Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, June 21, 2013

[OT] NBA draft and off season thread

Now that the season is actually over, I imagine only 8-10 primates here would actually care about the NBA.

we won’t detract from what this site is really about: Big Brother and XBox One

” cols=“100” rows=“20”>

Now that the season is actually over, I imagine only 8-10 primates here would actually care about the NBA.

we won’t detract from what this site is really about: Big Brother and XBox One

RollingWave Posted: June 21, 2013 at 01:16 AM | 2938 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: draft, nba, ot

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 19 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >  Last ›
   1801. jmurph Posted: July 15, 2013 at 04:35 PM (#4495049)
This is pretty cool. Footage from Wilt's 1957 tournament run with Kansas.
   1802. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 15, 2013 at 04:44 PM (#4495060)
Forbes ranked the 50 most valuable sports franchises in the world. 3 NBA teams made it: Knicks at 23, Lakers at 31 and Bulls at 47. Top 3 were soccer clubs, and 30 of the 50 were NFL teams (7 were MLB - NYY, LAD, BOS, CHC, PHI, NYM, SFG).
   1803. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 15, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4495095)
"I should be able to play in the first game of the season," Rose told reporters at an adidas event in Spain, according to HoopsHype.com. "I know I'm anxious right now to play. My health is everything right now, it's 100 percent. But right now, the first game ... I will definitely be playing it."


Timely.
   1804. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 15, 2013 at 07:38 PM (#4495182)
Forbes ranked the 50 most valuable sports franchises in the world. 3 NBA teams made it: Knicks at 23, Lakers at 31 and Bulls at 47. Top 3 were soccer clubs, and 30 of the 50 were NFL teams (7 were MLB - NYY, LAD, BOS, CHC, PHI, NYM, SFG).

I find a lot of those rankings, objectively speaking, insane.
   1805. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 15, 2013 at 08:10 PM (#4495206)
JR Smith out maybe 4 months, knee surgery.
Knicks knew his condition pre-signing.
   1806. madvillain Posted: July 15, 2013 at 08:29 PM (#4495221)
Timely.


I think with time will come perspective on his decision and IMO Thibs' comments about how "Rose wasn't Rose" in practice half validates his decision. The other validation will be picking up where left off and being 90% or so of Derrick Rose before the switch gets activated in January or so and he trusts the knee 100% and turns into top 5 NBA player D Rose.

If that doesn't happen and he struggles out of the gate and all season, then even his biggest defenders like myself will have to admit he handled it wrong.
   1807. JC in DC Posted: July 15, 2013 at 09:02 PM (#4495256)
That footage of Wilt is pretty cool. What would the scouting report based on that be like? What an athletic god.
   1808. tshipman Posted: July 15, 2013 at 09:07 PM (#4495266)
Are we supposed to post our rankings here, or on the GoogleSheet?

Trying to make this easy for all parties.
   1809. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: July 15, 2013 at 09:16 PM (#4495277)
The other validation will be picking up where left off and being 90% or so of Derrick Rose before the switch gets activated in January or so and he trusts the knee 100% and turns into top 5 NBA player D Rose.

So he's coming back better than he's ever been?
   1810. JJ1986 Posted: July 15, 2013 at 09:46 PM (#4495324)
someone ought to pick tim ohlbrecht and/or james anderson on waivers.


Sixers claim both of them.
   1811. steagles Posted: July 15, 2013 at 09:54 PM (#4495332)
Sixers claim both of them.
who needs andrew bynum and andre iguodala when you could have james anderson and the villain from a bond film.
   1812. steagles Posted: July 15, 2013 at 09:54 PM (#4495333)
...
   1813. andrewberg Posted: July 15, 2013 at 09:59 PM (#4495340)
1808- definitely put them on the google sheet, but feel free to also put them here.
   1814. puck Posted: July 15, 2013 at 10:50 PM (#4495383)

I find a lot of those rankings, objectively speaking, insane.

Why? Forbes may not be right, but aren't they trying to rank them objectively?

It is odd that more MLB teams don't break into the top 50 given their revenues, but I guess they're just not as sexy as some of those properties. (Though, what is the Ferrari F1 team worth without Ferrari behind it?)
   1815. tshipman Posted: July 15, 2013 at 11:21 PM (#4495409)
It is odd that more MLB teams don't break into the top 50 given their revenues, but I guess they're just not as sexy as some of those properties. (Though, what is the Ferrari F1 team worth without Ferrari behind it?)


It's not all that odd. The NFL has a license to print money with the new labor deal.

I am sort of surprised at the assessment that the Knicks are worth more than the Lakers. Don't see how that's true.
   1816. madvillain Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:29 AM (#4495448)

So he's coming back better than he's ever been?


It sucks that people's enduring image of Rose is his injury riddled 2011-12 campaign, in which he was just a shell of his healthy self all year long, and then his ACL postponed 2012-13. His narrative arc is so much more than the downward slope he's been on since about midway through 2012. 2012 was supposed to be his coronation into superstardom, instead it was just a big tease.

For the last 20 or so games of 2011 and brief healthy flashes in 2012 there was no doubt that it was Lebron/Durant/Paul and then some next 3 of Kobe, Rose and Howard.

Whatever, dude has to prove he can stay healthy.
   1817. puck Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:29 AM (#4495449)
It's not all that odd. The NFL has a license to print money with the new labor deal.

