The NBA thread

[Cormacaroni]

If the Celtics win, that Rondo 3 that was really a 2 would be the most horrible call in the history of the league. This shit happens in intense OT games. I couldn't do a better job than the guys they got.

[etiolate]

And I'm done with the playoffs

I don't want to contribute to the NBA making money in any way. So much continuous bullshit every playoffs.

Amazing game by Rondo, but the NBA manages to ruin a great game with its persistent and obvious shenanigans.

Seriously? Boston choked that away. I didn't see any nonsense, outside of the regular touch foul stuff here or there. Overall the refs let both teams play

There are ebbs and flows in games. Miami is a good team, they should be able to come back from a first half deficit on their homecourt. Boston then came back twice from that. And then Miami came back. That all makes sense at high level play.  If there was any choking away of the game, it was Miami fucking it up at the line. That missed foul call totally realigned the situation in the game and there was not enough left on the clock to recover. If that foul call is made then the discussion is about Miami choking the game away at the FT line and Lebron choking the final two shots. So how does a missed foul call suddenly become Boston choking?

And getting whacked across the face is not a touch foul. That was a pretty blatant foul.

[Cormacaroni]

people hate hollinger because he uses stats to say "top X" when stats should only reflect that they are stats that measure certain things

All the error comes into attributing an argument to those stats and thinking it overwrites the ability to analyze a game. But stats don't lie and your analysis is just like opinion man is often I need stats for I lack in the ability to observe and understand. Never forget that Hollinger had Marbury rated as the #1 PG for a year or two over guys like Nash.

He's the most insightful writer on basketball, period, because he has better statistical tools and a vast amount of basketball knowledge on top of that. The guy goes to something like 40 games a year so let's not fantasize that his columns are based solely on soulless computer algorithims or some shit...he loves and knows the game as well as anybody. Except unlike say Magic Johnson, he has the stats to keep him from saying a bunch of dumb shit

[etiolate]

I don't find Hollinger insightful at all. I've never read anything by him that struck me as a new or insightful observation. I've listened to him outside of his stat articles, I've heard him on podcasts and he's been really pointless. There is little in mainstream press that shows anything that really strikes me.

That Kobe narrative article is most interesting thing I've read in a long time, but it doesn't show me anything I don't already understand. It's just insightful due to how hopeless the rest of sports media is.

[Stoney Mason]

people hate hollinger because he uses stats to say "top X" when stats should only reflect that they are stats that measure certain things

All the error comes into attributing an argument to those stats and thinking it overwrites the ability to analyze a game. But stats don't lie and your analysis is just like opinion man is often I need stats for I lack in the ability to observe and understand. Never forget that Hollinger had Marbury rated as the #1 PG for a year or two over guys like Nash.

I think stats like PER and all the others are a window into the truth (which is of course different from some unknowable objective truth) and great fodder for discussion and illumination. And certainly better of course than just the traditional stats that the NBA keeps. Where the conflict comes to me is when people get very obstinate and sort of extreme in their views that one specific yardstick whether its per or the basketball myths and common sense are the only way to judge things. Even Hollinger admits that PER isn't a perfect tool. I remember Bruce Bowen always use to have a terrible per but Hollinger recognized the intangibles regarding his defense that don't necessarily transfer to a stat sheet. And things like confidence, and the character of a player will never transfer over to PER. I know that despite whatever per or any of the other statistical formulas say there are times when my gut is just telling me something. Like when Lebron took that long jumper at the end of 4th quarter.

[etiolate]

In fact, take the idea of narrative and apply it to how many of you are trying to avoid the glaring ref issue to create a narrative for the outcome of the game that actively avoids that pretty important swing in the game that is centered around the missed call.

[etiolate]

people hate hollinger because he uses stats to say "top X" when stats should only reflect that they are stats that measure certain things

All the error comes into attributing an argument to those stats and thinking it overwrites the ability to analyze a game. But stats don't lie and your analysis is just like opinion man is often I need stats for I lack in the ability to observe and understand. Never forget that Hollinger had Marbury rated as the #1 PG for a year or two over guys like Nash.

