Started By
Message

re: General NBA Links

Posted on 5/8/14 at 7:46 am to
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61440 posts
Posted on 5/8/14 at 7:46 am to
Chad Lowe's podcast this week LINK had Jeff Van Gundy on and he made several interesting comments which I'll paraphrase.

1 Defense is about coaching and basket protection.
2 Ask the top defensive coaches what they worry about most and the answer is how to score points.
3 JVG prefers a talented offensive player that he can coach up to play defense than a talented defender with no offensive game
4 Thinks they should get rid of the current replay system because it slows things down too much and go to a coaches challenge system where you could also challenge foul calls. Protecting your star player from a bad call has more value than changing a 3 to a 2 because a foot was over the line.
5 Thinks teams should only have 1 20 second timeout in the last 2 minutes. Give them a few "advance the ball" passes, but get rid of all the timeouts that slow down the game. He actually seemed very concerned about how the game has slowed down which makes sense now that he has to fill that airtime himself

I really hope Anthony Morrow has taught Monty #3
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/8/14 at 9:08 am to
Liked that Smiht interview. I'm lukewarm on bringing him back as a player, but would love to see him as part of the organization.

The Lowe podcast is great. JVG is on my to do list. I thought Haberstroh was pretty meh.

Here's an oral history from Grantland of THAT Kings/Lakers series. Long read, but entertaining. I loved those Webber/Divac Kings

LINK

And here's an interesting piece from Prada on why the Blazers should allow Lillard to be "unconscious " with his shooting

LINK

Good stuff on the Spurs D and how you have to overwhelm them.

quote:

The old cliche is that point guards need to set everyone else up before going to get theirs. In this series, Damian Lillard needs to do the complete opposite.
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 11:49 am to
Great read from Ziller on "grit" and how to quantify it.

LINK

quote:

The jokes write themselves. Kirk Hinrich has made millions and millions of dollars from the Bulls on account of his grit. Tom Thibodeau would have a rightful claim to the title of Grindfather if not for the existence of Tony Allen down I-55. The Bulls of the past few years openly decline interest in the finesse superstars of the NBA, instead preferring to ride with gritty wolves like Joakim Noah, Taj Gibson and Jimmy Butler.

But as it turns out, there is some science on grit out there. What Forman might be referring to is the research of Angela Duckworth, who runs a lab at Penn focused on the study of grit and self-control.


quote:

if Duckworth's science is right, there's value in it for general managers (in identifying truly gritty prospects) and coaches (in developing grit on the team). Surely some teams have already used cognitive tests to identify the presence or lack of grit; front offices do all of those prospect interviews at the Combine for a reason. And a lot of what would be specific about building grit is likely baked into existing player development philosophies. In a sense, Duckworth's work on grit (as far as I understand it) is a quantification of well-known theory


quote:

That brings up another point that the brilliant Kevin Pelton makes:

The interesting question to me is how much grit is already priced into a player's statistical performance.
In other words, can a player without grit put up huge numbers in college or the pros? What would be valuable to NBA GMs is an ability to determine analytically what players have put up numbers due to having a high level of determination and long-term goal setting and what players have done that in spite of lacking grit.
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/21/14 at 11:53 am to
Outstanding piece from Brian Phillips (pretty much an auto read) on the evolution of Westbrook from lightly regarded high school player to breathtaking runaway train.

quote:

In 2014, Westbrook embodies a 50-foot inferno of basketball contradictions, some of them innate and some of them imposed from the outside. How you think about system vs. improvisation, how you think about team-building, how you think about position vs. flexibility, how you think about superstardom, how you think about winning vs. entertainment vs. beauty, how you think about green plaid Capri pants — your read on Westbrook is an index to your opinion on all of this, in a way that, say, your read on LeBron doesn’t have to be. No one in the NBA runs (screaming, with his arm upraised for the tomahawk jam) so directly to the heart of so many big open questions about the sport.


