As our summer mainstay, Aaron was writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. As the summer dies down and the leaves turn, this quixotic quest of a series has happily reached the last third. But it's certainly not done yet! Today we continue with Alan Anderson, Metta World Peace, and Chris Singleton.

• • •

Follow Alan Anderson by traveling the world.

Last year, Alan Anderson made an intensely surprising comeback. An undrafted player out of Michigan State (who made the Final Four in his senior season, way back when in 2005), Anderson went undrafted and was picked up on a minimum deal by the Charlotte Bobcats during the 2006 season. They waived him one month into the 2007 season, and after a season of excellent play in the D-League (with a few more Bobcats call-ups tacked on at the end of the year), Anderson went abroad in an effort to get guaranteed money and legitimate playing time. He flipped, over the next 5 years, almost interchangeably between the D-League and Europe -- played for six different European clubs, and three different D-League teams. Finally, last season, he got the second chance he wanted -- the Raptors brought him up, he earned Coach Casey's trust, and was picked up for both the rest of the 2012 season and the 2013 season as well. By the end of last year, he was actually starting over James Johnson. It was pretty wild.

As for his upside? Minimal, but that's A-OK. Turned 30 years old a few weeks ago, actually -- what you see is essentially what you get. But he looked quite good in last year's 17 games. Definitely NBA-caliber, if nothing else; there's a reason they traded James Johnson. Anderson was quite effective from both beyond the arc and the free throw line, canning nearly 40% of his three point shots despite taking only about a third of his shots from the corner. His defense was also very effective -- he's a rugged, in-your-face defender that combines a veteran sensibility borne of his years abroad with NBA-level athleticism and Izzo-developed guile. Sticks to his man well, and while his age may lead to a quicker-than-expected decline on that end, you have to like a player who's as good at cutting off the offensive player's breathing room as Anderson is. He doesn't necessarily disrupt every passing lane, but he does make it virtually impossible for his man to get open enough to receive a pass, which generally leads teams to try and avoid whatever wing option he's guarding when he's on the floor. He certainly has his downsides -- last year he put up one of the highest turnover rates in the year and generally puts up poor rebounding and assist numbers -- but if his role is better-regulated to serve as a defensive asset who keeps to spot-up shots on offense rather than an offensive creator who happens to play defense, he'll be a perfectly fine member of the Toronto rotation.

Off the court, Anderson has some of the most interesting stories in the league. As a veteran of the European circuit, he has a litany of firsthand stories from some of the strangest leagues on Earth. And some of the most violent fans, too. Even though there are metal detectors to make sure European fans can't throw lighters at the players, the fans are resourceful -- according to Anderson, fans would regularly dismantle the arena toilets and throw the toilet's component pieces at the opposing team's players to heckle. Another funny story from that neat article: in China, Anderson felt completely unsafe eating anything but fast food. I also recently had a chance to read a great profile from Eric Koreen, for his "Get to know a Raptor" series. You can find it here. In case you don't get a chance to read it, though, here's my favorite part. Another player I love personally (although his game is significantly more lacking), Landry Fields, comes along in the middle of the interview and completely stops the proceedings to grab Anderson's arm.

(Landry Fields grabs Anderson’s arm when walking by)
AA: What is wrong with you? What are you doing? Who is this guy?
LF: Did you know it’s your birthday tomorrow?
AA: Ahhh. Is it?
LF: Shut up.
AA: Is it? It’s my birthday?
LF: Yeah.
AA [lying]: No it’s not. My birthday is next month.
LF: I have it marked on my calendar with a heart.

Me too, Landry. Gonna circle October 16th in a heart going forward. Aw yeah.

Also, speaking of... Alberto? 223 days left.

• • •

_Follow Metta World Peace on Twitter at __@MettaWorldPeace .___

NOTE: I have trouble referring to him as "Metta World Peace", so I think I'll just call him Ron Artest in this post. Sorry, Metta.

By the end of the 2011 season, Ron Artest was on top of the world. He'd posted -- by all accounts -- one of the best off-court years of his life. He'd won a title, which had quelled a great number of his haters and began to re-write the book on Artest's off-court extracurriculars. He'd raffled his championship ring to raise over half a million dollars for mental health awareness, becoming one of the NBA's most outspoken advocates for the mentally unstable. His rehabilitation was so thorough that he ended up winning the Walter J. Kennedy citizenship award -- the suggestion that he'd eventually win the NBA's prime citizenship award would've gotten you laughed out of a room in the years after the Brawl, and most would've never seen a year like that coming. Then, in 2012? Well... things got a bit weird. His on-court play declined dramatically, as he quickly became the Lakers' 3nd or 4th best option at the wing on a team that was anything but deep. His mental health advocacy became a bit more quiet -- or, perhaps more accurately, it wasn't in quite as press-friendly a presentation. His reputation began a slow crawl back to where it was before the title. And then? Well, then he nearly broke James Harden's neck. That essentially erased the whole slate, and suddenly, Artest was right back where he started. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

There are a few troubling tics that maintain in Artest's public reputation that bug me. Quite a bit. The first is the idea that Artest's mental illness was "cured" by the time he won his title, or that it had been altogether transmuted into some more palatable form. That's... not really how mental illness works, at least not usually. Take it from personal experience. Mental illness is less something you conquer and more something you tame. It doesn't vanish -- it lies in wait, and it enacts a constant struggle inside your subconscious in its attempts to break out from whatever cage you've put it in. The mass public understands that cancer goes into remission. Why don't they understand that mental illness is the same way? You don't just wake up one day without your depression or without your bipolar disorder. You tame your disease with medication, if you can. And you fight to make every day as absent a breakdown as you possibly can. But it never totally vanishes -- it's a disease in remission, not a disease cured. Most of the pop culture coverage of Artest in the aftermath of 2010 focused on Artest as a man forever changed, and a man who'd "conquered" his demons. That's not quite true -- he's a man who fought a courageous fight to get to where he was, but quite a bit more importantly, still fought it daily. There is no tapping out when you're battling a mental illness. And it doesn't stop fighting you, either.

While I suppose I should've expected it, the genuinely off-base positive coverage of Artest's mental disorders during the Lakers' high times led somewhat slowly into the far too negative coverage Artest got last year. People thought Artest had "cured" his disorders, which meant that when he did odd things, people either chalked it up to Artest being a big ol' weirdo or "not taking the team seriously." And then, near the end of the year, the other shoe dropped -- Artest purposefully threw an elbow that (given his strength) could've legitimately broken James Harden's neck. Suddenly, the slow drip of negative coverage turned into a flood. People called to ban him from the league. People wondered how such a threat to society could've possibly made the league in the first place. Et cetera, et cetera. And through it all, I just didn't really know what to say. Sure, Artest shouldn't have done it. It was an awful thing, and I thought he probably should've been suspended a few more games -- ESPECIALLY when he refused to apologize. But instead of screaming bloody murder about the sins of a man who's got a reasonable explanation, why not examine the context that made him such a villain in the first place? It isn't really his fault that the media chose to cover his title as though he'd recovered from all his past sins. It isn't really his fault that he will always battle mental lapses that none of us can fully understand.

Artest does not deserve to be excused of his faults because of his mental illness, at all -- during the rehabilitation stage, there was some element of that, and it wasn't deserved. But he hardly deserves to executed for them either -- he's not a threat to society purely by his own design. His virtues don't exist in the intensity of a black or a white -- he's a monochromatic gray, balancing between two poles but never quite reaching either side. Neither the media nor the general public deals well with shades of gray, but that's exactly how someone like Artest needs to be approached. He's no savior, but he's no criminal either. And treating him like either does a disservice to both Artest as a person and mental health as a broad subject.

As for his game, it's somewhat darkly befitting a player of his mental struggles. Much as with Delonte West, on the defensive end, Artest will have good games and Artest will have bad games. He'll put up fantastic nights of bltizkrieg stopping power that stack up to any defender in the league. He'll then follow that up with tepid, angry, and frustrated performances where he couldn't conceive of stopping a fly. His offense is a bit more consistent, but not in a good way -- he's a consistently abysmal offensive player, far too often taking completely unnecessary isolation possessions and trying to ballhandle when he has no good reason to do so. At this point in his career, Artest has barely got the lift to take a shot at the rim, let alone actually make one. He's not good in structured offense, because he rarely takes the time to really understand the structure he's been placed in... but he's even worse when given enough leeway to really hurt the team. So there's that. Artest should not be taking very many shots this season. He really shouldn't. And I stand by my general assertion from yesterday's riddles -- if by the end of the season Artest is continuing to take the number of nasty 5-10 second isolations that he has in the last two Laker games, that will be some sort of a sign that something will have gone terribly wrong with this Laker team. Terribly, terribly wrong. Just... let Nash handle the ball, Metta. Pretty please?

• • •

_Follow Chris Singleton on Twitter at __@C_SING31.___

The story is relatively simple for Singleton. For him to stick around in the league, he has to become a better offensive player. Simply has to. Last year's Wizards were not renown for offensive wizardry -- they were the 25th ranked offense in the league, and the reality was even uglier than it looked. No cohesion whatsoever, poor ball movement, poor sets. Most of the players on the team were inefficient in at least one sense. But very, very few were inefficient in as many ways as Chris Singleton. Singleton's field goal percentage was in the bottom 25% among all small forwards for every range of the court but three, where he barely passed the 50th percentile. To be explicit about it, I'll list them -- his rookie season, Chris Singleton shot 59% at the rim (average: 63%), 24% from 3-9 feet (34%), 26% from 10-15 feet (36%), and 31% from 16-23 feet (35%). He made up for some of that by shooting 34% from three, which was 5th on the Wizards. Still not GOOD, but he had some value that way. Make no mistake, though: Singleton was brutal on offense. Just about the only real skill he offered was the ability to make the corner three, but problematically, nobody on the Wizards roster seemed to be able to set him up from that range. He took just 40 corner threes to 87 above-the-break threes, despite shooting 38% from the corner but 33% outside of it. Net and net, though, Singleton's not a scorer nor is he expected to be. He's a defensive-minded guard with good fundamentals and a strong frame -- strong enough, in fact, that it has some wondering if he'd fit better in the frontcourt than the wings.

Count me as one who's not sure about that one, although there are some issues with him on the wing right now. Watching him, you can definitely see times when the offensive player got ahead of him at small forward. Too quick. He wasn't great at covering the quickest of the quick -- he struggled mightily trying to match the quickness and core strength of players like LeBron, Iguodala, and Carmelo. A lot of that can be chalked up to conditioning, though, especially in the context of the shortened lockout season and the subsequent lack of practice and training camp exposure to the NBA fitness grind. And while big men would be somewhat less quick, they'd be quite a bit stronger. The strength gap would be even worse. And Singleton was an actively poor rebounder as a wing, posting a well-below-average overall rebounding percentage for the position. He would need to work on that quite a lot to be anywhere close to an asset as a big man. Big men who can't rebound don't last long in this league. Questions of his true position notwithstanding, there were some fundamentally good signs for Mr. Singleton. By the numbers, the Wizards defended significantly better with Singleton on the court -- they gave up a lower field goal percentage, and allowed 6 points less per 100 possessions. He wasn't quite the stopper of an Iman Shumpert level, but he was more effective than he looked and was clearly not in the peak conditioning he'd show in the NBA. I'd like to see him defending after a summer filled with an NBA weight room -- I have a good feeling he's going to defend better this year, even if his offense continues to torpedo his playing time.

As for his off-court ventures? I liked Singleton at Florida State and I like Singleton now. A few fun facts about the promising defensive baller include the following: he's evidently quite a bit more honest about his performance with the media than many others, as when asked to self-grade his rookie season, Singleton didn't pull punches, grading himself a D for inconsistent play and promising he'd come back better. According to the awesome team at Truth About It, Singleton was engaging all year with the fans and seemed to legitimately enjoy it -- he signed autographs before almost every game, gave away game-worn shoes to Facebook fans, and never once turned down a picture request. He seems to get into his city, at least to some degree --when asked in the doldrums of the lockout about something that made him sad, he mentioned that the Cowboys had recently beaten the Redskins, and that he didn't like that because they "need more winning teams in D.C.", his Wizards included. Pretty dope line, especially given this answer from a personal Q&A session he did with his fans.

What is the reason behind wearing the number 31?
Both my grandfathers and my father (3) have passed away and I’m the only (1) left.

So, you try rooting against him. I sure as hell can't. Hope you feel better about this year's play, Chris.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. Props to Geezer and @MillerNBA for yet another 3/3. Really need to up the difficulty, although I have a feeling today's are easier than I intended.

• Player #253 is dealing with back problems that I can barely even fathom. Kind of shocked he hasn't retired, although he's making so much money he probably couldn't rationalize it.
• Player #254 is average-or-below in just about everything but speed. In theory. In practice, though, he's maximized every iota of potential and become a full realization of all his highest hopes. Which is pretty phenomenal. #TeamDrake. Will be a Player Capsule (Plus).
• Player #255 is kind of capricious, sort of a jerk, and a bit socially awkward. But he loves building computers, and for that, I can't completely hate the foul-less wonder.

Long week. It's possible I actually don't get the Capsule (Plus) version of #254 out until next week, but we'll see. Hopefully I can power through my rough draft tonight before all of the night's action. Au revoir for now.

• • •

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron was writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. As the summer dies down and the leaves turn, this quixotic quest of a series has happily reached the last third. But it's certainly not done yet! Today we continue with Amare Stoudemire, Eduardo Najera, and Ryan Gomes.

• • •

_Follow Amare Stoudemire on Twitter at __@Amareisreal.___

Pretty apt timing, I suppose. Oftentimes the vagaries of random distributions have me posting a capsule just before some brand-new story completely changes the game for that particular player. See: the fact that I posted a Capsule (Plus) on Harden not less than a week before he got traded. Timely! Today's the inverse, though -- Amare Stoudemire's final injury assessment dropped yesterday, and I'm in a unique position to discuss it in the frame of these capsules. Before I do, I'll start with an assessment of his game, where he was, and where he is. And I'll cop and say it now, to set the frame. In his prime, Amare was one of the best offensive big men in the history of the game. Not just "in the league", or "in his era" -- Prime Amare is among the very best offensive bigs in the history of the game. Just look at his 2008 season. Amare AVERAGED 25 points on just 15 shots a game. In just 34 minutes per game! Insanely good. Despite that heavy usage, Amare shot 59% from the field. That was good enough to slot him in as 5th in the entire league at field goal percentage. People might scoff, saying that his entire game was an at-rim cacophony of smashes and dunks.

Those people would be very, very wrong.

While most of his shots came at the rim (7/15), he took 8 shots per game outside the rim, and a significant percentage from each of the cardinal three distances (3-9 feet, 10-15 foot midrange, 15-23 foot long two). Amare Stoudemire -- that "rim-only" player -- made 48% from 3-9 feet, 51% from the true midrange, and 48% from 16-23 feet. Which would put him in the top 25% of ALL league players from every single one of those ranges, had he put those numbers up last year -- not just big men, although he'd probably be top 5% among all big men in each. Eldritch. While that was a moderately fluky season, in some ways, it was quite representative of Amare as a whole -- his offensive game didn't used to be completely one-sided (as it's now become), and he used to flourish as a pick-and-pop big man who was impossible to effectively guard. Give him the space to shoot? He'd fire, and kill you. Get too close? He'd drive past you and mutilate the rim. Play picture-perfect defense? He'd still have a 40-45% chance of making the dang shot. A barely sub-prime Steve Nash helped a lot, and the attention Shaq drew down low helped him keep his great start going as the season went on. Were the game played on offense alone, Amare would be a living legend.

Of course, it's not. And when the final book is written on Amare's career, any retelling that doesn't include fair mention of his defense is like a discussion of the history of the British empire written without mention of the empire's transgressions in conquest. It's the giant elephant in the room with Amare. And that's primarily because -- quite frankly -- it didn't have to be. One thing Knicks fans always complained to me about after the Amare signing was that I was being too harsh on Amare's defense. When he plays up to his potential, he's a great defender! Look at all these possessions! They'd point out individual moments of defensive brilliance, competency, and well-formed decisioning. And that's fine. But that's precisely the characteristic that makes Amare such a frustrating nut to crack on the defensive end. When Amare is focused, he's a relatively decent possession-by-possession defender. But his main issue isn't some constant drumbeat of awful defense -- Amare's main identifying factor on the defensive end is the "one possession on, two possessions off" concept. This describes the constant pattern where Amare will -- after every positive defensive possession, immediately follow the possession up with two absent absent possessions, getting lost and barely contesting even the most easily guarded of shots. It's so predictable, teams like the Spurs were able to leverage the mere expectation of Amare's poor possessions into a cohesive offensive strategy -- after Amare would have a good defensive possession, the Spurs would consistently make sure to dump the ball to Duncan and let him go to work on Amare. More often than not? Score the basket, with little delay.

Which leads to a rather interesting dichotomy. Amare had excellent defensive possessions, in his prime. Shot blocks out of nowhere that completely blew up a good opposing possession, excellent man defense, et cetera. But he'd always -- ALWAYS -- follow them up with so many awful ones that you never quite knew what the hell to think about his defense. It was like having a relief pitcher who was absolutely guaranteed to strike out the 1st man in the batting order, the 4th, and the 7th on a nightly basis... only to give up home runs to the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th. It didn't matter the quality of the hitters. He could be pitching to the best player in the entire league at the 4th spot, and he'd always strike them out. He could be pitching to a just-deceased 90-year-old with a whiffleball bat in the 9th spot. Homers! Homers! EVERYWHERE! How do you even scheme a player like that, defensively? D'Antoni had lots of trouble with Amare, but it wasn't really D'Antoni's fault -- there is absolutely no way to actually gameplan a competent defensive scheme around someone that contributes it in such a touch-and-go manner. You end up with a player whose offense is so phenomenally brilliant that he's be an all-time legend when it comes to scoring big men... but a player whose defense is so easy to break within-game, you can scarcely even imagine it.

