Gothic Ginobili turns one today. As part of our celebration of this somewhat unexpected milestone, our writers are producing a variety of content reflecting and appreciating the journey that got us here. Also, evidently, we're publishing a semi-preview roundtable where our writers participate in a new style of roundtable where the questions are made up and our points don't matter. We're revolutionaries. Maybe.

#1: What is a new perspective you'd like to bring to your NBA viewing experience in this new season?

Adam Koscielak (@AdamKoscielak): I have no idea. I know that I have to expand my analytical sense. Perhaps root out the irrational ideas I have at time, and focus on the rational ones. Or perhaps the other way around. We’ll see when the season gets here, I guess.

Jacob Harmon (@jharm71): Recently I find myself trying to focus a lot more on the background elements of the game. Obviously there’s a tendency to ball-watch or star-watch, and you try to take in all the aspects of the play, but I’ve developed a weird habit of watching stuff that isn’t even in the play. Sometimes stuff that’s not even on the floor. What kind of faces is Daequan Cook making in the corner? What sort of weird kids are on the sidelines? How close IS Rick Carlisle to having a stroke? This is the valuable sort of analysis I want to bring to the table. Hire me, Daryl.

Alex Arnon (@Alex_Arnon): I don’t know, man. I’m as much of a surface fan as they get really. I guess I could make some really primo puns on some player’s names or somehow relate [insert obscure NBA player here] to Waka Flocka Flame -- I feel like I have a deeper understanding of irrelevant trap music artists than most typical long-form NBA blog readers (read: white people). I’ll leave the actual intelligent analysis up to you actually intelligent people.

• • •

#2: Name one player you'll pay an absolutely unreasonable amount of attention to in the coming season. Then pretend that teams are people and name a team.

Adam: Aside from Marcin Gortat and the Suns? Jonas Valanciunas and the Raptors. This team has playoff potential many people fail to see, and Jonas is a big guy with a ton of promise. Whatever happens with them, it should be fun.

Jacob: Obviously I’ll be lavishly taking in as many OKC games as possible and talking about our Big Four (Three? Man, I hope this post doesn’t come back to haunt me in a few days) to anyone who will listen. Of the Four, I’m really going to be obsessing over Ibaka’s evolving offensive game. He seemed to improve dramatically and looks to come in with a ton of confidence on the offensive end. Other than OKC, I’m bandwagoning the Bobcats this season. Despite the misteps, stumbles, faceplants, and uninspiring baby steps, I really want to see them succeed. I’ll be watching MKG pretty closely, especially after I ranted about T-Rob being the better pick and have thus far looked like an idiot for doing so. I’m a cult of Jordan guy, I want to see him vindicated, and Charlotte really needs any enthusiasm they can get, so I’ll be watching and scanning for any signs of optimism. Those guys don’t need another cynical outsider telling them they’re doomed. Go Bobcats!

Arnon: I’ll be honest - I don’t get over emotional trauma like a rational human being. Whether zzzit [sic] be something insightful/hilarious/not-completely-embarrassing I could’ve said in a conversation or an all-too-brief encounter that I could’ve elongated with an all-too-beautiful member of the female persuasion, I like to reminisce on what could’ve been and what hopefully might be. So it’s in this vein that I’m going to watch Daryl Morey’s Frankenstein-ish monster of innumerable power forwards try to make it work with my one true love Jeremy Lin. I’ll be superimposing the face of Amar’e Stoudemire on Royce White’s sweet cuts late at night after a few too many glasses of wine. I’ll be hoping that Jeremy Lamb takes an ill-advised double-teamed jumper after a few too many jab steps in an attempt to see how Melo would’ve wasted Lin’s drive-and-dishes. I’ll be crying after the Rockets improbably make the 8th seed in the west while James Dolan laughs at me from his throne of plutocracy as the Knicks undergo their customary crash and burn.

• • •

#3: What do you want to say now that you will be peer-pressured away from saying on Twitter and the like, but this is a CONSTRUCTIVE ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR ONCE, I WILL NOT BE SHOUTED DOWN, I'm just going to say it once, okay, and then we can all figure out what it means? Get it off your chest. Relaaax.

Adam: Michael Beasley is not as bad as we think. I’ve watched him in the preseason, he’s made some mistakes, but mostly he’s shown some real smarts I didn’t expect to see. Way too often Twitter finds itself hung up in old memes, and heads out to biblical proportions of self-proof to make sure that they prove you wrong. “Mike Beasley is playing solid basketball? Well, it’s only the preseason.” can quickly turn to “Hahahah, I told you so.” Unless he stays as a solid-to-good wing for the entire season, they will harp on him for every bad shot. Because he’s Michael Beasley. The dude’s only been in the league four years now, he’s changed teams three times. And he has his fourth head coach and system to learn now. Schadenfreude is fun, but it’s much more fun when it’s an established veteran with the boneheaded plays (looking at you, Jamal Crawford)

Jacob: I’m with Adam on the Beas, for what it’s worth. The guy has got a lot of talent and great physical tools, and I think the “headcase” thing gets blown out of proportion to the extent that it overshadows him as a player. I still think he can be a decent wing given the right situation; I believe in the Beas. Other than him, I’m going to say I’m on the DeMarcus Cousins bandwagon. I think his characterization as such a young player of his caliber has been entirely unfair, and that much of the locker room problems in Sacramento stemmed from Paul Westphal, who demonstrably was willing to throw the guy under the bus to save his own skin. He’s never going to be the charming golden boy, but I don’t think there’s enough Rondos and Cousins in the league who have both the unashamed chip on their shoulder and the game to back it up. A lot of guys with one or the other, but not enough with both. It’s fun. The guy can play. He’s been in the league two seasons and he’s putting up 18 and 11, which isn’t exactly easy even if your efficiency isn’t stellar. People need to get off his back a little bit before the dude snaps and kills Jerry Colangelo.