LINK
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/22/14 at 8:24 am to
David Roth learning to admire the Spurs

quote:

Also you are doomed. You are arguing, uphill, that this boring thing is actually not boring at all, that it is actually cool and fun. No one has ever successfully explained to someone why a thing is cool or fun. We are not convinced that we like something; we do or we don't. But we can, in the fullness of time, come to like things that once did not seem cool or fun to us. Cool surfaces erode, and various buried valuables are revealed. Grace notes are suddenly audible, and suddenly awesome. We change, for better and worse.


quote:

The Spurs have not changed, and that is the essence of what makes and keeps them great. They have found a way to do things that work well and maintained the humility to work that way for a shared end. For all the reasons we might watch a game, this more modest transcendence -- individuals into a whole, faith in a process made legible and even beautiful -- is not nearly the most vivid. We aspire to uncommon grace and force and poise, we aspire to flight.


Matthew Yglesias at VOX on the draft

quote:

The telling thing about Silver's analysis, however, is that even though he finds the financial surplus associated with obtaining the first pick to be larger than the surplus associated with obtaining a later pick, there is substantial surplus all throughout the draft. In other words, even the last player picked in the first round is expected to generate more wins for his team than the team could afford to purchase with the same money on the open market.


And Ethan Sherwood Strauss with an article bemoaning the rise of small market teams we saw this year.

quote:

Like the old riddle about a tree falling in the woods, if location parity happens and nobody's around to watch, is it a success? Right now it looks as though the success of the small means self-sabotage for all. How can the new CBA be working with so many people tuning out the sport?


LINK

Yuck.
Posted by VOR
Member since Apr 2009
63443 posts
Posted on 5/22/14 at 12:20 pm to
frick Strauss
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:21 am to
Matt Yglesias on Vox talking about Love and the stars needing help phenomenon.

quote:

One of many interesting things to note about this is that back in his peak performance years of 2003 and 2004, the Timberwolves paid Garnett $25 and $28 million a year. This season Love got $17 million. Adjusting for inflation, Garnett's 2004 salary equals $35 million in today's dollars. That's more money than any NBA player is currently paid.

And that, in turn, is no coincidence. The owners have acted over the past couple of CBAs to restrain how much money top stars get paid. One big consequence of that is that top stars are increasingly picky about where they want to play and increasingly forceful about getting there. After all, if you can't make mid-aughts Garnett money then you're going to demand some non-monetary compensation.


LINK
Posted by Galactic Inquisitor
An Incredibly Distant Star
Member since Dec 2013
15169 posts
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:31 am to
Yeah, I think the max salaries are definitely starting to affect the way players behave. It definitely didn't help us with Chrissy Poo.
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61440 posts
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:33 am to
If you have a situation where you'll get the same money everywhere, then the working environment becomes the distinguishing feature of the job.
Posted by Galactic Inquisitor
An Incredibly Distant Star
Member since Dec 2013
15169 posts
Posted on 5/29/14 at 9:59 am to
quote:

If you have a situation where you'll get the same money everywhere, then the working environment becomes the distinguishing feature of the job.



State and local tax laws may have more effect, too.
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/29/14 at 2:41 pm to
It's really interesting because the max salary probably hurts competitive balance more than it helps it. Same time, super teams drive up the league's popularity.

I'm really curious to see what the Miami Big 3 do. That roster needs a lot of help over the next couple of years to stay at this level. How much of a discount are they willing to take to get the help they need?

I wouldn't be shocked to see owners go for a hard cap next CBA. That would be sad as a hoops aesthete.
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61440 posts
Posted on 5/29/14 at 2:48 pm to
quote:

I wouldn't be shocked to see owners go for a hard cap next CBA


I think the next CBA (2017) will see the status quo maintained. The league is in growth mode thanks in large part to LeBron, The Decision, and the Big 3 grabbing fans interest. They probably care more about trading crumbs from the big money deal they will have just gotten from ESPN/TNT for issues like the Draft and DLeague, not risking a work stoppage to harden the cap.
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/29/14 at 2:59 pm to
God I hope you're right.

