Darlin', Don't You Go and Cut Your Hair

(This is a continuation of my blossoming twitter bromance with @Clintonite33 . Read him at SLC Dunk. http://www.slcdunk.com/2010/3/30/1397741/the-key-to-kobe-bryant )

Kobe's about to hit the 39k mark in about half a season. This doesn't take into account playoff minutes, which put him just a hair over 43k. 43,000 minutes played against the most vicious basketball competition on Earth. We'll ignore his Olympic minutes, though those have contributed to the wear and tear on the Implacable Man.

2,863 minutes per regular season.

(Assuming he plays every game for the rest of the season) 79.2 games per regular season, at 36.6 minutes a game. Take into account the fact that his first two seasons he only played about 3,000 minutes combined, which would be a god damn vacation for the man at this point.

I may not like Kobe, but I respect his style of play immensely, and his work ethic and sheer determination are dumbfounding.

That said, his body is going to start falling apart very quickly. He doesn't drive to the basket nearly as much as he has in the past, and his decline will soon be evident in other aspects of his game. It won't happen overnight, though. It'll be gradual, and like all great declining stars, he will be forced to adapt.

This summer, he learned the Dream Shake. One, that's super cool and makes me jealous that I can't Megaman from NBA stars. Two, it indicates that he knows that he'll lose a step, and like latter-day Jordan, he'll be making his points in the paint.

If he's determined to follow the trajectory of Jordan's career to a T, this is probably his best bet. He's got the size to be a small forward, and he can still get his jumpers in. He'll probably lead the league in FG%, just to prove that he can. Kobe will be hoisting whatever team that will take him onto his back, marching into the sunset until his ACLs disintegrate and he burns out brightly, averaging 18 points, 6 rebounds, and 2 assists a game.

(For what it's worth, I think Kobe will always be able to drop 20 in a game, even if not consistently. As someone who flirted with the Kings in his youth and currently follows the Spurs, it's guaranteed that Kobe will get his. I've seen it happen over and over.)

That would be boring, though, and Kobe always had the potential to be something cool and different than Jordan. I am, of course, referring to Frobe Bryant:



25-6-6, team player, clutch shooter, controversy free. Just quietly competitive and trying to get his. Mmm, early Kobe. Also a more than competent defensive stopper.











Yes, I know he doesn't have the afro in that one. That's beside the point.

Imagine if Kobe Bryant decided that he'd fulfill a role not dissimilar to the one he held on the 2008 Olympic team. He'd probably get DPOY, mostly because name recognition, but he'd also be a significant asset to whatever team he was on. Unfortunately, his focus is on being the #1 option on his team, and he wants to be the guy for his team. This probably won't happen.

Of course, this pride is going to lead Kobe on a path that's a little bit Jordan and a little bit different. Kobe will go the way of John Stockton.

"But Greg," you might say, you being the three people who read this blog, "why would he be like John Stockton? Is this because a bunch of Jazz fans have started following you?"

"Yes," I would reply. "But also for another good reason, which I will type instead of speak to you."

Stockton put up scarily consistent numbers. From 87-88 (what I would term his breakout year, as he started 70+ games for the first time) to his retirement in 02-03, his per 36 scoring average is 15.15625. I put up that full number because the standard deviation for these stats is approximately 4.02077936. The biggest deviation in that time span is 0.36 standard deviations away from the norm. For those of you who aren't statistic nerds, that means his scores varied, at most, 14.06% from the mean.

For those of you who aren't math nerds, this means that John Stockton, for 16 years, varied, at most, 2 points from the same production (points-wise) that he had when he was 25. This is, in a word, absurd. His steals appear to be somewhat similar, but I'm too lazy to calculate that at this minute.

Stockton was renowned for his offseason conditioning, which led him to put up consistently good numbers for his entire career (This is a bit of an understatement. Steals and Assists leader, all-time, beating 2nd place by a very comfortable margin, not to mention that he was starting at the age of 40 without being the general manager of a team.). Kobe is also renowned for his work ethic. While not exactly the model of consistency that Stockton is, Kobe has averaged over 20 points a game since the turn of the century, and, save for 03-04, he's averaged at least 25 since 00-01. Kobe is consistently good, and it's unlikely he'll take a sharp decline, but given that Stockton was never the #1 option on his team (The Mailman averaged 20+ from his sophomore year onwards) and never had to carry the Jazz all on his own, Kobe is slowly unraveling at the seams.

That's where the Jordan comes back in. By slowly adjusting his playing style to a more perimeter oriented affair (pre-Wizards, post-72 wins) and maintaining his Stockton-like regiment, Kobe might just beat back Father Time for another 3 or 4 years.

