A look around the league and the web that covers it. It’s also important to note that the rotation order and starting nods aren’t always listed in order of importance. That’s for you, dear reader, to figure out.
C : Charlotte Observer . An interesting Q&A with Charlotte Bobcats owner Michael “Mike” Jordan.
PF : The Point Forward . Rob Mahoney details Anthony Davis’ impressive NBA debut.
SF : New York Times . Typical must-read stuff from Howard Beck on new Knick defectors/Nets fans.
SG : NY Mag . Will Leitch on the “Anti-D’Antoni,” Knicks coach Mike Woodson.
PG : Magic Basketball . The always-mindful Noam Schiller takes on the Orlando Magic.
A look around the league and the web that covers it. It’s also important to note that the rotation order and starting nods aren’t always listed in order of importance. That’s for you, dear reader, to figure out.
C : Sports Illustrated . “The first time I met Hubie Brown, here’s what he said to me: ‘Your magazine ruined my f—ing life.’” Jack McCallum writes about why legendary NBA coach-turned-ESPN/ABC color commentator Hubie Brown is the greatest. This is peanut butter and chocolate and a nice, tall glass of milk, friends. (Seriously: That’s the LEDE. It only gets better from there.)
PF : The Onion . America’s Greatest News Source explains why we hate LeBron James. It’s funny because it — all of it — is true.
SF : The Classical . What, you thought just because FreeDarko closed up shop (RIP), we weren’t going to get 2011-12 FreeDarko Player Rankings? Well, you thought wrong, Slick. Bask in the dominance of Rondo, be somewhat surprised by the exalted spot of Stephen Curry, find yourself disgusted by the placement of Carmelo Anthony. Drink deep of the dark psychosocial sciences at work.
SG : Grantland , The Point Forward and The New York Times . OK, I cheated. Sebastian Pruiti, Zach Lowe and Rob Mahoney — three of the smartest basketball dudes in this bloggin’ thing — explain why this “playing two bigs at the same time when Miami’s going small” thing isn’t working for the Oklahoma City Thunder at the start of games, like, at all , and why Scott Brooks should consider switching up his starting five before Game 3. All must-reads before Sunday.
PG : Justine’s Inside Voice . A plea for LeBron James to never stop driving: “We as spectators all know, every team knows, every coach knows, every player knows, and apparently after tonight, LeBron knows that when LeBron goes to the hole with the basketball, he can. not. be. stopped. Period.”
Welcome to the B/R NBA Round Table. Our four lead writers, Bethlehem Shoals, Holly MacKenzie, Ethan Sherwood Strauss and Rob Mahoney have answered three questions about the NBA. Read their responses to the questions below and chime in on the conversation.
LeBron deferred again on Tuesday night in crunch time. What does this tell you about his character? Or is it simply a matter of a player making a smart basketball play?
Shoals: I understand that, at this point, LeBron James is the hundred-pound elephant in any discussion of the NBA. And the game-by-game hysteria surrounding him certainly wasn’t a model invented for dear old LBJ.
But could we just maybe give it a rest or stop and breathe instead? Sometimes, James doesn’t make the best (or maybe just obvious) decision. Sometimes, though, he just isn’t perfect. Sometimes he is mortal or outplayed. I used to think LeBron was bad for the sport of basketball because it was too easy for him. Now, I think he may be bad for it because of the way we frame his career. It’s enough to make you want to tune out and mow the lawn or something.
MacKenzie: It tells me that he executed the final possession play that his coach drew up for Mario Chalmers, the Heat’s best three-point shooter, to get a shot off. I don’t think last night is a situation where we look at LeBron and what he did wrong; he stuck to the game plan for the final possession.
It’s funny, because when you watch LeBron, it feels as though there isn’t a player in the league who can stop him if he decides to go to the basket. Maybe he’ll get to the point where he realizes this. Maybe he won’t. Either way, every time he the Heat lose a game, I’m not willing to heap all of the blame on his shoulders because he isn’t being the player we feel he should be while he’s still the best player in the league.
Strauss: It is the latter, and I don’t believe I can divine much regarding a player’s personality from afar. At this point, I think we’re reacting to what we think the narrative will be with the Heat. I’m not even sure many folks are killing James for what happened on Tuesday. There are more people responding to the criticism than there is actual criticism.
