Clipper Nation

New ClipsNation Blog

2006-09-25T12:48:00.000-07:00

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have arrived. I now have a new blog, with a color scheme and a logo and everything. Please join me at www.clipsnation.com.

Bulls in '07?

2006-09-22T10:12:00.000-07:00

Our boy Chris Mannix, whom I praised as insightful a mere 4 weeks ago, has gone WAY OUT on a limb and picked the Bulls to win the Championship this season.

As you might imagine, this has generated as much of a buzz as one can get for basketball in September over at blogabull.com (amid the speculation that Mannix could be either too far on or too far off his meds).

I always intended to post something about the Bulls signing of Ben Wallace. In fact, I kind of thought I did, but then I checked the archives and couldn't find anything. Nothing in email either. I guess all of my (brilliant) analysis was on the phone or in IM with Timmy T, a Detroit fan and Ben-lover.

I've never been very secretive about my opinion that Ben Wallace is perhaps the most over-rated player in the NBA. Not that he isn't great; he's just not 5 consecutive all NBA selections great. The best is when I explain to Timmy T how Ben is no where near the player Marcus Camby is, just for kicks. He gets particularly perturbed by that. Good times.

At the time the Bulls signed Ben, several things struck me. One was that in addition to being over-rated, Ben was now overpaid. And of course there is the massive miscalculation the Pistons made by trading Darko for nothing, assuming Ben would re-sign. But the overwhelming feeling I got at the time was how it made no sense for Chicago. The only way it made sense to sign a 32 year old for 4/$60 was if they were going to win a ring THIS YEAR, a concept I find laughable. And yet, here is a guy who apparently gets paid to write about the NBA (lucky bastard) who has predicted exactly that. Wow. I did not see that coming.

Ben's numbers have been declining for 3 seasons. While his rebounding and shot blocking are still terrific, it has been several years since he has led the league in either category, although everyone seems to think that he is the be-all end-all in each discipline. I will not disparage his intensity - he certainly has the heart of a champion. But he has the hands of a stone mason. He is the single biggest offensive liability in the league.

To think that Chicago would win an NBA championship this season, when their best low post scorer is... um... is... give me a minute... is... Kirk Hinrich? Chris Duhon? THEY DON'T HAVE A SINGLE LOW POST SCORER ON THEIR ROSTER! OK, maybe Sweetney. But C'MON! And I know that the game is changed, I know it's more of a perimeter game now, I know, I know. But when was the last time a team won a ring with an exclusively perimeter oriented offense? Even Detroit had 'Sheed to post up from time to time.

The ultimate irony (and I am undoubtedly the only one who believes this) is that I think they were probably closer to a ring BEFORE this summer's machinations. I'll admit, I never had to watch Tyson Chandler day in and day out, and I'm sure Bulls fans will inform me of how much he is the anti-Ben, but speaking as a guy who follows stats for a fantasy league, there was a time when a healthy Tyson Chandler playing solid minutes was putting up rebouding and block numbers that were positively Wallasian (Ben-esque?). Will they be better this season? Sure. But they won't win a ring during the 4 years Wallace is in town (not without another major influx of talent, which I suppose could arrive in the form of Greg Oden if the Knicks oblige). Meanwhile, although it was a long shot, if Tyson Chandler ever reached his full potential, they would have been terrific in a few years, when Chandler is 27 and Ben is 35.

Not that I'm a big Tony Mejia fan, but in his pre-season center rankings, he has Ben as the 7th best Center, and Tyson as the 13th best. Most people might not agree, but it's not absurd. Are the Bulls going to win a ring based on that relatively minor upgrade? Hard to see it. And that's this season, when Ben is 32 and Tyson is 24. Project out 4 years. You get the idea.

I guess it's nice for Paxson to get a LITTLE justification for the signing. He had to know that the only way it made since was if it produced a ring, and now here is someone else who thinks that could happen. And plenty of people have correctly pointed out that Wallace had to be overpaid in order to leave a great situation in Detroit.

You have to gamble to win a ring. But there's no way it's happening. No way.

NBA 2010, Part 4

2006-09-21T10:43:00.000-07:00

A pretty interesting topic on espn.com's NBA 2010 series today. I guess I find it interesting, because I asked the same question back in May, during the Clippers-Suns series. The NBA 2010 question today is "Which player will rise from mediocrity a la Boris Diaw?" I call these guys Diamonds in the Rough, and I posted a couple of times about it here and here.

On the whole, I like the picks of the espn panel today. I can kibitz plenty:

- Gerald Wallace can't have a break out year this season, since he already had a break out year last season - the only thing that can change is that people might notice;

- Carlos Arroyo is a gutsy choice (to use a kind word) given that Jameer Nelson is going to play point for Orlando, and I really don't think they'll play them together, as much as I like Arroyo;

- J.R. Smith is a stretch, but at least a plausible one, though it looks a lot like a homer pick coming from a Denver sportswriter;

- and speaking of homers, what is the deal with this guy from London? In 4 days, he's managed to reference every player in the NBA with ties to Great Britain except Michael Olowokandi. Even so, Luol Deng is not a bad pick either.

This is obviously a topic that is near and dear to the hearts of any fantasy team owner. Who can you pick up in the later rounds of the draft who might end up being a MAJOR contributor? (That's what makes the Gerald Wallace so obviously out of whack in this category. Wallace will be a VERY HIGH pick in everyone's fantasy league. He's not rising from mediocrity. On the other hand, there wasn't a fantasy owner in America who picked Diaw - the guy was on waivers to start the season in every fantasy league, but ended up being a HUGE fantasy player.)

Back in May, I proposed Shaun Livingson (so I'm a homer too) and Dan Dickau as candidates for this list. I also tried to get some feedback going, but I had pretty much ZERO readers then, so nobody responded. Let's see how many readers I have now! Send me candidates for this season's 'Diamond in the Rough.'

NBA 2010, Part 3

2006-09-20T11:58:00.000-07:00

Well, I wasn't going to post on the NBA 2010 series on espn.com today. I really wasn't. It's not that interesting of a series, and I didn't think I had too much more to say about it. But then they went and had not one but two Clipper references, so I figured I was obligated to say something.

Today's question is, "Which player is most likely to eventually supplant Dirk Nowitzki as the best international player in the NBA?"

Marc Spears, who provided easily the lamest answers to the first two questions in the series, continues his streak by picking Sofoklis Schortsianitis, MBFGC. Obviously, Clipper Nation hopes he is correct, especially if the Clips can buy out his Olympiakos contract any time soon. (I'm still not clear on how big a mistake they made by not getting him here this year.) But, supplanting Dirk? I mean, I know MBFGC is only 21 (Dirk is 28), so he's in the right age range. Yao is only 26. Is Sofo going to be better than Yao any time soon? We can certainly hope. (FYI, after watching him the Worlds, I do like his game... A LOT. But 'best international player in the NBA' which equates to best non US born player in the world, is a stretch.)

I will give Spears credit for making a bold choice. Picking Yao or Darko is pretty tame. Picking someone who has yet to play a minute in the NBA is definitely more gutsy. I might go with Yi from China. He's only 19, a complete FREAK of an athlete, 6'11" and still growing. He could be really special. It's not a stretch to say he could be better than Yao.

(The second Clipper reference, btw, was singling out Yao's 25 and 17 against Kaman last season. Of course Yao has always KILLED Kaman, so to imply that having a big game against the Clips proves he's truly arrived is disingenuous. Don't know why exactly, but Yao just owns Kaman.)

No one picked Andrea Bargnani, which tells you what people think of this year's draft.

Finally, does anyone else find it strange that Dirk is being presented as the pinnacle, when the TWO TIME DEFENDING MVP is also foreign born? I'd say Dirk has to supplant Nash before anyone has to supplant Dirk.

NBA 2010, Part 2

2006-09-19T10:15:00.000-07:00

The problem with espn.com's little exercise, is that two to three years isn't really a very long time. And then Marc Spears keeps cheating and using free agency three summers from now as part of his answer.

Look, anyone can IMAGINE that Kobe could get hurt or LeBron could get hurt. Problem is, Kobe has averaged 73 games a season for 10 seasons, and has never missed more than 17 games. LeBron's never missed more than 3 games in a season. So, there's no justification for imagining that one of them might could hurt. Might Cleveland or the Lakers suffer without their respective uber-stars? Sure. And in the immortal words of Wayne Campbell, monkeys might fly out of my butt. (That's not really apropos, but I do like Wayne Campbell.)

Now, surmising that 32 year old, Steve 'gimpy back' Nash could miss a significant amount of time in a season? That's not unreasonable.

But it's not always injuries and defections that change a team's fortunes. Bear in mind that the Phoenix Suns had the 6th worst record in the league a mere 3 seasons ago (the same span that we're projecting forward) with a team that included Stephon Marbury, Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudemire and Joe Johnson. Obviously, this says something about Starbury, but it also says something about coaching and systems. If D'Antoni were to leave Phoenix, or if the rest of the league were to figure out what he is doing, the wheels could conceivably come off for the Suns. Especially as Nash slows down.

I also look at the Lakers (who at number 10, are the team closest to the lottery already.) This is a team that won 34 games with Kobe and Lamar in 04-05. Is there any reason to think they have more talent now than they did then? They're still basically Kobe and Lamar and a bunch of other guys who probably shouldn't be starting in the NBA. They have nothing remotely resembling an NBA point guard, and let's face it, this is uncharted territory for Phil Jackson. He's never had to play guru tricks just to get a team into the first round of the playoffs. It seems possible to me that his Jedi ways won't work without the Ring as the ultimate prize. I Kwame Brown really gonna sit on the plane and read Lao Tse just so the Lakers can finish 6th in the West? I'm guessing he'd rather play PSP.

Miami will decline, but probably not to the 'low lottery'. Remember that 5 of their top 8 players are over 30, and that really big guy is 34, with a body type that has never been known to thrive into the late 30s in the NBA. Moses Malone played in his last all-star game at the age of 33. His minutes per game dropped from 34 at the age of 34 to 23 at the age of 35. Wilt averaged 27 ppg at 33, 20 at 34, 15 at 35, 13 at 36 and then retired. 34 or 35 seems to be the wall for the mega-giants. When you're carrying around 300 pounds, the legs are gonna go, no matter what kind of freakish specimen you are.

And what about Detroit? They have a coach who has experience taking teams from the Conference Finals to the lottery, and they are beginning to experience some bad luck after an uninterrupted string of colossally good luck that allowed them to get 5 of their super 6 (Ben Wallace, Chauncey Billups, Tayshaun Prince, Antonio McDyess and Rasheed Wallace) for a late first round pick, Zelkjo Rebraca, some money and the remains of Grant Hill. If you subscribe to the 'Joe Dumars is a genius' school of thought, then the Pistons will remain a top team. If, on the other hand, you take a more 'Joe Dumars has been lucky and his luck will run out' approach, they could slide. We'll see. I'm assuming they'll re-sign Billups, and remain a playoff team, but with a bloated payroll and not enough talent to get back to the finals as their comeuppance.

And then there are the Clippers. On paper, with young, signed stars, younger improving future stars, and a fairly obvious path toward keeping this group together (re-sign restricted free agents, re-sign Brand in 09, etc.), the Clippers should be a playoff team for awhile. BUT, do not discount the Clipper mystique. One botched negotiation (say an acrimonious departure of Chris Kaman) and the 'worst franchise in pro sports' talk could start again, and from there things could go south in a hurry.

It isn't always an injury that dooms a formerly top team to mediocrity.

NBA 2010

2006-09-18T17:51:00.000-07:00

So, our friends over at espn.com are featuring something they call NBA 2010 this week. In their own words, "All this week, ESPN.com will be looking ahead a few years in an attempt to see what the NBA will look like in the year 2010."

What a completely pointless waste of time! It's just an excuse to espouse an opinion about the basketball universe when in fact there's simply nothing to talk about! How sad and pathetic. Sounds like fun! Can I play too?

So, today's feature was "Which one of the Bottom 10 teams (Blazers, Knicks, Hawks, Wolves, Bobcats, Warriors, Raptors, Rockets, Celtics, Sonics) can win a championship in the next couple of years?"

First things first (and I know that I can be a little anal about these things, but it's my blog), who picked the number 10? Isn't this a tad arbitrary? Seattle is a member of the cellar dweller club at 35-47, but Orlando is not at 36-48? Seems like it should be limited to the truly horrible (there's a pretty clean break at the bottom 5, 27 wins for Toronto and 33 wins for Minny and Boston), or it should be the 14 non-playoff teams, which is at least a meaningfully arbitrary cut off. (Meaningfully arbitrary... I like that.)

OK, whatever. Orlando would be a decent pick if I was allowed to pick them, but rules are rules.

Of course, what I really want to do is diss the picks of the so-called experts.

John Denton picks the Houston Rockets, who really shouldn't even be on the list. Of course they would not be a bottom 10 team if TMac and Yao had not spent significant time in street clothes. So picking them is just too easy. Doesn't count.

Marc Spears picks the Knicks. Oh my god. Where to start? His reasoning is that 'either LeBron James or Dwyane Wade will be wearing a Knicks uniform after his contract ends.' Well, first of all, the name of the feature is NBA 2010, and even if this were to happen, they would have to win the title in that player's first year in MSG, and even then, it would be the 2011 title! Plus, the question says 'next couple of years.' A couple is two, not three and definitely not four! But ignoring all of those problems, it seems next to impossible to think that LeBron (or Wade) could become a Knick when his current deal is up. They won't be under the salary cap (it would be virtually impossible even if they started trying to get there now, and it would entail a level of sophistication and focus that neither Isiah Thomas nor James Dolan have heretofor exhibited), and they would only be able to offer bloated contracts in return for King James. Why would the Cavs work a sign-and-trade with an Eastern Conference team with no decent trade assets? It ain't happening.

Only Chris Sheridan offers a decent answer. (Picking Minnesota is a little like picking Houston - it's too easy. They were in the Western Conference finals two years ago. They have KG. Of course they have a chance. What fun is that?) Now, picking Charlotte, with a not implausible Vince Carter free agent signing next summer... that's an interesting pick. Sheridan also gets extra credit for specifically eschewing the Rockets pick as unworthy. Well played sir!

Off-Season Moves

2006-09-15T10:45:00.000-07:00

OK, this isn't MY take on off-season moves. It's my take on Mark Stein's take on off-season moves.

When all is said and done, this may be the reason I started blogging... so that I could rant about the silly, unjustified things that I see written all the time, and more importantly, so I could write my own silly, unjustified stuff.

In Stein's own words, he is making a list of "offseason assessments, not predicted order of finish for the coming season." If that is the case, how can you make Miami number one in the East? Doesn't that sound a LOT like a predicted order of finish? I mean, you're setting the bar pretty low if NOT losing your coach vaults you automatically to the top of the list.

Miami's rotation goes 8 deep. Anyone who says that Jason Kapono or Michael Doleac counts is kidding themselves. In fact, Derek Anderson and Shandon Anderson represented their 'depth' after the first 8, and they're both gone.

Of the 8 man rotation, 5 of them are over 30 years old (GP 38, 'Zo 36, Shaq 34, Williams 31 and Walker 30). Hell, Posey will be 29 in January. What I'm saying is, an off-season assessment should be about, did the team get better or worse during the off-season. What else could it be? Miami got worse - they were old and they got older.

There's nothing so egregious in Stein's Western Conference report card. Hard to argue with the Hornets in the top spot, or the Grizz in the last spot (if we're counting injuries). But San Antonio in third is totally unjustified. He tries to 'justitify' it by applying a double standard. Did the Hornets overpay for Peja? It doesn't matter, they got better so they are number 1. Did San Antonio lose both their centers? Sure, but they replaced them by splitting the mid-level, and they'll be able to reload around Timmy, Tony and Manu in 2 years. Wait a minute? Is this off-season assessment about being better than last year, or about making good business decisions? Make up your mind.

By the way, the Clippers came out fourth in the West. I would argue that there isn't much personnel upgrade from the end of season edition - Tim Thomas for VladRad is a small upgrade. But the Clippers are the anti-Heat on the age thing. Sure Sam Cassell got older - but so did Shaun Livingston and Chris Kaman.

Brand Post World's

2006-09-14T15:32:00.000-07:00

Elton Brand was interviewed in Toronto recently, where he was attending the film festival in his other role of movie producer. You can check out the interview for yourself, but I gotta say, Elton is a pretty smart cookie. He's got a good handle on what happened in the World Championships, he gets in a couple of contructive suggestions about the team without being overly critical of the powers that be... all around, a classy way of saying, "JUST GET ME THE DAMN BALL."

Some Love for Kaman

2006-09-14T15:10:00.000-07:00

SLAMOnline is counting down a 'Top 50', the 50 Best Players in the NBA. And for once in his life, Clippers' center Chris Kaman gets some love!

So, maybe number 48 is not THAT much love, especially considering that they've only gotten to number 45 and he's already behind 2 guys that have never played a MINUTE in the NBA (Bargnani at 47 and Morrison at 45.) But for a guy who somehow manages to go unnoticed despite the fact that he is over 7 feet tall and REALLY UGLY, being on ANY list is a step up.

Aside from putting the number 48 next to his name however, SLAM doesn't really give us much insight into the Kaveman. In a four paragraph piece we get mentions of the hair, Reggie Evans gettin' grabby AND Michael Olowokandi being tazered. Where is the critique of Kaman's game? No mention of the fact that he's a true center who can score with his back to the basket, that he can score with either hand.... c'mon. This is a basketball piece, right?

They don't even have their facts straight...

When the playoffs came around he wasn’t healthy, and the Clips lost a seven game series to Phoenix. With a healthy Kaman, who knows what would have happened. He’s valuable enough a player to swing a playoff series the other way.

Look, I'll make excuses for the Clippers as soon as the next guy, but Kaman's health? Really? Chris Kaman was no less healthy than any other player who just finished the 82 game season. The reason he was limited in the Phoenix series had everything to do with the fact that he can't pass out of double teams and can't guard Tim Thomas at the three point line, and nothing to do with health.

But, why quibble? At least someone has noticed that he's in the top 50.

While We're On the EuroLeague Subject....

2006-09-08T10:14:00.000-07:00

...let's once and for all put to bed the notion that the other teams in international basketball have some sort of systemic advantage that allows them to play together more. The Team USA excuse of "It's hard to play team basketball when you've only been playing together for 3 weeks" has got to be recognized for what it is: an excuse.

Of course, part of the problem is that the structure of European basketball is poorly understood here; and we're primarily talking about European leagues, since most of the good teams are European, and all of the great players (from Argentina, for instance) either play in the NBA or in the European leagues. So until China wins a Gold Medal (which will happen some day), we'll focus on the European leagues.

First of all, there is a difference between the EuroLeague, and the European leagues. Like the Champions League in European soccer, the EuroLeague brings together the BEST teams from various Domestic European leagues to compete against each other. The EuroLeague starts play in early November, and the Final Four is at the end of April, and I think people get confused and think those players are free to practice with the National team beginning in May.

But remember, these EuroLeague teams are first and foremost part of their own domestic league (Olympiakos is in the Greek League, Barcelona and Tau Ceramica are in the ACB in Spain, etc.) In the vast majority of cases, these leagues begin play sooner than the NBA, some as early as September, most some time in October), and their Championships mostly occur in June, just like the NBA.

So Dwyane Wade of the World Champion Miami Heat and Team USA had from June 20th until October 31 off this year. Juan Carlos Navarro, of Barcelona and WORLD Champion Spain, had from June 9 (Barcelona lost in the semis of the ACB) until October 1! That's correct. Wade has 30 more days to recoup after Japan than Navarro.

What does happen to be true is that the NBA plays more games. But not as many more as you might think. The NBA regular season is 82 games, followed by a maximum of 28 playoff games. So it is not unusual for NBA players to actually play in over 100 games in a season (Wade played in 98 last season.) Top European stars play a 34 game domestic league season, followed by a maximum of 15 playoff games. But then you can add in 25 EuroLeague games, and several more for their National Cup competition. When all is said and done, European players can easily play over 80 games in a single season. And of course a lot of them are playing NBA schedules along side DWade.

Henry Abbott at truehoop.com argued convincingly last week that the NBA season is just plain too long and of course he's right. But that is certainly not going to change, and any perceived disadvantage it presents to Team USA is simply not significant, as I've illustrated above.

Then there is the argument that the players from other national teams have simply played together more. Well, whose fault is that? Ironically, the fact that the talent pool is deeper in the USA probably contributes to this problem. Or rather, the relatively shallow pool in other countries puts the same players on the court together year after year. But we could do that too, right? And at any rate, are we really going to sit around and whine about how unfair it is to us because we're TOO TALENTED to have any consistency? How arrogant are we?

Of course, Kobe Bryant has been extended an invitation to each of the last three major competitions (the three the US did not win, btw), and initially said yes. He has NEVER actually played for Team USA. How good would Argentina be if Ginobili never played?

So all of these perceived, built-in disadvantages that supposedly stack the deck against the US in international competitions are all a bunch of crap. The other guys want it more, and they prove that by showing up when their country calls, by working hard preparing for these tournaments, and by playing their asses off. I'm not saying that this edition of Team USA didn't play hard - but I do think Team USA leadership is hesitant to ask them to do too much. If you're going to use 'three weeks of prep time' as an excuse, how about beginning practice sooner? My AYSO Under 8 Girls team practiced for a month before our first game, for Pete's Sake! And did anyone TELL Team USA to run an offense, or did they maybe think their overburdened superstars would handle it better if they just ran isos?

Stop making excuses for these guys. Either win the Gold Medal, or graciously congratulate the guys who did. But stop making excuses.

Go Olympiakos!

2006-09-08T09:48:00.000-07:00

So suddenly, I'm a fan of Olympiakos in the Greek League...

(Unfortunately, I'm not sure I know how to spell it. I've seen it spelled Olympiakos and Olympiacos. Transliteration problems from the Cyrillic alphabet, dontcha know.)

Not only is Sofoklis Schortsianitis (MBFGC) on the Reds, I just realized that they're the team that signed Alex Acker this summer! Being a Pepperdine Alum, I was hoping that Alex would stick with the Pistons, but he got a better offer from Olympiakos and is heading to Greece. They also signed Arvydas Macijauskas away from the Hornets, so that makes three NBA properties that they outbid NBA teams for this summer alone. So they have money. Which is nice.

Greek League begins play in late October (about a week before the Assoc.), and EuroLeague starts the first week in November. EuroLeague Action! It's FAN-tastic!

Can We Fix It? Yes, We Can!

2006-09-06T17:07:00.000-07:00

Maybe instead of Jerry Colangelo, Team USA needs Bob The Builder.

The bottom line for Colangelo and Krzyzewski and the players is that they said it was a three year plan - that a big part of addressing the problem is keeping a team together across multiple competitions. So, they're admitting up front that the problem won't be solved in 2006, which of course it wasn't.

But are they on the right track?

The two biggest problems with the 2004 Athens team were once again on display in Japan: not enough shooters, and poor play at the point. It's hard to figure how they failed to solve the shooting problem - aside from Michael Redd begging off, they just didn't really INVITE enough pure shooters into camp. As for point guard, they are at least moving in the right direction. In Athens, they played the WRONG point guards (Marbury and Iverson), shoot first guys on an all star team that still plays with just one basketball. Chris Paul and Kirk Hinrich are the right 'type' of point guard, but they're just young. They looked overwhelmed when the competition got tight (especially Paul). But they should be a lot better in Beijing.

But this team seemed to introduce a new problem. Suddenly Team USA is small. The 12 man roster included a grand total of 4 guys who play the 4 or the 5 for their NBA squad (Brand, Howard, Bosh and Miller). Miller was the 12th man. Bosh was the 10th or 11th. Only occasionally did they play two of them together during the tournament. Instead, the vast majority of the time, they played either Brand or Howard at the 5 (they both play 4 in the assoc.), and played Carmelo Anthony or LeBron James at the 4. And for several stretches (including most of the 4th quarter in the loss to Greece), they had NONE of their bigs in the game. (These stretches felt a little 'Emperor's New Clothes-y" to me. When Dallas 'went' small in the NBA playoffs, the announcers were all over it. But here was Team USA playing Carmelo Anthony at 5, LeBron James at 4 and Dwyane Wade at 3, and no one said a word. It was eerie.)

You can make an argument that Team USA's worst game was the loss to Greece (since it was the only loss), and that their best game was the Bronze Medal win over Argentina. In the loss to Greece, Brand / Howard / Bosh combined to play 30 minutes. (Miller got a DNP.) Now me, I'd be looking for that number to be up near 80, since these are the only legit 4's and 5's on the team, and the game lasts 40 minutes. But they didn't even combine to play all of the minutes at the 5! Against Argentina, they combined for 51 minutes (another DNP for poor Brad.) Look, I know they fell behind and were trying to catch up playing small(er). But 30 minutes? That's not just 'trying to catch up time'. Some of those minutes were definitely 'falling further behind time.' And it's not like Greece was smaller than Argentina. Rather than going to 5 small forwards and trying to play the pick-and-roll that way, did we consider putting Howard and Brand in the game, so that we'd have a shot blocker at the rim?

Why is the nation with the biggest and deepest talent pool getting out-bigged at the World Championships? Obviously, assistant coach Mike D'Antoni has a lot to do with it. He's had great success playing small lineups in Phoenix. But here's the thing - he only has small guys to choose from in Phoenix! "Let's see, should I play Leandro Barbosa or Brian Grant?" That's a different scenario than "Joe Johnson or Elton Brand." Besides, D'Antoni has success DURING THE REGULAR SEASON. In a single elimination tournament, why are we rolling the dice and shooting 40 threes against Germany?

After the Germany game, Coach K watched the tape and declared that of the 40 threes, only one of them was a bad shot. I say, don't be such a wimp. If it's a bad shot, say so. Any three this team took with more than 15 seconds on the shot clock, of which there were probably 30 in that game, was a bad shot. You can get a good look at a three any time. Why take one before you've even tried to get the ball inside? Oh that's right, there's no one inside to go to.

And it's not like there was ANYBODY on this team that I'm thinking, "YES, they're open for a three - that's money!" NOT ONE GUY. Do you know how many threes Chris Bosh made during the 05-06 NBA season? Zero. 0-13. Know how many he took in 8 World Championship games? 2 attempts in 8 games. In 108 minutes. That's almost 1 per 48. Now obviously two attempts is not a lot, but it's definitely 2 too many. WHY? Why is D'Antoni telling these guys to shoot the first open three they see? That's not who these guys are. The list goes on: Carmelo Anthony took 50 threes (50!) in 9 games. Over 5 and a half per game! And he shot 25% from three during the NBA season. Dwyane Wade took 18 threes in 8 games. That's more than he made in 80 NBA games (13). WHY?

It is interesting that, while Larry Brown was (deservedly) lambasted for mistakes as Team USA's coach in 2004, Krzyzewski has largely escaped criticism of any sort. What little criticism is out there, like this piece from San Antonio, doesn't even really hit the mark. The worst thing he did was cut Bruce Bowen? REALLY? Bowen single-handedly would have stopped the pick-and-roll? As it happens, pick-and-roll defense involves at least two players, and pretty much all five to really do it right. But whatever.

How about taking him to task for his team's lack of discipline in shot selection? How about taking him to task for making exactly ZERO adjustments to the Greek pick-and-roll? Or how about the fact that he appeared to have little or no idea who the guys on the other teams were? "Number 7", for your information Coach K, is Spanoulis, and he'll be with the Rockets next year. And, oh, one more thing: even if you had never scouted him (which it appears you had not), it took about three possessions for me to tell that he ONLY goes left, even if the screen is on the right. Yet the US defense never figured that out.

But by far my biggest criticism has to do with the total lack of a half-court offense. It was painfully obvious to me from the beginning of Pool Play that Team USA's entire game plan was to force turnovers and run. That's great. But good teams are going to handle the pressure, and stop the fast break. Then what? It turns out, the plan was to go one-on-one if the fast break wasn't available. And that's not a good plan.

Now, I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, but the 'Melo-'Bron-Wade Holy Trinity is beginning to look mighty suspicious. David Stern and the NBA want / need for these guys to become the Magic-Bird-Michael of this generation. By making them tri-captains and apparently deferring to them at every turn, Coach K certainly appears to be doing Stern's bidding on this one. The problem is, unless you have Wade play the point, in order to play these guys at the same time, you're forced to play Anthony at the 4 and LeBron at the 3. These guys are all really terrific wings - the best in the business. But last I checked airplanes, birds, and basketball courts all have two wings.

And those of you who think Kobe Bryant is the answer (I'm looking at you, Tony Mejia) need to do the math also. Kobe Bryant will NOT subjugate his game to the Holy Trinity. Is he an upgrade over any one of those three? Sure, probably. But not a significant one, and that's not where the Gold Medal was lost, and you sure as HELL can't play all FOUR of those guys at one time. That's a custody battle waiting to happen, and who suffers? The ball, that's who.

Can Team USA win Gold in Beijing? Sure they can. They could have won Gold in Japan if not for a hot-shooting Greek team. But I'm far from convinced that they are the favorite. The Holy Trinity have to prove me wrong, and prove that they are as good as Stern / Krzyzewski think they are. And maybe playing together in a couple more competitions will make a big difference. Certainly some on court rapport would help immensely.

More importantly, Team USA has to get bigger, and more disciplined. Chris Paul will be better in two years than he is now, and that will be a HUGE improvement for the team. And we need more shooters. Michael Redd is the ONE guy from the current list that I would find a spot for, no matter what. And I'd ask Ray Allen to re-consider.

And maybe I'd look into some half court offenses. I hear this thing the 'Flex' is catching on.

MBFGC

2006-09-06T15:54:00.000-07:00

Up until this point, I've posted a couple of things (here and here) about Sofoklis Schortisianitis (My Big Fat Greek Center) without seeing more than a couple of highlight reels.

I finally got the chance to see him play in the semi-final against the US and in the final against Spain, and I gotta say, I'm pretty impressed. Obviously, he did not have a good game against Spain; the Greek coach pulled him quickly, limiting him to 7 minutes (although given the fact that NOTHING was working afor Greece, I'm a little surprised that they didn't stick with him longer.) The Spanish defense did expose one shortcoming in his game that was not evident against the US - he had trouble making decisions against the double-team, and turned the ball over several times when Spain came with a quick double. Of course, after 8 years of Michael Olowokandi and Chris Kaman, this is a painfully familiar problem for Clipper Nation.

But against the US, he looked very good. He has several things that you can't teach: he's big (obviously), he has soft hands, and he has quick feet. Amazingly, he got a couple of baskets against the US by OUTRUNNING DWIGHT HOWARD down the floor. He has got to be the fastest 320 pound dude I've ever seen. He uses his body well around the basket, and he has the ability to make tough catches in traffic and finish. Now, I've seen him listed up to 6'11", and he's nowhere near that tall - he's maybe 6'9". But size is size, and it's still worth something. The NBA is obsessed with 'length', and he's not 'long', but he is BIG. He won't block shots for you, but he'll take up space, he'll set BIG screens, and he'll score in the low block. I will say that his rebounding numbers for the tournament were pretty anemic for a guy his size. And unfortunately the one area where he truly earns his Baby Shaq sobriquet is at the line; but his release looks good and his shot looks soft, so I see no reason that is FT shooting shouldn't improve.

In the USA game, he was 6 for 7 from the field, and ironically the one shot he missed was a dunk all by himself. He only missed 3 shots in the entire TOURNAMENT. Of course, the US spent much of the first half trying to check him with Chris '230 soaking wet' Bosh, and spent the second half switching Kirk Hinrich onto him on the pick and roll, but that's a subject for another post.

During the ESPN2 telecast of USA-Greece, Fran Frischilla implied that the Clippers had made an offer this summer, but that he took a better offer from Olympiakos to stay in Greece. I haven't heard that anywhere else, but it would be disconcerting to think that we low-balled a quality big, especially if Rebraca is done. Does anybody out there know anything about offers the Clippers made to MBFGC?

The good news I came across said that the buyout in MBFGC's Olympiakos contract is only $500,000. If that is true, it would be encouraging. It would mean that (a) he knows he's destined for the Assoc. eventually and (b) the Clippers can get him any time they are willing to pay him.

My favorite item was the one that said he is "reportedly being pursued by the Cleveland Clippers." I know our expectations should not be real high from the Taipei Times, but this guy LeBron plays in Cleveland. You'd think they'd at least know the Cavs and the Rockets, right?

Finally, how do you think MBFGC is going to affect Kaman's extension negotiation? If you answered "The Clippers will let Kaman become a restricted free agent, and even then will not match a large contract offer, but instead will let him walk and then bring MBFGC over to be the starting center for about a quarter the price..." well, if you answered that, you read my mind. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do (although it may well be); I'm just saying I think that's what they'll do.

A World of Hurt

2006-09-01T11:06:00.000-07:00

You guys all know me well enough to know that I enjoy being right. The smartest guy in the room... I told you so... you've heard it all a million times. But I really wanted the US to win this game. I really did.

