Iverson was also pretty much done at that point. Is it a knock on Olajuwon to say that Toronto was better after he left?

Come on, man. That's not a good example and you know it. Iverson was in his early 30's when he was traded, and coming off a previous season where he averaged, what, 25 points? He shouldn't have been "pretty much done." Isn't Wade only a few years younger than that now? I very much doubt he'll be basically done in 2-3 years. It's actually not that uncommon anymore for star shooting guard/small forward type players to still be very productive into their 30's (Jordan, Reggie Miller, Kobe, Pierce, Allen).

Billups or Iverson? I think I'd take Billups, if I want to win.

Exactly. Yet who was considered the bigger star, and by a huge margin? That's what I meant when I said he was one of the most overrated players in NBA history. It's not that he wasn't very good, because he was. It's just that all the players who were considered his equals were actually much better and all the ones that really were his equals never got nearly the same amount of recognition.

Kobe is a better defender

Is he? I know he looks like a good defender and wins awards for it, but to me he doesn't seem like he brings his best defensive game on consistent basis and is more of a situational defender, of course Wade might be similar. Neither has remarkable on/off defensive numbers and Wade has better block/steal numbers.

I am now reminded of an old hobby horse of mine. The best C pairing I ever saw with Garnett in Minnesota was 36 year old Ervin "Illusion" Johnson in 2004. I know what you're thinking- was he really better than the esteemed group of Rasho Nesterovic, Mark Blount and Stojko Vrankovic (a Stojko was what my dad and I called a Trillion before it had a name)? Yes, he was. He played 15 minutes per game and averaged about 2 points, 3 rebounds, but they were so synced up that it was a wonderful fit. Defensively, Johnson anchored the middle and let Garnett help on everyone. It turned what was two layers of defense into three, because KG would allow the perimeter guys to gamble (or in Szczerbiak's case, stand by indifferently) then help before they got the the lane, and a good pass or an additional move would still leave Big Erv on the back line. He had a really good feel for how long to stick on his guy before helping, and was quite good at playing man defense on good centers. The numbers back it up, too. In his extremely limited minutes, he had .115 WS/48m heavily weighted toward defense(I know, but that's pretty good for 36 year old scrub role player). On offense, he just stood inside and got rebounds. I wish they could have played together more.

Is he? I know he looks like a good defender and wins awards for it, but to me he doesn't seem like he brings his best defensive game on consistent basis and is more of a situational defender, of course Wade might be similar. Neither has remarkable on/off defensive numbers and Wade has better block/steal numbers.

I was thinking of Kobe in his prime vs. Wade in his prime. And Wade does ahve great block/steal numbers but I think that is due in large part to the fact that he is over eager with his help defense based on the Heat games I see.

Kobe put up a year with a 98 DRtg. I'm always impressed by anyone with a <100 DRtg.

Exactly. Yet who was considered the bigger star, and by a huge margin? That's what I meant when I said he was one of the most overrated players in NBA history. It's not that he wasn't very good, because he was. It's just that all the players who were considered his equals were actually much better and all the ones that really were his equals never got nearly the same amount of recognition.

I'm not going to answer for Stephen A Smith or whoever it is that Iverson's cultural significance had some resonance on court. I already said I think there's a good argument to be made favoring Billups over him. I just don't think the Denver thing is a good test case for either of them. First, Denver had a ball-dominant iso player in the lineup, and having a second had a chilling effect on the rest of the team. Second, the shape of Iverson's career looked nothing like Billups's. Are we down on Billups because he averaged 9 and 3 as a backup point guard the year Iverson led a pretty average team to the finals? Of course not. Iverson was better younger and Billups was better when he was older. The fact that they intersected near the end of AI's career doesn't change what he did before that.

Kobe put up a year with a 98 DRtg. I'm always impressed by anyone with a <100 DRtg.

Iverson had a 99 DRtg in 99 and 01! Ok, I just still had the tab open.

I was thinking of Kobe in his prime vs. Wade in his prime. And Wade does ahve great block/steal numbers but I think that is due in large part to the fact that he is over eager with his help defense based on the Heat games I see.

I agree the block/steal numbers don't mean a lot, but Kobe's defense is often talked up as elite, despite his best teams pairing him with other very good perimeter defenders (Artest, Ariza, Harper, Fox) who usually take the tougher assignments and excellent big men to cover his back (our course Wade has usually had a similar set up as well). It just seems really hard to separate them defensively (and most the numbers that are available slightly favor Wade) and neither should probably be making all-defensive teams over guys like Tony Allen.

#1006 - Denver may not be the best example, but there isn't really any other one to use, so that's what we're stuck with.

How do people think those mid-2000's Pistons teams would have done with Iverson instead of Billups? Better? Worse? About the same?

Kobe put up a year with a 98 DRtg. I'm always impressed by anyone with a <100 DRtg.