Unfortunately, age and nagging injuries have by large margin sapped his game of that offense. The defensive incompetence is still there, with the exact same "on one, off two" construction that made him so easy to score on as a younger man. But the offensive bravado has waned, leaving him with but a bitter shell of the varied moves he used to have outside the basket. He can still finish -- kind of -- although his finishing has declined from "far and away best in class" to "semi-effective lumbering as though he's a broken-leg elephant" levels. He still finishes well, but he simply can't finish as often as he used to, and while his numbers are still very good (even last season, Amare was in the top 25% of all big men in at-rim percentage!) the share of his shot distribution these at-rim forays took up was less than ever before. He took 60% of his shots from outside the rim, and unfortunately, he looked completely awful doing it. Just an abysmal display of post moves, and his long jumper looks completely broken at this point. Massive hitch in his shot, massive problems getting the ball off quick enough to beat the defense, massive inefficiency. Rough news. Amare shot barely 33% from outside 10 feet, and to the neutral observer, that seemed positively charitable. Still, even as you combine this with his falling-off-a-cliff rebounding, I'm not sure Amare's absence really helps the Knicks in any forseeable way. Part of the point with the Knicks' elderly signings was that the team would have depth so long as the young pieces stayed on the court. We're now heading for a situation where Novak, Melo, Thomas, Sheed, and Camby have to play a combined 96 minutes a game in the frontcourt to cover for both Chandler and Amare. That's... not optimal, no.

Amare isn't great, anymore, and his offensive game's decline has made his defensive problems that much more prominent. But he's not the worst player in the world. He's still one of the better finishers at the rim, if you set him up in a good spot. He's still valuable if used in a situational role, and isn't allowed to dominate the ball. No, the Knicks shouldn't be running their offense through him. No, he's not a player you want to have a usage rate above 20 going forward. But if you used him situationally, much like you use Tyson Chandler's offense? You can still extract some value from Amare's game. And you can avoid playing a trio of 38+ big men over 25 minutes a night to cover for absences they don't have the capability to withstand. Yes, the Melo-at-PF experiment is a noble one -- and if it works out, it could save the Knicks season. But you can't really help but feel sorry for Amare at this point. The injuries are mounting and sapping his game far younger than anyone could've ever expected, and the entire situation screams "worst case scenario" -- there's no world where Knicks fans or the Knicks front office could've reasonably expected that Amare would look like this just two years into the contract. His game has been creeping to the point where he's now a more effective off-ball sixth man than an important starter on the team. And now he has to miss potentially two months of his season recovering from yet another surgery? Cripes. Amare is a classy, smart, and generally kind man. I wouldn't wish this kind of within-career hellstorm on anyone, and especially not anyone dealing with the New York media. So, while I've never been Amare's grandest fan... please get better, Amare. Hope you're back soon.

• • •

Follow _Eduardo Najera on Twitter at __@eduardo_najera.___

Yesterday I covered Jason Terry, a player I really dislike. Today, apparently, I need to write yet another one of these blasted things about a player I rather irrationally dislike. Thanks, random numbers! Today's player isn't a player I dislike for many emphatic reasons, though, like Terry -- with Terry, I can't stand him for all he is, and for how he composes and carries himself. All that stuff. I'm a hater in totality. "The hatingest hater who ever did was, I tell you what." Eduardo Najera, though? How could anyone hate Najera like that? I dislike him for a single, solitary moment. One instance, one fleeting second in the span of a long NBA career. Which is kind of funny, really -- off the court, I must confess, Najera seems like one of the good guys. Extremely smart player, one whose post-playing career looks to (potentially) make him a name to remember. He was recently hired as the head coach of the Texas Legends, the Mavericks' D-League affiliate. He'll also have part-ownership of the franchise and will consult closely with Del Harris -- as that article notes, that has the potential to be a very fortuitous relationship for Najera. Eleven of Del Harris' coaching assistants have made it as NBA coaches at some point in their coaching career. Najera's certainly smart enough for it, someday.

As the first player drafted out of Mexico in the history of the league, Najera acquitted himself reasonably well over his career. He was never a star by any means whatsoever, or even a particularly useful asset. But he had a few seasons of 6-and-6 type performance, and his defense was always semi-decent. A bit dirty, but semi-decent. Unfortunately for him, he suffered a barrage of injuries around the 2009 season that devastated his game. Unfortunately for the Nets, they'd just so happened to sign him to a 4-year $12 million dollar deal with no real way out directly before that happened. Which, by the way, was kind of funny -- he was coming off a 47% shooting season where he averaged just 10-7 per 36 minutes despite playing on an immensely fast-paced team. I realize 4/12 isn't THAT huge with the league as a frame of reference... but really? After that season? Four years. Boy, I don't know. Najera maintained in the league for four years after that, his contract a constant wheel-greasing piece in trade machinations all over the place. He bounced around, offering a milquetoast-style version of the game he used to happily peddle -- lots of semi-dirty screens, a lack of a real offensive skillset, and a decent locker room presence on generally losing teams. Solid, I suppose, though not quite what you're expecting on a 4 year $12 million dollar contract.

As for why I dislike him? This moment, from the 2010 playoffs, where Najera essentially tried to kill Manu Ginobili. ... OK, no, he didn't try to kill him. It was essentially a classic clothesline with a twist, though, and it was one of the dirtiest-looking hits I've seen in playoff basketball. The Mavs had already accidentally broken Manu's nose earlier in the series -- Najera decided to take it a step further by actively going for Manu's nose on the foul, but missing. He had to settle for grabbing Manu's neck as he dragged him out of the sky from a lightly-contested fastbreak layup attempt. It was nasty. Graydon Gordian once posited that the hard foul could be a thing of beauty. A singular moment of frustrated self-loathing, a gasping breath for air and a not-so-subtle way of admitting that a team simply can't hope to guard a player. Which is fine. And in that series, it was exactly what the foul represented -- Manu obliterated the Mavericks' defense for the entire game, and the foul represented the collective frustration of the Mavericks and their fans for styling on them to such a degree that only a broken nose and a hit to the neck would stop his onslaught.

... but my GOD man, did you really have to grab his neck____?

• • •

Follow _Ryan Gomes on Twitter at __@GotGomes.___

In the quietest amnesty waiver ever, the Clippers let go of Ryan Gomes this July. I say quietest because it's one of the first things I've come across in these capsules that I honestly do not remember happening. I watch NBA news voraciously, mind you, and I tend to think I'm pretty plugged in. Always on the Twitters, this one. But I somehow completely missed Gomes! Which is actually... kind of ironic, as my pal Jaryd would attest. In the first incarnation of these capsules, I tried to make sure I (at a bare minimum) covered the regular starting lineups of every team. Despite thinking I'd gotten them, I quickly realized that I had totally forgotten Gomes (the Clippers' regular starter in 2011), only remembering to write his capsule late in the game and adding 70 players to the original list primarily as cover for actually getting Gomes down. Also, fun fact -- although they don't look similar and their games are completely different, I constantly get Ryan Gomes and Randy Foye's names mixed up in my head. If I refer to him as Foye in this capsule (at the time I write this, I've had to correct the error 4 times already), now you know why. Anyway. The amnesty isn't altogether surprising, as Gomes was astonishingly bad last year. Let's put it in context -- in 2011, Gomes started 62 of the 76 games he played in. He averaged 28 minutes a game. His numbers declined a bit from his 2010 career highs, shooting 34% from three instead of 37% and drawing way fewer free throws. But he wasn't AWFUL, and he had a few uses. Decent rebounding from the wing, could occasionally put the ball into play, and virtually never turned the ball over. Replacement level.

Last season? Gomes played in just 32 of 66 games, and started two of them. He went from averaging 27.6 minutes a night to 13.3, almost out of nowhere. After making more than 70 three pointers a year over the last three years, Gomes made four in 2012. No, not per game. Four made threes. The entire season. On 29 attempts. That's... not good. He compounded that by shooting poorly from every other range as well, upping his turnovers, and lowering his foul rate even more. Gomes played extremely poorly last year, and given that, the amnesty isn't really surprising. Frankly, I'm more surprised that teams have been so reluctant to give him another shot. Gomes is dealing with chronic injuries that are sapping his game, and I totally understand not bringing him back on account of this. But the same could be said for Sasha Pavlovic, or Derek Fisher, or any number of crusty veteran reclamation projects that continue to get re-signed and given heavy burn. He turned 30 less than two months back, and most teams are A-OK giving a flyer on a wing in the 29-32 range so long as they aren't that far from their peak production. Gomes fits that bill, and while he's dealing with some injuries, he's not that far off from his peak. I can't say I think he'd be a great player if they brought him back, just somewhat surprising that nobody's taken a flyer yet. Perhaps teams are learning.

... Or, like me, they continually forget that Gomes exists at all. Doh!

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. Props to J, Geezer, Sir Thursday, and @MillerNBA for their expert guessing.

• Player #250 shocked last year. Won't be quite as effective from three this year in (assuredly) more than 17 games, but my lord, this guy was better than anyone had any reason to expect.
• Last night was a good reminder. If multiple possessions a game end in a Player #251, his team is not doing it right.
• Player #252 was a decent defender, even as a rookie last season. But the offense REALLY needs some work.

Another day, another... something. If you happened to miss Dewey's excellent post on the problems with power rankings yesterday, I highly recommend checking that one out. Also, I did a short recap of the DAL/LAL nightcap for ESPN's Daily Dime, which you can see in the Around the Association column here. So check that out too, if you're in the mood.

• • •

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. Today we continue with James Johnson, Jason Terry, and John Lucas.

• • •

Follow James Johnson by becoming an undefeated kickboxer.

If you haven't drafted your fantasy basketball team yet, I have a super hot tip for you. Super hot, fresh off the presses. James Johnson is a solid player to have in fantasy. For real. He hurts your percentages a bit -- the shooting is poor, with bad three point conversion and a sub-par free throw percentage. And he doesn't tend to put up 30 minutes a game, for good reason. But he's extraordinarily effective at the tertiary stats -- Johnson proudly puts up best-in-class per-minute numbers for both steals and blocks, and features above average assist and rebounding rates for his position. He turns the ball over an incomprehensibly large amount, but not all leagues even pay attention to turnovers. And in most category leagues, a player that puts up tertiary statistics in the oft-forgotten categories like Johnson can end up being one of the most valuable fantasy players around. In leagues where people don't know a ton about fantasy sports, he can be extremely useful simply because he's incredibly nondescript and can be had in a relatively late round without anyone ever realizing he's a good get. Sneaky, folks. Very sneaky. Oh, don't you worry. I'll make sure to give more hot fantasy tips after all your drafts are done and gone next year, too. You're welcome.

I mention his fantasy chops primarily because, in my opinion, those are basically the most valuable of all chops present. I don't really love Johnson as a player outside of his fantasy value. Yet -- he has the potential to get better. Johnson tends to take a lot of extremely bad long-two-point shots that tank his percentages across the board, and diminish his offensive usefulness. He takes a lot of shots at the rim -- above the position average, in fact -- but last season converted on a below-average proportion of those at-rim shots and doesn't have any particular talent for finishing at the rim, except when he's matched on much smaller players. (In other words, when he's not playing out of position at the large forward.) He's decent at the dunk, but no artist like Demar DeRozan or power slammer like Chandler or Howard. Still, that wouldn't matter quite so much if his offensive game had any real polish outside of 3 feet -- merely average shooting outside that range combined with his usual 55-58% showings at the rim would average out to a well-above-par offensive player. Unfortunately, he isn't at par or anywhere close -- he was below the small forward average from every range outside of 9 feet, often by quite a lot. And, again, way too many long two pointers -- almost 30% of his shots last season came from 15-23 feet, which is absurd and quite unnecessary.

Defensively, he's no perimeter stopper (yet) but he's a useful fellow to have in your corner. Doesn't necessarily have the quickness to get around screens efficiently or the nimble footing needed to individually check quick wings. But he's got a lot of size, and he has the ability to absolutely overwhelm smaller players who attempt to post him up. He tends to focus more on getting the steal or the block than I'd like, and while he's a good weakside shot blocker, at his position I'd rather have a guy who goes one on one and gives strong contests than someone like Johnson who tends to cherry pick and go after the average statistical metrics. His defense didn't really impact the Toronto system much, a sign of both how oddly underutilized he is as a power forward and how effective Casey's system was at generating incredible defense even without his best defensive wing on the floor. Still, his defense is helpful to a team who's generally defenseless, so his presence should be much appreciated by the Kings -- there were very few positive defensive players on the Kings last year, and in Johnson, they finally have one with some positive skills. And the potential to get a lot better, if he works on his focus when defending individual players and develops a bit more quickness. He could be a shut-down defender someday if he could just focus his stat-grabbing powers into the things that really make defenders excel. He's got the body for it, and he could carve out a more effective career as a role player if he did it.

Off the court? Kickboxer from a family of martial artists. Went 20-0 professionally. Don't mess with James Johnson.

• • •

_Follow Jason Terry on Twitter at __@jasonterry31.___

At some point, people who dislike Jason Terry -- myself included -- need to step back and simply start appreciating his production. And let's get this straight now -- I am no fan of Terry's. I think he's bombastic, self-obsessed, and preening. He needs to realize, at some point, that he is not an airplane. That is not him. He is not such an object. He is a man, and men cannot fly -- for they lack the wings and aerodynamically functional curves required to do so. No, Terry is not a plane, nor an NBA superstar. He has an irrational amount of self-confidence, and a frankly somewhat incredible ability to spin anything said about his play or his team's chances as a terrible insult. He's one of those guys who you may like on your team -- perhaps -- but who you absolutely despise playing against. And that's all, to some extent, to his credit. Even if it makes me dislike him.

But you know what? He probably was underrated in #NBARank, and in a general sense, Terry is of inconceivably low repute to a vast majority of the NBA's fans. And it makes no sense to me. Last season, Terry was the 5th best shooting guard in the NBA. Really. There were the obvious betters -- Kobe, Wade, Harden, Manu -- and you could make a reasonable case that Joe Johnson was better. Beyond those five? Nobody. Not a one. If you count Iguodala a shooting guard, he's better too -- but that's about it. You have to imagine that anyone else with his statistical resume last season in Los Angeles or New York would have gotten quite a bit more hype for it.

• Jason Terry shot an above average percentage from every single range of the floor, despite being assisted on less than 50% of his shots. (The average NBA shooting guard was assisted on 60% of their shots last season -- Ray Allen was assisted on over 75% of his.) There were few real flaws to Terry's offensive game -- he didn't get to the rim as much as he used to, and he drew fewer free throws, but he improved his jumper's accuracy to compensate and had a good year passing.

• Speaking of the passing, Terry's passing has been chronically underrated throughout his career. He's a gunner, but he's not one who never passes -- for his career he's posted an assist percentage around 25%, meaning that while Terry is on the floor, he assists on 25% of all field goals made. That's... actually quite good for a shooting guard, and in his late career, he's kept to roughly similar numbers. Turns the ball over a bit more than one would perhaps hope, but given his above-average assist rate, it's nothing phenomenally concerning -- he often acts as a pseudo-point when he's playing without a point guard, and that does tend to inflate one's turnover rate.

• He did all of this at the age of 34, well past his prime. He played over 30 minutes a night and missed only three games across the entire season. John Hollinger aptly described Terry as "the Ageless Wonder", and I have to agree. Let me put it this way -- in 2010, after Terry's objectively terrible playoffs, I had a sneaking suspicion that he'd be out of the rotation in favor of Rodrigue Beaubois in a year's time. Two years later, he's still one of the 5 or 6 best players at his position in the entire league. Eldritch.

No surprise, then -- I think Boston's switch from Ray Allen to Jason Terry is actually a pretty massive win for them. I don't know how much longer Terry's going to be able to continue putting up numbers like this, but I'm through with assuming he's got one foot out the door. The Boston offense should improve a decent amount with a player like Terry putting up 30 minutes of self-contained, efficient scoring. Terry is hardly dependent on the pieces around him to pass him the ball in exactly the right situation -- Allen was. The movement will help. I'm of the view that fewer minutes for Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce in favor of Brandon Bass and Jeff Green (as well as Avery Bradley being out or hobbling for 2-3 months) is going to completely cancel out the Allen upgrade. But that's just it -- Allen to Terry isn't a lateral move, as most seem to imply. It's a legitimate upgrade. At least for this season. It's possible that Terry finally begins to show his age. He will, at some point in this Celtics contract. But this season alone? Rondo's passing and Doc's crisp rotations should keep him as fresh (and annoying) as ever.

• • •

_Follow John Lucas on Twitter at __@Luke1luk.___

It's a constant refrain, here in the capsules. Per-minute productivity doesn't mean the player's necessarily a lock to be a decent player, nor does it necessarily translate to larger minutes. There's a general reason why this is true, one that's relatively less understood than it should be in sporting circles. So, let's try to explain it. Say we have a player -- call him George. George plays around 10 minutes a night... usually. He's one of two backups to a team's treasured star -- call him Geraldo. Let's say Geraldo is injured, and will be out for 7 or 8 games. How will George's minutes increase? Well, it's actually extremely unpredictable -- because there are two options, while we know his minutes will increase, we don't really know the magnitude of the jump. And that's primarily because if George is playing and he's put in 15 or so crummy minutes, the coach isn't just going to leave George on the court -- he'll play the other backup primary burn and relegate George to spot minutes. So, even in the presence of high-value playing time, George isn't necessarily going to play all of it -- he's going to play when he's good and sit when he's bad. Conversely, if he has 15 high-value minutes, chances are high George will double or triple his usual playing time -- the time is available, in theory, but it will likely only be extended to him if he's having a good game.

