Andre Miller and the Art of the Super Assist
by Blazer Guy on Dec 1, 2009 6:55 AM PST
Email
PrintIn basketball, not all assists are created equal. There are assists and then there are assists. It's the difference between passing the ball to the open guy five feet away from you on the perimeter and threading a perfect alley-oop pass over multiple defenders in traffic. Needless to say, the latter takes a lot more skill than the former and results in a much higher percentage shot. Indeed, there's such a big difference that basketball statistic gurus have long lobbied for the creation of new box score stat to reflect so-called "super assists", i.e., assists that involve feeding a player close to the hoop for an easy bucket.
Luckily, the folks at 82games.com keep track of this information, breaking assists down into four groups -- 3pt, jump, close, and dunk -- based on the kind of field goal they result in. For the purposes of determining which point guards produce the most easy buckets for their teams, let's focus on the latter two categories. In 2008-2009, Chris Paul racked up an incredible 163 dunk assists. Close behind him, at 154, was current Blazer backup point guard Andre Miller. No one else was even close. Only three other point guards had over 100 (Steve Nash with 127; Chauncey Billups and Deron Williams each with 110).
When you look at "dunk" and "close" assists combined (what I'm calling "super assists"), Miller recorded 301 last season. That was fourth best in NBA, behind only Nash, Paul, and D. Williams (Nash had 375, Paul 345, and Williams 303). Again, no one else was close.
When you look at those numbers, you can't help but wonder whether the Blazer coaching staff is making proper use of Miller's talents. He's now playing for a team that's as young, tall, and athletic as anyone else in the league. Literally everyone in the Blazer rotation -- with the exception of Steve Blake -- is more than capable of completing the business end of an alley-oop. On paper at least, the combination of Miller and Portland's young, athletic roster should result in obscene numbers of super assists. But that hasn't happened, at least so far.
So what's the problem? Well, for starters, relegating Miller to the backup role probably hasn't helped. It has reduced his overall minutes as well as reducing the number of minutes he's playing alongside the most obvious beneficiaries of his passing abilities (Aldridge, Oden, Webster, and Roy). More importantly, though, Portland's slow tempo, unwillingness to push the ball in transition, and general lack of off-the-ball movement on offense has reduced the opportunities for the kind of passing Andre Miller excels at. Opportunities for super assists don't just materialize on their own. It takes players cutting to the basket, either in fast break situations or as a result of effective pick-and-roll and other off-the-ball movement that generates momentary defensive confusion.
It remains a mystery to me that a team as young and athletic as Portland routinely finishes toward the bottom of the league in transition scoring. LaMarcus Aldridge may well be the most talented transition scorer at his position in the league. On the rare occasions where he gets out ahead on a fast break, he's remarkably graceful, covering huge distances with his long strides and finishing with ease. Why the Blazers don't try to take more advantage of these skills baffles me.
On the other end of the spectrum, there is Steve Blake, who when he finds himself in a 3-on-1 fast break situation, all too often telegraphs a pass right at the lone defender, who promptly shuttles it back down the court for a score on the other end. On second thought, I guess it's not such a mystery why the Blazers get so few transition buckets.
Look, I don't mean to pick on Blake. He's a good player who plays hard and does a lot of intangible things that don't show up in the box score. But with Andre Miller, the Blazers finally have the kind of top-notch distributor they have long coveted, a guy who is among the very best in the league at producing easy buckets for his teammates. Given the amount of lineup shuffling and experimenting that has gone on so far this season, I'm surprised that the Blazers haven't tried the most obvious option: turning the keys to the offense over to the one proven point guard on the team and seeing what he can do with it. If it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out, but at least we'll know. I think it's time to let Miller be Miller and see where that takes us. In time, even Roy may come to appreciate the benefits of being on the receiving end of a super assist.
66 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Q: Who had a career season last year but is crashing back down to Earth this season?
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Dec 1, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
As usual, you need to
dig a little deeper into a stats breakdown.
