Via Flickr - Irargerich

It was a truncated lockout season in the NBA. A lockout season where an upstart was trying to knock off a favorite.  A favorite with a platoon of prominent players that had not yet graced digits with that most coveted of rewards, a championship ring. I speak of course of the Oklahoma City Thunder and Miami Heat. Or do I?

There are parallels to be drawn. The 1999 lockout season featured a pair of teams crossing the compressed finish line tied for the best record in the NBA, and as we speak the Heat and Thunder each stand atop their respective conferences, tied for tops in the league at 25-7. But the favorites I refer to are the ’99 Utah Jazz and upstart-at-the-time San Antonio Spurs who had recently lucked out against all odds and landed a future all-timer in Tim Duncan whom they could throw at current best-power-forward-of-all-time Karl Malone.

At that time the Spurs and Jazz were unfortunately not only in the same conference, but also in the now defunct-due-to-realignment Midwest Division. Utah had run headlong into his magnificent Airness, Michael Jordan, the pair of previous Finals, but MJ had now retired (again), leaving an open lane for the John Stockton and Karl Malone-led Jazz to roll right to the Larry O’Brien hoop trophy unabated.

Despite attempting to replicate the recipe of the last NBA champs not named the Chicago Bulls to a degree, the Houston Rockets, the Spurs’ “power centers” Tim Duncan and 1994-95 MVP David Robinson had been unable to supplant the Jazz’s mighty trio of Malone, Stockton, and Jeff Hornacek, getting blasted out of the West playoffs the year before 4-1 by Utah. The Jazz were heavily favored to go all the way this time after reaching the conference finals five of the last seven years and the Finals for two straight, losing one of the late-spring series to MJ and Co. by a total point differential of only four points.

But it was not to be.

As it happens, these two powerhouses wouldn’t even get the chance to clash on the court in the accelerated ’99 playoffs as the Jazz would plow through most of the regular season only to run out of gas near end.

The Jazz finished a [tied-for] league-best 37-13 in 1999 but limped to a 5-5 finish over the last 10 games before struggling, by their mighty standards, in the playoffs. A middling Sacramento team took Utah the distance in the first round, and the Blazers eliminated the Jazz in six games in the second round.

 -Zach Lowe, The Point Forward

I remember that Portland series vividly, even though it happened more than a decade ago. The Jazz won game 1 at home by 10. But then lost game 2, by 3 points. Arvydas Sabonis was a huge man who devoured the paint. Isaiah Rider scored 27 points in that game, and Rasheed Wallace had three blocks and three steals. Worst of all Brian Grant went to the line more than Karl Malone did – and even finished the game with the same number of points…the Blazers broke the Jazz’ serve, and then were beat in Game 3 by 10 points. The Blazers went to the line endlessly in that game – 50 times. Utah also turned the ball over 16 times, and shot (as a team) only 38.9 fg%.

-AllThatJazzBasketball, SLCDunk

The Jazz weren’t just aging; they were ancient, and considering what happened to them after 1999 (and what happened to the Kings, too), perhaps we shouldn’t have been surprised they struggled against Sacramento and Portland — a team went 35-15, by the way. Utah’s three best players (Karl Malone, Jeff Horancek and John Stockton) were 36, 36 and 37, respectively, by the end of July 1999, and the roster did not feature a single young player worthy of starting in the NBA.

-Zach Lowe, The Point Forward

Just how “ancient” were those Jazz that were so burnt out and beat down by the time they reached the postseason that they made abundant uncharacteristic mistakes and missed shots? Through the 1999 NBA season, the Big 3 of Malone, Stockton, and Hornacek had played a combined 108,786 NBA minutes (minutes being a more accurate measure of wear and tear than actual age). And the former were legendarily durable and conditioned in a mythical way only less than a handful of players in the league’s annals can lay claim to even approaching.

These present Spurs can boast no such thing, and taking into account a kind estimate of Manu Ginobili’s seven years of professional service prior the Spurs at 1,500 minutes per-season, San Antonio’s Big 3 will have played something very near to 95,497 minutes by season’s end.

In other words, they’re ripe for the picking and supplanting by, oh, I don’t know, the OKC Thunder.

Who may just turn around and run into this era’s version of the ’90s Bulls, the Miami Heat.

Potentially over and over again.

___

A couple of fun nuggets uncovered in the course of researching this piece:

• The current Spurs are through 32 games and on an eleven-game win streak. Beginning at game 30 of the 1999 lockout-shortened season the Utah Jazz ripped off a win streak too — of eleven games

• Through 32 games of the ’99 season the Jazz were 26-6. Through 32 games of the current season the best record is held by the Miami Heat and OKC Thunder at 25-7

• In ’99, a younger Spurs started the season somewhat slower through 32 games, but still a very warm 22-10. However, they would finish the regular season 13-1 beating the now-stumbling Jazz twice, holding them to a mere 78 and 69 points, and demolish everything they ran into in the playoffs sweeping both the Los Angeles Lakers and aforementioned Portland Trail Blazers en route to a 15-2 postseason record for a combined 28-3 finish to their initial title run that culminated in a steamrolling of the unlikely upstart New York Knicks

Jeremy Lin anyone?

Funny how history can be so cyclical.

___

“Failure can prepare you for success.”

-Avery Johnson

If you’ve noticed any other parallels let me know, I’d love to hear about ‘em.

Gotta love that @HPBasketball has employed an entire staff of #Lakers hating writers. #JournalisticIntegrity

February 21, 2012 6:14 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@StuporJosh

Josh

@JADubin5 @HPBasketball @ejmaroun what if i actually do hate the lakers? not out of anything but jealousy and storied tradition, but still.

