The lockout is over! As part of our coverage of the rapidly incoming season, Aaron is doing three-point previews (pre free agency) on every team in the NBA. We're splitting it up by divisions, in what will be the first and last time we look at NBA divisions this season. Seriously. Nobody really cares about divisions. Regardless, today's division is home to the Chicago Bulls, Cleveland Cavaliers, Indiana Pacers, Milwaukee Bucks, and Detroit Pistons.

• • •

CLEVELAND CAVALIERS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.
The Cleveland Cavaliers, surprisingly, don't have much in the way of ever-present amnesty targets. Our worst contract is Baron Davis. Personally? I'd let him go, regardless of how "good" he made the team at the end of last year. He isn't a great influence, our backcourt is too crowded already, and with Byron Scott's track record? Keeping him on the team is kind of dangerous. Byron Scott has a mixed record of playing rookies -- only two rookies have ever averaged more than 25 MPG under Scott (Chris Paul and Kenyon Martin) and those were the only two rookies under Scott to start every game they played in their rookie years. He played J.R. Smith and Richard Jefferson just under 25 MPG, but held them out occasionally for practice scuff-ups. If he does the same with Kyrie and TT, I'd think that's a big mistake. Both of them should be getting around 27-30 minutes a game and starting, because frankly, the Cavs are going nowhere fast right now and it's in our best interest to give both of their star-potential rookies as much time as possible to figure out the NBA game. Regardless. Another subtraction SHOULD be Anthony Parker -- while we don't have any other SG prospects on the roster with the exception of The Great Skyenga, Parker is at his core a chucker with poor defensive instincts. Keeping him on the team means they're going to continue calling iso-Parker possessions, and gives fewer possessions to TT and Kyrie -- it's a lose-lose situation. As a Cavs fan, I hope to God they don't resign him. And if they do? It has to be a one year deal. Simply has to be.

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

Overall, relatively good. The Cavs are going to most likely be a large beneficiary of the revenue sharing system, whatever it ends up being. The CBA aspects meant to keep free agents from leaving (the new sign-and-trade and extend-and-trade rules, namely, but also the strengthening of Bird Rights) is mostly designed for the future, and may in turn help the Cavs when the time comes to re-sign Kyrie, TT, or the incoming lottery pick the Cavs will sign this season. Beyond the parts of the CBA that help prevent a LeBron situation, amnesty will most likely help the Cavs in the next two years by clearing a lot of cap space right around the time Gilbert will have the cash to try and attract a few small-time talents. Plus, if Chris Grant can keep the cap situation in good standing, the Cavs project to be rid of their current bad contracts in a few years -- making the Cavs a big trade destination if the core develops and Gilbert is still willing to spend to build a true winner. The lockout doesn't fix what happened to the franchise last summer, but the Cavs are well-set to weather the storms of the future with an owner that doesn't balk at spending and a relatively bare cupboard with a promising young core.

3: Overall season outlook.

Unfortunately for Cavs fans, while the future looks reasonably solid, the present is bleak. Even if Kyrie turns out to be the next incarnation of Chris Paul, chances are low that he'll have a revolutionary effect on the team in his first season, and Tristan Thompson is one of the most raw players taken in the top 5 in the last decade. He may be really good, but it's going to take him a while to do it. For the future of the team, it's probably best to have another bad season or two, accumulate lottery picks, and hope that the 2014 Cavs are finally ready to contend again. If the Cavs can swing Kidd-Gilchrist in the draft this year and a SG prospect in the 2013 draft, they'll have a strong roster entering the 2014 season. That's the plan the franchise has to be looking at right now, and the main reason you don't see Gilbert's name mentioned in any of the trade acquisition rumors that have been rolling around. Why angle for Iggy or Gasol if the team can't use either for two or three years, you know? Regardless. With Kyrie and TT in tow, the team shouldn't be quite as shiftless as last year, but it's still going to lead to some unentertaining, losing basketball. But they need the lottery pick, so I suppose we'll simply have to handle it. I'm going with 15-20 wins, right around what I pegged for the Raptors. Better than last year's horror show, but not by that much.

• • •

MILWAUKEE BUCKS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.

Hey, a team with actual additions! The Bucks pulled a quasi-blockbuster three-team trade last year before the draft, giving up the horrifying contracts of John Salmons and Corey Maggette in exchange for moving down 9 picks in the draft (from #10 to #19, where they picked up Tobias Harris), Stephen Jackson, Beno Udrih, and Shaun Livingston. Livingston, while known primarily for his horrifying injury, was beginning to return to "serviceable NBA backup" level in Charlotte last year, so I don't think that was a particularly bad move -- not after Jennings missed virtually half a season to injury and the Bucks lose Boykins to free agency. Udrih has been at the serviceable backup level for years, now, so the Bucks went from having little talent behind Jennings to being four deep in serviceable points. Not too shabby. They also exchanged the massive albatross known as Corey Maggette for Stephen Jackson, a player who (while aging) is still one of the better defensive guards in the league and a large upgrade over the scoring "threat" posed by either Maggette and Salmons. Add Tobias Harris

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

Can it be both? The lockout has a positive basketball impact on the Bucks -- if my findings in my recent report on the 1999 lockout's effects on the team hold for this season, the Bucks are one of the teams that would most benefit from a leaguewide pace slowdown. They've been a low-pace team for the last two seasons, bottom 5 in 2011 and bottom 10 in 2010. As Bogut has gotten better and better, the Bucks have been more and more defined by his limitations -- can't really run up the court, can only dominate on offense with Jennings to set him up, et cetera. But that's immaterial here -- the point is, if the 1999 trend holds, the Bucks are likely going to be one of the teams improving this year. And that's a positive lockout impact. Beyond that? The Bucks will be getting one of the largest shares of the revenue sharing revenue, and amnesty should let them scrub Gooden or Udrih from their books the next time they look to have the cap space to acquire new players in a trade. Or free agency, but, I mean... it's the Bucks. Herb Kohl wanted a full-on redesign of the NBA's system, and he didn't get it. So, realistically, THAT'S the main impact. The Bucks are one of the few teams who even with this massively owner-friendly deal will probably still remain completely unprofitable. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Kohl voted against the deal, and while I don't blame him, I'm pretty glad the Bucks will be one of only a few franchises in that position post-deal.

3: Overall season outlook.

The Bucks look like a much improved team from last year's edition, even if you're just counting the additions of Harris and Jackson. Before last season, I was one of the few who gave the Bucks 50-50 odds to win the Central division -- I was extremely impressed by the Bucks in 2010, and figured they were on the way up. But Bogut's time off from injury proved way, way too much for that team to overcome. As well as their lack of offense. Adding Jackson and Harris (a standout freshman for the Tennessee Vols last season whose general lack of a consistent weapon led to him falling in the draft but whose stats project relatively well to adapt in the NBA) probably won't fix all the Bucks' problems on offense. But I'd expect it to improve their offense, and a team as defensively solid as the Bucks (Mbah a Moute + Bogut is one of the greatest two-man defensive duos in the league -- did you know that Bogut, in isolation, held his man to 0.60 PPP last season?) simply needs the offense to get to "borderline competent" if they want to be a playoff team in the East. And they may very well get there. I'd project them as a 0.500 or better team this season, so long as Bogut plays 55 or more games and Jennings continues to improve. Their core isn't lighting the world on fire, but Bogut is a transcendent enough defensive player that a nearly-full season from him combined with a Skiles defense should have the Bucks in the mix for one of the bottom three spots in the playoffs, and a trendy upset pick if they get a favorable draw and get hot at the right time.

• • •

DETROIT PISTONS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.

Where do you start? The prevailing sentiment on Joe Dumars in the last few years has been that he's accomplished the heretofore impossible task of completely reversing every positive thing he did in the Pistons' title years through horrific mismanagement. Not quite accurate, because nothing really erases how brilliant he was in keeping the Pistons contender franchises well oiled, but not as far off as you'd perhaps think. Dumars has been an unmitigated DISASTER in the last few years, and he's pretty lucky amnesty is going to give him a chance to undo at least one of his big mistakes. My guess? Villanueva gets the cut -- he's been fully healthy the last few years and has still been one of the worst rotation players in the league. Gordon's been sieged by injury, and still has some upside if he can return to his Bulls form. Beyond that, the Pistons picked up Brandon Knight in the draft and he'll play with them immediately. They also drafted Kyle Singler, whose upside has gone up considerably since he was drafted but who won't be playing with them this season for the same reason he's better regarded -- he played star-level ball in the Euroleague and has chosen to defer joining the NBA for at least one season to allow him to finish out his term with Real Madrid. Stuckey may be gone, as well -- he's a restricted free agent but he's one of the better point guards on the market and my guess is someone signs him to a contract that's too rich for the Pistons to warrant spending when they have Knight waiting in the wings.

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

Decent. As they're miles from title contention right now, the Pistons will be building a contender for the future, and the restricted player rules that are going to make the Bulls serious favorites to keep Rose for the duration of his career will keep the Pistons in the drivers seat for keeping Monroe and Knight, the two key players in their core. Without details of how revenue sharing works it's hard to say, but it's a solid bet that the Pistons will make a bit of money from the system. The city of Detroit has been an awful place for most industry, but the Lions and the Pistons have been profitable when they contend, and assuming the Pistons can return to competence on Monroe's back, they'll be in a good spot to capitalize on it someday. They also have new ownership -- Dan Gilbert was unsuccessful in his attempts to own two teams, but wealthy private equity magnate Tom Gores is there to pick up the slack. A nice thing about Gores is that for all intensive purposes he's trying to modernize the Pistons organization -- he's already hired the first stat guy in organizational history, and is trying to beef up their scouting. I've heard nothing but good things about what Gores is doing for the team, and Pistons fans should be glad to have an owner like him.

3: Overall season outlook.

Far be it from me to suggest they'll be a contender, but I think the general consensus on the Pistons future is far bleaker than the reality. Greg Monroe was the second best rookie in the league last year, and improved exceptionally well as the year went on. They had to play all of last season without Jonas Jerebko, their surprising impact rookie from 2009's class, and have a quality lottery pick coming to replace Rodney Stuckey, the current free agent who never quite worked out in Detroit. Add in the fact that they'll have a coach who can cut it at an NBA level this time (R.I.P., John Kuester's coaching career), they play at one of the slowest paces in the league (again, see yesterday's post), and that they may be able to trade Rip Hamilton for some assets? I could easily see this Pistons team surprising and being in the running late for an eastern playoff spot. Which, you know, probably is only going to take 27-30 wins. So, not a huge improvement from last year's team, but enough to get people talking, and enough that adding one more lottery pick and an improved Euro-convert Kyle Singler could get this team back on the right track in the next few years. While I think they'll fall a bit short, I definitely see them closer to the playoffs than the absolute bottom of the east.

• • •

INDIANA PACERS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.

One of the biggest additions of any team here, actually -- the Pacers traded their sub-lottery first rounder for George Hill, the artificial point guard. While I've never been as big a fan of George as most of my Spurs-loving comrades, I don't deny his talent -- he's a tenacious defender (though he took a step back on defense last year) and he's in the last few years he's learned how to imitate a point guard for stretches, making him a very versatile player. His shot could still use some work, but with Danny Granger to help him improve, I can see him making some pretty big leaps. Beyond that, the Pacers lose a lot of dead weight in Dunleavy, T.J. Ford, and Josh McRoberts. They'll also have Jeff Foster on the deck as a free agent, though smart money says that a team as thin up front as the Pacers is going to pull out all the stops to retain him. In the draft, the Pacers picked up... oh wait, George Hill, they traded their pick. Whoops. Oh well. In terms of amnesty? Posey or Dahntay Jones, both relatively poor contracts given their production, are two big targets. Pacers will probably use it, as they need the space.

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

Not great. The Pacers were in an enviable cap position before the lockout. They're still in a good position, but now they aren't alone. Let me explain. First major problem is that the Pacers had navigated the previous CBA like pros -- they have no particularly strong amnesty candidates (Jones and Posey are poor contracts relative to their production, but hardly cap killers) and they've spent years being frugal to keep costs down and ensure they'd be one of 3 or 4 teams with max room in 2012 and 2013. Now, though? The amnesty mulligan takes away that competitive advantage, and makes the Pacers one of 10-15 teams with max room. Hardly the most attractive of those 10-15, either. The revenue sharing will help, but the Pacers were in a perfect position before and the amnesty mulligan seriously damages their prospects of landing a top tier free agent. And, as with the Bucks, 50-50 may not be enough for the Pacers to make a profit this season. Sad trombone, for sure.