I think stats like PER and all the others are a window into the truth (which is of course different from some unknowable objective truth) and great fodder for discussion and illumination. And certainly better of course than just the traditional stats that the NBA keeps. Where the conflict comes to me is when people get very obstinate and sort of extreme in their views that one specific yardstick whether its per or the basketball myths and common sense are the only way to judge things. Even Hollinger admits that PER isn't a perfect tool. I remember Bruce Bowen always use to have a terrible per but Hollinger recognized the intangibles regarding his defense that don't necessarily transfer to a stat sheet. And things like confidence, and the character of a player will never transfer over to PER. I know that despite whatever per or any of the other statistical formulas say there are times when my gut is just telling me something. Like when Lebron took that long jumper at the end of 4th quarter.

I imagine the hate for Hollinger would be far less if there weren't people taking his studies as gospel and then creating annoying water cooler debates with it.

[Stoney Mason]

In fact, take the idea of narrative and apply it to how many of you are trying to avoid the glaring ref issue to create a narrative for the outcome of the game that actively avoids that pretty important swing in the game that is centered around the missed call.

Or the narrative of your constant ability to only speak on things when they suit your specific criteria for criticizing the NBA and ignoring all the others that contradict your narratives all the other times.
Like last year and how the league was in cahoots for the Heat to win it all but it didn't happen. Or how two of the 4 teams left are small market nba teams.


Look I get righteous anger. Especially from a fan perspective. If it was the heat that got screwed on that last call I would have been pissed. And I have been pissed before when I felt the heat got screwed on specific calls. But as always what I don't like is when people nit pick calls to create a conspiracy rather than maybe acknowledging they simply missed a call. Or acknowledging the very real truth that any basketball game or football game is filled with missed and subjective calls. Bitch about a shitty call. That's cool. Hell say nba refs are shitty. I'm cool with that too. Or say superstars get too many calls, etc etc. But Donaghy aside the conspiracy stuff is a dead end for conversation imo because there is no way for to respond properly apparently other than to agree with your supposition that its all rigged.


And with that I'm out for tonight.

[Cormacaroni]

Oh god, I could go through the past season's worth of Hollinger columns and list up literally dozens of things that Hollinger has lead the charge on. He was championing the Spurs a long time before anybody else I recall, for one.  He didn't need to wait to see if the Lakers 'woke up', or if the Thunder could 'take it to the next level' or any of that shit - he just pointed out why the Spurs were better and would almost certainly win easily.

Whether you credit him with being insightful or whether you just think that was something obvious you thought of all by yourself and he just wrote it down is a different matter. People have a very pronounced tendency to think of anything genuinely insightful as obvious or common knowledge as soon as they hear of it.

Is he an oracle? Of course not. Stats are inherently backward-looking, and the reason we are all fascinated by sports is that you have to actually play the games to see what happens. But damn if he doesn't call these things right time after time.

[Mandark]

In fact, take the idea of narrative and apply it to how many of you are trying to avoid the glaring ref issue to create a narrative for the outcome of the game that actively avoids that pretty important swing in the game that is centered around the missed call.

It must be so nice to be free of the impulse of narrative yourself.  Tell us what it feels like.

[Cormacaroni]

I feel like we have left the realm of basketball commentary and entered the realm of literary criticism

[etiolate]

In fact, take the idea of narrative and apply it to how many of you are trying to avoid the glaring ref issue to create a narrative for the outcome of the game that actively avoids that pretty important swing in the game that is centered around the missed call.

Or the narrative of your constant ability to only speak on things when they suit your specific criteria for criticizing the NBA and ignoring all the others that contradict your narratives all the other times.
Like last year and how the league was in cahoots for the Heat to win it all but it didn't happen. Or how two of the 4 teams left are small market nba teams.

And with that I'm out for tonight.

As I've always said, there is a difference between outright rigged and influenced. I'd never say the NBA games are rigged. It is possible to overcome calls like the one tonight, but it is far more unlikely than likely. The narrative is erasing the call as a factor or diminishing the importance of it as a factor until it becomes negligible.

If Miami shat the bed tonight, there isn't going to be a masterful job to get them to win. Calls may not even be made with the intent to swing the game, but to preserve the drama of the game. It could very well just be instinctual for NBA officials at this point to do these things. It's not a conspiracy. It's just the way the NBA business does things.

So don't compare my posts to like a rigged boxing match. The players involved are still involved players trying to win and compete. It's likely very hard to rig a basketball game to come out one way without an immediate investigation. As in, you couldn't just go out and blatantly toss Rondo out of the game for no reason and think things will get smoothed over.