What I just described is the primary reason a backup who's generally average can end up with shockingly good statistics. If a player plays 5-10 minutes a night, a few outlier high-burn nights can skew the averages considerably. And with these kinds of players, high-burn nights simply don't happen unless the player is having a good night in the first place. Whether they found a good matchup, woke up on the right side of the bed, ate their Wheaties, etc -- games where fringe-ish players end up with 20-30 minutes tend to be games where the player is going supernova. Let's use last season's performance by John Lucas as an example. In his five top performances in minutes played, he accrued 156 minutes -- that calculates out to about 20% of the minutes he played in the entire season. In just five games. Were his minutes evenly distributed, we'd expect a five game sample to comprise 10% of his minutes played. How does this disparity translate to points? Well, he scored 109 points in these five games. He only scored 369 points in the season overall, meaning that in just five games, Lucas provided almost 30% of the points he scored in 2012. Consider: Lucas played fewer than 9 minutes in more than a third of his games this season. When you're dealing with such a low baseline, you end up giving a huge relative weight to these (fundamentally) skewed values.

This can have a rather outsized impact on raw averages -- in the field of statistics, this is a situation where an analyst would generally want to see the overall distance between the median and the mean and start to build intuition about why, exactly, they're so different. Then, potentially, take a long hard look at using the median as the descriptive statistic of choice. Despite being an extremely small sample, these five nights make up 30% of his scoring output. And it's a biased sample, too! If Lucas was having a poor night, he would've been promptly yanked. Which goes back to my original point -- high-minute nights for bit players are fundamentally biased samples, but they have a fundamentally higher impact on a player's averages. Ever wondered why some guy who performs like a scrub in all but a few random games every year has stats befitting an average, decent player? This general idea is your explanation. They get to overweight their best games in a way rotation players that have to play 30-35 minutes a night, off night or no, don't get to do. To sum it up -- if John Lucas goes 0-3, he'll be out at the next timeout. If Chris Bosh goes 0-3, he'll play 40 and have the chance to go 1-18.

All that said? John Lucas wasn't bad backup at all. Nor was any of this meant to imply he was. It IS meant to imply that stats are a bit useless without context when it comes time to assess where John Lucas fits in the game. The median trumps the mean, oftentimes, when it comes to assessing the value of players with skewed minutes distributions. That's the general point, not one about Lucas in particular -- I personally really like John Lucas as a guard off the bench. He's a good three point shooter, an aggressive scorer, and a decent ballhandler. He's quite undersized for a shooting guard, despite that being his natural position; no real point guard skills of note, although his size forces him to be matched with them. He had decent results as a defender by the numbers (adjusted +/- and Synergy), but watching tape, you can start to tell that less of his value comes from self-made defense than the general Chicago defensive schema Thibodeau put him in. Asik, Noah, and Gibson help out a lot, and cover for his size in a way he never quite got in his early career. He wasn't bad, per se -- used his quickness well, made the most out of the size he has, showed good ability to stay with guys laterally -- but his excellent defensive stats weren't necessarily something he caused more than something he lucked into with the help of the overall defense. Lucas turns 30 in less than a month, and he doesn't really have a ton of upside. But as a possible first-off-the-bench backup for Lowry in the event of a Calderon swap, the Raptors could do a lot worse. And this doesn't even cover Lucas as a person -- he's by all accounts an extraordinarily nice guy, and who's the feature of many heartwarming articles you can read if you want confirmation.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. Mike L. got yesterday's riddles with a 3/3. (Although, I admit, Patrick... Derek Fisher would've been a great answer for the 2nd riddle as well.)

• Player #247 is constantly injured and doesn't fit with his team. Really needs to get his hops back. And come off the bench, too.
• Player #248 in 2010, was responsible for a huge bush league hit on Manu Ginobili in the playoffs. It infuriates me when thinking about it. Ugh.
• Player #249 was one of the quietest amnesties ever. I somehow didn't realize he was amnestied until preseason. He hasn't made it to a team... despite being barely 30 and having started 62 relatively decent games in 2011. "What. Really? What."

The season quite literally starts tonight. Lordy. I actually just got to a milestone of my own, here -- we're now officially 66% of the way through the capsules. Two thirds! The milestones will start going by a lot faster at this juncture, with the season as a backdrop to make time even quicker. Current projections of my end-date have the series, fittingly, wrapped up and tied with a bow on Christmas Eve. A nice gift. For now, enjoy the season's tidings. We'll have a general feature on Power Rankings up later today, as well -- hope you all enjoy it.

• • •

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. Today we continue with Elliot Williams, Andris Biedrins, and Kenneth Faried.

• • •

_Follow Elliot Williams on Twitter at __@ewill901.___

Elliot Williams looked pretty good last season. He didn't play an incredible amount of minutes, mind you -- he only played 24 games, and in those 24 games, he played only 6.2 minutes a night. And given that the game was virtually always decided when he stepped on the court, the defensive intensity Williams found himself faced with was regularly atrocious. But even given all those caveats? The man shot at an above-position-average percentage for every range but three, and shot an extremely efficient distribution besides, with almost 50% of his field goal attempts coming at the rim. Given what I saw of him in college and his general skillset, I think there's a lot of promise in his game, even if you try to extrapolate beyond the garbage time. He's never going to be a great three point shooter, no. At the NBA level, that hurts. But Williams has serious NBA athleticism, and above-average height from the guard position -- 6'5" is a bit under what he seemed the handful of times I met him at Duke. (The only reason I say this is because I'm 6'4" -- relative to my height, he seemed more like two inches taller than one.) To be fair, though, we were both in shoes and it's not like I've ever had my height accurately measured by the draftnik doctors. So, whatever. Even then, 6'5" is a solid height for a guard -- especially one who's viciously athletic, with a solid at-rim game and a decent midrange shot. His free throw form is good enough that I'd assess 75-80% to be closer to his true free throw mean than the 33% performance he put up last season.

Unfortunately, Williams has suffered greatly from a wealth of freak injuries. Out of seemingly nowhere, he's battled a range of problems that could end his career before it really began. His knees basically exploded prior to the 2011 season in a contact practice with the Blazers, requiring surgery on both kneecaps before he could see the court again. After a long period of rehabilitation, he re-entered the game late last season, and Williams' low minutes total was mostly attributed (reasonably) to the Blazers wanting to let him get gradually back into the game. Then, in a rough late March practice, ill omens struck again and Williams found himself sidelined with a dislocated shoulder. Quite gross. He missed the rest of the season, rehabilitated over the summer, and finally looked ready to play in the NBA... only to completely rupture his Achilles tendon in a workout right before the start of training camp. I mean, Christ. Really? He got surgery, and most likely, he'll be out the entire season. The whole thing is incredibly sad. These season-ending injuries have somehow all occurred to different body parts, indicating a player who lacks the sorts of foundational problems that tend to indicate an injury-prone player. He's like someone who won the worst lottery in the world, 3 years in a row. My heart goes out to Elliot.

Not just because of his skills, either. As for personally, Williams has always had my utmost respect. While he was beloved at Duke to a level incoherently high relative to his play, he left that and the university behind his last two seasons in order to transfer to Memphis in order to be closer to his cancer-stricken mother. Which I thought was pretty great of him -- he sacrificed few spots in his draft status, most likely, and he risked (at the time) having to redshirt a season before the NCAA approved a special waiver of the redshirt restriction on account of his mother's condition. Which would be heartwarming if it wasn't absolutely ridiculous that players need to redshirt a season in the first place. Not only do college athletes have no control over any portion of the money they generate for the school, nor any licensing rights over their own brands... there are also arbitrary restrictions in how they can move from team to team. Love the NCAA. Heck of a sports league, Brownie. In any event, his mother's breast cancer is in remission, which is absolutely wonderful. Here's hoping the cancer stays away and that Elliot gets another chance in the league -- you have to think he'd be a better backup than most of the awful wings the Blazers have stockpiled behind Matthews and Batum, right?

• • •

Follow Andris Biedrins by -- ... you know what, actually, just don't.

Anyone remember how good Andris Biedrins was a few years back? Let me remind you.

• In 2008, Andris Biedrins led the league in field goal percentage. But that's just one year. Try three -- from 2007-2009, Biedrins had one of the top 3 field goal percentages in the league each year.

• In the 2009 season, Biedrins put up per-36 averages of 14-13 with 2 assists, 2 blocks, and 2 steals a night. You can't make this stuff up.

• Andris Biedrins posted a career high free throw percentage of 62% in the 2008 season -- not great, but would've been average for an NBA center last season.

Yeah. Well, good thing he put up those excellent stats to remember him by. Because that's all we're doing now. Remembering, that is. In the past few seasons, Biedrins has fallen off the cliff-to-end-all-cliffs, and done so fast enough that we're still left wondering what the hell happened. It all started in 2010, when Biedrins had one of the worst starts to a season he could've possibly had -- it literally took a month for Biedrins to make his first free throw of the year, and by the all-star break, he'd gone an inconceivable 3-23 from the free throw line. This didn't hurt his broader offense... at first. It mostly was a source of amusement, as Biedrins continued to score efficiently. As he was coming off of injuries and not in the best of sorts, he took fewer field goals a night and his rebounding fell off from being among the best in the league to being a relatively average. But he didn't look like a bad player by any means, and he still looked like one that was genuinely worth his contract.

Then, in 2011, things got markedly worse. He tried to take a more active role in the offense again, but quickly discovered the obvious. If you shoot 16% on free throws in a season, as he did in 2010, you are going to get fouled and you're going to have to make opposing defenses at least pretend to respect your free throw form. So as the season went on and he began to get fouled at a higher rate, he began to go to increasingly absurd lengths to simply not get fouled. I'm talking ballerina twists, contorting his frame in C-shapes to miss the defender, immediately passing out if he had a post-up opportunity (leading to a career high assist rate! YEAH!), et cetera. He posted the worst rebound rates he'd put up since his sophomore season, his field goal percentage was (by far) a career worst, and he genuinely looked awful. Then 2012 happened... and he was even worse. His rebounding fell off a cliff, with Biedrins posting his worst rate ever by a country mile. His defense was abominable. His usage percentage -- never particularly high -- fell to the comically absurd rate of 5%. His free throw shooting actually ended up WORSE than 2010, with Biedrins making only one free throw the entire season for a free throw percentage of 11%. His confidence was shot, he absolutely refused to take shots (and in his off-ball movement, Biedrins actively fled angles he could have snagged a pass from and worked hard to keep himself from ever getting open), and the contorting and terror at the concept of free throws was obvious to anyone who watched him. It was sad. Although he's entering his 9th NBA season, Biedrins is exactly 366 days younger than Gustavo Ayon. He SHOULD be entering the prime of his career. Instead, he's a waiver candidate who looks unlikely to have more than a year or two of burn left in the NBA. A really weird career arc, to date.

Free throws and ruined games aside, Biedrins was responsible for the odd photographs that were -- for my money -- the most hilarious NBA story of the summer. I speak of course of the risque, absolutely not safe for work photos that depict Andris Biedrins both receiving oral sex in a car and watching in a garage as one of his friends receives the same. Don't click those photos if you're at work. Please. This isn't to say that the photos are funny all by themselves -- on their own, they're basically just your garden variety "dear lord, this athlete's 'friends' are terrible at being friends" type photographs. But look further, dear reader. Remember all the talk about his lacking confidence and his too-rapidly exploded game? I do as well, given that I wrote it less than a paragraph ago. Now, in that context, look at those photos. They depict a player on top of the world, probably hopped on something, and completely devoted to the pursuit of happiness. Er, sexually. In public. With his friends. One of whom has a camera. The brazen disregard for logic and reason here in pursuit of a fleeting high is absurd, and when you put it in the context of his disappointing basketball career and his completely broken confidence, is ABSOLUTELY hilarious. Somehow, we have a player who's scared to take a single free throw but not scared to receive oral sex in public and smoke up right next to his friend as he watches the friend receive it. From what looks like the same person.

I... what? For real, what? How can you be confident enough that these photos won't be posted that you do all of this grinning like an idiot but can't find the confidence in your heart to take and make a freaking FREE THROW? Luckily for Golden State, this came up right before the year they'll be trying to really compete. Because now, they actually know what to do with Biedrins! Marc Jackson needs to find out what drugs were in Andris Biedrins' system when these photos were taken. Have a private investigator do it, have Biedrins tell him straight up, whatever. Once he knows, though, he needs to begin enforcing a strict rule where Biedrins cannot step onto the court for the Warriors if he does not takes those same drugs before every game. Sure, having a high-out-of-his-mind Biedrins on the court will probably lead to some miscommunication. He MIGHT start humping the ball, or grinning and smoking in the middle of the stadium, or get Adam Morrison confused with the unknown girl in the pictures and try to solicit him for sex on an off-ball defensive possession. You know what? I don't care, and neither should Jackson! If that's the only way to bring back his confidence, then it's the only way to bring back his confidence. Where there's a will, there's a way! Andris Biedrins: 2013 comeback player of the year? TASTE THE FEVER! (Because you know he did.)

• • •

_Follow Kenneth Faried on Twitter at __@KennethFaried35.___

Last season's League Pass darling, Kenneth Faried is an interesting player with a lot of talent. Faried made a big impact last season -- he didn't play quite enough minutes to make leaderboard criteria, but Faried's overall rebounding percentage around 20% would've been top-3 in the entire league. His field goal percentage of 58.6% does sort of hide his offensive limitations -- namely, he can't buy a shot outside of 9 feet and every team in the NBA knows it -- but he actively avoided taking shots outside his range, and in doing that, Faried showed a lot more self-awareness and general knowledge of what worked for his game than many players ever realize in their careers. He took almost 90% of his shots from within 9 feet, which is exactly what you should be doing early in your career when you're a high energy finisher like Faried -- you don't mess with adding a long shot or developing a mid-range jumper. That's for practice, at least in your first year or two. Not competitive games. Outside his rebounding and his scoring, Faried isn't a hugely productive player -- he had an above average block/steal rate that hid a lot of his defensive problems, and an above average turnover rate for his position. His high-energy offense helped take Denver's already potent potables to an even higher level -- the Nuggets scored almost 108 points per 100 possessions with Faried on the court, which is legitimately insane, and almost 3 points above their average with Faried off the court.

Unfortunately, there's a dark side to that -- while their offense was completely off-the-chain with Faried on the floor, their defense was utterly abysmal. The Nuggets may have scored 107.5 points per 100 possessions with Faried on the floor, but they were also making opposing offenses look like Gods -- with Faried on the floor, they also allowed 107.1 points per 100. Which amounts to a barely-above-0.500 differential and a nagging problem to those who'd love to see Faried get more minutes. I'm sure Karl would like the same -- Karl's a fan of high-energy sparkplug-type players, as evinced by Chris Andersen's long tenure in Denver. The problem is, so long as Faried's defense is that bad, it's hard to really carve out more than 25-30 minutes a night for him. And this isn't a fundamentally trivial problem, either -- the reasons Faried is poor defensively (lacking height, lacking core strength, poor instincts) aren't just going to go away with practice. He can work on his strength, and that will come around, but the height trouble and his actively wrong instincts defending the pick and roll simply aren't going to vanish into the vastness of space. And even if he works on his strength -- high energy players like Faried do tend to have high foul rates. When you go for the ball with reckless abandon and produce incidental contact solely through your playing style, you're probably going to get called on it. That may serve to artificially compress his minutes in the future, as well.

This isn't to say he's a bad player, at all. He's really talented, and while his defense is pretty abysmal, he has some talents as a weakside shot-blocker (although, again, he took too many chances and was about as bad at holding position as I'd be at holding these capsules to 500 words apiece). His phenomenal talent for gobbling up boards -- especially offensively -- is going to be useful on a Denver team who may experience trouble stopping opposing possessions. His offense is strong, if a bit limited, and while teams may be able to scout his offense and decrease the general efficacy (see: his 53% shooting against Los Angeles in the playoffs), as long as he remains this active, he'll be a huge asset on that end. You know who Faried reminds me of, in a somewhat odd way? DeJuan Blair. People scoff at the comparison given how good Faried seems right now, but it's a lot more apt than many would like to admit. To compare them on the same baseline... per 36 minutes, Faried averaged 16-12-1-1-2 on 59% shooting. Blair averaged 15-13-2-1-1 on 56% shooting his rookie year -- he was a slightly more effective rebounder, a slightly worse scorer, and just about as shiftless and difficult-to-play defensively as Faried. He had his dominant nights -- and still does -- but Blair's height and talents are fundamentally not well-suited to the defensive end, and until he figures out a way to operate within a real defensive scheme, his flaws on that end going to continue to chip away at his minutes and keep him off the court. Even with excellent per-minute productivity, as Blair has maintained throughout his career. While I think Faried's future should be better than Blair's present, I think it's worth noting that Blair represents a very possible future if Faried's defense doesn't get in order quickly. He has a shot to be something special. He also has a shot to be DeJuan Blair v2.0 -- an above average offensive player whose sieve-like defense and relatively constrained role keep him from playing up to his per-36 averages. We'll have to wait and see to figure out exactly which end of the spectrum he lands on.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. JKim got an excellent 3/3 last Friday, amidst a few good guesses. Good work, mate.

• Player #244 is one of those small-name players who is excellent for a fantasy basketball team. Really gets you value in almost every stat category. In terms of actual NBA player value? Significantly less value.
• Player #245 is probably the single most despised player in the NBA by fans of the San Antonio Spurs. I've grown to not care about him, but rest assured, I once completely hated his guts.
• Player #246 played rather well at the point for a good team last year, but his minutes were scant and his promise for future playing time slim. Still, could be a decent player someday.

