The Big Trade  

One of those rare deals that works out for everyone involved. The Nuggets solidify their rotation with a reliable point guard, and the Pistons get a ton of cap room. Billups will be a much better fit for a George Karl team, and a much better influence on a locker room that doesn't understand how to play defense or win. They've significantly downgraded their talent level, but we'll see how little that matters when they win more games and make more noise in the postseason ... um, assuming Nene stays healthy and fills in Camby's role adequately. As for the Pistons, they need to get younger, and it was obvious that they've been wanting to make room for Stuckey. They also need to grab a superstar to build the next generation of their team around, and this cap space will let them grab, if not LeBron (who has bigger markets in mind), then Wade, or Bosh, or Stoudamire, or any one of the other stars who'll be part of that impressive free agent class. Joe Dumars is a very smart man.

Oh, and Allen Iverson was part of the deal too.

Yep, Allen Iverson is an after-thought. He's an expiring contract. Dumars has no intention of re-signing him, I promise you. Will he help the team? Maybe. He *might* shake up the offense and make them more dangerous. But will they be a bigger threat to win a championship? I really doubt it. Their defense is worse, their shooting percentage is worse, their leadership is worse, and they're older. They've become a worse team. For one year.

WE WANT STEPH

We need to post social workers in Madison Square Garden. They'll wait until people start chanting for Steph, hunt them down, ask them whether or not they understand what 'irony' is, and if they say 'no', the social workers will guide them by the arm out of the stadium and into a short bus, and drive to a home for educationally challenged adults.

Holy f-ing God of all that is good and holy. Does anyone actually understand what's going on with this guy? His teammates *do not* want him on that team. He's a *terrible* fit for D'antoni's offense. He's never won a thing in his life. He's old. He's dumb. And he takes advantage of interns. He should not be on this team for one more second.

I'm not terribly surprised that there are people this dumb who're still giving the Knicks their patronage. But it's *shocking* that Donnie Walsh refuses to cut him loose. Does this make any sense? Doesn't this have to be James Dolan pulling the strings? D'Antoni is a really smart guy. Let him have his way.

Monta Ellis

A lot of threats flying around in a situation that is far more complicated than I first thought. According to this story:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2008/11/
04/warriors-hardball-stance-could-drive-monta-elli
s-to-seek-a-release-or-trade/

So I won't cast judgment on Monta's discipline, or his reaction. But I will say this: just waive him!

Come on, Warriors, get on the bandwagon! The NBA is catching up to the fact that undersized ball-hogs are poisonous! You don't want this guy! You paid him too much, and you now have a chance to jump ship. Don't hitch your future to this dope.

The supposedly unconventional belief that 'size doesn't matter' has become so normal these days that it isn't even questioned. Sure, we laud players like Kevin Durant for their wing-spans, and players like Yao Ming for their heights, and players like LBJ for their physiques, but we never linger on the shortness of Michael Beasley or Allen Iverson. We congratulate them for succeeding in spite of their physical deficiencies while ignoring the myriad problems that persist *because* of those deficiencies. Height is very important in the NBA. It's a vertical game. We see short players come into the league and display their talents and convince ourselves that height is overrated, but it isn't. All of those numbers accrued by these tiny savants (Monte Ellis, Ben Gordon, etc.) mask underlying problems: defense, toughness, shooting percentage, shot selection, etc.

A Disclaimer: This is about RELATIVE Size - I'm not suggesting that every NBA player be 7' tall. It's about position. Derrick Rose is a giant, but Michael Beasley is a Lilliputian, despite the fact that Beasley is 4" taller, because Rose plays at a position where he's about 2" taller (and 200% more athletic) than his average counterpart, while Beasley is going to be at least 2" shorter than everyone he plays against. It's all relative.

Shrimps Can't Play Defense - Alright, that's not entirely fair, but it's generally true. There have been plenty of short players throughout history who were superlative defenders (Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace, etc.), but a hugely disproportionate number of small players have been defensive liabilities. It's obvious why: defense neutralizes talent. Allen Iverson is the most talented player in the NBA, but he stinks on defense. It's not because he doesn't try (well, not when he was with the 76ers, anyway), it's because he has a tiny little body that can't cause much trouble other than nabbing a few steals. Hypothetical: Nate Robinson is the best defender in the world, what's gonna happen if you stick him on Marvin Williams for an entire game? Marvin's gonna score 50 points because Nate can't affect his shots. Nate can try by jumping 40", but defenders make themselves vulnerable when they're in the air, and Marvin will take advantage by taking a foul or by bringing the ball down and sliding towards the basket. That'll never happen in a game, but that illustrates why size is so important for a defender, and why so many under-sized guys struggle, even if they only come up short by an inch or two. Obviously some players are so horrific at defense (or simply don't care) that it doesn't matter how big they are, like Eddy Curry. But height helps, in a very profound way. Some have learned how to compensate, but most haven't, or can't.  