Ultimately, what shouldn't be a factor are the refs. In this game, they became a very large factor and at a timely point. (The disgust from fans often comes from timely difference makers.) Because of this, the refs should be a major discussion upon the outcome of the game. The fact that people try to avoid something that belongs in the game conversation shows the narrative (that has long existed) will often get repeated.

[Phoenix Dark]

I really have no idea what foul you're talking about Etiolet. I watched the game on a big ass screen at Buffalo Wild Wings, didn't see shit

[etiolate]

Oh, well I'm sure there will be youtubes. The play where Rondo had a layup against Wade and Haslem that missed was clearly a foul on Wade, who whacked Rondo across the face. It was much more of a clear foul than the debatable kick by Wade to KG and arms to Wade by KG, which was pretty bang/bang and pulled into question new rule changes. The missed call was just a blatant no call that turned into the Wade fastbreak because Rondo went down after the blow to the head, creating a five on four. So not only did it take the control of the lead from Boston, it created the fastbreak situation that swung the game towards Miami.

[Cormacaroni]

'what shouldn't be a factor are the refs'

Yes, in some platonic fantasy where the rules of basketball are completely objective and the refs are omniscient geniuses, I'd agree! But here on Planet Earth, they are a factor and always will be. They will continue to get better over time, but there will always be blown calls and sometimes it will fuck your team over and you go home and cry and cry and cry and write letters to Ralph Nader to organize a petition and your team will trade away its best player and you'll cry some more and threaten to quit the NBA but no-one will notice so you'l go back like a bitch then get butthurt again and lcry some more and so on forever

[Cormacaroni]

Oh, well I'm sure there will be youtubes. The play where Rondo had a layup against Wade and Haslem that missed was clearly a foul on Wade, who whacked Rondo across the face. It was much more of a clear foul than the debatable kick by Wade to KG and arms to Wade by KG, which was pretty bang/bang and pulled into question new rule changes. The missed call was just a blatant no call that turned into the Wade fastbreak because Rondo went down after the blow to the head, creating a five on four. So not only did it take the control of the lead from Boston, it created the fastbreak situation that swung it the game towards Miami.

Who is ignoring that one? Have you even been reading what other people are saying? I agreed with you IN REAL TIME immediately after it happened!

[Mandark]

I feel like we have left the realm of basketball commentary and entered the realm of literary criticism

At which point I'd turn to Michael Berube for some textualist deconstruction of the NBA, but he only talks about hockey.

I started reading Hollinger when he was at SI and still releasing the Pro Basketball Forecast, which had the gimmick of picking a cover player who was not famous, but on the cusp of breaking out, like Michael Redd.  At that point he was trying to do what Bill James had started in baseball, by using available stats and pretty simple logic to get a more objective look at things and blow up some predominant misconceptions.  The idea that per-minute numbers mattered more than per-game, like the value of walks, is obvious in hindsight but still something that most people in the industry missed.

What I like about his current work is that he follows the league closer than any other writer I can think of.  He's full of tidbits about the tendencies, development, and usage of obscure role players around the league, picking up on quirks that you'd normally have to get from a local beat reporter.  On top of that he seems to know every player's contract, every team's cap situation, and the league's byzantine salary rules.

He's not leading the charge on statistical analysis these days, with the advances coming from people with access to proprietary data, and some of his columns are definitely filler but he writes four or five a week.  I can't think of a basketball journalist who I could learn as much from, though there are other guys worth reading like Jack McCallum, JA Adande, etc.  Certainly better than Wilbon or Wojnarowski.

[CajoleJuice]

Starting to think PD is a viral marketer for BWW.

[etiolate]

I'm surprised they could afford to outbid Olive Garden.

[CajoleJuice]

Not sure why he couldn't swing both. He's probably known in the chain restaurant industry now.

[Cormacaroni]

I feel like we have left the realm of basketball commentary and entered the realm of literary criticism

At which point I'd turn to Michael Berube for some textualist deconstruction of the NBA, but he only talks about hockey.

I started reading Hollinger when he was at SI and still releasing the Pro Basketball Forecast, which had the gimmick of picking a cover player who was not famous, but on the cusp of breaking out, like Michael Redd.  At that point he was trying to do what Bill James had started in baseball, by using available stats and pretty simple logic to get a more objective look at things and blow up some predominant misconceptions.  The idea that per-minute numbers mattered more than per-game, like the value of walks, is obvious in hindsight but still something that most people in the industry missed.

