I also wish something could be changed about the end of games. Two rules I would immediately implement: No advancing the ball after a timeout (you have the ball under your own basket, and then suddenly get to inbound 3/4 of the way up the court? Ridiculous.) And no back-to-back timeouts.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what would work best. Some kind of a limit, like you can only call a TO once every X seconds/minutes.

I've seen Stern make comments about how much better the ends of games flowed many years ago. Don't know if he's serious about actually trying to revive that however.

Houston's leading scorer in the last game was Von Wafer

Who was that? Moses, do you know this guy? He must have meant Luther Head or Dee Brown or something.

Not sure if you're serious or if I'm not getting the joke. Just to be safe: Von Wafer.

I always maintain that BTF is at its most interesting when people aren't talking about baseball.

Then this is the site for you!

tshipman, Backlasher has long touted Wafer - I remember debating his merits with him on the thread associated with the NBA Draft the year he came out.

Yes, you're jaded. The Magic have more talent, more size, and better coaching than the Bulls. That, and they're also young and will be much more rested than the Celtics. It took everything Boston had to get out of that series, and even though Orlando didn't have a great series, it was a lot easier than the Celtics'.

Unless Pierce all of a sudden turns back into the player he was during the Finals last year, they're ######. He turned into that guy for a couple quarters during the Bulls series (like the first quarter of game 3, and the 4th/OT in game 5), but couldn't sustain that for an entire game. Salmons isn't that good defensively, and Hinrich is 5 inches shorter and 40 pounds smaller yet they contained Pierce for long stretches. Pierce did most of his damage, damn near all of it, on jumpers right over those guys. Those jumpers will be harder when it's Lewis or Hedo in front of him.

And you're really underestimating how good Alston is defensively, and the HUGE gap between Rose and Alston. Rondo is still a good player, but his numbers are going to be much closer to his season totals than the ridiculous numbers he put up against Rose.

We shall see. I don't get the Rafer Alston love. I imagine he'll have two fouls on him within a few minutes of trying to guard Rondo. Hedo is going to guard Paul Pierce? Old ass Hedo Turkoglu with a bad wheel? I think the Celtics would love that match up.

And I'm still waiting for KG to pull a Willis Reed...

And I'm still waiting for KG to pull a Willis Reed...

I hope this happens, if only for the inevitability of Dwight Howard dunking all over him.

I can't stand KG.

He turned into that guy for a couple quarters during the Bulls series (like the first quarter of game 3, and the 4th/OT in game 5), but couldn't sustain that for an entire game.

I would not expect Pierce to turn into NCAA 86 Danny Manning. Pierce has been in that position before, with the Celtics and with Team USA. Inevitably, he comes out way too high to meet the ball (like Kobe of three years ago), tries to back his defender from too far out (and doesn't have enough strength to do it) and totally misses the double team coming from the non-ball side.

The defenseless Bulls wrapped him like a cheap burrito in Game 6 by the same means.

Pierce plays best either in a deep post or catching the ball facing the basket from even deeper.

I've never really taken to Ben Gordon. While he impresses me more and more every year with his offense, I just think he gives up so much on the defensive end, mainly because of his height but also because if he expended more effort defensively it might hurt his offense. I should note that I'm (more or less) completely ignorant of the more advanced statistics regarding BG and am just going off of observation.

So I guess my questions are -- do the stats fit or go against my observation that BG gives a lot of his offense back on the defensive end and, if so, can the Bulls really afford to trudge ahead with not one but two poor defensive guards (from reading the thread and other places I take it that Rose didn't have a particularly stellar defensive year although there's a chance that that's just a fluke -- he's obviously quite athletic so the poor defense may not hold true going forward)?

Yes, they tend to agree with your observations. For years, BG was the only guy on the Bulls who could create his own shot, and that in turn helped create offense for the other players (just because he got all the defensive attention, not because he actively created shots). He tried harder on defense this season, but once he tweaked his hamstring in game4 he gave up. Any time the Celtics went to screen him, he let his guy go free. He really should be paired with a big PG (Rose is big, but not big or good enough to guard SGs all the time). Also, he tried to handle the ball more than he should. He can't really create shots for anyone else, so he really needs to play off the ball more than he did this year.

But now the Bulls have a potential star PG who is an excellent creator and has the ability to finish. Salmons also can create his own shot. So the Bulls don't need to resign BG. Moving Salmons to the 2 and putting Deng back at the 3 would significantly improve the defense and rebouding just because of the size differences. They'd need to add another 2/3 guy off the bench who can shoot 3, but they can absorb to hit to their offense.

Rose has the talent to be a good defender (look at the blocked shots he had on Rondo is game 6 and Scalabrine in game 7), it's just a matter of coaching and experience. He will improve just by playing more, but he needs to work on it a lot. And he will, I believe.

I guess I'm the outlier on the Celtics-Magic series. This current Magic team is mightily unimpressive to me. I expect it to take 6, because this depleted Celtics team is incapable of out and out dominating anyone, but I don't expect this to be one of the closer series in this round. We can talk about Dwight Howard all day (rightfully so- he's a beast), but Boston's backcourt advantage is at least as big.

The one guy that concerns me is Rashard Lewis, as Boston doesn't have a good fit to guard him, so I expect that to be Orlando's big advantage.

Houston's leading scorer in the last game was Von Wafer

Who was that? Moses, do you know this guy? He must have meant Luther Head or Dee Brown or something.

Way to take that so far out of context it looks like a compliment. Of course, he's been great for Houston this year and made Head totally expendable.

I can't stand KG.

Oh I agree. I can't stand the guy. For someone that talks a lot of smack, he sure does disappear in the 4th quarter of big games.

I got so sick of seeing all those commercials last year about what a "winner" Kevin Garnett was. Ummm...until Paul Pierce single handedly willed that team to beating the Cavs and Lakers, KG was nothing more than a #### talking loser. The guy didn't even win in HIGH SCHOOL for God's sake, please don't tell me what a winner he is. For what? Passing on open jumpers in the 4th quarter so Paul Pierce can take a contested jumper with two guys on him? Please, he was one step removed from Tracy McGrady-esque failure until Pierce bailed his ass out last year.

It would make sense to take the ball out of bounds. A new possession could be worth more than two Dudley free throws.

Right --- and the team with the lead would probably take the ball again late in the game -- the clock is their enemy at that point. The point of fouling the other team when behind is to get the ball back before too much time expires while going for a steal. Without mandatory free throws, the end of a somewhat close game would be a nightmare of hacks and inbound passes.

For someone that talks a lot of smack, he sure does disappear in the 4th quarter of big games.

Oh whatever -- do we really need to have the "runs in the 1st inning count the same as 9th inning runs" discussion regarding basketball, too?

The point of fouling the other team when behind is to get the ball back before too much time expires while going for a steal.

Which is what bugs me about basketball. It shouldn't be preferable to foul someone than not to foul him.

But now the Bulls have a potential star PG who is an excellent creator

If you mean the ability to create his own shot, sure, however, if you're trying to say create for others...I disagree. Rose struck me as a piss poor passer in this series. Seemed like he decided what he was going to do as he headed up the court and then could not change that course of action until the very end, which resulted in some weak looking passes and far too much jumping in the air without knowing where he would throw the ball. YMMV

I always maintain that BTF is at its most interesting when people aren't talking about baseball.

Then this is the site for you!

Yeah, no kidding. That seems to have pretty much become the natural state around here.

Looking at the sidebar and seeing that the two biggest threads by far are about the business struggles of newspapers and the NBA playoffs convinces me even more that baseball just isn't that interesting to most people.

Which is what bugs me about basketball. It shouldn't be preferable to foul someone than not to foul him.

