NBA "Villains"

At this very moment, I’m watching the Celtics and Lakers – the NBA’s best rivalry - on ABC.  Since I really enjoy reading Bill Simmons’ live diary columns, where he compiles all his thoughts at certain points throughout a game, I was tempted to mimic such a column on this game.  Watching the heated matchups between players, any game between these two teams would make for a very entertaining diary - especially if you’re allowed to quote players uncensored.  Since I can’t lip-read everything on TV and not rich enough to sit close enough to hear players constantly berating each other, I’m not able to come up with such diaries.  Plus, the Sports Guy kind of does that, anyway.   I’ll hold off on stealing people’s ideas, especially people whose columns I actually like. 

Anyway, it’s easy to see how all the great matchups in this game (Bryant vs Pierce, Garnett vs. Gasol, Allen vs. Fisher) create tension between players.  For the fans, it’s fun to watch.  It also gives fans more incentive to root for their teams, especially when a player on the other team is giving your favorite player a hard time.  There are so many guys that fall into the “You-Either-Love-Him-Or-Hate-Him” category.  But overall, certain guys are hated a lot more than they’re loved.  They have become villains of the NBA. 

I decided to give a crack at ranking the villains of the league – those who are enemies in most eyes but also have completely embraced that role.  Most of these guys, unsurprisingly, are playing in this game.

5.  Paul Pierce/Kevin Garnett

Pierce and KG have been a formidable duo and are considered nightmare matchups for any opponent.  What really gets under the skin of their opponents (and fans) is that they’re not shy about rubbing it in their faces. 

Outside of Boston, there are mixed opinions on Pierce at best.  He is known for his smack talk to opponents, even in the middle of iso plays.  He relishes these opportunities, knocking down clutch shots on a routine basis.  But as all anti-Boston fans will remind you, there are other reasons for disliking him.  His pride, confidence and competitiveness often carry through to his demeanor off the court.  You can tell that it bleeds through things he says at press conferences.  Perhaps a lot of hate was generated toward him from Lakers fans during Game 1 of the 2008 NBA Finals, where Pierce appeared to hurt his knee.  About 30 seconds after being carried off the court, he magically recovered and destroyed the Lakers in that series, earning Finals MVP honors.  While some saw this as a “Willis Reed” moment, most questioned the injury and Pierce’s toughness as he was carried off the court.  Personally, I don’t think anybody should question the toughness of a guy who was stabbed 11 times and had a bottle smashed over his head, only to return to full health just days later.  After Game 1 of last year's first round match-up between Miami and Boston, Quentin Richardson bashed both Pierce and Garnett, calling them "actresses."   Either way, you either love the guy or hate him. 

Like them or not, Pierce and KG will talk a lot of trash - and back it up

As for KG, well, I have already mentioned previously that he is easily the NBA’s premier trash talker (btw – notice how many of SI’s top 10 trash talkers are on this list also).  Even Joakim Noah recently had to vent about him.  It seems like his popularity with other players and fans has declined somewhat –somewhat noted by not being voted as a starter to the All-Star game for the first time in ump-teen years.  As this is the latter phase of his outstanding career, he uses his savvy veteran tactics a lot more than sheer physical ability – including verbal jousting to get inside his opponents’ heads.  This particular season, he’s had numerous run-ins with many players (examples of late:  Dwight Howard, Channing Frye, and Mickael Pietrus) – and picking up technical fouls more often than he did earlier in his career. 

4.  Derek Fisher

From an opponent’s standpoint, is there a more irritating guy to play against?  Widely regarded as the best “flopper” of the NBA, he is easily leading the league in terms of how many times he’s tricked NBA officials.  And who can argue against the label of being a dirty player?  In the 2009 Western Conference Semifinals, Fisher took a complete cheap shot at Houston’s Luis Scola. 

Also, can you blame the entire state of Utah for absolutely loathing this guy?  In their eyes, he went from a loveable  figure (with the condition of his daughter during the 2007 playoffs, where he famously showed up late after taking his daughter to a doctor in New York for treatment drained a game-winning 3 pointer to help the Jazz K.O. Golden State) to a complete scoundrel.   Not just because he ditched the Jazz that offseason to join the Lakers, but also for the reason behind it:  he apparently thought that there were no doctors near Salt Lake City that were good enough to treat his daughter.  Huh?  Talk about adding salt to the wound.

The weirdest part about this is the fact that Fisher is the President of the NBA Players Association.  If you’re a player and you get in trouble with the league front office – be it a fine or suspension – D-Fish is the guy you need to stand by your side.  How weird must that be for guys that hate playing him (and vice versa)? That’s like asking your ex-girlfriend to put in a good word for you to your future wife’s parents.  Maybe he’s good at not holding grudges.  But I doubt it.

If Robert Horry were still playing, I think the two of them would be tied at this spot.   The fact that both of them can get inside their opponents’ heads and hit ridiculously clutch shots throughout their careers has given plenty of ammo for anti-Lakers fans to hate them.

