Hi. I'm a professional motivational speaker.

I'd just like to throw my two cents in about John Lucas's involvement in the Beasley issue and his supposed expertise and success with rehabbing players.

Full disclosure and not so brief aside:  I am a huge fan of Jerry Tarkanian and have always held a grudge about John Lucas replacing him as the Spurs' head coach in 1992 after only 20 games (Tark was 9-11!.  One of the driving forces behind Tarkanian's firing was Dale Ellis's public expression of discontent.  Dale Ellis!  Though One of my favorite factoids about the Tark firing is as follows:  "Tarkanian may have actually brought about his own dismissal with a letter he sent to McCombs on Monday urging the acquisition of a point guard and arguing that the team could simply not win without one. "All I wanted was a point guard," he said."  (Source:  New York Times.))

Back to the subject at hand.  This week it has become clear that the entire NBA world sees John Lucas as some kind of rehabilitation specialist.  He helped TJ Ford recover from his back injury.  He counseled Sean Williams while at BC.  He rehabilitated Daryl Strawberry in the early 90's.

HEYWAITAMINUTE!  Strawberry was back on coke and ho's approximately twelve times after Lucas's intervention.  Sean Williams never made anything of himself.  And TJ Ford, well, he didn't exactly have a drug problem and I'm not sure making a player work hard qualifies someone as anything more than a drill sergeant.

John Lucas, when he was with the Spurs, was a successful coach.  He threw it all away by taking an offer  behind his team president's back to become the Sixers' General Manager, Vice President, and Coach.  That didn't work out so well for him and he spent the next two seasons going 24-58 and then 18-64. (He was noted for trying to take Derrick Coleman on as a reclamation project.  It did not go well.)

Lucas then went on to coach the Cavs, where he was fired in his second year after having the worst record in the league.  (One could, however, argue that Lucas's poor record led Cleveland to the acquisition of LeBron James, in which case I may be underestimating his genius.)

My point here is not that Lucas was a terrible coach (though I think he was) or that he can't rehabilitate players.  But he currently makes his living as a consultant for players to hire and the Beasley situation is getting him more publicity than I've ever heard him get before.

I can't help but think that Lucas is charging a pretty penny (pursuant to the NBA's rules, the team must pay for treatment in its substance abuse program) for his services and it's a little questionable that it's been publicly announced that he is working with Beasley to overcome an issue that should be privately addressed.  I think Lucas's history of player oversight (Lloyd Daniels, Derrick Coleman, Vernon Maxwell, Darius Miles, DaJuan Wagner, and Ricky Davis played under him, to name a few) is questionable.  And I think that in Michael Beasley, Lucas may have found the best possible PR boon his company will ever receive.

More conspiracy theories soon!

As always, e-mail me at dontgiveupthebasketballblog@gmail.com 

When I party, I party hardy

Sly and the family did some partying in their time and it's now apparent that Michael Beasley does as well.

While this could be serious (heroin addiction, alcoholism, depression, etc.) the facts appear to me to suggest that Beasley may have found a loophole to help him avoid being fined for the incident.

It's a well-known fact that NBA players smoke pot.  It's a well-known fact that smoking pot is neither a health risk nor addictive.  It's a well-known fact that twenty-year old men with millions of dollars like to party.  However, encouraging drug use is obviously not something the NBA wants to be involved in, so it has a well-publicized and somewhat successful drug treatment program.  

The story linked to above contains an interesting paragraph:

Sources said the Heat encouraged Beasley to check into the facility to address possible substance and psychological issues. He is expected to spend time with former NBA player and coach John Lucas(notes), who is renowned for his success in working with troubled players. As part of the NBA’s treatment program, Beasley is expected to stay in the facility for a minimum of 30 days with little outside contact, one source close to him said.

When I had first heard the Beasley story it appeared that he was in rehabilitation on his own accord but the above suggests that the NBA is mandating and controlling his treatment program.  This would only occur if Beasley had voluntarily submitted to the NBA's treatment program.

