According to Zach Lowe, the NYK have the tie-breaker. And he breaks down the schedule:

They should be looking in the rear view, where the surging Knicks sit just three games back, with the tiebreaker in hand over the Magic. If the Knicks go 4-0 and the Magic finish 1-3, the two teams would end with identical 37-29 records, kicking Orlando to the No. 7 seed and a first-round series against one of the East’s true heavyweights. That could be ugly.

That scenario would seem unlikely, especially since the Magic still have a home game against the Bobcats — one of the most winnable games in NBA history. Their other three games, though, consist of a road back-to-back this weekend in Utah and Denver, and then the season finale in Memphis. The Knicks have two easy road games left in Cleveland and Charlotte, a tough road game in Atlanta and a home date with a Clippers team still fighting off Memphis below them and chasing the Lakers above. A 4-0 finish with that slate would seem unlikely, meaning the Magic, if they can win just that one Charlotte game, should hang onto the No. 6 seed.

I think it's most likely the Magic finish 1-3, and I also doubt the Knicks finish 4-0 (unless the Clips are locked into their playoff spot by the time they meet).

Also, there's now a really good chance Miami finishes ahead of the Bulls for the 1 seed. The Heat play the Wizards twice, and Houston and Boston. There's a good chance that's 4-0 - because the C's are most likely locked into the 4 seed and might sit a bunch of guys. The Bulls schedule is much tougher, IMO, playing Dallas and Indiana (both are likely losses at this point - either without Rose or with an out of shape/banged up Rose) and Cleveland left. This is why the Bulls losing to the Wizards Monday was just killer. If the Bulls finish 2-1 and the Heat 4-0, I think the Heat win the tiebreaker (they definitely do if the Bulls loss is to an EC team; not sure what tiebreaker #3 is if they finish with the same conference record).

Having said that, the path for the 2 seed to the ECF could very well be Orl and then the NYK/IND winner, while the 1 seed gets PHI and the BOS/ATL winner (most likely a much improved Celtics). From the Bulls perspective, the 2 seed path seems (repeat, *seems*) slightly more favorable but they are much better off with homecourt over the Heat in the ECF than the potentially very slightly easier path as a 2 seed. If the Knicks finish 7th, I don't know which path is preferable for the Bulls (I wanna say still as the 2 through the Knicks then Pacers). Miami seems much better prepared/matched up than the Bulls for any of the teams they'll face in round 1.

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?

NYK. I know it's unlikely, but it is in play.

Thanks, guys.

Maybe it's just the shortened schedule, but these playoffs seem as wide open as any I can remember.

Snow was a fine player for the Sixers. My frustration with him at the time was that he wasn't a reliable shooter or any kind of offensive threat. Looking for someone of Snow's general calibre...someone like Charlie Ward, who was hardly Deron Williams but could hit a wide-open 3, might have been a better fit.

Maybe it's just the shortened schedule, but these playoffs seem as wide open as any I can remember.

Really? It seems to me that there's a heavy favorite to come out of the East and West. Anything other than MIA/OKC would be a pretty big upset.

That's just like, my opinion, though.

Really? It seems to me that there's a heavy favorite to come out of the East and West. Anything other than MIA/OKC would be a pretty big upset.

That's just like, my opinion, though.


That was my pick before the season started and it's looking even more likely now. Heat/Bulls would've been up for grabs if Rose was healthy, but that might not happen.

The Heat still have a tough road to climb, even if they are heavy favorites. I also think Rose could be ready to play, and well, by round 3. The Thunder could lose to a number of teams out west, including the Spurs, even if they are certainly heavy favorites. Do we really think both teams are greater than 70% to come out of their respective conferences? I think it's definitely the most likely outcome, but I think that as a plurality and not a majority, so it wouldn't be an upset exactly.

My intuitive sense is Heat come out of the east 60% of the time, and the Thunder come out of the West about the same amount. The Bulls are 30% and the Celtics/field maybe 10%, perhaps that's too high. In the West, Thunder 60%, Spurs 20%, Memphis/LAL/LAC 20%.

(oh, and hi guys, it's been awhile)

So much depends on seeding (thus matchups) in the west. If the spurs see both lal and Memphis (which I think is still a possible outcome?) then I am pessimistic of their chances. I think the spurs have a better than coinflip chance at beating the thunder in 7 with home court. Maybe 60 40 and coinflip the other way. I don't see the clips as a threat to any of the aforementioned teams. Call it the vdn factor.

As of this morning, the Spurs are a half-game ahead of OKC (Spurs have 5 games left, Thunder have 4)

If, one year ago...hell, 4 months ago, you had told me I would crestfallen at the news of a Jared Jeffries season ending knee injury...I would have either laughed in agreement as I would like my Knicks to have every chance to beat up on Jeffries and whatever team was dumb enough to sign him or punched you in the face for insinuating the Knicks would be dumb/cruel enough to re-sign him. But here we are. And I am sad.

My intuitive sense is Heat come out of the east 60% of the time, and the Thunder come out of the West about the same amount.

I don't think it likely that the odds are that high for those two teams. Maybe for the Heat if Rose is unable to play or significantly hobbled, but I can't see it for the Thunder. To be a 60% favorite to come out of conference, you need to be about an 85% favorite in each of the first 3 rounds. Even if you give them 100% chance to win the first round, you still need to be a ~77-78% favorite to win in both the conference semis and finals. Given that the Thunder's likely path to the finals will run through 2 of SAS/LAL/LAC/MEM, none of whom I would think are that massive of underdogs to the Thunder, I just don't see it. Hell, Hollinger's odds have the Spurs more likely to come out of the West than OKC, which doesn't seem impossible to me, even though I have been pretty skeptical of SAS thus far this season. 60% to come out of the conference implies a historically great team to me. None of the favorites this year are that dominant in my opinion.

There is no way I'd take any team out of the West as higher than 50%. I'll take the field over any team in the West, easy.

insinuating the Knicks would be dumb/cruel enough

You have been a Knicks fan for how long?

You have been a Knicks fan for how long?

Excellent point.

Anyone have any idea what the postseason schedule will look like? In particular, I'm interested in Lakers/Clippers games.

Opinions:

>Miami vs. Oklahoma City was the consensus pick prior to the season, and I still think that is what will happen.

>I don't see any major reasons to take the Lakers and Celtics more seriously as challengers to the contenders than the Clippers and Pacers. ORTG/DRTG/SRS for each team:

IND 7/9 2.72
BOS 24/3 1.94
LAL 11/13 2.42
LAC 3/15 2.95

All these numbers have some noise, as discussed, but they do tell us something.

The Lakers have done very, very well (or been lucky, or both, depending on how you want to frame it) in close games. Their PYTH is 36-27. LAC's is 38-25.

The arguments in favor of the old dreadnaughts are the lighter schedule, (although there will be a few back-to-backs this time) and potential matchups (BOS with MIA and LAL with SAS) and perhaps Pace Factor. But I see the Green Men and the Purple-and-Gold as "challengers" rather than "contenders."

>As far as Carmelo Anthony, some of the stuff I am hearing about him now reminds me of stuff I heard about Kobe Bryant from 2004--Pau. I think peak Bryant was better than peak Anthony, but Anthony is a heck of a player, and the relevant questions are the one berg asked earlier and a correlated one:

1. How difficult would it be to create a Finals team with this guy as your best guy?
2. What kinds of skills does he not have and do you therefore need around him?

