refuse to see the glaring logical problems with their position.
Monday, June 13, 2016
LeBron James and What Is a Reasonable Expectation
What would be a reasonable expectation for a LeBron James game against Golden State? I mean, would a 30 point triple double be adequate? Would that serve as a reasonable (adequate, not great) level of performance?
We know from last year that LeBron's ridiculous Finals performance was deemed a horrible and complete failure because Cleveland could not win. His 2016 Finals numbers? Roughly 36 points, 13 rebounds and 9 assists a game. So, people had greater expectations for LeBron, because he should have gone, say, 40-15-15 and won the series.
But I would concur that the Cavs are overmatched by Golden State, and that for the Cavs to win the title that LeBron needs a 30 point triple double every night.
So -- getting a 30 point triple double in the NBA Finals since 1984 (when the basketball-reference database goes back to):
http://bkref.com/tiny/ZxDAg It has happened 5 times. Three LeBron's, Worthy in Game 7 in 1988, and Barkley in a loss to the Bulls in 1993. That is it. If you drop it to 30-9-8, to pick up some actual occurrences, you get:
http://bkref.com/tiny/fuEFI 13 times, 5 by LeBron. Jordan and Worthy have 2 each. The other 4 are Shaq, Barkley, Magic, Kareem.
Therefore, what we expect out of LeBron for his team to win a game is simply ridiculous and irrational. Michael Jordan won 6 titles. He went for 30 points, 9 rebounds and 8 assists in a Finals game twice -- 1997 versus Utah and 1993 versus Phoenix. That is it.
It should be noted that 4 of LeBron's 30-9-8 finals efforts involve him being older than anyone to do so, except Michael and Kareem.
What if we geared it all of the way back to 25-5-5. I mean, what chance would the Cavaliers have if LeBron went 25-5-5? Almost no chance, right? Well, in the past 33 Finals, only 30 guys have ever had a game where they went 25-5-5. http://bkref.com/tiny/tZcn8 The absolutely best players have 1 such game per Finals....except Michael and LeBron, who have around 2 per series.
LeBron in 2016 is averaging 25-11-8 in the Finals, with 4.1 steals+blocks! Yet, he sucks. He is a disappointment. He is killing his team.
We have set the bar so high for LeBron that it is virtually impossible for him to play to expectations. The Cavs are likely to lose a close Game 5, and then we can hear all of the crap about how LeBron lost again and he really isn't very good and how ___________ is better. But it is all just that - crap.
We know from last year that LeBron's ridiculous Finals performance was deemed a horrible and complete failure because Cleveland could not win. His 2016 Finals numbers? Roughly 36 points, 13 rebounds and 9 assists a game. So, people had greater expectations for LeBron, because he should have gone, say, 40-15-15 and won the series.
But I would concur that the Cavs are overmatched by Golden State, and that for the Cavs to win the title that LeBron needs a 30 point triple double every night.
So -- getting a 30 point triple double in the NBA Finals since 1984 (when the basketball-reference database goes back to):
http://bkref.com/tiny/ZxDAg It has happened 5 times. Three LeBron's, Worthy in Game 7 in 1988, and Barkley in a loss to the Bulls in 1993. That is it. If you drop it to 30-9-8, to pick up some actual occurrences, you get:
http://bkref.com/tiny/fuEFI 13 times, 5 by LeBron. Jordan and Worthy have 2 each. The other 4 are Shaq, Barkley, Magic, Kareem.
Therefore, what we expect out of LeBron for his team to win a game is simply ridiculous and irrational. Michael Jordan won 6 titles. He went for 30 points, 9 rebounds and 8 assists in a Finals game twice -- 1997 versus Utah and 1993 versus Phoenix. That is it.
It should be noted that 4 of LeBron's 30-9-8 finals efforts involve him being older than anyone to do so, except Michael and Kareem.
