After dropping the series opener at home and then the first two on the road, the Dallas Mavericks face a 3-1 deficit in their series against the Golden State Warriors. The Mavs are the number one seed in the Western Conference, and if the NBA playoffs were March madness, they would have many a bracketeer sweating over potentially losing their projected winner in the first round. Mark Cuban is pissed. (I'm speculating. Don't quote me on that.)
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everyone would have picked the Warriors to upset Dallas. After all, entering the series Golden State had won five straight against Dirk and company, and were the only team Dallas didn't beat this year. So, the question is, given the choice, would Dallas have selected a different opponent in the first round, and pawned the Warriors off on somebody else?
I think sports fans and analysts generally underestimate the importance of match-ups in all sorts of situations. Or maybe I underestimate sports fans and analysts. But the guys on TV have been saying since game one that the Mavericks were going to come around and win this series. And some of them will surely continue to say so even if Golden State leads game five by fifteen points entering the fourth quarter.
Can't we see by now that the Warriors are a really bad match-up for Dallas? They make Dirk Nowitzki, who normally dominates games at the offensive end and gets lots of rebounds at the other, take silly shots and look like just another middling player.
The Mavericks only lost 15 games during the regular season, three of those coming against Golden State. Factor in multiple losses to Phoenix and Utah and you get 18 teams against whom they swept their season series. This is a team that matches up well against almost everyone. It seems they would have been better off playing any other team in the first round, even Phoenix or San Antonio. At the very least, losing to one of those teams would not carry the same embarrassment.
But, in fact, the NBA has explicit measures in place to prevent Dallas and San Antonio from meeting too early in the playoffs. Despite the fact that divisions within the conferences are almost meaningless in terms of scheduling (teams play division foes four times each, and a total of 36 games against the remaining ten conference foes, meaning four games against six teams and three against the other four teams), they account for the divisions when they seed the teams for the playoffs.
Except now they have this exception. So even though Utah and Miami were division winners this year, they didn't get the 3 seeds. They got the 4s. San Antonio and Cleveland garnered 3 and 2 seeds, respectively, despite not winning their divisions. But, it stops there. Houston and Chicago, despite having better records, respectively, than Utah and Miami, did not get 4 seeds (or 3, in the case of Chicago, who also had a better record than Toronto). Except, for all practical purposes, Houston is the 4 seed, and Utah the 5, because Houston got home court advantage in the series.
Anyone want to argue that this isn't nonsense? The divisions are practically meaningless, except to organize a few playoff match-ups. Practically speaking, there is no ill effect in the Western Conference this year, because only Utah and Houston swapped seeds, and Houston appropriately got home court advantage. But in the Eastern Conference, the 6 seed Nets got to play Toronto, who had the fourth best record, instead of Chicago. And the poor defending champion Heat was swept away by the Bulls as a result. Oh well. Who wants to see Shaq win again, anyway?
The most equitable system, if we want teams with better records to have an advantage, is probably to let the highest seed choose its first round opponent from among the seven other conference playoff teams, and then let the 2 seed, assuming it's not them, choose from the other five, and so on. That way teams like the Mavs can avoid unfortunate match-ups against generally poorer teams. (Golden State may be a special case this year, because they benefited from a trade at the deadline and played very well down the stretch.) Barring that, teams should at least be seeded according to their records, rather than their more or less arbitrary divisions.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
2007 NFL Draft - Part 2
Watching ESPN today, I got to listen to USC WR Dwayne Jarrett. Obviously, he wants to stick up for himself. But, obviously, he should have been force to take more difficult courses at USC (a very highly-regarded academic institution). He says he's better than Calvin Johnson and everyone should agree because he had better stats in college than Johnson. The stats don't lie, but you have to look at them objectively. At USC, Jarrett was catching balls from Leinart and Booty. Johnson was catching them from Reggie Ball. Plus, Johnson was facing much tougher coverage. I don't remember anyone named Steve Smith, Reggie Bush or LenDale White playing for the Yellow Jackets. Plus, the NFL game is different than the college game. The athletes are better in the NFL. That's why you want a guy that has the size, hands, and athleticism (Johnson), rather than a guy with just size and good hands. Jarrett didn't have trouble getting open in college, will that be the case in the NFL? While Jarrett may think he's being clever in making his case, he really just sounds like a moron ... at least as long as people are actually thinking about what he's saying.