It’s true that Miller had great numbers last season. If you add up his inside and dunk assists, they were a bit more then 56% of his total. And it was about the same the previous season. However, the 76ers also were second in the league in their percentage of inside assists at 40%, and 3rd in the total number of dunks. But the 76ers were also a running team and one of the best at transition offense. So it’s hard to tell what proportion of Miller’s assist distribution was due to Philly fast breaks.
So projecting that 56% number for Miller to portland would never happen because of Portland’s pace and reluctance to run. And that’s not without factoring in the time Miller spends with 2nd unit players not likely to score in the paint.
But if you’re extolling the virtues of Miller’s “super assist” rate, and using that to dismiss Blake, you’ll be in for a bit of a surprise.
Last season, Blake’s ‘super assist’ percentage was 49%. That’s actually compares very well to Miller, especially considering that 40% of Philly’s baskets were inside while Portland was only scored 33% of their baskets inside. It could even be argued, that Blake did as well if not better then Miller in the ‘super assist’ category when factoring in pace and opportunity.
Blake is not a great PG by any stretch, and he has definite limitations. But it also seems to be true that a narrative on Blake has taken hold amongst a lot of Blazer fans that simply doesn’t match reality.
Miller is the better PG and player, and probably should be starting and getting more minutes. But Blake isn’t as bad as many are asserting, even though he’s had a fairly ugly beginning to the season, like several Blazers.
by moldorf on Dec 1, 2009 9:38 AM PST reply actions 5 recs
all good points
and I appreciate the substantive comment. I realize (as I pointed out in the post) that Miller got a lot of these “super” assists in transition. No argument there. But I think this fact suggests that Portland should utilize his transition skills more. We don’t have to be the Suns, but we’re leaving points on the table each night by not running more. We now have the personnel to be quite good in transition, at least with Miller on the court.
As for Blake, I’m not a hater. I’ve often defended him on this site, especially when it comes to his defense. But there really isn’t much of a comparison when it comes to distribution. Blake may have had a good super assist rate (relative to other assists), but Miller had over twice as many close and dunk assists last year. That can’t all be chalked up to pace and transition game.
Moreover, one of Blake’s glaring weaknesses offensively is in his transition game. He simply doesn’t know when and where to pass it when he finds himself involved in a fast break. Miller excels in this situation.
At the end of the day, it may turn out that having Miller play the primary PG role is not what’s best for this team. But I really don’t think it’s been tried yet, so the jury is very much still out.
www.blazerguy.com
I can't dispute most of that
But Philly was in the bottom 10 of slow teams last season.
They were ranked #21.
They weren’t a fast breaking team.
M—
slow pace doesn't necessarily mean no fastbreak...
Philly ranked #3 in fast break per game last season and they’re #2 so far.
Actually that reinforces Blazer Guy's position
If fast-break is independent of pace (as demonstrated by the #21 pace team being ranked #3 in fast break) then there is no reason that slow paced Portland cannot also excel in fast breaks. We know that LaMarcus can and does get down fast, so its not like we dont have the closers to finish the play.
Moldorf’s position was
So projecting that 56% number for Miller to portland would never happen because of Portland’s pace and reluctance to run.We haver established that pace is not a determinant, and we know that LMA is not reluctant to run, why wouldn’t Miller be able to produce similar 56% number;
More importantly, if we have the finishers, then (a) Miller was a big contributor of fast-breaks at Philly and he can do the same for us, so we should see our fast-breaks go up even though we’re a slow paced team; or (b) Miller was not a big contributor of fast-break points, and his super assists came on a slow paced team but not from fast-breaks; which also would translate directly to slow paced Portland.
by FromAfar on Dec 1, 2009 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Blake's kick-ahead passes
The reason we know that LMA can sprint ahead of the back and finish the break is because Blake has been finding him with kick-ahead lob passes, for the past 2+ years
having said this, I still favor the “RAWMO” starting lineup. Roy and Nate need to learn first-hand what Andre can do for them and the team. Oden needs Miller on the court with him, each and every minute he’s out there
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I have asserted for the last couple years that Blake would be one of the better backup PG’s in the league. Doesn’t make a lot of mistakes. Doesn’t do any stupid things that hurt the team. Has a definite role as a 3 pt. specialist. He just IS NOT the best PG on this team and should not be starting! Brandon shouldn’t have a say in this either.