The NBA's treatment program provides athletes with a way to avoid fines and discipline and specifically provides in its rules that "In order to encourage players with problems to seek help, this treatment is provided at the expense of the team, the player continues to be paid, and penalties are generally not imposed as long as the player complies with the terms of his prescribed treatment."  

The previous involvement with marijuana in Beasley's rookie training camp cost him a cool $50,000.00, and one could reasonably assume that a second fine would be greater.  I don't want to downplay the seriousness of Beasley's condition, which at this point cannot be determined, but isn't it a possibility that this is a money-making maneuver?  

As always, comment or e-mail me at dontgiveupthebasketballblog@gmail.com.

Sofamore Statistics are Stoopid

Today I'd like you to join me in a brief discussion of the Rookie/Sophomore roster selection for the 2009 All-Star Saturday festivities.  The rosters for the game are as follows:

ROOKIE TEAM ROSTER

Player (Team) Position Height Weight School/Country Michael Beasley (Heat) F 6-9 245 Kansas State Rudy Fernandez (Trail Blazers) G-F 6-6 185 Spain Marc Gasol (Grizzlies) C 7-1 265 Spain Eric Gordon (Clippers) G 6-3 222 Indiana Brook Lopez (Nets) C 7-0 260 Stanford O.J. Mayo (Grizzlies) G 6-4 210 USC Greg Oden (Trail Blazers) C 7-0 285 Ohio State Derrick Rose (Bulls) G 6-3 190 Memphis Russell Westbrook (Thunder) G 6-3 187 UCLA

Head Coach -- TBD Assistant Coach -- Dwyane Wade

SOPHOMORE TEAM ROSTER

Player (Team) Position Height Weight School/Country Aaron Brooks (Rockets) G 6-0 161 Oregon Wilson Chandler (Knicks) F 6-8 220 DePaul Kevin Durant (Thunder) G-F 6-9 215 Texas Jeff Green (Thunder) F 6-9 235 Georgetown Al Horford (Hawks) F-C 6-10 245 Florida Luis Scola (Rockets) F-C 6-9 245 Argentina Al Thornton (Clippers) F 6-8 220 Florida State Rodney Stuckey (Pistons) G 6-5 205 Eastern Washington Thaddeus Young (Sixers) F 6-8 220 Georgia Tech

Head Coach -- TBD Assistant Coach -- Dwight Howard

Source:  NBA.com

Today, John Hollinger of ESPN, who specializes in the study of "accurate measurement" statistics (think football's DVOA) and who coined the PER ("player efficiency rating" - a rating which Hollinger believes can accurately rank any player at any position) took the rosters of this year's rookie/soph game to task because he believed they ignored the truly good young players (that is, those with high PERs or other statistics he deems accurate assessors of talent).  To put it plainly, John was upset that the NBA had not been using his statistical methods to assess the play of young basketball players. 

The rosters for the R/S game are chosen by a group of assistant coaches (I'm not sure if it's all of them or a committee) who watch the young players during the season and presumably review their statistics when they make a selection.  If a rookie is in a coach's conference, they will have seen them play twice before the All-Star game; if not, once.  The coaches are the beneficiaries of reports on the prospective rooks/sophs from their scouting staffs during the regular season (particularly important with rookies) and they have, of course, considerable experience and expertise in basketball.  

Mr. Hollinger, on the other hand, has a background entirely based in online sports journalism.  He is without graduate degrees, scouting experience, and as far as I know never played above high school (if he even played there).  ESPN has somehow managed to prevent lechrous NBA teams from hiring Hollinger to give them an edge over their competition with his impressive statistical analysis - he has no professional experience other than his ESPN work.   

Although it may seem strange in light of the foregoing, Mr. Hollinger, who got his start with the web site humbly described as "the basketball page for thinking fans", believes that he knows more about who should and who should not be on the rookie team than the NBA's assistant coaches.  I believe that he is incorrect and seek to discredit him.  His original article, from which I am about to refer, is available here.  