3.  Bruce Bowen

I know, I know – he recently retired.  But he really deserves to be on this list.  Aside from many players who have publicly trashed Bowen in press conferences, how many of Bowen’s opponents have completely avoided any questions from the press regarding their opinions about him?  Probably about 100. Drawing criticism from both coaches and players (and famously dubbed the “Edward Scissorhands” nickname from Phil Jackson, citing Bowen’s physical-player grab-and-hold tactics), Bowen is both respected and hated for his ability to get under his opponents’ skin.  From Ray Allen to Steve Francis to Vince Carter to Steve Nash, Bowen has been constantly accused of playing dirty. 

Ray Allen, among many players, have expressed disdain over Bowen's play

Questions about Bowen’s defensive tactics came to light particularly after he puts his foot underneath players after they shoot –same manner in this video of him guarding New York Knicks guards Steve Francis and Jamal Crawford.  In fact, Isiah Thomas reportedly told his players to “break his ------- foot” if they saw Bowen do that to another player.  How does he get away with this?  I say it’s because of his super nice personality off the court.  I’m sure he’s very diplomatic with NBA officials and the league office whenever he’s asked about his defensive strategy.

Dirty or not, Spurs coach Greg Popovich has used Bowen masterfully, having covered top scorers like Dirk Nowitzki very effectively.  But effective or not, Bowen’s physical play did not make very many friends (or fans outside of San Antonio).  And he’s succeeded and won championships because of it.

2.  Kobe Bryant

Before this off-season, Kobe has been the clear-cut number 1 on this list for several years. 

Now before I break down all the things he’s done to solidify his villainy, I’ll say this:  his popularity has definitely recovered since the mind-boggling rape accusations (a tremendously HUGE blow to his image, regardless of whether or not he was at fault).  To his defense, Kobe has been in a no-win situation -both on and off the court.  In games, he is criticized whenever his team loses and he takes too many shots.  When he doesn’t shoot that much and the Lakers lose, he is criticized for not carrying the load.  When the Lakers lose and Kobe gets on his teammates, he is seen as a total a-hole. 

As much as Laker fans want to defend Kobe, it’s hard not to hold him accountable as to why he’s had so much more difficulty with keeping a good image than most superstars in the NBA.  Now I know this is irritating to both Kobe and Jordan fans (and me), but I’m going to compare Kobe to MJ’s golden standard:  Did Jordan get the same criticism for shooting too much (or too little)?  Maybe he did very early in his career, but he was winning championships left and right ever since.  Did MJ ever (publicly) demand a trade?  Absolutely not. 

Before I go on and on comparing Kobe to MJ, take a look at this must-read article:  an extremely solid case breaking down MJ vs. Kobe by Skip Bayless.  It will save me from spinning wheels trying to explain this. 

Why was Kobe so hated?  For one, he was widely regarded as a not-so-pleasant teammate.  Many sources blamed him for his rocky relationship with Shaq and breaking up the Shaq-Kobe duo.  In all fairness, Shaq was probably not the easiest teammate to play with – just ask Penny Hardaway.  But Kobe’s competitiveness often got the best of him in many interpersonal situations with teammates and coaches.  In his earlier days as a Laker, Kobe was widely regarded as a loner.  He has made more of an effort to be outgoing and social with his current teammates, but he clearly had problems getting along with people early on in his career.  Even coaches have publicly complained about him.  Phil Jackson famously described Kobe as “uncoachable” in his book.  Is he a good teammate?  This can be questionable as well.  If I’m Andrew Bynum, I don’t think I could stand playing with him.  He was infamously caught on tape bashing Mitch Kupchak’s decision to refuse trading Bynum for Jason Kidd.  Remember when he accidentally injured Andrew Bynum in the middle of the 2008-09 season?  Pay close attention to his initial reaction.  It really seemed as though he was feeling more upset about possibly missing out on a title than he was genuinely concerned for his teammate.

Shaq and Kobe couldn't put their egos aside, and Shaq moved elsewhere

We all know Kobe wants to win more than anybody.  But how is his attitude when his team faces adversity?  Kobe has had several games where he quit on his team.  I don’t know how you can spin it any other way.  The two such episodes that come to mind are Game 7 vs. Phoenix in 2006 and Game 6 vs. Boston in 2008.  In that game vs. Phoenix, Kobe took one shot attempt during the entire 2^nd half.  Even Charles Barkley called him out, saying Kobe was trying to prove a point and flat out quit on his team.    Even during his offensive “explosions” of scoring 60+ points, some of his teammates were reportedly not particularly pleased.  Trevor Ariza got an unfriendly glare from Kobe after not giving him the ball on a possession during a 61 point, 0 rebound, and 3 assist effort vs. the Knicks.  A 61/0/3 stat line is quite the individual accomplishment, but hardly indicative of any teamwork whatsoever.  

On top of the turmoil with his own teammates and coaches, he doesn’t exactly get along very well with his peers on other teams, either.  Ray Allen publicly criticized Kobe for his request to be traded, basically saying that Kobe did not “get it” yet.  Raja Bell, Ron Artest, and Matt Barnes have all had heated (but hilarious) run-ins with Kobe.  A very physical player, Kobe is not shy about getting physical with his opponents.  Bell clotheslined Kobe in the aforementioned 2006 playoff series, and bashed him afterwards – calling him a “pompous, arrogant individual.”   Artest and Barnes expressed dislike for Kobe also, but I have no idea why they completely sold themselves out by joining Kobe in LA. 

