Happy New Year, everyone! I had a relatively crummy night, but most of my friends had a great one. Here's hoping 2012 is two times the year 2011 was. Or three times. Or more, even. There's reason for New Year's Cheer afoot, especially for Lakers fans. Bynum's back, the Spurs look strong, and the Rockets may still be a playoff team. All's well in the NBA world. After the jump: Nuggets-Lakers, Hawks-Rockets, Jazz-Spurs, and Knicks-Kings. Let's get at it.

• • •

Big game for both teams. Denver lost a winnable, nearly-in-the-bag game because they shanked their execution in the clutch. It's rarely that simple, but this time it was. They lost because Nene was completely and utterly dominated by Andrew Bynum, who had one of the singularly best games of the 2012 season thus far. The Denver defense -- which has been relatively awful the last week, in one of the underrated first week stories -- finally got better this game. Their rotations were a bit crisper on interior shots and rim protection, though they still failed to close out on the three point line. Which very nearly burned them, but didn't because the Lakers are one of the worst three point shooting teams in human history. (They aren't, but it certainly felt like it -- they shot 8.3% from three and it honestly felt reasonable. You didn't really leave the game feeling they let points on the table, they're just a team of horrible three point shooters.)

But again, the Lakers won ugly, and (underratedly) they made the right defensive decisions in the endgame to mess up George Karl's perfect endgame plays for the Nuggets. Karl ran some great, great plays in the late game. There was no shortage of creativity, grit, or hustle in most of the Nuggets' endgame choices. But, well. Nene shanked an easy, open dunk set up by a beautiful Andre Miller spin move. Fisher outhustled both Andre Miller and Ty Lawson for a great rebound. Nene was eaten by Bynum on both ends -- blocked by Bynum on O, then completely destroyed one play later for the two. Ty Lawson -- a career 76.1% free throw shooter -- shanks two straight free throws. Harrington and Gallo miss contested threes they didn't really have to take. Gallo missed one of the easiest layups of his career that would've tied it with a second to go. And then Al Harrington got confused on a screen and Mike Brown's Lakers defended a several-option play very well to ruin the Nuggets chances on that last second shot. The Nuggets still almost pulled the game out.

Why did the Lakers leave the game open to a team that didn't score in the last 3 minutes? Why, Kobe was brutal -- absolutely brutal -- in his late-game minutes. He went 0-4 in the last 7 minutes of the game, with three of those being far-too-long threes. He had a completely unnecessary technical foul that almost was the difference in the game. He shanked a critical last minute free throw that opened the door and gave the Nuggets a chance to tie it. He had two critical turnovers that both led to open shots -- one led to a possession where Al Harrington drained his third three of the game, and the other led to the lost possession where the Nuggets turned away from their guards and let Gallo and Harrington take contested threes instead. But in a game where a single shot could've flipped it for the Nuggets, Kobe was their biggest ally in a Lakers jersey, stopping the ball whenever he got the chance in the last three minutes. Could've really hurt them. As is, though? The Lakers gut out a tough, defensive win on the back of Andrew Bynum and Brown's system. Which, by the way, looked absolutely deadly this game with Bynum and Pau on the court together -- this is a title-team defense, if the team remains bought in and Bynum stays healthy. Get used to winning ugly, Laker fans. Because you're about to see a lot of it.

• • •

UTA 89 @ SAS 104; TODAY WAS A GOOD DAY (Alex)

At the beginning of this one, the Jazz and Spurs were feeling each other out, which worked to Utah's advantage and they stayed close. Then - in a quick regression to the mean - the Spurs suddenly shot an ungodly percentage on threes in the second quarter and pulled away (for the game, Manu actually shot a torrid 9-10 for 23 points, without shooting a single free throw). The Spurs held court for most of the third and then poured in buckets with a dominant sequence: The run -- which utterly sealed the game -- saw the Blair/Duncan/Ginobili/Parker/Jefferson lineup at its peak, built on crazy bounce passes that darted through legs and arms of Jazz defenders. In fact, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili all had stellar passing in this one, starting fast-breaks and making Richard Jefferson and DeJuan Blair look like LeBron and Amar'e with wonderful set-ups, and, to their credit, RJ and Blair weren't hurting the illusion with their great decision-making. On defense the rotations were great, especially for the starting five.

Even Sean Elliott was good today (sincerely like this version), and the Spurs got it done well before the New Year's festivities began. It probably isn't a game the Spurs are going to be able to repeat; the Jazz aren't great right now. But with so little time remaining for the Spurs' Big Three, a vintage performance is always welcome. Because LP doesn't cover NBATV (for reasons passing understanding), I had to catch this on "tape," but I'm glad I took the time to do so. It felt like last season at its best for San Antonio, and despite the heavy Rockets loss, I could see the Spurs tearing through the league again in 2012, or at least through the West.

As for the Jazz? Well, despite being outclassed as a team, they showed some promising spots: I really liked Derrick Favors and Al Jefferson in this one, and Paul Millsap was decent. Jefferson is the frontcourt player for all seasons, giving you a nice statline and a powerful presence, and Favors rebounded well despite limited minutes. There was a sequence where Favors got caught between three Spurs defenders under the basket and still found a way to spin around and get to the hoop for a shooting foul. Okay, Avery Johnson was a little too high on him last year when AJ compared him to Tim Duncan, but Favors might sincerely be a quality, above-average starter in a couple years. And an above-average starter in the frontcourt can take a team a long way.

• • •

ATL 84 @ HOU 95; (Alex); MOREYBALL

Luis Scola, Kevin Martin, and Kyle Lowry form a formidable trio of utterly boring players. Despite the Rockets consistently overachieving on the backs of the trio, they're frankly not my favorites to watch. Sure, on a good day each of them can be the class of their positions (ignoring defense), but there's almost no continuity to it. Luis Scola pretty much either gets 25 super-efficient points because he has favorable match-ups and rules (SEE: any international game), or he doesn't score much at all. Martin's shot is either on or off on a given night, and he only "creates" shots to the extent that he has an efficient, high release and can rotate to get open and can get to the line. Lowry is easily the most interesting, and only because Lowry's seemed better and better the last few years (this despite being short, not having an excellent shot, and being in a loaded Western Conference that should consistently eat him for lunch (but doesn't)). Lowry was a strong candidate for MIP last year and he might make a good case this year. That's pretty cool. In any case, boredom is a minor complaint: you can never write off the Rockets and it's to their eternal credit, and Goran Dragic, Chase Budinger, and Samuel Dalembert at least have the energy to make the team as a whole watchable.

Besides, whatever you want to say about the Rockets, they're way less boring than the Hawks. Atlanta did have more motion than what I've seen from them before, but it was basically jump shot after jump shot: the same old story. Sure, the Hawks sometimes used flare screens to create space and they effectively used Al Horford as a more-than-credible inside threat, but mainly the Hawks just used their own iso skills to find the open shot and hit it. Don't get me wrong: I like the way Tracy McGrady's been playing off the bench (and he had a few throwback moves; dude looks healthy), and Larry Drew's defense was at least interesting with Josh Smith as a block threat and Horford playing well in the paint. But... they're the Atlanta Hawks. I think Kelly Dwyer once called the Hawks "mercurial" and I don't know if any word fits quite as well besides "above-average".

In any case, credit mostly goes to Lowry, Martin, and Scola for putting up 95 in this one. Good on them! :nods off or goes drinking instead of watching second half:

• • •

NYK 114 @ SAC 92; PATRICK EWING STRIKES BACK (Aaron)

Now that's more like it. This is more like the Knicks team we thought we'd see from day one -- Tyson Chandler beasting with easy opportunities and defensively active, crisp rotations, and picture-perfect offense. This was a great game for the Knicks, and not just because they were able to dominate with Amare absent. It was great because, up til now, the Knicks haven't really looked like a solid basketball team for more than about one half of the year. They looked like trash against the Warriors and the Lakers, and they looked awful in the second half versus the Celtics. Last night, for almost the whole game, the Knicks looked like a good team. Josh Harrellson isn't a great player, but to these eyes Harrellson was honestly more active on defense than Amare usually is, and he had what will most likely be one of the best offensive games of his rookie year. He really pestered Cousins -- which is saying virtually nothing, as Cousins has terrible shot selection and anyone trying to pester him can do so easily -- but it was a nice sign for Knicks fans.