2007 NFL Draft - Part 1
There has been a lot of talk recently that you need to build around a QB. That sentiment was given on ESPN's draft special this afternoon. Specifically, it was said that you need a marquee guy to get you to the Super Bowl. I disagree. Sure, Peyton Manning helped the Colts win it this year, but if you look down the list of Super Bowl teams in recent years, it's really not the all-time greats (and early first round picks) that are getting it done.
In the last five years, you have Manning and McNabb in the big game, along with 6th rounders Brady and Hasselbeck, later first rounders Roethlisberger and Grossman (who were part, not driving forces, in the runs by their respective teams), Delhomme, Brad Johnson and Rich Gannon.
The Raiders (and other NFL teams) shouldn't overvalue big-name QB's that aren't proven commodities because if you miss on a QB it sets you back years! You invest so much money that you can't cut ties with mistakes like Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith without paying a big penalty. Would the Houston Texans have subjected David Carr to as much abuse if he hadn't been a high draft pick?
The Raiders aren't a QB away from the Super Bowl. While Aaron Brooks isn't going to the HOF, he has been successful in the NFL. Andrew Walter was an early 3rd round pick who was fairly highly regarded coming out of Arizona State. What makes people think Russell will come in and fix all the Raiders' ills. Russell may be big and athletic (though he's not Michael Vick or Vince Young when it comes to mobility), this isn't HS. He's not going to be able to side-step and stiff arm DE's and DT's then toss it down the field. Seems like trying to trade back and get some OL help (or keeping some cap flexibility to sign some OL help) would be prudent. If you sink a truckload of money into Russell without fixing any of the other holes, you wasted last year's Andrew Walter pick.
I'm not sure exactly what Oakland needs, but Calvin Johnson would be an upgrade at WR. Give Walter some weapons (Johnson, Moss and Porter) and pick up a solid OL guy a little later on. If you trade the #1 pick to Cleveland (seems like they really want Russell), you don't have to pay #1 overall money and can add picks to improve the team later on (or get considerations for the next year's draft). Taking Russell just doesn't make sense, especially because he's been bolstered not by great play on the field but by his "potential".
In the last five years, you have Manning and McNabb in the big game, along with 6th rounders Brady and Hasselbeck, later first rounders Roethlisberger and Grossman (who were part, not driving forces, in the runs by their respective teams), Delhomme, Brad Johnson and Rich Gannon.
The Raiders (and other NFL teams) shouldn't overvalue big-name QB's that aren't proven commodities because if you miss on a QB it sets you back years! You invest so much money that you can't cut ties with mistakes like Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith without paying a big penalty. Would the Houston Texans have subjected David Carr to as much abuse if he hadn't been a high draft pick?
The Raiders aren't a QB away from the Super Bowl. While Aaron Brooks isn't going to the HOF, he has been successful in the NFL. Andrew Walter was an early 3rd round pick who was fairly highly regarded coming out of Arizona State. What makes people think Russell will come in and fix all the Raiders' ills. Russell may be big and athletic (though he's not Michael Vick or Vince Young when it comes to mobility), this isn't HS. He's not going to be able to side-step and stiff arm DE's and DT's then toss it down the field. Seems like trying to trade back and get some OL help (or keeping some cap flexibility to sign some OL help) would be prudent. If you sink a truckload of money into Russell without fixing any of the other holes, you wasted last year's Andrew Walter pick.
I'm not sure exactly what Oakland needs, but Calvin Johnson would be an upgrade at WR. Give Walter some weapons (Johnson, Moss and Porter) and pick up a solid OL guy a little later on. If you trade the #1 pick to Cleveland (seems like they really want Russell), you don't have to pay #1 overall money and can add picks to improve the team later on (or get considerations for the next year's draft). Taking Russell just doesn't make sense, especially because he's been bolstered not by great play on the field but by his "potential".
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Loose balls
The order and beauty of basketball as we know it is threatened by the ugly chaos that the loose ball introduces. The last two nights of NBA playoff action have me yearning for a different set of rules regarding loose balls, possession, and fouls.
