Playoff Myths
by jscot on May 11, 2010 8:50 AM PDT
Email
PrintSome of these may have been mentioned in some of the comments on different threads. If so, I apologize in advance for inadvertent plagiarism.
Myth #1 -- David Stern Pulls the Strings
A. L.A./OKC did not go to a seventh game, which would have been a great money-spinner for the league, Kobe vs. KD in Game Seven. If Stern was pulling strings to maximize revenue, we would have seen game seven in L.A.
B. Utah beats Denver. Stern would have wanted Carmelo to advance. Utah is a smaller market, they didn't have the same kind of superstar as Denver, the George Karl story would have been great for hype, and because of injuries everyone knew Utah would be crushed by L.A.
C. Three of four second round series end in sweeps. This is very bad for revenue. The refs didn't even manage to keep a single game in the Atlanta/Orlando series close. How many televisions turned to other channels? Very, very bad.
D. Amare is probably not one of Stern's favorite players, yet his team is in the WCF.
E. The resurrection of the Spurs one last time would have made a great story, but they died.
F. The first round loss of Dallas was a loser. Cuban is always good for quotes to keep the interest up, Dallas was good for international interest/revenue in both Germany and France, and the big trade at the deadline meant they could have had a lot of hype going into a seven game series with LA.
If I'm David Stern and I'm pulling strings, there is no way the playoffs would have gone as they have so far. The hit to revenue in the second round has been very painful, I expect.
Myth #2 -- You Need Lots of Bruisers in the Playoffs
Like Phoenix.
I think we can put this one to rest. Bruisers can be very effective in the playoffs (ask Carlos Boozer -- well, ask him after the Denver series, don't ask him about the LA series), but they are only one way to win. A team that plays Channing Frye for significant minutes at center can make the WCF.
Myth #3 -- Playoff Experience Required
Goran Dragic, May 7 in San Antonio. Frye and Dudley. Jennings and Ilyasova. Rose last year against Boston. Etc, etc, etc. Experience preferred but not required.
Myth #4 -- You Have to Shorten Rotations for the Playoffs
Phoenix is killing this myth. Ten men playing 11.4 mpg or more. Two five man units. It seems to be working.
Conclusions:
1. If your team lost, don't blame David Stern. If he is pulling strings, he's doing it so poorly that you can overcome it if you are good enough. You might get ripped off by the refs for a game or two, but almost always the best team wins anyway.
2. The thing that worked in one playoff series may not work in another. The thing that hurt you in one series may not hurt you in the next. You can't make sound roster and/or coaching decisions based on a single series.
3. The thing that worked for many teams in the past may not work in the future.
4. If you have enough talent and can impose your will on the game, you can bend the playing style to fit your strengths, and change the whole dynamic of winning playoff basketball. It may be harder to transform the game, but if you succeed, it gives you an opportunity -- you are playing a game for which the other team was not built and for which they have not game-planned, and you will almost certainly win.
142 comments
|
16 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Regarding conclusion 4
This, I think is the key. In fact this is why I think we handled PHX better than San Antonio….despite people saying we got “steamrolled” just as bad…..we came in with an injury depleted team and still imposed our will and playing style in 3 of the 6 games (but lost one those games anyway). If we have a our center corps intact and BRoy at full strength ….does anyone really doubt that we would have imposed our will 5 outta 6 (or better) instead?
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
real quick about myth #1
I am not totally sold that Stern is pulling all the strings in playoffs games with the intention of maximizing revenue, but every example you gave of why he is NOT has one very common theme (except for LAL and OKC, which I will explain):
Myth #1
A) LAL vs. OKC: Game 5 was a blowout. Game 6 was very close. But a Kobe vs. LeBron Finals is way more valuable to Stern than a Game 7 (first round) Kobe vs. Durant. And given how OKC had just recently blown out LAL (twice) and Stern not being able to control a blowout game, Stern would not want to risk a game 7.
B) Utah vs. Denver: Utah won 3 of the last 4 games of this series with ease. Not much Stern can do when a team is just flat out outplaying the other.
C) 3 of 4 second round series end with sweep. Again, like Utah vs. Denver, not much Stern can do when a team is just flat out better than the other. The Hawks got blown out every game. The Jazz never had a chance, and Stern is fine with this outcome (keeping his Kobe vs. LeBron dreams intact). And the Suns DESTROYED the Spurs.
D) Stern doesn’t like Amar’e. True. But what can he do. The Suns DESTROYED the Spurs 4 games to none. Stern can’t just give a team 4 wins. He has the power to change the outcome of maybe 2 close games in a given series.
E) No resurrection for the Spurs. See ‘C’ and ‘D’
F) Dallas losing in the first round. Why wouldn’t Stern want this? Now he doesn’t have to listen to Cuban criticize him for more than 1 round. He silenced Cuban like he silenced every player/coach in the NBA when he said he would fine anyone for saying anything other than “shucks, we lost”
.
.
.
The common theme here is even if Stern was pulling all the strings he could to maximize his revenue (which I am not saying he is or he is not) but even if he was, he can not change outcomes of series’ if most games and most series’ are blow outs. If there is a huge game 7 between a revenue driver (Lakers) and a ratings killer (Kings) and the game is not a blow out, then Stern has the ability to pull some strings. He has had no such opportunity in these playoffs…. yet. We can not conclude one way or the other based on these first two rounds that Stern is not influencing games.
picture me rollin'
by Utah Sucks on May 11, 2010 9:53 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Nice comment
Just a few comments.
If Stern was pulling strings and wanted to avoid blowouts, he could have taken a couple of key Orlando players out if the game in the first quarter of game 3 against Atlanta.
Similarly, he could have gone to game 7 OKC/LA and got Durant in foul trouble early.
Similarly, he could have removed key Phoenix players in game 3 against San Antonio.
Cuban is good for ratings, and also good for some fines bringing money into the league office. Win-win.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
What if it is not all money with Stern? What if it just as much about personalities and power?
Stern manipulates the way games are called by what he allows and does not allow his refs to do.
We go on the road, faces a few bad calls, well, what do we expect, we are on the road. Then we don’t get those calls at home.
With all of the scrutiny, it may be getting better with some of the better refs. But if Stern (which means a**, look it up) wanted to really fix this, and not be a league of the big market teams getting the calls, he would insist on fair calls for games. He would put out meaningful proof of equity in officiating.
But Stern isn’t. Just looking at him, you can tell he’s heading the other way.
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
There is a definite conspiracy
the details of it are difficult to put your finger on, but it is definitely there.
No one but NO ONE can deny the existence of “super star” calls by the refs. Therefore the teams with the most superstars wins 99% of the time. Howard > Bibby, Kobe > Williams, and so on. Stern (or the shadow conspiracy leader) is ready for a changing of the guard as far as San Antonio stars are concerned.
Boston and Cleveland have similar numbers of “stars”, therefore their series is not a sweep.
I do believe that a small market team like ours can still get to the finals and become champions but the road will be much, much harder and we will have to absolutely dominate and take every game out of the refs hands in order to do it.
