SB Nation User Blog: rosewood

Grizzlies acquire Nene!!!!!

rosewood — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:16:58 -0000

Grizzlies acquire Nene!!!!!

At least in the BSoS PASPN.net fantasy league. The draft starts tonight. And now the Nuggets have the No.2 pick.

For those of you signed up, it's time to start participating.

Basketball metaphors I could do without

rosewood — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:22:09 -0000

I read a lot about basketball. You read a lot about basketball. We all read a lot about basketball. So we should all be familiar with the excess metaphors or slang words/phrases that make up a very large part of our ballin' diction. Granted, I like many of these phrases. "Hombre" is good. "Three point land" has a nice whimsical feel to it. "Swish" is a high point in the annals of onomatopoeia. "Called for steps" is just about perfect, and "traveling" itself is great. But many more of these words/phrases I do not particularly like. Put another way: I @#@%@#%@# hate them. They are (in no particular order)

1. Playoff Basketball - This may be the worst of them all. It breaks my fundamental rule that slang phrases are not allowed to be exactly the same as a useful non-slang phrase, because that means I have to say the slang phrase in a different (and likely stupid) way. To explain: I can't just say "that's playoff basketball," because then I'm just stating what's on TV in May. Instead, I have to say "PLAAYOFF Bassketball" and nod my head and wear my hat backwards to show my appreciation of Robert Horry piledriving a mascot. I'm not a fan of that. Also, this phrase is too easily confused with "playoff defense," which means good but non-violent defense, and a "playoff foul," which apparently is just "playoff basketball" after you get caught.

2. Hack-a-______ - I didn't like this phrase when it was "Hack-a-Shaq," but at least I understood the novelty because it rhymed and people like that. But when you start hearing "Hack-a-Skinner" or even worse "Hack-a-Biedrins," then the phrase should be taken behind the outhouse and dealt with properly. It's suffering. Stop the suffering. It's like how people attach the word "gate" to every scandal. Of course, "Hack-a-______" does always leave me hope that Jason Kidd will get suddenly get horrible at free throws, so we'll get to hear "Hack-a-Kidd." That would be nice. James White would work as well.

3. Closer - I swear to a Higher Being that this phrase became popular in a basketball context around the same time TNT was pushing the first season of The Closer, which makes it horrible by itself. I mean, it's verbal product placement. It's TV in my mouth. It's Kenny Smith in my mouth. That's disgusting. Also, it doesn't make any sense because the guys who are "closers" are also "starters," which means they've ruined a perfectly good baseball term. Last, I tried to explain to my extremely non-sports oriented friend the difference between being a good "closer" in basketball and a good "finisher"; He didn't even have to tell me "that's idiotic." I just stopped.

4. Run and Gun - Like "Hack-a-Chamberlain," this is a phrase that could only be popular because it rhymes. It doesn't make any sense. Every team "guns." All that "gun" means is "shoot." That's why there aren't any other variations of this. There are no "Run and Dart" or "Run and Hammer" teams. "Gun" is the only option. This means all that people are talking about is a running offense, which is already a phrase and a good one at that. Alternatively, you could just say fast break offense.

5. Banger - It's just dirty. Also, it does not pass another one of my tests: is this a phrase I should use when describing the WNBA? (The answer is "no" if you're crude).

6. Facial - See "Banger."

7. Entry Pass - My ticket is an entry pass. Often, it actually says "entry pass" on it in black light letters. So "entry pass" fails the "uses the exact same words as a useful non-slang phrase" test. Actually, it double fails the test because you would think there would be some kind of metaphorical relationship here, but there isn't. An entry pass is what you use to get inside the stadium. A basketball "entry pass" is what you give to someone who is already inside. So the metaphor is I'm giving somebody inside my ticket? Am I the ticket? Is Dwight Howard the show? No sense there. None at all. Therefore, new phrase needed. I recommend: "Setup pass" or "post pass" or just "pass" as it probably doesn't need a special name at all.

8. Role player - "Star" is a role. "Bench warmer" is a role, "Stephon Marbury" is a role, and apparently "role player" is a role. Yes, that's right. In basketball we have the "role player" role, which is basketball's most redundant phrase since "slam dunk." I vote for just using a more honest system that has three classes: "good" players, "all right" players, and "We have the best job in the world" players. You could also still add "Stephon Marbury" if necessary (but let's hope not).