Hope everyone had a good weekend. If you missed all our great Friday content, go back and check it out! We had a lot of stuff celebrating our 1st birthday. Here's hoping Sandy doesn't threaten any of your livelihoods -- please be safe. Batten down the hatches, secure everything you can, and get to higher ground. The season starts tomorrow, folks -- stay safe, so you can start it with us.

• • •

Continue reading

Gothic Ginobili turns one today. As part of our celebration of this somewhat unexpected milestone, our writers are producing a variety of content reflecting and appreciating the journey that got us here. This doesn't actually have all that much relevance to any of our anniversary stuff, but given the event and our current proximity to the first day of the new season, it felt like a good time to bring this back. Once again: a Q&A!

Hey! Season's almost here, the site just turned one, and we're getting back the old business in a new way. We're going a slightly different route to preview the season than most sites. Instead of doing a preview-by-fiat and presenting mounds and mounds of data, I'm going to open the floor with a return of our previously successful impromptu Q&A sessions. We held one during the postseason and one during the offseason, and both were (in my view) immensely fun exercises. A lot of great questions.

For today's preview activities, alongside our quixotic and odd roundtable from our fine correspondants, we're bringing the Q&A structure back to the table, and providing yet another session. Have a question about data you read in another site's preview? Some nagging statistical oddity you've been dying to have someone look into, if only glancingly? Questions about me, the blog, or the universe? Well, I'll be here all day, so it's a good time to ask. Questions can be statistical, aesthetic, personal, humorous, serious, or greasy. Depends on what you want to hear, I guess.

10:00 P.M. UPDATE: In the end, I answered 24 questions this time. Let's start at the top.

• • •

QUESTION #1: What are your thoughts on Dion Waiters and rookie performance in general? As I've discussed with Conrad for Fear the Sword, I'm somewhat spoiled when it comes to watching rookies as a Cavs fan, as the two I've paid the most attention to (LeBron and Kyrie) have been two of the best ever. What are some realistic expectations for Mr. Waiters? What should I consider to be an encouraging rookie year, assuming he doesn't suddenly break out and start turning heads like Kyrie did last year? In an unrelated note: what are your favorite omelet toppings, and what are you going as for Halloween? (Asked by Angelo Benedetti)

Excellent first question. Although it's more like a first five questions. Good try, Tangelo B.

To address the idea of rookie expectations, I did a pull of every rookie guard in the last decade that qualified for that season's MP/G leaderboard. These rookies didn't all turn out extremely well, but the fact is, you need to be comparing rookie performance to past rookie performance to get a good sense of whether a player's ahead of the curve or far behind it. And you know what? Your expectations need to be relatively low. In the past decade, rookie guards who qualified for the MP/G leaderboard have averaged 9-3-3 on 42-33-77 shooting. "So, Aaron, if he averages less than that, his year was an unqualified failure, right?" Well, no. Here are a selection of three players who averaged below or at those totals and still turned out quite alright.

• Andre Iguodala averaged 9-6-3 on 49-33-74 shooting.
• Rajon Rondo averaged 6-4-4 on 41-20-60 shooting.
• George Hill averaged 5-2-2 on 40-32-78 shooting.

So, it really isn't the end of the world if Waiters struggles and has a bad year -- as long as there's something to build on, a bad year on scant minutes isn't the end of the world. I've been outright dismissive of Waiters' potential at times, but this is a good moment to remind people of the somewhat obvious -- rookies are generally pretty awful, at least at first. If Dion Waiters averages around 12-13 points on halfway-decent percentages with a few boards and a few assists, that's actually a pretty phenomenal rookie season. He does have the potential to do that, and while it probably wouldn't win him any rookie of the year hardware, it would be a good sign for the future and indicate a potential for quite a bit more.

As for the last two questions? As a vegetarian, I'm big on eggs -- tons of protein, tasty, and versatile. I'm not the biggest omelette guy, as I prefer the frittata and the scramble to the omelette medium. But nobody can turn down a good omelette. My go-to toppings are mushrooms and onions with swiss cheese -- simple, traditional, solid. When I get the chance, I'll add some asparagus too. Cooks pretty evenly and adds a nice bite to the omelette. That's rare, though. One topping I can't stand whatsoever is the tomato -- it makes your omelette soggy, wet, and often inedible. Gross. As for Halloween, my girlfriend is sewing a costume to dress as Princess Daisy from the Mario franchise, so if we do anything, I'll be throwing together a last-minute Luigi. Seems unlikely that I actually do it, as we currently have no plans, but if the opportunity arises, that's my plan.

• • •

QUESTION #2: How many words have you written on Gothic Ginobili? How many words per day does it average out to? How much sleep do you get in an average night? (Asked by Wes Schierenbeck)

Without a lot of backtracking and work, I wouldn't be able to get you exact numbers for this -- I don't have word documents with my posts, as I tend to post within-the-site framework and just backup the site weekly. But here's the rough story. For the player capsules, I tend to go for ~ 1000 words a capsule. At three capsules per post and fifteen capsules per week, that puts me at writing roughly 3000 words a day during the capsule season, not including double duty on days where I do a capsule (plus) or days like today where I'm writing a ton more. So there's that. Pre-capsules, I tended to write three 1500-2500 word posts a week. So during that time, my writing production was more like 1300 a day, or thereabouts. As for sleep, I tend to get to sleep around midnight to one AM and wake up around 6:30 AM on weekdays. So, 5-6 hours, usually. (I also run on clean coal.)

• • •

QUESTION #3: If Gothic Ginobili was an NBA player, who would it be? If Gothic Ginobili was an NBA coach, who would it be? Explain both choices. (Asked by Wes Schierenbeck)

Interesting. First thoughts that come to mind:

• Anderson Varejao. Sure, people aren't necessarily huge fans of ol' Flopsy. He's injured a lot, he has a bit of an undeserved reputation for flopping, and he's generally forgotten in discussions of the league's best big men. But Varejao's defensive game is aesthetically beyond his hype, and he's the kind of pesky defender that most desperately wish their team had. He's solid, stable, and he's got fantastic hair. Gothic Ginobili is not a Manu (or a Spurs) blog, despite most people thinking it is. Sometimes we're too busy to post a lot. It's not the first place that comes to mind, ever. But we work hard and we've carved a nice little niche for ourselves. Also, our hair is collectively fabulous and Dewey is the greatest flopper in the history of existence.

• Monty Williams. Few people know much about him, but when you learn about him, you usually come to appreciate the man. He excels in the little things -- picture perfect defensive rotations, a fantastic player coach, and a great crossover despite being years from his last game. Also: he's my absolute favorite non-Pop coach, although few people agree with me on this. And, understandably (I think), I am very proud of this site and feel it's always getting better. So the analogy works for me.

What do you think, readers? Comment if you've got better ideas. Would love to hear them.

• • •

QUESTION 4: What's your sleeper team for this year; that is, one who will outperform expectations by the media and fans? (Asked by Wes Schierenbeck)

Honestly? The Memphis Grizzlies.

I can see the compulsion to simply write them off, and to think that they can't hack it against the top-3 teams in the West. The Spurs, Thunder, and Lakers are all pretty phenomenal units, and it's going to take a miracle for any team to break through any of those three in the playoffs. And no team in the East really has more than a token shot at taking out Miami. But the Grizzlies are about as frightening as they ever were, and very quietly, they've improved in most of the ways they needed to. Darrell Arthur is going to help the Grizzlies rest Marc Gasol quite a bit more, which will make them more dangerous when the playoffs roll around. He's a very good player whose absence hurt a ton last season. Bayless and Ellington are immediately the 2nd and 3rd best three point shooters on a team that was formerly dismal at it, and Tony Wroten could be helpful. They could still use a player like Gary Neal or James Jones, but the Grizzlies are deeper than they were last year and (theoretically) more healthy. They still won a pro-rated 51 games last year, despite having no real presence from Randolph all year, overplaying Marc Gasol to the point of exhaustion, and featuring one of the worst three point shooting offenses ever. With both of those improved, I think they're going to push the Spurs for the Division crown, get home court relatively comfortably, and stand a pretty good shot at making a Western Conference Finals. None of the top three teams match up with the Grizzlies particularly well, if they're healthy. I think -- at the end of the year -- they'll be one of the 5-7 best teams in the league, even if Randolph doesn't return to full form. So they're my pick.

• • •

QUESTION #5: What's your favorite team of all time? Not franchise but like a singular year, what team captured your love the most? Mine's definitely one of the 7SOL Suns teams. (Asked by Wes Schierenbeck)

The 2012 Spurs. Which is partly why the loss hit me so hard.

• • •

QUESTION #6: Why are you such a butt? Why is your butt so big? Who's the G-Man? (Asked by Kathryn Reardon)

This set of queries were sent in by my girlfriend. I will proceed to answer these in fragmented sentences.

1. I blame David $tern. Always.
2. "Because it's not the butt I need, but the butt I deserve right now."
3. Gordon Ramsay's new rapping alter-ego, who will be teaming up with G-Unit for a new album this winter.

Thanks for the patronage, hon.

• • •

QUESTION #7: Which of your cats would be a better basketball player? (Asked by Chris)

This is my favorite question ever. Back in May, I got two cats -- Bitsy and Scratchy. Had I not adopted them from a friend-of-a-friend, they would've been either put down or thrown to the pound. I could not abide such notions, so I adopted them instead. They are as any cats are -- alternatingly finicky and snippy, attention-seeking and bite-happy, food-desirous and... okay, well, they always want food. So that one doesn't alternate. But still. Scratchy is a large gray male cat, Bitsy is a thin small female cat. At first, I was thinking that Bitsy would be better -- she's a lot faster than Scratchy, and more active. She bites if she gets annoyed, moves you around when you're sleeping, and runs around the apartment like a chicken with her head cut off on the regular. So I was thinking she'd be pretty great as a change-of-pace defensive guard like Avery Bradley, getting into your grill and draining set-shot threes. But then I remembered.

Scratchy has hops, son. No, seriously. Bitsy can jump pretty high when she wants to, but I've never come home from work only to find her standing on top of the refrigerator staring expectantly at me. That thing is 6-7 feet off the ground. To put that into perspective, Scratchy is about a foot tall. So, he can jump 7 times his height, despite having had no weight training whatsoever in his life. Translating this to human height, and assuming that an NBA training regimen would increase his strength exponentially... if Scratchy was basketball player sized (and he's a big cat, so he'd be a power forward at worst), and he maintained this relative jumping ability, I am going to estimate that Scratchy would be able to jump roughly 4,900 feet into the air (plus or minus 4850 feet). Could be about one mile. Not only could he dunk from the three point line, he could dunk from the Madison Square Garden three point line to the Barclays Center basket. So, given this breathtakingly complex and completely mathematical evidence, I must admit -- Scratchy would make the better basketball player. Sorry, Bitsy. Your frenetic energy would make you a good defender for a little while, but when you got tired, you wouldn't be able to sleep adorably like this in-game.

... Well, unless you're Carmelo Anthony.

• • •

QUESTION #8: Who is the most swagged out player in the NBA Basketball Association? (Asked by Adam Johnson)

Brandon "Swagger Double" Jennings, of course.

(Also, now that his shoes are actually worn by the president, he's going to go for a "Swagger Triple.")

• • •

QUESTION #9: Which team has the potential to make the biggest jump? Whether it's bottom feeder to 30 wins, or first round exit to CF? (Asked by Utsav Panchal)

I'd say the Timberwolves. Most advanced-stat projections have them winning 45-50 games solely on the back of their replacing "remarkably below average" players like Beasley and Johnson with "at least remotely average players" -- it will help their depth, and will help them stay in games when the starters aren't in it. The Love/Rubio injuries will hurt, undoubtedly, but this is still a team that could make the leap from a bottom-feeding team to a playoff contender. Despite the fact that they went 1-13 in the last 14 games of last season (look it up, it's astonishing), I think they've got a puncher's shot at being that team. Brooklyn is another, obviously -- should be a 4-5 seed in the East after being well out of playoff contention in 2012. As for that last one... well, I just said the Grizzlies had a title shot, didn't I?

• • •

QUESTION #10: By advanced stats, who's the most ridiculous player ever? (Asked by A Guy from Argentina)

I like this question, because I can go basically anywhere with it. I choose to put the spotlight on Trevor Winter. You may look at poor Trevor and wonder what he's done to deserve such acclaim -- his career averages of 0 points on 0 shots per game with 0 free throw attempts in a single game played do seem rather pedestrian, when you put it that way. But look deeper, my friends. Look deeper. Winter played a single game for the 1999 Minnesota Timberwolves, coming off a four-year college career at the University of Minnesota after going to a Minnesota high school in his Minnesota hometown. He... he liked Minnesota, okay? Anyways, Winter's statline in his one game looks very pedestrian until you get to the last line. In five minutes on the court, Winter -- somehow -- managed to accrue five personal fouls. That's good for a per-36 rate of... well... 36 fouls per 36 minutes. Come on, get it together. Heh. This is the "best" foul rate of all time. It's incredibly absurd. I really wish Winter had gotten the chance to play more minutes, if only because a maintained rate of this nature would make him -- statistically -- the best player a tanking team could ever _sign_. He's a superstar of teams that want to lose. Instead, Winter lives on only in our dreams. Our wildest, most ridiculous dreams. Alack.

• • •

QUESTION #11: Where do you expect to find Gothic Ginobili in a year? (Asked by Kathryn Reardon)

Same bat time, same bat channel.

Nah, honestly? I'm hoping that in a year we have a bit more on-location reporting, perhaps a new face or two, and the same brazen dedication to absurdities that we have now. I hope we're all a bit better at writing, a bit better at deadlines, perhaps a bit more well-known. But no humongous plans. Not yet.

• • •

QUESTION #12: If GG were a Pokemon, which one would it be & why? Original 151 only. (Asked by Angelo Benedetti)

After way more deliberation than I've given any other question ever asked of me for one of these Q&A sessions, I think I'm going with Slowbro. His vacant stare closely resembles me after a week's work on the capsules, and the giant toothed shell affixed to his tail closely resembles Dewey after a week's work on writing Lovecraftian horror stories I will proceed to read and file away, never to be viewed by human eyes again.

Also, everyone loves Slowbro. He's the dude.

ADDENDUM: On request, contributing writer Alex Arnon answered this question as well. His exceptionally accurate answer: "A combination of Alakazam and Drowzee. Because while the articles are usually pretty smart, they're also long enough to make you fall asleep."

• • •

QUESTION #13: If Gothic Ginobili existed in the 70s, would it be called Swashbuckling Silas? Also, If GG were an ABAer, who would it be? (Asked by Josh's Pseudonym)

You are a beautiful person for thinking of that name. Yes. Yes it would.

I'd probably think it'd be George Gervin. Several reasons. First, his style -- wasn't an astonishing defender, but watching his highlight reels is always compelling and the several classic full-game downloads I've watched point to a player whose overall aesthetics are one of the more original to ever play the sport. An oddball stroke, a strange lurch to his drives, but an overall smoothness that's unparalleled. Very cool. Also, as Simmons reported in his excellent basket-book, Gervin has one of the strangest speaking styles of anyone to play the game -- just like Dewey!

Actual Gervin quote: "Whereas the Spurs' gig is havin' fun, otherwise the Spurs be comin' atcha." Seriously! Another actual Gervin quote: "Whereas I never went fly like some of the boys, I'm conservative. I got the short hair, the pencil 'stache, the simple clothes. Plus I'm 6'8", 183—no, make that 185—and when you look at me all you see is bone. Otherwise in Detroit I'm known as Twig according to my physique. I just do my thing and stay consistent. I figure the people be recognizing the Iceman pretty soon now. Whereas I be up there in a minute." Doesn't that read exactly like an Alex Dewey post? I think so too.

Finally, he's rockin' the double-G name. Whereas we don't even need to change the tags!

• • •

QUESTION #14: In their respective primes, who do you think was better: Steve Nash or Jason Kidd? (Asked by @EvilGrayFox)

Steve Nash. The thing with Kidd that always sort of bugged me was that while his numbers were dominant, he never really led elite offensive teams -- while maximizing one's talent to its fullest was always the goal, I always got this sense that Kidd's best teams (up until his late career joust with the Mavericks) were more dependent on the defenders behind him. Obviously, Kidd himself helped -- he was one of the better perimeter defenders, for a time. But in his prime, he helmed Nets teams that were in the bottom third of the league, offensively. He doesn't deserve all the blame for that, and he doesn't deserve to have his career belittled for it, necessarily. But you're comparing him to someone like Steve Nash, one of the very few players in the history of the league whose mere presence raises his partners' shooting percentages by 2-3%. He's among the best passing talents in the history of the game, and he's led 4 of the 5 best offenses in the history of the league. He's not a great defender, but he's one of the best shooters of all time. It's a lot closer than most think, but when you sift to the particulars, I think Nash comes out on top.

• • •

QUESTION #15: ¿Qué piensas de las posibilidades de manu de ingresar al muro de la fama? (Asked by A Guy from Argentina)

Dios mio. Quizas este fue un idea terrible. Mi espanol es horrible. Lo siento. Mi opinion es que Manu Ginobili va ingresar al muro de la fama rapidamente. Yo pienso que Manu es un de los mejores a su posicion en la historia del sport, y si Manu no es un primero boleta miembro, la mundo es loco. Pero... la mundo es loco. En realidad. Tan quizas yo sé nunca.

