Be the Three: Where We Could Watch Chris Paul All Day Long

Video

2010-04-14T14:55:00.001-07:00

Here's a Video of Brazil/carnival:

Should David Lee be an All-Star? A Word of Caution

2009-01-28T20:26:00.000-08:00

As my subway pulled into my stop early this morning, I came upon the sports section of amNewYork, the free daily paper here in the Big Apple. They had a photo spread of their sportswriter's All-Star reserve picks, and right there in the middle was a huge shot of David Lee. I laughed--typical hometown crap.

But I checked the stats tonight. Did you know David Lee is the Knicks' leading scorer, at nearly 16 per game? With a true shooting percentage (nearly 61 percent) that's 11th best in the league and PER of 18.6? Those are pretty good numbers.

The PER is basically the same as it was last year, so we can chalk up the offensive improvement to the fact that Lee is a) playing six more minutes a game; b) playing for Mike D'Antoni and c) taking four more shots per game than last season.

Still, the numbers are solid, and we all know Lee's a great rebounder. You're going to be hearing a lot about David Lee in the next few months. He's slated to make $2.7 million next season before becoming a free agent, meaning his deal expires right when every team wants to have a lot of players with expiring deals. And also right when teams that don't get LeBron/Bosh/Wade/Amare are going to have some money to spend.

One word of caution: A huge percentage of Lee's field goals are assisted on--79 percent of his jumpers and 67 percent of his shots in close, according to 82games. I'm telling you now, you're going to have a hard time finding players with higher assisted-on rates than that. (Overall team rates tend to be between 55 and 60 percent). I checked maybe two dozen players, and I couldn't find anyone with assisted-on rates that high. I checked a sampling of both low post and perimeter-oriented forwards (some names: Aldridge, Jefferson, Duncan, Stoudemire, Garnett, Bosh) and some wings/guards, and I couldn't find anyone. I'm not saying Lee has the highest assisted-on rate in the league (I didn't check everyone; I have a job, you know), but he's up there.

Last season, Lee's assisted-on numbers were more toward the normal range (48 percent on close shots, 67 percent on jumpers. The latter is still high but not unusual).

The broader question I have for basketball fans smarter than me: Does having a high assisted-on rate mean David Lee's offensive stats are misleading? That he's becoming an overrated offensive player? I don't know the answer. I suspect they mean his higher scoring numbers are in large part the product D'Antoni's emphasis on pace and ball movement, and that any team that signs Lee shouldn't expect him to put up 16 per game. Ever. But who knows?

Welcome Back, TA AKA "Sugar"

2009-01-28T19:52:00.000-08:00

I'm sometimes critical of plus/minus, but this is one those games where the plus/minus stats tell the story. The starters were sluggish, and the bench was on fire. You'll hear a lot about Eddie House's monster game (a career best 8-for-9 from deep), but the real story tonight was the return of Tony Allen, the would-be Posey of the '08-'09 version of the Celtics. (It may only be because I watched the Mosley-Margarito fight on HBO last night, but Tony Allen looks like Shane Mosley. Like every other boxer ever, Mosley's nickname is "Sugar," and sugar, as a substance, is tantalizing and yet ultimately bad for you. This is an apt description of TA. In this little slice of the Internets, TA will be known as "Sugar.")

Sugar made all five of his shots from the field, and they were all at the rim. There are two ways to interpret this:

Half-full: Sugar's eFG% on jumpers is 26.9 percent, so he should be taking the ball to the rim.

Half-empty: Sugar will never be an effective offensive player on a consistent basis until he learns how to shoot. And he's kind of a train wreck off the dribble.

I'm a half-empty guy (and, really, who likes half-full sorts of people?), but with Sugar you have to be satisfied with him being healthy, playing solid defense and creating some offense for the second unit. He's not going to learn how to shoot jumpers this year. If he can avoid brain dead turnovers (and he had three tonight in garbage time) and slow down just a bit on offense, he can be a productive bench player. We can't ask anything more of him.

Other notes from an easy win:

• The C's starting lineup reasserted themselves in the third quarter with some help from a lazy-looking Sacto D. In one stretch, the Celtics ran the same play over and over: either Rondo or Ray Allen (usually Rondo) brought the ball up the sideline, threw an entry pass to Garnett in the post and cut hard along the baseline. A simple give-and-go. Rondo got three easy lay-ins on this play in a five-minute span. Overall, the C's starting lineup scored on nine of 11 possessions in one stretch, and only once in there did they need to use anything but a lay-up or a free throw.

• Speaking of easy shots, Rondo went 10-of-15 from the field and took exactly ONE jump shot the entire game, according to his shot chart. (And, yes, he made it, and it was from 21 feet out off a hard dribble/step back move. It was maybe the most confident jump shot Rondo's taken all year. Progress, people). The little guy got to the rim with no resistance.

• One other shot chart note: Glen Davis was 5-for-6 from the field, and only one shot was a jumper--and even that was from just 10 feet out. Great to see Baby becoming an aggressor on offense again instead of settling. Baby, for now, has passed Powe on the depth chart, and I'm not sure I understand why, unless Doc was just that impressed by his performance against Orlando last week. Powe was out there for garbage time with Walker and O'Bryant while Baby got to relax on the bench and forget that KG made him cry in public a month ago.

• The C's defense in the third quarter was sloppy, but it looked to me like they were experimenting a bit in a meaningless game. They had Pierce playing way off John Salmons as Salmons camped out beyond the three-point line. Pierce stayed at the foul line and roved around to try and prevent anyone from penetrating into the lane. It was the most I can remember the C's deviating from their man-to-man, and it didn't really work. The Kings moved the ball around and found cutters in the paint for good looks that drew fouls. Interesting to watch, though. Did anyone else notice this?

Al Jefferson and the 19/5 Club

2009-01-27T19:44:00.000-08:00

I still monitor Al Jefferson like a proud father. I feel bad that Big Al is part of the "for practically nothing" in the sentence that goes "Ainge got KG from the T'Wolves for practically nothing." Al is happily proving that wrong by beasting it every night in Minny for a frisky T'Wolves team.

But Big Al's scoring lines often look like this: 10-for-20, 3-for-5 from the line, 23 points. When I look at Minny box scores, I usually think, "Damn, that's not as many points as I'd like to see from that many field goal attempts."

Right now, Al's taking 19.2 shots per game and 4.9 free throws per game. (Jefferson is tied with four other players at #36 in the league in FTAs/game). I decided to see how many times a player had averaged 19+ FGAs and fewer than 5 FTAs per game and here's what I found: It's happened 59 times, or about once per season, since the introduction of the shot clock in 1954-55, and it's happening less often as the game evolves. It didn't happen once between 1991 and 1998. (Side note: Any theories as to why not?)

It seems like an ignominious stat, a marker of inefficiency, but there are some solid players on this list. Three players lead the way with four 19/5 seasons each: Rick Barry, Fred Carter and Mike Mitchell, a Cav and Spur from the 1980s whom my brain has, sadly, forgotten. Some other high-scoring guards and small forwards, such as Jo Jo White, Gary Payton and Alex English, also make multiple appearances. Even Larry Legend's 1989-90 season is on there.

But Al Jefferson's a big guy, you say, and you wouldn't expect him to be on this list with all these shoot-first guards who didn't spend all their time banging down low. So I switched the height variable to include only guys 6'8'' or taller. Now we're down to just 13 seasons in the shot clock era, including Al's current campaign.

What's interesting about this list is that if you take away the two Bob Lanier seasons, everyone else shot pretty poorly from the field and camped out mostly at 15 feet and beyond. We've got three classic Antoine Walker seasons (including two sub-40 FG% years), depressing late-career seasons from Legend, Chris Webber and Jamal Mashburn, and an uncharacteristic poor shooting season from KG in 1998-99.

Jefferson, in fact, would finish with the second-best FG% among this group. And he's pretty clearly more of a true low post player than the guys listed above; half his shots come from in close, and half are jumpers--a less jumper-heavy ratio than Tim Duncan and Amare Stoudemire, for instance.

I'm not sure if this means anything, since Big Al is 12th in the league in PER and has scored the 8th most total points in the NBA. And, of course, 4.9 FTAs puts Jefferson on the very upper boundary of this club. But for whatever reason, Big Al doesn't draw as many fouls other big men who shoot so much; 82games has his foul-drawing rate at 12.2 percent, compared with 27.2 percent for Dwight Howard and 16.9 percent for Tim Duncan.

I leave it up to Wolves fans who watch this guy play every day to give us an explanation.

Checking on Kevin and the Baby C's

2009-01-27T18:28:00.000-08:00

The Minnesota Timberwolves going 10-2 in January and generally playing well under Kevin McHale has to rank among the most unexpected developments in the league. Over the last couple of nights, I've watched the T'Wolves on League Pass and crunched the numbers in hopes of finding some explanation--like that they've played only horrible teams, or that Sebastian Telfair died or that Al Jefferson started taking 40 shots per game.

As much as it pains me to dampen the enthusiasm at the great Canis Hoopus, the schedule does explain some of it; of the the Baby C's 10 wins in January, only two came against .500 plus teams (@ Suns and vs. New Orleans), and the Hornets were missing David West and Tyson Chandler. But there is reason for optimism. The team is playing better on both ends of the court, and they are getting significantly greater contributions from several key guys.

The biggest changes, by the numbers:

DEC JAN

FG % 42.8 45.7

OPP FG % 48.3 45.3

3P FG/G 5.1 7.8

3pA/G 15.0 21.4

OPP 3P/G 8.1 5.1

OPP 3PA/G 19.3 16.0

ORB/G 11.9 14.3

OPP FTA/G 26.5 23.3

So: The Wolves are jacking up more threes, hitting them at a slightly better rate (36 percent versus 33 percent), pounding the boards a bit more, fouling less and significantly limiting their opponents' three-point shooting.

On an individual level, the biggest changes have been in the back court. McHale named Telfair the starting PG and moved Randy Foye to the two spot, from which Foye's been jacking up six threes a game this month--double his per game attempts from deep for the rest of the year overall. He's making 45 percent of them, which is outlandish considering he's a career 37.6 percent shooter from deep.

Telfair, on paper, still looks terrible, with that ghastly sub-40 shooting percentage. But you watch the Wolvies play and you see what Canis is talking about: He's shooting less during this good run (about three shots fewer per 48 this month), dishing more and taking smarter shots. He's taking more threes, and judging from the games I saw, he's trying to shoot them only when he can set his feet and take a nice gander at the rim without a hand in his face. He's still not a starting line-up caliber PG, but, for whatever reason, the Telfair-Foye guard combo is working better than the Foye/Miller/McCants mess that came before it.

The other big improvement has been from rookie Kevin Love. Yes, Big Kev is rebounding like a madman (20 per 48 minutes), but it's at the offensive end that Love is shining. He's already taken the same number of shots through 12 games this month that he took in 16 last month, and he's already made 15 more field goals in January than December. That translates to a 54 percent shooting clip in '09 compared to 38 percent in the last two months of '08. Huge difference. The mid-range jumper suddenly looks true (though he's still only hitting 33 percent on J's for the year) and the finish around the rim is better. Can he keep it up?

Other changes:

• Ryan Gomes, another old Celtic, is firing up about two more shot attempts per game in January while playing four fewer minutes. He's also grabbed 65 boards in 12 games this month compared with 66 in 16 games in February, which means Gomes is crashing like he did when he was the only guy going after it a few years back in Beantown.

• Rodney Carney barely played all season, and now all of a sudden he's Rashard Lewis off the bench, with four attempts from deep per game--about 39 percent of which find the hoop.

You noticed I haven't mentioned the two most well-known guys on the team, Al Jefferson and Mike Miller. Jefferson is doing his 20-10 thing every night (more on that in the next post), and Miller...well, Miller's in what may be the worst shooting slump of his career, which means it's probably good he's shooting just five times per game.

So while Foye may be due for a slump soon, Miller's due to play better. The competition is about to get tougher (Lakers, Houston and Daddy C's in the next 10 games), but the Wolves suddenly don't look like such a lost cause.

I Hate to Say I Told You So...

2009-01-25T19:33:00.000-08:00

Great quickie post by Celtics Blog showing what Rondo has done on jump shots in the last five games. CB looks at Rondo's hot spots from that span and finds that, guess what, the dude can make jumpers when he shoots them.

Our second post here was called "Hey, Rondo: Shoot!" and it referenced Rondo's hot spot diagrams from last year's playoffs, when he shot 50 percent on long two-point jumpers. The Celtics will be a much, much better team in the short- and long-terms if Rondo takes 15- to 20-foot jumpers regularly and makes a decent percentage of them. It's just unhealthy to have a guy passing up open looks. It makes things harder for everyone.

Also: Red's Army has the video of the Paul Pierce halftime piece ABC ran today. We don't learn all that much new, but it's worth remembering that Paul Pierce, NBA Finals MVP, almost died in September 2000. I know a few Celtics fans who will never forgive PP for the gang sign controversy and the wildly inappropriate Pacers incident in 2005, and I can respect that. But life is about mistakes and redemption, and there's no denying that Pierce has become a different kind of player late in his career--unselfish, hard-working and serious about defense. Maybe it's only because the C's brought in KG and Ray Allen, and Pierce couldn't pout and be lazy without looking bad in comparison. I don't really know what kind of person Paul Pierce is, but I can't remember a late-career transition that made me happier.

The Formal Introduction of the Voskuhl

2009-01-25T14:43:00.000-08:00

Voskuhl (voss-cull) noun--When a big man's combined fouls and turnovers exceed his combined points and rebounds over the course of a game.

Usage Example: With Michael Redd out for the season, the Bucks need Dan Gadzuric to contribute more than his usual Voskuhl.

Word History: The term was coined in a dormitory television lounge at Dartmouth College in March of 1999, when several friends were rooting for UConn to defeat Duke for the NCAA men's basketball championship and bemoaning the limited contributions of UConn starting center Jake Voskuhl. In three of UConn's six tournament games, Voskuhl came very close to achieving a Voskuhl--including a two point, two rebound, three foul effort in UConn's narrow title game win over Duke. The blog Be the Three (written by one of the men present in the dorm room in 1999) mentioned the term in a post earlier this month entitled "Field Trip! Suns @ Raptors, Nash's Game and What's a 'Voskuhl'?"

Voskuhl, selected by the Bulls in the second-round of the 2000 draft, has continued to pile up Voskuhls during his NBA career. Voskuhl has appeared in 427 games and recorded a Voskuhl in 54 of them--a Voskuhl rate of about 12.6 percent. Seven of those Voskuhls have happened this season.

But a look through Voskuhl's Voskuhls shows that there are really two different kinds of Voskuhls--one in which the big man plays just a minute or two and has little time to accumulate any stats (this may be more accurately termed a "Madsen"), and another in which the big man records a Voskuhl despite playing enough minutes to at least pull down some boards.

Two of big Jake's six Voskuhls from the 2002-03 season serve as good examples of the two archetypes. On April 6, 2003, against the Lakers, Voskuhl played three minutes and recorded two fouls, zero points and zero rebounds. A couple of weeks earlier in a loss to Dallas, Voskuhl played nearly half the game (21 minutes) but scored just one point and recorded a paltry three rebounds. He committed five fouls and three turnovers. This may be termed a "True Voskhul."

(One note in that box score: Suns reserve guard Casey Jacobsen nearly recorded a Voskuhl, with two points, one foul and one turnover. The stat is meant for big men, though).

