As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. This morning's three: Josh Selby, Ray Allen, and Charles Jenkins.

• • •

Follow Josh Selby on twitter at @JoshSelby2.

I'm not sure what to do about awards voting. Year after year, we get awful votes that make no sense to anyone. In the last three years, we've seen: a rookie starter for a 32 win team get a third place MVP vote, a 35-year-old Ben Wallace get a vote for "Most Improved Player", and David Lee get a vote for All-Defensive first team. I get the fact that there's no way to really "fix" stupid votes. Even if you made voting public, you'd still have a person or two who would vote for something silly just to make the papers. Or people who'd revel in arrogance and refuse to admit they don't watch the games. There could also be an overreaction, a trend towards eliminating reasonable discourse and browbeating every voter into picking the same player -- that would be awful. So, no. I don't really know what to do about awards voting. I do, however, know that it can be hilarious and incomprehensible sometimes. And by sometimes, I mean every year.

Enter Josh Selby. Look. Selby is a summer league star, no doubt about it -- he plays incredibly well when the Vegas and Orlando summer leagues come around, and clearly, whoever voted for him had to have seen him do that. But shouldn't a player's actual NBA resume trump a scrimmage in the preseason? Shouldn't his scant minutes have disqualified him from a top 3 vote for Rookie of the Year? After all -- Selby averaged 2.3 points in just 28 games, playing just 8.5 minutes a contest. He didn't sit out for serious injuries, either. He sat out with DNP-CDs. Selby shot 35% from the field, with a scorching 14% from three to boot. He averaged a single turnover a game to go with his single assist a game. His per-36 averages aren't even that great -- 10-2-4 with 4 turnovers and 3 fouls a night. Regardless. Selby is a rookie, so those averages aren't the end of the world for his future development. They probably SHOULD disqualify him from receiving a high vote for rookie of the year, though.

And that's the problem. I don't understand at all how a voter could look at the slate of rookies we had last year -- on the whole, an excellent slate -- and place a vote for arguably the worst rookie in the league. I realize he had a good summer league, I realize he had outsized expectations as a popular college player, I realize the voter could've been in Memphis. But every time I read a story like this I wonder how it could possibly change. I've yet to come up with a very good way to do it -- perhaps expert shortlisting of a 5-6 player list for each of the big awards, then offering a write-in? Maybe making a rotating list of who actually gets to vote for the awards, with voters culled out if their votes have been laugh-worthy? Or, perhaps, it isn't really that big of a deal. After all, these are a little amusing -- sometimes they almost feel like a chortle-worthy reminder that maybe I'm taking these awards a little too seriously. Really though. Josh Selby?

• • •

Follow Ray Allen on twitter at @greenRAYn20.

Most people are aware of this, but in case you aren't -- Ray Allen suffers from a relatively mild case of obsessive compulsive disorder. This sort of a condition is rather rare in the NBA, and if you've ever known anyone who suffered with the disorder, you probably can gather why. Simply put, people with OCD aren't easy to be friends with. It's not their fault, and honestly, it's far more the job of their friends to try and understand them than it is the responsibility of the sufferer to try and stretch out of their comfort zone. But most people aren't really cool with putting the sort of effort into a friendship that people with OCD usually need to effectively interact, which isolates people with OCD and make them tend towards loneliness. But getting into the NBA requires at some level existing on a team concept, and people with OCD who require that tend to have trouble making the bonds and connections that build a successful team. In the case of Ray, his condition is relatively mild and his talent was overwhelming enough that he never really had to exist on a cohesive team level until the NBA, when he had enough money that he could really set his own tempo. Hence, he made it. One of the few.

This isn't to say that Ray Allen is necessarily an easy presence to have in the locker room, though. He's a man of routine and regularity, which leads to his daily ritual during the season. Allen wakes up at 8:00 AM and eats some regular amount of Aunt Jemima Blueberry Pancakes. He attends the morning shootaround at 10:00 AM to get his blood flowing. He eats lunch -- almost always preparing a turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread. He takes a two hour nap from 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM, following that by the immediate consumption of a pregame meal of chicken and white rice. He arrives at the arena at 4:00 PM, stretching, then shaving his head until exactly 4:30 PM, when he walks on the court for his shooting ritual. Allen shoots 200 shots -- simulating a shot at every area of the court, in a regularized order starting at the baselines and elbows and working to the top of the key -- and on a good day converts about 170. After retreating from the game, he spends exactly 15 minutes with his feet in a tub of ice, and goes to bed at 11:30 PM, every day he's able. Most players have rituals -- few players have rituals that involve pinpoint timing and eating precisely the right meal each and every day.

The condition itself -- and the impact it has on his relationships with his teammates -- has always struck me as interesting. Paul Pierce is on record saying that Allen is "crazy" and thus was responsible for any and all problems in the interactions of the Garnett Celtics. (Interesting tidbit from that article -- Rondo feels he might have OCD as well, and thinks Ray helped him realize it.) There are a myriad of stories of Allen clashing with teammates current and former about his needs -- while Larry Bird once did that whole "I'll score on you with this shot, in this spot" thing, Ray Allen once dropped 40 in a rage because someone parked in his parking space. Back when he was playing ball in elementary school, he had to do five righty layups and five lefty layups before he left any gymnasium. If he got forced out before he finished them, he'd sob in the locker room and his entire day would be irrevocably ruined. He doesn't drink, and asks that teammates abstain during the season -- or, at the very least, not tell him about it. That's Ray Allen for you. A tough guy to play with, even if he's an amazing talent. And don't forget that. While he's nowhere near what he used to be, he WAS a pretty amazing talent. Once Allen reached his prime, he was good for 20-25 points a night, with somewhere around 5 rebounds and 4 assists.

If that seems far better than you remember, you probably just don't realize quite how old he is. Allen is currently one day short of 37 years old (yes, if I'd put off this capsule set until tomorrow, it'd be posting on his birthday) and has played 42,373 NBA minutes -- with 4,964 playoff minutes besides. That's 20th all-time, and he hasn't retired yet. He's been a rather limited player ever since 2009, unfortunately -- age finally caught up with him. But in his prime, Allen was a superstar guard and was just about as good as any of the Wade/Kobe/Manu triad that's ruled the shooting guard position since 2006. The issue here -- and it's actually a serious issue, contrary to what most Heat fans and journalists seem to think -- is what Allen can actually give the Heat at his age. In last year's playoffs, he battled a gradually worsening chronic back injury and shot the worst percentage on threes he's ever shot in a playoff run in his life (30%). If his shot remains shaky and his back problems remain problematic, he may end up being about as useful as Mike Miller was. And yes, I realize Miller essentially won them a game of last year's Finals with a throwback performance. Ray Allen can certainly do that too. But can he help them on a sustained, season-wide basis?

I'm not convinced. I want to see him come back from the injury with his shooting form recuperated and his body able to handle the NBA schedule before I declare the Heat some drastically upgraded roster. My fear with Allen is that the Heat are giving up one of their few financial means to add a piece on a player with a big name whose game may be permanently gone. Because honestly -- the Heat are asking for two bounce-back, injury-free seasons from a 37-year-old player who's played over 47,000 stressful NBA minutes in his career. Who just had a terrible season defensively and who needs the entire team's schedule to work around his. Just saying. Was it a great signing in a vacuum? Sure. Will it translate to instant titles and an incredible upgrade for Miami? Not sure. Yet.

• • •

Follow Charles Jenkins on twitter at @CTJenkins22.

Speaking of rookies who were better than Josh Selby, meet Charles Jenkins. Jenkins was the first Hofstra player drafted since 2001's Speedy Claxton, and only the fifth Hofstra player ever drafted. Jenkins isn't exactly a high upside player. With the exception of one or two excellent starts while the Warriors were tanking hard, his rookie year was rather subpar -- and his game isn't exactly brimming with potential. He's a bit of an anemic rebounder, not a particularly creative passer, and extremely bad at keeping his man in front of him. At least so far. Perhaps most importantly, though, for a small guard? He emphatically doesn't have a three point shot. That's kind of important in the modern league, you know. Worth noting, though, the absence of Jenkins' three is a pretty strange, wrinkle to his game because last season he was one of the most prolific (and effective) shooters from the 16-23 foot range.

Really. He shot 46% from that range on 3.1 range shots per game -- as a percentage of his offense, Jenkins took more of his shots from that range than anyone else in the league, and did that on one of the better percentages in the league. The only players with a better percentage on that distance on at least three shots per game? Stephen Curry (59% from 16-23, 3.8 per game), Dirk Nowitzki (50%, 5.8), Brandon Bass (48%, 5.1), Kevin Garnett (48%, 6.0), Jason Smith (48%, 4.7), and Tim Duncan (47%, 4.2). That's the full list. It's true that the 16-23 foot jumper is one of the least efficient shots in the league, but it's also true that even the most efficient of offenses is going to need to take them eventually. A scantly guarded 40% long two is often a better decision than a sure turnover if you go for an inside pass or a heavily guarded long three point shot.

Players like Jenkins, then, serve a decent purpose in the league -- most defenses default to forcing long twos. By having players like Garnett, Duncan, Bass, Jenkins, or Curry, you make the unguarded long two a deadly shot and one the opposing team has to guard. This in turn allows the offense to game the spacing of the defense to some degree, which opens up more options inside and out. Ergo, a player like Jenkins -- while perhaps not a high upside player -- could be a very useful one. His per-36 averages are rather pedestrian -- 12-4-7 -- but with his unique shot distribution profile and his at least partially decent NBA size (6'3", 230 lbs), he looks like a rookie that can stick in the league a while. And not only that, he looks to be a player with a valuable role on a good team. So that's pretty excellent for Jenkins. Even if he's a fairy friend, whatever the hell that means.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. This time, we actually have two perfect scores! @Patrick_Hake and "w" from the comments. Very cool. Great job.

Adios, amigos.

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. This morning's three: Shawne Williams, Danny Green, DeAndre Jordan.

• • •

Follow Shawne Williams on twitter at @ShawneWill3.

Shawne Williams is a relatively limited player. Many would say that today's post is entirely composed of limited players -- I'd say they're right, but of today's triad, Williams is certainly the most limited. Which actually would be met with bemused chuckles and disbelief if you'd asked someone this having only their pre-NBA career to assess them on. Forgotten by many, Shawne Williams was actually one of the premier talents in the 2006 draft -- he was easily the most highly-touted prospect around, and had he declared in 2005, he'd probably have gone sooner. His senior year of high school was spent in a North Carolina prep school -- they went 40-0 behind nightly dramatics from Williams, and entering his first and only year of college, he was rated the 6th best SF prospect in the nation. The future looked bright for the young man out of Memphis.

But you know what they say. You can never quite escape your roots -- you can only hope to whet the demons and come to peace with them before they consume you. In Williams' case, it appears he's narrowly gotten to that point with them -- but who knows what the future holds. I refer to his birthplace, a rough neighborhood in Memphis replete with (as the New York Times put it) drug dealers, prostitutes, and trouble on every corner. Williams has tried to get past it, to limited success up til 2010 -- his early career with the Indiana Pacers was derailed completely after several arrests. It's worth noting that few of them were distinctly the fault of Williams -- he was arrested for having a person in his car with marijuana and weapons, arrested for harboring a murder suspect, ticketed for illegally tinted windows and seatbelt violations. All in the span of a year after his drafting, putting a once-promising NBA career on hold. Things haven't quite been the same since. He started to erase the legal trouble that dogged him in some solid play for the 2011 Knicks, but he wasn't returned to the Knicks and has been a bit of a vagabond ever since. He's a free agent, now.

His services aren't particularly noteworthy -- his once formidable skillset has waned as he's reached his mid-20s, partially because he (by his own admission) goofed off a bit when he came into the league. In 2011, he was an excellent three point shooter and an overall solid bench player. But last season the Nets tried to push him into a bigger role and he put up an anemic season at best, shooting under 30% from three, and setting career lows for all of his rebound/assist/usage percentages. He's never been a fantastic defender, so he's a good case of "what you see is what you get" -- from what he showed last season, it certainly doesn't look like teams will be getting much from him any time in the near future.