Thank you!
OK — Every time someone comes with their “Andre ruined my team” craziness, let’s link to this post and require that they make a coherent argument for why it doesn’t prove that Dre should get a real chance to run with the boys!!! Love Blakey, but the madness must end.
We really aren't that athletic
LMA is fast for a PF. Oden is fast for a C but he’s always rebounding. Joel is not fast and he’s rebounding. Martell is average for a SF. Roy is average for an SG. Same with Rudy. Our PGs are slow except for Bayless. LMA is really our only advantage when it comes to the break. We should still be scoring in transition more than we are, but we are not that young and athletic. Our best athletes are either hurt (Nic, Travis) or on the bench (Bayless, Batum).
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
on the bench should obviously be (Bayless, Cunningham)
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
agree
The Blazers’ strength is more in their size than in their speed and athleticism. But I’d say Roy’s incredible effectiveness finishing with both hands compensates for his relative lack of speed, and makes him a great target for “superassists.”
okay, let's try "tall" and "skilled"
your point is well taken. Maybe athletic is not the right word. My point was really that we have a team full of people who are tall enough and skilled enough to be on the receiving end of alley-oops. Even our guards (Roy, Fernandez, Bayless) can do this well, which is not all that common.
www.blazerguy.com
For some odd reason
Nate is addicted to three point shooting. The three point shot is the lowest percentage shot on the floor, but he prefers the offense to revolve around shooting 3’s. Last year we were a team that lived by the three ball, we shot tons of threes and shot them well. But we also died by the three when we faced a good defensive rockets team. You can go cold from downtown, you will much less often face a cold stretch on dunks and layups. Last year when i saw the team go cold and keep shooting jumper after jumper and clanking them it was so ugly and i thought that might change with Andre coming to the team, but I think Nate Mcmillan has used him about as poorly as is physically possible. He talked before the season about earning the starting spot but he has not given Andre a chance. Blake shoots threes and turns the ball over a lot. Andre can get players easier looks by attacking the rim and dishing. He has at least earned a chance by outplaying Blake consistently but his only opportunity was with Blake at shooting guard too. Maybe we would get even more out of Andre if he started, as his confidence would go up and he would be playing with the best players on our team. Even with him starting and Blake playing a position he shouldnt play we were playing better basketball. Maybe if we let him start without Blake we would do even better. And one thing I dont get about the stretching the floor while B-Roy is out their debate is that BRANDON ROY IS A GOOD THREE POINT SHOOTER. He can stretch the floor too if Andre gets him open threes or he could learn to slash and get easy layups. Come on Nate, why did you want Andre on the team and give him the impression he would start if you had no intentions of EVER giving him a real chance. I just dont get it.
The wide open 3 point shot is one of the most efficient shots you can get.
Its low percentage, but it counts for an extra point. There’s very good reason to shoot threes, though the ball should go into the post first. Just ask the Magic.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
I don't think the team is stocked with all that many great distance shooters
Roy is ok, Blake is ok, Webster is ok. Rudy is probably the only dude I cheer when he hoists up a 3
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Dec 1, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
a wide open 3 by a 36% three point shooter is a very efficient shot
surpassed only by a shot from very close range.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
read my comment two down
It explains why that is untrue. I’d rather have Andre throwing alley oops to greg for 100% dunks than have steve blake shooting even the most wide open of threes.
obviously. if you could get a dunk every time, you would obviously do that.
