NBA Roundtable Discussion

[Guest Vitamin X]

Though it hasn't gotten much mention, and it's only preseason, the Blazers haven't looked that bad, even without Oden. They're 4-3, but they're right about what I'd expect them to be, around .500 and probably good enough to get in the playoffs in the East, but probably not the West. They've scored 100 points in every one of their games in exhibition, except at Sacramento where they scored 87. And this is all without Brandon Roy, too! They look like an excellent offensive team at any rate, so even if they don't win many games, they'll be fun to watch. Aldridge/Webster/Outlaw has been the leading trio in preseason. Glad I have a couple of those guys in fantasy.

[Precious Roy 0]

It may have only been the end of the exhibition season, but Detroit Pistons forward Rasheed Wallace was in mid-season form.

 

"I still don't think they (Cavaliers) beat us, we beat ourselves," Wallace said. "And I think we also fell victim to that personal NBA thing where they are trying to make it a world game and get (television) ratings. They wanted to put their darling in there (the NBA Finals) and they did, and look what ended up happening.

 

"This game ain't basketball anymore, it's entertainment," Wallace said. "It's starting to get like the WWF. There ain't no real wrestling anymore either. It's all fake."

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/post/Ra...-?urn=nba,51022

 

Also, ESPN is claiming heavy discussion between the Bulls and Lakers, with the Lakers asking for Deng, Gordon, Thomas and Noah, which is way too much for the Bulls to give up. And supposedly Kobe agrees and would use his no trade to block the deal. The article also says there are warring factions in the Lakers front office, which I would assume is Jerry Buss and his son wanting to trade Kobe and Phil Jackson and Jeannie Buss wanting to keep him. I don't know enough about the Lakers to say where Mitch Kupchack stands.

 

I still think that Gordon, Thomas and Nocioni is more or less the most that Paxson will give up. Gordon pretty much has to be involved from both team's standpoints, he doesn't want to move Deng or Hinrich, he won't trade both Thomas and Noah and Thomas would have far more value to LA I would think. It's also going to be really tough to make this trade happen from a salary cap standpoint without involving a 3rd team, Wallace and Hinrich are the only guys who even come close to Kobe's salary and I don't think LA has any interest in Wallace.

[alfdogg 0]

I agree with Rasheed 100%. ESPN Radio leading up to and during the finals, all the discussion had to do with how poor the ratings were and how uninteresting the Spurs were, and how LeBron was saving the NBA by getting to the Finals, because he's a ratings machine, or some other nonsense. I don't know, I've blocked most of it out. I did notice that John Seibel had this weird obsession with pointing out that Michael Redd was a good player, but he wouldn't buy his jersey. He said this on every show for like a week, seriously.

 

That seems to be the basis for most people who get bent out of shape over being denied Yanks/Sox in the playoffs, too. "No one cares about this series outside of (insert small-market city) and (insert small-market city)! This will be the lowest rated series ever!"

 

Tough shit. Basketball and baseball are real sports. Those teams are there (in most cases) because they're the two best teams in the league/conference. That's what you should want out of a legitimate sport. But, oh yeah, being a great team is "boring" now, unless you have a marketable superstar.

 

EDIT: Another example I just remembered: "It's bad for the NBA that Oden & Durant are going to the PNW." Even though Durant could potentially be the player that helps keep the Sonics in Seattle. One of the Sonic fans could probably give more insight on that one, though.

Edited October 28, 2007 by alfdogg

[Guest]

I don't know enough about the Lakers to say where Mitch Kupchack stands.

He's in whatever faction allows him to keep his job.

[Guest Gym Class Fallout]

Being a great team isn't boring. Being a boring team is boring. The old dynasties of sport were much more fun till the turn of the century, when the Patriots and Spurs made dominance as understated, trudging, mundane, and whitebread as humanly possible. We went from larger than life superpowers to just...whatever this is. I don't care enough about basketball, in and of itself, to be fascinated by what the Spurs do. The NBA, above all other leagues, is personality-driven, and when things are just "we take it one day at a time and work on doing all the little things right," it's hard to get pumped up for a series of what's just dull basketball, generally. I never heard any talk about Jordan "working on doing the little things right." He just beat everybody. That was more fun.

[Ripper 0]

Pistons - Spurs was one of the great finals series in a long time. People called it boring probably didn't watch it.

 

The problem with the NBA now is simple. They call too many bitch ass pussy fouls. Its a free throw contest. Teams like the Suns, they don't get to the freethrow line alot thus the flow of the game is better. People say its because they are so fast or run or whatever as a reason for them being so fun to watch, but it isn't. Its the fact that they hardly get to the freethrow line.