I wasn't thinking at NFL teams' expense. Just that a few more MLB teams would edge out some of the other sports. Although now that I take a look at the Deloitte money league, more of those soccer teams are up in the $300+ million revenue range than I remembered. And as I mentioned, not that revenue is the only thing that would push a franchise value.
   1818. puck Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:36 AM (#4495452)
RE: Knicks vs Lakers' value:

The New York Knicks are the league’s most valuable team, worth $1.1 billion, reclaiming the crown from the Los Angeles Lakers, who topped last year’s list. The Knicks‘ value rose 41%, mainly due to a $980 million renovation of Madison Square Garden that is expected to be completed this summer. The makeover resulted in an NBA-leading $243 million in revenue last season. The Knicks‘ operating income of $83 million was the highest in the league for a third straight year. [Forbes]
   1819. madvillain Posted: July 16, 2013 at 01:50 AM (#4495472)
RE: Knicks vs Lakers' value:


For better or for worse, much of the Knicks' value is tied up in MSG. I worked at 7 Penn Plaza for awhile (right next door to MSG) and it will take even more incompetence than even Jimmy Dolan can provide to kill that cash cow. Prime real estate in a city of prime real estate.
   1820. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 07:32 AM (#4495509)
It sucks that people's enduring image of Rose is his injury riddled 2011-12 campaign, in which he was just a shell of his healthy self all year long, and then his ACL postponed 2012-13. His narrative arc is so much more than the downward slope he's been on since about midway through 2012. 2012 was supposed to be his coronation into superstardom, instead it was just a big tease.

For the last 20 or so games of 2011 and brief healthy flashes in 2012 there was no doubt that it was Lebron/Durant/Paul and then some next 3 of Kobe, Rose and Howard.


His injury riddled '12 campaign was a near replica of his '11 MVP year so I don't think that hurts him. Regardless, even at the height of the Rose lovefest in '11, LeBron, Durant, Paul, Howard, Wade, Dirk, Love, and KG were all better, just off the top of my head and Westbrook was the same person as far as I'm concerned. So, there's a lot of doubt in my mind that Rose was ever a Top 5 player, though I suppose if he makes some improvements he could be in the future given his physical ability.
   1821. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM (#4495565)
Knicks fans are something else. There is a commenter on Knickerblogger arguing that the J.R. Smith situation played out well for the Knicks because had teams known he was injured his value might have gone...up.
   1822. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM (#4495573)
This swingman, recently signed as a minimum salary free agent, has posted simple ratings over the last few years that are far better than his rep in stat-friendly circles would imply:

'12-13: +0.2
'11-12: -2.3
'10-11: +1.9
'09-10: +0.1
'08-09: +2.2
Last5Yr: +0.4

Name him.
   1823. JJ1986 Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4495628)
It must be Nick Young.
   1824. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4495654)
Yes sir.
Without researching, I'd guess that the answer partly lies with his being good from three (opening the floor up) and solid defense in isolation situations.
   1825. JJ1986 Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4495660)
I don't really like Young, but his reputation went from below-average-wing to minimum-salary-guy very quickly based on one poor year. When I was thinking last week about who OKC should target after losing Martin and missing Wright, he topped my list.
   1826. andrewberg Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4495696)
Knicks fans are something else. There is a commenter on Knickerblogger arguing that the J.R. Smith situation played out well for the Knicks because had teams known he was injured his value might have gone...up.


I hope the theory is that he could help a tanking team get to the salary floor without actually playing. That would be brilliant.
   1827. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4495754)
I hope the theory is that he could help a tanking team get to the salary floor without actually playing. That would be brilliant.


Maybe he's going to immediately retire and start playing for Metalurg Magnitogorsk.
   1828. GregD Posted: July 16, 2013 at 01:12 PM (#4495823)
For better or for worse, much of the Knicks' value is tied up in MSG. I worked at 7 Penn Plaza for awhile (right next door to MSG) and it will take even more incompetence than even Jimmy Dolan can provide to kill that cash cow. Prime real estate in a city of prime real estate.
I wonder if they factored in the potential expiration of their waiver. I know it's 25 years off but still would be a big deal in the valuation, I would think.
   1829. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4495836)
Elaborate please?
   1830. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4495846)
Ibby Jaaber, his faith, and basketball. Interesting read, h/t Pelton.
   1831. GregD Posted: July 16, 2013 at 01:39 PM (#4495860)
I had the details wrong; it is a special permit not a waiver and is up for review in 10 years:Council vote on MSG waiver

   1832. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4495875)
orl reportedly signing ronnie price; tor amnesties kleiza
i consider playing price akin to trying to tank (whether consciously or not).
   1833. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4495926)
i think luke harangody is finally ready to be a poor man's troy murphy - if anybody is interested in that sort of thing.
   1834. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 16, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4495937)
His injury riddled '12 campaign was a near replica of his '11 MVP year so I don't think that hurts him. Regardless, even at the height of the Rose lovefest in '11, LeBron, Durant, Paul, Howard, Wade, Dirk, Love, and KG were all better, just off the top of my head and Westbrook was the same person as far as I'm concerned. So, there's a lot of doubt in my mind that Rose was ever a Top 5 player, though I suppose if he makes some improvements he could be in the future given his physical ability.

Not that it means that much, but he was 5th in WS that season. The guys ahead of him in WS/48 (who are mostly listed here) can be debated, which we surely did plenty of then. As everyone agrees now though, Rose is definitely in a need to prove situation this upcoming season.

i think luke harangody is finally ready to be a poor man's troy murphy - if anybody is interested in that sort of thing.

It's only 2 summer league games, but Andrew Goudelock might be ready to be a poor man's NateRob. Considering the original NateRob is still available (probably for really cheap again at this point) and the mini-NateRob* signed with the Jazz already, he probably can be had for a minimum/non-guaranteed deal (the Bulls favorite kind).

*JLIII just looks smaller because of how ripped NateRob is, so in my head I think of him as a smaller version.
   1835. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4495942)
do you think goudelock distributes well enough for that comparison? robinson may look for himself first, but he does do some creating.
   1836. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 16, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4495965)
Fine, the poor man's Jannero Pargo.
   1837. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4495989)
isn't that jeremy pargo?
(ducks)
   1838. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4495991)
Mike Miller to be amnestied. I'm surprised...
   1839. Conor Posted: July 16, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4496030)
There is a commenter on Knickerblogger arguing that the J.R. Smith situation played out well for the Knicks because had teams known he was injured his value might have gone...up.