Mahoney: I’m with Holly. James was the decoy on that particular play, and considering that the Heat had no choice but to attempt a three, I have little problem with that function. It also doesn’t hurt that Chalmers was able to manufacture an open look with a pump fake and an escape dribble, something incredibly hard to do when a three-pointer is the only offensive option.
It also tells me that LeBron, thankfully, is capable of operating in a framework other than endgame hero ball. James isn’t completely immune to the temptation of taking his man one-on-one, but he’s shown that playing during the final minutes of a close game has virtually no bearing on his style of play. If a set is drawn up for him to create, he creates. If a lane is open, he takes it. If a pass is the right play, he makes it. There’s little more to it than that, save for exhaustion, a few schematic blunders and the bludgeoning power of an obtuse narrative.
Kobe says he doesn’t take charges. Maybe it’s time he started?
Shoals: The problem with charges shouldn’t be whether they’re good or bad, honorable or vile, but why we can’t distinguish between a smart charge and a flop. It should be easy, and we know it when we see it. But taking a charge is a smart play, especially for someone who isn’t a shot-blocker or finds themselves overmatched physically, while a flop is acting that attempts to elevate the trivial—sometimes not even near the basket—into a potentially game-turning event. The latter should also involve refs being more judicious or at least thinking harder. If the offensive foul were such an inherently coward idea, demand it be written out of the rule book. Plus, so many stars get away with as many offensive fouls as they do travels. You have to look at who is leading the, ahem, charge here.
MacKenzie: I thought this was interesting because Kobe Bryant didn’t say he doesn’t take charges because he doesn’t want to; he said he doesn’t take them because he doesn’t want a messed up back like Scottie Pippen or Larry Bird. Bryant is a student of the game. He pays attention to the past and the present while hoping to extend his own future as long as possible.
One thing that isn’t up for discussion with Bryant is his willingness to do anything to win. We’ve wondered if there was a price he isn’t willing to pay. The trip to Germany for treatment this past offseason, playing through all of the various injuries, it appears that Bryant’s limit is willingly putting his body in harm’s way when it isn’t necessary. Luckily for Bryant, he plays with shot-blocking big men and can get away without having to step in to take the charge.
Strauss: Flopping helps your productivity while increasing risk of injury. At this stage, I think Kobe’s smart for avoiding contact. His team’s doomed anyway.
Mahoney: I’m no doctor, but I’d suspect that Kobe isn’t one, either; the link between charges taken and back injuries seems sensible enough, and yet I have a hard time picking out any players with back problems from the ranks of the league’s leading charge-takers. Even those who have been sacrificing their bodies for years seem to dodge serious back injuries, while many of the more storied and consistent cases of chronic back problems are among those who rarely—if ever—step in to take a charge.
All of which means: I shrug at the notion. There’s definitely a physical toll that comes with this kind of contact, but I’m not sure this particular line of reasoning is sound. Not a huge deal either way, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a reason to write off a valuable defensive maneuver so completely.
If you’re Doc Rivers, what are the three top action items on your team’s chalkboard heading into Game 3?
Shoals: I hope that enough of the stars align that night. Really, all the Celtics can do is hope they get enough out of their aging team for them to play the game that’s worked for them this year. Otherwise, they will face the depressing and inevitable reality that Father Time hit harder and faster than expected.
MacKenzie: There’s one action: Score the basketball. The Celtics weren’t overly bad defensively in their Game 1 loss to the Sixers. They struggled offensively because Philadelphia is a great defensive team. The basketball isn’t going to be pretty in this series. All Rivers can do is get his team to stay the course, run their offense and hope that the shots fall tonight.
Strauss:
1. Get younger.
2. Score more.
3. No chest bumping of officials—they are people too.
In all seriousness, the Celtics have a slightly above average team, but a nice path to the Finals. The Heat are diminished without Bosh, and the Pacers are a talent-lacking “whole is greater than the sum” unit. If Boston can get past the pesky Sixers, they might just be Finals fodder for San Antonio or OKC.
Mahoney:
1. Implore Rajon Rondo to be a more aggressive scorer. Philadelphia’s on-ball defense is capable of limiting Rondo a bit, but considering the injuries across Boston’s roster, I’m not sure the Celtics have all that many alternatives.
2. Work Kevin Garnett and Brandon Bass against Thaddeus Young whenever possible. Elton Brand and Lavoy Allen have both done pretty solid defensive work, but Young presents a rare opening for exploitation.