but you can’t.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
Why not? Every other team does vs. us
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Dec 1, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
we currently have the 2nd lowest effective field goal% defense.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
ie the 2nd best efg% defense. adjusting for schedule, its obviously not that good, but your comment is still a little ridiculous.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
That extra point is deceptive jksnake
Lets say you take 10 threes and 10 shots from close and you make 40 percent from 3 (which is really generous) and 60 percent from inside. You’re going to score 12 points from each. The problem is that a lot of players dont shoot 40 percent from 3 point range and even if they do they aren’t gonna do it every single game because from that distance there is a lot more variance and people hit cold streaks. People are gonna have a lot less variance from in close so their FG% probably wont really suffer. So if even a great 3 pt shooter is having a less than stellar night and hitting 30%, still a decent % but not up to their norm, that equals 9 points off 3’s and still 12 points off close shots. if you make this closer to a whole game worth of shots and its 50 shots for each that becomes 45 points off of threes and 60 points from in close so you are costing yourself 15 points on those three point attempts which is the difference between losing big and winning. And thats still with a decent 3 point percentage but just not great.
variance goes both ways
Sometimes the 3-point shooters will hit 30%, but they will also sometimes hit 50%. 50% is 75 points off 50 shots.
Offensive rebounding is also a factor. If you take 50 3s and hit 40% of them, you have 30 chances to get rebounds. If you take 50 close range shots and hit 60% of them, there are only 20 chances for offensive rebounds. So if you get the offensive rebound 30% of the time, the 50 close range shots are using up 44 possessions to score the 60 points, while the 50 3s are only using up 41 possessions.
Also, getting shots close to the basket is more difficult than getting 3’s and trying to get those shots close to the basket will result in more turnovers. 3-point shots are high efficiency shots, unless you have someone like Andre Miller taking them.
Really, you're going to make the case for 3 pointers
based on offensive rebounding and turnovers without mentioning the hugely beneficial effect of drawing fouls that you get from going inside? Given that drawing fouls is basically impossible shooting threes, I’d say this would be a pretty significant chunk of any comparison. Of course, you also need a credible inside game if you want to be taking these wide open threes that are the only ones that anyone will ever shoot anywhere near 50% (or even 40%) on.
For three pointers to counteract the higher %‘s and ability to draw fouls that inside shots have, they need to essentially be wide open, and taken by decent shooters, as jk says below. Threes by themselves aren’t something an offense should strive for, but threes in specific situations are.
Just what I was going to say....
Seriously, the power of an inside shot versus the three pointer is in the fact that a much higher percentage of inside shots will become three pointers through the and-1 than other shots. So if you shoot 40% on a three pointer and 60% on the inside, you will score the same number of points total only if you assume that the inside shooter never gets fouled or fails to make a foul shot. If Shaq is shooting the free throws, maybe you’re right, but in general the three is not more efficient than going inside. Nate just has never had an inside presence to coach, and frankly I think he’s out of his league when it comes to figuring out how to run a real offense.
And I realize no one is gonna shoot 50 threes in a game
but I’m just demonstrating my thinking on the subject. And why 3 pointers are far from the most efficient shot on the court. A Greg Oden monster jam with foot kick is the most efficient shot on the court. Along with the fact that on a missed 3 you get more long rebounds which lead to fast breaks for the other team.
obviously the dunk is more efficient than the 3
but a wide open 3 is more efficient than any shot other than a dunk or a layup. You can’t get a dunk or layup every time down. A possession that leads to an open 3 by a 35%+ 3 point shooter is a win for the offense. The D wants you to take a long 2.
Good teams shoot more threes than bad teams, as effectively argued by Hollinger in this piece.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
I would even say that a wide open 3 from a good shooter is more efficient than a layup
If the layups are contested they get blocked or miss pretty often.
and I should clarify that I am 100% on board with starting Miller to try and get more dunks and layups
but that doesn’t mean we should stop shooting open 3s.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
Plus the fact
that a made 3 opens up the court for easy dunks. If you’re a team like the Grizzlies who typically don’t take a lot of 3s (or make them) the other team is free to pack the lane and cause your open dunks to become contested hook shots.