That's awesome, as soon as I read that I knew there was only one person that could be making that argument. I went to Knickerblogger to confirm, and needless to say, my guess was right.
   1840. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4496042)
[1839] I've been posting on message boards for a little over a decade now and I have never seen anyone with quite his ability to spin. He can find/fabricate a silver lining in literally every move the team makes. As an aside, I'm also not sure I've ever witnessed a board with quite so many regulars who apparently hate each other.
   1841. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 16, 2013 at 04:06 PM (#4496043)
Mike Miller to be amnestied. I'm surprised...

With the tax implications, it saves them a lot of money. Riley has been sending out signals about how it's hurting them.

isn't that jeremy pargo?
(ducks)


Fine, he could be the rich man's jeremy pargo.
   1842. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 16, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4496058)
BTW, from that article about Riley I linked, I love this:

Riley confirmed that the Heat made an effort to retain undrafted guard Ian Clark for the Las Vegas summer league after the 3-point specialist thrived for the Heat in the Orlando summer league. Clark instead is playing with the Warriors' summer team in Las Vegas.

"It was too late in the process," Riley said. "So he's fulfilling a commitment. And so I think he should honor that, as much as we tried to dissuade him."


"That was very honorable of him, and he didn't listen to us telling him to be dishonorable."
   1843. Conor Posted: July 16, 2013 at 04:45 PM (#4496106)
[1839] I've been posting on message boards for a little over a decade now and I have never seen anyone with quite his ability to spin. He can find/fabricate a silver lining in literally every move the team makes. As an aside, I'm also not sure I've ever witnessed a board with quite so many regulars who apparently hate each other.


I've probably posted there like 3-4 times ever, but I do read it pretty frequently. The most amazing thing is that as far as I can tell, he's not really a Knicks fan, just a Melo fanboy that is rooting for the Knicks now. Which makes it funny when he lectures long time Knick fans on how to be a fan.

I don't know if you saw his theory from a few weeks ago that the next deal Melo signs with the Knicks will be a smaller deal to give them some more room to add players.
   1844. Maxwn Posted: July 16, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4496109)
Mike Miller to be amnestied. I'm surprised...

I don't remember exactly how the amnesty waiver thing works, so I'm not sure if they have a realistic shot at him, but I feel like the Grizzlies should be in on Miller pretty hard. He seems like the best shooter that they have any kind of shot at right now, if they do have a shot at him.
   1845. Maxwn Posted: July 16, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4496144)
Sounds like the Grizz will have to hope he makes it through the waiver process cause they are over the cap. I thought something like that was the case. Maybe they'll get lucky.
   1846. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 16, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4496145)
I don't remember exactly how the amnesty waiver thing works, so I'm not sure if they have a realistic shot at him, but I feel like the Grizzlies should be in on Miller pretty hard. He seems like the best shooter that they have any kind of shot at right now, if they do have a shot at him.

It looks like the Grizz are a couple million over the cap, so they can't bid on him. If he clears waivers (I'd expect that he would), they could use whatever exemptions they have left (or the vet's minimum) to sign him.
   1847. Maxwn Posted: July 16, 2013 at 05:30 PM (#4496152)
He's more expensive than I thought. Maybe that means he will make it through the waivers.
   1848. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 16, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4496170)
Well, a team can bid the minimum, and the Heat just pay the rest of his salary.
   1849. andrewberg Posted: July 16, 2013 at 06:43 PM (#4496208)
I'm doing some research for my top 50 rankings and I was digging through ABA season to get a feel for how impressive an ABA championship should be. The 1975 Kentucky Colonels were one hell of a team! Prime Artis Gilmore averaged 24-16 on 58% shooting, and Dan Issel complemented him with 18-9, all while Hubie Brown coached. They were the best defensive team in the ABA and went 13-3 in the playoffs, including a 4-1 finals win over George McGinnis's Indiana Pacers.
   1850. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 16, 2013 at 06:43 PM (#4496209)
By using the league's one-time amnesty provision to release Miller on Tuesday, the Heat potentially slice their luxury-tax bill in half for next season, reducing it from about $33 million to around $16 million by shedding the $6.2 million Miller is owed for the 2013-14 season.

That's pretty significant for them. In retrospect, it's still amazing he got so much that same year they signed LeBron and Bosh.
   1851. andrewberg Posted: July 16, 2013 at 07:15 PM (#4496233)
Is John Havlicek often overrated?

Even when he came off the bench for the iconic Celtics teams of the 60s, he was not outrageously efficient with PERs typically in the 16-17 range and similarly good-not-great WS/48. He won 8 titles, but was probably only the best player on one of them (74) and was probably not one of the 2-3 best on the first several. He was certainly durable, playing lots of seasons and lots of minutes within those seasons. That's a valuable skill, but when we're talking about all-time greats, they should be durable and productive.

He compiled great career counting stats because he played so long and he had an uncommonly late peak with several of his best years coming from age 31-35. On the other hand, those were some of the weakest years in NBA history because the ABA was at its peak in those early-mid 70s seasons. Was his late peak a result of weak competition, less tread on his tires, genetics, condition, or some combination thereof?

One thing that is hard to tell from looking at stats is his impact defensively. The fact that he played on many very good defensive teams (usually in the top 5 in DRTG once it is tracked) and had outstanding personal defensive ratings in his last few years indicate that he was very good. Conversely, he was a wing player in an era where team defense was not emphasized the way it is today. How much of an impact could he really have?
   1852. Booey Posted: July 16, 2013 at 07:21 PM (#4496238)
I've been posting on message boards for a little over a decade now and I have never seen anyone with quite his ability to spin. He can find/fabricate a silver lining in literally every move the team makes


I remember getting into a debate with an Iverson fan years back who said that shooting a ton of shots at a low percentage was a benefit to his team cuz it gave his teammates lots of offensive rebounding opportunities. Hell, sign me up then! I'm very confident I could shoot an extremely low percentage in the NBA.
   1853. Booey Posted: July 16, 2013 at 07:32 PM (#4496244)
Is John Havlicek often overrated?