What if we geared it all of the way back to 25-5-5. I mean, what chance would the Cavaliers have if LeBron went 25-5-5? Almost no chance, right? Well, in the past 33 Finals, only 30 guys have ever had a game where they went 25-5-5. http://bkref.com/tiny/tZcn8 The absolutely best players have 1 such game per Finals....except Michael and LeBron, who have around 2 per series.
LeBron in 2016 is averaging 25-11-8 in the Finals, with 4.1 steals+blocks! Yet, he sucks. He is a disappointment. He is killing his team.
We have set the bar so high for LeBron that it is virtually impossible for him to play to expectations. The Cavs are likely to lose a close Game 5, and then we can hear all of the crap about how LeBron lost again and he really isn't very good and how ___________ is better. But it is all just that - crap.
Thursday, June 09, 2016
Cavs Get Game 3, Now Get to Determine Their "Relative Worth"
Generally the worse team in any series will get a game. It is almost always Game 3 featuring a huge pop from the fan base or Game 4 where the opponent simply doesn't care and would rather just take Game 5 at home.
There are rare exceptions - Philly took Game 1 from the Lakers in the famous Iverson steps over Lue game and then lost 4 straight. I think Miami won Game 2 in 2014.
Anyway, I predicted GState in 5. My thought was that the Cavs were way worse but would get a game. Now the Cavs can show where they stand on the GState scale
Are they Houston (lucky and happy to get a game)? Are they basically Toronto value to Cleveland (won two home games - never really a threat to win series). Are they Seatle 1996? (Got two games after it was too late)? Are they Utah 1997-98? (Good team, great players, were never going to win but had some hope).
What fans of basketball should hope for is that Cleveland 2016 is either Detroit 2005 (pesky, lose in 7) or Miami 2013 (win in 7 as an underdog).
I am still sticking with GState in 5. But I now see a 49-51% chance that Cleveland can at least be a Toronto equivalent and win a couple at home.
The Cavs' best chance to prevail is injury. So Mozgov and Delly should play some - they are the players most likely to cause injury to the opponent.
There are rare exceptions - Philly took Game 1 from the Lakers in the famous Iverson steps over Lue game and then lost 4 straight. I think Miami won Game 2 in 2014.
Anyway, I predicted GState in 5. My thought was that the Cavs were way worse but would get a game. Now the Cavs can show where they stand on the GState scale
Are they Houston (lucky and happy to get a game)? Are they basically Toronto value to Cleveland (won two home games - never really a threat to win series). Are they Seatle 1996? (Got two games after it was too late)? Are they Utah 1997-98? (Good team, great players, were never going to win but had some hope).
What fans of basketball should hope for is that Cleveland 2016 is either Detroit 2005 (pesky, lose in 7) or Miami 2013 (win in 7 as an underdog).
I am still sticking with GState in 5. But I now see a 49-51% chance that Cleveland can at least be a Toronto equivalent and win a couple at home.
The Cavs' best chance to prevail is injury. So Mozgov and Delly should play some - they are the players most likely to cause injury to the opponent.
Friday, June 03, 2016
A Review of Game 1 of the 2016 NBA Finals
When you hold Steph Curry and Klay Thompson to 20 points on around 25% shooting, and your three best guys score 65 points, you think you ought to win, right?
Wrong, Cavs did all of that and lost by 15. It was the sort of loss that (as someone who used to coach) would keep me up at night saying "what in the hell can we do to compete with this team?" Well, it would help if you kept their bench from shooting around 85% and got some production from your bench. Good starting point.
But if I told you instead, "Warriors will get 100% shooting from Livingston and Barbosa and they will score 30 points combined" you'd say "40 point blowout." So it all depends upon how you look at the game.
Game Observations:
1) Kyrie Irving's presence is a stumper for Coach Lue. If Kyrie cannot score, he is really killing you because he is clearly just a target at the defensive end. So you need to let him score and give him opportunities, but he cannot have a 35% Usage rate and dribble 22 times a possession. That is insane.