What I like about his current work is that he follows the league closer than any other writer I can think of.  He's full of tidbits about the tendencies, development, and usage of obscure role players around the league, picking up on quirks that you'd normally have to get from a local beat reporter.  On top of that he seems to know every player's contract, every team's cap situation, and the league's byzantine salary rules.

He's not leading the charge on statistical analysis these days, with the advances coming from people with access to proprietary data, and some of his columns are definitely filler but he writes four or five a week.  I can't think of a basketball journalist who I could learn as much from, though there are other guys worth reading like Jack McCallum, JA Adande, etc.  Certainly better than Wilbon or Wojnarowski.

Avery Bradley is a great example of an obscure player that Hollinger picked up on. He was the first that I can recall to pick up on how great his D was, and how key he was to the Cs resurgence. Likewise, he was the first to signal that Bradley being out was disastrous. Most of the rest of the NBA writers barely noticed - oh Pierce is playing? Ray Allen? Still the Celtics! Ball movement! Defense! Experience!

I would not follow Hollinger as closely as I do if his stuff didn't hold up vs the evidence of my eyes, but it consistently does. Watch the games nightly after Hollinger explains how Bradley and Rondo combined to destroy opposing back courts with their transition and perimeter D and you will see it happening, whether Reggie Miller comments or not (he may comment on what a poor shooting night Dwayne Wade is having but will not attribute it to Bradley - one of the great unspoken taboos in commentating is that you can never say that one player owns the other with D, only that one is struggling or not aggressive enough, ).

Anyway, preachin' to the choir here.

Anyone who's been reading anything I've said for weeks now should know that I never gave the Celtics a shot in this series in their current state. If they somehow won the series, THEN maybe I'd concede that it was rigged 'cause that's the ONLY way it could happen  

I haven't seen Rondo dunk yet in the playoffs btw. Wouldn't kill him to try once in a while - he blows a lot of lay-ups/gets his shot blocked.

[Smooth Groove]

I should have known better than to watch the 2nd half at a restaurant.  This generation of Lakers fans is a disgrace.  Everybody was rooting for the Celtics.

Of course, there were also lots of discussion about how Lebron is overrated and some were even arguing that Bosh is a bettter player. 

Immigration has to be the cuprit.  Many of the beaners and ricers 2nd and 3rd gen Americans simply don't know their basketball history.  Particularly surprising is how even the Asian fans are adverse to simple stats. 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ain't racist if it's true. 

[close]

[Cormacaroni]

Rooting for the Celtics, in L.A.?

[pilonv1]

All the error comes into attributing an argument to those stats and thinking it overwrites the ability to analyze a game. But stats don't lie and your analysis is just like opinion man is often I need stats for I lack in the ability to observe and understand. Never forget that Hollinger had Marbury rated as the #1 PG for a year or two over guys like Nash.

I think this summarizes why despite being a ridiculous stat nerd I don't like Hollinger. I don't think a catch all statistic like PER or whatever variant has any worth in basketball outside of fantasy leagues or arguing who is the "better" player. Using them as a tool to analyse a player, or rank players ability in certain areas, fine. Using them to rank players overall is worthless to me. There are so many factors in what happens on a basketball court that numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

Maybe it's just that I follow my team and the league close enough that I don't get a lot out of his stuff.  Sorry if that sounds like I'm big noting myself, not the intention just explaining why I'm not a huge fan :-/ .

Now comparing him to other writers, then yeah I can see the difference. And don't even get me started on commentators, who are some of the least prepared people I've ever come across in my life. I did like his player write ups at the end of the season though. One of the few people to correctly peg a few of the Warriors players, especially someone like Udoh.

Though I'd prefer to read someone well researched and prepared like Hollinger than someone like Simmons who can't be taken seriously even when he wants to be.

[Smooth Groove]

I can guarantee that Lakers fans will be more devastated about the Heat winning a championship than the Lakers losing in the 2nd round. 

[Cormacaroni]

Hollinger frequently disagrees with the numbers his formula spit out, you know. Particularly his Power Rankings. He is all about the things the stats can't track as well, especially defense. I think he is very far from dogmatic about it all, unlike Dave Berri say...but OH WELL not making any converts out there tonight. Maybe you're all just mad that ESPN charges $25.

