The Jeremy Lin experience looks like it's not going to be ending any time soon. There's nothing I can write that hasn't already been written by someone a lot smarter and better than writing for me. I think it's sort of fitting that I'm writing this so late given that I was also late on him in fantasy basketball as well as believing that he can be a viable NBA starter.
And I'm not going to lie, this upsets me a little since I've thought that Lin would be able to play in the NBA since his 30 point explosion against UConn when he was at Harvard. I'll admit, I am a little bit of an NBA hipster.
Still, it seems like there are a lot of people coming out of the woodwork (Asian people, talking to you) who have all of a sudden become NBA/Knick fans and big believers in Lin as the next New York superstar. And I mean that's cool, obviously it's nice to have new fans. But whether new or old, Asian or...not Asian, it sort of seems like there are a lot of ideas of who or what Jeremy Lin is, was, and will be. He's only had a significant role for 6 games, a tiny sample size even in this shortened season, and there's really no way to predict what will happen next week, much less the rest of his career. Having said that, I think that I might be able to help sort out some misconceptions people might have about Lin.
So Jeremy Lin...
-Is a devout Christian.
This is one of the things I admire most about him. There are a lot of pro athletes and famous people who claim to believe in God, yet live with questionable morals. One of the biggest turnoffs people have towards Christianity these days is the hypocrisy of many professed believers. I'm really encouraged that despite all this sudden success and popularity, Lin doesn't hesitate in giving God the glory and making clear He's still the center of his life.
-Is Not a wronged, completely overlooked athlete who didn't get the chance he deserved until now.
Certainly Lin's making the most of his opportunity should be praised, however, it would be unfair to totally kill every other team for passing on him. He's a guy who struggled to earn minutes last year in Golden State not because he's Asian or went to Harvard, but because his play wasn't good enough. He was good, not great, at Harvard and good, not great, in the D League as well. I mean, people don't normally perform better against superior competition. It would be a mistake to attribute his success only to the opportunity he's been given as it totally ignores the hard work he's put in to improving his game.
-Is the only in-shape point guard on the Knicks roster.
Part of the reason Knicks fans love Lin so much, in my opinion, is because it's been a long time since they've had a competent player running the point. Toney Douglas and Iman Shumpert do not have Lin's vision and are much more suited to a scoring guard role. And the injured Baron Davis...look I don't want to say he's overweight, but I heard when he comes back he's going to see some minutes backing up Tyson Chandler at center. Just saying.
-Is Not a totally unselfish, timid, mistake-free (i.e. Asian) player.
Don't take this the wrong way. He often makes the right pass and is a very smart basketball player. I'm only trying to point out that this would be kind of silly and stereotypical to say given that since his breakout New Jersey game, he's attempted 14+ shots in every game and at least 20 in his past three. There are times he puts his head down and drives to the hoop without looking to his teammates. And while he's been making some great passes, his turnover rate has been extremely high (while only seeing significant minutes in six games, Lin is the only player who has turned the ball over eight times twice this season) Still, while he has his ball stopping moments, he's not nearly the black hole that Carmelo or Amare are. And as he's proved both in tonight's game winner and playing against Kobe, he doesn't back down against any challenge or opponent.
-Is extremely proficient at the pick and roll and an exceptional finisher.
This is, and has always been, his primary strength. According to Synergy Sports, nearly half (47.5%) of his plays are as the ball handler in a pick and roll situation and he averages 0.82 points per possession, good for 38th in the league. He's shooting just under 50%, largely due to the fact that he's taken 64.3% of his shots inside the paint, shooting 52.3% there. His shifty dribble and decisiveness get him to the rim and his toughness helps him finish (or draw a foul) when he gets there. The strength of his attack has allowed Lin to both create points for himself and others as once he gets to the rim, he's done a good job of either scoring a basket or finding an open teammate.
-Is Not a good shooter or elite athlete.
Despite his late game heroics tonight (As a sidenote, why do you take a 3 in a tie game? Don't you want to try to get an easier shot?), Lin's only shooting 36.4% from 20+ feet and 71% from the line over these past six games. And while he's clearly athletic enough to keep up with NBA competition, he doesn't possess the natural advantages that say, Russell Westbrook or Rajon Rondo have with their incredible explosiveness or freakish arm length and hand size respectively. The good news is shooting is something that can improve over time (exhibit A: Jason Kidd) and that so far, he seems smart enough to know how to use his own previously mentioned talents to overcome his relatively average physical tools.
But most importantly, Jeremy Lin
-Is a work in progress.
He's made great strides from last season already and there's no reason to believe he won't continue to do so. His teammates love him (see his handshake with Landry Fields and his 1,000,000 hugs with Jared Jeffries) and coach Mike D'Antoni seems willing to see how long he can ride the Lin wave. At the very least, Baron's return will lighten Lin's load. I don't know what it's like to be a Knicks fan, but with this six (and counting) game winning streak after a 8-15 start, it must seem like anything's possible. And right now it feels like the same is true for Jeremy Lin's career.
Showing posts with label nba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nba. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Dat Chris Paul
ESPN's reporting that a deal's been made between the Los Angeles Clippers and New Orleans Hornets where the Clippers will get Chris Paul and 2 future 2nd round draft picks in exchange for Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, Al-Farouq Aminu, and Minnesota's unprotected 2012 1st round pick. This took place a couple days after the Clippers refused to include Gordon and Minny's pick (two of their best trade assets).
Here's why I like the deal:
- You need a superstar to win in the NBA. The Clippers have that in Blake Griffin and the whole idea is to keep him around. Making a bold move for another superstar in Chris Paul does this.
- Gordon is the centerpiece of this package and arguably the best young shooting guard in the league. However, it's hard to see how the Clippers would be able to pay him and Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, assuming the three of them will command max (or very close to max) deals, which I think is a fair assumption.
- Kaman and Aminu are not big losses. Kaman's most valuable attribute was his expiring contract as a trade chip. Aminu's a nice young player but likely won't be anything more than an average forward in the NBA.