Arnon: Teams like the Justice League Lakers and Super Friends Heat are making the NBA less enjoyable. Sure, you have your hidden gems like the Nuggets that are “fun” to watch but at it its core this is an extremely Gollum-esque league -- all these guys want and all the majority of fans care about is getting that ring (after their paychecks, of course). Perhaps it’s just an extension of us as Americans who only care about being the most powerful and very best like no one ever was (oh my god did I really just make a LoTR and Pokemon joke in the same paragraph please take me out back and put me down for my own good [Ed. Note -- No. Get back to the salt mines.]). When it’s a virtual certainty that the Heat will face either the Lakers or Thunder in the finals if they all remain healthy, my view on my Knicks goes from the usual pessimism to complete apathy. Why does it matter if we get the 4th or 8th seed when the only difference is that we lose to the Heat in the 2nd round instead of the 1st? I’ll try to find little nuggets of pure enjoyability from the NBA like a Tony Allen lockdown, Damian Lillard flash of promise, or Andre Miller flashback performance. But in a world where I’m slowly turning into an adult and becoming more burdened by the realities of real life I’m afraid that I’ll have less time for these small pleasures and that I’ll only care about the seemingly predetermined big picture.

• • •

#4: What team is the ice cream of the NBA? What team is the smoked salmon of the NBA? Green tea? Go crazy with this one.

Adam: The ice cream has to be the Denver Nuggets. Their speed is yummy, the flow of the offense is amazing and whenever you feel down about the status of the league, you can watch a whole big bucket of their buckets. When it comes to the salmon, here’s a fun story for you; I used to HATE salmon. Like, absolutely completely, totally hate it. Actually, I hated all fish but herring on some kind of irrational level. Then, one day, during a visit to my aunt and uncle, I was basically force-fed some of my uncle’s home-smoked salmon. I’ve loved salmon (as long as it was good, fresh, well smoked salmon, of course) ever since. So, for me, that’s the Miami Heat. I had an irrational dislike for them, categorizing them as an annoying superteam, but the truth is, that the Flying Death Machine is A TON of fun to watch. And if you tell me otherwise, you just hate smoked salmon. And that’s ok, you’ll like it one day too. And finally, green tea, calming, healthy, and polarizing. Some people love it, some people hate it. Personally, I love all tea, and some good green tea sometimes outranks black tea in my ratings. But, I understand people who don’t like it’s bitterness (I do not, however, understand people who sweeten green tea. You are all criminals to me), which doesn’t change the fact, I will never share their crazy viewpoint. Now, this team, for me, has to be the Suns. I love them, even though many people don’t. I love them because of their very particular taste, not in spite of it. You get my point here, right?

Jacob: Man, I’ve never had salmon or green tea, so I don’t really know what that means. I think you’ve gotta break down the ice cream of the NBA. What flavor are we talking here? If you’re talking ice cream flavors, it pretty much breaks down to vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. Everything else is just some mixture of those three, like a color wheel. The vanilla ice cream of the NBA has got to be the Minnesota Timberwolves. Plain, refreshing but not too exciting, they’re going to satisfy your sweet tooth but you’re not exactly going to write home about them. And there’s an awful lot of white dudes in that locker room. Even Brandon Roy is more milk chocolate than anything. I know the blogs and Twitter have squeezed every bit of commentary possible out of how white this Timberwolves team is, but does anyone remember last season, when the Lakers fielded a starting lineup with like three white guys on it? I think there was a feature on ESPN. Whoever wrote that piece should be hopping the first flight to Minneapolis. Anyway, the vanilla Timberwolves, for the trifecta of game, skin color, and icy precipitation. (If there’s a lower road to take here, somebody let me know.)

I just Googled “what does salmon taste like,” and realized I have had salmon. Almost every Sunday for at least a couple of years. Smoky, a little aged and crispy, but still good, still satisfying and filling, and a serviceable centerpiece for a midday lunch. I may be way off base here, and maybe it’s the context in which I’m remembering them (both the food and the team) but to me that’s the Boston Celtics. I don’t exactly seek out Celtics games, and I’m not especially crazy about any one facet of the team, but I can’t deny I’m usually entertained when I watch them play, and I’m always pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the experience. I’m not crazy about Paul Pierce, but I have a ton of respect for both KG and Rondo, and with Jeff Green back I expect to find myself enjoying quite a few unplanned Celtics games this season. I’ve definitely never had green tea though. For sure.

Alex Arnon: I suppose this question all depends on your view of these foods. Ice cream to me is something that I legitimately can’t stop eating once I start. It’s either all or nothing for me - one bite turns into one pint and one pint turns into one huge night of bloating and regret. So on one hand there’s this thing which is so captivating that I constantly need more but getting more just leads to regret -- doesn’t that sound like the Golden State Warriors to you? A team that has so much delicious offense that you can’t help but watch every Klay Thompson three or David Lee pick-n-pop(sicle). But upon too much gorging you can’t help but notice that the Warriors are behind due to a complete lack of ability (or even disregard) on the defensive end and while you’ve fallen in love with them during the good offensive times, you can’t help but feel disgust at yourself for being entrapped by their offense so much that you completely disregarded their defensive woes until they were almost magically down 120 - 102 with a minute to go in the first half.

Smoked salmon is one of those foods that is fairly - uh - caucasianly biased when it comes to fandom. I could go for the easy joke here and say that this means that the Timberwolves are the smoked salmon of the league (COUGH HEY JACOB HOW YOU DOIN' COUGH) but I think that while they’re not the whitest team by roster like the T-Wolves, the Indiana Pacers certainly more than make up for it with the TYPE of players who they employ. Being that you’re here on Gothic Ginobili, you’re most likely an extremely intelligent, incredibly handsome and/or downright beautiful person who knows of all the white player tropes already. But I’ll rehash them here for you anyway -- whenever there’s a talented white dude in the NBA or NFL, all of the analysts praise his “mental fortitude” during tough times when “he keeps the locker room together” through his “blue-collar” “hustle plays” where he’ll “sacrifice life and limb” diving for a loose ball which he’ll always get because he’s “always in the right place at the right time”, with his “deceptive speed” and anachronistic “love of mayonnaise”. Alright, maybe that last one isn’t true, but doesn’t that sound like your 2012 - 2013 Indiana Pacers? They’re a team full of players who play way above their talent level through teamwork, hustle, and defense and I can almost guarantee that someone on SportsCenter is going to talk about them being “scrappy” during every Pacers highlight. And they employ Tyler Hansbrough. Case closed.