Which does beg the question, really. Amare has looked gimpy all year, through these few games. Are the Knicks legitimately a better team with him on the floor? I'd say yes, but it's with the caveat that these are temporary injury concerns and not the beginning of his decline. And with the caveat that if he's not fully healthy, the Knicks are probably far better off starting Harrellson and waiting for Amare to recuperate 100%. They have no reason to rush him back on the court -- as defensive as Knicks fans get about Amare's injury history, he is not a player who has been known to recover quickly from his maladies, and risking more injury is playing with fire if you're the Knicks front office. There's still around $83 million on Amare's contract. You shouldn't risk his health just to put him on the floor. Even if the Knicks have a few bad games without Amare -- something I see as a virtual certainty, as Tyson Chandler staying out of foul trouble simply isn't going to happen every night -- rushing Amare back risks setting the franchise back five years. I think the "Ewing Theory" comparisons are silly, but there are legitimate reasons to hold Amare out as long as he can, and to let Amare full recuperate before he steps back out there. A ton of legitimate reasons, in fact.

• • •

As part of rolling out the STEVE NASH model, we're going to put the next day's spreads at the end of each day's Outlet. Here are our spreads for tonight's games. Negative number means the home team is the favorite -- IE, for the first team here, the Cavs are three point favorites against the Nets tonight. These spreads utilize both the NASH model and the mean-regressed HCA calculations taken from Evan's great work over at The City.

     NJN @ CLE  -3.4
     CHA @ MIA  -12.4
     TOR @ ORL  -11.0
     BOS @ WAS    4.4
     DAL @ MIN   -1.0
     MEM @ CHI   -6.2
     LAL @ DEN   -6.5
     NOH @ SAC   -3.5
     POR @ LAC    0.1

[Alex's Note: Because of the New Year's festivities, it took me an extra day to roll out for my games. Sorry about that.

Still, look at those predictions STEVE NASH gave us. Damn, the only game he got wrong was well within the margin of error 
(and, in fact, POR-LAC was the closest game). I guess STEVE NASH is more than just a good point guard. 
He can also see the future with a high degree of confidence.]

Programming Note: Check out the STEVE NASH projection system that we're dropping today.

I had a redeye flight that prevented me from seeing all but half of a single game on Thursday, on account of my packing, so we didn't have an outlet yesterday. Still, another day, another outlet, as they say. Let's share some of our patented aimless thoughts regarding last night's games.

• • •

DET 85 @ BOS 96; INCOMPETENCE BAILS OUT THE CELTICS (Aaron)

Detroit may be the most aggressively, unnecessarily bad team I've watched in quite some time. The "unnecessary" part is the key to that sentence -- they don't need to be this bad. They don't have to be the worst team in the league (an appellation that may actually fit them just fine in this young season). Their defense is atrocious, don't get me wrong -- Monroe wasn't great on defense his rookie year, but he wasn't nearly as bad as he's been in these last few games. The Celtics probably could've won this game even if the Pistons hadn't played like they did on offense. The thing is, it would've been an uncertain win. It would've been a close game. It would've been questionable. As it stands, this game was anything but. The Celtics piled on the poor Detroit defense and the Pistons had little to show for it.

But it really didn't have to be that way. KG couldn't cover Greg Monroe when he was in the game, and when he was out, not even the double team could keep Monroe from scoring. Bass is awful on defense, and Jermaine O'Neal is suddenly about five steps too slow for the NBA. Greg Stiemsma is clearly an NBA talent, but he's not a good one-on-one defender and his weakside blocks weren't going to stop Monroe. Despite this? The Pistons didn't drive, didn't feed Monroe, and had a series of almost 10 possessions in a row in the first half where Monroe didn't even touch the ball. Suddenly, for about 5 possessions in a row, they got Monroe the ball -- he scored on 4 of them. Monroe completely obliterated the Celtics' shoddy interior defense every time he got the chance, and the Pistons inexplicably decided to cut down on his chances. Monroe should be taking 20 shots when the Pistons are facing interior pressure as slim as the Celtics were giving.

In sum: Monroe made 9 shots -- Rodney Stuckey, Brandon Knight, and Austin Daye made just as many. Monroe took 12 shots to make his 8. The other three combined to take 33. That shouldn't happen in any game, let alone a game where Ray, Rondo, and Pierce combined to show a Celtics-esque commitment on the perimeter to contrast a gaping flesh wound on the interior. Just some terrible, terrible decision-making on the part of the Pistons in this game, and that seems to be par for the course for them this season. On the part of the Celtics, it's concerning that their interior defense is so bad even when KG is in the game. KG isn't the kind of do-it-all defender he's been the last few years, and so far this season, he's played more like the tentative and defensively toothless KG we saw in the Miami series than the one who led the Celtics to a sterling record out the gate last season. It's a concerning trend, and if it doesn't improve, the Celtics are going to have a lot of trouble beating any team that's paying attention. Luckily, for them? The Pistons weren't.

• • •

CLE 91 @ IND 98 (OT); WHERE KYRIE GETS REAL AND JAMISON IS AWFUL (Alex)

The most interesting matchup in the game was in the last quarter, when George Hill and Kyrie Irving managed to find each other on both ends. A bit of background on the two: George Hill is a great player in combo guard hell. His skillset is very hard to fit into a great offense like the Spurs had and that the Pacers figure to have. He can't run a offense but he also doesn't have the dominating athleticism or lockdown shot to be a great SG. The essential "more than good" rotation player: always as well-regarded as the starters, often more efficient, usually better at man and transition defense, and often right there at the ends of games. But a hard fit. Kyrie Irving is a pure point guard. He's also by a wide margin the best defensive guard on the Cavaliers. The total package: he can run the pick and roll with options, penetrate with the best of them, and shoots pretty well. His shot selection is a bit questionable so far and his passes aren't all crisp yet, but it's his third game in the NBA. He's very efficient, and looks to be among the better points in the NBA already. Down the stretch, as soon as Hill started hitting shots against Sessions and Gibson, it was pretty obvious Kyrie was going to sub in to switch onto Hill. Conversely, when Kyrie came in and outclassed the rest of the Pacers backcourt, it was pretty obvious that Hill was going to switch onto Kyrie.

And so we had a good old fashioned defensive matchup on both ends with the two guards: Each player was fast, tenacious, and defensively skilled enough to prevent the other from getting an easy layup on a penetration, but both players also had enough skills to stretch the game out and create and try harder layups. While Kyrie was the primary ballhandler and Hill was at the two, they were a perfect match, and their matchup sent the game a bit higher. They even had a jumpball (which Hill won). But overall, Kyrie marginally edged Hill out at the end (though they weren't matched up for this possession), because Kyrie beat four Pacers to get a game-winning open layup at the end of regulation (which, yes, he blew). The big men matchups were great, as well. Hibbert outclassed Varejao 1v1, but honestly there was little Varejao (or practically any one defender) could have done. Meanwhile, Varejao made great rebounds, was a threat in PnRs, and did all the dirty work, even while getting a lot of really painful injuries (including a bullshit play where David West pulled him down to the ground). Despite Hibbert's talent, Varejao's clumsy, ever-present creativity made this a push. Then there was Jamison vs West. In just the fourth and OT, this matchup accounted for a swing of about 15 points, as David West had scouted Jamison for five minutes and realized he always shot the ball. This not only completely bottled up Jamison, it also created transition opportunities when Tawn did get the ball blocked or altered. On the other end, West made the most basic switches and gave himself the easy 5-foot floaters. David West can make a defender pay with an inch of space. Then Jamison gave him 3 feet. Whoops.

Which really is the root of what made this game so great. Kyrie could've hit the layup that would've won it at the buzzer, yes, but before that (on the possession and in the quarter) Irving had almost beaten Indiana by himself, and the game wouldn't have come down to a single, up-or-down event without Kyrie (or, for the opposite reason, without Antawn Jamison). In the future he'll make that shot 9 times out of 10, and the Cavs will win. It's unreasonably frustrating: Kyrie suddenly puts the troubled Cavs into a game against an eastern contender, and yet Coach Scott insists on playing the black hole Jamison to take them right back out of it. This game was a stark reminder that the Cavs are decent (and have some legitimately way-above-average starters) and might be great in the future, but in the meantime insist on losing winnable games through a combination of horrible players and questionable coaching decisions. Still. Fun game, and overall? The Cavs losing isn't necessarily a bad thing, for a franchise that wants to rebuild and could probably use one or two more lottery selections to build their future title shot. And if you're going to lose, better to entertain while you do it.