The Lakers had a really great defense that year, so everyone on the team had a good drtg. The way drtg is calculated it just means the team as whole played great defense and he had more blocks/steals/rebounds than guys like Fox, Harper or Fisher but less than Shaq, Horry, Salley or Knight.

If Wade's career ended now, who would you take between him and Iverson?

Wade, of course, but we shouldn't underrate Iverson. If Iverson were 6'4", he'd actually be Wade. As it is, he's tiny Kobe, which may or may not be a top-50 player, but definitely a Hall of Famer (especially given what constitutes a HoFer presently).

AI had his faults, but pairing him up with Melo was putting him in a position to underwhelm. You can say he might have been a good point guard with the mentality, but at that point in his career he was pretty set in being Allen Iverson, scoring guard.

This. Iverson's a historical oddity, a great player with physical quirks (in particular, his size as a 2-guard) that made him difficult to build around. But make no mistake, he was a great player. If he were three inches taller, he'd be Dwayne Wade.

Billups is as underrated as Iverson is overrated.

That first part is right.

[1010] Thanks for the explanation -- I wasn't sure how that was calculated.

...Kobe's defense is often talked up as elite, despite his best teams pairing him with other very good perimeter defenders (Artest, Ariza, Harper, Fox) who usually take the tougher assignments and excellent big men to cover his back

It really used to be. He was never that crazy Tony Allen-esque on-ball guy or the Alvin Robertson-esque passing-lane ball hawk, but he'd do a bit of everything extremely well. I remember during one of the early 2000s Finals when they talked about defenses during the pre-game show. They focused a lot on Shaq and his issues with the pick-and-roll, since that was the Lakers' one glaring weakness, but showed how great the Lakers guards — and we're talking about Bryant (and to a lesser extent Fisher) — were so great at taking those opportunities away because they were usually stronger than their backcourt counterparts and always in the right positions.

David Thorpe, in one of the old ESPN hoops podcasts (it's probably in the archives somewhere) talked about how Bryant's footwork was what set him apart. He wouldn't steal the ball or block your shot or do anything like that, he'd just always be in front of you taking your angles away and never leaving his feet and making you get rid of the basketball. These days, he's basically just saving it for the offensive end, but it wasn't that long ago when he was a terrific all-around defender.

Wade, of course, but we shouldn't underrate Iverson. If Iverson were 6'4", he'd actually be Wade. As it is, he's tiny Kobe, which may or may not be a top-50 player, but definitely a Hall of Famer (especially given what constitutes a HoFer presently).

Oh, Iverson is definitely a HOFer. I don't think anyone who follows basketball could deny that. But you can be a legit HOFer and still be overrated at the same time. I'm going off memory so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Simmons had Iverson ranked something like 37th in his book, right on par or even slightly ahead of Dirk, Nash, and Ewing. I think McHale was only a spot or two ahead of Allen also. Iverson isn't on the level of those guys. I'd probably put him about even with Ray Allen or Reggie Miller, who I think ranked somewhere in the 60's. Now obviously Simmons rankings aren't everything, but I wouldn't be surprised if top 40 or so is a pretty consensus ranking of Iverson (I think SLAM magazine rated him even better than that, but they're marketed towards the younger, hipper generation, so take that for what's it worth).

So yeah, IMO that would make him quite overrated (since he's at least 20 spots higher than he should be), but still an obvious HOFer (since I doubt too many people would argue that Allen and Miller belong).

I did some research into Iverson's career, specifically looking into games he played and games he missed and how his teams did. I did the same for Kobe and a few other players. I don't have the numbers anymore (I'd be interested in recreating the study as it was a few years ago) but the dropoff without Iverson frankly shocked me, and I'm obviously a fan. It must be selective memory because it seemed to me that the Sixers would get along OK without him if he missed an odd game or two, but it clearly wasn't the case.

I don't think anyone ever thought Iverson would age well. Losing a step was always going to be devastating to Iverson, and as much of a warrior as he was on the court, he wasn't dedicated to things like...PRACTICE and staying in shape.

Sorry if #1014 is confusing. I just realized that I used "Allen" to refer to Iverson and Ray Allen at different times in the post.

I did some research into Iverson's career, specifically looking into games he played and games he missed and how his teams did. I did the same for Kobe and a few other players. I don't have the numbers anymore (I'd be interested in recreating the study as it was a few years ago) but the dropoff without Iverson frankly shocked me, and I'm obviously a fan.

I wouldn't be surprised if that were completely true. The 76ers were never a team without Iverson, they lived and died with Iverson. (That they were successful says a lot about Larry Brown.) Other great teams were built around one guy (Jordan's Bulls, Thomas' Pistons, etc.) but they built a real team around them. Jordan's Bulls went to the Conference Semis without him. Without AI, those 76ers wouldn't have cracked .500.

Oh, Iverson is definitely a HOFer. I don't think anyone who follows basketball could deny that.

