Somehow, over the last few years, the idea has somehow crept into the collective consciousness that interest rates are "artificially low", which "causes asset bubbles" and "discourages saving". It's taken as truth that the Fed's relatively loose monetary policy for much of the 2000s inflated the housing bubble, and that the solution must have been to keep rates higher. This claim is nonsense.
To start with, yes, if the Fed had kept rates higher, the magnitude of the housing bubble would have been much smaller. In the same way that limiting the supply of gasoline to cars would reduce auto-wreck fatalities. Yes, asset prices can't rise as high if there's less credit available. At the same time, no one's holding a gun to anyone else's head and forcing them to invest that money into housing. All of that takes away from the simple fact that the crisis was a market failure caused by... overvaluation of housing by investors. Yes, a greater supply of money leads to greater availability of credit to buy houses. It also leads to a great availability of credit to buy anything else.
In all honesty, I don't even know what an "artificially low" interest rate means. The purpose of the central bank's monetary policy function is to match desired savings with desired investment. The way that these indicators express themselves is through inflation and unemployment. If desired investment is greater than desired savings, prices rise, wages rise, and unemployment falls as people are hired to satiate demand, and the proper monetary policy is to lower interest rates. Conversely, if desired savings are greater than desired investment, prices fall, wages stagnate (they tend not to fall), and unemployment rises. In that case, the proper monetary policy is lower interest rates to make investment cheaper. In the 2000s, inflation was never high. Unemployment was rather slow to recover in the aftermath of the late-1990s boom. The Fed kept interest rates rather low to encourage the employment recovery, which was very lackluster during President Bush's first term. Right now, with unemployment still over 8%, and core inflation still under 2%, the idea that interest rates are "artificially low" is complete baloney. If anything, the "natural" interest rate right now is negative; this, of course, is impossible, since people will simply hold cash.
So how do we stop the formation of giant asset bubbles? Well, the first step is to regulate bank lending. But the second step is to... recognize and pop them. This is, of course, easier said than done, and it's difficult to tell whether an asset class is overvalued, to what extent it may be overvalued, and how to deal with it if it is overvalued. Technology stocks, for instance, were certainly overvalued in 1999. But, to a substantial extent, much of the investment in tech was justified by the new and shiny world of the internet. Like any euphoria, it eventually went overboard. But who's to say that it was overboard in 1997. It's easy to imagine it continuing to inflate into the 2000s. But housing is different for at least a couple of reasons. First, it doesn't generate a positive return in a different way across generations. Something like technology, for instance, has lasting positive repercussions-- Amazon and eBay redefined retailing. Facebook redefined social media. Google redefined search. Those all generate value in a way that was unimaginable decades ago. Pets.com didn't redefined anything or make any money. But there was enthusiasm for the possibility that someday it might. Housing, on the other hand, is a steady asset. There's no "new housing" in 2012 that didn't exist in 1812 or in 1512. It's like food-- it's an investment that provides the same service (housing) over its duration. So the idea that housing was somehow twice as valuable in 2007 as it was in 2000 is hard to fathom. Second, housing is a leveraged investment. For the most part, unlike in the run-up to the Great Depression, people weren't buying stocks on margin in the late-1990s. As a result, the collapse wasn't anywhere near as bad as the housing bust was. In the latter case, people were left with huge debt overhangs that were worth more than their collateral (the house). In the case of tech, they were left with investments worth less than they hoped. The degree of damage was unquestionably less in the first case.
Having gathered market data, something as simple as talking about overvaluation in housing could be enough to bring prices down. Markets are driven to a remarkable extent by self-reinforcing psychology, and no actor has a greater ability to influence that psychology-- not the President, not Congress, not business leaders-- than the central bank. To me, that makes a case for at least trying to intervene in the market to calm investors and discourage irrational exuberance.
This makes a lot more intuitive sense than those yelling about "artificially low" rates, whose goal seems to be either to keep the economy in a constant state of recession or, worse, restore the proven failure that is the gold standard.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
NBA Playoffs (West edition)
After doing the East edition yesterday, I'll do my take on the West playoffs (and a finals prediction for good measure). Unlike the East, where, barring Philly continuing to stumble (which actually isn't out of the picture, given just how mediocre they've been lately), the playoff spots are more or less set, the West is still pretty open at the bottom. In fact, there are only 4 games separating the 5 seed from the 9 seed right now. Realistically, there are still 5 teams separated by 3 games in the standings fighting for the 6, 7, and 8 seeds in the West. I'm gonna assume that Memphis, which is 4 games clear with 6 games left, isn't going to choke away its season entirely, so that leaves Dallas and Denver tied for 6th and almost certainly getting in. Two games behind them, you've got Houston sitting in 8th (but riding a 4-game losing streak), then Phoenix in 9th a half-game behind them and Utah another half-game behind Phoenix in 10th. With that crunch at the bottom, I'll start with the top.
The top two seeds are clearly going to be Oklahoma City and San Antonio, who are within a game of each other, but well clear of the third-seeded Lakers. The Thunder, for my money, are the best-constructed team in basketball. They've actually been very average defensively, but they're the second-best scoring offense in the league. Like the Heat, they have two guys capable of being go-to scorers and, crucially, creating their own shots in Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook. But the supporting casts are night and day. Their only other double-digit scorer is James Harden, who actually comes off the bench, but is a great spark-plug and is also an underrated playmaker (averaging 3.7 assists a game playing the off guard). They've got a banger at center who can make life difficult for any post player in the league in Kendrick Perkins. They've got a shot-blocking 4 (albeit one who's pretty regularly out of position on D) who can also consistently knock down an 18 footer in Serge Ibaka. They've got spot-up shooters coming off the bench in Derek Fisher and Daequan Cook and bangers and defenders filling important roles in Nazr Mohammed, Thabo Sefolosha and Nick Collison. Come playoff time, this is not a team anyone wants to face.
I'm gonna take a separate paragraph to talk about Durant, who is, for my money, the league's most gifted scorer. He's not leading the league (he's second after Kobe Bryant), but he's getting his 28 points shooting just OVER 50% from the field, a little north of 38% from three, and 85% from the line. By comparison, Kobe is getting his 28 on FOUR more shots a game, shooting 43% from the field (for his career he hovered around 45-46% in his prime) and 30% from three (and he's taking five of those a game, just like Durant, so it's a fully representative sample). The only top-notch scorer who's arguably more efficient is LeBron James (though even he is a less prolific three-point shooter and a worse free throw shooter, so their effective shooting percentages are almost definitely pretty similar). And, unlike James, Durant doesn't disappear at the end of the game. To top it all off, he's turned into an above-average defender (no one's gonna mistake him for LeBron, but he's gone from a liability on that end when he came into the league to an asset) and, for those calling him soft, is averaging more boards per game playing on the wing than the Heat's best "big" guy, Chris Bosh.