3: Overall season outlook.

I think the Central is definitively the second best division in the eastern conference right now -- and I think almost every single one of their teams is better than their counterpart in the Northeast. Celtics under Bulls, Raptors under Cavs, Nets under Pistons, Sixers under Bucks. Pacers over the Knicks, though? Don't see that. I see the Pacers falling back to earth a little bit this season, flirting with 0.500 and falling just short. I don't really want to go too in depth over this, though, because of all the teams in the league I think the Pacers are one of the few who are going to look a lot different come the season. Their cap space notwithstanding, the Pacers have a decent young core and are in a position to contend as their young guns get better. Picking up Tyson Chandler, Marc Gasol, or Nene isn't going to make them one of the four best teams in the East, but when Paul George and George Hill peak, they'll have a title shot. And in a place as starved for playoff action as Indiana, that's a good thing. So, baseline expectation? About 27-33 wins. But I expect that'll change significantly as we enter the season, post free agency.

• • •

CHICAGO BULLS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.

Free agency is kind to the Bulls this year -- their only ones are Brian Scalabrine, Rasual Butler, and Kurt Thomas. While losing Big Sexy and the Irish Jordan may damage the entertainment value of garbage time for Bulls fans, the team that won 62 games despite injury troubles remains intact. In terms of amnesty candidates? I'd look for the Bulls to sit on it for a while. Amnesty provides them a way out later if Boozer continues to deteriorate and they need to get under the cap line, and much like the Knicks, none of their current contracts are really bad enough that they're worth blowing their amnesty on it now. In the draft, the Bulls picked up Malcolm Lee of UCLA and Nikola Mirotic of the Euroleague. Mirotic is a classic Spurs stash pick -- great player who isn't coming over to the NBA anytime soon, and sets the Bulls up to have a serious talent flux at big forward spot if he ever makes it over. If not, well, they have a contender right now. There are few minutes for giving minutes to forwards with inherent risk -- by stashing a good player who may not even come over, they eliminate the risk AND make sure they don't have to pay their pick for a few years (important for reasons I'll get into shortly). As for Butler, he was good at Marquette -- I liked him a lot as a college player, but I don't see him being a big contributor on this Bulls squad. He's one of the dreaded tweener-types -- not big enough to bang at the 4, not quick or athletic enough to hang with wings. Decent defender in college, though, so he could be a gritty roleplaying type. We'll see.

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

Relatively poor. Chicago is going to be a big giver into the revenue sharing system regardless of whether it's by profit or market. With an owner as generally stingy as Reinsdorf, I could see that coming back to bite them when Reinsdorf balks at spending more on a team that isn't making him as much as it used to. Chances are high the Bulls have to dip into the luxury tax starting in 2013, and chances are made even higher by the fact that the new "designated player" clause ensures that MVP-level players immediately are eligible for huge home team bonuses as a "designated player" for the team. Over the course of Derrick Rose's next contract, the clause is going to make him almost $15 million more, and cost the Bulls the same. Adding a huge Rose deal to Boozer, Noah, and Deng's big contracts was expected, but the fact that post-lockout the contract is actually going to be MORE than it would've been before the lockout? Unexpected to say the least, and a cripplingly bad lockout haul to say the worst. Few teams are more hurt by this CBA than Chicago. Plus side? Rose is definitely going to be a Bull for the next 5-6 years on account of the designated player clause that gets him his huge raise. And that's big. But he probably wasn't going anywhere anyway, and while he's making a fairer contract now, it's definitely going to hurt the team's bottom line and ability to compete going forward.

3: Overall season outlook.

Honestly? Very good, I think. The Bulls were a slowdown team with a strong system, and despite their gaudy win total, they played with a skeleton roster for much of the year. Of course, the fact that they have without question the two of the best backup big men in the league right now (Asik and Gibson) helps. But Boozer's absence and Noah's absence/injury-riddled play provides two key opportunities for this Bulls team to be even better than it was last year. Add in Rose improving (which, frankly, it's still reasonable to expect) and you have a crafty squad with an incredible defensive system playing it slow in a slow man's world. Will it lead to more playoff success? That, I'm dubious of. I'm of the view the Bulls are a far stronger regular season team than a playoff team, much like the late 2000s Cavs. When defenses key in on their scorers (see: Rose), the Bulls offense grinds to a halt and essentially gives up on getting good shots. Picking up a free agent like Afflalo or Redd should help their offense a bit, but it's really on Coach Thibs more than anyone else that they get so disorganized when the going gets tough. Still, don't want this to sound too down -- Thibs has proven to be a relatively amazing coach so far, and the offense can build with time. With a full season of Boozer and some offensive improvement from Taj Gibson, the Bulls will be one of about 5-6 teams with a legitimate title shot. And that's all you can really ask for, at the end of the day. Very interested to see what they do for their shooting guard position, and given all my dithering about Reinsdorf, I think the way he approaches it is going to be reflective of how he approaches the next few years. Does he go with some crummy bottom-feeding minimum guy? Or does he put in a serious offer for the Afflalos on the market? Should be fun. All that said, I'm really looking forward to watching this team this season, Asik and Gibson are essentially religion.

• • •

Given that we essentially took the weekend off, I've left myself having to do one of these per day. This could be problematic. We'll see if I can get all these off the table by the time free agency starts -- I'll try the good try, but dear god, these things clock in at almost 4,000 words apiece. I'm a writer, not a robot... wait, I don't know that. I might be a robot. Can someone link me to a quick Turing test? Thanks.

Til next time, folks.

About a week ago, Zach Lowe reached out to his followers on twitter to ask if we'd run some numbers for him. I decided to follow through on it -- he wanted to see some simple correlations between team win percentage and the offensive and defensive four factors. He used the numbers to back his main claim in a piece that dropped earlier this week where he came to the well-supported conclusion that we have no real idea what kinds of teams a compressed season helps or hurts, and at this point, we may as well assume the season proceeds as normal because we don't know what predicts performance in a shortened season. I essentially told him that, although there were some tertiary trends that seemed marginally predictive, the stats weren't telling us anything valuable. There weren't any jarringly common statistical differences between teams that did well in the lockout season and teams that did poorly.

Something about those specious, tertiary trends bugged me, though. I thought there might be more to it than the numbers were showing. So I expanded the amount of data I was working with, did some spreadsheet wrangling, and tried to tease out a few more predictive metrics for figuring out the win percentage in a lockout season versus the win percentage in a non-lockout season. This post walks through my analysis, shares the data, and comes to a few key conclusions that supplement Zach's excellent piece. So, dally no longer. Let's dig in. All sheet/cell references are in reference to the main spreadsheet I made for the analysis, which I've uploaded to Google Docs for your reading pleasure. You know. If you like that sort of thing.

• • •

Part I: Correlations within seasons.

For this part, turn to Sheet "C1" in the spreadsheet.

This was where it all started. Zach's initial request was for some within-season correlations, between a team's win percentage and the four factors, for the lockout-compressed 1999 season. He also wanted a few years around it, attempting to see if anything was more or less predictive in 1999 than it was for other years. A fair question. There are more years here than there were when I initially gave Zach the results (in my attempts to broaden the dataset for part two of this analysis), but the basic trend is the same. Nothing really stands out all that much. To wit, compare 1999 correlations with the average correlations among all other years in the sample:

               --------- OFFENSIVE ---------   --------- DEFENSIVE ---------
       Pace    eFG%    TOV%    ORB%    FT/FG   eFG%    TOV%    DRB%    FT/FG
 AVG  -0.151   0.689  -0.417   0.018   0.224  -0.685   0.093   0.440  -0.270
1999  -0.286   0.553   0.051   0.034   0.374  -0.738  -0.139   0.483  -0.448

See what I mean? Every one of 1999's values that falls two standard deviations or more outside the population average is highlighted in red. That's right -- offensive turnover percentage is the only one. And I admit, it's a bit strange -- in 1999, offensive turnover percentage was positively correlated with win percentage, which means that having a high turnover percentage actually led to more wins. A very odd result. But not really a notable one, without any further context. Probably worth looking into (as I eventually did), but not really worth calling the be-all and end-all of lockout impacts. At this point, I sent the analysis to Zach and he used it as support for his article.

Then, this week, I got a little bit deeper.

Part II: Comparing season averages.

For this part, turn to Sheet "AVG" in the spreadsheet.

I wanted to dig a little bit deeper into the statistics. So I decided to ignore correlations to win percentage for a bit, and see if there are any key differences between season averages. This is a more customary analysis, and there are many people who have done quite well at it themselves. Here, though, I was just looking for some basic numbers. There was a little more to go on in terms of isolating 1999's differentiating factors here, though not much. To wit, let's again compare the averages for several key statistics between non-1999 seasons and 1999:

               --------- OFFENSIVE ---------   --------- DEFENSIVE ---------
       Pace    eFG%    TOV%    ORB%    FT/FG   eFG%    TOV%    DRB%    FT/FG
 AVG  91.683   0.488   0.140   0.291   0.236   0.488   0.140   0.709   0.236
1999  88.917   0.466   0.146   0.301   0.241   0.465   0.146   0.698   0.241

Same deal -- numbers outside two standard deviations of the population average are highlighted in red. While eFG% is the only "true" outlier here, pace should probably be highlighted too. If you remove the two outlier fast-paced years of 1992 and 1993 (96.6 and 96.7 respectively) from the analysis, pace is well beyond the 2 standard deviation threshhold. Which fits expectations: 1999 is without any real comparison in terms of how slow it was -- it's over a full possession slower than any other year in the dataset. I'd also turn your attention to turnover percentage, which is insignificantly above the average for the other years -- this isn't particularly important, but does sort of point to one of the reasons why basketball was so odd and nigh-unwatchable in 1999 (if the games I've seen from that season are any indication). Everyone, even good teams that weren't usually associated with doing so, was turning the ball over at a slightly larger rate than usual. Which wouldn't make basketball unwatchable on its face.

Usually, though, the majority of the high turnover teams were the singularly bad teams in the league. In 1999, that wasn't necessarily the case. You had the crummy ball control usually kept solely to the lower-tier teams being played by upper tier teams as well. I mean, hell -- the New York Knicks had the 3rd highest turnover rate in the league, and they made the finals. The Utah Jazz had the highest, and they won 70% of their games! Both odd in a normal season, but entirely par for the course in 1999. Hence, the difference in the average wasn't huge, but the distribution of what teams were turning the ball over more often was skewed far more towards teams that got TV air-time and playoff dap than in any other season. This contributes a lot to the general consensus that 1999 had the worst basketball ever played. And while it may not be entirely accurate on an aggregated leaguewide level, there's no doubting that the distribution of teams with the traits of crummy teams was skewed in such a way that the best teams in the league were sharing traits that the crummy teams usually kept to themselves.

This isn't really relevant to the broader analysis here at all, but I think it's interesting and worth noting. What is relevant to the analysis at this point is that even though pace was barely within the two standard deviation threshhold, I had some intuition here. I was curious if we could be seeing something of a joint effect between the relatively high (though within range) correlation between slow pace and winning in 1999 and the raw average pace being so incredibly low. So, I followed up on that.

Part III: Correlations between seasons.

For this part, turn to Sheet "C2" in the spreadsheet.

Here's the meat of the post -- the correlation structure that made me go "eureka" and start cleaning this up to post-quality levels. In this part, I realized that within-season correlations, while useful, aren't really what we're going for here. What we actually want? We're trying to get predictive analytics -- we want to find the key barometers of a successful or unsuccessful lockout team from the season before. So in this part, what I did was find the correlations between the four factors from the season before, and win percentage in the current season. I excluded 1996 and 2005 (expansion years for the Raptors, Grizzlies, and Bobcats) from the analysis because I didn't particularly want to bias the results towards the mean for those years, and I did all of this in excel where my usual missing data tricks are less easy to use. Anyway. As from before, here's a table comparing the average values among correlations for non-1999 seasons and the correlations in 1999. Lo and behold, we finally get something useful.

               --------- OFFENSIVE ---------   --------- DEFENSIVE ---------
       Pace    eFG%    TOV%    ORB%    FT/FG   eFG%    TOV%    DRB%    FT/FG
 AVG  -0.103   0.568  -0.348   0.015   0.163  -0.575   0.069   0.338  -0.248
1999  -0.455   0.413   0.127  -0.081   0.475  -0.584  -0.197   0.433  -0.173

And here's the big reveal. Two correlations were well outside the aggregate interval for 1999 -- pace, and turnover percentage. Meaning the effect that a team's performance in 1998 on the 1999 season was markedly different than in previous and future seasons -- in the case of pace, quite a bit more intense. And in the case of turnover percentage? Completely the opposite direction. Teams that were slow paced in 1998 were far better than expected in 1999, while teams that were fast paced were for the most part worse. Looking at the raw data confirms this and actually makes the correlation factor here look like an understatement. Because there's two big outliers (the 1999 Sacramento Kings and the 1999 Chicago Bulls) that have a lot of leverage on the results, here. Take those two out, and the correlation factor balloons beyond -0.6, which is pushing beyond eFG% range in terms of predictive value.