That said, Stockton peaked at 37.8 minutes per game, the year that he set the single season assist record. Kobe is set to break that barrier for the tenth time this season, and as mentioned before, averages just under a minute less than that for his entire career. Can the Lakers survive with Kobe playing 8 minutes less per game next season? Can Kobe survive with not being needed? It all reads like a horrid day time soap, especially this last one: if they can't, can both of them survive Kobe retiring at 36, completely broken down?

Transformers: Off Guards in Disguise

Chris Paul and Darren Collison come in at about 12'0 combined. When the Hornets drafted Collison, the assumption was that Collison would be Paul's backup, and until Paul's knee failed him, so it went, and it was pretty alright.

Let's focus on Collison for a minute. Off the bench, he averages about 15 mpg, with 6 ppg and 2.4 apg. Good numbers for a substitute who's going to receive fairly limited minutes. Chris Paul carries the team on his handsome shoulders, and even if they're splitting the minutes between Paul and Collison almost exactly, with only one in the game at a time, and always having one at the point, CP3 is getting 33 minutes of burn every game. Enough to make a difference, not so much that CP3 is falling apart at the seams by the playoffs. (Don Nelson could learn something from this approach.)

Of course, Collison took over the starting position when Paul went out, and as a starter, he averaged 40 mpg with 18.2 ppg and 9.0 apg. Also worth noting that his 3P% jumped from a feeble 29% to a scorching 41%. The increased shooting from long range, I would assume, would be from more minutes allowing him to get into a shooting groove and from better decision making that comes from getting burn.

This was all well and good, and everyone was pretty impressed with Collison for stepping into CP3's shoes and everything not immediately collapsing. The revelation that is Marcus Thornton probably did not hurt, either. The two have powerful chemistry on the court, and I've already discussed on this blog how devastating Thornton is.

And then, Chris Paul came back. I thought it was a bad idea, as the last time he was injured, he came back too early to push his team to the playoffs and reinjured himself. With no hope of the playoffs, it seemed like CP3 was just going to hurt himself again. Of course, what I didn't realize was that the Hornets coaching staff could possibly be using this time to see how Collison and Paul would interact directly.

[Now, here's my little disclaimer: I've argued that Marcus Thornton should be a sixth man in the recent past, and I've realized that this is, well, dumb. The Hornets need to build their secondary from the ground up. Their foundation should probably be Collison, because he's an excellent point guard.]

I'm not a real Hornets fan, so I haven't taken the time to watch Chris Paul since his first night back, which was a pretty dull affair. It's to be expected of a guy shaking off injury rust. I blearily saw the last few minutes of the Lakers-Hornets game last night because I received a phone call telling me that Kobe was about to foul out, and my being is fueled by schadenfreude.

However, through my sleep encrusted eyes, I noticed that Collison and Paul were playing together, which I thought was strange. Small ball is a valid-ish strategy, but Collison and Paul are already considered undersized as point guards. They played very well together, though. As my twitter associate Clintonite33 (who actually inspired this post, and whom you should follow... http://twitter.com/Clintonite33) pointed out, Paul and Collison each had a game high adjusted +/- of +14, combined for a +23 when they were on the court together, and (here's the wild part) they outscored LA 49-16 while together on the court.

I've always liked Chris Paul's game. He's a pure point guard who can take over games from a scoring perspective if he needs to. I've also liked Collison's game. He's also a pure point guard who can take over games from a scoring perspective. I also thought that if they played together, they'd end up cancelling each other out, as conventional wisdom would state that given that both are point guards, they need the ball in their hands most of the time to be effective.

I, of course, had not taken into account that they can (and will) light up the scoreboard if opposing teams play off them. Doubling up on the point guards created matchup problems for LA, because Paul and Collison are lightning quick. Artest can defend down to the shooting guard position, but Collison is too fast for him to handle. Kobe is the only feasible defender for opposing point guards, as Farmar and Fisher can't defend shit. Odom might have been fast enough back in his Miami days, but his defense has fallen by the wayside. They worked the Lakers last night, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Also worth noting is that in the last 5 games, Collison's assists have dipped a bit (5.8 vs. 9.0), but his scoring has remained consistent with when he was a starter (18.2), and his FG% and 3P% have gone up (47% and 41% to 58% and 63%, respectively) , and this is all despite the fact he's playing 10 less minutes per game. He seems to have shifted into his new position off of the bench nicely. Part of this is that he's still been playing at the point, but he's also been playing with Chris Paul and meshing nicely. The three guard rotation of the Hornets is scarily potent. I would not expect Marcus Thornton to relinquish his position as starter, especially given how well he's performed there (19.2 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 2.3 apg), but he doesn't really need to. Any combination of the three (Paul/Thornton, Paul/Collison, Collison/Thornton) has proven to be effective, and it makes an interesting case for having multiple young PGs on any given team.

