In lieu of a distracting previous post, let me offer a fond memory of Marvin Webster, who passed away today.

I was a 20 year old Seattle native when Marvin Webster came to the Sonics in 1977.  This was the team that went 5-17, fired its first year coach Bob Hopkins and replaced him with Lenny Wilkens.    That same year, after defeating the defending champion Trail Blazers in the playoffs when Bill Walton went down, came within one game of the NBA championship.  Marvin was part of the most remarkable single season turnaround in NBA history, and I was thrilled to be close to it.

That year, when Wilkens became coach, Tom Meschery who was a teammate and friend of Wilkens in the early Sonics years wagered some small amount of money in Las Vegas that the Sonics would win the championship.  As I recall, if the Sonics had won that seventh game, Meschery would have won over $100,000.  Oh well.

Webster was a huge part of that turnaround.  That summer, we were sad to see Webster sign with the Knicks, but the league made the Knicks give the Sonics Lonnie Shelton.  The Sonics managed to win the championship, in a year remembered for nothing else other than the Michigan State-Indiana State NCAA finals.  The Sonics success came during the nadir of NBA popularity, and the success of the Sonics has become a very personal memory.  

I attended the Knicks first game against the Sonics when Webster returned to Seattle in 1978.  I remember seeing him warming up and then recognizing a member of the local media.  He just stopped and gave this person one of the warmest smiles of surprise that I have ever seen from a professional athlete.   I thought...good on you, Marvin Webster...at the end of the day, its relationships that count, regardless of the team you play for.

Memories of players like Marvin Webster make me very sad about Sonics and the events of the last year.  I have lived in Portland for a long time, but for me, the rivalry during those years was a great thing for both cities.  As for Marvin...more than once that season in '77 and '78, he made my day.  

A fresh New York Times article considers the incredibly constant overall rate of free throw percentages, over a time period that essentially covers all of modern basketball.

“It’s unbelievable,” Larry Wright, an adjunct professor of statistics at Columbia, said as he studied the year-by-year averages. “There’s almost no difference. Fifty years. This is mind-boggling.”

Two questions:  is it possible for the league, at some point, for some yet unknown reason, to systematically improve overall free throw shooting?  And if a team could do this thing, would they gain an honest-to-goodness competitive advantage?

We know, of course, there is variation among teams' free throw percentages.  I suppose, though I don't really know, that teams who are motivated will shoot higher percentages. We also know that an improvement by someone like Joel Pryzbilla matters, because it can reduce the incentive to hack him.  But is overall free throw performance an offset to other advantages that matter more?   If we could invent a performance pill that improved free throw percentages from 75% to 80%, how much would it matter?

Given these statistics, you would have to think:  not very much.   I remember the University of Memphis coach saying that if there were 25 things he could do to improve his team, free throw shooting would be 26th.  

So what is the state of the art on this topic?

Update:  it's two games.  Thanks, engineerscotty for the update.

If this is a two game suspension...man, what does it take to get 3?

A small diversion before the trade deadline.

Here is a handy compilation of NBA fines and suspensions since 1994.  I didn't tabulate the data but I'm willing to guess Zach Randolph will be suspended three games for last night's haymaker landing on the Suns' Louis Amundson, in the Clippers' thrilling 40 point loss.

By my count, Zach has been suspended by the league twice: in 2004 and 2008.  This doesn't include numerous team suspensions by the Blazers.  

While you're waiting for the game, here's a must read article from today's New York Times magazine.

If you're a fan of Michael Lewis (Moneyball, the Blind Side), here's the NBA version you have been waiting for.

The focus of the article is Shane Battier.  If you're looking for a well stated case that box scores don't reveal very much about a player's impact on winning and its likelihood, Lewis will show you the way.

But there's a more important point:  when it comes to decision making (draft picks, strategy, or choosing how to defend Kobe), process is more important than outcome.  Make the right decision, in the right way, and you'll still get the wrong outcome sometimes for reasons you can't control.  But your goal is to improve your odds. 

If you're suffering through Durant envy, this article will help.

I need your forgiveness, in advance.  I'm not to looking to start up another Do You Wish We had Durant discussion, well handled in a thread a few days ago, many others by this point.