February 21, 2012 6:21 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@azv321

Amin Vafa

Hate is a powerful emotion. As powerful (or oftentimes moreso) than love. Hate occupies your insides. Hate consumes you. Hate is what you feel gnawing inside your stomach when you suddenly remember something you wished you’d forgotten. Or maybe you didn’t wish to forget it. Maybe you wanted to hold onto it. Maybe you wanted it to fester inside you, creating a source of inspiration that simultaneously strengthens and destroys you.

Hate is also not the opposite of Love. That’s a role reserved for Apathy. Then why do Hate and Love go hand-in-hand with one another? Perhaps the spectrum of emotion that pits love and hate on opposite sides is really a circle, with Hate and Love side-by-side. Faraway, so close. People often bandy about the terms Love and Hate because they are a convenient way to describe the emotions we are feeling. With basketball, Love is watching your team win a title for the first time. Love is watching your team gut out a tough win at the buzzer. Love is having faith in your team’s closer that they can will your team to victory. Love is coming back to that team when your closer doesn’t come through. Love is the first time you watch a rookie put together a solid start-to-finish game. Love is a triple double. Love is a triple double WITH BLOCKS. Love is… you get the picture.

Then what’s Hate? Hate is anything that gets in the way of you appreciating this love. A loss. A fight. Tension in the front office. People making fun of your team on twitter when unflatting rumors are circulating about them. Your favorite player on your favorite team moving to a sunnier locale. A player that antagonizes smaller players. A referee that takes the fun out of the game by inserting unfairness. Hate sits right next to Love, waiting to pick on it when any doubt arises. But I think I speak for most basketball fans when I say that I didn’t get into watching the game for Hate. I got into it for Love. Now maybe you got into it for slightly different reasons: It’s the team you grew up watching. It’s the team your parents grew up watching. It’s the team that was on TV the most when you decided to start getting into sports. It’s the team that had the most books written about it in the Book Sale at your elementary school, and you weren’t allowed to buy any more car posters.

Speaking of pageviews, there’s a reason everyone loves Jeremy Lin other than the fact that he’s a rookie phenom minority and plays in New York. His talent and his desire to play basketball have gotten us all talking about basketball again. Not trade demands. Not market size. Not salary caps. Not revenue sharing. Not referee errors. Basketball, as we all know and Love it. Lin and his accompanying storyline are currently immune to Hate. Overexposure’s going to reduce how much everyone can stand, sure. But you can’t deny the fact that the conversation is finally–FINALLY–about loving the game again. He has helped make everything else in the league that’s not actually about basketball just background noise.

Now Hate, for sure, exists. It’s around. Sometimes it’s around in serious form, and other times it’s invoked in jokes. Sometimes the best examples of creative expression are byproducts of misery and hate. I can’t say for certain whether or not some NBA writers willingly spend their time transferring vitriol from their blood to ink. But I’m fairly comfortable saying that if you’re writing about this game, you Love it. And if Love didn’t get you into this business, then I think you can kindly see yourself out.

There’s lots of different ways to show your Love and Hate for this game. Show me some Love (or Hate) in the comments.

You have no idea how many times I started to write this piece. About an hour after the Knicks beat the Mavericks on Sunday, I sat in front of my computer determined to write something – anything – about Jeremy Lin. I stared at a blank screen for a while, and then the inspiration came. I wrote 3 paragraphs. They were the best 3 paragraphs I had ever written… until I read them. Those great paragraphs I wrote? They sucked. DELETE.

I took a quick break, then went right back to it. Blank screen. Inspiration. I wrote 4 paragraphs this time. They were the best 4 paragraphs of my life; I was sure of it. Then I read them. Terrible. DELETE.

I spent the next 5 hours repeating that process countless times. Each time, I was sure I had broken through; sure I had found the right words, the right angle. Each time, I failed. Miserably. So I gave up. I’m not writing about Jeremy Lin, I decided. I just can’t find anything to say. I told Matt Moore I wanted to write about Lou Williams instead. That went over really well.

@JADubin5 just so I understand this. You're going to write about Lou Williams and not Jeremy Lin. Why do you hate giving my site pageviews?

February 19, 2012 5:49 pm via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite

@HPbasketball

Hardwood Paroxysm

Still, I set out to write about Lou Williams. Unfortunately, someone somewhere had other plans for me. My plan, as you may already know by now, was to write about how Lou Williams uses screens to get open looks. For some unknown reason, I couldn’t get those videos to work. I was frustrated. I went to sleep.

I woke up Monday morning and wrote that piece about Lou Williams. It ran, people read it. Maybe some liked it, maybe some didn’t. I was satisfied with it. I was writing again. I figured, I’m in a rhythm right now, I’ll try to write that Jeremy Lin thing again. But you know what they say about the best laid plans. It was just more of the same. I’d write a few paragraphs, read them and then delete them. So I gave up again.

This time, I didn’t even tell Matt what I was writing about instead. I just wrote it. I spent the time between my first class of the day and what I thought was my second class (it was canceled by the Professor in a horribly confusing email) writing an article about Shaun Livingston. Again it ran, again people read it. Maybe some liked it, maybe some didn’t. Again, I was satisfied with it. And again, I was writing. I wanted to try to write about Jeremy Lin again, but I had precious little time before class. And I didn’t have an angle anyway.

I started talking to Andrew Lynch on G-chat. I told him everything you just read. I tried and tried to write about Lin, but I can’t. I can’t find the right angle, the right words, nothing. I’ve hated everything I’ve put on paper.