As to question 2, I think Chandler is more or less the perfect center to play with Anthony, and I think Billups (who was the PG on Denver's WCF team) was a good PG to pair with him. The Knicks made the right choice, of course, but they could use a guy like Billups and have missed him.

But as we have seen, Stoudemire doesn't work all that well with Anthony, although I think the problem there is probably as much the decline in Stoudemire's athleticism as it is the pairing issue. But Baron Davis is not any good any more and is not a great match in any case, and that is a problem post-Lin. Shumpert works fine, and so does Smith. I don't think the problems with the Knicks really revolve around Anthony's limitations and personality.

As to question 1, most championship teams' best guy is better than Anthony, and the Bulls have Rose and the Heat have Wade and James. That makes it tough--but not impossible.

IND 7/9 2.72
BOS 24/3 1.94
LAL 11/13 2.42
LAC 3/15 2.95

So do you like the well-rounded teams (IND, LAL) or the teams with a dominant skill (BOS def, LAC off)? I guess I'd tend to say the former, but if the evidence said otherwise, I wouldn't be shocked.

As far as Carmelo Anthony, some of the stuff I am hearing about him now reminds me of stuff I heard about Kobe Bryant from 2004--Pau. I think peak Bryant was better than peak Anthony, but Anthony is a heck of a player

This is a good point.

Speaking of Chandler, word is that he will likely replace Howard on the Olympic team. Chandler played in the Worlds IIRC.

Speaking of Chandler, word is that he will likely replace Howard on the Olympic team. Chandler played in the Worlds IIRC.

I'd really rather he not.

I think peak Bryant was better than peak Anthony

I can't tell if this was tongue in cheek or not, but the gap between peak Kobe and peak Melo is significant IMO.

But as we have seen, Stoudemire doesn't work all that well with Anthony, although I think the problem there is probably as much the decline in Stoudemire's athleticism as it is the pairing issue.

Even without the athleticism, if STAT was simply shooting as well as he had in the past, things would have looked better. The Knicks' run under Woodson has occurred with Landry Fields still getting minutes (minutes which will now go to STAT) and he can't be counted on to hit anything outside of a layup/dunk. Amar'e just needs to reliably hit those 15+ footers again, at the least.

guess I'd tend to say the former, but if the evidence said otherwise, I wouldn't be shocked.

Me too, but I haven't researched it. I recall reading a few things in 2010 about how it was pretty unusual for a team with the 15th-ranked O like Boston to make the Finals--usually title teams were Top 10 or so in both at least. I know that Boston is a different team in some ways than they were earlier this year, (Garnett at the 5, Bradley) and the Lakers are different on O with Sessions than they were with Fisher. But I am skeptical about both teams.

This is in part I am generally skeptical of "different gear" and "flip the switch" arguments. The only two teams I have seen that really seemed to have a different gear with the same guys on the roster were the 2010 Celtics (and they eventually did lose in large part due to inability to score) and the 2001 Lakers, who had a 51-31 PYTH and were 23rd in DRTG--then stormed through the playoffs at 15-1. But Kobe missed 25 or so games that year, Shaq missed about 10, and Fisher, whose Steve Kerr-like 3p playoff shooting was a huge part of the title run, missed 3/4 of the 2001 schedule, playing only 20 games. Fisher was better overall then--had a 14.0 PER--and Shaq did not try hard on D until the post-season. Plus, he was in his prime at that time, age 29, and no one could really deal with him when he was on and bringing it.

I really don't see those kinds of factors with the Lakers and Celtics.

As to the Clippers, they have issues--FT shooting, wing D. But they have Paul, Griffin and some other weapons, and I think they have shown they can beat anyone when they are on. I think they are a very dangerous opponent for any team in the West.

I have only seen three Pacers' games, but I like their FT shooting, 3p shooting, quickness, and rebounding. They lack a really good passer, though, and I think that will be a problem.

Me too, but I haven't researched it. I recall reading a few things in 2010 about how it was pretty unusual for a team with the 15th-ranked O like Boston to make the Finals--usually title teams were Top 10 or so in both at least.

I was thinking that as I typed my earlier post. I'm sure most highly successful teams are good offensive and defensive teams and that's why they were so successful. I guess I meant that of the subset who weren't elite in both categories (say, whose ORTG+DRTG > 18 or something), is it better to be balanced or skewed. Boston, at 24 in ORTG, is probably pushing the limits of how bad one unit can be, though you pointed out that they've been a different team lately.

This is in part I am generally skeptical of "different gear" and "flip the switch" arguments.

Like you said, getting injured guys back is one way to "flip the switch." I imagine another way would be to tighten the rotation and give your stars more minutes. San Antonio can definitely get more Manu/Parker/Duncan instead of the last 3 guys on the bench. I imagine Boston will probably bump KG and Pierce's minutes too, and maybe Dallas. I can't really think of anyone else who has been limiting their stars' minutes and can stop it now.

I have only seen three Pacers' games, but I like their FT shooting, 3p shooting, quickness, and rebounding. They lack a really good passer, though, and I think that will be a problem.

I ended up watching them a fair amount this year (less lately during their hot streak, though). They have an old school offensive set where they try to get it into the post and play inside out. The problem is, Hibbert is not an elite low post player and they don't have another great option. Granger shoots a lot of twos off the dribble. George has great athleticism, but gets out of control and turns it over a lot when he tries to drive. Collison's steadiness is offset by his lack of explosiveness. Hill may be helping in the starting lineup. Before him, they really didn't have anyone who could get into the paint off the dribble, which has left them prone to some long scoring droughts.

Amar'e just needs to reliably hit those 15+ footers again, at the least.

That is a big part of it, but I think those numbers may be tied to his back and other issues, rather than just being luck or whatever. OTOH, he is finishing at a higher rate than last year, although his close looks are down slightly.

I can't tell if this was tongue in cheek or not, but the gap between peak Kobe and peak Melo is significant IMO.

I usually try to put "I think" in front of anything that is not 100% obvious and that I don't have data for. I definitely believe Kobe was better, but they are similar in many ways and perhaps not as far apart as some Lakers fans and others might think.

Nobody in Chicago is acquitting themselves well in this Derrick Rose injury saga. Not Rose, not the training staff, not Thibs and certainly not Bulls fans Online. Rose apparently is claiming his ankle was taped too tightly and it cut off the circulation, causing his latest injury. Rose has also apparently resisted taping his ankles in the past.

Anecdotaly, having played a bit of streetball when I lived in NYC, I can tell you that there is a whole culture in basketball devoted to the pseudo-science of preventing ankle sprains. Rose is probably a part of that culture and has a distrustr of the training staff. Well guess what Derrick, you're a 23 year old kid, with a heart of gold I'm sure, but you have a HS education and are not a trainer or a doctor. Let the damn staff take care of you.

As for the training staff, if this is true, that they taped his ankle too tightly and caused an injury, fire them all. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle however and I will give them the benefit of the doubt of the athlete, over almost any athlete, especially Rose, who has a history of not being honest with his injuries. He's Jake Peavy as a superstar NBA PG.

