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.
So many things to talk about! I'm gonna take a break from my NBA Draft stuff to indulge myself ...
Vince Young's Strange Week - The news around VY exemplifies one of the problems I have with modern media and modern discourse: our inability to analyze problems as a *whole*. Let me summarize Vince's career: he hired a terrible client, revealed himself to be a dope in the wonderlic tests, had a surprisingly good rookie year ... which apparently he hated, so he kinda-sorta thought about quitting, and then had some sort of epiphany that changed his whole outlook on life ... which resulted in a *terrible* second year and a shirtless drinking binge. Terrific. Uh ... what direction is his life taking? What are Titan fans supposed to expect from this guy?
I was Wrong about the Lakers - For the past year I never wavered on my belief that the Spurs would win the whole thing. I won't even use the non-call on Barry as an excuse, because I think the Lakers would've won anyway. The Lakers are going to win the Title because they have Phil Jackson ... or is it just because the other guy will be either Flip Saunders or Doc Rivers? Whatever.
the Magic's New GM - Thank you, Orlando, for taking another overrated Seattle property. You got Rashard Lewis away from us, and now you've hired Rick Sund for some reason. For those of you who don't know him, Sund is the most unexciting, average, uninspired, boring executive in the NBA. Why not just hire Bill Simmons? I'm not repeating a joke, I'm deadly serious. Why not? What about me? What about ... Major Applewhite? Isn't *anything* better than mediocrity?
Doug Collins? DOUG COLLINS? - Re-read the last passage.
Bill Bavasi gets a Vote of Confidence - One of my passionate sports-beliefs is: when a team is mediocre, *blow it up*! I said that the Mariners' 2007 season was the *worst* thing that could happen to them because it would convince everyone that the front office knew what it was doing. Everyone disagreed with me. Who's the #### now? 2007 gave this town another year of Bill Bavasi, and you're all starting to see a record that *actually* reflects the quality of this team. The Mariners are making a lot of money, and in recent years they've finally decided to spend some of that on the payroll, but it doesn't matter because they DON'T HAVE AN #### CLUE! Stop going to Safeco Field you stupid, gullible, ignorant tools.
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.
In light of the negative response to my recent mock draft, I thought it would be interesting to look at some previous classes and see how my philosophy is reflected in the way these players turned out (no, of course you don't know my NBA philosophies, but they shouldn't be too hard to figure out after reading this). I'm going to start with 2000, and probably go up through 2005.
Disclaimer:I made the decision to do this before I looked at these classes, I didn't go searching around the internet for things that conveniently rationalized my previously stated opinions.
1. Nets - Kenyon Martin -- I won't penalize them (or the Nuggets) for his injuries. Kenyon is a very solid player who never should've been drafted at no. 1. His offensive game only blossomed in his senior year, and he can never be a truly dominant defender (too small for post players, too slow for 3's), so what's the surprise? He's a 3rd option, at best, and he'll only win a title if his next contract reflects his actual talents and not his lofty position in the 2000 Draft.
2. Grizzlies - Stromile Swift -- A lanky, athletic, under-sized player who knows as much about offense as Mike Brown. NBA teams have always tried to make him a center (which is a commentary on his basketball skills), even though his only chance to make it was as an energizing defender of 3's and 4's off the bench. Would've been fine as a late 1st-rounder.
3. Clippers - Darius Miles -- Forget the injuries and the legal troubles. How many 6'9" 200-pounders have been vital components of Championship winners? Tayshaun Prince is the best example, but he's the 4th offensive option on his team ... on a good day. If you compound the character issues, Miles was one of the riskiest picks of the draft, with very little potential reward.
4. Chicago - Marcus Fizer -- Another under-sized power forward, whose skills are so limited that he couldn't possibly be converted to a 3, and is far too small to be converted to a 5. This is the *4th pick* in the draft and Chicago picked a guy who could be no better than Udonis Haslem.
5. Magic - Mike Miller -- He's turned out alright, but was he worth the 5th pick? He was a skinny, athletically-limited shooter. He was destined to be a role-player; or, at best: a *really good* role-player.
6. Hawks - DerMarr Johnson -- Hurray! Another 6'9" 200-pound stud with a 'good offensive toolkit' and a 'big wingspan' and 'athletic potential'. I'll ask again, how many of these guys work out? Why do we keep drafting them?