“Write what you have to say. Even if it’s nothing,” he told me. I told him that the thing of it was, I couldn’t decide what I wanted to say. “Sometimes writing about nothing is liberating.” And then I got the real idea. “I’ll write about how I can’t write about Jeremy Lin..” “Exactly.” “He’s driven me to the point where I literally have nothing to say.” (If you want to listen to a podcast where I alternatively yell things that make little to no sense and struggle for words while trying to describe Jeremy Lin and his impact on me, New York, the Knicks, world peace, World Peace and the cast of Glee, click this link.)

What is there left to say about Lin that hasn’t already been said, and said well? Every time I tried and failed to write about Lin, it was mostly because I kept feeling like I was writing something that someone else had already written and written well. There’s been such an avalanche of fantastic writing about Lin and everything that’s gone on around him.

Every angle imaginable has been covered. His effect on the Asians and Asian Americans? For one, I’m not Asian, and I couldn’t do it intelligently. Besides, Danny Chau’s been done, done that, in incredible fashion. Statistical analysis? That’s what True Hoop is for. Could anyone have predicted this? Someone did. Visual and video breakdowns? Mike Prada and Sebastian Pruiti did those. How can he fit with Carmelo Anthony and Amar’e Stoudemire? Matt Moore had his own idea. What effect has he had on the Knicks? Done. On Mike D’Antoni specifically? Howard Beck did wrote on it. The Harvard thing. The turnovers. The puns.

Honestly, what more is there to say when after a decade of despair and depression, the guy who finally, mercifully turns around the fortunes of your favorite team isn’t Amar’e Stoudemire, isn’t Carmelo Anthony, isn’t Tyson Chandler but rather is an undrafted, unheralded, unknown, Asian-American point guard from Harvard who was cut by two teams before the season even started and was about to be cut again if not for Baron Davis having yet another setback in his rehab?

Should I write about how he was sleeping on his brother’s couch before all this craziness happened? What about how Melo may or may not have been the one who told D’Antoni to give the kid some playing time? His relationship with Yao Ming? Hid admiration for Jason Kidd, another Bay Area point guard?

What do you write about an international sensation who lights the sports world on fire over the span of two weeks? Should I really keep comparing his court vision to Steve Nash’s? His attack dog style to Derrick Rose? His flair to Magic Johnson? How many more times can people read about Lin-Chandler pick-and-rolls still being the primary action and how Carmelo lurking on the weak side for mid-range jumpers and isolations against rotating defenders can actually be a good thing? About how he saved Mike D’Antoni’s job? How he saved the Knicks’ season?

Can I really go on and on about the effect he’s had on Landry Fields and Iman Shumpert, who have been freed up to simply play defense, slash to the hoop and generally wreak havoc in the open court? How he’s made useful players out of guys like Jared Jeffries and Steve Novak? How Jeffries has become a confident and (gulp) competent player on offense while still staying a force on defense and Novak can’t stop, won’t stop raining threes?

What about how the Knicks are fun again, for the first time since the 1970s? How, for the first time in my life, the Knicks are appointment television not because they’re a laughingstock, but because they’re one of the most entertaining teams in basketball? (Seriously, if you think the 90′s Knicks, the guys I grew up on and will love til the day I die, were fun and entertaining… well, I just don’t know what to do with that. Ewing, Starks, Mason, Oakley, Harper, Davis, Ward, Houston, Sprewell, Camby, LJ, Riley (ugh), Van Gundy?… those guys were crazy fun to root for, not so much to watch.)

Should I write about his crunch time heroics? How he stared down the Raptors and drilled a three right between the eyes? How he lined up Dirk Nowitzki and dropped one in his face? How he did the same to Shawn Marion? How he managed to upstage Kobe Bryant in Madison Square Garden? How he outplayed Deron Williams, John Wall and Devin Harris in less than a week? How he set a new record for most points scored in the first “X” starts of a career seemingly every night?

How do you write about the guy who undeniably OWNS New York City right now not being the Super Bowl MVP – Eli Manning – or the captain of the best team in hockey – Ryan Callahan – but the guy who was the Knicks’ 4th string point guard no less than three weeks ago?

I can’t find anything new to say about Jeremy Lin. Except this: for the first time in my life, as anyone who knows me well can attest, I’m speechless. I have nothing more to say.

Photo by RawryTheRacingCar via Flickr

The problem with an overload of awesome is how thoroughly something can slip through the cracks.

Sure, everyone knows about what Ersan Ilyasova did on Sunday, but how many people really processed his production? It’s hard to blame someone who shrugged off 29 points and 25 rebounds by the Turkish Count of Caroms, what with all the other various goings-on. LeBron James and Dwyane Wade decided to set up their own alley-oop camp, open to all of the children (even those to whom James had to apologize). Jeremy Lin and the Knicks detonated a JR Smith-shaped nuclear device on the defending champions, reducing them to smoldering smithereens. The Thunder and Nuggets put on one hell of a show, fronted by the 3-piece band of Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka-shaka-laka-shaka-block.

And, honestly, I’m probably forgetting some performances that were earth-shattering and enjoyment-splattering all over our brain cavities. Therein lies the point; what Ilyasova did was absolutely spectacular, yet it’s hard for it to even get a foothold among the mountain of miracles and mastery we witnessed on Sunday. A man who grabbed 25 rebounds and scored 29 points barely registers as a blip on the radar, which is both sad and ridiculous.

Think about it for a second; Ilyasova grabbed, by my estimate, 36% of his team’s misses while he was on the floor. We all make mistakes; how awesome would it be to have someone around who, a third of the time, gave you another shot to clean up your screw up? That female customer you accidentally called sir because, come on, that totally looks like a dude?* Poof, never happened, try again! Spill coffee all over a report that’s due in 5 minutes? Good thing Ersan’s got your back with a second copy, ready to go! E-mail your boss pictures of your vacation at that nudist commune? …even Ersan has his limitations, but he’ll help you update your résumé!