The first selection Hollinger takes issue with is the selection of Eric Gordon over Kevin Love.  He states that Gordon was picked because of his gaudy per-game statistics (13.8, 2.5, and 2.5) and, to quote him:  "Don't get me wrong; Gordon is going to have a fine career, it seems, and in almost any other year he'd be a shoo-in for the team. But he made this squad mainly because the forlorn Clippers have no choice but to play him extensive minutes."

Despite good play by the T-Wolves in January, I don't think Hollinger would describe either Love's or Gordon's teams as "good".  It's true that Gordon gets to start because Cuttino Mobley went down and that Love has the shadow of Al Jefferson to deal with, but there is one plain fact that Hollinger is missing.  Kevin Love is not getting time on a bad team because of the bad team's decision not to play him.  Kevin McHale, no less than one of the top five post players in history, is starting Craig Smith over Mr. Love.  

Hollinger explains what McHale and the NBA assistant coaches are missing:  Love leads the league in offensive rebound rate, as I mentioned the other day, but his prodigious work on the boards has gone largely unnoticed because he plays only 23.2 minutes a game, far less than Gordon's 32.2.  (Note:  Hollinger is incorrect about Love's rebound rate - he only leads rookies - he is third in the NBA.)

Do you see how this works?  Although Kevin Love's own coach, who watches him practice, spends from 8-10 hours a day with him, and knows more than we could ever hope to about his personality, temperment, and ability, does not play him more than Craig Smith, and he is wrong not to, because Kevin Love has amazing ORP48 (Offensive Rebounds Per 48 Minutes) statistics.  But, just for the sake of argument, let's take a look at how the ORP48 statistics relate to player skill.  Below is a chart of the Top 15 ORP48ers*:

5	Marcus Camby , LAC	36	34.6	123	3.4	366	10.2	489	13.6	18.8
6	Dwight Howard , ORL	43	36.2	187	4.3	412	9.6	599	13.9	18.5
7	Adonal Foyle , ORL	5	5.7	2	.4	9	1.8	11	2.2	18.5
8	Andris Biedrins , GSW	45	31.8	184	4.1	359	8.0	543	12.1	18.2
9	* Kevin Love , MIN	44	23.1	150	3.4	221	5.0	371	8.4	17.6
10	Joel Przybilla , POR	45	21.8	94	2.1	251	5.6	345	7.7	16.9
11	* Hamed Haddadi , MEM	4	3.6	2	.5	3	.8	5	1.2	16.8
12	Samuel Dalembert , PHI	44	24.7	112	2.5	264	6.0	376	8.5	16.6
13	Carlos Boozer , UTA	12	33.8	43	3.6	97	8.1	140	11.7	16.6
14	Troy Murphy , IND	41	33.2	72	1.8	396	9.7	468	11.4	16.5
15	Marcin Gortat , ORL	28	10.7	42	1.5	60	2.1	102	3.6	16.4
16	Austin Croshere , SAS-MIL	14	7.1	11	.8	23	1.6	34	2.4	16.3
17	Antonio McDyess , DET	25	23.9	58	2.3	140	5.6	198	7.9	15.9
18	David Lee , NYK	45	35.1	140	3.1	382	8.5	522	11.6	15.9
19	Joakim Noah , CHI	44	19.3	124	2.8	152	3.5	276	6.3	15.6
20	Andrew Bogut , MIL	34	32.1	114	3.4	241	7.1	355	10.4	15.6
21	Reggie Evans , PHI	41	12.0	58	1.4	101	2.5	159	3.9	15.5
22	Aaron Gray , CHI	39	14.8	73	1.9	113	2.9	186	4.8	15.4
23	Erick Dampier , DAL	45	23.0	128	2.8	203	4.5	331	7.4	15.4

*Note that the list display starts at five and includes eighteen entries because the top five all played five games or less and there were three people on the list who should not be applicable due to too few games played who I couldn't figure out how to remove.