• • •

MIA 103 @ MIN 101; BETWEEN PUPPY BREATH AND RUTHLESS KILLING MACHINES (Aaron)

By the time the Timberwolves took a lead in the 4th, I'd lost all hope that they'd pull out the game. But this Timberwolves team owns the best 0-3 start in the league, and I'm not saying that lightly, nor am I ignoring the Mavs' start. This Timberwolves team -- through three games -- has yet to be embarrassed. Never not been competitive. Never given up. Adelman is getting a lot out of this roster, and it's incredibly fun to watch. Only Kevin Love has played more than 36 minutes per game (38, to this point) -- beyond Love, the team's philosophical and oftentimes literal center, Adelman is going with a very deep rotation with 9 men playing between 20 and 31 minutes per game. And they're competing. Their defense isn't good (an eternal truism for a team that relies on Kevin Love for big minutes) and their offense is a bit predictable without Rubio in the game. They rely on getting to the line a lot, perhaps not sustainably. But when Rubio is in the game, and the players are bought in, this is a Timberwolves team that can put up a 15 point run on any team in the league -- good defense or bad -- without batting an eye. Rubio is, by the way, an enchanting guard to watch. His shot is about as impure as it gets, but his vision is just absurd. He's made this Timberwolves team into a watchable, fun unit. Joys abound.

As for Miami, this game had a few poor omens for a season that's otherwise looking to be -- with caution -- a special one. LeBron James is quietly averaging 33-8-7-3-2 (on 60% shooting) in just 37 minutes per game in the Heat's four victories, and is unquestionably the MVP of the NBA's first week. Bosh has (excepting a poor performance against Dallas) been great this year, and Norris Cole is the spark off the bench the Heat needed in the finals last season. And Udonis Haslem looks like he'll be good once he gets in shape. But this defense? It's bad. As good as their offense has been, the Miami defense has been decidedly poor the last three games. And while the Timberwolves played well, the only reason they made 11 threes was that the Heat absolutely refused to close out on their shooters. Part of it may be that Wade -- so far -- has been barely short of terrible this season. Despite taking infinitely more efficient shots than he used to, Wade is shooting 47% and looks quite bad out there. Part of it is the illness he's been suffering and the various scrapes, but he's playing decidedly older than his age right now, and that has to worry Heat fans a bit. He's the hero, right now, for winning two games with miracle game-winners. But the Heat wouldn't have needed those if he'd played better in the first 45 minutes. Something to watch, as the season goes on.

• • •

TOR 86 @ DAL 99; THE CHAMPS GET A WIN, THE RAPS GET A COACH (Aaron)

Hey! Dallas got to play a meaningful fourth quarter! Excellent! In truth, this was a rather boring game, but the final score drastically overrates the final margin. The Raptors (another pleasant surprise in the young season) played to their potential and kept the game very, very close going into the fourth. With fifteen minutes left in the game, the Raptors were actually leading -- on the road, in Dallas -- 68 to 61. The Mavs proceeded to put up 38 on the Raptors defense while allowing only 18 from that point forward, showing that the Raptors defense, while improved, isn't exactly at "trust it to keep a lead" level yet. But it's certainly improved, and it took a few lucky shots and crunch time minutes for their main guys for the Mavs to run up the score quite as much as they did. I'm still rather shocked that Dwane Casey has turned the Raptors into a decent team. Not world-beaters, but they're not awful by any means. And if you'd told me that before the season? I would've been surprised.

As for the Mavs, their defense showed up in decent form this game, despite the fourth straight utter no-show from Lamar Odom (prompting Alex to hilariously and rhetorically ask me if the Lakers "won" the Lamar Odom trade). Delonte West played poorly on the offensive end but was effective on defense, showing the same chops on that end he used to when he was a Cav. Vince Carter was efficient on offense for the first game in seventeen years, and Dirk was... honestly rather disappointing. You'd think he would come out the gate strong after his title, but instead, he looks more like he's finally starting to show his age and lose his first step. Concerning, but not as much as Odom losing his step, Kidd's passing looking depleted, and Beaubois continuing to disappoint. The 2012 Mavs are still as interesting as I thought they'd be. Perhaps not in a good way.

• • •

CHI 114 @ LAC 101; REGRESSING TO THE MEAN (Alex)

The Bulls are 2-2 and are winning by the margins that they should be. Rose was an absolute beast last night, outclassing my favorite point CP3 by a significant margin in every statistical category imaginable (except Paul's edge in steals/TOs; Paul was a typical beast with 4 steals). Rose finished with 16 assists, and to these eyes they were earned, though perhaps not in the traditional "penetrate and dish" sense. See, that would imply that he wanted to dish instead of score through five defenders, Rose's usual goal. His assists were more like afterthoughts of good judgment. But afterthoughts count just as much as forethoughts in the box score. His dishes were more like desserts. Anyway, outside of his passing, Rose got 29 behind amazing finishes and getting to the line whenever he had the opportunity. It was pretty great to watch, and even without Rose, the Bulls offense was filled with stellar passing. Big ups to Omer Asik, with a strange 2-5-2 (with 4 to and 2 pf) line in just 10 minutes, who got another 2 hockey assists that I saw. See, Asik is a garbage-time artist, one of those centers that seem to exist as living ball redirects in a network flow problem. Noah got to the line well and was his typically insanely efficient and quiet self on both ends (19-8-4-1-1 with great defense on 7 shots, what?). Looking at the box-score of any Bulls game, you note just how many players they have that can fill up the box score in so many good ways, without using up shots or making turnovers, or even calling attention to themselves. It's pretty crazy.

Paul's 14 assists were more difficult and impressive than Rose's 16, even at one point crashing into a switching defender as he dumped it off so that a rolling Griffin could have an open lane to the basket. And Paul is still a better floor general who seems to be working with less talent and much worse coaching. My favorite "horrible Clippers meet CP3 sitcom" moment was when Paul made a long, forceful argument to get the ball back when it went out of bounds, and actually got his wish... only to see the other Clippers turn it over 2 seconds later. Classic Clippers. Blake Griffin had 34 points on 25 shots and was brilliant around the rim, typically. Which sounds nice, except that he was playing with the best passing PG in the game and many of his setups were of the "couldn't miss" type.

It could easily have been 34 on 20 or 44 on 25 shots, and Blake hasn't yet learned that he's not a shooting guard. Over and over Blake settled for awful 19-footers, surreally passing up open jumpers only to take the same shot with more pressure and less options thanks to the shot clock, dribbling from 20 feet out and causing a bad shot or a turnover. Why does he do that? It's absurd, and combined with his defensive incompetence, doesn't really do much for me. For the Clippers on both ends it was the same story as with San Antonio: On defense they were a sieve (and worse, a sieve in foul trouble!) and got punished by a much superior team with great passing and a great backcourt. The Clippers were actually rather efficient: The Bulls played fine defense, but found out that Chris Paul and Blake Griffin are both pretty good. It's quite hard to stop either, much less both. The rest of the Clips? You can stop them just fine.

• • •

Check on us later for season predictions. We won't be using any of these first games to make them, too -- which makes one of the model's predictions even more ridiculous. But you'll see.

If you're a gambler, and you get caught between the Spurs and New Lob City... you probably should've picked the Spurs, at least last night. My lord, was that a game. Lots of good games, really -- Kyrie broke out (14-5-7-2 in 19 minutes? That's sizzling.), Brandon Knight looked great, the Nuggets have stealthily become the ACTUAL incarnation of Lob City and the Thunder look poised. Thing is? We aren't going to talk about most of those games, because we don't really have much to add to the table. I mean, the Cavs looked great, Kyrie and Tristan have me excited, but what could I add to Krolik's excellent take and Conrad's wide view of the matter, really? Well, I suppose I could add that the Cavs notched their first double digit win two games into this season after it took a full 73 games to reach that threshold last season. Perhaps I could point out that the Cavs hadn't won a road game by double digits since May 7th, 2010... in Boston. In Kyrie's second game. I could point out all those things in an outlet blurb... but why do that when I can shamelessly use those observations to substantiate an introduction when I can't think of a suitable one?