*Seriously, I’ve done that before. Where was Ersan Ilyasova when I needed him?

Notching that many rebounds would be one thing, a feat so rare as to only happen twice so far this season (Dwight Howard had the other 25-rebound game, and it took him overtime to get there). To put up 25 points of his own, though, puts Ilyasova in rare company. This is only the 24th time since the 1985-86 season that a player has had at least 25 points and 25 rebounds in the same game. It hadn’t happened in 464 days, since Kevin Love went off for a 30/30 like he was producing his own ESPN documentary.

Check out the list of players with a 25/25; it’s an impressive collection of names. Hakeem Olajuwon. Chris Webber. Kevin Garnett. Robert Parish. Lorenzen Wri…well, you get the idea. Some of the best big men in the modern era have posted a 25/25, and now Ersan Ilyasova is among them.

Sure, it might have taken 23 shots to get those 29 points. Yes, it was a game between the Bucks and Nets sandwiched between some of the best NBA action we’ve seen all season. But what Ilyasova did tonight was astoundingly impressive, even if it was only one of a dozen outstanding parts of a joyous Sunday.

Ersan Ilyasova scored 29 points and grabbed 25 rebounds. Try not to forget it.

Yes, he truly is. Sing it, Lionel.

Yesterday Kris Humphries contributed 24 points, 18 rebounds and 5 assists in a surprising Nets victory over the Chicago Bulls. I know the Bulls were without Derrick Rose yet again, but every Nets victory is surprising unless it comes against Charlotte or Washington.

But leave the surprise at the door when it comes to Humphries. Over the last four games he’s averaged 18.3 points, 10.8 rebounds, 2.5 assists and 1.8 blocks. And check this, he’s done it on 72.1% FG. Hell, he’s even hitting 78.6% of his free throws in this stretch.

Well, this could just be a very good hot streak for Mr. Hump, some might say. And it’s something worth pondering. Howevuh, this recent spate of production has come against the Bulls, Indiana, Memphis and San Antonio, all playoff caliber teams. They have their deficiencies, like Duncan being old, Z-Bo being hurt, and Carlos Boozer starting, but these aren’t also-rans.

But wait, if you haven’t noticed, Humphries has actually been balling the whole season. Last year he was a breakout darling averaging 10 points and 10.4 rebounds, but he’s been just as good this season::

Actually, he might be better in my estimation. He has garnered more minutes with Brook Lopez being out with a broken foot, but many a player has faltered when given more playing time. Humprhies has kept up the production while increasing the efficiency.

So why isn’t Hump getting the same kind of pub that say Danilo Gallinari (PER of 20) or Carmelo (20.2) or even (apparently controversial) all-star Roy Hibbert 18.5) are getting?

Oh… oh, that’s right. I totally forgot.

Well, umm… let’s see… at least he didn’t marry Nicole Richie.

Nevertheless, as NBA aficionados, I expect that we can totally overlook such sensationalist tabloid features and appreciate the work that Humprhies is doing in New Jersey. He’s one of only ten players right now putting up a double-double in points and rebounds. And with the return of the Brookie Monster today, I suspect Humprhies’ play will only get better. The aggregate numbers may not totally reflect it, but everyone’s better off playing alongside Lopez instead of Petro.

Via ViaMoi on Flickr

BETTER NEWS: CHRIS PAUL IS GREAT DOWN THE STRETCH — The Clippers are 8-3 in games decided by six points or less, and those eight wins include ones over the Blazers, Heat, Mavericks, Nuggets, Jazz, Magic and 76ers. Part of the reason is that Paul is a wizard in crunch time. Those who watched him in New Orleans knew he could execute late with the best of them, but the difference now is that Paul is scoring a a lot more and a lot more efficiently.
Last year, Paul took 111 shots total in the fourth quarter with the scoring margin less than five points. He had an effective field goal percentage (incorporating three-pointers) of just 47.3 percent on those shots. That’s not terrible all things considering — Kobe Bryant, for example, was at 46.1 percent in those spots — but it’s not elite. This year, though, Paul has already taken 48 shots in those situations and has an effective field goal percentage of 56.2. That’s insane, especially considering so many of those shots come on the same kind of isolation plays that usually lead to low-percentage looks.

Let there be no doubt that Paul is the king of crunch time in the NBA this season.

BAD NEWS: THE CLIPPERS CAN’T SHOOT FREE THROWS — The most important quality for teams that win close games is effective free throw shooting. That’s why it’s so strange that the Clippers are winning despite shooting just 67.6 percent from the line as a team. Only the Orlando Magic are worse, and that’s because they have Dwight Howard on the team.

The biggest culprits are Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan, who are way down at 52 and 49 percent, respectively. The Clippers can get away with benching Jordan in the final two minutes, so his low percentage can be masked. They can’t do the same with Griffin. Considering how often Griffin probably should be getting the ball late in games, that’s a problem.

via Taking Stock Of Lob City: Are The Los Angeles Clippers Contenders? – SBNation.com.

I’m one of the few guys out there who buys the Clippers.

The old school guys hate them because they heard the Lob City nickname and they hate that and because, well, the Clippers aren’t supposed to be good. It’s the same principle behind Top 25 voting in college football, that is, traditional powers get the benefit of the doubt and the non-traditional powers basically have to beat everyone by 100 just for them to say “Eh, not bad.” What’s worse, the new writers and bloggers don’t trust them either. The metrics scream “STAY AWAY FROM THIS TEAM WITH EVERYTHING YOU HAVE.”