 

The Spurs however are near the top of the league at getting to the line, as was Cleveland. People don't want to watch freethrows for a couple of hours. Its boring. And its all because they made this 'don't get near the player" rules that allowed Dwayne Wade to win a championship.

 

Older basketball was more fun because it took a HARD foul to get to the line. Then players got faster and more athletic, and defensively they became better so the scoring went down. So the league started using the genius moves of moving the three point line in, and not allowing defenders to play defense to get the offense up.

 

Regular season ball is fine for the most part, but some playoff series get ridiculous with the foul calls.

 

They never talked about Jordon doing the little things right, but the Bulls did. You got to see one of the greatest defenders ever lock down someone on the other team. You got to see the greatest rebounder ever control the boards. You got to see one of the greatest off the ball defenders roam around the court and cause havok. On offense you saw the Triangle, which is a fucking boring offense but can be beautiful in its execution. Then dick sucking jordan and for the most part ignoring all that other stuff is also another part of the problem.

 

 

[Boxer 0]

So now that the World Series is over, I guess all eyes will finally be on the Celtics open night eh? I think they'll be a media blitz that day, and deservedly so.

[Just John 0]

"I still don't think they (Cavaliers) beat us, we beat ourselves," Wallace said. "And I think we also fell victim to that personal NBA thing where they are trying to make it a world game and get (television) ratings. They wanted to put their darling in there (the NBA Finals) and they did, and look what ended up happening.

 

"This game ain't basketball anymore, it's entertainment," Wallace said. "It's starting to get like the WWF. There ain't no real wrestling anymore either. It's all fake."

 

Sheed's a heat-magnet, but his stable-mates clearly aren't over enough to warrant another title run. Their title win over the Lakers was only over because the Lakers were great heels, and their match with the Spurs was fundamentally good, but only smart fans really cared about it. The marks were apathetic to the whole thing. After that heatless "money match," it's no wonder Stern panicked and put the strap on the much more over Miami Heat, even if they weren't as technically sound as Detroit. Although it did lead to that awesome swerve with Miami turning heel toward the end of the match.

[Rendclaw 0]

"I still don't think they (Cavaliers) beat us, we beat ourselves," Wallace said. "And I think we also fell victim to that personal NBA thing where they are trying to make it a world game and get (television) ratings. They wanted to put their darling in there (the NBA Finals) and they did, and look what ended up happening.

 

"This game ain't basketball anymore, it's entertainment," Wallace said. "It's starting to get like the WWF. There ain't no real wrestling anymore either. It's all fake."

 

Sheed's a heat-magnet, but his stable-mates clearly aren't over enough to warrant another title run. Their title win over the Lakers was only over because the Lakers were great heels, and their match with the Spurs was fundamentally good, but only smart fans really cared about it. The marks were apathetic to the whole thing. After that heatless "money match," it's no wonder Stern panicked and put the strap on the much more over Miami Heat, even if they weren't as technically sound as Detroit. Although it did lead to that awesome swerve with Miami turning heel toward the end of the match.

 

Nice try. It's stopped being funny about two or three years ago. Cease and desist.

 

To some extent, Sheed is right. I was truly happy when the Spurs swept the Cavs, because he might say something to the contrary, but David felt he NEEDED LBJ in the Finals. We all found out that LeBron is not the next Jordan, but more of a Jordan/Magic hybrid. 30% Jordan, 70% Magic. Problem is that he doesn't have the killer instinct that either one of those players.

 

I have to agree with the refs blowing their whistles like they're directing rush hour traffic. Hell, the preseason is fucking unwatchable because the ref's are calling mostly everything, but the calls that they don;t blow the whistles on are the ones that SHOULD be called. I sat there during the Piston game and just shook my head at times because of the refs.

 

The NBA is becoming less watchable because no one in the league is allowed to have a personality past a certain point (especially on the court), and this is the borne fruit of the Magic/Bird/Jordan era, when Stern decided to start marketing the players instead of the teams they're on. This is continuation of that, and the majority of NBA fans have gone right along with the pablum that Stern has fed them for the last 20+ years. So when great TEAMS rise up and win, because there either isn't a true superstar (like the Pistons) or a very low-key one (like the Spurs), they're labeled as boring and the masses go right along with it.