Same as it ever was.
we can still win........
by RastaMonsta on May 11, 2010 10:39 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Therefore the teams with the most superstars wins 99% of the time.
Doesn’t that just mean they have better players? As such, wouldn’t you expect the team with the better players to mostly win?
In a way
The “better” player gets more foul calls. But just because you get foul calls doesn’t make you the better player.
Sabonis vs. Shaq – who was the “better” player? Who got the most foul calls?
we can still win........
To answer your questions, Shaq and Shaq
Sabonis may have been a better player in his youth. Unfortunately, we never got to see that in Portland. While Shaq wasn’t as skilled as Sabonis, I don’t think you would find too many people who would argue that Sabonis was a better player than Shaq…at least during the time Sabonis was in the NBA.
I am afraid I disagree
imo Sabonis was BY FAR the better player.
Shaq is (was) good but even during the height of Shaqs career, Sabonis was a pretty even match-up against him even during Sabonis’ aged decline.
Either way, Shaq gets the calls and subsequently the trophies.
CONSPIRACY!!!
we can still win........
Shaq was so much better than Sabonis.
Sabonis was better at some stuff, like passing, but that’s not going to get you foul calls.
by Nick Van Excellent on May 11, 2010 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Skills could be debated
But given the way the game was officiated, no contest, Shaq was immensely better.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
"Given the way the game was officiated"
I will not get into a conspiracy debate, I will just say I don’t like David Stern & think the league would be better off without him. As for Shaq….. Dude got away with more offensive fouls then any player in history. I think Shaq was a great talent but what he got away with is a joke! I also note that now that Jordan has retired suddenly the rules on palming the ball are again being enforced. Now if you believe on conspiracy or not I have one suggestion for the betterment of the league(not my idea I saw it on the FAN & totally agree with it.) The refs should be an independent entity run by it’s own board of overseers who are in charge of training & discipline. It is run that way in other leagues, so should it be in the NBA. IMHO.sorry, end of rant!
Somebody step up! - Mike Rice
I like your rant.
Independence would be a good thing.
by damonrayhymer on May 16, 2010 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions
This wasn't meant to be a debate on the overall skills
of these players.
I think that no matter how you look at it, they were fairly evenly matched. Considering strengths and weaknesses of each guy, imo it is a push.
The point I was trying to make was- How many times did Sabas have to sit down with foul trouble compared to how often Shaq had to ride pine due to ref intervention.
There DEFINITELY IS a superstar conspiracy is the basic summary. The nature of the game does not allow the league to have it exactly how the league wants it 100% of the time but given a chance to affect game outcomes, the league will always call games in favor of the “superstars” and the large markets.
History bears this out.
we can still win........
by RastaMonsta on May 12, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Shaq was allowed to knock defenders down like bowling pins
Take a look at how he played. You can say that Shaq changed the game. But in fact, the NBA the game changed to accommodate that “skill set”.
If they let Oden get away with that … but no, he’s a Blazer.
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
While I am of the opinion that anyone who believes in conspiracy theories ...
… is out to lunch, I have to agree with Rasta on one point.
In debating over who was the better player between Sabonis and Shaq, the srgument is a lot closer than you think. O’Neill lacked Sabonis’ outside game, while Arvidas was very skilled in the paint and could play both a traditional back to the basket game or a faceup one. Shaq’s free throw troubles are another significant difference, particularly when compared to Sabonis’ 90% + shooting from the line. Finally, although O’Neill has become a very good passer, it took some time and even at his best, he’s still not as good as Sabas.
Let’s also not forget that for the first third or more of his career, Shaq received the benefit of ref’s turning a blind eye to his infractions of the rules. I think a study of his play would show that about 70% or so of the time O’Neill either traveled, committed an offensive foul or did both. It was some time before his footwork caught up with his size, strength and speed.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Let’s also not forget that for the first third or more of his career, Shaq received the benefit of ref’s turning a blind eye to his infractions of the rules. I think a study of his play would show that about 70% or so of the time O’Neill either traveled, committed an offensive foul or did both. It was some time before his footwork caught up with his size, strength and speed.
Scandalous! How dare you question the integrity of the league and it’s officials?
Welcome to the tin-foil hat club ;^)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I manage utility wireless installations and I've seen those people.
The ones who wear the the tin foil hats or get up in a public hearing and describe how they will be driving along and suddenly get a sharp pain in their head and sure enough they will see a cell site nearby.
I’ve always wanted to go up to someone wearing tin foil and ask them where is their ground wire. And when they look at me with confusion in their eyes, I can point out that unless their foil apparel is grounded, all it is doing is turning them into a nice big walking antenna.
As to Shaq’s getting beneficial officating – I would place his being so different that the ref’s weren’t ready for him (i.e. officating is not an easy task and Shaq’s size and quickness made it even tougher) first on the list. To be fair to the officials, they also managed to miss calling a lot of fouls against Shaq’s defenders due to his being so strong. I think we’ve seen a bit of that (and expect to see more) with Oden. These guys power through fouls and the official is not always sure of what he sees.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Star treatment
should be stamped out.
Of course when our core is in it’s prime, we probably won’t feel the same way.
by damonrayhymer on May 16, 2010 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes Sabonis was a better shooter and passer than Shaq
But Shaq was so dominant at one thing…catching the ball, backing his man down and dunking with multiple defenders hanging on him. Sabonis was a great player, but Shaq was one man wrecking crew in his heyday and the only thing opposing teams could do about it was use all their fouls, and even when he was fouled intentionally he was so strong that half the time he would score the basket anyway.
How is kcocking peopole down with your backside and the refs swallowing the whistle basketball?
Skill? Or changing the rules to make a lug a superstar?
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
I do believe that a small market team like ours can still get to the finals and become champions but the road will be much, much harder and we will have to absolutely dominate and take every game out of the refs hands in order to do it.
Same as it ever was.
This^
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on May 11, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't dispute the existence of superstar bias
I wouldn’t support your 99% of the time statement, but there is obviously superstar bias. It just isn’t as great as you make it out to be.
Note that Dwight Howard had huge foul problems in the first round.
There are too many results that don’t fit the conspiracy for it to make any sense. Last year, LeBron should have been in the Finals, for instance.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Yes, the refs did all they could to keep it close, didn't they?
It just didn’t work.
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
I think you do need to shorten your rotation...
if you have guys like Juwan Howard coming off the bench.
by Escrote on May 11, 2010 11:09 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
that's not so much a case of shortening the rotation,
as just needing to changing it.
Dante > Howard
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Precisely
You shorten your rotation if the guys aren’t good enough. And you can get away with a shorter rotation in the playoffs because there aren’t back to backs.
But if you have the depth, if you have ten legit players, of course you can use them, and often to good effect.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
fantastic post
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
It's doubtful that too many people have accepted any of these, "Myths," as being anything more than 50/50 "circumstantial" propositions
“Always,” is probably rarely used. “Sometimes,” is probably correctly used.