Just trailing the Thunder are the remarkable Spurs. This is a team that should have been done as a title contender 3 or 4 years ago, when Tim Duncan started slowing down. But somehow, they've just kept chugging. Where they won earlier titles on the strength of Duncan's superstardom and with terrific complementary guys who were stars in their own right in Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, this year's Spurs are winning because they're balanced. This is a team that can throw quality players at you. Tony Parker has been fantastic this year, perfectly timing his scoring and distribution and setting the pace for the team. Manu Ginobili has been limited to 28 games, but he dropped 20 against Memphis last week, showing that he's still got something left. Even Duncan, though he's only played 28 minutes a game, has stayed healthy and averaged 15 and 9. He's gotten a few "DNP-Old" callouts from Gregg Popovich, but he's been consistent for them at age 35. The real strength of this team, though, is its depth. No other team has as many solid bodies it can throw at you. Behind the starting 5 of Parker, Duncan, Dejuan Blair, Danny Green and rookie Kawhi Leonard, they've got Ginobili, Tiago Splitter, Matt Bonner and Gary Neal. They've also added Stephen Jackson and Boris Diaw in the middle of the season. And these aren't just random bodies-- they fill specific roles. Jackson provides some D and shooting. Bonner is a tall spot-up shooter. Splitter can bang inside when Duncan and Blair need a breather. Neal spells Parker for stretches, and Ginobili is their offensive spark off the bench. I don't like them quite as much as the Thunder, since they don't really have a scorer in his prime who can take over games the way the Thunder do, but they're actually almost as good offensively as the younger team, and slightly better on D. My concern with them is similar to my concern with the Pacers, Hawks and Sixers in the East-- while they have better players than those teams, I think part of what's gotten them through the season is their depth: with a compressed schedule, their ability to throw lots of bodies at teams has given them an advantage over teams like the Thunder who really need two of Durant, Westbrook and Harden to show up to be able to play their game. But I still think they're good for at least one series win, and maybe two.
The next tier in the West is interesting. You've got the Lakers and Clips within a game and a half of each other for the three seed (the Lakers are ahead right now). Neither of these tams really scares me. The Lakers, without Phil behind the bench, look rather mortal. The Clips, with Vinny Del Negro behind the bench, look rather clueless, especially on offense. The Lakers have two major assets pointing in their favor. They've still got the league's most competitive scoring shooting guard in Kobe Bryant, and they've got two of the best post scorers in the game in Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol. But the Lakers' real problems are efficiency and depth. Kobe's a surefire hall-of-famer and a top-20 (at worst) player of all time, but he's past his prime. Now, that sounds questionable given that he's about to lead the league in scoring again, but look at the numbers and you see that it's true. In the past, even when he was surrounded by garbage, he was pretty efficient, shooting between 45 and 46% from the field and 33-36% from three. This season, he's had his worst shooting percentage since his second season in the league, and he's shot just under 30% from three. Now, Bynum has developed into arguably the league's second-best center, averaging almost 19 and 12 plus a couple of blocks on 56% shooting, and Gasol has quietly put up an efficient 17 and 11 on 50% shooting. But the lack of depth is a real concern with this team. Ramon Sessions is well below average as a starting point guard in the league. Metta World Peace is still a plus defender, but he's out of place offensively on this team. He's a spot-up shooter for them right now, and not at all an efficient one. They've got an above-average backup point in Steve Blake, and Matt Barnes is OK as an energy guy off the bench, but the rest of the bench is sparse-- Josh McRoberts and Devin Ebanks aren't going to scare anyone. Against a team like the Thunder or even the Spurs, I don't really like their chances.
Then you've got the Clippers. This is another strange team. Chris Paul is terrific. In all honesty, I think I'm in a very significant minority, but I'd still take him over Derrick Rose. He's the league's best floor leader, capable of setting up his teammates, running the break, slowing down and playing half court, and scoring himself. He's developed a reliable jumper, and is all but unguardable one on one. His running mate is Blake Griffin, who is the league's most ferocious dunker by a huge margin, but I think has actually become overrated. Griffin's a nice offensive player-- he can actually hit a face-up jump shot and is developing a post game. But he's a bad foul shooter, not a go-to guy in the half-court, and below average on the defensive end. The rest of the roster isn't bad, but it's not impressive either. Randy Foye is decent off the bench-- as a starting 2, he's below average. Caron Butler used to be a borderline all-star at the 3. Now, he's probably below average too, with injuries robbing him of his ability to blow by defenders and stay in front of the league's better swingmen. DeAndre Jordan is a decent shotblocker who can dunk, but he's no Tyson Chandler (the guy everyone claimed he would turn into once CP3 got there). And the bench is... unimpressive. Nick Young can fill it up scoring, but he's extraordinarily inefficient (shooting under 40%), a minus defender, a bad rebounder for a 6'7" guy, and possibly the worst passer in the league. He averages 1 assist in almost 30 minutes a night, and barely 2 boards. That's BAD. Then you've got a shoot-first combo guard in Mo Williams trying to spell CP3 (not gonna happen) and a way over the hill Kenyon Martin filling in the front court. This is a team that can only win if Paul carries them. Luckily, he might be able to do that for a playoff series. I just doubt he can do it for more than one, especially since Paul is also effectively the coach of this team. If Paul's off his game, there's no plan B. That said, there are worse places to be than relying on Chris Paul.
The last of the contenders is, I think, the league's most intriguing team, Memphis. They haven't been very good on offense this season, but they've actually been the 7th-best defensive team in the league by points allowed. And the offensive troubles look a lot less bothersome when you recognize that Zach Randolph has been out for most of the season. This is effectively the same team that beat the Spurs and almost beat the Thunder last Spring, but with a healthy Rudy Gay. That said, Randolph, after dropping 25 in his first game back, hasn't really gotten back to his old self. In fact, he's averaging under 10 points a game in April. But this is still not a team most teams want to face. Mike Conley is an underrated point-- a solid scorer and a decent facilitator. Tony Allen is one of the league's best wing defenders-- a guy you can stick on the league's most productive scoring wings and know that they'll have to fight for every point. Rudy Gay is a complete scoring 3-- not a dominant player, but one who can fill it up, and do so with decent efficiency. Randolph was once one of the league's best post scorers. If he can become that guy again, this team has a legitimate chance to make the finals. And Marc Gasol may well be a better player than his brother at this point-- a strong pivot who can defend, score, rebound, and is a terrific passer for a center (at 3 assists a game). Off the bench, OJ Mayo gives you instant offense and Marreese Speights should be able to fill in for the bigs in a rotation (he's been starting, but I'm assuming they'll re-insert Randolph for the playoffs). Quincy Pondexter can give you 20 minutes a game as a flex forward, and Gilbert Arenas can still spell Conley for a short stretch (though he'll never be a key player in the league again). I think this team rises and falls with Randolph. If he turns into his old self, they can threaten for the conference. If not, they're done in a round or two.