I have a very general notion that rules in sports should be simple and easy to enforce. The less room for error we give them, the fewer mistakes officials will make. And fewer mistakes mean fairer game play, which everyone generally agrees is good.
So, what's wrong with loose balls?
The second problem would not be a problem except that when the ball goes out of bounds, the officials decide who last touched it and reward it to the other team. This is a system fraught with potential disaster. How often have you seen them blow this call? It happens all the time. So, I'm proposing a rule change. Basketball at almost every level has a possession arrow that determines which team is awarded the ball at various epochs in the game (e.g. jump balls in NCAA basketball). Why not use it more regularly? Don't punish the defense for knocking the ball out of bounds. Determine possession using the arrow, and then flip the sucker.
Changing this rule wouldn't necessarily fix the timeout-call-while-falling-out-of-bounds play that nobody really likes (if you have the possession arrow, you might prefer to save it for later, and if you don't, then you still need the ball), but it would fix the nastiest play in basketball. There would no longer be any incentive whatsoever for throwing the ball off your opponent's leg. Why it isn't a foul now to intentionally hit someone with the ball, I cannot fathom, but this wonderful rule proposal would render it moot.
The third problem may be the worst of the lot. In game two between the Rockets and Jazz, Shane Battier ran into Deron Williams on a loose ball they were both trying to get to and was called for a foul. In game two of the Bulls-Heat series Antoine Walker ran over Kurt Hinrich on another loose ball and Hinrich inexplicably was assessed his fifth personal. In the same Jazz-Rockets game, Carlos Boozer tried to take a rebound away from Yao Ming from behind and was called for an "over the back" foul which pretty much sealed the game for Houston.
What's the problem? Players hustling to get to loose balls are often penalized for arriving a fraction of a second later than an opponent. The policy of awarding virtual possession to the player who gets there first and penalizing any subsequent contact is illogical. If players followed the strategy that this call implies, they would only go after loose balls they were sure they would be able to get. Do we want to watch a twelve-minute standoff with ten players in a stalemate circle around a ball in the middle of the floor? I don't think so. They've got to be allowed to try to get it.
Contact on loose balls should be liberally allowed, and fouls called only if excessive contact results in a change of possession or other advantage gained for the aggressor. "Advantage gained" is the key, here. If two players go for a rebound, and the one who comes up with it gets bumped a bit, so be it. As long as he retains possession, there's no reason to blow the whistle. Likewise chasing after an errant pass, etc.
Under this interpretation, the Walker-Hinrich play should have been a no call. The Boozer-Yao play is harder to tell, because the whistle blew while they were fighting over the ball on the floor. But I think a no call would be appropriate here, because the contact came when both players were reaching for the ball. This was not a push-him-down-and-jump-over-him "over the back" foul. The Battier-Williams play is more of a mess. Certainly, Battier was trying to get the ball, not to run over Williams. But Williams had already tipped the ball in the direction of his own basket, and if Battier hadn't leveled him, he could have run it down and made a lay-up. It's probably a foul. And yet this is the one that the commentators made the biggest fuss about. Go figure.
I have a very general notion that rules in sports should be simple and easy to enforce. The less room for error we give them, the fewer mistakes officials will make. And fewer mistakes mean fairer game play, which everyone generally agrees is good.
So, what's wrong with loose balls?
- Broken plays lead to unfortunate advantages;
- they go out of bounds; and
- they result in fouls.
The second problem would not be a problem except that when the ball goes out of bounds, the officials decide who last touched it and reward it to the other team. This is a system fraught with potential disaster. How often have you seen them blow this call? It happens all the time. So, I'm proposing a rule change. Basketball at almost every level has a possession arrow that determines which team is awarded the ball at various epochs in the game (e.g. jump balls in NCAA basketball). Why not use it more regularly? Don't punish the defense for knocking the ball out of bounds. Determine possession using the arrow, and then flip the sucker.
Changing this rule wouldn't necessarily fix the timeout-call-while-falling-out-of-bounds play that nobody really likes (if you have the possession arrow, you might prefer to save it for later, and if you don't, then you still need the ball), but it would fix the nastiest play in basketball. There would no longer be any incentive whatsoever for throwing the ball off your opponent's leg. Why it isn't a foul now to intentionally hit someone with the ball, I cannot fathom, but this wonderful rule proposal would render it moot.