"I'd like to see Nate McMillan stop treating fouls like they are rollover minutes." - Blazer Guy 11/4/09
I agree with you on that jksnake
Shooting 3’s does have its advantages, such as that extra point you get, the momentum generated by a couple 3’s made, and opening up the floor for an easier time attacking the basket. I just think that relying on 3’s too much leads to unwinnable games when the players go cold. I read that Hollinger article but I think there has to be more involved than just chuck the ball up from downtown and you’ll win more games. Especially since the Lakers and Celtics, as stated in the article, weren’t among the top in 3’s attempted and were the most dominant teams the previous year. 3’s are good, and in some situations they are the best shot, but 3’s dont win championships. A multifaceted attack and the ability to stop the other team on defense and generate easy points on offense wins championships.
obviously. at no point did I argue otherwise.
dunks>layups>threes>mid range>long twos.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
and
open threes (by 36%+ shooters) > contested short range shots
"I'd like to see Nate McMillan stop treating fouls like they are rollover minutes." - Blazer Guy 11/4/09
Seems like some of that depends on your definition of open and contested
And what effect said contested would have on a shooter like Travis Outlaw as opposed to one like Steve Blake.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Dec 1, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
Also if you win by 50 one night because you are red hot from 3 and then drop the next three games because of variance...
…is that more valuable then winning by a slimmer margin with the more reliable two point shot?
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Dec 1, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions
Not Really
But with Andre Miller, the Blazers finally have the kind of top-notch distributor they have long coveted, a guy who is among the very best in the league at producing easy buckets for his teammates.
The Blazers covet a better defensive PG than Blake that can also spot up for the 3 like Blake and not take the ball out of B-Roy’s hands like Miller or play faster than B-Roy, also like Miller.
’Dre said all the right things to Nate to get $,$$$,$$$ since no one else was interested and was signed by KP to save face after he was unable to get a deal done for RLEC or a draft day trade or Turkeyglue or Milsap.
"I play, Coach stays. He goes, I go." - Jimmy Chitwood
The Blazers covet a better defensive PG than Blake that can also spot up for the 3 like Blake and not take the ball out of B-Roy’s hands like Miller or play faster than B-Roy, also like Miller.
*cough*hinrich*cough*
"I'd like to see Nate McMillan stop treating fouls like they are rollover minutes." - Blazer Guy 11/4/09
Too funny
Expected that response, but I think he costs too much for what he’d bring to the team.
Personally, I’d rather have Bayless in the starting lineup since he is on the team, to see how that plays out, since it seems we are still searching for a rotation like it is pre-season.
"I play, Coach stays. He goes, I go." - Jimmy Chitwood
are you really saying that...
…the ability to distribute the ball and create easy buckets for teammates is not one of the skills we want from our point guard? I realize that our Hypothetical Perfect Point Guard (HPPG) is someone who—in addition to being a great distributor—is also a long range assassin and defensive stopper, but there are very few (if any) actual point guards in the league who fit this description. What we have right now in Miller is one of the very best (i.e. top five) point guards in the league at creating easy buckets for teammates. And no one seems to care about that. Good coaches and good teams adjust their strategy to fit their personnel. That’s how you win. Brandon Roy is an incredibly skilled and versatile player who can learn to play alongside a great distributor like Miller. He hasn’t done that before because we didn’t have such a player. But we do now. Playing alongside a great distributor like Miller will greatly benefit the other starters (Oden, Aldridge, and Webster). Roy will have to develop his off-ball game, but there’s no reason he can’t. And when he adjusts, he too will benefit from playing alongside someone of Miller’s passing prowess. He just needs to learn how to use screens and move without the ball.
www.blazerguy.com
I'm saying
that the actions on the court, the way Nate has set the rotation, and B-Roy’s comments and play do not mesh with the idea of a distributor as the PG, but rather, the PG needs to be a spot up shooter, get the ball to B-Roy and hopefully play some defense.