- I think the pick might be a little overrated. As Clipper fans we were obviously hoping for Minnesota to be terrible so we get a lottery pick, but that's looking a lot less certain than it did last year. The Timberwolves made a great coaching change (dumping Kurt Rambis for Rick Adelman) and have a lot of young talent (Kevin Love, Ricky Rubio, Derrick Williams) and decent depth which should help them in the shortened season. Not that I'd expect them to be a playoff team, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
- Chris Paul throwing lobs to Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan. If you're not excited for that, I don't know what to tell you.
Here's why I don't like the deal:
- I was so impressed with the Clippers' refusal to give in to David Stern's demands for basically all of their best trade assets (Gordon, Kaman, Aminu, Minny pick, Eric Bledsoe). There's a report that the Lakers are back in talks and now the Clippers go back and agree to essentially the same deal without Bledsoe (who's injured to start the season)? There's definitely a sense of desperation and weakness here. On the other hand, Chris Paul is the kind of player you take this risk for unless...
- There's evidence that Chris Paul is on the decline. He's missed close to 40 games the past two seasons and does not look like the CHRIS PAUL that he was just a few years ago. Whether or not he still has a gimpy knee, you have to wonder what kind of negative impact his past injuries have already had. As long as he's on the court he's still an elite point guard, but he might not be the unquestioned top dog in the league anymore.
- I thought the point of acquiring Chauncey Billups was to create leverage and show the league that the Clippers didn't need to do a deal for Chris Paul. A Billups/Gordon/Butler/Griffin/Jordan lineup is already pretty formidable in my mind. Now the Clippers (for now) are loaded with Paul, Billups, Mo Williams and Bledsoe at point guard. It looks like Billups will start at the 2 guard alongside Paul with combo guard Randy Foye backing him up.
- They didn't really need to do the deal now in my opinion. Carmelo Anthony wasn't traded for months. The Clippers didn't have any rush to get rid of any of their assets (I guess the Minnesota pick could have decreased in value if they had a hot start) and could have at least seen how their current roster did before revisiting trade talks.
- I'm not sure on the details, but I'm fairly certain there is no guarantee or promise from Paul that he'll stay long term. I think he's agreed to opt in for next season, but beyond that who knows.
Ultimately all roster moves are a crapshoot to some extent. Paul could be back to his pre-injury form and tossing up insane lobs all over the place and, alongside Blake Griffin, lead the Clippers to the playoffs year after year. Or maybe he'll get hurt, leave after two years and Eric Gordon will develop into the best shooting guard in the league. Obviously we don't know, and the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle. It's a high risk-high reward move that could pay off big time for one, both, or neither of the teams. Of course it's that not knowing, the excitement of uncertainty that makes it so fun to be a sports fan.
Here's why I like the deal:
- You need a superstar to win in the NBA. The Clippers have that in Blake Griffin and the whole idea is to keep him around. Making a bold move for another superstar in Chris Paul does this.
- Gordon is the centerpiece of this package and arguably the best young shooting guard in the league. However, it's hard to see how the Clippers would be able to pay him and Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, assuming the three of them will command max (or very close to max) deals, which I think is a fair assumption.
- Kaman and Aminu are not big losses. Kaman's most valuable attribute was his expiring contract as a trade chip. Aminu's a nice young player but likely won't be anything more than an average forward in the NBA.
- I think the pick might be a little overrated. As Clipper fans we were obviously hoping for Minnesota to be terrible so we get a lottery pick, but that's looking a lot less certain than it did last year. The Timberwolves made a great coaching change (dumping Kurt Rambis for Rick Adelman) and have a lot of young talent (Kevin Love, Ricky Rubio, Derrick Williams) and decent depth which should help them in the shortened season. Not that I'd expect them to be a playoff team, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
- Chris Paul throwing lobs to Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan. If you're not excited for that, I don't know what to tell you.
Here's why I don't like the deal:
- I was so impressed with the Clippers' refusal to give in to David Stern's demands for basically all of their best trade assets (Gordon, Kaman, Aminu, Minny pick, Eric Bledsoe). There's a report that the Lakers are back in talks and now the Clippers go back and agree to essentially the same deal without Bledsoe (who's injured to start the season)? There's definitely a sense of desperation and weakness here. On the other hand, Chris Paul is the kind of player you take this risk for unless...
- There's evidence that Chris Paul is on the decline. He's missed close to 40 games the past two seasons and does not look like the CHRIS PAUL that he was just a few years ago. Whether or not he still has a gimpy knee, you have to wonder what kind of negative impact his past injuries have already had. As long as he's on the court he's still an elite point guard, but he might not be the unquestioned top dog in the league anymore.
- I thought the point of acquiring Chauncey Billups was to create leverage and show the league that the Clippers didn't need to do a deal for Chris Paul. A Billups/Gordon/Butler/Griffin/Jordan lineup is already pretty formidable in my mind. Now the Clippers (for now) are loaded with Paul, Billups, Mo Williams and Bledsoe at point guard. It looks like Billups will start at the 2 guard alongside Paul with combo guard Randy Foye backing him up.
- They didn't really need to do the deal now in my opinion. Carmelo Anthony wasn't traded for months. The Clippers didn't have any rush to get rid of any of their assets (I guess the Minnesota pick could have decreased in value if they had a hot start) and could have at least seen how their current roster did before revisiting trade talks.
- I'm not sure on the details, but I'm fairly certain there is no guarantee or promise from Paul that he'll stay long term. I think he's agreed to opt in for next season, but beyond that who knows.
Ultimately all roster moves are a crapshoot to some extent. Paul could be back to his pre-injury form and tossing up insane lobs all over the place and, alongside Blake Griffin, lead the Clippers to the playoffs year after year. Or maybe he'll get hurt, leave after two years and Eric Gordon will develop into the best shooting guard in the league. Obviously we don't know, and the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle. It's a high risk-high reward move that could pay off big time for one, both, or neither of the teams. Of course it's that not knowing, the excitement of uncertainty that makes it so fun to be a sports fan.
Monday, August 1, 2011
If you don't write checks, how do you pay these guys?
When I went to bed last night Randy Moss was just one of hundreds of free agents still out there waiting to be picked up by some team. At best his personality and effort would be described as "mercurial." One of the biggest questions about him was if his major decline last season was caused by a deterioration of skills or a lack of motivation or a combination of both.