Which is what bugs me about baseball. It shouldn't be preferable to walk someone that to pitch to him. It shouldn't be preferable to turn around the switch-hitter than to pitch to him straight up. Etc.

Looking at the sidebar and seeing that the two biggest threads by far are about the business struggles of newspapers and the NBA playoffs convinces me even more that baseball just isn't that interesting to most people.

To be fair, the big newspaper thread is really just Andy and Nieporent yelling at each other.

I don't get the Rafer Alston love.

Even though he can make some very confusing and terrible offensive choices, he's a very good defensive player. And Rondo, while good, only was *this* good in the 7 games he played against Rose. Yes, he's an All-Star level PG, but he looked like an inner circle HOFer this series and that's just not his actual talent level.

If you mean the ability to create his own shot, sure, however, if you're trying to say create for others...I disagree. Rose struck me as a piss poor passer in this series. Seemed like he decided what he was going to do as he headed up the court and then could not change that course of action until the very end, which resulted in some weak looking passes and far too much jumping in the air without knowing where he would throw the ball. YMMV

Rose had a high assist rate during his year at Memphis despite not dominating the ball due to Douglas-Roberts presence in particular and the Dribble-Drive Motion offense in general, I'd be surprised if he doesn't improve that part of his game over the next couple of seasons.

It shouldn't be preferable to walk someone that to pitch to him.

It generally isn't - I firmly believe that the intentional walk is the most overused strategy in the game, by a factor of four or five. It really only benefits a team maybe a dozen times a season, as opposed to fouling someone in basketball, which is a benefit probably a half-dozen times a game.

It shouldn't be preferable to turn around the switch-hitter than to pitch to him straight up.

Why not?

In any case, this is non-responsive.

Everyone slagging Rose should remember that he was a first year PG. Typically takes a while to get used to the NBA game for a point. I would imagine in a couple years he'll be a lot more dangerous passer.

If you mean the ability to create his own shot, sure, however, if you're trying to say create for others...I disagree. Rose struck me as a piss poor passer in this series. Seemed like he decided what he was going to do as he headed up the court and then could not change that course of action until the very end, which resulted in some weak looking passes and far too much jumping in the air without knowing where he would throw the ball. YMMV

He's 20. He had a phenominal series all things considered, and part of the maturation process is learning when to pass, when to shoot, and when not to jump in the air. Of course, I completely disagree with your assessment of his performance this series in the first place (the turnovers and defense are huge problems, I agree, but from what he know about his personality and drive it's something he's going to focus on improving). He's not as pure of a passer as Chris Paul, but Chris Paul was still in college at the same age. Rose is arguably the best athlete at the PG in the NBA right now, and he's already leaps and bounds ahead of where other PGs were at this age.

I've seen others use it on this site - I thought it may have crossed into our parlance. Sorry.

I like it now that I know what it is.

This may be my bias talking, but I never liked Ollie much.

I just bring him up becuase he's one of the only pro athletes I converse with.

To be fair, the big newspaper thread is really just Andy and Nieporent yelling at each other.

True, and I know I can't possibly be the only person here who's getting tired of those two and the love-hate relationship they have going.

True, and I know I can't possibly be the only person here who's getting tired of those two and the love-hate relationship they have going.

I think that they like each other more than either would care to admit.

He's 20. He had a phenominal series all things considered, and part of the maturation process is learning when to pass, when to shoot, and when not to jump in the air. Of course, I completely disagree with your assessment of his performance this series in the first place (the turnovers and defense are huge problems, I agree, but from what he know about his personality and drive it's something he's going to focus on improving). He's not as pure of a passer as Chris Paul, but Chris Paul was still in college at the same age. Rose is arguably the best athlete at the PG in the NBA right now, and he's already leaps and bounds ahead of where other PGs were at this age.

To clarify, I think Rose is good now and has the potential to be excellent. I was just attempting to highlight some areas where I feel he could improve.

Everyone slagging Rose should remember that he was a first year PG. Typically takes a while to get used to the NBA game for a point. I would imagine in a couple years he'll be a lot more dangerous passer.

I hope no one is slagging Rose. He is the player that Jason Williams should have become. For those that state he presently isn't a plus defender, they are correct. For those that say, he presently can become turnover prone, they are correct. But there is a very, very short list of teams where he would not be getting major minutes at the PG slot.

The Bulls have been an enigmatic team They have had solid looking talent for a few years. The Skiles problems were evident and well reported. I'll leave the Del Negro evaluations to the local middle west guys. I didn't think he was horrible, given what he had. I thought he ran pretty good schemes to stop Pierce. But, I don't know what he did year in and year out.

The Bulls are going to hit an afforadability problem with Gordon, Hinrich, and Rose pretty soon. I presume its going to be Gordon that feels the pinch because of the expiring contract.

Rose's rookie stats compare favorably with Paul's, who was older as Moses noted. I find it hard to imagine that Rose will ever be the same distributor that Paul is now based on his aggressiveness going to the basket (hard to find guys while barreling to the rim), and based on how much more of a distributor Paul was in college, but I think Rose has a higher ceiling as a scorer. I think it's possible that he could have a stat line resembling AI's MVP season on offense while being able to play good defense at the same time. That would make him a top 5 NBA player.

I will spend hours arguing with anyone about KG. My love for him goes beyond anything I have for any other athlete or institution in any sport. I grew up a Minnesota fan in the mid-90s. Even though my dad tried to introduce basketball to me through Christian Laehtner (I don't respect anyone from Duke enough to bother learning proper spelling), it never really clicked until I saw Garnett going insane on every play. My first NBA game was a Wolves-Nuggets game that went to overtime. Neither team was good, but Garnett got about 30 loose balls and refused to let his team lose. For years, I used a mental picture of his intensity and commitment to inspire me to work whenever I felt burned out or tired. I watched 26 out of Boston's 27 playoff games last year (missed one to see Lebron play live in DC) and had my strongest emotional reaction to a sport when he yelped "this is for everybody in Sota." Of the rest of the team, my feelings range from loathing to strongly disliking every player but Ray Allen, but I still cheered relentlessly for them to beat Chicago because KG was on the sidelines. His commitment is so thorough and genuine that it bothers me when people say he's too intense. He's like a non-tainted Pete Rose who is actually good.

The Bulls are going to hit an afforadability problem with Gordon, Hinrich, and Rose pretty soon. I presume its going to be Gordon that fills the pinch because of the expiring contract.

I don't really follow, but the consensus in Chicago is that Gordon is as good as gone.

Rose's rookie stats compare favorably with Paul's, who was older as Moses noted. I find it hard to imagine that Rose will ever be the same distributor that Paul is now based on his aggressiveness going to the basket (hard to find guys while barreling to the rim), and based on how much more of a distributor Paul was in college, but I think Rose has a higher ceiling as a scorer. I think it's possible that he could have a stat line resembling AI's MVP season on offense while being able to play good defense at the same time. That would make him a top 5 NBA player.

Paul is one of the three best players in the league. It's pretty hard to argue that Rose, as good a rookie year that he had, will reach that level. Paul also rebounds exceptionally well for a PG.

I find it hard to imagine that Rose will ever be the same distributor that Paul is now based on his aggressiveness going to the basket (hard to find guys while barreling to the rim), and based on how much more of a distributor Paul was in college, but I think Rose has a higher ceiling as a scorer. I think it's possible that he could have a stat line resembling AI's MVP season on offense while being able to play good defense at the same time.

I don't want to repeat too much from another poster, but was not AIish or Starburyish in college. Rose played pretty much played a regular PG and found shots for all his teammates. (Tyreke Evans played a lot more Starburyish this year). He looked for his shot more in the NCAA tournament, but that was not his normal game.