I can't face a full screed about this right now. I've said most of it before. But I have some quick points (OK, a lot of quick points):

1) SHUT UP ABOUT THE UPSET - Jim Durham must have said 20 times druing the second half that this was the biggest upset of the tournament. Not even close, OK. Lebanon beat France in Pool Play. That's a big upset. Fran Frischilla (that rarest of animals, an American basketball commentator who knows something about International basketball) kept politely correcting Durham ("This is a minor upset, JD"), but 'Bull' Durham would have none of it.

2) SHUT UP ABOUT THE RULE DIFFERENCES - It's still basketball, people. Oh, and btw, on the trapezoidal lane, do the friggin' math. Yes, it's wider at the bottom, but it's more narrow at the top. The backboard is 4 feet in from the baseline. So unless you're an IDIOT and you are trying to establish post up position BEHIND the backboard, the difference is LESS THAN 12 INCHES, and at the mid-post, you're actually CLOSER to the rim.

3) STOP SAYING STUFF WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION - From Marty Burns on SI.com (whose article on the whole wasn't bad): "With its trapezoid lane, shorter three-point line and quirky officiating, one-on-one play is not as important." What the hell does that even mean? How do the trapezoid lane (which at any rate is no big deal, see 2), a shorter three-point line and quirky officiating in any way impact the relative effectiveness of one-on-one play? The ONLY conceivable rule difference that would impact one-on-one versus team play is the absence of a defensive three second rule, which he declines to include in his list. As for the officiating, yes it's quirky but it's quirky both ways. The big difference with officiating is that FIBA doesn't employ the NBA's star system, and let's face it, FIBA is right and the NBA is wrong on that one. The look on DWade's face was pretty comical when he didn't get calls. He's just not used to that with Dick Bavetta around to help him get up off the floor.

4) The days of US domination are simply over, and that's not bad. Did anyone really ENJOY watching the Dream Team (the real one) in Barcelona? It was a joke. But the vast majority of that gap has been closed by the other teams getting better, not the US getting worse. Sure, we've gotten worse - but that team had arguably the three greatest (and smartest) players ever. You can only get worse from there. (People also forget about the timing of Barcelona - The Soviet Union had just broken apart, followed shortly thereafter by Yugoslavia. The two best international teams were a mess in 1992, and hadn't really recovered by 1996. I think it gave us an air of invincibility that wasn't justified, even then. And obviously, the team itself has had a huge impact on the competition we see now. Think the 7 year-old Sergio Rodriquez watched a few of the Barcelona games and thought about how cool it would be to pass like Magic Johnson? You betcha.)

5) This result is not a failure. If the days of domination are over, and if part of 'fixing' the USA Basketball program is having consistency, then you can't really judge the 3-year-plan based on the 1-year result. If the Gold Medal was guaranteed in the first year, you wouldn't need the 3-year-plan, now would you? We've now seen Ginobili, Sanchez, Oberto, Scola, Herrmann, Nocioni and Delfino (among others) in three straight major competitions. Beijing will be the third for LBJ, 'Melo, Wade, etc. If the plan is to have a consistent program, then great, that's the plan.

6) Oh sorry, I have another shut up.... SHUT UP ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF PREPARATION TIME FOR THE US TEAM. Chris Broussard (ESPN Insider required) had a good line on this one: "Don't give me this jive about Greece, Spain and Argentina playing together so long. Those guys play on different teams, and sometimes in different countries, during the season. They're not holed up in some gym playing together year round." Great point. To listen to Jim Durham, you'd think all any of these guys do is compete for their National Team. Every guy on these top rosters is a PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYER. They have LONG SEASONS and they make LOTS OF MONEY. Have they played together as a unit more over the years? Maybe. But if they prepare more for any single tournament, that is a decision they are making, and one the US could choose to make as well. They just want it more.

7) The question remains, why does one-on-one basketball rule in the NBA, but not in these international competitions? Of the last 1700 NBA Champions, only one of them (the 2004 Pistons) managed to win a ring without a legitimate MVP candidate. Moreover, the basic NBA offensive set consists of an iso to force a double team. Why? A contributing factor is definitely the 'quick fix' attitude of NBA GM's. The easiest way to get more W's is by signing a superstar, either in free agency or in the draft. But couldn't you try to find talented players AND play team basketball? The one does not necessarily preclude the other. The answer to my question is that one-on-one basketball rules the NBA because we (coaches, players, fans) allow it to. Talented players in the US are identified by the age of 10, and are placed in superstar systems all along the way, from local teams to AAU to high school, college and the pros. The ego of the player is always more important than anything else. I'm not really sure why it's different in Europe, but the professional club team approach may have a lot to do with it. A talented 16 year old in Spain will go pro, and maybe he'll be a star for the junior team, but he's also getting drilled in practice by the senior team from time to time, and picking up jock straps. Broussard had another great ovservation on this one. He thinks that International fans, players and coaches are "beginning to view American basketball like America's 'real basketball' fans, players and coaches view And1 Streetball." Ouch. And probably true.

8) Last point for now. THIS TOURNAMENT IS NOT OVER YET. Team USA has to play Argentina in the Bronze Medal game. Do we care about the Bronze Medal? Of course not. But we had BETTER care about beating Argentina, because they damn well care about beating us. For the immediate future, there are maybe 8 or 10 teams that will be medal contenders in these competitions. We're one of them, Argentina is one of them. If we really want to win Gold Medals, we have GOT to get better at excelling against these teams, and it starts with this game.

Coming soon: what Team USA did wrong and how I would fix it.

Our Big Fat Greek Center

2006-08-31T10:25:00.000-07:00

When I gave an earlier update on Clippers draft pick Sofoklis Schortsianitis at the World Championships after Pool Play, he had been buried at the end of the bench. In fact, in the first 4 games of the tournament, he played a TOTAL of 9 minutes.

In the 3 games since, he has averaged 12 minutes a game, and over 11 points in those games. He is now the first big off the bench in the Greek rotation; this for a team that is undefeated in this tournament, and is the defending European Champion. Not bad for a 21 year old project.

His scoring efficiency has been absolutely other-worldly. He has only missed 1 shot in the tournament (12-13), and he gets to the line with Maggette-esque frequency (25 trips in 45 minutes played). Even with his Baby Shaq FT shooting (15 for 25, 60%), the guy is averaging 3 points per shot. Wow.

Here's the highlight reel of Sofo against China, including a big time throw down against Yao. Looking at this, one wonders why the Clippers haven't bought out his Greek contract yet and brought him to the NBA. Looks to me like he could help NOW. FIBA.com also has a pretty bland interview with him today, if you're interested.

Be sure and set your TiVo's (or stay up late, your call) for a chance to see him play against future teammate Elton Brand and Team USA on ESPN2, tonight / Friday morning, 12:30 AM here in Clipper Town (3:30 AM ET).

There's no I in 'Team USA'...

2006-08-31T09:56:00.000-07:00

... but there are three of them in "Vindictive."

As I speculated two weeks ago, Gilbert Arenas' 'hamstring injury' that forced him to drop off of Team USA was really just the excuse they used to avoid actually having to cut the guy. Now Gil, class act that he is, has gone public with the story. It's never easy to figure out what this guy is thinking, but seriously, WHAT IS THIS GUY THINKING!?!?

He bad mouths Colangelo and the process ("They said it was a tryout, but they already had their team selected"), Krzyzewski ("I was the only person he didn't talk to the whole time we were out there")... he even gets in a dig at the Holy Trinity ("You've got LeBron being LeBron. You've got Carmelo being Carmelo. You've got D-Wade being D-Wade. Why can't I be me?") Then he promises to hold a grudge against the assistant coaches ("I can't wait to play the Suns and Portland. Against Portland, Nate McMillan, I'm going to try to score 100 in two games and against D'Antoni, I'm going to score 100 in two games.")

But here's the great part... he's hoping to make the team for Beijing '08! "I'm just going to keep working hard. I have two years to get ready for the Olympics. That's how I look at it." Nice start, Gil. I'm sure that Colangelo, Krzyzewski, McMillan and D'Antoni will give you a real shot next time around.

Isn't there some sort of saying about burning bridges? I forget. Oh well, let's make up a new saying, just for Gil: "If at first you don't succeed, trash everyone involved, and try again."

When the Clippers tried to sign Arenas to a big contract, I thought they were offering him way too much. In fact, at the time I wasn't convinced he was worth more than Andre Miller. I will be the first to admit that I was wrong about the guy's talent - he is a monster. But I was right about the person - he is a monster. Sam Cassell handing the baton to Shawn Livingston is a significantly better point guard solution than 6 years of Gilbert Arenas.

On a more serious note, it is already starting. I've said it before, and it's already starting. The process for picking the Beijing team could get UGLY. I still don't think you should cut, say, Shane Battier, to open up a spot for, say, Kobe Bryant - not if this team wins the Gold Medal. But what happens if Kobe wants a spot and you don't give it to him? If Gil plans to hang 100 in two games on these guys, Kobe will shoot for 100 per.

Worlds Apart

2006-08-30T14:19:00.000-07:00

At halftime of the USA-Germany game on Wednesday, the US led Germany by a single point. This despite the fact that Dirk Nowitzki, Germany's lone premier player, was a dismal 1 for 7 and missed the last 3 minutes of the half after picking up his 3rd foul on a phantom whistle.

Of their 44 first half shots, 20 of them were from three-point range, and they had made only 5 of those.

So you figure Coach K will get in their faces and tell them to stop settling for 3's early in the shot clock and take the ball to the hole in the second half.

After halftime, the US pulled away and eventually won by 20. And of their 41 second half shots, 20 of them were from three point range, and they made only 5 of those!

Coaching is a funny thing. I am the first to say that Larry Brown had the 2004 Athens team on WAY too short a leash, and he made mediocre outside shooters into horrendous outside shooters by taking away their confidence. So, it's a good thing that Coach K has allowed these guys to play with confidence and take open shots. But C'MON! Can't we have a sound game plan AND instill confidence in the players? Is it too much to ask for both of those things?

40 out of 85 attempts from 3! Obviously, Mike D'Antoni is a big part of this, encouraging players to take the open 3, just as he does with the Suns. But the difference is, the Suns CAN'T score inside and CAN'T stop anyone on defense. They can beat physically superior teams by taking quick shots and forcing a fast tempo. But this US team is the deepest and physically most impressive in the world. Why is it playing this style?

It would be one thing if this roster was loaded with shooters. Indeed, much has been made of the improved 3 point shooting (as compared to 2004), but look at the players.

Of the top 10 3 point shooters in the NBA last season by percentage, only one of them is playing in the Worlds. And he plays for Brazil (Barbosa). Bruce Bowen was top 10, but, oh yeah, he got cut. So let's look at the top 20 - there's a name from today's game - it's Dirk Nowitzki. Top 30? Still no Team USA players. Not a single player from Team USA was in the Top 30 in 3 point percentage last season. Not one.

The best shooters on the roster, percentage wise from last season, are Battier and Jamison at 39%, tied for 32nd in the league. Of course, Jamison has fallen off the depth chart, and how do you feel about Battier shooting 3's? How do you think the other team's coach feels about it? He's deliriously happy, that's how he feels.

Of the 12 guys on the roster, only Hinrich and Joe Johnson are what I would consider 'shooters'. These are the only two guys who are out there to take open shots. (Battier should spot up and take 3's when he has them, but he's out there to play defense and hustle, not to shoot.) EVERYBODY else should be using open jump shots to set up the rest of their game.

Carmelo Anthony took 19 shots in the Germany game and 9 of them were 3's. NINE! The guy shot 25% from 3 last season! Dwyane Wade - 5 of his 11 attempts were 3's - he made 1 of them. This guy made 13 3's the WHOLE SEASON - he shot 17% from out there. Chris Paul - also 5 of his 11 attempts from 3. He shot 28% from 3 last year. That's 19 three point attempts from 3 guys who were all worse (sometimes much worse) than 30% last season.

Now I know that the line is shorter, and I know that Germany was playing a packed in zone, but guess what? If the zone forces poor outside shooters to take threes, then it's working. You have to attack the zone, not just stand around and shot 3's over it.

Everyone is lamenting the 25% shooting (10 of 40) from 3 in this game. But isn't 25% more in line with who these guys are than the 41% we saw before Wednesday?

We're done to 4 semi-finalists in this tournament who are all 7-0. Truth be told, these are the 4 best teams in this tournament by a BIG MARGIN. Lithuania and Serbia are rebuilding, France was without Tony Parker. These are the 4, and not one of them has really been pushed yet.

If the US keeps playing like the Phoenix Suns, they will lose one of the next two games. The pressure D is not going to hurt these teams, and they won't make enough 3's to outscore them. But of course, it seems obvious that they aren't going to change - not now. If you take 20 3's in the first half, lead by 1 against a team you should destroy, and then take 20 3's in the second half - well, either that's your game plan, or the players are running the team. Either way, the shots will be flying against Greece.

Worlds Update

2006-08-28T12:15:00.000-07:00

I came across something you don't see very often - a salient article about basketball on one of the big sports web sites. SI.com's Chris Mannix actually makes pertinent observations and provides a hint of thoughtful analysis regarding the US team's showing so far in the World Championships. Sure, he's got the pre-requisite hyperbole throw in as well (Argentina is Jordan to our Ehlo? Really?), but what are you gonna do? (Interestingly, the implication that Ginobili's Argentina has 'owned' the US in International Competition is flat wrong. Sure, Argentina won by 7 in 2002 in Indy and by 8 in 2004 in Athens, but the US destroyed them in Olympic Qualifying in 2003, winning twice overall and winning the Championship of that Qualifying Tournament by 30 points.)

Mannix is spot on about the total lack of a half-court offense for the US. If the pressure defense is producing steals, then maybe you can outscore a team on fast break points. But against well-coached teams with good guard play, those fast break points are going to be a lot harder to come by. In 6 games so far (5 in pool play, and then the round of 16 against Australia) basically only Italy qualifies as a 'well-coached team with good guards' and look what happened against them. (Puerto Rico OUGHT to qualify, but as Jerry Sloan will attest, you never know what you're going to get with Carlos Arroyo.)

The US is lucky to be in the bracket they are in. As good as Nowitzki is, Germany does not have the guard play to handle the US pressure, so I don't expect Germany to compete, despite the Diggler.

After that it gets dicey. The semi-final opponent will probably be Greece, and they will play the same style as Italy, but with significantly more talent on the floor. And both Argentina and Spain (one of which should be the finalist from the other bracket) have great guards, great talent, and solid game plans.

Why is it that we are incapable of running a half-court set? I realize that 3 weeks is not a lot of time, but frankly we could play THIS offense (try to run and if it isn't there give the ball to someone for an iso) with zero prep time. Hasn't every one of these players run the Motion offense at SOME point in their lives? How about we put that in?

Standing around watching Carmelo Anthony shoot threes (which he is hitting at a significantly higher rate than he EVER has in his career, so I'm waiting for the shoe to drop), watching Dwyane Wade drive relentlessly (where he picked up about 4 charges a game against stingy zones in Athens), watching the rest of the team spot up (as if we want our Gold Medal hopes hinging on a Shane Battier three)... well, it doesn't make me feel like USA Basketball is on the right track.

It doesn't mean they won't win. Argentina is certainly NOT Jordan to our Ehlo. But I'd feel a lot better if, as Mannix says, someone would set a screen, or even move, away from the ball.

Two of the Best Teams in the World?

2006-08-26T09:53:00.000-07:00

The Round of 16 game between Italy and Lithuania featured what MUST be the worst final 8 seconds of any game ever played (or at least, played by adults - my 10 year old has played a few that were pretty bad.)

The two teams combined to miss 10 of 11 free throws, allowed 3 offensive rebounds, and committed 3 fouls, including a foul against a 3 point shooter with a 3 point lead and less than a second to go!

It went something like this:

Down 2, Italy makes 1 of 2 free throws with 8 seconds on the clock - 1 point game;
Italy fouls, and Lithuania misses BOTH - Lithuania gets the rebound;
Italy fouls, and Lithuania misses BOTH - Lithuania gets the rebound and tips it in - 3 point game;
Lithuania decides to foul, before Italy can attempt a three;
Italy misses BOTH - Italy gets the rebound;
With 0.2 seconds left, Lithuania fouls Basile shooting a desperation 3 - he misses ALL THREE!

Basically, in 8 seconds, the teams combined to do NOTHING right (unless you want to credit the offensive rebounds to great hustle instead of poor boxing out - I'm a 'trapezoidal lane is half-empty' kind of guy, myself.)

Sorry I missed this gem.

Latest Maggette Rumors

2006-08-25T15:41:00.000-07:00

So if you're a Clippers fan, waiting out the long summer months until the team goes to Moscow(Back in the Former U.S.S.R.), what is there to do other than watch Elton play in the Worlds, and discuss rumors about Corey Maggette?

ClipperTalk has been abuzz with a couple of rumors - one having Maggette go to Denver in a complicated 4 team trade that would allow the Warriors to acquire Al Harrington, while the Clippers would get Mike Dunleavy the younger.

The other trade rumor being discussed is Maggette to Denver for J.R. Smith.

As far as I can tell, there are at least three problems with these rumors:
1) They are based on nothing more than idle speculation from sports columnists (which is true of most rumors of course):
2 ) They are the same rumor, but they just got a little garbled;
3) The only truth to them is... that there is no truth to them.

Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell, the little Dunleavy rumor originated with an August 21 article from the San Francisco Chronicle that included this excerpt:

According to two league sources, the Warriors have revived discussions with three teams on a multiple-player swap, with the principal parts involving Mike Dunleavy Jr. going to the Clippers, Corey Maggette to Denver and Joe Smith to Atlanta, with the Warriors getting Harrington.

The J.R. Smith rumor started with an August 24 article from the Rocky Mountain News (the link is to RealGM, click through to the actual article), that included this excerpt:

Periodic reports suggest they have something bigger in mind - trading Smith, for
example, as part of a deal that nets Corey Maggette, a bona fide scorer. But, as
the Nuggets would say, that's just one of those scurrilous offseason media
reports.

As you can see, the article doesn't say 'Smith for Maggette'; it says they lose Smith and get Maggette in a bigger deal. Guess what? That's Joe Smith, and that's the deal the SF Chronicle discussed earlier in the week. Same deal. Nothing new here. Move along people.

OK, so it's only one rumor, it has nothing to do with J.R. Smith, it's dead since Harrington signed with Indy, and it was most likely only ever a figment Harrington's agent's imagination, trying to make Indy think there were other suitors for Al when there weren't.

Would the Clippers even consider either of these deals? Well ignoring the fact that J.R. Smith for Corey Maggette doesn't come close to working under cap rules, the short answer is 'No', they would not consider it. Dunleavy Sr. probably really likes his son's game, but do you really think he wants to coach his own son on an NBA roster? His own son, who just signed a 5 year extension that SERIOUSLY overpays him? How do you think it would go the first time Cassell got up in Junior's grill for not boxing out?

Funny thing is, although it is my suspicion that the Clippers never had anything to do with this proposed trade, a one-for-one, Maggette-for-Dunleavy Jr trade works fine under the cap. If the Clippers were actually willing to give up Maggette and get back DJ, they still could, if the Warriors are game - and why wouldn't they be? But it ain't happening, thank goodness.

Finally, one wonders how all of this talk is affecting Maggette's mindset. I mean, it's one thing to be offered up for Ron Artest - hell, you can tell the grandkids that you were almost traded for an all-pro (a certifiably insane all-pro, but you leave that part out of the story with the grandkids.) But Mike Dunleavy Jr? Yikes. Let's hope the Clippers management has done the right thing, and called Corey to tell him that it was all a dream.

As I've said before, the guy only lost his starting spot because of injury, and deserves every chance to win the job back. I actually LIKE Ross in the starting lineup (one guy out of five who is there to play D, not looking for his shot.) But why is Maggette necessarily the odd many out? Why not Mobley? At any rate, I think the minutes will be there for Corey, because I think he's exactly the player they need - an athletic wing. Does anyone else in Clipper red fit that description?

He was their leading scorer the last time he was healthy for a season. Their leading scorer - not their second leading scorer. Their leading scorer - better than Brand - two years in a row - people forget this.

Maggette for little Dunleavy. Puh-leeze.

Future NBA Players at the Worlds

2006-08-24T12:04:00.000-07:00

Since I don't have NBA-TV, since my stupid cable company doesn't even offer it (I'm talking to you Charter Communications), I am limited to watching the Team USA games on ESPN, and can't watch the games involving other teams. Of course, for the good of my marriage, which barely survives the admittedly very long NBA season, it's probably a good thing that I'm not watching a lot of basketball in August... but I digress....

In the Team USA games, I've seen a couple of players that appear to have big time NBA potential. Look for these guys in the NBA Draft in the coming years.

Jianlian Yi, China

Wow. You know how NBA scouts rave about young, long international players, and then you see them play and you think, "What did they see in this guy? He can't play." (Think Skita Tskisishnaindfajd, the number 5 pick in 2002, currently out of the league.) Well, I had read a little about Yi, and when I saw him against the US I knew IMMEDIATELY what they saw in this guy. It must be said that he appears to have had his best game of the tournament so far against the US, and his game is far from polished. But I have NEVER seen a quicker jumper at 6'11". That's the thing - when you think 'Asian prospect' you are expecting REALLY big, maybe with some skills (like Yao or even Wang Zhi Zhi), but you're not thinking FREAKISH athlete. This guy is only 18 (turns 19 in October), and if/when the Chinese government lets him enter the draft, he will be a lottery pick. And he'll be a good pro.

Marco Belinelli, Italy

This guy scored 25 against the US, and appears to have all of the tools. He can shoot, he can drive, he is long, he is athletic, and he has a serious scorer's mentality. He was hoisting 3's from everywhere, and he actually made some of them. Nobody on the US team could handle him one-on-one. The Italian players seem for the most part to be content to play in the Italian League, where the money and the competition are very good, and the food is better than in the NBA. Maybe that will change with Bargnani coming to the NBA next season. If Belinelli wants to play in the US, he can be a solid 2. And he's only 20 years old.

Clippers Update from the World Championships

2006-08-24T11:31:00.000-07:00

Elton Brand -

Brand has had a solid tournament thus far. He is Team USA's fourth leading scorer at 10.6 ppg in the opening round, despite playing only 16 minutes per game and despite having exactly zero plays run for him. He is getting all of his points on put backs and finishing the pick and roll. In the Italy game where the US trailed at halftime, Coach K played EB 28 minutes, although the fall Dwight Howard took in the first half might have had something to do with that as well. EB is shooting 60% from the field and he also has blocked 6 shots. His rebounding (2.6) and free throw numbers (68%) need to improve. It is interesting that in the D'Antoni style offense, playing a single big man, EB is leading all the US bigs in minutes, and has emerged as the best big on the best team in the World. Who would have imagined that a couple of years ago?

Sofoklis Schortsianitis -

The Clippers second round pick a few years back, known as 'Baby Shaq' (or as I like to refer to him, My Big Fat Greek Center), Schortsianitis is buried at the end of the Greek bench as the 11th man. In 19 total minutes he has scored 19 points, on 7 for 7 shooting. He is expected to have a big year for Olympiakos, the top team in the Greek League, and should be ready for the NBA very soon.

No other Clippers are playing in the tournament. Rebraca (and Jaric and Radmanovic) turned down / were left off the Serbian team which is going with a youth movement. Ndong turned down an invitation to play for Senegal. Former Clipper Wang Zhi Zhi has played well for China.

Team USA Update

2006-08-23T22:05:00.000-07:00

OK, I know they beat Italy, but is there really any good news from Game 4?

Though I have been underwhelmed by the composition of this team, through the first three games I was becoming a believer that depth and pressure defense (two things that show up every night) would carry this team to a gold medal.

So what happens? They fall behind a good (not great) Italy team, and Coach K forgets about his bench. Anthony plays 35 minutes (all 20 in the second half), Brand 28, Chris Paul 30, etc. The Italian guards handle the pressure, and consequently the US has to be rescued by stellar one-on-one basketball from Anthony and Wade. Depth? Only 3 guys reached double figures and only 6 guys scored. Pressure defense? 8 steals is half of what the team has been averaging, and Italy's guards are not that good.

19 points from Carmelo in the 3rd quarter is great (he is a truly transcendant offensive basketball player) - but this is how Germany wins games. It's not supposed to be how the US wins.

And what is with the 3 point shooting from 'Melo? 5-7? From a guy who shot 24% from 3 on the season? I know the line is shorter, and it may be that extra 3 feet makes that big a difference to him, but I sure don't want to count on him shooting that well the rest of the tournament. In fact, this game could absolutely come back to haunt the team, if 'Melo falls in love with the 3 and settles for quick jump shots. Bear in mind this tournament doesn't really get serious until this weekend when the single elimination phase starts.

I will say this: confidence is important, and the biggest difference I see in this team versus the Athens team is confidence. Larry Brown had every one of those guys afraid of their shadows - he made it clear that he would pull them for missing a single jump shot, and consequently they passed them up when they were open, and missed them when they did take them. Coach K (and Mike D'Antoni) have clearly given this team the green light to put up 3's when they are open, and they look much better, even though on the whole these guys aren't significantly better shooters than the guys who went to Greece.

And yes, you do need to ride the hot hand. So I can understand leaving 'Melo in when he clearly was never going to miss again. But does the US have to have a white hot scorer to win games? Let's hope at least one person steps up every night if that's the case.

The half-court offense has been non-existent. Basically, this team either gets a fast break lay up, or someone goes one-on-one. Why is it that other teams can run effective half cout sets, but we can't? I know these guys don't play together all year, but guess what? Neither do the other national teams. To hear the announcers talk, you'd think the Argentine team is together year round. But it seems like that Ginobili guy has played in the NBA for a few seasons, and his season is as long as anybody's (longer than most).

Low post scoring has also been non-existent. Elton Brand and Dwight Howard have done a good job of following shots and finishing on the pick and roll, but the offense never starts at the post, always at the top. Meanwhile, Bosh and Miller have been buried on the bench, and a team that seemed a little small to me going in, got a lot smaller, with Anthony and Jamison sharing the power forward position. I mean, I like the way the Suns played this year, but they did it because they had to; they didn't have any bigs who didn't suck. Is this really the way we're going to win the Worlds? With Carmelo Anthony at the 4?

Not that it matters, but through 4 games, the US does NOT have the most dominant average margin of victory. The US average of 17.5 pales in comparison to Argentina's 30, and Spain is also better at 22.5. This isn't 1992, and this isn't the Dream Team. The rest of the world has certainly gotten better, but this is pool play, and Argentina and Spain are still managing to destroy pool play opponents.

I am not impressed, and I guarantee you that Argentina, Spain, Greece and Turkey aren't impressed either.

The Final Cut

2006-08-18T10:59:00.000-07:00

As I predicted, the final cut from Team USA was Bruce Bowen. Meaning that a grand total of 3 players were cut from this team, and not one of them was a star. Now, Gilbert Arenas probably WOULD have been the last cut, had he not pulled a groin muscle in practice. Any chance that Gil saw the writing on the wall, and ended up with a pulled muscle to save face?

All of the talk about a 'real' tryout simply hasn't resulted in anything. If the only players you cut from your tryout are guys that no one thought you'd invite in the first place (Luke Ridnour, Adam Morrison and Bowen), then it's just business as usual.

And it sets up a really strange dynamic for 2008. Guys like Kobe, Lamar Odom, Paul Pierce, Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudemire and Chauncey Billups have been told that they are 'part' of the team, and that they will be given an equal chance to win spots on the final Olympics roster in Beijing. But are we going to cut Shane Battier to make room for Kobe Bryant? Is that fair to Battier? Moreover, is Kobe really going to be on a team where the co-captains are LeBron, DWade and 'Melo? The NBA wants those three to own the league - and USA Basketball has already handed them the keys. Kobe wouldn't defer to a 7'2" guy who was 6 years older and 150 pounds heavier than him. You think he's going to play fourth fiddle to these punks?

If this team tanks, fine, you try and get anyone in who can help. But if they play well in Japan, I think you have to keep these 12 together. Spots will open based on injuries and other commitments (just has they took care of all but 3 cuts this year) - but any chemistry and bonding that comes out of this multi-year approach will be squandered if you start replacing guys who want to play in the Olympics with guys who didn't play in the Worlds.

World Championships Begin Tonight!

2006-08-18T09:58:00.000-07:00

Chris Sheridan has picked Spain to win the World Championships in Japan (Insider required), refusing to buy into the 'new' Team USA of Jerry Colangelo and Mike Krzyzewski. As you all know, I'm not a big fan of the Team USA makeover, and I don't think they will win the championship, but you'd have to be crazy to pick someone else.

Let me explain - I don't think the US is going to win, but only because when the Tournament becomes single elimination in the round of 16, you have to win four straight games to win the title. From a purely statistical standpoint, if Team USA is a 3-to-1 favorite to win any single game, that means that they would win 75% of the time. Winning 2 in a row is 56%. 3 in a row - 42%. 4 in a row - 32%.

So a team that is a 3-to-1 favorite in individual games against the other teams in the competition still has a less than 1 in 3 chance to win the championship. But any other team (like say Spain) would be a much bigger longshot to win out. That's just math. The US would be a lock if each round were best of 7 - but it's not.

And while there aren't really 16 top quality teams out there, unfortunately Group C happens to be a deep evenly matched group. The winner of Group D (which certainly should be the US) will play the fourth place team from Group C, which could be any one of five pretty good teams: Australia, Brazil, Lithuania, Greece or Turkey. And after that you start seeing the Serbias, the Frances, the Spains and the Argentinas. These teams can all play.

Sheridan goes through 10 reasons he thinks they won't win. Some of them are spot on. Some of them are just plain silly. (Body odor? Are you kidding? Kids who grew up playing playground ball all day are not gonna play D because the other guy smells bad? C'mon! I'm not sure if he's being ironic, stupid or xenophobic.)

The conspiracy threories are also getting a little old. Is it possible the international referees are more likely to whistle American superstars? Well, maybe. But all of this 'They keep calling traveling on LeBron and Wade' stuff is ignoring one thing. These are not bad calls! LeBron and Wade are traveling! They do it all the time. The fact that they don't call it in the NBA doesn't mean a thing. As for fouls, it seems again that we may be noticing a difference between FIBA and the NBA, where the refs incessantly protect the superstars by giving them the benefit of every call. After watching DWade and LeBron get every whistle in the NBA, it would SEEM like FIBA was out to get them if all they did was call the game straight up.

Now, I'm the first to point out that Tim Duncan got screwed in Athens by bad calls. But we're USA basketball. We SHOULD be 12 deep, 3 deep at every position. The fact that we only brought 4 guys to Japan that can play the 4/5, and that only one of them (Elton Brand) can actually score in the low post or block shots? That's our fault for not taking the right team.

And the quality of officiating is not great, but I don't buy it that everyone is out to get the US. In the USA-Brazil tune up, every questionable call went against Brazil. However, I will say that inconsistent whistles tend to change games, and can help weaker teams overcome stronger teams, which is another factor working against the US.

(This ranting has made me realize something. If USA Basketball is really interested in helping overcome some of the disadvantages the US faces in International competitions, they could start with NBA officials. I'm not advocating that we necessarily adopt a trapezoidal lane or allow the ball to be knocked off the rim, but if NBA refs actually called traveling the way the rule book defines it and stopped giving deference to NBA superstars, it would both make the NBA game more enjoyable and help reduce the FIBA-shock our players experience when they go to these tournaments.)

Anyway, if you ask me to pick a winner, I would pick the US. This is a talented team, albeit one with weaknesses at the point and in the middle. But I put their chance at less than 50%. Argentina has the advantage of having played together forever, and has plenty of talent as well. France is very good (but they lost any chance they had to win it all when Tony Parker went home with a broken finger; he's one of those unguardable guys who can take over a game on the offensive end, and I've always said that point guard play is crucial in international play, but without him, they won't have enough.) Spain is good. Brazil is good (Barbosa is probably the quickest player in the tournament with Parker gone.) And don't sleep on Serbia. Any team from Europe has talent, when you consider that Russia didn't even qualify for the Worlds. Slovenia has 4 NBA first rounders, for Pete's sake.

The days of 72 game international winning streaks are over. The US hasn't gotten that much worse; but the world has gotten that much better. If I have to pick one team, I pick the US. But if you'll give me the field, I'll take the field.

Arenas out of the Worlds

2006-08-14T11:16:00.000-07:00

Gilbert Arenas pulled a groin muscle in practice and will miss the World Chamionships.

I have very mixed feelings about this. I am not a big fan of Gilbert the point guard - he's not just shoot-first; he's shoot-second, third, fourth and fifth (at least). And on what is essentially an All-Star team, you MUST NOT have a shoot-first point guard, since there are plenty of scorers. Basically, your point needs to make the shots that the defense absolutely gives them, and never shoot anything else. There's only one basketball, and they get it for dribbling, but the other guys get it for shooting.