[Smooth Groove]

Is it just me or does it seem like JVG have to try really hard to hide his dislike of the Heat?

[Cormacaroni]

Well, they fired his bro

[Cormacaroni]

Was intrigued by the statement about Hollinger ranking Marbury above Nash...all I could find was this from 2005.
The bolded part is from the accompanying pic. Anyway, it makes it pretty f'in clear that he ranked Nash way higher at least at that point. Prior to returning to the Suns, I think I'd have taken Steph too TBH. Sure he was a cancer and a stat-padder, but he was dominant nonetheless.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

What do the two best offenses in NBA history have in common?

Here's a hint: He was born in South Africa, raised in Canada, has a $60 million contract, and a $5 haircut.

The man is Steve Nash, the Phoenix Suns' point guard who has become an unlikely MVP candidate by energizing their offense and leading them to this year's best record. Nash could become only the second foreign-born player to win MVP honors, not to mention the first to do it while wearing a Neil Young wig (hey, it's a Canadian thing).

But many might not appreciate just how good the Suns' offense has been, and that this is nothing new for Nash. The Suns' 110.5 points-per-game scoring average towers over the league average of 97.2. But considering the Suns' frenetic pace -- led by Nash, of course -- we should expect his team to play high-scoring games because each team gets more possessions than usual.

One way to more precisely measure teams' offenses is with a statistic called Offensive Efficiency, which tracks how many points a team scores for each 100 possessions it uses.


Try as he might, Marbury (right) cannot wrest "best offensive point guard" honors from Nash.
The Suns are also No. 1 in this category, and their advantage is large. The Suns average 112.1 points per 100 possessions, easily outpacing the second-place Miami Heat's 108.3. Compared to the league average of 103.1, the Suns are well ahead of the curve, topping the average by 9.0 points. Since the average Suns game had nearly 100 possessions for each team (98.1 to be exact), that means their offense provides a mammoth advantage of nearly nine points every night compared to the output from an average team.

And that nine-point edge relative to the league is among the best in "modern" basketball history. Offensive Efficiency stats are only available dating to 1973-74, when the league started keeping track of turnovers. But in the 32 seasons since, only one team has put up a better Offensive Efficiency than this year's Suns.

Believe it or not, it was last year's Mavericks – led by Steve Nash.

That's right, the team Nash quarterbacked so successfully in Dallas was quite possibly the greatest offense in history. The Mavs averaged 110.1 points per 100 possessions a year ago, while the league average was 100.8. The Mavs' advantage of 9.3 points above the norm was even better than the 2004-05 Suns' mark of +9.0.

Nash's accomplishments don't end there. Check out the chart showing the other greatest offenses in history, and you'll notice two things.

First, the No. 6 team was Nash's Mavs of 2002-03, earning him three spots in the top six. Second, check out the difference between the past two seasons and every other team on the list. Nash's Mavs and Suns teams didn't just scrape by the previous record, they blasted it out of the water. No team had even been +7.5 relative to the league before two years ago, but Nash's teams averaged better than +9.

Top Offenses Since 1973-74
Team   Year   Off. Eff.   NBA Avg.   Difference
Dallas Mavericks    2003-04    110.1    100.8    9.3
Phoenix Suns    2004-05    112.1    103.1    9.0
Denver Nuggets    1981-82    111.7    104.2    7.5
Boston Celtics    1987-88    112.4    105.0    7.4
Chicago Bulls    1991-92    112.3    105.0    7.3
Dallas Mavericks    2002-03    108.7    101.4    7.3
While both of Nash's teams played helter-skelter, the real key to the offensive success of each was turnover avoidance. Last year, Nash's Mavs committed just 11.8 turnovers per game, setting a new NBA record. Thanks to their mistake-free play, the Mavs took 519 shots more than any other team, which made it pretty easy for them to pile up the points.

Similarly, this year's Suns are also experts at avoiding the miscue. The Suns turn the ball over on 13.8 percent of their possessions, second only to the Sacramento Kings for the league's best rate. Without Nash last year, they were at 15.5 percent, so Nash is getting them two extra possessions a game. In contrast, the Mavs' rate sans Nash of 14.1 percent is a big reason they've gone from great to merely good, ranking fifth in Offensive Efficiency this year.