7. Cavaliers - Chris Mihm -- Alright, here's where I become casual : he's a graduate from Texas, which is probably the very worst major school at producing 1st-round draft picks, in any sport. Besides, how many white 7-footers drafted in the 10 live up to their 'potential'?
8. Bulls - Jamal Crawford -- Funny dude, he had the most character questions heading into the draft, and turned out to be the only guy who didn't hate Larry Brown for asking the Knicks to play defense ... yes, Jamal Crawford is the best pick of this draft's top-10.
9. Bucks - Joel Przybilla -- What was that thing I said about 7' white guys? Oh yeah ...
10. Clippers - Keyon Dooling -- Ick. Not much of an example for my belief that shoot-first-ball-hog point guards are poison, cause we all know how Dooling turned out.
Oh my God, I had no idea how bad this draft was going to be. Seriously ... I just looked at the rest of the 1st round, I'm going to vomit. You've just read this and are probably thinking: "what 'philosophy' nonsense were you talking about, ####! This draft just flat-out sucked!"
But here's the thing, we should've known that most of these guys would suck ...undersized power forwards, 7' stiffs, lanky sticks ... these guys fit profiles that are bound for disaster, or, at the very best, solid role-players.
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.
These are the college basketball players that you don't want on your team. They may be talented, they may put up numbers, they may even be great kids, but they will destroy your team's chance of winning an NBA Championship. These players (for a variety of reasons) are simply not capable of playing a prominent role on a contending team. Here it goes:
Jerryd Bayless, Eric Gordon, Chase Budinger, Michael Beasley, Blake Griffin, Austin Daye, O.J. Mayo
I guarantee you that if any of these guys wins a Championship, it will be as no better than the 4th option on a team. The problem is that most of them will 'live up to the hype' by putting up huge numbers and thus their coaches will be obligated to give them prominent roles, even if they're taking bad shots and hardly playing defense (i.e. Kevin Durant). For some of these players their detriments are more complex (I'll get into O.J. Mayo at a later date). I omitted prospects who will never play a starring role on a team (like Tyler Hansbrough or TaJuan Porter) and prospects whose shortcomings have been realized before they even got to the NBA (like Micah Downs or Kyle Singler).
So, I'm watching TaJuan Porter right now, and the Ducks are up by 13 despite the fact that the little guy does nothing but jack up terrible shots. I know it's become chic to despoil stereotypes, and say things like: 'See, height doesn't matter in basketball! Just look at Nate Robinson and Allen Iverson!' But you know what? The more I watch shrimps like Porter, the more my faith in stereotypes grows. Height is very important in basketball.
The problem with these super-short guys isn't talent, they have more of it than anyone. A.I. is the toughest dude in the sport, and Nate Robinson might be the most explosive athlete in the NBA. Their primary problem is the chip on their shoulder. It drives them to play like complete idiots. Have you noticed that virtually all basketball players under 5'10" are tweeners? All these guys want to do is play offense. Their coaches keep pushing them to play the point, but they resist, and play half-heartedly, and eventually get moved back to the 2, and then all the pundits clap their hands because the 'coach is recognizing his players' talents'. No one pays attention to the fact that it isn't exactly good for a defense to have a back-court with an average height under 6'. How many teams have won anything with a sub-6-footer starting at the 2-guard?
If these guys committed themselves to the point, and lost their playground-pride, I'd be fine with them. Point guard is the least height-reliant position on the court, plenty of 6-footers win Championships at that position. But they don't change. They aren't winners. They're selfish and immature, and prideful to the detriment of everyone around them.
Jason Williams finally won a Championship because he grew up and listened to all of the people who told him that taking 3's from 10' beyond the line was a bad idea. But he's 6' tall, he wasn't on a crusade to give the middle finger to a bunch of imaginary people who told him that he can't play basketball because he's too short. He wasn't consumed by pride.
I don't want to get preachy, but this idiotic culture has begun to glorify pride. I'm an agnostic, but I recognize that there are some pretty damn good reasons that pride is one of the Seven Sins. It's a terrible vice, and we're just begging our children to possess it with all of our nonsense about 'self-esteem' and 'being true to yourself' and 'not letting anyone keep you down'.