Thibs should just start saying "no comment". Instead of his stupid policy of saying he's "a game time decision". This feeds the whole media and fan vulture mentality of jumping to conclusions. If he's out until next week just ####### say he's out until next week. This isn't the NFL where it might really matter to deceive your opponents about injuries. There is little, if anything to be gained by playing games with the media and fans wrt to injuries.

And finally, reading RealGM and BlogaBull makes me want to hurl a huge water balloon (filled with urine and skunk juice) at the entire segment of the fan base that instinctively yells "I TOLD YOU JR IS CHEAP HE WONT PAY FOR GOOD TRAINERS" every time someone gets injured.

First off, JR also owns the White Sox, who have arguably the finest training staff in all of sports. And second, Chicago has always been known to pamper the players under JR. They were the 1st team to charter their own plane, they always stay at the absolute best hotels, and I believe they provide every player with a personal chef if the player desires.

Just ugly all around. I hope the playoffs start and we can cleanse our pallet of all of this as Bulls fans.

#1119 - 2010 Celtics had some injuries too, with Garnett missing 13 games and Pierce missing 11. That may have contributed some to their scoring woes during the season, and having both of them back and healthy for the playoffs likely had something to do with their "time to flip the switch on" playoff success.

I can't really think of anyone else who has been limiting their stars' minutes and can stop it now.

This is one reason I don't buy the optimism coming from some LAL fans. Brown has played Kobe, Pau, and Bynum very heavy minutes all year.

Basically, I don't think Boston and the Lakers are any better than they were last year when they both went down in the semis. In Boston's case, as noted, the opening is created by the circumstances: beat Atlanta, take advantage of Rose's health to beat Chicago, and then match up well with Miami, in part since neither squad has a true two-way 5. But I cannot see Boston beating Miami four times now any more than I could see it happening last year (and of course, Miami may still end up with the 1 seed).

As to the Lakers, they were probably helped a bit by the Clippers finally losing last night. If the Lakers can beat SAC and either OKC or SA, they get the 3rd seed now no matter what the Clippers do. OTOH, it now appears that OKC, rather than SA, will be the team they will see if they get the 3 seed and make it to Round 2. I wouldn't pick the Lakers to win 4 times against the Spurs, but I think they can do it if things break right for them. I cannot picture it happening for them against the Thunder.

and having both of them back and healthy for the playoffs likely had something to do with their "time to flip the switch on" playoff success.

Sure, but when it came down to it at the very end each of the last two years, they couldn't score, even with those guys all there. They have been 15th, 18th and now 24th in ORTG the last three years. Rivers does a good job of laying off the throttle, which affects their numbers, but that is also just part of who that team has been and still is.

Why did Cleveland let Hudson go?

I can't really think of anyone else who has been limiting their stars' minutes and can stop it now.

The Grizzlies have been limiting Randolph's minutes and bringing him off the bench since he came back. His minutes have been trending up as he's played his way into shape and got back up to speed and I tend to think he will probably be back in the starting lineup come playoff time. If he doesn't actually start, Lionel will probably play him near starter's minutes and use him in crunch time as he mostly been doing the last few games.

Why did Cleveland let Hudson go?

I'm not sure they did. He's eligible for the playoffs because he wasn't waived, rather his 2nd 10-day just expired. That makes me think that they may have wanted to keep him, but he decided he'd rather play in Memphis. Kevin Pelton mentioned that possibility on twitter last night and it seems plausible to me.

Why did Cleveland let Hudson go?

I also read the other day that they are more interested in keeping Sloan long term, so Hudson was going to be marginalized either way.

The Grizzlies have been limiting Randolph's minutes and bringing him off the bench since he came back.

Yeah, I should have mentioned them.

The Grizzlies have been limiting Randolph's minutes and bringing him off the bench since he came back. His minutes have been trending up as he's played his way into shape and got back up to speed and I tend to think he will probably be back in the starting lineup come playoff time.

I'd been hearing from random places that Randolph's still not 100%. Is he?

I'd been hearing from random places that Randolph's still not 100%. Is he?

No, he's not 100% and probably won't be, but he's increasingly looked more like his old self lately. I think he's gotten back into shape enough that they are probably better off starting him now, but I wouldn't be totally shocked if Lionel keeps bringing him off the bench for a while.

I don't think they should count on him to carry them as much as he did last year, but I don't think they need that as much this year. They are quite a bit deeper and a bit more balanced, so I think Z-Bo at 80-85% could go a long way. In particular, he and Rudy Gay have really had a nice groove going as Randolph has worked his way back into the rotation. Rudy might be playing the best basketball of his life right now.

That said, could easily turn out that they need more out of Randolph than he can give right now to knock off one of the top Western teams. I'm cautiously optimistic at the moment.

I thought 10-day contracts had an implicit team option - guess I made that up. Learning is fun.

I thougt 10-day contracts had an implicit team option - guess I made that up. Learning is fun.

I have no idea if they do or not. The thing with the Cavs makes more sense if they don't and Hudson decided to go elsewhere, but they might have just decided to let him go.

I just checked out Coon's FAQ - no mention of it.

I'm hoping Dan Gilbert will clarify the situation for us with a comic sans rant about teams like Memphis running roughshod over the little guys and turning the rest of the league into the Washington Generals.

I'm waiting for David Stern to void the Hudson-to-Memphis signing for basketball reasons.

I'm 97% sure I could beat Amar'e Stoudemire in a 1 on 1 game provided I get the ball first and it's make it take it.

End of the third in Atlanta. Boston is down by three. Garnett, Pierce, Allen, and Rondo have not played. Avery Bradley has 28 points (and 4 steals) through three.

To be fair, the Hawks are without Horford and Pachulia, and perhaps they'll pull away in the fourth. But I like seeing Ryan Hollins, E'Twuan Moore and company hang in there.

We've been talking about AI a bit historically, so... Manu Ginobili or Allen Iverson? Building a team, get the player for their whole career (including any potential missed years of Ginobili).

What do people make of this Billy Hunter, and Derek Fisher thing? Me, personally, I think Hunter should be fired for being incompetent. He's been in charge for two lockouts and both times, the players union came out severely weakened.

I thought 10-day contracts had an implicit team option - guess I made that up. Learning is fun.

In practice, it's almost always the team's choice to let a player go because if they were particularly coveted they wouldn't be signing 10-day contracts in the first place. But that did happen before with Alonzo Gee going from Washington to San Antonio two years ago.

The story today says Hudson/his agent were upset Cleveland didn't sign him for the remainder of the season after his first 10-day deal expired. So he chose to go to his hometown:
http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-cavaliers/cleveland-cavaliers-1.275356/cavs-handling-of-hudson-s-second-10-day-contract-upset-agent-1.301731

If you haven't already, go watch the pass Ginobli made tonight. It's on the shortlist for pass of the season.

I think Parker's pass to ginobili that hit him right on the numbers was more impressive. Led to a foul from Kobe. Can't find a video though. Parker has really impressed this season.

"We've been talking about AI a bit historically, so... Manu Ginobili or Allen Iverson? Building a team, get the player for their whole career (including any potential missed years of Ginobili)."

If I have another star or two, I'd prefer Manu to complement them. If I don't and my pick has to carry the team, it's got to be AI. Mainly because of durability. Manu has never played more than about 2200 minutes in a year, while AI played 3500 or so at his peak.