Even if you don't exclude those two outliers, though, the numbers look pretty stark. If you take one stat away from this post, make it this one: of the 14 teams that played at an above-average pace in 1998, a full 10 of them had a decreased winning percentage in the 1999 season. And of the 15 teams who played at a below-average pace in 1998? A_ full 12 of them___ had the same or better win percentage in 1999.

That's a big factor, and it points to (quite possibly) the defining effect of season compression: in 1999's compressed season, the type of basketball your team was used to playing was important. Run-and-gun offenses were harmed by the compression, while slowdown offenses prospered in adapting to the generalized decrease in speed of the game caused by the compression. Compounding this, there's the strange turnover percentage correlation. I was really confused about this at first, but realized after a while that it could be a result of the 1998 Bulls losing Jordan. The 1998 Bulls had a turnover percentage of 0.133 and a winning percentage of 0.756, while the 1999 Bulls had a turnover percentage of 0.151 to a winning percentage of 0.260. A pretty big difference, that.

To test what kind of effect eliminating the explicable Jordan-caused outlier would have, I changed the 1998 Bulls to a turnover percentage of 0.151 (dang, MJ, stop losin' the ball!) in an alternate spreadsheet and checked the correlations. It's still positive and well outside the standard deviation, but it's a more reasonable 0.026, indicating that turnover percentage isn't wildly positively correlated, just slightly. Which makes a bit more sense. You see tics like that all the time in odd datasets like this, but the initial result (a 0.127 POSITIVE correlation?) was simply too weird to not have some kind of strange outlier effecting the result. I'd also note that taking out the Bulls actually makes the pace factor slightly larger -- the Bulls were one of only three 1998 below-pace teams that got worse in 1999, so removing them from the dataset actually raises the correlation to -0.521. I would've put the Jordan-lacking numbers in the comparison, but I felt it would be better to explain why I took them out with the context of what I was seeing rather than just stating it as a prior fact. Throwing away data is bad, folks.

Part IV: Conclusion & Followups

So, overall takeaway? Zach isn't really wrong in his excellent post, let's start with that. This lockout may create a new trend, and the lessons of the past aren't strictly prescriptive. While 66 games crammed into the window of December 25th to May 1st is pretty bad, I'm not positive it's as bad as the insane pace the 1999 season was played at. It's comparable, but certainly not worse and possibly not on the same order of magnitude as bad, if they set up the schedule correctly. My analysis here doesn't even begin to touch the way that prevailing sentiment somehow says that the lockout will advantage the following types of teams:

1. Young teams, because they have "young legs."
2. Old teams, because they have "experience."
3. Strong systems, because they "don't need training camp."
4. Weak systems with talented players, because they "don't need training camp."
5. Samardo Samuels, because he "went to St. Benedicts."

In short, depending on who you ask, the lockout is either going to irrevocably destroy every team in the league's mojo or grant them infinite advantages over everyone else. Not contradictory in the slightest! But honestly, short answer is that we honestly don't know what exogenous factors are going to prove to be the defining things that advantage and disadvantage teams in this lockout. Zach is absolutely right about this.

But by looking a bit deeper into what happened directly before the lockout, we can tease out one big conclusion. Teams with high pace last season (the Raptors, Knicks, and Suns are big offenders here) have a reasonably good chance of starting day one at a disadvantage over teams that operated at a slow pace. We're going to see some outliers to this rule, because they're always there, but in the last lockout this was a relatively hard and fast rule. Teams that played fast in 1998 played worse in 1999. Teams that played slow in 1998 played better in 1999. Not hard to understand, nor is it altogether unintuitive -- fast paced teams generally do worse on back-to-backs, traditionally, and the compressed season means less recovery time between games for teams that try to push the pace.

Regardless, we probably could use a bit more analysis here. In particular, I'd like to do a ridge regression predicting season stats from the previous season's four factors stats -- there's enough data for it, and using the lockout data for a test sample could help put in context any joint effects among the covariates. But that's enough for today. This result is useful enough to post without having done the regressions yet, I think.

• • •

Feel free to poke around the sheet, comment on the conclusions, and note the things I've forgotten to mention. Because this is unfortunately a pretty slipshod analysis right now, and there's plenty of room to critique the methodology here. But I think it's useful, and worth a look. Please let me know if you have any followup questions in the comments, because I'll probably take a revised look at this sheet and the data this weekend with R and get some higher order models built for the sake of teasing out any joint effects. Until then? Keep it real, readers.

The lockout is over! As part of our coverage of the rapidly incoming season, Aaron is doing three-point previews (pre free agency) on every team in the NBA. We're splitting it up by divisions, in what will be the first and last time we look at NBA divisions this season. Seriously. Nobody really cares about divisions. Regardless, today's division is home to (if you don't remember, it's been a while) the Boston Celtics, the Philadelphia 76ers, the New Jersey Nets, the New York Knicks, and the Toronto Raptors.

Programming note, here -- all this week (and most likely for the next few weeks), I'm going to be at Fear the Sword working with Conrad Kaczmarek on a new series profiling all the Cavs players on this year's team. Monday we did Daniel Gibson, yesterday we did Ramon Sessions, and today we did Antawn Jamison. Tomorrow? A mystery, one worth checking out! Anyway. As a further programming note, my Kawhi Leonard post was linked in Truehoop's Wednesday bullets this week. If you're one of the new readers who stumbled upon us from the Truehoop post, welcome! We have a peculiar way of doing things, around here, but we hope you'll like what you see. There's going to be a lot of ridiculous stuff coming from Alex and I in the coming weeks, and it's our hope you'll stick around for it. And enjoy it. It'd hardly be worth sticking around for if you didn't enjoy it, you know? Regardless. Let's get thee to this preview.

• • •

TORONTO RAPTORS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.

The Raptors are one of the few teams with no strong impact targets for the use of the amnesty clause. Their two worst contracts are Calderon and Bargnani, but they're the two of best players on this current incarnation of the Raptors, and it's quite possible they decide to keep them together. After all, with a new coach in Dwane Casey, the organization is most likely going to aim for the playoffs. Not a particularly strong chance they make it there, but the Raptors have always been a "hope springs eternal" type franchise. If they don't amnesty Bargnani or Calderon, they'll most likely consider applying it to Linas Kleiza, their embarrassingly bad "impact" free agent signing from 2010 that turned out to be a massively overpaid bust. In terms of additions, the Raptors have only so far added the #5 pick in the 2011 NBA draft, Jonas Valanciunas. He's going to be good, most likely, but he's also not going to be around this season. Which isn't quite so hot. Still, they're on a crash course for another high lottery pick, so whenever they have the ability to add Valanciunas, they should have a decent young core waiting for him.

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

I'm not really sure how the lockout is going to impact Toronto. On the CBA side, it could be a negative. While the details haven't leaked on revenue sharing yet, if it's based solely on market size, the Raptors are going to be at a severe disadvantage and may get none of the money they put in the sharing pot -- Toronto is a huge market, even if it's a middling NBA-type locale. Teams like the Raptors that underperform relative to their market size could get screwed in the revenue sharing deal, so we'll have to wait and see how that goes. On the basketball side, the numbers don't look very good for the Raptors. In the last lockout-shortened season, teams that played at a fast pace and had poor defense in 1998 fared somewhat poorly relative to expectations in 1999, as you might see in more detail in a followup and clarification post to Zach Lowe's recent lockout piece that I'll be sharing soon. I did some stats for that piece, and I think it'd be cool to share them. But that's for another day.

3: Overall season outlook.

Exceedingly poor. For Raps fans, they can expect more of the same from last year, which was a pretty poor time to be a Raps fan. They have the young guns in DeRozan and Davis to eventually make some noise, but I'm not very high on DeRozan as an NBA star (guards with games as scoring-limited as him aren't usually championship starters). Davis has been really good so far, though, and with any luck Casey will stop trying to play Bargnani out of position where he can't operate. I'm going to go with 12 to 18 wins in a 66 game season, equivalent to a 15-22 win season in a full 82 games. In other words, marginally worse than last year. Long-term outlook? Dim, but getting brighter. Getting Triano the hell out of there is a great start, and bringing in Casey should be a great hire. We'll have to see, though -- I thought Kuester was really going to tear things up in Detroit.

• • •

NEW JERSEY NETS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.

No key additions -- yet. Quite a few key POTENTIAL additions, though, and they're going to need to exhaust every single possibility if they intend to keep Deron Williams. When you trade for a fringe top-10 player in the league and rid your cupboard of every quality young asset to do it, you don't usually do it for the player to up and leave less than 82 games later. That's a very possible fate for these Nets, if Deron doesn't get surrounded by a team that can actually contend. They may have more time than you'd initially think, though -- the new CBA makes it most profitable, if I'm reading it right, for Deron to take his player option for 2013 and have his future salary/raises based on his over $17.8 mil 2013 salary rather than his $16.3 mil 2012 salary. That would give the Nets a good two years to build. It could help. In terms of subtractions and amnesty targets, it's basically "pin the tail on the summer 2010 contract" over in Newark. They'd probably like to get back all three of the contracts they signed -- Morrow has been atrocious, Petro's been worse, and there's not a single player in the league who was more disappointing than Travis Outlaw last season. The first digit of his salary ($7 million) was very nearly larger than his PER (8.80), and while I don't like using a metric as a catch all, a PER of 8.80 with awful defense is barely deserving of a contract in the league at all, let alone a $7 million dollar one. One of the few teams that will probably use their amnesty in the first few days of free agency.

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

It was reported in whispers throughout the lockout that Prokhorov was one of the hardline owners. Not because he wanted competitive balance or revenue sharing (after the Brooklyn move, the Nets will be putting a ton of money into the system), but because a lost season would eliminate the Nets last season in Newark and give the Nets a unique chance to do a full-scale rebrand in 2013. Honestly, though? That was always a very risky strategy. While I'm working off the assumption I just laid out that Deron is going to want to take his player option, there's a non-negligible chance he doesn't. If that happened, and they lost the 2012 season, Deron could've opted out of his player option once the 2013 season began. He would've gone directly to free agency, and left the Nets nothing but 20 games of an injured Deron Williams for the investment of Derrick Favors, Devin Harris, an unrestricted lottery pick and a lightly restricted late lottery pick, and cash. That would be a catastrophic setback for a franchise desperately needing to take a step forward, and a 2012 season ensures that Deron is going to have at least one full year in Newark. I don't see any way that's a bad thing for New Jersey. The other CBA aspects -- revenue sharing, hurting luxury tax teams, etc -- are going to hurt the Nets in the future, but they're so moribund as a franchise right now it's doubtful to have a big impact for 2 or 3 seasons at the least. By the time the Nets are starting to really feel the impact of the CBA, a new CBA will be 2 or 3 years down the road. So, not too huge.

3: Overall season outlook.

Not as bad as the Raptors (by a long shot), but not all that great either. The Nets enter free agency with three players who played league average or better ball last year -- Deron Williams, Brook Lopez, and Kris Humphries. Humphries is a free agent who's likely to leave the team, leaving Lopez and Deron as the only two pieces worth starting on any other team in the league. And Deron was injured late last season. While he's been great overseas, we have to temper enthusiasm a little -- this isn't Deron coming off the height of his powers, this is Deron coming from a bad finish and trying to recoup. Lopez was atrocious defensively last year, rating among the worst centers in the league on defending the pick and roll. He stays back on his heels when he needs to contest, and he has a marked hesitation atop his generally lacking lateral quickness. He completely loses defenders when they get close enough to the basket, and he doesn't have the ability to stay on rotations. And his rebounding? Don't get me started -- despite playing a ton of minutes per game, Brook somehow managed to have more games with five or fewer rebounds than games with six or more. Abhorrent. Out of any other player in the league, the Nets most need Dwight Howard. A Dwight-Lopez-Deron core could potentially be decent enough to contend in the East, with the added bonus of experimenting with Brook as a power forward. I don't know if they get Dwight, but they really need him. Without him, their season is going to be a massively underwhelming disappointment unless they pick up the right bunch of bargain free agents to improve the team. If they keep last year's roster with minor additions? I honestly don't see them making the playoffs or even sniffing them. Their outlook is a wait-and-see prospect right now. So, we wait.