However, Gilbert is probably the best pure shooter on the roster, and I have a feeling Team USA is going to come across a zone or two where they're going to miss him. Not that Coach K has shown any inclination to play him at the 2; but I might keep him for that. I know the team is over-loaded with wings - but can any of them flat-out shoot like Arenas? Not DWade, not Joe Johnson, not LeBron, not Carmelo. They can all score, but we may need some guys who can shoot. Oh well.

The most interesting thing about this situation is that USA Basketball now only has to make one more 'cut' in this supposed try-out for the team. Based on minutes played, it sure looks like the last cut is going to be Bruce Bowen. As I've said, I agree with that cut - I'm not sure why a 35 year old guy was invited to try out for a 2 plus year long commitment anyway. But it also means that we'll go through this entire process cutting a total of 3 guys - Adam Morrison, Luke Ridnour and (probably) Bruce Bowen.

This team was supposed to be different. The superstars weren't supposed to be guaranteed anything. But, conveniently, not a single all-star (or star, for that matter) will be cut from this team. Now, USA Basketball did invite 24 guys, and they may have believed that they were going to have to cut superstars - but at the end of the day, they haven't.

It remains to be seen what happens with Kobe Bryant and Paul Pierce, etc. in 2008. If the goal is to have a consistent 'team', and assuming the team does well in Japan, don't you have to give these 12 guys first crack at it? They show up for the 'try-out', they show up for the Worlds, they do well - that's it, they're also on the Olympic team until the decide otherwise. And Gilbert Arenas gets the first guard opening, not Chauncey Billups. I just don't think you can cut Shane Battier in order to add Kobe Bryant. It sends the exactly wrong message.

But we'll see. If Kobe wants to play, what do you wanna bet he'll play? And for that matter, what if Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett have changes of heart and call USA Basketball asking for a spot on the 2008 team? Is Jerry Colangelo going to have the huevos to say 'No'?

More on USA - Brazil

2006-08-09T14:04:00.000-07:00

The more I find out about this game, the more I suspect that my fears about Team USA were justified.

Obviously, it's one game, and we shouldn't over-react. But, I never thought the Worlds were going to be a cakewalk and I've been dubious about the supposed 'fixes' to USA Basketball from the start. If anyone thinks this team is a lock for the gold medal, forget about it. I would accept favorite, but it is far from a foregone conclusion.

Hear are some key stats from the game, or you can look at the box score for yourself. Team USA:

was outrebounded 41-25.
shot 27-67 (40.3%)
took 29 threes, made 10 (34.5%)
shot 26-41 from the line
committed 21 turnovers (in a 40 minute game!)
Wade fouled out in 10 minutes of court time (that's 5 fouls and 2 turnovers in 10 minutes!)

David Thorpe professes to be unconcerned with all of the above in his blog, attributing most of the problems to tired legs (the second game of back to backs after a long trip). He is concerned with a lack of on-court leadership, which I agree could be a problem (this is where the absence of a great, veteran point guard is huge). But I'm also concerned with everything else.

It gets worse. The US benefited HUGELY from some strange calls down the stretch. Heinrich made 4 technical free throws in the final minutes, and on one of those the US was awarded 2 free throws for the original foul, 2 technical free throws AND the ball out of bounds - that's 4 free throws and the ball. They were behind before this possession, ahead after it, won by 4. I didn't see the game, so I can't say whether the calls were justified... but is this team supposed to be winning based on the other team losing their cool and getting T'd up?

Four of Brazil's five starters fouled out of the game, including NBAers Barbosa and Varejao and perennial-projected-lottery-pick Tiago Splitter (Splitter managed to pick up 6 personals in a game were you're DQ'd after 5 - not sure how that went, but it's probably related to those T's). And Team Brazil shot 4-14 from 3, and committed 26 turnovers (that's 47 total TOs in 40 minutes - sorry I missed this gem.)

So, the USA barely eked out a win in a game where:

the opponent is not considered a serious medal contender in Japan (ranked 15th)
the opponent shot poorly from beyond the arch
the opponent's best players were not on the floor at the end
the controversial calls favored Team USA down the stretch

These are, none of them, good signs.

Now, you can counter with the tired legs thing, or with the fact that 'Melo missed most the second half due to injury and Wade missed most the second half when he fouled out. But Brazil had to travel to China also, so I'm not buying the tired legs thing. They just wanted it more, and it's entirely possible that other teams in Japan will want it more also. As for 'Melo and Wade...

Well Wade was gawdawful in the 10 minutes he was on the floor, and the way he recklessly drives into zone defenses, without NBA refs to give him the benefit of every call, he's going to have to change his game, or he's going to be in foul trouble. I know that one of his personals was a T for arguing a charge. I'll bet at least 2 others were charges. That's dumb - he needs to be smarter than that.

And are we really this dependent on Carmelo Anthony? Really? A guy the Clippers held to 33%shooting in the playoffs a mere 3 months ago? Seriously?

I've expressed concern in the past about size and about point guard play. Well, as noted we were outrebounded 41-25 in this game, and Chris Paul had 4 assists and 5 turnovers in 25 minutes (Paul looked good against Puerto Rico but has been mediocre at best in China).

It is also interesting to look at the minutes played in a game that was close. Coach K may be tipping his hand (or not - could be something else). Bruce Bowen got a DNP, and certainly I have seen nothing implying that he was hurt or otherwise unable to go. Now, I never really understood Bowen's selection to the team - I mean, I know, he's glue guy, he's a great defender. But he's 35. If the single biggest change in Team USA's approach is to have a group of guys committed for 2+ years, from the Worlds through the Olympics, why select a guy who's 35? Is he really gonna be on the Olympic team in Beijing at 37? As I mentioned before, the whole 'real tryout' thing, the other big change in the selection process, is looking more and more like a joke. The cuts so far - Adam Morrison and Luke Ridnour. Likely to go next - Bruce Bowen. Let them cut a couple NBA All-Stars, and then tell me it's a 'real' try out.

Next up, Lithuania and the trash talking Linas Kleiza (here's the story, and Basketball Jones' imagined smack.)

USA 90 - Brazil 86

2006-08-08T09:34:00.000-07:00

OK, the score is pretty much all I know about this game.

Can someone please explain to me why ESPN would not broadcast this? I mean, they have a crew in China already that did the USA-China game yesterday. They have the rights. Instead, today on the family of ESPN networks, we are being treated to (among other things) bowling, dominoes and lacrosse. Um, sure... I'm a sports network and I could broadcast a basketball game featuring LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and 15 other NBA players (including 3 for Brazil), but instead I think I'll broadcast DOMINOES! Because, you know, dominoes is better. Oh, and did I mention that Brazil is a significantly better team than China, as evidenced by the result. (The same thing is happening next week with the games in South Korea - they are showing us USA-South Korea, but not USA-Lithuania. No big deal right - Lithuania has only beaten us in the last two international tournaments we've played against them, and lost a buzzer beater in the Atlanta Olympics. Who wants to see those stiffs?)

Back to the game. Who was it that said the US should not get overconfident with lopsided wins over Puerto Rico and China? Oh yeah, that was me.

All of this 'Colangelo has fixed USA Basketball' talk has got me really worried. The teams we sent to the 02 W.C. and the 04 Olympics were not bad teams. And as I've pointed out, this 06 team is not that much better, unless you're simply counting on improvements in LBJ, DWade and Melo to make up the difference (which may work, but doesn't really qualify as a 'plan' in my book). Look, I hate Stephon Marbury as much as the next guy, but if you watched the games in Athens, he actually played pretty well. He tried to play pass-first - it just isn't his game. But just getting rid of Starbury isn't really a fix either. I just don't think we can hang the whole Athens situation on him.

I'm also sick of the "Bron, Wade and Melo didn't get enough minutes in 04" crap. Again I ask you, did you watch the games? They got some minutes, and they were AWFUL. Wade was a turnover waiting to happen on offense. You could tell Brown WANTED to play him - his defense was terrific, as was his energy. But EVERY TIME he touched the ball he either walked or ran over somebody. And he couldn't make a 15 footer to save his life. LBJ was also turnover prone, and Melo was bad on both ends. You know who needed more minutes in Athens? Amare Stoudemire. He never even got a chance. But these three had their chances, and they weren't ready.

The US led Brazil by 14 at halftime of today's game, and then proceeded to give up 16 straight to open the second half, and it was a close game the rest of the way. And this is without Nene, who is still recuperating from his knee injury (and busy counting his money besides.) Anderson Varejao got 9 rebounds in the THIRD QUARTER. How do we let that happen? I remain concerned that this US team is vulnerable inside. When Elton Brand is your best defensive center... well, Elton is a great player, but he's only 6'8".

One last thing. Carmelo hurt his knee in the first half. Nothing too serious it seems - he should be fine for the Worlds. The AP story plays up his injury in Brazil's second half comeback. "Taking advantage of Anthony's absence, Brazil went on the attack." Excuse me? This is Team USA. We have 14 NBA studs on our roster. If one guy's absence is going to be a significant factor in whether or not we win a game then something is SERIOUSLY wrong here. This isn't Germany and Dirk.

Kaman Rumors

2006-08-07T13:39:00.000-07:00

There's nothing official from the Clippers on extensions for Kaman or Dunleavy.

In the absence of anything real, John Hollinger prefers to just make stuff up. On July 17, he predicted that the Clippers would extend Kaman for 5/$45M. He failed to mention why Kaveman would accept less money than Sam Dalembert got last year or Nene got this year.

Because of the recent lunacy involving free-agent centers, it behooves the Clippers to act now if they want to keep Kaman around at a quasi-reasonable price. Kaman did his part, posting his best season as a pro last year and improving by leaps and bounds at the defensive end. In this newfangled era when the Clips actually spend a little money, look for Kaman to get a nice chunk of change.

Apparently, there's more than one definition for 'nice chunk of change.'

Today, Hollinger has re-visited the Kaman situation and declared him to be a probable top 10 free agent next year.

He's on a rookie contract and could get extended this fall, but word on the street is that the two sides are miles apart on what Kaman's market value is. My guess is that the $60 million deal Nene signed with Denver probably isn't helping to close the gap any, so Kaman might need to ink an offer sheet to get paid.

I would be shocked... SHOCKED.... if the Clippers extend Kaman this summer. And while I often criticize the front office for being short-sighted, in this case, I couldn't agree more. Look... the guy is wildly inconsistent but improving all the time. This is the year that he needs to add some consistency to his game. Do we really want him 'locked up' until 2012 (!) if he is going to turn the ball over EVERY TIME he sees a double team? So this season is the one where he needs to prove he's got more than potential - that he's got ... what do they call it? ... game.

Is there a risk that he could cost more after another good season? Sure. But there's NO WAY he's going to take less than Dalembert in 05 or Nene this year (6/$60M), and how much higher is it going to go, anyway? Let him become a restricted free agent, and let the market determine his worth. Things will change, but as of now, it looks like only Charlotte and Orlando will have significant cap space anyway, so there's not even much risk of a bidding war. The bottom line is, waiting another year gives the organization more information about the type of player he is and can be, and it gives more flexibility also.

Finally, I for one am far from convinced that simply being one of the top 5 'centers' in the league is necessarily worth the salary premium currently being charged. Is he one of the best traditional centers in the league? Sure. But that's because they all suck. And guess what? Of the 4 Western Conference Semi-finalists in last year's playoffs, San Antonio benched their traditional centers, Phoenix never had any to begin with, and Dallas' starter (Diop) signed for 3/$6.5M in 05. So I'll agree that there is very little supply of this commodity - I'm just not sure that there out to be a demand.

Random Thoughts

2006-08-04T16:35:00.000-07:00

Let's hope Team USA doesn't get overconfident from it's 45 point win over Puerto Rico. For one thing, this is a team that barely qualified for the Worlds, on a wild card bid. For another, they actually managed to stay with the significantly more talented US team for about 15 minutes. But how is it possible that USA Basketball couldn't get three international refs to officiate (they had two NBA refs and one international)? The whistles will be VERY different in Japan. And can we really feel very good about Chris Bosh starting at center? On the bright side, Chris Paul is the best pure point guard from the US since Jason Kidd, and I like the aggressive defense, which will create scoring opportunities. But Argentina may backdoor that overplaying D to death.

Is it just me, or does everyone agree that Leandro Barbosa is going to be worth WAY MORE than 5/$32M after next season? I mean, that's BARELY over the mid-level exception. Surely someone would pay him that. It seems to me that the foreign-born players are either less greedy, or their agents are less pushy, or something. Manu (6/$52M in 2004), Peja (6/$45M in 2000)... these guys seem a little more willing to take extensions than to test free agency. Of course, then there's Vladimir Radmanovic, who turned down an extension from the Sonics, signed a qualifying offer, and then signed for less with the Lakers than the Sonics had offered. So greed and stupidity probably do span across all the nations!

Aaron Williams

2006-08-03T11:51:00.000-07:00

Once again, the Clippers front office has totally ignored my advice. With the signings of Paul Davis and now Aaron Williams, the Clippers are up to 14 guaranteed contracts, including 4 guys lised as 'Centers' (Kaman, Rebraca, Davis and Williams) despite the fact that most teams play with one of those and your top competition in the Pacific plays with zero. Meanwhile, basically nothing has been done to shore up the outside shooting from last season, with Tim Thomas replacing VladRad, and no other changes. (You could argue that losing Walter McCarthy hurts the outside shooting, but of course he was atrocious from three last season.)

Look - I actually like Aaron Williams. Works hard. Rebounds. Hustles. Plays tough D. And I get the whole 'Dunleavy loyalty' thing. He brought back Vin Baker last season. This year, it's Williams, and hey, Williams doesn't even have to un-retire. But I am a little concerned that as the rest of the NBA is going smaller and smaller, realizing that it's better to have skills on the floor than size, Dunleavy remains caught in a 90s-NBA mindset that says you need 24 fouls to give at the center position to beat Shaq.

Realistically, with Kaman, Brand and Thomas, not too mention the underused James Singleton, should any of these guys ever get off the bench? I mean, I LOVE Zeljko Rebraca; I think he should have been starting in the NBA the last several years. And if he's healthy enough to play, then that's just gravy. But if not, then are we really worried? A front line of Brand, Singleton and Maggette STILL out-rebounds, out-low posts and simply out-plays most front lines in the Western Conference.

I just am not a believer in having two or three guys at the end of the bench who do the same thing - not when the team STILL can't put 4 true three-point threats on the floor for a final possession, down three. I mean, let's face it - that situation happens. The situation where you need 4 centers - I haven't come across that one yet.

There's one more roster spot available. It could be second round pick Guillermo Diaz, who at least MIGHT be able to shoot from distance, or the Clippers could still surprise us by signing a true shooter (Eddie House is available - if nothing else, we could keep him away from Phoenix). If however, they re-sign Boniface N'Dong with the 15th spot, well, I will have to scream.

Clippers Get TV Exposure

2006-08-02T15:29:00.000-07:00

The NBA announced the 2006-07 season schedule this week, and along with it, the TV schedule. The Clippers are on national TV a franchise record 11 times (I'm counting basic cable here, so ESPN, TNT and ABC but not NBA-TV). Actually, calling this a franchise record is a bit of an understatement, since they were scheduled for National TV exactly once last year (they played their way into several more appearances), and I really don't remember the last time they were on National TV before that.

But this recognition is slow in coming. Of the 8 NBA teams that reached conference semi-finals last year, the Clippers and the Nets have the fewest National TV appearance, tied at the aforementioned 11 (fewer, by the way, than the non-playoff Rockets with 12).

ESPN, TNT and ABC are looking for good teams, but more importantly, marquee players for their broadcasts. So it's no surprise that Phoenix (24), Cleveland (24), Miami (23), Dallas (23), and Detroit (21) are all well-represented. Should it be a surprise that the Lakers are also maxed out at 24? It's a tribute to the star-power of Kobe, the ongoing mystique of the Lakers, and the size of the LA market.

I do find it surprising that the Bulls would warrant 20 broadcasts, when they are a borderline playoff team in the East without a marquee star. I guess the Bulls-mystique remains powerful still, all these years after Jordan left town.

The Knicks however have lost any luster they ever had. It is a credit to the TV execs that the Knicks will not be on national TV this year. In fact, it is surprising the extent to which TV is ignoring the New York market. Zero games for the Knicks, who are admittedly horrifically bad, but have some 'train wreck' appeal nonetheless; and 11 games for the Nets, who won the Atlantic Division and have Jason Kidd and Vince Carter, ostensibly two of the most popular players in the Assoc. I can't say I understand that one.

While I would like to get all righteously indignant about 24 Lakers appearances compared to 11 Clippers, I really can't. For one thing, I'd rather listen to Ralph and Mike than anyone on ESPN; TNT is a push because of their terrific pre-game and halftime shows. But I do understand the appeal of putting Kobe on TV - he might go for 80+ in any game. And as good as the Clippers are, they do lack that transcendant star that most NBA fans find truly compelling (at least until Livingston develops more confidence.)

The Clippers also have fewer TV games than either the Nuggets (14) or the Kings (16). Given the performances in last season's playoffs, and expected improvement in the Clippers, it is only reasonable to assume that LA will be better than these teams. But again, the 'star' appeal of Carmelo in Denver and Artest in Sacto changes the equation. Hell, it's 'must see TV' when Artest plays either Detroit or Indy, right? (In fact ESPN is broadcasting 2 of the 4 meetings.)

But you have to put it in perspective. It could be worse - we could be Grizzlies fans. The only team with a less charismatic superstar than the Clippers (Gasol vs. Brand), they had a better regular season record than the Clippers, they've made the playoffs 3 straight seasons, and they are on National TV a grand total of 2 times this season. Ouch.

By the way, there's definitely more at stake here than just getting to see your favorite team on TV, which you can do with an NBA Season Pass anyway. As long as fans vote for the all-star team, the players that are on TV will get a dispropotionate number of votes. And while we can excuse the fans, the writers who vote for league wide honors are almost as susceptible. Look at Pau Gasol versus Carmelo Anthony from last season. Anthony is better than Gasol in one category - scoring. And by the way, he took a lot more shots, while Gasol shot a better percentage. Meanwhile, Gasol is significantly better than Anthony in every other statisical category, and a much better defender. But Anthony received significantly more votes for All-NBA, because most NBA writers saw Anthony about 10 times more than they saw Anthony.

Of course, this is just the way it is. But I do wish that the writers who lament the 'selfish', 'one-on-one', 'superstar-driven' NBA would wake up and realize that they are part of the problem.

Team USA - 2006

2006-07-26T11:26:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else feel like the lovefest in Las Vegas last week might be a little premature? After a 6th place finish in the 2002 Worlds and a Bronze in Athens, USA Basketball was supposed to make significant changes to 'fix' the problem. And reading ESPN.com or si.com (or pretty much anything else that's being written), all of those writers certainly seem to think that Jerry Colangelo has pulled all of the right strings. To which I say, huh?

Let's go back and re-visit the 2004 Athens Olympics, shall we? Here's something that I wrote about the team (and more importantly the selection process) in August of 2004, before the Olympics. That is to say, before they lost to Puerto Rico and Argentina and came home with the dreaded Bronze medal.

Some of the 'changes' that were supposedly made this time around were that they were going to have a 'real' tryout, with players who really wanted to be there, and they were going to build a real team, not just a collection of superstars.

But here we are, with a roster of 15 players who are making the trip to Asia, and so far the cuts have been Adam Morrison (a rookie who has never played an NBA game) and Luke Ridnour (one of those supposed 'team' guys, whose selection in the first place was a head-scratcher.) And one of those 15 is Amare Stoudemire, who should not be playing signficant minutes in the Worlds from a health standpoint.

So what happened to the 'real' tryout? Conflicts and injuries happened, and you might say that there's nothing USA Basketball can do about that, but wasn't this supposed to be part of the fix, having truly dedicated players?

So Pierce, Kobe, Redd, Billups, Odom and Marion won't play in the Worlds, but are still possibilities for the 2008 Olympics. Great. Of course, five or six other guys (at least) are gonna have conflicts in the summer of '08.

So, why does everyone think this team is so much better? Let's look at the 15 going to Asia this week, versus the 12 who went to Athens.

Carmelo Anthony, Gilbert Arenas, Shane Battier, Chris Bosh, Bruce Bown, Elton Brand, Kirk Hinrich, Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Antawn Jamison, Joe Johnson, Brad Miller, Chris Paul, Amare Stoudemire, Dwyane Wade.

2004
Carmelo Anthony, Carlos Boozer, Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, LeBron James, Richard Jefferson, Stephon Marbury, Shawn Marion, Lamar Odom, Emeka Okafor, Amare Stoudemire, Dwyane Wade.

So, first of all, Anthony, James, Stoudemire and Wade were on the 2004 team, and Marion and Odom would probably be on the 2006 team if they were available. So they already know how to lose in an international competition. By the way, both Elton Brand and Brad Miller have lost World Championships as well.

Obviously, the single biggest factor in a hoped for improvement may simply be these four repeats. None of the four really cracked coach Larry Brown's rotation in 2004, but it would seem that USA Basketball is expecting 2 more years of basketball maturity to make all the difference for Melo, Bron, Amare and DWade. OK... if that's your plan, great. But if that's the plan, then maybe we need to re-assess the 'abject failure' of Athens. If we're trying to build a long term solution to compete with European and South American teams that play together for years, then suffering through Athens with the youngsters could be considered part of the solution, right?

OK, so those 4 will be better than they were, right? What about the other problems we had in Athens?

No true point guard - This is a problem with USA Basketball, not just with this team. Ever since Jason Kidd hung up his international sneakers, there is no one to play the point. And Colangelo did a good job of inviting pure points to his camp (Chris Paul, Luke Ridnour and belatedly Kirk Hinrich). But Gilbert Arenas? Isn't he Stephon Marbury redux? Gilbert Arenas can NOT be the point in an international competition. He can play the two, but not the one.

Chris Paul seems to be the long term solution, and I have a lot of confidence that he'll be ready in Beijing. But this guy should be starting his senior year of college in September. Remember that the reason we created the first Dream Team was because the other teams were beginning to destroy our college kids. I am very concerned about sending a boy to play against men, especially when the point guard is by FAR the most important position in these tournaments.

No shooting - I guess Arenas, Hinrich, Jamison, Johnson and Miller are supposed to address this problem. But does this team really have that much more shooting, on paper, than the Athens team? I personally believe that Larry Brown was the biggest problem with our shooting in Athens (everyone was tight because they knew Brown would yell and them and sit them down if they missed a jumper), but I'm not thrilled with the solution. I sure would like to have Michael Redd or Ray Allen.

No center - Brad Miller? OK, like point guard this is another inherent problem, as the talent pool just isn't there. But we're going to be playing power forwards (Brand, Howard) at center, especially if we want any shot blocking. At least there's more quality size, with Brand, Howard, Amare and Bosh available, where Boozer and Lamar had to play 4 (next to Duncan's 5) in Athens.

Too young - well, with Howard, Bosh, Hinrich, Johnson and Paul joining the team, if anything, it's younger than the team we took to Athens. Obviously, Larry Brown didn't trust the young players enough to use them. Will coach K? He'll pretty much have to.

Too much duplication - The 2004 team was pretty much all wings. This team has a little more balance. Even with the injury to Marion, between LeBron, Carmelo and Battier there should be plenty of athleticism at the 3.

Not a team - This remains the biggest problem. Did they give the players significantly more time together than in years past? Not really. A great point guard can hide these problems, by being a coach on the floor. This is why point guard is the most important position in these competitions, and it remains a weakness for Team USA. Larry Brown was the WORST POSSIBLE coach for Team USA (it takes a minimum of half an NBA season for players to 'buy into' what he is doing - it was a recipe for disaster to hand him the Olympic team.) Can Coach K build these guys into a team? We'll see.

International basketball competitions have changed for good (both irreversibly and for the better.) It won't be realistic to win every major competition, despite having more and deeper talent than the rest of the world. One bad game in the single elimination round and no Gold Medal for you.

Actually, I believe there is one way we could guarantee a win in every major international competition - send an NBA team (obviously one that is dominated by US born players.) Tell me the Clippers couldn't win the World Championships this year?

But that's never going to happen, so we're going to lose from time to time. In fact, in the last 4 major competitions (98 Worlds, 2000 Olympics, 2002 Worlds, 2004 Olympics) we have won 1 Gold and 2 Bronzes, and it's been a complete DISASTER, right? So part of this is adjusting our expectations. Those teams from Serbia, Lithuania and Argentina that won those other Golds (plus the teams from Spain and France, and the list keeps growing) are really good. Not as deep as the US team, but really good.

It is interesting to note that the 1998 team, made up of non-NBA players (because of the lockout) won a Bronze medal. In other words, in an era ofhyper-competitive world basketball, that team did as well as the Athens Olympic team and BETTER than the 2002 Worlds team, which were both made up of NBA players. Still don't think it's about playing team basketball?

You know, we lost 3 games in Athens, and the two best players on that team either weren't invited back (Iverson) or declined to play this time (Duncan). Why is everyone so sure that the problems are fixed?

Coach K may be the real solution here. If the player selection process has at least given him players that are willing to listen (and I have my doubts about Arenas and Jameson, at least), he can put together a winning game plan for them. And if the inclusion of D'Antoni on the coaching staff indicates a willingness to get out and RUN (utilizing athleticism and depth while diminishing the impact of having less time to practice together), then we may be on the right track.

We'll see how much has changed when the final 3 cuts are made. If you see an all-NBA player's name (like Carmelo Anthony, who is a one dimensional scorer on a team that has plenty of scoring), then things have changed. If Hinrich or Bowen or Battier lead the cuts (i.e. safe cuts that won't upset superstar egos) then we're right back where we started.

Pittsnogle is a Celtic

2006-07-26T10:39:00.000-07:00

Well, I was probably the only one who thought he would make a great Clipper, but Kevin Pittsnogle signed with the Celtics yesterday, so it's not gonna happen.

Why do I have the feeling he's going to be a better pro than Paul Davis? I mean, sure, Davis has a better NBA body, and in theory he can make the 17 footer, which is nice. But aren't there about a hundred Paul Davis types playing in Europe and in the D-League?

Pittsnogle seems like a more unique weapon to me. A big, scrappy, smart player, who can make NBA threes. I think he'll be in the league a long time, I really do.

We'll see what the Sports Guy thinks about this. Wanna bet that he makes some denigrating reference to Scalabrine if and when he mentions Pittsnogle? I can't decide if he'll go with the 'Why would we sign this guy when we're already paying Scalabrine so much?' angle or the 'Now we can get rid of Scalabrine, and we'll stuff have a big, doofusy white guy on the bench' angle.

Guess What? I'm an Insider!

2006-07-18T09:59:00.000-07:00

Now that I'm doing this blog thing, I figured maybe I should spring for the subscription to ESPN Insider. I never did it before, because it is contrary to my view of what the web is about, and because it always seemed that there was too much free information out there to really keep up with, so why would I pay for more? Besides, it's not like I'm that enamoured of the work of John Hollinger or Chad Ford. Puh-lease.

So far, it seems like I was right all along and I should have kept the 30 bucks.

Hollinger's twin articles on winners and losers in free agency so far are typical NBA punditry. (Of course you'll need an Insider subscription to access the links, but I'll excerpt along the way.) In fact, he uses techniques common to all pundits, in all fields: 'I'll use an argument when it supports my opinion, but ignore the same argument when it doesn't support my opinion.'

You know, nothing is ever black-and-white, and the signing of an NBA free agent is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS going to boil down to the question of value to the team versus salary cap space used, over the long run. Hollinger looks at two similar situations (the Bulls and the Hornets), and declares that the Bulls are the big winners in summer 2006, while the Hornets are the big losers. Hmmm.

The Bulls and Hornets made by FAR the two biggest free agent signings of the summer (for players changing teams, no one else has gotten more than the mid-level exception so far, though Harrington, Wells and Wilcox could yet do so.) Big Ben's deal is for 4/$60M, while Peja signed for 5/$64M. So Ben is getting more per year, while Peja is getting more total, but they're both getting A LOT.

And of course these teams are doing more than these deals this off-season, but let's face facts, these two deals are the 800 pound gorillas in the gym. So why does Hollinger make Chicago the big winners and NO/OKC the big losers? Let's see if we can figure it out.

One big point he makes is that the Hornets are not being realistic about their chances. They finished 38-44 last year, barely missed the playoffs, but he feels they overachieved and weren't really that good. Great point.

Stojakovic and Chandler will probably help, but will it really matter if they do? The Hornets won 38 games a year ago, and were significantly worse than their record indicated -- based on points scored and points allowed, they could have expected to go 31-51. Thus, even with Stojakovic and Chandler, they could easily end up south of .500.

But wait a minute. Chicago finished 41-41, barely made the playoffs with the 7th seed in the East, and WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE PLAYOFFS in the West, which is of course where NO/OKC plays. The argument that they played so well against Miami in the playoffs is a little overwrought - they still lost in the first round, and they happen to be a match-up problem for the Heat. But could anyone honestly argue that the Bulls were significantly better than their 41-41 record? I don't think so. Bear in mind also that playing in the East means playing against weaker opponents for 2/3rds of your games, so I'd argue that 41-41 in the East is WORSE than 38-44 in the West. Final point - Chicago closed the season 9-1, while the Hornets limped home at 3-7. So, that means the Bulls were playing better at the end of the season, but it also means that the Hornets had a BETTER record than the Bulls through the end of March.

If Hollinger wants teams to be realistic about their chances of winning before paying out big money in free agency, the same argument applies to the Bulls.

OK, so what else about these signings screams 'great deal' for the Bulls and 'bad deal' for the Hornets? Hollinger just flat out doesn't think Peja is worth the money:

Stojakovic will be making $13 million a year for the next five years, even though he's barely been worth half of that over the past two seasons. He's also had injuries to virtually every square inch of his legs in that time -- plantar fasciitis, sprained ankles, pulled hamstrings, sore knees -- which should be a giant red flag for any team about to sign him to a long-term deal that runs into his 30s.

He's probably right. I myself never really thought Peja was that great, even when he was having his All-NBA season in 03-04. But the interesting thing is, in the 40 games Peja played for Indiana, his numbers were about as good as they were during his time as a starter in Sacto (outside of the exceptional 03-04 season). So Hollinger's contention that Peja hasn't been worth the money for the past two seasons is flat wrong. His breakout 03-04 season is really the anomaly, more so than the last two seasons. He's probably NEVER been worth the money, but his production in Indy was right on par with the rest of his career.

So what about Big Ben? In the interest of full disclosure, let's be clear that I have always considered Ben Wallace to be one of the most overrated players in the NBA. But you wanna talk about declining numbers? People seem to think that Ben still leads the NBA in rebounding and blocked shots every year. Well, in 05-06, he was 5th in rebounding and 9th in blocked shots. His blocks per game have decreased EVERY YEAR for the past 5 seasons, while his rebounds per game have been on the decline for 4. Obviously, top 10 in rebounding and blocks shots is still quite an accomplishment, but all I have to say is you'd better be top 10 in those categories when you play 35 minutes a game and you're the worst offensive liability in basketball (yes, worse than Reggie Evans.)

Are you ready for the bombshell? On a per minute basis, Tyson Chandler was a BETTER rebounder in 05-06 than Ben Wallace (16.2 rebounds per 48 min. compared to 14.8). And Sam Dalembert, whom Hollinger presents as an example of an overpaid big, blocked a LOT more shots than Ben Wallace last year (2.42 per game and 4.37 per 48 compared to 2.21 and 3.01 for Ben.) In fact, Chandler and Dalembert compare favorably with Ben on both counts on a per 48 basis:

. . . . . . .Rebounds . .Blocks
. Wallace. . . 15.4 . . . 3.01
. Chandler . . 16.2 . . . 2.36
. Dalembert. . 14.8 . . . 4.37

Ben's proponents will argue that there is much more to his value than his numbers, and they are right. His defense (both on the ball and helping) is still excellent, and difficult to quantify. But I've often wondered how many other 'Ben Wallaces' are out there, if only their teams were willing to leave them on the floor, despite the offensive end. Ironically, high on my list of potential NBWs (Next Ben Wallace, as opposed to NMJ, Next Michael Jordan): Tyson Chandler.

Ben Wallace will be 32 years old before he plays a game for the Bulls; Peja just turned 29. Hollinger is concerned about paying Peja 'into his 30s.' Well, the Bulls don't have to worry about that, since Ben is already there. The Hornets are on the hook to give Peja about $14M when he is 33. The Bulls on the other hand will owe Ben about $15M when he is 35. And whose game is more predicated on quickness and jumping, i.e. the things you lose as you get older?

Here's my favorite part. Hollinger falls all over himself lauding the Bulls for being clever enough to sign Ben for only 4 years.

Additionally, the Bulls gave Wallace a four-year deal, not the standard five or six-year fare, which means if he turns out to be a bust they won't spend the next five years trying to dump his contract. That may seem like a minor point now, but it's an important consideration when you look at some of the recent big free-agent contracts.

