These aren’t John Hollinger’s dad’s statistics

Okay, I love direct observational research as much as the other guy, but as someone firmly rooted in the sciences (aka. wasting my life in college and beyond), I love quantifiable results. As a result, I find that statistics are vital towards observing, categorizing and understanding the environment that we inhabit (and share with other organisms). Stats are awesome, and I love them (I got 98% in stats in university) . Though, I know that stats can be manipulated and abused – furthermore, statistics do not fully explain the entire situation, nor do sufficient statistics exist that can approach a full knowledge of a hybrid (not just numerical) system.

We can attempt to use statistics to better understand basketball – and as a fan, and non-paid analyst, I’m not alone in this point of view (just check out the Wages of Wins sometime). That said, the statistics that we currently have in basketball are not complete. No current stats exist to fully describe all possible positive actions on the court (e.g. there’s no stat for a defender breaking / slipping a screen and staying on his man, despite the set play run by the offense). Also, some stats that would be useful are just not recorded in the NBA (e.g. in the Adriatic league their stats also include things like how many times a player has their shot blocked, or how many times a player draws a foul – don’t you want to know how many times Dirk gets stuffed, or how many fouls Shaq drew per game during his peak?).

Right now there aren’t enough stats to fully map out good play, and some of the stats that we do have appear to mean more than they actually do! A steal means that a defender has disrupted the offense to the point that a turnover has occurred – many guards and swingmen get steals. The bigman analog has always been blocks, but the most important part of the steal (aka, the change of actual possession of the ball) is lost in a block. Often a blocked shot prevents a made basket, but does not always give possession back to the defending side. In effect, a blocked shot that still gives the ball back to the offense is no better than a defender causing a deflection of a pass where the ball goes out of bounds – and the offensive team retains possession.

Deflections are the most important stat that continues to not be officially counted by the NBA; on one hand it would be difficult to adjudicate (when is it a block? when is it a deflection?), but on the other hand, deflections often lead to other stats. The guy who picks up a ball that’s deflected out of the hand of the ball carrier is rewarded with a steal – but the guy who got the ball out of the ball carrier’s hand (the deflector) doesn’t get credited for causing the play. I think that’s kind of unfair.

In fact the guy who defends well frequently gets jobbed out of a good stat. For years I’ve seen a solid defensive play in the paint by a center (straight up single coverage that results in his man taking a shot – and missing) be recorded as a GREAT defensive board by the power forward (who wasn’t defending anyone, he just happened to get the rebound off of someone else's good defense). I’ve seen this happen on all levels of play. If anything, it prove the limitations of stats, and the limitations of the stats to accurately reward defense.

It’s no secret that defense is way harder to grade by using stats alone. Firstly, there are not enough defensive stats (like the guy who can navigate through a number screens and gets back in time to contest/change a shot gets the same amount of stats as another play who doesn’t even go through the screens and lets his man take an open jumper), and secondly, the stats that do exist do not always mean great defense. A very quick guy like Allen Iverson spent years on the court playing in the passing lanes. This is him gambling on defense to get steals. It’s exciting when a guy does get those break away steals in the game – but it’s not sound, fundamental man defense. Really, this play is sorely discouraged in the case where there isn’t a big shot blocker in the paint to clean up any mess that an unguarded PG getting into the paint can cause.

I know – I’ve seen John Stockton make these same type of ‘Defensive Back’ style steals because he had big Mark Eaton (two time defensive player of the year – once had close to 500 blocks in a season) watching his back. Iverson had the same with Theo Ratliff and Dikembe Mutombo. Chris Paul is another player who benefits from being backed up by shot blocking force of nature Tyson Chandler. If guys like Stockton, Iverson and Paul had Mehmet Okur and Jarron Collins laying down the law in the paint behind them you can be sure that the head coach would have told them to defend their man more, and gamble on defense less.

Over the years I’ve been lucky enough to coach some basketball on the youth developmental level. We tried to go past the lack of collected stats on defense in order to quantify good play on both sides of the ball. An attempt was made to count the number of times the player defending a shooter resulted in that shooter missing. Other times we tried to record good traps on the ball carrier, or how many times the defender harassed the ball handler into turning the ball over. These types of things can be recorded but by far the best defense I’ve ever seen on any level is that where the man being defended does not ever get the ball, entry passes are denied, position is denied, and when he does get the ball – he’s in such a disadvantageous point that he cannot positively help his team when he has the ball. You know what kind of stats that guy gets – for playing the best defense? He gets nothing for it. There is no reward for him that shows up on the boxcore – and this is a failure in terms of statistics being used to categorize and enumerate good play in a game. But if he manages to tip an errantly passed ball that he forces the guy he’s defending into attempting(because he can’t shoot it where he is), the team mate who picks up the ball gets credited for a steal.

Oh yeah, that’s basically it for defense in the NBA, I talked about the fallacy that defensive boards is akin to good defense, I talked about how blocks may stop a shot, but do not give you possession of the ball all that time, and I talked about how steals can be indicative of poor defense, not good defense. (Of course, exceptions to these rules always exist – it is good defense to control a tough defensive rebound that’s contested, or to block a shot to a team mate, or to single handedly strip a guy that  you are defending. But let’s not forget that these instances of good defense are counted just as much as the same stats that are products of situational defense. A ball that rolls do you on defense counts just like a ball that you fought for.)

The long and short of it is that we need more stats – especially on defense. If you’ve read this far down then you are awesome . . . because I’ve tried to make some ‘new’ stats. Some people are good enough for simple points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. That’s fine for a casual fantasy basketball league . . . but not good enough if you really watch the game like your life depends on it. I wish there were more stats, and more ways to reward good play – but right now the NBA does not appear to give us things like that (instead the +/- stat is thrown to us, like it means anything). Anyway, I’ve tried to make some new stats and here are five calculations that you can even do at home (studio audience of old ladies says ‘ooooohh’, already put in a receptive mood because of the deal that they got on that juicer they just purchased):

1. Defensive Gambling (DG): This stat is pretty easy – I try to recognize that some of the stats that people get on defense are related to gambling on some level. (Gambling in a passing lane, gambling by leaving your man to get a weak side shot block, gambling by trying to strip a man when the ref is right there, and so forth) We already had blocks and steals . . . but they exist in a world without accumulated risks. The risk here, of course, exists as a foul being called – another stat that we already have. The fun part is balancing the risks vs. the rewards.

The Foul is the base for this equation – as it means that you tried a risky move and you got burned. Not only do you have a penalty against you, but it directly benefits the offensive team. A steal, on the other hand, is a situation where a player takes a risk, is rewarded – and the offensive team is directly disadvantaged. When a team misses a three pointer and the opposing team gets the ball and scores a layup that is a 5 point swing. A steal does not directly mean you gain points, but you directly prevent the chance of points – it’s not a 5 point swing, but it’s a possession swing. I say that this is worth 1.5 fouls, in terms of risk/reward. A block does not guarantee such a similar swing in terms of possession (it does sometimes though), but while a steal only prevents the potential of a shot being taken, a block directly affects shots that are taken. (It’s a shame there’s no stat for shots changed, because a good shot blocker has an aura that surrounds him that changes many shots – for example when players started to scout Kirilenko his blocks went way down . . . but he was changing the same number of net shots as guys changed their shots to avoid getting blocked by him) A block, then, is not as good as a steal, but it’s still good – a block is equal to 1.3 fouls. The full equation for Defensive Gambling is as follows:

Example: In 2003-2004 Andrei Kirilekno was healthy (at this point in his career, he had played in 240 of a total possible 246 games), getting playing time (37.1 mpg), and happy. That season Andrei had 215 blocked shots and 150 steals against 174 fouls. His Defensive Gambling score was astronomical that season. DG = [ ( 215 * 1.3) + (150 * 1.5) ] / 174 DG = [ 279.5 + 225 ] / 174 DG = 3.002893563 So that means that Andrei was gambling at a very fortuitous rate – he’d get away with gambling three times before he would get burned once. If you extrapolate that to how many fouls he averaged per game that season you can see that he was doing something right with all that time on the court. Because the haters probably want to know, Andrei’s career average DG score is 2.25. For a point of reference, Scottie Pippen’s career DG score is 1.41 – and Pip is the prototypical wing defender who made 10 All-Defensive teams in his career. Pippen had way more steals, but he took way too many poor gambles as well. Pippen has 6 seasons where he’s averaged greater than 3 fouls per game. Andrei has none in his career. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Clearly looking at things like blocks and steals on their own gives a skewed view of the world – putting it against a risk/reward system is a better frame of reference that we can use to see which players make smart gambles, and which ones do not. Andrei – for all his faults – has a good Defensive Gambling ability if you ask me.