Myth #1) LA has been in the finals 48% of the time. David Stern may not be the cause, but there are some valid reasons for small market teams to question the status quo.
Myth #2) Mental “bruisers” with talent and skill beat equally talented and skillful players who are soft. It is fairly obvious that foot ball player types are not the best option for basketball.
Myth #3) “Experience preferred but not required.” Yes, but experience is a strong preference. True exceptions to this rule fall more into the category of, “anomalies”? Magic Johnson, is a realistic example of trumping the, “normal standards,” with his “rookie year” performance!
Myth #4) This is the one I would agree with you most on. The foundation of this myth is highly dependent on match-ups, but if the match-ups work, and substitutions are made with respect to the flow of the game, it really should not make much of a difference. On the other hand, coaches can generally play their key people longer, if they want to, because of the additional time between games.
"It's a team game." Please, feel free to factor that into your statistical analysis!
Some people do state these as fact
Your comments:
1) Money, money, and money. Add to that the fact that often star players (think Kobe and Kareem) want to go to L.A. and virtually force their way there.
2) Just not always true.
3) Give me talent over experience every time. Obviously, talent+experience > talent+inexperience.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
"Myths" #3 and #4 still look pretty true to me
They aren’t true ALL of the time, but still almost all the time. The Suns bench unit doesn’t change the preponderance of evidence for the value of experience and short rotations just because they beat up on other teams’ bench units. Notice that the Suns starting unit is all guys with 7+ years (with Hill and Nash having many more) in the league, mostly with perennial playoff teams.
- is an excellent point though. The successful teams in the league have shown, even in the playoffs, that the trend of small, quicker and more-skilled big men isn’t just fad.
I disagree
But perhaps I should clarify. A team undoubtedly will greatly benefit from having some significant playoff experience. But individual players can be highly successful in the playoffs without experience, and play an important role in their team’s success.
As to shorter rotations, it all depends on how good your bench players are. If they aren’t that good, you’d better shorten your rotation. If they are good, you can use your depth to good effect, either to punish the other team’s bench which isn’t as good or to wear down their starters. A deep bench can be a valuable asset in the playoffs, especially if you push the pace to make the most of your depth.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
and yet, long benches are still the exception...
for two likely reasons-
1. most teams don’t have enough good players that 10+ have any reason to get major playoff minutes.
2. executing structured plays becomes even more important, and its easier for guys to do that if they are playing with a more limited set of teammates.
I absolutely agree
that long benches are the exception. I wasn’t arguing that a long bench is necessarily the best way to construct a playoff team. My only point was that the received wisdom is not necessarily true.
A team that has enough good players and has the ability to execute well 10 deep can be well served by a deep rotation. That such a team would be the exception to the norm doesn’t really invalidate that.
Whether management should set out to construct such a team is an open question. If you have an owner who is willing to buy first round picks almost every year, then perhaps it makes sense to construct a very deep team.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Well, the last team to employ a true 10-man rotation was the 2003-2004 Memphis Grizzlies.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MEM/2004.html
Hubie Brown, who I respect as much as any basketball coach in history, did an outstanding job with the Grizzlies back then and deservedly won the NBA Coach of the Year Award that season. The next season, however, selfish guys like Bonzi Wells and Jason Williams began to turn on him and his son, Brendan, which led to his abrupt retirement on Thanksgiving Day of the 2004-2005 season.
Basically, my point is that the right group of guys are needed to pull off a ten-man rotation without any grumbling and dissension.
Agreed entirely
Basically, my point is that the right group of guys are needed to pull off a ten-man rotation without any grumbling and dissension.
They also need to be good enough. :)
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
You rest your stars when you can in the regular season so they have something left to play big minutes int he playoffs.
You want as many superstar, whistle grabbers out on the floor as you can. Tweet much?
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
Should say "#2 is an excellent point though..."
I’m sure there is some coding reason why “#2” becomes a “1.” on a bulleted list, but it wasn’t my intention.
3 word response
small sample size
If you take NBA playoff history as a whole, going back at least 25 years, those myths are reality and your conclusions that are based on the past few weeks are aberrations
If you build a roster based on your conclusions, you will be beaten more than 50% of the time in a playoff series by an “old school” philosophy. That percentage will only go up if the other team has a well-known superstar and low post bangers, or is in a large media market.
What it takes to win a title in the NBA is constantly in flux, but there are some observations that have stood the test of time. Ignore them at risk of your own frustration and disappointment
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on May 11, 2010 1:20 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
This from the guy
who said over and over after last year, “The Houston series taught us that….” And now you talk about small sample size? :)
If I build a roster based on my conclusions? Let’s look at them again:
1. If your team lost, don’t blame David Stern. If he is pulling strings, he’s doing it so poorly that you can overcome it if you are good enough.
Seems a pretty good approach to roster building.
2. The thing that worked in one playoff series may not work in another. The thing that hurt you in one series may not hurt you in the next. You can’t make sound roster and/or coaching decisions based on a single series.
Don’t make roster/coaching decisions based on a single series. I think that’s pretty sound. You are going to have to face teams like the Suns, like the Rockets of last year, like the L@kers of this year and last, like the Celtics, and like the LeBrons. You can’t look at how you lost one series and rebuild your roster just to win that series if you have it again. You have to look at the total picture. You need to be able to survive Yao Ming or Steve Nash or Kobe Bryant or LeBron James or Dwight Howard — you never know who you’ll face, who will be healthy, who will be hot.
3. The thing that worked for many teams in the past may not work in the future.
The Bad Boys changed the game. The thing that worked in the past was no longer so effective, you had to compete on their terms. MJ changed the game. Shaq changed the game. Orlando is threatening to change the game by running an offense with a center and effectively four shooting guards (yes, Rashard is just a tall SG). It got them to the Finals last year and could win it all this year.
I think this conclusion is pretty sound, too.
4. If you have enough talent and can impose your will on the game, you can bend the playing style to fit your strengths, and change the whole dynamic of winning playoff basketball.
25 years of NBA history have shown this to be true. Who would have thought that a team with a point forward and without a dominant center would win multiple championships? Especially when there were centers like Hakeem and Ewing around? But they used the strengths they had.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
You can’t look at how you lost one series and rebuild your roster just to win that series if you have it again
You do if there’s a dominant team in your conference (Lakers with Kareem and Magic, etc) that your team as constituted can’t get past.
I get the gyst of what you’re saying, the league is changing so the Blazers should change their way of thinking to adapt to it. There’s just one caveat: in 2007 the Blazers lucked out in the lottery and drafted Greg Oden. They’ve got something that no team outside of Orlando has, and so to suggest the Blazers start modeling their roster after the Sun’s style won’t be very compatible with a healthy Oden. Then you’ve got Roy and Nate who think they have a way of running an offense, so to make the shift to an Orlando system or a Phoenix style you’ve got to convince them that the way they’re used to doing things is old-fashioned and ineffective.