 

Also take into account that shooting percentages have gone down steadily of the years. Kids busting out of college and high school to go pro not having a decent jump shot from 14-18 feet, and getting drafted because of their potential instead of their game and their fundamental knowledge, as well as some players getting better defensively or teams having defensive specialists. (And yes, there are exceptions to this rule, I know (Kobe, Howard, Stoudamire, McGrady, et al)). So watching some teams clank it up because they can't hit the broad side of a barn from 15 feet can make a game pretty unwatchable.

[Guest Gym Class Fallout]

I'm not following you: Stern shifted toward marketing individual personalities, ergo, players cannot have personalities? Oddly enough, Rasheed Wallace is one of the few colorful players in the league, and he's on one of the best well-rounded teams.

[Maztinho 0]

I think that Rend was saying that the NBA is more defined by it's personalities than the teams themselves, which is the downfall, because when a team wins without "The Name" that is a Charles Barkley, or a Micheal Jordan, then they are perceived as boring.

 

In my opinion I think Ripper has it, the NBA is a free throw shooting contest. Dwayne Wade's 50 FT or whatever a few years ago should have been a wake up call. Rules are made to favor the play makers, but end up killing any flow the game could have working. The league shot themselves in the foot with that.

[Ripper 0]

Also take into account that shooting percentages have gone down steadily of the years. Kids busting out of college and high school to go pro not having a decent jump shot from 14-18 feet, and getting drafted because of their potential instead of their game and their fundamental knowledge, as well as some players getting better defensively or teams having defensive specialists. (And yes, there are exceptions to this rule, I know (Kobe, Howard, Stoudamire, McGrady, et al)). So watching some teams clank it up because they can't hit the broad side of a barn from 15 feet can make a game pretty unwatchable.

 

I think the Highschool draft thing is still just plain wrong. Simply put, highschool players contribute around about the same time name college players do. They are two completely different games. The rule is that prep to pro players will end up being very good. The exceptions are the one that didn't make it.

 

Shooting percentages have gone down simply because players are bigger and faster and close alot faster on jump shooters. Look at 80's and 70's games. You will notice that all those automatic 15 foot jumpers are completely uncontested. Now if you want to argue this is because of coaching or the like, then fine, but the fact is, defense doesn't leave the 15 footer open as much as it used to. And the only people it is open to now are bigs and thats by design.

 

[MrRant 0]

I have tickets to the Sonics home opener where I can watch them get murdered by the Suns while Durant puts up 20 or so and then allows everyone to blow by him.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

I think the Highschool draft thing is still just plain wrong. Simply put, highschool players contribute around about the same time name college players do. They are two completely different games. The rule is that prep to pro players will end up being very good. The exceptions are the one that didn't make it.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on this, please? For those of us that are unwashed, what's the difference between a kid that goes straight from high school to the pros, and one that goes from "prep" to the pros? Because it seems to me that there is a much higher percentage of kids that come out straight from high school that don't pan out than there are of "name" college players who don't.

[Guest Gym Class Fallout]

Prep means high school.

 

Incandenza doesn't post in Sports, so I can get away with this without twenty lashes. Here's what Chuck Klosterman thinks:

 

Guys like Iverson and Carter are mechanically awesome, but don't represent anything beyond themselves. They're nothing more than good basketball players, and that's depressing. Watching modern pro basketball reminds me of watching my roommate play Nintendo in college. In order to remedy this aesthetic delcine, the league decided to let teams play zone defense, which has got to be the least logical step ever taken to increase excitement. This is like trying to combat teen pregnancy by lowering the drinking age.

[Ripper 0]

Highschool to NBA players:

 

Reggie Harding - was a druggy and a headcase. Got shot and killed 10 years after he was drafted

Darryl Dawkins

Bill Willoughby - nothing special. Just a journyman, although that is what you would expect at the position he was drafted.

Moses Malone

Shawn Kemp(kinda...he never played college ball)

Kevin Garnett

Kobe Bryant

Jermaine O'Neal

Stephen Jackson

Tracy Mcgrady

Jonathan Bender - retired because his knees were shit. If they weren't shit, he would have been a special player as he showed in flashes when he wasn't hurt.

Leon Smith - before he ever played a game, he was place in mental hospital after trying to kill himself. That would have happened in college or the NBA so it really doesn't mean much in the prep to pro argument.

Korleone Young - He was a second round draft pick first of all and most of them don't stay on NBA rosters. He kept getting injured, got cut and went on to a decent career in the lower leagues and overseas.

Al Harrington

Rashard Lewis

Darius Miles

Deshawn Stevenson

DeSagna Diop

Ousamne Cisse - Dumbass for entering the draft anyway. Once again, second round pick, never really panned out, was in the NBDL for a while and now is playing overseas.