While Williams has been arrested and dealt with much more legal trouble than most players I've covered so far, I think I agree with many of my Knicks fan friends when I wonder why exactly he -- of all people -- is the one with the bad reputation. Not Jason Kidd, a confirmed and convicted wife-beater with a huge alcohol problem. Not Jordan Hill, battling abuse accusations of his own. Not Neal, Kobe, Andersen -- so many NBA players have a litany of run-ins with the law that are actually related to things they themselves did. You can't help but feel some element of sympathy for Williams, whose problems seem related less to a fundamental flaw in Williams' own moral code and more to where he came from. If you come from a place filled to the brim with unsavory types and a bad environment, it's very hard to cut off the hangers-on when you make it big. Williams has figured this out, seemingly, and has reportedly tried to cut ties with many of the people who led him astray. But no matter how many ties he cuts and replaces with better people, that never really erases his roots, it simply patches them over. It's just an empty substitute for a healthy, full upbringing. And for that I hope that Williams latches on to a team and doesn't let go -- he deserves another shot to get past his demons, and make good on the potential we all saw in him almost 7 years ago.

• • •

Follow Danny Green on twitter at @DGreen_14.

It's a testament to how insistent Matt Moore can be that the first thing I think of when I think about Danny Green is no longer how much I like him but how much Moore likes using their love for Green to troll Spurs fans. Let's start with the truth: Danny Green didn't have a great conference finals. That kind of goes without saying. Even before the OKC series, Moore was notably making fun of Spurs fans who were saying Green was a really good player. "Just watch," he said, "OKC's athleticism will destroy him and he is a one-dimensional player who will collapse in a bad situation." Spurs fans got annoyed, tried to ignore him, kept thinking the Spurs were a good team. The conference finals happened, Green had the worst of all possible series, and Moore spent the next month basically bringing up Danny Green any time a Spurs fan said anything to him. So, when I think of Danny Green, the first thing that tends to come to mind is that blasted Grizzlies press conference icon, a mention of any random Spurs fan, and a message of "DANNY GREEN DANNY GREEN DANNY GREEN." This is my curse.

It really is a curse, too. Because Green is a very useful, engaging player. One dimensional isn't exactly how I'd care to describe him -- although he certainly has a game predicated on a single skill, that being his command of the three point shot, he has other ways to impact a game. At least after last year. When his three point shot wasn't working effectively before his quantum leap forward in development this season, Green was a limited and unremarkable player. After building up the skill to use his three point shot on the NBA level, though? After working around the clock to break into the NBA after an extremely poor start to his career, the Spurs system and his work ethic helped him blossom into a viable NBA starter. It's not often that a player goes through two years and several teams playing relatively shiftless ball and suddenly be offered the chance to start for one of the best teams in the league, and a title contender. But Green was offered just that, and he acquitted himself extremely well.

And before you scoff and call him a starter-in-name-only, that's not really true -- while he certainly wasn't the Spurs' best shooting guard (Manu, of course), Green was extremely important to Pop's rotation, and was given quite a lot of leeway from Pop to make mistakes and feel out his own game. I wouldn't say he's an excellent defender -- the numbers don't stack up well for him, and he has trouble staying with his man on PnR switches and getting lost when his man spots up. But offensively, the three point shooting really isn't the sum total of Green's game. He's an excellent ballhandler, not necessarily at finding open guys but at acting as the middle-step pivot in a complex play. Very few turnovers for Green. He's also solid as a team rebounder, which helps him shift over and play the three in small-ball lineups the Spurs turn to at times to spell Duncan for a bit. Green is quite cerebral, and if he hadn't had the ability to learn the Spurs' complex playbook on the fly, there's no way Popovich would've given him the chance to begin with.

His biggest accomplishment does center around his three point shooting, though. Working with Chip Engelland, the Spurs' shooting coach, Green was able to take a shot that he canned consistently in college and return to the precepts that made him (formerly) so successful with it. While he'd been a relatively unremarkable NBA-level shooter before, Green never quite lost confidence in the shot and kept on working with it -- combined with a team focused on keeping him confident and helping him develop into an NBA-starting caliber player, it brought back the three point assassin who was so vital to UNC's four contending teams during Green's years. Which I remember well -- I was at Duke for two of them, you know. He was good. Also, no, I don't let my alma mater let me really devolve into hate for Green. One secret regarding my life? I didn't like Duke University all that much at all, and I've dated a girl from UNC for two years. Dating someone from your rival school -- combined with a general antipathy for your school in the first place -- does have a tendency to iron out any outstanding visceral hatred the school has.

As soon as Green left the Tar Heels, I was hoping he'd succeed -- my friends at Carolina always said he was a great guy and an awesome person. To see him do so well on the Spurs is one of my favorite success stories in the league. All things considered? I really like Danny Green. And while it's my hope he develops a bit more and gets a bit better at fighting through defenses like that the Thunder used during the Western Conference Finals, even if he doesn't, he's an excellent player and a starter for a contending team. Look at what he's accomplished and the meteoric rise he's had from the NBA's scrap heap to the starting lineup of one of the most entertaining teams in history. Tell it to me straight. What's there to hate?

• • •

Follow DeAndre Jordan on twitter at @deandrejordan.

There's this pernicious ongoing myth in the NBA that simply because we aren't existing in levels of big men saturation we had in the 1990s, the center position is somehow completely lacking depth and completely devoid of talent. This myth in turn leads teams to overpay for every center in the known universe, under the guiding notion that we're somehow lacking in top-shelf talent from that position. The problem with this? It's completely bollocks. There are a ton of great centers in the NBA right now, enough so that I could name 15 quality starting centers without opening a single list. In fact, I'll do it right now. We have our four young superstar-quality centers -- Dwight Howard, Andrew Bynum, Roy Hibbert, Marc Gasol. We have the formerly-forward centers, who late in their career have switched back to center to much success -- Tim Duncan, Pau Gasol, and Kevin Garnett. Then we have the specialists. Centers who are elite on one end of the court and at the very least serviceable on the other. This typing includes Marcin Gortat, Joakim Noah, Anderson Varejao, Nikola Pekovic, Omer Asik, Al Jefferson, and Andrew Bogut. That's fifteen right there, and I named each of them completely off the top of my head! This isn't even counting players who could someday crack that list but haven't quite made it yet -- your Brook Lopez-types, Jonas Valanciunas talents, DeMarcus Cousins workhorses, Anthony Davis stars (if he puts on weight!). And, you know. Your DeAndre Jordans.

The idea that the NBA is somehow completely devoid of centers -- thus necessitating that teams wildly overpay every single one of them -- has never made all that much sense to me. But it makes even less sense right now, as the NBA is going through something of a renaissance from the center position. Really. Don't laugh, it's true -- just because there aren't two or three hyper-dominant generation-defining centers doesn't mean the position isn't in a really solid place. I just named off a full twenty solid centers -- that's enough for every single playoff team to have a very good starting center, and then for four teams to make the lottery around a solid center. There aren't a ton of times in NBA history when you can actually say there's this many wholly impressive prospects at the center position. When the Clippers announced Jordan's contract, the general consensus was to sigh, nod, and say it made sense. Why? Seriously -- why? The Rockets just snagged Omer Asik, a defensive cornerstone who's about as useful on offense as Jordan, for almost three million less a year. You have one or two solid game-changing centers coming into the trading market every year or so. Why does it make sense to give DeAndre Jordan a bad contract that can be hand-waved away by a totally untrue cliche regarding the NBA's depth at center?

As for Jordan himself, it's not all bad. I'm not a huge fan of his game, but he has some limited defensive potential if he stops trying to block every shot in the history of the human race and focuses more on the fundamentals of team defense -- guarding the pick and roll, staying mobile without losing position, and keeping himself out of foul trouble by restraining himself from the more egregious goaltending/fouling opportunities. Offensively, he's slightly useful as a target for lobs, but against a big man who's smart enough to keep Jordan isolated outside of the paint (as with Tim Duncan in last year's 2nd round SAS-LAC series), Jordan's value on the offensive end is nil to none. His defense is actually more valuable than many think -- in particular, he's a very good defender in isolation on big men, and he's generally good at shutting down the post-up. The problem is that as a starting center it tends to be your role to anchor the entire defense, not just individually shut down a play or a single man. Hence why players like Joakim Noah and Anderson Varejao are extremely superior defenders to Jordan, even though Jordan is arguably better at defending his man in a one-on-one game. Still. Prepare to see millions of articles from Los Angeles bemoaning the death of the traditional center and the lack of big men in the league next time DeAndre Jordan disappoints. Just try to keep in mind that it's sort of a lie, all things considered.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. Once again, a bunch of people with 1/3. See yesterday's comments. Again, I'll try to make today's easier.

I'm going to experiment with doing three players a day this week, with six players on Friday or Thursday. Exciting! See you tomorrow.

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. This morning's trio: Byron Mullens, Beno Udrih, Gerald Henderson.

• • •

Follow Byron Mullens on twitter by following @GoofyLookingDude and waiting for him to begin existing.

Want to know how bad of a season it was for fans of the Charlotte Bobcats? Byron Mullens -- the oft-maligned draft 'mistake' from Sam Presti in 2009 -- breaking out for several months of double digit scoring on inefficient percentages made up one of the biggest positive surprises of the 2012 season for the squad. Really. He was one of Rich Cho's first acquisitions, and honestly, he was a pretty decent success story for the Bobcats in a season without any. The Bobcats traded a 2013 2nd round pick for Mullens, which sounds bad until you realize that the Bobcats do need to at least make some attempt at reaching the salary floor and the 32nd pick isn't a place where you tend to get players all THAT much better than Mullens in the first place.

It was a somewhat savvy move on Rich Cho's part, getting an underrated asset without really giving up much of value. So that's good. Of course, when I say "underrated" asset, I'm being a bit kind. Mullens isn't THAT great -- he's a soft-shooting center who should probably stop shooting. Last season, he ended up with an overall field goal percentage of 42% despite shooting a somewhat decent percentage at the rim -- 64%, to be exact. He's got a reputation as a solid midrange shooter for a big man, but that's mostly based on form rather than results. He takes a ton of shots from that range, far more than he should -- he's first overall among centers who played 20+ MPG this season in percentage of shots taken from the 16-23 foot range. And it's not by a low mark, either. Examine the following table.

To summarize this table -- Byron Mullens took 46% of his shots from 16-23 feet, which is beyond insane -- shots from that range make up 11% more of Byron's shots, distributionally, than the #2 center who played > 20 MPG, Marcus Camby. This is despite the fact that his field goal percentage from that range, 35%, was 26th overall among the 39 centers who played greater than 20 minutes per game. That's a story of horrible, terrible, no-good very-bad shot selection. Beyond that, his story on offense is essentially a broad picture of varied inefficiency. Want a center who ranks in the bottom five in shooting percentage from any range from 3-15 feet, and 26th overall from 15-23 feet besides? Byron's your guy. This isn't to say he doesn't have a few skills, though -- he's a passable finisher at the rim, he's an improving rebounder, and he's got some serious NBA size. With a coach who's better at getting Mullens to cease the awful shot selection and a mentor to teach him how to defend NBA bigs and stay engaged on the defensive end, he could someday be a relatively decent backup center.

That's about all most teams can muster out of those early second round picks, which makes me think that Cho made a pretty good pickup for a team that's relatively far from contending in the first place. Basically covers every aspect of his game I wanted to look at, but one last thing. Is there a guy in the league as goofy looking as Mullens? A single one? Look at this man. Someone needs to inform him of three things. First, Dragonball Z eyebrows are not actually things normal people strive for. Second, that isn't an afro and you aren't fooling anybody. Third, invest in a razor. Invest in thirty razors. Buy the Gilette corporation. I don't care. Whatever it takes to get that... whatever it is off your face, man. I just... I can't.... what.

• • •

Follow Beno Udrih on twitter at @JustinBieber.