It's a radical idea, not unlike the Wildcat offense or even the spread offense once were in football. The desire to innovate is a natural one, as it leads to an effective offense, simply because no one else has devised a counter for it. The end result of a dual PG offense would be the ability to either constantly push the tempo or reign it back in control at the expense of size. It's an odd combination of small ball and having a point forward. If you have two players who can handle the ball, then that's two players who can run the offense. It's impractical for an entire game, but it's good as a change of pace strategy. It may never catch on, or it might set the league ablaze. For now, it's too new to tell, and even though it beat the Lakers last night, it could just be a fluke. It's won a single game, but nobody knows if it can be sustained for an entire season. The idea seems new even to the Hornets. It may not have even been their intent to do things this way.

That said, in the petri dish of the NBA...

Zac Efron has terrible form.

Delving away from the hard line that this blog usually takes, I wanted to talk about the phenomenon of actors playing basketball players in movies that are unrelated to basketball.

It's very convenient for film makers, because hockey is far removed from the spotlight and football requires a very select body type, and no one wants to watch a movie starring an offensive lineman.

I mean, not without Sandra Bullock.

So, anyways, basketball. Actors generally range from 5'5 to about 6'4. Any taller and they only get cast in bit parts. In basketball, contrary to popular wisdom, you can be more or less any height and play point guard, which just so happens to make an easy parallel to being a quarterback. Hollywood likes things that the audience can understand. If this guy is a brash, take charge fellow, he'll be a shoot-first guy in the mold of Allen Iverson or Stephon Marbury. If he's compassionate and a do-gooder, he'll be Jason Kidd, fascilitating for his teammates. If he's black, he'll play like Pete Maravich. It's all very confusing.

Ever since Hoosiers broke the color barrier (by making it okay for white guys to play basketball and be plucky and likeable) and Muggsy Bogues broke the height barrier (by showing that short guys were in fact capable of playing basketball and even blocking Patrick Ewing), it's been cool to show white guys in movies and have a brief note of them being a star point guard on a basketball team. It's much easier to sell someone as Steve Nash then as Doug Flutie.

I'd also like to take this space to say that Common looks like Stephon Marbury. The fact that he plays on the Nets in that Just Wright movie makes me think that he's going to lead the production crew to a box office bomb and leave for another movie because he's not getting paid as much as Queen Latifah.

I'll still see it, because hey, Dwight Howard.

Close, Low, Bright Eyes Fading

If I had to pick a team to become a fan of based solely on play from this season, I'd pick the Atlanta Hawks, glance longingly at OKC, but be satisfied with my decision. I'd second guess it a few times, but ultimately cling to the ATL for the long term. It's not that they're stacked at every position (Bibby has lost whatever magical powers his Sacramento outfit bestowed upon him, and their front court consists of players who are all pretty much playing out of position. You can't tell me Al Horford wouldn't make an excellent PF.) but that they all seem to mesh together, and they play a legitimately exciting form of basketball, without being too flashy or being too much of a Goliath to root for.

[/end love letter to Hawks]

Anyways, I think Josh Smith is a bonafide candidate for Defensive Player of the Year (even with his blocks slightly down from his career average, he's playing some of the best defense of his career right now off the ball), and Jamal Crawford should be the front-runner for Sixth Man of the Year (18 ppg in 30 minutes off the bench, not even taking into acount the clutch threes or when he decides to rain buckets upon everyone's head).

So, what this post is really about is my belief that either Al Horford or Josh Smith could be considered Most Improved Player for 09-10.

I consider Smith a candidate because he dramatically improved his shot selection (career high in FG%) and his off-ball defense. He doesn't dominate games on offense, though he can take over when he needs to, and he's found a healthy balance between taking advantage of his physical gifts and being a multi-dimensional player. Most importantly, he hasn't taken a three all season. As a lifetime 26.6% three point shooter, it's a sign of maturation on his part. One wishes that Charles Barkley (who put up identical three point numbers) would have taken the same hint.

Al Horford is a candidate because of the way he impacts games on both ends of the floor. He crashes the ever-loving FUCK out of the offensive boards (2.8 per game, though it always feels like more.) He also seems to be developing a nice little face-up jumper that's been useful from the high post when he grabs a long rebound.

Both players are impacting their team in positive ways that they had not been in the past. Unfortunately, I don't know exactly how the league decides on MIP beyond the fact that it's put to a vote not dissimilar to the MVP voting. What I do know is that the voters seem to put an emphasis on improved numbers. Without looking at advanced metrics, Josh Smith and Al Horford have put up seasons that are both consistent with the 08-09 campaign and their career averages.