"I play, Coach stays. He goes, I go." - Jimmy Chitwood
signed by KP to save face after he was unable to get a deal done for RLEC or a draft day trade or Turkeyglue
But isn’t it interesting that the #1 FA target last July was a veteran forward whose offensive strengths are similar to Millers? Turk is not a great defender or rebounder, and he doesn’t shoot the 3 particularly well. Still, KP was willing to pay him 5/50 to run the PnR and feed the big guys, like Hedo did with Orlando/Howard
Bedgers may know that the Blazers need a better defensive PG who can shoot spot-up 3s, but it doesn’t appear that this was ever a “target” for KP, even when he had his starting PG with his right arm in a sling, last February at the trading deadline.
I don’t know if KP and Nate are on the same page re: Blazer roster building, and what kind of team/style they think will win a championship. I’ve wondered about this in the past (re: Sergio, and the drafting of Patty Mills) and now the signing and subsequent “handling” of Miller is even more concerning. Andre isn’t a young loose-cannon PG like Sergio, but he’s been treated like he is, by McMillian.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Dec 1, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
re: Saving Face
in this context to do a deal, whether it makes sense or not.
he had to do something to appease the fans and media, maybe he thought about what Nate wanted, maybe not (Mills rather than Ime).
"I play, Coach stays. He goes, I go." - Jimmy Chitwood
too true
Miller isn’t bringing anything that we can’t get from Blake and Bayless.
maybe steals…
2010 IS OUR YEAR PEOPLE!!!
so UNtrue...
I guess if you’ve never seen Dre play in Philly, you can make that comment… But just wait until he!! freezes over and Dre is given the keys to the team…
His assists are unlike anything that Blake or Bayless routinely show us…
I wish it were colder
and Dre running the show, but we need a Ray Allen type at SG rather than a frustrated PG in an SG body for that to work.
"I play, Coach stays. He goes, I go." - Jimmy Chitwood
few things
1. They should track where guys get the ball. Should Steve Blake be penalized every time Aldridge tries to lay up a gimme instead of dunking and see it roll off? Basically, I’d break it down like this:
If the pass leads directly to a shot attempt, that’s a “simple assist” and similarly break it down by ranges – at the rim, short, mid-range, and 3pt. Then track FG% as an aside to SA’s. FG% is a good indicator, because if your PG is giving the ball to Gunner McGunnerson every time, he may rack up a ton of assists without really helping the team or putting GMcG in a good scoring position, especially if he’s not passing to Lo’postus Reliaballis who’s got a mismatch after a screen.
Secondly, track when guys get the balls and should or could shoot. If Miller penetrates and kicks to Martell Webster, who’s alone in the corner, but Martell makes the ‘extra pass’, the PG should get some kind of credit. “Quality Pass” or something, regardless of if it leads to a shot. This applies when the player passes to someone else in scoring position and is more or less open to take a shot. Any pass that leads to a shot, be it catch-and-shoot, finish-in-the-lane, dunk, or even leads to a guy breaking another guy down off the dribble and shooting, is a QP.
Lastly, track anti-assists. These are “time bombs” – when a guy gets the ball with 3 seconds or less on the shot clock (NOT the game clock), or collects an offensive foul immediately
M, period. Fresh, comma.
Quality = Hockey
Re: the extra pass, let’s get two assists per hoop, eh?, to REALLY show the value of PG’s! <hockey has to artificially inflate guys stats that help on the rare score, the NBA doesn’t>…
But yes, track FBP’s (Flaming Bag Passes)… Actually, you should track “attempted FBP”, and then you could measure the bailout value factor (“made FBP”) of guys like Trav, and Steve, versus “FBS”, the “flaming bag shot”, or “missed FBP”…) (From which you could calculate the Flaming Bag Percentage, measuring the number of times your crappy pass resulted in nada…)
Metrics. If you don’t measure it…. you can’t get bailout funding… (the New Math)
also track assists that lead to fouls
this is biggest failure of assists today. some of the best “assists” are to someone close to the basket — the opponent is not going to let you dunk and fouls you. passer gets no credit!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