Which leaves us with the last 5 teams battling for 3 spots. I guess I'll start with the defending champion Mavs, who sit in 7th, a half game behind sixth-place Denver. I argued at the beginning of the season that I thought they were done as a contender when they let Tyson Chandler leave. At the beginning of the season, they were straight-up terrible. They rounded into form a bit, and actually stayed a better defensive team than I thought they would be (they're 11 in points allowed), but they've struggled a bit on offense, and I just think that, with Chandler gone, they're a difference-maker away from being a contender. The Mavs go roughly nine deep, but the story goes deeper than that. Jason Kidd, who's been on the downside of his career for awhile, is finally done. In his prime, he was an MVP candidate. Then he morphed into a dependable spot-up shooter who could still play some D, making up for his diminished quickness with veteran guile. But now, he's a liability on both ends. He can still get the Mavs into the offense, but that's about it. His assists have fallen off a cliff, dropping from over 8 to 5.5, and he's shooting a putrid 36% from the floor. Dirk is still mostly Dirk-- he overcame a rough start to average 21 a game, but even he was less efficient offensively than he usually is. After hovering between 48 and 50% between 2006 and 2010, he shot 52% last season. This year, he's been under 46%. Jason Terry's been Jason Terry-- not particularly efficient, but he can still score, and thought his shooting percentage has fallen from 45% to 43%, he's actually shooting 2% better from 3, on more attempts, so his effective percentage is almost definitely pretty similar. Shawn Marion's regressed some offensively-- he's gone from averaging 12.5 points on 52% shooting to averaging 11 points on 45% shooting. He's OK as a complementary guy at this point, but he's also on the decline. And Brendan Haywood... is OK on defense, but he's essentially a Tyson Chandler clone who does everything substantially worse. His hands are worse. He's not anywhere near as efficient a finisher. He's a decent defender but not a game-changing one. If you've got four plus starters, he's passable, but right now the Mavs have one plus starter and a plus sixth man. The last starter is Delonte West. West's role in the league has become "swingman who jumps from playoff team to playoff team, being average at everything except sleeping with LeBron's mom". West isn't a bad player-- he plays decent D, is a decent scorer, is decently efficient, and has a decent handle. He's actually been playing surprisingly well lately, scoring 20+ in two of the last three games, but West is like Haywood-- a guy you can get away with having in your lineup if he's the worst starter, but not in a starting group that also includes Haywood and Jason Kidd. Terry (who's practically a starter anyway) aside, the bench is unimpressive. You've got Vince Carter-- I guess it's a small miracle that he's still in the league and starting for a playoff team at age 35, so more power to him for that. But he's not a guy you want playing heavy minutes. He's having by far the worst scoring season of his career (under 10 points), doing that inefficiently (shooting under 41%, though his 3-point percentage isn't bad), and not creating his own shot. I guess he's kind of trying on D, which is more than you could say for him the rest of his career. Roddy Beaubois's OK, but he's not going to change games. Ian Mahinmi is a big body and nothing else. Frankly, the fact that this roster got to the playoffs in the rather deep west is a testament to Dirk's ability and Rick Carlisle's coaching job. I think they're done in a round this year.
In 6th place right now, you've got Denver. The Nugs are another one of those strange teams that has a lot of quality players, but no star, and they play at a fast pace that can win you regular season games but isn't really suited to the playoffs. I'll admit I've got a soft spot for Denver-- they've got three of my favorite players in the league in Chris "Birdman" Andersen, Timofey Mozgov, and Javale McGee. Denver can't really be judged on typical points metrics-- they run up and down the floor, so they score a lot (1st in the league) and give up a lot of points too (28th in the league). If you're talking about Denver, you have to start with Ty Lawson running the point. He's a supercharged small guard who's perfect for their fast-breaking system. He's their leading scorer, isn't inefficient, and can also set up his teammates. Running with him, you've got rookie rebounding machine Kenneth Faried, who can also finish, a decent wing in Arron Aflalo (who's also averaging a rather efficient 15 a game), Danilo Gallinari, who's a very good piece when he's healthy and on his game, which he hasn't been for much of the season, though he could round into form by playoff time, and the two-headed Javale/Kosta Koufos monster. Koufos is... pretty nondescript. He's a big body who can put the ball in the basket if you hand it to him and rebounds at a decent clip, but is a dime a dozen type. Javale... is the league's dumbest player, a guy who will goaltend three-pointers, fall down all over the place, try to lead the fast break, and attempt foul-line dunks in games. But he's also a 7-footer who has long arms and can jump really really high, which is tantalizing. I still don't think he's a guy you can trust to have in the game, but he's probably the most entertaining guy there is. They've got a couple of solid backups on the bench. Andre Miller is old, but he's still one of the league's best backup points, a capable scorer and distributor; Corey Brewer isn't an efficient scorer, but he's a good defender, and he can run, and Al Harrington will have games where he shoots 1 of 10, but he can also get you 25 in a given night, and he's a decent rebounder. But this team isn't a threat. When the game slows down, they don't have a go-to guy who can take over. And defensively, you can't trust them to get a stop. I think they're a first-round out.
Then in 8th, you've got a tie between Phoenix and Houston. Neither is much of a threat. It's nuts that Phoenix is even contending, given that Steve Nash is about 5 years past his prime, and his supporting cast is mediocre (not to mention Nash has always been a minus defender), but they've somehow got themselves fighting for a spot. Marcin Gortat has somehow turned himself into a 16 and 10 big (how much of that is Nash I can't say), but the rest of their roster is filled with guys who, frankly, shouldn't be playing major roles on playoff teams. Grant Hill is in and out of the lineup, but somehow he's willed himself to a double-figure scoring average despite being almost 40 years old and having his ankles surgically repaired more times than I can count. He's an inspiration. But then they've got guys like Jared Dudley (average), Shannon Brown (backup), and Channing Frye playing big minutes. This is a team that's still good offensively, but they couldn't get over the hump when Nash was in his prime and had a good supporting cast, so at this point, if they sneak in, they're cannon fodder for the Thunder or Spurs (sadly, since I love this team).
Then, tied with Phoenix, you've got the Rockets, with the Jazz a half-game behind. The Rockets have been fueled by the emergence of Goran Dragic, who's been on fire since entering the starting lineup when Kyle Lowry hurt himself early in March. He's averaged 20 points a night in April. But now Lowry's back, and this team still doesn't look scary. They're solid offensively, with Dragic, Kevin Martin (when he's healthy), Luis Scola, and even rookie Chandler Parsons capable of scoring. But they're defensively suspect, even with Marcus Camby, so I don't give them much chance against the top seeds even if they sneak in.
Last, there's Utah, which sits half a game back of Phoenix and Houston. The Jazz are a strange group, very good offensively but pretty poor defensively. They actually have a pretty scary starting lineup-- Al Jefferson is almost a 20 and 10 guy at the pivot, Paul Millsap is a 17 and 9 guy at the 4, and Gordon Hayward has turned himself into a capable 2. With Josh Howard out, they've been starting Demarre Carroll at the 3, and that's bad, but Devin Harris has been playing better in April (17 and 7 or so) after epitomizing suck (yeah, I just made that phrase up) and also inconsistency for most of the season. Their real downfall is their bench. Even if we assume Howard and Raja Bell get healthy in time for the playoffs, they almost definitely won't be 100%, and even with them, this team isn't really a threat. Derrick Favors is also a disappointment, a talented prospect who I don't think will ever be the standout a lot of people expected.
With that out of the way, here are my picks in the West (and the Finals). I'll pick the Jazz to sneak in ahead of the Suns and the Rockets, probably against my better judgment. The Suns have a brutal remaining schedule left, and the Rockets have been struggling badly recently, so I think the Jazz are the pick almost by default.
(1) Spurs over (8) Jazz in 5
(2) Thunder over (7) Mavs in 5
(3) Lakers over (6) Nuggets in 4
(5) Grizzlies over (4) Clippers in 7
(1) Spurs over (5) Grizzlies in 7
(2) Thunder over (6) Lakers in 6
(2) Thunder over (1) Spurs in 6
Then in the FINALS, I'm gonna have to take the Thunder over the Bulls in 6.