Well..... I'll quote the relevant quote from the book included here:

Allen Iverson is one of WoW's favorite targets. On page 136 of Wages of Wins, Berri wrote, "At the end of the day, by some numbers Iverson is truly great. By other numbers, though, he is very far below the average player. When you summarize the great and the not-so-great into one metric, the net value of Iverson during his career is a bit below the average NBA player" (p. 136).

the fact that WoW would not be favorable to Iverson is the least shocking revelation ever.

#1018 - But a little later in the article, the author calls the assertion that Iverson is below average "delusional." Also according to that article, the same stat showed Rodman to be better than Jordan per 48 minutes for the 1996 Bulls and Bynum over Kobe on the 2008 Lakers. So the credibility of the stat they were using (a stat I'd never even heard of) is, well, flawed, to put it mildly.

(I only read the first few paragraphs, so if I missed something, my apologies).

Without AI, those 76ers wouldn't have cracked .500.

Some years they didn't even with him.

#1018 - But a little later in the article, the author calls the assertion that Iverson is below average "delusional." Also according to that article, the same stat showed Rodman to be better than Jordan per 48 minutes for the 1996 Bulls and Bynum over Kobe on the 2008 Lakers. So the credibility of the stat they were using (a stat I'd never even heard of) is, well, flawed, to put it mildly.

No, you're right. We've talked about WoW plenty of times here before. No one (well, non-banned division) thinks they're worth anything. But I felt the need to point out there are some people out there who go too far the other way on AI.

the fact that WoW would not be favorable to Iverson is the least shocking revelation ever.

Yeah, his playstyle is a lot better suited to Starcraft II.

When you summarize the great and the not-so-great into one metric, the net value of Iverson during his career is a bit below the average NBA player"

He's no Ben Wallace.

Yeah, his playstyle is a lot better suited to Starcraft II.

BTW, if you look in the credits at the end of WarCraft2, I'm listed as a play tester. $200 for 20 hours of "work."

Yeah, his playstyle is a lot better suited to Starcraft II.

He's no Gordon Hayward.

#1023 wp sir

These days, he's basically just saving it for the offensive end, but it wasn't that long ago when he was a terrific all-around defender.

There have been comments about Kobe "saving energy" for a long time. Kobe definitely has the tools and talent of a truly great defender, but I think bigger question is how often he left the heavy lifting on the defensive end to Artest, Ariza, Fox, Fisher, Harper or whoever. I'm not saying Kobe is a bad defender or anything like that, but Wade is very good defender on his own, and I don't think Kobe has separated himself from the pack of very good wing defenders which includes Wade. I'd rate both behind prime versions of Scottie Pippen, Bruce Bowen, Shane Battier, Tony Allen and Lebron.

With Kobe it is also likely his defensive peak and offensive peak came at different times, possibly making him trickier to compare. His durability gives him a ton of career value though, on par with guys like Duncan, Garnett, Shaq or Nowitzki and well ahead of Wade, even if those guys had better peaks.

the fact that WoW would not be favorable to Iverson is the least shocking revelation ever.

Wages of Wins and Wins Produced are so silly, but damn if their cult of followers aren't irrationally loyal and combative about how great it is. Reggie Evans has better than Blake Griffin this year! WP says so! Griffin stupidly takes shots instead gracefully accepting the shot clock violation!

BTW, if you look in the credits at the end of WarCraft2, I'm listed as a play tester. $200 for 20 hours of "work."

$10/hour is a lot for a game tester in 1995.

$10/hour is a lot for a game tester in 1995.

He plays in a big market.

$10/hour is a lot for a game tester in 1995.

No kidding, it was more than I was making at my job. I had inside connections — two of my housemates worked for Blizzard. Two of my friends actually took game-testing jobs with Blizzard and got paid to play hundreds of hours of the first StarCraft. The problem, of course, is that after five years, they were still game testers at $10/hour. You can't really make a career out of it.

He plays in a big market.

Slow clap.

I have an idea of what steagles is doing when he's hiding from facing the music in this thread (I kid).

Billups-Nash is a more interesting comparison than Billups-Iverson, IMHO. (I think they have roughly the same value, but acquire it in very different ways.)

Edit: I know nobody cares about women's college basketball, but Pat Summit has retired, and deserves kudos for her career.

So Rose and Deng are officially out again tonight against Charlotte. The Bulls should still win though - even though I thought the same thing Monday when they lost at home to the Wiz. The more interesting question is if either is going to play tomorrow in Miami (and if not, Saturday against Dallas). If the Bulls lose to the Heat (but win tonight), they'll be one game ahead of them for HCA in the East. Miami would then most likely own the tiebreaker then if they finish with the same record (2-2 season series, but better conference record if they end up tied). That makes Monday's loss seem even worse now.

[1034] I care a little, and that's the end of one hell of an era. The environment's between men's and women's aren't quite the same, but we're still looking at an all time college coaching great. They ought to name the women's title after her.