If TaJuan Porter makes it to the NBA (and I suspect that he won't, I think NBA teams are starting to figure these things out), he has to ask himself a question: do I care more about winning a Championship, or proving people wrong?
The problem with the latter is that choosing that path will only prove those people (like myself) 100% right. I look forward to it.
The signing of TJ Duckett was annoying ... and the fact that Shaun Alexander is still on the roster is upsetting (but not horrifying, because he probably will be cut later this year, thank God), but then I saw this in the paper:
I mean ... this is just .... F'ING WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Doesn't anyone understand what this is? Shouldn't the Seahawks understand better than anyone what Julius Jones is? HE'S F'ING SHAUN ALEXANDER WITHOUT THE STATISTICS! That's what this team needs? Another selfish, money-obsessed, stubborn wuss? Another guy who has no interest in breaking tackles? Another guy who will even quit the pretense of running hard once he lands a big deal? Another guy who the offensive line will stop blocking for?
Oh my God ... I feel sick ... Alexander's presence has been steadily killing my love for the Seahawks the past two seasons ... two seasons that I predicted after he signed that contract because I know what kind of guy he is ... and they're going to do it again ... I might dump the whole team, our stupid sports teams in this city just don't have a clue.
There's only one acceptable explanation for this bit of news (and the only thing that's keeping me optimistic): the Seahawks are giving Shaun Alexander a big fat spiteful 'F U' by effectively telling him: 'This is what we think of your lazy behind! We're talking to JULIUS JONES! He embodies everything that we hate about you, but he's younger, and that's good enough for us because you have no interest in demystifying the stereotype that running backs are worthless after their 30th birthday, even though you TOLD us it was a myth that wouldn't apply to you, go to hell.'
If either Jones or Alexander is on this roster at the beginning of the year, there is a genuine threat that I will quit my fandom ... this comes after I abandoned the M's in 2003 due to incompetence, and after the Sonics started packing their bags last year ... what else do I have? My sports-self is more depressed than Isiah Thomas.
I have yet to write, or even talk, about this subject, because I don't know what to say about it. Am I supposed to rail against Clay Bennett for being a lying megalomaniac? That just feels to easy and obvious. Am I supposed to get mad at Howard Schultz for buying a team without knowledge of their historically awful lease? Too many other people are doing it for me to bother. Am I supposed to get mad at the Seattle City Council for being a bunch of out-of-touch, racist, insulated a-holes? They're politicians! Was I supposed to expect something else from them?
As for the fans, I'm not going to give them grief, and neither should you. This team has been mediocre and starless for ten years, with impotent owners who don't understand the NBA, and pathetic coaches like Bob Weiss and Bob Hill. You non-Washingtonians keep pointing at the flagging attendance. OF COURSE! This city's been convinced that the team is leaving for two years! What're we supposed to do?
If you think that this city can't support an NBA team, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you think that Oklahoma City will do a better job of supporting a team, you're insane. If Durant turns this team into a winner, and Oklahoma City has better attendance than the past ten years of Sonics lameness, AND you use THAT as evidence that this was a good move, then you can go straight to hell. Look at the big picture.
Isiah, regarding the recent sexual harassment trial: "Honestly, my head never left basketball. This is what I've done. This is what I do and this is what I think about the majority of the time."
Okay, I'm going to try to sort Isiah's mind out.
Basketball is so important to him that he decided to focus his impressive mental powers upon coaching, rather than the non-basketball-related trial that he'd been subjected to for the past few weeks. This was somehow preferrable to settling the case before it began, getting a 10 million dollar discount, and spending that time thinking about basketball ... which he apparently did anyway ... and not having his name raked through the media-mud repeatedly, illuminating for the general public the fact that beneath the smile he's a mysoginistic, foul-mouthed, angry, incompetent stereotype.
It makes perfect sense. No, really. This exemplifies Isiah's thought processes, and gives us insight into the workings of his mind. It's logic like this that allows him to keep getting work from narcissistic fascists like James Dolan.
But I'll say this about Dolan: at least he's not a two-faced hypocrit. We can figure out that he's a #### just by listening to him talk. Isiah's a bit smoother, as we'll see by the relatively positive reaction to that idiotic quote.
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 ...