Beno Udrih is one of those players who I was referring to in the Donald Sloan capsule. In it, I mentioned that I liked that Sloan was showing a willingness from NBA teams to start using the D-League to look for players to back up your team's superstar, rather than taking "crusty veteran #64,231" from the pile of expiring or over-long contracts. No particular offense meant for Udrih, but he's exactly the kind of player I'm talking about. He's a nice guy and a serviceable backup, certainly. His per-36 numbers -- 11-8-3 -- are exactly the sort of production you want from a backup point. Some points, some rebounds, but a decent assist rate and a good chemistry guy for the bench. Doesn't make it any less true that any number of D-League players could do exactly what Udrih does for a team, and do it for less than the insane $5-7 million a year he's done it for over the duration of his last 5-year contract. He'll be making $7 million dollars this year for his decidedly backup-level point guard talents, this season. Pretty absurd, no matter how nice of a guy he is.

The main reason I wanted to talk about Udrih? Sure, there's some of the usual trivia about him. The number 19 apparently was chosen because his dad was born on the 19th of some month. He's one of the many athletes who use a portion of their salary to buy tickets for underprivileged kids. He's left handed. He's from Slovenia. But none of this gets to the heart of Beno's story. The heart of it is... he has no heart. Nor a reflection. This is because he is a vampire. This may surprise most people, especially his family. But it's true. Beno Udrih is a vampire, and in the estimation of one Gregg Popovich, he is a failure at being even that! Pop is a bit over-critical, as he has managed to make over $30,000,000 in his NBA career and still has next season's $7,000,000 contract looming. But evidently, he is a failure at being a vampire. Which is sad. I hope that Brandon Jennings gets him some Underarmor-brand extension fangs the next time he needs to try and feed -- dude's gotta eat, and it's admittedly a little embarrassing that he can't snag a little dog. I mean, man. Seriously?

• • •

_Follow Gerald Henderson on twitter __@GhJr09.___

Have you ever watched games from the era before the three point line came into effect, or games from the 3-4 years afterwards before Mark Price and Steve Kerr types showed that the three could be a very effective wrinkle in a good offense? If not, I highly suggest you do. I'd start with this 1969 classic -- it's the fourth quarter of Russell's final game, and it's really fun. Decent quality, too. Anyway, the point isn't just to go on a meaningless tangent -- this is pretty relevant to Gerald Henderson. I don't think there's a single player today that "plays old" in quite the way Gerald does. I don't mean that as a detraction or a compliment -- I mean it as a statement. Gerald Henderson's game is old school, and if you watch some footage from previous eras, you'll see exactly what I mean. Before the three point line, the game was significantly more compressed. Players nowadays camp out behind the three point line, creating a separation between spot up shooters and their defenders.

Back in that era, though, players who were trying to shoot spot-up shots would get in as close as they possibly could, which made the game play in a distinctly smaller area than the modern game. This in turn led to offensive sets having an almost football-ish quality to them, or a cellular component -- the ball was the nucleus and the players gravitated around it, covering close-up players and defense being more focused on trying to cut off passing lanes and block at-rim shots. It wasn't necessarily a worse game, though I for one greatly appreciate the focus on offensive strategies that has permeated the modern league. But it was different. And, to bring this back to our player, Gerald Henderson basically still plays like he's in that era. Maybe not the pre three-point era -- he does take about one per game -- but in the 5-7 years before the three point ball became a strategic mainstay in the offenses of the league's best coaches? There were hundreds of players like Gerald, who would take a three every game or so and take more when they were hot, but tended away from the shot for comfort.

While Gerald is more athletic than most of those players, he also plays defense in a similar way -- he focuses less on help defense and more on distinctly staying close to his man and sticking to him. Especially fighting through screens, which is one of the more effective ways Gerald uses his athleticism in the big leagues. I'm of the opinion that he's a better defender than most of the numbers show -- while his overall defensive PPP (per Synergy) is rather high (0.87 PPP -- 257th in the league) I feel like the Bobcats' poor defenders at every other position had an effect on Henderson's synergy numbers. There is some evidence of that effect in isolated incidents -- in the case of the Celtics, every big man who shares more than 50% of their minutes with Kevin Garnett ends up having sparkling Synergy numbers, even if their Synergy numbers were awful in the seasons before and after. Whereas that's an example of a rising tide lifting all boats, Henderson's depressed numbers may be a sign of a lowered tide causing multiple shipwrecks and millions of dollars of property damage. (Seriously, have you SEEN the Bobcats' defense last year?!)

Beyond the three point shot, there are other aspects of Henderson's game that hearken back to another era. For one, he doesn't draw fouls with any regularity. He's averaged about four free throw attempts per 36 minutes over his career, and has been decently below average for shooting guards for the majority of his career -- there are marginally more free throws in today's game, and as a guy who isn't a huge fan of free throws on an aesthetic perspective, it's kind of nice to watch a guy who plays physical but doesn't tend to fall to the floor out of nowhere in search of a call that shouldn't come. Overall, I like Henderson. When I was at Duke I wasn't his biggest fan, at least not until my roommate played him in a pickup game and told me about how nice he apparently was. I never did get a chance to meet him, but the more people I talked to the more people said that he was actually one of the nicest people on the team. So, yeah. Out of the Duke guys in the NBA, Henderson's definitely one of my favorites. There was Hondo, there was Rondo, there was Lando, there was Hendo. Maybe not in that order. Still. Keep on it, fella.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. If several people tie, I'll post everyone who tied. This was a return to normal riddle form, as our top scorers were in yesterday's comments with a rousing 1/3 players (Gerald Henderson).

See you on Wednesday, folks!

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. This morning's three: Chris Paul, Jordan Hill, and Jeff Teague.

• • •

Follow Chris Paul on twitter at @CP3.

We're going to do something a bit different today, for Chris Paul's capsule. This capsule went extremely long -- by design, of course. There are few blogs I respect and love more than Matt Moore's Hardwood Paroxysm, a site with seventeen thousand great writers that love the game and love to write. Knowing full well that many of these capsules were going to go extremely long, I worked out a deal with Matt that would allow me to throw an extremely long capsule his way every few weeks. Moore, being the awesome guy he is, was very excited about it and told me to go for it. This is the first result of this particular partnership -- Player Capsules Plus, in a shout-out to Basketball Reference's excellent Play Index Plus features. An elongated, extended capsule on a player whose game deserves it -- either philosophically, statistically, or because of a long-standing personal relationship I have with the player. Today, I'm going long from a philosophical perspective and taking on an outwardly strange comparison -- that of Chris Paul with objectivism, Ayn Rand, and Howard Roark.

And that's the thing. With Chris Paul, I get the sense that Paul's basketball genius exists on two planes. One is the brightest of American ideals -- a self-made genius with glorious talents whose abilities have been realized to their greatest extent and whose powers are limited only by those around him. The other is the lowest of American stereotypes -- the man whose work ends up taking credit for all success they've ever accomplished all the while finding a way to avoid all culpability for failure. Which is to say... Paul lends himself well to excuses. "His supporting cast has been terrible, therefore, he is not at fault for his poor playoff record. His teammates can't handle a pass, therefore, he is not at fault for being on an average to sub-par team. His genius must be constrained to the confines of a 24-second shot clock, therefore, he is not at fault for overdribbling or trying too hard to make the beautiful play." In the same way, Rand sets Roark up to be a man without failure. Every failure that Roark suffers isn't his own, it's a societal flaw or an inability of the people around Roark to appreciate him utterly. If Roark lets us down, it's because of those blasted conventions. Or the people around him. Or the inability of others to recognize his genius. If Paul lets us down, it's the same story -- outmoded convention, awful teammates, or inadequate appreciation.

FOR MORE ON CHRIS PAUL, SEE TODAY'S PLAYER CAPSULE + ON HARDWOOD PAROXYSM.

• • •

Follow Jordan Hill on twitter at @jordanchill43.

Athletic. Energetic. Frenetic. These are words that describe Hill's game. One of the things I really like about Hill is his activity defending the pick and roll. He gets in the face of players, and though he's not always excellent at cutting off the play, he does an excellent job getting in position and putting up a good contest. Late in the season, this was especially obvious when he'd moved on from the Houston Rockets and traded to the Los Angeles Lakers -- on defense of the pick and roll, Bynum and Gasol have as of late virtually no activity whatsoever, and Hill's enthusiasm and energy was a welcome respite from the lackadaisical way his counterparts approached the defensive assignment. On offense, he's similarly active, but similarly unpolished -- he finishes well at the rim but definitely isn't a low post scorer. If you dump the ball to him and ask him to initiate the offense, you're probably wasting a possession -- but if you set up an open midrange shot, or give him an open lane to dunk? Then he's solid. His athleticism shines in those situations. I'm not sure he's really going to ever have a great post-up game or be a 30-36 MPG type player, but his energy and pick and roll defense should keep him in the league for a long time. Especially if he gets minutes with Steve Nash.

Assuming the trial goes well, at least. On a personal level, recent events would indicate Hill isn't quite so praiseworthy, at least not by some accounts. He's currently battling felony assault charges, reportedly on suspicion of punching his ex, throwing her into a wall, and putting her in a chokehold. The allegations are just that, at the moment -- allegations -- but they lend a more troubled view to Hill's demeanor than the nobility of fighting back from tragedy that pieces like this excellent one grant. I tend to have the view that I don't tend to outright believe an allegation until it gets hashed out in court, but I do tend to lend more credence to allegations leveled specifically by the person who's been reportedly abused. It's hard to do something like that -- if they're willing to put themselves out there like that, it's unlikely they're completely making stuff up. If you know what I mean. It's possible, but unlikely. In any case, allegations like this one are more believable and sad to me than allegations like that leveled against Matt Barnes, whose wife openly denies the existence of and did not charge Barnes with anything.

But it really does need to be hashed out in court before any of this is more than hearsay, and for that reason, I'm really wondering what happens to him. Jail time would obviously put a serious damper on his NBA career, and it's doubtful he's going to be offered a multi-year contract until he either gets exonerated or gets off without jail time. Which is perfectly reasonable from a decisionmaker's perspective, but obviously not a good career situation for Hill. Assuming he's innocent, I hope he gets exonerated quickly -- he's currently an unrestricted free agent and contract negotiations with the Lakers have been (reportedly) not going very well. Assuming he's guilty, I honestly hope he goes to jail, because no man should treat their partner the way Hill reportedly did. In any event, his twitter handle IS "jordanchill", which is pretty decent. It isn't exactly a top 10 twitter name but it's a solid entry in the Basketball Jones pun gun segment. Good on ya', Jordan.

• • •

Follow Jeff Teague on twitter at @Teague0.

When I see Jeff Teague, I kind of see an evolutionary version of Ramon Sessions. At least in how he gets his offense. He's significantly more athletic than Sessions, which explains why Teague was a first round pick as opposed to a 56th pick like Sessions. Teague operates with a similar reliance to Sessions on his a developed driving game, getting open for shots primarily by driving aimlessly every other possession beforehand in hopes that eventually they can fake out defenders to take an open jump shot. He's a better three point shooter than Ramon, but also worse at getting to the rim -- he takes fewer shots than Ramon there, and he doesn't have quite as much command of the midrange jump shot as Sessions does. Not that Sessions is great at it either, but he's slightly better than Teague, and can be counted on to more reliably get a few more shots per game if you use him optimally. Defensively, Teague is better than Sessions, and provides solid (if not absolutely remarkable) defense from the point guard position. He did a fantastic job on Rose in last year's ATL-CHI series, and I can't say enough about how far he's developed in using his raw athleticism on defense ever since he came into the league.