• • •

PHILADELPHIA 76ERS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.

Amnesty and the Sixers is a funny combination. Word has gotten out that they don't intend to amnesty Elton Brand, given that he's only got a few seasons left and he's their only big man that's even remotely close to "quality" right now. That makes sense, and starts to get at why there probably won't be more than 4 or 5 amnesties this year. They don't want to waste amnesty on Nocioni when they don't have any free agent targets, so they're sitting on it until a better opportunity arises. In the draft, the Sixers picked up Nicolas Vucevic, who may in the long term be the most important big man of the future in Philly -- he was the tallest player taken this year and projects out to be a quality NBA big man. He has a well defined post game, and is underrated in his ability to affect a game with one-on-one offense. He gives most of that back with his infuriating obsession with proving himself as a shooter (he's simply not a good pick and pop player, and he lessens his gifts when he spends half the game trying to be Pau Gasol) and turning the ball over like it's nobody's business. But he's a solid prospect who's easily going to be their 2nd best big man from day one, and may end the season as their best. That's a good pick, and even if it doesn't bring them back to the playoffs this season, it should help immeasurably in the years to come.

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

Probably a net positive, overall. One of the very few teams that can say that. The Sixers may be the single most positively affected team by the supposition that amnesty won't be of the vintage 2005 "use it or lose it" type. Because they can wait and see. If Vucevic gets better and Elton Brand is poor this year, they can amnesty him right before next summer and enter the 2012 free agency period with quite a lot of cap room (well over $20 million), enough to potentially entice a max free agent to call Philly home and fill in the team with a few decent guys around them. The contract sizes mean they're less likely to get roped into another Elton Brand type contract, and they're just on the cusp where they won't be required to forfeit much to the revenue sharing but they aren't in bad enough shape that they explicitly needed a stronger system. Given Iggy, Brand, and their litany of not-great contracts, they aren't going to be scrambling to get to the minimum any time soon either. A good situation for them going forward.

3: Overall season outlook.

While they're one of the better positioned teams to navigate the post-lockout CBA, one can't really say the same about their team on a basketball level. Not for next season. Last season's Sixers were an overachieving bunch that were able to succeed on their general grit, Iggy's defense, and the most inconceivable of bounce-back seasons for one Elton Brand. I don't see that carrying over to this season, as Brand's season was (in all possible respects) incredibly flukish. Lou Williams and Thad Young will continue to be straight decent, Jrue Holiday will continue to improve, and perhaps Evan Turner can stop being useless. But unless Vucevic is an instant star and Brand avoids the dropoff that usually comes after a fluke season late in a player's career? They have no big man rotation whatsoever. Spencer Hawes may see serious minutes. That's their situation. And because of that, they probably won't quite make it into the playoffs again, barring injury to the myriad of lower-tier east teams (namely the Bucks, Pistons, New Jersey) that stand to get a lot better this season. Then again, this is a team that may look totally different after free agency. Check back with us after that goes down.

• • •

NEW YORK KNICKS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.

Amnesty came just slightly too late for the Knicks to get value out of it -- they have no strong candidates for the clause, for the first time in almost 10 years. Really. I'm not going to go into it, but go onto Basketball Reference and look at all the Knicks rosters from 2000-2010. Pretty much at least one player per season who would be a good candidate for amnesty. Now, though, the closest is Roger Mason Jr. Who makes virtually nothing, cap-wise. The key for them is really in Amare's contract -- amnesty gives them a get-out-of-cap-hell-free card to play if his knees blow up sometime in the next four years. Always a good card to have in your bag. Additions are headlined by Iman Shumpert, the physically gifted standout from Georgia Tech whose somewhat unsatisfying college career can be virtually ignored because, after all, he went to Georgia Tech. Paul Hewitt is notorious for completely masking the draft potential of his players by running the worst systems in the history of the human race. Shumpert may be no exception. Regardless, I thought it was something of a misguided choice. The Knicks have Fields, Douglas, Rautins, and Billups manning the guard slots right now, and fill-in stopgap guards aren't hard to find. They're depressing the playing time of those three while ignoring their gaping holes in the middle. Kenneth Faried would've been a better pick, I think. Shumpert should be a good rookie, probably top 10, and a decent workaday player in the league. But they needed a big, and a great one was sitting at their fingertips. Poor decisions all around.

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

Bad. Very, actually. As I mentioned earlier, the only use amnesty really holds for the Knicks is as an insurance policy for Amare's knees. The general consensus among the hysterical New York media gaggle is that the lockout had no effect on free agency and the Knicks remain in perfect shape to land Dwight or Chris Paul. This is about as untrue as possible. The Knicks have left themselves with no assets whatsoever from the deck-clearing they went through for the Carmelo trade, and as I discussed in my discussion of the previous CBA proposal, the CBA generally will cut down on free agent acquisition in favor of Deron-type superstar trades. The best way to get CP3 or Dwight in this CBA's environment? Trade for them and entice them to stay. The Knicks have no assets whatsoever to offer -- every player they have of any value is either on a one year contract at this point (Fields, Douglas, Rautins), too old to contribute (Billups), or is one of their core two (Melo/Amare). They NEED to acquire CP3 or Dwight in free agency, and there's no particularly good way to see that happening short of either choosing to take an insanely large paycut (and, more importantly, a 4 year contract compared to a 5 year contract) to play in New York. Impossible? Not at all. But I'd put the odds well under 10% that it goes through, far lower than they would be if we were still under the last CBA. And top that off with the strengthened luxury tax that makes it harder than ever to simply outspend your competitors? The lockout hurt the Knicks. Don't think otherwise.

3: Overall season outlook.

I'm relatively down on them this season, pre free agency. You have a rather incredible one-two scoring punch with Melo and Amare, a decent starting-quality talent in Fields, and an aging chucker in Chauncey. Beyond that? Virtually nothing. As good as Turiaf makes them when he's on the court, he's exactly the sort of player who crumbles on back to backs and exactly the sort who's more susceptible to injury in a compressed season. Not to mention pace -- in the 1999 season, pace took a steep nosedive from 1998, and of the teams with extremely high pace in 1998 only one of them actually improved -- the Sacramento Kings, midway through a renaissance led by a young Chris Webber. I don't think the lockout shortened season is going to force the Knicks into being an awful team. But I do think the lack of training camp, lack of defense, and the general lack of depth to absorb injuries is going to lead them to be essentially the same team they were at the end of last year. Around 0.500, consistently described as "a threat", falls toothlessly in the night to a better team when the playoffs begin. Sorry, Knicks fans. Maybe if you signed Grover. Hey, speaking of the playoffs...

• • •

BOSTON CELTICS

1: Key additions, subtractions, and amnesty targets.

Frankly, there's no way to know what's what with the Celtics for additions and subtractions. If they decide to resign Jeff Green (a good bet, given that refusing to sign him means you traded Kendrick Perkins away for Nenad Kristic alone), they aren't going to have the space for any free agents that aren't acquired through trade. There are many potential avenues for improvement on their bench (Delonte West getting back to his natural position, Troy Murphy shaping up, et cetera) but in terms of new player additions the Celtics are going to be relegated to the Telfairs and Gadzurics of the world if they want to add new faces. As for rookies, last year the Celts drafted JaJuan Johnson and E'Twaun Moore, both out of Purdue -- I'm not very familiar with them, but if JaJuan is even remotely servicable it'll be an improvement over the Shelden Williams experiment they used to be rolling with. Glen Davis realistically isn't a good player and isn't a player they want to pay, but they're lacking in other options so they'll probably try the college try to resign him.

2: Lockout impacts, bad or good?

Well, they probably won't be building a star team on the fly like they did in 2008 anytime soon. The restrictions on trading would have most likely prevented the Celtics from picking up Ray Allen for the 2008 title run, thus making the 2008 Celtics merely a big two with a puncher's chance at a title but not an overwhelming favorite. But that all happened in the past, and going forward, they're not well off. Could be worse, but still not good. While it's true that the Celtics will be putting money into the revenue sharing pot, they'll be in full-rebuild mode in two years when the tax provisions really start kicking in and destroying the lives of GMs everywhere. The only real amnesty candidate, ironically, is Paul Pierce. Hardly a player the Celtics are ever going to consider using the clause on. It is worth noting that it looks like they're somewhat cursed in that they simply can't add pieces without flipping Rondo at this point -- resigning Green alone may very well take them over the MLE level, leaving them with min contracts and the mini-MLE for roster-building purposes. That's going to hurt a team already severely lacking in bench depth. So overall? Future-looking bad, present-looking bad. Not a great CBA for the Boston Celtics.

3: Overall season outlook.

As with this entire division, really, I'm not very up on them. This is a very weak division this year, barring some major explosions from young players on the teams in it. The Celtics are an aging team whose primary stars are all on the dark side of 33 -- by the time next year's playoffs start, KG will be well over 35 years old. I'm not one to doubt that KG won't be as batshit insane when next year's playoffs start, but you'd be a fool to honestly expect them to maintain the level of play they had last season. And with the CBA harming their ability to augment their depth... how do they improve? I don't really see it. Their best chance for any improvement lies in their bench shaping up behind Delonte West and Jeff Green reinventing himself as a useful basketball player. I'm dubious on both. And you may call me a homer all you want, but I'd take a 29 year old Tony, 34 year old Manu, and a 35 year old Duncan entering next year's playoffs over a 34 year old Pierce, 35 year old KG, and a 37 year old Ray. Especially considering the potential of the Spurs supporting cast over the Celtics supporting cast. No, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that although the Celtics do have a title shot this year, it's the smallest and least realistic among any of the KG years -- a strong second round performance would be a blessing, with this crew. But in this division? Weak on a broader scale or not, they'll win the division handily, and probably get a top 3 seed in the East. But even if all goes right, I just can't see them stepping beyond the ECF, I don't think -- this team is going to have to scrap and fight and overcome the process of aging simply to contend at all, and imagining a team like that winning four series in a row takes a lot of stretching.

• • •

O vanity! you are the lever by means of which Archimedes wished to lift the earth!

-- Mikhail Lermontov

I have a series of divisional previews coming down the pipe later this week -- rather simple stuff, a nice three-point summary of each team meant to be a pre-free-agency preview of where each team stands after last season and the draft. But this is my blog, and I feel as though being the editor allots me the creative freedom to write my own odd vanity pieces. So, on that note, here are some freeform thoughts on Kawhi Leonard.

• • •

Before the draft, before the Pacers trade, and before the lottery in general I had two simple preferences in the draft. First was that Kyrie Irving would go to a team I liked. I went to Duke, I met him once, and I think he's going to project out as one of the 5 best point guards in the league. The fact that he went to the Cavs made me incredibly happy about my birth team, and made the abhorrent 2011 season all the more tolerable in retrospect. But Kyrie isn't the hero of this class for me -- he's a great point guard, a decent guy, and will probably be the best player drafted this year. But he's not quite my favorite, nor is he the impetus for this post. The player I was most interested in seeing, and the player I most wanted to land on a team that fits his talents? That's Kawhi Leonard. Not because he'll be the best player in the draft, though it's entirely possible he will be. And not because he's a sure thing, because he certainly isn't. But Kawhi is, if nothing else, the most interesting player in the 2011 draft.

It all starts with his game. Kawhi represents something of an intersection between Gerald Wallace and the fountain of youth, basketball-wise. His game brings me the electric rush I get watching an older and wiser Gerald, grounded in a younger, more durable frame. The leaping athleticism I love watching in Gerald's game is there, but in Kawhi's game it's completely unhinged from Gerald's creeping tendency to dial his pure athletic plays back a slight bit -- Gerald knows he's pushing 30, and he knows he needs to keep from killing himself just to make the super athletic move when he can do an efficient but not exactly as effective move that keeps him from injury. It isn't the raw and brute strength of a Blake Griffin athlete, but the fluid and intense strength of a thinner Usain Bolt type, or a pole vaulting demon. Kawhi Leonard's college game embodied a visceral excitement that's hard to explain if you weren't watching. Watching him play was like watching pickup games where the most athletically gifted player on the floor also happened to be the hardest worker on both ends of the court. That's Gerald Wallace at his best, and that's Kawhi Leonard in college.