As for green tea, I don’t get the hype. Everyone’s always talking about how it’s good for weight loss and good for blood pressure and good for energy and good for preventing diabetes and good for -- well, you get the point. Here’s the thing though, I don’t care how good green tea is for you, because I absolutely despise it. Whether it’s because I had a terrible experience with green tea ice cream once (no, seriously, I once had to deal with a hysterically crying girlfriend in a Vietnamese restaurant over our green tea ice cream dessert as she ranted about how unfair life is because she got a flat tire and the guy made her pay full price for it even after she shamelessly flirted with him) or because I just hate all teas in general (except Arizona teas because god damn who doesn’t love that delicious corn syrupy goodness), I just don’t like it no matter how good it is for reasons unbeknownst to myself. For me, the team that meshes with this rambling, semi-coherent analogy has to be the Hawks. I have no idea why I hate them -- I don’t know if it’s their terrible name, Joe Johnson seemingly sabotaging them for years to get his max contract, being forced to watch their mediocre basketball in the playoffs each year, or their practically non-existent fanbase. While the NBA blogosphere at-large seems to love them this year because of whatever black magic Danny Ferry worked to get rid of Joe Johnson and clear up some cap space, there’s just absolutely no love going their way from me. And, thankfully, there’s currently no love going in that aforementioned crazy girlfriend’s way from me any more as well.

• • •

• IMPORTANT NOTICE FROM THE EDITOR •

"... What."

• THIS CONCLUDES YOUR IMPORTANT NOTICE FROM THE EDITOR •

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

Interesting. First thoughts that come to mind:

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

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

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

• • •

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

Honestly? The Memphis Grizzlies.

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

Thanks for the patronage, hon.

• • •

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

Brandon "Swagger Double" Jennings, of course.

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

Same bat time, same bat channel.

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

• • •

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

• • •

_Follow Roger Mason on Twitter at __@MoneyMase.___

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

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

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

• • •

_Follow Daniel Gibson on Twitter at __@BooBysWorld1.___

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • •

_Follow Josh Harrellson on Twitter at __@BigJorts55.___

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

• • •

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • •

_Follow Wayne Ellington on Twitter at __@WayneElli22.___

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

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

• • •

_Follow Ty Lawson on Twitter at __@TyLawson3.___

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

• • •

_Follow _Thabo Sefolosha _on Twitter at @ThaboSefolosha.___

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

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

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

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

• • •

Follow Kirk Hinrich by fighting Klingon warships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • •

_Follow Austin Daye on Twitter at __@Adaye5.___

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

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

• • •

_Follow Quincy Pondexter on Twitter at __@QuincyPondexter.___

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

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

• • •

Follow Paul Millsap by attending Grambling in Grambling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • •

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

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

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

• • •

As Josh Hudelson prepares to leave Deep Springs College and head to Columbia University as an anthropology major, there are a few things he is taking care of—among them, slaughtering a cow and spending the night with the corpse in a 40-degree meat locker... In addition to sleeping with the slaughtered, frozen cows, he has been tanning sheepskin, for what purpose he doesn’t know yet. But there are scraps of sheep flesh lying all over the living quarters and in the shower, the way most college dorm rooms are littered with pizza crusts. “This place smells because I’ve got some rotting materials,” he says, breezing through the dorm. He has no plans to clean it up.

The above excerpt is taken -- unedited -- from an excellent article by Evgenia Perez highlighting a place that few even know exists. It describes an episode from the undergraduate experience of a current Ph.D. student studying ethnomusicology at New York University. The average reaction tends to range somewhere between utter revulsion and complete befuddlement. "Where in God's name would something like that happen?" It reads like a deranged farm story, a cautionary tale of an agricultural experiment gone -- perhaps -- a tad too far.

Funny enough, that isn't actually that far off.

Located in an expanse of the dessicated Sierra valleys athwart California and Nevada, Deep Springs College is essentially the successful realization of a centuries-old dream. More specifically, it's the successful realization of the alternatingly beautiful and horrifying fever-dream of founder L.L. Nunn. The conceit is simple -- take some of America's best and brightest and force them to pave their own way, living on the land and by their own devices in a self-governed, self-sustaining Christian paradise. Hard labor with a dose of Derrida. Take the boys far away from the trappings of modernity and technology, allowing them to become men within the crucible of spiritual isolation and hard labor. From such curious beginnings, Nunn felt the leaders of tomorrow would rise up and take their rightful place as the leading lights in modern society, squelching the flow of progressivism and exhorting a new conformity. The meek shall inherit the Earth, but only if the new-age Cowboy doesn't get there first.

• • •

Properly appreciating James Harden requires a level of contextualization and examination that -- in a general sense -- is beyond most people. Myself included. Take for instance this actual scene from late last season, its skeleton far too common. I turn down the volume on a Thunder game, watching for hours of enraptured silence at the quiet brilliance of Durant and the fearless showmanship of Westbrook. I look at the box score, later, only to stare in shock -- Russell had 15, Durant had 29, and Harden -- somehow -- had put up 40! He'd dropped 40 points, and I'd barely even noticed! It's rarely quite that stark, but the point stands. There are certain players whose time on the court actively marks you. They come off the bench to an electric jolt -- they grasp your collar, wrench you upright, and demand your attention. They force you to come to terms with their play, whether good or bad. They burrow into your mind and force you to consider them. James Harden is not one of those players. I keep thinking back to the general way that the public describes Harden's game. Namely, in relation to his spiritual predecessor. I cringe every time people compare James Harden to the symphonic fusillade of Manu Ginobili -- their games are similar in a statistical sense alone, Harden's wooden shot falling well-short of the beatified sparkle that underlines Manu's craft. They are similar in tertiaries and statistical profiles -- but they are worlds apart in their aesthetics and the joy they take in their craft.

Their statistical metrics are similar, and it's certainly possible that Harden could be much better. Someday. But he can scarcely hope to reach Manu's style. Not yet, anyway. There's a sense, with Manu, that he can -- and will -- take over at any point of the game. That he'll simply start taking and making a barrage of unstoppable, unconscionable threes. Can Harden do that? Perhaps -- but his aesthetics, to this point, don't indicate it. This isn't to say he's bad. Harden does just about everything you'd want from a star player in the NBA, scoring-wise. He draws a ridiculous number of free throws, drains threes like nobody's business, and stays within his boundaries on the offensive end. Harden does not overreach, as a general rule. He does not ball-hog, he does not assert. He slithers, more aptly, hiding on the offensive end behind screens and misdirections, vanishing in a parade of smoke and mirrors that makes the release -- when it comes -- so easy and yawn-worthy that people ignore the hoops he had to jump through to get there. Not to mention the fact that simply being able to get himself open so consistently -- as Harden is wont to do -- is a skill in and of itself. A rather underheralded one, and one that Harden is as good at as Durant is bad.