Which leaves us with the last 5 teams battling for 3 spots. I guess I'll start with the defending champion Mavs, who sit in 7th, a half game behind sixth-place Denver. I argued at the beginning of the season that I thought they were done as a contender when they let Tyson Chandler leave. At the beginning of the season, they were straight-up terrible. They rounded into form a bit, and actually stayed a better defensive team than I thought they would be (they're 11 in points allowed), but they've struggled a bit on offense, and I just think that, with Chandler gone, they're a difference-maker away from being a contender. The Mavs go roughly nine deep, but the story goes deeper than that. Jason Kidd, who's been on the downside of his career for awhile, is finally done. In his prime, he was an MVP candidate. Then he morphed into a dependable spot-up shooter who could still play some D, making up for his diminished quickness with veteran guile. But now, he's a liability on both ends. He can still get the Mavs into the offense, but that's about it. His assists have fallen off a cliff, dropping from over 8 to 5.5, and he's shooting a putrid 36% from the floor. Dirk is still mostly Dirk-- he overcame a rough start to average 21 a game, but even he was less efficient offensively than he usually is. After hovering between 48 and 50% between 2006 and 2010, he shot 52% last season. This year, he's been under 46%. Jason Terry's been Jason Terry-- not particularly efficient, but he can still score, and thought his shooting percentage has fallen from 45% to 43%, he's actually shooting 2% better from 3, on more attempts, so his effective percentage is almost definitely pretty similar. Shawn Marion's regressed some offensively-- he's gone from averaging 12.5 points on 52% shooting to averaging 11 points on 45% shooting. He's OK as a complementary guy at this point, but he's also on the decline. And Brendan Haywood... is OK on defense, but he's essentially a Tyson Chandler clone who does everything substantially worse. His hands are worse. He's not anywhere near as efficient a finisher. He's a decent defender but not a game-changing one. If you've got four plus starters, he's passable, but right now the Mavs have one plus starter and a plus sixth man. The last starter is Delonte West. West's role in the league has become "swingman who jumps from playoff team to playoff team, being average at everything except sleeping with LeBron's mom". West isn't a bad player-- he plays decent D, is a decent scorer, is decently efficient, and has a decent handle. He's actually been playing surprisingly well lately, scoring 20+ in two of the last three games, but West is like Haywood-- a guy you can get away with having in your lineup if he's the worst starter, but not in a starting group that also includes Haywood and Jason Kidd. Terry (who's practically a starter anyway) aside, the bench is unimpressive. You've got Vince Carter-- I guess it's a small miracle that he's still in the league and starting for a playoff team at age 35, so more power to him for that. But he's not a guy you want playing heavy minutes. He's having by far the worst scoring season of his career (under 10 points), doing that inefficiently (shooting under 41%, though his 3-point percentage isn't bad), and not creating his own shot. I guess he's kind of trying on D, which is more than you could say for him the rest of his career. Roddy Beaubois's OK, but he's not going to change games. Ian Mahinmi is a big body and nothing else. Frankly, the fact that this roster got to the playoffs in the rather deep west is a testament to Dirk's ability and Rick Carlisle's coaching job. I think they're done in a round this year.
In 6th place right now, you've got Denver. The Nugs are another one of those strange teams that has a lot of quality players, but no star, and they play at a fast pace that can win you regular season games but isn't really suited to the playoffs. I'll admit I've got a soft spot for Denver-- they've got three of my favorite players in the league in Chris "Birdman" Andersen, Timofey Mozgov, and Javale McGee. Denver can't really be judged on typical points metrics-- they run up and down the floor, so they score a lot (1st in the league) and give up a lot of points too (28th in the league). If you're talking about Denver, you have to start with Ty Lawson running the point. He's a supercharged small guard who's perfect for their fast-breaking system. He's their leading scorer, isn't inefficient, and can also set up his teammates. Running with him, you've got rookie rebounding machine Kenneth Faried, who can also finish, a decent wing in Arron Aflalo (who's also averaging a rather efficient 15 a game), Danilo Gallinari, who's a very good piece when he's healthy and on his game, which he hasn't been for much of the season, though he could round into form by playoff time, and the two-headed Javale/Kosta Koufos monster. Koufos is... pretty nondescript. He's a big body who can put the ball in the basket if you hand it to him and rebounds at a decent clip, but is a dime a dozen type. Javale... is the league's dumbest player, a guy who will goaltend three-pointers, fall down all over the place, try to lead the fast break, and attempt foul-line dunks in games. But he's also a 7-footer who has long arms and can jump really really high, which is tantalizing. I still don't think he's a guy you can trust to have in the game, but he's probably the most entertaining guy there is. They've got a couple of solid backups on the bench. Andre Miller is old, but he's still one of the league's best backup points, a capable scorer and distributor; Corey Brewer isn't an efficient scorer, but he's a good defender, and he can run, and Al Harrington will have games where he shoots 1 of 10, but he can also get you 25 in a given night, and he's a decent rebounder. But this team isn't a threat. When the game slows down, they don't have a go-to guy who can take over. And defensively, you can't trust them to get a stop. I think they're a first-round out.
Then in 8th, you've got a tie between Phoenix and Houston. Neither is much of a threat. It's nuts that Phoenix is even contending, given that Steve Nash is about 5 years past his prime, and his supporting cast is mediocre (not to mention Nash has always been a minus defender), but they've somehow got themselves fighting for a spot. Marcin Gortat has somehow turned himself into a 16 and 10 big (how much of that is Nash I can't say), but the rest of their roster is filled with guys who, frankly, shouldn't be playing major roles on playoff teams. Grant Hill is in and out of the lineup, but somehow he's willed himself to a double-figure scoring average despite being almost 40 years old and having his ankles surgically repaired more times than I can count. He's an inspiration. But then they've got guys like Jared Dudley (average), Shannon Brown (backup), and Channing Frye playing big minutes. This is a team that's still good offensively, but they couldn't get over the hump when Nash was in his prime and had a good supporting cast, so at this point, if they sneak in, they're cannon fodder for the Thunder or Spurs (sadly, since I love this team).
Then, tied with Phoenix, you've got the Rockets, with the Jazz a half-game behind. The Rockets have been fueled by the emergence of Goran Dragic, who's been on fire since entering the starting lineup when Kyle Lowry hurt himself early in March. He's averaged 20 points a night in April. But now Lowry's back, and this team still doesn't look scary. They're solid offensively, with Dragic, Kevin Martin (when he's healthy), Luis Scola, and even rookie Chandler Parsons capable of scoring. But they're defensively suspect, even with Marcus Camby, so I don't give them much chance against the top seeds even if they sneak in.
Last, there's Utah, which sits half a game back of Phoenix and Houston. The Jazz are a strange group, very good offensively but pretty poor defensively. They actually have a pretty scary starting lineup-- Al Jefferson is almost a 20 and 10 guy at the pivot, Paul Millsap is a 17 and 9 guy at the 4, and Gordon Hayward has turned himself into a capable 2. With Josh Howard out, they've been starting Demarre Carroll at the 3, and that's bad, but Devin Harris has been playing better in April (17 and 7 or so) after epitomizing suck (yeah, I just made that phrase up) and also inconsistency for most of the season. Their real downfall is their bench. Even if we assume Howard and Raja Bell get healthy in time for the playoffs, they almost definitely won't be 100%, and even with them, this team isn't really a threat. Derrick Favors is also a disappointment, a talented prospect who I don't think will ever be the standout a lot of people expected.
With that out of the way, here are my picks in the West (and the Finals). I'll pick the Jazz to sneak in ahead of the Suns and the Rockets, probably against my better judgment. The Suns have a brutal remaining schedule left, and the Rockets have been struggling badly recently, so I think the Jazz are the pick almost by default.