IMHO, goes to the basket for his shot b/c he is not yet a plus spot up shooter. When he develops this part of his game, I think he will be less likely to run to the rim to generate offense. He will have more weapons and be able to survail the court much better.

He will also improve once he has a different set option than Hinrich and Gordon, who either shoot from another zip code or create their own shot after the pass. Deng could become Rose's West.

Rose has only used 1 year of his rookie contract, Hinrich's contract goes 3 more years for $26.5mil, and Gordon is an UFA this season. Gordon is most likely gone, unless the economy and greatness of the 2010 FA class keeps him below the MLE mark. In that case, the Bulls will resign him and try to deal Hinrich.

Deng could become Rose's West.

This is what my hope is. Deng didn't fit in early, but that's because VDN's offense appeared to simply be "create your own shot" and Deng can't do that. Then Deng came around and the pick and roll offense started clicking and Deng got hurt.

It's pretty hard to argue that Rose, as good a rookie year that he had, will reach that level. Paul also rebounds exceptionally well for a PG.

They're different types of players. Because of Rose's size and finishing ability, he's going to be the better scorer and has the talent to be a better on the ball defender. Paul is a purer passer, but Rose's FG% was 47.5% this season, Paul shot 43% and 43.7% his first 2 seasons. They really aren't good comparisons, but they could be the two best PGs of this generation (Paul's already there, Rose has a ways to go but the potential is there).

I submitted this thread (first time I have ever submitted anything) Saturday right after the Boston/Chicago game, and then was away from computers until now--I logged on wondering if it had drawn many comments.

\And I'm still waiting for KG to pull a Willis Reed...

I said this about two weeks ago using almost identical words including "pull." I think we will see him late in the Orlando series or in Game 1 of the ECF if Boston beats Orlando. I think either Orlando closes it in 6, or Boston pushes it to 7 and wins. If there is a Game 7, that is when we see Garnett suit up after a bunch of rumors/speculation the day before.

They're different types of players. Because of Rose's size and finishing ability, he's going to be the better scorer and has the talent to be a better on the ball defender. Paul is a purer passer, but Rose's FG% was 47.5% this season, Paul shot 43% and 43.7% his first 2 seasons. They really aren't good comparisons, but they could be the two best PGs of this generation (Paul's already there, Rose has a ways to go but the potential is there).

Isn't this where some deranged Utah fan butts in?

The thing is, do you really expect Rose to shoot 60%? CP improved his shooting, and it helped his game tremendously, but Rose can't really improve it that much more. I think he's much more likely to be a more traditional point type. I just don't think he can be as good as CP, because CP is the best small guard ever. Better than Isaiah, better than Stockton, etc. Comparing small guards to CP is like comparing shooting guards to MJ.

Because of Rose's size and finishing ability, he's going to be the better scorer and has the talent to be a better on the ball defender. Paul is a purer passer, but Rose's FG% was 47.5% this season, Paul shot 43% and 43.7% his first 2 seasons.

Rose had a TS% of 51.6, Paul as a rookie was 54.6.

TS% True Shooting Percentage calculates what a player’s shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = (Total points x 50) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]

Paul also rebounds exceptionally well for a PG.

I think the Rose/Paul contrast is a matter of taste that hasn't yet been statistically quantified due to the difficulty with team accounting. Paul rebounds well with a hobbled C- backed up by utter stiffs- and a PF who never goes near the hoop. Rose is actually built to be able to get rebounds. He can jump like crazy: the jumper he blocked on Rondo and the fast break dunk where he ducked under the backboard demonstrate that. He has upper body strength that Paul doesn't have and gets more rebounds in traffic. I love Paul, but I think he gets a lot of cheap rebounds when his teammates are retreating. Maybe it speaks to their deference to him as a strong leader, but I don't think it proves his power as a PG.

On defense, I think the issue is similar. Paul gambles like crazy and forces teammates to help. Rose hasn't fully developed, but I think he has a better chance to become a lockdown one-on-one guy who can occasionally switch to guard a talented 2- a skill which Paul will never have. How useful Paul's gambling style is can be debated all day- does forcing rotation open up other guys or lead to turnovers? does the number of steals and the easy shots they create compensate for missed assignments?- but my personal preference in playing and in rooting is to see defenders stay in front and contest every shot, then rebound.

I don't want to repeat too much from another poster, but he is not AI, Starburyish, if you saw him in college. Rose played pretty much played a regular PG and found shots for all his teammates. (Tyreke Evans played a lot more Starburyish this year). He looked for his shot more in the NCAA tournament, but that was not his normal game.

Rose played a really unique role at Memphis in that he was, at times, not the focal point of the offense or even the primary ball handler. CDR was so well suited to dominate the college game with his length and smooth-ness that he would dominate in the half court. It's kind of ironic that Del Negro (VDN?) allows Gordon to do the same thing in the half court even though it's relatively far less effective. What I'm getting at is that I think Rose would have looked for his shot more if given the opportunity. I don't think he's selfish; I think he understands that nobody can stop him. Evans is more selfish and takes more bad shots, but I think the difference has more to do with shot selection than ability to distribute.

IMHO, goes to the basket for his shot b/c he is not yet a plus spot up shooter. When he develops this part of his game, I think he will be less likely to run to the rim to generate offense. He will have more weapons and be able to survail the court much better.

Agreed. When he was making jumpers in the second quarter of game seven, Chicago was looking great.

He will also improve once he has a different set option than Hinrich and Gordon, who either shoot from another zip code or create their own shot after the pass. Deng could become Rose's West.

That's interesting to me. Every time Deng starts (reportedly) playing well enough for me to want to start following him, he gets hurt or something. I just haven't seen him play well consistently enough to believe that he could be a borderline AS, but I'm open to the idea, and it would make a pretty fun team to watch.

Which is what bugs me about basketball. It shouldn't be preferable to foul someone than not to foul him.

Most sports that have a timeclock have some means to generate a reasonable opportunity for a trailing team to have a chance against a good team. In Hockey, you can pull the goaltender. In basketball, the means is the nonintentional/intentional foul.

Otherwise, in any clocked sport, the winning team is going to try to preserve their victory by reducing the number of remaining possessions and milking the clock. If you don't allow for some means, a team will ice the puck, 4 corner the game, etc.

Basketball has the means to prevent this from occuring. Intentional fouls should be free throws AND the basketball. But, it makes no sense to enforce this rule (beyond flagrants, which the NCAA won't even enforce on its stars like that old guy that use to be at Ohio State).

Other means is to reduce the time on the shot clock: during the game or at the end of the game. However, that also has unintended consequences. FWIW, I think most NBA fans have no problem with fouls and half court progressions. Its part of the game and its appreciated as a strategic element. I also don't think those rules are what prevent new fans from joining. Fans that don't like stoppage of play aren't going to like the final two minutes anyway b/c its always going to have the highest non time clock action in close games. You would have to eliminate all controllable stoppages of play to prevent that occurence.

Moreover, I generally hate rule changes/enforcements that are built to draw new fans. That usually leads to the "no fouls on superstars" and "Jordan can walk/do what he wants/ whenever he has the ball"

Rose had a TS% of 51.6, Paul as a rookie was 54.6.

That highlights a problem with TS%, since that just seems wrong. Rose shot much better overall, but slightly worse at FT and 3pts (and neither took a whole lot of 3s, but Paul did take a lot more). eFG% for Paul rookie year was 45.6% (46.5% 2nd year) and Rose was at 48.2% this year. And Paul was a lot better the last 2 seasons than his first 2.

Isn't this where some deranged Utah fan butts in?

As an Illini alum, I'm well aware of him (and how much Utah fans overrate him). Rose is going to be better.