• • •

IND 95 @ TOR 90; THE GAME CAN SURPRISE YOU, IF YOU AREN'T CAREFUL (Aaron)

If it wasn't for the amazing Bobcats game we were treated to last night, this game would take the cake as the most entertaining bout of the night. Easily. Because sometimes, the game surprises you. Paul George was in NBA-Jam mode for most of the night, and while I've been a bit dismissive of some of my Pacers fan friends entreaties that George will be a star, he certainly looked the part. He tailed off as the game went on, but his 4-7 from three wasn't a mirage -- the man is an excellent three point shooter, and he's almost as tall as Durant is now. That's a possible superstar. And Danny Granger showed in explicit detail why we all were incredibly silly to write him off after a relatively poor season. He's still one of the 5 best threes in the league, and still one of the key cogs that makes this entertaining and lovable Pacers team click. And these Pacers are something else. Yes, they have two wins against legitimately bad teams -- one of them, this Toronto win, extremely close. That doesn't really prove anything, and the Pistons (a team they embarrassed in Detroit the other day) just lost to the Cavs by almost 20 points. But you can see something there. Their defense is better than the sum of its parts, and their offense is just efficient and effective enough to surprise you.

One of my stealth predictions for this season is that the Pacers will, by season's end, be a top-4 team in the East. Off an unrepresentative two game sample? They're well on their way. It's also worth noting that the Raptors, to their credit, are finally starting to become a cohesive team. I clearly underestimated just how atrocious Jay Triano was with this crew -- Casey has pieced together two games befitting of a lower-tier Eastern Conference playoff contender, hardly the stuff of horrors many predicted from this Raptors squad. They're beginning to communicate on defense, and he's even using Bargnani effectively on that end. It's fun to watch, and when you consider that the Raptors have a stud center on the way, this team isn't nearly as bad-off as I'd thought they would be. And Casey is looking like a revolutionary hire for the franchise, too. There's good vibes all around in Toronto and for a franchise that looked to be in the worst shape after Bosh's departure, it's a good thing to see.

• • •

MIA 96 @ CHA 95; DOUBLE-CLUTCHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY (Aaron)

This game was so good, I don't really think anything I say is going to give justice to it. So I'm going to keep myself to a few key notes. Let's start with, Gerald Henderson, who I am absolutely over the moon with. These first two games have been Henderson's coming out party, and everyone who's been watching has gotten to see some seriously fun ball from the kid. This last game saw him score 21 on 19 shots, which you'd think would be rather inefficient, but he somehow managed to draw zero free throws despite getting banged on at the rim by Miami's foul-magnet big men. Couple that with 4 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 steals, 2 blocks, and (for my money) the best defense I've ever seen a man play on Dwyane Wade in my life. Really. He completely shut Wade down, and while you may blame the ankle if you want, he also managed to bottle LeBron, Cole, and Chalmers whenever he got switched on them for a possession. Gerald is a capital-F Force on defense and -- like all tenacious, undersized perimeter stoppers -- his game is simply a joy to watch. And with his offense starting to come along? Henderson is a great piece for this Bobcats team, and his inclusion alone might merit their standing as a league pass team if they maintain the fun, frentic, competitive pace they have for these first two games.

Moving on, Boris Diaw, who I am not really over the moon with but who remains one of the most fascinating players in the league. At this early juncture of the season, Diaw is averaging 12-12-9. This isn't going to last -- there's quite literally zero chance it does. But just imagine. Dare to dream. Think: what if Boris Diaw, the representative for heavy basketball players everywhere, ends up being the first man since Oscar Robertson to average a triple double on the season. Dare we dream it! We are two games in, and the Boris Diaw Triple Double Alert has been blaring strong for all two games. Can you imagine? What's more -- could you imagine Boris Diaw averaging a triple double despite never actually getting a triple double this season? What if he has a 20 assist game with 9 points and 10 rebounds? A 1-30-9 game the next night? What if Boris Diaw does the unthinkable, the incredible, the completely inconceivable? My God.

... And don't get me wrong. I realize this is the absolute dumbest "dare to dream" scenario anyone has ever come up with. But the idea of Boris Diaw standing side-by-side with Oscar Robertson as the only players to average triple doubles in NBA history is one of the most hilarious images I've ever blessed myself with, and I had to share this with you. Just had to. As for the game itself -- Miami got jobbed a few times, but Charlotte got jobbed quite a few more over the course of the game and if it wasn't for the fact that it's in Charlotte's best interest to lose games this season, I'd say they really missed out on this one. As it stands, though, it was the most fun I've had watching the Bobcats since Gerald's incredible 2010 season. Incredible game.

• • •

LAC 90 @ SAS 115; APOLOGIZING FOR SEAN ELLIOT (Alex)

On behalf of Spurs fans, Aaron and I would like to issue our annual apology to other fan bases for having to deal with Sean Elliott’s color commentary. Now, I’ve had close friends and family undergo transplants, I’ve seen the occasional national stigma towards organ donation, and Sean Elliott’s return to basketball after a kidney transplant is totally inspirational. He was also a baller, with both athleticism and intelligence at his peak. Sean Elliott has a strange, dry, insanely self-aware sense of humor that I am primed to understand acutely and that is occasionally hilarious (but to very few people). And his weird, performance-art “feud” with former teammate (and perfect comic straight-man) Tim Duncan is the best thing that any commentator in any medium does. It’s always so weird, and so perfect. On my Twitter feed I mentioned off-hand that I hated Sean Elliott, but that basically only applies to his general status as a color commentator and a humorist, and even then he has his moments.

All that said, I really think that Sean is one of the worst color commentators in the NBA, and it’s kind of embarrassing whenever he’s the guy on the NBA TV feed for our team in a Game 4 in the first round of the playoffs. It’s as if all the professionalism and class of the Spurs organization were merely a front for Sean Elliott as our true heart, which is all about badmouthing the new-look Clippers when we go up 20 in a home game. He is a homer, to be sure, and the semi-entrenched, likable kind (at least if you’re a Spurs fan). But he doesn’t modulate or work on his “one of the adults from Peanuts” voice. He relishes and pounds home the team rivalries from his position as a Spurs fan (which are, given the roster turnover, usually mostly for the fans anyway), and he seems content to call the Spurs “the good guys” and actually act that way unless one of the Spurs does something inexcusable or one of the other team does something remarkable. (which, to their credit, doesn’t happen as often as with most other teams).

But the point is… you shouldn’t be boorish, intentionally biased, or annoying as a default something comes along to tip the scales and force you into objectivity and universal entertainment. You should just be that way, by default, if you can be. And he isn’t. And he can be. I mean, the problem isn’t that he’s a homer, really. Former players (such as Elliott) and coaches alike are still often fans of their franchises, and that’s fine. Some of them are aware of this bias, and use the inevitable conflict of interests as a basis for hamming it up and pumping up their faithful. At worst it’s unlistenable, and at best you admire the “hometown/enemy territory” shadow that the homer casts over the game.

If Sean Elliott were just kind of dumb or just liked the Spurs and was incapable of avoiding bias, I mean, it would be a problem, yeah. No, the problem is that a shameless homer is exactly what a detached, gifted intellectual like Sean Elliott should never be. He is capable of much more. See, Elliott knows these players up and down, can run a telestrator better and more effectively than most national commentators, and has a presence of mind and an eye for the many things going on in a situation that we associate with the very best of athletes. He has watched every player in the NBA, scouted them, and if by some demonic forces he has a Twitter feed, he’s incredibly primed to make great commentary with the best of them. But he doesn’t. You watch a game from 2001 between the Spurs and Mavs, and he mentions, off-hand, that Dirk is primed to be an MVP candidate in 4 or 5 years. You see that he watched last night’s game and he has an interesting take on it. He does this several times a game, and it leaves you wondering why that isn’t his default attitude to the booth.

• • •

LAC 90 @ SAS 115; WAIT, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT THE GAME (Aaron)

That's a shame. Because this game was fantastic. The Spurs look very, very good right now. Far be it from me to proclaim them a leading contender four days into a compressed, crazy season. But you can't knock their resume -- they thoroughly outclassed the team that made them look silly not 8 months prior. They proceeded to completely dominate and eviscerate a poor Clippers defense while defending rather well themselves. The bench looks to be in playoff form, defensively (if not on offense) and the Spurs offense is running quite smoothly for one that rather fell apart at the end of last season. I'm not declaring them a contender, yet -- but if they keep this pace up and Pop is stingy enough with the minutes that they remain fresh for the playoffs, this Spurs team could very well run roughshod through a weak Western Conference come playoff time. And they're fun to watch, too -- the crisp passing, the pick and roll play, the incredible defensive acumen of the Anderson-Leonard-Green trio off the bench -- this team is a joy, from a pure basketball perspective, to cover and take in. Love what I'm seeing from them. Hope desperately that it's not an illusion. And that health doesn't betray them, of course.