2) Coach Lue may have to completely scrap the playing of J.R. Smith as a starter or guy who gets 20+ minutes. J.R. had a Game Score of 0. In 4 of J.R.'s last 7 Finals games, J.R. has had a Game Score (15 is good) of under 4. His Usage Rate last night was 5 (so he was significantly involved in about 5% of offensive plays). Despite rarely ever touching the ball and almost never taking a shot, he regularly got winded and begged to be taken out. He looked about as ready to play as I would.
3) LeBron needs to be more aggressive offensively. Now, that said, the Warriors played a TON of illegal defense last night (the overhead shot of the Warriors' "great defense" in clogging the lane showed that three of their guys were in an illegal defense position). But LeBron is the only hope for Cleveland. He needs to have 30+ point triple doubles every night. If he shoots 35-40% in that effort, so be it.
4) LeBron could not be any more aggressive on defense. My goodness, he was basically hugging Curry and Klay off ball screen action and there were times when he literally had both arms surrounding them when they dribbled. If LeBron is allowed to do that, you are not going to score much on him, no matter who you are. That is like being guarded by a large bear with "call your own" fouling rules.
5) The "too many holes in the dyke" theory comes around again for Cleveland. Curry can't get hot - put LeBron on him. Thompson can't get hot - put LeBron on him. Livingston is killing us - they actually did put LeBron on him eventually. You cannot win games that way. Sorry. Some non-star at least has to do some guarding.
6) Iggy plays with Draymond Green and he gets upset when he get an inadvertent slap in the balls?
7) Draymond Green is so happy to be away from Steven Adams. Draymond is now one of the biggest guys on the court and doesn't have someone 5 inches taller taking his rebounds and outworking him.
8) Kevin Love missed a bunch of bunnies, but he was adequate defensively and tried hard. He'd be all-NBA if he was willing to give a similar effort every night in the regular season.
9) Ty Lue tried one offensive set with LeBron off the ball -- didn't work. Never had anything else to even try?
So, what do you do as Cavs coach (other than cry)? There are no really obvious good options, but let's go with the not-so-worst ones that I can imagine:
A) You have to play Delly, Shump, Jefferson and Frye more. You just have to. Kerr isn't going to suddenly play 6 guys, so you have to play your bench more. Hell, even try Mozgov for 5 minutes when Curry is not in. Cutting JR's minutes is a start.
B) LeBron needs to run the offense. Sorry, Kyrie, but your low efficiency high usage play just destroys the team rhythm. The fact of the matter is that if LeBron cannot 30+ point triple double every night, you are gonna lose. So if he tells you as coach "I cannot do that any more and chase Curry also" then you need to go back to the "cry" option.
C) You probably have to play faster. It is basically "pick your poison" here. Play slow and struggle to score 80 or risk giving up 120. I don't see the Warriors ever losing a game where their opponent scores 80. So you have to hope you shoot well, make their life hard and try to win 118-115. (Hey look, nothing is easy, so this idea may be a disaster, but at least 150 year old Barbosa isn't going to enjoy this pace of play).
D) For God's sake, run some passing sets. The Warriors line up very much like the 2008 Celtics when they see LeBron with the ball up front -- basically turn toward the ball and stand on the corners of the lane. The only tweak is that they never leave J.R. Smith. LeBron to succeed will need to beat a good defender in Thompson, Iggy or Barnes, and then be faced with bigger guys at the rim (note that Kerr still plays a center a lot). Try to run some sets where the opponent gets backscreened or diagonally cut against; do something. How about just some basic screening away from the ball when LeBron is posting? Moving a couple feet when your guy turns his head?
As I previously stated, the Warriors are a terrible matchup for Cleveland. They can exploit every Cleveland weakness and Cleveland has a far worse coach than GState, so the Cavs will always be a step or two behind in adjustments. So, I predicted Warriors in 5 and certainly nothing in Game 1 changed that.
As I said on Twitter -- barring injury or Pop coming in to coach the Cavs, Cleveland stands very little chance.
Wrong, Cavs did all of that and lost by 15. It was the sort of loss that (as someone who used to coach) would keep me up at night saying "what in the hell can we do to compete with this team?" Well, it would help if you kept their bench from shooting around 85% and got some production from your bench. Good starting point.