The thing is, do you really expect Rose to shoot 60%? CP improved his shooting, and it helped his game tremendously, but Rose can't really improve it that much more. I think he's much more likely to be a more traditional point type. I just don't think he can be as good as CP, because CP is the best small guard ever. Better than Isaiah, better than Stockton, etc. Comparing small guards to CP is like comparing shooting guards to MJ.

No, but that he shot that well this year without having a consistent jump shot blows my mind. I think he'll be able to shoot around 55% once he gets a jumper and improve his shot selection. And you're right there's a distinction between the 2 because Rose has 3-5 inches on Paul. I think that's in Rose's favor, and that Paul is this good already is amazing. If Rose maximizes his talent, he'll be better than Paul. I don't think it's likely that he will, but he could be because of the difference in their bodies. By all accounts, Rose really want to improve his game. But let's see what happens next season and let's see if he keeps working to get better like all great players do.

Which is what bugs me about basketball. It shouldn't be preferable to foul someone than not to foul him.

intentional walk in baseball

intentional pass interference in football (esp college)

tripping a guy to prevent a breakaway in hockey/soccer

headbutting a guy to get him to stop crowding in boxing

logging into another team's account and benching his players in fantasy sports


... ok that's a stretch.

That's interesting to me. Every time Deng starts (reportedly) playing well enough for me to want to start following him, he gets hurt or something. I just haven't seen him play well consistently enough to believe that he could be a borderline AS, but I'm open to the idea, and it would make a pretty fun team to watch.

Good post. This is a perception that is starting to dog Deng. He's averaging 67 games a year (in that ballpark, I did the math a couple of days ago so it might be off a couple of games). His injuries are not the recurring type (torn wrist ligament, leg fracture, post concussion syndrome), so I don't think of him a a walking injury risk like Oden or Bynum. And you must have completely missed 2006-2007 when he played all 82 games and had a 18.8/7.1/2.5 on 51.7% shooting and the Bulls swept the Heat out of the playoffs (in the playoffs, he averaged 22.2/8.7/2.4 on 52.4% shooting - as a 22 year old). The Bulls were a very slow, methodical team that year so adjusting for pace would only increase those number. He was definitely a borderline AS that season, and he's still only 24 years old. Add that to the plus defense and size for the 3 slot. He's a great 2nd banana type.

tripping a guy to prevent a breakaway in hockey/soccer

That would be pretty cool, if a common foul was a 30 second penalty but you had a jump ball in the offensive end of the court.

I've watched the NBA, and even the CBA when the worldwide leader use to televise the games, try so many things to limit the effectiveness of the fouling strategy. I use to like the 3 to make 2 bonus. The problem is that it negated the ability of a losing team to come back, which tends to drive away fans rather than bring them to the game.

The new insult would be, "Why watch the NBA. The team that is winning after 3 quarters always wins. The last quarter should have meaning like Rivera versus _______ at the end of games."

No, but that he shot that well this year without having a consistent jump shot blows my mind. I think he'll be able to shoot around 55% once he gets a jumper and improve his shot selection. And you're right there's a distinction between the 2 because Rose has 3-5 inches on Paul. I think that's in Rose's favor, and that Paul is this good already is amazing. If Rose maximizes his talent, he'll be better than Paul. I don't think it's likely that he will, but he could be because of the difference in their bodies. By all accounts, Rose really want to improve his game. But let's see what happens next season and let's see if he keeps working to get better like all great players do.

Point taken on the TS%. The question I then have is...is it possible to be better than Paul? I don't mean that to be snarky, it just seems that Paul is operating at such a historically high level that the thought of someone being a better PG almost seems absurd.

I would also be curious to see the list of guards who've shot over 50% on anywhere near a consistent basis as I don't think that's a realistic goal. In other words, Rose's shot may get better and this may open up his offensive game some, but I don't think his FG% will change much, because he would be substituting jumpers for drives.

If Rose maximizes his talent, he'll be better than Paul. I don't think it's likely that he will, but he could be because of the difference in their bodies. By all accounts, Rose really want to improve his game. But let's see what happens next season and let's see if he keeps working to get better like all great players do.

Get him on the Olympic team and let him see Kobe's routine. I hate Kobe, but that exposure sure seemed to elevate Lebron and Wade to a different level.


On an entirely irrelevant note, isn't it odd that so many great players have first names for last names? Bryant, James, Wade, Roy, Paul, Howard, Duncan, Allen. I don't want to think about this for very long, but Jordan and Russell come to mind in the historical division.

Point taken on the TS%. The question I then have is...is it possible to be better than Paul? I don't mean that to be snarky, it just seems that Paul is operating at such a historically high level that the thought of someone being a better PG almost seems absurd.

Sure. I don't think anyone thought anyone could be better than Jordan, but LeBron might be getting there. Take similar talent and drive and put it in a bigger and/or better athlete and you get a better player. I don't see any reason why Rose can't do similar things to Paul, but easier because he's stronger, bigger, and more athletic.

That's why I said it wasn't likely, but Rose's ceiling is higher than what Paul is doing now. The odds are against it though.

Rose's shot may get better and this may open up his offensive game some, but I don't think his FG% will change much, because he would be substituting jumpers for drives.

Yes, that is what I have called "Carmeloization"; the player will get better, but most every known statistic will show that the player is not as good as they use to be.

Rose will be better by:

(1) Improving his jump shot
(a) This will lead to a decrease in FG% and probably most efficiency measures in advance stats. That is because they will not baseline what Rose would shoot/efficintize against a Nuggets, Spurs, Rockets type playoff team.
(2) Making the right pass on most possession
(a) This will lead to a decrease in assists. It should show up some in the efficiency type stats.
(3) Reducing turnovers
This will show up in advanced metrics, but will be missed in standard metrics.

No, but that he shot that well this year without having a consistent jump shot blows my mind. I think he'll be able to shoot around 55% once he gets a jumper and improve his shot selection. And you're right there's a distinction between the 2 because Rose has 3-5 inches on Paul. I think that's in Rose's favor, and that Paul is this good already is amazing. If Rose maximizes his talent, he'll be better than Paul. I don't think it's likely that he will, but he could be because of the difference in their bodies. By all accounts, Rose really want to improve his game. But let's see what happens next season and let's see if he keeps working to get better like all great players do.

Parker has a bad jump shot and shoots a great percentage because all he does is drive to the hoop. Having a good jump shot typically doesn't improve your shooting percentage. Being the second option and focusing on driving to the basket does. If Rose is this Bulls team's primary option, that means he's the one taking shots in the last 5 seconds of the 24. Those shots bring down your shooting percentage. It's harder to have a good TS% as "the man" on a team, unless you're a big guy.

If Rose is this Bulls team's primary option, that means he's the one taking shots in the last 5 seconds of the 24. Those shots bring down your shooting percentage. It's harder to have a good TS% as "the man" on a team, unless you're a big guy.

Good point, and Rose did suffer from that a lot this season. Because of the Bulls uneven offense during the season, and the ball ended up back in Rose's hand. He took and missed a lot of jumpers this season, open jumpers, and I expect him to get better on those. Like someone pointed out upthread, he also drove into the lane without a purpse and ended up shooting a lot of bad close shots. I expect him to improve on those, mostly because he'll make better decisions but also because he'll improve those shots as well. Rose had lots of 7 for 18 type games this season, but also a fair number of 10 for 14 types. He'll have more of the 2nd type as he gets smarter and as plays with his teammates more.

Not haven't palyed the game beyond one on one in the driveway, some of the lingo isn't as familiar to me as it is to others. I assume creating your own shot means getting open via your own ballhandling as opposed to getting open without the ball, but I wasn't 100% sure.

Re: 150

Yes.

I assume creating your own shot means getting open via your own ballhandling as opposed to getting open without the ball, but I wasn't 100% sure.

Correct.