On Dec. 18, 2003, Voskuhl set a personal high for minutes played in a Voskuhl. He started for Phoenix against Portland and played 34 minutes, but recorded zero points and five rebounds before racking up the maximum six fouls. He also committed a turnover.

Voskuhl, however, is not at the top of list of Voskhuls among current players. At least one fellow back-up big, Mark Madsen, has recorded them at a higher rate--84 in 443 games played, for a Voskuhl rate of about 19 percent. Madsen only played a minute or two in many of those games, meaning they do not rise to the level of the True Voskuhl.

Quality big men are not immune to the Voskuhl. Suns star Amare Stoudemire suffered a Voskuhl against Boston earlier this month, when the Celtics held him to three points and one rebound while he committed four turnovers and four fouls. This was the day after Amare declared that he was about to "get my gorilla game on." Greg Oden recorded two Voskuhls in December.

Other frequent Voskuhl-ers include Gadzuric (10 already this season), the Spurs Fabricio Oberto (four this season) and new Bobcats center DeSagana Diop (five last season, four this year).

The Bench Comes Alive; the Mavericks are Irrelevant

2009-01-25T11:29:00.000-08:00

The Celtics just blew the Mavericks off the court in the first half, allowing me to recap the game early, because the third and fourth quarters don't matter when you walk into the locker room up 74-47, having shot 65 percent and 10-of-13 from three.

Let's focus on a key six minute stretch at the start of the second quarter, when the C's extended the lead from 18 (comeback possible) to 27 (warm up the bus). For the bulk of that stretch, Doc had the following five on the court: Allen, Rondo, Scal, Baby and House. The problem with the Celtics bench is that the offense can look disorganized without Pierce and Garnett to stabilize things with their post presence and ability to get the rim and draw fouls. If Allen can't get free on the perimeter, the C's find themselves forcing up bad shots as the shot clock runs down. That didn't happen here. Let's see why by isolating a stretch from the 10:23 mark (when Rondo replaced Pruitt) to the 5:48 mark (when Pierce and KG came back into the game). The C's scored on all but one possession in that stretch:

• The offense got into the danger zone on the first possession. There was some desperate screen-setting for Allen that resulted in nothing. Jason Terry bailed the C's out by not paying attention as House cut to the rim with the shot clock winding down; Scal, trapped behind the three-point line, found him for an easy lay-in (9:57)

• Next possession: Allen creates space for himself off the dribble and hits an easy 14-footer. (9:10)

• Allen again creates off the dribble and dishes to Rondo for an open 16-footer. SHOOT, RAJON! (8:41)

• Allen comes off a screen and hits an open three. (8:11)

• House misses a long three. (7:41)

• House and Baby play a little two-man on the right side; House bounces a pass to Baby as he moves into post position on Nowitzki. Baby goes right at Dirk, using his body to create space and laying the ball in, plus one. Great work from Baby--he must be more aggressive around the rim. (7:16)

• Allen gets the ball at the top of the key, beats his man on a beautiful left-to-right crossover, penetrates to the foul line area and shoots a pass to Scal for an easy three in the left corner. (6:50)

• Rondo makes an unassisted open 20-footer. (6:09)

What jumps out here is that Allen took over most of the ball-handling/play-making duties from Rondo. This makes some sense in isolated stretches, especially with the other two members of the Big Three on the bench. As I wrote yesterday, Allen is better than people think at creating mid-range shots for himself, either off-the-dribble or using ball screens. Once Ray gets within 20 feet of the basket, the defense has to send a help defender; they don't have to do that with Rondo until Rajon is in lay-up range. With fewer individual scorers in the line-up, maybe using Allen as a creator is a more efficient way of getting good shots than running him around baseline screens or having Rondo fly to the rim on every possession in hopes of kicking to an open shooter. Just a thought.

Other thoughts from a monster performance:

• This was KG's game. KG's first quarter was one of the finest stretches of basketball you'll see. On offense, the Celtics ran much of the offense through Garnett in the post, and he just destroyed Nowitzki. He shot 5-of-7 for the quarter and controlled the offensive flow with his passes out of the low post.

On defense, the guy's effort is unbelievable. One example: With about 10:00 left in the first quarter, Josh Howard beat Allen (I think) off the dribble on the right wing. KG left Nowitzki just above the foul line and floated down to cut off the baseline. In my head, I thought, "Don't leave Dirk!" Sure enough, Howard fed Nowitzki. But by the time the ball arrived, KG was only a step from Dirk with his arm outstretched. Was Dirk still open enough to shoot? Yes. But he was so stunned that KG was there already that he hesitated, brought the ball back down and then fired up a bad shot with KG in his face. It drew only backboard. Great stuff.

As everyone has noted, effort like this is contagious. Example: With 3:15 to go, KG again left Dirk near the top of the key to squelch Kidd's penetration. Kidd flicked a behind-the-back pass to Nowitzki that arrived a little low (knee level) but was still catchable. Except Rondo and Pierce were both flying at Nowitzki like mad men on a typical maniacal C's rotation. Dirk dropped the ball, and Rondo stole it. More great stuff.

Honestly, you could isolate almost every defensive possession and find little gems like this. It's inspiring to watch.

• The contrast with the Mavs couldn't be clearer. This team is awful. You'll hear that they were on the last game of a road trip, but it was a four-game roadie over seven days, not some arduous four-in-five East Coast swing. And the awfulness starts with Nowitzki, who stopped trying on defense as the game got out of hand. Example: With 30 seconds left in the half, Perkins got the ball deep in the post against Dampier. Dirk walked over for a double-team--he literally walked. Strolled. Ambled. When it was clear Perkins wasn't going to shoot, Nowitzki walked back toward his man.

Was the game over by that point? Sure. But that's when your leaders have to show everyone else that they care, that the performance is unacceptable and that the team is going to play better starting right now. Everything about Dirk's effort said, "I don't care and I just want to go home."

Hey--but don't worry, Jason Terry hit a three with 30 ticks left in the half to "cut" the lead to 74-47, and he was so excited he made the "three" sign with both hands as he trotted back on defense. Totally embarrassing.

The Mavericks are going nowhere unless the team's mindset changes fast.

(Update: True Hoop picked up this part of my post today, and one of the commenters there makes a good point: Is it hypocritical for a C's fan to criticize the Mavericks body language when the Celtics have alienated people around the league with their trash talking and taunting--especially KG? It's a fair question, and some of KG's antics have rubbed me the wrong way. But my post was less about the Mavs' body language than it was about their effort. Still, I probably haven't written enough about how the Celtics, and particularly KG, have crossed the line at various points this season).

• Something's going on with Leon Powe. He didn't play at all in the first half after playing just seven minutes against Orlando. I chalked up the Orlando game to bad match-ups, but something is amiss if he's riding the pine for an entire half against Dallas. Hopefully this is just temporary, since Powe's ability to create his own shot in the post is crucial to preventing the offensive stagnation I talked about before.

Bar Debates: Iverson or Allen? Nash or Kidd?

2009-01-24T13:30:00.000-08:00

The best basketball blogs talk a lot about PER and adjusted plus/minus and whether it can be proven that coaches matter, but sometimes it's more fun when you and your buddies have those (mostly unscientific) debates about who belongs in the Hall of Fame and whether so-and-so is one of the top 10 players of all-time.

This happened last night, when a passionate Nets fan friend of mine peppered me with a series of fun NBA hypotheticals. We were a couple of beers into the evening and had no access to Basketball Reference or 82games or John Hollinger. Which in a way makes my answers more interesting, since they are based on my memory and the images these players have left in my brain. Today I checked the stats to see if I was right.

Hypo #1: Kobe or LeBron?

Bar answer: LeBron. LeBron. LeBron! This is the correct answer. Kobe is the wrong answer.

Next day answer: LeBron. Just read this. Or this.

Hypo #2: Is Tim Duncan one of the ten best players ever?

Bar answer: A nearly instantaneous yes. Admittedly, I'm an unabashed Duncan fan, and I still think about the 1997 lottery on a weekly basis.

Next day answer: Still yes, even figuring that five of the top 10 are reserved for Magic, Bird, MJ, Wilt and Kareem. That leaves a bunch of really really great players fighting it out for five spots. But by almost any measure (like this one, or this one), Duncan qualifies for the top ten pantheon. (Random side note: David Robinson is third-best all-time in PER? Wow.)

Hypo #3: Who has had the better career, Ray Allen or Allen Iverson?

Bar answer: Iverson, followed by some second-guessing, followed by some second-guessing of that second-guessing, followed by a mind-blowing conclusion of, "Hey, you know what, that's actually a really good question."

Next day answer: Wow, this is a fascinating question. These guys have had interesting parallels in their careers--both high lottery picks in 1996 (AI first, Ray fifth), and both took pretty mediocre Eastern Conference teams far into the playoffs in 2001 (Iverson's Sixers beat Allen's Bucks in Game 7 of the Eastern finals that season). And Allen hit a ridiculous late-game floater to help UConn beat Georgetown in the 1996 Big East championship game. (Side note: I was still a big G'town fan then, and I was following the game online in my college dorm room. I went to take a shower with Georgetown up something like seven with a minute to go, figuring either they'd hold on or I'd miss a horrible collapse that would just upset me. I came back and my across-the-hall neighbors had taped a note to my monitor reading "Uconn 75-Georgetown 74." Thanks, jerks.)

Iverson's career PER (21.2) is better than Allen's (19.8). Obviously, Iverson put up the bigger scoring averages and free throw totals, but he scored his points very inefficiently compared to Allen. Allen's true shooting percentage blows Iverson's away every year. There is an entire body of thought among some analysts that Iverson's low shooting percentages (especially from three-point range, a place he probably shouldn't have been shooting from as much as he did) make him a poor team player. One analyst, Dave Berri, has pegged Iverson as an average player, nothing more, and has argued that Tyrone Hill, Dikembe Mutombo and others were more responsible for Philly's run to the Finals in 2001.

On the pro-Iverson side, I think there is a lingering perception, right or wrong, that Allen is not capable of playing top dog on a good team. He's perceived as a three-point shooter, and three-point shooters need other people to create space for them to shoot. I'm not sure this is fair to Allen. He was the go-to guy on a Bucks team that was better than people think (he led the league in offensive win shares in 2000-01, according to BR) and he dominated the ball on those Seattle teams earlier this decade. As a C's fan, I've been pleasantly surprised with Allen's two-point game. He cuts to the rim well, can finish around big guys and uses pump fakes and change-of-direction dribbles to get his mid-range jumper off.

Iverson, on the other hand, is a proven alpha dog who can get to the rim and create open looks for his teammates--his Assist Percentage is much higher than Allen's (29.1 to 18.2). His best seasons (2001 and 2005) were likely better than Allen's best. If anything, the question about Iverson is this: Can he alter his game at all as he declines and become an effective second or third banana? Allen has answered that question positively. Iverson hasn't.

Neither is above average on defense, though Iverson has better defensive efficiency rankings--probably the result of playing with a Philly team that was regularly in the top five or eight in overall defense from 1999-2003.

Gun to my head: It's Ray Allen by a smidge.

Hypo #4: Who was better in his prime, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd?

Bar Answer: Kidd, given with surprisingly little thought.

Next Day Answer: This is a nearly impossible question, as it depends on three questions that are partly philosophical, partly unanswerable, and, when they can be answered, they depend a lot of individual tastes: 1) Is defense as important as offense? 2) Can we accurately measure defense? 3) How much of Nash's monster success from his prime Phoenix years should be credited to Mike D'Antoni's offensive system?

If the answers to one and two are "as important" and "yes," then I'll stick with Kidd. But, wow, I forgot what a terrible shooter Jason Kidd was and is. Even in his best years, he's right around 40 percent with a true shooting percentage at about 50 percent. As for Nash, are you aware that he's currently fifth all-time in three-point percentage? I wasn't. What's even more impressive is that the other guys in the top 10 (Jason Kapono, Steve Kerr, Hubert Davis, Tim Legler, etc.) are spot-up shooters who do nothing but run around screens or sit at the three-point line waiting for big guys to pass out of a double team. Nash led the entire league in true shooting percentage in 2006 and 2007.

But then there's defense, and we know Nash has always been a liability there. In his prime, Kidd had a reputation as a lockdown defensive player, and the numbers back that reputation up.

So Nash is a great offensive player and a poor defensive player. But you can't say the reverse about Kidd--that he was a great defensive player and a poor offensive player. Because that dude was a force on offense in his prime, even if he couldn't shoot a lick. As a Celtics fan, let me tell you: There was nothing more terrifying in 2001-03 then Jason Kidd pulling down a rebound at the foul line, shifting into an immediate sprint and dishing to Kenyon Martin or Kerry Kittles on the wing as Antoine Walker stood out of breath at half court. His assist numbers speak for themselves, but Kidd's offensive game was better than those numbers show. He completely transformed the way his teams played, and he racked up wins with a supporting cast that didn't have nearly the talent as those Phoenix teams from 2005-07.

Nash has the edge in PER, with seven straight 20-plus seasons and PERs in the mid-23s in his two best years. Kidd only has two 20-plus PERs seasons on his record (though he's got several in the mid-19s), and his best never got higher than 22.5.

But the fact that Kidd's PER is so close to Nash's despite the enormous shooting percentage gap between them shows how much Kidd contributed in other stat categories. Throw in his defense, and Kidd gets the edge.

We're Back: How the Celtics Are Like UConn Women

2009-01-22T19:17:00.000-08:00

Confession: I'm a kind-of-passionate fan of UConn women's hoops. We really have nothing else going on in Connecticut.

Back in the late 1990s/early 2000s those UConn women's teams (Sue Bird, Swin Cash and the woman we just call D) would win games by holding teams to shooting percentages in the low 30s. As a devout pessimist, I'd say to myself, "Well, they are going to run into a hot shooting team at some point, and they'll lose. Some of this has to be good luck." You know what? That never happened. They always held teams to low shooting percentages in big games.

Think of this over the next day or two, when you hear, ad nauseum, that Orlando had an off shooting night and that next time some of those threes that clanked will go in. Because, like those UConn women's teams, this is what the Celtics do. It's not luck that teams shoot badly from the perimeter in game after game against this team. In big games, more times than not, you are not going to shoot well against the Celtics. You will have to find another way to win. And Orlando couldn't do that tonight. The Magic shot 31.8 percent from three-point land. You know what 31.8 percent is? It's almost exactly the same percentage Boston allowed opponents to shoot from deep all of last season. This was not a fluky shooting performance.

It may also be that Boston just matches up well against Orlando. They have two big guys (Perkins and Baby) who are strong enough (or large enough, anyway) to keep Howard from getting the Shaq-Fu position underneath the rim. And they can do that without hard double-team help, which means the other four defenders don't have to stray too far from the three-point shooters. Howard finished with only 11 points on 10 shot attempts. A job well done.

Then there is KG. He is a nightmare for Orlando. Rashard Lewis has no chance. Hedo Turkoglu can forget it. And Orlando can't afford to have Howard on KG for big chunks of time. KG was 8-for-13 tonight, and it looked like he could have been 15-for-20 if he kept shooting.

Am I saying Orlando can't possibly beat the Celtics? Obviously not. I'm just saying that the C's have as good a chance to win the Eastern Conference as Cleveland or Orlando.