Do voters care about intangibles? If they do, Smith and Horford are probably going to get knocked out of the way by Zach Randolph, great teammate and patrolman of the glass.

That said, I consider them candidates, not front runners. Grabbing a few votes or even just being considered is a pretty big deal, a sort of moral victory. They deserve it, even if other players deserve it more.

Nonphysical Mind

The Timberwolves have an outstanding frontcourt, a few potentially elite guards, a swingman poised for a breakout season, and something called a Darko Milicic that's capable of 16 and 12 with a block in less than 30 minutes of playing time.

It does not gel, though. Is it the triangle offense? Is it the feeling of despair that 2/3rds of their decent guards are either in Spain or suffering a legendary sophomore slump?

I dunno. They've got some talent, but I don't know how they could really pull anything together. They need a shooting guard and a small forward and for Al Jefferson and Kevin Love to get along. It's all moot, though. They'd have to draft or trade for what they need, because Minnesota, for whatever reason, is not an attractive destination to free agents.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure no one is jumping up to be the next Kevin Garnett. At least, not in the drag-your-team-kicking-and-screaming-to-near-victory way.

And why should they? Carrying your team is a shitton of work. Do you think Lebron would have been able to keep going at his current rate if he had three more seasons like 2007, where his number 2 and 3 options were Larry Hughes and Zydrunas Ilgauskas? I love Big Z, but he shouldn't be the third option on the offense. Also, Eric Snow: really nice guy, doesn't turn the ball over, scrappy defender, shiny head. All major pluses. Is he a starting caliber point guard on a team that's going to win a title? 76ers and Cavs say no.

Also worth mentioning is that he was Gary Payton's backup for two and a half years, where his chief job was keeping things from going to shit while the Glove took a break and not setting himself on fire.

Tangent.

Coming back now.

Basketball is a five-on-five game. Everything must gel. Your superstar cannot do it alone. You can have a star backing them up (Jordan-Pippen, Stockton-Malone), two great players (Duncan-Ginobili-Parker, Garnett-Allen-Pierce, Bird-Parish-McHale, Oscar-Kareem-Kareem wearing Dick Cunningham's uniform), or a legion of decent-to-good role players (Dwyane Wade [when they're actually winning], Chris Webber). Part of that is being able to trust your teammates with the ball. There have only been four people to ever lead their team in all four statistical categories: Lebron James, Scottie Pippen, Kevin Garnett, and Dave Cowens. None of them won a championship doing it.

How does this affect Minnesota?

It doesn't. They don't have anyone good enough to carry their team. Maybe that's the problem. Triangle offenses tend to work better with superstars in them.

Shaky Resolve

I'm a Spurs fan. It's not an obsession, and I don't partake in partisan schadenfreude that so many others do, save for the Lakers, because their fans tend to be boorish. I save my perverse delight in misery for football season.

That said, I like to watch the Spurs dominate. A close game coming down to a buzzer beater is a thrill, certainly, but watching the Spurs use Popovich's defensive schemes to perfection happens to be the reason is the reason I became a fan of the team in the first place. For whatever reason, I like watching another team held to 35% shooting as their stars begin to throw tiny temper tantrums as they flail against the might of a 2-3 zone with flawless man-help.

I got to see that for about 30 minutes last night. I was ecstatic for those 30 minutes. It was a brush of glory with the championship teams of Spurs lore. All around, the Spurs held the Heat to under 80 points on 39% shooting, and most teams would consider that a triumph.

Of course, the Spurs decided to shit the bed with a 24 point lead. 14 turnovers in the second half combined with a 20-2 run brought the Heat within 6 points of a gigantic comeback. Watching the game, it felt all but inevitable. George Hill was making bad decisions with the ball, and Manu was the only player who looked like he gave a shit.

Granted, this could be memory filling in here, but the Spurs got their shit pushed in that second half. They were only outscored by 6 in the second half, but it felt like much, much more. The Heat were hungry, and the Spurs were not. When I talked about blowouts earlier, I mentioned how some teams will bite and claw their way back into contention. The Heat seem entirely capable of that, even if they are essentially fueled by Dwyane Wade's will and the expiring contract of Jermaine O'Neal. The Spurs were missing a point guard and still managed to lock down, but they couldn't manage to rip out the jugular. They managed to get the game back in control after getting D-Wade in foul trouble, but that's what they should've been doing... after the timeout that they should've called before the offensive foul that Richard Jefferson should not have allowed himself to commit.

But there's a reason that the teams play all 48 minutes. The Spurs squeaked out a double-digit win, despite their best efforts to sabotage themselves. This is not what a team bound for the finals looks like.

