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 is sort of a running diary. I'm writing it as the draft unfolds, so there'll be a few reactions to the broadcast as well as my thoughts on the picks.

1. Bulls - Derrick Rose -- I don't like PGs being picked this high, and I think they should've just stuck with Hinrich, and they need front-court scoring, BUT ... Rose is the best player in this draft, so I can't be too critical of this pick.

2. Heat - Michael Beasley -- Waiting for a trade ... Terrible. Riley hates him, not a leader, not a winner, and he's incredibly immature (he just said: '... and I love to have fun off the court! I think that's real important for a team', really, Michael? You haven't figure out that that's the reason you almost slipped out of the top 2?). Even if he grows up and figures out how to play defense and all those good things, the Heat have now locked themselves into a team led by two tweeners. Did you see the Finals? Those teams were HUGE! The Spurs were huge, the Pistons were huge (except for Ben, who wasn't important on the offensive end), the 80's Lakers were huge, the 80's Celtics were huge, the Bulls were huge (except for Rodman, ditto the Big Ben thing). Like it or not, size is VERY important in the NBA. You can't have your leaders playing 2" shorter than their counterparts. In my Mock Draft I projected this pick and said that the Heat would lose in the 2nd round for the next 10 years, I still believe I will be proven correct.

3. Timberwolves - O.J. Mayo -- Bill Simmons said something that I should've thought of: O.J. Mayo in Minnesota? He's gonna like it there? This guy almost attended Grambling and he has a borderline God Complex. He's gonna be okay on a terrible team in the middle of nowhere? This is insane. And their back-court now consists of two tweeners with him and Foye (3 if you count McCants, ugh). They've got some talent, but Mayo needs to show that he can improve a team. He led a team that got worse last year, and his teammates weren't fond of him (in the beginning of the season, anyway). Why would that situation be different on a worse team with a worse coach in a harder league with worse teammates. But I will say this: Mayo can still figure it out, and he may turn into a legitimate superstar one day; he's smart and very talented. But I don't think it'll happen, not in Minnesota.

4. Sonics - Russell Westbrook -- I love Westbrook ... as an energizing defender off the bench. Right now there's no reason to believe he'll be an elite point guard, and that's what the Sonics want him to be so they can dump Watson and Ridnour. This is much better than Bayless, though. Bayless is almost guaranteed to be more productive than Westbrook, but Westbrook will finish his career with a few hundred more wins. Bank it.

5. Grizzlies - Kevin Love -- I've soured a bit on him after hearing countless people who've said that he's simply not physically capable of making an elite contribution to an NBA team. I probably should've believed the same thing from the start, but I thought he could play the 5 on a small roster for a fast-break team like D'Antoni's Suns. I still kinda believe that, but there's no way he'll ever be a 40-minute All-Star. On the Grizzlies? Is that a fast team? Can they take advantage of outlet passes? If Rudy #### *can* run fast enough, *will* he? Will #### and Love engage in mortal combat during practice? (oh my God, that was a complete accident, I just now realized that those two names are on the same roster) Probably won't be worth the 5th pick. If they wanted a solid contributor they should've settled on Lopez.

6. Knicks - Danilo Gallinari -- I'm not gonna pretend like I know how this'll turn out. Did Isiah Thomas recommend this pick? Is he allowed to make decisions anymore? Drafting players was the only thing he was good at! But actually, on a D'Antoni-coached team, this guy will be an improvement on anything.

7. Clippers - Eric Gordon -- I don't care about his talent, or his numbers, or his personality. He's an undersized choke artist, and his plus-minus is going to be horrific. But because we're all hypnotized by 20+ PPG scorers, no one will have the guts to bench him, and he'll play for 15 years before joining Shareef Abdur Rahim, Stephon Marbury, and countless others in the Hall of Losers.

8. Bucks - Joe Alexander -- I never really got a chance to see him in college, so I bought into all the positive hype about him. But just recently I read that he doesn't look like he knows what he's doing in games. That's really concerning. I don't believe everything I read, but why would that get written if there wasn't some truth to it? And didn't they just trade for Richard Jefferson? And aren't average-sized 3's a dime-a-dozen? Why would any team need to stock up on these guys? What's the plan?