Other thoughts on a very nice regular season win:

• Oh, man, if only Glen Davis could play like that all the time. Why must you tease me Glen Davis, you chunky seductress? Going into tonight, he was shooting 29 percent on jump shots--a category that comprised an alarming 60-plus percent of his total shot attempts, according to 82games. But in this game, he looked like KG knocking down 18-footers when the Magic left him open. He made an especially big jumper from the wing to put the C's up 84-75 with 2:40 left after Nelson had scored five straight points to get the crowd into the game. He still can't finish around the rim; he missed a chippy off a gorgeous pass from KG with about 1:15 left in the game. Let's hope he doesn't get too jumper-happy, though. He needs to work at mixing up his offense and getting to the foul line.

• On the other hand, Leon Powe played 7 minutes in this game and wasn't a factor. I like Powe and his PER of 16 and his ability to create his own shot in the post, so I hope he's not losing his minutes to Baby. It may just be that the Magic present bad match-ups for Powe. He's not strong enough to play Howard, and he's not quick enough to play Lewis. Doc only had him in the game when Orlando had Battie or Gortat on the court.

• I saw this happen. With about six minutes left in the third and the shot clock running down, Rajon Rondo took a hard dribble in on Nelson, stepped back and arched a beautiful jumper from 17 or so feet away on the wing. SHOOT, RAJON!

Farewell, Zo

2009-01-22T18:07:00.000-08:00

Alonzo Mourning is a seven-time All-Star, two-time defensive player of the year and a hero to many who suffer serious kidney ailments. But to me, a Connecticut native who was inexplicably a Georgetown fan as a kid, I'll always remember Zo from the Hoya team that nearly lost to Princeton in a 1 versus 16 game in 1989--the famous 50-49 game where Dick Vitale promised to dress up as a Princeton cheerleader if the Tigers pulled the upset. Zo blocked a potential game-winner as time expired, and my 11-year-old self could show his face in school the next day.

Then, as a Celtics fan, I'll always remember the shot shown below. I knew the C's had no chance to win championships anymore by this point, but losing a first-round series to this fake team with teal uniforms? That was unacceptable. (Little did I know how bad things would get). Not shown in the clip: The uncalled goaltending violation Charlotte committed on Boston's inbounds lob play after this shot. I couldn't find a clip of this. If someone can, please email me. The Celtics won this game. Nearly twenty years later, I am still bitter.

The Formal Introduction of the Kobe Effect

2009-01-22T16:24:00.000-08:00

We first mentioned the "Kobe Effect" in a post over the weekend. The kind folks at Basketbawful kindly accepted our offer to add the term to their genius glossary of Words of the Day. The following post is also posted here:

The Kobe Effect (ko-bee eff-ekt) noun: The state that arises when a player creates the popular notion that he is clutch by taking so many late-game shots that he inevitably hits enough to create this impression, even when it is not true.

Usage Example: People think Jamal Crawford is clutch because a lot of his late game field goals made SportsCenter, but that's just The Kobe Effect happening; Crawford is actually a terrible late-game shooter.

History: The Kobe Effect is said to have the strongest influence on radio talk show hosts and lazy sports columnists.

This effect could easily be named after Chauncey Billups or Jamal Crawford, but Kobe Bryant is the true progenitor of sort-of-false clutchness. Has Kobe made his share of big shots? Absolutely. He even made a game-winning three last week against Houston. He's convinced some league observers (often the most annoyingly passionate fans you'll meet) that he's the greatest clutch shooter since MJ. But is he really? Or does he hog all the late-game shots for the Lakers, thereby guaranteeing he becomes known as "clutch," even if he shoots a lower percentage--and turns the ball over more--with the game on the line?

Last year, Kobe ranked second (behind LeBron) in clutch scoring, pouring in 51.8 points per 48 minutes, according to 82games. But he was jacking up 33.6 shots per 48 minutes, third most in the league (again behind LeBron and, absurdly, Jamaal Tinsley). His "clutch" field goal percentage was 44.8 percent--right around his career average. That's pretty solid--especially considering the degree of difficulty on those shots is higher than in the normal course of play.

But here are Kobe's "clutch" shooting percentages from the last five seasons going backwards: 44.8, 43.6, 36.4, 32.4, 39.6.

That's not great. But let's narrow the sample size and look at the clutchiest of clutch shots--potentially game-winning shots in the last 30 seconds. How does Kobe do there? From 2003 through 2006, Kobe made seven such shots--tied for ninth most in the league. But he fired up 32 shots, the highest total among all players. That adds up to a shooting percentage of 21.9 percent, well below the league average of 29 percent. Kobe also had zero assists in game-winning situations during that span.

Other supposedly clutch shooters on this list: Chauncey Billups, Mr. Big Shot, hit 5 of 26 shots (19 percent), and Jamal Crawford, who made so many last-second shots even the New York Times fell for it and labeled him clutch, went 6-for-19 (31 percent).

It's not that Kobe's a bad clutch shooter. Last year, Kobe shot 46.7 percent in "super clutch" situations, which 82games defines as less than two minutes in the fourth or OT, score within three points. That's impressive, especially since he did so while firing nearly 35 shots per 48 minutes, the fourth-highest rate in the league. But he had the third-worst turnover rate in the entire NBA (more than nine per 48 minutes) in such situations. (Just for fun: Guess who took even more shots per minute than Kobe in "super clutch" situations? Jamal Crawford--and he made a whopping 19 percent of them.)

Oh--and there's always that infamous Game 7 against Phoenix in 2006, when Mr. Clutch decided not to shoot in the second half in order to show the world that his teammates stunk. Now that's clutch.

Conclusion: Kobe's clutch shooting percentage is significantly lower than is overall shooting percentage, but people believe he's the greatest clutch shooter since MJ because of The Kobe Effect.

Other benefactors of the Kobe Effect:

Chauncey Billups, Jamal Crawford, Joe Johnson, who takes almost every big shot down the stretch for the Hawks but is making just 33 percent of them this year after sinking only 29.7 percent of clutch shots last season. But the aura of The Kobe Effect surrounds him thanks to a handful of clutch shots he made against Boston in the playoffs last season.

The Truly Clutch: Manu Ginobli, LeBron James.

Third Quarter Collapse on Orlando-Boston

2009-01-22T04:31:00.000-08:00

Ahead of tonight's monster Boston-Orlando game, we decided to do one of those "blogger/fan of one team chats with blogger/fan of another team" about the game, the season and two of the three teams with a chance of winning the Eastern Conference. Ben Q. Rock, the brains behind the Magic-themed blog Third Quarter Collapse, agreed to answer our silly questions about the Magic (and we did the same about the Celtics on his genius site, though his questions aren't silly). Celtics Blog is also taking questions from Ben today ahead of the game, so check that out as well, and read my answers at TQC.

BTT: Hedo Turkoglu's numbers are down across the board. Have you picked up on why that might be? Are fans just assuming he'll get back to his normal production?

TQC: The most obvious answer might be the correct one: last year was a fluke. It's rare for players of Turk's age to sustain huge increases in shooting percentage, so he was bound to regress to the mean. The problem is that he's below the mean now, although he's been better lately.

Shot selection is a bit of an issue, I think. Last year he was more assertive in his forays to the rim, attempting 32% of his shots from "close," according to 82games. He also finished there at a 58.6% clip. This year, only 27% of his shots are in close, and he's converting only 49.7% of them. More jumpers means more lower-percentage shots, obviously, and he's not making the so-called high-percentage shots at a good rate. That's not a recipe for success.

At least he's still handling the ball okay. His assist rate of 20.2 ranks him 5th among small forwards, while he's managed to trim his turnover rate form 12.0 to 11.3.

Also encouraging is that his field goal and three-point shooting percentages have increased each month this season, so he's getting better. We won't see him back at last year's level, but as long as he's shooting around 43% and handing out 5 assists, the Magic are in great shape.

BTT: The Magic have improved most noticeably in defending the three-point shot. What, if anything, explains this?

TQC: As far as I know, there's no way to track this stat, but I suspect a lot of that improvement is due to not allowing as many wide-open threes. They've contested nearly every shot not taken by players named Vladimir Radmanovic (wake up, Hedo!). They're rarely out of position on defense, which probably accounts for the improvement in three-point defense. The downside is that they don't don't force many turnovers. Then again, they didn't force many turnovers last year, either.

BTT: Dwight Howard has spoken highly of the contributions of Battie and Gortat, and you've written before about the Magic being set when it comes to back-up bigs. What in particular are these guys bringing, and what makes Gortat such a good per-minute rebonder?

TQC: I'm allowed one cliched answer, right? Tony Battie and Marcin Gortat are bringing their hardhats and lunchpails. Har har har.

Seriously though, these guys are tough. They aren't aggressive/enforcer types (Hello, Jason Maxiell), but they hold their ground defensively and pick their spots offensively. Adonal Foyle, the Magic's only backup center last year, excelled at the former, but failed at the latter. Battie is a pick-and-pop option due to his reliable 17-foot jumper, and he also sneaks free to snipe from the left baseline on occasion. Gortat, meanwhile, has a relatively sophisticated post game for a backup center, and is relentless on the offensive glass.

We can probably attribute some of Gortat's excellent per-minute rebounding to a natural instinct for the ball, but sheer size and strength has a lot to do with it. Once he gets a rebound, he makes sure to secure it with both hands at around the chest area, which is a wordy way of explaining that he doesn't flub many away. The downside is that it'll kill transition opportunities, but he's usually running with a lineup that features Anthony Johnson at point guard. So it's not really a concern.

BTT: Two categories in which the Magic are in the middle or lower half of the league are overall rebounding and forcing turnovers on defense. Are these concerns? How could the Magic fix them?

TQC: Maybe they are concerns. I think, though, they're necessary sacrifices. If the Magic want to rebound more, they'd have to acquire another backup big man. Leaving aside that they'd have to give somebody up if they were to make a trade, rearranging the rotation would be a bit of a hassle, especially with the team playing so well. Dwight is going to play 38 minutes at center. Hedo is going to dominate the small forward minutes, and Rashard Lewis will pick up all the extras. Rashard also will play most of the power forward minutes. As you know, part of what makes the Magic so lethal is their ability to spread the floor. They can't do that as well with a guy like, say, Joe Smith playing power forward alongside Dwight. Players who can rebound at a strong rate as well as convert three-pointers are few and far between; only Rasheed Wallace comes to mind...and Detroit (probably) won't unload him during the season. He will be a free agent this summer though. Hmm...

I believe I addressed the turnover issue in my response to a previous question.

Right now, my attitude is that the Magic shouldn't worry too much about these deficiencies, given how well they're playing otherwise. If it becomes a problem in the playoffs, Otis Smith will address it this summer.

BTT: Is Dwight Howard a serious MVP candidate? And who taught him that Duncan-style bank shot from the wing?

TQC: If the Magic somehow finish with the best record in the league, he's an MVP candidate. Right now, he's a no-brainer pick for Defensive Player of the Year and for the All-NBA First Team, but LeBron James has a pretty firm grip on that MVP trophy. It'd take a big statistical drop on LeBron's part and a disappointing second half of the season for Cleveland for him to lose that award.

While we're on the subject of Dwight's legitimacy as an MVP candidate, I'd like to dispute the notion that he can't win the award if he shoots 60% from the foul line. Obviously he should worry about shooting better, but free throw percentage is a pretty arbitrary measuring stick for MVP-dom, no? If you want to quibble about percentages, why not LeBron James' 28.7% clip from three-point range? It's silly.

Dwight's worked extensively with Magic assistant Patrick Ewing on a lot of offensive moves, but the bank shot might be the most notable addition to his repertoire. It still needs improvement, but I believe he's committed to refining that shot. And once he does--and I'll paraphrase Doc Rivers here--it's over for the league.

Thanks to Ben for his time, his thoughts and his outstanding work every day at TQC.

The Celtics at the Halfway Point--The Exact Same Team as Last Year (Almost)

2009-01-20T18:05:00.000-08:00

It's been an interesting first half for the Celtics, one filled with positive hyperbole when the team was 27-2 (Can they surpass the '96 Bulls?) and unwarranted depression when they lost seven of nine (What is wrong with the Celtics?). Since we're halfway through the season, I thought it would be a good time to take a dispassionate look at where the team stands.

What I found is this: Statistically, this team is almost exactly as good as it was last year.

Seriously, some of the numbers are downright scary. Here are the current season's stats up against last year's. (All '07-08 stats in this post are pre-All-Star break unless you see **)

'07-08 '08-09

Off. Efficiency ** 110.2 109.8

Def. Efficiency ** 98.9 99.6

Pace Factor ** 90.9 91.0

FG% 47.3 48.1

Opp. FG% 42.1 42.3

3-point % 38.1 37.3

Look at those numbers. This team, for all the screaming and yelling at both ends of the emotional spectrum, is exactly as good as it was last season. The C's are 34-9 now; they were 41-9 at the All-Star break last season.

You can even pick out random, less important statistics, and the numbers are still identical. They shot 77 percent from the line in the first half of last season; they are at 77.1 percent this season. They turned the ball over 15.1 times per game last year; they are giving it up 16.1 times per game this year. Another strange one: opponents are taking 76.9 shots per game--the exact same number, down to a tenth of a percentage point, as last season.

I could only find one significant statistical difference between last year's team and this year's team, and it's a bothersome one:

07-08 08-09

Opp. 3-point % 31.2 34.2

Observers, including the crack staff of monkeys here at Be the Three, have pointed that Boston occasionally looks tired and doesn't appear to be closing out on shooters as maniacally they did last season. Perhaps this is evidence.

There are some more noticeable differences when you look at players on the individual level. Each of the Big 3 is playing slightly fewer minutes per game this season, and, yes that includes Ray Allen, who is down from 38 mpg to 36.3 even though it seems like he's playing more. All three are also taking between one and two fewer shots per game. Interestingly, the players you'd expect to be taking those missing shots (plus the 5.4 per game Posey was tossing up) aren't the ones taking them; Rondo and Powe are taking about the same number of FGs per game (8.5 for Rajon and 4.2 for Leon, compared to 8.8 and 4.1 last season, respectively. SHOOT, RAJON!) Instead, it's Perkins, Tony Allen and Baby each hoisting between one and two extra shots per game.

KG has experienced the biggest drop in PER among the major players, from 25.3 last year to 21.2 last season. Most of the "KG isn't the same" talk has focused on the perception that he's rebounding less, but this just isn't true.

Here's KG last season vs. KG this season:

07-08 08-09

FG% 55 52

Adjusted FG% 55.1 52.1

Off. Reb. Rate ** 7.3 5.7

Def. Reb. Rate ** 25.1 27.2

Reb/36 minutes ** 10.1 10.1

Points per game 19.2 16.1

FT attempts/game 5.2 2.7

So, almost all of KG's decline from "super-elite" to "regular elite" stems from a dip in his shooting percentage and a more surprising drop in his free throw attempts. As fans, we have to hope he's saving the interior aggressiveness for May and June. But the drop in his field-goal percentage should have been expected; he's a career 49.5 percent shooter who somehow sank 55 percent of his shots last year. That wasn't happening again.

The rest of the numbers show what we already know: Rondo and Ray Allen are significantly better, House and Baby are a bit worse and Pierce is humming right along doing his Paul Pierce thing.

But we also know one other thing the numbers don't show: The C's second unit is short a big man with a solid jump shot (P.J. Brown) and a three-point shooter who plays lock-down defense (Posey). Those absences are the kinds of things that hurt you during one or two crucial possessions in the most important games--exactly the kind of small little blips these overall statistical trends miss.

As Rondo Goes...

2009-01-19T21:10:00.000-08:00

I don't think it's a stretch to say Rajon Rondo is among the three or four most important players in the league this year, in terms of determining which of the NBA's Big Four (and there are four, and only four) contenders takes the title. Because when Rondo asserts himself on offense like he did tonight, the Celtics are very tough to beat.