Posdata #1: Mi diccionario en espanol fue muy util para este respuesta. Gracias, diccionario!
Posdata #2: Todos los abogados encantan gatos.
Posdata #3: Gracias por leer mis garabatos. Yo aprecio sus efuerzos. Esto es dificil para mi!

• • •

QUESTION #16: When is Iman Shumpert's player capsule? Do you want to do it as a Capsule (Plus) for HP? Isn't he the best player in basketball? (Asked by Jared Dubin)

I can't tell you -- a watched Shum-pot never boils. I'd rather do it as a Capsule (Minus), to represent the offensive performances of players Shumpert covers. And while he is not the best player, I cannot deny that he has the best non-Bynum hair at the moment. (Bynum's hair is better, though. Sorry Jared.)

• • •

QUESTION #17: Cats or dogs? (Asked by Quixem Raimirez)

I believe the answer to question #7 tells you all you need to know, friend.

• • •

QUESTION #18: Uh, I would like to know your feelings on the NBA and its anti-flopping campaign. (Asked by Nick Flynt)

Honestly? I think they're pretty awful. One fact about them that's gone relatively underreported is that the current fine structure actually has the potential of completely taking out a player's earnings if a 10-day contract guy were to actually get warned and fined. In the NBA, 10-day contracts pay something around $30,000. The fine structure, as it stands, goes $5000, $10000, $15000. If a player were to make it to the NBA on a 10-day contract but be assessed to have flopped in each game, it's a remote possibility that the fines would wipe out the entirety of the salary they would've earned from the ten day contract. That, to me, seems like a pretty silly oversight, and points to the general issue with the fines as a whole. Big-name players make more money, enough so that $5000 is basically just a day at the Cheesecake Factory rather than a significant percentage of their income. By making the fines a raw total instead of a percentage-salary fee, it creates a disparity in the severity of the punishment relative to your place in the league, made even worse by the fact that as the rule stands it's likely to be enforced more harshly on the NBA's lesser lights. I don't mind the idea of legislating flopping as much as some people, but if you're going to do it, at least do it right. Just try to avoid institutionalizing that kind of a disparity.

• • •

QUESTION #19: Worst team in the West? (Asked by Mavs Raccoon)

Three teams have a case. The simple for/against case for each being the worst team in the west:

• HOUSTON ROCKETS: The case for? They have a questionably fitting roster with virtually nobody who's played together before. They have little depth outside their Nutcracker army of tweener forwards. Also, their coach is awful. The case against? They have a very solid defensive center, a decent point guard, and a lot of high-upside rooks. At least one of them should pan out.

• SACRAMENTO KINGS: The case for? A dreadful roster with little depth and an atrocious defense. Keith Smart isn't bad, but he's never been fantastic at realizing defensive potential. Perhaps the best case, though, is their ownership -- the Maloofs are penny-pinching Scroogelike phantasms, and they'll sabotage this team with poor trades and firings if they think it'll help them move it. The case against? Demarcus freaking Cousins is a beast, and although the Maloofs will do their best to sabotage it, I can't help but think that Thomas-Thornton-Tyreke-Robinson-Cousins is actually a really solid starting five. Can't defend worth a damn, but that's a lineup that can score til the cowbell comes home.

• PHOENIX SUNS: The case for? There is exactly one player on this roster who's ever played all-star caliber ball, and his all-star flirtation lasted for half a season while Steve Nash played alongside him for over 75% of his minutes. Nash has been known throughout his career for raising the shooting marks of everyone he plays with, and Dragic's more a scorer than a passer -- seems like a recipe for a team that suddenly can't make a damn shot. And again. Those wings? Yikes. The case against? Scola and Dragic shouldn't be THAT bad, and there's always the possibility Beasley or Johnson figures it out. And Gortat is, admittedly, pretty good. Probably will never make an all-star team, but he's nice.

Me? I'm going with the Suns. I simply don't see where this roster is getting anything -- it was a gigantic mystery to me that Nash was able to drag this roster to a 0.500 record, and I'm going to bet that Dragic's results aren't quite as tidy as Nash's. I suppose when it comes right down to it, I believe in Asik/Cousins more than I do Gortat. Adam Koscielak will now brutally disembowel me. It's been fun, world.

• • •

QUESTION #20: Will Hedo ever learn to jump on two feet when he shoots? (Asked by Chris Barnewall)

The saying is wrong, Chris. You CAN teach an old dog new tricks, it's just very difficult.

... Too bad Hedo's a human being, rather than a dog.

Because there's no way in hell he ever actually learns how to do that.

• • •

QUESTION #21: Who is your favorite NBALinks poster? (Asked by Chris "LeBron" Bosh)

My pal Caleb, definitely. He's a bro for life and I really hope he feels better soon. Shout-out to my main man.

• • •

QUESTION #22: What year will aliens contact us? (Asked by @HoopPlusTheHarm)

They already did. What else would you call Rondo's pregame routines, smart guy?

• • •

QUESTION #23: How many future all-stars are on the Jazz right now? If you say less than 4, you are wrong. (Asked by Heath Mecham)

Gee, Mr. Mecham, I sure don't want to be wrong...

I guess I'll just have to skip this one!

• • •

QUESTION #24: Yes Aaron, I have a question. Will I ever find true love? Will I ever find out what my true calling in life is? (Asked by Jordan S. White)

Ah, Jordan. Love is sweet, but love is fickle. Truth is relative, especially in these waters, and things are always changing. Relationships grow and evolve and the person you are in a coming tomorrow bears scant resemblance to the person you are today! Look at what you've written, look at the bridges crossed. I've come to feel true love's more about finding a person you can find an overarching peace with rather than some eternal match made by God. A person with whom you can embark on life's journeys, knowing full well you both will change into unrecognizable shades of the people you once were, confident in nothing more than the overarching truth that you're a duo prepared to grow and learn together. You don't know what you'll learn, nor what the journey holds. But you're prepared to hold their hand and step forth blindly together in a world of unknowns and pitfalls. And personally? I don't think there's such a thing as a true calling. There's a softly ringing phone you put on hold as you funnel your actions to an endeavor you've conditioned yourself to love. The key is figuring out the right mix between enjoyment, profit, and enlightenment. And it's different for everyone. There's no one right answer.

Will you find these things? Good question. You tell me, Jordan.

• • •

And with that, I happily close the book on another interesting Q&A. Very few statistical questions this time. Never even got the chance to break out a graph! I'll try to hold another one of these in a few months, perhaps when we have a bit of a season to digest and our sense of wonder starts to wane. Good day, dear readers. Thanks for all the questions, and I hope you have an absolutely lovely weekend.

Continue reading

Gothic Ginobili turns one today. As part of our celebration of this somewhat unexpected milestone, our writers are producing a variety of content reflecting and appreciating the journey that got us here. To start us off, the two idiots who started this thing will attempt to determine where it all went wrong. Er, where it all began, more like. Through the medium of completely unedited AIM logs. This is TOTALLY going to go over well.

We're a blog where two guys who love NBA basketball write about things that come to mind and try to entertain anyone who decides to read. Not a Spurs fansite, contrary to our name, nor a Manu fansite. We hope to provide entertaining NBA-related writing. Nothing more, nothing less. Note it.

-- Myself in late 2011, attempting to describe a blog that did not yet exist.

We're now officially one year into Gothic Ginobili's reign of terror. We've written a lot (nearly 300 posts!) and gone through an inconceivably large number of failed drafts and stupid ideas to get there. Through it all, we've maintained a level of general anonymity. Not in our personal lives, mind you -- both Alex and I have shared so many personal anecdotes through our writing, it's possible that many of our regular readers know us better than some of our good friends. But we've maintained a certain anonymity in how we got here. We just sort of appeared, one day, a duo dragged kicking and screaming from the depths of the mariana trench to try and write about basketball. Who are we? How did this happen, even? Well, it's been a year. I guess you're old enough. Time to share. In order to do that, we've reached into our five-year-old AIM chatlogs and extracted several unedited chat logs that we feel begin to explain the mystery that remains in our origins and creation-story. I hope it is possible to actually enjoy this post. (Fair warning: I'm not sure it is.)

• • •

_Tuesday the 22nd, December 2009 -- 6:26 A.M._

Here, we delineate the exact goal that would inspire us to eventually try our hands at basketball writing -- truth in the half-fact.

[06:26] Aaron: god what a feeling to be mortal is such a great post
[06:27] Aaron: it should be really contrived
[06:27] Aaron: these sort of metaphors almost always are
[06:27] Aaron: but there's something so humble in that presentation
[06:28] Aaron: "But they don’t, and each night on the schedule is another exercise in celebrating everything that is theirs to lose."
[06:28] Aaron: and the greatest part, perhaps
[06:29] Aaron: is the response below it, the comment from "coachg"
[06:29] Aaron: that just misses the point entirely and in doing so makes the point even more jarring
[06:30] Alex: yes. it's almost like it exists in the universe of the post and provides a picture of the opponents within it
[06:30] Alex: lol
[06:30] Aaron: and nash is perfect for this sort of a moral
[06:30] Aaron: he is so chill, so excellent off the court
[06:31] Aaron: he has this sense about him of a man who has simultaneously put everything into something, but in doing so figured something out
[06:31] Aaron: something most people haven't, something he shares with a select few
[06:32] Aaron: and i wouldn't be presumptuous to say this post got the entirety of it, what nash found is probably both greater and smaller than this
[06:32] Aaron: but
[06:32] Aaron: damn if it doesn't get to the heart of its existence
[06:32] Aaron: and doesn't try and hide conjectures
[06:32] Aaron: doesn't try to be completely right
[06:33] Aaron: because being right in spirit and finding the gist is oftentimes more important than exactitudes
[06:33] Aaron: "the lakers are devious and talented"
[06:33] Aaron: "the cavs are inconsistent and optimal"
[06:34] Aaron: "tolstoy wrote the world"
[06:35] Aaron: none of those are really entirely correct, and neither is "the suns are at peace with and has found that the journey of basketball is preferable to a championship and an accomplishment that betters it, and have discovered that each game is a battlefield where all things are at stake"
[06:35] Aaron: but it sure as hell gets to the heart of something
[06:35] Aaron: something true
[06:36] Aaron: and that's what's important, damnit
[06:38] Alex: yes, damme u on a roll

• • •

_Wednesday the 30th, June 2010 -- 1:02 A.M._

Here, we have a conversation we will eventually have roughly twenty seven million times over the course of our partnership, where we try to figure out how we're actually going to communicate with people who aren't inside our disturbed minds. Also, we float our first actual idea for a blog.

[01:02] Alex: lol, does this idea make any sense?
[01:02] Aaron: not really
[01:03] Alex: is that a negative thing? or just an orthogonal thing, a chain of logic incomprehensible to your worldview, for reasons that are themselves incomprehensible to me
[01:04] Aaron: uh... no, it just means you truly are not explaining this in a way that is comprehensible to any non-dewey individual
[01:04] Aaron: i say that because
[01:04] Aaron: if i can't understand it, well... we think about as similarly as two bros can think, you know?
[01:06] Alex: see, but that might be too simplistic. we obviously have very similar views of the world and experiences, however, this could be an end process thing, while the neurological and philosophical machinery for getting there is entirely different
[01:07] Aaron: ... what? heh
[01:08] Aaron: the point is that if you are saying something i cannot understand related to your trains of thought, it is extraordinarily unlikely there are magical ppl elsewhere who can -- we basically think on the same wavelength for virtually every relevant subject we've ever discussed, to an extent that is alternatingly interesting and sketchy. we are crazy-alike. if the blog fails (whensoever we get it going), it'll probably be more because we were too similar to effectively determine how to make a blog readable to anybody who isn't exactly like either of us
[01:10] Aaron: the whole methodology thing is cute, but it is virtually required to have a similar method of thought to have the sort of overlap our general tastes and patterns exhibit -- it's not like you're on mars yelling to a guy on pluto, they have to be approximately somewhat convergent, because otherwise it's virtually impossible for the previously determined coinciding opinions to all exist
[01:10] Aaron: even if i am a guy on pluto and you are yelling at me from mars, it is unlikely there is anybody particularly closer in methodology than i, perhaps i am the only one in this particular galaxy, to use that metaphor until it is shot
[01:11] Aaron: look basically the point is
[01:11] Aaron: i have no idea what you're talking about
[01:11] Aaron: or what i'm talking about
[01:11] Alex: lol
[01:13] Aaron: completely unrelated note, we should try and get blog + twitters up by, like, this weekend
[01:13] Aaron: so we can try and break stories that do not exist
[01:13] Aaron: lol
[01:13] Aaron: "LeBron and Burl Ives signed by the Spurs for the Biannual Value Mart Exceptionals."
[01:14] Alex: oh yeah, the Pete Seeger Sessions Rights, those always catch you by surprise

• • •

_Tuesday the 10th, August 2010 -- 2:44 P.M._

This is where the initial framework for Gothic Ginobili was formed. We had some vague idea of a general NBA blog we'd start called "Juwan a Blog", but we wanted to generate an audience for our work so that we'd have feedback and the ability to get better. In one of the most convoluted and ridiculous ideas we've ever had our lives, we decided the best way to get viewers would be to falsify love of Duke University and write a blog about Duke sports in an effort to become an SBNation blog and make NBA connections through SBNation so that we could then be better at Juwan a Blog's purpose. Why, yes, this does sound remarkably more dumb when actually stated outright in retrospect.

[14:44] Aaron: oh my god
[14:44] Aaron: brilliant idea, ok
[14:45] Aaron: sbnation... has no duke blogs
[14:45] Aaron: if we start a duke column at juwanablog, and do it right, and make it awesome
[14:45] Aaron: we might be able to parlay that into a duke team blog!
[14:45] Aaron: which we could crosslink to our final-state version of juwanablog
[14:45] Aaron: and get other people at duke to blog with me so we won't be spending too much time on it
[14:46] Aaron: so that we can switch to juwanablog after handing the duke blog over to duke students and figuring out the blog game!
[14:46] Aaron: foolproof
[14:46] Alex: obviously i'd have to help you with the duke blog too in the beginning, gettin our name out
[14:46] Alex: lol
[14:46] Aaron: the soul stealing part is that we would actually have to write about duke
[14:46] Aaron: yuck
[14:48] Alex: so ok... are we going to just make this a side-column at juwanablog?
[14:51] Alex: like
[14:48] Alex: are we are using juwanablog to get the blogging expertise so they trust us with the duke blog so that we can advertise juwanablog
[14:48] Alex: just getting this straight
[14:49] Aaron: ... yes, damnit

• • •

_Thursday the 10th, September 2010 -- 1:17 A.M._

In this excerpt, we begin to tire of the concept of writing endless recaps and realize we definitely aren't suited for the recaps-on-recaps-on-recaps business, and are more suited to random stories and absurdities. The picture in question? A stern picture of Bethlehem Shoals, lost to the abyss.

[01:17] Alex: so when we post this on the blog
[01:17] Alex: we need to have that picture
[01:17] Alex: three times
[01:17] Alex: punctuating the review
[01:17] Alex: a la fd
[01:17] Alex: lol
[01:17] Aaron: no, ok, better idea...
[01:17] Aaron: we need that picture repeated infinitely
[01:17] Aaron: as a frame for
[01:17] Aaron: JACK REBEL SLIMS
[01:18] Aaron: aaron mcguire is the foremost criminal mind of this generation
[01:18] Aaron: lol
[01:18] Alex: heh awesome
[01:18] Alex: how about
[01:18] Alex: the first picture is of an escher painting
[01:18] Alex: the second one will be a lewis carroll illustration
[01:18] Alex: and then, right after that
[01:18] Alex: i will get into the negatives
[01:18] Alex: and that will be posted after the end
[01:18] Alex: lol
[01:18] Aaron: how about a jackson pollock painting
[01:18] Aaron: almost completely covered
[01:19] Aaron: by repeated iterations of that picture
[01:19] Aaron: lol
[01:19] Alex: sometimes i wonder if this kind of shit is our real calling, not long-form write-ups and recaps

• • •

_Tuesday the 28th, September 2010 -- 11:30 P.M._

We reflect on the fact that -- in writing a bunch of tedious crap that we've long since lost to server churn -- we actually did gain a lot of subject matter knowledge. For me personally, this general sense of knowledge-gain through tedium ended up creating the initial impetus for the first stage of Player Capsules, back in 2011, posted on a private basketball discussion group.

[23:30] Aaron: i feel like our basketball knowledge in the past year has gotten a lot better, despite how awful and tedious this is
[23:31] Alex: oh yeah. heh just getting exposure to the fiba players is going to help us interpret the thunder, lakers, 76ers, and (sigh) nuggets next year
[23:31] Alex: lol
[23:31] Aaron: well, it's also just the modes of analysis
[23:31] Aaron: my grasp of hoops stats is a lot better, and in general, i just watch games better now than i did a year ago
[23:32] Aaron: the analysis i had in the last few recaps were mostly things i would have had no possible way of seeing a year ago
[23:32] Alex: it's sort of like there is an emergent causal structure to our knowledge, in that we will watch one tournament, immediately internalize a new perspective, and in turn, use that new perspective towards the creation of still other perspectives
[23:33] Alex: what's more, we have been taking (not full, but decent) advantage of the blogosphere's existing knowledge
[23:33] Alex: like..i get the feeling that we are more able to see horribly invalid reasoning
[23:33] Alex: and not just by kobe fanatics
[23:33] Alex: by like
[23:33] Alex: the national guys
[23:33] Alex: (who are mostly awesome, it should be noted)
[23:33] Alex: lol
[23:34] Aaron: yeah, we spent the last year reading blogs voraciously and, for me personally at least, i now can look at the twitters of all the bloggers, take all the knowledge they're presenting, consider it, and push out my own analysis that incorporates their observations with my own to make something legitimately valuable. we probably will get tired of this duke crap at some point but i think more than ever i'm pretty sure we can make an nba blog that might actually be worth reading. someday.
[23:34] Aaron: not yet tho. we need more subject matter expertise, and blog experience. heh

• • •

_Tuesday the 22nd, February 2012 -- 3:27 A.M._

Conversations like this one happened for roughly a year. Then, in about 4 weeks, we got all serious, worked our butts off, and made this site and with it a bunch of content. But instead of actually showing you any of that, we're just going to show you this, because this far more effectively demonstrates our state of mind when starting this blog than any pretensions of serious rigor could.