This morning, Randy Moss was one of the best wide receivers to ever play the game. His route running and smooth strides put him in a position where his size, hands, and freakish athletic ability allowed him to make seemingly every catch.
It's funny how retirement changes our perspective.
It makes perfect sense of course. When an athlete is still playing we have to view them as they currently are. Sure you respect what they've done in the past, but if you're trying to assess what they can do now, you have to throw out nostalgia and reminiscing.
It's only natural towards the end of their career to look back on what they've done and really appreciate the athlete's body of work as a whole and retirement forces that on us.
In Moss's case, I'm not weighing the risk of drafting him in fantasy football hoping he can latch on with a team (and quarterback) where he can be useful at least to the tune of 700 yards and 8 TDs. Instead we can remember him announcing his arrival to the league with 17 touchdown receptions in 1998 setting a rookie record, then teaming up with Tom Brady for another record with 23 TDs in 2007. We can recall the special role he played on teams that went 15-1 and 16-0 even though neither went on to win the Super Bowl.
In some ways it seems like it might be wrong that our view can change so rapidly with a single announcement. On one hand it feels like as fans we're being too optimistic as we just choose what we want to remember about an athlete. On the other hand, for the great ones, we really aren't choosing at all. They've determined how they'll be remembered as the things they accomplished on the field, court, ring, etc are seared into our brain.
When Shaq is inducted into the basketball hall of fame, no one's going to remember him hobbling up and down the floor for Cleveland and Boston. No, it'll be visions of Young Shaquille sprinting down the court for a massive dunk or joking around with the media nicknaming himself or, my personal favorite, this. Oh goodness, more of that. Please.
Sometimes we're stuck in the awkward position of being close enough to the end to reminisce about an athlete, but far enough away where it feels like we might be dishonoring him (or her) by pretending as if they're done.
When I first started watching mixed martial arts, Fedor Emelianenko was the baddest heavyweight on the planet. The way he fought was like a cyborg. He could fire his rocket of a right hand on the feet or on the ground and there was little his opponents could do. His footwork and speed allowed him to pick apart fighters on the feet, and his incredible hip movement let him ground and pound at will no matter who's guard he was in.
Now he's lost three in a row and his future is up in the air. A part of me wants to look back at his record and point out that he's really only beat three heavyweights at the top of their game (Heath Herring, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira x2, Mirko Filipovic), but another part remembers that for years he smashed everyone in his way and almost never seemed like he was in danger. It's almost like I just want him to decide one way or another, to take a fight or to officially hang up the gloves so that we know whether we should be celebrating his career or wondering if he's still got it.
That's just the brutal world of sports. It's so fast-paced and it's no hyperbole to say that today's hot stuff could easily be tomorrow's old news. Every athlete, without exception, will be slowed by age and/or injuries eventually. There will always be a point where they just don't have it anymore and we'll look on their career in hindsight and inevitably judge it. Some with leave a legendary legacy but others nothing at all.
But as competitors these athletes have no time to think of that. They have to focus on the next game, the next play so that they don't get caught up and distracted by what's to come. All that will take care of itself in time. But for now? Straight cash homey.
This morning, Randy Moss was one of the best wide receivers to ever play the game. His route running and smooth strides put him in a position where his size, hands, and freakish athletic ability allowed him to make seemingly every catch.
It's funny how retirement changes our perspective.
It makes perfect sense of course. When an athlete is still playing we have to view them as they currently are. Sure you respect what they've done in the past, but if you're trying to assess what they can do now, you have to throw out nostalgia and reminiscing.
It's only natural towards the end of their career to look back on what they've done and really appreciate the athlete's body of work as a whole and retirement forces that on us.
In Moss's case, I'm not weighing the risk of drafting him in fantasy football hoping he can latch on with a team (and quarterback) where he can be useful at least to the tune of 700 yards and 8 TDs. Instead we can remember him announcing his arrival to the league with 17 touchdown receptions in 1998 setting a rookie record, then teaming up with Tom Brady for another record with 23 TDs in 2007. We can recall the special role he played on teams that went 15-1 and 16-0 even though neither went on to win the Super Bowl.
In some ways it seems like it might be wrong that our view can change so rapidly with a single announcement. On one hand it feels like as fans we're being too optimistic as we just choose what we want to remember about an athlete. On the other hand, for the great ones, we really aren't choosing at all. They've determined how they'll be remembered as the things they accomplished on the field, court, ring, etc are seared into our brain.
When Shaq is inducted into the basketball hall of fame, no one's going to remember him hobbling up and down the floor for Cleveland and Boston. No, it'll be visions of Young Shaquille sprinting down the court for a massive dunk or joking around with the media nicknaming himself or, my personal favorite, this. Oh goodness, more of that. Please.
Sometimes we're stuck in the awkward position of being close enough to the end to reminisce about an athlete, but far enough away where it feels like we might be dishonoring him (or her) by pretending as if they're done.
When I first started watching mixed martial arts, Fedor Emelianenko was the baddest heavyweight on the planet. The way he fought was like a cyborg. He could fire his rocket of a right hand on the feet or on the ground and there was little his opponents could do. His footwork and speed allowed him to pick apart fighters on the feet, and his incredible hip movement let him ground and pound at will no matter who's guard he was in.
Now he's lost three in a row and his future is up in the air. A part of me wants to look back at his record and point out that he's really only beat three heavyweights at the top of their game (Heath Herring, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira x2, Mirko Filipovic), but another part remembers that for years he smashed everyone in his way and almost never seemed like he was in danger. It's almost like I just want him to decide one way or another, to take a fight or to officially hang up the gloves so that we know whether we should be celebrating his career or wondering if he's still got it.
That's just the brutal world of sports. It's so fast-paced and it's no hyperbole to say that today's hot stuff could easily be tomorrow's old news. Every athlete, without exception, will be slowed by age and/or injuries eventually. There will always be a point where they just don't have it anymore and we'll look on their career in hindsight and inevitably judge it. Some with leave a legendary legacy but others nothing at all.
But as competitors these athletes have no time to think of that. They have to focus on the next game, the next play so that they don't get caught up and distracted by what's to come. All that will take care of itself in time. But for now? Straight cash homey.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Derrick Rose: Is he who we think he is?