Rondo took 15 shots tonight, meeting my blog-imposed quota of at least 10 Rondo shots per game. Of note, six were jumpers from at least 15 feet, and Rondo made four of them. When he takes--and makes--those shots, the Celtics offense reaches a level no other player on the team can take it to on a regular basis.

Other thoughts on a game I watched while stranded at Toronto's Pearson International Airport:

• You have to give it up to Baby for playing 23 solid minutes and working hard against Shaq. Against the right guys--slow-footed bigs--Baby can be a serviceable defensive player. On offense, ESPN's shot chart shows Baby was 3-for-7 on jumpers from beyond 15 feet and 1-for-3 close to the rim. More evidence that Baby is in danger of becoming a jump shooter, which is bad because a) he's shooting 28 percent on jumpers this year and b) he rarely gets to the foul line anymore because he's shooting so many jumpers.

• Let's not go too crazy about this win. Phoenix was coming off a run-and-gun 117-113 win at Toronto, where the key players had to play heavy minutes. A quick check of the Suns schedule shows they are 4-6 in the second game of a back-t0-back this year. That's actually pretty decent, considering some of those losses have been in tough roadies (@ Utah, Dallas and the Lakers, for instance). On the other hand, its' the C's first win over a .500-plus team since Dec. 17 against Atlanta.

• You know who I like on Phoenix? Matt Barnes. I'm not sure why. I guess I have a soft spot for guys who can shoot the three, handle the ball and play in transition. He also has a Posey-esque presence on the Phoenix bench. In the Toronto game the other day, he was hopping off the bench waving his towel for any borderline decent Suns play. He seems to make a big three every time I turn on a Suns game on TV. Throw in a 1-for-7 game against the Celtics, and Barnes has done just about everything possible to win me over.

• Bill Walker...You're officially on my radar. I'm watching, and I'm interested. Let's spend some more time together and see what develops, OK?

Pop Quiz: Down Three With 12 Seconds Left, What Do You Do? Also: Introducing the "Kobe Effect"

2009-01-19T15:33:00.000-08:00

Raptors coach Jay Triano was faced with the exact same end-game situation two days in a row on Sunday and Monday: His team had the ball trailing by three points with 12.5 seconds left in the game. Twelve seconds is a strange, in-between amount of time--not quite short enough that you absolutely have to go for the tie, but not exactly long enough that you can score the quick two, foul the other team and be guaranteed to get a good look coming back on offense.

The Raptors got the ball at mid-court off a timeout in both games. Against the Suns on Sunday, Triano opted for the quick two. Anthony Parker received the in-bounds pass at the top of the key, drove right and banked a lay-up just short. Bosh missed a put-back, and the clock ran all the way down to 0.5 in the scramble. Game over.

A few key factors probably influenced Triano's decision here. First, and most important, his two best three-point shooters (Jason Kapono and Jose Calderon) were out with injuries; that left Bargnani (42.5 percent) and Parker (40 percent) as the remaining options for a game-tying three. Second, Shaq had fouled out of the game. Maybe Triano thought Parker would have an easier time finishing without the Daddy around the rim.

About 26 hours (and one flight to Atlanta) later, the Raps found themselves in an identical situation after Joe Johnson hit a contested 18-footer to put the Hawks up 87-84.

(Side note: The Hawks have no such dilemmas with their last-second offense, as we C's fans found out last spring. The play is simple: Give the ball to Johnson and watch him either drive and draw a foul; post up and hit a turnaround jumper; or drive and pull-up for the J. It's time to start talking about Joe Johnson as one of the best finishers in the game. Or maybe it just seems that way--Johnson's "clutch" FG% is just 33 percent this year, and it was well under 40 percent last year, according to 82games.com. I will heretofore dub this the Kobe Effect, defined as: "When a player creates the popular notion that he is clutch simply by taking so many late-game shots that he inevitably hits enough to create this impression, even if it is not true").

Kapono was in the lineup this time, and Triano opted to send him around a baseline screen for a three from the right wing. Kapono couldn't shake his man and tossed up an airball under extreme duress. Game over.

So Triano tried both strategies and neither worked. Someone (82games.com? Bill James?) should do a study on which strategy gives better odds of sending the game into overtime, and what amount of time remaining is the cut off after which you must go for the tie. I don't have a clue what Triano should have done in these situations. My hunch, though, is that with 12.5 seconds left, the right play is to go for the tie--especially since a quick two isn't a guarantee. But that's just my hunch. What are your thoughts?

Field Trip! Suns @ Raptors, Nash's Game and What's a "Voskuhl"?

2009-01-18T13:08:00.000-08:00

I'll tell you one thing: There's no better winter getaway for a New Yorker than Toronto. Want to know what Toronto looks like in the winter? Here:

(Note: I think one of those bears might be able to beat Jake Voskuhl off the dribble).

We trekked through another snowy day to see the Raptors host the Suns, always a hot ticket here because of the affection (warmth?) Canadians feel for Steve Nash. It was also a chance to see how the Suns looked with Jason Richardson in and Raja Bell and Boris Diaw out. Coming in, Phoenix was 8-5 since the trade, but a look at the numbers showed two obvious trends:

1) Phoenix is running--and scoring--a lot more.

2) Their average scoring margin is way up since the deal, suggesting they are probably a better team with J-Rich and a fast-paced offense.

Here are the Suns overall points for/against numbers:

Before trade: Suns 102.2, opponents 101.7

Since trade: Suns 108.8, opponents 104.6

Interestingly, most of their shooting stats haven't changed at all. They are shooting 49.7 percent since the trade and 49.8 overall; they are attempting almost exactly the same number of threes per game (17.8) and making them at the same clip (about seven per game). Their turnover margin (minus three per game) hasn't changed, either.

The one major improvement (other than the sheer number of points) has come at the foul line, where the Suns are getting 28 attempts per game since J-Rich came aboard compared to 23 per game with the Bell-Diaw combo. That can probably be chalked up to the Suns running more and using more possessions per game. Still, their FT margin (attempts vs. opponent's attempts) has improved from even before the trade to about plus 2 since.

They are also out-rebounding opponents by about 2 per game (43-41) since the trade; their rebound margin was about zero before the deal.

The conclusion to draw is probably this: The Suns are running more, and they are a slightly better team when they run than when they don't.

And boy, did they run against Toronto, racking up 71 points in the first half on better than 60 percent shooting. (Of course, they also allowed the Raps to score 63 points on 55 percent shooting. More on this later). Nash, who received as big an ovation as any Raptor, didn't score in the first half. He dished out 11 first-half assists and led a fast break so devastating it was if the "seven seconds or less" rule was still in play. Richardson, Barbosa and Matt Barnes streaked down the wings after every miss and waited for Nash to deliver the ball. It was beautiful to watch.

Some thoughts from an entertaining 117-113 Suns win that came down to the last minute:

• It was fascinating to watch Nash. He's not the same player he was two or three years ago. He rarely penetrated into the paint and couldn't find space for those trademark 15-foot floating jumpers. Credit some of this to Anthony Parker, who is long enough and quick enough to keep Nash out of the paint and contest those floaters. But Nash spent nearly all his time above the foul line in this game and almost never looked to score. It is a credit to him that he was still the most important player on the floor and still asserted himself as a scorer when it mattered most (more on that later).

• It's hard to overstate how entertaining Shaq is in person. During the national anthem (U.S. version), a cameraman walked along the line of players and stopped for a brief close-up of each one. Most of them ignored the camera; Shaq, however, glared right at it but didn't quite crack a smile. When it was his turn to be introduced as a starter, he got up and threw a fake punch at Robin Lopez, who took a nice pratfall onto the floor, feigning injury.

At one point in the third quarter, Toronto turned the ball over in transition and Shaq, who had been trailing the crowd on defense, found himself alone at half court. Barnes (I think) led him with a football pass that Shaq caught at about the three-point line. The crowd stood in anticipation/excitement/terror as Shaq got his momentum going toward the rim for a fast-break dunk. Would he lose control of the ball and tumble into the crowd? Break the rim? Get going so fast he'd jam, swing on the rim and fall on his back? Anything was possible. Luckily, Joey Graham swiped the ball away as Shaq brought it up for the jam. (The ref called a questionable foul).

• The Suns can play transition ball with Shaq in the game. It is possible. With about eight minutes to go in the second quarter, Nash grabbed a rebound and sprinted into transition. Toronto recovered, but Shaq had established deep post position on Bargnani after just a few seconds had elapsed on the shot clock. Nash fed him, Shaq spun around Bargs and laid it in. There were still 18 tics on the shot clock. It was Seven Seconds or Less--the Shaq version.

• Toronto has an ambivalent relationship with this team. They cheer loudly whenever Bargnani takes it strong to the rim--even if he misses. They are begging him to show some toughness, and, to his credit, he went right at Stoudemire a few times early for easy scores. If he misses two or three jumpers in a row, the groans come out.

Poor Jamario Moon. Every time he set up for a shot, the guys next to me would scream, "No! No! No!" And this was on a day when he was 6-for-9, including 4-of-6 from deep, though he is shooting only 43 percent on jumpers this season, according to 82games.

• The Nash-Stoudemire high screen-roll remains among the hardest plays to stop in the game. The Big Love Fest finished with 31 points, almost all of them off screen-rolls with Nash. Sometimes he'd pop out for a jumper, and sometimes he'd careen toward the rim like only Amare can do--bouncing off defenders, sinking awkward-looking shots, etc.

But with 30 seconds left and the Suns with the ball up 114-113, Toronto decided to switch even before Stoudemire set the screen in order to avoid giving him even a split second's worth of open space. This left one of Toronto's big guards (Parker) on Amare and a big man (Bargnani) on Nash. This made a lot of sense--Nash had only one field goal through the first 46 minutes of the game, and Parker was quick enough on the switch to prevent Nash from squeezing a pass to Stoudemire.

But this is why Nash is a great player. He saw the mismatch, and, for one of the only times in the game, he took the ball hard to the rim and sank a circus lay-up. Biggest shot of the game. He may not be able to throw up 20 or 30 point games regularly anymore, but he can score in key spots.

• The Suns defense is...interesting. They mix in a lot of zone and box-and-one looks, with Shaq or Amare hanging around the paint, two guys sliding along the baseline and two others along the foul line. There is a bit of the Lakers strong-side zone (as explained beautifully here by Forum Blue & Gold), with Richardson, Hill and Barnes cheating over from the weak side and daring you to swing the ball crosscourt (Richardson intercepted two passes this way). But it left the Suns vulnerable to open threes (the Raps were 7-of-15 from deep), and the Raps were occasionally able to find players in open spots along the baseline.

• As for the Raps, they miss Jose Calderon badly. His backup, Roko Ukic, played a solid game but was only on the court for 18 minutes. For the remaining 30 minutes, the Raps lacked a true point guard who could break down defenses and get teammates open for easy shots. They rely heavily on jumpers set up by screens. It's not an easy way to score points.

• Finally, a personal note: A Jake Voskuhl siting!! As a Connecticut native, this was thrilling for me. Voskuhl went to UConn and started for the '99 team (Rip Hamilton and Khalid El-Amin, AKA "The Beached Whale," were the stars) that beat the Elton Brand-Trajan Langdon Duke team for the title. At the time, my college buddies coined "The Voskuhl," which was the rare occurrence when a player's fouls + turnovers were greater than his points + rebounds. I'm happy to say Voskuhl recorded "a Voskuhl" today, with zero points, zero rebounds, two turnovers and a foul in six glorious minutes. Thanks for the memories, Jake.

Fun with Plus/Minus, Part II: Do the Lakers Need a Point Guard?

2009-01-17T12:03:00.001-08:00

Some observations from the fantastic Lakers-Magic game last night:

• If you still don't think the Magic are legit title contenders, I don't know what to tell you. Here's Jameer Nelson (who had a MONSTER fourth-quarter from deep) after the game: "We're flying under the radar. Nobody's really noticed us. At the same time it's fine with us. Everybody in this locker room knows the type of team we have and knows what we're capable of."

You know SVG is playing this "us against the doubters" stuff up every day. But the truth is, everybody following the league knows how good the Magic are. Everybody. You hear that Jameer? Dwight? I'm a Celtics fan, and I would be terrified to face your team in the playoffs. Kobe says Jameer's an All-Star, you just swept the Lakers and you're 32-and-freaking-8. We all believe. You can keep saying you're "under the radar," but you're all over the radar like the strawberry jam in "Spaceballs."

• The most interesting question about the Lakers is this: Do they even need a point guard? The question needs to be asked after numbers surfaced at Basketball Value (via True Hoop) showing that Derek Fisher and Jordan Farmar have by far the worst adjusted plus/minus numbers on the team. (For the uninitiated: Adjusted plus/minus works like regular plus/minus, except the math involved takes into account the quality of the other nine guys on the floor with a particular player. The goal is to take away the credit a mediocre player might get for being in a a great starting unit or to give credit to the quality sub stuck with some subpar bench players. Here's a more detailed explanation).

Let's exclude Farmar from the discussion for now, since he's been hurt for almost a month and has played just 28 percent of the team's minutes this year. Looking at Fisher, the regular plus/minus numbers rank him third on the Lakers at plus 252. That's good. Looking a little deeper, the defense performs a tiny bit worse with Fisher on the floor (less than a full point per 100 possessions, so not really significant), and Basketball Reference has him rated at the bottom of the roster in individual defense. The man Fisher guards also has a PER of 18 compared to his 14.9, so opposing point guards are out-playing Fisher overall.

Fisher's an interesting offensive player He shoots a very nice percentage from deep (about 45 percent), but that's really all he does--and he need lots of space to do it. He takes about two foul shots per game, and his overall shooting percentage is 41 percent--meaning he's really clanking his two-point shots.

This all came to my mind last night when Jackson sent Vujacic in for Fisher with 4:15 left in the third and Orlando up 69-62. The lineup was Vujacic-Kobe-Gasol-Radmanovic-Odom. Kobe and Odom split the ball-handling duties, driving into the lane and creating havoc. Bryant hit a three and then drove-and-kicked to Radmanovic for two wide open bombs. Odom sliced through the lane once for a lay-up and then again to draw a shooting foul.

After two minutes, the Lakers were ahead by 1.

I'm not suggesting the Lakers are better without a traditional point guard. I'm only suggesting they might be, given who their traditional point guards are and the fact that Kobe is the team's primary creator. I think Phil needs to think very hard about whether Fisher should be on the court during crunch time--on either side of the ball.

The counter, of course, is that the Lakers need somebody to spare Kobe some of the ball-handling duties so he's not tired down the stretch. And suggesting that championships can be won without a traditional point guard is blasphemous, even though the Lakers, Bulls and Rockets have won it all in the last 15 years without a point who dominates the ball or the assist numbers.

Either way, it will be very interesting to see how Farmar plays (and how much) when he comes back from knee surgery, and what Phil does in the big moments of the biggest games. Then again, the way the Western Conference is shaping up, he may not need to worry about any of this until the Finals.

Saturday's Fun with Plus/Minus, Edition II

2009-01-17T10:53:00.001-08:00

The plus/minus stat continues to confuse/frustrate us. Stat-heads celebrated when ESPN followed NBA.com and Yahoo's lead and added it to its box scores, but we're not convinced plus/minus, at least on an individual game level, means anything. Last Saturday, we looked at one strange plus/minus line suggesting that Jamal Magloire had a huge positive impact in limited minutes for an otherwise uninspired Heat team. We concluded that Magloire had been OK, but that his plus/minus numbers were likely the result of his happening to be on the court when Dwyane went crazy--twice.