[03:27] Aaron: holy crap, i wonder if we could get a .lol domain for our blog
[03:27] Aaron: juwanablog.lol
[03:28] Alex: yes
[03:28] Alex: also i think we can still do juwanablog
[03:28] Alex: and as our image
[03:28] Alex: have the image of juwan pushing that guy down
[03:29] Aaron: see... i want this to be
[03:29] Aaron: a blog entirely of good feelings
[03:29] Aaron: hence the lol
[03:29] Aaron: the duke blog... was OK, i guess
[03:30] Aaron: but terrible
[03:30] Aaron: i want this to be a fun thing to write for that ends up being resourceful, entertaining, and not some chore to write for
[03:30] Aaron: you know?
[03:30] Aaron: lol

• • •

_Monday the 7th, May 2012 -- 10:45 P.M._

After our first real period of genuinely poor performance for Gothic Ginobili -- hits bottoming out, very few external links, and a lot of pressure in our outside lives that was cramping our content production -- we start to think back and figure out what to do going forward. And realize we're about as bad as we were when we started, and we need to improve. Also: we know absolutely nothing, as we terrifyingly realize.

[22:45] Alex: you know, we can get better and better
[22:45] Alex: and you know what? we have to. there are perfectly rational, intelligent journalists that don't seem to feel a lick of bias or emotion. but i don't want to become that. i want to develop into an complete person and have the expression follow that growth. the class can be a constant pressure on my actions, but it can never stop me from asserting myself in a clear, honest, social way, any more than it can stop the spurs from taking an open shot
[22:45] Alex: the taciturn, unexpressive route works in situations in which the best strategy is to be strategically and morally unobtrustive
[22:46] Alex: but writing is all about being obtrusive. not being mean-spirited or gainsaying
[22:46] Alex: but being assertive with the truth as you believe it and holding to that truth until you are moved by a stronger interpretation
[22:46] Alex: open-mindedness is a virtue, but without assertiveness we're just adrift forever on a shallow sea
[22:46] Alex: if we let the debate control us, we can never go deeper than that framework allows us to go
[22:46] Alex: to get to the truth we have to control the debate
[22:48] Alex: the "count the rings" thing is widely derided on the blogosphere because it's simply not an argument without context. it is at best the starting point for a real debate and at worst the ending point for a fake debate.
[22:48] Alex: this is... how do i put it, this is my attempt to get out of writer's block, by increasing my understanding of my own role in the blogosphere
[22:48] Alex: and in turn, my own role in this great society of ours
[22:48] Aaron: fair and true, although i caution as i always do. it's never quite that simple, and when it comes to creating something of value for both you and the reader, well.
[22:48] Aaron: there are some things that are worth saying.
[22:48] Aaron: there are others that simply aren't.
[22:49] Aaron: we've been blocked and busy and way too out of it. we need to figure out what's worth saying and write about it, not just write stupid little puff pieces in an effort to get back to beefcake.
[22:49] Aaron: although, well. maybe it would help. after all this time we still don't really know for sure, do we? heh.

• • •

_Thursday the 23rd, August 2012 -- 10:51 A.M._

Christ, this was barely 2 months ago. We're exactly the same as we were when we started. Damnit. Hope nobody reads this far.

[10:51] Alex: so... man, deron williams makes a lot of sense to me
[10:51] Alex: but technically
[10:52] Alex: he doesn't count
[10:53] Alex: f*** your clown teams
[10:53] Alex: lol
[11:05] Alex: Alex Dewey is an eclectic intellectual that wakes up in the dark in a cold sweat and bloodshot eyes wondering what would have happened if he had chosen to play basketball instead of write about it, and then he remembers that he has no motor skills to speak of and falls asleep with perfect placidity. Every night this happens. In between, he writes about NBA basketball. And eclectic intellectual things that are not remotely athletic.
[17:23] Aaron: alex
[17:23] Aaron: what in the literal f***

• • •

"And now you know the rest of the story."

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. Today we continue with Roger Mason Jr., Daniel "Booby" Gibson, and Josh Harrellson. Stay tuned over the rest of the day for lots of other Gothic Ginobili anniversary-related material -- and some unrelated stuff, too!

• • •

_Follow Roger Mason on Twitter at __@MoneyMase.___

I'm not really sure how much longer Mason is for the league. Most crusty old veterans with no real investment in broader league politics would've been long-gone at this point, lost to roster churn and the slow but sure drift of age. Mason, though, has managed to stick around. And it might be a good thing he has, too -- while he's been an exceedingly marginal player over his entire career, he's actually been a relatively active figure in the league's labor politics, serving as the union vice president through much of the last 5-10 years. And all things considered? With the exception of his hilarious "Looking like a season. How u" styled gaffe back in the thick of the lockout, he's been relatively effective at reaching out to players and forming the sorts of connections and knowledge that makes running a massive labor organization go (relatively) smoothly. He and others were key figures in the labor organizations and among the owners were absolutely essential in breaking the stalemate between Hunter, Stern, and the owners. And for that, to me, Mason can stay in the league however long he darn well wants. He's earned it, you know?

At least he earned it somehow. With the exception of his one beautiful Spurs season, Mason's been pretty marginal over the course of his career. Keep in mind that in his best season ever, he still played markedly worse basketball than virtually anyone the Spurs employ at the wing today, including Neal, Green, De Colo, Leonard, or Mills. He made a few game winners, which are far and away the most wonderful highlights of the guy's career, but outside of that the cupboard is rather bare. Fun with averages: he's shot around 38% from three in his entire career, but that's actually pretty hilariously misleading, as well over 50% of the three point shots he's ever taken in his career came from a two-year stretch that includes his highlight Spurs season and his decent season with the 2008 Wizards. Mason shot 32% from three before that stretch, and has shot 35% since -- in fact, he only has three individual seasons over his average, with five individual seasons clocking in at well below. His defense has never been fantastic, and his offensive repertoire beyond the three is ghastly beyond compare. You do not want Roger Mason Jr. taking any shot but a three for you, if you can prevent it. You simply don't want that.

He was on the rocks this past season, playing for a contract and coming off one of the worst years of his career. He caught the lockout fever, though, and acquitted himself pretty well in Washington. Enough to earn a single-year minimum contract with the Hornets. He should be pretty decent, I'd think -- he won't be phenomenal or anything, because he never really is, but at this point his entire value is rooted in his ability to make open threes no matter how crusty and old he gets. With Davis in the post and Anderson drawing double teams on the perimeter, there should be open threes for him to can if the Hornets can actually get him the ball. Given that the best point guard on their roster is noted scoring aficionado Grevis Vasquez, I'm hesitant to call that a lock. But we'll see. For now, I just entreat you to consider the role Mason had in ending the lockout, understand that he's a hilariously marginal player whose career highlight was most likely a Christmas Day game-winner in a season where the Spurs lost in the first round, and appreciate him for what he is. Leader, shooter, all-around-good-dude. "How u?"

• • •

_Follow Daniel Gibson on Twitter at __@BooBysWorld1.___

It's true. Daniel "Booby" Gibson has fallen upon hard times. His offense has advanced in virtually no respects since his rookie season, with his three point percentage staying right around his rookie highs (41.9%) and his two point percentage plummeting as teams began to realize that even a modicum of pressure would make him incomprehensibly bad at scoring from inside the arc. Although, to be fair, the pressure doesn't totally explain his positively absurd showing this past season -- as John Hollinger expertly pointed out, Daniel Gibson shot 29.4% on two pointers this past season. Twenty-nine percent. How did that happen? I'll break it out for you! He shot 60% at the rim, but took only 0.7 shots a game there, because he has a lot of trouble actually getting to the rim at his size and barely even tries. He then proceeded to take:

• 0.6 shots a game from3-9 feet -- of these, he made 23.8%.
• 0.2 shots a game from 10-15 feet -- of these, he made 14.3%.
• 1.6 shots a game from 16-23 feet -- of these, he made 19.6%.

So, yeah. That could've gone a bit better.

Most of Gibson's value comes in his ability to shoot the ball. If he can't make two pointers, he's little more than a spot-up three point gunner on offense who doesn't need to be guarded inside the arc. And that's a pretty bad omen for his NBA career going forward. That, and his general lack of a passing game -- he's only once in his career posted an assist percentage above 15%, which is usually the death knell for an NBA point guard. For good reason. He's an awful passer for his position, almost incomprehensibly so. His turnover rate also spiked, as he posted a higher turnover rate than over 75% of NBA point guards despite barely ever handling the ball. Which is... not very good. It's possible his shooting could recoup, which would make him a rotation player again -- as long as he's shooting well and you don't have to play him as your primary ballhandler, he's a guard you like to play. Unexpectedly solid defense, doesn't dominate the ball (although he DOES take some shots you wish you'd have back), doesn't really hurt you a ton. Solid rebounding, too. This all requires that his shooting comes back. If it doesn't, he's toast -- there is absolutely no way he's staying in the NBA if he continues to make under 20% of his midrange shots. No way whatsoever.

Now, before we move on, I'd like to focus on something that I've always found really funny. The Finals-bound 2007 Cavaliers were lacking in a lot of ways. They were well below-average, offensively, at virtually every position on the court that wasn't played by LeBron James. Some good defensive talent, but offensively, quite deficient. Except, well... here's the thing that most people don't realize. In the past decade, the bar for being a competent, average, and reasonably decent point guard in the NBA finals is set astonishingly low. So much so, in fact, that a rookie Daniel Gibson somehow actually rated out as a barely-below-average point guard in the NBA finals. Seriously! Look at this chart -- it includes every point guard that started in the NBA finals over the past decade, averaged across all finals starts.

Be honest. How ridiculous is it that despite his maligned game, despite his general lack of value, despite his overall lacking skillset... as a rookie, Daniel Gibson seriously performed as a barely-below-average point guard in the NBA finals. He shot better than average, despite shooting FAR under his career averages. The Cavs had him taking a few less shots than most of these guys did, so his overall scoring total wasn't quite as good as normal, but he shot well above par and played about the average minutes-total. He stole the ball more than average (and, again, was solid defensively beyond the simple steals metric), and although he posted the worst assists total of any of the players, he overall rates out as a slightly-below-average Finals-caliber point guard. This is hilarious to me. When Daniel Gibson's agent is negotiating his next contract, he needs to make full use of this chart. "Hey, look. My client is tantalizingly close to the NBA Finals average for starting point guard. Don't you want to make a finals? Don't you need a veteran finals point guard? Booby's your guy! SIGN HIM!"

... Yep, exit's that way, I'll leave now.

• • •

_Follow Josh Harrellson on Twitter at __@BigJorts55.___

I actually like Josh Harrellson's game, at least as a prospect going forward. He makes a lot of sense as a stretch four, as he posted roughly average three point shooting in his very few tries at Kentucky and was able to quickly adapt to the NBA's three point line. If a player doesn't really pick up the shot their rookie year, it's actually relatively rare for the player to really recoup later in their career and learn how to shoot the three. So the fact that he was an average three point shooter his rookie year tends to indicate he's at least got a solid shot of being an average three point shooter for a long time going forward. He was also better defensively than most people realize -- he's a pest, in all the best ways. He gets up in a player's grill without actually fouling them, and when in the paint, he goes up straight to cut off angles and does an unexpectedly effective job of it. As teams scout his defense, he may need to adapt, but he was quite effective in a limited role his rookie year. His rebounding was pretty phenomenal, too -- Harrellson was in the top 25% of per-minute big-men rebounders on both defense and offense, and took the boards in about as viciously as a rookie ever does.

There were flaws, of course. Always are. His at-rim scoring was anemic at best, and his overall offensive game outside of the three point ball is relatively limited. Decent midrange, but he rarely uncorked it. Which is good, because the midrange shot sort of sucks. His defense was great overall, but (as expected), he struggles when matched up against gigantic post threats like Bynum or Howard. I mean... everyone does. But still. Despite all that, simply being able to be a three-point-shooting big man is valuable, and being able to do that while contributing on the defensive end of the court is a phenomenal plus. Add in his rebounding, if it holds up over his broader career, and he's the kind of super-effective role player that could actually make a mark on a good team. He might be the most important player the Heat picked up this summer, at least when it comes to keeping their talent around -- if Ray Allen's bone spurs finish their brutal forced aging and Rashard Lewis is as absurdly done as everyone seems to expect he is, the Heat will have a bunch of extremely old refuse lying around when Bosh and LeBron are facing their ETO decision, two summers from now. Harrellson is young, he's played very well, and his game appears to be the kind that can stand up to a few seasons of scouting. We'll see, I suppose.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. Excellent guessing -- J got a 3/3, although I have to give a special shout-out to Sir Thursday as well for being the first to figure out the riddle I'd deemed impossible.

• Player #241 was a borderline decent player at Duke, although very few people remember he went there at this point. Now, it's more just wondering when he'll actually get to show his talents at a leaguewide level. Not sure when that'll be.
• Player #242 got caught in some hot water this summer after some incredibly lewd and ridiculous pictures made their way stateside from one of his parties in his home country. My guess? He's already made as many papers as he'll make over the course of the entire season.
• Player #243 couldn't defend anyone worth a lick last season, and he's pretty undersized. But his coach absolutely needs to play him more minutes anyway -- he's young, his motor is incredible, and at some point the raw numbers become too overwhelming to keep him benched for long. He's reached that point.

TONS of stuff going up today. We will, quite literally, have 6 or 7 posts up today when all's said and done. A lot of work went into our stuff today. Hope you all enjoy it, and even if not, hope to see you next week for another week of capsules and the season's happy beginnings.

• • •

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. This afternoon we continue with Lance Thomas, Wayne Ellington, and Ty Lawson.

• • •

Follow Lance Thomas' example and buy a black diamond Jesus head.

As far as I know, most of the people who actively follow this blog are NBA fans -- few that I know of follow the NCAA with any sort of fervor or interest. I count myself in this general group. I don't like watching college basketball all that much, honestly. The talent is dismal, the excessive shot clock leads to overcomplicated and aimless offensive sets, the coaches lord over their players, chalk rules in a boring regular season, and the "possession arrow" is quite possibly the stupidest major-sport concept I've ever seen. March Madness is a lot of fun, and the crowds are neat. But I watch college basketball with this inherent sense that I'd get a better aesthetic experience by watching any average NBA team with an obsessive fanbase like Portland or Golden State. The defense is interesting, at times, but the requirements of the game tend to make successful college-level defensive schemes actively harmful to a player's development as a professional league defensive talent -- far too much of an emphasis on reach-ins, ball-watching, and zone protection. Simply not enough focus in the college game on single coverage, or on understanding ways to truly shut down a play. There's a reason most rookies are terrible at defense -- their college coaches do them a great disservice.

The reason I mention this is that I'd like to talk about a recently-broken story that most NBA fans have only glancingly heard about. The story broke this summer, and has intimately to do with Lance Thomas. Basically goes like this. Early in the 2010 season, Duke University's men's basketball team was in New York to play Gonzaga. They won by 35 points, then the team generally dispersed for a short winter break before a return to campus a bit over a week later. Lance Thomas -- alone, with nobody beside him -- went to an upscale jewelry store in New York and bought a black diamond necklace, a diamond-encrusted watch, a diamond cross, diamond earrings, and a black diamond pendant in the shape of Jesus' head. (... yeah, really.) The cost was $97,800. He paid $30,000, but the jeweler allowed him to take the rest on a bill-of-sale agreement that he'd pay the rest of the total within 15 days. The payment never came, Thomas stopped returning his calls, and the man eventually gave up trying and took him to court this summer. The two eventually came to a very carefully worded settlement, one where the money was conditional on the store not cooperating with any internal NCAA investigators and one where neither Thomas nor the jeweler would release the terms of the settlement otherwise. So, nothing will happen.

But, you know... that wasn't a given. For about two weeks, NCAA media types reported endlessly about the potential looming issues. The basic problem is that the jeweler gave Thomas a $67,800 loan with no interest and no certain terms. According to anyone with a functioning brain and a sense of logic, there's no way that kind of a loan happens if Thomas isn't a semi-professional athlete with a good shot at going pro. The fact of Thomas having $30,000 on hand is ridiculous, but not nearly as actionable -- perhaps that was a college fund his scholarship freed up, or money he earned somehow. There is virtually no chance that either of those statements are true. Thomas most likely got it from someone based on his basketball at Duke. But actually litigating the $30,000 would take firepower the NCAA doesn't have -- instead, the NCAA intended to litigate the loan, upon the argument that the loan itself was an intangible benefit given to Thomas, which would in turn disqualify not only Thomas as a player, but every single Duke team Lance Thomas played on. It would vacate the 2010 championship, Thomas' college career, and irrevocably stain the offending school. This story summarizes just about everything that puts college basketball over the top for me. It takes it from a sport I merely don't like to a sport I vehemently detest. You know why?

Via NCAA rules, this makes perfect sense. Via actual human reality, nothing about this litigation does.