But if I told you instead, "Warriors will get 100% shooting from Livingston and Barbosa and they will score 30 points combined" you'd say "40 point blowout." So it all depends upon how you look at the game.
Game Observations:
1) Kyrie Irving's presence is a stumper for Coach Lue. If Kyrie cannot score, he is really killing you because he is clearly just a target at the defensive end. So you need to let him score and give him opportunities, but he cannot have a 35% Usage rate and dribble 22 times a possession. That is insane.
2) Coach Lue may have to completely scrap the playing of J.R. Smith as a starter or guy who gets 20+ minutes. J.R. had a Game Score of 0. In 4 of J.R.'s last 7 Finals games, J.R. has had a Game Score (15 is good) of under 4. His Usage Rate last night was 5 (so he was significantly involved in about 5% of offensive plays). Despite rarely ever touching the ball and almost never taking a shot, he regularly got winded and begged to be taken out. He looked about as ready to play as I would.
3) LeBron needs to be more aggressive offensively. Now, that said, the Warriors played a TON of illegal defense last night (the overhead shot of the Warriors' "great defense" in clogging the lane showed that three of their guys were in an illegal defense position). But LeBron is the only hope for Cleveland. He needs to have 30+ point triple doubles every night. If he shoots 35-40% in that effort, so be it.
4) LeBron could not be any more aggressive on defense. My goodness, he was basically hugging Curry and Klay off ball screen action and there were times when he literally had both arms surrounding them when they dribbled. If LeBron is allowed to do that, you are not going to score much on him, no matter who you are. That is like being guarded by a large bear with "call your own" fouling rules.
5) The "too many holes in the dyke" theory comes around again for Cleveland. Curry can't get hot - put LeBron on him. Thompson can't get hot - put LeBron on him. Livingston is killing us - they actually did put LeBron on him eventually. You cannot win games that way. Sorry. Some non-star at least has to do some guarding.
6) Iggy plays with Draymond Green and he gets upset when he get an inadvertent slap in the balls?
7) Draymond Green is so happy to be away from Steven Adams. Draymond is now one of the biggest guys on the court and doesn't have someone 5 inches taller taking his rebounds and outworking him.
8) Kevin Love missed a bunch of bunnies, but he was adequate defensively and tried hard. He'd be all-NBA if he was willing to give a similar effort every night in the regular season.
9) Ty Lue tried one offensive set with LeBron off the ball -- didn't work. Never had anything else to even try?
So, what do you do as Cavs coach (other than cry)? There are no really obvious good options, but let's go with the not-so-worst ones that I can imagine:
A) You have to play Delly, Shump, Jefferson and Frye more. You just have to. Kerr isn't going to suddenly play 6 guys, so you have to play your bench more. Hell, even try Mozgov for 5 minutes when Curry is not in. Cutting JR's minutes is a start.
B) LeBron needs to run the offense. Sorry, Kyrie, but your low efficiency high usage play just destroys the team rhythm. The fact of the matter is that if LeBron cannot 30+ point triple double every night, you are gonna lose. So if he tells you as coach "I cannot do that any more and chase Curry also" then you need to go back to the "cry" option.
C) You probably have to play faster. It is basically "pick your poison" here. Play slow and struggle to score 80 or risk giving up 120. I don't see the Warriors ever losing a game where their opponent scores 80. So you have to hope you shoot well, make their life hard and try to win 118-115. (Hey look, nothing is easy, so this idea may be a disaster, but at least 150 year old Barbosa isn't going to enjoy this pace of play).
D) For God's sake, run some passing sets. The Warriors line up very much like the 2008 Celtics when they see LeBron with the ball up front -- basically turn toward the ball and stand on the corners of the lane. The only tweak is that they never leave J.R. Smith. LeBron to succeed will need to beat a good defender in Thompson, Iggy or Barnes, and then be faced with bigger guys at the rim (note that Kerr still plays a center a lot). Try to run some sets where the opponent gets backscreened or diagonally cut against; do something. How about just some basic screening away from the ball when LeBron is posting? Moving a couple feet when your guy turns his head?