But there I am, keeping them in the back of my mind as someone I wouldn’t be surprised at late in May.

I tend to stay away from teams that create free throws as a huge function of their offense (HELLO KITTY BACKPACKS ASSEMBLE). Those calls can absolutely vanish in the playoffs (say, in the WCF against a veteran team). ( Denver is an exemption this year because I’m basically rolling with the fun factor there and I get more scared with every game, regardless of the losses.) I like teams that can hit shots, that can play defense, that can create matchup problems most of all. The Clippers can do two of the three, and I like their prospects for that missing link in the playoffs.

Bear in mind the Mavericks weren’t a top-five defensive team last year. They were seventh in defensive efficiency. Sadly for the Clippers, they’re 23rd. So it’s not like the hill to climb is short. But there’s no reason that team shouldn’t be better defensively. Paul’s lock-down, even if his size can get problematic. Griffin’s still wet behind the ears. DeAndre is a monster who chases too much. That’s something that can be coached out. And the rest are vets. Maybe VDN can’t do it, but it should be noted their points per game allowed has dropped month to month to month, though I don’t have pace-free stats available. It’s also notable that they have a majority of quality defensive performances, and then when they fall apart, they fall apart hard. That’s something they can work through or at least avoid with a hot streak.

Most of it, though? Most of it is Paul. That’s why I believe. Because this sandbag-till-it’s-close-then-murder-everything process is working. Down the stretch as Prada notes, he’s not an assassin, he’s John Woo’s “The Killer.” The crossover and soft jumper just pops home and there’s no defender with enough energy to attack him. Griffin doesn’t have to be dominant. He has to be good with a handful of great. Butler is going to give them big games. Williams is going to give them big games. Evans rebounds. The weaknesses are there, but in a season this wide open, going with a superstar-led team that has Blake Griffin but doesn’t rely on him isn’t a bad bet.

And it all comes down to VDN, doesn’t it?

Can he screw it up? Can he somehow make them better? Can he just hold his head above water?

Coaches surprise in the playoffs. Doc Rivers was not though of well in terms of X’s and O’s before 08. George Karl had calls for his head in 2008. Lawrence Frank is a good coach who can’t win. Phil Jackson has 11 titles basically by shopping at Barnes and Noble and giving three of the top 10 players of all time the ball a lot. This stuff is an art. It’s not a science. But we’ve never seen inspiration from VDN. We’ve only seen the materials and the finished product, which hasn’t, you know, impressed.

Maybe the Clippers are as sunk as everyone says. Maybe not. But in the context of these superstars and what makes sense, you can see the blueprint working. It’s not reaching for an imaginary source of combustion. It’s not science fiction. It just needs the spark.

Via Jinx on Flickr

Flops are incredibly irritating for the team on the wrong side of the call
As Spurs fans we’ve been lucky to have some great floppers (Bowen, Manu, Horry and Oberto come to mind), but we’ve also been in the receiving end of an offensive foul call and it just sucks. That’s why I understand why opposing fans hate some of our players and even our team and why it’s understandable that we complain about it too, even if the ref made the right call. There’s something about flopping, especially the theatrical, I’ve-just-been-shot kind, that rubs most fans the wrong way and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. We should take that into account when we scoff at fans of other teams for hating on one of our players. Manu in particular is an easy target because of his histrionics when flopping and because he is not American, which leads me to my next point…

Flopping has been around for decades, is not going to ruin the game and has not been introduced by European players that come from soccer countries.

Watch this clip of Red Auerbach complaining about flopping in all it’s “get off my lawn!” glory. That’s from the 70s. Auerbach was bitching about how flopping was ruining the league four decades ago and as far as I know, right now basketball is one of the most popular sports in the world; one of the most entertaining spectacles around with an amazing level of play and displays of athletic ability. Nostalgia is a very powerful and often misguided emotion, so it’s not surprising that people still reminisce about the good ol’ days without realizing that the game has actually improved over the years and that some of the things they identify with today’s game (flopping, supertars forcing their way out of teams, only a handful of real contenders) were present back then, too.

via A Flop by Any Other Name – Pounding The Rock.

Being upset about flops is kind of like being nervous about sex. It’s a sign of inexperience and immaturity, and eventually the process becomes much more workman-like if no less enjoyable, kind of like the satisfaction of getting all your laundry done in a day so there’s nothing left to wash. Only, you know, better. You eventually learn to not only accept it, but appreciate it. That Ginobili is as efficient at it as he is is a compliment I pay now, though Spurs fans continue to protest the assertions. The fact is that it’s an art. So many players attempt it and yet wind up failing, getting the blocking call. Ginobili doesn’t just take the hit, it’s a complete performance. It’s not just being somewhere and doing something it’s selling the entire process, it’s cajoling the appearance out of the action, it’s luring the referee into a whistle blow. It’s not just mechanics. It’s performance art.

Anyone who’s worked in theater will tell you that to pretend that acting is about lines and props and “getting into character” is to ignore the technical elements and the undefinable nuance necessary to put on a show. Comedic timing is instinctive, knowing where to stand and when is not. It takes practice, refinement, and a natural ability. To be perfectly honest, flopping is more difficult than hitting free throws. You can control everything in a free throw and if you repeat the function you’ll have success. A flop you have to manage an official. It’s like dealing with a temperamental client. You have to draw his or her sympathy while maintaining his respect. You have to demand his or her attention while not drawing attention to your efforts to draw his or her attention.