One of these days, I will write an entry on how fortunate the Lakers have been to win all titles that they did during the past decade.  But I’ll address one of these reasons right now: if Pau Gasol doesn’t get gift-wrapped to LA (which, by the way, was the shadiest transaction in the history of the league – as the Lakers did not even have to trade their 10^th best player back to Memphis), does Kobe really “change” into a better teammate, the way he is now? Does he ever win a title in his career again?  I have my doubts.  For all we know, he would have been traded to another team (in all likelihood, Chicago – but thank goodness that didn’t happen; the MJ comparisons would never have ended). 

If you think I’m a Kobe hater, read this article by Bill Simmons before you judge.  He lays out everything I touched on in a very comprehensive and unbiased manner.  I will say this:  despite his reputation as a villain and being criticized often by fans, coaches, and players alike, Kobe has obviously had great success in his career.  He is immensely gifted and has a terrific work ethic.  His desire to win is unsurpassed by many, and he has 5 championship rings to show for it.  He may not be the most popular superstar of all time, but he may end up being one of the most successful ones.  You just gotta wonder if he would have had more success if you took away some of the self-inflicted drama he’s had in his career.    

1.  Lebron James

This is a no-brainer.  Remarkably, he probably wouldn’t have even been on this list prior to ‘The Decision.’  But at this very moment, he is THE most hated player – perhaps in all of sports.  I’ve seen approximately 20 videos mocking his Nike commercial, where he tries to defend the manner in which he handled his decision to leave Cleveland.  Everybody on this list has plenty of ill-wishers, but I’ve never seen it get to this level.  Has anyone been rooted this hard to fail to the point where voodoo dolls and witchcraft are summoned? 

Just like these LBJ jerseys, Lebron's popularity burned. Big time.

Honestly, I’m surprised he wasn’t more unpopular prior to free agency.  Everyone pays a lot more attention NOW to his poor choice of words in several press conferences.  But it’s not like he got worse – he’s never been known for being very articulate or making any sense.  Also, how about his constant teasing of the fans when it comes to entering the Dunk Contest?  If he truly cared about the fans, he would dunk.  Period.  MJ, Dominique, Kobe, Vince, Dwight – they all did it out of respect for the fans, whether they wanted to do it or not.  One of his excuses is that he doesn’t want people to think of him “as just a dunker.”  Well, that would be better than being thought of as a complete d-bag by 49 and ½ states, wouldn’t it? 

(On a side note, I can’t WAIT to see Blake Griffin in this year’s Dunk Contest.  He will be incredible.)

All of these guys have completely embraced their villain role, at the expense of their popularity with a majority of the world.  They are all motivated by the intense hatred towards them.  With so many people rooting for them to fail, these guys are wired in a way where they all feast off that criticism and ill wishing.  

Misleading Stats

Anyone take statistics in college?  Well, any stat expert knows very well that you can make stats tell you basically anything.  Anybody can manipulate stats into telling you some ridiculously misleading things.  Car dealers, real estate agents, and any other shady salesperson knows how to hustle people, and part of their tactics are to use bogus stats - even if the stats themselves may be true.  News anchors, politicians, and other public figures heavily use stats to reflect their viewpoints.  The trick is to look for stats that actually mean something.  For instance, let's use the real estate example.  Any agent who is desperate for money these days (very common nowadays, especially in this economy) can give you seemingly convincing numbers to try to get you to buy a house quickly.  They will feed you the usual bs:  "This house was once valued at <some previously listed price that is ridiculously higher than what it was actually worth before coming down> - this is a great deal!"  Or, "So-and-so numbers in today's economy show that if you don't buy now, the price will start to come back up - you better jump on it!"

Basketball stats, in the same manner, can be just as deceiving.  In fact, a lot of player agents use this tactic to their advantage when trying to get a player as much money as possible (thus as much commission for themselves as possible).  They try to trick NBA GMs into thinking that their player is worth way more than what they are actually worth, using deceiving facts to help them buy into it.  How on earth did Darko Milicic land a $20 mill contract last offseason?  I think we would all like to know, though everyone in the league knows that the Minnesota Timberwolves' President of Basketball Operations, David Kahn, is not the smartest manager out there.  In fact, watch this hilarious clip of Chris Webber interviewing Kahn.  C-Webb couldn't hide how offended he was that Kahn actually thought that Darko is the best passing big man since Vlade Divac.  He also was shocked that Kahn had the nerve to compare Darko's growing pains to C-Webb himself.  I think even casual NBA fans know that there is no comparison whatsoever between the two.  I was about to put a comparison chart together, but then wised up and realized how much time and effort I would have wasted trying to prove the obvious.  So C-Webb couldn't hide his disgust over Kahn's comments, and Kahn reportedly called him a schmuck afterwards.

Anyway, the point of all this is to read between the lines.  It's difficult to judge how good players are just by looking at a stat sheet.  You need to dig deeper, just like John Hollinger does.  Sometimes the stats tell the story, but a lot of times they don't.  Guys that carry your fantasy team are not necessarily carrying their own REAL team.  Here are some of the biggest misleading stats in basketball:

Points

This is the most obvious one.  A lot of guys can score in the NBA.  But are all of the top scorers efficient?  Do they help their team win by jacking up so many shots?  Not necessarily.  There are so many examples of guys that scored a lot in their careers but never won (or got close to winning) a title.  Some guys just like to be gunners and take as many shots as possible.  Some are forced to carry a high scoring load, because the rest of their team can't score.