I think it's close, and they're different types of players.

Iverson played 37.6k minutes, and has 99 Win Shares. Ginobili has played almost exactly half that at 18.6k minutes and has 83.3 Win Shares. You have to give Iverson credit for durability but I also don't think that Ginobili's low minutes are simply a matter of injuries. I also think Iverson's defense may be getting a bit overrated here - I think he gambled a lot and I also think he deserves some demerit here for forcing his team to have to cross-guard guards to protect him. Ginobili has a 21.8 PER career, Iverson is 20.9.

Ginobili has 14.5 Win Shares in the playoffs compared to Iverson's 7.3 Win Shares. Ginobili played 3.8k minutes and Iverson 3k, so it wasn't that big of a gap. Iverson's playoffs PER was 21.2, and Ginobili's was 20.6.

Ginobili's +/- and Roland Rating are both over +10 for his career as far as I can tell from 82games.com. This year his simple rating is +8.4 this year. Including 2004-2005 he has had the highest +/- of the team 5 of 8 years, with Duncan leading twice and Parker leading once. Duncan is very close a lot of those years, and is ultimately more valuable because of the extra minutes. But I think it does help show that when Ginobili is on the floor he's been as valuable as Tim Duncan - and that covers some prime Duncan years too. As far as I know we don't have this data from Iverson's peak, which is unfortunate. The data we have from Ginobili is elite.

Ginobili also is having a very good season and if he stays health the next couple of years could come close to catching Iverson in career Win Shares. And he probably missed a year or two in the NBA when he would have been a contributing NBA player. Conclusion, I'm from San Antonio and would pick Ginobili.

So, I didn't realize how historically awful Charlotte was. But apparently they've got the second worst margin of victory of any team in NBA history, with only 1992 Mavericks (aka the reason why Mike Iuzzolino was in NBA Jam) being worse then them.

Alternatively, they're margin of victory is 1.5 points a game worse then the third place team, the 9-73 1972 76ers.

In rating Ginobili, should we take into account the fact that he often played against team's 2nd units while coming off the bemch? Does this detract or add to his value?

I also don't know how, or even if, it should be quantified but Ginobili carried Argentina to an Olympic gold medal. I realize they had some other talented players but really that team wasn't very deep and those other players generally were not NBA caliber players.

It's always been my impression that Manu would have played worse if forced to play heavy minutes. That would be why I would prefer AI if starting a team.

Manu playing 36 minutes a night is an unknown because it's never happened. His career high in minutes per game is 31.1. His career average is 27.9.

Iverson's career LOW as a starter was 36.7 minutes, and his career average was 41.1.

It's an impossible copmarison.

Edit: Manu hasn't even averaged 36 min per game in the playoffs.

good to see the sixers still have some fight left in them. that was a hell of a win.

Doesn't it kinda validate the "Iverson was overrated" opinion when people are agreeing that they'd rather have Billups and possibly even Ginobili, borderline HOFers (at best) who were never considered superstars? (unless you think Billups and Ginobili have been horribly underrated their entire careers and SHOULD have been considered superstars, which is possible too, I guess.)

And again, I do think Iverson is a HOFer. I just think he's a lower end one (though to be fair, my personal HOF is a lot smaller than the real one.)

Who would you rather have, Iverson or Reggie Miller? Iverson or Ray Allen?

Doesn't it kinda validate the "Iverson was overrated" opinion when people are agreeing that they'd rather have Billups and possibly even Ginobili, borderline HOFers (at best) who were never considered superstars? (unless you think Billups and Ginobili have been horribly underrated their entire careers and SHOULD have been considered superstars, which is possible too, I guess.)

I don't know if it validates it as some sort of great revelation. MOST people think Iverson was overrated. It's not hard to look at .425 shooting % or a lot of 12-for-31 nights to come up with that. I'm not exactly sure where you think he rates or where he should rate that would place him properly.

For sure Chauncey is one of the most underrated players of his era. We went over this. He was the best player on a wonderfully balanced team that was pretty much a dynasty -- they were the only team to beat a Shaq/Kobe/Zenmaster team in the Finals, think about the historic significance of that. They didn't just win, they dominated them. They basically fought a Tim Duncan Spurs team to a draw -- 7-game series, losing 1 game in OT.

Someone said that Billups is probably as good as Steve Nash, which I think is a fascinating case. Nash is a 2-time MVP who has a case for being the best offensive point guard in history. It's not like these guys are scrubs.

To borrow a term from the HOM, I guess I am Iverson's best friend so I will make the case for him:
Perhaps more than any superstar, Iverson never had a supporting cast. The best player he played with was probably 'Melo, and the enjoyed reasonable success, and 'Melo's problems as a true superstar are well-known. Let's say it wouldn't be hard to find a better match for AI than to make him play out-of-position with 'Melo.
Other than that he had Keith Van Horn, Derrick Coleman, broken-down Chris Webber, young Jerry Stackhouse.

Quick, who's the best outside shooter Iverson ever played with? Rasheed Wallace? Who's the best scoring center he ever had? Dikembe Mutombo? Who's the best offensive point guard he ever had? Eric Snow?!

Look at Isiah Thomas, who might be the most comparable talent in NBA history. Thomas played on a defense-first team, in a lot of ways similar to how the Sixers were built -- a bunch of interchangeable, tough guy bigs and good role players. But he had Dumars, Dantley/Aguirre, Laimbeer, Vinnie Johnson to play with. Isiah is often referred to as an all-time great as the best player on a two-time champion, but I'd feel pretty comfortable taking Iverson over him.

Reggie Miller? He had Mark Jackson, Jalen Rose, Rik Smits.

Doesn't it kinda validate the "Iverson was overrated" opinion when people are agreeing that they'd rather have Billups and possibly even Ginobili, borderline HOFers (at best) who were never considered superstars? (unless you think Billups and Ginobili have been horribly underrated their entire careers and SHOULD have been considered superstars, which is possible too, I guess.)

It just places people differently on the peak vs. career spectrum. Billups has a six year career that matters. Iverson is pretty much the same guy from 22-33.

Is your goal winning championships or making the playoffs?

Who would you rather have, Iverson or Reggie Miller? Iverson or Ray Allen?

AI over Reggie pretty comfortably (unless I'm playing the Knicks in the playoffs). AI over Ray Allen unless I get Thibodeau as a coach and Garnett as his teammate.

Jazz win in OT again. I'm really happy with Corbin. Magic were just destroying the Jazz with the P&R by getting Nelson into the lane for baskets or finding teammates for wide open 3s. Not surprisingly, most of the problem was Jefferson, so Corbin went with a big lineup of Millsap, Jefferson, and Favors. Favors completely anchored the defense, and the Jazz still had their go to man on offense.

Bell, Howard, and Miles getting injured has probably been a blessing for the Jazz. Millsap is much quicker this season and can guard more 3s (and most can't guard him), and Corbin probably doesn't find this out if he wasn't forced to try it.

good to see the sixers still have some fight left in them. that was a hell of a win.

Fantastic win, actually vaguely optimistic about winning a round if they get the Bulls.

Sixers are 9 games under Pythag, although I'm certainly open to the idea that they lose close games because they are young and don't have a go-to scorer.

Is your goal winning championships or making the playoffs?