Is it an indictment on the NBA commentariat that Harden isn't "more" noticed? Not really, and I'd argue it's because of the exact contrapositive to the things that make him excellent. There are flaws to Harden's game, and many lie in the exact things that make his game whole. While he's excellent at getting himself open, he's also not phenomenal at shooting even lightly contested shots -- in last year's NBA Finals, this problem came to full display. When faced with constant pressure from Wade and a smothering defense, Harden found himself unable to enact his skillset and unable to take the open shots he so feasted upon in the regular season. Even against the relatively permissive Spurs defense, Harden had trouble getting wide open shots, and it bothered him enough in that series to force Durant to step to another level. When his free throw attempts dry up, he struggles to generate efficient offense on his lonesome. His passing -- good when he isn't pressured -- gets worse and worse as you assign him more responsibility. His lack of overreaching -- while admirable -- is taken a level too far, on many occasions. There is a happy medium between shooting too much and shooting too little. Harden is not that happy medium. Frankly, to this point? He's not even all that close. And he needs to draw closer, as he grows into his frame and his game.

• • •

"Sounds like a weird cowboy cult for repressed homosexuals." (User provis99 of the Democratic Underground)

One of the funnier contradictions about Deep Springs that most don't realize is that -- in actuality -- it's a hilariously inefficient project. At least as a farm. Sure, the labor is free, but the quality is so godawful that it scarcely matters. There's a single-minded focus and intensity you need to actually be successful farmers, to successfully live on the land. By definition, Deep Springs attendees don't tend to have that. After all -- how could they? Deep Springs is a relatively elitist institution, at its core. If you don't have SAT scores in the top 1%, you stand almost no chance of getting in. You need to write somewhere in the neighborhood of 150-200 pages of essays to even be considered, per some sources. 50-75% of Deep Springs "graduates" go on to get an actual bachelors from an Ivy League school. Eggheads don't just stumble unknowingly into Deep Springs -- to get to that kind of a situation, you need to be of a certain kind of person, a certain sort of duck.

Harden is a similar sort of odd duck, if you take him in his proper context. Here, you have a player that actually sent Sam Presti a letter detailing the many reasons why he'd be an excellent fit in Oklahoma City. A player who understood -- before he was old enough to legally drink! -- that he wanted to be the quixotic sixth-man on a star-studded future contender. He had played with Durant and Westbrook through AAU ball, but as relative equals -- before Miami had come together, before the Lakers had their sterling offseason, before the "superteam" became a much-ballyhooed reality. Before all that, Harden himself could see so clearly the outlines of a superteam, so clearly delineated roles, he did his part to actively seek it out. More than most players, Harden deserves credit for the way he found his team. He did as much to form the Thunder's big three as Westbrook or Durant did themselves. And this is, admittedly, something of an oddball route. Most people accept their draft position as an exogenous factor they can't really control. Harden wanted to take control in an offseason only to cede control in the real season. An odd way to go.

Speaking of odd ways to go, here's a shocker: people who willingly write 200 pages of essays simply don't tend to be ranchers, either. Not good ones, anyway. They're creative, thoughtful, odd. But not ranchers. If you read the musings of those who graduate -- for instance, the Deep Springs portion of this interview with writer William T. Vollman -- you notice a few consistent themes. In my experience with his work, I don't think it's out of line to say that Vollman tends to be a bit too pleased with himself. Here, though, he can't really get too exultant with his self-praise: he says he did merely "OK" with the manual labor. He also notes that the students were pretty arrogant, and that he had never really worked with his hands at all before he got to Deep Springs. All reasonable. Vollman's story tends to be the norm, among the non-admissions-catalogue Deep Springs stories I've read. Nobody who goes to Deep Springs thinks they're very bad at their jobs, but they often admit that OTHER students are arrogant, and OTHERS aren't great at their job. But the point wasn't really for anyone to be phenomenal at their jobs -- the point was to be OK, and to learn the true meaning of self-sufficiency. To use labor and work as a means to learn about themselves and the world around them.

In the NBA, self-sufficiency isn't necessarily gunning for numbers. And craving it isn't necessarily detrimental to the broader context of an NBA team. In fact, I'd argue it's exactly the opposite. Self-sufficiency in the NBA is figuring out how to sidle into the team concept in a way that helps everyone around you improve. Gunning for your own numbers doesn't necessarily keep you in the league for long -- look at Stephon Marbury, or Gilbert Arenas, or Allen Iverson. The game left them behind before they left the game behind. The true meaning of self-sufficiency in the NBA is somewhat of an anathema to the concept's lonely ideal -- being self-sufficient to ensure your own longevity regardless of situation requires a measured assessment. You need to determine what to provide that maximizes your appearance as a player by maximizing your team's potential. Right now? That's exactly what Harden does, and while he hasn't made that personal leap into an all-star or an all-NBA player quite yet, he's been placed into a journey that's a bit less straightforward than that of a Kyrie Irving or a Blake Griffin.

• • •

So, what does the ultimate fulfillment of an elitist fever-dream of isolation and farming have to teach us about a player like Harden? What's important about Harden is much like what's actually important about Deep Springs -- it's not about the profits, or the classes, or the final result of their initial labors. It's not about the seeds you plant, it's about the planting of the seeds. What makes Harden interesting to watch is the broad-scale picture that surrounds and cushions his game, not the intimate moments where players like Manu and Westbrook and Dirk bludgeon with their craft. Harden's is an off-kilter journey, to be sure. It's one of learning to coexist before you take over. It's one of coming, learning, accepting lumps. A disappointment his rookie season, but one that drifted closer and closer to star status with every month that followed. And now? One of the best 20-something players in the league, and the heir apparent for the title of "greatest shooting guard on the planet."

Within the central contradiction of Deep Springs -- the inefficient labor of the non-laboring students -- lies the grain of truth that skims the cream from the milk. The point of Deep Springs is not (and has never been) to act as an enterprise meant to make money. Or, more broadly, to operate within the prearranged format of society, culture, or profit at all. The point is to provide a sandbox that allows the self-selected group of elites to tear down those structures. The point is to make them anew. You may not make them perfectly, you may not create immaculate structures on the first go-around. Or, really, ever. But that's not the point. The point is the journey of creation, the joy of discovering for oneself the things that make one whole. Self-sufficiency as a means to an end. It's not vocational training for the sake of itself -- it's vocational training as a broader mechanism to learn how to approach the world. The most successful Deep Springs graduates seem to internalize this general grain of wisdom.