9. Bobcats - D.J. Augustin -- (I initially followed the crowd and projected DeAndre Jordan here, thank God the NBA wised up about that guy) When I see stuff like this I suffer a crisis of pride. Was I wrong about Raymond Felton? Isn't he a solid point guard? I keep hearing that he's not a true 1 ... really? Didn't he win an NCAA Title playing nothing but point guard? I don't get it. And they're trying to replace him with a guy who everyone knows will be a defensive liability. It's just not smart. They should've just drafted Lopez to shore up their center position and solidify their frontline by moving Okafor to the 4.

10. Nets -- Brook Lopez -- Oh my God, he sounds like a meathead from an '80s college movie. 'Hey brah, you gonna pass me a brewski or what? Hey, look, it's Nerdberg! Quick, get the water balloons full of birth secretions!' Not a big fan of Lopez, but at #10 it's not a bad pick. However, they just traded for Jianlian, and they already have Krstic. That gives them 3 7-footers with questionable toughness. This is how they're gonna woo LBJ? I don't get it.

11. Pacers - Jerryd Bayless -- I've never hid my hatred for Bayless. Even if he played defense and his teammates liked him he'd still be an under-sized 2, or a too-selfish 1. But this late in the draft I can't blame the Pacers for picking him. He's very talented, and they've wanted to replace Jamaal Tinsley for the last 34 years. He said all the right things in his interview ... but so does everyone else (except for Beasley, but we expected that).

12. Kings - Jason Thompson -- I like his size, and apparently he 'has a good motor'. I know nothing else about him, so I won't judge it. Katz is saying that the Kings' scouts were in love with him. Is that good or bad? Does this mean that Thompson will be their 4 and Hawes will be their 5? I'm not sure that's a good idea.

13. Trailblazers - Brandon Rush -- Whoa. A lot of people thought they'd take Alexis Ajinca (or whatever). The Blazers are much smarter than people think. Will Rush be a star? No, but he will contribute to a team that's getting better and more talented every year. It's times like this that I get happy that the Sonics are leaving so I can embrace the Blazers. This is a great move that'll help their defense and deepen them in a very profound way. I love it!

14. Warriors - Anthony Randolph -- Randolph is terrible, he's thinner than Durant, he gave his team no wins, and he wasn't even statistically prolific. The Warriors already have two young, thin, big men. They need another? What's the point? Do they think this guy is gonna put on 50 pounds? TELEGRAPH TO THE WARRIORS: Your bizarre philosophies worked for one round against an overrated team of chokers!

15 Suns - Robin Lopez -- Don't bother wearing the hat, Robin, you can't pull it off with that hair. This is the way they're heralding their new traditionalistic era? By drafting a guy who might be able to allow Stoudamire to play the 4 for 15 minutes a game? Meh, not a terrible pick.

16. 76ers - Marreese Speights -- Say what you want about his personality, you can't teach height. I'd rather have Speights than Beasley. He's talented, and he has plenty of time to figure out how to play defense and pass and run a few laps and all that stuff. This late in the draft it's perfectly fine to take risks.

17. Pacers (via Raptors) - Roy Hibbert -- If I had no other decent options for my 5, I'd be happy to have Hibbert fill that hole. But he's a career underachiever with a low ceiling and molasses shoes.

Shot of Darrell Arther still waiting, and DeAndre Jordan is still on the board. NBA teams are getting smarter all the time.

Displayed in ESPN's runner: 'Danilo Gallinari, 1st European player selected by NY in the 1st round since Nene'. That statistic is worthless in more ways than I can count.

18. Wizards - JaVale McGee -- Good size, good pedigree, and he was on the All-WAC Defensive team. That's good enough for me.

OH MY GOD! Ike Diogu and Jerryd Bayless for Jarrett Jack and Brandon Rush?!?!?!?!? Don't like it. Smart for the Pacers, Jack will be a more reliable point. Not so smart for the Blazers, they just got smaller and much worse defensively. Bayless's problems will be tempered by Roy's point guard skills, and this gives them LOTS of offense ... but is this the right kind of offense? I'm already bitter. I hope Sergio Rodriguez emerges next year.

19. Cavaliers - JJ Hickson -- Mario Chalmers is still on the board? Yeah, they draft a point guard every year, but maybe they should try drafting a 1 who actually has a history of winning. Chalmers was also a top-10 recruit, if you'll remember, so he has plenty of talent (hidden by that deep, stat-stifling roster), and he plays hard defense. Exactly the kind of guy you need to support LBJ.