Of course, Nash had some help. In both Phoenix and Dallas, he could tag-team with a superb finisher at small forward and a devastatingly effective big man. Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Dirk Nowitzki and Antawn Jamison all made this year's All-Star game, reflecting the outstanding offensive talent that surrounded Nash in both cities.

However, Nash is arguably the best offensive player of the bunch. Based on my Player Efficiency Rating (PER), which measures each player's per-minute statistical production, Nash is well down the leaderboard. However, that's mostly because of his inability to rebound or defend. If we zero out those numbers for everyone and just look at "Offensive PER," Nash takes his rightful place among the elites.

Offensive PER leaders 04-05
Player   Team   Off. PER
Amare Stoudemire    Phoenix Suns    19.81
Dirk Nowitzki    Dallas Mavericks    19.62
Steve Nash    Phoenix Suns    19.45
LeBron James    Cleveland Cavaliers    19.44
Stephon Marbury    New York Knicks    19.32
While Nash ranks a close third, the news item here is that Stoudemire and Nowitzki are Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. Looking at the chart, some might wonder how Nash can be labeled the best offensive player in the game if his current and former teammate are both better.

The evidence is clear from Nash's previous two seasons. They show that he has consistently been among the game's top offensive performers, while 2004-05 has been a career year for both Stoudemire and Nowitzki. For instance, only one name makes a repeat appearance in the 2003-04 leaders in Offensive PER:

Offensive PER leaders 03-04
Player   Team   Off. PER
Tracy McGrady    Orlando Magic    20.39
Sam Cassell    Minnesota Timberwolves    20.28
Kevin Garnett    Minnesota Timberwolves    18.84
Kobe Bryant    Los Angeles Lakers    18.75
Steve Nash    Dallas Mavericks    18.01
And, as you might have surmised, Nash was in the top five in 2002-03 as well, although Nowitzki wasn't far behind:

Offensive PER leaders 02-03
Player   Team   Off. PER
Tracy McGrady    Orlando Magic    24.72
Shaquille O'Neal    Los Angeles Lakers    21.04
Kobe Bryant    Los Angeles Lakers    20.52
Steve Nash    Dallas Mavericks    19.86
Sam Cassell    Milwaukee Bucks    19.34
Dirk Nowitzki    Dallas Mavericks    19.34
So, who deserves the title of the game's best offensive player?

Consider these three factors:

1) The margin among the top five players in Offensive PER this season is razor-thin;

2) Nash was much better than the others each of the previous two seasons; and

3) Nash conducted the two best offenses in "modern" NBA history.

While it's hard to imagine the game's most dominant offensive player being a 6-foot-3 guard who played four years in a second-tier college conference, the results speak for themselves.

If Nowitzki, Stoudemire and LeBron James perform at their current levels again next season, then we'll have to re-examine the issue. But for now, the title has to go to Nash. Not bad for a guy who looks like a roadie for Crazy Horse, eh?

[close]

[pilonv1]

Hollinger frequently disagrees with the numbers his formula spit out, you know. Particularly his Power Rankings. He is all about the things the stats can't track as well, especially defense. I think he is very far from dogmatic about it all, unlike Dave Berri say...but OH WELL not making any converts out there tonight. Maybe you're all just mad that ESPN charges $25.

Been paying for insider since 2004, exclusively for their draft coverage. Though I generally dislike most of ESPN's coverage of anything.

Not going to denigrate people for enjoying it, lord knows there's stuff I like others don't.

Well, they fired his bro

And that whole Knicks/Heat rivalry from the late 90s.

[CajoleJuice]

Yea but it's not like the Heat still have Alonzo Mourning's leg still on the roster.

[Cormacaroni]

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think Hollinger's stuff is the best basketball WRITING - that'd probably be Bethlehem Shoals, and there are plenty of writers who write about the game and the players with more flair, drama or comedy. But within his remit, I think he writes well as well - he's certainly funnier than most, with a very dry wit.

[pilonv1]

But within his remit, I think he writes well as well - he's certainly funnier than most, with a very dry wit.

Wont argue that.

Anyway I need to get back to worrying about drafting Perry Jones

[Cormacaroni]

I'm unable to work up any kind of interest in this draft, not having seen a single one of the players other than watching Andre Drummond shoot some lay-ups in an empty gym (which was billed as a 'glimpse into Andre's gruelling pre-draft workout regime!'). Also he has apparently given up soda and cookies   

[pilonv1]

Yeah I heard Drummond is down to 268 from 290.