Not haven't palyed the game beyond one on one in the driveway, some of the lingo isn't as familiar to me as it is to others. I assume creating your own shot means getting open via your own ballhandling as opposed to getting open without the ball, but I wasn't 100% sure.

In the NBA, creating your own shot is somewhat of a term of art. Big men typically aren't considered eligible, since they rely on a post entry pass. Basically, it's the idea that a player can hold the ball at half court, against a set defense and get a shot that has a reasonable chance at going in--40% or so. It's considered highly valuable because there's less of an opportunity to fast break in the playoffs and because teams can play a ball denial defense against a big in the last two minutes of a close game fairly effectively. The best exemplars of this trait can do it against a double team.

See Jordan, Michael; James, LeBron; Bryant, Kobe.

See Jordan, Michael; James, LeBron; Bryant, Kobe.

As opposed to the less valuable "create your own turnover" ability. See: Lou, Skip to my; aka Alston, Rafer.

To his credit, Rafer has come a long way...

His commitment is so thorough and genuine that it bothers me when people say he's too intense. He's like a non-tainted Pete Rose who is actually good.

I meant to comment on this before, but got sidetracked once we started talking about Rose. I've always like KG as well, and I appreciate his intensity. What I don't like is what it's turned into this season. There's a fine line between confidence and assholishness, and I felt KG and the Celtics crossed it this season. But that's a personal opinion, so I'm not holding that in particular against him from when he was playing (and it was a HUGE step up from what he used to be like).

What really pissed me off this series was the constant taunting and assholishness behaviour he displayed from the bench. It's one thing to get into the game, and cheer your teammates on. Stuff like this is different and it crosses a line. It's one thing to back up your talk on the court, it's another to be a screaming ######### lunatic on the sidelines. I would have loved to see him play, just so he could either put up or shut up.

A few thoughts:

I expect the Lakers to beat both Houston and Denver (IMO the Nuggets take Dallas in 5 or 6), but the only people who expect it to be "easy" in Lakerland are mostly the same people who still think Kobe is better than LeBron. Houston's pace/defense will keep them in all the games, and that means that they can win. But, to tie it to what is being discussed now, Houston lacks players who can create their own shots. The Lakers do a lot of strong-side double-teaming anyway, so that will be part of the package against Yao. But I will be surprised if it is a walkaway. I think it will take 6 or 7 against both Houston and Denver. This Laker team is very good but not dominant, due mostly to mediocre defense. When Bynum is healthy and they are foucsed they are a good-but-not-great defensive team, but those two things happen at the same time very rarely--hence the problem with blown leads. On the other hand, this team is better than some people think, in that some folks' main opinion of the Lakers are based a lot on Games 4-6 last year's finals. Bynum, when playing well, makes a huge difference, and Trevor Ariza, although he is unknown to fans outside of metropolitan Los Angeles, makes a difference as well as he is active on D on the perimeter, can finish breaks, and has improved his three-point stroke. Shannon Brown, who as a more traditional role player fits the system better than Jordan Farmar does, has helped lately as well.

Oh I agree. I can't stand the guy. For someone that talks a lot of smack, he sure does disappear in the 4th quarter of big games.

I got so sick of seeing all those commercials last year about what a "winner" Kevin Garnett was. Ummm...until Paul Pierce single handedly willed that team to beating the Cavs and Lakers, KG was nothing more than a #### talking loser. The guy didn't even win in HIGH SCHOOL for God's sake, please don't tell me what a winner he is. For what? Passing on open jumpers in the 4th quarter so Paul Pierce can take a contested jumper with two guys on him? Please, he was one step removed from Tracy McGrady-esque failure until Pierce bailed his ass out last year.

No offense, but this strikes me as the same criticism people give A-Rod all the time. Its not KG's fault that Kevin McHale has absolutely no idea how to construct a team.

No offense, but this strikes me as the same criticism people give A-Rod all the time. Its not KG's fault that Kevin McHale has absolutely no idea how to construct a team.

Yes and no. In basketball, it's a lot easier for one player to make enough of a difference to win a series. KG never could do that. He didn't win a series until Cassell and Spreewell got there, which adds to it, since they both had key roles offensively in getting them those wins; same thing in Boston, Pierce and Allen did the scoring for him. He does so many things to help a team win, but he doesn't carry the scoring load so he gets criticized for not picking up the additional scoring necessary to win. There's some truth to how much he defers in the 4th quarter, but it was overblown, IMO.

No offense, but this strikes me as the same criticism people give A-Rod all the time. Its not KG's fault that Kevin McHale has absolutely no idea how to construct a team.

In large part, this criticism is BS. However, in basketball it applies more than any other sport. A great player is 1/5 of his team's effort. LeBron this year or kobe a couple years ago can absolutely make a team competitive just by his lonesome.

Shaq, in his prime, surrounded by replacement level players, pretty much guaranteed 50 wins.

RE: Create your own shot

FWIW Here are "Game Winning Shot" gods over the last five years:

LeBron James 17 50 .340 14 20 6 4
Vince Carter 16 51 .314 10 11 3 4
Ray Allen 15 39 .385 4 6 1 2
Kobe Bryant 14 56 .250 12 15 1 5
Carmelo Anthony 13 27 .481 7 11 1 4
Allen Iverson 13 33 .394 6 8 1 2
Ben Gordon 12 34 .353 6 6 1 4
Dirk Nowitzki 12 37 .324 13 18 1 3
Joe Johnson 12 45 .267 2 3 4 2
Paul Pierce 11 32 .344 15 17 9 3
Dwyane Wade 11 40 .275 13 17 3 2
Jamal Crawford 11 43 .256 4 6 3 3
Rashard Lewis 10 26 .385 10 13 0 1
Ricky Davis 10 28 .357 11 11 2 1

Here are last year's "SuperClutch Pct" stats for the highest rated SuperClutch scorers (last 2 minutes, neither team ahead by more than 3 Points at Per 48)



CLE James .484
LAL Bryant .467
SAS Ginobili .619
DAL Nowitzki .370
NOH Paul .417
CHI Gordon .316
DET Billups .389
GSW Jackson .429
PHI Iguodala .429
UTA Boozer .571
PHO Stoudemire .471

Shaq, in his prime, surrounded by replacement level players, pretty much guaranteed 50 wins.

Which is what KG did in his prime too. He just couldn't win in the playoffs (its a crapshoot!). I get that its a bit different in basketball in that your top tier players have a bigger impact, but still, I don't think Basketball Jesus himself could take Wally World, Joe Smith and Terrell Brandon very far.

Ray Allen 15 39 .385 4 6 1 2

Of all the guys on both lists, I think Ray doesn't fall into the "create your own shot" category. He's a master of using screen (both legal and illegal) and all he needs is just one small instant to square up in order to get his shot off. Boozer and Stoudamire are the only typical big guys on the list (since Dirk really is a 3 in a 4/5 body), and both also benefit from their PGs getting them shots. Neither are typical back to the basket post guys, although both can score from there (also applies to Dirk, but lots of the 1/2/3 can post up smaller guys quite well, even if they prefer not to: LeBron, Kobe, Ginobli, Billups [more of a back down than a true post up like Mark Jackson used to do], etc).

Which is what KG did in his prime too.

Which years would you call Garnett's prime? His 23-27 age years?

There was an interesting article a few months ago that opined players have a basketball odometer. They are good for so many minutes and then they wear out -- REGARDLESS OF THEIR STARTING AGE IN THE NBA.

There may be rare exceptions (like Oden who started in the NBA at 50), but the breakdown age does seem to be marked by time of service more than chronological age.

There was an interesting article a few months ago that opined players have a basketball odometer. They are good for so many minutes and then they wear out -- REGARDLESS OF THEIR STARTING AGE IN THE NBA.