In the past few weeks there has been so much buzz about Derrick Rose's MVP candidacy, whether it's Stan Van Gundy claiming that the media has all but crowned him MVP already, ESPN.com essentially agreeing, or a number of outlets vehemently stating that he should or should not win the award and how they can't see how the other side of the argument even exists.
It seems like so long ago that we were talking about LeBron James, after his 2nd consecutive MVP with fans and media alike already wondering if it a 3rd straight was inevitable, or Kevin Durant, with his humility, leadership, and 30 points per game making his case, as surefire MVP candidates.
But now it seems as if it's Rose's award to lose. Personally, I don't see it. Not to say I don't think he's a great player, which he clearly his. His defense seems to be getting better, and while his jump shot has very clearly not improved as much as some might lead you to think (his percentages on mid and long 2s is actually worse than last year), he has at least replaced relatively inefficient 2 pointers with 3 attempts, which effectively makes him a better shooter. He has clearly taken ownership of this Chicago Bulls team which has risen into the elite class of the Eastern Conference.
Still...I don't think any of this makes him a lock for the MVP. Defense in the NBA is clearly a team effort. Sure, great individual lockdown players always helps but only to an extent. The arrival of guru Tom Thibodeau and the continued maturation of players like Taj Gibson definitely played a big role in Chicago's improved defense. Rose may be getting better, but many people count the point guard spot as one of the least important spots in a team's defense. His offensive stats are impressive, and yet look at this comparison.
Player A: 22.2 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 8.3 APG, 1.8 SPG, 3.9 TO, 44.4% FG, 84.1% FT, 53.9 TS%, 23.8 PER
Player B: 24.9 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 7.8 APG, 1.1 SPG, 3.4 TO, 44.0% FG, 84.7% FT, 54.0 TS%, 23.3 PER
Pretty freakin identical right? So why is Player B, Derrick Rose, talked about like he absolutely deserves the MVP above and beyond everyone else while Player A, Russell Westbrook, is not even in the discussion? Yes, Rose took a team that was .500 and an 8 seed last year to the top of the conference (for now). But I think it's equally impressive that Westbrook's team, the Oklahoma City Thunder, has moved into the upper half of the deeper Western Conference this year while also being an 8 seed last year. OKC was a 50 win team last year and, avoiding a massive losing streak, will win over 50 this year, due in no small part to Westbrook's emergence as not just a second fiddle to Durant, but a sidekick and equal.
And this is before we even talk about James, still putting up gaudy statlines, Dwight Howard, a defensive juggernaut and growing offensive weapon, or Dirk Nowitzki, who can still ball and whose Dallas Mavericks looked lost without when he went down.
I'm not trying to diminish Rose at all here. He and his team have kicked their play up another level this year and that is certainly to be commended. But it seems like there are too many holes in his MVP argument and too many other viable and legitimate candidates to be speaking of him as a lock.
The bigger problem is one that's familiar with sports fan. What exactly does the MVP award mean? How do we weigh a player's stats with his team's record with the simple eye test we all use when we watch him play? The MVP means something different to every person, which is why there's often such great debate over it.
In the end, because the definition of the MVP is so nebulous and vague, I think it's remarkable that Rose is even in this position. He is no doubt a legitimate candidate for the award, and, in just his third season, that's saying a lot. The rest is for the voters to decide.
It seems like so long ago that we were talking about LeBron James, after his 2nd consecutive MVP with fans and media alike already wondering if it a 3rd straight was inevitable, or Kevin Durant, with his humility, leadership, and 30 points per game making his case, as surefire MVP candidates.
But now it seems as if it's Rose's award to lose. Personally, I don't see it. Not to say I don't think he's a great player, which he clearly his. His defense seems to be getting better, and while his jump shot has very clearly not improved as much as some might lead you to think (his percentages on mid and long 2s is actually worse than last year), he has at least replaced relatively inefficient 2 pointers with 3 attempts, which effectively makes him a better shooter. He has clearly taken ownership of this Chicago Bulls team which has risen into the elite class of the Eastern Conference.
Still...I don't think any of this makes him a lock for the MVP. Defense in the NBA is clearly a team effort. Sure, great individual lockdown players always helps but only to an extent. The arrival of guru Tom Thibodeau and the continued maturation of players like Taj Gibson definitely played a big role in Chicago's improved defense. Rose may be getting better, but many people count the point guard spot as one of the least important spots in a team's defense. His offensive stats are impressive, and yet look at this comparison.
Player A: 22.2 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 8.3 APG, 1.8 SPG, 3.9 TO, 44.4% FG, 84.1% FT, 53.9 TS%, 23.8 PER
Player B: 24.9 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 7.8 APG, 1.1 SPG, 3.4 TO, 44.0% FG, 84.7% FT, 54.0 TS%, 23.3 PER
Pretty freakin identical right? So why is Player B, Derrick Rose, talked about like he absolutely deserves the MVP above and beyond everyone else while Player A, Russell Westbrook, is not even in the discussion? Yes, Rose took a team that was .500 and an 8 seed last year to the top of the conference (for now). But I think it's equally impressive that Westbrook's team, the Oklahoma City Thunder, has moved into the upper half of the deeper Western Conference this year while also being an 8 seed last year. OKC was a 50 win team last year and, avoiding a massive losing streak, will win over 50 this year, due in no small part to Westbrook's emergence as not just a second fiddle to Durant, but a sidekick and equal.
And this is before we even talk about James, still putting up gaudy statlines, Dwight Howard, a defensive juggernaut and growing offensive weapon, or Dirk Nowitzki, who can still ball and whose Dallas Mavericks looked lost without when he went down.
I'm not trying to diminish Rose at all here. He and his team have kicked their play up another level this year and that is certainly to be commended. But it seems like there are too many holes in his MVP argument and too many other viable and legitimate candidates to be speaking of him as a lock.
The bigger problem is one that's familiar with sports fan. What exactly does the MVP award mean? How do we weigh a player's stats with his team's record with the simple eye test we all use when we watch him play? The MVP means something different to every person, which is why there's often such great debate over it.