And the defense, well -- Kawhi's wingspan is absolutely insane, in the best way. And his hands are huge. He's built for defense. He made great use of his talents in college, bringing the Wallace comparison full circle. He plays defense akin to a man on death row who has to fight for his right to live, or even just to have his last meal. Thirsty for deflections, plays his man tight, and has a great sense of how to read an opposing offense. His play on the defensive end reminds me of John Wall's fleeting brilliance on offense -- when he gets on a roll when he's covering his man, he's efficient, effective, exhaustive. You simply weren't going to find a college player on the planet who could consistently score on him when he was on. Not one. I don't know if he'll be able to play quite as effectively on defense as he did in college, at least initially -- the game is different in the NBA, and the players are faster, stronger, and smarter. There will be an adjustment. But just like his offense and general attitude electrifies all comers with athleticism in spades and grit to spare, his defense as he presented it in college is my jam. It's everything you love to see in a player. And with his athletic gifts, he should the ability to bring it to the next level. In some form or another.

And this brings us to my Spurs. You know. The "boring" team.

Never mind that Duncan on defense has always been one of the most beautiful things the league has to offer. The defensive structure of the Spurs as a whole, really, but Duncan especially: Tim's defense has always inhabited a brave world oscillating between the bounds of reactive and impressionistic fluidity on one end to a prescriptive and predictive rigidity on the other. Duncan's defense has always been equal parts shutting down what the offense gives him and preventing the offense from giving him anything he can't handle in the first place, through reputation and savvy alone. But that's just Duncan. Don't forget Bruce Bowen, the title-winning mainstay with the peculiar, exacting defensive identity of a brutish tax-man come to extract a dime. And then Manu, who sees the bounds of the dichotomy I posited for Duncan and laughs in its face as he takes his wild gambles and wrecks his singular havoc (the likes of which no minuscule white euro-ball player has made before). Or Pop himself, he who molds the ever-flowing stream of feckless roleplayers into system-strong cadets, sent off to boldly go where every single Spurs defense of the modern era has gone before. That's what the Spurs have been, for the last decade.

The Spurs defense is a thing of beauty, for anyone willing to really watch the defense. Immerse oneself in it. Great defense in its construction can be just as beautiful as Steve Nash with his adaptive offensive mastery, or George Gervin with his ice-cool demeanor atop his red-hot shot. The way a defense adapts to an offense will always be an incredible thing to watch. If one looks for it. But the Spurs aren't like the bad-boy Pistons or the knockdown Celtics. They aren't based on a certain segment of the court, or a certain type of defense. And they aren't based around a defensive "personality." The Spurs, if anything, are based somewhat around the Duncan-centric concept that you can completely separate your team from the personalities of the players. That a team explicitly attempting to operate without a visible identity can be just as effective operating in the absence of an identity than a team operating with one. That simply being a team that works hard and combines most efficiently the incomparable talents of a myriad of once-in-a-lifetime steals can dare to outmaneuver the most loaded media-obsessive teams that Los Angeles, Boston, and New York have to offer. Not an identity, not a personality, but simply working towards a goal. A goal that you'd like the entire league to think is inevitable -- "oh, gosh, not another Spurs championship." But a goal is not an identity -- it's a different beast entirely.

Enter Kawhi Leonard. The opposite of a preening star, Kawhi hasn't yet been one for theatrics. In timeouts, and off the court, Kawhi is far more Tim Duncan than anyone else, approaching the game with a quiet strength that any Spurs fan can respect. But it's his game that really could bring us back. His defense could, once it adapts, do much to make up for Duncan's declining grasp of the impressionistic. A lineup of Parker-Manu-Leonard-Duncan-Blair could very well turn defensive basketball on its head, in the same way the Heat define this generation's current definition of the optimal defensive team. If Kawhi's defensive chops are as formidable as they looked in college, of course. The young rook has the potential to jumpstart a movement with the end goal of taking the Spurs back away from the drifting tides of 2009's disappointment, 2010's flicker, and 2011's all-too-early denouement. Away from our "grandfatherly old Spurs" team of recent years and back to the culture we had in our title teams. You know, defined by Tim Duncan's humble roboticism and our utter lack of an identity.

But that's the key. Kawhi represents something new, for the Spurs -- but he's new only by calling out to the old. The first rookie with real star-tier potential since Manu Ginobili laced up. I strongly consider the post-2006 Gerald Wallace a star -- Kawhi's ceiling is just above that. He represents the first real attempt to move forward from the Duncan era, and the first step forward. But in picking up Kawhi, I'm not afraid of the change. I'm excited. Truly. Because of any team in the league, it's just like the Spurs to do it like this. It's just like Buford to pick up a player who brings the Spurs forward by taking the Spurs back. A player whose defensive identity fills in the cracks that Tim's gradually declining defensive game is losing. A player who, at his best, would herald a return to the baroque defensive stylings of the prime Duncan years.

I reiterate -- a player like Kawhi may not be the greatest player in his draft class, but he's the most interesting. The defense is without compare, and with a coach like Pop to mold it, the potential is through the roof. And his rebounding, his athleticism. There's so many questions, and so much to look forward to. I don't know if Kawhi Leonard will do all this by himself. He may be a bust -- perhaps his athleticism fails him, perhaps he's too thin, perhaps his advanced post game won't make up for his lacking shot. But perhaps my intuition is right, and the Spurs rebuild is about to begin on-the-fly. And the evolutionary Gerald Wallace could very well be just the player we needed to bypass the doldrums entirely.

The season starts on Christmas, folks. And I can barely wait.

As one of our mainstay features, Aaron is writing posts highlighting every single player in the NBA. Role players, superstars, key cogs, or players who are barely as useful as ballboys -- none are exempt from the prying eyes of our readers. Check the index for a lowdown on order, intent, and all that jazz. Today's trio includes Armon Johnson, Marc Gasol, and Peja Stojakovic.

• • •

[030] Johnson, Armon

My most pertinent Armon Johnson memory was when I was talking about the Blazers on draft day with Alex and I kept calling him "Armond", truly expressing the deep well of knowledge I carry with me about the University of Nevada's basketball program. I think I like the name "Armon" better, though, so there's that. As an NBA player, Armon wasn't all that much more than a benchwarmer his rookie year, which is sad, but not altogether unexpected for a pick made in the middle of the second round. Johnson played well in summer league, showing off some decent floor-leadership skills and some tenacious defense for his size. He even went into the season as the #1 backup for Andre Miller. Unfortunately, Armon quickly lost that role to Patty Mills as the season went along. Pretty sad for Armon: I love Patty as an off-the-court personality, but if you're getting beaten by a rookie Patty Mills for rotation minutes, there are some issues with your game at an NBA level. Not to say there aren't things to like about Armon: Defensively, he's a top tier PG defender -- terrific on-the-ball pressure defense, good on help, great sense of the court. He's got a decent grasp of how to use his left hand for lefty layups and left-facing drives, too. Just a net positive all around.

Sadly, though, as soon as teams scouted his left hook (around Game 10), he became increasingly hard to justify playing time for. They found that if you cut off his left side options at any given moment, his offensive game is limited enough that he really can't do much to hurt you. And in a slow-down system like Nate McMillan's, a player who makes it four on five on offense is a major detriment -- especially at the point. If Armon can work on his outside shot, cut his turnovers, and develop some degree of ambidextrosity in his passing and driving, he'll probably project out as a decent backup-tier guard in the NBA. Players with the defensive acumen Armon shows combined with his rebounding and generally solid passing ability aren't exactly rare in the NBA, but they're valuable, and he could carve out a decently long career if he just makes some spot changes to clean up his game and make him less easy to guard. He certainly seems like a good dude -- check his twitter, where the good man has (as the Portland Roundball Society put it) definitely mastered the craft. He's learned that it is never a mistake to type in all-caps, he clearly aspires to be like Jeanie, and lightly admonishes LeBron James for even considering football over basketball. My kind of guy, that Armon Johnson. Hope he cleans up his right-facing game and carves out a bigger role with the Blazers next season.

• • •

[031] Gasol, Marc

Marc Gasol entered this year's playoffs as a relatively underrated two-way threat of a big man. He's a solid widebody defender and a solid offensive contributor. His help defense isn't quite up to snuff due to his weight and his general lack of mobility, a weakness that becomes ever-more apparent the faster your opposing big man is. As a teaching example: compare him versus an old Tim Duncan in the first round and him versus Collison or Ibaka in the second round. Still, Gasol represents one of the better two-way bigs in the league. A solid defender in isolation, a good paint bodyguard, and a solid (if not multifaceted) offensive contributor. I get the feeling, though, that his matchups in the 2011 playoffs drastically overrate him both as a defender and as an offensive player. Tim Duncan's bank shot has decreased in accuracy with age, and a lot of Gasol's dap for shutting him down was based solely on the fact that Tim's offense was pretty substandard this year to begin with. Gasol did shut down the paint very well in that series, better than he usually does, but his offense was composed (as usual) with primarily drop downs and pocket passes that worked especially well on the Spurs due to the decreased mobility of our two primary centers. Spurs backup Tiago Splitter did a better job of keeping Gasol in check, when he was playing, and if the Spurs in general had played better overall team defense against the Grizzlies it would've been a lot harder to get Gasol those kinds of shots.

Now, don't get me wrong: Gasol was the 2nd best player on the Grizzlies and incredible in a lot of ways. He shut down the paint rather expertly. But in terms of one-on-one D and offense, last year's playoffs definitely overrate him (as seen in the constant drumbeat of commentators who are now proclaiming that he's better than his brother). While he surely had a better 2011 playoffs than his brother (almost infinitely so), Pau is still the better NBA player and probably will be for at least one or two more years, before Pau begins to fall off from age. No, Pau isn't the shutdown paint guy that Marc is, but he's more mobile, and he does a better job defending big men that can step out and bury long shots like Dirk, Durant, or Brook Lopez. And Pau's offense isn't even in the same realm of comparison -- Pau is arguably the second-best offensive big man in the game, behind only Dirk. Marc is a "set him up, maybe it'll be okay" kind of player. No comparison. You can do a small debate as to whether Marc is more useful than Pau in a general sense, given that the number of paint-patrolling big men of any quality in the league today is one half or one third the number of solid four-men, but that would be a bit ridiculous given the gap between the two players on offense and the relative lack of a gap between their one on one defense if you account for their different skillsets. You can't really make a good argument that Marc is the better Gasol yet. Not yet, anyway.

• • •

[032] Stojakovic, Peja

Peja Stojakovic is notable to young fans for winning a ring with the Mavs last year, but to me, he's most notable as one of the lovable miscreants on the early 2000s contending Sacramento Kings teams. His skills have deteriorated in recent years, and though he's prone to a decent percentage on his threes (he shot 42% on them in 2011), Peja's a rhythm shooter who's prone to games of 3-3 or 6-7 from three on good days and 0-8 or 0-9 on bad days. And his defense? Slow footed and prone to injury, he's never been a good defender, but his defense has atrophied even further in old age, leaving him with net-negative defense. Still, he doesn't turn the ball over and he shoots the three very well even at his advanced age, possibly giving him one more viable year. Just one, though, because while he was marginally useful for the Mavs, the second his shooting stroke leaves him is the second he becomes a 100% useless NBA player. Most likely, the burn he gets from here on forward is going to be based on totally unreasonable expectations of his play. Unfortunate for Peja fans.

    Player           Age  Tm   MVP Pts   MP     PTS    TRB    AST   WS/48
1   Kevin Garnett    27   MIN  1219.0    39.4   24.2   13.9   5.0   0.272
2   Tim Duncan       27   SAS   716.0    36.6   22.3   12.4   3.1   0.249
3   Jermaine O'Neal  25   IND   523.0    35.7   20.1   10.0   2.1   0.155
4   Peja Stojakovic  26   SAC   281.0    40.3   24.2    6.3   2.1   0.198
5   Kobe Bryant      25   LAL   212.0    37.6   24.0    5.5   5.1   0.210
6   Shaquille O'Neal 31   LAL   178.0    36.8   21.5   11.5   2.9   0.192
7   Ben Wallace      29   DET    24.0    37.7    9.5   12.4   1.7   0.160
8   Jason Kidd       30   NJN    17.0    36.6   15.5    6.4   9.2   0.141
9   LeBron James     19   CLE    11.0    39.5   20.9    5.5   5.9   0.078

The most notable thing about Peja to me has always been his lofty place in the 2004 MVP vote, where he placed a strong fourth. Ahead of both Kobe and Shaq. In a year where the Lakers would make the finals. Really, the whole MVP vote that year was amazing. Look at this table. Jermaine O'Neal placing above Shaq, despite shooting at Brandon Jennings levels for a big man and contributing little defensively? LeBron James actually getting MVP dap his rookie year? Peja Stojakovic suddenly being considered an MVP-level player despite his complete lack of defensive ability and his stats being inflated by his minutes total? Ben Wallace getting votes for the actual MVP but somehow being left off finals MVP ballots when his team WON THE FINALS? No, it's clear to me. The 2004 MVP vote, despite Garnett correctly winning it and Duncan correctly placing second, may be the most hilarious MVP vote beyond the top two of all time. And before I get angry letters from Kings fans: yes, I know Webber was out most of the year, and Peja was their only star. But they were a weak western four-seed, guys. He got more votes than Kobe or Shaq. I mean, come on. Really, guys?