2. Pure Hustle (PH): Pure hustle builds off of the Defensive Gambling equation, but adds more chances for risks and more chances for rewards. Here we see Blocks, Steals and Offensive Rebounds go against Turnovers and Persona Fouls. The common factor for hustle is a turn over. It’s the most benign result of hustle. Too much hustle can result in a foul – which hurts you and your team. This is why a foul is worth more. On the good side of things, hustle can result in good defense, or a second effort (or third, or fourth) on offense. We all remember Tayshawn Prince robbing Reggie Miller with a game winning block. We should all remember Bird stealing the inbounds from Isiah. And we all know that second chance shots can not only allow you to score from an advantageous position – but also result in scores themselves. This is why I think when it comes to hustle, Offensive Rebounds are worth the most, with Blocks and Steals being on equal footing with fouls.

Example: When people think of hustle they are apt to think of garbage guys who don’t have much skill. That type of scrappy play can result in solid contributions for a team, but I think hustle is more than just effort. Hustle is assisted by skill and psychology. It is a risk/reward equation after all – if you go all out all the time you’re just going to pick up fouls. You have to know when to go all out, and when to hold back. Many people hated him, but no one could deny the Pure Hustle of Dennis Rodman. Rodman has 4329 career Offensive Rebounds, 611 career Steals and 531 career Blocks. They aren’t the best numbers around, but when you input them with his 1481 career turnovers and 2843 career fouls he manages a Pure Hustle rating of 1.80. This may not look like much, but for a frame of reference, Paul Millsap (what most current Jazz fans think Pure Hustle is all about) has managed a career Pure Hustle value of 1.24. So if Paul Millsap is giving 110% out there, Dennis Rodman is giving 155% out there.

 3. Shooting Worth (SW): This is an easy one, because it already exists on many website by it’s other name “Points per Shot” (PPS). It’s just how many total points you get (including free throws) divided by the number of shots (FGA) you take. Sure, there’s some points that may be unrepresented by FGA (like technical fouls, or being in the bonus), but the fact that the player is involved in those free throws is a benefit that they get for being good shooters. The idea is that if you take a shot it’s worth two points, right? Well, that doesn’t always work out in the PROs, and the league average (or mean for all player data) is 1.22. [Yes, I looked at every shot in the L last year on ESPN.com] So, in effect, you have a positive Shooting Worth if you are better than average, and have a SW greater than 1.22 – of course, you can still be good at your job if you have a lower value; you’d just be below league average. That’s the crux of this statistic – it seems to display individuals who take good shots, and this stat can be used to better differentiate between guys who score a high ppg who take good shots, or the guys who shoot a lot in order to get good stats.

Example: Allen Iverson has been a phenomenal scorer in his career. He’s averaged over 30 ppg on four separate occasions, and even with his no-show last year his career average is still 27.1 ppg. That’s a really great average, but how does that really stack up against a guy who averages something similar, but shoots much better than 42.5 fg%? Well, when you input Iverson's 23983 total career points over his 19,590 total shots you see that his actual Shooting Worth is 1.22 – which is exactly average. He’s not a “better” scorer than some of his contemporaries, he’s just a volume scorer. Karl Malone only has a career scoring average that’s in the 25 points per game range – but unlike Ivey, Karl was much better than average when it came to the quality of his shots; Karl’s Shooting Worth was 1.41 (better than lots of other known scorers like Kobe, Jerry West and Glen Rice, to name a few). From this we can conclude that a shot by Allen Iverson was, in effect, worth less than a shot by Karl – Karl was taking better shots.

 4. Shot Frequency (SF): Some websites try to find out often a player shoots and they represent it by the number of shots / value of time (usually minutes). I don’t know what 0.282 shots looks like, so that representation means little to me. I would rather look at the same data in another way, namely, how many minutes of burn does a player need before he jacks up a shot. Some guys start shooting the ball as soon as they are on the court, while others spend a lot of time on the court – but don’t shoot the ball. In effect, this stat (Shot Frequency) will be able to identify if a certain player is gun shy to a fault (some would say that John Stockton was) or a pure, unashamed jacker of shots (too many to name). In this case, the lower the number means a higher frequency of shots . . . because the number represented is the time needed on the floor between shots. To find this out we divide the total minutes played by the number of Field Goals attempted (FGA).

Example: Let’s continue talking about Iverson here. Most of his life he’s been the first option on offense … a guy that the rest of the team made way for. As a result, he spent a lot of his career shooting the ball. How often does he shoot? Well, he’s played in 36719 minutes and taken 19690 total field goal attempts in that time. If you input the data it reveals that Allen Iverson, for his career, will shot the ball once every 1.865 minutes he’s on the floor. To be honest, this is the highest frequency I’ve seen in all my months ‘beta testing’ these statistics. 1.865 minutes is every 1:52 of actual game time. So that means if he plays 35 minutes in a game he’ll shoot the ball nearly 19 times. For a point of reference another Hall of Fame type “point guard” is John Stockton, who shot the ball once every 3.497 minutes (once ever 3:30 of game time). If given the same amount of time (35 minutes), Stockton would shoot the ball 10 times. (Really, 10 times, 10.008 is pretty darn accurate!) That’s almost half as many shots as Iverson . . . and effectively, half as frequent.

This statistic helps us understand which guys really shoot the ball the most, and most likely, are the primary offensive options for any given team. (Though, some anomalies exist, like Matt Harpring who shoots the ball very frequently for a guy with his skills – he shot the ball more often than some guys who started over him during his career)

Gestalt Offense (GO): This is the biggie. I’ve fretted over this for days and days and finally am prepared to release it upon an unwitting population. It’s not perfect, and it seems to only work best with larger sample sizes (a seasons’ worth of data, or a road trip, may look fine – any singular game can break it). It really favors guards and only really works best for players who played in a modern-ish era (one where turnovers, offensive rebounds and other similar statistics were actually recorded). The basis for this was to isolate how much pressure certain players could place on the defense. What a player does on offense (when it comes to stats) can be either one of five things: he can assist on a score, he can get to the foul line, he can take a shot, he can be called for a turn over, or he can grab and offensive rebound. There are no stats for setting solid screens, or anything like the ‘hockey assist’ right now with how the stats are kept. So the statistic is already limited, but I try to do the best with the data that I have. Essentially the GO Rating is the summation of a player’s modified assists, free throw opportunities, offensive rebounding ability, penchant for scoring against their turnovers, all over the number of games a player has played:

Of course, it’s a lot more complicated than that . . .