Indeed. That theory has been tossed around for a while now, and both Duncan and KG are getting up there in minutes. So is Kobe.

In the NBA, creating your own shot ... (is) considered highly valuable because there's less of an opportunity to fast break in the playoffs and because teams can play a ball denial defense against a big in the last two minutes of a close game fairly effectively.

This is accepted wisdom, including among people who know 1,000 times more about basketball than I know. So my opinion must be wrong. But I have thought for some time that the reliance on "creating your own shot" can harm the team game. I would prefer a player who moves quick (and smart) without the ball, so that he can come off of a screen and catch a pass in position to score or drive. (Larry Bird and Karl Malone were of that type.) Players who do that very well don't necessarily have the ability to create their own shots. But the point is to take shots which have a high likelihood of going in; and that is accomplished even better most of the time by moving without the ball.

A fair point is to say, "But, Rich, players who can create their own shots have both skills: they can come off of screens or take over a play by themselves. Creating one's own shot is simply another skill in an arsenal of skills a great player needs." To that I say: on a lot of teams, when they have a guy who is playing one-on-five in the halfcourt creating his own shot, the other four guys on his team often just stand around and don't move into position to score, which ends up being an inefficient offensive scheme.

What is doubtlessly true in the NBA game is that it is very valuable to have a supremely gifted athlete, like a Kobe or a LeBron. And when these guys are playing their best, the quantity of defenders they force the other teams to put on them frees up their teammates and makes a better team game. As such, I don't question the value in having a guy with skills to create his own shot. All I question is when teams rely on that skill as the be-all and end-all of the half-court game.

A couple of questions from more of a casual basketball fan. Who, besides Paul, is a better PG than Deron Williams right now? I know quite a few Jazz fans that think he's as good as Paul, so in that sense I'd say he's overrated but he looks really freaking good to me.

Is there any chance Boozer doesn't opt out due to the economy and how much time he missed?

Boston/Chicago:

Glancing at Bulls blogs, most people seem to feel that firing is too good for Del Negro. Being drawn and quartered while listening to a full-length transcribed book-on-tape (featuring Rosie O'Donnell and Gilbert Gottfried) of all of Andy's and Nieporent's discussions about media bias might be more appropos.

Like Rifkin said, I thought it was an odd hire to begin with. If the Bulls were in the same position as Memphis or Minnesota, a taam with a bunch of 21/22-year-olds starting a rebuild, I could see hiring VDN and a couple of graybeard assts. and letting him "grow into the job." But the Bulls are a team that made a mid-season trade to make a playoff run, and are probably losing a key guy to FA. They were playing to go as far as possible this year. If Garnett and Powe were healthy, Boston wins in 5, and maybe VDN gets a pass. Instead, he got this series, and watching it, I thought, "The Bulls would win this thing with Larry Brown--or even Flip Saunders--as coach."

Rose is, as noted, an extremely gifted player, and I see now why Paxson took him over Beasley, a decision I criticized at the time. But Rose has a lot of work to do, as noted as well, to become as good as CP3. As to Rondo, I agree with Mark Jackson: Rondo has moved from "OK" to "very good" but I agree with the poster who said Rose's and the team's poor D, not to mention the phenomenal number of minutes Rondo played, inflated his stats. He will look more like the regular-season Rondo facing a team with a more experienced PG and a legit shot blocker in the paint.

KG: As a Laker fan, I certainly see the flexing, grimacing and the screaming (particularly when he is on the bench in a suit--looking at that linked pic, I think Ben Gordon should have said, "Sit down before you get hurt again, old man") a little diferently now, but it is important to remember that he handled all the years playing on crap teams far, far better than Kobe did (who only played on three teams with no chance to do much) and just last year, many people who were not Celtics fans were happy that he was getting his shot at a ring. Basically, I see KG like I see Kobe: the same guy in a new situation. Kobe has always been a prick in many ways, but his prickishness wasn't holding the Lakers back--lack of talent on the team was. Now that he has Gasol and Co. to run with, he is not more of a team guy or whatever--he is the same guy, with all the same plusses and minuses, just in a different situation. Same with KG. When he was playing 45 minutes a game trying to carry a largely anonymous, mismanaged franchise, he was a "warrior." Now, playing possum with his injury and running his mouth on the bench for one of pro sports' love 'em or hate 'em franchises, he seems like a ########.

Orlando/Boston is tough to call. I think a lot will depend on how well the Celtics do in getting/keeping the ball oout of Howard's hands on the blocks and around the rim.

This is accepted wisdom, including among people who know 1,000 times more about basketball than I know. So my opinion must be wrong. But I have thought for some time that the reliance on "creating your own shot" can harm the team game. I would prefer a player who moves quick (and smart) without the ball, so that he can come off of a screen and catch a pass in position to score or drive. (Larry Bird and Karl Malone were of that type.) Players who do that very well don't necessarily have the ability to create their own shots. But the point is to take shots which have a high likelihood of going in; and that is accomplished even better most of the time by moving without the ball.

A fair point is to say, "But, Rich, players who can create their own shots have both skills: they can come off of screens or take over a play by themselves. Creating one's own shot is simply another skill in an arsenal of skills a great player needs." To that I say: on a lot of teams, when they have a guy who is playing one-on-five in the halfcourt creating his own shot, the other four guys on his team often just stand around and don't move into position to score, which ends up being an inefficient offensive scheme.

What is doubtlessly true in the NBA game is that it is very valuable to have a supremely gifted athlete, like a Kobe or a LeBron. And when these guys are playing their best, the quantity of defenders they force the other teams to put on them frees up their teammates and makes a better team game. As such, I don't question the value in having a guy with skills to create his own shot. All I question is when teams rely on that skill as the be-all and end-all of the half-court game.

There's a few reasons why it's considered important:
1. Scheme and matchup. If you're a team that relys on screens and posts to get open, it works great on some teams. It leaves you vulnerable to specific matchups however. If you come up against a team that switches every screen and doesn't leave you any matchups, you've wasted a ton of time on the shot clock, and you're forced to take a bailout shot.
2. Identity and Familiarity. It helps to have an identity as a basketball team. When your team knows what you're going to do at the end of a game, it means that all you have to do is execute. which can be helpful as a player.
3. Fouls. Stars get the fouls in the NBA, so it's highly helpful to have the ball in your star's hands.

A couple of questions from more of a casual basketball fan. Who, besides Paul, is a better PG than Deron Williams right now? I know quite a few Jazz fans that think he's as good as Paul, so in that sense I'd say he's overrated but he looks really freaking good to me.

Tony Parker. Arguably Chauncey Billups. He's mostly overrated by Jazz fans, who like you said, all seem to think he's as good as Paul. Celtics fans might say Rondo.

Is there any chance Boozer doesn't opt out due to the economy and how much time he missed?

No, because the FA class next year is too loaded and he's the best guy out there. There are teams with money, so he'll get paid. And I think being hurt this year would only make him want to get the guaranteed money even more. Plus, he already walked out on one team when it was in his best interest, so no reason he won't do it again (although this time it isn't as shady; although he was technically in the wrong the first time either).

That theory has been tossed around for a while now, and both Duncan and KG are getting up there in minutes. So is Kobe.

Yep. This is one reason this is a big moment for the Lakers. They may not get a better shot. A lot of people say that the Bulls would have won eight/nine straight if Jordan had never stopped playing. Maybe--but I tend to think his legs would have broken down without the long breather. This is one reason I wish the NBA would cut the schedule back to about 68 games and cut the playoffs down to 4 teams per conference (I know neither will ever happen).