• • •

I wanted to comment, a touch, on what the purpose of this series is. This isn't supposed to be a "Behind the Boxscore" level feature to recap everything that happened last night, and it never will be. This is essentially a platform to talk about the games that -- for whatever reason -- mattered to us. Games that were especially good, especially bad, or where we really have something to say. We aren't going to write about every game we watch, and we can't even guarantee we're going to have interesting, evocative content here.

Sometimes we'll have an observation we feel an intense need to point out that is honestly incredibly stupid. But that's the beauty of a feature like this, I think. That sort of seat-of-the-pants observation that is dumb at first glance but may actually be somewhat brilliant. And may, sometime, inspire one of us to write a piece of note. Or maybe that rarely happens and the dumb observations are just that: incredibly dumb observations. I'm not sure which, or if it'll ever lead to anything particularly useful, but it's fun to find out. The Outlet may seem like nothing more than a ploy to fill space and rip off one of the most substantial contributions to the NBA blogosphere in Kelly Dwyer's Behind the Boxscore. But that's not how we mean for it to be, and we hope you realize that.

Thanks for reading.

Another interesting slate of games tonight: When we were divvying up games, Aaron chose Minnesota at Milwaukee and I chose Boston at Miami. Little did we know that we'd both picked the right games. Both of the early games were strange and filled with near-impossible comebacks rebuffed. The wonder of the early games quickly gave way to the dismal blowouts of utter mismatches in the later games, but it did nothing to damper a fantastic night. Let's talk about it, after the jump.

• • •

MIN 95 @ MIL 98; BUCKS LOOKED GREAT... BUT BARELY WIN? (Aaron)

A curious game. Andrew Bogut looked good, until I looked at the box score and realized that for all his bluster he'd actually had a relatively poor game on the offensive end. He certainly looks better out there, and he even drained some long midrange shots in the game that give you hope his offense is beginning to come around and his elbow is fine. But he also missed a ton of close bankers and his hook shot still seems a bit off. So it's a little bit of hope and a little bit of dismay, for anyone who likes the Bucks. For my part, I think that honestly applies to the Bucks' whole attack. The Bucks spent a very large part of this game looking like a lesser form of world-beaters, up 15-20 on a Minnesota team that had pushed the presumptive Western Conference Champions to a 4 point game they could've easily won the night before. The Bucks defense was (as always) stifling and Dunleavy/Jackson had bought in completely on that end. The offense was bad, but Bogut's shot showed signs of hope and Jennings looked like a hyper-efficient phenom point guard again, instead of a mindless chucker.

But once again, Bucks looked great, but couldn't close. They were bailed out by the Timberwolves playing a completely inept defensive frontcourt in Anthony Tolliver and Kevin Love as their closers, allowing rookie Jon Leuer the space to make some excellent hustle plays and Jennings the space to find him. But the Wolves were able to score down the stretch, put the pressure on, and shockingly outscored the Bucks 40-20 from Rick Adelman's timeout at about 5 minutes gone by in the 3rd. The defense that destroyed the Wolves for most of the game simply didn't come to play at the end. Which was a similar case to the Bobcats game. You have to hope they figure it out, but the crunch-time offensive execution of the Bucks is about as bad as it could possibly be. And if their crunch time defense goes with it? The world-beaters we saw in the first two and a half quarters may be nothing more than a tantalizingly close but altogether impossible illusion.

• • •

BOS 107 @ MIA 115; CAN'T SPELL CLOSER WITHOUT COLE (Alex)

One of the strangest games I've ever seen. Miami for three quarters seemed to be toying with Boston, starting with a dominant 11-9 lead (no typo) about four minutes in while also managing to lay about 2 fouls on every Celtic except Ray Allen, KG, and Rondo (and Pierce wasn't playing). Then - after building a seemingly-insurmountable 20 point lead behind a brilliant offensive attack that apparently wasn't just an ESPN puff piece - Miami showed once again that it had problems taking the easy way out, and let Boston back in the game. The Celtics were old, desperate, and crafty enough to take advantage of their fortune with flops, midrange jumpers, and a super-efficient throwback by Ray Allen and a solid performance by newcomer Brandon Bass. And - in the final phase of a good defense trying everything that might work - Boston (to the astonishment of everyone watching) finally used a zone to utterly stifle Miami's attack and confine Wade and James to inefficient jumpers. I can't stress how strange this was: Late in the third, Miami was on pace for one of the greatest shooting nights in NBA history, an utter annihilation of a once-great defense... and then they couldn't buy a basket, at all. Suddenly, just like in Games 2 and 4 for Dallas, Boston was in the driver's seat and seemed primed to take the game in the most improbable, schadenfreude-filled Miami come-from-behind loss yet. The announcers talked about how this was the first zone defense in the KG or the Doc Rivers era, but even if that's true, both player and coach love winning more than they love Platonic defense, and - as Doc succinctly put it - "all they have is the drive!". Miami simply could not score on the zone, and Boston's uncomfortably close 7-to-9-point lead was inching into 1-to-3 territory. The Big Three seemed to be anxiously anticipating another Icarus-style crash to the Earth. And it almost happened.

Enter Norris Cole. A rookie baller from Cleveland State, Norris Cole figured out something revolutionary: if the defense is playing a zone and not focusing on you and you are therefore right there to hit an open shot, you should probably take that open shot, whether it's your 2nd game or your 1002nd, because you're probably going to make it. Okay, I'm being slightly sarcastic here, but really, it's harder than it sounds, especially in his second official NBA game. Boston therefore didn't recognize (or chose not to acknowledge) the rookie Cole when he was open, either because they didn't think he could close the game out or because they didn't think he would (or, alternately, that they didn't think they could stretch coverage to close out Cole without destroying their zone). But Cole hit his open shots, to his eternal credit, and while a lot of us knew about Cole beforehand, we probably didn't know he had quite this much ice in his veins. Norris Cole beat a zone which had, up to that point, completely stifled the best team in basketball consistently, and he did it without any fear or even a sidelong glance to his coach, his legendary team president, or the future HOFers on both sides of the ball. He just executed, and did so in an end-of-game situation where his teammates did not execute. Pretty great.

Where is Boston after this game? It's tough to say, and we're not going to project too far, but Boston definitely has a lot to worry about. They were totally outclassed by the Heat offense and their decent shooting percentages were likely inflated by all the turnovers-to-easy-buckets that prevented them from getting a bad shot off in the first place. If Mario Chalmers doesn't play one of his worst (or, more correctly, one of his most obviously bad) games, this is a blowout, hometown calls or not. I mean, Paul Pierce is a weapon on both ends and his absence was felt, but with the lockout, I wonder how many times a year Sasha Pavlovic's terrible defense is going to get 30-35 minutes a night. I mean, what do the Celtics do then? What if KG is 75% at year's end? What if Ray Allen's shooting stroke is even a little off? They did everything right when the Heat gave them a berth to, but I have a feeling their vintage clawing-back-from-desperation games will start to turn into total blowouts this season. Frankly, if all four of their stars are not in absolute 100% top form by the end of the season, this is not going to be a fun year for the Celtics, short of Brandon Bass waking up as 1986 Bill Walton. As far as I'm concerned, their over/under is 5.5 playoff wins, right now, and that number promises to creep even lower as the East shapes up. But they've shocked us in the past, and before we rush to sign their death warrant, let's see how much these guys in green can shake the jaws of desperation.

• • •

UTA 71 @ LAL 96; BAD JAZZ BREAKS A FUNK (Aaron)

Bad joke. I know. But this game was just as bad. For a time, the Jazz honestly looked like they were going to challenge last year's Cavs for "lowest Staples point total in the last decade" -- they had just 44 points with 14 minutes to go in the game, and every single Jazz player looked to be struggling. They ended with a semi-respectable 71 points, on the back of a 25 point fourth that meant nothing. For their case, it's not really a lost game -- the Jazz are, quite frankly, better off having a few more seasons of terrible basketball. But in terms of how they lost it? This is bad, bad news for a team that some thought had minor playoff aspirations. The Lakers were on a back-to-back-to-back, while the Jazz (a team of young legs) were playing their first game of the year. And they were crushed. Enes Kanter looked immobile, Favors played well but got into severe foul trouble, Hayward was ineffective, and essentially nobody deserved a scrap of a game ball for a shiftless Jazz team. This is a lottery team, at least for the first half of the season. Hard to say that after one game, but I can see it.