This week, we noticed another interesting plus/minus line from the Heat's 102-99 win over the Bucks on Wednesday, this time involving two teammates. In 40 minutes, Andrew Bogut finished plus 11 in the loss. In 37 minutes, Michael Redd finished minus 10. How could two players who play so many of the same minutes have such drastically different plus/minus scores? We checked the game log to find out, and what we found didn't surprise us: Nearly the entire difference can be explained by one nine-minute stretch in which Redd was on the court and Bogut was not.

The Bucks were up 18-8 when Skiles replaced Bogut with Dan Gadzuric with 5:18 left in the first quarter. When Bogut re-entered the game at the 9:32 mark of the second quarter, the Heat were up 36-28--an 18-point swing. For all but a few of their remaining minutes, Bogut and Redd were on the court together.

Three questions need to be asked, then:

1) How much did Bogut contribute to that early lead?

2) Why did the Bucks fall apart without him for nine minutes?

3) Was Redd really that bad for that nine-minute span?

The answer to question one is unclear (I didn't watch the game). Bogut had one basket and a couple of boards as the Bucks jumped out early. Miami started cold, going 3-11, and it's reasonable to conclude Bogut contributed to that; several sets of numbers show the Bucks D performs much better with Bogut on the floor.

The answer to question two is easy: Miami went off from the perimeter (jumpers from Beasley and Marion, and five threes from Daequan Cook, who's playing so well he may merit his own post soon. Chris Quinn chipped in a three as well).

As for the last question, Redd went 0-4 during the nine-minute span. It's unclear who he was guarding on the other end, but Redd's never been regarded as a good defensive player.

Overall, Redd scored 16 points, but it would have been hard for him to score those points less efficiently. He was 8-21 from the floor, attempted zero free throws, grabbed one board and recorded zero assists. He also committed five fouls. Redd did have two steals against one turnover, but, in general, it appears Redd deserved a minus 10 for the night.

Did Bogut deserve a plus 11? That's less clear.

By the way, for the year, Redd leads the team in plus minus. Broken down further, the stats show Milwaukee performs much better offensively with Redd on the court and at about average levels (for them) on defense. So when Redd sputters on offense, he can turn into a liability--which is what happened Wednesday.

So does that mean plus/minus actually works? My head hurts.

We Live in a Golden Age of Statistics...Or Do We?

2009-01-15T19:43:00.000-08:00

One thing that has always driven me crazy about shot-blockers: Why do they take such pride in blocking shots so emphatically that they send the ball into the crowd? Don't they realize it's costing their team a chance at a fast break and giving the ball back to their opponent?

Well, thanks to the geniuses at 82games.com, we now know which players commit this cardinal sin most often: Dwyane Wade (24 percent of blocks out of bounds), Dwight Howard (23), Kenyon Martin (23) and LeBron James (21). No surprises, especially not Martin. The only images my brain has recorded of Kenyon Martin are of him dunking; hanging on the rim; and blocking shots into the fifth row while Jason Kidd stands at the foul line wondering if Martin realizes he has the best fast-break point guard in the league on his team.

To his credit, Dwight Howard has acknowledged that this is a problem. Here's Howard in a November interview with Florida Today:

"My coaches and teammates want me to block the shot and keep it in bounds, but I think the fans like for me to knock it all the way out of bounds."

What did surprise me: Josh Smith has the highest percentage of blocked shots (63 percent) that result in a defensive rebound for his team. I always thought of Smith as a hot dog. I'm glad to see I was wrong, at least on this count. Also on the "good" side of this stat: Pau Gasol and Andrei Kirilenko. On the bad side, aside from Wade, Martin and Howard: Mark Blount. Keep collecting that $8.5 million salary, big guy!

I feel better knowing these arcane things.

But the age of numbers also has its downfalls. For instance, before really smart people started coming up with really smart ways to evaluate players, it would have been axiomatic that Lamarcus Aldridge is a good player. He averages 17 points per game on 48 percent shooting and can stretch defenses with his size and shooting ability.

Along comes David Berri, whose wins produced formula finds that Aldridge is a below average NBA player. Ah, but then we have Basketball Value (hat tip to True Hoop), which has come up with a version of plus/minus that adjusts for the quality of the other nine guys on the floor. Aldridge ranks eighth-best in the NBA by this measure, behind names like Chris Paul, LeBron James and KG.

So who's right? The truth is, even the smartest NBA fans--and this includes beat reporters, bloggers, writers, etc.--simply don't have the mathematical background or the time to sit down and evaluate these formulas.

Complex stats have enhanced our understanding of all sports (especially baseball), but they've spread so quickly in the last 15 years, due largely to the Web, that sometimes you can read for hours and come away with no firm conclusion. And that's probably a good thing, even if it's a bit frustrating.

Where Coaching Matters, and The Most Terrifying Possible First Round Opponent

2009-01-15T18:58:00.001-08:00

A couple of months ago, there was some healthy debate over whether an NBA coach actually has an impact on a team's win-loss record or whether a coach is dependent on the quality of his players. It's a three-sided debate between those who a) think coaches make a huge difference b) think coaches make a minimal difference or none at all (such as David Berri, the economist who runs the Wages of Wins blog) and c) those who think the subject is far too complicated t to be measured accurately.

There is one way a coach has obvious impact, though: picking which players are on the court. And there are two coaches in the Eastern Conference right now with major decisions to make. The first is Michael Curry, who is playing a too-small lineup because he can't decide which star (Rip Hamilton or AI) should come off the bench. Neither is thrilled about the idea, and AI delivered this fantastic quote in response to a question about it:

"If I'm asked to come off the bench, I would think it's to help the team. But I never felt me coming off the bench would help the team."

Translation: "I'm way too good for that."

Of course, Curry could stick with the small ball, but Detroit Bad Boys has run the numbers and doesn't think that's going to work.

Of more interest to me are the Philadelphia 76ers, who face a bit of a dilemma now that their big offseason pick-up, Elton Brand, is returning after missing 13 games with a shoulder injury. The Sixers are just 7-6 in that span, but they've won five straight and have found their stride offensively. They're playing small ball with Thaddeus Young in Brand's power forward spot, pushing the pace and shooting a high percentage from the floor. This team was 28th in offensive efficiency when Mo Cheeks was fired in mid-December. They've jumped to 23rd since, and they've shot higher than their season average from the field (45.8 percent) in 11 of their last 12 games. Going with a transition game makes sense; the Sixers, other than Brand, don't really have the jump shooters you need in a half-court offense, and running is what made them dangerous toward the end of last season.

The big question is: What will they do now that Elton Brand is coming back?

Hollinger thinks they should stay small by playing Brand at the 5 and sitting Sam Dalembert and his 11.23 PER on the bench. What a decision for Tony DiLeo, the Sixers' rookie coach. What should he do? Go small and get risk getting torched on the boards by the league's good rebounding teams? Or go big and risk watching the offense sputter again? This is why coaches get no sleep.

As a Celtics fan, I really hope he makes the wrong decision. This team terrifies me as a possible sixth, seventh or eighth seed opponent in the first round. I can see the Philly crowd getting into this team while Andre Iguodala streaks down the wing waiting for Andre Miller to feed him for a monster dunk. It could be the Hawks all over again.

Harvey Araton, You Have Offended Me

2009-01-15T17:53:00.001-08:00

A fun little story in the NYT today about how New York City hasn't produced a star point guard since...does Stephon Marbury count? The piece goes through the storied lineage of New York point guards (Pearl Washington, Bob Cousy, Tiny Archibald, etc.), then laments that none of the game's great young PGs come from the city.

In the category of excellent young point guards, the writer, the esteemed Harvey Araton, includes the following: Tony Parker, Deron Williams, Derek Rose, Chris Paul and Devin Harris.

Mr. Araton has left someone out. For the record, Rajon Rondo was born in Louisville, Kentucky. Mr. Araton, you are on thin ice.

The story points out that Marbury, for all his flaws, is No. 22 all-time in assists, and Mr. Araton, despite his obvious anti-Boston bias (*note: not serious), helpfully lists where each point guard ranks on the all-time assist list.

Some tidbits:

• You are a real NBA fan if you can name the guy who's No. 2 all-time in assists off the top of your head.

• Bob Cousy is 14th. This shocked me, if only because my father (like every Celtics fan father his age) has regaled me with tales of Cousy's passing genius and creativity. But the guy has fewer career assists than Rod Strickland! And Lenny Wilkens! Why? Well, teams played between five and ten fewer games per year when Cousy played. But still--Cous "only" averaged 7.5 assists per game in his career and never cracked double-digits in a season, despite the fact that the Celtics averaged about 120 points per game in their best years.

So what was going on? I have only theories. First: Nobody could shoot in that era. Check out the individual FG percentages from the '61-62 Celtics, that season's champions. It's ugly. The team's "sharpshooters" were hitting at a 45 percent clip. Cousy himself was under 40 percent.

(Seriously--the team scored 120 points per game and shot in the low 40s. Can you imagine the pace they must have played at?)

There's also the idea, floated most recently here, that NBA scoring officials are a bit too liberal in awarding assists today--particularly to star players. People who pay more attention to this stuff than I do swear this is true.

Other tidbits from the list of the top 25o all-time assist leaders:

• First non-guard on the list: Scottie Pippen at No. 25. I say this only to re-ignite a decade-old argument that caused an unreasonable amount of tension between my college friends and I.

• Numbers 33-35 on the list: Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul-Jabaar and Michael Jordan.

You Should Have Seen This Coming: The Thunder Aren't So Bad

2009-01-14T19:54:00.000-08:00

If you weren't paying attention you'd be shocked that the Oklahoma City Thunder, currently sitting at 7-33, just spanked the Jazz, 114-93. But it's actually not that surprising. After 25 games or so where their offense was a disaster on wheels, the Thunder had actually been playing solid basketball for about three weeks.

In fact, the Thundies shot a higher field-goal percentage than their opponents in eight of 10 games going into the Jazz game Wednesday night. They shot at least 48 percent six times in that span. And yet, they they managed to go only 3-7--good for the Thunder, but not a record you'd expect from a team regularly out-shooting its opponents. Why were they still losing? Because even when they shot well, they made the dumb mistakes young teams make. If they could only put together a complete game...

Here's a game-by-game look at the Thundies since Christmas:

12/26, 88-90 loss @ Detroit: Thunder outshot the Pistons 45.1 percent to 44.8 percent, but lost on an Iverson runner with 0.3 left. The defense on AI was decent; chalk it up to a scorer scoring. Thunder's bad stat of the night: 12-19 from the foul line.

12/27, 95-104 loss @ Wiz: Thunder outshot Wiz 48 percent to 45 percent, but fell apart in crunch time. The Wiz won the money quarter, 28-19, and the Thundies committed 19 total turnovers.

12/29, 102-110 loss at home vs. Phoenix: Thunder outshot Suns 52.8 percent to 50 percent, but allowed 14 offensive rebounds and hit just 21 of 31 foul shots.

12/31: 107-100 home win vs. Golden State: Thunder outshot Warriors 48 percent to 46 percent, actually won.

1/2: 120-122 loss @ Denver: Thunder shot 58 percent and lost (Denver shot 54 percent). The Thunder fouled a lot (Denver took 39 foul shots, compared to 26 for OkC) and lost the turnover battle, but they were still up by one with 2.7 seconds left after a clutch Durant three. Then they decided to give Melo some space in the corner for a game-winning three at the buzzer. Terrible defense.

1/6: 107-99 win at home vs. New York: Thunder outshot Knicks 52 percent to 39 percent, actually won. Knicks are bad at playing basketball.

1/7: 87-129 loss @ Minnesota: This was ugly. Thunder shot 39.8 percent, compared to 58 percent for the Baby Celtics.

1/9: 96-98 loss at home vs. Houston: Thunder outshot Rockets 48 percent to 46 percent, but committed 21 turnovers, attempted 15 fewer foul shots than Houston and failed to execute down the stretch.

1/10: 109-98 win @ Chicago: The Bulls actually won the shooting battle, 43 percent to 41 percent, but lost in a Thunderesque way--by doing the other stuff poorly, namely losing the rebounding battle 59-37. All those offensive boards led to 16 more foul shot attempts for OkC.

1/12: 99-103 overtime loss @ New Jersey: Thundies outshot the Nets 44 percent to 40 percent, but committed 22 turnovers and botched every clutch possession in the fourth quarter, even as the Nets were giving them chance after chance to win the game. On two key possessions with the game tied at 88 and less than a minute to go in regulation, the Thunder did nothing for 20 seconds and had to settle for tough fade away jumpers (one each from Green and Durant) with the shot clock running down.

Finally, Wednesday against Utah: The Thunder shot 55 percent against a solid defensive team (ninth in defensive efficiency and eighth in effective FG % allowed) and held Utah to 42 percent from the field. But they also got to the line 38 times and made 33 of them, and out-rebounded Utah 48-26 (!). Aside from 17 turnovers, the Thunder played a very nice NBA game on Wednesday.

This team is getting better. Don't be shocked if they play something like .400 ball or better the rest of the way.

The Third Quarter Team, That's the Team I Know

2009-01-14T19:28:00.000-08:00

The last time I was in Boston, a few of my friends and I met up to watch what we hoped would be a fun early December game between the C's and the Blazers. Both teams were on winning streaks, and the Blazers were talking about the game being a measuring stick. For the first quarter and a half, it was a fun game. Then, with 5:33 left in the 2nd quarter, Doc brought KG and Ray off the bench, and the C's put the hammer down with a 14-4 run to end the half. The starters came in determined to put the Blazers away, and they did.

I hadn't seen that kind of ruthlessness in a while. Until tonight. The C's led 51-41 at the half, and the starters were not in the mood to play the fourth quarter. Three minutes in, the Celtics led by 20, and they finally looked like the Celtics--unselfish, cocky and devastatingly disruptive on defense. Rondo was doing his John Stockton thing, where he drives along the baseline, goes airborne and kicks to an open shooter (Pierce and Scal in this case) for an open 3. KG passed up an easy eight-foot jump hook after shoulder-juking Lopez and threw a no-look pass to Pierce for another three. Rondo flung a behind-the-back pass across nearly the entire width of the court to Scalabrine. Later, Rajon lobbed for KG and accidentally tossed the ball in the basket--and Garnett didn't even laugh. This was business.

And Rondo made a 20-foot jumper. I saw it. SHOOT, RAJON!

On the other end, the shot chart shows the Nets took almost nothing but perimeter shots. But these weren't the good kind of long jumpers. These were the kind of threes a team shoots when they are so dejected they just want to get the possession over with, where players say, "If we're getting beat this badly, I'm at least going to try and get mine."

Third quarter score: 37-19, C's.

Some random thoughts from a nice, relaxing win:

• The basketball gods are still punishing Bobby Simmons for taunting the Bucks bench when he hit that game-tying three-pointer a few days ago. First it was Luke Ridnour doing this, and Wednesday it was Pierce faking him out so badly with a stutter step toward the hoop that Simmons stumbled back and nearly fell on his butt. Pierce stepped back and hit a three.

• Brook Lopez is for real. A great pick by the Nets. He can defend seven-footers, and he used his height to make up for Powe's quickness advantage down low.

• Eddie House was on fire in the fourth quarter. I wish he would save that for a real game.