Let's take Monta Ellis and Kevin Martin, for instance.  They currently have the 4th and 10th highest scoring averages in the league.  Part of it is that the Warriors and Rockets are both terrible (requiring Ellis and Martin to jack up more shots), but the other part of it is that these guys need to take a lot of shots to get their points.  The best way to filter out gunners is to see how many field goal attempts (FGA) they need to get their points.  Truly great scorers that know how to win get their points from being aggressive and drawing fouls.  If they need a ton of FGAs to get their points, chances are they are not that efficient.

A.I. knew how to win scoring titles, but not championships

Since Ellis and Martin are victims of being on bad teams, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.  Let's pick on Allen Iverson.  For simplicity's sake, let's pick the 2001-02 season, fresh off his MVP season as well as an appearance in the NBA Finals.  He scored 31.4 ppg - his highest season scoring average in his career, and led the league in scoring that year.  If he were to be a free agent that following offseason, his agent would be going bonkers and shoving those stats in GMs' faces.  "The league's best scorer needs a max contract!"  Let's dig deeper into that stat, though:  was he all that efficient?  To get his 31 ppg, he needed 27.8 shots per game to get there.  His shot percentage?  39.8%, with a horrid 29.1% touch from beyond the three point arc.  Ouch.  He does get some assists, but I will delve into that misleading stat in the next section.

You can argue that his team lacked offensive talent and needed him to carry that load.  But is being an inefficient high scorer benefiting your team all that much?

Assists

If you get a lot of dimes, you are seen as an unselfish player.  Unfortunately, it's not that black and white.  Using the efficiency analogy I used earlier with shot efficiency, there is also such a thing as passing efficiency.  One good way to measure this?  Weighing turnovers against assists.  Using the same 01-02 Allen Iverson statline, he had 5.5 apg.  At what cost?  He averaged 3.95 turnovers per game, good for worst in the league.

Now, you can argue that assist-to-turnover ratios can be deceiving as well.    If you're thinking that assist-to-turnover ratio is a better stat than assists or turnovers alone, one can argue it can be just as misleading.  Do other players have worse assist-to-turnover ratios than Iverson?  Of course.  But point guards obviously have so many more opportunities to get assists than other positions.  It's hard for someone like Dwight Howard to rack up a high assist to turnover ratio, as he's not running the offense and he constantly commands double and triple teams.  He's going to lose the ball almost as often as he dishes out assists.  Unlike Iverson, it's not his job to run the offense efficiently.  There is a double standard there, however, as guards are put in a position to commit a lot more turnovers than centers.

As Iverson's athleticism wore down and he became even less efficient, no NBA team wanted him anymore.  And that's why he's in Turkey.  His career is eeringly similar to that of Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis.  All three were looked at as highly talented and gifted scorers, but in the end, all were fairly ineffective and harming their teams as often (if not more often) as they were helping them.

Team Stats

Let's move away from individual stats for a second.  Judging teams based on their stats can be deceiving, as well.  As an example, a team that ranks either last Total Offensive Rebounds isn't necessarily doing anything wrong.  The San Antonio Spurs are usually ranked among the lowest in this stat category.  Are they a bad team?  Obviously not.  Well, try to put two and two together.  They are known as a great defensive team.  Because of this, they opt to run back and sacrifice chances to get offensive rebounds in order to get their defense set up as soon as possible after a shot.  On the contrary, think of great offensive teams - during the "Seven Seconds or less" era of the Phoenix Suns, they were consistently leading the league in scoring.  But were they the best team?  No, but they were fun to watch.

Ask Tim Duncan: the Spurs don't care about stats

Now you can ask, why do we even look at box scores?  Because aside from watching entire games and understanding the dynamics of basketball, stats are the next best way to judge how a team or player performed.  While one stat is not nearly enough to tell the story, multiple stats can help tell some of the story. Like with all things, basketball is a complex game that's way beyond numbers. Unfortunately, most things in life cannot be judged by stats alone.  You can argue that ALL stats are meaningless.  But that's the point - take any stats with a grain of salt.  Instead, use them as tools and read between the lines before passing judgement or making decisions.

Interesting take on Kobe's misleading crunch time rep

As solidified as Kobe's reputation is for being a "clutch" player, here's ESPN writer Henry Abbott's take that may change the way you look at it:

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/24200/the-truth-about-kobe-bryant-in-crunch-time

Basically, his high confidence during crunch time situations has almost hurt his team as often as he's helped them.  Henry points out that he is quite predictable - in that he almost always takes every shot during crunch time situation and takes his teammates completely out of the equation.  What happens when you predictably take every shot?  The picture below says it all.

Rivalries

The word "rivalry" is being thrown around a lot.  Oddly enough, it always gets mentioned whenever the Knicks are playing a good team.  Tonight, they happened to have just beat Miami the day after Amare boldly said "Nobody's afraid of the Heat."  Then came the clips from the famously games in Heat-Knicks history, defined by several heated incidents during each of their playoff series from 1997 to 2000 (PJ Brown flipping Charlie Ward into the stands in 97, Alonzo Mourning and Larry Johnson causing a huge brawl with Jeff Van Gundy hilariously hanging on to Mourning's leg in 98, and Allan Houston's one-handed runner to lift the Knicks in 99).  In that timeframe, the two teams faced each other all 4 of those years and each series went the distance.  This NEVER happened between any two teams in the league.  Back then, this WAS a legitimate rivalry.