Nbudi Ebi - If not for Kevin Mchale being a idiot, this guy would have been drafted near the end of the first round. Still, he was a 26th pick in the draft. he wasn't really expected to be a team savior.

Kedrick Perkins

James Lang - Another second round pick, and back injuries pretty much grounded him for good.

Kwame Brown

Lebron James

Dwight Howard

Tyson Chandler

Eddy Curry

Robert Swift - Knee injuries. I still think he will be a pretty good player although I think you officially have to add him to this list for now. I still believe he will be coming off.

Amare Stoudimire

Martell Webster

Shaun Livingson

Sebastian Telfair

Al Jefferson

Josh Smith

J.R. Smith

Dorell Wright

Andrew Bynum

Gerald Green

C.J. Miles

Monta Ellis

Louis Williams

Andray Blatche

Amir Johnson

 

The ones in bold are the guys I say you could argue are/were bust. Everyone else on this list has either proven their worth or are pretty much sure bets to do so. And some of the bolded weren't really their faults.

 

So roughly 9 out of the 40+.

 

Like I said, the bad ones are the exception to the rule.

 

[Brett Favre 0]

If you're a high school player jumping straight into the NBA, chances are you have high potential. It makes little sense to jump if you aren't good enough, which is why most end up being solid contributors.

[Precious Roy 0]

I'd put Telfair on the bust list at this point, and he's a guy who absolutely would have been a better pro with a couple years of D1 experience.

[MrRant 0]

If you're a high school player jumping straight into the NBA, chances are you have high potential. It makes little sense to jump if you aren't good enough, which is why most end up being solid contributors.

 

I'd just rather the potential get refined a bit in college so there is less to work on when you hit the NBA.

[Ripper 0]

Except that doesn't actually happen. Those "refined" college skills mean absolute shit in the NBA. The only point of college basketball is to get lesser known players more pub and more noticed. Any refinement they would get in the college game, they would get more refinement and alot faster in the NBA.

 

And I don't think you can argue that telfair in his 3 entire years in the league is a bust. He had a decent rookie year as a backup point in Portland and then improved his second year. Then he went to Boston and that just wasn't pretty. As a playmaker, he is still afine player and would thrive in a uptempo system. His problem is that he can't shoot for shit, and he gets to take more shots per day with shooting coaches now than he would have in 4 total years of college.

[Ripper 0]

I am amazed that Beno Udrih is just floating out there now. Someone in need of a point should sign him. Immediately.

[alfdogg 0]

Funny you should mention that, he was traded to Minnesota today for a second-round pick.

[Ripper 0]

Yeah, and Minnesota waved him.

[alfdogg 0]

OK, I see that now. That wasn't mentioned on NBA.com.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Yeah, and Minnesota waved him.

 

Like, goodbye and shit or from a flagpole?

[Rendclaw 0]

There was a time where three, hell even two years in college could refine your game and make you a better team player if the coach was worth half a shit. The issue I have is out of most of that 31 who are not busts, how many are good team players who can not only get theirs but make their teammates around them better? Aside from Garnett and maybe two or three others on that list, there aren't any or the jury is still out on them. Most of them are high-flyers or ball-hogging gunners. I think out of that list Howard has the best shot of developing an all-around game, because he is not about just promoting himself and getting paid. He has a true desire to become a great player. Yeah I know, I've been on the kid's jock since he got drafted, but he has gotten a little bit better every year, which is a great thing to see especially from a center.

 

The entire sport more or less has become a promotion machine, starting in fucking grade school now. One of the worst things ESPN did was start televising the McDonald's All-Americans Game, because the majority of those kids are going to try and do something to expose themselves to the NBA scouts and get TV coverage.

 

And Rip, I have to disagree. Of course in today's league hardly any kid is going to stay in college the four years unless either he is a special kind of guy and/or his team is in the hunt for a national title every year, but there is an appreciable change from the high school game to the college game. This is all dependent upon the school a kid goes into, but a good one can surely raise his game to a higher level, and he might just mature along the way by the time he gets drafted. There is too big of a leap from high school to the pros for the kid to contribute in any way for at least three years. And then there is everything else surrounding the kid in the pro game and lifestyle. Not a lot of guys on that list could handle that lifestyle so well, either. If he has superstar talent like a Garnett or Kobe, thats one thing but those two also struggled BIG time in their first two or three years. With that level of talent I can understand going straight to the pros, but there is something to be said about going to college for at least two years. The money, fame, and prestige is always going to be there. I think that Kobe wouldn't have been so raw when he first came to the Lakers. The ratio was almost 1:1 in highlight reel plays to rookie mistakes. My argument is that there is a less steep learning curve with some college experience under a kid's belt, especially at a good program.