The first, and most straight forward, part of the equation is assists. This equation not only values assists higher than their normal value ( 2.23 > 1, after all), but it also serves to give a bonus to good passers, and penalize poor passers. (Good or poor depending on if they have a high Assist to Turnover Ratio) The first standard value here is 2.23. Where did this value come from? Well, it’s the true value of an assist when you balance it for the ratio of assisted 2PTFG vs. 3PTFG. (According to the stats on ESPN.com, where all the major stats came from, aside from archived player stats from Basketball-Reference.com) The second standard number is 1.48, this is the mean Assist to Turnover ratio for teams in the NBA. (Room for improvement exists here if I could actually find the mean Assist to Turnover ratio for the players) As it stands how good you are at passing (vs. turning it over) affects how many total points you get from this category. After all, Tim Hardaway may be able to get you 37 assists on a road trip, but those 37 assists would be better than 37 assists from Alonzo Mourning because Zo would pick up quite a few more turnovers along the way.

Free throws are simple enough to understand now that we’ve gone through assists. Here we don’t look at how many free throws an individual has made, as the point of the GO rating was to see the type of pressure that an offensive player puts on the defense. Instead the focus is to see how many free throw attempts the player gets. Of course the catch is that value for FGA is modified by how good a shooter you are compared to the league average (which is 77%). A guy like José Manuel Calderón may only go to the line half the time as someone like Shaq – but Shaq is below average and Jose above average to the point that the difference in points from this category are not as large as we would think. Again, like in assists, it’s a bonus to good shooters and penalty to those who are not so hot from the line. In effect, you want your best free throw shooters at the line, their FTA are then worth more than that of guys who do not go to the line with as much confidence as they do.

Rebounding is easy. I figured that in the grand scheme of things, an Offensive Rebound is worth 1.16 points. I based this on how a Turnover is 1.3 points (see below), how an assist is 2.23 points and how points are worth, well, points. This is a modifier. The second modifier is similar to previous categories. Before we looked at if the player was better than average at Assist to turnover ratio, and then how they fared in FT% against the mean. Here we see that 26.73% of the total rebounds in the NBA were offensive rebounds. If you are a better than average offensive rebounder then you get a bonus here, if you are worse, then you get a negative modifier (as seen as a number less than 1.0, but not a negative number, per se). This part of the equation really seems to get broken if used on Charles Barkley (who, if you look at just one game, would get some crazy number of points in this section because he had 11 offensive rebounds and 5 defensive ones). Thankfully this section self-neuters itself if you have zero offensive rebounds.

Man, where do I begin with this one? Well, we went over Shot Frequency already. We divide 33.6 (representing 33.6 minutes of action for an elite player) by the player’s own Shot Frequency. This tells us how many shots he will put up if given Starter type of minutes. The next step is adding 1 to the Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%). This is so that we get a positive value with the percentage when multiplied. Why use eFG% instead of just regular FG%? Well, eFG% adds into account three point shots, and the higher degree of difficulty of shooting from that distance. (For more info on eFG% click here) This step tries to even things out a bit. The third part is how the player’s Shot Worth (also described earlier) rates compared to the league average for Shot Worth (or PPS). If you are Malone-like, you get a nice bonus here, if you are Iverson-like, you don’t get a bonus, and if you are really poor, then you get a penalty. The last part is the total points scored by the individual, divided by 10. Ten was one of the first numbers I used that seemed to make things work out when I was fiddling around. I don’t know if this last section of the Shooting section is legit or not yet, I remember when I tried this out without the last part that individuals would be getting very little from this part of the equation. At some stage you have to factor in how many points a guys scores, even if you are looking are how well they shoot.

Uhhhh, so this is very easy to understand. I’m not going to mention anything more than that this value is subtracted from the rest of the section values in the numerator. Don’t forget to divide everything by the total number of games, ya here!

Man, I’m super duper tired, so I’m just going to go ahead and post this. Give me feedback, tell me I’m crazy and set me straight. I think we need mores stats, and unfortunately, the lack of defensive categories means I can’t make a Defensive GO rating type of stat. I’m open to changing my formulas and re-working things. If you want I can e-mail you the spread sheet that contains the Macro that calculates these new stats. (I got really sick and tired of calculating the GO Rating by hand with pen and paper.)

I will probably make another post on the Go Rating in the future, filled with examples of players, and how they rated. So far I’ve seen that eFG%, Total Points, Assist to turnover ratio and a few other factors really seem to hinder bigmen, while giving guards and other wing players a boost. For the record, Magic Johnson’s GO Rating is 102.241, and he is the gold standard . . . some guys score higher than he does, while others politely fall into place. (Jordan is at 120, Karl Malone at 83, and so forth.)

Don't ask about Donatas

On Sunday I mentioned Donatas Motiejunas in passing, then lo' and behold ESPN.com's draft Guru Chad Ford lists him as one of the players whose draft stock is on the rise. He said:

"Donatas Motiejunas, F, Lithuania
Every year NBA GMs fly around the world looking for the next Dirk Nowitzki. There have been lots of pretenders -- from Nikoloz Tskitishvilli to Vladimir Radmanovic to Andrea Bargnani (who actually looks pretty good this season) to Danilo Gallinari -- but the next Nowitzki has proven to be pretty elusive. This year's Dirk wannabe is Motiejunas -- a 7-foot, 215-pound forward who, you guessed it, runs the floor, has a pretty jumper and can play multiple positions.

Motiejunas has many of the same red flags as those other guys. Scouts say he is soft, needs to add a lot of strength and is playing against watered down competition in Lithuania. However, he's averaging more than 20 points and shooting around 50 percent from 3-point territory -- that's not bad for an 18-year-old in any league in Europe. While it's highly likely he stays in Europe for another season, a couple of international scouts are telling me there are rumblings he might leave.

Said one NBA executive who watched Motiejunas this year: "He's the closest kid I've seen to Dirk coming out of Europe. Honestly. I know what you're thinking. But this kid could be really good."

Somewhere, Bill Simmons is licking his chops for the third round of our annual draft debate." (Ford, ESPN.com, 2008)

I still don't want the Jazz to get interested in this guy, and thankfully, he does not appear to be in draft range of where we'll be picking. Yet . . . this was a pretty cool co-incidence that I blog about a guy, and a few days later, ESPN mentions that guy.

All Euro (Whitey) Team comment and other thoughts on recent blog articles I've enjoyed

I love readings blogs . . . that's actually the main reason why I created one as well -- because I wanted to give back. Unfortunately I don't have all the time in the world to read them anymore, but I try to keep abreast of blog posts via BallHype.com. (They are fantastic, I use BallHype.com more often than I use Google.com) Anyway, here's a selection of blog posts and my take on them --

Rebounding Differential Rankings in the NBA [Nov 6] -- Khandor's Sports Blog talks about something Jazz fans have been very lucky to have over the last few seasons, and actually positive rebounding differential. Utah is a strong rebounding club (currently #6th in the NBA in differential at +5.00 as of November 6th, 2008). Last season the Jazz were tied for 3rd over-all with the Boston Celtics at +3.1 rebound differential; Cleveland was at +4.2, and Houston at +4.0. Two of the clubs above the Jazz (Detroit and Philly) have played the Raptors though, and thus, those rebounding numbers look highly inflated. Khandor shows a nice chart and talks about it a bit. I tend to value rebounding differential more than actual average RPG because it shows how good (or bad) a team is compared to other teams -- as opposed to being an isolated number by itself. I wish the Raptors do get better rebounding, as they are one of the teams that I root for. Thanks Khandor for blogging about this, it's nice to know that I'm not the only crazy person out there who likes stats.