As for the Lakers? I have a stealthy bet you can make with one of your friends. At some point in the next two seasons, the Lakers will hold another team to fewer than 66 points. I don't know which team. I don't know when they'll do it. It will be the second or first worst performance by a team against the Lakers since that terrifying Cavs game. But I'd take that bet. The Mike Brown system is a slowdown, grind-it-out system that chews up and destroys incompetent teams. There will be incompetent teams this year, and next year, and every year -- and with the defensive personell at Brown's disposal in Bynum, Gasol, and Artest? Even with Artest's fall? He will get several literally perfect defensive games out of this team (not to say this one was perfect -- it wasn't, though if it was just a tiny bit better, the Jazz may have scored under 60). He got a game out of the 2007 Cavs where they held the Knicks to 68 points, and a game a year earlier holding the Pacers to 66. These teams are older than his former Cavs teams, they will play slower, and if Bynum buys in they WILL dominate bad teams defensively. Bank on it.

• • •

There isn't much to say about the other games that went on, but there was one bit worth mentioning. The Blazers were in a relatively tight 10 point game with about 8 minutes left in the game. Gerald Wallace - as is the wont of someone that earned the nickname "Crash" by sheer merit and tenacity - did about 25 perfect basketball things. Then it was about a 24-point game with about 90 seconds left. The Rose Garden gave one of their trademark polysyllabic chants for the night's hero - "GER-ALD WALL-ACE!" - and the game was over.

The NBA is back, and wonderful forgotten moments like that make us wonder how we handled its absence.

What a great day for basketball. We both had a lot of trouble with League Pass (enough so that we might make a post about it, because it was absolutely unbelievable and worthy of the public record), but once everything got situated, yesterday was an absolute treat. Overall, there isn't much to say: If you're a poor soul like me that forgot just how good the spacing, motion, and tenacity of a modern NBA game is, well, prepare to remember. We ordered coffee - so to speak - and they gave us expressos. We were up all night.

• • •

TOR 104 @ CLE 96; WHEREIN PHENOMS GO BAD AND REACHES GO WILD (Aaron)

I think most of us here are well acquainted with my love for Kyrie Irving. I think he's going to be a terrific pro, and this game didn't really dissuade me from thinking so. It was his first game. Sure, he made some poor decisions, didn't control the game like he should've, and far too often settled for a tough and guarded jump shot when a pass to the open man would do. Still, he had a lot of "how did that miss" shots and ended with a 6-3-7-1 in 26 minutes in his first NBA game -- and his first game playing with the Cavs' starting unit. The Cavs' first bucket of the game was a smooth pass to Andy for an easy lay-in, and that's more in line with what we've seen from him: It's clear that Kyrie passes well with the starters, especially to Andy; four of Andy's buckets came on assists from Kyrie. And even with his terrible 2-12 shooting night, I keep beating the "His form is very good, really" drum. His form is very, very good. This is no Ramon Sessions we're looking at, here -- there's a consistent kink in his shot he needs to deal with, but Kyrie has the right followthrough and he's got enough solid moves to get his shot anywhere on the court. We watched him at Duke: he was Ray Allen type good in college -- his shot will return to him soon.

The main takeaway from this game, though, is that the Raptors (while still a very, very bad team) are sneakily going to challenge for relevancy in games quite a lot more than we expected in the compressed season. The score is a bit inflated due to Calderon's quasi-Nash type performance, but Dwane Casey's coaching is clearly making an impact. He has the Raptors rotating, and has Bargs playing fewer minutes as a pure C than he ever did before under Triano. You add Casey's defense to the Raptors difficult-to-stop offensive attack and you have a team that's probably going to overperform its pieces. Especially with Ed Davis showing the kind of grit he showed last night. It was reported the other day that Dwane Casey had a 1,300 lb boulder dropped into the Raptors' locker room, as a daily reminder to "pound the rock." I'm sure Pop and the Spurs feel a bit miffed at the quote-stealing, but the audacity of putting a 1,300 lb boulder in one's dressing room has to make up for it, right? And one last takeaway: Tristan Thompson can damn well play in the NBA. 14-5 in a 17 minute debut? With solid post defense and very few rookie mistakes? Incredible. Byron needs to find a way to play him more. And Antawn Jamison (he of 6-20 shooting where the next-most shots were 12) less. Twenty shots to Jamison is just atrocious at this point, and if the Cavs can trade him for a conditional 2nd round pick, I don't think any fan worth their salt would complain, if only because it'd mean Byron Scott wouldn't be able to bury Tristan on the bench just for more chucking. Simply awful, Antawn.

• • •

MIL 95 @ CHA 96; THE BALLAD OF GERALD HENDERSON (Aaron)

If you'd told me that the Bobcats would beat the Bucks in a close, hard fought game... I'd be a bit confused, but not flabbergasted. The Bucks are trying to manage a lot of new (questionably talented) pieces, I'd expect Brandon Jennings to be a bit off after the long layoff, and teams that aren't the 2012 Cleveland Cavaliers tend to get a bit more hyped up for that first home game of the year. It's HOW they won it that shocked me. For one night, the Bobcats seemed to be completely possessed by the spirit of Gerald Wallace. Every single Bobcats player was skying for rebounds and going crazy trying to simply get more possessions than the other team. The Bucks were outrebounded 33-14 in the second half, and it felt like more. The leader of the Bobcats' run was, to these eyes, Gerald Henderson. He was on the business end of a flagrant foul, but managed to score 18 on an array of brilliant drives and set shots (and a three!) and grab 9 huge rebounds atop his always-stellar lockdown defense. It was positively Crash-like performance. One that made you wonder if Henderson was going to do this every night. If so? There may be an utterly unexpected All-Star in the east sometime in the next few years -- one that could make Charlotte the NBA franchise-leader for "all-stars named Gerald." Incredibly fun game, and lots of great stuff to look forward to, if you're a Bobcats fan. If you're a Bucks fan? Bogut looked dominant for the first half and Jennings passing was off, but we know he's a good passer, so I'd be more happy about seeing that his shot was (for roughly the first time in a millenium) pretty on-point. Everyone else other than Shaun Livingston looked pretty bad, but when your franchise cornerstones look good, there's something to be happy about.

• • •

This game was a worthy follow-up to the Grizzlies' first-round upset of the Spurs last season. Anyone that saw the (fantastically entertaining) series saw 10 great players on the court for long stretches, with only a few players being seriously outclassed (*cough* Matt Bonner, DeJuan Blair, and Sam Young *cough*). This game wasn't much different in the beginning, with Memphis winning a close, tight first quarter, but we saw a real difference when Duncan and Blair got into foul trouble (a huge factor in the decisive third and fourth games last season).

This time around, the Spurs used frontcourt foul trouble as an excuse to try out lineups heavy with newer players, and the newer players shined. After the Spurs made about 8 turnovers in 9 minutes (mostly with their starting rotation), the Spurs went a full 22 minutes without a turnover and ended up with just 13 for the game to hold court in the second and dominate the third. On the other hand, the Grizz (who started the games causing the turnovers), suddenly found themselves on the business end of a Spurs second unit now featuring great young defenders Kawhi Leonard, Tiago Splitter, and James Anderson. The second unit forced Memphis turnovers in bunches, partly by fast hands, partly by proxy: Weaker help defenders like Tony Parker, Blair and RJ found they could cheat a bit more on defense, and TP actually got a few rare steals. When Duncan got back in to play the third quarter, he didn't get into foul trouble, and the Spurs rolled easily. We know what Manu can do on both ends, but it was refreshing to see RJ score in bunches and look like he belongs. Let's hope he can keep it up.

For the Grizz, nothing was new for the returning cast: Z-Bo was his usual near-unguardable self, and Marc Gasol played with a high level of skill: No, he still doesn't have the transcendent skill of Pau. But when his 16-footer is falling, Marc's a lock for high efficiency on both ends. And Conley was decent, less the staggeringly quick guard that outplayed Tony Parker last season and more the average, overpaid point guard we thought he was. But he wasn't awful, and Tony Parker was hardly the difference (four steals, but not a dominant performance in the lane). And Sam Young and Tony Allen had pretty decent defensive, scrappy games (Tony Allen and Manu are two of the league's ballers, and they always show up for games like this). The big problem facing Memphis is that without Darrell Arthur, the Grizz run about 6 deep, with a pretty steep drop-off after that. Dante Cunningham looked like one of the worst rotation players in the NBA, and while he would be a fine 10th man, Memphis games will now be swung on his terrible mistakes, and that has to worry Grizz fans.