As I previously stated, the Warriors are a terrible matchup for Cleveland. They can exploit every Cleveland weakness and Cleveland has a far worse coach than GState, so the Cavs will always be a step or two behind in adjustments. So, I predicted Warriors in 5 and certainly nothing in Game 1 changed that.
As I said on Twitter -- barring injury or Pop coming in to coach the Cavs, Cleveland stands very little chance.
Thursday, June 02, 2016
Steph Curry after His Age 27 Season -- a Top 19 Playoff Performer
http://bkref.com/tiny/wGWBL
Certainly we can take into account that some of these guys have played a LOT more games and minutes than Curry through his age 27 season (basketball-reference.com uses the player's age as of February 1 of the season, so it is not entirely a fair comparison, but if you want to sort through 19 guys and figure out their birthdays, go ahead). In any event, Curry is a March 14 birthday, so he is really 28. If anything, this flaw in the system favors him by giving him an extra year to qualify versus, say, LeBron who is a December 30 birthday.
LeBron and Magic are far and away the biggest minutes guys on the list.
Jordan, Wilt, Shaq and LeBron and Kareem are the most effective per minute. Duncan and Durant deserve mention for having good total WS.
(Note - I sort of cheated and tailored the list to get Durant in. He has the worst WS/48 - I kept him in and left Wade out. Wade almost makes the list).
It should be noted that lists like this are a major reason why I place Bird so low on my all-time rank list (13th). Bird is last on the list in PER, 3rd to last in WS/48 and 11th in Win Shares. He was a great player, but he does not deserve a top 5 or even top 10 ranking among the all-time greats.
For those of you wondering, through his age 27 season, 2006, Kobe had a playoff PER of 20.5 and a WS/48 of .139 good for 26th and 37th place on a far expanded list.
Curry is 17th in PER, 15th in WS/48 and 19th in WS for guys on this list.
No matter what Curry does in this series, he isn't going to be anywhere near the top 4 or 5 guys for overall production or production per minute.
Summary -- Curry has been excellent, but certainly not at the very top of the all-time best NBA playoff greats.
Certainly we can take into account that some of these guys have played a LOT more games and minutes than Curry through his age 27 season (basketball-reference.com uses the player's age as of February 1 of the season, so it is not entirely a fair comparison, but if you want to sort through 19 guys and figure out their birthdays, go ahead). In any event, Curry is a March 14 birthday, so he is really 28. If anything, this flaw in the system favors him by giving him an extra year to qualify versus, say, LeBron who is a December 30 birthday.
LeBron and Magic are far and away the biggest minutes guys on the list.
Jordan, Wilt, Shaq and LeBron and Kareem are the most effective per minute. Duncan and Durant deserve mention for having good total WS.
(Note - I sort of cheated and tailored the list to get Durant in. He has the worst WS/48 - I kept him in and left Wade out. Wade almost makes the list).
It should be noted that lists like this are a major reason why I place Bird so low on my all-time rank list (13th). Bird is last on the list in PER, 3rd to last in WS/48 and 11th in Win Shares. He was a great player, but he does not deserve a top 5 or even top 10 ranking among the all-time greats.
For those of you wondering, through his age 27 season, 2006, Kobe had a playoff PER of 20.5 and a WS/48 of .139 good for 26th and 37th place on a far expanded list.
Curry is 17th in PER, 15th in WS/48 and 19th in WS for guys on this list.
No matter what Curry does in this series, he isn't going to be anywhere near the top 4 or 5 guys for overall production or production per minute.
Summary -- Curry has been excellent, but certainly not at the very top of the all-time best NBA playoff greats.
Wednesday, June 01, 2016
Michael Scott -- Boom, Roasted.
Guy on Twitter just compared me to Michael Scott's great "boom roasted" routine.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
A Review of the Cavaliers and My Thoughts On Their Chances At Willing the 2016 NBA Title.