Championships, of course. More than half the teams in the league make the playoffs. Unless you're a perennial loser like the Clips or Wizards, just making the playoffs itself shouldn't be that big a deal (though maybe it's easy for me to say that since my team has made the playoffs 24 of the last 28 years. But I'd trade 10 or more of them for a title).

Perhaps more than any superstar, Iverson never had a supporting cast

Also perhaps more than any other superstar, his game was harder to build a supporting cast around, so it wasn't all just dumb bad luck that this happened. I can't picture a perennial contender with AI as it's best player. I'd think a good supporting cast would start to get annoyed when their star keeps ignoring them in favor of jacking up 30 shots a game himself at a 40% clip.

Isiah is often referred to as an all-time great as the best player on a two-time champion, but I'd feel pretty comfortable taking Iverson over him.

Iverson over Isiah Thomas? Um, no. Billups over Nash? Also no, but much closer.


Bell, Howard, and Miles getting injured has probably been a blessing for the Jazz.

As much as you never want anyone to get hurt, I was glad when all three of them were removed from the rotation for good. Corbin seemed to have inherited Sloan's irrational love of veterans over youngsters regardless of actual ability, and Bell, Howard, and Miles going down and removing the temptation for Corbin to give them minutes belonging to Hayward, Favors, Kanter, and Burks was the best thing that could've happened to the Jazz. It's not just that the kids have the potential to be better in the future; it's that they're better right NOW.

Also perhaps more than any other superstar, his game was harder to build a supporting cast around, so it wasn't all just dumb bad luck that this happened. I can't picture a perennial contender with AI as it's best player. I'd think a good supporting cast would start to get annoyed when their star keeps ignoring them in favor of jacking up 30 shots a game himself at a 40% clip.

Yes, you say this, but where is the evidence of it? Why is it harder to build around AI than Isiah or Tiny Archibald or Gus Williams?

There's not really any evidence that Iverson took shots away from effective scorers, either. The best scorer/high usage player he ever played with was 'Melo. In their one full season together, Iverson didn't jack up 30 shots a game, he took 19 shots a game. 'Melo took 19.2 shots per game, which is exactly his career average. Both had good seasons. Iverson led the league in minutes played, had 11.6 WS and the best TS% of his career (shot .458, .567 TS%).

Who's the guy who lost shots playing with Iverson?

For sure Chauncey is one of the most underrated players of his era. We went over this. He was the best player on a wonderfully balanced team that was pretty much a dynasty -- they were the only team to beat a Shaq/Kobe/Zenmaster team in the Finals, think about the historic significance of that. They didn't just win, they dominated them. They basically fought a Tim Duncan Spurs team to a draw -- 7-game series, losing 1 game in OT.

Yeah, any argument that the best player on the second best team of the Aughts was not a "superstar" is preposterous to me (disclosure: Pistons fan here).

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.

Chauncey broke out in 01-02 with Minnesota, the year before he went to Detroit.

Yeah, any argument that the best player on the second best team of the Aughts was not a "superstar" is preposterous to me (disclosure: Pistons fan here).

I think the notion of "superstar" is more based in media exposure than talent level. Chauncey was without a doubt supremely talented, he just never got the recognition because he was playing in Detroit instead of NY, LA, Chicago, etc. He also never sought the media out. The same could be said about Rasheed Wallace, though his personality naturally drew the attention. That dude in his prime was a phenomenal talent.

Yes, you say this, but where is the evidence of it? Why is it harder to build around AI than Isiah or Tiny Archibald or Gus Williams?

I'm not claiming it to be a statistical fact. It's a guess based on observation, which is why I used words like "perhaps" and "I'd think". But as for Isiah or Archibald, I'd say it's easier to build a team around them because they shoot for a higher percentage and in Thomas's case, he passed a lot more too. And is a guy like Williams who isn't in the HOF and only made two All Star games really someone you want to compare AI to if you're trying to defend him?

But I agree that Thomas probably had a similar skill set and could've been a good comparison if Iverson was more interested in passing and less interested in winning scoring titles. Don't you think Iverson likely would've been a more valuable player if he averaged 21 points on 47 percent shooting (by taking better shots rather than trying to force them) and dishing out 11 assists like Isiah rather than trying to score 30 every game even when it took a lot of shots at a poor percentage to do it?

Who's the guy who lost shots playing with Iverson?

Well, when one player averages 25 shots a game, all of his teammates are getting fewer shots. Yes, his Sixers supporting cast was weak. But can't even mediocre teammates shoot 42 percent? IMO ballhogging is only justifiable if you're making a higher percentage than your teammates would be (like young Jordan or 2006-2007 Kobe). Maybe that's true of Iverson too, but I'm less certain.

I just think it's easy to say that the Sixers had a poor supporting cast or that Denver just wasn't a good fit. It's a bit harder to come up with a realistic supporting cast that would've worked for him in Philly or a already semi-contending team that he would have meshed perfectly with instead of the Nuggets.

Yeah, any argument that the best player on the second best team of the Aughts was not a "superstar" is preposterous to me (disclosure: Pistons fan here).

Nitpicking, but I'd rank the Pistons 3rd behind the Spurs and the Lakers (in whichever order you want).

But as for Isiah or Archibald, I'd say it's easier to build a team around them because they shoot for a higher percentage and in Thomas's case, he passed a lot more too.

You're ignoring a lot of context. In 2001, the league shooting percentage was .443. In 1980, when Archibald won a title, it was .481. In 1979, when Williams won the title as a score-first PG, it was .485. When Isiah won, it was .476/.477.

Also, the defensive attention paid to Iverson led the way for a lot of offensive rebounds and put-backs (which are not counted as assists).

It's a bit harder to come up with a realistic supporting cast that would've worked for him in Philly or a already semi-contending team that he would have meshed perfectly with instead of the Nuggets.

It's hard to come up with a realistic supporting cast that would work for anyone. It's hard to win championships. How do you build a championship team around Dwight Howard, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone?

How about this: Give him Shaq and Phil Jackson and I'd like his chances to win. Or, Phil Jackson and Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum. How about McHale, Parrish, Dennis Johnson?

If you trade Kobe Bryant for Iverson in the 2001 Finals, do the Sixers win? How about if you trade Shaq and Horry for Mutombo and George Lynch? If you put Magic Johnson on the 2008 Nuggets, do they win the title?

Iverson's 2008 season with Melo is basically a dead ringer for a typical Kobe Bryant season: .458 FG%, 26.4 PPG, 19 shots per game. Kobe's lifetime averages are .453 FG%, 25.4 PPG, 19.6 shots per game. Iverson gets more assists and steals and fewer turnovers, Kobe gets more rebounds.

Can you win with that player?

think about the historic significance of that. They didn't just win, they dominated them.

I have covered this several times, once three pages ago. The 2003-2004 Lakers simply weren't all that good--people missed it then and still do because of the names, and people get worked up about the teams who beat them because the Lakers had Shaq! and Kobe! but the 2004 series was not an upset, particularly after Malone went down. Kupchak then, as now, had trouble constructing the back end of the roster. The 2003 Lakers were about a 50-win team, and the 2004 Lakers were about a 55-win team. Given the dropoff from Karl Malone to Slava Medvedenko and Brian Cook, the team the Pistons dominated--and they did do that--was about a 48-50 win team over 82. It might be "historic" in a narrative sense, but if you are making a substantive case for the awesomeness of the Billups Pistons, and for Billups in particular, it doesn't help you all that much. The 2004 Pistons were 17th in ORTG and Billups had a PER of 18.6. The 2005 Pistons were 18th in ORTG and his PER was 19.0. Those teams were extremely well-balanced defensive-based teams, like the 2008 Celtics (another team that beat the Lakers in the Finals) but not as good as the 2008 Celtics.