Gunnin' for That #8 Spot

Getting to the playoffs is a pretty big deal, moreso in the Western conference than the Eastern. Hate to play up the West coast, but seriously, would you rather be competing against the Trail Blazers, Spurs, Suns, Thunder, Rockets, and Grizzlies for a seed or against the Raptors, Bucks, Bulls, Bobcats, and Heat?

Not that it really matters. The parity in the east is such that if you sneak in there (the eighth seed) and you're not based out of Charlotte, you're starting your offseason in late April. No '99 Knicks or '07 Warriors to worry about here.

I digress. This post is about the Hornets, and more specifically, Chris Paul's injury. I'm guessing that he probably came back from his injury too soon the first time, which led to the second one.

(I'm not a medical expert, and I don't remember enough about it to definitively say that, but that's the assumption that I'm operating under, and if it's inaccurate, please, let me know.)

So, he came back too soon and re-injured his knee. Understandable before surgery, common mistake to make. Most NBA players want to play basketball, no matter what Vince Carter may make you believe, and will risk (re)injury to do so. His team was in the playoff hunt, and that was a decision that made sense for Chris Paul (20 points, 11 assists, dominant force on his team, loves winning) and the Hornets (playoffs good for business, also enjoy winning because it is good for business, chance to unload ugly, ugly contracts during the offseason which is good for the team). Now, the Hornets are valiantly grasping for a .500 record, 5.5 games away from the eighth seed. Probably not the best time to bring your star back and risk further injury. There is nothing wrong with a lottery pick, which would be a cheap influx of talent when your team is desperately in need of both tax relief and a deeper bench. I'm not saying tank, but missing the playoffs would not be the worst thing in the world. Take consolation in Jan Vesely, Stanley Robinson, or Larry Sanders (Go Rams!). There are definitely worse things...

...like ending up with a lower draft pick, a first round playoff exit, and a star player with chronic knee injuries.

Just let Darren Collison do the heavy lifting for now. It'll all be okay. Next year will be better.

On Charges

From my point of view, taking a charge is the best defensive play you can make. Besides reversing the flow of play, it puts a foul on the player who gives the charge (and given that they're in a position to be charging, it's likely that this is one of their better scoring options), it negates any basket, and it gives the ball to the team that takes the charge. It's a wonder that more players don't take them.

Well, for one, few refs are going to call the charge every single time. It's a controversial call, and refs are hesitant to shift momentum in such a manner, unless it helps the NBA's ratings. Two, it's incredibly difficult to get into position fast enough and not get called for blocking. Sometimes a little bit of deceptiveness takes place (see: Jermaine O'Neal shifted right just as Kobe was getting to the basket. More on this later), but that's the rule and not the exception when it comes to defense, Bobby Jones be damned.

Finally, charges are immensely taxing on the body. Taking a charge hurts. Plus, if you're in the proper position to take a charge, you're falling straight on your ass with nothing to break the fall, and if you're in the wrong position, you're landing on your spine and your skull. Bad in most cases.

Also worth noting is the negative stigma that comes from taking charges. While players who are willing to take the charge are endlessly praised by their own team (what with the defensive hustle and testicular fortitude necessary to absorb the force of a 6'9, 280 pound object barreling into you), it's fairly common (and understandable, if not necessarily true) for coaches to pick up a T in the course of bitching over a charging foul that should have been a blocking foul. And for what it's worth, I'd estimate a good 70% of charging/blocking calls could go either way. Therefore, getting a charge: pretty big deal. Players who are/were notable for taking charges either get categorized into defensive workhorses (Battier, Bowen, Ben Wallace) or tough guys who are willing to 'block shots' in their own special way (Iverson, Nash, Fisher.) Then again, if they're European/foreign, they're dirty, dirty floppers (Ginobili, Nocioni, Varejao, Bell, Kirilenko, Divac [Well... if the shoe fits...])

So, Jermaine O'Neal, who has taken at least 100 charges (and that's a conservative estimate) throughout his career, comes up with probably the biggest regular-season charge of his career. I can't find a video of it. I assume that all copies of the tape have been destroyed, as there can be no trace of Kobe committing a crunch-time error.*

This is one of those defensive plays that gets no love on Sportscenter, because it wasn't a monster block (and to be fair, it's no fun watching people take charges unless they're Andrei Kirilenko), but it gave Miami the ball back with 18.7 seconds to go and forced Los Angeles to foul. The Lakers were now demoralized, and momentum shifted back to the Heat. It'd be hyperbole to call it the play of the game, but I don't think it'd be inaccurate to say that O'Neal's charge is what clinched it for the Heat, put them at .500 and 1.5 games ahead of Charlotte, and put them in a position where other teams in the Eastern Conference must take them seriously-ish. Will they get eliminated in four by the Cavs? Certainly. They'll be scraping up the remains of Quentin Richardson from the floor and fashioning him into a hat for Steve Nash to make stylish. But they beat the best collection of talent in the NBA, and that counts for something, even if just their pride.

