Editor's Note (Atma Brother #1): Longtime GSoMer Sleepy Freud kindly stepped up to the plate to help with our ongoing 2009-2010 Golden State Warriors madness. I'll pass the mic to him for an outstanding preview of Monta Ellis' upcoming campaign...

Did you hear the one about the kid who was handed the keys to the franchise, and mistook them for the keys to the moped...?

Yes, I think you have. Make the "jump" anyway?

Continue reading this post »

Power Forward

[As] the name suggests, these players usually excel at the more physical elements of the game: rebounding and defense. They are normally among the physically strongest players on a basketball team. The power forward plays the #4 position and may be referred to as a post player, meaning he spends much of his time in the low post (close to the basket).

From hoopedia. 

I think this debate basically boils down to Garnett v. Duncan, so let's throw out a few of the also-rans.

Charles Barkley. Because of his 21st century TV roles as loudmouth and huckster, I think people sometimes forget how great the Round Mound was in his prime. Straight by the numbers, it's not hard to make the case for him as GPFoAT. In what may have been his peak season -- '86/87 with the Sixers -- he averaged 23.0 pts (on an outrageously good .660 TS%) / 14.6 reb / 4.9 assists / 1.8 steals / 1.5 blocks in 40.3 minutes per game. A disturbing 4.7 turnovers, but still: it doesn't get any better for a PF, let alone one routinely giving up 4-5 inches to his opponent. And though his age 23-26 with Philly constitute his peak (four straight seasons of > .650 TS%), it's not like he fell off terribly in his late 20s / early 30s seasons with Phoenix. For one thing, with KJ around to do most of the ballhandling and initiating, he cut way down on the TOs. And how can Warrior fans forget, much as we would love to, his legendary performance in the wildly entertaining and wildly depressing opening round of the '93/94 playoffs? 

Game 1: 36 pts (14-24, 7-11) / 19 reb / 7 ast / 4 stl

Game 2: 20 pts (9-21) / 7 reb / 8 ast (KJ -- 38 pts, 9 ast -- did most of the heavy lifting in this one)

Game 3: 56 points (23-31!!!, 7-9) / 14 reb / 4 ast / 3 stl

OW-freaking-CH. Hard to overstate how much optimism I had for that Ws team at that moment, coming off a 50-32 season, with Spree and Mullin doing their thing, our 20 year-old superstar in the fold, and an injured Timmy poised to join in on the fun the next season. I mean, I wasn't really expected to win that series, but I had a glimmer of hope. Barkley basically took my youthful glimmer and crushed it with his big fat arse. (Of course, we know whose big fat arse really crushed our glimmer, the following season, but subject for another diary...)

So why doesn't Barkley make the final cut? Well, see pull-quote up top: "these players usually excel at the more physical elements of the game: rebounding and defense." Charles excelled at only one of these things. In his prime, he got his share of blocks and steals, but that's 'cos he was ballsy and a gambler. No one ever worried too much about being guarded by Barkley. I don't think number of championship rings should play too big of a factor in these ratings, but it seems clear to me that if Barkley had been a great defender, he'd have at least one. No D, no G-O-A-T.

Karl Malone. Basically, see comments regarding Barkley. Fantastic numbers, so-so defense, no rings. And unlike Barkley, he got to play his whole career with likely the best distributor of all time. To me, he was always the second-most valuable player on those great Jazz teams; not being the best player on your team should instantly disqualify you from GoAT discussions. Also: like latter-day Kareem, he loses "entertainment points" for having such a plodding and predictable game. The classic Stockton-Malone pick-and-roll game was unbelievably effective (if it hadn't been they wouldn't have repeated it ad nauseam) but just not remotely beautiful, imo. I demand a little poetry from my GoAT, regardless of position.

Dennis Rodman. If the PF criteria really is rebounding and defense, the worm has a serious claim here. At his peak (94-95 with SA), he was gobbling up 18.9 rebounds per 36 minutes, or roughly 30% of all available rebounds. For you Amare fans: STAT grabbed a measly 13% last season, or 15% for his career. Put another way: at his peak, Rodman grabbed more rebounds per minute than Amare and Bosh did last season combined. Rodman also gets points for me for the way he flirted with, fondled, and otherwise discombobulated the Macho Mailman in those classic Bulls/Jazz matchups. Homo-erotic foreplay is a highly underrated and underutilized defensive stratagem, imo. (Don't get too excited Tim Hardaway). I guess the question with Rodman will always be: yes, defense and rebounding are huge, but how valuable a player are you if you focus exclusively on those two aspects of the game? I think most would agree here: amazing, unique player, but certainly not the GoAT.