My conclusions from last year’s Houston series were 1) the team needs a better starting PG than Blake, 2) Travis Outlaw is a deer in the headlights and should be traded for, 3) a better rebounder at the 4 position. Small sample size or no, all of those concerns were resolved by the front office in the 5-10 months following the season. I also expressed doubt that Rudy was a long-term Blazer due to PT and playing style conflicts, and we’ve seen his trade value take a dive over the past 4 months.
I don’t mind bucking the trend and suggesting changes if I think they’ll be productive, but I’m not going to embrace the “smaller is better in the playoffs” lineup idea until I see it start consistently delivering some hardware in June.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
You don't get my point at all, I'm afraid
I get the gyst of what you’re saying, the league is changing so the Blazers should change their way of thinking to adapt to it.
I’m not suggesting that the Blazers should adapt to the Suns’ style. I’m not suggesting that they should adapt to Orlando’s style (which is different than Phoenix’), or Boston’s, or anyone else. I’m not suggesting that they should try to figure out how the league is changing.
What I am saying is that multiple styles can work in the playoffs. So rather than saying that you must construct a certain type of team to succeed in the playoffs, the process should be more like this:
1. What talents do we have that could be highly effective?
2. What style of play will maximize those talents? That’s the style of play we’re going to adopt. (Note that the determinant here is not what style the coach prefers, but what style fits the talent.)
3. What holes do we have in our roster that will hinder us from imposing and playing that target style of play as effectively as we could? Plug them as best you can.
4. What players may be available that would make us even better at imposing and executing that target style of play? Can we get them without creating holes we can’t plug?
Then, once you’ve constructed such a roster, work on execution, execution, execution, so that you can impose your style of play.
The factor that many would include in that process that I have specifically left out is “deciding what style of play works in the playoffs”. The factor that I have included that many leave out is “what is necessary to impose your style of play”.
Now, let’s look at your conclusions from last year. You drew them based on a single series, which means you had too small of a sample size, but that doesn’t mean they were wrong.
1) the team needs a better starting PG than Blake,
Why? Because A) Aaron Brooks torched him and B) when the defense locked down on Roy, we went stagnant — Blake wasn’t an effective enough offensive threat. If you base this conclusion on one series, your sample size is too small.
I would also argue that we certainly could use a better starting PG than Blake. His inability to defend very quick PGs made it hard for us to impose our will on the defensive end of the court — we were always in reactive mode against such PGs. We didn’t need the Houston series to know that, though. I don’t really see Andre as helping a lot on this point, however.
Blake was actually pretty good at imposing our style offensively. He took care of the ball, he was a threat from deep to help keep the lane open, spacing was good, he always knew where to be and when. The problem with Blake offensively was not that he couldn’t impose our style, the problem was that the style was not particularly effective (IMO) against a strong defensive team.
2) Travis Outlaw is a deer in the headlights and should be traded
Ridiculous conclusion based on very small sample size. You are a guy who always preaches the importance of playoff experience. Then, when a guy who has no experience struggles in his first try, you decide he’s a deer in the headlights? Sorry, that’s just not sound thinking. Either playoff experience matters (in which case, Travis’ performance was no surprise and no big deal, he’ll do better next time) or it doesn’t.
Now, if you had argued that Travis’ rebounding and defensive weaknesses made him a liability in trying to impose our will on the game, and that this was evidenced not just by one series but by several years, then we’d be talking the same language. On the other hand, his indefensible jumper was a valuable weapon in Nate’s style on the offensive end — in “imposing the style” of “run the clock down and make a tough basket” Travis was great at times.
for, 3) a better rebounder at the 4 position.
Now, if you were arguing that we needed that so we could play a style more like Houston, I would disagree strongly. If you argued that we needed that so that we could control the game and keep teams like Houston from imposing their style on us, then we could discuss. I might have said, “No, we have dominant rebounders at center, we only need marginal improvement at the 4 (starting and backup). We can work on developing this facet of LMA’s game, and draft a role-playing rebounding backup 4.” And actually, that appeared to be the plan before injuries hit us so badly.
I didn’t say smaller is better. I said different things work.
If we can get everyone healthy, we can change the league. We’ll have enough rebounding, enough defense, enough offensive firepower, to impose our style on any team in the league. And whatever style we play, everyone will start to say, “Oh, we need to learn to play like Portland does. The league has changed.”
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Why? Because A) Aaron Brooks torched him and B) when the defense locked down on Roy, we went stagnant — Blake wasn’t an effective enough offensive threat
The best way to deal with small PGs was to add a post-up threat like MIller to the backcourt. With Brandon and Andre at full strength, they can impose their will on smaller guards. (Of course, Batum needs to learn how to do this as wel, so the opposing coach doesn’t defend him with Steve Nash, etc)
One thing that I can’t say often enough is that I don’t have time to re-explain myself with every response. I usually have 5-10 minutes to respond and a lot of my comments are necessarily in “shorthand.” For example, I had the same concerns re: Travis and Steve before the Houston series, but I’m not going to take the time in each response to go back over past history and give specific examples of game/matchup situations that birthed or reinforced those concerns. If you want those kind of details, you’ll have to look wait until I have more time, which is rare these days.
I will say that I put more weight on post season performances than regular season stats. Why? KP said it yesterday, at this point the team is being evaluated by their playoff success, individually and as a whole. If Bayless showed up and Rudy didn’t during the Sun’s series, that counts a whole lot more than what they were doing in Feb. At least it does to me. The playoffs may be a small sample size, but it’s a significant glimpse into what players have the mental toughness to step up when the games count the most. If I see post season performances like Outlaw in 2009 and Rudy in 2010, I’m not going to endorse them as long-term rotation members. You may want to give them “another chance” but I’m moving on, and not-surprisingly, the Blazers came to the same conclusion re: Travis and Blake, 10 months later.
That was about 5-10 minutes, respond if you like. But I may not get back to this thread for awhile.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I put more weight on playoffs, too
but one series is still a small sample size, and I for one do not in the least believe that the Blazers traded Steve and Travis because of one series.
They traded them because they needed a center, the Clips wanted expiring contracts to give up Marcus, and those two guys were surplus to requirements because of the healthy and reasonably productive return of Martell and the promise of Dante (for Travis) and the success of Andre and the progress of Jerryd (for Steve). End of story.
If they had traded those guys because of last year’s playoffs, Nic would be gone, too, and he’s not the only one.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
jscot, uou keep trying to kill the messenger, but what about his message?
He asks about sample size and you overkill with examples of him committing the same error. Thus proving two4larue’s original point.
Your sample size is much too small to base such global conclusions.
Game. Set. Match.
I should also add that Cleveland’s population is less than Metro Boston. Further, AND THIS IS THE STINGER, what if Lebron won a title in Cleveland? Do you think that might make the difference in his staying there?
Clearly, Stern wants LeBron in NY.
Celtics 4 – Cavs not.
QE to da D
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
Actually, not at all
I only need a sample size of 1 to prove that the absolutes I was refuting aren’t true. Simple logic here.
My sample size is not too small for my conclusion that multiple styles can be effective in the playoffs. I used examples from this year, but there are many years of history of success with varying styles and approaches.