The third problem may be the worst of the lot. In game two between the Rockets and Jazz, Shane Battier ran into Deron Williams on a loose ball they were both trying to get to and was called for a foul. In game two of the Bulls-Heat series Antoine Walker ran over Kurt Hinrich on another loose ball and Hinrich inexplicably was assessed his fifth personal. In the same Jazz-Rockets game, Carlos Boozer tried to take a rebound away from Yao Ming from behind and was called for an "over the back" foul which pretty much sealed the game for Houston.
What's the problem? Players hustling to get to loose balls are often penalized for arriving a fraction of a second later than an opponent. The policy of awarding virtual possession to the player who gets there first and penalizing any subsequent contact is illogical. If players followed the strategy that this call implies, they would only go after loose balls they were sure they would be able to get. Do we want to watch a twelve-minute standoff with ten players in a stalemate circle around a ball in the middle of the floor? I don't think so. They've got to be allowed to try to get it.
Contact on loose balls should be liberally allowed, and fouls called only if excessive contact results in a change of possession or other advantage gained for the aggressor. "Advantage gained" is the key, here. If two players go for a rebound, and the one who comes up with it gets bumped a bit, so be it. As long as he retains possession, there's no reason to blow the whistle. Likewise chasing after an errant pass, etc.
Under this interpretation, the Walker-Hinrich play should have been a no call. The Boozer-Yao play is harder to tell, because the whistle blew while they were fighting over the ball on the floor. But I think a no call would be appropriate here, because the contact came when both players were reaching for the ball. This was not a push-him-down-and-jump-over-him "over the back" foul. The Battier-Williams play is more of a mess. Certainly, Battier was trying to get the ball, not to run over Williams. But Williams had already tipped the ball in the direction of his own basket, and if Battier hadn't leveled him, he could have run it down and made a lay-up. It's probably a foul. And yet this is the one that the commentators made the biggest fuss about. Go figure.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Spurs Bench
On 1st and 10 today, Jay Crawford had a stat about the San Antonio Spurs. In the last couple months, they've won 5 games by 15 points in which none of their players have played 30+ minutes. He asked if it was significant?
Probably not! What do you do when you are ahead by a lot? You rest your starters. Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker are the big 3 for the Spurs, and they've all suffered injuries in the recent past, so it's not surprising that they'd have their minutes monitored.
The Spurs are a good team and there are quite a few not real good NBA teams. So, it's not surprising that they win a few games by a fair margin. Their stars don't play big minutes, on average. Duncan leads them with 34.3 minutes per game, followed closely by Parker, Bruce Bowen and Ginobli at 32.7, 30.4 and 27.6. So, it really doesn't take a lot of extra rest to get those guys under 30 minutes per game.
My question is, where do people come up with this crap?
Probably not! What do you do when you are ahead by a lot? You rest your starters. Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobli and Tony Parker are the big 3 for the Spurs, and they've all suffered injuries in the recent past, so it's not surprising that they'd have their minutes monitored.
The Spurs are a good team and there are quite a few not real good NBA teams. So, it's not surprising that they win a few games by a fair margin. Their stars don't play big minutes, on average. Duncan leads them with 34.3 minutes per game, followed closely by Parker, Bruce Bowen and Ginobli at 32.7, 30.4 and 27.6. So, it really doesn't take a lot of extra rest to get those guys under 30 minutes per game.
My question is, where do people come up with this crap?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Delayed Gratification
Why do fouls on the shot count towards the bonus? That question struck me a while back and I have yet to think of a reasonable answer. If all the fouls your opponent commits are on the shot, you don't need the bonus. If the first 9 fouls in a half committed by your opponent are on the shot, then you are going to shoot two on every foul committed, even if subsequent fouls are "on the floor." Is this reasonable?