Bob Pettit. Numbers look pretty great (25 pts / 17 reb, with 11 FTAs per game at his peak) but having not seen him at all, not even really in highlights, I have to abstain. Obviously, if any of the seven people on GSoM who are older than I feel like weighing in his behalf, I'd love to hear their thoughts.

Elvin Hayes. Numbers don't really hold up to the competition -- very solid rebounding and block numbers in his prime, but too inefficient from the floor and a bit too much of a ballhog to merit consideration. But I'm nominating the Big E, and putting his pic up top, because as a wee tyke I had a deep and irrational affection for those '70s Bullets teams. Incredibly cool uniforms, incredibly cool players with cool names ("Elvin Hayesssssss!!!!" "Philllll Chenierrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!"), cool team name. The fact that they now wear dorky gold and babyblue uniforms with that lame-ass logo and call themseves the "Withards" (yes, I like to imagine it said with a lisp) always makes me sad. Yeah, I understand the horrors of handgun violence in our country, but c'mon: it's the Washington Bullets.

So it comes down to Garnett v. Duncan. Cut to the chase, I'm voting Duncan. On paper, Garnett may have the slight edge: he's close to Duncan's equal as a rebounder, defender, and equally efficient from the floor, but a better playmaker and passer. At his peak, I'm not sure there was another player in NBA history who was as good at everything as KG was. In '03/04 he averaged 24.2 points (.547 TS%), 14.9 boards, 5 assists, 2.2 blocks (v. only 2.5 PFs), and 1.5 steals in 39.4 minutes a night. The next season he may have been even better: slightly fewer points and blocks, but more assists (5.7) and a better TS% (.567). Basically any season you choose from his age 22 to age 31 seasons, he looks impressive. And of course there's the stellar D that the numbers don't fully capture: not just man D, but off-ball and team. When he's on, he's probably the best defender in the NBA, and his intensity at that end seems to infect his teammates. Also: while we stat geeks love to get hung up on rate numbers, it's important to note KG's insane toughness and durability. In the six seasons from age 23 to age 29, he missed 3 games total. 

Still ... as much as love the guy, I've sometimes noticed something missing in him, psychologically. I dunno ... a certain "softness," or lack of a killer instinct? For all his sturm und drang and well-publicized commitment to winning, he too often seems to shy away from the big moment when it comes.  I'm not talking about missing big shots -- all the greats do that. I'm talking about looking frightened to take them. Without Paul Pierce and Ray Allen demanding the rock and nailing shots in key moments of the 07/08 finals (and heck, without the gutsy performances of Posey and Powe in that series) Garnett would still not have his a ring. Part of me thinks he's just too sweet and sensitive a guy to be a true, take-the-whole-team-on-your-back champion at the highest level.

Duncan, by contrast, seems to have more the classic "winner" personality type: not a fiery, emotive killer like Jordan or Montana, but a quiet killer like Mariano Rivera or Roger Staubach, which can be equally deadly. Cool as a cucumber, steady as Gibraltar, almost never rattled. Meanwhile: four rings, three of them as team leader; a force in the post; that lovely mid-range off-glass shot; rarely injured; defensive beast; solid passer (not KG, but not Amare either -- 3.1 dimes per game career); 10-15 rebounds a night like clockwork. Maybe a bit on the boring side, but all-in-all it's gotta be the Dull and Deadly Mr. Duncan. 

Other options: Nowitzki, McHale, DeBusschere, Webber, Randolph, BrokenWing... Feel free to support or elaborate on their candidacies, or to nominate someone I didn't mention. (Obviously I'm not putting Randolph in the poll, 'cos I know if I do he'll beat the competition 1,000 votes to zero).

via membres.lycos.fr

Hmmm .... does no one post diaries on this site anymore?

What, are people worried that if they post a diary about basketball, some semi-literate freakshow will hijack it with an inflammatory political comment, bait people into replying, and proceed to post 50-100 hysterical, barely coherent rants a day on subjects he knows next to nothing about, fueling his own prodigious ego while misrepresenting, ridiculing and disrespecting opposing views, alienating one regular poster after another ... and enlightening precisely no one?

I mean, why would anyone worry about that? ;-P

Anyway, even if there’s no real Warrior news to discuss other than a few paltry table scraps about Marco and Quiet Storm, I think GSoM can do a bit better. I thought we might use this little offseason lull to create a collective Greatest of All-Time -- "GoAT" -- list.