Harden never went to Deep Springs. But he seems to have gotten the picture. He's now a player whose potential for more shines through in such an overwhelming radiance that not one team in the NBA would refuse him a max contract, if he decides to go searching. And like the suburbanite elites of Deep Springs, if you're only working off the broader descriptions, you can't imagine he wouldn't, can you? He's not exactly a country boy -- nothing about Harden screams "Oklahoma." The parties, the eccentrics, the California vibe that underlines his style. He's about as out-of-place in Oklahoma as the average Deep Springs first-year on their first cattle herding. But both adapt. Both throw themselves into the team concept. They solve the situation. Both arrive to positions where they have the opportunity to move on. In Harden's case, to almost any team he wants to. But if he decides to stay, that's fine too. The journey doesn't have to come to some neat and tidy conclusion. The journey can be messy, odd, and off-kilter. It can come in waves and crests. The mystery of an unknown close is part of what makes it so enticing and alluring -- it doesn't need to end in some predefined, prepackaged way.

In fact, to those as young as he? It really doesn't have to end at all.

• • •

"Everything is arranged so that it be this way, this is what is called Culture."

• For more capsules on members of the Oklahoma City Thunder, see our Thunder directory. •

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

• • •

Follow Ivan Johnson by taking a page of Rasheed's legacy.

“My thing is, I don’t really watch basketball so I don’t know who anybody is. I know the major players like LeBron, Kobe, Wade but all the extra ones I don’t know. Even if I did know them, I’m not going to be afraid. We are playing basketball.”

Have you ever wondered what the NBA would look like if, from here on out, it was played in a horrifying alternate reality where the players all suited up with guns, knives, and all manner of arcane weaponry before taking a step on the court? Ever considered the possibility that the aforementioned dystopic "court" was actually a hotbed of scorching asphault? Ever pondered who would be the NBA player best suited to run down scores of his former teammates in a 10 cylinder roving deathtrap? Just mowing them all down, immobile atop his instrument of destruction, unfeeling as he ends the lives of those he once called friends. He is the tough, the gritty, the loud. He is the man with the diamond grill and the heart of stone. He is the gatling gun from Red Dead Redemption, applied to humanity. He is the unflinching picture of stoic sensibilities.

He is Ivan Johnson.

Okay, seriously. It takes a rare sort of complexion to actually create that sort of a scenario in my mind. No player before Johnson really brought that kind of vivid dystopian imagery to my head. And if someone like Darko never did, I have my doubts that any others ever will. It's like I'm Johnny Smith and Johnson's Greg Stillson. I don't know how it happens, I don't know where in God's name it comes from, but I know for a fact it's in the cards. A possibility. A looming potentiality. Someday, this situation just "feels" right. It feels like something that would happen to Ivan Johnson, his teammates, and his coaches. Just this Mad Max world taken straight from the pages of a shock-and-awe story, with Ivan Johnson playing the central role as the antagonist, protagonist, and orthodontist to the toothache we call humanity. Never had a chance to read a piece about him? Let me try to fill in the gaps. Johnson's tough. Ridiculously tough. "Banned-from-two-pro-leagues" tough. Some hardscrabble stuff.

Which isn't to say that "tough" is the only descriptor of his game. He's genuinely a useful backup, in ways that go beyond his aggression. He's a pretty good rebounder in limited burn -- not overwhelmingly tall or physically talented, but he wrests boards from the air with a welcome abandon. His offensive game is a bit limited -- not a good outside shooter by any stretch of the imagination, and he takes too many for that to be the case. Sky high turnover rate, and for some reason, tends to take over the ball a bit. Needs to work on that, definitively. But Johnson's big value comes on the other end -- he's one of the best bulldog bench-defenders there are. His approach tends to be summarized in the quote I began this piece with -- he doesn't care who you are, what you've won, where you've come from. All he really cares about is the idea that nobody's identity really matters. They're playing basketball, not poker. He gets intensely physical, muddy, and rough when he steps on the court. That's just his deal. And honestly? When you defend with the raw intensity that Johnson does, you're going to stay in this league for quite some time.

He has issues, mind you. The turnovers, the fouls, the technicals -- all those are harmful, and will serve to curtail his playing time significantly going forward. But his defense is really quite solid, individually. I'm not entirely sure how well he works within the team concept, defensively. His high-intensity high-voltage style on the defensive end is best described as the defensive equivalent of a volume shooter's style on offense. He gets the defensive highlights with his blocks and physical shoves, and he sort of forces you to pay attention to him. But if opposing coaches gameplan around him and run misdirection plays, his defense isn't insurmountable. It's not a cog in an overwhelming team concept any more than Monta Ellis is a cog in an overwhelming team offense. He's an individual performer on the defensive end, to this point, and while he can certainly emerge to be more than that he simply hasn't yet. Entering next season at the age of 28 (and 1/3 of the way to the age of 29), Johnson isn't quite young enough that he can be expected to get remarkably better. But as he adapts to the game and learns some tricks of the trade, I'd expect him to build his value and stick around a good while -- 4 or 5 years, minimum. After that, we'll see. For now, though? Solid player. Solid guy. Solid backbone to every nightmare I'll have for the next 4 months. Thanks, Ivan Johnson.

• • •

_Follow James Harden on Twitter at __@JHarden13.___

For today's James Harden capsule, I once again got a tad fancy with my framing. I readily admit this. I spent many hours trying to figure out the best way to cast Harden and his general game into the Capsule (Plus) framework I've built over the past few months -- I felt there was something untapped that I had to say about him, but wasn't really sure how to reach it. On what seems like the 5th or 6th go-around, partly due to a completely unexpected assist from Nick Flynt, I finally figured something out. The angle needed to be as odd and off-the-wall as Harden for the capsule to really come together -- it needed to touch on his odd mental makeup, his strange career trajectory, and the generally lacking aesthetics of his hyper-efficient game. I needed something that could bring this all together and allow a closer examination into the concept of self-sufficiency that, in my view, guides most everything that Harden does. But of course! I needed... an isolated elitist ranching utopia!

... Wait, what?

Harden is a similar sort of odd duck, if you take him in his proper context. Here, you have a player that actually sent Sam Presti a letter detailing the many reasons why he'd be an excellent fit in Oklahoma City. A player who understood -- before he was old enough to legally drink! -- that he wanted to be the quixotic sixth-man on a star-studded future contender. He had played with Durant and Westbrook through AAU ball, but as relative equals -- before Miami had come together, before the Lakers had their sterling offseason, before the "superteam" became a much-ballyhooed reality. Before all that, Harden himself could see so clearly the outlines of a superteam, so clearly delineated roles, he did his part to actively seek it out. More than most players, Harden deserves credit for the way he found his team. He did as much to form the Thunder's big three as Westbrook or Durant did themselves. And this is, admittedly, something of an oddball route. Most people accept their draft position as an exogenous factor they can't really control. Harden wanted to take control in an offseason only to cede control in the real season. An odd way to go.