Statistic: DJ Augustin is the 3rd Longhorn drafted in the 1st round in the last 3 years ... wow ... Durant still needs to figure out that the NBA is about more than shooting, and everyone was surprised that Aldridge was productive last year, on pace to becoming a lifelong borderline All-Star. You UT people need to kill all this hype until your professional alumni start living up to the hype. And pray that Augustin at least tries to play defense.

20. Bobcats - Alexis Ajinca -- They traded a future 1st-rounder (and therefore a very high 1st-rounder) for this guy? He looks like an acrobat on stilts and he doesn't produce anything. His wing-span is 7'8"? To me, that just makes it 40% more likely that he'll suffer a compound fracture while trying to block a Josh Smith dunk.

Oh, the Blazers also gave up Josh McRoberts in the deal. That actually makes it worthwhile for the Blazers, even if Jerryd Bayless sounds like he was told he has two weeks to live.

21. Nets - Ryan Anderson -- Good point, ESPN crew. Why have I not heard anything about this guy since the season ended? He was really good! He's got size! He shoots 90% from the FT line! Defensive liability, but he'll be a good role player.

22. Magic - Courtney Lee -- Love it. Small school guys are always risky, but he's got good size and good talent. Hopefully this'll get JJ Redick off that roster.

23. Jazz - Kosta Koufos -- I didn't watch him play (the Big Ten is terrible), so I'll just take this time to say that Ohio State annoys me. Stop losing Title games, you guys are embarrassing yourselves. Start earning some of that merchandise revenue you rake in.

24. Sonics - Serge Ibaka -- Uh, yeah, cause international players have been working out so well for the Sonics ... He's got 17 brothers and sisters? And he's from the Congo? Jeez, I feel sorry for the guy. These media patsies mention that stuff like they're just charming idiosyncrasies, but that's serious business. Unless this guy is royalty he had a traumatic childhood raised by some (understandably) irresponsible people. I hope he makes it.

25. Rockets - Nicolas Batum -- Thin and French.

Darrell Arthur hasn't been selected because of a kidney problem? If that's a big deal then why wasn't this talked about before the draft? It's late and he was projected in the top 10! Just pick the guy!

26.  Spurs - George Hill -- Wha? The Spurs made the pick, so I'll trust it. But, wha? IUPUI? There are a lot of names on the board. Maybe this is genius, or maybe this is a case of a front office trying a bit too hard to be clever.

27. Trailblazers (via Hornets) -- Come on guys, don't disappoint me again -- Darrell Arthur -- Alright, fine. I don't really like him, but this is a bargain. And even if the kidney thing turns out to be a problem, the Blazers have enough talent for two rosters, they'll survive. Besides, they paid cash for this pick, and their owner is Paul Allen so they essentially got him for nothing. A top-10 guy on a winning team for nothing? Good times. I'm feeling better.

28. Grizzlies (via Lakers) -- Mike Miller was their leading rebounder? That's pathetic. The news of ####'s maturity has been greatly exaggerated. -- Donte' Green -- I'm sorry, I have to risk being offensive: what's the deal with these names? I can kinda understand the myriad spellings of 'Dante', but the addition of the apostrophe? When you're so desperate for a unique spelling of a banal name that you resort to using superfluous punctuation, just concede defeat and name the kid 'Russ'. This is not a commentary on African-American culture, it's an excoriation of *poor* culture. Kids get dumb names for the same reason that poor dudes on buses use their knees to claim space like it's a land rush. It's all about some sort of misplaced pride. I'm glad Green is an NBA player now and not an aspiring accountant, good luck explaining that name in a job interview.

29. Pistons - DJ White -- 6'9"? He's taller than I thought. But what are they gonna do about their center position? Rasheed's about done, so is Ratliff, and Maxiell's too short to be relied on. Maybe they just should've drafted DeAndre Jordan and hoped for the best. At least they'd've paid him less than Nazr Mohammed.

30. Celtics -- They need to get a 2, Ray Allen is just about cooked -- JR Giddens -- Darn. Remember this guy? I was annoyed by him from the instant I saw him. Sportscenter loud mouths were telling me that I should be glued to the tube to check out his sick dunks. I looked and said: 'Uh, yeah, thanks. There are good players out there who can dunk.' They needed a 2, but couldn't they've gotten a more mature kid with a more well-rounded repertoire? Why not just grab Douglas-Roberts? I don't get it.