Because of the Grizzlies' depth problems, I find the "chemistry" argument against Rudy Gay to be pretty unconvincing. I broke that Spurs series down: The Spurs backcourt was able to make up for Z-Bo and Gasol to an extent last season partially because they could give poor Sam Young a gigantic berth on offense, knowing that he could do little to nothing even when the Spurs spotted him 3 seconds to make a decision. Giving the Grizz a dominant scorer at the three changes that equation, and gives a well-coached team one more good option. No, Rudy Gay shouldn't be taking away touches from Z-Bo and Gasol when they have a matchup advantage, I get that, but having him around improves their spacing and stretches the defense ever thinner. And let's be real: the Grizz's three frontcourt bench players are Brian Skinner, Quincy Pondexter, and Dante Cunningham, none of which is very good. The Grizz have to have some sort of a decent scorer when Lionel Hollins doesn't have the luxury of feeding Z-Bo and Gasol in the post over and over (or just on off nights when they're getting 25 points instead of 35). Rudy Gay is going to be a godsend for the Grizz to have, I think, and he may give them the outside shot at a deep playoff run. It's just that he may make more sense coming off the bench to lead the second unit.

As a sidenote, I'd like to say something about the San Antonio offense, so rich with shooters, motion, and endless penetration-and-kick-outs and dozens of reverses. Their signature play on offense used to be Duncan in the post or a brilliant set play, then it became the famously dull penetrate-and-kick-out to the corner for an efficient three. Now it's 12 passes, 5 rotations, 3 curls, 3 flare screens, 2 playmakers, 2 v-cuts, 1 ball-fake, 18 seconds. There's a tired and unfair cliche that always pops up about a team during its dynasty years: If you don't like how this team plays, you probably don't like basketball. It's absurd, as if everyone looks for the same things in an offense or defense. On the other hand, I think the cliche might apply to the Spurs' offense today: Motion, spacing, trickery, improvisation, orchestration. What else could you want? In fact, the only thing really missing here is swagger, and I don't know if you've seen Manu Ginobili at all in the last 10 years. Or Kawhi Leonard in the last six hours. By the way, the touted rookie Kawhi's play last night was staggeringly interesting, if nothing else. Having only one point for most of the game (until the Spurs made their big run via Manu, RJ, and Tony), Kawhi still looked like a total stud, and in the end tally his career projects to be one of those ballers like Bruce Bowen or Gerald Wallace that seem to fill every important space on the court on both ends. If you get a chance, try scouting Kawhi. After awhile, you'll probably find you've inadvertently ordered pizza and invited dozens of people over for a block party. He just puts in so much work and makes the game so fun and easy for those around him. You can't help but do the same.

• • •

DEN 115 @ DAL 93; FROM NUMBER ONE TO NUMBER WHAT (Aaron)

I don't really know what to say about this game. The Mavs have to be better than this. The Nuggets weren't defending incredibly well, but essentially everyone on that Mavs team looked atrocious, so it really didn't matter. Dirk had the quietest 20 point night in his career. The Mavs starting center had 5 rebounds -- and unlike the "felt like more" rebounds of our Gerald-powered Bobcats from before, those were the quietest rebounds a man has ever done gathered. One observation I had? The Mavs were playing as though Tyson Chandler was still on the team. I'm serious. They were leaving these incredibly huge gaps in the middle where Chandler used to roam, on defense (and when going for rebounds, they kept deferring to an invisible teammate who wasn't there), and on offense they were disoriented and out of touch with one another. The Nuggets played like the best team in the West (especially when OKC is playing like they did in Minnesota last night), but my god -- back-to-back or not, this is the second straight double digit home loss for the defending champions. The Nuggets could look like the next 72-10 team and that wouldn't be okay. Scratch what I said about them being interesting -- if this keeps going, this team is just going to be sad.

• • •

LAL 91 @ SAC 100; BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT USED TO BE (Alex)

I got chills watching this. The Kings outclassed the Lakers in a way that made you think it wasn't just for one night. Sure it was a Lakers SEGABABA (second-game-of-back-to-back, for the unenlightened), sure Bynum was suspended, sure, great young shooters are going to beat great older teams a certain percentage of the time. And maybe it just was the weirdly inspirational borrowed time of raucous Arco Arena, but I got chills watching it, and it felt like the end of Kobe's era in a way that the Mavs series didn't. I only caught the second half of this one, and Kobe's stats weren't exactly stellar for the game, but he was a baller in the second half, and so was Pau. It was kind of nice to see the two best players at their positions in a game where they a) didn't have any incentive or desire to coast and b) actually put aside the question of who would get touches. With Luke Walton and Derek Fisher in the game, you do what you must, not what you want. Pau and Kobe often just rolled together towards the basket, knowing that they were big enough, skilled enough, and intelligent enough to handle anything the Kings could throw at to stop them. The Artest Presently Known as Peace (copyright Alex) played well off Kobe and Pau, scoring in bunches, and Walton, Fisher, and Ebanks weren't having horrible games given their respective skillsets. McRoberts, Murphy, and Barnes were completely outclassed by the Kings whenever they were in, and Barnes had some of the worst "standing around and hoping I'll disappear" offensive sets I've ever seen. Yes, Kobe went into hero mode at the very end, but he and Pau really gave us a throwback game in the second half, and the passes were wonderful. But the Lakers looked incredibly vulnerable, and if Bynum gets injured (too likely for comfort), they might actually be a high lottery team, which is kind of astonishing. It just isn't enough, anymore. And the way they were playing in this game, it's actually a pretty sad thought. I found myself rooting for the vets.

But the Kings were the real story here, having so many "we're young, but we're not going away" moments in this game that you could fill a photo album. Marcus Thornton, Tyreke Evans, Jimmer Fredette, and DeMarcus Cousins played brilliantly. A young, talented lineup that never gave way to the cheap "mental mistakes" that are ascribed to them. The questions that have dogged the troubled Kings ever since Cousins' arrival might finally be finding an answer, and it's more terrifying to the rest of the league than any of us could've imagined. There's not much else to say, they have a great core under 25 and they're either going to implode under their own expectations or give us some of the most exciting swagger since the Fab Five... or both.

• • •

Yes, it's the first game of the season for most of these teams and yes, we're barely out of preseason. But the season looks very promising, and the games look spectacular.

Thanks for reading.

So, we haven't 100% planned out how we're going to deal with game-by-game coverage this season. We've got a tentative goal to do an in-depth, hardcore recap of at least one game out of the week. We also will have the usual oddities you've come to expect from us -- strange aesthetics essays, outlandish fiction, and statistical curiosities abound. But for now, we're going to test out doing semi-daily pieces reacting to the games we watch, or portions thereof. Won't usually cover all the games. Most days, though, between the two of us we'll cover quite a few. Today, however, Alex was engaged in family matters for much of the day and Aaron spent (quite literally) six hours of the day in a plane with no access to the games. So we can only really cover certain portions of each game. But here are our reads and reactions from the day's game-time jams in our new work-a-day feature, tentatively titled "The Outlet." Enjoy. Merry Season, everybody.

• • •

I managed to catch about one half of this game -- the first half, in an Atlanta airport. My favorite part of the game had absolutely nothing to do with the game itself, but to the people milling around the airport bar I was sitting at. Some guy was talking to his wife, and kept pointing to the Knicks and saying "Hey! Honey! There's the new guy, he's Chandler, he's so good!" and kept tugging on her even though she obviously didn't care. It wasn't funny on its face, except that he apparently had absolutely no idea which Knick was Tyson Chandler. I'm serious. The first Knick he pointed out was Landry Fields, but he had this kind of "wait, that's not right..." look on his face as soon as they did a close-up of Landry. So then he decided on Jared Jeffries being the Real Tyson Chandler, which lasted for about 10 minutes (replete with him yelling "CHANDLER!" at everything positive Jared Jeffries did), until finally there was a closeup on Jeffries where you could see his jersey. He got really confused, asked for another drink, and seemed existentially distressed that he had no idea who Tyson Chandler was. I had to leave on my flight shortly thereafter, but it was great fun. As for the game itself? Looking at the box score, I clearly missed something special from Rondo in the 3rd. But I feel I have a good sense of it from watching the first half. Rondo was playing like a man possessed, and usually, the Celtics are pretty unbeatable when he plays like that.