I've always thought so. Simmons ranked him 14th in TBOB IIRC, ahead of guys like Dr J, Baylor, Stockton and Malone, Barkley, KG, Robinson, Dirk, etc. The numbers just don't justify that, IMO. I thought for a minute that it might be Celtic bias, but Pettit at #17 seems equally indefensible to me, so it seems more likely to be old timer bias instead. Never understood why players should be given special credit just cuz they happened to be born earlier than a bunch of better players who came later (Cousy and Walton are others I feel this way about).

   1854. rr Posted: July 16, 2013 at 07:33 PM (#4496245)
I remember getting into a debate with an Iverson fan years back who said that shooting a ton of shots at a low percentage was a benefit to his team cuz it gave his teammates lots of offensive rebounding opportunities.


There has actually been some research on that, by Goldsberry and others, so it is not as outlandish as it sounds:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8719297/how-kobe-bryant-missed-shots-translate-new-nba-statistic-kobe-assist
   1855. rr Posted: July 16, 2013 at 07:34 PM (#4496246)
Berg,

I saw the Kentucky Colonels play live when I was a very small child.
   1856. rr Posted: July 16, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4496251)
Walton are others I feel this way about


I have talked about Walton before, but I think he is underrated by most people today, for a variety of reasons.
   1857. Famous Original Joe C Posted: July 16, 2013 at 07:48 PM (#4496261)
Never understood why players should be given special credit just cuz they happened to be born earlier than a bunch of better players who came later (Cousy and Walton are others I feel this way about).


Well, if guys dominate the competition of their era, why should they be given less credit? It's not Bob Cousy's fault he didn't have to face Isiah or Steve Nash or Magic or whoever.
   1858. rr Posted: July 16, 2013 at 07:49 PM (#4496265)
Chris Douglas-Roberts on sleeved jerseys, from an interview with a Laker blogger guy:

“I hate those jerseys. I had to cut it because it was so tight around my shoulders. I couldn’t make a shot. They’re so tight.”

And he said it one more time with feeling.

“I hate those jerseys!”
   1859. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 16, 2013 at 08:22 PM (#4496316)
I have talked about Walton before, but I think he is underrated by most people today, for a variety of reasons.
Walton's the most difficult player for me to rank. His talent is obviously undeniable, but we're only ranking NBA careers, and 117 NBA starts just doesn't bring the career value for me. Walton being in the top 50 is often taken for granted, but I'm thinking of leaving him off my list completely.

That's reasonable, right?
   1860. Booey Posted: July 16, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4496319)
There has actually been some research on that, by Goldsberry and others, so it is not as outlandish as it sounds:


I'll look up the link later when I have more time, but you don't need offensive rebounds if you make your shots, no? I certainly never considered unrepentant chuckers like Antoine Walker or Jerry Stackhouse to be star caliber players. Was I wrong?

I have talked about Walton before, but I think he is underrated by most people today, for a variety of reasons.


The main thing that confuses me about all the old timer Walton love is that he seems to get full credit for what he would have done without the injuries rather than ranking him by the career he actually had. He was healthy and at his peak for only a few seasons. Does anyone else get the benefit of the doubt to the same extent? I've never seen Yao, T-Mac, or Grant Hill crack anyone's top 50 list based on what they MIGHT have done in a more fair world.

Well, if guys dominate the competition of their era, why should they be given less credit? It's not Bob Cousy's fault he didn't have to face Isiah or Steve Nash or Magic or whoever.


Cuz some era's were a lot easier to dominate than others. It's not the latter guys fault either that they were born when they were and had to compete against a lot more star caliber players.
   1861. Booey Posted: July 16, 2013 at 08:26 PM (#4496321)
Walton being in the top 50 is often taken for granted, but I'm thinking of leaving him off my list completely.

That's reasonable, right?


Yes. He won't be on my list either. Career value is underrated IMO.
   1862. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4496384)
Haberstroh (among others?) initially got the amnesty claiming terms wrong on Miller - partial salary bids/cap space are possible.

MIL amnesties Gooden.

I've covered Walton (with Andy who looooooves him) before.
   1863. rr Posted: July 16, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4496385)
Where someone puts Walton on a list depends on how that person feels about peak and career. He was a little before my time, but I think most people who actually saw the guy extensively think he was truly great--my dad, for example. Walton's college career was phenomenal. He didn't have the signature thing like the Sky Hook, but he did almost everything very well and was a great passer, far better than Kareem. Also, Yao, T-Mac and Grant Hill never were the best player on a championship team, nor were they even close to being so, and the rest of the 1977 Blazers were not an awesome collection of talent. They were also 50-10 the next year when Walton got hurt and then nosedived immediately without him, going 58-24 and losing in the first round.

Also, like I have said, I am about Simmons' age, so take this FWIW, but if I were you I would consider dialing down the sneering at "old timers" a little. Yeah, people are biased about guys from their own eras, but they also have a big advantage over people who are younger than they are in ranking certain players: they actually saw the guys play all the time. This is why I have never really definitively taken a side on Russell/Chamberlain: I never saw them play.

That's reasonable, right?


Sure, as long as Kareem, Magic and Kobe are 1, 2 and 3 where they belong. ;p

I certainly never considered unrepentant chuckers like Antoine Walker or Jerry Stackhouse to be star caliber players. Was I wrong?