• I'm going to have to come out against Celtics fans who think Gabe Pruitt is ready to play meaningful minutes in a real game. His handle is sloppy, and when he gets into the lane he tends to go up without a plan. Unlike Rondo, he's not a good enough passer to make something out of those situations; his passes were clanking off people's legs. His jumper looks good, though; I just don't think he's ready to man the point in pressure spots.

Is it OK to Take Three Three-Pointers in the Last Minute of a Game You're Winning by 35?

2009-01-14T18:44:00.000-08:00

Yes.

There was some grumbling in the Sacramento Bee today over the Magic continuing to pull threes late in the fourth quarter of their 139-107 obliteration of the Kings. The Magic set an NBA record with 23 threes in the game, including a handful in the fourth quarter. Here's the Bee's Sam Amick:

"The rub for the Kings was that the Magic kept rubbing it in, with starter Courtney Lee on the floor until the end alongside sharpshooting reserve Keith Bogans. The Magic shot 10 threes in the fourth despite leading by 22 entering the period, with a Bogans three with two minutes left extending their piece of history and infuriating the Kings."

Let's ignore the fact that the "sharpshooting" Keith Bogans is a career 39.6 percent shooter and focus on the larger question: Did the Magic run up the score? The answer is no; they extended their lead, yes, but they did not run up the score in, say, the way the Patriots did during their magical 18-1 season.

After a Hedo Turkoglu three with 7:47 left to go, the following members of the Magic took three-pointers: Brian Cook, Tony Battie, Bogans and Jeremy Richardson. It was Richardson who made the Magic's record-breaking 22nd three with 2:19 left.

Bogans and Battie are rotation players, but Cook barely plays and Richardson has played 24 minutes all season--and was in danger of being sent to the D-League earlier this month.

If you've read Paul Shirley's book Can I Keep My Jersey?, you know those garbage time minutes matter very much to players like Jeremy Richardson and Brian Cook. Especially Richardson, who has no guaranteed money after this year and has to use every second to prove he deserves a real NBA look.

Running up the score would mean keeping Howard, Lewis, Nelson and Turkoglu on the floor late into the fourth quarter and pushing the pace. Howard didn't play the entire quarter, and Van Gundy took Lewis out with about 11 minutes to go.

If the bench players want to run the floor and shoot threes, they should do it. The Kings are a professional basketball team, and it's their job to play defense. To his credit, Francisco Garcia, who said the three barrage made him angry, admitted so much after the game, telling the Bee of the embarrassment: "That's the price we've got to pay. We weren't playing no defense."

The Bee (and Sactown in general) may be nit-picking here because of bitterness toward Stan Van Gundy for the way he (allegedly) feigned interest in the Kings vacant head coaching job in the '07 off-season--even telling them he was going house hunting, according to some accounts--while negotiating in secret with the Magic during the Billy Donovan fiasco.

Still, though, the Magic did not break unwritten rules on Tuesday night.

The Eddy Curry All-Stars

2009-01-13T18:54:00.000-08:00

This blog aims to be high-brow, but occasionally something happens that's so juicy we dive headlong into the gutter. If it involves the Knicks, even better. So imagine how we felt when we woke up to the news that Eddy Curry's limo driver is suing Curry, claiming that Curry allegedly: showed the driver his penis and demanded he touch it; made anti-Semitic remarks; pointed a gun (note: not a euphemism for penis) at him; and...you know what? I'm stopping there. There's more here if you want it.

The allegations could all turn out to be false. But it got us thinking: Is Eddy Curry in danger of going down as having the most embarrassing career in NBA history? To recap: Curry was picked fourth overall in the (very weak) 2001 draft; is almost always out of shape; got traded to the Knicks in a trade so bad it became a running joke and serves as a primer for how not to run a team; was basically banished from the Knicks (along with Isiah Thomas and Stephon Marbury) upon the arrival of a real NBA coach and GM; was sued.

If he retired now, he'd be in the running for the "most embarrassing career" award. But this got us thinking about the most embarrassing draft picks (other than Curry) of the last 20 or so years. Not run-of-the-mill busts like Sam Bowie or Chris Washburn or Joe Barry Carroll, or high picks that turned out to be only so-so NBA players (such as Joe Smith). No, these are players who, when you hear their name, you can immediately conjure up a single, humiliating image, nickname or sequence of events that defines their career. Players like...

10) Darko Mlicic, #2 overall selection (Detroit), 2003.

He's never averaged over eight points per game in the league, but even if he has a couple of solid seasons it won't matter. He was The One, the player who would prove international big men with silky jumpers and a deft handle could thrive in the NBA despite questionable toughness. He would prove Joe Dumars' wisdom in choosing Him over Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh and Carmelo Anthony. Instead, we got two seasons of classic "Darko Pouts on Bench" photos that inspired a landmark basketball Web site and gave Bill Simmons free reign to mock Chad Ford forever.

Players taken later: See above.

9) Frederic Weis, #15 overall pick (Knicks), 1999.

Because it was the Knicks. But mostly because of this. (Watch for the hysterical Vin Baker cameo).

Players taken later: Ron Artest, Andrei Kirilenko, and Be the Three fave James Posey).

8) Bryant Reeves, #6 overall pick (Vancouver Grizzlies), 1995.

Remember when the Grizzlies played in Vancouver? Then you probably remember the time Reeves showed up to camp 40 pound overweight. And you probably remember when the Grizz signed Bryant Reeves to a 6-year, $65 million contract that, as one writer put it, may have single-handedly "killed basketball in Western Canada." Awesome. (Note: In Reeves' defense, he put up a 16-8 for one season in his prime).

Players taken later: Michael Finley and Kurt Thomas are the best of a sad, sad draft.

7) Charles Smith, #3 overall pick in 1988 (by Philadelphia, which immediately traded Smith to--who else--the Clippers in exchange for Hersey Hawkins).

This is a personal pick. Smith was a solid NBA player for nearly a decade, and averaged over a 20 per game twice (albeit for the Clips). But we will always remember him for this catastrophe. If you'll recall, this was the season ('92-93) when everyone thought the Riley Knicks, the top seed that year, were going to take down Chicago after pushing them to seven games the year before. Being a snotty little 15-year-old Knicks hater, I decided to take advantage of the Knicks euphoria spreading over my hometown in Connecticut and make a few wagers (against the Knicks) with my Knick fan friends. Boy were they crowing after the Knicks won games 1 and 2 at home. I quoted Riles back at them: "It's not a series until the road team wins." Chicago held serve in games 3 and 4, which set the stage for what remains my favorite Marv Albert call of all time in game 5.

Players taken later: Mitch Richmond, Rony Seikaly, Dan Majerle

6) Pervis Ellison, #1 overall pick in 1989 (The Kings. I had forgotten this. I assumed it was the Clippers).

Never Nervous Pervis did average 20 a game for Lez Boulez in '91-92 and 17 a game the year after, but that was about it for him. He missed huge chunks of games for our beloved C's in the mid-1990s after hilariously dropping a coffee table on his foot, earning the nickname "Out of Service Pervis" from Danny Ainge.

Players taken later: Tim Hardaway, Sean Elliott, Stacey "Burger" King, Shawn Kemp

5) Harold Miner, #12 overall pick, 1992 (Miami Heat)

This one makes me sad, because the humiliation associated with Miner (you think "Baby Jordan" instantly) is more our fault than his. He was the first "Next Jordan," and he collapsed under the pressure like all the others (though he did defeat Isaiah/J.R. Rider in the finals of the Slam Dunk Contest in 1995). His college coach at USC, George Raveling, once said, "I always thought the worst thing to happen to Harold was the 'Baby Jordan' tag.'" We agree. By the way, am I only one who thinks that analysts overrated Miner in part because he's a lefty? They just look so much smoother doing anything.

Players picked later: Doug Christie, Latrell Sprewell

4) Michael Olowokandi, #1 overall pick, 1998 (Who else? The Clippers).

Bill Simmons once called him the "human Ebola virus." League observers thought he was lazy, and he did nothing to distinguish himself over a nine-year career. Wait. Nine years? This guy stuck in the league for nine years? That doesn't seem possible.

Players picked later: Where to even start? Paul Pierce, Dirk Nowitzki, Mike Bibby, Vince Carter, Michael Doleac

3) Qyntel Woods #21 overall pick, 2002 (Portland)

Before you ask how someone picked so low could be ranked so high here, admit that you thought either "pit bulls" or "Jail Blazers" right when your read his name. Before Michael Vick became the most hated dogfighter in sports, Woods pleaded guilty to animal abuse for staging fights between pit bulls at his house in Oregon. He was also arrested on marijuana charges in a separate case. Of course, since this was the Jail Blazers, it couldn't just be a simple marijuana arrest. As the outstanding Blazers blog Deceptively Quick reminds us, cops pulled Woods over for speeding, smelled pot and asked for his license and registration. Woods handed them a basketball trading card and a credit card. This is an actual true story.

The Blazers eventually waived him, and Woods bounced around the Celtics, the Knicks and the D-League before finding a home on the high-powered Greek team Olympiacos. He even helped Olympiacos reach the Greek league finals last season. Sweet redemption! Except Woods was caught using marijuana during the finals and waived for breaching his contract. He now plays in Italy.

In a weird way, Qyntel Woods is an iconic NBA player, the symbol of a brief era so reprehensible that Portland started making all its personnel decisions with the primary goal of getting players who are not like Qyntel Woods.

Players taken later: Tayshaun Prince, John Salmons, Nenad Kristic

2) Shawn Bradley, #2 overall pick, 1993 (Philadelphia).

Because he looked funny, and because every player in the league made it their goal to dunk on him at some point. ESPN actually aired a montage of the top 10 dunks on Shawn Bradley. You can watch it here. It's sort of mean.

1) Kwame Brown, #1 overall pick, 2001 (Washington Wizards)

It has to be Kwame Brown, because he didn't just take himself down--he took down Michael Jordan, too.

Here is what MJ said after the Wiz drafted Kwame: "We don't know what he is capable of doing." Sounds like as good a reason as any to draft someone! Doug Collins, then the coach of the Wizards, told reporters that Brown had encouraged the Wiz to draft him by telling Collins, "If you draft me, you'll never regret it." Which is kind of true, because they somehow convinced the Lakers to take Brown and Laron Profit (?) in exchange for Caron Butler and Chucky Atkins. That's an Isiah-like deal.

Before the trade, MJ had his infamous comeback season, during which he once called Brown and anti-gay slur, according this book by a Washington Post writer.

In LA, Phil Jackson routinely questioned Brown's work ethic and called him a sissy. Brown has averaged 7.2 points per game for his career, and is pouring in 3.7 ppg this year in limited minutes for the Pistons.

This man has earned more than $42 million in his NBA career.

Oh, and he also threw a stranger's birthday cake at his head for no reason. He was not prosecuted.

Players taken later: Jason Richardson, Joe Johnson, Zach Randolph, Joseph Forte, Tony Parker

It's a Struggle These Days...Your Daily Worried Celtics Post

2009-01-12T20:04:00.001-08:00

Here's a sentence from the Celtics-Raptors AP recap:

"The Celtics are 4-0 against the Raptors this season and are starting to regain the rhythm that sparked them to a 27-2 record."

Allow me to retort. This was about as dead even a statistical game as possible--field goal percentage (47.7 to 47.6), three-pointers (10-24 vs. 9-22), foul shots (21-26 vs. 22-26) and even turnovers (12 for the good guys, 11 for the Raps) were all nearly identical. The Raps were missing Jermaine O'Neal (which would have been significant three years ago) and Jose Calderon (which is significant now), while the C's were without Perk--and will be for about a week.

A dead even game against the Raps at home worries me, even it was the second half of a back-to-back.

Other things that worry me:

• Rondo continues to take very few shots. He was 4-for-9 tonight, and one of those was an attempt at a lob/lay-in at the buzzer off a Pierce inbounds pass from half court.

I am starting this campaign now: I want Rondo taking at least 10 shots per game. I will not stop harping on this. Rondo is averaging 8.3 shot attempts per game. He averaged 9.3 last year. SHOOT RAJON!

One other Rondo note: Will Solomon and Roko Ukic scored 26 points on 11-22 shooting. That's not acceptable, even on Night Two of a back-to-back.

• Big Baby. On a night when the C's played an OT game without Perkins, Doc could only find 13 minutes for Baby. That was his average minutes played last season. He's up to about 17 per game this season, but, as Kelly Dwyer points out (and the numbers back up), Baby's been significantly less productive in '08-'09. His PER is down from about 12 (close to average) to about 8 (terrible), and he's not getting to the line at nearly the rate he was last season (2.2 FTAs in 13.6 minutes vs. 1.7 in 16.8 minutes). Why? Because his shot selection has changed dramatically. According to 82games, only 29 percent of Baby's shots were jumpers last season. That number is up to 65 percent this year.

Let's face it: Baby is a terrible finisher around the rim; he's not exactly an explosive leaper after all. I don't know that I've ever seen a big man miss such a high percentage of his put backs and lay-ups. My guess is he got so discouraged that he's not taking it to the rim anymore. But he's not an effective offensive player unless he's drawing fouls. Just close your eyes and go up strong, big fella!

One more Baby note: I think Dwyer and others are too hard on his defense. He plays well given the right match-up (by which I mean a slower big guy. He was on Bosh briefly last night, and Bosh just blew by him for a baseline dunk). He moves well laterally and he works his butt off to leap out (if not UP) to contest shots. His opponents' PER from last season and this season show he handles centers well (PER around 12) while power forwards torch him (PER around 2o).

Point being: I think Baby can be a useful player if used correctly.

Some good things:

• Chris Bosh scored 18 points in 45 minutes, but he took just 11 shots. Anytime KG and company hold CB$ to fewer shot attempts than Roko Ukic, I'm happy.

• A great game from Pierce. Yeah, he missed an FT that opened the door for the Bargs (welcome to the league, by the way) game-tying three. But there are few players I'd rather have at the line with the game hanging in the balance.

• Gabe Pruitt is contributing. This is interesting. We'll see if Doc plants him back on the bench when Tony Allen comes back.

• Is anyone better than Ray Allen at driving baseline, going up for the lay-in and adjusting to a defensive challenge by bringing the ball back down, ducking under the rim and flicking a shot back over the other side? It seems to go in every time.

Poor, Poor Clippers

2009-01-12T19:14:00.000-08:00

"I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MATH!"

The Suns beat the Clippers Sunday, Shaq went 5-for-5 from the foul line (after going 7-for-7 in his previous game), and Clippers coach/GM/head custodian Mike Dunleavy said this of the Diesel:

"And he's made like 12 free throws in a row, so it's not like it used to be, when you could play straight up and take a foul and you know you could get one, maybe two misses out of the deal. To his credit, it's a totally different deal now."

To recap: Shaq, for his career, is 5,569-10580 at the line. That's 52 percent over a fairly large sample size. But, hold on! He's made 12 in a row! Obviously, the Hack-a-Shaq is dead. Shaq is now a good free throw shooter. Never foul Shaq.

In other news, the Las Vegas Sun reports that Dunleavy walked by a Roulette table at the Bellagio, saw that black had hit three times in a row and immediately bet his life savings on red. "Red's due," Dunleavy said. It was black.

I wasn't in the locker room, so maybe Dunleavy was being sarcastic. If he was, reporters didn't note that. If he was being serious...well, it might be time for Dunleavy to exit the coaching game. If he was serious, this mindset could (in theory) impact the way he makes in-game decisions. Like: "Well, normally we'd give the ball to Baron with the game on the line, but he's 2-12 today, so, Al Thornton, the game's on you. Baron's cold."