Here's my criteria for legitimate rivalries.  All 4 rules apply when it comes to judging whether two teams have current, legitimate rivalries:

1.  The teams should have played head to head in more than one playoff series.
2.  The head-to-head matchup should not be completely one-sided.
3.  At least one or two noteworthy fights or heated exchanges must take place to define the rivarly.
4.  The two teams must have faced each other at least once within the past 5 years.
5.  The teams have to be good (i.e. playoff teams).

Rule 1 is kind of implied by Rule 2 - it's not a rivalry if the teams have only met only once OR if one team has won every matchup.  Remember the so-called Cavs-Wizards "rivalry" a few years ago? They had one good playoff series in 2006, but since then?  Cavs swept the Wizards in 07 and ousted them in 6 games (fairly lopsided despite going this many games) in 08.  The famous Kings-Lakers series in 2002 was one of the most competitive (and controversial) playoff series of all time.  But the Kings never beat the Lakers before or after that series.

Rule 3 is almost kind of a byproduct of what happens when Rules 1&2 are satisfied.  When teams face each other so many times, heated exchanges are almost inevitable.  They're virtually a guarantee when you have to go up against guys like Kevin Garnett for just one game, much less for multiple playoff series.  Controversy off the court counts as well, such as verbal jabs at press conferences between coaches and players.

Rule 4 eliminates pairs of teams that USED to be rivals, but one team or the other started sucking since.  The aforementioned Heat-Knicks rivalry is one of them.  As for Rule 5 - well, nobody cares about crappy teams that have a rivalry with one another.  Otherwise, we might as well put high school team rivals on the list.

That said, here's my list of current legitimate rivalries:

1.  Lakers/Celtics
2.  Spurs/Mavericks
3.  Suns/Spurs

Lakers-Celtics
Head-to-head:  Celtics 9-3
Recent Matchups:  2008 Finals, 2010 Finals

One of the many promos for the league's most famous rivalry

This is undoubtedly the league's juiciest rivalry, with a storied history between the NBA's two winningest franchises.  With the most star power and no shortage of trash talkers (KG, Pierce, Sheed, Kobe, Artest), these two teams could very well face each other again for at least a couple more years and add to their rivalry.  This is the NBA's premier rivalry with tons of history and promising battles to come.

Spurs-Mavericks
Head-to-head:  Spurs 3-2
Recent Matchups:  2006 Conf. Finals, 2009 First Rd., 2010 First Rd.

The 2006 matchup was by far the best series between the two teams, ending in a Game 7 OT in favor of the Mavericks.  If Ginobili did not commit the worst foul of the century on Nowitzki, the Spurs would arguably have gone on to win the championship (yes, they would not have had an epic collapse against D-Wade's Heat the way Dallas did).

Suns-Spurs
Head-to-head:  Spurs 6-4
Recent Matchups:  2005 Conf. Finals, 2007 Conf. Semi-finals, 2008 First Rd, 2010 Conf. Semi-finals

If it weren't for the Suns 4-0 sweep of the Spurs last year, this would not be a rivalry per Rivalry Rule #2.  Before that series, the Spurs appeared to have Phoenix's number, despite a number of grueling playoff series. There was plenty of drama between the two teams, with Phoenix seemingly never getting any breaks.  In 2005, Joe Johnson fractured his left orbital bone on his face.  In 2007, Steve Nash's nose couldn't stop bleeding in Game 1, and as a result he was unable to stay on the court consistently in crunch time.  In Game 4, Robert Horry decked Steve Nash into the scorer's table in Game 4 of the series, leading to suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw (forever changing Horry's nickname to 'Cheap Shot Bob' in my mind).  In 2008, the Suns were a popular pick to beat the Spurs as they shook up their roster, bringing Shaq in as their center.  Despite signs that the trade made the Suns match up against the Spurs better, San Antonio quickly dismissed them in 5 games.

By then, it appeared that Steve Nash would never be able to get through the Spurs.  But the most unexpected turn of events happened after Phoenix won their first two home games to go up 2-0:  Goran freakin' Dragic scored 23 of his 26 points in the 4th quarter of Game 3 to give the Suns a 3-0 lead.  Freak things like this tend to happen to in back-and-forth rivalries.

Runner-ups but not quite rivalries yet:  Celtics-Magic, Celtics-Bulls
Rivalries in the last 10 years that aren't really rivalries anymore:  Spurs-Lakers, Cavs-Pistons and Cavs-Celtics (obviously because of LBJ's departure), Suns-Mavs

The Eastern Conference is in need of some rivals, but there is hope for them.  Among the top four teams in the East (Celtics, Heat, Bulls, Magic), rivalries promise to form in the near future.  

All-Star Starters Announced

I was 100% correct in my All-Star starter predictions....