(1) Spurs over (8) Jazz in 5
(2) Thunder over (7) Mavs in 5
(3) Lakers over (6) Nuggets in 4
(5) Grizzlies over (4) Clippers in 7
(1) Spurs over (5) Grizzlies in 7
(2) Thunder over (6) Lakers in 6
(2) Thunder over (1) Spurs in 6
Then in the FINALS, I'm gonna have to take the Thunder over the Bulls in 6.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
It's (almost) playoff time (East edition)
It's mid-April, which means the NBA playoffs are right around the corner. I've really come to love the playoffs-- it's not the same constant thrill as March Madness, but I think I'm one of the few that thinks it's even better. Sure, you've got the one and done thrill that comes every March. You've got Lehigh beating Duke and a new unknown hero popping out of the woodwork to tug on America's heartstrings. But, let's be real, March Madness isn't great basketball. If you like watching white guys from Duke chuck threes and get a kick out of four-year power forwards who try hard but have a single-digit vertical battle athletic freaks fresh out of high school who, come March, might have some clue how to control their four foot long arms, then more power to you. But the NBA is basketball at its highest level-- the players are on another level (as great a college player as Kevin Durant was, in five years in the league he's transformed from a 6-10 jump shooter into, I would argue, the most polished volume scorer since Jordan), the coaching is night and day, and there's nothing like a tight game in a tight series. Sure, there's passion in college, but it's not channeled, and you still get a vague sense that the guys don't really know what they're doing. It's like having a college class taught by a professor instead of a TA-- the TA's might have more passion and they might spend more time preparing, but nothing really compares to hearing it from the best. And I feel the same way about the league. I think I'm gonna split my playoff posts by conference, just because doing both in one day takes too long. Today I'll start with the East.
With only 6 or 7 games left for most teams, the picture is coming into focus. The Bulls have all but locked up the conference, and they'll almost definitely be playing either New York or Philly. If I'm them, I prefer Philly. Not only have the Sixers been playing pretty poorly (4-6 in their last 10), but they're just not built for the playoffs. Don't get me wrong, they're a nice story-- Doug Collins has got them playing great basketball, they've got a good number of quality players without having a star, and they lock down on D and play unselfishly on offense. But they don't have anyone who can take over games, and, frankly, they're just short on talent. Sad as it is to see them go, whether they face the Bulls or the Heat, they'll be out in 5 games if they're lucky.
The more compelling case is the Knicks. For most of the season, they've looked pretty bad. They've been disjointed on offense, Amar'e Stoudemire has clearly looked old and out of place, struggling to mesh with Carmelo Anthony (who hasn't exactly been lighting it up himself for most of the year) and getting his shot blocked way more than he ever did back when he was Blake Griffin lite in his early Phoenix years. And they've given major minutes to guys like Toney Douglas (oof) and Jared Jeffries (double oof) for major parts of the season. Then their season hit two distinct turning points. First came Linsanity, when Jeremy Lin came out of nowhere to improbably average 25 and 10 for a couple of weeks and give the franchise mouth to mouth. Predictably, Lin dropped off that torrid pace and the Knicks slid back to Earth. At which point the franchise canned Mike D'Antoni and replaced him with his assistant and former Hawks coach Mike Woodson, who's really D'Antoni's polar opposite. While D'Antoni is an offensive guru, Woodson is very much a defensive coach. And defense really hadn't even been the Knicks' problem for most of the season-- it was their utter inability to mesh offensively. But then Woodson took over and, even though Lin went out (probably for the season) with a torn meniscus), this has looked like a dangerous team. Melo discovered his pride and has been on a tear lately-- tonight he dropped 42 and 9 boards on the Heat, who are a terrific defensive team, shot over 50% , and only turned it over once. They've still got the league's second-best defensive center in Tyson Chandler. and with Iman Shumpert, they've got a very capable stopper coming off the bench. If Anthony decides he wants to lock down in the playoffs, this won't be an easy matchup, not for the Bulls and not for the Heat. I still think both of those teams have too much firepower to throw at the Knicks to lose a series, but I think it would go at least 6 games.
Speaking of the Heat, another year, another very good regular season... but I still don't trust them to win a title. LeBron James is the league's most talented player, a 6'8" athletic freak who can pass like Magic, get to the hoop at will, and is one of the league's 5 best perimeter defenders. Then you've got another franchise player in Dwyane Wade, who can take over a game with his ability to slash to the hoop and finish through contact. But the rest of that team is... kind of a wreck. Yeah, they've got Chris Bosh. But Bosh looks exceptionally out of place. He actually performed pretty well in stretches during last year's Finals, but he's plainly underutilized on that team. With Wade and James dominating the ball, he's not going to get many isolation opportunities on the wing. He's not a guy who moves particularly well without the ball to benefit from James's ability to get to the hoop and dish. And he's not a great passer. For a guy his size, he's not even much of a rebounder. So what you've got is a potential go-to scorer playing third fiddle and, unlike someone like Scottie Pippen who had go-to ability but was overshadowed by a better go-to guy, he doesn't do enough other things well to really bring all that much to the table. And the rest of that squad... the less said the better. Some of them are alright on defense, but they don't exactly have a Tyson Chandler on the roster. And offensively, they're just ugly. Today against the Knicks, outside of James, Wade and Bosh, no one scored more than FIVE points. On 7/21 shooting. Mario Chalmers could be a decent backup, but he's playing starter minutes. Udonis Haslem is another solid backup playing more than he should. Shane Battier is finished. Mike Miller's prime, if he ever had one, is long over. James Jones and Joel Anthony? Well, the fact that they're in the rotation tells you a lot. This is a team that's heavily reliant on two guys to carry them, one of whom is notorious for not showing up in crunch time. If they have to fight through a couple of early 6-game playoff series, I don't think they'll have enough left in the tank to get past the Bulls.
Which leaves us with two more matchups. The Pacers look like they have a decent hold on the 3 seed, but the Hawks, Magic, and Celtics are all within a half game of each other. So I guess I'll start with the Pacers. They're kind of a rich man's version of the Sixers, I think, and that hurts them going into the playoffs against teams that have more quality at the top of their roster. What they do have is 8 guys who average at least 9 points a game, a bunch of good personalities, and solid team defenders. What they don't have is a real go-to scorer. Danny Granger was good at being the best player on a bad team. On this team, he's still an asset, but it's clear that he's not a guy who is going to put a good team on his back. To his credit, he's gone from being a guy who put up almost 26 points a night at one point to a guy who averages a little under 19 now. To his discredit, he's shooting 42%, which is straight-up weak for a go-to scorer, and, after hovering around 40% from three in the past, he's hit around 36.5% this season, which isn't awful, but also isn't great. This is a team that I want to see win, but I just can't see them causing problems for the top two.