I think it would be equitable if two teams committing the same number of total fouls and fouls on the shot resulted in the same number of foul shots for each team. Let's put some numbers to it. The Jesters committed 14 fouls, the first 7 on the shot and the last 7 on the floor. The Justices committed 14 fouls, but the first 7 were on the floor, while the last 7 were on the shot. We'll assume that all the fouls on the shot result in 2 FT's and that 2 of the 3 front ends of the 1 and 1's are made. So, the result: the Jesters shoot 14 FT's and the Justices shoot 27 FT's. That's just absurd! Sure, my scenario is extreme, but the rule just doesn't make sense. It's not the only one that could use a little tweaking, but it would be a sensible start.
I think it would be equitable if two teams committing the same number of total fouls and fouls on the shot resulted in the same number of foul shots for each team. Let's put some numbers to it. The Jesters committed 14 fouls, the first 7 on the shot and the last 7 on the floor. The Justices committed 14 fouls, but the first 7 were on the floor, while the last 7 were on the shot. We'll assume that all the fouls on the shot result in 2 FT's and that 2 of the 3 front ends of the 1 and 1's are made. So, the result: the Jesters shoot 14 FT's and the Justices shoot 27 FT's. That's just absurd! Sure, my scenario is extreme, but the rule just doesn't make sense. It's not the only one that could use a little tweaking, but it would be a sensible start.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Looking Forward
Might we see yet another Ohio State v. Florida game next April? Richard and Humphrey won't be back. What about Noah? It seems like if he liked college enough to stay for his junior year, he might as well come back for his senior season. Maybe he could refine his shooting technique before making the jump to the pros, unless he wants to become the next Anderson Varejao. Al Horford put up solid numbers, but looked more like a good college player with a tough transition ahead of him than a sure-fire, can't miss, NBA prospect. Maybe the two of them, along with PG Taurean Green, can convince Corey Brewer to come back to school. If so, they might be on to something. If not, they'll have a huge void to fill. Brewer's performance from beyond the arc at the Final Four has to have his stock soaring, when you combine that facet of his game with his tremendous length, athleticism, and defense.
On the other side, it's hard to see Oden coming back after that performance. He was spectacular and kept the Buckeyes relatively close. It's too bad they couldn't get anything to fall from the outside and all the loose balls (and shots of the side of the backboard) seemed to be bouncing the Gators' way. Ohio State was 4-23 from 3, with 2 of the makes coming late when the contest wasn't really in doubt. At one point, they were 2-18, while UF was 10-18 (which is where the Gators finished). I don't know if OSU made their 19th attempt or not. The Buckeyes were 4-14 against Georgetown, 5-17 against Memphis, 8-22 against Tennessee, 9-21 against Xavier, and 11-20 from deep against Central Connecticut State. Interestingly, they got progressively worse as the tournament went on. Maybe Roy will graph it for us. Back to Oden, when he comes out, he's going to be a top pick, whether that's this year or next. With another year of seasoning on those youngsters, I'll take the Buckeyes over the Gators even if Green, Brewer, Noah and Horford are ALL back (and Donovan).
And, because we're on the subject of the Florida Gators, might it be time for Billy Donovan to ride off to the Kentucky bluegrass? If there is a mass exodus of Gators to the NBA draft, what does he have left in Gainesville? Sure, he's probably got enough in the bank from the back-to-back championships that the fans won't be on his butt. But, if he has to rebuild, why not rebuild at Kentucky rather than Florida. Roy Williams lost Felton, McCants, May and Marvin Williams to the NBA after winning the title at UNC. The next year was rough, but he rebuilt quick at his (it seems) dream job. Is Florida Donovan's dream job? I doubt it ... so it seems like now is the time to move on. There is no place to go but down, maybe even if he gets all the juniors back.
Looking forward to next year, a lot of teams hinge on whether or not players leave for the NBA. Texas could be a handful with Durant, James, and Augustin as sophomores alongside Abrams and someone tall, but they aren't nearly as scary without Durant. KU should be dangerous, even if Julian Wright leaves, because they'll still have Robinson, Chalmers, Rush (he won't leave, will he?), Collins, and Stewart for the outside positions and Kaun, Arthur and Jackson inside. Ohio State will be great with Oden and could be a dangerous uptempo team without him. They'd just have to turn to Hunter, Terwilliger and their center recruit in the middle. They should still have Conley, Butler, Cook and Lighty. UNC should be back to challenge for the title as well. And, if Afflalo stays at UCLA, the Bruins should be back to challenge for the Final Four as well. What's my point? Well, I'd like to see a lot of the underclassmen back and I'd like to see Florida at full strength because I don't think they'll win if that's the case. Oh, that would be nice.