Way to take one for the team, Jermaine.




*As I mentioned before, O'Neal definitely shifted to the right as Kobe was coming in, and it should've been a blocking foul. I'll let it slide because it gives me an excuse to talk about charging, and for every other 800 times this season that a superstar will get a call they don't deserve when they barrel into the lane, don't have a shot, and end up throwing the ball out of bounds on an ill-conceived layup attempt. You know who you are.

St. Jude

So, the Rockets are hovering at .500. This is what was expected of the club, if not more. With Yao out and Dikembe retired, they were hopelessly thin at center and proceeded to go on one of their scrappy tears through the league, as the Rockets are wont to do.

When your marquee players (McGrady and Yao) are fragile, this sort of thing is to be expected. Yao is a force when he's healthy, so it's tempting to wonder how good the Rockets would be with him actually healthy and on the roster. The problem, of course, is that 7 footers are fragile. 6'11 seems to be the cutting off point, as Dwight Howard has never suffered severe injuries and there are scores of players that height and shorter that seem to be perfectly fine. Past that point, there are a litany of big man injuries. The only one who comes to mind as being relatively healthy throughout his career would be Hakeem, whose only notable injury would be a broken eye socket from Bill Cartwright (likely envious of Hakeem's durability, as Cartwright [checking in at 7'1] had fractured his left foot four seperate times. So it goes.)

7 footers are definitely a valuable commodity. They don't have to worry very much about pump fakes, they clog the paint, and if you get a skilled one (Abdul-Jabbar, Olajuwon, Robinson, etc.), you can build a dynasty. Of course, you'll probably only get about 60-70 games out of them a season, but hey, that's nothing too terrible, as long as they're healthy for the playoffs (or so Shaq would have you believe.)

Of course, because of their injuries and their GM (who I will refrain from lathering in praise), the Rockets have decided to center themselves around being as efficient a team as is possible. To a degree, they are successful. Their players play solid defense, they take a lot of good shots, and except for Trevor Ariza, they don't take a lot of bad ones. They've gotten one of the most efficient shooting guards in the game in Kevin Martin (though they gave up one of the most efficient sixth men in the league to do so), and so far, their GM seems to have enacted his plan to near perfection.

So, why are they only a .500 team? Well, the best plans don't mean much if you don't have the talent to just get it done. Aaron Brooks is promising and about to come into his prime. Kevin Martin is a great second option on offense and can be your first option if you need him to be, but he's never been a great defender and that probably won't change. Luis Scola is good, but he's probably not an All-Star. He could be a starter for a playoff team, though, as could Ariza. Chuck Hayes is a good defender and the Rockets don't give up too much in the way there, but he's not Yao.

So, the Rockets will continue to play through the season, clawing at the playoffs and hoping that the Hornets, Grizzlies, and Trail Blazers have a meltdown. Then they wait for next year, pray that Yao stays healthy through May, and they make a thoroughly efficient run at the title. Not entirely hopeless. In fact, it's somewhat promising.

Given the history of this sort of thing, though, praying to St. Jude might not be a horrid idea for Houston fans.

Five-Tool Player

Kevin Durant can shoot, drive, dribble, pass, and rebound. That's pretty much everything you could want out of a Small Forward. He doesn't rack up a lot of assists, but his passes get to where they need to, and he racks up a lot of (as other sportswriters like to say) hockey assists. He's unselfish and his relationship with his teammates both on and off the court is outstanding. He's the total offensive package.

His defense isn't terrible. He's 6'10 with a standing reach of 9'2, and his vertical is measured a little over two feet. He'll never leap out of the gym, but his game doesn't call for that. That said, he averages less than a block a game, which seems odd. Although he doesn't have Andrei Kirilenko's absurd hops, they have similar wingspans, and besides, Kirilenko uses that length to get blocks on the weak side, as seen here:



Now, I'm aware that Kirilenko is a defensive specialist, stupidly athletic, and has a much lower profile than KD; however, Durant has enough agility to block at least one a game. 0.9 blocks per game is underwhelming. Bringing shot blocking into his repertoire would add another dimension to KD's game: he's too skinny to be a great post defender, but he could use the skill in transition defense. Plus, shot blocking is an intimidation tool. Most opposing forwards don't think twice about driving towards KD, but if they think he'll pin their shit, they might opt to pass it off or take an outside shot.