Offense? Yes, but ... - It's pretty obvious that short players can't be relied on for defense. But offense? Yes, many short players throughout history have been superior offensive players. Talent is more important on the offensive end, lots of short guys have an abundance of talent, they generally practice harder, and there are hundreds of ways to get the ball in the hoop (many of which are not reliant on height). Uber-talented players will find a way to score no matter how short they are. Elton Brand, Allen Iverson, Earl Boykins and Charles Barkley are just some of the players who have thrived despite their height. They put up lots of points, because they've learned how to compensate for their deficiency. They put up quick shots, have a high release, practice athletic tear-drops, are fast enough to get open jumpers, throw their body around to get to the free-throw line, and their Napolean Complexes drive them to work their butts off. But there are many problems here. 1st) Statistics are overrated. Most 20+ PPG scorers don't have much impact on their team. In the NBA there is a huge gap between 'productivity' and 'impact'. Most 'good' players only deliver the former (Iverson, Redd, Carter); many 'average' players deliver only the latter (Bowen, Posey, Kurt Thomas); and the 'superstars' deliver both (Duncan, Bryant, LBJ, Paul). 2nd) Shorter players are forced to be more reliant on lower-percentage shots, thus the abundance of tall dudes on the shooting percentage leaderboards. 3rd) Short guys handle the ball more often, so they willfully take more shots, despite the fact that they're less accurate. This is why guys like Stephon Marbury and Gilbert Arenas are losers, they embrace a play-style that is inherently ineffective.

Toughness - It's hard for me to accuse short players of lacking toughness because of Allen Iverson, arguably the toughest professional athlete alive (assuming he isn't an android). He is completely unbelievable. He plays like a rabid punching bag. He's the NBA's equivalent of an NFL power RB, whose careers are lucky to make it to 30. Iverson's 33!!! And he's still putting up nearly 30 PPG!!! I don't understand it. I'd accuse him of taking HGH but he barely weighs 160 pounds. Even with his lack of defense and his refusal to practice, I admire the heck out of the guy. If he'd had fewer off-the-court issues and had one a Championship he'd be a legend who we'd be telling stories about for generations. Okay, enough of that. Short guys, in general, need to be tougher. Alright, sure, plenty of them are bursting with pride, feistiness, competitiveness, etc. But far too many are reluctant to play defense (because of their tiny frames), and reluctant to practice hard (because their tiny frames are worn out by plowing through the regular season), and reluctant to post anyone up (because it's easier and more glamorous to take jump-shots). Some of these things are understandable. I certainly couldn't do any better. I'm not necessarily blaming them, but rather I'm simply addressing the fact that shortness results in these problems, and this needs to be acknowledged. 

Stubborn Shooting Guards - This is a very, very real problem that needs to be fixed immediately. I've talked about this extensively in a previous blog, so I'll stay brief. The short SGs who become 'stars' in high school and college because stubborn, unmanageable fools who harm their teams by refusing to learn how to play PG. Ben Gordon, Nate Robinson, Allen Iverson, and too many others demand to be SGs for the entirety of their careers, not caring that they're turning their back-courts into undersized defensive liabilities. Even if they do cave in and play a little PG, they do so reluctantly, and take an inordinate number of shots, which ends up with the coach announcing the following at a press conference: 'We're gonna be moving him back to the position that's best for his skill-set, so he can help this team win by putting the ball in the basket.' Uh huh. These players are poison. Competitiveness is great. Competitiveness derived from pride that drives a player to abject selfishness is not great. 

It's about Championships - Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone, Julius Erving, James Worthy, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett. On Championship-winning teams since 1980, these were the star players with good size. Here's the list of undersized star players on those same teams: Isiah Thomas, Dwyane Wade ... Paul Pierce? ... maybe not. (By the way, Dwyane Wade had Shaq, and they were playing against a team of world-class chokers.) These lists are not flukes (though Isiah Thomas is a fluke, in more ways than one). How many of the players on these lists were defensive liabilities? A few were, at times, but they were surrounded by plenty of other big guys who *were* good on defense. I'll make the connection for you, in case you haven't done so already: defense wins championships, bigger players are better at defense, therefore bigger players win championships. 