Global conclusions? Which of my four conclusions do you not like? Why?
The first one? That’s your focus. OK, explain Orlando instead of the LeBrons in the Finals last year. Explain all the years of San Antonio winning it. Why would Stern want San Antonio, of all teams? First, their style is considered boring by many, second, they aren’t a large market. So let’s go back to my conclusion:
1. If your team lost, don’t blame David Stern. If he is pulling strings, he’s doing it so poorly that you can overcome it if you are good enough.
Like San Antonio was good enough to overcome it. End of story.
Conclusions 2-4 are manifestly true. As to me overkilling with examples of him using a small sample size, I gave one. Then, in a follow-up, I discussed why I thought his conclusions from that small sample were in fact generally right, but not based on sound logic. But it’s only one example, and it’s relevant. He challenged my conclusions based on small sample size and yet he drew contrasting conclusions based on a single series.
In no way did I prove his original point.
Just because my original post didn’t cite more evidence to support my conclusions doesn’t mean that evidence is lacking.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Myths are general rules; general rules are not absolutes.
QED
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
Q.E.D.
Stands for either Quantum Electrodynamics or quod erat demonstrandum, “that which was to be demonstrated”.
You forgot to demonstrate your definition of myths.
1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Unless you think I’m actually referring to gods and demigods, you might check out definition #5. Note that none of these make reference to “general rules”.
The idea that you have to shorten your rotation in the playoffs is a false or unproven collective belief often used to advocate a “social institution” on this website — the idea that you need to do consolidation trades to narrow your rotation down to 8 key players. That is a myth, absolutely unproven, and I have provided some evidence to the contrary.
QED.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
actually,
the Clips did the deal because of the $1.5 mill. They still wanted Marcus, and thought that because his family was established in LA he would come back. That was the bet, and they down right tampered in saying so.
He was a rental, that was their bet. But it was the Clips, so who could be surprised that they lost.
by damonrayhymer on May 16, 2010 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions
To me the myth that David Stern is controlling the outcome of playoff series to boost ratings is absurd
Fact #1: The Knicks have been terrible for a long time. NY is the largest media market in the country, and is known as being a mecca for basketball. You can bet that if Stern had his druthers, the Knicks would be competing for championships.
Fact #2: To date, no LeBron vs Kobe in the finals. If I’m commish I’ve been hoping for that series for the past 5 years. While the Celtics and Lakers got decent ratings, no other finals has come along that would even come close to rivaling the ratings a LeBron and Kobe finals would garner.
Fact #3: The teams that have the won the finals in recent years (the exception being the Pistons), have always had the best players in the league (Wade, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Ginobilii, Garnett, Pierce). Is that a coincidence that the teams with the best players won the title? Probably not. That is what a rational person would expect. If the Knicks or Bulls snuck in and won a title with the teams they have, then I would be more suspicious.
how can Stern pull strings to turn the current Knick roster into a contender?
He may or may not be pulling strings, I will not debate that, but how on earth is one supposed to pull enough strings to make those guys champions?
picture me rollin'
They really have not even been moderately competitive in quite awhile
You would think that if Stern was going to tinker, he would work on making the Knicks relevant.
As in a comic book?
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Here is how: Sterns sends King James to NY
Stern makes it look like the Celtics are revitalized by stripping LeBron’s superstar treatment for that series. Thereby sending a message to LeBron to get somewhere relevant during his upcoming “free” agency.
NY much?
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
Very doubtful he goes to NY
Chicago is more likely. NJ is still in with a shout.
Best bet is he stays in Cleveland.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Stern would take Chi town.
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
Stern would be happy
with NY, NJ, or Chicago. He would probably not be thrilled with the L@kers, because it would kill competition too much, and because there would only be one team to hype. He would probably like the Clips with the Kobe/LeBron competition in the same city (with four games head to head every year) except it would be on the West Coast. He also probably hates Sterling (doesn’t everyone, pretty much?).
For “image” purposes, Stern probably won’t be too distressed if LeBron stays in Cleveland — hometown loyalty, blah, blah, blah.
How does LeBron make the most money? Cleveland can offer him more than anyone, under the CBA. The only way anyone can match the Cavs is a sign and trade. LeBron has to agree to the sign and trade, so do the Cavs, so does the other team. LeBron only agrees if the new team still has any good players left after the sign and trade.
How many teams can offer enough talent to make Cleveland willing to agree to the sign and trade, and still have enough talent left to make LeBron willing to go there? Not very many. So in all probability, if LeBron leaves Cleveland, he takes a pay cut over what the Cavs could offer.
I can’t see him taking a pay cut to go to NY. Maybe the Knicks do a sign and trade sending David Lee to Cleveland for LeBron, and count on luring someone else (Joe Johnson? Amare?). Would LeBron go to the Knicks if there is another free agent coming? It’s still a shell of a team. I don’t see NY.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
LeBron got the message
Rome reports he’s out of Cleveland
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
I'll believe it when he signs somewhere else, of course
Rome may or may not be right.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
More support . . .
that Stearn is, well, is a crappy commish.
he can’t even manipulate this years playoff series to maximize the revenue of the owners
so that they have a bit more in the bank in preparation for the lockout after the CBA expires.
you could see how disgusted MJ was in the Magic/Bobcats series that he didn’t get a bit more consideration.
"Better, not good, but better." - Herb Brooks
WAIT!!!!!11111
Maybe Stern is helping them to LOSE MONEY INTENTIONALLY!!!!!11111
Then, they’ll be able to negotiate a better deal for the owners next summer, and make MORE MONEY in the long term!
HIS EVIL PLAN FOOLED EVEN ME!
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
by jscot on May 12, 2010 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
duh, of course!
How obvious now that you’ve put all the pieces together for me…
I’m there when you are ready to take over the world, I’ve been learning more than I ever wanted to know about Excel (I’ve been in the SAS camp until now).
"Better, not good, but better." - Herb Brooks
If a Commish
is pulling strings and fixing things, the NBA should call itself Professional Wrestling.
Carefull jscot.
You are upending some folks most cherished rice bowls.
And seriously, do you think there is any chance at all that a person who believes in conspiracies in the first place will be swayed by reason, logic and evidence? The first rule in beoiving in a conspiracy is you have to ignore all that.
Personally, I think your whole post is just a red herring designed to take people’s minds off the fact you want to take over the world.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
I just got tired of reading about some dude's elbow
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
I might say something ...
… but who knows if it will get me banned.
At least I’m learning one thing. I apparently would make a great shoe salesman.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
stern could be doing letting this happen this season
to throw us all off the scent
Michael Jordan is the Nicolas Batum of America
team>players
by thomasikehara on May 11, 2010 4:43 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I don't think there's any doubt that the league realizes that more fans and media are onto their little shell game
and the initial Donaghy scandal and Tim’s book are a big part of that
But just because the NBA may be cleaning up their act in various degrees doesn’t mean that the past “conspiracy” didn’t exist, or that modeling your franchise’s philosophy on the Suns is a sure road to championship banners
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on May 11, 2010 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd say that PHX might be the exception to a lot of NBA rules and this year has been wacky in general.