Which leaves three teams. I don't really have much to say about the Hawks. This is a typical good but not great team. They play very good defense, and they've got a couple of very good but not great players in Joe Johnson and Josh Smith, but this is another team that will put up a fight against anyone, but just doesn't have the game-changing player who can put them over the top against a good team. Which brings me to a team that does have that player: Orlando. Dwight Howard is a beast. Obviously, this entire section comes with a huge caveat. Howard isn't healthy right now-- he's probably out until at least the end of the month, and there's no guarantee his back will be ready to go for the start of the playoffs. On the assumption that he comes back ready at close to 100%, he could make a difference. On that assumption, I still think he's a game changer. He's really taking a beating these days from everyone ranging from SI's Ian Thomson to ESPN/Grantland's Bill Simmons. But Howard is still quite possibly the first guy you take if you're putting together a team to win one playoff series. In a league thin on true centers, Howard is a game changer. He still hasn't developed an effective counter-move in the post, but he's still the league's strongest, arguably most athletic pivot. He scores 20 a game just on physical ability, but where he really changes games is on D. This is a team that's 4th in the league in total defense even though they've got turnstiles like Hedo Turkoglu, Ryan Anderson and Jason Richardson playing 30 minutes a night. On offense, where Howard doesn't dominate, this team is in the league's bottom third. Anderson is a good stretch four who can knock down threes, but none of their perimeter guys are creating their own shots. Which means they're going to spend a lot of the playoffs dumping it into Howard and begging that, when he gets fouled, he somehow figures out how to hit more than 49% of his free throws (yeah, that's an ugly mark). But, in a seven game series, if Howard wakes up, this is a team that could be scary to anyone. In particular if the Heat find themselves playing the Magic, James and Wade's penetration game is going to be stifled somewhat by the monster in the middle. If Howard can stay out of foul trouble, if Miami's interchangeable supporting cast isn't knocking down jumpers, it could be a long series.
Now comes the last, and possibly most intriguing, squad: Boston. For most of this season, they've looked finished. The Big Three have been slowing down since before they got to Boston, but now they're just old. Paul Pierce is still averaging 19 points a game, but Kevin Garnett, who was once a consistent 22-24 points a night guy, is averaging 16 (and that's UP over his last two years), and Ray Allen is averaging just 14 (which is shocking, considering he came into the league in the same draft class as Allen Iverson, one that yielded THREE future MVPs, TEN all-stars, plus Marcus Camby, and in which the Wizards brilliantly traded away their first-round pick. Yeah, I'm still a little bitter). The Celtics are ranked 26th in the league in scoring, and Jermaine O'Neal is out for the season. Yet somehow, this team is rolling into the playoffs. They're 7-3 in their last 10 games. Rajon Rondo (after hearing trade rumors early in the season) is steamrolling the league, and they've beaten the Heat twice in the last 2 weeks. They're vulnerable against a team with a rim-protecting big like Dwight Howard or Tyson Chandler, but they're a scary matchup for Miami. They've got a fantastic point guard who can break down his man, three very good perimeter defenders now that Avery Bradley has developed into a solid piece over the last month or two, and a vet in KG who is still as good as any at trying to neutralize LeBron James. If you hold a gun to my head, I still think the Heat would beat Boston in 6 hard-fought games, but I think if it went to 7, I'd have to go with the C's.
So my predictions for how the seeding shakes out and how the East playoffs go.
(1) Bulls over (8) 76ers in 4 games
(2) Heat over (7) Knicks in 5 games
(3) Pacers over (6) Magic in 4 games (assuming Howard sits out/is less than 90%; if Howard is 100%, Magic in 7)
(4) Celtics over (5) Hawks in 6 games
(1) Bulls over (4) Celtics in 7 games
(2) Heat over (3) Pacers in 5 games (if Howard comes back at 100% and the Magic beat the Pacers, make this Heat over Magic in 6)
(1) Bulls over (2) Heat in 7 games.
In the next few days, I'll get to the West.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Dwight Howard's Catch-22
Dwight Howard's reputation once-pristine reputation has really taken a beating this season. The latest blow is this piece from SI's Ian Thomsen that attaches the brutal "coach-killer" tag to Howard. Now, very occasionally, that's a label you can escape. Magic Johnson was a "coach killer" after he allegedly got Paul Westhead run out of LA. Then he won four more rings under Pat Riley, and all was well again. But the gist of Thomsen's piece is that Howard needs to leave Orlando because he can't survive there anymore after his coach, Stan Van Gundy, publicly declared that Howard wanted him fired, and was telling the Magic that he wouldn't re-sign unless Van Gundy was shipped out. Let's assume for a moment that this is all true (not to say that it isn't, but Howard and his people (understandably) haven't confirmed it. The real question is, what do you want Howard to do?
As sports fans, we certainly bristle at the prospect of players holding their coaches hostage. We all want superstar players to act like Kevin Durant or John Stockton-- consummate pros who can never be heard complaining about their coach or taking a hard line with their organizations. We all cheered when Durant quietly announced that he was re-upping with the Thunder shortly after (or maybe it was before?) LeBron James made a big spectacle of quitting on the Cavs to join DWade in Miami. But this Howard case has really brought into focus the dilemma facing stars facing free agency. What do I mean? Well, let me clarify.
I'll start with a few propositions that should be pretty uncontroversial. First, we judge superstars differently than we judge role players or even regular stars. Ultimately, with most players, winning rings is nice, but those rings aren't career-defining. Big Baby Davis, Kendrick Perkins, Trevor Ariza, Matt Bonner, and any number of players like them may be NBA Champions, but we don't judge their careers based on that. Champions, ultimately, are judged by their star players. Last year's Mavs were defined by Dirk Nowitzki's greatness on offense, with Tyson Chandler playing an indispensable role keying the defense. The Lakers of the last decade have alternately been the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, the Kobe-Shaq Lakers, and the Kobe-Pau Lakers. The Celtics of 2008 were anchored by the KG-Pierce-Allen trio, with Rajon Rondo the indispensable fourth wheel. The constantly-contending Spurs have been defined by the presence of Tim Duncan, with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili playing important roles as sidekicks. The role players have undoubtedly been important, but they've also been somewhat interchangeable-- replace DeShawn Stevenson with a Tony Allen or Shawn Marion with a Trevor Ariza and they may well win a title anyway; hell, they may even be better. Similarly, the Lakers won a title with Ariza, jettisoned him in favor of MWP (Ron Artest) and won another ring. Because the championship teams aren't defined by their role players, those role players' careers also aren't defined by their ability (or failure) to win a ring. At best, they can be an oddity who happened to push a whole bunch of elite teams over the top (the prototypical example of this is Robert Horry-- he won rings with Hakeem's Rockets, Shaq and Kobe's Lakers and Duncan's Spurs. But the only people talking about those hall-of-famers winning rings on Big Shot Bob's squads have their tongues planted firmly in their cheeks. Even star players who aren't in that pantheon aren't judged by the same standard as the true superstars. Notice, for instance, all the flak that LeBron takes for not having won a ring and compare it to guys like Brandon Roy and Deron Williams, or even an ex-MVP like Steve Nash. Right now, no one's arguing that Nash's career is somehow tainted by his failure to win a ring as a franchise centerpiece. The reasoning seems pretty straightforward-- Nash has been a terrific player for a long time, but he doesn't have the physical skills to dominate a game the way a Jordan or a LeBron does. So, as much as we hate to see it, we don't hold BRoy or Nash to the same standard that we hold a transcendent player like a Jordan or even a Tim Duncan.