This is so important, he dedicates no fewer than 8 paragraphs to the point. Unfortunately, all he really does is demonstrate his ignorance. First of all, there is no such thing as a 6 year contract - not under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and not when signing a free agent from a different team. 5 years is the max. So, let's just point out that Hollinger goes a LONG WAY to compliment the Bulls on saving one year on the contract. (Not to pick nits, but since the Hornets deal ended up being a sign-and-trade with Indy, technically they too saved 1 year over the maximum 6 years allowed.)

But Hollinger is also forgetting about the new 'Over-36' clause in the CBA. We're really getting into the nitty-gritty now, but suffice it to say that whether the Bulls signed Ben for 4 years or 5 years made LITERALLY NO DIFFERENCE to their cap space. The Over-36 clause takes the salary to be paid after the age of 36 in a long term deal and spreads it out over the other years in the contract. Since Ben turns 32 in September, a 5th year on this contract would have activated the Over-36 clause. Whether they paid him $60M over 4 years or $60M over 5 years, it would have been represented on their cap space identically. Hollinger may not have known about this rule change, but John Paxson certainly knew. He wasn't being extra clever. In fact, if he had been clever, he would have signed Ben to the 5 year deal, and gotten his services for FREE in that 5th year. Not that they would want him at 36, but they could have had him for free. I'm guessing that Paxson wanted the 5th year, and Ben said no.

Hollinger thinks the Bulls are the winners based on some of their other deals as well (moving Tyson Chandler is a big part of both Bulls 'winning' and Hornets 'losing' in his mind.) But none of this other stuff makes any sense. Are the Bulls going to win a ring this season? If not, then PJ Brown is gone, and now Ben Wallace is 33. And as for Brown's salary, well that's just money, not actual cap space in summer 07, since Hinrich and Nocioni have to be re-signed, and Gordon and Deng will be eligible for extensions. (Technically, if the Bulls waited to match offers to Hinrich and Nocioni, they could clear enough under the cap to sign another free agent next summer, but doing so would put them in luxury tax land after they re-signed their young guys, and I don't see Rheinsdorf allowing that.) And he's just crazy about the potential of J.R. Smith - only problem is, the Bulls don't agree, as they are sending him to Denver for a 2nd round pick.

I don't think the Hornets really helped themselves that much this summer. BUT, if Tyson Chandler uses his new surroundings to become the NBW he looked like two seasons ago, and if Peja can sink the open J's that Chris Paul sends his way, these moves could work out very well. Let's just say I see potential. And, by the way, Peja is 29 and Chandler is 23. And unlike the Bulls, the Hornets will be under the cap again next summer, when Desmond Mason's contract comes off the books. It's a long shot, but if things work out for these guys, they could be pretty good in 2 or 3 years.

The Bulls got MUCH OLDER (not that PJ will necessarily start, but if he does, the Bulls bigs will be a combined 67 years old on opening day). They still have NO POST OFFENSE (they actually got worse, if that is possible) and not one single player on the roster who demands a double team. And each year that they DON'T win a ring makes this signing look worse. I'm not prepared to say that they have to win a ring in 2007 to make this pay off, but they'd better make SIGNIFICANT strides in that direction.

So these are the 'insights' I'm getting from being an 'Insider.' At least I still have 29 days to cancel and save my money!

Check Out the Blazers Summer League Team

2006-07-07T11:30:00.000-07:00

The Blazers (young and getting younger) played their first summer league game in Vegas last night. The roster features at least 4 guys who have a legitimate chance to start for them THIS SEASON! (I mean start for their regular 'NBA' team, if you can call them that.)

Rookies Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge played 29 and 33 minutes respectively last night, while 2005 first rounder Martell Webster played 35 minutes and 2003 pick Travis Outlaw played 32. I guess the Blazers really want to win this summer, since they won't be winning much in the winter. BTW, Webster and Outlaw were both picked straight out of high school, and are both younger than Roy.

In addition to these 4, the Blazers roster features first round pick Joel Freeland, South Korean project Ha-Seung Jin, and recently signed free agent Nikoloz Tskilksdajfa;lkjdf, so the summer team includes 7 guys with guaranteed contracts for next season. And given the fact that the Blazers figure to do what they can to rid themselves of Zach Randolph, Darius Miles and Raef Lafrentz, this is literally as good as it gets for Blazers hoops for many years to come.

So how did this stellar summer league team do? They lost, 88-82, to a Rockets team featuring Steve Novak and Pat Carroll. Ouch.

Summer Pro League

2006-07-07T10:46:00.000-07:00

It is truly sad, what has happened to the Long Beach Summer Pro League. This used to be the best (OK, the only) basketball anywhere during the summer. Ten or twelve NBA teams plus other teams filled with the likes of Baron Davis, Penny Hardaway and Bo Outlaw (always Bo Outlaw) would fill the Pyramid from noon until 10 PM. It was a summer basketball orgy.

Most importantly, it was a chance to get a glimpse of the Clippers. Being a perennial 'young' team, the Clippers were always one of the best teams to watch in the SPL. I've seen Lamar Odom, Corey Maggette, Quentin Richardson, Keyon Dooling and Darius Miles - all on the same team! From about 5 feet away.

Not to mention the future NBA stars. I often wonder how scouts can get it so wrong, if their job is to watch guys play and evaluate talent. I watched Amare Stoudemire play in one SPL game and knew he was going to be the NBA rookie of the year, yet 10 days earlier he had been drafted 9th overall, behind such NBA luminaries as Nikoloz Tskial;jkdkladsjfda and Dajuan Wagner (I wonder where Dajuan is?) One of the reasons I was so excited about Vladimir Radmanovic on the Clippers is because of the times I saw him light up the SPL. (And sometimes you get it wrong... I watched Chris Bosh in the SPL and thought he'd never be strong enough to play the NBA 4.)

But since the Clippers defected to Vegas, Baby, the SPL is a shadow of it's former self, and not just to Clipper Nation. This year's edition features all of 4 NBA teams. As it happens, all 4 of the teams made the playoffs last year, so the HIGHEST draft pick we could see in Long Beach is Oleksiy Pecherov of the Wizards, the 18th pick. (The Rudy Gay/Shane Battier trade can't be completed until after the 12th, so Rudy is not yet a Grizzly; I doubt we'll see him in the LBC this summer.) Oh, and by the way, the Mavericks are sending their 'B' team, with the 'A' team going to Vegas. It's summer league! The 'A' team usually has 4 to 6 guys that can make a roster, and at least 6 free agents that have NO CHANCE of making an NBA squad. So what does that make the 'B' team?

Meanwhile, the Vegas league features 16 NBA teams, the top two overall pick in Andrea Bargnani of the Raptors and LaMarcus Aldridge of the Blazers, the Clippers (including 2 games of Shaun Livingston) and a lot more gambling.

Still don't believe me that the Long Beach Summer Pro League is on its last legs? Check out the SPL web site, and compare it to the Vegas League web site.

Look, I'm not going to go into some rant about the good ol' days. Things change, and it's not really a shock that 16 NBA teams are hanging out in Vegas in the off-season, right? (Although you'd think they'd want to be some place a little cooler, like average highs below 110, but I digress.) It's just sad - for me, since I live 10 minutes away from the Pyramid. I'll still go, of course. I can check on Andrew Bynum's progress, and Bo will probably be there on a FA team. But the glory days are over (way over).

Which leaves me with two words:

ROAD TRIP!

What's Next?

2006-07-06T12:07:00.000-07:00

Assuming there are no surprises between now and July 12 when free agents can officially sign contracts, the Clippers will have the following 12 players under contract in one week:

Brand, Mobley, Maggette, Cassell, Thomas, Kaman, Livingston, Rebraca, Korolev, Ross, Singleton and Ewing.

That is a wicked 12 man roster - 11 of the 12 made contributions to playoff teams last year, and Korolev should be closer to contributing this year, if Dunleavy was right to spend the 12th pick on him. The 9 man rotation is pretty well set, and Singleton and Ewing proved that they are capable backups in the event of injuries.

Rebraca, who never really got back from his heart problems last season, would seem to be the only question mark. But with Brand, Kaman and Thomas up front, it's probably not a big problem if Z is done (don't forget that the guy is 34 and had a long career in Europe before coming to the NBA).

The Clippers can carry three more contracts. So, what would you do?

Baker, McCarty and N'Dong are all out there. Then there are this year's second round picks, Paul Davis and Guillermo Diaz. And let's not forget about 'My Big Fat Greek Shaq', Sofoklis Schortsanitis, whom the Clippers indicated was a possibility for 06-07 back in May.

Or do you go after another free agent? For the sake of argument, let's say you could sign mystery player X with money under the cap, then sign Thomas to the mid-level exception, then re-sign Cassell. I'm pretty sure the CBA would allow that, and it would give the Clippers about $7M to spend on another free agent, more than all but a couple of teams. So, would you do it?

The free agent thing is an interesting question. I think you at least have to go through the exercise. Chicago was the only 2006 playoff team with cap room, which they have used on Ben Wallace. New Orleans is the next closest thing to a playoff team with cap room, and they used it on Peja. So, literally, the Clippers are now the ONLY decent team in the NBA who can offer more than the mid-level exception to guys like Bonzi Wells and Al Harrington. If you offered one of those guys a multi-year deal starting at $7M, they'd have to consider it. So would you do it? (Those are the only two free agents still available who will command more than the mid-level, which is why I'm focused on them.)

The short answer on Bonzi and Al is, NO. They both have talent to spare, but neither has a stellar rep, and the last thing the Clippers want to do is eff-up their chemistry, especially on a gamble they don't have to take. But like I said, I think you have to go through the steps and explore the remaining possiblities in free agency.

This blogger would use the last three roster spots as follows:

A big - either Davis or N'Dong or Schortsanitis, whichever one is ready to contribute NOW. (The Vin Baker experiment was fun, but surely it's over.) There's no rush on Schortsanitis - he's only 21, and the longer you leave him in Europe, the more contribution you get from the rookie scale contract. So you bring him now if he's ready now, and not before. If you're convinced Rebraca is done, you take two of these guys, but if Rebraca can play at all (i.e. you don't waive him), then you only need one. (NBA GM's and coaches tend to keep WAY too many bigs, I think as a hedge against injuries and based on the old saw that you can't coach size, but haven't we seen time and again that you just don't need 3 seven footers at the end of your bench? We no longer have to load our roster to compete with Shaq in the playoffs - that's Dwyane Wade's team in Miami.)

A shooter. The one weakness on the Clippers 12 man roster is outside shooting. Mobley and Thomas are the only consistent perimeter threats based on career numbers. Cassell shot the 3 well last year (better than Mobley), and Maggette shot OK (as well as Mobley), but these stats have more to do with Mobley's poor shooting. And none of the guys at the end of the bench are really threats (I'm assuming Singleton's 10 for 20 is more 'fluke' than 'pleasant surprise' and nothing to be counted on in either case). Korolev is supposed to be a shooter, but we sure haven't seen it yet. So bring some shooters into camp. Fred Hoiberg, Richie Frahm, hell, Gerry McNamara. You know who would be perfect? Kevin Pittsnogle - gives you size AND stretches the defense. (McNamara is on Orlando's summer league roster, and Pittsnogle is on Miami's.) Even if you have to actually offer a decent contract to the likes of Tony Delk, Voshon Lenard, Eddie House or even Keith Van Horn, do it. We need somebody who can make threes. Last in the league is not acceptable.

See (2).

Finally, there are the potential extensions for Dunleavy and Kaman. I'm not sure I have completely acclimated to this world where the Clippers make the right decision for NEXT season, let alone thinking two or three seasons ahead. Give me a month or so, and maybe I'll have something to say about contract extensions. For now, I'm happy to have what appears to be a 'deep playoff run' roster for 06-07. I may get the 'bends' if we start doing the right thing for 07-08: been under water way too long.

Cassell

2006-07-06T11:34:00.000-07:00

The Clippers did the right thing, and re-upped Sam Cassell, apparently for 2/$13M. It took a little back and forth, but they got it done, and done well. After indicating he would accept 2/$11M from the Clippers on Friday night, the negotiations continued on Saturday.

Throughout the day, Cassell was weighing three options: a two-year, $13-million offer from Atlanta, a two-year, $11-million offer from the Clippers and a three-year, $12-million offer from Denver. After learning Atlanta was the highest bidder, Clippers Coach Mike Dunleavy told Cassell to give him a number to get the deal done, sources said. Cassell mentioned $13 million and Dunleavy said he probably could do it.

Was Sam Cassell REALLY going to spend his final two NBA seasons losing in Atlanta? No way. And sure, he likes George Karl, but was he going to go to Denver and back up Andre Miller? I doubt it. But for an extra million per, the Clippers did the right thing, and made Sam happy.

Now they have exactly what they need - a veteran point guard to mentor Shaun Livingston, coming off the bench and playing important fourth quarter minutes, taking clutch shots. And the best part is, Sam's $6.5M comes off the books just when the Clippers will need to re-sign Livingston. Livingston/Cassell will make a combined $11M+ in 07-08. By that time, we'll know if all of that money needs to go into Livingston's next contract (let's hope it does.)

Let's also recognize the significance of this signing in the ongoing development of Clipper Nation. Believe it or not, we are STILL on one hand, when we count the number of players who have re-signed with the club in LA (Loy Vaught, Eric Piatkowski, Elton Brand, Corey Maggette and now Sam Cassell - I kid you not - five.) To re-sign a player after a single season in LA, because it makes the team better, well, it's just so DIFFERENT than what we're used to. Bear in mind - Brand and Maggette were restricted free agents, so they had no choice, while Vaught and Pike weren't exactly in huge demand. And there is no shortage of cases in Clipper history when players took LESS money to get out of town (Bo Outlaw, anyone?) So it says a LOT that Sam Cassell WANTS to be here, and that the Clipper organization agressively made it happen.

Radmanovic or Thomas?

2006-07-06T09:46:00.000-07:00

Apparently both Cassell and Radmanovic indicated to the Clippers that they would accept the 12:01 AM July 1 offers, only to reneg the next day when other teams starting calling.

A quick aside - obviously, I don't know EXACTLY what was said, but how do you 'accept' the offer on Friday night, and then change your mind on Saturday morning, based solely on the existence of other offers that you KNEW (or at the very least hoped) would be there? In Vlade's case, I could have told him back in April (if he had called me) that come July he would be choosing between

(a) the mid-level exception from the Clippers where he would come off the bench,
(b) the mid-level exception from a lower level playoff team where he could start or
(c) more money from a really bad team.

So what happens? He initially accepts (a), only to accept (b) about 12 hours later. I'm not at all surprised that he took the same money for a chance to start for a poorer team. This is the same guy, remember, who turned down 6/$42M (i.e. more money and more years) from Seattle last year because the Sonics would NOT guarantee him a starting role. But why tell the Clippers you'll take their offer before hearing the other offers? I don't get it.

This is where the NEW Clippers approach really kicked in. It was not so long ago that the Clippers would go into the off-season with a good core of players, a TON of cap room and some pretty obvious needs, and come out of it with Mikki Moore and Rick Brunson, or Bobby Simmons and Eddie House. Don't get me wrong - I actually like all of those guys, and Simmons in particular was a real find, as evidenced by his MIP award in 2005. But the point is, the OLD Clippers signed guys that were bouncing around the league, and they signed guys in August and September and October, after the 'big boys' had landed on the 'big teams'. The turnaround has been gradual - from actually MATCHING offers for Brand and Maggette (and don't forget that they let Odom, Miller, Pike and Kandi go at the same time) in 2003, to actually MAKING a serious offer to Kobe in 2004, to FINALLY paying NBA coin for an NBA starter in free agency (Mobley) in 2005.

Here we are in 2006, and the Clippers actually made immediate, competitive offers to their ONLY TWO free agents, and ended up paying out $24M and $13M to two guys to come off the BENCH! And they did it in the FIRST WEEKEND of free agency. I'm just saying - it's a BIG difference!

So, what about this signing? Would you rather have VladRad or TT? The fact is, these guys are ASTOUNDINGLY similar. Eerily similar. I could crunch all the numbers for you, but suffice it to say that they are both 6'10", about 235 or 240, both excellent three-point shooters (two of the best at their size), both capable of going to the hoop (though it is not their prefence), both limited on the defensive end (more by disposition than by talent) and both have reps as malcontents. TT's rep is worse, but that may be simply because he's been in the league longer and had more chances to get into doghouses, and in bigger places (like NYC and Chicago). But if you watched any of the 2004 Athens Olympics hoops, you might have noticed that Vlade spent a LOT of his time in street clothes in the stands (not even on the bench), and very little of his time on the court. He blamed that on his coach (who is, by pretty much any definition, insane), but it takes two.

Given my choice at the beginning of the off-season, I would have taken VladRad. This is based on three things: (1) he's younger; (2) he has more upside since he's younger and he's never played huge minutes and (3) he was already a Clipper, and seemed to fit well.

BUT... I remember when my girlfriend broke up with me in college. I didn't want her to break up with me, but what I really WANTED was something I couldn't have - I wanted her NOT to WANT to break up with me. But you have no control over that part. The very fact that VladRad decided he'd RATHER take the same money from a poorer team because he would get more minutes tells you that the Clippers are better off without him. Face facts - Dunleavy's asking Maggette (who was the LEADING SCORER on the team in 04-05) to come off the bench. The last thing he needs is someone else carping about minutes. If Thomas is more willing to accept the bench role, then he is a better fit. Period.

The indisputably bad news is the age thing. Thomas is 29, while VladRad is 25. The Clippers saved one year signing Thomas (4 year deal versus 5 they offered to Vlad), but still that leaves them paying $6M+ to Tim Thomas at the age of 33. It is also interesting to note that the Suns apparently were willing to spend the full exception on Vlad (they were among the teams offering him the same 5 year deal), but were not willing to do so for Thomas, offering only $3.5M per year. The guy absolutely SAVED their playoffs, and they weren't willing to pay him more than $3.5M. What do they know that we don't know? I guess there are plenty of people out there 'doubting Thomas.'

Calico Jack points out that Cassell is probably the Clippers trump card in this signing. Cassell and Thomas played together 4+ seasons in Milwaukee, going to game 7 of the conference finals together, and those 4 seasons just happen to be the most productive of Thomas' career. Cassell will help keep Thomas in line. However, Thomas is NOTORIOUS for being a poor practice player. That will not fly on a Mike Dunleavy team. For one thing, he's going to have to practice to learn Dunleavy's defensive schemes, which are among the most complex in the league. And if he isn't rotating on defense, he will NOT stay on the floor. But most importantly, if he doesn't work hard in practice, he won't even get a chance to be on the floor (see Wilcox, Chris). So let's hope he understands his role AND is willing to put in some hard work.

The Clippers NEED Tim Thomas to play and play well. They absolutely must have effective three point shooting to open up the floor for Brand and Kaman inside. Mobley had an off year from distance last year, but certainly can't be the only guy even if he has a great year. Also, bear in mind that Livingston will be taking more and more of Cassell's minutes (by design) and Livingston is a non-threat from distance (I'm talking beyond 12 feet). If Thomas (or someone else, Comrade Korolev?), for whatever reason, is incapable of providing that consistent perimeter threat, it will be a huge step backward from the second half of last season.

As for VladRad on the Lakers, I wish him luck. Watching the guy on offense, you sometimes wonder why he isn't Dirk Nowitzki. He can shoot, he can drive, he can finish, he can pass. The guy is an absolute monster. He can't play with his back to the basket, but that's pretty much the only hole in his offensive game. As a spot up shooter, he should get tons of open looks out of Kobe double teams. And he always struck me as a 'smart' player (whatever that means), so I think he'll pick up the triangle quickly, and I think Phil will like him. Of course, that's the real key. If he DOESN'T pick up the triangle, or Phil DOESN'T like him (for whatever reason), he could find himself sitting next to the purple and yellow floor more than he would have sat next to the blue and red one. Or maybe he'll be in the seats. Who knows with VladRad? But guess what? If VladRad works out, the Lakers are now a decent point guard from competing. I did not see that coming.

One final thought - since both Eric Piatkowski and the Clippers need for three point shooting both came up, did anyone other than me notice that Pike signed with Phoenix for the veteran's minimum? Was anyone other than me hoping that the Clippers would sign him? How cool would that have been? To bring back the longest tenured Clipper, to let him experience some really good times in a Clipper uniform? I just think it would have really, truly turned the page on the whole 'worst franchise in sports' thing. Not to mention that the guy can still knock down some spot up threes, which we could use. And don't be surprised if he is a solid contributor (in limited minutes) for the Suns. Obviously he's perfect for them.

Free Agency Fireworks

2006-07-05T12:06:00.001-07:00

In case you were wondering, this blogger was in Tahoe for the long Independence Day weekend, without high speed internet access. I will not post via dial-up, dammit!

So now I have a lot of catching up to do, as the early days of free agency have been very active, especially regarding the Clippers. By the way, does anyone else recall the old days of unanswered phone calls from agents, Clippers management sitting around waiting to see what other teams were doing, waiting to (maybe) match offers, or worse still, simply waiting and doing nothing? At least for now, those days are over, and what a refreshing change it is.

In an attempt to work my way through all of this info systematically, I'm going to break things down into several smaller posts. That way, hopefully I can get some stuff out there today.

In a series of moves that only a few years ago would have seemed unthinkable in Clippernation, the Clippers made serious offers to both of their free agents at 12:01 AM ET on July 1 (in other words, it was still June in LA). Sam Cassell was evidently offered a 2 year deal worth either $11M or $12M, while Vladimir Radmanovic was offered the full mid-level exception over the course of 5 years, which worked out to about $31M. Oh, and this is pretty much EXACTLY what this blogger suggested they do at the end of the season, so apparently Sterling has internet access out there in Beverly Hills.

24 hours later, the most important part of the Clippers' offseason business was completed, with Tim Thomas filling the 'forward who can stretch the defense' role in lieu of VladRad, and Cassell in the fold for two more seasons. And let's face facts - these are the two seasons that matter. Progress must be made (bear in mind that only conference finals, conference champ or NBA champ actually qualify as progress) or Sterling may as well go back to low payrolls and high profits.

2006 NBA Draft Analysis

2006-06-29T20:25:00.000-07:00

Here it is, my first draft analysis of the clippernation blog era. Of course, I've done a draft analysis every year for several years now, and just for grins, I thought I'd post my 2005 analysis for everyone to reference, and to marvel at how right I was.

First things first - barring some off season grooming, Kaman will now have competition in the 'goofy head and facial hair' department. What is the deal with Morrison's 'stache? Can he seriously not grow it thicker than that? How about some mascara?

As always, you should check out the Sports Guy's draft diary. Always good stuff, if a little heavy on the Celtics and Isiah-bashing (not that there's anything wrong with Isiah-bashing.)

I've got to admit, I watched very little of this draft. The wife is away on business, I'm doing the single dad thing, and I have less control of the TV than I like. Meanwhile, unlike the Sports Guy, I haven't quite sunk to the level of TiVo-ing the NBA draft. How sad is that? What does he do - replay the Steven A. rants in slow motion?

Overall, this FEELS like a down draft. I mean, a really down draft. Which is why there were so many trades of picks. No one seems excited about anyone. With good reason, right? I mean, I know next to nothing about Bargnani, but the things people say about him don't really make you drool. And the college guys in this draft have ALL got some pretty glaring shortcomings. Morrison is a terrific scorer, one of those throwback, gym rat, get the ball in the hole scorers, but who the hell is he gonna guard in the NBA? As for LaMarcus Aldridge... Please. He never looked like the best big man on Texas, and was about the 4th best player for the Longhorns. And Rudy Gay clearly has all the talent in the world, but was pretty much disinterested his entire time in Storrs. What makes anyone think it will be different in the bigs?

Of course, the new NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement has a lot to do with the lack of quality in this draft. With high school seniors off-limits for the first time, this is the 'catch-up' draft. The guys that would have gone in the lottery this year (like Greg Oden) will make cameos on college campuses nationwide before being in the 2007 lottery. Meanwhile, we're stuck with a number one overall pick named 'Andrea'.

Portland's behavior in this draft is a riot, and deserves a really good line. The Sports Guy went with "They're like a drunk college kid randomly putting together an NBA Live team at 4 a.m." That's really good. I can't top that, but of course he actually gets paid to write. I was thinking they were like a 5 year old with ADD watching Nickelodeon - whatever commercial they just saw, that's what they want for Christmas. Of course, once they have it, it turns out to be not that great, and they want something else.

At the end of the day, after 6 trades and 3 picks in the first 31, where did the Blazers end up? Pretty much no where. They lost Telfair and Ratliff and Khryapa, and added Dickau and Lafrentz, Aldridge and Roy and Freeland (I think - it's hard to tell for sure.) I mean, it's no secret that I think Dickau could be a star in the NBA, and with Dickau and Roy, they have two Pacific Northwest guys that could conceivably put butts in seats (and who actually have a chance of staying out of jail). (Also, in a happy sidenote, Dickau is re-united with his Trailblazer cheerleader girlfriend, although I'm guessing that relationship is long over.) But Dickau is in a log jam at the point with Steve Blake, Jarrett Jack and even Juan Dixon. Meanwhile, I know that Ratliff was getting older and was overpaid, but if Aldridge is EVER as good as Theo, I would be shocked. And getting rid of Ratliff's contract isn't even a plus when you take back Lafrentz's WORSE contract in return.

As of right now, the Blazers 4 highest paid players, all making more than $7M per, are all guys they've either given up on or soon will give up on - Zach Randolph $12M, Lafrentz $11M, Derek Anderson $10M (released under the amnesty clause) and Darius Miles $7M. Ouch.

It will be interesting to see what Telfair does in Boston. The C's desperately need a point guard, and it looks like he's the starter going into camp. But whenever I've seen him, it seems like he can't shoot and he can't play defense. Last I checked, those two things were important.

Looking at this draft, the real question has got to be... HOW DID UCONN NOT WIN THE NCAA TITLE? Hmmm... UConn has 4 first rounders, 5 in the top 40 and 2 other guys who got sniffed at. George Mason has some guys who MIGHT be able to play in Belgium next year. You gotta love college basketball!

With no high schoolers in the draft, and only 6 foreign players in the first round (also partly a factor of the rule change, as the best foreign players were often drafted at the age of 18), that left an astounding 24 college players drafted in the first round. I kept wondering why Jordan Farmar was still in this draft, but now I know.

Seattle set a record, drafting a 7 foot project for the third year in a row. They now have 3 (count 'em, 3) guys who are 7'0", around 240 lbs, and 20 years old. I'm no expert, but USUALLY, you might want, say, one of those, and then some other guys, maybe older guys, to also play, and maybe the younger guys could learn from the older guys. Not in Seattle. Maybe they wanted somebody else the same age and body type for Swift and Petro to drink coffee with. They're all 20! None of them can even buy beer! They're going to have to get Nick Collison to buy beer for them. That ain't good.

I don't know if JJ Redick is worth the 11th pick, but I do know that he is a can't miss pro. If you can shoot, you can play in the NBA, and he can shoot. That Orlando team could be a lot of fun next year, especially if they can convince Fran Vazquez to come over from Spain. Imagine a starting lineup of Jameer, JJ, Darko, Vazquez and Dwight Howard. It could happen. I'm all a-twitter!

Simmons already stole my Renaldo Balkman / Rolando Blackman joke. OK, it was inevitable. Interestingly, the draft has been the one area where Isiah has done OK up to this year. It's everything else that has been a disaster for the Knicks.

Phoenix was strange. I mean, I know that you just went to the Conference Finals WITHOUT Amare, so you're thinking you don't need much help. But why not draft some young Euro types and leave them playing in Europe? They trade a first round pick for cash? Cash? Are you kidding me? Having trouble paying the bills, Sarver? And then they trade this year's 21st pick for a future pick from Cleveland. Last I checked, Cleveland had LeBron James and was getting pretty good. When you trade for a future pick, don't you usually want it to be better than the one you're giving up? These things have value!

I got pretty much nothing else on the first round. You want my sleeper pick? I ain't got one. You want my pick for rookie of the year? How about Fran Vazquez!

Since this is a Clippers blog, I should say a little about their picks. I've never been a Big Ten guy, and Michigan State in particular has always irked me, at least since Magic left East Lansing. But Paul Davis at 34 seems like a pretty good pick. Of course, in the NBA of 2006, I'm not really convinced that you NEED more bigs than Chris Kaman and Elton Brand, but I guess someone could get hurt, and the Clippers don't seem convinced that Zeljko is ever going to be whole again, so I guess Davis is the insurance policy.

As for Diaz at 52, I have three words for you - THREE POINT SHOOTING. There is no guarantee the Clippers will re-sign Radmanovich, and Mobley was something of a disappointment, resulting in the Clippers being the worst shooting team from three of all the teams in all the cities less than a mile high. Diaz shot 46% 3 seasons ago, but you have to be concerned with a guy whose percentage goes DOWN in college. How about Mike Gansey or Kevin Pittsnogle? Hell, how about Mike Gansey AND Kevin Pittsnogle as an alternative to Davis and Diaz? I sure hope some shooters get invited to camp as free agents, because I really think Brand and Kaman need someone to stretch the defense. Especially as Livingston (who can't shoot) takes more and more of the minutes from Cassell (who can shoot).

Only 9 days until Summer Pro League starts!

2005 Draft Analysis

2006-06-29T20:23:00.000-07:00

OK.... for some reason I'm not very excited about this year's draft. Consequently, I have waited two full days before sitting down to write my annual draft analysis. But today it's pretty much clean the house, or write a draft analysis, so guess which one I'm doing.

As always, you should also read the Sports Guy's NBA Draft column. Good stuff, even if he does get most of his material from me (I still haven't figured out how he does that.) http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050629

OK, first of all, you have to take Bogut number 1. He's a 7 footer who can pass, which tells you a lot. Plus, he played really well in Athens last year, as the best player on the Australia team. So he's already played against NBA level talent and more than held his own. Remember, we're talking about an Olympic tournament where the US got the bronze.... There were some good players there, and Bogut was the star of a team that did OK. He'll be a very good NBA center. Probably not great, but very good.

Here's what is the same about Marvin Williams and Carmelo Anthony. Both were big time high school recruits who played college ball for a year instead of going straight to the NBA. Both played on teams that won National Championships their freshman year. Both declared for the draft after their freshman year. Both were drafted in the top 3 (Carmelo at 3, Marvin Williams at 2). Here's what is different. Carmelo Anthony led his team in scoring AND rebounding and basically won the championship by himself. Marvin Williams DIDN'T START ALL YEAR, and didn't deserve to. He was AT BEST the fourth option for the Tar Heels. I'm sorry... if he's that great, why couldn't he start? I understand that UNC was loaded, but c'mon. Also, Atlanta's three best players (all 3 of whom were signed LAST YEAR) are Josh Childress (6-8 210), Al Harrington (6-9 250), and Josh Smith (6-9 225). Their point guard is friggin' Tyronn Lue, who spells his name with 2 N's and went to friggin' Nebraska, where they can't even play football anymore, let alone basketball. So they draft Marvin Williams (6-9 230) when 3 solid point guards are available. I mean, I know the saying... best athlete available. But for Pete's Sake - you also have to put players on the floor. You can't really play 4 small forwards at the same time - ask the Lakers. Bad pick - but what do you expect from Atlanta?

Here's the thing about the Sports Guy - no matter what happens, he can find a way to relate it back to the Celtics. And me... I can always relate it back to the Clippers. Remember last year when the Clippers traded down from 2 to 4? They wanted Livingston anyway, knew he would be available at 4, and so gave the number 2 pick to Charlotte for the number 4 pick and the 33rd pick. Does anyone remember what I said at the time? Go ahead, reference the archives.... I'll wait. I said, fine, you want Livingston, that's great. But when you trade the number 2 pick IN A TWO PLAYER DRAFT (Howard and Okafor) you need to get more in return than an extra second rounder.

So, Portland trades down, sends the 3 pick to Utah for the sixth pick and..... 2 more first rounders, one this year, and one next year. That's right folks.... the 3 pick for the 6 pick AND the 27th pick AND a first rounder next year. That's how you trade down in a draft!!!! I mean... do the other GM's also steal Elgin's lunch money in the Cafeteria in Secaucus? Elgin's had so many lottery picks over the year's, and has used them so poorly, he forgets that they have value. They're like East German Marks to him. Sure, he has a lot of them, but what can he do with them?