Ok, nothing to be proud of.  But the starters were announced on TNT tonight.  Following the announcement,  endless debate ensued regarding who the reserves should be - just as expected . But the TNT crew, one of the most (if not THE most) entertaining TV crew in all of sports, had several points of contention among them.  Here were the main debates, with my take on them:

1.  Kevin Love - All-Star or not?

As mentioned earlier, I do not think Kevin Love should not be one of the reserves because of his team's success, or lack thereof.  Kenny Smith reiterated my thoughts on this - it's no disrespect to Kevin Love himself, but rather he is a victim of his team.  Charles Barkley and Chris Webber strongly disagreed, thinking that Kevin Love should make the team if Blake Griffin does (Griffin was unanimously picked among everyone in the TNT crew).  C-Webb said something that got me thinking:  "If Blake Griffin couldn't dunk, would you still think he should be an All-Star over Kevin Love?"  What he obviously meant by that notion is that while Griffin and Love have been equally impressive, people only give Griffin the nod because of his frequent highlight reel-making plays (and perhaps the bigger LA market).  

That's a good point by C-Webb.  Kevin Love has had a double-double in EVERY game since Nov. 19th.  Pretty absurd.  Off the top of my head, it's been slightly longer than since Blake Griffin has not recorded one.

Unfortunately for Love, what throws a wrench in his argument is the team success variable.  As Kenny said, Minnesota has won just two more games than Cleveland.  Griffin and the Clippers started very slow, and do not appear to be a playoff team.  Nonetheless, they are still +7 games ahead of Minnesota in the West and started 1-13.  After getting his first few NBA games under his belt, Griffin has been an absolute beast and has given the Clippers the one thing they have rarely had in the history of their franchise:  hope.  That cannot be measured in stats.  You can argue that the Clippers have more talent than Minnesota (which is true), but the All-Star game is also a fan's game.  The coaches are going to vote Griffin in over Love no matter what.  Even with the Yao injury, I don't think Love will get in because of all the other reserve candidates on winning teams that may not get initially voted in (Parker, Nash, etc.).  

2.  Bosh/Duncan - Lifetime Achievement or Deserving All-Stars?

The TNT crew had varying opinions on whether these two guys deserve to get in.  Barkley feels as though some players on great teams get awarded "lifetime achievement" votes, where players are voted in based on reputation instead of their performance through the first half of an NBA season.  This is probably true to an extent, but not in the case of these two guys.  Not if you value team success.

Miami would not be as good without Chris Bosh, and I think people have finally acknowledged that while he's been out with an ankle injury.  Though not a prolific low-post scorer, he is an absolute nightmare to guard for opposing 4s and 5s.  Too quick against bigs, and too tall and too good of a shooter against shorter bigs. His quickness also makes him a terrific pick-and-roll defender; he deserves much credit for Miami's suffocating D. I honestly think that if you turned back the clock and Bosh and Amare traded places this past offseason, the Knicks would be just as good (if not better) with Bosh and Miami would not be nearly as good with Amare.  This is mostly because I think Amare would not be putting nearly the same effort when the ball's not in his hands as often.  Even as the 2nd fiddle behind Steve Nash in Phoenix, he was a god awful defender.  Remember him getting absolutely lit up by Pau Gasol in last year's Western Conference semis?  I still wouldn't trust him to anchor any team's defense.

As for Tim Duncan, how can you leave him off the All-Star team?  Do the Spurs go 39-7 at this point in the season without him?  I didn't think so.  If you put him in the Timberwolves, he may not be getting multiple 20-20 games like Kevin Love is.  But he damn well would win them a lot more than 10 games to this point.  

3.  Changing the voting process

Ok, so maybe this wasn't even an argument.  But Yao being a shoe-in every single year is getting old.  Last year, it was Allen Iverson that was controversially voted in.  Tracy McGrady was very close to being voted in over Steve Nash, also.  Yi Jianlian was almost voted in a couple years ago when he was on the ballot.  I think every year, at least a handful of players either get selected or receive several more votes than other more deserving players.  

Are you kidding me?  How has this not been addressed yet?  I know the All-Star game is a fan's game, but things have changed since voting has become available electronically worldwide.  It's way too easy for certain countries with the highest population to vote for certain players who don't deserve to be voted in. Hell, if I were on the ballot, India would probably help me get more total votes than 90% of the players.  The sad part is, that's probably not much of an exaggeration.

Ray Allen suggested giving fans a partial vote, similar to the way it's done for the regular season MVP ballot.  I'm not sure what the best way to do it is, but David Stern and his board has to come up with something better than the way it is now.  

Hollinger's Stats

As an engineer in the space program, I use numbers a lot.  Numbers are a great basis for evaluating many of NASA's launch operations.  We use numbers to make judgement calls on several technical issues.  We use numbers to quantify how "well" every component on a rocket is performing.  Whether it's structural data to see how vehicle components are holding up, hot fire data from an engine, or flow rates of cryogenics and gases between vehicles and ground facilities, the numbers we analyze thereof are constantly used to monitor how things are going in a variety of operations.