• • •

As is obvious, I'm still going to be doing the player capsules despite the fact that there will be a season. Most likely, I'll stretch it into the season. I still should be done by All-Star weekend. Given that we're starting to get into the 30s, I'll create a better index for these capsules soon -- probably a sortable team-by-team index, so you can keep track of who I've done off your favorite team. We'll see. Have a good Sunday, everyone. See you tomorrow.

Goodbye, lockout. Go ahead and leave us alone forever now. And go ahead and let the door hit you on the way out. Last night, not 30 minutes after I went to sleep, both sides came to an agreement and signed off on a settlement to end the litigation, complete the lockout, and bring us a season starting on December 25th. Dave Checketts' heart is smiling. Now, us here at the Gothic have been making the best of the lockout (see: our Lockout Coverage tag) and we'd like to think we did a good job of covering it. But let's not beat around the bush. Nobody seriously wants to cover the lockout for a year, and nobody seriously wants to read about the lockout for a year. That would've been awful.

Thank God it's over, and thank God that arena workers can at least get 33 games of guaranteed income starting in 30 days. And that the bars and eateries suffering from the lockout can get the patronage they need starting on Christmas Day, if they can just survive until then. In all the player/owner love, very few people have been mentioning them -- and that's a shame, because it's THESE people that we should be giving our love to right now. They're the ones who have done the majority of the suffering. And they're the ones who I'm most glad will reap the benefits. Regardless. The NBA hasn't released the full deal yet, but by tilling through a variety of sources, we can pull together just enough information to start commenting on the deal in hand. Once we get a full reveal of the new CBA, I'll do a long analysis of that working off my last analysis. But until then? Scraps will do. Click the jump as I examine these scraps and muse on their importance.

• • •

First, some nuggets from Chris Sheridan.

On the financial split, the players will receive between 49 and 51 percent of revenues, depending on annual growth. The players had complained prior to Saturday that the owners’ previous offer effectively limited them to 50.2 percent of revenues, but the source said 51 percent was now reasonably achievable with robust growth.

Well, that's a good thing. The band as it was previously designed made it virtually impossible for the players to drop below 49.7 or go above 50.3. So, a more honest BRI band that actually gives the players a fighting chance at 51 is a good "hey, we were offering you crap before, let's make that less awful" concession.

Owners dropped their insistence on what would have been known as the Carmelo Anthony rule, preventing teams from executing extend-and-trade deals similar to the one that sent Anthony from the Denver Nuggets to the New York Knicks last season.

It will forever mystify me that this became a big deal. The owners had already enacted a 3 year delay rule that ensured this wouldn't come into play until halfway into the new CBA. Sure, it's an annoying little rule, but it comes into play barely at all. Not nearly enough for either side to attach that much value to it. This should ensure that future players get the same levity afforded Melo, LeBron, and Bosh when they signed their extend-and-trades. Rather straightforward, and one of the few things here that is specifically written with top tier free agents in mind.

A new $2.5 million exception will be available to teams that go below the salary cap, then use all of their cap room to sign free agents. Once they are back above the cap, they will be able to use the new exception instead of being limited to filling out their rosters with players on minimum contracts.

Assuming we're taking the previously discussed CBA as a baseline, this was part of that CBA and will most likely be set up the same way. I won't rehash why it's a good thing here -- just see my bit in my CBA analysis on exceptions and take a gander at everything I said about the "room" midlevel. Then apply it to this. Good for the players that they kept this.

The rookie salary scale and veteran minimum salaries will stay the same as they were last season. Owners had been seeking 12 percent cuts.

I honestly have no idea how this is going to work. The cuts weren't strictly cuts, they were simply re-scaling those respective salary scales to fit the decrease in player BRI. I suppose if they aren't doing this, they'll simply not state the amount to which they're re-scaling all the salary scales. Which, all things considered, might be a good thing. They didn't really need to state it outright, I think we all get that it's happening. Still, this strikes me as a "maybe if we don't state it outright they won't realize that the exact same thing is happening" kind of thing that is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst trickery. Few people are going to call them on it, but this actually does bug me a bit.

Teams above the salary cap will be able to offer four-year mid-level exception contracts to free agents each season. ... from NBA.com: The mid-level exception for non-taxpaying teams will have a maximum length of four years every season (instead of alternating at four years, then three years). Starting salary can be as much as $5 million.

They bent on the number of years, which means less player movement due to contracts running down. If you add in the nuggets we've gotten from NBA.com, a clearer picture emerges -- if I'm reading everything right, they've extended it so that the non-taxpayer MLE doesn't simply apply to under-cap teams, it also applies to teams operating in the sweet spot of right at the cap to the first dollar of tax. Which is, you know, where teams actually want to be. So it's a good compromise in the sense that the previous MLE suggested didn't actually make all that much sense. Combine the higher minimum salary provision with the fact that teams over the cap couldn't use it and you had a recipe for an MLE that would virtually never be able to be used. This way? Will be used about as much as ever. And that's a good thing.

Other compromises were believed to have been reached on the “repeater” luxury tax penalties to be paid by teams exceeding the tax threshold in four of any five seasons. Among the “B-list” issues are the age limit for entry to the draft (possibly upping to 20 years and two years out of high school), drug testing modifications, discipline and D League assignments. Both sides will have a 6 year opt-out.

Oh, christ. I really hope the age limit increase doesn't go through (for reasons I will be writing a column on at some point in the next few weeks), but the drug testing/D-League stuff should be interesting. The repeater stuff still thoroughly befuddles me. It was only going to be in effect for two years in the duration of this CBA, and was nowhere near a finalized thing that couldn't be removed in the next CBA. If the players extract concessions on the repeater tax only to have the league move up the tax's implementation schedule, it won't really do a thing for the players. Still. If it's a concession they want, and it'll get the deal done? I'm glad they got it.

EDIT: New from Zach Lowe after this piece dropped, a lot more information about the MLE compromise. Seriously. There's a lot in there, and I think you should probably just read it. Cliffs notes, though: the new MLE can be used so long as using it doesn't take you $4 million over the tax line, but if it does take you there, you can only use bird rights to get up to that particular line. That is, if you're two million under the tax line, then you use the MLE to sign a $4.5 million player, you'll be $2.5 million over the tax line. That means that any bird right signings you do can only be for $2.5 million dollars a year, maximum. That's a pretty good concession for the players, as that's system-positive for them even relative to the last player-positive CBA. So, good call on Zach for figuring that out and getting his sources straight. A lot easier to see why the players took the token concessions on other issues for a legitimate improvement of the system relative to the last CBA where the midlevel is concerned.

• • •

Overall? These are concessions the owners should've offered weeks ago. Don't let the lockout euphoria let you forget that. Just about every one of these concessions is incredibly minor, with the exception of the BRI band. Which isn't even a concession so much as it is making their previously intellectually dishonest BRI split into an actual band. Some of these, like the repeater tax concessions, may end up being a net positive for the owners if the players allow them to move up the implementation schedule, something I see as quite possible. When the final gravestone is laid upon this lockout, it's the owners who should be notably blamed for making this last forever. It's the owners who have the egg on their face for making this last so goddamn long after they'd already extracted ridiculous concessions from the players.

Just remember that. If anyone was flying too close to the sun, it was the owners. You know. If you want to recast Icarus as a greedy monopolist trying to bleed his employees dry. Which would, admittedly, be a really really weird recasting of a Grecian myth. Then again. This lockout WAS really, really weird. So I guess it fits. When we get more information about the new CBA, we'll be sure to get you detailed analysis. Until then? Rejoice, NBA fans. Season starts in less than a month. Get ready for some awesome content from your friends here at the Gothic Ginobili. Because personally? We can't wait.

So, the NBA usually puts really crummy games on at Thanksgiving. Like, incredibly crummy. If you've been watching the NBA in the past decade, you know the score. This year, when we were all naive young souls who didn't know our season would be cancelled, the lineup was (I kid you not) the Hawks hosting the 76ers and the Clippers hosting the Hornets. Which may be bad, but they aren't any worse than previous years. In fact, they may be marginally better. The NBA only officially began the trend of nationally televised late games on Thanksgiving in 2009, but they still scheduled Thanksgiving games before. So let's take a look back at the last decade's NBA on Thanksgiving, because I'm still waiting for dinner and have little better to do.

• • •

• 2010: ATL 116 v WAS 96 & LAC 100 v SAC 82
  I remember this slate, mainly because I actually watched it. Before these games were nationally televised I had little to no means to actually watch them, so I'd just read about them in the paper the next day. I distinctly remember being marginally impressed with Josh Smith, but being far more impressed with the mushroom ravioli my girlfriend's father had made from scratch. Blake was good in the nightcap, though I thought Gordon was better.

• 2009: ORL 93 v ATL 76 & UTA 105 v CHI 86
  So THIS is why the Bulls signed Boozer to that insane contract! He went dynamo on the Bulls on Thanksgiving night, putting up 28-8-5 with a steal and three blocks on 85% shooting in 35 minutes of work. Glad we finally got to the bottom of that. Otherwise, an extremely boring night, with an average margin of victory of +18 points. No transcendent performances to speak of.

• 2008: ORL 105 v WAS 90 & NOH 104, DEN 101
  Holy shit! It's a game that was actually worth watching! Am I seeing things? The Hornets were fresh off nearly making the WCF in 2008, and the Nuggets would make the WCF that season. Chauncey Billups was still adjusting to his teammates, and shot a hilariously bad 33% on the night. Hilton Armstrong started at center for the shorthanded Hornets, J.R. Smith dropped 32, and the game was tied with 25 seconds to go before Posey dropped a three-bomb on J.R. Smith's face. The Nuggets missed a chance to tie it, had to force free throws, and nearly shocked them when Smith made a swag three with four seconds to go, but the Hornets made their free throws to close the night out. Looks like the kind of fun unexpected regular season close one that I WISH I WAS WATCHING RIGHT NOW. In other news: the 2009 Wizards blew, and the Magic made the finals that year.

• 2007: No games scheduled.
  Whoa, whoops! I had forgotten about the legendary 2007 Thanksgiving player strike, where the NBPA boycott Thanksgiving games in order to protest the draconian "everyone must wear turkey suits" dress code instituted by David $tern for that year's Thanksgiving slate. Instead, they all played NBA 2k12 and wondered how the hell LeBron, Wade, and Bosh had ended up on the same team. Also: they all wondered how they'd somehow gotten copies of a game that wasn't to be released for four more years. Then they realized that seeing too much of their own future could create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe. Then Barkley did a Chaos Dunk, and everyone stopped worrying about it and ended the strike.

• 2006: WEST SIDE STORY 112 v MACBETH 140
  This year, $tern decided to treat the players to a Thanksgiving off. In so doing, he decided that the 2006 Thanksgiving slate would be played by two troupes of actors currently starring in competing plays in the San Fernando valley. They had to hoop it up in full costume, leading to some awkward moments where the Macbeth Players tripped on their robes while trying to run the fast break. Despite lacking any competent defensive talent on either team, the players scrapped it out on offense. The Macbeth crew pulled it out behind a magical night from their star, scoring 67 on a wide array of trick shots, swag threes, and generally balled all over everyone's face. It was fantastic. Upon completion of the game and an awarding of the complimentary bathrobe stamped with David Stern's face, Macbeth gave a celebratory speech only to be tragically cut short by the reanimated corpse of Emperor Norton shooting him and accusing Stern of regicide. He then broke up the crowd with an ill-conceived duel with Stern's handlers. Entertaining, but Norton's corpse was never heard from again.

• 2005: __DET 235 v AIR BUD'S PICKUP TEAM 25__
  Wow, uh... that turned into sort of a slaughter. A mercy rule game if there ever was one. At least it answered the age-old question as to whether Air Bud was really a good player. Disastrous 1-26 shooting night from the old pup, along with 23 turnovers (an NBA record) despite fouling out with only 20 minutes to his name. And thus was Air Bud revealed to be, as the folks at I Go Hard Now once surmised, little more than a ballhogging chucker that simply couldn't make it in the big leagues. I don't know why Stern had them do this game. A cruel matchup, at best.