For more on James Harden, please read his Player Capsule (Plus).

• • •

_Follow Patrick Patterson on Twitter at __@pdpatt.___

The Rockets waived a lot of players this summer. Jon Leuer, Josh Harrellson, Luis Scola -- all waived. Four others, too! Had you told me the Rockets would end up waiving seven players during the offseason, there's one player I would've bet just about anything on them sending off. Relatively low ceiling, a low-promise sophomore campaign, and a general situation where it looks like he'll get virtually no playing time going forward. At least if they're smart. He's not young, and while he'd probably dominate an overseas league with his sheer size, he's a rather situational player in the NBA. Would've bet quite a lot that they'd waive him. The "him", of course, is Patrick Patterson. The past-tense is because, indeed, the Rockets didn't waive him. They decided to pick up his $2 million dollar team option and give him another stab at their rotation. If they were willing to waive Harrellson and Leuer, why bring back Patterson? I'm not so sure.

Patterson had, by all accounts, a pretty substandard year for the Rockets last year. He played more minutes, which was a big plus. Simply having the ability to play 20 NBA minutes at a time is a skill many of the league's most productive back-ups don't have. So that's a good sign, if you state it devoid of context. The problem is, Patterson's productivity essentially bottomed out in those minutes, at least from his rookie ideals -- McHale chose to inexplicably utilize Patterson as a long midrange pivot-man, taking him away from the basket and running play after play intended to get Patterson a spot-up long two or a midrange shot. The results? Mixed at best. He wasn't bad at those shots -- indeed, Patterson posted a well-above average percentage from both the midrange and the long two for a big man. But were they great shots? Heck no. Patterson shot about 43% from the long two and 38% from midrange -- both solid in comparison to other players taking those shots, but if you're forcing a player to do virtually nothing else, he needs to be a lot more above average than that.

This goes double given Patterson's general disinterest on the defensive end, either on the boards or on his man. He posted one of the lowest defensive rebounding percentages among any bigs in the league last season, with only five power forwards carving out a worse percentage than his 13.7 -- Tyler Hansbrough, Jared Jeffries, Anthony Tolliver, Nick Collison, and Ekpe Udoh. His man-to-man defense was substandard as well, at least in my view. He has the size and the tools to be a good defender but he needs quite a bit of help to overcome his generally NBA-lacking mobility, and he struggles badly when he's tasked with defending smaller players on the perimeter. Furthermore, while he's strong in the aggregate, he doesn't tend to use his strength all that well on the block -- he can be a bulldog in the right situations, but those aren't particularly common. It's worth noting that the numbers don't totally bear out my interpretation here -- his Synergy stats aren't world-beating but they aren't bad, although last year's Rockets played worse on both ends when Patterson took the court. Perhaps in large part due to his oddly defined role and his defensive disinterest.

Going forward, the path is pretty clear. Patterson needs to hone his defensive skillset and infuse it with much more of focus on some aspect he can excel at -- whether through shedding some weight for added pick and roll mobility or adding some weight for stronger post defense. Given the Asik acquisition, I'd assume his best shot going forward would be to lose the weight, and try to create a game-changing defensive pairing as the big forward next to Asik. Barring that, he simply needs McHale to throw him a bone and let him shoot a few more times at the rim, and use his decent midrange as a pressure valve rather than the be-all and end-all of his offense. Patterson has the pieces to be a decent player, at some point -- he simply isn't quite there yet, and given the sheer number of players the Rockets jettisoned this past offseason, I would've guessed they'd have given up on him. They haven't, and now the onus is on him, McHale, and the franchise as a whole to make sure that wasn't a silly decision. Let's stay tuned.

LATE ADDENDUM: Something I was genuinely unaware of that I probably should've known -- Patterson had surgery during the lockout. So, I'll state that outright here. In this case, I have to fault the Rockets organization more than Patterson himself for the majority of his problems last season. Apologies for the miss. I watch a lot, research a ton, and try to fairly evaluate every player for these capsules. But I admit that things will fall through the cracks from time to time in a 370 part series. In my defense, one can generally tell when a player has been out for surgery by a scattered return-to-play schedule. Patterson didn't really have that, as he played on the third game of the season and had already been tabbed for 20 minutes a night by his 5th game of the year. I figured he was playing that much after a healthy offseason because, quite frankly, when a player gets surgery very few teams push him back into peak usage so quickly. Patterson shouldn't have played quite that much quite that quickly, not with the surgery as an ever-present factor.

ANOTHER ADDENDUM: There's also one other thing I probably should have emphasized -- I'm not saying that Patterson necessarily should have been waived. If he improves, his play on a $2 million dollar deal is reasonably solid. I'm saying that given the Rockets' waiving/trading of Scola, Leuer, and Harrellson (all of whom were significantly better than Patterson last year, and all of whom I believe have roughly the upside that Patterson shows), I would expect the Rockets to waive someone like Patterson. It's a mark of an organization that has a lot of confidence in him, not necessarily a huge mistake or a big problem. As I said in the last paragraph, Patterson isn't a lost cause -- at 23, though, he's a reasonably old-for-his-draft player who seems somewhat low upside to my eyes. If he's utilized correctly and improves back to his rookie highs, he'll be a fine player. I don't think he'll be better than Leuer (who is far more slept on than he should be after a very good rookie season) or Harrellson (whose situational role is a lot more interesting and flexible than that of Patterson), but he could be good and he could surpass my expectations relatively handily if they stop using him the way they did last season.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. 3/3 guesses from Utsav and Okman last Friday. Good work, folks.

• Perhaps better than you think -- still not very good, though. This former husky has NBA in his blood, his uncle being a former Bulls player. Hates Doakes.
• Player #230 may still be passable this year -- he wasn't bad last year, by any means. But when you get THAT old, every year you don't collapse into dust is a "good" year for you.
• He's clearly one of the three or four best players on his team, and as a solid big, most teams could use a guy like Player #231. But his position is so incoherent and his fit so poor with his current team, it's likely he'll be traded for cents on the dollar. A pity -- not two years ago, he was burying clutch shots and demolishing the Heat.