[1035] Is the Bulls 2nd unit better than the Bobcats starters?

[1035] Is the Bulls 2nd unit better than the Bobcats starters?

Tonight's starters for both teams, using PER:

Bulls: Watson 13.8, Hamilton 12.9, Korver 13.5, Boozer 19.7, Noah 19.5
'Cats: Walker 15.5, Henderson 13.6, Brown 14.6, Biyumbo 11.0, Mullens 14.0

So, yes, though it's closer in PER than I would have thought - of course, that doesn't count defense and the Bulls are all easily better across the board at D (except for Boozer). Bulls are also up 15 at halftime.

Is the Bulls 2nd unit *tonight* better? Lucas 15.4, Brewer 12.0, Butler 13.2, Gibson 17.0, Asik 13.1. Defense again probably tips that in the Bulls favor...

I know nobody cares about women's college basketball, but Pat Summit has retired, and deserves kudos for her career.

I come from one of the few places that does care and it's pretty much all because of Pat Summitt. Even during the peak of the Pearl years, I knew several people who cared more about the women's team than the men's. Truly great career, but the ending is pretty sad. #### dementia and Alzheimer's.

I have an idea of what steagles is doing when he's hiding from facing the music in this thread (I kid).

Nah, he's front-running in the NHL thread with the Flyers now instead.

No Rondo for the Celtics tonight - Pierce with 11 assists in the 1st half.

21 for Carmelo after 1, 27 at the half.

Bulls without their two best players up 34 on Charlotte.

Part of why the 76ers were so bad without Iverson is because they built a very role-player team around him, because you kind of had to. You needed a PG that could cross guard a SG. You also needed a PG that could handle not having the ball much. Really, you needed a lot of players that couldn't handle the ball much.

Wade and Kobe in their prime is a very good question. I'll give Kobe the edge on offense but Wade on defense. Wade's a better passer. About equal.

I'd take prime Nash over Billups, but that's a good one. And I'd take prime Billups over Iverson.

I have an idea of what steagles is doing when he's hiding from facing the music in this thread (I kid).

Nah, he's front-running in the NHL thread with the Flyers now instead.

yeah, and that's not really working out too well tonight, either.


if you want my take on the sixers, i'd say that when the team started losing in february, doug collins' instinct was to tighten the rotation, which meant cutting out the two rookies, vucevic and allen. that was a pretty horrible decision as it turned out, since it cut the bench to 3 players during a season where there's a tipoff every 45 hours, on average. there was not a single good thing about that decision.

add to that that the two big money players, iguodala and brand, were incapable of/unwilling to/uninterested in shouldering the scoring load, leaving the team with two low-usage veterans bouldered in the starting lineup.

add to that the stalled development of jrue holiday and evan turner, both of whom have been affected by poorly defined roles. are they scorers? or spot up jumpshooters? or offensive facilitators? this season has been an abject failure in terms of defining their place in the direction of the franchise in years to come.

add to that jodie meeks' horrendous jumpshooting. there's been (figuratively) hundreds of wide open 3s that he's missed that have just been daggers to the heart of the team in close games. iggy or jrue or lou or ET or elton or hawesome will get him the ball when noone's within 10 feet of him, and the entire building will fill with anticipation as he steps into his shot, only to deflate completely as the ball clanks off the back of the rim sending the other team streaking down to the other end of the floor.


between meeks, iguodala, and brand, you're starting the game with 3 players who have a low usage on the offensive side of the floor, and jrue holiday just has not been good enough to carry the offensive load. spencer hawes has been a revelation, and is having a hell of a year, but he's not a high-usage guy either. so the starting lineup is just putting the team in hole after hole after hole.

and the bench, specifically lou williams and thaddeus yonug, has just been ground down by the constant effort to claw the team back into games after the starting lineup has started the game by shooting 3/14.


when things started going bad in february, i think that was the moment to give thaddeus young the responsibility of shouldering a larger offensive load as a starter. at the all-star break, i'd have taken brand and meeks out of the starting lineup and given young and turner the opportunity to sink or swim alongside hawes, iguodala, and holiday.

as it is now, the team needs a shakeup, but young is worn down, and turner is just completely mind-######, so i don't think putting them in the starting lineup would be the right move.


if the goal is still to do damage in the playoffs, i think they need to put lou williams in the starting lineup. they just cannot keep pace with a good offensive team when meeks and iguodala and brand are playing the way they have this season. at least with lou playing starters minutes you'd have a guy on the floor for 36 minutes who can get buckets, if nothing else.


with the way this season has ended, there's really no telling what will happen in the offseason. they could trade iguodala, or they could not. they could trade turner, or they could not. they could resign lou, or jodie, or spencer, or lavoy, or sam young, or they could not. they could amnesty brand, or they could not. doug collins could come back, or he could not. rod thorn could be retained, or he could be fired. the foundation of this team is on quicksand right now, and literally nothing they do could be surprising.


is that good enough?