Except for the big problem -- they didn't have Pierce. In the first half I commented on Twitter asking how the Celts are going to win ANY games where Pierce, Allen, KG, or Rondo sat. I don't think I'm altogether off in asking that. Rondo's game today was insane, and pretty incredible. But he won't do that every night. The fact that it took that kind of an incredible effort from Rondo just to keep this game CLOSE doesn't say good things about the Celtics. What doesn't say good things about the Knicks? The perimeter defense, which was expectedly abysmal in this game. Toney Douglas is active on the perimeter, but that doesn't mean he's good -- same with Shumpert, although Shump shows more promise from the minutes I saw. Amare is still as he's always been on defense. He'll have a single decent defensive possession, then follows it up with three liquified atrocities. Just absurd. Part of it was early season issues, but I don't see how a perimeter defense that lets the Celts' second unit stay in the game and can't close out properly brings the Knicks to a conference finals, even with Tyson Chandler there to back them up. They can figure it out, they have the pieces, but a two point home win over a Pierce-less Celtics doesn't inspire much confidence in me. In the Celtics case, it's not great news for them either -- they needed essentially a god-tier Rondo game just to have a chance, despite the Knicks defense. A sort of middling game all-around, with positives and negatives for both teams. But God, I'll admit -- it was incredibly exciting to watch real basketball again. Even if it was in an airport bar near a guy bowing under the alter of Jared "Tyson Chandler" Jeffries.

• • •

MIA 105 @ DAL 94; THE HEAT'S FOURTH QUARTER STRUGGLES CONTINUE! (Alex)

Well, I'm not sure how Aaron managed to catch any of these games with his 3000-some-mile flight, but even with my more modest travel schedule, I was only able to catch bits and pieces of MIA vs. DAL in between an early Christmas dinner and then the GSW vs. LAC game after coming home. Sitcom-esque blackouts actually prevented me from seeing Heat-Lakers. It turns out blackouts really work for, like, family cohesion and shit. Candlelight conversations are actually as fun as when the sitcom people have them, and young people and their electronic devices are actually prime fodder for comic playing-off. Anyway, speaking of family I actually remember trying to explain to my brother - at the most cruel 33-point margins of the Miami blowout - why this game wasn't great basketball: "See," I said, "Just to tie it would take 11 shots from behind that arc (yes, the biggest arc, that's right) by the blue team without any baskets from the red team. That's basically impossible. So the outcome is basically determined, and the best players are sitting, and the best players still up are playing for a shred of dignity or to show off to their coaches."

I then explained - without getting into detail - how the apocalyptic, ultra-distant possibility of a Heat meltdown was the only reason why as a basketball junkie I was still watching. And it almost did happen, with the Mavs getting within striking distance of that apocalypse, ending the game down only 11 behind the pure swag and winning attitude of Delonte West (who should supplant Carter in the starting lineup in roughly negative seven games), as well as a Heat second-team that couldn't buy a basket (so they tried to barter with horrible outside jumpers) without the Big Three. Second half comeback aside: From what I caught of D-Wade and LeBron (as well as intrinsically solid point Norris Cole), the Heat look just like the presumptive title favorites, at least four-deep. Just don't make them play seven men: Juwan Howard is... not in the "basketball player" stage of his career anymore. And, uh, the Mavs don't look so good, but there were some bright spots, sort of, and Dirk might be primed to continue his climb up the ladder of individual greatness, maybe? Frankly, I was too busy guzzling ham to say for sure. Even more frankly, I'm glad I got more or less sucked out of basketball for a day, even this crucially important day. I had a wonderful Christmas, and I hope you did too.

• • •

CHI 88 @ LAL 87; THIBS GETS OUTCOACHED, WORLD DOESN'T NOTICE (Aaron)

I don't think this game tells us all that much about either team's overall season outlook right now. The Bulls had major offensive yips -- although Rose is a decent outlet passer, nobody on the Bulls (Rose included) could complete an outlet to save their lives in this game. I'd like to see some footage on it. For a stretch from very early in the third to about midway through the fourth, they had a stretch of what had to be 20-30 passes while coming up the court that were fumbled, off-point, or simply atrocious passes that happened to turn out okay in spite of themselves. Part of that was the Bulls offense being highly asynchronous, and part of it was Mike Brown's defensive schemes. The Lakers were putting on a clinic of pressure defense and rotational excellence for much of the game. Everyone was rotating well, the defense was crisp, and it was vintage Cleveland. And this is without Bynum, the core of Brown's strategy. Despite the Bulls winning, the Lakers making it this close was an absolute triumph of Mike Brown's coaching. Most of the reporting on this game is going to focus on how offensively incompetent the Bulls looked, or how clutch Rose and Deng were in the last few minutes of the fourth. And that's worthy. But while the Lakers lost, with Brown on the sidelines, it appears the Lakers are going to start winning games through sideline coaching and brilliant defensive schemes. Without Odom, and with Bynum/Pau/Kobe aging, they can no longer simply run the triangle, go iso on D, and wait for their talent to guide them home. Mike Brown gets it. Kobe gets it. And the Lakers looked absolutely bought in. The league might not need to be afraid, because this doesn't necessarily look like a title team, but it looks like a very decent team and a team that can contend if things fall into place. You can't ask anything more of this crew.

• • •

LAC 105 @ GSW 86; SUCH A THING AS A TROUBLING 19 POINT WIN (Alex)

alex: oh, great, griffin made a jump shot from 21 feet
alex: i mean missed
alex: hmm, how could i make that mistake!
alex: more to the point
alex: how could he

-- Alex & Aaron's AIM logs from the game, 3rd quarter.

Kwame Brown's uniform number is "Consolation Prize" and David Lee's defense is passing into the incorporeal at this point. But the Warriors lost (and lost by a deceptively large margin) largely because their three most potent offensive players (Lee, Stephen Curry, Monta Ellis) missed a lot of good, open shots. To wit: The trio shot a combined 50 times for 40 points, and they weren't exactly settling for looks against a legendary defensive team. Stephen Curry has a smooth jumper and (like all great shooters) his shot is not going to fall some days. The shots are ones that are money in the bank for Ells and Curry 80% of the time, and Lee (like everyone in the game) sometimes seemed to be missing gimmes at the rim. To these eyes (and what limited amount I've seen of their preseason), I'm not really concerned for the Warriors offense.

From the Clippers fans' perspective, I'm sure you guys are scared as hell that maybe-not-very-good Mark Jackson was able to completely outcoach Vinny with a successful Hack-a-Shaq strategy on DeAndre Jordan. The Clippers can't afford to have that kind of a simple problem, not with their limited frontcourt depth. It's the house-of-cards-type problem that has made people skeptical of this squad from Day One. Frontcourt defense is huge, avoiding foul trouble for your only frontcourt players is huge. And having a PF that can dunk when he gets any post position but that sometimes wants to shoot from 21 feet all the time and dribble the ball (both without the fundamental skills) is huge. Having a great off-guard that can shoot the three and post up on most twos is huge, but so is having him select terrible shots with those skills. Chris Paul is a great leader with ice in his veins, and Blake is a very powerful athletic force. No one should sleep on this team. But for all the wins they'll get through talent and backcourt depth, we have to ask how many games will they lose through simple mental mistakes (there are tired big man legs and big hands and then there are totally inconsistent FT forms, you know?) and a shallow frontcourt. It's a troubling win.

What was most hopeful for Warriors fans in Mark Jackson's debut is that the W's played toughly and cohesively as a unit on the facets of the game that are there regardless if the shots are falling on a given night. They need that, and it looks like they're getting it. Little Stephen Curry (like he always does) was skying high for contested shots and fighting for rebounds in scrums, David Lee was missing layups but fighting hard for rebounds, and most tellingly, they hacked DeAndre Jordan in the third quarter: The Warriors are here to have fun, but they made a statement there: they're also going to step into gamesmanship and not being outmuscled despite being outsized. Something weird about me: I sometimes love gamesmanship more than basketball. I love how villainous Chauney Billups and Paul Pierce are, how easily great jump-shooters kick the leg out, and so on. And despite the unwatchable parts of this game, despite the dozens of patience-testing slams in the block-charge circle, despite the ruthlessly arbitrary fouls, and despite all the flops on both ends, I was happy about this game, because it showed that both teams were competing hard and doing what it took to win despite their limitations, and in the end the Warriors' jumpers weren't falling. That's a big part of basketball to me. Overall the Warriors played a good game, and they look poised to win a lot of games this season. Maybe not more than they lose, but a respectable amount.

• • •