Disclaimer: I'm pretty sure I repeated, or outright plagiarized (on accident) about 2 or 3 jokes in this blog. But I'm sick and this thing is huge and I'm not making any money off this, so screw it.

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.

If you read nothing but Mock Drafts, you'd think that all players are great, they all fill a need, they all live up to the hype, and every GM knows what they're doing. Very few of these things end up being true. This is the Mock Draft that reflects reality. I have no pretense of being able to predict the actual lottery, this is just analysis of the probable picks, and a glimpse into the futures of these delusional teams.

1. Bulls - Derrick Rose -- Chicago goes for the local talent, trades a good player (Hinrich) so they can improve a marginally important position (how many Championship-winning point guards are 1st-Team All-NBA?) ... and then realizes it doesn't matter because they've still got a front-court that can't score.

2. Heat - Michael Beasley -- Miami makes the completely obvious pick, resulting in an offensively-potent but undersized team that flames out in the 2nd round for the next 10 years.

3. Timberwolves - Brook Lopez -- Another role-player gets boosted into the lottery because he's 7' tall, but the T-Wolves *do* add a vital piece to their front-court, moving Al Jefferson to his natural position at the 4, which might allow him to convert some of those statistics into wins ... it might help him if he had some veteran leaders ... or a decent coach ... c'est la vie.

4. SuperSonics - Jerryd Bayless -- Showing their fundamental lack of knowledge about the way the NBA works, Seattle drafts a tweener to save their troubled point guard position. For the next 3 years they become enamored with him because he puts up 20 PPG, then in year 4 realize he's just a ball-hog who's incapable of playing effective defense or leading his team to wins, and get nothing for him when he goes to another team for maximum dollars. (I'm looking forward to being a Trailblazers fan)

5. Grizzlies - OJ Mayo -- Talent-wise and roster-wise the Griz make a great pick ... except that Mayo no longer has an impending draft to keep him in line, or a respectable coach, or a responsible team, or a fickle audience. The national media is fooled into thinking that he's a great player who only loses because of his marginal team, and ignore the fact that his teammates hate him and he only acts nice to the national media because he knows he needs a good image to make money.

6. Knicks - Kevin Love -- New York mixes things up by making a genius move, picking a guy who can actually *facilitate* the myriad talent that already exists on this ridiculous team, and take minutes away from the two lumbering piles of #### matter that currently occupy their front court, *and* give D'Antoni a player he won't want to spit on in disgust.

7. Clippers - Danilo Gallinari -- Still more concerned with acquiring talent than compiling a cohesive roster, LA drafts another skinny schlub from Europe who may or may not be any good ... I don't know and I don't care, cause he won't make a difference either way.

8. Bucks - Eric Gordon -- Michael Redd would be a tremendous role-player on a competitive team. But NBA teams are dumb. Redd put up a lot of points so teams automatically believed he was an elite player. Milwaukee just now realized they were wrong, so they'll trade Redd and replace him with a much more dynamic player in Gordon. It's too bad for Milwaukee that Gordon is an undersized 2 who'll have the exact same non-impact on his team that Redd did.

9. Bobcats - DeAndre Jordan -- The other Charlotte brass talks MJ into an unexciting move to fill out their roster by getting the best center on the board. It's too bad DeAndre is a worthless stiff. It's also too bad that everyone will blame this move on MJ.

10. Nets - Darrell Arthur -- New Jersey picks a guy who results in absolutely 0 change in the win-loss columnn, and quickly finds his niche as a competent 7-man.

Why so negative? Do I actually think that everyone in this draft will be bad? Yeah, I kinda do. I think this is the absolute worst draft of any kind that I've seen in years. In the top-10, there are only two moves that could make a *real* difference: the Bulls drafting Beasley, and the Knicks drafting Love. I'd be surprised if either happens.

Iverson is the closest thing the NBA has to a running back. Every forty seconds he's running headlong into a crowd of guys who are much larger and stronger than he is, and getting knocked on his ####. NFL running backs last until they're about 31 years old, so for Iverson (who's smallish and diminutive for any position in either sport) to have put up 33 points per game in his 31st year is awe-inspiring. I have a great deal of respect for the guy, despite my problems with his personality (which should be obvious).

All that said, they need to trade him. This guy could collapse (literally) at any moment. Even the toughest SOB's will be caught by their accumulating injuries eventually (Steve McNair). And even barring that, the odds of Iverson keeping pace with his own history are very low. Almost all NBA players start to degrade at this age, and Iverson's half as large and twice as reckless as any of them. His trade value is going to start plummeting soon, and Billy King needs to cash in right now, while he can still get some premium talent in return.