One last note: Shaq nicknamed himself "Shaqovic" after the game. Why? "Anybody with the last name (ending in) -vic is a great shooter. Radmanovic, Vujacic...all those Vic-es."

And Roko Ukic, once again, is excluded.

(H/T: Basketbawful)

A Look at Back-to-Backs

2009-01-11T12:46:00.000-08:00

I was talking with a team exec recently who mentioned he thought his team had played an unusual number of back-to-backs already this year. We both wondered whether the league spread out the back-to-backs equally among all 30 teams. But I also wondered something else: does the league try to make sure a team playing the second game of a back-to-back faces an opponent who also played the night before?

I compiled the numbers for the Eastern Conference and found this:

TEAM # Back-to-Backs Opponent Also in 2nd Game

Boston 17 8

New Jersey 22 13

Philly 21 10

Raptors 16 6

Knicks 18 6

Bulls 22 11

Cleveland 19 6

Detroit 16 4

Indy 21 9

Milwaukee 22 10

Atlanta 22 11

Charlotte 21 12

Miami 19 6

Orlando 16 7

So every team has between 16 and 22 back-to-backs. In an 82 game season, having six more back-to-backs than another team in your conference probably makes a slight difference in playoff odds. A couple of larger studies of back-to-backs (including this one Mark Cuban got Elias to do and a shorter-term look from NBC Sports last year) have confirmed what coaches, GMs and fans already know: teams struggle on the second end of back-to-backs. Both studies found NBA teams win that game about 43 percent of the time (an average league-wide win percentage would be 50 percent).

Great quote from our fave NBA analyst JVG in that story, by the way: "I think the back-to-back thing is the most overblown excuse in the NBA. Why should games on consecutive nights be a problem? Because the other team's more rested? That's no excuse." I wonder if he really believes this.

The fatigue disadvantage disappears, though, if a team's opponent is also on the second game of a back-to-back. In general, it looks like the league tries its best to make sure that's the case about half the time. I assume that's part of the scheduling equation, anyway. But, because scheduling is an impossibly complicated task, there are some variations. Detroit has only 16 back-to-backs, which has to be nice for the aging legs on that team. But only four of those back end games come against teams who also played the night before. That's a big disadvantage. New Jersey, on the other hand, has a conference-high 22 back-to-backs but plays a similarly tuckered out opponent 13 times. The Knicks and Cavs both look to have rougher b-to-b schedules, which is just fine with us C's fans.

As is inevitable, there are other scheduling quirks. The Bucks had played eight back-to-backs before the calendar even hit December, by far the most in the Eastern Conference. My beloved C's, meanwhile, may have the friendliest b-to-b schedule in the conference--just 17 total, with 8 back end games against teams in the same situation. They also had gone through six b-to-b's by mid-December and have only one after March 21. Perhaps this team might be well-rested for the playoffs after all...assuming they're not tanking.

Saturday's Fun with Plus/Minus

2009-01-10T12:12:00.000-08:00

Plus/Minus is a funny stat. It works in hockey (update: may not be true), because there are so few goals that you can tell a lot about a player by how many of them (good or bad) he's on the ice for. I've never been sure it works in the NBA. On the one hand, the top plus/minus players, according to 82games, are mostly pretty damn good players. But sitting there in the top 15 is Andres Nocioni, a player another leading analytical guy (Dave Berri) tells us may be the worst player on a pretty crappy Bulls team.

The reason plus/minus exists, in theory, is to identify role players who make a noticeable positive or negative difference in their team's performance.

So today we bring you Jamal Magloire, the Miami Heat center who was a whopping Plus 15 in Heat's 119-115 overtime win against the Kings Friday night. Magloire played 15 minutes; the next best p/m Heat players were Wade (plus 10 in 47 minutes--freaking stud) and Daequan Cook (plus 10 in 36 minutes--what?). Everyone else was close to zero or well into the negatives.

So did big Jamal earn it? Or did he happen to be on the court when Wade got hot? Lets' check the ESPN game log and see.

Magloire came in with 11:45 to go in the fourth quarter and the Heat down by 9. He left with 2:10 to go in the fourth with the Heat up by 3. But did he do anything?

He came right in and recorded an assist on a Beasley jumper, then brought down a rebound on the other end. So far so good. The Heat then got three stops in a row--Wade drew a charge and the Kings missed some jumpers. Let's assume Magloire played solid D. I didn't watch the game.

Meanwhile, Beasley hit a 3 and tipped in his own miss to bring Miami within three. Another stop, and Magloire slams (assist Beasley) to cut the lead to one.

After a Kings basket, Magloire rebounds a Cook three, draws a shooting foul and makes both FTs to cut the lead to 1. He's plus 8 so far with four points.

Wade steals and dunks for the lead, the Kings miss a long jumper on the other end (DRB Magloire) and Magloire then goes crazy on the offensive boards, rebounding his own misses twice in the same possession and eventually drawing a foul on everyone's favorite pot-smoking big man (he makes 1 of 2 from the line).

The two teams trade baskets and stops, with Magloire contributing little (one DRB and one ORB/missed tip that Sacto rebounds). Haslem replaces him with 2:10 to go.

Meanwhile, Wade takes over in the last 5:48, making 2-of-3 from the line, sinking two jumpers and assisting on a Haslem lay-in to carry the Heat into OT.

The first two minutes of the OT is all Wade--a steal that leads to a dunk, then a lay-in to put the Heat up four.

At this point, Magloire commits a traveling violation and then a flagrant foul in quick succession. Baby Face takes him out, and he spends the rest of the game on the bench.

Final line:

1-for-4, five points, 9 boards, four personal fouls, one assist, one TO. Nine rebounds in 15 minutes is a badass performance, and, who knows (again, I didn't watch the game), his rebounding madness could have sparked the team. But two of those offensive rebounds didn't lead to any points, and four fouls in 15 minute is Oden-esque.

Conclusion: Magloire had a nice game, but he owes a huge chunk of that plus 15 to Wade.

Celtics-Cavs Running Diary (™Bill Simmons)

2009-01-09T16:33:00.000-08:00

FOURTH QUARTER:

• (4:14): Scal and O'Bryant enter the game, and Doc has thrown in the towel as the Big 3 heads to the bench. The crowd breaks out the rare "Over-rated!" chant, and I can't even muster any anti-Cleveland comments in a rebuttal at this point. Actually: Cleveland sucks. There.

Some quick thoughts about the game:

1) Cleveland is clearly the best team in the league, and it will be tough to beat them in a seven-game series if they earn home court advantage. The Celtics have now lost 10 straight in Cleveland, and the Cavs are 19-0 at home this season. Geez. When did freaking Cleveland become the Boston Garden circa 1986?

2) Rondo is lost. There were probably 10 times where he penetrated just inside the free throw line and created space to square up for a nice, easy pull-up or floater, the kind of shot confident point guards (think Nash) take all the time. Rondo didn't even look at the rim. He continued skating horizontally (i.e. parallel to the baseline) and kicked to a jump-shooter. He had one field goal tonight. Rondo has to score for the Celtics to regain their old form.

3) People are going to get on Pierce for his 4-for-15 performance, but he was due for a bad shooting game. He's been the only guy hitting shots at a decent clip lately, so I'll let this one slide.

That's it. I can't think anymore about this game. But I'm worried. This game wasn't close.

• (4:30): Rondo takes a three from the left wing. It's a brick. I smile. (87-71, Bronnites).

• (6:10): Lebron with a steal, dribbles down the court side-by-side with Rondo, sheds Rajon and goes up for a crazy lefty scoop shot with the trailing Ray Allen in his face. It swishes. The announcers and the crowd go crazy, Wally is doing the dumb "you're so hot I have to fan you" towel wave and the game is over. Book it. I don't think Garnett has touched the ball in a scoring position on offense this entire quarter. Yup--no FG attempts so far for KG. (83-68, Cavs).

• (7:25): Varejao with a flop so ridiculous Van Gundy AND the refs call him out. Pierce fouled him on the way up, but long after the contact ended, Varejao lurched awkwardly to the ground and then, with some final gusto, shook his head around to try and make it look like his head slammed into the floor. Maybe he thought his floppy hair would create some sort of optical illusion. The ref approached Varejeo and patted him forcefully on the leg several times, as if to say, "Get up and stop wasting my time. No one bought that." No one in the crowd even booed Pierce. They realized it was bogus. Varejao is Brazilian, right? More evidence (as if we needed it) of soccer's insidious influence on basketball.

• (8:10): The crowd chants "Boston Sucks" during some dead time. These people live in Cleveland. I've never even been to Cleveland, but I know it sucks. Hey, we have the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, so we're a real city now! No, you're not. Meanwhile, Bron keeps getting to the rim and finishing, and it's 78-66, and the game feels over.

•(9:52): Awesome moment from Lebron, who started the fourth on the bench. Pierce hits a fadeaway to cut the lead to 10, and Bron stands up and looks at Mike Brown, showing him he's ready to go in. Brown says no, and Bron sits down. Thirty seconds later, Powe muscles in an and-one, and suddenly Coach Brown motions for Lebron to come on in, son. (74-66, Cavs).

•(12:00): The only hope: Pierce has a huge fourth quarter. Oh! Scratch that! We have new hope! Scal has checked in!!!

THIRD QUARTER:

•(0:00): Bron and West hit 3s around a Baby turnover, and it's a double-digit lead after three. Lebron has outscored Pierce 28-7, Rondo has one field goal and Lebron is running around on defense causing problems and this has stopped being fun. The ESPN crew is slobbering all over themselves to point out that Lebron has become a great all-around player. Van Gundy calls his D Pippen-like, Shulman says he's "dominating every aspect of the game" and I'm thinking that maybe if we had Tony Allen tonight things would be different. Thinking Tony Allen is the missing piece = time for a beer. (72-60, Lebrons)

• (2:30): Here's a nice 15 seconds. Rondo shows his value by getting a DRB in traffic, rocketing out of the pack and creating a 2-on-1 with Allen. Bounce pass, Allen goes up for a lay-in only to have Lebron fly in like a freaking super hero (We are All Witnesses) and swat it off the glass. Now, I'm a Celtics homer, but this looked like a goal-tend to me. On the other end, Lebron gets the ball about 18 feet away with Rondo on him. Bron sees Rondo's arm extended and does that annoying thing shooters do now where they take a "jump" shot, only they jump just slightly forward, so their arm brushes against the defender's extended arm. Foul on Rondo, and the shot falls (of course).

This little "jump into the defender's arm" technique is the new version of the Reggie Miller/Mailman leg kick in terms of drawing bogus fouls. I hate it. Paul Pierce should start doing it. (63-56)

•(4:40): I HATE this sequence. Celtics get a steal, and Rondo slips open along the baseline on the other end. He goes up for what should be a lay-in or a foul as West (I think) jumps up to challenge. Rondo should just go up strong. Instead, he brings the ball down for one of those aforementioned crazy wrap-arounds for a trailer who's not there...and he's not there, and Cleveland steals it and I'm cursing and there's Varejao (of course it's the most annoying Cav) hitting a twisting lay-up, and one. Hey, Rajon: SHOOT! (59-51, Cavs).

• (10:00): I LOVE this sequence. Rondo pokes the ball away and sprints on offense. Perk picks up the loose ball and hits Rondo ahead of the pack. It's Rondo and Lebron in a race to the rim, with Rajon coming in at an angle and Lebron streaking down the middle--a classic shot-block position. Rondo goes up for the lay-up, Bron rises for the block, and I expect Rondo to freak out and try some crazy wrap-around pass to a trailer who's not there. Instead, he goes up strong, bodies up to Bron and draws a foul. Two foul shots. (49-45, Cavs).

SECOND QUARTER:

•(0:00): The C's finish on a 5-0 run (including a Pierce 3 that felt like a huge relief), and the play-by-play guy does the whole "it could be a lot worse" thing. The most notable thing that happened was Van Gundy declaring Lebron is better than Larry Bird, which is offensive to me because a) Lebron is 24 and we're talking about the Basketball Jesus and b) I know it's only a matter of time until that statement is true, if it's not already, and this hurts me. (49-40, Cavs)

Halftime stats of note:

-Cleveland: 54% shooting; just two turnovers; 15 for Bron, 9 for Mo Williams. The offense is performing as advertised.

-Boston: 45% shooting, 1-7 from deep, six turnovers (that's good for them!).

• (2:39): Here's a sequence that sort of defines the game. The C's were down 41-33. Their next three possessions went: Pierce missed 3, turnover, turnover. Cleveland hadn't scored in that span, either, meaning each possession brought the chance to make the game close. After the second Boston turnover (a botched pass from Pierce to KG on a pick-and-roll), Lebron went around a high screen, took a couple of dribbles at the top of the arc, realized no one had bothered to jump out on him and drained a wide open 3. This is what JVG (and everyone else) is talking about when they say the C's defensive intensity isn't there. Doc's advice in the huddle: "Keep plugging away!" (44-33 Cavs).

•(6:03): Leon Powe drops the ball, Boobie! hits a three and the Cavs are up 10 again. Timeout, starters are coming back in. Net gain/loss from bench: 0. I'll take it. One thing about Powe: If he develops a jumper, he'll become a very, very good offensive player. Varejao couldn't stop him in the post (Powe made three quick FGs) and started playing off him, giving Powe an open 13-footer from the spot where Duncan would bank it in. Powe, channeling Rondo, insisted on trying to get the rim anyway and turned it over. (41-31, Cavs)

• (8:29): Bron's on the bench, so the C's reserves actually have cut the lead down to seven. JVG calls Baby "a basketball player" (fact-checking...Yup, he's right) and points out that Baby is a decent one-on-one defender. He can't jump at all, but he's got quick little (fat) feet and contests shots. It helps that Z is out and the Cavs have no post-up players who can take advantage of the lack of size and shot-blocking off the C's bench. Wally and Ray are trying to take advantage of each other (not like that!) and are tossing up some bricks.

• (12:00): Celtics line-up: Powe, House, Baby, Pruitt, Ray Allen. Let's see how it goes.

FIRST QUARTER:

• (0:00): Well, this is fun. In the last two minutes, we've had an open Wally 3 (assist froma a doubled-up Lebron, natch), two Lebron dunks and a Lebron lay-up, and it's 33-23 Cleveland. Cavs are shooting close to 80 percent. One bright spot: with about 2 minutes left, Rondo curled, received a pass at the top of the key, rose and fired in one smooth motion....and....it went in. Hey, Rajon: SHOOT! Oh, and Perk is OK.

• (3:17): Shit. Perkins, who's having a great start with 8 pts on 4-for-4 shooting, gets fouled on the way up and comes down grimacing, holding his left shoulder--the same left shoulder he hurt last year in the playoffs and aggravates now and then. On the bright side, Perkins is really learning to finish around the rim.

As for Rondo, Cleveland is not guarding him on the perimeter. He's not even looking to shoot. Rajon: SHOOT!

• (4:44): Lebron makes Pierce look silly on a cross-over drive to the hoop, and one. Pierce cannot guard him one-on-one, but we knew this already. (22-14, Cavs).

• (6:45) Two things just happened. One: Dan Shulman on play-by-play just mentioned Lebron's height and weight again. STOP. KG, after a made free throw by Lebron, takes a swipe at Varejao and gets T'd up. Mark Jackson says KG often gives "these little reminders" to opponents. I just think his behavior is becoming idiotic at this point. (19-14, Cavs)

• (8:30) Cleveland scores on their first six possessions. Some easy ones in there. Van Gundy: "That's not championship caliber defense."