9. Man's Game - This phrase is fun. It's means pretty much the same thing as "playoff basketball" but comes with the added bonus of a gender stereotype. And apparently here being a "man" means losing your temper when playing a sport (as I know we all hope our sons will one day do). Also, I'd like to point out that's there's something deliciously funny about calling basketball a "man's game." It would be like saying that tetherball or Chutes and Ladders would be a "man's game" if you got pissed and punched the other guy sometimes. Sports aren't "men's games." They're children's games that men play. Finance is a man's game. Or bear hunting. With a knife.

Also note that "man's game" fails the "should I use this phrase to describe the WNBA" test (is that a "woman's game?").

10. Charity Stripe - I actually kind of do like this phrase because it sounds like a seasonal beer. But it's also horribly inaccurate. Free throws aren't charity. They aren't free. There's no such thing as a free free throw. The player taking the shots paid a price (and sometimes a steep one in this "man's game" and especially if it was "PLAAYOFF Bassketball"). So for honesty's sake I nominate a new, more accurate phrase: the Compensation Stripe. Alternatively, we could also just use the phrase "Payback Bar" because it means more or less the same thing and sounds badass.

And that's all I have. Feel free to comment on your shared hatred of these phrases. Or talk about others you hate. It's a lot of fun. Seriously.

Be a man.

rosewood — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:20:07 -0000

Be a man.

There is an insanely detailed and interesting fantasy basketball league going on right now that you are probably not participating in.

We have 14 teams left (including the Hornets, Celtics, Spurs, Rockets, and Mavericks) and as many agent spots as you could possibly want. So stop just talking about trades or draft picks or Kerr's incompetence, and be a man.

Join. our. league.

Fear Batum

rosewood — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:33:53 -0000

Fear Batum

So France rocked Italy again today in the Euro qualifying rounds, and who led them again?

Nicolas Batum: 18 pts. 8 rebs. 6 steals, 1 ast, 0 fouls, 0 TOs.

I will never--NEVER--forgive Kerr for this.

Also, Diaw didn't put much up. He's been inconsistent. Surprise.

Offseason Boredom: Chris Paul edition

rosewood — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:22:03 -0000

So in the comments to the Top 20 thread, I found that apparently more than couple of BSoS frequenters believe that Chris Paul is not a franchise player. Also, apparently at least part of this sentiment was based on this Fox article by Charley Rosen. Since I think Chris Paul is one of the best players in the game, I tracked down the article to find out what exactly were his flaws.

Unfortunately, all I found out was that apparently Charley Rosen doesn't care anymore and pretty much just says what he wants. I don't really have any good way to explain other than to go through his claims one by one and talk about how astoundingly wrong or unimportant they are.

Claim 1:

In half-court offenses, he's a threat to do damage only in screen-and-roll situations, which means that doubling him virtually renders him impotent

To begin, yes, Chris Paul is very good on the pick and roll. Also, however, he's an excellent and frequent spot up shooter. To explain:

74% of his shots are jump shots on which he shoots 49 eFG%;
he shoots a solid 36% on 3s (54% of which are assisted)
He has the 4th best shooting percent on 2 pt jumpshots in the league (just behind Nash).

Now while undoubtedly some of these jumpshots are the product of the pick and roll, many of them will not be , especially his 3 pt. attempts, the majority of which are assisted. So we already know Rosen is flatly wrong when he says Paul is only a threat on the pick and roll because he's also an excellent shooter, especially from mid-range. So is the majority of Paul's half court scoring the product of jump shots and pick and roll? Probably, but I'm not sure how many PGs that's not true of. So it seems like a stupid criticism to point out that Paul is very good at what PGs should be good at.

Regarding double teams: 1) yes, double teams will limit his effectiveness, because they're double teams. That's what they do. To everyone. 2) it also means that someone will be open if you would like to double the league's reigning assist leader, then feel free and 3) if rendering Chris Paul "impotent" were so simple, then why did he score 21 ppg on .528% eFG and average 11 apg? This seems like an unlikely outcome for such a limited and easily impotented(?) player.

Claim 2:

Because of his diminutive size — listed at 6-feet but closer to 5-foot-10 — he can be easily doubled.

In socks, Chris Paul is 5'11.75" which, if you're not a mathematician, is closer to 6' than to 5'10." What's more, in shoes, Chris Paul is 6'1" and shoe height is the height that matters, since no one plays in socks. If they did such beasts as Dwight Howard (6'9" in socks) and Amare (6'8.5" in socks) would not be nearly as imposing. So, to be as plain as possible, Rosen is making this up. (These are all DraftExpress pre-draft camp measurements by the way).