I want to get this diary up quickly (and ideally, the so-called "Keith Smart" diary off the front page) so I’m going to make my justifications and explanations brief. I’m casting my vote for Hakeem Olajuwon. I’m pretty sure the numbers say that Shaq has been marginally more dominant; and the 11 rings + my Boston blood make me want to vote Russell. But I haven’t seen Russell except in clips (yes, amazingly, he’s before my time); and as much as I’ve always been in awe of Shaq, I’ve always thought him a bore to watch. Hoops is, after all, entertainment; from the fan’s perspective there are considerations beyond putting the ball in the hoop, and preventing same. Not only was Hakeem fab at putting the ball in the hoop, and extra-fab at preventing same, but he was also a total joy to watch. There are very few big men I'd say that about. The soccer-trained footwork, the dreamshaking and dreambaking and dreamshotblocking ... yeah, maybe not quite as lovely to watch as MJ or Magic or Bird, but that category, imo. Shaq ... ugh. Brutally effective, but far too predictable ("use gluteus maximus to knock defenders into front row, drop ball thru rim") to be beautiful. Same for Kareem ... I suspect he was a pretty dynamic player in his youth, but by the time I started watching him in the ‘80s he was basically a one -trick skyhook pony who loafed up and down court. Plus, both Shaq and Kareem played for the team that shall not be mentioned.

Wilt, as a sometime Warrior and statistical freakshow, should probably be higher, but I have it on good authority from an older dude who witnessed many of his duels with the Celtics that he absolutely, er, wilted, in the presence of Bill Russell. "Gentle Giant" is the term my friend used to describe him. Sorry, Mr. Chamberlain: if you allow yourself to be dominated and intimidated by a guy 6 inches shorter and 50 lbs. lighter than you, you don’t get to be considered the GoAT in my book. I posted the classic Wilt/Russell pic above just ‘cos I love it so. So much of the beauty of basketball, distilled into one simple frame.

Back to Hakeem, briefly: I was surprised and annoyed recently to see Kobe ahead of Hakeem in a recent SLAM survey of the greatest players of all-time. People have short memories, alas. Does Kobe even come close to leading that motley crew of scrappers (Maxwell, Cassell, Big Shot Bob, Scott Bullard, Kenny the Jet, Otis "Denzel Washington" Thorpe et al.) to two consecutive championships? I think not.

Without further ado, my top 5:

1. Hakeem Olajuwon

2. Bill Russell

3. Shaquille O’Neal

4. Wilt Chamberlain

5. Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Feel free to post your your Top Five in the comments, with explanations, or just vote in the poll. If this does well as a topic, I’ll move on to the other four positions, and maybe do a li’l GSoM tally at the end (the PG and SG topics probably won’t spur much debate, but "second-best PGoAT" and "second-best SGoAT" could be pretty interesting). And naturally: if you want to keep this discussion going and/or you want to bump the "ranting thread" into oblivion ... please rec this fanpost.

So, like ... have you guys heard about this Anthony Randolph kid? ;-)

In honor of his 20th birthday (yup, a teenager no longer -- in another year he can legally drink) I thought it might be appropriate to consolidate all our current hopes, predictions, speculation, dreams, praise, poetic descriptions etc. for this kid into one diary. I suppose a sober, clear-headed critique or two would be welcome too, if you're a turd-in-the-punchbowl type of guy or gal.

To get things started, here are a couple of recent blurbs from ESPN's TrueHoop. 

1. (through two games)

Anthony Randolph should have a Summer League exemption. It's really not even fair to the rest of the competition: 24 points on 10-of-13 from the field, 11 boards, five blocks. We saw him finish with his right, run the break in transition coast to coast, post, shoot from the perimeter. It was the full Randolph canvas on Saturday, and he's far and away the best talent here over the first two days. 

2. (in the wake of his Vegas-record 42 points -- on a superefficient 22 field goal attempts, with zero turnovers -- three majestic swats, four steals...)

Randolph's dominance this week can't be overstated. The scoring exploits are impressive, but Randolph has been at it defensively (12 blocks and nine steals in four games), on the glass (8.5 rebounds per game), and passing out of double teams with poise and precision (zero turnovers today). Randolph isn't only the primary scorer on the floor, but the most creative facilitator.

Also, while it was hard to tell from my fuzzy four-inch square internet feed of the games how much muscle he had put on in the last few months, it's pretty clear in the NBA.com Summer League front-page image. Also pretty cool that his sad, regal visage is currently the splash page of both nba.com and the espn.com basketball page.

Once again: Twenty. Years. Old.