But I’m not going to subscribe to traditional NBA rules either.
I’m also kind of obscure, you probably haven’t heard of me.
"Seek the wisdom of the ages, but look at the world through the eyes of a child."
-Ron Wild
If Stern wanted to maximize profits
Every playoff game would go to 6 games (minimum) and most every time a big market team fell to the lottery they would get an unusually good pick. I dont know if the latter happens, but the former does not. That can be explained because the Ref’s only have a certain amount of influence and can only change the outcome of close games. But they can make it easier to have a close game. Take for example, our game against PHX when we were doing so well in the first Q and a half until ref’s started calling everything we (mostly Camby) did and completely took us out of our game and giving the Suns momentum (which once the suns had that the ref’s could balance out the FT’s so the box-score didn’t appear as one-sided).
Basically
Phoenix defies every playoff myth ever.
I'm gonna be the only A-hole that owns a Nic Batum jersey that doesn't live in France. Awesome.
by CoRBBall on May 11, 2010 7:17 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Phoenix is going to lose.
Also, the Magic have been the best team in the playoffs by far and they have the best bruiser in the league. The Lakers, who are going to the finals, have two bruisers in the paint, plus a bunch of other tough guys like Artest.
The best teams in the league tend to have
by Nick Van Excellent on May 11, 2010 8:06 PM PDT reply actions
Sorry
*The best teams tend to have players dominating the paint. (Amare is a bruiser BTW. He’s all about the paint)
by Nick Van Excellent on May 11, 2010 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, superior interior play is at the crux of basketball.
While Dwight Howard certainly isn’t the best post player in NBA history, he’s still like a modern-day version of Moses Malone’s endurance, rebounding proficiency, and defensive intensity mixed in with the offensive efficiency and insane athleticism — particularly above the rim — of Darryl Dawkins, who unfortunately never realized his full potential.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again right here: Howard will eventually beast his way to championship glory at least once in his career.
He's got an excellent chance this year
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Now, now
I didn’t say bruisers aren’t valuable.
I did say you don’t need a lot of them.
Myth #2 — You Need Lots of Bruisers in the Playoffs
Phoenix has one bruiser (well, I suppose Amundson counts as a second for his 12 mpg or whatever he is playing). So does Orlando, who has an excellent chance to win a championship this year with Rashard Lewis as their PF. Sure, they have bruisers on the bench, but they only ever have one in the game at a time, generally.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
OK, I agree with that.
If Oden is healthy I think the Blazers could run with almost any decent stretch 4 and be fine. Even Travis Outlaw (gulp) wouldn’t be the worst option in the world.
by Nick Van Excellent on May 12, 2010 7:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Perfect wording
Blazers could run with almost any decent stretch 4 and be fine
I added the emphasis for you, just to make sure it was clear. If we’re going to play entirely in the halfcourt, we need someone who will do some rebounding and can defend someone like Scola while Oden has his hands full with Yao.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
That is not a myth
Toughness is different than bruisers. You do need toughness. And you do need a few bruisers. Not LOTS. But some.
So your myth itself is mythplaced.
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
???
Sounds like you agree with me. You need some toughness/bruisers.
But the idea that you need a lot of bruisers is a myth. It isn’t true.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
And it isn't a myth
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
Myth #5:
You need a superstar to win it all.
Game 5 of the Celtics series should lay to rest the principle of building a team top down around a superstar.
Basketball is one of the ultimate team games. A team that coheres and plays together has a strength and adaptibility that a superstar + team just doesn’t have.
I hope the Blazers get this and will have the sense to treat every member of the team as equals.
"The only 'Advanced Metric' that matters is what you see with your eyes." -Timbo, Nov., 2009.
And pretty much every NBA championship winners minus the '04 Pistons says one game does not make it a myth.
Let’s face it. Even if the Celtics do get through, their likelihood of winning it all is as much as Los Sols. Besides, Bill Simmons would argue that they have one player playing at superstar level for this series…the guy that they gave an Aldridge-sized contract to last summer.
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
I am not saying you can't have a superstar
I’m saying you need a resiliency and toughness that only comes from sharing the load. The Spurs, the recent Lakers, both had this quality.
It’s just the nature of the game. But it is not marketed that way because the media needs someone to put on the poster.
"The only 'Advanced Metric' that matters is what you see with your eyes." -Timbo, Nov., 2009.
That talent can be spread among multiple players, though
Rather than concentrated in one player. But that will only work if your schemes are designed to utilize those talents.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Your 4th point is spot on
being able to impose your will is key. That is why it usually takes players/teams many years of playing together to grab a title and why so many teams win multiple times over a 5 or 10 year stretch (see boston-lakers-houston in the 80s, bulls in the 90s, spurs and lakers in the oughts)…
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
Regarding myth #3;
You are right that playoff experience is not required, but it certainly helps a lot.
I agree with pretty much everything said here though. Rec. Great stuff as always Jscot.
"What people need to know is that those pictures were taken a year and a half ago, and I've grown since then." - Greg Oden
Well, all of the teams left in the playoffs this year have extensive playoff experience.
Yes, this incarnation of the Suns has several players that don’t have much, but the suns go as Amare and Nash go, and those two have plenty of playoff experience. I’m pretty sure last year the teams that went into round 3 also all had extensive playoff experience. I don’t know if this is documented on some stat site, but the evidence I see on the playoff bracket is enough for me.
"What people need to know is that those pictures were taken a year and a half ago, and I've grown since then." - Greg Oden
by dario argento on May 12, 2010 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nice piece of satire jscot!
Myth 1 – Stern and his people know they cannot control series and determine outcomes wholesale. The examples you cite are clearly about the early rounds. When games are on TNT and ESPN the market size is not that big of a deal. The cable companies have lots of channels for you to watch. But when you get to the finals it matters. What goes out on the broadcast over ABC and foreign broadcast partners is seen as determinative of the world’s perception of the NBA. That is when the manipulation can come – in the conference finals to get the right teams into the finals. Besides I laughed hard over this:
The first round loss of Dallas was a loser
Have any other owners been fined by David Stern since McHale got caught with his hand in the cookie jar? Cuban supports all of the NBA staff golf retreats every year with huge fines. David Stern does not like Cuban.
Myth 2. The remaining Eastern Conference teams are Boston (Perkins and Davis qualify as bruisers), Cleveland (Shaq redefined the term) and Orlando (Howard). In the Western Conference the teams are the L*kers (Bynum, Gasol Odum and Artest) and Phoenix (Stoudemire). Utah? no bruisers Portland? no bruisers Dallas? no bruisers San Antonio? no bruisers Denver? wounded bruiser and headless Atlanta? no bruisers Miami? no bruisers Chicago? no bruisers Milwaukee? no bruisers – all done and gone.