No, but there is an argument that guys who create a lot of shots and attract a lot of defensive attention have value to a team's overall offense that may not show up in their individual shooting percentages. I have covered this before, but when Bryant has missed time in recent years and the Lakers' big guys have gotten more shots, the big guys' efficiency has usually dropped off, sometimes susbtantially.
   1864. andrewberg Posted: July 16, 2013 at 08:54 PM (#4496398)
I adore Walton and have put in work to find videos of him at peak health. I can't imagine putting him in the top 50 of anything other than single-season or short peak rankings, though.
   1865. rr Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:19 PM (#4496455)
Simmons' list was pretty good, but he never really systematically worked out the peak/career thing. Also, of course, Walton was on the 1986 Celtics, and Simmons closed TBOB with a chapter revolving around an interview with Walton, so that affected where Simmons put him as well.

That noted, Walton played in the era before guys came out early and by all accounts he loved his life at UCLA, and understandably so. But Walton was probably an NBA All-Star when he was 18, but didn't show it, which is another reason he is overlooked today. Basically, I think a lot of circumstances and Walton's goofy personality as an announcer have wiped out a lot of the collective memory of how great the guy really (probably) was at his peak.

Where someone puts him on a subjective list ranking players depends on the criteria used to construct the list.
   1866. RollingWave Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:33 PM (#4496480)
Andrew Goudelock is interesting for a team like the Bulls yes, or any team who's second unit struggle to score. He actually had 5.7 assist per 36 and 24% Ast% on the Vipers this year, so yeah, a taller version of Poor man's Nate Rob. or a shorter beggar's version of Kobe. to be fair though, his TS% was actually very good this year in the D-League, and that tend to translate alright to the next level (it'll take a step back but not by that much.). as a tweener 3rd guard off the bench one can do a lot worse.

   1867. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:54 PM (#4496522)
I don't credit Walton for his pre-NBA time (where he was a wondrous player). Basically, peak was too short to comparable to other players for the purposes of these discussions (for me).
   1868. rr Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:17 PM (#4496562)
I don't credit Walton for his pre-NBA time (where he was a wondrous player). Basically, peak was too short to comparable to other players for the purposes of these discussions (for me).

That's fine; like I have said, the whole list thing is not a major interest of mine so guys making announcements about who is on and off their lists is not an issue for me. My argument is that Walton probably was in fact a truly great NBA player, albeit for a very short period of time.

The timeline bias thing cuts both ways. Andy may "loooove" him and guys like Andy and my dad may have overrated Walton based on certain images and moments of that time, and maybe he wasn't quite as good as they thought. OTOH, a 30-something guy talking about Walton probably doesn't really know much of anything substantive about Walton's game other than what he can read on Bask Ref and see in a couple of You Tube clips, so maybe Walton brought a lot more to the table than some people today seem to think. Probably some of both.
   1869. steagles Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:35 PM (#4496614)
I remember getting into a debate with an Iverson fan years back who said that shooting a ton of shots at a low percentage was a benefit to his team cuz it gave his teammates lots of offensive rebounding opportunities. Hell, sign me up then! I'm very confident I could shoot an extremely low percentage in the NBA.
it's not just shooting a ton. it's that the ball was in iverson's hands for 24 seconds and the only thing anyone else on the floor for the sixers had to do was crash the glass after the ball left his hands. look who he played with in 2001. eric snow started at PG. george lynch at SF, tyrone hill at PF and dikembe mutombo at C. eric snow handled the ball a bit, but otherwise, the entire offense was iverson.

the derrick rose bulls of the last few years were a rich-mans version of those iverson teams. rose was more efficient than iverson and boozer and deng are magnitudes better than lynch and hill. but the idea, that one man gets his and everyone else crashes the glass, lives on and is still a pretty effective strategy.
   1870. steagles Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:41 PM (#4496631)
Andrew Goudelock is interesting for a team like the Bulls yes, or any team who's second unit struggle to score. He actually had 5.7 assist per 36 and 24% Ast% on the Vipers this year, so yeah, a taller version of Poor man's Nate Rob. or a shorter beggar's version of Kobe. to be fair though, his TS% was actually very good this year in the D-League, and that tend to translate alright to the next level (it'll take a step back but not by that much.). as a tweener 3rd guard off the bench one can do a lot worse.
if the sixers had any interest in trying to win more than 10 games, he'd be an interesting pickup. right now, the sixers' best shooter is spencer hawes, their best ballhandler is michael carter-williams, their best perimeter scorer is evan turner and their best off-the-bench guard is justin holiday. if there were ever a situation where andrew goudelock could be more needed, i have not seen it.
   1871. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:05 PM (#4496720)
Sure robinred, i agree with you in principle, but Andy contended (iirc) that Walton has a peak argument as GOAT.
That's worth a few extra vowels...
   1872. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:12 PM (#4496763)
Fwiw, said uncertainty and timeline issues are why I'm less assertive about historical rankings than I might otherwise be (short of when the thread needs some offseason traffic :) and I think it's been a long time since it has needed that kind of momentum). I don't know what I don't know.
   1873. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:23 PM (#4496802)
Honestly, I don't see Robinson/goudelock at comparisons at all.

Goudelock is a 2 in a point guard's body (6-3 200)

Robinson is a scoring point (but definitely a pg) in a sub-nba sized body (5-9 180).

Robinson is an incredible athlete (I know of a few of you remember him on the gridiron) whose ability to hit from deep has been long underrated.

Goudelock is a fair at best athlete at the point (and short for the two), derided by some as a one-dimensional guy (tremendous range). Taller Eddie House is his ceiling. (That would not be a bad player)
Not a bad passer for the two, but the aforementioned d league ast numbers are frankly unimpressive.
   1874. rr Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:30 PM (#4496823)
Heh. When the Lakers drafted Goudelock, I said that I hoped he might be Eddie House. And, I actually think that they should have given him a little more of a chance, because I think Goudelock can be on an NBA roster on the right team.
   1875. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 17, 2013 at 12:09 AM (#4496861)
The 1975 Kentucky Colonels were one hell of a team! Prime Artis Gilmore averaged 24-16 on 58% shooting, and Dan Issel complemented him with 18-9, all while Hubie Brown coached. They were the best defensive team in the ABA and went 13-3 in the playoffs, including a 4-1 finals win over George McGinnis's Indiana Pacers.