Teague is less of a pure point, though, and is significantly worse at passing and setting up his teammates -- there's a sense of precision in some of Ramon's passes that's absent in virtually all of Teague's, and a sense that Teague doesn't totally have a plan when he puts the ball on the floor. Sessions has been a pretty solid setup man since he stepped foot in the league. Teague hasn't, and has never shown any particular proficiency at it. And in fact, on a per-minute basis, he's actually gotten worse over his three years -- from 6.1 per 36 minutes his rookie year to 5.4 per 36 minutes last year. Significantly more minutes, so the raw totals look nicer, but it's hard to make a case he's really improved as a passer. We're beginning to reach "what you see is what you get" levels with Teague, as we have with Sessions. We know now that Ramon Sessions is a guy that gives you about 15 points per game, a massive gob of assists, and next-to-nothing on defense. That's what we've seen, and it's what his teams get. Teague too has reached some consensus about his game -- some decent scoring production, very little passing acumen in a traditional point guard sense, and some solid defense.

It's not that he can't be more, necessarily, it's that after three years of roughly the same per-minute totals, you can start to make assumptions about the player's development and broader game. Sometimes a player will wildly overachieve their per-minute averages after a few years of steady state production, but it's extraordinarily unlikely. And so, you reach that place with Teague -- he's not going to be one of the 10 best points in the league with passing as anemic as his. Nor is he going to be properly assessed due to his youth and the sense with Teague -- as with Ramon Sessions -- that he's a breakout or two away from being a top flight point guard. It'll be just as untrue as with Sessions, but the theory will persist. Teague's a great defender, a decent scorer, a poor passer. He's reached an age and a level of minutes played where it's unfair to really expect a quantum leap forward at this point. He's solid, reasonable, passable. But will he ever really be a star, or a starting point guard on a contending team? Good question. His 2011 performance against the Bulls indicates he could be, if every player around him is clicking and making up for his lack of passing acumen. A tall order, but if he stays on the same team as Josh Smith and Al Horford, he'll be just fine.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. If several people tie, I'll post everyone who tied. We finally had a few 3/3 guesses, for this batch. Nudirtybastard from the comments got all three right, as did our very own Alex Arnon! And before you accuse him of tampering -- nobody on-staff but Alex and I have any access to the list. He was just as clueless as the rest of the world!

See you later, when I'm off my plane. (Yes, the capsules will be late today -- the next batch will come around 7-8, eastern time. This is because I'm going to be on a plane all day, without Wifi. It's a rough life, for capsule readers!)

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. This afternoon's trio: Brandon Knight, Donald Sloan, and J.J. Hickson.

• • •

Follow Brandon Knight on twitter at @BrandonKnight12.

All things considered, Knight hasn't been exactly what you'd expect out of a lottery pick. There were some promising aspects to his game, no doubt -- his 38% from three point range was solid, and his rebounding was relatively good for a lead guard. And he shot above 40% in his rookie season, something that took Brandon Jennings three years to do! He is a Calipari product, though, and as of late, we tend to expect big things from them. After all -- Rose, Wall, Evans -- all of them came from Coach Cal's tender tentacles. Expectations were high for Knight. It's worth noting that just because Calipari recruits excellent NBA talent doesn't necessarily mean he's developed them -- none of the players aforementioned really improved much from high school to the pros (with the possible exception of Rose's passing game, which did improve a bit at Memphis). Which isn't a knock on Calipari, actually. In some respects, the worst thing NCAA coaches can do to an NBA player is teach him bad habits and create system-reliant players. Just look at Jim Boeheim.

Oh, sure. Boeheim's a great college coach. I won't refute that. He's led the team to decently deep runs and high seeds on an almost yearly basis and he's put together a system where most players look reasonably competent. The problem is they barely ever pan out in the NBA -- while Boeheim is famous for teaching players the Syracuse zone, he's also famous for essentially making sure that it's all his players learn. Syracuse players tend to get to the NBA completely unprepared for next-level ball, and it shows. In 30 years of NCAA title contention (in which Boeheim has won 890 NCAA games, gone to four Final Fours, and has made 28 NCAA Tournaments in his coaching tenure) Syracuse has produced a grand total of three quality NBA players, out of 36 drafted prospects. No major program in college basketball history (including noted poorly-translating schools like Duke) has a ratio as bad as that. I won't belabor the point -- go read this excellent diatribe on the subject.

Jim Boeheim -- excellent college coach that he is -- is terrible at preparing his players for the NBA and it's hard to argue it. The point isn't about him, though, it's about Calipari. Many people say that Coach Cal doesn't prepare his players for the NBA. I suppose I'd partly agree -- you don't get the sense Calipari is an excellent basketball mind who's teaching his players how to break barriers when they get to the next level. On the other hand? He also doesn't screw them up. He doesn't teach them to rely on a player friendly 2-3 zone, or teach them to act inside a rigid system in the way Duke's Krzyzewski does. He gives them freedom to make their own mistakes and generally doesn't impact their development in a negative way. In some cases, inaction is significantly better than overreacting and ruining a young man's game. All that said, this hasn't helped Knight one bit. He's exactly the same as he was in college in the NBA -- inefficient, poor at passing, and poor on defense. But alas.

In the case of Knight, I think his issues are two-fold. First, while he's an athletic marvel, he's relatively lacking in size -- he's shorter and only slightly heavier than I am. Second, unlike Wall or Rose, he doesn't really have the ability to flip a switch and function as a pure passer. He doesn't have the passing creativity to really run plays and develop the offense. It seemed this year that most of Knight's passes were a result of him getting lost on offense, glancing aimlessly around, and randomly throwing the ball to a perimeter shooter with the expectation they'd put up a rushed two. It went in a few times a game -- about three -- but lord, it just never seemed like an actual play, you know? And then there's the Monroe issue -- despite Monroe being by far Detroit's best player, Monroe only accounted for 43 of Knight's 251 assists. This wasn't really a problem endemic to Monroe -- as I described in Monroe's capsule, basically everyone on the Pistons became experts at freezing their star out this season.

To improve, Knight absolutely needs to improve his shooting. Perhaps more importantly, if he wants to get minutes, Knight is going to have to be able to milk a two-man game with Greg Monroe. If he can't do either, it's quite likely Knight gets shipped out at some point, and not happily. I don't really want to see Knight left a castaway floating adrift in a league with no place for a player like him. But all that said, he's a poor shooting shoot-first guard who never developed a particularly effective two-man game with his team's best player. Yes, Virginia, that's a problem. Here's hoping next year he comes back strong -- reports seem to indicate he's putting the work in, so we'll have to wait and see if Knight can make good on our now significantly more reasonable expectations. He's not going to be a Rose, a Wall, or an Evans -- we know that now, and perhaps with our lessened expectations Knight can finally thrive.

• • •

Follow Donald Sloan on twitter at @dsloan15.

Most people probably aren't hyper-aware of Mr. Sloan. I am, because I'm a Cavs fan. All things considered? I don't mind Sloan. I don't like him as much as many friends, for a few reasons. First, I'm not sure he's really a passing point guard in the NBA, nor am I sure he's really a shooting point guard in the NBA. "But wait!" you say. "That eliminates all possibilities!" Well... okay, sort of, it does. He's not the world's best defender, yet, either, which brings you down to wondering if he's a next-level Ramon Sessions. I don't mind Ramon, which is why I like Sloan. I think he can be a plus rebounder from the guard, and he has a bit more NBA size than Knight -- he's similarly too short to play the NBA wing, but he's stocky and VERY strong. His passing is something of a work-in-progress, but when on the court he seemed roughly dependable for 2 or 3 dimes, a few nice drives, perhaps a few layup opportunities. His strength also helps him in a lot of little ways -- he sets great screens, doesn't shy from contact, and has the potential to be a plus physical defender if he works his game enough.

The other real reason I don't mind Sloan is that I love what he represents. As a person, Sloan seems to be absolutely awesome -- he retweets random fans and enemies, both in support and rallying against him. He's a former boxer of some regard, and like David West, he's really good at it. So, he's tough. He's a D-League crossover -- he was a 24-year-old rookie last season coming off a 58 game D-League career with the Reno Bighorns and the Erie Bayhawks. Sloan's move to the NBA doesn't just represent a personal triumph for the former boxer, it represents a triumph of a teams finally taking chances on D-League standouts instead of simply signing "crusty free agent veteran guard #226342" to an overly large backup deal. Sloan didn't produce a massive amount of value this season, but there are a lot of ways Sloan looks set up to improve upon his rookie year -- his improving defense, learning when not to shoot, getting a bit better about the turnovers, et cetera. Also, he'd be backing up a bonafide superstar in Kyrie Irving, which certainly takes some pressure off. Teams can (and in my opinion, SHOULD) take chances on promising D-League guys. Sloan represents an example of that.

No, he's probably not going to be a starter in the NBA anytime soon. But can he be a solid backup for a player like Kyrie Irving? Certainly. And he'll certainly bring your team more potential value than signing a cryptkeeper-aged former star looking for one last shot at glory, like an Iverson or a Baron Davis. I like the Sloan signing a lot -- it represents NBA GMs finally starting to utilize the D-League as an actual wealth of talent rather than simply a place for angry coaches to send lottery picks as punishment or a place to let lottery picks develop. The D-League CAN be both of those things, and it should be -- but it should also be considered a useful, effective place for teams to find cheap and promising young talent to use as backups on a good team. It really comes down to whether you think the NBA is better off filled with seasoned vets or giving younger bucks a chance. I err on the side of the youth, I suppose. So good on you, Sloan. I hope you make the Cavs next year.

• • •

Follow J.J. Hickson on twitter at... wait, his account has 2 followers, welp.

So, in any sports league, there are going to be some players you will irrationally dislike. Most of them will play for other teams -- for me, three of the best examples are Jason Terry, Eduardo Najera, and Reggie Evans. There's a very different type of distaste, though, and it comes from hating players who actually play for your own team. This is a more familial hatred. Instead of hating someone for beating your team, or for playing dirty against your guys, you are hating on someone because you feel they simply aren't as good as expected or are harming the other players on the team through their play. You hate them not because they're putting it all on the table against your team, but rather because they're taking things off the table. I don't think there's a single better example of this type of a fan-player relationship than how I feel with J.J. Hickson.

It's not like the expectations were fair, necessarily. He was awful defensively from day one, and he never really had much time to develop his game. For all Mike Brown's positive accomplishments with the Cavaliers, developing players was NEVER much of his strong suit, and beyond the defensive evolution of LeBron James' there really weren't all that many huge player developments over Brown's tenure. When a player came in to Brown's system, they weren't going to get better as players -- mostly just worse with age or with their flaws better covered by Brown's usually excellent defensive rotations. But the degree to which J.J. Hickson underwhelmed in his Cleveland tenure -- with special emphasis in last year's horror show -- is beyond pathetic. At least with Antawn Jamison you had the excuse of his age, and his relative efficiency, and his interesting finishing. At least with Anthony Parker you got a made three every now and again. At least with Ryan Hollins he's gone and I never have to think about his existence again. J.J. Hickson... ugh.

He just... he never lived up to even the most cursory of expectations. Hickson's shot selection and his defense were my biggest aggravations during his Cleveland tenure. The man NEVER figured out that he doesn't have a passable long-range jumper. EVER. Hickson has been an electric player playing under the rim for his entire tenure in the NBA -- not once in Cleveland did he take the advice of the coaching staff and try taking it inside. He'd simply camp out in the midrange, receive the ball, dribble into a defender and take a terrible jumper. That was his "thing." Another "thing" for Hickson was his anemic help defense, the main reason Mike Brown never gave him more playing time -- Hickson is absolutely one of the worst help defenders in the league, and he never really managed to turn his electric athleticism into anything other than some nice dunks and slightly-below-average offensive output from every area of the floor. And that defense. And the attitude issues, the primadonna tendencies, the support of LeBron James while LeBron's Heat were wiping the floor with his team in the much dramatized December game in 2010.