Instead, here's a warning.  If you haven't read this piece by ESPN's Bill Simmons, do it now.  Simmons can write like few people on this earth, and he's a very smart basketball guy.  Durant, Simmons believes, is on the verge of greatness that we haven't quite seen.  Here's a sample:

You know in Jaws when Richard Dreyfuss calls the shark an "eating machine"? Durant is a scoring machine. He was put on this earth to collect points. We have never seen anyone quite like him before: a 6'9" forward with Plastic Man arms, 30-foot range and the ability to thrive in big moments. He has more career buzzer-beaters than LeBron. Trust me, it's true.

I don't think the comments on the earlier thread, not even the pro-Durant ones, really captured this sentiment.

So here's the warning.  Be ready to withstand the comparisons, because you haven't seen anything yet.   It's possible Durant is Carmelo-light.  Or that he's eventually going to learn about the limits of his body (look at those arms) and have a McGrady-like career. That's my theory.  But it's also possible he will be the most significant offensive force in NBA history.  

And if that happens...well, I worry the comparisons will never end.

Sometimes I think that Durant is the evil force inside of Greg's head.  That's why this issue is relevant.  And we (Greg, you, me, all of us) have to withstand this force, no matter what.  Because Durant is not our guy.  He's not the guy who will win the championship for us.  Our guys are the ones already suiting up.  Especially Greg. 

The link to the PER tables on ESPN is here.

Scoff, if you must.  And, yes, Marreese Speights is #1.  And Greg's margin above #3 JaVale McGee is slight.  (Yep, the JaVale McGee from the Wizard juggernaut we saw on Saturday.)

But still.  He's ahead of Rose, Mayo, Love, Westbrook, Lopez, Rudy, and everybody else. It's a nice bit of symbolism, if nothing else.

I will suspend my disbelief about PER.  Greg is starting to come on.  This doesn't claim that he's the second best rookie.  But at this rate, pretty soon, he will need to be in the conversation.  If he can stay on the court.

Two weeks ago, I worried that Greg won't be picked for the rookie team at the all star game.  Not anymore.

Couldn't ignore this passage from an ESPN interview with Clyde.

Lace Lewis: Other than MJ...who gave you the most problems as far as competing on the court offensively? 

 Clyde Drexler: MJ was tough, but he did not give me the most problems. Rolando Blackman gave me the most trouble. He had a great jab step, he could penetrate and shoot, and against me he never seemed to miss no matter how good my defense was. When he missed, I was shocked. 

 Clyde Drexler: What made MJ so hard to guard was he got up 35 shots. 

 Clyde Drexler: If he only got 16 shots he would not have been so hard to guard. 

I did not know Clyde had these feelings.  Is this common knowledge?

Yes, this is a dead horse.  But the subject is starting to come up again, now that Durant is really going nuts, and I want the right perspective on this.

David Thorpe is not an Oden hater, and gave him huge ups in the same chat noted below for the Chicago game.  And yet...

Jake (Columbia, MO): I listend to Simmons' podcast the other day. Stein and Bucher are still claiming that they would have taken Oden with the #1 pick. They're fooling themselves, right? As great of a defensive presence as Oden can be, Durant would be an unbelievable second option on that team. If anything, his progress would probably be better in Portland. Thoughts? 

 David Thorpe: KD on the Blazers right now means they are a top 4 team, right now. 

Me doubt it.  In Portland, we would be talking many fewer touches for Durant than he gets in the wasteland-city-that-shall-not-be-named.  Plus Nate's impatience.  And some day that skinny body is going to break down.  I can go on like this all day long. Because I like Oden and it makes me feel better.  

Top 4?   Pfffft....

Devin Harris went off for 47 points tonight.  This is just the last in a marvelous string of performances that has to place him in the Paul/Williams/Nash point guard stratum.

You may recall the buzz around the Blazers trading for Harris last year with the Mavericks, prior to the Jason Kidd trade.   All accounts seemed to suggest the deal was close, and I don't remember exactly what prevented it. 

I'm perfectly happy the trade didn't happen.  But every time I see one of Harris's recent performances, I'm reminded that KP must have known something when he went after him last year.  And it's another testament to his talent evaluation prowess, despite the fact Harris didn't become a Blazer.

Anyone out there wishes this trade had happened?   My take:  there aren't enough basketballs, and if we need someone to score 47, his name is Brandon Roy.