Additionally, about doubles: once again, everyone can be easily doubled and it makes all players less effective. No one plays better when he's doubled. So this is nothing unique to Paul. Also, if he is so easily doubled and doubling makes him impotent than Paul must be the most dominant player in NBA history when single-covered considering, once again, he put up 21 ppg on .528 eFG% with 11 apg and only 2.7 TOs this past year. Imagine what he would put up if other men couldn't so easily double up on him to make him impotent (which sounds kind of gross).

Claim 3:

His defense consists of steals. Period. Which in turn depends mostly on opponents' mistakes.

I'm a little thrown by this. So is Rosen saying that steals are simply a measure of opponent mistakes and isn't indicative of a player's defense? One would think then it would be an erratic statistic that wasn't consistent from year to year for any given player since it is mostly about the other guy. I mean, if steals are mostly about other players, there is no reason why they should be consistent for any particular player. But wait: how many steals did Chris Paul get this year? 2.8 per game. What is his career average? 2.4. How many did he get last year? 2.7?

So apparently according to Rosen people just consistently make the same incredible amount of mistakes (the most in the league) around Paul without that having anything to do with Paul. It's just a fluke. An 82, no 164, game fluke. Yes, that makes sense.

Also: even if steals were just a startlingly consistent fluke, Paul is also a superb defensive rebounder i.e. 4.7 per game this year, which if you're counting is more than Kobe (4.1) and Wade (3.9).

Paul also plays great on the ball defense, but we'll leave that for...

Claim 4:

Many opponents simply take the ball to their favorite spot and then shoot over him.

Actually, I would guess that all opponents simply take the ball to their favorite spot and shoot over him. Unfortunately for them, they don't make that many of those shots.

Last year, opposing PGs shot .471 eFG% against Paul, which is lower than opponents shot against Rondo (.474 eFG%), Billups (.485 eFG%), Wade (.482 eFG%), Kidd (.485 eFG%), Parker (.481 eFG%), Williams (.498 eFG%) and Rose (.476 eFG%). Also, opponents generally shot .488 eFG% when Paul was on the court and .521 eFG% when he was off.

Based on these statistics then, like with steals, I would encourage this flaw in Paul and hope that more players would continue to shoot over him since they do it so poorly.

Claim 5:

Even when using a screen-and-roll, he's not nearly as effective going left as he is going right.

I have no idea if this is true. But like the double teaming, if it is true then that is just one more reason that Chris Paul is so awesome, because he puts up ridiculously productive and efficient statistics in spite of his one-handedness. So I don't care if he is using his head to dribble, it obviously works.

Claim 6:

When was the last time that a pipsqueak-sized point guard led his team to an NBA championship? Slater Martin with the St. Louis Hawks in 1958 — which means that while Paul's Hornets will be a good team, they'll never be good enough.

Now this claim, his last one, actually makes me laugh. First, let's talk about Slater Martin. Yes, he was small: 5'10." He also was the starting PG for St. Louis in 1958 when they won the title. But did he lead them to the title? He averaged 12.0 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.6 apg and shot .336 FG% (!!!!). In contrast, his teammate Bob Petit averaged 24.6 ppg, 17.4 rpg, 2.1 apg, and shot .410 FG%. Another teammate, Cliff Hagan, averaged 19.9 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 2.5 apg on .443 FG%.

So by "led" I'm supposing that Rosen simply means started, since Slater clearly wasn't leading St. Louis anywhere.

That said, we have to remember that Chris Paul is 5'11.75" in socks and 6'1" in shoes (the measurement that counts and that you read in game programs). So when was the last time a starting PG 6'1" tall or near that height won an NBA title?

Derek Fisher (6' 1"): 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009

Rajon Rondo (6' 1"): 2008

Tony Parker (6' 2"): 2003, 2005, 2007

Isiah Thomas (6' 1"): 1989, 1990.

So is Rosen correct that no player since Martin has been that short and won a title as the starting PG? Yes. Does that have anything to do with Chris Paul? No, because Paul is much taller than Martin and plenty of titles have been won with PGs that are Paul's size.

Also, as a last bit, remember Paul has a 38 inch vertical.

Conclusion:

It may happen that Chris Paul's teams never win a title. Who knows? He's only 23. But if those teams fail to win a title, it will almost certainly not have anything to do with the nonsense Rosen is talking about here. Because no matter how many books he's written or writes, these claims will always be either wrong or unimportant.