3. Pray that Paul Pierce and Ray Allen are feeling spry. Boston’s defense isn’t the problem, but its offense has again drifted into a particularly dangerous zone. If Pierce and Allen are both limited by their respective ailments, I fear for the Celtics’ playoff lives.
Read more NBA news on BleacherReport.com
Welcome to the B/R NBA Round Table. Our four lead writers, Ethan Sherwood Strauss, Holly MacKenzie, Bethlehem Shoals and Rob Mahoney have answered three questions about the NBA. Read their responses to the questions below and chime in on the conversation.
Do we place too much value in the NBA Scoring Title? Or not enough?
Strauss: The value is waning, and I’m fine with that. It’s a fairly arbitrary distinction, and basketball is better for people respecting say, PER. I just want the right incentives in place. If people feel compelled to score for its own sake, then people feel compelled to play a worse version of hoops.
MacKenzie: I don’t think it’s an issue of valuing the award too much. You don’t win this award unless you’re one of the best players in the game. Those players have to be valued. They’re superstars. This award isn’t as meaningful as an MVP or a DPOY award that has something to do with the wins and losses of a team, but averaging more points than any other player in the best league in the world definitely means something.
Shoals: When players are as close as they are this year, the actual winner doesn’t matter. Kevin Durant and Kobe Bryant both had totally awesome years and deserve huge kudos for scoring the living crap out of the basketball. I don’t think we want to steer this into “are scorers overrated” territory, since if there’s anywhere that debate shouldn’t be taking place, it’s at the top of the scoring rankings with dudes like Durant and Kobe. Elite scorers are among the league’s best players. Are they overrated?
Mahoney: I suppose, like most things, that depends on who you ask. The race for the scoring title still manages to draw attention in some realms, but as Ethan mentioned, the glitz isn’t quite what it used to be. That’s probably for the best; honors like the scoring title are fun, but they really only create an artificial sense of drama. The league already has plenty of intrigue to go ’round, and rather than tabulate how many points a player would need to take the crown, we should surely point our interest elsewhere.
Do the Lakers make it out of the first round without Metta World Peace?
Strauss: They’re still big, yes? The Lakers will not make the finals, but they should scramble out of the first round. Much as I love Kenneth, “the Manimal” Faried; Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol should be too much for Denver to handle down low.
MacKenzie: Yes. Metta World Peace shone in Kobe Bryant’s absence and reminded everyone of his ability to score, but on the Lakers he is a role player. He understands this role and usually plays within it. In the first round of the playoffs, the Lakers should be able to take care of business with a role player missing. Bryant, Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum…if one of L.A.’s “big three” had been suspended, this would be a different conversation.
Shoals: Sure. He’s been playing well lately, and that’s obviously been part of the Lakers’ upswing. But even if he’s been scoring, and on a good night, he’s still a very strong defender, Artest is only like the fourth-or fifth-best player on that team. When they need every last bit of their assets—like when they face another contender—he will come into play. Kobe, Bynum and Gasol should be enough to take care of Round 1, even if they draw a strong opponent.
Mahoney: As fun as these Denver Nuggets are, I’m having a hard time piecing together how the Lakers would go about losing this series. Kenneth Faried’s activity shouldn’t be confused with good defense, and so long as L.A. works their easy mismatches, they shouldn’t have too much of a problem.
That said, the Nuggets have enough firepower to turn this thing into a shootout, and the battle to control the game’s pace should be pretty intriguing, even if the series itself doesn’t stretch beyond five or six games.
Which rookies are you most excited to see develop over the next few seasons?
Strauss: Kyrie (Irving), Kawhi (Leonard) and Kenneth (Faried). All three are exciting for different reasons. Irving’s an emerging superstar, Kevin Johnson with a crafty, change-of-speed handle. Leonard has suddenly sprouted a three-point shot and could be a defensive force for years to come. Faried is ferocious, an undersized rebounder who looks like an impressionist’s blur out there. Love them all, let’s see the story unfold.
MacKenzie: ISAIAH THOMAS.
And, everyone else, too. Seriously, though, Thomas was the last pick of the draft and has been the third-best rookie this season. Pretty awesome. Of course, watching Kyrie Irving and Tristan Thompson continue to grow and develop to lead Cleveland will be fun. Also: Kenneth Faried in Denver because he is everything that is awesome.
Shoals: I am most interested in seeing just how truly bad this class goes down as. It’s almost mind-boggling.