In the end, because the definition of the MVP is so nebulous and vague, I think it's remarkable that Rose is even in this position. He is no doubt a legitimate candidate for the award, and, in just his third season, that's saying a lot. The rest is for the voters to decide.
P.S. I should note I looked into the Rose/Westbrook comparison because of this post from Hoopdata.com: http://hoopdata.com/blogengine/post/2011/03/26/Nix-The-Knicks-Offense-is-Fine-Chatter.aspx
"Rose is definitely a terrific talent. If all NBA contracts were declared null and void at midnight tonight, and all NBA players were re-drafted, would Rose go first? Can you find meaningful statistical differences this year between Rose and Russell Westbrook (they sit next to each other on this page)? It takes some significant rhetorical limbo to get a point guard on an offense that's only a point per 100 possessions better than league average as the MVP...particularly when it's DEFENSE that's taken the team to new heights...and he plays one of the least important defensive positions."
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Geeks and Jocks
There's always been a certain kind of tension in the sports world between stat heads and traditional analysts. Every sport has a set of traditional knowledge, things that people who have played the game just know and understand as part of the game and how its supposed to be played. These insiders and analysts don't take too kindly when people focusing on stats, "quants" as they're sometimes called, come along and dispel or at least call into question things everyone already knows is right, no matter what or how many numbers and data sets they have to back it up.
A famous example would be Michael Lewis's Moneyball, a book discussing Oakland A's manager Billy Beane and how he used advanced and non-traditional statistics to find undervalued production. In the book, on base percentage is preached over batting average, walks are king and sacrifice bunts and stolen bases shouldn't be bothered with. There's a lot of detail and logical arguments supporting these ideas, mostly based around the fact that the most important thing on offense in baseball is to avoid making outs. Of course, you still see teams move guys over with bunts and send runners, and batting average is still prominently mentioned.
Who knows if there will ever be a perfect coexistence between the box score people and the "watch the game" people or even what that would look like, but there's no question that you need both. Just looking at stats often ignores elements that don't show up in any box score such as momentum, leadership, and a general understanding of the flow of a game. Not taking into account stats at all leaves someone vulnerable to small sample sizes and misinterpreting fluke occurrences as patterns. Neither is necessarily better than the other, rather, they inform and complete each other.
While Moneyball might be the most famous example, advanced stats are making a push in basketball as well. Often, these stats can validate or disprove certain things that observers notice through watching the game.
One of the biggest stories in the NBA this year has been the explosion of Chicago Bulls point guard Derrick Rose. He established himself as a solid point guard in his first two years in the league, but has really busted out this year, averaging about 5 more points and 3 more assists a game while also raising his PER (player efficiency rating) from 18.60 to 22.72. While he's exceptionally fast and has incredible athleticism, the knock on him has been an inability to hit jump shots. He seemed to have worked on it over the summer, and last night's game against San Antonio led ESPN's Ric Bucher to tweet, "I try like heck not to be reactive, but it's time to stop talking as if Derrick Rose doesn't have a J. Or three-point range. He has both."
And based on last night's game, that's true. He was 5-6 from 16-23 feet (long twos) and 2-4 from 3 point range. But again, we're dealing with a really small sample size (one game). While his 3 point shooting has seemed to improve (up to 34.2% from 26.7%), his improvement from 16-23 ft has been marginal (2%) and he's shooting far worse from 10-15 ft (30%, a huge decrease from 50% last year).
Is his long range shooting better? Yes. But it should be noted that he's still in the bottom half of regular point guards in 3 point percentage, and the shot he improved most (long twos) is the most inefficient way to score in the game.
Don't get me wrong. This is no knock on Rose at all. He is a phenomenal player. It just strikes me as kind of ridiculous to make a disclaimer against being reactive, then proclaim his jump shot to be fixed based on one night. On the other hand, his improvement and the impact he has on this Bulls team can't be stated in any box score or statistical summary.
And this is where watching the games and tracking stats have to meet.
Stats courtesy of Hoopdata
A famous example would be Michael Lewis's Moneyball, a book discussing Oakland A's manager Billy Beane and how he used advanced and non-traditional statistics to find undervalued production. In the book, on base percentage is preached over batting average, walks are king and sacrifice bunts and stolen bases shouldn't be bothered with. There's a lot of detail and logical arguments supporting these ideas, mostly based around the fact that the most important thing on offense in baseball is to avoid making outs. Of course, you still see teams move guys over with bunts and send runners, and batting average is still prominently mentioned.
Who knows if there will ever be a perfect coexistence between the box score people and the "watch the game" people or even what that would look like, but there's no question that you need both. Just looking at stats often ignores elements that don't show up in any box score such as momentum, leadership, and a general understanding of the flow of a game. Not taking into account stats at all leaves someone vulnerable to small sample sizes and misinterpreting fluke occurrences as patterns. Neither is necessarily better than the other, rather, they inform and complete each other.
While Moneyball might be the most famous example, advanced stats are making a push in basketball as well. Often, these stats can validate or disprove certain things that observers notice through watching the game.
One of the biggest stories in the NBA this year has been the explosion of Chicago Bulls point guard Derrick Rose. He established himself as a solid point guard in his first two years in the league, but has really busted out this year, averaging about 5 more points and 3 more assists a game while also raising his PER (player efficiency rating) from 18.60 to 22.72. While he's exceptionally fast and has incredible athleticism, the knock on him has been an inability to hit jump shots. He seemed to have worked on it over the summer, and last night's game against San Antonio led ESPN's Ric Bucher to tweet, "I try like heck not to be reactive, but it's time to stop talking as if Derrick Rose doesn't have a J. Or three-point range. He has both."
And based on last night's game, that's true. He was 5-6 from 16-23 feet (long twos) and 2-4 from 3 point range. But again, we're dealing with a really small sample size (one game). While his 3 point shooting has seemed to improve (up to 34.2% from 26.7%), his improvement from 16-23 ft has been marginal (2%) and he's shooting far worse from 10-15 ft (30%, a huge decrease from 50% last year).
Is his long range shooting better? Yes. But it should be noted that he's still in the bottom half of regular point guards in 3 point percentage, and the shot he improved most (long twos) is the most inefficient way to score in the game.