But even if we ignore the injuries and the age, I don't understand what the 76er's think they can do with him. Just because they made their way through a mediocre Eastern Conference and lost to the Lakers (handily) in the Finals, does that mean that Iverson is a championship-caliber player? I don't think so. And that was years ago ... with Larry Brown and a much better supporting cast. Now they have an overpaid center, fifteen 6'7" swingmen (why did they trade for Bobby Jones?), and a coach whose greatest accomplishment is helping a nervous teenager sing the National Anthem.

Iverson in his prime couldn't take this team past the second round.

- He doesn't practice, which is not a trait common to championship winners. John Elway, Michael Jordan, etc. .... these guys were ferocious competitors and workers all the time.

- He's six feet tall, which is about one foot less than the ideal height of a title-winning-leader. This results in poorer shooting percentage, more volatility, worse defending (in spite of the steals numbers), etc. To compare, Shaq can dominate for a whole game (in his prime, anyway). Guys like Iverson can dominate for short stretches of time, but you couldn't rely on him to take over a game 7. Shaq can just bull people over, Iverson has to rely upon opposing centers not blocking his tear-drops, has to rely upon opposing point guards not protecting the ball, has to rely upon his spine not breaking in half the next time he collides with Reggie Evans, etc. He can do it, but he just needs a bit more luck on his side than someone larger.

- He believed that Mo Cheeks would be the ideal coach for that team ... in and of itself, that pathetic display of judgment disqualifies him from being a good team leader.

If the news that Iverson is staying in Philadelphia is true, then Billy King has just done more to cement his reputation ... unless the rest of the league has smartened up and realized that it would be a terrible idea to make this trade.

Unless ... I don't know what his contract situation is ... if it expires next year, I'd be fully supportive of the Sonics throwing whatever-it-takes at the Sixers to get Iverson. It would clear up cap space, and would give us some star power for this next season, in which we'll need as much support from the populace as possible. Just brainstorming  ...

The Mavericks were the better team. They're more athletic, deeper, better-coached, they play harder, better defensively, they have a better owner, and MUCH better chemistry. But they lost, because, as I've stated before, the NBA is about superstars. The Heat had Wade and Shaq. The Mavericks only have Nowitzki (who I'll get to in a minute), who isn't as good as Wade or as impactful as Shaq.

 

---

 

I won't Gloat about my Pick

I actually picked the Heat to win this title two years ago, and again after the conference finals. But I won't take credit for it, because I already admitted that I thought I was wrong about the pick after game 3, and because of the officiating controversy (which I don't have an opinion about, I'm just leaving the possibility open...).

 

---

 

We can now agree about Nowitzki

After his 50-point game, everyone and their illegitimate child proclaimed with glee that 'THIS IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE GAME'! Except for me, I was wrinkling my nose while sheepishly asking: 'Really? One good game on a great team makes a jump-shooter the best player in the game?' Well, time has passed, Dirk has come back down to Earth, and everyone has backed down from their ridiculous assertions. In two weeks Dirk has returned to his proper place: a very good all-star who isn't capable of carrying a team on his back to a title. Wade put Dirk in his place with a worse team behind him, that's all you need to know.

 

---

 

Anyone else feel terribly for Stan Van Gundy?

I was going to just call this a 'coup', but then I thought, why not make an analogy? Yippee! (I apologize if this is too literary, I'm in the mood to reference the Iliad, though this analogy doesn't stick to that storyline)

Agamemnon goes to war against Troy with an army led by a cadre of badasses in Achilles, Diomedes, Odysseus, etc. They're on the cusp of victory, but then Zeus, in his obtuse machinations, flings lightning bolts at the kneecaps of all of Agamemnon's heroes, crippling all of them! The Trojans, led by Hector (the Michael Jordan of the actual literary war) beats Agamemnon's crew back to their boats, nearly annihilating them. But then, just as Achilles and the boys recover from their injuries, Menelaos stabs Agamemnon in the back and takes over! Achilles, with divine help, kills Hector, and they run rampant over the Trojans and win the war. Menelaos re-bags his wife Helen and is hailed as a hero. Paris even joins the two in bed for a twisted bigamist orgy.

Alright, that was awful. But everyone knows what happened, Stan was robbed.