Like Rifkin said, I thought it was an odd hire to begin with. If the Bulls were in the same position as Memphis or Minnesota, a taam with a bunch of 21/22-year-olds starting a rebuild, I could see hiring VDN and a couple of graybeard assts. and letting him "grow into the job." But the Bulls are a team that made a mid-season trade to make a playoff run, and are probably losing a key guy to FA. They were playing to go as far as possible this year. If Garnett and Powe were healthy, Boston wins in 5, and maybe VDN gets a pass. Instead, he got this series, and watching it, I thought, "The Bulls would win this thing with Larry Brown--or even Flip Saunders--as coach."

D'Antoni would have been the absolute perfect coach for this Bulls team. Like I said, it came down to $$$ and control. Reinsdorf didn't want to part with either, so enter the guy with no coaching experience on any level.

Now, playing possum with his injury and running his mouth on the bench for one of pro sports' love 'em or hate 'em franchises, he seems like a ########.

It's a very good point. But I don't like the Kobe and KG comparisons AT ALL. Kobe is a selfish, me-first player and always has been. One of KG's biggest faults is that he's not selfish enough (note the too many passes in the 4th quarter criticisms). Kobe acting like a good teammate is just that, acting. KG is genuine, Kobe tries too hard to control perception (the jersey number switches, the ridiculous Black Mamba nickname). Go back to that game 7 against Phoenix a couple years back. Kobe quit. He gave up. KG would never do that. The rest of the comparison is fine when you talk about their situations.

Of all the guys on both lists, I think Ray doesn't fall into the "create your own shot" category. He's a master of using screen (both legal and illegal) and all he needs is just one small instant to square up in order to get his shot off.

I largely agree with this in terms of how he has played. Early in his career Big Dog Robinson would have the ball in his hands. The middle of his career Sam I Am would have the ball. I think when he was on the Sonics, they asked him to be Jesus Shuttlesworth a little more often

Who, besides Paul, is a better PG than Deron Williams right now?

Mr. Big Shot
Tony Parker
Maybe Ricky Rubio will be


I would prefer a player who moves quick (and smart) without the ball, so that he can come off of a screen and catch a pass in position to score or drive. (Larry Bird and Karl Malone were of that type.) Players who do that very well don't necessarily have the ability to create their own shots. But the point is to take shots which have a high likelihood of going in; and that is accomplished even better most of the time by moving without the ball.


These players are valuable. See Rip Hamilton. See Doug West. See Michael Finley. However, you don't want your offense to get mired if teams switch off, don't double and stay on ball.

The biggest thing is the 24 second shot clock. If you go through your set twice and don't have a shot, your kind of ######. If you have a bum taking a shot, its going to get stuffed ON THE PERIMETER, and its goign to lead to a high conversion rate at the other end. See. Rondo/Rose (or even Pierce/Noah). You want "tough shots" to be going toward the rim, where there is a short rebound, and good floor spacing.

If you look at the clutch stats, you ideally want it coming from someone with some length as well as hops and shooting ability. Shorter players just can't shoot tought shots at high percentages.

There was an interesting article a few months ago that opined players have a basketball odometer. They are good for so many minutes and then they wear out -- REGARDLESS OF THEIR STARTING AGE IN THE NBA.

There may be rare exceptions (like Oden who started in the NBA at 50), but the breakdown age does seem to be marked by time of service more than chronological age.

I subscribe to this and it's why I fear a Joe Johnson contract extension beyond a reluctance to use 20% or more of your payroll on a good but less-than-franchise player. With the exception of 2006-07, he's been in the top 4 in the league in minutes played since the 2003-04 season.

Shorter players just can't shoot tought shots at high percentages.

Which is why Chris Paul is that much more amazing, and why I have such high hopes for Rose.

Mr. Big Shot
Tony Parker
Maybe Ricky Rubio will be

I assume you putting Rubio here and not Rose is a shot at me. If not, that's how I choose to interpret it. Because I bet Rose is better than Deron within the next 2 seasons.

The biggest thing is the 24 second shot clock. If you go through your set twice and don't have a shot, your kind of ######. If you have a bum taking a shot, its going to get stuffed ON THE PERIMETER, and its goign to lead to a high conversion rate at the other end. See. Rondo/Rose (or even Pierce/Noah). You want "tough shots" to be going toward the rim, where there is a short rebound, and good floor spacing.

This is a really good point. The length of rebounds is really important, as is avoiding a turnover and getting off a shot before the expiration of the clock.

Thoughts on the series, BL? Does anyone beat Cleveland?

It's a very good point. But I don't like the Kobe and KG comparisons AT ALL. Kobe is a selfish, me-first player and always has been. One of KG's biggest faults is that he's not selfish enough (note the too many passes in the 4th quarter criticisms). Kobe acting like a good teammate is just that, acting. KG is genuine, Kobe tries too hard to control perception (the jersey number switches, the ridiculous Black Mamba nickname). Go back to that game 7 against Phoenix a couple years back. Kobe quit. He gave up. KG would never do that. The rest of the comparison is fine when you talk about their situations

.

Except for his vocal, isolated pockets of fans--mostly teens and young people who are causal fans--Kobe is very unpopular pretty much anywhere east of Interstate 5, as I find out every time he comes up here at BTF. If BTF's banned "KG" were here, he would be calling me several names--literally--for even mentioning them in the same sentence, and I am one of kevin's BTF supporters.

As far as the Phoenix game, you can bring it up if you want, and talk about how "real" KG is, but like I said, Kobe plays with the team when there is a team to play with. Last summer, I was one of the Laker fans who, posting at the Laker blog I go to, blamed him and Phil Jackson for the Lakers' fold-up in Game 6 in Boston when others were making excuses. But Bryant is durable, tough, and talented and one of the best 10 players in the game. I don't love him, but I'll take him. People get too emotional about him one way or the other, IMO.

But Bryant is durable, tough, and talented and one of the best 10 players in the game. I don't love him, but I'll take him. People get too emotional about him one way or the other, IMO.

Agreed. I heard a while ago that some GM called Kobe the Frank Sinatra of the NBA, IOW, he wanted to do it "My Way". I always liked that and thought it was true. Kobe's a very special player to watch when he's on fire. That 81 point game is the best game I've ever seen anyone play. When he's not on fire, he can be incredibly frustrating.

If you look at the clutch stats, you ideally want it coming from someone with some length as well as hops and shooting ability.

This is what Jordan was about. He could create a decent midrange look at almost any point in the shot clock, without a TO or a long miss. Even if he missed, the Bulls had time to get back and set up the D.

As far as the Phoenix game, you can bring it up if you want, and talk about how "real" KG is, but like I said, Kobe plays with the team when there is a team to play with. Last summer, I was one of the Laker fans who, posting at the Laker blog I go to,who blamed him and Phil Jackson for the Lakers' fold-up in Game 6 in Boston when others were making excuses. But Bryant is durable, tough, and talented and one of the best 10 players in the game. I don't love him, but I'll take him. People get too emotional about him one way or the other, IMO.

I got into plenty of arguments with kevin about Kobe, and I took Kobe's side every time. Without a doubt he's top 10, if not top 5, including the baggage. As for the part I bolded, that's not a good thing, that's exactly why he gets criticized. Also, he helped drive out Shaq and Phil in the first place, so he got what he wanted and then didn't like it. It's one thing to push for a better team, it's nother to quit on a mess you helped create.

When there were Kobe to the Bulls rumors last season, I was in favor of it. YOu take the great with the bad.

I assume you putting Rubio here and not Rose is a shot at me. If not, that's how I choose to interpret it.

No, if it was a shot at you, it would either be about an Illini player or Oden. Rose may very well become better than Williams (and if you remember I am very high on Williams even when he played for that orange coat wearing dude). I was not meaning career progression, I mean right now, its possible that Ricky Rubio is better than Deron Williams. I just can't watch him play in his native league.