Mahoney: Hard to argue with Irving, Faried, Leonard or Thomas, honestly. But to me, Ricky Rubio stands out as a player poised for exponential growth. He already has both incredible skill and a good grasp on the nuances of team defense, but will only grow into his game as he learns to pick his spots as a shooter and further discern the individual tendencies of his teammates. Rubio has the most difficult aspects of the game already figured out, and once he fine tunes the specifics, he could very well stand as one of the league’s top playmakers.
Who is your 2012 MVP and why?
Strauss: LeBron James, for the same reason, every year: He’s better than everyone else.
MacKenzie: LeBron James because he is the best player in the NBA.
Shoals: Kevin Durant. LeBron isn’t going to get one until he has a ring, even if he is having one of the most statistically unstoppable seasons ever. Not to mention, the Heat have had their baffling dry spells. Durant keeps improving; the Thunder are more unified than ever, and dude won the scoring title. It just feels right. It’s his time.
Mahoney: LeBron James. Let’s not overthink things.
Read more NBA news on BleacherReport.com
Welcome to the B/R NBA Round Table. Our four lead writers, Bethlehem Shoals, Ethan Sherwood Strauss, Holly MacKenzie and Rob Mahoney have answered three questions about the NBA. Read their responses to the questions below and chime in on the conversation.
The Boston Celtics are surging and have somehow remained healthy in a brutally busy season. Are you taking them seriously as title contenders given their playoff experience and defensive gumption?
Shoals: They went to the Finals in 2010 when nothing in the season indicated that they would go that far. Rajon Rondo is a supernatural force, Kevin Garnett has effectively entered his late-career phase, and Pierce and Allen remain very much their old-before-their-times-already selves. They are tough, respected, and a great mix of skill and persistence. I wouldn’t bet on them, but I wouldn’t bet against them, either. If nothing else, they’re a team that no one can go into the playoffs expecting to run through. It’ll be a bar fight, as Garnett once said. They know that their time is running out and they’re not eager to go down easy.
Strauss: I’m not taking them seriously, while allowing for the chance that they can make the Finals—if that makes sense. Am I buying Avery Bradley as the difference between last year’s team and this year’s team? It just seems unlikely that an older Boston squad can win one year after getting tossed from the playoffs in a five game series.
MacKenzie: They’re not on my short list of title contenders, but they’re also not on my list, if that makes sense. The Celtics have surprised people all season. We keep writing them off as too old, injured, etc., and they keep coming back and making us eat our words. Boston is one of the few teams in the league that does have a psychological hold over opponents. I believe in their hype because it’s non-hype, it’s just the Celtics doing what they’ve done since Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett were sent to Boston. They’ve been there, they know what it takes to get there and they’re willing to do whatever they need to do to get there again.
Mahoney: I’m not entirely sold on Boston just yet, particularly because they haven’t just been winning games with their defense—they’ve been winning completely in spite of their offense. The 2008 and 2010 Celtics teams that won and went to the NBA Finals were both above-average offensive units (the 2008 model actually ranked in the league’s top 10 offenses), despite their defense-first reputation, whereas this year’s squad has consistently ranked among the worst offenses in the league. Elite defense is a great mechanism for overcoming mediocre offensive production, but when things get this dire—and they certainly have, as Boston has statistically been the seventh worst offensive team all season, and the fifth worst since the All-Star break, per NBA.com—it becomes far too difficult for even the most stifling D to make up such an alarming deficit.
The NBA Coach of the Year Award often goes to the coach who did the most with the least, in terms of personnel. Is that the right approach? And who really deserves the honor this year?
Shoals: It’s usually “Coach of Most Improved Team,” which is almost rigged so that coaches can win it as few times as possible, unless they are Larry Brown-like nomads. It makes more sense to give it to coaches of teams that have rebounded, like the Celtics, for instance, since that’s proof of tactical smarts instead of just riding the wave of youth’s natural progression (very often, there’s a budding superstar, or new acquisition, involved in a team’s improvement.) What’s so weird is that the Defensive Player of the Year has no problem giving it to the same person for years on end, and the MVP, despite its unknowable criteria for selection, often ends up with multiple awards for single players. Coach of the Year discriminates against dominant coaches who stay consistent. That’s not right. That said, this year Tom Thibodeau simply has to win it. He may be the smartest coach out there, and he basically did last season’s COY-winning performance over again without a healthy Derrick Rose.
Strauss: Popovich. Because he’s Popovich.