The 2004 Pistons were awesome for a brief moment after the Wallace deal, and their O numbers, as well as Billups' metrics, did improve under Flip Saunders, as they put together an impressive string of seasons with big win totals. But they never got back to the Finals, losing to Miami in 06, Cleveland in 07 and the Evil Green Men in 08. And their 05 team, while it played well in the Finals, was only 54-28 with a 53-29 Pyth.

As to the idea that Billups is underrated...to an extent, yes. What people usually actually mean by that "Casual fans don't realize how good the guy is because he is not all that famous, and MSM guys like Stephen A Smith don't talk about him much" and in Billups' case, that's true. OTOH, this is a guy who has been on teams put together by USA Basketball, a guy who has won a Finals MVP, a guy whose recent amnesty adventure was a big story, a guy whose nickname is "Mr. Big Shot" and a guy who will almost certainly be in Springfield one day. I would say he is "underfamous" more than "underrated."

Too bad kevin is not around. He and baudib would have had a lot of fun talking about Iverson.

Iverson was like anybody else: you could win with him if the other guys were good enough. The question, however, is the berg question: How hard would it be to create a Finals team with this guy as your best player?

The 2003-2004 Lakers simply weren't all that good

I realize that by the standards of Lakerdom, it's not much, but Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Jackson is a hell of a team.

They beat the Spurs, who were world champs the year before and the year after. They would have beaten a great number of Eastern Conference champion teams from that era.

The question, however, is the berg question: How hard would it be to create a Finals team with this guy as your best player?

As noted, the Sixers developed into a winning team and a Finals team with Iverson while essentially making incredible draft blunders while he was on the team, with their big free agent signings being Matt Geiger and George Lynch. It's actually not that hard to do better than that.

The problem though is that in the NBA, it is much tougher to win than in other sports. In baseball, you can win if your best player is Paul Konerko. There are many great players who never won, there are many all-time greats who didn't win as his team's best player. Oscar Charleston, Dr. J, Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Kevin McHale, Karl Malone, David Robinson. You can make a case that Kobe was never the best player on a championship team. Tyson Chandler had a better WS/48 than Dirk Nowitzki last year.

Iverson is unique because he is...well, an unusual player, but also because the lack of star firepower surrounding him was simply incredible. Patrick Ewing didn't have a ton of help, but his supporting casts were a lot better than Iverson's.

They would have beaten a great number of Eastern Conference champion teams from that era.

If true, that's because the Eastern Conference mostly sucked in that era. There are teams in the NBA every year as good as the 2003 and 2004 Lakers. Payton was still pretty good, but he didn't fit the Triangle very well and was 35 years old by then. PER of 17.3. Good, but nothing special. Still pretty good on D--but not good enough to deal with Billups, which is one reason the Lakers got worked. And the starting forwards for most of the Finals were Devean George and Slava Medvedenko. It was a hell of a core, but not a hell of a team.

Like I said, beating Shaq, Kobe and Phil is a big deal to people emotionally and is a big deal from a narrative standpoint. One thing I have noticed about this thread is how often Kobe comes up even when the Lakers fans here aren't saying anything about him. But that doesn't really have anything to do with how good those Detroit teams were in an historical sense.

IMO, those teams are less remembered than they should be because they didn't repeat and because they never made the Finals again after 2005. The Thomas/Dumars team made it three times and won twice.

Oscar Charleston

Wrong Oscar.

I wasn't trying to answer the question about Iverson. I have not really looked at his career all that closely. I will say that the Finals team Iverson was on was not, like some other EC winners of that era as I noted, a very impressive one nor did it get back to the Finals. That wasn't his fault, but that team does not really shed much light on the question for me.

I know the counterargument: he dragged those guys to the Finals and won a game against the mighty Lakers. But what I mean by the question is a little different than that.

I have covered this several times, once three pages ago. The 2003-2004 Lakers simply weren't all that good--people missed it then and still do because of the names, and people get worked up about the teams who beat them because the Lakers had Shaq! and Kobe! but the 2004 series was not an upset, particularly after Malone went down. Kupchak then, as now, had trouble constructing the back end of the roster. The 2003 Lakers were about a 50-win team, and the 2004 Lakers were about a 55-win team. Given the dropoff from Karl Malone to Slava Medvedenko and Brian Cook, the team the Pistons dominated--and they did do that--was about a 48-50 win team over 82. It might be "historic" in a narrative sense, but if you are making a substantive case for the awesomeness of the Billups Pistons, and for Billups in particular, it doesn't help you all that much

This sounds like a bunch of post hoc rationalizing to me. The Lakers had the third-most wins that year. The Pacers led the league, but everyone knew the East was a joke compared to the West. The Lakers were as big a favorite going into the playoffs, at least media-wise, as any team I can remember since their previous title. Kobe was in his prime and Shaq was still dominant. I find it hard to believe you were saying, "you know, we have an OK team, but it's probably not our year."

The 2004 Pistons were 17th in ORTG and Billups had a PER of 18.6. The 2005 Pistons were 18th in ORTG and his PER was 19.0. Those teams were extremely well-balanced defensive-based teams, like the 2008 Celtics (another team that beat the Lakers in the Finals) but not as good as the 2008 Celtics.

Does PER purport to capture the value of a player's defense beyond steals/block/D reb? The reliance around here on PER, which appears to be a glorified fantasy stat, confuses me. Though I don't fully understand it and am willing to admit I'm completely ignorant.

In any event, when evaluating a guy who led six straight teams to the conference finals, we might want to look at things beyond ORTG and PER.

This sounds like a bunch of post hoc rationalizing to me. The Lakers had the third-most wins that year. The Pacers led the league, but everyone knew the East was a joke compared to the West. The Lakers were as big a favorite going into the playoffs, at least media-wise, as any team I can remember since their previous title. Kobe was in his prime and Shaq was still dominant. I find it hard to believe you were saying, "you know, we have an OK team, but it's probably not our year."

Believe what you want. I was telling people before the series that the Lakers were going to have a rough time and could very well lose, and should not be favorites. But that isn't important, and you just made the point for me, anyway. You are talking media narrative and your emotions as a Pistons fan--and there are still people today who are selling versions of that narrative, even now. I quoted Kelly Dwyer about three months ago--Dwyer was saying that the only reason the Spurs won in 2003 and the Pistons only won in 2004 because Kobe and Shaq couldn't get along. Dwyer's wrong. The Pistons won because they were better. I was reading Hollinger back in 2004, and he was tapped into it. I also watched the Lakers catch several breaks to slip by Minnesota in the WCF while watching the Pistons D create nightmares for a good Indiana team. I saw the Pistons' stats after the Wallace deal.Anybody watching that with an objective eye would have seen the Lakers were in for a rough ride. But, given who the Lakers had at the 5 and the 2, and on the bench, and the team name on the front of their jerseys, it was hard for people to be objective. Still is.