Pretty much a perfect night for the Jazz so far. They beat the Blazers, the Rockets lost, the Nuggets lost, and the Suns are down by 11 in the 4th. Only blemish is the Warriors are losing again.

Also, Hayward >>>>>>>> Evan Turner.

Wade and Kobe in their prime is a very good question. I'll give Kobe the edge on offense but Wade on defense. Wade's a better passer. About equal.

Don't you have to take Kobe, just to give you more confidence he'd play 75 games? Or by "in their prime", do you mean solely in the minutes they play at peak health?

Pretty much a perfect night for the Jazz so far. They beat the Blazers, the Rockets lost, the Nuggets lost, and the Suns are down by 11 in the 4th. Only blemish is the Warriors are losing again.

Also, Hayward >>>>>>>> Evan Turner.


Yeah, back in the 8th slot. At this point I'm thinking I really would rather have an extra 5 Jazz games to watch and some postseason experience for our youngens than the middle of the pack draft pick we'd lose by making the playoffs.

Hayward has gotten better every month. He's really impressed me in April.

And lastly, screw the Warriors and their shameless tanking. They're not even pretending to look like they're almost trying to sorta kinda win anymore.

And lastly, screw the Warriors and their shameless tanking. They're not even pretending to look like they're almost trying to sorta kinda win anymore.

Jay Kang is writing a tanking blog (or something) for Grantland. I was moderately entertained by the first installment.

Yeah, back in the 8th slot. At this point I'm thinking I really would rather have an extra 5 Jazz games to watch and some postseason experience for our youngens than the middle of the pack draft pick we'd lose by making the playoffs.

For sure! Gotta love Hayward, and nice night for Harris. Go jazz.

Part of why the 76ers were so bad without Iverson is because they built a very role-player team around him, because you kind of had to. You needed a PG that could cross guard a SG. You also needed a PG that could handle not having the ball much. Really, you needed a lot of players that couldn't handle the ball much.

Is this supposed to be criticism? Every star player has a team more or less built around him with role players. It was a minor miracle that the Sixers were ever competitive in the Iverson era. They were a terrible team when they drafted him, and they continued to draft terribly while he was on the team. They started with basically 2 chips, Stackhouse and Coleman.

-- Stackhouse was traded for Ratliff and McKie, which was a titanic win for the Sixers.
-- Coleman left as a free agent. The Sixers in turn signed Matt Geiger for almost as much money as Coleman was making. Geiger gave them a couple of serviceable, if injury-plagued years in which he fouled out a ton despite not always being a starter.
-- In 1997, the Sixers had the No. 2 pick. The No. 1 pick was Tim Duncan. The Sixers took...Keith Van Horn. KVH was traded immediately, netting Jim Jackson, Eric Montross, Anthony Parker and Tim Thomas. They gave up on Thomas pretty quickly. (Incidentally, the No. 3 pick was Chauncey Billups.
-- In 1998, they took Larry Hughes, who played the same position as Iverson, immediately before Dirk and Paul Pierce. OUCH

It took every ounce of coaching from Larry Brown to get some sort of working rotation together that consisted of Tyrone Hill, McKie, Aaron Snow and George Lynch.

The thing is, I'm not at all certain the 2000-2003 Sixers would have been that much better with Paul Pierce and Chauncey Billups. Chauncey was crap until 2004 (not looking this up), and Paul Pierce would not have developed the same way with Iverson dominating the ball.

That's why Iverson is a weird guy.

Well, I think if you match Pierce up with Iverson early in both their careers, Iverson himself develops differently. I think Pierce is exactly the type of complementary player (I mean, barring teaming him up with Shaq or Duncan) Iverson always needed and never had. Forcing Iverson to be the team's 3-point shooter was probably a really bad idea.


The Sixers had Kukoc on the roster for little more than a season, Feb. 16, 2000 to Feb. 22, 2001. They went 63-23 in that time. Kukoc was past his prime and Brown was weird about using him, but he helped tremendously.

For sure! Gotta love Hayward, and nice night for Harris. Go jazz.

You just want Minny to get that pick. :)

But that's cool. No matter the reason, it's never a bad thing to cheer for the Jazz!

is that good enough?

A simple, "I was wrong, everyone else was right" would have sufficed. :)

Bulls/Sixers for the first round looks like the most likely outcome at this point*, so I really am running the risk of eating these words by even joking around here (and honestly, I am joking and not trying to be antagonistic, so please don't take this the wrong way).

---

Deng said he's going to play tonight against Miami, but it doesn't sound like Rose is playing. This new injury, in Rose's own words, does not sound good at all:

"It's soreness from just playing. I don’t feel anything until after the game. I remember walking back to the locker room and it was kind of sore. I took my shoe off and felt throbbing. Walking was kind of messed up.