The Cavs are 9-0 this post season after throttling Toronto in Cleveland last night. So, will they go 16-0 and become the only team to ever win 16 playoff games without a loss? Probably not. But will they beat Toronto? How badly? And can they beat Golden State or Oklahoma City. What is my analysis?
Begin.
Strengths of the Cavs:
1. The Cavs have LeBron -- LeBron is the most versatile player ever to play the game. It is not a close call. Review THIS ENTRY and you will see the statistical backup. LeBron is the #1 player in both regular season history and playoff history in VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) which means he has created more wins for his team in the regular season and playoffs than any other player. LeBron is getting old, but if you assume he is not going to get 25% worse tomorrow, you could put him on any mediocre NBA team in 2017 and that team would immediately become 15 wins better. So, the 29-53 Wolves would be 44-38. Then you figure you would immediately add a couple vets who wanted to play with LeBron, so add 3-4 more wins due to their addition. A 29-win NBA club becomes a 46 or 47 win club with no other player or coaching upgrade. There is no other player in the league who can do that.
Why? Because LeBron is an 85th percentile defender, a 95th percentile scorer, a 99th percentile passer, a 90th percentile rebounder. You replace whatever you have at his spot with a much, much better player and improve your team's offense and defense and rebounding. Your team is immediately better.
The Cavs have LeBron. None of their potential opponents have LeBron.
2. Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love are playing well and filling their roles. LeBron, despite averaging 28 PPG in his playoff career, has never really wanted to be a scorer. He would rather be Magic than Michael. Love and Kyrie are starting to click with LeBron. He would like them to take 50 shots a game and they are working toward that. This allows LeBron to rest and his fresh legs create scary plays such as his drive and dunk on the Raptors last night.
3. The Cavs' ability to shoot the three leaves an opponent with no reasonable options. If you have Kyrie and Love hot and J.R. Smith and Channing Frye hot, and you play through LeBron, that leaves an opponent with two options: a) allow LeBron to score layups and dunks; or b) collapse on him and allow some open 3s. The Hawks tried option b and were ridiculed as they were swept. The Raptors last night went small and tried option a - LeBron shot 85% and scored 24 points in 3 quarters of play.
The best option is probably to hope you have a defender who can limit LeBron (Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green) one on one and not allow LeBron to pass to open players. Good luck finding guys like that.
4) Tristan Thompson gets the Cavs extra shots. It is absolute death to allow the Cavs to miss a shot and them get the ball back to try again. Tristan Thompson, for his height, may be one of the best 5 rebounders I have ever seen.
What Can Toronto Do?
The Cavs are poor at stopping guard penetration and the Cavs don't like to play their big men. So, you can score on the Cavs, and at times that can be very easy to do. Lowry and DeRozan need to be aggressive and attempt not to settle for long jumpers. The Cavs always seemingly come up one defender short on rotations off guard penetration. This is generally a Kevin Love fuck up or LeBron deciding that he already has one foul and allowing the big guy to score instead of picking up another foul.
If I am the Raptors, and since they are a big underdog, I decide not to let LeBron just get layups against me. I think you need to play standard help defense and hope to rotate to shooters. It did not work for the Hawks, but remember that the Hawks had some close games in the series using the helping strategy.
LeBron is old and he has logged 40,000 minutes of hard play. If you want to beat his team, you need to aggressively make him work. Do not ever let him bring the ball up the court unguarded after you have scored. Find him on your offensive end and involve him in ball screens and off the ball screens. Try to get him to foul. Even if these efforts do not work right away, Toronto lacks the players to defeat a fresh LeBron James. You need to wear him down.
Likely Eastern Conference Result?
I see Toronto losing in 5. Without a healthy Valenciunas, they just don't have enough weapons to oppose a healthy Cleveland team. I think they get a game on a night where they shoot really well or Cleveland does not.
Can Cleveland Beat a Healthy GState or OKC?
Obviously if Curry or Draymond Green goes down or one of Westbrook or Durant goes down, Cleveland would be favored in the Finals. That said, suppose a fully healthy Cleveland team plays a fully healthy Western Conference opponent. Who wins?
My Prediction -- Cleveland beats OKC; Cleveland loses to Golden State.
OKC sets up as a nice opponent for Cleveland. They don't spread out the floor and play drive and kick basketball. They play post players, they play a ton of one on one, you can pack it in against their stars and force them to toss out to unreliable players like Dion Waiters and Roberson and Foye and Ibaka (who has been hot, but that is not as reliable as Reggie Miller thinks). Cleveland has enough interior rebounding force (Thompson, LeBron, Love) to rebound with OKC. OKC is very good and they have the 4th and 5th best player in the league both who are in their absolute prime at age 27. They are no pushovers. But the Cavs match up very well with OKC.
I'd say Cavs in 6.
Golden State, however, is a nightmare for Cleveland. Watch a Cleveland game closely - as stated above, the Cavs are terrible against guard penetration, and if they have to play Love (which they will) he is particularly poor defensively and lacks both concentration AND consistent effort (he generally does not care and he generally does not try). Even if he could cure both, he is undersized and a poor leaper.
The Warriors also can play Iggy and Klay and Draymond on James and wear him down. The only plus the Cavs might possibly have in the series is that Kyrie is playing so well and he might score 30 a game. But the Warriors can hide Curry's defense on J.R. Smith, and Klay Thompson's size may bother Kyrie.
I hate to say it (since the Cavs are playing so well) but I don't see the Cavs getting two games against GState. Now, one would reply, "LeBron got two games against them last year!" Well the Warriors were new to the whole thing last year and were not defending champions who had won 73 games. They were simply put, choking. Their cocah was sitting on his ass doing nothing for 3 games. It was only after Iguodala starting playing and making the wide open jumpers the Cavs were giving him that the Warriors overcame the enormous choke job and won in 6. This year's team will suffer no such mental problems and will be prepared to just smoke the Cavs. I really honestly do not see the Cavs going beyond 5.
Summary -- I think the Cavs go to the Finals rather easily. If they play OKC they win in 6. If they play GState, they lose badly.
We shall see.
Begin.
Strengths of the Cavs:
1. The Cavs have LeBron -- LeBron is the most versatile player ever to play the game. It is not a close call. Review THIS ENTRY and you will see the statistical backup. LeBron is the #1 player in both regular season history and playoff history in VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) which means he has created more wins for his team in the regular season and playoffs than any other player. LeBron is getting old, but if you assume he is not going to get 25% worse tomorrow, you could put him on any mediocre NBA team in 2017 and that team would immediately become 15 wins better. So, the 29-53 Wolves would be 44-38. Then you figure you would immediately add a couple vets who wanted to play with LeBron, so add 3-4 more wins due to their addition. A 29-win NBA club becomes a 46 or 47 win club with no other player or coaching upgrade. There is no other player in the league who can do that.
Why? Because LeBron is an 85th percentile defender, a 95th percentile scorer, a 99th percentile passer, a 90th percentile rebounder. You replace whatever you have at his spot with a much, much better player and improve your team's offense and defense and rebounding. Your team is immediately better.
The Cavs have LeBron. None of their potential opponents have LeBron.
2. Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love are playing well and filling their roles. LeBron, despite averaging 28 PPG in his playoff career, has never really wanted to be a scorer. He would rather be Magic than Michael. Love and Kyrie are starting to click with LeBron. He would like them to take 50 shots a game and they are working toward that. This allows LeBron to rest and his fresh legs create scary plays such as his drive and dunk on the Raptors last night.
3. The Cavs' ability to shoot the three leaves an opponent with no reasonable options. If you have Kyrie and Love hot and J.R. Smith and Channing Frye hot, and you play through LeBron, that leaves an opponent with two options: a) allow LeBron to score layups and dunks; or b) collapse on him and allow some open 3s. The Hawks tried option b and were ridiculed as they were swept. The Raptors last night went small and tried option a - LeBron shot 85% and scored 24 points in 3 quarters of play.
The best option is probably to hope you have a defender who can limit LeBron (Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green) one on one and not allow LeBron to pass to open players. Good luck finding guys like that.
4) Tristan Thompson gets the Cavs extra shots. It is absolute death to allow the Cavs to miss a shot and them get the ball back to try again. Tristan Thompson, for his height, may be one of the best 5 rebounders I have ever seen.
What Can Toronto Do?
The Cavs are poor at stopping guard penetration and the Cavs don't like to play their big men. So, you can score on the Cavs, and at times that can be very easy to do. Lowry and DeRozan need to be aggressive and attempt not to settle for long jumpers. The Cavs always seemingly come up one defender short on rotations off guard penetration. This is generally a Kevin Love fuck up or LeBron deciding that he already has one foul and allowing the big guy to score instead of picking up another foul.
If I am the Raptors, and since they are a big underdog, I decide not to let LeBron just get layups against me. I think you need to play standard help defense and hope to rotate to shooters. It did not work for the Hawks, but remember that the Hawks had some close games in the series using the helping strategy.
LeBron is old and he has logged 40,000 minutes of hard play. If you want to beat his team, you need to aggressively make him work. Do not ever let him bring the ball up the court unguarded after you have scored. Find him on your offensive end and involve him in ball screens and off the ball screens. Try to get him to foul. Even if these efforts do not work right away, Toronto lacks the players to defeat a fresh LeBron James. You need to wear him down.
Likely Eastern Conference Result?
I see Toronto losing in 5. Without a healthy Valenciunas, they just don't have enough weapons to oppose a healthy Cleveland team. I think they get a game on a night where they shoot really well or Cleveland does not.
Can Cleveland Beat a Healthy GState or OKC?
Obviously if Curry or Draymond Green goes down or one of Westbrook or Durant goes down, Cleveland would be favored in the Finals. That said, suppose a fully healthy Cleveland team plays a fully healthy Western Conference opponent. Who wins?
My Prediction -- Cleveland beats OKC; Cleveland loses to Golden State.
OKC sets up as a nice opponent for Cleveland. They don't spread out the floor and play drive and kick basketball. They play post players, they play a ton of one on one, you can pack it in against their stars and force them to toss out to unreliable players like Dion Waiters and Roberson and Foye and Ibaka (who has been hot, but that is not as reliable as Reggie Miller thinks). Cleveland has enough interior rebounding force (Thompson, LeBron, Love) to rebound with OKC. OKC is very good and they have the 4th and 5th best player in the league both who are in their absolute prime at age 27. They are no pushovers. But the Cavs match up very well with OKC.
I'd say Cavs in 6.
Golden State, however, is a nightmare for Cleveland. Watch a Cleveland game closely - as stated above, the Cavs are terrible against guard penetration, and if they have to play Love (which they will) he is particularly poor defensively and lacks both concentration AND consistent effort (he generally does not care and he generally does not try). Even if he could cure both, he is undersized and a poor leaper.
The Warriors also can play Iggy and Klay and Draymond on James and wear him down. The only plus the Cavs might possibly have in the series is that Kyrie is playing so well and he might score 30 a game. But the Warriors can hide Curry's defense on J.R. Smith, and Klay Thompson's size may bother Kyrie.
I hate to say it (since the Cavs are playing so well) but I don't see the Cavs getting two games against GState. Now, one would reply, "LeBron got two games against them last year!" Well the Warriors were new to the whole thing last year and were not defending champions who had won 73 games. They were simply put, choking. Their cocah was sitting on his ass doing nothing for 3 games. It was only after Iguodala starting playing and making the wide open jumpers the Cavs were giving him that the Warriors overcame the enormous choke job and won in 6. This year's team will suffer no such mental problems and will be prepared to just smoke the Cavs. I really honestly do not see the Cavs going beyond 5.
Summary -- I think the Cavs go to the Finals rather easily. If they play OKC they win in 6. If they play GState, they lose badly.
We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)