Ginobili is so good at it, in fact, that I was soundly convinced that element would be a difference maker in the Grizzlies’ series. That the officials decided to allow essentially unarmed combat was a huge swing in favor of Memphis. It’s something that must be countered, and often, it’s their best defense. It becomes more difficult with age, as the lateral quickness is limited. But for a Spurs team that struggles to force the other team to struggle, it’s something the Spurs need their young players to invest in.

Ginobili’s a harlequin, drawing the response he wants while playing the crowd. It’s not something to loathe, it’s something to admire, as infuriating as it may be.

And the xenophobic stuff is just stupid. DeMarcus Cousins is good at it, for Chrissakes.

via JD | Photography on Flickr

so

“Had the first deal been approved, the Hornets would have landed four proven players in Luis Scola, Kevin Martin, Lamar Odom and Goran Dragic, plus a first-round pick from Houston.”

Again, for what benefit? A decent team for now that would ultimately regress to poor in 2-3 years, with no positive future in sight thanks to more mediocre draft picks? The best – not to mention second youngest – player in the rumored deal is the 29 year old Kevin Martin. Martin is a great player, but not someone you build a team around as Sacramento and Houston have already discovered. Also, at 29, he is not helpful for a team that is going through a rebuilding phase, taking up valuable minutes and cap space for a team that should be developing young talent. The Lakers trade would have sentenced the Hornets to three years as a perpetual 6-10 seed, the worst kind of NBA purgatory. The Hornets would be too bad to seriously challenge the upper echelon of the Western Conference, and too good to obtain any meaningful talent through the draft. New Orleans is not a go-to destination for free agents, and has had to overpay to lure veterans time and time again. This is not the way to build a successful franchise.

via A Response to Chris Bernucca’s Hornets Article on SheridanHoops.com – At The Hive.

Thank God for rationality in the face of overwhelming short-sightedness.

It continues to stun me how quality writers who have been around this game for so long cling to ideas like “MAKING THE PLAYOFFS IS BETTER THAN NOT MAKING THE PLAYOFFS THE END.”

I won’t harp on the trade, I’ve done that enough. If you haven’t caught me on Twitter or at CBS, long-story short, the Lakers trade was stupid, the Clippers trade fantastic. This miserable season? Irrelevant. Pointless. Terrible, but necessary. It’s throwing yourself in a hole so you build the strength to get out.

But instead I wonder about why so many fans and writers take short-term considerations into account when these are the same people who so often hyper-prioritize championships to the point winning 50 games a season for five years is considered irrelevant (otherwise known as the Anti-D’Antoni Paradigm). The way to save your franchise, to put yourself on the map, to make your team matter, is to win a championship. And the way to do that is to have a transcendent star. The Blazers had Bill Walton. The Spurs had Tim Duncan. You need one of those guys. You have to have one of those guys. I’m bigger on this Nuggets team more than almost anyone and I still think their odds are microscopic vs. the field in the West. And the Hornets not only wouldn’t have one of those guys, they’d have the worst kind of alternative. Why would you ever shoot for “making the playoffs” as a ceiling?

If you discover that making the playoffs is your ceiling, if a first-round exit is where your analysis, statistical, scouting, or gut feeling lands you, it’s time to pack it in. Don’t wast time. Things aren’t going to “come together” with a team of players over the age of 28. If you can see the summit, as the Mavericks did the past few years, sure, wait for it. But the Mavericks had Dirk. The Hornets would have Luis Scola.

The reason this seldom happens? GM’s want to keep their jobs. Coaches want to keep their jobs. The survival rate for management and coaching staffs through rebuilding efforts is roughly that of a fruitfly flying through an incinerator. Someone has to pay for crappy seasons and those are the guys that get axed, depending on their relationship with ownership. So coaches and management go for wins. People will come out to see a 41-win team if it’s fun and exciting. Unless it’s Philadelphia, but that’s neither here nor there.

But to support this line of thinking if you’ve been around is madness. Chicago is where it is because of the lottery. Miami, same deal. San Antonio, Dallas, on down the line, they all drafted their superstar. It’s just bizarre that the same writers who so often bag on teams for being “ordinary” or “complacent” are the same ones to claim that those results are better than short-term agony in pursuit of long-term bliss.

via 96dpi on Flickr

“It’s been a tough year,’’ Williams said. “It’s been the toughest year of my career. But hopefully we’ll turn things around. Hopefully we’ll have Brook coming back soon. We’ve got to get MarShon (Brooks) going a little bit — he’s a little rusty and that’ll come. We’ve just got to win, really. Once you get a win, it just kind of takes that pressure off you, that monkey off your back. And that’s just really it.’’
They’ll be better when Lopez is healthy, no doubt. And if they end up trading for Dwight Howard, they’ll be even better still. But at 8-23 through 31 games, and 7½ games out of the last playoff spot, is the season too far gone to be saved?

The Nets aren’t thinking that way right now. Williams, after being visibly frustrated following Wednesday’s loss, was making an effort to be calmer and more positive last night.

“We can’t just stay down,’’ he explained. “We’ve done that. I’ve done that. I don’t want to go back to that place where I’m just depressed all the time. Just go to the next (game). We played tough. We played hard. We liked our effort tonight. We’re still down guys. We haven’t had our full team all year.’’

via Nets will soon see return of Brook Lopez but it may be too late after another loss | NJ.com.

Nets fans think I hate them this year.

It’s kind of a bummer and the kind of thing that makes me wish for the days before Twitter when my unnecessarily sarcastic, snarky, pain-in-the-ass trolling was withheld to text messages to Corn or random comments yelled at the television. Because the reality is that I defended that Nets team that started one of the worst starts in NBA history, due to a large number of freak occurrences. I really liked where they were headed when they were going to land Wall before the lottery screwed them like it has so many franchises.