On the other side, it's hard to see Oden coming back after that performance. He was spectacular and kept the Buckeyes relatively close. It's too bad they couldn't get anything to fall from the outside and all the loose balls (and shots of the side of the backboard) seemed to be bouncing the Gators' way. Ohio State was 4-23 from 3, with 2 of the makes coming late when the contest wasn't really in doubt. At one point, they were 2-18, while UF was 10-18 (which is where the Gators finished). I don't know if OSU made their 19th attempt or not. The Buckeyes were 4-14 against Georgetown, 5-17 against Memphis, 8-22 against Tennessee, 9-21 against Xavier, and 11-20 from deep against Central Connecticut State. Interestingly, they got progressively worse as the tournament went on. Maybe Roy will graph it for us. Back to Oden, when he comes out, he's going to be a top pick, whether that's this year or next. With another year of seasoning on those youngsters, I'll take the Buckeyes over the Gators even if Green, Brewer, Noah and Horford are ALL back (and Donovan).
And, because we're on the subject of the Florida Gators, might it be time for Billy Donovan to ride off to the Kentucky bluegrass? If there is a mass exodus of Gators to the NBA draft, what does he have left in Gainesville? Sure, he's probably got enough in the bank from the back-to-back championships that the fans won't be on his butt. But, if he has to rebuild, why not rebuild at Kentucky rather than Florida. Roy Williams lost Felton, McCants, May and Marvin Williams to the NBA after winning the title at UNC. The next year was rough, but he rebuilt quick at his (it seems) dream job. Is Florida Donovan's dream job? I doubt it ... so it seems like now is the time to move on. There is no place to go but down, maybe even if he gets all the juniors back.
Looking forward to next year, a lot of teams hinge on whether or not players leave for the NBA. Texas could be a handful with Durant, James, and Augustin as sophomores alongside Abrams and someone tall, but they aren't nearly as scary without Durant. KU should be dangerous, even if Julian Wright leaves, because they'll still have Robinson, Chalmers, Rush (he won't leave, will he?), Collins, and Stewart for the outside positions and Kaun, Arthur and Jackson inside. Ohio State will be great with Oden and could be a dangerous uptempo team without him. They'd just have to turn to Hunter, Terwilliger and their center recruit in the middle. They should still have Conley, Butler, Cook and Lighty. UNC should be back to challenge for the title as well. And, if Afflalo stays at UCLA, the Bruins should be back to challenge for the Final Four as well. What's my point? Well, I'd like to see a lot of the underclassmen back and I'd like to see Florida at full strength because I don't think they'll win if that's the case. Oh, that would be nice.
The bigger the better
As we gear up for tonight's NCAA men's basketball championship game, the second championship game of 2007 between the Ohio State University and the University of Florida, I couldn't help but wonder why. Why the Buckeyes and the Gators, again?
I already knew that OSU is the largest school in the country. Perhaps that has something to do with it? Is Florida maybe the second largest? Are we doomed to this same new rivalry until some other 50,000-student juggernaut comes along?
Well, the answer is, no. Florida is not the second largest school. . . . It's third. The interloper? The Sun Devils of Arizona State. Why weren't they in the Final Four? I have no idea. My best guess is that their basketball team isn't good enough.
Incidentally, these schools have not always been atop the list. The University of Texas held the top spot from Fall 1997 until Spring 2004, according to Wikipedia. What does it all mean? Again, no idea. Make of it what you will.
I already knew that OSU is the largest school in the country. Perhaps that has something to do with it? Is Florida maybe the second largest? Are we doomed to this same new rivalry until some other 50,000-student juggernaut comes along?
Well, the answer is, no. Florida is not the second largest school. . . . It's third. The interloper? The Sun Devils of Arizona State. Why weren't they in the Final Four? I have no idea. My best guess is that their basketball team isn't good enough.
Incidentally, these schools have not always been atop the list. The University of Texas held the top spot from Fall 1997 until Spring 2004, according to Wikipedia. What does it all mean? Again, no idea. Make of it what you will.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