Now we come to our second proposition. That not all coaches and organizations are created equal. We can talk until we're blue in the face about how Michael Jordan took a moribund Bulls franchise, breathed life into it, and won six rings. About how Magic Johnson lifted the Lakers to a title every other year for a decade, and about how the Spurs were a bridesmaid franchise until Tim Duncan arrived and started winning rings for fun. And that's all a substantial part of the story. But it's not close to all of it. Remember, Jordan didn't win a ring (or even make the NBA Finals) until his seventh season. Maybe coincidentally (but definitely not) it wasn't until the Bulls added a second hall-of-famer in Scottie Pippen, along with the most successful coach in NBA history in Phil Jackson, that Jordan began winning titles. Would the Bulls have won 6 rings in Jordan's last 6 full seasons as a Bull without Jackson behind the bench, Pippen playing Robin to MJ's Batman, and a stream of solid, steady role players who complemented Jordan perfectly on the roster? Again, possible... but I doubt Bob Hill was going three-peating all that often. Similarly, the Spurs may have won four rings behind Tim Duncan... but Gregg Popovich was on the bench for each of those rings, and R.C. Buford compiled rosters around Duncan that unearthed future stars like Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili deep in the draft, and surrounded Duncan with role players who slotted into that team perfectly. Again, stick Flip Saunders on the bench and a parade of mediocrities on the wings, and this franchise isn't going anywhere either.
Third and last, players, even the greats, can't lift franchises by themselves. By at worst his third, and certainly his fourth, season in the league, Michael Jordan was the best player in the NBA. It's equally clear that LeBron is the best player in the league right now (not to say that LeBron is Mike; I still subscribe to there being a difference between a great, super-talented player and a champion). But even guys that good can't win titles on their own. A hall-of-famer with a mediocre coach and crummy players around him still isn't going to win a ring.
Which leaves us at a crossroads: if a superstar is going to be judged by his ability to win rings, and his franchise and coach aren't up to the task, he's stuck in a catch-22. Howard is certainly one of 5 or 6 players in the league right now who can be legitimately characterized as a surefire future hall-of-famer/franchise player (LeBron, Kobe Bryant, Duncan and probably in a few years Kevin Durant are the others). Even future hall-of-famers like Nash and Jason Kidd, and maybe even DWade and Kevin Garnett don't necessarily fit into that category. At this point, Howard's reaching a bit of a crossroads. He's only 26 years old, but he's already in his 8th year. At this point, he still hasn't been to the finals. And, worse yet, the Magic don't exactly look like they're knocking on the door. The guys on the court with Howard at the tip off are Jameer Nelson, Jason Richardson, Hedo Turkoglu, and Ryan Anderson. Those guys are all some combination of mediocre, old, and not good enough. And unlike San Antonio, which goes 11 or 12 deep, the Magic's bench isn't exactly overflowing with top-notch pieces. To top it all off, Stan Van Gundy, while he isn't a bad coach by any means, is no Phil Jackson. When the Magic step onto the court against the Heat, Howard will eat Joel Anthony for breakfast, but the prospect of the Holy Turk trying to check LeBron and Jason Richardson lining up on D-Wade doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
So now Howard is on the verge of free agency. He realizes (not unreasonably) that Van Gundy probably isn't the coach who is going to take him to the top. And he also realizes that this isn't a team that is a tweak or two away-- it needs at least one major piece, and a couple of upgraded role players to compete. So when Howard heads into negotiations over a new contract, here's his situation. He doesn't want to play for a coach like Van Gundy who has a grating personality and probably isn't the guy to win a ring with. He wants to convey to management that they really need to upgrade the roster in order for him to come back. But, at the same time, the standard by which the public treats him, and his leverage over the franchise in negotiations, are different from those of ordinary players. If Ersan Ilyasova or Jared Dudley tell a franchise that they don't want to play for the chosen coach, the franchise tells them just where to stuff it and moves on to a different coach. If Dwight Howard tells the franchise he doesn't want to play for a particular coach, the franchise is in a different situation altogether. They could tell Howard where to stuff it... and then they end up with Stan Van Gundy coaching a roster that's possibly even worse than the Wizards'. And, whereas the national media won't blink twice about the Bucks losing Ilyasova or the Suns losing Dudley, Howard leaving the Magic is kind of a huge deal. So they're in just a bit of a pickle.
Which brings us to the comparison between Howard and everyone's (including my) favorite poster boy for team play, Kevin Durant. KD quietly re-upped with the Thunder two summers ago instead of testing the market. We cheered. But look at where he re-upped. He had a coach he liked in Scott Brooks. He was surrounded with a burgeoning star in Russell Westbrook and a well-constructed roster with a very solid third scorer in James Harden, a solid perimeter defender in Thabo Sefolosha, and a long bench of quality role players. Perhaps most importantly, he had a GM in Sam Presti who had shown an astute ability to build a roster that perfectly complemented Durant's talents. Looking at the team, Durant realized that this team had a great chance to win going forward. The fact that he didn't have to suffer the taint that superstars inevitably suffer when they change teams must have sealed the deal. Now compare that to Howard's situation. He's on a team with a decent emerging power forward in Ryan Anderson, but the rest of the starting five ranges from average to catastrophic. The bench is short. The franchise has had years to build a team around Howard, and all they've done is shuttled guys like Vince Carter in and out. This off-season, their big addition was... Big Baby. And their retiring GM embarrassingly drunk-dialed Howard begging him to stay. Is this really a franchise Howard wants to stake his legacy to?
So at that point, Howard's stuck. He can play the good soldier, re-up with the Magic and endure what is likely to be another 5-10 years of haplessness. He can enter the market and sign with what he thinks is a better team, in which case his legacy takes a hit no matter what (a bunch of the real rarefied greats- Jordan, Magic, Bird, Russell-- were one-team guys), and that hit becomes huge if he switches teams and still doesn't win a ring. He could demand a trade, in which case his legacy again takes a pounding. Or he can demand that his team take steps to turn the franchise itself into a viable contender. None of these options is "correct", per se. All of them, in fact, are deeply flawed. Which is what makes Howard's situation so hard-- ultimately, Thomsen is right that he's got a lot of power, and he doesn't know what to do with that power. But what I think Thomsen doesn't stress enough is that it's not clear what the right thing to do with that power is.
As sports fans, we certainly bristle at the prospect of players holding their coaches hostage. We all want superstar players to act like Kevin Durant or John Stockton-- consummate pros who can never be heard complaining about their coach or taking a hard line with their organizations. We all cheered when Durant quietly announced that he was re-upping with the Thunder shortly after (or maybe it was before?) LeBron James made a big spectacle of quitting on the Cavs to join DWade in Miami. But this Howard case has really brought into focus the dilemma facing stars facing free agency. What do I mean? Well, let me clarify.
I'll start with a few propositions that should be pretty uncontroversial. First, we judge superstars differently than we judge role players or even regular stars. Ultimately, with most players, winning rings is nice, but those rings aren't career-defining. Big Baby Davis, Kendrick Perkins, Trevor Ariza, Matt Bonner, and any number of players like them may be NBA Champions, but we don't judge their careers based on that. Champions, ultimately, are judged by their star players. Last year's Mavs were defined by Dirk Nowitzki's greatness on offense, with Tyson Chandler playing an indispensable role keying the defense. The Lakers of the last decade have alternately been the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, the Kobe-Shaq Lakers, and the Kobe-Pau Lakers. The Celtics of 2008 were anchored by the KG-Pierce-Allen trio, with Rajon Rondo the indispensable fourth wheel. The constantly-contending Spurs have been defined by the presence of Tim Duncan, with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili playing important roles as sidekicks. The role players have undoubtedly been important, but they've also been somewhat interchangeable-- replace DeShawn Stevenson with a Tony Allen or Shawn Marion with a Trevor Ariza and they may well win a title anyway; hell, they may even be better. Similarly, the Lakers won a title with Ariza, jettisoned him in favor of MWP (Ron Artest) and won another ring. Because the championship teams aren't defined by their role players, those role players' careers also aren't defined by their ability (or failure) to win a ring. At best, they can be an oddity who happened to push a whole bunch of elite teams over the top (the prototypical example of this is Robert Horry-- he won rings with Hakeem's Rockets, Shaq and Kobe's Lakers and Duncan's Spurs. But the only people talking about those hall-of-famers winning rings on Big Shot Bob's squads have their tongues planted firmly in their cheeks. Even star players who aren't in that pantheon aren't judged by the same standard as the true superstars. Notice, for instance, all the flak that LeBron takes for not having won a ring and compare it to guys like Brandon Roy and Deron Williams, or even an ex-MVP like Steve Nash. Right now, no one's arguing that Nash's career is somehow tainted by his failure to win a ring as a franchise centerpiece. The reasoning seems pretty straightforward-- Nash has been a terrific player for a long time, but he doesn't have the physical skills to dominate a game the way a Jordan or a LeBron does. So, as much as we hate to see it, we don't hold BRoy or Nash to the same standard that we hold a transcendent player like a Jordan or even a Tim Duncan.