I was there! They didn't face the Nets in the playoffs (or the Nuggets for that matter), who I remembered as the other top team in the ABA that year, as some fat bald guy named Don Adams played 1990s-style defense on Julius Erving. I remember hearing a couple of folks rave about how great Adams was for St. Louis during that series, but I wasn't old enough to understand that it had nothing to do with his jump shot.

I live in Indianapolis now, and a couple of years ago I saw Pacers T-shirts that said "Est. 1976." I sent a couple of nasty emails to the Pacers saying I saw them play before that. I am happy to report that now they sell T-shirts that say "Est. 1967."

Now I just need to get the Cardinals to recognize their 1886 world championship...
   1876. The District Attorney Posted: July 17, 2013 at 12:29 AM (#4496870)
some fat bald guy named Don Adams played 1990s-style defense on Julius Erving. I remember hearing a couple of folks rave about how great Adams was for St. Louis during that series, but I wasn't old enough to understand that it had nothing to do with his jump shot.
Which he missed by thaaaaaaat much.
   1877. Booey Posted: July 17, 2013 at 01:27 AM (#4496878)
OTOH, a 30-something guy talking about Walton probably doesn't really know much of anything substantive about Walton's game other than what he can read on Bask Ref and see in a couple of You Tube clips, so maybe Walton brought a lot more to the table than some people today seem to think.


I get that, and I don't dispute those who saw him and think his peak ability was amongst the best ever. But 1977-1978 is just two seasons. Two. It's not even 4 or 5 like the Koufax fanboys swoon over. I've never heard anyone else talked about as an all time great based on two seasons, no matter how great those seasons were.
   1878. rr Posted: July 17, 2013 at 01:43 AM (#4496880)
I am not sure that Walton is "talked about as an all-time great" that much anymore, but to the degree that he is, it would be a combination of the 88-game streak at UCLA, the 21/22 performance in the 1973 NCAA title game, the fact that the Blazers won the first title post-merger against Doctor J's team and were favorites to win another until Walton got hurt, even though their second-best guy was probably Maurice Lucas, and the fact that Walton played on the 1986 Celtics. And, I did see the 1986 Celtics, and Walton wasn't just along for the ride on that team.

So, I think it is fair to say that he had a massive impact on people who saw him in a short time in part due to circumstance and some particularly memorable moments, but also in part due to his own performance in those circumstances.
   1879. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 17, 2013 at 02:18 AM (#4496884)
I get that, and I don't dispute those who saw him and think his peak ability was amongst the best ever. But 1977-1978 is just two seasons. Two. It's not even 4 or 5 like the Koufax fanboys swoon over.
Koufax had six seasons, thank you very much, with three Cy Youngs, an MVP, and two World Series MVPs. Walton would have had to have three times the peak to match Koufax, and if Walton had done so, we would all be putting Walton in our top 50, no questions asked.
   1880. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: July 17, 2013 at 02:46 AM (#4496888)
I am a huge fan of peak for HoF purposes. While being average has value, I think to be really special the question is whether you are pushing your team towards a championship. I would set the minimum bar for a season to have value for this purpose as "better than an average player on an average championship team". Certainly championship teams run out bad players but they rarely run out replacement level players, at least not in any significant number. To take a concrete scenario, suppose you are a league average 3B; how many playoff teams in the average year could you really help? I'd suspect the answer would be something like 2/8 and probably not dramatically. The mark of a HoF caliber player is that he can help almost any team, not that he is useful in the right situation.

In basketball I think the argument is even stronger because of the disproportionate effect one player can have. I would argue that for this kind of historical ranking you should look at whether a player could be a top-two player on a championship-caliber team (say, top-three in league or so). If not, then you're valuable but you're not really an all-time great because you're not really pushing your team towards a championship -- at best you're just fulfilling the role of an average player on the championship team, you don't lose ground at that position but you don't really gain relative to other contenders and I find that to be underwhelming from a greatness standpoint. Especially for this purpose I'd rather have one season of a guy who could be the best player on a championship team (Walton?) than 10 seasons of a guy who's a low-level All-Star (Grant Hill?) because that's just the way the NBA works -- there are a few choices for the supporting cast but you absolutely need that one great player. Financially of course this also makes sense in the current climate because you generate surplus value from guys worth more than the max, but you can't generate any surplus value relative to their cap space from a guy like Joe Johnson or Chris Bosh or Tyreke Evans.

So for an uberstat, I'd set the baseline for WS/48 for a season to be valuable at something like .140. If you have five of these guys you are a 57 win team which is solidly championship caliber. This is the minimum buy-in on average at a position to hold your ground (actually it should be higher if we are looking at average starter since starters have higher WS/48 than bench). If you're above .140 you're pushing your team towards this 57 win target, if you're below .140 you're dragging it down.

If we take this metric -- (WS/48 - .140) * minutes played / 48 on a seasonal basis, call it, I don't know, Wins Towards Championship -- Walton gets points for four seasons

74-75: 0.3
76-77: 3.6
77-78: 2.8
85-86: 0.5

for a total of 7.2 WTC. But the weird thing... Walton's WS/48 is not actually very good. In 76-77 it was just .215. By comparison, David Robinson, ranked one spot below Walton by Simmons (and I think the consensus here is that Robinson is underrated on that list), had a *career* WS/48 of .250. Is this just an artifact of the era / WS/48 formula? Do we think that, say, Grant Hill's '96-'97 season (.223 WS/48) is anywhere near as good as Walton's 76-77? What is going on here?

BTW, Walton "only having 117 starts" is not true -- bb-ref just doesn't have games started data for his early years, though certainly you're ending up with a short career either way.
   1881. rr Posted: July 17, 2013 at 03:14 AM (#4496890)
What is going on here?