Plus ... #14 pick in the draft??? Incredible to think that after all my years wishing and hoping the Warriors would some year suck enough to get a high enough pick to land a franchise player, they may have finally landed one the year they went 48-34 -- their best record since the Webber debacle. Maybe there is something to this whole karma notion.

Anyway, fire away with your Randolph thoughts, observations, and shameless paeans (I was going to entitle this "Anthony Randolph: a Sploogefest," but wasn't sure it was suitable for a "family show").

p.s. One thing that I hope this diary won't descend into is another bad-nickname-fest, though I will admit that yesterday as I was pondering the wonder of Randolph and listening to the awesome early 70s Oakland funk/soul band Tower of Power, it occurred to me that we could do worse for an AR handle than "Tower of Power"...

Adam Lauridsen's great piece on the rather disturbing parallels between Amar'e and Maggette got me thinking about sharing.

via noimpactman.typepad.com

Specifically: has there ever been a great NBA player who was an unmitigated ballhog? Bird, Magic, Jordan, LeBron -- all obscenely good passers, obviously. But even among the great big men ... Duncan, KG, Shaq, and Gasol were/are all excellent passers for their size, generally dropping dimes at 2-3 times the rate Amare has mustered (a paltry 1.4 per 36 minutes, career).

I did manage to find one franchise-ish player who shares the ball as poorly as Amar'e: Dwight Howard -- also 1.4 assists per 36 career. But he's also the best rebounder in the NBA and the Defensive Player of the year, two areas in which Amar'e doesn't exactly excel. And Howard still isn't the type of player who can lead his team to a championship without a ton of talent around him (though given his combination of freakish athleticism and great attitude, I suspect he'll get there).

Closer to home, the three brief, shining periods of success in recent Warriors history seem to have all been fueled by guys who were ace at sharing the rock and getting teammates involved: Hardaway/Mullin, Webber (one of the best passing big men I've ever seen, 4.1 assists per 36 career), and of course BD. Does it not concern anyone that Amar'e is the opposite of these guys?

JAE's latest reports on Amare's decent numbers sans Nash provide some comfort, I guess, but they're based on pretty small sample sizes. Over the course of his career, Amar'e has pretty consistently been the 3rd or 4th most valuable player by plus-minus on the Suns. No great surprise that, on the whole, Suns fans on the Bright Side haven't exactly been clamoring for the team to lock him up long-term.

In sum: we're looking at a player doesn't rebound very well for his size, doesn't play much D, has had microfracture knee surgery and a detached retina, has never been a team leader, is by most accounts a bit of a malcontent, and does not share the ball. Further, as Lauridsen alludes to in his piece, he risks stunting the development of our talented young core -- Randolph, Morrow, Buike, Curry, e.g. -- by being such black hole. All driving + no kicking = dreadfully few touches for the kids. (Sorry, I just wanted to be the only GSoMer other than JAE ever to use the word "dreadfully.")

Analogies abound: A taller version of Corey Maggette? A more efficient, more athletic version of Zach Randolph? A more chiselled version of Al Jefferson? Like all analogies, these are pretty flawed ... but less flawed, I suspect, than comparing Amar'e to a true franchise player. Is Amar'e a winner who makes his teammates better like KG/Duncan ... or a just big body like Jefferson/Randolph who puts up numbers, gets points for his fantasy owners, and collects his (max) paycheck? Do we really want to hitch our entire franchise to this guy for the next 6-7 years? 

Yeah, count me fully off the Amar'e B'andwagon. For good. Or at least, till I hear he's on our team. Then I may come sniffing around. ;-)

On a side note, I saw Zydrunas Igauskas sipping coffee yesterday at an outdoor cafe on Spring Street in SoHo. He was long.

OK, the now legendary "Marbury diary" was getting impossible to navigate. 505 posts: that has to be a record for this site.

Feel free to use this thread to discuss anything sociopolitical. The other diary touched on, among other stuff:

• McCain/Palin

• Obama/Biden

• The "War" in Iraq, and war in general

• The death penalty

• The "liberal media"

• Big government

• Jeremiah Wright

• Adolf Hitler (see Godwin's law)

• Stephon Marbury

I was also thinking it could be fun to have a running "game thread" on the remaining debates, including Thursday's upcoming VP debate.

Anyway, if you want to keep the discussion going, rec this diary! It would be cool this time to hear from some of other people than the usual suspects. I respect young Sam's persistence, but by now I think he's made his positions on many of the issues pretty clear. Ditto for me, Skeptic, JAE, Droppin_knowledge, et al.

And as always: I know we all get heated with this stuff (well, I do anyway) but try to play nice.