Now we come to our second proposition. That not all coaches and organizations are created equal. We can talk until we're blue in the face about how Michael Jordan took a moribund Bulls franchise, breathed life into it, and won six rings. About how Magic Johnson lifted the Lakers to a title every other year for a decade, and about how the Spurs were a bridesmaid franchise until Tim Duncan arrived and started winning rings for fun. And that's all a substantial part of the story. But it's not close to all of it. Remember, Jordan didn't win a ring (or even make the NBA Finals) until his seventh season. Maybe coincidentally (but definitely not) it wasn't until the Bulls added a second hall-of-famer in Scottie Pippen, along with the most successful coach in NBA history in Phil Jackson, that Jordan began winning titles. Would the Bulls have won 6 rings in Jordan's last 6 full seasons as a Bull without Jackson behind the bench, Pippen playing Robin to MJ's Batman, and a stream of solid, steady role players who complemented Jordan perfectly on the roster? Again, possible... but I doubt Bob Hill was going three-peating all that often. Similarly, the Spurs may have won four rings behind Tim Duncan... but Gregg Popovich was on the bench for each of those rings, and R.C. Buford compiled rosters around Duncan that unearthed future stars like Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili deep in the draft, and surrounded Duncan with role players who slotted into that team perfectly. Again, stick Flip Saunders on the bench and a parade of mediocrities on the wings, and this franchise isn't going anywhere either.
Third and last, players, even the greats, can't lift franchises by themselves. By at worst his third, and certainly his fourth, season in the league, Michael Jordan was the best player in the NBA. It's equally clear that LeBron is the best player in the league right now (not to say that LeBron is Mike; I still subscribe to there being a difference between a great, super-talented player and a champion). But even guys that good can't win titles on their own. A hall-of-famer with a mediocre coach and crummy players around him still isn't going to win a ring.
Which leaves us at a crossroads: if a superstar is going to be judged by his ability to win rings, and his franchise and coach aren't up to the task, he's stuck in a catch-22. Howard is certainly one of 5 or 6 players in the league right now who can be legitimately characterized as a surefire future hall-of-famer/franchise player (LeBron, Kobe Bryant, Duncan and probably in a few years Kevin Durant are the others). Even future hall-of-famers like Nash and Jason Kidd, and maybe even DWade and Kevin Garnett don't necessarily fit into that category. At this point, Howard's reaching a bit of a crossroads. He's only 26 years old, but he's already in his 8th year. At this point, he still hasn't been to the finals. And, worse yet, the Magic don't exactly look like they're knocking on the door. The guys on the court with Howard at the tip off are Jameer Nelson, Jason Richardson, Hedo Turkoglu, and Ryan Anderson. Those guys are all some combination of mediocre, old, and not good enough. And unlike San Antonio, which goes 11 or 12 deep, the Magic's bench isn't exactly overflowing with top-notch pieces. To top it all off, Stan Van Gundy, while he isn't a bad coach by any means, is no Phil Jackson. When the Magic step onto the court against the Heat, Howard will eat Joel Anthony for breakfast, but the prospect of the Holy Turk trying to check LeBron and Jason Richardson lining up on D-Wade doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
So now Howard is on the verge of free agency. He realizes (not unreasonably) that Van Gundy probably isn't the coach who is going to take him to the top. And he also realizes that this isn't a team that is a tweak or two away-- it needs at least one major piece, and a couple of upgraded role players to compete. So when Howard heads into negotiations over a new contract, here's his situation. He doesn't want to play for a coach like Van Gundy who has a grating personality and probably isn't the guy to win a ring with. He wants to convey to management that they really need to upgrade the roster in order for him to come back. But, at the same time, the standard by which the public treats him, and his leverage over the franchise in negotiations, are different from those of ordinary players. If Ersan Ilyasova or Jared Dudley tell a franchise that they don't want to play for the chosen coach, the franchise tells them just where to stuff it and moves on to a different coach. If Dwight Howard tells the franchise he doesn't want to play for a particular coach, the franchise is in a different situation altogether. They could tell Howard where to stuff it... and then they end up with Stan Van Gundy coaching a roster that's possibly even worse than the Wizards'. And, whereas the national media won't blink twice about the Bucks losing Ilyasova or the Suns losing Dudley, Howard leaving the Magic is kind of a huge deal. So they're in just a bit of a pickle.
Which brings us to the comparison between Howard and everyone's (including my) favorite poster boy for team play, Kevin Durant. KD quietly re-upped with the Thunder two summers ago instead of testing the market. We cheered. But look at where he re-upped. He had a coach he liked in Scott Brooks. He was surrounded with a burgeoning star in Russell Westbrook and a well-constructed roster with a very solid third scorer in James Harden, a solid perimeter defender in Thabo Sefolosha, and a long bench of quality role players. Perhaps most importantly, he had a GM in Sam Presti who had shown an astute ability to build a roster that perfectly complemented Durant's talents. Looking at the team, Durant realized that this team had a great chance to win going forward. The fact that he didn't have to suffer the taint that superstars inevitably suffer when they change teams must have sealed the deal. Now compare that to Howard's situation. He's on a team with a decent emerging power forward in Ryan Anderson, but the rest of the starting five ranges from average to catastrophic. The bench is short. The franchise has had years to build a team around Howard, and all they've done is shuttled guys like Vince Carter in and out. This off-season, their big addition was... Big Baby. And their retiring GM embarrassingly drunk-dialed Howard begging him to stay. Is this really a franchise Howard wants to stake his legacy to?
So at that point, Howard's stuck. He can play the good soldier, re-up with the Magic and endure what is likely to be another 5-10 years of haplessness. He can enter the market and sign with what he thinks is a better team, in which case his legacy takes a hit no matter what (a bunch of the real rarefied greats- Jordan, Magic, Bird, Russell-- were one-team guys), and that hit becomes huge if he switches teams and still doesn't win a ring. He could demand a trade, in which case his legacy again takes a pounding. Or he can demand that his team take steps to turn the franchise itself into a viable contender. None of these options is "correct", per se. All of them, in fact, are deeply flawed. Which is what makes Howard's situation so hard-- ultimately, Thomsen is right that he's got a lot of power, and he doesn't know what to do with that power. But what I think Thomsen doesn't stress enough is that it's not clear what the right thing to do with that power is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)