Pre-draft is one of my favourite times of the year because there's so much information floating around. I like watching college games and workouts and thinking about how their game would translate to a pro level. I think I missed my calling as a scout.

Plus I think 17 out of 18 losing seasons or whatever has conditioned me to thinking it's very important.

[Cormacaroni]

The problem is that so very few of these guys will likely be game-changers, and so much of the information is just bullshit. Every player will be either crash dieting or crash bulking to fit whatever team their agent thinks they should be angling for, but will they play at that weight for the next 10 years? Can anyone really add an extra two or three feet on their (real game!) range in a few months? My eyes roll furiously at most of those Chad Ford tidbits, I have to say.

Your time would be more productively spent worrying about Steph Curry's ankles or Bogut's everything. Need help with that?

[pilonv1]

Oh I know most of it is garbage. But occasionally there's some interesting things said. And not the workout/measurement/drill stuff, which means nothing. It's not the top prospects I like looking at though, it's the second rounders/bubble guys I enjoy watching, especially the guys who have a pro-level skill in college (eg Chris Singleton/Devin Ebanks, you could see they were top defenders before they graduated).

A guy like Draymond Green, I absolutely love his game and think he'll end up on a roster for a long time. But then I thought the same thing about De'Sean Butler but the ACL tear he suffered at the end of his senior season ruined that.

Your time would be more productively spent worrying about Steph Curry's ankles or Bogut's everything. Need help with that?

I worried enough about Steph's ankles this year to last me a lifetime. I think some of it is bad luck but he also has a weird way of pushing off/planting, he tends to do it with the outside of his foot when starting to run, which was the cause of two of his three ankle turns this year. That's something to watch with Roy Hibbert too, who runs on his heels.

Bogut is more bad luck from some unlucky falls, I'm more confident about his health.

[Phoenix Dark]

I love Draymond Green but there are so many high energy, big leaders from quality NCAA teams who didn't pan out in the NBA. MSU tends to produce some good pros but I'm not sure about Green. If he goes to the right team, sure I think he could be a nice backup.

[pilonv1]

Yeah I don't think he'll be a starter, but he'd be a great 8-10th man off the bench. He looks to me like the sort of guy Popovich would get the best out of.

[Cormacaroni]

Yeah, exactly.

Looking over DraftExpress, it's just amazing how much attention is paid to height, weight, wingspan, foot speed, vertical leap etc, when time after time it has been shown that all that stuff is chronically overvalued. I really think that after the top of the lottery, you have to have a laserlike focus on one or two things that the prospect already does well, and figure out if that will translate in the pros or not. If they have that skill, who cares what their physique is like, or what their non-core stats are like. Nobody is going to be perfectly well-rounded at age 20 or whatever, so don't dump on them for the skills they lack, and conversely don't fantasize about what if they suddenly gain all those skills you want them to have either. DaJuan Blair is gonna get a ring based on his rebounding while Eddy Curry rides the pine...

[DJ_Tet]

That said, I'm sure DJ Tet is apoplectic right now, too furious to type

I called this shit months ago in one of the gaf topics.  I'll have to find the post.  I promised to kill David Stern when this happened, and now it has come to pass.

So no, no suicide ITT, homicide.


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35139845&postcount=12641

Chris Paul accusing others of dirty plays? Julius Hodge has to laugh at that one.

And I have to laugh at the freaking Hornets only being 1.5 games ahead of the Bobcats despite a pt differential of -5.8.

What a joke. I'm going to be beyond pissed if the Hornets get the #1 pick and the Bobcats get #4.

I'm going to literally kill David Stern if that happens. That's a promise.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35140089&postcount=12648

I will. If the Hornets end up with a better record than the Bobcats and somehow draft higher than them, that will be the last dirty deal that Stern sinks his grubby paws into.


edit: I love how he thinks everyone believes that Donaghy was an isolated incident. Fucking ostrich, that guy, head in the sand.

I'm not doing it anymore. If the Hornets get Anthony Davis while the Bobcats are fielding an NBDL team it will be the end of Stern.


Didn't call it so much as anticipated it happening I suppose.

[Cormacaroni]

It just means you understand probabilities dude, doesn't make you a prophet. I feel your pain though. That said, it could have been worse than #2, and you should get a good player there.

[Phoenix Dark]

Yeah I don't think he'll be a starter, but he'd be a great 8-10th man off the bench. He looks to me like the sort of guy Popovich would get the best out of.