Myth 3. Playoff experience not required? You cite individuals who have had some success but either the team they play on (San Antonio, Phoenix) have tons of playoff experience or they are flame outs in the first round.Nice try. It is team experience and veteran core that wins playoff series. Even the Fab 5 lost in the NCAA finals both years. And West Virginia popped Kentucky’s bubble this year in the NCAA as well.
Myth 4. That one might possibly hold but it has not won a championship since the 1976-1977 Trail Blazers. Even then the pure 10 man rotation for Phoenix has already been adjusted with at least one starter at all times this last round. So until another team pulls off the feat this myth is a tried and true (and followed by 4 of the remaining 5 teams this year).
What cracks me up is that you have fooled nearly everyone because jscot is always right!
by lee3022 on May 12, 2010 12:06 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Dallas is great for the league
Great for league revenues, great for league office revenues. Controversy increases ratings, Cuban provides it. Stern loves Cuban, he’s always got an excuse to fine him. :)
Fooled you, too. I’m serious. No bruisers S.A.? They have two bruisers our “must have bruisers” contingent were hot for last summer. I didn’t say bruisers aren’t a good idea, just that you don’t need to have 14 of them like some people seem to think. Portland last year had more bruisers (Joel and Greg) than Phoenix and Orlando have this year, and as many as Boston has.
As to #3 experience, I wasn’t clear. You’d better have some experience on your team. Even our championship team had Lucas, and that was probably the most inexperienced championship team ever. But the idea that you shouldn’t go into a series depending on some players who lack playoff experience is deeply flawed. Rookies can perform exceptionally well in the playoffs. Brandon Roy wasn’t bad in his first playoff series.
Your last four words are, of course, impeccable. Not everything in this post was perfect, but you finished it superbly!
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Even our championship team had Lucas, and that was probably the most inexperienced championship team ever
Herm Gilliam and Corky Calhoun say “hi”
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Really?
Corky Calhoun had no playoff experience before that year.
Gilliam had 18 games playoff experience, three times playing for a team that lost 4-2 in the first round three times. He was a role player.
Twardzik had 7 games playoff experience.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Those were the veterans that Ramsay has constantly cited
as providing experience to the younger core of players during their playoff run
IT’s not a way to build a playoff team, but it worked out well back in ’77
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Fine
Doesn’t change the fact that one of them had no playoff experience and the other had very little. It actually just supports the fact that playoff experience is important but not everything.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Playoff experience is important. He said it.
These myths are generalities, and as generalities they offer general rules which you break at your own risk.
The race does always go to the fastest … but that’s the way to bet.
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
I don't get what you are arguing against
I didn’t say playoff experience wasn’t valuable, just that it isn’t necessary for every key player to have it.
Sounds like you are agreeing with me, actually.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
you say myths must always be true, i say they are important rules, but rules are meant to be broken
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
We see them more as...guidelines
I’d like to think that the NBA is changing and the 4 myths that jscot has mentioned will vanish like the pirates eventually were eradicated from the Caribbean…but as long as the TV execs have Stern in their pocket and the refs are being paid by the league, I’ll be holdin’ onto me treasure map and whettin’ me cutlass
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I hope you read that entire comment aloud....
…in a pirate voice
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on May 17, 2010 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Just the title and the last sentence
Those scurvy L*kers and Celtics may be a-meetin’ agin on Treasure Island this June…perchance Davy Stern has aforeseen this, me maties?
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on May 17, 2010 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
R
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
rec
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
by jscot on May 17, 2010 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
R-r-rec your r-r-rec
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
All ye who refuse to believe the legend of the NBA Flying Playoff Dutchman
Will be forever cursed to inhabit the depths of Davy Stern’s locker, every spring time ’neath these waters
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Sigh . . and just when I had given you an escape hatch . . .
Dallas is a big market for . . . Football. How were the TV ratings in the NBA 2006 Miami-Dallas final? The third lowest in the prime-time era bested by only San Antonio. In Texas, Football is the only sport and the rest is filler. There might be more interest in the Cowboys rookie mini-camp after the draft than in the Mavericks playoff games. Dallas is not the team you want in the finals. LA is the only national draw in the west. Phoenix might be 2nd. Both have larger than life leaders. Dallas? not so much. (before you say Jason Kidd you might know that the 2nd worst TV series ever was the New Jersey San Antonio series).
You picked San Antonio for two bruisers – I guess you don’t mean Matt Bonner. Referring to the player misguided zealots panted for last summer, he averaged 9 min 3 points and 3 rebounds against Phoenix so do you still think he qualifies as a bruiser? Tim Duncan was still the best PF in the series with Phoenix but not the bruiser we are used to. Still after so long a time at the pinnacle Tim can be called anything he wants. It was hard to see Tim fall from such a lofty perch to an offensive rating of 104 and a defensive rating of 107. Tim does not count as “lots of bruisers”. As for the remaining list of go-home teams cited above the point still stands.
As for experience the point still holds that teams without experience (the myth) do not win still holds and the point still holds that none of the individuals you noted is in the conference finals let alone the NBA finals. You have not damaged this “myth”. You have not even damaged a “straw-man” myth mutant of an individual level.
Now before I address the end of your post I will gladly concede that your tenacious repartee gift is beyond my skill level and thus this thread is unworthy of your efforts. Good night my friend.
Blair and McDyess
are the guys people were longing for last year.
Add those to Duncan and you hardly have a lightweight front line. It’s pretty obvious San Antonio had more strength along the front line than Phoenix, but that’s not the be all and end all of playoff success.
As to experience, I’ve already admitted that I wasn’t clear, and that my point was that individuals without playoff experience can be valuable and important contributors in the playoffs. The myth that you can’t go into the playoffs relying on any players without experience is simply that, a myth. You have answered, on this, a point I wasn’t trying to make at all.
Dragic, Frye, Dudley, and Amundson are all playing significant roles and are in the WCF without any real playoff experience prior to this year. JJ Redick filled a key role for Orlando last year despite only 21 minutes of playoff experience prior to that. Rajon Rondo started for a championship team at the point without any prior playoff experience. Kendrick Perkins played 25 mpg for the same team with a grand total of 28 prior playoff minutes.
The idea, as sometimes expressed on Bedge, that you can’t go into the playoffs with a rookie as your backup at PG or PF or wherever, is simply unfounded. Rookies and other young players without playoff experience do fine every year. Talent and coaching are a better determinant of success than experience.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
I would not argue that multiple styles can be succsesful except that size matters
Where one team is bigger and able to control the boards, other factors being relatively equal, that bigger team will dominate. If they can dominate down low the points in the paint will wear the other team down, trading jump shot for dunk and put-back (higher % shots). Too many years of watching Kareem and Shaq dominate have left the lasting perception that you don’t want to be out-sized in the playoffs. According to Kenny and Sir Charles, the Utah team lost for this reason this week. A team needs better rebounding and size to counter the post-up moves. Big Baby certainly gained an advantage over Cleveland with size and agility. He would qualify as a bruiser? Perkins was able to counter Shaq in game 5. Perkins would qualify as a bruiser.