I know he's a skilled player -- few are as athletic as Hickson, and he's more innately good at rebounding than most would expect. His athleticism lends itself to images of him as a game-changing defensive PF, or at the very least, an effective stopgap off the bench. You got the sense watching him that he could've been (and still can be) so much more. And that's what aggravates me the most about Hickson. He's simply an underwhelming statement of what could have been. And when it's a player who the franchise essentially staked its hopes on and effectively made their premier selling point, post-LeBron? No, Virginia, that's not good. So, yes. He was decent in Portland. He was horrible in Sacramento. You don't really know what you're gonna get from J.J. Hickson. And as a Cavs fan, I'm only certain of one thing -- I'm glad he's not around to make me root for him on the Cavs. There are some men who like to watch the world burn. I think J.J. Hickson, in some ways, is like those men. So yeah. I wish him the best, but dear LORD am I glad I don't have to put up with him anymore.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. If several people tie, I'll post everyone who tied. This morning's riddles were best answered by @sstewart1617, who got 2/3. We have yet to have anyone get 3/3, though I've made these three easier and you have an entire weekend to answer them. Come on, guys. You can do it! Here are riddles for Monday's first three.

See you next week.

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's going to be writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. This morning's three gentlemen: Luke Babbitt, Jason Richardson, and David West. More later.

• • •

Follow Luke Babbitt on twitter at some point in the distant future when he has one.

This particular player's lore of legends defies quick description. Some call his shot is heavenly in its brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream. (They're a jealous bunch, those others.) His defense is a whirling dervish of pain and misery, leaving other teams genuinely sobbing in the possession's wake as they bemoan the unfairness of such a man. Were Luke Babbitt a member of the Trojan militia, the War would've lasted but three hours -- Achilles and Agamemnon would cower before him, and Homer would've retired a poor man with not a penny to his name. His feats of athletic brilliance are impossible, improbable, imperceptibly quintessential. His jersey is the most-bought jersey in seventeen other solar systems. Every single Burl Ives song is actually about Babbitt's game -- but Babbitt didn't want to boast, so he didn't let Burl state it outright. Woe betides all who doubt the glory of Luke Babbitt.

... Ahem. Sorry. I promised myself I wouldn't let my personal biases color these capsules, but on a capsule for a him, I couldn't help it. Not only do I like Babbitt, I'm also clincially addicted to Taco Bell. Don't hate -- as a vegetarian, it's the only fast food place I can actually order things from. I like Babbitt because the man clearly has a developed appreciation of the venue. And thus did I write an entire paragraph singing nonexistant praises -- the truth is out. Babbitt is not a fantastic player, nor a supremely useful one. You'd wish for more from the 16th pick in the draft. But at least he's making good on his one presumably NBA-level talent (his lockdown shooting), and at least he still has a lot of room to grow. He could develop into a Bonner type, or he could develop into a Meeks or Hayward type, with a far more versatile game. I can't say "the sky's the limit", because it certainly isn't, but the Blazers at least have someone interesting from that draft.

Which isn't to say they're much different from the picks around Babbitt -- in my estimation, picks 13-19 from the 2010 draft (including Babbitt: Ed Davis, Patrick Patterson, Larry Sanders, Kevin Seraphin, Eric Bledsoe, and Avery Bradley) have the potential to be starting caliber players in the NBA . Maybe not on fantastic teams, but starters. The 2010 draft had a relatively weak upper echelon, but the lower tier picks were actually very useful. Lot of depth. It was a pretty good draft to be a good team in the 13-19 range, all things considered. Babbitt is probably the worst of that group, but if he keeps shooting like he did to end last season and develops a few more wrinkles to his game, he's right there. Oh, also. He has the greatest highlight film of all time. So I guess there's that.

• • •

Follow Jason Richardson on twitter at @jrich23.

It's hard to get excited about Jason Richardson now, although it didn't use to be that way. Anyone remember the 2010 Suns? I hated watching Richardson during the 2nd round sweep of the Spurs, for obvious reasons, but he was an absolute revelation during the Suns playoff run. Just... really, really solid. He averaged 16-4-2-2 on 48-40-72 during the conference finals, though it felt like a lot more. He also had the last game of his career where he posted a game score (a linear extrapolation of Hollinger's PER metric) above 35 -- in the first round, when the Suns won against Portland in Portland behind Richardson's 42 points, 8 rebounds, 2 assists, and ZERO turnovers. Things have been pretty downhill since. In his first year with the Magic, Richardson was mostly pretty awful with a few good weeks interspersed to keep his fans hopeful. In his second year, he was abjectly awful -- the wheels sort of fell off, and he's been reduced to a place where he's nothing but salary fodder for any team to take on in a trade for Dwight Howard.

This isn't totally fair, mind you. He's still got the quickest shot release this side of Kyle Korver. While Van Gundy's slowdown offense is heavenly for some players (like Ryan Anderson) it can be absolutely hellish for a guy in the wrong situation. So, Jason Richardson. I originally thought that with his shot release and Dwight down low he'd be in a great situation. I turned out to be pretty wrong, because I underestimated how much of the poor guy's game is predicated on being able to run in transition and take shots before the defense sets -- in a halfcourt offense, without Steve Nash passing to him? Significantly less useful. His defense has always been a bit porous, too, so he doesn't even really have that to fall back on. And on the Magic, he's doubly useless because J.J. Redick should be getting the vast majority of his minutes. It's just a bad fit all-around, and made worse by the fact that the Magic signed him starter's money last offseason in a situation where it appeared not a single other team was prepared to make him a serious offer. Which makes sense, given that he was coming off an abysmal playoff appearance against the Hawks where he averaged 10-4 on 33% shooting in 30 worthless minutes per game. THIRTY-THREE PERCENT SHOOTING.

This isn't to say that Richardson couldn't potentially do a bit better in a more suitable system. In particular, I think he'd thrive in the running offense Kaleb Canales is trying to use in Portland, and he'd be a decent player in the Spurs' up-and-down system given the speed of his shot and his versatility as an offensive player. Unfortunately, with his contract situation, it's massively unlikely he'll join a club that can really effectively leverage his talents until the contract's almost up. By that point, Richardson is probably going to be pretty washed up. Which is a shame. It seems like just yesterday I was chilling in my summer apartment with my research internship, watching the 2010 Western Conference Finals and literally falling out of my chair when J-Rich made this impossibly clutch three to tie the game in Los Angeles. (Also, keep a close eye on his shot. Notice how quickly he gets it off? Isn't it kind of cool? No matter how much I practice my shot, I don't think I'm ever going to approach half that speed. The velocity of his shot is one of those little things that -- while somewhat functionally useless right now given his shooting woes -- I'll always appreciate as a basketball fan.)

• • •

Follow David West on twitter at @D_West30.

For my money, David West is the toughest guy in the NBA. He's no-nonsense, no-glamour, no-pizzazz. One of the most fitting hobbies in the NBA actually belongs to West, though not everyone's aware of it -- West is an avid boxing enthusiast. He's always incorporated boxing into his offseason training regimen, and from all accounts, loves the sport almost as much as he loves basketball. One of my favorite examples of this came shortly after Monty Williams became the coach of the New Orleans Hornets, when he was watching a David West interview to get to know him. They asked him for his best off-court attribute -- Williams was expecting something relatively tame, like a knack for hiking or something artistic. Stony-faced, West responded: "My left hook." (Monty said he made a mental note right then and there: Don't mess with David.)

One of the reasons the boxing hobby has always entertained me is that West's game has always struck me as sort of the boxing sort. A lot of Sonny Liston. Very tough -- Liston once fought several rounds with a severely broken jaw, and West has always struck me as the kind of guy who would do that without batting an eye. He has, too -- in 2008, West scored 38 points with a severely injured back in game 5 against the then-defending champion Spurs. Liston would batter players with his strength; he relied on his ability to take a punch, knowing that he'd always be able to throw a stronger one. West is similar in that he's absolutely fine taking a beating in the post, as he's 100% aware that as soon as he gets the player on the other end, he's going to make their life absolute hell. Liston was surly and mean to the press, which tended to lead to the press to portray him in racist and hateful undertones -- West's treatment is nowhere near as bad as Liston's, but he is incredibly underheralded for his skills and extremely under-appreciated for the things he does better than anyone else.

It's probably mostly because he hates the media. Seriously hates them. Look at answer two in this excellent six-things-to-know feature. In his early years in the league, West stayed away from the media and assumed everyone in the media was out to get him. He's continued being terse, disdainful, and all-around-difficult since -- the difference now is that ballers like Tim Duncan have in a way cleared the path for people like West to be a bit less open to the media than they were perhaps expected to be a long time ago. Duncan is, by the way, West's favorite player -- growing up, West was a Spurs guy, which has always kind of amused me. All things considered, I like West a lot. His game isn't flashy in any way, shape, or form -- but there are a lot of things he does far better than anyone else, he's a tenacious defender, and he's a really solid shooter. He's owner of some of the best true big man free throw percentage seasons in history and he's going to be in the gym working his game more than most anyone on the team.

I really like West, and while he may be a bit terse and hard to figure out for the media folks who surround him, I hope you take a chance to watch his game and appreciate a guy who does virtually everything right. He's one of those players in the league who doesn't really leave anything on the table -- he's the opposite of a Josh Smith or an Anthony Randolph. He can shoot with range, but he doesn't shoot threes or foot-on-the-line twos. He can dunk somewhat impressively, but he chooses to do simple lay-in dunks to save his legs. He rebounds effectively, he's the most consistent free throw shooter among big men in the modern league, and his vicious strength is absolutely incredible on the defensive end. All in all, David West is a highly impressive player, and although this season was a "down year" for him in Indiana you have to expect he'll come back stronger next year. And beyond all this basketball stuff? He speaks endless truths. Shakin' my head too, David. Shakin' my head.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch of players. Whoever gets the most riddles right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. If several people tie, I'll post everyone who tied. No overtime in this riddle-guessing competition, guys. For the last post, the winner of our respect goes to my friend Mike, who got 2/3 of these players correct. No, Mike. I don't at all think Perkins or Artest are tougher than West. Come on. You know me better.

• A Kentucky Yankee in King Dumars' court. Oh, Player #22.
• Ducktales, analytics conferences, Trump. Lots of angles. Instead I'll just say Player #23 went undrafted.
• The frustration Cleveland fans have with Player #24 is comparable to none. Glad he's gone, even if he's doing better out there.

Later.

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. This afternoon's trio: Stephen Curry, Anthony Morrow, Lavoy Allen.

• • •

Follow Stephen Curry on twitter at @StephenCurry30.

I don't really understand the relationship between Stephen Curry and Warriors fans. I'm friends with many, and one consistent thread related to Curry is disappointment -- disappointment in his injuries, disappointment in his sometimes lazy conditioning, disappointment that he simply hasn't been better. I'd challenge that, a bit. First off, while the injuries are a huge problem, expressing disdain for the athletes for suffering them is somewhat absurd. It's an absolute shame that Curry has now suffered the ninth ankle sprain of his career and dealt with five injuries in a single, compressed season. I don't want to detract from how aggravating that is to fans. But I also don't want to detract from the fact that it really isn't his fault. Lazy conditioning may be a factor of some sort, but conditioning is never some kind of all-encompassing factor_._ It's one of many factors that combine with bad luck to make an otherwise solid player turn into an injury-riddled mess. As for the last part, disappointment that he's been rather up-and-down, and hasn't been a better player? Curry isn't exactly chopped liver.

Over his three-year career, Curry is sporting a shooting percentage of 44% from three -- that's the second best career three point percentage in NBA history. Anemic though his defense may be, he's improved his assist percentage every season and he's made some gains on a rebounding front. He's done all of this with relatively high usage for a point guard, which makes his sparkling percentages even more impressive. He's three percent away in raw FG% from having career shooting percentages of 50-40-90 -- which would make him the only player in history to accomplish that feat. Stephen Curry has his problems -- he's a bit turnover prone, his conditioning could use some work, and his defense needs help. But in terms of quality, he's about as good as you can get, and one of the best players from his draft. When a team's fans chastise a player like Curry, I like to look back and imagine who else they could've gotten that would be doing better. So let's examine the 2009 draft. Obviously, Curry isn't quite up to the rarefied air that surrounds Griffin and Harden. Then again, the Warriors didn't pass on either of them -- they picked seventh. Of the players chosen after Curry, there's only one player I think you could argue has been a distinctly better player in the NBA -- Ty Lawson, chosen at #18. At the time of the draft, even that was considered a bit of a reach -- had the Warriors taken him at #7, they'd have gotten a small boost in productivity while getting an offseason or two worth of scorn and mockery. Would that have really been worth it?