That would be a perfect fit. Going from having the best coach in college to the best coach in the NBA

[DJ_Tet]

How were the Hornets more probable to get a better pick than the Bobcats?

My prophecy was that the Hornets would pick ahead of the Bobcats.  It wasn't so much a prophecy as being aware as to what Stern likes to make happen.  Like when LeBron went to Cleveland.

It was obvious the Hornets or the Nets would win this draft, I thought the Hornets just to add some extra stank for the Charlotte fans.  Of course I said that before the sale went down, but apparently the sale isn't final yet and some people in the nba front office were pissed when they saw what happened, just for the appearance of tampering. 

That said, I'm over it.  Davis is thin as a rail, as much as I like his game I still wondered what sort of impact he could have in the NBA.  We'll see but I think he's no sure thing (but likely to be an impact player for a long time, Marcus Camby would be a good ceiling for him I think.)

We'll get a good player at 2, MKG looked good to me and we need a 3.  Could have been worse, stuck picking at 4 looking at Robinson when we already have a massive glut of 4s.

[Cormacaroni]

Well, I'm glad you're not gonna kill anyone over it. It seemed like you'd built yourself up to a 'Davis or Bust' frenzy.

[DJ_Tet]

Preemptive bitching against the inevitable.

I do think Davis is a special talent, but I also think he's got some physical issues that will take time to overcome.  And ultimately he's probably a 4 as well, Bobcats need much more help than another 4.

[Beezy]

Preemptive bitching against the inevitable.

I do think Davis is a special talent, but I also think he's got some physical issues that will take time to overcome.  And ultimately he's probably a 4 as well, Bobcats need much more help than another 4.

His monobrow? His teeth?

[TakingBackSunday]

he's too skinny, first of all.  Dude needs to start heavy lifting, then he'll have that crazy shoulder length like Dwight.

But I don't think Davis is going to do much of anything.  I think Beal and Gilchrist will do more.

[DJ_Tet]

Yeah, he's skinny even for a 3, not sure how he will hold up to 82 games against men.  If you remember when Kevin Garnett was young, even he struggled at times.  And he had 100x the offensive game that Davis has shown thus far.

Davis is a special talent defensively and has a good nose for the ball, but will he be strong enough to get where he needs to get to against NBA men?  Might take a few years.

And with his frame, it's easy to imagine him not being able to put on much weight at all.

[Phoenix Dark]

Davis is crazy talented but I agree, physically he's not ready to bang. Durant plays on the wings for the most part, so that comparison isn't great. I've preferred Marcus Camby comparisons; both were recruited by Calipari, and when he first discovered Davis he texed Camby and said "I've found a taller, better you" iirc lol

Camby was never big either, so I definitely think Davis can put on some weight while still being rather lean looking.

[TakingBackSunday]

He said Garnett, PD.

[Phoenix Dark]

I know, but I've seen more Durant comparisons than Garnett ones; not here, but from NCAA commentators and on twitter/espn

[TakingBackSunday]

That's odd to me.  All throughout the tourney I think I saw Davis take jumpers I can count on two hands.  Durant is a great jump shooterl I don't get the comparisons.

[Phoenix Dark]

He's capable of driving, Calipari just kept him in the paint. But I do agree Camby or even Garnett makes way more sense than Durant. Both guys had huge growth spurts in highschool that changed what position they wound up playing

[pilonv1]

Camby was the guy I thought he was most like, mainly for the defense. I don't see any Durant in his game to be honest, the only thing remotely similar is their physiques.

[Cormacaroni]

my god is James Harden the only black man in America with a beard or something?

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/page/Evolution-120531/nba-playoffs-oklahoma-city-thunder-james-harden-growing-game

He's cool but man, this meme needs to die

[Phoenix Dark]

Harden is 22? I figured he was like 28. Must be the beard

*rick ross grunt*

[Smooth Groove]

Harden must have gotten his grooming advice from PD. 

[Beezy]

my god is James Harden the only black man in America with a beard or something?

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/page/Evolution-120531/nba-playoffs-oklahoma-city-thunder-james-harden-growing-game

He's cool but man, this meme needs to die

No. Just the only famous young one with such a ridiculous beard.

[Cormacaroni]

Hey Scott Brooks - take Perk out FOR THE LOVE OF BASKETBALL