So I am not talking narrative and emotion; I am talking objective and observable facts about the overall quality and personnel of the teams, that were available then and are even more so now.

As to PER, we "rely" on it because it provides a thumbnail way of summarizing a guy's contributions, mostly on O, and for what it is, it is pretty accurate, although like any stat, it misses things. If you think Billups made enormous contributions that went beyond his stats, fair enough. ORTG is a good stat to use because it measures TEAM performance, rather than being a "fantasy stat." But the only argument you made above was "count the Conference Finalzzzzz Berthzzzz" which to me is unpersuasive, particularly on a team known for its balance in a conference that was, at times, in your words, a "joke."

As I said, Billups' numbers--and the team's--did get better on O after Saunders replaced Brown. But the D, while still very good, was not quite the buzzsaw it was under SMU's new head basketball coach.

RR:
I was telling people when the Pistons got Wallace that they would win the title. No one believed me, but I was pretty sure of it. It was obvious to me, having watched Brown for years, that 'Sheed put into that mix would make them elite. And that Brown, with his NC connections, would love and relate to 'Sheed and keep him under control.

I wasn't reading Hollinger then, but if I knew that, then he should, too. And you.

But combinations like Wallace and Wallace does not come along very often, the Lakers were a fine team.

Incidentally, if there's a Sixers great who would truly be difficult to build around, I think it's Charles Barkley, not Iverson. Barkley's height disadvantage at either F spot is a much bigger problem than Iverson's, IMO.

Someone said that Billups is probably as good as Steve Nash, which I think is a fascinating case. Nash is a 2-time MVP who has a case for being the best offensive point guard in history. It's not like these guys are scrubs.

That was me, and I should say some words about that:

1. A lot of people neglect pace when comparing these two, and that feels a bit silly. Phoenix was one of the highest paced teams in the league at the time, while Detroit was one of the lowest paced teams (both are affected by Billups/Nash, but also by the general coaching scheme.) That inflates Nash's raw stats and deflates Billups'.

(To be fair, during Billups' time in Denver, his teams played at a pace comparable to Phoenix.)

2. Billups was a better defender than Nash, even after adjusting for pace. Neither was great, but Billups was slightly better and that closes a good chunk of the offensive gap.

3. Billups has more of a playoff career than Nash (of course there's an East versus West factor as well ).

Even after taking all of that into account, it's still hard to compare them, since the shape of their offensive contribution is obviously very different.

RR: If you're bored you could read these old posts I made, first one at the time of the Sheed trade, the second one at the start of the Finals.


Wallace and Wallace


Pistons in " 3"

Patrick Ewing didn't have a ton of help, but his supporting casts were a lot better than Iverson's.

Really? Which team?

Really? Which team?

Lots of them in my view:

1992-1993 Knicks have Starks, Smith, Mason, Blackman, Rivers, Greg Anthony....Blackman in decline at 33 but the rest of the guys near prime. The team reshuffles a couple of times over the next seasons but I think any of those 3-4 teams #2-8 would drill any of Iverson's Sixers teams #2-8. It wouldn't even be close, would it? In fact I think the 92-93 Knicks would beat the combined best ever team of Iverson's teammates.

Those are all pretty limited players, and I think Rivers was not in his prime, either. My favorite of those players would be Anthony (Greg, that is). But I don't see that as "a lot" better than Iverson's team.

All that said, a fair knock against Ewing was his inability to raise the level of his teammates. He was such an atrocious passer, both in terms of his ability and his passion for it, that he rarely set his guys up to succeed. And his "moves" were so methodical and momentum dependent, that he really couldn't switch out of them to create for his teammates.

It's hard to come up with a realistic supporting cast that would work for anyone. It's hard to win championships. How do you build a championship team around Dwight Howard, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone?

The final verdict on Howard is still up in the air (though the Magic have been better over the last few years than any stretch the Sixers had with AI), but I'd say Barkley and Malone both DID have championship teams built around them. They just didn't win because of Jordan. Still, the '93 Suns and '97/'98 Jazz were better than several teams that did take home titles and they could've won in many other years. Not so with the 2001 Sixers; yes, the Lakers that year were invincible, but I wouldn't have bet on the Sixers against any of the top 5 (and possibly even top 7) teams in the west that season. And even if you disagree with that, Barkley and Malone's teams were at least perennial contenders. Iverson's 2001 season was the only year in his career he won more than 50 games (he had exactly 50 in Denver) or got past the second round of the playoffs. And again, I still think it's generous to call the 2001 a "contender." The Eastern Conference was basically terrible from 1999-2007 and the Sixers made the Finals partly by default. They'd have likely been gone in the first round if they played in the west.

If you put Magic Johnson on the 2008 Nuggets, do they win the title?

I wouldn't have been too surprised if they did.

Iverson's 2008 season with Melo is basically a dead ringer for a typical Kobe Bryant season: .458 FG%, 26.4 PPG, 19 shots per game. Kobe's lifetime averages are .453 FG%, 25.4 PPG, 19.6 shots per game. Iverson gets more assists and steals and fewer turnovers, Kobe gets more rebounds.

Can you win with that player?

Yeah, but Iverson DIDN'T shoot .458 for his career. His time in Denver is really too small a sample size to come to any conclusions about. It's a bit presumptuous to assume he would've shot .458 or so his entire career with better teammates just based on his one and a half seasons with the Nuggs.

Yeah, but Iverson DIDN'T shoot .458 for his career. His time in Denver is really too small a sample size to come to any conclusions about. It's a bit presumptuous to assume he would've shot .458 or so his entire career with better teammates just based on his one and a half seasons with the Nuggs.

But the explanation can't be that he got hot for a season and a half, can it? It does seem more plausible that a better system or better teammates enabled him to shoot a percentage he was capable of shooting, but prevented from in a worse system or with weaker teammates, right?

In any event, when evaluating a guy who led six straight teams to the conference finals, we might want to look at things beyond ORTG and PER.

With the 2004 and 2005 Finals, the Pistons proved they could hang with anybody by beating one of the big two teams of the decade and barely losing to the second, but the 6 straight conference finals appearances do have to be put into perspective a little bit by considering conference strength. In most seasons over the last decade the east only had two really good teams (if that), so any good team in the east basically had a free ride to the ECF. Usually they only had to beat one 50 win team to get to the Finals.

In 2007, for example, the Cavs got to the ECF by beating the 41 win Wizards and the 41 win Nets. They didn't even have to play a team with an above .500 record until the 3rd round. In 2008, the Celtics got to the ECF by beating the 37 win Hawks and the 45 win Cavs. Compare that to the west, where TWICE the 8th seed reached 50 wins (2008, 2010, plus 48 in 2009) and the eventual conference champ Lakers had to beat three 50 game winners just to get to the Finals (am I defending the Lakers? Dammit...)

But the explanation can't be that he got hot for a season and a half, can it? It does seem more plausible that a better system or better teammates enabled him to shoot a percentage he was capable of shooting, but prevented from in a worse system or with weaker teammates, right?

Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that he just finally learned the value of good shot selection or that he matured and decided to trust his teammates more when they were open rather than trying to force everything himself. That's why I said a season and a half is too small a sample size to conclude much from. It's not a sure thing that young Iverson who clearly loved to shoot would have been mature enough to recognize good shots from bad or take advantage of better teammates if he'd had them back in his Sixers days.