Apologies for the lack of capsules yesterday. The next 10-15 players are going to be relatively short by my standards, so I'll have a shot at getting a few double-dip days. Here's hoping I don't have to scramble as much tomorrow. Also: season's in one week. Wow. Get ready.

• • •

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

• • •

_Follow Amir Johnson on Twitter at__ @IamAmirJohnson.___

Every day, I give riddles as to the next day's trio. The riddle I gave yesterday for Johnson implied that he was expected to take a larger role after the departure of a team's superstar, and that he had failed. I stretched a bit for the sake of the riddle -- I wasn't totally fair to say that, although there is a good point to be made. Few people pay much attention to him, but when you do, you realize that Amir Johnson's per minute numbers really aren't bad at all. Look at just this last season. He was in the top 10% of big men for field goal percentage from both the rim and the 3-9 foot post-up range. He wasn't very good outside of 10 feet (and has never been in his career), but that wasn't a huge deal, because he made his free throws (mostly) and took over 60% of his shots from inside that range. Although he didn't take very many free throws, he was efficient enough from the field to essentially completely offset that. His rebounding was slightly above average, with his defensive rebounding below-average but his offensive rebounding far above average to carry the boat. Sure, his assist rate is relatively low and his turnover rate is sky high. But with offense that efficient and per-minute numbers that solid, it was sort of confusing that he didn't get more minutes.

Or perhaps not. In the last two seasons, Johnson has shown himself to be dramatically more effective in smaller minutes than larger minutes -- his two best games last season (a 19-11-3 against Minnesota on 9 shots and an 18-13-2 against Washington on 13 shots) happened with Amir getting just barely above his minutes average -- he played 30 minutes in the Minnesota game and 26 in the Washington game. I don't know if it's fatigue, happenstance, or what. But Johnson doesn't tend to translate his per-minute productivity very well over a longer span of time -- he played almost 38 minutes in a loss to the Bobcats this season, and while his rebounding was solid (15 rebounds) his shooting was completely busted (at 3-9 -- with all baskets coming in the second half, albeit). In general, when Johnson plays a lot of minutes or is given a lot of shots, it's actually rather rare for his per-minute numbers to seriously translate to the sorts of 15-10 performances you'd expect if you threw him a few extra shots and kept him in for a full 36 minutes. He's a classic low-usage by design player -- he doesn't lack the ball because coaches are trying to keep him down, he lacks the ball because he and his coach have come to an understanding about how much usage you need to lop off to make him an efficient, useful player.

Which does have relatively strong implications. It means that the general hypetrain regarding Johnson was -- and still is, to some extent -- unwarranted. Before the fact and after the fact. I don't know whether Triano or Casey have ever outright stated that they wanted Johnson to "replace" Chris Bosh, but I know for a fact I've heard multiple Raptors fans express serious disappointment with Johnson's development. I'm not sure that's fair. While Johnson has gotten over his early-career bouts with foul trouble, not every NBA player has the ability to play the ironman and get on the court for 34-38 minutes a night. For many reasons. They may not have the breath for it, like the asthma-striken Roy Hibbert. They may not have the sheer ability to do it, like the foul-trouble magnet of an early career Amir Johnson. Or, they could be like Johnson is today. They probably could play more minutes, but they've been previously worse on a per-minute basis when they do that. Their defense falls off as they get more tired, their offense sloughs off efficiency if you pump their usage up too high, and they simply don't have the constitution to do it. Regrettable? Yes. Some per-minute mavens are productive potential stars just waiting for a broader role. Look at Kevin Love. But for every Kevin Love, you have others like Johnson, who are per-minute mavens precisely because of their role -- a broader one would just detract from the things he's already good at. He and his coaches get that, and his minutes are managed accordingly.

• • •

_Follow Luc Richard Mbah a Moute on Twitter at __@mbahamoute.

---

Gotta admit. While today's set isn't exactly a bunch of heralded superstars, this list has three of the top ten player names in the NBA. Amir Johnson is cool simply because "Amir" is one of the coolest names a guy can have, and juxtaposed with the plain-jane "Johnson" last name makes it hilarious. Vernon Macklin may not be long for the league, but I've always thought Vernon was an underrated name -- V-names are rather rare in the first place, and Vernon has the flexibility to call yourself V, Vern, Vernie, Von, or Big V. (I don't know why you would call yourself "Big V", but we'll put that out there anyway.) Macklin is just a cool last name -- rolls off the tongue, and can be pronounced a variety of different ways. Mack-lin, McLean, Mak-line, Mickey Mou--... just those first three, thanks. And then there's Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, which is for my money the best non-Pooh name in the league. It's just so ornate. It sounds like royalty -- which makes sense, because he's actually a prince. It's ornate, simple, and spectacular. It's a great name.

(Wait, I can't just end the capsule at having sung his name's praises? ... okay, okay.)

I like Mbah a Moute a lot, honestly. Although, to start with the obvious: there's a good reason he hasn't ever played more than 27 minutes a night in a single season. While his defense is spectacular and his hustle is incontrovertible, his offense is extremely touch-and-go. He can finish at the rim if you set him up with just the right shot, but he's also prone to turning the ball over or offensive-charging a savvy defender. He's one of the few players who you can say with 100% certainty would be completely unable to score on himself if he was playing a clone in an open gym -- the game would end in 0-0 frustration, played into the infinite until they finally tire of trying to do the impossible. His offensive skillset is so threadbare and minimalist that it's simply impossible to envision a world where Mbah a Moute could score on himself. He'd cut off the driving lanes and either take the charge or block the shot on every single excursion to the rim. It'd be hilarious, in a sad way. Neither clone would score on the other. Eternal equilibrium.

It's hard to give serious minutes to a player with offensive limitations as far-reaching as Mbah a Moute. But he does carve out a good 25-27 minutes a night simply by playing the way he's always played -- incredible, game-changing defense from the wing and solid rebounding all the while. With an offensive skillset like his, it's very hard to play Mbah a Moute for long stretches without a high-volume scorer by his side. In that sense, it's actually a good thing for the Bucks that they've acquired Monta Ellis. Ellis and Jennings can go 6-7 possessions straight having taken every shot on the floor -- if they do that, that's 6-7 possessions where Mbah a Moute hasn't had to worry about serious offensive responsibilities, which makes it easier for him to play larger minutes. If Ellis and Jennings shoot as often as I'm personally expecting, it could actually help make the team a bit more than the sum of its parts by allowing Mbah a Moute and Udoh to see more floor time without having to disappoint on the offensive end. We'll have to see, obviously -- if Ellis and Jennings can't score at least slightly efficiently, there's no way this works. But in my head, I can see this working out pretty well, with the defensive savants focusing on that end while the high-volume chuckers just keep throwing up shots to keep the ball out of the defensive stars' hands. Ellis and Jennings may end up with pretty strange numbers, and the entire team may have weird stats. It could go up in flames. But I could see a possibility that it works a lot better than most people expect, and that's probably the possibility that made Hammond approve of the deal.