There is absolutely no logical reason that Thomas' university should actually be punished for this, even if you accept the NCAA's bull that college athletes deserve no payment (they sure as hell do) and that Thomas used his Duke credentials to get benefits he wouldn't have gotten otherwise (he sure as hell did). Absolutely nobody at Duke had any idea Thomas was at the jeweler. Absolutely nobody at Duke -- at any point -- knew anything about this scandal before the news broke. Anything. Perhaps some of his teammates saw the jewelry -- who knows what they say in the locker room? But the coaches certainly didn't know, the athletics department was clueless as all get-out, and the hyperconservative Krzyzewski surely didn't know about it (because he'd probably have personally had Lance Thomas killed if had). The idea of vacating a title due to something nobody on the team had any way whatsoever to know about is absurd to me. It's like suspending Miami's big three because Dexter Pittman tried to kill Stephenson. It's throwing out Gregg Popovich because one of the fans in the crowd yelled an expletive. It's vacating half of Phil Jackson's titles because he doesn't smoke peyote.

This sort of thing happens all the time in the NCAA's warped reality. These absurd and illogical applications of rules that, as they stand, mean virtually nothing and create incomprehensible hazards a college basketball team can't possibly account for. A team playing under NCAA rules and regulations is better off locking every single player in separate cages (without pay, per NCAA guidelines!) than letting them traipse the world with an ounce of humanity intact. The NCAA's rules and regulations treat players as though they're indentured servents of their alma mater, not people. Rules like this only add to the general air of entitlement that belies just about every college coach and athletic director in the game. They all think they're great, and why wouldn't they? They pocket and take credit for every dollar the school makes off a series of phenomenally talented athletes who (for the most part) could probably use the money. This scandal is just another reminder of what anyone who watches a lot of NCAA ball already knows -- the NCAA rules are broken, and while I hated my time at Duke and earnestly disliked most members of that championship team (and especially Thomas), there's not a bone in my body that sympathizes with anything the NCAA is trying to do here. Not here, not against North Carolina's "egregious" missteps, not against Coach Calipari's somehow outlandish prospect that he'll actually treat his players like the young adults they are and let them see the fruits of their labor. The NCAA is a pathetic institution with a tenuous grasp on reality and the most insultingly warped views of their own players they could possibly have. They take a beautiful game and makes it a legal, moral, and exploitative disaster.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the player?"

Honestly, Lance Thomas isn't very good. He doesn't have any professional-level scoring talents, and while he's finally figured out how to operate in a defensive scheme (with an emphasis on breaking up the pick and roll, a valuable skill) and bought nicely into Monty Williams' system, unless he can improve his outside tertiaries to anything resembling average he won't be long for the league. He'd probably be a decent player to land in an organization like the Pacers or the Spurs, where the coaching staff could put together lineups that cover him up offensively with a bounty of weapons and use him as a situational stick of dynamite to bust up any pick-and-roll play the other team deigns to run. But on a team like the Hornets, whose best scorers are Eric Gordon, Ryan Anderson, and a retired Monty Williams? Not quite what the team needs. If he could perfect his midrange shot and pick up a few more ball handling skills, he might be able to stick in the league longer as a situational wing, but again -- he needs a lot of massaging and work just to fit in a lineup as he stands, and the jury's out as to whether he's got the ability to provide that. On a personal level, I'll be totally honest with you -- I think he's probably the 4th best NBA talent on Duke's 2010 championship roster. Two of the players above him -- Jon Scheyer and Brian Zoubek -- never made the league, with Zoubek retiring to start a cream puff shop in New Jersey (NO, SERIOUSLY!) The other one, Nolan Smith, has looked absolutely terrible up to this point. A bit shocked Thomas has stuck around, but perhaps he's finally dealt with his college issues of lackadaisical work ethic. For Monty to praise him, he probably has to. So good on you, Mr. Thomas. You grew up. Good to hear. (Now stop buying diamond-plated Jesus heads.)

• • •

_Follow Wayne Ellington on Twitter at __@WayneElli22.___

Given the ridiculously long rant I went on in the Thomas capsule, I'll try to make this one a bit short. The Grizzlies traded for Ellington this offseason, and all things considered, I think this is a pretty decent pickup for Memphis. Although I admit, I remain unconvinced they couldn't have gotten a tad bit more for Dante Cunningham. As I outlined in Cunningham's capsule (which I am now reminded was a startling 229 players ago, dear lord), Cunningham is a decent 2nd-or-3rd big and he's got a few definitive NBA talents, despite suffering from somewhat tweener size. There are a lot of teams in the league that could use a player like him, and you wonder if the Grizzlies could've gotten a bit of a better package. Still. Ellington is coming off a pretty poor season, and although his defensive numbers are solid, they're a bit misleading -- watching 10-15 minutes of defensive play from Ellington reinforces the idea that he's a "lucky" defender whose man tends to miss wide open shots, somehow. He's not bad, but he's lucky, and eventually the other shoe will drop and his defensive numbers are going to look a lot worse through no fault of his own. It's not his fault his numbers are a bit inflated, and he's a decent defender... but it's incumbent on me to remind you of the fact.

Still. Ellington's spot in the league isn't for his defense, it's for his shooting -- on his career, he's a very good shooter from outside 15 feet, rating out as a mid-to-high 40s long two shooter and a high 30s three point gunner. In college, he was more than any mere gunner -- he was a remarkably effective sniper and his shooting talent looked to get him a long and profitable NBA career if he could step out a foot or two. His first two seasons were excellent from that regard, as he shot around 39% from three and looked to be a decent pickup by the Wolves, even if he wasn't an excellent player. This last season, though, he shot only 32% from three, and if he repeats that kind of a performance, the Grizzlies' trade is going to end up being yet another trade that was in-theory great but in-practice busted. I don't expect that, though -- I think his poor season will help teams lay off him, and the post threats on the Grizzlies will draw the defense in enough that Ellington will have ample room to take (and make) a ton of threes this year. If that happens and he can actually play the role of the token three-point sniper, the Grizzlies have a lot more upside potential than most give them credit for. Even if this doesn't work out (his offensive game really did look like absolute trash last season, it's worth noting), it's an admirable attempt to shore up a serious weakness. And a classic case of a team trading on fit rather than raw quality, which is something I do tend to get annoyed when teams ignore. So... good on you, Grizzlies.

• • •

_Follow Ty Lawson on Twitter at __@TyLawson3.___

There are a lot of reasons to like Ty Lawson. Chief among them is a fact that often gets overlooked for players like Lawson -- he simply doesn't have any pressing faults. His shooting percentages are above average from almost every spot on the court, his turnover rate is relatively low for an NBA point guard, and if you're an opposing defense it's really hard to scout a scheme to account for him. This is all pretty phenomenal, but it's also somewhat underrated -- often, people gaze upon Lawson's skills and don't see anything particularly great. They see a good scorer, good passer, good defender, good handle. But they don't see anything great beyond his blazing speed, which most people know intuitively doesn't always translate to NBA-great talent. (Just look at Ish Smith.) The general refrain is to compare each individual component of his game to one of his betters -- say, people comparing his passing skills to those of Rondo or his shooting to that of Nash or his defense to that of Westbrook. You look at a player through nothing but his individual components, and the whole view ends up looking mixed and shaky. How can he be a great player if he's so far behind the greats in fields like that?

Well, it's as I said -- there just aren't any real weaknesses in his game. Rondo can't reliably shoot -- Lawson can. Nash turns the ball over like it's nobody's business -- Lawson doesn't. Westbrook can get overly aggressive and can shoot his team out of games -- Lawson threads the fine line between aggression and passivity like a 7-year pro. Lawson's greatest gift is that he's good-to-great in every individual aspect of the game, which makes him add up to far more than the sum of his component parts. He masterfully directs one of the best offenses in the sport, leading his pieces both verbally and in-his-play. He and Andre Miller orchestrate a complex series of plays, movements, and actions that make Denver such an entertaining team to watch -- both are phenomenal offensive players, above and beyond their "above-average" traditional passing stats. Lawson adds to that brilliance a fantastic three point stroke, a reliable midrange shot, and already next to Tony Parker as one of the best at-rim scorers from the guard position. He's fast, but never out of control -- his motor is sublime, and the way Lawson changes speeds effortlessly from the top of the key is something to behold. His defense isn't an active, in-your-face press. He's more of a sneaky, shifty, spot-picking defender whose quickness is good enough to stay with more guards than most but hesitant enough to keep from getting himself in bad foul trouble. Doesn't take a lot of chances, but he does a good job keeping his hands in a player's face and cutting off angles. He's no Westbrook, but he's a sight better than the average NBA guard.

Make no mistake -- Lawson isn't as heralded as the big names like Deron Williams or Kyrie Irving, but he's phenomenal. One of the 30-something best players in the league, in my view. He's one of the best kept secrets in the league, combining an electric play-style with one of the most amusing off-court natures out there. Which does lead me to once again admit something that most don't realize -- Lawson is freakishly competitive, to the point of often being a jerk. One of the first posts I wrote for Gothic Ginobili was a retelling of one of my favorite college anecdotes, a story about how Ty Lawson utterly shredded a good Duke team to pieces simply because someone in the crowd pissed him off. You can read the story here. I highly recommend it, if only because understanding Lawson's amazing competitive streak is absolutely necessary to fully appreciate how great he actually is on the court. His hot temper and his competitive nature hasn't shut down in the interim, either -- look at his amazing performance against the Lakers in last year's playoffs, or his brazen declaration that this year's Nuggets are the team to beat in the West. Just hilariously confident in everything -- the crisis of confidence I outlined for Austin Daye would never get past a blink from Lawson. Even in college I had trouble rooting against such a phenomenally lovable, self-assured jerk -- now, in the NBA, at least I don't have to pretend I dislike him. Lawson's great. Watch him this season, as much as you possibly can, whether he's playing laser tag or filleting every defense that deigns to face him -- he may not make the all-star team, but chances are he'll very much deserve it.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. This morning's riddles were admittedly pretty patchwork -- nobody got a single one correct. Alexander Smith wins a shout-out despite not guessing, though, because he posted one of the most hilarious comments anyone's ever put up here. Let's see if these riddles are more to your liking!

• Player #238 made enough clutch shots for a massive highlight reel not less than 3 years ago. He is now barely in the league. Funny how ("u") things work.
• Player #239 started in the finals in the past decade, despite his low repute. He actually resembles the average Finals starter at his position, at least in the modern era. Teams don't tend to have great players at his position when they win a title, at least not recently.
• Here's a riddle only one or two people on earth will know. One of our writers, Alex Arnon, covered the 2012 summer league. He witnessed Player #240 laughing and miming at what could've been a deadly spine injury. I may have indicated his relative praises earlier this week in the most amusingly controversial capsules I've ever written, but lord almighty, if he got waived because of his attitude I completely understand it. Also: that stupid, stupid nickname. Oh my lord.

Just a note, once more. Tomorrow, I'll be doing one of my semi-regular Q&A sessions. (As well as a lot of other stuff.) Topics are, as always, quite flexible. If you ask it, I shall answer. Most likely. Gothic Ginobili is significantly more popular now than it was back when the last few occurred, so I'm guessing there will be a few more questions than there used to be. I'll probably be answering questions for most of the day, but if you'd like to get in questions early, please email your questions to staff (at) gothicginobili (dot) com. Thanks for reading.

Also, in case you didn't notice: I updated twice today. If you missed the first set, check them out here.

• • •

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. Today we continue with Thabo Sefolosha, Kirk Hinrich, and Austin Daye.

• • •

_Follow _Thabo Sefolosha _on Twitter at @ThaboSefolosha.___

Standing tall for a wing at a picture-perfect 6'7", Thabo Sefolosha has ample size to defend both guard positions. He does it with a breathtaking efficiency, too, on both an individual and a scheme-breaking level. That is to say, he can either isolate onto a guard and shut them down or float on defense and destroy plays with his relentless energy. Not all defenders are that versatile. Few are, in fact. While the 2012 playoffs featured a lot of excellent performances -- LeBron's explosion against the Celtics, Westbrook's pantheon finals night, Duncan's dominant series-opening smash against the hapless Clippers -- I don't think any of them resonated with me as much as Sefolosha's unfettered brutality in game three of the Western Conference Finals. It was Sefolosha at his absolute scheme-busting best. The Spurs could scarcely run a play without Sefolosha's long arms destroying the rhythm -- the man broke up more action than a parochial school Bishop. In that game, he had 6 steals -- in the last decade, only three players have ever posted more in a single playoff game. And it still felt like the statline underrated him! One of the most dominant defensive performances I've ever seen from a backcourt player. And yes, that does include Bruce Bowen.

Unfortunately, Sefolosha suffers from a problem that usually shows up in reverse for the average NBA wing. Most wings are solid scorers that can't defend a lick, whose poor defense keeps them off the court when the games begin to matter. Your Jamal Crawfords, your Nick Youngs, your Gary Neals. They can't really play more than 20 or 30 minutes a night before their disgustingly poor defense starts to actively torpedo their team's chances. Sefolosha, on the other hand? He suffers the opposite flaw -- while his defense is so good you absolutely need to get him minutes, his offense is so bad that you'd be best to keep him off the court. Defenses tend to give him 4-5 feet of room without really caring -- you could hang a neon "come and get us!" sign on Sefolosha's locker and leave a coupon for free continental breakfast at the three point line. He's still not going to hurt you, usually. In fact, when he does, the Thunder tend to become unbeatable straight out of nowhere. One of the biggest things that sunk the Spurs in last year's Western Conference Finals was a Sefolosha-related shocker that completely annihilated the Spurs' general defensive scheme against the Thunder -- that is to say, Thabo started draining threes. Lots of them.

It's certainly possible that Sefolosha's sudden outbreak in the Western Conference Finals was a fluke -- after all, in the Finals, Sefolosha resumed his usual practice of "making nothing whatsoever" and made Spurs fans everywhere tear their hair out in woe and dismay. But I don't think he took particularly poor threes, either, and his form looked (to me) fundamentally better in 2012 than it did in 2011 -- his overall shooting was fluky, but with a better release, it looked more natural and it seemed more likely that he'd be able to make at least some element of his high-percentage three point shooting stick going forward. And it's worth noting that had Sefalosha made another wide open three or two -- not a ton more, just one or two -- the Thunder would've been up 3-2 going back to Oklahoma City in the Finals. Or even better. Which kind of underlines the point. If Thabo Sefolosha can add even a modicum of an offensive skill to his myriad defensive talents, it blows up the ceiling of a team that's already a title contender without it. If -- and yes, it's an if -- but if Sefolosha can actually grow into his slowly-improving three point shot, he could very well spearhead a Thunder defense improved enough to fully stifle Dwyane Wade and force LeBron into classic Cavalier mode. And if that happens? The Thunder could beat the Heat, and do it pretty handily. It's not all on Sefolosha -- many members of that team could improve and make this a reality. But I have an odd feeling that the Thabo we saw in the Western Conference Finals is closer to the Thabo we'll see this season.

For teams that aren't Oklahoma-dreaming? A scary thought, to be sure.

• • •

Follow Kirk Hinrich by fighting Klingon warships.

I'm sure Kirk Hinrich is a really nice guy. Positive, even. In his relatively long NBA career, I've never read a single negative word about him from a player or a coach. He comes in, does his job, doesn't really complain that much. Works hard, too. Nobody really has anything mean to say about him, and that's probably telling. He isn't exciting, obviously -- in an effort to tell reports fun facts about himself, Hinrich once shared that he "actually made his own Myspace page." Cool story, bro... but that would probably be way more interesting if he'd provided a bio more complicated than "I play basketball." His favorite movie is Old School and his most interesting purchase after his first big NBA contract was a Hummer H2. He's basically the exact same as I would be if I was an NBA player, at least in off-court stories -- vanilla to a fault, well-organized, buttoned up. A simple man with simple plans.

But you know what? Regardless of how nice a guy he probably is, I have to cry foul here. It's not his fault, but... seriously, HE'S the Bulls' big offseason acquisition? Kirk Hinrich? I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the Bulls' front office, but Hinrich was extraordinarily awful last season and he's been a sub-par NBA player for almost 2 years now. He's suffered a laundry list of annoying, nagging injuries that have sapped his game and made his once-formidable defense into a bit of a sieve. Crafty guards realize that the Hinrich of today is nowhere near as mobile and active as the Hinrich of yesteryear, and they use this to their advantage. Hinrich's decreased mobility means that he has to take a longer, costlier path if he wants to get around a screen these days -- this means he's virtually always on his heels when a shot goes off out of a well-run screen play. His synergy stats are a bit deceiving -- the more tape you watch, the more you realize just how far he fell off on defense last season. There was clear discomfort and clear stickiness to the way he moved across the court when he was tasked with defending on-ball.

And really, it's not just the screen action. This whole trend of declining defensive efficacy is made far worse by the fact that he can't honestly stay as close on a moving target as he used to in the first place, leading to a lot of blown coverages. He had some relatively successful attempts to draw more charges as a substitute for fundamentally sound defense, but beyond that, his defensive powers were pretty anemic last year. Wouldn't be the end of the world if he'd been picked up to be a bench-locked guard with a bit of versatility to spell Rose and play beside him. Shoot the three, play some D. Unfortunately, that isn't really what they wanted, and by signing him to a multi-year deal that locked them into a tricky cap situation, the Bulls ensured that Hinrich (healthy or not) would be a key part of their rotation going forward. And instead of simply being able to let him be as he may and develop as a tertiary player, the Rose injury pole-vaults Hinrich front and center from the shores of a wasted few years into the tepid waters of high expectations. Hinrich is not Derrick Rose. Even at his best, he was nowhere close. But these last few years, Hinrich been more awful than most people even really understand.

To wit: last year, the good Captain posted...

• An assist rate of 16%... which rates in the bottom 10% of all point guards. Rose, a "non-traditional" point, posted an assist rate of 40%.