As much as I'm against it, I bet the 20 year old age limit gets through. Current players are too shortsighted to advocate for future players. Will be interesting if Silver's plan to work with NCAA happens and whether NCAA players have a seat at the table
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61440 posts
Posted on 5/29/14 at 3:13 pm to
We've gone from the league buying the Hornets to keep them from selling for under $300 million to the Bucks selling for $550 million and speculation of as much as $2 Billion for the Clippers. You also have Prokhorov personally donating several million to every other team in the league I seriously doubt they try and break the players again in 2017. The real question is do they extend another 10 years in 2017, or keep the status quo and possibly face your fears in 2022.
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/30/14 at 7:46 am to
Ty Lawson's Twitter:

quote:

2 billion for the clippers??? Hmm I thought the owners were losing money??? The next collective bargaining agreement is gonna be crazy
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61440 posts
Posted on 5/30/14 at 7:55 am to
Millionaires vs. Billionaires. The owners will be so flush with cash that they won't miss giving the players back a percent or 2 of BRI, and that's on top of the $150 million raise the players just got.

While there may be some level of discord over how the players got screwed the last time, it's not in anyone's interests to slow the train down now that it's back up to speed. And the momentum wouldn't appear to be in the direction of a harder cap. The owners will trade crumbs for social issues they've been talking about and everyone will think they've won. *fingerscrossed*
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 7:57 am
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:08 am to
That's an awfully flattering portrait of owners. I can see them letting things run as is. No way do they give money back. Where most of these owners are coming from, conceding isn't in their DNA.

I hope neither side opts out in 2017. Plenty of money for everyone. I just don't have much faith that greed won't win out.
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:20 am to
I also wonder if/when the sports bubble will burst. At some point things have to slow down, right?
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61440 posts
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:09 am to
quote:

That's an awfully flattering portrait of owners.


Throwing crumbs to the help when things are going great is flattering? But you are right in that despite the boom their egos typically would see the positive gained from spreading the wealth as giving in and losing. But still, crumbs do get thrown at the help in good times. Between the Bucks and the Clippers, franchise valuations have to have risen significantly in the 3-4 years since the Hornets almost tanked the market. Throw in a bunch of new TV money from ESPN/TNT and the owners will have a lot of crumbs at their disposal.

quote:

I also wonder if/when the sports bubble will burst. At some point things have to slow down, right?


I don't think so. From a franchise valuation standpoint, it's a very exclusive 30 member club, that's why they can't stop talking about European expansion. From a revenue standpoint, ads are sold based on what people pay attention to, and as long as they have a compelling product full stars, excitement and drama, the money will keep flowing in. Economic trouble could potentially hit people going to the arena, which is a concern, but I don't think it changes how many fans watch the games. That's the only dangerous place I see. I think the league is set for another growth period with LeBron being Jordan and maybe Anthony Davis will be Shaq in terms of closing out an era of popularity.
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 9:16 am
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 5/30/14 at 3:04 pm to
quote:

Throwing crumbs to the help when things are going great is flattering?


They may see the players as the help in good times, but when they're sitting across the table they are the enemy. You don't toss scraps to your enemy.

On cue, Lowe pops in with his take.

LINK

Of course he states my fears much more eloquently than I ever could

quote:

The owners are the more interesting issue. It has long been assumed they will opt out in 2017, even though things are going swimmingly for them. Rich guys don’t turn down the chance to get even richer, and they crush labor underneath their $1,000 shoes. They might not be satisfied with winning the last lockout when they could win another one and trim the players’ share of revenue below the 50 percent mark.



quote:

But lockouts are work stoppages, which means no games, and at least for a time, no checks from the TV networks. They cost money. If things are going great, there is at least the chance the owners just ride out the CBA until its expiration in 2021. “There’s at least a chance they feel they’ve reached an equilibrium,” says Gabe Feldman, a sports law expert and associate law professor at Tulane, “and that we might be on the verge of an era of labor peace.”


quote:

But Feldman doubts it, even in light of a $2 billion purchase that suggests owners should just want to keep the party going. “I don’t think this really has a significant impact,” he says. “I don’t think it really changes some of the arguments the owners used in the last lockout. Teams don’t have to be losing money for owners to lock the players out.”

Ballmer’s purchase actually proves out one argument the owners put forth last time around, Feldman says: It costs a ton of money to run a team, and those costs are going up as the league expands its digital and international reach. The revenue-sharing system counters some of that spending, since it will lift up the poor teams, but it doesn’t help every team equally. “If I’m Steve Ballmer,” Feldman says, “I overpaid for this team. I can’t give up anything in the next collective bargaining deal.”


Lots of very good stuff in there.
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 3:05 pm
first pageprev pagePage 12 of 15Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram