We established the formula here for playoff success. 2 stars plus one more good guy, reliable defensive bigs, and a perimeter scrapper. The teams we found matched the criteria were the Bulls, Lakers, and Thunder. Obviously that leaves out Dallas and Portland, so those two are missing something. In both cases, each team is playing with 1 of the required 2 stars. Let's just break it down, to see where the advantages are in this series that seems the mostly hotly contested in the 1st RD.
My main question is, who's the second and third best players for these teams? We obviously give Dirk the best player edge, but with the caveat that LaMarcus Aldridge is closely in his class. When it comes to 2nd best, both the Blazers and Mavs are playing with a couple of solid 3rd bananas but nobody close to star level. The Mavs will roll out Tyson Chandler, Shawn Marion, and washed-up Jason Terry. The Blazers will roll out Gerald Wallace, Andre Miller, and Wes Matthews. Chandler has to edge Wallace (big man advantage) despite almost identical PERs, Miller edges Marion, and Matthews over Terry, but really you're splitting hairs way too finely.
But here's why I like Portland, considering both are comparatively solid offensively and defensively and stock-full of role players who aren't on the level of their respective stars: Portland knows who they are. Dallas still seems so much in flux for me, that I can't imagine them knowing who's going to play for them. Portland will roll out the lineup of Miller/Matthews/Wallace/Aldridge/Camby + Batum/Roy/Fernandez, with the ability to play Aldridge at the 5, Wallace at the 4, and Batum at the 3. Against the Mavs, going small does the Blazers no harm because Chandler can't score and Dirk plays at the foul line extended. Does Portland have holes with their top 2 lineups? Sure. But they basically know what they're getting from everybody on the court, and thus, the players can play with some semblance of cohesion, despite Wallace's addition being only a couple of months old.
Dallas, on the other hand, is too amorphous to get a hold of, despite home court advantage. What role does Beaubois play, who's talented but lost right now. DeShawn Stevenson is back in the lineup, but why? Corey Brewer has played well since coming to Dallas and provides good perimeter defense that Chandler needs to hold down the fort. Kidd starts but Berea is more effective a lot of times, and they both suck defensively. Jason Terry has the green light to shoot when Dirk doesn't, but Terry has been off all year. I like that you know what you're getting out of Shawn Marion, but it isn't offense. These are both jump shooting teams, except the Blazers can go to the post with Aldridge. And they both are streaky at best shooting the ball, when you factor out Dirk and look at his inferior teammates. Portland has guys on the uptick, save for the hobbled Brandon Roy, while Dallas has players scrambling to keep their heads above water. Wallace, Batum, Matthews, and Miller are playing super hard, more or less maxing out their abilities. But Dallas has a gunner in Terry who is more likely to go 5-16 than carry an offense. Jason Kidd's job is to pass to Dirk and shoot 3s, but his 3 has been way, way off this year. Brewer has played well but that's in a small sample and has been really shaky offensively thus far into his career. Beaubois is obviously committing arson on his potential. Other guys like Chandler, Marion, and Berea are solid and maxing themselves out, but I just named off 4 people are not reliable at all.
Glad I got that sorted out.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Applying the Formula
In my last post, I identified the Thunder, Bulls, and Lakers as the only teams that meet the criteria of every single champion since Watergate. The criteria real quick: at least two stars, defensive/rebounding bigs, and a defensive swingman. Once those pieces fall into place, then it comes down to degrees of each category and matchups.
*The Bulls seem unmatched in the East, with no team able to compete with their interior presence or their scrappy swingmen. Only the Heat top them in star power, but the Heat are much weaker at the other categories. Chicago's offense gets a bad rap but they've climbed lately, making their way up to 12th in offense efficiency. My question is in the playoffs, when the formula becomes the real deal, is Boozer and Noah enough star power? Does having two guys being semi-stars make up for not having a legitimate #2 like Amar'e? Boozer and Noah may have their limitations but their in the upper echelon of basketball players, and I'm leaning to them being enough supplement to Rose's star.
*The Thunder with Perkins in the lineup: 12-3 (equivalent to a 66 win team) +8.5 point differential (or, good for best in the league). 111.0 OffEff (Best in the league) 102.0 DefEff (7th in the league). That's impressive. For me, though, it comes down to how it matches up with the Lakers. The Thunder have two advantages, one huge and one less huge. The first is the Lakers can't guard Westbrook. He carved them up last year in the playoffs, before he even figured himself out. He's a great player this year and Kobe, the man who checks Russ, has slipped defensively. Dwyane Wade was blowing by Kobe on Christmas, and Westbrook is even quicker/faster. The other advantage is the bench, which is unofficially, the best 2nd unit in the league (Maynor, Cook, Harden, Collison, Mohammad). The Lakers have a solid bench, but you can't beat the best.
The Lakers have advantages, too, including likely home-court. Also, size advantage. Westbrook/Durant, Kobe/Pau is basically a wash, but the Lakers have the advantage in size. If you get really generous with your rounding-up, the Lakers have 3 guys over 6'10" with 20+ PERs. You can praise the Thunder's newfound tough frontline all you want, but they aren't better than Pau/Bynum/Odom. The important thing for the Thunder, though, is their big men can check the Lakers big men. The Lakers' bigs won't obliterate them like they probably would have with Jeff Green at the 4.
The other advantage was Artest shutting Durant basically every time he played him, but last night, Durant (with the help of Perkins' screen-setting) finally played KD-type basketball against the Lakers. If this trend of not being shut down continues, the Lakers are going to lose a huge advantage. And as we saw last night, KD/Westbrook + the bench might be enough to get the champs reeling. At this point, can you really make a sound prediction? Just enjoy watching all.
*The Bulls seem unmatched in the East, with no team able to compete with their interior presence or their scrappy swingmen. Only the Heat top them in star power, but the Heat are much weaker at the other categories. Chicago's offense gets a bad rap but they've climbed lately, making their way up to 12th in offense efficiency. My question is in the playoffs, when the formula becomes the real deal, is Boozer and Noah enough star power? Does having two guys being semi-stars make up for not having a legitimate #2 like Amar'e? Boozer and Noah may have their limitations but their in the upper echelon of basketball players, and I'm leaning to them being enough supplement to Rose's star.
*The Thunder with Perkins in the lineup: 12-3 (equivalent to a 66 win team) +8.5 point differential (or, good for best in the league). 111.0 OffEff (Best in the league) 102.0 DefEff (7th in the league). That's impressive. For me, though, it comes down to how it matches up with the Lakers. The Thunder have two advantages, one huge and one less huge. The first is the Lakers can't guard Westbrook. He carved them up last year in the playoffs, before he even figured himself out. He's a great player this year and Kobe, the man who checks Russ, has slipped defensively. Dwyane Wade was blowing by Kobe on Christmas, and Westbrook is even quicker/faster. The other advantage is the bench, which is unofficially, the best 2nd unit in the league (Maynor, Cook, Harden, Collison, Mohammad). The Lakers have a solid bench, but you can't beat the best.
The Lakers have advantages, too, including likely home-court. Also, size advantage. Westbrook/Durant, Kobe/Pau is basically a wash, but the Lakers have the advantage in size. If you get really generous with your rounding-up, the Lakers have 3 guys over 6'10" with 20+ PERs. You can praise the Thunder's newfound tough frontline all you want, but they aren't better than Pau/Bynum/Odom. The important thing for the Thunder, though, is their big men can check the Lakers big men. The Lakers' bigs won't obliterate them like they probably would have with Jeff Green at the 4.
The other advantage was Artest shutting Durant basically every time he played him, but last night, Durant (with the help of Perkins' screen-setting) finally played KD-type basketball against the Lakers. If this trend of not being shut down continues, the Lakers are going to lose a huge advantage. And as we saw last night, KD/Westbrook + the bench might be enough to get the champs reeling. At this point, can you really make a sound prediction? Just enjoy watching all.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Finding the Formula
Watch out, I'm gonna get real Bill Simmons in about five seconds.
Leaving behind PER and shooting breakdowns, I'm going to search for the contenders using a tried and true formula that sits somewhere in the basketball abstract. Basically, you need at least two stars/scorers, tough inside players who rebound, defend the paint and rim, and a perimeter guy who plays D, sacrifices shots, and takes little off the table. History shows us this time and time again, almost without fail.
The Lakers had A) Kobe, Pau B) Pau, Odom, Bynum C) Ariza/Artest. The Celtics had A) Pierce, Garnett, Allen B) Garnett, Perkins, P.J. Brown, Baby, Powe C) Posey. The Spurs had A) Duncan, Ginobili, Parker B) Duncan, Robinson, Oberto, Mohammad, Elson, Nesterovic, Rose, Horry C) Bowen. The Pistons had A) Billups, Sheed, Hamilton B) The Wallaces, Okur, Campbell C) Prince. Even the bizarreo Heat team had A) Shaq, Wade B) Shaq, Mourning, Haslem C) Posey. The early 00s Lakers had it; so did the 90s Bulls. There hasn't been one championship team in the past 20 years, not even the 04 Pistons who often are called the anomaly, who won without those 3 factors. When we look at the past couple of seasons, it shouldn't be so surprising that the Cavs kept coming up short. First of all, they had no 2nd star, which should have been the most alarming red flag. In addition, 08-09's big man rotation glacial Big Z, Andy, and Ben Wallace. That's solid, but they could have used one extra banger to offset Z's weaknesses and Andy's finesse style (as opposed to Ben's aggressive, tough style). Last year, they again had no 2nd star. But Shaq, Andy, Z, as well as Jamison and Hickson (total sieves), still were missing one extra guy down low. And we all blamed LeBron, (well, not me).
We're going to find out which of the 16 playoff teams have this formula, to see who the real contenders are.
Indiana: Stars (Scorers)- Danny Granger & N/A. No second star, mixed size (short at PF, good at C), and no real scrapper on the perimeter. As expected, they're out.
Memphis: Stars- Randolph, Allen. Size- Randolph, Gasol, Arthur. Scrappers- Allen, Young, Battier. Really, only Randolph is the star, but Tony Allen has been awesome this year. The size is mediocre at best; only because Randolph is such a good rebounder, only Gasol protects the paint. Nobody does scrappiness better than Memphis, though. Still, the first two categories come up too thin. Not enough star power on this team, and they're missing an extra banger.
Philadelphia: They score by committee, and their leading scorer, Elton Brand averages 15 a game. This team has 4 real quality players on the team, but no stars. They also have no size. They're out.
New Orleans: Stars- Paul. Size: Okafor. Scrappers: Ariza. One of each. That's not enough. David West could have added to the stars list but his ACL exploded. Too bad.
New York: Stars- Melo, Stoudemire, Billups. Size- Turiaf, Shelden Williams. Scrappers: Fields, Douglas. The Knicks have guys that meet the criteria. Unfortunately, Turiaf is nothing more than a backup on a good team, and Shelden gets DNP-CDs on good teams. They can't protect the rim/paint or enforce any kind of toughness. Fields isn't a lockdown defender and Douglas shoots a little too much though he defends well. The Knicks are simply too thin.
Portland: Stars- Aldridge, Wallace. Size: Camby, Aldridge, Przybilla. Scrappers: Batum, Wallace. Too short on star power without Roy healthy, and they could use another big man, for sure. Good scrappers, though! It's cool what Aldridge did becoming a real star, and it's nice how the Blazers stayed relevant but they're too thin.
Atlanta: Their best player isn't their best scorer, and their best scorer is inefficient and semi-washed up. That's bad news already. Horford, Smith, Collins, Zaza take care of the size, but they don't have a scrapper, unless you want to get really generous on Marvin Williams. Not a very good offensive team, because Horford is the #3 or #4 option. The Hawks are doomed.
Denver: Stars- Nene, screw it--Ty Lawson. Size- Nene, Kenyon, Birdman. Scrappers- Afflalo. Having to talk myself into Ty Lawson, who went 10-11(!) from 3, is not good for star power. And Nene is the star here but he's not one of the 20 best players in the league. The size is okay, and Afflalo fits the bill of scrapper, but the Nugs are too short on stars.
Orlando: Stars- Only Dwight. Size- Only Dwight. Scrappers- None. The Magic have nothing besides Dwight; they aren't winning.
Oklahoma City: Stars- Durant, Westbrook. Size- Perkins, Ibaka, Collison, Mohammad. Scrappers- Sefolosha. Totally fit the bill. They hit every category without a stretch.
Miami: Stars- LeBron, Wade, Bosh. Size- Z, Dampier, Bosh, Anthony, Howard, Magloire. Scrappers: None. Stars are covered, obviously, but that's very, very questionable size even though they have the bodies. Z doesn't protect anything on defense, and Dampier has been very washed-up this year rebounding. Anthony can't rebound or play a lick of offense. Howard can't defend anybody and Magloire barely gets off the bench. Bosh is Bosh--he's decent at best defensively and a solid rebounder, but no means an anchor. And given that there's no Bowen-type on the team means the Heat might only have 1 of 3 on the checklist, although that's a big 1. I'm torn on the size category. They're 5th defensively and they have the bodies, but is that good enough? I'll give them a half point, but that's all I can do. They really need a Camby, Marc Gasol, or DeAndre Jordan; one true defensive big man gives all those bodies more purpose. They're just no good rotation players at the big positions, much less starters. Haslem could help them out there if he weren't dead. R.I.P.
Dallas: Stars- Nowitzki. Size- Chandler, Haywood. Scrappers- Marion, Brewer. Outside of Chandler, who can't score a lick, they don't have anything close to a #2 for Dirk. Roddy B has been bad and Jason Terry is just okay. They're also missing another big man in the rotation to bang around in the paint. Dirk is playing with junk outside of Chandler.
Boston: Stars- Garnett, Pierce. Size- Garnett, the O'Neals, Krstic, Baby. Scrappers: Delonte. The stars category is pretty weak. In no series will the Celtics have the best player on the floor. Against Miami, they won't have the 1st or 2nd best player on the floor. Despite the Hall of Famers, star power was not their strong suit. Giving away Perkins knocks them down on size considering Krstic isn't really a protector, and the O'Neals' health are very much in question. Jeff Green doesn't scrap, though he should, and Delonte doesn't see enough minutes to swing games. Rajon Rondo finding his 5th gear would help them in a big way but he's been pretty role player-ish this year.
Los Angeles: Stars- Kobe, Pau, Bynum. Size: Bynum, Gasol, Odom. Scrappers: Artest, Barnes. Bynum has been great this year and he deserves to be a star, considering he's the 2nd best center in the league and it's not really close. The Lakers hit every check-mark.
Chicago: Stars- Rose, Boozer, Noah. Size- Noah, Gibson, Thomas, Asik. Scrappers: Deng, Brewer, Bogans. Size and scrappers are the big checkmark. Rose has the stars covered but are Boozer and Noah enough to give the Bulls full credit? Boozer scores 17.7 a game and Noah isn't much of a scorer. Deng is the 3rd leading scorer with almost 18 but he's just solid. Rose, Boozer, and Noah can't touch Miami's top 3, but is it enough to keep from compromising the advantage the Bulls have in the other 2 categories? Boozer's PER, 19.3, is a little too low to be a legitimate #2 guy on a championship contender, but remember that every team is flawed this year.
San Antonio: Stars- Duncan, Ginobili, Parker. Size- Duncan, Blair, McDyess. Scrappers: Hill? The stars are covered. They may not have the best player in most series, but 3 20+ PER guys will work fine. The size is questionable; Duncan is still good, not dominant. McDyess and Blair are too small to protect the paint much and they're missing a true scrapper. Despite the best record in the league, it seems pretty underdog-ish for San Antonio.
When you tally up the teams that hit the mark and can win the championship this year, it looks like on Chicago, Los Angeles, or Oklahoma City can win. Los Angeles is the obvious favorite, again, since they have the star advantage (and home-court) against Chicago. Chicago has more toughness on their frontline but LA has more sheer size. Artest and Barnes are the ultimate scrappers, while Chicago gets by on a revolving door of good scrappers. OKC has every mark but still come a tick behind the Lakers in all 3 categories.
LA over Chicago in 6.
Leaving behind PER and shooting breakdowns, I'm going to search for the contenders using a tried and true formula that sits somewhere in the basketball abstract. Basically, you need at least two stars/scorers, tough inside players who rebound, defend the paint and rim, and a perimeter guy who plays D, sacrifices shots, and takes little off the table. History shows us this time and time again, almost without fail.
The Lakers had A) Kobe, Pau B) Pau, Odom, Bynum C) Ariza/Artest. The Celtics had A) Pierce, Garnett, Allen B) Garnett, Perkins, P.J. Brown, Baby, Powe C) Posey. The Spurs had A) Duncan, Ginobili, Parker B) Duncan, Robinson, Oberto, Mohammad, Elson, Nesterovic, Rose, Horry C) Bowen. The Pistons had A) Billups, Sheed, Hamilton B) The Wallaces, Okur, Campbell C) Prince. Even the bizarreo Heat team had A) Shaq, Wade B) Shaq, Mourning, Haslem C) Posey. The early 00s Lakers had it; so did the 90s Bulls. There hasn't been one championship team in the past 20 years, not even the 04 Pistons who often are called the anomaly, who won without those 3 factors. When we look at the past couple of seasons, it shouldn't be so surprising that the Cavs kept coming up short. First of all, they had no 2nd star, which should have been the most alarming red flag. In addition, 08-09's big man rotation glacial Big Z, Andy, and Ben Wallace. That's solid, but they could have used one extra banger to offset Z's weaknesses and Andy's finesse style (as opposed to Ben's aggressive, tough style). Last year, they again had no 2nd star. But Shaq, Andy, Z, as well as Jamison and Hickson (total sieves), still were missing one extra guy down low. And we all blamed LeBron, (well, not me).
We're going to find out which of the 16 playoff teams have this formula, to see who the real contenders are.
Indiana: Stars (Scorers)- Danny Granger & N/A. No second star, mixed size (short at PF, good at C), and no real scrapper on the perimeter. As expected, they're out.
Memphis: Stars- Randolph, Allen. Size- Randolph, Gasol, Arthur. Scrappers- Allen, Young, Battier. Really, only Randolph is the star, but Tony Allen has been awesome this year. The size is mediocre at best; only because Randolph is such a good rebounder, only Gasol protects the paint. Nobody does scrappiness better than Memphis, though. Still, the first two categories come up too thin. Not enough star power on this team, and they're missing an extra banger.
Philadelphia: They score by committee, and their leading scorer, Elton Brand averages 15 a game. This team has 4 real quality players on the team, but no stars. They also have no size. They're out.
New Orleans: Stars- Paul. Size: Okafor. Scrappers: Ariza. One of each. That's not enough. David West could have added to the stars list but his ACL exploded. Too bad.
New York: Stars- Melo, Stoudemire, Billups. Size- Turiaf, Shelden Williams. Scrappers: Fields, Douglas. The Knicks have guys that meet the criteria. Unfortunately, Turiaf is nothing more than a backup on a good team, and Shelden gets DNP-CDs on good teams. They can't protect the rim/paint or enforce any kind of toughness. Fields isn't a lockdown defender and Douglas shoots a little too much though he defends well. The Knicks are simply too thin.
Portland: Stars- Aldridge, Wallace. Size: Camby, Aldridge, Przybilla. Scrappers: Batum, Wallace. Too short on star power without Roy healthy, and they could use another big man, for sure. Good scrappers, though! It's cool what Aldridge did becoming a real star, and it's nice how the Blazers stayed relevant but they're too thin.
Atlanta: Their best player isn't their best scorer, and their best scorer is inefficient and semi-washed up. That's bad news already. Horford, Smith, Collins, Zaza take care of the size, but they don't have a scrapper, unless you want to get really generous on Marvin Williams. Not a very good offensive team, because Horford is the #3 or #4 option. The Hawks are doomed.
Denver: Stars- Nene, screw it--Ty Lawson. Size- Nene, Kenyon, Birdman. Scrappers- Afflalo. Having to talk myself into Ty Lawson, who went 10-11(!) from 3, is not good for star power. And Nene is the star here but he's not one of the 20 best players in the league. The size is okay, and Afflalo fits the bill of scrapper, but the Nugs are too short on stars.
Orlando: Stars- Only Dwight. Size- Only Dwight. Scrappers- None. The Magic have nothing besides Dwight; they aren't winning.
Oklahoma City: Stars- Durant, Westbrook. Size- Perkins, Ibaka, Collison, Mohammad. Scrappers- Sefolosha. Totally fit the bill. They hit every category without a stretch.
Miami: Stars- LeBron, Wade, Bosh. Size- Z, Dampier, Bosh, Anthony, Howard, Magloire. Scrappers: None. Stars are covered, obviously, but that's very, very questionable size even though they have the bodies. Z doesn't protect anything on defense, and Dampier has been very washed-up this year rebounding. Anthony can't rebound or play a lick of offense. Howard can't defend anybody and Magloire barely gets off the bench. Bosh is Bosh--he's decent at best defensively and a solid rebounder, but no means an anchor. And given that there's no Bowen-type on the team means the Heat might only have 1 of 3 on the checklist, although that's a big 1. I'm torn on the size category. They're 5th defensively and they have the bodies, but is that good enough? I'll give them a half point, but that's all I can do. They really need a Camby, Marc Gasol, or DeAndre Jordan; one true defensive big man gives all those bodies more purpose. They're just no good rotation players at the big positions, much less starters. Haslem could help them out there if he weren't dead. R.I.P.
Dallas: Stars- Nowitzki. Size- Chandler, Haywood. Scrappers- Marion, Brewer. Outside of Chandler, who can't score a lick, they don't have anything close to a #2 for Dirk. Roddy B has been bad and Jason Terry is just okay. They're also missing another big man in the rotation to bang around in the paint. Dirk is playing with junk outside of Chandler.
Boston: Stars- Garnett, Pierce. Size- Garnett, the O'Neals, Krstic, Baby. Scrappers: Delonte. The stars category is pretty weak. In no series will the Celtics have the best player on the floor. Against Miami, they won't have the 1st or 2nd best player on the floor. Despite the Hall of Famers, star power was not their strong suit. Giving away Perkins knocks them down on size considering Krstic isn't really a protector, and the O'Neals' health are very much in question. Jeff Green doesn't scrap, though he should, and Delonte doesn't see enough minutes to swing games. Rajon Rondo finding his 5th gear would help them in a big way but he's been pretty role player-ish this year.
Los Angeles: Stars- Kobe, Pau, Bynum. Size: Bynum, Gasol, Odom. Scrappers: Artest, Barnes. Bynum has been great this year and he deserves to be a star, considering he's the 2nd best center in the league and it's not really close. The Lakers hit every check-mark.
Chicago: Stars- Rose, Boozer, Noah. Size- Noah, Gibson, Thomas, Asik. Scrappers: Deng, Brewer, Bogans. Size and scrappers are the big checkmark. Rose has the stars covered but are Boozer and Noah enough to give the Bulls full credit? Boozer scores 17.7 a game and Noah isn't much of a scorer. Deng is the 3rd leading scorer with almost 18 but he's just solid. Rose, Boozer, and Noah can't touch Miami's top 3, but is it enough to keep from compromising the advantage the Bulls have in the other 2 categories? Boozer's PER, 19.3, is a little too low to be a legitimate #2 guy on a championship contender, but remember that every team is flawed this year.
San Antonio: Stars- Duncan, Ginobili, Parker. Size- Duncan, Blair, McDyess. Scrappers: Hill? The stars are covered. They may not have the best player in most series, but 3 20+ PER guys will work fine. The size is questionable; Duncan is still good, not dominant. McDyess and Blair are too small to protect the paint much and they're missing a true scrapper. Despite the best record in the league, it seems pretty underdog-ish for San Antonio.
When you tally up the teams that hit the mark and can win the championship this year, it looks like on Chicago, Los Angeles, or Oklahoma City can win. Los Angeles is the obvious favorite, again, since they have the star advantage (and home-court) against Chicago. Chicago has more toughness on their frontline but LA has more sheer size. Artest and Barnes are the ultimate scrappers, while Chicago gets by on a revolving door of good scrappers. OKC has every mark but still come a tick behind the Lakers in all 3 categories.
LA over Chicago in 6.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Harden Rising
In 2009, when the rebuilding Thunder received the #3 pick, it was a hot-button issue for a team that could go a hundred different directions. Everyone agreed they had a lot of promise and the #3 pick could be the one to send them over the top. Nearly two seasons removed from that draft, there's been several rewrites of the perspective of it.
The Thunder of course chose Arizona State shooting guard, James Harden, and in effect, signed off on Russell Westbrook being the undisputed point guard. In 2010, Tyreke Evans stole the rookie show, posting that arbitrarily appreciated statistic of 20-5-5. Evans could have been with the Thunder and there was a lot 'what ifs' attached to the Kings combo guard. The guard-heavy draft could have also netted the Thunder Stephen Curry, Ricky Rubio, DeMar DeRozan, or Brandon Jennings. Rubio, at the moment of the Harden announcement, was the player everyone thought, "How can they pass on Rubio?" Well, now we know the Rubio story and it would have been a disaster. Not to mention, the word is he's regressed and isn't so coveted anymore. We also didn't know that Westbrook was on the verge of becoming a top 10 player.
The Tyreke Evans train has come to a screeching halt. No longer celebrated after his team failed to improve, as did he, Evans is now a little bit like damaged goods. His impressive 18.2 rookie PER has plummeted to 14.6. And despite battling Plantar Fasciitis, Evans has been a negative for the woeful Kings this season. His ball-dominating ways, questionable attitude, and poor shooting ability isn't making anybody in the world wonder (I sincerely hope not, anyway) 'what if' about Evans any longer. DeRozan has a 13.4 PER thus far into career, can't shoot, and lacks any upper-class skill besides athleticism. Maybe he wasn't a realistic option with the 3rd pick, but if he was panning out, people would be revising the draft to accommodate him. The same thing basically goes for Brandon Jennings (BJ3 is a little better than DD and has more 50 point games than Kevin Durant), except he plays Westbrook's position, so he's out.
That leaves Stephen Curry as the only legitimate competition to Harden as revisionist history's number 3 pick. Curry has an impressive 19.5 PER this season, which gives him 17.6 thus far in his career. He shoots 43.2% on 3s, which is far and away better than anything OKC has. Curry has enough combo-guard in him that if he had to, he could be an undersized 2-guard a la Jason Terry. Curry is an electrifying youngster while Harden is known much more for his potent beard than he is for his game. He also has a 15.3 career PER, including 16.4 this season, which isn't up to Curry's standards. But is Harden still the better pick? The answer actually seems obvious.
First and foremost, Curry is a sieve defensively in Golden State. And he's guarding point guards! A defensive backcourt of Curry/Westbrook trying to match-up with Kobe, Manu, and Eric Gordon in the West seems bleak at best. Harden is bigger, stronger, and more capable defensively. Given his strides made on defense, I'd rate him a 'good' defender. Also, Curry is the co #1 option on a team that doesn't give a damn. A higher Usage Rate is good for a player's PER, so it stands to reason that Curry gets to flex his PER a little bit while Harden is in a staunch pecking order behind Durant and Westbrook, especially since Harden actually has a higher True Shooting Percentage than Curry.
The revelation with Harden, who struggled early on and as recently as the trade deadline I thought the Thunder should ship him off for a missing piece, has been the departure of Jeff Green. Green was a shot-jacker, who through perceived versatility and seniority, was able to coax the role of #3 scorer for Scott Brooks. With Green and his inefficiency gone, a huge hole opened up for somebody to take shots not numbered 35 and 0. The obvious choice was Harden, but people wondered if he was ready. He was.
Since the trade, Harden is shooting 50.6% from the field and scoring 17.7 PPG. His Usage Rate keeps climbing, up to 19% now. That's legitimate #3 option material, which is most certainly what the Thunder need with Durant/Westbrook in place. I'd like to know Harden's PER since the trade, but that information is not easy to come by, and I can't calculate it. Just know is has to be flirting with the 18-19 range--more than high enough to get this team where they want to go.
Most teams want their #3 pick to carry their franchise. Harden isn' that guy and OKC knew that from the start. But they wanted a real shooting guard and they got one. And then some.
The Thunder of course chose Arizona State shooting guard, James Harden, and in effect, signed off on Russell Westbrook being the undisputed point guard. In 2010, Tyreke Evans stole the rookie show, posting that arbitrarily appreciated statistic of 20-5-5. Evans could have been with the Thunder and there was a lot 'what ifs' attached to the Kings combo guard. The guard-heavy draft could have also netted the Thunder Stephen Curry, Ricky Rubio, DeMar DeRozan, or Brandon Jennings. Rubio, at the moment of the Harden announcement, was the player everyone thought, "How can they pass on Rubio?" Well, now we know the Rubio story and it would have been a disaster. Not to mention, the word is he's regressed and isn't so coveted anymore. We also didn't know that Westbrook was on the verge of becoming a top 10 player.
The Tyreke Evans train has come to a screeching halt. No longer celebrated after his team failed to improve, as did he, Evans is now a little bit like damaged goods. His impressive 18.2 rookie PER has plummeted to 14.6. And despite battling Plantar Fasciitis, Evans has been a negative for the woeful Kings this season. His ball-dominating ways, questionable attitude, and poor shooting ability isn't making anybody in the world wonder (I sincerely hope not, anyway) 'what if' about Evans any longer. DeRozan has a 13.4 PER thus far into career, can't shoot, and lacks any upper-class skill besides athleticism. Maybe he wasn't a realistic option with the 3rd pick, but if he was panning out, people would be revising the draft to accommodate him. The same thing basically goes for Brandon Jennings (BJ3 is a little better than DD and has more 50 point games than Kevin Durant), except he plays Westbrook's position, so he's out.
That leaves Stephen Curry as the only legitimate competition to Harden as revisionist history's number 3 pick. Curry has an impressive 19.5 PER this season, which gives him 17.6 thus far in his career. He shoots 43.2% on 3s, which is far and away better than anything OKC has. Curry has enough combo-guard in him that if he had to, he could be an undersized 2-guard a la Jason Terry. Curry is an electrifying youngster while Harden is known much more for his potent beard than he is for his game. He also has a 15.3 career PER, including 16.4 this season, which isn't up to Curry's standards. But is Harden still the better pick? The answer actually seems obvious.
First and foremost, Curry is a sieve defensively in Golden State. And he's guarding point guards! A defensive backcourt of Curry/Westbrook trying to match-up with Kobe, Manu, and Eric Gordon in the West seems bleak at best. Harden is bigger, stronger, and more capable defensively. Given his strides made on defense, I'd rate him a 'good' defender. Also, Curry is the co #1 option on a team that doesn't give a damn. A higher Usage Rate is good for a player's PER, so it stands to reason that Curry gets to flex his PER a little bit while Harden is in a staunch pecking order behind Durant and Westbrook, especially since Harden actually has a higher True Shooting Percentage than Curry.
The revelation with Harden, who struggled early on and as recently as the trade deadline I thought the Thunder should ship him off for a missing piece, has been the departure of Jeff Green. Green was a shot-jacker, who through perceived versatility and seniority, was able to coax the role of #3 scorer for Scott Brooks. With Green and his inefficiency gone, a huge hole opened up for somebody to take shots not numbered 35 and 0. The obvious choice was Harden, but people wondered if he was ready. He was.
Since the trade, Harden is shooting 50.6% from the field and scoring 17.7 PPG. His Usage Rate keeps climbing, up to 19% now. That's legitimate #3 option material, which is most certainly what the Thunder need with Durant/Westbrook in place. I'd like to know Harden's PER since the trade, but that information is not easy to come by, and I can't calculate it. Just know is has to be flirting with the 18-19 range--more than high enough to get this team where they want to go.
Most teams want their #3 pick to carry their franchise. Harden isn' that guy and OKC knew that from the start. But they wanted a real shooting guard and they got one. And then some.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Most Fun Argument in the NBA
(courtesy of ESPN.com)For my money, no abstract argument is more fascinating than Derrick Rose versus Russell Westbrook. The two 3rd year point guards are so comparable it's ridiculous, but they also have stunning contrasts to one another. Kobe vs LeBron was flawed from the start. CP3 vs DWill was/is mind numbingly dumb, all the while fans only appreciate the work of those two guards, but don't watch in awe of them. Rose and Westbrook, however, make highlight reel plays that blow minds every game, which helps entrench loyal fandom. Every Internet debate usually has a logical answer opposing a narrative and an unfounded answer. LeBron's statistical prowess wasn't enough to stop the Kobe love, never mind the fact that they were/are two totally different players in many regards. Same with Paul and Williams. Duncan-Garnett was the argument that had legitimate cause for debate, but in those days, there weren't hoards of forums or Daily Dime Live to give a damn, especially concerning "boring" Duncan and the guy nobody really watched in Minnesota.
So who is the better player between Derrick and Russ? It's actually a moot point. The popular opinion police will sway towards Rose and that'll be the end of it, given how he's become the MVP front-runner playing on arguably the best team in the East. I think it's more fascinating to examine how these two can mirror each other so much but be so different than to speculate on who'd you build your team around.
Russ is 22 years old, 6'3" 187lbs and presumed to be possibly the quickest player in the league. Rose is 22 years old, 6'3" 190 lbs and is also presumed to be possibly the quickest player in the league. Both guys are so damned athletic, they attack people and dunk on them unlike we've really seen before from point guards. How many times have you seen Rose/Westbrook do something that makes you go "...whoa..." this year? It's probably at least once after every game. Who else does that? Wade, LeBron, Blake Griffin? Even Kevin Durant, Carmelo, hell even Amar'e Stoudemire can't say they do the things our two subjects do.
Let's get a full spectrum of the numbers. I'm using the advanced stats provided by Basketball-Reference, which differ slightly from John Hollinger, but the PERs are the same, so it'll be fine.
Rose: 37.7 MPG 24.7 PPG 44% FG 33.6% 3pt 84.7% FT (6.3 FTA) 4.3 RPG 7.9 APG 1.1 SPG 3.5 TPG
22.9 PER 32.2 Usage Rt 53.7% TS 6.6 Reb Rt 39.9 Ast Rt 1.5 Stl Rt 13.2% TO Rt
Westbrook: 35.0 22.1 PPG 44.3% FG 33.3% 3pt 83.6 (7.8 FTA) 4.6 RPG 8.4 APG 1.8 SPG 3.9 TPG
23.7 PER 31.7 Usage Rt 53.8% TS 7.7 Reb Rt 44.1 Ast Rt 2.6 Stl Rt 16.0 TO Rt
Too close to call anything definitively, even when we consider Westbrook to be the superior defender. Rose is better with turnovers but Westbrook is better rebounding, getting assists, and getting steals. How they get their points is another great comparative glance.
Rose: 58.6% on 6.1 FGA at the rim...40.4% on 2.6 FGA 3-9 feet...41.9% on 1.8 FGA 10-15 feet...39% on 5.1 FGA 16-23...33.6% on 4.7 3FGA
Westbrook: 60.4% FGA on 6.8 FGA at the rim...27.6% on 2.4 FGA 3-9 feet...37% on 2.3 FGA 10-15...36% on 4.5 FGA 16-23 feet...33.3% on 1.2 3FGA
Again, they are very similar, except that Rose shoots the 3 liberally, while Westbrook deploys it scarcely. Rose is the superior mid-range shooter, as expected, but Westbrook is the better finisher and also gets to the line more. Rose garnered early season praise for his improved 3 point shot, but after staying around 37%, Rose is shooting 26.7% on 3s since the All-Star break. Compared to the more judicious Westbrook who started the season shooting barely 30% from 3, is shooting 46.7% since the break.
All of these similarities, with no clear winner. But there is one major difference, and it can't be discounted. Rose is the undisputed #1 option on his team. The only real offensive threats on the Bulls (Deng, Boozer) are significantly less potent than the soon-to-be 2 time scoring champ Kevin Durant complementing Westbrook. Teams don't sleep on Westbrook because Durant is there, but the perception is in Rose's favor because he is the team leader while Westbrook is the sidekick, never mind that Rose would also be Durant's sidekick. Rose has also had to do plenty of work this season while Noah and Boozer missed time with injuries, while Westbrook has had a healthy team for the most part, though he played exceptional when Durant did miss games.
So yeah, these guys are awfully compatible. Interchangeable, even. But in some ways, they couldn't be more different.
Derrick Rose hardly ever smiles. He hardly does anything besides dribble and shoot. His interviews are probably the worst of any regularly interviewed star. His nasally voice spouting off cliches, without a hint of character.
Westbrook, however, plays with a playful bravado, like how he quails his smoking guns after he makes a 3. He plays with obvious passion on his (shooter) sleeve(s), and seems to soak up being Russell Westbrook, but without the trite arrogance of other stars.
And even though their shot charts overlap almost concurrently, their arrival to those points are much different. Rose probes, calculated, before he unleashes as quick as anybody to the basket. There's nobody better at circus reverse layups than Rose; he'll fit through even the smallest cracks. His floater is also a weapon, but even with the "wow" shots, Rose is a good-not great-finisher. He seems to prefer slithering through to attempt a spinning layup than going strong to get to the line. With his quick-strike, slick approach, Rose really is like a cobra.
Then Westbrook is a bull. He just goes. Everything else be damned. There's a couple of pet pull-up shots that he might try, but Westbrook just attacks and sees what happens. There's not as many crazy lay-up attempts. He wants to dunk on people or get fouled trying. He lacks Rose's in between game, but Rose lacks his assertiveness. Westbrook gets labeled reckless at times. Sometimes it does feel that way, but the production gets there. It's more exciting, but when something goes wrong with Westbrook, it tends to look awful, while Rose rides a more stable balance.
Rose's robotic demeanor is apparently as productive as Westbrook's frenzy. I prefer watching Westbrook, but that doesn't make him better. With the Thunder looking more and more like true title contenders post-trade, the narrative may be manifesting itself to NBA fans. Westbrook could steal the limelight if the Thunder do enough damage, but Rose will be the king if they win it all (I think they have great chance). Either way, we're watching two of the most exciting, and productive, players in the league continue to improve.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Oh Yeah, I Forgot. He's Good.
In credit to last night's announcing crew for Heat-Knicks, the always good Hubie Brown/Mike Tirico combo, pointed out Chauncey Billups was not a mere throw in to sweeten the Carmelo deal, but was actually key. Basically when it comes to announcing crews, you don't want them to screw up the game; don't be annoying, don't fall back on tired cliches. What you say might not always be conducive with stats, but whatever, the educated audience understands the limitations. So while I didn't agree with everything Hubie said last night, I did appreciate his explanation and rationale behind his statements, rather than "Billups is a solid veteran" tired bullshit. What I did agree with was that Billups makes this deal work for the Knicks, and allows them to be competitive, instead of Melo/Amare and a junk-pile. I watched the game with a friend, who echoed the sentiments of my cousin who texted me when the deal went down, which were "Billups is old and sucks/not very good." But Billups sparked a 2nd quarter run that got the Knicks back in the game, as well as hit a ballsy deep 3 that put the Knicks up for good. One game means little, but hopefully it reminds people, oh yeah, he IS good.
I looked more into Billups' career, the one with the trite late-bloomer tagline I've heard about ever since he joined the Pistons. When people who aren't Hubie Brown talk about Billups, they aren't good enough at their job to come up with anything better than "he just wins! His numbers won't blow you away, nor will his athleticism, but he's a winner!" Do you know why he wins? Because he's good! He has good numbers. Since the 3 point line was installed (a big part of his game) in 1979-80, of the point guards to play at least 300 games, Billups is 10th in PER. Those claiming PER isn't the end-all method are right, and that's because PER doesn't account for defense. Well, in that regard, Billups gets screwed because he's one of the best defensive PGs of his generation, along with a younger Jason Kidd and Gary Payton. The list of 3-point era PGs goes as follows:
1. Chris Paul
2. Magic Johnson
3. John Stockton
4. Kevin Johnson
5. Steve Nash
6. Gilbert Arenas
7. Terrell Brandon
8. Mark Price
9. Sam Cassell
10. Chauncey Billups
You could make a convincing argument Billups should jump everybody below Stockton if you accounted for his defensive prowess. 1.2 PER points separate Billups and Nash, but Nash was/is nowhere near Billups' area code defensively.
When Billups was being bounced from Boston, to Toronto, to Denver, to Minnesota over the course of 4 seasons, he posted respective PERs of 15.4, 11.1, 15.1, 10.5, 14.1. You're doing okay when you hit the 15 range, but that isn't star material, and it's borderline starter material. In those early years, Billups struggled with efficiency, and consistently assisting teammates.
But when he became viable in Detroit. Ironically, his worst year in Detroit was his least efficient, when they won the championship. Still, his PER was 18.6. His statistical prime was a 3 year stretch of 23.4, 21.3, 23.6 PERs. His True Shooting Percentage frequented in the 59% range, peaking at 62%. He's traditionally good in regards to turnovers, Usage Rate, and posting solid Assist Rates. So his teams don't win because he's heady or has some mystic qualities to will his team to victory; he wins because he's posted a 19.1 career PER!
So there you go. More than a throw-in. A top historically good PG, arguably top 10, still playing at a high level. He's most certainly a valuable commodity that may have the Knicks in a better position than some realized.
I looked more into Billups' career, the one with the trite late-bloomer tagline I've heard about ever since he joined the Pistons. When people who aren't Hubie Brown talk about Billups, they aren't good enough at their job to come up with anything better than "he just wins! His numbers won't blow you away, nor will his athleticism, but he's a winner!" Do you know why he wins? Because he's good! He has good numbers. Since the 3 point line was installed (a big part of his game) in 1979-80, of the point guards to play at least 300 games, Billups is 10th in PER. Those claiming PER isn't the end-all method are right, and that's because PER doesn't account for defense. Well, in that regard, Billups gets screwed because he's one of the best defensive PGs of his generation, along with a younger Jason Kidd and Gary Payton. The list of 3-point era PGs goes as follows:
1. Chris Paul
2. Magic Johnson
3. John Stockton
4. Kevin Johnson
5. Steve Nash
6. Gilbert Arenas
7. Terrell Brandon
8. Mark Price
9. Sam Cassell
10. Chauncey Billups
You could make a convincing argument Billups should jump everybody below Stockton if you accounted for his defensive prowess. 1.2 PER points separate Billups and Nash, but Nash was/is nowhere near Billups' area code defensively.
When Billups was being bounced from Boston, to Toronto, to Denver, to Minnesota over the course of 4 seasons, he posted respective PERs of 15.4, 11.1, 15.1, 10.5, 14.1. You're doing okay when you hit the 15 range, but that isn't star material, and it's borderline starter material. In those early years, Billups struggled with efficiency, and consistently assisting teammates.
But when he became viable in Detroit. Ironically, his worst year in Detroit was his least efficient, when they won the championship. Still, his PER was 18.6. His statistical prime was a 3 year stretch of 23.4, 21.3, 23.6 PERs. His True Shooting Percentage frequented in the 59% range, peaking at 62%. He's traditionally good in regards to turnovers, Usage Rate, and posting solid Assist Rates. So his teams don't win because he's heady or has some mystic qualities to will his team to victory; he wins because he's posted a 19.1 career PER!
So there you go. More than a throw-in. A top historically good PG, arguably top 10, still playing at a high level. He's most certainly a valuable commodity that may have the Knicks in a better position than some realized.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Tracking the Knicks
I wanted to keep the numbers on the Knicks pre-and post-trade. This isn't a perfect comparison, but the main idea will be intact. I do this half-snarkily, I'll admit. While I am on record liking the trade, I'm also on record saying Carmelo isn't elite, so maybe we'll be able to glean something from the arrival of Carmelo.
Pre-trade: 28-26 +.4 point differential.
Thus far: 1-1 0.0 point differential.
Currently 7th in offense (107.6) 20th in defense (106.1)
The offense has been a bit better, while the defense has been a tad worse. Only two games, but I'll keep coming back to this.
Pre-trade: 28-26 +.4 point differential.
Thus far: 1-1 0.0 point differential.
Currently 7th in offense (107.6) 20th in defense (106.1)
The offense has been a bit better, while the defense has been a tad worse. Only two games, but I'll keep coming back to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
