You can probably tell from the machine gun-fire pace of the posts on this site that we tirelessly scour the internet to bring you the most important and incisive news and issues. It should thus come as no surprise that we were first to stumble upon this, hidden inside a story about a young Stephon Marbury and the smell of either weed or sex, depending on your Starbury-vice predilections.
Feb Club done gone nationals! Suck on that, ATL posters!
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
LeBron, Updated
The reason that Kobe is almost guaranteed the MVP at this point is the popular wisdom that he's the best player in the league; since he's been the best player in the league for years, and for each of them he was denied the MVP because of team performance, there's no way he can be denied when his team has the best record in the West. And I'll admit, the logic here is appealing. Except, Kobe's not the best player in the game. In every statistical category (save 3P% and FT%), LeBron is equal or noticeably better. This is even more pronounced when the game is on the line. And all next-gen stats have LeBron well above Kobe. So, why does everyone still think Kobe is better?
There are two main reasons. First (and this seems to be, at least partly, what Ric Bucher is getting at in his recent appearance on Bill Simmons's podcast) is that he so clearly has the potential to be the greatest player ever, that anything less than that is a disappointment. Obviously, this is an absurd argument.
Second, and more important, is that the way in which LeBron is dominating is just so new that nobody quite knows what to make of it. His game isn't as refined as it might be; he doesn't have the consistent shot from 18+, like a Kobe does, and yet he still shoots a higher percentage from the floor. He pretty much relies on his power and ability to get to the rim (his three-point shot is coming around, but still is hardly a deadly weapon). And up until now, this is just not enough to be a great player.
Up until now, a player that relies on getting to the rim can be stopped; he can be double-teamed or the whole defense can collapse; either way, he can be forced to pass or take a jump shot. This is why every important game winner up until now has been a jumper. At the beginning of LeBron's career, this threat would be enough to force him to pass to the open man when the defense collapsed, after the inevitable Donyell Marshall/etc wide-open miss, he would get criticized for not taking the big shot himself. After that, he settled for the jumper; sometimes he would hit (e.g. over Kobe the last time they met this year), sometime he would miss. Now, however, he has realized that he absolutely cannot be stopped going to the rim.
Best as I can tell, this just seems cheaper to people. We're so used to seeing jumpers a la Jordan's more famous shots, we assume that if you're not taking them, it's because you're not good enough to. Lay-ups seem to take less skill. But really, this is completely backwards. Jordan took jumpers not because his shot was better from 18 feet than it was on a lay-up, but rather because the defense could take the lay-up away.
More importantly, if you can get the lay-up, it's far more high-percentage than a jumper. When Bucher and others say that Bryant is a better player because his game is more well-rounded, they're missing the point. Why is it more impressive to have a better mid-range game if you end up shooting a lower percentage? Clearly, the whole point of having that as a weapon is that, when the defense takes the drive away from you, you can just pull up and bang a shot anyways. But a mid-range shot is only as important as its necessity. If the defense can't take the drive away, it's merely a luxury. And, as the clutch-time stats indicate (as do the overall stats), LeBron is better, even with his "less-well-rounded" game, than Kobe is.
There are two main reasons. First (and this seems to be, at least partly, what Ric Bucher is getting at in his recent appearance on Bill Simmons's podcast) is that he so clearly has the potential to be the greatest player ever, that anything less than that is a disappointment. Obviously, this is an absurd argument.
Second, and more important, is that the way in which LeBron is dominating is just so new that nobody quite knows what to make of it. His game isn't as refined as it might be; he doesn't have the consistent shot from 18+, like a Kobe does, and yet he still shoots a higher percentage from the floor. He pretty much relies on his power and ability to get to the rim (his three-point shot is coming around, but still is hardly a deadly weapon). And up until now, this is just not enough to be a great player.
Up until now, a player that relies on getting to the rim can be stopped; he can be double-teamed or the whole defense can collapse; either way, he can be forced to pass or take a jump shot. This is why every important game winner up until now has been a jumper. At the beginning of LeBron's career, this threat would be enough to force him to pass to the open man when the defense collapsed, after the inevitable Donyell Marshall/etc wide-open miss, he would get criticized for not taking the big shot himself. After that, he settled for the jumper; sometimes he would hit (e.g. over Kobe the last time they met this year), sometime he would miss. Now, however, he has realized that he absolutely cannot be stopped going to the rim.