"It’s just my ankle. It’s not the actual bone. It’s the tendons around my ankle that has fluid on them. The fluid causes pain. Right now, I’m just waiting for the fluid to move around and try to get it out as quickly as possible. I should be all right."

The Bulls without Rose at 100% can definitely lose to Philly in a series, even if they shouldn't considering the way the Sixers are playing now. I am honestly worried after this latest injury.

*If the Bulls win tonight, they clinch the 1 seed. If not (and they probably won't), they still have a game on the Heat but might lose the tie breaker if they lose again. With Milwaukee losing to Washington** last night, I think the Bucks are pretty much finished, and I don't see Philly catching NY.

**How about the non-tanking by the Wizards this week? Beating the Bulls, effectively knocking the Bucks out of the playoffs. Those were 2 very tankable games for them. I think it's probably good for them to try and win, even if it hurts their lottery odds a little.

I recall that when Simmons first trotted out his "Here come the Celtics!" stuff that part of his "dream scenario" was a "hobbled Rose." I didn't like that he said that, and I would like it less if I were a Chicago fan, but if in fact things play out that way, that does open the door for a Boston appearance in the conference finals.

If Rose can't go at all, I think Philadelphia can beat the Bulls. I wouldn't bet on it, but they can. I do think Boston will beat Chicago if Rose can't go at all, and may beat them if he is not himself (and they win in the first round, of course). Rose's injuries are unfortunate for the league. I also think it will be better for the league if Kobe is near 100% and can go in postseason. He is supposedly going to try to play Friday night against the Spurs.

___

An interesting story right now is the Clippers. They have been mostly hot since the "Will Del Negro get canned" stuff, and are sitting at 39-23. The Lakers are 40-23 and hold the tiebreaker, but two of the Lakers' last three games are against OKC and SA. If the Lakers lose those two and the Clippers go 3-1, the Clippers get the 3rd seed.

Also, no one is talking much about it, but Indiana has won 6 in a row and is 40-22. They will probably get Orlando in RD 1.

It really would be nice if the Knicks could somehow face IND or a Rose-less/Hobbled Rose Bulls team rather than MIA in the first round.

It really would be nice if the Knicks could somehow face IND or a Rose-less/Hobbled Rose Bulls team rather than MIA in the first round.

I dunno, the loss would be a lot more painful that way I would think.

It took every ounce of coaching from Larry Brown to get some sort of working rotation together that consisted of Tyrone Hill, McKie, Aaron Snow and George Lynch.

I agree. Another way of looking at it is that the 76ers may have had some of the right types of players around him, but they had bad versions of those types of players. Ok, a big guard who can shoot threes but doesn't need to make plays? Eric Snow is that, but he's not very good at it. Actually, Chauncey would have fit that role pretty well (or Fisher, or probably several other guys). Or instead of McKie, what if they had Kirilenko, Posey, or Brent Barry? The abject failure of the guys who were in their front office at all other times reinforces that Iverson was swimming upstream.

You just want Minny to get that pick. :)

How dare you! No, you're absolutely right.

Did I actually say Aaron Snow? It was late.

I do think the Sixers can beat the Bulls in the first round, but I wouldn't count on it. It'd be a successful season if they do that, I think. I hope Collins returns because I think the good outweighs the bad, although the non-development of Turner/Holiday (as noted by Steagles) bothers me.

I agree. Another way of looking at it is that the 76ers may have had some of the right types of players around him, but they had bad versions of those types of players. Ok, a big guard who can shoot threes but doesn't need to make plays? Eric Snow is that, but he's not very good at it. Actually, Chauncey would have fit that role pretty well (or Fisher, or probably several other guys). Or instead of McKie, what if they had Kirilenko, Posey, or Brent Barry? The abject failure of the guys who were in their front office at all other times reinforces that Iverson was swimming upstream.

Eric Snow was better than Derek Fisher, and Fisher can't guard a SG anyways. Billups would have been a good fit, but he didn't develop until considerably later. Maybe that would have changed, but that's just speculation.

The thing is Snow was barely considered an NBA player. He went from being a 12-min a game guy, with lots of DNP-CDs, to being a starter. He wasn't incredibly young, either; the Sixers got him when he was 24 for a 2nd-round pick.

Brown would have had a positive effect on Chauncey's career because, well, he actually did have a positive effect on his career, albeit a few years down the line.

I dunno, the loss would be a lot more painful that way I would think.

I was an hour and 24 minutes late.

Anyway, I'm excited for Heat/Knicks! It's got to be better than those shitshows in the 90s, right? Lots of star power, MSG crowds, etc.

Eric Snow was better than Derek Fisher, and Fisher can't guard a SG anyways. Billups would have been a good fit, but he didn't develop until considerably later. Maybe that would have changed, but that's just speculation.

I don't want to go through every PG of the era, but I know there were plenty of guys who were a lot better than Eric Snow and not stars. And the point isn't that they need four of those guys, just one or two would have made that team look very different.

Anyway, I'm excited for Heat/Knicks!