The reason so many fans think I’m biased against them (honestly, one kid actually just keeps tweeting “HATER!” at me like it’s going to have any sort of impact) is basically this: I hated this roster assembled, am deeply concerned with what Avery has done to Brook, and more than anything, cannot fully comprehend a situation where a player makes so much noise about wanting to win, and then would opt to go somewhere with this roster, or basically, Dwight.

It’s not that I don’t like any of the players. I’ve loved Morrow since he got out of living in his car and took over in Golden State (we make a big deal out of Lin for being on Fields’ couch, Morrow came from NOTHING). He’s the best pure shooter in the NBA now that Ray’s caught a case of the olds. I argued Humphries was overpaid not because of his talent but because of the interest level on him given when he was signed. The guy’s a hell of a worker and a quality role player. I even like Shawne Williams. And MarShon is good. I’m not as high on him as some, but he’s good. I’ve listed Farmar as a 6MOY candidate at CBS.

It’s that the total composite of that roster is awful. And you see it in losses that would not be rectified by the addition of Brook. Some, sure. But overall, the team struggles to execute. And Deron knows it.

Why would Howard want to join a terrible team whose good components would be excavated in an attempt to trade for him? Why would he want to line up with a potential lineup of Deron-Morrow-DeShawn-Shelden? They could lose more. Maybe they keep MarShon. Maybe they don’t. Maybe they keep Humphries, maybe they don’t. It just seems bizarre.

What’s more, I’ve tried watching the Nets to form some sort of nuanced view of them. I can point to specific weaknesses with nearly every team for why they’re bad. But with New Jersey (and Charlotte, I’m sorry to say), I’m simply left to say “they are not good at basketball.” It’s just not working. They have flawed, inconsistent, unproductive players, and that has to wear on Williams. Relying on a high-ISO rookie in Brooks is probably not what Williams envisions his prime being spent doing.

But all that changes if Dwight comes. Right? I mean, the Knicks were sunk with Stoudemire, Anthony, and Chandler, until an undrafted point guard from Harvard came through for them. Now they’re .500 and gunning for the stars. That’s how quickly things can change. And every time I seem sure that Dwight can’t look at the Nets and honestly decide to join this team instead of hooking up with Deron nearly anywhere else, reports from reliable sources indicate that Dwight’s even more sold on New Jersey. This seems inevitable, and yet impossible at the same time. LeBron to Miami was unlikely, but it was new territory and had been on the radar for two years if you were paying attention to the whispers. Melo to New York was a simple fact of nature. It was going to occur eventually, like the San Andrea Mega-Quake or the Stones retiring. It was simply going to happen. It makes sense.

Howard makes little sense, and yet seems inevitable. So once again we’re left wondering if much like Howard’s inability to completely grasp his post-game, if he truly understands what legacy is and how long it may take to build a champion.  Or maybe he thinks he and Deron are just that good. We may or may not agree, but we can’t fault them for that line of thinking. But if the Nets are going to survive, they have to re-invent themselves soon, because Deron won’t stand for much more of this. He never asked for it, after all.

via zigazou76 on Flickr

So

“NBA players may be unwilling to settle for only moderately high-quality shot opportunities early in the shot clock, believing that even better opportunities will arise later,” Skinner wrote.

He also notes that the likelihood of a turnover plays into the equation.“If the players believe, for example, that their team has essentially no chance of turning the ball over during the current possession, then they will be more likely to hold the ball and wait for a later opportunity,” he wrote.

Yeah, whatever, Bryant responds. He told Wired.com after a recent matchup with the New York Knicks that there are countless variables, and his decision to shoot — or not shoot, as the case may be — depends upon who’s on the floor, where they’re standing and how much time is left on the clock.

“If I can kick it to somebody, a lot of times I wind up getting a hockey assist, so it just depends on how much time I have left,” Bryant said. “If there’s a chance to pass and swing [to another player] for another opportunity, that’s fine. If there’s not, then I have to create space and get a shot up, understanding that there are two [players] on me and it’s going to be a great opportunity for us to get an offensive rebound.”

via NBA Players Scoff at Mathematical Model Suggesting When to Shoot | Playbook | Wired.com.

Skinner’s study isn’t perfect, in large part because it discounts the psychological complications of deciding a good shot in the flow of a possession. When Kobe has the ball, it’s difficult for him to settle for a decent shot early in the clock when he has such strong belief in his ability to find a better one over the next 10 or 15 seconds. His success as a player depends on having complete confidence in his abilities, and a situation in which he questions his chances to get a better shot on a large portion of possessions could have negative effects on his entire game.

via Kobe Bryant isn’t always into mixing science and basketball | Ball Don’t Lie – Yahoo! Sports.