Best as I can tell, this just seems cheaper to people. We're so used to seeing jumpers a la Jordan's more famous shots, we assume that if you're not taking them, it's because you're not good enough to. Lay-ups seem to take less skill. But really, this is completely backwards. Jordan took jumpers not because his shot was better from 18 feet than it was on a lay-up, but rather because the defense could take the lay-up away.
More importantly, if you can get the lay-up, it's far more high-percentage than a jumper. When Bucher and others say that Bryant is a better player because his game is more well-rounded, they're missing the point. Why is it more impressive to have a better mid-range game if you end up shooting a lower percentage? Clearly, the whole point of having that as a weapon is that, when the defense takes the drive away from you, you can just pull up and bang a shot anyways. But a mid-range shot is only as important as its necessity. If the defense can't take the drive away, it's merely a luxury. And, as the clutch-time stats indicate (as do the overall stats), LeBron is better, even with his "less-well-rounded" game, than Kobe is.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Lebron James-for-MVP Post.
Over at Sports Illustrated, Marty "Let the Motherfucker" Burns has his MVP contenders list out (note: I know he put this article out two weeks ago; I've been busy). He, as with the majority of the television analysts I've seen, lists Kobe as the front-runner. I can appreciate what he's done on the court, and how he's gone from horrible teammate to a not-bad teammate (which, when used as an absolute positive for his candidacy, is the greatest use of lowered expectations since...). But, Burns's thesis is, in a word, insane.
As a jump-off point, there are 5 legitimate, mainstream candidates for MVP: Kobe, Lebron, KG, Chris Paul, and maybe Dwight Howard (I do agree w/ Burns here). You theoretically could throw Manu in there too, on the theory that he's playing the best of anyone on the Spurs, who are still the mode pick to win the championship; but, no sixth-man is ever gonna win, so nevermind. KG, one of my favorite players of all time, has missed too many games and has seen his numbers drop too much to really have a shot at the award (although, clearly, he brings the leadership and team defense as well as anyone). Dwight Howard is dominant, but the Magic simply aren't anywhere near good enough considering the quality of his teammates.
So, we're looking at a three-man race. Leaving Paul aside, who's still mostly a wild card, there are the popular-wisdom two best players in the league: Kobe and LeBron. And really, this isn't even a debate. To the numbers: Kobe's going for 28.2-6.1-5.3, LeBron's getting 30.8-8.1-7.4. Better across the board (in fact, at least 2 better in each category). James also plays more minutes and shoots a better percentage, while turning it over slightly less. Further, statistician-extraordinaire John Hollinger has James leading the league in PER at 30.56, with Kobe coming in 7th at 24.84. James is more than 2 points better than the next best player (Paul), the biggest disparity between two consecutive spots anywhere on the list. The Roland Rating at 82games.com similarly has LeBron dominating the rest of the league. 82games also looks at stats in clutch-time: LeBron is leading Kobe in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, and shooting percentage, while turning it over way less. LeBron also leads in clutch-time plus-minus per 48-minutes.
More importantly, though, there's this: I've heard it said that what's so beautiful about Kobe's season is that now that he's surrounded w/ good players, we're finally getting to see what he's capable of in his prime. But that's exactly the point. Kobe couldn't do this with a bad team (and, it's not like a team w/ Odom and Bynum, even w/out Gasol could ever be all that bad). With less-than-great teammates, he's just another great-numbers, bad-record guy. LeBron, with far worse teammates at almost every position, took his team to the NBA Finals. This year, with worse teammates at every single position (even going into the bench), still has his team 10 games over .500.
Put differently: If you traded Kobe for LeBron straight-up (and this hypothetical works since they both play pretty similar roles in their respective offenses), the Lakers would, at a minimum, not get any worse. The Kobe-led Cavs, however, would revert back to the Lakers of the last few years--that is, they would be another middle-of-the-pack team that would get murked in the first round. Sure, all this is hypothetical, but history and the numbers all back it up.
As for Paul, well, 21.3-4-11 is nice, as are the steals and shooting percentage, but they're still don't match the across-the-board dominance of the King (Paul also comes up short in every statistical algorithm mentioned above). And while NOLA's 42-20 is also nice, his teammates are still far superior to LeBron's at all positions.
Witness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)