Thoughts on the series, BL? Does anyone beat Cleveland?


Not in the East. I am a Hawks fan so I don't want to predict that series for seeming too homerish. The Cavs beat the winner of the Celtics/Magic series in 5. I think anyone of the four west teams could beat Cleveland, although I think the Cavs would be favorites against all but the Lakers.

I mean right now, its possible that Ricky Rubio is better than Deron Williams.

Wow - and I thought I liked Rubio. I'd imagine Williams' superior ability to score alone would be insurmountable for Ricky at this point...

I am a Hawks fan so...

Well, that means the Hawks' fan club has a quorum. Please wait while I grab my Sasha Volkov jersey...

but like I said, Kobe plays with the team when there is a team to play with.

This is where we disagree and I agree with BTF KG. Kobe is a great player. I think he has grown a lot as a player. He no longer jacks up those 27 foot curls. He also is less likely to get on the right side and just try to drive/post regardless of the defense.

Nevertheless, he still hasn't learned to play with his team during moments of stress. When its close and late, he tries to be Mamba, or he is so conscious of not being Mamba that he stands around like he's Lute Walton. Kobe needs some of what Chauncey has got. If he can learn when to be Mr. Big Shot, and when to find Pau and support his double, then he would be everything that he is billed to be (and perhaps one of the ten greatest players ever).

If he can learn when to be Mr. Big Shot, and when to find Pau and support his double, then he would be everything that he is billed to be (and perhaps one of the ten greatest players ever).

At his age, I don't think he's ever going to learn that. I think what we see now is the best it's going to get. Just too many minutes and enough success to not warrant any major changes or adjustments to his game.

(and if you remember I am very high on Williams even when he played for that orange coat wearing dude)

You were higher than I was on him as a pro prospect. Even when he was playing well that year, I still saw too much of the chunky freshman without a jump shot. I thought a lot of the hype was an overreaction to his clutch play against Zona. I am glad to have been wrong on that one.

although I think the Cavs would be favorites against all but the Lakers

The Lakers match up very well with the Cavs, and did a great job on LeBron in the two regular-season games. Winning in Cleveland to end the 6-0 Bynum-less road trip was one of the most impressive wins anyone had this season.

But the playoffs are different--not totally different, as people like to say when their team, like Dallas and Houston, is facing somebody they went 0-4 against--but different. If the Lakers and Cleveland get there, I think it goes back to Cleveland for a Game 6 and maybe 7. The Lakers have more overall talent, but the Cavs have the best player, play tougher D and have homecourt. A toss-up based on what we know now.

I think the Hawks will win at least one game against the Cavs and quite possibly 2. I do not see a sweep. They won 3 (they caught some breaks, but they still won them) against Boston last year, after all, and are better now than then.

I think the Hawks will win at least one game against the Cavs and quite possibly 2. I do not see a sweep. They won 3 (they caught some breaks, but they still won them) against Boston last year, after all, and are better now than then.

Not without Marvin Williams, they're not. They don't have anyone else who can begin to slow LeBron before the double-team arrives. Mo Williams is also a very difficult matchup for the Hawks. Mike Bibby can't stay in front of him and Joe Johsnon can't be expected to carry his offensive load and check Mo Williams for 40 minutes a night.

I love to read about Kobe. He is without a doubt, the most polarizing athlete in my lifetime. The commentary that you read about him is unlike the commentary on any other athlete (save maybe for Titch Bits.)

Not without Marvin Williams, they're not. They don't have anyone else who can begin to slow LeBron before the double-team arrives. Mo Williams is also a very difficult matchup for the Hawks. Mike Bibby can't stay in front of him and Joe Johsnon can't be expected to carry his offensive load and check Mo Williams for 40 minutes a night.

I don't think Ma. Williams would have had that kind of impact, but we'll see. I think the Hawks take a game in ATL.

I don't think Ma. Williams would have had that kind of impact, but we'll see. I think the Hawks take a game in ATL.

It's not just Williams, it's also the lack of depth.

I don't think Ma. Williams would have had that kind of impact

More impact that Bogut, but less than Paul and Williams.

What an odd draft. If the draft was redone today, those 4 guys would be picked in exactly the reverse order, without any argument.

More impact that Bogut, but less than Paul and Williams.

What an odd draft. If the draft was redone today, those 4 guys would be picked in exactly the reverse order, without any argument.

Bogut was just a terrible selection and I said as much at the time. What was his ceiling? Brad Miller?

don't think Ma. Williams would have had that kind of impact, but we'll see. I think the Hawks take a game in ATL.

Marvin is the Joe Smith, Rex Chapman, Tony Battie of his draft. He is a highly servicable and useful player, but he will always be considered El Busto because of the success of CP3 and Deron Williams (esp. b/c the Hawks needed a PG).

Reading a comparison of KG to Kobe almost killed me. You're not supposed to have heart problems like that in your mid 20s, but all of the meaningful problems with the comparison have been detailed very well above, so I'm going to let it die. And for the record, I live about 1 mile west of I-5, and I hate Kobe just as much as when I lived 3000 miles east of it.

I agree with RR that the finals won't be completely one-sided. Cleveland's defense is probably the deciding factor, but the Lakers looked so good in that game that ended Cleveland's home streak, that I can't completely write them off. Of course, asking Lamar Odom for 7 games worth of intense defensive effort against one of the most frustrating players to guard in the history of the league is like asking my aunt to grow testicles. I think that's the problem with any matchup against Cleveland. Maybe a team can steal a game where Lebron goes for 40-12-8, but that means you have to slow him down for three other games. Who in this league can slow down Lebrown 3 times in 2 weeks? The only person I think would even try at this point is Ron Artest, but his insanity is the exception that proves the rule.

It's not just Williams, it's also the lack of depth.

Do you mean to say that Flip Murray won't cope well with Cleveland's disciplined, consistent, man-to-man team defense? Because you'd obviously be 100% right.

I love players like Flip, Eddie House, Vujacic, etc who seemingly have a sixth sense for when the defense is asleep or tired and make hay when nobody else is trying, but establish successful careers without other discernible skills. They're like the Matt Stairs version of basketball players. Luis Scola has a little bit of that quality in him, and Karl Malone became an all-time great with that skill at the top of his resume.

What was his ceiling? Brad Miller?

Brad Miller at his prime is a pretty fine ceiling. Bogut's floor is looking a lot like Greg Oden.

I think that's the problem with any matchup against Cleveland. Maybe a team can steal a game where Lebron goes for 40-12-8, but that means you have to slow him down for three other games. Who in this league can slow down Lebrown 3 times in 2 weeks? The only person I think would even try at this point is Ron Artest, but his insanity is the exception that proves the rule.

In a series that you want to win against Cleveland, you have to hope that LeBron has 1 really bad game in the first two in Cleveland. Then you beat him up on the road and limit his help.

I think that Cleveland is vulnerable to an exceptional fast break team. LBJ gambles for O-boards instead of getting back a fair amount and Cle. takes a large amount of threes.

Bogut's floor is looking a lot like Greg Oden.

They both appear to have pretty decent senses of humor about themselves.

I love players like Flip, Eddie House, Vujacic , etc who seemingly have a sixth sense for when the defense is asleep

Vujacic? DO you know this guy, rr? Surely he must have been talking about somebody else like Devean George?

Bogut's floor is looking a lot like Greg Oden.

So you've been to his house? Aged wooden floors with cracks at the joints?

I love players like Flip, Eddie House, Vujacic, etc who seemingly have a sixth sense for when the defense is asleep or tired and make hay when nobody else is trying, but establish successful careers without other discernible skills.

Vujacic's best skill is pissing off the other team so much they focus on wanting to kill him.