Shortcomings - Many short players have come into the league and become stars, but they never win Titles. Charles Barkley, Allen Iverson, and Adrian Dantley never won anything. There are countless others. They've had their flirtations, but there are usually caveats (like Iverson's run through the horrible East, only to get his lunch handed to him by a significantly better Lakers team). Relative to their talent they are *tremendous* underachievers. Look at the current crop. Iverson is on one of the most talented teams in the league with a terrific coach and they're going absolutely nowhere. Brand's never done anything.

Position Matters - Size is much more important at the larger positions. A 5'11" PG is much less harmful to his team than a 6'9" C. For PGs, at both ends of the court, physicality is less important than quickness and aptitude, and there's usually a lot more space between the offender and defender. They have more room to shoot, more room to pass, more control (for which shortness actually helps, because dribbles take less time, and therefore the ball is in their hands more often), and their quickness allows them to find shooting-seams in traffic. Post players have much greater need for size because they're constantly grappling with their counterparts, and quickness is often neutralized. All of this adds up to the Isiah Thomas and Dwyane Wade flukes (odd that both of these guys have those ridiculous name-spellings). But I'll repeat that Wade had Shaq, and Isiah Thomas was a true PG.

I Actually Respect Short Players - I do, it's true. I have fun watching Allen Iverson. I love Nate Robinson (all the way back to his days as a Husky cornerback, and that insane put-back slam against NC State). But watchability is far different from winning. Do you want your team to be the Spurs or the Warriors? If you don't care about winning, then have fun ... but it'll only last 82 games. I'm more concerned with rings, which is why I'm so angry at my Blazers (the Sonics are bye-bye, so I'm now calling them 'my' Blazers) for acquiring Jerryd Bayless. I don't care how fun he'll be to watch, because I want to cheer for a team that seeks something more profound than statistics and merchandising. This isn't a playground.

A Final Disclaimer - I avoided pre-1980 for two simple reasons: 1st) I'm young. 2nd) Size was weirder back then. Bill Russell was only 6'9", which would be tiny today, but it was pretty big back then. I didn't want to deal with the height inflation, especially when put together in disharmony with my ignorance of deep NBA history. This is not because pre-1980 history 'disproves' my theories. Yes, Wes Unseld won a ring in 1978, but the NBA sucked and they were playing the star-less Sonics. There are always exceptions to the rule.

Closing Personal Note: I'm angry at myself for my reliance on parentheses. I need to retune my writing style.

This draft's theme: NBA-ready bodies who simply haven't panned out. In this top 10 we have three careers which've been stunted (or stopped outright) by injuries, three guys with prototypical talent-sets who've become completely average players, and two players with freakish physical talents who can't seem to make their prolific statistics result in wins. There are only *two* abject busts. Not bad.

1. Rockets - Yao Ming -- There are many things, good and bad, to say about Yao Ming. They've all been said before. Was he worth the #1 pick? Maybe ... or *definitely* if you're the Houston owner and you enjoy money (cause Ming's presence also turned Tracy McGrady into China's favorite player, which would be a funny cultural issue to explore at another time). I won't dock the Rockets for his injury troubles. BUT, the Rockets have been pathetic underachievers with Ming and McGrady. *One* superstar is supposed to be enough to make you a contender (LBJ). The Rockets have *two* players who have been labeled superstars throughout their careers, and yet they can't get out of the first round. Further proof that statistics are overrated. However, Ming's remaining potential and the reality of economics prevent me from criticizing this selection.

2. Bulls - Jay Williams -- For another player (like Kellen Winslow Jr.) you could criticize the team for ignoring character questions ... that's simply not a valid argument with this guy. His motorcycle accident was a bizarre, unfortunate fluke. In my opinion, if that had never happened, Williams would be a very solid player, and right now the Bulls wouldn't be stupidly shopping Kirk Hinrich so they could acquire Derrick Rose. Point guards should not be drafted in the top-3.

3. Warriors - Mike Dunleavy -- In college he was a very nice switch-blade player who looked great because he was surrounded by *better* players on a high-profile team. He's a skinny white guy with no expertise. Why did we think he would be any more than a semi-useful role player? He's become *exactly* what he was meant to be.

4. Grizzlies - Drew Gooden -- Why is a rebounding savant with limited offense and character flaws being drafted in the top-5? I don't understand this. Maturity questions have been thoroughly answered by the hideous patch of fur he keeps on the back of his neck ... and his unwillingness to pass despite being a terrible shooter. This guy could still contribute to a title winner, he just needs a little mentoring from Dennis Rodman.

5. Nuggets - Nickoloz Tskitishvili -- Skinny white euro-trash. Terrible pick, even if every scout in the world was insisting that this weed was gonna be Nowitzki, because Nowitzki is a 7' wuss who'll never win a title. Not worth the 5th pick.