Oddly enough, he does average about a steal and a half per game, which is impressive for someone of his size, but this comes more from being able to read passing lanes fairly well and using his massive wingspan. He's not going to be up for defensive player of the year anytime soon, but he's a passable defender, and he's made leaps and bounds since college. However, he's definitely capable of lockdown defense (such as the time that he shut down Danilo Gallinari) and it'll be interesting to see him grow into a three-dimensional player.

I also should cut him some slack. He's improved his defense every year in the league, and he's only 21. He'd be up for Most Improved Player if he weren't, you know, great every year up until now (defense notwithstanding.)

As far as offense goes, Kevin Durant will do everything you want. As far as defense goes, he's more than capable of doing everything you want, but he's still learning how to do it. Perhaps more importantly, he's willing to learn if it will help his team.

Here's the real point/question of this post: if Kevin Durant is capable of producing in every major category (Points, Rebounds, Assists, Blocks, Steals), should he be? And if he doesn't, does that make him any less of a complete player?

We all have certain expectations of positions. Point guards dish out assists and grab steals; shooting guards rack up points, rebounds, assists, and occasionally steals; the small forward fills in wherever he's needed and is generally a nebulous position (Josh Smith is a premiere defender and devours shot attempts like Eddy Curry at a buffet; Lebron James is the primary distributor and facilitator for the Cavs offense; for whatever reason, they're both listed at the same position); power forwards rebound and score; centers block shots and defend the paint and grab a few rebounds while they're at it.

So, here we have a gifted player who, should he choose to focus on it, can fulfill any type of role that his team needs him to. He is infinitely adaptable, and he is in the least defined position in the NBA, filled by players ranging from Scottie Pippen to Elgin Baylor. Assuming that his primary role upon the basketball court is fulfilled (score more points than he gives up without impeding his teammates), what else should we expect from him as a player?

Kevin Durant is Kevin Durant. He can score from anywhere on the floor, he's a good teammate, and he's going to produce whatever his team needs him to. In his infinite flexibility, many different people are going to want different things from him. Better defense, better 3-point percentage, getting to the line more (I don't know how that's really possible as he gets to the line at will as is, but I digress), shot blocking, an afro, better adjusted plus/minus; even if none of these things come to pass, nobody in their right mind would call him a bust, or even say that he never lived up to his potential. As it stands, Durant is better at the best parts of his game than 90% of the league. If he sticks to shooting the lights out, driving to the lane, rebounding at a fairly good (7-ish per game) clip, and continuing to play unselfishly, he's still got a good shot of making it into the Hall of Fame. Right now, he's a supercharged Alex English, and that's not exactly a bad thing to be.

The dream of infinite possibilities is just that: a dream. Durant is an astoundingly versatile player, but he uses that creativity to find different ways to score. That versatility will allow himself to reinvent himself as a player should he see a need to. The Kevin Durant of ten years from now might be entirely different than the Kevin Durant you know now. The Kevin Durant of three years from now might be entirely different. Or he might be the same.

Do I think KD is capable of averaging a good 1.5 swats per game? Yeah, absolutely. Do I think he will? No. Do I wish he will? I'm not sure. I like the KD we have now, but to stagnate is to die in the NBA. He'll adapt and evolve, and his body was built for basketball. He'll pick up new tricks. The seeming certainty of this statement may be why he's so captivating to watch.

Positionality.

I'm not really sure what position George Hill plays. He starts at the 2, logs minutes at 1, and can defend up to the 3 because of his 6'9 wingspan. When Tony Parker isn't on the court (whether he's officially playing point or shooting guard), he's the one that brings the ball up the court. I'm guessing this would make him a point guard, or a combo guard.

His tremendous physical gifts make him a good defender, and he's a pretty good ball handler, and he has good scoring instincts. This might make him a shoot first point guard.

When Tony Parker is in the game, Hill slides over to the corner and becomes a spot up shooter. He's done well at this, hitting threes at a 44% clip over the past ten games, which are respectable numbers for a guy who tends to either drive to the hoop or wait for a kick out on the perimeter. This, and the fact that he doesn't ever really rack up many assists, and the fact that he was a shooting guard in college, leads me to believe that he could, in fact, be a shooting guard.

However, in 58 games, he already has 5 more assists than he did last year over the course of 77 games.

Then again, he's logged nearly 400 more minutes in those 58 games with only 5 more assists to show for it.

Sooooo... is George Hill a point guard, a combo guard, or a shooting guard?

And, more importantly, does it matter?

The Importance of Being Buckets

Marcus Thornton is a good basketball player. This is a pretty easy observation to make, as anyone who has watched a Hornets game can probably extol the virtues of this guy. He's been averaging 26.2 points per game over the past 5 on 54% shooting (overall AND on threes) in a fairly brief 33 minutes per game. This level of efficiency culminated in last night's explosion of 30 points in 27 minutes. Save for a single garbage time three, ala J.R. Smith, he was absolutely perfect from beyond the arc.