As one of our mainstay features, Aaron is writing posts highlighting every single player in the NBA. Role players, superstars, key cogs, or players who are barely as useful as ballboys -- none are exempt from the prying eyes of our readers. Check the index for a lowdown on order, intent, and all that jazz. Today's trio includes Elliot Williams, Delonte West, and Ben Wallace.

• • •

[027] Williams, Elliot

Elliot is the first Duke player on this list I actually went to school with, though calling him a Duke player is slightly disingenuous. He transferred to Memphis for his sophomore year, so he was drafted as a Memphis player rather than a Duke player. It's become almost a little-known fact he went to Duke, which suits me fine, since I'm guessing fewer people will judge him before they see him if they think he's a Memphis player rather than a Duke player. Nonetheless. Back when he was at Duke, he was a pretty stand-up guy. Very laid back, very down to earth, very quiet. I don't know if he's still dating the girl he was my freshman year, but seemingly everyone in my dorm was obsessed with how cute they were together and how nice they were with each other. Doubt he's still dating her, but a man who treats women right is always a plus in my book.

From the basketball side of the universe? I thought this was a pretty nice pickup for the Blazers. He hasn't played a single minute in the NBA yet, as he blew up his leg last year. Out of the 2009 Duke team, though? Elliot and Henderson are easily the two most NBA-quality players from that lineup. Elliot was a tenacious defender at Duke, and his shooting was reasonably solid. I didn't get to watch him much at Memphis, but in the games I saw? NBA-quality shooting, decent speed, and NBA athleticism. Penetrates like a pro (stop thinking dirty thoughts), slashes amazingly, etc. With the defensive talent he showed at Duke combined with his shooting talent and general work ethic, I think he's going to be a great NBA prospect if he puts everything together. And he's a nice guy. So, overall? I really hope he succeeds in the NBA. Go Elliot.

• • •

[028] West, Delonte

My favorite player I've examined yet, without question. Look, he's bit of a redneck-type. To put it lightly. He's among the strongest "southern white" type of guy in the NBA, even moreso than Jason Kidd. He's suffered from bipolar disorder for the majority of his life, with a nasty side of depression (something I understand and sympathize with via depression of my own). When he's on your team, his mental state has slowly left him to the point where you can't count on him. He plays like, well, someone who's bipolar could be expected to play. Some days he's there, some days he's not. Honestly, though? Despite his lows, I love the guy. He's hilarious, his game is nasty, and he's got serious gravitas. When his head's on straight he's absolutely the most tenacious guard defender in the league -- up in your grill, won't let you take a shot without his contest. Strong three point range, crazy hustle. Prone to turnovers if you force him to over-handle the ball, but if you utilize him correctly (i.e., not as the primary ball handler, as the Celtics often have him when he comes off the bench) he's the perfect complementary two guard on a contender. That is, when his head's on straight. When it isn't? Different story. He's passive, poor on the defensive end (he's undersized, so unless he's completely mentally dialed in, players can outmuscle him -- he is not a player who can get by on cruise control), and guns poor long twos that you know full well aren't going in. He can't defend anyone halfway passably when his mind isn't dead set on the court. Which is an incredible shame.

Does that all make him frustrating? Very. In that sense, he's like J.R. Smith. Never really know what you're going to get. Whether it'll be the good Delonte or the bad Delonte. Unlike J.R., though, his good includes great defense and doesn't include an overinflated sense of self. And comedy. Well, J.R. brings that too, but it's not as stirring. His style of play is of the hard-nosed sort, the kind of play rooted not in finesse or technique but in the immutable spirit and vigor of a guy who won't back down. It's almost like, when he's having his good days, he lays his mental health issues and the hardships of his upbringing out on the court. As the player he's guarding, of course. Because he gets chippy, he gets angry, and he sticks to them like their attempts to make a shot on him are a personal affront to his existential soul. And as someone who's battled with issues of my own, I appreciate that mindset. While I was going through my "use the NBA to escape from my head" phase of my life, the inflexible grit and anger in Delonte's defensive game (fairly or not) reminded me of my own daily struggles and my angry attempts to force myself out of it. And it made him that much more dear to me.

I have to add -- big ups to the Cavaliers for everything they (reportedly) did in the 2010 season to try and accomodate Delonte's illness. That was a completely underreported story, to me. For about half the season, I was reading stories about how they didn't make Delonte travel with the team, didn't require practice for him, etc. They still allowed him to go to home games and play when his head was on straight. I've been told (not confirmed, but I've been told) the Cavs provided him a team psychiatrist specially suited to work with his case (a service I'm positive not every team offers) and made sure Delonte was about as comfortable as a man can be after going through a heart wrenching destructive breakup of the type he suffered and his general meltdown from his legal troubles and his bipolar disorder. And then, all that said, big downs for whoever the fuck in the Cavs organization started the pathetic rumor that Delonte was doinking LeBron's mom. There's evidence from some sources (namely Scott Raab, someone who I'd expect to get some sort of sick fetishized glee at the rumor and wouldn't want to disprove it so quickly) that whoever "leaked" the rumor originally was a member of LeBron's team, attempting to pre-empt the incoming wave of "dear god, what happened to LeBron" coverage. I didn't believe Raab, at first, but after the "Rashard Lewis is having an affair with LeBron's girlfriend" rumors leaked by "anonymous sources" close to the situation in the finals this year, I'm a bit more inclined to think Raab may have a lead. LeBron has never surrounded himself with the best people, and Delonte's visceral annoyance with the rumor makes me hesitant to believe it all.

In the end? I love Delonte. And I really, really hope he gets his head straight. One of my favorite NBA players.

• • •

[029] Wallace, Ben

This is easily the most liked-by-me triad of players in the 10 posts I've gotten through in this series. Elliot from being in school with him, Delonte from being my depression-fighting muse, and Big Ben for being... well, Big Ben. You may have noticed I'm irrationally up on some players. Big Ben is one of those. He's scary, ripped, and ballin'. I'm of the opinion he should've gotten the finals MVP in 2004. He didn't exactly shut down Shaq, but he completely gummed up the Lakers' offense and kept Shaq from being a defensive force in the paint by making his offensive goal to keep Shaq from shutting down the Pistons guards. One of the all-time underrated Finals performances, and in my view, quite a bit more valuable than Chauncey was then. Regardless. Ben has been underrated for most of the last decade, primarily because he spent that decade locked in a cell with his "never-make-a-shot" offensive stylings. He's been among the best big man defenders in the league since the turn of the century, and he's been one of the most impact-heavy paint patrollers in that duration as well. If you were a guard, and you saw Big Ben was going to be facing you in the paint, you'd have some second thoughts about making a foray down there. To put it lightly.

He's an absolutely vicious rebounder. Shuts down the paint, and any player he wants to. His offense isn't underrated (it's properly rated as "god awful and cringe inducing"), but with a player he has chemistry with, you can occasionally set him up with a basket or two. I'm of the view that Wallace is the main agent responsible for the Pistons' early decade success, and that the Pistons trading him away is the main reason the Cavs were able to beat them in 2007. Under his tenure, though, the Pistons had a hell of a lot of success -- the Pistons were the Eastern dynasty of the 2000s, rather underratedly. Under Ben's tenure they made the conference finals from 2003 to 2006, won a ring over a stacked (though flawed) Laker team, and were without question the class of the eastern conference. Funny thing about Wallace? First big contract wasn't with the Pistons, the team he came to define -- it was with the Bulls, where he proceeded to drastically underperform expectations due to the strange insistance the Bulls had with trying him to provide offense. Doomed to fail, no matter how much money you give him. His 2009, though? Traded to the Cavs, and tore the world asunder. At least until his injury. Ben was lights out for the Cavs early in the year, and was essentially the perfect roleplayer. I'm of the opinion, and have been for quite some time, that his injury was stealthily the most important reason the Cavs didn't make the finals that year. Sure, we had a zombie Wallace playing in the conference finals, but the Wallace the team had for the first few months of the season pre-injury was the same havoc-wrecking terror that haunts all the slashing guards in the league every night.

A healthy Wallace could've slowed Dwight down, even if he was too old to truly shut him down. But in the series, Wallace was absolutely awful when he played -- he was hobbling on both ends, a liability even on defense, and easy for any of the Magic's players to take advantage of. He wasn't the Wallace that we'd had during our amazing season. Which was a damn shame. We then traded him for Shaq, proceeding to get his contract waived by Phoenix so he could resign in Detroit. Which was absolutely the right move for him -- Big Ben should retire a Piston, and I'm glad he gets to do that. Wasn't expected to be a big difference-maker, but he's actually been rather successful. Easily their best and most consistent player over the last two seasons, only falling off from that role as Greg Monroe rose from the ashes of the 2011 Detroit Pistons season. It's really great that they've got him as a locker room presence, I think -- if Monroe can learn some of Ben's tricks, the Pistons are basically set. They'll rise again. Monroe's too good for them not to. Now, a fun Ben Wallace fact: did you know he literally wants to be a lawyer after he leaves the league? He plans to use the money from his latest contract to go to law school and become a Detroit area lawyer. Really, this is a thing. And it's amazing. It honestly makes me want to go to Detroit and get accused of a crime, solely so I can get represented in court by Ben Wallace. I heard his defense is impeccable.

Ed. note: That may be the worst joke I've ever told. Kill me now.

• • •

Thanksgiving's tomorrow! I will be celebrating by eating food, rooting for the Lions for no reason whatsoever, and probably editing more of these to post tomorrow night. No real content schedule right now, just going on the fly. Still. Keep it real, folksom. Here's hoping you have more to be thankful for than the average NBA fan does.

The Two Towers and the Terrible Text

A story told by Tim Duncan (to Richard Jefferson)

Richard Jefferson: Hey, it's Tim Duncan! *Richard walks up behind him* Hey, Timbo Slice, my man!

Startled beyond reason, Tim Duncan drops his mango lassi.

Richard Jefferson: Uh... what the hell was that, Tim, are you alright?

Tim Duncan: I'm alright, Richard, but I was doing much better before you made me drop my mango lassi.

Richard Jefferson: I'm sorry about that. But why were you so startled you dropped it?

Tim Duncan: It's... it's a long story. I'm very rattled right now.

Richard Jefferson: Come on. I'll get you another, and you can tell me. You can talk to me, Tim.

Tim Duncan: Thanks, Richard.

• • •

They return to Tim's table, with fresh Lassi. Tim speaks.

Tim Duncan: So, Richard, have you ever known what it's like to be a good buddy?

Richard Jefferson: Yes.

Tim Duncan: Good. So I don't need to explain the simple intrinsic facts of human contact to you. That's good, this won't be like me talking with you about anything related to the game of basketball. We've got common ground here, as human beings. Have you ever met David Robinson?

Richard Jefferson: Uh... yeah, once, I think.

Tim Duncan: Good. When he wasn't blocking your shots at the rim to prevent you from ever achieving personal fulfillment, he and I were very good friends. And remain, to this day, good buddies. We try to talk on a bi-monthly basis, though I tend to talk about NBA 2k12 and D&D while he talks of church and charity. We have common ground on both subjects, but both of us tend to focus on different things. Do you have a friend like this, Richard?

Richard Jefferson: Yeah, Luke! Luke Walton. I focus on roller blades, he focuses on aviator glasses. We have... uh, what you said, you know. "Common ground on both subjects." But we've got, like, different stuff in our heads that lead us to emphasize one over the other.

Tim Duncan: It's good to have principles.

Richard Jefferson: Uh... yeah.

Tim Duncan: Good. So, neither me nor David are very big on this "texting" business. Me, I think it's sort of silly. Most of the things conveyed through text messages could more easily be conveyed through a short, 1 or 2 minute phone conversation. Talking with people is refreshing, whereas texts are aggravatingly short and whose meanings can be entirely misconstrued. You probably like texting, as you're from the younger breed, but I simply do not understand it.

Richard Jefferson: Tim, you're like... four years older than me.

Tim Duncan: Well, you know what Mark Twain always said.

Richard Jefferson: ... Nothing with any relevance to this situa --

Tim Duncan: Regardless. David Robinson IS an old man relative to me, so my point is still relevant to me. David Robinson doesn't usually like texting either. He's big on the so-called "chatty cathy" five minute phone call when a text message would've done fine. So, imagine my surprise when I received the following message from David a few nights back between the hours of eight and nine, PM.