Don't get me wrong. This is no knock on Rose at all. He is a phenomenal player. It just strikes me as kind of ridiculous to make a disclaimer against being reactive, then proclaim his jump shot to be fixed based on one night. On the other hand, his improvement and the impact he has on this Bulls team can't be stated in any box score or statistical summary.
And this is where watching the games and tracking stats have to meet.
Stats courtesy of Hoopdata
Monday, July 12, 2010
Grown Man Move
With all due respect to Mark Jackson.
It's been several days, but somehow I've been sick of the Lebronocalpyse for several years already. I hate everything about how he handled this situation. I hate how it seems like the trio planned their teaming up years ago yet still led several teams on this off-season even though, realistically, Miami was the only possible location for their union. I hate how after the Cavaliers got booted out of the playoffs by the Celtics, Lebron talked about how he and his team would implement their game plan for free agency (shouldn't you have tried to implement a game plan for, you know, the game?). I hate the one hour television special (and I hate that it took him 30 minutes to get to a decision he promised in 10). I hate how he said that wearing a Heat jersey "feels right." I hate his assertion that the three of them could lead a winning team with Pat Riley as their point guard. I hate that claims that they're looking to win "not one, not two...not six, not seven" championships when Adam Morrison has more rings than the three of them put together. But one thing I do love is the nickname for them that's been floating around: the Three Miami-egos.
But do I hate Lebron? Unless his ego has finally taken over as a sentient entity, a possibility I don't discount, no I don't. Do I even hate that he's teaming up with Wade and Bosh in Miami? No, and in fact it excites me and I'm going to look to buy Suns/Heat tickets when the NBA schedule comes out. Like I said before, while I don't think they should be praised for this move, they shouldn't be vilified either.
The whole situation in general has been covered to death. But Lebron really has taken a beating in the last few days, and I don't think it's right. Let's be real here. He's 25. What 25 year old wouldn't want to play basketball for a hundred million dollars with two of his best friends while living in Miami? Look, I don't want to say he "earned" the right to leave because I think that whole idea is stupid. The whole point of free agency is that a player can go play where he wants to play and where he feels like he's being paid what he's worth. Lebron doesn't "owe" Cleveland any more than Dwyane Wade "owes" his hometown of Chicago. How many times do owners and GM use the defense of "it's a business" to justify when they treat players like crap or send them off in trades or waive them? A player's duty to a city and an organization is done once they've fulfilled their contract. From there, it's up to management to create a situation in which that player wants to come back. Granted, it's a different situation if a player promises to come back and still jump ship. However, this was not the case at all with Lebron. I believe that yes, he would love to stay in his home state and bring Ohio a championship. But he had to consider all the other factors and evidently decided that the grass was greener, the ocean bluer, and the sun brighter in Miami (and he would be right, literally and metaphorically). As much as I don't like Lebron, I can't pile on him for this decision and, to some extent, for how he handled it either. It was completely unnecessary, but it's who he is. No one's ever accused Lebron of being understated in anyway.
The one thing that's been far more disgusting than Lebron's ego has been Dan Gilbert's antics. His now infamous letter ripping Lebron is the ultimate example of sour grapes. It's childish, condescending, and doesn't make a lick of sense. He's not fooling anyone by releasing this letter claiming that Lebron is a farce who quit and can't win a championship the minute he realizes he's not getting him. His use of hyperbole, ALL CAPS, and Comic Sans font makes it so ridiculous that many people thought it was a fake or parody.
Lebron's doing what he thinks is best for him and his family. Critics may disagree on the basketball implications of his decision, but no one can say, "You can't/shouldn't do that" just because it's not what they wanted him to do. You'd expect the owner of the team that Lebron turned from nothing into a contender and brought countless extra revenue to to take the high road, to thank Lebron for what he's done. But no, the person who claims that Lebron is teaching kids the wrong lesson by...well, I was never really clear on that, proved himself to be the biggest kid of all.
It's been several days, but somehow I've been sick of the Lebronocalpyse for several years already. I hate everything about how he handled this situation. I hate how it seems like the trio planned their teaming up years ago yet still led several teams on this off-season even though, realistically, Miami was the only possible location for their union. I hate how after the Cavaliers got booted out of the playoffs by the Celtics, Lebron talked about how he and his team would implement their game plan for free agency (shouldn't you have tried to implement a game plan for, you know, the game?). I hate the one hour television special (and I hate that it took him 30 minutes to get to a decision he promised in 10). I hate how he said that wearing a Heat jersey "feels right." I hate his assertion that the three of them could lead a winning team with Pat Riley as their point guard. I hate that claims that they're looking to win "not one, not two...not six, not seven" championships when Adam Morrison has more rings than the three of them put together. But one thing I do love is the nickname for them that's been floating around: the Three Miami-egos.
But do I hate Lebron? Unless his ego has finally taken over as a sentient entity, a possibility I don't discount, no I don't. Do I even hate that he's teaming up with Wade and Bosh in Miami? No, and in fact it excites me and I'm going to look to buy Suns/Heat tickets when the NBA schedule comes out. Like I said before, while I don't think they should be praised for this move, they shouldn't be vilified either.
The whole situation in general has been covered to death. But Lebron really has taken a beating in the last few days, and I don't think it's right. Let's be real here. He's 25. What 25 year old wouldn't want to play basketball for a hundred million dollars with two of his best friends while living in Miami? Look, I don't want to say he "earned" the right to leave because I think that whole idea is stupid. The whole point of free agency is that a player can go play where he wants to play and where he feels like he's being paid what he's worth. Lebron doesn't "owe" Cleveland any more than Dwyane Wade "owes" his hometown of Chicago. How many times do owners and GM use the defense of "it's a business" to justify when they treat players like crap or send them off in trades or waive them? A player's duty to a city and an organization is done once they've fulfilled their contract. From there, it's up to management to create a situation in which that player wants to come back. Granted, it's a different situation if a player promises to come back and still jump ship. However, this was not the case at all with Lebron. I believe that yes, he would love to stay in his home state and bring Ohio a championship. But he had to consider all the other factors and evidently decided that the grass was greener, the ocean bluer, and the sun brighter in Miami (and he would be right, literally and metaphorically). As much as I don't like Lebron, I can't pile on him for this decision and, to some extent, for how he handled it either. It was completely unnecessary, but it's who he is. No one's ever accused Lebron of being understated in anyway.