Why? I just don't see any way that that is a competitive series.

This AI discussion just drives home how staggering it is that Billy King still has a general manager job in the NBA.

Anyway, I'm excited for Heat/Knicks! It's got to be better than those shitshows in the 90s, right?

Yeah, but swallowing thumbtacks would be better than a repeat of those 90's series too.

I'd like to believe this will be a good series, but I just don't see it. It could be the biggest mismatch of the playoffs.

Also should note that it's obviously absurd to call Paul Pierce a complementary player. He's better than Iverson.

Yeah, but swallowing thumbtacks would be better than a repeat of those 90's series too.

I, for one, loved those series.

Yeah, but swallowing thumbtacks would be better than a repeat of those 90's series too.

I, for one, loved those series.

Really? How? I mean, as a Knicks fan (right?), of course you would enjoy seeing your team play. But did you think that style of basketball was entertaining? (meaning, would you have enjoyed those series if your team wasn't involved in them?)

If so, I understand to a point; people always say the Stockton to Malone Jazz were one of the most boring (and dirty) teams they'd ever seen, and I never saw either of those things...But those Knicks/Heat games brought the brutal 90's style defenses to a whole new level.

Why? I just don't see any way that that is a competitive series.

It's not going to be. The Knicks have given Melo free reign to hog and that strategy has a ceiling -- a ceiling far below being able to beat a team like the Heat in a seven-game series.

The team needed this kind of performance from him when it was whole. It's entirely on him that he wasn't willing to provide it. He needs to mesh and play with other players in a setting that doesn't just let him hog. There's still no evidence that he's willing to do that.

[1068] I liked the intensity. I love physical defense. I like(d) watching a matchup where I felt the players on both sides legitimately disliked each other. I know I'm alone on this because most people hate low scoring games, but I really don't care whether the game is low or high scoring.

#1070 - Fair enough.

And the Zo/LJ/Van Gundy fight was very entertaining, I'll give you that.

I really don't care whether the game is low or high scoring.

I agree with that. I think three things that enter into a game being entertaining are the overall intensity, the suspense in the final minutes, and how well played the game is (which can be both offensive and defensive, although I can understand why most people prefer offense). Those series were very intense and had plenty of suspense. The quality wasn't at a peak, but there were plenty of truly talented defensive players and good coaches directing them, so it wasn't as bad as some of the series that came after it. The era of the Nets being the best EC team were the low point to me.

The era of the Nets being the best EC team were the low point to me.

This.

The era of the Nets being the best EC team were the low point to me.

This.

Maybe if I could make a noun and verb agree. I hate when I notice that stuff after the edit window closes.

The thing is Snow was barely considered an NBA player. He went from being a 12-min a game guy, with lots of DNP-CDs, to being a starter.

Snow was my favorite Sonic in the late '90s, and it was pretty obvious to biased me that he could be a quality backup point guard at worst. I still haven't entirely forgiven George Karl for not giving him a shot.

Not sure how I would compare him and Derek Fisher in their primes.

How much should we trust this rumor?

---

The Knicks have given Melo free reign to hog and that strategy has a ceiling -- a ceiling far below being able to beat a team like the Heat in a seven-game series.

The team needed this kind of performance from him when it was whole. It's entirely on him that he wasn't willing to provide it. He needs to mesh and play with other players in a setting that doesn't just let him hog. There's still no evidence that he's willing to do that.

Relevant.

---

I would love to see him on the Bulls today.

The Knicks have given Melo free reign to hog and that strategy has a ceiling -- a ceiling far below being able to beat a team like the Heat in a seven-game series.

The team needed this kind of performance from him when it was whole. It's entirely on him that he wasn't willing to provide it. He needs to mesh and play with other players in a setting that doesn't just let him hog. There's still no evidence that he's willing to do that.

To his credit, Melo has played excellently since the team converted to Melo ball and I don't think the issue is so much Melo as it is that we simply do not have the ballhandlers/passers capable of handling the pressure Chalmers, Wade and James can apply on the perimeter.

The Knicks have given Melo free reign to hog and that strategy has a ceiling -- a ceiling far below being able to beat a team like the Heat in a seven-game series.

Is that a general consensus here? Its one that I'm coming around to (based solely on feel), that a Carmelo Anthony team is most successful with an offense with him as the "ball-stopper" that he's thought of? But that the ceiling on that team is probably at best losing in the conference finals?

If so, what does a franchise do with that type of player on your team?

As I type this, this is making me think that Carmelo Anthony is a 6'8" Allen Iverson who plays worse defense, but is at least height-appropriate for his position?

I was like 13 when the Knicks played the Heat for the first time in the playoffs, so I don't think I really understood how awful the games were. Also, I became a Knicks fan when Riley came to the Knicks, so that was kinda all I knew of basketball anyway.

we simply do not have the ballhandlers/passers capable of handling the pressure Chalmers, Wade and James can apply on the perimeter.