 

---

 

The Future

Who wins next year? It's very interesting. I don't think that the Heat can do it again, Shaq's declining too quickly, and that chemistry isn't going to be improving anytime soon (if it did, Wade *could* lead a team that talented to a championship without Shaq, but I doubt this will happen). So who's in the running? My pick has to be the Spurs, but here's a breakdown of the levels of probability:

1 - The Spurs. Only team with a dominant post-player in his prime.

1a - Wait for it .... the .... MAGIC. Yes, Orlando. Only because of Dwight Howard. But this hinges on a number of variables. What kind of offseason will they have? Will Dwight Howard continue to push this notion of being a clone of Kevin Garnett (which would be a disaster)? It's uncertain, but Howard is looking like the only current player who could potentially join the pantheon of Shaq/Duncan/Olajuwon/Jordan/etc.<br>And the Heat, they're still a possibility. A touch more probable than the following two...

2 - The Mavericks and the Pistons. Two very good teams who are dependent on others to win a title. 'Dependent' in that they need a little bad luck to happen to their superstar-led opponents.

If none of the first three teams win it, I'll be surprised. If none of these *five* teams win, I might spontaneously combust.

Though no one will care to read this, I feel that a post must be written solely to repent for my EGREGIOUS spelling error. I am ashamed, and quite angry with myself, for I take pride in my spelling and vocabulary.

I'd like to sincerely thank edclinchsaint for correcting me. There isn't enough of this in our world. Any time someone points out a spelling error, or grammatical goof, or logical flaw, people turn up their noses at 'Mr. Pompous Intellectual'. I take as good as I give it.

This may read as sarcasm, it isn't.

And I might as well take this momentum to own up to the fact that I'll probably be wrong for picking the Heat to win the whole thing. I'm not backing off the pick, I'm just saying that right now it looks like the Mavs will win. They're a fantastic team, even if Nowitzki is overrated.

...I can't help it, a few quick reactions to my reactions:
- Analyzing how the ref-calls of the Super Bowl directly affected the score is a mistake (though, if you did it, you should still come up with the Seahawks winning), bad calls affect momentum, personaltiy, everything. It's possible (not probable) that the Hawks could've won by thirty if the calls had gone their way.
- I try to be objective, and probably fail.
- I should get over the travesty-that-was-the-Super-Bowl ... only to #### about the history of the Seahawks organization? Huh? They used to suck, what does that matter? It's a completely different organization now. The only part of their history worth revisiting is the Testaverde sneak, which is indicative of a history of officials beating up on this city. *rim-shot*

And THAT is the ABSOLUTE LAST THING I'll write about the officials until the regular season starts. I might even ignore this blog throughout the rest of the summer. Your disappointment is palpable!

THAT was sarcasm.

People have been responding to my Pistons-related posts as if I've been calling them a terrible team. There's a HUGE difference between bad, and overrated. I simply think the Pistons have been overrated during their poor-man's-dynasty (actually, I'd rather call it 'fool's-gold-dynasty').

The Pistons are a very good team. In fact, they're a great team. When Larry Brown was coaching them, they may have been the BEST team in the NBA. But I stress the word 'team'. Every one of those starters, and their few helpful backups, plays hard and plays well together. It's admirable.

But there's a difference between being a good team and winning. There's a difference between winning and winning titles. And in the NBA, there's a HUGE difference between being a good team and winning a title. That difference is superstarpower, typically in the post. The Pistons don't have it.

The Suns are an excellent team, arguably better than the Pistons this year. Their chemistry during these playoffs has been unconscionable (since when does Tim Thomas play like that?). Does anyone give them a chance to win the title? Of course not.

If the Pistons hadn't lucked into facing that combustible Lakers team which was right out of the Bob Whitsitt school of personnel acquisition, no one would be giving them much of a chance either. That team was the first since the '79 Sonics to win a title without a superstar. That's not a coincidence.

Another Thought
Am I the only one who's completely unimpressed by Dirk Nowitzki? Am I crazy? I don't have any reasonable rationale for this, I guess I just have a dislike for 7'0" jumpshooters (maybe owing to my bitterness at Rashard Lewis). The Mavericks were fine without Steve Nash by the way, why are we all-of-a-sudden talking about Dirk as though he's the unquestioned MVP of the league? It's not possible that's he's just another cog in the Maverick-system?