MacKenzie: NBA Awards in general drive me a little crazy because I don’t think we ever really know how they’re supposed to be voted on and whether everyone is using the same criteria. I think the Coach of the Year needs to go to the coach who has done the best job with his squad, even if sometimes, it’s a team that has more talent than some of the teams with uglier rosters and fewer victories, but a more eye-catching season. While Gregg Popovich has been phenomenal this season, Tom Thibodeau is making Derrick Rose’s MVP look less about Rose and more about his coach with each victory he pulls out of his ever-shifting set of available players (and I love Rose).
Mahoney: Shoals nailed it. Although it takes a certain talent to keep a young, talented roster from tearing itself apart, the fact that we seem to solely reward the coaches of up-and-coming teams is bogus. Coaching is a difficult, cross-platform job that shouldn’t be reduced to how many wins were added from last season’s record; reward the coach of the rebounding club, the engineer of the unexpectedly prolific offense, the star-whisperer who kept a roster of cool heads, or yes, even the headmaster of a strapping, young team. Just ditch the formula, for now and forever, and make a legitimate argument as to who deserves the award.
I see the award itself going to the winner of a three-man race between the aforementioned Gregg Popovich, Tom Thibodeau, and Doc Rivers—although for thoroughness’ sake, I’d also like to throw out the names of Ty Corbin (it’s still a wonder that Utah is a likely playoff team) and Monty Williams (who has done the impossible in lighting a fire under a rebuilding club doomed to loss after loss). There’s absolutely no wrong answer out of that crop, and if forced to choose one over the others, I’m inclined to pick Rivers; he’s shown incredible flexibility over the course of the season, has created a culture in Boston that is downright Popovichian, and completely reversed course on a Celtics season that looked to be headed toward disaster.
What single ongoing narrative will stand out to you as the definitive story of the 2012 NBA season?
Shoals: This is personal, not business, but I am really letdown at the failure of Lob City to turn into the must-watch juggernaut a lot of us had hoped for in the fall. I know, these things are never as good as we dream them to be (like Year One of the Heat) but a lot of it has to do with Blake Griffin sophomore campaign. He just hasn’t been the same player, even if the production is there. He’s not as fun to watch, doesn’t explode with quite the same urgency, and was very briefly the heel in a feud with DeMarcus Cousins, which is saying something. Chris Paul returned to the public eye in a major way, and in the playoffs, will further remind people why he’s a perennial MVP candidate just by sneezing. Still, I’m not sure the Clippers delivered in the way I wanted them to.
Strauss: Knicksanity.
MacKenzie: This won’t be the popular choice, but in this shortened season with its crazy condensed schedule and talk of players hitting walls, the veterans stood out to me. Kobe Bryant playing through torn wrist ligament, concussion, broken nose, and still (as of today) leading the league in scoring. Kevin Garnett’s resurgence for the Celtics throughout the closing stretch of the season. Ray Allen having the best shooting percentage of his 16-year career from beyond the arc. Steve Nash flirting with another 40/50/90 season. The veterans doing what they’ve always done, despite pounding schedule and wear and tear, without complaining.
And…I would be remiss if I failed to mention the obvious choice: Linsanity
Mahoney: To me, the 2011-2012 season will always be colored by the lockout’s aftereffects. Linsanity, Chicago‘s resilience, Lob City, Dwight Howard‘s petulance, and every other dominant narrative of the season simply can’t disguise the diminished basketball, the brutal schedule, and the heightened cost of injuries on a condensed slate. Slightly lesser pro basketball is still better than no pro basketball, but it’s sad to see the NBA’s squandered potential, particularly at the cost of such a beautiful game. It’s been a wild season, but it’s hard to escape from the specter of what could have been.
Read more NBA news on BleacherReport.com
Over at the Mothership, Jarred Zwerling, Ethan Sherwood Strauss, Rob Mahoney, David Thrope and I tackled a handful of Lin-related questions for ESPN’s regular 5-on-5 installment. Can you guess which answer I’m immediately regretting?
The rules that govern traveling in the NBA can be more confusing that probate law. That’s due, in large part, to the superhuman athleticism of guys who play the pro game. Stars like Dwyane Wade can do things with their feet while dribbling, gathering and shooting a basketball that normal human beings simply can’t, which makes deconstructing the component pieces of their moves extremely difficult.
Rob Mahoney, writing for Hardwood Paroxysm, broke down Wade’s game-winner over Charlotte on Wednesday night.