6. Cavaliers - DaJuan Wagner -- A tweener guard who has no interest in doing anything but shooting has turned out to be a flop? Where am I? Is this Oz? The Bizarro World? Oh, no, I forgot, this is reality. EARTH TO NBA TEAMS: DO NOT DRAFT JERRYD BAYLESS!!!

7. Nuggets - Neno Hilario -- Meh. Who the Hell knows with these things. Nene had an NBA body and NBA skills. He's shown flashes. He still might turn out to be something worthwhile. I've got nothing else to say.

8. Clippers - Chris Wilcox -- The most NBA-ready player on Maryland's Tourney-winner was also its least-productive. He underachieved in college, and he's underachieved in the NBA. Not a bad player, though. Hard to criticize the pick ... except that Stoudamire was still on the board.

9. Suns - Amare Stoudamire -- Great pick, obviously. What's most incredible about Stoudamire is his full recovery from two micro-fractures. He's a freak! Do I have critical things to say about him? Yes. I don't believe he's nearly as impactful as his statistics. But he's young and he can figure things out. But with D'Antoni gone and Nash about to drop dead, he's nearing a climax, we'll see which direction his career takes ...

10. Heat - Caron Butler -- Good body, tough-as-nails, plenty of skills ... Butler is the kind of piece you want to add to an NBA team, no matter what your roster looks like.

Look at this list. How many of these guys have had a substantial impact on their team? Yes, Yao and Amare are excellent players, but we've repeatedly witnessed their teams flourish without them. They haven't 'figured it out' yet (remember when we were saying that about Kobe all season? that was funny). There's one guy who fits the bill: Caron Butler, a talented, hard-nosed competitor with a reputation for tenacity. Personality. Personality. Personality. The last few Wizards' seasons exemplify the importance of guys like Caron Butler, and the degrading poison of players like Gilbert Arenas, which brings us back to the terribleness of the DaJuan Wagner pick ... actually, the Cavaliers should be thrilled that he didn't pan out.

This time, THINK before you respond. If all you can come up with is: 'Hey dud, Gillbert scorz 30 #### POINTS EVRY GAMe! And Yau is the best senter in the WRRLD!!' Don't bother responding. I'm not interested. I'm perfectly aware of the opinions of mindless tools and their insubstantial arguments. Give me something meaty to chew on.

After the 2000 class, this list looks like a veritable Hall-of-Fame, despite the fact that #1 is Kwame Brown. 

(This was a much harder draft to analyze, and I end up compensating for that fact by using too many words, feel free to skip to the bottom, that's the important stuff)

1. Wizards - Kwame Brown -- What can I say? Hind-sight is 20-20, so I'm not gonna lambast the Wizards for a terrible move, because we don't really *know* if it was a terrible move. Some guys just don't translate well. I never saw Brown play before he got drafted, and I never had an opinion on him. I saw LBJ in high school and *knew* he was going to be a beast, but Kwame? Maybe he could've been great ... but the transition from dominating smaller guys to then getting yelled at by Michael Jordan was too much for him to handle and he broke down. But the Wiz got Caron Butler for him, so who's complaining ...

2. Bulls - Tyson Chandler -- Okay, I don't think people appreciate this guy's career arc. This is an excerpt from nbadraft.net's original analysis: "Initially, at just 225 pounds and an underdeveloped body, he will be forced to play away from the basket". Chandler was a stick, the kind of guy I hate, but after everyone realized that he had no offensive game (which is completely typical of these thin athletic prodigies), he decided to buckle down and, perhaps with the help of some excellent coaches, developed into a great defensive center. I don't remember what I thought about Chandler, but I was probably wrong. He's an example of what thin dudes *need* to do with their careers (actually, this applies to all prospects): don't listen to the hype, and learn how to defend like a mad-man, because if your offensive game doesn't develop you'll need something to fall back on, and you'll need to fall back on that something *quick* if you don't want to find yourself in the NBDL.

3. Grizzlies - Pau Gasol -- Here was the main difference between Gasol and Chandler at the time: Chandler had the athleticism to compensate for his lack of refinement. Tyson became a great defender, Gasol didn't ... but his offensive game adapted to the NBA very quickly, so he didn't have to become a great defender, and now he's found himself on a great team that can compensate for his defensive shortcomings (though I think that's one of the reasons that the Lakers won't win it all, but that's another subject). Could be qualified as an excellent pick, but Gasol was *never* going to be the best player on a Championship team, that became clear after he lost his 238th straight playoff game. We are seeing right now that his only chance is as a 2nd option. I'd rather have Chandler.