Via Baskeball-Reference.com’s Play Index+, 2011-2012 leaders in shots between 26 and 45 feet, with 10 seconds or more left in the quarter (buzzer-beater heaves removed, for reference; does not account for shot clock):

There isn’t a more fun player in the NBA to write about than Kobe Bryant. Pretty much any scribe will tell you that. There’s a reason that typically cynical mainstream (can I use that term any more? I mean people who do what I do, just are more successful and have more support from their organizations) writers absolutely fall over themselves to describe his greatness. (Part of this is that writers will typically lean towards the guys they know during the writer’s “prime.” Kobe is the guy for the last ten years, so prominent writers of the past ten years tend to lean towards him. LeBron James is arrogant while Kobe Bryant is “confident.” LeBron pulls “stunts.” While Kobe’s shooting after that Heat loss last year was “inspiring.”) Modern writers love to analyze and pick apart the statistical paradox that is his year-by-year career. And make no mistake, it’s a paradox either way. (For example: “His usage is sky-high to the point he kills the offense and his clutch statistics aren’t just overrated, they’re pretty terrible.”  VS. “Considering his usage, his efficiency is actually pretty brilliant and when he’s playing at his highest level he’s nearly impossible to counter. In related news, RINGZ.”) You can think that Henry Abbott’s penchant for posting on Bryant’s late-game efficiency is some sort of ESPN-conspiracy attempt to tarnish the Mambas reputation, but in reality, it’s that it’s a fascinating subject that bubbles beneath the mainline narrative. That’s pretty much what TrueHoop has been doing since way before ESPN entered the picture. And if you’ve talked to Abbott for more than 30 seconds, you’d forget ever accusing him of an anti-Bryant bias. It would be like accusing a hippo of liberal leanings. The damn thing just eats.

One of the best things I feel I’ve ever written was about Bryant after the fifth title. Writing about Bryant may get tiresome because it has to be done so much, but when you dig in to his psyche, his approach, his legacy, the contradictory elements of his greatness, the undeniable nature of his dominance, the equally undeniable questions surrounding his approach to that greatness, the whole bag, it’s impossible not to enjoy it. It’s like a movie you don’t even think is perfect, nor does it connect with you emotionally, but it’s just good enough and just flawed enough to remain constantly interesting.

In a lot of ways Bryant is anchored with the same criticisms LeBron James gets for the flaws in his game. Namely, an expectation not that he be great, but that he be the best we feel he can be. When Bryant went on his 40-point scoring binge, I was racing to see how many shots it took him. The natural response to this is “HATER!” but in reality, it’s because the best basketball I’ve seen Bryant play came in stretches in the 2009 season. That was the second-highest FGA season of his career. And yet I routinely saw him working in the flow of the offense, passing to create, working to develop possessions, operating in the flow. It was virtuoso. It was incredible. This stuff this year? It’s an old man with exceptional abilities forcing his way into scoring totals either because of a lack of confidence in the system or teammates, or because he’s trying to prove to himself and everyone else that he’s not too old. It’s not sad. It’s not admirable. In the case of the above chart, it is kind of funny.

Bryant literally shoots more shots from 2-feet beyond the arc and farther back. When I decided to look up the stat using the new Play Index + (which, by the way, a healthy expletive to BR for coming up with that thing and sapping the productivity of every internet-heavy hoops fan on the planet, seriously, half the HP crew is lost in a vortex on HP and I have to go in to drag them out later; I’m pretty sure Lynch is stuck in a statistical crevice like it’s 127 Hours), I laughed and said “Surely Bryant’s not number one. ” He can’t be.”  And then he was. So much so.

Why would you elect to shoot from that range 49 times? What could possibly drive you to shoot that many times? When I posted it to Twitter, predictably, Kobe fans (not Laker fans, though some of them were; many Laker fans were basically like “yup, we don’t know what to do with it, either”) went apoplectic. “How many were at the end of the shot clock!” “How many were because Pau and Gasol were doing nothing?!” Part of my issue with this is that Mike Brown’s system is only going to work with this group of players if everyone on the floor works their face off to create an easy shot. They have no one to hit the hard shots. That used to be Bryant. Which kind of brings us back to the study discussed in Wired.

I’ve long defended Joe Johnson (before the past two seasons when his contract made it impossible and his production dropped) as being valuable for the Hawks as the player on the team who can convert a high percentage of low percentage shots. In reality, every team needs these, and while I think getting to an actual researched conclusion on this would take pretty much the rest of my life, it probably has a lot to do with why stars are necessary in the playoffs. The defensive intensity increases, which lowers the number of quality, high-percentage shots available in a given possession, which means you wind up with a higher percentage of shots that have a lower probability of conversion. Having those players who can create their own shot like Bryant, Melo, Johnson, Pierce, Wade, LeBron, Paul, etc., means that if we assume two equal teams in all other areas will be faced with converting low percentage shots thanks to the defense, it is those players who become the key to victory. Put another way, having a guy that can nail that fadeaway, impossible, double-covered baseline jumper is a pretty big freaking deal when you’re not getting open looks. The response of course is that it doesn’t take a whole lot of tape watching to see that Bryant too often actually works his way into a more difficult shot. But the thinking is likely “this is a difficult shot for others, but for me it’s a quality look I’ve hit a million times. The only problem is that eventually, the percentages catch up.

In 2007-2008, Bryant hit those shots at a .354 clip. Now he’s plummeted below .250 and still, hes’ taking them. More than any other player. Is it true that he has one of the highest usage rates and as a result takes more shots at most locations? Absolutely. But think of these shots and the low probability of making them, and think if just half of them were converted for higher quality looks. If you remove these shots from his totals this season, his percentage climbs to .451 (last years season average), up from .436. But those are just numbers, which Bryant CLEARLY does not care about. Why he should care is that he’s still brilliant. He’s still Kobe. And he’s still able to knock down low percentage shots, just not ridiculously stupid shots. Some of these, maybe even many of these could be 9-1-1 shots at the end of the quarter (as Spo calls ‘em), but they simply can’t all be.

A common refrain I’ve heard is that you have to take that with Kobe. And you do. You have to take the indecisiveness and tentativeness with LeBron, the struggle with Rose, the mental breakdowns with Howard.But it’s interesting to think that the problem with Bryant is less about him getting older, and more about his inability to shift his decision making as he gets older. He’s wiser, without the wisdom.

Pretty typical for Kobe.