In the end, Curry is somewhere around the 4th best player taken in his draft. Only one player taken after Curry is distinctly better than him, and he was a shock that nobody really thought would be a fantastic NBA player. I don't really see where the disappointment in Curry's game itself comes from -- his per-minute averages have been remarkably consistent throughout his career thus far, and his only serious flaws come from things his injury history can account for. I really hope Curry gets better -- I think he's extremely fun to watch and an incredible talent. It's true that Curry needs to work with a personal trainer and stick to a better fitness regimen, but if he balances himself better and works on his step, I don't see any reason he can't get past these injury problems and contribute on a big-league level to a contending Warriors team. Shooters like Curry who can put up shooting percentages like he does on the high usage the Warriors give him are a rare commodity, mostly because they didn't actually exist until Steph Curry stepped into the league. I think Warriors fans should give him another go at it and cut him some slack. And I really hope he surprises everyone with a fully healthy, expansive year next year. Let's make it happen, Curry.

• • •

Follow Anthony Morrow on twitter at @MrAnthonyMorrow.

Hey, speaking of shooters, it's Anthony Morrow! Morrow is another of the active players who reside in the top 10 of the NBA's all-time career shooting leaderboard -- Curry is second, Morrow is ninth. In fact, five of the top 10 are still active in the league -- the other three are Steve Nash, Steve Novak, and (hilariously) Jason Kapono. You may gather from Kapono's inclusion that being an NBA all-time great at shooting the three pointer isn't necessarily a mark of superstardom. You'd be right. Of the top fifty in career three point percentage, I only count four hall-of-fame players: Nash, Drazen Petrovic, Ray Allen, and Reggie Miller. That's it. Which is actually a relatively interesting phenomenon. There are very few career leaderboards where you have to go that deep to find four hall-of-fame caliber players. Raw field goal percent? The fourth is #21, Charles Barkley. Turnover percentage? The fourth is #31, Dan Issel. Personal fouls? The fourth is #4, Robert Parish.

The history of the three point line may have something to do with it, but I don't think it fully explains it. There have been many hall of fame players since the imposition of the three point line, and even if you ignored players that played the majority of their minutes before the rise of the three, it's still easier to find hall of famers higher on every leaderboard -- even the negative ones -- than that of the three point percentage. Which is really very interesting. I think the phenomenon is primarily due to the way NBA teams have used the three since it came about -- it has become a set shot, a pivot in an offense meant to open up the floor for players to dominate the paint and to get defenses off-balance. In this usage, you need to have players who are designated three point threats, with the ability to get off a shot with virtually no set-up time. They aren't meant to come into the arc on offense, and generally don't -- they float outside the arc, always ready, always poised.

The key is that they aren't allowed time to set up their shot, or impose creativity -- the underpinnings of what makes a great three point shooter like Anthony Morrow good at what he does also makes him relatively awful at most other aspects of the game. Defense is about creativity and the ability to make reads and challenge offense. Becoming a prolific set-shot three point shooter who needs no airspace or time to get off his shot is about muscle memory and developed learning -- not just in the arms and shoulders, but also in their feet. Learning to stop on a dime with your feet set to take a three is not an easy skill to learn, nor is it very conducive to defense, where creative footwork and staggered stops can confuse the offensive player and give you a distinct advantage. Nor is it very conducive to developing as an excellent passer or an excellent rebounder, as you need to be on constant alert to ensure your form stays perfect.

Morrow is a pretty great representative, here. His game isn't simply predicated around the three, it is the three. An anemic rebounder, a poor passer, and not all that much like the scoring-type Jamal Crawford player who dominates the ball. Morrow is a shooter who picks his spots, sets his feet, and makes threes at an astonishingly prolific rate. He works his form constantly, and in his rigid set stances on defense and blithely telegraphed passes you can begin to see where developing the fluid quickness of his beautiful shot may inadvertantly have made it more difficult for him to develop his talents in other areas of the game. The same applies to players like Jason Kapono, and Steve Novak, and Kyle Korver -- they built their games around being incredible three point shooters. That's perfectly fine. But unlike most NBA talents, being an incredible three point shooter often involves developing skills that act counter to the creativity that makes many of the NBA's greats endure past their time.

• • •

Follow Lavoy Allen on twitter at @BroadStBully24.

Lavoy Allen was one of the surprises out of this rookie class, though many still haven't heard of him. The Philadelphia-born Allen was selected with the 50th pick in last year's draft out of Philadelphia's Temple University to play for the Philadelphia 76ers. (He might have a passing familiarity with the city of Philadelphia.) Immediately, the selection was widely panned as a marginal-or-worse one by analysts before and after the draft. In particular, last year's NBARank had Allen rated the 500th out of 500 players. I think my favorite part of the comments there is the general sense of bemusement among Philadelphia fans -- particularly the last comment, where "flyrman57" points out that due to the ranking, there was literally no possible way Lavoy Allen would be a bust. Now THAT'S putting a nice spin on some bad news.

Regardless. Allen was actually a pretty good player for the Sixers. He barely played, but when he did, his averages were very good -- his per-36 numbers averaged out to a double double, 10 points and 10 boards a game. He had his share of highlight moments as well, including this ridiculously clutch tiebreaking shot in the final minutes of Game 2 in the Sixers' second round series versus the Boston Celtics. It's rare for a rookie to be a contributing factor on a team that gets a few bounces shy of an conference finals berth, but alas, there he was. He's got the skillset to be around for a long time, too. He's extremely strong for his size, and has enough height and length to guard NBA big men. He's got a decent set shot at the long two, and he's a solid finisher. If he works on his high foul rate and adds a bit more heft to his post game, Lavoy Allen has a good chance to be a really solid player in the NB--...

... wait, his twitter location is seriously "between Nicki Minaj's cheeks"?

... what.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. If several people tie, I'll post everyone who tied. Apparently I'm making these way too hard -- a bunch of folks tied with 2/3, including @ChattJacket20 and @loverofsports. So I'll try to make the riddles for Friday's first post easier.

See you on Friday, folks.

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. This morning's trio: Jamal Crawford, Matt Barnes, and Steve Blake.

• • •

Follow Jamal Crawford on twitter at @JCrossover.

There's a particular school of thought in the NBA that Jamal Crawford willingly embodies. Best described in the classic Darcy Frey novel "The Last Shot" (for my money the best basketball book ever written), the thought is simple. In the NBA, they pay you to score. Not to shut players down, not to rebound the ball, not to pass. They'll see fit to spread a bit of currency your way if you do things like that, but they won't pay you for it. There's a fundamental difference in the minds of the young and downtrodden between making a bit of money and "getting paid." When you simply make money, you're struggling. Every day is a grind. You know that you're always on the precipice of one injury, one bad week at the job, one passing sign of weakness. Something that saps you, and makes the money stop. You're working hard, to make money. You struggle.

But again, there's the rub. If you can score -- and score at an elite level -- you'll make bread in the NBA. That's why Stephon Marbury's father seemed to scold him when he focused too hard on defense, and passing, and making the team better -- Stephon Marbury was not raised to be an all-time player, nor was he raised to be the player of a generation. Marbury was raised to be a player that got paid. He was raised to be a player that was flashy beyond reason, and dominant in the minds of those who watched him even if he wasn't quite there on the courts. Jamal Crawford? He doesn't do it quite as well as Marbury, certainly. But he's a man who gets buckets -- or, at least, has a reputation for it. He's a guy you can "count on" for 15-20 points per game, even if he gives you nothing else of value on the floor.

And by extension, Jamal Crawford gets paid.

Really though, Crawford's current situation -- in which he's now slated to make $25 million dollars over the next four years, in a contract that takes him til the age of 36 (an age at which only 18 players in the history of the NBA have put up 15 PPG), is a perfect example of just how well that school of thought can lead a man. Scoring -- whether inefficient or not -- is the most obvious statistic a player can accrue. "The team with the most points wins the game." So, the player who scores the most is the most helpful, right? Well, not necessarily -- in Crawford's case, what he brings to the table as a scorer (while formerly considerable) is almost entirely balanced out by what he takes away. He's not quite as bad of a passer as most people think -- over his career, he's averaged around 4 assists per-36-minutes over his entire career, and his rebounding (while anemic) is no more anemic than the average NBA shooting guard.

No, Crawford's issues lie off the stat sheet -- his problems are mainly rooted in his defense, which is godawful. Simply atrocious. He doesn't rotate, doesn't stick to his man, doesn't really seem to care. His other issue is that he's been extremely inefficient the last two years, and especially last year, where he shot under 40% despite using a career-high 24% of the Blazers' possessions when he was on the court. And he was able to parlay that into a four year, $25 million dollar contract. As I said. Jamal Crawford typifies the type of thinking that Marbury's father endorsed heartily -- don't get into the NBA to make money, get into the NBA to get paid. Crawford gets paid. And, well... will continue getting paid for the next four years, at least.

A few interesting facts about Crawford. While this certainly isn't a record, it's still kind of crazy: in his 12 years in the league, Crawford has played for six teams and fourteen coaches. This doesn't count the Clippers and Vinny Del Negro -- it's quite likely that the number of coaches passes 16 or 17 by the time he hangs up his cleats. Pretty wild. He's got one of the best crossover dribbles in the NBA, and if you simply were rating players by the style of their highlight reels, Crawford would probably rank pretty high up there. He's the NBA all-time leader in four point plays, having passed Reggie Miller back in 2010. And finally, sort of breaking the trend of appending stories asking you to examine how nice a player is, I'd be remiss if I didn't link to one of the rare examples of a player who may very well not be. After all. Takes kind of a jerk to sue a landlord over $20,000 when -- according to the landlord -- he completely destroyed the house. Not totally sure of its veracity, and he does seem like a decent dude in interviews. But if that story is actually true? Lord almighty, Jamal. Muzzle the dogs of war a bit better next time, alright? Cool.

• • •

Follow Matt Barnes on twitter at @matt_barnes22.

I'll say this for Matt Barnes -- he did all the right things last season. After a wholly forgettable 2011 campaign with the Lakers, Barnes took his lumps and came off the bench with aplomb to start the season, for a short while appearing behind both Ron Artest and Devin Ebanks in the Lakers' rotation. This didn't cut off his enthusiasm, though, and after suffering through several knee problems in 2011 that completely sapped his game, Barnes got into shape and came back about as strong as ever. He was a highly effective rebounder from the wing this season, posting the 2nd-highest rebounding percentage of his career. He shot 33% from three, which sounds pretty awful in a vacuum, but was actually a bit above the Lakers' overall team average, around 31% -- Barnes was at least a slightly better option than the awful options the Lakers mostly had to deal with. His defense was a bit different than it used to be, but it was still high energy and still quite effective.

That is, until the playoffs. On the 64th day of a 66 day regular season, Barnes sprained his ankle. For most players, that would be a harmful injury -- it counts double for a player like Barnes that's not a fantastic set shooter and relies greatly on constant movement and hustle to back his game up. Thus, the season ended poorly -- Barnes turned in one of the worst playoff performances I've ever seen anyone play, and accomplishing a statistical oddity I didn't even know was possible in an 11 game run. Somehow, Barnes managed to post a higher turnover percentage than three point percentage in this year's playoffs. He turned the ball over on almost 20% of the possessions he touched in the playoffs -- conversely, he shot 12% from three on 31 shots in 11 games. Really. It was bad. It was awful. More than either, though, it was sad. It's always sad when a player comes back from injury and has an excellent season that gets ultimately forgotten and buried when it too is cruelly derailed by injury.