4. Bulls - Eddy Curry -- A big, giant, talented center, exactly the kind of guy you want to draft in the hopes that he develops into a Title-Chomping-Carrying-Team-On-Shoulder-Beast. He didn't. Those fears about his laziness (which always existed) turned out to be correct. But I have no problem with the Bulls taking the risk. We give credit to guys (like Ainge this past offseason) for taking risks *when they work*. Sometimes they don't, that's what gambling's all about.

5. Warriors - Jason Richardson -- Anyone think that Jason Richardson is a superstar? Anyone? Hello? I know there are fans out there who love this guy, but he just doesn't have "it". He's been surrounded by talent, at times, but I've seen no evidence whatsoever that he can provide his team with wins. On his best team (last year's Warriors), he was statistically prevalent, but he was *so quiet*. Did you even notice him in those playoff games? Davis, Barnes, Jackson ... those guys had presence, you just knew that *they* were the reason that team beat the Mavericks. Richardson is just ... a guy ... who's good at tabulating statistics. He's a role-player, but because of his numbers we convince ourselves that he's more important than he actually is. All that said, he was a big, talented 2, and there's nothing wrong with the pick.

6. Grizzlies - Shane Battier -- Alright. I have one clear memory of this draft: my unwavering man-love for Shane Battier. I hated Duke, but I loved Battier, and I wanted the Sonics to trade up to get him. Was I being dumb? Yes. But I still love Battier. He's a terrific defender and teammate, and an ideal role-player to fill out a roster. He got drafted this high because of all the media saturation around Duke at the time, he should've gone in the middle of the 1st round, where he would've been exactly what people thought he was going to be, and some team would've been very happy.

7. Nets - Eddie Griffin -- Uh ... can I say anything about him? I already feel dirty about it, even though he was a lazy creep ... oh well. He's this draft's best example of what's wrong with NBA talent evaluation. In college he was an athletic blocking machine ... then, in the NBA, like so many 6'9" post players, he became ... some guy with an undeveloped body, no offensive game, a terrible attitude, and coaches who couldn't develop him properly because their bosses wanted him to be a jersey-selling All-Star.

8. Cavaliers - DeSagana Diop -- A poor man's Tyson Chandler. I've got no problem with this pick, and I'm happy that Diop has resigned himself to his modest career.

9. Pistons - Rodney White -- Wow. Remember when the Pistons didn't know how to run a basketball team?

10. Celtics - Joe Johnson -- I think he's pretty much the same guy as Jason Richardson. I know that most of you disagree vehemently with both of those diagnoses; but the Hawks have a lot of talent, and the East stinks ... if you stuck Kobe Bryant on that team, wouldn't they be much better than a 1st-round sacrificial lamb? Joe Johnson never fit one of my bust-profiles; he's just one of those guys who knows how to accrue numbers, not win. But even if the Celtics *knew* that going in, this still wouldn't've been a terrible pick.

Okay, this draft turned up a few more themes than I expected. Diop and Chandler are both part-and-parcel. Did either deserve their lofty position in this draft? Probably not, but wouldn't you rather have them on your team than some wing who has no discernible ability to carry a team? That brings me to Johnson and Richardson, and perhaps Gasol to a lesser extent. I've made some of my thoughts clear on these two, but I think I need to crystallize this point (I've written about this before, but never with such an excellent empirical lead-in):

Statistics are not only overrated, they can be poisonous to personnel management. In Johnson and Richardson we have two guys who have shown zero predilection to be leaders of winning teams, but they're *excellent* at accumulating impressive statistics, so we reflexively believe that they're All-Stars, or even potential Superstars who are *right on the cusp* of breaking through. But they aren't. They're just 'guys'. They score points, yes, but those points could be scored by *that white sniper on the bench*, or by *that all-purpose 3 who starts because he's got a high basketball IQ*. But because ~20 of a team's points happen to be scored by a single man, we decide that he's better than everyone, and he's a leader, and he deserves ungodly amounts of money, and we just need to 'put the right pieces around him' to build a contender.

Am I attacking the Warriors and the Celtics for these picks in the 2001 Draft? No. I'm speaking about a greater problem. When a team places undue responsibility on the shoulders of a player who is not as good as his statistics indicate, they are destroying their team's chances of competing. We have to change our paradigm. We have to be able to realize that a 20+PPG scorer can be *just a role-player*.

You want a good recent example? Kevin Durant. He's going to score 25 PPG for the rest of his career, every team he's on will believe that he's their best player, and he'll never win a darn thing. Don't believe me? Let's talk in 15 years.