The one thing that's been far more disgusting than Lebron's ego has been Dan Gilbert's antics. His now infamous letter ripping Lebron is the ultimate example of sour grapes. It's childish, condescending, and doesn't make a lick of sense. He's not fooling anyone by releasing this letter claiming that Lebron is a farce who quit and can't win a championship the minute he realizes he's not getting him. His use of hyperbole, ALL CAPS, and Comic Sans font makes it so ridiculous that many people thought it was a fake or parody.
Lebron's doing what he thinks is best for him and his family. Critics may disagree on the basketball implications of his decision, but no one can say, "You can't/shouldn't do that" just because it's not what they wanted him to do. You'd expect the owner of the team that Lebron turned from nothing into a contender and brought countless extra revenue to to take the high road, to thank Lebron for what he's done. But no, the person who claims that Lebron is teaching kids the wrong lesson by...well, I was never really clear on that, proved himself to be the biggest kid of all.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Rapid Descent
Basketball fans, notably fans of the Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics, know that in Game 2 of the current NBA Finals, Ray Allen broke a record for most three pointers made in a Finals game. His line was ridiculous as he carried his team early on, finishing with 32 points on 11-20 shooting (8-11 from downtown). The previous record was seven, held by himself, Kenny Smith and Scottie Pippen. To break away from that group is an impressive accomplishment.
However, Allen followed it up by taking a massive dump on the court in Game 3 shooting 0-13 (0-8 from downtown) and finishing with a paltry two points in 42 minutes of play. He went from a complete stud to a total non-factor in one game. How does something like that happen? Who knows, but our small sample size suggests that it might not really be that uncommon.
Ray Allen (Game 2, 2010 Finals): 43 min, 32 pts, 11-20 FGM-A, 8-11 3PM-A, 2-2 FTM-A, 3 reb, 2 ast,
Ray Allen (Game 3, 2010 Finals): 42 min, 2 pts, 0-13 FGM-A, 0-8 3PM-A, 2-2 FTM-A, 4 reb, 2 ast
Kenny Smith (Game 1, 1995 Finals): 42 min, 23 pts, 8-13 FGM-A, 7-11 3PM-A, 0-0 FTM-A, 3 reb, 9 ast
Kenny Smith (Game 2, 1995 Finals): 19 min, 0 pts, 0-2 FGM-A, 0-1 3PM-A, 0-0 FTM-A, 0 reb, 1 ast
Scottie Pippen (Game 3, 1997 Finals): 40 min, 27 pts, 7-13 FGM-A, 7-11 3PM-A, 6-9 FTM-A, 4 reb, 4 ast
Scottie Pippen (Game 4, 1997 Finals): 47 min, 16 pts, 7-16 FGM-A, 1-4 3PM-A, 1-2 FTM-A, 12 reb, 4 ast
(Note: Ray Allen's previous seven three pointer game was in the series clincher in 2008 so there was no game following it)
Interestingly, all three players cooled off significantly from three point range. That may have been the case of tighter defense, although not Allen's as he had sufficient room to shoot last night and just missed. In fact, Pippen was the only one to hit a single three in the game following his record setting night as well as the only one to put up a respectable stat line overall.
Of course, it's Scottie Pippen, one of the greatest ever to play the game so that's to be expected. Honestly I don't really know if there's anything to this data, maybe they have too much belief in the hot hand and are too consumed with looking for three point shots? Who knows. But after the horrific game Ray Allen played tonight, I wanted to see how the other guys followed up their rain-making nights. More pressing is how he'll follow up this stink bomb in a pivotal Game 4.
Stats courtesty of Basketball-Reference.com
However, Allen followed it up by taking a massive dump on the court in Game 3 shooting 0-13 (0-8 from downtown) and finishing with a paltry two points in 42 minutes of play. He went from a complete stud to a total non-factor in one game. How does something like that happen? Who knows, but our small sample size suggests that it might not really be that uncommon.
Ray Allen (Game 2, 2010 Finals): 43 min, 32 pts, 11-20 FGM-A, 8-11 3PM-A, 2-2 FTM-A, 3 reb, 2 ast,
Ray Allen (Game 3, 2010 Finals): 42 min, 2 pts, 0-13 FGM-A, 0-8 3PM-A, 2-2 FTM-A, 4 reb, 2 ast
Kenny Smith (Game 1, 1995 Finals): 42 min, 23 pts, 8-13 FGM-A, 7-11 3PM-A, 0-0 FTM-A, 3 reb, 9 ast
Kenny Smith (Game 2, 1995 Finals): 19 min, 0 pts, 0-2 FGM-A, 0-1 3PM-A, 0-0 FTM-A, 0 reb, 1 ast
Scottie Pippen (Game 3, 1997 Finals): 40 min, 27 pts, 7-13 FGM-A, 7-11 3PM-A, 6-9 FTM-A, 4 reb, 4 ast
Scottie Pippen (Game 4, 1997 Finals): 47 min, 16 pts, 7-16 FGM-A, 1-4 3PM-A, 1-2 FTM-A, 12 reb, 4 ast
(Note: Ray Allen's previous seven three pointer game was in the series clincher in 2008 so there was no game following it)
Interestingly, all three players cooled off significantly from three point range. That may have been the case of tighter defense, although not Allen's as he had sufficient room to shoot last night and just missed. In fact, Pippen was the only one to hit a single three in the game following his record setting night as well as the only one to put up a respectable stat line overall.
Of course, it's Scottie Pippen, one of the greatest ever to play the game so that's to be expected. Honestly I don't really know if there's anything to this data, maybe they have too much belief in the hot hand and are too consumed with looking for three point shots? Who knows. But after the horrific game Ray Allen played tonight, I wanted to see how the other guys followed up their rain-making nights. More pressing is how he'll follow up this stink bomb in a pivotal Game 4.
Stats courtesty of Basketball-Reference.com
Friday, August 7, 2009
Excuses, Excuses
Of all of them, accidental or unintentional ingestion of performance enhancing drugs has got to be one of my favorites. Of course this is making waves after yesterday's reveal that Orlando Magic forward Rashard Lewis tested positive for banned substance DHEA, which I hear produces extra testosterone.