Anyway, with the 3 pick Utah took Deron Williams, followed immediately by Chris Paul to New Orleans and Raymond Felton to Charlotte (one of those teams is called the Hornets, but I can't remember which one anymore.) Of these three, I think Paul is probably going to be the best pro, but I have my doubts about all of them. Williams kind of strikes me as that GREAT college player who can't quite make it at the next level. Think Ed O'Bannon. I hope I'm wrong - I like Williams a lot. But is he NBA quick? Does he have NBA 3 range? I'm just not sure. Paul, on the other hand is definitely NBA quick, and he'll be a good pro for that reason. As for Felton... the ESPN talking heads were talking about how they really needed a point guard, so they took Felton. Excuse me? It's the Charlotte Bobnets (Horncats?)! They need EVERYTHING. But if were making a list of what they arguably don't need, the list would be pretty short. The don't need a starting 4 (Okafor), and they don't need a point guard (Brevin Knight was easily their 2nd best player last year, and was 2nd in the NBA in assists). Is Brevin Knight a great 1? No, but he is nonetheless the closest thing on that team after Okafor to an actual NBA player. So if you're picking Felton 'earlier' than expected, let's call it what it is - it's picking a UNC guy to sell tickets, and that's all it is.

And Portland takes a High Schooler with the 6th pick! There's a shocker! Since 1996, Portland has now taken 4 high schoolers, one guy who played one year at a JC, and two foreign players. Out of 10 picks. What do they have against college basketball players? But you know, when something's working for you, you stick with it. I mean, after all, Jermaine O'Neal became an all-star (after Portland gave up on him and traded him to Indiana), Qyntel Woods averaged almost 3 points a game before he was arrested and then waived, Travis Outlaw has LOTS of potential, as evidenced by his 5 points per game last year, and Sebastian Telfair was not ALL NYC hype (just mostly NYC hype). Now, they say this kid Webster is a solid guy, and won't get into any trouble as a Jailblazer. I just hope he doesn't fall in with the wrong crowd. I'm sure Damon (Blunty) Stoudamire and Darius (Bitchslap the coach) Miles and Zach (stopped caring when I signed my extension) Randolph and Ruben (just plain nuts) Patterson will take him under their collective wings, so everything's going to be just fine.

Plenty has been said about Toronto taking Charlie Villanueva 7th. I'm not going to pile on. Suffice it to say that when Vitale tashes a pick, and it's a guy who (a) went to college, (b) went to college in the Big East and (c) won a national championship... it's pretty unanimous. (More on Dickie V below.) Here's what is so interesting about the draft in general. Going into the draft, I think most everyone thought of Villanueva and Chris Taft about the same. Major talents - underachieved at Big East schools - not really ready for the show, but can't resist the money - someone's telling them they're going to be lottery picks. So what happens? Villanueva goes 7th, Taft goes 42nd. Go figure.

About here is where everyone starts freaking out about how Gerald Green and Danny Granger are still available. Let's be clear. Bill Simmons has seen Gerald Green play about as much as I have, which is a couple of highlight reel dunks. Don't get me wrong - they were GREAT dunks. The guy is an absolutely insane leaper - the first time I saw him dunk, I thought something was wrong... like the rim was at 8 feet or he was jumping off a trampoline. He might was well have been wearing a Gorilla suit, he was so high. But that's it. That's what I know about Gerald Green. And I have probably seen Danny Granger MORE than Simmons has - Simmons is more of an NBA guy, while I watch a fair amount of the college hoops, and watch a fair amount of Mountain West basketball specifically. I like Granger. I do. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THESE GUYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PICKED HIGHER, AND NEITHER DOES SIMMONS. ALL WE KNOW IS THAT A BUNCH OF GUYS SAID THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PICKED HIGHER. Of course the GM's who were picking 6 through 16 all heard the same things, and probably more. And they decided on players other than Green and Granger. So anyone who says this guy or that guy is the steal of the draft, based simply on where they went versus where the USA Today mock draft PREDICTED they would go... well that's not analysis. That's just recapitulating group think.... And you won't get that kind of stuff from me.

Me, I talk about what I know. I was the guy who said that Tayshaun Prince (picked 22nd) was better than Jared Jeffries (picked 11th) in the 2002 draft. So I got that one right. I believe I also said that Gilbert Arenas would never be a good pro.... so I got that one wrong.

Frye and Diogu went 8 and 9. I like both of these guys. Again, I've seen quite a lot of them, since they are both Pac-10 guys. I always thought Frye was underrated, and then sure enough, his stock started to rise as he was working out for teams. He's a little skinny, but he is a terrific athlete and can score and block shots. I'm sure the New York thing will destroy him as a player and as a person, which is sad. But I think he's good.

There are three things you need to know about Ike Diogu. He scored in double figures EVERY GAME he played in college. That's 91 games. He led the Pac 10 in rebounding his senior year. And he led the nation in free throws attempts his junior AND senior years (this one was not even close.) So, he shows up and plays hard every game. He scores and rebounds. He gets to the free throw line. Sounds like a good pro to me.

The Lakers took a 17 year old with the 10th pick. Who knows? I got nuthin'.

OK, now we have a couple of foreign players picked. Vazquez at 11 to Orlando and Korolev at 12 to the Clippers. I have never seen either of these guys play. Vazquez, who is currently 22, did NOT play for Spain in the Olympics in Athens, which tells you something. So I can't say much about these picks. But Dickie V was positively xenophobic during the telecast, and on his website trashing the international picks. http://espn.go.com/dickvitale/vcolumn050628-NBApostdraft.html He got more than a little tougue tied during the telecast. He tried to make his 'Yao Ming is the only international player to have an impact drafted in the last 3 years' point, but he proceeded to discuss Welsch and Nene and then Ginobli and Parker (neither of whom were drafted in the last 3 years), so it got a little confusing.

Does he have a point? Frankly, no. It's more than a little disingenuous to say international players have not had an impact recently, when in fact 3 different players have been named 1st or 2nd team all-NBA in the last two years (Dirk, Nash and Yao), a fourth would have been this year if not for injury (Kirilenko), and Parker and Ginobli have 2 rings each in the last 3 seasons. We're getting awfully close to the point where we could have a hockey-style all-star game, US versus the world. (The starting team of Yao, Dirk, Kirilenko, Ginobli and Nash could certainly compete - the US bench would be better.)

Also, don't forget that a lot of teams draft foreign players and then leave them playing in Europe for several years. So, for instance it may be a little early to pass judgement on the Blazers drafting of Sergei Monia last year, since he has yet to play in the NBA. Don't forget that Kirilenko and Ginobli were both drafted in 1999, but Ginobli was a rookie the same year as Yao, and Kirilenko just one year earlier. So, somehow Dickie leaves Nenad Krstic off his list, even though he was drafted in 2002, and started 57 games for the Nets as a rookie last year. Meanwhile, Andres Nocioni was a rookie for Chicago last year, but doesn't fit in Dickie's 'last 3 drafts' comment since he was signed as a free agent. That's 2 rookies right there who started on playoff teams last year. And of course, if you go back 4 years, you have Gasol, Radmanovich, Tony Parker and Okur as the first 4 International players picked, and all have had great careers, pretty much from day one.

Euro-bashing is pretty much just Darko and Skita bashing, when you get right down to it. And those were.... how do you say in English? Bad picks. But no worse than Kwame Brown and Eddie Griffin.

I was especially intrigued to here Dickie V lamenting poor Gerald Green sitting undrafted while this Euro trash got picked. Seriously? You're telling me that the High School kid was unfairly judged in relation to the European players? It's one thing for Dickie to defend the honor of the college seniors. But when he starts telling me that the Spanish 22 year old shouldn't be drafted ahead of the American 18 year old, isn't that just simple prejudice?

Anyway, I got nothing to say on Vazquez.

As for Korolev, it's the Clipper pick, so I gotta say something, right? The way I hear it, the Clippers promised him that they would take him 12th if he lasted that long. Of course, as far as I know, NO TEAM AHEAD OF THE CLIPPERS HAD EXPRESSED ANY INTEREST IN HIM, so you had to feel pretty good about your chances of getting him. So, you make a promise.... what happens if, oh I don't know, Gerald Green or Danny Granger, inexplicably falls out of the top 5? You're picking 12 and a not one but TWO projected top 5 picks are sitting there. And you made a promise to some yahoo from Moscow. What's the deal? I mean, what exactly do the Clippers get in exchange for their promise? Does he in return promise to accept a multi-million dollar contract from them? How sweet of him. I don't get it. And this is another example of the Clippers leaving money on the table. Here's an idea.... draft Granger and get on the friggin' phone with the teams drafting behind you, offering Granger in exchange for Korolev and a 2nd round pick. Boutros Boutros Ghalli! Dunleavy loves Korolev - I get it. And you know what? I've come to really trust Dunleavy - he knows what he's doing, and he's probably right about Korolev. But the Clippers just NEVER seem to get the value they need to out of their picks. I'm STILL pissed off about trading the 2nd pick in the draft (Antonio McDyess) for Rodney Rodgers and Brent Barry. The 2nd overall pick for Rodgers and Barry!??!??! (The only exception is when they stole Elton Brand from Chicago for the second pick which turned into Tyson Chandler. Something was wrong with Jerry Reinsdorf's blood sugar that day. Swindled by Elgin Baylor - now there's a distinction.)

Beyond just trusting Mike Dunleavy, this is a REALLY strange pick. This guy has never even played for the 'A' team. He has played in junior national tournaments, and he plays for CSKA Moscow's junior club team. So we are talking marginally better competition than US High School. The good interanational picks (Ginobli, Parker, Jaric, Radmanovich) have played in the top pro leagues in Europe. The washouts (Darko, Skita) have played for the juniors or ridden the bench for the top teams. There is only one exception, which is Dirk, who played for a second tier team in Germany. Besides, you're coming off a season where you were 37-45, despite being ravaged by injuries and despite having a 4-13 record in games decided by 3 points of fewer. It's a close to the playoffs as you've been in a decade. And you draft a guy that you're going to leave in Europe for a few more years? I do NOT get that. I guess the 'plan' (if you can call it that) is to get some outside shooting via free agency. But isn't it a little sad to see names like Ray Allen and Michael Redd and Larry Hughes being discussed? Sure, the Clippers have cap space, but these guys are NOT going to play for you. Maybe Cuttino Mobley. Maybe, but probably not.

OK, 2 more picks in the lottery. Sean May at 13 to Charlotte, and McCants at 14 to the T-Wolves. 2 interesting UNC things here.... (1) Charlotte drafted Felton at 5 and May at 13 - think they liked their day? Of course they knew they were gonna get Felton at 5, since no one else was gonna draft him that high. So going in they know they've got Felton, but can they even hope for May at 13? Anyway.... having a UNC connection will sell some tickets for the first year. BUT, it will not put butts in seats later in the season, and it will not sell tickets the second year, if they don't make the team better. So if they're not the right picks, it is short-sighted to take them just because they went to UNC. (2) 4 UNC picks in the top 14. That's the first time 4 players from the same team have gone in the lottery. BUT this is a totally bogus stat. Charlotte joined the league last year. There have been exactly TWO drafts where there were 14 lottery teams. And, as it happens, Duke had 4 guys go in the top 14 in 1999 (Brand 1, Langdan 11, Maggette 13 and Avery 14). Interesting, huh?

I grow weary, as do you no doubt. I guess it is the 'Lottery Analysis', not the 'Draft Analysis'.

One prediction from the second round - Alex Acker of Pepperdine, last player drafted, will make the Pistons roster. He's a solid player, does lots of things well, works hard, and Larry Brown will love him. (If Larry is there, that is.) He is better than Ronald Dupree or Horace Jenkins, this much I know.

Check Out My World Cup Blog!

2006-06-11T23:28:00.000-07:00

While waiting for the NBA free agent signing period to begin (the finals were over before they began), I've started a World Cup 2006 blog. I don't know as much about international soccer as I do about NBA basketball, but I probably know more than you do! So check it out.

A 'New' NBA Champion

2006-06-06T14:57:00.000-07:00

In the past 26 NBA Seasons, a grand total of 7 franchises have won NBA titles. Among those 7, the 2 Rockets titles should be denoted in the record books with an asterisk (or footnote number 23, or a baseball, or something.) The 76ers won a single title in that time (1983), which means that 5 teams have won 23 of the last 26 titles. In a league of 30 teams, it seems like MOST of them are just filler.

The Dallas Mavericks entered the league in 1980. The Miami Heat in 1988. One of these two teams will be the first NEW NBA Champ since the Spurs in 1999, and only the 8th in the HISTORY of their franchises.

Back in the 70's, when the Blazers, Sonics, Warriors, Bullets and Bucks all won titles, it seemed like there was a new champ every year. In fact, there were 8 separate champs, no back-to-backs, and only 2 repeat titles (Knicks in 1970 and 1973, Celtics in 1974 and 1976) during the entire decade. Since then, a single franchise has won at least HALF of the titles for each subsequent decade (Lakers with 5 in the 80's, Bulls with 6 in the 90's and the Lakers with 3 of the 6 so far in the 00's).

What's the point of all this? Nothing really.

I do think it's good for basketball to have more teams enjoying the ultimate success, and more fans believing that they have a chance. But it remains really, really hard to win a ring in the NBA. During this 26 year run, only the 2004 Pistons managed to win a title without a top 5 talent on their roster, which pretty much means that if you don't have one of those (which most teams do not) you aren't going to win. And of course that trend will continue this year.

It's also interesting to see how Miami and Dallas got to this point, both teams in their first-ever NBA Finals. Money certainly plays a part in it.

Miami's payroll has dipped a little, down to 11th in the league, but it was their profligate spending in the past that allowed them to have this success. How is that? Well, when the Lakers decided to break up Shaq and Kobe, they were limited by league rules to trade Shaq to teams that could trade back enough in salaries. At $25M, that meant trading half your roster, or trading at least two very highly paid players. Brian Grant, wildly overpaid BEFORE his knees gave out, made it possible for the Heat to acquire Shaq, simply because he was wildly overpaid.

Dallas' payroll is second highest in the NBA, and only James Dolan and the Knicks could win that particular contest of irresponsibility. At $96M, the Mavs' payroll is almost double the league salary cap, but interestingly this particular team was built largely from the ground up. Their two best players (Nowitzki and Howard) and a third starter (Devin Harris) all arrived via the draft, NOT via free agency. It's nice to have the money to re-sign Nowitzki without blinking, but other contributors on this Mavs team include two decidedly small-time free agents (Diop and Griffin) in addition to the aforementioned draftees, and 3 veterans making good money, but not crazy money (Dampier, Terry and Stackhouse, all making about $7.5M per). In fact, of all the crazy contracts Cuban has signed and/or acquired in the six years he's owned the Mavs, only one 'overpaid' player remains on the Western Conference Champs (Keith Van Horn, making $15M in the final year of his contract.) You may be wondering how the Mavs' payroll can possibly be $96M without more pork than I've mentioned - well, they are paying close to $30M to players who are either retired or waived (Finley, Bradley, Abdul-Wahad, Eschmeyer and Christie). In the last 3 seasons, it's been addition by subtraction in Big D - the Big Three (Nowitzki, Nash and Finley) has steadily dwindled to the Big One, while Dallas has gone deeper and deeper into the playoffs.

Are there lessons to be learned? Well, if you're trying to win an NBA title, money helps, but it doesn't guarantee anything. Both of these teams did better AFTER they got rid of some big-money mistakes (Brian Grant for Shaq in South Beach, Michael Finley for nothing in Big D). Also, it is a HUGE bonus if you can acquire a transcendant player in the draft, WITHOUT having the number 1 overall pick. Nowitzki came to Dallas with the 9th pick (and Howard with the 29th!), while D.Wade went to Miami with the 5th overall.

Of course, only one of these teams will be the NBA Champion this year, the other joining the likes of the Pacers, Nets, Jazz and Suns as teams that had enough to get through their (weaker) conference, but not enough to win it all. For this reason, I will pick Dallas in the Finals. They are the best team in the best conference, and therefore they will win. It also helps that they are WAY too fast for the Heat.

Fortuitous Signs

2006-05-30T12:37:00.000-07:00

The last time the Clippers made the playoffs (1997), they did so with a losing record. At 10 games under .500, they had the worst record of any team that has qualified for the playoffs in recent memory. There were only 7 decent teams in the Western Conference that year. Why? Because a guy named David Robinson was injured the entire season, and San Antonio missed the playoffs for the first time since Robinson had arrived at the Alamo from his Navy post. So it is not inaccurate to say that the Spurs and the Clippers swapped places that year, with the Clippers taking the Spurs spot in the playoffs, while the Spurs sat in New Jersey during the draft lottery.

The Spurs won the 1997 Draft Lottery and used the number one pick to draft Tim Duncan.

The next year, normalcy returned to the basketball universe, and the Spurs and Clippers switched back. The Clippers ended up winning the 1998 Draft Lottery, and used the number one pick to draft.... Michael Olowokandi.

Bad timing and bad luck have had their roles in the Clippers' bleak LA history. Don't get me wrong - penny-pinching and stupidity have been a big part of the story as well. But it just so happens that the two number one overall picks for the Clippers were Danny Manning (a terrific player who blew out his knee his rookie year - good pick, bad luck) and Michael Olowokandi (good luck to get the number one, but a bad draft.) And sure, in hindsight there were better picks possible in 1998, but most GMs would have taken the Kandi man first. Hell, Raef Lafrentz went third. And neither of those picks were even close to the worst draft day move that year. Milwaukee traded their first pick AND Pat Garrity to Dallas for their pick, Tractor Traylor. And who did Dallas get in return? Some obscure German teenager named Dirk. That's right.... Dallas traded DOWN to get the best player in that draft.

So there's two kinds of luck here. The luck to win the lottery, and the luck to have a sure-fire superstar available. Just ask Michael Jordan and the Wizards what they think now about winning the 'Kwame Brown Lottery'. San Antonio missed the playoffs 3 times in 18 years, and on 3 trips to the lottery they came away with two number one picks that turned into David Robinson and Tim Duncan. The Clippers missed the playoffs 15 times in the same 18 years, and also got two number one overall picks, that turned into Danny Manning and Michael Olowokandi. That's pretty much the gamut on draft lottery luck right there.

But one gets the impression this might all be changing. For instance, in 1995 the Clippers traded the number 2 overall pick (Antonio McDyess) for Rodney Rogers and Brent Barry. Not exactly the kind of talent you want in return for the number 2 pick. Six years later, the number 2 overall pick (Tyson Chandler) plus Brian Skinner yielded Elton Brand. Now you're talking - I like the trend. Is that luck? Well, there's got to be some luck involved in finding a GM stupid enough to make that trade.

But here's my favorite sign. Anyone wondering why the Clippers don't have a first rounder this year? Way back in June 2000, the Clippers traded a number 1 pick for Corey Maggette (and Keyon Dooling and some other stuff). That number 1 pick was protected in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The 2006 draft was the first year it was unprotected, meaning if the Clippers had finished, I dunno, last, the Nets (which is where the pick eventually wound up) would have had a lot of ping pong balls last week. Instead, the Clippers had their best season in 30 years, and they give up the 22nd pick in the draft, 6 years later, for Corey Maggette.

Now, if only the T'Wolves can finish the 06-07 season a little stronger than they did this year, but not too strong. The number 1 pick the Clippers received as part of the Cassell trade remains top 10 protected for several more years. This year's draft will be weak, partly because of the NBA's new 19-year-old rule. Next year's draft could have Greg Oden and the other high-schoolers who couldn't come out this year. So we'll know for certain that our luck has changed if the T-Wolves end up with the 11th pick in the 2007 draft.

Now that would be some good luck.

The Price for Cassell

2006-05-27T11:41:00.000-07:00

Heisler wrote in the LA Times on Tuesday that Sam Cassell was "signaling he'd take $5 million a season." Then on Thursday, Jason Reid of the Times wrote that Cassell "would prefer a guaranteed two-year contract and a raise from his $6.1-million salary."

This stuff drives me crazy. How was Cassell signaling? And why in the world would he signal a number that was (a) a decrease in salary and (b) below the veteran's mid-level exception that he can get from any team in the league? I'm not sure I can survive in this blogging game without getting some actual access. I need a press pass. I need to ask Cassell some questions my own damn self!

As for the Reid article, it is interesting to note that there was never a direct Cassell quote saying he wanted the raise. Here's what he did say:

"If management wants to step up and make a statement with me, great, because I want to be here. I can't put a particular number on what it's going to take, but if it's a fair number that's reasonable for both parties, then let's do it. We've got something good started now. You can see it."

Everything in the Reid article rings true. Why wouldn't he want a raise? Did he not earn his $6.1M this year?

In fact, Sam Cassell is one of the most monumentally underpaid players in the NBA. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes players become free agents at the wrong time - after a down year, or in a depressed market. But somehow Cassell, who plays a position that is in short supply, has been a winner his entire career, has made two all-star teams and one 2nd Team All NBA, made $6.1M last year.

Not only does he make HALF the money of other veteran all-star points (Marbury, Francis, Bibby, Iverson, Nash, Kidd, Arenas, Baron), he also makes less than guys like Jason Terry, Andre Miller and Jason Williams, and only a little more than Jamal Tinsley, Derek Fisher, Marko Jaric and Eric Snow. C'mon!

I realize it is not the Clippers sole responsibility to right this injustice, but at the same time they paid Sam Cassell $6.1M this year to lead them to their best season EVER and remove the 'worst franchise in pro sports' addendum from their name, at least temporarily. Surely they can commit $12.5M over the next two years to the guy. Hell, they paid Kerry Kittles $10M last year to play in 11 games. There's really no reason to think Sam won't be able to play at 38. It's not like his game is predicated on speed and athleticism.

Player-Coach Cassell?

2006-05-27T11:34:00.000-07:00

Check out the Sports Guy's article about bringing back the player-coach. Not his best, but he's always good. The Sports Guy is to sports columns what Woody Allen is to movies. The worst column from the Sports Guy is better than 95% of what's out there.

BTW, isn't this whole 'I'm not a Clippers fan?' thing beginning to wear thin? If you're not a Clippers fan, why were you hyperventilating when Ewing was letting Bell shoot? I understand that the Celtics are your true love. But haven't the Clippers at least reached favored mistress status? It's OK. Long distance relationships are hard on everybody.

Mark Heisler on the Clippers Future

2006-05-25T10:49:00.000-07:00

Mark Heisler of the LA Times wrote about the Clippers' future on Tuesday. Click on the heading above for the full article (free registration required), but here are the crucial sentences:

Happily for them, they're not only profitable but cost-efficient, with the league's fifth lowest payroll. With Cassell signaling he'd take $5 million a season and Vlade Radmanovic looking as if he'll be OK with the veteran's exception of $5.5 million, they can give Chris Kaman an extension that doesn't kick in until 2007-08 and next season's payroll would go up only $4 million.

Throw in an extension at $6 million for Dunleavy, who makes $2.5 million, and their total cost goes up $7.5 million … about what they just made from six playoff dates.

He also touches briefly on the Maggette situation, mostly just wondering if Maggette is going to be happy coming off the bench.

I don't know where he's getting his salary numbers, but if he's right about Cassell and Radmanovic, this is the proverbial no-brainer. I'm not sure why Cassell would take a pay cut after the season he had, or why Radmanovic would be so willing to accept the mid-level exception when he turned down 6/$42M from the Sonics 12 months ago, but if it's true, so much the better. Actually, I'd offer Sam at least 2/$12M just for what he's done for the team.

As for Dunleavy, $6M per would make him the highest paid coach in the league not named Larry Brown or Phil Jackson (and they don't count). He might be worth it, but anyone who thinks Donald Sterling is going to more than double his salary and make him the highest paid mortal in the league is crazy. Greg Popovich makes $4M per - that seems reasonable, although I doubt we'll see that. Sterling's reputation of course would dictate that he'll exercise Dunleavy's option and play the season before committing more money to the coach. We'll see.

Heat - Pistons

2006-05-24T12:15:00.000-07:00

Something really must be said about the Heat - Pistons game last night. For all the talk of a resurgence in the East, it remains the significantly weaker conference. Though relatively strong at the top (i.e. these two teams), there is currently not another team that is the equal of the Spurs, Clippers, Grizz or even the Artest-Kings. But more disconcerting is how UGLY these teams played in game 1. It's a shame too, because the 2004 Champion Pistons played really pretty basketball. What happened? Isn't Flip Saunders the offensive genius who allowed the Pistons to open up and find their inner playground hoopster? I mean, I realize that it wasn't a good shooting night for the Pistons, but it's beginning to feel a little like a return to the NBA real world, where life is pretty tough if you don't have a mega-super-star to force a double team. As for the Heat, Wade is terrific, but only played like, a quarter. The rest of the time it was Shaq (who's not a lot of fun to watch - kind of like watching me play against my 10-year-old) and a bunch of 30-somethings jacking up threes.

And then this - the first-ever dueling hack-a-thon. Thank god Riley took Shaq out of the game before I had polished off the last bottle of pills. How bad is Ben Wallace from the line that Riley fouled him while the Heat were ahead? That's got to be the first time that has ever happened. And how stupid is Riley anyway? I mean, the Heat were something like 2-11 from the field in the 4th quarter, and he decides to foul and stop the clock. Sure, Ben missed both, making the strategy look great, but statistically, he was gonna make one, while the Pistons as a team couldn't hit an abandoned building on 8 Mile with a fire bomb on Devil's Night.

Besides, if it makes sense with 3 minutes to go holding a lead, when exactly does it NOT make sense? You know, Wayne Simien and Michael Doleac are just sitting there, with nothing to do all game long. The league gives them 6 fouls each, and it seems a shame to waste them. How much longer before we see the Hack-a-Ben in the first half? Why not? If you're shameless enough to use it when you're ahead in the 4th quarter, I think it's safe to say that pride is not a deterrent.

Finally, I must ask again, if a player is so bad on offense that a team will foul him in order to protect a lead, how can that player be on the all-NBA team 5 years in a row and be a perennial all-star? Give him all the defensive awards you like, but stop pretending that he is better than about 50 other guys who actually play both ends.

The Widow Becomes the Wife

2006-05-24T12:04:00.000-07:00

With the end of the Clippers season, the widow once again becomes the wife, at least for the next 5 months or so. Of course, I'll watch the rest of the NBA playoffs - I'm looking forward to the Suns-Mavs series in particular. But I'll also respond to basic commands, which is not the case during Clipper games.

And as an extra little present for my lovely wife, here is a picture of Corey Maggette not wearing a shirt.

Game 7 - Suns 127, Clippers 107

2006-05-23T10:17:00.000-07:00

A couple minutes into the second half of game 7 my brother called me. (A Clipper bandwagon jumper, he could not have picked Corey Maggette out of a lineup 5 weeks ago, though in his defense that has a lot to do with the interminably long NBA regular season and the fact that, as he puts it, "Those guys couldn't care less during the regular season." But he likes the playoffs.) The Suns of course started the second half making 7 of 8 shots, including 3 threes. So my brother asks me, "Are the Clippers going to guard anyone?"

Now, I'm not saying that the Clippers were at their defensive best last night. But when you have 5 shooters on the floor, and Steve Nash forcing switches and double teams, and then finding people, someone is going to be open from somewhere. And when EVERYONE is making EVERYTHING from EVERYWHERE, well... I'm just saying, it's going to be a long night. Take that stretch at the beginning of the second half when my phone rang. They went 7 for 8 - here are the 8 shots from the game log:

Shawn Marion makes 16-foot jumper (Steve Nash assists)
Steve Nash makes 26-foot three point jumper (Boris Diaw assists)
Shawn Marion makes 22-foot three point jumper (Steve Nash assists)
Boris Diaw misses 16-foot jumper
Boris Diaw makes driving layup
Raja Bell makes 15-foot two point shot
Boris Diaw makes 17-foot jumper (Steve Nash assists)
Shawn Marion makes 24-foot three point jumper (Tim Thomas assists)

Now, I ask you, what is the book on the Phoenix Suns? Make Shawn Marion a jump shooter. Make Boris Diaw a jump shooter. Run Raja Bell off the three point line and make him put the ball on the floor. (Note that there is no assist on Bell's make, which means he had to put the ball on the floor.) Of these 8 shots, 6 of them are what you are willing to give the Suns. Only Diaw's layup (which is of course set up my the fact that he's making his J's, not too mention that he's a very tough cover for Brand), and Nash's three (which he was 2-18 on before this game) are shots you're supposed to take away. And where as it would be nice to take away everything, this is the real world, and if the Suns play with energy, they can get these shots all day long. If they make them, you lose.

8 shots, 7 makes, 5 assists, 17 points - in about 4 minutes. (Amazingly, the Clippers didn't lose much ground in this stretch as they were scoring every time also, but more on that later.) Again, I'm not saying the Clippers defense was great. But people tend to look at a high shooting percentage and immediately jump to the conclusion that the defense is bad. As I've said before, sometimes a high shooting percentage means that the shooters are making shots. I don't care who was lined up against the Suns last night... the Pistons... the Larry Brown Pistons... the 1990 Pistons... the Looney Tunes with Michael Jordan from Space Jam... the space aliens from Space Jam... 3 Aliens and 2 Predators... nobody was stopping that team last night.

It's been said on more than one occasion that the Suns have no interest in defense, and would just as soon take the ball out of the basket and answer 2 points with 3 points. Well, welcome to game 7. At the end of the first quarter, the Suns had made 3 threes, and they led by 4. At halftime, 7 threes, led by 8. In the aforementioned first 4 minutes of the 3rd, both teams shot 7 for 8, Suns made 3 more threes and stretched the lead from 8 to 11. Imagine that. After 3 quarters, 12 threes, they led by 15.

For the game, the Clippers shot 52.6% and made 25 of 26 free throws. They only turned the ball over 11 times; only 5 times after the jitters of the first quarter. And they lost by 20.

I know they didn't dominate the glass they way they have, but remember two things about that. (1) When the Suns are making shots, they are energized and they get to a lot more balls than when they are missing. It's the ultimate feedback loop. And (2) when the Suns are making shots, there are no rebounds. They made 48-80.... that means there were only 32 rebounds available. Letting the Suns get 9 of those 32 misses was a problem, but it certainly wasn't the difference in this game.

The script for this series could not have been more clear.

Game 1, after an emotional Game 7 victory over the Lakers, the Suns open up at home still riding high, shoot 55%, score 130 points and win.
Games 2 through 6, the tough first round, the busy playoff schedule and the lack of depth catch up with Phoenix, and they are beatable in all 5 games. The Clippers look like the completely superior team in all 5 games, but only manage to win 3 of them, losing a completely winnable game 3 and a heartbreaking game 5.
Game 7, after 3 days off, playing at home, the Suns are once again riding high, shoot 60%, score 127 points and win.

For the Clippers to win this series, they had to take advantage of their relative youth, depth, and their fresh legs from having beaten Denver in 5. That meant winning 4 games during that tough stretch of games 2 through 6. You can't lose games you're supposed to win, and win a 7 game series. Not unless you're the vastly superior team (say, like the Suns versus the Lakers). I think the Clippers are better than the Suns. But not by much.

But as I've said before, short of winning a championship, this is the best possible ending for the Clippers' season. Sure, I'd have liked it to keep going, if only for the chance to be at Staples watching the Clippers in the conference finals. But to lose with the feeling that you were this close (OK, I know it's a blog, but imagine my fingers really close together without actually touching). That just may be the impetus Sterling needs to do the right thing, re-sign Cassel and Radmanovic, and see where this team goes next. Let's hope that's what happens.

Ride the Horse, or Release the Hounds?

2006-05-22T10:47:00.000-07:00

One of the more interesting aspects of this series has been the Clippers approach to the offensive end. The sheer number of options, and the utter futility of the Suns defense, has created a problem of choosing the best option.

Obviously, the Suns haven't really come close to stopping Elton Brand. And the two-man game with Cassell and Brand has been the bread-and-butter all year. So do you keep riding the 'Horse'? On the other hand, the Clippers present match-up problems for the Suns all over the court. Quinton Ross abused Steve Nash in game 6 on the offensive end, while simultaneously stifling Nash's own offense by keeping him close to the baseline (to slow up the break) and just plain wearing him down. Mobley has a clear post-up advantage whenever Barbosa is forced to guard him. Diaw can't keep Maggette out of the lane. The list goes on and on.

Kevin over at ClipperBlog has an interesting post regarding this question. He comes down on the side of getting everyone involved, and hitting the Suns from every position (i.e. 'Release the Hounds'). In general, I agree, but there is a danger in either approach.

Q's game 6 success notwithstanding, let's not forget Clippers-Nuggets game 1. Matched up against tiny Earl Boykins in the 4th quarter, Q had two turnovers and a miss during the 10-0 Denver run that tied the game. By focusing on the Q-Earl matchup, the Clippers got out of sync; Brand had zero shot attempts during that run.

Or look at Game 5. Eager to work Nash over, the Clippers went to Maggette time and again, and it didn't work. (I'm fascinated by all the 'Q is a better post-up player than Corey talk' at this point. Did anyone think that before Game 6? Do we really believe it now? Are we basing this on two games?) With a big assist from Corey, the Suns built a 19 point 3rd quarter lead. How did the Clippers rally? Riding the horse. Cassell, Brand two-man game, pretty much every possession for the last 28 minutes of that game. Unfortunately, when we needed someone else to step up and make a shot, they couldn't do it. Mobley in particular got several chances out of Brand double-teams, and was unable to convert.