Zach at Gunaxin.com recently blogged about The All Whitey Basketball Team -- Zach describes and details a 12 man roster of purely American white guys. He comes up with Kirk Hinrich, Mike Miller, Mike Dunleavy Jr., David Lee and Chris Kaman as starters. The bench is comprised of Brad Miller, Kyle Korver, Steve Blake, Kevin Love, Wally Szcerbiak, Troy Murphy and Nick Collison. I don't think that team would suck. (It would be a whole lot better than an All-Asian Basketball team, for starters . . . and as a guy who's parents were born in Asia I can say that, I guess in that Russell Peters type of "i'm a minority so I can be racist" type of comedy that Sarah Silverman employs) That's a tangent though . . . I wanted to make an all European Basketball team to counter . . . this is what I came up with (In no order):

1. Tony Parker (PG) -- France/Spurs
2. Hidayet Turkoglu (SF/SG) -- Turkey/Magic
3. Andrei Kirilenko (SF/PF) -- Russia/Jazz
4. Dirk Nowitzki (PF/C) -- Germany/Mavericks
5. Pau Gasol (PF/C) -- Spain/LA Lakers
6. Jose Manuel Calderon (PG) -- Spain/Raptors
7. Sasha Vujacic (SG/PG) -- Slovenia/LA Lakers
8. Rudy Fernandez (SG/SF) -- Spain/Trailblazers
9. Predrag Stojakovic (SF/SG) -- Serbia (Croatia)/Hornets
10. Linas Kleiza (SF/PF) -- Lithuania/Nuggets
11. Mehmet Okur (PF/C) -- Turkey/Jazz
12. Zydrunas Ilgauskas (C) -- Lithuania/Cavaliers

If you want only "White Euros" then take out Tony Parker and put in Beno Udrih instead and start Jose instead. I think that team would be pretty comparable to the USA Whitey's team, though probably beat them in a 7 game series handily. The Euro team would surely flop a whole lot as well . . . the toughest guy on the European team would have to be either Kleiza or Okur, which says a whole lot.

"I was saying booo-urns . . . !" - Hans Moleman from The Simpsons. "Apparently" the NYC Crowd is not booing Chris Duhon. Or are they? Read it at What would Oakley Do? The Duhon/Fog Light analogy is as hilarious as it is apt -- and reason enough to read this article.

Apparently Jerry Sloan has been coaching the Jazz since the Ronald Reagan years . . . the Salt Lake Tribune brings the funk on that while I ponder just how many years I've been a fanatic fan of the NBA . . . and how much else I could have accomplished in my life if I was not . . .

Things to look for this season: Mehmet Okur

Memo is a man-mountain of offensive firepower. (not unlike the Janissary warriors of his Turkish heritage) He's a fantastic spot up shooter for a guy 6'11, and has legit range all over the court and is pretty clutch. He can play pick and pop, pick and roll, or even take his man off the dribble after a cute little pump fake. (Something he worked on all last season with Tyrone Corbin) Most people don't know that he's pretty good in the paint as well, heck, Memo routinely schools Amare Stoudemire when he posts up. After the All-Star break last season Memo averaged 17 and 10, and while a lot of NBA fans think that he's just a soft Euro because he has three point range may have failed to notice his absolutely insane rebounding numbers down the stretch. [15 games of 13 or more boards, 6 games of 16 or more, a season high 19 against the Lakers in the playoffs]

All photos by Melissa Majchrzak for NBAE/Getty Images

Okur was almost Dirk-like from February onwards, as he averaged a double double. Moreover, in games where Memo played in 35 minutes or more [he averages 33 mpg in the regular season] from February onwards he averaged 18.7 ppg and 11.2 rpg. If you further select only games where he plays a Dirk-like 38 mpg then his numbers balloon to 19.3 ppg and 12.1 rpg. You're a pretty good team if your 3rd option is giving you 19.3 and 12.1 when he plays big minutes. "Oh," you say, "these are only for the regular season." Well, In the playoffs he averaged 15.4 ppg and 11.8 rpg. [Up from 14.5 and 7.7 in the regular season] In the games where he only played 38 minutes or above (again, Dirk like numbers) he ends up getting 16.5 ppg, 13.1 rpg -- and 2 apg and 0.78 bpg to boot. If you ramp his stats up to just the games he played over 40 mpg those go to 2.8 apg and 1 bpg respectively if you were wondering. This may even prompt us to ask ourselves if we really do have a center problem when ours averages a double double and pulls down over 13 rebounds per game in the playoffs (in games where he gets star player minutes)?

I'm sorry, for whatever reason people (outside of Utah, Detroit and Turkey) have failed to recognize that Mehmet Okur is a serious bad-ass. Tyson Chandler has that rep, and he averaged 8 ppg and 10.3 rpg in the playoffs. If you forgot already, Okur averaged 15.4 and 11.8. Tyson blocks more shots [a whole 2/3rds of a block more when Memo plays big minutes -- but then Tyson's 8 ppg looks really bad against Memo's 17.2 ppg], but Memo actually makes his free throws and hits threes. If Okur gets better stats than Tyson, why is Tyson a bad-ass, and Memo is soft? There are many reasons, but this isn't the time to discuss racial provincialism in NBA fans. What is it time for is time to talk about what three things we should look for this season from Memo:

1. We need him to start off 'Hot': This is especially true when we've got two rotation guys currently down (Deron Williams, Matt Harpring). Memo is a capable player, his stats from February on through the playoffs show this. He was an All-Star two seasons ago, and the Jazz are going to need him to start off 'Hot' this season, instead of allow him to sleep-walk for half the season, and then turn it on in a Shaq-like development. Thankfully he has come into camp in the best shape of his life and he's been getting praised for his added mobility by coaches and the media alike. This is potentially a contract year for him as well, and if he could be nominated for the All-Star game it would greatly improve his asking price. Memo is an All-Star level talent when he's on the floor for star minutes (35+ mpg) and is averaging 19 and 12.
2. Needs to get to the line more: Did you know that one of our top scoring options and top free throw shooters (by percentage) only gets to the line 3.2 times a game, based on last year's statistics? That was remarkably low for him, as in his previous seasons he was going to the line 4.7, 5.5 and 4.8 times per game. The Jazz offense should put Memo in more situations where he draws fouls (maybe on those pump-fake drives of his, or dare I say it, more post up work). I think Memo needs to shoot between 5 and 6 free throws a game. Andrei went to the line 3.6 times per game and he never even has the ball in his hands on offense, what gives? Even Tyson Chandler went to the line more, at a whopping 3.7 FTA/game, not that he did much good there (59.3 ft%), but that's besides the point. Only Kyle Korver shot better from the line than Memo last season, we need to get our best FT shooters to the line more for easy points.
3. Three point accuracy: It kind of begins and ends with Memo's three point shooting. Being a three point ace makes him a three point threat. Being a three point threat allows him to pump fake people closing out on him, which allows him to put the ball on the floor and drive. Driving allows him to get fouled more, and thus, go to the line more for freebies. Memo needs to shoot a high percentage from deep again this year, especially with Deron possibly being out for a few games we're a little week on outside shooting for the time being. Dirk was like this as well, but he just ended up shooting less and less threes every year and now people remember that he's a three point maker, but he doesn't actually make three pointers. Last season Dirk made 79 threes (up from 72 the season before), but only at the rate of 35.9 3pt%. Last season the Jazz had a few people who shot a higher percentage than Dirk did: Deron @ 39.5%, C.J. @ 39.0%,  Memo and Kyle both @ 38.8%, AK-47 @ 37.9%. I think that Memo's driving ability should make him take (potentially) less threes, but with the over-all result of making him take (shoot and make) a higher percentage of threes. I want to see him shoot above 40% from deep this season while still making more than 100 of them (last season he hit 114 threes, the season before he made 129) . I think that he can.