 

And Roy is absolutely right about Telfair. Being a point guard, you HAVE to have a couple of college years under your belt. From everything I have seen about that kid, he let a lot of people around him make decisions for him. He was the kid that came up from the streets, and carried the pressure of getting his family out of the projects with him since grade school. A lot of kids have that pressure on them from the time they first pick up a basketball.

 

Any team would be better with Udrih on it. He's a pretty solid player.

[Ripper 0]

See and this is where I have to disagree. Rookies out of college don't really contribute in the first 2-3 years either. College rules are alot stricter now where coaches can only coach for so many hours in so many months out of the year, where back in the 70's and 80's, the players could live in the gym with their coaches. The prep to pro guys get to learn the game at a faster pace against better competition.

 

The leap from the highschool game to the pro game is huge, but I think people are down playing how huge the leap from college to pros is also. Every single year we had dozens of kids that dominated in college either not be drafted, or straight out bust in the NBA because they are two completely different games.

 

It is faster, it more athletic, and everyone is bigger. Thats why alot of guys crap out. People love to point out the early struggles of prep to pro players but competely ignore the exact same struggles out of 2-3 year collegiate players.

 

 

And with Telfair, I once again have to point out, his turnover numbers are low, his assist numbers are fine for the minutes he plays, and if you ever watch him play, the last thing that is wrong with this game is his playmaking skills. He knows how to play the point guard position well, but he seems intent on proving he can shoot. College wouldn't have changed that. Its okay to be a starting point that has a horrible shot in college because...well...thats what they have. All it would have done is convince him he was more of a offensive force when he was blowing by the shitty college D and the no real challege at the rim. That would have honestly made his game worse.

 

These guys go to college and dominate against lesser opposition. Like, you don't get better playing Madden by beating the computer on rookie. Prep to Pro guys are playing on All-Madden, and while they might get their asses kicked until they get better, in 4 years they are going to be better than the guys that have been playing Pro.

 

Look at guys like Sheldon Williams who went through 4 years of college and averaging 18 points and near 10 rebounds as a hulking center in college.

 

Now he is a 6'9" power forward with no post moves in the NBA.

 

And when it comes to the "fortune and fame" aspect of everything, come on now. If you have been a regular guy on a college campus, you know how much debauchery you can get into. Now if you are the star basketball player, you will have just as much access to any drugs, and women as a rookie in the NBA. Only the NBA will get more highly trained groupies. I think it is ridiculous for people to say college teaches you maturity. The real world is the maturity teacher. Guys that went to college are just as likely to fuck up as those that didn't, and once again, there are countless examples of it in every sport.

 

Point is, only once every blue moon does a rookie of any level come in and immediate make your team better. That is college or not. If you are looking for a rookie to change everything in one year, your team probably really sucks.

 

The prep to pro players didn't make the NBA boring or bad. Putting them on the court as starters 4 months after prom was the problem. That and the NBA continually trying to tweak the game to make it more exciting which of course made it less exciting.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

You clearly have a very different criteria for a bust than I do.

[Ripper 0]

Who on that list are you calling a bust that I said wasn't?

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

By my totally biased, completely subjective criteria, I consider any high-schooler taken after 2000 a bust except for the following:

 

Lebron James

Dwight Howard

Tyson Chandler

Eddy Curry

Al Jefferson

Josh Smith

Monta Ellis

Amare Stoudimire

JR Smith

Deshawn Stevenson

 

 

 

And, while the following may be busts, too, I'm willing to give these guys a pass because they haven't met my own personal "Rule of Three (years)" criteria:

 

Martell Webster

Andrew Bynum

Gerald Green

CJ Miles

Andray Blatche

Amir Johnson

 

Kwame Brown and Darius Miles I declare to be busts by virtue of draft status. Darius Miles has, to this point in his career, the eighth-worst scoring average of any Top-3 pick since the inception of the lottery... And two of the guys that have lower scoring averages (Chandler, Milicic) are at least in the Top-15 in at least one other category... And Kwame? I'll be very interested in hearing your argument for why he isn't a bust... we're talking about a guy who, to this point in his career, is easily one of the worst Number-One picks of all time, at least statistically speaking. Hell, he's the worst number-one pick since LaRue Martin (even worse than Kandi and Pervis, statistically). By exactly what standard is he not a bust?