I seem to be contradicting myself at every turn. You can't argue with the Game 5 comeback. They made it all the way back from 19 down in the playoffs on the road. But the Clippers are deep and are at their best when everyone is involved. And the simple fact of this series is that the Clippers have lost the 2 games where Brand went over 30.

Most importantly, if we want to be successful on offense, start with the defense. Maggette wasn't yanked out of game 5 because of his offense, as bad as it was. It was his defense (and Kaman's) that gave the Suns a 19 point lead. It's human nature to revert to the familiar under pressure. If the Suns get a lead, it's going to be a lot harder to go away from Brand-Cassell. But in the games where the defense has kept the Suns under control, other players have stepped up and piled on, and the Clippers have won going away.

At Least They Have Front Row Seats

2006-05-22T10:05:00.000-07:00

In the six games of the Suns-Clippers series, six Suns have played 1,335 of the 1,450 possible minutes, or 92% of the possible playing time.

Former Clipper Eddie House (left), who finished in the top ten for the Sixth Man Award this year, has played a total of 13 minutes in the series, most of those in garbage time of game 2. Pat Burke (center) hasn't gotten off the bench at all. And Brian Grant (right), who will be paid $15.5M by the Lakers NEXT YEAR, has played 8 minutes.

I wonder who benefited more from 3 days off? The 6-deep Suns or the 8-deep Clippers?

There it is Again!

2006-05-22T09:43:00.000-07:00

From this morning's LA Times:

If a season-long trend holds true, the Suns will win tonight.

The Suns and Clippers have alternated victories in the 10 games they played this season, including six in the playoffs. The regular-season victory line went Suns-Clippers-Suns-Clippers.

It's not true. It's just not true. I mean... it's no big deal. They split 10 games, and that's interesting. But the regular-season went Clippers-Suns-Suns-Clippers. Why would you print something so simple that wasn't true? Why would you go to the trouble of actually writing it down without, I don't know, checking to see if it's correct? You only have to look at the first game they played to see that something is wrong. How hard is it to look at the schedule? Maybe they just don't know that December comes before January in the NBA season. This kind of stuff just makes me nuts!

NBA Playoff Format

2006-05-21T11:27:00.000-07:00

So David Stern has seen the error of his ways, and the NBA is going to change the playoff seeding next year. Instead of giving the division winners the top 3 seeds, they will give the division winners and the next best team (call it the top seed wild card) the top 4 seeds, seeding those 4 based on record.

To which I have three responses:

Duh.
What took you so long?
It's better, but it's still not right.

Here we are, in only the second year of this 3 division format, and the reality of the Spurs and Mavs in the second round has forced them to make a change (and don't forget Clips-Grizz back in April). But didn't everyone see this coming, at least the possibility, before a game was ever played 2 season ago?

When the new division alignment was announced, Shaquille O'Neal was still a Laker. Which means that the best team in the Southeast division at the time was the Wizards. Until Kobe chased Shaq out of town, Wizards as 3-seed with a .500 record was a best case scenario.

And then there is the Palace Brawl. Until the Pacers season ended with Ron Artest in the stands and most of their team suspended for most of the year, the two best teams in the Eastern Conference were the Pistons and the Pacers, both in the Central Division. Which means this year's Spurs-Mavs second round matchup would have happened last year with the Pistons and Pacers, if not for a well-thrown cup of beer.

So the 'division winners get the top 3 seeds' idea was immediately bad, always bad, obviously bad, and, well, not good.

The amazing thing to me is the supposed justification. 'We want there to be an additional incentive for division winners.' Umm, OK. Why is that? And, by the way, this is a zero-sum game. You give one team an additional incentive, by definition you are giving another team (or teams) a dis-incentive. Besides, isn't making the playoffs incentive enough? In the last weeks of the season, when Utah was chasing a playoff spot, they seemed to be playing pretty hard. Did they stop playing hard when Denver clinched the division, but they still had a shot at the 8th seed? I don't think so. Besides, if they did, there's a different problem in the league.

This isn't the NFL, where you play teams in your division twice each, and the rest of the league 0 or 1 times. It's not baseball. The NBA's schedule is as balanced within each conference as the math allows it to be. Just seed the teams 1 to 8 based on record.

As for the new format, it's infinitely better than it was, fixing the two biggest problems in the old system (the two best teams in the second round scenario and the 5-6 seed tank scenario). BUT, it's still not right. How many seasons will it be before the THREE best teams come from the same conference? It's going to happen; it's only a matter of time, and maybe not that much time at that. Detroit, Cleveland, Indiana? San Antonio, Dallas, Houston?

So, in the new, improved seeding format, the third best team in the conference could get the 5th seed. Does that make sense? Imagine if you will a situation where the second and third best teams end the season with the same record, and seeding is determined by some arbitrary tie-breaker. The winner of that tie-breaker gets the 2 seed, and the loser gets the 5 seed. Assuming the 5 seed advances to the second round, they would likely play the 1 seed, and aren't we pretty much back where we started? Shouldn't the true 2 play the true 3 in the second round to see which one advances? Isn't that what seeding is about?

I believe it was Mark Twain who said "The most uncommon thing is common sense." Certainly the NBA has proven that time and again.

The Alternating Series

2006-05-20T16:10:00.000-07:00

Here's what Joe Stevens wrote in today's Press Telegram:

The Clippers and Suns have had 10 meetings in the regular season and playoffs.
Neither team has won two in a row against the other.

I've heard it and read it many times now. It's a really interesting observation. Except that it isn't true. During the regular season, the Clippers won the first meeting in December, the Suns then won 2 straight in January and March, and the Clippers won the final regular season meeting in April. Since then, they have of course alternated wins in the playoffs.

Still, it does not bode well for the Clippers that they have not beaten the Suns 2 straight this year, looking for just that in a game 7 in Phoenix. But if you're looking for a good omen, how about this? In games in Phoenix, the Clippers and Suns have indeed alternated wins, and guess whose turn it is to win by that measure?

Raja Bell

2006-05-20T15:45:00.000-07:00

Raja Bell became something of a hero around our house during the Lakers series. Not because he clotheslined Kobe per se, but because he did it for all the right reasons. And, let's face it, you have to be pleased when an NBA player uses the word 'pompous' correctly in a sentence.

But here's what I want to know: when did Raja Bell become one of the best 2-guards in the NBA? This is getting ridiculous. 29 years old, on his fourth team in six NBA seasons, he was never a full time starter before this year. Which means, by the way, that he couldn't beat out Gordon Giricek and Kirk Snyder in Utah. But here he is, averaging 21 points per game in the conference semi-finals, and it goes without saying that the Suns season would be over without him.

Given the way he plays defense, the way he shoots 3's, and his new-found ability to take the ball to the basket, how many 2-guards in the league are better than him? I've got 6 that are definitely ahead of him (Kobe, DWade, Ray Allen, Redd, Ginobli and Rip), a couple more that are probably ahead of him (JRich and Joe Johnson), and then he's right in the next group, based on his performance this season. (Of course I'm counting TMac, Vince and Paul Pierce as 3's.) That's pretty impressive, for a guy who wasn't even starting until this season.

Mark Stein on the Clippers Future

2006-05-19T11:38:00.000-07:00

Mark Stein of ESPN.com has an interesting take on the future of the Clippers, touching on some issues that I've discussed before.

Unfortunately, when Mark Stein says Sam Cassell should get an offer for 2 years/$15M, Sam is liable to read that and believe it. But, as I've pointed out, there's no way that Sam is going to go to a lottery team at age 37, and no contenders can offer him more than the mid-level exception (about $5M per.) And I don't see anyone offering him a 3 year deal, which would have him getting paid at age 39. So that puts the competing offer at 2/$10M. Will the Clippers actually offer 50% more than anyone else? Answer: of course they won't. He made about $6M this year, and the Clippers should offer him 2/$12M, maybe 2/$13M. Hopefully, he won't get insulted by it, as long as their aren't too many columnist out there saying he should get more than that.

And realistically, where is he gonna go? I suppose Houston is a possibility - he started his career there, I think he still has a home there, and they certainly need a point guard and could contend. But going to the Lakers would be a disaster (Kobe and Cassell in the same backcourt? Are you kidding?), the George Karl / Denver talk was just talk, and Sam would be a backup for any other top teams. He may as well come back to the Clippers where they have a great chance to win the division, where the money will be better than anyone else can offer, and where he can continue to learn from Mike Dunleavy and mentor Shaun Livingston. It seems like a win-win at 2/$12M.

As for the Maggette trade rumors, I've already weighed in on that one.

The truly disturbing idea is that Sterling wants to stay around the salary cap. In today's NBA, the only reason to be under the salary cap is to make a run at free agents (and of course to save money). In 2005-2006, exactly 3 teams were under the cap - the Bobcats (who were limited to an even lower cap based on expansion rules), the Hawks and the Hornets. The Clippers have the 4th lowest current payroll, after those 3. (1 game away from the Conference Finals with the 4th lowest payroll - the Clippers are the anti-Knicks!)

The idea of staying around the cap and competing is not realistic. The luxury tax is the REAL cap; it's the one the grown-ups look at. I'm not advocating Dolan or Cuban style spending; but if Sterling likes going to playoff games (I mean ones the Clippers are in), he will have to go over the cap. Happily, they should be able to re-sign Cassell and Vlade for a little more than they currently make, and keep the current group together for another run in 06-07. If things go great, then maybe you keep it going through 08, and you're still under the luxury threshold even with Kaman's extension. By the time you have to extend Livingston, Cassell's new deal is off the books, and Brand and Maggette are only signed for another year, so even I recognize that you have to make some tough decisions there, but at least you've got options.

Bill Walton

2006-05-19T11:37:00.000-07:00

Bill Walton is SO annoying.

Of course, I had to listen to Walton all the time back in the day when he worked with Ralph Lawler on Clipper games. But somehow, Walton's tongue-in-cheek hyperbole was a little easier to take when it was followed by Ralph's mild bemusement.

But you get the impression that Walton and Snapper Jones just don't like each other. Walton says something ridiculous, and Jones calls bulls**t, and you really expect it to come to blows. Meanwhile, Tirico is trying to call a game.

I never really got the 3 man broadcasting team - seems like there's not enough to talk about to keep two guys busy. But a 3 man team when one of them is Walton? The other two are trying to make relevant comments while Walton is on a 5 minute tangent about the similarities between Steve Nash and Bill Russell (they both went to small Jesuit schools in the Bay Area, Steve's best friend growing up was named Bill and Bill's best friend growing up was named Steve, they both have 5 fingers and 5 toes, they are both above average height....)

I should have just watched the Clippers telecast last night, but I'm a sucker to hear what the national TV guys are saying about the team. Too bad I had to turn the volume down.

Awards Screed

2006-05-19T09:43:00.000-07:00

Watching QRoss abuse Steve Nash last night started me thinking about the MVP race. The Sports Guy has made the point many times before me, but certainly the biggest knock against Nash as MVP is that he is a truly horrible defensive player. Of course, it comes back to the ongoing question of what does most valuable mean, but in many cases the MVP vote seems to be for best offensive player (on a winning team, that did better than expected, where you have some level of confidence that they would not have done so well without this player, and he makes his teammates better, etc, etc). This is not unreasonable, especially considering that the NBA has a separate award called 'Best Defensive Player.' If there is a 'Best Defensive Award,' it stands to reason that the MVP is more about offense.

OK, fine. But what about the voting for All-NBA? If MVP is an offensive award, and the All Defensive team is a defensive award, shouldn't all-NBA be about players that can play at both ends? And yet, Steve Nash is first team all-NBA, and Ben Wallace is second team all-NBA. How can this be? Steve Nash, who stands out like a sore thumb on the defensive end for the Suns (and it's not like the rest of them are that great), and Ben Wallace, who is an absolute liability on offense.

Obviously it is possible that a player is SO good at one aspect of the game that he more than makes up for other deficiencies, and you could argue that is the case here. Certainly Timmy T and I have argued for several years now about Big Ben. And in Ben's specific case, the voting is skewed by the antiquated requirement that you vote for a center, two forwards and two guards, which in this year's case puts Ben on the second team at center, while Pau Gasol gets nothing, despite the fact that Gasol is taller than, as big as and A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN Ben. Quick name the four players who have made All-NBA each of the last 5 years? That's right: Shaq, Kobe, Duncan and BEN WALLACE. It's like Sesame Street. One of these things is not like the others.

So many threads to follow... that's the problem with screeds.

Let me just point out that if the Suns are within a game of the Conference Finals with Boris Diaw at center, while the Spurs have played most of their playoff series with Duncan at center and Michael Finley at Power Forward... well maybe it's time that the All-NBA voting got a little more flexible. (This goes for the all-star game as well, but the fan voting adds another layer of stupidity to that one, so it may be beyond hope.)

Back to the award screed, my personal favorite may be the All-Defensive team. The writers who vote on this are so oblivious to what constitutes good defense that they will basically vote for whomever they are told to vote for. Back in 1999, Kobe and Phil went on PR campaign about Kobe's defense, and basically told everyone what a great defender Kobe was. And certainly Kobe can be a solid defender when he wants to be. But if you watch any Lakers games, you'll see that Kobe is in fact a very poor defender most of the time. He ball watches, he cheats and he gets beat a lot. But since the 1999 season Kobe has made 7 all-defensive teams, because Phil told the writers he was good, and they don't actually know any better. Think about it - the Lakers were 24th out of 30 teams in points allowed this year. And did you ever watch a playoff series and say, wow, Kobe really took 'blank' out of that series? Did Kobe shut down Nash? Did Kobe even GUARD Nash? Mostly Kobe guarded Raja Bell so that he could rest on defense and save his energy for offense. Not that he couldn't be a great defensive player. He just isn't, which makes the fact that he keeps getting voted onto the team all the more annoying.

The problem of course is that the game is so offense-oriented that it's hard to tell who the best defensive players are. And sometimes, the best defensive players aren't playing, because they aren't good enough on offense. Chauncey Billups was voted second team all defense this year (another lazy choice - the Pistons play good defense, ergo I'll vote for a Piston.) But Chauncey isn't their lock-down defender against opposing guards - that's Lindsey Hunter. So Chauncey obviously isn't as good a defender as Lindsey Hunter, but you can't vote for Lindsey because (a) he doesn't start and (b) you're just not that smart.

And then there are the steals. Last year Larry Hughes was first team all defense, pretty much solely because he led the league in steals. But Larry Hughes is a TERRIBLE defensive player. Anyone who has ever played basketball knows that the easiest way to get steals is to ignore your assignment and take risks in passing lanes. Is it possible to be a good defensive player and get steals? Sure it is. But to think that steals somehow equates directly to good defense is just naive and uninformed.

Unfortunately, there is no obvious way to fix this. It's grating when the writers vote for the wrong guys, but it's a lot harder to say who the right guys are. Defense is very difficult to measure, and beyond the handful of guys who have CORRECTLY gained reputations as lock down defenders (Bowen, Wallace, AK47, Artest and Prince), no one is going to generate enough attention to get the necessary votes. You can't just put the 5 top shot blockers on the list. Guys like James Posey, Andre Iguodala, Shane Battier and, yes, Quinton Ross are working in almost total obscurity at the national level (although Posey is getting plenty of exposure this year playing along side Wade and Shaq). So it won't be long before LeBron and DWade are fixtures on the all-defense team, because the writers simply won't be able to think of anyone else, and hey, I saw him make a couple of steals.

But not Carmelo Anthony. He's so bad on defense, even NBA beat writers can tell. And how he got to be third team all-NBA with his defense and rebounding... well, don't get me started.

Game 6 - Clippers 118, Suns 106

2006-05-18T23:10:00.000-07:00

This game serves to re-inforce the impression that the Clippers are simply the better team, and yet it also shows that the Suns can certainly win this series.

For the third game out of six, the Suns did not have a lead after half time. They did a little better than games 2 and 4, where they did not lead after the end of the first quarter. This time they held the lead at 34-33, 2:30 into the second quarter.

However, look no further than the stretch where the Suns took that final lead to understand why they may well win this series. In a game where the Clippers bigs shot a combined 38-52 (73%), they lost an 8 point lead in the last 2 minutes of the first quarter on an 11-2 run by Barbosa, with a little help from Vlade Radmanovic. On 2 possessions one minute apart, Barbosa forced the switch on the high pick-and-roll (Vlade now on Barbosa, QRoss on Thomas.) On the subsequent Thomas post-up, Vlade went to double-team, not wanting anything to do with Barbosa out top, and each time Barbosa drained the three on the kick out. And the question really is, why? Why would you double down off of Barbosa, and leave a 44% 3 point shooter alone behind the arc? I will take may chances with QRoss on Tim Thomas any day. Since when are we afraid of Tim Thomas' post up game against ANYBODY, let alone Ross? Just for good measure, Vlade fouled Barbosa on a fast break with less than a second in the half for a conventional 3 point play. 11 points in 4 possessions, a 9 point swing, and the Clippers only had 2 empty trips. If you make mistakes against this team, they will kill you.

The Clippers started the 3rd Quarter with a 12 point lead. In the quarter, they shot 67%. And they lost 5 points off their lead. Actually, they had built the lead to 16 with less than 2 minutes to go in the quarter, and the Suns closed the quarter on an 11-2 run (spooky!) 3 straight 3's around 2 of the 8 (!) Clipper turnovers in the quarter, and it's a ball game going into 4th quarter.

It is a testament to the total domination of the Clippers outside of these two bad quarter-ending stretches that the Suns were not really able to make it a game. Take away those 3 plus minutes of play, where LA was outscored 22-4, and LA wins by 30, which is really more how this game felt. But that's the problem. It feels like the Clippers win by 30 when they win by 12, and it feels like they win by 10 when they lose in double OT.

So now we go back to the desert, where the high today was 103, and game 7 should be quite heated as well. Steve Nash gets 3 days off to rest his legs, and I get 3 days off to pull what's left of my hair out waiting. Why is there no NBA playoff game AT ALL on Saturday? Why? Does that make sense?

The Suns were flat today. It's been stated before, and it sounds cliche but it's true: the Suns need to give maximum effort to be able to rebound with the Clippers. They won't be flat for a game 7 - no way. I have confidence that the Clippers can dominate inside as they have the entire series. But with the Suns playing with energy, hitting the glass and probably making shots, LA can't afford the lapses that fuel 11-2 runs, 8 turnover quarters or 19 turnover games for that matter. They have to play well for 12 minutes each quarter, because it won't be good enough to play well for 10.

Go Clippers! See you Monday.

Other Observations on Game 5

2006-05-17T14:06:00.000-07:00

Dunleavy got the matchup he had wanted when Nash was guarding Maggette at the beginning of each half. As it happens, the matchup killed the Clippers during course brief stints on the floor. As I said to Scooter, "On a scale of 1 to 10, in the category of NBA physique, Corey is a 10, and Nash is a 1. In the category of NBA intellect..." Well, you get the idea. No need to put it in writing and risk hurting someone's feelings. Nash stripped Corey once, forced him into shots that were tougher than he thought they were going to be, and basically baited him into several quick jump shots by playing off like a mile and daring him to shoot. This is the danger of trying to exploit an unusual matchup. It may work, but it also takes you out of your usual flow. Corey should be slashing from the weak side, getting the ball at the circle on the curl play, etc. Hunkering down in the low block while everyone stands and watches just because we want to abuse Nash is fun and all, but it's not really what we do.

While Kaman and Maggette were on the floor at the beginning of the second half, the Suns went on a 16-4 run in 4:44 (interestingly, the 4 Clipper points being 2 each for Maggette and Kaman.) I was surprised that Dunleavy left them out there after each of the two time outs he had taken, but finally he brought in Vlade and Ross, and the Clippers outscored the Suns 22-10 the rest of the quarter. The rest of the game he went with 6 guys (aside from 3.6 seconds here and there). Kaman was effective on the offensive glass early in the game, but he just gives away too much on defense. I've said it before - it's not his series. As for Corey, he's had some great games, but his wilder tendencies play directly into what the Suns want to do. He likes to take quick shots, and he is often lost on defensive rotations. Dunleavy seems to be trying to gauge which Corey shows up, and give him minutes accordingly. That's a tough balancing act.

Sam Cassell toook 13 threes in the game. I don't know about you, but that number just jumped out at me from the box score. He was 5-13, which is solid, and certainly his 4-8 on threes in the second half was a big part of the comeback. But 13 is a lot of threes for a guy whose regular season high was 7.

If nothing else, the Clippers should have a lot of confidence that they can come back on these guys. Down 19 on the road in the playoffs against a fired up Suns team... well, you just have to say it was quite a comeback for such a young team.

Cuttino Mobley was AWFUL. Just awful. 5-17 overall, some really crucial misses, and at least 5 absolute bunnies. To make matters worse, on 2 of his 5 makes, he was spotted up ON THE THREE POINT LINE! Nothing worse than a 23'6" 2 point basket. Get behind the damn line, Cuttino! No big deal, right. It's not like one more point here or there would have made a difference. Oh, wait.

Second Guessing Dunleavy

2006-05-17T12:11:00.000-07:00

Three losses, three decisions for the media to carp about.

Game 1 it was resting Elton Brand 100 seconds in the 4th.
Game 3 it was leaving Cassell on the bench for most of the 4th.
Game 5 it was putting Daniel Ewing into the game with 3.6 seconds left in OT and not using their foul to give.

Obviously second-guessing coaches is a grand tradition, and is probably the single biggest reason that there is such a thing as a 'blog' in the first place. But these are all non-events.

If you were watching game 1, you know that Elton was tired. The foul he committed on Diaw precipitating the substitution was basically Elton deciding that he needed to rest right then, rather than play defense. I have a problem with the fact that he put in Kaman, who proceeded to turn the ball over on an offensive foul, but Elton needed the rest.

If you were watching game 3, you know that the Clippers turned a 9 point deficit into a 3 point lead with Cassell on the bench. Did we want Dunleavy to put Cassell back in while the lead was 3? Well, that doesn't make much sense, as you're still at your high-water mark, and it seems reasonable to stay with the group that got you there. So, complaining that Cassell only played 35 seconds in the quarter is disingenuous in the extreme. Most of that time, the Clippers were killing the Suns, and with the benefit of hindsight, Cassell should have played, maybe 75 seconds. Big deal.

As for game 5, the decision to put Ewing (and McCarty) in the game ice cold after sitting since half time is certainly debatable, but it's pure Dunleavy. He obsesses over every matchup, and if he had enough time outs, he'd play offense-defense the entire game. If pushed, I might wonder why you put the 6'3" Ewing on the 6'5" Bell while QRoss (6'6") is on Barbosa (6'3"). It's not just that the extra length would have been nice in retrospect. Isn't Ross supposed to be the best defender? And wasn't Bell the ONLY Sun even remotely warm from 3 point land with Tim Thomas fouled out? As for the foul to give, Charles Barkley can yell and scream about it all he wants, but Ewing would have had to foul BEFORE the pass on that play in order to avoid a 3 shot foul and a possible 4 point play. Do the math. He did the catch and shoot in about a half a second - no referee in the world is going to call that a non-shooting foul. Ewing's mistake was letting Bell get separation and get behind the arc. From that point, he did what he could, and Bell made a tough shot.

The Basketball Gods

2006-05-17T10:58:00.000-07:00

One of the first independent observations I made as a young basketball fan was that teams rarely experience significant playoff success without first experiencing playoff failure. When the Sonics beat the Bullets to win the title in 1979, it really struck me that these same Sonics had lost the title to these same Bullets the year before. And when I say 'these same Sonics' and 'these same Bullets', I mean it. Basically it was Gus and Dennis Johnson, Sikma, 'Downtown' Fred Brown and Wally Walker versus Hayes and Unseld, Dandridge, Grevey and Kupchak. I suppose it's obvious to the point of banality, but it never seems to be enough to have the talent to win in the playoffs - you have to know how to win in the playoffs, and the only way to learn is by losing.

The pattern has repeated itself many times since - the 'Bad Boy' Pistons of the 80's couldn't get past the Celtics for years before breaking through. People forget that Jordan's Bulls lost to the Pistons several times before breaking through. And sometimes it never happens, as for Dominque's Hawks and of course the Cavs in the 90's.

Today's NBA is certainly different than it was in 1979. The stability of the rosters for the Sonics and the Bullets wouldn't happen in 2006. Similarly, you can have some playoff experience even if the team hasn't been there (i.e. Sam Cassell). But invariably you still have to lose (usually a lot), before you can win. Call it a sacrifice to the basketball gods.

I firmly believe that the Clippers are a better team than the Suns. Don't get me wrong... I love the Suns, but they are over-achieving. The strengths of the Clippers (size, depth, versatility) are dependable. They should be there every game. On the other hand, if the Suns come out flat or don't shoot well, they are in big trouble.

But I picked the Suns to win this series in 7 despite the fact that I think the Clippers are better, and right now it looks like I'm going to be painfully, reluctantly, ruefully correct. In 5 games so far, the Clippers have had 4th quarter or OT leads in all 5. In other words, the Clippers lost late leads in all three of their losses. Conversely, in the two Clipper wins, the Suns never led after the first quarter. (True they came back to within 1 in game 4, but they never got over the hump, unlike the Clippers comebacks in games 3 and 5.)

Look at the similarities between games 3 and 5. Game 3, 3 point Suns lead, 3 point something on the clock, Clippers get a good look for the hottest shooter on the team, miss the tying 3 pointer. Game 5, 3 point Clippers lead, 3 point something on the clock, Suns get a good look for the hottest shooter on the team, make the tying 3 pointer. Sometimes the tying shot goes in... sometimes it doesn't.

Usually these sorts of things even out. As unlikely as the Lakers' game 4 win was against the Suns, the Suns game 6 win made up for it. Two OT games in LA, Suns win one, Lakers win one. That seems fair. But not so for the Clippers. Seems like they have to dominate to win.

Certainly one can look at that and conclude that the Clippers still have a great chance in this series. They've been in every game, and so it's seems reasonable to think that they'll at least be in games 6 and 7. Maybe they'll even get those close wins that make up for the close losses. But, sadly I fear that a sacrifice is required to the basketball gods. If so, let's hope that they will reward us in the future.

On that note, a heartbreaking 7 game series loss is probably the best thing that can happen to this franchise, short of a ring. Sterling seems to be enjoying the attention, and if all of the evidence points to the team being really close to breaking through, he's that much more likely to sign Cassell and Vlade.

The Chess Game

2006-05-16T12:40:00.000-07:00

If you watched Game 4 from the beginning Sunday, you may have seen the 'Chess Game' lead-in that TNT put together. Now, the lead-ins on nationally televised sports are usually insufferable, as evidenced by ABC's choice of a Tom Petty song for their NBA playoff games. (Tom Petty? Really? Is that because of the urban, hip-hop flavah? I can't wait for the Sports Guy's column on this one.)

But the 'Chess' theme, while heavy on the cheese, was actually pretty insightful for this series, which is boiling down to identifying and exploiting the best match-ups on the floor. Now, you may say that every NBA game is about that, more or less. But this series has taken it to extremes. Let's face it - Detroit-Cleveland is about Detroit trying to stop LeBron, period, and I would argue that the other series all break down to similarly simplistic equations. But Phoenix-LA is much more complex. For instance, the Clippers would just as soon post up thier guards as their bigs.

On the Suns' side, this is mostly about 'shortening' the bench during the playoffs as described by Doug Collins. As the stakes get higher, coaches stick with their horses for more and more minutes. There's no point saving their legs if the season could end in a game or two. So James Jones is coming off the bench and Tim Thomas is starting, and yes, the Suns get bigger and a (they hope) better on the boards. But this is really just a natural progression that started toward the end of the regular season and continued into the playoffs. D'Antoni wants his best players out there, and while Thomas and Jones each averaged about 23 mpg during the season, Thomas' minutes have been increasing, and Jones' have been decreasing, continuing into the playoffs. Thomas is up to almost 29 mpg against the Clippers, and that is with foul trouble limiting his minutes in games 1 and 2. Jones is down to 16 minutes per against the Clippers, and one gets the impression he wouldn't be getting that many minutes if Marion and Thomas weren't picking up first half fouls.

Meanwhile, Eddie House, who averaged 17.5 mpg during the season and 9 against the Lakers, is down to 13 minutes TOTAL in the four second round games, with most of those minutes coming in garbage time of game 2. Once D'Antoni realized he had a series on his hands, he stopped putting House in the game, giving those minutes to Nash and Barbosa. You'd do the same.

So the Suns are down to a 6 man rotation, with 7th man James Jones getting some spot minutes due to foul trouble.

The Clippers have the luxury of a deep team, though it got more shallow with Kaman's injury. The way I look at it, the Clippers have 7 guys capable of starting for most teams in the league (Kaman, Brand, Maggette, Mobley, Cassell, Livingston and Radmanovich) and an 8th guy who is their defensive stopper (Ross). It doesn't matter whether you start Ross or not - that's a philosophical question. But he's going to play about 20 minutes (partly because of his back, partly because of his lack of offensive game.) And as Dunleavy has pointed out, it is an exceptionally flexible team, capable of going big or going small, going offense or going defense, going low post or going perimeter, etc. (This is not even including Rebraca who will be a key component if the Clippers advance.)

So the moves the Clippers have made have been more strategic, less out of necessity. For instance, within the course of 4 games, the Clippers have changed their philosophy regarding Steve Nash, which you would have thought would have been pretty well-established, given that he's the MVP and all. Nonetheless, in mid-stream, they've decided it's better to work him hard on both ends of the floor than to play their best defender on him. QRoss can make Nash work hard on offense - but Nash wasn't forced to guard Q on defense in game 3, allowing him to recuperate some, and removing one of LA's best offensive sets, the post up against whoever Nash is guarding.

In games 1 and 2, D'Antoni started Jones, matching up Jones on Ross and Nash on Cassell. Jones was the designated double-teamer on defense, but with Cassell backing down Nash, and Brand and Kaman abusing Marion and Diaw, there were too many double-teams to handle. The Clippers shot 61% and 54% in the two games.

In game 3, with Thomas in the starting lineup and Nash guarding Ross, the Suns were much better suited to handle the Clippers. Basically, Marion and Bell were left to check Cassell and Mobley one-on-one, and neither made them pay with their sub-par offensive performances. Only Brand and Kaman forced double-teams. Kaman is still growing as a player, and the single most important thing he needs to work on is working against the double team. Currently, he has a tendency to panic, resulting in a bad pass, or a 'happy-feet' travel, or a charge when he tries to go quick, etc. The rest of the league is watching, and Kaman is going to see a steady stream of doubles until he learns what to do. (Time to dust off a John Wooden chestnut: be quick, but don't hurry; take that Walton!) So the matchups in game 3 left Nash free to double either Brand or Kaman, with the Kaman double being advantage Suns. Not nearly as good as the odds were in games 1 and 2.

By inserting Maggette into the starting lineup for Ross, it forced Phoenix to totally re-think the matchups as well as their double teams. D'Antoni came up with the creative (and pretty effective) idea of putting the 6'3" Nash on the 6'10" Radmanovich, Radmanovich being the least comfortable of the Clippers starters with his back to the basket. (Of course, this would not have been an option had it not been for the injury to Kaman.) Even so, it made the double teaming strategy a much bigger gamble. If Nash is the double-teamer, someone has got to rotate to Vlade or it's three points. The Suns were forced to stay home more often, and Brand went back to abusing Tim Thomas and everyone else in purple.

As for Ross, Dunleavy has realized that it's against Barbosa more than Nash where Ross is vital. With Barbosa and Nash on the floor, Dunleavy MUST have 2 of his better perimeter defenders on the floor (that means Mobley, Livingston and Ross, choose two). Mobley can actually do a respectable job on Nash, and guarding Nash is really more about the team than about the individual anyway. Nash isn't lightning quick - he's quick enough, and incredibly smart. But Mobley can get beat, and still recover to Nash with his length, while his experience helps him cut off Nash's passing lanes. Incidentally, this is why Livingston actually does a better job than any other Clipper on Nash. He is quicker than Mobley, longer than Ross, AND has the same 'pass first' gene as Nash. When Barbosa enters, Mobley is in trouble; Barbosa is just too quick, which is where Ross comes in. (Cassell will always be matched up on Bell, and he should be able to do a good job of forcing him off the 3 point line, making him put the ball on the floor where he is not as good, game 4 notwithstanding.)

If Ross is only in the game when Barbosa and Nash are in together, it still guarantees the Clippers a diabolically one-sided guard match-up on offense, as neither can guard Cassell or Mobley or Livingston. And the beauty part about posting up guards is that when the double comes, they are less likely to turn the ball over, and more likely to be able to make the pass to the open man. Livingston in particular is devasting in the low post. He's 6'8" and the best passer at the age of 20 in the history of the world. I can see the Livingston post up being a staple in Staples for years to come.