Though I just wrote a blog about the unraveling of the Pistons (before it became fashionable, by the way), that's not what I'm going to gloat about. I'm going to gloat about my defense of the Heat after their series last year, after which everyone treated Detroit like the second best team in the NBA even though they barely beat a team whose two stars were hobbled (if playing at all).

This is mainly in response to the pervasive opinion that Detroit is a fantastically worse team than last year ... uh, if Shaq and Wade had been healthy last year, would the outcomes of the two series (assuming that the Heat pull it out in 6, as I officially predict them to do) have been any diffferent?

It's all about perception. Three points:

They had an excellent regular season. As a former Mariners fan I can tell you that regular seasons don't matter very much (*cough* 116 wins).

Detroit wasn't that good in the first place, for reasons I've mentioned several times before.

The players are acting up, which makes the situation visibly dysfunctional. They're acting up because they, like everyone else, had unrealistically trumped up expectations for themselves, and they're placing the blame on their new coach (couldn't POSSIBLY be them! They're World Champions!).

Everyone shut up! In any year, with any coach, Detroit is supposed to lose to the Heat. Miami has two superstars, Detroit has zero. The NBA is about stars, all Detroit has is five very good starters. That's good enough to work through the terrible East and get lucky against a weird West team (the Lakers), but nothing more.

Everyone shut up about Riley and Van Gundy, too. Van Gundy did the same damn thing Riley's doing. But, again I have to mention the injuries they suffered last year.

Two years in a row I've predicted that either the Spurs or the Heat would win the title, looks like I'm going to be right two years in a row.

Maybe there are legitimate reasons for the official awards of professional sports to be awarded solely for regular season achievements. But we're laymen. We all know that the playoffs are a better indicator of 'value'. (By the way, I stress the 'Valuable' part of MVP, I don't think it's just about the best player)

Let's get the obvious out of the way. Can we all just admit that it was INSANE to include Chauncey Billups in this discussion? He's choking in the playoffs, is only marginally better than anyone else in the starting 5, and in my opinion isn't even close to being the most valuable player on his own team. Ben Wallace is their identity, Hamilton is their clutch shooter, Prince is their clutch defender, and Rasheed is the guy who got them over-the-top when he was acquired midseason three years ago.

Quick hits:
- No one who tanks the second half o####ame 7 to send a message to his team deserves ANY award.
- The Mavericks would be fine without Nowitzki.
- Duncan deserved more credence despite a down-year ... still shouldn't have won.
- Thank God no Nets were given serious consideration.
- Wade isn't taking over like he should.

To me it comes down to Nash and LBJ. Sure, Nash doesn't play defense and he's not coming up big in the playoffs, but what kind of shape would that team be in without him? Would Boris Diaw, Shawn Marion and ... Jason Williams be leading a team into the Western Conference Finals? They wouldn't have made the playoffs. I go with LBJ.

I know that to most people it's between the King and Kobe. It's true that LBJ doesn't play defense at the same level and he has a better (though less active) supporting cast. But the coup de grace comes two-fold:
- LBJ is about to beat the supposed best team in the NBA while Kobe is fake-laughing with the TNT crew.
- Switch Mike Brown with Phil Jackson. What happens?

First, they get the honor of facing a chemically imploding Lakers team. Then the next year they face off against a Heat team with one hobbled superstar, and another superstar who missed the final two games of the series. And now they're going up against the Cavs, whose second-best player had to leave the team because his brother died., with the prospect of facing the Heat again, who bear an eery resemblance to the '04 Lakers.

Huh? They're LOSING? I'm watching game 5 right now, and they're down by nine to a team they were supposed to sweep.

Why? Because one of their starters actually got injured ... not seriously, of course, we don't want Karma to bite *too* hard. Oh, and Flip Saunders ineffectual coaching might have something to do with it also.

Look, here's the bottom line: teams don't win championships in the NBA unless they fulfill one of three requirements:
- They have a superstar in the post (Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Russell, etc.)
- They have Michael Jordan (though LBJ might join this exclusive club soon)
- They're really damn lucky

Detroit is lucky. That's why they won it two years ago, that's why they almost won it last year, and that's why they'll win it this year. *IF* they win it, which I now don't think they will. Their infallible bodies are no longer, the players' honeymoon with Flip has ended, and they weren't that good in the first place (I don't care what their record was).

I still think they'll beat Cleveland (down by 2 at the moment, beginning of the 4th) ... but it would be awesome if they didn't.

"Both teams played hard."