In short, the guy is red hot right now. The obvious conclusion seems to be to start him in favor of Mo Pete. For one, Morris Peterson is a pretty awful basketball player, or simply looks that way next to Thornton. Secondly, every starter had a negative adjusted plus/minus. This may indicate a change is necessary.

I disagree with that notion.

I think Marcus Thornton has a chance to be a spark plug on an otherwise exceedingly thin Hornets bench. The fact is that he had ten times as many points as the next Hornets bench player while only playing four minutes more. Posey gives out great hugs, but he's not the guy you want running your secondary. By some miracle, they've found a backcourt tandem that could definitely run the show.

Collison is doing a pretty admirable job (turnovers and all) of leading this Hornets team through what would be a horrid season under normal circumstances. NOLA may only be one game over .500, but that's without the heart and soul of their team, Chris Paul. When CP3 comes back, he'll be able to ease his way back into starter's minutes because of Collison, and eventually, he'll reclaim the job. It's a pretty good situation to come into when you're recovering from injury, and from that point on, they can sort out this somewhat favorable situation. One All-Star and two potential All-Stars in your back court is nothing to sneeze at.

The Hornets are looking at a situation where they have an explosive scorer able to come off the bench and take over when their starters are resting, or they can take him off the bench as instant offense. In that sense, I see him fulfilling a sort of Ginobili or Terry role: integral part of the team, making starter's money, but just coming off the bench and filling up the stat sheet where it needs filling. When the Hornets bring Thornton off the bench, he already knows what he's supposed to do: score, score often, and put pressure on the other team so that his teammates can get open. He already is good at his job in the ruins of what used to be the Hornets. Imagine how valuable he'll be on the Hornets when they're ready to contend.

Beyond the ridiculous bucket-getting, it's worth noting that his game seems fairly polished already, and given that it's his rookie season, he's probably only going to get better.

Could he thrive in a starting role? I wouldn't doubt it. Shooting guards of his (potential) caliber are incredibly rare. However, he's done so well coming off the bench, and finding a player that can come off the bench and devastate the other team is even rarer. The Hornets are in a good place as far as the production possibilities of their backcourt. What remains to be seen is how it will all fit together.

On Blowouts

I'm lucky enough to have NBA League Pass, so I'm flipping back and forth between Orlando-Philly and Cleveland-New York. Both of these games are pretty much blowouts, although they're of different degrees.

The Magic are blowing out the Sixers by shooting the lights out. When the Magic click, they will rain glorious threes upon your head as they work the inside-outside game. This is not necessarily predicated on the idea of having Dwight Howard in the game; Marcin Gortat is more than serviceable and finishes reasonably well around the basket. I'm refraining from making a "Polish Hammer" reference here, but just know that it was definitely on my mind. The addition of Dwight Howard adds a nigh-unstoppable post defender in the mold of Mutombo or Wallace (although he reminds me more of Alonzo Mourning than anyone else, but that's neither here nor there.) Generally speaking, when a team gets on a hot streak shooting threes, the opposing team will generally panic and start taking horrid shots (including my favorite, the running jumper in transition), culminating in a lead deepening. Before other teams started abusing the Suns' porous D, Phoenix was running teams into the ground and luring them into taking bad threes, building the lead.

When your team begins a blowout, it generally starts with some poor decision-making by the other team. NBA players are (generally speaking) the highest quality basketball players in the world. Given that fact, there is a natural parity, and losing by more than 10 points is a pretty rare occurrence. However, after a certain point, when a team has a flaw exposed, the team that exposes it will begin to abuse it. San Antonio can't crash the boards, Kobe's ego will cause him to take too many shots, Juwan Howard came off the bench for George Mikan, or whatever. The flawed team will begin to make poor decisions under pressure. The truly great teams do not always win a game, but they do always try to get back into the game, and they know that panicking and taking bad jump shots is not the way to do it (unless you're Roger Mason Jr.) Showing calm under pressure may seem like (at best) saving face or (at worst) cool indifference, but if the team starts to freak out during a blowout, well, that's where the Meatloaf song meets the analogy.

This is why, since I started writing this post, the Knicks deficit has grown by 9 points over the course of three minutes.

Rollin'.

Hey, guys who are reading this which is probably nobody at this juncture. I'm Greg Alexander, and I started this blog to hone my writing skills and to shoot the shit about the NBA. I'm in college as a Journalism major in the Virginia area. If you're interested in following my Twitter, which I update pretty frequently, check me out at twitter.com/bluesforaredsun .

So, what is this blog focused on? Tell 'em, Hedo.