It will be interesting to see what Dunleavy does if and when Kaman can play. I for one would certainly not be in a hurry to get him back out there. Kaman will be crucial in a Western Finals matchup with either Dallas or San Antonio. But against the Suns, he's the odd man out (and I do mean odd). Although he can certainly force the double team, as I've mentioned, he invariably makes the wrong decision when the double comes. (He'll get better, I know, but the playoffs is no time for on-the-job training.) And on defense, he is a liability, forced to guard either Tim Thomas at the three point line, or the quickness of Marion or Diaw. He's been in significant foul trouble in 2 of the 3 games he's played, and he's committed 10 turnovers in 87 minutes. I know he got 16 rebounds in game 2, but Corey Maggette averaged 14.5 rebounds in the LA games, and Sam Cassell got 11 boards in game 4. I'm saying, we don't need Kaman to KILL them on the glass. EB remains the only legitimate big on the floor, and the remaining Clippers are all bigger than their Suns counterparts. (Everyone knows that Shawn Marion is undersized for a power forward, but I don't think people really get it. He is listed at 6'7", 228. Maggette is 6'6", 225. Kobe is 6'6" 220. Marion is a shooting guard, playing power forward.)

And if Radmanovich hasn't been working on his post-up game against little white guys, someone needs to lose their job.

Clippers 114, Suns 107

2006-05-15T12:36:00.000-07:00

Wow, is it ever nice to win a close game against these guys!

Of course, for awhile there it looked like it wasn't going to be that close. When Cassell made the corner trey with 5:54 left, I said it was over. (So did Kenny and Charles apparently.) In fact, the boy looked up and said, "Does this mean the Suns will bring in the guy with the funny name and the tall socks?" Unfortunately, no, there was no Tsklkdasj;ldakfj sighting in this game.

The 12-0 run was a strange one. The Clippers didn't play badly, and the Suns didn't play that great. Over the next 5 minutes, the Clippers had 7 empty trips during which time they went 0-7 with 1 turnover and 1 offensive rebound. Of the 7 misses, all of them were very makeable shots, with Tim Thomas' weak side block of Cassell's layup qualifying as the only real defensive stop of the sequence. The Suns did a good job on the defensive glass during the stretch, but you could hardly say they were 'stopping' the Clippers.

Meanwhile, on the other end, the Suns were scoring on 6 out of 8 possessions, but they were only 2-4 shooting in the half court game. The turnover and the blocked shot both resulted in easy fast break points, Barbosa made some nice moves, and there were more of those pesky 4th quarter fouls (why can't Shaun Livingston get any love from the officials?)

But you have to give the Clippers credit. They dug deep and forced a crucial turnover when the lead was down to 3, and when the Suns had finally gotten to within one, after 7 straight misses, Elton and Sam made the shots that really counted, slamming the door shut.

The 4th quarter foul trend continued. In a game in which more fouls were called on the Suns than the Clippers, and there were 19 fouls TOTAL called on the Clippers, the first 7 fouls of the 4th quarter were all against LA, and the count was 8-1 going into the final minute when Phoenix started fouling to stop the clock. I don't get it, I really don't. At the very least, it's a statistical anomaly bordering on the paranormal. Who ya gonna call?

So, now it's a 3 game series, with 2 games in Phoenix. But of course, there has not proven to be any home court advantage for these teams, either in the regular season, or in the playoffs. So forget HCA. Who do you like? Who do you think is the better team?

Dad said he assumed the Suns were the better team since they finished with 7 more wins in the regular season. But don't forget two things about that:

As I've pointed out, the Suns regular season win total is inflated due to the unique style of basketball they play - teams can't gear up for the Suns in the regular season they way they do in the playoffs.
The Clippers are a better team now than the one that won 47 games. They are all healthy, Shaun Livingston is better, and Vlade Radmanovich was an important missing piece for much of the season.

I think the Clippers are the better team. I think they've proven that by outplaying the Suns for the bulk of this series. BUT... despite outplaying the Suns, the series is tied at 2-2, and I still would not bet against Steve Nash. I fear it will be the Suns in 7, as I said at the beginning.

Clippers Sun Game 3

2006-05-15T11:01:00.000-07:00

Timmy T called Monday morning to ask where the ClipperNation has been this weekend. Mom and Dad also called. They are travelling, and sorely in need of a Clippers update. Why no posts all weekend?

I was just too depressed after Game 3.

Of course there were other things like coaching the boy's baseball team (another depressing loss there, btw) Mother's Day lunch, and cleaning the house... but mostly there was depression. Deep, dark depression.

And then there was the fact that everything I've ever said about this series turned out to be WRONG in Game 3.

If the Suns shoot well, they win. If they shoot poorly, they lose. That's been my mantra, and it held true for 9 playoff games. Oh, and the Clippers will always kill the Suns on the boards. That's a good one. None of this turned out to be true for Game 3.

Of course, the opposing team still needs to score more than the Suns, even if they are shooting poorly. That's where the Clippers screwed me (well, it was really more my theory that got screwed.)

The Clippers are blessed with 7 terrific offensive players (really 8, but Rebraca doesn't count in this series as the speed is almost too much for Kaman, let alone big Z - it's too bad, because I got a kick out of listening to Kevin Harlan pronounce Z's name in the Denver series.) Of the 8 guys in the rotation, only QRoss is not a 'go to' scorer. In Game 3, Vlade Rady is the ONLY offensive-minded Clipper who played well. Brand had a terrific first quarter, and his final numbers look OK, but for the final 3 quarters even EB was dreadful.

Cassell - 6 points on 10 shots, 2 turnovers;
Mobley - 14 points on 14 shots, 4 turnovers;
Kaman - 11 points on 11 shots, 2 turnovers;
Livingston - 3 points on 5 shots, 2 turnovers;
Maggette - 7 points on 10 shots, 3 turnovers;
Brand - 20 points on 17 shots, 1 turnover, 3 for 11 after the first.

As a rule, if shots plus turnovers is greater than points, you're not really helping the cause.

To be sure, some of these guys contributed significantly in other aspects of the game. EB had 8 assists, 9 rebounds and 5 blocks - all in all, a massive fantasy basketball line. Maggette had a game high 14 rebounds and 5 assists in 28 minutes. But other than Vlade, no one could make a shot.

The Clippers scored 15 points in the 3rd quarter. Vlade scored 14 points in the 4th quarter in 3:40. Now, the Suns can play with relatively more or less energy on defense, and in game 3 they were energized, but they will never be mistaken for a good defensive team. With Barbosa and Nash on the floor (their best lineup), they give away size at every position. The Suns weren't suddenly playing great defense. They were doubling Brand quickly (hence the 8 assists and poor shooting), and the rest of the Clippers were missing shots.

The fact that the Clippers didn't deserve to win this game somehow makes the officiating in the fourth quarter a little easier to take. On their way to a 6 point lead with 49 seconds left, the Suns had a 9-1 advantage at the line, based on 10 Clipper fouls versus 2 Suns fouls. (This is a distrubing 4th quarter trend that has been repeated in Games 1 and 4 as well - in short, every game that was still a game.) The Clippers first 4 fouls of the period came in less than 3½ minutes, and 3 of those were non-shooting fouls committed about 30 feet from the basket. Now, there are good fouls and there are bad fouls. Loose ball foul working hard to get a rebound - good foul. Aggressive foul trying to block a shot against a player with good low post position - good foul (assuming it's hard enough to ensure no 'and-one'). Fouls 30 feet from the basket against a guy harmlessly dribbling that put the best FT shooting team in the bonus for the last 8 minutes of the quarter? Not so good.

Now I'm not much for the conspiracy theories. But in a game where 26 fouls were called on the Clippers TOTAL, why were 10 of them called in the 4th quarter? When the Clippers' bigs show on the high S/R, why is every touch now a foul when it wasn't earlier in the game? When Kaman was called for his 5th against Nash, I screamed some sort of expletive, and the widow asked if I thought Nash was acting. I said, "Nash weighs 190 and Kaman weighs 270 - if they bump into each other, Nash loses - but it doesn't mean it's a foul." Are the Clippers actually committing more fouls in the 4th, because they are playing more aggressively? Maybe. But what happened to the famous 'Playoff Basketball' I've heard so much about? How will Reggie Miller survive if he can't say 'You're not going to get that call in the 4th Quarter of a playoff game?'

Having said all that, 2 calls in the 4th quarter probably sealed the Clippers' fate. With a 1 point lead (courtesy of Vlade's 4th trey seconds before) and 7½ minutes left, Vlade secures the defensive rebound and throws a beautiful look ahead pass to Maggette, who scores as Marion falls back in the lane. The whistle blows, and everyone in the building thinks it's an and-one. I mean everyone - Tirico on ESPN, Ralph and Mike on Prime - they've all counted it. Announcers aren't dumb - they watch a lot of basketball, and they don't like to be wrong. If they are unsure of a call at all, they watch the ref to see what he is calling before they say anything. But they all had this as a block - and the replays showed they were right. For one thing, Marion was moving into Maggette after he had started up. For another, Corey slid to Marion's right, avoiding the chest-to-chest contact that is usually required for a charge to be called. At best, it's a no-call; no way it's a charge. Undoubtedly the reputations of both Maggette and Marion preceded them in this case, but at any rate, the lead stays at one when it should have gone to 4, and some of the air is let out of Staples Center.

Four minutes later, the lead has bounced between 3 and 1 with the Clippers making buckets and the Suns making free throws. Finally, Marion breaks through with a trey to tie the score, but Livingston earns the Clippers first trip to the line in the quarter with 2½ minutes left. He makes the first, and misses the second, and they call a foul on Livingston on the rebound. Not only was there no foul (watched it on the TiVo about a million times, no foul folks), the ref who called it had no chance to see ANYTHING. Nash's body and several other players were between him and the ball. The MVP gets the phantom call, goes to the line and sinks two, the Suns re-take the lead and never trail again.

Like I said, the Clippers didn't really deserve to win this one. If Radmanovich doesn't go nutty-koo-koo, they're not even close. If Livingston doesn't miss the free throw, the Clippers have a two point lead and there's no loose ball foul. They just didn't play well enough to win. But neither did the Suns. And that is beginning to disturb me. In game 1, the Clippers shot 61%, their highest shooting percentage this season, and lost. In game 3, the Suns shot 37% and won for the first time shooting under 40% this season. That's 2 games with a glaring stat that basically screams 'Clipper W' that both ended in L's. That hurts. Hurts bad.

One last thought on Game 3. The whole question of second guessing Dunleavy about holding Cassell out of the game is funny to me. The Clippers started the quarter behind by 9 points. With Cassell on the bench, the Clippers turned a 9 point deficit into a 3 point lead, and STILL had that 3 point lead with 3 minutes left. With 2:30 left, they ran a perfect play and got a wide open shot for the hottest shooter in the universe, and he dropped the pass out of bounds. Would Vlade have caught that pass if Cassell had thrown it to him? At most, I mean AT MOST, you could argue that Dunleavy could have brought Cassell back one possession earlier than he did (i.e. 45 seconds earlier.) Would that extra 45 seconds have made the difference? C'mon! It wasn't Sam's night, and the Clippers were plus 12 with the group on the floor. Of course you have to stick with that group, at least until you lose the lead. That's essentially what Dunleavy did, and I don't know how anyone who was paying attention can say it wasn't the right thing.

Shooting Stars (because the Sun is also a Star)

2006-05-12T13:48:00.000-07:00

So, I've gone on at length about how this series is all about how the Suns shoot, and that the defense is not going to have a huge impact on that. As it happens, Nash tends to agree with me. He didn't think the Clippers did anything differently in game 2 - he thought the Suns missed shots.

It would also seem that the first quarter has a HUGE impact in games involving the Suns. In 6 games between the Clippers and Suns this year, the team that has won the first quarter has won each of the 6 games. Not only that, the margin in the first quarter has determined the rest of the game. In three games featuring big first quarter leads, the game has never been in doubt.

It's a cliche, but it also happens to be true. The Suns feed off of their shooting. They are an offense first team. Their offense gets their defense going. Their offense gets their rebounding going. If they're not making shots, they look like a totally different team out there.

In the first quarter of game 2, the Suns missed a LOT of shots. This had nothing to do with good Clipper defense. They just missed shots. Shawn Marion absolutely KILLED them. He scored on the alley-oop on the first possession, and then proceeded to miss 4 straight, including a lay up and some of the worst looking jump shots you've ever seen. Raja Bell started the game 0-5, including wide open looks on blown coverages. The cold start was the cold shower on the Suns prom night - they just couldn't get up for the rest of the game, if you catch my drift.

But I crunched a few numbers to back up my point. If you apply the Suns' shooting percentages from game 1 to their shots from game 2, guess what happens? Instead of 9 three point makes, they have 11 (plus 6 points); instead of 27 two point makes, they have 32 (plus 10 points); and instead of 16 free throw makes, they have 22 (plus 6 points.) That's 22 points - they lost by 23, and they were down 19 when they gave up with 6 minutes to go.

So, even with the Clippers complete domination on the glass, if the Suns had shot as well in game 2 as they did in game 1, it's a close game with 6 minutes to go (which of course is exactly what we had in game 1.)

Of course, there' s big gap between 54.7% (Suns game 1) and 45.6% (Suns game 2), so the real question is going to be, who wins when the Suns shoot 49% or 50%? But for some reason, the Suns tend to be feast or famine, at least against the Clippers. They have shot around 55% in all of their wins against the Clippers this season (55% in the first half in the game in January, though not in the game.) Can they shoot 55% in three of the next 5 games? I hope not.

Mike D'Antoni

2006-05-12T13:29:00.000-07:00

I think the guy is good. Really good. An offensive genius. He's the only guy in the league willing to simply put his 5 best guys on the floor and say, "Let's play ball." Why wouldn't Washington just start Antonio Daniels instead of Brendan Haywood? Haywood is a stiff and everyone knows it. Coaches feel like they are locked into starting guys that fit into the traditional roles of guard, forward and center, despite the fact that Phoenix has won 62 and 54 games the last two seasons basically ignoring those roles. I don't get it.

But in addition to being a really good coach, you just have to love this guy's common sense answers in dealing with the media. A couple of great examples jumped out at me from today's LA Times:

"We've had two [playoff] wins with the exact same stats [for rebounding]. I can almost bet you right now we're going to get out-rebounded next game…. You know why? Because we're small. And it's not going to change."
"If we're better than the Clippers are, then [we'll win] in the third and fourth game. If not, then they get to go on to the next round because they're better than us."

Is he stating the obvious? Sure. But reporters ask obvious questions all the time, and coaches try to dress up their answers. I much prefer this approach. State the obvious, do it clearly, and don't make excuses.

Maggette Rumors

2006-05-12T12:23:00.000-07:00

Jim Gray reported during Game 2 of the Clippers-Nuggets series that it was basically a foregone conclusion that Corey would not be a Clipper next season. Yesterday on KSPN 710 Gary Miller and D'Marco Farr said the same thing.

Obviously I haven't spoken to Corey or Elgin or Dunleavy (though I did discuss this with my 10 year old son), but I just don't see it. It doesn't make any sense. I say Corey will be a Clipper next year, and he will either be a starter, or a serious candidate for Sixth Man of the Year (providing he stays healthy of course).

I understand that Corey prefers to start - everyone does. Look, the guy averaged 22 ppg last season, led the Clippers and was 13th in the NBA. People forget that. Obviously, when you're the 13th leading scorer in the league, you think of yourself as a starter. And I'm sure he was a little tweaked when they tried to trade him for Artest. No one likes getting shopped. (But seriously, how tweaked can you be about being offered for an all star? It's a business, and Artest is no picnic, but as a player he is a top ten talent.)

But I have seen no evidence of irreconcilable differences. Aside from one "I ain't no sixth man, man" quote way back in November, Corey has said and done all the right things when coming off the bench this season. When a couple of "Maggette is not happy" stories were written during the first round (based completely on innuendo and assumption), he went out of his way to say it wasn't true, and that he was happy to be winning playoff games and would do what the team asked him to do. Maybe he was lying, but the point it, it's the right lie to tell at that time, and no one is burning any bridges.

As for Dunleavy, he's never said anything disparaging about Corey. People read into the "For us it all starts with Defense" quotes, and obviously he loves QRoss, but that's just who he is, and you have to take him at his word. And it doesn't hurt that he's right - they became a playoff team when their defense got better. It's worth noting also that a couple seasons ago Corey was considered the Clippers best 'on-ball' defender. Corey gets lazy at times on defense, and he gets lost on his rotations, which makes Dunleavy crazy. But all of his career, Corey Maggette has tried to improve on the weak spots in his game, and I have no doubt that he will do the same in this case.

Even the 'benching' talk has been blown out of proportion. Corey played in 32 games during the regular season; he missed 50. He missed time in 3 large blocks due to 3 separate injuries. When you miss games, it takes a while to get up to 'game speed.' You can practice all you want, but until you've played in a few games, you won't have your jump shot. In November and December, Dunleavy brought him off the bench for his first 4 games back, then inserted him into the starting lineup (when Ross' back was hurting) for the next 9. In 18 games in March and early April, Corey started 4 of them, but remember that this was the first time the Dunleavy had Maggette, Radmanovich and Ross at the same time, so he was clearly trying to figure out the best way to distribute PT with his new personnel. Should Corey have been getting more minutes? Most Clippers fans would say yes, but overall, it was a nice problem to have.

As for the playoffs, Corey missed 2 weeks in April with a bad back, and came back in the final game of the season (a meaningless game, but useful as a tuneup for Corey). So game 2 against the Suns was only Corey's 8th game back from his latest injury. If you're Dunleavy, and your team has played well in 6 out of 7 playoff games, what are you going to do? You stick with something that is working, which means bringing Corey off the bench.

Until his dismal game 2 (in which the Clippers thankfully didn't need him), Corey was still the team's second leading scorer in the playoffs. (He dropped to third behind Cassell after game 2.) Second or third leading scorer on a team headed to the Western Conference finals, or leading scorer on a team sitting at home in May? Which would you rather be?

Finally, here's the real reason I certainly HOPE that Corey is a Clipper next year. Of the recent personnel decisions Baylor and Dunleavy have made (and Sterling has approved), re-signing Corey was the most shrewd. Re-signing Elton was a no-brainer - he's a maximum contract player, they signed him to a maximum contract deal. (They should never have risked the hurt feelings of a Miami offer sheet on that one, but it was a no-brainer to match it.) Corey was a little tougher call, and we have Utah's offer sheet to thank for establishing a price. But with 3 more seasons at a little more than $8M per, Corey Maggette is a bargain.

Even if they did trade him, what would the Clippers want in return? With Radmanovich, they've addressed the long range shooting shortage. They have plenty of size, and depth at every position. The one thing they lacked much of this season is an athletic wing who can run the floor, slash to the basket and get to the free throw line. You know, a Corey Maggette-type. To trade Corey this off-season for a draft pick, simply to save money to put into Kaman and Livingston, would be a pre-playoffs Clipper mentality it seems to me. I say you keep this group together one more season to see how far they can go.

Obviously, Cassell and Radmanovich are free agents, and whereas Donald has opened up the wallet some, we can't be sure how far he's willing to go. But this off-season is NOT the time to get timid. Corey and Elton are signed for 3 more years, Mobley for 4. Cassell has said he wants to play 2 more seasons here and be the backup for Livingston, which is a perfect solution, so make it happen. Offer Radmanovich the mid-level (it's my understanding that his Bird-rights were not tradeable after he signed with Seattle for the qualifying offer last year, but I could be wrong on that) and either he takes it or he doesn't.

You bring essentially this group back into camp next year, you look for the growth that you expect from Livingston and Kaman, and the team just gets better from stability, experience and maturation. You give Corey every chance to earn the starting job if he wants it (but maybe you try to convince him that a Sixth Man of the Year award is not a bad thing to strive for.) FYI, if I were Dunleavy, it's not necessarily QRoss who would be sitting in favor of Corey. Maybe you bring Mobley off the bench. How cool would it be to bring Mobley and Cassell off the bench late in the 1st Quarter and watch them light it up? Anyway, Ross needs to start, if only because he's the only guy on the team who doesn't need to score. The Clippers have plenty of scoring options; it's nice having someone out there concentrating on defense from the opening tap.

If the team doesn't improve in 06-07, you look at your options in the summer of 2007 when it's time to re-sign Kaman. But right now you've got a good thing going, and there's no reason to mess it up.

Fast Break Points

2006-05-10T23:33:00.000-07:00

Like Kenny's Pictures or Steve Wonders, Fast Break Points are the points that I will make quickly after the game, before going to bed. (Get it? Fast Break Points? Pretty good, huh.)

Phoenix shoots 45.6%, Phoenix loses. Did the Clippers play better defense? Not that I noticed. Phoenix missed shots.
The Clippers were however MONSTROUS on the boards. 57-26 overall, including 19 offensive rebounds (out of 41 misses.) Think about that. The Clippers were 49-90, over 54% in shooting. That's really good. Then, of the 41 shots they missed, they got 19 of the rebounds. WOW! (This number was actually even more in LA's favor prior to garbage time, if you can believe it.)
I will remind everyone that the Clippers outrebounded the Suns 24-3 on the offensive glass back on March 15, and lost by 29. Phoenix will always get outrebounded - it's a given. They just hope that there aren't too many opportunities on their end, because their shots are going in. That wasn't the case tonight.
To further illustrate my point that it is all about the Suns, in game 1 they shot 24-25 from the line, 96%. Game 2 - 16-23, under 70%. So the Clippers FT defense was much improved. FYI, that difference in FT shooting BY ITSELF would have been the difference in game 1. If the Suns had shot under 70% in game 1, it would have cost them 7 points, which was the final margin of victory.
How is it possible that Elton Brand actually played MORE minutes in a game the Clippers led by double digits the entire way than he played in a game where they were tied in the 4th?
I didn't really believe it at the time, but maybe there is something to what I was saying about the similarities between this series and the Spurs-Mavs series. In both cases, the home team, on one day of rest, playing a very well-rested opponent, dug deep and won game 1. Then, in game 2, with the motivation of game 1 gone and the fatigue perhaps catching up, they got blown out. Coincidence? Almost certainly.
Kevin Harlan is literally the first announcer this playoff season I've heard misuse the word literally (but he will not be the last). In the second half, Harlan said that in game 1 Elton Brand had 'literally carried the Clippers on his back,' which I must have missed.
And what the hey-ell was going on with Tsk;dlkj;afja;l's shorts / socks combo? I know that the kids love the long shorts, and I'm down with the old school tall socks. But doesn't there need to be a knee? He literally had no knees. (OOOPS. Sorry. You literally could not see his knees. Based on the way his leg moved, I assume he did in fact literally have knees.) Surely the NBA will not slam a 'long shorts' fine on the 12th guy, playing in garbage time. But that was not a good look. Of course it's not the only thing that's ugly about Tskdasklasd;jf's game.

More tomorrow.

How Can We Beat the Suns?

2006-05-10T14:14:00.000-07:00

I've gone on record as saying that the Suns will win if they shoot well. My basic feeling is that they are too good offensively, and unless they simply go cold and miss shots, they will score more points. The team that scores more points has won 100% of the games in this year's playoffs.

But I realize that it's something of a helpless feeling to siimply hope that the Suns will go cold. And certainly the Clippers are going to try to tighten up their rotations, though I maintain that it's a pick your poison situation. (In the papers, Dunleavy is much more concerned with the layups than with the threes, so look for the Clippers to block a few more shots, contest the middle more... and look for the Suns to put up MORE than the 27 threes of game 1, and probably make more than 12.)

As a proactive strategy, what about this? Let's get key guys in foul trouble. It almost worked in game 1. Marion picked up 2 in the first quarter, and his 3rd in the second, but managed to play the entire second half while only picking up one more. Tim Thomas picked up 5 fouls in 15 minutes, but of the 7 guys that play for them, he's probably the 6th most important.

Can we post Cassell and/or Livingston early and get some fouls on Nash? He picked up two in one minute trying to guard Livingston in the 4th quarter of game 1, but he only had 3 in the game. Can we go at Diaw and get him into foul trouble?

When I was celebrating Marion's 3rd foul on Monday, the widow said to me 'But you don't want to win that way, just because their best players can't play. Where's the honor in that?' Well, honor schmonor. And besides, having the deeper team is plenty honorable, and an advantage the Clippers need to exploit. The fact that the Suns pretty much only have 7 guys is only a disadvantage if they are forced to play the 8th one.

Dallas a Good Omen?

2006-05-10T14:08:00.000-07:00

Probably just wishful thinking, but Dallas won game 2, and the similarities with the Clippers' situation are many.

They are the lower seeded team, playing on the road
They felt like they played well enough to win game 1
They played game 1 after a long layoff, while their opponent had a tougher time in round 1

Not that the Clippers looked rusty in game 1... but maybe the Suns were playing on adrenaline and will have a game 2 let down, as it appears was the case with the Spurs.

A Quick Question

2006-05-10T14:00:00.000-07:00

Has anyone ever seen a call like the one that went against Maggette at 6:43 of the 2nd Quarter? They called Maggette for a loose ball foul committed on James Jones, and then counted the tip in for Nash. So Nash got the two, and then Jones got a free throw. During the telecast, Collins kept talking about how it was a 'controlled tip', and that's why the basket counted and it wasn't a loose ball foul. Well, sure, if it was Nash who had been fouled. But how can the bucket be good if Maggette fouled Jones on the box out of the Marion miss? Seems like, by definition, that happened before Nash's tip. Amazingly, you can see the ref (McCutchen) wave off the basket originally, and then they got together and talked about it, and counted it. Bizarre. Collins and Harlan never seemed to notice that it was James Jones who shot the free throw.

Diamonds in the Rough, Part 2

2006-05-10T12:06:00.000-07:00

Let's try to get a little feedback going here. Who do you nominate as a 'Diamond in the Rough?' Someone in the league right now, who is not getting enough run, who has the potential to be a star. Extra credit will be awarded for guys who are special (not Chris Kaman, 'short bus' special... Boris Diaw, 'unique talent' special).

I have two nominees:

Shaun Livingston - OK, this one barely counts, because it is so obvious that everyone sees it. He was picked 4th in the draft, so he was never unappreciated, and his development is going well, despite his youth and set backs due to injuries. But talk about special. The Sports Guy recently said "we need to adjust his ceiling from 'Penny Hardaway in the mid-'90s' to 'Magic without the charisma.' Not saying he'll get there ... just saying that's the new ceiling." The Magic comparison is apropos in that Livingston sees the floor incredibly well. But Magic was a lot bigger than Livingston, while Livingston is a lot faster than Magic. There's never been a player with his combination of length, speed, handle and vision. Never.

Dan Dickau - My WCC bias must now be disclosed. I grew up watching Pepperdine basketball games. I saw Dennis Johnson jump center for the Waves. I saw Kurt Rambis at Santa Clara when he was a scorer. I saw John Stockton long before the Zags were any good. I saw a freshman from Canada with a really bad haircut named Steve Nash single-handedly beat my Waves in the WCC tournament. And the best player I ever saw in the WCC was Dan Dickau. Nash and Stockton were better passers, that much is true. But Dickau is the best shooter I've ever seen at the point, and every bit the leader those other guys were, at least at the college level. Dickau has had a rough ride in the NBA so far. He's on his 6th team in 4 years. He started out backing up Jason Terry in Atlanta, and then got traded to Portland where he backed up Damon Stoudamire. (These are not guys you want ahead of you on the depth chart if you're an undersized scoring point guard.) He was property of the Warriors entering the 04-05 season, when they had Speedy Claxton and Derek Fisher manning the point, and it looked like it could be a good situation for him. And the day before the season started the traded him to Dallas, where he played behind Nash. His big break came when the Mavs traded him to New Orleans, and he started 46 games for the Hornets and played well. But the Hornets drafted Chris Paul, and traded Dickau to the Celtics for a 2nd rounder. In what should have been a good situation, he never really broke through in the rotation, and then blew out his Achilles in December. Here's hoping he recovers fully and finally gets a chance to play.

Diamonds in the Rough

2006-05-10T11:18:00.000-07:00

By now, every one is very familiar with the story. The foreign-born Phoenix Sun award-winner who spent his first two years sitting on the bench in almost total obscurity before getting a chance to flourish under a coach who understood how best to use his talents.

I'm speaking of course about Steve Nash.

What's that? You thought I was referring to Boris Diaw? Well, sure, him too. But guess what? Boris Diaw started more games and played more minutes (a lot more in each case) than Steve Nash in their respective first two seasons. What's more, it was Nash's FIFTH season (his third in Dallas) before he was firmly entrenched as the starter (in his fourth season he split time at the point with Robert Pack, as difficult as that is to believe.)

It makes you wonder how many other guys out there could be superstars, if given the chance?

Nash's situation was certainly different than Diaw's in those early seasons. He was drafted by the Suns with the 15th pick, and played behind a guy named Sam Cassell AND Kevin Johnson (maybe my favorite player of all time.) Then Cassell was traded for Jason Kidd. So, no, there wasn't really a lot of room in the rotation for Nash.

Diaw on the other hand got a chance to play in Atlanta because the Hawks were so bad. So you really have to ask yourself, how did they not recognize that this guy was special? I mean, Mike Woodson had this guy for a year, and then just tossed him into the Joe Johnson trade as cap filler.

Under D'Antoni, Diaw won the Most Improved Player award and appears to be on his way to bigger and better things. And although it is strange to say this about a guy who was a two-time all star AND led the league in assists in Dallas, Nash was clearly under-utilized before arriving in Phoenix as well. I mean, the guys has won two straight MVPs (whether you think he deserved them or not, he clearly deserved to be part of the discussion.) Did anyone see that coming? When was the last time a guy who took five years to become an every day starter won the MVP? I'm gonna go with never. (Just a guess - didn't look it up.)

Nash and Diaw are different cases than a guy like Bobby Simmons (last year's MIP). Simmons is pretty much a classic small forward in the mold of about a thousand other guys, who just didn't crack the rotation in Washington or Detroit, and finally got a break with the Clippers. And Simmons worked hard both before and after that break, improving his jump shot, and playing solid defense. But $47M from the Bucks notwithstanding, I could go to the NBDL or the EuroLeagues and pick up a guy about like Bobby Simmons tomorrow. (No offense Bobby.) Would he be as good as Bobby Simmons? No. But he could give me some solid small forward minutes.

Nash and Diaw are SPECIAL. And as good as Joe Johnson is, aren't the Suns actually BETTER on offense now than they were last year (even without Amare)? (Defense is another story, but let's face it, the Suns aren't beating anybody with their defense.) The 2005 Suns were nasty when Nash was penetrating, kicking to Q and Joe Johnson, running pick and roll with Amare, etc. But I think the pick and roll with Diaw is even harder to defend. Because you have to play the pick right, and then you have to rotate perfectly, or Diaw will find the open shooter every time.

So now the question is, who will D'Antoni find this summer?

ClipperBlog Breaks Down the Treys

2006-05-09T14:19:00.000-07:00

Kevin over at ClipperBlog does a full breakdown of every Suns 3 point make in game 1, along with the defensive mistakes the Clippers made on each possession. (FYI, Kevin frequently refers to himself as an Ubergeek. Oh really?)

Well, not to be out-geeked, I'm going to break down the breakdown (or is it break the breakdown down?)

OK, I'm not going to go through all 12 possessions. But I am going to say that there's a difference between good defense and perfect defense. Dunleavy was quoted during the Denver series as saying that Ross was 'nearly perfect' in his defensive rotations. Well, this was intended as astronomically high praise. In other words, perfection is not a realistic expectation. Even if QRoss manages to be perfect, not even Dunleavy is expecting the other 4 guys to be.

First of all, if Steve Nash is going to pull up for a three in transition (instead of a PUJIT, isn't this a PU3IT?), more power to him. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, you can do about this. He's too good. If you try to close him out at the 3 point line in transition, he will go all the way to the basket. So you get a hand up when he pulls up, and if he makes it, he makes it, and you've got to live with that.

Also, Nash can get the switch on the S/R on pretty much every possession if he wants. Even if you successfully hedge once, or even twice, he'll keep his dribble alive, or he'll get the ball back, they'll run the S/R again and eventually you're going to have to switch (or give up a lay up). So when Nash pulled up over Radmanovich for the dagger with under 3 to play, there's pretty much nothing Vlade could do about it. Truthfully, it would seem that Vlade and Brand are both long enough to bother his jumper (as Brand did on a couple of other occasions.) But he can certainly get enough room to get the shot off, and if it goes in, there's nothing you can do (this is becoming a recurring theme - nothing you can do about it.)

So Nash can take the three in transition any time he wants, and he can get a switch and shoot over a big any time he wants. Is it a coincidence that he chose to take these threes when he did? Nash can do this any time he wants, but he picks his times. In game 1, it was his first make (and his team's first three) and the dagger (and his team's last three.) This guy doesn't just win games - he does it SYMMETRICALLY!