Call when you are able. Cell only, tell Valerie nothing. ~ !! Corinthians 1:4-5 !! ~

Richard Jefferson: Uh... wow, that sounds kind of concerning. Why did he take the time to add a bible verse to the end, Tim?

Tim Duncan: Even though he never texts anyone, David sets a new bible verse as his "text signature" every day. I don't know how someone as tech-mystified as David actually figured out how to do that, but when David wants to do something for Jesus, he... how would you say it...

Richard Jefferson: He goes H.A.M.

Tim Duncan: ... yes, Richard, he goes H.A.M. Regardless. I was really, really worried! I called him, I texted him back, I pinged him on IRC... I did everything but call Valerie, given that he had explicitly ordered me not to do that. He'd never given me any directive like that before, so I felt like I had to honor it. My nerves were wracked, and he had clearly turned his phone off upon sending it. I was frantic, to say the least. So, I decided to do something drastic.

Richard Jefferson: What?

Tim Duncan: I decided I would run to his house, but sneak in such that Valerie was not alerted to my presence. It was an operation that was going to take every bit of my wit, guile, and intellect. I told Amy I needed to go out to serve as an emergency Dungeon Master for my friend Charles' weekly D&D game. She was dismissive of my concerns, but gave me the car keys anyway. I hoofed it to the local costume shop, where I bought their largest set of wizard robes, along with an Obama mask. I then went to a local Indian restaurant I very much enjoy and got a mango lassi to go, because I felt such an ambitious plan demanded it. I pulled up to the Robinson household at about ten past ten, and began to put my plan into motion. I put on my disguise, and snuck into a treehouse in his neighbor's yard. I then picked up my phone. It was time to call Dominoes.

Richard Jefferson: Wait, wouldn't ordering a pizza give you away?

Tim Duncan: *sigh* Richard, you have no imagination. I wasn't ordering the pizza for me. I was ordering it it for_ Mrs. Robinson_. Both as a distraction to allow me easy entry into their house, and as a karmic blessing to ensure I wouldn't harm my good standing with the fates too much by perpetrating this heinous, unjustified break-in. Anyway. I waited in the tree-house for a while, stirring when my blackberry told me that pizza artist Geraldo had finished my pizza, and that pizza delivery boy Waldorf was on his way to deliver it. I took out the grappling hook I'd carefully constructed using children's toys and a strong bit of rope, and prepared to rappel my way into the household.

Richard Jefferson: Wow, really?

Tim Duncan: Heh, no. Then I would clearly be breaking and entering, Richard, and that's definitely illegal. No, I simply exited the treehouse, hid behind a bush in their back yard, and got out the key to the house David had trusted me with long ago, for use only in emergencies and potlucks. I heard the car stop out front, approached the door, and entered as soon as I heard the tell-tale doorbell. I snuck into the den, where David's schedule-book sat in wait. I opened to today, hoping to find a clue as to where he was. Nothing. The day was blank, with the exception of his customary 8:00 AM attendance to daily services. Cursing my luck, I shuffled the papers on his desk looking for a sign. Then, out of a bundle of unfinished letters to charities, an itinerary dropped. Reading it quickly, I realized my error -- David wasn't in San Antonio at all, he was in Washington D.C.! I took a picture of the hotel's phone number with my blackberry, and after rearranging the desk, I snuck out of the house. I got in my car just as the Dominos deliveryman was leaving. My plan had worked to perfection, but I hadn't actually learned anything, and I felt pretty bad about breaking into David's house.

Richard Jefferson: Wait, were you still dressed as a wizard with an Obama mask?

Tim Duncan: Yes. Anyway. I called the hotel he was staying at, hoping they'd patch me through to his room and I could figure out what the hell was going on here. After the old run-around with the concierge, they finally patched me through to David. The phone rang a few times, before I heard a tired yet familiar voice on the other end.

"Hello? God?"

"No, David. It's me, Tim."

"Oh! Um, hi, Tim. Why are you calling so late? It's midnight, you're usually asleep right now."

"Different time zones. What's wrong, David? I got your text. Were you... kid-napped?"

"Oh, no! Uh, I have no idea why you'd think I was, but I am just fine."

"Uh... then what was that text about?"

"Hah! Oh, Tim. You always were a worrier. That text had nothing to do with a kidnapping! Or... anything even remotely resembling one, honestly. I was just texting you because I was really excited. Valerie was voted all-state Best Potluck Contributor from the local church's potlucks! I nominated her several months ago. She mocked me for it, but clearly it was the right call. The pastor and I know good potluck when we see it! Anyway, I wanted to tell you, because I wanted to make sure you came to the banquet in a few months, because you are a cherished family friend. I also wanted to make sure that even if you heard it through another source, you absolutely don't tell Valerie. It has to be a surprise. Her face when they announce the winner is going to be crucial. Anyway. Uh... sorry for worrying you, you shouldn't read so much into text messages. Also, you sound really hyper. Have you been drinking mango lassi again?"

"..."

"... Tim?"

"I... congratulations to Valerie. Amy and I will definitely be at the banquet. I, uh. Sorry for waking you up, David. I... yes, I have been drinking lassi. I... goodbye."

"Okay, Tim. Have a good evening, and fly with God."

"... Same to you."

Roughly one minute and forty six seconds of absolute silence.

Richard Jefferson: ... Tim, how did you remember that whole conversation?

Tim Duncan: When David Robinson tells you something, you best not forget it.

Richard Jefferson: So, wait. That was it?

Tim Duncan: Yes.

And that was it.

As one of our mainstay features, Aaron is writing posts highlighting every single player in the NBA. Role players, superstars, key cogs, or players who are barely as useful as ballboys -- none are exempt from the prying eyes of our readers. Check the index for a lowdown on order, intent, and all that jazz. Today's trio includes Ronny Turiaf, Trevor Booker, and Pooh Jeter.

• • •

[024] Turiaf, Ronny

Ronny Turiaf is pretty awesome. For a shiftless, wandering hobo of a player whose career season thus far has been averaging 7 points and 4 rebounds as a nonessential bit player for the 2008 Lakers, Turiaf can say one thing. He's memorable. From his generally solid one-on-one defensive presence to the greatest reactions in all of basketball (see: examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), Turiaf is the kind of player everyone wants to have on their team. He's even got a really poignant story, having battled through heart problems and undergoing open heart surgery just to enter the league. Also? He's literally obsessed with anime. Which is rather rare for an NBA player, but then again, so is Turiaf. About as rare as you can get.

In terms of tangible value as a basketball player? Limited, but interesting. Turiaf's offense is extremely poor, based solely on being set up for dunks. But his defense? Fun to watch, and effective. He sets legal screens stronger than virtually anyone in the league, and has a far better sense of the floor on defense than anyone else currently on the Knicks roster. Extreme hustle guy, though he's not a lockdown rebounder (like many hustle guys). He's not a great shut-down-the-paint kind of player, but in terms of rotations he really makes the Knicks tick. When he's on the floor and healthy (admittedly an uncommon thing, with him) the Knicks are a halfway competent defensive team. Not a joke. Unfortunately for the Knicks, Turiaf gets injured a lot, and they don't really have the depth behind him to make up for it. Realistically, in whatever new CBA we get from the lockout, Turiaf is going to be a really important player for the Knicks. They need him to be healthy if they ever want the defense needed to make a serious championship run, because they're never really going to have the money to chase any other big guy that changes the scheme of their defense like Turiaf does. Perhaps they can just hire Phoenix's training staff. Then Turiaf will never, ever get injured. Anyway. Love Turiaf. Only former Laker I can say I love.

Great guy, decent player, fun to watch. What's not to like?

• • •

[025] Booker, Trevor

So, Trevor Booker. He was recently named one of the 25 best players ever to attend Clemson College. Which sounds good, until you realize Horace Grant, Tree Rollins, and Larry Nance are the top three. Which isn't exactly amazing company. Still, his name is one that NBA buffs would do well to remember. He's not going to be a star, but I'd say he was one of the 10 most effective rookies from the 2011 class, and he's got a fair amount of potential to be one of the elusive "glue guys" on a future champion, someday. He plays a confused position -- his size has him regrettably playing at a defensive disadvantage whenever he matches up at power forward or small forward, being too big to tamp down wings and too small to tamp down forwards. He puts in the good college try, though, and for my money was one of the hardest defenders on the Wizards last year. Not a great defender, for sure, but he played hardest on that end of anyone on the team outside of Hinrich. He was also for my money the only player on the 2011 Washington Wizards that knew how to set a proper screen. Skills!

On offense? Not a wing skillset befitting his wing size (he's 6'8" and 240 lbs), but a surprisingly effective post game. He's got a very good hook shot, and in general, he's relatively excellent at juking his man out and getting his when you feed him in the post. He shot 70% at the rim this season, and while that's partly an artifact of his low usage and his poor competition faced due to the fact that he only played 16 minutes per game (yet another casualty of Andray Blatche's game), it is reflective of the eye test -- solid post moves, and you get the sense he could be a real offensive weapon if used correctly. Overall? Probably needs to develop a jumper, but Booker is a solid rebounder for his size with a distinct talent for scoring if you dump to him down low. I don't know what his ceiling is -- an effective version of Sheldon Williams, perhaps -- but he was a relatively impressive rook given his low expectations and I'm expecting he takes a jump next season. Seems like a good guy, too. Trevor Booker's favorite Christmas gift ever? A big wheel. Who can hate someone who loves big wheels? If you remember one arbitrary fact about Trevor Booker, make it this one.

EDIT: A few additions, gleaned from a chance twitter mention from the great Adam McGinnis of Truth About It (for my money one of the best team blogs in the biz). I didn't know this , but Trevor Booker's main nickname is "Cook Book", coming from a monster game he had against the Grizzlies around midseason where he dropped a 21-12 night, prompting Cartier Martin to keep yelling at him to "marinate 'em, grill 'em, put 'em in the oven. Cook 'em Book." The nickname stuck. McGinnis himself tends to call him Booker T, which is beyond awesome, and also added that Booker's got monster bounce -- a truth I don't know how I neglected to mention, especially given the picture I chose to use for this one. Still. Along with his post moves, Booker T is definitely a player that can get up with the best of them. Which helps on entertainment value. I really hope he gets more playing time next season, Blatche isn't the future and Leonsis needs to stop thinking he ever will be.

• • •

[026] Jeter, Pooh

When I was one, I had just begun.
When I was two, I was nearly new.
When I was three, I was hardly me.
When I was four, I was not much more.
When I was five, I was just alive.
But now I am six, I'm as clever as clever.
So I think I'll be six now and forever.

-- A.A. Milne, Now I Am Six

Pooh Jeter was a member of the Cavs' summer league team back in 2010, a summer where my research assistant job gave me enough time to watch most of their summer league games. I remember him being really impressive, at least against lesser competition, and I really wanted us to sign him. We didn't, which was sad, but the Kings did and he fulfilled his dream of becoming an actual honest-to-god NBA player. I saw a few of his Kings games. Really, he wasn't bad -- for a third string guard, he was very solid. Despite his diminutive size he had some limited success on defense against larger points, and his lightning speed makes him valuable solely for his change-of-pace potential. He's a baller. And while his height makes him barely an NBA player, I have no doubt whatsoever that had fate intervened to give him an extra 3-4 inches and make him actual NBA size, he'd be a lifer in the league. May still be a lifer, due to his knock-em-out work ethic and his amazing name.

Alright, that's sort of rude. I'm not implying that his name is the reason he'll stick in this league. The real reason he'll stick in the league is because he's simply a good player, an Earl Boykins type who will refuse to back down and will continue to chomp at the bit for a role in the league as long as there's one for him to take. But let's take a minute to talk about his name, which is one of my favorites. One of the best names in the league. Eugene Jeter III (THERE WERE TWO EUGENE JETERS BEFORE HIM) is already a pretty awesome name, but it's the "Pooh" that really takes it over the top. Like, really... how the hell did he get that nickname? How does a baller like him take it in stride that his nickname comes from the same person who wrote the poem I started this capsule with? And what's more, what's up with the last name? Is he Derek Jeter's long lost lovechild? DOES HE HAVE A BROTHER... named Piglet?

All these questions and more will be answered on the next episode of "a show that only exists in my mind."

• • •

I liked writing these. Always good to get a light load of players every once in a while to break up the heavies. I know I said I MIGHT get to two capsule posts today, but the Walking Dead is almost on, and I have to go watch. I'm simply addicted to disappointment. After all, how the hell else could I be keeping close tabs on the lockout? Until next time, laddies.