One thing is that the other guys were not as bad as some people, like Simmons, have made them out to be. They did collapse in 1978, but while none of them was great, none of them sucked, and Lucas was very good. The 1979 Blazers won 45 games. Walton turned the ball over a lot for a center. His ORTG/DRTG in 1977 was 105/89.

I think the argument for Walton is that he was an elite defensive anchor, a great rebounder, and you could run your offense through him in ways that you couldn't with a typical center, and WS or PER wouldn't really capture all of that. The Blazers were a strong two-way team both those years. His assist percentage in 1978 was 22.8; Lionel Hollins, the Portland PG, was at 19.6. That year was an outlier--but it is also the year people remember.

But a lot of the mystique that the guy had/has was that he did a lot of winning when healthy. Part of that obviously was teammates, but he was also known as a guy who fit into the team as opposed to dominating it, and played the game in a way that allowed people to play off of him and maximize their skills, as opposed to the majestic singularity of guys like Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain. I am not saying that is right, but I think it is how people saw it.
   1882. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4497038)
   1883. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4497071)
Joel Freeland wants to be Nick Collison.


I read that entire article replacing "Collison" with "Collision" and thinking "Nick Collision has got to be one of those 'Chad Johnson changes his name to Ocho Cinco' type deals, right?" Because "Nick Collision" is a great name for a professional wrestler, Jason Statham's next character role, or a sixth man power forward / swing man to pair with Bill Laimbeer and Rick Mahorn when you're just looking to intimidate someone out of the paint.
   1884. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: July 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM (#4497074)
Am I the only person here who does not like WS/48? I'm aware of it, but for all the warts...I prefer PER to WS. I just feel like there are way too many interaction effects for me to figure out when it comes to evaluating guys I did not see play whereas PER I feel like I know its limitations and how to consider them.
   1885. JJ1986 Posted: July 17, 2013 at 10:37 AM (#4497087)
I know the Bucks have 0 use for Gooden, but what is the point of amnestying him? They're well under the cap and can go over the cap to sign Jennings (or acquire players in a Jennings S&T). They can't spend $18 million of cap space.
   1886. AROM Posted: July 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4497095)
Walton for his 2 peak years played a total of just over 4000 minutes. Counting playoffs, about 5000. He probably was as good as any center ever during that time - not by his stats but apparently by his value to the team. That's just an inference from how his team played in games with and without him, it's too bad we don't have on/off numbers to really confirm. Walton's career spanned 13 seasons, 3 of which he didn't play, and 4 others where he didn't play half of his team's games. He played in 44% of possible games during that time.

Hard to find a baseball equivalent of absolute greatness and limited playing time. Eric Davis at his best was certainly one of the best I've ever seen. But he played 17 seasons over an 18 year span, retired at 39, and played 57% of potential games in that time.
   1887. AROM Posted: July 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4497120)
As a proxy for on/off, I have looked at the team record when players are in/out of the lineup for some of the old timers.

For Bill Russell. Celtics were 26-26 when he didn't play. When he did play, an average of around 60 wins per year. Much of that is his rookie year, where the Celtics were 16-8 before he joined them and 28-20 after. Excluding that season, Celtics were only 10-18 when Russell didn't play (with a points scored/allowed that would have suggested a 13-15 record). So Russell was the difference between an average team and a championship team.

Elgin Baylor, 1961-62. He played only 48 games because he was in the army reserve. In the lineup they went 37-11, without him 17-15.

Jerry West, I focused on 1963, 67, 68, and 69 because he missed a good deal of games each year. Record out of the lineup 46-46, in the lineup, 150-82.

Just in case anyone's interested for the top 50 rankings.
   1888. Booey Posted: July 17, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4497131)
Koufax had six seasons, thank you very much


Going purely off memory on that one, but I always thought of Koufax's peak as 1962-1966, with 1962 as having fewer innings than the latter 4 seasons? Don't want to look it up at work, but I'll check later when I get a chance. My memory may be off.
   1889. Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa Posted: July 17, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4497154)
From ESPN:

Now there are just 11 players who are eligible to be amnestied in 2014 due to those moves, trades made in July and players that have expiring contracts after the upcoming season. Here is that list.

Atlanta: Al Horford
Boston: Rajon Rondo
Chicago:Carlos Boozer, Joakim Noah
Memphis: Mike Conley, Zach Randolph
Oklahoma City: Nick Collison, Kevin Durant, Kendrick Perkins
Sacramento: John Salmons
San Antonio: Tony Parker

During the first three years of the new collective bargaining agreement 20 teams have removed just under $400 million in future salaries from the books. The players still get their money, however it no longer is counted towards the salary cap.

2011: amnestied $206,138,893 in guaranteed salaries
2012: amnestied $136,395,446 in guaranteed salaries
2013: amnestied $56,584,725 in guaranteed salaries


Seems like Boozer is a lock to be amnestied next year. And unless something crazy happens, I see only Salmons and Perkins (or maybe Collison) potentially joining him.
   1890. kpelton Posted: July 17, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4497370)
Oklahoma City has been pretty insistent about not using amnesty on anyone. Sounds like ownership is philosophically opposed to paying players not to play for them.
   1891. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 17, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4497380)
The rest of the league is grateful.

I tend to start by using PER and self adjusting as well. If that weren't an option, I'd probably prefer WS/48.
There's no one end all uber-stat, though.
   1892. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: July 17, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4497433)
I'm sure the bulls already have the paperwork filled out for Boozer next year
   1893. Booey Posted: July 17, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4497456)
I tend to start by using PER and self adjusting as well. If that weren't an option, I'd probably prefer WS/48.
There's no one end all uber-stat, though.


What do y'all think about regular win shares? Aren't they a good counting stat since games played factors heavily into the totals?