Two makes in the 2nd also fall into the 'nothing you can do about it' category. Diaw got an open look after an offensive rebound in the 2nd at 11:23. Now, when a shot goes up, the defenders are supposed to go get the rebound. If shooters drift to the 3 point line, and the offensive team gets the rebound for a kick out, there's nothing you can do about that (that's a rebounding problem, not a defense problem). The other thing I would say about that one is, Boris Diaw shot 26.7% from 3 point range on the season. He's pretty much the one guy on the Suns you can leave at the 3 point line. If he makes a 3 on a kick out after an offensive board, nothing you can do about it. Also, Tim Thomas (2nd 4:09) got a ball that Marion saved from going out of bounds and drained a three. NYCDAI.

On the other 7 makes, someone on the Clippers was running at the shooter on 6 of them. What more can you do? Let's not forget that the Suns also had 48 points in the paint (one of my favorite misleading statistics.) In this case, points in the paint obviously doesn't mean throwing the ball in to a post up player on the low block, but rather a drive to the basket. So that means the Suns were doing a fair amount of driving past the Clippers as they tried to close out jump shooters.

So, as I said in my earlier post, pick your poison. These guys are good. They can all score, and they can do it a variety of ways. If the Clippers have to play perfect defense in order to win.... well that's just not a realistic plan.

Is hoping that the Suns miss a better plan? Well, I'll agree that it's not much of a plan, but it's got a better chance of succeeding than the idea of playing perfect defense. Let's play good defense, and hope they miss a few more.

Pick Your Poison

2006-05-09T09:34:00.000-07:00

Here's the list of Phoenix Suns who shot under 50% from the field in Game 1: Shawn Marion and Eddie House (House played a total of 4 minutes).

Here's the list of Phoenix Suns who shot under 40% from 3 point range in Game 1: Shawn Marion. (Neither House nor James Jones attempted a 3, but I would not suggest you leave them alone out there.)

So from this we can conclude that we can allow Shawn Marion to shoot 3's. Other than that, you have to guard everyone, all the time, everywhere. That should be easy enough.

BTW, Marion was 10-10 from the FT line and scored 20 points on 13 FG attempts, so all in all, a very efficient offensive night. Every single Phoenix Suns player who was on the floor for more than 4 minutes had a GREAT night offensively. Not a good night. A great night. So who are you going to leave open?

Even when the Clippers played defense as well as they can play, the Suns scored. During the decisive stretch of the 4th, after Maggette had made two free throws to stem the tide, the Clippers had a solid defensive set. They played the pick-and-roll well, they rotated, they ran at shooters... and with 2 seconds on the shot clock, Raja made a driving, left-handed layup over Kaman and Brand. What's the book on Bell? Run at him, make him put it on the floor. Maggette ran at him, made him put it on the floor, forced him out of the middle, Kaman and Brand rotated to block the shot, and he still scored. That one hurt.

After reviewing the 4th on the TiVo, I have a few more observations. I pointed out in last night's post that the Suns scored 11 points on 5 possessions to take the 112-103 lead. Well, they also scored on the next 2 possessions, so it was actually 16 points on 7 possessions during which they were 4-4 on 2 pointers, 2-2 on 3 pointers and 2-2 on free throws (including the aforementioned Raja make.)

The two misses that broke the string of makes came while Sam was holding his face (and nursing some hurt feelings I think), forcing the rest of the Clippers to play 4 on 5. Barbosa missed 2 wide open 3's before the Clippers grabbed the rebound and called time out. That was their only stop during a 6 minute stretch. (Feel free to insert your own joke about Sam Cassell's defense here.)

I Hate it When I'm Right...

2006-05-08T22:29:00.000-07:00

Suns shoot 55%, Suns win.

Look, I watched the game, you watched the game.... The stretches where the Clippers outscored them, were they doing anything differently on defense? Not really. The Suns just missed shots during those stetches. Pretty much the same defense, pretty much the same looks. 54.7% overall, 44.4% on 3's, 96% from the line. WOW. If they shoot like that, how do you beat them?

The game was lost in two stretches tonight, the last 40 seconds of the 3rd, and 2.5 minutes in the 4th.

With 40 seconds to go in the 3rd, Maggette has a fast break dunk, but first he decides to take a couple extra steps (never mind that they pretty much never call that walk in the NBA - he did walk, and there was just no reason for it.) Nash makes a lay up on the 2-for-1. Final Clipper possession results in a Diaw steal on the entry pass from Livingston to Brand, followed by a Raja 3 pointer. 5-0 Suns from the point where the Clippers had a sure two and gave it away, turns a 3 point Clipper lead into a 2 point Suns lead.

Then, with the score tied at 101 in the 4th and a little over 8 minutes left, Maggette goes into the air for a 3, changes his mind, and again is called for travelling. (Incidentally, does anyone know what Dunleavy and the Clippers were arguing about on that call? Seemed like a text book walk to me.) The Suns score 11 points on their next 5 possessions (3 2 point field goals, 1 3 pointer and 2 FTs) while the Clippers rest Brand. 150 seconds later, the Suns had a 112-103 lead, and the Clippers never got within 6 the rest of the way. Amazingly, I didn't think the Clippers played that badly during the stretch. Kaman had a questionable offensive foul, and Ross and Livingston each missed wide open J's. That's it - but that's how good the Suns are offensively. You have a couple of empty trips, you look up and the game is over.

Obviously there's a lot to feel positive about in this game, but nothing really that we didn't already know. The Suns have no answer for Brand. Check. Steve Nash can't guard either Sam Cassell or Shawn Livingston. Check. Corey Maggette is a great offensive player. Check. On the negative side of the ledger: Cuttino and Vlad were basically invisible, and the Clippers committed some costly turnovers. And unfortunately, I think only the Suns can stop the Suns on offense.

Overall the Clippers shot 59.3%, and Brand was 18-22. Of course, you look at the 22 shots, and you pretty much say, 'huh, how did he manage to miss 4 times?' Sure, it's a game you want to win, when you shoot almost 60% on the road. But as I've said before, it's all about the Suns. If they shoot well, they will win. It's just that simple.

So in each of three wins against the Clippers (including the regular season), the Suns have shot 55% from the field. As a team, they shot a smidge under 49% for the year. Can they keep it up? Can the Clippers do anything to slow them down?

Why No Suns-Lakers Recap?

2006-05-08T14:12:00.000-07:00

If you're wondering why there were no posts here this weekend, especially considering the importance of Suns-Lakers game 7, well, Sunday was the widow's birhtday.

BTW, I'm just getting started with the Blog, and struggling a bit to find my voice. Should this be first person (I, me, etc.), or blog person (ClipperNation this and ClipperNation that)? And what's the best way to refer to others? Well, the one decision I've made is to refer to my wife as 'the widow' during basketball season, and 'my wife' during the off-season. We'll see how that goes.

So Sunday was the widow's birthday, and we went away for the weekend. My present to her was that I didn't watch any basketball all weekend. Of course, it hardly seems fair to refer to her as the widow in that case, but of course she never would have gotten this treatment if the Clippers were playing rather than waiting for the Suns-Lakers to finish.

As it happens, seems like I didn't miss much on the basketball side. And we had a lovely birthday weekend, thank you for asking.

Clippers-Suns Preview

2006-05-08T12:31:00.000-07:00

I have lots of theories about playing the Suns. Theories about how to beat them; theories as to why they are a regular season team, not a playoff team; theories about why guys go to Phoenix and automatically have career years. Only problem is, these theories are almost never right.

The LA sportswriters are all predicting a Clippers win, and I can follow their logic, and I hope they're right. But I find it interesting that they all point to the Clippers 'Most impressive road win of the season' when they beat the Suns 119-105 back on April 5. However, they mostly remain mute on the subject of the Clippers 'Most embarassing loss of this or any recent season' when they lost to the Suns 126-95 on National TV back on March 15 (in a game that was not as close as the final score would indicate - beware the Ides of March indeed).

Everyone correctly points out that if Lamar Odom and Kwame Brown (neither of whom ever having been mistaken for a great post up player) had their way with the Suns on the low block, then Elton Brand and Chris Kaman are going to destroy them. And that should be true. In fact, I remember a game where Kaman had 16 rebounds against the Suns, and the Clippers outrebounded the Suns 24-3 on the offensive glass. And that game was on March 15.

What's my point? Well, for one thing, statistics lie. The Clippers had 24 offensive rebounds, but of course the Clippers missed an astounding 67 shots (that's how many they missed, not how many they took.) The Suns on the other hand missed 40 shots. So when you consider that the Clippers had 21 more offensive rebounds on 27 more chances to get offensive rebounds, sure, that's pretty good offensive rebounding, but taken as a whole, it represents a big problem, not a big advantage.

But more importantly, I fear that this series is really in the Suns hands. If they make shots, they will win. If they don't, the Clippers will win. The season series is tied 2-2. In each of the two Clippers losses, the Suns shot 42%. In the Ides Massacre, the Suns shot 55%. In the Suns other win, they shot 47%, but guess what? They shot 55% in the first half, during which they built a 67-48 lead, and the game was essentially over.

Now, it's not like I was a math major in college (oh, wait, yes I was), but there's a BIG difference between 55% shooting and 42% shooting. Something like 13 percentage points, unless I miss my guess. As I've mentioned before, NBA analysts and beat writers always want to attribute shooting percentages to something the defense is doing, but sometimes teams are just 'on', and sometimes they are 'off'. Of course the defense can affect it some. But unless you just let them go through their lay up drill, I'm not sure you can affect it 13 percentage points.

Having said that, one of my theories concerning the Suns is that their regular season success is inflated because they are the ONLY team in the NBA that plays such a wide open style. For a regular season game, you have MAYBE one practice to prepare for the Suns. (More likely, you watch some film and go over some things in a shootaround, and don't even have a full practice.) In a seven game series, you can eat and breathe Suns and gear up for their style. This theory looked brilliant through 4 games of the Lakers-Suns series, where the Lakers were winning simply by playing the right style of basketball against the Suns (as if that wasn't the case while the Nash-led Suns had run off 7 straight against the Lakers in the regular season.) Then the Suns go and win game 5, 6 and 7, when my theory should have dictated that the Lakers would be completely acclimated and ready to win. Oh well, there's go that theory.

Of course, it may simply be that the Suns are just that much better than the Lakers, and that the superior talent prevailed in the end. And then again, it may just be about who was making shots. As I pointed out before, while Devean and Sasha were outshooting Barbosa and James Jones, the Lakers were winning. When we returned to normalcy, the Suns won.

One big thing working to the Clippers advantage is that Dunleavy is a very good 'game plan' coach. More than perhaps any coach in the league, Dunleavy will look at what his team needs to do differently against their opponent. (BTW, I'm not always convinced this is a good thing. He takes it to ridiculous extremes, even changing his starting lineup to matchup better. It seems to me that if you are changing what you do to matchup with your opponent, then you've already lost round one - do we not have the confidence in our best lineup to say, 'Hey, you matchup with me!'?) The Clippers will be ready for the Suns, that much is certain.

On the flip side of that, the Suns are EXACTLY the kind of team that has killed the Clippers this year. Teams that can spread the floor and make jump shots from distance have consistently beaten LA this year, because the switching, rotating defense the Clippers employ can keep you away from the rim, but it can't always make it out to the shooters. Being completely healthy at the wings (Ross, Maggette, Mobley and Livingston are all healthy at the same time for the first time this season) is going to help a lot, but the fact remains that the Clippers have suffered against drive and kick teams all year, and the Suns are the drivie-est kickie-est team around.

Do the Suns have an answer for Elton Brand? Certainly not. I found it funny the way the announcers were talking about Lamar Odom punishing Shawn Marion, as if Marion were just recently forced to play power forward. He's played power forward all season long, and in the west, Lamar Odom is a friggin' picnic compared to Brand and Duncan and Dirk and Garnett and Gasol.... Don't get me wrong; Lamar is a major talent and a tough matchup, but he's a significantly better matchup for Marion than half the guys in the Western Conference.

The Clippers will try to limit the Suns fast break points, and if the Denver series is any indication, they should be able to do so. And let's face it - getting back on defense is as basic as it gets. If you're (a) paying attention and (b) hustling, you should be able to get back on D. However, unlike Denver, Phoenix will shoot jump shots, and more specifically 3's, in transition. So it's not enough to get back and protect the basket. Against the Suns, you have got to find their shooters in transition, or they will kill you. In this regard, success in the Denver series has no bearing on the next round.

But every time I try to find a 'key' to this series (Kaman-Diaw is the key, rebounding is the key, transition defense is the key, QRoss' back is the key, turnovers are the key, etc.), I look back at the box scores from the season series and I find out that it simply isn't true (or hasn't been true to date at least.) Shooting is the one and only key, and I fear it is all in the Suns hands. They will win games in which they shoot a high percentage. If they shoot well in enough games, they'll win the series. It's as simple as that.

I'm saying Suns in 7. They shoot better than 50% in 4 games, including game 7.

Quinton Ross

2006-05-05T13:19:00.000-07:00

This is from an email I sent on February 24, 2006.... A couple of prescient things regarding the playoffs, but mostly I'm just trying to get some content out here. And certainly the wins and losses don't lie as regards QRoss's impact on the team.

Quinton Ross, a guy Mike Dunleavy saved from the Belgian pro league last year, appears to be the key to the Clippers season. He is easily the Clippers best on-ball defender, and draws the toughest defensive assignment on the floor from the 1 to the 3. This season he has guarded Steve Nash, Ray Allen and Tracy McGrady in Clipper victories.

The Clippers for the most part have been very consistent this season. They have beaten the teams they are supposed to beat, and they've struggled against teams like Detroit, San Antonio, Dallas and Phoenix (they have one win against Phoenix, and two close losses on the road against the Spurs and the Mavs.) They only have 8 'bad' losses all year (losses to teams with losing records.) Ross was hurt for 6 of those 8 losses.

Ross has suffered from back spasms off and on this season. He has missed the last 5 games, and the Clippers are on a five game losing streak. They are 2-8 in games in which both Ross and Corey Maggette have been hurt. The two wins, btw, were against Charlotte (worst record in the league) and Portland (worst record in the west). Basically, with both of those guys gone, they can't win.

I just read that he is going to be out for two more weeks, so don't be surprised if the Clippers keep losing. At this point, Maggette may be back before Ross is.

Interestingly, all of this may be a blessing in disguise. Before this losing streak, they were just a game back of the Suns, trying to win the Pacific Division and secure the 2nd seed in the playoffs. Only problem is, I don't think they were going to get there. Now, they're back down with Memphis, and a couple more losses will put Memphis in the 5 seed, with the Clippers at 6. If the Clippers are healthy for the playoffs (Ross and Maggette and Rebraca, oh my!), and luck into the 6th seed, they could actually have home court advantage against the Nuggets in the first round, and take some momentum into Phoenix in the second round.

Who do the Clippers REALLY Want in Round 2?

2006-05-05T09:43:00.001-07:00

OK... there are some obvious reasons that the Clippers would want the Lakers.

1) The Clippers get Home Court Advantage.
2) They get to sleep in the own beds for two weeks while Dallas and San Antonio are traipsing around Texas. (OK, Dallas to San Antonio isn't such a haul, but those guys are still sleeping in hotels, which is just not the same thing. How big a deal is this? I don't know, since it's never happened.)
3) They match up against the Lakers better, since teams that spread the floor and make threes have hurt the Clippers rotating defense this year.
4) It would be THE biggest series of the 2006 playoffs, putting the Clippers front and center on the national stage for the first time ever. The Clippers on ABC? Never thought I'd see the day.

BUT, having said all that, if you really think it through, the Clippers want the Suns. Here's why:

1) The Clippers NEVER REALLY have HCA in a game against the Lakers. When the Lakers are the home team, the crowd is about 95% Lakers fans. When the Clippers are the home team, it's about 55% Clippers fans, 45% Lakers fans. How did I arrive at these numbers? Well, believe it or not, they're just estimates. I know, shocking. BUT, I was at the Clippers home game against the Lakers on Jan. 7 when Kobe went for 50, 40 in the second half. In the first half, when Kobe touched the ball, he was booed. In the second half, as he started heating up, the chant of 'KOBE, KOBE, KOBE' was all you could hear. (It was actually pretty freaky; 19,000 people with a multiple personality disorder.) Remember, the Clippers don't have NEARLY as many season ticket holders as the Lakers, so Laker fans buy up all the extra tickets when the Lakers are playing. More importantly, admit it or not, many Clipper 'fans' are actually basketball fans who choose to pay half as much for Clippers tickets - and a lot of them are closet Laker fans. So, I actually think the Clippers would have LESS HCA against the Lakers than they would against the Suns. At least against the Suns, they'd have the crowd completely behind them for 3 games. (As I've pointed out in prior posts, there's certainly a financial incentive to have that extra home game, but I'll focus on the basketball issues here.)
2) OK, it would be nice to not have to travel for 2 weeks (making it a total of over 3 weeks when you figure in the early end to the Denver series.)
3) The way George, Vujacic and Cook are shooting the 3 right now, I'm not sure the match ups are that much better against the Lakers. Better... but not that much better.
4) Keep winning and we'll get plenty of national attention. I'm not sure we want that much more this soon. Kobe's used to it... Elton isn't.

I mean, you get HCA advantage because you have a better regular season record. And the team with the better record is the better team, right? And Phoenix had 9 more wins during the regular season than the Lakers. So you want the Lakers, right? Well, this Lakers team is NOT the team that was 26-26 at the All Star break and 34-34 on March 20. In fact, the Lakers and Suns have basically identical records since the All Star break. And just look at their series. It's not about wanting the 'weaker' team. It's a pick 'em.

Here's the real reason the Clippers want the Suns. All of the stuff above is well and good, and if you're just looking at those factors, you want the Lakers. The Battle of LA! What could be more fun?

This is the greatest season in Clippers history (sad but true). Best regular season in Clippers history; second best in Franchise history; first playoff series win in 30 years; first 7 game series win EVER; etc. There is one thing that can spoil this season... Exactly one:

A playoff loss to the Lakers is the only thing that can spoil the Clippers' season!

Think about it. What more do you want from this season? An NBA championship? That would be great, but I'm not holding my breath. Even if the Clippers get swept by the Suns in the second round, who cares? All of the accomplishments remain, and the team is young, talented, deep and (mostly) signed. You take everything that happened this year, you improve on it for next year, and go deeper into the playoffs. It's still a dream season, even with a Suns sweep. As for the rivalry, if the Lakers are sitting at home watching games on TV while the Clippers are still playing, that's PLENTY for me.

BUT... if the Clippers lose to the Lakers in the playoffs, it has the potential to spoil the whole season. The in-roads into the local sports scene, two consecutive years of being 'the best NBA team in LA', the swagger (to use the most over-used word in sports today)... all gone if the dreaded Lakers win when it REALLY counts.

Of course, the BEST scenario would be to face the Lakers and dominate them, which I certainly think is possible. And while we're on the subject, the really, really best scenario would be to win the NBA title and then win a couple more after that. But let's not get greedy. The risks are way too high with a Clippers-Lakers series, and there's just no downside to a Clippers-Suns series.

So here's hoping the Suns complete the comeback and win game 7 in Phoenix Saturday.

Suns 126, Lakers 118

2006-05-04T23:36:00.000-07:00

Well, that was a pretty good game....

I didn't start watching until almost 8:30. I had to go to a vasectomy class tonight. Apparently my wife does not want to have any more children. At least not with my DNA. Then, because the TiVo is set to record Earl and The Office starting at 9:00, I had to do some power watching in order to get through the first half so I could get to the other TV and watch the second half in real time. I must say, it was impressive. I went into TiVo Hyper Drive - one boodoop after made baskets and non-shooting fouls, two boodoops on free throws and of course three boodoops on time outs. Watched the first half, put the kids to bed, and sat down to watch the second half without missing a play. What did I do before TiVo?

Now, as you know, it is very rare that I am wrong, and rarer still that I admit it. But I was dead wrong about the Lakers-Suns series. I looked at that 7-0 record of the Nash Suns versus the Kobe (i.e no Shaq) Lakers, and said no way. I had the Suns winning this one easily, with maybe one game going to the Lakers based on some heroic Kobe effort. As it happens, the exact opposite is true - the Lakers lose when Kobe gives the heroic effort, as he did tonight.

Truth be told, I think a lot of what has happened in this series so far has to do with the Suns missing shots, plain and simple. Nash and Tim Thomas have been great, and Diaw is a revelation. But going into tonight's game, Shawn Marion was shooting 44% (compared to 52.5% during the season), and Barbosa, Jones and House are a combined 5-21 from Three. Of course, everyone will credit the Lakers defense, because to NBA analysts and writers, everything always has to happen for a reason. But you've watched the games. Those guys were missing open 3's. Same 3's they made all year, they were missing them. Did it happen for a reason? Maybe because none of them have any playoff experience, but not because of tremendous Laker defense.

Conversely, Devean George, Sasha Vujacic and Brian Cook were a combined 18-34 going into tonight's game. Now let that sink in a little. Barbosa, Jones and House, 5-21; George, Vujacic and Cook, 18-34. 13 more threes for those Laker reserves than for their Phoenix counterparts. That's a BIG part of why LA held a 3-1 lead in this series.

Barbosa came up big in game 6, and he had to with Bell out. (BTW, what is up with Kobe's elbows? Didn't Rip get fined $15K last week for catching Redd with what looked to me like a completely inadvertent 'bow? Kobe has caught guys in the face 3 times in two games and drew blood on the third one, and the only whistles have been to tell those pesky defenders to keep their mean old faces away from Kobe's tender young elbows.)

One interesting aspect of this game is that Kobe went for 50 without Bell guarding him, but don't read too much into that. Sure Kobe scored more - because he shot more. A lot more. Kobe was averaging fewer than 19 shots per game in this series before tonight - he hoisted 35. And while Barbosa certainly doesn't have the size to bother his shot or keep him from posting up, he need a good job of staying in front of him, and he usually got help on the post up, which would happen for Bell also. And I thought Marion did a very good job on Kobe also.

But how many times did you say to yourself, as the shot clock was winding down, and Kobe had the ball with two guys on him, with nowhere to go, and he's already pump faked three times, and you know he's got to shoot, and you say "there's no way that one's going in"... and then it went in. OK, I literally said that out loud three times... and I thought it about 4 more (I had to stop saying it cuz Laura was getting mad at me for talking so much.)

I don't know how exactly you can tell if someone has made a pact with the Devil, but I'm pretty sure that banking in not one but TWO three pointers in the same game is one of the signs. That and cloven hooves, but the Nikes hide those.

So back to Phoenix we go, and the Clippers get two more days off. What a contrast, btw, in terms of team depth. Of course the Suns were playing without Bell, not to mention Kurt Thomas (and I won't mention Amare, at least not without parentheses.) And the Lakers are without Mihm. But the Suns played basically 6 guys in this game, and Nash, Barbosa, Diaw and Marion logged 46, 47, 49 and 50 minutes respectively. (Marion would have played all 53 had he not gotten a third foul in the first half.) Meanwhile, the Lakers pretty much played 7 guys, and Kobe and Lamar played 52 and 51. On the other hand, the Clippers have 8 guys that are all good enough to start, to the point where Dunleavy goes to put Cassell back in the game because it's time, and Sam tells him to leave Livingston out there cuz he's playing so well.

Clippers-Nuggets, Game 5, May 1 2006

2006-05-04T15:11:00.000-07:00

Here's the email I sent after Clippers-Nuggets game 5...

Wow... That was fun.

Some really interesting things going on here. I guess the bad news is, the Nuggets were so bad in this series that it renders the Clippers win almost meaningless in the big picture. You can't really say if the Clippers are any good, since the Nuggets were so, so bad.

And what the hell is going on with George Karl? I mean, I know nothing was working, but Ruben Patterson gets 0 minutes and Reggie 'Reach Under' Evans gets 4 minutes? Is game 5 of the playoffs really the time to be experimenting with the rotation? Like I said, nothing was working, but c'mon. Did Karl give Evans his own little suspension. (BTW, I have NO IDEA how Artest gets suspended while Evans does not. I also saw that Rip got a bigger fine than Evans, for what seemed to be a completely inadvertent elbow to Redd. You can't grab a guy's junk. You can't do it. The NBA let him off way to easy.)

I need to go through all the stuff I've said about the Nuggets for the past couple years and put together a big 'I told you so' email. Man, I'm so smart. It's really weird how no NBA teams have hired me yet.

Carmelo is a punk. A very talented punk. And he needs some help on the offensive end of the floor. (Of course, he needs to play a little defense and rebound some also.)

The amazing thing is that Kiki signed Earl Watson in the off season (another point guard, when what he needed was a shooting guard) and then got rid of Watson, despite the fact that the Nuggets desperately needed shooters, and he was the leading 3 point shooter on the team at the time. And they never played Voshon, and just gave up on him, even though they whined all last year about losing him to injury.

And how about that 5 seed - 6 seed thing in the West? The Grizz get the 5 seed, and are the ONLY team swept in the playoffs, while the Clippers drop to 6 and advance on the same day. Guess resting some starters and losing some games was the right thing to do after all. I said it was the right thing to do at the time. I'm right again!

More on 'Melo...

2006-05-04T14:51:00.000-07:00

By the way, I'm beginning to think Carmelo Anthony is not so... um... what's the word? Calm? Serene? Laid back? Placid? Unexcitable? Unflappable? Oh well... you get the idea.

In his last 6 games against the Clippers (which is pretty much the only time I see him play), he has gotten 3 Technical Fouls. Now, that's a big number in and of itself, a number of which 'Sheed would be proud. But here's the thing... each and every one of them... all three... Came after he was fouled. Not when he wasn't fouled. The whistle blew, the ref gave him a call, and then he lost his cool and got a T. THREE TIMES! I mean, it happens, I've seen other guys get frustrated and give the ref some sort of 'It's about time' crap, but three times in 6 games is a bit excessive. Of course, only the one he got back on April 4 really mattered. The Nuggets were already dead games 4 and 5 of the playoffs when he picked up T's, but still.

Clippers-Nuggets, April 4, 2006

2006-05-04T14:49:00.000-07:00

Here's an email I sent after the Clippers beat the Nuggets in their last meeting of the regular season:

Just finished watching one of the more interesting NBA games I've seen in a while. Nuggets made their first 12 shots, and shot 82% overall in the first half. Marcus Camby was 9-9. And I'm not talking 9 follow dunks. He got two easy ones, but the other 7 were 18 feet or longer. And you know when you watch Camby, and you're like, hey, he's not that bad on that shot. HE MADE 7 IN A ROW! Next time you go to a Nuggets game, watch him in warm ups, with no one on him. I guarantee you he won't make 7 in a row.

So, whereas the Clippers were certainly not playing great defense in the first half, it felt a lot like Denver was just having one of those nights. In addition to the aforementioned Camby 9 for 9, Reggie Evans made his first THREE jumpers, including, I s*** you not, a bank shot from 17 feet straightaway. I'm watching in disbelief, thinking, I actually think Reggie Evans is going to shoot that ball, and then it banks in. After they changed out the broken backboard, play continued, and I was pretty sure it was not going to be the Clippers night. Halftime score - 77 - 57. The Nuggets scored 38 points in the first quarter, and followed that up with 39 in the second!

Second half, Dunleavy starts Livingston, Ross and Radmanovich over Cassell, Mobley and Maggette, and they turn it around. The details of the comeback are not important, but I must say that Quinton Ross is Bruce Bowen without the rep, and Shawn Livingston is CLEARLY going to be the Clippers best player, and maybe pretty soon.

The play of the game belongs to Carmelo Anthony, who remains not the most mature NBA player I've ever seen.

Melo was 7-9 for 20 points in the first half. Second half, Dunleavy puts Ross on him (great move, although one wonders why Ross got exactly ZERO minutes in the first half - if we credit Dunleavy for the second half decision, don't you have to blame him all the more for the first half omission?) Melo goes 1-8 with Ross pretty much surgically attached to his shooting hand. Melo is getting, shall we say, a little frustrated. By the way, the Clippers had tied the game at 97, and even took a 3 point lead at 105-102, and DerMarr Johnson (huh?) basically kept Denver in the game in the 4th quarter. He scored 8 of their final 12 points, and his 3 pointer tied it again at 105. Without Boykins, and with Carmelo under wraps (which I guess doesn't happen much), NOBODY WANTED TO OR COULD MAKE A BIG SHOT FOR DENVER. DerMarr Johnson? C'mon!

Anyway, back to Melo. About 1:20 left, Clippers have a two point lead, Carmelo takes it to the hole, gets fouled. Well, I have NO IDEA what he's thinking, but I guess he's pissed off about being fouled, and he punches the basketball about 25 rows into the crowd. T and ejection. Now remember, this is a 2 point game at the time, and he's supposed to be shooting free throws. Instead, Cassell sinks the T, and the Clippers pick Evans (a career 54% FT shooter) to shoot Carmelo's foul shots. He clangs both shots. Clippers hang on to win. A lot of times you say that such and such a play cost the game, or cost some points, or whatever. But with 70 seconds left, he had a chance to go to the line and tie the game, and instead he got tossed, and the Clippers took a 3 point lead, AND HE ACTUALLY GOT THE CALL! What was he thinking? And then the Nuggets had a possession to take the lead with 20 seconds to go. How many times has Carmelo made last second shots to win games this year? Oh that's right, he's in the locker room because he got mad when a call went his way. Amazing.

I'm telling you, the guy's obviously a major talent, but something is not right with him.

Down to Business....

2006-05-04T14:13:00.000-07:00

Let's talk Clippers, shall we?

Obviously, it's nice to have won the first round series so handily, but I'm not sure what it says, because let's face facts, that Nuggets are HORRIBLE. Third seed crap notwithstanding, they finished the regular season tied with Sacramento for the 7th best record in the West. By any reasonable measure they were clearly the worst Western Conference playoff team entering the playoffs (point differential +0.2, 4-8 in their last 12, losers of 4 straight) and their regular season record was inflated (as always) by the home court advantage of playing at elevation, an advantage that disappears in the playoffs where opponents have more time in the city and can become acclimated.

In addition to being the weakest playoff team in the West, the Nuggets were also the dream match up for the Clippers. Dunleavy's defensive schemes are all about double teaming players to take teams out of their normal sets, and then rotating to cover the open guy. The best way to hurt this style of defense is by spreading the floor and hitting jump shots on kick outs, something the Nuggets do worse than anyone in the league (and they were worse still in the playoffs.)

All of this is why I found all the 'tanking' talk so interesting back in mid April. For a while, when they were playing for 50 wins (which would have been a franchise record), that was fine. But when Denver lost to Sacto on April 15, assuring the Clippers of HCA against the Nuggets, they absolutely HAD to fall to 6. I mean, C'MON! Do you want to win in the playoffs or not? It's my understanding that each home game is worth about $1M to the team. Which means that game 5 at home is $1M more than Memphis made losing in 4 to Dallas. And the next 2 (or 3 or 4) home games in the next round are worth $1M more each also. They had a financial obligation to lose to Memphis in April. (I'm not sure why Memphis didn't see the urgency in this situation as well. It really helped the Clippers that they won the season series with Denver, so they could start tanking, I'm sorry resting starters, earlier than Memphis. Now Memphis owns the all-time playoff losing streak of 0-12, but at least they have their dignity.)

But it actually goes beyond the Denver matchup. The Clippers ended up in a bracket with Phoenix and the Lakers. Their season record against these teams was 3-1 (DEN), 2-2 (PHX) and 2-2 (LAL). Meanwhile on the other side, they were 1-3 (DAL), 1-2 (SAS), 1-3 (MEM) and 0-4 (SAC). Which bracket would you rather be in?

So, as I said, it was nice to beat the Nuggets, but the way they were playing, and after the Kenyon Martin thing (KMart Sucks!), it would have been a disaster had they not beaten them.

Now, with Raja out for game 6, it sure looks like we're going to get the 'Hallway Series' starting Saturday. And HCA in the Western Conference Semis! WOW!

But is a matchup with the Lakers the Clippers dream come true, or their worst nightmare? OK, I'll wait 8 hours until Game 6 of Suns-Lakers is over before I go there.

That was easy....

2006-05-04T14:01:00.000-07:00

What am I missing? I'm such a newbie. Who knew that you could Blog for free now? They're going to get me with lots of add on's for a fee, aren't they? The old razors and blades thing! And I fell for it.

Welcome!

2006-05-04T13:51:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the first posting of ClipperNation, my LA Clippers (and general NBA musings) Blog. Now, I know you're thinking that I'm jumping on the bandwagon now that the Clippers have actually won a playoff series. Not true. I have been a Clippers fan since about 1990 (OK, November 16, 1989 to be exact, the day they acquired Ron Harper for the rights to Danny Ferry.) More on my personal journey from die hard Laker fan to Clipper fan / Laker hater in another post.

So I'm not a Clipper-come-lately, but I am trying Blogging for the first time. Bear with me while I work through the bumps, but I'm hoping this will be a more efficient way to share my views than the random emails I send to buddies at all hours of the night. And now, those guys can decide to read the blog (or not) rather than feel obliged to read and respond to my emails.

So, here we go, let's get this out there and see what it looks like, and then start talking Clippers.