Most here agree that with Greg healthy (and Roy) the Blazers this year would have played in the WCF. Greg poses a threat to the league much like Dwight Howard is doing in Orlando. Agile, strong and long these two players will force teams to have at least two players who can slow them down while accumulating 6 fouls apiece. Incidently, Amundson might well qualify as a bruiser. Pendergraph is a player on the Portland roster who will project to match that description as early as next year.
When I see San Antonio run out of the gym, the only size they had seemed trumped by torrid outside shooting and mobility. Blair did not play much because there was nobody he could guard (essentially proving your point). McDyess proved the same point that Juwan Howard experienced – in a playoff series, young agile legs can wear an older player out and they are no longer able to counter the bruiser. I am an admirer of McDyess and Howard but their days have passed and even in their prime I don’t think I would characterize them as bruisers but more finesse players. .
The success of Dudley, Amundson and Frye would seem to be totally dependent on the presence of Nash and Hill and Richardson and Stoudemire., veterans who bring the experience and allow those role players to flourish off the opponent’s rest time. The same goes for Rondo and Perkins in the championship year. They thrived on the play of KG, Ray and Paul taking up the bulk of the load. Both are good illustrations of the experience factor comparing that year to this year with Rondo moving from role player to key spark plug and Perkins playing with far more strength and smarts. Two years ago Shaq would have taken 10 minutes to run Perkins off the floor but in the finals only the puffy Gasol was there to bother him. Now he counters Shaq enough to force bad shots and somewhat contain him.
As far as JJ Redick is concerned he could do only one thing – spot-up shooting. Since he averaged 6 points per game on 37% FG% in the playoffs last year (he did not even play in Orlando’s single win in the finals) he does not seem to be a candidate for playoff accolades or key role.
by lee3022 on May 13, 2010 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Reading your last paragraph again brings me to agree that it is not critical as a backup to have that experience
However, absent the experience a rookie is more prone to self doubt when he misses several shots in a row (as is his coach in many instances). I did admire coach Gentry for how he handled Dragic this year and allowed him to retain that confidence. That coaching mentality is refreshing and certainly not the norm.
by lee3022 on May 13, 2010 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd agree with this
other factors being relatively equal, that bigger team will dominate
If you lack size, you will have to make it up with other factors, without a doubt.
How much size is necessary is, of course, open to question. If you have Dwight Howard, you may not need much more. If you have a healthy and productive Greg Oden and a productive LaMarcus Aldridge, you may not need much more, either, depending on who you have at the smaller positions.
But obviously, if you also have a Joel Przybilla and/or a Marcus Camby to bring off the bench, you are creating even more problems for your opponents. This was not a “small ball is the way to go” post, after all. There are people who say Greg, Joel, and LaMarcus isn’t enough size, but that is more size than Phoenix, Orlando, and Boston, and comparable to what Cleveland and L.A. can put on the court.
As to experience, lack of experience is something you have to overcome, but it isn’t a killer. I’m sure we agree on this — most rookies and/or playoff rookies who are on successful teams are surrounded by veterans. They might be starters, they might even be in crucial roles, but they have plenty of vets around to help them not get caught up in the pressure.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
You go, lee!
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
SA has Blair and Duncan. Utah has Boozer. Dallas? Haywood and Dampier. Those are all bruisers
by collectiveshane on May 12, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but he said it that if you have a bruiser you do well, but if you don't, then you don't do well
by collectiveshane on May 13, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
You gotta have bruisers to do well.
It doesn’t logically follow that if you do have bruisers, you will do well.
What logically follows is that if you do not have bruisers, you will not do well.
Shaq had a decent series against Boston. Another one of him, they might have done something.
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
The cavs were 21 and 4 without Shaq (until they rested Lebron and played shaq at end of the season)
love shaq, but I think he hurt them sometimes
by collectiveshane on May 18, 2010 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Not a fan of Shaq, but he gave them a tough inside presence that no one else did against the Celtics
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
Stern here!
I don’t have my creds yet on BE, so I’m using this jerk’s nom de plume to get in my two cents worth. Now that the riff-raff is out of the way, here is what I want for the finals: Orlando is clearly the best team left, but are boring in their efficiency and trips to the line; and the C’s are, well, OLD. I don’t really care who gets in. Out west, the Lakers have Kobe, but as we saw in the Cavs series one guy is not everything. The team that will really carry the crowd in TV land is the run-and-gun Suns. I’ve instructed the refs and the scorers table guys to get them in. Mark my words — it’s a DONE DEAL!!!
Thanks for the heads up!
It is more than you’ve ever done for Blazer fans, anywhere.
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
How about this one that Lebron keeps finding out the hard way: the reg season doesn't mean shizz
Playoffs are a different animal. Funny I didn’t see Lebron dancing and shooting with his fake video camera.
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
#3 & #4 may be playoff myths...
But they are championship FACTS.
Trade for Ronny Turiaf.
by IndustrialRevolution on May 14, 2010 12:59 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
76-77 Trailblazers
More recently, Rajon Rondo played a key role for the Celtics in the championship without any playoff experience.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
Yeah there are always a few exceptions bud ;)
Trade for Ronny Turiaf.
by IndustrialRevolution on May 14, 2010 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions
If there are exceptions
then these requirements (must have experience, must have shortened rotations) aren’t facts.
If you want to say they are the most frequent or most likely path to success, that would be accurate. With shortened rotations, for instance, we would then ask “why”?
Are shortened rotations more often the norm because there is something inherently better about playing fewer players, or is it just that rarely does a team have enough depth to have ten players who can be valuable contributors at the very highest level of NBA basketball?
If it is the former, then you should always plan on shortened rotations. If it is the latter, then the shortened rotation myth should have no bearing on roster construction. If you’ve got the depth, use it rather than dump it.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
You are talking one guy on the Celtics and implying that Rondo is a counter-example?
That’s one guy, surrounded by perhaps the deepest experience level in the NBA playing at a historically great franchise. Rondo is not a counterexample. A TEAM of Rondos would be a counterexample.
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
I'm going to try to explain this one more time
I explained it several times above, but I’ll explain it again, anyway.
You can go into the playoffs with inexperienced players in key roles and still succeed. There are those who said last year we needed an experienced backup PF, that we had to have experience in that role. It is not true.
Inexperienced players can have great success in the playoffs, even playing vital roles on a championship team. Rondo is a great example of that.
You will note in the original post that I did not mention an inexperienced team. I mentioned inexperienced players who are playing on teams with lots of experience — and succeeding. Proves my point perfectly.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
See my comments on general rules vs absolutes, above
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
If we get another Lakers-Celtics final
Your argument is invalid. :P
"Seek the wisdom of the ages, but look at the world through the eyes of a child."
-Ron Wild
LeBron is out
My argument on #1 is proven.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#10 #52 -- #5 #7 & #88 are back!
LeBron is out because Davy Stern wants him to move to a decent media market
"I'm passing it down," Howard said. "Showing the guys that, hey, here's an example of a guy who played 16 years. If you don't want to listen and get the valuable, free information from him - soak it up like a sponge - then you've got to be a damn fool."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
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
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