The weird thing is, although I think that it is one of the worst excuses, when I hear Lewis saying he didn't know he was taking it, I totally believe him. Call it a stereotype or whatever, but I really think that he could be stupid enough as a professional athlete not to check what he was putting into his body. Look, there are athletes in every sport who obsess over their diets, counting every carb and every calorie. You would think it goes without saying that at the very least, they would check their supplements to make sure there's nothing illegal or banned in any of them.
But Rashard? With him, I'm inclined to think that he's one of those people who wouldn't.
Does he look like he's a guy who'd check his supplements? So somehow, I can't really hate on the guy. He's missing 10 games and $1.6 million out of the $18 million he was going to make next year. Boo hoo.
Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel has a good take this issue:
"If the muscular Dwight Howard tested positive for a steroid-like substance, you could understand it. Same with the stocky Jameer Nelson or the sculpted Mickael Pietrus.
But Lewis?
Really?
Seriously?
With his spindly arms and legs, he looks as if he should have tested positive for birdseed...
I have an even better piece of advice for Lewis.
If you're an NBA power forward and you're going to get busted for performance-enhancing drugs, you absolutely have to average more than 5.7 rebounds a game."
Anyway, it presents an interesting contrast to MMA heavyweight Josh Barnett, who was set to fight Fedor Emelianenko at Affliction: Trilogy on August 1st before he tested positive for steroids. Now it was pretty obvious to us fans that he got caught red handed. He's tested positive twice before and actually lost a UFC title because of it.
A few days later, his camp put out a statement that said, "Mr. Barnett vehemently denies intentionally ingesting any banned substances in preparation for the August 1st fight and he is looking forward to presenting his case to the California State Athletic Commission."
Funny how he didn't denying ingesting it, only "intentionally ingesting." The problem is, fighters are generally surrounded by even more people who look after their diet, training regimen, and supplements. Combined with the fact that he's tested positive in the past (not to mention has fought many times in Japan where they either don't test or don't care), there is absolutely no way he would have taken any banned substance on accident. Apparently Barnett and his people thought that we'd be too stupid to realize any of this. Fortunately, they got some major egg on their face when the results from his B sample came out shortly after, also testing positive for the same substance.
While Lewis is only losing a small portion of his pay (not even 10% out of 18 mil), Barnett lost his show and potential win money, which is everything for fighters, probably some sponsorships, and his reputation. Also, Affliction ended up scrapping the entire event and then folded as a fight promotion, choosing to make peace with the UFC and sponsor their fighters once again.
In case athletes haven't noticed, steroids and PEDs is a big deal. Why there is anyone out there in any sport that has testing who isn't religiously checking every label of anything that they eat or use and having someone else double check for them is beyond me. If I was an athlete I'd read the ingredients of a can of tuna before I ate that. You know, if I ate that kind of stuff.
Hopefully we're coming to a point when everyone will laugh when an athlete says he unknowingly ingested an illegal substance. We're already at a place in professional sports where that idea should already sound silly, but who knows. I've learned never to underestimate stupid people.
The weird thing is, although I think that it is one of the worst excuses, when I hear Lewis saying he didn't know he was taking it, I totally believe him. Call it a stereotype or whatever, but I really think that he could be stupid enough as a professional athlete not to check what he was putting into his body. Look, there are athletes in every sport who obsess over their diets, counting every carb and every calorie. You would think it goes without saying that at the very least, they would check their supplements to make sure there's nothing illegal or banned in any of them.
But Rashard? With him, I'm inclined to think that he's one of those people who wouldn't.
Does he look like he's a guy who'd check his supplements? So somehow, I can't really hate on the guy. He's missing 10 games and $1.6 million out of the $18 million he was going to make next year. Boo hoo.
Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel has a good take this issue:
"If the muscular Dwight Howard tested positive for a steroid-like substance, you could understand it. Same with the stocky Jameer Nelson or the sculpted Mickael Pietrus.
But Lewis?
Really?
Seriously?
With his spindly arms and legs, he looks as if he should have tested positive for birdseed...
I have an even better piece of advice for Lewis.
If you're an NBA power forward and you're going to get busted for performance-enhancing drugs, you absolutely have to average more than 5.7 rebounds a game."
Anyway, it presents an interesting contrast to MMA heavyweight Josh Barnett, who was set to fight Fedor Emelianenko at Affliction: Trilogy on August 1st before he tested positive for steroids. Now it was pretty obvious to us fans that he got caught red handed. He's tested positive twice before and actually lost a UFC title because of it.
A few days later, his camp put out a statement that said, "Mr. Barnett vehemently denies intentionally ingesting any banned substances in preparation for the August 1st fight and he is looking forward to presenting his case to the California State Athletic Commission."
Funny how he didn't denying ingesting it, only "intentionally ingesting." The problem is, fighters are generally surrounded by even more people who look after their diet, training regimen, and supplements. Combined with the fact that he's tested positive in the past (not to mention has fought many times in Japan where they either don't test or don't care), there is absolutely no way he would have taken any banned substance on accident. Apparently Barnett and his people thought that we'd be too stupid to realize any of this. Fortunately, they got some major egg on their face when the results from his B sample came out shortly after, also testing positive for the same substance.
While Lewis is only losing a small portion of his pay (not even 10% out of 18 mil), Barnett lost his show and potential win money, which is everything for fighters, probably some sponsorships, and his reputation. Also, Affliction ended up scrapping the entire event and then folded as a fight promotion, choosing to make peace with the UFC and sponsor their fighters once again.
In case athletes haven't noticed, steroids and PEDs is a big deal. Why there is anyone out there in any sport that has testing who isn't religiously checking every label of anything that they eat or use and having someone else double check for them is beyond me. If I was an athlete I'd read the ingredients of a can of tuna before I ate that. You know, if I ate that kind of stuff.
Hopefully we're coming to a point when everyone will laugh when an athlete says he unknowingly ingested an illegal substance. We're already at a place in professional sports where that idea should already sound silly, but who knows. I've learned never to underestimate stupid people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)