Offseason Boredom: Top 20 edition

rosewood — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:33:18 -0000

So being that it's the OFFseason, I've been doing some idle basketball speculation. Most recently, I've been trying to come up with a list of the Top 20 most valuable players (as in current + potential future value) in the NBA. I've found that it's pretty much ridiculously difficult. I mean, to me, it seems that there are 11 players that would be on almost everyone's list even if they're not necessarily the top 11. They are (in no particular order):

After these eleven though, I get pretty lost. I mean, there's a number of candidates but that's why it's so hard to choose. They're not really that distinct. So I guess my question is if you had to choose the 10 most valuable players excluding the above eleven players, which players would you pick? Warning: it's much harder than picking the top 11.

My list looks like (once again in no particular order):

I know you can certainly disagree with some of those picks or the exclusion of others, and I'm not even sure that I agree with myself. But it's hard, you know?

Anyone else want to try? It's a great way to kill time and make you look up stats for no reason.

Hakeem!

rosewood — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:56:37 -0000

So the Grizzlies didn't extend a qualifying offer to Hakeem Warrick, which means he's likely on the market and probably for cheap. The Suns still have some exception money laying around. I'd be all for them pursuing him, I think.

He's not really a great fit, but he does have a solid offensive game and he can dunk impressively. When motivated he's a decent perimeter defender but he's too little to guard any real post players. And he doesn't rebound too well. Remarkably, he's like a poor man's Travis Outlaw (and what a poor man that must be). Alternatively, he's like a Bill Gates's version of Taylor Griffin. Plus, he'd probably be ton of fun to watch in our revived SSOL offense in which we hope to win by scoring 154 ppg (and giving up 153 ppg). In a sense, he's an ideal Suns player: all offense, very fast, mediocre defense, no rebounding.

So what do you think? I'm all for embracing our true identity because if we're going to go down, I'd like to go down ridiculously.

Poll

Should the Suns make a lowball offer for Warrick?

Heck yeah! 250 ppg or bust!

143 votes

No way! The Suns should actually try to be good at basketball.

67 votes

I don't care either way, but I do think it's important to note that Michael Adams took 8.5(!) 3 pointers a game in 1990-91 and only made 29%.

34 votes

244 votes | Poll has closed

Anyone know what's up with DraftExpress?

rosewood — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:36:41 -0000

I love DraftExpress. L-O-V-E it. So I don't want to sound ungrateful, but has anyone else noticed that DE has been completely dead since the draft? There's a brief blog entry on the "suprises" of the draft and then nothing. No detailed draft reviews, nothing on the Orlando Summer League, nothing on Las Vegas Summer League.There's only been a couple of articles about the Lebron skills academy (which were cool).

This strikes me as very strange, since they're normally so militant. I'm kind of going through withdrawal. I was just wondering if anyone knew anything about what's going on over there or at least had also recognized the silence.

And I guess to give this post reasonable length, I'll add an off-topic poll:

Poll

Which old team is scarier next year?

Boston with a returning Garnett and the additions of Rasheed and Marquis Daniels; or

22 votes

The Spurs with a returning Ginobili and the additions of Jefferson, Blair, and McDyess.

34 votes

56 votes | Poll has closed

A Rebuttal to the Redskins

rosewood — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:09:58 -0000

So now it looks like Oklahoma City may be furthering its quest to be the most hated team in the league by having a positively awful team name, "Thunder," that my wife so poignantly deemed as "something a guy would call his penis."

To help them then, I've come up with another team name for them that I think will fit the culture of OK and perhaps start a new trend in diversity.

I recommend the name: The Oklahoma City White People.

I figured since it's so popular to name teams after Native Americans, even when they use flagrant slurs like "Redskins," why not extend the fun to white people?

You know, they could have a guy in khaki shorts, loafers, and a pastel polo shirt as their mascot, and who wouldn't pay to see Chris Wilcox in a White People jersey?

I don't have Clay Bennett's e-mail but if any of you come across it, let me know. I'd love to run this idea by him. And, of course, if any one else has a good idea, I'd love to hear it. We can send one long e-mail to Clay.

Your 2009 No. 1 Pick

rosewood — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:37:29 -0000

Your 2009 No. 1 Pick

17 year old, Spanish PG prodigy Ricky Rubio makes Sarunas Jasikevicius and another Lithuanian gent look silly.