NBA Stars Back in the Day . . .

I got this from over here, and props to them for finding it. It's kind of entertaining to see some of the 'personality' of these stars stay consistent from way back then: for example Alonzo Mourning looks like he wants to fight, Kobe is smug because he's popular, and Magic is a smiling fool. I do agree with the author of that post that I am stealing this from (ethanator1088) that Larry Bird looks like he was born during the depression according to this picture. Anyway . . . enjoy the video.

Here's the full list of kids pics:
Allen Iverson Kevin Garnett Emanuel Ginobili Baron Davis Emeka Okafor Shaquille O'Neal Pau Gasol Dennis Rodman Devin Harris Shawn Kemp (looks like LeBron's dad . . . I'm just saying) Yao Ming Tony Parker Kobe Bryant Larry Johnson Vince Carter Tim Duncan Charles Barkley Mike Bibby Alonzo Mourning
Andrei Kirilenko Dwyane Wade John Stockton Kenyon Martin Magic Johnson Anfernee Hardaway Scottie Pippen Sebastian Telfair (with cousin Stephon) Reggie Miller	Dirk Nowitzki Larry Bird Karl Malone Pete Maravich Grant Hill Dominique Wilkins Steve Francis Jason Williams Paul Pierce Patrick Ewing (looking to be sponsored) Michael Jordan

Fun stuff . . . the song is kind of down-tempo though, so if you like Sarah McLachlan then you'll like this. (and really, who doesn't own a few of her albums already . . .)

The Five Epic Qualities of Jerry Eugene Sloan

An eternity ago I wrote about The Five Epic Errors of Jerry Eugene Sloan. There were a variety of reactions to that article, some in agreement, others in argument -- ultimately though I think it was a pretty interesting take on things. Jerry isn't perfect -- and the points I made way back in September seem to elucidate that point quite nicely. That said . . . there are very few coaches that I'd want to be the coach of my team (the Jazz), and I can't really think of any off the top of my head. (Maybe Lenny Wilkins? Maybe not . . . no, definitely not.) It's not all bad with Jerry, in fact, there is a lot of good out there. Here are just five:

Photographed by David Zalubowski for AP Photo

1. He's a no nonsense guy:

Jerry is a straight shooter. He tells it like it is. If his team gets beat on the glass he'll say it like it is. If he messes up, he'll own up to it. If he wants a player to do something, he'll try to communicate it. Jerry probably doesn't think himself to be 'smart enough' to be any other way but humble, direct and honest. He may miss out on some of the cerebral mind games that some other coaches play (against their own rosters as much as they play it against the media and refs) like Phil Jackson. (Btw, he's not zen. That's bullshit. Really, stop calling him the zenmaster. Zen Buddhism isn't about making $10 Million dollars per year, possessions are fleeting . . . but he wouldn't know that, because he's a fraud) Anyway, back to Jerry . . . Sloan isn't going to be all smug and cryptic all the time, and then whine to the media in post game interviews about the other team.

I remember reading an interview of Jackson's years ago when he was first coaching the Lakers -- they lost a game and he blamed the loss on everything from his players injuries, the crowd noise, the pre-game festivities, to refs, the style of play, and on the fouls not called -- he basically blamed the loss on everything BUT the other team doing things well.

That's just a sore loser to me.

Jerry may not have any Coach of the Year awards, or coached any team that's won a ring, but when he does lose, he does it graciously as he's a no nonsense guy. Even better than Jackson, he also wins with humility, and he tries to treat his players fairly (which is subjective). Maybe a more touchy-feely coach would have been able to coax more out of the Ostertags and Giriceks that Sloan has had to coach . . . but that's just not Jerry's strong suit.

2. Jerry fights for his players:

One of his strong suits is that he'll never throw his players under the bus (or, you know, write a book about a particularly difficult season, airing out all the secret details without his players' consent and laugh all the way to the bank while talking trash about his meal tickets). Jerry does the exact opposite, as he's frequently ejected from games because he cares so much about his players. What does Phil Jackson do? He sits with his legs crossed in a chair all game long and occasionally whistles at his players. That's inspiring. Jerry Sloan gets into it with refs when he feels like his players are getting the short end of the stick.

Players are going to be willing to fight if they see how hard their coach his fighting. Very rarely do the Jazz lose games (to the best of my memory) that Sloan is thrown out of, they tend the get fired up and play harder. Not to make this one of those really weepy eyed, inspirational deals . . . I can see Sloan making a Tony D'Amato type of speech while Phil Jackson would be reading a poem about rabbits and hoping that his talented roster does all the work.

Jerry Sloan was a fighter as a player, and as a coach he is responsible for taking care of his team out there. It's not the place of the players to really talk to the refs, but it's the Head Coach's duty to do so when he feels like his guys are getting the screwjob. I'd rather have a coach who actually reacted to the game than one who sat down and did a Sudoku puzzle.

3. Superb game to game adjustments:

I mentioned this in the other write-up, but I honestly don't see the Jazz getting beat the same way more than once, unless in the rare cases that the are playing a team that just has our number (like the Minnesota Timberwolves or Portland Trailblazers last season), or one really unstoppable guy (Kobe Bryant). There's one good reason why we don't get beat the same way often -- it's because Sloan (and his staff) make really good adjustments in-between games. Sloan does his homework, and his vast experience makes it a bit easier to see patterns and develop strategies. He's a very under-rated X's and O's guy -- people talk about Rick Pitino knowing about shooting range and shooting percentage ratios. Pitino was a horrible NBA coach though, and didn't do anything in the league. Partly because he relied a little too much on the three point shot.

Sloan, on the other hand, doesn't rely on anything except rebounding, hustling on defense, and playing fundamentally sound basketball -- especially on offense (layups are emphasized, one on one play and three pointers are not).

4. Fundamentals aren't just buzzwords with him:

Frankly, this is one of the reasons why the Jazz have won so many games under Sloan (closing in on 1000 with the Jazz). If you don't box out your man he'll replace you with someone who will. If you don't run the plays, you'll sit on the bench. There are really three components of Jerry's offense: move the ball around for a layup, get to the foul line, don't try to be a hero -- pass the ball instead of taking a contested shot. There are really three components of Jerry's defense: funnel guards into bigmen, don't leave shooters open, don't foul jump shooters. This is pure, distilled fundamental basketball that can be applied to grade school ball all the way up to the NBA.

Some coaches play lip service to fundamentals, and when the game starts, their players play some undisciplined monkey ball, or alternatively, the game plan shifts to a series of gimmicks . . . like posting up their PF at the three point line (like what Avery had Dirk do instead of posting him up near the basket), or just relying on one player to do everything for his team, and have no real plays or anything ("Chris Paul -- go dribble a lot, and when the defense collapses on you, pass to an open guy. Do this 40 times a game! Go!" -- Byron Scott). Is it any wonder that teams coached by those types of players rarely impress in the post season?

If you play fundamentally sound basketball your team has a chance to win -- regardless of the make up of the roster, or how many super star calls you get. He almost made the playoffs with Carlos Arroyo and Ben Handlogten. Phil Jax would have retired that season because he didn't have any top 2 players on his team. (Seriously Phil, take a chance on your coaching ability and actually coach a team instead of relying on your player's star power . . . remember what it was like when you got beat by Detroit and Boston in the finals the last few seasons? Those teams were coached... yours was on autopilot after having the West given to you on a platter.)