That chart is a who's who of marginal big men in the NBA.  Are some of them (Dwight Howard, Marcus Camby) excellent rebounders?  Absolutely.  Are some of them horrendous guys who can hustle their asses off with no regard for fouling because they don't have to play that many minutes?  Yes!  (See:  Joel Pryzbilla, whose stats are almost identical to Love, Aaron Gray, Reggie Evans, Marcin Gortat).  In my mind, Love can fall into the latter category as easily as he can the first, and Hollinger gives no other statistic to support the assertion that Love is more deserving than Gordon.  Even if he is correct that Love is the third-best offensive rebounder in the league, does this fact prove he has more skill than someone who is, say, an excellent scorer?  Or passer?  

The story with these players' rookies season thusfar illustrates their skill level and, in my mind, shows how they should be rated respective to each other.  Love has been playing consistently all year, and has shown some improvement.  In November, he averaged 8.4 points and 6.1 rebounds per game.  In December, he averaged 6.6 ppg and 9.1 rpg.  In January, he averaged 12.5 ppg and 10.1 rpg.  These numbers are, obviously, mediocre.  

Gordon's numbers tell a similar story.  It's just a better one.  In November, he averaged 7.8 ppg, 1.4 rpg, and 1.7 apg.  In December, it was 13.9 ppg, 3.7 rpg, and 1.8 apg.  This January, he has averaged 21.4 ppg, 2.4 rpg, and 4.3 apg.  

If anyone wants to argue that a player who is their team's top scorer every night should be cut from a team because a guy who is good at offensive rebounding in limited minutes and who is warming the pine behind Craig Smith is statistically better than the scorer, I think it's safe to say that person is not qualified to question the assistant coaches.  

Let's continue with Hollinger's "snubs".  Hollinger notes:  Because of that [coaches looking at only simple statistics and ignoring minutes played], we'll have the Human Goaltend Violation, Al Thornton of the Clippers, playing in the game instead of Houston's Carl Landry, and we'll have New York's Wilson Chandler instead of Toronto's Jamario Moon.

(What is a human goaltend violation?  Does Al Thornton goaltend often?  I tried to find statistics reflecting the same and I don't think the NBA keeps them.)  

Some of my readers may recall that I am a big Carl Landry fan and certainly have no axe to grind.  I also like Jamario Moon, one of the best dunkers in the NBA.  

However, in this analysis, Hollinger is simply ignoring the reality of Landry and Moon's situations.  Carl Landry, love him though I do, is judged by Rick Adelman, one of the better coaches in the NBA, to be worse than Luis Scola (12.3/7.9).  I have nothing against Luis Scola, but he's not that good.  There's a simple commutative rule in sports: if you're getting benched behind a guy who's not that good...you're not that good either.  Coaches with thirty years of experience rating players don't usually make mistakes on their own teams (though it's not unheard of) and I don't think anyone would argue that Rick Adelman benching Landry is an exception to that rule.  

So why does Landry deserve to make the team, you ask?  Landry, in particular, is a stunning exclusion. I've written many times already about his impressive per-minute numbers the past two seasons, but suffice to say that he ranks right between Josh Smith and David West in PER, and that his numbers are actually down from what he did as a rookie.

See...he's right in between Josh Smith and David West.  If only Rick Adelman knew. 

I went on ESPN and looked at the season PER ratings.  David West is rated 49th in the NBA (20 spots behind Marreese Speights...who was not even chosen for the rookie team!), and I can't find Carl Landry.  ESPN would have me pay a fee to view beyond fifty, and he's presumably there, ahead of Al Thornton.  But in my mind, Thonrton (who averages about 17 and 5) being behind Landry (who has scored twenty points twice this season (20 and 21)) in PER is more of a condemnation of PER than an accurate assessment of skill.

The Chandler/Moon comparison is also quite damning.  Jamario moon is a 28 year old sophomore whose statistics dropped from last season (8.5 ppg) to this one (7.5 ppg).  He is athletic, a good defender...and he scores 7.5 points per game despite starting all but seven Raptors games this year.  That makes him, as far as I know, the second least-effective starter in the NBA (after Ben Wallace).  Fine me a worse one and I'll give you credit.  

Wilson Chandler, on the other hand, is 22 years old, and went from scoring 7.3 ppg, 3.6 rpg, and .5 apg last year to 13.8 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 2.1 apg, and also throws in a block and a steal per game.  