In 2007, for example, the Cavs got to the ECF by beating the 41 win Wizards and the 41 win Nets.

Same quality of opponents than the '84, '85, or '87 Lakers had to beat to reach the WCF in those years - heck, the best team they played in '84 or '87 before reaching the Finals were the 43-39 '84 Mavericks.

(Feel a little better now, Booey?) :-)

baudib,

Like I said, we have covered this, more than once. You have talked about your prescience in seeing Pistons as the winners of the series, more than once, although this is the first time you have actually linked to your own posts about it. Just four pages ago, I was talking about how good the Pistons were after the Wallace deal. I didn't actually pick Detroit, but I was telling people the idea that the Lakers would coast in 5 or 6 was way off. I am not big on predictions in general.

And sure, the Lakers were a 'fine team' but again, according to all the basic team metrics, nothing special. What was special about them is who was ON the team. The 2004 Lakers were in some respects like the 2011 Heat. After Payton and Malone signed, Bill Walton said the Lakers could go 82-0, and he was serious. OK, Walton is a goof, but many people were talking about a run at 72 wins. Remember Jeff Van Gundy after James signed in Miami? He was very adamant in saying the Heat could win 73 if they wanted that record.

So, when the Lakers came back from down 2-0 to take out the Spurs in the semis, most people assumed it was inevitable that they would win it. Detroit was a d-first team from the lesser conference without a really big name, up against the mighty Shaq and the brilliant Kobe etc. so it was understandable that people felt that way. But as you have correctly pointed out, if one looked closely at the Pistons, a different picture emerged, even then. All I am saying is that the same is true of the Lakers.

As to the 00s Pistons, they were a very good team for a long time and maybe a great one in June of 2004. But IMO if you are going to give them huge ups for beating the 2004 Lakers and nearly beating the 2005 Spurs, then you also need to give them huge downs for losing to the 2007 Cavs and have to ding them pretty hard for losing to the 2006 Heat (unless there is a ref narrative there that I am unaware of that people buy into).

Billups...well, I am certainly on board with the idea that he was more or less as good as more famous guys for casual fans who play the same position and in some cases won MVPs, notably Nash and Iverson, and from an earlier time, Thomas and Archibald. There are several reasons Billups is not as famous as those guys with casual fans:

college career and college choice
traded around a lot
did not have a flashy floor game
peak came on well-balanced team that only won one title in a non-bling market
said franchise had a similar, more successful version (in terms of ringzz)of the same team 15 years earlier

And it is clear that Brown's system was holding his numbers down a bit. They spiked under Saunders.

For those who like +/- and Roland Rating, etc, here is a link to the 2004 Pistons page at 82games.com

http://www.82games.com/0304DET.HTM

Looking through the numbers, they seem to confirm that Billups' best year in Detroit was 2006.

Finally, of course, Billups isn't dead or even retired. If he had not gotten hurt, the Clippers might well have a better record than they actually do and Billups might have been a key supporting figure in a possible Clippers' Finals run--and would have become a little more famous to casual fans.

(Feel a little better now, Booey?) :-)

I told Hombre I am going to get some T-shirts printed up:



BOSTON CELTICS
BASKETBALL REFERENCE SRS TEAM OF THE 80s

You can wear that and I will wear a Tim Donaghy shirt at the NBA Thread meet-up.

In the present, last night pretty much locks Chicago into the 1 seed.

When he's involved, Carmelo can be very fun to watch. He's playing great today. It's fun to see how much fun he has taking someone on.

In 2007, for example, the Cavs got to the ECF by beating the 41 win Wizards and the 41 win Nets.

Same quality of opponents than the '84, '85, or '87 Lakers had to beat to reach the WCF in those years - heck, the best team they played in '84 or '87 before reaching the Finals were the 43-39 '84 Mavericks.

(Feel a little better now, Booey?) :-)


Not really, since I was 4, 5, and 7 during the '84, '85, and '87 playoffs. :) If I was complaining back then it was more likely due to my older brother biting me or taking my favorite toy than it was about the Lakers "easy" trips to the Finals. I'll let those of us who were old enough to remember those years make that comparison if they wish (and I believe RR did address this a few pages ago).

Besides, I already defended the Lakers (kinda) once on this page, and I felt dirty doing that. I'm not gonna do it again. :)

Yeah, but Iverson DIDN'T shoot .458 for his career. His time in Denver is really too small a sample size to come to any conclusions about. It's a bit presumptuous to assume he would've shot .458 or so his entire career with better teammates just based on his one and a half seasons with the Nuggs.

This is the single season in Iverson's career that he had a legitimate All-Star scoring threat on his team. It was at the end of his prime, he had clearly lost a step and didn't have the same ankle-breaking, waterbug moves as he had in his younger days. He didn't take any shots away from 'Melo and in fact, 'Melo was at his career average for shots, above his PPG average, and had the best FG% of his career.

I don't think it's presumptuous at all to say that, given Carmelo Anthony at 3, or Dumars and Dantley/Aguirre, or Karl Malone, or SOMEBODY, Iverson's stats and career take an entirely different shape.

It's really a lot like the WoW issue: You do not gain efficiency by force-feeding Tyson Chandler nor do you win by giving Mutombo/Ratliff/Lynch/Hill the ball.

I'll let those of us who were old enough to remember those years make that comparison if they wish (and I believe RR did address this a few pages ago).

We're about the same age, and I barely remember those years as well (the '86 Celtics are the first team I actively remember watching), and rr (and others) have addressed it - not just a few pages ago, but over the years here as well. Still, nothing wrong with tweaking Laker fans from time to time.

Speaking of the Lakers, ugly play by Metta Artest there.

Court violence by World Peace

We've been talking about the constant headshots in the playoffs in the NHL thread but this is right up there, not even part of the play.

That was a dirty ass play by Metta. On the other hand, big time comeback from the Lakers. The Lakers are still pretty dangerous.

Glad Brown finally discovered Jordan Hill. He helped with P/R D. Maybe I can stop talking about it now. MWP looking at 4-5 game suspension. I hope Harden is fine.

Memphis cannnot be 3 now; Lakers get 3 seed if they beat Sacto Thursday or with a Clippers loss. This game increases chance of LAL/OKC in semis.

MWP looking at 4-5 game suspension.

If Brendan Shanahan were the NBA punishment czar, MWP would get a $2,500 fine.

The Artest play doesn't look entirely intentional to me. Don't get me wrong: You can't swing your elbows around like that, and the ejection was the right call. But he was celebrating the dunk and, though he had bumped into Harden, wasn't looking at all in his direction. I think it was maybe at least partly accidental.

He may get suspended for a game anyway, I imagine.

Edit: You really think he'll get suspended 4-5 games, robin?

In limited minutes, the Jazz's big lineup (harris-hayward-millsap-favors-al) has been dominant. Basically won them the game last night vs. Orlando.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=915

The Artest play looked to me like he knew exactly what he was doing. It actually changes how I think of Artest.

Better team during their three year peak: Spurs or Celtics?

Spurs obviously have more titles, but you can argue injuries are all that kept Boston away from a three-peat. Both had a big three of sorts (Timmeh-Manu-Tony) vs. (KG-Pierce-Ray). Both known mostly for their defense.