•Big Z is out for this game. That helps. The Celtics are wearing white and the Cavs are wearing blue throwbacks of some kind. Van Gundy says there are too many retro nights now. This is why he's awesome.

PRE-GAME on ESPN:

Lebron is a Hoss:

Stu has mentioned Lebron's height and weight at least three times already (6'8'', 270). He's big AND fast! That's a scary combination! He then calls Tim Tebow the "Kevin Garnett of college football," or maybe he called Garnett the Tebow of the NBA. Either way it makes no sense, and hey, the game's starting after these commercials.

Oh, That Lebron!

We are subjected to a five-minute video from the Olympics featuring Lebron telling bad jokes while his teammates "crack up." He's just talking in funny voices and doing things like pretending to announce starting line-ups like a PA announcer ("Kobe Bryant...Bryant...Bryant"). "He never stops!" Kobe says breathlessly.

All I can think about: I can't wait to listen to Jeff Van Gundy talk about basketball.

And on the Cavs

The quartet moves to the question of why Cleveland has improved. Mash has a nice analysis of what Mo brings to the table. Stu counters with this (in mock exasperation): "Aren't they better because, I don't know, Lebron James is better this season?" Thanks, Stu. Mash says Lebron is chasing Kobe. In championships, yes. As a player, Lebron has passed Mamba. Doesn't everyone know this by now?

The studio guys on the C's:

Jamal Mashburn: "Rondo can't shoot."

Avery Johnson: "They've been exposed." He then suggests the Celtics pursue a trade for Stephen Jackson. Jackson is 30 and signed a three-year extension in November. No thanks.

Wilbon follows by suggesting the Celtics have to make a move now and don't have the luxury of waiting to see what the Cavs do with Wally World's contract.

I now really really want Boston to win this game.

Celtics-Cavs Preview

2009-01-09T16:14:00.000-08:00

This game does not feel good; it feels a bit like a coronation for the Cavs. The Celtics have lost six of eight, and little snot-nosed rookies like D.J. Augustin are calling them out as paper bullies. Meanwhile, Cleveland is clearly the best team in the league. They are number one in the league in offensive efficiency, defense efficiency and true field goal percentage against. They are number two in offensive true field goal percentage and forcing turnovers. And guess which team commits the most turnovers?

What I'm looking for tonight:

• How Cleveland guards Rondo. They don't really have a player (other than Lebron, actually) who fits in the Jared Jeffries/Kobe mode of tall players with quicks. West is taller than Rondo but too slow. Williams and Rondo are the same height. It would be fascinating to watch Lebron guard Rondo for a few minutes.

• How Boston defends Lebron. They have some options, especially since one Cleveland starter (Ben Wallace) is so bad offensively you don't have to guard him. That's the only positive thing I can think of.

• Cleveland's offense. As many have pointed out, this was a bad offensive team last year--20th in the league in offensive efficiency, per Basketball-Reference. What's going on? Part of it has to be that they've got guards (West, Williams) who take care of the ball and shoot it well. That's basically all you need if you've got Lebron.

Onto the game...

Overheard at 44th and 3rd

2009-01-08T21:17:00.003-08:00

I was trying to have a peaceful evening with an old friend at the Blarney Stone on 44th and 3rd when we heard the following from a 25-year-old-ish patron at the next table.

"Jordan was so overrated."

There was a pause before it became clear that he meant overrated on defense.

"Who did he ever have to guard? Hersey Hawkins that time in the finals? John Starks? He never had to guard anyone good."

Sigh.

Celtics Sign Marbury, Announce Tanking Strategy

2009-01-08T17:05:00.000-08:00

PIERCE: "The Window Has Closed."

RIVERS: "Maybe We Can Get That Guy From UConn. The Tall One."

(AP) -- BOSTON

In a move that has sent shockwaves through the NBA, the Boston Celtics, the defending champions and Atlantic Division leaders, announced Thursday they would immediately begin losing games on purpose to position themselves for the draft after a 2-6 skid exposed them as basketball weaklings and generally bad people.

After settling on the plan, the Celtics signed Knicks outcast Stephon Marbury and longtime Celtic power forward Antoine Walker, saying the veterans were "perfect" for the team's new tanking strategy.

"After losing to the Knicks and the Bobcats, it is clear that this team is simply not championship caliber," said Danny Ainge, the general manager credited with building the 2008 champions by trading for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. "This is, quite frankly, the worst Celtics team in recent memory."

The Celtics so-called Big Three--Garnett, Allen and Paul Pierce--said they realized the team had passed its prime, even though it sits at 29-8 with an 11 1/2 game lead in the Atlantic Division.

"The window is closed," Pierce said. "James Posey is not walking through that door. P.J. Brown is not walking through that door. Sam Cassell is not walking through that door."

When told that Cassell, who is still on the team, had just walked through the locker room door, Pierce said, "Oh. Well, all that guy does is take crazy jumpshots anyway. None of us really liked having him around--except when he did that 'I have big testicles thing.' That was cool, I guess."

Coach Doc Rivers said Marbury would immediately replace budding star Rajon Rondo as the team's starting point guard and play about 40 minutes per game.

"Rondo's had, what, like four bad games in this streak?" Rivers asked. "It's obviously over for him. We have to move on. I think there's a Portugese point guard who should go pretty high in the draft. Spanish? Whatever. Maybe we'll get him."

Marbury was apparently unaware of the team's plans. He sauntered into the lockeroom, hugged Garnett and announced that, "As Jesus as my witness, we will bring the Celtics their 22nd championship this season."

Walker, who made three All-Star teams during his first stint as a Celtic, also said he was thrilled.

"Doc says I can shoot all the threes I want and that I never have to even go in the paint," said Walker, who despite being 6'8'' has dunked maybe four times in his entire career and can no longer grab the rim.

Rivers said the Big Three will continue to get about 30 minutes a night. "They're not really that good anymore, so it's not like they're going to help us win any games," the coach said.

Rivers and Ainge did not respond to reports that the Celtics were looking into hiring former coach Rick Pitino to help in the tanking strategy.

"I won't comment on the Pitino rumors," Ainge said. "Would he help us lose more games? Unquestionably. But I'm not convinced Doc can't do the job himself."

Experts said Ainge's plan has some obvious flaws. Even if they lost every remaining game, the Celtics would still finish 29-53, a record that would likely place them ahead of the Oklahoma City Thunder, Minnesota Timberwolves and Washington Wizards. Finishing with the fourth-worst record in the league would leave Boston with a miniscule chance of landing the top pick in the draft and whichever player from the Big 12 or Eastern Europe Ainge learned about via a Chad Ford story on ESPN.com last week.

"Even I know this makes no sense," said Isiah Thomas, former general manager and head coach of the New York Knicks.

Ainge dismissed the criticism. "They don't get it," Ainge said. "We're building something here. If we can't win with Garnett, Allen and Pierce, we're going to rebuild with that guy from Oklahoma. That big guy. I think he's white? Or maybe some kind of Italian? Whatever, the future is bright."

KG Has Angered the Basketball Gods

2009-01-07T20:01:00.000-08:00

The Celtics lost again, and once again I'm glad I don't have League Pass (though not having it is forcing Be the Three to listen to a certain announcer during this Heat-Nuggs game on ESPN. While we're on that topic: Please, ESPN and TBS, stop showing the Heat. I love Wade, and Beasley's exciting and Marion's one of the most interesting guys in the league, but, really, I've seen enough of Eric Spoelstra The Baby-Faced Coach. Show another team).

Everyone wants to know what's wrong with the Celtics, and I think Red's Army has it right: they're probably just tired. I haven't talked to anyone with the Celtics, but that's the best reason I can find for their current 2-6 streak. There is nothing glaring in the stats--the players are basically doing what they do, they're just not doing it quite as well as they were during the 27-2 start. Example: They've reached their season average in shooting percentage (48 percent) just once in eight games, but they haven't shot worse than 40 percent in that span (though they've hit that number twice). It's not like they've been terrible offensively. On D, they've allowed their opponents to shoot better than 45 percent five times in eight games after holding opponents to about 41 percent before this streak--but no one has cracked 50 percent on them during the 2-6 span. So, again, it's not like they're getting lit up.

When a team loses once or several times, usually it's the shooting percentages that tell the story. And the story they are telling right now is that the Celtics are only slightly off their game. But being a little off your game is a big deal when a) you win with defense and b) you are the single worst team in the league at turning the ball over. (Seriously--the worst. Check the stats).

Also: Being tired isn't a minor problem. Not when your three best guys have a lot of miles on the odometer and they're coming off playing 24 (mostly) hard-fought playoff games last season. This team could be really tired come June.

Numbers vs. Reality, and Andrew Bogut

2009-01-07T19:24:00.000-08:00

We like Andrew Bogut here (who doesn't love this?), but we're upset about his back spasms because, if he's out for a while, it might rob us of the rare chance to see if numbers are really smarter than all of us. The Bucks, at 17-19 going into tonight, are seventh (!) in Hollinger's power rankings, something that just doesn't make sense to anyone. To his credit, Hollinger doesn't actually think the Bucks are the seventh-best team in the league, but he does say they'll make the playoffs "easily" and that it's no mistake they are ahead of the Pistons (21-11). He touts the Bucks stronger schedule (.518 opponents winning %) and says their record will improve as they play some bad teams in the next couple weeks (and that Detroit's will get worse).

Hollinger's basically a genius, but I don't see it. The Bucks are 22nd in offensive efficiency and 5th in defense efficiency, and their margin, a key Hollinger stat, is 0.63--worse than Detroit's. Plus, I just don't believe a team led by Richard Jefferson, Charlie Villanueva, Michael Redd and Bogut is better than any team with Tay-Tay, Sheed, Rip and AI. On second thought: The Pistons are obviously better, since they all have nicknames and the Bucks don't.

Now, of course, the Bucks will start losing with Bogut out and we won't really get to see if they were ever as good as Hollinger's formula indicated.

Side note: One NBA insider I talked to (this is a blog, so you'll get no names and like it!) said before the season that Bucks players were already tired of Scott Skiles and his draconian practices and rules. But, damn, that guy gets players to buy in on defense. He'll wear out his welcome just about the time the team is actually good, and then some new coach will reap the benefits. That's exactly what's happening in Chicago now that Vinny Del Negro has taken over...What? The Bulls stink? Oh.

Hey, Rondo: SHOOT!

2009-01-06T19:30:00.000-08:00

Great post by Henry over at True Hoop this morning on Rajon Rondo's complete refusal to shoot jump shots this season. The numbers are ugly: Rondo is 127-for-205 in shots at or near the rim and 23-for-85 from anywhere else on the court. Taking so many shots so close is helpful in that Rondo's shooting percentage this year is up from 49 percent to 52, and he's being touted as an All-Star.

But the hated Knicks exploited this tendency Sunday by putting the much taller Jared Jeffries on Rondo and having Jeffries play several feet off Rondo, daring him to shoot 20-foot jump shots. Rondo didn't bite, and instead used the space to get a running start on his drives to the rim. After the game, Doc Rivers said he thought that was the smart way to attack the Jeffries defense.

As a Celtics fan, I was curious. I remembered Rondo hitting jump shots at a decent rate when the Lakers (and other teams) tried the same defense on him in the playoffs last year. I went to NBA.com's hot spots, and found out I was right. During the playoffs, Rondo shot 55-for-133 at the rim and 53-for-131 from everywhere else on the floor, a much more even split. Most important (from the perspective of a Celtics fan, at least), Rondo made 31 of 63 long two-point attempts--almost exactly half. (The trend was the same in the regular season, too. Per 82games, Rondo took 44 percent of his shots from inside last year, compared to 60 percent this year).

Point being: he can make a 15- to 20-foot jumper, and I think he should be taking those shots. If he makes about half of them, the other team will have to honor the shot, opening up the middle a bit more and making it easier for Rondo to blow by his defender and create. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine the Celtics offense will be healthier in the long run if the team gives into a gimmick defense on the theory that Rondo can use the space for a running start.

Rooting for T-Mac

2009-01-06T18:33:00.000-08:00

It's no fun to cheer athletes who are so mentally tough they can overcome anything to win. Don't get me wrong, some of my flashbulb memories as a sports fan involve superhuman athletes willing themselves or their teams to victory under great strain (Jordan's flu game, Montana and John Candy, Sampras puking on the court at the U.S. Open).

Those guys are amazing, but I never bought their jerseys. I've always favored the guys who didn't always have it together--who occasionally showed fear, passed the ball with the game on the line and admitted they were nervous. Guys who worried they weren't good enough. Give me Pedro throwing at Jorge Posada's head because, like a child, he wanted to hurt the Yankees after admitting to himself, deep down, that he couldn't beat them anymore. Give me Chris Webber, shaken forever by the Michigan timeout, dishing to Bibby in the last minute of a playoff game without even looking at the rim. Give me McNabb, legs wobbling as he wiped the vomit from his mouth on the last drive of the Super Bowl. Give me guys like me.

This is why I'm rooting for Tracy McGrady who, once again, is taking a huge hit from everyone after mailing it in against the Raptors this week--and then complaining he didn't get enough touches. Even John Hollinger is killing him, citing "spies" in Houston who say the team is tiring of McGrady's refusal to play through "minor" injuries.

Did McGrady put forth less effort than I would have in letting Jamario Moon blow by him for a dunk? Yes--here's the clip from Basketbawful. Afterward, his own coach told the press he has to remind McGrady to play hard: "Like I told him, 'There's going to be times you succeed and times you're going to fail, but that shouldn't have an effect on how hard you play.'"

This is something you say to a high school kid, right? But this is why McGrady is interesting. This is Adelman basically saying: "Tracy didn't play hard tonight, and it was probably because he's scared his knee hurts or because he's cranky--and maybe even a bit insecure--that he's scored 15 points just once in our last nine games. He's just pouting, and we're trying to get him to stop."

The next day T-Mac said the following to his critics: "Kick me when I'm down, because I'll swear to you, I'll be back up. And when I get back up, I'm going to have the last laugh." And then: "I'm down man, I'm physically down right now."

This is a glorious, glorious series of quotes. First, he tells all his critics that in the end, he'll get them. You can hear him trying to talk himself into it. But, wait: He reminds everyone that, just in case he fails, he's physically hurt. The excuse is ready to go.

This is like the aspiring novelist telling his friends that one day, he'll be laughing at them when he finishes that book, but he's just too busy to start it right now and, really, publishers just wont' *get* it anyway.

This is precisely the kind of stuff that makes McGrady interesting. He is literally scared to play with an injury--just like I would be. He cried at a press conference after failing, for the seventh time, to get his team out of the first round. In 2004, when it appeared that streak would end with his team (the Magic) up 3-1 over Detroit, he talked openly about how nice it felt "to finally be in the second round." This is exactly the kind of premature, I-can't-help-myself boast you and I would make in the same situation. Except his team lost the next three games.

Anyone who gives T-Mac the least bit of sympathy for his physical ailments usually gets this response:"He makes millions of dollars, he should play hurt and produce under pressure!" But it's kind of great that, even with the millions of dollars and the godlike athletic ability, some dudes get depressed and frightened and insecure while the whole world watches. I can't even imagine how McGrady would react if the Fates decided they liked him and allowed the Rockets to win the title. Would he jump on top of press row and flip the double bird to his critics on press row? Would he get caught up in the moment and kiss Shane Battier on the lips? It would be fun to see.