Basketball is deeper than just numbers.  That still holds true.  But lately, the value of using numbers to come up with statistical analysis has improved considerably - mostly thanks to John Hollinger.  Using numbers has improved to a point where some stats have become virtually meaningless.  For example, teams used to use the +/- stat to get an idea of how players affect team success.  Now, +/- numbers can be seen as misleading. Numbers are now being used liberally by every team in the league to come up with game plans against opponents.  Numbers are being broken down to a point where players make judgement calls on how to guard certain players.  As an example, players now have statistical proof (to anchor watching lots of film when studying opponents) as to why one should force Jerry Stackhouse or Jason Terry left instead of letting them go right.  Numbers are used more and more in TV coverage of the games, as well.  When you watch the Magic on national TV, you see always see Jeff Van Gundy or Mark Jackson break down Dwight Howard's field goal percentages depending on how far away he is from the basket:  at 0-6 ft, 6-12 ft, and 12+ ft away from the basket.  It's truly remarkable how much has been put into numbers in today's NBA.

Whatever tools John Hollinger has to crunch numbers, I certainly would love to get my hands on those (it's gotta be something better than Excel, although it wouldn't surprise me if that's all he uses).  One of the most valuable player statistics that most people are aware of is Hollinger's Personal Efficiency Rating (PER).  One of the things that makes the numbers accurate is that playing time is well accounted for (unlike the potentially misleading "per-48 minutes" stats).  This also seems to filter out the "gunners" of the NBA, as historically, guys like Allen Iverson, Stephon Marbury, and Steve Francis were rarely too high up on the PER ratings despite their huge numbers.  Efficiency is truly overlooked when glancing at the" regular" NBA stats, so it is truly nice to be able to crunch numbers in such a way to truly define a player's value and filter out the deceiving inefficient players.

How do these numbers work so well?  I wanted to point out some of the stats he compiles which the PER is based off of.  Here is the formula below:

• Players on pace to play 500 or more minutes
• *To qualify: a player must have played 6.09 MPG.
• TS%: True Shooting Percentage - what a player's shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = (Total points x 50) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]
• AST: Assist Ratio - the percentage of a player's possessions that ends in an assist. Assist Ratio = (Assists x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]
• TO: Turnover Ratio - the percentage of a player's possessions that end in a turnover. Turnover Ratio = (Turnover x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]
• USG: Usage Rate - the number of possessions a player uses per 40 minutes. Usage Rate = {[FGA + (FT Att. x 0.44) + (Ast x 0.33) + TO] x 40 x League Pace} divided by (Minutes x Team Pace)
• ORR: Offensive rebound rate
• DRR: Defensive rebound rate
• REBR: Rebound Rate - the percentage of missed shots that a player rebounds. Rebound Rate = (100 x (Rebounds x Team Minutes)) divided by [Player Minutes x (Team Rebounds + Opponent Rebounds)]
• PER: Player Efficiency Rating is the overall rating of a player's per-minute statistical production. The league average is 15.00 every season.
• VA: Value Added - the estimated number of points a player adds to a team’s season total above what a 'replacement player' (for instance, the 12th man on the roster) would produce. Value Added = ([Minutes * (PER - PRL)] / 67). PRL (Position Replacement Level) = 11.5 for power forwards, 11.0 for point guards, 10.6 for centers, 10.5 for shooting guards and small forwards
• EWA: Estimated Wins Added - Value Added divided by 30, giving the estimated number of wins a player adds to a team’s season total above what a 'replacement player' would produce.

Derrick Rose could use some more talented off-guards
than Keith Bogans (#6 above).

The last metric in this formula, Estimated Wins Added (EWA), is particularly interesting.  If you sort that column on Hollinger's Stat home page, you find some really interesting numbers. It comes in handy to find out the most value-added players, as well as the players who drag your team down. For example, I see tons of complaints about Keith Bogans being the NBA's worst starter.  If you look at the EWA and sort it by lowest EWA value, you see Bogans as the 2nd worst in the league.  According to this number, he's losing 1.5 games per season.  I understand the coach's argument for wanting to bring scorers off the bench and starting good defenders, but are Ronnie Brewer or CJ Miles worse defenders than Bogans?  I have my doubts.  There are many cases where teams benefit from bringing scorers off the bench (e.g. Dallas this year backing up DeShawn Stevenson with Jason Terry, Denver last year backing up Aaron Afflalo with J.R. Smith).  But I have a hard time seeing what value Keith Bogans has in Tom Thibodeau's eyes.

D-Rose could use more offensively talented off-guards than Bogans

I also highly recommend looking at the team stats and Playoff Odds.  Halfway through the NBA season, these numbers resemble the big picture of the NBA season pretty darn well.  Unfortunately, there aren't enough games in the playoffs to make the numbers work.  Plus, the playoffs are a totally different game;  the big disparity is in the Western Conference, where every round is a heavyweight slug-fest.  In the East, the top 3 teams have incredibly inflated numbers feasting on the bottom-feeders of the East.

It's amazing how much numbers can tell the story.  But are Hollinger's statistics an exact science?  Of course not.  No matter how advanced numbers get, basketball will always be unpredictable.  And that's the beauty of it.

My All-Star Picks

As an avid NBA chat reader, I remember ESPN's David Thorpe in a chat of his own answering a question regarding the seemingly superior Phoenix Suns trainers - given their reputation for helping keep older and historically injury-prone players (e.g. current Grant Hill, Shaq from 08-09) freakishly healthy. He responded by saying something along the lines of this: "Trainers are not unlike NBA players; some are better than others. Just because Mugsy Bogues and Shaq are both in the same profession, doesn't mean they'll produce the same results."