5. Expects you to leave it all on the floor

He may hate you in a game, but off the court, he may be one of your staunchest supporters -- Jerry Sloan was this way with Greg Ostertag. All he wants is your best effort -- which is why he rewards players that play hard. (Like the Adam Keefe's of the world) Why is Jerry so hung up about effort? Probably because he knows that's what got him where he is today -- and if a simple farm boy from southern Illinois can be an NBA All-Star and make it in the NBA that anyone can (well, most gifted athletes that make up current NBA rosters) if they work hard enough. He can't do it for his team, but he can try to make his team work hard, so that they can do it for themselves. His teams can do it for themselves if they work hard.

Simple, huh?

Now watch this video of Al Pacino showing us how to inspire professional athletes/professional actors playing professional athletes. It's not just because it's a good scene, but I'm sure there's a lot of Jerry in this scene . . . especially the part about the guy who's willing to die being the one who's going to come out alive. Sloan's not a perfect coach, but just like how I ended the critical article, I still feel like there is no other coach I'd want to coach the Jazz this season.

His faults are still faults, and his propensity to make people have to earn it when they are clearly better can be a problem at times -- but really, aren't you happy that Jerry coaches the Jazz, and not that smarmy, self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectual Phil Jackson?

I know I am.

Utah Jazz on National TV -- what to look for!

I guess this is improvement on some level, you know what I'm talking about . . . I've been a hardcore Jazz fan for 20 years or so now, and I've never seen them on National TV so much in one regular season. How many times are the Jazz going to be seen nationally? 11 times! That is really a lot, as I'm used to the 3-6 games a season that I may get a chance to see (mostly on TNT double headers). Anyway, let's take a look at what to we're bound to see:

November 12th, 2008		December 5th, 2008
	Utah @ Washington on ESPN -- This is the first game on National TV for the Jazz and they face off against a team of excellent outside shooters, led by Gilbert Arenas. He and Deron will feature prominently in this game.		Utah vs. Toronto on ESPN -- I don't know the last time that the Raptors won in Utah, but they are not to be slept on. This game has two deep teams, starting with All-Star Power Forwards Chris Bosh and Carlos Boozer.
Photograph by Pablo Martinez Monsivais for AP Photo		Photograph by Unknown for NBAE/Getty Images
December 11th, 2008		February 5th, 2009
	Utah vs. Portland on TNT -- Roy, Aldridge, Oden, that Spanish kid and more . . . why don't we just give them the NBA Title already? (Oh wait, didn't the media already give that to the Rockets or Lakers? I keep getting confused with all the conflicting hype.)		Utah vs. Dallas on TNT -- For some silly reason I think the Mavs will be better (and more desperate) this season. This should be a good match where the good guys should hopefully win. This could be projected as a potential 1st round match up, hence TNT picking this game
Photograph by Unknown for NBAE/Getty Images		Photograph by Melissa Majchrzak for NBAE/Getty Images
February 19th, 2009		March 6th, 2009
	Utah vs. Boston on TNT -- Hopefully the Jazz can avenge their loss to the C's in Utah with a win against the NBA Champs on their home floor. Boston didn't get better this off-season, while we did. Hopefully Ray Allen is shooting blanks.		Utah vs. Denver on ESPN -- Denver really got worse over the off-season, no Camby means that Boozer will probably have a big game, which would be nice seeing how it has become an increasingly rare thing lately.
Photograph by Melissa Majchrzak for NBAE/Getty Images, remixed by Basketballjohn.com		Photograph by Unknown for AP Photo
March 24th, 2009		March 28th, 2009
	Utah vs. Houston on TNT -- I fully expect something insane to happen between Ron Artest and Matt Harpring. I also half expect one of the other two stars on Houston to be injured for this game. Yet, I can easily see Houston winning this game.		Utah @ Phoenix on ESPN -- Memo vs. Shaq, Nash vs. Deron and two power forwards who don't play any defense . . . the perfect TV Game if there ever was one. The team that makes it first to 110 will probably win the game.
Photograph by Harry How for NBAE/Getty Images		Photograph by Unknown for NBAE/Getty Images
April 2nd, 2009		April 8th, 2009
	Utah @ Denver on TNT -- Remember this guy? Hopefully he doesn't go for 40 again as the Jazz face off for the 2nd time on National TV against Northwest Division Rivals Denver.		Utah @ Dallas on ESPN -- The Jazz need to start beating home teams on the road (besides Detroit and Boston). Dallas would be a good place to display this on TV for all the see. Look for Kidd to get the business from Deron.
Photograph by Unknown for NBAE/Getty Images		Photograph by Unknown for NBAE/Getty Images
April 14, 2009
	Utah @ LA Lakers on TNT -- As it's a televised game against the Lakers on the road I fully expect the Jazz to lose. No doubt this game will have playoff implications, most likely are we in the 3 vs. 6 bracket, or the 4 vs. 5 bracket.
Photograph by Unknown for NBAE/Getty Images

Ideally, I would like the Jazz to play games on national TV against crappy teams, so that I can watch the Jazz win. Each of these contests (save maybe for Denver in SLC) should be very close. I'm happy to see Utah getting some TV time though, so I shouldn't complain.

Depth Perception: Power Forward

The NBA game is a dynamic game where over time, the nature and necessity of different positions have changed. Conventional ideas suggest that you need one really good ball handler, one really tall guy to prevent teams from getting easy stuff inside, one guy who is really good at shooting, one guy who is really versatile, and one guy to do all the dirty work. It's easy to see this being the ever popular PG, C, SG, SF and PF concept of a team. Some positions are obviously more important than others -- every good team needs a competent PG on offense to runs things. Similarly, teams without someone who can score usually lose a lot (a talented SG or SF is absolutely necessary). Some teams prefer to do things inside out, and thus, a good C is often a road to the title (Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt, Mikan, etc). That said, these positions have changed quite a bit over time.

Previously the point guard was just the guy who could beat the press, drive, and dish to the right guy at the right time. Individuals like Bob Cousy and John Stockton clearly displayed this pass first motive. Other, arguably more flashy and talented lead guards took upon the concept of being a complete player, and endeavored to score more frequently -- while still passing the ball and being the primary ball handler. Isiah Thomas was one of the best at this -- but surely not the only one to bring a balanced offensive attack from the PG spot.

Another spot on the floor that has changed over time was the power forward spot. For the longest time it was dominated by beefy characters who could bang, play defense, get boards, and get out of the way on offense. Individual talents like Bob Pettit and others tried to bring scoring into the fold; though guys like Maurice Lucas / Kermit Washington always seemed to find a home in the NBA being lunch-pail types at the 4. The evolution of the power forward took a quantum leap forward with Elgin Baylor -- a superb scorer par excellence. Elvin Hayes brought the toughness, but the examples of these individuals and Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Chris Webber pointed out that it was really difficult to win the NBA title by focusing on a power forward.

Kevin Garnett won a title with the Boston Celtics as a top level power forward; however he was far from the primary offensive force for his club. Tim Duncan has won quite a few titles as a power forward; though one gets the feeling that had he been drafted by a club that was bereft of a David Robinson type that he would never have played there.

Today most teams look to the 4 spot to contribute on the glass and with defense -- like always; but now expectations for power forwards to score a bit more have been raised. Not many power forwards are known for being great shot blockers, though some exceptions to the rule exist. Most surprisingly the evolution of the power forward has branched out into seemingly different species as the needs of teams have changed.

Jason Maxiell is a power forward and so is Vladimir Radmanovic. The only similarities that these two guys seem to have is their heights, and that their talents are so focused that they are not capable of playing the three or the five. In some respects, the four spot is the utility spot. If you need extra athleticism, start Josh Smith there. If you need shot blocking, you've got Elton Brand. Shooting skills are easily found with Dallas' Dirk Nowitzki. Lamar Odom is a fantastic passer who has a great handle for a power forward. That said, which team is the best equipped (as far as the current make up of teams exist today) at Power Forward?

Atlantic Division:

Boston Celtics	New Jersey Nets	New York Knicks	Philadelphia 76ers	Toronto Raptors
Kevin Garnett	Yi Jianlian	Zach Randolph	Elton Brand	Chris Bosh
Glen Davis	Eduardo Najera	David Lee	Reggie Evans	Jermaine O'Neal
Kendrick Perkins	Stromile Swift	Wilson Chandler	Marreese Speights	Andrea Bargnani
Brian Scalabrine	Sean Williams	Malik Rose	Jason Smith	Kris Humphries
	Josh Boone	Jared Jeffries		Nathan Jawai

Boston is anchored by KG and it quickly goes downhill from there. Big Baby, Perk (shifting over from the 5)and Scal are all bangers, and there is no real versatility here. New Jersey sports average talent in a number of bodies, Yi has the upside, Najera is a scrappy player, Stromile can sky in for dunks, Boone is a disappointment and Sean Williams (more of a true center) blocks shots. The Knicks manage to have both talent and depth -- Zach is a 20-10 guy when he wants to be, David Lee never gets tired, Jeffries is very versatile and Rose and Chandler are on opposite sides of the age/experience spectrum. Philly is interesting because they have Brand, who is a top level PF, and is backed by other bangers who can be rotation guys on almost every team. Evans and Evans Jr. (Speights) may seem a bit redundant, however Smith can shoot it well enough to give Philly an edge over the Knicks or the Nets. Toronto, though, is the class of the Atlantic when it comes to their power forwards. Chris Bosh is very underrated, he can do everything from hit game winning threes, to running up and down the court to block shots, and he makes all of his free throws. Behind him there is Bargnani (who will bounce back) and has unlimited range for a 4, Humphries hustles and bangs and rookie Jawai can play the 5 or the 4. Then there is Jermaine O'Neal who is a heck of a talent who does many things well. The Raptors have good defenders in Bosh and O'Neal, scrappy energy types like Humphries and Jawai and a very deadly outside shooter in Bargnani. All of these guys are tall, Jawai is the shortest, and he's only 6'10.

Winners:	Toronto	Raptors
Chris Bosh	Jermaine O'Neal	Andrea Bargnani	Kris Humphries	Nathan Jawai

Central Division:

Chicago Bulls	Cleveland Cavaliers	Detroit Pistons	Indiana Pacers	Milwaukee Bucks
Drew Gooden	Ben Wallace	Antonio McDyess	Troy Murphy	Charlie Villanueva
Tyrus Thomas	Anderson Varejao	Jason Maxiell	Josh McRoberts	Joe Alexander
Andres Nocioni	LeBron James	Rasheed Wallace	Shawne Williams	Malik Allen
Joakim Noah	JJ Hickson	Amir Johnson	Maceo Baston	Luc Mbah a Moute
Cedric Simmons		Walter Herrmann	Jeff Foster	Dan Gadzuric

Chicago has quite a bit of talent here. Gooden is gooden enough to be a 15/10 guy with enough playing time, Tyrus has prime time athleticism, Nocioni is a heady player who can rebound, pass and shoot the ball, Noah (a center) can slide over and be a Tyrus clone, and Simmons shows a lot of potential as well. Cleveland is a special case, as they start Ben Wallace there, who while a shell of his former self, can still be counted on to at least intimidate. I don't know anything about JJ Hickson (or Lance Allred), but I know that Anderson Varejao can slide over from the 5 to play some 4. Cleveland really sucks at the 4, save for the fact that if they needed (or wanted) to, they could plop LeBron down here, and they'd be quite okay. Detroit has a good mix of veteran savvy (McDyess), tenacity (Maxiell), shot blocking and outside shooting (Wallace), a utility man (Herrmann) and potential (Johnson). Depending on the situation, Detroit has a variety of guys they can go to at the 4. Chicago (save for Nocioni) only has guys with limited ability outside of the paint. I am giving the edge to Detroit here. Indiana is the opposite of Chicago. they are all guys who are better outside of the paint than inside. Milwaukee is like the Nets, in that they have the ability to show a lot of different things at the 4, but they are all pretty average to poor. Detroit wins!

Winners:	Detroit	Pistons
Rasheed Wallace	Jason Maxiell	Antonio McDyess	Amir Johnson	Walter Herrmann

Southeast Division:

Atlanta Hawks	Charlotte Bobcats	Miami Heat	Orlando Magic	Washington Wizards
Josh Smith	Emeka Okafor	Udonis Haslem	Rashard Lewis	Antawn Jamison
Al Horford	Gerald Wallace	Michael Beasley	Hidayet Turkoglu	Oleksiy Pecherov
Solomon Jones	Jared Dudley	Shawn Marion	Brian Cook	Darius Songaila
Randolph Morris	Sean May	Joel Anthony	Tony Battie
	Alexis Ajinca	David Padgett	Marcin Gortat

Atlanta is exciting with younger players like the hyper athletic Josh Smith and center worthy Al Horford. Aside from those two guys it's pretty much useless. Horford should play more center anyway, so it's pretty much just Josh Smith. He's a good player, but his limitations are obvious. The Bobcats are much more deep and versatile. Okafor is a defensive stalwart who is getting better offensively. Gerald Wallace is no slouch on defense, and he has the occasional ability to hit the three. He's mainly a slasher. Outside of these two are a few individuals playing out of position -- Jared Dudley is more of a 3 in the way Melo is, he can shoot and posts up, but isn't a full time 4. Sean May is a 5, but he can play a slow, but thick, 4 for a bit. The skinny but quick Ajinca is a 7'0 French player who can't possibly be thinking of playing the 5 over here in America. The Bobcats are pretty good here. Miami has three solid guys that could start: Haslem is one of the last Oakley types in the NBA, Beasley has all the potential in the world and Shawn Marion is very capable to do many different things well. It doesn't really matter after that. Marion cancels out whatever Gerald Wallace can do, Okafor is better than Haslem though. Is Beasley better than Dudley, May and Ajinca? Most definitely, so Miami is in the lead so far. Orlando is troubling. They basically play two small forwards (who are 6'10 and 6'11) here, and both of them are perimeter oriented offensive players who leave all the dirty work to Dwight Howard. That said, they won quite a few games for Orlando this season -- their clutch shooting was a great help to their team. Cook can also shoot it from the outside, and everyman Tony Battie can still get up there to block some shots (but he's mostly a 5). Marcin Grotat is probably a solid pick and pop guy as well. If you are looking at pure scoring, it's hard to say no to Orlando. Washington has Antawn Jamison, who is (statistically) one of the best PFs in the Eastern Conference, even if no one talks about him. Oleksiy Pecherov will one day pan out to be a poor man's Detlef. Darius Songaila is a poor man's Jamison. All three are capable outside shooters, and all three are solid rebounders. They don't have much depth and versatility -- all are basically differing talent levels of the same type of power forward archetype. Miami's lack of depth is a worse problem than Orlando's lack of inside muscle, or Washington's lack of versatility.

Winners:	Miami	Heat
Shawn Marion	Udonis Haslem	Michael Beasley	Joel Anthony	David Padgett

Southwest Division:

Dallas Mavericks	Houston Rockets	Memphis Grizzlies	New Orleans Hornets	San Antonio Spurs
Dirk Nowitzki	Luis Scola	Hakim Warrick	David West	Tim Duncan
Brandon Bass	Carl Landry	Antoine Walker	Melvin Ely	Kurt Thomas
James Singleton	Chuck Hayes	Darrell Arthur	Julian Wright	Matt Bonner
	Ron Artest	Darko Milicic	Ryan Bowen	Ian Mahinmi
	Mike Harris		Hilton Armstrong	Anthony Tolliver

Dallas begins and ends with Dirk. He is one of the Top 5 power forwards in the league. Behind him is the inside brute Brandon Bass. Singleton almost has to bring nothing, and the Dallas power forwards are one of the better ones in the league. Singleton is apparently very athletic, so he only makes Dallas stronger. Houston has a legion of guys 6'9 and under to throw at teams. Scola is the best of the bunch, and guys like Landry, Hayes and Harris are all inside players. Landry is quite a good defender. Speaking of crazy defenders, the Rockets may elect to play Ron Artest at the 4 in spurts. He is capable of playing good off the ball and man to man defense against taller players. In the absence of Ron Artest, Dallas is much better than Houston, even though Houston has many more fouls to go around. (Keep in mind that some of these guys on the Rockets are also their back-up centers) Memphis has Warrick, who is an exciting young player; alas, he's not good enough to elevate this rag-tag group of power forwards over any of the other groups in his division. Walker is crazy talented, but he's not playing in many games. Darko can slide over, but I doubt that he would -- unless Marc Gasol is really good. The Hornets have one of the best mid-range jump shooting bigmen in David West. Their back-up is really Ryan Bowen (think Harpring, but taller, and less capable), but I've include the ability for them to shift people around a bit (like centers Ely and Armstrong). The Hornets are good -- but not because of their fear inducing power forwards for certain. The Spurs have Tim Duncan, Kurt Thomas (like McDyess but better), Bonner (a guy for threes), Mahinmi (one of the better NBA-DL players out there) and this Tolliver guy. I know next to nothing about this guy, but I know he was drafted by the Spurs, and they rarely make mistakes. Dallas vs. San Antonio for this one . . . and . . . well, Duncan is way more clutch than Dirk in the playoffs.

Winners:	San Antonio	Spurs
Tim Duncan	Kurt Thomas	Matt Bonner	Ian Mahinmi	Anthony Tolliver

Northwest Division:

Denver Nuggets	Minnesota Timberwolves	Oklahoma City Thunder	Portland Trailblazers	Utah Jazz
Kenyon Martin	Al Jefferson	Chris Wilcox	LaMarcus Aldridge	Carlos Boozer
Nene	Ryan Gomes	Donyell Marshall	Channing Frye	Mehmet Okur
Renaldo Balkman	Craig Smith	Jeff Green	Ike Diogu	Andrei Kirilenko
Linas Kleiza	Brian Cardinal	Nick Collison	Travis Outlaw	Paul Millsap
Chris Anderson		Joe Smith	Raef LaFrentz	Kosta Koufos

Denver is talented here, K-Mart can run, jump and dunk. I'm not a fan of his, but on paper is he good enough to start on most teams. Nene -- probably the starting center -- can fit in well here as well. Balkman escapes from New York to bring his all around hustle to the Mile High city. Kleiza is a very accomplished shooter and international player who even put up something like 42 points against the Utah Jazz last season. The Birdman returns to the NBA as part of the Nuggets. All in all, they are very talented, have a solid outside spot up shooter in Kleiza and a couple of inside only guys. The T-Wolves are no slouches either. If Chris Bosh is one of the most under rated 4's in the league, Al Jefferson is not even mention at all. He is a beast on the inside. Gomes is very talented as well, and can do almost anything on the floor from hitting threes to blocking shots. Craig Smith is in that Maxiel/Millsap mold, but plays in relative obscurity. Brian Cardinal is Ryan Bowen with an outside shot. A solid group, but Gomes is not quite good enough to be a running four (like what Kleiza would be great at). Oklahoma is actually pretty good. Wilcox is the starter who can score in the paint. Donyell is a three point specialist to the point that he doesn't bring anything else to the table anymore. Jeff Green can slide over from the three to rebound and play well. Nick Collison is a rugged interior defender and Joe Smith is a very capable inside scorer. Portland just has LaMarcus -- and while he is a good young player, I'd rather have any other group of power forwards from the Northwest division than what Portland puts out there. Lastly, we have the Utah Jazz and, well, let's put it this way: three of these guys have been All-Stars. Carlos Boozer, for his defensive faults, is one of the best power forwards in the game -- he is a monster on the boards and is able to shoot from 18 feet or work inside with solid post moves. (Does David West have any post moves?) Mehmet Okur was a power forward up until Carlos Boozer finally got healthy two seasons ago. In Detroit he was a power forward and he was in Utah as well. He has great range, can block shots (like his game winning block), is an under rated man to man defender (like how he locked down Yao in games 5, 6 and 7 in 2006-2007) and can even drive. Andrei Kirilenko is very versatile, can guard guards and block the shot of centers. He shot 38% from deep last season and was European player of the year in 2007. He's also a very good shot blocker. Paul Millsap is the back-up of Boozer (because Ak is at the 3, and Memo at the 5), but in a true test of ability, he is farther down the depth charts. He is a tough defender who hustles for loose balls and is an energy player like Tyrus Thomas and others. Koufos is really a center, but his college game seems to translate better to the four. He's over 7' feet tall and can block shots and hit jumpers. I like what Oklahoma City has, I'm surprised at how good they are as a group. Denver is always tough, and they got much better by adding Balkman and Anderson -- though I can't vote against the Jazz. Not when three of their five guys at power forward have been All-Stars, and that any of their top three guys would start for almost every other team in the league.

Winners:	Utah	Jazz
Carlos Boozer	Mehmet Okur	Andrei Kirilenko	Paul Millsap	Kosta Koufos

Pacific Division:

Golden State Warriors	Los Angeles Clippers	Los Angeles Lakers	Phoenix Suns	Sacramento Kings
Al Harrington	Al Thornton	Pau Gasol	Amare Stoudemire	Mikki Moore
Brandan Wright	Tim Thomas	Lamar Odom	Boris Diaw	Kenny Thomas
Rony Turiaf	Brian Skinner	Vladimir Radmanovic	Louis Admunson	Shelden Williams
Anthony Randolph	Steve Novak	Luke Walton	Robin Lopez	Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Richard Hendrix	Marcus Camby	Josh Powell	Matt Barnes	Jason Thompson

Golden State is interesting, they have a Jamison type with Al Harrington, and occasional center Rony Turiaf is quite good as a backup. They've channeled the Department of Redundancy Department with Brandan Wright and Anthony Randolph. Unfortunately for this group, I think the whole is less than the sum of their parts. The Clippers will probably have to use either Kaman or Camby here -- I guess Camby as he used to be a PF back in the olden days. Novak and Thomas can shoot it, and Thornton has potential to be something. The Lakers, on the other hand, have guys who are something. Gasol will have to move to the 4 to make room for Bynum. This makes Odom one of the most talented back-up power forwards of all time. He is great when he is on. Vlad Rad is all about shooting, and Luke struggles at time, but over all, he's not that bad. Phoenix has Amare, the ultra versatile Diaw, the monumental punk Matt Barnes (but he can sometimes hit a three), Mr. Hustle Louis Admunson and if they really need him, Robin Lopez. Over all, it's a solid group, but Gasol and Odom are greater than Amare and Diaw. Sacramento is were somewhat talented power forwards go to die. Easily the Lakers win this one.

Winners:	Los Angeles	Lakers
Pau Gasol	Lamar Odom	Valdimir Radmanovic	Luke Walton	Josh Powell

The question remains though . . . which of these six groups is the best? (remember to think about strengths, depth, versatility, offensive diversity, defense, star power, awards, and chemistry)