So, Melo's Love Handles doesn't Love Melo's handle.

If so, what does a franchise do with that type of player on your team?

Enjoy it while it lasts. And hope for bad things to happen to your opponents. Seriously, many teams would be elated with a ceiling of a CF or a floor of a competitive 1st round exit. NJ keeps saying that he's looking forward to competitive playoff basketball and that's plenty to enjoy as a fan.

Enjoy it while it lasts. And hope for bad things to happen to your opponents.

I think you're right. I think its hard to swallow a ceiling, though. Or, its easier to accept a ceiling if you're the post-Yao Rockets, or the superstar-less Blazers, and you're in that "if we had a superstar we could be title contenders" school of thought. I think it's harder when you have to say "We have a 'superstar', but we'll never get there with that player"

Then again, I've spent most of my life in a city without an NBA franchise, so I don't really know the feelings of a typical NBA fan (even if I could ever be described as typical)

Seriously, many teams would be elated with a ceiling of a CF

Not when the ceiling would be higher if he didn't insist on hogging. (And that assumes the ceiling is as high as the ECF and it might not be.)

or a floor of a competitive 1st round exit.

The floor's an uncompetitive first round exit, as happened last year when they got swept by Boston. Melo did have one big game hogging -- Game 2 -- but the Knicks still lost.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt about conference finals. I think he got there with Denver?

Not when the ceiling would be higher if he didn't insist on hogging.

The point is, he and his teams play worse when he doesn't, because he's incapable of playing any other way. So what do you do with that?

I think it's harder when you have to say "We have a 'superstar', but we'll never get there with that player"

Yep, and even worse when the owner's primary goal isn't a championship, it's to sell stuff and get people to overpay to watch his "stars."

So what do you do with that?

Me, personally? Trade him and build around a winner. They should have traded him at the deadline and they should trade him at the end of this season. You aren't winning a championship with him.

Looks like Dwight Howard is going to pull a Manny Ramirez and boycott the rest of the season. Boy, I'll bet Orlando is wishing they would have taken whatever they could have gotten for him already.

Really? How? I mean, as a Knicks fan (right?), of course you would enjoy seeing your team play. But did you think that style of basketball was entertaining? (meaning, would you have enjoyed those series if your team wasn't involved in them?)

I was playing high-school basketball at the time (graduated '96); as a defense/rebounding oriented player, it gave me something to pattern parts of my game on.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt about conference finals. I think he got there with Denver?

Yeah, once. Lost in the first round every other season. As far as team success goes, Denver in the Carmelo years was pretty similar to Minnesota in the Garnett years.

I was playing high-school basketball at the time (graduated '96); as a defense/rebounding oriented player, it gave me something to pattern parts of my game on.

How to start brawls? :)

Deng is in for the Bulls, Rose is out. Bosh is out for the Heat (so is Turiaf), Wade is in. Primer RT:

Tom Haberstroh
An hour ago, Chris Bosh was considered a game-time decision. Then Rose was declared out. Bosh now declared inactive. You connect the dots.

Minor quibble, because I'm a homer and am easily annoyed today: Windhorst wrote about the Heat seeking the 1 seed. Now, I know it's on "Heat Index", but while he breaks down the Heat's path to a 1 seed with a Heat win tonight, he doesn't once mention that if the Bulls win tonight they clinch the 1 seed. Come on! That's pertinent information to the article! /pointless rant

The Pistons are better than the Wolves at tanking.

James Jones is the first guy to try and punch Noah in a game. Who woulda thunk that?

milwaukee lost again tonight, which means that the sixers magic number for clinching a playoff spot is 2. huzzah

has anyone noticed that indiana has won 11 of their last 12 games?

I don't want to go through every PG of the era, but I know there were plenty of guys who were a lot better than Eric Snow and not stars. And the point isn't that they need four of those guys, just one or two would have made that team look very different.

For example, Kevin Ollie, whom they traded Snow for, who was 32 and had hardly ever been a starter, but seemed just fine in the Snow role.

I'm not sure that I'd go that far. Snow spent 6 full seasons with Philly (98-04), posting a PER of 14.0 and WS/48 of .109 - he was also considered, as I understand it, an elite defender at peak. Ollie's 4 years with the Sixers (04-08) had him putting up a PER of 8.2 and WS/48 of .044 with decent defense. Basically, we're looking at average NBA production v. a guy who's around the replacement level.

has anyone noticed that indiana has won 11 of their last 12 games?

Yep. Would have loved for the Celtics to catch them, but they have stubbornly clung to that #3 spot.

Which means they get Howard-less Orlando in the first round.

Which means they get Howard-less Orlando in the first round.

Or New York.

Oh right. I was adding wrong. It is still mathematically possible for New York to catch Orlando. But I will be mildly surprised if any of the playoff spots in the East end up differently than they stand right now. Who owns the ORL/NYK tiebreaker?

flip...