I'm relatively new to the SABR type basketball stats, but aren't WS/48 and PER both rate stats that can be skewed up or down because of playing time?
   1894. AROM Posted: July 17, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4497482)
I prefer WS too PER because I think it strikes the better balance between volume and efficiency. I know this is just one example, but:

Carlos Boozer 17.1 PER, .108 WS48
Jimmy Butler 15.2 PER, .158 WS48

Neither stat is accounting for much of their relative defensive ability. You can probably find examples of 2 players where the one with a better PER and worse WS48 is actually the better player, but I think the Boozer/Butler situation is more common. I suspect that WS48 would correlate better to on/off than PER does.

On/off is not the end all stat either. It needs to be adjusted for teammates (of course Chalmers, playing with Lebron and Wade and sitting when they sit, is going to have a great on/off). Once you get into the complex adjustments you run into sample size issues. But I really like on/off in the aggregate. It can help answer questions like this:

I have a guy who blocks 3 shots a game. He may alter many more shots. What is his impact on the court?

So take a group of player-seasons average between 2.5 and 3.5 blocks per game, and see what the typical change in oppenent FG% or ORTG is for that group. Doing this can estimate the true value of various stats.

When I look at players I look at WS48 and on/off, but also try to think about specific skills for the role the player needs to play. I don't have much use for PER, I don't think it tells me anything useful that the other stats don't.
   1895. AROM Posted: July 17, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4497487)
What do y'all think about regular win shares? Aren't they a good counting stat since games played factors heavily into the totals?


I think it's a decent counting stat. I think it would be cool to come up with a version that used on/off as a component of defensive win shares. Not sure if anyone has tried that.
   1896. andrewberg Posted: July 17, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4497494)
What do y'all think about regular win shares? Aren't they a good counting stat since games played factors heavily into the totals?

I'm relatively new to the SABR type basketball stats, but aren't WS/48 and PER both rate stats that can be skewed up or down because of playing time?


A guy with a high PER or WS/48 and fewer minutes is obviously less valuable than someone with an equal rate stat and more playing time, but when we are talking about career rate stats for all-time greats, there are very few guys whose rate stats are going to be skewed way higher by playing fewer minutes. Unlike baseball, it is very difficult to manage matchups in such a way that the rate stats would be inflated. I would discount the PER for someone like Ginobili slightly because he got more rest and added less total value, but I would not throw it out entirely.

The thing that stands out to me in doing some of this ranking research is that there are more guys who piled up counting stats to make them look better than they really were than guys who have rate stats that obscure their value. This point might be more of a proxy for the peak vs. career distinctions unique to basketball. I mentioned Havlicek yesterday, but guys like Elvin Hayes, Hal Greer, and Ray Allen all piled up WS without ever being so good that they could carry a team.
   1897. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: July 17, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4497500)
I prefer WS too PER because I think it strikes the better balance between volume and efficiency. I know this is just one example, but:

Carlos Boozer 17.1 PER, .108 WS48
Jimmy Butler 15.2 PER, .158 WS48


And I would simply look at their PER and say, well Boozer is an awful defender and Butler is a great one so even though Boozer has a PER advantage I'm fairly certain that's wiped out by their defensive capabilities. I like that PER is sort of directly related to the individual players production and then I can (try to) make mental adjustments for players defensive abilities and how PERs inherent biases (yay volume shooters) affects their PER. With WS48 I get uncomfortable because (and I'm hoping someone corrects me if I'm wrong) isn't it pretty much just the team's Ortg/Drtg while the player is On/Off the court rolled into one number? It may not be so much that I am a fan of PER as it is that I have a better handle of its limitations and what exactly it is telling me or attempting to tell me.
   1898. AROM Posted: July 17, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4497514)
Win shares has nothing to do with on/off ratings. I can be figured from boxscore stats. The offensive rating is a player's own shooting, passing, and turnovers. The defensive rating includes steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds, but a lot of the rating just comes from playing on a good defensive team.

Boozer actually had more defensive WS than Butler, because he grabbed a lot of rebounds for a good defensive team. WS48 is overrating Boozer and underrating Butler. PER overrates Boozer even more.
   1899. nick swisher hygiene Posted: July 17, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4497538)
what is Perkins' role in the NBA of 2013? who are the elite offensive centers he's supposed to neutralize? (I mean, even assuming he's still an elite defender against said type of centers...) Marc Gasol? Hibbert in some hypothetical finals? what is the possible argument for a team as smart as OKC keeping him around?

   1900. rr Posted: July 17, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4497561)
flip
Page 19 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB creates pace of game committee
(71 - 4:22am, Sep 23)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(217 - 3:48am, Sep 23)
Last: Srul Itza At Home

NewsblogMLB: Braves fire GM Frank Wren; John Hart to take over interim position
(138 - 3:00am, Sep 23)
Last: DFA

NewsblogESPN (Crasnick): Free-agent missteps led to demise of Atlanta’s Frank Wren
(13 - 2:39am, Sep 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogRays missing out shows how tough it is to consistently reach playoffs
(17 - 2:31am, Sep 23)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-22-2014
(126 - 2:26am, Sep 23)
Last: Joey B. "disrespects the A"

NewsblogMets near extension with GM Alderson
(13 - 2:20am, Sep 23)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogRoyals encounter problem with online sale of playoff tickets
(46 - 2:04am, Sep 23)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogJoe Girardi: ‘Pitch the right way’
(64 - 1:27am, Sep 23)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(215 - 1:09am, Sep 23)
Last: SouthSideRyan

NewsblogChad | Have a heart! Root for the Royals
(31 - 11:53pm, Sep 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

Newsblog10 teams that will soon face Jeter-like consquences with stars
(18 - 11:48pm, Sep 22)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8055 - 11:35pm, Sep 22)
Last: Kurt

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(364 - 11:31pm, Sep 22)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3449 - 10:33pm, Sep 22)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

Page rendered in 0.6934 seconds
75 querie(s) executed