Off the court, Barnes is quite a bit more soft spoken and reasonable than most casual fans would expect. I've heard numerous friends refer to him as something of a thug. I don't think that's true. Barnes seems to me a relatively interesting, average person -- there's nothing altogether more "thuggish" about Barnes than a lot of my friends other than a few more tattoos and a few more million dollars. Well, okay, a LOT more million dollars. Still. If you've ever wanted to get a sense of what Matt Barnes is like, I'd entreat you to watch this fascinating interview where Barnes dishes on poor experiences he had with former coach Mo Cheeks, the influence his children have had on his basketball journey, and the Jeremy Lin phenomenon. Barnes has had his issues -- legal troubles in particular -- but he seems like a really decent guy. You don't need to like him, but it isn't hard to respect a guy as honest and open as Barnes. The Lakers probably won't bring him back, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not hopeful someone does.

• • •

Follow Steve Blake on twitter at @steveblake5.

The other day, at HoopSpeak, a writer I very much respect in Ethan Sherwood Strauss posted one of the more interesting pieces I've read in a while. In it, he posits a somewhat dark reversal of the common narrative around NBA fans. Strauss retells the story of Ricky Rubio's draft night, where he served as Rubio's conduit into the draft and American NBA fandom. He considers Rubio's reactions to the throngs of fans and adoring hordes and comes to the conclusion that contrary to feeling any sort of love for his fans, the experience was more telling for Strauss in how thoroughly it seemed Rubio despised his fans. And for good reason. They weren't simply adoring fans -- they were scary people, all of whom were grabbing for him and screaming at him and giving him undesired and wholly conditional love without knowing a thing about him.

Rubio may have grasped the fundamental contradiction at the root of sports fandom. We grant our players unconditional love -- that they neither need nor ask for -- with the understanding it could turn to abject hatred at any time. By that same token, Strauss argues, Ray Allen may not really give a damn about the Boston fans who now pillory him in the public square and burn his jersey, as though his time with the Celtics meant nothing. The love is, as Strauss states, wholly conditional. It wanes and wavers with every missed shot just as much as it grows with every clutch play. A player can make a game-winning three one day and find himself with free beers from everyone in the city only to be public enemy #1 less than 5 days later after a missed free throw to lose a game. It's a fickle love, and one that just as easily can turn to abject hatred. If the players start to care about it, they'll be hurt that much more when the love inevitably vanishes into the abyss.

Why is any of this relevant to Player #15, the Lakers' Steve Blake? Because perhaps even more than Ray Allen, Steve Blake's recent months may serve as a more telling example of the dark recesses of fandom Strauss tapped to inspire his musings. Yes, Boston fans were insane -- they burnt Ray's jersey, called him a traitor, and essentially dragged his name in the mud over a simple decision. Steve Blake, however, did no such decision. He made no real mistake -- it is not Blake's fault that Mike Brown plays him in horrible lineups at shooting guard where he stands not a chance at success. He was never really the savior Laker fans wanted, and while he's underperformed his contract to some degree, was anyone really thinking Blake was going to be a revolutionary piece that fixed all of the Lakers' ills? Regardless of whether they did or not, nothing really explains or excuses the actions of a small cohort of Laker fans, who not only threatened Steve Blake with death threats on twitter after he missed a late-game three against the Thunder, but fans who tracked down Blake's wife and sent the death threats her way too.

Steve Blake missed a shot in a beautiful game. He did not hurt a soul, nor did he do anything wrong -- he took a very high percentage open shot that, up until that one, he'd been making extremely consistently throughout the entire year. This prompted several Laker diehards to threaten to end a man's life, and while they're at it, track down his wife and kill her too. I don't really think Blake's overall game matters that much -- what matters is that people realize just how insane that concept is, and how fickle the love fans grant their sports teams can be. Had he made that shot, those same people would've been tweeting him with love and support that lasted a day or two, at the least. He'd get interviews. Might've made an extra million or so. Instead, Laker fans everywhere took out their loathing on a man who neither wanted nor cared for their vitriol, and instead of going home a hero Blake and his wife had to go home scared at the hyperbolic depths a fan's disturbed expectations could lead them.

Is that not a fickle, tainted love? If it isn't, I don't really know what is.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. If several people tie, I'll post everyone who tied. This post's shout-out goes to commenter Federico, who got 2/3 of these players correct. Great job, and thanks for the props! We appreciate them.

More will be posted early this evening.

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's going to be writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. Today's three players, in our fourth installment: Chuck Hayes, Trevor Ariza, and Toney Douglas. More on wednesday.

• • •

Follow Chuck Hayes on twitter at @c_hayes44.

Despite injury woes, it's not incorrect to say that Chuck Hayes is one of the biggest enigmas in the league. At the very least, it's 100% true BEFORE his heartbreaking health troubles sapped his game. Hayes is notable primarily for his size -- or rather, the lack thereof. At 6'6", he's the shortest starting center the NBA has ever seen, narrowly edging out multiple-time all-star 6'7" Wes Unseld. Unlike centers like Dwight Howard or Ben Wallace, whose lacking height isn't explicitly obvious unless you explicitly make a point to watch how they compare to true 7 footers, Hayes is notably and obviously short. When the Rockets were putting out Hayes as their backup center to Yao, it led to a lot of really funny moments where opposing centers were legitimately confused at the height difference -- Hayes would inevitably have an easy scoring opportunity or an easy defensive steal in his first few possessions after Yao left the court, all because the height difference was such a crazy switch for opponents to adjust to.

Then this season happened. Hayes was diagnosed by Sacramento's medical staff with pericarditis, a treatable but nevertheless scary medical condition involving an inflammation of the outer sac of the patient's heart. They voided the contract they signed with Hayes on the first day of free agency. Hayes' agent responded by saying the issue didn't actually exist, there was a bit of a back and forth, and doctors at the Cleveland Clinic finally gave Hayes the go-ahead on playing again. The Kings responded by then giving Hayes a slightly larger contract than the one they'd voided (perhaps out of an apology for the botched diagnosis and the stress), which was fine for the first 10 games of the season, but then immediately marred by a freak shoulder injury that took Hayes out of action for most of January and much of February. As a result, Hayes played far fewer minutes per game this season than he had played in years, and he was markedly less effective at what he did. His passing wasn't quite on-point, his finishing was anemic, and his defense was harmed greatly with the decreased mobility caused by his shoulder injury and the fact that he came into camp somewhat out of shape.

Which ignores the other big issue -- the Sacramento coaching. Westphal is an awful coach, as most people know, but the confusion and lack of organization in the Kings organization showed even after he left. All season long, the Kings employed one of the laziest defensive schemes I've seen in a long time. Really seemed to me like they were essentially running no defensive sets whatsoever. No organized schemes, no overarching philosophy, nothing -- instead choosing to simply put men on an island and, if they had a good defender or two on the floor, try vainly to push all offensive players to that player. Which... tended to be Chuck, when he was on the floor. Even with his shoulder. A bit too much pressure, a bit overutilized on that end. All things considered, I'd tab Hayes for a bounce-back next year. Shoulder injuries are tricky, and it's absolutely possible that Hayes never quite comes back the same. But given his work ethic and his fundamentally excellent grasp of defensive principle, you have to think he can come back with a strong 2nd year with the Kings. If he does, the Kings should have a pretty strong frontcourt -- Cousins and Robinson are two extremely strong starters, and Jason Thompson/Chuck Hayes make for an excellent one-two punch off the bench. The guard rotation needs some work, as I'm not totally sold on Thornton or Tyreke-at-the-three. I am sold on Isaiah though. Really can't wait to write about his game, guys.

• • •

Follow Trevor Ariza on twitter at @trevorariza.

In a league filled with many, Trevor Ariza's contract is one of the best teaching examples of how a wayward GM can create a terrible contract. I think the blowback against Daryl Morey has been needlessly harsh and incoherent, fraught with too little criticism of Morey's own decisions in favor of overly broad hit jobs on statistical thinking in general. To take the failure of Morey's broader strategy as some sort of sign that statistical thinking is fundamentally flawed is like disregarding mathematics because nobody's quite wrangled the Hodge Conjecture yet. It's absurd to think that an entire approach to generating knowledge and insight is flawed simply because a singular advocate of the method has failed at a certain goal -- especially when many, many others using his principles have succeeded. The point is, regardless of the general sense that the Rockets won every trade Morey ever made, it's vastly overstating it to say that Morey never made any atrocious individual moves. This is the prime example. Trevor Ariza's contract looked somewhat shaky at the time, and in retrospect is absolutely laughable.

Just consider: the worst contracts in the league aren't usually superstar deals, or gigantic overpaid masses for quasi-stars like Joe Johnson. Contracts like that CAN be bad, and they CAN turn poor -- but for the most part the enormous contracts only get derailed by injury or age. You tend to get one or two seasons of star-level production out of them -- given the top-heavy manner in which production trickles down in the NBA, that's usually worth the hassle of the late contract. But contracts like the Ariza deal, where you pay 6+ million a year for a marginal player with the expectation he'll play better than he's ever played before? Those are far, far worse. On deals like that, GMs tend to give out all-too-long deals in an attempt to outbid an imaginary opponent -- "hey, Trevor, make sure you take THIS one! We're giving you 5 years!" They eat up an outsized portion of your cap (in the case of Ariza, he'll make up over 12% of the NBA's salary cap next season while being virtually guaranteed to statistically contribute <12% of the Wizards' positive statistical accomplishments) for an unreasonable period of time, and in that time, you'll probably need to give away an asset if you want to move their salary. Criticize Morey's approach all you want -- contracts like the Ariza contract make up the vast majority of the NBA's worst deals, and Morey was the one who inked it. You should never sign a fifth man to a deal like Ariza's. This isn't a failure of ideology or anything of the sort -- it's simply an poor decision that Morey made that few people remember or care to note.

This isn't to say Ariza is necessarily a bad player -- I would agree with At The Hive's Rohan (who once called him "the worst offensive player in basketball") but explicitly note that defenders of his caliber aren't exactly an overvalued commodity in the league. His numbers tend to indicate that isn't an excellent defensive player in isolation, but I'd argue that it's primarily because he spends the majority of his possessions guarding the best isolation players in the league. What he is, however, is perfectly physically built to contest without fouling and cover a ton of ground virtually instantly. This makes him one of the premier spot-up recovery guys in the league, and his next-to-flawless control over his athletic frame allows him to be one of the best in the league at fighting over screens and disrupting possessions. His defensive impact on a purely systematic perspective is extremely strong. Unfortunately, what he takes away on offense is almost as bad -- he's a wholly marginal shooter, with underwhelming career percentages of 43-31-67. This unfortunately doesn't stop him from jacking up 11-14 shots a game, some fully guarded. His defensive strengths are excellent, and were on full display in Monty's brilliant schemes the past two years. But his offensive problems will keep him from being more than a 5th or 6th guy on a contending team. Which isn't really a good value on a 5-year full MLE deal. And it wasn't from day one, unfortunately.

• • •

Follow might-be Toney Douglas on twitter at @therealtoneyd.

For the first time, I'm not at all sure if that twitter is actually the player-in-question! The John Salmons account was unverified, but it had several pictures of him and his family doing mundane things at stores, so it seemed legit. This twitter account is, obviously, a pretty quiet one. It IS followed by a confirmed Adidas corporate account, though, so something tells me it's got as good a shot as any of the unverified Toney Douglas poser accounts of being real. Still. I was a bit surprised that it took until player #12 for me to find a player that doesn't use Twitter relatively prolifically. Once I finish this series (you know, in mid December) I'll do a look-back and see what percentage of the players covered actively use Twitter. I have a feeling it's going to be a ridiculously high percentage.

As for Douglas, he's... an interesting one, no doubt. I remember watching a lot of him in college. I went to an ACC school, and while his Seminoles were never in strong contention for anything while he was there, it was impossible to talk about the ACC in his senior season without mentioning him. He was simply amazing -- tenacious defender, could score with the best of them, and absolutely RAN that Florida State team. He was one of the greatest players you could watch in the NCAA during his senior season -- I couldn't possibly give enough praise to his game. Though... not with his passing. That always was the big weakness in Toney's college game. His passing ability was never exquisite, never strong, and never anything that looked remotely NBA caliber. Given his shaky NBA size (a little under 6'3") and his relatively low weight (180, on draft night), there were legitimate questions whether he'd be able to translate any of his game to the NBA level. Those questions look to have been relatively well founded. In his limited NBA career, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Douglas has been a bit player.