I know there are factors (D'Antoni) that might skew Chandler's statistics but I don't see how one can argue that someone who actually got worse since last year, is old, and is the second-worst starter in the NBA should replace a young, up-and-coming player who happens to shoot for a low percentage.  

Hollinger's last point is that Aaron Brooks should be replaced by Ramon Sessions.  I have no problem with that, but would like to take this opportunity to cite Hollinger's draft analysis of 2007 which stated, based on the same statistical analysis that now vindicates Sessions, that: 

Nevada guard Ramon Sessions, and Florida guard Taurean Green are fringe first-rounders who are best to be avoided.

Hollinger for his draft analysis had rated Sessions behind Josh McRoberts ("he has the assist to turnover ratio of a point guard"),  Mike Conley ("in the last six drafts, only Chris Paul ranked higher than Mike Conley"), Nick Fazekas ("in a dead heat for No. 4...he's like Nick Collison with a jump shot"), and many others. 

The point I'm trying to make here is this:  John Hollinger and his ignorant yet arrogant analyses are full of shit.

As always, e-mail me at dontgiveupthebasketballblog@gmail.com.

  

Welcome Back

Did you miss the blog that told you as far back as February 22, 2007 that Paul Millsap was a keeper? The blog unafraid to compare the beauty of Zaza Pachulia with Zha Zha Gabor? The blog that has drawn comments from as many as three readers who I don't even know personally?

Well, I did. And after a tiring election season, I'm back in the saddle and ready to serve.

In the tradition of DGU, I would like to open with a discussion of one of my favorite rookies in the current class, Russell Westbrook. 2008/2009 is quietly shaping up to be an impressive rookie class (having nothing to do with Kevin Love's breathtaking outlet passes), and Westbrook plays no small part.

Perhaps most impressive about the 08/09 class is that it has has two very talented stars (OJ Mayo and Derrick Rose) and two solid pivot men (Marc Gasol and Brook Lopez), a combination that no recent draft has been able to produce. There are also many young men that could become very good players (Michael Beasley, Greg Oden, Kevin Love, Eric Gordon, Mario Chalmers) and some nice surprises (Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Courtney Lee, Anthony Morrow, Jason Thompson). It's just a good, solid class.

The thing that makes me the happiest, though, is that it's produced a guard who is a great, great dunker (with no disrespect to Mr. Rose) and I'd like to honor him with the memory of a couple of his college dunks. I'll be pulling for him in the slam dunk contest but Nate Robinson is clearly the man to beat in that arena. Either way, it's always fun to have some new, young talent in the highlight reels.

(Do you think Vince Carter ever thinks to himself "I would make a ton of money if I participated in the dunk contest and people started to like me again"? I mean, that makes a lot of sense, right? I realize there's been a rule change but obviously they'd change it back for him. Sorry, back to Westbrook.)

Now tell me that doesn't excite you a little bit.

Impressively, Westbrook is playing better in the NBA than he ever did in college. His averages of 14 points, 5 assists, 4 rebounds, and 1.5 steals compare to UCLA stats of 12.7 points, 4.3 assists, and 3.9 rebounds. His rookie stats are impressive enough that I'd say they are the second best all-around line in the rookie class to Rose's 17.1, 6.0, 3.5, and .86.

What's really admirable is that Westbrook is not a point guard by trade and only played the position sparingly at UCLA. However, Oklahoma City has dictated to him his role of starting point guard and he has filled it admirably, despite limited shooting range and a team that is at the bottom of the heap for NBA talent. There was a nice story in the Oklahoma City papers a couple of days ago that noted "...Russell Westbrook didn't know there was such a thing as the rookie of the month award in the NBA -- until he won it."

Here's to you, Russell. You're the DGU ROY thusfar, if only for your response to the thoughtful journalist who asked "Do you believe in moral victories, Russell?"

("No.")

As always, e-mail me at dontgiveupthebasketballblog@gmail.com

Politics

Not that any of you out there read this, but if you're in Vermont, give this page a look.

http://www.tomcostelloforvt.com/

Thanks.

James