While Mbah a Moute's defense isn't best-in-the-league level, it's certainly up there -- he's among the best perimeter defenders in the NBA and his rebounding is very good for a wing. The problem is, again, one of range. He shoots under 25% from outside the immediate vicinity of the rim, and that's a pointed 25% -- it's so bad, he simply shouldn't shoot from those ranges. At all. Ever. This has led many, including John Hollinger, to assert that Mbah a Moute should be playing the four. Defensively, though, Mbah a Moute is far more of a fit at the three. Me? I think he should play the three, regardless of how awful his offense fits for that role -- he's a positive defender whose use is almost entirely on that end, and the team (as I just explicated) just combined two of the most ball-dominant guards it possibly could. With Mbah a Moute set to see far fewer shots than he's ever seen before (most likely), what's to lose by playing him at his natural position and simply not running offensive plays for him? Defenses will be able to shade off him and apply added pressure to Ellis and Jennings, sure, but the exact same thing was true at the four. I think the Bucks would be best served by trying to keep Mbah a Moute on the wing, playing him 25-30 minutes a night, and seeing if the volume-scorer + defensive-savant strategy can work. I don't know if it can, but it's their best and only chance of competing for the central division title, so why not give it a shot?

Off the court, Mbah a Moute is notable as a Cameroonian prince. He's also notable as -- reportedly -- an extremely nice guy. He didn't start playing basketball until his mid-teens, which probably starts to explain many of his issues on the offensive end of the court. It's harder to learn how to shoot when you didn't start shooting until you were midway through puberty. Pretty cool accomplishment for him to be this good despite that. One of the coolest things about Mbah a Moute is that he's one of the last remaining regularly-updating player bloggers. There were never a great wealth of them, mind you -- Stephon Marbury had a blog at one point, as did Gerald Henderson, but I'm having trouble thinking of more off the top of my head. He throws Truehoop a bone from time to time and gives Henry Abbott scouting reports to put up at the blog. Absolutely amazing, in my view -- while I occasionally disagree with him, Mbah a Moute puts an incredible amount of time and effort into his scouting and knowledge sharing for his blogging exploits. It's a great set of posts. Hard to organize them all together, but here's an example from the playoffs, and here's his note on the Thunder. Highly recommended reading, and I highly recommend keeping tabs on Truehoop when the reports go up. Quite a lot of fun.

• • •

_Follow Vernon Macklin on Twitter at __@vernon_macklin.___

I can see why most are somewhat low on the wonderful Mr. Macklin. His free throw stroke was bad, his general offensive skillset was nigh nonexistent, and he didn't really rate out too well by his tertiaries. Some would point to his field goal percentage as a stat in his favor -- I'd note that he took over 70% of his shots at the rim and rated in the bottom 25% of big men in his at-rim conversion percentage. Some would note he had one of the lowest turnover rates in the league -- I'd note that he accomplished that primarily due to his usage rate being virtually nil. Some would note that his rebounding was really, really good for a rookie -- I'd note that... well... there's no dark side whatsoever to that statement, he rebounded phenomenally well in limited minutes. Which does get to my point -- while I can see exactly why most people aren't high on him, I actually think he has/had a chance to be a decent player in the NBA.

Sure, his offense isn't great. Pretty sub-par, even, for an NBA-level big man. Making only 55% of your at-rim baskets as an NBA big is usually one's death knell in the league. But his rebounding numbers were really, really good. That's not a useless skill, especially not when you pair it with what Macklin was bringing on the side -- solid defense, a nose for the ball, and an emphasis on running the coach's playbook. Macklin's numbers were produced in 135 garbage time minutes, but look at what he did in the D-League -- he averaged 14-14 while tearing other D-League big men apart, defensively. That, combined with solid per-minute stats in garbage time, tends to indicate a player whose ceiling is at the very least that of a patently decent NBA backup. He also has decent size -- he's a legitimate 6'10" and combines that with solid length (his 7'4" wingspan is definitively NBA-quality). If he puts on a few pounds, he could be a bullish low post defender. His instincts already look relatively decent in the pick and roll, too -- I really do feel like he's got a shot at being a nice spot-minutes player providing defense off the bench with some vicious rebounding besides.

So, how's he going to look on next year's Pistons? Invisible, unfortunately. Due to the Pistons' surfeit of intriguing new big men, Macklin is on the outs. He didn't receive a qualifying offer from the Pistons and has reluctantly parted ways with the organization, going to Europe via the Turkish league, via the "Royal Hali Gazintep" team. While he had several training camp invitations, he decided against going to camp in favor of getting consistent minutes overseas and trying his luck again next year. Patrick Hayes at PistonPowered touched on this earlier this summer, and noted something I think more people need to recognize. It was really hard to be a second round pick during last year's lockout-shortened season. You can see the impact all over the place -- Jon Leuer, Vernon Macklin, and Josh Harrellson were all waived despite putting up signs of being productive NBA-level talent. Without a proper training camp or a preseason to establish their names and games in the hearts of their coaches, it was really difficult for a non-marquee rookie to gain traction with their coach. Keep that in mind, as the second round gems of last year try to carve out a place once more in this year. Or, as in the case of Macklin, simply fade out of the league and hope they'll call him back in a year.

• • •

At the end of each post, I'll be scribing riddles for the next group. Whoever gets the most right will get a shout out at the end of the next post. Tweet me your answers at @docrostov, or post them in the comments. No 3/3 guesses, but someone got each of the 3 riddles right, so I will count that as a victory for myself. The winning 2/3 guesses go to Okman, Matt, Chilai, and Der_K.

• Player #226 rocks a diamond grill. And backboards, too.
• Player #227 regularly loses his birds. Will be a Player Capsule (Plus).
• Player #228's team waived virtually everyone this summer. Except for him. Their reasons? ... I have no idea.

Have a good weekend, folks.

• • •