His defense hasn't translated amazingly well to the NBA, because he's undersized and can't seem to wrangle point guards very well. He actually does a decent job on shooting guards, and he has defensive strengths, but as an overall defender he's only slightly above average. His offense has been streaky, albeit with a few bright spots during his sophomore year when he started getting comfortable -- believe it or not, Douglas owns a share of the New York Knicks' franchise record of most threes in a single game, with nine. He's been really, really bad as of late, though. Which may not entirely be his fault. Douglas suffered a bad shoulder injury in the run-up to the 2012 season, and it as well as several unspecified but reported "personal problems" affected his play through the entire year. By the end of it, he'd essentially completely dropped out of New York's rotation at the end of the year, in favor of the sandy corpse of Baron Davis and the ghastly phantasm that calls itself Mike Bibby. He's something of an unknown going in to next year. Most people have utterly written him off, but given that he was battling injury all season, I'm not 100% sure that's fair. If he can get his shot back, he's a passable defender and a solid second or third guard-off-the-bench. Perhaps not what the New York media circus was expecting, but essentially par for the course for the 29th pick in the NBA draft. At least I'll always have his dominant college years to look back on.

• • •

For the uninitiated, I'll continually restate this -- at the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch of players. Whoever gets the most riddles right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. If several people tie, I'll post everyone who tied. No overtime in this riddle-guessing competition, guys. For the last post, the winner of our respect goes to commenter J, who got 2/3 of these players correct. Great work, J!

Three players to guess for Wednesday.

• Once, there was a little ducky named Player #13. Nick Young's replacement, whoo!
• If you blink once, you might miss Player #14's scare tactics. Kobe didn't.
• Portland really liked Player #15. Then he proceeded to obligingly keep a proud Laker tradition going strong.

Stay frosty, friends.

Continue reading

As our summer mainstay, Aaron's going to be writing a 370-part series discussing almost every notable player who was -- as of last season -- getting minutes in the NBA. Intent is to get you talking, thinking, and appreciating the myriad of wonderful folks who play in our favorite sports league. Today's first three players, in our 3rd installment:Dante Cunningham, Paul George, Charlie Villanueva. More this afternoon.

• • •

Follow Dante Cunningham on twitter at @DlamarC33.

Before I get into Cunningham, I want to note the riddle -- nobody got it. Which, I suppose, makes sense -- the only real relation Dante's Inferno has to Dante Cunningham is the fact that they're both named Dante. In fact, the entire scope of the riddle was essentially nonsense. The only real inferno Dante Cunningham's ever descended into was that of his legal woes in the 2011 offseason, wherein he was caught speeding with marijuana and a BB gun on a late May night in Pennsylvania. When that news broke, I wasn't sure what surprised me more -- the fact that anyone in the world still owned a BB Gun or the fact that being pulled over with a BB Gun is actually something that gets added to the charge. Either way. The point is, given that he's the most notable Dante currently breaking bread in the NBA, his fans should get on the whole "Dante's Inferno" kick and make the riddle retrospectively meaningful. Let's get it done, Memphis fans.

Regardless. I wasn't too up on Cunningham before this season -- thought he was dramatically undersized, somewhat poor defensively, a bit too reliant on his long range jumper for a big man. He allayed most of my concerns this last season, and now I'm rather bullish on him as an NBA prospect that at least manages to stick in the league a while. One of the main reasons is that he changed his game -- after two seasons where he took more long shots than shots at-the-rim, he redefined his role and started using his prowess underneath the basket more effectively. It resulted in Cunningham posting the best field goal percentage in the league in the immediate at-rim area, a huge value-add to his otherwise lukewarm offensive game. Defensively, he bulked up a touch and proved that he can be (at the least) an average defensive presence in the league despite his tweener size. Some good things.

All that said, his upside isn't tremendous, and his anemic rebounding remains an issue as a starting big man. But as a low-usage second or third big off the bench, you can't do all that much better on the sort of value contract he's got -- $2,000,000 a year for Dante's next two is a great deal for the production he gives, and given that, Memphis fans should be glad they were able to snag Cunningham at a bargain value from the Bobcats. (Really, all things considered, the Bobcats probably should've matched. I realize he's not a fantastic player, but $2 million isn't a huge contract at all. Cunningham would've been the 2nd or 3rd best big on the Bobcats roster. He's also young. This may be all too retrospective, as I certainly didn't care one way or the other back when it happened, but this does seem like a legitimate mistake on Cho's part. A small one, but a mistake all the same.)

• • •

Follow Paul George on twitter at @King24George.

So. Let's talk about Mr. George. Due to the name George only catching on to the lay public around the Crusades, the appellation itself only began to trickle up into the British nobility (and, by extension, spread prolifically into the royal family) in the 17th century with the ascent of the House of Hanover -- on account of this, there are only six British monarchs by the name of George. On the other hand, while Georgia was a regency, they (perhaps somewhat predictably) had twelve monarchs who adopted the name George -- I suppose it'd be too much to ask the monarchs of Georgia to resist the "George, King of Georgia" title. There were also two reigning Georges in Greece, as well as two in Bulgaria. Finally, there was George V, the last King of Hanover alone, and a strange idiosyncracy in the reign of the Hanover House in Britain. That effectively wraps up all the important King Georges the world has ever witnessed.

You may be wondering why I'm starting this capsule with a bunch of seemingly irrelevant babbling about monarchs that took the name George. If so, I ask that you note this rather amazing fact: if you count up every previously reigning monarch that called himself King George (which I have conveniently laid out in the previous paragraph), there have been twenty-three monarchs by that name. Again -- Paul George chose the jersey number 24, then took as his twitter handle (again, "@King24George") a direct reference to thinly veiled monarchical roots. I don't really know if Paul George was aware that he had cleverly declared himself the 24th King George the world has ever seen when he chose that jersey number. I'm not sure if that's a reasonable expectation. It probably isn't. But whether it is or not, the mere idea that Paul George could be aware of it makes me smile, quite a lot.

You know what else makes me smile? Watching Paul George play basketball, most of the time. True, there's a high variance to his game. I can't think of many players in the league who have quite the distance between their top games and their bottom games -- when George has a bad game, he doesn't cut corners. He has AWFUL games -- games where he seems to shoot blanks every time he gets the ball, stand around on offense with no attempt to make himself open, and gets extremely lazy on defense -- where he essentially shuts down as a valuable contributor. And yes, that kind of sucks -- for Indiana fans and for anybody who tunes in to Pacers games to see interesting, engaging basketball. But when George is on? Lord have mercy, Paul George is something else. His blitzkrieg assaults on the rim with his driving ability are among the best in the league, and his on-ball defense is something to behold. The recently developed mechanics behind his previously busted three point shot are among the smoothest of anyone over 6'7" in the league, and his stat-stuffing makes him a boon to fantasy players everywhere.

There are some issues. For one, he tends to get lost on help defense. This is a relatively common problem among young defenders who are excellent at shutting down their man -- he's a great ball-watcher and a great man defender, but he almost emphasizes those tendencies too much for his own good. Sometimes he overcommits, and sometimes he gets caught wildly going for the ball -- teammates don't always know what they're getting when George's man gets by him, or if George is in a position to help. So that leads to a bit of hesitance, and occasional defensive breakdowns. As previously mentioned, he's also streaky -- he has good games where he goes absolutely nuts, and bad games where you wonder what the hell he's doing. But in a lot of ways, that's how it is for any young player. He's without question one of the best members of the class of 2010, and if it wasn't for one Greg Monroe and the fact that Blake Griffin is inexplicably considered a member of that class, he'd probably be the consensus best out of that group. He isn't exactly a guaranteed future all-star -- he has some kinks to work out in his game, and he absolutely needs to work on his consistency. But he's really good, and incredibly fun to watch. Give King George XXIV a try, gents.

• • •

Follow Charlie Villanueva on twitter at @CV31.

I don't say this lightly -- Charlie Villanueva needs to work on his anger management. It didn't get all that much play due to how bad both team's were at the time, but Villanueva is responsible for what I believe to be by far the most aggressively violent confrontation the league has seen since the 2005 brawl. Above the Artest/Harden elbow, the 2011 Bynum hit on Barea, the Arenas gun trouble -- this was simply insane. I'll recap, for those who weren't aware of it. It was late in the 2011 season, with the Cavaliers up by 11 over the Pistons and only about 6 minutes left in the (ahem, completely meaningless) game. Villanueva sets a screen, Hollins runs into it, they get tangled up. All normal, all average... right? Sure. Except that Villanueva takes a completely unnecessary swing at Hollins' crotch on the screen, presumably in response to Hollins being a bit too active with his elbows on the other end of the floor on the previous possession.

Hollins gets annoyed, says something nobody's ever been able to make out from the footage, and Villanueva responds by grabbing Hollins' face and trying to rake his eyes (prompting the always-classy Hollins to do the same), then elbows the Pistons players around him trying to pull him off of Hollins. That would've been any old "suspend the player, forget about it" confrontation if it had ended there. But it didn't. After they'd been torn apart by teammates and ejected from the game, Villanueva charges the length of the court with Pistons assistant coaches and Rodney Stuckey trying in vain to restrain him, screaming "I'm going to kill that dude, I don't give a [expletive]!" as the guards escort him off the court. To make matters worse, it didn't end there -- after the game, Villanueva stalked past the Cavs locker room and waited outside for Hollins, only leaving after the Detroit police came to escort him to his car and out of the building. Seriously.

This isn't the first time Villanueva's behavior has been indicative of a temper problem -- he's faced multiple civil lawsuits related to alleged assault (both domestic and otherwise), and has had several large and public fights in his NBA career (including the famous confrontation with Kevin Garnett over Garnett's "cancer" comments). This isn't to say that he's a bad person, necessarily. He's one of the NBA's leading advocates against bullies and child abuse, and donates more money to charity than many players who make even more than he does. As someone who was bullied as a child for his non-fatal case of alopecia universalis (hence his lack of hair -- he can't grow it), he understands more than anyone the psychological impact that teasing and constant bullying can have on a child. Instead, Villanueva's actions seem more to me like a constant reminder that otherwise good people can struggle mightily with their temper and it's not always right to indict a man on his faults before you consider his merits.

Despite this? Nobody can really deny that Villanueva really, really needs some help for his temper -- it's getting a little ridiculous. As for his on-court play, disappointment is about all you can describe him with. This isn't to say that Villanueva lacks talent. On the contrary -- were he to fix up his shot selection, he probably would be a reasonably valuable piece on a contending team. He didn't score 48 his rookie year in a fluke, you know. He has a decent three point shot, and an underrated post game. Of course, he doesn't really use either effectively -- his shot selection is ridiculously spotty, he regularly refuses to pass the ball when he receives it, and he rebounds poorly enough that it's untenable to play him as a starting power forward in the NBA. His defense is incredibly poor -- the Pistons, an abysmal defensive team over the last two seasons, have been consistently 7-8 points per 100 possessions worse with Villanueva on the floor than without. He's essentially been completely and utterly useless to the Pistons, and that's not very good for a player on a small market team eating through a 5-year, $35 million dollar contract. Really not one of the NBA's brightest stories.

• • •

For the uninitiated, I'll continually restate this -- at the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next batch of players. Whoever gets the most riddles right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. If several people tie, I'll post everyone who tied. No overtime in this riddle-guessing competition, guys. For the last post, the winner of our respect goes to (again!) _@krishnanwarrior_, who got 3/5 of these players correct. The next post will go up late this afternoon or early this evening -- here are three riddles, including new ones for players #10 and #11.

• Bullish post defender, Player #10 is one of the most interestingly sized players in the entire league.
• You know, maybe I was being too harsh. He's still a good defender, that Player #11.
• Speaking of which, Player #12 was very recently a great defender in college. Emphatically didn't translate, tho.

Later today, folks. See you on the other side of the workday.

Continue reading