• A turnover rate of 16%... because a 1:1 assist-to-turnover ratio is exactly what you want in your "pure" floor general, right?

• Awful efficiency despite a 13% usage rate... which is barely a third of what Derrick Rose gave the Bulls before.

I don't have anything against Hinrich, and this is absolutely nothing personal. I kind of hope he has a nice comeback -- it'd be a cool story, and the city of Chicago seems to have a nice love for him from his years toiling for the franchise. But I simply don't see the hype, even if it really is only coming from the Bulls' front office. So-called veteran leadership really isn't worth the investment the Bulls made, here -- I just don't get what the Bulls front office is doing. And while there's a non-negligible chance that Hinrich finally throws off the injury-monkey and returns to his pre-trade highs... I certainly wouldn't bet on it. And I sure as hell wouldn't give him a two-year guaranteed contract that virtually requires that he keep producing at that kind of a level to make the whole endeavor worth it. I suppose the Bulls organization just has more faith than I -- we'll see if that was warranted soon enough.

• • •

_Follow Austin Daye on Twitter at __@Adaye5.___

Austin Daye has had his chances. He's been with the Pistons for 3 years running, developing at something approximating a snail's pace and losing out on chances at starter's minutes just about every season he's played. Daye has a lot of talent, and offensively, there have always been a few really nice positives to his game. He's got a nice looking stroke from behind the arc, and in his sophomore year, Daye put up an effortless 40% from beyond the three point line that had many (myself included) thinking he had a decent potential as a trey-draining wing with a penchant for timely shots that doesn't really kill your team anywhere else on the court. That was the ideal, and after his sophomore season, it looked like Daye was well on his way to achieving that. Turned out to be little more than a flukey-nice season in the middle of two far more concerning seasons of absent jumpers and shaken confidence. Not a good look, Austin. Really need to work on that.

On defense? Nothing really special. Sort of crummy, even. He's slightly bouncy, at least, and his instincts for following spot-up shooters aren't too bad. His bounciness leads to a useful split-second advantage when it comes to contesting a spot-up -- not insanely meaningful, but in a game of millimeters like defending a spot-up shooter, every little bit counts for bunch. What he gains in the spot-up reaction time he gives back in everything else, though -- he isn't good at assessing direction shifts when the offense keys in to force him to make a play, and he's a tweener to the core. Too spindly to guard big men, too lumbering to guard guards. And at the pure wing, playing as a small forward, he's simply not athletic enough to make any of the defensive plays that are incumbent on him to make. The other big problem is that his defense has literally shown zero improvement in three years of league play. You'd think, by now, that Daye would've shown something. Some semblance of a defensive skill. Alas. The passion doesn't seem to be there.

Daye does do a few things pretty well. Rather ironically, while we all discuss his shooting, his best area on the floor has traditionally been his around-the-rim game. Last season he made around 66% of his shots at the rim -- well above average for a wing player -- and a reasonably decent amount of his post-ups. His big problem? Not enough of either -- despite the nice conversion rates, Daye took barely 15% of his shots from the around-the-rim area, among the bottom 10% of all wings in the game. He took almost two thirds of his shots from beyond 15 feet despite shooting well under 25% from that distance, too. Absolutely incomprehensible. Daye's future with the Pistons is pretty murky -- he spent this last summer putting on weight in an effort to play in the frontcourt instead of on the wing, and while I admit that his at-rim numbers look promising, I have my doubts he'll ever be a passable defender from the 4 and he's putting himself in competition for minutes with the Pistons' two best players, Monroe and Drummond. Just a sort of strange move. All things considered, it's hard to see how he fits on this team going forward. And entering this final year of his rookie deal, Daye really needs to show something this season if he intends to stay in the NBA. Because if he doesn't, chances are high he's shilling his wares in Europe in no less than 12 months. Stakes are pretty high.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. Several 2/3 answers -- I admit, I would've been pretty surprised if anyone placed Daye. Shout-outs to Geezer, J, Atori, and @MillerNBA.

• Player #235 was a_ total freaking tool_ in college. I should know. I was there.
• Actually, Player #236 sort of was as well. Don't know this quite as well as I do with #235, but I've heard some rumors.
• And you know what? Player #237 was a phenomenal jerk too, but he was such a spectacular one I can't help but respect and root for him. Now that we aren't in college.

I will be -- for once -- actually delivering on the "two post" promise! I have the second set of capsules for today just about done and queued up. Includes a HUGE rant about the NCAA, heh. I'll edit them on my lunch break. They'll drop around 1 or 2 PM, eastern time. Most likely. See you then.

• • •

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. Today we continue with Quincy Pondexter, Kurt Thomas, and Paul Millsap.

• • •

_Follow Quincy Pondexter on Twitter at __@QuincyPondexter.___

Quincy Pondexter isn't a terrible player, or even a particularly bad one. His stats aren't great, but he had a definite use for last year's Grizzlies team, and his statistics underrate the fact that he's a very decent wing defender. Off-ball, on-ball, whatever -- Pondexter has solid defensive fundamentals, with a good handle on creatively slipping out of screens and a relatively solid sense of space. Doesn't foul a ton for a wing, too, which means he can stay on the court in pressure situations without giving an inch. Very reasonable talent. Offensively, his three is a bit broken (as I'll discuss in a second), but he does have a decent rate of rim-conversion (and an above-average talent at getting to the rim, as well!) and a decent long two that would tend to imply that he may shoot better later in his career. His usage is relatively low and he isn't very heavily utilized on offense, but he has some upside value as a 3-and-D player in his future. If he can learn to shoot threes, that is.

The issue with Pondexter is less what he is and more what he isn't, much like the general problem with the last few years of Grizzlies. For years, the Grizzlies have needed better three point shooters. NEED them. Their offense -- as is -- has the potential to be a fantastic top-10 unit, if only they'd properly fill it out and get a few players who can knock down a consistent three around their two bruising low-post threats. Unfortunately, the Grizzlies have continued to pick up 3-and-D players ad infinitum that produce the D, but can't really make threes. At least not outside of extremely situational roles. In the case of Pondexter, his 30% three point shooting has less upside than you'd perhaps think. Pondexter understands that he isn't a fantastic shooter, and as such, he takes virtually all of his three pointers from the corners. That means he's taking, essentially, the easiest three point shots he can. Last season, exactly 70% of his three point shots came from the corners, the closest and easiest three point shot.

Pondexter converted only 34% of those 49 three point shots -- of all three point shots he took outside the corner, Pondexter converted on only a startling 20% of them. So the net result is a player who -- essentially -- understands his limitations and doesn't overstep them, but is well below average on the corner three (the league as a whole averaged 39% from the corner last season) and astonishingly below average on any shot outside the corners. Partly because he's rarely open, partly because of an internal lack of skill. This matches the general trend in Memphis -- just about everyone on the Memphis team can play at least reasonably solid defense, but beyond Mike Conley, virtually nobody on the team can make a reasonable percentage of their threes. The Bayless acquisition might help, if Bayless can keep his percentages at his career highs of last season. But what the Grizzlies honestly need is a player that teams earnestly _fear_from the three point line -- doing so will help open the floor and make the other three point shooters just a tad bit more open. One or two players like that, and the Grizzlies' offense could be as title-ready as their defense. Teams would most likely key into those few players, leaving the Pondexters and Allens of the world the space to improve their numbers and turn the offense into a brilliant machine. Here's hoping the Grizzlies wise up to their potential and can wrangle up a few ringers -- before age steals Randolph away and they find it's just a bit too late.

• • •

Follow Kurt Thomas by staying at your job for the rest of your life.

Kurt Thomas is the oldest player in the NBA this season. Due to this -- at some point -- Thomas is probably going to fall off the rails and stop being productive. But his sheer longevity has reached a level where it (in and of itself) is pretty impressive. There are exactly ten big men who lasted in the league at the age of 40 or older -- if he can survive the coming season and comes back at the minimum for one more go-around (a likely possibility, if he can avoid injury -- the man loves the game), he'll leave the league as a 42 year old. Which is about as crazy as it sounds! In the 65 year history of the league, a grand total of three other big men made it that far -- Kevin Willis, Dikembe Mutombo, and Robert Parish. Being old-for-your-job is rarely an accomplishment worthy of note, but in Thomas' case, he's made it so far you really have to tip your cap. Especially being, as he is, a relatively limited player -- Thomas is solid, but he's never really been a phenomenal player at any stage of his career. He's essentially always been a limited-but-useful player with a good attitude and a singular focus on helping his team.

As for what he gives the Knicks, given his age and condition? Not a whole lot, but he gives enough that he'll probably remain somewhat useful. Even at his age, Thomas is still a great rebounder to have coming off the bench, and his last-season defensive rebounding mark was virtually exactly the same as his career average. On defense he tends to take a few more possessions off than he used to, simply by dint of his declining athleticism and the slow creep of his size disadvantage taking effect. While Thomas plays like a classical center, it's a little-known truth that Thomas is actually 6'9" -- far shorter than most of the players he's so good at guarding. As he gets older and loses more and more of his lift, the general size disadvantage his effort always overrode is beginning to take a toll on his game. Not immediately, but it's getting there. So that could, unfortunately, detract from the defensive mark he makes on the court. As always, offensively, Thomas makes his bread on a relatively well-developed pick-and-pop midrange game -- he can drain shots from the midrange and the long two like few other centers can, and that in and of itself provides value. Additionally so because his shot has shown no real falloff with age -- he shoots about as well now as he did 10 years ago.

Going forward, he may start for the Knicks for a short period of time while they wait for Amare to return. Assuming, of course, that Woodson doesn't realize the Carmelo-as-PF experiment works very well for the Knicks and maximizes Carmelo's talents. I'm not sure he will -- he's kind of clueless about innovations like that, and tended to be really stodgy and uncreative in Atlanta, back in the day. He may end up being a more effective starter than Amare would be in his current state, though -- while you completely lose all of Amare's rim-rocking off-ball cuts, you gain a solid presence on defense and better picks. And, frankly, a slightly better midrange shot. On a team with a ball-dominant scorer like Carmelo, it's often better to surround him with players that have specific situational uses and let Melo do the majority of the freewheeling -- Thomas actually fits that role better than Amare did last season, so it's possible Amare's absence will be good for the Knicks even if Woodson doesn't go strong into the "Melo-as-PF" experiment. Still. Even when Amare comes back, Thomas should help their bench depth a bit, and provide a nice presence in the locker room. Can't play more than 10-15 minutes a night, but those minutes should help. He's something of a role model for role-players, in general -- it's hard to imagine any role-player ever carving out a better career than Thomas has. Clock your hours, do your job, pay your dues. Good things sometimes happen. That's the "moral" of the Kurt Thomas story, if there ever was one, and always a welcome one to see in the locker room.

• • •

Follow Paul Millsap by attending Grambling in Grambling.

Here are a few things most people don't know about Paul Millsap.

• Despite Millsap's height, he's regularly among the league leaders in at-rim percentage. Seriously! He's a crafty finisher, not necessarily an emphatic one. Of Millsap's 306 at-rim field goal attempts (top 20 in the league), a scant 57 of them were dunks. Compare that to, say, Blake Griffin. He took 475 shots at the rim, but 192 of his attempts were dunks. His percentage isn't supremely low, but as Jazz fans would note, he gets a definitively lower percentage of his at-rim field goals from dunks than Jefferson, Favors, or Kanter. Crafty, though. Lots of tip-ins, side scoops, short shots. Very creative, very effective.

• The Jazz defended better with Millsap on the court than with Millsap off, which is a bit shocking given his size and his visually-unimpressive defense. The key to Millsap's defense, in my view, tends to be rooted in the expectations of the offensive player who gets him on a switch -- most bigs tend to expect Millsap will lay off due to his size, but he hustles and gets into his man's body on post-ups. He's also got deceptively long arms, as Millsap features a 7'1" wingspan in a 6'6" frame -- this helps him in the steals department, as Millsap's regularly among the league leaders in steal percentage despite being way larger than every other steal-talented player. Overall, he's a decent individual defender, but none of his defensive talents really fit into a team defensive concept -- his lack of size and guard-esque defensive game is rare for a big man, and very hard to build a scheme around.

• When fans name the toughest players in the NBA, they rarely tab Millsap as one of them. They go for the obvious -- Kobe, Nash, Manu, et cetera. All things considered, though, Millsap should probably be in the conversation. He takes a beating in the post almost every night, guarding far taller players and far stronger men. He plays through more injuries than virtually ANYONE gives him credit for, last season playing through a badly sprained wrist to end the year and a variety of minor maladies throughout his career. Look at the 2011 season, for instance. Over the course of that season, Millsap dealt with the following issues: tendonitis, a purple-bruised left big toe (that one lasted the entire season), a dislocated pinkie, a badly bruised thumb, occasional back spasms, a sprained ankle, a bad flu, and other minor things. How many games did all of these conditions lead him to miss, in 2011? SIX GAMES. That's it. Make no mistake -- Millsap is among the toughest players in the league, and if I really had to choose, I'd probably name him the toughest.

The full picture is pretty neat, with Millsap. He gives you a big man who -- while undersized -- combines a lethal scoring instinct at the rim with above-average rebounding and solid defense. His toughness and general demeanor is immensely valuable in and of itself, and while he isn't quite suited for a starring role in a key defense, his individually-decent defense means he could play a starring role in a team with a defensive superstar next to him. His offense is above average from every area of the floor but the true midrange, as he has a decently effective long two that he's developed over the last few years, and his post-up game is far better than most players at any height. He's one of the best cutters in the game, as well -- despite Utah's lack of a passing point guard last season, Millsap rated out as one of the most effective players scoring off of cuts in the sport. Above average assist rate, below average turnover rate. Higher usage than most big men, too -- it's not like you can really find fault in low sample size, for a player that scores as much as Millsap does.

Had he been in the Eastern Conference, Millsap would've been a clear pick for the all-star team -- and even in the west, there were some who felt he deserved it. Myself included. Now, though? An offseason later, after a good preseason from Kanter (who has reportedly looked incredible in the Utah preseason -- I haven't been paying a wealth of attention, because I'm always extremely wary of preseason, but he's looked good) and a good postseason from Favors (who solidified his status as the primary cog of the future in Utah's machinations), many Jazz fans I've talked to would like to see Millsap or Jefferson moved. Or both, even. It's actually pretty funny, since both of them were fringe all-stars and Millsap probably deserved to make the team -- it's not often that two all-star caliber bigs come to market. Still, it's an open question how much value the Jazz are going to be able to get from a trade of either -- Millsap's too quixotic, Jefferson's too expensive. And with Millsap's injury concerns, there is the additional rumbling fear that Millsap could be headed for an early fall, as the injuries finally accumulate too quickly and sap his game before he's reached his true prime. That's going to artificially deflate his trade value, unfortunately for the Jazz.

Looking at the trade potential on its face, though... what do the Jazz really need? More talent at the guard positions, beyond just Mo Williams and Alec Burks. If they could find a way to flip Millsap or Jefferson for a player like Arron Afflalo, they could very well be set as a possible contender. As-is, though, given their problems with fit and their generally idiosyncratic games, the Jazz may run into trouble finding a suitor that can offer what they need. And they probably aren't going to get a true value-match for a player as underheralded as Millsap or Jefferson. I think, if they end up trading Millsap this season, they may find themselves settling for a package with salary relief, a few young prospects (say, Matthews/Williams via POR, Green/Neal via SAS, Calderon/Johnson via TOR, or some similarly underwhelming package), and a pick or some money besides. It's an open question whether that's all that much better than just playing out the string with their monstrously stacked frontcourt and hoping to flip them in an offseason to a desperate team for (perhaps) a bit more value than they could get at the deadline. You know, like the Rockets flipped Dalembert and the Blazers flipped Felton this past offseason. I'm not really sure, though. The ongoing "will they, won't they" trade saga with the Jazz front office and their loaded frontcourt is going to be one of the more interesting subplots this season, and I highly recommend paying close attention to it.

And also, a programming note. The statsheet is correct -- Paul Millsap is the last Jazz player I'll be covering in the capsules. Oh my! The Jazz are the first team to complete their full contingent of players. Had to happen to someone eventually. They'll also be the only team whose capsules will be completely done before the season starts. Congratulations, I suppose? If you're a Jazz fan who'd like to see my assessments of the individual members of your team, you can now go to the 2013 Jazz page in the Gothic Ginobili Capsule Directory to locate the capsules of every non-rookie rotation player of your incoming team. Thanks for following the series, and I do hope you'll stick around and read sporadically going forward. Even if I'm done with your current team, there are certainly some current and former Jazzmen on the way -- Kirilenko, for one! In any event, thanks for following and reading.

Good luck this season, Jazz fans. See you in the playoffs.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. Okman and Chilai got today's spot-on. Nice guessing.

• Player #232 is a very good defender. If he can ever get the whole "offensive end of the court" part of the game, he could be one of the 3 or 4 best players on a champion. Might become one anyway, given that stacked team. Heh.
• Player #233 is the aging and wizened skipper. Atlanta, Washington, and other teams galore have fared well with his services. Huge dropoff for his current team, though. And I'm not sure he deserved the one-minded obsession the team had with his acquisition in the first place.
• Player #234 has been something of a disappointment for his current team. Great at-rim numbers, but unless he can ever make a shot? Rotation fodder. At best.

Just a note. On Friday, I'll be doing one of my semi-regular Q&A sessions. Gothic Ginobili is significantly more popular now than it was back when the last few occurred, so I'm guessing there will be a few more questions than there used to be. I'll probably be answering questions for most of the day, but if you'd like to get in questions early, please email your questions to staff (at) gothicginobili (dot) com. Thanks. Happy midweek.

• • •

Continue reading