David is right on. This same logic goes with any occupation. Every profession has elite, average, and below average personnel. But obviously everyone in the NBA meets the standards of the being an NBA player. Similarly, every team has physical trainers that meet the standards of being a trainer (whether they have degrees, had specialized training, etc.), but clearly some are more skilled than others. For whatever reason (ahem, location), the Suns happen to have an All-Star team of trainers.

That said, I think of NBA All-Stars as the Phoenix Suns trainers' version of NBA players. Like the Suns' trainers, All-Stars should meet that elite level and have something to show for it - just as Phoenix has the health of Grant Hill and Shaq to show for their reputation. As Charles Barkley says, every NBA player is good. But only a few have something to show for it, whether they are reversing a franchise's losing history or helping continue a winning tradition. The obvious means for measuring that, of course, is team success. To an extent, good players on bad teams get shafted with this logic. But coaches have a long-standing tradition of voting for players on winning teams.

Assuming the starters will be those who are currently leading vote-getters, here's what you get:

This particular All-Star lineup favors the winningest teams, especially in the East. The one exception on the list is none other than Blake Griffin, whose performance on the NBA's worst franchise CANNOT be ignored. He represents all the hope that's left in the Clippers franchise. With each passing day he seems to get better, and so does his team. Anyone who gives that much hope to the Clippers should automatically be an All-Star, regardless of their current record. I do think they will climb their way back up the standings, though. Whether they make the playoffs, I'm not sure. I don't see it happening, though I am rooting for them. Griffin NEEDS to be on national TV during the playoffs. Has to, at least to make the first round watchable.

I'm sure some of you are going to accuse me of being a Celtics fan (I'm not). But can you ignore what any of those 4 have done? Which one would you take off the All-Star team? Pierce has been a steady, consistent scorer and remains their go-to guy. KG, as we all know, is their irreplaceable anchor on D. Rondo started the season storming out of the gates, greatly boosting the C's to a terrific start and breaking team assist records left and right. And the guy who most consider to be the 4th best player on the team, Ray Allen, may be their most valuable player in clutch situations. The C's would not have won many of their close games this season without him.

The other eyebrow raiser I should address is choosing Lamarcus Aldridge. Portland deserves at least one All-Star every year they are devastated by injuries (seemingly every year, now), yet manage to have a winning record. L.A.'s numbers may not blow you out of the water (21 ppg, 8.8 rbg, 1.2 apg), but he commands double teams and is undeniably Portland's No. 1 guy while the Blazers stay afloat in the playoff race.

Notable Snubs:

West - Deron Williams, Steve Nash, Tony Parker, Luis Scola, Kevin Love, Monta Ellis

East - Al Horford, Andrew Bogut, Gerald Wallace

D-Will, Nash and Parker are perennial All-Star point guards, but can you really replace anybody on that list for them? The Spurs may deserve 3 All-Stars with their record, but it's harder for teams to have more than 2 All-Stars in the West. However, of all the snubs, one of these two is going to be the likely Yao Ming replacement in the starting lineup. My money is on Parker, given the Spurs' record. I know some of you will point out that Kevin Love should be on the team if Griffin makes it, but unfortunately there's not enough room for both of them. You gotta go with the guy that's reversing the Clippers' fortunes.

Between D-Will and Steve Nash, it seems unfair to cut either one of them in favor of Griffin or Aldridge.  Based on the way Utah's played of late, however, I'm not sure if anyone on that team deserves to make it. AK47's struggles have been a disturbing trend the past couple seasons, and Al Jefferson's arrival hasn't lived up to expectations.  Either Jerry Sloan or Deron Williams needs to be held accountable for AK47 and Jefferson's lack of production and involvement in the offense.  In the case of Griffin and Aldridge, their teams have no business making any noise in the regular season with a much weaker supporting cast (and with the Clippers, team reputation).  Utah kind of has to get punished, being a team that has high expectations.  I fully expect the coaches to vote D-Will in, just because of the numbers he's putting up (21.9 ppg, 9.4 apg).  But my selections are mostly based on team success versus expectations.

On a side note, is this the most polarized the league has been in years or what? So many teams having double-digit streaks, whether they're winning or losing. The East is very polarized, given that only 6 teams are above .500. The 7th and 8th seeds -- Charlotte and Indiana, respectively -- are currently 7 games below .500. 7!! The East is arguably more shallow this year than any other season. For every ridiculously good team, there's a ridiculously bad team. We might be witnessing the most lopsided NBA season to date. It's only going to get worse, as superstars on mediocre teams (e.g. CP3, Melo) will want to jump ship to a contender and team up with other great players. This spells trouble for a LOT of teams. With a probable lockout looming, contraction may become more of a reality than you think. Anyway, I'll talk more about this on another post as the season goes on.

The point is, there are not too many stars from winning teams to choose from in the East. I do think either Stephen Jackson or Gerald Wallace should be on the team, but only because there are not too many deserving players remaining in the conference.

Altogether, I think this is one of the more difficult All-Star selection processes there will ever be. Lots of great teams loaded with great players. There are many deserving guys that will get cut, but not ALL great trainers are able to work in Phoenix either, right?

Interested in seeing who all the NBA gurus out there think should be showcasing their skills in LA on February 20th!